Why Third Year Arctic Ice Will Increase Next Year

Guest post by Steven Goddard

In spite of the excess global sea ice area and the freezing Catlin crew, AGW proponents have recently ramped up the rhetoric about “melting ice caps.”  This has been based on a couple of points.

1.  In the southern hemisphere, cracks appeared in a 200 metre thick ice shelf, as seen below.

http://www.ogleearth.com/wissm.jpg

The ice cracked, not melted – but that minor detail didn’t stop nearly every major news outlet in the world from hinting at the fiery and imminent end to the planet.

2.  At the other pole, NSIDC released an interesting statistic that Arctic ice “older than two years” reached a record low this winter.

http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20090406_Figure5.png

So what happened to the three year old ice in 2009?  The answer is simple.  During the summer of 2007, almost all of the 1st year ice melted.  Because of this, there was very little 2nd year ice in 2008, and 3rd year ice in 2009.  The amount of second year ice in 2008 had to be less than or equal to the amount of first year ice at the end of the 2007 summer.  Even if we had entered an ice age in 2008, there would not be much third year ice in 2009.

However, note in the NSIDC graph above that the amount of 2nd year ice (orange) approximately tripled in 2009 relative to 2008, from about 3% to 10%.  The implication being that (barring a radical change in Arctic conditions) the amount of 3rd year ice will likely expand significantly in extent in 2010.  Perhaps even triple in extent.  Simply because the “terrible two” year old ice will be one year older.  The red-brown portion of the graph should increase in height next year, as the 2nd year ice becomes more than 2 years old.  The top of the orange should also move up significantly, as the red-brown region below it pushes it up.

No wonder people are pushing so hard for “climate legislation” in 2009.  Graphs like the one below don’t look very scary, with global sea ice area 683,000 km2 above normal, and Catlin reporting wicked cold – day after day.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/iphone/images/iphone.anomaly.global.png

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Jack Green

If you download the map of the Wilkins Ice shelf and look at it yourself it’a tiny sliver out on the Antarctic peninsula which calves ice all the time. It’s not from the main continent. Cherry picked for a reason-AGW alarmism.

George E. Smith

Also fi you ask Svend Hendriksen nicely, he can send you a nice picture that shows an equally large or larger piece of the Wilkins ice shelf that broke up about 50 years ago, and is regrowing now. It is clearly visible since it is surrounded by a cliff off the last 50year’s precipitation growth of the main shelf.
The wilkins Ice shelf is about -70 S and sticks out into the southern ocean which comes surging through there twise a day to buckle that ice.
George

Ron de Haan

Steven,
Thanks for the article.
The time frame for the Obama Administration to push for CO2 mitigation legislation indeed is closing.
Four factors play a role:
1. A growing number of people refute the concept of Global Warming.
2. Political opposition is growing, especially since the GOP and twelve democrats stated that future cap&trade was not aloud to increase the costs of energy.
3. Industry is involved in Lawsuits against EPA plans.
4. The current cooling trend that has brought us harsh winters.
Also see: http://heliogenic.blogspot.com/2009/04/lines-will-soon-cross-if-he-keeps.html
On a political level it will be a hot summer but not at the Arctic.
Besides that it will be September before we know it.

kim

It’s both amusing and grim the extent to which the alarmists are now reaching for their rhetoric. It is becoming increasingly clear, though, what the answer is to a question I’ve been tormenting myself with for years. No longer is the alarmist campaign the honest result of genuine belief; it is turning out to be an increasingly corrupt endeavour. [snip – leave the brimstone out please] They are certainly damaging the edifice of science, and they are certainly damaging all of us personally, but the poorest of this earth the most. When are the suits for damages to commence, and how can the most egregious be assessed criminal penalties? This is a wrong which must be righted.
========================================

Cathy

Today the operations chief of the Catlin Survey said: “The overall focus is the science, so reaching the Pole is largely irrelevant to this expedition . . . . . . Of course reaching the Pole would be nice. After all the public perception is generally that all Arctic journeys should end there. But for us, it’s all about the science and gathering at the expense of everything else.”
http://www.catlinarcticsurvey.com/headline.aspx?postId=160
Riiiggghhht. All about the ‘science’.
Baloney. It’s ALL about public perception. What kind of fools do they take us for?
I mean helllooooowww! What was with the faked biometrics masquerading as science?
It’s ALL about public perception and they know they’re running out of time as information such as Steven Godddard’s post comes to light.

jorgekafkazar

So where is the Catlin Expedition route on this map? Did they avoid the second year ice? Or did their shPRite radar thingie break down just before they got atop it?

Jack Green

Here’s a good link to the “Ice Bridge”. You can see just how big but small when compared to all of Antartica. It didn’t melt it broke off due to ocean movements. Still they conclude that climate change is causing the shelf to calve into the sea. My question for you is then why is the south pole ice sheets expanded yet the authors keep saying the opposite even from their own data? That’s right politics not science. Someone is editing the author’s papers and adding these statements.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/NaturalHazards/view.php?id=37806&src=nha

Jerry Lee Davis

Steve
Thanks for the informative article. If you have any data, I would appreciate a comment on the potential relationship between local sea level (around Antarctica) and cracks such as the one now in the Wilkins Ice Shelf.
It seems to me that either rising or falling local sea level (caused perhaps by local winds) would tend to cause cracks between the grounded ice and the floating ice, as one chunk was lifted or lowered relative to the other.

Jack Green

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/06/sea-level-graphs-from-uc-and-some-perspectives/
I would guess that a foot or two of MSL rise would be enough force to cause great stress on very thick Ice sheets.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but according to the U. of Colorado Sea Level Change site, sea level near the Wilkins Ice Shelf has dropped (evidence of global cooling)over the past year or so.
Would not all that water disappearing from underneath all that heavy ice be just as likely a cause of the cracking ice bridge as anything else?

Jack Green

Here’s another good paper on these ice sheets or shelves.
http://nsidc.org/sotc/iceshelves.html

Jack Green

I agree Jim. A lowering MSL around the ice would cause tension in the Ice sheet and cause more cracks to appear. Someone with more experience than I chime in here. Ice like concrete doesn’t behave well in tension but is very strong in compression as I remember from my Strength of Materials. Correct my thinking?

Jack Green

I’m getting too far away from the title of this topic. Back to ice age (sorry couldn’t resist). Next year most of the ice will be older than two year ice unless of course the Arctic sees another event that breaks up and subsequently allows for flushing of the pieces to lower latitudes to melt.

P Folkens

My nomination for quote of the week from Kim:
“No longer is the alarmist campaign the honest result of genuine belief; it is turning out to be an increasingly corrupt endeavour.”

Matt Bennett

[snip – pointless rant]

Graeme Rodaughan

Will the Catlin expedition become the ultimate Alarmist own goal?

atmoaggie

Anthony would love this…I think. A little OT, well not really. It speaks to our limited, in time, continuous, spatial coverage of sea ice measurements.
I saw this plot posted somewhere else:
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadisst/charts/sea_ice_extent.png
and it made me a little peeved.
We started measuring SST and sea ice extent by IR satellite and microwave sensor, respectively, in 1979 (I think). Not sure how sea ice was effectively measured before then, if at all (the key word being effectively).
In that plot above, there is a huge step change in the data for sea ice extent for every month when there is usually some open water in the Arctic. Any thoughts as to why? Was sea ice extent successfully measured in the 50s and 60s, but only when the Arctic was fairly solidly ice?
Upon that step change, I immediately thought it looked remarkably similar to a lot of the station data posted by Anthony, especially those from a station that was moved. So I guess the question would be, is there any way at all that these guys are comparing apples to apples and the sudden changes in 1979 are real? Any other geophysical data corroborate that?
In answer to the above question, please do not bother with any time series that is populated by data from exceedingly different platforms (such as by proxy, in situ instrumentation and satellite). More than one of our long-term geophysical data time series undergoes a step-change at 1979 for some reason…

kim

Dear Moderator re kim at 17:31:49. I’m sorry to have put you to the work of snipping. I used to say that the only editor I would accept was Steve McIntyre, but I’m very pleased with the moderating at this site.
I regret my reference to hot nether regions. I am certain that the verdict of history will be unpleasant for those most guilty of illicitly arguing the failing paradigm of CO2=AGW. I just wish the jury would hurry up and bring in the verdict. While they are pondering the evidence, the criminal is still running amok.
==========================================

atmoaggie

Thanks, Moderator-person. You are good at what you do.

Matt Bennett

Thank you moderator for your even-handedness (re Kim).

kim

P. Folkens, 18:15:26.
Thanks very much. I’ve worried over this question a lot. I still believe that Gore and Hansen started with the best of intentions, but they’ve not paid enough attention to the road signs along the way and are now leading us to ‘hot nether regions’.
Last year I howled when Gore announced a $300,000,000 alarmist ad campaign, financed by ‘anonymous and internet donors’. I’m perfectly aware of the desire for anonymity among many of the most eleemosynary among us, but something stinks about that one. You would think that if his donors were motivated by saving the earth they would like to advertise their virtue. Instead, I suspect they wish to conceal their venality. So it isn’t just corrupt scientists eager for the generous research bucks and unending grants. It’s also thieves, attempting to steal our money and our living by appealing to energy use guilt, the precious conceit of a Western elite.
On topic: It seems obvious that the summer after the smallest minimum Arctic Sea Ice extent would have the thinnest ice and least ice volume. Last year at this time, betting that the winds of 2007 would not be replicated and betting that Arctic Sea Ice Extent does somewhat serve as a proxy of global cooling, I predicted that there would be less melt in the summer of 2008 than the year before. What I find interesting is that the Arctic continued to melt until 2007, while ocean and atmospheric temperatures peaked around 2005. But then, the lag can be explained by the fact that there is net energy intake in the tropics and export at the poles. It apparently takes a couple of years for the earth to pump that heat north and south and back out.
==============================================

Philip_B

My question for you is then why is the south pole ice sheets expanded yet the authors keep saying the opposite even from their own data?
There is no reason why Antarctic icesheets cannot gain ice mass while at the same time experience retreat at their terminus, such as the break up of the Wilkins icesheet.
Gaining ice mass reflects a cooler current/recent climate, while melting at the terminus is more reflective of overall climate over a longer period and ocean currents. In the case of the Antarctic Peninsula icesheets, probably since the Holocene optimum, 8,000 or so years ago.
Of interest, is this paper from the wildly pro-AGW British Antarctica Survey, which concludes the largest Antarctic Peninsula icesheet didn’t exist at the Holocene Optimum (called LGM in the paper) and therefore the entire icesheet has grown in the last 8,000 years.
Also note the weasily wording in the last paragraph to hide this embarassing (for the AGW mob) fact.
http://www.geos.ed.ac.uk/homes/des/antarctica_4.html
BTW, there are quite a number of papers which show more or less the same thing for the Antarctic Peninsula icesheets.

CodeTech

kim:
Every time I hear about MASSIVE fundraising efforts “through the Internet”, I know someone’s cheating. There is no way to track that money, and I suspect much of the, er, current “leader”‘s funding came from outside interests as well. Who benefits from having the least desirable individuals in charge of the US? Who benefits from decimating the US economy? Who benefits from pushing the AGW fiction and enforcing “cap and trade” or whatever ridiculous schemes they come up with?
It’s always been about following the money, but making the flow invisible covers up a lot of tracks. Nobody needs to fight a war anymore… just destroy your enemy’s economy, then walk in and buy them.

Philip_B

Would not all that water disappearing from underneath all that heavy ice be just as likely a cause of the cracking ice bridge as anything else?
No. The ice floats on the water and any stresses from lower average sea level would be miniscule.
Ice sheets break up near their terminus irrespective of whether the climate is warming or cooling.
There is a data gap between recent observations which only go back a few decades at most, and the geological proxies which have a resolution of a couple of centuries at best.
So don’t really know if the current ice sheet break up is any way unusual for the period since the LIA. Although as I pointed out above we do know these icesheets have grown dramatically over the last few thousand years, and in all likelyhood we are seeing a short term, small scale retreat within a longer and much larger ice advance.

Graeme Rodaughan

CodeTech (19:05:41) :

It’s always been about following the money, but making the flow invisible covers up a lot of tracks. Nobody needs to fight a war anymore… just destroy your enemy’s economy, then walk in and buy them.

(Sorry for the OT)
CodeTech – The establishment of the international banking system that allows for the rapid movement of capital has enabled the mechanics of economic warfare.
The practice of economic warfare is however a tricky affair. One must be careful not to cut off ones nose to spite ones face.
For example, China currently holds a lot of US Government Bonds and is more or less funding the current bailouts. Should it stop buying or seek to redeem the bonds, the US runs out of Credit and the US Economy crashes, or the US Govt starts printing money big time and the economy still crashes – but a little bit later. However the US constitutes 30% of the Chinese export market and to lose 30% of it’s export market could well kill Chinese growth and unleash internal social unrest that would threaten the Communist party hegemony.
It’s all a bit like the MAD doctrine from the cold war.

Graeme Rodaughan

CodeTech (19:05:41) :

It’s always been about following the money, but making the flow invisible covers up a lot of tracks. Nobody needs to fight a war anymore… just destroy your enemy’s economy, then walk in and buy them.

(Sorry for the OT)
While not believing in conspiracy theories, there are certainly orgasnised elements working within the AGW movement. A possible economic motivation is “Who owns the means to produce energy in the developed world – and will destroying the current means and producing a new means shift the ownership?”
I.e. Are the interested parties who are attempting to shift the ownership of energy production away from the current owners to themselves, thus effecting a major transfer of power and wealth?
I don’t know – but I suspect that this might be a core motivation for some AGW Backers.

John F. Hultquist

Steven,
This is an interesting approach and presentation. So let us hope that no radical event happens to negate this.
The concept is a bit like population pyramids for a society or nation when something happens such as famine, war, or disease that takes a high number of a certain cohort away, or the reverse, when some subset undergoes an unusually large increase — illegal immigrations and young males come to mind. Then tracking the cohort that has decreased or increased, over time, allows planning for the changes. As the baby boomers aged new schools where needed. Now their looming retirements have to be planned for, and so on.
So, these ideas work for the ice – the other day someone was calling first year ice “baby ice” and so on. The main difference is that with the ice it is a short and sometimes violent activity. Was it you that said there is probably no ice up there over 5 years old? This probably doesn’t get mentioned often enough. I wonder what the oldest ice is there today and what it might have been in the past. Did it flush out as regularly during the maximum of the ice ages or even the Little Ice Age. Was there, say, 15 or 25 year old ice?
I’ll guess a lot of people have never thought about this regular freeze-age-flush system. Coupled with the time-lapse we viewed this week, this is a really interesting phenomenon.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
O/T but Fox News has a crazy ice story:
Global sea levels could rise 10 feet in 50 years if the Antarctic and Greenland ice caps rapidly melt, a new study suggests.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,516456,00.html

Antonio San

This is in fact one of the questions Walt Meier did not answer. Indeed it is clear that periodical melt occur and that arctic sea ice never really grows old. In 1980 ice 7 y or older represented only 20% or so of the total. Yet where is the ice that has seen Admundsen walk? Gone of course and without CO2 or Global Warming’s help. But that is not alarmist.
Also Walt Meier did not answer the question about the correlation between arctic sea ice decline and the climatic shift initiated in the 1970s well demonstrated by the atmospheric circulation patterns and the switch to a rapid mode of circulation described by Marcel Leroux and documented by his students and others. The inflexion point is quite brutal and independent of any CO2 curve. The fact no journalist would 1) mention these studies 2) confront Meier or Serreze -who cannot avoid mentioning atmospheric circulation patterns in their reports- is baffling. This is another example of the media being so unfriendly to AGW… not.

Graeme Rodaughan

John F. Hultquist (19:47:53) :

~~~~~~~~~~~~~
O/T but Fox News has a crazy ice story:
Global sea levels could rise 10 feet in 50 years if the Antarctic and Greenland ice caps rapidly melt, a new study suggests.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,516456,00.html

Love the “If”.
“If “ hostile, predatory aliens land next week, it is predicted that 50% of Humanity will be killed and eaten after one month…
It’s the ultimate “cover my behind”, “get out of jail free” card.
How about some real predictions like, “The 2009 summer Arctic Ice extent will be below the 2007 summer ice extent.” – nice and testable.

Bill Illis

The first year ice is not going to melt if the surface of the Arctic ocean doesn’t get above -2.0C. If it gets to -0.5C, then only the multi-year ice will survive.
Normally it gets to about -1.5C by early September and then starts declining afterward so we will have to see.

kuhnkat

Phillip_B,
“No. The ice floats on the water and any stresses from lower average sea level would be miniscule.”
At the shore, the ice is grounded. As in, the glacier flows into the ocean. That is why it is called an Ice Shelf and NOT Sea Ice .Changing sea level WILL stress the ice where the glacier pushes into deep enough water to start floating. The ice shelf is somewhat wedge shaped toward land as the sea water melts the underside of the glacier. The further out it is pushed, the more is melted. At the same time, there will be an accumulation of snow on top that increases the thickness above the sea and adds to the stress.
The area of the Wilkins Ice Shelf experiences 10 foot waves regularly. Not hard to see that there would be larger and smaller waves, not to mention the high variability of of the background sea level!!

KimW

“Would not all that water disappearing from underneath all that heavy ice be just as likely a cause of the cracking ice bridge as anything else?”
At approx 3mm/year sea level change, any such change would be within the plastic flow of the ice – after all, it had to flow to push out onto the sea – but as mentioned above, the two tides a day plus wave action will stress the ice past its breaking point. Key point here, glossed over by the MSM, is that the ice just keeps flowing from the land onto the sea, breaking off and being replaced – ALL THE TIME. Talking to some friends, I found that I could not, repeat not, get that point across and it’s implications compared to them listening to a sound byte from the TV. That sinks in, but not reasoned argument.

CodeTech

Graeme:
(Also sorry about the OT)
While I’m also not a conspiracy theorist, I’m also totally aware that huge multimillion dollar funding raised by “Internet” is going to be totally bogus. And I’m not actually advancing some far out AGW conspiracy because I think following the origin of that self-propagating delusion will be clear in hindsight. I expect many, many well-meaning people will be shaking their heads over the next 5-20 years and wondering what the heck they were thinking.
Isn’t it amazing that most people who attempt to raise huge $$$ via “Internet” fail miserably even with a pristine cause, but certain well-placed groups can “magically” pull it off with little or no fanfare. It is unfortunate that that does sound like a “conspiracy”, but I’m extremely familiar with computers and the Internet. It just plain doesn’t happen the way we’re being told.
And organized elements in the AGW movement? Definitely. Anyone with huge money can easily make even more. Just find a “cause” that the rubes will embrace, and the best part is they will defend even the most outrageous and ridiculous claims for you. All you have to do is get things started. I have been amazed as I’ve watched this one unfold. People who should know better are completely and totally convinced. (and I’m done with this one now)

philincalifornia

KimW (20:52:43) :
Try polar bear population theory. I’ve found that “complex concepts”, such as sea ice extent, logarithmic CO2 forcing, etc. are way beyond the average pretend plant-saver.
Ask your friend(s) if polar bear populations are increasing or decreasing. After the inevitable answer … send them any random link that has the facts.
It has definitely been a wake-up call for many people with whom I’ve had earlier useless discussions.

anna v

I still wonder why nobody has given a coherent link of the tidal effect on ice at the poles.
Somebody said there are 16m tides in the arctic. When we had a 6.3 richter earthquake in my region, a part of the mountain fell 6 meters. A 16 meter tide pushing up and down should be making icecubes of the arctic :).
What are the tides in the antarctic,particularly when the moon has a far north inclination? 40cm is the number for bulk on earth, but what about in the region? How is the land approach at the bottom?
Please, if anybody has a link, post it.

Ohioholic

“It seems to me that either rising or falling local sea level (caused perhaps by local winds) would tend to cause cracks between the grounded ice and the floating ice, as one chunk was lifted or lowered relative to the other.”
I would tend to think that lower sea levels would be more helpful in the breakage of ice. If sea-levels rose, the ice would have more support, and there would be a ridge at the point of break from the ice being smashed together. If sea levels fall, gravity takes over and the ice snaps off from it’s own weight.

James S

There is one thing that we can be certain about next year – and that is that, all of a sudden, there will be a focus on the worrying lack of ice older than three years.
Anybody remember seeing third year ice mentioned last year?

Frederick Michael

The latest AMSR-E plot shows this year breaking out from the previous years.
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent.png
This breakout should continue as the difference between this year’s sea ice and the 1979-200 average is entirely due to the Sea of Okhotsk.
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_daily_extent_hires.png
This difference will disappear over the spring, as the Okhotsk ice always vanishes. Since this ice is separate and won’t contribute to the summer extent, the 2009 extent could converge on the 1979-2000 average.
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png
If that happens, this could be the year that the whole AGW hoax collapses. Gore and his minions have been unambiguous about arctic sea ice vanishing completely in the near future. A full, 100% recovery would stick it to them good.
The next step is lawsuits over their profiteering. Anyone who actually bought carbon credits will have standing to sue. Their over the top rhetoric and suppression of dissenting views will hurt them in court.
Will this be fun or watt? Where can I buy carbon credits from Al Gore now so that I’ll be able to join the class action suit later?

Mike McMillan

The ice in the photo should be 25 to 30 meters above the waterline, if the shelf is 200 meters thick. Since the water in the opened channels is freezing over heavily, melting can’t be the cause.

Ohioholic

I meant to add that the ridge in the gravity scenario would be on the bottom side of the fracture because that is where the ice is smashed together.

AEGeneral

Thank you for this blog post (Steven), and thanks for all of the informative comments by the readers here. Sometimes, those of us who work in other fields just need it spelled out for us in terms that are easy to understand (call me a student of “Climate for Dummies,” I won’t be insulted 🙂 ).
My own personal experience has been that the most-used arguments by those who believe in AGW but don’t follow the subject daily as I do revolve around polar bears and melting ice at the poles.
This gives me a lot of new material to work with next time the subject comes up, and I’m all about instilling doubt in AGW one person at a time. It’s effective when you have a lot of participants, especially since this nonsense has spread like a virus at local bars and restaurants across the country.

Graeme Rodaughan

CodeTech (21:30:22) :
Graeme:
(Also sorry about the OT)
… (and I’m done with this one now)

CodeTech – Agreed. Also done. Back to the main thread.

Terry J

Isn’t this all a bit silly?
Steve is probably right for all the right reasons. And isn’t the top 5 meters or so of arctic ocean water constructively “fresh” water? Or at least considerably less salty than your typical ocean water?
Some years in the summer the wind flushes a lot of ice out, and some years it stacks it up like cordwood. In the ’70’s the barge traffic from Seattle to Prudhoe Bay was constructively shut down by ice. A few barges with very large (1,200 tons and up) modules pushed through, but my recollection is that all of them were damaged. They did get them unloaded, but they overwintered in the north.. The balance of the cargo went to Seward and was fed north over the winter. Believe that was 1975, but others may have a better date.
In 2008 the common refrain in Alaska in June and July was “quite a mild winter we are having.” This year looks to follow the same pattern, but it seems to have been colder so far.
The Pacific is colder and the sun is quiescent. Anyone have a source of warming?

Mark T

John F. Hultquist (19:47:53) :
O/T but Fox News has a crazy ice story:
Global sea levels could rise 10 feet in 50 years if the Antarctic and Greenland ice caps rapidly melt, a new study suggests.

What’s sad is that they are so often accused of being in the tank for the oil industry, conservatives, republicans, and the great big AGW denialist machine. Accused by those that never actually bother to read their news, but accused nonetheless.
Journalism just plain sucks these days.
Mark

AKD

I would love to see a 3D model of the Wilkins ice shelve before and after the latest event.

Steven Goddard

Ted Scambos at NSIDC presented a theory that these ice shelf breakups were due to surface meltwater seeping down in the cracks in the ice. That is clearly not the case here, as there is no evidence of melt on the surface.
This breakup was mechanical in nature.

Steven Goddard

anna,
The Catlin site had a good discussion of the strong effects of the tides on the ice during the recent full moon.

James S (21:52:05) :
There is one thing that we can be certain about next year – and that is that, all of a sudden, there will be a focus on the worrying lack of ice older than three years.
Anybody remember seeing third year ice mentioned last year?

Yes here (fig 4): http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2007.html#22August
and here: http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2008/040708.html

Jack Simmons

Frederick Michael (21:52:14) :

The latest AMSR-E plot shows this year breaking out from the previous years.
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent.png
This breakout should continue as the difference between this year’s sea ice and the 1979-200 average is entirely due to the Sea of Okhotsk.
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_daily_extent_hires.png
This difference will disappear over the spring, as the Okhotsk ice always vanishes. Since this ice is separate and won’t contribute to the summer extent, the 2009 extent could converge on the 1979-2000 average.
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png
If that happens, this could be the year that the whole AGW hoax collapses. Gore and his minions have been unambiguous about arctic sea ice vanishing completely in the near future. A full, 100% recovery would stick it to them good.
The next step is lawsuits over their profiteering. Anyone who actually bought carbon credits will have standing to sue. Their over the top rhetoric and suppression of dissenting views will hurt them in court.
Will this be fun or watt? Where can I buy carbon credits from Al Gore now so that I’ll be able to join the class action suit later?

Based on the timing of Hansen’s and Gore’s dire predictions, I’ve come to the conclusion the AGW environmental-investment complex took a calculated risk this year. They were hoping for a big push by the current administration on some sort of cap and trade program, along with restrictive EPA regulations. To succeed, one of the key elements in all this was some cooperation from the climate. As you pointed out, nature is not cooperating.
We will have two years to watch climate trends unfold before any attempt can be made to initiate cap and trade legislation. This year is finished, as even the NYT has observed.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/11/us/politics/11climate.html?scp=5&sq=climate%20change%20legislation&st=cse
Next year is an election year. Nothing will happen then.
Gore’s prediction for a missing northern ice cap in the next five years will be hard to explain away, even for true believers. Hansen’s ‘tipping point of no return’ within this term of Obama should be fairly easy to weasel out of. He could even claim it has already occurred.
Of course, as you pointed out, if lawsuits are filed for the return of money invested in carbon credits based on fraudulent science, people will be facing subpoenas to appear in court. It will be difficult for Gore, Hansen and others to avoid debates at that point.
I agree with your premise, but the timing is a little short. I would give it within five years, sort of painting myself into the same sort of corner Gore and Hansen are already in. But then again, I don’t have the sort of skin in the game they have.
Things could move a little move faster, as you feel they will. There are more desperate lawyers than in the past.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/12/business/12law.html?scp=1&sq=layoffs%20lawyer&st=cse
Perhaps they’ll take a look at the AGW industry?
In all events, these things will provide a lot of amusement.

Juraj V.

A bit OT – from today’s online news: “Scientists from Arizona University tested pine trees growth in a giant greenhouses, exposed to normal and 4°C higher temperatures, which are predicted to happen in 2100. In dry conditions, the pine tree kept in higher temperature died sooner. It means, in future even shorter dry period would kill trees.”
These guys are desperate. Btw, there is one famous “we-have-to-get-of-this-medieval-warm-period” professor working at Arizona University.