By Steve Goddard
“In everyone’s life, there is a summer of ’42 + 65”
By now, we have all been bludgeoned senseless with talk of how Arctic Ice dramatically declined in 2007 – “much faster than the models.” We were told by the experts that this rapid decline would lead to an ice-free Arctic in 2008, 2013, 2030, etc. – not to mention 1969 and 1922. I don’t buy it. The idea of an ice-free Arctic seems implausible to me without a dramatic change in climate.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.arctic.png
Let’s start by looking at what really happened in 2007. The graph below (calculated from PIPS maps) shows the average ice thickness in the Arctic Basin for 2006 – 2008. Note that the average thickness of the ice in 2007 was fairly constant through the spring and summer. In fact, 2007 had the largest average summer thickness. This is solid evidence that the low extent in 2007 was primarily due to horizontal melt and compaction of the ice, rather than vertical thinning.
Given that there was no change in average thickness, in order for the ice to disappear it would have to melt horizontally. As you can see in the graph below, the volume loss came to a hard stop in early September. The sun is too low by September for significant melt to proceed. There just isn’t enough time in the Arctic summer for all the ice to melt.
2006 was highest in the DMI record and had 30% greater summer extent than 2007 – but the 2007 late summer ice was almost 20% thicker. 2007 was never in any danger of a complete meltdown.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php
The video below shows the thickening of the ice in 2007 as it compressed horizontally from the wind.
The next problem with an “ice-free Arctic” is that summer temperatures north of 80N have not changed over the last 50 years. You can see that in the DMI graphs. If anything, recent years have had colder summers near the pole. High Arctic warming has occurred in other seasons, but not during the summer. The melt season is very short at the pole, and some summers have no melt.
GISS doesn’t have much data north of 75N, but the few data points they do have show little or no summer warming.
In 2008, the North Pole started with first year ice. Mark Serreze bet that this would lead to an ice-free pole. It didn’t happen, in spite of relatively warm temperatures at the pole.
In summary:
- An ice free pole could not occur without dramatic summer warming.
- There has been almost no summer warming in the high Arctic over the last 70 years.
- The melt season is too short to have an ice free Arctic. Roger Pielke Sr. did a study which shows that the length of the melt season has not changed significantly.
- 2008 started with first year ice at the pole. It was a warm summer at the pole, and the ice did not disappear. There will never be a summer which starts with younger ice than 2008.
- Linear projections of an ice-free pole are incorrect. It is much more likely that the slope will tail off asymptotically.
- I propose that 2008 ice volume was close to the theoretical minimum, until Arctic summer temperatures increase dramatically.
- Dress appropriately the high Arctic. It is too cold for a bikini.
(Everyone agrees that PIPS2 is the best available data source of historical ice thickness. Please don’t start another conversation about that topic.)
Martin Brumby says:
June 10, 2010 at 1:02 pm
Is it really supposed to justify spending Trillions of dollars on “renewable energy” (which incidentally doesn’t work) just because some ice melts?
Well, I recently installed some solar panels. Against current energy prices this was an investment that will pay off in about 20 years or so. Prices of PV panels have plummeted over the past 2 years and they continue to do so. Oh, the blessings of mass production.
Expect PV electricity to become cheaper for consumers than grid electricity in the next year. Businesses usually have lower rates, so it will take a bit longer for them to reach grid parity.
Keep your mind open to the possibility that we might actually save money by switching to renewables. Three things in life are certain: death, taxes and technological progress.
And to the possibility that we might not, as in Spain. We might not even reduce CO2 emissions:
Here again, this time in a csv form that can be transferred to a spreadsheet and graphed instantly, are the PIPS max/min volume numbers published in Posey,
http://www.nrl.navy.mil/content_images/09_Ocean_Posey.pdf
Again, I’ll invite Steve to publish his own data for comparison with the PIPS model output. It should just take seconds.
date, julian,volume
May2000 ,14745,.9
Sep2000,14868,.59
May2001,15110,.93
Sep2001,15233,.69
May2002,15475,.99
Sep2002.15598,.75
Apr2003,15810,.95
Sep2003,15963,.58
May2004,16206,.91
Sep2004 ,16329,.58
Apr2005 ,16541,.93
Sep2005 ,16694,.62
May2006,16936,.85
Sep2006 ,17059,.52
May2007,17301,.86
Sep2007 ,17424,.49
Mar2008,17606,.67
Sep2008 ,17790,.38
R. Gates says:
June 10, 2010 at 11:21 am
stevengoddard says:
June 10, 2010 at 10:53 am
Julienne
———————-
Interesting, I had just calculated what the September minimum may be, using June 10 as a starting date and assuming that the remaining melt period (taken as 95 days) would follow 2009. Over that period in 2009 the ice loss, starting at 10.98 million sq kilometres was 60,276 msk per day average, leading to a low of 5.25 msk, a loss of 5.73 msk. Based on my assumption, if I add the 2009 melt to 2010 as of June 10, the result is 4.68 msk. Eerily close to the PIOMAS prediction of 4.7 msk.
“(3) And, anyway, what is the inconvenient of less polar ice? of ice-free Arctic?
”
“Ah, the safety catch. If my argumentation fails, then I can always say that it didn’t matter anyway.”
This is not a reply to my question. What IS the inconvenience of an ice-free arctic
ocran?
Jean Meeus wrote,
“What IS the inconvenience of an ice-free arctic ocran?”
That’s an important topic of research these days, because just about all of the actual Arctic scientists think we’re headed there. Changing such a large white, heat-reflecting surface into a dark, heat-absorbing one will alter thermal properties of the planet. One obvious effect is that Arctic sea ice provides thermal protection to the Greenland Ice Sheet, where mass loss, already accelerating, can be expected to speed further. That will impact coastal cities worldwide and probably ocean circulation such as the Gulf Stream. Similarly, a less icy ocean will accelerate permafrost thawing on land, and clathrate release undersea, both irreversible (on civilization time scales) positive feedbacks to further greenhouse warming.
Expect mid-latitude shifts in temperature and precipitation to follow, with effects on agriculture and infrastructure. For example (hat tip to Gareth at Hot Topic, http://hot-topic.co.nz/dont-watch-that-watch-this/#more-5091 ), Jim Overland at the IPY conference in Oslo this week notes the connection between Arctic warming and more severe winters in the Eastern U.S. For more about Overland’s research, see
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/future/impacts.html
“Teleconnections impact mid-latitudes
Higher pressure surfaces above the North Pole, due to the warmer temperatures associated with greatly reduced sea ice, are thought to impact large scale wind patterns over the Northern Hemisphere. Climate models show these connections with cold air moving south, producing low pressure areas and unusually cold winters in the eastern U.S. and eastern Asia, and cooler than usual weather in late winter from Europe to the Far East1,2,3,4 (Figure 1, below). This would be only one factor among many influencing U.S. and Eurasian weather. How do we think we know this?”
And while I’m citing Gareth ( http://hot-topic.co.nz/dont-watch-that-watch-this/#more-5091 ) on the Oslo conference, also relevant to this thread is his description of a talk by David Barber,
“Most interesting of all is his description of the state of the sea ice last autumn, as the icebreaker Amundsen went in search of multi-year ice in the Beaufort Sea. He gives a graphic description (involving pyjamas) of the ice breaker discovering that what the Canadian Ice Service maps were suggesting was thick multi-year ice was nothing of the sort — the Amundsen was making a comfortable 13 knots through it, not far short of its top speed of 13.7 knots. ”
A paper by Barber et al., in Geophysical Research Letters last year, was titled
“Perennial pack ice in the southern Beaufort Sea was not as it appeared in the summer of 2009”
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL041434.shtml
@ur momisugly R. Gates – June 10, 2010 at 7:16 am …
That’s what I like … predictions that are verifiable within the average man’s life expectancy … not only in economics and stocks, but also in the so called science of climatology …
The reason why I had so much fun poking to do at, among others, the Himalaya Gletsjers and 2035 … untill it was “a typo”, and became 2350 … and will become 20350 in 2350 … that is no fun at all for me, since, everything staying normal with medicine and gen therapeutics, I will not be around then …
I do think we’ll see at least one new record low before 2015, and it could be a dramatic one
and of course, the d word, “dramatic”, is compulsary … 🙂
I can’t wait to get on a cruise to the North Pole … probably only a few years later … pondering that I was partly responsible, albeit on a small scale, for driving my car to work instead of going there by train …
“Keep your mind open to the possibility that we might actually save money by switching to renewables. ”
Let me guess? Ministry of silly walks. I knew it!
Roger Knights says:
June 11, 2010 at 1:29 pm
The page you pointed to was based on two reports, one of which was: http://www.clepair.net/windefficiency.html. A tale-telling quote from that report: “Does an efficiency loss of this magnitude actually occur? We were unable to find data on this effect.” The whole article is full of ‘we don’t know’ and ‘we assume’ and ‘we have no data’. And they are guessing there way to their conclusion.
Modern combined cycle gas turbines (the units that power companies usually employ as load followers) have excellent partial load efficiency. When it runs at 50% capacity, CO2 emissions are 46% less than at full capacity. See here for example: http://www.power-technology.com/projects/isleofgrain/isleofgrain8.html. With google you can find many more sources that confirm this.
Jean Meeus says:
June 11, 2010 at 11:27 pm
This is not a reply to my question. What IS the inconvenience of an ice-free arctic
ocran?
Ever heard of ice albedo feedback? Polar bears anyone?
In the interest of ‘a picture says more than a thousand words’, let me suggest to take a look at the real time energy generation in Spain. There you can see how they deal with the variability of wind by adjusting CCGT and especially hydro. There is an accompanying page showing only the real time wind power.
I think the variability of wind power is overblown. If you look to a single turbine, that might be justified. But you can not simply multiply that by the 1000’s of turbines in a country. Spread out over a larger area, much of the fluctuations cancel each other out and what remains is a large scale variability that looks much like the daily fluctuation in demand, something the energy companies have dealt with as long as they exist.
Anne …
I wish you a lot of luck with “deal(ing) with the variability of wind by adjusting CCGT and especially hydro” in the Low Countries … what are you suggesting ? … a barrage on the IJ or the Merwede to regulate the power grid over here ?
Most probably noone here, and certainly not me, would oppose electricity from hydro IF that would be possible in either Holland or Belgium … if THAT (i.e. hydro) would be possible, I would definitely and surely have a look at sun or wind … but since it is fairly difficult to change the geography, I will not … Sun and wind will remain marginal, and a waste of time and, most importantly, money … e.g. my money …
Anne: There have been lengthy posts here in the past giving good skeptical replies to the arguments you are making. I lack the expertise to do so, and unfortunately, there is no “category” in this site’s category list for wind or alternative energy, and there is no way (yet) of tagging comments with such categories.
I felt a similar frustration in reading Sphaerica’s arguments. There are good rebuttals here, somewhere, and I wish there were a way to point to them. This site should be “mined” to provide a huge set of points and counterpoints, and/or a FAQ.