Visualizing Changes In Arctic Ice Since the 2007 Record Low

Guest Post by Steven Goddard

We are all aware that Arctic ice extent has increased over the last two months, and  is now about one million km2 larger than it was in 2007.  But where has the ice growth occurred?  I generated an image which makes this easy to visualize.

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

In the composite image I prepared below, green colors represent 2010 ice that was not present in 2007, and red colors show where 2007 ice existed on this date but is not currently present.

A couple of interesting items.

  • There is excess ice in the Baltic Sea, due to the cold winter there.
  • There has been a lot of cold air over the Bering Sea and Sea of Okhotsk (as seen below) causing excess ice on the Pacific side.

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/map/ANIM/sfctmpmer_01a.fnl.25.gif

Advertisements

79 thoughts on “Visualizing Changes In Arctic Ice Since the 2007 Record Low

  1. The fact that we can have so much more ice in 2010 than in 2007 but still have “red” areas where 2007 had ice when 2010 does not evidences further the inpact of wind, flow and many other factors. This kind of analysis, while quite basic, adds a lot to the bigger picture and general understanding of our oh so complex climate.

  2. Just want to send a big thank you to all those contributors as well as the commenters that provide links to useful info.
    As the tide of information reverses toward healthy skepticism and scientific review and rationality, we can breathe a collective sigh of relief and get back to the “real” issues at hand.

  3. When will the average be shifted to take into account the recent low ice levels of the past few years? Or is it a running average that already does that?
    Considering that this was an El Nino year, the fact that ice increased seems signifigant. What’s going to happen during the next down turn? We’re going to smash through that average.

  4. Mike Sander (11:30:40) :
    “The fact that we can have so much more ice in 2010 than in 2007 but still have “red” areas where 2007 had ice when 2010 does not evidences further the inpact of wind, flow and many other factors. This kind of analysis, while quite basic, adds a lot to the bigger picture and general understanding of our oh so complex climate.”
    That depends what the red represents.
    If you think red in term of hot, you’re wrong.

  5. This kind of fluctuation was known, and published in peer reviewed journals in the 80’s. Funny how reasoned research gave way to scary gray paper stories about warming.

  6. I still find the ice melt alarming.
    Well, at least I feel it is alarming.
    Well, no, I mean I feel like it should be alarming.
    Ok, so it’s not alarming, but if it were alarming we should play it safe and do something about.
    So in order to do something, it has to be alarming.
    Therefore it is not only alarming but it is an urgent matter nearing a tipping point which must be addressed with sweeping policy changes.
    Along with a lot of money for additional research.
    Now I’m really alarmed. No, really, I mean it.
    Oh never mind.

  7. It appears the stable minded skeptics have been show some wrong forecasts. The Met Office has the newest most powerfull, wizz bang computer and is forecasting too warm 9 of 10 years. They of course are wrong 10 of 10 years.
    It may not be too late for humans to go back to ice houses and save on mechanical refridgeration.

  8. Steve,
    Very helpful “one stop shopping” to have you provide this snapshot…thanks.
    PJB said:
    “we can breathe a collective sigh of relief and get back to the “real” issues at hand.”
    ——
    What are those “real” issues you’re referring to?

  9. The sea ice in the Baltic Sea is not represented on the Cryosphere Today’s website.
    I’ve always found that to be odd.

  10. One cold summer and it’s all over for artic sea ice melting. The alarmists will have to call it “arctic ice change” and say things like “the last 10 years are still the smallest extent on record” and in private say things like “it’s a travesty” and so on and so forth.
    I still don’t understand why arctic ice melt is a bad thing. A northwest passage would save a lot of time and fuel in shipping. There’s thought to be a lot of currently inaccessable, unknown size oil fields under the ice. Large new fishing grounds would open up. Arctic ice melt doesn’t even raise sea level. What’s not to like?

  11. Steven Goddard,
    The NOAA SST chart shows the current El Nino SST in the zero range. Is this due to excessive smoothing or are El Ninos the norm for the mean?

  12. Maybe you all should go back to basic math classes and learn the difference between surface area and volume.
    REPLY: Maybe you should learn not to jump to conclusions.

  13. Do not forget that the red-blue representations of temperature variations are arbitrary as they are based on the temperature chosen for neutral. Red areas of polar regions can still be ridiculously cold, just not really ridiculously cold. To a great extent, if it is frigid, ice stays frozen.
    So, when you see big red regions over Canada during January 2010, this does not begin to indicate that temperatures are warm, just not as cold as other regions.
    Great bias can be injected into these graphics just by the choice of where to base the color scales.

  14. The other thing that’s odd is this statement from NSIDC:
    “Meanwhile, temperatures over the central Arctic Ocean remained above normal and the winter ice cover remained young and thin compared to earlier years.”
    Sea Ice appears to have very little to do with air temperature as the temperatures are well below the freezing point for salt water. How do they know its thin?

  15. Pamela Gray (11:43:50) :
    This kind of fluctuation was known, and published in peer reviewed journals in the 80’s. Funny how reasoned research gave way to scary gray paper stories about warming.
    So it is all natural variation.
    There’s nothing unusual happening. And anyone who takes some time and does their homework will find that out.

  16. If the cooling in the earth continues and Arctic Ice continues in this general direction then we should see a record amount of ice in a few years.
    If we knew how much ice there was at the North Pole during the Medieval Warm Period and also during the Little Ice Age, both which happened in the last 1000 years, then we would see that nothing at all unusual has been happening in North Pole Ice. It’s all in the ballpark of normal.

  17. “We are all aware that Arctic ice extent has increased over the last two months, and is now about one million km2 larger than it was in 2007. ”
    Jolly good. So we have more ice than 2007.
    Do we have less than 1927 ?
    Is it more than 1845 ?
    Is comparable to 1703?
    (random dates)
    I suggest that to extrapolate Arctic ice from circa 2000 to 2010 is like extrapolating daylight from 0845 to 1120 and deducing there will be no night.
    An extrapolation is only valid where it includes a full cycle,
    (Though I may be corrected)

  18. Living in Sweden it is quite obvious that our winter conditions to a large part is dependant on NAO. A strong NAO means winds from the southwest and the Atlantic and “green winters”. A weak NAO (as this year) means winds from north – northeast and cold winters. The difference in average temperature is quite a few degrees C. You wouldn’t notice a few 10th of a degree’s change in “global average temperature”. The correlation between temperatures in Northern Europe and the Artic is thus obvious. From our regional perspective that means that you can not say anything about mean temperatures without taking both areas into account. Which also means that you can not produce any meaningful average tempeature plots of say the time period 1850-2000 because we do not have any data for the Artic for the majority of this period.

  19. A quite interesting ICE battle will take place in the next 10 days.
    As Mr Goddarrd illustrates, the area west of Novo Zemlja this year has ice, unlike 2007. The ice especially NW of Novo Zemlja froze very late this year and is likely to be thin.
    But!
    A cold wave is underway for the area, starting 13 april and so far has no end before pronosis ends 19 april. So maybe the thin ice is going to make it ok anyway, perhaps even thicken in the period 13-20 april.
    Here the prognosis 19 april:
    http://www.klimadebat.dk/forum/vedhaeftninger/is19april.jpg
    Here follow the cold in the area start arround 13 april:
    http://www.meteociel.fr/modeles/gfse_cartes.php?&ech=180&mode=1
    http://www.meteociel.fr/modeles/gfse_cartes.php?&ech=180&mode=1
    http://www.meteociel.fr/modeles/gfse_cartes.php?&ech=180&mode=1

  20. Why won’t anybody show that chart with the “average” calculated for the period 1979-2009?

  21. It does not matter. The democrats are determined to raise the price of energy and increase unemployment in a futile chase of a socialistic utopia.

  22. Thanks Steven for a nice clear picture of the sea ice changes.
    I wish our understanding of the freeze/melt cycle was as clear!

  23. @R. de Haan (11:43:29) :
    ‘Mike Sander (11:30:40) :
    “The fact that we can have so much more ice in 2010 than in 2007 but still have “red” areas where 2007 had ice when 2010 does not evidences further the inpact of wind, flow and many other factors. This kind of analysis, while quite basic, adds a lot to the bigger picture and general understanding of our oh so complex climate.”
    That depends what the red represents.
    If you think red in term of hot, you’re wrong.’
    Can you read at all? What actually do you base your observation on that he thinks red is hot? :p

  24. Steven, that is a most impressive graphic. It shows quite clearly the trivial nature of the difference between April 2010 and April 2007. Well done.
    Do you have a corresponding plot for the difference in the minimum ice? Also, is that polar plot equal area?
    Thanks,
    w.

  25. R. Gates (12:15:20) :
    What are those “real” issues you’re referring to?

    Well, for one thing, we can deal with ensuring that everyone alive has access to food and water. And shelter. Just imagine how much could be done with the budget currently wasted on AGW alarmism. And I personally would LOVE to see some more military assets assigned to removing communist and dictatorial regimes from power, since they are the primary environmental problems.
    Another thing, we all say “we’re still recovering from the LIA”, but to this point nobody has demonstrated a mechanism that caused the LIA or the recovery from it. Now, we have all these “climate scientists”, who probably have at least some of the qualifications required to tackle this essential question, if only they could be diverted from their current assignment of alarming the populace.

    lazor (12:37:53) :
    Maybe you all should go back to basic math classes and learn the difference between surface area and volume.

    Apparently this is the “talking point” assigned to the alarmist supporters to deal with this question. It’s actually sad to me, watching all these people parrot out what someone else tells them instead of creating an original thought somehow.

  26. R. Gates (12:15:20) :
    What are those “real” issues you’re referring to?
    I think S/he meant returning to an emphasis on the science and a lessening of the emphasis on alarmism.
    YMMV

  27. It appears that Arctic Sea Ice is more variable than most realize.
    Map link below shows maximum (April) sea ice extension in the Atlantic sector of the Arctic. Lines are for 1769, 1866, 1966, and 1995.
    The map is based on a database on sea ice extension in the area shown during the past 400 years, to a high degree based on written records found in ships logbooks. (Norwegian Polar Institute 2000).
    http://www.climate4you.com/SeaIce.htm
    See last picture on page.

  28. lazor (12:37:53) :
    “Maybe you all should go back to basic math classes and learn the difference between surface area and volume”
    and you should read Willis post and look at Steven’s map again.
    Willis Eschenbach (15:00:14) :
    “Steven, that is a most impressive graphic. It shows quite clearly the trivial nature of the difference between April 2010 and April 2007”

  29. “There is excess ice in the Baltic Sea, due to the cold winter there.”
    No, thats the “normal” picture.
    And the Baltic is not part of the Arctic.

  30. It would be interesting to show the prevailing wind patterns on the composite image now and back in 2007.
    Thank you for the article.
    Mike Ramsey

  31. “There’s thought to be a lot of currently inaccessable, unknown size oil fields under the ice”
    gasp
    In that case, we definitely need to stop global warming. Keep the ice cap on that oil!

  32. Willis Eschenbach (15:00:14) :
    Thanks. I came up with idea while messing around with an OpenGL app I wrote a few years ago.
    What I did was take the NSIDC April 10, 2007 map and converted all the white to red. Then I textured mapped it on to an OpenGL quad. Then did the same thing with the 2010 map, only using green. Finally, I used OpenGL GL_SOURCE_COLOR to blend the two quads. Overlapping ice areas show up as yellow, and non overlapping show up as red or green.
    Unfortunately NSIDC does not archive their images, so I can only do the current day and the corresponding day in the “record low” year.

  33. Taken from the Catlin Expedition website:
    http://www.catlinarcticsurvey.com/
    Marooned
    11/04/2010
    “Marooned
    It’s been an eventful few days for the Explorer Team, courtesy of some extremely dynamic ice. Following their narrow escape from the crack in the sea ice that threatened to swallow up them and the tent, they now find themselves effectively marooned on an island of ice, unable to travel in any direction due to surrounding ice that’s too thin to walk across but too thick to swim through.
    Although in a fairly precarious situation the team are calm and have typically managed to not only keep their composure but actually make the best of the situation by catching up on some well earned rest. The fact that they all slept for the best part of 24 hours is indicative of the physical stresses and strains the last 25 days has had on Martin, Ann and Charlie. Ann is optimistic that the ice will have thickened overnight and that it will be strong enough to grant them a smooth passage Northwards in the morning.”
    Now another lot (The Students on Ice Arctic Youth Expedition 2010) will be tramping across the “rapidly melting ice” to see for themselves that the “Arctic climate is now warming rapidly and much larger changes are projected”. Golly! The Arctic is getting crowded these days.
    http://www.studentsonice.com/index.php?content=arctic_expeditions
    Only costs $9,750 CAD. Anything for a buck!
    And what about Parker Liautaud, the teenage adventurer, trying to earn his foursquare badge?
    “During his journey, Liautaud faced obstacles — including shifting glaciers” (?) “that set him back several miles.”
    http://blog.ctnews.com/deloma/2010/04/09/teen-treks-to-top-of-world-to-raise-awareness-earn-foursquare-badge/
    ““It’s been very tough, white-out conditions for a few days,” Parker said. “He’s been skiing and trekking through worse conditions than many of us could even imagine.”
    Some 20 miles of open water separated Parker from his goal of reaching the North Pole on Friday evening, so a helicopter was deployed to transport him to the top of the world and his goal.”

  34. $100 billion wasted on global warming alarmism, and the alarmists have the temerity to query, “What are the real issues?”.
    Poverty, hunger, disease, famine, pestilence, floods, fires, war, ignorance, servitude, immorality, homelessness, drug addiction, corruption, pollution, brutality, fascism, crime, economic collapse, hardships and suffering, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.
    In contrast, global warming is not significant and/or not a problem. The historical variation in Arctic ice is tiny and irrelevant. The entire “climare change” issue is irrelevant, or worse, yet another manifestation of gross inhumanity inflicted on society by megalomanical sociopaths.

  35. One of the supposedly alarming things about receding Arctic sea ice is the reduction in albedo.
    I maintain that, as in high Summer, the incidence at the pole never exceeds circa 23.5°, the angle of incidence results in a large proportion of reflection anyway. The reduction in ice cover would also lead to extra exposure of open ocean to the atmosphere leading to additional energy loss in excess of any gain due to albedo change.
    I see this as a possible extension to Willis’ thermostat hypothesis.
    Dave>

  36. stevengoddard (17:23:48) :
    Willis Eschenbach (15:00:14) :
    Thanks. I came up with idea while messing around with an OpenGL app I wrote a few years ago.
    What I did was take the NSIDC April 10, 2007 map and converted all the white to red. Then I textured mapped it on to an OpenGL quad. Then did the same thing with the 2010 map, only using green. Finally, I used OpenGL GL_SOURCE_COLOR to blend the two quads. Overlapping ice areas show up as yellow, and non overlapping show up as red or green.
    Unfortunately NSIDC does not archive their images, so I can only do the current day and the corresponding day in the “record low” year.

    I use similar techniques with Photoshop and imageJ to process images it’s very effective. Why not do the same approach with the ‘visual’ images from iup/jaxa:
    http://iup.physik.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsr/arctic_AMSRE_visual.png
    Their archive goes back to 2003:
    http://iup.physik.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsredata/asi_daygrid_swath/l1a/n6250/
    Mike Ramsey (17:07:46) :
    It would be interesting to show the prevailing wind patterns on the composite image now and back in 2007.

    Certainly can be done with the drift maps, here’s an example:
    http://i302.photobucket.com/albums/nn107/Sprintstar400/Drift2010vs07.jpg
    That is from jan 2010 and jan 2007.

  37. Pamela Gray said:
    “There’s nothing unusual happening…”
    ————–
    Other than AGW you mean of course. I shall remind you of this quote at some point in the future…

  38. Just for an update: According the IJIS/Jaxa, the Arctic sea ice is now below where it was in 2003 on this date, April 11, and we’ve dropped over 450,000 sq. km since the peak on March 31.

  39. “R. Gates (20:16:33) :
    Just for an update: According the IJIS/Jaxa, the Arctic sea ice is now below where it was in 2003 on this date, April 11, and we’ve dropped over 450,000 sq. km since the peak on March 31.”
    I know, I’m working on a hypothesis that there is some sort of seasonal variation at work here. Unlikely I realise but all great men were thought mad by their contemporaries;-)

  40. David Alan Evans (18:33:26)

    One of the supposedly alarming things about receding Arctic sea ice is the reduction in albedo.
    I maintain that, as in high Summer, the incidence at the pole never exceeds circa 23.5°, the angle of incidence results in a large proportion of reflection anyway. The reduction in ice cover would also lead to extra exposure of open ocean to the atmosphere leading to additional energy loss in excess of any gain due to albedo change.
    I see this as a possible extension to Willis’ thermostat hypothesis.
    Dave

    The poles get very little of their energy from the sun. In part this is because of the factor that you mention, the low sun angle. This reduces the maximum sunlight at the poles to Cos(23.45) = 40% of full sun. However, there are other factors at work as well. The sunlight has to go through a much longer atmospheric path due to the low angle. In addition, ocean albedo jumps dramatically at low sun angles, the same factor that lead to the bright reflection from the sea in the late afternoon. This is also true to a lesser degree of the ground. Finally, at low sun angles tall clouds shade much more of the earth than at low sun angles, because their sides cast long shadows.
    This is why I have focused on the areas near the equator in my thermostat hypothesis. The majority of the solar energy entering the planetary climate system strikes the tropics and subtropics. Control of the incoming energy there by variable clouds controls the overall energy of the system.
    w.
    (PS – As an aside, many people think that because of the months when the sun never rises the polar regions get fewer hours of sunlight than the tropics. Not true, all parts of the earth get the same number of hours of sunlight per year. But I digress …)

  41. R. Gates,
    “Just for an update: According the IJIS/Jaxa, the Arctic sea ice is now below where it was in 2003 on this date, April 11, and we’ve dropped over 450,000 sq. km since the peak on March 3.”
    OMG, it’s worse than we thought!

  42. R. Gates (12:15:20) :
    Steve,
    What are those “real” issues you’re referring to?
    How about Millions of people starving, still without running water, living in slums and off rubbish sites (India in particular) while the world spends billions on Arms, Fighting and Carbon Trading and Space Craft, just for a start.

  43. John from CA (13:05:02) : “How do they know its thin?”
    I expect they have been up there measuring with Micrometers. sarcasm off

  44. NicL (13:36:59) : We all know that 3 years is no time in terms of “Climate”, these Threads are in response to warmist statements like “Accelerating Artic Ice Loss”, “Arctic ice in death spiral” etc. Most of which was based on the dramatic Artic Ice reduction in 2007 which was caused by Water Temperatures & Flow and Wind Speed & Direction BUT blamed on AGW.

  45. Pascvaks (16:24:13) : Sorry common sense, real world observations are not allowed in Climate Research, only Computer Models. Sarcasm off.

  46. John of Cloverdale WA (17:31:32) : “Following their narrow escape from the crack in the sea ice that threatened to swallow up them and the tent, they now find themselves effectively marooned on an island of ice, unable to travel in any direction due to surrounding ice that’s too thin to walk across but too thick to swim through.”
    I would like to see that team SWIM in those conditions with all their gear even if there was absolutely no ice. Polar Bears & Seals can and maybe one or two very special people, but the average person would be dead in no time.

  47. R. Gates (20:16:33) :
    Just for an update: According the IJIS/Jaxa, the Arctic sea ice is now below where it was in 2003 on this date, April 11, and we’ve dropped over 450,000 sq. km since the peak on March 31.

    Yep! And by July the sea ice will have dropped another 6 million square kilometers! At this rate…
    It seems you are not interested at all in learning something, except spinning your head around and repeating a tiresome ‘The Ice Is Melting!’ mantra.
    Simply, here we have some observations – you know, that are actually happening and are measured – that do not seem to fit with the AGW hypothesis. These aren’t statements that directly state AGW or any global warming isn’t occurring, but that the evidence that is used to promote AGW is on thin ice.

  48. *tap*tap*tap*
    *whuf*whuf*
    Is this thing on?
    A couple of questions (because I am troll-like and enouy asking them, even though nobody will ever answer them.
    1. Does ice melt (or even sublimate) at minus 34 degrees C? (That’s -29 in real temperature–I guess we can still line-dry clothes here at that temperature–not sure. I’ll have to go read “Little House On The Prairie” again.)
    2. Why won’t anybody produce (or show me how to produce the http://climateinsiders.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/n_timeseries_4_10_2010.png
    graph with the average for 1979-2009 plotted? What is being hidden?
    3. (hmmmm…..bonus?) How much is it going to cost this time to fetch those idiots back off the ice?
    4. (I’ve got a counting problem, don’t I?) How much oil and fuel are they going to abandon to the ecosystem this year?

  49. R. Gates (20:16:33) :
    “Just for an update: According the IJIS/Jaxa, the Arctic sea ice is now below where it was in 2003 on this date, April 11, and we’ve dropped over 450,000 sq. km since the peak on March 31.”
    What? 2007 wasn’t good enough for you?
    Oh my God, it changed! We’re all going to die!
    (Dave Johnson, that was funny!)

  50. Larry Sheldon (08:06:14) :
    *tap*tap*tap*
    *whuf*whuf*
    Is this thing on?
    A couple of questions (because I am troll-like and enouy asking them, even though nobody will ever answer them.
    1. Does ice melt (or even sublimate) at minus 34 degrees C? (That’s -29 in real temperature–I guess we can still line-dry clothes here at that temperature–not sure. I’ll have to go read “Little House On The Prairie” again.)

    Yes depending on the humidity it will sublimate.
    2. Why won’t anybody produce (or show me how to produce the http://climateinsiders.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/n_timeseries_4_10_2010.png
    graph with the average for 1979-2009 plotted? What is being hidden?

    Nothing, you could try here:
    http://iup.physik.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsr/ice_ext_n.png
    3. (hmmmm…..bonus?) How much is it going to cost this time to fetch those idiots back off the ice?
    Cost of a helicopter ride I guess, like the young kid. They and their sponsors will presumably pay so it won’t cost you or I anything.
    4. (I’ve got a counting problem, don’t I?) How much oil and fuel are they going to abandon to the ecosystem this year?
    Hopefully the same as last time, i.e. none.

  51. “”” lazor (12:37:53) :
    Maybe you all should go back to basic math classes and learn the difference between surface area and volume.
    REPLY: Maybe you should learn not to jump to conclusions. “””
    When it comes to tipping points; the arctic ice tipping point we are told, is when an ice surface, that is highly reflective, white, high albedo, gets replaced by a water surface that is black, low albedo, so the positive feedback of that effect melts even more ice; and its tip tip hooray !
    Last time I checked the difference between a water surface, and an ice surface, is how much area of each there is. It (the ice) could go all the way to the bottom, and it still would look white on top.
    So I would think tipping is more about area than volume, since a large chunk of the area melts every year, and is regrown next fall and winter.

  52. George E. Smith (10:49:12) :
    The elevation of the sun in most the Arctic is always less than the critical angle of the air/water interface, so don’t expect a lot of solar energy to enter the ocean. However, the ice cap insulates warmer water underneath and keeps heat from moving out of the ocean.
    So what is the net feedback from declining Arctic ice?

  53. “”” Steve Goddard (12:48:47) :
    George E. Smith (10:49:12) :
    The elevation of the sun in most the Arctic is always less than the critical angle of the air/water interface, so don’t expect a lot of solar energy to enter the ocean. However, the ice cap insulates warmer water underneath and keeps heat from moving out of the ocean.
    So what is the net feedback from declining Arctic ice? “””
    Steve, when light travels from a low index medium such as air, where the group velocity is almost (c) into a denser medium, such as water, where the group velocity of light is about c/1.333; 1.333 being the refractive index of water, Snells law applies so Na.sine theta (a) = Nw.sine theta(w), and there is a solution for theta (w) for any angle theta(a) up to and including 90 degrees.
    So even for grazing incidence (theta (a) = 90) the light can eneter the water, and inside the water, it lies in a cone with a half angle of arcsine (Na/Nw) which is about 48.6 degrees.
    The critical angle which leads to Total Internal Reflection, only applies to passage from the higher index medium (water) to teh lower index medium (air.
    I’m sure if you have ever gone scuba diving, and sat on the bottom looking up fish style, you will relaize that t you can see the entire space above the water from horizon to horizon, compressed inside that 46 deg cone.
    Outside that cone, you get TIR, and you see a reflection of the bottom (if you are in shallow enough water).
    The ocean can accept light from any angle up to grazing incidence BUT the reflection coefficient rmains low for incidence anlges (from the normal) up to the Brewster angle which is arctan (Nw/Na) o0r 53.1 deg.
    At that angle; 36.9 above the surface, the reflected light is plane polarized perpendicular to the plane of incidence (electric vector), but the reflection coefficient for the surviving polarization has about doubled so the reflection coefficient hasn’t changed much; but once you go beyond the Brewster angle (less than 36.9 deg above the surface, the reflection coefficient climbs rapidly towards one.
    I agree with you that close to grazing incidence, the reflectance is high, but some light is still transmitted into the water, even though at low intensity.

  54. George E. Smith (17:15:18) :
    “so don’t expect a lot of solar energy to enter the ocean”

  55. So is the answer then, that given the low sun-angle, not much energy is transferred to the water in any case and it therefore it doesn’t much matter if there is any ice there or not?

  56. “How much oil and fuel are they going to abandon to the ecosystem this year?
    Hopefully the same as last time, i.e. none.”
    OK. When and whare was it that they had to establish several fuel-caches, most (all?) of which were abandoned in the effort to retrieve them and their gear in fixed-wing aircraft?

  57. Steve Goddard (12:48:47) :
    George E. Smith (10:49:12) :
    The elevation of the sun in most the Arctic is always less than the critical angle of the air/water interface, so don’t expect a lot of solar energy to enter the ocean.

    What ‘critical’ angle? Do you mean the Brewster angle?

  58. Larry Sheldon (18:21:08) :
    “How much oil and fuel are they going to abandon to the ecosystem this year?
    Hopefully the same as last time, i.e. none.”
    OK. When and whare was it that they had to establish several fuel-caches, most (all?) of which were abandoned in the effort to retrieve them and their gear in fixed-wing aircraft?

    Didn’t happen, their air support, Kenn Borek Air Ltd., was responsible for the fuel caches (they operate permanently in the Arctic) and retrieved them.

  59. Glad to hear that. Interesting that nobody (that I read) mentioned that.
    I was sure that some or all of it was said to have been lost.
    Also interesting tat there was enough ice to allow that.

  60. “”” Phil. (18:44:32) :
    Steve Goddard (12:48:47) :
    George E. Smith (10:49:12) :
    The elevation of the sun in most the Arctic is always less than the critical angle of the air/water interface, so don’t expect a lot of solar energy to enter the ocean.
    What ‘critical’ angle? Do you mean the Brewster angle? “””
    In the interest of clarification, Phil; The wording above was Steve’s response to me; it was not his cut and paste of a statement by me.
    The critical angle is of no consequence for refraction going from the low index medium, to the high index medium; as far as the TIR phenomenon is concerned, and at really low sun angles, the Brewster angle phenomenon, doesn’t stop reflection; but it does make the two reflected polarisations quite different in amplitude, until grazing incidence.
    I just don’t think much of the ice is ever flat enough to get grazing incidence reflection off the ice though.

  61. George E. Smith (10:08:03) :
    “”” Phil. (18:44:32) :
    Steve Goddard (12:48:47) :
    George E. Smith (10:49:12) :
    The elevation of the sun in most the Arctic is always less than the critical angle of the air/water interface, so don’t expect a lot of solar energy to enter the ocean.
    What ‘critical’ angle? Do you mean the Brewster angle? “””
    In the interest of clarification, Phil; The wording above was Steve’s response to me; it was not his cut and paste of a statement by me.
    The critical angle is of no consequence for refraction going from the low index medium, to the high index medium; as far as the TIR phenomenon is concerned, and at really low sun angles, the Brewster angle phenomenon, doesn’t stop reflection; but it does make the two reflected polarisations quite different in amplitude, until grazing incidence.

    Exactly, which is why I was trying to clarify what was meant because the term made no sense to me in that context.
    I just don’t think much of the ice is ever flat enough to get grazing incidence reflection off the ice though.
    I doubt whether the open ocean water is either.

  62. Quoting: Dave Springer (12:23:46) :
    “There’s thought to be a lot of currently inaccessable, unknown size oil fields under the ice. ”
    Commenting:
    There are known (and ice-free) oil reserves off California, Alaska and Florida that are being forbidden. What makes unknow, icy oilfields more attractive?…or less likely to be off-limits?

  63. Mike D. (17:56:54) :
    $100 billion wasted on global warming alarmism, and the alarmists have the temerity to query, “What are the real issues?”.
    Please, let’s be honest and also look at the proportions:
    – US deficit 12 000 billion, spent on wars, tax cuts for affluent people
    and rescuing large-scale gamblers
    – US reseach budget/year, something like 380 billion, with defense
    and health research dominating, very little on energy research,
    climate reseach? – i don’t know, but if the gobal total over a longer
    period is100 billion – it can’t be much per year in USA, in proportion
    to figures mentioned above.
    Further, given that science must advance, increasing shares of the
    reserach budget should go to integrative research at system level –
    how can we bypass the earth and climate system in that setting?
    Note that the category in statistics is ‘climate reseach’ not ‘AGW
    theory supporting research’. I suppose sceptics would argue that in practice the categories are identical. I don’t think so, but I will not
    go into that argument here – the main point is that the illusion
    sceptics want to propagate of ‘enormous sums being spent’ does
    not hold.
    Mike, I am prepared to believe that you care for the ‘real issues’
    you mention, but taken as a whole: the sceptic side argument against
    climate change mitigation policies is mostly, ‘don’t raise our taxes’.
    To give an impression that 100 billion is ready and earmarked for
    sending, to alleviate the real issues you mention, only the bad AGW
    guys now want to knick it, is not honest.

  64. mikael pihlström (05:15:27)

    Mike D. (17:56:54) :

    $100 billion wasted on global warming alarmism, and the alarmists have the temerity to query, “What are the real issues?”.

    Please, let’s be honest and also look at the proportions:
    – US deficit 12 000 billion, spent on wars, tax cuts for affluent people and rescuing large-scale gamblers – US reseach budget/year, something like 380 billion, with defense and health research dominating, very little on energy research, climate reseach? – i don’t know, but if the gobal total over a longer period is100 billion – it can’t be much per year in USA, in proportion to figures mentioned above.

    Yeah, don’t worry about a measly hundred BILLION, since we spend lots of money on other things. Meanwhile, bust the skeptics as money-grubbing fools because they got ten million from Exxon ten years ago … I don’t care what is spent elsewhere. Wasting a hundred billion when people are starving is bad enough. Trying to justify it on the basis that other money is wasted is a sad commentary on AGW supporters.

    Further, given that science must advance, increasing shares of the reserach budget should go to integrative research at system level – how can we bypass the earth and climate system in that setting?
    Note that the category in statistics is ‘climate reseach’ not ‘AGW theory supporting research’. I suppose sceptics would argue that in practice the categories are identical. I don’t think so, but I will not go into that argument here – the main point is that the illusion sceptics want to propagate of ‘enormous sums being spent’ does not hold.

    Yeah, it’s not “enormous sums being spent”, it’s only a hundred billion dollars … you really don’t have a clue how big that is, do you? Let me spell it out.
    Suppose I gave you a million bucks to spend on the problems that Mike listed above, poverty, hunger, disease, famine, pestilence, floods, and the rest. You could make a dent in that problem for a million dollars. It would take a few years to spend that, but at the end, you could rest on your laurels, you would have made a difference.
    Now, suppose I gave you a million dollars a day for a year to spend on the problems. Every day, another million dollars to fight disease and floods and the rest. You could make a real dent for that money. You’d have to gear way, way up, get a bunch of people to help spend money that fast, but think of the difference you could make spending a million dollars each and every day for a whole year. You could make a stupendous difference with a million dollars a day for a year.
    You start spending, and you are doing so much good you don’t want to stop. I give you more bucks, you spend a million dollars every day for an entire century … you have done immense good in the world, made a real, lasting difference, you are recognized as one of the leading philanthropist in history. But guess what?
    Spending a million bucks a day for an entire century, you still haven’t spent a hundred billion dollars. You’re still a long ways from that.
    So you give the job to your kids, and eventually they turn it over to your grandkids, and between them they spend a million dollars each and every day for an another century.
    But even after two centuries of spending a million dollars every day fighting disease and poverty, you’re still not there yet, you still haven’t spent the hundred billion. You’d have to spend a million dollars a day for another seventy five years to finally get through the hundred billion.
    So don’t be babbling inanities about how a hundred billion dollars is not an enormous sum. That’s nonsense, it is an unimaginably large amount of money, money beyond our dreams.

    Mike, I am prepared to believe that you care for the ‘real issues’ you mention, but taken as a whole: the sceptic side argument against climate change mitigation policies is mostly, ‘don’t raise our taxes’.

    Don’t know where you live, but I rarely hear that argument. The main arguments I hear are:
    1. It will have no effect on the temperature. Even the folks who supported Kyoto admitted that if all of the signatories met their targets, it would change the temperature by less than a tenth of a degree in fifty years. Unlike you, people are unwilling to spend money and time to achieve sweet Fanny Adams …
    And in the event, the US (without any Kyoto) reduced carbon emissions about as much as the median of the Kyoto countries. So Kyoto did nothing and cost tens of billions … heck of a plan you’ve got for us there, Mikael.
    2. It will be very damaging to the US economy. Energy is on the input side of all economics. Any additional cost for energy is very damaging because it drags everything down. Particularly at this time, we can’t afford that. The issue is not “our taxes”, it is the obvious economic damage to the country as a whole.
    3. It will drive business, particularly manufacturing, overseas to countries which do not have energy taxes. Again, we can’t afford it.
    4. The science is shoddy, poorly supported, and driven by politics rather than facts.
    Finally you say:

    To give an impression that 100 billion is ready and earmarked for sending, to alleviate the real issues you mention, only the bad AGW guys now want to knick [sic] it, is not honest.

    Mike said nothing of the sort. He merely pointed out that there were real, pressing, urgent, serious needs today, as opposed to the AGW claims of maybe some increase in storms and droughts and sea level in fifty years. The fact is that money can’t be spent twice, so what we waste chasing the climate chimera can’t be spent on real problems.

  65. Willis Eschenbach (13:18:25) :
    mikael pihlström (05:15:27)
    Mike D. (17:56:54) :
    $100 billion wasted on global warming alarmism, and the alarmists have the temerity to query, “What are the real issues?”.
    Please, let’s be honest and also look at the proportions:
    – US deficit 12 000 billion, spent on wars, tax cuts for affluent people and rescuing large-scale gamblers – US reseach budget/year, something like 380 billion, with defense and health research dominating, very little on energy research, climate reseach? – i don’t know, but if the gobal total over a longer period is100 billion – it can’t be much per year in USA, in proportion to figures mentioned above.
    Yeah, don’t worry about a measly hundred BILLION, since we spend lots of money on other things. Meanwhile, bust the skeptics as money-grubbing fools because they got ten million from Exxon ten years ago … I don’t care what is spent elsewhere. Wasting a hundred billion when people are starving is bad enough. Trying to justify it on the basis that other money is wasted is a sad commentary on AGW supporters.
    You misunderstand or misread. Mike D said exactly that: it is a short
    message, easy to check. He (and you) think that money spent on climate
    research (correct?) is wasted and you are entitled to that opinion.
    I point out that it is after all a small component of your research budget
    (the 100 billion has to be recalculated per year/ US only, for a correct comparison).
    I also ask what is wrong with funding integrative earth system level
    science? It is the direction science is taking. Is it just that you don’t like
    the results. If the grant award process is corrupt, in your interpretation,
    you could concentrate on that issue?
    But Mike D says, better spend it one worthy humanitarian causes, and I
    point out that this has a flavor of populism. It is human, when I get angry
    with something I say it could be better spent on elder care. And I don’t
    disgree on the worthy causes mentioned.
    I am just saying don’t use it as an argument for cutting down some
    funding you don’t like – please find more logical comparisons. For
    instance, by stayinf within the frame of research budgets.

  66. “”” mikael pihlström (14:04:13) :
    Willis Eschenbach (13:18:25) :
    mikael pihlström (05:15:27)
    Mike D. (17:56:54) :
    $100 billion wasted on global warming alarmism, and the alarmists have the temerity to query, “What are the real issues?”.
    Please, let’s be honest and also look at the proportions:
    – US deficit 12 000 billion, spent on wars, tax cuts for affluent people and rescuing large-scale gamblers – US reseach budget/year, something like 380 billion, with defense and health research dominating, “””
    Can’t really unravel who said what.
    But our forebares said this:-
    “”” Section 8 – Powers of Congress
    The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; “””
    That actually is a verbatim citation of The United States Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 (out of 18); the first 17 of which define the powers granted to the Congress of The United States.
    Clause 1 you can see tells the Congress that they can collect taxes; BUT if you notice, it also says what they can use that tax money for. Just three things. 1/ Pay the Debts (of The United States)
    2/ Provide for the Common Defense of the United States.
    3/ Provide for the General Welfare of The United States.
    That is all.
    For the uninformed; “The United States” was and is one of the three parties to the contract that is “The United States Constitution.” The other two parties to that contract are:- “We The People of The United States.” and “The Several States” which are the Sovereign States (now numbering 50) which agreed to be a part of this contract.
    Nowhere does it say the Congress has any power to provide for the welfare of every Tom, Dick, or Harry; only of that Political Entity known as The United States; whose headquarters happens to be in Washington DC.
    Nowhere else in the Constitution, does it give the Congress any other things it can collect taxes for.
    It certainly doesn’t give it any authority to tax anybody to pay for “climate research” or “energy research” or any other boondoggles that a myriad of special interest groups think it should pay for.
    So if you think the USA spends a lot of money on defense (fighting wars) including other people’s wars; well now you know; that is mostly what they are supposed to do. Doesn’t cost a lot to see to the general welfare of that DC operation; just make sure they have a supply of pencils and paper and a good pencil sharpener.
    Well of course the Congress sees that big loophole there; to pay the debts of the United States; and they do have the power to pass laws; under the 18th clause of Article ! Section 8; BUT ! ONLY those laws which are NECESSARY and APPROPRIATE.
    Well you know what that means. A is necessary for B , if and only if, in the absence of A, B is impossible; no matter what.
    So if you can solve a problem with either of two different laws (or approaches), then neither of those is “necessary”, since you have an alternative; in which case it is none of the Congress’ business, and the States or the People can solve the problem the way they see fit.
    Well the Congress manages to write all kinds of laws, which aren’t necessary or appropriate; and then they grant funds to “finance”, thiose un-necessary things; which they can do by going into debt; since they can incur debts; and then they use clause 1 as their means to pay those debts.
    So deficit spending is an absolutley essential part of the scheme of Congress to get around the fact that they aren’t allowed to tax anybody to pay for Climate or Energy research; so they borrow to do that; and then make the taxpayers make good on their IOUs.
    So if the rest of the world would take care of their own defense, and quit depending on us for that; maybe we would be a better shape to handle charity cases like grants to climate scientists.
    And as to those “affluent people” Well they are the only ones who are paying any taxes anyway; so how do you give a tax cut to somebody who doesn’t even pay taxes; like people with their hand in the public till. Taxpayers willingly pay for those people who actually do the providing for the common defense of The United States; we have no gripe about them getting anything they need for that. I don’t even mind paying for the intern that sharpens the pencils for those people in the Congress; we have to provide for the general welfare of the Congress, since it is part of that United States; that we set up; well to be pedantic our forefathers set it up; but we are generally all obligated to follow their tradition.
    Others have tried different schemes; the Russians tried the “To each according to his needs; and from each according to his abilities.” approach for almost a century; and all they succeeded in doing was in destroying the culture and the economy of most of Europe.
    Yet people still keep trying that insane utopic idea even today; “it just hasn’t been done right yet.” is their mantra. Well they keep trying and they keep failing; that’s a pretty good definition of “insanity.”

  67. George E. Smith (16:07:18) :
    Can’t really unravel who said what.
    But our forebares said this:-
    is a reply to
    mikael pihlström (14:04:13) :
    Willis Eschenbach (13:18:25) :
    mikael pihlström (05:15:27)
    Mike D. (17:56:54) who started:
    $100 billion wasted on global warming alarmism, and the alarmists have the temerity to query, “What are the real issues?”.
    [Added today] “Poverty, hunger, disease, famine, pestilence, floods,
    fires, war, ignorance, servitude, immorality, homelessness, drug
    addiction, corruption, pollution, brutality, fascism, crime, economic collapse, hardships and suffering, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.”
    —-
    This is informative and opens paths to several interesting topics,
    but I guess the logic is to adher to the initial one.
    After completing the quote (Mike D), you will see that it was not me,
    a foreigner non-party to the US Constitution, who suggested a list of
    issues that could be funded instead of climate change research. The
    list kind of implies that funds could also be used outside the US.
    Take the reference to the US deficit as a general example putting
    into perspective the question of what an ‘enormous sum of money’
    means.
    Quite rightly, what the US spends on wars is not affecting me
    economically, but you would recognize my right to oppose the wars
    themselves, since they are international? The taxes and bail-outs
    are your internal affair, I just venture the comment, that within the tax-paying population there is a choice how the cuts are distributed between income levels?
    Then you have an interesting passage on research funding as unconstitutional? But, there is a federal research budget? Do you
    mean that it is dubiously passed by Congress, in your textualist
    interpretation of the Constitution, or are you saying that funding
    research for defense and general welfare is unproblematic, but
    climate research is unconstitutional? How about energy?
    But, since part of your citizens and their representatives would say
    that both energy and climate research are vital for general welfare,
    the situation is not very different compared to Europe.
    My point was that if the US research budget per year is ca 380 billion
    dollars and the climate research share thereoff is 5? or 10?, you
    can not maintain, as is often done on this site, that it is an
    unprecedented, enormous sum. W Eschenbach says you should not
    compare this way, which I find absurd. We always compare (it is
    called budgeting) and for good reasons, using indicators; amount,
    share of total, outcomes, efficiency etc.
    You can of course state that the research in question is so absurd
    that zero dollars should be spent. But, that is a different argument.
    On the substance (‘the research is absurd’) I beg to differ completely.
    Another point is how these totals are computed. But, I won’t go there
    now. And an interesting question nobody wants to answer on this
    site is:
    (copied) Further, given that science must advance, increasing shares
    of the research budget should go to integrative research at system
    level – how can we bypass the earth and climate system in that setting?
    Note that the category in statistics is ‘climate reseach’ not ‘AGW
    theory supporting research’.
    Finally, I started of with a mild critic of the argument: ‘could be spent
    on food for the starving’. Will not repeat, just an example, in case it was
    misunderstood:
    If my boy (long ago) asks for a hamburger and I say ‘No, for that money
    a boy like you in Africa can be vaccinated and not fall ill’, it is arguably
    valid only if I earlier had indeed reserved the sum with an intention
    to send it. If I actually wanted to save the money for general purposes,
    for my evening beer, or because I don’t think a hamburger is good for
    him. I should say so.

Comments are closed.