Arctic Springtime Ice On The Mend
Guest post by Steven Goddard
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.
The Danish Meteorological Institute has a five year database, and also shows April 16 ice extent as the highest in their short record.
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?
Quite obviously, natural CO2 is ‘good’ as it feeds the plants. Man-made CO2 is ‘bad’ because it kills trees, polar bears and the like. Any fool can see that.
One can convert some bad CO2 into good by purchasing carbon offsets from the-one-who-sounded-the-alarm, or by a massive carbon tax. So there isn’t anything to worry about as long as we act now. (before the planet cools off by itself).
Is there a graph that shows maximum Arctic ice as measured over the past 30 years rather than average? I only see data for the past 10 years. Prior to 79 is guesswork.
Kum: I’ve read, on this site, statements that various multi-decadal ocean oscillations have entered their cool phase and that this should result in a rebound of arctic ice for several decades.
Magnus, I’m confused. Was
Yes. And your obsession with melting ice isn’t good science, or – rather – science at all
aimed at me?
You’re using my name, but quoting comments I never made.
Let me clarify. I think it’s fine to “counter-punch” with favorable ide data when the “alarmists” get all wound up on ice disappearing, polar bears dying, and 100 ft sea level rises; but I think it should be considered a refutation of “still more silliness,” and not something on which to, substantially, base our argument. We know enough about the effects of ocean currents, winds, and AMO influences not to get our cause “too” heavily invested in something this unpredictable.
Does it occur to anybody that the concept of a global sea ice condition is absurd.
The amount of “global sea ice” outside the arctic and antarctic regions is about zero +/- a 3:1 fudge factor. that is jiust the part of the globe from -60 to + 60. Come to think of it there’a virtually no global sea ice outside the arctic circles.
This time they’ve bitten off more than they can chew. Unless you toss your scotch on the rocks overboard while on a Hawaiian cruise; there is no global sea ice anywhere near you.
I think we need a pro bono lawyer to sue the EPA requiring them to include water vapor among the regulated GHGs unless they can prove beyond any reasonable doubt that water vapor is NOT a green house gas.
Mike had it right, everyone should demand they include dihydrogen monoxide in the GHG list. Remember in high concentrations it causes death. Addictive too.
George E. Smith (16:12:11) :
I think we need a pro bono lawyer to sue the EPA requiring them to include water vapor among the regulated GHGs unless they can prove beyond any reasonable doubt that water vapor is NOT a green house gas.
Yeah, but then they’ll tax the nuke plant cooling towers!
This whole things got me steamed! Oops…more tax!
Mike Lorrey (15:44:02) :
“PLEASE tell me the EPA is finally regulating the emission of dihydrogen monoxide….”
With the proliferation of dihydrogen monoxide in environment, you would think EPA would wake up. It’s in our reservoirs, our lakes, our oceans… you can even find large amounts of it now in our atmosphere, and yet even the EPA fails to take any action to prevent this from reaching our homes and businesses.
Good news however. I have been seeing on environmental websites that this scourge is disappearing, and it may be only decades before dihydrogen monoxide can be eliminated from the environment. Maybe the environmentalists and the EPA can once again coordinate to eliminate yet another menace once and for all.
Possible “unintended consequences”* of polar ice melting?
http://www.searchanddiscovery.net/documents/gerhard/index.htm
Geological Perspectives of Global Climate Change: Introduction and
Overview*
By
Gerhard, L.C.,1 W.E. Harrison, 1 and B.M. Hanson2
“…Second-order climate controls: Distribution of oceans and continents
on the surface of the earth controls ocean currents, which distribute
heat. This fundamental concept (Gerhard and Harrison, Chapter 2,
GPGCC, 2001) explains the 15o–20oC climate variations over hundreds
of million of years (Lang et al., 1999; Frakes, 1979, p. 203). Such
variations are exemplified by the two major earth cycles between
glacial “icehouse” and warm “greenhouse” states. The late Precambrian
“icehouse” evolved into the Devonian “greenhouse,” then the
Carboniferous “icehouse,” then the Cretaceous “greenhouse,” which
evolved to the present “icehouse” state. Redistribution of heat around
the earth is determined by the presence of equatorial currents that
keep and thrust warm water masses away from the poles. Blockage of
such currents, which permits the formation of gyres that move warm
waters to the poles, creates the setting that allows continental-scale
glaciation….”
If there is any validity to this, we better pray for ice increase. The alternative is to flee south while the glaciers advance. 😉
Second-order climate control is by the distribution of continents and
oceans upon the planet (Gerhard and Harrison, Chapter 2, GPGCC,
2001) (Figure 1). The earth has undergone several cycles of icehouse
and greenhouse climates, from at least the Vendian (late Precambrian)
through the present. Glacial activity is reasonably interpreted at
various locations as early as about 3 billion years ago (Crowell, 1999).
Temperature variability between the colder and warmer climates is
likely between 10O and 15OC (for instance, see Frakes, 1979, p. 170,
figures 6-7). Gerhard and Harrison theorize that when continental
landmasses are positioned so that equatorial oceanic circulation
patterns exist, general global climate conditions are warmer.
Conversely, when landmasses are positioned so as to impede or
prevent equatorial circulation, “icehouse” conditions prevail. When
warm waters are moved to polar regions, high rates of evaporation
create continental glaciers and facilitate widespread global cooling.
Conversely, strong and persistent equatorial currents preclude heat
transfer to high latitudes, and warm conditions prevail. These
relationships help to illustrate that thermal energy or heat is
transferred around the earth much more effectively by oceanic
circulation patterns than by atmospheric circulation.
George Smith,
Unfortunately for the lawyer, the defense would likely invoke the Clapeyron Claus(ius).
Roger, we’ve all seen some graphs that show a very strong correlation between the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, and Global Temperatures; and, it looks very much like the PDO has turned negative.
I was referring to the chart:
http://img410.imageshack.us/img410/35/amoanomaly.png
that Bill Illis (whose work I greatly admire, and respect, by the way) posted, above, of the correlation of the AMO, and Arctic Sea Ice. It looks like a pretty strong correlation also.
Here’s the rub. Everytime I look at a chart of the AMO “I” see a 45, or 50 year Oscillation. Maybe it’s just “Me,” but I certainly wouldn’t bet the house on what the Actic Sea Ice does “next” year. I would hate to see the “Skeptics” make Arctic Sea Ice a FOUNDATION of their argument, just to get “double-crossed” by an unfavorable wind/wave pattern at the wrong time.
I would Much rather bet on (and Talk about) the negative PDO holding temps below 1998, or 2005.
Jim F (16:35:08) :
Possible “unintended consequences”* of polar ice melting?
What were the intended consequences?
NYT sent me a subscription offer. I sent it back with a copy of the IJIS chart and a note:
“Print this diagram on your front page and then we’ll talk. Your one-sided handling of ‘Global Warming’ is rapidly making you even more irrelevant than you already were.”
mmm I could be embarrased by my next question.
Would it be possible for Mr Watts to put a clock on his web site, not wishing to be biased but I think it should be British Summer time.
If Mr Watts you do so, I promise to give free time to assist with some common spelling mistakes. Such as Favorite and Meter.
Whats in it for you, nothing, whats in it for me I suppose a warm comfort?
Caption to a photo in my local ISP providers news website,
” Cutting greenhouse gases by 70 percent this century would spare the planet the most traumatic effects of climate change, including the massive loss of Arctic sea ice, a study said Tuesday.”
Yes, they ARE out there. I teach Science and I get students who are convinced that the Moon landings were faked – they saw the ‘truth’ on a TV documentary and they are so convinced – they cannot be bothered to actually look at the evidence to disprove it. As to the “Melting Arctic Ice”, a sound byte from the TV trumps all reason and the evidence accumulated on this site to the contrary. It will take decades of cooling before the AGW crowd get supplanted – then what are we left with to rebuild ?.
Interesting comment by the USGS about Devil and Stump Lakes mentioned above as being at record levels.
This period of rising water levels commonly is referred to as the Little Ice Age.
So these two lakes are signalling we are about to enter a LIA type cold period.
http://nd.water.usgs.gov/devilslake/science/hydrology.html
As usual the lazy and good for nothing MSM are reprinting the press releases without checking the story.
I’m becomming seriously annoyed with the world with every day that passes.
D. King (15:48:15):
Since we, as humans, are a producer of CO2, will<the EPA regulate us? Maybe we can buy carbon credits. If you can’t afford them…well, too bad!
Just wandering:
In average, an adult breathes 8 035 200 times per year.
An adult emits about 401 760 000 000 ppmV of CO2 per year through breathing.
401 760 000 000 ppmV of CO2 are equal to 626 745.6 Kg of CO2 per year.
Wow! It could be a very profitable business!
Hey, I know. Lets build that sea level canal through Nicaragua they have always talked about and get rid of the Northern Ice Cap altogether! 😉
Regulating CO2!…… These people are nothing but Carbophobes.
this has got to be a milestone is aussie climate journalism
check out today’s stories
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/specials/vertical/0,25402,11949,00.html
Snip this if its already posted.
Another seep into the MSM –
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25349683-601,00.html
Kum Dollison,
I am not betting the house on the AMO dropping to record levels and causing the Arctic sea ice to recover to 1979 levels.
I’m just noting there is science done that indicates that the AMO is a significant driver of the Arctic sea ice and going by the historical record and in the current environment, this correlation seems to hold up.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008AGUFM.C51A0537M
http://web.gfi.uib.no/conference2007/presentations/MMiles.pdf
The AMO’s cycles are not as regular as the last 150 year chart indicates and there are projections that it will go into the downcycle soon (within a decade).
Kum Dollison (16:43:08) :
You twice made reference to a “negative PDO” while talking about Bill Illis’ chart of the AMO. You were talking about the “negative AMO,” right?
Artic ice so seem to be at recent record levels… but signals coming from the oppisite side of the globe show a different reality. Wilkins Ice Shelf in Antarctic peninsula is at risk. Lots of videos and scientific data confirm this. Is there a connection?
There is no connection. Sea ice changes are an annual to perhaps 5 year phenomena. Ice shelfs are land glaciers which extend over the water. Not only are the Antarctic Ice Sheets very old ice, at least tens of thousands of years old and perhaps as much as millions of years old. But glaciers/ice shelves and sea ice react to climate changes over completely different timescales.
A New Zealand study showed modestly sized glaciers advance or retreat as a result of the climate over the last 100 to 200 years. For the massively larger Antarctic glaciers the timeframe is much greater – many many 1,000s of years.
So retreating Antartic glaciers/ice sheets tell us the Holocene (the last 10,000 years) was warmer than the previous 10,000 to 100,000 years.
Hardly news.
Now if we were seeing a trend of accelerating Antarctic glacier retreat that would say something about more recent climate (although still over 100s of years) .
However, we simply don’t have enough data to show any kind of trend in Antartic ice sheet advance or retreat.