WUWT Arctic Sea Ice News #4

By Steve Goddard

The Catlin Expedition is Now only 45 miles away from the North Pole. They have traveled 265 miles (as the crow flies) since March 3, for an average of about four miles per day.  They only have a few days left on the ice and are caught in The Beaufort Gyre. They write:

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; where hauling a sledge twice your body weight is like dragging a car with the handbrake on; 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. Literally nowhere. Caught on a polar treadmill that will happily drive you backwards if you stop your herculean efforts to…. Just. Keep. Going. Some 50-odd days into the expedition, and Ann, Charlie and Martin find themselves once again suffering from the powerful negative drift that persecuted them at the start of their mission. Aside from pressure ridges, open leads of water and large patches of thin ice, negative drift is one of the biggest factors affecting Arctic crossings. Psychologically, it is the most damaging of all.

Soon they can return home and report on the rapidly melting, highly acidic Arctic.

Temperatures in the Arctic are close to normal, and will be above freezing in about a month.

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

Arctic ice extent is also close to normal.

http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/observation_images/ssmi1_ice_ext.png

The big story during the last few days is the divergence between the different data sources.

JAXA (green) is nearly half a million km2 lower than NORSEX (red.) DMI (fine dots) and NSIDC (purple) are half way in between. All are within one standard deviation of the mean (i.e. normal.) Unfortunately the NSIDC computer has been naughty and hasn’t updated any of their graphs or maps since Friday.

This time of year shows almost no year over year variation in extent or area. Ice extent has now declined by over one million km2 since the late March peak. The modified NSIDC map below shows in red, the total melt since early April.

The next modified NSIDC map shows where ice has melted during the last week.

The modified NSIDC map below shows where ice is above normal (green) and below normal (red.)

Ice continues to be above normal on the Pacific side where the waters are running very cold, and below normal on the Atlantic side where the waters are running warm.

Current  Sea Surface Temperature Anomaly Plot

http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.html

The Pacific side of the Arctic is where the anomalies (red) have mainly been the last few summers, so things are shaping up for a nice recovery this summer.

Modified September 3, 2008 map from http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20080904_Figure1.png

Within a few weeks, ice in the central Arctic will quit thickening and start to melt. Stay tuned.  The next few weeks will be slow news.

Advertisements

189 thoughts on “WUWT Arctic Sea Ice News #4

  1. ‘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!

  2. 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.

  3. ‘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!!

  4. “Soon they can return home and report on the rapidly melting, highly acidic Arctic”.
    What more proof do you need to conclude that it is an absolute waste of time to undertake a dialogue anout AGW with ideologues!
    Even if they freeze off their butts you can’t change their conviction that AGW and melting Ice caps are a threat!
    The only way to beat them is by publishing articles like this!
    The more people take notice and het informed about the scam, the better our chances get to beat them on a political level!

  5. 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.

  6. If anything, CO2 leads to water being less alkaline. To state the absurd, it would have to be better than beer to become acidic or “more acidic”. And if that were the case, my monthly tavern tab would be much less and I would move to the coast.

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

  8. How is it that this year they’ve not had any battery problems? Have they decided it would be counter productive to measure ice thickness, or maybe they decided they really like the human powered auger method.

  9. “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.

  10. 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?

  11. 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.

  12. I don’t believe they are out there in the arctic. They are in a movie studio somewhere.

  13. Steve, isn’t that area in red in your first map exactly the area where icebreakers from several nations, including the US and Canada, have been busy all winter “keeping the shipping lanes open”? It would also be nice if the summer minimum ice extent was the natural minimum ice extent….
    http://www.yellowairplane.com/North_Pole_Arctic_Cruise_Vacation.html
    A climatically aware travel service is offering summer cruises to the North Pole to allow tourists to see climate change and melting ice-caps for themselves…. via icebreaker.
    … and Robert Gates, responding sort of off-the-cuff to a question, suggested the United States needed more icebreakers…
    http://www.news24.com/SciTech/News/More-icebreakers-for-Arctic-20100503
    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.

  14. Catlin is sponsored by an insurance company which hopes to make millions selling insurance against risks affected by global warming. With a pH between 7.9 and 8.2 the oceans are firmly alkaline and will remain so for millions of years………..
    Taken from Christopher Booker’s column Sunday Telegraph UK 09-10-2010

  15. I would be willing to bet that R. Gates gets down on his knees every night and prays to St. Albert for the miracle of a complete Arctic meltdown. Today being Sunday in some parts of the world, no doubt he’s already tithed at the Church of Globaloney Warming & Doublethink.
    I slept in.

  16. 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; where hauling a sledge twice your body weight is like dragging a car with the handbrake on; 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.
    Imagine the stupidity and futility of performing a 19th Century style Expedition in the 21st Century.
    What’s the point of getting nowhere in the middle of nowhere risking life & limb?
    Answer: Drama.

  17. 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)

  18. nc says:
    May 9, 2010 at 9:48 am
    Yes, many have suspected that this is a PR Stunt of dubious nature.
    Do we have unquestionable proof that they are really where they say they are, or is it a ‘trust us’ thing?

  19. Aside from pressure ridges, open leads of water and large patches of thin ice, negative drift is one of the biggest factors affecting Arctic crossings.
    Charles Lindbergh knew about negative drift, which was why he didn’t cross the Atlantic from Paris to New York.

  20. I just wanted to check – they are wearing the officially prescribed hair shirts – aren’t they?

  21. 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.

  22. What a horrible, disturbing thought! Our R. Gates couldn’t possibly be the same as a certain high ranking defense department personality…. naw.

  23. Imagine. Pulling your car with the handbrake on, just to go nowhere, just to prove you’re stupid.
    So far, that’s the only thing demonstrated with this expedition.

  24. Robert E. Phelan said on May 9, 2010 at 9:53 am

    … and Robert Gates, responding sort of off-the-cuff to a question, suggested the United States needed more icebreakers…
    http://www.news24.com/SciTech/News/More-icebreakers-for-Arctic-20100503
    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.

    What an interesting idea … to what extent does that make it easier for the melt-back to occur and for winds to flush ice out of the Arctic, and which R Gates is that?

  25. 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.

  26. Boycott warmist stunts! Boycott their sponsors… Even ridiculing them gives them the oxygen of publicity… If we ignore them they might just go away…

  27. 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.

  28. “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; where hauling a sledge twice your body weight is like dragging a car with the handbrake on; 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. ”
    The team from Top Gear had a better idea – they went to the Pole in Toyota 4WDs.

  29. 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.

  30. 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?

  31. 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

  32. 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.

  33. Joe Bastardi is forecasting quick cooling in the earth over the next 9 to 12 months and below normal temperatures for Alaska in Nov, and Dec of 2010, and Jan 2011 from La Nina. IMO, this will add to the effect on Arctic Ice of cool Pacific waters. Arctic Ice should continue in a growing trend in the 2010/11 Northern Hemisphere winter.
    Joe Bastardi on video:
    http://www.accuweather.com/video/83060117001/sink-o-de-nino-the-rapid-collapse-of-el-nino.asp?channel=vblog_bastardi
    He also thinks that about 15 months from now temperatures worldwide, in general, will be in negative anomaly.

  34. 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?

  35. 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.

  36. 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.”
    You are not being very scientific yourself, Mr. Gates…..in fact it looks a bit , how shall I put it… it looks like you are dissappointed? World isnt ending, after all?

  37. 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

  38. of the 1979-2006 period. How is that not normal?
    Ian E says:
    May 9, 2010 at 11:47 am
    Could I propose a toast to negative drift?
    Why certainly….CHEERS!

  39. 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.

  40. The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley
    Please make note of my forecast and Bastardi’s, and let’s see who was more accurate come September.

  41. “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…

  42. Dropping. Like. A. Brick. Down. Onto. Anu’s. Head.
    …where hauling a sledge twice your body weight is like dragging a car with the handbrake on…
    You can do that with those tiny micro-cars like you find in Europe? I knew they were lightweight, but come on now! They must be pretty easy to steal, just get some big guys to toss one on the bed of a Ford F150 and go.
    Of course, if you’re really talking about a car with the handbrake on resting on shiny ice, with firm footing you could possibly push it along, with one hand. So what are they whining about?

  43. Re: Smokey on May 9, 2010 at 4:05 pm
    Except I’m still on dial-up so I don’t “do” YouTube…
    But hey, it’s the thought that counts!

  44. Wondering Aloud says:
    May 9, 2010 at 1:02 pm
    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?
    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?

  45. R. Gates says:
    May 9, 2010 at 9:44 am
    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.

    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.
    You can’t really get a much shorter data range.

  46. 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!

  47. Ann, Charlie and Martin find themselves once again suffering from the powerful negative drift that persecuted them at the start of their mission.

    Persecution complex.

  48. 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.

  49. S.G.:
    Mr. Gates clearly does not understand what a standard deviation is, so we should just let him go. It seems like most of the fundamentalists, including the so-called “climate scientists” do not have a basic understanding of statistics. Boy, I would love to play poker with some of these guys!
    OR, he does understand, and is a cynical FAGT (Feeder AT the Government Trough), who feels obligated to try to sow enough disinformation as long as the government cronies, oppressive AGW elitist professors, carbon traders, dangerous squiggly light bulb manufacturers, eco-terrorists, and the bird swatting industry (windmills) temporarily still have some money in the kitty.

  50. 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….

  51. 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.

  52. Janama:- The Top Gear 4 WD trip to the ‘pole’ looked like it was only to 80N, well short, but far enough to pretend. A quick glance at his GPS, and it was very quick, you could see it was only 80N.

  53. 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.

  54. In your first graph the red curve has been above the green curve almost every day this year.
    In the second graph the red curve has been below the black curve most of this year and almost never above it. So, what is your point?
    This graph probably gives the information in the most relevant form:
    http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover_30y.uk.php
    “Since the 1970s the extent of sea ice has been measured from satellites. From these measurements we know that the sea ice extent today is significantly smaller than 30 years ago. During the past 10 years the melting of sea ice has accelerated, and especially during the ice extent minimum in September large changes are observed. The sea ice in the northern hemisphere have never been thinner and more vulnerable. ”
    http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/index.uk.php
    You used to use the graphs from this site:
    http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20100504_Figure2.png
    Why did you switch?
    That the Arctic is warming is a fact. Whether this is a long term trend and whether it is apart of a global trend are questions one could debate. Many GCMs suggest there is a general warming. This is evidence but not proof. Do you have evidence that Arctic changes are purely cyclical? Have studied the ice volume? Do you – or anyone – have data on Arctic sea temperatures?

  55. 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!

  56. barefootgirl,
    Instead of looking at a snapshot of the current situation, let’s look at the historical temperature parameters since the last great Ice Age.
    The natural variability shown far exceeds the current Goldilocks climate, which is not too hot, not too cold, but j-u-u-u-st right.
    The null hypothesis is shown in this chart. Unless you or anyone else can falsify that hypothesis, then the climate is acting normally and naturally within its historical parameters. Mendaciously adding an extraneous entity like CO2 only muddies the waters, and does nothing to advance science; rather, it obfuscates the issue.

  57. 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/

  58. barefootgirl says:
    May 9, 2010 at 7:32 pm
    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.

    What, if not sad, declares ignorance of basic physics is that the air temperatures in the arctic basin are still much below the ice melting point. Have a look at what is displayed also in the sidebar : http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
    Elementary knowledge of physics tells us that the ice cannot be thinning due to air temperatures, and elementary logic tells us that (ignoring volcanoes) ocean currents are melting the ice during this season, ocean circulation, because if there were no water circulation the water underneath the ice would keep the ice/water temperature point and there would be no thinning.
    Therefore SSTs outside the arctic basin have a large role to play .
    The next circulation pattern, winds, also play a role in compacting and in moving ice into warmer waters.
    It is not temperatures at this time of the year that define ice extent.

  59. 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

  60. Of all the -gates I’ve seen on this site from Climategate to now, the most entertaining one I’ve found so far is R. Gates. Truly the gift that keeps on giving.
    Hurrah for R.!

  61. 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.

  62. You are being somewhat selective. Having spent several weeks highlighting that fact that the sea ice was near recent average levels you should really be letting people know all the indices have taken a small nosedive and are heading out of the 1 STD range. I’m not sure the divergence of the indices really is the big news.
    My guess is the weekly sea ice news will be dropped in a few weeks. Sorry.

  63. 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.

  64. “JAXA (green) is nearly half a million km2 lower than NORSEX (red.) DMI (fine dots) and NSIDC (purple) are half way in between. … Unfortunately the NSIDC computer has been naughty and hasn’t updated any of their graphs or maps since Friday.”
    “The Pacific side of the Arctic is where the anomalies (red) have mainly been the last few summers, so things are shaping up for a nice recovery this summer.”
    #
    #
    Steve Goddard says:
    May 9, 2010 at 3:18 pm
    The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley
    Please make note of my forecast and Bastardi’s, and let’s see who was more accurate come September.

    It’s possible to bet on whether JAXA’s September minimum ice extent this year will exceed last years here:
    https://www.intrade.com

  65. Given the recent Winter low temps and snow, it’s a wonder that barefootgirl’s feet aren’t blue with the cold.

  66. 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.

  67. I hope that they will finally learn a lesson for their next mission:
    “Start your new expedition from the opposite side of the Pole from where you started in previous years and let the Beaufort Gyre take you for an easy ride to your destination at 90º.
    But warmers are not famous for learning lessons.

  68. Next time they should start their expeditions from the other side of the pole and let the Beaufort Gyre take them on an easy ride to their beloved 90º.
    But warmers are not known for learning lessons. Stubborn folks… 😉

  69. 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 ?

  70. Tom H 9th of May 7:56:
    The Top Gear team went to the Magnetic North Pole in their Toyotas, not the physical one.

  71. 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.

  72. These folks are back AGAIN? Weren’t these the folks who couldn’t run equipment, keep dry, and avoid injury while accomplishing nothing last time?
    Someone needs to send an airplane over their heads and drop a radar image of ice thickness to them, along with a thermos of hot cocoa and a GPS programed with the route home…

  73. 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???!!

  74. Credit where credit is due. These types of expeditions by drama queens do get MSM attention. The words Arctic, Ice melt and global warming are hence firmly entrenched in the general public minds.
    On a related note, it is not this negative drift these alarmists have to worry about. The real negative drift has been provided by mother nature for the past 12 years.
    As hard as they try to alarm people, mum nature just keeps pushing harder in the opposite direction.
    In the end, there can only ever be one result. Mum nature 1, alarmists 0

  75. 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.

  76. Robert E. Phelan says:
    May 9, 2010 at 9:53 am
    Icebreakers-
    The size of the screw(s) on these beasts is impressive. The pitch is unusual too. Torque is what is needed to break ice. Speed breaks other things.
    The problems come when the breaker meets some resistance from the pack. The prop punches holes through the topmost halocline and disturbs a balance that has been in place for a long time prior to its arrival.
    A Knickerbocker-glory turns ugly when stirred.

  77. 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.

  78. Mike (above) has it right.
    The black line in the chart in the post is the mean 1979-2006. However a look at Mike’s chart will show you that the annual ice extent has been in a declining trend.
    Hence, the 1979-2006 mean value is not of much use. In technical terms, the mean is non-stationary. What you would normally do is de-trend (by differencing the values) the data before tying to fit a model. But to do that you first have to admit there is a trend.
    http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20100504_Figure3.png

  79. 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.

  80. Correction:
    But the one that really blows the candles out on the cake is the global Sea Ice Area:

  81. 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?!?!?!?!?

  82. #
    #
    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.

  83. Mack520:
    The reason they aren’t having battery problems might be that they are just using the sea.
    Well, they say it has become acidic……… .

  84. “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.

  85. They must persevere, they are gaining indulgences from his Lord (Al Baby, the magnificent super bedwetter). He is with them, he will cheat them to the end of their journey, so persevere, persevere…
    Though they, as the green church holy scriptures say, should be on free waters already, enjoying tropical waters on a banana funny boat instead of a sledge.

  86. toby May 10, 2010 at 3:46 am,
    I understand that this is an Arctic ice thread, but if the Antarctic is included, we see that nothing unusual is happening globally.
    And barefootgirl May 10, 2010 at 12:34 am,
    I feel your frustration. It must be agonizing to be in the position of flogging a dead horse hypothesis like CO2=CAGW.
    Your consternation at being unable to falsify the null hypothesis means that the hypothesis stands. And since the CAGW hypothesis has been falsified, not least by the planet itself, then we are left only with the null hypothesis: as Dr Spencer explains it: “No one has falsified the theory that the observed temperature changes are a consequence of natural variability.” Natural variability within the parameters of past climate extremes = the null hypothesis.
    Frantic arm-waving arguments over wiggles in graphs showing only natural variability do not falsify the null hypothesis, even if those wiggles go outside two SD’s [because global is the issue, not one selected hemisphere]. If the average temperature in July is 80°F, summer is not falsified by a year in which the July temperature is 77°F. It is simply natural variability being expressed.
    I understand the need to believe in approaching doom. That need often devolves into cognitive dissonance; like solipsism, it is an inability to rationally view the real world. The counter to that fear is the scientific method. Since you also attacked anna v in your post, here is anna’s summary of the scientific method:

    The scientific method: one posits assumptions, uses mathematics and logic to arrive at predictive/descriptive conclusions, and checks results against reality [empirical evidence]. If the reality says no, then the assumptions are changed and the process is repeated.
    The problem with AGW believers is that they do not follow this scientific method. Reality invalidates their assumptions, but they do not change them, thus turning them into beliefs.

    So we have rational skeptics vs true believers. The planet is the umpire, and the climate alarmists are striking out.

  87. Unfortunately the NSIDC computer has been naughty and hasn’t updated any of their graphs or maps since Friday.
    As clearly stated on their website:
    “A power outage is planned from 5:00 p.m. Friday, May 06 until 8:00 a.m. Monday, May 09 (USA Mountain Time). Please be aware that our Web site and FTP servers may be temporarily or completely unavailable during this time.”

  88. 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.)

  89. The pallid exploits of the Catlin kids sure enlarges the giants of polar exploration of the past couple of centuries. I hope and trust history won’t list them along with Amundsen, Scott, Nansen, Frobisher…

  90. 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.

  91. Sorry not relivant to this post but at Sunday roast this weekend my mum and dad couldn’t stop laughing when i told them that guberments had found a way to tax thin air. They said “Don’t be stupid” and i said “If it was only that easy”.

  92. 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.

  93. 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.

  94. While the Catlin “explorers” are earnestly trying to kill themselves, their leader seems to be enjoying life like never before:
    According to the LA Times [ http://articles.latimes.com/2010/may/08/home/la-hm-hotprop-20100508 ]:
    “Indisputable: Gore buys Montecito villa
    He and Tipper paid $8,875,000 for the home.
    May 08, 2010
    In a move that critics may cite as his own inconvenient truth, former Vice President Al Gore and his wife, Tipper, have added a house in secluded Montecito to their real estate holdings.
    The couple spent $8,875,000 on a gated ocean-view villa on 1 1/2 acres with a swimming pool, spa and fountains, according to real estate sources familiar with the deal. The Italian-style house has high ceilings with beams in the public rooms, a family room, a wine cellar, terraces, six fireplaces, five bedrooms and nine bathrooms in more than 6,500 square feet of living space.”

  95. 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.

  96. Gail Combs said:
    “Or more bluntly there is no mathematically significant change period.”
    ——–
    I disagree completely. To suggest that there has been no significant change in the Arctic over the past 30 years is to put blinders on– perhaps politically and philosophically motivated blinders, which are the worst kind and hardest to get rid of.

  97. 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?

  98. I have a suggestion for a new law;
    “If anyone travels over land to reach one of the poles just for propaganda purposes, it is not allowed to rescue them using any kind of transportation using fossile fuels for their propulsion”.
    Reason;
    We dont want to increase these persons carbon footprints just for marketing purposes for the nuclear industry.

  99. 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 ?”

  100. I just checked the official Catlin site for the first time this year and noticed some major differences from 2009. The research section focuses predominantly on ocean acidification with less discussion of sea ice loss. Furthermore, there is no link to the data archives.
    Last year the expedition’s stated goal was to measure Arctic ice thickness and establish a baseline for future measurements. However, beyond speculative commentary in the press, we never got to see any of the data. Moreover, this year they changed their route, so any baseline measurements from 2009 would be meaningless.
    Have they abandoned the quest to proove the Arctic is melting? Is ocean ‘acidification’ the new, trendy ecological threat to the Arctic?

  101. Mike A. says:
    May 10, 2010 at 8:02 am

    The Italian-style house has high ceilings with beams in the public rooms, a family room, a wine cellar, terraces, six fireplaces, five bedrooms and nine bathrooms in more than 6,500 square feet of living space.

    I’m sure there are fluorescent bulbs in the chandeliers, though.

  102. Gary Pearse says:
    May 10, 2010 at 6:03 am
    “The pallid exploits of the Catlin kids sure enlarges the giants of polar exploration of the past couple of centuries. I hope and trust history won’t list them along with Amundsen, Scott, Nansen, Frobisher…”
    The only way the Catlin Survey will be remembered one or two years after their final expedition is if they die. Their only other hope for going down in the history books is as an object of ridicule. It sure won’t be for their “science.”
    (C’mon. Admit it! Their exploits are a hoot to follow. Lot’s of purple prose reporting of their exploits, eh?)

  103. 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….

  104. “”” anna v says:
    May 9, 2010 at 9:30 pm
    barefootgirl says:
    May 9, 2010 at 7:32 pm
    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.
    What, if not sad, declares ignorance of basic physics is that the air temperatures in the arctic basin are still much below the ice melting point. Have a look at what is displayed also in the sidebar : http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
    Elementary knowledge of physics tells us that the ice cannot be thinning due to air temperatures, and elementary logic tells us that (ignoring volcanoes) ocean currents are melting the ice during this season, ocean circulation, because if there were no water circulation the water underneath the ice would keep the ice/water temperature point and there would be no thinning.
    Therefore SSTs outside the arctic basin have a large role to play . “””
    Come now Anna, you’re not going to drag real science into this are you ? Hey if they can melt the snows of Kilimanjaro at sub zero temperatures; surely having sub zero air temperatures is just a minor inconvenience when it comes to melting the floating Arctic ice.
    I have a “please try this at home” experiment for barefootgirl to try; should be very illuminating.
    You need a thermometer, that can read temperatures around zero deg C, and you need a stop watch. Then you have to find yourself a “laboratory” that meets the following conditions:-
    You have to find a lake, that has floating ice on it that is pretty stable, neither melting nor freezing; and out of the wind so there is no chill factor. The experiment has two sections; which should be performed at night so there are no extraneous energy sources present.
    Section one; check the air temperature near the lake shoreline to see that it is at zero deg C and no measurable wind. Strip off all of your clothes, and start the stop watch, while you stand on the shore of the lake. Time how long it takes you to freeze to death; or alternatively get to the point where you decide to quit. Stop the stop watch and record the total elapsed time.
    Section two calls for you to repeat Section one exactly; except for one slight detail; before you start the stopwatch to time the experiment; why don’t you go and jump in the lake !
    Don’t forget to record the elapsed time for the second experiment.

  105. 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.

  106. “What, if not sad, declares ignorance of basic physics is that the air temperatures in the arctic basin are still much below the ice melting point. Have a look at what is displayed also in the sidebar : http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
    That is a result of a computer model, for average temperature north of 80 degrees lat., you realize?

  107. 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. “

  108. 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

  109. 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)

  110. George writes that air temperatures cannot cause the ice to thin? Really? So when temperatures go above freezing and the ice starts to melt, that doesn’t thin the ice? Hmmm…and when melt ponds form on the ice surface and absorb more solar radiation than the surrounding (white) bare ice, they don’t further the melting of ice?
    Like I said there are MANY factors that determine the thinning of the ice cover.
    But let’s summarize a few things for you:
    1) air temperatures show warming in all months/seasons in the Arctic. Your own Steve Goddard even showed a post recently of UAH temperature trends and they were all positive (in case you don’t want to believe what science papers are saying, or surface obs, or reanalysis data sets, etc.).
    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.
    3) buoy observations and ocean temperatures have shown increases in pulses of warm water into the Arctic.
    4) circulation patterns have shown predominance of a Beaufort Sea High in recent summers, combined with a low over Siberia which helps to advect ice away from the coasts towards the pole, further warming the SSTs and enhancing lateral and bottom melt.
    5) 1990s saw a loss of much old ice from the positive winter AO state, helping to lead to thinner spring ice conditions in the 2000s. Thinner ice is important as it allows for open water areas to develop earlier in the melt season, enhancing the positive ice-albedo feedback. Thinner ice is also more vulnerable to the winds, so in 2007 when you had the Arctic dipole pattern set up, a lot of ice was lost, whereas when it happened in the 1970s you didn’t see such a large ice loss. During a thicker ice regime, you can have an anomalously warm summer and see a large loss of ice volume, but it won’t translate into a large change in extent because the ice is thick enough to survive. In a thin ice regime, the same anomalous summer will result in large changes in extent.
    George, I’m sorry but the experiment you suggest is not relevant to the situation occurring in the Arctic…

  111. barefootgirl May 10, 2010 at 11:09 am,
    I was simply responding to your not too friendly comment to anna v and me @12:34 am. I understand that you don’t like the fact that natural variability explains the climate better than AGW, but that’s where the evidence leads. The current climate is well within its long term parameters, and Arctic ice cover has always fluctuated cyclically, as shown here.
    The entire AGW hypothesis has morphed into the CO2=Catastrophic AGW hypothesis conjecture. What do you think all the claptrap about “carbon” is about?
    If you will admit that there is no testable, measurable evidence that a tiny trace gas drives the climate, and that the whole “carbon” bugaboo is in reality a scheme to tax the air, then we’re on the same page.
    Otherwise, CO2 is part and parcel of every global warming discussion, whether it is specifically mentioned or not, and any attempt to avoid that fact is just another attempt to move the goal posts.

  112. Keep trying Smokey to distract with your assumptions about my beliefs in or not in global warming. I’m talking about the current state of the Arctic sea ice and nothing else. Politicians use your tactic all the time. Perhaps you should think about running for office?? All it does is make me think you are trying to deflect because you realize you can’t argue against the fact that the state of the Arctic ice cover doesn’t look good for ice recovery this summer I (which is something many seem to want to believe even though the observations don’t support that).

  113. 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.

  114. “…once again suffering from the powerful negative drift that persecuted them at the start of their mission.” Suffering … and persecution, Oh My! Sounds like Anthropomorphic Global Persecution Complex to me!
    I just love how they perceive the every day changing forces of nature as something personally directed against them! They cannot acknowledge the poorly understood natural forces or their natural cycles that interact with little known complexities and pendulum about on time scales barely glimmered. But be of good cheer, fellow Realists! The hot air is rapidly leaking from the CO2 balloon, pricked again and again by the forthright ministrations of truth seekers like Mssrs. Watts, Pielke, and McIntyre, to name a few.
    Like the veterinarian said about the cat’s hairballs, “This too shall pass pass!” But not before many a barefoot girl and boy has stepped in it, again, and again, and again,….
    Fortunately for all, simply wiping your feet on the doormat will suffice to reduce those nasty carbon footprints!

  115. 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???

  116. barefootgirl says:
    May 10, 2010 at 11:21 am
    George writes that air temperatures cannot cause the ice to thin? Really? So when temperatures go above freezing and the ice starts to melt, that doesn’t thin the ice? Hmmm…and when melt ponds form on the ice surface and absorb more solar radiation than the surrounding (white) bare ice, they don’t further the melting of ice?

    Nansen found that when air temperatures rose above zero and melt ponds formed, the overall thickness of ice actually increased, at least until early July. This was becuase the fresh water trickled down through the ice, but then floated above the salt water, which as it was typically -1 or -2C, re-froze the fresh water, such that the overall thickness of ice increased. For more details, see Chapter 7, section 458 in volume 1 below. What Nansen achieved in 1880 is staggering, and puts our 21st century Catlin jokers to shame.
    ONLINE BOOKS – ARCHIVE ARCTIC EXPEDITIONS, Nansen, Peary:
    Polar exploaration Climate history: Farthest North / Farthest Nord
    Being the Record of a Voyage of Exploration of the Ship ‘Fram’ 1893-1896
    Author: Fridtjof Nansen
    http://www.gutenberg.org/files/30197/30197-h/30197-h.htm (volume 1)
    http://www.archive.org/details/farthestnorthbei02nansuoft (volume 2)

  117. 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.

  118. “”” 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.

  119. 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.

  120. “”” 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 !
    Seems like we just recently had this big discussion right here at WUWT about the Arctic ice extent continuing to climb for several weeks after the normal start of melting so that it actually exceeded the standard “normal” maximum ice extent; it’s just down the archives a short distance.
    Then just go back to the sept 2008 JAXA ice extent, and explain why the start of refreezing happened about two weeks earlier than what is normal.
    So in both cases the recent behavior has been exactly opposite of what you stated here.

  121. “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…?

  122. RE: Amino Acids in Meteorites says: May 9, 2010 at 12:57 pm
    El Nino gave us a small stay of execution. The big slide down the great razor blade shall shortly resume.

  123. “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”?

  124. “”” 3) buoy observations and ocean temperatures have shown increases in pulses of warm water into the Arctic. “”
    Another exciting factoid supplied by barefootgirl; well at least I did cut and paste it from a post under his/er shingle.
    So this amazing observation is relevent to the atmosphere melting the ice ?
    Then there is this jewel “”” Thinner ice is also more vulnerable to the winds, so in 2007 when you had the Arctic dipole pattern set up, a lot of ice was lost, whereas when it happened in the 1970s you didn’t see such a large ice loss. “””
    so the first polar orbit satellite was launched in 1979; which is why we have no believable global ice records prior to that time.
    So just what was it that you observed in the 1970s; or was the year 1979 good enough for you to represent that decade.
    I bet I’m at least twice your age barefootgirl; and you’ll have to skate a darn side quicker than that to keep up with me !

  125. barefootgirl says:
    May 10, 2010 at 11:59 am
    Keep trying Smokey to distract with your assumptions about my beliefs in or not in global warming. I’m talking about the current state of the Arctic sea ice and nothing else. Politicians use your tactic all the time. Perhaps you should think about running for office?? All it does is make me think you are trying to deflect because you realize you can’t argue against the fact that the state of the Arctic ice cover doesn’t look good for ice recovery this summer I (which is something many seem to want to believe even though the observations don’t support that).
    —…—…
    What “observations” don’t support a prediction that the 2007-2008, 2008-2009, 2009-2010 ice levels will NOT continue to increase? In April-May 2009, ice extents were at their highest level onthe chart. In March-April 2010, ice levels against exceeded all recent levels.
    What’s not to indicate that we are headed to the next (long overdue!) Ice Age due to increased reflection of ice from the Arctic, all the while that Antarctic ice is also increasing?

  126. jakers says:
    May 10, 2010 at 2:02 pm
    so you will have to put in an exception in your browser

    No. When the DOD comes up I draw the line. You are on your own.
    It is a public web site – why would you say “snooping”?
    The US military is not in this world to support/argue Climate Change.
    One thing leads to another, and I will not be party to nor encourage anyone who does so.

  127. The Navy site cert error isn’t about warning off hackers from attacking the US Navy’s computer resources. It’s your browser warning YOU that the site might be trying to attack YOU or fool you into trusting that site when you shouldn’t.

  128. 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.

  129. Why do these people do this? It only proves they are like lemmings. Maybe it is Darwin attempting to weed out the gene pool.

  130. 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.

  131. Stirling English says:
    May 9, 2010 at 9:13 am
    ‘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!

    Actually in the Arctic with the water temperature below 0ºC ‘we technical chemistry people’ call water with pH below 7.5 alkaline!

  132. 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.

  133. Phil. says:
    May 11, 2010 at 8:01 am
    George E. Smith says:
    May 10, 2010 at 2:04 pm
    so the first polar orbit satellite was launched in 1979; which is why we have no believable global ice records prior to that time.
    Actually, George, Tiros-1 was launched in 1960! University of Bremen uses data back to 1972.
    http://iup.physik.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsr/ice_ext_n.png

    Thanks for the graph, hadn’t seen that one before.
    Have you seen the Arctic ice data that goes back to 1870 ?
    Obviously not all satellite data, but still interesting to look at…
    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/SEAICE/
    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/SEAICE/timeseries.1870-2008

  134. Typo alert: should be ‘above’ not ‘below’.
    Actually in the Arctic with the water temperature below 0ºC ‘we technical chemistry people’ call water with pH below above 7.5 alkaline!

  135. 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 !

    Try this graph for the last two years.
    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.recent.arctic.png

  136. 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.

  137. “”” Phil. says:
    May 11, 2010 at 10:35 am
    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 !
    Try this graph for the last two years.
    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.recent.arctic.png “””
    So everybody’s got their own set of favorite graphs. My comments derived from just clicking on Anthony’s JAXA ice extent graphs; the same ones I’ve been looking at for the last 3-4 years. So treating the info those graphs give, as the baseline average set; then my coments correctly described the “anomalies”. See I finally found a use for that word.
    You can use anomalies form your favorite baseline period data, and I’ll use the oines I have easy access too.
    Well until somebody gives me convincing proof that neither one of them is dependable. Somehow I don’t think JAXA ever got down to 3 in 2007; seems it was more like 4.5 .

  138. 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.

  139. So I stand corrected, Tiros-1 was evidently the first polar orbiting weather satellite. since April 1 1960
    So where can we find the Tiros -1 Ice extent data going back to April 1960, so we can see what it was like back then. So how come everybody has a baseline of 1979-2000.
    Where is all that polar observation ice data since 1960; there must be 19 years of it missing somewhere.

  140. 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.

  141. George E. Smith says:
    May 10, 2010 at 2:04 pm
    George you are so way off base about most things you wrote, it’s laughable to me. And I’m not going to bother to educate you any longer as you are not worth it. Do yourself a favor and educate yourself about Arctic science. READ the hundreds of journal articles about the sea ice instead of trying to rely on application of your education background to a subject you obviously know nothing about. Better yet, analyze the data yourself. Download all of NSIDC SMMR, SSM/I AMSR brightness temperatures, run whatever sea ice algorithm you feel is best (or even better, run them all and then make comparisons with observations, visible imagery, etc. to determine the most accurate algorithm), then also apply melt onset and freeze-up algorithm to the TB time-series, download all the submarine sonar data, the GLAS laser altimeter measurements, the radar data, the ocean buoy data, the atmospheric data and start to do your own analysis. You seem to think you know more than the scientists who daily analyze all this data, develop the algorithms to convert raw satellite data to geophysical parameters, etc. etc etc. I know that you do not as you have made that clear with your posts here on this blog.
    But go ahead and give it a try. Make your retirement something worthwhile. Have something to back up your continuously irrelevant statements with.

  142. 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.

  143. Hockeystickler says:
    May 10, 2010 at 7:02 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.

  144. 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!

  145. I’m still amazed that people are taking the sea ice extent seriously in the spring…it doesn’t mean much. We are in “bottleneck season” right now. It doesn’t matter much if the ice was big in April as all years tend to constrict in late May and June. 2004 and 2006 are the two lowest years at the end of May on the Jaxa record easily…guess what, they were the two of the 3 highest extent minimums on the Jaxa record too only behind 2003.
    The extent in April was due mostly to the cold Pacific conditions and the wind patterns that extended cold into the Bearing Sea and Sea of Okhotsk. The warmer Atlantic side was offsetting it a bit, so we were near the 1979-2000 mean. The ridiculous -AO this winter will be felt this summer as it held in more multi-year ice than previous years. Whether you want to claim that its “fragmented” or whatever is moot…because its still slower to melt than very thin ice…I’ve heard the “rotten” and “fragmented” multiyear ice argument a couple times already and that is pretty much pure bunk. The ice might melt more than last year’s minimum, but it won’t be because of temperatures or “fragmented ice”…it will be almost purely because of some amazing anomalous wind patterns….because that is what it will take to melt this off beyond 2009.

  146. RACookPE1978 says:
    May 10, 2010 at 2:21 pm
    “What “observations” don’t support a prediction that the 2007-2008, 2008-2009, 2009-2010 ice levels will NOT continue to increase? In April-May 2009, ice extents were at their highest level onthe chart. In March-April 2010, ice levels against exceeded all recent levels.”
    Mine don`t. We are generally in a positive AO phase. These winters are exceptions, contrary to the current phase, this is not unusual; http://jisao.washington.edu/ao/
    Expect a few warmer winters from now. From 2014 to at least 2020, there will be a number of cold N.H. winters where ice levels will be higher.
    “What’s not to indicate that we are headed to the next (long overdue!) Ice Age due to increased reflection of ice from the Arctic, all the while that Antarctic ice is also increasing?”
    The next Ice Age is roughly 85,000yrs ahead, the next Henrich event is 4627yrs after the LIA, and study of the c.1150yr cycle in world temps show that we are due for a return not of MWP conditions, but possibly Holocene Optimum conditions of c.4,300yrs ago, during the next few hundred years. Hooray.

  147. Ulric Lyons: study of the c.1150yr cycle in world temps show that we are due for a return not of MWP conditions, but possibly Holocene Optimum conditions of c.4,300yrs ago, during the next few hundred years. Hooray.
    Hooray indeed, that’s good news, although the AGWists think otherwise. But do you have any references for these claims?

  148. 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.

  149. The Arctic continues to trend towards less and less sea ice every summer – of course each year has weather, but it’s the warming Arctic that is driving the trends:
    Less sea ice extent:
    http://iup.physik.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsr/ice_ext_n.png
    http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png
    http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm
    http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20091005_Figure2.png
    Less sea ice area:
    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.recent.arctic.png
    Increasing temperatures:
    http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
    Summer minimum extents getting smaller and smaller:
    http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20091005_Figure3.png
    And I’d like to see the ice volume measurements/model-estimates updated:
    http://psc.apl.washington.edu/ArcticSeaiceVolume/images/BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrent.png
    I don’t really care how the weather will increase/decrease the summer melt this year (the transition from the Ice Age to the Holocene had weather every summer, too) – the Arctic is marching towards less summer ice every year. If the minimum is less than in 2009, the ‘Alarmists’ will win a minor PR victory, and casual observers might notice; if less than in 2007, the Media will probably trumpet this and even more casual observers will be reminded again of global warming. If the minimum is greater than in 2009, the ‘Calmers’ will win a minor PR victory, claiming that the Arctic ice continues to recover. Either way, nothing will be decided in a year.
    But it will be funny to watch the reaction here if it’s less than in 2007.

  150. 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.

  151. “”” barefootgirl says:
    May 11, 2010 at 5:34 pm
    George E. Smith says:
    May 10, 2010 at 2:04 pm
    George you are so way off base about most things you wrote, it’s laughable to me. And I’m not going to bother to educate you any longer as you are not worth it. Do yourself a favor and educate yourself about Arctic science. READ the hundreds of journal articles about the sea ice instead of trying to rely on application of your education background to a subject you obviously know nothing about. Better yet, analyze the data yourself. Download all of NSIDC SMMR, SSM/I AMSR brightness temperatures, run whatever sea ice algorithm you feel is best (or even better, run them all and then make comparisons with observations, visible imagery, etc. to determine the most accurate algorithm), then also apply melt onset and freeze-up algorithm to the TB time-series, download all the submarine sonar data, the GLAS laser altimeter measurements, the radar data, the ocean buoy data, the atmospheric data and start to do your own analysis. You seem to think you know more than the scientists who daily analyze all this data, develop the algorithms to convert raw satellite data to geophysical parameters, etc. etc etc. I know that you do not as you have made that clear with your posts here on this blog.
    But go ahead and give it a try. Make your retirement something worthwhile. Have something to back up your continuously irrelevant statements with. “””
    Well barefootgirl you have never caught me claiming to know anything about arctic science; let alone know more than the scientists who work in that field; because I have never made any such claims; or anything that could be construed as making any such claims.
    I’ve simply made some simple comments that anyone could make, who simply clicks on the JAXA and DMI icons on the side of this page and looks at what is at least purported to be real scientific data, obtained by real working scientists, and presumably knowledgeable about Arctic science. If I have somehow read those graphs incorrectly, then yes there’s a problem. Of course they do have a habit of sometimes changing those graphs, so it is hard to keep up with.
    But actually; I’m not too interested in Arctic science; it doesn’t seem to me to be an environment that humans are likely to want to live in; there are plenty of much more liveable places. But I don’t mind if other folks want to go there for whatever reason that motivates them.
    I’m happy to learn that there is data that goes back to 1972 or even to April 1960 or hundreds of years ago. But it does seem funny to me, that then scientists would cherry pick the period from 1979 to 2000 to establish a “normal” Arctic condition; and then talk in horrified terms whenever anything changes from that arbitrarily selected “normal” climate condition.
    The various discussions that appear here generally arise from the publication by the various media that communicate with the public of stories, warnings, predictions; excuse me, that’s projections, of future dire events that are communicated to those media from Scientists, such as that whole list of expertises that you cite.
    The public has no way to know whether such reports are accurate, or exaggerated; or flat out untrue; so they are at the mercy of those scientists who communicated that “information” to the media. If it isn’t true; the onus is on those scientist who brought it up to correct it; if it is exaggerated they owe it to the public to present the truth about it. Either that or they should simply not intrude their “scientific” results, in to the public political process.
    Oh I forgot; you all need to get the public; taxpayers if you will, to continue to fund your studies; so you have to either inspire them or scare them, into going along with your support.
    Just like Jacque Cousteau used to routinely kill fish to feed to sharks to get them into a feeding frenzy, that he could film; so he could then tap Americans for funding for his global scuba diving treks. He even once described Sport Fishermen as the lowest form of life like the snakes that crawl on their bellies; who catch fish for the fun of it (he was doing it for science of course). Well he sure learned in a hurry, that a good percentage of the funding of his world travels was actually provided by those very same sports fiehermen he despised; including a lot of good people who put as much effort as he had into observing the world’s oceans and their resources; and caring for those.
    So barefoot girl, I am not the one who is publishing graphs of “ice coverage” that is really 85% of open water, and only 15% of actual ice; those graphs are published by qualified expert (presumably) arctic scientists who know what they are talking about.
    Now I can sure see why a shipping company, could be very interested in knowing that 15% of the water they were trying to navigate through was hazarded by floating sea ice chunks; but why such a threshold would be of interest to Arctic scientists or Climatologers; I certainly don’t get; but then as I said; it is not a subject I’m greatly interested in; and the only reason I pay any attention at all, is because of the very dire predictions ( well projections) that are made almost daily; by the very scientists you are describing.
    Now where in all of the rubbish that I posted did you find that little snippet about my retirement ? It may come as a surprise to you to learn that there are actually people working at real profit making jobs; who pay taxes that go to support all of that research that you and a whole host of other incognito “expert scientists” do. And more and more of us are wondering just what we are really getting for our investment in people who are even ashamed to use their own name to back up their claims.
    So get off your high horse barefootgirl; if you don’t want to be a part of the solution; at least stop being a part of the problem.

  152. Espen says:
    May 12, 2010 at 8:13 am
    Going by the inverse essentially of a Heinrich event , 4627yrs astronomically,
    starting at around -2650, you will see maximum 12;
    http://www.geo.arizona.edu/palynology/geos462/holobib.html
    Counting forwards in 1157yr steps maps out the warmer periods through the MWP to the present. Every 4th event cluster is warmer, the opposite of a Heinrich event.
    Joe D`Aleo gave a presentation at Piers`s Climate Fools Day conference and discussed the c. 1150yr cycle, I`m sure many others are well aware of it too.
    So you have a roughly 400yr span for either colder or warmer events within each 1157yr sub-cycle, and stronger at every 4th time, every 4627yrs. On the long term negative side, I would say that every 3rd Heinrich event is stronger. Such that 3 H periods back from the LIA, was the Older Dryas, so the return of the Younger Dryas is yet to come. Currently though, many decades centered 179yr would be particularly warm, and the equivalent of the warmest of the Bronze Age, not allowing for the slow march down into the distant next Ice Age.

  153. Ulric Lyons says:
    May 12, 2010 at 11:57 am
    Also these sequences are sawtooth in shape like the larger Ice Age sequence, with the warmest periods appearing soon after the coldest episodes, which suggest to me that Milankovich was not right, and that the forcing is solar variation at all timescales, except for the influences of continental drift and the raising of mountain ranges.

  154. 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.

  155. George E. Smith says:
    May 11, 2010 at 2:56 pm
    So I stand corrected, Tiros-1 was evidently the first polar orbiting weather satellite. since April 1 1960
    So where can we find the Tiros -1 Ice extent data going back to April 1960, so we can see what it was like back then. So how come everybody has a baseline of 1979-2000.
    Where is all that polar observation ice data since 1960; there must be 19 years of it missing somewhere.

    A couple of months ago there was a post here linking to a statement from NSIDC (I think) that they’d got ahold of the data from a military satellite from before 1979 and they were going to try to reconstruct coverage / extent curves from them.

  156. 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.

  157. George E. Smith says:
    May 12, 2010 at 5:35 pm
    “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.”
    1979 was the coldest spring/year since 1963 of course, start from there and you create an impression of a much steeper warming slope, simple.

  158. Ulric Lyons says:
    May 12, 2010 at 6:40 pm
    George E. Smith says:
    May 12, 2010 at 5:35 pm
    “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.”
    1979 was the coldest spring/year since 1963 of course, start from there and you create an impression of a much steeper warming slope, simple.

    If that were the case then surely they would have picked 1985!
    http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/

  159. 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.

  160. 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 …

  161. Phil. says:
    May 13, 2010 at 8:29 am
    1979 was the coldest spring/year since 1963 of course, start from there and you create an impression of a much steeper warming slope, simple.
    If that were the case then surely they would have picked 1985!
    ================================================
    Sorry I should have said after 1963.
    But then there would be a deluge of complaints that the period from 1986 was too short to evaluate climatic change.

  162. Richard Sharpe says:
    May 13, 2010 at 7:10 pm
    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 …”
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Well, if a glacial period is some 100kyr, and we are 11/12,000yrs down the slope, you work out the difference. Do bear in mind that each glacial period could be between 97 to 105 kyr long. Maybe I should have said “the worst of the next Ice Age is roughly 85,000yrs ahead, does that help? I was just pointing out that the next glacial period is not just round the corner yes? I mean just look at the comment I was replying to:
    ““What’s not to indicate that we are headed to the next (long overdue!) Ice Age due to increased reflection of ice from the Arctic, all the while that Antarctic ice is also increasing?” Its eyewash.

Comments are closed.