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
Arctic ice now 21% more than last year.
Jeff Alberts
Where do you get information showing that we are at 0.045% now ?
The 2008 measurement from Hawaii are around 387 ppm and we seem to be adding a couple of ppm each year . So (unless something changes) I think we’ll have to wait until about 30 years or more to find out if we’re OK at 0.045%
The article show that for a maximum of 23 days at .7% and 1.2% (in the experimental constraints) there appeared to be no immediate problems – I’m not sure if there was any longer term post experiment monitoring .
But … this isn’t the experiment we’re going to run .
We’re going to permamently expose all life on this planet to an atmosphere containing a measurabley different concentration of CO2 .
What are the long term effects ? (Smoking doesn’t seem verey harmful until you continue for many years )
“Even if it got that high , we’d most likely have adapted by then”
If we go as high as .7% (assuming 2 ppm added to the atmoshpere) and starting at about 390ppm then we’re talking about 150 years . I doubt that humans evolve that rapidly (the space of 4 to 5 generations) without some significant factor that forcibly removes certain genes from the n pool.
PeteMAgain (15:21:05) :
We would prefer these guys to be awake, unimpiared and aware:
“Data collected on 10 nuclear-powered attack submarines indicate an average CO2 concentration of 4,100 ppm with a range of 300-11,300 ppm (Hagar 2003)”
my previous at 04:21:23- “unimpaired” (rather obviously bad smelling mistake)
less so-
PeteMAgain (02:51:01) :
“We’re going to permanently expose all life on this planet to an atmosphere containing a measurably different concentration of CO2 .”
If we burn all the easy and all the hard to get fossil fuel we will approach 0.09% concentration in the atmosphere in around 250 years from date at current progress if there is no increase in uptake by the oceans, which will then be a minuscule amount less alkaline than at present, or other sinks such as increased biomass and increased biomass extent. Contrary to what gore and hansen would like to have you think the air and oceans have both been there before.
If we don’t crush our economies and fail to research our next “fuels” in the line reading; sticks/dung, coal/oil, oil/nuclear…..
The above figures are rough due to government burying of data, estimated fuel usage, projected time to new energy technology and my general mean streak.
Regarding the effect of higher CO2 levels:
It is my understanding that there is a lot of chemical data which shows CO2 levels were above current levels in the 1940’s. However this data was thrown out, because it was collected too close to urban areas.
This suggests to me that people in urban areas have been living their lives breathing air with 450 ppm CO2 for several generations.
The question then becomes: Have such people suffered any sort of brain damage?
Let us begin by examining who they vote for, and whether they believe in Global Warming…
Terry Ward , Caleb
Thank you – these answers are helpful in the context of my question about where have we seen long term exposure to raised CO2 levels.
I now have some ‘pointers’ for where I can search for further real information.
Although , Caleb, I would point out that global warming has occured over the past decades . It’s the cause that is the issue of the debate on this forum .
To PeteMAgain:
You are ASSUMING somehow CO2 will continuing to increase for hundreds and hundreds of years: It is now going up at about 1% per year – from what we were TOLD was a pre-industrial average of 280 ppm(volume) to today’s 370 ppmv. But actual pre-industrial revolution CO2 measurements were all over the graph (from 150 ppm to over 380 ppm), and it was the AGW (or MMGW) propagandists were decided that 280 was the right value.
So, how many years will it take for CO2 to increase to problematic level?
Well,
you are assuming today’s CO2 increase is almost entirely man-made.
You are assuming that today’s fossil-driven energy systems will stay the same for hundreds of years into the future.
You are assuming that CO2 levels in the atmosphere are causing increase in temperatures.
You are blindly assuming that an increase in CO2 is “bad” – ignoring the 17% – 27% INCREASE in plant growth (food, fodder, fuel, furniture, framing, and paper) caused by today’s higher CO2 levels.
You are deathly afraid of some “poisonous” effect in higher CO2 levels that has NOT been found in ANY cases where actual CO2 levels have been lived in for for long periods of time.
You are ignoring the KNOWN deadly effects of colder weather, less fuel, less clothes, poorer economies, poorer food, and less energy on PEOPLE’S LIVES. (Do you want thousands of REAL PEOPLE to DIE in order that CO2 levels be artificially reduced by politicians – for no scientific reason?
How many people should be immediately killed to reduce your groundless fears?
A few hundred? A few thousand? How many million do you want to die in the cold and dark, seeing their children starving to death needlessly because you fear CO2 for no reason? Is 6 million enough? 16 million? 160 million? 1600 million?
Temperatures increased roughly 1/2 of ONE degree in 27 years (1908-1935) – while CO2 increased steadily.
Temperatures decreased roughly 1/5 of ONE degree in 10 years (1935-1945) – while CO2 increased steadily.
Temperatures decreased roughly 2/5 of ONE degree in 27 years (1945-1972) – while CO2 increased steadily.
Temperatures increased roughly 1/2 of ONE degree in 24 years (1974-1998) – while CO2 increased steadily.
Temperatures decreased roughly 1/5 of ONE degree in 10 years (1998-2008) – while CO2 increased steadily.
That ain’t much of a correspondence between CO2 increases and temperature. And 1/2 of ONE degree ain’t much of a temperature increase.
Technical progress:
By the way, if in 1908, you told me to build a runway for an airplane, I would have told you it was stupid: Airplanes could just barely turn in a controlled circle, could only fly for 20 minutes, could land in any 200 foot straight spot on any farmer’s grassy pasture anywhere in the country, and could carry (at best!) one passenger. And that one passenger was himself killed a few weeks later in a crash.
But 45 years later, I needed a 12,000 foot runway, with an 8 foot thick reinforced concrete foundation 300 feet wide, graded and grooved absolutely flat just so a 300,000 pound bomber capable of flying non-stop around the world at close to the spped of sound could land.
But you ASSUME that we will still need fossil fuels 400 years from now, and you FEAR highly exaggerated effects from continuously burning fossil fuels based on computer predictions so wrong that their results are invalid two, ten, and twelve years in the future – but are somehow magically correct 400 years in the future, and you IGNORE all benefits from higher temperatures and higher CO2 levels.
Robert Cook
How long will it take to get to a problamatic level ? This is a very good question – we don’t know BECAUSE no-one has actually researched this .
I am not assuming CO2 is bad (I like the greenhouse effect that keeps this planet from freezing) . However IGNORANCE of the effects of long term exposure to doubled CO2 concentrations is bad . And since the whole world will be involved in this experiment then the Precautionary Principle should be the starting point .
Unfortunately you are just plain wrong when you assert there is no correspondence between CO2 and temperature. There is definitely some sort of correspondence between CO2 levels and temperature (and has been for many millions of years ) – however I believe the ‘sceptics’ agument is that this is a lagging indicator. Just because it doesn’t jump to your immediate requirement that everything has to happen in your immediate time frame this doesn’t mean much.
1/2 of one degree ain’t much of a temperature increase – again you are just plain wrong here . A small number don’t sound much unless put in context of the enormity of the change. Please lift Mount Everest by an half an inch …
I highlighted earlier the ‘use of language’ on this forum – your arguments follows the same pattern of trying to ‘win by denegration’ . Simply add some of the usual ‘bullet words’ like propoganda ,poverty , ‘ignore benefits’ and this makes appends sound like credible information or that there is a logically connected argument. For someone so quick to expose MMGW propoganda I’m suprised you are not aware of your own contribution.
I’m simply asking a stright forward question – who can show me why having more CO2 in the atmosphere for the whole world is not something to worry about . (Backed up by good long term research and data – not by arguments about world poverty, no global warming , collapsing economy , IPCC conspiracy, sunspots, and Elvis-Presley-isnt-dead… )
PeteM (11:20:05) :
The onus of evidential expression of your hypothesis lies with you. It is your hypothesis. Claim it with research and proclaim your findings by publishing.
Terry Ward
No
it’s up to those changing my environment in a non reversible way global to prove that this won’t harm me.
I’d be making the same point is someone was suggesting hte price of nuclear power was small regualr increase in background radiation.
PeteM (09:57:21) :
No.
You are entitled to hypothesise. Until you provide evidence it remains a hypothesis.
Your claim that the most crucial component of the carbon cycle upon which all life on our planet depends is dangerous at levels above where we currently are (this has not killed us but has increased the biomass of the planet by over 6% since measurements began) and “non reversible” (though its concentration in the atmosphere has been up to 10 times higher in the past) is beginning to appear political to me.
I suggest that you do some research and you counter with your opinion. Again.
No one need prove that levels of CO2 many times higher than those of the present, regardless of origin, may kill any form of life on Earth as those levels have been achieved many times and sustained for geological epochs. The varied fauna and flora that surround us are testament to its efficacy, vitality and utter necessity. We are still here and able to reap its benefits.
My hypothesis is the exact opposite of that which you fear. I believe CO2 may be at an extremely dangerous low level and as temperatures continue to drop there may be a further loss which may endanger humanity through its impact on foodstuffs. I do not ask for proof of this conjecture from any entity.
Fear is the little death.
[…] prediction they get right!). With record cold temperatures being set around the world and the arctic ice now 30% over last year, it truly has been a great year for polar […]
Anthony,
I’ve meen monotoring this graph regularly. It looks like you may soon need to add more historical data to keep it relevant!
Thanks, barbee