WUWT Arctic Sea Ice News #4

‘Soon they can return home and report on the rapidly melting, highly acidic Arctic.’
That’s the ‘highly acidic Arctic’ with the pH >7 is it? We technical chemistry people have a different word for such solutions. We call them ‘alkaline’. Simples!

‘Imagine….. where hauling a sledge twice your body weight is like dragging a car with the handbrake on…’
Maybe they should practice with cars (hand-brake on) before they go.
And only those who can snig it 4 miles a day are then allowed on the pleasurable jaunt!!

This showboating proves nothing. The Arctic ice continued to expand until March 31st this year, this is the latest date for ice growth since satellite records began in 1979. The ice is also thicker according to the University of Illinois, than in 1980. With the cooler Pacific waters I would think there will be more ice in mid September (the period of maximum melting) than in previous years.

“Imagine being chilled to the very bone; where every step brings pain and discomfort …”
And again the point of doing this is …. ?

“Imagine being chilled to the very bone; where every step brings pain and discomfort; where there is no way of getting respite from a permanently aching back”
Sounds like living in the post-Labour UK as you approach retirement.

Re Mike Strong “it is just plain sad that WUWT gives them attention.”
I think they should get more funding and more attention. The annual clown-act that is the Catlin “Expedition” is really an exposition of the the fact that much of the CAGW movement is comprised of non-serious people. The chumps who fund this nonsense are relieved of funds that they could ( and probably would) otherwise spend on electing the type of politician that will do actual damage. Whats not to like?

As usual Steve, thanks for the report, but I continue to be baffled by statements you make such as this:
“Arctic ice extent is also close to normal.”
And then you use the shortest possible data range out there. Why would you choose to do that, as opposed to using the longest and far more valid data range available? This use of the shortest data range available, is akin to looking in your backyard on the coldest day of the year and declaring that the next ice age is coming. Hardly scientific.
Still, your reports are amusing, even if you left out the fact that arctic sea ice is currently below level seen in 2008 and 2009 for the same date.

Mike Strong says:
May 9, 2010 at 9:16 am
Who funds these people ?! Let me add some more: ?????? !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! They and their “data” were a joke last year. And this year… it is just plain sad that even WUWT gives them attention.
************************************************
Sometimes you just need comic relief.
Steamboat Jack (Jon Jewett’s evil twin)

Based on the Google Map (first pic, above) all is lost. Looks like the Arctic sea ice has completely melted. If they’re ‘walking’ on anything it must be all that man-made, global warming plastic that accumulates in the center of oceanic gyres.

Gates, what am I to do with you. You seem tied to wriggle matching the dance of a gnat’s behind instead of being interested at all in the larger context and interplay of sea ice behavior and the Arctic environments. The one standard deviation of the above graph is too severe in my view, and is rarely used in research. The reason why two standard deviations, instead of 1, are used for ice measurements in most graphs is because ice behavior is quite affected by the variable and oscillating weather/oceanic conditions. In my opinion, neither record you refer to is long enough. Therefore I cannot say at all whether or not the current ice extent, area, and volume is outside of natural influence. In my opinion, the fact that you seem so sure it is, is a testament to your lack of understanding of and willingness to learn about these matters related to this complex area of our globe. You seem only interested in the rather artificial and uninformative “numbers” game. Always remember, data alone is void of information. You seem data rich, and information poor.
And I might add, those that jump up and down at anything that falls above average without exploring why, make the same mistake.

The graph labelled ICE_EXT.NORSEX SSM/1 compares the 2010 extent to the monthly mean 1979-2006 values. Surely with 2007, 2008 and 2009 data now available (as shown in the graph) the monthly mean should be taken over the period 1979-2009? I have not done the calculations but, visually, if the mean was taken over the 31 year period, as opposed to the 28 year period, the 2010 ice extent would still be above the monthly mean. Why the shortened period? And if it has to be thirty years then the correct period to take is 1980-2009.

Addendum
A two standard deviation does not mean that anything that lies outside these bands must have another cause. Our global climate zones have long included both a standard deviation of the most likely weather pattern variations along with extremes in order to insure plant hardiness in case those extremes occur. And that was way before climate warming was mainstream media news. Many things in nature have rare extremes as well as events that mostly stay within the standard deviation. That this happens is not indicative of separate causes.

R. Gates, can you elaborate on your comment on the short data range? As you can see from Steve’s linked figure, Arctic Ice is close to the mean and within +/- 1 STD of the 1979-2006 period. How is that not normal?

When R gates says the graph is now 2008 etc below, its just like me saying in March was above to prove AGW does not exist… complete nonsense. BUt anyway these guys don’t know how much they are helping the skeptics cause by making statements like this

Squarebob Spongepants says:
May 9, 2010 at 9:36 am
“Imagine being chilled to the very bone; where every step brings pain and discomfort; where there is no way of getting respite from a permanently aching back”
Sounds like living in the post-Labour UK as you approach retirement.
———————————————————————————————-
Hopefully the Goodwill and Salvation Army type stores in England are stocked up with books. Someone has to show some mercy to these poor pensioners. Politicians won’t.

R. Gates says:
“Still, your reports are amusing, even if you left out the fact that arctic sea ice is currently below level seen in 2008 and 2009 for the same date.”
Umm… no it isn’t. One doubtful data set shows a bit below 09 the other doesn’t, still above 08 by a lot. What the heck are you lookin at?

And I wonder who it was who commented, back in the January/February timeframe, that the ice extent was below the 2007 level? Hmmmmm……
Steve is performing a valuable service with this weekly update, to counter all the gnats and naysayers who keep on pushing the same old tired message of global catastrophic doom and other assorted and sundry lies.
At least Miss Pamela of the northwest US has her head screwed on straight.

I have to tell you people (Steve included) that Bastardi is STILL predicting that the melt will be pretty spectacular, but not as bad as 2007 – so the greens will make capital out of it, and we should be prepared to take it on the chin. However, Bastardi also predicts that recovery will be good. The melt we are about to witness is due to the El Nino. Report here under ‘Friday May 7’: http://www.accuweather.com/world-bastardi-europe-blog.asp?partner=accuweather

What would Catlin report if they found that Arctic sea acidity hasn’t changed in the last decade?
Our acidity test kits had broken down (remember their radar debacle).
I hate being a cynic but I have to apply a good dose of the stuff plus sceptism when I’m dealing with shady characters.

“Imagine being chilled to the very bone; where every step brings pain and discomfort…”
Going to the Arctic and complaing about the cold is like taking a vacation to a south seas island and complaining of the heat. Wouldn’t you learn to take cold weater gear and not a swimsuit?
“…where there is no way of getting respite from a permanently aching back…”
Trying to carry the weight of the whole world on your back will do that to you.
“…where hauling a sledge twice your body weight is like dragging a car with the handbrake on…”
Pack lighter next time. If they had flown there on a commercial airline, they wouldn’t have a problem with overweight luggage. Next time, to get in shape, take a couple of two-year-olds to Disney World. That will make hauling that sledge a whole lot easier.
“…and where, despite trekking for over eight hours in the type of biting winds that feel like being relentlessly pecked at by invisible crows, you are getting nowhere…”
Tell us about it. We’ve been trying to tell the truth about AGW for quite a while now…

Wondering Aloud says:
May 9, 2010 at 1:02 pm
R. Gates says:

Umm… no it isn’t. One doubtful data set shows a bit below 09 the other doesn’t, still above 08 by a lot. What the heck are you lookin at?
Can we at least try to be a little bit fair here. The “doubtful” data (JAXA) is given as a link on the WUWT blog sidebar. R. Gates is correct. The current arctic ice extent for 2010 is below both 2009 and 2008 – accordint to JAXA. Steve Goddard refers to the Arctic -Roos site. Is there any reason why arctic-roos should be used in preference to JAXA. If so – can we know what it is?

Pamela Gray:
people seem to forget what AO, PDO, and AMO stand for. All of which affect the Arctic region of the globe. With another 70 years of accurate satellite data we might have and idea of natural range of ice in that region. Until then it is WAG!

By my lights, the extent data between May 1 and July 1 would have to have some really extraordinary outlier behavior before I’d be very interested in it one way or another. We’re in a traditional yearl choke point in “extent” in that period. In that period I’m much more interested in ice concentration in the “core”. By “core” I mean that portion of the arctic ice cap that one might reasonably expect to have a chance to survive to the yearly minimum based on the 1979-2010 records.
And that is looking very good indeed, so far.
In non-ice news, I’m considering a northern Iowa surfacestations trip next weekend to try to pick up 4 stations west-to-east across the northern tier. If the weather looks friendly-ish, I’ll probably do it.

One of the earlier commenters stated that the group was doing a 19th century style exploration mission in the twenty first century. It doesn’t seem to me that measurements along a single line would be properly representative of the Arctic as a whole. So I don’t know that what they’re doing is effective. I don’t know about the logistics of travel that far north, but it seems like they’re doing it the hard way.
So my questions are: What do they expect a single line’s measurements to show, why do they need to collect the data in the manner they’re collecting it, and what would be a more cost effective way to accomplish what they’re trying to do and cover the entire Arctic? Inquiring minds want to know….

This article is so ridiculous it makes me laugh. Hmmmm….SSTs are colder than normal exactly where the sea ice in the Bering and Okhotsk seas is higher than normal. That must really mean less ice loss in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas this summer. But of course!
Is that really all you could come up with this time around?
Instead of actually reading observational reports of thin ice and leads forming, of ice being thinner this year than last, of the change in slope during the last week showing the ice getting closer to the 2007 line, you completely ignore these facts and falsely state a relationship between SSTs outside of the Arctic Basin to this summer’s upcoming ice loss.
Sad, very sad.

I have looked at sea ice area/extent for some time and have come to the conclusion that it is not as important as I once thought. The numbers we are given are assumed to be the actual sea ice area/extent. An assumption is made that the areas where there is less than 15% ice coverage, contribute little to total ice area. That is an assumption I question. The wind moves ice in and out of the 15 or 30% catchment area. What is happening outside the counted areas?
When the numbers shrink or rise it may not be because the ice has melted but because the wind moved it in or out of the catchment area.
The current “shrinking” of the Arctic sea ice is mostly in the Barents sea. Has the ice spead out enough that it no longer qualifies to be included? How much has actually melted and how much has run off to cool the North Atlantic? The numbers don’t tell us this because they ignore the 15/30%.
A cool water anomally has formed off the coast of Ice land that seems to be growing.
The idea that these numbers have some meaning as regards to planetary warming is way off the mark. The amount of ice that forms and is removed depends on many factors besides temperature.

Z says:
May 9, 2010 at 4:33 pm
“The data range is implied by the use of the word “is” – the present tense. Unlike the past tense which goes back several billion years, and the future tense which may stretch onwards forever, the present is a emphemeral instant of now-ness which is over before you can even measure it.”
Bravo, Z! Now we finally know what “is” is!

Here is a more up todate version of the first graph I linked to.
http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20100504_Figure3.png
Here is more info:
“During April, Arctic sea ice extent declined at a steady pace, remaining just below the 1979 to 2000 average. Ice extent for April 2010 was the largest for that month in the past decade. At the same time, changing wind patterns have caused older, thicker ice to move south along Greenland’s east coast, where it will likely melt during the summer. Temperatures in the Arctic remained above average.”
“Arctic air temperatures remained persistently warmer than average throughout the winter and early spring season. April temperatures were about 3 to 4 degrees Celsius (5 to 7 degrees Fahrenheit) above average across much of the Arctic Ocean, and up to 10 degrees Celsius (18 degrees Fahrenheit) above normal in northern Canada. Conditions in the Arctic were part of a trend of warmer temperatures worldwide in the past few months. An exception was the Sea of Okhotsk, where cool April conditions and northerly winds have slowed the rate of ice retreat.”
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

I suggest that we should send the Caitlin team a commiserating (“Glad we’re not there.”) postcard with this rather apposite and, I think, what should be reassuring for them, picture on the front of it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USS_Skate_(SSN-578)_surfaced_in_Arctic_-_1959.jpg
What it shows is the US submarine Skate surfaced at the North Pole on 17 March (i.e., during the season of greatest ice extent) in 1959. And what is pretty apparent from the picture is that, unless the US navy is in the habit of recruiting extremely tall submariners, the thickness of the ice that they have broken through to come to surface is nowhere near the two feet for current Arctic ice that the Caitlin team have claimed to have found and are bemoaning and bewailing over. In fact, it looks more to me like one foot, but, and simply to avoid a boring argument, I will maybe concede up to 18 inches. At any rate the Caitlin team should be reassured that since the Arctic ice didn’t disappear forever in a death spiral after 1959 it quite probably won’t do now either.
N.B. The following article confirms that the photograph was taken at the actual North Pole (not just somewhere in the Arctic):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Pole

Robert E. Phelan says:
May 9, 2010 at 9:53 am
I probably haven’t looked hard enough, but if anyone has any links to data about the extent of area broken up by icebreakers I’d love to see it.
——-
REPLY: Thanks, Robert, I’ve been wondering about that myself!
If the Arctic ice mass is so valuable to the planet, shouldn’t it be labeled “endangered ice” and left alone?
I can just envision ice-breakers full of climatologists, desperately seeking “rotten ice,” zooming back & forth the Arctic, making a hash of it.
No wonder the stuff gets blown by the winds, it can’t re-consolidate once disrupted.

Pamela Gray said: (about R. Gates)
“You seem tied to wriggle matching the dance of a gnat’s behind instead of being interested at all in the larger context and interplay of sea ice behavior and the Arctic environments.”
————
Truly, the heart of a poet! But the other things you said…oh, how they hurt!
Ironically, I was asking Steve why he didn’t look at the longest data set available. (the larger context, as it were. It would seem (and is the case) that in all cases, I do like to refer back to the most data we have. Even more, I lile those handy charts, such as can be found here:
http://www.climate4you.com/index.htm
That show solar influences, global temps, ENSO, etc. all on the same graphs, so you can readily see the larger context. But Pamela, of all the things you said, this one really hurt:
“You seem data rich, and information poor.”
I actually take great pride in being a bit of a Renaissance Man, dabbling in many things, and seeing a larger context for many things. This skill is required of me in my profession, and I get paid quite nicely for it. Still, I fully admit to lacking all the information I need to come to more clear focus on this issue of AGW. Having admitted that I am 75/25 AGW believer (25% skeptic), I come to this amazing site to see what makes skeptics believe what they do. I appreciate your (and others) gentle nudging to look at information and to offer a different perspective, and when I find smart people like Steve cherry picking data by using a paultry 5 years when 30 is readily available, I do find it important to ask him why.

Massive snowstorm headed for Colorado on Wednesday, with 40 degree temperatures.
http://www.weatherstreet.com/data/SPC_075.jpg
Eight months of winter and still going strong.

Espen says:
May 9, 2010 at 11:11 am
R. Gates, can you elaborate on your comment on the short data range? As you can see from Steve’s linked figure, Arctic Ice is close to the mean and within +/- 1 STD of the 1979-2006 period. How is that not normal?
—————–
The most complete data, and the best chart to use for Arctic Sea ice anomalies (which is what we really care about) is this well known one:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/sea.ice.anomaly.timeseries.jpg
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist or statistics to simply see that arctic sea ice has not been even at the “normal” level since 2004, and if you take a look at the whole sequence, the long term trend is more than obvious.
Now Steve, et. al. have made specific predictions of where they think arctic sea ice extent is going to end up as a minimum this summer (though I am not sure which data set they are going by) Norsex is a different measurement than JAXA. Bottom line, I really don’t care, because I’m pretty convinced that we’ll end up with a lower minimum come September then we had in 2008 or 2009 and Steve says we’ll have more. By JAXA data, I’m putting it at 4.5 million sq. km. I base this on:
1. Warm temps in arctic this winter
2. Sea ice volume still low (thin ice) despite more multi-year ice staying around.
3. Warm temps continuing into the summer melt season
4. End of solar minimum with a higher global temps and warm water pushing into the arctic from the Atlantic (hence why the Barants Sea ice is melting so fast) See: http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.6.html
I think the so-called “recovery” of artic sea ice in 2008-2009 (not back to normal mind you, but improved from 2007) was directly related to the long and deep solar minimum, and now with the solar max coming up in a few years and the sun starting to wake up again, we’ve got warmer temps ahead, and lower summer minimums in arctic sea ice.

If anyone is seriously trying to argue that the earth has not warmed up over the last 30 years they have lost the plot totally. The evidence is overwhelming. So what’s the point of all this nonsense ? I don’t care whether you think the cause is natural or man-made. This site is exactly the sort of rubbish which seems to emanate from America in ever greater quantity. What ever happened to the America that lead the world ?

Smokey says:
May 9, 2010 at 8:51 pm
wow, what a surprise that you come back to the null hypothesis like you do everytime ANYONE raises an issue with the logic in one of the WUWT posts. Do you really not have any thoughts of your own? Do you really think the linkages/conclusions stated in the post are valid for any reasons? And why do you constantly try to detract from what is being stated with your null hypothesis speeches? Why not bother to discuss the issue at hand?
And Anna v…there are many factors that define the end of summer ice cover, preconditiong by thin ice, summer circulation patterns, air and sea temperatures, cloud cover, melt ponds, etc. To state cold SSTs in the Pacific mean more summer ice makes me think WUWT is grasping at straws . Why not tell it like it really is.

One of the most sophisticated poltical liars that I know stated that ‘scaring the general public witless’ was a legitimate tactic as in their eyes, ‘nothing else would get people to think about green issues’.
The person is a qualified doctor in a senior position in the UK medical hierarchy who would be struck off if they used anything other than rigorous medical data to make decisions in their place of work. Apparently, in their Royal sanctum, things are different. The masses are idiotic serfs to be controlled and manipulated using emotional torture.
You might ask how successful that person was in exhorting one person, namely either a man or a woman, to share their life with them?
Not too good is the answer to that one.
I truly trust that all those who claim that siphoning billions of dollars worldwide to ‘scare’ the public into doing something might be fruitfully challenged to run their own fiefdoms in the same way, just to see whether disciplinary procedures in those organisations would firstly fire them, secondly refer them to the BMA and thirdly refer them to the Public Accounts Committee of the House of Commons in London.
You will not be surprised to hear that the person concerned is a feminist, a cryptofascist and possessed of a psychopathic dominance complex that seeks to destroy all who resist at all costs.
Sound like a new ‘disease’ which we can get adopted by the medical profession.
I need a Nobel Prize for firstly defining a new disease, secondly mapping its spread and thirdly coming up with a radical treatment solution (how about rounding them up, putting them in camps in Western Colorado for the winter and getting them to exist like the Sioux?)
Will you put me up for it, folks???!!

John Finn says:
May 9, 2010 at 4:29 pm
“Steve Goddard refers to the Arctic -Roos site. Is there any reason why arctic-roos should be used in preference to JAXA. If so – can we know what it is?”

Is there any reason why JAXA should be used in preference to arctic-roos?
Alarmists are running out of real scare stories so they latch onto Arctic ice thickness, acidity, Antarctic peninsula ‘warming’, C02 causing earthquakes and volcanic eruptions etc. As time goes by many of them might rue the day they nailed their flags to the mast of CAGW.

anna v.
“barefootgirl” (yea right!)
“It is not temperatures at this time of the year that define ice extent”
Presumably air temperatures do affect the ice temperature setting a gradient of temperature from the ice/air interface down to the ice/water interface. So colder air should on this basis make the ice more resistant to melting. But physics do also dictate that water temperatures have a larger effect.
Nonetheless sea ice will recover this September, I hope “barefootgirl” (sounds like a pseudonym for online grooming of school teenagers) RGates, Anu etc will stay with us to enjoy the spectacle.

Mike says:
May 9, 2010 at 8:30 pm
Caitlin needs your help. They are up there in the balmy Arctic sweating to the thin ice.
The Arctic right now http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/TempGr/New%20Image.GIF
is so terribly threatened compared to 1979.
I just love the way those Extent Graphs are stretched vertically, and how nothing is happening on the Area Graphs:
http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/TempGr/YearlySeaIceAv.GIF
But the one that really blows the candles out on the cake is the global Sea Ice Extent:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg
Man, that is one screamer of a graph.

Squarebob Spongepants says:
May 9, 2010 at 9:36 am
“Imagine being chilled to the very bone; where every step brings pain and discomfort; where there is no way of getting respite from a permanently aching back”
Sounds like living in the post-Labour UK as you approach retirement.
________________________________________________________________________
Good analogy. However it soon will be “Sounds like living in the post-Carbon Trading world as you approach retirement. but I am sure John Holdren, whom Barack Obama appointed Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, can come up with a “politically correct” method to make sure all the retirees do not suffer for long.
In his own words:
“….Perhaps those agencies, combined with UNEP and the United Nations population agencies, might eventually be developed into a Planetary Regime—sort of an international superagency for population, resources, and environment. Such a comprehensive Planetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable, at least insofar as international implications exist. Thus the Regime could have the power to control pollution not only in the atmosphere and oceans, but also in such freshwater bodies as rivers and lakes that cross international boundaries or that discharge into the oceans. The Regime might also be a logical central agency for regulating all international trade, perhaps including assistance from DCs to LDCs, and including all food on the international market.
The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region and for arbitrating various countries’ shares within their regional limits. Control of population size might remain the responsibility of each government, but the Regime would have some power to enforce the agreed limits….” from Ecoscience 1977 by John Holdren, Paul Ehrlich and Anne Ehrlich
If you think this is not something to be afraid of here is another passage from that book.
“…Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development….
However the USDA has taken care of the problem. Epicyte developed its spermicidal GMO corn with research funds from the US Department of Agriculture.
http://www.matchdoctor.com/blog_85536/Covert_Sterilization.html
http://www.alternet.org/story/18154/?page=1
http://www.organicconsumers.org/gefood/ecocorn011105.cfm
And these are the people who run the world?!?!?!?!?

#
#
R. Gates says:
May 9, 2010 at 9:44 am
Still, your reports are amusing, even if you left out the fact that arctic sea ice is currently below level seen in 2008 and 2009 for the same date.
_______________________________________________________________________
Are you just completely ignorant of statistics or are you pushing this misinformation in hopes that there are gullible fools reading this who will believe you?
Steve clearly states “All are within one standard deviation of the mean (i.e. normal.)” That means the numbers belong to the same population as the statistical mean and the differences between them can be explained by sampling error. Statistics and standard deviation are used to test whether a data point is actually different that the rest of the data points taken from the same “population” in this case the data points are no different that the data points comprising the baseline. Or more bluntly there is no mathematically significant change period.

“negative drift is one of the biggest factors affecting Arctic crossings. Psychologically, it is the most damaging of all.”
Well, I guess we won’t tell them how completely pointless their even being there is (other than the entertainment value). That would be cruel, and could possibly damage their psyche’s beyond repair.

R. Gates says:
May 9, 2010 at 9:44 am “Still, your reports are amusing, even if you left out the fact that arctic sea ice is currently below level seen in 2008 and 2009 for the same date.”
Don’t you find it ironic that to find years with larger ice extent, you need to go back to 2008 and 2009? Not to 2005 or 06 or 04 or . . . The three years with the largest ice extents for ASMR-E have been the last three years. (Of course, ASMR-E has been around only since 2002. Nevertheless, to say that the years 1979-2000 were the normal years is not much better.)

Warmair says: (May 10, 2010 at 12:09 am) “If anyone is seriously trying to argue that the earth has not warmed up over the last 30 years . . .”
It is not clear that you are understanding the posts. I doubt any serious person questions the direction in the last 30 years. In fact, I would suggest that the trend has been going on for the last 50 or 60 years, and I do not think that you would find disagreement. In fact, if we put the figure at 200 years, you still would not find disagreement; the “evidence is overwhelming.” But that evidence gives little support to CAGW. Moreover, It is not so clear that we are warmer now than 80 years ago; certainly raw data from the Arctic, Antartica, rural United States and other non-urbanized areas suggests that the 1930s had warmer summers than now. I am cautious about taking that last observation too far, but I would be even more cautious about equating the trend of the last 30 years to CAGW.

Barefootgirl,
Yawn,
Nice troll, very little actual scientific content.
Steve used a lot of actual scientific content in his post. If you are going to try to contractict what he is saying and give us your “doomsday scenario” you will have to do A LOT better than that.

Warmair asks: What ever happened to the America that lead the world ?
Exactly. America has fallen prey to the same illness that is pretty much worldwide: the CAGW/CC scare, due to bad science and outright lies driven by politics, greed, the MSM, and various and sundry NGOs, carpetbaggers, swindlers, and useful fools.
But, we haven’t gone down the tubes yet, so there is still hope. That is where sites like this come in. Read and learn – that is exactly what more and more people are doing, which is why the Alarmist ideology is being rejected.

Bruce Cobb
That is true, however it seems that there is plenty of money financing these fools, because they insist everyday and everywhere, through all media, that, for example, water will run out, will be exausted, etc.etc.
If “they”want to impose on us a global government, why don´t do it without resorting to all this stupidity?; they got the means, the organization (United Nations), etc.,etc.
The whole issue has gone too far and the problem is that if the US falls, all the rest of countries will fall almost inmediately in their hand.
Could you imagine how would it be such a world?. They have already suceeded in implementing a lot of world regulations, from the ILO to WHO, WTO, etc. A real free world should stop all these binding agreements signed without the authorization of the peoples of the world.

I could have informed them, that at this time of year, it is rather ‘brass monkeys’ in the Arctic, what is the reason for this daft expedition?

Well if you look at that complete arctic tent village they have laid out there on their web page; it’s no wonder it takes them so long to get anywhere. If you can imagine having to disassemble that whole place every morning; pack it up on the “sledge” (haven’t seen that word in decades), and then trying to drag all that crap to the next spot on the ice, and then re-assemble the whole damn village so you don’t freeze your butt off during the night. Oh I fogot; they don’t have regular day night like we do.
When your car stalls in a puddle of water; you never try to push it out of there; specially in your panty hose. There’s a reason why your car is sitting in a puddle of water; hey it’s at the bottom of a hill you idiot ! Unless you can lift a good fraction of your car’s weight; just call a friend to tow you out of there.
Maybe if you send the camera crew home; you wouldn’t have to be hauling so much crap over the ice bumps.
As for the highly acidic arctic; I thought it was only the oceans that were acidic. The ice would have expelled both the salt, and the CO2 when the sea water froze; so there wouldn’t be much carbonic acid in the ice. Maybe we could guess that the arctic ocean might be colder than the Antarctic, since it is closer to the pole; mostly, and wouldn’t that colder water dissolve even more CO2, that the Antarctic peripheral water do ? Well it’s just a thought; I’m just ruminating here.
Got a long way to go to break through that magic 7.0 barrier to get you to acidity though; good luck on that Catlin. Are they filming this for “Are you smarter than a Fifth grader ?”

Back in the days of Indulgences paid for by the penitent to get out of Purgatory,
the world got the Sistine Chapel. Now for our Carbon Sins Al gets a new house and an
overhaul on the Gulfstream….

R. Gates says:
May 10, 2010 at 8:41 am
A minor technicality. There has been no net change in global Sea Ice the last 30 years.
As for ship passage in the Arctic, the Russians still have to provide big Icebreaker ships, and they have been doing this a lot longer than 30 years.
What is the big deal: Did we lose another cruise ship to an Iceberg? N.H. ports choked with ice and out of commission?
Nope. 3 stooges went up ‘There” again, trying to find Gilligan’s Island.

Here is an interesting comparison I just found between 2007 and today:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/ARCHIVE/20070509.jpg
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/NEWIMAGES/arctic.seaice.color.000.png

Enneagram says:
May 10, 2010 at 9:50 am
“However, this April, the South Pole Station recorded an unseasonably early 22 minute dip below 100 F. “

Smokey says:
May 10, 2010 at 5:39 am
Smokey, you are the one talking about CO2 here, not me. I’m talking about the state of the ice cover and this post that is not even close to explaining the real situation in the Arctic. The fact that you bring a discussion about ice conditions to CO2 and the null hypothesis proves you have no scientific knowledge of the situation of the ice cover, and you are simply wanting to argue for the sake of arguing rather than staying focused on the discussion at hand.
I think WUWT could do a real service to the sea ice community by spending some time intercomparing the different sea ice algorithms and compare them to observational data, visible satellite data, NIC ice charts, etc. to see which institution is given the best representation of the Arctic ice cover. You can also spend time with inter-sensor calibration to make sure the sea ice record shows no biases during sensor changes. That would be extremely valuable.
And I’m in Hawaii, so no cold feet for me (to whoever said that)

barefootgirl says:
May 10, 2010 at 11:21 am
Have a look at that Unisys anomaly again.
The Arctic is anomalously above and the rest of us poor slobs in N. America, Europe and China are anomalously below.
I would prefer the Ice remain in the Arctic, not on top of us.

Looking at the Navy site: it looks like there is a slight warm anomaly around the Aleutians, not cool like unisys shows….

regeya says:
May 10, 2010 at 10:58 am
We’re still in panic mode in Illinois because April was the warmest on record…nothing in the news about the abrupt halt in corn growth due to the FRICKIN COLD WEATHER
_________________________________________________________________________
Tell me about it. I am in the sunny south (NC), you know temperatures from 85 to 98F in the merry month of may? Well I woke up freezing this morning to 35F in MAY, it is now 3:30pm and we have managed to warm up to a whopping 64F. On the 10th in 2004 (solar max cycle 23) the low was 60F and the high 91F.
Now where is that global warming Al Gore was mentioning???

We are forecast to have a very wet, heavy snowfall this week, just as the leaves are growing on the trees. It has been 14 years since that happened and last time it broke about 50% of the tree branches.

“”” barefootgirl says:
May 10, 2010 at 11:21 am
George writes that air temperatures cannot cause the ice to thin? Really? “””
“””
George, I’m sorry but the experiment you suggest is not relevant to the situation occurring in the Arctic… “””
Really ! ?
Well barefoot girl; please cite exactly where I said that in the first excerpt from your post above. For the record; nowhere at no time in all of recorded history have I ever said that; nor have I ever said anything that could be misconstrued by even the most illiterate as to mean that.
As to the comment on my experiment; well I will just assume that your powers of logical reasoning are a good match for your literacy.
If you did those experiments, even in your mind; you would conclude that the rate of heat transfer from water to ice, is orders of magnitude higher than the rate of heat transfer from air into ice. Not only that but the surface of ice in contact with water is much greater than the area of ice in contact with the air. So there is no way that the air could be anything but a minor contributor to ice melting.
And please don’t forget barefootgirl, that melting of ice is not some trivial temperature unbalance phenomenon. It actually takes energy to melt the ice; namely 80 calories per gram. So do your little calculation of the relative specific heats of standard earth atmosphere and typical ocean water; and then tell us which of the two is likely to be able to supply all that thermal energy to the ice to melt it, without having its own temperature depressed by the loss of energy till it is far below the melting temperature of the ice.
Read what I say; not what you think you read that I said; when I said no such thing.

jakers says:
May 10, 2010 at 12:35 pm
There is a problem reported with the validity of that site’s security certificate.
The DOD doesn’t take kindly to folks snooping around thier stuff, so no thanks, I’ll pass.

“in the sunny south (NC), you know temperatures from 85 to 98F in the merry month of may?” Really? – I think you mean record highs for the month range from 85 to 98F…?

“There is a problem reported with the validity of that site’s security certificate.
The DOD doesn’t take kindly to folks snooping around thier stuff, so no thanks, I’ll pass.”
That is because the certificate is self-issued by DOD, and is not purchased from a commercial entity, so you will have to put in an exception in your browser.
It is a public web site – why would you say “snooping”?

“In April-May 2009, ice extents were at their highest level onthe chart. ”
Which chart? This one? http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20100504_Figure3.png In any case, not all agree about the ice area extent this summer – see http://www.accuweather.com/world-bastardi-europe-blog.asp?partner=accuweather

barefootgirl – if you are from hawaii, which has the perfect climate (and nice weather too) , you should be disqualified from commenting on the less than perfect conditions which the rest of us poor sods have to endure. by the way, anna v. is a physicist ; you may be a little out of your depth in criticizing her views of the physics of the arctic. aloha.

phlogiston says:
May 10, 2010 at 3:09 am
Nonetheless sea ice will recover this September, I hope “barefootgirl” (sounds like a pseudonym for online grooming of school teenagers) RGates, Anu etc will stay with us to enjoy the spectacle.
I’m impressed that some people can still delude themselves that the Arctic ice will “recover” this September. Such mental discipline will serve you well in the years ahead, as the climate data is gathered and reported.
Meanwhile, even early in the melt season, the ice is disappearing much faster than last year at this time:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.recent.arctic.png
(you can verify the date on this daily updated graph here:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/?C=M;O=D
)
The question is not “Will the minimum summer Arctic ice be more than 2 std dev’s less than the recent average ?”
Everyone knows it will be.
The question is: Will it be lower than 2009 ? 2008 ? 2007 ?http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20091005_Figure2.png
As the scientists from Steven Goddard’s favorite site, Arctic ROOS (Regional Ocean Observing System) of Norway say:

The author presents an empirical relation between annual sea-ice extent and global atmospheric CO2 concentrations, in which sea-ice reductions are linearly, inversely proportional to the magnitude of increase of CO2 over the last few decades. This approximates sea-ice changes during the most recent four decades, with a proportionality constant of 0.030 million km2 per ppmv CO2.
http://arctic-roos.org/Members/webadmin/Ola2-2008.pdf

Since CO2 continues to go up, expect Arctic sea ice to continue to go down, with some random weather noise superimposed on the trend.
I’m looking forward to the “spin” and “explanations” of the Anti-Alarmists (Calmers ? Reassurers ? Stupefiers ?) in September. Keep in mind CryoSat-2 will be working by then, so you’ll have to step up your game.

George E. Smith says:
May 10, 2010 at 1:55 pm
“”” barefootgirl says:
May 10, 2010 at 11:21 am
……………
……………
2) melt onset is starting earlier in the Arctic and freeze-up is starting later, so the total melt season is extending which means more time to thin the ice to less time to grow the ice. “””
You want to run that by us again !…
____________________________________________________________
George, lay off the poor little bare foot girl, she just proved she is a brainwashed “innocent” regurgitating the lies she has been fed. She might have cognitive dissonance problems if you feed her reality too fast.

R. Gates says:
The most complete data, and the best chart to use for Arctic Sea ice anomalies (which is what we really care about) is this well known one:

You’re missing the point, which is that the current sea ice extent, not the extent from last summer, is perfectly normal for this time of year, even if you don’t use the whole satellite record (but only until 2006, i.e. without the years with low extent).
So your comment to Steve Goddard was unjustified. It’s perfectly valid to question whether we can draw any conclusions from the ice extent at this time of year, though, since we’re in a period with low STD anyway. I think it would be safe to say that it’s extremely hard to make any reasonable prediction about this year’s minimum until late June.

And just as I said; from those JAXA graphs you can see that the 2008 refreeze started about 10 days to two weeks ahead of 2007, while the 2010 high was several weeks delayed from 2007; other than that it is pretty much what I said.

Golly Gail,
Did I really write that stuff ? I think maybe they musta put a little Schnapps in the water cooler; maybe I need to go and take a double shot of meds; along with some of that water cooler Elixir of course.

Oh and BTW George, NSIDC has the ESMR sea ice data that started in 1972. Why don’t you look at that. It’s already been processed for your easy use. OR better yet since you don’t think any climate scientist is of any worth, process the raw data yourself. NSIDC has that data too.
if you had an understanding of satellite data you would know that visible and thermal data are of limited use in the Arctic because of cloudiness. best to work with the passive microwave data…so go for the ESMR data.

barefootgirl says:
May 11, 2010 at 5:42 pm
I’m a PhD physicist trained in atmospheric science and remote sensing through my masters in Aerospace Engineering. I am more than qualified especially since I have processed and analyzed the majority of the data being discussed.
—–
REPLY: Very cool, BFG! Welcome to the blog, it gets kinda wild in here sometimes!

The Antarctic continues to put on ice at a slower rate than the last few years and coupled with the fast spring melt in the Arctic the global ice area remains negative. This year is the first year it may stay permanently negative since the start of the series
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg
Hudson bay has more open water in it for this time then any year for the last 7.
Andy

Hm, I sea there’s only a little thin ice left in the Barents. The Kara sea ice is rapidly disintegrating. Ice very broken up both east and west of Greenland. Ice pulling apart north of the Barents Sea, in the Arctic Basin too. Big hole developing along the Alaskan North Slope, and also same thing along the Siberian coast.

Anu, the world did not start in the 1970s. I do not know of anybody who would be surprised that Arctic Ice Extent is less now than the 1970s. Yet, it is not clear that Arctic temperatures are the primary cause of the Arctic Ice extent decline. Your DMI reference is not in a form that lends itself to easy identification of temperature trends. You might be interested in this record of station-by-by station trends: http://www.john-daly.com/stations/stations.htm#Greenland,%20Iceland,%20northern%20Norway,%20and%20the%20Arctic%20Ocean. There plenty of other candidates besides Arctic temperatures to explain Arctic ice decline.
I am not speculating on the 2010 minimum. On one hand we have more mult-year ice and we are unlikely to have a repeat of 2007 wind and cloud conditions. On the other hand, we continue to have Asian soot and plenty of warm Atlantic water.

I believe that if you search the archives for anything I have every written here about the Arctic ice; one thing you will discover is that at no time have I ever made any prediction as to what the future state of the arctic ocean ice is likely to be. I’ve commented on what data has been readily available from the JAXA icon there on the right, and DMI as well, and I’ve commented on what some processes going on up there might be.
I’ve never queried or challenged assertions by others, as to what the thickness of that ice up there may or may not be; or what it might be in the future. From time to time, Phil has interjected comments; usually with reference citations regarding other data sources often relating to that thickness. I always religiously follow up on any citations that Phil posts; specially to comments from me; What the hell is the point of being here; if we aren’t all trying to learn as much as we can about these phenomena; or in some cases try to teach; if our fields of expertise affords us that opportunity.
I typically do not try to back down the trolls; nor do I seek to jump on other folks who maybe don’t quite understand; well to be pedantic; folks who may seem to me to not understand. And I deliberately stay away from discussions where I know I clearly don’t understand. I have no idea or clue as to how El Nino or La Nina, or ENSO or PDO, or AMO or any of those other acronyms function; and I’m not going to even try to understand. Yes they are interesting; and I know that they certainly affect local weather; but I am sure that there are plenty of meteorologists or Climatologers who do understand that stuff, and can keep track of what is going on.
There’s only one issue that really appeals to me; and that I think is important to understand. And that issue is whether in any possible way, the emission of CO2 by humans from burning fossil fuels or non fossil fuels in the case of forest burning, can change the earth’s climate so as to move it out of the normal stable but varying comfortable range that it seems to have had for all of the time since we gave up on trying to survive on clean green free renewable abundant energy from clambering around in fig trees.
And on that issue, I am not the vaguest bit skeptical. I’m quite confident that the answer is no; we cannot alter the mean temperature of this planet, either up or down, from its normal natural variable range, even if we wanted to; and if we could, we are certainly nowhere near smart enough to know in which direction to move it.
And I believe that that will remain true so long as the oceans of the earth persist; and the outcome will have virtually nothing to do with the total atmospheric content of CO2; nor where that CO2 came from. The earth temperatuire range depends almost entirely on the physical , chemical, and likely biological properties of the H2O molecule in all three of its common phases, as are found permanently in the earth’s atmosphere.
And that does not mean that we are incapable of polluting our environment, to the point of endangering ourselves and other species. That is a separate issue; and nobody on this planet, is more interested in working to see that doesn’t happen, than I am.
But labelling CO2 a dangerous pollutant, that is a threat to humans and all life on this planet, is worse than silly; or destructive; it is criminally insane to make such a claim.

Just for the record.
The JAXA “ice extent” icon on the side here shows (reading from graph) that 2007 “ice extent” was about 14.0 Msqukm at about March 27/8, and was minimum at about 4.4 Msqukm about sept 24/5 or so.
2008 min was about 4.8 Msqukm at about sep 12/13 or so, and in 2009 it was about 5.2Msqukm at about sep 15-16.
These data were read off the graphs which have truly lousy colors to try and see, and my eyes aren’t so good. Yes maybe you can find the actual numeric data there somewhere with the real numbers. I do know that at least the 2008 minimum and refreeze graph was revised some time after it was published and they moved theat refreeze part of the curve significantly reducing the gain that had previously been reported. And no I did not draw these graphs; so i presume they were drawn my competent fully credentialled Climatologers; or at least Arctic scientists; so I simply take their word for it since I’m not any sort of expert in that field.
And typically, Phil has often added to my comments on those points wih his citations (much appreciated) of other sources of data that relate to the ice thickness; or maybe to the “ice area” as distinct from JAXA’s “ice extent”.
I make no claim that I believe JAXA “ice extent” is the definitive source on this issue; it is simply one that is readily available to me just by clicking on the icon on the side there; so I have stayed with that purely for continuity, and consistency. And invariably when we have talked about this phenomenon; others have trotted out cryogenics or whatever who for some reason draw ice in purple or some other source that has a different idea and data; and there has been a lot of discussion as to whether JAXA knows what they are doing. But not from me; because I just believe that what they put out is their true belief in what they observe and that is good enough for me; well I am always amenable to being shown by true experts; that JAXA is all wet for some reason (that they can explain to lay persons)
And I’ve never made any predictions, projections, hopes or whatever as to where this is all going. I’m simply watching it happen as a lot of folks here do. If it all melts in five years as Gore and other Climatologers predict; then so be it.
But I do continue to be mystified as to why 1979 is considered such a pivotal year in all of this, and 1979 to 2000 to be the optimum period for determineing what is normal.
Consider this.
Suppose as we are now told, that the arctic ice coverage, extent, area, whatever data goes back to 1972, or April 1st 1960 when the first polar orbit satellite went up to start the data stream going; or even earlier when folks actually walked around up there and measured it all, just as the Catlin expedition is now doing. Then we have several possibilities. That pre 1979 data could show that there was much more ice in 1972 than in 1979 or 2007, and maybe there was even more in 1960. If that was the case (I have no idea) then surely the Climatologers or Arctic Scientists would cite those larger numbers to show how really bad it has gotten since; after all the more ice they can show has been lost; the more credible is their disaster scenario; not that anyone has shown that an ice free arctic would be a disaster.
The other possibility of course could be that the 1972 or 1960 data might show, that htere was somewhat less ice back then than in 1979; who knows it might have gotten to as little as 2007.
Oh well it simply wouldn’t do to tell anybody that melts like 2007 might happen quite often; and we have already heard that in fact in 2007, much of that ice was blown out of the arctic ocean so it melted somewhere else in warmer waters. Yes it still melted; but not because of a warmer Arctic.
So how come all this suppression of the 1960 to 1979 data; at least from popular exposure; or is it just embarrassing for the promoters of Arctic catastrophy to show data that might reveal it is just normal variability.
Yes I know we are still emerging from an ice age; so yes I know that long term the temperature should be tending up, as a result; but we have seen all of this data that seems to show global temperatures oscillating up and down on about a 60-66 year periodic cycle; and one which seems to have most recently peaked maybe around 1995. And not surprising, as is typical when you have a data set, that climbs in value, and reaches a peak, and then stops increasing; you natyurally expect to find a good amount of higher readings in the vicinity of that peak; that after all is why it is called a peak. And later on or earlier on, when the temperature reaches a local low, and starts warming up again; one would expect to find a lot of lower values collected about that trough; that’s why they call it a trough. You would not go down to the Dead sea of Death Valley, in search of some of the highest elevations on planet earth; most of those can be found up in the mountains.
So who among the experts has a link to all that 1960 to 1979 arctic ice data that seems to be kept hidden. What about that missing glacier up above Scandinavia that goes way back to the early 20th century; wasn’t a whole lot of ice around back then it seems.
So I don’t make predictions; especially about the future; I just watch what happens with some degree of fascination; and a lot of wondering about just why anyone would care if the ice fluctuates up and down over time.
I wonder if Dr Svend Hendriksen would like to move from Greenland to Hawaii; so he can get a better idea of just what is going on with the Arctic ice.

Well I think I should offer my apology to Dr. barefootgirl for jumping on her like that; quite uncalled for.
I am sensitive to people reading what I said or wrote; and claiming I said something quite different..
My English is not all that bad, and I try to be careful with what words I use, to avoid misunderstanding.
I don’t even own a cellphone, or rasberry, or ipod or any of those things so I am not into texting. So all of that “NSIDC SMMR, SSM/I AMSR” buzzword stuff is Greek to me.
It is nice to know that Dr barefootgirl knows all that satellite stuff; and is actually responsible for all that data that is available. I make it a point of staying well away from satellite data; and specially any algorithms for processing it. I got into a heap of trouble doing that, a few years ago.
I was in the lab in the Radio-Physics Department; one lunchtime, recording some data download from an earth satellites; I had been recording it almost for 48 hours since launch.
Somebody called on the phone and asked me if I had any information; so I told him that I had a couple of days of data; but what he wanted to know was when he could see the satellite.
Without thinking, I just blurted out; “well just go outside tonight at 8Pm, and look up in the sky and you should see it.”
Well talk about getting myself in hot water; the guy on the phone was from the local evening newspaper; and just before I went home that evening, Professor Kreielsheimer; the Radio-Physics Department Prof, came storming into the lab with the early edition of the evening paper; and there right in the middle of the front page it said;- “The Radio-Physics Department has calculated that viewers should be able to look up and see this satellite tonight at 8 PM.”
What a mess; that evening, thousands of people came out in the streets, and hundreds drove up to the top of some local mountains to watch. The next morning, the other (morning) paper reported that everybody had seen the satellite go straight across the city right on schedule at 8 PM. Not me; I had already gone to bed. Did see it the next night though.
So that morning they had the entire Physics Department Staff at the department staff meeting, and I had to give an impromptu talk about how I figured out where this damn thing was.
So I stay away from satellites now, and I never talk to reporters any more.
Well it wasn’t a polar orbit satellite; or even a weather satellite; so it really wasn’t much use for doing real science. Something that the Russians had launched; I think they called it Sputnik; or maybe it was Sputnik-1 . I don’t really remember which. All it did was beep about once a second on a carrier frequency of 20.0 MHz, and that is what I recorded for 48 hours; with a cheap ham radio. Never ever listened to it again.
Not quite as fancy as looking through Arctic clouds with microwaves; or photographing the whole Arctic ocean with high resolution cameras; and I didn’t have any Cray computers to process the algorithms. Did it all with a pencil and paper, and a slide rule.
And It didn’t help me pass the RP exam for that one of the Majors for my BSc.
But none of that is of any use in trying to understand anything about climate, or the Arctic for that matter.
I did once predict that the Arctic ocean level should be falling as the ice melts. That was confirmed by a British Dutch team in mid 2006 using some European polar satellite. Their 10 years of measurments claimed that the sea was falling at 2 mm per year; but they didn’t know why. That was two years after I said that’s what it was supposed to do.
Well apparently I was wrong, because that was based on the assumption that the “heat” to melt the ice must come out of the surrounding sea water; but now I find out from Dr barefootgirl, that that is all nonsense, and the heat comes out of the atmosphere. Must be a lot of evaporation going on from that ice too, if the Arctic is mostly covered by clouds all the time, so you have to use microwaves to see through it.
Anyway my apologies Dr barefootgirl; I shouldn’t have jumped on your case like that; specially, since I only have a BSc; well plus 49 years as a practising Physicist in Industry.

Ulric Lyons said:

The next Ice Age is roughly 85,000yrs ahead,

On what basis do you make that claim? That would seem to be out of step with the length of the last few interglacials …