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.
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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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/
@ur momisugly 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.
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.
Phil. (11:11:04) :
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 ”
I’ll note that NSIDC agrees with my interpretation.
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.
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!!!!
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.
http://i302.photobucket.com/albums/nn107/Sprintstar400/Atmos.gif
Anthony is too tolerant of trolls.
I am not.
Larry Sheldon (14:45:20) : “Anthony is too tolerant of trolls.
I am not”
So, who are you? I have never even heard of you.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
http://i302.photobucket.com/albums/nn107/Sprintstar400/Atmos.gif
_________________________________________________________________________
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)
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/7/7c/Atmospheric_Transmission.png
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
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.