During our last check in, we had a look at northern Canada from the Arctic Circle to the North pole, and found we had quite a ways to go before we see an “ice free arctic” this year as some have speculated.
Today I did a check of the NASA rapidfire site for TERRA/MODIS satellite images and grabbed a view showing northern Greenland all the way to the North Pole.
There’s some bergy bits on the northeastern shore of Greenland, but in the cloud free area extending all the way to the pole, it appears to still be solid ice.
Click for a larger image – Note: image has been rotated 90° clockwise and sat view sector icon and time stamp added, along with “N” for north pole marker.
Link to original source image is here:
http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/realtime/single.php?T082121805
With more than half of the summer melt season gone, it looks like an uphill battle for an ice-free arctic this year.
Here is another view from today from the Aqua satellite:
Click for a larger image – Note: image has been rotated 90° counter- clockwise and sat view sector icon and time stamp added, along with “N” for north pole marker.
Source image is here:
http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/realtime/single.php?A082121655
This dovetails with a press release and news story about more ice than normal in the Barents Sea
From the Barents Observer:
http://www.barentsobserver.com/?cat=16149&id=4498513
New data from the Norwegian Meteorological Institute shows that there is more ice than normal in the Arctic waters north of the Svalbard archipelago.
In most years, there are open waters in the area north of the archipelago in July month. Studies from this year however show that the area is covered by ice, the Meteorological Institute writes in a press release.
In mid-July, the research vessel Lance and the Swedish ship MV Stockholm got stuck in ice in the area and needed help from the Norwegian Coast Guard to get loose.
The ice findings from the area spurred surprise among the researchers, many of whom expect the very North Pole to be ice-free by September this year.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Pieter Folkens:
“a good chance of an ice-fee North Pole” is what the ‘experts’ have been quoted saying – NOT “ice-free arctic”… if you want to persist in saying the latter, please give at least ONE cite, of ANY GW or AGW ‘expert’ saying that. Please? If you can, I will join you in roundly critiquing such statement. It is not going to happen!
Regarding an “open Northwest Passage” – again, where is the cite for “at least a thousand years”? If it was so easy, why did Amundsen making the trip in 3 YEARS make such a big deal? Or the St. Roch, making it in 86 days in 1944 in an “ice-fortified ship that was extensively upgraded”? For some reason people finf that remarkable, and yet neither is in any way indicative of a ‘commercially navigable” channel, which DID occur last year…
…but NOT until late August! We have 3-4 weeks of some serious melting acitivity before then – go ahead make a prediction that the NWP won’t by ice-free enough for commerical vessels… nobody on the AGW side is predicting that it will, only that there is a good chance of it (i.e., somewhere around 50/50 – not anything you can call a prediction). Sure, there are some alarmist media and non-expert AGWers making such predictions – but that only makes them on an equal footing with yours.
(Oh, and by the way – the ‘high Russian shore’ is the NorthEAST Passage, we’re talking about the NWP here above Canada… of course the NEP has been clear many times, no one says it hasn’t, lol!)
No, they aren’t sensational inaccuracies – leave that to the false-AGWer alarmist money-grubbing media – they are just woefully poorly-informed personal opinions.
And, nothing that you have written here relates to any “long-standing prediction by AGW leader” that I have read… could you be more specific? (and please, let’s not conflate ‘north pole’ with ‘arctic ocean’ yet again)
lichanos (07:44:10) :
It is news to many lay readers that the BBC and the NYT are just entertainment. While I think you are right, much of the public takes such publications to be authoritive. When the alarmism spreads to the major broadcast media and mass market newspapers and magazines, it becomes accepted by a large portion of the public. This impression is reinforced by what amounts to indoctrination in schools and colleges. Taken all together, this alarmism has a strong effect on public opinion, and therefore directly affects public policy. Public policy in turn affects our economy and our lives.
I can’t join with you in dismissing alarmism in the media as nothing more than “entertainment.” Especially when the alarmist message is almost never balanced with opposing points of view, except for a few blogs like this one.
Lichanos,
“I think it’s valuable to point out how the news media handles and mishandles these facts, but there too, stop acting as if the news media were more than an outlet for entertainment.”
Someone needs to point out that the news media IS more than an “outlet for entertainment”. Those outlets that ARE using weather events to entertain, must be called to account. Those scientists that insist on making alarmist statements must also be made accountable. To do otherwise would be irresponsible.
This proves that mother nature will do as she pleases. We may think we know with absolute certainty what she will do, but thankfully, we do not. However, the fact that more ice is present over last year speaks very small volumes in the longer scope of things. Unless this was to be the year that everything deviated from ‘consensus’. But even that assumption would sound awefully foolish to commit to so early. Chaos is great, indeed.
Let’s try this again.
Here’s one for you Anthony – it’s so bad it’s funny:
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1827881,00.html
REPLY: Having kept all sorts of tropical fish myself and studying ichthyology for that reason, I can say that the TSD effect is real, the cause however is questionable. – Anthony
…stop acting as if the news media were more than an outlet for entertainment. Sorry, lichanos, but the AGW propaganda has to be stopped, regardless of where it’s coming from. Like it or not, the lamestream media still has clout. People are gullible, and the AGW propaganda is everywhere, so they think it must be true. Don’t try to pretend that if the NP were to become ice-free this summer, it would not be trumpeted to the ends of the earth: See? See? We TOLD you so! This is absolute PROOF that we are destroying our planet with our EVIL C02 Pollution, and blah blah blah.
And yes, the AGW “scientists” (Hansen et al) would be all over it as well.
Interesting to note this item from the Yale Climate Forum. One side says that the data from ground stations is unreliable due to land use changes, instrumentation, human error/laziness, or creeping UHI effects, the other throws out satellite data because of orbital decay (makes it sound awful, ‘decay’. So the two sides talk past each other for the most part, it seems. Does the emperor have no data?
http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/ccm/0108_globaltemp.htm
the Northwest Passage has been navigated at various times in the past century including Roald Amundsen 1905 and (there must have been a bunch of us evil SUV driving white males back in the 1800’s) again in 1940-42.
TomB,
I’m skeptical of the idea. While it does seem like there is a lot of energy being dumped into the sea by a volcano, when you consider the amount of water sitting on top of it and the energy that needs to be absorbed to heat that column of water (not to mention how it might affect currents) before the energy from the volcano can impact the ice cover, my suspicion is that it isn’t going to have much effect overall.
Since we don’t know how energetic these volcanic eruptions are, nor do we know if they are continuous, there is very little info available to draw a reasoned decision.
One gigatonne is one billion metric tonnes ( 1 Gt = 1 x 109 tonnes)
One metric tonne is 1000 kilograms (1 tonne = 1000 kg)
One metric tonne of water has a volume of one cubic meter (1 tonne water ≡ 1 m³)
One gagatonne of water has a volume of one billion cubic meters, or one cubic kilomter.(1 Gt water ≡ 1 km³)Of course, one gigatonne of ice has a greater volume than one gigatonne of water. But it will still have a volume of 1 km³ when it melts.
(borrowed from Climate Sanity)
Stealing some more from Climate Sanity assume that the eruption is equivalent to Mt St Helens which released the equivalent of 24 megatons of energy when it blew it’s top. 24 megatons == 100 million billion joules (1.0E+17 joules) That’s a lot of joules by any measure.
Now, how much ice and that much energy melt. If the energy is applied without any intervening water, then you’re melting ice, the heat of fusion of ice is 334 joules/gram ice. Doing the math that means 1.0E+17 joules will melt 3.0E+14 grams of ice. Since the average thickness of the ice in the Arctic (I have to use averages, much as I don’t like to because I have no idea how thick the ice is over the Gakkels) is 3 meters, it means that our 24 megatons of energy can be reasonably expected to melt about 100 sqkm of Arctic ice cover. Not a great deal and, if the volcano is not continually supplying that energy, the ice will quickly reform.
Since the Gakkel range is on the bottom of the Arctic and the average depth in the Arctic is roughly 1000 meters (again I don’t know the depth of the Gakkel range, could be more, could be less) that means there is a column of water 1000 meters high between the energy and the ice which has to be heated as well. I suspect that the direct melting of ice in this case would be considerably less than 100 sqkm. What effect the added energy has on Arctic currents is unknown, but, since they were and have been there long before we ‘discovered’ them I suspect (hypothesize?) that these effects have already been recorded as ‘normal’ current activity.
I think what Mike Keep is trying to say is that there has been an increase in qualitative rather than quantitative posts as of late on this forum.
And that is true, I’ve had less time to delve into detail lately because of other obligations. Keeping this blog running smoothly is almost a 24/7 effort. It’s the last thing I do before bed and the first thing in the morning.
Though at some point I have to do meaningful work to run my business and I need to spend more family time, especially in the summer. Thus my time to do detailed analysis dwindles.
Then there’s feeding the beast, as traffic grows (I’ll probably hit 650,000 page views this month) the appetite for more and more postings gets larger and larger. The amount of e-mail I get daily suggesting things I should be investigating also grows.
The blog itself is taking away analysis time from the surfacestations project, and for that reason I’ve considered scaling it back.
-Anthony
-marcusiologist-
The article you linked to was typical of much AGW reporting — totally uncritical of conclusions that are inconsistent with the data presented within the article itself.
Warwick Vincent is quoted as saying “…we’re now crossing new thresholds in environmental change in the High Arctic…” and “Derek Mueller, an Arctic ice shelf specialist at Trent University in Ontario, said he was concerned by the rapidity of changes in the High Arctic over the last few years.”
Yet the article states that the fracturing of 20 square kilometers (8 square miles) “was the largest fracture of its kind since the nearby Ayles ice shelf — which measured 25 square miles — broke away in 2005.” It goes on to say that “Ellesmere Island was once home to a single enormous ice shelf totaling around 3,500 square miles. All that is left of that shelf today are five much smaller shelves that together cover just under 400 square miles.”
No time frame is presented, but a reduction from 3500 to 400 square miles since the end of the “Little Ice Age” about 1850 would require a loss of about 20 square miles per year every year for the entirety of the 150 years. These two major fractures (2005 and 2008) would account for a loss of just 33 square miles in 4 years. Thus the current rates of loss are quite unexciting.
Damn satellites, and the people who know how to find them … What you gonna do but just make it up.
Anthony –
First, one small point about my previous comment – not questioning the effect on fish of temperature increase – just the translation of the effects in a temperature controlled environment to that of the uncontrolled natural environment.
Second, I’m wondering, after seeing your comment above about your workload, how do you do it? Speaking for myself, I just love this site but surely, you need to unplug sometime for more than just snatches of family time. Plus you do have your main project at surfacestation. Why not a few guest moderators to pitch in and help you keep your sanity {and help you keep your life}. I’m sure you’ve established a large enough community of questioning skeptics that wouldn’t mind periodically manning the helm for you, even if only on a volunteer {no $$} basis. Just look at the numbers that responded to your call for keyboard punching volunteers. I’d think we all have a stake in seeing you and your site succeed – that’s why we keep coming back for more.
[…] Polar Ice Check – Still a lot of ice up there […]
“Interesting to note this item from the Yale Climate Forum. One side says that the data from ground stations is unreliable due to land use changes, instrumentation, human error/laziness, or creeping UHI effects, the other throws out satellite data because of orbital decay (makes it sound awful, ‘decay’. So the two sides talk past each other for the most part, it seems. Does the emperor have no data?”
I agree with both sides. Even if we could take such a thing as the whole planet’s temperature by averaging up thousands of data points, the change in temperature is indistinguishable from background noise and natural variation . Watching the ice cover at the poles is the best indication of any change, and so far it looks like nothing is happenning now that hasn’t happenned before. Much ado about nothing.
All of this leads up to the question I have asked many times, but have never had answered – “What about the second source of heat affecting the earth? That big molten core in the center of our planet?”
The earth gets very hot as you progress downward from crust to mantel to core. And the first law of thermodynamics says that heat must be traveling to the colder suroundings. So, how much heat are we talking about and where is it going? Surely someone somewhere has done the math?
Yes, some parts of the planet are very well insulated, but other parts are not and we see lava flow across the land. There is deffinately some effect. But has anybody studied this at all?
As a true skeptic here-skeptical of AGW and skeptical of the skeptics, I support Mike Keeps comments. Discuss, debate, deliberate-but diatribes and derision really discredit and distract from your aruguments to the neutral observer. It brings into question motivations. That’s D story from this observer.
Below are links to two IMS images from NOAA showing the ice cover over the Arctic Ocean yesterday and on the same day last year (July 30, 2007):
http://www.natice.noaa.gov/pub/ims_gif/DATA/cursnow_alaska.gif
http://www.natice.noaa.gov/pub/ims_gif/ARCHIVE/AK/2007/ims2007211_alaska.gif
It is abundantly clear from these images that the ice pack over the Arctic ocean is much more substantial this year than last year. You will even notice there is still a large chuck of pack ice in Hudsons Bay.
Charles Garner (09:34:14) comments on the Yale Climate & Media Forum. Charles may have missed the thread a month or two ago deconstructing the YCMF, but it turns out that it’s just another site with an AGW/climate disaster agenda. It is heavily funded by the Grantham Foundation, which also funds Treehugger.org and numerous similar organizations.
The Granthams certainly have an agenda, and since their money runs the Yale Climate & Media Forum, well, you can see the result.
For an example, click on the link that Mr. Garner provided above, and note the charts and graphs. Notice anything fishy? Although the page is dated this year, all the charts stop before the recent ~0.7 degree drop in global temps, which as we know pretty much canceled out the past century’s rise. The YCMF site has access to the latest temperature record, just like everyone else. But they only show warming. That’s called “spin.”
Looking at the charts posted on that site, you’d think the planet was about to explode. And that’s what they want people to believe.
The only explosion I hear is NASA hoist on it’s own petard. Thanks for the pics, Kim. They’re worth a thousand words.
[…] Posted in Al Gore by mountainshout on July 31st, 2008 Watts Up With That? gives us an update about ice at the north pole. Looks good to me… Tagged with: global warming, icecaps, […]
JP Rourke (08:20:16) :
I agree that the quotes from Mark Serreze were for a ice-free North Pole. However, two points: First, I understand that we have had open water at the North Pole before — and not just in 1987. Expanded discussion with Mark Serreze (and perhaps others) remarked how this year it would be “possible to reach the Pole sailing in a boat through open water.” That description is much more than just open water at the North Pole.
Second, a number of articles have talked about an ice-free Arctic this year as evidenced by the following citations — note the headline of the first, and the attribution to MSNBC of the second.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/HealthSci/An_ice-free_Arctic_this_year/articleshow/3173764.cms
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/06/ice-free-arctic-by-2008-msnbc.php
I also agree with keeping the conversation in this blog at a higher level than that seen on other blogs. It helps to assume sincerity on the part of the other person and to seek understanding and insight; attacks do not add any light.
Svalbard images from July 18, 2008 (MODIS tile: AERONET_Hornsund)
Terra
http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/subsets/?subset=AERONET_Hornsund.2008200.terra.1km
Aqua
http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/subsets/?subset=AERONET_Hornsund.2008200.aqua.1km
Daily images:
http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/subsets/?subset=AERONET_Hornsund
If only my 79 year old mother-in-law could check this out! She lives on a constant diet of CNN and the other fear-geared news sources! Thanks for the sanity and reality check!
An Inquirer:
Thank you for the cites. In the first case, the headliner is clearly not representative of the text, although Serreze did make a rather provocative statement that ‘for the first time he can recall’ the North Pole is covered by first year ice. So what? It’s just a data point in a very large ocean. Most other reports of other scientists have downplayed the physical significance of 90N, he’s either overstating the case or being quoted somewhat out of context. Even if he is 100% correct, it’s just not that big a deal as an ice-free NWP or a new minimum sea-ice (and before anyone tells me, yes it’s still uncertain whether either will occur, no one is giving much more than even odds of either one).
As for the second article, just plain wrong. The idea that the estimate of the earliest we might see a completely ice-free Arctic has changed from 2050 to 2013 is serious enough; but that change in estimate was just made recently, this year I believe. NO ONE (no relevant scientist, that is), has predicted that it could happen this year with any amount of seriousness! It is really beyond any kind of logical extrapolation.