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:
Pamela Gray (17:40:37) :
By the way, I have said this before, but the ice up there is thicker than bees on honey! How do I know? Wind patterns shoved it together. In fact, if we were to measure the ice displacement before and after the melt season, I would bet the ranch that there was precious LITTLE melt this summer. The graph assumes the ice melted. I am thinkin a lot of it didn’t.
Well you’d lose that bet, your wind patterns are pushing the ice away from the Arctic Basin, that Russian station set up at 82.53N,174.94E last September has drifted over 2800km towards the Fram at about 8km/day passing fairly close to the Pole (88.5N). Similarly for the N Pole weather station installed at the Pole in earlier April, it’s even nearer the Fram at 84.1N, 2.1W. Like last year there will be less multiyear ice in the spring of 2010.
OT but IMHO important. Today’s Financial Times reports that Nassim Nicholas Taleb, the celebrated Lebanese-American, intellectual, mathematician and author of ‘The Black Swan’, is an AGW sceptic.
“When Mr Taleb suggested that climate change was not necessarily man-made, Mr Cameron’s reply was curt: “You know that’s not what I think.”
Full report at http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/78ec4a8c-8c25-11de-b14f-00144feabdc0.html
Gene Nemetz (16:24:50) : anybody here seen our old friend Steven? Can you tell me where he’s gone?
REPLY: I took him to task over the post on the possibility of CO2 freezing solid at the South Pole. He left in a huff rather than own up to the mistake. So, he doesn’t guest post here anymore. – Anthony
I still get the opening half of this incident thrown at me to “prove” that WUWTdoes bad science – the opening half but not the conclusion. Explaining that a lot of us were embarrassed, and that real Science proceeds by being able to speak out ideas even at the risk of making mistakes and being wrong, cut no ice, to use the pun. It alarms me to hear a doctor of science say, when I challenged him to show me just where the Surface Stations project was bad science, “When Watts publishes something in a peer reviewed science journal then I will be able to judge whether there’s any significant science behind what he’s doing”
And yes, Steve G, I’d like to see you back too!
Last year’s headline of “record low in second year arctic ice” will be reprised as:
RECORD LOW THIRD YEAR ARCTIC ICE!!!
Lucy Skywalker (00:53:37) :
“When Watts publishes something in a peer reviewed science journal then I will be able to judge whether there’s any significant science behind what he’s doing”
I say again – they don’t make peers like they used to.
Pamela Gray (21:11:21) :
By the way, where are the AGW’s on this thread?
They seem to be absent and I wanted to debate!!!!
Sorry Pamela – half have jetted off for the summer holidays… this means the other half are working overtime pumping out AGW hot air in the MSM!!!
Methane seeps from Arctic sea bed
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8205864.stm
QUOTE
Scientists say they have evidence that the powerful greenhouse gas methane is escaping from the Arctic sea bed. Researchers say this could be evidence of a predicted positive feedback effect of climate change. As temperatures rise, the sea bed grows warmer and frozen water crystals in the sediment break down, allowing methane trapped inside them to escape.
UNQUOTE
There must be a big smelly joke in this story but I don’t want to lower the tone of the conversation…. 🙂
Juraj V,
Could you smooth those curves?
Climate Audit
posted these 16 July projections by arctic modellers.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6734 (scroll down a little).
If the current trend continues, 2009 will finish above ALL 16 projections. Now, what does that tell you about the science used by these expert modelers?
NSIDC show “1979-2000 Average +- 2 Standard Deviations”, which gives the impression that this year’s ice is abnormally low (in the bottom 1%).
But they assume that: 1) arctic sea ice extent is normally distributed; and 2) 1979-2000 is a representative sample for estimating both the average (by which I assume they intend to say the mean) and the standard deviation. The fact that the last 3 years are all below the 2sd margin suggests that one or both of the assumptions is wrong!
If we did assume a normal distribution, where would the 95% confidence limit be?
Would you forward this to Mr Johann Hari, a fanatical left-wing journalist on The Independent in London (j.hari@Independent.co.uk)? He is totally unqualified scientifically, wrote a miraculously inaccurate description of total pharmaceutical innovation in HEIs and absolutely none in a multibillion dollar commercial industry and regularly declares that anyone who does not accept the ‘unanswerable evidence of human-induced global warming’ is ‘living in the age of unreason’. He believes in switching the lights out in Britain by violent resistance to the building of new power stations necessary to make up the shortfall when nuclear reactors are decommissioned in the relatively near future. He also wrote recently that the only research which should be paid for by the UK Govt should be on research which primarily affects Africans, Indians etc etc. A true patriot, in other words! Our Govt is bankrupt, our health indicators are headed downward, but our beneficient charitable impulses must show no signs of abatement!! Durgh!!!!!!!
It might be useful to attach an understated, scientifically percipient analysis of current uncertainties in the field to his editor and politely and respectfully request that his fanatical socialist rabble rouser either adheres to the rules of journalism (do not print things known to be untrue) or seek a new career?
So we’re actually waiting now to see whether 09 will be the second lowest or third lowest extent of the satellite area? I really don’t see how that would be a proof of ice “recovering”… Because we’re actually already lower than the average minimum sea ice extent!
A linear (decreasing) trend on the last 10 years would give a minimum of 5.6 million km2.
http://www.arcus.org/search/seaiceoutlook/2009_outlook/july_report/downloads/graphs/JulyReport_JuneData_Chart_small.jpg
Note that this is still largely below the predictions of the most pessimistic models
http://www.erh.noaa.gov/ctp/features/2007/10_23/iceloss_trend.gif
http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2007/images/arctic_sea_ice_extent5_sm.jpg
Models predicted this year would end up somewhere between 4 and 5 million km2 (depending on the model). The sea ice concentration has been free-falling the last days, so we’ll see…
PS: Already 4 boats went through the Northwest passage in the last days. Yesterday, it was Fleur Australe and Bagan – without any icebreaker of course.
I’ve taken it upon myself to go back to the web articles that made these predictions and append a comment ‘from the future’ saying how wrong they were.
Then at least if someone reads the article and the most recent comments, they’ll know they’ve just read some sci-fi rather than real science.
Topics such as solar cycle 24 having already started, record lows ‘forecast’, BBQ summers, in fact any kind of meteorological or model-based prediction will be assessed, and marked as FAIL’ed if needed.
It’s not exactly helpful constructive criticism, I know, but it might shift perceptions back to something more evidence-based.
Or am I dreaming?
AndyW35 (22:36:45)
But the refreeze is not starting now, it won’t for at least another 3 to 4 weeks. Your estimate is likely to be as much too high as the scientists were too low!
The start of freeze up is not he same as the ice extent minimum. I still maintain that the webcam photos match what NOAA has called the start of freeze up in the previous years of webcam deployment with surface melt water absent and snow cover complete. That being said, there will probably still be a fairly significant loss of ice before minimum because of the large area of ice that has moved out past the tip of Greenland and will most likely be flushed before then. If I had to guess at this point, I’d expect the minimum to be in the 5.3- 5.5 mil km2 range, but if the freeze starts with a vengeance it might be able to stay ahead of the out flow and bring the min closer to my April estimate.
Phil. (00:00:54)
Well you’d lose that bet, your wind patterns are pushing the ice away from the Arctic Basin, that Russian station set up at 82.53N,174.94E last September has drifted over 2800km towards the Fram at about 8km/day passing fairly close to the Pole (88.5N). Similarly for the N Pole weather station installed at the Pole in earlier April, it’s even nearer the Fram at 84.1N, 2.1W. Like last year there will be less multiyear ice in the spring of 2010.
It seems to me that the information you provided actually supports Pamela’s contention of not much melting occurring. Given that the eastward drift of the buoys is fairly close match for the retreat of the ice mass on its’ western side, it would seem reasonable to contend that the majority of the ice loss was the result of the ice moving out, and not from any increase of in situ melting. Still there is a definite possibility of less thick ice surviving the minimum, but as I pointed out in a previous comment, since the satellites seem to rank age based on thickness alone, they don’t seem to be able to distinguish piled up first year ice from ice that has persisted for longer.
Goreacle Report: Ice worms jubilating/mating/procreating.
Ban “icon”. Ban “extinction”. Ban “experts say”.
>>> “Experts say the summer sea ice has lasted longer than it has in years,”.
The clincher: “While experts say this summer is an anomaly”.
“Gunter also pointed out that there is still some ice on Hudson Bay. Usually, it’s long gone by now.”
…-
“Cold summer means healthier polar bears
WINNIPEG — A cold summer in many areas of the country may have meant fewer barbecues and camping trips this year, but lower temperatures have been a boon for the beleaguered Hudson Bay polar bears.
Experts say the summer sea ice has lasted longer than it has in years, which has given the region’s more than 1,000 bears extra time to hunt, feed and raise healthy cubs.
One scout captured a picture of a mother with three strapping youngsters — a rare sight that has heartened those who are fighting what they say is the probable extinction of the iconic mammal.”
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Environment/2009/08/18/10502166-cp.html
Why is the “average” from 1979 to 2000 instead of 1979 to 2008 ?
The NSIDC uses two standard deviations to indicate the range of past ice extent in their graph.
It’s more common to use three standard deviations to define the area beyond which (for a Gaussian distribution), a random deviation is very unlikely. Variation beyond 2 standard deviations is quite likely.
Does anyone know if the use of two standard deviations is common practice in climatology?
If so, that would explain the alarmism.
globaly we have a sea ice coverage which is only 2-3% less than the average 79-2000. this is, including the standart variation:
no change to the long average!
and for the alarmists this is dramatically and faster warming and melting as ever thougt…
Arne Riewe
I believe Flanagan admitted to being a teacher so he’ll be off on his 6-8 weeks summer holiday. Expect a return in September.
Richard111
“If we had the technology we could put up a barrier to prevent the wind blowing the ice away to warmer waters. We really would be able to control the global climate then.”
It’s like they say in the cosmetics adverts – not so much controlling the climate but controlling the appearance of the climate
It would seem to me that the major journals dealing with climate will steadfastly lose ground to serious scientific blogs such as CA , WUWT, World Climate Report, etc… They will have to make 100% sure that they publish credible work based on “real data”. The must provide ALL the raw data and the methods publicly. The current hypothetical models etc… and the “if”, “could” and “maybe” will not work in the future. My advice to them is ADAPT or disappear! (this is speaking as a scientific Journal Editor). If Nature etc.. continue to publish the trash that has been soundly been shown to be wrong, they will become irrelevant (in climate matters ONLY…because they are superb in Medicine etc), against these blogs (ie Ryan O and Jeff ID, Hu MCcollugh re Steig is just one example). BTW same applies to media that continues to trump this trash. You know people are not noticing any increase in temps?. (remember the y2k problem?). In this sense thank God for the internet.. It will keep the B@ur momisugly#@ur momisugly honest as they say…WE are entering a new world my friends and its very good for Science. BTW nothing against Steig he just did an analysis….
As a bit of advice never attack/put down the person, just attack the Science (only if you think its wrong). After all Hansen, Schmidt ect are just doing their jobs to the best of their ability.
Leland Palmer (22:34:51) The 2-standard deviation area shown in the graph is based only on the data in the graph from 1979-2000. One would have to assume that 1979-2000 is ‘normal’ in order to make comparisons with data outside that time frame. To get realistic std. dev. the data would have to include the actual normal range of variation, including the times the NW passage has been previously open. Actually, the presentation of that 2-std. deviation band, for that time period, is fallacious.
I believe the ‘greenhouse’ effect primarily reduces the amount of ice that is frozen again in the winter dark season. I would think that melting would be driven by solar intensity, lack of arctic cloud cover, average ice thickness, and average wind velocity.
At this time, I see no clear signal either way, as the NSIDC July arctic ice extent plots show us to be dead in the center of the average fluxuation band of the long term average trend from 1979. The nearly complete recovery from the record ice melt of 2007 also indicates a near record arctic ice freeze in the winter of 2007-2008.
If solar activity remains minimal, I believe the next two or three years should tell the tale, one way or the other.
*******************
Leland Palmer (22:34:51) :
As this ice melts, it decreases the amount of sunlight reflected back into outer space by the white polar icecap. This is known as the icecap/Albedo feedback.
As the icecap melts, more sunlight is absorbed by the surface of the water, which leads to more melting, in a vicious cycle that looks very much like it is running away.
********************
What % of sunlight hitting the Earth hits the poles? One of them is in the dark half the year and even when the other is lit, the angle of incidence is very large. I can’t see that there would be a big difference even if all the ice were gone.
The NSIDC uses the 1979 – 2000 average, in part, because if you look at a long time series of the ice extent, this period was about average. It was higher in the early 1970s and lower in the 2000s with 79-2000 being about average over the years. (Besides that explanation, they do not have enough resources/prefer to use alarmist numbers/are too lazy to update their data and use the full record.)
If you use the full record from 1979 – 2008, the Standard Deviation of the ice extent is about 563,000 km^2 right now. The standard deviation shading should be bigger right now since there is greater dispersion of the extent numbers by year at the melt minimum than at other times of the year.
So, 2009 at -640K is just outside 1 Standard Deviation of the full record at this time of year (563K).
Leland Palmer wrote:
“The curves for the last several years have been two or three standard deviations blow the mean, in fact. The possibility of this happening by accident is less than 5%, and may be less than 1%.”
Happening by accident? What are you talking about? Your inference is that if ice extent is low by some recent measure then the conclusion is carbon dioxide did it? How about natural variability? Or are you one of those who believe the medieval warm period was a local evident?
“As this ice melts, it decreases the amount of sunlight reflected back into outer space by the white polar icecap. This is known as the icecap/Albedo feedback.”
But it is the ice that stops the heat radiating into space during the winter. This is the flip side of the argument that alarmists are suspiciously quiet about.
“The forests are starting to burn at increasing rates around the world, and may release as much as 100-500 billion tons of carbon by 2100, and amount comparable to the entire industrial revolution.”
Increasing rates? Compared to what? Forest fires have been part of the biosphere since the beginning of forests. Did you forget that once the forests are burnt it allows new growth to occur that sequesters more carbon dioxide from the air?
“The permafrost appears to be starting to melt, releasing increasing amounts of methane- a greenhouse gas 70 times worse than CO2, when averaged over a 20 year period.”
Why have methane levels declined over the last decade?