It’s refreshing to see NSIDC director Mark Serreze coming to grips with his role in stirring up Arctic ice scare stories (like the famous “death spiral”) in 2007:
“In hindsight, probably too much was read into 2007, and I would take some blame for that,” Serreze said. “There were so many of us that were astounded by what happened, and maybe we read too much into it.”
Here’s some excerpts from the article:
With sea ice levels in the Arctic at record lows this month, a new report comparing scientists’ predictions calls for caution in over-interpreting a few weeks worth of data from the North Pole.
The Sea Ice Outlook, which will be released this week, brings together more than a dozen teams’ best guesses at how much sea ice will disappear by the end of the warm season in September. This year began with a surprise. More sea ice appeared than anticipated, nearing its mean level from 1979-2007. But then ice levels plummeted through May and into June. Scientists have never seen the Arctic with less ice at this time of year in the three decades they’ve been able to measure it, and they expect below average ice for the rest of the year.
But looking ahead, the ultimate amount of sea ice melt is hard to determine. Some trends, like the long-term warming of the Arctic and overall decreases in the thickness of sea ice, argue for very low levels of sea ice. But there are countervailing factors, too: The same weather pattern that led to higher-than-normal temperatures in the Arctic this year is also changing the circulation of sea ice, which could keep it in colder water and slow the melting.
“For this date, it’s the lowest we’ve seen in the record, but will that pattern hold up? We don’t know. The sea ice system surprises us,” said Mark Serreze, director of the National Snow and Ice Data Center.
The loss of summer sea ice over decades is one of the firmest predictions of climate models: Given the current patterns of fossil fuel use and the amount of carbon dioxide already in the atmosphere, sea-ice-free summers in the arctic are a virtual certainty by the end of century, and possibly much sooner. As the globe heats up, the poles are disproportionately affected. Warmer temperatures melt ice, revealing the dark sea water that had previously been covered. That changes the albedo, or reflectivity, of the area, allowing it to absorb more heat. That, along with many other feedback loops makes predicting change in the Arctic immensely difficult.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Wow, that PIOMAS chart is scarier than evah!
How alarming. They better be careful, or their computer model might blow a fuse.
R. Gates says:
“Whom would I ask for such a removal? I didn’t know I had the option.”
You always have the option of asking. And if I were you I would ask for that comment to be removed. It is just too close to your 75% for comfort. ☹
Smokey says:
June 22, 2010 at 10:18 am
Maybe you can ask for these to be removed:
http://tinyurl.com/y97sbbd
http://tinyurl.com/2a4sr94
It’s hurting your “credibility”. ʘ_ʘ
Since I have excess credibility those don’t hurt. In fact, I like them! Thanx for the effort, and you oughta take a break and get out of your mom’s basement for a change. 🙂
Smokey,
Yes, I suppose you could say the PIOMAS graph is “scary” if it’s close to reality. While we don’t have any observational data at the moment to compare their modeled values of ice thickness with, the ice extent remains the lowest during the time-period they ran their model for (so the ice volume graph is at least consistent with less overall coverage of sea ice).
We know that the summer circulation pattern remains the key wild card in defining how much ice will be left at the end of the melt season (sometime around mid-September). But given the atmospheric circulation pattern that has been setting up this summer (which is similar to that in 2007), I would place my bets on having another anomalously low September ice extent. Still too early to tell if it will be a new September record low, but it will be for June. (and when I talk about record lows, I am referring to the 1953-present time-period for which we have the most reliable observations).
Oh Arctic Sea Ice news update, wherefore art thou…?
Julienne says:
June 22, 2010 at 11:37 am
We know that the summer circulation pattern remains the key wild card in defining how much ice will be left at the end of the melt season (sometime around mid-September).
Julienne, in particular the strong outflow of the old ice through the Nares strait, reminiscent of 2007, suggests a significant loss of thickness this summer.
But given the atmospheric circulation pattern that has been setting up this summer (which is similar to that in 2007), I would place my bets on having another anomalously low September ice extent. Still too early to tell if it will be a new September record low, but it will be for June. (and when I talk about record lows, I am referring to the 1953-present time-period for which we have the most reliable observations).
I certainly wouldn’t bet against it.
R. Gates says:
June 22, 2010 at 7:21 am
__________
Whom would I ask for such a removal?
I am talking about the comment that you say keeps showing up. The comment about being past tipping points, Gaia culling. Why not try to get it removed if it is not from you? Then you dont have to see it come up again.
jakers says:
June 22, 2010 at 11:40 am
Oh Arctic Sea Ice news update, wherefore art thou…?
____________
It takes a while to artistically weave the record low June 2010 extent into accepted AGW skeptical paradigm. Give him time, this is a very creative process…
R. Gates,
some comments you have made in other threads could make it appear you are a troll, and that you could have made the comment found in that other blog. For example, you have said the Arctic enjoyed warm conditions this past winter. That makes no sense no matter how you try to explain it. It was -55 on some days instead of -51. That is above normal. But it cannot be construed as enjoying warm conditions. Also in another thread I asked you to provide proof the Navy had stopped using PIPS 2.0. You didn’t do it but you did keep insisting they did. You provided links and said I had to read between the lines at those links to see they did stop using it. These comments make you appear to be a troll and that you could have made that bizarre comment from that other blog.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
It is true that the PIPS 2.0 web sites is old and cheesy looking. But there is no indication anywhere that the Navy has stopped using PIPS 2.0. It is clear they say they still do use it. When they do stop using you will not have to read between lines anywhere to find out they did.
typo
It was -55 on some days instead of -51.
should be
It was -51 on some days instead of -55.
Smokey says:
June 22, 2010 at 10:15 am
Wow, that PIOMAS chart is scarier than evah!
Man o’ man, you’re right. If that graph is right then 2010 will be worse than 2007!!
That graph is getting laughable. Catlin better be careful walking on the thin ice!
Amino,
If you think PIPS 2.0 is the best the Navy’s got, then you don’t think much of the Navy. If you think the Navy would put it’s best tool for Arctic navigation on the web, then you don’t think much of the Navy. If you think the Navy would tell us or show us the best it has, then you don’t think much of the Navy. You can believe what you want, but I provided plenty of links (yes, you had to read between the lines, because that’s the nature of looking for that which is not acknowledged yet). By the time the “latest” military technology makes it to the public, in addition to being “down scaled” for public consumption, the U.S. Military is already using at least one generation better in daily operations, is testing 2 generations better in the lab, and has 3 generations better on the drawing board.
PIPS 2.0 was only brought up here becasue Steve used it to make his analysis that the Arctic sea ice was 25% greater in volume now. You heard from at least one expert in the field, right here on WUWT, a Ph.D in sea ice related analysis, that professionals in the business don’t put much credibility in PIPS 2.0.
But continue on your quest to validate PIPS 2.0 as the “best” the Navy’s got…you sure must not think much of the U.S. Navy.
ARCUS’ Sea Ice Outlook collection is up.
Bizarrely, neither of the two predictions from UW Polar Science Center foresee a record low despite their scary PIOMAS graph.
http://www.arcus.org/search/seaiceoutlook/2010/june
R. Gates said on June 21, 2010 at 6:11 pm
Ah, I was going to refer to the chart for average sizes per classification. If that breakdown looked too fine then I would’ve gotten a general number by using the population estimates, provided the spread wasn’t too great.
http://www.arcus.org/search/seaiceoutlook/2010/june
R. Gates says:
If you think PIPS 2.0 is the best the Navy’s got, then you don’t think much of the Navy
You changed the topic. This is more evidence you are a troll.
R. Gates
you diverted away from what was really being talked about.
It is clear you are not making an attempt to be unbiased.
“”” Ammonite says:
June 22, 2010 at 4:18 am
In broad brush terms:
1. CO2 is a greenhouse gas – confirmed by experiments in radiative physics
2. Greenhouse gases have a significant effect on Earth’s temperature – black body radiation experiments show the temperature would be a lot lower without them
3. CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere are rising – thankyou Mr Keeling
4. Mankind is responsible for the rise – the signature of the C in the additional CO2 points to burning fossil fuels
5. Doubling CO2 will raise temperature by around 3 degrees Celcius – numerous independent paleo studies give positive ranges centering on this figure
6. There are no GCM’s in any of the above “””
Well thanks for the list Ammonite; I have always wondered what the essence of the settled science of MMGWCC atually was; and now you have given it to us ; well in “broad brush terms”.
Trouble with broad brush terms is they have a habit of hiding the details; wherein may lie the truth.
So to your points; well I suppose we should call them “blotches” from your broad brush.
#1 CO2 is a green house gas; not disputed, regardless of how “confirmed”; but then so is H2O and in every single region of earth’s atmosphere where any “greenhouse effect” could be consequential, H2O always vasly outnumbers CO2. Now Stephen Schneider; the father of “Climate Sensitivity” asserts that H2O is a very weak GHG compared to CO2. Despite his assertion; that does not prevent his disciples in the AGW camp from asserting that H2O is a major positive feedback enhancer of the CO2 greenhouse effect. Nor does his assertion explain the apparent anomaly that in high arid deserts, where scorching daytime surface temperatures are found; the nighttime temperatures plummet despite the unchanged CO2 amount; which is Schneider’s major GHG to his “weak” H2O. Make up your minds; whether H2O is a weak GHG or whether it’s atmospheric warming effect clearly puts that of CO2 to shame; as evidneced by the plummeting nighttime temperatures when H2O is relatively absent.
#2 “”” Greenhouse gases have a significant effect on Earth’s temperature – black body radiation experiments show the temperature would be a lot lower without them. “””
True, and also poppycock. GHGs do have a significant effect on Earth’s Temperature; but absolutely no black body radiation experiments have ever been carried out in the atmosphere without GHGs to show that the temperature is lower without them.
Maybe some BB radiation CALCULATIONS have been done to assert that; and maybe even some Laboratory BB radiation experiments have been carried out; which hardly mimic what happens in the atmosphere. If you can cite me a reference to a peer reviewed Scientific paper, which describes the results of ANY laboratory Black Body Radiation Experiments; that have EVER beeen carried out using a 288 KELVIN OR CLOSE TO THAT BLACK BODY RADIATION SOURCE; I am sure we would all be interested in reading that. No I don’t mean GHG lab sample experiments carried out with any high temperature Infra-red radiation sources like Incandescent lamps. The GHG effect in earth’s atmosphere occurs with radiation sources having source temperatures of maybe +60 deg C to perhaps below -100 C for high altitude events, but down to -90 deg C for spoats like Vostok Station. So let’s not have any 600 deg C Black body radiation sources; that do not simulate real world GHG effects.
#3 “”” CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere are rising “”” again; undisputed; but then in all of the instrumented measurement history, the measured amount of that rise is less than 1/3 of a single “Doubling” of the atmospheric CO2 abundance; and since the mean global surface Temperature goes as the Logarithm of the atmospheric CO2 abundance per the assertion of Stephen Schneider’s “Climate sensitivity” thesis; that would hardly be a singificant amount of temperature change on a planet that can have about a 150 deg C total daily temperature range.
#4 “”” Mankind is responsible for the rise – the signature of the C in the additional CO2 points to burning fossil fuels “””
Not so fast. Long term Geologic history going back well 600,000 years for ice core proxies, shows that CO2 rises historically follow about 800 years after Temperature rises; and we are just 800 years beyond the Mediaeval Warm period, when Temperatures rose to higher than they are today. So you have not yet eliminated natural variability as a perfectly normal explanation for today’s CO2 rise. And don’t try to sell that CO2 fossil fuel signature too hard. That notion is predicated on the unproven assumption that CO2 in the earth’s atmosphere is “Well Mixed”.
We know from pole to pole annual CO2 cycling of cO2 in the atmosphere, that CO2 is anything but “Well mixed”; exhibitinh an 18 ppm P-P cyclic amplitude in CO2 at the North Pole, versus a 6 ppm P-P cyclic amplitude at Mauna Loa, where the longest term data has been collected, and a paltry -1 ppm P-P (out of phase) cyclic variation at the south pole. So NO; CO2 is not well mixed in the atmosphere; so local variations of nuclide differences in composition; are simply that local variations; and besides if there is any “Fossil fuel signature”; it is merely a signature that fossil fuel CO2 is being released into the atmosphere; which nobody disputes. It is not proof that fossil fuel CO2 comprises all the observed increase in atmospheric CO2 content. Adn experts in botany assert that the CO2 isotopic signature of supposedly fossil fuel is not all that it is cracked up to be, since different plant meabolisms process carbon isotopic composition diferently. So a very weak claim for fossil origin of the increase.
#5 Well I love this one “”” Doubling CO2 will raise temperature by around 3 degrees Celcius – numerous independent paleo studies give positive ranges centering on this figure “””
First of all; what about those numerous paleo stuadies that show without any ambiguity, that maybe that 3 deg Celsius Temperature change is what caused the doubling of CO2 about 800 years later. Why don’t you sort out the cause and effect timeline; before claiming causality ? But now we have the Crown Jewel of Climate Science; Dr Stephen schneider’s “Climate Sensitivity.” which in one fell swoop asserts that the earth’s mean surface Temperature varies as the Logarithm of the atmospheric CO2 abundance; and establishes the slope of that stright line relationship at +3 deg C per unit increase in Log CO2 abundance (base 2 Logarithms).
Well I know that Phil says that for LOW CO2 amounts the Temp/CO2 relationship is LINEAR. For MEDIUM values of CO2 it is Logarithmic; while for HIGH values of CO2 the relationship is square root of CO2 abundance.
Now I actually have a degree in Mathematics; both Pure and Applied; and I know what the Logarithm function is; and I also have a considerable real world experience in Solid State Physics; and particularly in the Physics of Semiconductor devices; so I know when two variable parameters exhibit a Logarithmic relationship; as does the forward Voltage/Current relationship of a Semiconductor Diode Junction, at Constant Temperature.
Now the IPCC have been great promoters of Schneider’s Climate Sensitivity; and they place the value of that fundamental Constant of climate Science at 3.0 deg C =/- 50 %, whcih gives it a 3:1 range from 1.5 to 4.5 deg C per CO2 doubling.
May I suggest Ammonite; that when you plot two variables against each other, and you cannot determine the slope of the best fit line to that data; to better than a 3:1 ratio of slopes; that you have not a shred of a basis to claim that you know the mathematical functional relationship exhibited by that data. Virtually any continuous function coulod be made to fit your scrambled data at least as well as either a LINEAR, or a LOGARITHMIC, or a SQUARE ROOT relatiosnhip as Phil claims is the case. I couold give you 100 fundamentally different mathematical relationships that would fit your data as well and maybe better than any one of those three. I have a fondness for the relationship y = exp (-1/x^2); and I bet I can fit the cO2 data to it at least as well as Schneider’s Logarithmic function.
MY function has the value of zero at x = 0, and it has the value 1/e or 37% for x = 1; so yes I am sure I can fit it to your data.
The derivative (slope) of that function also happens to be zero for x = 0, so the graphs starts off at zero velocity as well. Actually every derivative of exp(-1/x^2) is zero for x = 0.
So we start off at zero, at zero velocity, with zero acceleration; and zero rate of increase of acceleration, and no change in that either; yet somehow we manage to struggle up to 37% by the time x = 1 Who do you know that ever had a worse start off in life as that. Yet I am quite sure that somewhere along that curve is a very good fit to the global mean surface temperature, and atmospheric CO2 abundance plot; at least as good as any cuves ever promoted by Stephen Schneider or the IPCC.
Well I would be suitably impressed; even in the absence of any empirical data fit to better than a 3:1 uncertainty; if there was some Physical process that theoretically relates the mean global surface Temperature to the Logarithm of the Atmospheric CO2 abundance. Sadly there is none. We can surmise that the atmospheric heating energy caused by CO2 trapping of LWIR radiation emitted by the earth surface might be linearly proportional to the amount of atmospheric CO2; I suppose the Climatologers refer to that as a “Forcing”; but now we have an enigma; because the very amount of that LWIR radiation that is available to be trapped by the increasing CO2, is itself likely proportional to the fourth power of that very surface temperature, that the CO2 trapping is supposed to cause. Moreover since actual earth surface temperatures cover the ranbge from over +60 deg C to about -90 deg C, the total range of that W/m^2 “forcing” that is driving the CO2 “Forcing” of the atmospheric heating energy, varies by more than a factor of 11:1.
That is some kind of fundamnetal constant, that varies over a range of 11:1 depending on where you are on earth.
Well at this point I just give up; because I don’t see what other physical mechanisms one can add to the LWIR radiation/CO2 trapping process/Atmospheric heating process/ Surface reheating process from the warm atmosphere; that somehow reduces to a log base 2 relationship between the abundance of atmospheric CO2 and the mean Global Surface Temperature. That is just plain silly.
#6 We are in agreement on this one; absolutely no GCMs were used in the above detailing of your broad brush strokes; by the way; just exactly what is it that the GCMs DO explain; if anything ?