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:
Dave Wendt (02:45:28) said
“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”
What, you are saying that local conditions on just one camera is what governs when the end of the melt season occurs? That’s crazy. I think you’ll find people take the whole Arctic into the equation and it is when the net change in extent or area increases in value.
If you take the case that melt season has finished when melt ponds disappear then I presume you have to also say it starts when melt ponds appear, which is obviously not the case.
Regards
Andy
kim (21:15:23) said
“Flanagan with his ‘ice concentration’ and phil. and others with their ‘ice volume’ last year are sophists atttempting to make lemon ices out of lemons. They are attempting to explain away an apparently emerging increasing trend in Arctic sea ice extent”
Apparently emerging increasing trend so far being one years data, 2008. Can one year be a trend?
I’d say rather than an emerging increasing trend it would be more accurate to say that the Arctic is rebounding from an abnormally low year back to the normal REDUCING trend.
Regards
Andy
Dave Wendt (02:45:28) :
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.
Hardly, Pamela’s conjecture was that all the ice was piled up in the middle not drifting out the Fram, also numerous buoys in the Arctic monitor melting in situ and show melting. And it is possible to distinguish between new and old ice by satellite they have different scattering signatures (QuickScat).
AndyW35 22:08:28
In all fairness, the emerging trend is more like two years. And with the rationale of a cooling globe, what makes you think it is returning to its ‘normal reducing trend’?
Look, the globe warmed from just about the time we started watching Arctic Ice by satellite until 4-5 years ago. It is not surprising that the ice extent diminished. But now the globe is cooling, and the Arctic is freezing back up.
Are you another of those slippery sophists with your ‘one year trend’ and your ‘normal reducing trend’? Bah, Humbug!
=======================================
Pamela Gray: when both the extent and the concentration decrease, it can mean (i) that the ice has been melting like crazy locally (which very rarely happens) or (ii) that has has been transported to warmer regions where it melted. Following the NSIDC analysis, this is exactly what happened. All in all the ice “disappearance” (if you prefer that term) has been pretty fast ; much faster than usual in fact. So why is the ice this year more vulnerable to wind conditions as compared to the observations of the preceding 30 years?
Smokey: looks like you definitely prefer to play with words rather than with science. English is my 3d language, I’m teaching in French. Maybe we can compare my level with yours on this one? About the “proofs”, what do you want? Measurements of glacier thickness? Of Arctic sea ice extent? Tell me, I’ll find you at least 20 papers supporting my claims.
Richard: of course the current extent is a proof, as it is much lower than the most pessimistic predictions on Arctic sea ice extents. When observations are worse than predicted, what can be the conclusion? That it’s allright?
Kim there are not enough years data yet to show that the Arctic is freezing back up, you cannot possibly say that 2008 and 2009 values show that the Arctic is freezing back up due to global cooling. As I mentioned above, it might just be a rebound from the abnormal year of 2007. If you look at this graph
http://www.zen141854.zen.co.uk/arctic.jpg
we’d have to get back to a minimum of 6.5 or 7 to even begin to show a trend. It’s just wishful thinking on your part. Currently it is a one year trend and the graph shows a reducing trend when you take into account more than one or perhaps 2 years, that’s far less slippery than your “the arctic is freezing back up”.
Regards
Andy
Hi all-
The main concern with Arctic melting, is it’s overall impact on the stability of the self-regulating climate system as a whole, I think, especially the chance of igniting a methane catastrophe.
Methane concentrations are increasing, not decreasing as was stated above:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ch4rug_multicolor.png
Note especially the increase in the Arctic (at high latitudes).
My most pressing concern is the stability of the methane hydrates:
http://www.energybulletin.net/node/3647
Yup, no do-overs.
All our eggs in one basket, and we’re playing volleyball with the basket.
Here’s a more recent graph.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/aggi_2008.fig2.png
Flanagan
One of the elephants in the living room here is the archeological evidence from Greenland where there is evidence from Viking times of settlements, burials, where there is now permafrost – and, Scafetta says, trees as well – can somebody verify this?
Close your eyes, shut your ears, say “it’s not current science”, say you need a “peer-reviewed article” before you believe this one, shout lots of tangential remarks here.
Real science means being open to unwelcome evidence. Open, emotionally as well as factually. The unwelcome evidence that skeptics have to be open to, is the incomprehensible inability of believers to stop shouting and look again, and to question official pronouncements and practice true science which must always, by definition, be independent.
Lucy: I really, really don’t get your point here. How is the fact that earth has been warmer before a proof that the current warming is not anthropogenic? There can be many reasons behind the medieval warm period, including the sun. But again, how does this disqualify a human interference in the present?
“There can be many reasons behind the medieval warm period, including the sun. But again, how does this disqualify a human interference in the present?”
Wrong way round.
The Earth was warmer than this in medieval times so what on earth makes you think this cycle is affected by man?
I think it is obvious that evidence for such large natural fluctuations make AGW vastly less likely and vastly less likely to be dangerous. That comparison with such is necessary before wasting money on alarmist responses. That comparison with such would then flush out the evidence that extra CO2 (above present level) has never shown any ability to warm significantly, if even at all.
Sandy: maybe the fact that temperatures started de-correlating with the solar activity since the 40ies? How is it there’s such a good correlation between sun and temperatures and that, suddenly, the two take different ways? See the most recent Scafetta paper discusses in WUWT recently.
Lucy: it is now a well-established fact that the CO2 released by oceans after an initial increase of temperature led to a greenhouse effect that amplified and propagated the increase at the global scale. This was also discussed on this very blog.
AndyW35 00:22:47
Oh, fah! What is the matter with you? It is an almost two year trend now, not one, and the Arctic is freezing back up because the globe is cooling. I’m on record a year and a half ago of predicting this freeze back up, though I’ll admit it was a lot more speculative then than now. And Leland, relax about the methane; the globe is cooling and stabilizing all your hydrates. Worry about social devastation from crop failures and mass starvation.
========================================
Leland,
By using an honest y-axis, CO2 loses its scariness: click. But with Halloween approaching, maybe you’d better hang on to your chart. You could scare the kids with it, after you’re done scaring yourself for no real reason.
Flanagan,
I wasn’t making fun of your English. I answered your question. You’re good at languages, my compliments. But science? Not so much. You offered 20 papers ‘proving’ your claims. I accept, and I look forward to seeing what you’ve got. Remember, only empirical measurements.
Phil.:
Apples and oranges, as I’m sure you knew when you posted that 1995 chart. You took me to task for posting June charts for ’07, ’08 and ’09, instead of July charts for those years. I think I know why you avoided a direct comparison…
…and my question:
Q: Where is your god now?
A: I don’t have one.
I was referring to Al Gore.
Flanagan 2:19:46
Neither you nor anyone else knows the human contribution to CO2 nor CO2’s contribution to temperature. Sure, man has an effect on climate; we can show regional climate variation from land use and other changes, but man’s contribution through use of fossil fuel is utterly speculative. Let’s expend our energy finding out the truth about CO2 rather than demonizing it before the jury’s even been empaneled. It’s a terribly important question to get right, and we aren’t there yet.
==================================
Here we go, Smokey
Measurements of glacier thickness
——————————————
1. Title: Twentieth century climate change: Evidence from small glaciers
Author(s): Dyurgerov MB, Meier MF
Source: PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Volume: 97 Issue: 4 Pages: 1406-1411 Published: FEB 15 2000
2. Title: Extracting a climate signal from 169 glacier records
Author(s): Oerlemans J
Source: SCIENCE Volume: 308 Issue: 5722 Pages: 675-677 Published: APR 29 2005
3. Title: Three-dimensional glacial flow and surface elevation measured with radar interferometry
Author(s): Mohr JJ, Reeh N, Madsen SN
Source: NATURE Volume: 391 Issue: 6664 Pages: 273-276 Published: JAN 15 1998
4. Title: Mass balance of mountain and subpolar glaciers: A new global assessment for 1961-1990
Author(s): Dyurgerov MB, Meier MF
Source: ARCTIC AND ALPINE RESEARCH Volume: 29 Issue: 4 Pages: 379-391 Published: NOV 1997
5. Title: Acceleration of Pine Island and Thwaites Glaciers, West Antarctica
Author(s): Rignot E, Vaughan DG, Schmeltz M, et al.
Source: ANNALS OF GLACIOLOGY, VOL 34, 2002 Book Series: ANNALS OF GLACIOLOGY Volume: 34 Pages: 189-194 Published: 2002
6. Title: Mass balance of glaciers other than the ice sheets
Author(s): Cogley JG, Adams WP
Source: JOURNAL OF GLACIOLOGY Volume: 44 Issue: 147 Pages: 315-325 Published: 1998
7. Title: Mass balance of glaciers and ice caps: Consensus estimates for 1961-2004
Author(s): Kaser G, Cogley JG, Dyurgerov MB, et al.
Source: GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS Volume: 33 Issue: 19 Article Number: L19501 Published: OCT 4 2006
8. Title: Mountain and subpolar glaciers show an increase in sensitivity to climate warming and intensification of the water cycle
Author(s): Dyurgerov M
Source: JOURNAL OF HYDROLOGY Volume: 282 Issue: 1-4 Pages: 164-176 Published: NOV 10 2003
9. Title: Multispectral imaging contributions to global land ice measurements from space
Author(s): Kargel JS, Abrams MJ, Bishop MP, et al.
Source: REMOTE SENSING OF ENVIRONMENT Volume: 99 Issue: 1-2 Pages: 187-219 Published: NOV 15 2005
10. Title: Glacier monitoring within the Global Climate Observing System
Author(s): Haeberli W, Cihlar J, Barry RG
Source: ANNALS OF GLACIOLOGY, VOL 31, 2000 Book Series: ANNALS OF GLACIOLOGY Volume: 31 Pages: 241-246 Published: 2000
11. Title: The new remote-sensing-derived Swiss glacier inventory: II. First results
Author(s): Kaab A, Paul F, Maisch M, et al.
Source: ANNALS OF GLACIOLOGY, VOL 34, 2002 Book Series: ANNALS OF GLACIOLOGY Volume: 34 Pages: 362-366 Published: 2002
12. Title: Glacier evolution in the tropical Andes during the last decades of the 20th century: Chacaltaya, Bolivia, and Antizana, Ecuador
Author(s): Francou B, Ramirez E, Caceres B, et al.
Source: AMBIO Volume: 29 Issue: 7 Pages: 416-422 Published: NOV 2000
13. Title: Recent trends in melting conditions on the Antarctic Peninsula and their implications for ice-sheet mass balance and sea level
Author(s): Vaughan DG
Source: ARCTIC ANTARCTIC AND ALPINE RESEARCH Volume: 38 Issue: 1 Pages: 147-152 Published: FEB 2006
14. Title: Regional impacts of climate change in the Arctic and Antarctic
Author(s): Weller G
Source: ANNALS OF GLACIOLOGY, VOL 27, 1998 Book Series: ANNALS OF GLACIOLOGY Volume: 27 Pages: 543-552 Published: 1998
15. Title: Glacier mass balance: the first 50 years of international monitoring
Author(s): Braithwaite RJ
Source: PROGRESS IN PHYSICAL GEOGRAPHY Volume: 26 Issue: 1 Pages: 76-95 Published: MAR 2002
16. Title: Glacier changes in southeast Alaska and northwest British Columbia and contribution to sea level rise
Author(s): Larsen CF, Motyka RJ, Arendt AA, et al.
Source: JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH-EARTH SURFACE Volume: 112 Issue: F1 Article Number: F01007 Published: FEB 24 2007
17. Title: Late-twentieth century changes in glacier extent in the Ak-shirak Range, Central Asia, determined from historical data and ASTER imagery
Author(s): Khromova TE, Dyurgerov MB, Barry RG
Source: GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS Volume: 30 Issue: 16 Article Number: 1863 Published: AUG 28 2003
18. Title: Recent glacier changes in the Alps observed by satellite: Consequences for future monitoring strategies
Author(s): Paul F, Kaab A, Haeberli W
Source: GLOBAL AND PLANETARY CHANGE Volume: 56 Issue: 1-2 Pages: 111-122 Published: MAR 2007
19. Title: Mass balance measurements on the Lemon Creek Glacier, Juneau Icefield, Alaska 1953-1998
Author(s): Miller MM, Pelto MS
Source: GEOGRAFISKA ANNALER SERIES A-PHYSICAL GEOGRAPHY Volume: 81A Issue: 4 Pages: 671-681 Published: 1999
20. Title: Alarming retreat of Parbati glacier, beas basin, Himachal pradesh
Author(s): Kulkarni AV, Rathore BP, Mahajan S, et al.
Source: CURRENT SCIENCE Volume: 88 Issue: 11 Pages: 1844-1850 Published: JUN 10 2005
So, do we really need to do this for every aspect I mentioned?
You should try and read at least one or two of these papers. My rapid research gave me 198 papers with “negative glacier mass balance measurement”
Smokey (05:14:44) :
Phil.:
Apples and oranges, as I’m sure you knew when you posted that 1995 chart. You took me to task for posting June charts for ‘07, ‘08 and ‘09, instead of July charts for those years. I think I know why you avoided a direct comparison…
What 1995 chart?
Actually I did post the wrong chart it was 2005 vs 2009, here’s the one I meant to post 2008 vs 2009.
http://s302.photobucket.com/albums/nn107/Sprintstar400/?action=view¤t=2008vs09.png
…and my question:
Q: Where is your god now?
A: I don’t have one.
I was referring to Al Gore.
In your dreams!
Flanagan 4:21:49
Your well established fact about the ancient effect of CO2 is not well established. The precision within the record is not there to establish all the ancient causes and effects. Now I know this is a bit ridiculous, but follow this time course; temperature rises, then 800 years later CO2 rises, then sometime later temperature drops. That time course might suggest that CO2 has an ameliorative effect on temperature rise or even an outright cooling effect. And you can’t prove it ain’t so.
=================================
Kim wrote: “but man’s contribution through use of fossil fuel is utterly speculative.”
It took millions and millions of years to put all that CO2 from the atmosphere underground in the form of fossil fuels. Man is putting all this CO2 back in the air within 200 years or so. I find it much, much more speculative to say that this has no consequence whatsoever. Especially since it has been warming the past 100+ years.
It’s as if all the turds you have ever produced and flushed through the toilet, would suddenly be released back through your toilet, and you just go: “What’s for dinner?”
Hi Smokey-
Ah, but the climate system is adapted to respond to higher CO2, via weathering of mafic rocks into carbonates for example, with extreme slowness. So, plotted on a more realistic x (time) axis:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/myths/figures.html
Significant species adaptation can occur within small highly stressed populations in a few hundred years. In large populations, it generally takes much longer. If climate change is too rapid, as the paleocene-eocene and permian-triassic mass extinction events show, life generally dies rather than having sufficient time to adapt.
So, a long x (time) axis is the most appropriate plot. Modern increases in CO2 are geologically instantaneous, and under business as usual scenarios, we could easily go to 1000 ppm by the end of the century – one third higher CO2 concentrations than are plotted on the graph shown.
kim: if the excess CO2 is not from human origin, then why have the isotopic ratios (C13/C12, C14/C12) of CO2 in the air been switching to the lower values of fossil carbon in the last decades?
Neven, 6:24:19
I, too wonder at the consequences of the rapid release of all that CO2. My analogy is to shaking a bottle of champagne and popping the cork. But so far there is no documented damage from our sudden release, and some documented benefit, like for the plants. And, as dependent as the biosphere is upon plants, how can it not benefit the animals, also?
Flanagan, 6:44:41
Yes, I understand that the carbon isotope ratios are persuasive, and truly, I believe that man has made a significant contribution to present CO2 levels. The question is controversial, however, and not settled.
Both of ya’: Rising CO2 levels will inevitably create feedback which will speed the resequestration of carbon by plants, thereby altering the residence time of CO2 in our environment. The residence time of human released CO2 is also thus presently unknown. I happen to believe that hydrocarbons will be priced out of the energy market before we’ve done lasting damage to our ecosystem.
The fact is that our present era is CO2 starved. The action of the sun on the biosphere inevitably virtually permanently sequesters CO2 from the biosphere. The presence of huge stores of carbonates, and large stores of hydrocarbons proves that point.
But, it is an open question. Let’s understand more about it before jumping to lethal policy conclusions.
======================================
Whoops, forgot Leland, 6:43:28.
I challenge your supposition that we’ll reach 1000 ppm of CO2 by the end of the century, and I challenge your scenario that even that kind of CO2 rise could lead to mass extinction. Fossil fuels are going to be priced out of the energy market sooner or later. All those hydrocarbon bonds were much too lovingly created to break merely for the energy contained within them. We need them for feedstock for plastics, to house and clothe the teeming billions, and to contain all their ‘stuff’.
=====================================
“kim: if the excess CO2 is not from human origin, then why have the isotopic ratios (C13/C12, C14/C12) of CO2 in the air been switching to the lower values of fossil carbon in the last decades?”
How accurate is the ‘isotope ratio’ over how many decades.
Lower isotopes are presumably released when rock erodes as well (since the C14 gets many 1/2-lives to decay.
Lower isotope ratio therefore Man and fossil fuels are responsible seems unlikely and unproven at least until the total carbon exchange of planet Earth is understood.
Still to those of the faith possible is proven, and there is always a grant-hunting charlatan who has written a paper on it.