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.
Thanks, Richard.
Sea ice extent is currently near 5.3 million sq/kms. What would the trend be now?
Flanagan (14:20:24) :
. . . (reality check)
Since the melt has exceeded the worst prediction of GCM models, has it occurred to you that the models are not including key variables for the Arctic Ice phenomenon and are therefore not reliable? Like the medicine chief complaining that the volcano is worst than predicted by models driven by virgins sacrificed — we need to sacrifice more virgins! But wrong input or deficient models lead to bad policy decisions.
Re: Vincent (05:59:15) :
“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.”
A look at the news about solar activity and it’s stated influence should suffice. It’s effect on climate is less than half that of ENSO (0.1-0.2° C vs. 0.3-0.4° C).
The idea that this solar low is the sole culprit of the masking of GW as of about the year 2000 (or 2006, considering the heat of 2005) is nonsense; it is not. ENSO en a very strong La Niña in particular are the main reason, then solar low, then two mediocre volcanoes.
Remark that all this will not keep a year from coming into the top ten warmest since 1900 (like 2007 and 2008 did).
At present the temperature is rising again; there is all reason to expect that 2010 will break the 1998-2005 records notwithstanding the solar dip. Nowadays a medium Niño is enough for the record.
“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.”
They may redistribute in the vertical, that is: according to ENSO-phase warm surface water is more or less heaped up in a small area (that is: the warm water layer is more or less deep). This obviously makes a difference for air temperature, as the special year 1998 shows very clearly.
—
Re: 3×2 (05:55:35) :
Key is the multiyear ice. It is the thicker ice.
http://nsidc.org/sotc/images/npseaice_ssm_200902.png
from http://nsidc.org/sotc/sea_ice.html .
—
Re: Vincent (06:00:57) :
Answer to your query is threefold: yes, partly and no. It depends a bit on who attributes. For most profs in this field the answer is yes. Start with IPCC-scientists and -reports. Remark though that I used the abbreviation ‘GW’ instead of ‘AGW’ to forestall this discussion.
—
Re: Rocky (06:33:56) :
I am to blame, Vincent (05:59:15) was correct in asserting I didn’t adress your question properly. I tried in RR Kampen (07:00:59) .
Unfortunately I can’t discuss media misunderstandings ref scientific articles. One of these misunderstandings would be that the solar dip is the sole culprit for the warming stagnation of the past couple of years.
Richard (22:26:54:
Yes, this is the point. The present ice fluctuations are not significant and if they became more significant that would be good. People are getting awfully worked up over something not shown to be important.
Re: Vincent (05:59:15) : another detail,
“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.”
They are not, for two reasons:
1) (A)GW can change ENSO climatology/oceanology and vice versa, which is to say that they might interact in interesting ways, which means events in the one may explain events in the other realm;
2) If e.g. an El Niño-event of 2020 gives a year a positive temperature anomaly a, and a comparable event in 2010 gives a year a positive anomaly of 0.7a, then one has to consider GW (from whatever cause!!) over the period 2010 to 2020.
Please send Flanagan an ice pick – he needs to dig himself out of his hole!
****************
Flanagan (14:20:24) :
Here is a comparison (reality check)
http://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/2009/stroeve.png
**************
Hmmm … the models are worse than we thought!
My own theory from following daily wind patterns and ice behavior over the course of 5 years. Arctic wind circulation, duration, direction and speed out the Fram Strait is the cause of significant Arctic melt and the opening of passages. The opposite causes ice thickness buildup (even in one year) to multi-year dimensions and the clogging of minor exit routes.
There is likely a connection for this in oceanic sourced weather behavior and Jet Stream parameters that circulates just within and outside the Arctic Circle. Rapid melting can only be mechanized by this set up, since in-situ rapid melting would have to coincide with relatively alarming Arctic SST temperatures combined with extravagant amounts of infra red shortwave bombardment, which it does not. What would be extremely interesting to me would be to compare previous years ice measures with Jet Stream patterns. My hunch is that ice buildup and rapid melt is caused by Jet Stream behavior, and not extravagantly changed SST, air temps, or Sun spots. The physical mechanism can be readily diagrammed. It would be too funny to discover this rather simple cause of ice behavior.
In reality, it kinda works like a flushing toilet versus one that is plugged up. No swirling air leading to the drain, ice stays in the toilet, with more ice being added to it over time, till the Jet Stream unplugs it once again.
Flanagan
Can I remind you of historic precedence with regards to arctic ice, which I highlighted in a recent thread here.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/20/historic-variation-in-arctic-ice/#more-8688
There was a great deal of warming during the period 1815 to 1860 and ice levels were low. There was a similar warming spell during the period 1915-1940. I am currently writing an article on this. There are other warm periods prior to 1815 of which the most famous were the Viking and the Ipiatuk. I am also writing an article on that.
It appears that arctic sea ice peaked around 1979 at just the time satellite measurements started, hence your belief they coincide with c02. However, as you can see the arctic warms and ices up with amazing regularity so the current episode is by no means unprecedented despite what you have read- or perhaps want to believe.
best wishes
Tonyb
Reversion to the mean is a powerful force.
R R Kampen,
“At present the temperature is rising again; there is all reason to expect that 2010 will break the 1998-2005 records notwithstanding the solar dip. Nowadays a medium Niño is enough for the record.”
What temperature are you referring to? Is this the July land temperature, August land temperature or what? I’m not trying to be picky, but . .
warmists continually point to a months land temperature to “prove” that global warming is continuing. Maybe it is, but is this caused by CO2 rather than natural cycles? I’ve gone over the following points so many times that it’s becoming tiresome, yet here we go:
AGW predicts a radiative imbalance due to CO2 forcings. This is supposed to increase year on year, so that by 2010 Hansen tells us that this imbalance will reach 0.85 watts per metre squared, and that this imbalance will “melt the ice, warm the atmosphere and warm the oceans.” He made this statement in 2001, yet the predicted warming of the oceans has not occured since 2003.
Now you can argue about El Ninos and record breaking land temperatures as much as you like but until that missing energy is accounted for then the predicted radiative imbalance is not happening. And if the imbalance isn’t happening then there is no forcing. Where is this missing energy? No one can tell me. Hansen can’t tell me – he thinks the datasets are wrong. What do you think?
R R Lampen,
““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.”
They are not, for two reasons:
1) (A)GW can change ENSO climatology/oceanology and vice versa, which is to say that they might interact in interesting ways, which means events in the one may explain events in the other realm.”
No, that’s not what I meant. I should have parsed my posting more carefully. I am saying that warmists say things like “The recent El Nino has raised temperatures so global warming is continuing”. But this is not an argument that the globe is warming and more than a cooling La Nina is an argument that the globe is cooling – they simply redistribute energy. Now, I take your point that IF AGW is happening then it WILL warm the globe and alter the ways that the ocean may interact with the atmosphere, but it does not tell us if AGW is happening.
“2) If e.g. an El Niño-event of 2020 gives a year a positive temperature anomaly a, and a comparable event in 2010 gives a year a positive anomaly of 0.7a, then one has to consider GW (from whatever cause!!) over the period 2010 to 2020.”
Yes, of course, but if that were the case then this would likely be corobarrated by the argo network showing ocean warming, which brings me to the point I was making in my last post.
R R Lampen,
“Start with IPCC-scientists and -reports. Remark though that I used the abbreviation ‘GW’ instead of ‘AGW’ to forestall this discussion.”
This is an appeal to authority. I want YOU to tell ME why you think CO2 is heating the globe catastrophically. I’ve already read IPCC reports and if you think this is an open/shut case, it shouldn’t be too difficult to explain.
What some REAL experts prognosticated in June 2009:
“With a probability of 80% the mean September ice extend will be in the range between 3.6 and 5.0 million km^2.”
Looks like they are going to miss by more than 1 standard deviation (especially as it is the September MEAN).
So I do not understand why Flanagan takes it so badly. Show some savoir vivre (as the French would do), gracefully admit defeat (for this year), and start hoping for 2010.
I am at a loss to understand how warmer air can cause warmer oceans to the extent that this air warmth is absorbed and moved around by the oceans. Longwave radiation (the kind that is re-emitted by greenhouse gases) is TERRIBLE at warming oceans and cannot account for SST increases. It simply hits the water’s skin and is almost immediately evaporated back into the atmosphere. The mechanism is just not there for longwave radiation powerful enough to change SST at depths that then do influence land temperatures. Shortwave infrared radiation, when allowed unfettered access to the ocean surface, is VERY good at increasing SST and cares not one bit for the presence or absence of greenhouse gases. So please provide the calculations you have that demonstrates greenhouse warming of oceans.
Too bad the concept of a “global temperature” is completely meaningless.
La Nina and El Nino events are related to tradewind dynamics. For a CO2 mechanism to cause such events you must demonstrate how CO2/greenhouse gasses can change tradewinds. A possible connection would be only over land causing changes in both direction and speed of tradewinds that then, when blowing over the oceans, leave the ocean surface calm or its warm skin peeled back.
hmmmmm (04:34:31) :
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)
LOL! Thanks for the laugh, and the sanity!
Flanagan? Any comments?
Ian (17:36:26) :
If they were so smug & confident, they would have no need to censor.
Douglas DC (17:54:18) :
I’ve got 2500 IPCC drongos on September 2015 when the ice disappears up it’s own vortex.
I don’t mind losing as the World would be a better place without those IPCC drongos 😉
DaveE.
If you look at 2005 and 2006 you see that it was also botteming out but then a small bumb down. Big change happening again but it wont make a difference in the big picture.
Adam Grey (06:46:33) :Sea ice extent is currently near 5.3 million sq/kms. What would the trend be now?
-7.9%/ decade
Tim McHenry (07:06:17) :
Richard (22:26:54:
Yes, this is the point. The present ice fluctuations are not significant and if they became more significant that would be good. People are getting awfully worked up over something not shown to be important.
Significance is not solely dependent on mathematics and statistics. It has to be interpreted by evidence and intelligence depending on what is meant.
In my opinion if the summer ice disappeared eventually it would not be “significant” as it probably did during the last 3-4 thousand years.
A linear trend (least squares fit) is not significant as it tells you nothing of the future. IF that trend continues THEN the ice would eventually disappear, but a trend makes no predictions about the future.
It is useful in disproving a hypothesis though.
If you subtract the average (for this data set) daily freeze-melt curve from the IARC-JAXA, AMSR-E data curves and then plot them end-to-end rather than overlapping, one can see a modest, but not necessarily conclusive average annual ice-extent increase of about 580,000 km2 since the record low of 2007. It is possible to say that there is no longer appears to be any evidence of a run-away Arctic ice-melt. Perhaps this recovery reflects the greatly reduced solar activity we have seen for the past two years.
Flanagan:
I think it is clear that the Arctic models aren’t adequate to model whatever processes actually govern the Ice Extent in the Arctic
– they just don’t seem to be in the right ball-park from the get-go
– also, the large spread in the ‘steady-state’ ice coverage (before 1950) seems to indicate that there is no real concensus on what the actual physical processes are even without AGW induced melting
– so I don’t see why we should believe what the models also say about the Antarctic
– they’re basically not modelling the physical processes correctly, and so can’t be considered to offer meaningful predictions of ice coverage in 2050, or at anytime past or present……
Of course, one of the things that puzzles me about the General Climate Models is that they too do not agree on what the stready-state temperature of the globe should be
– I think there’s about a 2oC spread even in the steady-state
– which also indicates that they too are not modelling the physical processes correctly……
TonyB and Ed: see the Science publication last week where some researchers show the Arctic has been growing over the last 2000 years.