There’s plenty of stories about how Arctic sea ice is now “rotten”. There’s darn few that talk about yearly comparisons or what other scientific outlets are saying about the claim.
As many WUWT readers know, 2007 was the minimum year of summer extent in sea ice, a year that is routinely held up as a cause for alarm. Another cause for alarm has been the “decline of multi-year sea ice”. Most recently we’ve gotten claims of “rotten ice” in the news media. That “rotten” ice is “duping the satellites” they say. This all from one fellow, Dr. David Barber on a ship that took a short expedition in the Arctic and observed what he called “rotten ice”. Here’s Dr. Barber using the poster child for sea ice loss in a presentation.
Seems that his “rotten” message resonated, even the media in Alaska (who can observe sea ice on their own) are saying it: New study: Arctic ice is rotten (Anchorage Daily News)
Over at the Greenbang Blog, they say that: ‘Rotten’ sea ice creates false impression of Arctic recovery
They cite:
Satellite data in 2008 and 2009 appeared to indicate that Arctic sea ice cover had started to grow again after reaching a record low, leading some to claim that global warming was reversing. However, University of Manitoba researcher David Barber found that wasn’t the case after he viewed the ice firsthand this September from an ice breaker travelling through the southern Beaufort Sea.
What the satellites had identified as thick, multiyear ice, it turned out, was in fact thin, “rotten” ice, Barber and his colleagues discovered.
This apparently was the conclusion from watching Dr. Barber’s YouTube video:
You can read Barber’s study here (Word DOC file)
So if the satellites are “duped” into seeing more ice than actually exists, then 2007 ice must have been really, really, rotten:
Compare for yourself, here.
Looks like it has firmed up since then. So no matter how you spin it, there has indeed been improvement in sea ice in 2007. Going from “really, really rotten” in 2007 to simply “rotten” Arctic sea ice in 2009 is definitely an improvement.
One other note, if this “rotten ice” problem and satellite duping proposed by Dr. Barber is in fact real, I’d fully expect that the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) would make some sort of announcement or post a caveat about it on the “Arctic Sea Ice News and analysis” web page where they present the satellite data. I couldn’t find anything on that page about “rotten ice” or satellite data being inaccurate.
Looking further, I used a Google search for “rotten” within NSIDC’s web site (available from their search tool in the upper right of their web page) reveals no recent documents or web pages using that word. Odd.
OK maybe Cryosphere Today? Nope nothing there either.
JAXA‘s sea ice page? Their News page? Not a peep.
Nansen’s Arctic ROOS sea ice page? Or their news page? All quiet on the Arctic front.
Maybe the Danish Meteorological Institute (in Copenhagen no less) sea ice page? Surely, something must be “rotten” in Denmark, no? Alas, they don’t mention it either.
Gosh, the Arctic ice is rotten, the satellites are duped, and none of the major scientific organzations that track sea ice have anything to say about it?
It seems Dr. Barber’s conclusions are being left out in the cold by his peers.
In his article Barber said that the ice breaker he was on ploughed through the ice with ease “And could have carried on right to the pole if we’d had time”
Sure it could have David, very convincing.
While talking pure crap from his bottom
David said that the ice was all rotten
The license of a poet
Is enough, and we know it
To trump the science method long forgotten
Recent studies of the ice show dangerously high levels of dihydrous oxide. See: http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html for details about this uniquitous hazard.
I’m an avid reader of the blog but I’ve never commented. What amazes me is that the agw alarmists use 30 years of ice cover data as primary evidence that Arctic sea ice is vanishing, when it’s clear to everyone that the record started during a cold period (the late 1970s) and are now going even farther and claiming sea ice loss has created a fundamentally new weather/climate pattern in the Arctic region (http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=1398). There is 0 proof that what’s happening with sea ice is unprecedented when the means of comparison is a 30 year satellite record and before that, unreliable ship reports. It’s akin to claiming the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season was unprecedented when it’s entirely possible that the number of storms that year was surpassed during let’s say at some point in the 1930s, when our observation capabilities were not even remotely close to where they are now.
I like the way you write your headliners !
Kind regards
The ice-man from Greenland
now this appears to be a paper that should not pass peer review without major corrections if at all.
evidence from much more extensive and quantifiable measurements tell the opposite both regarding sea ice thickness and polar bear populations
Someone needs to tell the alarmists, IT’S JUST A MOVIE.
Looking at those satellite images I also have to wonder what this does for all those claims about the North West passage being open for shipping. Accepted you might get an ice breaker through but the 2009 coverage loooks pretty solid as far as I can see.
“”2008 had a smaller minimum, probably, than 2007,” Gore said, alluding to work led by California-based researcher Wieslaw Maslowski.”
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iNMr-lIQQXC_pQ7Vs4nsdv4cYz8Q
§.-)
In one word……Gore..some!
Rotten ice is less robust and it’s a travesty that it is.
Pristine natural pure and sacred ice becomes toxic, rotten, befouled and profane ice under the interrogation of thrusting, oppressive, imperialistic, western satellite technology… don’t cha know…
Question: Do ice-breakers try to navigate by looking for where there is thinner, broken ice?
I suspect David Barber is making up porkies and asking us to simply believe him. If satellites can be fooled by rotten ice then land thermometers can be fooled by UHI effect. Remember Catlin and Polar 5 coming up with different conclusions about sea ice thickness.
How else is David supposed to pay for his next trip in order to do further research. Imagine if he came back from the expediction and said the ice was not rotten and was recovering nicely. This would be like a turkey voting for Christmas.
Dr. Spencer , thanks . As has been pointed out above , that part of the Arctic is probably ice free , or close to it , in September . His paper would have been meaningful had he referenced ice measurements in the same area from some time in the past instead of merely saying that the satellite measurements had misled him .
Re the all-to-human suggestion that Barber needs his funding renewed: I think that this cartoon sums it all up neatly….
Is the AT premature?
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/climategate_tko_in_copenhagen.html
Sure would be nice.
Anyhow, snow is the forecast for Denmark Thursday.
Signs of a warming planet, no matter how many you can muster, do not prove the cause.
Wow… this is silly… they found thin ice in September… big surprise. I’m sure that they covered a lot of area at 13 knots. At that speed I’m sure they could get a representative sample of the whole Arctic… if they were out there for a couple of years.
I’ve also noticed that Hudson Bay is way behind in freezing this year. I’m sure there have been some nice snow squalls downwind of the bay since it turned cold in the last week or so. I think there will be a large increase in the ice cover as some of that -51 (F) air from Edmonton gets blown over the water. Actually, the blowing is probably part of the problem… it’s probably been so windy that the water is moving too much to freeze.
It’s another story from the “weather, not climate” department… Edmonton International Airport was -51 F Sunday morning and -43 this morning. Only a few degrees off from their all-time record low temperature.
Rosemary Meling “I think this only confuses things, it doesn’t seem to support either hypothesis yet. Oh, there are so many questions!”
Rosemary-at least you are asking questions rather than having assumed all the answers to fit your politics..
I wonder if the earth being millions of degrees just a few kilometers down has any impact on sea ice.
Just for the record, is “rotten ice” a scientific term ?
If true, this would have serious implications for ice measurements stretching back for 30 years. If the measurements are skewed, then perhaps the entire sea ice record will require adjustment. To turn the tables, maybe there was not as much ice during peak periods as previously estimated.
Saint Gore again:
Gore: Polar ice may vanish in 5-7 years
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091214/ap_on_sc/climate_gore
Of course ice and snow gets “rotten” before it melts. Anyone who’s tried skiing too late in spring knows that.
The sea ice on the north pole in 1959 looks pretty rotten too:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/26/ice-at-the-north-pole-in-1958-not-so-thick/
This beggars belief.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6803921/Copenhagen-climate-summit-Tony-Blair-calls-on-world-leaders-to-get-moving.html
Roy Spencer (11:31:28) :
So there are bubbles of sea water that don’t freeze in the ice. Upon being upended by passing ships or fierce winds, the unfrozen sea water runs out, leaving ice with holes in it.
I see the same phenomenon at work on land.
Nothing new there.
We might check to see if Mr. Barbers’ ship of passage through the ice was on a frequent-icebreaker route while we are at it.
But I agree with you, more rotten ice surviving is a good thing, if Arctic Sea Ice survival is indeed a problem.