This is the press release sent out by NSIDC today (sans image below). Instead of celebrating a two year recovery, they push the “ice free” theme started last year by Marc Serreze. There’s no joy in mudville apparently. My prediction for 2010 is a third year of increase in the September minimum to perhaps 5.7 to 5.9 million square kilometers. Readers should have a look again at how the experts did this year on short term forecasts. – Anthony
Image source: NOAA News
Arctic sea ice reaches minimum extent for 2009, third lowest ever recorded
CU-Boulder’s Snow and Ice Data Center analysis shows negative summertime ice trend continues
The Arctic sea ice cover appears to have reached its minimum extent for the year, the third-lowest recorded since satellites began measuring sea ice extent in 1979, according to the University of Colorado at Boulder’s National Snow and Ice Data Center.
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. Most scientists believe the shrinking Arctic sea ice is tied to warming temperatures caused by an increase in human-produced greenhouse gases being pumped into Earth’s atmosphere.
Atmospheric circulation patterns helped the Arctic sea ice spread out in August to prevent another record-setting minimum, said Meier. 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.
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.
CU-Boulder’s NSIDC will provide more detailed information in early October with a full analysis of the 2009 Arctic ice conditions, including aspects of the melt season and conditions heading into the winter ice-growth season. The report will include graphics comparing 2009 to the long-term Arctic sea-ice record.
NSIDC is part of CU-Boulder’s Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences and is funded primarily by NASA.
For more information visit http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/, contact NSIDC’s Katherine Leitzell at 303-492-1497 or leitzell@nsidc.org or Jim Scott in the CU-Boulder news office at 303-492-3114 or jim.scott@colorado.edu.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“ice-free Arctic summers”
The interesting thing would be if it happened for natural reasons. (I’m certainly not trying to suggest current models have a handle on natural climate variation.)
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
All things being equal, surly they have also extrapolated the antarctic sea ice trends… showing irrefutably that the SH is going to be an ice cube and the NH is going to be a sauna. So im thinking o importing polar bears and starting up the first polar bear farm in the SH! Surly this will be a wise investment. Trends are forever after all;-)
“third lowest” I could have predicted they would say that. I’m sick of it. what a bunch of blowhards.
“…….. it is still significantly below the long-term average and well outside the range of natural climate variability……..”
Outside the range of natural climate variability??? How the hell can they make a statement like that!?
There is no science anymore… just politics.
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?
“Atmospheric circulation patterns helped the Arctic sea ice spread out in August to prevent another record-setting minimum, said Meier. 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.”
What Dr Meier conveniently forget to say is that the same atmospheric circulation was responsible for the 2007 minimum…
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.
They only have 30 years of Satellite data so it’s the third lowest in 30 years. When one of these government paid scientists such as Walt Miers finally gets the open mind and courage to test a few model runs that just might match a cooling orb that scientist is going to be very very famous. We will just have to wait and see.
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.
Jim Watson,
Of course we may never know. If it wasn’t blamable on mankind, then there is no real reason for massive government tax and cap, but on natural variations which cannot be taxed because clouds cannot be held liable in court.
Changes in southern hemisphere sea ice: click. Can you see the difference? I can’t.
Another global point of view: click.[Notice the top chart: global sea ice. Global is what matters.]
As J. Hansford says above, it’s all politics. Everything we see today is well within the bounds of natural climate variability: click
Now that that’s settled, remember that September 19th is International Talk Like A Pirate Day! [Evan Jones’ favorite holiday].
In honor of Talk Like A Pirate Day, allow me to shout out a pirate phrase:
“R!” [<–click]
.
[the full version w/lyrics]
.
Stan Rogers, RIP
The key factor, one well known to Mr. Meier, is that the “long term average” is not long term, at all. It’s short term, barely 30 years, a micromicrosecond in the history of the earth. Calling it “long term” is deceptive.
“We are still seeing a downward trend that appears to be heading toward ice-free Arctic summers,” Meier said.
Mr. Meier’s statement is like taking a car driving west at 60 miles an hour in Albuquerque, and saying “We’re still seeing an east-bound vehicle that appears to be heading for St. Louis,” just because the car was once in Tucumcari.
> 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.
When I read the NSIDC report on 8 September, it struck me that it was far more balanced and scientific than previous reports. It would seem that someone else must have spotted this, so the 17 September report seems to have gone back to being less scientific, and more warmaholic propoganda.
My money is on the meteorologist as opposed to the GCMologist.
That’s means I’m going with your forecast, Mr. Anthony Watts.
It will be interesting to see in the coming years what the reaction will be to the data collected if it continues to go against what the AGW people believe should be happening. They can only spin it so long and have any credibility. If in fact the ice starts building again then let them try to refute it. The more they try, the more foolish they will appear. We need to have faith in the American people. Thirty years ago we would not have had a chance. There was only one source of media and people just believed what they were told. Today there are sources for both sides of issues. The biggest problem we still have is politics. Once it becomes a political issue then all objectivity goes out the window and we have to live with what the government decides whether it is right or wrong. That is why it is so important that we keep our representatives informed of our side of the argument and demand accountability. DON’T GIVE UP !!!!!!
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
No. It is how they shift all the time. They really do make it up as they go along.
Nobody doubts, well certainly not me, that ice thickness in the Arctic has been declining over the last thirty years.
Quite likely it does every so often and grows back again: who knows?
There are no reliable records to tell us. But we do have reliable records of ice extent.
Yet suddenly we were told that the ice extent had retreated and this was evidence of AGW. Well we do have records that show it has retreated and expanded before over decades for hundreds of years.
Now the retreat at peak summer melt has stopped we are told that the volume of ice is still shrinking, although how that is known baffles me. The only measurements we have apart from buoys and a flypast is a totally unreliable satellite survey whose error, even excepting its instrument failure, is far larger than the precision of its measurement.
Nevertheless we are told that since it is only two year old ice it is vulnerable to melting next year: but they said the same last year it only back then it was one year old ice.
What is it going to be next year? only three year old ice?
And how they tell the difference bemuses me, more or less sea ice is sea ice as it were. It is not ice built up on land over decades and centuries where you can see the compression and perhaps deduce the age.
If the theory don’t fit the facts well change the theory says I.
And stop trying to make the observations fit the theory with cynical refinements.
Too much to hope for.
Kindest Regards
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!
The level of intellectual dishonesty in Meier’s statement is amazing.
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
a jones (19:54:35) : Instead of if the theory doesn’t fit the facts change the theory, it’s now if the facts don’t fit the model the facts are wrong not the model.
The lack of prognostication ability seems to be pandemic. Sunspots predicted to rise haven’t so we don’t understand the sun as well as some think they do. Temps predicted to rise are not, sealevel rise slowing or flat, hurricanes predicted to increase in number or intensity haven’t, and arctic sea ice predicted to catastrophically fall hasn’t. What are the odds that all of these symptoms of AGW would not track the predictions at the same time?
COI is showing a nice slide down into freezing temperatures (about 14F as of today), arctic roos is showing more than a half million sk more this year than last and NSIDC can still talk about an ice-free arctic? Of course, maybe I’, the one that’s disconnected from reality and can’t see things as they really are…
Regulars here will remember that Dr. Meier has posted here and been receptive to our questions and concerns. I’d really like to hear from him now. Can’t be that much fun working for Serreze….