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
David (06:59:11) :
“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.”
Maybe this will make it easier. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_nmap.py?year_last=2008&month_last=9&sat=4&sst=0&type=anoms&mean_gen=0112&year1=2007&year2=2007&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=1200&pol=reg
When you consider that permafrost coverage is approx 24% of the northern hemispheres land areas, thats a lot of perafrost thawing!
Anne, I think your numbers are closer than his.
Pete M.
“What are the main health hazards associated with breathing in carbon dioxide gas?
Carbon dioxide (CO2) is naturally present in the atmosphere at levels of approximately 0.035%. Short-term exposure to CO2 at levels below 2% (20,000 parts per million or ppm) has not been reported to cause harmful effects. Higher concentrations can affect respiratory function and cause excitation followed by depression of the central nervous system. ”
http://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/chemicals/chem_profiles/carbon_dioxide/health_cd.html
Sorry not too much there on levels of 1,000 to 1,200 PPM.
RE: Melt ponds as open water.
Yes, this has been a very difficult issue, since satellite measurements started.
Also, you have the seasonal change in sun angle and hence, refraction and reflection characteristics.
Also, you have the issue of the fudge factor that is used to subtract out a thin strip of ice along the coasts, which is a brute force work around to deal with inability to distinguish certain sea ice from snow cover on land.
Then there are the many different surface characteristics of sea ice, including how much snow is on it, and the characteristics of that snow.
Anne, PeteM; Here is a geologic timescale plot of CO2. Presently, CO2 is about as low as it ever gets. Life forms developed and flourished under much higher concentrations than present. Regarding Craig’s minimum CO2 level for plants, I have heard it is about 150 ppm so it seems there is a minimum. Greenhouses use CO2 concentrators to increase the levels of CO2 for plant growth. Our planet has supposedly ~6% more vegetation due to CO2 increase. The current interglacial period probably won’t last more than a couple of centuries, my guess, so maybe we can extend it. That sure beats dealing with glaciers.
http://i36.tinypic.com/2en8d48.gif
Mike Bryant
I wasn’t thinking of levels as high as 2-3 % CO2 .
So, it seems no one has actually tested the impact of living in an atmosphere of .05% CO2 for years or decades at a time ?
Well , during the next few decades we’re about to run this experiment on the entire planet with no real ‘get out’ option – and maybe we’ll discover we ( or something we depend on) is not so well adapted to this new atmosphere. (How long does it take for the long term effects of smoking to show up ?)
And we’re also running another experiment – finding out if increasing CO2 in the atmosphere really causes global warming (and the current signs are not good despite all the enthusuasm here to find some piece of information that magically disproves MMGW)
I’ve decided not to append again on this forum
[…] rising to ruinous levels. Anthony Watts provides a reality check at his invaluable site “What’s Up with That?“ This is the same material, reformatted and condensed — with some additional […]
Mike Bryant (12:25:23) :
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.”
Unfortunately Mr Myers is unaware that global warming has nothing to do with the absorption of solar radiation, he’s wrong about the concentration too, even though he does quote it to 3 sig figs!
Re: CO2 as part of the atm calcs:
Looks like that may have come from the site linked by Ron de Haan (17:47:33) : .
The 0.0168% refers to the 110 ppm increase in CO2 form anthropogenic sources as a percent of total atmospheric mass.
Well, that didn’t work too well (typos and all).
Here’s the direct link
http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/calcs.html
and the direct quote
“Man-made emissions of CO2 are estimated at 110ppm, which is 28.95% of the total CO2 and that equals 868 Gigatons = 0.0164% by mass of the total atmosphere. “
PeteM (05:55:00) :
> PDO – how long will we have to wait for the evidence on this idea ?
There’s probably no good answer I can give that will not cause someone to squawk. The PDO went negative last fall, and there are signs of it taking impacting climate already, especially along the southern Alaskan coast that is exposed to the cold current, see http://jisao.washington.edu/pdo/
James Hansen went to Congress in 1988 to warn of the coming catastrophe, that was 9 years into the warm PDO phase, so that would be a time period with some precedent. I expect the next few years to document a number of PDO-related cold events, but it will take a number of them to be good evidence. More convincing data will come from the satellite temperature measurements, and that’s one reason readers here fall all over each other to post a new month’s value.
Hey, I’m willing to live in a pumped up CO2 environment. While I can grow an outdoor veggie garden with the best of them, I kill all indoor plants. So I’ld be willing to let more CO2 into my home. I’ve heard that houseplants are green. Who knew?
“I’ve decided not to append again on this forum”
Did PeteM do a driveby? ;*)
Anyway…
“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 ?”
Why do people ask questions when they already know the answer? Why not just make the statement that you question the effects of this?
PeteM:
“And we’re also running another experiment – finding out if increasing CO2 in the atmosphere really causes global warming (and the current signs are not good despite all the enthusuasm here to find some piece of information that magically disproves MMGW) ”
I’ve been reading articles on this site for a few months now, and I don’t believe that if anyone is looking for something “magical”, it would be the PROponents, not the OPponents of AGW, since the current stance is “Well…nothing else explains it, so it MUST be man-made C02.”
I believe there are many “pieces of information” that quite handily disproves it, and that what happens here is science, not magic.
Talk about cut ‘n run…sheesh.
Jim
should say “DO believe”…darn that missing preview function ;*)
Jim
Pamela,
You’re likely over-watering 🙂
Jim
@Phil
Unfortunately Mr Myers is unaware that global warming has nothing to do with the absorption of solar radiation
Nice one. Seems this scientist is a bit sloppy. Lessons to be learned: stay skeptic to anything anyone says on either side of the debate. Don’t be intimidated by a person’s title. Everyone makes mistakes (including the ‘good guys’).
Pete: Ask greenhouse workers if exposure to CO2 is not good for them. Ask the recipient of mouth-to-mouth if they were killed or saved by an increase of CO2 as a byproduct of the procedure. We breath in a substance every day known collectively as a gas. Don’t get caught up on the emotional memories of the term, “gas”. It is a neutral term and we breath a mixture of gaseous chemicals everyday. Without them we would die rather quickly.
Regarding perspectives on longer-term Arctic ice fluctuations: Interesting new paper on low ice coverage 6000 to 7000m years ago…
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081020095850.htm
Has anyone noticed that the NSIDC arctic sea ice extent graph hadn’t been updated since 10/16/2008, then suddenly it was updated to day with a very suspicous looking plateau in the ice growth that does not match what the AMSR-E graph shows? This looks like data manipulation to fit an agenda to me!
REPLY: Let’s not jump to such harsh conclusions, let’s find out first. – Anthony
LOL! So I emailed the NSIDC about their funny looking graph and suddenly it matches the UAF.EDU graph! Now I wish I had saved a copy of their obvious data manipulation for posterity!
Pamela Gray
Still ignoring the point – this will not be a short term or temporary change -you will find CO2 concentration of 450 ppm 24 hours per day , 7 days per week, 52 weeks per year with no escape .
Have you checked up on (for example) the effects of minor ( but long term) alteration of CO2 level in the human blood stream on basic functions like the immune system ?
Chemical and drugs companies would have to go through significant investigations and research before being allowed to introduce a basic change of this amount to any human environment.
But as global warming theory is involved … well, then we can ignore all these normal recent quaint conventions … and just focus on proving mankind will be perfectly OK buring fossil fuels .
And lets not try to consider anything else as a consequence of higher CO2 levels .. like maybe the effect on ocean acidity .
Jim B
There are some interesting thoughts in this forum but I will not trust the information as without intent. I can’t see any major article here that suggests global warming might be correct … which speaks volumes.
It is also interesting analysing the language of many of the appends on the forum – a lot of ‘key manupulation’ words are worked into the comments
‘scare , scam , hysteria , chimera like windmills , garbage … ‘.
It’s a well know technique in certain circles ….
That why I’m agoing to avoid appends here
In line with the comments by hereticfringe about changes to the NSIDC Arctic Ice Extent graph, I have been looking at the NSIDC Antartic Ice Extent graph (because I live in the Sthn Hemisphere). A few days ago it showed the 2008 line breaking above the 1979-2000 average line with a strong uptick. When I checked today, the 2008 line has moved down and now merely touches the 1979-2000 average, with the previous uptick now becoming a downtick?
non-issue. We’re currently at about .045% CO2 in the atmosphere, I believe. This study, http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=2252131 shows negligible effects for concentrations of .7% and 1.2%
Even if it got that high, we’d most likely have adapted long before then.
[…] rising to ruinous levels. Anthony Watts provides a reality check at his invaluable site “What’s Up with That?“ This is the same material, reformatted and condensed — with some additional material to […]
[…] http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/10/18/ice-reality-check-scientists-counter-latest-arctic-record-warm… […]
PeteMagain (15:21) The “occupational safety standard” for CO2 exposure 40 hrs/week is 5000ppm, 1000ppm for schools and 800ppm for offices, from this reference:
http://www.wapa.gov/es/pubs/techbrf/co2.htm