New Milepost for Arctic Sea Ice Extent

Arctic Springtime Ice On The Mend
Guest post by Steven Goddard
Panasonic LUMIX Image of the day
Two of the Arctic ice sites show April 16 ice at recent record levels.  The Japanese site IJIS has a seven year April record going back to 2003, and reports 2009 levels at the highest extent on record for the date: 13,649,219 km2.
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent.png
The Danish Meteorological Institute has a five year database, and also shows April 16 ice extent as the highest in their short record.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/icecover/icecover_2009.png
A plot of April 16 extent made from the IJIS database shows that mid April ice extent has made a nice recovery from the 2004 low, increasing by more than 5%.
This is probably not coincidental with the fact that since 2003, global temperatures have been declining.
Next time Washington Post writers decide to bash George Will about ice, perhaps they should check their facts first.  The comment below from that piece shows just how irrational the thinking of climate “journalism” has become.

“citing “global” sea ice statistics like that is nearly meaningless in the context of global climate change”

Why would you use “global” statistics when examining a “global” problem?  What was George thinking of?
Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Jack Green

Meanwhile EPA is classifying CO2 and five other gases as detrimental to human health today. Here we go. Idiots!
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/6378492.html

Ryan

The Warmongers have recently let us know in a preemptive strike that actual sea ice extent means nothing. It’s all about “multi-year” ice now.

Ron de Haan

Yes, but now even Sarah Palin is drumming the AGW drum telling the Polar Region is at risk.
No matter how much ice records are recorded, we are all going down the drain.

Roger Knights

How does this look on the curve that’s usually used to compare the current year to the mean and the recent low of 2007? Does it show the extent trend-line crossing over the mean trend line? I suspect it does, but it would be nice to see an image of it.

I was just looking at the NSIDC site and wondering where has all the melting gone, long time waiting. This is a poster child for nature, not man, ruling the climate, they have the Polar Bears, we have the Ice.
Makes the news? Not a friggin chance.
I think Minimum Ice Extent this year will be 20% over 2008. (for posterity)
BTW the EPA played it’s endgame card today GHG pose a real and significant threat to humans and the environment… 60 Days for Comments ( actually 60 days for the Congress to ram through Cap and Trade) then The Lord Marshall (POTUS) shall state “convert now or fall forever”
Time to choose to lay down and take it or stand up and do what is right. This is the time when the rubber hits the road friends.
My reaction on my site (click on my name).

tarpon

Not to worry it will soon be all gone … July this year, for sure, the Arctic will be ice free. For sure, no kidding this time.

SteveSadlov

The delay of consistent spring warming appears to be a hemispheric condition. It is actually quite worrying.

Eric Anderson

Roger Knights, check out:
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/daily.html
2009 for the Arctic is still below the 1979-2000 average. Antarctic is well above the 1979-2000 average. Together, the Arctic + Antarctic are above the 1979-2000 average.

Will

Ice is fun but it doesn’t matter. We have passed the tipping point of the manipulation of science/data for political purposes and it will likely only accelerate from now on. There are many $thousand millions at stake, that buys a lot of consensus. Anyway, today is a great day, ’09 has gone ahead of ’03! The ice is dead…long live the ice.

deepslope

compelling facts on cyclical sea ice fluctuations, almost completely independent of man-made CO2 contributions.
and the NYT weighs in on the big CO2-the-dangerous-pollutant news of today:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/18/science/earth/18endanger.html?hp
Regulating CO2 is like regulating photosynthesis and respiration – hubris supreme, or is it Orwellian control? – how stupid can bureaucrats and politician get?
Reducing CO2 emissions in the Western world won’t make an iota of difference, but it will set an unfortunate example on how to misinterpret natural systems.

Theory1236

The new extent data will be pew pew’d as all new contradictory data is by the greens. All we can do is keep getting the word out. I would not worry over much about the EPA ruling. It would be bad in the short term but Americans vote with their wallet. As soon as the economic damage shows up in energy bills every month, there will be a paradigm shift in thinking.

Power Engineer

wait wait wait…..you actually think a major newspaper is going to check the facts first? facts dont sell! fear and creating a sense fo vunerability so that the mighty gonvernment can swoop in sells. thats why they made such a big fuss about 1998 being a major sign of global warming….and why every cold spell is only “weather noise”

Will

Roger means the extended trend for ’09 against ’79-’00. Hard to say if it will cross this year but is is steadily closing. The % ice covers are loosening up around the edges so my wild guess is that ’09 is about to reduce its convergence to nil and run parallel.

Frank Mosher

Natural Gas prices up today. Reaction to EPAs insane ruling? Coal will become the Devil? Nuke power a long way off. fm

Ron de Haan

OT but an interesting story taking place at North Dakota.
Devils Lake is rising since 1993 at levels not seen for 2000 years.
What is happening here?
http://www.accuweather.com/mt-news-blogs.asp?blog=community

crosspatch

24 inches of snow forecast for the Denver area today, but temperatures are forecast to be some 20 degrees above normal where I live by Sunday. Currently looking like 90 degrees on Monday after weeks of temperatures well below normal.

Ron de Haan

Dirty black Redoubt volcano beautiful white again thanks to fresh snow:
http://www.seablogger.com/?p=13469

Aron

Look how skewed and manipulative this poll and article is
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2009/apr/17/climate-change-religion
The question posed by the article is manipulative for a start. Are they talking about natural or anthropogenic climate change? Urban heat island effects or a global chemical change that is altering the climate for worse or better? There’s no detail.
Why is such an question posed to the public to extract demographics in the first place? Were they searching for a demographic or ethnic group they could point the finger to and say “Look, unbelievers! They are backwards!”
Well, they score a Fail. If they were attempting to make white middle American Christians look like morons, the way Hollywood and coastal elitism does, they failed because the world isn’t currently warming.
The issue here is that they want to group any non-alarmist with religion. Well, let’s ask Hansen, Gore, Mann et al what their religious beliefs are and persecute them for it too. Let’s persecute Madonna for believing in alarmist messages while believing in Kabala. Let’s persecute Leo Di Caprio for being some kind of Buddhist. Let’s persecute Obama for his beliefs too. Why stop at middle American when you have the coasts too?
Is there no end to the attempt to divide the public and turn people into frothing enemies so that a few can gain politically and financially from climate change hysteria?
There has got to be a way for a massive group to take legal action here. The damage that is being caused to society just on a personal level is immense. They are creating hate.

crosspatch

” Ron de Haan (12:12:06) : ”
Funny you should mention that. I happened to look at the “Hut” webcam just now and it had snapped a pyroclastic flow in progress down the valley. It was only about half way down the mountain, about where the waterfall is.

Alan S. Blue

It might be worth a post or two comparing and contrasting the various satellite measurement techniques – their accuracy, precision and longevity.
The long term averages that keep getting mentioned are from a different satellite. There have been several quotes from professionals about AMSR-E being both more accurate and precise, but everyone then proceeds to continue measuring with the old yardstick. There’s no effort at calibrating the two.

Adam from Kansas

Well apparently more people are starting to see that the ice is defying predictions.
Meanwhile there’s two major stories that could send shockwaves when it comes to the fall of the AGW agenda
http://www.iceagenow.com/French_Reversal_on_climate_policy.htm
It includes Australia possibly dumping their carbon trading scheme for a period of time and trying again later (unless they start thinking CO2 may actually be a good thing)
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25342527-421,00.html

Aron

Despite the evidence that Artic ice is on the increase, we get this kind of nonsense
http://www.guardian.co.uk/global/2009/apr/17/alaska-migration-climate-change
In Alaska, climate change is creating an unforeseen humanitarian crisis. Arctic sea ice – which had protected communities from coastal erosion and flooding – is rapidly disappearing and signalling a radical transformation of this northern ecosystem. Scientific observations during the summer of 2007 documented a new record low.
They start off by talking about the present but then when they have to cite science they go back two years. WTFUWT?
REPLY: Don’t complain here, write to the editor and the reporter and call them on it. – Anthony

Steven,
The reason why the Cryosphere folks caution against placing too much emphasis on the “global” statistic of global sea ice is that it is aggregating two differently-phased trends, so it will exhibit considerably more short-term variability in the anomaly data than either of the component trends in isolation.
On a related note, what would you consider a reasonable timeframe to evaluate a trend in sea ice? 10 years? 5 years? 2 years? Taking the same approach as the recent temperature graphs from Lucia’s site, here are all three:
Ten year anomaly trends in sea ice by end date:
http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j237/hausfath/Picture6-1.png
Five year anomaly trends in sea ice by end date:
http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j237/hausfath/Picture7-1.png
Two year anomaly trends in sea ice by end date:
http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j237/hausfath/Picture8-3.png
You can see that using 10 year trends, global and arctic sea ice are clearly negative, and the last two years have done little to change that. Using 5 year trends, arctic sea ice is still strongly negative while global sea ice is right about zero. Using 2 year trends, well, everything has been increasing rapidly except for Antarctic sea ice. That said, the shorter period you use in determining the trend, the more noise there is in the data. If you choose to use a trend less than 10 years, you can pretty much cherry-pick a starting date to make any point you want. Using more than 10 years of data, you always get a declining trend in arctic and global sea ice.
You can see this clearly if we look at the slope of the trend in sea ice anomaly from each month to the present:
http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j237/hausfath/Picture10-2.png

bobdobbs

[bobdobbs@fuckyou.com is not a valid email address – permanent ban on a first comment, a new record. – Anthony]

Ron de Haan

Record Ice at the Arctic and this stunningly stupid politician in power makes this remarks:
http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2009/04/stunningly-stupid-comments-from.html
For those who did not know it for a fact already, we are ruled by idiots.

[Delete this if its a double post; not sure if my first one went through for some reason]
[multiple URL’s get flagged as spam automatically – Anthony]

Dell Hunt, Michigan

Just curious.
Why is there somuch mountainous-like terrain on one year old ice in the photo above and others coming from Catlin?
Oh and since CO2 is now dangerous to all life on Earth, we are all dangerous to life on Earth because we all emit carbon dioxide.

Keith W

All: As expected the EPA has announced that they intend to regulate carbon dioxide and five other gases. Everything said here is meaningless and needs to be focused on detailed rebuttal’s to the EPA and your congressional delegation within the next sixty days. Congress can be bypassed with regulation.
By H. JOSEF HEBERT, Associated Press Writer H. Josef Hebert, Associated Press Writer – 1 hr 2 mins ago
WASHINGTON – The EPA on Friday declared that carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases sent off by cars and many industrial plants “endanger public health and welfare,” setting the stage for regulating them under federal clean air laws.
The action by the Environmental Protection Agency marks the first step toward requiring power plants, cars and trucks to curtail their release of climate-changing pollution, especially carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels.
EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said while the agency is prepared to move forward with regulations under the Clean Air Act, the Obama administration would prefer that Congress addressed the climate issue through “cap-and-trade” legislation limiting pollution that can contribute to global warming.
Limits on carbon dioxide and the other greenhouse gases would have widespread economic and social impact, from requiring better fuel efficiency for automobiles to limiting emissions from power plants and industrial sources, changing the way the nation produces energy.
In announcing the proposed finding, Jackson said the EPA analysis “confirms that greenhouse gas pollution is a serious problem now and for future generations” and warrants steps to curtail it.
While EPA officials said the agency may still be many months from actually issuing such regulation, the threat of dealing with climate change by regulation could spur some hesitant members of Congress to find another way to address the problem.
“The (EPA) decision is a game changer. It now changes the playing field with respect to legislation,” said Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., whose Energy and Commerce subcommittee is crafting broad limits on greenhouse emissions. “It’s now no longer doing a bill or doing nothing. It is now a choice between regulation and legislation.”
Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., chair of the Environment and Public Works Committee responsible for climate legislation, said EPA’s action is “a wake-up call for Congress” — deal with it directly through legislation or let the EPA regulate.
Friday’s action by the EPA triggered a 60-day comment period before the agency issues a final endangerment ruling. That would be followed by a proposal on how to regulate the emissions.

Ray

Eric Anderson (11:29:59) :
But when you look at the slope for the Artic ice, it might go over the average sometime in May.

Richard Sharpe

Zeke Hausfather asks:

On a related note, what would you consider a reasonable timeframe to evaluate a trend in sea ice? 10 years? 5 years? 2 years? Taking the same approach as the recent temperature graphs from Lucia’s site, here are all three:

120 years.

John S.

Here’s a thought. At what level are they going to classify CO2 as being dangerous? Maybe they will pick Hansen’s figure of >350 PPM. In that case someone ought to take along a CO2 meter to a typical congressional committee room since most small rooms crowded with people, assuming they are alive and respiring, will easily exceed 350 PPM after a few hours. That way when the meter peaks beyond 350 the operator can declare the meeting adjourned on account of CO2 and kick everyone out.
After a few of their ever so important meetings are disrupted maybe even our dimwatt legislative branchers and their odious aides can realize how silly the panic is. Hey, maybe Rep. Waxman can be nicknamed “CFL.” He is not very bright and takes a while to wake up in the committee room.
Sorry, I am not usually so cynical but I have just about reached my CO2 tolerance limit and need a breath of fresh air.

Bill Illis

Given that the ocean currents flowing into the Arctic come mainly from the Barents Sea around Svalbard, it is no surpise the ice extent is now rising again after the AMO has gone negative now after being strongly positive for the past 5 years.
Arctic Sea Ice Extent anomaly versus the AMO back to 1972.
http://img133.imageshack.us/img133/8510/nhse72anomamo.png
AMO back to 1854.
http://img410.imageshack.us/img410/35/amoanomaly.png

Arn Riewe

IS HENRY WAXMAN SMARTER THAN A FIFTH GRADER?
Here’s a sampling of the great minds that are setting environmental policy. This is from an interview of Waxman by Tavis Smiley
http://www.pbs.org/kcet/tavissmiley/archive/200904/20090413_waxman.html
“We’re seeing the reality of a lot of the North Pole starting to evaporate, and we could get to a tipping point. Because if it evaporates to a certain point – they have lanes now where ships can go that couldn’t ever sail through before. And if it gets to a point where it evaporates too much, there’s a lot of tundra that’s being held down by that ice cap.”
All that evaporation! What’s a denialist going to do. Pretty soon the tundra under the arctic ice cap is just going to rise into the atmosphere when it’s no longer held down. Think of the chaos. I guess I now understand how we will know when we’ve arrived at the “tipping point”
Can you believe the ignorance!

Richard Sharpe,
Here you go: http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/nhwwzmu.JPG
Though I really wouldn’t trust the data before the satellite era that much, since its based on models, proxies, and whatnot.

Roger Knights

Waxman Won’t Compromise on 20% Carbon Cap in Climate Measure
By Christopher Stern
April 17 (Bloomberg) — House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman said he won’t compromise on his proposed 20 percent reduction in greenhouse gases over the next decade in the face of criticism from lawmakers who say the economy could suffer.
“I want to keep those caps in place,” Waxman said in an interview on Bloomberg Television’s “Political Capital with Al Hunt” airing this weekend. “It’s what the scientists are telling us we must do” to avoid a global catastrophe, he said.
…………..
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aaE9Lr1448tM&refer=home

Gerry

People still expect scientific facts that refute government propaganda to be reported by the mainstream media? That hasn’t happened since 1984-the-Manual.

David Ball

Just a shout out to bobdobbs!!! Can you see me smiling and waving? The time for honoring yourselves is at an end.

Alec, a.k.a Daffy Duck

“Bill Illis (12:48:55) : Arctic Sea Ice Extent anomaly versus the AMO back to 1972. http://img133.imageshack.us/img133/8510/nhse72anomamo.png
2009 🙂
Jan: -0.007
Feb: -0.112
Mar: -0.114
And ice is nice!

Rhys Jaggar

1. Has anyone whispered the word ‘photosynthesis’ into POTUS’ ear?
2. Has POTUS decided that corn hates carbon dioxide?
3. Would a war on forest burning be a better idea than Cap N Trade?
4. Will Michelle’s vegetable garden grow solely on oxygen?
5. Will high school biology classes be forced to revise the textbooks on ‘the carbon cycle’? [I think that read: plants, algae, plankton etc eat it; things eat plants; humans eat stuff and plants; EVERYONE ‘breathes’ a bit of seeohtwo] – NATURE IS EVIL!
6. Europe’s going for CCS – an English MEP’s latest newsletter says that he is the ‘political guru’ for this – carbon capture/storage technologies. That’s where we’re headed right now.
Any court of law willing to uphold a ruling that ‘laws passed based on fraudulent axioms have no validity’?

Ray

John S. (12:46:27) :
When you consider that we have about 5% of CO2 in our alveoles (alive people anyway!!!), then we are all criminals.

Ray

I guess Waxman has not read Lord Monckton’s letter yet!

Leon Brozyna

Looking at the IARC-JAXA graph, I expect this year’s line will not be all that notable for the next four months or so. Now, in mid-September, if this year’s trace lies closer to that of 2003 than 2008, then things’ll start to look really interesting. In the meantime, every little squiggle of this year’s line will excite great comment, one way or the other.

Magnus A

Aron (12:17:37) : “Look how skewed and manipulative this poll…”
Thank for the tip! Guardian forgot to mention that the more educated you are the more you tend to not believe in AGW.
Headline proposal: Just what is it with educated people and global warming?

This EPA move I think is tremedously dangerous! Two not new articles:
6 March: “Anti-CO2 Campaign Like An Atom Bomb On U.S. Economy” by professor Fred Singer. It (just slightly naive?) starts like this:
“Presumably following White House directions, the EPA is ready to issue an “Endangerment Finding” on carbon dioxide, paving the way for regulations to control CO2 emissions. But with over one million “major stationary sources,” a full-blown application of the Clean Air Act would be the equivalent of an atomic bomb directed at the US economy — all without any scientific justification. Hence there is speculation that the White House strategy is to use the threat of EPA regulation to force Congress to take action.”
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=321228358224458
So now the bomb is dropped? As non-American ‘ve a limited understanding of what the consequenses are, but after all the congress make laws, or? 🙂 Can they decide to block the decision – or consequenses of – the EPA decision? Also the no-limit-spending Obama I guess is a quite scary situation.
3rd March: “Destroying Both Jobs And Energy Security” by Newt Gingrich. About the general lack of initiative to take care of even the obviously cheap and necessary energy and the harm to US economy this means.
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=320977215507791

Dave Middleton

Replying to…
Roger Knights (12:51:33) :
Waxman Won’t Compromise on 20% Carbon Cap in Climate Measure
By Christopher Stern
April 17 (Bloomberg) — House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman said he won’t compromise on his proposed 20 percent reduction in greenhouse gases over the next decade in the face of criticism from lawmakers who say the economy could suffer.
[…]

Waxman himself said it would suffer…
“If we raise the price of energy, which will happen if we’re reducing the amount of carbon emissions, and industries have to figure out how to live in a carbon-constrained environment, they are going to have to figure it out because it’s in their profitable interest to figure it out.”
–Tavis Smiley Interview

Waxman must not only have flunked science and geography…He must have flunked economics too!

Kum Dollison

There’s nothing in that chart that leads me to believe that the AMO won’t remain, basically, positive for another 30 years, or so.
Hitching your anti-AGW wagon to Arctic Sea Ice might be a bad short-term proposition.

BarryW

While it’s true that 2009 is back to the level of 2003, if you look at the chart you can see that the spread of the extents narrows shortly until about Jun then it starts to disperse. So we have about two months till the real action starts.
FYI the JAXA mean for today 13.20654 million km2 so 2009 is ahead of the average by about 442,682 km2

janama

This morning was a grand morning for Aussie press.
The Australian printed this article
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25349683-601,00.html
“Revealed: Antarctic ice growing, not shrinking”
with an endline:
“A paper to be published soon by the British Antarctic Survey in the journal Geophysical Research Letters is expected to confirm that over the past 30 years, the area of sea ice around the continent has expanded. ”
Then to cap it off the Sydney Morning Herald’s Miranda Devine has a go at the Warmanistas.
“Planet doomsayers need a cold shower”
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/planet-doomsayers-need-a-cold-shower-20090417-aa4s.html?page=-1
with this gem:
“” the University of Melbourne’s Professor David Karoly declared: “Loss of jobs is important but loss of life is really important”.
True enough, but where is the evidence that climate change has killed a single Australian?””

Arn Riewe

Here’s a sampling of some arctic rim stations today:
Station Date UTC Time Temp C
Cold Bay, AK 4/17/2009 19:53 -2
Mekuryuk, AK 4/17/2009 19:36 -6
Nome, AK 4/17/2009 19:53 -7
Barrow, AK 4/17/2009 19:53 -18
Pevek, Siberia 4/17/2009 3:00 0
Anadyr, Siberia 4/17/2009 19:00 -7
Tiski, Siberia 4/17/2009 19:00 -14
Khatanga, Siberia 4/17/2009 18:00 -16
Tuktohaktuk, Canada4/17/2009 19:00 -19
Kuglugtuk, Canada 4/17/2009 19:00 -19
Resolute, Canada 4/17/2009 19:00 -18
Alert, Canada 4/17/2009 19:00 -23
Clyde River, Canada 4/17/2009 19:55 -16
Thule, Greenland 4/17/2009 19:00 -16
Longyearbyen, Svalbard 4/17/2009 19:50 -19
Hammerfest, Norway 4/17/2009 19:50 -5
Ice loss in the near future in the near future is unlikely to start until there are at least a few days of above freezing temps. Most loss will come from the lower latitudes, i.e., St. Lawrence region, Baffin Bay/Newfoundland and Hudson Bay. IMHO I expect the current trend line to continue until there is some significant warming or current/winds change.
It will be fun to watch and see the AGW crowd squirm.

MattN

Catlin expedition should be able to confirm this……

Ed Scott

Arctic sea ice is the least of our worries.
The EPA has “dropped one shoe.” Hearings on this “dropping” will be held:
May 18, 2009, at the EPA Potomac Yard Conference Center, Arlington, VA; and
May 21, 2009, at the Bell Harbor International Conference Center in Seattle, WA.
The report, Proposed Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under the Clean Air Act, can be read at http://epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment.html
On April 2, 2007, in Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007), the Supreme Court found that greenhouse gases are air pollutants covered by the Clean Air Act.
The Administrator is proposing to find that the current and projected concentrations of the mix of six key greenhouse gases—carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6)—in the atmosphere threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations. This is referred to as the endangerment finding.
The Administrator is further proposing to find that the combined emissions of CO2, CH4, N2O, and HFCs from new motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines contribute to the atmospheric concentrations of these key greenhouse gases and hence to the threat of climate change. This is referred to as the cause or contribute finding.
Technical Support Document for the Proposed Findings (PDF) (171 pp, 2.8MB