It looks like we’ll see the 2009 Arctic sea ice melt season bottom out in a few days and it won’t be a record setter. Even NSIDC admits this. Here is a magnified graph of the IARC-JAXA AMSRE sea ice extent plot that is linked in the sidebar of WUWT.
Here is the full sized image:
For reference here are some other sea ice graphs:
I made a prediction a few threads back that we’ll see a turn on September 9th. Many others made predictions then. Since JAXA is not on holiday tomorrow like we are in the USA, I expect we’ll see an update for Sept 7th in the next 12-18 hours. We have an update for Sept 6th data now and it is shown above.
In the meantime feel free to discuss the issue in this open thread.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Folks, let’s all chip in and buy Flanagan a glass navel so he can see where he’s going. Y’all know the rest of the joke. Winter is coming on and we’ll all get to see a little further into the future. Patience, people, patience.
newbie question, sorry … I have seen solar activity credited as having a trivial contribution to the climate temp and yet I have recently seen several references to the unprecedented (is it) solar minimum masking AGW. I don’t get it, if it doesn’t have an effect then how could it mask, or is it a short term masking ? Does anyone know ?
PS I do worry about the research and science as my understanding is that work should be published in full so it may be challenged which ultimately leaves it discredited, revised or proved.
[unacceptable language, try again. ~ ctm]
Rocky (01:46:01) : for now, this ‘solar masking’ is a phenomenon of the past say three years. It has combined with a very strong La Niña. The latter is over, we are looking at a moderate El Niño now and global temperature as of July has already jumped back to top rankings.
The arguments implying that sea-ice recovery would not happen is rather like saying that a woman won’t have periods after giving birth. For sure, she didn’t for 9 months, did she? And I’m sure a few unfortunate women miraculously enter the menopause immediately after giving birth. [They are probably limited to the over 40s]. But they are the minority, not the majority.
If climate scientists would start studying real, self-regulating dynamic systems they would see a set of characteristics totally different to linear ‘closed’ systems which apparently obey Newtonian Mechanics.
Then they might start understanding the nature of climate systems.
Adam Grey (23:50:37) : “If the last two consecutive values are exceptionally lower in data of sufficient population, the trend can get steeper, even if the second value is slightly higher than the first”
Well I tried it and you are right. I think the trend will get steeper if the last larger value falls below the original trend line (without the last value) and it will get less steep if it goes above that line.
The trend from 1979 to 2007 is -7.2% and that from 1979 to 2008 is -7.8%.
“Can anyone figure out what the extent minimum this year needs to be in order to make the long-term trend shallower?”
Yes I can. If the ice extent were 5.7 million sq kms the trend would become -7.7%
RR Kampen (02:13:36) :
[unacceptable language, try again. ~ ctm]
—
I won’t, my point would be lost. I understand why it was unnacceptable on this forum though (no name-calling as in ‘denialists’). Sorry for that.
PS thats per decade
Looks like sea ice thickness peaked in 1980 so it was thinner before then. So when satellite records began sea ice was reaching a peak. Sounds like a cycle to me.
“During the Cold War, the submarines collected upward-looking sonar profiles, for navigation and defense, and converted the information into an estimate of ice thickness. Scientists also gathered profiles during a five-year collaboration between the Navy and academic researchers called the Scientific Ice Expeditions, or “SCICEX,” of which Rothrock was a participant. In total, declassified submarine data span nearly five decades—from 1958 to 2000—and cover a study area of more than 1 million square miles, or close to 40 percent of the Arctic Ocean.
Kwok and Rothrock compared the submarine data with the newer ICESat data from the same study area and spanning 2003 to 2007. The combined record shows that ice thickness in winter of 1980 averaged 3.64 meters. By the end of 2007, the average was 1.89 meters”
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090901143321.htm
Roy Spencer (14:24:13) :
Extrapolations can sometimes be dangerous, but also very funny.
From Mark Twain’s
Life on the Mississippi
Roy Spencer (14:24:13) :
If the rate of ice growth seen since 2007 continues, it is a mathematical certainty that North America will be covered with ice by the end of this century. 🙂
……………………………
It’s worse than we thought.
Flanagan (14:20:24) :
Computer models clearly indicated Madoff investors should be wealthy now, based on the trends seen over the last two decades.
RR Kampen (02:15:49) wrote:
“we are looking at a moderate El Niño now and global temperature as of July has already jumped back to top rankings.”
I’ve read here recently that the El Niño looks likely to fade by year-end (can someone supply a link–thanks). August has reversed July’s up-trend:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/04/uah-global-temperature-down-in-august-181%c2%b0c-sh-sees-biggest-drop-of-0-4%c2%b0c/
There is an international competition for experts about prognosticating sea ice extent in September:
http://www.damocles-eu.org/artman2/uploads/1/Sea_ice_outlook_2009_AWI_FastOpt_OASys_contribution.pdf
The experts do not seem to be any better than we are, and the main reason may be that nobody knows enough about ice thickness.
RR Kampen (02:15:49) :
“for now, this ’solar masking’ is a phenomenon of the past say three years. It has combined with a very strong La Niña. The latter is over, we are looking at a moderate El Niño now and global temperature as of July has already jumped back to top rankings.”
And in August? Those who get excited about one month temps are bound to see disappointment in their futures.
Flanagan (22:24:23) :
“Hi everybody,
2007 was indeed very low because of some wind pattern – but this pattern took place before without leaving such marks.”
Ok – Please list the dates of the specific events you claim took place….
Jeff
Another crisis bites the dust. Next year there will be even more multi-year ice. How can Gore et. al. spin panic tales when nature refuses to cooperate?
“Here is a comparison (reality check)
http://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/2009/stroeve.png
”
Looks like the models don’t fit the observations. Where have we seen that before? Wonder if they also don’t fit the observations in the pre-observation period? What was sea ice like in the 1930’s? According to the models it held steady forever (cough cough BS)
RR Kampen (01:09:25) :
Source?
Even NSIDC admits this
Admits what? You make it sound like they are guilty of something.
REPLY: They are, hype. For example last year’s Serreze gems “the North pole could be ice free this year”, and “Arctic ice is in a death spiral”. This year, while they didn’t admit those statements to be wrong, at least they admitted that there would be no record event this year. It’s progress. – A
Could you point me to the source of your Arctic ice thickness data?
R R Kampen,
“Rocky (01:46:01) : for now, this ’solar masking’ is a phenomenon of the past say three years. It has combined with a very strong La Niña. The latter is over, we are looking at a moderate El Niño now and global temperature as of July has already jumped back to top rankings.”
Sorry, R R Kampen, but you haven’t answered Rocky’s question at all. The question he asked is not about the duration of the solar masking but how solar activity can mask AGW and at the same time have an insignificant effect on climate change.
Sorry about your second point as well, but this is understandable since it is a common mistake that warmists make. ENSO events do not change the gross energy planet of the earths climate system, they only redistribute energy. You say that El Nino has raised the global temperature of July, but you forgot to mention that this energy will simply be redistributed from the oceans to the atmosphere. In other words it tells us nothing about whether or not CO2 causes global warming. All references to ENSO events that are used for or against the “CO2 is causing global warming” notion are complete non sequitar’s and are only relevant in discussions of ocean/atmospheric circulation models.
R R Kampen,
“The Arctic ice melt can directly and fully be attributed to global warming. It is very simple. Over two thirds of the melting happens from below, caused by warmer sea surface water.”
But is the global warming directly and fully attributed to CO2? Answers with citations please!
rr kampen,
the bouys didnt show the ice is less thick, and radar measures didn’t show
the ice was less thick. so where is the data?
same goes for your “solar masking” i thought warmist didnt believe in a influence from the sun..
Futher more over Europe there is a very strong solar brightning (page 43 of de NCDC state of the climate 2008) >2% increase (>10W/m2) And climatologists claim that only caused less the 0.1C of the warming, SO that can’t be it..
and as far as i understand La Nina doesnt have a cooling effect in the acrtic..
RR Kampen (02:15:49) : Sorry that confuses me even more and sorry if I am off topic but what is unique in the last 3 years that allows the lack of solar effect to be included for this period but apparently (I may be very wrong here) discounted as trivial for all other periods ?
I’m just starting out trying to understand some of this stuff so apologies if I am being a bit dumb.