Those that have been watching the IARC-JAXA Arctic sea ice plot, and noting the slope of gain, rather expected this to happen. Today it did.
Here’s the current IARC-JAXA Sea Ice Extent plot:
source: http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm
And here is the plot magnified and annotated to show the crossing:
While 2009 minimum on 09/13 of 5,249, 844 was just 65, 312 sq km below 2005 in minimum extent, which occurred on 9/22/2005 with 5,315,156 sq km, it has now rebounded quickly and is higher by 38,438 sq km, just 2 days before the 9/22/05 minimum. On 9/22/2009 it may very well be close to 60-80,000 sq km higher than the minimum on the same date in 2005.
While by itself this event isn’t all that significant, it does illustrate the continued rebound for the second year. The fact that we only missed the 2005 minimum by 65, 312, which is about one days worth of melt during many days of the melt season is also noteworthy.
Obama has reversed the warming! The ice caps are growing! The water is clean, the air is cleaner and Acorn is going to prison. Woops, how did that get in there?
It’s a crazy mixed up world when the extent of sea ice growing is seen as a good thing.
I suppose It’s pretty hard to have anything but a hollow victory against someone who has defrauded you.
Today the DMI Polar Temperature shows a pretty big uptick. Is there anything to this, or is it some kind of data glitch?
“”” Mark Fawcett (12:42:08) :
George E. Smith (10:38:10) :
The issue with the ocean ice, is that the open water is a near black body absorber for what little solar radiation there is up there, whereas the sea ice is a fairly good reflector, and enhances the albedo, leading to cooling.
George, do you have anything more to back this up? I am genuinely asking (not making a dig) as I struggle with what you’ve said as a concept; primarily because it describes a positive feedback mode which is pretty rare in nature (i.e. less ice = more ocean = more heating = less ice, more ice = less heating = more ice) so either way you go the tendency is to move to extremes.
What do you think of an alternative supposition, namely that energy absorption of open water at high latitudes is relatively low due to atmospheric path length + angle of incidence (think low sun reflecting off a lake = big reflection); that coupled with ice cover acting as an insulator – reducing the ocean’s heat loss to the atmosphere. In this conjecture it’s a negative feedback – much more common in nature (i.e. less ice = more ocean = more heat loss = lower temps = more ice, more ice = more insulation = higher temps = less ice). “””
Mark, I seldom post anything that I can’t back up; and if I do, I usually label it sas conjecture.
So lets deal with my statement that the open oceans (water) acts asa near black body absorber.
Water is a well understood optical material, and over the main energy containing portions of the solar spectrum, water has an optical refractive index of about 1.333 (ratio of speed of light in vacuo to speed of light in water). At the interface between two refractive media (water and air) of indexes n1 and n2, the reflection coefficient for light incident normal to the surface is given by r = [(n1-n2)/(n1+n2)]^2 so if you put the values 1.333 and 1.0 in for water and air, you get 0.02 as the value for r (1/7^2).
This is actually a special case of the complete Fresnel formulae for energy splitting at a media interface, and can be simply derived from Maxwell’s equations for electromagnetic fields.
At angles other than zero deg incidence, the light is partially plane polarised, and for the reflected part of the beam, the reflection coefficient drops to zero for one of the two polarisations at an angle known as the Brewster angle, which is arctan (n2/n1) = 53.1 degrees for water. At that incidence angle (off normal) the reflected beam is pure plane polarised (and your polaroid sunglasses, can be rotated to remove that polarisation, and so get rid of the water surface reflection.
However for the refelcted beam, at the Brewster angle the value of R has increased till it is about double what it was at normal incidence.
As a result; the total reflected energy, remains about constant at about 2% up to the Brewster angle,a nd for greater angles of incidence, both polarisations are again present, and the value of r increases rapidly up to 100% for grazing incidence.
However, the amount of incident light decreases at grazing angles (spreads over a large surface area), so the larger angles don’t account for much total energy flux. The net result is that about 50% of the toal energy is contained in the brewster angle cone, and the rest outside of that.
Careful calculations and measurmenets suggest about 3% of the total incident solar spectrum is reflected, and the rest propagates into the water (97%) where ultimately something or other absorbs it in deep water.
So the deep oceans absorb about 97% of the total incident solar energy; and that is pretty darn close to a Black body; at least for the restricted range of wavelengths covered by the solar spectrum.
Ice and snow on the other hand are quite reflective for visible light; but not as highly reflective as some people think. New snow reflects well, but once it ages a bit (the surface melts), the clear facets transmit light, and the snow can trap a lot of light, so the reflection coefficient can drop to as low as 40% after just a few hours. But in any case it reflects sunlight better than sea water does.
And yes it is often argued that this replacement of sea ice by open water is a positive feedback warming effect. That is debateable, because the open ocean can also evaporate better than the ice, so more open ocean means more evaporation and ultimately more precipitation (of snow) somewhere, very likely on the surrounding lands in the arctic (which contains more land than water).
But I always like to point out that they have ice in the polar regions for a very specific reason; THERE AIN’T MUCH SOLAR ENERGY THERE ANYWAY.
Which is why I believe the climate effects of the polar regions are somewhat overblown. Most of the cooling takes place during the midday heat of the tropical deserts, since the Stefan Boltzmann radiation goes as the 4th power of the Temperature (Kelvins), so the desert highs can radiate more than ten times the rate of the polar lows.
Well I could go on and on, but you get the point; from the point of view of lowering the arctic heating, the areal coverage of ocean water, is far more important, than building deeper ice layers, which insulate the surface.
George
How is related this graph
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seasonal.extent.1900-2007.jpg
to this information?
http://i680.photobucket.com/albums/vv161/Radiant_2009/popularmechanics1957-2.jpg
NW Passage was passable in 40ties as well.
I would say the Arctic ice extent in 40ties was similar to today one. The cryosphere picture stinks.
PS I do Optical design all day long; so your mouse likely has some of my optics in it; so Fresnel reflection is my bread and butter.
“In 2 years the consumer will be able to both save money and not emit CO2 by buying an electric car!”
One Problem though. Wouldn’t this happen?
With more and more electric cars coming on the road. They do need recharging so eventually more power stations are going to have to be built. So more CO2 will be emitted if the power stations happen to be of the cheaper coal powered variety!
ralph (12:11:37) :
Stop Press, Stop Press…
BBC World are now reporting a STEEP decrease in CO2 levels.
The reason? Either the Met Office are predicting a cold winter, or the authorities have deduced that public opinion is turning against them.
They are looking for a way out.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8267475.stm
“The International Energy Agency (IEA) estimates that global CO2 emissions will fall by more than 2% during 2009.
Measures such as emissions trading have complemented the drop in emissions as economic activity has declined. ”
Really? Anyone told the Chinese yet?
Richard wrote:
“My particular questioning of the environmental movement started with the Brent Spar incident in the North Sea.”
I think back to a small matter of lynx hairs.
mudmucker (13:11:39) :
And the winner of the prize for the “logical flaw” of the day is ………………..
Tell me, where does the electricity come from for your eco-wonderful vehicle?
Please explain to me how it is beneficial to take crude oil and refine it to make fuel oil to generate electricity which can then be sent along power lines to the point where you plug your car in rather than to take crude oil and refine it to make petrol which can then be sent to an already existing network of supply points called gas stations (or petrol stations this side of the pond).
It seems to this simple soul that there is an additional, and quite unnecessary, process in there somewhere. (Please don’t mention wind power unless of course you only want to drive your car about one-quarter of the time and only when the wind says you can. And don’t start on about ‘peak oil’ either; have you seen what Brazil and the Gulf are sitting on?)
In 2 years the consumer will be able to both save money and not emit CO2 by buying an electric car!
Typical of the magical thinking laced with conspiracy theories of many AGW proponents.
Where will the electricity come from?
Answer = coal and gas fired power stations
Mains electricity powered vehicles require between 2 and 3 times more energy, and hence release between 2 and 3 times more CO2, because of the inefficiencies in generating, distributing and and storage of electricity.
People don’t realize we use internal combustion vehicles precisely because they are more energy efficient than the alternatives.
And BTW the reason electric vehicles are cheaper to run is because coal is a much cheaper fuel than oil.
Mark Fawcett (12:42:08)
You are exactly right.
There was an earlier article on this site, that clearly explained the non-issue of albedo. The article mentioned the critical incidence angle of 70 degrees for water. If the light is at angle of greater than 70 degrees, there is no difference between water and ice, in terms of reflectivity.
What this means is that changes of albedo due to ice coverage in the Arctic aren’t functionally meaningful, due to the time of year that minimum extent occurs. Arctic Ice is primarily above 70 degrees north, and the only time that there is sunlight above critical angle of incidence is around the time of the summer solstice. The above graph of ice extent shows that there is very little difference from year to year at the solstice, it’s halfway through the melt. The big annual differences are about the time of equinox, at which time all but 3 degrees of the Arctic circle is below the critical angle.
This is not quite the same case in the Antarctic, as the ice there lies between 50-70 south, so there are periods of time that the sun on the ice is above the critical angle. Given what has been happening with ice extent down south, there is no contribution to any global warming.
This does bring up the fact that the Antarctic ice could create a positive feedback, one direction or the other, which seems out of place in nature. In fact, it is known to have done so. Prior to the time that Antarctica moved south over the pole (plate tectonics) there were no permanent ice caps. The current climate situation, ice ages seperated by interglacials, only started to occur after Antarctica moved over the pole and created a base to support the permanent ice cap. Prior to that time, polar ice was only seasonal.
“The fact that we only missed the 2005 minimum by 65, 312, which is about one days worth of melt during many days of the melt season is also noteworthy.” – Anthony Watts
I would concur, it seems that a single day is actually insignificant and can be chocked up to natural variability, as could ten days, or 650,312 sq km could be too! Many times in northern Edmonton the winter would be late or early by ten days, two weeks or so… no one freaked out crying warming wolf… if it was delayed we enjoyed the weather… if not we dug our shovels out earlier.
Isn’t it a crime to cry “wolf”? [snip – policy]
In the end science and hard core facts of the objective reality of Nature will prevail.
mudmucker (13:17:14):”So in other words, the data set you provided hasnt been around long enough to infer any long term trends from it .. even though it basically agrees with the NSIDC data over the same period, and the same NSIDC data going back 30 years shows a dramatic decreasing trend?”
The idea that data going back 30 years seems to be dramatic, and your assumption that the data set Anthony is refering to to be cherry-picking or trite is badly misleading from the truth. Proxies are the only available data sets going beyond 30 years. Depending on what proxies you want to observe, Arctic Sea Ice has and will continue to trend up and down.
I would broaden your scope of research beyond politcally-scienced agenda websites and dig a little deeper. Otherwise, you might just find yourself hopelessly following down the alarmist’ road to idiocy.
-David Alan-
On feedback, one test would be ask how much heat is gained or lost for a decrement in ice coverage.
If ice cover recedes by one unit and there is there a resulting net heat gain, we would have the minimum condition to argue that further ice loss is possible.
If ice cover recedes by one unit and there is a resulting net heat loss, we could not argue for any further ice loss. In fact, ice gain could be expected.
Given the geometry of the globe, surely the above two possibilities would lead us to look for an equilibrium at high lattitude.
mudmucker (13:17:14) :So… in other words, the data set you provided hasn’t been around long enough to infer any long term trends from it….. even though it basically agrees with the NSIDC data over the same period, and the same NSIDC data going back 30 years shows a dramatic decreasing trend?
Actually neither has been around long enough to draw any definitive conclusions from them. The 30 run of NSIDC is not capable of showing us how the Arctic reacts to various combinations of oceanic oscillations. It does not have enough Arctic data from a negative PDO combined with a positive NAO let alone a negative one. 30 years is within one range of state for multi-decadel influences and almost totally void of others.
You posted this…
“Arctic sea ice appears to have reached its minimum extent for the year, the third-lowest extent since the start of satellite measurements in 1979. While this year’s minimum extent is above the record and near-record minimums of the last two years, it further reinforces the strong negative trend in summertime ice extent observed over the past thirty years.”
Which is in a way disingenuous. It does not reinforce the negative trend. Any time a ‘peak’ is reached it takes time to return to a norm. That is doubly so when dealing with the sea ice due to the loss of multi-year ice in 2007. The recovery rate is actually phenomenal and lends more toward a reversal of trend rather than a continuence.
You also posted that a change in wind patterns was a reason for the increase over the last two years…. but… failed to mention that it was due to unusual wind conditions, in part, which caused the massive loss in 2007. Hence you are trying to say that the return to more normal wind patterns is the anomaly. That is spin.
You know it is a wonder that the Arctic is making any ice at all. Kaufman, Briffa, et al just did their hack piece on Arctic summers vs an increasing distance (with some numbers I disagree with) from the sun at summer solstice over the last 2000 years. But, what about the winters?
Well…. unlike the summer solstice the winter solstice is occurring when we are much, much closer to the sun. Like…. 464,779 miles closer. During that same 2,000 years the tilt of the Earth’s axis has completed about 10% of its change from 24.5 degrees to 21.5 degrees. Hence, the amount of Solar radiation at the Equator and the Arctic during the winter is increasing (though so is the difference between the two).
Yet… the Arctic is still capable of recovering from the effects of 30 years of warm oceans in the NH and from a unique year of anomalous meteorological conditions.
“Typical of the magical thinking laced with conspiracy theories of many AGW proponents.
Where will the electricity come from?
Answer = coal and gas fired power stations
Mains electricity powered vehicles require between 2 and 3 times more energy, and hence release between 2 and 3 times more CO2, because of the inefficiencies in generating, distributing and and storage of electricity.
And BTW the reason electric vehicles are cheaper to run is because coal is a much cheaper fuel than oil.”
Sorry, you are incorrect. You’re talking to a mechanical engineer here.
Electric vehicles are significantly more efficient than gasoline powered vehicles because the ICE is about 25% efficient (it runs suboptimally because it is directly linked to the wheels.) Central firing stations are much more efficient. Also, scrubbers on emissions work better on central plants rather than individual tailpipes.
We won’t need any new generation plants because electric cars are mostly charged at night when demand is low. Also, coal is produced domestically, and does not support al Qaeda in the Middle East as oil does.
But we are also shifting to more wind power which could concievably provide 30% or more of our power (with a continent-wide grid it wouldn’t matter if the wind is blowing in your particular location.)
Also, when electric cars come out, manufacturers will start covering the body work with solar panels, which with today’s technology could give you 10 km a day of free driving (with the current ones on the market) and with future advancements in panel efficiency up to 50%, about 30-40 km a day, only on sunny days of course. It’s not magic; it’s solar energy!
“People don’t realize we use internal combustion vehicles precisely because they are more energy efficient than the alternatives.”
No, we use them because they cost the consumer a lot of money. This benefits the auto industry, the oil industry, and governments. No one is looking out for the interests of the consumer. And websites like WUWT make this situation worse because they turn consumers against themselves by spreading scientific misinformation.
How is suggesting that people be held to account for “crying warming wolf” against this web site’s policy? I’m taken aback and a little bit stunned by the “[snip – policy]”. I’ve posted such comments before and not had them censored.
REPLY: You called for criminal prosecution of people without facts in evidence. If you don’t like the snip, I make no apology. – Anthony
Now all that’s left to do is wait another year and see what impact the increased volume of ice (read multi-year ice) will have at next year’s minimum. How much closer to 6 mil km² will it be? Until then, let’s enjoy Halloween, Thanksgiving, Christmas, New Year’s Eve & Day, Valentines, etc…
What’s up with the temperature spike? http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
Richard (10:22:07)
I suppose why skepticism has become a conservative domain is because there is such a uniform cacophony of agreement in the media and intelligensia about issues, that people would just be swept along with it. Conservatives, however, know how full of BS the media and intelligensia are, because conservatives are so often the target. Therefore conservatives are naturally skeptical and liberals are not.
I’m not asking for an apology, I’m simply attempting to comprehend your policy.
If I’m not mistaken there is a trail going on about global warming. It seems then that it’s a relevant topic to comment on.
Actually there are facts in evidence, An Inconvenient Truth, for instance would be used as evidence in a case against Al Gore for making false claims.
In my humble opinion Al Gore went into a movie theater and cried “warming wolf”. That is a crime in many places just as much as crying “fire” as it spreads “irrational panic”.
I’m not going to belabor the point here. I’m just curious why it’s against the site policy to suggest an avenue of political action against those that make false claims that impact us all in serious ways including financial? Especially considering that you’ve written at least one article on the topic.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/08/24/us-chamber-of-commerce-wants-trial-on-global-warming-issue
Measures such as emissions trading have complemented the drop in emissions
Despite a belief to the opposite almost none of the projects generating CO2 emissions credits (so call carbon offsets) reduce CO2 emissions.
The offset projects fall into 2 categories. Reductions in CO2 ‘equivalents’ (mainly methane and other non-CO2 gases). And reafforestation or forest conservation.
The former has no effect on CO2 levels and the latter may have some effect on the overall deforrestation trend but has certainly no reversed the trend (and may well have the perverse consequence of accelerating deforrestation).
We can say with certainty that emissions trading has made no contribution to any CO2 reduction that may have occured.
Caps on CO2 may have had some effect. I’m referring specifically to the trading issue.
Re: mudmucker (15:16:00) :
“No, we use them because they cost the consumer a lot of money. This benefits the auto industry, the oil industry, and governments. No one is looking out for the interests of the consumer. And websites like WUWT make this situation worse because they turn consumers against themselves by spreading scientific misinformation.”
Where in the world do you get your information? We use I.C. engines for personal transportation because they are reliable, convenient and affordable. Compare the lifetime cost of any hybrid or all-electric vehicle (without taxpayer subsidies) with the I.C. and you will still find the straight-up I.C. engine is the cheaper alternative. By all means, purchase a hybrid or all-electric if it assuages your conscience or tickles your technical fancy, but do not fool yourself that the majority of others do not do so because of some giant conspiracy by the “profiteers” and their evil government henchmen.
What you’re missing in all this is capital cost. The typical coal-fired power plant now costs approximately $2,000 per horsepower to construct. The typical (and less thermally efficient) gasoline I.C. engine is more in the range of $15 per horsepower to manufacture. You can buy lots of gasoline with the difference and still come out ahead with the I.C. engine. A windmill will run you in the range of $10,000 per usable horsepower because the capacity factor (average power/installed power) is so poor with wind turbines in even the best locations. Compare that with $500 per average horsepower for a combined-cycle gas turbine power plant and you will see why windmills did not long ago sweep the country.
It isn’t about conspiracies. It is all about economics.
Solar panels on cars? Please. At best, with any existing technology (other than hyper expensive GaAs exotics) you might get 600 watts midday, less than 8 kWh per day. No matter how slow you drive, you won’t get far. As for charging at night? Great, until a million folks do the same. Then your ‘surplus nighttime electricity’ vanishes. 30% from wind? Sure, if we reduce our total demand by about 80%. As for ‘nationwide grids’, you haven’t tried sending electricity very far. Resistive losses and phase shift throw that out. Plus the ecos are rather strong in opposing new transmission lines.
Given that it takes more power to charge a battery than you get back out, as much as 50% more, I rather doubt charging your car off the grid from a reasonably modern coal fired plant is much cleaner than a modern ICE. Even my 10 year old Mercedes tests 0.00% on required emission tests here in Colorado. At idle and 2500 RPM. CO2? Sure. Not that that matters. And I don’t need to dispose of many tons of ash. 215 HP, 21 MPG. And a new battery costs about a hundred bucks.
Nuclear or fusion might make electrics viable, if we had a battery worth a tinker’s d—. Li-Ions are better than most, use rare material, and as GM’s Volt Battery guy put it, a 350 lb battery is about equal to a gallon of gas. A hundred grand for a Tesla and you get about 200 miles/charge. Great, unless you need 10 more miles to get home. AAA will deliver a couple gallons of gas anywhere. Doubt they can deliver a few kWh’s.
TANSTAAFL