From NSIDC sea ice news
During the first half of August, Arctic ice extent declined more slowly than during the same period in 2007 and 2008. The slower decline is primarily due to a recent atmospheric circulation pattern, which transported ice toward the Siberian coast and discouraged export of ice out of the Arctic Ocean. It is now unlikely that 2009 will see a record low extent, but the minimum summer ice extent will still be much lower than the 1979 to 2000 average.
Figure 2. The graph above shows daily sea ice extent as of August 17, 2009. The solid light blue line indicates 2009; the solid dark blue line shows 2008; the dashed green line shows 2007; and the solid gray line indicates average extent from 1979 to 2000. The gray area around the average line shows the two standard deviation range of the data. Sea Ice Index data.
Figure 1. Daily Arctic sea ice extent on August 17 was 6.26 million square kilometers (2.42 million square miles). The orange line shows the 1979 to 2000 median extent for that day. The black cross indicates the geographic North Pole. Sea Ice Index data. About the data. <!–Please note that our daily sea ice images, derived from microwave measurements, may show spurious pixels in areas where sea ice may not be present. These artifacts are generally caused by coastline effects, or less commonly by severe weather. Scientists use masks to minimize the number of “noise” pixels, based on long-term extent patterns. Noise is largely eliminated in the process of generating monthly averages, our standard measurement for analyzing interannual trends. Data derived from Sea Ice Index data set. –>
Note: This mid-monthly analysis update shows a single-day extent value for Figure 1, rather than the usual monthly average. While monthly average extent images are more accurate in understanding long-term changes, the daily images are helpful in monitoring sea ice conditions in near-real time.
Overview of conditions
On August 17, Arctic sea ice extent was 6.26 million square kilometers (2.42 million square miles). This is 960,000 square kilometers (370,000 square miles) more ice than for the same day in 2007, and 1.37 million square kilometers (530,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average. On August 8, the 2009 extent decreased below the 1979 to 2000 average minimum annual extent, with a month of melt still remaining.
Conditions in context
From August 1 to 17, Arctic sea ice extent declined at an average rate of 54,000 square kilometers (21,000 square miles) per day. This decline was slower than the same period in 2008, when it was 91,000 square kilometers (35,000 square miles) per day, and for the same period in 2007, when ice extent declined at a rate of 84,000 square kilometers (32,000 square miles) per day. The recent rate of ice loss has slowed considerably compared to most of July. Arctic sea ice extent is now greater than the same day in 2008.
AMSRE from JAXA shows similar extent conditions:
As does NANSEN:
Hi a jones-
Another funny coincidence in time, IMO.
Just as our CO2 emissions are skyrocketing, that darn ocean just happens to release sufficient CO2 to increase atmospheric CO2 concentrations from something like 280 ppm to our present 380 ppm. Those darned oceans, also continue to increase CO2 concentrations by close to one percent per year, just as the Chinese are building a coal fired power plant per week, or so, and U.S. coal consumption is about a billion tons per year, and human caused emissions from around the world skyrocket.
Overall, the industrial revolution has released about 300 billion tons of carbon from fossil fuels into the atmosphere.
This sounds like a paid climate “skeptic” talking point, to me.
Lots of funny coincidences in your post, a jones, IMO.
Oceans instantly absorb CO2 from fossil fuels, according to your reasoning, then release sufficient naturally occurring CO2 to account for the observed rise in CO2 levels?
Which incidentally absolves the fossil fuel companies of blame for the increase?
How are the oceans supposed to be distinguishing between the CO2 from fossil fuels, and that from natural sources?
It all sounds kind of ridiculous, doesn’t it?
Hi again, a jones-
About the Pine Island Glacier, the grounding line appears to be retreating:
http://www.agu.org/journals/gl/gl0423/2004GL021284/
What does this mean?
It seems to be consistent with this scenario:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Glacier-ice_shelf_interactions.svg
The grounding line is retreating, the surface of the glacier is becoming lower, the glacier is accelerating, just like glaciers do when their ice sheets are disrupted and they start melting. In this case, it might be faster than usual, because the topography slopes downward inland, and seawater or meltwater might be accumulating under the glacier, lubricating its flow.
It all seems pretty predictable, and fully consistent with ocean warming due to global warming attacking the weak underbelly of the West Antarctic ice sheet, rather than with volcanic activity.
All I can say is that increasing carbon-dioxide may not be responsible for progressive climate modification. There still remains the possibility and perhaps the likelihood that many new exotic components of modern industrial pollution might be increasing the greenhouse effect by blocking earth to space transmittance over many new frequencies.
As it appears “The Big Guy” has stopped queuing sunspots since 2008, we may now have a unique opportunity to see the degree to which this unusually low solar activity really does affect climate change. Using the arctic (or Antarctic) ice extent as an indicator, we might expect to see evidence of a steady ice re-growth trend beginning in 2008. This may take several more years to become evident.
Spector
You are on the right track.
The reason you cannot find the data you want on the supposed heating effects of CO2 in the atmosphere is that it does not exist.
There is only unsupported supposition.
If you intend to keep visiting this board, which is a pretty good source of impartial information, you would be well advised to avoid trolls.
These creatures go around digging up outdated suppositions and then quoting them. The fact that we have over the last few years carefully observed the real world and discredited these suppositions does not discourage them.
They prefer to believe in delusional fantasies which have nothing whatsoever to with fact. And they will attempt to convert you to their beliefs with endless pseudo scientific claptrap.
The choice is yours.
Me I prefer the facts of the real world.
Kindest Regards.
Spector:
Your presumption is correct: click.
There is absolutely nothing to worry about regarding increased CO2 levels, which are beneficial, and completely harmless.