10/31 NEWS: See updated graphs here
UPDATED: 10/22/08 The new images below are even closer
Watching arctic sea ice rebound this year has been exciting, more so since a few predictions and expeditions predicated on a record low sea ice this past summer failed miserably. I’ve spent a lot of time this month looking at the graph of sea ice extent from the IARC-JAXA website, which plots satellite derived sea-ice extent. However, there is another website that also plots the same satellite derived data, the Nansen Environmental and Remote Sensing Center of Bergen Norway, and they have an added bonus: a standard deviation shaded area. For those that don’t know what standard deviation is, here is a brief explanation from Wiki
…standard deviation remains the most common measure of statistical dispersion, measuring how widely spread the values in a data set are. If many data points are close to the mean, then the standard deviation is small; if many data points are far from the mean, then the standard deviation is large. If all data values are equal, then the standard deviation is zero.
In a nutshell, you could say that any data point that falls within the standard deviation area would be considered “within normal variances” for the data set. That said, current sea ice extent and area data endpoints (red line) are both approaching the edge of the standard deviation (gray shading) for both data sets. Here is sea ice area:
Click for a larger image
And here is sea ice extent:
Click for a larger image
Extent has a bit further to go than area, and of course it is possible that the slope will flatten and it may not reach the SD gray area. It’s also possible it may continue on the current trend line. Only nature knows for certain. A complete presentation from Nansen is on this page which is well worth bookmarking.
What I find particularly interesting is the graph comparing the 2008, 2007, and 2006 sea ice extent. It appears 2008 extent has already bested 2006 extent:
with a hat tip to commenter Patrick Henry
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
kim (10:49:36) :
“…. the Colorado University graph of TOPEX/Jason has dropping sea levels…”
I’m not going round in circles with you, you are just repeating blurb from inferior sites than this to get your ‘information’. I am aware of the graph. It only goes up to February/March of 2008 when the strong La Nina was still in effect. the link I mentioned (the one you couldn’t comprehend and thought was suspicious because you couldn’t join the dots) carries on until August.
I have backed up all my claims with references, you have not given a single reference and are not arguing a point but just gainsaying for the sake of it.
Look at the SST anomoly charts and find out for yourself why a PDO does not cause global cooling/warming directly (To help you here is a link to the current map.)http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/PSB/EPS/SST/data/anomnight.10.27.2008.gif , but by its actions on the ENSO. A -ive PDo increases the probability of stronger La Nina’s,+ive increase the probability of stronger La Nina.
As regards the current -ive PDO, many of us who have studied this think that it will be a short-lived event and a return to +ive is possible by the end of 2009. Now that would be interesting!
” Mary Hinge (03:54:43) :
George E. Smith (18:47:28) :
“I recommend Soon/Baliunas over good old wiki anyday.”
Hhmmm, so you recommend 2 astrophysicists over a wide range of scentists from a wide field of earth and physical sciences. OK, lets look at the paper: ”
Absolutely; they reviewed dozens of studies by those wide ranging scientists you mention; so they gave their readers the benefit of all of those studies; not just one or two that might have been used to make a point. So just what is Al Gore’s Scientific expertise, that would lead anyone to prefer any of his utterances over some other “scientist”. I’m not picking on Al, Just making the point that the history of science shows that original authors are often not the best teachers of their own discoveries; which is why review by others knowledgeable in the field (of science) is often beneficial.
I’ve never written a peer reviewed scientific paper on climate science in my life; in fact, for some time no, I have been prohibited from publishing ANY peer reveiwed technical papers, by my employer; whose represenmtative simply stated that”we should not be teaching at this level.” So they prefer trade secrecy over disclosure.
The arrogance of your assumption that qualified scientists whose own specialty may be different from the topic they happen to be writing on; are by inference incompetent to so speak, is simply amazing. It is well known in physics, that the same processes keep showing up in different firelds of science.
I could easily get a PhD degree in Ice cream making, and put a Dr in front of my name. Who is going to complain if I write papers on string theory under that title.
If your intent is to bolster the claim by Dr Michael Mann, that the Mediaeval Warm Period never ever happened; you have an uphill battle. I noticed, you have not commented on Mann’s own admission that his Hockey stick theory is itself not a global phenomenon, but just a local anomaly.
This is pure sophistry.
So it is not something healthy.
….anomnight.10.27.2008
yellow is artificially yellow.
blue is artificially blue.
A clear analysis of the MJO. (please)
FM
[…] extent for all years between 1979 and 2007. Polar bear lovers can breathe a big sigh of relief. See Sea ice area approaching the edge of normal standard deviation for […]
Mary Hinge (16:21:57) You still haven’t explained why your graph doesn’t have the intervening points that mine has, nor why your graph doesn’t connect the dots. Why not? For fear of showing the intervening lower ones? Your graph looks manipulated to engender a certain belief, mine doesn’t. Explain that, please. Until that is explained, I’ll not trust yours, even if it purports to show later, higher, data.
I don’t think you understand the persistent approximately sixty year cycle of the PDO with about half in a cooling phase and half in a warming phase. This pattern can be seen back to the beginning of the Twentieth. The PDO is not likely to return to a warming phase for another twenty years or so.
I referred you to the graph of the NOAA CFS ensemble runs which predict La Nina conditions to mid 2009. Have you looked at it yet?
And again you use logical fallacies, like ‘inferior sites’. My information is good; to attempt to characterize it deficient according to your subjective ratings is not good rhetoric. It is sophistry. Go join Phil. and John Philips in the corner and cogitate over your errors.
==============================================
kim (13:37:59) :
Phil. (13:11:07) By ice extent, last summer did not melt as much as the year before. This is the most commonly used metric. I know you are accomplished at finagling figures to make it seem as if this year’s melt was more extensive than last year, but it is sophistry, and beggars the truth.
Learned a new word? Summer 08 the extent dropped by 9.8090 Mm^2, summer 07 the extent dropped by 9.5233 Mm^2, by your chosen metric you’re wrong!
-Last winter’s Arctic ice maximum is greater than the year before, last summer’s minimum ice extent was greater than the year before, and the freeze up this fall is ahead of the year before. That is scientific evidence.
Of noise!
-There does seem to be a lag before global temperatures reach the Arctic. You have not refuted that falling global temperatures will effect the Arctic.
‘Seems to be’, you’ll have to do better than that.
-Oh, yes, the phase, whether cooling or warming, of the PDO seems to be strongest determinant of global temperature. Your objection about the ‘N Pacific’ does not refute my contention. It is sophistry.
What counts for melting the arctic ice is the arctic temperature, as shown on the site I referenced arctic SST increases in response to -ve PDO. You appear to be the one engaging in sophistry!
Yes, there was slightly more melt (in absolute terms) this year than last. But there are other factors in play.
1.) There was more ice at the start of the 2008 melt season than the 2007 melt season. So even though there was more melt, minimum ice extent was 9% greater this year than last year.
2.) Much of the 2008 ice was “baby ice”, which is more prone to melt. But with a 9% greater extent than last year, there is now more “mature” ice now than there was a year ago.
3.) And as rapid and drastic as ice recovery was last year (it set a 30-year record), this year’s recovery is blowing away last year’s previous record!
That is the bottom line: A considerable increase in ice over the last two years.
To point out (correctly) that more square miles melted this year than last while ignoring the fact that more ice also froze last year is factually correct, but misses the point entirely.
Overall, there is more ice. That’s what counts!
evanjones (20:49:08) :
Yes, there was slightly more melt (in absolute terms) this year than last. But there are other factors in play.
1.) There was more ice at the start of the 2008 melt season than the 2007 melt season. So even though there was more melt, minimum ice extent was 9% greater this year than last year.
And the minimum area was ~3% greater, be more precise when you use the term ‘more ice’, Kim’s just as bad.
2.) Much of the 2008 ice was “baby ice”, which is more prone to melt. But with a 9% greater extent than last year, there is now more “mature” ice now than there was a year ago.
The proper metric for that sort of argument would be area not extent. A considerable part of what melted last year was old ice which had fragmented and dispersed in the Beaufort.
3.) And as rapid and drastic as ice recovery was last year (it set a 30-year record), this year’s recovery is blowing away last year’s previous record!
Really by what measure?
That is the bottom line: A considerable increase in ice over the last two years.
Considerable? I make it a difference of ~0.052 Mm^2 in extent, less than a day’s worth. Of course it’s also thinner.
To point out (correctly) that more square miles melted this year than last while ignoring the fact that more ice also froze last year is factually correct, but misses the point entirely.
I was refuting Kim’s inaccurate statement: “By ice extent, last summer did not melt as much as the year before”, it’s false as noted, it’s not my fault that Kim chose to make that statement.
Overall, there is more ice. That’s what counts!
-The earlier report on this site puts it at 9%, not 3%, at the late September minimum.
-The current level is around 31% higher than last year. (There’s a nice graph on the right side of the site with the graph. Click and see.)
-Last year’s recovery slope was a record since satellite observation began. This year’s is blowing that record all to hell.
If the trend continues we will be well over 2006 levels. We shall see.
evanjones (22:34:19) :
-The earlier report on this site puts it at 9%, not 3%, at the late September minimum.
Area!
-The current level is around 31% higher than last year. (There’s a nice graph on the right side of the site with the graph. Click and see.)
~10% actually, I suggest you click that graph.
-Last year’s recovery slope was a record since satellite observation began. This year’s is blowing that record all to hell.
Really, it looks about the same to me?
If the trend continues we will be well over 2006 levels. We shall see.
Yes, don’t hold your breath.
The 31% ref. was reported on on this site a few days ago. You are right, though; it has narrowed somewhat since.
And from the looks of it, we are back to 2006 levels, already.
And yes, area. That is by far the most important measure. Because it is area, not volume, that affects albedo.
I would still like to know why CT has made greenland bigger. Does anyone have a clue? Thanks, Mike.
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=10&fd=29&fy=1997&sm=10&sd=29&sy=2008
Phil. (19:54:27) I warned people that you were adept at sophistry as well as at science. This last year, the extent of melt was greater than the year before, but the extent at minimum was greater than the year before, which is the metric so much was made of that year. This last summer had a greater extent melt because the winter before had such a dramatic freeze that ice extent at maximum was much greater than the year before. There was a lot more ice to melt, so more did in 2008, but still extent at minimum was greater than in 2007.
All your sophistry cannot demonstrate that the Arctic Ice action of the last twelve months suggests a further melting rather than a further freeze-up as we progress into the next few years. Those paying attention see how you mix the use of area and extent to confuse the ignorant, and then throw volume and thickness into the mix. The Arctic, to objective observers, has reversed its 30 trend of progressive melting and is now, apparently, freezing back up.
You should really consider using your impressive sophistical tools to pursue the truth rather than obfuscation in defense of AGW.
=======================================
Phil., you are following the party line, though. In 2007 when extent was such a minimum, that was ballyhooed. In 2008, as soon as it became apparent that the minimum of the year before would not be reached, we were treated with lots of stories about ice area, and ice volume, and polar bears, for God’s sake. You should be ashamed of yourself for participating in this sham.
==============================================
On ice volume too, I suspect there was less volume loss this year than the previous year, because a lot more of what melted this year was thin first year ice rather than the older thicker ice of the previous year. You’ve doubted me on this point, and I’m not sure of it because I don’t have the figures for ice volume at the beginning and end of both melt seasons, but I remember you didn’t have the numbers, either, Phil. I’d be pleased if you knew where to find those numbers, so we could put this conjecture to rest.
==========================================
Phil. (19:54:27) One last point about this post. It is true that I should have used ‘ice extent at minimum’ for my metric rather than ‘ice extent’, but my imprecision there is not sophistry. On your last three points:
-‘of noise!’ Yes, it may be noise; it may also be the changing point of trends.
-‘seems to be’ I cannot do better than that. No one thoroughly understands the apparent lag, but I’ll bet it somehow represents the time needed for heat to move in the ocean from the tropics to the poles. For instance, and this is conjecture, the melt of the summer of 2007 might represent the giant temperature spike of 1998.
-‘what counts for melting’. I see your point, but mine still stands. A cooler globe will ultimately cool the Arctic.
========================================
kim (02:19:13) :
“….Those paying attention see how you mix the use of area and extent to confuse the ignorant…”
Kim, sorry you’re so confused.
RE: Mike Bryant’s post:
It might be my imagination, but while there’s a little loss of sea ice extent from 1997 to 2008, the ice volume appears much greater (much more dark purples). It’s the same if you compare to 1979:
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=10&fd=29&fy=1979&sm=10&sd=29&sy=2008
“I do agree that the planet is overcrowded.”
Ah, maybe war is the answer after all?
Mary Hinge (05:10:54)
Heh, Mary, no answer for my 19:41:10 comment on 10/29, then?
===================================
The BBC does it again:
Another BS story about the Arctic.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7700387.stm
Spring yet to arrive in the Antarctic?
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_timeseries.png
kim (14:06:35) :
I posted a reply yesterday but it must have been eaten up by the Spam mail blocker, probably too many Urls. So hre is a condensed version
The graph you referred to is this one http://sealevel.colorado.edu/, The graph I referred to is on this site http://climate.jpl.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/index.cfm.
Notice the source of my graph is from the Uni. Col., the same as your graph. See also from the Uni. Col web page about the interruptions and delays in processing. The time scale they gave for the problems to be resolved would explain the gap in the data, presumably they are having delays in updating their website. See, no conspiracy, just the trials and tribulations of science in action!
You will notice anyway from the Uni Col graph that there was a steady rise in SL up to the strong la Nina development in 2007. Another excellent site on this subject is here http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_hist_last_15.html
So now you have the facts maybe you will concede that sea levels are rising?
I had already told you I looked at the ENSO prediction, I still believe (backed up by 5 other forecasts that the ENSO will remain neutral with a small chance of either a weak La Nina or a smaller chance of a weak El Nino. There will certainly not be a strong La Nina such as the recent event a few months ago.
You haven’t given much in the way of references for many of your claims so, as this is election time ” Where’s the beef!”
Mary (05:19:03) You’ve not explained very well the difference between those two graphs, but thanks for the links. If NASA’s source for your graph is CU, why don’t they have the intervening data points that are on my graph? If those last two data points on your graph do have validity, then you may have a point about the sea level, but they look a little orphaned, out there.
Also, if a La Nina can halt the rise in sea level, that surely argues against a lot of stored ‘extra heat’ being found in the oceans.
You still don’t want to look at the NOAA CFS ensemble graph? Please look at it, a reference which I did give you like a hamburger you can eat now and pay for on Tuesday, before you rumble on about weak Los Ninos or Las Ninas.
=======================================
Not many of those model runs in the CFS ensemble show a weak La Nina and even fewer a weak El Nino. Van Loon thinks we’ll have a La Nina this winter, deepening next year.
Your graph at the last link look more like my graph demonstrating at the least a pause in the steady rise of sea level. I’ll agree, we need more data before either of us can claim the direction that sea level is going.
==============================================