"…this year, there was an exceptional amount of ice -"

Well, the ice is melting, the models show it and that’s all that should matter to anyone. Just because some guy says that there is increased ice, that doesn’t mean that its actually there, he’s probably suffering from brain fever or something. Observation does not trump modelling. Why if you were to believe this more ice hogwash, you might be tempted to drive a few more miles in your SUV.

HAA!! And this ice proves AGW…

Indeed, the press has more fun with emotions than logic.

In this excerpt he placed “credit” where its due – on ocean circulation patterns, the source of most of the earth’s warming and cooling. Unless we learn something new about the sun.
Sooner or later the world will catch on.

Anthony,
Can we have the link to that translation, if it would be any good for laymen? I’d like to read more if possible, but I am not fluent in Danish.

Perhaps doubt is creeping in now. Here is an article from ‘The Australian’; a newspaper not known for not going with the flow.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24148862-28737,00.html

It seems that Mother Nature and the Sun God are coming in above in terms of ice and below in terms of sunspots. The LOW prediction for sunspots for July was 5.something. The actual was 1.something. The arctic was predicted to melt away like a summer popsicle. That ain’t happening either. It seems there are an exceptional amount of bad predictions floating about.

@Bobby Lane
The link is in German, you can try this automated translation by google. Be warned, there are some quirks in that program. “besonders viel Eis” is not translated as “exceptional/more than usual ice” as it should, but as “very little ice” instead. A bit of a howler. So if there is a paragraph that catches your attention, better have the translation verified.

Richard Elliot,
Good question! Let’s not let the BBC or the kayaker forget this one.
Evan,
Why wait? It’s happened even before GW back in 1821.
http://chincoteaguechamber.com/history/map-rew6.html
Blue,
The translation softwares can handle sentences 3 to 4 worlds long. After that, forget it. If these translations software were better, I’d be out of business.
Rasmin,
I thought you were looking at old data, but indeed there appears to have been an uptick.

Lets’s be fair, and ACCURATE here.
Ulrich left out the reason why the ice has reached the 74th parallel.
Translation of the text below:
“The sea ice extended southward from the Arctic almost to the 74th latitude. Since early summer, constant winds from the northwest have been pushing the ice to the central regions of the Fram Strait.”

Man! What a mess I’ve created. SORRY!
The REASON for the ice almost reaching the 74th latitude:
In German:
“Das Meereis zog sich von der Arktis bis fast zum 74. Breitengrad nach Sueden. Staendige Winde aus Nordwesten haben schon seit Sommerbeginn das Eis in den zentralen Bereich der Framstraße geschoben.”
In English:
“The sea ice extended southward from the Arctic almost to the 74th latitude. Since early summer, constant winds from the northwest have been pushing the ice to the central regions of the Fram Strait.”
Summary: because of WIND PATTERNS – not temps.

Translation – exclusively for this website.
Successful measurement series in the Arctic ice – the Polarstern completes its work in the Fram Strait and heads back to Reykjavik.
Bremerhaven, 7 August 2008. The German ice-breaking research ship Polarstern was really put to the test in the Arctic waters to gather data for 2 longterm research series. After completeing works in the regions up to 82° north latitude, the Polarstern of the Alfred-Wegener-Institute for Polar and Sea Research (AWI), belonging to the Helmholtz Association, will arrive in Reykjavik (Island) 10 August. “This year there was especailly a lot of ice to contend with,” says trip leader Prof. Gerhard Kattner. The sea ice extended southwards from the Arctic almost to the 74th latitude. Since early summer, constant winds from the northwest have been pushing the ice to the central regions of the Fram Strait. The main focus of the expedition in this region was: to set probes along 78°50′ north and the so-called “AWI-garden.” The measurements from the now completed Polarstern-Expedition are part of regular ongoing studies. Using such observation series, statements on longterm climate system developments can be drawn. This research work is however only possible using an ice-breaking ship like the Polarstern. With other research ships, setting probes in the ice covered areas is just not possible.
Exchanging probes in thick ice cover
Alfred-Wegener-Institute has been conducting longterm studies on water mass transport in the Fram Strait since 1997. The Fram Strait is located between Spitzbergen and Greenland. It is the most important region for water exchange between the Atlantic and polar masses. Here warm Atlantic water with high salinity flows northwards, while cold low-salinity water from the arctic flows southwards. This oceanic area is the only deepwater connection between the North Atlantic and the Central Arctic Ocean, thus making it a region that is especially senstive to systematic changes. To be able to observe and assess changes, 17 probes have been anchored to the sea floor over the entire region. These measure the temperature, salinity and currents all the way up to the sea surface. “We are very pleased that we have been able to recover and exchange all the probes in these extreme ice conditions,” says Dr. Agnieszka Beszczynska-Möller, oceanographer at the Alfred-Wegener-Institute. The temperature of the Atlantic water compared to the elevated temperature of 2006 has decreased somewhat. This is due to annual variability. Overall, the scientists have determined that the temperature in the Fram Strait has increased since 1997 on average about 0.1 °C annually .

I wonder what happened to this guy who was going to kayak to the north pole? From this article: Explorer bids to kayak to ‘melting’ North Pole
“Pugh is due to paddle out from Norway’s Svalbard islands on August 29, heading 1,200km north across the Arctic Ocean to the North Pole, kayaking up cracks in the ice.
The journey should take a minimum of two weeks.
“I’m going to try and get all the way to the North Pole to show the world what is happening,” the 38-year-old said after launching his Polar Defence Project expedition on the River Thames in London.
“It shouldn’t be possible. But this might be the year that it could be. I hope I can’t go all the way.””
Yeah, I’ll bet. Of course he’d have to say that, but that’s just spin. What he really, really wants, and wishes fervently for is to be able to make it all the way to the NP, and be able to plant those 192 flags up there. What a story that would be, and a much-needed kick in the pants for AGW propaganda.
I hope he gets eaten by a polar bear.

“Caught the WWF ad about the end of polar bears and arctic ice last night.
Some people will do anything for a dollar.”
No doubt. The problem is science is no longer important to these people. Blaming man, and ESPECIALLY blaming the USA is Modus Operandi for these tools. We should follow Crichton’s advice involving funding for these projects so that the statements made by these “scientists” isn’t made to further fund their research.
All scientific studies should be funded in a double blind way, where the funder never know which project their research is funding, and the scientist doesn’t know (or care) where his funding is coming from.
That won’t stop these politicians and media tools from making outrageous statements, but it will fix the science from being politicized.

as promised, the conclusion of my subjective translation of the AWI press release:
“Successful time-series measurements under Arctic sea ice
Polarstern completes work in the Fram Straight and sails toward Reykjavik
Bremerhaven, August 7, 2008
…
A first for the Alfred Wegener Institute was the use of a “Seaglider” deployed from Polarstern. This is an autonomous vehicle, which dives repeatedly from the water surface to depths of 1000 metres while recording temperature, salinity, Oxygen, water turbidity and pressure. Upon resurfacing, it transmits its data via satellite to Bremerhaven. If required by mission objectives or other constraints, Seaglider can be re-programmed remotely. Seaglider will continue data collection to mid September. At that time it will report its co-ordinates to be retrieved by research vessel KV Svalbard, operated by Norwegian Collaborators.
Return of Pacific waters to Greenland?
The polar waters in front of East Greenland, which flow along the Greenland coast into the Atlantic, consist of water masses of variable origins. A part comes from the Pacific after a long passage from the Bering Straight across the Arctic Ocean. “We have documented this water mass ahead of Greenland for many years” says Prof. Gerhard Kattner. “However, it was hardly traceable there since 2004”. This indicates a noticeable change in the Arctic current system. The current investigations again show a small contribution from pacific waters. Further measurements during coming years are required to verify this trend.
The ‘AWI Garden’ is reserved for another year
AWI carries out the only long-term study in Polar Regions that addresses deep-sea ecology, and its evolution under constant climate change. The ‘AWI Garden’ encompasses an area of 8000 square km in front of the Svalbard Westcoast. In this region with water depths ranging from 1000 to 5500 m, research aims at understanding the function and structure of marine life on the ocean floor of the Arctic deep sea.
These environmental monitoring efforts include investigations of changes in the physical environment and of nutrient fluxes to the sea floor. “To achieve this, we had to move the sea floor instruments farther North last year, to follow the retreating sea ice, so that they were at least partially under the influence of the ice edge” reports Ingo Schewe, biologist at the Alfred Wegener Institute. The results of past years have already indicated that changes in the ice cover cause reductions in certain animal populations that live on the deep-sea floor. The ice edge is a very active biological zone; algae grow rapidly, die off and sink to the sea floor where they serve as nutrients. Movements of the ice edge lead to changes in the nutrient availability in the ‘AWI Garden’. The consequences of this year’s strong ice cover on the small and larger animals of the deep sea will be evaluated in Bremerhaven as well as through further expeditions during coming years.
Polarstern will sail from Reykjavik on August 12 with the goal of reaching the East Siberian Sea. Ice conditions permitting, Polarstern will steam through the Northwest Passage to reach its area of work. The focus of researchers will shift to geophysical investigations. They will conduct seismic reflection data acquisition toward better understanding of tectonic origins of the Mendelejew Ridge and the East Siberian Shelf. At the same time, US and Canadian researchers will conduct similar research programs and share results with the AWI team”.
My assessment: the Polarstern is a great vessel and these quasi ‘play-by-play’ reports posted by AWI are very welcome.
I wonder if the researchers are familiar with the many reports from the ’20s and ’30s about much more extensive retreats of sea ice, especially in the Svalbard region? (as documented before by Anthony).
The bottom line is that Arctic ecosystems, both in the water column and on the sea floor (benthos) are highly variable and constantly adapt to massive productivity changes caused by strongly fluctuating ice conditions. While we’re starting to get an inlling of understanding, it’s important to consider all available evidence.
And, a quick aside to the first two paragraphs: rather than simply discussion temperature trends in the 0.1 degree range, I hope that the publications will offer an assessment of actual heat content of these water masses – 17 moorings giving time-series measurements of the relevant parameters is an excellent starting point to yield a significant data base.

Let’s see…
Wind patterns, temperatures (air and water), currents, some vulcanism, soot from mankind’s industry; looks as if the arctic region does not lend itself to generalizations does it?
Perhaps it is silly to sit around and watch the daily ice cover and draw conclusions one way or the other about what is going on there.
Maybe what we have to do is take some time and really try to learn some of the details about what is going on before we offer any observations on long term trends.
It is funny in a way to see someone wanting to kayak up to the North Pole.
I do know there were reports of kayakers back during the little ice age making there way to the waters off of Scotland. These were not the extreme sports addicts of our time, but rather Eskimos hunting for a living.
Here’s the journal for the attempt later this month:
http://polardefenseproject.org/blog/?p=90

Pamela Gray:
Actually, there have been no “predictions” that arctic ice will melt away, either like or unlike a popsicle; only an assertion that chances are better than 50/50 that the arctic ice may indeed completely melt at some point in the summer, as early as 2013, but very likely by 2030. We have a few more years yet, and even then it’s just an estimate of the probability being greater than 50%. Most scientists know that predictions about climate cannot be made with any certainty… it is the public, and the reporters whose paychecks they make possible, who continue to insist that predictions can, or ought to, have all uncertainty eliminated, where it’s clearly inappropriate to the scientist.
Robert:
That’s easy. Overall, the trend is that more and more ice is melting; while in any given year the ice may be smaller or larger than the year previous; and two years does not make a ‘trend’. Furthermore, unusually large amounts of ice can be found in one area, while unusually small amounts may be found elsewhere. Actually, that is kind of obvious.
Regarding the ‘uptick’ in the melt data from NSIDC – I think what is meant is a reduction in the slope of the down-tick; it’s still down, not up at all; just a little less down. In any event, I noticed that almost every day in June/July; in fact some days it really DID look like an actual UP tick, ot at least flat; but then the next day it would be smoothed to a downward position again, no reduction in downslope at all. I’ve always wondered about that – is their ‘smoothing algorithm’ published anywhere?
Incidentally, the date of minimum ice has apparently been moving later and later in the year; last year it was September 21, I believe; we really don’t know what it will be this year until it happens – so it’s hard to say how many weeks of melt season are actually left.
The Bremen AMSRE charts show a huge area of ‘almost ice-free’ area so we could have yet one more downward drop this year; then again, sometimes the AMSRE record seems to darken and lighten (darker=closer to completely melted) so I’ve found I can’t really predict what the next day will look like, until it appears.
Check out the Northwest Passage, though – Amundsen’s route in the south is totally ice-free apparently, right now; but the main channel looks like it may last as long as it did last year, around 8/21.
Time will tell.

Dave Andrews,
“So how well are wind patterns parameterised in the models? Just asking.”
I have no idea. But knowing what we know about climate modfels thus far, I’d say quite poorly, if I had to guess.
deepslope,
Thank you so much for completing the work – an excellent job. I hope other readers will take time to read it.
You wrote:
“I wonder if the researchers are familiar with the many reports from the ’20s and ’30s about much more extensive retreats of sea ice, especially in the Svalbard region? (as documented before by Anthony).”
I for one would welcome the resurfacing of such reports. Any links?
You wrote:
“The bottom line is that Arctic ecosystems, both in the water column and on the sea floor (benthos) are highly variable and constantly adapt to massive productivity changes caused by strongly fluctuating ice conditions. While we’re starting to get an inlling of understanding, it’s important to consider all available evidence.”
Exactly, And I wish the alarmists would understand that variability is natural, and that we are not going to be able to hold the planet at its current conditions.

I am sorry, I still have serious issues with deepslope’s translation of two key phrases. I am a native speaker of German and cannot help but notice that the emphasis put on in the translation is exaggerated. In the following I’ll blockquote the original and deepslope’s translations and add my comments below to show, why I think so.

“In diesem Jahr hatten wir es mit besonders viel Eis zu tun,”
this year, there was an exceptional amount of ice

“besonders” translates to “more than usual”, or as Pierre Gosselin put it “This year there was especailly a lot of ice to contend with”, which is fine with me. To go beyond “besonders”, you would choose “ungewöhnlich” (extraordinary), to go even stronger you would choose “aussergewöhnlich” (exceptional). So deepslope’s translations puts on an emphasis at least two orders too strong. What makes it worse, the phrase sets the tone for this post and was even chosen as the title of the post. Yes, later on in the article the report how difficult it was to retrieve the equipment under the “extreme conditions” but it is still “extreme” as any strong ice will be, not “exceptional”.

Die jetzigen Untersuchungen zeigen wieder einen geringen Anteil von pazifischem Wasser. Ob sich dieser Trend fortsetzt, müssen Messungen in den nächsten Jahren zeigen.
The current investigations again show a small contribution from pacific waters. Further measurements during coming years are required to verify this trend.

It should read “Further measurements during coming years need to show, if this trend holds up.” So in the original it is uncertain, whether there is a trend at all, whereas in the translation it is there and just needs to be verified. A subtle difference, but a difference nonetheless.

And, a quick aside to the first two paragraphs: rather than simply discussion temperature trends in the 0.1 degree range, I hope that the publications will offer an assessment of actual heat content of these water masses – 17 moorings giving time-series measurements of the relevant parameters is an excellent starting point to yield a significant data base.

The temperature trend is 0.1°C per year or 1°C per decade over the observational period since 1997. As for assessing the heat content, of course they do, e.g. here:
Variation of Measured Heat Flow Through the Fram Strait Between 1997 and 2006
U. Schauer, A. Beszczynska-Möller, W. Walczowski, E. Fahrbach, J. Piechura and Edmond Hansen
in Arctic–Subarctic Ocean Fluxes – Defining the Role of the Northern Seas in Climate
or this abstract from a meeting:
Variability of heat flux toward the Arctic Ocean from nearly decadal measurements by an array of moorings in Fram Strait.
Geophysical Research Abstracts, Vol. 8, 04051, 2006
I’m sorry that all of the above may sound harsh and I am new here, after all, but I think this is something the non-German-speaking readers ought to know about.
P.S.: Thank you Pierre, I mistranslated “Straight” instead of “Strait”.

“I for one would welcome the resurfacing of such reports. Any links?”
Here is one from John Daly http://www.john-daly.com/polar/arctic.htm

Pierre says:
“…variability is natural, and that we are not going to be able to hold the planet at its current conditions…”
Indeed! And why ever would we desire or expect Earth to stay the way we discovered it at our birth? There must be name for this fear of change.
Cy Quick at mydigest.wordpress.com

Another:
Tropophobia- Fear of moving or making changes.

one more thing, beyond translation issues:
It’s well worth remembering that we are in the second half of the current IPY – International Polar Year.
from its home page: http://www.ipy.org/index.php?/ipy/about/
“The International Polar Year is a large scientific programme focused on the Arctic and the Antarctic from March 2007 to March 2009. IPY, organized through the International Council for Science (ICSU) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), is actually the fourth polar year, following those in 1882-3, 1932-3, and 1957-8. In order to have full and equal coverage of both the Arctic and the Antarctic, IPY 2007-8 covers two full annual cycles from March 2007 to March 2009 and will involve over 200 projects, with thousands of scientists from over 60 nations examining a wide range of physical, biological and social research topics. It is also an unprecedented opportunity to demonstrate, follow, and get involved with, cutting edge science in real-time.”
A detailed assessment of “Arctic Sea Ice in summer 2008 – an outlook” is given here – the discussion includes previous studies starting in 1988, not earlier:
http://www.damocles-eu.org/artman/uploads/outlook_2008_june_damoclesupdate__2_.pdf
Schedules of several important research cruises can also be found on the IPY site.
It might be worthwhile to review preliminary results from these studies once the September minimum is reached.
To compensate for exaggerating the Fram Straight extent (both spellings are used), I will try summarizing findings from IPYs of 1882-3, 1932-3, and 1957-8.

deepslope,
Thanks for the additional info.
I for one am looking forward to your summary of the 1882-3 and 1957-8 findings. That could be very interesting.
About when, and where, should we expect them?

Paul Merek- Pierre Gosselin: There may be no “cooling” in this story … but neither is there “warming”, in this story:
From what I’ve read above Pierre Gosselin has kept to the facts without the religous fervour of some, such as Paul. Pierre didn’t say the story (this thread with the, as we now know, very misleading headline) proved warming but that there was a 1 degree Centigrade increase in ocean temperatures in the region in the last ten years.
This blog should have more people like Pierre, not the religous hot heads who could do with a bit of global cooling around the head!!

Pierre,
I have started to review older IPY reports (which had completely different agendas, an interesting trend in itself…), but will wait until i have time to compile my own experiences and unpublished data, which will be after the September ice melt minimum.

deepslope,
Looking forward to it. I got it down in my calendar.

I doubt any NWP (there’s more than one) will be clear enough for a cruise ship to risk the price of insurance. Maybe research ships will be able to handle it if it is made for that purpose.
The other thing I want to mention is that outliers like the temp spike in 98 and ice loss in 07 are rare events. Usually gradual trends predominate in ice records. So if things start going up, the next year will follow, and the same is for downward trends. Last winter the amount of ice that formed went up, not down. This could be a single event. But odds would be on a trend. My hunch is that this winter, we will get something similar, meaning a lot of ice. That would also mean that it will build on a higher minimum than 2007, resulting in more ice than last winter at maximum.

Paul Merek- “…..I can’t determine scientific facts………… I certainly can determine political facts”.
Here we have the anti AGW argument in a nutshell!

Mary Hinge: I gather from your comment, that you have nothing to say concerning my central point. You’ve dodged it, and quite nicely demonstrated the IPCC scientific method. I think in fact, that a movie was made about this … what was it called? Somthing about Dodging … and Balls.

Brenda H: You quoted: “The events of the 1990s may well be a preview of how the Arctic will respond over longer periods of time in a warming world…”
Absolutely nothing in the released NASA summary attributed ice loss to AGW. The quote you give, for example, does no such thing. Please explain, how the above attributes ice loss to AGW. It’s clearly only a suppositional statement and offers no proof. It takes an incredible stetch to say that this statement attributed ice loss to AGW.
Sure, it leaves the “door open” to AGW attributed ice loss, but that is a far cry from finding that the ice loss we see is caused by AGW. The ice loss is caused by upper Arctic Ocean circulation which is decadal in nature according to this study. There were no other conclusions offered.
This: “Our study confirms many changes seen in upper Arctic Ocean circulation in the 1990s were mostly decadal in nature, rather than trends caused by global warming,” said Morison. … is about as clear as it gets.
Did NASA prove that AGW is not decaying arctic ice? NO.
Did NASA find that significant natural cycles are at play? YES
The rational conclusion: At this point the relationship between AGW and ice loss is unknown and no understood.

Paul Marek: “Absolutely nothing in the released NASA summary attributed ice loss to AGW.”
The first para of the article in question includes this comment: “The results suggest not all the large changes seen in Arctic climate in recent years are a result of long-term trends associated with global warming.”
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2007-131
So if “not all” recent changes in the Arctic can be attributed to AGW, then by implication some of those changes can be attributed to AGW.
Further, my claim was that the results of the NASA research into Arctic Ocean circulation are consistent with AGW, and this claim is supported by the lead researcher’s comments:
“Morison cautioned that while the recent decadal-scale changes in the circulation of the Arctic Ocean may not appear to be directly tied to global warming, most climate models predict the Arctic Oscillation will become even more strongly counterclockwise in the future.”
In other words, the research is consistent with what AGW models say about Arctic Ocean circulation.
The fact that natural events may have contributed to Arctic ice loss in the 1990s does not rule out an AGW effect. Note that the lead researcher also refers to “longer periods of time”. AGW is a long-term trend, and this study is about decadal patterns. It is possible to have natural, shorter-term events occurring within a long-term AGW trend.

Paul Marek- “Model forecasts are considered facts”
Where do you get these ridiculous statements from, where does it say that the models are considered ‘facts’!
“How silly of me.”
How right and the only worthwhile contribution to this thread you’ve made!!

Epilogue:
Science Daily offers the Polarstern story today, in a comprehensive translation. Our detailed discussion was started here almost a week ago:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/08/080811092458.htm
Again, the best way to monitor Arctic Sea Ice conditions day by day is the excellent overview offered here, as posted by several contributors in the past – one can enter any two dates for comparison:
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=08&fd=14&fy=2005&sm=08&sd=14&sy=2008
Right now, the obvious anomaly is a great deal of open water in the Beaufort Sea (creating sufficient fetch for wave build-up, making current oceanographic and seismic research more difficult). Three years ago, the open water was in the Chukchi and Laptev Seas – this illustrates circulation and wind patterns…
It will be interesting to observe what the next three weeks will bring.
For perspective, please check this outrageously flippant column by Thomas Friedman in the International Herald Tribune (I posted it before):
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/08/06/opinion/edfriedman.php
his words: “Remember: Climate change means ‘global weirding,’ not just global warming.”
we’ll see – Mr. Celebrity Columnist.
If I had time, I would research Traditional Ecological Knowledge, talking to Inuit Elders about the warm spells in the 20s and 30s, among others – anybody knows about oral history accounts?
ulrich lobsiger