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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Others have a different opinion:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/5159086/New-warning-over-catastrophic-sea-level-rise-scientists-claim.html
Jack Green;-)/Philip B;-)/Kuhnkat;-)
Jack, Kuhnkat has put it rather well in layman’s terms. The ice sheet once floating becomes a huge cantilever with large stresses at the support, i.e. where it comes off the substratum. These have to somehow be distributed sufficiently through the remaining ice of finite section or thickness, & ice isn’t homogenous. Think of when you’re doing DIY & you’re trying to measure that gap between Point A & Point B, & your tape measure keeps dipping when its self-weight becomes too much for the basic section to carry it. (That’s partially why they are dished in section). Same thing happens to ice essentially, with variations on a theme! This actually suggests that the ice is moving almost continuosly as it grows!
Philip, sorry to be a pedant, but it is the British ‘Antarctic’ Survey! I know you probably meant that & it was just a typo. Otherwise you’re bang on target with your statement. Fear & panic are the best ways to keep the gravey train moving. Science is a curious subject when it comes to climate, as an engineer, if I were to run around looking at peoples houses pointing out all the cracks in the façades, & striking terror into the owners hearts then getting them to pay me to report on how bad it all is, when in fact most of the cracking is insignificant, I would be struck off in no time at all. Fear = control = money, simple really!
“No wonder people are pushing so hard for “climate legislation” in 2009”.
Good post. IMO it all hinges on the climate conference in Copenhagen later this year. No binding agreement in Copenhagen means no Kyoto 2. No Kyoto 2 means that either the promoters of Catastrophic AGW will have to accept that the planet is irrevocably doomed (according to their world view) and that nothing more can be done to stop it happening (and it will be interesting to see whether they arrange their lives accordingly) or they will have to admit, slowly, grudgingly, that they were wrong and that CAGW is not happening, never was happening and is not going to happen.
Most of what will occur in the media this year, everything from Earth Hour 2009 to the Catlin Expedition, all the stunts and protests, all the calls to action, the prophecies and doomsaying, the tantrums, grandstanding and acting up, will reach a climax just under eight months from now.
Copenhagen, December 2009. Catastrophic AGW’s last stand.
Ron de Haan:
“(…) 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 (…). 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.”
What has always worried me most about all this debate is it’s extreme political polarisation (no pun intended). which means that if you personally reject the diabolising of CO2 and AGW, you immediately find yourself treated as a denying red-necked neo-con (and I don’t get the impression that such is the position of many people on this blog). This has been another very effective way of stifling debate and the worst is that when the AGW movement is finally discredited, most of those supporting the social actions that Obama wants to see in place will go down with it and the red-necks will have finally won. We will have a Monica Lewinsky – type red herring over again with all positive political action paralysed — but not such a laugh and with worse consequences.
AEGeneral:
“the most-used arguments by those who believe in AGW … revolve around polar bears and melting ice at the poles.”
This is the smoke and mirrors effect to distract attention from the relevant topic. And so often, the rationalists get seduced into these arguments too. I think this is the purpose of the Catlin fiasco, for example – to divert the focus to irrelevancies.
What’s happening to the polar bears and the polar ice is very interesting, of course. But it’s got nothing to do with the AGW claptrap. If all the ice melts and all the polar bears drown or die of sunstroke, it would make a difference to the politics of public opinion. But in itself, it would say nothing at all about ‘why’, and in particular whether atmospheric CO2 caused it.
Dear Steve
Can you confirm whether the Wilikins ice shelf has colapsed into the sea?
Anna V:
here is some interesting (real) data and movies about tides and the ice shelfs:
http://www.esr.org/antarctic/RIS_movie.html
Hope this helps,
Jari
I’m sorry, I’ve tried to hold back, but it’s the pedant in me. It’s spelled minUscule! Aaaah, that’s better………
Anna V
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?
The Antarctic tides are peculiar, in that there are rarely more than one high tide and one low tide per day. This is due to the tidal ocean bulge due to the moon (the strongest tide) following the moon’s gravitational attraction around the southern ocean without any interruption due to continental landmasses. Thus at new and full moons, the Antarctic tides are strongest on the day of the syzygy, and for a day or two later.
As the following (tide prediction) data for December 2008 -January 2009 shows, the lunar tides were at their maximum, near either apogee or perigee, with a range of about 1.3 metres (which is of the same order as the tidal range for open ocean, rather than the exaggerated coastal tides we experience here in the UK). This is of course timed close to the southern summer solstice and also near to the perihelion, with the most pronounced solar tides, seen only in the data around first and last quarter, as minute (as little as 10cm) variations between the high and low tides, but here, twice a day.
Ross Island, Antarctica
Units are meters
Thursday Thu 2008-12-11
Low Tide: 0:06 UTC 0.0
High Tide: 12:04 UTC 1.2
Friday Fri 2008-12-12 Full Moon, Perigee
Low Tide: 0:51 UTC -0.1
High Tide: 12:57 UTC 1.2
Saturday Sat 2008-12-13
Low Tide: 1:42 UTC -0.1
High Tide: 13:53 UTC 1.2
Sunday Sun 2008-12-14
Low Tide: 2:33 UTC -0.1
High Tide: 14:52 UTC 1.2
Monday Mon 2008-12-15
Low Tide: 3:21 UTC -0.1
High Tide: 15:49 UTC 1.1
Tuesday Tue 2008-12-16
Low Tide: 4:00 UTC -0.0
High Tide: 16:43 UTC 1.0
Wednesday Wed 2008-12-17
Low Tide: 4:22 UTC 0.1
High Tide: 17:29 UTC 0.9
Thursday Thu 2008-12-18
Low Tide: 4:07 UTC 0.3
High Tide: 18:02 UTC 0.7
Friday Fri 2008-12-19 Last Quarter Moon
Low Tide: 3:04 UTC 0.4
High Tide: 18:04 UTC 0.6
Saturday Sat 2008-12-20
Low Tide: 1:48 UTC 0.4
High Tide: 9:41 UTC 0.7
Sunday Sun 2008-12-21 Solstice
Low Tide: 0:46 UTC 0.3
High Tide: 9:45 UTC 0.8
Monday Mon 2008-12-22
Low Tide: 0:11 UTC 0.3
High Tide: 10:08 UTC 0.9
Tuesday Tue 2008-12-23
Low Tide: 0:07 UTC 0.2
High Tide: 10:38 UTC 1.0
Wednesday Wed 2008-12-24
Low Tide: 0:25 UTC 0.1
High Tide: 11:11 UTC 1.0
Thursday Thu 2008-12-25
Low Tide: 0:57 UTC 0.1
High Tide: 11:47 UTC 1.0
Friday Fri 2008-12-26 Apogee
Low Tide: 1:34 UTC 0.1
High Tide: 12:27 UTC 1.0
Saturday Sat 2008-12-27 New Moon
Low Tide: 2:13 UTC 0.1
High Tide: 13:09 UTC 1.0
Sunday Sun 2008-12-28
Low Tide: 2:50 UTC 0.1
High Tide: 13:51 UTC 1.0
Monday Mon 2008-12-29
Low Tide: 3:23 UTC 0.1
High Tide: 14:33 UTC 1.0
Tuesday Tue 2008-12-30
Low Tide: 3:49 UTC 0.1
High Tide: 15:14 UTC 1.0
Wednesday Wed 2008-12-31
Low Tide: 4:05 UTC 0.1
High Tide: 15:54 UTC 0.9
Thursday Thu 2009-01-01
Low Tide: 4:02 UTC 0.2
High Tide: 16:38 UTC 0.8
Friday Fri 2009-01-02
Low Tide: 3:05 UTC 0.3
High Tide: 17:22 UTC 0.7
Saturday Sat 2009-01-03
Low Tide: 1:58 UTC 0.4
High Tide: 9:23 UTC 0.5
Low Tide: 13:40 UTC 0.5
High Tide: 18:07 UTC 0.5
Sunday Sun 2009-01-04 First Quarter Moon, Perihelion
Low Tide: 1:04 UTC 0.4
High Tide: 8:46 UTC 0.7
Low Tide: 18:11 UTC 0.4
High Tide: 18:30 UTC 0.4
Monday Mon 2009-01-05
Low Tide: 0:08 UTC 0.4
High Tide: 9:05 UTC 0.8
Low Tide: 22:39 UTC 0.3
Tuesday Tue 2009-01-06
High Tide: 9:38 UTC 1.0
Low Tide: 22:02 UTC 0.2
Wednesday Wed 2009-01-07
High Tide: 10:20 UTC 1.1
Low Tide: 23:03 UTC 0.1
Thursday Thu 2009-01-08
High Tide: 11:06 UTC 1.2
Friday Fri 2009-01-09
Low Tide: 0:09 UTC -0.0
High Tide: 11:56 UTC 1.2
Saturday Sat 2009-01-10 Perigee
Low Tide: 1:10 UTC -0.1
High Tide: 12:47 UTC 1.2
Sunday Sun 2009-01-11 Full Moon
Low Tide: 2:06 UTC -0.1
High Tide: 13:39 UTC 1.2
Monday Mon 2009-01-12
Low Tide: 2:55 UTC -0.0
High Tide: 14:29 UTC 1.1
Tuesday Tue 2009-01-13
Low Tide: 3:35 UTC 0.1
High Tide: 15:16 UTC 0.9
Wednesday Wed 2009-01-14
Low Tide: 3:59 UTC 0.2
High Tide: 15:56 UTC 0.8
Data are taken from WXTide32 version 4.7, by Michael Hopper, a free download from http://wxtide32.com
It is probably due to the small tidal range, and infrequency of large tidal variations that allows Antarctic sea ice to form at all. If Antarctica had the sort of tides that are experienced on some north Atlantic coasts near the Arctic circle, like them, Antarctica would be ice free all year round, solely due to tidal motion mixing warmer with colder water.
In the last sentence, replace “…Antarctica would be ice free…” with “…the Antarctic coast would be ice free” thanx
Cold Play,
The picture at the top of the article is of a portion of the Wilkins Ice Shelf. It has cracked at that locations and the ocean between the cracks is refreezing. Ice floats, so the concept of an “ice shelf collapse” doesn’t really make a lot of sense, does it?
Jari, thanks for posting the simulation of the Ross Ice Shelf with tides movie. It’s amazing what we learn by watching it.
I wonder if there is a “atmosphere tide” and how that would affect the climate? Just a stupid thought but might be a factor to add into the many others.
Look at the history.
In the 1930’s early 1940’s they motored all over the NW passage with relative ease.
Then in the later 1940’s it froze up. The cycle will repeat.
Really, what they call science is an embarassment.
I am predicting an increase in Arctic ice this year.
Based on:
La Nina
Cooling PDO
Lack of Sunspots
etc.
Since we are discussing ice once again, I wanted to comment on a statement in the BBC article about the Catlin ice measurements
as posted on 14 April here in WUWT –
Catlin Arctic Survey gives up on ice radar – “much less likely to reach pole”
The statement in the BBC article was:
“Figures indicate an average ice thickness of 1.15-3.75m, much of which might be expected to melt between June and September.”
The implication being that those values were ‘thin’ ice.
However, those values are almost exactly what might have been predicted using the submarine ice data values from 37 US Navy and 2 Royal Navy submarine cruises covering over 120,000 kilometers of cruise track from a 26-year period from 1975 to 2000. Data is from the archive at the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC). See article and especially Figure 3
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/pscweb2002/pubs/Wensnahan%20etal.(2007)EOS-SubData.pdf
The mid point of the Catlin data (1.15-3.75m) is 2.45m, almost exactly the median of the submarine Spring ice values in Figure 3. That range of values equals the heart of the submarine data distribution. Before the Catlin expedition set out, one might have predicted they would find typical ice thickness of 1 to 4m if the ice was similar to that seen in the many submarine cruises. One note, the submarine data is ‘draft’ ice thickness, draft meaning that portion below the water line.
So to my eye, the ice measurements from Catlin appear to be pretty normal, and in fact one might say that they are finding ice thickness similar to historical values going back to 1975.
Jack Green:
I wonder if there is a “atmosphere tide” and how that would affect the climate?
In hurricane storm surge modeling, the atmospheric pressure deficit accounts for 1 or 2 feet of water surface levels in the strongest of hurricanes. Wind-driven momentum and mass meeting land accounts for most of the rest. For a Arctic low, certainly smaller as the ambient pressure is reduced there to begin with. This is a component, but really small potatoes compared to the tides.
Also, in places like the Gulf of Mexico, ~1 foot can be attributed to the steric effect in the summer (expansion of warmer water).
Something else to keep in mind is that we are measuring a sea level fall (not rise) in Alaska of ~20 mm per year. This is really because the land is in glacial rebound mode. So what if all of the land around the Arctic sea were rising? And what impact would that have on Arctic sea ice area? This is probably small potatoes, too, but interesting to consider.
Someone posed the question earlier about the Catlin group and their route. I don’t have the software to do an overlay, but eyballing the route they have chosen and 2009 ice map above, it appears to me that they should expect to hit almost no second year ice at all, so should it be any surprise that they haven’t found any? They chose a route that takes them over the area that was “flushed of ice” in 2007.
Interesting comment from the article
“No wonder people are pushing so hard for “climate legislation” in 2009. ”
You bet and here in Scotland who do you think is pushing hardest?
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/scotland/Make-fuel-waste-an-offence.5166566.jp
Legislation will mean criminalisation here in Scotland.
“Dr Richard Dixon, director of WWF Scotland, believes tough measures are needed to force people to cut their use of fossil fuels and thinks governments should consider making it a crime for members of the public not to take measures such as installing cavity wall insulation.
Dr Dixon said: “I think it should be a crime to be wasting energy. It’s clearly a moral crime against the climate, and I think we should be having a discussion about whether it should become an actual crime.
He added that a fine could also be a good idea, but he was “not suggesting we should send people to jail for wasting fossil fuels”. However, prison is the ultimate penalty for the non-payment of fines.””
Members of the public would have there homesup graded to, what I would assume, Dr. Dixon’s specifications and then we will be sent the bill. Clearly Dr. Dixon (Astrophysics) can afford all of these modifications; unfortunately this is not so for many fellow Scots where the ever rising price of food is far more important consideration.
More green legislation is all we need just now.
Steven Goddard (05:13:34) :
Cold Play,
Can you confirm whether the Wilikins ice shelf has colapsed into the sea?
The picture at the top of the article is of a portion of the Wilkins Ice Shelf. It has cracked at that locations and the ocean between the cracks is refreezing. Ice floats, so the concept of an “ice shelf collapse” doesn’t really make a lot of sense, does it?
Actually it has collapsed, there are so many cracks forming tall thin ice-bergs that are unstable that they topple over. Check out the following sat. pictures:
2/April/09 longitudinal cracks start to form:
http://esamultimedia.esa.int/images/wilkinsarctic/pub/images/ASA_IMM_1PNPDE20090402_051637_000002062077_00434_37061_8858_100m_img.jpg
5/April/09 ice ‘bridge’ has started to collapse and spread out:
http://esamultimedia.esa.int/images/wilkinsarctic/pub/images/ASA_IMM_1PNPDE20090405_052222_000002522077_00477_37104_3010_100m_img.jpg
15/April/09 extensive breakup of the former bridge:
http://esamultimedia.esa.int/images/wilkinsarctic/pub/images/ASA_IMM_1PNPDE20090415_050825_000002022078_00119_37247_5516_100m_img.jpg
Here’s a view of the area from 5 years ago.
http://nsidc.org/data/iceshelves_images/wilkins.html
This animation is very impressive:
http://webservices.esa.int/wilkinsarctic/wilkins.php?type=full
hmmm, looks like the sea ice extend line will pass over all the other curves soon… but wait!!! How come? They keep telling us that the ice is melting.
alexjc38 (01:40:34)
Copenhagen, December 2009. Catastrophic AGW’s last stand.
While I’m inclined to agree, one thing’s for sure; no matter how little is actually agreed on, it will be spun as an “overall success”.
It is also necessary for Cap and Trade in the U.S. Congress to go down in flames, which also seems likely.
With any luck, by this time next year, the CAGW/CC ideology will have collapsed under the weight of its own exaggerations, faulty and misleading science, and outright lies.
In the last sentence, replace “…Antarctica would be ice free…” with “…the Antarctic coast would be ice free” thanx..
I’ve learned several fascinating things about sea ice.
(1) Antarctic sea ice buildup is partly due to very low AND slow tides (only one a day!!)
(2) over the year, the saline solution leaches out of sea ice, and 2nd year ice can be used as source of fresh water.
(3) Salt water freezes at a lower temperature than fresh water. Around the freezing point of sea water, it starts to overcome the freshwater phenomenon that causes ice to float at all. A lot (??? most) of the near-freezing near-surface salt water SINKS and thus provides a huge driver for the Gulf Stream current. What I’d like to know is, what proportion sinks, what proportion forms ice???
(4) the potential effect of point (3) is most interesting… do we have another self-regulating mechanism here??… (a) cold climate, Arctic ice, dynamic Gulf Stream (b) hot climate, no Arctic ice, Gulf Stream slower – but is not needed so much anyway!
Juraj V. (00:33:41) : 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.
http://www.co2science.org/data/plant_growth/dry/dry_subject_p.php
Pines benefit hugely from CO2 which would (?) cancel the adverse effects of drought
Another day of almost no Arctic sea ice melt according to Jaxa.
2009 has now surpassed 2008 and is very close the 2003 record for this time of year. [Note 2008 was a leap year so one should back up one day for 2008 to compare.]
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm