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.
Philip_B (20:08:24) :
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.
But the Antarctic always melts to ~12% of maximum (~2Mm^2) compared with over 20% in the Arctic in 2007.
Smokey (12:53:26) :
The established theory of natural climate variability has done fine in explaining the climate
Can you tell me where I can read about this theory?
Phil.,
For your reading pleasure: click.
“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
For what it is worth, today Arctic Ice extend has hit the 2005 level.
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm
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.
————-
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.
Icarus, If ice had the same heat conducting properties as liquid water, then igloos wouldn’t work.
First, any solid ( and ice is only one example of many thousand solids, and an igloo is only a single example of how a solid anything can be used to take advantage of the vast differences between a cold air mass and a cold liquid mass!) is very, very different that a liquid.
An igloo works because the human’s heat – the only thing important up there! – is actively exchanged with the very cold air going by the body.
An igloo works by shielding the body (still wrapped in furs and clothing – even in traditional Eskimo settings) FROM the moving cold air mass that is the Arctic wind. So, the human body mass is still exchanging heat with the environment, but very slowly. The air mass is trapped in the igloo by the small entrance and by turning the entrance away from the wind. (The little ice arch doesn’t let the wind, and a wrap (fur ?) closes the inside entrance.) Heat exchange by blowing air is much reduced – but the shielding substance could be anything solid that is available.
A blowing/flwoing liquid exchanges even more heat even faster: so the comparison between air and liquid with an ice igloo is irrelevant.
Inside, the igloo “circle” is raised off the ice by a raised ice floor – which is further insulated against direct heat transfer by a fur blanket. Therefore, little heat is conducted down from the body, through the body’s cloting through the fur “carpet” to the raised ice shelf. The gap between the raised ice shelf and igloo walls allows the cold air “falling” down the inside ice walls to get trapped in the low “valley” – thus the valley prevents a continuous exchange of cold air from the wall and the human body heat.
By “raising” the floor with this air gap, the warm air trapped inside that is warmed by the human body heat and the candles and fat fire “stoves” inside the igloo is conducted back to inside air trapped agaisnt the upper circle of the igloo, then to the bodies inside. (Don’t ask about ventilation or letting the smoke and body odors out. I don’t know how they do it. Then again, trapping body odor is probably less dangerous than letting heated gasses (ANY heated gasses!) outside the igloo…..)
So, to continue, the human body heat is even “insulated” from the solid ice of the igloo -> the two never touch each other.
Icarus (17:34:50) :
“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.”
—
No. First, the continuing decline in mainstream media rating and prfits BECAUSE of their continued propaganda and exaggerations – about all political subjects and most liberal stories in general, including global warming – shows that they do NOT care about profits, but about the message.
And that message is to propagate the lies and distortions about global warming that are desired by the large governments and NGO’s in the world who will gain from controlling the world”s energy, and to deny any body else access to the truth about what is happening in the real science.
The world’s temperature has been gradually increasing since about 1750 -without mankind’s assistance or emissions. In the last century global temperatures increased by 4/10 of one degree in 25 years – from 1973 to 1998.
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.
Before 1973? CO2 was increasing, but temperatures declined by 3/10 of one degree from 1940 through 1973.
Before 1940? Co2 was essentially constant, but temperatures were increasing – by 1/2 of one degree. So, what is the relationship between CO2 and temperature?
—
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.
Your theory is wrong. Dead wrong. April and May 2009 showed the highest cie coverage EVER since 2001 – despite 8 years of lower sea ice extent between 2001 and 2009. Now, we see equal sea ice extents in 2009 as in 2005.
Your theory – the theory that the socialists want propulgated – is dead wrong in practice. But, what will you listen to?
The real world? Real numbers? real science?
Or the people who who are getting 79 billion dollars BECAUSE they are fully capable of spreading lies and exaggerations abut global warming?
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.
“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.
”
Low albedo non-ice absorbs more and radiates more. The absorption is from sunlight at a very oblique angle, whereas the radiation is straight up and from a higher ice-free temperature.
So just as we are used to daytime temperatures dropping as the sun lowers of an evening, the earth can cool even in sunlight.
So a melted Arctic should not be seen as a new stability, but rather the Earth radiating away a lot of heat. Indeed Anthony found an article where Norwegians in 1920 found no ice up to 81N and mention distinct traces of the Gulf Stream, showing that the Arctic shed its ice-cap to blow off the extra heat.
Ice’s high albedo reduces radiation for a given temperature which added to the lower temperature above ice means that heat lost from the Earth is greatly reduced.
The ice-caps really do seem to be a thermostat as DaveE suggested.
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.
Hmm, following my own logic, it suggests that since records began at the end of a warm phase, we may see ice spend a whole year above current records by 2015??
Yup longshot.
http://anhonestclimatedebate.wordpress.com/2009/09/20/arctic-sea-ice-not-following-consensus/
Hi all-
Quoting from Chris Field, a mainstream climate scientist, whose funding comes at least partially from ExxonMobil, a contributing author to several IPCC reports, and elected to be a group leader by the membership of the IPCC:
http://www.democracynow.org/2009/2/26/member_of_un_environment_panel_warns
I urge readers of Watts up With That to invest the time to go to the link provided and watch the video.
Surely, the future of the biosphere is worth a few minutes of your time, to watch a video.
The real danger are these positive feedback events, originating in an Arctic which is warming much faster than the rest of the planet, and the subsequent emission of methane and CO2 from decay of organic material caused by the melting of this permafrost, and the probability that this will trigger a more widespread methane catastrophe similar to the End Permain mass extinction.
The ice albedo feedback is another mainstream, well established and straightforward application of physics:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_geoengineering
It’s no wonder that the readers of Watts up With That look upon it as a conspiracy involving thousands of scientists, to deceive them.
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).
Icarus (17:34:50) :
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?
Just because it’s the same stuff (i.e. h20) doesn’t mean that it has to have the same properties in its various states (solid, liquid, gas). One obvious thought experiment to negate your proposition is as follows: Let us assume you are correct, ergo _any_ property of the substance should be the same regardless of its state (as there is nothing special about conductivity as opposed to say resistivity…) now, here is the experiment on a hot, humid day, go to the top of a 20 foot diving platform above a swimming pool and jump in – feel how easy you go through the water-vapour, feel how the entry to the swimming pool feels a bit more abrupt.
Now repeat in the winter with two feet of ice on the top of the pool…
Whilst your legs are mending, ponder that if one physical property of a substance can change radically between states, maybe others can as well.
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.
You have just counteracted your own initial statement – physical properties do change between states (e.g. albedo) therefore it is not unreasonable to assume that properties do also.
Ice acts as an insulator, period.
Cheers
Mark
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/
Anthony,
This may belong in tips, but is very applicable to this NSIDC “zero ice” story.
When talking about Arctic Ice, why does everyone focus on the Minimum? We all know many variables affect ice formation, thickness, extent, etc. (winds, weather patterns, cloud formation…).
If we focused on minimums when it comes to “global temperature,” we would track some place like International Falls or Yellowstone in the US and use that as our basis for overall climate. It’s as useless as focusing on daily local temperature records and calling it “climate.”
I think everybody has been drawn into this ice minimum attention because that’s what some folks want to talk about. It suits them. It leads to great headlines or stunts like swimming at the N Pole.
Regarding Arctic Ice, we were told “young ice” would deteriorate faster each year, leading to none. It hasn’t. Then the young ice definition changes (year 2 ice “disappeared” as you’ve pointed out). Did it matter? No.
If you think about it, in effect, all this means the minimum doesn’t matter, the the average does.
I took the AMSR-E data (sitting here in my pjs and bunny slippers) and plotted average Calendar year 2003-2009 (where 09 was TTM) and average Season year Sep 15-Sep14 ending 03-09. The results?
For Season data:
– 2009 is the highest since 2003 by 1-5%; 2003 was 5%> than 2009; 2006 was actually the min. (reminds me of how 2005 did not have the highest hurricane ACE score)
For Calendar data:
– 2009 is virtually at an average of 03, 04, 08, and 09; 05, 06 07 are the below average years with 07 the min as you’d expect; Completely blowing away the “young ice” theory, 08 was a complete, total recovery back to 03-04 levels, and 09 (again TTM for calendar) is not extraordinary different from 08. As you’d expect also, a plot of annual maximum follows the same pattern.
I wonder what this looks like going back to 1979? I don’t have that data. I’d be happy to send you my SS and graphs for AMSR-E.
So, now that we know “young ice” is, ummm…ice, why not start tracking on your site what matters, the average. It’s not some trick to sway people, it’s just consistent with the focus on global average temperature and everything else climate related.
Thanks.
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:
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?
Oh, on edit, link to the ICESat article about ice thickness from NASA:
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/icesat-20090707r.html
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?
Icarus (07:05:50) “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.
I get the impression you haven’t spent much time on ice. If it suddenly gets very cold and it does _not snow ice will freeze rapidly & become very strong. Once the snow falls on the ice, it acts as an insulator. Ice comes in a lot of different forms. A wise & respected oldtimer used to warn me of “rotten” ice and instruct me on how to look out for it. Ice contains visible air bubbles, but it is snow on top of ice that traps a substantial amount of insulating air.
–
Re: Leland Palmer (06:34:34)
3 points:
1) Your assumptions about WUWT readers/commenters are flawed. For example, I’m an ecologist who has only used 8 tanks of gas in the past 2 years in a small car. I don’t even like buses because they pollute way too much. I cycle-commuted for years, even in humid -25C when I lived way out of town and had to freeze in the sweat while crossing a ferry. Now I walk or paddle a kayak over 90% of the time when I travel. I have been an advocate of natural forests & pollution-reduction all my life.
2) Tipping points occur naturally. They can go both ways. Natural warming may lead to permafrost-methane release. Sometime in the future nature may tip in a different direction. Linear extrapolation is not the best way to predict the future on all timescales.
3) We have good reasons to avoid polluting and provide more space for natural forests without resorting to mythology, fear-mongering, & false-stereotyping.