You gotta love it when the Earth gives back the love, especially today.
Those who have been following NSIDC and JAXA sea ice plots have noted that this has been an extraordinary year so far, with Arctic sea ice hitting the “normal” line on some datasets. Today the Earth gave back more for us.
As of today, JAXA shows that we have more ice than any time on this date for the past 8 years of Aqua satellite measurement for this AMSRE dataset. Yes, it isn’t much, but if this were September, and the sea ice minimum was down by this much compared to all other years, you can bet your sweet bippy we’d see it screamed in news headlines worldwide.
Of course some will argue that it “doesn’t matter” in the context of trend, or that it’s just a “weather” blip. Let us remind our friends of such blips the next time a heat wave or a storm is cited as proof of global warming.
What can be said about the short term trend in Arctic sea ice is that for the past two years, it has recovered from the historic low of 2007. It recovered in 2008, and more in 2009. If today’s Earth Day gift is any indication, it appears that it is on track now for a third year of recovery in 2010 as we’ve been saying at WUWT since fall of 2009.
I’d show NSIDC’s current Arctic Sea Ice graph also, but their website was down earlier today, and the current sea ice graph is not updated. But Steve Goddard has made some comparison overlays that are interesting.
He writes via email:
NSIDC’s web site is down today, but I overlaid DMI on top of the NSIDC graph and it should have hit the mean line today. Same story for JAXA. Images are below.
DMI uses 30% concentration, so their scale is lower than NSIDC and JAXA at 15%. I shifted the DMI data upwards and stretched vertically to visually match the NISDC data.
The second image is JAXA, DMI and NSIDC together. JAXA also needed to be shifted vertically as they apparently use a different algorithm for calculating extent than NSIDC. All three track each other fairly closely during the spring, DMI diverges from the others during the fall freeze up – probably because of the higher concentration requirements.
Blue is NSIDC. Green is JAXA. Black is DMI. The thick black line is the NSIDC mean. The dashed line is the 2007 historic low.
ADDED: Here is a wider view that shows that the three time series match closely over the interval of the NSIDC graph
======================
Happy Earth Day everybody!
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
AndyW (22:16:48) :
Arctic sea ice is largest in extent in the last 8 years. On January 1st it was lowest.
Was that posted here .. of course not. :p
Andy
Because some skeptics overstate their case, there is confusion over what we’re skeptical about. Consider the difference between GW, AGW and CAGW.
Virtually everyone agrees that the globe has been getting warmer for quite some time. That’s GW and you don’t even see that abbreviation much because it’s not where the debate lies.
Many skeptics doubt that the GW is AGW — that anthropogenic CO2 caused the GW (or, at least, caused most of it).
All skeptics doubt that the warming is catastrophic. We don’t see any catastrophe coming. The GW isn’t CAGW.
Now back to your point. Record low sea ice will happen semi-regularly unless GW isn’t true. But GW is obviously happening. Thus, record low sea ice isn’t news to anyone.
rbateman (10:25:11) :
Amino Acids in Meteorites (07:41:50) :
Don’t beat yourself up. They have more flavors of model kool-aid hidden in every nook and cranny than any single imagination can run wild with.
Today’s menu has “You’ll be Sorry” soup with “Doomsday Trend” Tuna Melts.
For dessert, we have “Arctic Reversal is Unimportant” baked Alaska.
Afterwards, we’ll be selecting the next victim to sacrifice to the Angry ModelGod : PIOMAS
I used to wonder how a Bronze-Age illiterate peasant transported 45 centuries into the future would view Science. Now, I have a pretty good idea…
From Anu (13:25:05) :
Competent skeptics like Dr. Lindzen should be working on explanations of why the planet is warming.
But Hansen agreed there has been no statistically significant warming from 1995 to the present. Trenberth mentioned in a press release “…Earth’s surface temperatures have largely leveled off in recent years.” Thus if we don’t have warming worth worrying about right now, what’s the point in taking a lot of time finding explanations for the warming (besides the PDO and a host of other explanations that certain people apparently don’t notice)?
We have better things to do, like as was done with this authoritative mathematical model outlining the proper response to a certain plague that could devastate humanity quickly. This is clearly a much better use of scientific efforts, as we humans cannot afford to be ill-prepared should such a plague strike. This could suddenly take out humanity now, without warning as soon as it pops up, as opposed to theoretical damages from something that is not currently statistically happening that will really only do noticeable significant damage several decades from now.
Really, people need to have better priorities in life. Worry about what could hurt us now, suddenly, find those solutions now, and stop worrying about things we likely won’t even notice any large effects from for generations until we get those important things taken care of first. Priorities, people, priorities!
Anu (11:49:43) :
“When the Arctic ice disappears some summer soon, you can use your little tautology to ‘prove’ it was all natural.”
Let’s look at what has occurred naturally over the past 10 millennia: click
No tautology there. That is the null hypothesis: natural climate variability. That hypothesis has never been falsified. And since we have no satellite pictures of polar ice cover for 9,970 of the past 10,000 years, we don’t know its extent, or even if there was Arctic ice cover. What we do know is that current temperatures are about average.
Going back further in time we see that temperatures tended to be much colder on average: click
There is no measurable evidence showing that the recent change in CO2 levels is the cause of the recent warming. It is a correlation, and probably a coincidence. In the past, rising CO2 levels have always followed rising temperatures.
CO2 began steadily rising a century and a half ago, but steadily rising temperatures have not resulted. In fact, the most recent temperature trend has happened before: click
No doubt some rent-seeking scientist has already written a paper with a convoluted, evidence-free explanation of the ΔT – ΔCO2 divergence, which certainly violates Occam’s Razor, to help prop up the true believers, and hopefully snag a fat grant in the process. After all, if we just look around, there are spurious correlations everywhere, not just with CO2 and temperature: click
Anu (13:05:55) :
“I was merely pointing out that saying the recent warming of the planet is “natural” is not an explanation”
Now here is the devil in the detail. In my first post I have argue that “I believe in order to establish whether a theory is correct or wrong, we should stick to the matter of fact, and honestly recount what we have seen regardless of how absurd it is.”
What this means is, if we don’t know something, we do not pretend to know it. This is as simple as a child being asked about how many T shirt are there inside his drawer, if he does not know it he should not randomly toss out a number. A lot of people, both side in the debate, believe that a good scientist must give up a explanation to the any natural phenomenon, regardless of whether they know explanation is proved to be valid or not. As if one need to support AGW if solar activity theory are proven to be false, or vice versa, regardless of whether the new replacement theory will be as crap as the previous one.
Anu is exactly one of these people, who try to argue that just because we don’t give a explanation we are “bad scientist” and hence we ought to choose AGW for the sake of having a explanation. I have already argue why AGW is not a good explanation in the first post, which I shall not repeat here. Whether or not other replacement theory such as solar activity can replace it’s importance is a another question, but whatever the answer is it will not change the fact AGW is still a crap one. All I can declare is, WE KNOW NO EXPLANATION AND LETS START PRETEND WE DO AND TOSSES A NEW ONE.
Now to be just I also need to say the people in the skeptic side does this as well. It is simply not needed. If a theory have it’s failure to predict, it is falsified already, without having to do anymore things. Galileo disproved Aristotle’s theory of mechanic without giving a new explanation of gravity as Newton did, but no one in his time, and now, ever doubt he ever disproved Aristotle’s theory.
Just as a last word to Anu, he also said “I was merely pointing out that saying the recent warming of the planet is “natural” is not an explanation – it is logically equivalent to saying “it is the will of Anu””
I am sorry, your incompetence in logic have do you no good again, both proposition are not logical equivalence. The former one is a tautology, it is a statement that give us absolutely nothing and made no attempt to do so. Yet the latter one is a Synthetic statement, it attempt to give us knowledge of the reality, it is just fail to do so. The former statement is like saying “you will either win or not win this gamble”, duh! it is always true and give no advice to any gambler. Whereas the latter statement is like saying “you will win all gamble if you slap yourself in the face”. This is a advice to a gambler, some one can actually base on this in their decision,but is just wrong.
Both statement will probably do no one good when they try to use it to predict. But their logical nature is entirely different and please do not mix them together. IN FACT PLEASE DON’T USE ANY LOGICAL LANGUAGE WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING WHAT IT MEANS, THANK YOU!!!!!!!!
kadaka (KD Knoebel) (10:51:20) :
Ah Steven, Andy is just a bit behind on the narrative. The extant and area numbers are no longer scary enough, so now it is all about the volume (and I’m not referring to how loud the alarmists are screaming).
For example, both R. Gates and Anu have now presented the same terrifying anomoly graph.
I saw R. Gates mention the graph a few days ago, and thanked him for the link:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/18/new-weekly-feature-wuwt-sea-ice-news/#comment-373683
You might not have noticed it, but some people on these threads have interesting information to share. Even Steve Goddard, who I disagree with often.
Strangely enough, you can actually back that URL up to a directory (it’s not blocked) and find this helpful explanatory page:
Why is that strange ? It’s a standard technique to explore a website that a cited image comes from, and what other interesting information might be there. Web 101.
Now, the terrifying anomaly graph says the current rate of decline, which of course shall always remain steady, is 3.3 thousand cubic kilometers a decade. The helpful page says “Total Arctic Ice Volume for March 2010 is 20,300 km^3…” Crank the numbers, and 61 1/2 years from last March we’ll run out of sea ice.
They also helpfully say “September Ice Volume was lowest in 2009 at 5,800 km^3”. Crank the numbers, and less than 18 years from 2009 we’ll have no more summer Arctic sea ice – that’s 2027.
Did I mention summer 2009 had the lowest Arctic sea ice volume ? And that was when ICESat was still working. Good thing we have some wafer thin ice extent that built up in the Bering Sea and Sea of Okhotsk this March – that ought to save this summer melt from another disappointing record minimum sea ice volume 🙂
You’re right, the anomaly trend doesn’t have to stay linear – it might accelerate in a few years – hence the phrase “death spiral”.
Whether that is “terrifying” or not is just your personal reaction – the data is just the data.
Oh, and it’s all “natural”. If that helps.
Actually, we DO know that the Arctic was Ice-free for thousands of years
(in Summer only, the 6-month Polar Night will always form sea-ice in winter) as waves were forming Beaches on the North Greenland Coast, then Stopped, about 5000 years ago:
http://www.ngu.no/en-gb/Aktuelt/2008/Less-ice-in-the-Arctic-Ocean-6000-7000-years-ago.
The Ewing-Donner Ice Age theory calculated weather Patterns for an Ice-Free Pole, & came up with Much more precipitation, a green Sahara, a dry Kansas — a PBS History Mystery highlighted the uninhabitable nature of Kansas & Nebraska up until 5000 BP and this confirms Donner’s Weather calculations: BUT the Pattern clearly is the POST-Ice Age Climate of the Hipsithermal.
— I speculate that it is an OPEN POLAR SEA that causes the 3-to-5 degree C Global uptick that ENDS an Ice Age. Not Start one. But Ewing had calculated an Ice Sheet is only possible with INCREASED precipitation and had “heard” the Sahara was Green in the “past” … but DURING Ice Ages the Sahara is dry.
But their Weather Forecast seems good IF the Arctic does Melt off.
Part II:
…. the Arctic is NOT about AGW vs. Natural Warming — Both total only 1/4.
Arctic Warming is nostly “CAT”- Warming according to the team led by Drew Shindell early in 2009.
CAT = CAP & TRADE:
26% — General Global Average increase
29% — Sulphur Dioxide Decrease from SO2’s CAP & TRADE
45% — Soot leaving little black Sun-absorbing Dots on formerly-white Ice
— = Diesel Soot (forgiven by Kyoto’s CAP & TRADE as it cuts CO2)
+ Asian Coal Soot (forgiven by CAP & TRADE as it is not Evil Western Soot)
This is not REALLY “Environmentalists Killing the Earth” — it is a Lobby I call the PPG’s:
Political Phony Greens = POISONS & PARTICULATES GROUP = PPG.
Trying to get revenge on the industries exempted from the initial Pollution Controls, they have demonized CO2 & Sulphur and now FORCE us to put MERCURY in our homes, send Industires to Asia where all electricity will be Coal with NO scrubbers, etc.
Look at where the leading AGW Scientists stand:
Condemn CAP & TRADE :
Hansen, Lovelock, Dr. Ozone — all 3 of the top 3 !
… they call it a “SCAM” alleging a Crime — unlike Ethanol, which is counter-productive but we only found that out recently: a mistake, not a KNOWING CRIME.
Advocate Emergency Sulfur cooling:
Lovelock, Dr. Ozone (Paul Crutzen), the President’s own GW Advisor ( ! )
(PS the PPG sites still quote Ken Caldiera as worrying about SO2, to counter Crutzen BUT like Crutzen, he has SWITCHED SIDES. As Dr. Ozone says: Mt. Pinutubo proved Safety AND efficacy (PS: Plus the latest designs cost only $20 million because they add ONLY the 1/500th of the Volcanic SO2 that was above 20 miles)– to which I’d add that CO2 growth after Pinutubo was a fifth the normal 2 ppm/year, because Plants prefer the diffuse light a little Sulfur high up gives. Hate CO2 ? — then for every TON of SO2 reduced, put 4 pounds, 20 miles high = cut CO2 growth 80%. Or why not 5 pounds & cut it all ???
… Hansen — I do not know where he stands on SO2 — but as a bonus, he has stated the evidence favors those claiming “BC” warms more than CO2. BC = SOOT (dubbed “Evil BLACK CARBON” or “BC” by the career people at the EPA who really care).
— Mind : Hansen STILL wants to stop CO2, in fact he condemns CAP & TRADE because Kyoto INCREASES CO2.
In fairness to Obama, USA-made Diesels are made to cut soot by 93% , since the 1995 regs, so a U.S. CAT would not be as counterproductive as Kyoto has been.
PSSS There is a great Report that analyzes SOOT in Ice & I feel their numbers explain the 1922 near ice-melt-off because the SOOT (BC) was so much MORE back before 1920, than now. 1900-1920 saw ENORMOUS soot deposits in the Arctic, until home heat first switched to smokeless Anthracite after WWI, then oil & gas. See: http://www.pnas.org/content/105/34/12140.figures-only
Nothing Warms like changing Bright White reflective Ice, to Polka dots.
Except changing to white Ice to “deep blue Sea”.
From Anu (15:37:04):
Why is that strange ? It’s a standard technique to explore a website that a cited image comes from, and what other interesting information might be there. Web 101.
It’s a dated technique. Normally site admins will block such a directory listing to keep the curious from looking at “interesting information” those behind the site don’t want others to rummage through. This can be done by having something functional show up; try shortening the URL for this page. There can be a polite brush-off. This link is for the 2008 Weblog Awards Winner image seen above. Shortening the URL to try to get to the image directory yields a mild 404 error message from WordPress. Then there is the stern “Go Away!” This image is a Wikipedia symbol, shortening its URL gets you a 403 “Forbidden: Your client is not allowed to access the requested object.”
These days, to allow that “standard technique” to work is normally a sign of shoddy server management. It’s allowable on a FTP server which is wide-open access to all, used by “old timers” comfortable with picking through the directories to find what they came to download. But for an HTTP server expecting the web-normal “click and look” traffic, allowing that bare-bones directory view shows a negligent attitude towards security, or just sheer incompetence.
Thus it is strange how that old “standard technique” worked on that site, as that is not web-normal these days.
You might not have noticed it, but some people on these threads have interesting information to share. Even Steve Goddard, who I disagree with often.
Ah, but getting people to notice and process the information can still be a problem.
Did I mention summer 2009 had the lowest Arctic sea ice volume ?
Did you even notice my comment where the work of the esteemed Dr. Barber cast doubt on those ice volume numbers? Please try to keep up.
Good News!
As the Arctic Ice Death Spiral continues, we may finally be able to locate the Baychimo.
Thus there is one more, albeit relatively minor, benefit of the Inevitable Global Warming.
You may now resume your natural WUWT experience.
Charles Wilson (17:33:22) :
“…29% — Sulphur Dioxide Decrease from SO2′s CAP & TRADE
45% — Soot leaving little black Sun-absorbing Dots on formerly-white Ice…”
Excellent post Charles, just a shame it wasn’t nearer the top of the thread, but worth repeating next time Arctic ice comes up.
I suspect that volcanoes and forest fires have had similar effects on the summer ice melt long before mankind came on the scene and was another significant cause of the chaotic Arctic sea ice cover oscillation.
No surprise then that trends and models have no predictive value.
kadaka (KD Knoebel) (10:51:20) :
stevengoddard (08:52:51) :
so now it is all about the volume (and I’m not referring to how loud the alarmists are screaming).
If they had that Spinal Tap stereo they could go up to 11.
Anu
you really are hardcore
Feuillet (15:06:45) :
Galileo disproved Aristotle’s theory of mechanic without giving a new explanation of gravity as Newton did, but no one in his time, and now, ever doubt he ever disproved Aristotle’s theory.
Einstein’s view of gravity made Newton’s look like something from the Geico caveman it is so beautiful and fascinating. But explanations are needed before it is understood. And what’s more, Newton’s gravity is still taught in schools as soon as kids reach the age where science is taught. It’s easier to just say bodies attract. It’s easier to be lazy.
Funny thing is explanations only work with those who want to learn. It’s a waste to explain things to people who aren’t willing to learn.
Feuillet (15:06:45) :
Some are set against learning. They have other intentions. Trying to reason constructively with them is useless. Like Jesus said, “Don’t cast your pearls before swine lest they trample them under foot then turn and rend you to pieces”.
Feuillet (15:06:45) :
Refreshing to hear someone who understands logic. What you refer to in your post, that Anu and others are saying, was called in Aristotelian logic “argumentum ad ignorantium”, or “You cannot prove your counterargument, therefore mine must be correct”.
But remember this always: the burden of proof is on the AGW alarmist side, since they want our behavior to change, not the other way around. With great power comes great responsibility.
Nice work, Feuillet!
Anu, volume is modeled/extrapolated from ice age based on satellite data related to ice movement out Fram Strait and ice locations from month to month, not based on actual measurements. The real observed Arctic basin volume measuring program ended last year.
The land/sea edges are still being measured. The Bering Strait is now exhibiting thicker ice than it has in recent years. This is an area that is still subjected to objective actual measurements, not calculated assumptive algorithms.
http://www.arcus.org/search/siwo
22 April 2010 – Hajo Eicken – Information on Landfast Ice and Weather at Wales
Grounded ridges and shorefast ice edge (Photo: M. Druckenmiller)During a field trip to Wales we found level shorefast ice slightly thicker than in past years (1.5m, 5 feet), with less snow (6 cm, 2.5 inches). Heavy ridging helped anchor ice (see photo, right); similar ridges are holding landfast ice in place further to the North (see last week’s satellite image). Rough ice required trailbuilding by hunters to access the ice edge. Boats from Wales are out hunting towards the North in a wide lead. Weather was windier (25 mph winds from N/NE sector) than indicated by forecast, with fresh snowfall limiting visibility on Wednesday.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
Scientists often use ice age data as a way to infer ice thickness—one of the most important factors influencing end-of-summer ice extent. Although the Arctic has much less thick, multiyear ice than it did during the 1980s and 1990s, this winter has seen some replenishment: the Arctic lost less ice the past two summers compared to 2007, and the strong negative Arctic Oscillation this winter prevented as much ice from moving out of the Arctic. The larger amount of multiyear ice could help more ice to survive the summer melt season. However, this replenishment consists primarily of younger, two- to three-year-old multiyear ice; the oldest, and thickest multiyear ice has continued to decline. Although thickness plays an important role in ice melt, summer ice conditions will also depend strongly on weather patterns through the melt season.
At the moment there are no Arctic-wide satellite measurements of ice thickness, because of the end of the NASA Ice, Cloud, and Land Elevation Satellite (ICESat) mission last October. NASA has mounted an airborne sensor campaign called IceBridge to fill this observational gap.
But the glaciers are all melting. Don’t any of you understand the intricacies of the planet? Melting glaciers, increasing arctic ice, record cold 2009 midwest summer, early flowering in Wisconsin spring, record snow east coast. Come on-you know it’s GW and it’s all our fault. Just accept the science!
Pamela,
Let us assume that Hansen’s reconstructed and smoothed and polished and extrapolated surface temperature record is correct. That is, that the globe has warmed 1/2 of one degree since 1973, and that warming since 1890 is (about) 9/10 of one degree.
So, how much Arctic ice “should have been” (could have been ?) melted by this change in surface temperature, and when did this increase in temperature occur?
(That is: If the change in temperature was in spring, fall, or winter, there would have been no melting. If in summer, his surface temperature that was to “increase ice melt” most emphatically did NOT occur – since we have daily Arctic temperature records for 80 deg Latitude showing “no change” at all.)
(A second AGW claim is proven false already: We know absolutely that the much proclaimed “Arctic death spiral” of ever decreasing ice causing more absorption causing higher temperatures causing more ice melt is false: 2006 – 2007 showed a high ice loss, but ice extent recovered promptly from 2007-2008-2009-2010 (so far).)
Mudman Wis (05:43:17) :
But the glaciers are all melting. Don’t any of you understand the intricacies of the planet? Melting glaciers, increasing arctic ice, record cold 2009 midwest summer, early flowering in Wisconsin spring, record snow east coast. Come on-you know it’s GW and it’s all our fault. Just accept the science!
—–
REPLY:
Hah! Hey, if you want to read some serious, thought-provoking warmista stuff, check this site out:
http://www.campaigncc.org/
I found out about it via Delingpole. Talk about loons!! Even if we ARE in a “climate emergency,” like, what are we supposed to do about it?
These folks are scary, and clearly, we are the enemies!!
On the contrary, in March 2010, the total Arctic sea ice volume was 20,300 km3 – the lowest March value for total sea ice volume over the 1979-2009 period. Those who claim Arctic sea ice has returned to normal are focussing at the thin shell at the top and neglecting the steadily thinning sea ice below.
SteveE (03:54:15),
May I? Thank you:
click
This post is about Artic Sea ice, and my point was that while the extent might have increase the volume, ie the amount has decreased.
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/ArcticSeaiceVolume/images/BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrent.png
The hypothesis is that increases in human emitted CO2 will cause runaway global warming. The implication is that the Arctic is showing this happening.
But it is not happening. The Arctic is simply going through a regional – not global – fluctuation, which has happened many times before, and which is completely normal and natural.
Human CO2 emissions, and CO2 in general, have little or nothing to do with what is happening in the Arctic.
If CO2 was causing global warming, the Antarctic would be affected too: click
The planet, unlike the alarmist crowd, doesn’t lie. And the planet is telling us that CO2 doesn’t matter.