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:
Kim wrote: “But, it is an open question. Let’s understand more about it before jumping to lethal policy conclusions.”
As long as you have a system that’s based on the concept of unending economic growth on a finite planet there will be nothing but lethal policy conclusions. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the bail-outs are enough proof of that. All the things that skeptics/deniers are so scared about are happening as we speak. As long as people equate freedom to “there is no limit to what I want to do and want to have” like they have been brainwashed to think there will be no wise policy decisions. AGW, real or not, is just one of many elements in the perfect storm.
Neven, 8:40:17
Ah, now you are talking about an entirely different ballgame. Why do you think changing the subject is persuasive?
==========================================
1000ppm what stuff and nonsense. Bulk CO2 only remains in the atmsohere for a few years before being either taken up by vegetation or dissolved in the oceans. The partition ratio between the atmsophere and the oeasn is about 1:50 and is temperature dependant because it chiefly depends on Henry’s law.
Thus we an deduce that the burning of fossil fuels has negligible effect of CO2 levels, perhaps accounting for one percent or so of the rise over the last few decades, the primary driver is the temperature of the oceans.
Note that because of carbonate and other buffering the oceans’ capacity to adsorb CO2 is virtually unlimited and does not significantly affect their PH.
There is a very thorough discussion of this in CO2 Science vol 12 no 31.
It is very well worth reading, not least for its criticism of Solomon et al.
Kindest Regards
“Flanagan: …or the pH of oceans should become lower or …”
Between 1751 and 1994 surface ocean pH is estimated to have decreased from approximately 8.179 to 8.104. If pH falls below 7.0 oceans will be acidic. As of now they are alkaline.
Neven (08:40:17):
‘Proof’? How do wars and bailouts equate to increased economic growth?? Your conjecture that economic growth is the cause of wars and bailouts is flat wrong.
In fact, economic growth is the only reason we’re not still living in mud huts, eating grubs, constantly warring with neighboring tribes over limited food supplies, and having a life expectancy of 30. All the good things in life, including drastically lowering pollution, are the direct result of economic growth.
Only the intellectual descendants of Thomas Malthus and the Luddite movement would disagree.
And the moral from my above post is NOT trying to type on a laptop in a hurry whilst travelling. Sorry for the spelling.
But the article in CO2 Science, listed on this board, is a very good one and well repays reading. They have a link problem so go via issue 31 vol 12, rather than the index. It is the leader, CO2 a question of timing etc.
Kindest Regards
Alexej: exactly, you might even notice I never said it was acidic. And I seriously doubt it will ever be so. But do you have any idea how much a DpH of 0.1 would mean for all the chemical equilibria involved? And don’t forget it’s a logarithmic scale. The difference you mentioned amounts to loosing about 16% of the protons.
kim (05:03:45) :
“Oh, fah! What is the matter with you? It is an almost two year trend now”
That’s priceless.
You are saying there is almost a trend of 2 results! Not quite two mind you.
Extrapolating from these almost 2 results the Arctic is freezing up again.
Considering you said the earth was cooling for the last few years how do you explain the result of 2007 and 2008?
Regards
Andy
Flanagan (05:49:16) : My advice: Buil up an igloo soon and keep a candle lit in it before the image of your prophet….
The fastest ways to melt a glacier are all caused by oceanic influences on land temperatures and weather:
1. Direct Sunlight as in shortwave radiation
2. Warm rain
3. Warm wind
The slowest way to melt a glacier would be from long wave GHG radiation.
Glacier melt coincides with weather pattern variations. They have melted too fast to blame GHG long wave radiation. The same is true for Arctic sea ice melt. In every peer reviewed report I have seen regarding 2007 and 2008 Summer melt, weather pattern variation is the most likely candidate.
AndyW35 14:04:25
What’s priceless is your inability to get the point. It is the two year trend plus the three year lag in the heat engine plus the likelihood of the PDO remaining in its cooling phase for the next 20-30 years that is the telling point that confidently predicts an Arctic freezing back up. Now, I mentioned that heat engine which moves heat from the equator to the poles @ur momisugly 21:15:23 on 8/19. Are you not paying sufficient attention?
======================================
Alright, buster, just to be a little more repetitive, I explain 2007 as the tipping point, the nadir of sea ice loss, and 2008 the beginning of the rebound. That would put just around a three year lag from the maximum temperature of the globe, around 2004-2005. That’s the proposed time lag for the heat engine to move energy poleward. The tipping point of ice nicely marks the delay from measured maximum temperature.
=======================================
Kim wrote: “Ah, now you are talking about an entirely different ballgame. Why do you think changing the subject is persuasive?”
Because if we’d be on the same frequency you’d see that the psychological gratification you derive from battling each and every aspect of AGW is actually strengthening the thing you’re fighting against.
“‘Proof’? How do wars and bailouts equate to increased economic growth?? Your conjecture that economic growth is the cause of wars and bailouts is flat wrong.”
I’m not talking about economic growth, I’m talking about the concept of unending exponential economic growth in a finite system as the core of western culture. The wars and the bailouts (both an order of scale that you seem to fear AGW policies will be somewhere in the future, minus the benefits) are a direct consequence of this.
There is nothing wrong with economic growth. Like you say it “the only reason we’re not still living in mud huts, eating grubs, constantly warring with neighboring tribes over limited food supplies, and having a life expectancy of 30.” The point is that we have gone way beyond the point where we could have stopped at a level where quality of life was at a very good standard. Instead of the growth serving us like it did before that point, we are now serving the growth (and thus the people that start wars to benefit certain companies that swindle the American people out of billions of dollars, or the people that still give themselves bonuses). And the price we are paying for this is increasing on a daily basis, especially so if AGW does turn out to be real and dangerous.
Why should growth have no limits? Do trees or children continue to grow after they have reached maturity? No, they don’t. The only thing that grows incessantly is cancer (until the victim dies).
I also wonder about a nine year lag with the extraordinary 2007 melt being the image of the 1998 peak of temperature. God only knows how long and by all what methods the energy is transported polewards. I expect that in the northern hemisphere the transport is accelerated at the end, and in the southern hemisphere it is retarded, but I haven’t got a lot of proof of that, just intuition about the geography.
===============================================
AndyW35,
If you read my post at (17:48:58) you would know what controls the arctic sea ice. It’s ocean temperatures. Could it be anything else? Where do you think 90% of the ice is located? The oceans have had stable temps since they’ve been measured by ARGO.
AndyW35 (14:04:25):
It is explained 100% by natural climate variability. Falsify that, and earn a place in the history books.
Leland Palmer (06:43:28),
Still saving the world from imminent destruction, I see. Good for you, it will keep you out of trouble. You said:
Wrong again. I understand that the alarmist argument falls on its face if CO2 persistence isn’t hundreds of years, so being you, you must assume that. In fact, CO2 is recycled in 12 years or less. Let me explain what’s going on.
The greatest mass and number of species in the biosphere is composed of microbes, including algae and other microscopic plant organisms, which utilize CO2 as food. They reproduce on the order of hours, not years. More CO2 = more organisms. And it happens quickly.
Listen to a someone who has forgotten more than you and I put together explain this; Prof. Freeman Dyson:
In other words, an increase of two one-hundreths of an inch in biomass will absorb double the CO2 that 6.7 billion people produce annually.
I’m sure you’d rather listen to Met Office propaganda. It’s in your nature — and it’s scary, which you like. But read the Dyson link anyway, it will do you good. Prof. Dyson is not a climatologist, but he did synthesize and reduce to practice the Feynman/Schwinger/Tomonaga solutions to the renormalization problems of quantum electrodynamics. Which you must admit is more impressive than anyone at the Met or in the UN/IPCC.
[Neven (15:17:52), that was my quote, not kim’s.]
Neven 15:17:52
Gehsundheit.
========
Hi a jones-
Uh, these MIT professional climate science guys don’t seem to agree with you…perhaps you ought to e-mail them and tell them about Henry’s law…
http://globalchange.mit.edu/files/document/MITJPSPGC_Rpt169.pdf
Check out figure 5. Their high estimate puts CO2 at 1100 ppm, and methane at about 6 ppm (equal to a couple hundred more ppm of CO2) by 2095.
But this is low, of course. Each estimate is higher than the one before, these days, it seems.
And this study leaves out methane from methane hydrates.
There’s enough methane in the methane hydrates to send methane concentrations to about 5000 ppm methane if it were released all at once, equal to tens of thousands of ppm of CO2 in greenhouse effect. Of course, it wouldn’t be released all at once, would it? And, it would be quickly oxidzed into CO2 by the hydroxyl radical, wouldn’t it?
Maybe not:
Pamela Gray (15:05:42) :
The fastest ways to melt a glacier are all caused by oceanic influences on land temperatures and weather:
1. Direct Sunlight as in shortwave radiation
2. Warm rain
3. Warm wind
The slowest way to melt a glacier would be from long wave GHG radiation.
In the case of a glacier with a terminus in the ocean, penetration of water under the glacier is also important.
Your discounting of long wave GHG is not justified however, particularly for high latitudes. If you look at the data from last year’s polar station during the summer SWR is ~250W/m^2 at a low incidence angle whereas LWR is ~300W/m^2 at a much higher angle.
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/np2008/gallery_np_weatherdata.html
Mr. Leland Palmer.
I don’t feed trolls.
Especially those who do not bother to read the papers and reports they quote.
Kindest Regards
“Flanagan (14:01:46) :
Alexej: exactly, you might even notice I never said it was acidic. And I seriously doubt it will ever be so. But do you have any idea how much a DpH of 0.1 would mean for all the chemical equilibria involved? And don’t forget it’s a logarithmic scale. The difference you mentioned amounts to loosing about 16% of the protons.”
Oceans have a pH of 7.9 to 8.2 (the numbers mentioned above are the mean). So there is no reason to worry about a variability of this order.
“Flanagan (14:01:46) :
But do you have any idea how much a DpH of 0.1 would mean for all the chemical equilibria involved? And don’t forget it’s a logarithmic scale. The difference you mentioned amounts to loosing about 16% of the protons.”
The 16% are correctely calculated, but it is questionable to use % when a log-scale is necessary (you would not do that to sound levels in dB). But “loosing protons” ? Doesn’t acid mean you have a concentration of more than 10^(-7) of H+ ? (and neither protons nor OH- do disappear).
I notice that the ASMR-E ice extent graph shows that this year’s Arctic ice extent in the April-May period reached a 7-year record high.
On the other hand, the long term monthly ice extent for July shows this year’s July ice extent in the center of the variation on a linear curve going back to 1979. If we had constant forcing, I would expect to see accelerating yearly Arctic ice-melt as solar heating should progressively increase as more of the Arctic becomes ice-free.
As yet, I see no clear evidence indicating that the recent reduction of solar activity (deep solar minimum) is halting the Arctic ice melt. Neither do I see any real evidence of run-away melting (presumably due to the steady increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.) The annual plots for September may be more revealing.
Alexej: by “loosing protons” I wasn’t talking about quark recombination, of course. But hydroniums, if you see what I mean. Again, I didin’t say the sea was acidic, but that its pH is decreasing relatively fast. BTW, I made a small mistake as the hydronium concentration is increased, not decreased by 16%
Using a log scale in this case is the most questionable representation, in my sense. The concentrations of the different species having an acido-basic reactivity (such as carbonates) will change as [H30+]^n, depending on the equilibria involved, not on the log of this concentration. For example in the following equilibrium
CaCO3(s) + H+ = Ca2+ + HCO3-
[Ca2+] [HCO3-] = K [H+]
so if the concentration of H+ increases by a factor X, each of the concentrations in this case will increase by a factor sqrt(X).
“Flanagan (03:52:25) :
Again, I didin’t say the sea was acidic, but that its pH is decreasing relatively fast. ”
If by “relatively” fast you mean “practically not at all”, we can agree.
Log-scales are mainly useful for describing otherwise clumsy, very small to very big numbers. Our ear can hear sounds from 1 pW/m^2 to 1000000000000 pW/m^2. The log gives 0 to 12 (in Bel) which is too crude; so we use 0 to 120 dB. (Of course it is agreeable that 1 dB is about the difference we can just hear, and +10dB is a “doubling” of loudness).