Arctic Sea Ice about to hit 'normal' – what will the news say?

Forecasting The NSIDC News

By Steven Goddard and Anthony Watts

Barring an about face by nature or adjustments, it appears that for the first time since 2001, Arctic Sea ice will hit the “normal” line as defined by the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) for this time of year.

NSIDC puts out an article about once a month called the Sea Ice News.  It generally highlights any bad news they can find about the disappearance of Arctic ice.  Last month’s news led with this sentence.

In February, Arctic sea ice extent continued to track below the average, and near the levels observed for February 2007.

But March brought good news for the Polar Bears, and bad news for the Catlin Expedition and any others looking for bad news.  Instead of ice extent declining through March like it usually does, it continued to increase through the month and is now at the high (so far) for the year.

If it keeps this trend unabated, in a day or two it will likely cross the “normal” line.

Source: NSIDC North Series

The Danish Meteorological Institute shows Arctic ice extent at the highest level in their six year record.

Source: DMI Ice Extent

The Norwegians (NORSEX) show Arctic ice area above the 30 year mean.

Source: NORSEX Ice Area

And the NORSEX Ice Extent is not far behind, within 1 standard deviation, and similar to NSIDC’s presentation. Note that is hit normal last year, but later.

Source: NORSEX Ice Extent

And JAXA, using the more advanced AMSR-E sensor platform on the AQUA satellite, shows a similar uptick now intersecting the 2003 data line.

Source: IARC-JAXA

WUWT asked NSIDC scientist Dr. Walt Meir about this event to which he responded via email:

It’s a good question about the last time we’ve been above average. It was May 2001. April-May is the period when you’re starting to get into the peak of the melt season for the regions outside of the Arctic Ocean (Bering Sea, Hudson Bay) and the extent tends to have lower  variability compared to other parts of the year as that thinner ice  tends to go about the same time of year due to the solar heating. Even  last year, we came fairly close to the average in early May.

He also mused about a cause:

Basically, it is due primarily to a lot more ice in the Bering Sea, as is evident in the images. The Bering ice is controlled largely by local winds, temperatures are not as important (though of course it still need to be at or at least near freezing to have ice an area for any length of time). We’ve seen a lot of northerly winds this winter in the Bering, particularly the last couple of weeks.

As we’ve been saying on WUWT for quite some time, wind seems to be a more powerful factor in recent sea ice declines than temperature. Recent studies agree.

See: Winds are Dominant Cause of Greenland and West Antarctic Ice Sheet Losses and also NASA Sees Arctic Ocean Circulation Do an About-Face

You can watch wind patterns in this time lapse animation, note how the ice has been pushed by winds and flowing down the east coast of Greenland:

Animation of Arctic sea-ice being pushed by wind patterns - CLICK IMAGE TO VIEW ANIMATION- Above image is not part of original story, but included to demonstrate the issue. Note that the animation is large, about 7 MB and may take awhile to load on your computer. It is worth the wait Source: National Snow and Ice Data Center

Dr. Meier also wrote:

This has very little implication for what will happen this summer, or  for the long-term trends, since the Bering Sea ice is thin and will melt completely well before the peak summer season.

There’s certainly no reason to disagree with the idea that much of the Bering Sea ice will melt this summer, it happens every year and has for millenia. But with a strong negative Arctic Oscillation this year, and a change in the wind, it is yet to be determined if Arctic Sea ice minimum for 2010 is anomalously low, and/or delayed from the usual time.

In 2009, WUWT noted it on September 15th: Arctic sea ice melt appears to have turned the corner for 2009

Dr. Mark Serreze of NSIDC offered some hopeful commentary in a press release back on October 6th 2009, but still pushes that “ice free summer” meme:

“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.”

Remember this 2007 prediction from The Naval Postgraduate School?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7139797.stm

==============================

Arctic summers ice-free ‘by 2013’

By Jonathan Amos

Science reporter, BBC News, San Francisco

Arctic summer melting in 2007 set new records

Scientists in the US have presented one of the most dramatic forecasts yet for the disappearance of Arctic sea ice.

Their latest modelling studies indicate northern polar waters could be ice-free in summers within just 5-6 years.

Professor Wieslaw Maslowski told an American Geophysical Union meeting that previous projections had underestimated the processes now driving ice loss.

Summer melting this year reduced the ice cover to 4.13 million sq km, the smallest ever extent in modern times.

Remarkably, this stunning low point was not even incorporated into the model runs of Professor Maslowski and his team, which used data sets from 1979 to 2004 to constrain their future projections.

In the end, it will just melt away quite suddenly
Professor Peter Wadhams

“Our projection of 2013 for the removal of ice in summer is not accounting for the last two minima, in 2005 and 2007,” the researcher from the Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California, explained to the BBC.”So given that fact, you can argue that may be our projection of 2013 is already too conservative.”

========================================

Joe Romm wrote up a clever piece last year on this subject:

Exclusive: New NSIDC director Serreze explains the “death spiral” of Arctic ice, brushes off the “breathtaking ignorance” of blogs like WattsUpWithThat

June 5, 2009

I interviewed by email Dr. Mark Serreze, recently named director of The National Snow and Ice Data Center.  Partly I wanted him to explain his “death spiral” metaphor for Arctic ice

So now that Arctic ice has returned to normal extent and area, we eagerly await the explanation from the experts about how that fits into the “death spiral” theory.  Richard Feynman famously said “Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts.”

Time will tell. 2010 is looking promising for sea ice recovery again. After all, who wouldn’t want the Arctic Sea ice to recover? WUWT is predicting a recovery again this year, which we started mentioning as a prediction last fall.

So given what we know today, what will NSIDC highlight in their April Sea Ice News?

And even more importantly, will the MSM cover it like they do the ‘terrible’ minimums?

NOTE: The poll code got messed up, duplicating an entry, press REFRESH if you see a double entry. -A

Forecasting The NSIDC News

NSIDC puts out an article about once a month called the Sea Ice News.  It generally highlights any bad news they can find about the disappearance of Arctic ice.  Last month’s news led with this sentence.

In February, Arctic sea ice extent continued to track below the average, and near the levels observed for February 2007.

But March brought good news for the Polar Bears, and bad news for the Catlin Expedition and any others looking for bad news.  Instead of ice extent declining through March like it usually does, it continued to increase through the month and is now at the high (so far) for the year.

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png

The Danish Meteorological Institute shows Arctic ice extent at the highest level in their six year record.

DMI Ice Extent

The Norwegians (NORSEX) show Arctic ice area above the 30 year mean.

NORSEX Ice Area

Joe Romm wrote up a clever piece last year on this subject:

Exclusive: New NSIDC director Serreze explains the “death spiral” of Arctic ice, brushes off the “breathtaking ignorance” of blogs like WattsUpWithThat

June 5, 2009

I interviewed by email Dr. Mark Serreze, recently named director of The National Snow and Ice Data Center.  Partly I wanted him to explain his “death spiral” metaphor for Arctic ice

So now that Arctic ice has returned to normal extent and area, I eagerly await the explanation from the experts about how that fits into the “death spiral” theory.  Richard Feynman famously said “Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts.”

So what will NSIDC highlight in their April Sea Ice News?

  • The increase in both ice extent and quantity of multi-year ice

  • The long-term downwards linear trend line

  • The lack of 4+ year old ice


Sponsored IT training links:

Get free resources including 642-972 tutorial and 1z0-048 dumps questions for guaranteed success in JN0-532 exam.


0 0 vote
Article Rating
382 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Vincent
March 31, 2010 10:49 am

Why are the 2nd and third voting choices the same?

Henry chance
March 31, 2010 10:49 am

Be carefull. The graph looks simple. We can check the opinions of the wandering troobadors with Team Catlin think. They reported a lot of open waters. Of course that makes sense since they reported 45 degrees below zero and -75 windchill.
This does by the way prove it is warming as predicted.
Weather is not climate.
And last but not least, Obama says:
Let me perfectly clear, Things left by Bush were much worse than we were told.

George E. Smith
March 31, 2010 10:51 am

Jolly inconvenient if you ask me.
Back in 2008, it seems to me that the fall refreeze in Sept started off about two weeks earlier than usual, and then sort of retraced to 2007 climb (but two weeks earlier); so now we have the summer (in California) melt -off delayed for maybe two weeks.
But I did notice that the DMI Arctic temperature graph is now on a somewhat oscillatory climb back towards just plain cold.
Well you know that weather ain’t climate anyway.

John Galt
March 31, 2010 10:55 am

What will it say?
Just because we can’t measure it, doesn’t mean it’s not melting.
– and –
It’s worse than we thought.

patooty
March 31, 2010 10:59 am

What will they say? That’s an easy one: Global Warming is causing the Arctic to dangerously ‘ice up’. Only by drastically changing our lifestyles, economies, and VOTING patterns can disaster be averted. P.S. we need more funding.

Jason Bair
March 31, 2010 11:00 am

Glad you posted about this, (not that you’d ever ignore it). Been following closely everyday with glee as the extent keeps increasing past the historical peak date.
I’m really excited to see the min this fall.

John of Kent (UK)
March 31, 2010 11:02 am

undoubtedly all “rotten” ice!

dbleader61
March 31, 2010 11:03 am

Just speculating here
When the data for the period 2000 – 2010 is finally included in the average, I would think that the recent rebound will even seem more profound.
I understand that the NSIDC begin using the 1989 – 2010 20 year period for the average at some point in the next year. It may even result in a leveling off or reversal of the long term linear declining trend.
Anyone with more time and capacity to do an analysis as to what adding the 2000 – 2010 data will result in?

NZ Willy
March 31, 2010 11:04 am

Some dynamic systems have preferential modes of stability, like rubber which can be slack or stretched to a maximum stable length. This is true at every scale, from atomic “orbits” to the true interacting orbits of the planets. Maybe Arctic sea ice also has preferred modes, and we are seeing a crossover back to the higher-volume mode of the 1979-2000 mean.

R. de Haan
March 31, 2010 11:05 am

Their “agenda” doen’t allow for any information that undermines the “consensus”.
Agnthropogenic Global Warming is real an we have to act immediately!

March 31, 2010 11:05 am

Anthony, you should be commended for your ability to stay professional in the face of comments such as: “Exclusive: New NSIDC director Serreze explains the “death spiral” of Arctic ice, brushes off the “breathtaking ignorance” of blogs like WattsUpWithThat”.

Myron Mesecke
March 31, 2010 11:07 am

I’m sure they will claim that this ice is still more rotten than the average normal ice was in the past.

BlondieBC
March 31, 2010 11:08 am

Good to see ice near normal. A fairly stable climate is easiest for mankind to live in.

Seppie
March 31, 2010 11:12 am

See here the last eight years, the number of km2 on the 30th of march
03,30,2003,14533906 km2
03,30,2004,13977969 km2
03,30,2005,13586563 km2
03,30,2006,13267500 km2
03,30,2007,13479063 km2
03,30,2008,14122969 km2
03,30,2009,13996250 km2
03,30,2010,14405781 km2
This year the 30th of march gave the higest number of km2 of the whole season, so maybe it will rise the next days…
Yes, what will they say???
Seppie.

Ice etc
March 31, 2010 11:13 am

The abstract reads
“Understanding Arctic temperature variability is essential for assessing possible future melting of the Greenland ice sheet, Arctic sea ice and Arctic permafrost. Temperature trend reversals in 1940 and 1970 separate two Arctic warming periods (1910-1940 and 1970-2008) by a significant 1940-1970 cooling period. Analyzing temperature records of the Arctic meteorological stations we find that (a) the Arctic amplification (ratio of the Arctic to global temperature trends) is not a constant but varies in time on a multi-decadal time scale, (b) the Arctic warming from 1910-1940 proceeded at a significantly faster rate than the current 1970-2008 warming, and (c) the Arctic temperature changes are highly correlated with the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation (AMO) suggesting the Atlantic Ocean thermohaline circulation is linked to the Arctic temperature variability on a multi decadal time scale.”

Jimbo
March 31, 2010 11:15 am

The odd thing is that it is still going up way past when (~10 March) it should have been going down.
The Green Daily does report on this though they don’t like the word “normal.”

3.30.2010 3:14 PM
Something Odd for the Arctic:
“Normal” Sea Ice Extent As Winter Ends
As the winter freeze ends, there’s more ice in the Arctic than at any time in recent years. Is this another PR problem for global warming activists?
“…so much new ice froze in March that the overall extent for this winter will end up nearly normal, as compared to the long-term average. That’s a headline no one could have written for years, as the extent of Arctic sea ice has dropped, rhythmically with the seasons, but dropped precipitously and consistently for years.”

http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/arctic-sea-ice-0330

Ice etc
March 31, 2010 11:16 am

Chylek Petr, Chris K. Folland, Glen Lesins, Manvendra K. Dubeys, and Muyin Wang: 2009: “Arctic air temperature change amplification and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation”. Geophysical Research Letters
“Understanding Arctic temperature variability is essential for assessing possible future melting of the Greenland ice sheet, Arctic sea ice and Arctic permafrost. Temperature trend reversals in 1940 and 1970 separate two Arctic warming periods (1910-1940 and 1970-2008) by a significant 1940-1970 cooling period. Analyzing temperature records of the Arctic meteorological stations we find that (a) the Arctic amplification (ratio of the Arctic to global temperature trends) is not a constant but varies in time on a multi-decadal time scale, (b) the Arctic warming from 1910-1940 proceeded at a significantly faster rate than the current 1970-2008 warming, and (c) the Arctic temperature changes are highly correlated with the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation (AMO) suggesting the Atlantic Ocean thermohaline circulation is linked to the Arctic temperature variability on a multi decadal time scale.”

Richard Sharpe
March 31, 2010 11:19 am

It is clear that global warming is causing ice from the Antarctic to migrate to the Arctic and that this will cause more catastrophes like the Titanic.

Dr T G Watkins
March 31, 2010 11:19 am

Please,please report on the Catlin expedition to brighten the mood after yesterday’s whitewash.
They couldn’t be bothered to look.
Hopefully, stories like this will make them think and even blush a little at their complete dereliction of duty, that they owed to the public who pay their salaries.

Bill Marsh
March 31, 2010 11:21 am

Obviously they’ll say this is an isolated event and can’t be used to make any assertion about ‘Arctic Ice loss’.

Steve Goddard
March 31, 2010 11:23 am

The most annoying thing about the key players in the climate change racket, is that they always want to fit all climate patterns to a linear trend – based on the theory that CO2 concentration overwhelms all other variables and causes positive feedbacks.
But geologic history shows us unequivocally that climate is cyclical and dominated by negative feedbacks.

Lance
March 31, 2010 11:25 am

Now that the arctic is near normal…..
MSM Headline, Antarctic ice now heading below normal values, Global Warming to blame….

John S.
March 31, 2010 11:26 am

The NSIDC April Sea Ice News will focus not on ice extent, but the ‘alarming’ reduction in ice thickness.

Bill Illis
March 31, 2010 11:31 am

What is also interesting is that the peak is so late this year. Jaxa’s data shows March 30th as the highest sea ice extent so far in the season.
Only two other years (since 1972) have a peak this late – 1995 on March 30th and 1999 with March 31st.
It probably only reflects that fact that the sea ice areas which normally melt this time of year, Hudson Bay, Bering Sea, Barents Sea have been cooler than average for the past few weeks (and there is no ice in the St. Lawrence region to melt which means other areas are higher than normal).

Leon Brozyna
March 31, 2010 11:31 am

We can expect to see at least two things:
1) Between now and September, any time the ice extent dips below any previous year, those who can’t face the reality of what’s happening will loudly tout how the ice is melting faster than _____(pick the year), and
2) When there’s more ice (extent and volume) in September’s minimum, the new refrain will be how it’s “rotten ice.”
A belief system’s a terrible thing to waste, so they’ll keep on blindly marching to their out of tune march of climate change.
BTW, if this ice recovery keeps on progressing, in the next few years it could put a damper on the eco-tourism trade.
And when the Catlin kiddies reach the pole, there are sure to follow tales of how bad is its condition.

JDN
March 31, 2010 11:32 am

This is an April fools day joke, yes?
At least the sun has spots in both hemispheres now. Hopefully that’s not a joke.
REPLY: No joke, hard data.

March 31, 2010 11:32 am

So if it was sound science in 2007 to predict an ice free summer in 2013, we can equally scientifically declare that, at the current rate, the last patch of open water in the northern hemisphere will be completely gone during summer by 2300.
It seems that the great attraction of climate science is that you can predict anything. Once, if something could be used to predict anything, it wasn’t called science.

hunter
March 31, 2010 11:37 am

The answer, as has been pointed out elsewhere, is likely to be silence.
If it is acknowledged at all, this predicted rebound will be framed as a tiny fluctuation, completely predicted by AGW, and evidence things are much worse than thought.

Jimmy Haigh
March 31, 2010 11:39 am

Presumably the Antarctic is starting to freeze up now too. What is the sum total of all sea ice now in both hemispheres? Must be getting pretty high I would think.

Jimbo
March 31, 2010 11:40 am

What the media will say is “rotten ice” , “flippy floppy ice”, “Wibbly Wobbly Ice.” :o) I don’t know whether to laugh or cry!
Rotten
http://www.alaskadispatch.com/alaska-beat/170-november-27/3067–new-study-arctic-ice-is-rotten
http://www.greenbang.com/rotten-sea-ice-creates-false-impression-of-arctic-recovery_12774.html
Flippy Floppy
Wibbly Wobbly

“We’ve nicknamed the thin ice ‘flippy floppy’ ice. It bends, bounces wobbles as we pass over it. There’s also a lot of movement, breakage and shifting in the ice this year. We’re all highly experienced, but we’re all in agreement that it’s simply the strangest behaviour we’ve ever seen.”
http://www.catlinarcticsurvey.com/blog.aspx?postid=107

The ghost of Big Jim Cooley
March 31, 2010 11:40 am

So can we please have a Catlin update now Anthony? Apparently they’ve made “good progress”, but still I can’t get that damned Google plugin to work on my PC.

Tom Judd
March 31, 2010 11:40 am

I’m certain they can spin the sea ice returning to normal as another sign of global warming. They could take a page from the spoof website, ‘ecoenquirer’ (if it’s still around & I remember it correctly), where they posted headline news: ‘Weather predicted to be perfectly normal this year-another sign of global warming’.

March 31, 2010 11:41 am

I hope, and I think I expect, that the next NSIDC summary of Arctic ice conditions will be strictly scientific, with no “spin” at all. I think I have detected this trend in recent summaries. Now that it is becoming clear that AGW and Arctic sea ice extent are uncorrelated, I think and hope NSIDC will put their reports where they always ought to have been; on the science.

franks
March 31, 2010 11:41 am

Professor Maslowski has all options covered, it does not matter if the ice cover continues growing because as he says “In the end, it will just melt away quite suddenly”
No logical argument to that, except of course the ice cover in 2014.

enduser
March 31, 2010 11:43 am

Nothing to get excited about, it’s probably just the Mpemba Effect. 😉

Baltus
March 31, 2010 11:47 am

The temperature forecast for tomorrow is -41°C on the North Pole.
http://www.yr.no/place/North_Pole/Other/North_Pole/hour_by_hour.html
Brrrrrr.
Wonder what the Catlin Expedition says about that….
http://www.catlinarcticsurvey.com/

Paul Martin
March 31, 2010 11:47 am
March 31, 2010 11:50 am

My bet: NSIDC will change the 1979-2000 normal to 1679-1710 normal.
Following the Arctic ice through the year is pretty much fun. The first thing I check every morning is JAXA and DMI website 😮

johnh
March 31, 2010 11:51 am

So how are they going to explain the record temp anomoly for the Artic occuring at average ice extent. Is it wibbly wobbly ice or flippy floppy ice.

March 31, 2010 11:51 am

Btw, this year the ice look much more compact, if we can believe teh color scale.
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=03&fd=30&fy=2007&sm=03&sd=30&sy=2010
Looking forward to August-September period.

M White
March 31, 2010 11:52 am

“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,”
There’s no reason to think we’re not
From Russia with love
http://www.accuweather.com/video/74661048001/from-siberia-with-love-(the-reason-for-the-spike-in-ice).asp?channel=vblog_bastardi

Leon Brozyna
March 31, 2010 11:54 am

In a related story, winter refuses to loosen its grip on Scotland & the north of England, as the area gets blasted by yet another blizzard with up to a foot of snow forecast:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/europe/3538831/Storms-lash-Scotland-and-England

George E. Smith
March 31, 2010 11:55 am

Reminds me of the chap sitting down to write a testimonial to the drug company that makes the very expensive hair restorer medication he has been using.
“Dear Sirs, before I started using your hair restorer prodct, I had three bald patches on my head; Now after using the product for just two years, I have only one bald patch on my head. ”
The poor chap is now totally hairless.
That must be what is happening to the arctic ice; the number of open water patches is reducing but soon there will only be one open water patch in the arctic; and the Kayak expeditions will begin in earnest.

Gordon
March 31, 2010 11:59 am

And there is a Japanese paper refered to on Roger Piekle Senior’s site:-
” According to our result, the rapid warming during 1970-1990 contains a large fraction of unpredictable natural variability due to the AO. The subsequent period of 1990-2010 indicates a clear trend of the AO to be negative. The global warming has been stopped by natural variability superimposed on the gentle anthropogenic global warming. The important point is that the IPCC models have been tuned perfectly to fit the rapid warming during 1970-1990 by means of the ice-albedo feedback (anthropogenic forcing) which is not actually observed. IPCC models are justified with this wrong scientific basis and are applied to project the future global warming for 100 years in the future. Hence, we warn that the IPCC models overestimate the warming trend due to the mislead Arctic Oscillation.”

M White
March 31, 2010 12:00 pm
Jerry Lee Davis
March 31, 2010 12:01 pm

I’m tempted to nominate Joe Romm and Mark Serreze as candidate replacements for two of the Three Stooges, but decline to do so because (a) that would be unkind, and (b) it would be agonizing to choose a third from the pool of available climate scientists.

Jimbo
March 31, 2010 12:01 pm

John S. (11:26:19):
“The NSIDC April Sea Ice News will focus not on ice extent, but the ‘alarming’ reduction in ice thickness.”
—–
You have a point but if things continue to improve in the Arctic they will run out of chips (for the Arctic). They will then proceed to the Antarctica peninsula and find hot house conditions getting worse. If that area gets colder they will shift again to calving of ice sheets etc., etc. AGW, the science that cannot be falsified.

Gary Pearse
March 31, 2010 12:02 pm

Anthony you know that NSIDC has a link to the annual prediction by “selected” experts on the minimum ice in Sept each year. Since they are all CAGW believers you can guess what side of the actual results they all fall on. On an earlier thread, I published my emails to NSIDC from 2007 on wherein I predicted 10 to 15% growth in min ice for 2008 and 2009 and was the unofficial (unacknowledged) winner of the contest in both those years. I think it would be a good contest to have on WUWT as a counterfoil to the experts predictions. Here is the link with the predictions by each for last year – note that all 16 individuals and groups were below the actual 2009 minimum (It was a piece of cake to beat this lot).

R. Gates
March 31, 2010 12:03 pm

Jimmy Haigh said:
“What is the sum total of all sea ice now in both hemispheres? Must be getting pretty high I would think…”
———-
Actually Jimmy, nope. Global sea ice is currently below average for this time of year. See:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg
Global sea ice is running about 400,000 sq. km under the 30 year normal. Both Artic and Antarctic are still showing negative anomalies, depsite that fact that the arctic ice is showing an most unusual bump upward. Some reports from the arctic do indicate unusal ice conditions, not thicker than normal, but odd spreading, thin areas of refreezing, quickly breaking up, and areas of open water. This could be related to the unsual winds, the negative AO index we saw this winter, and also, warm temps over N. Canada and Greenland could have caused some unusual ice conditions.
My prediction is that the arctic sea ice may “touch” the 30 year normal line (or may not) but will then quickly fall back into the negative anomaly range it has been holding onto for the past 9 years or so. As a long term follower of arctic and antarctic conditions…this is a most interesting spring, and should be a very interesting summer as well…

Gary Pearse
March 31, 2010 12:03 pm

Oops moderator, here is the link:
http://www.arcus.org/search/seaiceoutlook/2009_outlook/2009_minimum.php
Please add on to my post above

Honest ABE
March 31, 2010 12:03 pm

I thought it was already normal?
I mean, if you include the rather large error bars then the current ice is well into that.

Ibrahim
March 31, 2010 12:06 pm

Not abnormal just like 2007 was not abnormal
see:
http://www.archive.org/stream/arcticice00zubo#page/n0/mode/2up
See Chapter XIII (page 444): seasonal and longterm fluctuations of ice abundancehttp://www.archive.org/stream/arcticice00zubo#page/n0/mode/2up

ShrNfr
March 31, 2010 12:12 pm

The AMO is on the downslope. That alone (absent any strange winds) should make for a colder north pole. In addition it looks like our El Nino friend is also starting to roll over, but it has done that before and then re-intensified so its a bit early to call that one.
Hopefully none of the Catlin fools gets stalked and eaten by a polar bear. They will stalk and eat humans given the opportunity.

March 31, 2010 12:12 pm

Steve and Anthony: beat ya to this story. 🙂
http://fnieuwenhuis.xanga.com/724499497/arctic-sea-ice/

nandheeswaran jothi
March 31, 2010 12:13 pm

i have been looking for the NSIDC(15%) and DMI(30%) data for the period of 1979-2002. can someone point me in that direction

M White
March 31, 2010 12:13 pm

Jimmy Haigh (11:39:22) :
Presumably the Antarctic is starting to freeze up now too. What is the sum total of all sea ice now in both hemispheres? Must be getting pretty high I would think
From cryosphere today
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg

Anu
March 31, 2010 12:19 pm

Last year I got really sick for a week, hardly ate at all.
I hit my “normal” college weight one day.
Ah, to be young again…
Trends are now back to normal.

March 31, 2010 12:20 pm

May I be permitted a second thought. Over the 30 years we have had satellite data, the total sea ice, Arctic plus Antarctic, has remained approximately constant. There is a hypothesis that this is the norm, and total sea ice will remain constant into the indefinite future. Now as well as the melt season in the Arctic being delayed, the freeze season in the Antarctic is also delayed. Can I speculate that what we are observing is the start of a new era; one where Arctic sea ice extent will expand, and Antarctic sea ice will retreat?

Robert Wykoff
March 31, 2010 12:20 pm

I will bet eleventy billion dollars that JAXA has some “malfunction”, and does not report anything for the next week. You will see the March 30th numbers until April 7th. (unless there is a sudden mass melt off)

Ibrahim
March 31, 2010 12:23 pm

Not abnormal just like 2007 was not abnormal
see:
http://www.archive.org/stream/arcticice00zubo#page/n0/mode/2up
See Chapter XIII (page 444): seasonal and longterm fluctuations of ice abundance http://www.archive.org/stream/arcticice00zubo#page/n0/mode/2up

John F. Hultquist
March 31, 2010 12:24 pm

Last year the Catlin crew started at a spot where their path was somewhat like a treadmill. Go forward, rest, float back. This year they seem to have done the same thing. But they are all “highly experienced and they see the strangest behaviour.
Of all the area and all the conditions and all the months when floating ice might be different – How much have they seen? Why is the Pole such an important destination? Why not go to a different part of the Arctic and in a different month?
This is a good post, by the way. I think we should raise $1,000 and ask Mark Serreze of NSDIC to do the same. If the Arctic Ocean isn’t ice free by the end of September of 2013, WUWT gets to pick a charity recipient for the 2K. If it is ice free, then the folks at NSIDC can send the money to their charity of choice. We need 100 folks and $10 each. I’ll donate, so only 99 more.

John Egan
March 31, 2010 12:24 pm

I have been chased off liberal blogs for having the temerity to ask similar questions. As a good, card-carrying liberal myself, I think that it is in the liberal tradition to look at all aspects of any issue; however, regarding climate the liberal consensus seemed to be set in stone.
Yes, this March Arctic sea ice has done some strange things – strange if you are Mark Serreze and company. Sea ice has not declined, but has grown slightly since the beginning of the month – approaching the NSIDC 1979-2000 average. It appears that Arctic ice is on the way to a September minimum in the high 5 million sq km mark – approaching 6 million. Certainly not the “death spiral” so recently predicted. And all that “first year ice” that was supposed to evaporate last year is now “multiyear ice”.
Next up – when is NSIDC going to include more recent years in averages?
Does the 1979 to 2000 span reflect long-term averages or the top of a cycle peak?

R.S.Brown
March 31, 2010 12:25 pm

Northern Hemisphere sea ice coverage map from Environment
Canada for March 30, 2010:
http://www.weatheroffice.ec.gc.ca/data/analysis/350_50.gif

Theo Barker
March 31, 2010 12:26 pm

FWIW, not arctic nor sea-ice, but the lake across the street from my house had ice 22″ thick this winter (none of the old-timers have ever seen it that thick, since early ’70s). It cleared 10 days later than any previous of the last 15 years. Many of the last 15 years, it never froze over.

Mike M
March 31, 2010 12:28 pm

Flippy Floppy Wibbly Wobbly: “We’ve nicknamed the thin ice ‘flippy floppy’ ice.

Perhaps the ice has reached a …. tipping point! (groan)

John Egan
March 31, 2010 12:28 pm

PS –
It is amazing that people with such a high level of education in climate science and aware of all the variability can be such linear thinkers when it comes to Arctic sea ice.

D. King
March 31, 2010 12:32 pm

“Exclusive: New NSIDC director Serreze explains the “death spiral” of Arctic ice…”
http://tinyurl.com/y8j9m39

Murray
March 31, 2010 12:33 pm

Given wind compaction this year such that area and extent are similar, this ice is probably quite thick also. there may be a big jump in minimum extent this year/

Jimbo
March 31, 2010 12:34 pm

I will scream the next time someone tells me about drowning polar bears in the Arctic. Polar bears a good swimmers.
31 March 2010
Polar bear washes up on Scotland’s Isle of Mull [UK]
“Dave Sexton, RSPB Mull officer, explained how he saw a white shape on the west coast of the island that turned out to be a polar bear. He said: ‘At first I felt sure it was dead, but then I realised it was still breathing. Scarily, it opened its eyes as we got near it, but didn’t show any other signs of moving.”
http://www.countrylife.co.uk/news/article/448935/Polar-bear-washes-up-on-Scotland-s-Isle-of-Mull.html
http://www.countrylife.co.uk/imageBank/p/polar_bear_mull_1.jpg

Al Gory
March 31, 2010 12:37 pm

Ice growth? But that’s unpossible! Methane! Exxon! Tipping points! Tipping points!

Stephan
March 31, 2010 12:37 pm

Where are Phil and De Witt Payne? hahahaha I am now more than ever convinced that this whole AGW has become a total scam (used to believe in it 3 years ago), because of political and financial issues. The temps data for the NH are just being fabricated to fit AGW, but reality is not helping. This is NOT meant to happen, ice is not meant to recover according to vast theoretical AGW literature etc.. Be very wary of these sites (CT, NSCD, etc..) trying to re-adjust downwards in the coming days…. Trust the Scandinavians ONLY (they tend to feel very guilty about being dishonest…) LOL If NH ice continues on this path and reported… every effort will be made to downplay it because it was a central theme of the theory. It will bury AGW completely.

Richard M
March 31, 2010 12:37 pm

This is in spite of the fact that “average” is still higher than it should be. We have 30 years of data (1979-2009), why not use it all? We all know that this would drop the “average” and that’s not good for the warmers.
A little OT but the temperature in the upper Midwest USA is over 30F above average the last couple of days. It’s been great! You don’t hear anyone complaining about it. Now, if it was 30F below average you would have lots of complaining. I often wonder why the warmers have never figured out that warm is good and cold is bad.

Ben
March 31, 2010 12:38 pm

Like the poll, especially this option:
“The lack of 4+ year old ice”
Those who have followed their focus changing their comparisions each year, might find that as funny as I did. Thanks for the laugh. Unfortunately, given their track record, it won’t surprise if they try to extend their spin this year to yet another new definition to match their agenda, this time to: 4+ year ice.
Well played sirs.

Enneagram
March 31, 2010 12:38 pm

John Egan (12:28:40) : linear thinkers…LOL!, however there are some “point thinkers”: “me,me,me”

Richard Sharpe
March 31, 2010 12:40 pm

We’ve also had a dusting of global warming in the San Francisco Bay Area … still there at 12PM today when I drove south to work (in Santa Clara).

wayne
March 31, 2010 12:41 pm

I tell ya’, it’s that ol’ quart’r lag! 🙂

rbateman
March 31, 2010 12:41 pm

Quick, there’s not a moment to lose. Grab a toad or two, and get Phil back out of his hole. We need to ask him to clarify:
6 more weeks of winter or 6 weeks of melt this year… what exactly did you mean, Phil?

Jimbo
March 31, 2010 12:42 pm

Follow up:
“Scientists believe that the colder winter and lower-than-average sea temperatures this year may have allowed the ice floe to remain frozen longer than usual, assisting the polar bear’s passage.”
http://www.countrylife.co.uk/news/article/448935/Polar-bear-washes-up-on-Scotland-s-Isle-of-Mull.html#part2
They can still swim great distances:
Polar Bear Swims 200 Miles!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/jun/05/animalwelfare.animalbehaviour
Polar Bear Swims 100 Km
http://www.seaworld.org/infobooks/polarbears/pbadaptations.html

Green Sand
March 31, 2010 12:42 pm

If it was a UK organisation they would probably do a Met Office, along the lines of “we no longer see it as part of our remit to file reports and forecasts”
This would be immediately declared by the BBC and the rest of the MSM as a prudent measure required to release much needed money and resource into further research. The declaration would be supported by quotes from The Royal Society, Prince Charles, Phil Willis, Lord Oxburgh etc. All three of the so called “major” political parties would claim responsibility for the move.
There is also the distinct possibility that we will be told that in actual fact the sea ice has been retreating as predicted and what the satellite has picked up as an increase in the last few weeks is a major spillage of whitewash.
Dear Mr G Fawkes, we have some new technology that you maybe able to utilise in your quest.
/sarc (but not disgust) off

Richard M
March 31, 2010 12:43 pm

Anu (12:19:02) :
Last year I got really sick for a week, hardly ate at all.
I hit my “normal” college weight one day.
Ah, to be young again…
Trends are now back to normal …

Well of course, why didn’t I think of it. The ice is obviously “sick”. Is that going to replace rotten ice?
I can see the headlines now … Arctic ice comes down with horrible cold due to climate change. If we don’t act immediately this cold could spread and impact the entire NH. It’s a catastrophe.

James Chamberlain
March 31, 2010 12:47 pm

It will be “corrected” downward within the next few years.

John Blake
March 31, 2010 12:48 pm

It cannot be emphasized too strongly that Edward Lorenz’s Chaos Theory (1964) proves linear extrapolations of phenomena in complex dynamic systems (those with three or more interacting variables) are mathematically and physically impossible. Lorenz was a meteorologist, but his “sensitive dependence on initial conditions” (the Butterfly Effect) applies equally in geophysical contexts and perspectives. Moreover, though cyclical – periodic effects may be determined in hindsight, even regular fluctuations are subject to well-defined natural effects including Punctuated Equilibrium, the Principle of Mediocrity, and local Regression-to-the-Mean.
After some 12,250 years, skewed by the 1,500-year Younger Dryas “cold shock” that ended c. BC 8800, our current Holocene Interglacial Epoch is generations overdue to end. As Sol threatens a 20-year “dead sun” Dalton if not a 70-year Maunder Minimum, we suspect that long-term “climate” may abruptly flip to ice-sheet mode. After a 500-year Medieval Warm compensated by a Little Ice Age of near-equal length, the odds of a recurrent 20th through 25th Century medieval analogue appear remote.

DirkH
March 31, 2010 12:49 pm

“Al Gory (12:37:02) :
Ice growth? But that’s unpossible! Methane! Exxon! Tipping points! Tipping points!”
Forget Exxon, it’s Koch.
Report with a beautiful photo of Joseph Romm:
http://theenergycollective.com/TheEnergyCollective/62335

Al Gored
March 31, 2010 12:53 pm

I would expect a Wall Streeter type spin – its still less than analysts expected.
Ignore everything else, all the fundamentals, and all earlier predictions. Just buy, buy, buy what they’re selling!
In the meantime, the wikipedia doctors are quickly adjusting their content to fit.

Ivan Janković
March 31, 2010 12:55 pm

Antony,
O.T. It’s seems that Lubos has some explosive stuff about the climate sensitivity on his blog http://motls.blogspot.com/2010/03/black-body-limits-climate-sensitivity.html.
It is maybe worth of re-posting here…

Richard Sharpe
March 31, 2010 1:00 pm

Anu (12:19:02) said:

Last year I got really sick for a week, hardly ate at all.
I hit my “normal” college weight one day.
Ah, to be young again…
Trends are now back to normal.

So you think that the Arctic has been sick over the last few years and it will be back to normal soon? Good to hear.
I tend to think these things are cyclical …

wayne
March 31, 2010 1:06 pm

Polar bear washes up on Scotland’s Isle of Mull
Polar Bear Swims 200 Miles!
Polar Bear Swims 100 Km.

It’s G’pa Polar Bear’s revenge! Thay’re coming! I’d run if my name were gore! Just tell G.P.B. your name isn’t Al and you’d swear to that before Congress on the Bible! (CRT :))

DeWitt Payne
March 31, 2010 1:08 pm

Returning to the thirty year mean is hardly normal. The mean is the center point of a gradual thirty year decline. Cryosphere Today Arctic area has decreased over the last few days so the recent increase in extent could be more related to ice at the margin breaking up and drifting away from the main pack. The buildup of ice around Svalbard and in the Barents Sea does indicate that the flow of warm water from the Atlantic is running well below the level during January and February. I expect the AMO index for March to be negative. The Sea of Okhotsk in the Pacific is also way above where it was last year and is close to the long term mean. Of course if the econometricians become involved, we’ll probably be told that we can’t tell if Arctic ice has declined at all.

Steve Oregon
March 31, 2010 1:09 pm

Here’s a humorous explanation.
http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/arctic-sea-ice-0330
JimP1 wrote:
“Ice is breaking-up and spreading out, not growing
What they measure is 15% ice coverage and therefore doesn’t account for ice spreading out. If you look at cryosphere today and play their movies you will see ice that is moving very fast out of the arctic. This is also confirmed by Catlin Arctic survey”

Al Gored
March 31, 2010 1:09 pm

Jimbo – Had this handy from a past discussion. From this summary:
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/05/16/where-are-all-the-drowning-polar-bears
Unlike demogsblog, this site’s scientific references actually substantiate what they claim to. (On another thread two years ago while debating an “AGW proponent” about a demogsblog article I discovered that two of their key cited references did NOT say what they allegedly did – the lowest form of scientific fraud if you ask me! I guess they assumed that nobody would ever check them!)
The Myth of the Drowning Polar Bears Due to The Warming is based on 4 dead bears in 2004… and…
“there were reports of drowning polar bears in 2007, and they were directly attributable to human activities. But they didn’t drown because of global warming, instead, they drowned because they had first been shot with tranquilizer darts and then slipped into the sea and were unable to be recovered.”
Not that polar bears drowning is anything new.
That bear ending up in Scotland was of course a fluke, the result of chance, but with so many polar bears now the probability of such things is higher.
I would guess/bet that that is the first one to ever get there – as the all time high polar bear numbers would predict – and there is a long historical record to check there.

Tom in Florida
March 31, 2010 1:11 pm

While I understand the joy at seeing the AGW crowd’s predictions fail, I cannot be joyful at the thought of our world turning colder. Less northern hemisphere ice and snow is a GOOD thing, it may help put off the inevitable change back to glaciation for a while. Then again, there is that old saying about the calm before the storm ……….

Jimbo
March 31, 2010 1:11 pm

SPIN, SPIN, SPIN
NSIDC – March 30, 2009

“Annual maximum ice extent confirmed”
“Arctic sea ice extent reached its maximum extent for the year, marking the beginning of the melt season. This year’s maximum was the fifth lowest in the satellite record. NSIDC will release a more detailed analysis of winter sea ice conditions during the second week of April.”

“In the beginning of March, ice extent began to decline, and it appeared that Arctic sea ice had reached its maximum extent. However, in the second week of March the ice edge began to expand again. Ice extent grew through much of the month of March, but it did not expand to the level seen on February 28.”

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2009/033009.html

DeWitt Payne
March 31, 2010 1:15 pm

Re: Stephan (Mar 31 12:37),
I still expect Arctic temperatures to drop and ice to recover somewhat. I just haven’t seen much evidence that it’s happening now. I report the data as it is, not how I’d like it to be. When we start to see ice levels two or three sigma above the trend line, as opposed to that far below in 2007, you can start to crow a little louder. One month does not a trend make, or one year for that matter, neither in 2007 nor in 2010.

Earle Williams
March 31, 2010 1:22 pm

The poll lacked a fourth option: Arctic sea ice volume at unprecendented low number!

Dave Wendt
March 31, 2010 1:22 pm

This winter’s Arctic refreeze would seem to have put a large dent in the notion that temperature is the largest factor in the state of Arctic ice. Since the middle of last July the AMSU sat temps have been almost resolutely at or above the 20 yr record high line. The DMI graph of temps N of Lat 80 was 3-5 degrees or more above the long term avg. from the equinox in Sept. to after the first of the year and only ventured below twice briefly since. Despite this the Arctic sea ice has rebounded as it always has and maybe more so.
The implicit fallacy in all the gloom and doom about the Arctic ice disappearing is that if it should go away some summer it will be gone for good. From conversations I’ve had with people who are products of the modern education system and not denizens of climate blogs, that indeed seems to be the impression drawn from all the hype. Unfortunately this level of ignorance is probably representative of at least 95% of the world’s population.
But even here we seem to fall into the automatic stance of “sticking up for the ice”. Let us suppose that in some future summer the Arctic sea ice did all disappear for a couple weeks in September, but that no public revelation of this fact would be allowed. What clue in the environment where you yourself live would allow you to deduce that it had occurred?

Richard deSousa
March 31, 2010 1:32 pm

I doubt the mainstream media will even comment since they’ve bought the idea there will be no Arctic sea ice by summer 2013. NASA and GISS will no doubt twiddle with their computers to refute the fact the Arctic sea ice is still shrinking.

Ian George
March 31, 2010 1:37 pm

But, according to Surface Temperature Analysis: Maps from NASA GISS, December 2009, and Jan/Feb 2010 Arctic temperatures were well above normal. In fact, the Arctic region was the main area that pushed Jan/Feb as being some of those months’ warmest anomalies on record.
Check
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/maps/
and go figure why the ice is increasing when it’s so ‘warm’.

George E. Smith
March 31, 2010 1:37 pm

“”” R. Gates (12:03:04) :
Jimmy Haigh said:
“What is the sum total of all sea ice now in both hemispheres? Must be getting pretty high I would think…”
———-
Actually Jimmy, nope. Global sea ice is currently below average for this time of year. See:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg
Global sea ice is running about 400,000 sq. km under the 30 year normal. “””
Well since the first polar orbit satellite went up around 1979, giving us the first ever look at what “normal” polar sea ice is, that means we have only about a 30 year record of polar sea ice; which means we have no record of what the “30 year normal” would be since we have precisely one data point for the most recent 30 year period.
Maybe after three or four 30 year cycles are under our belt (typical climate cycle time); we might be able to say what the 30 year normal sea ice extent is.
In the mean time; it is pure speculation to say what is normal; given that we have recently passed through a 30 year (or less) cycle of warmer than average climate, followed by some 15 years or thereabout of stagnation going into a cooling trend; as witnessed by none other than Dr Phil Jones of the CRU.
So DMI has some six years of Arctic data (supposedly); so yes we have some idea what has happend since around 2003-4; and so far it seems basically nothing much has hapened, other than a big wind storm in 2007 which blew a lot of arctic ice away.

Jimmy Haigh
March 31, 2010 1:40 pm

M White (12:13:23) :
Thanks for the link.

DirkH
March 31, 2010 1:44 pm

“Ivan Janković (12:55:11) :
Antony,
O.T. It’s seems that Lubos has some explosive stuff about the climate sensitivity on his blog http://motls.blogspot.com/2010/03/black-body-limits-climate-sensitivity.html.
It is maybe worth of re-posting here…

DirkH
March 31, 2010 1:45 pm

“DirkH (13:44:07) :
“Ivan Janković (12:55:11) :
Antony,
O.T. It’s seems that Lubos has some explosive stuff about the climate […]”
Sorry Mods – stumbled over the submit button too early…
I wanted to say: Read the comments by Lubos, he’s in full swing…

Peter Miller
March 31, 2010 1:45 pm

Precisely – don’t let Mann, Briffa, Jones etc anywhere near the raw data.
James Chamberlain (12:47:55) :
It will be “corrected” downward within the next few years.

Jack Savage
March 31, 2010 1:50 pm

Everything I wanted to say… someone else has beat me to it.
I think I will open a bottle. Cheers!

R. Gates
March 31, 2010 1:50 pm

Jim Cripwell said:
“There is a hypothesis that this is the norm, and total sea ice will remain constant into the indefinite future…”
___________
Really? From where does this hypothesis come? Do you have a link/source/reference?
I find it funny that AGW skeptics get all excited from a few weeks of upswing in the arctic sea ice, while all the while they’ll ignore nearly a decade of downswing…very revealing.

Harry Lu
March 31, 2010 1:57 pm

Plotting change in area from year to year on a daily basis shows that there is an increase in area until the beginning May followed by a sharp decline until the minimum.
Only time will tell the final minimum area.
http://img682.imageshack.us/img682/3148/deltaseaiceaveragearea.png
/harry

George E. Smith
March 31, 2010 1:57 pm

I tried to leave a comment over at Lubos Motl’s site but for some reason it didn’t go. Apparently you have to have an “account” with Google or somebody else.
I have no idea what that is all about.

Peter Miller
March 31, 2010 1:59 pm

Be afraid, be very afraid – this just in from Iceland:
http://chris.is/

KTWO
March 31, 2010 2:01 pm

The good news is that the institutions themselves, in this case NSIDC, will show a graph such as this.
The majority of media will say nothing or print what they wish. Something like:
“Arctic Sea Ice measurements indicate errors in instruments.”

March 31, 2010 2:04 pm

R. Gates (13:50:54) :
Jim Cripwell said:
“There is a hypothesis that this is the norm, and total sea ice will remain constant into the indefinite future…”
___________
Really? From where does this hypothesis come? Do you have a link/source/reference?
I find it funny that AGW skeptics get all excited from a few weeks of upswing in the arctic sea ice, while all the while they’ll ignore nearly a decade of downswing…very revealing.
———
REPLY: Well, we find it funny when AGW proponents freak out when their cherished predictions of doom & gloom don’t pan out!!
Here’s Delingpole on the subject:
http://jamesdelingpole.com/blog/warmists-overwhelmed-by-fear-panic-and-deranged-hatred-as-their-science-collapses-858/
BTW, I’m in the field and have spent over 25 years on environmental methane mitigation projects. I’ve always bristled at the doom & gloom, polar-bears-drowning nonsense that has been pushed down our throats.
Watch the arctic sea ice extent grow! Anthony, you did predict this quite a while ago!

March 31, 2010 2:08 pm

nice to see an articulate fact-based discussion of climate change, using information supplied by legitimate scientific sources. It makes a change from the bogus science-fueled reactionary rubbish spouted by lots of climate change sceptics.
The thing is, when blips like this deviate from the regular storyline of a chain of events the newspapers don’t like it. Journalists must work on the assumption that people are too stupid and lack the patience to follow anything but a linear, simple storyline.
Hence, now newspapers are accepting the climate change story as a legitimate source of articles, they will be reluctant to have to confuse everyone with a change of tack.
And coming back to a word I used a couple of paragraphs ago: “blip”; I do believe this is just that, a temporary anomally.
What matters in these huge world-encompassing systems is the overall grand trend – which is heading warm-wards.

Enneagram
March 31, 2010 2:10 pm

It seems that as in the case of watergate’s Deep Throat, in “Climate-Gate” there is a “Deep Ice”.

Steve Goddard
March 31, 2010 2:22 pm

R. Gates (13:50:54) :
Please explain how you can have a decade long downswing towards zero, and finish above average. Only a statistician could come up with that theory.

imapopulist
March 31, 2010 2:23 pm

Could one factor be that the cold weather in the Gulf of Mexico and off of the Florida Coast has removed heat content from the gulf stream conveyor belt, thus the currents reaching the Greenland & Barents Seas are cooler than normal, (both of which have been trending up recently)? If so, the summer melt may not occur as rapidly as predicted by some. Just a thought.
http://fermi.jhuapl.edu/avhrr/avhrr/gs/averages/97mar/gs_97mar29_1328multi.gif
http://fermi.jhuapl.edu/avhrr/gs/averages/10mar/gs_10mar29_0247_mult.png
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.6.html
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.5.html

March 31, 2010 2:31 pm

Can I detect an Arctic ice hockey Stick in these graphs?

Mariss
March 31, 2010 2:32 pm

Something terrible and unprecedented is happening in the Arctic! The Arctic sea ice extent is the greatest ever for this date since records have been kept. In the past, Arctic sea ice began to decrease this time of year but not this year. 14,405,781 square kilometers of ice covers the Arctic ocean and it’s still increasing.
There is 1,200,000 square kilometers more Arctic ice now than there was in 2,006. At this rate ice is increasing 300,000 square kilometers per year! Computer models show the Himalaya glaciers will be covered by an Arctic ice cap by 2,035 if we don’t do something now! Our dissolute carbon footprint conscious lifestyle is endangering polar bears. Heartbreaking pictures show these pigment challanged ursines without any open water to swim in.
Man-made global icing is endangering the planet. The only solution is “Uncap and Rebate”. Everyone should be encouraged to burn as much carbon as possible. The governments of the world should give rebates for every ton of carbon burned. We must do something before it’s to late. The science of man-made global icing is settled.

March 31, 2010 2:44 pm

Aagh! That. . . that animation! It’s moving! It’s alive! And. . . it’s coming out!
/Mr Lynn 😀

March 31, 2010 2:45 pm

Later the extend maximum happens, less the time for the loss ’til the expected minimum
Max          Dat
14844063 03.21.03
14360313 03.10.04
14098906 03.06.05
13782344 03.08.06
13945625 03.10.07
14516875 03.09.08
14412813 03.05.09
14405781 03.30.10
Min Dat
5646875      09.09.02
6032031   09.18.03
5784688         09.11.04
5315156         09.22.05
5781719         09.14.06
4254531         09.24.07
4707813         09.09.08
5249844         09.13.09

March 31, 2010 2:57 pm

Global swarming is just another end to the means for the progressive left. May the liberals in power have the ability to actually read your article.

David W
March 31, 2010 2:58 pm

Actually R Gates, arctic sea ice has been increasing since the 2007 low summer extent which as far as I can tell is a little more than “a few weeks”.
With us heading into a cool PDO phase and most models predicting a coming La Nina (or at worst neutral) it is highly likely that the 2007 low ice extent is going to be revisited any time soon.
But, hey don’t let the facts get in the way of your religion beliefs.

terry46
March 31, 2010 2:59 pm

I thought all the ice was gone from what the AGW crowd said.I find it real funny how all thoughs that believe the load of crap ,and thats all it is ,about global always always have a reason we should’t believe the they are wrong.It never fells .The global temp can drop 3 degrees and were still told it getting warmer.We see record cold and snow and they say it getting warmer.I viewed on the global warming channel,accuweather ,where a professor has stated we are entering a period of ten years where we will be seeing global cooling and then they call the cooling a hick up in the overall warming period.Hey call it what you will I loved this past winter ,32 in of beautibul SNOW,and look foward to more of the same in winters to come .One last thought .Why do the global warming crowd always have their conference in spring a sopposed to winter?I’m prety sure Iknow the reason but. By the way were not skeptics were realist and most of the world knows the weatehr is just a cycle.

March 31, 2010 3:03 pm

R. Gates (13:50:54) :
I find it funny that AGW skeptics get all excited from a few weeks of upswing in the arctic sea ice, while all the while they’ll ignore nearly a decade of downswing…very revealing.
I find it funny that you’ve stopped harping on the ongoing negative anomaly and your predictions that 2010 could be the warmest year on record.
And it hasn’t been a few weeks of upswing. It’s been increasing since 2007 — and has increased beyond what the “nearly a decade of downswing” wrought.
The ice is cyclical. Pretty revealing, innit?

Dave Wendt
March 31, 2010 3:04 pm

R. Gates (13:50:54)
I find it funny that AGW skeptics get all excited from a few weeks of upswing in the arctic sea ice, while all the while they’ll ignore nearly a decade of downswing…very revealing.
Personally i find it interesting but not that exciting. Over the years I’ve viewed numerous projections of the Arctic sea ice disappearing. These public pronouncements are always couched in tones that suggest that the prospect of this occurring should fill us all with immense foreboding. Being somewhat puzzled by this, I’ve been moved to inquire on quite a number of occasions as to what is the exact nature of the catastrophe that will eventuate if this does happen. The only semi cogent response I’ve ever received, in fact the only response, suggested that the increased amount of open water would lead to increased absorption of solar insolation fueling further global warming. As you pointed out, we have in recent times experienced a rather dramatic decline in summer ice loss in the Arctic. Culminating in 2007 with a minimum that was fully 40% of the potential decline if the ice disappeared entirely. From your comments here, you seem to be someone who has his finger firmly on the pulse of CAGW science so I’m hoping you can help me locate something I haven’t been able to find on my own. Could you provide for me a link to some kind of data that suggests that this increased absorption of solar energy is actually occurring? It would be most helpful in allowing me to understand what all the excitement is about.

junkman
March 31, 2010 3:05 pm

I think there must be some problems with the measurement or software, this looks like the reading is way too high. NASA will need to adjust the data to correct for the obviously faulty reading …

Richard M
March 31, 2010 3:07 pm

R. Gates (13:50:54) :
I find it funny that AGW skeptics get all excited from a few weeks of upswing in the arctic sea ice, while all the while they’ll ignore nearly a decade of downswing…very revealing.
Kind of like folks that get all exited about a couple of months uptick in AMSU anomalies in the middle of a strong El Nino after nearly a decade long period of flat temperatures.
Pot … Kettle …

Steve Goddard
March 31, 2010 3:09 pm
Carbone
March 31, 2010 3:09 pm
David Segesta
March 31, 2010 3:11 pm

“Arctic Sea Ice about to hit ‘normal’ – what will the news say?”
They’ll say it’s our fault.

Alexej Buergin
March 31, 2010 3:13 pm

Does anyone know the answers?
1) Were the results of Polar 5 ever published?
2) Will there be a Polar 6?
3) Will there be a 2010 competition of the professionals about arctic sea ice?

kwik
March 31, 2010 3:16 pm

R. Gates (13:50:54) :
“I find it funny that AGW skeptics get all excited from a few weeks of upswing in the arctic sea ice, while all the while they’ll ignore nearly a decade of downswing…very revealing.”
Yes, and what does it reveal, Mr. Gates? That we are happy with life and prosperity, and you like to be Doom’ed?

Editor
March 31, 2010 3:17 pm

Here’s the NSIDC’s maximum and minimum press releases for the last 7 years. I await their forthcoming press release with bated breath:
December 7, 2002 – Arctic Sea Ice Shrinking, Greenland ice sheet melting, according to study
http://nsidc.org/news/press/20021207_seaice.html
8 December 2003 – Arctic Sea Ice Low, Second Year in a Row
http://nsidc.org/news/press/20031208_minimum.html
4 October 2004 – Arctic Sea Ice Decline Continues
http://nsidc.org/news/press/20041004_decline.html
18 March 2005 – Arctic Ice Decline in Summer and Winter
http://nsidc.org/news/press/20050318_arcdec.html
28 September 2005 – Sea Ice Decline Intensifies
http://nsidc.org/news/press/20050928_trendscontinue.html
5 April 2006 – Winter Sea Ice Fails to Recover, Down to Record Low
http://nsidc.org/news/press/20060404_winterrecovery.html
3 October 2006 – Arctic Sea Ice Shrinks as Temperatures Rise
http://nsidc.org/news/press/2006_seaiceminimum/20061003_pressrelease.html
4 April 2007 – Arctic Sea Ice Narrowly Misses Wintertime Record Low
http://nsidc.org/news/press/20070403_winterrecovery.html
1 October 2007 – Arctic Sea Ice Shatters All Previous Record Lows
http://nsidc.org/news/press/2007_seaiceminimum/20071001_pressrelease.html
April 7, 2008 – Arctic sea ice extent at maximum below average, thin
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2008/040708.html
2 October 2008 – Arctic Sea Ice Down to Second-Lowest Extent; Likely Record-Low Volume
http://nsidc.org/news/press/20081002_seaice_pressrelease.html
March 30, 2009 – Annual maximum ice extent confirmed – This year’s maximum was the fifth lowest in the satellite record.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2009/033009.html
6 October 2009 – Arctic sea ice extent remains low; 2009 sees third-lowest mark
http://nsidc.org/news/press/20091005_minimumpr.html
Let me help, “Arctic Sea Ice Narrowly Misses 13th Lowest Extent Ever, Likely Record-Low Volume of 4th Year Ice, Trend Indicates Ice Free Arctic Still Likely…” Can I get me one of those government grants now?

Jimbo
March 31, 2010 3:18 pm

Lovelock: ‘We can’t save the planet’
Professor James Lovelock, the scientist who developed Gaia theory, has said it is too late to try and save the planet.
The man who achieved global fame for his theory that the whole earth is a single organism now believes that we can only hope that the earth will take care of itself in the face of completely unpredictable climate change.
Interviewed by Today presenter John Humphrys, videos of which you can see below, he said that while the earth’s future was utterly uncertain, mankind was not aware it had “pulled the trigger” on global warming as it built its civilizations.

Meanwhile Arctic sea ice extent is in recovery, Antarctic ice doing nicely, the Earth has witnessed higher levels of CO2 in the past.
“utterly uncertain” – “mankind was not aware it had “pulled the trigger””
What a crock!

Jimbo
March 31, 2010 3:19 pm

Lovelock: ‘We can’t save the planet’
Professor James Lovelock, the scientist who developed Gaia theory, has said it is too late to try and save the planet.
The man who achieved global fame for his theory that the whole earth is a single organism now believes that we can only hope that the earth will take care of itself in the face of completely unpredictable climate change.
Interviewed by Today presenter John Humphrys, videos of which you can see below, he said that while the earth’s future was utterly uncertain, mankind was not aware it had “pulled the trigger” on global warming as it built its civilizations.

Meanwhile Arctic sea ice extent is in recovery, Antarctic ice doing nicely, the Earth has witnessed higher levels of CO2 in the past.
“utterly uncertain” – “mankind was not aware it had “pulled the trigger””
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8594000/8594561.stm
What a crock!

jorgekafkazar
March 31, 2010 3:20 pm

R. Gates (13:50:54) : “I find it funny that AGW skeptics get all excited from a few weeks of upswing in the arctic sea ice, while all the while they’ll ignore nearly a decade of downswing…very revealing.”
Except there have been more than a few weeks of upswing. More like years, now. I find it very funny that AGW faithful get excited about a few years of downswing in Arctic ice, and have to resort to making up terms like “flippy-floppy” and “rotten” ice. Very revealing.
“this is a most interesting spring, and should be a very interesting summer as well…”
I agree, Mr. Gates!

RockyRoad
March 31, 2010 3:25 pm

That is an excellent paper by Lubos Motl referenced above by DirkH. While it’s a bit intense mathematically, let me summarize his findings (chime in if I’m wrong):
The bottom line (and why AGW is dead) involves what they call a “black body”, which gives off 100% of the heat it contains. But if the curves they’re using over at the IPCC to support AGW exceeds those imposed by a “black body”, then their calculations are impossible (because Earth is less than a black body), and their theory is bogus. That’s the bottom line to his argument, which is very eloquently demonstrated.
Or another way of saying it, a “black body”, being the perfect emitter, puts the limits around what is possible. The earth and every planet falls within these theoretical limits. However, the curves used by the IPCC in their calculations fall outside those limits. Rather a difficult thing to justify (it would require that our earth be “blacker” than a “black body”).
The article by Lubos is the most convincing argument I’ve seen yet that the IPCC and their theory of global warming is bogus. And it is sufficiently straight forward that almost any scientist can see why they’re in error.
And while the link was given above, here it is again:
http://motls.blogspot.com/2010/03/black-body-limits-climate-sensitivity.html

RockyRoad
March 31, 2010 3:34 pm

Lovelock’s Uncertainty Principle?
“utterly uncertain” – “mankind was not aware it had “pulled the trigger””
Ok… Now let me get this straight. Here’s a guy who is “utterly uncertain”… meaning completly clueless and demonstrably demented, and he’s convinced mankind has “pulled the trigger”? The trigger to what? Add when and where was this “trigger” pulled?
Who on earth pays these guys to come up with such patently unintelligible gobbledygook??

Carbon Dioxide
March 31, 2010 3:37 pm

Snow and an ice storm in Northern Ireland yesterday and today. 100.000 homes effect by power outages caused by ice bringing down power cables. The Glenshane pass across the Sperrin Mountains closed last night due to snow, (and my car is now iced up and will need a bump start to get it running tomorrow.
On the plus side, the fence I put up yesterday survived last night’s 80mph windy ice storm.

Jimbo
March 31, 2010 3:43 pm

R. Gates (13:50:54)
I find it funny that AGW skeptics get all excited from a few weeks of upswing in the arctic sea ice, while all the while they’ll ignore nearly a decade of downswing…very revealing.

According to AGW climate scientists climate is 30 years +. In 2007 we had record loss of Arctic ice, caused mostly by wind and currents (since satellite data – 1979) and warmists were “excited” about the loss and it was trumpeted around the globe as a sign of global warming – “worse than we thought.”
Have you ever thought that the “downswing” might be part of natural variability which we have had since climate change began billions of years ago?
Arctic ice loss is nothing new and much of it occured while we were still in the stone age without SUVs. Read and learn:
Arctic ice melting is nothing unusual
http://www.ngu.no/en-gb/Aktuelt/2008/Less-ice-in-the-Arctic-Ocean-6000-7000-years-ago/
http://www.navsource.org/archives/08/08578.htm
http://www.icue.com/portal/site/iCue/flatview/?cuecard=41751
http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/RS_Arctic.htm
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1078291/
http://co2science.org/articles/V12/N32/C2.php
http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=2372
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/03/16/you-ask-i-provide-november-2nd-1922-arctic-ocean-getting-warm-seals-vanish-and-icebergs-melt/
NASA says at least 45% melting since 1976 is most probably due to aerosols (soot)
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/warming_aerosols_prt.htm
Arctic temperatures stable since 1958
If an increased-CO2-greenhouse-forcing was causing global warming as the IPCC models predict, the fingerprint would be most apparent in the summer arctic temperatures (when there is sunlight 24 hours a day to produce a greenhouse effect-there is no sunlight in the arctic during winter). Since CO2 has steadily climbed since 1958, yet arctic summer temperatures have not changed, CO2 is obviously not a major player in arctic temperatures.
Please go to the DMI website yourself and look at all the graphs from 1958-2009 and you will find absolutely no increasing trend in arctic summer temperature,
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php

DirkH
March 31, 2010 3:45 pm

“RockyRoad (15:25:24) :
That is an excellent paper by Lubos Motl referenced above by DirkH. ”
The honor goes to
Ivan Janković (12:55:11)
– i was just delighted by Lubos’ rage…

Tim McHenry
March 31, 2010 3:45 pm

“After all, who wouldn’t want the Arctic Sea ice to recover?”
Well…, why do we NOT want it to melt? Isn’t warmer better? I like warmth myself and see no problem with a warmer Canada and a warmer Northern Europe. It’s this whole idea that warmth is bad that gets me. We could be somewhat warmer than we are and it not cause much of a problem.

TerrySkinner
March 31, 2010 3:49 pm

Remember postings two or three months ago about cold in places like Florida killing fish in the sea? Well that is presumably the water that is now reaching the Arctic via the Gulf stream. I know it all gets mixed up but if the gulf stream is slightly cooler than usual at the moment then the transport of tropical heat to the Arctic must be diminished.
I don’t see anywhere in between the Gulf and the Arctic where the sea would have regained heat on the way. On the contrary a cold Europe and a cold N. America suggests a cold North Atlantic this winter.
And if something similar has happened in the Pacific then less heat flowing north = more ice and a delayed melt season.
Amateur prognosticating I know but it makes sense to me.

Ben D
March 31, 2010 3:55 pm

Why doesn’t the average go from 1979 to 2009, why stop at 2000 why not add 9 more years of data?? for an average don’t you have to add every year…averages go up and down… that’s why they are averages

Peter of Sydney
March 31, 2010 3:55 pm

So what will be said if the US some time in the near future is covered with snow during summer? If that ever happened and the AGW alarmists still claim we shouldn’t be confusing weather with climate, it will be time to arrest them for deliberate fraud, and that should include Obama.

Jim Clarke
March 31, 2010 3:56 pm

“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”
Mr. Serreze has apparently never heard of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, which takes about 60 years to complete an oscillation. Since Northern Hemisphere temperature trends tracked perfectly with the PDO throughout the 20th century, it might tell a real scientist that something similar would take place in the 21st Century. Conditions seen in the 1970s are actually quite likely by the 2030s, according to standard scientific reasoning.

Steve Goddard
March 31, 2010 4:04 pm

“Why doesn’t the average go from 1979 to 2009?”
Because the climate became irreversibly perverted by CO2 after 2000, so all numbers are meaningless after that date.

Mann O Mann
March 31, 2010 4:08 pm

Here is the bad news that will be plucked from hitting “normal”.
It is a Young Ice Anomaly and the young ice that is there is ill mannered, being that it is young.

Amino Acids in Meteorites
March 31, 2010 4:13 pm

Dr. Mark Serreze of NSIDC “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,”
…………………………………………………………………………………………..
It’s ok that he said that. I don’t expect someone that works for the government to be very smart.

DirkH
March 31, 2010 4:14 pm

“Steve Goddard (15:09:35) :
OT – Romm is now declaring that weather is climate after all.
http://climateprogress.org/2010/03/31/northeast-hit-by-record-global-warming-type-deluge-rainfall-flooding/

Steve on that blog:
“Steven Goddard says:
[…]
Also, how is your Arctic “Death Spiral” coming along?”
He didn’t ban you?

March 31, 2010 4:18 pm

Dave Wendt (15:04:16) :
. . . Over the years I’ve viewed numerous projections of the Arctic sea ice disappearing. These public pronouncements are always couched in tones that suggest that the prospect of this occurring should fill us all with immense foreboding. Being somewhat puzzled by this, I’ve been moved to inquire on quite a number of occasions as to what is the exact nature of the catastrophe that will eventuate if this does happen. The only semi cogent response I’ve ever received, in fact the only response, suggested that the increased amount of open water would lead to increased absorption of solar insolation fueling further global warming. . . Could you provide for me a link to some kind of data that suggests that this increased absorption of solar energy is actually occurring? It would be most helpful in allowing me to understand what all the excitement is about.

Can’t provide a link, but as far as I can tell, the persistent hysteria over the melting of Arctic sea ice goes back to the alarmist prediction that, according to their hypothesis, the Arctic would suffer from ‘global warming’ first, and so it’s a ‘canary in the coal mine’, as RGates put it in another thread.
In the popular mind, of course, the fear is that the ice would permanently disappear, not just for a few weeks in summer. But aside from actually fulfilling an AGW prediction (they need one, don’t they?), I cannot fathom either what possible disadvantage that would have for humanity. Surely a balmy sea route across the North Pole, long-sought since the discovery of the New World, would be a boon for commerce. The adorable polar bears might have to shed their white coats in order to kill rabbits instead of seals, but the seals would be happy.
/Mr Lynn

Amino Acids in Meteorites
March 31, 2010 4:19 pm

Richard Feynman famously said “Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts.”
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
LOL!! 😛
Perfect for the global warming alarmists!

Amino Acids in Meteorites
March 31, 2010 4:26 pm

Mr. Romm,
A tree is known by its fruits. WUWT has a good track record for accuracy of predictions not only Anthony’s predictions but in those he chooses to have as guest post-ers here, like Steven Goddard, Joe Bastardi, etc.
How are the fruits of that ‘death spiral’ working out? Just askin.

Billy Liar
March 31, 2010 4:28 pm

George E. Smith (13:37:37) :
‘basically nothing much has happened, other than a big wind storm in 2007 which blew a lot of arctic ice away’
There has been a lot of talk on WUWT about the effect of wind on Arctic ice but I have not seen any reference to two other factors which might have altered the situation in 2007.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
Temperatures above 80N were much higher than the mean in the winter for 30-60 days in both 2005 and 2006; 18C above the mean in February 2006 for a short time. This will have affected the growth in the thickness of the ice in winter.
2007 was also apparently ‘a record breaking year for Eurasian river inflow
to the Arctic Ocean’. See:
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/4/4/045015
The ‘record breaking’ inflow of fresh water carrying heat from Siberia may also have affected the ice remaining in the summer.
Any expert care to comment?

Amino Acids in Meteorites
March 31, 2010 4:31 pm

John of Kent (UK) (11:02:37) :
undoubtedly all “rotten” ice!
………………………………………………………………………………………………
There are some who might be calling it rotten. 😉

Amino Acids in Meteorites
March 31, 2010 4:33 pm

NZ Willy (11:04:53) :
and we are seeing a crossover back to the higher-volume mode of the 1979-2000 mean.
I think we’re heading to even higher than that.

DRE
March 31, 2010 4:34 pm

Why is it that in a battle between actual measured data and model results, the modeling results always win?
Unfortunately most modeling currently being done is a lot like astrology lots of math and calculations with out any basis in reality.
What happened to science?

Amino Acids in Meteorites
March 31, 2010 4:35 pm

Not A Carbon Cow (11:05:25) :
Anthony, you should be commended for your ability to stay professional in the face of comments such as: “Exclusive: New NSIDC director Serreze explains the “death spiral” of Arctic ice, brushes off the “breathtaking ignorance” of blogs like WattsUpWithThat”.
I agree with you Not Cow.

Gina Becker
March 31, 2010 4:40 pm

They’ll define a new variable to keep milking that 2007 low. 4th year ice lowest ever!!

wayne
March 31, 2010 4:47 pm

Break the back of that rotten misbehaving ice!
[…] while the U.S. plans its next generation of icebreakers […]
[…] long-term plan for the acquisition of new multipurpose heavy icebreakers made in Canada and capable of operating year-round […]
http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/Refurbishment+icebreaker+should+propel+Canada+action+senator/2674670/story.html

So when the broken chunks of ice are blown out of the channels, what’s really to blame?

Steve Goddard
March 31, 2010 4:47 pm

DirkH (16:14:51) :
Romm is now censoring my posts, but I got a few through while he wasn’t paying attention.
The last thing these guys want is an honest discussion.

Arn Riewe
March 31, 2010 4:48 pm

Mann O Mann (16:08:20) :
“Here is the bad news that will be plucked from hitting “normal”.
It is a Young Ice Anomaly and the young ice that is there is ill mannered, being that it is young.”
And Rotten!

Amino Acids in Meteorites
March 31, 2010 4:52 pm

M White (11:52:46) :
Thanks for the link to the Joe Bastardi video where he talks about this same story.
“….let’s look at the actual data….”
~~Joe Bastardi
Here’s the link to the video for those who didn’t see it:
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
http://www.accuweather.com/video/74661048001/from-siberia-with-love-(the-reason-for-the-spike-in-ice).asp?channel=vblog_bastardi
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
🙂

Arn Riewe
March 31, 2010 4:55 pm

BTW, I noticed Al Gore’s website under the Google paid ad. Everbody click on that ad to get a few cents of revenue for Anthony. If enough of us do that, then the AGW crowd can claim that Anthony is nothing but a shill for “Big Al”

Urederra
March 31, 2010 5:04 pm

I refuse to call Lovelock’s fairy tale a theory.
It is based on wishes rather than on actual facts. Earth by itself doesn’t behave as a single organism. Last time I checked it doesn’t grow (It doesn’t actively incorporate matter from the outside), it doesn’t relate with other planets and it doesn’t reproduce. So out of the 3 necessary conditions to call it a living organism it fulfills 0.
It doesn’t have anything that resembles homeostasis either. CO2 concentrations, for example, were much higher during the beginning of the carboniferous era. Also O2 concentrations were higher.
And by the way, when we burn fossil fuels we are actually helping the Earth to complete the carbon cycle by recovering the carbon lost for the cycle of life as fossil fuels and coal. Live on Earth during carboniferous era was more abundant that nowadays. I don’t see the homeostasis Lovelock was talking about.

rbateman
March 31, 2010 5:08 pm

What happened to science?
Ecophobic Doomsday climate warming hysteria is not science.

Anu
March 31, 2010 5:10 pm

Robert Wykoff (12:20:30) :
I will bet eleventy billion dollars that JAXA has some “malfunction”, and does not report anything for the next week. You will see the March 30th numbers until April 7th. (unless there is a sudden mass melt off)

I’ll take that bet.
Eleventy billion.
I’ll give you 30 days to transfer the money.

DP111
March 31, 2010 5:11 pm

DRE (16:34:01) :wrote: Why is it that in a battle between actual measured data and model results, the modeling results always win?
Because modelling justifies grant applications for super-computers, which are much more fun to play with then a thermometer and an ancient desktop PC. Also makes the administrators happy with the 40% slice they get of all grants.

Steve Goddard
March 31, 2010 5:16 pm

Latest from Catlin
Explorer Team
Wed 31 Mar, 00:00GMT
Thick and old
We’ve made good progress northwards over the past few days, so I’m happy to report that morale is excellent. 
We travelled across very old and thick ice for the majority of the day

Amino Acids in Meteorites
March 31, 2010 5:24 pm

Steve Goddard (15:09:35) :
OT – Romm is now declaring that weather is climate after all.
http://climateprogress.org/2010/03/31/northeast-hit-by-record-global-warming-type-deluge-rainfall-flooding/

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
He must have missed those record snow storms in Washington D.C.

Steve Goddard
March 31, 2010 5:25 pm

Here is a good explanation of how the death spiral works:
http://www.lyrics007.com/The%20Beatles%20Lyrics/Helter%20Skelter%20Lyrics.html

When I get to the bottom
I go back to the top of the slide
Where I stop and turn
and I go for a ride
Till I get to the bottom and I see you again
Yeah, yeah, yeah
Helter Skelter
She’s coming down fast
Yes she is
Yes she is
coming down fast

charles Wilson
March 31, 2010 5:27 pm

BUT — I expect a POSSIBLE Apocalypse:
El Nino = 1.8, strongest since 1998 … (2007’s was only a 1.1 and the previous year had a Minimum of just under 85 % cover, dropping to 61%, Much more than the 1998 drop, because once you start exposing the actual Arctic Ocean it quadruples the Sun absorption, so if a 1.1 would give an 11%, the part under 80% must have TRIPLED, ie, 5 + 18 ( from 6, times 3) = 23% — 2009 was 76%
so as it is ALL in the “bonus” I presume 18 x 3 = 54% drop, leaving 22% — but the last 25% is REALLY thick — like: miles thick. This leads to the central areas melting off to the point of HEATING UP ENOUGH TO STOP THE OCEAN CURRENTS.
… Now if CURRENTS get their energy from moving Heat from the Tropics — they ought to REVERSE, because the 24-hour Daylight near the Pole will deliver 550 watt/sq. meter (for 3 months) vs. the Tropical 400-420 (got that from Solar Cell Performance Websites). Total Yearly is only 45% of the Tropics & cut by albedo to 15% as it is white & reflective, but IF it were to melt off, the 3 best months have MORE sunlight per 24 hours, than the Tropics get.
= Ocean Current Shutdown.
= 300 mph winds starting about a month after the ice reforms (Xmas ?).
= You & I all die.
Please note that this could be stopped for 6 cents per American as Most major Scientists (Lovelock, Crutzen, and Obama’s Science Advisor) have BEGGED) and then there is the $1 per American, Seawater spray idea of the
Purist Copenhagen Consensus ( 6 cents is for pushing some Sulphur up high — about 1/150th of 15 million tons/year the USA has cut Sulphur but some people get wacky about ANY. Whereas Seawater just falls back in the Sea — its temperature reduction is from making Cloud cover more reflective).
I strongly urge we do this, as it is MUCH cheaper than dieing.
Honesty requires me to give ONLY a 25% chance of MASS DEATH as Everything has to go just right — but it is, so far — AND, even if it melts off the center area, we Know these WINDS happened at the End of the Younger Dryas BUT the Ocean currents are not identical to then
— if they stop PARTIALLY, it’s a non-event.
A melt off over 2 years would allow currents to adjust = non-event.
… The pH of the Ice Core record however (see the book Climate Crash) showed not even a month’s warning: in 22-day periods put on an audible signal: ” wee, wee, wee, BOING!, WEEP!, WOP! ”
Be Scared.
Be very Scared.
PS: “Phil” on another comment set here, pointed out that 2007 had a brief outflow of Ice through the normally blocked Nares Strait and opined that the actual placement of WHERE the extra ice NOW is …. indicates the Pack is EMPTYing out even WORSE than pre-2007.
The ICESAT died or we could confirm his suggestion the that we actually have LESS ICE — that is: Thickness is dropping faster than extent rising — in fact, BECAUSE of the outflow. Traditionally El Ninos cause More of the Pacific-to-Atlantic Flows — such as we are seeing now.
PSS: as Nasa/Shindell said 76% of Arctic Warming is from Cap & Trade (Euro-Diesel Soot, extra China Soot from Transplanted Industries, & Sulphur Cap & Trade) — the Left Wing may NOT acknowledge there is a Problem because
— it’s THEIR Fault. And 76% of the time No One dies.
I think Inaction = 6 Billion Deaths x 25% = 1.5 Billion Murders.
Fix it.

tom
March 31, 2010 5:34 pm

Wait, this is the warmest winter on record and yet the Arctic Ice is coming back? So apparently it really doesn’t matter for the ice cover whether it’s -25°C or -24°C. Great news for the Polar Bears, not so great news for Al Gore.

Steve Goddard
March 31, 2010 5:38 pm

charles Wilson (17:27:08) :
I expect to see more than 6 billion deaths over the next 100 years. The total number of human deaths per year has increased tremendously since before the start of the industrial revolution.
The most dangerous greenhouse gas is dihydrogen oxide, which sometimes makes up 4% of the atmosphere in a particular location. Call up your Congressperson and demand that dihydrogen oxide be banned to save the planet.

Pamela Gray
March 31, 2010 5:53 pm

Flip Floppy???? [snip] Do they refer to their bed clothes as “jammies”?!!?!?!?

March 31, 2010 5:56 pm

Dave Wendt (15:04:16) :

Could you provide for me a link to some kind of data that suggests that this increased absorption of solar energy is actually occurring? It would be most helpful in allowing me to understand what all the excitement is about.

Could not agree more. I think the angle of incidence makes reflection a moot point as water reflects so much at that angle (think glare off the sea at sunrise/set). I have also noted that some theories that a lack of ice will allow the water, which is perforce warmer than the ice, to radiate more heat. In effect the ice acts as an insulator, like in a lake where it often protects life therein. In this case, losing the ice will have an immediate negative feedback, and all will return to ‘normal’.
Having said that, neither theory is proven, and each is as valid as the other. One seems to get a lot more airtime, however. Strange, that…

Pamela Gray
March 31, 2010 5:57 pm

I”ve been snipped!!!! For the very first time I’ve been snipped! Where do I get my certificate for having a potty mouth?

Gary
March 31, 2010 5:59 pm

World renown climatologist Joe Romm has given us the new definition of climate change
[JR: Yes, dry areas will tend to get drier — and wherever and whenever droughts occur they will tend to be hotter and longer. At the same time, wet areas are likely to get wetter. That is why they call it climate change.]
So I guess the ice is still increasing because cold areas are likely to get colder. I am still unsure what happens to temperate areas. Do they become more temperate?

March 31, 2010 6:04 pm

Steve Oregon (13:09:04) :
Here’s a humorous explanation.
http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/arctic-sea-ice-0330
JimP1 wrote:
“Ice is breaking-up and spreading out, not growing
What they measure is 15% ice coverage and therefore doesn’t account for ice spreading out. If you look at cryosphere today and play their movies you will see ice that is moving very fast out of the arctic. This is also confirmed by Catlin Arctic survey”

A pretty accurate one too.
As CT shows ice area has continued to fall since the max on March 7th, since then the strong outflow through the Fram and around Svalbard, currently up to ~20km/day, is what’s causing the increase in extent.
Trouble is most of that ice is from the big white blob in the central Arctic shown in this fig, so less MY ice.
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/figures/seaice2009fig3.jpg
I wouldn’t be too sanguine about the chances of a continued ‘recovery’ this summer.

Benjamin P.
March 31, 2010 6:07 pm

area vs volume?

Layne Blanchard
March 31, 2010 6:22 pm

Catlin: After careful study, the ice is “rotten” …”flippy floppy” … and “naughty natty”. Wire another 4B, and we’ll transmit a photograph….sorry, unable to continue…. -75f windchill…

Pamela Gray
March 31, 2010 6:39 pm

Wishy washy. Tiddly Winky. Gooshy Wooshy. The new vocab for highly experienced scientists is way cool! Totally posty modernishy sciency!

Dave F
March 31, 2010 6:47 pm

This is the same rotten ice, prone to melting, that is sticking around longer than the older, thicker, multi-year ice that is not as prone to melting?

pat
March 31, 2010 6:51 pm

The loss of sea ice in 2007 was indeed precipitous. But the recovery in 2008 was equally steep.

March 31, 2010 7:08 pm

I don’t get where they say this is “young ice”.
Go here where you can see the yearly maximum’s since 1978.
http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/total-icearea-from-1978-2007
Let’s pick 1982 which had a high maximum compared to the past decade, and look at a comparison of March 31 – 1982 vs. today 2010 on Cryosphere Today shows ice concentrations by color density(maroon).
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=03&fd=31&fy=1982&sm=03&sd=31&sy=2010
It is obvious that the ice concentration of today’s March 31st is more concentrated than ANY prior year. Plus in September 12th for any year and you can see what low concentrations look like. How can this be called rotten, young, 1st year ice?? Unless I am reading this wrong, we might be heading for a record high minimum!!!
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=03&fd=31&fy=1982&sm=03&sd=31&sy=2010

Alexej Buergin
March 31, 2010 7:17 pm

” Phil. (18:04:26) :
As CT shows ice area has continued to fall since the max on March 7th, since then the strong outflow through the Fram and around Svalbard, currently up to ~20km/day, is what’s causing the increase in extent.”
You would hate, HATE what Nansen shows. Do not, I repeat, do NOT look at their curve of ice area:
http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/ice-area-and-extent-in-arctic

E Flesch
March 31, 2010 7:20 pm

Phil. (18:04:26) : “since then the strong outflow through the Fram and around Svalbard, currently up to ~20km/day, is what’s causing the increase in extent.”
You mean that is just happening this year, and not in previous years? My BS meter is ticking…

DeWitt Payne
March 31, 2010 7:26 pm

Re: Phil. (Mar 31 18:04),
I noticed that NP-37 has hardly moved at all this winter so there hasn’t been much movement from the Pacific to the Atlantic side, certainly not like last year.

Francisco
March 31, 2010 7:41 pm

RockyRoad (15:34:10) :
Lovelock’s Uncertainty Principle?
“utterly uncertain” – “mankind was not aware it had “pulled the trigger””
Ok… Now let me get this straight. Here’s a guy who is “utterly uncertain”… meaning completly clueless and demonstrably demented, and he’s convinced mankind has “pulled the trigger”? The trigger to what? Add when and where was this “trigger” pulled?
============
What he is saying, I think, is that the Earth has pulled the trigger on global warming. A few years ago he was saying that global warming will cause the death of Billions of us, except for a lucky few that might take refuge in the Arctic. But more recently he said that in fact the Earth has decided to go into an ice age, and that AGW has been fortunately been delaying this – or something to that effect. In short, AGW has gone from being our worst enemy to being our only hope, or something like that. But maybe now he is saying something else. Of course, the man is totally demented, goes without saying.

barry
March 31, 2010 7:59 pm

Any press that picks up this story in a climatic sense will be confusing weather anomalies with climate trends – again.
But if they fail to report near-normal sea ice extent just as they failed to report the near-record minimum for the month of January 2010, they will at least be consistent. I think neither anomaly deserves much attention.

JT
March 31, 2010 7:59 pm

The link below compares sea ice from 3-30-1980 to today. Look closely at the sea ice concentrations near Sweden, Siberia and Nothern Canada. Look at the Gulf of Bothnia, between Sweden and Finland. Look at the White Sea near Murmansk. Look at the Obskaya Gulf in nothern Siberia.
And lastly, look at the ice in and around the northwest passage above Canada.
The the ice edges in 1980 were sort of fat and ill defined compared to the images from today which look crisp and thin.
So, does that mean that in 1980, the ice coverage was overestimated do to less resolution? Its my understanding that they count pixels to estimate sq km of coverage. So it stands to reason that fat, ill defined areas are going to add up to more coverage. (only looking at pink areas, not white)
Also, examine the extents. They look further today than in 1980.
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=03&fd=30&fy=1980&sm=03&sd=30&sy=2010

March 31, 2010 8:11 pm

Re: Phil. (Mar 31 18:04),
I noticed that NP-37 has hardly moved at all this winter so there hasn’t been much movement from the Pacific to the Atlantic side, certainly not like last year.

Yeah this year they parked it in the gyre so it’s slowly drifting around in the center of the eddy. They should be able to stay there for quite a while as long as a polynya doesn’t open up under them. 😉
There’s plenty of those around this year.
http://www.weatheroffice.gc.ca/data/satellite/hrpt_dfo_ir_100.jpg

Steve Goddard
March 31, 2010 8:13 pm

Phil.
We are only a few months away from easing your mind about the Arctic.

March 31, 2010 8:17 pm

JT (19:59:47) :
The the ice edges in 1980 were sort of fat and ill defined compared to the images from today which look crisp and thin.
So, does that mean that in 1980, the ice coverage was overestimated do to less resolution? Its my understanding that they count pixels to estimate sq km of coverage. So it stands to reason that fat, ill defined areas are going to add up to more coverage. (only looking at pink areas, not white)

Different satellites, higher resolution these days, also you can’t rely on the colors on the comparator, recent images show more uniform purple (but not on the front page).

March 31, 2010 8:28 pm

E Flesch (19:20:05) :
Phil. (18:04:26) : “since then the strong outflow through the Fram and around Svalbard, currently up to ~20km/day, is what’s causing the increase in extent.”
You mean that is just happening this year, and not in previous years? My BS meter is ticking…

It varies from year to year in strength and direction, this last few weeks it’s been pushing strongly around Svalbard hence the increased extent over the last few days.

E Flesch
March 31, 2010 9:04 pm

Phil. (20:28:05) : “…this last few weeks it’s been pushing strongly around Svalbard hence the increased extent over the last few days.”
Or it’s gotten cold there. If you check the Svalbard daily news, http://www.icepeople.net, you’ll see they are having a real cold snap. The article leads:
“Minus 23°C? Bah! Temperatures consider brutal in most of the world are actually a secondary consideration when determining if it’s a crummy day in Svalbard. But at some point they have to, um, drop to the forefront.”

March 31, 2010 9:22 pm

E Flesch (21:04:13) :
Phil. (20:28:05) : “…this last few weeks it’s been pushing strongly around Svalbard hence the increased extent over the last few days.”
Or it’s gotten cold there. If you check the Svalbard daily news, http://www.icepeople.net, you’ll see they are having a real cold snap. The article leads:

Take a look it’s not new ice it’s fragmented older ice:
http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/realtime/single.php?2010090/crefl1_143.A2010090135000-2010090135500.500m.jpg

Richard Sharpe
March 31, 2010 9:25 pm

E Flesch (21:04:13) said:

Phil. (20:28:05) : “…this last few weeks it’s been pushing strongly around Svalbard hence the increased extent over the last few days.”
Or it’s gotten cold there. If you check the Svalbard daily news, http://www.icepeople.net, you’ll see they are having a real cold snap. The article leads:
“Minus 23°C? Bah! Temperatures consider brutal in most of the world are actually a secondary consideration when determining if it’s a crummy day in Svalbard. But at some point they have to, um, drop to the forefront.”

Oh no, I am sure you are wrong. If Phil. says that Arctic Ice will be gone in five years, then you can believe it. If Phil. says that this year will be like 2007, then you can believe it. Just wait until September. You will see.

pft
March 31, 2010 9:28 pm

The sea ice extent at a given point in time is meaningless. It is the time averaged integration of the course of the year thats important in comparing it with normal. From the data, it’s still well below “normal”. But is that 30 year average “normal”. I doubt it, we have no idea what normal is, or how much sea ice extent there was before satellites. Anecdotal evidence suggests the 1930’s may have been more ice free than today, not to mention the MWP.

savethesharks
March 31, 2010 9:41 pm

R. Gates (13:50:54)
“I find it funny that AGW skeptics get all excited from a few weeks of upswing in the arctic sea ice, while all the while they’ll ignore nearly a decade of downswing…very revealing.”
================
Jimbo (15:43:23) :
“According to AGW climate scientists climate is 30 years +. In 2007 we had record loss of Arctic ice, caused mostly by wind and currents (since satellite data – 1979) and warmists were “excited” about the loss and it was trumpeted around the globe as a sign of global warming – ‘worse than we thought.'”
“Have you ever thought that the “downswing” might be part of natural variability which we have had since climate change began billions of years ago?”
=======================
No, Jimbo, ’cause folks like Wren Gates…..um….sorry about that…..R. Gates…already have their minds made up.
So any “downswing” must be “anthropogenic” in origin….even though “downswings” and “upswings” have been occurring quite often, for the past few billion years before homo sapiens have been on the scene.
So a decade is really a drop in a lake, no doubt….if that.
Hey his posts make for fun fodder, I will admit that.
Weak arguments though….are like….they are like…what my favorite species calls…..INJURED PREY.
Like a thrashing fish and there is blood in the water.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA

nofreewind
March 31, 2010 9:43 pm

What does the sunny days and low temperatures(very low) in Svalbard prove? It proves that arctic ice melt, and glacier melt, has more to do with the amount of sunlight than the temperature of the air, just like the European glacier studies correlated a few months ago.
http://www.physorg.com/news180024364.html
and…the article states that a period of less sunshine correlated with the glacier snouts growing.

Coalsoffire
March 31, 2010 9:52 pm

For those of us who are colour challenged it’s a great relief to see the current line on the sea ice extent graph breaking into territory of its own. Talk about “hide the decline”. Scrambling all those coloured lines together is sure a neat trick on those of us who see every line as the same colour as at least two or three other lines. I’m sure I’m even happier about this icy increase than the polar bears are.

AndyW
March 31, 2010 9:55 pm

But this time last year Steven Goddard was getting all excited about it approaching the normal as well, go back and look at the posts! What happened after that, it sunk again to well below.
Up to about 1 month ago it was looking pretty low compared to recent years and nothing was mentioned, now you’re all over it like flies on dung 🙂
No doubt nothing will be heard when it drops again ….
Andy

jose
March 31, 2010 10:06 pm

Steve Goddard: “But geologic history shows us unequivocally that climate is cyclical and dominated by negative feedbacks.”
Hmm. Enlighten me: what sort of negative feedbacks are causing the Arctic sea ice to rebound to near-normal? Maybe its just weather, as you like to point out. What about the more frightening trend in ice thickness? Here’s two recent papers, no paywall:
Lindsay 2009
Kwok 2009

Anu
March 31, 2010 10:25 pm

pat (18:51:03) :
The loss of sea ice in 2007 was indeed precipitous. But the recovery in 2008 was equally steep.

————–
Yeah, that was a huge jump in summer ice extent from 2007 to 2008:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seasonal.extent.1900-2008.jpg
(that last little green uptick).
Of course, there is a big difference between “extent” and actual “area”:
http://images.buycostumes.com/mgen/merchandiser/32138.jpg
It’s when the sea ice area is down to 0 sq km that the Arctic summer ice is gone. Even 600,000 sq km of sea ice area could yield an “extent” of 4 million sq km if the floes are spaced out just right. And if the winds are wrong, that 4 million sq km “extent” could collapse into 2 million sq km of more tightly packed ice.
So, how is the Arctic sea ice area doing ?
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.recent.arctic.png
Summer minimums have been way below the 1979-2008 mean. Let’s see what summer 2010 brings…

barry
March 31, 2010 10:48 pm

Anecdotal evidence suggests the 1930’s may have been more ice free than today, not to mention the MWP.
It also suggests that submarines surfaced in polynyas that appear in the North Pole. As for the MWP, who knows?

barry
March 31, 2010 10:53 pm

But geologic history shows us unequivocally that climate is cyclical and dominated by negative feedbacks.
Negative feedbacks bring stability. How do we get ice ages/interlgacials if negative feedbacks dominate?
(Unless you think the opposite to a negative feedback is a runaway effect?)

Steve Goddard
March 31, 2010 10:54 pm

jose (22:06:59) :
Open water at the poles means more heat loss to the atmosphere – i.e. cooling. That is a negative feedback.

Steve Goddard
March 31, 2010 10:58 pm

AndyW (21:55:18) :
If you remember correctly, the summer 2009 minimum was about 15% higher than summer 2008 and 30% higher than summer 2007. Those are rather impressive gains, and will continue this summer.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php

barry
March 31, 2010 10:59 pm

According to AGW climate scientists climate is 30 years +. In 2007 we had record loss of Arctic ice, caused mostly by wind and currents (since satellite data – 1979) and warmists were “excited” about the loss and it was trumpeted around the globe as a sign of global warming – ‘worse than we thought’.
I understood that an increasing trend was behind that concern not from a single year. Do you have a cite from reputable (or disreputable) climate scientists?

Steve Goddard
March 31, 2010 11:00 pm

Anu (22:25:14) :
You asked “So, how is the Arctic sea ice area doing ?”
It is nearly one standard deviation above the mean – i.e. close to unusually high.
http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/observation_images/ssmi1_ice_area.png

Steve Goddard
March 31, 2010 11:08 pm

All you non-skeptics should read this post from last April.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/15/why-third-year-arctic-ice-will-increase-next-year/

Steve Goddard
March 31, 2010 11:16 pm

The UK experts say that snowfall is a thing of the past.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00703/Penicuick_585x350_703520a.jpg
At least after Easter.

An Inquirer
March 31, 2010 11:22 pm

Sorry, Anu, I am willing to accept current information from Cryosphere as useful data. However, anyone who uses that 1900-2008 chart loses credibility in my eyes. That chart contains arbitrary and capricious decisions on pre-satellite data — producing levels that are contrary to recorded observations. Its documentation even warns about its reliability.

Amino Acids in Meteorites
March 31, 2010 11:25 pm

At JAXA 2010 has just collided with 2003.
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm

Amino Acids in Meteorites
March 31, 2010 11:31 pm

Benjamin P. (18:07:19) :
area vs volume?
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Volume you say? We can Spinal Tap it past 10 it up to 11: i.e., 2010 has just crashed into 2003, its previous maximum at this date!

Amino Acids in Meteorites
March 31, 2010 11:33 pm

Steve Goddard (23:16:55) :
The UK experts say that snowfall is a thing of the past.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00703/Penicuick_585×350_703520a.jpg
At least after Easter.

Is that photo from today?

Steve Goddard
March 31, 2010 11:38 pm

Amino Acids in Meteorites (23:33:57) :
Yes, the snow photo is from the April 1 Times.

barry
March 31, 2010 11:50 pm

Open water at the poles means more heat loss to the atmosphere – i.e. cooling. That is a negative feedback.
Ice has a very high albedo, reflecting solar radiation. Water is darker than snow (and land albedo, on average). Decreased albedo means more warming. It becomes a numbers game between the negative/positive feedback. Which dominates…?
During deglaciation, the planet warmed – as ice sheets receded. If negative feedbacks dominated in polar regions receiving increased insolation, why didn’t the ice sheet increase?
As insolation changes are very small, and if ice decrease provides negative feedback to temps, that suggests an even greater contribution from other forcings, like greenhouse gases.
I know what a negative feedback is, and that they exist in the biosphere, but you said they ‘dominate’. If they do, as in the example you gave, ice ages shouldn’t happen.

Frederick Michael
March 31, 2010 11:50 pm

With the sea ice deficit mainly in the Canadian Maritime area and a surplus in the Bering sea, we may see the sea ice extent near, or even above, the average for quite some time. There’s a good chance that the average extent for all of April will be near the 1979-2000 value. This summer could turn into a real body-blow to the AGW preachers.
And it couldn’t happen to a nicer bunch of guys, I say.
But, I also expect the NSIDC to play this pretty straight. They’ve always shown the highest standards of professionalism — even doing guest posts here. If your poll ends up with over 90% way off the mark, some kind of acknowledgment of that might be good.

barry
March 31, 2010 11:53 pm

The UK experts say that snowfall is a thing of the past.
That’s not what they said. That’s a press headline.
(The link is broken)

March 31, 2010 11:55 pm

70’s it the highest point. Why everything went down so quickly? We do need to think about it.

March 31, 2010 11:57 pm

What we can do? Are there any body can tell people and government what we should do and can do?

barry
April 1, 2010 12:25 am

I blundered here…
“During deglaciation, the planet warmed – as ice sheets receded. If negative feedbacks dominated in polar regions receiving increased insolation, why didn’t the ice sheet increase?”
Should be – “why did the ice sheets decrease so drastically?”

John M
April 1, 2010 12:50 am

Oops. Seems your peripheral vision isn’t too hot on the right side. You completely missed what was happening to Antarctic ice.
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/daily.html
REPLY: Actually no, we broached the subject (with the southern sea ice graph) a few days back and commented on it, check the previous posts -A

tty
April 1, 2010 1:16 am

”Phil. (18:04:26) :
As CT shows ice area has continued to fall since the max on March 7th, since then the strong outflow through the Fram and around Svalbard, currently up to ~20km/day, is what’s causing the increase in extent.”
Good try, but it cuts no ice so to speak. The increase in recent weeks has been mostly in the Barents Sea, Bering Sea and the Sea of Okhotsk.

Bob from Switzerland
April 1, 2010 3:23 am

Hide the decline !

E Flesch
April 1, 2010 3:25 am

Phil. (21:22:02) : “Take a look it’s not new ice it’s fragmented older ice:
http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/realtime/single.php?2010090/crefl1_143.A2010090135000-2010090135500.500m.jpg
That pic is very hard to make out. Anyway, any new ice is bound to have fragments of the old. It’s kind of you, Phil, to fend off premature celebrations of ice recovery, but you’ll agree the proof is definitely in the pudding. Onwards to the summer minimum.

LionelB
April 1, 2010 4:24 am

@ Jimbo 12:34:49
Though I much appreciated the story of a polar bear washing ashore on Mull island, I finally noticed, and wondered, that the pebbles and stones spread just in front of the bear have changed between pictures: that would imply the bear changed place, but not posture. Puzzling, if not a photoshopped April’s Fool prank …
Well, I nonetheless send the link to Countrylife to my friends (with a short comment)!
Thanks a lot !

phlogiston
April 1, 2010 4:27 am

Barry (23:50:39)
“I know what a negative feedback is, and that they exist in the biosphere, but you said they ‘dominate’. If they do, as in the example you gave, ice ages shouldn’t happen.”
In a quasi-chaotic non-linear system the effect of negative feedback (otherwise referred to as damping, friction or dissipation) is to favour emergence of complex spontaneous pattern and attractors or periodic states. Positive (global) feedback by contrast suppresses complex pattern and imposes regular periodicity. Thus the balance of negative and positive feedback is indeed critical. The log-log nature of global climatic temperature fluctuation indicates a significant chaotic component – further indicating a significant role of turbulence damping (i.e. negative feedback).
e.g.
http://pre.aps.org/abstract/PRE/v69/i1/e016202
http://pre.aps.org/abstract/PRE/v74/i1/e016612
http://pre.aps.org/abstract/PRE/v73/i5/e056303
Log-log fluctuation dynamics means frequent small changes, less frequent big changes, occasional really big changes – all generated spontaneously by the system’s internal dynamics, not necessarily needing a change in external forcing. Thus, in this context, jumping to an ice age state is completely consistent with the role of negative feedbacks (and with an appropriate mixture of negative and positive fedback).

peter pan
April 1, 2010 4:38 am

Nice for the Inuits.
But it won´t help them, they think…
http://snardfarker.ning.com/profiles/blogs/the-tilting-of-the-earth

JohnH
April 1, 2010 4:46 am

Well the Ice may be getting back to normal but Southern Scotland has set another record, it has now snowed on at least one day in 5 consectitive months. Thats looking out the window science not the looking at Windows XP software makeup science.
Dec 09, Jan Feb Mar Apr 10

kwik
April 1, 2010 4:50 am

I wonder how it felt like, being a “Climate Change Professor”, having a guy like this Lovelock fellow as ones bed-mate?
Shouldnt the BS meter start ticking?
And then, after enjoying this friendship with the Gaia Prophet for decades, he suddenly pops up again, now saying that AGW is …..a hoax?
All I can say is that me, I like it!

RR Kampen
April 1, 2010 4:53 am

Winter again, and for decennia to come the Arctic ice extent will always hit near or maybe on ‘normal’ in February because of the enclosure by (cold) landmasses.
That is one more reason to concentrate on thickness/volume, not extent. Thickness is the main decider for extent in autumn.
The media will continu to miss this fact, presumably because it is too simple to comprehend!

Steve Goddard
April 1, 2010 5:14 am

barry (23:50:39) :
If you look at a graph of Arctic ice, you will see that the Arctic Ocean is saturated with high albedo ice through the sunny months of May-July, and the ice minimum occurs during September when the sun is setting for the winter. There is little or no absorption of solar energy in the water at that time. So loss of heat dominates. i.e. a negative feedback.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/10/polar-sea-ice-changes-are-having-a-net-cooling-effect-on-the-climate/

roger
April 1, 2010 5:15 am

Positive feedback is what all the measurements of arctic ice are currently displaying.
Negative feedback is caused by a sudden outflow of trolls through the Gavin and Jorom straits.
STOP feeding the trolls. Sometimes you need to be cruel to be kind.

April 1, 2010 5:24 am

RR Kampen (04:53:42),
When you were claiming the ice cover would continue to fall drastically, Charles the Moderator offered you a wager to settle the issue:
click
You said you were 90% sure you would win the bet. You talk the talk, but you don’t walk the walk. You chickened out. No doubt Charles would have taken any wager, even $100. Or $1.00.
Your excuses farther down the thread show that you don’t really believe what you’re saying. Lots of “the ice is all melting!” alarmists are like that. They know the climate is normal, just going through its usual natural fluctuations, but pride keeps them from admitting it.
From a financial perspective, it’s a good thing you didn’t take the bet, huh?

dh7fb
April 1, 2010 5:27 am

I made a chart of the sea ice coverage in march during the years 2003-2010 from the data here: http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm .
See the chart here: http://www.dh7fb.de/marchice/image001.gif .
After calculating the linear trend I also correlated the slope of the trends vs. the Winter-NAO of JNF of the actual year. The correlation is very robust: R=-0,8.
This could mean, that the behavior of the arctic sea ice depends on the NOA of the winter before. We had a record- NAO of -5,0, so I think we could see a dramatic growing also of the arctic ice in the summer.
Greetings from DH7FB

Bob Moss
April 1, 2010 5:34 am

NSDIC’s website is experiencing “technical difficulties”.
Are they shutting down in order to hide the incline?
Their error message does have two friendly polar bears on it.
Always promoting.
The message:
We’re experiencing technical difficulties. Please *bear* with us, we’ll have things up and running again as soon as possible.
Need to talk to us? You can always contact our friendly User Services Office at nsidc@nsidc.org

Pat
April 1, 2010 5:47 am

Just an FYI, arstechnica.com banned my account for bringing up this point. The article was in reference to recent solar activity not having ANY impact on global temperature increases according to some physicists. I simply asked what temperature increase they were referring to, seeing as the planet hasn’t gotten any warmer since 1997 and I mentioned that the GISS flawed temperature records and Snow and Ice Data measurements didn’t add up at all. About 15 minutes later, my comment was ambushed, they cut me up a few times and then banned my account lol. WOOPS! This to me, lends credence to the notion that the opinions over at arstechnica are very biased in regards to their climate articles. Anyway, just wanted to share that. Peace.
http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2010/03/solar-flare-activity-doesnt-account-for-recent-warming.ars

April 1, 2010 5:48 am

E Flesch (03:25:42) :
That pic is very hard to make out. Anyway, any new ice is bound to have fragments of the old. It’s kind of you, Phil, to fend off premature celebrations of ice recovery, but you’ll agree the proof is definitely in the pudding. Onwards to the summer minimum.

Sorry but that isn’t new ice. The proof of the pudding is indeed in the eating and the usual bottleneck in May/June means that there’s unlikely to be any significant change until July.

koolzuur
April 1, 2010 5:56 am

RR Kampen (04:53:42) :
29. April 2009: Research aircraft Polar 5 finishes Arctic expedition – Unique measurement flights in the central Arctic completed
An ice-thickness sensor, the so-called EM-Bird, was put into operation under a plane for the first time ever. To conduct the measurements, Polar 5 dragged the sensor which was attached to a steel cable of eighty metres length in a height of twenty metres over the ice cover.
Multiple flights northwards from various stations showed an ice thickness between 2.5 (two years old ice in the vicinity of the North Pole) and 4 metres (perennial ice in Canadian offshore regions).
All in all, the ice was somewhat thicker than during the last years in the same regions, which leads to the conclusion that Arctic ice cover recovers temporarily.
The researchers found the thickest ice with a thickness of 15 metres along the northern coast of Ellesmere Island.
http://tinyurl.com/yeyxpq4

Steve Goddard
April 1, 2010 5:57 am

Arctic ice will decrease at a lower rate rate than the mean for at least a few more days. Note that the areas of deficiency (Newfoundland/Okhotsk) are always the first to melt – so the median line will converge on the ice front over the next few days.
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_daily_extent.png

Steve Goddard
April 1, 2010 6:07 am

From 10 years ago:

According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”. “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said.

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html
Yesterday a school bus crashed in the snow, killing one student.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article7083614.ece

Dave
April 1, 2010 6:09 am

Oh no, Anthony,
The Watts effect will probably melt the entire Arctic and most of Greenland because of this article. Couldn’t you leave well enough alone!!!!!

Steve Goddard
April 1, 2010 6:11 am

Catlin reports travelling over old, thick ice.
http://www.catlinarcticsurvey.com/blog.aspx?postId=118

John
April 1, 2010 6:18 am

NSIDC is not being updated. Off by three days now. Interesting.

Pamela Gray
April 1, 2010 6:20 am

What parameters are building that predict an above average summer ice melt? What parameters are building that predict an average summer ice melt? What parameters are building that predict a below average summer ice melt? These are the questions I would like to debate, not just that “It will be another [fill in] summer ice event”. Tell me why you think so.
Ice thickness is pretty good right now. The neutral to negative AO speaks against a fast conveyor belt. The temps are still well below freezing. These parameters are keeping the ice in place. If any one of these parameters change, would it be because of CO2 or would it be just a natural variation?

DirkH
April 1, 2010 6:24 am

“RR Kampen (04:53:42) :
Winter again, and for decennia to come the Arctic ice extent will always hit near or maybe on ‘normal’ in February because of the enclosure by (cold) landmasses.
That is one more reason to concentrate on thickness/volume, not extent. Thickness is the main decider for extent in autumn. ”
Shifting goalposts.

Yarmy
April 1, 2010 6:37 am

Gary (17:59:07) :
World renown climatologist Joe Romm has given us the new definition of climate change
[JR: Yes, dry areas will tend to get drier — and wherever and whenever droughts occur they will tend to be hotter and longer. At the same time, wet areas are likely to get wetter. That is why they call it climate change.]
So I guess the ice is still increasing because cold areas are likely to get colder. I am still unsure what happens to temperate areas. Do they become more temperate?

Everything everywhere will get worse, of course.

Craig
April 1, 2010 6:57 am

Have you noticed that when sea ice decreases it is climate change, yet when it increases, it is weather, not climate. How convenient.

Amino Acids in Meteorites
April 1, 2010 7:08 am

barry (23:50:39) :
There’s other factors than just ice at the poles and negative feedbacks. In this 5 part video series at YouTube Nir Shaviv hypothesizes about the Spiral Arms of the Milky Way having an effect on climate:

Apparently there are celestial factors in climate and not just terrestrial.

R. Gates
April 1, 2010 7:14 am

A few comments about the arctic sea ice “return” to normalcy:
1. The little “bump” upward during March is very interesting as a short-term phenomenon, and I’d like to see some data that compare this kind of behavior to year of previous extremely low AO indexes. Though it is still not at the 30 year running mean, it is almost there, and certainly may exceed it, and most of this comes from the Bering Sea and Sea of Okhotsk. This “bump” is still just that, and not as important as the longer down trend over the past decade. Pointing to this short bump as an indication of anything important is like looking at the Florida snow this winter as a sign of anything, other than an extreme negative AO index, which is a short term weather variation. Longer term trends are all thats important in AGW discussions.
2. While all the AGW skeptics are frothing at this bump upward, we’ve got a long summer melt season ahead, and the critical months of July & August are what will really tell the story of arctic sea ice, as we get the maximum daily melting going on. As I stated even before this March “bump”, I believe that we’ll see a lower summer minimum than last year, though not as low as 2007. However, I do believe we’ll see a new modern record summer low before 2015, and this current short-term “bump” will be just a curiosity of the spring of 2010– something probably related to the extreme negative AO of the winter, and something that got the AGW skeptics all excited, even though the longer term trend is still lower.

Amino Acids in Meteorites
April 1, 2010 7:18 am

barry (23:50:39) :
contribution from other forcings, like greenhouse gases.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
What kind of an effect does the greenhouse gas H2O have?
Have you seen this 2 part video series?
Part 1

Part 2

Clouds have a negative feedback.

Amino Acids in Meteorites
April 1, 2010 7:33 am

Steve Goddard (05:57:29) :
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_daily_extent.png
I can see that the area in Eastern Canada that is below the 1979–2000 median line is in an area that El Nino traditionally affects with warmth (Vancouver is also in one of the warm areas)
as seen here:
http://jrscience.wcp.muohio.edu/studentresearch/climatechange03/elnino/weather%20patterns.jpg
El Nino should be over by next winter’s (2010/11) freeze. It seems likely that that same area in Eastern Canada will have more ice next year. The trend of growth in Arctic ice should continue next year.

Amino Acids in Meteorites
April 1, 2010 7:36 am

Steve Goddard (06:07:19) :
From 10 years ago:
According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”. “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said.

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Now here’s a man that never takes his eyes off the grant money and looks out the window.

Kevin
April 1, 2010 7:40 am

The NSIDC April report will focus on the fact that last decade showed the lowest average sea-ice compared to every other decade on record.

David L
April 1, 2010 7:45 am

Compared to the last Ice Age, there’s hardly any ice left!

Wondering Aloud
April 1, 2010 7:47 am

R Gates
I can’t argue much here but I would like to point out that given the length of the record a new record by 2015 is very likely. In fact random chance would suggest that the likelihood is on the order of 60% wouldn’t it? This is assuming there is no actual trend at all. There is no such thing as a “long term trend” here. There is no long term data with consistent method to work from.

Richard Sharpe
April 1, 2010 8:08 am

I wonder what Arctic Extent will look like for April 1? Yesterday it was: 14,407,344 km2.

Mike M
April 1, 2010 8:10 am

GORE NOW WITH SEAL BLOOD ON HIS HANDS! I so ashamed that I listened to him and traded in my Hummer for a Prius.

Steve Goddard
April 1, 2010 8:12 am

R. Gates (07:14:52) :
The “little bump upwards” you refer to for March was about a million km2 – about the size of Texas and California combined.
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png

April 1, 2010 8:12 am

Today’s graph is oh so close to the “Normal” line. With any luck we will hit it by Good Friday (That would be a good Friday).

April 1, 2010 8:16 am

R. Gates (07:14:52) :
What are you talking about? There is no long downward trend. There is in fact a short (3 year) upward trend. Maybe you are confusing things. I think the message from this bump is that El Nino has artificialy depressed this years maximum sea ice extent. As El Nino is fading, the ice is now rebounding some what, even though this is traditionaly the begining of melt season.

Steve Goddard
April 1, 2010 8:17 am

Amino Acids in Meteorites (07:36:03)
During the late 1990s, winters were very warm in the UK. This led a lot of people to believe Hansen’s claims that CO2 increases were leading to linear/exponential warming. Myself included. I was a global warming believer until about four years ago, when I started looking at the facts for myself.

Chance N
April 1, 2010 8:29 am

Looks like there is zero possibility of sea ice not reaching the cherry picked 79-00 average now. How is THAT for an April Fool’s Day joke on the AGWers? And I will futilely wait for the MSM to report on this tomorrow.

Mark
April 1, 2010 8:35 am

“New Ice Age has started as predicted in the 1970’s”… Could be the headline they all go for.
So cold, will summer ever return to the UK?

jose
April 1, 2010 8:40 am

Steve Goddard: “Open water at the poles means more heat loss to the atmosphere – i.e. cooling. That is a negative feedback.”
What is cooling? The ocean? Doesn’t this mean that the atmosphere receiving the heat is warming? Doesn’t that mean warmer air temperatures and even less sea ice? That’s a positive feedback.
It is only since February that the ice extent has started to return to normal. This has nothing to do with feedbacks (which in your flawed example would only work during the ice formation period anyways), and everything to do with the weather conditions of this winter. I would submit that the strong AO has everything to do with the current ice extent.
Check out this line from Rigor et al, 2001: “Here it is shown that the memory of the wintertime AO persists through most of the subsequent year: spring and autumn SAT and summertime sea-ice concentration are all strongly correlated with the AO-index for the previous winter.”

April 1, 2010 8:43 am

Amino Acids in Meteorites (07:36:03) :
Steve Goddard (06:07:19) :
From 10 years ago:
According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”. “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Now here’s a man that never takes his eyes off the grant money and looks out the window.

In fairness to Viner Steve did omit the second part of the quote: “Heavy snow will return occasionally, says Dr Viner, but when it does we will be unprepared. “We’re really going to get caught out. Snow will probably cause chaos in 20 years time,” he said.
Seems rather accurate to me (just a little earlier than he thought).

E M Duck
April 1, 2010 9:05 am

Me too: “Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts.” The sky is falling, the sky is falling says Duck Little. If everyone had half a brain they would see that there is no such thing as a warming trend that humans are responsible for, itis merely a means of “World Wealth Redistribution”, PLAIN AND SIMPLE. Wake up Simpletons of Earth!

Doug Proctor
April 1, 2010 9:11 am

Question: how is the warmest February on record, so-said because of extreme conditions in the Arctic, co-incident with a significant increase in new ice? I think this is known as a “rhetorical question”, as I would answer that the Arctic temperatures are artifacts of corrections and averaging. Still, does this “divergence” of situations have a warmist explanation? Perhaps Al Gore was visiting, and The Effect is responsible. So many mysteries.

Mike M
April 1, 2010 9:14 am

R. Gates (13:50:54) :
I find it funny that AGW skeptics get all excited from a few weeks of upswing in the arctic sea ice, while all the while they’ll ignore nearly a decade of downswing…very revealing.

It’s not unusual at all, just predictable human behavior. It’s like people watching a marathon, the biggest cheers happen at the finish line.
Agreed that the 30 year mean is just a ‘line in the sand’ but then finish lines in any race are arbitary aren’t they?
How much do you want to stretch your finish line? Another ten years? Careful, don’t forget that that will then push the mean curve downward a little by including the last 3 years that are currently not represented in http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/observation_images/ssmi1_ice_ext.png
(And also don’t forget that ‘stretching the finish line’ is becoming a predictable asylum for CAGW believers: “Yeah, well just wait another 100 years and we better enact cap and trade just to be safe in the meantime.” )

Frederick Michael
April 1, 2010 9:15 am

OK, the first report of the sea ice turning downward is here:
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php
It had to happen some time but it sure has been a great run.
However, tomorrow’s NSIDC plot may make folks suspicious. Their smoothing algorithm often makes retroactive changes to the graph. If, tomorrow, this graph:
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png
looks like they “revised away” today’s peak, don’t have a cow. This is normal for their smoothing algorithm. They use more smoothing than other sources; that’s why their graph is less jagged. It’s perfectly valid and it would be unfortunate if the newer ice watchers here started howling about some kind of cover-up.

Steve Goddard
April 1, 2010 9:22 am

jose (08:40:35) :
The heat capacity of the oceans is vastly greater than the air. Air temperatures in the desert can rise 70 degrees in a matter of hours.

Steve Goddard
April 1, 2010 9:23 am

Phil. (08:43:38) :
The 2009-2010 UK winter has not been defined by a “heavy snowfall.” It has been defined by persistent cold and snow over a five month period. 2008 also saw the first October snowfall in decades.

April 1, 2010 9:24 am

How about the Albedo effect?
All of Eastern Europe was under snow and fully reflective until just a couple of weeks ago, and I daresay much of Russia was much the same (and eastern Canada?)
In terms of Europe, this was a very late season, and all that snow must have considerably reduced the amount of incoming energy that was supposed to warm the land for the spring season. Less warmth in the N Hemisphere equals more ice up north.

Phil Jourdan
April 1, 2010 9:58 am

Re: Tina (23:55:30) :
We do not know that the 70s were the apex. We do not have data before that. Perhaps the 70s are an anomoly? That would tend to support the old salts of the Nuclear navy that have anecdotal stories (from the 50s and 60s) of Polar ice being gone in the summer (at least around what is acknowledged to be the North Pole).

jose
April 1, 2010 10:01 am

Steve:
Who’s talking about deserts? The historical trend towards decreasing summer sea ice extents will release huge amounts of energy to the Arctic atmosphere. As the heat leaves the ocean, it warms the air. Warmer air = less sea ice. This is a positive feedback. Please try and tell me again how its negative.

Steve Goddard
April 1, 2010 10:05 am

jose (10:01:34) :
Arctic ice melt has little to do with air temperatures. It is melted by sunshine, wind and water.
Note that summer temperatures north of 80N show almost no year over year variation.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php

Ibrahim
April 1, 2010 10:15 am

I’ll post it again: it’s not unusual just like 2007 wasn’t:
See Chapter XIII (page 444): seasonal and longterm fluctuations of ice.
http://www.archive.org/stream/arcticice00zubo#page/n0/mode/2up
There are more interesting (old) books on climate on http://www.archive.org.

Frank
April 1, 2010 10:18 am

Arctic sea ice will reach normal when coverage is above the mean about half of the time and usually within two standard deviations of the mean. Don’t join the CAGWers by exaggerating the importance of trivial changes. Do give them hell for unreasonable predictions based on 2007.

Gail Combs
April 1, 2010 10:20 am

ocksblog (14:08:57) :
“…What matters in these huge world-encompassing systems is the overall grand trend – which is heading warm-wards….”
Reply:
The geologic record shows “the overall grand trend” is COLD and ICE with “minor” 1,500-year warm blips. These graphs puts the current political idiocy into perspective: http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/Images/ice-HS/noaa_gisp2_icecore_anim_adj.gif
The interesting part of this discussion is not that the ice amount is “trending” back to “normal” but that the curve has shifted so the