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.
Amundsen is mentioned several times above, here are a few extracts from his account: THE NORTH WEST PASSAGE – BEING THE RECORD OF A VOYAGE OF EXPLORATION OF THE SHIP “GJOA” 1903 – 1907 BY ROALD AMUNDSEN http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/IPY/ipy_009_pdf/G6501903A71908v1.pdf
(big, big file)
Ironically, the Vice-Commander of the expedition was one Lieutenant Hansen..
“We encountered no ice with the exception of a few narrow strips of old sound ice, carried by the wash. Of large Polar ice we saw absolutely nothing.
Between the ice and the land, on either side, there were large and perfectly clear channels, through which we passed easily and unimpeded.
The entire accumulation of ice was not very extensive. We were soon out again in open water.
Outside the promontories, some pieces of ice had accumulated; otherwise the sea was free from ice.
The water to the south was open, the impenetrable wall of ice was not there.
Captain Knowles reports the season the most open he has ever known. He entered the Arctic on the day we left San Francisco, May 22, and thinks the straits were open even earlier than that.
The ice of the Arctic Ocean is never at rest. Even in the coldest winters it is liable to displacement and pressure by the currents of air and water. The expansion and contraction, due to changes in temperature, also assist in this disturbance.
At times the pack itself opens in leads, by which it may be penetrated for several miles.” (now they are signs of AGW)
A few decades earlier: THERMAL PATHS TO THE POLE, THE CURRENTS OF THE OCEAN, BY SILAS BENT, SAINT LOUIS: 1872.
Just as the work was completed upon these currents in the North Pacific, in 1855, the news was received in the United States that Dr. Hane had discovered an open sea near the Pole, and people began to ask how that could be possible, when it was well known that a belt or region of ice several hundred miles in width must lie to the south of that sea, and which was never dissolved.
Seems there’s nothing new under the sun.
Inconvenient truth watch: about that melting polar ice…
There have been breathless predictions that, by the end of summer, the ice cap at the North Pole will have melted. Curse that global warming, damn George Bush and the Deniers, save us Al Gore, and all that jazz. Guess…
Yes it is rubbish to suggest that the polar ice will melt completely this year.
You just need to look at this NSIDC graph to see that it won’t happen for a few years yet.
http://nsidc.org/news/press/2007_seaiceminimum/images/20071001_septembertrend.jpg
It is a good news for our environment. Let’s go green and go veg. Peace.
JP Rourke: ““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.”
Since you asked, see http://www.spacedaily.com/news/arctic-02a.html which says: “report has just been released, and it speaks to the national and strategic issues surrounding naval ship and aircraft operations in an ice-free Arctic,”
The report referred to is “Naval Operations in an Ice-free Arctic Symposim” published by ONR, Naval Ice Center; Oceanographer of the Navy; and the Arctic Research Commission. I suspect there are several experts among them.
JPR also wrote: “ice-free enough for commercial vessels… nobody on the AGW side is predicting that it will”
The Space Daily piece mentioned above cited predictions: “the formerly ice-locked Arctic will have open sea lanes as soon as 2015. By 2050, the summertime ice cap could disappear entirely.” The phrase ‘will have’ sounds predictive to me.
JPR asked for “at least one cite.” Here’s another at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7139797.stm in which Professor Wieslaw Maslowski and co-workers at Nasa and the Institute of Oceanology, Polish Academy of Sciences (PAS), “have variously produced dates for an open summer ocean that, broadly speaking, go out from about 2040 to 2100.” The article also quoted a researcher who felt those predictions were too conservative. “Our projection of 2013 for the removal of ice in summer . . . you can argue that may be our projection of 2013 is already too conservative.”
And one need not go far to notice that for Dr. James Hansen’s expectation of sea level rise to occur, a melted Artic would be necessary.
So, JP, there you go — “ice-free Arctic” and “sea lanes” references. There are many more, including what is known as the “Canadian Melt Model.”
You put a lot in Anthony and I for one really appreciate it. I have grown from believing what I’m told to believe in, to learning what I can about the science, from both sides. I am sure this is true for many people reading this blog. For that I will always be greatful. Maybe less is more for the blog so you can carry on your fine work…and keep a healthy home life! All contributors have a duty to keep the blog strong and enjoyable. Oh, and to Pieter Folkens, thanks for highlighting my sloppy english, I know I’m a crup speeller!!
Bob Mr-Know-It-All W
Yes, the heat from interior of the earth does flow out.
How much reaches the surface is simply a function of the thickness of the crust for the region in question and the structure of the crust in each locality.
One of the more fascinating structures within the earth are the hot spot plumes found in about a dozen places around the earth. The Hawaii islands are the result of a hot spot being passed over by the Pacific Plate. Another is Iceland. My personal favorite is the Yellowstone. When one stands on some of the thermal features there, there is only one mile of crust between you and the magma underneath. It is quite warm, as evidenced by the geysers and so forth.
Last year, the water levels feeding the thermal features fell, forcing the Park Service to close some of the paths. Without the water tables being reloaded with surface flows (due to the drought), heat was not being dissipated. Some of the pathways were well over 200 degrees f, not comfortable at all and not safe for the general public. You always have to consider the dumbest person in the population and what that person will do when setting rules for the public. Every year someone gets off the path and gets scalded. Or approaches an elk in heat and gets gored.
In any event, there are lots of studies of the flow of heat to the earth’s surface.
See http://www.geo.lsa.umich.edu/IHFC/heatflow.html
I remember one of the questions on my AP physics test back in 69 supplied a formula for calculating the flow of heat through the crust. The crust is quite resistant to heat flow, but when it thins, you can get a lot of heat. Which is why we have hot springs and the like throughout the West.
You can also local features such as a magma dike forcing its way up towards the surface.
The only way to know what’s going on at any given location is to measure it.
Regards
Mr Mike Keep (01:38:56) said:
“It dismays me. This blog has in the past had much good debate but it has become farcical and full of sensationalist inaccuracies lately … This blog is not only informative but valuable so please try and stay focused and avoid the same claptrap traps the AGW camp and media have been guilty of. Anthony’s work is too valuable to be devalued by this.”
I come here to further my understanding of a whole range of climate-related issues. More often than not I find a commenter asking a question, making a suggestion or proposing a theory which has passed through my enfeebled brain. The responses from both sides of the AGW argument help me make up my own mind of what to accept and what to reject. Limiting the debate to pure points of scientific analysis would be of little assistance to me because I wouldn’t be able to understand enough of the jargon.
And, Mr Keep, have a care for the thousands around the world who tune in here every day to read my latest comments and gasp to their friends “He did it again. I can see clearly now, the rain has gone. Large G&Ts all round.”
Incidentally, on the subject of bits of ice deciding to do their own thing up at the top of the world, it’s clearly a complete irrelevance. A chunk breaking-off in Place A changes nothing if an equal chunk is formed in previously ice-free Place B. Major changes in the overall amount of ice at the top and the bottom might be significant, but that is not what is being observed. The thousands can sleep soundly in their beds tonight.
Jack Simmons (15:51:19) :”Every year someone gets off the path and gets scalded. Or approaches an elk in heat and gets gored.”
Thank you Mr Simmonds, I will make sure that when Mrs Bigot is in heat she keeps well away from Elks, I wouldn’t want St Al coming up and lecturing her.
[…] Polar Ice Check – Still a lot of ice up there During our last check in, we had a look at northern Canada from the Arctic Circle to the North pole, and found we had […] […]
I might have added in my previous post that Anthony couldn’t have come up with a more strawman argument. Its pretty obvious from the trend of the last 30 years that there is little or no chance of the Arctic being ice free this September.
Having said that, we shouldn’t overlook the NSIDC figure of approx 10% per decade fall in the level of the Arctic ice , as measured at the September minimum, or the fact that an all time minimum low was recorded in 2007. It is unlikely to be quite as bad this year. It may just turn out to be the second or third lowest on record , which I suppose may be sufficient for some to celebrate.
REPLY: My one and only point is that predictions of an “ice free north pole” and “ice free arctic” are not likely to come true. The fact that you can see thousands of square miles of ice remaining is hardly a strawman argument for that.
So many people just want to look at data instead of the measurement environment, which is why we get into trouble with weather stations on rooftops and in other compromising places that affect data quality. My goal it to get people to look at the whole qualitative and quantitative package, not just the numbers.
The long term trend is another matter, which I’m not adressing. Only this summer melt season and the dire predictions at the beginning.
In keeping with your complaint though, we also shouldn’t overlook the fact that the Antarctic has record ice extent, and that the Arctic rebounded to near normal levels this past winter from a new record low extent. This year, the rebound may be even greater, or nature may surprise us yet again. -Anthony
I’m amazed,
and I guess I’ll either get totally shunned, or heavily flamed but what the heck- I have to say it
I like this site, otherwise why would I still be trying to get my pennyworth in.
I respect the knowledge and intellect of the regular contributers both pro and anti agw.
But, and you knew this was coming, if you bothered to read this far, you’re micturating into the mistral!
Some of you are becoming so entrenched in this testerone fuelled debate that you’ve forgotten why you came here in the first place.
You endlessly debate points of order eg Arctic loss=Antarctic gain, the pro AGW faction crowing about the media/deniers/peer-reviwed/consensus viewpoint while the anti’s screeching about everything that’s opposite.
Get a grip, this matters, it really does, if we spend lodsa cash to mitigate/reverse/ supply own word here and the consensus is wrong then- IMHO=not good- If VV applies then IMHO=Not good either.
Sounds like Lose-Lose to me- At the moment the pro AGW gang are miles ahead -not necessarily logically but numerically where it matters- if you’re a Pro- my advice would be – You’re ahead shut up! As Mr H and G do rather too well- but I’m prejudiced!
For the antis- You’re failing to win popular support- Maybe for many that’s a good sign-most people are stupid- ergo i’m clever- If, for example, I was an anti-that would be something i’d wan’t to reverse
debate points of order, hockey-sticks, urban-temperatures, the debate is over, carbon-indulgences- forget it
psychology>technology – get it wrong… millions die.. but if you’re happy …
tea anyone?
Uh…ok.
jeez,
good answer mate- ps i do mean that
Roy, great analysis, but too pessimistic for my taste.
Mike,
apologies, hope you’re right mate
Maybe I’m over depressed that the AGW is still a ‘fact’ with the mighty media.
What depresses me most is that the Gores and Browns et al, when faced with the non-existence of the agw is that they will say ‘Bit the scientists told us…”
And thus the blame will be transferred to the ‘Scientists’
What are worried about. The world is going to end in 2012 ANYWAY. Stop watching the news.
correction
replace
What depresses me most is that the Gores and Browns et al, when faced with the non-existence of the agw
with
What depresses me most is that the Gores and Browns et al, when/if (it’s the sceptic in me)
faced with the non-existence of the agw
Roy,
There is plenty of blame for everyone. Let’s not share in the blame. We must do our part by telling the truth to anyone who will listen.
What are you trying to prove?
Meanwhile, there is plenty of evidence that the Earth is warming. Biodiversity is at risk. Waters are rising. We have reached 350 tipping point. Oil is reaching its peak. Food is becoming scarce. etc, etc
Will some of you – skeptics, naives, naysayers, whatever you are being called – explain to me why you are choosing to be that way? How did you come to your conclusions?
In case you have not heard of it yet, I encourage you to consider Pascal’s wager:
http://lamarguerite.wordpress.com/2007/11/16/disarming-the-climate-change-skeptics-with-pascals-wager-argument/
lamarguerite,
I’ve heard the doom and gloom all my life, and still we have managed to live very well on this earth. Every one of your scenarios has been held up to me as truth since the seventies. Peak oil has been a huge problem since it was first discovered. We have been bombarded with climate worries forever. I am very, very happy that I did not waste my life worrying about what others (like the Club of Rome) have been telling me I must do. I had a family. I built a business with my wife. We are now enjoying the grandchildren and the fruits of our labor. If I had spent my life eating granola and living in a commune, I can only imagine what I would be now. A man afraid to raise his children, afraid to start a business, afraid to live his life. That is not a life.
Is this naivete? I don’t think so. It is a recognition that man always has and always will take care of the important things if government will stay out of his way.
Am I a skeptic? Why is skeptic such a bad word. I was born at night, but it wasn’t last night. The hard-headed, free-thinking person has always been someone to be admired, but now we must believe. Reality has been turned upside down by the people who should be leading by example.
I went to your site and I read the comments. I have also viewed the video. The last comment on your site was a reasoned one. I won’t discuss Pascal’s wager because it has been analyzed to death here and on many other sites. I will, however say that we should be prepared for likely disasters, that is why I have insurance. You can be assured that if the cost of my home insurance was more than the replacement cost of my home, I would drop it immediately. That, lamarguerite, is why I’m a “naysayer”. I do not want to saddle my children and grandchildren with a government that can regulate them out of existence.
If we let this nightmare continue, the architects of our new poorer lives will say, “The operation was a success, unfortunately the patient died.”
Thanks for letting me vent, I hope you can at least get a glimmer of what I am trying to convey. I am tired of government doing what seems to be the right thing, only for the programs to once again fall to the law of unintended consequences. I really like the part of the hippocratic oath that says, “First, do no harm.”
Harm is what will come to me and all the people of earth if the social engineers have their way.
Please, you “the Sky is Falling” Liberals, go fall onto your sword.
For the rest of us, rest assured that the planet is doing just fine. It is as it has always done, either cooling or warming, constantly in a state of changing temperature and weather conditions.
We humans, are here for a brief visit, in geologic terms.
Get a perspective that is realistic.
There’s an old saying – “If you are going to sup with the devil, bring a long spoon.”
When dealing with propaganda, media distortion, hysteria, ad hominem arguments, and AGW craziness, better keep YOUR cool. (Ha, a pun!) Otherwise, it just becomes a cat fight. I think that was Mike Keep’s point.
Peter Martin (17:52:03) : “we shouldn’t overlook the NSIDC figure of approx 10% per decade fall in the level of the Arctic ice . . .”
It is depressing when well-meaning individuals look at a 29-year set of climate data and believe that we have a unilateral trend. Given PDO and AMO (not to mention other factors like soot and wind anomalies ), it is not all surprising that we have had such a fall in Arctic ice levels in the past three decades. There is no shortage of ancedotal encounters with the Arctic in previous decades to suggest that Arctic ice has gone through expansions and contractions in the past.
I’ve heard the doom and gloom all my life, and still we have managed to live very well on this earth.
So have I much worse gloom and doom. Far more serious problems and “problems”. You were “stupid” or “blind” if you didn’t, well, act stupid or blind, as it turned out..
All problems solved, from the Soviet Union to “running out of resources” and everything in between. Not one pessimistic prospect that was “inevitable” panned out.
Same goes for this silly flap. When the prognostications fail to develop, the usual suspects will simply pretend it never happened and be on about something else.