I’ve been watching this NSIDC graph for a few days, figuring it was just noise. Now, it looks like “something worth blogging about“. The Arctic sea ice extent is continuing to grow past the normal historical peak which occurs typically in late February/early March. [Note: I added the following sentences since at least one commenter was confused by “peak point” in the headline above, which I’ve now changed to “peak date” to clarify what I was referring to. -A] Of course it has not exceeded the “normal” sea ice extent magnitude line, but is within – 2 STD. The point being made is that growth continues past the time when sea ice magnitude normally peaks, and historically (by the satellite record) is headed downward, as indicated by the dashed line.
Source: National Snow and Ice Data Center – link
To be fair though, the Earth seems to be suffering from “bipolar disorder” as we have a similar but opposite trend in the Antarctic:
Source: National Snow and Ice Data Center – link
If we look at Cryosphere Today’s dandy sea ice comparator tool, and choose a standard 30 year climatology period span, it looks like we may actually be ahead this year, compared to 30 years ago. Certainly the arctic sea ice today looks a lot more solid than in 1980. I wish CT offered comparisons without the snow cover added (which was added in 2008) so as to not be visually distracting.
We live in interesting times.
h/t to WUWT commenter “Tommy” for the “tipping point”.
Still, if it just holds on, or shrinks more slowly than normal, it might reach the black line in the center of the 1979-2000 average. That would be a nice landmark to hit.
To R. Gates: I came back at 16:09:16 with
Late to the party, again. Sorry.
I responded before I read all the comments. The other comments you have made here today are well received by me.
I think similar happened last year also – the melt started in the Arctic about 3/4 weeks later than normal.
So will the warmers now start focussing on Antarctic melt?
I don’t buy into Crosspatch’s “breaking up edges” of ice in Spring. There’s no grand collapse, and the 15% and 30% graphs track eachother well enough. They are both rising at the mo — Jack Frost’s last hurrah.
Hi Smokey,
Karl Popper gets a mention in the AR4 The Physical Science Basis, but no clear grounds for falsification are described at all. He’s there to add some weight by association, as if describing the scientific method is the same as using it. Don’t get me wrong I know that a lot of clever people have done a lot of work, but if that work is only there to back-up the political agenda it counts for little.
AGW is what it is. It is a conjecture for political ends. The need for calamity leads to the ‘science’ not the other way round.
The way to defeat this conjecture is to reveal it for what it is, and prediction is a key tool in the skeptics arsenal. Let me make it clear, I have no ability to predict which way the climate will move, that is completely impossible. What can be predicted very accurately is the response of the climate community(political and ‘scientific’) to future deviations from the calamitous AGW story.
IF ocean temperatures fall IT DOES NOT COUNTER INDICATE
IF sea level rise does not accelerate IT DOES NOT COUNTER INDICATE
IF Antarctic temperatures fall dramatically IT DOES NOT COUNTER INDICATE
IF the US has five bad winters in a row IT DOES NOT COUNTER INDICATE
IF the start of Spring gets later in Europe IT DOES NOT COUNTER INDICATE
IF it starts snowing every June in Florida IT DOES NOT COUNTER INDICATE
I choose the term ‘counter indicate’ with care. There is no AGW thesis, so falsification is impossible. The best that you can hope for, is the introduction of doubt, but even this is far too much. No eventuality can undermine the AGW, because all eventualities are there to support it, never to undermine it. In a world of wonderful ever changing climate if one of your totems isn’t useful any more, you discard it for another.
I missed one … and this one is so important, because for most members of the general public it is seen as the absolute acid test, even though it is nothing of the sort. It is just another disposable totem ..
IF Arctic sea ice extent returns to ‘normal’ (1979-2000 average) IT DOES NOT COUNTER INDICATE
Please … do as I do … tell people what is going to happen before it does, then they’ll see it for themselves, the nature of the lie.
The “Watts Effect” ensures the melt off will be huge next week!!
The amazing story about the Arctic is that there is no amazing story. It’s been pretty normal for the last three years. No big melt, no big anything, just slowing regaining since 2007.
Antonio San said:
“As for the decline since the 1970 inflexion point, it is dynamic and due to atmospheric circulation as discussed by Leroux back in 2005. So the recent paper does confirm his findings.”
__________
Nope. Any models that don’t take into account the increased tropospheric temperatures and warm currents flowing into the arctic regions are incomplete at best, and based on chaos theory, bound to be wildly wrong at the end (in regards to whatever state the arctic is headed for if AGWT is correct. (i.e. ice free summers). There is no doubt that changes in wind patterns affect arctic ice, but all the other variables also affect the ice. Also, while SOME changes in wind patterns are undoubtedly part of natural cycles, some changes may indeed also be part of AGW, so even the argument by AGW skeptics that “it’s all the wind”, are incorrect due to lack of being the whole story and may also not allow for the fact that some of the changes in wind patterns could also be part of AGW.
NZ Willy (02:33:01) :
I don’t buy into Crosspatch’s “breaking up edges” of ice in Spring. There’s no grand collapse, and the 15% and 30% graphs track eachother well enough.
Agreed as I said above there’s no evidence of such a break up and dispersal.
They are both rising at the mo — Jack Frost’s last hurrah.
Actually they’re both going down, slowly.
Nickname,
You are mistaken on several points, but the one in particular is that a warming arctic and lower sea-ice on a year-to-year basis is not an “acid test” for AGWT. Indeed it is, and if somehow the arctic sea ice begins to show a long term recovery (i.e. consistently back to showing positive anomalies), then it would be major blow for AGWT, and I’m am sure that the majority of climate scientists would agree. The arctic has been touted as the “canary in the coal mine” for a long time by AGWT and I think all eyes are on this region. So far, the predicitons are pretty much holding true, if not even happening earlier than predicted, but I well understand that AGW skeptics refuse to accept that these changes, who doubt the science data, despite first hand direct impacts and reports by the people who actually live in arctic region.
PG Sharrow said:
“Just why do AGW people want the arctic ocean frozen over all the time.”
———
I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone say they wanted the arctic ocean frozen over all the time. I think you are confusing people (like myself) being interested in knowing what is happening versus the merits of a warmer world. We are currently in an interglacial period in the middle of an ice age. Based on natural cycles, we’ll be in the next glacial sooner than later. If AGW is happening, how might that affect the onset of the next glacial? Could it actually tip us into the next glacial period sooner (via a shutdown of ocean currents etc.)
Personally, I’d take a bit of warmth over cold any day, but there are other ramifications to global warming besides heat..much bigger ones, like the acidifiication of the oceans, etc. and this could negatively impact food supply, but who knows, this could be counter balanced by increased crop yields. If it becomes increasingly obvious (even to AGW skeptics) that AGWT is likely correct, I’m sure the next big battleground will be, “So what now? Prove to me that it is a bad thing!” But that is NOT what the debate is about right now, or at least what I’m interested in…
Mr Gates
‘Acid test’ is a term that comes from testing gold. In modern times, it is used as a metaphor for describing processes that are absolutely conclusive.
Are you saying
1) A thesis exists for AGW (if so, please state it)
2) The nature of Arctic sea ice is at the core of the theory
3) The thesis is falsified by Arctic sea ice extent returning to 1979-2000 averages
Low level clouds will cool the Arctic and warm the Antarctic. Is there any measure of these? A small change in low level clouds would result in the effects we are seeing. Svensmark covers this in The Chilling Stars.
We start our measures of Arctic sea ice in 1979. 1979 was a relative high in sea ice and a relative low in global temperatures. It is not a great place to start graphs about what is happening. If you graph temperatures starting at midnight, at noon you will all be sure we will be dead in 24 more hours.
Nickname,
Thanks for history of the term “acid test”…very interesting.
To answer your questions:
1) Do you mean hypo-thesis? If so, then yes, there is…and you know exactly what it is. If there’s not, then what’s the meaning of this post right here on WUWT?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/06/the-global-warming-hypothesis-and-ocean-heat/
2) No, the “nature” (whatever you mean by that) of arctic sea ice is not at the core of the AGW “hypothesis”. Rather, the decline of year-to-year arctic sea ice, and the eventual ice free arctic in the summer it is one of the predicted effects. But you know that as well.
3) If Arctic sea ice returns to some long term average or even goes higher for a long period of time…it would indeed pose a big problem for AGWT, and I’m sure any climate expert would not disagree. Currently, arctic sea ice has been in a negative anomaly range since 2004, and shows no sign of going into a positive anomaly range for any extended period of time.
“”” crosspatch (10:50:00) :
You have to be careful with these extent figures because this graph is 15% ice extent. In other words, it includes areas that are 85% water as “ice”. e is less consolidated around the edges……
…..
I personally see the 15% concentration number as practically useless. “””
Well Crosspatch, if you are in a racing sailboat; say doing the Volvo Round the World race, and it is a dark moonless night while you are racing around in the southern ocean, heading for the Horn; you would likely not have clean underwear to change into; if you got a report saying not to worry, because the sea ice was only 15% of coverage, and 85% was good open water.
These ice reports, are not generated for the curiosity of bored climate science students; who somehow think it has somthing to do with earth’s climate, and might lead to some taxpayer funded grant money.
There’s money involved in shipping and shipping safety; and 15% of sea ice coverage, is not safe boating conditions.
Seems the EU is moving away from the Global Warming scam and emission targets are starting to disappear down the memory hole:
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/03/slowly-deflating.html
At this time, Arctic ice extent according to ASMR-E is at its highest level for the day since 2003. 2nd and 3rd place belong to 2008 and 2009. According to Arctic Roos, the 2010 area is almost equal to the 1979-2006 mean — well within one std. deviation. (I wonder what would happen if the mean included 2007?) Of course, this proves nothing, except to suggest that any concerns about alarming Arctic ice developments are premature.
As someone who has followed this site from when it emerged from Surface Stations, I have seen so many commentators post their experiences of the time they changed their minds, due to the rational arguments and facts presented here, that it fascinates me when a few cling to their belief system in the face of voluminous evidence to the contrary. A six year anomaly at one of the Poles, from 2004, is cited as some sort of proof of …what, exactly?
We have seen the progression of those claiming an imminent ice age [when I was a young buck in Viet Nam], to the approaching global warming debacle that never happened, and which then morphed into anthropogenic global warming [AGW], and from there to “climate change” [as if it doesn’t always change]; runaway global warming and climate catastrophe, in which the seas will rise eighty feet — complete with maps of the future showing submerged cities. The fact that the rise in sea level is moderating is ignored, as is all other contrary evidence.
Most people begin by accepting what the media tells them, and those with an interest [and especially those with a background] in science look more closely, and find that nothing unusual is occurring, and so become skeptical of the claims of impending doom.
We see the accounts here regularly from those who accepted the CAGW scare, and gradually became scientific skeptics. What fascinates me is the few who see the evidence that the climate is fluctuating as usual within its historical parameters, and then assume Orwell’s doublethink as expressed by his character Winston Smith, who wonders if everyone believes that 2 + 2 = 5, does that make it true? There are actually some people like that. As Spock would say: “Fascinating.”
In response to Antonio San, R. Gates says that changes in wind patterns could also be due to AGW. It’s all AGW, all the time. And all in the Arctic. It can never be admitted that natural variability is sufficient to explain the current climate.
Wind, currents and precipitation all have a much more significant effect on ice extent than a 0.7 increase in temperature over the past century. If not, then the Antarctic charts would be very similar to the Arctic charts, not ‘polar’ opposites.
A hallmark of the subset of climate alarmists who ignore all evidence contrary to their belief is cognitive dissonance, and everything is seen through the lens of certainty — while skeptics simply ask for testable evidence of their hypothesis. Such evidence is, of course, never provided.
As those who are only asking for testable, verifiable evidence of CAGW, scientific skeptics are generally immune from cognitive dissonance [CD], because they are simply asking for reproducible raw data and methods used to construct the new CAGW conjecture. Skeptics didn’t invent CAGW, and they have no hypothesis of their own to prove [despite the psychological projection of a few alarmists who wrongly claim that any statement of skeptics constitutes a hypothesis].
The famous psychologist Leon Festinger pointed out the cognitive dissonance of Mrs Marian Keech and her followers when the flying saucers didn’t arrive as predicted. The failure of her prophecy did not, as expected, cause the group to disband. Instead, they became even more convinced that the flying saucers were coming — an irrational response following the disconfirmation of their belief.
Dr Festinger shows that unlike the average person, those afflicted with CD become even stronger in their beliefs when shown they are wrong: “Show [the CD afflicted person] facts or figures, and he questions your sources. Appeal to logic, and he fails to see your point… Suppose an individual believes something with his whole heart; suppose further that he has a commitment to this belief… finally, suppose that he is presented with evidence, unequivocal and undeniable evidence, that his belief is wrong: what will happen? The individual will frequently emerge, not only unshaken, but even more convinced of the truth of his beliefs than ever before. Indeed, he may even show a new fervor about convincing and converting other people to his view.”
Despite the linking of dozens of charts showing that the planet has gone through identical cycles many times in the past, and despite the fact that with a one-third increase in CO2, the planet has only warmed but a fraction of what is predicted for a CO2 increase of that magnitude [and the fact that the CO2 rises as an effect of warming, not as a cause], some individuals become even more convinced of their belief in an imminent tipping point, runaway global warming, and climate catastrophe than ever before. Contrary evidence has no effect on the CD afflicted. It is simply ignored.
A similar group afflicted by CD was the Watchtower International Bible Students [Jehova’s Witnesses], who repeatedly predicted the end of the world in 1874, 1878, 1881, 1910, 1914, 1918, 1920 and 1925. Following every disconfirmation of their predictions, like Mrs Keech’s flying saucer group, the Watchtower followers became even more convinced in their beliefs.
The catastrophic CAGW conjecture is blamed on CO2 — a minor trace gas that is pretty well mixed globally — which would mean, if CAGW had any validity, that the Antarctic would be affected by carbon dioxide very similarly to the Arctic. In fact, there is no evidence that is happening. As harmless and beneficial CO2 steadily rises, the global climate warms and cools just as it always has: click1, click2.
There is zero empirical evidence that CO2 has anything to do with the natural cycles evident. But a subset of those, who have made up their minds otherwise, will never be convinced even if sea ice advanced to the equator. People are evil, and the approaching climate doom must be blamed for the one CO2 molecule out of every 34 that is emitted by humans.
PG sharrow also makes a good point. As has been repeatedly pointed out, the Arctic at the very North Pole has been completely ice free in 1958, 2000, and a few other times over the past century. Yet today it is frozen solid. Did CO2 take a breather? A union negotiated break from overheating the planet? A time out from its warming duties? Never fear, an ad hoc explanation will be provided.
The true believers in catastrophic AGW will invent ad hoc explanations fro the re-freezing of the North Pole, like medieval astrologers attempting to explain the retrograde movements of the planets as being attached to crystal spheres within spheres. That’s how silly their arguments have become. Even Dr Trenberth expresses astonished disillusionment that the data is not conforming to the alarmist conclusions.
All Trenberth needs to do is accept the null hypothesis, because everything now occurring is fully explained by natural climate variability. It has all happened many times before, and it is currently well within the same parameters.
Occam’s Razor states that additional entities such as CO2 should not be included in any explanation unless it is necessary. But the CAGW debate is not about science at all. If it were, it would have already been settled by the normal response of the planet.
Arctic sea ice is and has been in a positive anomaly since long before humans inhabited the Earth. So, your claim of a negative anomaly is cherrypicking of the data. In other words, you are selecting only the data which you believe will support your argument of permanent declines, whereas most other selections of data for shorter and longer time periods will depict no such negative anomaly.
Smokey, this ^ deserves its own article here on WUWT.
OT/would like to chat with you about your ´Nam experience.
D. Patterson,
Show me the credible, peer-reviewed arctic sea ice data for the past 2 million years, and I’d be glad (and very interested) to look at it. The arctic sea has not been 100% ice free in recorded human history, and if you have data (not photographs of submarines coming up in an area of open arctic water!) to show that the arctic ocean has been 100% ice free in the past 20,000 years, please let me see it!
AGW models show the arctic will be ice free in the summer by the end of this century. That’s a very specific prediction. I like specfic predictions from models based on theories…that’s some of my favorite aspects of science. Much better than the mud-slinging garbage of the political world!
Right on. And ditto to Juraj V: That comment deserves its own top-level post, not just buried in this thread: “Cognitive Dissonance and AGW.”
Yep, this severely time-limited perspective was what bugged me about the ‘global warming’ alarmists from the very beginning. But that, of course, was the reason for the Hockey Stick. It was all about pretending that modern man was ‘polluting’ the atmosphere and endangering the Earth.
A commenter on this board a few days ago posted a link to an article explaining where it started: with a conference in 1975 (!), organized by Margaret Mead. From the article: “Mead’s leading recruits at the 1975 conference were climate scare artist Stephen Schneider, population-freak biologist George Woodwell, and the current AAAS president John Holdren [now Science Advisor to Barack Obama]—all three of them disciples of Malthusian fanatic Paul Ehrlich, author of The Population Bomb.. See here: http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202007/GWHoaxBorn.pdf
/Mr Lynn
For the sake of accuracy, it is necessary to correct one statement. The photographs of the nuclear submarines surfaced in open water at the North Pole do not represent “the very North Pole has been completely ice free….” The icecap remained “at the very North Pole” was interrupted by a sea ice feature known as leads. Submarines like to surface in the location of leads because there is a temporary area of open water or the temporary area of open water is refrozen with only a much thinner covering of ice which is non-damaging to a surfacing submarine.
Leads of open water and thin ice do not represent an ice free North Pole, because they are a fracture in the surrounding ice cap. Leads exist in the icecap due to pressures acting upon the sheets of ice by winds and Arctic Sea currents. Leads exist in any icecap without regard for changes in the climate. Icebreakers use the major leads (fractues in the icecap) to navigate their lengths for distances up to hundreds and thousands of kilometers in different locations and seasons. The Russian nuclear powered icebreakers used leads to make passages through the icecap and reach the North Pole with scientific researchers and tourists as passengers.
When looking at NASA satellite photographs of the Arctic Sea, you can see vast networks of leads and large polynya throughout much of the Arctic Sea, in all seasons, and in warmer and colder climates.
The pictures of submarines and Russian icebreakers in patches of open water at the North Pole are interesting, but they really don’t indicate an ice free North Pole or any changes in Climate in one direction or another.
Only the retreat of the outer margins of the icecap past the location of the North Pole will indicate an ice free North Pole.
********
25 03 2010
Mr Lynn (18:03:48) :
From time to time I wonder, why does anyone really care whether the Arctic melts? It wouldn’t hurt to have nice clear sea lanes year round—now would it?
I understand, as R. Gates (13:18:01) says, that “The arctic region is one of the first to be affected by the warming according to all models, and so it should be the ‘canary in the coal mine’.” Is the Arctic thus a test of the AGW hypothesis? If so, it is not a very cooperative one, as not much seems to be happening very fast, if at all, and not always in the predicted direction.
The press and the general public appear to be unaware of the evidentiary question. They seem to be mostly fearful of a change, as if losing the polar ice caps would be a dire event, a loss greatly to be regretted. Why this emotional attachment to regions of full of nothing but snow and ice? It is hard to fathom, but every report of the slightest melting is trumpeted as if the world were on the brink of disaster.
I suppose you could argue that the polar caps should be maintained for the benefit of the fuzzy polar bears, and of course the comical penguins.
I also understand that the extreme alarmists, like the Goracle, are fond of predicting the imminent melting of both ice caps, which would (at least for the Antarctic—and Greenland, if the latter is considered part of the polar ice region) raise the world’s sea levels and force millions of people to relocate away from the coasts.
But how likely is this scenario, even if the extreme AGW conjecture (thanks, Smokey!) were true? And more to the point, would that be a bad thing? Lose a little coastline, but gain vast regions—maybe even a whole continent!—of arable and livable space, where once there was only a frozen, uninhabitable wasteland—not a bad tradeoff, if you ask me.
/Mr Lynn
********
Thanks — my thoughts are similar.
There’s quite a bit of evidence that polar sea-ice was significantly reduced during Holocene warm periods (boreal forests grew to the Arctic Ocean shorelines in Siberia & Canada) compared to today. Given that the Holocene has seen such cyclic cool/warm periods for its entire duration, why would it surprise anyone that such a period could happen anytime, including now? There’s plenty of precedent, and it’s completely “normal”.
Polar sea-ice will do what it will do. And if it disappeared in the summer, I can’t think of any serious effects, other than new shipping routes opening up, greater plankton growth (and whales having longer feeding times), black & white spruces, and tamarack growing northward into tundra, and polar bears eating seals on shorelines instead of sea-ice in the summer and fall.
Given that it already happened just a few thousand yrs ago, how could anyone prove such an occurrence wasn’t natural? They couldn’t, unless there was some breakthrough in nascent climate-science. AFA I can see, the science is stuck right now at the basic GHG understanding, and beyond that there isn’t nearly enough certainty. “Climate-models” don’t come close yet.
Tho it’s interesting, I don’t worry about natural-until-proven-otherwise sea-ice changes.
Smokey said:
“PG sharrow also makes a good point. As has been repeatedly pointed out, the Arctic at the very North Pole has been completely ice free in 1958, 2000, and a few other times over the past century.”
———-
As I pointed out many times before, If this is true, it is also proves nothing. The exact condition of the ice at the N. Pole is not necessarily indicative of the extent, depth, mass, etc. of the entire arctic sea ice pack. There is nothing magical about the N. Pole, and open areas of ocean can open up virutually anywhere in the ice pack. Even pointing this out as a bit of evidence for anything scientific is no different than talking about your spring snowstorm as proof that there can’t be global warming…both are quite unimportant to the debate on AGW.
You’re one of my favorite posters here on WUWT…I just want you to know that, as you provide some interesting, albeit lengthy, commentary.