NSIDC seems to be saying: It’s slightly less worse than we thought. For another view, see Dr. Tony Berry’s sea ice analysis on WUWT yesterday.
From a University of Colorado Press Release
Arctic sea ice recovers slightly in 2009, remains on downward trend, says U. of Colorado report
 |
||||
 |
 |
|
 |
|
|
 |
  IMAGE: This graphics show multi-year Arctic sea ice changes.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
||||
Despite a slight recovery in summer Arctic sea ice in 2009 from record-setting low years in 2007 and 2008, the sea ice extent remains significantly below previous years and remains on a trend leading toward ice-free Arctic summers, according to the University of Colorado at Boulder’s National Snow and Ice Data Center.
According to the CU-Boulder center, the 2009 minimum sea ice extent was the third lowest since satellite record-keeping began in 1979. The past five years have seen the five lowest Arctic sea ice extents ever recorded.
“It’s nice to see a little recovery over the past couple of years, but there’s no reason to think that we’re headed back to conditions seen in the 1970s,” said NSIDC Director Mark Serreze, also a professor in CU-Boulder’s geography department. “We still expect to see ice-free summers sometime in the next few decades.”
The average ice extent during September, a standard measurement for climate studies, was 2.07 million square miles (5.36 million square kilometers). This was 409,000 square miles (1.06 million square kilometers) greater than the record low for the month in 2007, and 266,000 square miles (690,000 square kilometers) greater than the second-lowest extent recorded in September 2008.
The 2009 Arctic sea ice extent was still 649,000 square miles (1.68 square kilometers) below the 1979-2000 September average, according to the report. Arctic sea ice in September is now declining at a rate of 11.2 percent per decade and in the winter months by about 3 percent per decade. The consensus of scientists is that 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, as reported by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Sea surface temperatures in the Arctic this season remained higher than normal, but slightly lower than the past two years, according to data from University of Washington Senior Oceanographer Mike Steele. The cooler conditions, which resulted largely from cloudy skies during late summer, slowed ice loss compared to the past two years. In addition, atmospheric patterns in August and September helped to spread out the ice pack, keeping extent higher.
The September 2009 ice cover remained thin, leaving it vulnerable to melt in coming summers, according to the CU-Boulder report. At the end of the summer, younger, thinner ice less than one year in age accounted for 49 percent of the ice cover. Second- year ice made up 32 percent of the ice cover, compared to 21 percent in 2007 and 9 percent in 2008.
Only 19 percent of the ice cover was over two years old — the least ever recorded in the satellite record and far below the 1981-2000 summer average of 48 percent, according to the CU-Boulder report. Measurements of sea ice thickness by satellites are used to determine the age of the ice.
Earlier this summer, NASA researcher Ron Kwok and colleagues from the University of Washington in Seattle published satellite data showing that ice thickness declined by 2.2 feet between 2004 and 2008.
“We’ve preserved a fair amount of first-year ice and second-year ice after this summer compared to the past couple of years,” said NSIDC scientist Walt Meier of CU-Boulder’s Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences. “If this ice remains in the Arctic thorough the winter, it will thicken, which gives some hope of stabilizing the ice cover over the next few years. However, the ice is still much younger and thinner than it was in the 1980s, leaving it vulnerable to melt during the summer.”
Arctic sea ice follows an annual cycle of melting through the warm summer months and refreezing in the winter. Sea ice reflects sunlight, keeping the Arctic region cool and moderating global climate temperatures.
While Arctic sea ice extent varies from year to year because of changing atmospheric conditions, ice extent has shown a dramatic overall decline over the past 30 years.
“A lot of people are going to look at the graph of ice extent and think that we’ve turned the corner on climate change,” said NSIDC Lead Scientist Ted Scambos of CU-Boulder’s CIRES. “But the underlying conditions are still very worrisome.”
NSIDC is part of CIRES and is funded primarily by NASA.
Next summer all that one year old ice will be two years old, right?
So this summers one year old ice will be less likely to melt next summer.
Am I missing a point here?
what’s this mean for the Polar Bears?
Note the reference to increased cloud cover being responsible for slower melt rates. Given the sun’s actvity it sounds positively Svensmarkian.
“It’s nice to see a little recovery over the past couple of years, but there’s no reason to think that we’re headed back to conditions seen in the 1970s,” said NSIDC Director Mark Serreze”
How about the 60s?
50s?
1850’s?
What’s “normal”?
Why is this bad?
“…since satellite record-keeping began in 1979.
…there’s no reason to think that we’re headed back to conditions seen in the 1970s,”
With just one year in the 1970’s recorded, just what does he base this on? We’ve had several threads on nearly ice-free conditions in years past.
Photos of submarines, history from the 30’s, etc.
Doesn’t sound like scientific objectivity to me.
“The consensus of scientists is that 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, as reported by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.”
Unless the effect can be quantified, this is an utterly meaningless statement. Also. how exactly can sea ice extent “remain on a trend towards an ice free summer” if the last two years have each shown an increase in sea ice extent over the previous year. There must be some special definition of “remain” and “trend” that I am not aware of.
“The September 2009 ice cover remained thin, leaving it vulnerable to melt in coming summers, according to the CU-Boulder report.”
If this is so, then why were the scientists that actually measured the ice thickness (Polar 5 flyover) surprised by the “thicker than expected” ice they found? (I can’t find the link to the original Polar 5 Wegener Institute article… Anyone?) Don’t tell me CU-Boulder used the data from the Catlin Expedition!
NSIDC appears to be stuck on spin.
“A lot of people are going to look at the graph of ice extent and think that we’ve turned the corner on climate change,” said NSIDC Lead Scientist Ted Scambos of CU-Boulder’s CIRES. “But the underlying conditions are still very worrisome.”
Indeed – turning the corner would be the obvious conclusion. The other question would be why did we turn the corner if continual annual increases in atmospjheric CO2 are supposed to be forcing things in an ever accelerating manner towards ice-free?
Mmmmh!
Ted, please admit that you are stumped and that you and your ilk have snookered yourselves through past alarmist statements that claim to be based on what your ilk call “settled science”. Now you are doomed to repeat your hollow mantra – “still very worrisome”…a hollow echo that will ring for many years while the natural climate variations continue to occur (as they always have) until eventually you and your “cry wolf” ilk are long forgotten.
Next year perhaps you can use “still concerning” and then the year after drop the “still” and just say “concerning” and finally in a few more years you may thankfully retire and slip into anonymity and hope that everyone forgets about all these embarassing grandstanding “ice-free” diabolical predictions…
Is this another way of saying that the glass is half empty?
In climate, bear markets can go on for decades. Everyone knows this. Those guys should tell us something we don’t already know rather than continue to hyperventilate about 30 years worth of data, which is barely a sneezle’s worth.
“…but there’s no reason to think that we’re headed back to conditions seen in the 1970s,” said NSIDC Director Mark Serreze
“since satellite record-keeping began in 1979”
Does he know what is he talking about?
cheers Bill W
“Despite a slight recovery in summer Arctic sea ice in 2009 from record-setting low years in 2007 and 2008, the sea ice extent remains significantly below previous years and remains on a trend leading toward ice-free Arctic summers, according to the University of Colorado at Boulder’s National Snow and Ice Data Center.”
It’s nonsense, of course. This is like saying a car heading west out of Albuquerque is headed for New York because it was once in Minneapolis. The current “trend,” insofar as there is one, is clearly and strongly upward.
Thirty years is hardly a significant time frame for assessing Arctic ice, either. Relatively speaking, it’s a tick of the clock.
Any of these NSIDC guys called Caleb? Thought not.
Given his history of extreme bias, should we expect Serreze to say anything more profound than what he already has…and continues to say?
It is unfortunate, thought, that a taxpayer-funded “public servant” can continue to get away with such balderdash, but hell, they ALL do it.
Astonishingly bad.
QUESTION: Has there ever been data that supports something to the effect….that increasing CO2…
…causes brain damage and frontal-lobe judgement impairment??
Maybe that would explain it. 😉
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
“Joe Black (11:49:21) :
“It’s nice to see a little recovery over the past couple of years, but there’s no reason to think that we’re headed back to conditions seen in the 1970s,” said NSIDC Director Mark Serreze”
How about the 60s?
50s?
1850’s?
What’s “normal”?
Why is this bad?”
They are talking about IN ALL RECORDED HISTORY man! stop living in the past.
however, ted scambodid a remarkable comment:
“A lot of people are going to look at the graph of ice extent and think that we’ve turned the corner on climate change,” said NSIDC Lead Scientist Ted Scambos of CU-Boulder’s CIRES. “But the underlying conditions are still very worrisome.”
“It’s nice to see a little recovery over the past couple of years, but there’s no reason to think that we’re headed back to conditions seen in the 1970s,” said NSIDC Director Mark Serreze”
And there’s no reason to think that we’re not.
I guess 2007 wasn’t the tipping point?
We can watch the polar bears evolve and blacken their coats. Will bears become ‘speckled” like the moths were before they adapt with a solid black coloration?
Meant to say “unfortunate, though.”
Brain damage I guess. 🙂
At least, through my CO2-induced brain damage, I corrected my mistake.
Serreze never does.
Science (and ego) at its worst!!
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
See, it’s a trend until 30 years pass. Sort of like a win or lose streak in baseball, except completely different. By the way they calculate trends, you can lose 20 games in a row but if your win/lose record is above .500, then you’re still on a winning trend.
Is this another way of saying that the glass is half empty?
More like that the glass may be filling up, but things still look bleak.
I am still waiting for a coherent hypothesis that is testable. If X occurs, AGW is true, if X does not occur, AGW is false. I seem to recall these types of statements in my old science texts. All the hypotheses I have read states something to the effect of ‘if Warming actually occurs, X Y and Z terrible things will follow.’ It seems to me that the hypotheses keep changing for AGW and they keep trying to fit the data into their idea. So that even when cooling occurs, the oceans actually lower, the arctic grows; all these things still point to AGW.
“The consensus of scientists is that 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, as reported by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.”
Okay….
So by that logic, the above-average trend for sea ice extent in the Antarctic must be tied to cooling tempertures caused by a decrease in human-produced greenhouse gases.
It’s hard to understand how these “scientists” can say these things with a straight face. Isn’t this the person who confidently said that 2008 would be ice free at the pole?? Oops, how’d that work out. Then he said earlier this year that we “may” become ice free at the pole within the next decade. Now he’s saying that it “may” become ice free in the next several decades. Talk about covering all your bases. Sheesh!!
Rule #1: Always make sure your predictions are made confidently and boldly without regard to facts and data
Rule #2: Always make sure that the conclusion/result cannot be measured until well after your death/retirement.
Rule #3: Remember rules #1 and #2
“but there’s no reason to think that we’re headed back to conditions seen in the 1970s”
But that’s good, right? I mean, weren’t we headed for an ice age in the 70’s?
Seems like nobody on the AGW side is keeping notes:
* The Caitlin jaunt was hyped as the first-ever bone fide ice depth survey and found ‘thinner than expected ice’
* But it turns out NSICD already has all the data that proves the ice has ‘never been thinner’ anyway
* The bunch from Bremenhaven flew the same patch as Caitlin and found surprisingly think ice (3-4m) but glossed it over as a bleep and promised normal warming service will be resumed imminently – http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/08/08/this-year-there-was-an-exceptional-amount-of-ice/
For a bunch that claim to be singing from the same hymn sheet, they sure are out of tune.
“It’s nice to see a little recovery over the past couple of years, but there’s no reason to think that we’re headed back to conditions seen in the 1970s,”
If we did suddenly jump from 2007 ice levels to 1977 levels there’d be warnings of imminent ice ages. That is just silly
On the other hand Dr Meier seems to say basic sense. I do wonder though how many years of recovery would be needed before they would say the trend was broken