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.
“Ok, I hear you, just relax. I don’t mean to pry but, where you are, are you there…..alone? Is there anyone you can talk to about this? I can sense your frustration and frankly, I don’t think that simple facts are going to do anything to help you through this.”
I’m not sure what you mean. You think that because I go through each one of your arguments and discredit them with facts that I am frustrated? Yes, I guess it’s frustrating to see every energy consumer being ripped off $200 a month and all the other bad things that go along with global warming and the politics of fossil fuel extraction, how could any sane person that realizes what’s going on not be frustrated?
“Luckily for all of us climatic change isn’t generally all that abrupt in a single lifespan, you’ll be fine.”
Yup, pawn it off onto future generations.
REPLY: And NONE of this has anything to do with sea-ice, which is the topic of this thread.
WUWT users, don’t feed the troll any longer for this off topic train wreck – A
“REPLY: … just to point out the facts…You are wrong. Lithium IS in fact toxic. .”
Oh please, you really will go to the ends of the earth to try to prop up your false world views won’t you.
It’s all about degree of toxicity. Pretty much anything is toxic in high enough concentrations. If you eat too much vitamin A it’s toxic too. So don’t eat your batteries, or put them through an atomizer and breath the dust, LOL.
As your link points out, it is a medication prescribed for certain psychological problems. Certainly it’s in nowhere near the same league as lead.
REPLY: Sorry, still wrong. You said it *wasn’t toxic* with no qualifiers, it obviously is. I’d say it is pretty close to lead. Peel off a chunk of Lithium metal and swallow it if you dare. And again none of this has anything to do with sea ice. If you wish to comment on sea ice you are welcome to do so. – A
“REPLY: And NONE of this has anything to do with sea-ice, which is the topic of this thread. ”
Hah, I’m not the one who brought up these reams of inaccurate information surrounding energy production and use that had to be corrected.
All I did was state a fact: electric cars are here today, they will be cost effective to purchase in about 3 years, and you can produce tons of energy on your roof via solar panels, and in 10 years the solar panels on your car will give you 20 km of free driving a day.
If you don’t like those facts, then delete my posts, but in the interests of fairness also delete all the others dealing with energy.
REPLY: mudmuck I drive an electric car. In fact I own two now. See the about page. So don’t lecture and stick to the topic. You are disrupting the thread on sea ice. -A
mudmucker (19:01:57) :
“A better place is the huge interior of the continent with strong prairie winds blowing all the time and endless corn fields and no one around to complain except the farmers who will make money off them.”
I really loathe people who think nothing of shoving off everything to the farmer as if the farmer is the garbage heap for the ‘intelligent elite’. Keep your garbage wind farms to yourself and leave our farmland alone. No price you can pay will compensate for the theft of the peace and quiet so stay off our land!
Snip if you see fit Anthony. I’m getting tired of farmers getting dumped on. I had to say it.
REPLY: I agree, the troll is in the penalty box now. The thread is about sea ice, not farmers, not cars, not lithium, not windmills. – A
mudmucker (19:10:09) :
Yup, pawn it off onto future generations.
You are aware that the climate has been changing on this planet for the entire time its existed eh? hell when the earth came out of the last glaciation into this interglacial the shifts were over 100x what we are seeing now, that is normal. What is unusal is the length of this interglacial, we should be on well on our way back into the next major glaciation which should last 100k years or so(interglacials normally about 10k). With km thick ice sheets over the majority of the land masses in the northern hemisphere. So would future generation prefer what the climate has been 90%of the last 2.5million years? Somehow i really doubt it.
But that aside, is 380ppm o co2 going to stop the next glaciation? It certainly hasnt in the past even with higher co2 levels. So when was the perfect climate for earth achieved? last week? one hundred years ago? The planet will do what it does, its up too life to adapt too the climate… we have survived climate shifts orders of magnitude greater than the present trends with stone age technology… and a warmer climate with bronze age technology, not only did we survive as a species, we thrived, thats when civilization was born.
“What is unusal is the length of this interglacial, we should be on well on our way back into the next major glaciation which should last 100k years or so(interglacials normally about 10k)”
Ice ages cycle on 100 thousand years, according to the Milankovitch cycle which largely explains it. We only just came out of the last ice age 10,000 years ago, so we have along time to go before the Earth would naturally enter another ice age.
Hah, go ahead, delete me. I’ll just come back with more facts to refute your lies, you idiot.
Ok, back on topic.
Every winter the water freezes in the arctic.
In the spring it melts.
Sometimes more one year, sometimes less (melt/freeze)
Nothing new here, move along.
Mudmucker
Re: melt and freeze numbers. We would be better off using the overlapping three-month average system (JFM, FMA, MAM, AMJ, etc) as that takes care of wriggles created by a non-sentient Earth. It cares not one wit that there is more ice this year on this day of the month than last year on this day of the month. Would you agree?
We would also be wise to develop a basic understanding of Arctic temperature anomalies at the sea surface and in the air, as well as wind patterns over the last 30 years, before we talk about the 30-year trend being secondary to a warming Earth but the last couple years of melt being caused by windy weather.
“Ice ages cycle on 100 thousand years, according to the Milankovitch cycle which largely explains it. We only just came out of the last ice age 10,000 years ago, so we have along time to go before the Earth would naturally enter another ice age.”
Are you suggesting we have 90K years till the next glaciation?
Stephen Brown (12:07:35) :
Enduser (09:13:54) :
“… a poor little penguin chick getting all of the deadly noxious oil cleaned off from its plumage with Dawn dish washing detergent.”
That treatment condemns the penguin to death, as it would any sea bird. This we discovered to our horror in Cape Town in 1968. Every bird we cleaned died. You have to use a special solution to strip the oil from the feathers (I have no idea what it is). The feathers are left with a sufficient proportion of their natural oils which prevent the bird from getting saturated with water and dying of hypothermia.
. . . . . . .
Precisely true. When I was a kid, the neighbors had some baby ducks that managed to get into some oil from a car oil change. The neighbors cleaned them off with dish detergent. Then three of the baby ducks drowned, because they couldn’t float with all their natural oil having been cleaned away.
First, do no harm . . .
At present rate of increases (2,000,000km for Antartic Ice Cap and 500,000 km for Arctic Ice Cap) how long would it take to drop the oceans visibly?
Mudmucker
“’What is unusal is the length of this interglacial, we should be on well on our way back into the next major glaciation which should last 100k years or so(interglacials normally about 10k’
Ice ages cycle on 100 thousand years, according to the Milankovitch cycle which largely explains it. We only just came out of the last ice age 10,000 years ago, so we have along time to go before the Earth would naturally enter another ice age.”
Wow, you really get your “facts” messed up, don’t you? Read the paragraph that you quoted again. The ice ages last about 100kyr while the interglacials (that’s the warm periods) only last about 10kyr. That is broadly accepted, i.e. the science is settled, the debate is over, the consensus has been reached.
As to your other claims about energy, I would recommend revisiting your thermo textbooks. The real reason that we still burn fuels in our cars is that they are cheap, easy to handle -takes a few minutes to “recharge”- and the energy density can’t be beat. Certainly batteries don’t even come close to the energy contained by volume or weight of a liquid hydrocarbon at STP, which is really too bad because you are correct to point out the poor thermal efficiency of ICE’s and the non-idealities of an ICE powertrain compared to the simplicity and near ideal performance of an electric motor. I mean, why am I still using a transmission in the 21st century?!
Cheers,
Tsk Tsk
p.s. I too drive a hybrid because while I’m not worried about climate change I am concerned about energy security and I like to think that I help promote more efficient technologies. Ideally, I’d like to be able to buy a hybrid turbo diesel -or possibly a hybrid HCCI assuming they can get the bugs worked out- and get the best of both worlds.
mudmucker (19:42:26) :
Ice ages cycle on 100 thousand years, according to the Milankovitch cycle which largely explains it. We only just came out of the last ice age 10,000 years ago, so we have along time to go before the Earth would naturally enter another ice age.
Ummm… no. glaciations last 100k years, interglacial s are normally around 10k. This interglacial is around 12k at the moment. http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/temp/vostok/graphics/tempplot5.gif
We only just came out of the last ice age 10,000 years ago, so we have along time to go before the Earth would naturally enter another ice age.
The Laurentide Ice Sheet began to melt 22,000 yrs ago.
Statistically speaking, the “warm” peak grace period is used up.
Which is what the geologists in the 70’s were so worked up about, and where the warmists came in.
Oh well, at least the geologists were truly experts in thier fields.
Just for reference, it appears that the my AMSR-E data shows a steadily decreasing Arctic sea-ice extent of 174,098 sq km per year until Aug 31, 2007 and after that date a increasing trend of 309,183 sq km per year best matches the data. The two trend lines intersect at -413,990 sq km. It is still too soon to say if the latter trend will hold up. I have heard that one-year ice is easily melted. It also appears that first-melt water is easily re-frozen.
mudmucker (19:42:26) :
“What is unusal is the length of this interglacial, we should be on well on our way back into the next major glaciation which should last 100k years or so(interglacials normally about 10k)”
Ice ages cycle on 100 thousand years, according to the Milankovitch cycle which largely explains it. We only just came out of the last ice age 10,000 years ago, so we have along time to go before the Earth would naturally enter another ice age.
Actually the current interglacial is not really anomalous in length. While the Milankovitch Cycles are a major role player in the glacial cycles they are NOT precisely synchronous to each other hence the exact nature of each glacial / interglacial period and timing will be somewhat varied. That is true without even adding in other various influences and factors.
In terms of the cycles and their relationship to each other there is nothing to prevent entering the next glacial period in the next 1,500 to 2,500 years… perhaps sooner. That of course is in reference to temperatures dropping to LIA levels (and not returning to current for 90,000 years or so). Major ice advance would follow and be a long, slow process.
How will we know when an extended period of glaciation has started? NO ONE alive during the first stages of it will ever really know. Our life spans are too short. One way of looking at it, however, is that we started about 8,500 years ago and the true long term temperature trend substantiates that.
mudmucker (19:42:26) :
Ice ages cycle on 100 thousand years, according to the Milankovitch cycle which largely explains it. We only just came out of the last ice age 10,000 years ago, so we have along time to go before the Earth would naturally enter another ice age..
It is instructive to look at these plots:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c2/Vostok-ice-core-petit.png
We are at the edge at far left. Note the oscillations along a cooling mean trend, that can be seen by eye.
The holocene age blown up
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png
shows this cooling trend clearly, except for the uptick close to our time on the left.
If you were a betting man, what would you bet that the cooling trend will continue despite the ups and downs of the roll down hill?
I don’t agree with the phrase “rebounded quickly”, it seems to be plotting similar to quite few years. I’d leave it to at least October to be able to judge how 2009 swapped from melt to freeze compared to other years.
Regards
Andy
As nearly all of the ice cap increase is over ocean, not much change in sea level.
Warm oceans under cooling atmosphere should yield cooler and damper planet overall for a while. In many areas glaciers are advancing.
Maybe the AGW people should declare victory due to their efforts. :-l
As a young lad, I wondered why wet clothing hung to dry in the winter first froze, then dried. I wondered why the ice cubes in the treys in the freezer compartment got smaller and smaller if not used. Hmmmm . . . sublimation.
Then too, there are those such things as latent heat and specific heat. Hmmm. There is a small area between the atmosphere and liquid H2O that is ‘taint ‘Taint liquid water and ‘taint vapor. H2O molecules can and are “ripped off” by wind. How evaporative coolers work. 540 BTUs are carried off from the water for each pound of water in the process. This heat has to leave the water vapor for clouds to form, when the same amount of heat is released. Huge transfers of heat from bodies of water to the point where clouds condense out. This is completely separate from convection.
Weren’t chemistry and thermodynamics fun when I was in college?
Oh well, I am long since retired (professional civil engineer). Why bother to lecture when it is far more fun to watch the fighting?
BTW, Anthony, I don’t use my name because I am still licensed to practice civil engineering, and in the state I am registered, my residential address is public information, and can easily be had. I don’t need any nasty snail mail, or any “offers”. As such, I will remain, LarryOldtimer. I use that screen name since I am “half past” 73.
Friends:
The above discussion of albedo has been mistaken because its participants seem to have forgotten that polar regions are net emitters of radiation: n.b. they are not net absorbers.
The tropics absorb net radiation and the polar regions emit net radiation. There is an energy flow from tropics to poles.
Does growth of polar ice cover have a positive or negative feedback on polar ice cover?
Ice provides an insulating layer over polar waters. Black bodies are both better radiation emitters and better radiation absorbers than white bodies. Ice is whiter than water. Polar regions are net radiation emitters.
Think about it.
Richard
George E. Smith (13:51:41) :
Thanks George, very useful info, much appreciated; always nice to see some good old physics for a change – time I dusted off the books, ye gods it’s been a while… :o)
Cheers,
Mark.
DGallagher (13:26:46) : Have you seen those responsible for those horrible decisions ferreted out, exposed and driven out of government service? Personally, I don’t think it’s all that hard to figure out why fuel prices soared or why we had a problem with sub prime mortgages, but apparently all of the economists who know exactly what will happen in the future are unable to do a honest post mortem on what has just happened in the recent past.
Pardon me, but I am an Economist and I can (and have) detail exactly how and who was responsible for the collapse of the housing bubble (and it’s formation). The problem is that the folks in power don’t listen to Economists either unless they are hand picked to spout a particular party line.
HINT: Look up the community redevelopment act as amended and signed by Pres. Clinton. Look at Fanny May and Freddie Mac cronies such as Barney Frank and Little Chuckey Shummer (and a cast of thousands of other congress critters over the years… just look at the Fanny & Freddie contributions history for the cast of characters.) Then also look at the radical right wingnuts who demanded a repeal of Glass-Steagall in exchange for letting the CRA go through and the democrats to hand out mortgage money to anything with a pulse…
I’d tell you more, but it just puts folks to sleep when an Economist starts talking about Economics… even if it is Political Economics.
Marian (14:01:12) :
“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!
Good Point! With 50%+ of electricity from coal, and about 30% from other fossil fuels, the rest being substantially nuclear and nuclear having a decades+ lead time to add capacity: The added power demand would have to come from running the coal plants longer and running the “peaking plant” natural gas turbines longer. (Things like hydro and geothermal are already producing at capacity).
If you think we can add enough wind and solar to charge a big growth of electric cars you are mistaken. An electric car is about 35 kW-hr per day minimum (assumes about a 1 hour total drive time). Typical home consumption is closer to 24 kW-hr / day. So you would need to roughly double the total electric generation (and then some) to handle the electric cars. That can’t happen in 2 years… Or even in 10. And I’d hesitate to try and do it in 20 without a dramatic effort ala WWII war time mobilization…
So you might be able to buy a lot of electric cars in a couple of years; but don’t expect to be able to charge a nation worth of them for at least 20 years… And when you do, expect a lot of that to come from coal.