NSIDC still pushing "ice-free Arctic summers"

Anthony,
I too am trying to work out my prediction for minimum sea-ice extent in 2010. Would you mind disclosing how you arrived at 5.7 to 5.9 million square kilometers for 2010?
thanks
REPLY: By simply applying the oldest forecasting technique – persistence, combined with a knowledge now that we have more multi-year ice than last year. – Anthony

“third lowest” I could have predicted they would say that. I’m sick of it. what a bunch of blowhards.

J.Hansford (18:34:30) :
Outside the range of natural climate variability??? How the hell can they make a statement like that!?
Thanks, this stuff isn’t my ken so I was wondering about that. Do you understand him to be inferring that the range of natural climate variability is represented by the satellite records?
Oh, and also that those records represent a long term average?

The real story –
After record breaking ice growth in the fall of 2008 and ice extent a near normal levels last March, the central argument advanced by NSIDC and many other ice scientists was that the ice was younger and thinner and would not survive.
They were wrong.
The ice did not behave in any way remotely close to what the scientists and agencies predicted. And the predictions last June for SEARCH underscore this point. Only one group predicted a value above 5 million sq km (5.2 million) – and they stated in their discussion that they were being intentionally contrary.
http://www.arcus.org/search/seaiceoutlook/2009_outlook/report_july.php
So the real question is –
“To what extent did expectations and/or biases affect the views of these scientists?”
I have argued for some time now that most AGW scientists – especially in the field of Arctic ice – have allowed their views to inform their science. There is only 30 years of satellite data for the Arctic – hardly a comprehensive record for studying conditions that take decades and centuries to play out. Why have so few of these scientists at least postulated that the 2007 event was an outlier?
The past two years of ice behavior suggest that 2007 may have, indeed, been an outlier. An outlier on a upwardly sloped line – but not definitive. As a “lukewarmer” I do not argue that there has been warming and that it has had Arctic impacts, but the “Death Spiral” statements of agency heads goes far beyond the scientific method.

This is the greatest danger posed by the Global Warming crowd, to wit:
Obviously, something odd happened in the Arctic over the past 2 or 3 years and, obviously, CO2 had little (if anything) to do with it. Was it natural variability? Was it particulates from China? We don’t know.
But as long as the Alarmists refuse to deviate from their mantra of “evil American capitalist CO2” as being the cause, we may never know what really happened and therefore what to make of it next time.

> mantra of “evil American capitalist CO2” as being the cause
The GOSAT images posted here a few days ago show Asia (mainly China) and Africa as the primary CO2 “hot-spots”. Of course, it will not matter to the True Believers.

My money is on the meteorologist as opposed to the GCMologist.
That’s means I’m going with your forecast, Mr. Anthony Watts.

Sept. 17, 2010
“Arctic sea ice is thin first- or second-year or third year ice, rather than thicker, multi-year ice that used to dominate the region,”
“…the fourth-lowest recorded since satellites…”
Sept. 17, 2111
blah, blah, blah

As I have pointed out in previous posts, the NSIDC were pushing scare stories in the MSM about a “record low” ice extent for 2009 a mere month and a half ago! And when it didn’t come true, they (particularly Mark “the arctic is screaming” Serreze) did everything they could to spin the truth, culminating in this press release today. It is clear to me that it is no longer about science with these people, but about funding dollars and politics…truly pathetic!

Interesting Mr. Watts that you should predict a 3rd year of growth in ice extent. In the modern records this would be rather unique. If it did happen it would probably lend credence to the argument that 2007 was an anomalous year, way below what would normally happen.
REPLY: I thought about that when I weighed my thoughts. In the short sat record, we see several instances where we’ve had two years of upticks, followed by a down year. I see some momentum here and believe that 2007 was indeed anomalous. Further I think wind patterns have more to do with sea ice loss than anything else. There’s a lot of focus on temperature being the driver, but as we’ve seen from the DMI animation that while there have been some changes in winter temps, they remain well below freezing and summer temps have not made any significant divergences from the 30 year average. My prediction is certainly a risk, but I’ve done so before, live and on-air in making some bold forecasts that no others have done. In that framework, and weighing some other factors, this seems like a forecast worth taking a risk on. – Anthony

“ice-free Arctic summers”
Well, you wouldn’t want the wine to freeze, so it should be ice-free year-round. So the NSIDC can move on to other things now that it’s happened.

“While this year’s September minimum extent was greater than each of the past two record-setting and near-record-setting low years, it is still significantly below the long-term average and well outside the range of natural climate variability, said NSIDC Research Scientist Walt Meier.”
How can this Walt Meier make such an audacious claim? Isn’t an ice-free north pole in fact part of “natural climate variability”? Doesn’t this guy know anything about geologic history and time scales? Why didn’t he mention that the extent is returning to the mean? And the very next sentence links it all to CO2. Is this guy a “scientist” or a PR guy reading from a politician-supplied script? What an embarrassment!

Is there any actual science on how the ice acts as an insulator for the water? Much of the AGW hype focuses on a feedback loop where open water absorbs more energy from the sun and further promotes ice melting.
However, I wonder if the opposite is in fact true, that open water allows for heat loss – on a regional scale – and that the ice cap actually acts as an insulator to keep the water warm.
It seems like some of the buoy data might reveal some sort of longer term relationship between ice cover and water temperature.

I’m more a believer in Arctic Sea Ice “flush” rather than “melt”. While some melting does occur, I think it’s pretty clear that wind and currents “flush” a larger percentage of the “lost ice” out the Atlantic side where it melts in more open waters.
I’m sticking with the prediction I made a few days ago here of between 6.0 and 6.3 million sqkm for the 2010 Arctic Sea Ice minimum.
Not entirely a WAG.
For most of the record, the PDO and other major ocean occillations were positive and wind and ocean currents favored breaking up the ice in the summer. For now that has changed.
So, I’m betting on a larger maximum this winter due to a colder winter and a smaller “melt” during the summer because there’s more ice (and it’s thicker), augmented by negative major oceanic occillations resulting in reduced “flushing” out the Atlantic side due to ice buildup in the channels that will cause more ice to pile up.

What can one say about Mark Serreze? I cannot view him any higher than the view he has of himself.

“But most of the 2009 September Arctic sea ice is thin first- or second-year ice, rather than thicker, multi-year ice that used to dominate the region, said Meier.”
So according to Dr. Meier, second-year ice is not multi year ice. In 2010 if Anthony’s predicition of a higher minimum than 2009 is realized, will third-year ice not count as multi-year ice? Perhaps it will be “…thin first- or second- or third-year ice, rather than thicker, multi-year ice…”

I wonder what a graph of ice levels from 1979-2009 would look like?

It’s still all about computer models for them.

“well outside the range of natural climate variability”
[snip] Natural climate variability has had a very great range throughout history and they know it.

I’d like to coin a new term – “Debate Deniers”
The debate deniers at the BBC have described this 23% increase in Arctic summer ice compared with 2007 as a “pause”.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8261953.stm

Ben (23:15:13) : The debate deniers at the BBC have described this 23% increase in Arctic summer ice compared with 2007 as a “pause”.
If trends continue as they are in a couple of years I will describe it as “blowing up in their face”.

“square miles below the average minimum extent measured between 1979 and 2000 —”
However it is very comfortably above the average between 979 and 1000 AD.
Following a linear trend and meteorology/climatology have no intersection, there are no linear trends in sciences built on loops and feedbacks. Unfortunately I find this so obvious that I find it difficult to explain and prove.

Gene: there was a paper recently showing from proxies that the Arctic ice was on the rise for the last 2000 years and then started decreasing in the beginning of the 20th century.

But most of the 2009 September Arctic sea ice is thin first- or second-year ice, rather than thicker, multi-year ice that used to dominate the region, said Meier.
September 2010, press release:
But most of the 2010 September Arctic sea ice is thin second- or third-year ice, rather than thicker, multi-year ice that used to dominate the region, said Meier.
Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961:
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.”

“While the ice extent this year is higher than the last two years, scientists do not consider this to be a recovery. Despite conditions less favorable to ice loss, the 2009 minimum extent is still 24% below the 1979-2000 average, and 20% below the thirty-year 1979-2008 average minimum. In addition, the Arctic is still dominated by younger, thinner ice, which is more vulnerable to seasonal melt. The long-term decline in summer extent is expected to continue in future years.”
How can this be considered a valid analysis of the facts?
“scientists do not consider this to be a recovery”
What scientists? NSIDC ones? all of them? WHO? What would constitute a recovery? a mile of Ice over Manhattan?
Up nearly 20% off the lows of 2007 (which they seem to think is a noteworthy number when looking from the other direction) what a bunch of biased nonsense the text and language could have been lifted from any “Green” group website written by a volunteer.
I expect more from a group of scientists, like some objectivity, a framing of the analysis as to what they are looking for to determine a recovery or loss and perhaps a comparison from their projections?
Finally the Canadian Ice Service seems to be a much more reliable source for Ice Conditions and actual extents and thickness. I will not be referencing NSIDC any longer because they are obviously compromised from within politically.

What we have here is “a failure to communicate”. You guys just don’t understand “AGW Speak”! Let me translate:
“…the third-lowest recorded since satellites began measuring sea ice extent in 1979….” means “The arctic sea ice is rebuilding like a house afire!”
When you see an announcement that “Global average temperature was the 95th highest in 100 years”, you may assume we have entered a second “Little Ice Age”.
Gotta’ bend your mind just a bit to understand “AGW Speak”.
I just noticed my California State taxes are the tenth lowest in the last ten years! Any lower and I may just have to get out of here!
CH

I disagree that multi year ice is stronger than one year ice. 1 year ice may even be stronger. If a lake freezes up in a couple of days and it is 20cm thick and it is from one laye you have a nice solid peace. If you have periods of melting and re freezing you probally have the same 20cm but know it excist with 3layers. and one of the layers can break in a instant wich makes it weaker.

jeroen (00:50:00) :
“I disagree that multi year ice is stronger than one year ice. 1 year ice may even be stronger.”
I agree. I was many times told at school, army etc. that new solid ice is much stronger than weak spring ice which can break easily although being thick. Per cm new ice is much stronger.
So does refreezing of old sea ice make it somehow stronger than solid new ice?
I’ve also read that sea ice don’t get any thicker after three years. So after that it doesn’t matter if its 3 or 1000 years old.

what are the effects of snow(depth) on the ice growth dynamics
since snow slows down thickning of the ice (in september), but also slows down melt (april)
i can imagine cold(er) temps in september/october and little precipitation followed by massive snowfall would have a positive effect aswell?
the same goes for glaciers, this year in the alps got 2 major snowdumps during the summer. It protected the ice and slowed down the melt.

What a sad, sad, statement. Look at it.
“”The minimum 2009 sea-ice extent is still about 620,000 square miles below the average minimum extent measured between 1979 and 2000 — an area nearly equal to the size of Alaska, said Meier. “We are still seeing a downward trend that appears to be heading toward ice-free Arctic summers,” Meier said.”
An arbitrary 21 years of satellite surveillance is held up as the paradigm by which humans measure and judge millions of years of Arctic ice cover. Mr Meier seems to be counting numbers in the same style as a one time acquaintance I knew, who had married an unfaithful wife. She slept with 20 other men in the first year, 27 in the second year, 31 in the third, but only 18 in the fourth year and then 12 in the fifth year.
To cheer him up, I said that in the approaching sixth year, she’d probably be unfaithful only 4-5 times, but he had somehow become convinced that she was heading towards more infidelity, not less. My prediction for the sixth year was uncannily accurate. The figure was 4, but the cuckold killed himself at the beginning of the seventh year, as it seemed that his wife had reduced her wayward behaviour to zero. She wanted a divorce in order to marry a real man.
So it is in Boulder. NSIDC is going to have to divorce itself from the AGWarmists in its ranks as Global Cooling continues and desperately hope its paymasters do not question whether NSDIC is value for money. After all, is it really sensible to employ staff who read graphs upside down? Underlying downward trend! Huh! That’s political speak, not science.
The presence or absence of Arctic ice is as natural as is the inevitable and forthcoming extinction of the human race, especially if the US aids our self destruction with statements about CO2 being a pollutant. That’s barmy!!
Flanagan (23:34:59) :
References please, not hearsay.

The NSIDC seem reluctant to accept the concept of natural cycles of cooling and warming. The start of Satellite measuring in 1979 coincided with peak ice, which is why they always speak of subsequent decline;
Link 1
http://geology.com/articles/northwest-passage.shtml
Ice extent maximum- Depends if you are talking winter or summer but ‘decline’ starts around 1979 from a high point.
Link 2 This also shows the same;
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.area.jpg
link 3
The IPCC report confirms this p351/2 figures 4.8 4.9 4.10
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter4.pdf
Link 4
The concerns over global cooling in the 70’s did have some basis in fact. There were a series of low temperatures in many arctic areas during the 70’s which ice would have corresponded to by growing.
http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/Scientific/Arctic.htm
As the IPCC show, the start of the satellite period therefore roughly coincided with a period of peak ice-so it is not at all surprising that as part of its natural cycle it should subsequently decline.
link 5
The IPCC are not very good at their historic reconstructions and generally view actual observations as ‘anecdotal.’ They seem to believe that history did not start before 1979.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/20/historic-variation-in-arctic-ice/#comments
This article examines the arctic melting in the period 1810-1860 -see notes at bottom of article with additional references.
Link 6
These are two good studies showing the arctic melting from the 1920’s to 1940’s posted elsewhere;
“I will cite two of these studies, which show (a) a warm period during the 1930s and 1940s with temperatures as high as those of today and (b) reduced sea ice extent during this period, which only later returned to the high levels measured at the start of the latest retreating cycle in 1979 (when satellite measurements started), i.e. your point.
ftp://ftp.whoi.edu/pub/users/mtimmermans/ArcticSymposiumTalks/Smolyanitsky.pdf
http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Chylek/greenland_warming.html
link 7 The melting in the period 1920-1940 is very well documented. I have posted various articles on it including newspaper stories.
Expeditions to the arctic to view the melting ice became the equivalent of todays celebrity jaunts to the area. The most famous were those mounted by Bob Bartlett on the Morrissey. I have carried extracts from his diary before-remember the observation of the mile wide face of a glacier falling in to the sea?
There are pathe news reels of his voyages which your parents may have watched in their youth, and books on the subject. Here is a bibliography of material relating to him.
http://www.nlpubliclibraries.ca/nlcollection/pdf/guides/NL_Collection_Guide_11.pdf
Certain of us seem reluctant to learn the lessons of history-in this case that there are periods of melting and refreeze that appear to follow a roughly 60/70 year cycle. We may or may not be at the low point in the cycle-that will become clearer over the next five years.
Whatever the alarmists may believe, at present our modern era is not displaying any climate characteristics that have not been experienced in past ages of humanity.
tonyb

O/T but displays the pro warmist mentality still prevalent despite global cooling:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/sep/17/jeremy-clarkson-horse-manure-protest
At least Monbiot is no longer quite so cocksure as he was…
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/sep/16/global-temperature-cooling

Do I spot a 7-year wave in Antarctic sea ice extent? http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.area.south.jpg Am I seeing things?

“…each of the past two record-setting and near-record-setting low years…”
So this year was actually an near-near-record setting low year.
“…it is still significantly below the long-term average and well outside the range of natural climate variability…”
Significantly below and well outside. Not inside the strike zone, eh? Sounds like Mother Nature is throwing us a curve ball…

Anthony,
“a two year recovery”?
How do you combine that with
“While this year’s September minimum extent was greater than each of the past two record-setting and near-record-setting low years, it is still significantly below the long-term average and well outside the range of natural climate variability, said NSIDC Research Scientist Walt Meier. ”
Even including the last two years, the downward trend in sea ice extent has accelerated! How is that a recovery?

Hi, Perry
the paper is “Recent Warming Reverses Long-Term Arctic Cooling” by Kaufman et al.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/325/5945/1236

Alright, I’m not the greatest with math, and don’t take this question as rhetorical, I really wan’t an answer.
Unless you are keeping a running total of the Anomaly values. How does the data come up -accelerate- the downward trend in any circumstance. I thought acceleration was the delta of the delta. That is to say, if the Arctic lost half a million square feet every single year, the trend would be downward but the acceleration would be zero. If the Arctic lost half a million one year and each year it lost an additional 100,000 square feet to that half million, 600,000 then 700,000, then 800,000 the year after, wouldn’t that be an acceleration of 100,000 square feet? How in the world do you get a positive acceleration out of an increase in ice as opposed to a loss, unless you are adding the previous years ice delta from your arbitrary norm to this one? Why does last years delta have anything to do with this years delta? If next year the ice were normal wouldnt the totall trend be zero and the acceleration of the ice loss be highly negative?
Thanks

Bart Verheggen:
“Even including the last two years, the downward trend in sea ice extent has accelerated! How is that a recovery?”
You’ re kidding, right? Or have you found a new meaning for the word “acceleration” ?

Ugh, I used trend where i should have used anomaly , and i’ll likely not get this clarification in before several people point that out to me.

The worst, most non-scientific comment by the NSIDC is
“and well outside the range of natural variability. ”
Based on a thirty year record there is no way to make that claim. It is irresponsible.

At the start of the year I was reading comments from a French ski resort manager in a Pyrennean ski centre.
It went something like this;
“yes we had great snow this winter, the pistes were excellent earlier and for longer, than in recent years, its all down to global warming”.

Mike B,
(I like your name by the way…) I’ve got a better idea – for those congressmen and leaders that won’t listen to reason – fire them next election. We, after all are their employers and they serve at our direction…at least that’s how I read the constitution. (US that is…)
Another Mike B

What people may not be aware of is that, according to the Japanese data, the minimum ice area in 2005 was 5,315,156 sq kms, which occurred on 22 Sep. Currently, 2009 stands at 5,326,094 sq kms, which is clearly more than the 2005 minimum. Assuming we have, indeed, past the minimum for this year, it is obvious that in the very near future, 2009 will be the fourth smallest ice extrent, by calendar date; not the third.

Similar Alarmism from the Center for Biodiversity
Sep 18, 2009
Center for Biodiversity Release Another Embarrassment
http://www.icecap.us (right column)
If we don’t cap CO2 emissions, we are doomed.

Flanagan (23:34:59) : “. . . there was a paper recently showing from proxies that the Arctic ice was on the rise for the last 2000 years and then started decreasing in the beginning of the 20th century.”
Flanagan, apparently you are referring to the Darrell S. Kaufman study. To be blunt and short: That study is rubbish. To the extent that it was peer-reviewed speaks volumes of how broken the peer review process is.
I often find it worthwhile to consider your comments, but if you refer people to such garbage, you are undermining the credibility of your other comments.

MikeE (18:27:52) :
All things being equal, surly they have also extrapolated the antarctic sea ice trends…….
Shouldn’t that read, surly they are

Bart Verheggen (03:00:23) said:
“Even including the last two years, the downward trend in sea ice extent has accelerated! How is that a recovery?”
I don’t know how you arrive at such a conclusion. Perhaps you can explain?
Can I refer you to my 1 54 45? There is ample evidence that the current melting is part of a natural oscillation that we can pick up in 1810-1860 and 1929-1940.
You seem to be relying too much on satelite data since 1979 from which I would assume you have no particular interest in arctic history and historic climatology in general prior to 1979. The world has warmed and cooled before and no doubt will do so again without any help from us.
I read your guest post on Real Ckimate but was particularly interested in this comment from your web site:
“The problem with CO2 is that a large part of our emissions stays in the atmosphere for centuries or even millennia”
Please cite your references, then you might like to discuss this with ferdinand who often drops by here. He will be most interested in your theory. He is Dutch as well.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/01/the-origin-of-increasing-atmospheric-co2-a-response-from-ferdinand-engelbeen/
best regards
tonyb

This is a perfect example of someone pulling the political funding string to get the spin on the story they want. I’m very dissapointed that Dr. Meier would allow his integrity to be tarnished like this. Any reasonable person, as I hope any scientist would be, knows that when we are researching something with geological time scales, 30 years would just be the start of the observational and data collection period; much to early to start making swag theories.

“… minimum extent was greater than each of the past two record-setting and near-record-setting low years, …”
Has it even been mentioned that this year’s extent will likely surpass that of 2005 by the end of this weekend? Had to get that press release out before the argument got weaker!

Bart Verheggen (03:00:23) : “How is that a recovery?”
The Dow Jones Industrial Average is up to 9500+ although it had been down to 6500 earlier this year. Still, it is well below its range and average from 1999 to 2007. Would you therefore reject that the Dow Jones has had a reovery.
One potentially misleading part of Meier’s statement is that current ice levels are “well outside the range of natural climate variability.” Dr. Meir is referring to the variability experience from 1979 to 2000. We do not have comprehensive data before that, but we do have enough anecdotal evidence to suggest that variability over the centuries has been much more than that experienced from 1979 to 2000. That group of years does not even consist of a statistically valid sample size for elementary statistics. And statistics get much more complicated when we are dealing with oscillations of various lengths. It may take hundreds of years to see a repeat of the status of variation oscillations experienced in the early 2000s. Just a start of the potential list: PDO, AMO, NAO, solar cycles, position of Jupiter relative to earth . . . .

Press release from a tomato plant acting as AGW climate modeler:
“We still see an upward trend in sunlight hours per day if I fit a linear trend line to the whole record from March to July.
Therefore our models predict that by May or June next year there will be no nighttime hours.”

Marcus (06:06:47) :
You do not simply have a 30 year trend with “noise about it”. The first half of your record is flat, with all decrease in the latter portion of the second half. Thus, by artificially attaching your trend line to 1979, you are diminishing the slope of the actual decrease that occurred.
You are also artificially creating a situation where the value of the slope from 1979-2009 has a greater negative value than the slope from 1979-2008, because 2009 is still below the “trend line”. This, then, is your artificially induced “acceleration” and is IMHO a severe abuse of statistics. Unfortunately, such misrepresentations seem very common on the AGW side of things.

The experts will have to show me that ice flowing out of Fram Strait versus ice staying in the Arctic and getting thrown together in jumbled thick layers produces the same amount of melt. My hypothesis is that when Arctic ice is driven inwards instead of outwards, both area and extent overestimate melt.

~snip~ über-snark. ~dbs, mod.

Well from the JAXA data site, it appears that the ice hit bottom at about 5,249,844 on 9/13, nad the 2005 minimum, was 5,315,156 on 9/22, and we are already today above that 2005 minimum at 5,326,094.
So the refreeze started a full week or more earlier than in 2005, nad here we are still four days from the 2005 minimum, and we are growing back rapidly.
And despite what they say about the ice being thinner; it is surface water coverage, that produces albedo instead of near BB absorption; so the greater coverage of otherwise open water, would seem to be more important, than just piling on more snow from the extra precipitation from warmer years.
And the latest data sho that the trend is upwards from historic lows, so the case for ice free Arctic waters would seem to be overstated.
George

NASA have a published sea ice data page, with graphs and datasets where the data ends Dec 2007.
Why is that?
http://polynya.gsfc.nasa.gov/seaice_datasets.html

I think it is clear that 1st year ice doesn’t stand up as well as mature ice
A plausible and in my opinion high likely cause of the rapid reduction in Arctic ice in the few years up to 2007 and the even more rapid increase since. Is that the mature or old ice had accumulated airborne particles at the level of the previous years ice melt. These accumulated particles progressively over years reduced the ice’s albedo causing accelerating melt.
Of course once the mature ice melts completely the accumulated particles disappear into the ocean and the new ice that forms is free of the multi-year particle accumulation and will be less likely to melt in summer until it accumulates a number of years of particles.
This explains why the new ice stubbornly refuses to melt as predicted. And I expect the summer ice extent to increase for several more years, until the cycle repeats.
Note that Antarctic sea ice has nothing like the pre/post 2007 melt/refreeze, which means the cause must be restricted to the NH, which particulate pollution is.

Ugh.
When did everyone decide to ignore Physics? Given the 2007 minimum, even a trend towards re-freezing will take recovery time. Everything in the last two years is exactly what would be expected in the early stages of ice recovery, and yet otherwise intelligent people just can’t see anything past “third lowest.”
Anyone who thought we’d jump from 2007 minimums to historical average in one or two years could not have been taken seriously. And given that, to lament about 2008 and 2009 levels being indicative of continued warming likewise cannot be taken seriously.

Anecdotal evidence from Hudson Bay suggests it has ‘remained frozen much longer this year than it normally does.’
It seems ‘due to colder-than-usual subarctic weather this year, healthier polar bears are being spotted along the West Hudson Bay coast.’
http://themigrantmind.blogspot.com/
You won’t hear about this in the msm.

Paul Vaughan (23:32:10) :
Paul Vaughan (00:41:00)
Thanks for the links, the CumuSum graphs were especially interesting. What got me obsessing about the Rigor-Wallace paper was actually the animation with ice age and buoy drift paths combined. Some time back when I began to suspect that the Trans Polar Drift might be a serious factor in the ice loss in the Arctic, I went looking for a map of Arctic currents and I kept coming up with seemingly mutually exclusive variants on these two maps
http://nsidc.org/seaice/processes/circulation.html
http://www.amap.no/?main=http%3A//www.amap.no/mapsgraphics/%3Fevent%3Dsearch%26q%3DArctic+currents
When I watched the animation It was almost amazing to watch Beaufort Gyre-TPD shift from one state to the other in a relative blink of the eye and see the ice go through a change of state that was almost a paradigm shift as a result. Undoubtedly, that the shift occurred at a point coincident with the dramatic spikes in the AO and the NAO will mean that CO2 and AGW will still be blamed, but to me the fact that the change has persisted long after the spikes petered out suggests that something else may have contributed to it, though I have no idea what it might be at this point.

Not only the NSIDC is producing “spin”, so is NASA:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=40250&src=eorss-iotd
All over Europe in the news:
A combined message from scientists and Greenpeace:
The Arctic Ice is melting.
The winter freeze is not sufficient to compensate for the summer melting.
The only way to stop this process is to adapt legislation to curb CO2 emissions.
The propaganda machine is pumping out AGW/Climate Change propaganda at a level never seen before.
You can’t watch any documentary, tv commercial or news program without hearing the words “Green”, CO2, Climate Change, quick action, etc, etc.
Governments have opened web sites tht provide information about the carbon footprint of food. The basic slogan: “You decide what you eat because you pay for it”.
Another project to brainwash the people is “Climate Street”, a cometition wich street has come up with the best “Green Idea’s and Solutions to fight Climate Change”.
Any special interest program, no matter if it is about traveling, cars, inventions, housing, interior design, they are all infested with Green Propaganda.
WWF and Greenpeace dominate the news which is presented to the public without any journalistic scrutiny.
For those who believe the AGW/Climate Doctrine is dead, I don’t think so.
The establishment is continuing their quest until democracy is dead and “total control” is achieved.
We are truly in the front of this “war” and hopefully the winter of 2009 1010 will hit the US and Europe hard. We will need it.

Hi Smokey-

Wrong again, trickster. The record goes a lot farther back than the tiny slice of time you’re picking: click.
Here’s another record of past temperatures: click.
I have plenty more pre-SUV graphs showing the same natural oscillations. They all show natural climate variability; nothing is static. Today’s climate is completely normal.

Trickster?
No tricks here.
Looking at your graphs, neither of them show the extreme rapidity of the changes we are seeing, compared to historical changes in ice extent and volume. The time scales are too long to show the sudden spike apparently caused by our geologically instantaneous addition of 300 billion tons of carbon from fossil fuels to the atmosphere and biosphere.
Lovelock himself was surprised that the climate system appears to be destabilizing, and appears to be in failure mode. I’m surprised too. But it does appear to be happening.
We appear to be seeing multiple destabilizations in multiple climate systems, and the increased sunlight absorption due to albedo changes due to loss of the polar icecap will only add to that.
I don’t really have time to argue with you, and it really is a waste of effort, I think. Arguing with you would be a full time job, and I already have a full time job, and other interests to pursue.
I urge you and others on this site once again, just to look at the graphs of ice extent, see that clearly ice extent is declining at a really huge rate, and go out on the Internet to other sources beside Watts up With That and other climate skeptic websites.
Here’s a link to Chris Field, one of the IPCC group leaders, whose work at Stanford is funded at least partially by ExxonMobil, telling it like it is on Democracy Now. This is actually a scientifically conservative position, and I believe that the real situation is much more “out of control” than he says:
http://www.democracynow.org/2009/2/26/member_of_un_environment_panel_warns

Like a Rock: Look at the plunge in the DMI arctic temps in the side bar of WUWT:
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
I’m going for Anthony’s higher number. I think it would be a gas for WUWT readers to make ice min predictions for 2010 and lets see if we do better than the experts used by NSIDC

Leland Palmer (10:19:07) :
I don’t really have time to argue with you, and it really is a waste of effort, I think. Arguing with you would be a full time job,…..
Here’s a link to Chris Field, one of the IPCC group leaders, whose work at Stanford is funded at least partially by ExxonMobil, telling it like it is on Democracy Now.
I’d have to agree with you. If you’re taking guidance on this matter from the kind of mindless babbling that Mr. Field offered in that interview you definitely need to be filed under the heading of “Hopeless Case”.

“We appear to be seeing multiple destabilizations in multiple climate systems, and the increased sunlight absorption due to albedo changes due to loss of the polar icecap will only add to that.”
It seems to me lack of ice-cap actually increases the heat radiated from the Poles and hence cools the Earth.
When one considers the amount of heat needed to keep the Arctic ice-free one can see a clear route for a substantial ocean current is required. So if Greenland was to magically disappear I’d guess the Gulf stream would strengthen and keep the Arctic ocean ice-free, maybe even in winter?

“The propaganda machine is pumping out AGW/Climate Change propaganda at a level never seen before. You can’t watch any documentary, tv commercial or news program without hearing the words “Green”, CO2, Climate Change, quick action, etc, etc.”
Of course – media companies, manufacturers, service providers etc. are all trying to produce what their customers want to consume. Companies will claim to be ‘green’ if they think it will improve their image and therefore their profits. TV producers will broadcast whatever they think will grab their audience’s attention (I was already sick of hearing about Michael Jackson 10 minutes after the news of his death came out, for example).
However, none of that makes any difference to what the climate is actually doing. Everyone acknowledges that the world is getting warmer, that the Arctic ice is declining, and that anthropogenic greenhouse gases are very likely to blame – the fact that the media hype is usually more about profits than any genuine mission to present the truth, is beside the point.
The data pretty much speaks for itself –
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/n_plot_hires.png

Dave Wendt (03:20:12) “[…] but to me the fact that the change has persisted long after the spikes petered out suggests that something else may have contributed to it, though I have no idea what it might be at this point.”
Have a look at Bob Tisdale’s illustration for some ideas:
http://i42.tinypic.com/e9b04g.jpg
“[…] trend toward a stronger, tighter circulation around the North Pole […]” / “Stratosphere cooling in the last few decades has caused the counterclockwise circulation around the North Pole to strengthen in winter. In turn, the belt of westerly winds at the surface along 45 degrees north latitude has shifted farther north, the scientists said, sweeping larger quantities of mild ocean air across Scandinavia and Russia and bringing balmier winters over most of the United States as well.”
http://www.washington.edu/newsroom/news/1999archive/12-99archive/k121699.html
More on the 1988 shift:
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/CumuSumDJFM_NAM.png [NAM = Northern Annular Mode]
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/jhurrell/indices.info.html#nam
Illuminating notes here:
“Annular Modes Website”
http://ao.atmos.colostate.edu/introduction.html
Chicken-egg logic – & lots of unknowns admitted. They seem be missing out on the importance of Barkin’s work …This is getting interesting.
“The trend in the NAM is largest during NH winter, is most pronounced from the middle 1960s to the late 1990s […] helps explain the spatial structure of recent trends in NH climate”

————-
Sandy (12:53:49) “It seems to me lack of ice-cap actually increases the heat radiated from the Poles and hence cools the Earth.”
This makes sense. As for summer insolation at extreme-high-latitude: Even at its peak, the angle of incidence is not that of the equator – and the area between, say, 80N & 90N is a fraction of that between 5S & 5N.
————-
I’m not sure it makes much sense. Why would ice act as an insulator? *How* would it do so? Intuitively I would think that ice would conduct heat just as effectively as water, since it’s the same stuff. If it’s the same stuff then why would it make any difference whether it was in a liquid or solid state? I can see that it would make a large difference to albedo though, which is why scientists argue that open water would absorb more heat than an ice sheet would.

Paul Vaughan (17:02:24) :
Sandy (12:53:49) “It seems to me lack of ice-cap actually increases the heat radiated from the Poles and hence cools the Earth.”
This makes sense. As for summer insolation at extreme-high-latitude: Even at its peak, the angle of incidence is not that of the equator – and the area between, say, 80N & 90N is a fraction of that between 5S & 5N.
Though the sun is continuously above the horizon in the high Arctic throughout the summer its maximum angle above the horizon is 23.5 degrees, about the same slant as a line with a 1/2 to 1 rise over run ratio. Since the graphs for ice extent all run fairly close thru the downleg from April to August the only time where there is significantly more open water for the Sun to heat is from mid Aug to now when the Sun is circulating at single digit angles above the horizon. At those kind of angles of incidence, shining light on a water surface is not significantly different than shining it on a mirror. Max open water occurred less than a week ago and the Sun disappears for the Winter in two days. The notion that a lot of extra heat will be dumped in the Arctic Ocean because of declining sea ice is just lame.

Icarus (17:34:50) “Why would ice act as an insulator? *How* would it do so? Intuitively I would think that ice would conduct heat just as effectively as water, since it’s the same stuff. If it’s the same stuff then why would it make any difference whether it was in a liquid or solid state?”
Say all the Arctic ice melted permanently: Then we could expect a more moderate climate in the NH, since it would be more maritime & less continental.

http://anhonestclimatedebate.wordpress.com/2009/09/20/arctic-sea-ice-not-following-consensus/

The physics of igloos is interesting but as RACookPE points out, the insulation effect comes mainly from the trapped air, not the ice, so it’s not really relevant in this context.
However I have been reading some more about this and I can see that I was wrong – i.e. there *is* an insulating effect of ice floating on water.
Sandy (22:46:36): “So a melted Arctic should not be seen as a new stability, but rather the Earth radiating away a lot of heat.”
I think we would all agree that the Arctic is warming because the world as a whole is warming, and that the reduction of Arctic sea ice is a consequence of that warming. If you’re arguing that melting represents a negative feedback, rather than being neutral or a positive feedback, do you have any studies to back that up? The things I’ve read suggest otherwise (i.e. that we can expect ‘polar amplification’ due to the net effect of declining Arctic sea ice being a positive feedback).

Antarctic temperatures below average, ice extend still growing
scientists operating a drone for measurement outside spec circumstances:
http://icestories.exploratorium.edu/dispatches/terra-nova-bay-or-bust/

It continually amazes me, that in this era of modern communication the readers of WUWT keep coming to conclusions that are simply not supported by the facts.
Ice area is declining, but so is ice volume, as measured by ICESat:

PASADENA, Calif. – Arctic sea ice thinned dramatically between the winters of 2004 and 2008, with thin seasonal ice replacing thick older ice as the dominant type for the first time on record. The new results, based on data from a NASA Earth-orbiting spacecraft, provide further evidence for the rapid, ongoing transformation of the Arctic’s ice cover.
Scientists from NASA and the University of Washington in Seattle conducted the most comprehensive survey to date using observations from NASA’s Ice, Cloud and land Elevation Satellite, known as ICESat, to make the first basin-wide estimate of the thickness and volume of the Arctic Ocean’s ice cover. Ron Kwok of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif., led the research team, which published its findings July 7 in the Journal of Geophysical Research-Oceans.
The Arctic ice cap grows each winter as the sun sets for several months and intense cold ensues. In the summer, wind and ocean currents cause some of the ice naturally to flow out of the Arctic, while much of it melts in place. But not all of the Arctic ice melts each summer; the thicker, older ice is more likely to survive. Seasonal sea ice usually reaches about 2 meters (6 feet) in thickness, while multi-year ice averages 3 meters (9 feet).
Using ICESat measurements, scientists found that overall Arctic sea ice thinned about 0.17 meters (7 inches) a year, for a total of 0.68 meters (2.2 feet) over four winters. The total area covered by the thicker, older “multi-year” ice that has survived one or more summers shrank by 42 percent.

If we can’t agree on anything else, we should be able to agree that ice volume declined from 2004 to 2008. That fact, taken along with thousands of other indicators from most branches of science that warming is occurring, the potential runaway positive feedbacks we are seeing, plus the fossil evidence of past methane catastrophes, should be enough to convince rational people that a conservative policy toward climate change is necessary.
This is the place we all live.
Wouldn’t it be better to err on the side of caution (if there is any error, and it’s approaching absolute certainty that there is not), and take a conservative approach to this issue?

Leland Palmer (09:55:14) :
Wouldn’t it be better to err on the side of caution (if there is any error, and it’s approaching absolute certainty that there is not), and take a conservative approach to this issue?
I couldn’t agree more. Let us indeed err on the side of caution. Let’s not go down the road of massive tax rises (it seems that the US Treasury Department is looking at $300bn p.a.) to combat a natural phenomenon. What could possibly be more conservative than that?

RACookPE (22:08:42): “The world’s temperature has been gradually
increasing since about 1750 -without mankind’s assistance or
emissions.”
So it’s just an amazing coincidence that this period coincides exactly
with the Industrial Revolution and the resultant exponential growth in
atmospheric CO2?
“Since 1998, for 11 years, CO2 has increased and temperatures have
declined. we are now at the same temperatures worldwide as 1995. And
temperatures continue to decline.”
Not so. The world is still warming at 0.2°C per decade –
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/global-jan-dec-error-bar-
pg.gif
“Before 1973? CO2 was increasing, but temperatures declined by 3/10 of
one degree from 1940 through 1973.”
Well, only about 0.1°C… but that’s in the context of 100 years of
rising temperatures, and I’ve read that this is accounted for fairly well
by trends in anthropogenic aerosols. It doesn’t contradict the long-term
forcing of anthropogenic CO2… unless you know otherwise?
“Before 1940? Co2 was essentially constant, but temperatures were
increasing – by 1/2 of one degree.”
By the 1940s, atmospheric CO2 had been rising for about 150 years, and
was accelerating. Hardly ‘constant’. Is it not possible that the 150
years of rising CO2 was beginning to have a significant effect on global
climate?
“You claim that open water will absorb more heat than ice-covered
water, but that HAS NOT HAPPENED in the real world.
Ice coverage increased between 2007 and 2008.
Increased between 2008 and 2009.
Increased between 2005 and 2006.”
… and decreased between 2006 and 2007, decreased between 2004 and 2005,
decreased between 2001 and 2002… and the decreases outweigh the
increases, which is why there is a clear downward trend in ice coverage –
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/n_plot_hires.png
If the open water is not absorbing more heat, then where is the heat
coming from? It could be coming just from the fact that the entire world
is warming by 0.2°C per decade, but the Arctic is warming faster than the
world as a whole, so that does suggest an amplifying mechanism going on
there. What could it be?
“Now, we see equal sea ice extents in 2009 as in 2005.”
Yes, and the trend is clearly downwards, despite interannual variability. Why is that?

Re: Icarus (12:45:37)
Are you trying to suggest that the majority of energy input to the Arctic is happening in the Arctic (as opposed to being a result of transport from warmer latitudes)?

Paul Vaughan (14:09:40): “Are you trying to suggest that the majority of energy input to the Arctic is happening in the Arctic (as opposed to being a result of transport from warmer latitudes)?”
I don’t know enough about it to claim that, but the maps of global temperature anomalies do show the Arctic warming even faster than the rest of the planet, so there must be some kind of amplification effect going on there, almost by definition. It seems reasonable to me that warmer atmosphere and oceans are causing the ice to decline, which in turn is causing greater warming because of this positive feedback effect. Is that not the case? It’s what the data suggests –
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/n_plot_hires.png

Re: Icarus (15:21:50)
3 questions – Are you:
1) familiar with the Northern Annular Mode (NAM)?
2) aware of the 1976 climate shift?
3) aware of the step-changes in northern hemisphere sea surface temperatures following the major El Ninos of 1987 & 1998?

Icarus said:
“Is that not the case? It’s what the data suggests –
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/n_plot_hires.png
***
The data suggests you should look at a much longer time scale than thirty years.
The NSIDC seem reluctant to accept the concept of natural cycles of cooling and warming. The start of Satellite measuring in 1979 coincided with peak ice, which is why they always speak of subsequent decline;
Link 1
http://geology.com/articles/northwest-passage.shtml
Ice extent maximum- Depends if you are talking winter or summer but ‘decline’ starts around 1979 from a high point.
Link 2 This also shows the same;
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.area.jpg
link 3
The IPCC report confirms this p351/2 figures 4.8 4.9 4.10
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter4.pdf
Link 4
The concerns over global cooling in the 70’s did have some basis in fact. There were a series of low temperatures in many arctic areas during the 70’s which ice would have corresponded to by growing.
http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/Scientific/Arctic.htm
As the IPCC show, the start of the satellite period therefore roughly coincided with a period of peak ice-so it is not at all surprising that as part of its natural cycle it should subsequently decline.
link 5
The IPCC are not very good at their historic reconstructions and generally view actual observations as ‘anecdotal.’ They seem to believe that history did not start before 1979.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/20/historic-variation-in-arctic-ice/#comments
This article examines the arctic melting in the period 1810-1860 -see notes at bottom of article with additional references.
Link 6
These are two good studies showing the arctic melting from the 1920’s to 1940’s posted elsewhere;
“I will cite two of these studies, which show (a) a warm period during the 1930s and 1940s with temperatures as high as those of today and (b) reduced sea ice extent during this period, which only later returned to the high levels measured at the start of the latest retreating cycle in 1979 (when satellite measurements started), i.e. your point.
ftp://ftp.whoi.edu/pub/users/mtimmermans/ArcticSymposiumTalks/Smolyanitsky.pdf
http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Chylek/greenland_warming.html
link 7 The melting in the period 1920-1940 is very well documented. I have posted various articles on it including newspaper stories.
Expeditions to the arctic to view the melting ice became the equivalent of todays celebrity jaunts to the area. The most famous were those mounted by Bob Bartlett on the Morrissey. I have carried extracts from his diary before-remember the observation of the mile wide face of a glacier falling in to the sea?
There are pathe news reels of his voyages which your parents may have watched in their youth, and books on the subject. Here is a bibliography of material relating to him.
http://www.nlpubliclibraries.ca/nlcollection/pdf/guides/NL_Collection_Guide_11.pdf
We have got this far citing instances of warming and not even mentioned the Vikings 1000 years ago or the Ipiatuk from 2000 years ago.
Certain of us seem reluctant to learn the lessons of history-in this case that there are periods of melting and refreeze that appear to follow a roughly 60/70 year cycle. We may or may not be at the low point in the cycle-that will become clearer over the next five years.
Whatever the alarmists may believe, at present our modern era is not displaying any climate characteristics that have not been experienced in past ages of humanity.
tonyb

Hi Mr. Green Genes:

I couldn’t agree more. Let us indeed err on the side of caution. Let’s not go down the road of massive tax rises (it seems that the US Treasury Department is looking at $300bn p.a.) to combat a natural phenomenon. What could possibly be more conservative than that?

You’ve met my pet methane catastophe? I call him Ralph. I keep him around because it’s always possible that I might want to feed him a biosphere. 🙂
Seriously, we get trillions of dollars of free goods and services from our self regulating biosphere. In that sense, we are already rich and are born rich.
The Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum and the Permian-Triassic mass extinction event appear to be due to runaway positive feedback greenhouse events. The C12/C13 ratio signatures left in the sediments and seashells laid down at those times are best explained by trillions of tons of “isotopically light” methane from the methane hydrates entering the atmosphere geologically instantaneously, causing a huge discontinuity in the isotope ratios.
The Permain- Triassic mass extinction killed something like 95% of marine species, and 80% of land species. It is the only known mass extinction of insects. Some scientists have speculated that this event came very close to tipping the entire self-regulating climate system over, killing all life on earth. Most people do not know that the real equilibrium state of the earth’s atmosphere, in the absence of life, would resemble the surface of Venus, with temperatures of hundreds of degrees, no free oxygen, and such a huge heavy atmosphere that surface pressures would resemble those found now at the bottoms of our oceans.
Certainly, it took almost 100 million years for life to slowly regain its former complexity, after the End-Permian event, and hundreds of thousands of years for the oceans to become oxygenated again.
Our huge rate of change of greenhouse gases could easily destabilize the Arctic permafrost, and the greenhouse gases from the permafrost and from the burning a good portion of the tropical and boreal forests could reasonably set off just such a methane catastrophe, by releasing some fraction of the several trillion tons of methane known to be contained in the methane hydrates.
Methane is a greenhouse gas currently 23 times or so worse than CO2, but which could become more long lasting in the atmosphere (and a worse greenhouse gas), if current concentrations of the hydroxyl radical in the atmosphere become overwhelmed, as is almost inevitable during an methane catastrophe.
Do you really think that such an event would be good for our economy?

Re: TonyB (16:55:48)
Thanks for the notes — they led me to this:
Chylek, P.; Dubey, M.K.; & Lesins, G. (2006). Greenland warming of 1920-1930 and 1995-2005. Geophysical Research Letters 33, L11707. doi:10.1029/2006GL026510.
“We provide an analysis of Greenland temperature records to compare the current (1995-2005) warming period with the previous (1920-1930) Greenland warming. We find that the current Greenland warming is not unprecedented in recent Greenland history. Temperature increases in the two warming periods are of a similar magnitude, however, the rate of warming in 1920-1930 was about 50% higher than that in 1995 – 2005.“

Leland Palmer, look on the bright side. Methane is intrinsically less powerful as a greenhouse gas than CO2 but has a greater effect at present because it is present in such low concentrations that its absorption frequencies are not saturated. So the more that is released into the atmosphere the less powerful it will become.

TonyB,
I wrote: “The problem with CO2 is that a large part of our emissions stays in the atmosphere for centuries or even millennia”
References:
http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~archer/reprints/archer.2005.fate_co2.pdf
The most important processes governing the residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere are:
(1) Anthropogenic CO2 will equilibrate with seawater in the global ocean, on a timescale
less than a millennium.
(2) Acidifying the ocean by adding CO2 perturbs the CaCO3 cycle by decreasing the global burial
rate of CaCO3. This perturbation acts to restore the pH of the ocean back toward its initial pre-anthropogenic value, on a timescale of _10 kyr.
(3) A silicate weathering feedback acts to restore pCO2 to some equilibrium value on timescales of _100 kyr, setting the ultimate maximum duration of an anthropogenic carbon cycle perturbation.
http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~archer/reprints/archer.2008.tail_implications.pdf
“Abstract. The notion is pervasive in the climate science community and in the public at
large that the climate impacts of fossil fuel CO2 release will only persist for a few centuries.
This conclusion has no basis in theory or models of the atmosphere/ocean carbon cycle,
which we review here. The largest fraction of the CO2 recovery will take place on time
scales of centuries, as CO2 invades the ocean, but a significant fraction of the fossil fuel
CO2, ranging in published models in the literature from 20–60%, remains airborne for a
thousand years or longer.”
And
“The notion that global warming will last only a few centuries is widespread in the
popular and even in the scientific literature on global warming. This misconception
may have its roots in an oversimplification of the carbon cycle. The atmosphere today
contains about 200 Gton C in excess of the natural 1,750 value. The ocean takes up
2 Gton C per year, while the land surface, including deforestation, is currently in near
balance. If the ocean were going to take up all of the CO2 following a simple first-order
kinetics rate law, the CO2 drawdown would follow a decaying exponential trajectory, and
the e-folding time for the uptake would be determined by dividing 200 Gton C by 2 Gton
C/year, to yield about 100 years. The fallacy of this reasoning is that the real carbon
uptake follows a sum of exponentials, rather than a single exponential decay. After the
fastest exponential decay is finished, there is still CO2 left in the atmosphere awaiting
slower uptake mechanisms.”
And this graph:
http://www.nature.com/climate/2008/0812/fig_tab/climate.2008.122_F1.html

Smokey,
“The atmospheric lifetime of CO2 is often incorrectly stated to be only a few years because that is the average time for any CO2 molecule to stay in the atmosphere before being removed by mixing into the ocean, photosynthesis, or other processes. However, this ignores the balancing fluxes of CO2 into the atmosphere from the other reservoirs. It is the net concentration changes of the various greenhouse gases by all sources and sinks that determines atmospheric lifetime, not just the removal processes.”
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas)
“begin to decline” is something very different than getting back to their original level. And even then, concentrations are not yet visibly affected: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

Bart Verheggen and Smokey,
There are several half life times of interest in the case of what happens with the surplus CO2 humans have emitted to the atmosphere.
Smokey shows the 5.3 years which is the average residence time for any individual molecule that is emitted. That is important for the fate of (atomic bomb) 14C and (human/fossil and plant) 13C in the atmosphere, as that is governed by the 150 GtC circulation through the atmosphere (which contains about 800 GtC currently).
But that is not important for what happens with the total mass of CO2 in the atmosphere. The 2 GtC yearly absorbed by the oceans (+ about 1.4 GtC by vegetation) is the only value of importance, as that is what is reducing the total amount of CO2 (regardless of the origin) in the atmosphere, back to the pre-industrial average, modulated somewhat by temperature.
Simple direct calculation shows that this leads to a half life time of about 40 years for the excess CO2 in the atmosphere, if we stop all emissions today. Thus after 40 years the current 380 ppmv would be 330 ppmv, after 80 years 305 ppmv and after 120 years 292.5 ppmv (again, modulated by temperature at about 8 ppmv/degr.C). See the work of Peter Dietze at: http://www.john-daly.com/carbon.htm
Now this is quite accurate if the amounts emitted by humans are not extremely high, which is the case until now. Most of the reduction in the atmosphere will be stored in the deep oceans, where there is such a massive storage of CO2 (as -bi-carbonate) present that the small addition by humans doesn’t play a role.
But once we use near all available oil and a lot more coal, that will lead to even an increase in the deep oceans, which will return to the atmosphere sooner or later, thus increasing the basic amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Then several other, slower, processes are involved to reduce the levels to the old equilibrium.
The IPCC models use the Bern and ISAM models (but other models are in use too), see for the Bern model: http://www.climate.unibe.ch/~joos/model_description/model_description.html
The Bern model uses a mix of half life times, depending of the type of sink and as the longest gives a remainder of thousands of years for the last 10% of excess CO2 in the atmosphere, that gives extremely long average half life times. Even if that is so, what the IPCC does forget to tell you is that the extreme long life times are only for the last 10% and that 80% of the excess CO2 is already gone in less than 150 years (except with extreme large amounts of emissions).
For the current conditions: if we stop the emissions today, the 380 ppmv today will be about 315 ppmv according to the Bern model by the year 2150. The impact of that on temperature is completely negligible, even in the “hottest” models. See the work by Hans Erren (in Dutch, but the last graph gives the difference between the models). Bart Verheggen knows that, as he already commented…
To make a comparison: the total of human emissions were about 200 GtC until today. If we stop the emissions, these 200 GtC will be absorbed by the oceans and ultimately mixed with the deep ocean reservoir of 26,000 GtC. That means that the concentration will increase from 26,000 to 26,200 or roughly 1%. The return ocean flow thus contains 1% more CO2, leading to a 1% increase of CO2 in the atmosphere when everything is in equilibrium. That is about 3 ppmv on a 280 ppmv level…

Hi Tony B:

What percentage would methane need to increase in order to overwhelm the hydroxyl radical and over what timescale would the catastrophe unfold?

The best completely worked out scenario for this that I have seen is at http://www.killerinourmidst.com.
How quickly this could happen is a good question, and how fast this could occur is something I have tried to understand myself. The changes, in the past have occurred “geologically instantaneously”, in other words, in less than a thousand years. Some authorities have made claims that this can happen in less than one hundred years, and there have even been claims that these events can happen in less than twenty years.
One distinction that has to be drawn is between the ongoing consequences of passing the tipping point, and passing the tipping point itself, after which the consequences are preordained and cannot be stopped. The consequences could resemble a slow motion train wreck, with plenty of time for humanity to watch the unfolding events in horror, but with no way to stop them. The tipping point could occur with little advance warning, and could be happening now, or might have already happened.
Chris Field talks about the release of several hundred billion tons of carbon by the burning of the tropical forests by the end of the current century, and talks about over a trillion tons of carbon contained in the melting permafrost. Lovelock estimates 6 billion people dead by the end of the century, and while he does mention methane, I get the idea that it is not the central part of his scenario.
This paper on the Paleocene/Eocene thermal maximum ( a smaller, later event than the Permian-Triassic mass extinction) measures isotope ratios in individual sea shells, and seems to indicate that the onset of the warming event and methane release from the hydrates occurred within a single centimeter of sediment, with individual shells of the two populations of planktonic foraminifers mixed in that layer.
http://ethomas.web.wesleyan.edu/debbieetal.pdf

Specimens of surface- and thermocline dwelling
planktonic foraminifera record only
preexcursion or excursion d13C values across
the onset of the event…
….The onset of excursion
d13C values within specimens of both groups
occurs within a span of 1 cm, and coincides
with individuals that still record pre–carbon
isotope excursion values. …
…In contrast to the bimodal
planktonic carbon isotope distribution,
both the surface- and thermocline-dwelling foraminiferal
d18O records contain intermediate
values, marking a more gradual transition
from pre–Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum
to Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum
d18O values…..
…Transitional d18O values are expressed
by the same individual specimens that
contain pre–Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum
d13C values.

So significant warming, as shown by the Oxygen 18 isotope ratios, was occurring in individuals which got their carbon from pre-release sources, for the bottom dwellers. It would take a while for the carbon from the methane hydrate release to enter the carbon cycle as CO2, I guess. But the surface dwelling plankton got the isotope change right away, and for the surface dwellers the layer shows only before and after C13 isotope ratios, with no transitional values, suggesting a very abrupt release of methane from the methane hydrates.
About the hydroxyl radical a recent MIT modeling study shows something like a 20 percent decline by the end of the century, but whether this is accurate hard to say, of course, and would depend on the scale and rapidity of the methane release.
Here’s a news story about methane release, from the Anchorage daily news:
http://www.adn.com/269/story/916689.html

Climate trouble brewing in lakes of the far north
METHANE: Release of greenhouse gas increasing as permafrost melts.
By CHARLES J. HANLEY
The Associated Press
Published: August 30th, 2009 10:10 PM
MACKENZIE RIVER DELTA, Northwest Territories — Only a squawk from a sandhill crane broke the Arctic silence — and a low gurgle of bubbles, a watery whisper of trouble repeated in countless spots around the polar world.
“On a calm day, you can see 20 or more ‘seeps’ out across this lake,” said Canadian researcher Rob Bowen, sidling his small rubber boat up beside one of them. A tossed match would have set it ablaze.

How fast this is occurring is hard to say. NOAA is flying aircraft in the area to monitor methane and CO2 concentrations. Methane plumes in the oceans from hydrate release have been detected by sonar, off Norway.
Such methane plumes exist all the time – the question is, are the flows increasing?
Certainly, as the oceans warm, the methane hydrate stability zone will likely contract (whether and how fast this occurs is a complicated function of both water pressure from increased sea levels and temperature) and methane flows will likely increase.
And, it appears that the fossil record does show methane catastrophes.
Whether it is possible for humans to set one off is a good question, but do we really want to risk it?

Can I repost Smokey’s earlier link which has passed everyone by in the latest flurry of co2 information:
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-world/carbon-emissions-fall-with-global-downturn-report-20090921-fxqf.html
Is there an actual decline, or is it a slow down in the rate of increase of co2 as measured ar Mauna Loa?? Any actual figures or a graph anywhere?
tonyb

Leland Palmer (20:42:30)
You illustrate my point rather well. You gave us 10 paragraphs of history of naturally occurring events. However, your last sentence was, in my opinion, a non sequitur. You are asking whether a natural disaster would be good for the economy and the answer is, of course, probably not.
However, my point was that we would cause enormous damage to the economy by spending a mind boggling sum of money every year in a doomed attempt to fix something which, in all probability, will never happen. Your argument appears to be along the lines of “we had to destroy the economy in order to save it” which does not strike me as being particularly sensible.

Leland Palmer (20:42:30) :
Leland Palmer (08:45:11) :
I believe I’m beginning to see the light. You’re eloquent and closely reasoned descriptions of the incredible hazards facing the world as a consequence of the looming methane catastrophe have convinced me of the need for immediate action. To that end I have decided to commit all my efforts toward organizing a massive rally in Washington D.C., timed to coincide with the UN’s Copenhagen conference, where I and the assembled masses will stand united before the steps of the Capitol to demand that the politicians abandon their plans to spend hundreds of billions of our scarce dollars creating worthless pieces of paper, i.e. carbon credits, and almost equally worthless windmills and instead invest those resources in a massive Apollo- Manhattan project scale R&D program to develop with all possible speed the means to harvest those dangerous methane hydrates and convert them to much less hazardous CO2 by running the methane through dual cycle gas turbine generators to provide for the burgeoning demand for electricity in the developing world.
Of course, organizing such an event on such a short time scale will be quite expensive and, since my own economic circumstances are seriously reduced due to recent events in the economy, I was hoping I could count on you for a contribution of say, $10.000 to get the ball rolling. I know that seems like a lot of money, but hey, the fate of the planet is hanging in the balance it’s no time to be squeamish about costs.

I will answer my own question re mauna loa co2 above where I said
“Can I repost Smokey’s earlier link which has passed everyone by in the latest flurry of co2 information:
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-world/carbon-emissions-fall-with-global-downturn-report-20090921-fxqf.html
Is there an actual decline, or is it a slow down in the rate of increase of co2 as measured ar Mauna Loa?? Any actual figures or a graph anywhere?”
***
ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_mm_mlo.txt
Shows figures to August 2009. Can’t see anty decline myself just the usual rather too regular uplift. Can anyone else determine a trend?
( come on Joel, where are you-you’d be proud of me:) )
tonyb

Bart Verheggen
Thanks for coming back to me with further information.
Following the exchange of emails here you will presumably now want to correct your web site regarding residency time of co2? If you follow your own link you will see the author has a book to sell and not even the IPCC agree with him.
You might also like to carry my 16:55:48 which gave seven links of the historic oscillations of arctic ice, demonstrating the considerable variability and that todays levels are nothing out of the ordinary, declining from a cyclical peak in around 1979.
In that way your visitors can see the alarmist position you take in a rather more rounded context. Hey! Why not put a link to this web site as well?
tonyb

Smokey,
Guess I’m one of those evil people who wants to lower your standard of living, eh? Thanks for a good laugh.