10/17/2007 5,663,125 square kilometers
10/17/2008 7,436,406 square kilometers
Δice = 1,773,281 sqkm or 31.3% more than last year
Source data here: http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/plot.csv (Excel file)
UPDATE 10/22: The trend has entered the point where last year’s recovery started to get closer to previous years, and the Δice is now about 21%
You’ve probably heard by now how this new story circulating this week claims “record warmth” and that we are in the peak time of melting. Meanwhile, “back at the ranch”, sea ice extent continues a steady upward climb as shown above.
Scientists Counter Latest Arctic ‘Record’ Warmth Claims as ‘Pseudoscience’ – Comprehensive Arctic Data Round Up – October 17, 2008
Claim: Newspaper article claims Arctic Temps Peak in November – Claims Arctic offers ‘early warning signs’ – McClatchy Newspapers – October 16, 2008
Excerpt: Temperatures in the Arctic last fall hit an all-time high – more than 9 degrees Fahrenheit (5 degrees Centigrade) above normal – and remain almost as high this year, an international team of scientists reported Thursday. “The year 2007 was the warmest year on record in the Arctic,” said Jackie Richter-Menge, a climate expert at the Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory in Hanover, N.H, and editor of the latest annual Arctic Report Card. “These are dynamic and dramatic times in the Arctic,” she said. “The outlook isn’t good.” Arctic temperatures naturally peak in October and November, after sea ice shrinks during the summer. […] Scientists say these changes in the Arctic are early warning signs of what may be coming for the rest of the world’s climate.
Arctic Reality Check: Why isn’t the cooling Antarctic considered ‘an indicator of what might happen to the rest of the world?’
By Climate Scientist Dr. Ben Herman, past director of the Institute of Atmospheric Physics and former Head of the Department of Atmospheric Sciences at the University of Arizona is a member of both the Institute for the Study of Planet Earth’s Executive Committee and the Committee on Global Change.
Herman Excerpt: First of all, the Arctic sea ice is at its minimum in September, not October or November as the scientists in the McClatchy article states. As Arctic ice experts, they certainly should have known this. Another point is that the Arctic temperatures do not “naturally peak in October or November”. They peak in mid August generally. Also the article states that since the world’s climates are interconnected, what happens in the Arctic may be an indicator of what will happen in the rest of the world. How about what happens in the Antarctic then? Since its ice area has been increasing, is this also an indicator of what might happen in the rest of the world?
See the full article: Vast majority of Antarctica has cooled over the past 50 years and ice coverage has grown to record levels
Reality Check # 2: ‘This is pseudoscience’ – By German scientist Ernst-Georg Beck, a biologist Rebuts Arctic Reports – October 17, 2008
Excerpt: The annual report issued by researchers at the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and other experts is the latest to paint a dire picture of the impact of climate change in the Arctic. […] The real averaged temperatures of the whole Arctic circle (70-90 N) can be found in the same data base used by NOAA (CRU, Phil Jones): The graph shows a strong Arctic warming during 1918 and 1960, stronger than today with a rise of about + 4°C up to 1938. Referencing only a rise since 1960 we got the illusion of a dramatic rise in modern times. Conclusion: The news item:” Arctic air temperatures climb to record levels” is selective science and wrong because the Arctic Ocean ( covering an area of more than 50% of the Arctic circle) has been left unconsidered. The NOAA study summarizes: „5°C record levels in temperature in autumn”, presents the averaged temperatures only on land stations and discusses melting sea ice as a cause! This is pseudoscience. In contrast the current Arctic warming mimics the 1920s-1940s event, as a recent study from the Ohio State University reveals. The scientists recognized from using weather station records, maps and photos from the past century that temperatures in Greenland had warmed in the 1920s at rates equivalent to the recent past.
See these articles:
http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/grnlndice.htm
http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/wcmsmimefiles/Arctic_102008e_824.pdf
Get the facts on Arctic ice conditions below:
Latest Arctic Info: Updated October 17, 2008
Update: Arctic sea ice now 28.7% higher than this date last year – still climbing – October 15, 2008
Excerpt: A difference of: 1,576,563 square kilometers, now in fairness, 2008 was a leap year, so to avoid that criticism, the value of 6,857,188 square kilometers can be used which is the 10/13/08 value, for a difference of 1,369,532 sq km. Still not too shabby at 24.9 %. The one day gain between 10/13/08 and 10/14/08 of 3.8% is also quite impressive. […] Watch the red line as it progresses. So far we are back to above 2005 levels, and 28.7% (or 24.9% depending on how you want to look at it) ahead of last year at this time. That’s quite a jump, basically a 3x gain, since the minimum of 9% over 2007 set on September 16th. Read about that here. Go nature! There is no mention of this on the National Snow and Ice Data Center sea ice news webpage, which has been trumpeting every loss and low for the past two years…not a peep. You’d think this would be big news. Perhaps the embarrassment of not having an ice free north pole in 2008, which was sparked by press comments made by Dr. Mark Serreze there and speculation on their own website, has made them unresponsive in this case.
Alert: National Ice Center says satellites interpreting Arctic ice as open water! – By Andrew Revkin – NY Times Dot Earth Blog – September 6, 2008
Excerpt: And one of the groups focusing most closely on possible Arctic shipping lanes, the National Ice Center operated by the Navy and Commerce Department, says flatly that the satellites are misreading conditions in many spots and that there is too much ice in a critical spot along the Russian coast (highlighted in the smaller image above) to allow anything but ice-hardened ships to get through. In an e-mail message Wednesday, Sean R. Helfrich, a scientist at the ice center, said that ponds of meltwater pooling on sea ice could fool certain satellite-borne instruments into interpreting ice as open water, “suggesting areas that have substantial ice cover as being sea-ice free.” The highlighted area is probably still impassible ice, including large amounts of thick old floes, he said. I sent the note to an array of sea-ice experts, and many, including Mark Serreze at the National Snow and Ice Data Center, concurred.
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/06/confirmation-of-open-water-circling-north-pole/
National Weather Service: SEA ICE ADVISORY FOR ARCTIC WATERS AS WATER TEMPS DROP 8° IN 2008 – September 22, 2008
Excerpt: SEA SURFACE TEMPERATURES ALONG THE ALASKA CHUKCHI AND BEAUFORT SEA COASTS ARE 2 TO 8 DEGREES CELSIUS COLDER THIS YEAR THAN AT THE SAME TIME LAST YEAR. […] SIGNIFICANT ICE WILL BEGIN DEVELOPING ALONG THE ALASKA COAST NORTH OF 70N WITHIN THE NEXT 10 TO 14 DAYS.
http://pafc.arh.noaa.gov/marfcst.php?fcst=FZAK80PAFC
BINGO!
The SOI has today been above 6 for 8 weeks in a row, and we should therefore see a new La nina, if these currents behave as normal, Check out:
http://www.weatherzone.com.au/climate/indicator_enso.jsp?c=soi&p=weekly
PeteM: It’s amazing to find that so many people want to hear the global warming is not happening and will find any excuse to back up their prejudice.
Actually, Pete, it isn’t about “wanting to hear” anything – that would be irrational, which is the way the AGW alarmists are. All we want here are facts. It is amazing so many, like you, have fallen for the AGW alarmist hype and propaganda, and not bothered to, or have not wanted to, investigate on their own. You might be surprised to learn many of us used to believe that garbage. I did, up until just about 2 years ago, and only started looking into it in order to counter some anti-AGW arguments I was seeing in letters to the editor. Try this site: Editorial: The Great Global Warming Hoax?. You will find that the more you learn, the more you will realize you have simply been duped by the AGW hype.
Some climate scientists think there is hope that the human race will take the right actions to avoids its own demise ….a nice quote I heard was ” we can’t be that stupid”. But looking at the comments on this forum I really wonder ….
Is it really wise to take actions based on unsound science and rampant alarmism which will have very serious financial and sociological consequences? We certainly hope that mankind isn’t that stupid.
Some highly selective data looks like it is being used in a WWF report just released.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/3226747/Climate-change-is-faster-and-more-extreme-than-feared.html
I’m highly sceptical of the 1979 image shown in this article. Not sure if it has been added by the news paper or was released as part of the WWF report.
1. The detail around edges of the 1979 Ice sheet are incredibly similar to the 2007 image.
2. The colour and resolution of the 1979 and 2007 satellite image are the same, which seem unlikely due to the changes in imaging technology.
3. Why compare 1979 with 2007, rather than 1977 and 2007. Perhaps the date in 1977 did not look so dramatic?
4. Since Arctic ice is normally at its lowest in September, so the 1979 image is rather surprising.
5. As shown here, 2008 ice sheet is 31% greater than last year. I suppose that doesn’t fit with the WWF message either. So they have used 2007.
Sea ice is unlikely to affect sea level. When you have ice in your beverage and the ice melts – does the beverage overflow?
Ric Werne
PDO – how long will we have to wait for the evidence on this idea ?
BBC World News.
Our World: The Cold Rush.
“David Shukman in Alaska discovers that the massive melt of arctic ice is opening up new opportunities to exploit the natural
resources of this northern wilderness. But it’s also raising fresh tensions over international boundaries in the arctic circle”
For those who can receive BBC World, you can find the Scheduled viewing times for your country here.
http://www.bbcworldnews.com/Pages/Schedules.asp
Perhaps the “new opportunities” may prove to be short lived.
Evan
I do not dispute that the earth has warmed from 1979-1998. But not for the last decade.
Try a least-squares fit of the last 120 months in the UAH satellite record. Do share with us what you find!
JP
Does anyone know why the Jason 1 sea levels have not been updated and published? The reason on the website seems a little nebulous.
I suppose, from what I read here, that I should be so relieved that we have nothing to worry about. In fact, one might even argue what a shame last year’s ice minimum wasn’t even LOWER, so that when you do the calculations, the recent percentage increase in the ice could have been even more convincing!! That would’ve shown those ‘Global Warmists’, wouldn’t it. Wow!!!!
Nick, Your sarcasm is completely unwarranted, and simply shows that you are angry. You might want to search within yourself to discover the source of your anger. Often, it stems from fear. My guess is that it is the fear that a belief system, which you apparently hold dear, that of Catastrophic AGW is under threat, and is in fact crumbling. The antidote is knowledge.
Regarding the original report, specifically soil temperatures here
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/land.html
They show the increase in permafrost temperatures at a depth of 20 meters over the past 25 to 30 years. The increases range from 0.5 to 2.5 degrees.
I’m having a real hard time believing that we could have warmed the atmosphere enough over the past 30 years to cause even a 0.5 degree increase in the temperature of anything 20 meters below the surface.
Has anyone read the CV of Ms. Richter-Menge?
http://www.crrel.usace.army.mil/sid/personnel/richter-menge.jacqueline.html
It’s all about the money. Twenty jobs, 80 projects and $5.5M. And I always thought it was Big Oil 😉
“In association with her research, Ms. Richter-Menge has gained significant first-hand Arctic experience leading or participating in more than 15 field programs . From 1997-2006, Ms. Richter-Menge served as Chief, Snow and Ice Branch. In this capacity she supervised a diverse research staff of over 20 people and oversaw the execution and development of a research program that, on an annual basis, was composed of over 80 projects and totals $5.5M.”
I also live in a low-lying coastal area, Whidbey Island. Actually my house is on one of the higher points on the island at about 220′ above sea level. No such alarmist engineers live here, apparently. If sea levels had risen several feet in the last 100 years, the NAS would be underwater right now, and Whidbey would be three or four islands instead of one.
While we’re talking about predictions (or scenarios if you will), I am going to go out on a limb and publish the results of several hypothetical runs regarding the outcome of an ongoing, chaotic process.
These are the results:
Denver Broncos will have a record of 8 and 8, plus or minus 5 games.
That should just about cover it, shouldn’t?
There you go again, using facts to refute what everybody knows to be true. Well, if your facts are right, then how come everybody knows differently?
Well?
Kean (05:28:24) :
“Sea ice is unlikely to affect sea level. When you have ice in your beverage and the ice melts – does the beverage overflow?”
It actually goes down a little due to the water in the beverage cooling.
From the tone on this website, you’d think that there was evidence that Arctic ice was somehow recovering to 1970s levels.
http://nsidc.org/news/images/20081002_Figure3.png
I believe the question after 2007 was whether the shockingly low minimum extent was an anomaly or a start of a new, worse trend than the blue line. Well, 2008 certainly didn’t return to the blue line. It is quite nice that it wasn’t _worse_ than 2007, but the extent was certainly not large enough to be real cause for celebration. The blue line trend itself is disturbing, and while 2 years is not long enough to define a new trend, Bayesian analysis indicates that these 2 data points suggest more likelihood that we’re worse than the blue line rather than better. Anyway, it will be interesting to see the 2009 data point when we get there – will it continue the 2007-2008 trend of being below the blue line, or will it be higher than the blue line?
I’ve asked several times about why anyone thinks changing the composition of the atmosphere is OK – I’ve not heard a good response about this .
I’ve heard several interesting attempts to explain (a) that the world is not getting hotter (b) artic melting is a natural occurance (c) and nothing can be related to the concept of MMGW/AGW (d) we will destroy the economy if we change anything (e) all problems are the fault of ‘the greens’
Since most folks on this foruim aren’t satisfied about the information on AGW perhaps they would like to define why there is no other risk about changing CO2 levels .
What will the risk be when lower temperatures cause CO2 levels to drop? CO2 is hardly a poisonous trace gas. It is introduced into greenhouses at app 1,000 PPM with no harmful effects to nursery workers, and tremendous beneficial effects to the plants. Any increase in CO2 levels attributable to man have been dwarfed in the past by nature. It’s a very complicated relationship, ask Al.
@Kean
I hope I can answer a few of your questions about the WWF report.
1. The detail around edges of the 1979 Ice sheet are incredibly similar to the 2007 image.
2. The colour and resolution of the 1979 and 2007 satellite image are the same, which seem unlikely due to the changes in imaging technology.
These images do not look like photo’s to me, but are almoste certainly computer generated images, based on arctic ice extent data. Like these images from the Cryosphere Today. Everyone judges for himself which ones look more palatable.
3. Why compare 1979 with 2007, rather than 1977 and 2007. Perhaps the date in 1977 did not look so dramatic?
Satellite data on arctic sea ice started in 1979, before that there were no satellites of gathering accurate sea ice data.
4. Since Arctic ice is normally at its lowest in September, so the 1979 image is rather surprising.
No, as you can see from my link, that actually WAS the extent in september 1979. Is that a shock to you?
5. As shown here, 2008 ice sheet is 31% greater than last year. I suppose that doesn’t fit with the WWF message either. So they have used 2007.
When was this report created? Usually these things tend to take some time to prepare, and it may be the 2008 data was not yet available at the time the report was created.
PeteM,
From Anthony’s latest article:
An analytical chemist who works in spectroscopy and atmospheric sensing, Michael J. Myers of Hilton Head, S. C., declared, “Man-made global warming is junk science,” explaining that worldwide manmade CO2 emission each year “equals about 0.0168% of the atmosphere’s CO2 concentration … This results in a 0.00064% increase in the absorption of the sun’s radiation. This is an insignificantly small number.”
Mary Hinge (11:01:46) :
“It actually goes down a little due to the water in the beverage cooling.”
The colling effect on the water levelis so minimal, you wouldn’t be able to detect it. The water level goes sown because ice is less dense than water and takes up more space than a like volume of water. Try putting a full water bottle in your freezer and see what happens.
Some more comparisons:
september 20, 1979 vs september 20, 2008
october 19, 1979 vs october 19, 2008
Everyone judge for himself how solid the 31% larger extent compares to other years than 2007.
“PeteM (11:57:50) :
I’ve asked several times about why anyone thinks changing the composition of the atmosphere is OK – I’ve not heard a good response about this . ”
-Pete, as a Biologist, I know that increasing the amount of atmospheric CO2 is a wonderful idea. Plants evolved when the level was much closer to 1000 ppm than the 370ish ppm we have today. Since dropping the level to about 200 ppm would pretty much wipe out all of the higher plants on earth…and everything that depends on them…basically the entire ecosphere as we know it…I would greatly prefer that we get a little further away from the lower limit and closer to a more optimum level. This would significantly increase plant growth and provide more food for all of us.
-In addition, a slighly higher global world temperature would, overall, improve our quality of life. Humans do better when the world is warmer. This is a historical fact. And no, I don’t want to hear how everyone will die in the resulting flood. If we could cope with the world wide distruction caused by WWII, we can certainly cope with loosing a few islands and a bit of coast line.
– Also, please don’t tell me we will all end up starving in the desert…this is a water world…more heat means more clouds and more rain…can you say tropics?
“I’ve heard several interesting attempts to explain (a) that the world is not getting hotter (b) artic melting is a natural occurance (c) and nothing can be related to the concept of MMGW/AGW (d) we will destroy the economy if we change anything (e) all problems are the fault of ‘the greens’”
a-OK, the world is getting hotter..or at least it was until a year or two ago. It had been getting hotter since about 1970…it will probably now get colder for about 30 years. This is the cycle that this planet has been following since the last ice age. Odds are good that the pattern will repeat until the next ice age…..
b -Yes, artic melting is natural…it happens every summer…and it freezes again every winter. Longer term it melts and freezes as the world warms and cools. This pattern will continue until the next ice age.
c.-Yes, humans are releasing CO2 that has been trapped in the earths crust for millions of years. Everyone agrees that is happening. Everyone agrees that it has SOME effect. Most of us understand that the human caused increase in atmospheric CO2 can be calculated…and that the calculated result is too small to measure with current technology. The assumption is that the effect on climate is also too small to measure…or at least too small to be significant.
d-We will only destroy the economy if we do some really, really stupid things. Not building more carbon fueled power plants, not building more nuc plants and trying to meet our energy needs with ethanol, windmills and solar are SOME of the dumber ideas being promoted.
e-No the problems are not all the fault of the greens. Politicians who are LISTENING to the greens are at the root of our current situation. The greens, in and of themselves are fairly harmless…implementing their IDEAS however are frequently very harmful to society. I’ve lived in several 3rd world countries. Living the way the greens promote is NOT FUN.
“Since most folks on this foruim aren’t satisfied about the information on AGW perhaps they would like to define why there is no other risk about changing CO2 levels .”
-Well, changing the CO2 level DOWN, will kill us all. Not usually concidered a great idea. Raising it slowly, over time, will increase food supplies in a growing world. More food is a very good idea. Slowly increasing levels of CO2, even if they result in a slow increase in world wide temperatures of a few degrees a century, are also more benificial that harmful…the primary negative effect will be a greatly increased level of AGW hysteria!
OT-we here in Florida, point out that we can go out into our yards and look down and see seashells…from where our yards were once under a few hundred feet of sea water. A rise in ocean levels of a few inches does not seem very impressive.
cdl
@Craig D. Lattig:
Some of your statements puzzle me, could you please have a look at my questions?
Since dropping the level to about 200 ppm would pretty much wipe out all of the higher plants on earth
This is the first time I hear about dropping the CO2 level to 200 ppmv, since 280 ppmv is generally accepted as the ‘natural level’ for the world we currently live in. Where does that number come from? Who suggested that?
Most of us understand that the human caused increase in atmospheric CO2 can be calculated…and that the calculated result is too small to measure with current technology.
Atmospheric CO2 levels are rising around 2.5 ppmv/year. Where does this CO2 come from?
We will only destroy the economy if we do some really, really stupid things. Not building more carbon fueled power plants, not building more nuc plants and trying to meet our energy needs with ethanol, windmills and solar
You are sounding rather alarmist. Any numbers to back up your opinion?
Slowly increasing levels of CO2, even if they result in a slow increase in world wide temperatures of a few degrees a century
What is your definition of ‘slow’? 1 ppmv/yr? 1 ppmv/century?
@Mike Bryant:
explaining that worldwide manmade CO2 emission each year “equals about 0.0168% of the atmosphere’s CO2 concentration
I can not understand how he got to that number. Total atmospheric CO2 is 3,000 gigatonnes. Total human CO2 emissions are around 30 gigatonnes of CO2. That roughly 1%. Who is right and why?
Craig Luttell
As you are a biologist – have you heard of a recent experiment where an animal species was exposed permamently for decades to doubled or tripled levels of CO2 (levels far higher than their recent evolutionary path) .
If so , what were the results ?
I keep seeing lots of appends on this and similar forums from folks determined to show that AGW is a mistaken ( or maybe over positioned) theory.
However I don’t see any doubt or thought in those same appends that changing the composition of the atmosphere may carry risks from many (probably unforseen) sources. I really can’t believe there is only good news from doubling CO2 levels in the atmosphere.
Who exactly is guarenteeing that there are no serious risks or downside from higher levels of CO2 ?
( Your answer about decreasing the CO2 levels didn’t really answer my question as this is currently not occuring and probably not an option with our current technology)
Finally , I certainly don’t agree with your assertion that local solar or industrial scale solar is a dumb idea . Seems a pretty good idea if you can afford it .