Arctic Sea Ice Extent Update: still growing

The April 1st National Snow and Ice Data Center Arctic Sea Ice Extent plot continues its unusual upwards trend and is almost intersecting the “normal” line. Given the slope of the current trend it seems highly likely it will intersect the normal line with the April 2nd plot.

click for a larger image

Other sea ice metrics such as JAXA, using a  different satellite platform (AQUA) and the AMSR-E  sensor agree.

It is an odd sort of a divergence, this growth of Arctic Sea ice well past the normal start of “melt”.

As first mentioned in a WUWT story two days ago, Dr. Walt Meier of NSIDC says:

It’s a good question about the last time we’ve been above average. It was May 2001.”

It may be winds pushing ice further southwards in the Bering Sea, it may be fresh ice. It may be a combination. While this event isn’t by itself an about-face of the longer downward trend we’ve seen, it does seem to suggest that predictions assuming a linear (or even spiral) demise aren’t holding up.

We live in interesting times.

271 thoughts on “Arctic Sea Ice Extent Update: still growing

  1. Don’t you understand, the ice is cracking and expanding. It’s thin! Sea Ice Extent isn’t a valid measurement unless you take thickness into account.

    /sarcasm

  2. Last year, NSIDC had their ice age map in the April 6 newsletter. Hopefully they will do the same again this year, so we can see how multi-year ice has grown.

  3. I’ve been watching the graphs for weeks now waitng for the inevitable downturn. When the chart first hit 14 million km, I thought, wow, that is a solid season. Time to begin to go lower. Then……it just held there…..then it went up! The minimum this September (August ?) should be ver interesting to track.

  4. Looks like Arctic-roos is completely overloaded (perhaps from the Watts Effect) of is undergoing a DDOS.

  5. The line isnt going down like it should. This is evidence of a coming ice age. All countries of the world must get together immediately to deal with this line not going down problem. We need to increase our CO2 production before its too late! Think of the poor tropical animals standing on their little island of palm trees amid incoming icebergs!

    /sarc

  6. I mentioned on another thread, that the Cryosphere Today comparison tool is very striking as to how compact it shows the ice right now compared to the same day of the year for every year since 1980.

    I’m beginning to think Goddard is a conservative (tho obviously deserves credit for sticking his neck out well before spring max was reached). I’m now hanging my hat on 6.0-6.2M km2 for summer minimum.

  7. This is most interesting to watch as spring and summer progress. This is still more of a short-term fluctuation (unless it continues over the next several years), but if we do get a positive anomaly, it will be the first since 2004, and that would be of interest.

    We won’t really know much about the summer minimum ahead until the sea ice passes through what I call the ‘straits of June”. If you look at the historic charts, all the years averages tend to narrow together in mid-June, with much less variability during that time frame than say during the maximums or minimums. Once we get into July and August, it is the steepness of the curve after leaving the ‘straits of June” that will really determine the final sea ice extent. This ‘bump’ award is certainly interesting to note, but the sea ice will be passing through the straits of June and narrowing close to the other years, before making a final run to the summer minimum. I still firmly believe that we’ll see an arctic sea ice minimum less than 2009, and hope we get a WUWT contest going here to see who can get the closest…

  8. like I said before: global warming is over. we now have to seriously look at global cooling and the consequences of that for every day life. We also need to know what the course is, projected into the future. Can we ask Easterbrook again for his current view?
    Can somebody here perhaps explain to me again the exact significance of the amount of sun spots and the solar flux value that is displayed every day here on WUWT?

  9. Well, we all know that the Arctic ice is the most sensitive and quickest-to-respond part of the Earth (according to the warmists when asked about Arctic vs Antarctic). Remember, all the models agree on this.

    Thus, if the models agree that the Arctic is the most sensitive part of the Earth and should have significant response to climate before anything else, then clearly that means that global warming has stopped and now we’re starting an ice age!

    LMAO

    -Scott

  10. But surely it is all “rotten” ice (an absurd term) and shouldn’t be counted – it this keeps up you can expect some redefinition of what constitutes ice from the “death spiral” crowd, wait for it.

    We’ve already had the “don’t confuse weather with climate change” excuse from the warmistas. Curiously, they did not invoke this reasoning in the great summer retreat of 2007. The warmista’s mantra of “heads I win, tails you lose” never ceases to amaze.

  11. R Gates,

    Arctic ice extent will likely stay high for at least the next month – here is why.

  12. Henry Pool said:

    “global warming is over. we now have to seriously look at global cooling…”

    —-

    Uh, Henry, the figures are not out yet, but March is likely to continue the trends set in January and February showing a very warm year, in fact, 2010 could very likely beat out 1998 as the warmest year on instrument record. Where do you see signs that the warming is over? Please share that data…

  13. Judging solely from the line increment, I think there must be a tie-in with the NA weather of the last three months.
    It would be interesting to see North America jet stream plotting over the same period, and compared to same years.

    What we’re seeing, I would think, is ocean current changes somewhere.

  14. 1) IF that ice is growing back so fast, shouldn’t we be mobilizing the ice-breaker ships to rescue the Catlin Brain Trust up there in search of melting?

    2) I am looking at a GISSTEMP map with that giant red spot over Canada and so I remain baffled that ice could be growing while Canada is going tropical.

    3) Does anybody have a link to a good article about how the ice growth is Consistent With catastrophic AGW? I am sure it is. i just wanted official confirmation.

  15. Based on rigorous analysis of multi-decadal trends, I conclude that this anomaly will either go unreported or have its significance dismissed for reasons which were never mentioned when the shoe was on the other foot.

  16. Scientists say that global warming is leading to rotten ice, which, together with the higher pressure due to CO2, flattens out the ice like a giant pancake, and increases the overall extent.

  17. Oh dear! This proves that global warming is killing the polar bears. You see, due to the record warm January, record numbers of polar bears must be dying off. And since they’re dying off, there aren’t as many of them to cause the sea ice to tip over and capsize, and then to sink to the bottom of the sea. That’s why the sea ice extend is increasing! Duh!

  18. R. Gates (09:01:55) wrote: “This is still more of a short-term fluctuation…”

    No, the answer is, “Science doesn’t know.”

    Although, I recognize and appreciate the caveats you did mention.

    As it is with many things in life…time will tell.

    R. Gates wrote: ” I still firmly believe that we’ll see an arctic sea ice minimum less than 2009…”

    This is a troubling statement…as you consistently prod readers (skeptics) to be objective (which is a good thing), you offer up your “belief”.

    Based on what?

    Your desire to be vindicated as a warmist?

    Those that offer wise counsel and then evince action or attitudes that contradict such counsel…expose themselves to ridicule.

  19. “Other sea ice metrics such as JAXA, using a different satellite platform (AQUA) and the AMSR-E sensor agree.”

    Multiple sensor errors …and all in the same direction! Who would have thought it.

  20. I am skeptical. Any day now, the adjusted graphs will be posted. These will show that its really “worse than we thought”.

    Lets wait until September before jumping on any bandwagons about arctic ice.

  21. Baby Oil is winning over Big Oil. I am sure the warmists must be huddling somewhere to sort out a narrative for this. Narrative used to be called SPIN.

  22. Vincent (09:20:53) :
    “Scientists say that global warming is leading to rotten ice, which, together with the higher pressure due to CO2, flattens out the ice like a giant pancake, and increases the overall extent.”

    REPLY: “….thereby increasing the Earth’s albedo even more, forcing more cooling and driving the planet into a new ice age.”

    Speaking of pancakes, Happy Holidays to all! Easter, Passover etc.

  23. R. Gates (09:07:20) :

    “Where do you see signs that the warming is over? Please share that data…”

    On the ground.

  24. R Gates — I still firmly believe that we’ll see an arctic sea ice minimum less than 2009 [snip]

    Why is that?

  25. I don’t put much stock in sea ice areas.
    1. The recent growth is due to cold air mass over Eastern Siberia and Alaska.
    2. Many parts of the Canadian Arctic have had a quite warm winter, and the ice in those regions is probably cardborad, if not paper thin.
    3. Already the Hudson Bay is beginning to thaw.
    4. We are going to see a very rapid melt (adjustment) during the coming weeks.
    5. I predict will end up just above 5 million sq km by mid September.

    Forget the Arctic. The real action is in the oceans.

  26. R. Gates (09:07:20) :

    Henry Pool said:

    “global warming is over. we now have to seriously look at global cooling…”

    —-

    Uh, Henry, the figures are not out yet, but March is likely to continue the trends set in January and February showing a very warm year, in fact, 2010 could very likely beat out 1998 as the warmest year on instrument record. Where do you see signs that the warming is over? Please share that data…

    Gosh. Can’t argue with facts regarding the rest of the year 2010…

    Even so, this ‘warmest decade ever’ really hasn’t been very warm on the ground. Where, you know, crops grow, animals graze, people live and seas rise and fall. It’s not surprising that people are seeing the AGW-wing as a bunch of chicken-littles.

    While these reports of cold weather – coldest it has been in a while – are anecdotal (and weather is not climate) they all add up to a world which is not warming a whole lot, and no tangeable effects on our environment.

  27. @Steve Goddard (09:00:31) :

    Yeah, I’ve been counting on that 3rd year ice as well. This is well in advance, but I suspect 3rd year is really where the benefit stops being signficant (i.e. the benefit ramps up pretty quickly 1-3, and some but not so much in years 4-5). I certainly hope we get a great test case on that next year because we have so much of it surviving this year. :)

    I’ve also been wondering how much compactness helps in resisting wind and tide even when/if those do switch. Does 80% ice resist wind and tide better than 40% ice? I suspect it does, but I’m not sure.

  28. 5 years ago the experts were surprised and dismayed that the decline in Arctic ice extent was progressing much more rapidly than they predicted. “It’s worse than we thought”, they said. Now many are surprised and baffled by this late and rapid runup in extent to the 1979 – 2000 average.
    Once again, just a reminder that the current state of climate science cannot predict or really explain the fluctuations we are observing in Arctic ice extent in the last 30 years. There is still so much we do not understand.

    The science is so ….. not settled.

  29. Chad Woodburn (09:23:39) :

    Oh dear! This proves that global warming is killing the polar bears. You see, due to the record warm January, record numbers of polar bears must be dying off. And since they’re dying off, there aren’t as many of them to cause the sea ice to tip over and capsize, and then to sink to the bottom of the sea. That’s why the sea ice extend is increasing! Duh!

    Um. Ice doesn’t sink. This clearly demonstrates a declining seal population which eat ice. Fewer seals; less ice-feeding; more ice coverage (your average seal weighs 25 kPa and can eat it’s own brain size in ice particulates every micro newton…).

  30. I just checked the 1800Z temperatures for all the Canadian stations in the high Arctic – they range from -17C to -25C and you aren’t going to get a lot of melting at those temperatures. More freezing maybe?

  31. Quote – “We live in interesting times.”

    Mr Watts,
    I wrote and suggested today in Tips & Notes to WUWT (Przemysław Pawełczyk (07:20:06) :) an idea to publish more maps/images related to interesting topics.

    Having this example (Arctic Sea Ice Extent Update: still growing) I will better illustrate what I was voting for.

    Arctic Ice-Cover Hyperlink Package:
    1) Jet Stream Analyses

    2) NHemi Surface Temperatures
    http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/map/images/fnl/sfctmp_01.fnl.html
    3) Current Snow and Ice
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1262750/Mega-flood-triggered-Europes-big-freeze–global-warming-plunge-cold-warn-scientists.html
    4) Latest Sea Surface Temperature image

    5) N. Hemi Snow Depth (Air Force)

    6) N. Hemi Snow Cover (NOAA-NESDIS)

    7) Sea Ice Concentration

    8) Sea Ice Concentration

    9) Current Bering Sea ICe Are
    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.2.html
    10) Arctic Sea Ice Extent
    http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php
    11) Monthly NSIDC Ice with Buoys
    http://iabp.apl.washington.edu/maps_monthly_ncepice.html

    0) Bering Strait influenced ice age climate patterns worldwide
    http://www2.ucar.edu/news/bering-strait-influenced-ice-age-climate-patterns-worldwide

    Regards

  32. Looking at the upcoming weather patterns, I’d say the Atlantic side will start seeing a decrease in area, and extent, with higher pressure setting up bringing in warmer air and southerly winds. The Pacific side looks to remain stormy and cold. That’ll keep extents, and area coverage bouncing around.

  33. Those Catlin fools must be still going backwards or around and around. Haven’t heard a word lately so may be they were a polar bear meal… :)

  34. R. Gates (09:07:20) : …2010 could very likely beat out 1998 as the warmest year on instrument record. Where do you see signs that the warming is over? Please share that data…

    The answer is in your own words, “instrument record”.

  35. Hmmm. The growing ice may be putting a crimp in oil/gas exploration by the countries bordering the Arctic. Wouldn’t that be a kick in the pants, after all the hype about “vast reserves”?

  36. Nansen ice extent is unavailable – I guess they can’t believe the ice extent (and, indeed, ice area itself) is still increasing so they will be making adjustments.

  37. Of course we would likely have a very reasonable explanation if we had real scientists analyzing real data, instead of agenda driven cranks trying desperately to plunge the world into economic chaos while lining their pockets.

  38. Can’t figure out how to include the plots, but this Navy site includes output from arctic ice prediction software that includes concentration, thickness and extend. Some of the archived predictions can be compared to measurements.

    http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/pips2

    I found the thickness prediction plots interesting, comparing the archived prediction for April 1st, 2010 to 2008 and 2009 . The current thickness plots include more 5 meter ice near Greenland and a widered expanse of over 3 meter ice covering the arctic basin and the east siberian sea.

    Assuming the model has been compared to measured data enough to substantiate it, the current year’s average thicknesses will definitely increase in comparison to the last couple years.

    The amount of multi-year ice is increasing each year (since 07) and the average concentration appears to have increased this year as well. The only regions that are below the long term average are the southern part of the Baffin Sea and the St Lawrence seaway, due to a warmer than normal northern atlantic. Even the Baltic has more ice this year.

  39. R. Gates (09:07:20) :
    Uh, Henry, the figures are not out yet, but March is likely to continue the trends set in January and February showing a very warm year, in fact, 2010 could very likely beat out 1998 as the warmest year on instrument record. Where do you see signs that the warming is over? Please share that data…>>

    Yup, surface (atmospheric temps) show continued (slight) rise while ocean heat content keeps falling. Since ocean heat content has more effect on ice extent than does atmospheric temps, the ice is going along with the ocean.

    The ocean weighing in at more than 1000 times the mass of the atmosphere, the piddly temperature rise in the atmosphere is about to get a message (“about” being measured in “climate time” of course) that sounds like this:

    I’M GOING THIS WAY AND YOU ARE COMING WITH ME WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT.

  40. Could it be that both the North Atlantic and North Pacific are also anomalously cool right now?

  41. R. Gates (09:01:55) :

    This is most interesting to watch as spring and summer progress. This is still more of a short-term fluctuation (unless it continues over the next several years

    Even if it continued over the next several years (what do you mean by ‘several’), I’m quite sure by then the goalpost will have been moved and the yardstick stretched out to support the desired trend.

    Seeing that it is officially spring, and it’s snowing here today, I’d like to point out that since 1893, only 9 times has it done this. Today makes 10 April’s with snow in 117 Aprils.
    Trends. You can’t swear by them and you can certainly live without them.

  42. Henry@R.Gates

    I am going from the principle that the radiation reaching earth is getting less. This must be due to more cloud formation which in turn is caused by less solar magnetic field from the sun. I have not actually seen the latest measurements but here is something that shows the trend since about 2000.
    http://www.livescience.com/environment/060124_earth_albedo.html
    Which is confirmed by the papers from Palle et al.
    I have not heard from Svensmark for a long time. Does he ever say something?
    of course, the ice at your front door is another good indicator.

  43. It really amazes me. Whenever we have more ice it always baby ice or thin ice or new ice or first year ice. Folks, the ice is growing point made. Deal with it. Al Gore the ice hasn’t vanished as you had predicted over 5 years ago.

    Also R Gates’ temps have been measured by satellite only since the late 70’s, so trying to campare our temps now vs before satellite is like trying to play basketball with a football. You can’t. Joe Bastardi has an excellant video on Accuweather titled Another Look At Global Winter Temps, where he compares the temps on GISS site vs Noaa. According to the GISS site we had no winter at all. Try telling that to people in the Southeast and Mid Atlantic states and the northeast of the U.S. Record snow and very cold winter, and last but not least, measurable snow on ground in 49 states, FLORIDA INCLUDED, that’s right 49 states in Feb.

  44. (AP) Former Vice President Al Gore just announced that the reason ice in the Arctic is growing is because of climate change. “See, I told you so!” he said. “As the climate changes weird things will happen, like ice growth as it warms up.” Scientists were quick to point out that they had predicted that as the Earth warms up there will be more snow caused by evaporation. As this snow adds up, more sunlight will be reflected back into space, therefore causing just enough cooling to create more ice.

  45. As a geologist I don’t get concerned much when there’s a 1 degree C increase in temperature over a century. I don’t pay much attention to hysteria about bears dying or glaciers melting or islands sinking. Big deal.

    But tell me there’s strong evidence for the next glacial epoch and I’ll go ballistic. Consider the ramifications–once that “Tipping Point” happens (and I believe there is indeed a glacial epoch tipping point because they’ve been found), in less than a decade Europe is under 20 feet of perennial snow/ice and counting; Northern Africa is the new Riviera. Canadians have all relocated to Mexico (hey, Spanish is easy to learn and green cards are only 100% of what$ever you’ve got); no reason for staying in the US ’cause now it has the same cold climate as pre-ice age Canada.

    All major cities of the world are dredging their harbors because of drastic drops in sea level, and Arctic ice extends a thousand mile south of Iceland and far south of the Aleutians. Equatorial temperatures are up an average of 5 degrees C which intensifies all weather systems, creating some of the biggest and most destructive hurricanes and typhones seen since the last Ice Age melted into the Holocene ~10,000 years ago.

    And humans (those that remain, anyway) are pining for the good old days once known as Global Warming.

  46. Btw, it’s April 2nd. What’s the over/under on the first puzzled “wtf is that jog every year on June 1?” post?

  47. It’s not just Arctic Sea Ice Extent, Arctic Sea Ice Area is also on the verge of average:

    Interesting times indeed…

  48. I’d like to know how many climate models predicted this “breakout” upwards trend in the arctic sea ice levels. If it’s none that spells seriously bad news for all the climate models as in falsification bad news.

    The end of soothsaying the future in science? That would be seriously nice.

    Humans are – least we forget with all of our magical mythologies from the bronze age still in play – still great apes and as such even the best of us get caught up in belief stricken ideas. The idea of the scientific method is to have someone – anyone – catch when a scientist is being belief stricken ignoring the evidence before his eyes.

    The ice evidence seems to be quite compelling… a upward thrust through the heart of climate models and the alleged AGW hypothesis debilitating them and showing them for what they are not good at, predicting Nature.

    Climate scientists saying that their hypothesis can’t explain what is going on in Nature is tantamount to admitting that their hypotheses has been falsified.

    Questions.

    So the question is how many climate models predicted this breakout?

    Did any even predict the probability of such a breakout?

    Do the climate models even consider more than the hypothesis they are built to prove?

  49. Thanks for your comments, Mr. Gates. I think many people, including you, are confusing the appearance of temperature with heating. Many times, high temperatures reveal the presence of global heat-shedding mechanisms which are part of a cooling process. Temperatures alone don’t tell the story. It is the direction of net heat flow that is important. High atmospheric temperatures reveal heat on the way out of the system, not what the system is like. You can’t judge just by what’s coming out.

    Jack used to pass a health club on the way home every afternoon and often saw a lot of young women coming out. After joining, he found the members were 90% guys. He’d been driving past at 2:45, when gals leave to pick up their kids at school.

  50. R. Gates (11:17:53) :

    Oceantwo said:

    “…they all add up to a world which is not warming a whole lot, and no tangeable effects on our environment.”

    ———–

    Tell that to the people of Newtok, AK:

    http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/science/04/24/climate.change.eskimos/index.html

    But, again, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, and “these are not the droids you’re looking for…”

    Keep watching Faux News and all will be well…
    ——————————–
    Reply:
    So every piece of weather that comes along is evidence of Global Warming…er,… I mean Climate Change? I’d say it is evidence of climate, but not particularly beneficial to your argument when such things as floods, drought, tornatoes, hurricanes, etc. etc. have been common fare on this earth since way, way before history was written.

    Global Warming/Climate Change uses Katrina as their poster storm, but they hide the facts. Katrina was only a category 3 storm; it was lack of proper preparation due to weakened and substandard man-made dikes that made it such a disaster. Likewise, AGW theorists takes something normal–climate–and embellishes it beyond rational justification by pointing to storms that are pretty ordinary too. That man happens to be impacted by such weather phenomena is nothing new.

  51. rbateman:

    For a very long time (20+ years at least) AGW models have stated that a slow warming and decline in arctic & arctic sea ice would be one of the earliest signs of global warming (note: not “climate change” – they were specific).

    To me, the change in the arctic and antarctic are my “acid test’ as to whether or not AGW is happening or not. I’ve made it clear that I am a 75% believer, and hence a 25% sceptic about this.

    First, in regards to the arctic: Regardless of whether you like the colors chosen or how the map is projected, data show that we’ve seen warming in the arctic, more so than any other region of the earth over the past 30 years. Not only do the data support this, but ground evidence does as well with permafrost melting, etc. Arctic sea ice has shown a downward trend over the past decade or more. 2007 was of course the worst year (in terms of low sea ice), and then we’ve seen some recovery in 2008 and 2009. Personally, I’d be more willing to believe that the deep solar minimum of the past few years with the increased GCR’s played a bigger role in sea ice recovery then believing that somehow the downward trend over the past decade is suddenly going to reverse. Despite this little “bump” up in March, which so far is a very short term event, I think the summer arctic minimum will be lower this year than last, as the slowdown in the increase in global temps is over with the waning of the solar minimum, and we are back to seeing the strength of forcing from increased CO2. However, having said this, my 25% sceptic side is still open to AGW being wrong, and if we don’t see a new summer sea ice minimum by 2015, I’ll be shifting my confidence in AGW downward.

    As far as the antarctic ice & temps are concerned. The small year-to-year growth we’ve seen in the southern sea ice doesn’t fit the AGW models in their pure form, but it is possible that indeed, the thinning of the ozone layer has affected wind patterns around the south pole, specifically blocking warming air from reaching further south. As the ozone layer returns to normal over the south pole, AGW would predict that we’ll see more of the warming and melting that we’ve seen in the N. Hemisphere. If the antarctic sea ice doesn’t level it’s year-to-year growth and begin a decline after the ozone layer has returned to a more normal condition, then that would also present reason to doubt AGW models.

    My expectations are that we’ll see the 2nd lowest arctic sea ice summer minimum on record this September, and 2010 will likely be the warmest year on instrument record. The only wild cards are the possible eruption of one or more large volcanoes around the world…and especially one in Iceland which could have a significant effect on N. Hemisphere weather for several years…cooling at first, followed by warming later as we saw with Pinatubo, but the effect would be greater in the N. Hemisphere if a large N. Hemisphere volcano went off.

  52. jorgekafkazar:

    “High atmospheric temperatures reveal heat on the way out of the system, not what the system is like. You can’t judge just by what’s coming out.”

    _____________

    True enough, but AGW is about the energy balance of the earth, and now matter how you want to play with energy flow, increased GHG change the energy balance of earth (thankfully, or we’d all be frozen), and not all the energy of the troposphere is on its way out, in fact, GHG guarantee that exactly that is NOT the case, as they absorb and then re-transmit energy in all directions, back to the ground and into space. We know that the straosphere has been cooling over the past 20 years, (as predicted by AGW models) and this is exactly because more energy is being absorbed and then retransmitted in the troposphere.

  53. R. Gates (11:17:53) :

    From the propaganda link posted by R Gates:

    “We have a new village, but we don’t have all the funding that the village needs to move right now,” said Sally Russell Cox, planner with the Alaska division of community and regional affairs.

    If the crisis worsens and forces an emergency evacuation, Cox said officials want to provide “a safe place to go if they need to get out of the village.”

    That’s the kind of scare story that sends a tingle up the leg of alarmists. An Eskimo village claiming they are being forced to move because of “climate change.” Sounds very similar to Kiribati, whose government is constantly begging for money to help protect them from “global warming”, although the sea level shows no rise there.

    This P.R. stunt fails because it’s a tiny location out in the middle of nowhere, and a long list of people from the villagers on up through Alaska bureaucrats, to the totally corrupt UN are salivating like ravenous hyenas over the taxpayer money they covet.

    $150 million to move 340 people? To a new village that’s already waiting? And it’s still not enough??

    Look at the picture in the article with the caption: “Floodwaters rip through the village of Newtok, Alaska, destroying its infrastructure.” Looks like that village could be moved in a weekend with a couple of U-Haul trailers.

    Anyone who believes that the AGW scare is driven by sound science, and not by greed, is completely clueless. The continuous, baseless climate alarmism is all about the money — and how crooked bureaucrats using crooked scientists as front men can get their sticky fingers deeper into honest working folks’ pockets.

  54. What kind of a year is it?
    As I’m sitting here, with only 36 days of measured snowfall in April since 1913, I now have 2.5″ of snow.
    9 of of those 36 days (25%) were above trace.
    2 of those days (the 2nd and 3rd of April, 1928) had more than today so far. The day is just now 1/2 over. In a few minutes, I’ll beat all but the 2nd of April, 1928, which had 6″.
    That’s what kind of a year it has been.
    The trendpipes froze and the models are bluescreened.

  55. R. Gates

    Be careful, you might blow your cover. You are starting to look like a contortionist trying to cram uncooperative facts into the flimsy catastrophic anthropogenic global warming narrative. You might want to try to lay low for a bit until the whole average arctic sea ice extent thing blows over, then you can try to repair the catastrophic impact this episode will likely have on the narrative and what remains of the Warmists’ credibility. If you go through the averaging of arctic sea ice extent kicking and screaming, everyone is going to think that you are just a Warmist stooge being paid to try to influence opinions on WUWT…

  56. Touching the 1979-2000 average line, or close to it, for a day or two does not mean the summer melt minimum sea ice extent cannot still be third lowest, or lowest, since 1979:


    Late April, so close…


    Still way below two std dev from the average.

    Unusual (recently), thin ice in the Bering Sea in April does not necessarily mean a high Arctic sea ice extent in September.

    But if you’re hoping for a return to “average” Arctic patterns,

    you might as well celebrate with a drink tonight :-)

  57. Re: jeez (Apr 2 08:47),

    I’ve been hoping for that. Perhaps something about the “teenaged” ice spreading out and flexing their muscles as the ice breeding season approaches.

  58. R Gates

    As you are well aware we are mostly skeptics here. When you give us facts we respect your well-reasoned arguments. When you give us a CNN story we immediately raise our hackles expecting to find liberal Goebbels types. Let’s just hope that Guam doesn’t tip over and capsize causing a huge tsunami.

  59. Anu

    At least you’re taking this in stride. You are right that current arctic sea ice condition does not mean that this year’s minimum arctic sea ice extent cannot still be one of the lowest in our short historical record, but it could also be one of the highest. The recent upswing in arctic sea ice extent just reinforces that we have a rudimentary understanding of the workings of Earth’s climate system, and thus should be prudent in ascribing any degree of certainty to predictions of its future state.

    “you might as well celebrate with a drink tonight :-)”

    I will and also a cheers to you for the magnanimity displayed.

  60. R. Gates (12:05:04) : “We know that the straosphere has been cooling over the past 20 years, (as predicted by AGW models) and this is exactly because more energy is being absorbed and then retransmitted in the troposphere.”

    Models are not reality, nor even close. Reality is a polar ice cap that is growing when the models say it won’t.

  61. Just the Facts said:

    “…everyone is going to think that you are just a Warmist stooge being paid to try to influence opinions on WUWT…”

    ________

    :)) Now that is funny!

  62. The same thing happened last year.

    The extent is measured in terms of the 21 year observation. Bit like looking at a rock to judge its age.

  63. Anyone else notice that in the early days the land masks were wrong and they were counting ice on land as sea ice?

    DaveE.

  64. Richard deSousa (10:05:56) :
    Those Catlin fools must be still going backwards or around and around. Haven’t heard a word lately so may be they were a polar bear meal… :)

    They’re evidently not bear chow yet, but the site *has* removed the embarrassing squiggly “Where We Are” graphic.

    They’re at 86º10’37”N, 083º11’12”W, which means they’ve probably started moving in a straight line, blazing along at about 7.2 miles per day, so they should reach the Pole somewhere around Valentine’s Day next year.

    Only 243.75 statute miles to go.

    Only 211.81 nautical miles to go.

    Only 392.27 klicks to go.

    Only 1,286,981.76 feet to go.

  65. R. Gates (11:52:03) :

    “First, in regards to the arctic: Regardless of whether you like the colors chosen or how the map is projected, data show that we’ve seen warming in the arctic, more so than any other region of the earth over the past 30 years. Not only do the data support this, but ground evidence does as well with permafrost melting, etc.”

    No, sorry R. Gates, data do not support this. Look here, no increase in summer max temps since 1958:

    http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php

    Summertime temps are the only ones having any (limited) effect at all with respect to melting of ice and permafrost. Do you have a credible source for permafrost melting? (Watch out for nonsensical alarmist assertions of death spirals and evaporating tundra.)

    Re. sea ice minimum for 2010, please give a number to make the competition more interesting.

  66. Cam_S (12:39:11) :
    “It is not the end of global warming,” said Mark Serreze of the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder.
    Researcher says sea ice growth a fluke outcome

    Which one, the flatfish or the liver parasite?

  67. I also agree that this increase will have little effect on the final summer extent. I’m thinking the more important factors will:

    1) wind
    2) ocean temperatures
    3) high ice concentration this year.

    Right now they are all favoring a large summer extent. Of course, the top two items can be affected by weather so we’ll all see how it works out in 5-6 months.

  68. JAN,
    Northern hemisphere sea ice minimum this year will be approximately -1.5 million sq. km. This appears to be the trend and a likely with the disappearance of the El Nino this year.

  69. David Alan Evans (13:29:39) :
    Anyone else notice that in the early days the land masks were wrong and they were counting ice on land as sea ice?

    DaveE.

    I don’t know if you’ve ever taken the time to review the bullet points posted below the graph at the IJIS site linked in the sidebar above. My favorite has always been thus one.

    In principle, SIC data could have errors of 10% at most, particularly for the area of thin sea ice seen around the edge of sea-ice cover and melted sea ice seen in summer. Also, SIC along coastal lines could also have errors due to sub-pixel contamination of land cover in an instantaneous field of view of AMSR-E data.
     

    This one is also interesting.

    Numeric data of sea-ice extent in the Arctic Ocean from June 2002 to the present are contained in a CSV file. Please note that only the sea-ice pixels in the browse image are counted for estimating the values of sea-ice extent, and thus sea ice outside the image is not taken into account in this data.

    And they wrap it all up in a pretty bow with this finisher

    The area of sea-ice cover is often defined in two ways, i.e., sea-ice “extent” and sea-ice “area.” These multiple definitions of sea-ice cover may sometimes confuse data users. The former is defined as the areal sum of sea ice covering the ocean (sea ice + open ocean), whereas the latter “area” definition counts only sea ice covering a fraction of the ocean (sea ice only). Thus, the sea-ice extent is always larger than the sea-ice area. Because of the possible errors in SIC mentioned above, satellite-derived sea-ice concentration can be underestimated, particularly in summer. In such a case, the sea-ice area is more susceptible to errors than the sea-ice extent. Thus, we adopt the definition of sea-ice extent to monitor the variation of the Arctic sea ice on this site.

    All in all quite confidence inspiring, don’t you think?

  70. Jan,

    First, think we need to agree on which data set we’ll use. But using IJIS, I’d put this years minimum in the 4.5 million sq. km range. Below 2008 & 2009, but not at the 2007 level.

    I see a big melt from the Atlantic & Siberian side later in the summer.

  71. “This is weather,” said Serreze. “Don’t conflate this with climate.”

    http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20100401/sea_ice_100401/20100401?hub=SciTech

    So when it melts it’s climate change but when it freezes it’s weather.

    Well that makes perfect sense and perfectly good climate science as done by Mark Serreze of the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colo. with no apparent bias towards a pet hypothesis there.

    Of course it’s weather, all climate change is weather as “climate change” is just a mathematical averaging of WEATHER over the longer term of 10 to 30 years. In other words you can’t have “climate change” without weather actually happening in the objective reality of Nature. It takes weather for the climate to change, or the falsification of data, that tends to change the climate of science too. As math is an abstraction thus weather averaged into climate is an abstraction. Weather is what is real.

  72. In the tradition of Winston Smith… the Youtube clip of Al Gore opening a German dinosaur museum in December 2008 is now an “unvideo”. It has been removed from Youtube. That’s the one where he talks about the entire Arctic ice cap disappearing in 5 years. I hope that people have hung on to copies of it.

  73. Today, according to Mr. Serreze, I had the most weather in 82 years.
    That’s 3+” of snow. Record was 82 years ago, 6″, for the entire month of April.
    The day is not over yet.
    Having has 24 years of snowless April’s from 1975 to 1999, and having 5 April’s with snow since then, plus 7 before 1975, I’d say that regional warming ended here 11 years ago. Seems to me we’re headed in the opposite direction, in full natural defiance of the climate models. Poor anomalous Rhode Island, I feel your pain as I scrape the deck.
    How trendy is that?

  74. I find it hilarious to see no explanation coming out of the supposedly “know it all” IPCC and climate scientists of the world as to why the sea ice extent is continuing. I thought they knew everything there is to know about climate change, and that they can predict it to withing 1 degree or so over the next 100 years. Why are they so silent with an event that’s occurring right now, not 100 years from now? Oh, I know. They are too busy concocting more evidence of AGW thanks to the millions of dollars of handouts they receive, but not busy on real research to find the truth as any decent scientist must do. I’m sorry but I wish I never was a scientist – it’s now totally ruined as a profession thanks to AGW alarmists.

  75. The NSIDC comment is predictable … maybe they will have to hide the Arctic data from the front page of their web site, the same way they hide the Antarctic ?

    “March 3, 2010
    In February, Arctic sea ice extent continued to track below the average…”

  76. This post and comment thread sent me to look at Cryosphere Today, just as a cross-check of the graphic data above. While there, I suddenly noticed something funny, that has been there for a couple years, but I never really paid attention to it.

    Go look at the top far right graph, of the four at the top of the page. When you click and enlarge it, it is titled “Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Extent”. Each dot represents a calendar quarter of data and each colored line represents the quarterly data for a given season. For two years, I have seen that this chart ends with steep drops in each seasonal line of data, spring, summer, etc. No more perfect picture of recent, steep, unprecedented decline of sea ice could you ask for. All the lines end on values that are the lowest in the whole series, by a substantial amount, in a series of data that goes back to 1900.

    And it seems that when the people who run that site saw this perfect picture, they just decided to keep it. Newer data be damned. Go count the quarters of information, starting with the dots that line up to 2005. When I did this, I found that the last quarters of info represented in this chart are 2008 (3 seasons) and 2007 (!) (1 season plus the annual total). While every other graphic on this page is updated almost daily, this one graphic with the “picture perfect decline over the last 100 years” hasn’t been updated for almost three years! WUWT? Here’s a link to this graphic

    Readers of this site know plenty about the recovery in arctic sea ice are since the deep minimum in 2007-2008. But, readers of Cryosphere Today who look at this graphic, the main long term picture on that site for arctic sea ice extent, still are seeing the 2007 -2008 minimum as the most recent, latest picture of arctic sea ice extent. How do these people do this with a straight face?

    I have emailed the site administrator pointing this out, and asking him to update the data presented. I think if more of us do this, we can embarrass them into fixing at least this one small distorted picture of arctic sea ice, on this widely viewed web site.

  77. pwl said:

    “…all climate change is weather as “climate change” is just a mathematical averaging of WEATHER over the longer term of 10 to 30 years…”

    _______

    I don’t think so. Climate change may been SEEN in the mathematical averaging of the weather over long periods of time, but that’s not what climate change IS. Climate change is a fundamental shift in energy balances, transfers, and energy circulation patterns bewteen sun, atmosphere, oceans, and land. Climate change is all about energy. It may be reflected in weather patterns, but it is not just some averaging of weather patterns. The reason why AGWT is so enticing is that it has a real physical basis to be potentially correct based on energy patterns and the very well known physics of GH gases and their behavior related to energy in the troposphere.

  78. R. Gates (11:52:03) :

    “First, in regards to the arctic: Regardless of whether you like the colors chosen or how the map is projected, data show that we’ve seen warming in the arctic, more so than any other region of the earth over the past 30 years. Not only do the data support this, but ground evidence does as well with permafrost melting, etc. Arctic sea ice has shown a downward trend over the past decade or more. 2007 was of course the worst year (in terms of low sea ice), and then we’ve seen some recovery in 2008 and 2009.
    ………
    My expectations are that we’ll see the 2nd lowest arctic sea ice summer minimum on record this September, and 2010 will likely be the warmest year on instrument record.”

    ***********************
    RESPONSE:
    This has all happened before so please explain how this could be?
    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

    NASA blamed mainly wind and currents for the alarming 2007 in Arctic sea ice – see NASA link:
    http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/quikscat-20071001.html

    Bad old NASA also said at least 45% of Arctic ice melting since 1976 is most probably due to aerosols:
    http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/warming_aerosols_prt.htm

    While the Polar 5 expedition found that Arctic ice in 2009 was thicker than expected:
    http://www.awi.de/en/news/press_releases/detail/item/research_aircraft_polar_5_finishes_arctic_expedition_unique_measurement_flights_in_the_central_arc/?cHash=e36036fcb4

    Your expectations about this being the 2nd lowest arctic sea ice summer minimum on record this September – we will have to wait and see but I do hope your scepticism increases should your expectation fail. Would your scepticism increase?

  79. JAN (13:33:43) :
    R. Gates (11:52:03) :

    No, sorry R. Gates, data do not support this. Look here, no increase in summer max temps since 1958:

    http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php

    Summertime temps are the only ones having any (limited) effect at all with respect to melting of ice and permafrost.

    First, Summer is generally about June 21 to Sept 23 (varies slightly, year to year). This is Day 172 to 266:
    http://www.vpcalendar.net/Julian_Date.html
    So, that little ‘mountain peak’ above the melt line includes some Spring temperatures, too.

    Second, the graphs you point out are for “the Arctic area north of the 80th northern parallel“:

    Do you see the 80° N latitude circle ? Second from the inner 85° N circle.

    The Arctic is all the area above 66.5619° N, by definition (slightly above Iceland, there to the east of Greenland).
    However, I think a lot of the sites that give “Arctic sea ice extent” actually use the colloquial “Arctic”, including places like the Bering Sea, Sea of Okhotsk, Hudson Bay, and the east coasts of Labrador (Canada) and southern Greenland, all of which are way below 66.5619° N.

    When the NSIDC says “Arctic Sea Ice Extent”:

    I think they are including all those non-Arctic places I mentioned:

    So, when a year like 2009 shows this temperature profile for above the 80° N latitude circle (click on Arkiv, year 2009):
    http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
    I would imagine a curve similar to the red one (above the green “mean” curve from 1958 to 2002 data for most of the year) gets shifted way up for places like the Bering Sea and the Hudson Bay.

    And the almost three extra 5° latitute circles in the Arctic:

  80. NSIDC
    http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

    They call it Arctic news but for some reason they seem to be stuck in a time warmp between February 2010 and 3rd March, 2010. I wonder why? As I’ve said before be a man and face the facts. Eventually they are going to have to report this day’s event sooner or later.

    February 2010 compared to past years
    The average ice extent for February 2010 was the fourth lowest February extent since the beginning of the modern satellite record. It was 220,000 square kilometers (85,000 square miles) higher than the record low for February, observed in 2005. The linear rate of decline for February is now 2.9% per decade.”

  81. Peter of Sydney (15:23:05) :

    Peter, you need to ask the wrong group(IPCC), NOAA is your answer, they understand from the depths of the oceans to the surface of the sun!! More CO2 causes more ice of course! :)

  82. Gaia damn youse peoples!!! I hope that the prophet algore sequesters you along side of your demon carbon dioxides for the rest of eternity. Youse guys continues to profane the holiest of the holy warming up of the almighty gaia with youse blasphemies and hersheys. Perish youse all to an oil company someplace.

  83. I have always found one observation very, very strange indeed. Why aren’t the alarmists happy when they see from their own alarmist websites that the Arctic sea ice extent is now at the 1979 – 2000 average?????? I would be sad if AGW was clearly being measured and observed as it could adversly affect my children’s futures; but they should be happy if AGW is shown to be false.

    Is it because they have a hidden agenda?

    [REPLY – One of the advantages of being an “optimist” (aside from nearly always being right) is that you can root for yourself being right with a clear conscience. In any event, Optimism is the new Realism. ~ Evan]

  84. Anu (12:15:55) : Unusual (recently), thin ice in the Bering Sea in April does not necessarily mean a high Arctic sea ice extent in September.

    Sure, but there is a new rift opens at the Icelandic volcano – this is what Eyjafjallajokull always does, starts slowly and gets more powerfull, until Katla takes over and finishes with a blast.

    http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2010/03/31/new-rift-opens-at-icelandic-volcano/

    You can watch it live here from Thorolfsfell
    http://eldgos.mila.is/eyjafjallajokull-fra-thorolfsfelli/

    And here from Fimmvorduhals
    http://eldgos.mila.is/eyjafjallajokull-fra-fimmvorduhalsi/

    The weather sattelites can already see the clouds from Eyjafjallajokull – now wait for Katla…

    :-)

  85. Boy, Serreze just isn’t going to lose his story line no matter what. 2007 was evidence that things were worse than we thought, but 2010 is just weather.

    Maybe they’re both just weather, Mark. Maybe you’re back onto the downward path you thought you had pre-2007 and things aren’t “worse than we thought”, but merely as bad as we thought.

    But, no, things must always be worse than we thought. . .

    I like the current extent, no question –but I like a whole lot better how compact Cryosphere Today is showing that extent to be. It’s high and it’s compact –this is goodness.

  86. Consider this. For Steve Goddard to be only *1/2 the blind zealot* that Mark Serreze is, Steve would have to be predicting a real possibility of a chance of a summer minimum of ~7.5M km2*.

    *Based on Serreze being off be a mere 4.7M km2 in his speculation for 2008 minimum.

  87. Tom Wiita (15:29:57) :

    First, the name of that chart is:

    Second, the date on the file is:
    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/
    [IMG] seasonal.extent.1900-2007.jpg 14-Oct-2008 23:35 668K
    [IMG] seasonal.extent.1900-2008.jpg 14-Oct-2008 23:34 668K

    (Looks like they somehow have the exact same chart named twice, and copied into the same directory. Try it, you can see the same chart with either name)
    So, the chart was created 14-Oct-2008, that’s why you can see data for winter, spring and summer 2008, but not autumn (Oct-Nov-Dec) or for the full year 2008.

    Third, yes they could have updated the chart in 2009, but this is a University – maybe the guy who made that chart graduated, and they forgot to document the script that generated it, or they lost the script/program, or the computer it was running on died, whatever. Unlike NASA, the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign ( http://uiuc.edu ) has no obligation to provide the public with nice graphs and explanations of their research. They are doing it probably to teach the students something, and getting their name out there in the competitive world of University recruitment.

    But I guess if you ask nicely, they might find someone to update the chart…

    Fourth, if they wanted to “freeze” the chart at its most dramatic, they wouldn’t include 2008 data, those little upticks at the end of 3 of the lines.

    Did you know the Mosaic web browser was developed at the National Center for Supercomputing Applications (NCSA) at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign beginning in late 1992 ?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosaic_(web_browser)
    They didn’t have to provide that for free, either.

  88. R.Gates “To me, the change in the arctic and antarctic are my “acid test’ as to whether or not AGW is happening or not. ”

    Aren’t you slightly tired of rehashing the same AGW truisms? It is the way you pose the problem that leads you to the same conclusions, the conclusions AGW scientists want by activism and sometimes by believing their own bad science.
    Yet serious informed observations do not lead to the same conclusions. unless you belive in averaging temperatures, the convenient way to twist the debate, the Arctic is not “warming”: some areas do warm while others do cool (source ACIA). The same in Antarctica where only the WAP is warming while Eastern Antarctica is slightly cooling or stable. Therefore, both polar areas warmings are regional. Indeed I find CO2 very discriminating…
    Explanation resides in warm air advections corridors, highlighting a dynamic warming. This can be easily demonstrated through atmospheric pressure evolution of anticyclones, frequency of depressions and increasing low pressure of depressions over the past 50 years.
    You’d appreciate the fact that since climatic models and their proponents enjoy wading into meteorological event predictions -heatwaves, droughts, floods, rains etc…- it is only logical that what went for the goose went for the gander, and thus meteorological understanding care to validate or not the scenarii of climate models and their underlying Laws of Physics abuse.

  89. Geo, of course both 2007 and 2010 and 2190 will be weather… Ask what Walt Meier wrote about 2007 then…: weather.

  90. Past summer minimums from JAXA (in sq. km.):

    Year Minimum Date
    2002 5,655,156 9/09
    2003 6,032,031 9/18
    2004 5,784,688 9/04
    2005 5,315 156 9/22
    2006 5,781,719 9/14
    2007 4,254,531 9/24
    2008 4,707,813 9/09
    2009 5,249,844 9/13

  91. Keep in mind that Serreze has made his predictions a couple of times on History Channel scare-fests. If he is wrong he will be seen as a fool.

  92. I have recently learned that the ice coverage in the Artic is NOT an indicator of AGW anymore (which is happening faster than predicted and we MUST act now).

  93. I laugh again. This focus on one of many aspect of climate change to prove what? That climate changes? Wow! What does it matter if one aspect taken out of context (eg, sea ice extent) is increasing or not? It proves absolutely nothing without an explanation that proven beyond all doubt with irrefutable scientific evidence as to why it is changing! AGW alarmists will always say that sea ice extent reduction is “proof” that AGW is correct, which of course is BS. Non-believers and skeptics will always say that sea ice extent increases is “proof” that AGW is wrong, which is also BS. All this proves is that all sides are idiots and the real truth is nowhere to be seen.

  94. I can tell already that we are going to have a field day with this… Let’s start with today’s Cornell Daily Sun:
    “Prof. Charles H. Greene, earth and atmospheric sciences, believes that the United States, among other countries, underestimates the threat of global warming, and has failed to take effective measures to address it.

    In the essay, “A Very Convenient Truth,” published in Oceanography this past March, Greene addresses this issue, and claims that the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change underestimates the threat of global warming and its probable effects the world. Using the melting of the Arctic as an example, Greene demonstrates the IPCC’s inaccurate predictions.

    “The IPCC model of Arctic Sea melting shows concerns that the Arctic would lose all ice cover by the end of the century,” Greene said. According to his research, “We are losing ice much more quickly. It could be gone by 2025 to 2030.”
    http://www.cornellsun.com/node/41888

    Prof. Charles H. Greene is either ill-informed, or lying…

    I also hearken back to some of my old favorites from the Guardian:

    “Arctic summer ice could disappear within decades, survey data suggests”
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/oct/15/arctic-survey-ice-melting
    “Thinning Arctic sea ice alarms experts”
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/apr/06/arctic-sea-ice-warning
    “Arctic ocean may lose all its ice by 2040, disrupting global weather”
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/mar/16/climatechange.climatechange

    The Warmists have left themselves very exposed and it will be difficult, if not impossible, for them to recover from this. Note to selves, don’t gamble the credibility of one’s entire ideology and narrative on short term variations in sea ice extent…

  95. As others have alluded to, one would think that the Warmists would be rejoicing that things are not as bad as they have been led to believe, it’s as though they want so badly for a planetary climate change catastrophe on the scale and schedule forecast by the extremists of the AGW camp, that they are hostile to any evidence that may suggest that things are not going according to their expectations (and/or hopes).

    This remarkable recovery of sea ice approaching the 1978 – 2000 average extent is something we all should be happy about, let us see if the Warmists even concur that this indicates that the predictions that we have all been subjected to were premature to say the least, not alone begin to take a more critical review of the so called ‘settled’ science. It wasn’t so long ago that we were being told that the Arctic could be ice free by this summer,..Arctic Ocean could be ice-free in summer as early as this summer, 2010.

    http://www.canada.com/victoriatimescolonist/news/story.html?id=1aaab4cd-0ca4-4b28-8a71-f442545a9d23

    http://www.canada.com/victoriatimescolonist/news/story.html?id=1aaab4cd-0ca4-4b28-8a71-f442545a9d23

  96. Antonio San (17:21:46) :

    Do you believe that if the Sun suddenly got 1 w/m^2 brighter at the surface of the Earth (annual mean) the planet’s climate would not change ?

    Do you know how the Milankovitch cycles cause Ice Ages ?

    What if the Sun got 2 w/m^2 brighter ? Still think the Arctic would not “warm” ?
    How about 3 w/m^2 ? At what point does the “explanation resides in warm air advections corridors” reasoning get tossed out the window because of a systemic change to the climate system ?

    At what point would you agree that the “average temperature” of the planet has gone up ? When the entire cryosphere has melted ?

    I don’t see many unqualified people complaining about the “foolish” attempt to find a Higgs boson at the Large Hadron Collider, but it seems that a large fraction of the English speaking world fancy themselves climatologists because they’ve seen plenty of weather.

  97. Basic precept of the US Navy’s Task Force Climate Change (TFCC): The Arctic is the veritable Canary in a Coal Mine. No joke, this is what RADM Titley (director of TFCC) states in all or most of his presentations to gov and non-gov agencies.

  98. @Anu (12:15:55)

    Really? You really want to pull out 2009 in support of the dismal science (economics has been surpassed by climatology for the title)?

    How about this gem: http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2009/072209.html

    You can just feel the rooting going on there.

    Including the hopeful link to this: http://www.arcus.org/search/seaiceoutlook/2009_outlook/july_report/downloads/graphs/JulyReport_JuneData_Chart.pdf

    Sixteen expert academic prognosticators with their computer models churning madly. Sixteen of ’em. You know the theory of doing that kind of thing, right? It’s like those IPCC graphs where they slap all those models together and tell us solemnly that surely the truth must lay in their somewhere.

    So how did the dismal science do for predicting 2009 minimum, from June data, a significant advantage from trying to do it in March and April?

    Not a one exceeded actual. Not a one. One (again, of sixteen) got pretty close (nice try guys), but still low. The median of the group was a hair less than 700k km2 too low. The lowest was 1.3M km2 too low.

    This is who you are putting your faith in as arctic scientists giving predictions based on only the best that science has to offer in the early part of the 21st century.

  99. The Death Sprial of Arctic sea ice

    BBC – 21 September 2007
    Mark Serreze, a senior research scientist at the NSIDC

    “”We’re on a strong spiral of decline; some would say a death spiral. I wouldn’t go that far but we’re certainly on a fast track. We know there is natural variability but the magnitude of change is too great to be caused by natural variability alone.””
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7006640.stm

    More death!

    “No matter where we stand at the end of the melt season it’s just reinforcing this notion that Arctic ice is in its death spiral,” said Mark Serreze, a scientist at the center. The Arctic could be free of summer ice by 2030, Serreze said by telephone.
    http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2745499020080827

    More spiral!

    “The ice is in a “death spiral” and may disappear in the summers within a couple of decades, according to Mark Serreze, an Arctic climate expert at the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colorado.”
    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/09/080917-sea-ice.html

    ————-

    The spiral seems to have gone nuts! WUWT?

  100. @Antonio San (17:23:10) :

    Walt Meier is a gentleman and a cautious scientist. I have a lot of time for the Walk Meier’s and Judith Curry’s of the world, even when there is clear daylight between their position and mine.

    Mark Serreze, not so much.

  101. If one look at and compare the ice from december to december, and june to june, for each year between 1978/79 and 2009/10, not much has actually happened.

    As long as the ice extent, and area, in december and june the following year, isn’t changing much compared to say 1978/79, it doesn’t really matter how much ice there is in march nor how little in september.

    Anyways compared to 1978/79, at the rate we’re going at now on the slightly down path, and assuming 1978/79 was any kind of normal, we’re loosing about, ruffly, 1 mil sq km ice per 30 years in the northern hemisphere, and in the AGW linear reality, we’re talking 300 years for the sea ice in the arctic to finally give and for once clear the area. :p

  102. Peter of Sydney (17:57:39) : “… proves absolutely nothing without an explanation that proven beyond all doubt with irrefutable scientific evidence as to why it is changing! …
    All this proves is that all sides are idiots and the real truth is nowhere to be seen.”

    Dead wrong, as it is the Chicken Littles who are putting up the hypothesis (“the sky is falling”), so the onus is on them to prove it. Skeptics simply laugh and say the sky is not falling — which is not an idiotic stance at all.

  103. @1DandyTroll (19:04:52) :

    December and June are irrelevant tho. If we had daily volume data instead of extent data, that would leap out, IMO, and what you (rightly) note as a cluster at those dates would no longer be a cluster. Alas, we don’t have a long daily tail of volume data, so out of necessity we must argue extent to have a long enough “tail” to make it a worthwhile discussion to have. Frankly, I don’t even consider the extent data tail to be a long enough –I would be much more comfortable about the meaningfullness of the extent data if it went back to the early 1940s.

    But extent as a (very imperfect) metric means what you really need to be interested in is maximum, minimum, and compactness (the percentage colors at Cryosphere Today) at both.

  104. Walter Dnes (15:04:03) :
    In the tradition of Winston Smith… the Youtube clip of Al Gore opening a German dinosaur museum in December 2008 is now an “unvideo”. It has been removed from Youtube. That’s the one where he talks about the entire Arctic ice cap disappearing in 5 years. I hope that people have hung on to copies of it.

    Maybe they’ll even listen to it properly second time around?

  105. Because I am not very bright, I need help.

    What would the 2009-2010 line look like in the current average, say 1979-2009?

  106. “Of course it’s weather, all climate change is weather as “climate change” is just a mathematical averaging of WEATHER over the longer term of 10 to 30 years. In other words you can’t have “climate change” without weather actually happening in the objective reality of Nature. It takes weather for the climate to change, or the falsification of data, that tends to change the climate of science too. As math is an abstraction thus weather averaged into climate is an abstraction. Weather is what is real.” – Peter

    “I don’t think so. Climate change may been SEEN in the mathematical averaging of the weather over long periods of time, but that’s not what climate change IS. Climate change is a fundamental shift in energy balances, transfers, and energy circulation patterns between sun, atmosphere, oceans, and land. Climate change is all about energy. It may be reflected in weather patterns, but it is not just some averaging of weather patterns. The reason why AGWT is so enticing is that it has a real physical basis to be potentially correct based on energy patterns and the very well known physics of GH gases and their behavior related to energy in the troposphere.” – R.Gates.

    R. Gates, yes we all know that climate has multiple definitions. However without the abstractions of mathematics and statistics used in the alleged science of climate science that does abstract 10 to 30 year periods into “historical climate” and “climate baselines” the alleged climate patterns of the alleged AGW hypothesis attributed to man could not be found.

    You can’t actually have climate without math. Weather is what is real.

    Weather is what is happening now, and now, and now, and now…. minute by minute, day by day… averaged, chopped, diced and sliced by mathematics in an attempt by humans to find patterns.

    The mechanisms of the “climate” are also part of it. However the claims of those alleging man made climate change is based entirely in the sketchy mathematics of averaged weather and bizarre statistical games played such as using one thermometer for 1,200km diameter of terrain, hiding the divergence of tree ring from temperature data because if it were known it would falsify the entire notion of using tree ring data, playing with hockey sticks, interpolating to fabricate data out of thin air, hiding data, etc….

    Change the math and there is no problem.

    Change it again and the problem intensifies.

    It’s all taking place in an abstract statistical mathematical place that has little connection to the real world. Even the alleged hard part of the alleged climate science can’t be trusted due to manipulations of raw data – so much for it being a hard science.

    Certainly the assumptions used for any “predictions” (better to call them soothsayings) based upon that math or their hunches are darn lousy when it comes accurately making guesses about the objective reality of Nature.

    What we’ve seen time and time again is that the math and the statistics can be used to fudge their science skewing it their own way towards their alleged AGW hypothesis. That is bias, without a doubt, and bias ridden science needs to be eliminated.

    I’ve wondered how movement of heat energy around the earth affects weather and later climate. The total energy in (which I doubt is being measured or accounted for correctly or fully) and the total energy radiated from the Earth (which we know isn’t being measured since ERBE stopped) affect things the most. From ERBE we know that the CO2 atmosphere models that alleged climate scientists are using are flawed and thus falsified along with their related hypotheses. ~7 times the energy radiates than they allow for. Also there are other better hypotheses – the alleged AGW hypothesis isn’t the only game in town even if supporters claim it so – such as “Ferenc Miskolczi’s Saturated Greenhouse Effect Theory: C02 Cannot Cause Any More “Global Warming”” which you can find here: http://pathstoknowledge.net/2010/01/13/ferenc-miskolczi%e2%80%99s-saturated-greenhouse-effect-theory-c02-cannot-cause-any-more-global-warming.

    Mr Gates, we all can benefit from reading, watching a dedicated master of science: http://pathstoknowledge.net/2010/02/19/cargo-cult-science-a-lesson-from-richard-feynman-for-scientists-of-today-to-learn.

  107. Anu (17:00:38) :
    Tom Wiita (15:29:57) :
    But I guess if you ask nicely, they might find someone to update the chart…

    Fourth, if they wanted to “freeze” the chart at its most dramatic, they wouldn’t include 2008 data, those little upticks at the end of 3 of the lines.

    Actually it was updated to that point because Lucia asked Bill Chapman nicely to settle a wager on her site!

    “Lucia,

    It’s on my to-do list to update that table/graph. Had I known there was so much at stake, I would have bumped up the priority.

    The September data will be finalized in the coming week or two so I should be able to update it in the next few weeks. Send me a reminder in a couple weeks if you don’t see it updated before then. In the future, if you would like to ensure that these things are updated promptly, you will give me advance notice on how I too can get in on some of this brownie action.

    Sincerely,
    Bill Chapman”

  108. 1DandyTroll (19:04:52) :
    Anyways compared to 1978/79, at the rate we’re going at now on the slightly down path, and assuming 1978/79 was any kind of normal, we’re loosing about, ruffly, 1 mil sq km ice per 30 years in the northern hemisphere, and in the AGW linear reality, we’re talking 300 years for the sea ice in the arctic to finally give and for once clear the area. :p

    Appropriately named, the September average is only dropping at ~11%/decade by the way.

  109. Jimbo (16:44:02) : “I have always found one observation very, very strange indeed. Why aren’t the alarmists happy when they see from their own alarmist websites that the Arctic sea ice extent is now at the 1979 – 2000 average?????? I would be sad if AGW was clearly being measured and observed as it could adversly affect my children’s futures; but they should be happy if AGW is shown to be false.”

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

    Damn well said!

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  110. Phil. (19:45:14) : “Maybe they’ll even listen to it properly second time around?” Go ahead, Phil. us in on what he actually said. Try to stick to the science while you are at it.

  111. geo (18:33:30) :
    Really? You really want to pull out 2009 in support of the dismal science

    “At the end of the Arctic summer, more ice cover remained this year than during the previous record-setting low years of 2007 and 2008. However, sea ice has not recovered to previous levels. September sea ice extent was the third lowest since the start of satellite records in 1979, and the past five years have seen the five lowest ice extents in the satellite record.”
    http://nsidc.org/news/press/20091005_minimumpr.html

    Five lowest summer minimums, all in a row.
    What did the climatologists predict ? Oh right, the Arctic summer sea ice melting more and more, until it is gone in a few decades, or perhaps sooner.

    Sixteen expert academic prognosticators with their computer models churning madly. Sixteen of ‘em. You know the theory of doing that kind of thing, right?
    Computer models ?
    Expert academic prognosticators ?
    Why not read about the actual predictions:
    http://www.arcus.org/search/seaiceoutlook/2009_outlook/full_report_july.php

    One was by 84 year old retired professor of atmospheric sciences, Prof. Emeritus Norman Untersteiner of Univ. of Washington.
    http://www.arcus.org/search/seaiceoutlook/2009_outlook/july_report/downloads/pdf/panarctic/15_MorisonUntersteiner_JulyReport_JuneData.pdf
    Try to find “International Institute of Advanced Cryospheric Sciences” on the Web. I think he’s working from his kitchen table.

    Another was by an undergraduate named Gregor Halfmann as part of his Bachelor thesis in Oceanography.
    Is Oceanography a dismal science now, too ?

    http://www.arcus.org/search/seaiceoutlook/2009_outlook/july_report/downloads/pdf/panarctic/12_KaleschkeHalfmann_JulyReport_JuneData.pdf
    He used a simple quadratic extrapolation of the September sea ice extent time series (so much for your “expert academic prognosticators with their computer models churning madly” – Gregor could have done this prediction on his little sister’s Hello Kitty calculator), but noted that the piece of data they most wanted to factor into their very short term prediction was not available:

    Of all parameters the June concentration shows clearly the best statistical relation for the last two years of extreme minima.
    Unfortunately, June 2009 concentration data are not yet available from IFRE-
    MER due to problems with the SSM/I on the platform DMSP-F13 and the switch to DMSP-F17.

    You also forgot all about error bars – do you know what they are ?
    Young Gregor knows what they are – his prediction was, more precisely,
    2009 September Extent:
    Our forecast remains at 4.92 +/- 0.43 Million km2.

    So, his prediction range went up to 5.35 million km2.
    Actual September average ice extent was 5.36 million km2.

    The average error bars for those predictions you gave were 0.4 million km2:
    http://www.arcus.org/search/seaiceoutlook/2009_outlook/report_july.php
    That puts another group of predictions right on the money.

    This is who you are putting your faith in as arctic scientists giving predictions based on only the best that science has to offer in the early part of the 21st century.
    This Arctic Research Consortium of the United States “July Report” probably asked for volunteer predictions at some conference, with a dozen donuts to go to the team with the closest prediction. It’s like asking a group of economists what they think the Dow will be at by the end of the year – it’s an interesting question, but nobody is going to invest money based on their off the cuff guesstimates.
    http://www.arcus.org/search/seaiceoutlook/2009_outlook/july_report/downloads/pdf/panarctic/2009_seaiceoutlook_july_summary-report.pdf

    The important prediction, which you are missing, is that everyone predicted:
    below the 1979-2007 mean
    below the Linear Trend

    And they all got it right.

  112. Phil. (20:26:39) :

    Interesting. Maybe that explains the two different files – they must have overwritten the 2007 one by accident.

    So maybe we’ll see an updated chart soon :-)
    Not everything free is worth what you paid for it.

  113. Henry Pool (23:26:23) :

    I am not so sure whether we should be happy about this. What are we going to do when the blue line break through the black line and continues to rise?
    Wouldn’t that mean that global cooling is on its way…? …

    I think after the last two winters, the vast majority of people in the Northern Hemisphere (with perhaps the exception of Eastern Canada and West Greenland) are fully aware that we have already had some global cooling.

  114. Bill Parsons (10:57:19) :

    So, can anyone shed ligh on:

    “Hundred-year flooding” on East Coast

    http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gToxGRg5OgeiVpllCklfwJCmigjgD9EP40BO0

    Simultaneous with:

    drought “worst in a century…” in Southern China

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303338304575155822158676974.html

    If there’s a known connection, what is it? (global yin / yang?)
    ________________

    If you read the research additions on my name linked web site you will see that I mention the Earth’s March 22nd Synod conjunction of Saturn, which brought warm moisture from the tropics into the mid-latitudes, up to the point of conjunction. (Which gave R.I. their first set of rains) and then just past the conjunction the wrap around of the lunar tidal bulge brought in the second round as the colder more negatively ion charged air mass wrung out the rest of the moisture in a small area (pun intended).

    From the 24th thru the 30th there has been several large invasions of cooler dry air into the N20/25 latitude range globally, which helped inhibit the rains in china, as well as the Gulf states of the USA. Today the “normal” flow of the atmosphere is almost back to past patterns.

    The long term pattern of the 18.6 year lunar declinational cycle is in the past peak 2006 stage of decreasing again, and there is a general lowering of jet stream patterns following the shift in tidal effects. In case you did not notice the snows last winter being so far South. That is showing up as the usual drought period in parts China (in the dry lee side of the Himalayas) and a couple other areas as well.

    They are right that as they get into China’s normal monsoon period things will balance out again.

  115. It’s interesting that this, along with much anecdotal evidence that the 2009/10 winter was relatively cold, is occuring when the satellite data may well show 2010 as the warmest year on record by a sgnificant margin:-

    http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/execute.csh?amsutemps+002

    Does the El Nino largely affect ocean temperatures, and when do we expect it to weaken?

    The media seem to have lost interest is the whole global warming melodrama. After some fairly hysterical reporting of global warming in a decade when there wasn’t any, they have now dozed off when they actually have some. I’d like to see the headline “winter freeze due to global warming”.

  116. Anu,

    “I don’t see many unqualified people complaining about the “foolish” attempt to find a Higgs boson at the Large Hadron Collider,”

    Scientists at the LHC aren’t threatening to harm civilization with futile policies to control the earth’s climate.

  117. Anu (16:01:42) :

    Thanks for replying, Anu. And I do know where Svalbard is, as I live fairly close to that area. I have even been to Svalbard a couple of times, both on land and on ships in the nearby seas. It’s a very beautiful place indeed. You should go there sometime. The sea ice around Svalbard usually reaches down to the north coast at about 80N. East of Svalbard, the winter sea ice reaches farther down the coast, sometimes reaching as far south as Bear Island, a small island half way between Svalbard and the Norwegian mainland. I’ve been there, too. Usually, there are no bears on Bear Island, but sometimes bears swim over to the island from the sea ice, and occasionally even get stranded there when the ice retreats. A person on the island was killed by a stranded bear, I think about 1975.

    OK, back on topic. I mostly agree with your points. My point was that the DMI graph shows no increased summer max temps since 1958 for the arctic region. Admittedly, the graphs show temps above 80N latitude. I don’t know how the temps are calculated, since there are very few thermometers up there, but I assume they use some measurements from nearby arctic locations in Svalbard, Greenland, Canada, Alaska, and Siberia, and then employ some averaging and interpolation/extrapolation algorithm to arrive at their above 80N temps. Surely, the temp curve for locations between 66.5N and 80N will be raised compared to this.

    Since we are talking about arctic sea ice, consisting mainly of frozen sea water, it will of course melt at temperatures between -1C and -2C. However, for minimum summer ice extent, we are mostly left with ice north of Greenland, Canada and across the Arctic Ocean above 80N. Therefore, other factors than air temps, like sea water temps, currents, and winds (like in 2007) have a big impact on summer minimum ice extent.

    Another intriguing aspect of the DMI graphs, is that there seem to be much higher variability and even increased temps (?) in the seasons covered by days 0-120 and 260-365 compared to the 1958-2002 average. If there indeed is increased average temps during these seasons in later years compared to 1958-2002 ave., can that be attributed to increased atmospheric CO2? After all, winter season in the arctic is dark, with little LWR to be reradiated, compared to summer with more sunshine and more LWR from the ground. Any thoughts? Thanks.

  118. Phil. (21:15:19) :

    “Now would be a good time to brush up on your high school science:”

    And what part of my statement do you think is contradicted by your high school science, Phil?

  119. No, enduser, you have it all wrong. The 1980-2000 trend was an aberrant anomoly. The mid 20th century cooling trend, the early 21st century cooling trend, the low ACE numbers, and now this unprecedented ice recovery prove that there is a strong correlation between increased CO2 and global cooling. We need cap and trade more than ever!

    (Sorry, I couldn’t help myself)

  120. JAN, the simple answer is that, as you suggest in your response to Phil, the discussion heating and cooling curves and phase changes has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with your assertion. I don’t have any idea what Phil is talking about.

  121. @ geo (10:55:35) [2 Apr 2010] :

    Btw, it’s April 2nd. What’s the over/under on the first puzzled “wtf is that jog every year on June 1?” post?
    .
    If you are referring to the sea-ice extent, follow the link to the IARC-JAXA/AMSR-E graph and info on the WUWT right sidebar, and see the 3rd para under the heading “Method for calculating sea-ice extent”:

    The current version of data processing produces an erroneous blip of sea-ice extent on June 1 and October 15, which is seen in the graph of sea-ice extent as a small peak on these dates. The apparent blip arises due to switching of some parameters in the processing on those dates. The parameter switching is needed because the surface of the Arctic sea ice becomes wet in summer due to the melting of ice, drastically changing the satellite-observed signatures of sea ice. We will soon improve the processing to make the graph much smoother.
    .
    Hope that helps.

  122. JAN (02:31:14) :
    Phil. (21:15:19) :

    “Now would be a good time to brush up on your high school science:”

    And what part of my statement do you think is contradicted by your high school science, Phil?

    I hoped you might have noticed that the temperature is constant while there is melting ice present!

  123. Andew P said
    I think after the last two winters, the vast majority of people in the Northern Hemisphere (with perhaps the exception of Eastern Canada and West Greenland) are fully aware that we have already had some global cooling.

    Someone else here cracked a joke about there being a relationship between increased CO2 and global cooling —

    however, this might not be such a far fetched idea…

    My theory might be true after all, the cooling properties of CO2 might be greater than the warming properties. The net effcect of more CO2 causes cooling, not warming….This is what I have been suspecting all along…..:

    We know that CO2 has absorption in the 14-15 um range causing some warming (by re-radiating earthshine, 24 hours per day) but as shown and proved it also has a number of absorptions in the 0-5 um range causing cooling (by re-radiating sunshine). This cooling happens at all levels where the sunshine hits on the carbon dioxide same as the earthshine. The way from the bottom to the top is the same as from top to the bottom. So, my question was: how much cooling and how much warming is caused by the CO2? How was the experiment done to determine this and where are the test results? If it has not been done, why don’t we just sue the oil companies to do this research? (I am afraid that simple heat retention testing will not work here, we have to use real sunshine and real earthshine to determine the effect in W/m3 [0.04%-0.06%]CO2 /m2/24hours).
    When they analysed the spectra, did they look at all the absorptions, namely also at those of CO2 in the UV – that have only been discovered recently? I also doubt that spectra analysis would work here – you have to come up with a more real time experiment.
    I think especially the cooling of CO2 caused at 4.3 um might be considerable because this is where the sun’s radiation is at its hottest (on your skin). Note that the temp. on the coast on a sunny day (no wind) is always a few degrees cooler than more inland. This is due to same cooling caused by water vapor in the sun’s solar spectra – I am saying CO2 does exactly the same thing.

    So what is the net effect of CO2? How dow we all know for sure that CO2 is a greenhouse gas when clearly Svante Arrhenius formula has long been proven wrong and nobody has come up with a new formula?

  124. Merrick (03:47:31) :
    JAN, the simple answer is that, as you suggest in your response to Phil, the discussion heating and cooling curves and phase changes has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with your assertion. I don’t have any idea what Phil is talking about.

    In fact it has absolutely everything to do with the relatively constant summer temperature north of 80ºN!

  125. @OldUnixHead (04:38:49) :

    I knew that, but thanks anyway. I was having fun with an annual rite of spring here at WUWT that we are about to experience again.

  126. David Ball (21:58:54) :
    Phil. (19:45:14) : “Maybe they’ll even listen to it properly second time around?” Go ahead, Phil. us in on what he actually said. Try to stick to the science while you are at it.

    It’s nothing to do with science, it’s about the habitual misquoting of that speech on here and elsewhere. Now that the original isn’t on line anymore you’ll be able to continue to misquote him with impunity.
    He didn’t say what Anthony put in this headline:
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/12/14/gore-entire-north-polar-ice-cap-will-be-gone-in-5-years/

  127. Phil. (04:56:04) :

    Phil, I’m quite aware of the fact that the temperature of the ice won’t increase during phase change. Instead all added heat goes into the phase change. I believe I never stated otherwise.

    I live in a region where we have quite a bit of snow and ice during the winter season. This winter we had quite a bit more cold, snow and ice than usual. Actually, I think this has been the longest, coldest and snowiest winter I can remember since the seventies, or sixties even. What I notice during the melt season, like now, is that the air temperature can vary quite a bit. Some days may be around 0 to 2 degrees C, others maybe 8 to 10 C. When the air temp is higher, the ice and snow melt more quickly.

    Are you suggesting it works very differently in the Arctic north of 80N?

  128. So.

    The summary comes down to the question:

    Are you going to believe the scientists with there really expensive instruments, and the “scientists” with their really expensive scissors-lift, or are you going to believe your lying eyes?

  129. Phil. (05:19:51) :

    I just saw your most recent post after I pushed submit, and the page refreshed.

    For your further information, I still have about 6 or 8 inches of compact snow all around where I live, so we are now in the middle of the melt season here.

    As an illustration, here are the temperatures we are experiencing:

    http://pent.no/%C3%85lesund

  130. If the ice is spreading out due to winds, etc, then that ice should quickly melt/disperse, and the ice-coverage would quickly go back down to lower levels.

    We shall see….

  131. It’s good that the Arctic sea ice is now back to ‘normal’, although only using 1979 – 2000 as a base period is a nonsense.

    In my view anything less than 100y has no meaning. Without the proper comparison data no useful conclusions can be made about what this means in terms of climate. To make matters worse, seasonal sea ice growth and decline are driven by deterministic chaos and it is impossible to know with any precision what future levels will be.

    It is fun to try and guess though, and I think 2010 summer ice extent will come in larger than last year.

  132. @ Phil. (05:19:51)

    Al Gore said “There is a 75% chance that the entire north polar ice cap during some of the summer months could be completely ice free within the next five to seven years.”

    The video Anthony linked to was removed from youtube but the one below hasn’t been (yet) and it is Al Gore in Copenhagen saying exactly what I quoted above.

    This was very widely quoted in newspapers and took only seconds to confirm with google. Try it out sometime.

  133. I’m not sure, but I think the satellite is thought to be able to differentiate among, land, sea water, and ice.

    They count the number of pixels that are ice over pixels that are ice plus pixels that are water as coverage, and edges of area that have some ice (15*%? — dunno where I got that number from) as extent.

    I think.

  134. Larry Sheldon (05:59:47) :
    quote – Gore said polar scientists told him Sunday that the latest data “suggest a 75 percent chance the entire polar ice cap will melt in summer within the next five to seven years.” – unquote
    But you are right–I wouldn’t trust CBS either.

    More likely Uncle Albert told them polar *bears* had told him that, and CBS didn’t want to look completely ridiculous…

    In the interest of full disclosure, my latest data suggest a 75% chance a camel will jump out of my desk drawer within the next five to seven years.

  135. Mark Serreze chips in his two cents and blames it on the cold conditions in the Bering Sea in the last sveral weeks.

    http://www.adn.com/2010/04/01/1208603/growth-in-arctic-sea-ice-a-fluke.html

    The Bering Sea is above average, but it is not that much higher than normal, the anomaly decreased over the last few weeks and it was more above average last year.

    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.2.html

    The new Jaxa numbers indicate that 2010 will be very close to the average for April 2nd.

    The Cryosphere Today has both the Arctic and Antarctic sea ice areas at essentially average.

    Now, the pro-AGW set is blaming the weather (cold weather – more ice – doesn’t disprove global warming or the death spiral ? – what is global warming about exactly ?) and they are trotting out the loss of multi-year ice in the Arctic instead (there is a seasonal melt of multi-year ice that has not been taken into account – it declines to 2 metres every year – so the actual amount/volume of multi-year ice has been greatly over-estimated).

  136. That was some pretty impressive wriggling there Phil. Worthy of Al Gore and the other fellows who engage in that non-political science type stuff. Perhaps they removed it as it was inconvenient. It is certainly inconvenient that you could not explain what he really meant by ” The Artic ice cap will be gone in 5 years”. I do not see any other way to interpret what was said. You never did answer my post on the other Artic sea ice extent thread, either. Typical.

  137. @ Henry Pool (09:02:04)

    Sunspot chart on right is there because there is a strongly suspected relationship between solar magnetic field strength and global warming/cooling. Sunspots are a proxy for magnetic field strength and astronomers have been recording the number of them sporadically beginning in the year 1600 and continuously beginning in 1750.

    This latest sunspot cycle, which reached its nadir last year, was the lowest in a hundred years and, probably not coincidentally, the northern hemisphere had a harsh winter.

    The evident relationship is hypothetically driven by high altitude cloud formation. When the sun’s magnetic field is strong it deflects more cosmic rays (high energy particles originating outside our solar system) and when weaker it deflects fewer. These particles upon impact with the upper atmosphere cause a cascade of events that have been shown in laboratory simulations to result in greater formation of clouds. Thin high altitude clouds reflect a portion of sunlight directly back out into space.

    The relationship can be seen as long as sunspots have been counted and the notorious Little Ice Age in Europe circa 1650 coincided with dearth of sunspots called the Maunder Minimum.

    Probably not coincidentally the number of sunspots has been about 50% higher than normal from 1960 through 2000.

    It appears to the casual observer that solar magnetic field strength can drive the average global temperature at least a couple degrees in either direction.

    Complicating this is the fact that cosmic ray strength also varies due to both predictable (star density in region of galaxy that solar system is traversing) and unpredictably like when a star in our neck of the woods goes supernova.

  138. JAN (05:52:34) :
    Phil. (04:56:04) :

    Phil, I’m quite aware of the fact that the temperature of the ice won’t increase during phase change. Instead all added heat goes into the phase change. I believe I never stated otherwise.

    I live in a region where we have quite a bit of snow and ice during the winter season. This winter we had quite a bit more cold, snow and ice than usual. Actually, I think this has been the longest, coldest and snowiest winter I can remember since the seventies, or sixties even. What I notice during the melt season, like now, is that the air temperature can vary quite a bit. Some days may be around 0 to 2 degrees C, others maybe 8 to 10 C. When the air temp is higher, the ice and snow melt more quickly.

    Are you suggesting it works very differently in the Arctic north of 80N?

    Last time I looked Alesund wasn’t surrounded by frozen ocean but ocean at 5º-10ºC you bet it works different in the Arctic north of 80ºN, at least until we surpass 2007 minimum extent.

  139. “Henry Pool (04:57:56) :
    […]
    how much cooling and how much warming is caused by the CO2? How was the experiment done to determine this and where are the test results?”

    There were measurements taken under a program called TIGR, looking up and down from an aircraft with a spectrometer if i understand correctly. These measurements NASA offered for analysis to researchers. Ferenc Miskolczi has done such an analysis during contract work for NASA.

    Please take a look at these slides, specifically slide 69. SU is surface upward radiation, OLR is outgoing radiation (leaving the troposphere upwards i think, but it’s explained in the earlier slides, e.g. slide 32 – here, confusingly, SU is called SG).

    http://miskolczi.webs.com/ZM_v10_eng.pdf

    Maybe this can help you with your question.

  140. Tenuc (06:55:56) :
    “It’s good that the Arctic sea ice is now back to ‘normal’, although only using 1979 – 2000 as a base period is a nonsense.”

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

    Exactly! A blip in geological time.

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  141. Phil. (05:19:51) :

    “It’s nothing to do with science, it’s about the habitual misquoting of that speech on here and elsewhere. Now that the original isn’t on line anymore you’ll be able to continue to misquote him with impunity.”

    The video is available here:

    “He didn’t say what Anthony put in this headline:
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/12/14/gore-entire-north-polar-ice-cap-will-be-gone-in-5-years/:

    What Al said was, “There is a 75% chance that the entire North polar ice cap, during summer; during some of the summer months could be completely ice free within the next 5 to 7 years.”

    Any way you spin this, Al was presenting an obviously erroneous prediction of potentially rapidly disappearing arctic sea ice in order to mislead and alarm his audience. The Al Gore and Warmists have been caught in a blatant lie and no amount of equivocating is going to change that…

  142. Jerker Andersson (23:10:31) :

    And 8 of the highest 8 recorded extents for this date happened in the last 8 years, for the dataset that started in June 2002.

    Surely this is statistically significant…

  143. Given the situation in the rest of the political sphere–I’ll take the bet on the camel.

  144. Vincent (02:28:23) :

    Scientists at the LHC aren’t threatening to harm civilization with futile policies to control the earth’s climate.

    Do you think only the scientists who’s work might affect your way of life are incompetent ? What about the ones who affect it in a good way ? Or, perhaps they are all incompetent, but you don’t care about the ones who aren’t going to be making policy recommendations ?

    It’s curious how only very small subfields of Science are criticized by the Public.

  145. Based on IJIS data, the N. Hemisphere arctic sea ice pack likely saw it’s annual winter peak on March 31st at 14,407,344 sq. km. My guess is, we’ll shave about 10,000,000 sq. km off that to reach the summer minimum in mid-Sept. at around 4,500,000 sq. km. Look for big melting from the Siberian side and Atlantic side.

  146. Did anybody notice that the NSIDC curve today is different than on the April 1st curve that Anthony pasted above? The slope was accelerating at the end of the curve on April 1st, but today’s image shows a decelerating slope at the end, even for the period that was accelerating on the graph above.

  147. One last little quip about this little March “bump” upward in Arctic sea ice. We may indeed see the first positive arctic sea ice anomaly since 2004, and this is significant in the short term, as it breaks a 6 year drought in positive anomalies. However, it is only significant in the longer term if it continues in the longer term. If the arctic sea ice quickly dips back down into a negative anomaly range, and then we see a summer sea ice minimum below 2009’s minimum, (around what I’m predicting of 4,500,000 sq. km), then this March “bump” upward will become insignifcant, as the longer term trend of lower year-to-year arctic sea ice will continue.

    My guess is that 2008, 2009, and perhpas even this little bump award in March 2010 arctic sea ice are still the result to varying degrees of effects from:

    1) The long deep solar minimum (now ended)
    2) The La Nina of 2008-2009 (now ended)
    3) The mutliple extreme negative AO index (and related shifts in winds, currents) of winter 2010.

    Now that all these short term effects have ened, the longer term forcing of CO2 can once more be the dominant signal, and 2010 will likely be the warmest year on instrument record. (unless a large Iceland volcano decides to get nasty)

    Based on Jan., Feb, and soon March’s global temperature data, 2010 is indeed shaping up to be very warm.

  148. Looks like NSIDC chart has been modified a little. It no longer hits the mean line. Slight downward adjustment was made.

  149. Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice
    source: Cryosphere Today
    04/01/10: -.189 1979-2008 mean [13.660 million sq. km]
    04/03/10: -.132 [13.700]
    04/03/10: -.090 [13.732]

    Increasing at a rate of approximately 30,000 sq. km a day. It must be due to manmade cooling.

    NASA Earth Observatory
    Aerosols & Climate Change”
    “Aerosols tend to have a cooling effect on the Earth’s surface by reflecting the Sun’s light back into Space.”
    http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Aerosols/

    Related Articles:
    “Changing Our Weather One Smokestack at a Time”

  150. Tenuc (06:55:56) :
    “It’s good that the Arctic sea ice is now back to ‘normal’, although only using 1979 – 2000 as a base period is a nonsense.”

    Better than Roy Spencer’s 79-98!

  151. JAN (02:29:08) :

    Another intriguing aspect of the DMI graphs, is that there seem to be much higher variability and even increased temps (?) in the seasons covered by days 0-120 and 260-365 compared to the 1958-2002 average. If there indeed is increased average temps during these seasons in later years compared to 1958-2002 ave., can that be attributed to increased atmospheric CO2? After all, winter season in the arctic is dark, with little LWR to be reradiated, compared to summer with more sunshine and more LWR from the ground. Any thoughts? Thanks.
    I think the reasoning goes like this:
    since the Earth’s climate is an integrated system, if increased CO2 worldwide causes the radiative balance to change (more heat retained), the system as a whole is “heating up”. The ocean currents, winds, melting ice, hurricanes, etc. take this somewhat increased heat and mix it up in very complicated ways. From measurements, most of this increased, retained heat has gone into the oceans, in complicated patterns down to 3000 meters.

    The rising temperatures, even in the 80° N circle at the Arctic, could be caused by either slightly warmer ocean currents (such as the “conveyor belt” bringing more heat Northward) or winds with slightly more heat, even in the dead of winter. You don’t need CO2 “acting” in every region to affect the climate there.

    Yes, I haven’t looked into how this particular site gets temps for that far north, by the “pole hole” unseen by satellites. Maybe buoys or airplanes, they can go anywhere.

    p.s. Svalbard sounds beautiful. I haven’t been to the Arctic, or ever seen the Northern Lights, but it’s on my To Do list :-)

  152. Aerosols are a logical factor but the result is cooling in the Arctic? How can Aerosols contribute to warming?

    Asia Oceanic Geosciences Society
    Asia Oceanic Geosciences Society will be organizing its 7th Annual Meeting in Hyderabad, India during July 5-9, 2010.
    source: http://aerosols.blogspot.com/

    How Aerosols Contribute To Climate Change
    source: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090619203520.htm
    ScienceDaily (June 23, 2009) — What happens in Vegas may stay in Vegas, but what happens on the way there is a different story.

    “Among these complex phenomena, the actions of aerosols are what some researchers consider the field’s holy grail, representing the biggest barrier to producing accurate representations of climate. In fact, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 2007 specifically listed the effect of aerosols on cloud formation as the largest source of uncertainty in present-day climate models.”

    “The Arctic Circle is one of the places in the world most sensitive to changes in the mix of aerosols. Since the beginnings of the Industrial Revolution, scientists and explorers have noted the presence of the Arctic haze, a swirl of pollution that appears when sunlight returns after a winter of darkness. The presence of smog over a mostly uninhabited region leads many scientists to believe it is the reason the Arctic is experiencing the most rapid climate-related changes in the world. The haze now lingers for a longer period of time every year. It may be contributing to the forces now causing a meltdown of Arctic ice, a release of methane once stored in permafrost, and a host of ecological changes affecting the spectrum of organisms from mosquitoes to polar bears.”

    Updated 13 August, 2004
    Role of Aerosols in Climate Change
    USGCRP Seminar, 25 April 1996
    http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/seminars/960425SM.html

  153. Phil. (10:16:46) said:

    Tenuc (06:55:56) :
    “It’s good that the Arctic sea ice is now back to ‘normal’, although only using 1979 – 2000 as a base period is a nonsense.”

    Better than Roy Spencer’s 79-98!

    Is that because Roy is a Christian? (Note, I am an atheist.)

    It seems utter nonsense to defend the use of less data than we have on the basis that someone else used even less. (I do assume that the claim that A is better than B is a defence of A).

  154. R. Gates (10:02:00) :

    Ya suppose the Arctic has been cut off from it’s supply of C02 brand (r) anti-freeze?

  155. R. Gates (09:39:49) :
    Don’t we shave 10,000,000 off every year and if it only melts to 4,500,000, isn’t that a positive trend based on the last 3 seasons?

  156. JAN (02:29:08)


    Another intriguing aspect of the DMI graphs, is that there seem to be much higher variability and even increased temps (?) in the seasons covered by days 0-120 and 260-365 compared to the 1958-2002 average. If there indeed is increased average temps during these seasons in later years compared to 1958-2002 ave., can that be attributed to increased atmospheric CO2? After all, winter season in the arctic is dark, with little LWR to be reradiated, compared to summer with more sunshine and more LWR from the ground. Any thoughts? Thanks.

    Anu (10:48:24)

    Thanks.
    I think the reasoning goes like this:
    since the Earth’s climate is an integrated system, if increased CO2 worldwide causes the radiative balance to change (more heat retained), the system as a whole is “heating up”. The ocean currents, winds, melting ice, hurricanes, etc. take this somewhat increased heat and mix it up in very complicated ways. From measurements, most of this increased, retained heat has gone into the oceans, in complicated patterns down to 3000 meters.

    The rising temperatures, even in the 80° N circle at the Arctic, could be caused by either slightly warmer ocean currents (such as the “conveyor belt” bringing more heat Northward) or winds with slightly more heat, even in the dead of winter. You don’t need CO2 “acting” in every region to affect the climate there.

    Yes, I haven’t looked into how this particular site gets temps for that far north, by the “pole hole” unseen by satellites. Maybe buoys or airplanes, they can go anywhere.

    p.s. Svalbard sounds beautiful. I haven’t been to the Arctic, or ever seen the Northern Lights, but it’s on my To Do list :-)

    Curious you guys should be discussing this, as I’ve been considering the same questions.

    I don’t like the DMI temps because they are from the ERA-40 reanalysis, which of course is the output of a computer model. That’s how they can estimate for the “polar hole” that’s not covered by satellites. There are known problems with the most recent version of ERA-40. However, as someone commented, they’re likely the best estimate we’ve got of arctic temps.

    I’ve been (slowly) digitizing the DMI data, because the !@#$%^&* don’t make it available on their datasite. I wrote and asked for it … no joy, so I’ve been doing it the old fashioned way. I have the 1995-2010 data completed, and here are the averages:

    Figure W1. Average temperatures 1995-2010 north of 80°N (red line), compared with the 1958-2002 average (gray line). Right scale shows differences in the averages. Dates are normalized onto a 360 day year.

    JAN, your guess was good. The increased warmth is entirely in the fall and winter months (days 1-100 and 250-360), with spring and summer being right on the long-term average.

    To check this, I looked at the so-called “North Pole” zonal temps from the UAH MSU satellite data. These don’t cover as far north, only to about 82.5°N, but I figured I’d see if the patterns were similar. They are similar, in that the warming is greatest in the winter and spring. Both show the peak at around day 100. Unlike the DMI results, there is also summer warming. As mentioned, they are not directly comparable, but the general patterns are quite similar.

    What does all of this mean? Well … um … er …

    Best to all,

    w.

  157. Willis Eschenbach (12:23:18) :

    Decreased ice in the Arctic is causing warmer temperatures. Open water and heat released from seawater freezing is driving temperatures up in late summer through winter.

  158. Anu (08:41:23) :

    i knew someone would swallow the bait when someone would mention an insignificant data in the showing the ice going in the “wrong” direction, just as 2007 was “significant” proof for a death sprial for arctic. =)

  159. Richard Sharpe (11:20:43) :
    Phil. (10:16:46) said:

    Tenuc (06:55:56) :
    “It’s good that the Arctic sea ice is now back to ‘normal’, although only using 1979 – 2000 as a base period is a nonsense.”

    Better than Roy Spencer’s 79-98!

    Is that because Roy is a Christian? (Note, I am an atheist.)

    It seems utter nonsense to defend the use of less data than we have on the basis that someone else used even less. (I do assume that the claim that A is better than B is a defence of A).

    Just pointing out that friends of the site are not criticized for such practices, note that he’s rarely asked for his raw data or code here either.

  160. Thanks Willis Eschenbach, I’ve been trying to find data to compare seasons and wasn’t able to find it.

    Questions:
    – (0°C) or 273.15K is the freezing point of water so based on this data, the (I’m assuming air) temperature difference is unlikely to have much effect on the surface of sea ice?
    – the end unit 360 doesn’t align with beginning unit 0-1; shouldn’t it since this red line is a 15 year average?

    Thanks,
    John

  161. Henry@ Dave Springer

    So what you are saying is that more spots means more solar magnetic field coming from the sun, eventually translating in less cloudformation and more heat on the floor. I got that, I just did not remember anymore which way it was with those spots. thanks.
    But do you know what a normal average is for these spots- and if yes, perhaps we could also start a line somehwere with zero and then we can see if things are going up or down? Or is it actually possible to measure the solar magnetic field and put this in one of those zero lines?? going back to as far as we have measurements.

    I wonder if you are familiar with the predicted alignment where the sun comes right in line with the middle (center) of the Milky way. The exact alignment is predicted for 2012. I gather that if we are already more or less aligned with the centre and I suppose that there are not too many stars there, so a lot less GCR will come to earth? What do you think?

  162. sorry Willis,
    I should have been more specific in the questions.

    – (0°C) or 273.15K is the freezing point of water (which you are showing with the Blue horizontal line) so based on this data, the (air) temperature difference in winter is unlikely to have much effect on sea ice because its occurring well the freezing point?
    – the end unit 360 doesn’t align with beginning unit 0-1; shouldn’t it since this red line is a 15 year average normalized onto a 360 day (unit) year?

  163. Willis Eschenbach (12:23:18) :

    Thank you Willis, that is very illustrative of what I was saying.

    “What does all of this mean? Well … um … er …”

    I think that Phil. indirectly has offered a plausible explanation to why the days 120 to 260 show so little variance and no anomaly compared to 1958-2002 average. If I understand Phils reasoning correctly, he is implying that when the surface air temps exceed the melting point, the ice starts to melt from above, and any added heat in the air from either CO2 re-radiation or otherwise, will go into the phase change process of melting ice, thereby reducing variability and limiting further rise of air temps. In the absence of a warm ocean nearby, the summer max temps in the Arctic above 80N therefore will not rise much above the melting point of ice until most all ice has melted.

  164. Phil. (08:06:36) :

    OK Phil., we will see if and when that happens then, if at all in our lifetime.

    As I mentioned in another thread, I imagine that you have some kind of professional expertise on the subject of arctic ice. So, in your professional opinion, when will we see a new summer minimum record low, and what is your prediction for 2010 summer minimum, and why?

  165. Anu (10:48:24) :

    “p.s. Svalbard sounds beautiful. I haven’t been to the Arctic, or ever seen the Northern Lights, but it’s on my To Do list :-)”

    Let me know when you are coming over, and I will treat you to a CO2 saturated Arctic Ice Beer.

  166. But this year, levels continued to grow in the second half of March. Dr Mark Serreze, of the NSlDC, said parts of the Arctic were going through an unusually cold spring – but that other areas were warmer than normal.

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1263207/Increase-Arctic-ice-confounds-doomsayers.html#ixzz0k4hOc9rR
    Why?
    Why are said parts of the Arctic going through and unusually cold spring smack dab in the middle of a predicted CAGW Ice-free Arctic by 2013?
    Just because they said it is so is not a reason.
    If the weather patterns are blowing cold air down on top of the southern lat. of the N. Hem., why isn’t the Arctic melting instead of growing?
    If the winds have stopped in the Arctic, then the Arctic should be melting rapidly in CAGW balminess, and the USA/Europe/Asia should be sweltering in unprecedented April heat.
    No make sense.
    Heat transport to the Arctic escapes to space in weakened Terrestrial Magnetic Field, though incomplete, makes more sense than Serreze’s non-explanation.

  167. Look, lets get this straight. The Arctic refusing to comply with accepted climate change models is just not acceptable in todays scientific community. Can I suggest that if this nonsense continues we send ice breakers into the Arctic spraying hot water on all sides until the ice sees sense and resorts to it’s predicted behaviours. We must ensure that climate change models are not embarrassed by such thoughtless behaviours by the environment.
    yours etc.
    Angry of LLangoed.

  168. Smokey (13:26:15) :

    “Right after arctic roos posted this, they went off line: click”

    Possibly their server went down due to too many hits. Anyway, it’s Easter holidays over here now, so nobody is working this weekend. More likely than not, they will be down until after the holidays.

    Happy holidays to all!

  169. Alan S (15:54:12) :

    ‘Scientists warn’. Serreze give some areas colder, some areas warmer in a zero-sum game excuse for a reason.
    It’s colder in your house because your stove is being used.
    There is no evidence right now for a warmer than normal or colder than normal according to the DMI 80N temp. It’s right where it should be. And that does not explain what’s going on up there.
    It certainly does not give any creedence to Mr. Serreze’s explanation.

  170. …magma does not come from a magma chamber but is received directly from the mantle of the earth. Olgeir says this rather rare. It is very interesting if it is true.

    http://translate.google.com/translate?js=y&u=http://www.ruv.is/frett/gosstrokar-um-hundrad-metra-hair&sl=is&tl=en

    News about the volcanic eruptions in Iceland is being regularly updated here:
    http://translate.google.com/translate?
    js=y&u=http://www.ruv.is/flokkar/hamfarir/eldgos-fimmvorduhalsi&sl=is&tl=en

  171. R Gates, your reference to a deep solar minimum causing ice recovery belies a weakness in your theory. Mathematically, your solar theory cannot explain ice behavior of the past two years nor this little March blip (too little solar ice-melting potential variation at the pole combined with too much ice retention).

    The past two years of weather pattern variation and Arctic current data has shown a decided change in the parameters that lead to ice flush in the Arctic basin which has prevented what we know as the June through August Flush. These parameters have also explained ice compaction and ice thickness. The Sun has nothing to do with it.

    Please explain the retention of ice based on the most significant factors: weather and current pattern variation (pressure gradients, wind patterns, and oceanic Arctic current SST).

    If you want to argue that these Arctic parameters have temporarily overwhelmed the increasing global warming threat, fine. But at least show some understanding of weather interacting with the Arctic system.

  172. Dr A Burns (17:36:07) : NSDIC seems to be desperately hanging on to February.

    They are entitled to their Easter holiday, the same as everyone else. I’m sure they will update sometime next week, and it will be interesting to see what they say.

  173. NZ Willy (18:13:00) :
    Dr A Burns (17:36:07) : NSDIC seems to be desperately hanging on to February.

    They are entitled to their Easter holiday, the same as everyone else. I’m sure they will update sometime next week, and it will be interesting to see what they say.

    On their normal schedule, the first week of the month, insinuations here to the contrary not withstanding.

  174. I don’t see surface winds being in the direction that would say that extent data is an artificial construct (IE wind patterns spreading out ice extent southward). It seems to me that ice is still being pushed towards the pole, so ice extent as it is currently being reported, is quite significant in my opinion and is outside the past 30 year mean. It appears to me that sea ice is still being frozen as new ice, and is not old ice being pushed South. The uptick is significant in my opinion, barring a computer glitch.

  175. addendum. To clarify, sea ice extent growth at this time of year seems outside of the usual 30 year mean for growth for this time of year.

  176. Anu (09:36:18) :

    Vincent (02:28:23) :

    Scientists at the LHC aren’t threatening to harm civilization with futile policies to control the earth’s climate.

    Do you think only the scientists who’s work might affect your way of life are incompetent ? What about the ones who affect it in a good way ? Or, perhaps they are all incompetent, but you don’t care about the ones who aren’t going to be making policy recommendations ?

    It’s curious how only very small subfields of Science are criticized by the Public.

    Environmentalism is a heavily politicized field, dominated by “believers” with an extremist mentality who are willing to play dirty. The field has badly over-reached and cried wolf in the past.

  177. Pamela Gray (19:55:46) :
    I don’t see surface winds being in the direction that would say that extent data is an artificial construct (IE wind patterns spreading out ice extent southward). It seems to me that ice is still being pushed towards the pole,

    Although what you suggest is exactly what is not happening, the drift is strongly out of the Fram and past Svalbard where the extent is growing. Here’s the last 6 days’ drift, for example.

    It appears to me that sea ice is still being frozen as new ice, and is not old ice being pushed South. The uptick is significant in my opinion, barring a computer glitch.

    Also the MODIS images in that area show fragmented thicker ice not freshly frozen, new thin ice.

  178. Phil: Although what you suggest is exactly what is not happening, the drift is strongly out of the Fram and past Svalbard where the extent is growing. Here’s the last 6 days’ drift, for example.

    Although what you suggest looks nice and convenient in the pic, it does not explain that the biggest upticks in sea ice have not been in the Greenland Sea or Davis Straight. In fact, the areas in those seas have declined in the last week or so overall. The big upticks have occurred in the Barents Sea and Okhotsk Seas (and even Bering)…which have nothing to do with the flushing ice of ice out the Fram Straight. Maybe you could make a weak case of the expansion of the Barents Sea being thinned out in its ice extent, but your argument certainly has nothing to do with the decent uptick in the Okhotsk Sea or Bering Sea.

    I’m sure you’ll have a clever or snarky response to this, but the fact is that those winds you posted are almost totally irrelevant to the uptick in sea ice.

  179. Willis Eschenbach (12:23:18) :

    Ref: JAN (02:29:08)

    Ref: Anu (10:48:24)

    True, but consider that this data set (1958 – 2010) shows absolutely NO temperature increase (in summer) for the Arctic in the past fifty years of supposed global warming.

    (But GISS (Hansen) claims in his data to find more than 4 degrees of Arctic temperature increase in this period. One or the other claim is demonstrably false. 1/2 degree? Might be explicable. 1 degree difference? Maybe. But for Hansen to claim that much Arctic warming when this set shows none is vivd proof of how wrong his extrapolations are using his 1200 mile circles from the nearest thermometer.)

    So, if there is zero warming across the summer peak temperatures – the only period of the year warmer than zero C as pointed out above – then the Arctic ice is NOT melting due to higher temperatures elsewhere around the globe.

    Third: There is tremendously more variation in the temperatures in winter, spring, and fall than in the three summer months.

    Willis: I strongly recommend you split the DMI “year” into thirds: Compare the different variations in temperature for the three periods: The first four months and third four months will show a much, much larger standard deviation than the middle four months; but that much larger deviation will not contribute to ice melt nor middle of the year ice extent graphs.

    Since the summer four months have not warmed in fifty years, something (other than “global warming) has caused the reduction in ice extent.

  180. John from CA said:

    “R. Gates (09:39:49) :
    Don’t we shave 10,000,000 off every year and if it only melts to 4,500,000, isn’t that a positive trend based on the last 3 seasons?”

    ————–

    Using the IJIS data, if the arctic sea ice minimum hits 4.5 million sq. km in Sept., (as I think it will), then that would be a downward trend from the 2008-2009 minimums, and heading back toward the modern record summer low set in 2007. Some posters on this site (i.e. Steve Goddard et. al., are stating they think the mimimum will be 6 million sq. km. or greater, and that would be higher than the 2008-2009 minimum.

  181. John from CA (13:25:06)

    Thanks Willis Eschenbach, I’ve been trying to find data to compare seasons and wasn’t able to find it.

    Questions:
    – (0°C) or 273.15K is the freezing point of water so based on this data, the (I’m assuming air) temperature difference is unlikely to have much effect on the surface of sea ice?

    My read of the situation is that arctic ice melt is much more dependent on the temperature of the sea water under it than the air above it.

    – the end unit 360 doesn’t align with beginning unit 0-1; shouldn’t it since this red line is a 15 year average?

    Yes, it should, and I had noticed that. It’s one of the problems I have with climate model results. They seem to run the numbers and accept them without really looking at them. For example, go to the source here and click on 1999. Note that the year ends with a temperature (red line) just above 245K.

    Now click on 2000 and see where it starts the next day … at about 262K, a difference of about 17K … what’s up with that? Gotta love computers and computer drivers, you can see why I greatly prefer observations to model results, even “reanalysis” models which should theoretically be very close to observations.

    That’s one of the reasons I wanted to check the general trend with the UAH MSU data. I’ll keep looking and report back if I find anything.

    Good questions, science at work,

    w.

  182. Henry@ Dave Springer

    see 13:42:32

    Henry@ R.Gates
    You still believe that CO2 is a factor in warming up the earth? How did you come to that conclusion?

    We know that CO2 has absorption in the 14-15 um range causing some warming (by re-radiating earthshine, 24 hours per day) but as shown and proved it also has a number of absorptions in the 0-5 um range causing cooling (by re-radiating sunshine). This cooling happens at all levels where the sunshine hits on the carbon dioxide same as the earthshine. The way from the bottom to the top is the same as from top to the bottom. So, my question was: how much cooling and how much warming is caused by the CO2? How was the experiment done to determine this and where are the test results? If it has not been done, why don’t we just sue the oil companies to do this research? (I am afraid that simple heat retention testing might not work here, we have to use real sunshine and real earthshine to determine the effect in W/m3 [0.04%-0.06%]CO2 /m2/24hours).
    When they analysed the spectra, did they look at all the absorptions, namely also at those of CO2 in the UV – that have only been discovered recently? I also doubt that spectra analysis would work here – you have to come up with a more real time experiment.
    Namely, for example, I think especially the cooling of CO2 caused at 4.3 um might be considerable because this is where the sun’s radiation is at its hottest (on your skin). Note that the temp. on the coast on a sunny day (no wind) is always a few degrees cooler than more inland. This is due to same cooling caused by water vapor in the sun’s solar spectra – as you know, I am saying CO2 does exactly the same thing. Without CO2 in the atmosphere more (hot) IR radiation would be slammed on top of our heads.

    So what is the net effect of CO2? How do we all know for sure that CO2 is a greenhouse gas when clearly Svante Arrhenius formula has long been proven wrong and nobody from all the relevant sites has come to me with the right formula?

  183. Henry@DirkH

    that paper does make a bit sense to me.
    i.e. global warming is theoretically not really possible.
    I also figured that there must be limit to what the earth can heat up, therefter it will just switch its giant cooling plant on. However, thre is no calculation or test showing that CO2 is indeed a greenhouse gas. This is just an assumption that was made 100 years ago. Evrybody thought that someone would test it, in the end nobody did it.

  184. In the following, blue line is yearly sunspot number and red line is river Tornionjoki (Finland, latitude 65N) ice melting day from the beginning of year:

    So it seems that ice melting in Northern Europe is strongly correlated with solar activity. And this propably holds also in the arctic area which means that sea-ice melting is expected to shift later and later if solar activity continues at low levels.

  185. Correction: In the above the melting day is from the end of year and spline smoothing is used.

  186. *******
    3 04 2010
    Phil. (05:01:06) :

    Merrick (03:47:31) :

    In fact it has absolutely everything to do with the relatively constant summer temperature north of 80ºN!
    ********

    Yrs ago, after a 30″ snowfall w/6′ drifts, I was amazed by afternoon temperatures of near 60F (15C). Walking along plowed roads between mountainous snow-piles in shirt-sleeves was an experience.

    For 80 deg north, can we say sun-angle? I knew we could.

  187. R. Gates, back in the old days when observations of all Arctic parameters without undo regard for CO2 hyped global warming were tabulated, calculations (IE statistical models combined with a bit o’maths) were made to estimate the amount of predicted Fram strait ice flow based on these Arctic specific WEATHER PATTERN VARIATIONS. These calculations were then made retrospectively to see if there was a match of method to data. There was. Ice flow can be calculated based on the previous 3 to 6 month weather data. If you can afford the paywall, you can get the maths.

    http://www.springerlink.com/content/l41242q58071833w/

    Check your prediction of summer flow out Fram Strait with the maths. My bet is that you are overestimating your bet.

  188. Thrasher, increased ice area and extent on the Pacific side of the bowl is one of the parameters that predicts less ice flow out the Atlantic side. This is just one of the present conditions I use to predict a normal to below normal flush during the coming melt season.

  189. Benoit, it is nowhere near the endgame. We are just at half time. Watch and learn. Go to some of the sites I have posted in my comments and add to your knowledge so that you can compare your improved understanding with observations. Which is what I will be doing. Use historical and current ice drift, local Arctic zone ice pack (not averaged Arctic zones), weather patterns, wind patterns, oceanic current patterns, SST temps, cloud cover, etc to follow the upcoming ice melt season. The second half of the ice year is by far the most interesting. Tighten your seat belt. The best part of the roller coaster ride is before us.

    Once again, I will go on record to say that ice flush will be average to below average this melt season. This will result in average ice extent and area (within two SD of the mean) at the end of the melt season in September. However, knowing that weather pattern variation can change overnight, I am not willing to lay down money on my bet.

  190. Careful!

    Mind candy has been found to be illegal, immoral, and fattening.

    According to at least 864 federally-funded internationally-reviewed mind-candy studies ….

  191. I’m of the “one data point does not establish a trend line” school, so I’ll wait a day or two before I agree.

    I will agree that given the current calendar setting that “downward” is probably the way to bet.

    But.

    There are still Winter Storm Watches and Advisories from South Western Oregon Down to California’s Antelope Valley and east across Nevada, Utah, Wyoming and Colorado as I type.

    And I would still like for somebody to show me how to plot the average for 1979 to the current date so I can see how the current line fits that.

  192. Henry@ R.Gates
    You still believe that CO2 is a factor in warming up the earth? How did you come to that conclusion?

    We know that CO2 has absorption in the 14-15 um range causing some warming (by re-radiating earthshine, 24 hours per day) but as shown and proved it also has a number of absorptions in the 0-5 um range causing cooling (by re-radiating sunshine).

    _______________

    Henry,

    Your question is an intelligent one, and has some facts correct, but makes a a few critical assumptions, one of them being the assumption that all UV absorbed by CO2 would be re-transmitted back into space. Just as is the case with “earthshine” IR radiation, some is re-transmitted by the CO2 molecule into space, and some is transmitted back toward earth. A molecule of CO2 gas is of course not static, and is vibrating and moving rapidly, and it will be completely random direction as to which direction it will re-transmit any eletromagnetic energy, regardless of the bandwidth.

    I would direct you to this rather exellent article however, for your further reading:

    http://www.nat.vu.nl/en/sec/atom/Publications/pdf/DUV-CO2.pdf

    But to answer your question: Yes, I am 100% convinced that CO2 is a net greenhouse gas in the earth’s atmosphere…though I remain only 75% convinced in validity of AGWT (as it is proposed today), though I expect that confidence level to increase to 95% or fall to 50% in the next few years…

  193. @ henry pool

    I don’t believe solar magnetic field has been directly measured long enough to be useful. IIRC direct measurement is done by a satellite designed to study the sun in its own orbit closer to the sun. I also recall reading that the satellite died in the last year or two and the planned replacement hasn’t launched yet.

    Here’s a chart of sunspot counts over the last 300 years. I wasn’t aware that the 20th century portion of it has a name. It’s called the Modern Maximum. Not sure how the count on the y-axis is obtained. It looks too small to be an annual number and too big for a monthly. Presumably it’s consistent over time so the trend is exposed well.

    350 year sunspot record

    I learned something else new as well. Carbon 14 content in atmosphere is another proxy for solar magnetic field strength. Here’s a chart of that going back 1,100 years which includes a Medieval Maximum that correlates with the pesky (for global warming alarmists) Medieval Warm Period.

    Carbon 14 proxy

    I read in another of your comments something about CO2 blocking infrared coming from above. That’s sort of yes and no. My understanding is that most of energy from the sun arrives in higher wavelengths that are not blocked by clear sky. That light hits the surface, is mostly absorbed (~15% is reflected back in visible wavelengths) and the rest is absorbed and reemitted at infrared wavelengths. CO2 absorbs infrared coming up from the ground and reemits it in random directions. That portion reemitted downwards is what causes surface warming. That said, when there’s CO2 emitting infrared downwards from altitude there is more CO2 below it which will serve to stop some fraction of it from reaching the surface. I visualize CO2 sort of like attic insulation. It slows down the transport of heat across it but doesn’t, in and of itself, generate any heat. What happens is through slowing down the transport the differential temperature on either side of the insulation grows. As the differential grows the insulation becomes less effective and eventually a new equilibrium point is reached at some higher differential than if the insulation wasn’t there. Water vapor does the same thing and is responsible for far more of the atmospheric insulation than CO2. The whole global warming thesis is based upon slightly warmer air from higher CO2 driving more water vapor into the air which in turns makes it even warmer and drives even more vapor into the air in a positive feedback cycle. The flaw in the ointment is that the earth for much of its history has been much warmer with a lot more CO2 in the atmosphere and there was never a so-called runaway greenhouse. So there’s obviously (to me) a negative feedback in there somewhere that limits the amount of warming. The negative feedback is thought by most to be clouds. Water vapor coming up from the ground is carrying an awful lot of what’s called latent heat of evaporation. When it condenses into a cloud it gives up all that heat. So water vapor in essence is working like a swamp cooler carrying massive amount of heat away from the surface and letting it go high in the atmosphere. Released way up high in the atmosphere means that the insulating gases below it block that heat from making it back to the surface, where your question again becomes pertinent. As well, clouds have a much higher albedo so in addition to water vapor transporting heat quickly upwards through the denser air nearer the surface when it gives up the heat to form a cloud the cloud itself reflects a lot of light directly back into space before it can ever reach the surface. Thus water vapor acts like a thermostat to limit how warm it can get.

    The really scary thing isn’t global warming. It’s global cooling. The earth does indeed experience runaway cooling. When water freezes and turns into snow/ice cover it reflects a lot of light, which causes it to get colder, which generates even more snow & ice and at times in the past there’s a phenomenon called “Snowball Earth” which is exactly what it sounds like. There’s a fair amount of uncertainty about what conditions are required to melt a snowball earth but obviously something does because it has happened more than once.

  194. @ Henry Pool (again)

    I read the Wikipedia article on snowball earth and found what sounds like the way the snowball melts. Interestingly enough it’s CO2 that comes to the rescue but it takes a long time. If everything is frozen over then there is very little in the way of green plants doing their thing of fixing atmospheric carbon into the soil and the oceans, frozen over, can’t absorb any CO2 either. Volcanoes, however, aren’t stopped by a layer of ice and so they continue to emit CO2 into the atmosphere. Not mentioned, but I’ll add it because I’m a fan of warming caused by soot, volcanoes would also tend to put out a lot of soot which would eventually be deposited on the snow surface. Soot floats so partial surface thaws only concentrate it. The soot is dark and hence absorbs more light and hastens the melt. Anyhow, the vocanic belching of CO2 builds it up in the atmosphere and without any carbon sinks it slowly gets to higher and higher concentration and eventually melts the snowball.

  195. Henry@R.Gates&Dave Springer
    on CO2

    I think, according to the definition, the re-radiation (both for cooling and warming) happens at random position of the molecule, meaning, ca. 50% is beamed back to where-ever it came from…. It appears that no one has actually done any empirical testing to prove that the warming is greater than the cooling. All I could find is weighting (by IPCC -based on the gases concentration back to 1750) which is based on the assumption that greenhouse gases must be the cause of global warming, and spectral analysis which I am not sure about at all. How do you know that all absorptions of CO2 were taken into account? I think you need some actual test results to prove a theory before you apply it. Testing with 100% CO2 to prove a point is also a serious no-no, any chemist will tell you that you might get different properties from substances at different concentrations. So I am not sure how you people came to to your decision that warming must be greater than cooling.

  196. Dave:
    My understanding is that most of energy from the sun arrives in higher wavelengths that are not blocked.
    Henry@Dave & R.Gates
    I think you meant “lower” wavelenghts.

    That paper quoted by R.Gates actually disproves that, and if you want further proof that CO2 is also cooling the atmosphere, look in this paper:
    http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/0004-637X/644/1/551/64090.web.pdf?request-id=76e1a830-4451-4c80-aa58-4728c1d646ec
    Look at fig. 6 bottom. This is what we are able to measure from earthshine reflecting from the moon.
    My thinking is that at 4,3um (where CO2 absorbs strongly) the sun’s radition on the skin is very hot, so even if the total from the sun (higher than 4) is low, it does not necessarily mean that the energy as such is a lot less.,
    I would think that without CO2 in the atmosphere even more (hot) IR would be slammed on top of our heads. Without actual experiments & measurements I don’t think we can ever be sure how it is with the net effect of CO2 on cooling and warming.

  197. Henry@Dave
    I also saw those stories where they told us that CO2 has saved earth in the past from more ice ages. But I am skeptical about that too. I would agree it is more the soot that did it. I am truly sorry, but I really think that if ever we were to fall into a LIA, it will not help us putting more CO2 in the air. This is because I believe that if some real testing were done, they would find that it pretty much evens between the warming and cooling of CO2.

  198. Dave:
    The whole global warming thesis is based upon slightly warmer air from higher CO2 driving more water vapor into the air which in turns makes it even warmer and drives even more vapor into the air in a positive feedback cycle.

    Henry@Dave
    I agree that there must be limit to global warming, thereafter more water vapor and clouds cause cooling.

    But have you any idea about all the water vapor caused by human activities like cooling, (*e.g. nuclear power), & rocket fuel, & burning fossil fuel, building shallow dams and pools for water consumption, heating of water etc, etc )
    Surely all that water vapor caused by human activities must be much, much higher than CO2 emissions?
    Now they are talking again of building nuclear power plants and all of sudden (because of “global warming” due to carbon dioxide) the resistance against that is gone.
    But now what about the nuclear waste from these horrible plants? And what about the safety? I think we should rather stick with coal and make sure the CO and SO2 is properly removed.

  199. Henry@Dave

    it looks the average of sunspots from 1750 was about 50 per day?
    do I get that right?
    do you know if there is a measurement of some sorts on actual galactic cosmic rays?
    perhaps I must try and find that book from Svensmark.
    I have a funny feeling that not much of that GCR is coming our way despite of what happens on the sun, because of the alignment of the sun toward the middle of the galaxy.

    Anyways, a blessed Easter you all and thanks for all your help!

  200. @Henry

    I don’t think any of the sources of water vapor you mention are significant on a global scale although they can certainly change things on a local scale. The local scale is important though because it produces misleading artifacts (like urban heat islands) in the temperature record due to the thermometers being placed nearby the altered land. Possibly (probably) land use changes are such as slash/burn of rain forests and crop irrigation could have some minor global impact on the water cycle. 70% of the earth’s surface is ocean and I don’t think anything mankind has done effects that very much and it continues to dominate.

    re; lower and higher wavelengths. Sorry about that. Electromagnetic wave propogation is an area of professional expertise so that’s a notable blunder for me. Wavelengths should be referred to as shorter or longer. Frequencies should be referred to as higher or lower. I meant to say either shorter wavelengths or higher frequences. I had in my mind the electromagnetic spectrum which typically shows radio, microwave, infrared on the left side; ultraviolet, x and gamma rays on the right, with visible spectrum in between. I think of going from from left to right as lower to higher but that should be frequency not wavelength. Mibad.

    I have said many times if the earth starts cooling we be left forlornly wishing that warming it up was as easy as burning lots of fossil fuels. We could easily cool it off if we needed using a fraction of the cold war nuclear arsenal to loft a bunch of dirt into the stratosphere. Wouldn’t even cost anything because we have far more nukes IMO than we need for any foreseeable purpose. The fallout would raise cancer rates marginally but other than that a combining “nuclear winter” with “global warming” should equal “global just right”. I doubt it would come to that though because from what I can see global warming is a net benefit as it appears to be thawing out the frozen north while leaving everywhere else more or less status quo. Sea level rise is the major downside but that’s our own blunder in placing so much civilization very near sea level. Sea level varies a lot over longer time frames but our short-sightedness caused us to view it as a constant. Life migrates with changes in sea level and we’ll have to do some migrating too. It’s rising slow enough so there should be ample time to back away where needed.

    re; infrared coming from the sun

    There isn’t very much power in that portion of the solar spectrum where CO2 absorption peaks. The following plot shows it well. The CO2 absorption peak is shown on the far left side and the power there is miniscule compared to power at visible wavelengths.

    Solar irradiance power spectrum

    You mention something else about absorption characteristics at different concentrations. The absorption spectrum doesn’t change but what does change is something called saturation. The first hundred parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere absorbs the lion’s share of the infrared available in that part of the spectrum. Adding more CO2 then becomes a case of diminishing returns. Think of CO2 like a sponge and infrared like a puddle of water. Once you have a sponge big enough to soak up the entire puddle then a bigger sponge can’t possibly absorb more water. Our CO2 sponge at 380ppm is soaking up almost all the available infrared there is to soak up.

    re; galactic cosmic ray intensity

    I don’t think any instruments are able to measure it due to solar system influences. Voyager 1 and 2 are close to where they need to be though. There’s a solar wind shock-wave that interferes with direct measurement that is far beyond the orbit of Pluto. The Voyager satellites are just about to pass through the shock wave and once they’re on the other side their cosmic ray detectors will be seeing virgin extra-solar space. The predicitable variation I mentioned has to do with our solar system not travelling in lockstep with the spiral arms of the galaxy. Over periods of tens of millions of years it passes through and between the arms both horizontally and vertically. Inside a spiral arm the GCR is more intense due to higher density of stars and hence being statistically closer to more of the random producers of cosmic rays. The vertical motion of the solar system above, through, and below the galactic plane occurs on a cycle of 35 million years with about 10 million years inside the plane. Interestingly this cycle time correlates with mass extinctions. It’s such a long period though it is unlikely to be relevant to the global warming discussion. Other factors such as the strength of the solar magnetic field, solar wind intensity, and earth’s magnetic field vary on much smaller timescales and have a much more relevant impact than where the earth happens to be relative to a spiral arm of the galaxy. One supernova in our neck of the woods, which is something currently unpredictable, could however change things dramatically in a short period of time.

  201. Henry@Dave

    The point I was making is that the increase in CO2 has only been 0.0075% over the past 50 years whereas nobody speaks about water vapor increasing due to human activities…which must be a factor of at least 10-100 times higher. Are we not discriminating against fossil fuel in favor of other fuels that create much more water vapor? In my opinion, if global warming is still happening, the only green energy could be that energy that we steal from nature….

    The soak theory of CO2 does not work for me. I saw the graph that you referred to and I know it well. It does show the cooling caused by CO2 at just before and after 2 um. You can see these same few peaks of CO2 also when they bounced off the moon. (Did you see that green line in fig 6 bottom?). This is a process that must be going on all the time, regardless of what. Let us try and think this through a bit:

    We have sun’s radiation of CO2 being sent out to space at around 2 um. (2000nm) Why? What happens? There are a few absorptions in the 1.8 to 2,5 um region – it looks like a a few trophs if you look at the IR spectrum.My theory is that absorption goes on until the molecule is filled there with photons. What happens next? It can maybe heat up a bit, transferring some energy to neighbouring molecules, but the light is still coming, fast. Light cannot hang up in the air. At a certain point the molecule is saturated with photons and also cannot transfer more photons as heat. At this stage (I believe) the molecule becomes like a litlle mirror (at that wavelength band),not allowing light to travel through but rather releasing one photon out for everyone received in. Because of the random position of the molecule, 50% radiation (at that wavelength) is send back to space. Hence, our ability to monitor it as it bounces off the moon back to earth.
    Now exactly the same thing happens at 14 um when the earthshine hits there on the CO2. 50% is send back to earth. The only difference is that earth shines 24 hours per day whereas sunshine is only for 12 hours per day. My point was that at 4um (note that the sun still radiates there, although it does not show on your graph), CO2 has strong absorption, so it does again the same: it must be preventing a lot of IR heat at 4 um from the sun being slammed on top of our heads. Now I know they say that that IR at 4 um from the sun is low but my point is that it is the hot radiation. Looking at the radiation spectra I would almost say that it is pretty much evens between the cooling and the warming of CO2 and I cannot understand that nobody did any physical measurements to prove this one way or the other. And…we did not even talk about the UV absoprtions that have only been discovered recently.

  202. Henry@Dave

    Thanks for the info on the GCR, I liked that and I believe you. Just to be sure: you did not hear about the 2012 alignment of the sun in line with the middle of the Milky Way?

  203. David Ball (07:42:07) :
    That was some pretty impressive wriggling there Phil. Worthy of Al Gore and the other fellows who engage in that non-political science type stuff. Perhaps they removed it as it was inconvenient. It is certainly inconvenient that you could not explain what he really meant by ” The Artic ice cap will be gone in 5 years”.

    That’s for Anthony to explain, they’re his words!
    What was actually said was: “The Arctic Ice cap may well be gone in 5 years”

    I do not see any other way to interpret what was said.

    Really, I guess your bias is showing.

    You never did answer my post on the other Artic sea ice extent thread, either. Typical.

    Well your posts are usually content free and not memorable so I probably couldn’t be bothered to waste my time, if I actually saw it.

  204. Thrasher (21:37:07) :
    Phil: “Although what you suggest is exactly what is not happening, the drift is strongly out of the Fram and past Svalbard where the extent is growing. Here’s the last 6 days’ drift, for example.

    http://i302.photobucket.com/albums/nn107/Sprintstar400/20100325-20100331.jpg

    Although what you suggest looks nice and convenient in the pic, it does not explain that the biggest upticks in sea ice have not been in the Greenland Sea or Davis Straight. In fact, the areas in those seas have declined in the last week or so overall. The big upticks have occurred in the Barents Sea and Okhotsk Seas (and even Bering)…which have nothing to do with the flushing ice of ice out the Fram Straight.

    The area in the Bering strait and Sea of Okhotsk went down in March.

    Maybe you could make a weak case of the expansion of the Barents Sea being thinned out in its ice extent, but your argument certainly has nothing to do with the decent uptick in the Okhotsk Sea or Bering Sea.

    The Barents sea has seen an increase in area of 0.2 Mm^2 over the last few weeks, note the 100km/6day drift into there.

    I’m sure you’ll have a clever or snarky response to this, but the fact is that those winds you posted are almost totally irrelevant to the uptick in sea ice.

    Those aren’t winds, they’re the measured drift of the sea-ice, the ice is moving out and you think that’s irrelevant?

  205. Anu (17:00:38)
    I just took a quick look back at these old posts, and noticed Anu’s response. Thanks for reminding me about Mosaic, which I actually downloaded way back when from the U Ill site. I can’t find where I ever said U Ill had to do anything for free, another of the usual strawman arguments. I’m just calling ‘em as I see ‘em. By the way, I don’t know where they get the funding to do this web site, and where they get the funding to import and analyze the NOAA data on which it is based, but the site and the analysis are substantial, very professional efforts and I applaud them. Maybe they have a grant which funds them to do this site, maybe not. I don’t know, and Anu doesn’t seem to know either, as his speculations about funding, and computers breaking, and grad students leaving, and reputations getting built, and…. are just that, speculations.

    The Cryosphere Today site title reads:
    “The Cryosphere Today”

    The subtitle reads:
    “A webspace devoted to the current state of our cryosphere”

    The home page has 9 graphs of information. 8 of these 9 are updated daily or monthly, and are fully up-to-date on today’s page. Everyone on this comment thread seems to view Cryosphere Today the same way I do, as a reliable source of this data that is kept up-to-date. You know, once you start a site like this you create expectations on the part of site visitors, the social contract and all that. If every time they go there the daily ice data is fully up-to-date, they expect it will be up-to-date next week when they visit the site again. I do.

    One and only one of these 9 graphs stopped being updated in 2008, and that one graph stops at the well-known minimum in 07 – 08. This chart isn’t a one-time posting in 2008. It used to be regularly updated quarterly, and I recall that being done as regularly and consistently as all the other charts on this page. Then the updates stopped being made, and that coincided with the data for the 07 – 08 minimum. That’s all I’m saying. Perhaps U Ill could address my comment simply by revising their subheading, maybe something like this:

    “A webspace devoted to the current state of our cryosphere (except for the 4th chart to the immediate right, which is dedicated to alarmism)”

    Or they could move the chart to one of their many archives, where charts no longer being updated surely belong.

    Or they could ask the guy who updates the sea ice chart daily, to take a couple minutes once per calendar quarter, and update this one chart, which would involve adding one point to one line, once a quarter (plus one more point per year). It’s the same sea ice data that is already being presented in three other charts on this same page, and those three other charts are updated daily or monthly. This last approach would be my preferred approach, but that’s for U Ill to decide.

    I also note that Phil. (20:26:39) seems to think the chart I’m talking about was updated to settle a Lucia wager, but I’ve never seen her wagers concern quarterly data, always monthly data, so I’m not sure he’s right about that. The chart I’m talking about concerns quarterly data, the only quarterly data chart on Cryosphere Today’s home page.

  206. Perhaps newly appointed staff in Climate Change Departments can be gainfully employed by doing something about this increase in the amount of sea ice instead of blogging around waiting for the ETS to be passed.

  207. Tom Wiita (15:26:33) :
    I also note that Phil. (20:26:39) seems to think the chart I’m talking about was updated to settle a Lucia wager, but I’ve never seen her wagers concern quarterly data, always monthly data, so I’m not sure he’s right about that. The chart I’m talking about concerns quarterly data, the only quarterly data chart on Cryosphere Today’s home page.

    Well it did that time: http://rankexploits.com/musings/2008/sea-ice-bets-when-will-we-know-who-won/

  208. @ Henry

    Sure I know about the galactic alignment in 2012. As I wrote earlier the sun wanders above and below the galactic plane. In 2012 it will be perfectly centered on it. The Mayan long count calendar resets based on it. The mystery is how they were able to calculate it so well. But the reset is of no more significance than the fact that the Gregorian calendar resets on January 1st every year. That said it doesn’t seem to have any other ramifications to it. It takes 26 years for the sun to traverse the centerline so it’s already been in transit across it for almost 13 years and is just a few arc seconds from dead centered even as we speak. If something cataclysmic was going to happen you’d expect to see something happening right now.

    re; solar power spectrum

    The graphs showed no cooling. Those were amount of power at top of atmosphere and ground level by wavelength. CO2 absorption point was marked and it shows how very little power, compared to visible wavelengths and infrared outside the CO2 absorption band, is there for CO2 to absorb. Water vapor on the other hand has multiple IR absorption points at much higher power levels. It might feel “hot” like a standing close to glowing red heating coil but what doesn’t feel hot is what causes the most havoc. You’d much rather be standing near something that is red hot than something that is so hot it’s emitting ultraviolet and x-rays which will cause serious cell damage and you wont’ feel any “heat” at all. That’s why you can lay on the beach all day and not realize you’ve got second degree burns all over your body until later in the evening.

    re; co2 saturation

    I don’t know how to explain it in a short space. It’s best to just picture it as insulation like having a blankets on a cold night. The first blanket helps the most. A second blanket helps but not as much as the first. If you pile on a thousand blankets the thousandth blanket would be of immeasurably little help compared to the first. CO2 concentration in the atmosphere works the same way. There’s a fixed amount of IR that can be retained by it just as there’s a fixed amount of body heat that can be retained by the blankets. The first CO2 molecules closest to the ground retain the lion’s share just as the first blankets closest to your body retain the lion’s share of body heat.

  209. Henry@Dave

    Your graph that you quoted to me shows the difference what is measured on top of the atmosphere and what is measured at sea level on a cloudless day. You don’t see the few dents caused by CO2 at around 2000? That is cooling caused by CO2 – it also happens at around 4000.
    Water vapor is another story, it also aborbs strongly where CO2 also absorbs at 14 – that is why I am doubting that CO2 is a factor in global warming. The average conc. of water vapor is ca. 25 times higher than CO2.

    On the matter of “absorption” : a misinterpretation has followed our general description of identifying substances with (FT) IR. I stick with my own theory of what happens in the atmosphere when the radiation of the sun hits on the molecules. It is the only way to me that would describe what I see is happening.

  210. Henry Pool (09:44:10) :
    Henry@Dave

    Your graph that you quoted to me shows the difference what is measured on top of the atmosphere and what is measured at sea level on a cloudless day. You don’t see the few dents caused by CO2 at around 2000? That is cooling caused by CO2 – it also happens at around 4000.

    Yes, there is minuscule absorption by CO2 around 2000nm and far less at 4300nm. For the most part this causes warming of the atmosphere, only when the absorption occurs in the stratosphere would it lead to cooling.

    Water vapor is another story, it also aborbs strongly where CO2 also absorbs at 14 – that is why I am doubting that CO2 is a factor in global warming. The average conc. of water vapor is ca. 25 times higher than CO2.

    Actually there is very little overlap between the spectral lines, this illusion is exaggerated by looking at low resolution ‘cartoon’ spectra.

    On the matter of “absorption” : a misinterpretation has followed our general description of identifying substances with (FT) IR. I stick with my own theory of what happens in the atmosphere when the radiation of the sun hits on the molecules. It is the only way to me that would describe what I see is happening.

    Unfortunately your theory bears no resemblance to what happens in reality, rovibrational absorption at discrete lines followed by rapid collisional deactivation is what happens in the lower troposphere.

  211. Hi Phil.!
    great to have you back on this topic. last I heard from you you were still stuck in the snow. You got out of there all right, yes?
    You say:” For the most part this causes warming of the atmosphere, only when the absorption occurs in the stratosphere would it lead to cooling”

    that is silly. Surely radiation goes in straight lines and is not disturbed at all by any of your ‘spheres”? the only way that causes light to change direction are “mirror” effects.The idea that it leads to warming the whole atmosphere is folly. Maybe there is some warming, up to a point, but like air, CO2 is a good insulator.

    The fact that we can measure those absorptions of CO2 as it bounces off the moon means that it must be mostly a cooling factor, not a warming factor.

    If I look at the outgoing radiation from earth then I see only a very small corner of radition being trapped by the CO2, at around 14. Most of the gap it is caused there by water vapor. In fact, if you had looked carefully, you would have noticed that the gap caused by ozone at 13 is a whole lot more than the problem caused by CO2. But I have not heard anyone talking about reducing ozone – why is that? Any ideas?
    If you have better graphs then the cartoon stuff that I have I would love to have a look at it!!!!

  212. Henry Pool (12:55:56) :
    If you have better graphs then the cartoon stuff that I have I would love to have a look at it!!!!

    I post them here regularly, this one should give you a better idea of the respective magnitudes of the absorption peaks.

  213. Henry@Phil.
    I am getting too old. I cannot see those graphs properly and they won’t enlarge when I click them. I note that you did not answer my question as to why we donot hear people calling to reduce ozone when the warming effect (at 13) seems to me even bigger than that of CO2 (at 14)

  214. Henry Pool (12:55:56) :
    Hi Phil.!
    great to have you back on this topic. last I heard from you you were still stuck in the snow. You got out of there all right, yes?

    Yeah it was an interesting drive but this year all the snow was to the south so driving north via Boston was the way out of the snow. I flew to British Columbia after that where there was no snow below ~5,000ft! Then back east to dodge hurricane force winds and falling trees and now record high temperatures about 20ºF above normal, quite an eventful few weeks!

    You say:” For the most part this causes warming of the atmosphere, only when the absorption occurs in the stratosphere would it lead to cooling”

    that is silly. Surely radiation goes in straight lines and is not disturbed at all by any of your ’spheres”? the only way that causes light to change direction are “mirror” effects.The idea that it leads to warming the whole atmosphere is folly. Maybe there is some warming, up to a point, but like air, CO2 is a good insulator.

    When absorbed in the troposphere collisional deactivation occurs rather than re-emission and the atmosphere is heated up. In the stratosphere the atmosphere is thin enough to permit re-emission which can occur in any direction, hence the cooling.

    The fact that we can measure those absorptions of CO2 as it bounces off the moon means that it must be mostly a cooling factor, not a warming factor.

    If I look at the outgoing radiation from earth then I see only a very small corner of radition being trapped by the CO2, at around 14. Most of the gap it is caused there by water vapor. In fact, if you had looked carefully, you would have noticed that the gap caused by ozone at 13 is a whole lot more than the problem caused by CO2. But I have not heard anyone talking about reducing ozone – why is that? Any ideas?

    I don’t know what ‘gaps’ you’re talking about but absorption by CO2 around 15μm is much stronger than any O3 absorption (the one at 14μm is very weak, the stronger one at 9.5μm is still much weaker than CO2).

    If you have better graphs then the cartoon stuff that I have I would love to have a look at it!!!!

    Sorry you couldn’t see them I’ll try to make a better set.

  215. As of April 17, 2010, there’s been six weeks of sea ice at slightly higher levels than the lowest recorded amount between 1979 and 2000. It never reached even the average level for that 21 year reference period. And for the last two weeks, the amount of ice has been falling at the rate typical for April, or slightly faster. There is really nothing going on here beyond a natural variation in a long term declining trend. ‘Nuff said.

  216. And now what do y’all think? It’s May 20 and the Arctic ice is now more scant than it was at this time of year in 2007 when it hit record lows. Just goes to show you, you can’t look at short term trends. The ice looks like it could make a record low due to its fact decline, but this could level off. The graph depicted on this web site only shows how much area the arcitic ice is, not the volume and that’s very important. All this new ice you were all so excited about was very thin and is now gone. When they start measuring thinkness of ice, I’ll take this all seriously. But what is ominous now, is the report about warming oceans over the last 16 years.

  217. April 6, 2010 at 1:19 pm

    Henry Pool (12:55:56) :
    If you have better graphs then the cartoon stuff that I have I would love to have a look at it!!!!

    I post them here regularly, this one should give you a better idea of the respective magnitudes of the absorption peaks.


    _________________________________________________________________________

    HMMMmmmm, They are very hard to read but the right side of the CO2 and H2O graphs appear to be identical.

    There is this set of graph (note the up going radiation from the earth is much less than the down going radiation from the sun even though the graph shows them the same)

    And this site has several good graphs
    http://www.freerepublic.com/~jim/

    And there is this solar radiation graph
    http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/File:Solar_Spectrum_png

  218. Jack…I agree that the thin ice melting out is what is causing the steep decline during May. If the PIOMAS estimates of ice volume are close to reality, I think the Arctic will continue to lose ice at a rapid rate through summer. Air temperatures have remained anomalously warm all of May and when I look at the actual ice concentrations, it’s clear there is a lot of surface melt happening. Melt ponds accelerate ice melt 2 to 3 times through enhanced absorption of solar radiation (see papers by Perovich). Snow-free melting ice also transmits 3-15% of the incoming solar energy to the ocean (Inoue et al., 2008, Light et al., 2008). In this way early and advanced melt onset “boosts” the ice-albedo feedback, leading to even more ice melt.

    I keep waiting for Anthony or Stephen to comment on it, but they have remained curiously quiet while they were so quick to jump on the extent reaching near normal conditions this winter.

Comments are closed.