File this under short term trends matter when we say they matter.
From The Montreal Gazette
BY RANDY BOSWELL, CANWEST NEWS SERVICE
Arctic Ocean ice cover retreated faster last month than in any previous May since satellite monitoring began more than 30 years ago, the latest sign that the polar region could be headed for another record-setting meltdown by summer’s end.
The U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center had already warned earlier this spring that low ice volume — the result of repeated losses of thick, multi-year ice over the past decade — meant this past winter’s ice-extent recovery was superficial, due mainly to a fragile fringe of new ice that would be vulnerable to rapid deterioration once warmer temperatures set in.
And, driven by unusually hot weather in recent weeks above the Arctic Circle, the polar ice is disappearing at an unprecedented rate, reducing overall ice extent to less than that recorded in May 2007 — the year when a record-setting retreat by mid-September alarmed climatologists and northern governments.
The centre reported that across much of the Arctic, temperatures were two to five degrees Celsius above average last month.
“In May, Arctic air temperatures remained above average, and sea ice extent declined at a rapid pace,” the Colorado-based centre said in its June 8 report.
The centre pegged the retreat at an average of 68,000 square kilometres a day, noting that “this rate of loss is the highest for the month of May during the satellite record.”
Ice loss was greatest in the Bering Sea and the Sea of Okhotsk, “indicating that the ice in these areas was thin and susceptible to melt,” the centre added.
“Many polynyas, areas of open water in the ice pack, opened up in the regions north of Alaska, in the Canadian Arctic Islands, and in the Kara and Barents and Laptev seas.”
Read the rest of the story here
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Hi,
Thanks to Daniel M for being the closest to the mark with “And you are correct: we cannot know that a short term pattern isn’t the first signs of a longer term pattern, but that doesn’t give us license to make assumptions.”
I asked for the reasoning behind the commentary “File this under short term trends matter when we say they matter.” And the answer I’ve got is it’s levity. It’s a big joke.
I have to suggest WUWT cannot be taken seriously on the question of when does a short term trend become something more than a short term trend. Nor on the observed fact of arctic sea ice depletion.
Salutations Hengist McStone
TomRude writes: “As for Barber, even Revkin did avoid his rotten ice BS as once again, it is a question of meteorological conditions. Those freaks from Winnipoo love the oil barons when they cough dough for their buildings but promote their AGW agenda on DC, Joe Romm and Desmog…”
David Barber holds a Canada Research Chair in Arctic System Science and is one of the most respected arctic scientists in the world. He has over 120 publications on the Arctic and has been studying Arctic ice since 1988. On top of that, he is one of the nicest and most genial guys I have ever met. Disagree with him and his data all you wish, but stooping to this level of incivility is truly juvenile and suggests you have nothing substantive to offer in your critique. Might you offer your credentials and the data you rely on in making your assessment, TomRude?
“Arctic Ocean ice retreating at 30-year record pace” is the new hype after “Arctic Saw Fastest August Sea Ice Retreat On Record”. That was in September 2008 when sea ice recovered from 2007 low. Instead, “record refreeze” was not a sexy title in November 2007.
June 15. AMSR E sea ice extend shows that we are about 5 days ahead of the melting season of 2006 when sea ice reached a minimum of 5.7 Million km2. This year they estimate 4.7 M, 2nd lowest. So nice to talk about the weather. The title implied CAGW effect instead, as usual.
Robert,
How do you explain the fact that some Antarctic ice shelves are larger now than they were fifty years ago? Compare maps. For example, the Amory Ice Shelf now extends many miles further out to sea.
I don’t think meltwater is as common on Antarctica as you seem to assume. At the very edges of Greenland’s ice there may be rushing streams atop the ice, but Antarctica is colder. I see little sign that meltwater plays much of a part, when huge slabs of ice shelves break off the Antarctic coast. Rather the stress fractures in ice shelves seem to be due to the fact these ice shelves are thrusting miles and miles out into an ocean which sailors know have some of the biggest waves in the world, plus very high winds.
Lastly, the waters off Antarctica are not as stratified as you suggest. The richness of Antarctic waters is due in part to branches of the deep-sea thermohaline circulation which upwell off the coast. These nutrient-rich waters are around 35 degrees, and have taken hundreds of years to migrate south from where they first enter the thermohaline circulation, up by Greenland. If the temperature of this upwelling water varies at all, then it might be a measure of the temperatures up by Greenland several hundred years ago.
Caleb,
Firstly, you should have a look at this paper (its free)
http://www.the-cryosphere.net/4/77/2010/tc-4-77-2010.html
Secondly, stating one ice shelf is growing so that proves other ones collapsing isn’t climate change is a faulty argument. If you look at my statement I was referring to the Ice Shelves on the Antarctic Peninsula. If you did not notice, there have been many ice shelf collapses in this region which is attributed to significant warming in this region over the last 50 years. Mercer (1978) warned that if CO2 warming were real then we would see the break up of ice shelves below the O degree january isotherm such as the prince gustav, wordie ice shelf and wilkins ice shelf. This has occurred…
I also have to point out that whereas most of antarctica is too cold to have melting, the antarctic peninsula is not and the Melt Fracture Theory (Scambos et al., 2000) which I mentioned earlier has now been all but accepted as scientific fact pertaining to the collapse of larsen A and B….
“Rather the stress fractures in ice shelves seem to be due to the fact these ice shelves are thrusting miles and miles out into an ocean which sailors know have some of the biggest waves in the world, plus very high winds.”
Lets see a citation for this commentary because ice shelf collapse on the Antarctic Peninsula has been for the most part attributable to atmospheric warming (although wilkins was the result of some other mechanisms, Braun et al. 2009).
Furthermore, having been to the antarctic peninsula, I can tell you that the waves are worse on the opposite side of where Larsen A and B are because that region is more exposed to open ocean…
Finally, i’m not really so knowledgeable on the waters off of Antarctica, but the citations I provided and the lack of your citations give me the impression they are more stratified.
villabolo says:
after a number of great shouts,
The ocean waves themselves would never have been a problem in the Arctic Ice Cap area because thirty years ago the area of multiyear ice was so extensive (It actually made up 90% of a very large ice cap) that they would have been suppressed throughout the whole Arctic Sea area.
HOW CAN THE WINDS HAVE BEEN RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS?
A bit of physics helps. Have a look at the arctic temperatures on the side panel:
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
Note that blue line? It is the line where the atmosphere is warm enough for the ice to start melting. Note that it has barely touched the line so any diminution of ice cannot be due to temperature and melt, up to this time. Elementary physics.
What else can it be? Ocean currents and wind currents working in tandem.
Lets look at the current ocean temperatures in the arctic:
http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst.html
Read the scale, it is from -2C to 0C at present.
So, if the water cannot be melting the ice and the air cannot be melting the ice, it must be the strength of the currents that moves it to lower warmer waters, and the strength of the wind that pushes it like sails to lower warmer waters. You have noticed how a strong wind can push a boat, no? You have seen the ridges that form from compacted by the wind ice floes?
Now as far as history goes, surely when Greenland was a Viking colony temperatures were higher than now, the arctic navigable, and nobody was drowning, so what again is the problem with a bit of warmth?
Beware of the cold and prepare for the coming ice ages. It is sobering to study this compilation :
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/noaa_gisp2_icecore_anim_hi-def3.gif
The only true prophecy is that an ice age will come again, sooner or later.
This is to say I’ve done what you said. It’s filed already. (Short term File 🙂
Caleb,
Your assessment is vitally incorrect. There is indeed significant melting which occurs on the Antarctic Peninsula and melt pools were and still are frequent above the 0 degree january isotherm in this region. The melt fracture process is explained in detail in Scambos et al. 2000 and you should consider reading up on it before you make other assumptions as Larsen A and B’s collapse was caused through this melt pond fracturing mechanism.
You also state that some ice shelves grow so that makes it impossible any lose mass because of climate change, this is another incorrect statement. All the ice shelves on the antarctic peninsula above the 0 degree january isotherm are in the process of collapsing or have collapsed which is something that mercer (1978) predicts would occur if CO2 driven warming were real. The Antarctic Peninsula has some of the highest warming rates in the world. Having been there and seen it first hand, I cannot agree with you assessment even in the slightest.
Because of the meteorological conditions in Antarctica, Ice shelves on the EAIS have yet to experience this warming and some have grown, Many ice shelves on the WAIS have however experienced significant warming from oceans and air temperatures and have thus began melting away. These are very well understand processes and perhaps you should consider taking a few glaciology courses prior to opening your mouth on a topic you clearly do not have experience in.
Finally, I provided citations for the stratification of the waters off of Antarctica, you did not provide any which are against that theory therefore it is hard to assess any validity of your argument.
By the way, perhaps if you’d like to read more on ice shelves on the antarctic peninsula, check out http://www.the-cryosphere.net/4/77/2010/tc-4-77-2010.pdf
its a free journal and this paper by Cook and Vaughan 2009, overviews most of the ice shelf changes. Although they miss out on wilkins largest collapse…
Enough comments about Antarctic Sea ice and total sea ice
See below
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Watts-Up-With-That-ignorance-regarding-Antarctic-sea-ice.html
John cook has already refuted these points. Is there a reason to continue with them?
Hengist McStone says:
June 16, 2010 at 12:50 am
I asked for the reasoning behind the commentary “File this under short term trends matter when we say they matter.” And the answer I’ve got is it’s levity. It’s a big joke.
If you stick around you will see that there are two categories of short term trends.
category a) short term trend agrees with GW
category b) short term trend disagrees with GW
For some devilish reason, whenever it is a) one gets large media coverage and everybody coming out of the woodwork.
For the same devilish reason whenever it is b) there is the silence of the dead in the media and the usual talking heads.
That is why there is a joking category of “short term trends matter when we say they matter” , and we means AGW proponents.
I have to suggest WUWT cannot be taken seriously on the question of when does a short term trend become something more than a short term trend. Nor on the observed fact of arctic sea ice depletion.
Don’t you think your question is an oxymoron? If it is a short term trend how can it be more than short?
Long term trends are a different story.
Caleb,
There is indeed melting on antarctic ice shelves on the peninsula and the melt fracture theory is very well accepted for ice shelf disintegration such as larsen A and B (Scambos et al. 2000). This is something you even learn about in basic glaciology courses so I suggest you educate yourself better next time before speaking on the topic. Secondly, yes amery has grown but its not on the peninsula, the peninsula has undergone significant warming which much of Antarctica has been spared from for reasons given in my last post. The peninsula is the canary in the coalmine for antarctic ice losses and it is clear that the region is responding to warming. Mercer (1978) even warns tha tif the ice shelves at the 0 degree january isotherm melt or collapse that it is a clear sign of atmospheric CO2 induced warming. This has indeed occurred since then. (Prince Gustav, Wordie, Larsen A and B, Wilkins…)
87% of Glaciers on the Peninsula are in significant and sustained retreat (Cook et al. 2005)…. These are very clear signs of warming in this regions.
Regarding your final comment, I provided citations which support my argument. Where are yours?
Robert says:
June 16, 2010 at 5:03 am
I looked at your link. How can I take it seriously when the plot shows warming from -13 to -11.5 and he is wondering If the Southern Ocean is warming, why is sea ice increasing?
Ice becomes water at 0C. Period. It will not pay any attention to this “heating” from-13.0 to -11.5.
climatepatrol says:
June 16, 2010 at 1:31 am
June 15. AMSR E sea ice extend shows that we are about 5 days ahead of the melting season of 2006
how much is from shear now and shear then? then, how much from melt?
Anu says:
If you read the article, they make it clear where they are “getting this stuff”:
I did read the entire article. I have also been following the temperature in the arctic:
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
It was clarified above, though:
“They get their numbers from Hansen”
“In fact the average temperature in the arctic has never varied from the mean by more than 2 degrees for more than 2 weeks during the melt season since they started keeping records.”
“So are they saying that temperatures of -10C melts more ice than temperatures of -13C?”
Since ice will melt just as readily during natural warming as it will during AGW, it is absurd logic to say any melt in the Arctic proves AGW. It doesnt. It may indicate warming but I cant possibly see how it could accurately point to the source of the warming.
In an earlier post I said:
“Until scientists can get a good grip on the impact of the different natural climatic cycles on wind and ocean currents and their subsequent impact on ice area and extent over the longer term… ”
Of course a warmista with tunnel vision would jump all over this assuming I’m saying that ice loss is not in any way connected to warming temperatures which if you read it is not what I’m saying.
I don’t deny that natural cycles over the past 30 years have caused some degree of warming and this combined with the impact of changing wind and ocean currents has caused a degree of ice loss. What I don’t accept is the assertion that this proves anthropogenic global warming nor that Artic Ice is in a “death spiral” due to AGW that is going to cause a global catasprophe.
The period since 1979 has been dominated by el-nino’s and a warm phase PDO. This has put a lot of heat into the system which has caused ice loss and left “younger” ice that is more vulnerable. This ice is starting to recover but I wouldnt expect to see a higher extent year in year out. A full recovery of Arctic icew will take time.
Since we don’t have solid data on what was occurring with Arctic ice during the previous cool phase of the PDO (which had a higher rate of La Nina events) I would prefer to see what the next 30 years hold before drawing a conclusion that is at best based on only a partial understanding of the natural climate cycles in play.
If I was a betting man I’d still be putting money on ice increasing in the next 30 years. Although I still wonder if increased shipping in Arctic waters (primarily icebreakers) isnt causing some damage and making the “younger” ice more vulnerable to break up.
anna V writes,
“Now as far as history goes, surely when Greenland was a Viking colony temperatures were higher than now, the arctic navigable, and nobody was drowning, so what again is the problem with a bit of warmth?”
It’s true the 10th-century Norse expansion benefited from relatively warm and low-ice conditions in the northern Atlantic, and that by the 14th century their Greenland colonies were suffering from less favorable conditions. But were medieval temperatures in Greenland warmer than today? The GISP2 reconstruction suggests they were probably cooler.
There seems to be an urban myth imagining Greenland as an icy place now but a green landscape a thousand years ago. But the ice sheet has been there all along.
The Norse settlements in Greenland were in places not glaciated then, not glaciated now, and not glaciated any time in between. To pastoralists these fjords looked inviting because their vegetation had never been grazed, nor yet cut back for such wood as there was.
Gneiss says:
June 16, 2010 at 6:17 am
The GISP2 reconstruction suggests they were probably cooler.
Link?
anna v
I don’t see any reason why WUWT should pretend it is the arbiter of whether we are looking at a short term trend or the beginning of a longer term trend
You choose to portray it simplistically as evidence for or against AGW, but any long term trend starts off as a short term trend. Your statement “Long term trends are a different story” is simply wrong because you don’t have observations for the future.
Best wishes
Hengist McStone
Robert says:
June 16, 2010 at 5:03 am
Perhaps unintentionally, you have posted one of the funniest posts of the day. Congratulations!
George E. Smith says:
June 15, 2010 at 2:29 pm
thanks George but I hadn’t read it previously.
Robert says: [ … ]
Robert, don’t be silly, the Antarctic is the reason that global ice cover is increasing, and is now above average.
Past two years from cryosphere.
And the past 31 years of steadily increasing Antarctic ice extent.
Who are you gonna believe? “Skeptical” Science? Or your lyin’ eyes?
Hengist says:
June 16, 2010 at 7:20 am
Hengist says:
June 16, 2010 at 7:20 am
anna v
I don’t see any reason why WUWT should pretend it is the arbiter of whether we are looking at a short term trend or the beginning of a longer term trend
You choose to portray it simplistically as evidence for or against AGW, but any long term trend starts off as a short term trend. Your statement “Long term trends are a different story” is simply wrong because you don’t have observations for the future.
You choose to misinterpret a bit of poking fun at the one sided interpretation of short term effects by the AGW crowd. Short term effects are just that, short term. Neither a proof for or against AGW.
Long term trends are of course not into the future, they can be seen from the past to the present, and usually are at least 30 year long . Because at some point meteorologists decided that averages over 30 years describe climate and not weather , and it has been carried over to the global warming studies.
Gneiss says @ur momisugly 6:17 am [ … ],
Before you repeat the thoroughly debunked claim that there was no Medieval Warm Period, do a WUWT archive search for “MWP.”
Please, do the search and get yourself up to speed. It is tedious repeatedly teaching noobs the same facts over and over again. Do some reading and get educated.
If only we could stop Arctic sea ice from melting at all in the summer…
Someone remind me again, why is a perpetually frozen planet desireable? In light of the fact that the earth predominantly exists in a glaciated state, I think I’d rather enjoy these brief forays into balmy weather than hasten our return to the next ice age.
Well, the term balmy is relative, since I cannot grow decent wine-making grapes in Northern Alberta as yet.
anna v
I’m not misinterpreting your poking fun, I like a joke. But I figure WUWT cannot be taken seriously on the question of classification of trends and making jokes about it at the same time.
You lose all credibility when you say “Long term trends are of course not into the future,” Daniel M had it on the button last nite (9.38) when he said “we cannot know that a short term pattern isn’t the first signs of a longer term pattern, but that doesn’t give us license to make assumptions.”