WUWT Sea Ice News #2

By Steven Goddard

Image by WUWT reader "Boudu"

Break out the Speedos and Bikinis. Springtime has finally arrived in the Arctic!

Reuters5

Guardian Image

Temperatures have risen about 15C, and are now averaging a balmy -15C (5F) north of latitude 80N – with sunshine 24 hours a day. Under those conditions, you can get frostbite and a tan at the same time.

http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/meanTarchive/meanT_2010.png

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

But despite the balmy weather, NORSEX ice area continues to run above the 1979-2006 mean – as it has for the entire month of April.

http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/observation_images/ssmi1_ice_area.png

Since the melt season started, the Arctic has lost about one million km2 of sea ice. Below is a composite graph showing all of the popular (NSIDC, JAXA, NORSEX, DMI) extent measurements, superimposed on the NSIDC mean and two standard deviation region. The thin blue line is NSIDC extent from 2009. Note that all measurements have been nudging up against the mean line – for the entire month of April.

Disclaimer: All maps below are taken from NSIDC maps, and modified by the “breathtakingly ignorant” writers at WUWT.

During the last three weeks ice has melted mainly at lower latitudes, as seen below in red. Areas in green have actually increased in extent, due to drift. Ice is probably still getting thicker in much of the Arctic, because temperatures remain well below freezing.

The map below shows changes over the past week.

And the map below shows changes since the same date in 2007. Green indicates ice growth.

The next map shows current areas of deficient ice (relative to the median) in red, and excess ice in green. The total amount of excess minus deficient ice is close to zero. In other words – Arctic ice extent is normal.

The Arctic Oscillation remains negative, so circulation is clockwise – as seen below in the buoy drift map. This pattern is keeping older, thicker ice from the Canadian side inside the Arctic Basin, and bodes well for another summer of increased ice thickness and extent – relative to the record melt of 2007.

http://iabp.apl.washington.edu/maps_daily_track-map.html

People counting on bad news from the Arctic to keep their agenda alive are staring at a long, (rhetorically) cold summer……. The good news is that they can keep raising the red flags about Montana glaciers, if the Arctic refuses to melt.

It has now been over 41 years since the New York Times headlined “Expert Says Arctic Ocean Will Soon Be an Open Sea.” triggering the Arctic Death Spiral. After 41 years of dangerous and increasing melt, ice area is again above normal.

My failure to understand this is surely a sign of “breathtaking ignorance.” But don’t call me Shirley.

Advertisements

271 thoughts on “WUWT Sea Ice News #2

  1. And right now, despite all the gains in the Arctic Ice, the brutally cold winter, the unmasked METAR fubar of hottest ever months on record, the Goldman-Sachs stlye ClimateGate emails, Al Gores fading website rankings, the faked Hockey Sticks, etc….
    Reid & Co. are shoving the Climate Bill onto the Senate floor just as fast as they can.
    Excuse: They want to give the committees time to work out immigration.
    Right. And this balmy El Nino has another Winter-type Low Pressure system over the top of California.

  2. Great job Steve. Excellent maps! Very interesting.
    By carefully ignoring all red areas, I believe I can, with genuine “breathtaking ignorance,” predict that at the current rate of growth ice will cover the earth by 2035… or was it 2350. Close enough.
    In any case, if this trend continues it will be better for polar bears than for the people wearing polar bear suits.

  3. Dear Shirley –
    As Monsieur Sandler said over at Huffpo, “You are polluting the blogosphere.”
    Can’t you understand that your problem is that you have failed to open your mind?
    Who needs to look at 40-year averages when we all know that the Arctic is in a “DEATH SPIRAL”?
    😉 😉 😉

  4. If you lot at WUWT are supposedly ‘breathtakingly ignorant’ then how dumb does that make most so-called mainstream ‘science journalists’ look?
    Just an observation.

  5. All temperatures released by government agencies out of the EU and America are now suspect. Totally compromised. Having said that, it does appear that it is all about current and wind as far as the Arctic is concerned presently. That minor temperature rises have little effect. Good call by A. Watts early on.

  6. rbateman, I hear ya on the localized weather. It is still middle of winter temps and rain pattern currently. Lows in the 40’s and Highs in the 50’s with an inch of rain on any given day. I am planning a new trip to Sacratomato, to thaw out. I might have to become a seasonal coastal dweller. I am missing my valley heat this spring.

  7. My failure to understand this is surely a sign of “breathtaking ignorance.” But don’t call me Shirley.
    ….. Well, all together, that is obvious….;-)

  8. It’s also interesting to compare the NSIDC map to that from IARC-JAXA:
    http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/cgi-bin/seaice-monitor.cgi?lang=e
    Quite a few differences between the two; no ice near Denmark and Hudson Bay appears to be breaking up.
    And over the next few weeks, as the extent varies, I expect we’ll hear about every time the 2010 line intersects any other year’s line, as though it means anything concerning the ‘health’ of the Arctic ice.

  9. Leif, Tell that to the NSIDC; Steve is just reporting what they’re saying.
    If you have data that shows otherwise, I’m sure others will be interested.

  10. I don’t know where nsdic has it’s informations from, but at present there IS no ice in the Danish waters. Honest.

  11. Does this mean I can’t book a Holland America cruse through the Northwest Passage again this year?
    Perhaps this call for a little humor or better yet song
    From the late Canadian singer-songwriter Stan Rogers, called Northwest Passage. (Rogers was killed in a 1983 aviation tragedy.) This is part of his take on it. just think of a standard sea chantey sung A cappella.
    Northwest Passage.
    “Ah! for just one time — I would take the Northwest Passage
    To find the hand of Franklin reaching for the Beaufort Sea;
    Tracing one warm line — through a land so wide and savage
    And make a Northwest Passage, to the sea.
    Westward from the Davis Straight ’tis there ’twas said to lie
    The sea route to the Orient for which so many died;
    Seeking gold and glory, leaving weathered, broken bones
    And a long forgotten lonely cairn of stones.
    Ah! for just one time — I would take the Northwest Passage
    To find the hand of Franklin reaching for the Beaufort Sea;
    Tracing one warm line — through a land so wide and savage
    And make a Northwest Passage, to the sea.
    Three centuries thereafter, I take passage over land
    In the footsteps of brave Kelso, where his “sea of flowers” began
    Watching cities rise before me, then behind me sink again
    This tardiest explorer, driving hard across the plain….”

  12. On the local news today, The following bit of really scarey information, “- (Reuters) – In what looks to be another sign the Arctic is heating up quickly, British explorers in Canada’s Far North reported on Tuesday that they had been hit by a three-minute rain shower over the weekend. The rain fell on the team’s ice base off Ellef Rignes island, about 3,900 km (2,420 miles) north of the Canadian capital, Ottawa. “It’s definitely a shocker … the general feeling within the polar community is that rainfall in the high Canadian Arctic in April is a freak event,” said Pen Hadow, the team’s expedition director.
    “Scientists would tell us that we can expect increasingly to experience these sorts of outcomes as the climate warms,” he told Reuters in a telephone interview from London. The Arctic is heating up three times more quickly than the rest of the Earth. Scientists link the higher temperatures to the greenhouse gas emissions blamed for global warming. Hadow said a Canadian scientific camp about 145 km west of the ice base had been hit by rain at the same time. The base off Elles Rignes is supplying a three-member team out on the ice another 1,100 km further north. The trio is studying the impact of increased carbon dioxide absorption by the sea, which could make the water more acidic. Experts say the thick multiyear ice covering the Arctic Ocean has effectively vanished, which could make it easier to open up polar shipping routes. U.S. data shows the 2009 ice cover was the third-lowest on record, after 2007 and 2008. ”
    My goodness, do not these idiots read !. The ice has not vanished – as the nice graphic on this WUWT site shows, and as for acidic seawater – my mind boggles.

  13. Leif and MB,
    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/NEWIMAGES/arctic.seaice.color.000.png
    I’ve never been there so depend on our scientists for observations. Can you provide us with any kind of links or pictures to back that up or even better links to Scandinavian or Icelandic observation data/history??
    Also, are you saying there is NEVER (or almost never) ice there historically this time of year or are you claiming that there could not be ice there this time of year in the last 1 or 5, 10 years??

  14. Leif and mb – presumably you can look out the window and see there is no sea ice. So what the heck is NSDIC up to?
    Can we trust ANYTHING these people put out?

  15. Looks ‘average’ to me, but don’t call me Shirley.
    Certainly not in the middle of any so-called “hockey stick” or any of that AGW nonsense.
    But looking at the map, when all that open water between Greenland and Norway fills in with ice (if the sunspots stay non-existent), then wake me up for the movie, Ice Station Zebra.
    Oops, that Alistair MacLean, not Shirley MacLaine.
    Like I said, don’t call me Shirley.
    Maybe the AGW scientists should audition for a three stooges movie re-make, I understand there’s a try-out for the role of Larry, Curly or Moe…
    The title: The Three Stooges go to Copenhagen…

  16. The caption to the first picture of this post reads:
    “Climate change activists Lesley Butler and Rob Bell ‘sunbathe’ on the edge of a frozen fjord in the Norwegian Arctic town of Longyearbyen”
    So the webcam I mentioned earlier is pretty much in the same place.

  17. O/T (about the ‘other’ pole)
    “Whale excrement could help fight climate change”
    Yep, you read that right!
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/7639614/Whale-excrement-could-help-fight-climate-change.html
    “His findings come as the International Whaling Commission prepares to meet to update the law on the protection of whales”
    I do not think that there is any reason to hunt whales, but trying to link whale hunting to Global Warming is way, way, way out there.
    Is there a company that keeps buys all these ‘studies’ and sells them to interest groups when the time is right. If not it could be an opportunity.
    http://www.NeedAnUnpublishedStudy.com

  18. KimW :
    Yes, it might be rain in the Arctic, but it’s also another cold blast on the Pacific Northwest.
    More snowpack & rain for us, more fresh water to freeze @ -15C up there on the Hadlow Ice Follies.

  19. KimW says: April 27, 2010 at 10:21 pm
    “The rain fell on the team’s ice base off Ellef Rignes island, about 3,900 km (2,420 miles) north of the Canadian capital, Ottawa. ”
    Meanwhile 20 Km. South of Ottawa, it snowed last night and all day today. Green grass yesterday 2 cm. on the ground right now.
    Forcast for tonight, more snow:
    http://www.wunderground.com/cgi-bin/findweather/hdfForecast?query=YOW&searchType=WEATHER
    Forecast for CITY OF OTTAWA
    Updated: 7:53 PM EDT on April 27, 2010
    No Active Advisories
    Tonight
    Periods of wet snow ending late this evening then cloudy. Wind northwest 20 km/h (12 mph) gusting to 40 km/h (25 mph). Low 0C(32F).
    Note: “It’s definitely a shocker … the general feeling within the temperate community is that snowfall in the Canadian Capital in late April is a freak event”
    So, what?

  20. Leif is right, there is NO ice in danish waters and temperatures are aproaching 15 degrees celcius. There has been NO ice in danish waters the last month at the least, I also noticed that satelites showed ice in danish waters in november and december, there was NO ice in danish waters in november as the temperatures here had not even dipped below freezing in noveber.

  21. The Arctic Oscillation remains negative, so circulation is clockwise – as seen below in the buoy drift map. This pattern is keeping older, thicker ice from the Canadian side inside the Arctic Basin, and bodes well for another summer of increased ice thickness and extent – relative to the record melt of 2007.
    More like counter clockwise!
    http://i302.photobucket.com/albums/nn107/Sprintstar400/20100412-20100418.jpg
    Ice is probably still getting thicker in much of the Arctic, because temperatures remain well below freezing.
    Here’s an example of the ‘thickening ice’ near the North Pole from a few days ago:
    http://www.explorersweb.com/polar/news.php?id=19271

  22. Experiments??? Observations???
    Sine when did these have anything to do with climate science? The half-dozen trees that we needed to measure were done years ago. And now we have super-fast computers that have taken away any necessity to do ‘experiments’ or ‘observe’ anything.
    After all, where would we have been in the Volcanic Ash Crisis if people had wasted their time making actual observations to find out how much of the ash there was, and where it might be dangerous to fly? That might have delayed the closure of European airspace for days…and then what would have happened? People would have been flying planes all over the place as if nothing significant had occurred! There was absolutely no point in doing such experiments since our computer models are perfect and from them we knew exactly what Nature should have been doing.
    Big Oil funded ‘Sceptics’ try to say that Reality doesn’t always match the models and therefore that the models aren’t complete!. This is of course heresy and they should be executed on the spot. And in the next round of the inter-governmental talks we will be passing very stiff regulations with extremely severe penalties for any recalcitrant bit of the real world that wilfully fails to comply with our models. Penalties will be deliberately harsh to deter any backsliding. Nature must be taught how to behave correctly.
    So, please, no more talk of such outdated and retrograde concepts as ‘experiment’ or ‘observation’. We left these behind years ago in climate science, and see absolutely no reason to return to the primitive thinking of the pre-Revelation Medieval Experimental Period (c. 1500-1998).
    We have moved on…we have seen the light. We know that we are right. It is only evil-minded and slush-funded Deniers who naysay the Truths. Banish these evil words Experiment and Observation from the scientific vocabulary now!

  23. kuhnkat> I only claim that at present there is no ice in the waters around Denmark. I am in Denmark now, its a lovely spring day, temperature around 6 degrees. I can see the sea from my window, no ice anywhere…:) This does not agree with the the nsdic map, which seem to be derived from satellite pictures. It does make you wonder about the general accuracy of this method.
    This got me looking closer at the maps, there seems to be several places (like around the Disco bay in Greenland, also around the eastern coast of Greenland) where the nsdic reports less ice cover than normal, but Steve’s map shows normal cover (no red markings). Maybe I’m just misreading, the nsdic map is not entirely clear.

  24. Here is an audio link to a weather forecast for the rest of the year by Evelyn Garris that takes in the declining El Nino and the NH volcanic ash clouds. She blames the rebuild of Arctic ice on the volcanoes and covers the effect of NH volcanoes on agriculture. Any farmers out there will get a forecast for their crops. This lady apparently has a good track record on long range forecasting. She talks about Ketla and the Russian volcanoes. Well worth listening to.
    Audio:
    http://www.netcastdaily.com/broadcast/fsn2010-0424-3.asx
    The original link can be found here. Select an audio link on ‘Volcanic Eruptions, Hurricanes, El Nino & Agriculture’ for Saturday, April 24, 2010

  25. Here is an audio link to a weather forecast for the rest of the year by Evelyn Garris that takes in the declining El Nino and the NH volcanic ash clouds. She blames the rebuild of Arctic ice on the volcanoes and covers the effect of NH volcanoes on agriculture. Any farmers out there will get a forecast for their crops. This lady apparently has a good track record on long range forecasting. She talks about Ketla and the Russian volcanoes. Well worth listening to.
    Audio:
    http://www.netcastdaily.com/broadcast/fsn2010-0424-3.asx
    The original link can be found here. Select an audio link on ‘Volcanic Eruptions, Hurricanes, El Nino & Agriculture’ for Saturday, April 24, 2010:
    http://www.financialsense.com/fsn/main.php

  26. mb,
    There are also a few places along the east coast of Greenland which NSIDC shows slightly more ice than the median line. I did not attempt to mark every single above or below pixel, only regions that are of a size worth caring about. As you know, the NSIDC maps are not 100% accurate.

  27. ctm, I posted a comment that had a couple of links. They disappeared. Can the second one be retrieved from the bin please? I don’t think I’ve done anything to be banned. It’s relevant to the post.
    REPLY: It may simply be the way you formatted them. Just type in the URL’s directly
    like http://www.google.com
    – Anthony

  28. I don’t know whether to be more thrilled or alarmed. Teh good news is that the warmists are having their asses handed to them on a platter and their take-over-the-world through carbon control agenda is getting derailed fast. Teh bad news is that global cooling looks likely and that’s going to cause some serious hurt to civilization that will leave us wishing that anthropogenic global warming had been real.

  29. Here’s an example of the ‘thickening ice’ near the North Pole from a few days ago:
    “He said flat pans never last for ever as they turned into an interesting mix of heaved and cracked multi year ice slabs and small pans bordered by wide swaths of jumbled blue block ridges. ”
    “We are pushing hard to make miles, but are also fighting against ice that is pushing us south as we sleep and time chewing veers around thin ice, big drifts and huge ice blocks.”
    “As a result of the break in the ice, these structures ended up on an ‘island’. A small block of ice that had luckily floated right up to the evacuation site was used to ‘ferry the tents from the ‘island’ to the ‘mainland’.”
    It sounds like pack ice, they were lucky that a ‘small’ block of ice was able to ferry them and their equiment. I wonder what they mean by ‘wide swaths of jumbled blue block ridges’, far as the eye can see perhaps?

  30. Hi here you say that the air temp is -15c, is that in the shade or out in the sun ?.The ice thats in the sun shine will be melting because the heat from the sun will be warmer than -15c as in the shade. Here when we get =5c and the sun is shining the forst in the sun shine still melts even tho it is -5c and the areas in the shade has on melting.So i would say that the green arears in the map above i would say would be areas that are shaded by hills or it has been clouder their.( sunnier summers at the poles mean more melt).

  31. “Leif Svalgaard”
    Those extent numbers are for as low as 15% ice, or 85% water. You can easily have 15% ice coverage this time of year in some places as it is breaking up. Some might even still be coming out from rivers as their ice breaks up and washes downstream.

  32. Peter Hessellund Sorensen says:
    April 27, 2010 at 11:09 pm
    Leif is right, there is NO ice in danish waters and temperatures are aproaching 15 degrees celcius. There has been NO ice in danish waters the last month at the least, I also noticed that satelites showed ice in danish waters in november and december, there was NO ice in danish waters in november as the temperatures here had not even dipped below freezing in noveber.
    Does this have something to do with dinosaurs ? I’m thinking dinosaurs may be able to play the organ, but can they be trusted with satellites? Or, either they’re hedGing their betS, or someoNe hAsn’t got their modelS in sync.

  33. stevengoddard says:
    April 27, 2010 at 11:37 pm
    Phil,
    You cherry picked a six day period when the AO was positive. Nice picking.
    http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/ao.sprd2.gif

    Not really it’s been like that since the 7th.
    As far as the open water goes, I suspect that you do understand the difference between a mechanical fracture (known as a “lead”) and melting?
    I didn’t say it was melting, but it’s not getting thicker which is what you said.

  34. Mark.R says: April 28, 2010 at 12:22 am
    “Hi here you say that the air temp is -15c, is that in the shade or out in the sun ?.”
    “Here when we get =5c and the sun is shining the forst in the sun shine still melts even tho it is -5c”
    I assume =5 is Minus 5. Unless that was a submition for NASA:-)
    Frost is not snow and snow is not ice.
    At -15 c the snow squeeks it is so cold, have you ever been outside on a sunny day walking on squeeky snow? I’ve never noticed that is was melting or even damp, more like spakrles of unaltered crystals refeleting in the sun. But that just the snow, ice at -15 c is unlikely to be affected by sunlight low on the horizon. At -15 c even pouring rock salt on the ice has no real affect, in the full noon sun or in the shade.
    -15 is cold.

  35. @Leif Svalgaard
    Take a look at http://www.seaice.dk. They are showing slight sea ice still in Denmark too. Although I do believe what can been seen as “a lot” of sea ice in Denmark from nsidc is due to less resolution i tight spots.

  36. crosspatch: Those extent numbers are for as low as 15% ice, or 85% water. You can easily have 15% ice coverage this time of year in some places as it is breaking up. Some might even still be coming out from rivers as their ice breaks up and washes downstream.
    No, there’s no way there is any trace of ice in danish waters now.

  37. Relatively accurate, archived maps of the sea ice around Sweden are available at
    http://www.smhi.se/vadret/hav-och-kust/Is-till-havs
    If on the NSIDC map the white pixels around the Danish islands are supposed to indicate sea ice, then this is clearly a misidentification, probably by software algorithms that are automatically applied to the raw satellite data. One could simply exclude this difficult area (with a lot of coast lines in a small area) as never having sea ice, although, as the maps of the Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute show, in the winter there were some small, globally negligible pockets of sea ice in Danish (and German) waters.

  38. Mark.R says:
    April 28, 2010 at 12:22 am
    Hi here you say that the air temp is -15c, is that in the shade or out in the sun ?.The ice thats in the sun shine will be melting because the heat from the sun will be warmer than -15c as in the shade. Here when we get =5c and the sun is shining the forst in the sun shine still melts even tho it is -5c and the areas in the shade has on melting.So i would say that the green arears in the map above i would say would be areas that are shaded by hills or it has been clouder their.( sunnier summers at the poles mean more melt).
    I have spent virtually all of my 60+ years of life in Minnesota and as a consequence have had the opportunity to witness more than a half century’s worth of Nature’s annual experiments in turning liquid H2O to solid and back again. Having lived through more days of 5F with bluebird skies than I care to tally, I’d say your estimates of the sun’s power to overwhelm temperature don’t match with my experience. Even at -5C the only melting that is likely to occur is in the snowplow windrows along the street that are virtually black.

  39. Still looks pretty cold to me! I have a friend who has a friend who is apparently on a walking race to the NP. Not sure if that’s a good idea at this time of year. I will tap her for more info later – she’s just done the London Marathon at 48 so I will give her plenty of time to recover.
    OT – The lovely Carol Kirkwood from the Met Office who presents the BBC tv weather from time to time, did a very interesting piece on last night’s BBC magazine prog called The One Show, all about a fascinating device designed to predict thunder storms by using leeches in glass tubes, sensing changes in atmospheric pressure. Apparently the leeches would emerge from their watery home & ascend a tube eventually rising to trigger a bell at the top. A replica of this wonderful piece of British engineering is based in Okehampton about 40 mins away from me. She let it all down though when she said that the Met Office still rely on the same basic principles for the weather forecasts today “which we all rely on”! Quote-unquote. Alas sadly she still believes the British people actually rely upon the Met Office’s forecasts! I am trying to find a clip on Youface on the interweb thingamajigy to post for general interest. BTW, Wednesday is supposed to be very hot as forecast from Monday evening! We shall see.

  40. In re the phantom ice in Danish waters, here’s a note from the IJIS Sea Ice Extent graph page
    In principle, SIC data could have errors of 10% at most, particularly for the area of thin sea ice seen around the edge of sea-ice cover and melted sea ice seen in summer. Also, SIC along coastal lines could also have errors due to sub-pixel contamination of land cover in an instantaneous field of view of AMSR-E data.
     

  41. I take a swing around the UK daily papers on line each morning, mostly to see the ‘environment’ stories. The Times has ‘Wildlife disaster heralds silent summer’ and the Telegraph features ‘Rivers in England and Wales face drying out because of climate change. When one reads the latter article, one is unsurprised that the article is a desparate attempt to cast poor civic resource planning as being caused by ‘global warming’. The floods in England’s Midlands last year were largely caused by almost all local and regional authorities encouraging building on flood plains for many years; those authorities seem to have forgotton that flood plains have evolved through millennia of flooding and that covering them with concrete, asphalt and buildings might not be the smartest thing to do. When I arrived in the UK a few years ago, I was amazed at how little the authorities here seem to understand about weather – most of acquaintances here seem to think they experience really extreme weather, but I have been surprised at how mild and gentle the climate in South-East England is.
    The Guardians’s enviro feature is on Rudd, the Aus PM, walking away from from his promises to bring carbon trading into law yesterday; the great majority of posters see this as a Good Thing, while less than a dozen warmists flail about attempting to defend carbon trading, giving me the distinct impression that the tide is turning in favour of healthy scepticism in the dear old ‘Grauniad’.

  42. Leif Svalgaard — that map also shows “ice” in the Canadian southwest. It looks like their algorithm gets confused around busy shorelines. So Denmark will have ice south of Jutland all summer long!

  43. mb says:
    April 27, 2010 at 11:31 pm
    kuhnkat> I only claim that at present there is no ice in the waters around Denmark. … It does make you wonder about the general accuracy of this method.
    That my friend is the heart of (scientific) scepticism. There is real doubt about the methods being used to measure climate (particularly temperature – but that’s my subject), there are real doubts about the models and particularly the climate “multiplier” (aka fudge factor) and the so called affects of climatic change bear a striking resemblance to our (UK) politicians utterings on the fiscal deficit: “you can tell when they are lying …. because their lips are moving”.
    As for the press describing WUWT as “polluting the bollocksphere” (joke – does that translate in US?) That’s just sour grapes from the old mainstream media whose dominance is being undermined by the far better and less partisan “bollocksphere”.

  44. The Arctic Oscillation remains negative, so circulation is clockwise – as seen below in the buoy drift map. This pattern is keeping older, thicker ice from the Canadian side inside the Arctic Basin, and bodes well for another summer of increased ice thickness and extent – relative to the record melt of 2007.

    It’s now possible to bet on a perpetual bone of contention: whether this year’s minimum arctic ice extent will be greater than last year’s. The rules are given here, and contain a link to the bet-page:
    https://bb.intrade.com/intradeForum/posts/list/4474.page

  45. Phil,
    I liked the pictures contained in the link:
    http://www.explorersweb.com/polar/news.php?id=19271
    It shows the danger of camping on an ocean.
    Leads can form even in the coldest weather. They occur because wind does not shift equally, over all places at the same time. When wind shifts to the east on one locale, while it still blows west at another, ice moves in opposite directions. It either parts, forming a lead, or it crunches together, forming a pressure ridge.
    It would be very odd to have a pressure ridge form in the middle of your camp, in the middle of the night.
    As I recall, one of the old pictures of a sub surfacing at the North Pole was taken in March, when ice is “at its thickest.”
    Usually ice reforms in the open water between the two sides of the lead fairly quickly. If you look, you’ll notice the final picture in the link, at the very bottom, is of a interesting and rather lovely pattern the snow made, drifting over the fresh ice that formed on the lead.
    I would like to see more studying done, concerning pressure ridges. If they stick up twenty feet, and if nine-tenths of an iceburg is under water, then a pressure ridge ought “stick down” one-hundred-eighty feet, shouldn’t it?

  46. Dave Springer; April 27, 2010 at 11:51 pm
    No need to be alarmed about Global Cooling Dave, I can put your mind at rest. Our sceptic friend, Dr Roy Spencer (http://www.drroyspencer.com/) at the UAH has been recording global temperatures by satellite and has put up a handy web site showing figures since 1999 at various altitudes.
    http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/execute.csh?amsutemps+002
    In his monthly bulletins he usually quotes “channel 5” at 14,000 ft. Every month this year has so far been warmer than the hottest year in his record, 2005 (he does not show full data for 1998), so there is no break in the trend of ever rising temperatures. All “natural variability” of course!
    http://img248.imageshack.us/img248/6189/satellitetemps2010.jpg

  47. Just a note on the Danish ice issue. The maps are daily data, which I would take with a grain of salt. If there’s mistakes in the monthly data, then I’d let the folks at NSIDC know about it.

  48. But..but…but….but….it’s…all…..rotten…..ice…..as my teeth chatter@-15C.

  49. There are strange things done in the midnight sun
    By the men who moil for gold;
    The Arctic trails have their secret tales
    That would make your blood run cold;
    The Northern Lights have seen queer sights,
    But the queerest they ever did see
    Was that night on the marge of Lake Lebarge
    I cremated Sam McGee.

    Now Sam McGee was from Tennessee, where the cotton blooms and blows.
    Why he left his home in the South to roam ’round the Pole, God only knows.
    He was always cold, but the land of gold seemed to hold him like a spell;
    Though he’d often say in his homely way that he’d “sooner live in hell”.
    On a Christmas Day we were mushing our way over the Dawson trail.
    Talk of your cold! through the parka’s fold it stabbed like a driven nail.
    If our eyes we’d close, then the lashes froze till sometimes we couldn’t see;
    It wasn’t much fun, but the only one to whimper was Sam McGee.
    And that very night, as we lay packed tight in our robes beneath the snow,
    And the dogs were fed, and the stars o’erhead were dancing heel and toe,
    He turned to me, and “Cap,” says he, “I’ll cash in this trip, I guess;
    And if I do, I’m asking that you won’t refuse my last request.”
    Well, he seemed so low that I couldn’t say no; then he says with a sort of moan:
    “It’s the cursed cold, and it’s got right hold till I’m chilled clean through to the bone.
    Yet ’tain’t being dead — it’s my awful dread of the icy grave that pains;
    So I want you to swear that, foul or fair, you’ll cremate my last remains.”
    A pal’s last need is a thing to heed, so I swore I would not fail;
    And we started on at the streak of dawn; but God! he looked ghastly pale.
    He crouched on the sleigh, and he raved all day of his home in Tennessee;
    And before nightfall a corpse was all that was left of Sam McGee.
    There wasn’t a breath in that land of death, and I hurried, horror-driven,
    With a corpse half hid that I couldn’t get rid, because of a promise given;
    It was lashed to the sleigh, and it seemed to say: “You may tax your brawn and brains,
    But you promised true, and it’s up to you to cremate those last remains.”
    Now a promise made is a debt unpaid, and the trail has its own stern code.
    In the days to come, though my lips were dumb, in my heart how I cursed that load.
    In the long, long night, by the lone firelight, while the huskies, round in a ring,
    Howled out their woes to the homeless snows — O God! how I loathed the thing.
    And every day that quiet clay seemed to heavy and heavier grow;
    And on I went, though the dogs were spent and the grub was getting low;
    The trail was bad, and I felt half mad, but I swore I would not give in;
    And I’d often sing to the hateful thing, and it hearkened with a grin.
    Till I came to the marge of Lake Lebarge, and a derelict there lay;
    It was jammed in the ice, but I saw in a trice it was called the “Alice May”.
    And I looked at it, and I thought a bit, and I looked at my frozen chum;
    Then “Here”, said I, with a sudden cry, “is my cre-ma-tor-eum.”
    Some planks I tore from the cabin floor, and I lit the boiler fire;
    Some coal I found that was lying around, and I heaped the fuel higher;
    The flames just soared, and the furnace roared — such a blaze you seldom see;
    And I burrowed a hole in the glowing coal, and I stuffed in Sam McGee.
    Then I made a hike, for I didn’t like to hear him sizzle so;
    And the heavens scowled, and the huskies howled, and the wind began to blow.
    It was icy cold, but the hot sweat rolled down my cheeks, and I don’t know why;
    And the greasy smoke in an inky cloak went streaking down the sky.
    I do not know how long in the snow I wrestled with grisly fear;
    But the stars came out and they danced about ere again I ventured near;
    I was sick with dread, but I bravely said: “I’ll just take a peep inside.
    I guess he’s cooked, and it’s time I looked”;. . . then the door I opened wide.
    And there sat Sam, looking cool and calm, in the heart of the furnace roar;
    And he wore a smile you could see a mile, and he said: “Please close that door.
    It’s fine in here, but I greatly fear you’ll let in the cold and storm —
    Since I left Plumtree, down in Tennessee, it’s the first time I’ve been warm.”
    There are strange things done in the midnight sun
    By the men who moil for gold;
    The Arctic trails have their secret tales
    That would make your blood run cold;
    The Northern Lights have seen queer sights,
    But the queerest they ever did see
    Was that night on the marge of Lake Lebarge
    I cremated Sam McGee.

    Robert Service

  50. So far, at 10:55 hrs. cool, overcast, no sunshine at all! Mind you we should have had overnight rain on Saturday in Devon, it didn’t arrive until mid-afternoon!

  51. Take back what I said about NASA Solar previously
    from icecap quote
    “See in this November 2009 interview how Hathaway changed his mind when his original forecast of a quick and strong 24 rampup failed. David Hathaway, Ph.D., Heliospheric Team Leader, NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Alabama: “In the 50 years or so we’ve been making the (cosmic ray) measurements – yeah! this is by far the highest level of galactic cosmic rays that we’re seeing at Earth and we know exactly what is causing it.
    It’s the sun’s weakened magnetic fields and weakened solar winds that are all related to this Solar Cycle 24 minimum.” He goes on to talk about a possible Dalton or even Maunder like minimum. Hathaway behaves like a true scientist should but few do by being willing to change his ideas as data proves his original thinking wrong. ” Therefore Svensmark was right!

  52. COLA temps, ice data temps, cold winters etc, not showing ANY signs of abnormal warmth. Why the hell have AMSU 600 mb temps been so high for last 4 months? Maybe small deviations in global mean temps actually are not related to any real warming/cooling at surface level. Or 600 mb level temp data not related. Seems to support contention that in fact small deviations (~+/-2C) of mean average global temp are not a measurable/meaningful measurement?

  53. All of a sudden Roy Spencer has become a hero for the AGW movement (only because the satellite temps are up and up). How pathetic, just a few months ago he was a super denier ! LOL. I have no reason to doubt the AMSU data (unless the usual drift problem) but I don’t think it means any warming/cooling as far as the Earth surface is concerned. IN other words it probably is meaningless data as far as the earth ‘s REAL temperatures are concerned.

  54. TLm says:
    April 28, 2010 at 2:22 am
    In his monthly bulletins he usually quotes “channel 5″ at 14,000 ft. Every month this year has so far been warmer than the hottest year in his record, 2005 (he does not show full data for 1998), so there is no break in the trend of ever rising temperatures. All “natural variability” of course!
    The AMSU temp anomalies have indeed been at high levels since the beginning of the year and actually since July of last year, but if the temps not doing much at all for nearly 15 years wasn’t deemed to be sufficient to discredit AGW projections, 9 months of elevated anomalies would hardly seem sufficient to provide verification for them or to discredit natural variation.

  55. Re ice in Baltic in April.
    There is definitely no ice in Danish water this late, though there is still some rotten ice in the Gulf of Finland and Riga Bay.
    For current ice conditions in the Baltic see: http://www.smhi.se/oceanografi/istjanst/produkter/sstcolor.pdf
    Incidentally “rotten ice” is an accepted term for ice in a late stage of melting, and consequently is the normal state of ice close to the ice edge in summer, not some kind of AGW induced horror as a lot of people seems to think.
    As for NCDC etc indicating ice in coastal waters where there actually isn’t any, this seems to be a normal fault of all satellite sensors, especially in areas with a crooked coastline and/or a lot of islands off the coast. It was much worse in earlier satellite generations, and I strongly suspect that this factor has caused at least part of the decline of the north polar summer ice cover. If You take a look at the historical maps on Cryosphere now You will see that they regularly show lots of ice in e. g. the White Sea and the Baltic in June-July when there is never any ice there.
    For older historical ice data of the North Atlantic I recommend:
    http://acsys.npolar.no/ahica/quicklooks/looks.htm
    It is instructive to compare ice extent in e. g. the 1930’s and 1970’s with current conditions. The latter are far from unprecedented while seventies had considerably more ice than average.

  56. TLm; April 28, 2010 at 2:22 am
    “there is no break in the trend of ever rising temperatures”
    This statement is demonstrably false.

  57. In central Ontario, Canada, we have had these high pressure systems and way above average temperatures since January which could be holding the Arctic weather at bay.
    There has been very little precipitation as well. Seems any weather systems coming from the south is pushed to the coastal areas.

  58. KimW April 27, 2010 at 10:21 pm: “as for acidic seawater – my mind boggles”.
    Hi Kim. Rising CO2 absorption by sea water does indeed make it more acidic. Too much acidity is very bad for the bottom of the food chain, particularly shelled creatures.
    The global decline in ice volume in the worlds glaciers and ice shelves is a sure sign of increasing temperature. The ocean is rising on the order of 3mm per year, 75% of which is due to thermal expansion. Outlet glaciers in Greenland and ice shelves in Antartica are being undercut by the steadily warming ocean. So too is Arctic ice. These trends are very clear on any graph presented with a timeframe of over twenty years. Will the North West passage open again this year? Will September show a new low in ice extent? Who knows, but the probability increases with each passing decade.
    Remote concentrations of ice do not melt due to political affiliation, desire to form a world government or Urban Heat Island effects. They melt due to increased temperature – and they are melting at both ends of the globe and in all the high mountain chains. Global melting = global warming.

  59. The water only needs 15% sea ice to be part of the NSIDC graphic. Is it no ice, or very little ice in Denmark?

  60. I think something interesting is about to happen. As you know all air traffic was stopped for days all over most of Europe. But the ash cloud didn’t exist is has been revealed. So now the alarmists have data similar to what the gathered in the days after 9-11: measurements about dimming effect. Back then they claimed that a temperature rise could be proven. One degree Celsius, they said. This was due to no air traffic.
    Actually it would be more interesting if nothing emerges from this. That would mean that the data collected in the days where Europa had no air traffic could not support the alarmists theories.
    This could be dynamite in more ways hat one. I assume it’s possible to get those data from public sources? The blogosphere have a lot of people with fine skills in math…
    I’ll post 2 links in a comment below. Spam filter concerns, you know…

  61. Please help – the filter ate my comment…
    [Reply: Patience. Your comment was posted after being in the moderation queue less than five minutes. ~dbs, mod.]

  62. Ammonite says: April 28, 2010 at 4:42 am
    “Global melting = global warming”
    Does Global freezing = global cooling?
    Is more ice caused by melting or freezing?
    You just can not be sure these days.

  63. Ammonite says:
    April 28, 2010 at 4:42 am
    ” Global melting = global warming.”
    But “GW” does NOT = “AGW”. So the question is, What’s your point? (other than spouting generalized AGW mantra)

  64. [snip – sorry Pamela, while humorous, this will open up a line of comments where I just don’t want WUWT to go -Anthony]

  65. In the New York Times artcile the 2nd to last paragraph makes an interesting claim.
    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/nyt_arctic_77442757.pdf
    “There is eveidence that the carbon dioxide content of the world’s air has risen from 10 to 15 percent…”
    This seems a bit of an exaggeration. What happened to the general understanding of the proportions of the constituent parts of the atmosphere? Unless this is some journalistic transmogrification that happens.

  66. Shakespeare was the first to notice this problem.
    Marcellus:
    “There is rotten ice in the state of Denmark.”
    BTW – Anthony got NSIDC to add the date to their graphs.

  67. Ammonite says: on April 28, 2010 at 4:42 am, “Hi Kim. Rising CO2 absorption by sea water does indeed make it more acidic.” Only right in the most inconsequential way. Actually, the pH of seawater – about 8.24 currently, could fall to 8.16 with a CO2 concentration of 454 ppm – a trivial difference, especially if rounded off to 1 significant figure – 8.2 to 8.2 – and consider the huge difference to a neutral pH of 7. There is a chemical process called ‘Buffering’ involved, and a simplified discussion is here http://www.icsu-scope.org/downloadpubs/scope13/chapter09.html. End result, no acidification. Oh, also in the archives of this site is a discussion of how shelled creatures adapt rather well to so-called ‘acidic’ conditions.

  68. “SteveE says:
    April 28, 2010 at 6:00 am
    What’s people’s opinion of the data that suggest while the Arctic sea ice extent is growing the actual volume is decreasing?”
    That it is bloody unlikely.

  69. I got pinkflagged. I noticed that my snipped comment on the side bar showed up lilac pink instead of blue. I take it that means the commenter’s comment has been snipped while blue indicates a posted comment. Or am I pointing out the obvious and just didn’t notice it on the old format?
    (hehehe)

  70. Well, my educated guess about the color of my snipped post turned out to be wrong. Maybe I spend too much time looking at “little” details.

  71. Dave N says:
    April 27, 2010 at 10:02 pm
    If you have data that shows otherwise, I’m sure others will be interested.
    I have family there. They look out the window: no ice.

  72. About the Danish ice:
    It’s ice packing. The Danish newspapers have looked into this because the readers could not understand why the ice would not melt i the harbors and other places. But is packed so extremely hard that melting take for ever. On land Denmark have ice packed so hard that climate experts say they are more like little glaciers. Again: melting take unusually long time. The winter in Denmark was very hard this year.
    We do have a couple of Danish newspapers in English but they don’t mention it. However a Dane did upload pictures on flickr:
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/22385253@N06/4448421623/

  73. SteveE says:
    April 28, 2010 at 6:00 am
    What’s people’s opinion of the data that suggest while the Arctic sea ice extent is growing the actual volume is decreasing?
    http://psc.apl.washington.edu/ArcticSeaiceVolume/images/BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrent.png

    Considering the modeled derivation of that graphic mostly from spotty sub measurements and random surface measurements:
    Sea Ice Volume is calculated using the Pan-Arctic Ice Ocean Modeling and Assimilation System (PIOMAS) developed at APL/PSC by Dr. J. Zhang and collaborators. Anomalies for each day are calculated relative to the average over the 1979 -2009 period for that day to remove the annual cycle. The model mean seasonal cycle of sea ice volume ranges from 28,600 km^3 in April to 14,400 km^3 in September. The blue line represents the trend calculated from January 1 1979 to the most recent date indicated on the figure. Total Arctic Ice Volume for March 2010 is 20,300 km^3, the lowest over the 1979-2009 period and 38% below the 1979 maximum. September Ice Volume was lowest in 2009 at 5,800 km^3 or 67% below its 1979 maximum.
    with a cherry picked starting date (where’s the data from the forties) ….and knowing that satellite verification started only five or six years ago, my answer would be….not much.

  74. Stephen Skinner says:
    April 28, 2010 at 5:34 am
    In the New York Times artcile the 2nd to last paragraph makes an interesting claim.
    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/nyt_arctic_77442757.pdf
    “There is eveidence that the carbon dioxide content of the world’s air has risen from 10 to 15 percent…”
    This seems a bit of an exaggeration. What happened to the general understanding of the proportions of the constituent parts of the atmosphere? Unless this is some journalistic transmogrification that happens.

    Probably the same thing happened to the general understanding of the proportions of the parts of the atmosphere that happened to the understanding of the abundance of elements in the Solar Nebula due to the proton-proton chain, CNO Cycle and SuperNova:
    Vacuum-packed theory lacking a modern general science background.

  75. Jack “In Oregon” Barnes: Actually, we’re having an “unusually early and warm Spring.” I heard that on KPOJ (local progressive station). I was relieved to find that out as the cold and wet were getting me down.
    Incidentally, I have a foolproof model of the stock market. The beauty of it is that it predicts stock price based on a single factor. You practically don’t have to do any real research at all. Why wait to see how correct it is? Invest all of your assets now before it’s too late!

  76. I suggest you take a look at the actual ice concentrations or better yet, look at some visible imagery like from MODIS and you’ll see your story will change somewhat…

  77. Pamela Gray:
    April 28, 2010 at 6:19 am
    I’m glad you’re enjoying the day. It’s snowing here for the 3rd time this month, tying the 1928 record, and I cannot connect to a single dot edu site.

  78. stevengoddard says:
    April 28, 2010 at 5:18 am
    Ammonite ,
    Ammonites evolved during the Silurian, when atmospheric CO2 levels were an order of magnitude higher than at present. Unless the chemical properties of CaCO3 has changed, you can relax.

    During the Silurian atmospheric CO2 levels were about 900ppm, however the higher temperatures led to ocean pH levels comparable to today’s and the ocean was less of a CO2 sink. The ammonite shells were aragonitic and therefore more sensitive to dissolution than those organisms that used calcite. In fact this is one of the reasons that has been proposed for their extinction when ocean pH decreased.
    KimW says:
    April 28, 2010 at 6:07 am
    Ammonite says: on April 28, 2010 at 4:42 am, “Hi Kim. Rising CO2 absorption by sea water does indeed make it more acidic.” Only right in the most inconsequential way. Actually, the pH of seawater – about 8.24 currently, could fall to 8.16 with a CO2 concentration of 454 ppm – a trivial difference,….

    A 30% increase in [H+] is not trivial!

  79. It would be nice if someone published a regular map of ice thickness, but I have never seen that.
    The reason being that it can not be measured from a satellite with any degree of reliability. It can be measured from aircraft, but only in a narrow swath below the aircraft, and from submarines, in an even narrower swath above, so we really only have a very vague idea about the current thickness and even less about thickness.
    This is the root cause of the current popularity of ice volume as the proper measure of north polar Sea Ice. It can be computer modelled with almost no constricting restraint from real-world data.

  80. When you do the coverage map comparisons, I think it would be useful to include the “maximum ice on record for date” map. Or, if that’s too involved, “ice coverage in 1983” which had the highest maximum coverage. (And thus probably has a fair share of highest-ever records.)

  81. Caleb says:
    April 28, 2010 at 2:16 am
    Phil,
    I liked the pictures contained in the link:
    http://www.explorersweb.com/polar/news.php?id=19271
    It shows the danger of camping on an ocean.
    Leads can form even in the coldest weather. They occur because wind does not shift equally, over all places at the same time. When wind shifts to the east on one locale, while it still blows west at another, ice moves in opposite directions. It either parts, forming a lead, or it crunches together, forming a pressure ridge.
    It would be very odd to have a pressure ridge form in the middle of your camp, in the middle of the night.
    As I recall, one of the old pictures of a sub surfacing at the North Pole was taken in March, when ice is “at its thickest.”
    Usually ice reforms in the open water between the two sides of the lead fairly quickly. If you look, you’ll notice the final picture in the link, at the very bottom, is of a interesting and rather lovely pattern the snow made, drifting over the fresh ice that formed on the lead.

    That’s why Camp Barneo usually packs up at this time of year!
    The region around the pole is full of leads as indicated by those photos and the reports of those expeditions heading there over the last few weeks.
    MODIS images show the same particularly as the ice is drifting towards the Fram at a rate of ~10km/day. That drift causes the ice behind to crack open and form leads, at current temperatures it will ice over but only to a depth of a few inches not a foot or more, consequently the average ice thickness is reduced and the ice extent increases. What we have at present is thinning, spreading ice leading to many leads and a wind direction that has tending to move multiyear ice away from the coast to where it will tend to drift out of the Arctic. This year’s ice is very vulnerable to a 2007-like event.

  82. Love the pic of the global warming models. I get it that they are Norwegians, but aren’t they freezing their buns off anyway?
    Don’t let the frostbite you on the …

  83. Universalgeni says:
    April 28, 2010 at 6:40 am
    It’s ice packing. Again: melting take unusually long time. The winter in Denmark was very hard this year.
    That’s not the point. The maps showed the purported ice yesterday. There was no ice yesterday.

  84. Phil, I completely agree. Although a stronger Beaufort Gyre tends to help replenish the ice cover, since the late 1990s the ice started melting out in the southernmost reaches of the Gyre, and moving further north in more recent years. Thus, even though the negative AO state in winter tends to help the summer ice recover, this hasn’t been the case in recent years. Furthermore, ice export out of Fram Strait was not anomalously low this year despite the strong negative AO. The amount of the oldest ice actually decreased during the winter. The idea that the ice has recovered is naiive. Ice extent is just one small piece of the picture…

  85. Phil. says:
    April 28, 2010 at 8:11 am
    What we have at present is thinning, spreading ice leading to many leads and a wind direction that has tending to move multiyear ice away from the coast to where it will tend to drift out of the Arctic. This year’s ice is very vulnerable to a 2007-like event.

    That’s an unusual observation. I’ve kept an archive of every Cyrosphere Today image of the Arctic I could this season.
    The Ice isn’t flowing out, it’s more like a pulsating tide. Goes out, retreats back. Unless I missed something, looks to me like it’s not going anywhere in any significant amount.

  86. Phil,
    2007 was typified by unusual summer melt on the western side of the Arctic, and winter drift on the east. There is no evidence of either this year.

  87. APRIL 28, 2010
    http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/features/green/2010/04/epa_turns_up_heat_on_climate_a.htmlEPA turns up climate heat as Senate dithers
    http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/features/green/2010/04/epa_turns_up_heat_on_climate_a.html“>With prospects for a Senate climate bill under a cloud, the Obama administration has turned up the heat.  The Environmental Protection Agency says in a new report that there is “clear evidence” that human activities are altering the Earth’s atmosphere and that climate is changing.
    The EPA report lays out 24 “indicators” showing that climate is already shifting, most of them spotting trends in the United States.  Greenhouse gas emissions have increased 14 percent in the United States from 1990 to 2008.

  88. Leif Svalgaard says:
    April 28, 2010 at 8:28 am
    Universalgeni says:
    April 28, 2010 at 6:40 am
    It’s ice packing. Again: melting take unusually long time. The winter in Denmark was very hard this year.
    That’s not the point. The maps showed the purported ice yesterday. There was no ice yesterday.

    It’s the shoreline effect from the satellite imaging, it’s worse with NSIDC because they still use the low resolution SSMI imager whereas CT uses ASMR-E which has higher resolution and shows no ice in the Danish waters.
    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/NEWIMAGES/arctic.seaice.color.001.png

  89. rbateman says:
    April 28, 2010 at 8:34 am
    That’s an unusual observation. I’ve kept an archive of every Cyrosphere Today image of the Arctic I could this season.
    The Ice isn’t flowing out, it’s more like a pulsating tide. Goes out, retreats back. Unless I missed something, looks to me like it’s not going anywhere in any significant amount.

    Ice has predominantly been flowing out of the Fram this year, see all that ice down the Eastern Greenland coast, that’s how it got there. Similarly the sudden increase in coverage in the Barents sea last month or so was outflow from the Arctic.
    Check out MODIS when it’s back up.

  90. The fact that warming alarmists are not trumpeting this ‘good news’ in polar ice recovery tells me everything I need to know about them. It’s all about the size of their wallets and NOT AT ALL about polar bears.

  91. stevengoddard says:
    April 28, 2010 at 8:40 am
    I see a slow sloshing of ice towards and away from the North Atlantic, with a half-hearted spin motion to it.
    More slosh than spin.
    The North Pacific is stuck in Cold and the North Atlantic is stuck in Warm.
    Flash News: Climate patterns in N. Hemisphere stuck in massive rut.
    The whole thing is going nowhere faster than previously observed.
    Maybe I should did up my Nostradamus Quatrain on this and really give them something to go frantic over.

  92. MONTPELIER – A late-season snowstorm dumped 2 feet of heavy, wet snow on northern New York, Vermont and New Hampshire by Wednesday morning, cutting off power to thousands, closing some schools and making roads slippery.
    In New York, scattered outages were reported near the Canadian border. In Vermont, more than 20,000 customers were without power, most in the northwestern corner of the state. Outages were reported in northern New Hampshire as well. Utility officials said it could be Thursday before everyone gets their power back.
    “We’ve been hammered all night,” said New York State Police Trooper Eric LaValley of the Ray Brook barracks, in the Adirondack Mountains.
    The Vermont Agency of Transportation said about 2 feet of snow had fallen in some northern areas. “It definitely caught people off guard, considering we had 80 degrees back in March. It’s a problem because some people swapped their (snow) tires out already,” said Vermont highway dispatcher Greg Fox.
    Kinda shoots down the summer heat arriving in new England earlier this month.

  93. Mike Haseler says:
    As for the press describing WUWT as “polluting the bollocksphere” (joke – does that translate in US?)
    It does to US farmers – chuckle

  94. Now that the Arctic sea ice extent is back to normal, and global warming has been cancelled because Dr. Mann prefers thermometer measurements to tree ring proxy calculations, I suppose the summer melt season will be back to “normal” as well.
    Why wouldn’t it ?
    What would cause the Arctic sea ice to continue to be more than 2 standard deviations from normal summer minimum extent values ? Are those mischievous ‘winds’ still playing around in the Arctic this season ?
    http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20091005_Figure2.png
    Of course, when it is more than 2 std devs from the 1979-2000 average come October, people here will argue that that was just “natural”.
    Basically, Nature does exactly what the climate scientists predict, but for different (unknown, unknowable) reasons.
    Is that the current argument ? Or are we still claiming that NASA doesn’t know how to measure sea ice (or temperature, or ice thickness, or glacier melt, or ocean heat…) Or have we moved on to say that global warming will unfold exactly as Hansen et al predicted, but now it’s because of Intelligent Cloudcover Design ? (courtesy of Dr. Spencer) I’m losing track of why Arctic summer melt doesn’t matter anymore…
    Is anybody here predicting the summer minimum sea ice extent will be back to normal this year ? Area ? Anybody care to take on minimum sea ice volume for 2010 ? Is that going to go back to normal too, or we don’t care about volume ? Shall we just argue that CryoSat-2 will be too different from ICESat to say anything definitive ? Or should we go with “incompetent design” of CryoSat, and their measurements won’t mean anything, based on some folksy observation of a kayak, or a novelty ice cube someone saw last July…

  95. Ammonite says:
    April 28, 2010 at 4:42 am
    Remote concentrations of ice do not melt due to political affiliation, desire to form a world government or Urban Heat Island effects. They melt due to increased temperature – and they are melting at both ends of the globe and in all the high mountain chains. Global melting = global warming.
    Nice straw men! Did you think of those yourself, or did you have help?
    As far as why ice melts, it appears your knowledge, like a lot of warmists is half-vast. For example, have you ever heard of sublimation? Now, that isn’t a melting process, and has nothing to do with temperature. There are, in fact many factors which go into both the creation and disappearance of ice. You might try reading a bit beyond the usual warmist claptrap.
    Yes, we know there has been some warming since the LIA, which is certainly a good thing, and in no way unusual or alarming, despite the cries from the alarmists. And UHI has certainly created a falsely-high temperature record, meaning the actual warming has been about half of what’s been reported.

  96. Curiousgeorge says:
    April 28, 2010 at 2:52 am
    There are strange things done in the midnight sun
    By the men who moil for gold….
    _______________________________________________
    I love that poem. First time I heard it was camping out looking at the big dipper “pouring out” the Devils Tower in Wyoming http://z.about.com/d/geology/1/0/u/9/devilstower.jpg

  97. Steve,
    How real is that top Guardian image; apart from the sunbabes.
    In particular those clouds over the top of the snow covered mountains; is that real. That would suggest that there is plenty of cloud cover available in the Arctic despite the low temperatures; maybe it is all that open water that is a ready source of evaporation. So one would infer, that cloud negative feedback is quite active even at sub zero temperatures.
    So how far north was that picture taken; or where was it taken.

  98. @ leif: this article shows photos of snow in several places inland on the 12.th of April and the headline asks: why is there still snow in Denmark?
    I honestly don’t see why there could not be ice at sea a fortnight later. It’s been pretty cold the last 2 weeks. Machine translation of Danish article: http://translate.google.com/translate?js=y&prev=_t&hl=da&ie=UTF-8&layout=1&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fjp.dk%2Findland%2Ftrafik%2Farticle2035090.ece&sl=da&tl=en

  99. Phil. says:
    April 28, 2010 at 9:08 am
    Ice has predominantly been flowing out of the Fram this year, see all that ice down the Eastern Greenland coast, that’s how it got there.

    Yes, Phil, see all that sea ice down the Eastern Greenland coast in 1979 and 2010?
    http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/TempGr/New%20Image.GIF
    I don’t see what is so special about sea ice down the Eastern Greenland or Eastern Canadian coast.

  100. Ammonite says:
    April 28, 2010 at 4:42 am
    You must be new to this site. I suggest you do a search on this site for some of the information you just stated.
    For example
    “Oh snap! CO2 causes some ocean critters to build more shells”
    Posted on December 1, 2009 by Anthony Watts
    And some thought ocean acidification would destroy everything. “We were surprised that some organisms didn’t behave in the way we expected under elevated CO2″…“They were somehow able to manipulate CO2…to build their skeletons.” From the Wood Hole Oceanographic Institute press ….” http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/01/oh-snap-co2-causes-ocean-critters-to-build-more-shells/
    Without CO2 we would all be dead. People seem to keep forgetting that.

  101. Universalgeni : You have dared to contradict the Holy Inquisition. A stake is already being prepared for you!. There is no snow in Denmark!.Period!
    Pray to our mother climate warming church to forgive your sins.

  102. Anu,
    Mann loved tree rings, until 1960 when they stopped giving him the numbers he wanted.
    Pre-1960 tree rings are good, but post 1960 tree rings are evil. Makes perfect sense form a scientific point of view, given the proliferation of mind-altering drugs which occurred in the 1960s.

  103. #
    SteveE says:
    April 28, 2010 at 6:00 am
    What’s people’s opinion of the data that suggest while the Arctic sea ice extent is growing the actual volume is decreasing?
    http://psc.apl.washington.edu/ArcticSeaiceVolume/images/BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrent.png
    _____________________________________________________________________
    That there are 60 year cycles ( ocean) and the seventies were at the lower half of a cycle and we seem to be at the top of the cycle now.
    There are also 200 year cycles. see http://virtualacademia.com/pdf/cli267_293.pdf
    and 1500 year cycles. see http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/85007975/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
    Just to name a few. The cycles are observed in the data, scientists just try to figure out what is causing them.

  104. Dave Wendt, JJB 4:36 am
    I was being ironic. A single year of hot weather is no more indicative of global warming any more than a single good year for the ice cap falsifies global warming. In order to separate “weather” from “climate” you need to plot trends over about 30 years. Sure there has been less warming in the last 10 years, however if you look at the 30 year trend temperatures are rising.
    Stephen, 3:20 am
    If you look at the link below you will see that the UAH temperature data is moving in line with the surface temperature records pretty well.
    Now are you saying that all temperature records are wrong? Including all three terrestrial and both satellite sets? That would take a major leap of paranoia!
    http://www.climate4you.com/GlobalTemperatures.htm#Comparing global temperature estimates
    (probably won’t link directly as spaces in a link upset this blog – copy and paste full link into browser).
    Talking of trends and getting back on topic. Sure 2009-2010 has been a good year for the ice, but two things to remember.
    1. being close to the average is no great shakes, bearing in mind it is the average of a declining area. Now if it were close to the average of 1970-1979 that would be interesting, but we don’t have data for those years.
    2. the linear trend is still clearly downwards over the long term. Again, a couple of good years does not make a “recovery” any more than one hot year makes for global warming.
    http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20100406_Figure3.png

  105. This just in…Daily Telegraph reveals break in laws of physics!…
    “If all the floating ice in the world melted it would cause sea levels to rise by just 4cm.”
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/7645112/Melting-sea-ice-would-cause-sea-levels-to-rise-by-hairs-breadth.html
    Amazing, because I thought floating ice actually lowers a fluid level when it melts – I thought ice displaces a greater volume, so my science teacher must have been wrong! Still, science has changed nowadays.

    REPLY:
    Post normal science doesn’t need physics. -A

  106. The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley
    The Telegraph article is based on the idea that glacial ice is sliding into the oceans and melting faster than it is being formed. It assumes that Greenland and Antarctica are melting. The author just didn’t understand what the researchers were saying.

  107. Enneagram says:
    April 28, 2010 at 9:59 am
    Don’t worry Iceland’s Katla is coming:
    http://hraun.vedur.is/ja/Katla2009/stodvaplott.html
    _____________________________________________________
    OH (self snip) Just in time for spring planting season. Al Gore and Brown and Rudd won’t have to worry about Global Warming for a while, we will all be too worried about the food supply.

  108. TLM: I’m believe the Stevenson box data is all wrong (UHI etc..just ask Anthony) and all derived data from GISS, CRU etc) so yes its all unbelievable. I’m think the satellite data is probably correct (+0.4C anomaly 4 months now) rising temps . I’m don’t believe it means anything in relation to a +/-2C SD bandwidth in global temps.. basically not recordable, registrable, meaningful etc.. That’s why you ain’t seeing any changes in ice, cold weather, warm weather etc its meaningless. Its becoming obvious in my view that the world’s “average temperature” is not a useful parameter to measure climate change (proviso within ~+/- 2C margin) especially in short periods 30-100 years. There are far too many factors: sea temp, sea movements, wind, solar, cosmic ray, geomagnetic index and so on. Due to our short life span it is highly unlikely that anyone here or even there offspring will see any “climate change”. Fortunately.. otherwise we would be extinct long time ago!

  109. The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley says:
    April 28, 2010 at 10:26 am
    This just in…Daily Telegraph reveals break in laws of physics!…
    “If all the floating ice in the world melted it would cause sea levels to rise by just 4cm.”
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/7645112/Melting-sea-ice-would-cause-sea-levels-to-rise-by-hairs-breadth.html
    Amazing, because I thought floating ice actually lowers a fluid level when it melts – I thought ice displaces a greater volume, so my science teacher must have been wrong! Still, science has changed nowadays.

    Your teacher was doubtless talking about freshwater ice in freshwater rather than freshwater ice in seawater. Density considerations lead to a small increase in volume, the 4cm value came from Dr. Peter Noerdlinger, a professor at St. Mary’s University in Nova Scotia, Canada a few years ago as I recall.

  110. Universalgeni says:
    April 28, 2010 at 10:00 am
    I honestly don’t see why there could not be ice at sea a fortnight later.
    People that keep track of these things [dangerous to shipping] report no ice:
    http://www.smhi.se/oceanografi/istjanst/produkter/sstcolor.pdf
    Seeing starts with looking, so give that map a look.
    My family in Denmark reports no ice. You can always find isolated [shaded, North-facing slopes with deep snowdrifts, etc] on land where the snow hangs on a bit longer. Remember, I come from there.

  111. jeff brown:April 28, 2010 at 8:28 am. Am I understanding you correctly that you are linking the conditions at the pole to the activities of man? Not the possibility of the tail end of a 30 warm cycle? Or shifting of jet stream (amongst other possibities)? The assumption that it must be caused by man is far more naive. Ouvre les yeux (maybe your mind while you are at it). Nice team play by the way.

  112. Yet at the same time, the Catlin Expedition is freaking out about encountering rain on their farcical trip:
    “”We have been told there will be more unpredicted events like this as the climate of the region warms”

  113. It will be interesting in the future to find anyone who will admit they fell for the AGW scam. Impending doom was preached to me by many associates and not one will admit that they were scared witless at the time. Cannot wait for the world to pull it’s collective head out of it’s ass on this scare and start working together for the betterment of all.

  114. Careful, Leif, you have admonished others for using anecdotal evidence. Some have claimed that Canada had a “warmer than normal” winter. If I said it was not “because I come from there” what would your response be to that? Good for the goose and all that, ……

  115. Universalgeni says:
    April 28, 2010 at 10:00 am
    @ leif: this article shows photos of snow in several places inland on the 12.th of April and the headline asks: why is there still snow in Denmark?
    I honestly don’t see why there could not be ice at sea a fortnight later.

    Snow can longer longer on North-facing slopes, in shade, etc.
    But there are people that keep track of the ice [danger to shipping] and they [as my family who can just look out the window] report no ice. You can better see things if you look, so take a look at these maps of ice conditions in the Baltic:
    http://www.smhi.se/oceanografi/istjanst/produkter/arkiv/sstcolor/sstcolor_20100201.pdf
    http://www.smhi.se/oceanografi/istjanst/produkter/arkiv/sstcolor/sstcolor_20100301.pdf
    http://www.smhi.se/oceanografi/istjanst/produkter/arkiv/sstcolor/sstcolor_20100401.pdf
    http://www.smhi.se/oceanografi/istjanst/produkter/arkiv/sstcolor/sstcolor_20100428.pdf
    There has been no ice the last month.

  116. David Ball says:
    April 28, 2010 at 10:59 am; In this post I was refering to the Y2K fear machine. Apparently no one fell for that one (?). Sociology and psychology may not be considered “legitmate” sciences, but it sure has some interesting observations.

  117. David Ball says:
    April 28, 2010 at 11:03 am
    Careful, Leif, you have admonished others for using anecdotal evidence. Some have claimed that Canada had a “warmer than normal” winter. If I said it was not “because I come from there” what would your response be to that? Good for the goose and all that, ……

    I’m always careful. so I provided detailed evidence as well: “Leif Svalgaard says:
    April 28, 2010 at 11:06 am”, but a report from my daughter-in-law [in Denmark] who is a meteorologist/glaciologist I rate a bit above ‘anecdotal evidence’

  118. I see that Leif has backed up his statements with more solid evidence. That is as it should be.

  119. [quote Ammonite says:]
    These trends are very clear on any graph presented with a timeframe of over twenty years.
    [/quote]

    Yes they are. The same trends are also very clear with a timeframe of over 150 years.

  120. Phil, (genuinely) have I got this wrong in my head then? Fresh water has a density of 1.0 but salt water has a density of 1.025. So salt water is definitely heavier than fresh water. So if the fresh water ice melts, how does that raise sea levels? Either I need more coffee, or I’m temporarily away with the fairies… Can someone explain?

  121. We’ve gone to the Moon, we’ve sent machines to Mars and other planets, we’ve built a Space Station in orbit around the Earth, we’ve built all sorts of gadgets to do these things that we now use daily in non-space related jobs, but we don’t “know” how much ice is at the poles or if there’s ice in the Baltic Sea south of the Danish islands. It looks like we have a pretty far ways to go before we can make a dent in the ‘question’ of global warming, let alone “fix” the problem –if we find out that there actually is a problem.
    Humans are capable of great achievements and, at the sametime, enormous mistakes and misjudgements. I guess if we want to know if there is a problem, we first have to hire some people smart enough to answer the question, and look out the window at the Baltic Sea south of the Danish islands to see if there really is any ice. When NASA was given the mission to go to the Moon, how many socialogists, movie stars, politicians, financiers, historians, climatologists, statisticians, gurus, anarchists, biologists, economists, high school dropouts, punk rockers, ministers, retirees, grandmothers, third graders, and rappers did NASA hire to do the physics, the design work, the technical work, and the million and one other jobs needed to accomplish the mission?
    Today, the blind are leading the blind. They can’t even say how much ice is on the planet, or where it is –or not.

  122. Leif Svalgaard @ April 27, 2010 at 9:02 pm
    Blonde and winter-pale Danes sunning on the beach, fooling the satellite with their albedo? 😉

  123. TLM says:
    April 28, 2010 at 10:25 am
    Dave Wendt, JJB 4:36 am
    I was being ironic. A single year of hot weather is no more indicative of global warming any more than a single good year for the ice cap falsifies global warming. In order to separate “weather” from “climate” you need to plot trends over about 30 years. Sure there has been less warming in the last 10 years, however if you look at the 30 year trend temperatures are rising.
    I realize that it takes a AWG climate scientist 30 years to identify a trend (Or even recoginize when one has ended). That seems to me to be a serious flaw in thier religious indoctrination.
    You need to be very careful with trends. Espically with starting and ending points. Mix data from different trends and your analysis become flawed. Expecting a trend to continue after it is ended is unreasonable.
    I think it is very foolish for warmers merge two sepearte trends in order to claim warming is still continuning. The trend from approx. 1974 to 1998 was clearly a warming trend but it lasted less than 30 years and is therfore statistically little more than noise. Statistical noise proves nothing regarding warming. Adding data from the trend from 1998 to date (which is a period of noise, no warming or cooling worth mentioning) in order to claim a 30+ year trend might work mathmatically but it is clearly flowed logically. The assumption that trends based on the merged data from these two trends has any meaning for perdiction or evaluation is incorrect.

  124. The line between “anecdote” and “data” is usually much closer to “established, published groups directly in the field only” in climate science though.
    Entire history textbooks are mocked as “anecdotal” when they mention five growing seasons in Egypt during the Roman Climate Optimum, or make observations about Roman mountain mining, for instance.

  125. Paul A Peterson says:
    April 28, 2010 at 12:13 pm
    I realize that it takes a AWG climate scientist 30 years to identify a trend (Or even recoginize when one has ended). That seems to me to be a serious flaw in thier religious indoctrination.

    A most serious flaw when the cycles of warm or cool are about 30 years.
    10 yrs should be enough to see the handwriting on the wall.
    With the last 10-15 years showing no warming to cooling, it’s time to drop the hypothesis off at the recycling center.
    Nobody was that stubborn when the 1870’s warming scare, 1900’s cooling scare, 1930’s warming scare or the 1970’s warming scares had run thier course.
    What’s different now?
    Money. The proponents are invested up past their eyeballs.

  126. Another nice update Steve. Still believe that the inclusion of sea ice mass needs to be included:
    http://psc.apl.washington.edu/ArcticSeaiceVolume/images/BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrent.png
    The arctic has made a modest recovery of multi-year ice but this ice is not as thick as it has historically been (hence the lower volume of ice). Sea ice extent has made a nice rebound to near normal levels (still below the longest term averages we have):
    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/sea.ice.anomaly.timeseries.jpg
    But a nice reobound none the less. For anyone to suggest that the arctic sea ice is “back to normal” simply doesn’t understand the dynamics or the facts.
    The heart of the melt season is still several months ahead of us, and it will indeed be interesting to see how the current ice extent hold up under the heat. The first few months of 2010 have been some of the warmest (2nd warmest actually) on instrument record, and, I know, heat doesn’t melt the arctic ice, it’s all wind! But I still am looking for about 4.5 million sq. km. for the summer minimum in Sept. based on JAXA data. I don’t think the low volume of arctic sea ice will hold up very well to a long warm arctic summer.

  127. Even NSIDC admits there is little known about the thickness of Arctic ice. Naturally, we’ve all seen these claims of thin ice since the ice extent did not behave according to AGW theory. Now with the new satellite we’ll find out a what the thickness is. However, we will never know what it was. The increased ice congestion would seem to indicate that it is likely to be thicker than most (confirmation-) biased reports have claimed.

  128. Phil. says:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/27/wuwt-sea-ice-news-2/#comment-378727
    Ammonite says: on April 28, 2010 at 4:42 am, “Hi Kim. Rising CO2 absorption by sea water does indeed make it more acidic.” Only right in the most inconsequential way. Actually, the pH of seawater – about 8.24 currently, could fall to 8.16 with a CO2 concentration of 454 ppm – a trivial difference,….
    A 30% increase in [H+] is not trivial!
    Perhaps you are unfamiliar with Wootton, Pfister,& Forester 2008
    http://www.pnas.org/content/105/48/18848.full.pdf+html
    Although they focused most of their verbiage on the small downtrend in oceanic PH they discovered in their collecting of over 10,000 individual measurements over eight years, what I found most interesting in this context is found in Fig. 1 A&B where they plot the range of those measurements. Intraday ranges were 0.1-0.3, annual ranges were mostly at least 1.0, and the range over 8 years was 7.5 to 9.1. To me that would suggest, if ocean life forms were really unable to deal with 0.1 – 0.2 changes in PH, they would all have been on the extinction train long ago and the oceans would be as barren as the Attacama or the South Pole.

  129. The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley says:
    April 28, 2010 at 11:37 am
    Phil, (genuinely) have I got this wrong in my head then? Fresh water has a density of 1.0 but salt water has a density of 1.025. So salt water is definitely heavier than fresh water. So if the fresh water ice melts, how does that raise sea levels? Either I need more coffee, or I’m temporarily away with the fairies… Can someone explain?

    You could try googling the name I gave earlier, however I believe the logic is as follows:
    1 kg of ice displaces 975 cm^3 of seawater (1000/1.025) however as freshwater it occupies 1000 cm^3. Thus an increase in volume of 25 cm^3/kilogram of ice.

  130. Dave Wendt says:
    April 28, 2010 at 1:08 pm
    Phil. says:
    Perhaps you are unfamiliar with Wootton, Pfister,& Forester 2008
    http://www.pnas.org/content/105/48/18848.full.pdf+html
    ……..To me that would suggest, if ocean life forms were really unable to deal with 0.1 – 0.2 changes in PH, they would all have been on the extinction train long ago and the oceans would be as barren as the Attacama or the South Pole.

    To them though their results suggested:
    “Our results indicate that pH decline is proceeding at
    a more rapid rate than previously predicted in some areas, and that
    this decline has ecological consequences for near shore benthic
    ecosystems.”

  131. rbateman says:
    April 28, 2010 at 10:04 am
    [Phil. says:
    April 28, 2010 at 9:08 am
    Ice has predominantly been flowing out of the Fram this year, see all that ice down the Eastern Greenland coast, that’s how it got there.]
    “Yes, Phil, see all that sea ice down the Eastern Greenland coast in 1979 and 2010?
    http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/TempGr/New%20Image.GIF
    I don’t see what is so special about sea ice down the Eastern Greenland or Eastern Canadian coast.”

    I like your 2007 vv 2010 Cryosphere chart Robert. This years sea ice looks much more solid than 2007 and there is a lot more of the white stuff on the surrounding land. And in the mean-time we still have a quiet sun.
    It is going to take an awful lot of heat out of the sea and atmosphere to make a dent in that lot! I’m sure the polar ice caps play a big part in Earth’s air-conditioning system.

  132. Pascvaks says:
    April 28, 2010 at 11:45 am
    “…Humans are capable of great achievements and, at the sametime, enormous mistakes and misjudgements…”
    Precisely!!!!! Your post couldn’t have hit that nail on the head any more solidly. My sentiments exactly!

  133. Thankyou to the various respondents. My paleontology excursion belongs in a different thread and I am happy to be corrected on any false impressions.
    On “global melting = global warming”. The vast majority of ice loss is due to melting, not sublimation etc. As has been noted, there is no “A” in the above statement. My point is that an individual season’s behaviour is interesting but not usually noteworthy regarding climate trends. This cuts both ways – ill-informed warmists have been known to become excitable over a single melt season… Nevertheless, a consistent downtrend necessarily implies new lows at some point. The steady rise in ocean heat content (whatever its cause) is a systemic factor working against summertime ice. Unless something changes new summertime lows are inevitable.

  134. Typo. The vast majority of ice loss is due to “melting”, not sublimation etc. “Melting” should read “temperature increase”. (…and yes, phase change does not involve temperature change but rather energy absorption in this case…)

  135. Ammonite said:
    “The steady rise in ocean heat content (whatever its cause) is a systemic factor working against summertime ice. Unless something changes new summertime lows are inevitable…”
    ——–
    Bingo. Most pertinent post of the day related to the longer term trend of sea ice…though Steve’s weekly blow-by-blow updates are enjoyable…

  136. Leif, loved the map.
    By the way, your post reminds me of a funny story. I have a concealed weapons permit and own a “Windicator” 357 mag revolver (not easily concealed on a short lightweight elf but that’s another funny story). My American friends always ask about the name and wonder what it has to do with wind. Silly friends. The “w” is pronounced “v”. Puts a whole new meaning on the name of the gun, doesn’t it.

  137. stevengoddard says:
    April 28, 2010 at 10:17 am
    Anu,
    Mann loved tree rings, until 1960 when they stopped giving him the numbers he wanted.
    Pre-1960 tree rings are good, but post 1960 tree rings are evil. Makes perfect sense form a scientific point of view, given the proliferation of mind-altering drugs which occurred in the 1960s.

    Some higher latitude tree ring density data started to diverge from the thermometer measurements in the 1960’s and 1980’s – growth rates started being affected by more than the usual suspects.
    But that’s a good hypothesis, drugs in the water 🙂
    I’ve heard there are hundreds of chemicals that show up in trace amounts in typical city water supplies, and even in rainwater due to airborne pollutants. I’m sure scientists somewhere are looking into these mind-altered trees.
    I myself prefer thermometers to tell me the temperature numbers I want – I think that’s how my car measures the outside temperature, but it might be using ice cores, lake sediments, or tree rings …

  138. Pamela Gray says:
    April 28, 2010 at 4:43 pm
    By the way, your post reminds me of a funny story. I have a concealed weapons permit
    This whole thing with ‘concealed weapons’ has almost been a complete mystery to me. What difference does concealment make? You need a permit to hide that you are carrying? but not one if you carry it openly, e.g in a very visible holster [ http://www.rustedfables.com/ ]. Makes no sense.

  139. Ocean pH :
    I am constantly amazed by discussions of a change in the second decimal place of pH due to warming when data clearly shows that the ocean goes through DAILY changes of 0.24 units or more. The pH at the Monterey Bay (Aquarium data( varies daily and has varied from 7.7 to 8.2 over the last 15 years with many seasonal ups and downs. It makes the “projected” 0.24 GW amount seem rather small.
    http://pondside.uchicago.edu/ecol-evol/faculty/Wootton/pH.htm
    http://www.seafriends.org.nz/issues/global/acid2.htm#how_acidic

  140. Phil. says:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/27/wuwt-sea-ice-news-2/#comment-379021
    To them though their results suggested:
    “Our results indicate that pH decline is proceeding at
    a more rapid rate than previously predicted in some areas, and that
    this decline has ecological consequences for near shore benthic
    ecosystems.”
    Damn, where’s Claude Rains when you need him? In rummaging about in this CC topic for many years now I’ve come to find that, when reviewing the multitude of papers I’ve been referred to, it pays to examine the data collected before wasting a lot of time on the conclusions offered. The number of those papers where the data fully supported the conclusions offered or where other possible conclusions have not been ignored has been incredibly small. You and this paper’s author’s may feel it’s correct to conclude that a couple of tenths of average PH decline will be catastrophically destructive for ocean species when their own measurements demonstrate that those species are subject to similar variability on a daily basis, I do not.
    BTW, in my other rummages into ocean PH I came across several other papers which suggest that average ocean PH is not stable over time but, like almost every other natural phenomenon, is subject to cyclical variability, which suggests that the relationship between CO2 and PH is another where correlation does not prove causality.

  141. Stephen Skinner says:
    April 28, 2010 at 5:34 am
    In the New York Times artcile the 2nd to last paragraph makes an interesting claim.
    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/nyt_arctic_77442757.pdf
    “There is eveidence that the carbon dioxide content of the world’s air has risen from 10 to 15 percent…”
    This seems a bit of an exaggeration. What happened to the general understanding of the proportions of the constituent parts of the atmosphere? Unless this is some journalistic transmogrification that happens.

    The cited 1969 article said:
    There is eveidence that the carbon dioxide content of the world’s air has risen from 10 to 15 percent during the last century.
    This means that whatever “constituent part” of the atmosphere that CO2 comprised in 1869, that fraction had increased by 10 to 15 percent by 1969.
    In 1969, CO2 was about 325 ppm:
    http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:CO2-Mauna-Loa.png
    Before the Industrial Revolution, CO2 comprised about 280 ppm of the atmosphere.
    http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/current_ghg.html
    From pre-1750 to 1969, that is 16% increase in “the carbon dioxide content of the world’s air”. I don’t have a figure for 1869, but if it was 295, then rising to 325 would be a bit more than 10%. If it was 290, that would be a 12% rise.

    Data are reported as a dry air mole fraction defined as the number of molecules of carbon dioxide divided by the number of all molecules in air, including CO2 itself, after water vapor has been removed. The mole fraction is expressed as parts per million (ppm).

    http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo.html
    BTW, the CO2 now stands at about 390 ppm: this is a 39.3% increase in “the carbon dioxide content of the world’s air” since the Industrial Revolution. The CO2 has gone up by another 65 ppm since that 1969 article.

  142. David Ball says:
    how on earth do you reach that conclusion from what I wrote? I am talking about circulation patterns, and the fact that even though ice extent is near normal this year (which it also was the last 2 winters), that it not a complete picture. Please, pay attention.

  143. The weapon is for personal protection. In some places, you are not allowed to carry openly, or loaded in your car. I agree with you regarding concealed or open. I wish open carry were the rule everywhere.
    It isn’t for status. I take gun safety classes regularly (twice in 5 years with one of those classes at a police officers’ protection/gun safety range) and go to the range (just did so last week) often to keep my shooting and gun safety skills sharp. I shot a high powered rifle, a mauser, a 9 mil, and my revolver. Out of the 3 men I was with, I was the one that shot the clay (it was loaded with plastics so it really went boom and blew up the stump it was attached to) using a rifle with a laser scope. As a single woman, I will not be anyone’s target.

  144. stevengoddard says:
    April 28, 2010 at 2:46 pm
    Phil
    Where did you get 900 PPM for the Silurian? That number is low.

    Marine Sciences Group, University of California Berkeley, where do you get your number from, it’s high?

  145. Just one more comment then I will get back to weather and climate. In Oregon, if you have a loaded weapon in the car, it must be out in the open or securely placed in a case, unless you have a concealed weapons permit. Keeping a loaded weapon visible in your car and ready for use, with the car locked or not, is an open invitation to a broken window and having your gun stolen.
    http://www.usacarry.com/

  146. All the Silurian CO2 estimates are in the 4,000 to 5,000 ppm range.
    —————-
    The ice thickness/volume figures linked above many times from the Polar Ice Centre must contain significant mathematical errors.
    There is a seasonal pattern in the average volume (which must equal Area times Average Ice Thickness) which they show as:
    http://psc.apl.washington.edu/ArcticSeaiceVolume/images/PIOMAS_daily_mean.png
    The September Ice Area is here:
    ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/Sep/N_09_area.txt
    The April Ice Area is here:
    ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/Apr/N_04_area.txt
    Which results in the following ice thickness calculations for 1988 versus 2009:
    Apr 1988: 2.47M
    Sep 1988: 3.49M
    Apr 2009: 1.71M
    Sep 2009: 1.75M
    Sorry, those numbers cannot be right and all we have is another computer model gone astray and the scientists don’t bother to double-check their findings because they like what the fake graph shows.

  147. Re stevengoddard: April 28, 2010 at 6:01 pm
    Is the “steady rise” in ocean temperatures responsible for the return to above average ice area?
    Weather vs climate Steven. I am sure that the complexity of Arctic weather re ocean currents, wind, land barriers, salinity, various oscillators and whatnot can generate wide responses in ice extent during any given set of years. The point is that these wide responses are being overlaid on a downward trend. When low ice coverage is favoured the prospects for record summertime lows will become progressively high. When high ice coverage is favoured the prospect of record summertime highs will be non-existent.

  148. Anu said:

    BTW, the CO2 now stands at about 390 ppm: this is a 39.3% increase in “the carbon dioxide content of the world’s air” since the Industrial Revolution. The CO2 has gone up by another 65 ppm since that 1969 article.

    Yes, and the biosphere is loving it. Great plant food. They run even higher in greenhouses … and it’s not for the greenhouse effect of the CO2.

  149. Bill Illis says:
    April 28, 2010 at 6:24 pm
    All the Silurian CO2 estimates are in the 4,000 to 5,000 ppm range.

    Obviously not all!

  150. Phil. says:
    April 28, 2010 at 7:12 pm
    Thanks for that link I hadn’t seen that site before.

  151. #
    Ammonite says:
    April 28, 2010 at 6:45 pm
    Re stevengoddard: April 28, 2010 at 6:01 pm
    Is the “steady rise” in ocean temperatures responsible for the return to above average ice area?
    Weather vs climate Steven. … The point is that these wide responses are being overlaid on a downward trend. When low ice coverage is favoured the prospects for record summertime lows will become progressively high. When high ice coverage is favoured the prospect of record summertime highs will be non-existent.
    —…—…—
    Nice claim = The old “Arctic Death spiral of higher temp’s => more suummer melting => less reflection => more absorbed sunlight => higher temps the next year => more melting …
    But this “death spiral” has been proven completely false in practice over the same length of time that global temperatures are claimed to have risen. The plot at the top of this column shows Arctic temperatures since the early 1950’s.
    There has been NO CHANGE in summer temperatures since the first plot. None. Summer Arctic temp’s are exactly the same as they are every other year, regardless of ice extents, CO2 levels, Arctic winds, winter temps, winter sea ice extents, sea ice volume, or the amount of rotten ice in Denmark. (Which does bring into question the accuracy of the rest of the sea data ….)
    Nice claim, but false in the real world.

  152. Bill Illis says:
    Bill, I’m not sure you understand that you cannot divide a climatology of ice volume by the actual ice areas for individual years. The ice volume has changed over time and you must include this if you are going to convert to mean thickness for individual years. Thus, your results are in error.

  153. RACookPE1978 says:
    Changes in summer temperatures are not expected because the energy is used to melt the ice which keeps the near surface air temperatures near 0. Thus your argument above doesn’t work.
    But look at the autumn temperature plots and you will see the ice-albedo feedback mechanism in affect. Arctic amplification has emerged in the observational data as predicted by climate models. In the real world we are seeing the positive albedo feedback mechanism working.

  154. Ammonite says:
    “The point is that these wide responses are being overlaid on a downward trend…”
    ———-
    Another insightful and brilliant post. I wonder what Steve will be saying when the arctic sea ice extent dips below the level for the same date 2009 in the next few days, and then we see the summer low go below 2008 and 2009? And how are the AGW skeptics explaining this near record warm 2010, when the solar maximum is still years away, and the El Nino of 2009-2010 is not as strong as 1998’s? Where is all this warmth coming from? And what about the ocean heat index…how are the AGW skeptics explaining this:
    http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/
    and then contrast it to this:
    http://psc.apl.washington.edu/ArcticSeaiceVolume/images/BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrent.png
    and this:
    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seasonal.extent.1900-2007.jpg
    In short, near instrument record global warmth, a high ocean heat content, Arctic sea ice mass is lower than average, and how could anyone think we’ll see the arctic sea ice continue to recover. I would posit that the modest “recovery” we’ve seen in thepast few years (not back to the norm, but at least it stopped falling off a cliff) has been mainly due to the solar minimum, La Nina, and the negative AO index. The cards are just too stacked against a strong and fully recovery of arctic sea ice. The multi-year ice that has built up during 2009-2010 is nothing like the multi-year ice we saw 5 or 10, or 20 years ago. When this years near record heat of June, July, and August hits the arctic, there will be some serious melting. I mean, look at these tropo temps:
    http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/execute.csh?amsutemps
    Continuing very warm…regardless of how you want to qualify it, those temps represent energy in the troposphere, and they continue at near 20 year record highs.
    Steve, I just hope you continue to report on those days when the arctic sea ice is losing 500,000 sq. km. a day during the dog days of summer as it heads toward a summer minimum of around 4.5 million sq. km. (just barely above the 2007 minimum).
    The only wild card out there is volcanic activity– which is of course very possible, but the relatively minor eruptions in Iceland so far won’t stop this year’s heat…

  155. #
    jeff brown says:
    April 28, 2010 at 8:41 pm
    RACookPE1978 says:
    Changes in summer temperatures are not expected because the energy is used to melt the ice which keeps the near surface air temperatures near 0. Thus your argument above doesn’t work.
    But look at the autumn temperature plots and you will see the ice-albedo feedback mechanism in affect. Arctic amplification has emerged in the observational data as predicted by climate models. In the real world we are seeing the positive albedo feedback mechanism working.
    —…—…—…
    No. The fall (and spring! and winter!) temperatures oscillate greatly – some of the great changes apparently coming the missing “M” field in the below freezing Metar hourly weather reports falsely reported as “positive” C vice negative C – but there is NO year-to-year Arctic spiral. Over the entire 60 year record, what happens in the fall has NO EFFECT on the temperatures or sea ice extent the following winter, following spring, nor following summer.
    Every summer, Arctic temperatures remain constant. Despite changes in CO2, Hansen’s corrections, Metar (lack of errors), winds, previous sea extent, etc.

  156. jeff brown April 28, 2010 at 8:38 pm,
    Your post is somewhat incomprehensible. Bill Illis backs up his words with real data, while you simply emanate cake hole rubbish. “Arctic amplification”? I suppose that is a way to claim that global warming …is occurring only in the Arctic.
    The Arctic had a temporary, routine low in ice extent early in the year, and it has rapidly recovered since then. This is completely normal variability, which happens repeatedly.
    The North Pole has been ice free in the recent past — so what made it freeze up again? CAGW? Really, could you red-faced arm wavers possibly be any more unconvincing? The climate changes, see? Always has, always will. But of course, you don’t see. Cognitive dissonance: the flying saucers didn’t arrive on schedule, so you just reset the date of arrival, never considering the possibility that the flying saucers [CAGW] exist only in your imagination. In reality, all you are seeing is normal climate variability.
    Like the King of the Cherrypickers, R. Gates, you also turn a blind eye to the one-half of the planet that doesn’t fit you preconceived notions. The Antarctic isn’t following your cherry-picking globaloney script, so it is completely ignored. You don’t see a problem with ignoring half the planet?
    The ice extent in the Antarctic is above its 30 year average, and the Arctic is rapidly recovering from its recent lows. The fact that what we are observing is natural climate variability whizzes right over your heads. You don’t even understand the concept of the null hypothesis, or the fact that your CO2=CAGW hypothesis has been repeatedly falsified, not least by the planet itself.
    Since you are no more up to speed on the null hypothesis than R. Gates, I suggest that you simply try to show the rest of us where any climate metric exceeds its long term parameters, if you think you can. Provide testable, empirical raw data. Anything else is alarmist hand-waving, and no more credible than cherry-picking the Arctic simply because it fits the alarmist propaganda meme. As you can see, that doesn’t work here.

  157. I will stand by my prediction of near normal summer ice extent and area as long as the AO stays near neutral or in negative territory. And until we can get real measurements of ice thickness (not calculated), I think based on AO dynamics and topography around the Arctic, ice is thicker relative to 2007, regardless of age, and not easily flushed.
    If my prediction comes true for the summer, ice will continue to recover next winter.

  158. Ammonite, the trend is not a separate set of data. There are not two layers of data. The trend is nothing more than a statistic, entirely made up of weather noise. I am amazed at the number of times I see posts that talk of weather noise and trends as if they are two separate sets of data, collected independent of each other, and given separate names.

  159. Smokey says:
    April 28, 2010 at 9:24 pm
    Ok…I will say it in simple language so that you can understand. You cannot divide a climatological value of April or September ice volume by the actual ice area for April or September of 1988 and 2009 and compare them. That is incorrect. If you want to actually compare the ice thickness for April and September for 2 different years, then you need to actually know the ice volume for those years. Is that simple enough?
    Also, so that you understand, Arctic amplification does not mean that warming only happens in the Arctic, but that the warming is amplified in the Arctic because of the snow and ice albedo feedback.
    It is unfortunate that you do not understand these basic concepts and principals. No wonder you continue with your null hypothesis as your only defense.

  160. Pamela Gray says:
    April 28, 2010 at 9:24 pm
    Pam, a paper by Ogi et al., 2004 suggest that a negative AO in winter is followed by a negative AO in summer. This is based on statistics, so of course it’s not perfect. But if that were to happen, then the negative summer AO would actually result in more ice melt (see paper by Rigor and Wallace, 2004).
    What is also interesting is that while a negative AO in the past has helped to replenish the ice cover (on interannual time-scales), the last few years have seen ice not surviving their summer trip through the Beaufort Gyre (in the late 1990s the southernmost reaches of the Gyre were melting out, and this has continued more strongly in the last decade). So, it will be very interesting to see what happens this summer.

  161. R. Gates says:
    April 28, 2010 at 8:44 pm
    And how are the AGW skeptics explaining this near record warm 2010,

    M is for METAR fubar.
    Nothing to explain except a coding error.

  162. jeff brown says:
    April 28, 2010 at 9:40:
    “No wonder you continue with your null hypothesis as your only defense.”
    First, noob, scientific skeptics have nothing to defend. Sorry you fail to understand that basic fact.
    It is the climate alarmist contingent that fails to provide any raw data to support CAGW — and you are failing to provide any data right now. Where is your raw data?
    All it takes to falsify the null hypothesis is one verifiable fact showing that the current climate is outside the parameters of natural variability. But you have no facts, only cake hole emanations.
    Einstein’s retort to the 100 signers of an open letter saying his theory of relativity was wrong was: ”To defeat relativity one did not need the word of 100 scientists, just one fact.”
    So give us one verifiable, testable, empirical fact, showing that the current climate is outside of its normal, natural, historical parameters. Just one fact. If you can.

  163. Smokey there is a lot of raw data out there. NSIDC makes all their data freely available and they even make value added products available so that you don’t have to work with raw satellite imagery and try to convert for yourself the raw DN values into sea ice concentration or extent for example. NCDC makes atmospheric data freely available. NASA satellite data is freely available from different DAACS. All the raw data is there for you to play with. Scientific papers analyze that data and show results in the papers. If you would bother to read them, you would understand many of the concepts folks like myself have tried to discuss with you. You seem very narrow minded. I have read paleoclimate and present day climate papers. Have you? Maybe it’s time you read some. It seems to me that you chose to cherrypick what data you want to believe is accurate and what data you don’t. You don’t want to believe thermometers, but yet you are willing to believe ice-core reconstructions of past temperatures. I find that strange. I wonder, how do you decide what data to believe?

  164. Jeff, the 2007 flush happened most likely because of a strong positive AO (winds are stronger with a positive AO) flushing ice out to warmer currents in the Atlantic through the Fram Strait. When the AO is negative, winds are diminished and less funneled through the Strait, even to the point of occasionally going in the opposite direction TOWARDS the Arctic.
    I have been watching the wind patterns over the Arctic for many years, including buoy drift, near surface winds, and the jet stream. With this information obtained first, I have been able to guess what areas of the Arctic are more or less melted before I check the actual graphs. Been right most days.
    Bottom line: The variability of the Arctic area and extent follow the dynamics of the wind.

  165. It is claimed many tens of thousand times that “Global warming is proven by the melting of the Arctic ice caps, and – almost as often – that “The melting Arctic icecap proves (catastrophic anthropogenic) global warming is occurring.”
    At most, using the artificially corrupted (er, corrected) GISS data, global temperatures rose 1/2 of one degree since 1973. The daily temperature graphs of temperatures at 80 degree north prove this supposed 1/2 of one degree increase did NOT occur in the Arctic summers between 1960 and 2010 – they remained constant at +3 degrees C the entire time despite a 39 percent increase in CO2 levels.
    Arctic ice cannot melt in the below zero degrees Arctic fall, winter, and spring. So, show me your calculations showing the AGW themes are true: That a 1/2 of one degree increase in global temperature (a temperature change not actually observed in the Arctic!) was enough to melt that massive volume of ice that supposedly melted (during below freezing conditions.)

  166. Pam, please, read the paper by Rigor and Wallace, 2004. And also, there are several papers about the 2007 minimum. It wasn’t the positive AO, it was the strong Arctic Dipole Anomaly during all summer months that caused the large ice loss that year (that and the fact that the ice cover was thin to begin with). Also be clear that the AO is usually discussed for winter, and in winter yes the positive AO does help to flush ice out of Fram Strait. But analysis of this winter’s ice flux out of Fram Strait actually shows ice was still removed (and the ice older than 5 years still declined as it was exported out of Fram Strait).
    But the AO can also take affect in summer. But this is mostly manifested as a strong Beaufort Sea High.
    Of course winds do affect the ice cover and the recent paper by Ogi et al. does a statistical analysis to show the effects of the winds. BUT…a statistical analysis of air temperature versus the September ice extent gives an even high correlation (twice as much). It’s more important to understand the actual physical processes behind the correlations that simply use statistics to state the changes in September ice extent are due to winds or air temperature. It was way more complicated than that.

  167. RACookPE1978 says:
    April 28, 2010 at 10:03 pm
    You can play around with the NCEP data from NCDC’s web site and do some of your own calculations.
    I think you are not understanding the concept behind the ice-albedo feedback. In summer the energy is used to melt the ice so summer temperatures stay near 0. When more ice melts, the solar energy is absorbed by the expanding open water areas. Before the ice can once again refreeze in autumn, the ocean must first release the heat it gained during summer. Thus, the ocean transfers the heat back to the atmosphere. This is the Arctic amplification. And when you look at trends or anomalies of tropospheric temperatures, you will find that there is pronounced autumn warming that is a result of the loss of the summer sea ice. In winter you can still see this affect somewhat, but there is also warming aloft suggesting circulation may also be bringing in the warm air.
    Arctic amplification is not a feature of summer. Thus, summer temperatures while warmer than normal in recent years, still do not show as much change as the other seasons. What does matter in terms of ice, is that the freeze-up is delayed with more heat being put into the ocean, which impacts on ice thickness during the winter growing season. Also, some of the heat absorbed by the ocean is kept in the ocean, which further impacts on winter ice growth. If you look at buoy data from this winter you will find very slow ice growth for this winter.

  168. jeffbrown:
    You never answer my questions. Typical of closed-minded alarmists. Your mind is made up and shut tight.
    This is a typical record of GISS “raw” data: click
    If you believe that diddling with the raw data like that supports your CAGW, you will believe anything. And it is clear that you believe anything that your guru, Al Gore, says.
    Start thinking for yourself. And start providing raw, empirical data to back up your opinions. Everyone’s got a cake hole. But data is what counts.

  169. jeff brown
    The Arctic minimum occurs in September when the sun is barely above the horizon. It has minimal effect on the radiative balance. During April-July, when the sun is up high in the sky, there is little year over year variation in ice area.

  170. Leif Svalgaard says:
    April 28, 2010 at 11:29 am
    David Ball says:
    April 28, 2010 at 11:03 am
    “Careful, Leif, you have admonished others for using anecdotal evidence. Some have claimed that Canada had a “warmer than normal” winter. If I said it was not “because I come from there” what would your response be to that? Good for the goose and all that, ……”
    I’m always careful. so I provided detailed evidence as well: “Leif Svalgaard says:
    April 28, 2010 at 11:06 am”, but a report from my daughter-in-law [in Denmark] who is a meteorologist/glaciologist I rate a bit above ‘anecdotal evidence’

    Here’s a MODIS shot from a few days ago showing the iceless Danish islands
    http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/realtime/single.php?A101151225

  171. Pamela Gray says: April 28, 2010 at 9:38 pm
    “The trend is nothing more than a statistic, entirely made up of weather noise”
    Noise has a zero mean. The probability of a trend being generated randomly from noise becomes smaller and smaller as the trend persists. If this were a purely statistical exercise we could read a few books and calculate probabilities to our heart’s content. What would be missing though is recognition of the fundamental physical driver for the observed behaviour.

  172. Smokey says:
    April 28, 2010 at 9:24 pm
    “The North Pole has been ice free in the recent past — so what made it freeze up again? CAGW? Really, could you red-faced arm wavers possibly be any more unconvincing? The climate changes, see? Always has, always will. But of course, you don’t see. Cognitive dissonance: the flying saucers didn’t arrive on schedule, so you just reset the date of arrival, never considering the possibility that the flying saucers [CAGW] exist only in your imagination. In reality, all you are seeing is normal climate variability.
    Like the King of the Cherrypickers, R. Gates, you also turn a blind eye to the one-half of the planet that doesn’t fit you preconceived notions. The Antarctic isn’t following your cherry-picking globaloney script, so it is completely ignored. You don’t see a problem with ignoring half the planet?
    The ice extent in the Antarctic is above its 30 year average, and the Arctic is rapidly recovering from its recent lows. The fact that what we are observing is natural climate variability whizzes right over your heads. You don’t even understand the concept of the null hypothesis, or the fact that your CO2=CAGW hypothesis has been repeatedly falsified, not least by the planet itself.”

    Good points Smokey, I think you’ve hit the nail on the head.
    CAGW alarmists are like members of some weird religious sect who still believe in their imaginary god even after ‘the end is nigh’ dead-line issued by their prophets has passed. You would have though the SH anomaly would have killed the scam!
    CO2 is indeed a strange and remarkable gas which can melt the northern hemisphere ice, while not affecting ice in the southern hemisphere!

  173. tty:
    As for NCDC etc indicating ice in coastal waters where there actually isn’t any, this seems to be a normal fault of all satellite sensors, especially in areas with a crooked coastline and/or a lot of islands off the coast. It was much worse in earlier satellite generations, and I strongly suspect that this factor has caused at least part of the decline of the north polar summer ice cover. If You take a look at the historical maps on Cryosphere now You will see that they regularly show lots of ice in e. g. the White Sea and the Baltic in June-July when there is never any ice there.

    I think “our side” ought to request funding for a study to clean up and revise downwards these earlier, flawed satellite ice-estimates. It mightn’t be that hard to do, at least within an error-bound. It would be a good talking point to harp on until it occurs.

  174. Ammonite, white noise I know about. Used to be an audiologist and did research using white noise clicks as a control stimulus when measuring tone pip auditory brainstem responses. White noise, in its purest sense is a mathematical construct. It can be generated but it does not occur in nature. Weather noise does not, and cannot, cancel itself out. You can do better.

  175. jeff brown says: April 28, 2010 at 8:38 pm
    “Bill Illis, I’m not sure you understand that you cannot divide a climatology of ice volume by the actual ice areas for individual years. The ice volume has changed over time and you must include this if you are going to convert to mean thickness for individual years. Thus, your results are in error.”

    They gave us their Ice Volume chart over time so I used that data (not the average climatology). April 1988 was 4.0M km3 above the average climatology of 28.5M km3 which equals … April 2009 was 7.0M km3 below the average which equals …. and so on.

  176. Ammonite says:
    April 28, 2010 at 11:18 pm
    What would be missing though is recognition of the fundamental physical driver for the observed behaviour.
    And therein lies the whole problem: the Alarmists have simply “decided” that C02, and specifically man-made C02 is driving climate. For propaganda purposes, melting or vanishing ice, no matter what the actual cause, helps the CAGW/CC “cause”, since it’s visual, and people can relate to it more easily. Thus, we have the Caitlin “expeditions” and their ilk to “prove” the ice is “vanishing” or “thinning”.
    In other words, their interest is driven by PNS. They have an agenda.

  177. The mainstream screws up again – sort of:
    “Arctic warming fuelled by ice loss: scientists
    Rise in temperatures in Far North twice global average”
    http://www.ottawacitizen.com/technology/Arctic+warming+fuelled+loss+scientists/2963681/story.html
    But read the entire article including the last two paragraphs, which don’t match the headline:
    “After a spring cold snap in March, Arctic sea ice reached its maximum extent of 15.25 million square kilometres, well above the record low seen in 2006, according to the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center that monitors the waxing and waning of the ice.
    Climate change skeptics were heartened to see so much ice form this winter, but scientists say much of the ice is thin and could melt quickly when temperatures rise this summer.”

  178. stevengoddard says:
    April 28, 2010 at 10:59 pm
    Steve, you don’t seem to understand the point about heat absorption in the expanding open water areas during summer. That is where the heat is coming from in autumn.
    Bill Illis says:
    April 29, 2010 at 5:35 am
    Bill, can you point to the link for that? Or provide the actual numbers you used in your calculations so that I can verify those?
    Tenuc says:
    April 28, 2010 at 11:50 pm
    If you look at the Antarctic sea ice you will see the regions of ice loss and the regions of ice gain. The region of ice gain is the in the Ross Sea and this has been shown in numerous papers to be related to strengthening of winds that push the ice away from the coast, increasing new ice formation in the leads and increasing ice extent. This is related to ozone loss and the strengthening of the polar vortex. Ice in Antarctica is actually decreasing in the western Antarctic as a result of warmer temperatures. It’s important to not cherry pick and actually understand the system.

  179. stevengoddard says:
    April 28, 2010 at 8:40 am
    Phil,
    2007 was typified by unusual summer melt on the western side of the Arctic, and winter drift on the east. There is no evidence of either this year.

    Well we haven’t had summer yet so we don’t know about the first and there is plenty of evidence of winter drift on the east. Also 2007 had an open Nares strait which allowed some of the oldest ice to drift south and melt, this year it’s open again and the impact in the Arctic appears to be greater at this date (judging by MODIS).
    2007-like does not mean that 2010 will follow an identical path in any case.

  180. stevengoddard says:
    April 28, 2010 at 10:59 pm
    jeff brown
    The Arctic minimum occurs in September when the sun is barely above the horizon. It has minimal effect on the radiative balance. During April-July, when the sun is up high in the sky, there is little year over year variation in ice area.

    However the change in ice type alone is expected to lead to a 28% increase in SW absorption.
    http://soa.arcus.org/sites/soa.arcus.org/files/sessions/2-1-observations-arctic-change/pdf/2-1-3-tschudi-mark.pdf

  181. “”” The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley says:
    April 28, 2010 at 11:37 am
    Phil, (genuinely) have I got this wrong in my head then? Fresh water has a density of 1.0 but salt water has a density of 1.025. So salt water is definitely heavier than fresh water. So if the fresh water ice melts, how does that raise sea levels? Either I need more coffee, or I’m temporarily away with the fairies… Can someone explain? “””
    Well Ghost, none of that has anything to do with it; well almost nothing to do with it. If the sea water freezes and turns into fresh water ice, that is lighter (even lighter than fresh water); well less dense to be more pedantic, the center of mass will remain at the same level (well almost). The water in the ice that is above sea level; plus the water in the ice that is below sea level, can all fit into the volume occupied by the ice that is under the sea surface.
    But most of the “heat” required to melt the ice (80 cal per gram) is extracted from the surrounding sea water; not from the atmosphere; nor from the sun, so that will cool a whole lot of ocean water. Salt water of > 2.47% salinity always has a positive temperature coefficient of expansion; so cooling it will shrink a lot of water, so the se level will actually go down if all that floating sea ice melts. A British/Dutch team in mid 2006, reported from ten years of satellite observations of the arctic ocean sea level, that the se level was falling at 2mm per year in the arctic ocean; and of course we know that the arctic sea ice has been melting during that period. those researchers were confident of their data; but said they had no idea why; and they hoped that the theory would soon catch up to their data.
    The theory actually stated in mid 2004, that the sea level should fall; and that was published in Jan 2005; a year and a half before they relesed their data; so it had been known for two years before they reported their results. See:- Jan 2005 Physics Today Letters. George E. Smith, commenting on Morrison’s review of Weart’s “The Discovery of Global Warming”.
    Also gravity varies with altitude, so I suspect that if you examine it in more detail; you will finde that the gravity gradient changes the sea height with ice melting.
    No I don’t have the foggiest idea which way it goes or how much.

  182. Ammonite:
    I am enjoying the back and forth as you seem to have a good head for science and are fairly well informed. However some of your information appears outdated. You state “The ocean is rising on the order of 3mm per year, 75% of which is due to thermal expansion.” The rate of sea level rise has now been measured very precisely using GPS CORS (Continuously Operating Reference Stations). We now know that when subsidence and isostatic rebound are corrected for, sea level is rising at a rate of 1.6 to 1.8 mm/year: http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL038720.shtml.
    This is very consistent with numerous studies of post glacial sea level rise for the past several thousand years: http://schools-wikipedia.org/images/119/11900.png.htm. Do you have more accurate and/or more recent data (no models please!) that indicates sea level is currently rising any faster than this?
    Stay well informed and stick to your guns if you think you’re right.

  183. Roger Knights: April 29, 2010 at 3:40 am
    A continent over the south pole makes direct comparisons between the Arctic and Antartic fraught, so one comment from me only. Much of Antarctica is “protected” by a circumpolar current. Areas south of this current remain cold. The West Antarctic peninsula juts north of this current and has been the site of much publicised ice shelf collapses.
    Try
    Feb 14, 2002: “…the mid-depth Southern Ocean is responding and warming more rapidly than global ocean temperatures. According to Gille, her study appears to suggest that the cold ocean current that moves around Antarctica, called the Antarctic circumpolar current, may have shifted southward around the continent as part of the warming.”
    Is Roger’s paper cherry-picked? Is mine? How do you determine truth when earnest people say seemingly incompatible things?

  184. Ammonite initially wrote:

    Ammonite:
    Outlet glaciers in Greenland and ice shelves in Antarctica are being undercut by the steadily warming ocean.

    I responded:

    Check this out:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/11/antarctic-sea-water-shows-no-sign-of-warming/

    He responded:

    Much of Antarctica is “protected” by a circumpolar current. Areas south of this current remain cold. The West Antarctic peninsula juts north of this current and has been the site of much publicised ice shelf collapses.

    Therefore, he should have originally referred only to the antarctic peninsula, not Antarctica as a whole. He also wrote:

    Is Roger’s paper cherry-picked? Is mine? How do you determine truth when earnest people say seemingly incompatible things?

    One factor to consider is the date of publication: 2002 (his) vs. 2009 (mine). Since 2002 the Argo buoys have been deployed and have found a flat global trend in non-surface ocean temperatures. This contradicts his claim about “the steadily warming ocean,” which certainly sounds like a global (unqualified) claim, not a local one.

  185. Louis6439: April 29, 2010 at 11:24 am
    “sea level is rising at a rate of 1.6 to 1.8 mm/year”
    The figure provided above is an average across the last century. An estimate from more recent yeas is: 3.1 +/-0.7 mm/year.
    Bindoff, NL et al.. “Observations: Oceanic Climate Change and Sea Level”. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press. http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch05.pdf.

  186. Phil. says:
    April 29, 2010 at 8:23 am
    However the change in ice type alone is expected to lead to a 28% increase in SW absorption.
    http://soa.arcus.org/sites/soa.arcus.org/files/sessions/2-1-observations-arctic-change/pdf/2-1-3-tschudi-mark.pdf
    The link is obviously a Powerpoint for a verbal presentation so a lot of information is probably missing, but looking at pg. 10 some questions come to mind. It indicates the reflectances were derived from aerial photos taken by a UAV, which would mean from a vertical azimuth that would be far from anything the ice would see from even the peak solar angles of incidence. UAVs aren’t usually high fliers so one wonders what the scale of the areas depicted in the photos are and how reflective they are of arctic ice in general. In the left photo it is a little hard to tell if the dark areas in the “first year ice” are ice or open water.

  187. Bruce Cobb: April 29, 2010 at 6:26 am
    “And therein lies the whole problem: the Alarmists have simply “decided” that C02…”
    Hi Bruce. For each person, it is worth asking what level of evidence would be required give credence to the AGW case. Some feel there is plenty already. Others none at all. For me, increasing ocean heat content and net disappearance of ice globally are sure signs the earth is heating. As you rightly point out, that does not mean AGW is automatically the culprit. Perhaps it is due to changes in the sun. Perhaps it is a long term response to the ending of the last ice age, clouds, undersea volcanoes, high climate sensitivity to forcing, low sensitivity to forcing… Various assertions are routinely weighed in the scientific literature. “Alarmists have simply decided that CO2” could be re-phrased as “scientists in disparate fields have gathered evidence that CO2…”

  188. Concerning the Guardian photo reportedly at Longyearbyen Norway, there are a few things to note, in addition to the clouds, quoting George E Smith, April 28, 2010 at 9:58 am :

    Steve, How real is that top Guardian image; apart from the sunbabes.
    In particular those clouds over the top of the snow covered mountains; is that real. That would suggest that there is plenty of cloud cover available in the Arctic despite the low temperatures; maybe it is all that open water that is a ready source of evaporation. So one would infer, that cloud negative feedback is quite active even at sub zero temperatures.
    So how far north was that picture taken; or where was it taken.
    * Latitude is at 78 degrees 13
    * It has been cold there this April according to this, per Google.
    * The shadows suggest the photo might have been taken at around solstice (21 June) maybe last year, when sun elevation was 35.3 degrees at midday, according to this.
    From the same source, the elevation would be around 22 degrees at midday in mid April.
    * The lady in particular has not much of a tan, and she may become fairly numb in some parts before she does?

  189. WHOOPS, SORRY correcting formatting error above.
    Concerning the Guardian photo reportedly at Longyearbyen Norway, there are a few things to note, in addition to the clouds, quoting George E Smith, April 28, 2010 at 9:58 am :

    Steve, How real is that top Guardian image; apart from the sunbabes.
    In particular those clouds over the top of the snow covered mountains; is that real. That would suggest that there is plenty of cloud cover available in the Arctic despite the low temperatures; maybe it is all that open water that is a ready source of evaporation. So one would infer, that cloud negative feedback is quite active even at sub zero temperatures.
    So how far north was that picture taken; or where was it taken.

    * Latitude is at 78 degrees 13
    * It has been cold there this April according to this, per Google.
    * The shadows suggest the photo might have been taken at around solstice (21 June) maybe last year, when sun elevation was 35.3 degrees at midday, according to this.
    From the same source, the elevation would be around 22 degrees at midday in mid April.
    * The lady in particular has not much of a tan, and she may become fairly numb in some parts before she does?

  190. Stevengoddard, you wrote April 28, 2010 at 10:59 pm

    jeff brown The Arctic minimum occurs in September when the sun is barely above the horizon. It has minimal effect on the radiative balance. During April-July, when the sun is up high in the sky, there is little year over year variation in ice area.

    By coincidence, I recently wrote this over at Bart Verheggen’s site:
    Far more important I think is that solar energy is very much less up there, and even at 45 degrees latitude it is nominally 41% less per unit area at year average. So why does not Milan at 45 degrees or London at 51 degrees get really really cold with such a massive reduction of energy from the sun? Well, put simply, mostly because of heat transfer from the low latitudes from airflow and ocean currents.
    It makes me smile when I hear of alarming albedo feedback forcing when perennial ice and snow melts, despite that solar energy is massively lower in those regions. Also, the albedo of water at high latitudes approaches that of old snow because of low solar zenith reflection. (check it out at sunset over water)
    Oh, and also, whilst there may be some offset from scattering, not only is there a reduction of solar energy per unit area, but it has a much longer path through the atmosphere.

    If we take Longyearbyen, Norway, at 78:13 degrees latitude, some relevant data for September are, according to this:
    1 Sep 2010~~~ Length of day: 18h 38m~~~ Midday sun elevation: 20.1°
    30 Sep 2010~~ Length of day: 10h 42m~~~ Midday sun elevation: 9.0°

  191. stevengoddard says:
    April 29, 2010 at 8:43 am
    Steve, again you seem to be missing the point. It is during the summer months (i.e. June-August) that the ocean is absorbing more solar energy than it used to because there is less summer sea ice than there used to be. Thus, by the time September comes, the oceans have warmed and have to release that heat before the ice can once again reform. That is the ice albedo feedback that contributes to autumn warming (the arctic amplification). Why don’t you look at the SST anomalies for the last several years from MODIS and you will see for yourself this affect.
    And Rob_FJ…of course by September there is very little solar input, that is why the ice starts to form again sometime in September.

  192. One of the things that irritates me most about AGW climatologists is their superiority attitude because they have a degree in book learnin’. As a rancher and one time field/frozen food plant worker, a warming climate is VERY important to me, as is a cooling climate. It tells farmers whether or not to plant peas, corn, or wheat. Or to calve in the fall or spring. Or bite the big one and plant a vineyard. Why? A producing field that ends up not producing, or a cow that loses its calf to cold, is a year without income. Try eating for a year without income. A farmer needs to know the trends in detail, year to year, and decade to decade. Those that troll the seas in search of salmon must do the same. Years of plenty must be understood as being years when profit must be salted away for the lean years or decade(s).
    Bottom line, anyone worth a damn in agriculture or in the fishing industry knows FAR more about weather pattern variations than any climatologist can learn spending years with their nose in books. When putting food on the table or not is the outcome, suddenly arm-chair scientists getting a peer reviewed paper in a journal doesn’t mean squat. And therein lies the problem with most uppity AGW scientists. Someone else puts food on their table, not by the sweat of their own brow, so why worry about getting it right?

  193. Roger Knights: April 29, 2010 at 4:21 pm
    Point accepted on adding appropriate caveats. With respect to claims that the ocean is warming/cooling/neither I would encourage interested readers to search for “ocean heat content”, “ocean warming” etc and read around the topic for a while. Later papers are often improvements on older papers but not always. New instrumentation is sometimes shown to be faulty and so forth. My reading indicates the ocean is heating (though not monotonically). SkepticalScience has a straightforward presentation on the topic:

  194. Louis6439: April 29, 2010 at 11:24 am
    For up to date information it is worth looking at this site which shows the satellite data and how variable sea level rise can be.
    http://www.climate4you.com/SeaTemperatures.htm#Global sea level
    Overall since the satellite record started sea levels are rising at around 3.5mm a year.
    It seems to change in direct relationship to temperature – in other words it is acting as a global ocean thermometer. It seems blindingly obvious when you think about it. As the sea warms, it expands. It is not really possible for the sea to cool and expand. In other words if you want to see the trend in global ocean heat content, look at the sea level. Good paper here:
    http://www.pnas.org/content/106/51/21527.full.pdf

  195. Ammonite; April 29, 2010 at 5:15 pm
    Very good post and one that has been bugging me recently. I think we are on a “losing wicket” here (as we say in England) because the way the average reader of this site’s mind seems to work is as follows:
    1. The temperature records are false so it is probably not warming
    2. Even if it is proved the earth is warming it is not very much because positive feedback is exaggerated
    3. Even if it is proved that the temperatures are rising as fast as predicted, there is no proof that it is caused by CO2. It is all natural, and therefore there is nothing we can do about it.
    4. Even if it is proved that temperatures are rising and that it is caused by CO2, global warming is good for man rather than bad.
    In other words it appears to be possible to hold 4 very different positions on the argument simultaneously. It is very difficult to pin down anybody here on what they actually think is true.
    Point 3 is hauled out to trump anybody pointing out pro AGW evidence. It is impossible to completely counter point 3 because of course there are natural variabilities in the Earth’s climate and it is very difficult to prove the change is not natural because it is almost impossible to prove a negative.
    All we can do is repeat the “fingerprints” of greenhouse gas forced temperature rises that make it different to naturally forced temperature rises.
    – more warming at higher than lower latitudes
    – more warming during the night than during the day
    – more warming in the troposphere than the stratosphere (and in the case of CO2 the stratosphere can cool while the troposphere is warming).
    All these effects are currently being seen.
    Individually, there are other possible causes for each of these effects, however the chances of all of them having alternative causes is pretty low, and taken together they make a pretty compelling case for greenhouse gas forced warming.
    Natural forcings tend to affect all temperatures roughly equally, high and low latitudes, night and day, upper and lower atmosphere.
    I have even seen an article on this web site that said that the above “fingerprints” are all good anyway – a few warm nights and a warmer Arctic can’t harm can they? And this was from a guy who vociferously argues elsewhere that AGW is not happening! Now either isn’t happening, or it is happening and it is good – you cannot honestly hold both views at the same time.
    However if somebody is absolutely determined not to agree with the scientific evidence of AGW then it is very difficult to persuade them otherwise. It is a bit like trying to turn a Democrat into a Republican or vice versa. Occasionally it does happen – but it is a rare event.
    I started out as a sceptic as that is my general disposition. But I have gradually over the last couple of years, after reading the science, come to the view that AGW is a real threat. Mind you I was always a “floating voter” and open minded. Many of those here have resolutely closed minds.
    I still have my issues with “alarmism” (particularly in the media and politics) and the over-attribution of every natural anomaly to global warming. However I think the weight of scientific evidence that AGW is happening is compelling if you look at it as a whole and are not prepared to hold four conflicting views simultaneously.

  196. TLM…I completely agree with what you said.
    It is unfortunate that the media has spent so much time with alarmism journaling. Most scientists are actually quite conservative and they are not alarmists. They realize that there is so much about the climate system that remains poorly known or poorly modeled, so they can’t yet say with confidence what an Arctic Ocean ice free in summers will mean for the rest of the world for example. So they work hard on furthering their understanding of all the physical processes, the feedbacks that may either accelerate or stabilize the climate, etc.
    Most counters I find on this site either focus on statistics w/out an understanding of the physical processes (and no scientist could publish results based on statistics such as CO2 is highly correlated to September ice extent), yet those opposed to believing human activities affect climate use statistics regularly to try to make their point. That is poor science at best.

  197. Ammonite says:
    April 29, 2010 at 5:15 pm
    “Alarmists have simply decided that CO2″ could be re-phrased as “scientists in disparate fields have gathered evidence that CO2…”
    Nice spin. If only it were true. Sadly, what has happened is that the scientific process has been subverted, and climate “scientists” have become little more than paid shills for CAGW/CC ideology. Once aboard the CAGW/CC gravy train, it’s all about keeping the grant money rolling in, the paychecks coming, and protecting reputations and stroking egos. The science goes out the window, and actually becomes the enemy.
    The truth is that the evidence for C02-induced climate change is incredibly weak, and that for human-generated C02 so weak as to be non-existent.

  198. TLM, April 30, 2010 at 4:05 am:
    “I started out as a sceptic as that is my general disposition. But I have gradually over the last couple of years, after reading the science, come to the view that AGW is a real threat.”
    Your comments have never reflected honest scientific skepticism.
    Skepticism is at the heart of the scientific method. If you are skeptical of anything, be skeptical of the null hypothesis: the long established theory that the climate naturally fluctuates within its long term parameters. If you can falsify that hypothesis, the door is then open to a new hypothesis, such as the [repeatedly falsified] hypothesis that human emitted CO2 causes catastrophic global warming. The current, mild global warming is simply a function of multi-decadal cycles, riding on the rise due to the planet’s emergence from the LIA.
    You must falsify the null hypothesis before coming up with weak new hypotheses that cannot withstand falsification. Steven Goddard, Willis and many others have tried to educate you, to no avail. Your mind is made up: AGW is gonna get us all.
    I will stick with the null hypothesis, unless it is falsified. But so far it has withstood all attacks. That is how scientific theories are arrived at: the original null hypothesis can not be falsified, and so becomes the accepted theory.
    In the mean time, planet Earth herself laughs at the hubris of the CAGW contingent.

  199. jeff brown wrote April 29, 2010 at 8:50 pm

    [1] Steve, again you seem to be missing the point. It is during the summer months (i.e. June-August) that the ocean is absorbing more solar energy than it used to because there is less summer sea ice than there used to be. Thus, by the time September comes, the oceans have warmed and have to release that heat before the ice can once again reform. That is the ice albedo feedback that contributes to autumn warming (the arctic amplification). Why don’t you look at the SST anomalies for the last several years from MODIS and you will see for yourself this affect.
    [2]And Rob_FJ…of course by September there is very little solar input, that is why the ice starts to form again sometime in September.

    Jeff, your item [1] does not seem to support your item [2] to me …. Is not August still summer, and September the real start of Autumn? (in England I seem to remember)
    Here is my hand drawn overlay graph showing the monthly solar elevations at MIDDAY at latitude 78:13, (Longyearbyen, Norway). This is strong evidence that solar energy is of minor significance compared with the other complex drivers.
    Perhaps my, may assist concerning albedos etc, upon a re-read?

  200. Bob_FJ says:
    April 30, 2010 at 6:22 pm
    Bob I don’t think you understand that the ocean is absorbing the sun’s energy ALL summer. It is not until the air temperatures become colder than the ocean temperatures in autumn that the ocean releases its heat back to the atmosphere. It’s elementary physics.

  201. Smokey says:
    April 30, 2010 at 1:26 pm
    The null hypothesis is proved to be wrong with the CO2 record that for the last several million years that shows the CO2 amounts today are outside the range of natural variability. And I’m not talking about when CO2 levels were higher than today when the continents were in different places. Let’s compare CO2 levels when when the land masses are where they are today and CO2 levels are way outside the range of natural variability.

  202. ALL: Coming back to the lead Guardian photo of “sunbathers”, the caption reads:

    Climate change activists Lesley Butler and Rob Bell ‘sunbathe’ on the edge of a frozen fjord in the Norwegian Arctic town of Longyearbyen
    Francois Lenoir/Reuters

    There are a bunch of webcams at Longyearbyen and nearby, and here are a few:
    View 1 Midday
    View 2 Midday
    View 2; 8:00 am
    The mountain on the left in the latter view looks similar to me to that in the Guardian shot These views as of yesterday were all cloudy, but presumably change daily on the webcam.
    I guess it is typical of journalistic accuracy that Longyearbyen is on one of the islands of the Svalbard Archipelago in a substantial inlet, rather than a fjord.

  203. TLM, Reur April 30, 2010 at 4:05 am:

    “I started out as a sceptic as that is my general disposition. But I have gradually over the last couple of years, after reading the science, come to the view that AGW is a real threat.”

    Gee, that’s something I don’t recall seeing before. It’s usually the other way around as far as I know!
    A classic example is Peter Taylor; author of the Book “Chill” about AGW science. He has a long experience as an environmental scientist working for governments and NGO’s, but is now unpopular with some ex colleagues.
    I recommend you read his book which is available from Amazon. (404 pages)
    He clarifies some of the dopey science such as MBH 99 and some stuff in the IPCC reports

  204. jeff you wrote April 30, 2010 at 9:48 pm:

    Bob I don’t think you understand that the ocean is absorbing the sun’s energy ALL summer. It is not until the air temperatures become colder than the ocean temperatures in autumn that the ocean releases its heat back to the atmosphere. It’s elementary physics.

    Sorry Jeff, but the topic is about the sea-ice area annual cycle and whatever happens in the atmosphere is secondary.
    However, if you are implying that because the air gets colder in Autumn, it will be heated by the warmer ocean, (per thermo’ law 2), then if it would be significant in effect, the process would become self defeating. More essentially, the sea-ice area increases at that time, (whilst the supposed “summer-trapped-heat” is being released), and whilst also, according to the season, the air continues to get colder.
    In the composite graph that I showed earlier, I’ve now highlighted some text in yellow. Jeff, please study that text, and if there is anything you disagree with, please let me know.
    BTW, the dynamics of the suggested Autumn warming you mention are quite complex what with three basic heat loss processes to consider, thermohaline circulations, oceanic oscillations like the AMO, wind, and whatnot.
    Oh, and notice that the monthly sun elevation at 78:13 north is plotted at midday. I’ll make a wild GUESS that summer day average is no more than 20 degrees*, which would translate to the solar constant being spread over a unit surface area about 3 times larger than normal**. In addition it has to battle through almost 3x the normal atmospheric depth. (compare the sun’s strength in your region whilst sunset approaches)
    *Cosecant = 2.923; ** as in 90 degrees

  205. Bob_FJ says:
    May 1, 2010 at 3:26 pm
    Bob, I think I will chime in now. As the sun comes up in the Arctic, solar energy is absorbed by the surface. Snow starts to melt off the ice, and eventually the summer melt season is fully underway resulting in substantial surface melt, and the formation of melt ponds. Areas that have melted out, either because of solar input, warm ocean temperatures, or advection because of winds expose the ocean to the solar input. The ocean absorbs more of the sun’s energy than the ice, so it warms up in the ocean mixed layer. It doesn’t mix with the deeper ocean layers. Then in autumn, when the sun starts to go down, the solar input is much reduced. Air temperatures fall below that of the ocean. So now the ocean starts to cool down. In order for it to do that, it must lose the heat it gained during summer. Where does that heat go? Observations show that heat goes back into the atmosphere in autumn. Steve Goddard posted on another blog all the trends in air temperature in the Arctic as a function of month. You can see clearly that all months and all seasons show warming trends. But the warming trends are strongest in August. Evaluation of fluxes of latent and sensible heat content reveal large transfers from the surface to the atmosphere in autumn. This sensible and latent heat transfer would mean warming of the overlying air. So while the autumn air temperatures do get colder than summer, that cooling is partially offset by the ocean releasing heat back to the atmosphere.
    Ask yourself this. If you don’t believe the ocean is giving it’s heat back to the atmosphere is it refreezes, where else does it go? Do you have some observational evidence showing it goes someplace else? Because it has to go someplace right?

  206. Wildred, You wrote in part in your May 1, 2010 at 7:22 pm

    [1]“…So while the autumn air temperatures do get colder than summer, that cooling is partially offset by the ocean releasing heat back to the atmosphere.
    [2] Ask yourself this. If you don’t believe the ocean is giving it’s heat back to the atmosphere is it refreezes, where else does it go? Do you have some observational evidence showing it goes someplace else? Because it has to go someplace right?”

    [1] Yes, but the topic is: the annual cycle of sea-ice area, which increases in Autumn, despite that there is some heat release to the atmosphere from the diminishing ocean.
    [2] There is plenty of observational evidence that the complex dynamics of the ocean result in internal heat transport over vast distances and in turn-overs. To verify, I suggest you Google ‘thermohaline circulation’ for a start.
    I’ve highlighted some text in yellow in the composite graph that I showed earlier. Widred, please study that text, and if there is anything you disagree with, please let me know.

  207. Ghost of Jim Cooley
    Fresh water ice at 0C has a density of about 917 kg/m3. That’s because the density of water decreases continuously from 4C to freezing. After the water freezes, teh density starts increasing again. If 1m3 of freshwater ice at 0C is floating, it will displace (Archimedes Principle) 917kg of whatever it is floating in. If that is saltwater with a density of 1.025 (1,025 kg/m3), then it will displace 917/1025 = 0.895 m3 of saltwater (whose mass is 917 kg). When it melts, the 917 kg of ice will turn into 1 m3 of water at 0C, but its mass still will be 917 kg.
    There will be no increase or decrease in sea volume provided the ice was formed originally from sea water – what was taken away is given back.

Comments are closed.