Wikipedia : Traditional Santa Claus
Arctic ice extent continues downwards on the trend line started at the end of March, having lost a little over 1,000,000 km2 during April. If that linear rate continues, the Arctic will be ice free around January 1, 2011. That would be a complete disaster for Santa Claus and the billions of people who depend on him.
During the past month, Arctic sea ice has straddled between the NSIDC 1979-2000 average (wide black line) and the NSIDC 1979-2009 average (wide turquoise line.) The composite image below shows all four commonly used extent graphs – NSIDC/NORSEX/DMI/JAXA . The thin turquoise line is NSIDC 2009. Note that the melt season is about three weeks behind the 2007 extent (dashed) line.
During the last few days, ice has begun to disappear from the Barents Sea. The modified NSIDC map below shows loss of ice from one week ago, marked in red. I wonder if any soot from Iceland is dirtying the ice? Hansen says that soot may be responsible for 25% of all global warming.
The UIUC graph below provides a more detailed blow by blow of what is happening to ice area in the Barents Sea.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.6.html
The modified NSIDC map below shows loss of ice since the first week in April, marked in red.
The modified NSIDC map below shows changes in ice since May 2, 2007. Green areas have more ice, and red areas have less ice.
The modified NSIDC map below shows areas of above “normal” (green) and below “normal” (red) ice. The western Arctic is above average, and the eastern Arctic is below average. Perhaps all the hot air from Copenhagen in December thinned the ice?
During the past few summers, the low anomalies have been on the western side of the Arctic. Note in the SST map below, that ocean temperatures are abnormally cold on the western side, which is likely to slow melt this summer.
http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.html
The Arctic Oscillation is forecast to go negative again, which should inhibit melt in the Arctic and growth in my garden.
http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/ao.sprd2.gif
We are still about eight weeks away from the beginning of the really interesting melt season. Stay tuned. The Antarctic remains boring, staying average to slightly above. No meltdowns or collapsing ice sheets to report this week.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Smokey says:
May 5, 2010 at 7:25 pm
Cicada broods hatch based on a Fibonacci number of years. It has to do with avoiding predators. You could even look it up. ☺
Missing the point as usual Smokey.
Phil. says:
“Missing the point as usual Smokey.”
Really? All you had to do was google: cicadas, fibonacci. Simple.
But as usual, your preconceived alarmist notions override your presumed attempt at understanding nature, due to your closed mindset.
Even though you refuse to learn some facts, others who are inquisitive will do the same search and discover some interesting science, which is what this site is all about. Too bad your own biases preclude your learning the same things.
There are quite a few interesting hits when searching “cicadas, fibonacci.” Open minded folks will find some fascinating information: [“Most of the cicada predators have small life cycles of 2-5 years and so firstly, these predators cannot evolve themselves to eat cicadas, secondly, the life cycles of cicadas (being in primes) rarely coincides with their predators’ life cycle and thus helps them in preserving their species.”].
You really should join those open minded folks, and learn more about our wonderful universe, instead of worrying about an insignificant trace gas that harms no one.
Smokey says:
May 5, 2010 at 8:29 pm
Phil. says:
“Missing the point as usual Smokey.”
Really? All you had to do was google: cicadas, fibonacci. Simple.
But as usual, your preconceived alarmist notions override your presumed attempt at understanding nature, due to your closed mindset.
Why on earth would I do that in connection with 17 year cicadas, with your usual accuracy you claimed that 17 was a Fibonacci number which of course it isn’t!
The original post, which I queried claimed that solar events such as coronal holes had a 17 year period and these events effected the weather and thus the hatching of the broods of the 17 year cicada. I asked why if this was so, that different broods of the 17 yr cicada hatched in different years in different parts of the same state. Also why in the southern US is the period is 13 years (13 is a Fibonacci number), do the coronal holes that effect the south have a different period? Of course then Smokey came in with his usual misinformation.
Here’s some genuine information about the 17 yr cicada, they were the inspiration for Dylan’s ‘Day of the Locust’ following his experience of their swarming at a degree ceremony at Princeton University.
Phil, they hatch based on prime number years. I had remembered reading about it a few years ago, and made my original brief comment so anyone could do a search to learn the details.
The Fibonacci number was inadvertently inserted after having a few beers with a friend, when we had been discussing how Fibonacci numbers arrange the seed patterns in sunflower heads, etc. Glad you’re paying attention, and looking up what I post to make sure it’s accurate. We all need that. Best of all, you learned something, too.
However, since you didn’t catch the mistake for two hours, and after making another comment, you certainly can’t claim to have had the facts at your fingertips, can you? No doubt some furious googling led to your a-HA! moment. Surely you would have instantly pounced on one of my rare mistakes, rather than having to take off your shoes and socks and count the Fibonacci numbers up to 17, if you’d had first hand knowledge about it. [I can outsnark anyone.☺]
So I did some good by prompting you to look up what a Fibonacci number is, and I’m also glad you’re paying such close attention to my posts. Now, Grasshopper, if you can get up to speed on the climate null hypothesis, and start to follow the scientific method like a true skeptic for a change, my mission will be accomplished.
Phil. says:
May 5, 2010 at 5:36 pm
Well there are 5 years out of the posible 17 that none of the broods seem to like. If you wanted guarantee good conditions, you could choose a 17yr emergence cycle, and you would have 12 better years to choose from. There may be local variations in microclimte between the 17yr broods that favour different 17yr monthly anomaly strings, or it may just chance. When I searched for monthly temperature strings, I found 23yr, 17yr and 13yr strings, with the 17yr string being the least broken (less exceptions), and the 17yr string continues longer than the others without fading. I guess the southern Cicada may find the 13yr string suitable enough for their purpose, in that location.
Smokey says:
May 4, 2010 at 9:18 pm
It seems that way, doesn’t it? Considering the “warming of 5.2 degrees Celsius by 2100″ horse manure being shoveled by his ankle-biters.
You’re getting into dangerous territory there Smokey – actually making a prediction.
Until now, you’ve been saying whatever happens, it’s all “natural variability”. Which, of course, you are under no obligation to explain or understand. Now you’re implying that even “natural variability” wouldn’t be so mischievous as to make the planet warm 5.2 degrees Celsius by 2100. If it does start down that path when you are still alive, your prediction will be on its way to being falsified.
Can you live with that ? Or will “natural variability” still be your dying words, when the planet has only warmed 2 or 3 more degrees C ?
What about the summer arctic ice gone in a decade or two ? Still going to go with “natural variability”, or are you going to go out on a limb and declare “horse manure” right now, that such a thing will never happen ?
stevengoddard says:
May 4, 2010 at 9:33 pm
So the MIT study clams 7C warming in the next 90 years, after 0C warming during the last 15 years and 0.6C warming during the last 120 years. Hopefully you are a little embarrassed by your alma mater?
The study projects a median surface warming of 5.1° C by 2100, from 1861:
http://globalchange.mit.edu/files/document/MITJPSPGC_Rpt169.pdf
Since the planet has already warmed 0.9° C since 1861, only 4.2° C more warming is needed.
As for your ” 0C warming during the last 15 years”, surely you are getting confused by the widely misunderstood Dr. Phil Jones quote about “no statistically-significant global warming” ? I suggest you re-read the interview:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8511670.stm
The warming trend in the last 15 years is 0.18° C – he did not say “no warming”, he said this was “not significant at the 95% significance level” (if temperature values jiggled around randomly, a string of increases all in a row could barely explain the observed warming, without it being a “significant” trend). He also said that the last 35 years of warming, at 0.16° C/decade, was statistically significant.
The expected warming in the 21st century will not be a simple linear extrapolation of the warming seen so far – the next 4.2° C will come faster. Look to the Arctic for the most dramatic early stages of warming.
Yes, I’m slightly embarrassed by Dr. Lindzen, but he’s entitled to his opinions and his speaking fees – he’s put in his dues.