by Steven Goddard and Anthony Watts
In late 2009, Anthony forecast that Arctic sea ice would continue to recover in 2010. Last month Steve Goddard did an analysis explaining why that was likely to happen and yesterday NSIDC confirmed the analysis.
The pattern of winds associated with a strongly negative AO tends to reduce export of ice out of the Arctic through the Fram Strait. This helps keep more of the older, thicker ice within the Arctic. While little old ice remains, sequestering what is left may help keep the September extent from dropping as low as it did in the last few years.
The wording of NSIDC press releases usually highlight the negative (this one being no exception) but the message is clear. This summer is likely to continue the trend since 2007 of increasing summer minimums.
So how is Arctic sea ice looking at this point, near the winter maximum? NSIDC shows ice extent within 1 million km2 of normal and increasing.
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png
The Baltic and Bering Sea have slightly above normal ice. Eastern Canada and The Sea of Okhotsk have slightly below normal ice.
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_daily_extent.png
DMI shows sea ice extent at nearly the highest in their six year record.
Sea ice extent for the past 5 years (in million km2) for the northern hemisphere, as a function of date.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php
NORSEX shows ice area just outside one standard deviation (i.e. almost normal.)
http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/observation_images/ssmi1_ice_area.png
There’s also some interesting comparisons to be made at Cryosphere Today. When you compare the current images in recent days with the same period in years past, you notice how “solid” the ice has become. For example compare March 3rd 2010 to March 3rd 2008, when we saw the first year of recovery:
Note that there’s no “fuzziness” in the signal return that creates this image on the right. A fuzzy return would indicate less than solid ice, such as we see on the left. The CT image from March 3rd is “deep purple” through and through. The edges of the ice are very sharp also, particularly near Greenland and also in the Bering sea. These two visual cues imply a solid, and perhaps thicker ice pack, rather than one that has been described by Dr. Barber as “rotten ice”.
I wish I could compare to March 3 2009, but the CT images were offline last spring then while both they and NSIDC dealt with issues of SSMI sensor dropout that was originally brought to their attention by WUWT, but was deemed “not worth blogging about“.
According to JAXA, 2003 was a good year for Arctic sea ice. Note the blue line.
So how does that year on March 3rd compare to our current year using CT’s imagery?
Compared to the best year for Arctic sea ice in the past decade, March 3rd this year looks quite solid. The setup for 2010 having more ice looks good.
You can do your own side by side comparisons here with CT’s interactive Arctic sea ice comparator.
The Arctic continues to recover, and one of the last CAGW talking points continues to look weaker and weaker. It wasn’t very long ago when experts were forecasting the demise of Arctic ice somewhere between 2008 and 2013. And it is not the first time that experts have done this – they were claiming the same nonsense in 1969, right before the ice age scare.
Note the column at the right. Even back then, skeptics got the short shrift on headlines because as we know: “all is well, don’t panic” doesn’t sell newspapers.
UPDATE: And then there’s this:
AROUND 50 ships, including large ferries reportedly carrying thousands, were stuck in the ice in the Baltic Sea today and many were not likely to be freed for hours, Swedish maritime authorities said.
No doubt that the Baltic Sea in 2010 is having the most ice in 15 years will be blamed on AGW.
http://www.examiner.com/x-3122-Chicago-International-Travel-Examiner~y2010m3d4-Baltic-Sea-ice-strands-thousands-of-ferry-passengers
“”” Spector (15:49:33) :
RE: Paul Daniel Ash (13:38:05) : “If something happened once due to natural variation then if it every happens again it has to be as a result of natural variation, for ever and ever, world without end amen? That’s weird logic.”
“I seriously doubt that CO2 is a major climate driver since most of the effect of any new parcel of carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere is masked by that already there. Looking at the absorption spectrum of CO2, I see a scarf (or series of scarves) not a blanket. The recent cold weather extremes in the face of rising CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere seem to be showing this fear false. “””
Well how about the even more important concentration of atmospheric water vapor, which not only renders any increases in CO2 inconsequential; but also makes the entire current resident CO2 entirely inconsequential.
Earth currently enjoys the lowest levels of CO2 that it has seen in the last 600 million years, including values 25 times the present CO2 levels and maybe 32 times the lowest ever levels.
I believe even the dryest of tropical deserts have more water vapor than CO2 above them.
I haven’t actually calculated the factor between saturation vapor pressure in the atmosphere, and molecular abundance of H2O, so I am not quite sure of H2O abundances over the polar regions (in the vapor phase) but it seems that cloud formation in the polar regions is quite common, so it wouldn’t surprise me if H2O still exceeds CO2 over the polar regions. Maybe one day I’ll do the calculation to satisfy my curiosity.
But I still believe; “IT’S THE WATER, SILLY !”
Paul Daniel Ash,
The population of Los Angeles increased dramatically during the 20th Century, closely tracking the warming trend. UFO sightings also increased in parallel to temperatures. As did teen pregnancy.
It doesn’t seem likely that either of the last two caused the changes in the temperature record, but Urban Heat island effects might well have.
The unproven (and, in my mind, laughable) assertion that human-generated increases in CO2 – a miniscule atmospheric gas — will cause the planet to warm, leading to climate catastrophe is a sure sign of hubris gone crazy. Not surprisingly, many of the people promoting it were out front in the 1970s issuing dire warnings of an approaching ice age.
(Former NASA researcher Dr. Ferenc Misckolzci, by the way, has produced research allegedly refuting this “theory.” See news article – http://bit.ly/dgjBSO; his actual paper – http://bit.ly/bmtWp8.)
For billions of years, the sun has done a good job all on its own of heating and cooling planet earth. It surely doesn’t need any help from the insignificant creatures, called humans, inhabiting the place.
Sadly, many global warming alarmists — pro-AWG scientists, in particular — seem hell-bent on defending their sacred theory until the bitter end. Reputations are at stake; Huge research grants depend on the theory’s continued acceptance.
As the theory continues to disintegrate (and the process is now picking up speed) and falsified beyond redemption, how many scientists will be courageous enough to step forward and admit they devoted their lives to promoting and defending a theory that was the climate-change equivalent of “Piltdown Man”?
Pamela Gray said:
“R. Gates, come on. Every time we had ice racing out the strait we had wind doing the same thing, and every time we had ice staying put, we had wind going the other direction or just staying put (look it up). I can ask my 5th grade resource kids that question and they would be able to predict what would happen to floating ice in the Arctic. The trend is in the wind, not CO2.”
So Pamela, are you saying the record high temperatures seen over the arctic in the last 20 years had no effect on sea ice? It was all just “the wind”? Really? Wow, you are smarter than the dozens of scientists (honest, dedicated, intelligent scientists) who have identified a whole constellation of causation for the low sea ice we’ve seen, of which the wind only plays a small part. See:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13580_3-9833022-39.html
Really Pamela, your attachment to trying disprrove the existence of a warming troposphere (which AGW models all say will be most pronounced at the polar regions) seems to blind you to basic facts. Arctic sea ice is trending down on a year-to-year basis, and has been since at least the late 70’s…and the “wind” plays only a part in that decline.
I find it illuminating that AGW faithful can easily accept that 30 years of satellite coverage gives them enough information of create a linear trend in spite of all the historic evidence that ice extent is cyclic.
It must be getting pretty bad for someone to make this kind of silly claim. Even Gavin would be embarrassed for Gates and Ash.
R. Gates (19:45:34) :
… are you saying the record high temperatures seen over the arctic in the last 20 years had no effect on sea ice?
Would you mind providing the evidence that says the Arctic has NEVER been warmer than the last 20 years? Oh wait, you have how many years of data, silly me to think that wasn’t representative of millions of years.
Jeez all these posts Paul Daneil Ash, and you still haven’t answered my question as to what is the “normal” level of arctic sea ice?
RE: kirkmyers (19:14:52) : “Former NASA researcher Dr. Ferenc Misckolzci, by the way, has produced research allegedly refuting this ‘theory.’ …”
There is an informative YouTube video explaining Dr. Miskolczi’s theory titled “Miskolczi’s New Greenhouse Law” where Dr Miklos Zagoni explains his colleague’s new research on Greenhouse gasses that show CO2 will not increase the earth’s temperature any further. This was produced in the halcyon days 10 months ago when most scientists were still proud to cite their IPCC connections. It contains what appears to be a very good and concise explanation of heat transfer in the atmosphere.
@Steve Goddard (16:59:21) :
Like many referees, I’m willing to turn a blind eye to the occasional elbow to the solar plexus as long as both sides are engaging in it. But wholescale persistent “missing the point” just irks me.
Yes, good point –NSIDC not only tentatively confirms your conclusion, but also replicates your thought processes in arriving at it.
I understand that WUWT threads often go “beyond context” in the reply thread, and I’m comfortable with that and have partaken myself (and will again). Several people do so upstream, and without agreeing or disagreeing with their train of thought, I don’t have a problem with that. The difference with them vs Edda is they either state or give clear implication they know (and expect others to recognize) they are doing it. It’s one thing (and sometimes correct) to argue the context is too narrow to draw larger conclusions from (which this article makes no attempt to do) –it is something else to argue that the context is something else entirely.
The older I get, the more I recognize the importance of recognizing and respecting context.
R. Gates (19:45:34) : ” Wow, you are smarter than the dozens of scientists (honest, dedicated, intelligent scientists) who have identified a whole constellation of causation for the low sea ice we’ve seen, of which the wind only plays a small part. See: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13580_3-9833022-39.html“.
Is that the best you can do? A link from a 2007 blog? Where is that “constellation of causation” you talk about?
And the crazy thing about your ad hominem slip-up here, she happens to be one of the “honest, dedicated, intelligent scientists”.
And she reduces the argument to 5th grade level to make a point: The wind plays a big part.
DUH!!
For the rest of us, we don’t have to be scientists [or 5th grade students] to understand the basics.
Watch THIS video…..kinda fun to watch Ever seen a sea ice tsunami?
Heh….and this was at the vernal ****ing equinox, at that!
http://www.break.com/usercontent/2009/6/oooguruk-island-june-23rd-2009-790036.html
Also….watch the wind in action during that sea ice drought year of 2007. Truly spectacular.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Edda – just quickly my friend, 30 years does not a baseline make. If you have read the comments you KNOW that there has been periods of ice thinning in the very near past, just like now. You accuse Anthony et al of cherry picking, well I accuse your vaunted scientists of cherry picking by not accessing the historical data to build their baseline. In reality, there really is no “average” ice extent, and I feel that you really know this yourself. 🙂
Paul Daniel Ash: “I’m just learning this stuff, and I’d rather not be stuck with a wrong headed notion.”
Glad to hear you admit that.
Well if that’s the case then perhaps you would do well to keep your mouth shut more (and keyboard silent) and listen more to the experts on here, who will do their best to help you not get “stuck with a wrong headed notion”.
I like this ancient proverb: “Even a fool, when he is silent, is considered wise.”
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
“It wasn’t very long ago when experts were forecasting the demise of Arctic ice somewhere between 2008 and 2013”
————-
The given link
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7139797.stm
says Arctic **summers** ice-free ‘by 2013’, not Arctic winters.
Notice that it is 2010: There are four years left for the “aggressive prediction” to come true.
—–
“My thinking on this is that 2030 is not an unreasonable date to be thinking of.”
And later, to the BBC, Dr Serreze added: “I think Wieslaw is probably a little aggressive in his projections, simply because the luck of the draw means natural variability can kick in to give you a few years in which the ice loss is a little less than you’ve had in previous years. But Wieslaw is a smart guy and it would not surprise me if his projections came out.”
R. Gates (16:06:34) :
“This chart tells the whole story…”
No, it doesn’t. You’re just cherry-picking.
That’s the third time you’ve posted that same chart, which, contrary to your assertion, tells only one-half of the story.
Want to see the other half of the story? click. Betcha didn’t know there’s ice in the Antarctic, too. Now you know. And as you can see, it’s been increasing for at least the past thirty years.
Nothing unusual is happening, no need to be alarmed: click
Let’s look back three decades, and see if there’s been any loss of ice: click
One more, to show that maybe you can’t completely trust all government scientists: click
Notice that the University of Bremen link above shows that midsummer ice cover in the Northern Hemisphere — when the North Pole is supposed to be ice free any day now — actually looks like it’s been increasing.
OK Mr Gates, you’ve gotta admit WUWT is an educational site: now you’ve learned that there’s ice in the Southern Hemisphere, too — and it’s growing. The falsified hypothesis is anthropogenic global warming, not anthropogenic North Pole warming.
Hey, you just learned another new fact! Now say, “Thank you, Anthony, for your wonderful “Best Science” site!”
Richard M (20:10:55) said:
“Would you mind providing the evidence that says the Arctic has NEVER been warmer than the last 20 years?”
When did I make this assertion? I don’t think I ever did, in fact I KNOW I never did, or would have because it is false. Certainly the Arctic has been warmer in the past than it is right now, but this is not the point or even important. What is important is detecting a sign or evidence that AGW Models say should be there. AGW models clearly state that global warming will be most pronounced in the Arctic region, and will lead to the melting of polar sea ice. The trend over the past 20 years certainly is in line with those models (but does not prove that AGW is to blame of course). If the Arctic had been colder over the past 20 years and sea ice had grown, then there would be scant evidence that AGW theory is correct. What is happening to Arctic sea ice is exactly what AGW models say should be, albeit a bit faster than expected so far…
savethesharks (20:41:10) said:
And the crazy thing about your ad hominem slip-up here, she happens to be one of the “honest, dedicated, intelligent scientists”.
She very well may be, but she seems not to want to look at the whole gestalt of causes of the loss of arctic sea ice. Not to mention the record temps in the region is akin to saying that only cold weather causes snow. Nope, it takes moisture, and whole host of other ingredients. Wind was just one of many factors for the loss of sea ice, and certainly not more important than the very warm temps seen over the arctic.
R. Gates (21:34:45) :
Folks don’t cast your pearls before you know what.
Seems this blog has been hijacked by keyboard trolls lately.
[Do they not have a life beyond hijacking a thread?]
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Gates, you’re listening to people who have been caught serially lying about almost everything, and who make up entire temperature data sets in order to keep the grant money flowing… and you still believe them??
Being credulous is cute — in a young girl. But some time you’ve gotta start thinking for yourself. Otherwise, you’re just a tool.
Steve Goddard said
“The Arctic continues to recover, and one of the last CAGW talking points continues to look weaker and weaker”
I’m not sure if 2 year trend can have such a bold claim put on it, lets give it a few more years yet. It might be just returning from the exceptional year that was 2007 back to the current 30 year downward trend.
In regards to others comment it being the wind and only the wind, that is probably as far from the mark as is claiming it is all down to increased temperatures! This shows a case of wishing a reason, not knowing a reason.
Andy
Smokey,
I certainly love this site, and have saluted Anthony many times for providing an excellent forum for intelligent conversation about climate and other interesting issues. In regard to your assertion that I have no knowledge of the fact that the southern hemisphere has sea ice, and that is has been trending upward in general over the past several years– I hate to contradict you assertion, but of course I am well aware of that, and certainly many climate experts have offered reasons for that positive anomaly trend. Does it contradict AGW models? Yes, some, but not all. Some models that take into account the effects of the ozone whole on the storm patterns around Antarctica seem to suggest a relationship between the ozone whole , sea ice, storms, currents, winds, etc. But despite the positive anomaly trend in the S. Hemisphere sea ice, even as recently as a few weeks ago, the Antarctic sea ice saw a NEGATIVE ANOMALY, and has several times since 2004, while the arctic sea ice has not seen a positive anomaly in the same time frame. The jest of this is that the arctic trend line down over the past few decades is far more pronounced than the antarctic trend line up. A quick review of the site:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/
Is well worth the time, and the various charts, when studied with a keen and unjaundiced eye reveal a great deal.
Finally, since January 2010 was one of the warmest Januarys on record globally, and especially in the S. Hemisphere, it will be interesting to see how much longer the positive anomly trend line for S. Hemisphere sea ice continues up. AGW models suggest it will flatten and then follow the same trend line down into the negative side as arctic sea ice. If this happens, it will be another bit of data confirming the potential correctness of AGW theory and models.
AndyW (22:04:08) :
Ummm….nobody is saying its just the wind.
DUH!
Its a whole host of factors….the AMO the PDO etc and many MANY others…..but the wind is a big player.
If you don’t think wind and air circulation does not affect sea ice, then watch these two vids:
http://www.break.com/usercontent/2009/6/oooguruk-island-june-23rd-2009-790036.html
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
>>>Heh….and this was at the vernal equinox, at that!
>>> http://www.break.com/usercontent/2009/6/oooguruk-island-june-23rd-2009-790036.html
This was actually at the Summer Solstice.
.
…”it will be another bit of data confirming the potential correctness of AGW theory and models.”
Did he mean to say….”it will be another bit of data confirming the POLITICAL correctness of AGW theory and models.”?
At any rate….this is getting entertaining.
Who are these people who are ready to go down with their rusty sinking ship?
Truly remarkable.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Much to my surprise top news today is that 10 ships are caught in ice in the baltic , even a ferry from stockholm is stuck in an area of sea-ice that cryosphere today is reporting to be 30 to 50% coverage , green colored , are again agw-fatalists manipulating the data ?
Paul Daniel Ash (16:09:44) : said
“Tony, I’ve gone all through my posts and I can’t find a wiki page link. Help me understand which you are referring to.”
HI Paul
At 12 41 05 you gave a link to a wiki page on ice levels which to be helpful I have reproduced here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Seaice-1870-part-2009.png
The author is William Connelley. You might as well link direct to a Real Climate article, as a wiki opinion piece is likely to have the same author.
Link 4 re: global cooling. The link you countered with discounting the notion of global cooling has been aired and commented on here many times before. We do read alternative views you know, despite what you may think. One of the authors of that paper is again our good friend William Connelley. This is part of a discussion I had with Brendan H here last year.
Brendan H at 02 51 57 said
“As for William Connolly, the paper he co-authored on the myth of the 1970s cooling consensus presents a persuasive and well-supported argument. I think you should give it another chance.
http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0477/89/9/pdf/i1520-0477-89-9-1325.pdf “
I replied:
“I have seen this article before in another form- the three authors are interesting including William Connelly-on whom I did a long and thorough piece about his personal agenda as a member of the UK Green party and as gatekeeper of wikipedia climate section.
The second author was Thomas Peterson, whom Anthony has met;
http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:xpjH07lfElgJ:wattsupwiththat.com/2007/06/30/+thomas+peterson+noaa+politics&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=uk
Thomas Peterson is the keeper of weather records including weather stations at NOAA. When Anthony records being co interviewed with him when trying to continue his surface stations project shortly after this meeting he found;
“You are not authorized to view this information. Your IP address has been logged”
When it came back up Monday afternoon, the “managing parties” field identifying the location of the weather station was gone. (he says): I would note that I shared a radio interview with Dr. Thomas Peterson of NCDC last week, so I am certain NCDC is aware of the effort. No notification was given, nor even a professional courtesy to advise of the change, nor any notice on the website.”
The Row over access was repeated in more detail here
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1879848/posts
The third author of the piece you cite is John Fleck who is a competent science writer on the Albuquerque journal- he reported his own involvement in the article here;
http://www.abqjournal.com/opinion/guest_columns/1897180018opinionguestcolumns02-18-09.htm
His politics are left wing -which is his own business- but the reports he co authors need to be seen against that background. The original report you cite is rebutted here
http://www.openmarket.org/2008/12/09/the-new-ice-age-continued/
For my part I had an involvement, in as much back in the 70’s I was asked to write a piece on climate change and being unaware at that time what was being referred to as collected material from both ‘sides’. There were undoubtedly far more pieces citing cooling rather than warming-whether they survived as digital copies anywhere –and therefore are still being cited-depends on who the record keeper was at the time. I threw away my files years ago and recall the flimsy folder with warming material and the very thick bunch of folders on cooling. This of course is anecdotal.”
Paul, It is rewriting history to claim the notion of global cooling was a myth. It wasn’t. This supplementray document purporting to show the CIA had concluded the Global cooling scare was real is interesting:
http://www.climatemonitor.it/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/1974.pdf
Being a sceptic I don’t know its provenance so take it with a pinch of salt. If anyone is able to confirm its veracity or otherwise it would be useful.
Incidentally Paul-the main point of the links I provided-which in turn led to dozens of others-is to point out that todays circumstances are -historically- not out of the ordinary.
If you want to argue that this time its different because of mans activities that is a perefctly respectable view point, but you need to make the case in a convincing manner as history is not your friend and ally in this respect.
With best regards
Tonyb