Arctic sea ice continues to rebound, quick link graphic added

Sea Ice Extent

I’ve been so impressed with the recovery thus far for Arctic sea ice, I’ve added a live icon for it in the lower right under the global satellite image. Just click on it to get a full sized graph like above.

Watch the red line as it progresses. So far we are back to 2005 levels, and significantly ahead of last year at this time.

Advertisements

117 thoughts on “Arctic sea ice continues to rebound, quick link graphic added

  1. I wonder if the media will be reporting this?
    I notice however that the Antarctic ice unfortunately did not break the 2007 “record” and is now decreasing.
    Brrrr,,, but I’m glad we are now moving into summer here in the Southern Hemisphere, pity that another cold front has just hit, temps plumeted from 37*C to 15*C today, and it’s raining

  2. Don’t you just feel so sorry for all those polar bears? I bet they’re longing for some more gorebal warming because all that ice must be freezing their little endangered paws off.
    Okay, okay. So it’s not a very scientific comment.

  3. As the study of charts and graphs is applied. It can be argued that a bottom has been put in. Furthermore, it is generally understood in the science of chart dynamics irrespective of what the chart indicates that when any dynamic which hyperextends at the top or bottom usually reverses in the opposite direction. In this case, ice measurements reached a very low point in 2007. The reaction has been to pull away quickly to the upside. The remainder of this season will tell the tale if the axiom for chart science is to be held true. To put it another way this season will indicate if a true reversal has been made.
    Information relative to sun inactivity and magnetic fall off from the sun are giving us all a good look at what some have been predicting as far back as 2005. In this case chart science and solar science are lining up nicely.
    If a quick review of the charts of the satellite temp record is done the same argument can be made. If both the satellite and ice charts indicate a reversal and the actual record in the near future also indicates a reversal then those who have predicted a long cooling period could be found prophetic. But, we all know if they are correct it won’t be prophecy it will be just plain ole good applied science which is what this world needs in a desparate way.

  4. I did a plot using the data for this graph looking at the ice extent slopes over time. I eliminated the blank dates and calculated slopes for 5, 10, and 20 data point ranges, basically smoothing the lines out with increasing data. The highest rates of freeze over the 2002 – 2007 data range appear to be increasing over time, with 2007 being the highest. I ended in 2007 because we seem to be a couple of weeks away from the maximum freeze rate (~01Nov).
    The maximum thaw rate was in July, 2007. While that’s not a surprise, the other years, including 2008, have basically the same maximum thaw slope.
    I started in 2002, because that’s where this data set began. The data is on the site with the graph. The data was easy to dl and making the graph is pretty basic.
    Mike86

  5. In a couple of months it will be a SH summer and the Antarctic will be melting (as usual for summer), which will most likely be picked up by the MSM as unprecedented.
    The Artic ice and polar bears will be forgotton, and the emperor penguins and leopard seals will have their day in the MSM “Sun”.
    Graphic pictures of icebergs falling off the Antarctic ice shelves will be beamed around the world as dramatice evidence of CO2 induced global warming.
    The meme of apocalyptic catastrophy that has been present in Western Civilisation for a long time will continue to get an airing on the MSM – because it is effective at selling advertising space…

  6. I like this graph better than that of the NSIDC graph; the latter changes the axes on their graph around the fifth of each month which would induce a ‘jump’ in a gif animation {or even a slideshow ‘animation’}. Now all I need do is find a good piece of gif animation freeware and I’ll be set.

  7. OT, sunspots
    On the current MDI visible sun, there is a facula on the edge around 10 o’clock, which shows a dark line on the magnetogram. Our current lonely sunspot started the same way, with an MDI bright spot over a magnetogram pair. Maybe we’ll get another spot.

  8. Mike,
    That graphic means that 12.7% of the continental US (I’m assuming continental because the graphics only show the lower 48) is covered with snow/ice? Interesting implications for albedo for sure. Especially vs .3% for this time last year.

  9. Crosspatch,
    Makes you wonder about some of this stuff.
    The JAXA site shows better than 6.5million sq. kilometers of ice and the NSIDC shows only 4.5 mil., both for the NH.

  10. Another thing I don’t understand is that while the graphic posted shows the current ice coverage the same now as it was at this time in 2005. This graph shows today still more than 100K sq km less than 2005. The more I compare “Cryosphere Today’s” data the more suspect it becomes.
    If we have so much more ice now than at this time last year, why does their long term anomaly graph show today’s ice nowhere near the levels in 2005 or 2006. Someone’s not telling the truth. AMSR-E’s data compared to 2005/6 is nothing like Cryosphere Today’s today compared to 2005 or 2006.

  11. Why do several of the curves (2008, 2006, 2003, maybe more) show the same little bump on what looks like 1. June?

    It’s the end of Santa’s fiscal year, and he has to use up all his heat budget.

  12. Thanks for the graph and quick link Anthony! You are giving us exactly what we want. I will be checking it daily.

  13. It looks like EU, due to this financial crisis, wants to relief the industry from the carbon trading, in order to promote economic growth. They’ll discuss it Wednesday. Check here, here and here. It seems to me that it needs a big shake, like this crisis we’re in, for responsible people to realize society’s real needs and true priorities.

  14. I can’t even imagine why anybody would expect that the Arctic sea ice and the Antarctic sea ice would in any way be comparable.
    The antarctic is mostly water, and the arctic is mostly land. The ocean circulations can’t be anywhere like mirror images.
    One look at the NOAA (if you can find it) annual CO2 pole to pole graph (which unfortunately only covers ten years) to sea that the earth is totally assymmetrical north to south.
    The 6 ppm Mauna Loa annual CO2 cycle is almost zero; maybe less than 1ppm at the south pole, and about 18 ppm p-p at the north pole.
    So I would not expect any sort of ice trends in the arctic to suggest something similar should occur in Antarctica at the same time.
    Not that I am suggesting a CO2 -ice link; I’m just pointing out they are two different animals.

  15. Meanwhile for Manfred’s edification; all of the popular kayak expeditions to the north pole have been cancelled for the season for lack of interest.

  16. Spangled,
    How do you figure? Just eyeballing the NSIDC graphic I think ti shows right around 7 million sq. Km, not 4.5> It showed around 4.5 million sq. Km at it’s lowest extent this summer

  17. If you subtracted out the quasi periodic seasonality, I wonder if you’d see an overshoot (or as the case may be, undershoot)? If so, that is quite disturbing.

  18. George
    I think you have it around the wrong way – the Antarctic is mostly land while the Arctic is mostly ocean.

  19. Thanks, Mike, for the snow coverage data. Is that information available at a single location for global figures, or even any other significant ones — such as Russia or China?
    OT, UAH site appears to have a fair-sized problem. Anyone know what’s going on there? http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/ It almost looks like it was hacked 🙁

  20. George E Smith:
    The antarctic is mostly water, and the arctic is mostly land. The ocean circulations can’t be anywhere like mirror images.
    I believe it’s the other way around. Antarctica is a continent and therefore mostly land. The Arctic Ocean is mostly water.
    So I would not expect any sort of ice trends in the arctic to suggest something similar should occur in Antarctica at the same time.
    Well, of course. It’s entering summer in the SH and winter in the NH.

  21. Spurious ice:
    The ice map pointed out by Glenn:http://iabp.apl.washington.edu/maps_daily_ncepice.html
    shows spurious ice in the Baltic sea, at the coast of Norway and even at the Irish coast. Ladoga lake near St. Petersburg, Russia, seems to be completely frozen, which is simply impossible at this time of the year.
    Looking at:http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_daily_extent_hires.png
    you also see spurious ice in the Baltic sea and near the island of Sachalin near Northern Japan.

  22. Remember that the average 1979-2000 (which I don’t know why it’s important; just as I also don’t know why it’s bad if ice melts) is above the ice extent of the last 7 years. If baby ice this year gets larger than the last 7 years we’ll be more close to — but not necessary above — 1979-2000 average than we’ve been the last 7 years.
    It would be interresting, and a jump from the next smallest extent (2008) to above 1979-2000 average within monthes, or a year, would be kind of exceptional… or?
    Anyway, it would be good at the Kyoto negotiating!

  23. Werner, your second link, i cant make it work, something missing?
    btw: The first link: Im trying to understand its content, because it says that there should be ice in Danish waters as well, in “kattegat”, and… this i believe is not the case. So why do they show these white dots?

  24. Patrick Henry:
    Notice the nominative determinism of the author of that ludicrous Boston Globe article!

  25. Crosspatch
    It is important to know and understand that the graphs on Cryosphere Today shows Sea Ice “Area” while the other sites, NSIDC and IARC-JAXA, show Sea ICE “Extent”
    There IS a difference between those two measures…

  26. Tom in Texas (19:49:14) Cryosphere Today has the graph you seek, at least the anomaly thereof.
    ========================

  27. Pingback: Arctic sea ice continues to rebound, quick link graphic added « An Honest Climate Debate

  28. As I pointed out earlier, a rapid increasing in sea ice after a summer melt spike down as we saw in 2007, is what you would expect if the primary cause of Arctic ice melt is soot. Dirty low albedo ice replaced by clean high albedo ice, and consequent cooling with more ice formation.

  29. Alex (14:38:43) :
    “I wonder if the media will be reporting this?”
    Yeah, that’ll make a great headline “Arctic sea ice freezing in October”
    Move along…nothing to see here…

  30. Patrick Henry (22:54:37) :
    “The Boston Globe reports that the Little Ice Age (which didn’t exist according to Mann)….”
    Mr Mann is very much aware of the cold anomoly over the North Atlantic resulting in ice fairs on the Thames etc. There is no conclusive evidence that this was little more than a regional anomoly, unless of course you know differently…

  31. crosspatch
    I think the problem with the Cryosphere global anomaly graph is more of scale than any suspect calculation. Last year’s anomaly at this time was about -3 million square km. This year it’s about -2.5 million. The increase doesn’t show up well in the global anomaly graph. Try squinting one eye and leaning in really close to your monitor. 🙂

  32. Mary Hinge: “There is no conclusive evidence that this was little more than a regional anomoly, unless of course you know differently…”
    Mary. The case is the opposite! The historical data tells us unambiguously that there was a global cool period during the Little Ice Age. This is only one thing that makes Mann and IPCC frauds. Manns statistical work is fraud too. You can construct the hockey stick out of any random data, using his methodology and (non-)”mathematics”.
    An indication from the French leading climatology professor Marcel Leroux, in his book “Global Warming, Myth or Reality?”:
    “The controversy generated by the ‘infameous hockey stick’ […] is still very much with us, and rightly so, as the IPCCrejects out of hand existing, patient research and the foundings of much serious investigation, based on historical records and archaeological, botanical, and glaciological work from many different parts of the world. […] Lamb (1965, 1977, 1984), Mayr (1964), Le Roy Ladurie (1967), Alexandre (1987), Grove (1988), … the list is very long.”
    Proof:
    Page 121 in a book by Singer/Avery mention an inventory of all temperature proxy studies, “Reconstructing Climatic and Environmental Changes of the Past 1000 Years: A Reappraisal”.
    http://books.google.com/books?id=DJxlzuOdK2IC&printsec=frontcover#PPA132,M1
    “…124 research studies addressing the existence of the Little Ice Age, anf 98 percent contained evidence confirming that cold period.”

  33. mary hinge
    have you ever heard of the year without a summer in the U.S.A. that was near the end of the little ice age.

  34. Mary, I’m not sure what you mean by conclusive evidence, but I assume you have read Moberg et al.? Of course this only covers the northern hemisphere, but it’s far more than just north Atlantic.

  35. paul. That one use to be replied that it was one special occasion. I guess you refer to a year in the early 19th century when there had been a volcano. That is the counter argument…
    Also cold summers has been occasions during warm periods the last two thousands of years. Occasions in the “wrong” direction during warm and cold phases seems to occur.
    I think the best argument is the study of all proxy data which is made. There you have a period of at least 50 years in time of warm or cold climate as a criteria for a warmer or a colder period. These studies continues on new proxy data, which continues to prove MWP and LIA.

  36. Alex (14:38:43) :
    “I wonder if the media will be reporting this?”
    Yeah, that’ll make a great headline “Arctic sea ice freezing in October”
    Move along…nothing to see here…

    Try looking at the graph, Mary. See anything interesting? Anything at all? No?
    And yet, when the ice melts in the summer, OMG, it’s a catastrophe, the world is about to end.

  37. paul (08:36:46) :
    I know geography isn’t an American strong point but isn’t the North Atlantic the large stretch of water on the east side of the US?

  38. If the warmists can make predictions on little or no data, so can I. Looking at the slope of the current year ice, I predict the entire NH will be covered in ice. At some point.
    Of course, that will be entirely due to global warming.

  39. Glaciers are growing in Alaska?
    http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/story/555283.html
    “In general, the weather this summer was the worst I have seen in at least 20 years.”
    Never before in the history of a research project dating back to 1946 had the Juneau Icefield witnessed the kind of snow buildup that came this year. It was similar on a lot of other glaciers too.

    wonder when RC will pickup on this?

  40. Mary, [snip] What is there about the previous posters words that you don’t understand. Do you understand that South America is in the Southern Hemisphere? So is Australia. China is on the side of Asia facing the Pacific Ocean?
    Once you’ve perused a globe for a while, then read some of the referenced links, please come back and comment. There are hundreds of records distributed around the world that show a cooling period similar to the LIA. There are very few that show otherwise.
    Mann’s argument that “you can’t prove me wrong, so I’m right” is not scientifically acceptable. The onus on him has been to find evidence that the LIA was regional, not just state that it “might” have been and therefore was. Mann needs to discuss the existing measurements and why we should not believe them.

  41. Bruce Cobb (09:02:01) :
    “Try looking at the graph, Mary. See anything interesting? Anything at all? No?”
    I see the freeze at below average levels for the time of year. If you are seriously thinking this is proof of your global warming belief then you are seriously scraping the r’s of the barrel.
    Retired Engineer (09:18:21) :
    “….. I predict the entire NH will be covered in ice. At some point.”
    Going by your record this is one of your more accurate predictions! 😉

  42. Mary Hinge (05:07:22) :
    The LIA even shows up in the southern hemisphere. For example Lake Malawi waters in the 1680’s were the coldest since the ice age (about 5 degrees colder than now) and many southern hemisphere glaciers have prominent end moraines of LIA age (I’ve seen a number). Evidence from Antarctica is a bit more dodgy, but Emslies studies of abandoned penguin rookeries strongly suggest that the Ross Sea area was more hevily iced during the LIA than before and after.

  43. Danish scientists no longer want to support the theory that global warming should be the reason behind shrinking glaciers on Greenland.
    Instead they have found that the glaciers shrinks because of changes to the Gulf Stream.
    http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Indland/2008/10/14/163310.htm
    You can’t read the article as it is in Danish, but there is a nice picture of Angela Merkel, who was shown the glacier ‘Jakobshavn’ by our prime minister and our climate minister last year. John McCain also got a tour in 2006.
    I wonder whether they have received an update mail from the guides. ….Probably not.

  44. Simon Abingdon (11:21:47)
    There is no ice in Eastern Siberia, and there wasn’t even during the Ice Ages (the climate is too dry for glaciation). What you are seeing is that there is unusually little snow there for the time of year. The late summer and autumn has been quite warm there, delaying the snow. This may be linked to the PDO shift, which while it cools the waters off North America also causes the northwestern Pacific to be warmer than usual.

  45. I see the freeze at below average levels for the time of year. If you are seriously thinking this is proof of your global warming belief then you are seriously scraping the r’s of the barrel.
    Look again Mary, and try taking off your AGW blinders for a change. Notice the slope of this years’ refreeze. No one is talking about it being “proof” of anything except you, but that is to be expected with those of your ilk, since you are the one with the global warming Belief.

  46. For Mary, “The Year Without a Summer” was actually the year 1816 which is smack in the middle of The Dalton Minimum; and if you want to include that in the LIA; Dr Willie Soon would tend to agree with that, since he suggests the LIA covered perhaps 500 years. Thge Dalton Minimum was however preceeded by a fairly acitve sun era that ende the Maunder Minimum.
    There is one other thing you should know about Dr Mann Mary, since you put so much faith in his assertions.
    If you check back to the first publications of Mann’s famous Hockey Stick Graph, and you will find a copy of same in last Year’s Los angeles times somewhere (I did); guess what you will find in the unexpurgated version of Mann’s Hockey stick?
    Two little words at the top of the Graph; “NORTHERN HEMISPHERE.”
    In his own words (as an expert) Dr Mann asserted that the Hockey stick itself is just a local anomaly, and NOT a global phenomena at all.
    More recent “editions” of the Hockey stick have had all offensive language like northern hemisphere removed.
    And now to Neil Crafter and Katherine; since we seem too be getting pedantic.
    I could have said: The Southern Hemisphere is mostly water, and the Northern hemisphere is mostly land; would you both agree to that of do you still have a problem with that ?
    But, since the discussion was related to ice concerns, I used the terms Antarctic, and Arctic; as a loose reference to the colder regions of the Southern Hemisphere and the Northern Hemisphere.
    Please take note, that I did NOT say “Antarctica” which we all agree is that continemtal largest land mass in “The Antarctic”.
    Also note, I did not say the “Antarctic Circle” and the “Arctic Circle”, as delineating the “Arctic” and t”The Antarctic” which define the regions beyond +/- 67.5 deg N/S.
    The “Arctic” and the “Antarctic” are commonly used to reference the globe beyong +/- 60 degrees N/S, not 67.5
    So now go check you globe again, and you will find, that virtually all of Alaska and Greenland, and a large part of Eurasia including most of scandinavia and Siberia are “in the arctic”
    There is indeed more land “In the arctic” than “in the antarctic”.
    But coming from New Zealand; anything south of Stewart Island is the antarctic to me.
    But not to be nit picky, it really was the northern/southern hemispheric land /water distribution I was referring to that has a big influence on the global assymmetry.
    I would also argue that it is somewhat irrelevent whether the northernmost permanent ice pack sits on land or water, and same for the southernmost ice pack. Ok the altitudes are a bit different, so the antarctic gets a lot colder.
    But do check the globe to see that I really am right anyway in what I said.

  47. Mary
    You seem rather pleased with yourself to come on Anthony’s website and make some of the condescending statements you have. Do you work for Michael Mann? I would suggest that those who dispute, ignore or deny the historical record for the Little Ice Age, as we have seen that comes from a number of countries, are doing so to further their climate agendas ie. that historical climate was flat (ie handle) and only in the 20th/21st centuries has evil man (one ‘n’) upset nature’s delicate balance by emitting all that plant fertiliser (making the blade). Well I’m sorry, I’m not buying today thankyou.

  48. Pops (14:46:04) :
    Don’t you just feel so sorry for all those polar bears? I bet they’re longing for some more “gorebal” warming because all that ice must be freezing their little endangered paws off.
    Okay, okay. So it’s not a very scientific comment.
    Slam: “Gorebal” warming? How about Gorebull warming.

  49. Don’t worry, Simon, ice melts and water refreezes. It happens over and over. When the ice reappears, it won’t be magic, just the recurring cycle.

  50. Simon Abingdon (11:21:47) :
    It´s all very well talking about the increase of the sea ice, but just about all the ice over eastern Siberia seems to have disappeared. http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Sea_Ice_07vs08.jpg
    Hi Simon. The “ice” you refer to in Eastern Siberia is snow that had fallen there by this time last year. It is far colder in the Arctic this year than last. Cold air is dry air. There may end up being less snowfall in Siberia and most of the world’s northern reaches this year than last, if the cold continues. The cold is not a sign of warming, however 🙂

  51. Mike (10:45:49) :
    “Mary, [snip] What is there about the previous posters words that you don’t understand.”
    I don’t understand what you mean about ‘don’t understand’. I understand what they’re saying, just don’t agree with their reasoning. Do you now understand that I understand or don’t you now understand what I understand.
    “Do you understand that South America is in the Southern Hemisphere? So is Australia. China is on the side of Asia facing the Pacific Ocean?”
    Of course I understand! You do realise that the evidence of cooling in the southern hemisphere happened at different times don’t you?
    “Once you’ve perused a globe for a while, then read some of the referenced links, please come back and comment. There are hundreds of records distributed around the world that show a cooling period similar to the LIA. There are very few that show otherwise.”
    Your gift of misinformation does you credit, you have learned from your apostles well! There are hundreds of records, unfortunately for your religion they don’t seem to have occured at the same time.
    “Mann’s argument that “you can’t prove me wrong, so I’m right” is not scientifically acceptable. The onus on him has been to find evidence that the LIA was regional, not just state that it “might” have been and therefore was. Mann needs to discuss the existing measurements and why we should not believe them.”
    Your grip on science methodology is pretty poor though, stick to the misinformation, you do it better.

  52. Mary Hinge (12:33): “Of course I understand! You do realise that the evidence of cooling in the southern hemisphere happened at different times don’t you?”
    No, actually it didn’t. Read the inventory on all temperature proxy studies I refered to.
    In my reply (at 08:06) I presented the investigatoin of the hundreds of sources of all proxy studies of which 98 percent shows the LIA. You have not replied. You repeat your error, and claim that error to be truth. How come???

    You have not give us the proof say exist that LIA wasn’t a global phenomenon.
    I have gived you the proof that it was av global phenomenon, so please, stop repeat your proven non-true phrases and instead reply on the scientific proof I gave you.

    Btw, here you can see that Mann created the hockeystick graph in a way one can create a similar hockeystick graph from red noise:
    http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2008/10/11/will-the-real-hockey-stick-please-stand-up/

  53. Mary Hinge.
    1) Why do you refuse to answer the facts I gave you that 98 percent of the proxy studies made globally distinctly shows the LIA?
    2) Why don’t you present any proof of your position, which you claim exists?

    (This follow up question I never have to ask at any Global Warming blog, including realclimate.org, because there my comments about this proof of LIA has consistently been removed…)

  54. Mary.
    Again, please give us one (1) — only one — source which proves your comment that LIA wasn’t globally.
    All climate litterature in the 20th century I know of claims it was.
    It’s not only very annoying that you write something and claims that it is proven when it isn’t and you should know that if you where in the climate science, or that you refuse to reply on the proof I give you, but also repeat your false statement.
    Since you claim that your statement (which isn’t supported in scinece or in the litterature) is proven, I think you have to present or refer to some of that proof. All your claims that your statement refer to science is pure arrogance as long as you can’t provide us with any information that counter the inventory of proxy study which is made, or all the climate litterature which shows that LIA was a global phenomenon.

  55. I just love generalizations…. “I know geography isn’t an American strong point “…..as if all Americans are the same, educated the same…sigh.
    Interesting graphical depiction. Rapid recovery, but in the scheme of our 29 years of satellite imagery, it really means….what? (stirring the pot)
    And since both the LIA and the MWP are myths in the iconography of AGW “theory” – why argue with people who will never see your point of view?
    I recommend you reduce your carbon footprint by not getting excited and breathing rapidly. Didn’t you know that arguing about settled science actually contributes to “global warming”? lol

  56. I can rattle off every country on the globe. (Including the teeny ones.)
    But, as generalizations go, “geography isn’t an American strong point” is about as dang close as those things can get!

  57. George “And now to Neil Crafter and Katherine; since we seem too be getting pedantic.
    I could have said: The Southern Hemisphere is mostly water, and the Northern hemisphere is mostly land; would you both agree to that of do you still have a problem with that ?”
    Except you didn’t say that! It would be easier I suspect for people to understand what you are trying to say if you say what you could have said first rather than what you actually said.
    If you say one thing and mean another, you can’t accuse Katherine and I of being pedantic. If you say Antarctic but really mean Southern Hemisphere, why not just say Southern Hemisphere in the first place? I don’t think anyone would argue with you that there is more land in the Northern Hemisphere than in the Southern, if thats what you meant to say.

  58. Neil,
    I agree completely with you (and Katherine), and it certainly was to distinguish the land water assymmetry of northern/southern hemispheres; but not just for the whole hemispheres but for the remoter regions.
    Antarctica is almost entirely within the Antarctic circle, except for the Antarctic peninsula, but even that is within the 60 degree south circle, so the Antarctic (beyond -60) is in fact completely surrounded by water, while the arctic beyond +60 is almost completely surrounded by land.
    The whole point of course was that ocean circulation effects are quite different in the Arctic, and antarctic.
    And for the record; I in no way was being critical of your and Katherine’s comments; more explanatory ; not critical.
    But now that my quick map check seems to indicate there actually IS more land in the Arctic, than the Antarctic, now I have to do some actual calculations and digging.
    George
    PS That reference to being pedantic, was also not aimed at you or Katherine; merely a comment that the whole issue was in need of clarification. and in the end, the intent was to say that no one should expect the Arctic and the Antarctic to communicate with each other and behave the same way; the global climate is too chaotic to expect anything like that.

  59. Pingback: Top Posts « WordPress.com

  60. George E. Smith (11:55:12) :

    For Mary, “The Year Without a Summer” was actually the year 1816 which is smack in the middle of The Dalton Minimum; and if you want to include that in the LIA; Dr Willie Soon would tend to agree with that, since he suggests the LIA covered perhaps 500 years. The Dalton Minimum was however preceded by a fairly active sun era that ended the Maunder Minimum.

    The Dalton Minimum is generally listed as 1790 to 1830, so 1816 was 26 years in, 14 to go, so not quite smack in the middle. Napolean’s disastrous march on Russia was in 1812, with some 570,000-685,000 men going out, and only 31,000-36,000 returning.
    http://www.edwardtufte.com/tufte/minard

  61. Pingback: The Global Warming » Blog Archive » Comment on Arctic sea ice continues to rebound, quick link graphic …

  62. this graph AMSR shows 7 million Km2 Cryosphere today only shows 4.5 million km2 something is way off

  63. Mary H:
    Notice that the AMO regularly sends warm water north and melts the ice:
    http://www.klimadebat.dk/forum/attachments/amomgris.jpg
    Nobody says there has not been a down trend in arctic ice extend, but right now its interesting to study what happends as the sun suddently slows down. This happends NOW and not ten years ago. Therefor we examine the effect NOW. The sun is truly in a quiete motion period in the centre of the solar system, exactly as it was in the Dalton minimum. The effect of the dalton minimum was deep and its not responsible that humanity closes our eyes for thes. “it probably wont happen this time”… That argumentation is not good enough.
    AND, speaking of Dalton minimum.
    There is a dipute about the Medieval Warm Period. The disagreement came along just when this period was a problem for AGW hypothesis.
    Here are facts about Medieval Warm Period:
    http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/images/mwpquantitative.gif
    Best regards, frank Lansner

  64. Bruce Cobb (11:42:19) :
    “Notice the slope of this years’ refreeze.”
    Brce, stop grabbing at this small anecdotes. You remind of Brian’s followers in Life of Brian, this seems to be your ‘sandle’ to follow. Look again, the freeze is below average. Stop clutching at these straws, you make yourself look desperate.
    tty (11:33:15) :
    “The LIA even shows up in the southern hemisphere. For example Lake Malawi waters in the 1680’s were the coldest since the ice age”
    This was also in the middle of a particularly long ENSO event and about 30 years after the end of the European cold spell.
    George E. Smith (11:55:12) :
    “For Mary, “The Year Without a Summer” was actually the year 1816 which is smack in the middle of The Dalton Minimum; and if you want to include that in the LIA…..”
    I don’t! 1816 was also the year after the Tambora eruption, this is credited with the cooling that caused this event.
    Neil Crafter (12:03:24) :
    I come on this blog to put the other point of view across, this blog would be a bit boring if it only consisted of back slapping Joes congratulating each other on their next anecdotal triumph! There are many people who take the trouble to write on this blog who welcome a test for their arguments, it makes it interesting and lively. If you don’t like it then too bad, I couldn’t care less, there are many more who do.
    To go to your comment that puts words in my mouth. I’m not suggesting there was no change in global temperature until recent times. I’m merely pointing out that there is no conclusive evidence of a ‘global’ LIA. The evidence suggests that it was a series of local and regional anomolies taking place at different times around the globe.
    Jonathan (11:45:25) :
    “So, Mary, have you read Moberg et al. yet?”
    Yes I have and did you notice where the measurements were taken? It is very heavily biased around the North Atlantic.
    Magnus A (14:20:20) :
    “Again, please give us one (1) — only one — source which proves your comment that LIA wasn’t globally.”
    You show an ignorance of scienific methods if you believe one source can ‘prove’ a comment. The evidence suggests events happened at different times.
    “All climate litterature (sic) in the 20th century I know of claims it was.”
    Mabe you should read more widely.
    evanjones (15:09:56) :
    “I can rattle off every country on the globe. (Including the teeny ones.)”
    I belive you can! It was a generalisation of course and apologies to those who know their Abkhazia to Zimbabwe!

  65. Steve (from way back up there) – just a quick point about the WoodForTrees ice data. It is up to date (to September), but the “mean 12” operation removes the first and last 6 months because there is no valid central point running mean for them (as was discussed here recently).
    I’ve added the unsmoothed data to your graph to demonstrate this:
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/nsidc-seaice-n/mean:12/from:2005/plot/nsidc-seaice-s/mean:12/from:2005/plot/nsidc-seaice-n/from:2005/plot/nsidc-seaice-s/from:2005
    Another interesting way of looking at this is in the derivative:
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/nsidc-seaice-n/derivative
    The maximum rate of change in both directions seems greater recently, which seems to match Anthony’s point.

  66. Mary Hinge said
    “I see the freeze at below average levels for the time of year.”
    When you say below average what timespan are you taking? If you use the values from the graph from 2002 onwards quoted in this blog then you will see it is a lot larger.
    Regards
    Andy

  67. AndyW (03:14:41) :
    “When you say below average what timespan are you taking? If you use the values from the graph from 2002 onwards quoted in this blog then you will see it is a lot larger.” ??
    The ice extent is still well below average using the period from 1979 to 2000 as the mean http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/
    From the graph above the melt is almost exactly at the mean for 2002 onwards. Only last years record melt is significantly lower, the ice is now at 2005 levels but well below 2002 to 2004 and 2006.
    There is no news here so please kindly move along, nothing to see…..

  68. Mary, I apologize for overreacting to one of your previous posts. I rarely post and just blew up at your use of inappropriate put-downs rather than scientific discussion. There’s really no excuse for me to drop to your level.
    That said, I think you wordsmith too much. For example Mangus A. was clearly asking for you to post supporting evidence and not saying that any one point would prove anything. He was reacting to the fact that you tend not to supply any evidence. Can you come up with *any* evidence other than bristlecone pines or Gaspe cedars that support the “Hockey Stick”? If you can, then we can try discussing that. The weather and climate dynamics of the White Mountains are very interesting, interesting enough that trying to connect global climate to them is a curious process.

  69. Bruce Cobb (11:42:19) :
    “Notice the slope of this years’ refreeze.”
    Brce, stop grabbing at this small anecdotes. You remind of Brian’s followers in Life of Brian, this seems to be your ’sandle’ to follow. Look again, the freeze is below average. Stop clutching at these straws, you make yourself look desperate.

    Mary, no one is “clutching at” anything but you. Yep, just keep repeating your ridiculous little mantras of “the freeze is below average”, and “nothing to see here”.
    Desperate? Pot, kettle, black. Ring any bells? LOL!

  70. Mary, you are missing a point of weather discussions. I know of a farm service in Tangent, Oregon that installed a very expensive weather station and software program that allows them to more accurately measure both weather and weather trends from year to year so that farmers can make good decisions about what to plant, where to plant, when to plant, and when to harvest. Not news? I beg to differ when it comes to the agricultural economy and community. For long range planning (a must for farmers who grow just about anything), the Arctic is a pretty good marker. The trend, regardless of any kind of average, is that temps are cooling through each season. Farmers need this information, sans the spin one way or the other, to make decisions.

  71. this blog would be a bit boring if it only consisted of back slapping Joes congratulating each other on their next anecdotal triumph!

    Yup, sounds exactly like all the AGW sites I’ve visited.

  72. The ice extent is still well below average using the period from 1979 to 2000 as the mean http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/

    How about from 1000 years ago? 2000? 5000?… Oh, we don’t know, that’s right. But now that we’re able to measure any change is a catastrophe. Riiiight.

  73. Mary H, i know you are busy, but i would like to see your answer to my post earlier. 🙂
    K.R. Frank

  74. Mike (05:15:47) :
    “For example Mangus A. was clearly asking for you to post supporting evidence and not saying that any one point would prove anything.”
    maybe you should read again what he wrote…
    “Magnus A (14:20:20) :
    “Again, please give us one (1) — only one — source which proves your comment that LIA wasn’t globally.”
    Bruce Cobb (06:18:39) :
    “Desperate? Pot, kettle, black. Ring any bells? LOL!”
    If you think a below average freeze is a news worthy story then who’se clutching?
    Frank Lansner /Denmark (09:26:37) :
    “Mary H, i know you are busy, but i would like to see your answer to my post earlier. :-)”
    Hi Frank,
    The Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation is well documented and this was the most likely cause of the MWP and LIA. You have to remember how far north Europe is and how susceptable we are to any changes in the Gulf stream and jet streams, a small change in the GS will have a large effect on our climate. Glacial ice melt will have an effect on the thermohaline circulation especially if a rapid melt occurs.
    There is no doubt that the MWP and LIA happened in Europe, there is a lot of doubt they were global events.
    Jeff Alberts (08:34:08) :
    “How about from 1000 years ago? 2000? 5000?… Oh, we don’t know, that’s right. But now that we’re able to measure any change is a catastrophe. Riiiight.”
    As far as I am aware we were talking about the graph above. However from the data we have available this melt is well below average. If you want to spout on about ice thousands of years ago fine, but your last sentence is pure gibberish.
    Pamela Gray (06:39:02) :
    “The trend, regardless of any kind of average, is that temps are cooling through each season.”
    What trend are you refering to? If you are based in the Western half of North America then the -ve phase PDO is responsible for the recent cooling. Longer term trends are definately warming elsewhere.

  75. “So, Mary, have you read Moberg et al. yet?”
    Yes I have and did you notice where the measurements were taken? It is very heavily biased around the North Atlantic.

    Indeed. So I assume you then looked at the supplementary figure showing the 11 low resolution proxies, and noticed that the little ice age shows up clearly in the two Chinese datasets?

  76. If you think a below average freeze is a news worthy story then who’se clutching?
    [snip, does not add to the discussion, only a personal attack ~ charles the moderator]

  77. As far as I am aware we were talking about the graph above. However from the data we have available this melt is well below average. If you want to spout on about ice thousands of years ago fine, but your last sentence is pure gibberish.

    If you think so, fine. Seemed perfectly legible to me. However, focusing on a handful of years is pretty wasteful (even just two or three years as many do here) without being able to see if this has happened before, how often, and to what extent. If we don’t have the data, it’s hardly worthwhile to make world policy based on extremely small sample sizes.

  78. Jonathan (13:41:00) :
    “Indeed. So I assume you then looked at the supplementary figure showing the 11 low resolution proxies, and noticed that the little ice age shows up clearly in the two Chinese datasets?”
    …and did you notice that one of Chinese datasets was from one sample of stalactite formation. For this paper to be a credible part of confirming a Northern Hemisphere LIA there would need to be more data.

  79. Jeff Alberts (16:07:41) :
    “If we don’t have the data, it’s hardly worthwhile to make world policy based on extremely small sample sizes.”
    We have plenty of data to show a global warming trend over the last 100 years or so, that seems to be a large sample size. As we only have a recent timescale for accurate measurement of the Arctic and Antarctic ice caps I see where you are coming from. If the USA and Canada used your logic and didn’t formulate a national policy on the Arctic and left it to the Russians to formulate their own policy alone on the basis that the data available, though showing a rapid ice melt in extent AND depth, but this is only based on measurements of less than 30 years, then who do you think will be in the best position to exploit natural resources and shipping routes if the trend continues? My money would be on the pro-active Russsians and not the re-active Americans. What do you think should happen, do you think that it might be worthwhile to act on a relatively small sample size?
    P.s. Had another look at your last sentence- “But now that we’re able to measure any change is a catastrophe. Riiiight”
    Still seems like gibberish!

  80. Mary Hinge: “There is no doubt that the MWP and LIA happened in Europe, there is a lot of doubt they were global events.”
    First, Mary, You have still not met muy proof, that 98 percent of the hundreds of proxy studies all over the earth shows proof for LIA.
    Secondly, in this sentence you repeat that there are doubt — presumably considerable doubt — that there was a LIA globally, but despite my question, which you quoted, you still have not delivered even a tiny tiny little positive proof that you’re correct in your statement.
    I’ll wait…………..

  81. Mary. The proof you have in my comment at 08:06. I can’t believe you read it. Otherwise you would have replied something! Not like a parrot repeat your (false) statement, that scince do not show that LIA was global. It does, just as I showed proof for.
    But on the other hand you may be involved in propaganda, and the repeated statements without consideration of facts is crucial in propaganda…

  82. LIA/MWP not global?
    Vostok Ice Core data:
    http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_500_yrs.html
    Is that a warm spike (MWP) followed by a cold spike (LIA) in the last 500 years?
    I believe we’ll be warming until the next ice age starts:
    http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_400k_yrs.html
    We are in an interglacial period, and it will end…no matter what humans do or don’t do. (Humans haven’t started or ended any previous ice ages/interglacials) All previous interglacials the temperature spiked higher then our nice moderate era now.

  83. Mary, look at CO2science, there are dozens of papers in the LIA, on every continent. It was global, just like the MWP. Using Mann as a source is a joke, he is no scientist. His attempts at revisionist history are pathetic.

  84. P.s. Had another look at your last sentence- “But now that we’re able to measure any change is a catastrophe. Riiiight”
    Still seems like gibberish!

    So put a comma between “measure” and “any”, or take a basic reading comprehension course.
    As to “what we should do”, I’d say beat the Russians to the punch. Especially since there’s no evidence that an ice-free Arctic can or will happen, or that such a thing would be catastrophic.

  85. Magnus A (06:00:10) :
    “Mary. The proof you have in my comment at 08:06. I can’t believe you read it. Otherwise you would have replied something!”
    I am glad you have confirmed my theory that you are lacking in scientific understanding! This paper ttp://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2002/2001GL014580.shtml
    about proxy data from tree rings in New Zealand mentions seems to confirm the LIA but if you download and read it carefully you will note that there was a particularly cold spell in New Zealand at the time the Vikings were colonizing parts of coastal Greenland. A quik look at the abstract gives you this ” Comparisons with selected temperature proxies from the Northern and Southern Hemispheres confirm that the MWP was highly variable in time and space.”
    Take a look at this paper http://bprc.osu.edu/Icecore/Abstracts/Thompsonetal-climatic-change-2003.pdf .
    Note it uses an equal number of data points in both hemispheres (3 in south america and 3 in Tibet) using the same techniques in each case. Notice the South American sample includes the Quelccaya ice cap data which is cited as ‘proof’ of a LIA.
    For a LIA or MWP to be considered global you would expect there to be a correlation between the two sites. If you consider the LIA and MWP to be regional events then there would be no correlation.
    The results on page 15 of this document show that there seems to be an inverse correlation, where one region becomes warm the other gets cooler.
    The only period that the two sets of data show a correlation is over the last 100 years, you will see the typical ‘hockey stick’ shape, and not a phone book or random digits in sight. An interesting point is when sceptics/deniers use the South American glaciers as evidence but always avoid the rest of the paper, typical cherry picking.
    Other papers show evidence of a hemispherical see-saw where one hemisphere becomes warmer the other becomes cooler and vice versa, for instance http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v444/n7116/abs/nature05301.html
    This can’t be the’proof’ that you seek but it is strong evidence that the LIA and MWP are regional anomolies most probably driven by ocean currents. We know from the effects on Meso American and north South American cultures that ENSO events can be particularly long lasting, the same may be true of the pan-Atlantic decadal oscillation (PADO). The PADO, from the South Atlantic to Greenland may be a contributory cause of MWP and LIA but the process is still as yet poorly understood.
    The conclusion is that high resolution data analyisis shows evidence for a global MWP and LIA is not strong and that they are more likly to be regional anomolies. The ice core analysis also shows the large temperature increase in the last 100 years, the fist time there is a positive correlation between the northern and southern hemispheres.
    Steve Keohane (07:20:38) :
    “Mary, look at CO2science”
    CO2science are particularly guilty of cherry picking pieces of data. The South American Glaciers is a classic example.
    Jeff Alberts (09:39:34) :
    “But now that we’re able to measure any change is a catastrophe. Riiiight”
    So put a comma between “measure” and “any”, or take a basic reading comprehension course.”
    The only one using ‘Catastrophe’ in this context was you. Amazing how one comma can transform gibberish into nonsensical drivel!
    “As to “what we should do”, I’d say beat the Russians to the punch. Especially since there’s no evidence that an ice-free Arctic can or will happen, or that such a thing would be catastrophic.”
    You’ve surpassed yourself and made the lap from nonsensical drivel to contradictory nonsensical drivel!
    Steve M. (06:20:49) :
    “LIA/MWP not global?
    Vostok Ice Core data:”
    I’m assuming you mean http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v329/n6138/abs/329403a0.html
    First see my points above about timing of events then read the paper.
    To put into context the difference between an Ice Age and a so called Little Ice Age look at the huge differences in the δ18O ice histories between the two events.

Comments are closed.