Guest post by Steve Goddard
Yesterday, Dr. Walt Meier from NSIDC again graciously updated us about the NSIDC sensor problem, and also about his current thinking with respect to polar ice trends. The key concepts being that Arctic ice continues to decline, and that Arctic and Antarctic ice are separate entities – so the current near normal global sea ice area “has no meaning in terms of climate change.” This article examines both of those concepts.
NSIDC is still having sensor problems on their satellite, as seen below on 2/28/09. Note the speckled white areas, and the large dark gray sliver in the Sea of Okhotsk near the top.
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_daily_extent_hires.png
Fortunately there is another ice extent data source, AMSR-E which has not suffered sensor problems and their data is unaffected. NSIDC also explains on their web site that “AMSR-E has a lower absolute error” than the NSIDC sensors, even when functioning properly. AMSR-E (below) has been recording sea ice since 2002. The maximum ice extent for 2009 (red) and 2008 (orange) are both in the top three on the AMSR-E record, at more than 14M km2. The only year which had greater ice extent than the last two years was 2003. So clearly we are on a recent trend of higher Arctic ice maximums, which is a fact that is rarely if ever reported by the main stream media. Also note in the NSIDC map above, all of the ice basins are close to the 1979-2000 normal.
If there is a dramatic downwards trend in maximum Arctic extent, it certainly isn’t visible in either the map or the graph.
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent.png
The NSIDC graph below also shows Arctic ice extent nearly back to the 1979-2000 mean.
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png
Turning our attention to Antarctica. Dr, Hansen predicted in 1980 that ice loss in Antarctica would be symmetrical to the Arctic. But the current thinking, as expressed by Dr. Meier, indicates that view is no longer valid. In fact, NSIDC data shows that Antarctic ice extent has actually increased substantially, as seen below.
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/effects/downloads/Challenge_chapter2.pdf
It was reported last week that the IPY (International Polar Year) released a study claiming that both polar ice caps are melting “faster than expected.” Given that NSIDC shows Antarctica gaining ice at a rapid pace, I find myself surprised that IPY would release a study saying exactly the opposite. But then again, an IPY official reportedly forecast that last summer (2008) might have an “ice free Arctic.”
Columnist George Will reported that overall global sea ice area is normal, and was correct. Dr. Meier confirmed that on January 1 global sea ice levels were normal.
Walt Meier (16:04:59)
1. He (George Will) was factually incorrect on the date that he reported his “daily
global ice” number. However, he was merely out-of-date with his facts
(it was true on Jan 1, but wasn’t 6 weeks later).
The UIUC graph shows global ice levels well within one standard deviation of the 1979-2000 mean. Dr. Hansen was correct that according to global warming theory, both poles should be losing ice – though we know now it theoretically should be happening more slowly in the Antarctic. Yet 20 years later we actually see the Antarctic gaining ice, which is contrary to Dr. Hansen’s theory, contrary to IPY claims, and probably contrary to Steig’s questionable temperature analysis .
The main trend I see in polar ice is an increasing disconnect between hype and reality. Given that the AO (Arctic Oscillation) has been neutral this winter and polar drift has been less than last year, I forecast that the summer Arctic ice minimum in 2009 will show more ice than either of the last two years. What do you think?
“including ones strong enough to lead to a runaway instability on Venus, do not violate the Laws of Thermodynamics.”
Yeah, riight, the laws of Thermodynamics are different on other planets, pfft.
The laws have got us thus far in our understanding of TD/physics , please unlighted us(me) on your bizarro world of physics( if it’s fourth law… just don’t go there) .
And when will the perpetual motion machine be on sale? More energy out then you put in? WoW, even better then a perpetual motion machine. A CO2 reactor that gives out more then it takes in and all this in a open system, who’da thunk?
Closed system transfers energy to and from its surroundings, the earth is not a closed system and radiates the heat out into the cold, cold space. Hot to cold and not the other way around.
I’ve worked in the heating field (and water management and back flow testing) for many years and had to study physics laws(among others) to understand transfer and circulation of heat to air/water in a closed system.
Cloud cover is the only mechanism that will slow down the heat transfer from escaping out of our atmosphere AND at the same time block out energy coming in from the sun, that’s about as close to a greenhouse scenario as it gets. The rest of your speculations on Venus are absurd and needing of real scientific proof, not some cockamamie run away CO2 Hansonism comparison with Earth and Venus.
The atmosphere is denser on Venus and so are the gas concentrations(CO2, from the sun), and of course the closer proximity to the sun don’t hurt.
Abstract-I do have a hunch that when we were centrifugally spun out from our sun. We(earth) were connected or formed at the sometime as Venus, spun out and separated. One spinning one way and the other going the other. Like a molten eddy that can spin in two different directions coming from the mouth of a river, counter spinning, one left(away from the sun) and one right(closer to the sun), the moon being a piece of the slag left over from this event and still faces the sun religiously.
Venus was never a planet meant to have life, the sun has been cooling since the dawn of it’s birth in the galaxy, not heating, so it never had the chance, it’s been too hot. Earth is right in that sweet spot to form water(H2O)/CO2/salts/minerals/amino acids, to mention a few, that our sun bless’s on us.
Lance says:
And yet, that is not what I said, is it? Try reading the sentence please.
You know not of what you speak. Try looking in the thread on the greenhouse primer for posts about “Gerlich” to find out why their claim that the greenhouse effect somehow violates the Laws of Thermodynamics are totally bogus. The fact that heat flows from hot to cold does not rule out the possibility that the presence of an IR-absorbing atmosphere can cause that to earth to lose heat at a slower rate than in its absence. All the flows are still from hot to cold.
Too old a blog for many to see this
http://www.gpsl.net/climate/data/ijis-np-sea-ice-2009-03-05a.png
Peak ice date on filtered data are: –
12th Mar 2003
05th Mar 2004
04th Mar 2005
07th Mar 2006
05th Mar 2006
11th Mar 2008
Looking at the graph, 13th/14th seems about right for 2009
Since I have the data, twiddle,
Here is a mimic of the parallel year graph shown by the data providers but with the wobbles removed.
I think it makes the situation clearer. Ice extent now seems to be following 2004
http://www.gpsl.net/climate/data/ijis-np-sea-ice=parallel-2009-03-05b.png
Well it’s about a week later and the ice is not, unsurprisingly, anywhere near the average, in fact it lost a huge chunk yesterday with the preliminary JAXA result.
I wonder if Michael Asher has posted anything about this at his blog on Dailytech?
Regards
Andy
Bill Illis where did you get the data for those ice graphs?
Ice extent continues to decline, now approaching the 2006-2007 level. In fact it’s running away so fast from the 1979-2000 average it makes you think even it is trying to show how Mr Will is wrong 😀
Regards
Andy
What is the relevance of this expedition that is measuring the ice along some route? Is this route arbitrary? If not, what was the criteria for picking it? What will this data be compared against? Is there prior data from the same location? Does anyone know what the thickness should be? Will this be a yearly event now? Is the data the team is sending back daily being reported somewhere? If not, what’s the secret? Any answers? I won’t hold my breath so take your time.