Ice Dancing

By Steven Goddard,

In order to better visualize what is happening in the Arctic this summer, I generated an animation of satellite photos over the area of open water west of Barrow, AK. It reveals a very dynamic ice edge – with the ice moving as it is blown around by winds associated with the Beaufort Gyre.

http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/pips2/archive/mag/2010/mag_2010062200.gif

The region of ice in the video is shown in blue below.

Here is what I see.

  • The ice edge is moving left to right about 10 miles per day.
  • Ice is being torn off the main ice sheet north of Barrow.
  • A large chunk of ice in the center of the open water (on June 18) moves northwest, crashes into the main mass of ice, and disintegrates.
  • Little evidence of melting.
  • The landfast ice is not showing any changes.
  • Lakes are still frozen solid.

What do you see?

Advertisements

137 thoughts on “Ice Dancing

  1. OT: Did you guys see this about Amazongate?
    “The article “climate panel shamed by bogus rainforest claim” (News, Jan 31) stated that the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report had included an “unsubstantiated claim” that up to 40% of the Amazon rainforest could be sensitive to future changes in rainfall. The IPCC had referenced the claim to a report prepared for the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) by Andrew Rowell and Peter Moore, whom the article described as “green campaigners” with “little scientific expertise.” The article also stated that the authors’ research had been based on a scientific paper that dealt with the impact of human activity rather than climate change.
    In fact, the IPCC’s Amazon statement is supported by peer-reviewed scientific evidence. In the case of the WWF report, the figure had, in error, not been referenced, but was based on research by the respected Amazon Environmental Research Institute (IPAM) which did relate to the impact of climate change. We also understand and accept that Mr Rowell is an experienced environmental journalist and that Dr Moore is an expert in forest management, and apologise for any suggestion to the contrary.
    The article also quoted criticism of the IPCC’s use of the WWF report by Dr Simon Lewis, a Royal Society research fellow at the University of Leeds and leading specialist in tropical forest ecology. We accept that, in his quoted remarks, Dr Lewis was making the general point that both the IPCC and WWF should have cited the appropriate peer-reviewed scientific research literature. As he made clear to us at the time, including by sending us some of the research literature, Dr Lewis does not dispute the scientific basis for both the IPCC and the WWF reports’ statements on the potential vulnerability of the Amazon rainforest to droughts caused by climate change.
    In addition, the article stated that Dr Lewis’ concern at the IPCC’s use of reports by environmental campaign groups related to the prospect of those reports being biased in their conclusions. We accept that Dr Lewis holds no such view – rather, he was concerned that the use of non-peer-reviewed sources risks creating the perception of bias and unnecessary controversy, which is unhelpful in advancing the public’s understanding of the science of climate change. A version of our article that had been checked with Dr Lewis underwent significant late editing and so did not give a fair or accurate account of his views on these points. We apologise for this.”

  2. Julienne
    Thanks. You can also see melt ponds on the surface of the Barrow webcam.
    My comment about melt was based on the fact that the edges of the fractured ice are very angular (rather than rounded) and that when I follow a block of ice moving over the last week, I don’t changes in shape or size.

  3. I see climate skeptics overplaying wind in the Arctic and underplaying winds in the Antarctic because that’s what suits their agenda. That’s what I see.
    The positive anomaly in the Antarctic has now run out of steam as the increased ice due to the local wind patterns hits the buffers as always
    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.recent.antarctic.png
    Meanwhile the Arctic does not seem to be hitting the buffers once again
    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.recent.arctic.png
    That’s a hell of a lot of wind shear, mind you we have hit the hurricane season now, obviously they must be all up there .. ho hum.
    Andy

  4. And also
    Steve, how does your Beaufort Gyre explain the even bigger area of open sea to the west of Victoria island ? Why do these huge expanses always appear in the warmer spring than in mid winter? Perhaps a clue in that last sentence it is not just wind, it is temps as well. I know that causes you heartburn though.
    Andy

  5. AndyW
    If you have been reading Julienne’s comments, you should be aware that wind is a critical factor in determining the summer minimum.
    I don’t think you would describe Julienne as being a “skeptic.”

  6. AndyW
    Winds create low pressure on the leeward side of an obstruction. That is why sailboats sail, and why ice is being pulled away from the western sides of Arctic Islands.

  7. stevengoddard says:
    June 25, 2010 at 10:41 am
    Julienne
    Thanks. You can also see melt ponds on the surface of the Barrow webcam.

    Evidence that you were wrong when you said: “The landfast ice is not showing any changes”. (They’re visible on your Barrow gif)
    My comment about melt was based on the fact that the edges of the fractured ice are very angular (rather than rounded) and that when I follow a block of ice moving over the last week, I don’t changes in shape or size.
    Well you wouldn’t expect to except on the smallest fragments since you’re looking at flat sheets of ice with most of the area exposed on the top and bottom. The disintegration of that “large chunk of ice” shows how ‘rotten’ it really is.

  8. I haven’t said anything about Julienne’s thoughts on the minima, what I am saying is that increased temps mean the ice is more mobile and so wind patterns play a part at this part of the season, not that it is just wind or just temps on these areas. It’s a combination of factors. Julienne said as much when you asked before if it was down to wind a few weeks ago.
    I don’t even agree with wind being the critical factor for summer minima, the summer of 2007 was not just wind and ice being blown out of the Nares/Fram straight, it was mainly due to the high and low pressures meaning warm southerly winds melted and concentrated the ice from the Siberian side. Yes, it was the winds, but it was warm winds, also the temperatures were high due to lots of clear skies as well.
    It’s painful for both sides not having it down to just temps or wind I know, but unfortunately that is the way it is.
    Andy
    PS Good post, enjoyed the graphics.

  9. Very entertaining Steve, though I’m not sure what it as to do with the already record loss of ice extent (for the March 31-June 25th period) that we’ve seen. As we enter July, which is the very heart of the melt season, there will be virtually no area of the Arctic that will be untouched from melting, either surface, in melt ponds, or from below, or both. Right now, there are melt ponds forming across all basins, from the edges to the north pole itself. Every basin, from the Beaufort to the Barants is showing a negative anomaly in extent. We may not hit a record low this summer, but unless we suddenly see a huge cold spell across the entire Arctic, we’ll come close, and we’ll at least see the greatest amount of total sea ice loss on record (from the March high to the September low), even greater than 2008, which was greater than 2007.

  10. TomRude, Yes we have. Have you seen this:
    http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/06/corporate-cowardice.html
    “Had the WWF sought direct confrontation with myself, or Booker in The Sunday Telegraph, it would have received a robust response, but the complaint was directed at the weakest link, The Sunday Times, which had made some errors in attribution.
    Although these errors did not affect the substance of the case, the paper has chosen to go far beyond that needed, and conceded that “the IPCC’s Amazon statement is supported by peer-reviewed scientific evidence.” This simply is not true.
    However, the central falsehood having been endorsed now by The Sunday Times, this has been sufficient for the WWF to declare a victory and cut and run, thus displaying the corporate cowardice and mendacity that one would expect of this odious organisation.”
    or this?
    http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/06/moonbat-too-far.html

  11. Michael says:
    June 25, 2010 at 11:46 am

    That could be due to lack of humidity in the atmosphere because of colder seas…can’t think of decreased evaporation because of the oil layer.

  12. Second thought which is probably more to the point:
    What the “heck” is going on up there? El Nino is officially asleep, the temp up there is below normal, and the sun is sound asleep.
    What in the world (within the physics no one seems to be able to clearly state) accounts for:
    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.recent.arctic.png
    Either our “tools for measurement” are cave age or something is afoot the models or understanding fails to reflect logically?
    I’m probably missing the obvious – thanks in advance for the help with surface winds and currents.
    Regards,
    John from CA

  13. stevengoddard says:
    June 25, 2010 at 12:26 pm
    Unless some “dark matter ice” over there…☺

  14. ______________________________
    John from CA says:
    June 25, 2010 at 12:22 pm
    Second thought which is probably more to the point:
    What the “heck” is going on up there? El Nino is officially asleep, the temp up there is below normal, and the sun is sound asleep.
    _______________________________
    That’s why it is such good fun, watching paint dry. Sorry, meant ice melt.
    Although we sometimes get combatitive on these things at least it means we are all interested in it, I can’t imagine a conversation down the pub lasting so long. Friends would think we were obsessed and boring. More fool them!
    Since the thread on climateaudit went down the pan due to lack of interest I just thank Anthony and most specially Steve for keep updating, even though in general I tend to disagree with them.
    Andy

  15. Not to further stir the pot, but so far this June has shown the fastest ice loss rate during the satellite era currently at 83,000 sq-km per day. This past May was also the fastest rate of ice loss from 1979-present.
    So I am keenly interested in what is driving this rate of loss this year. If you look at the air temperature anomalies, you find that temperatures are anomalously warm, but not as warm as say in 2007 that showed 925 mbar air temperature anomalies that were 7oC above normal in the E. Siberian Seas (1-23 June). You have the Arctic Dipole anomaly this month resulting in winds pushing ice away from the Siberian coast in the Laptev Sea towards the pole (in 2007 it was more in the E. Siberian and Chukchi seas). I haven’t looked at SSTs yet. Cloud cover (or rather more clear skies) looks like it might be about the same this year as in 2007. I don’t know if the PIOMAS volume estimates are correct for this year or not, but the way the ice is responding at the moment would lead me to believe it is on the thin side.

  16. The ice extent graph is running parallel to 2006 and is offset downwards due to deficiencies in regions which are normally ice free in September. There is little reason to pay attention to the ice extent graphs until at least July.

  17. John from CA says:
    June 25, 2010 at 12:22 pm
    SST anomalies show warmer water appearing out of nowhere into the gap between Greenland and Canada, as well as on the other side. I take that as upwelling, because the waters to the south of those places is well below normal.
    As for the rest of the Arctic, nothing doing except the winds.

  18. “There is little reason to pay attention to the ice extent graphs until at least July.”
    Less than a week away.
    “Hot Tip; Sun-Gate coming up?” Judithgate

  19. Steve,
    Nice graphics, clearly showing ice shearing and flow ice moving along the Barrows edge of the ice sheet. Took me a minute to realize that the polar graphic has the Bering Strait clocked at 8:30 location and the video has it clocked at roughly 12:00 position, though!
    Question: How do we know the ice shear and flow is primarily from Beaufort gyre wind effects and not ocean current effects…. or both? Which way are the primary currents running through the Bering Strait now and how does that create eddy and feeder currents off Barrow? What does the sea bottom structure look like along Barrows and how does it amplify or negate ocean currents? How do tidal effects add to/subtract from the primary currents and cyclicly reinforce or mute the currents near Barrow?
    Anecdote: I grew up on a large lake in Wisconsin. During spring melt, if the warming spring winds stayed relatively low velocity, we would see significant degrees of ice thinning down to maybe 4 inches of rotten ice and a relatively quiet departure of the remaining ice before whatever breeze was running. If the initial ice thickness was great (3 feet), that could take a long time! Other years, we might see enough melting to open up small leads and start honeycombing the ice, followed by high winds. That would drive the still relatively thick ice from the lake surface, leaving huge heaps of ice 20 feet and more high in the far reach bays and up on their shorelines. Shoreline trees, large boulders, and even occasionally lake shore houses were “bulldozed” by the wind driven ice sheets! It is a sight to behold and the grinding and tinkling noises of the crushing ice sheet cannot be adequately described with words. That occurred with a maximum wind fetch of only 11 miles, providing a study of wind/ice/melt dynamics in microcosm, compared to the macro scale Arctic ice pack dynamics!
    Thanks again – Good Stuff!

  20. stevengoddard says:
    June 25, 2010 at 1:11 pm
    The ice extent graph is running parallel to 2006 and is offset downwards due to deficiencies in regions which are normally ice free in September. There is little reason to pay attention to the ice extent graphs until at least July.
    ____________________
    Except for the fact that you haven’t.
    Will Arctic Sea Ice Update #11 rear it’s ugly head before July?

  21. AndyW said: June 25, 2010 at 11:10 am “. . . , also the temperatures were high due to lots of clear skies as well.”
    Looking at the historical daily record for the region (DMI) for that time, the temps were unusually low (below average) for the first half of that summer, then settled in about average for the latter half. Where did you get the information that the temps were unusually high that summer?

  22. You all have no idea how much I don’t care about arctic sea ice. We know the northwest passage was open as recently as the 1940s and that it has been open at other times in recorded history. We also know that the earth is relatively warm now after its entirely “precedented” warm up following the LIA. The only reason we don’t know if it has been ice free in the recent past is because we have only had the technology in place to look for the last 30 years or so. In light of this, if the arctic is “ice free” sometime in the next ten years, why do we care?

  23. @ Julienne June 25, 2010 at 12:52 pm
    If you are keenly interested in knowing what’s driving the record ice melt given air temperatures are not as warm as this time in 2007 I have conducted an experiment which provides the answer. Maybe you can duplicate it to confirm.
    Fill a one quart bowl of water and set it on the counter overnight so its temperature equalizes with the air. Also overnight prepare a tray of ice cubes in your freezer. In the morning take out two ice cubes. Set one on the counter and drop the other into the bowl of water. Measure the time it takes each to melt. What I have discovered is that water is a whole lot better at melting ice than air. There’s the answer to the mystery which keenly interests you.

  24. kwik says: wrote
    June 25, 2010 at 1:15 pm
    I think its the Sun.
    “Hot Tip; Sun-Gate coming up?;”
    Thanks Kwik. I love this kind of news. Let me post a bit of the article;
    “New global warming data fraud scandal seems to show a faked ‘consensus’ of the impact of solar forcing on Earth’s climate based on one finding.
    A staggering new finding seems to mire the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in global warming scandal every bit as devastating as Climategate.
    The news broke June 24, 2010 on a Czech climate skeptic blog, Klimaskeptik.cz, that calls the latest global warming scandal, “Judithgate.”
    Roughly translated into English the site reveals that the The IPCC relied on evidence supplied by just only one Solar Physicist, Judith Lean, to create their “consensus that solar influence upon the climate was minimal.
    Judithgate Scandal Goes Viral
    The story has going viral on climate skeptic websites and is reported on a leading blog, ‘Climate Realists’ as ,’IPCC “Consensus” on Solar Influence was Only One Solar Physicist who Agreed with Her Own Paper.”
    http://www.climatechangefraud.com/behind-the-science/7220-new-global-warming-scandal-consensus-on-sun-is-one-expert

  25. Here is what I see:
    I see NOAA talking about temperature anomaly records being broken:
    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/?report=global
    The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for May 2010 was 0.69°C (1.24°F) above the 20th century average of 14.8°C (58.6°F). This is the warmest such value on record since 1880.
    For March–May 2010, the combined global land and ocean surface temperature was 14.4°C (58.0°F) — the warmest March-May on record. This value is 0.73°C (1.31°F) above the 20th century average.
    The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for January–May 2010 was the warmest on record. The year-to-date period was 0.68°C (1.22°F) warmer than the 20th century average.
    The global land surface temperatures for May and the March–May period were the warmest on record, at 1.04°C (1.87°F) and 1.22°C (2.20°F) above the 20th century average, respectively.
    In the Northern Hemisphere, both the May 2010 average temperature for land areas, and the hemisphere as a whole (land and ocean surface combined), represented the warmest May on record. The average combined land and ocean surface temperature for the Northern Hemisphere was also record warmest for the March–May period.

    I see Arctic ice area dropping like a rock:
    http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Area.png
    along with ice volume:
    http://psc.apl.washington.edu/ArcticSeaiceVolume/images/BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrent.png
    I see the lowest Arctic sea ice extent for this date since satellites began measuring the entire Arctic:
    http://iup.physik.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsr/ice_ext_n.png
    I see large sections of the Western Arctic being softened up for 3 more months of melting:
    ftp://ftp-projects.zmaw.de/seaice/NEAR_REAL_TIME/Arc_latest_large.png
    I see melt ponds north of 88° N:
    http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/latest/noaa1.jpg
    I see Steven Goddard desperately trying to play down the connection between “warming” and “Arctic sea ice melting”.
    What do you see ?

  26. Some time ago there was a post on this blog about a strong positive temperature anomaly in the East Canadian coast. Not surprisingly the big difference between extent this year and last year is the Hudson bay. Similarly there was an “excess ice” in Alaska when things were frigid there a few months ago. Temperature maps seem to explain the fate of those marginal regions.

  27. rbateman says:
    June 25, 2010 at 1:05 pm
    What do you see?
    A cold, miserable and lifeless place that nobody wants.

    And…. after the nth. post of Steve on the Artic I am feeling polar bears haunting me, the atmosphere of my office is chilling and I’m getting a bit depressed ☺
    We are missing a post about the sun….to get warm…Electric Sun anyone?
    http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=74fgmwne

  28. What it was really expected is cap&traders to propagandize during your summertime in preparation for their Cancun carnal pleasures’ jamboree.

  29. Dave Springer says:
    June 25, 2010 at 2:15 pm
    “If you are keenly interested in knowing what’s driving the record ice melt given air temperatures are not as warm as this time in 2007 I have conducted an experiment which provides the answer. Maybe you can duplicate it to confirm.”
    ” There’s the answer to the mystery which keenly interests you.”
    Dave, another experiment is done every day by nature itself.
    A big icecube in water/air: Arctic.
    A big icecube on land/air: Antarctic.
    The answer is there for everyone to see. Its the ocean.
    And what heats the ocean? The sun.
    And whats in between? Clouds.

  30. Julienne says:
    June 25, 2010 at 12:52 pm
    Not to further stir the pot, but so far this June has shown the fastest ice loss rate during the satellite era currently at 83,000 sq-km per day. This past May was also the fastest rate of ice loss from 1979-present.
    So I am keenly interested in what is driving this rate of loss this year. If you look at the air temperature anomalies, you find that temperatures are anomalously warm, but not as warm as say in 2007 that showed 925 mbar air temperature anomalies that were 7oC above normal in the E. Siberian Seas (1-23 June). You have the Arctic Dipole anomaly this month resulting in winds pushing ice away from the Siberian coast in the Laptev Sea towards the pole (in 2007 it was more in the E. Siberian and Chukchi seas). I haven’t looked at SSTs yet. Cloud cover (or rather more clear skies) looks like it might be about the same this year as in 2007. I don’t know if the PIOMAS volume estimates are correct for this year or not, but the way the ice is responding at the moment would lead me to believe it is on the thin side.
    ___________
    Julienne,
    If a Ph.D. in this field wants to “stir the pot”, then all the better! This is what makes science fun, IMHO! We have a mystery to be solved.
    Some ideas:
    1) PIOMAS is far more accurate then certainly Steve et. al. have acknowledged. We’ll have to wait for CryoSat 2 to know for certain.
    2) On the ice reports of lots of weak and “rotten ice” are accurate, and so also confirm the lower volume predicted by PIOMAS.
    2) I would love to find out what the temps and overall heat flux coming in through the West Spitzbergen current have been this spring and summer. I know they were high in 2007, and then fell in 2008 & 2009, but I’ve not found a reliable source to indicate what they might be running this year. Certainly SST’s in the N. Atlantic have been running high for several months, but this of course does not indicate what the WSC might be running in 2010.
    3) In general, the higher temps we’ve seen across most of the Arctic for the past 6 months or more have got to play some role.
    Perhaps a combination of all three?

  31. Normally at this time of year there is a sort of a hold-up in the melt rate – a kink in the graph as the melt kind of slows and hesitates before plunging on down. The `fastest melt rate between blah-de-blah … ‘ that we have seen this year isn’t really because the ice is melting all that fast in absolute terms. It is mostly due to a complete absence of the usual kink. So what usually causes the kink and why is it missing this year?
    Another unusual feature of the melt this year has been the early opening up of gaps arising from shear due to the Beaufort gyre. Could the two be related?
    The kink usually occurs at the time during the melt when ice has most melted away outside the arctic basin and before it starts to melt much inside the arctic basin.
    So why the pause? Perhaps the melt has to hold up and wait for ice to break free at the edges of the arctic basin before it can proceed.
    This suggests an explanation for what we are seeing. Perhaps what has happened this year is that the ice broke free at the edges of the arctic basin much much earlier than usual – before the melt even got anywhere near the edges of the arctic basin. Consequently the usual hold-up to wait for the ice to break free isn’t happening this year.
    So why did the arctic ice pack break free at the edges so early? Two hypotheses no doubt will be suggested.
    1. Perhaps the ice is rotten.
    2. Perhaps stronger than usual winds broke it free.
    To check the first hypothesis we should look at ice thickness data. However the ice in the arctic basin seems reasonably thick. What does `rotten’ mean anyway? Perhaps those using the term would like to explain what they mean. If the suggestion is that the ice is not as dense or mechanically strong as usual, then is there any core sample data to bear this out?
    To check the second hypothesis we should look at the speed of the Beaufort gyre and at wind conditions over the arctic. Does anyone have useful data that would suggest the winds driving the gyre are pushing the pack harder than usual this year?

  32. Steve said:
    “There is little reason to pay attention to the ice extent graphs until at least July.”
    _________
    Which is a week away. But do pay attention to PIPS 2.0 thickness models, which are ignored by most professionals in the business, but happen to show the 40% increase in sea ice volume (so you say)?
    Sorry Steve, but these graphs are far more important than the PIP 2.0 thickness model projection. They tell us a great deal about the general pulse of the Arctic Ice, and even though wind and currents (i.e. weather) can play a role in the final summer minimum, there is a great deal of great data in the ice extent graphs, and I trade one of them for a hundred PIPS 2.0 thickness projections.

  33. ____
    Julienne says:
    June 25, 2010 at 12:52 pm
    Not to further stir the pot, but so far this June has shown the fastest ice loss rate during the satellite era currently at 83,000 sq-km per day. This past May was also the fastest rate of ice loss from 1979-present.
    So I am keenly interested in what is driving this rate of loss this year. If you look at the air temperature anomalies, you find that temperatures are anomalously warm, but not as warm as say in 2007 that showed 925 mbar air temperature anomalies that were 7oC above normal in the E. Siberian Seas (1-23 June).
    ______
    But didn’t 2007 have as much of a negative AO going into the year ? So temps were warmer come spring this year at high lattitudes than 2007 and all the ice around the edges was very late developed when the AO righted itself come Feb, so they crumbled quickly just after that and are still doing so.
    Will it continue? I now think the AO has less of an effect from this time on and it will be due just to weather, clear skies and the temperatures in general.
    Did you have a guess on the sea extent minima by the way? What was it?
    Andy

  34. Anu,
    Wow! Your trusted data sources have everything lined up for a huge record meltdown this summer.
    Given your belief system, you might want to consider betting your life savings on obliterating the record melt.

  35. Reading some of the comments on here, the cultists seem to have a lot invested in the melting of the arctic ice cap this year. What are they going to do if it doesn’t meet their expections? Drink more cool aid?

  36. @Ian H.
    That “gyre” affect on the ice definitely crossed my two brain cells. I have seen these gyre vortices cut the most perfect hole in river ice. It makes one wonder if it is a heat transfer mechanism at the very edge of the gyre (Faster velocity = faster heat removal).
    At least it will keep Steve out of 30 year trendlines 😉 Ouch!
    (Just playing Steve, we all enjoy your investigations, just sometimes the opinion of “fair” are landmines.)

  37. To Anu:
    I see Arctic Sea Ice below average, Antarctic Sea Ice above average, Total Global Sea Ice virtually at average (for decades), and hence no signal for global climate change, only for regional climate change.
    The total heat content of the oceans and the various oceanic oscillations are of sufficient magnitude to be the prime suspects for the regional changes seen.
    KW

  38. stevengoddard says:
    June 25, 2010 at 12:14 pm
    Phil,
    You must have X-Ray vision – like Superman.

    Another of those content-free responses that we have come to expect from you Steve, par for the course. You don’t need X-ray vision, you just need to open your eyes. It’s unfortunate for your propagandizing that the reality on the ground doesn’t match you spiel.

  39. Phil says: “Another of those content-free responses…”
    Here’s Phil’s complete response to Pamela Gray’s comment on the “Trend” thread @3:55 pm:
    “Repeat it all you like you’re still wrong.”
    Pot/kettle.

  40. Ian H says:
    What does `rotten’ mean anyway? Perhaps those using the term would like to explain what they mean. If the suggestion is that the ice is not as dense or mechanically strong as usual, then is there any core sample data to bear this out?
    _________
    Essentially that is correct, “rotten” ice is that is a mixture of older multi-year ice that has partially melted both from above and below, combined with newer less dense ice, that often has a “top glaze” on it, so from a satellite image, you might think you have continuous solid piece of ice that is all the same density and volume, when it fact you’ve got a weakened mixture of ice. A good and very recent video presentation on this, right from the team that studied this “rotten ice” over the past winter can be found here:
    http://video.hint.no/mmt201v10/osc/?vid=55
    I think at least some of the mystery of how supposedly this years 40% greater volume (according to Steve’s analysis, but other models such as PIOMAS strongly disagree) ice could be melting so fast this year can be found in the “rotten ice” scenario. There may be other factors as well, such as increased heat flux from the West Spitzbergen Current or just the warm temps the Arctic saw during the extreme negative AO from this past winter.
    Also, in looking back at the sea ice extent charts (that Steve says we ought not look at until July), but let’s look at them anyway, we see that during this past winter, the sea ice extent was actually running very close to 2007’s level until the “bump up” in March/April. This bump up, which happened rapidly and was primarily concentrated in the Bering Sea and Sea of Okhotsk, was new and thin ice, which physics would tell us, because it came late in the season and was thin and not very dense, was bound to melt very fast. The March/April bump up led the sea ice extent to approach almost back to the long term average (and Steve made much of this and used sea ice extent graphs at the time to do so, though now we are told by him to ignore the extent graphs until next week), it was clear that what inflated so fast was bound to melt fast, and sure enough, we had the rapid melt of May and June, and here we are, getting ready to see what July brings.
    Who is more correct? PIPS 2.0 or PIOMAS? How will the “rotten ice” respond, or is it really rotten anyway? What about the heat flux coming in from both the Atlantic and the Pacific side? How much is the ice being melted from below? And finally, how will those fickle winds and currents move the ice?
    This is a such a wonderful time to be a cryo-nut! No matter what happens, it will be an interesting July-Sept period!
    and yes, some direct “on the ice” data gathering last winter found much of the Arctic basin full

  41. stevengoddard,
    As far as I can see, you are still yet to respond to my questions regarding the graphs that you posted on ice thickness and ice volume – you know, the graphs that indicate that current ice area is over 20 million square kilometres, something that is not possible. I had thought that you or I had made a simple error that could easily be corrected. If so, can you let me know what it is. Thanks. 🙂

  42. Phil. says:
    June 25, 2010 at 11:04 am
    “Well you wouldn’t expect to except on the smallest fragments since you’re looking at flat sheets of ice with most of the area exposed on the top and bottom. The disintegration of that “large chunk of ice” shows how ‘rotten’ it really is.”
    ===============================
    “Rotten” ?, Why rotten, the “large chunk of ice” was not solid, just a floating mass of ice. Fractured by wave/wind/collision with other ice floes, maybe, but “rotten?.
    Define “rotten”.

  43. Ian,
    You asked “What does ‘rotten ice’ mean…?”. Where I grew up (Wisconsin), the term referred to the result of spring surface melt water on top of solid lake ice permeating the ice thickness along small fractures and flaws, resulting in an ice layer that is riddled with small through thickness melt holes. ‘Rotten ice’ or ‘honeycombed ice’ has little resistance to shear, bending, or compression loads and is easily fractured into slender icicles that make a wonderful glass-like tinkling sound when the wind and currents are giving it the Oster blender treatment!
    When the lake ice started showing significant surface melting and the first indications of rotten ice (honeycombing) started to appear, ice fishing, ice boating, and skating were done!

  44. 26 June: Indian Express: War of words over glaciers: Jairam calls Gore ‘climate evangelist’
    Minister for Environment and Forests Jairam Ramesh is at loggerheads with an article (‘The Message from the Glaciers’ by Orville Schell) in the prestigious New York Review of Books which suggests that Ramesh and the Indian government are taking the issue of melting glaciers lightly.
    Ramesh responded in a letter to the NYRB, saying there should be “less sermonising and sensationalising” on the Himalayan glaciers, calling Al Gore a ‘climate evangelist’, and adding that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was wrong on the glacier issue. ..
    http://www.indianexpress.com/news/War-of-words-over–glaciers–Jairam-calls-Gore–climate-evangelist-/638523

  45. It seems to me to be paradoxal to try to read anything into this week long clip. I looked up a map of Arctic SST’s and found this:
    http://polar.ncep.noaa.gov/sst/ophi/color_sst_NPS_ophi0.png
    The current temps are at or below freezing, for fresh water, but probably above for the salt content. Then it dawned on me that where there is water it will of course be above freezing and where there ice it will be below. I know, Duh…. during the week of the clip I see ice moving out of the picture and ice moving into the picture, leaving the overall area about the same. The ice volume this year may indeed be below average, but so what? The “average” temperatures are really quite average, we’re coming off of an El Niño, and the ice is really active. I get a little perplexed when someone says “see, it’s proof of global warming”, when there just isn’t significant warming. Personally, I think that no matter what this year holds, we’re on our way to colder temps for the next couple of decades, but I can’t be sure…

  46. stevengoddard,
    Wow! You don’t trust NOAA now ?
    Given your belief system, you might want to consider taking a vacation in October, to avoid the awkward questions and comments.

  47. What is clear is that the Arctic and Antarctic are very different places. Both v.cold, but the North is ocean, the South is rock. The North has warm currents and wind shitting it; the South is surrounded by the “roaring forties” westerly winds that keeps most currents away from the ice land. The msot significant differentiator is that the North ocean is surrounded by land, while the southern pole is surrounded by water.

  48. There’s all this talk of missing ice, or ice that is melted. Why are we sure it’s not still there, smaller in area but thicker? And if it’s gone then is that even a bad thing? That seems to me to be a lot of heat reduction taking place which in a so-called global warming world can’t be a bad thing. What else should polar ice caps do?
    And I don’t see anything remarkable about the rate of change in the IARC-JAXA charts. The rate is pretty much what it is every year. The only significant thing I see is the timing, but nobody’s every claimed to be an expert on what time of year we should have this much ice, and how much ice there should be.

  49. R. Gates says:
    June 25, 2010 at 4:26 pm
    That’s a lot of fuss just to prop up the idea that the Earth is headed for par-broiling, when the big picture is the switcheroo of climactic zones in the N. Hemisphere.
    I’ll lend you a nickle so you can lay it on the table to see how much the oceans rose last year from catastrophic global warming.

  50. David Gould
    After you read all of my articles explaining how I measure the ice volume from PIPS maps, feel free to come back and ask questions. The explanations in those articles should help correct the error in your thinking.

  51. Tom
    This time of year, one week is a very long time. There are only going to be another eight or nine weeks potentially warm enough to melt ice north of 80N.

  52. I see a lot of clear skies over the Arctic in the satellite images (and surface photos linked). All that sun… I really do expect to break 2007’s record this year.

  53. @kwik
    Good point comparing arctic (floating) and antarctic (grounded) ice. One could also use Greenland in the latter or one could use the Antarctic Western Penninsula ice shelf for the former. It would end up the same.
    Keep in mind the average temperature of the ocean isn’t much above ice water at about 40F. Only a relatively shallow surface layer is much warmer than that.
    I wonder what the average ocean temperature was near the end of the last ice age when it had presumably been losing heat for 100,000 years. Another oddity in the ice age/interglacial oscillation is the slope of the ramps leading up and down. The warm-up period in the interglacial is pretty fast compared to the cool-down period. Morever, the glaciers rule for 100,000 years and the interglacial only lasts about 10-20,000 years.
    One thing that can’t be denied (although the warmists appear to deny it) is that for the past many millions of years the “arctic ice cap” covers everything north of Virginia and stays that way year round with rather brief interludes where it retreats to where it is today. The conclusion is the earth is a planet struggling to become a giant snowball every 100,000 years and not quite getting there. Talking about purposely doing things to help it get colder is ignorant. Spending a significant fraction of global GDP to do isn’t ignorant it’s insane.

  54. Ian H says:
    What does `rotten’ mean anyway? Perhaps those using the term would like to explain what they mean. If the suggestion is that the ice is not as dense or mechanically strong as usual, then is there any core sample data to bear this out?

    It is an official classification code for ice, used by the Army Corps of Engineers and local residents in areas where ice build up is common on waterways. It is a very weak ice structure that even though might be physically thick it has very little structural strength and low density due to changes in the crystal structure of the ice.
    Rotten ice is described and pictured in this U.S. Army Corps of Engineers document, “OMNI ice codes” .
    www2.mvr.usace.army.mil/WaterControl/Districts/MVR/presentations/OMNI_ICE_Manual.ppt
    See slides 18 and 19
    Larry

  55. stevengoddard says:
    June 25, 2010 at 4:26 pm
    Phil,
    Why do you waste so much of your highly valuable time responding to my “content free” posts?

    The propaganda you produce needs rebutting in case anyone might be misled by it. Your response is usually a snarky remark and a complete failure to answer any questions, on other occasions you just run away and hide (like your failure to answer David Gould’s question about the arithmetic error above).
    E.g.
    David Gould says:
    June 25, 2010 at 4:47 pm
    stevengoddard,
    As far as I can see, you are still yet to respond to my questions regarding the graphs that you posted on ice thickness and ice volume – you know, the graphs that indicate that current ice area is over 20 million square kilometres, something that is not possible. I had thought that you or I had made a simple error that could easily be corrected. If so, can you let me know what it is. Thanks. 🙂

  56. Anu says on June 25, 2010 at 2:30 pm
    “What do you see?”
    I see a thin layer of warmth floating on a bucket of ice water struggling to stay warm through limited mixing with the icewater underneath. Evidently it doesn’t win the struggle for long as the ratio of glacial to interglacial periods is 10:1. Moreover I see that the current interglacial period is long in tooth and we should be figuring out how we’re going to eventually cope with glaciers covering Pennsylvania for 100,000 years.
    I take it that isn’t what you see. Deny history much?

  57. Phil. says:
    June 25, 2010 at 11:04 am
    “The disintegration of that “large chunk of ice” shows how ‘rotten’ it really is.”
    It seems to me that the breakup of the “large chunk of ice” was not caused, as Steve surmises, by crashing into the main mass of ice, but because it hit something stationary, perhaps a sandbar or an island. Still, that does not provide any clue about “how rotten” the ice floe was when it broke up. What do you use as a measuring standard for that?

  58. The one scientific conclusion we can make from all of this debate is; Global Warming, Global Cooling, and Climate Change are Not man’s fault. Man has no significant effect on any of these conditions. I defy any credible scientist to present factual proof that I am wrong and prove otherwise. Therefor, I am right and no one on the planet is more accurate than me on this conclusion if they cannot prove me wrong.
    Thank you for giving me credit on settling this issue on behalf of humanity. I now absolve everyone on the planet who has taken blame for climate change. It’s not your fault.

  59. It’s clear that the main source of rapid ice loss syndrome is wind action. However, I think it might be a mistake to discount the possibility that this intensification in the ice loss could be associated with the increase in temperature differential between arctic lands and oceans.
    See this. Whatever the origin of the warming, it does suggest that we’d expect stronger arctic circulation, driven in part by land-ocean temperature differences, to be a factor in this. (And I think the data are plenty robust to accept the result that there is a latitudinal effect on mean temperature trend over multi-decadal periods.)

  60. “What wonders [amazes] me is how quickly SST has risen for several degrees over ONE month! Could [someone] more knowledgeable explain this phenomena to me?” says Przemislaw Pawelczik. If that rise is factual I guarantee it was not the hot Arctic sun that caused it. Arctic warming is caused by warm water brought into the arctic by ocean currents, not by any greenhouse effect or some magical “arctic amplification” of it. On the Atlantic side the main source of warmth is the Gulf Stream which keeps the Russian Arctic ports open. It has eaten away a third of the sea ice that would have existed in its absence. A smaller amount enters from the Pacific side through the Bering Strait. Thanks to winds more than the usual amount of warm water came through the Bering Strait in 2007 and created a large bubble of open water just north of the strait while the Gulf Stream side hardly changed. The Arctic warming is nothing new: it started at the beginning of the twentieth century when a rearrangement of the North Atlantic current system directed the Gulf Stream unto its present northerly course.

  61. 1979-80 Eureka, I watched as 12 feet of ice in the fjord started melting in early summer, but when the wind blew from the east, it drove the ice out the fjord and into Eureka Sound. That current heads south, taking away the ice. Wind does have a huge effect. Guess what, that winter, the ice returned! However, I believe I split a glass of milk up there once, it was Catastrophic! Perhaps that is what started the “death spiral”.

  62. Phil. says:
    June 25, 2010 at 6:27 pm
    Propaganda is the provenance of those in or seeking to gain absolute power, not those doing the questioning.
    Try another political point.

  63. Phil, it must be nice to be tenured, living off working taxpayers while posting here and on other blogs 24/7.
    Steve Goddard writes lots of articles. So instead of slacking, why don’t you write your own article for WUWT? You could do it on your tenured salary, just like you post. Then you can see what receiving pot shots is like, instead of shooting them at others throughout your putative work day.
    You could start by explaining how CO2 is melting the North Pole ice, while it leaves Antarctica alone. That would be truly fascinating. Or anything connecting CO2 with Arctic ice cover, or with global warming in general — as long as it’s within the parameters of the Scientific Method.
    You game?

  64. Arno Arrak says:
    June 25, 2010 at 6:55 pm
    Warmists just don’t get the concept: If your tropical warm water heads too far North, it’s no different that leaving your front door open in winter. The heat escapes and your house freezes.

  65. After looking at the latest pics from MODIS and PIOMAS and JAXA and NSIDC, all of them in agreement with what real-time Arctic scientists are saying, and what the research literature has been saying for years, coming back to this site is like a window looking out on a different Arctic reality.

  66. Personal observation in SW Florida.
    Since the contrails stopped happening because of the Gulf oil spill, I notice it cools down a lot faster in the evening. It is now a comfortable 79 degrees in Cape Coral. Florida is like a desert, hot during the day and cooler at night because of the lack of cloud cover from the lack contrails. Last year wasn’t so nice at night.
    I look forward to the death count this coming winter from freezing conditions in the northern hemisphere. I wonder how the death count is going to turn out from freezing conditions in the southern hemisphere this year.

  67. Walter Schneider says:
    June 25, 2010 at 6:40 pm
    Phil. says:
    June 25, 2010 at 11:04 am
    “The disintegration of that “large chunk of ice” shows how ‘rotten’ it really is.”
    It seems to me that the breakup of the “large chunk of ice” was not caused, as Steve surmises, by crashing into the main mass of ice, but because it hit something stationary, perhaps a sandbar or an island.

    The water there is about 50+m deep as far as I can tell and no islands.
    Still, that does not provide any clue about “how rotten” the ice floe was when it broke up. What do you use as a measuring standard for that?
    When it disintegrates like that piece did it’s pretty rotten.

  68. July will be where it all will come together-or apart. Bastardi seems to think that with
    the SST’s in the Pacific cooling, the loss will slow and come back quickly….

  69. Smokey says:
    June 25, 2010 at 7:08 pm
    Phil, it must be nice to be tenured, living off working taxpayers while posting here and on other blogs 24/7.

    I guess it might be, I wouldn’t know.
    Steve Goddard writes lots of articles. So instead of slacking, why don’t you write your own article for WUWT? You could do it on your tenured salary, just like you post. Then you can see what receiving pot shots is like, instead of shooting them at others throughout your putative work day.
    Anthony’s conditions to allow me to post aren’t acceptable.

  70. Gneiss says:
    June 25, 2010 at 7:34 pm
    “After looking at the latest pics from MODIS and PIOMAS and JAXA and NSIDC, all of them in agreement with what real-time Arctic scientists are saying, and what the research literature has been saying for years, coming back to this site is like a window looking out on a different Arctic reality.”
    ==========================
    Yep, it’s all about the funding.

  71. stevengoddard,
    You stated that volume equal area * thickness.
    Your charts say that the current average thickness is 2.5 metres.
    Your charts also say that the current average volume is 55,000 cubic kilometres.
    This means (using the equation that you outlined) that you are using an area of over 20 million square kilometres in your calculations.
    Can you please clarify if this is indeed the area that you are using in your calculations. It would be a very simple thing just to tell me, and everyone here, what the precise numbers in your calculations are. There are only three of the, after all, and one of them – volume – is derived from the other two.
    What is your current average calculated thickness? Is it 2.5 metres?
    What is your current calculated volume? Is it 55,000 cubic kilometres?
    What is the area that you are using in the equation? Is it 20 million square kilometres?
    It would be very simple of you to confirm the figures that you are using. I am wondering why you are refusing to do so … If it is because you do not want to admit making an arithmetic error, do not worry about that – everyone makes them from time to time. If it is because you are aware that I have made an arithmetic error and want to spare my feelings, don’t worry about that, either – I have made too many arithmetic errors in my time to be overly concerned about another one.
    Oh, and I have read all your sea ice posts. There is nothing in them about the area value that you are using in your volume calculations that I have seen. I may have missed it. But you can simply cut and paste in in a response here if you have already posted it, or just point me to the direct link.

  72. Michael says:
    June 25, 2010 at 2:25 pm
    kwik says: wrote
    June 25, 2010 at 1:15 pm
    I think its the Sun.
    “Hot Tip; Sun-Gate coming up?;”
    Thanks Kwik. I love this kind of news. Let me post a bit of the article…
    ————-
    Perfect.

  73. Gneiss says:
    June 25, 2010 at 7:34 pm
    That’s what happens when you stare too long at lifeless masses of ice.
    Try reading Jack London’s story about the two who decided to stay all winter in the Arctic Night.
    What a lovely place. Beachfront sales, anyone?

  74. StevenGoddard,
    Thank you for setting me straight on the Arctic ice being freshwater at this time of year, that makes sense.
    As to a week being a long time in the arctic melt season, I understand what you’re saying, but my point is that this year would seem to be atypical already because of the rapid decline of ice extent for the last three months. It’s obviously NOT “global warming”, because the temps are about right for this time of year. That, to me, means something else is at work. Wind patterns? under water volcanoes? I don’t know. The temperatures do seem to resemble 2006, so why doesn’t the ice extent?
    Thanks for any insight that I am missing.

  75. David Gould
    I have never produced any chart using cubic kilometres, and had you actually read my posts (as you claim) you would know that my measured units of volume are pixel-metres.
    You are too anxious to speak, and not bothering to listen.

  76. stevengoddard says:
    June 25, 2010 at 7:07 pm
    2 cents worth says that Kim is thinking “Can America really be that stupid?”

  77. stevengoddard,
    Excellent – thank you. I did ask the question confirming what units these were in, as it was not on the chart. See: very simple to answer. 🙂

  78. Tom
    There was a lot of thin ice around the periphery of the Arctic which formed very late in March. It has since melted quickly, just as it formed quickly.
    Also, the circulation patterns in the Arctic have tended to compact the ice towards the center of the Arctic Basin, which means lower extent now, and most likely a slow melt later.
    The most important thing to realize though is that the extent graphs are being primarily controlled now by regions of ice that always melt before September, so looking too closely at graphs now can only lead people to meaningless conclusions.

  79. stevengoddard says:
    June 25, 2010 at 6:44 pm
    Phil,
    Have you located the sea ice west of Barrow yet, or do you still believe that the University of Alaska is running an elaborate hoax?

    Yes it appears to be about 200 miles W of Barrow. It’s you who’s been doing the hoaxing not the U of Alaska, after all you posted a graph of ice thickness purporting it to be current, ten days after the instruments were shut down, with the following comment: “Ice offshore of Barrow, Alaska is showing little signs of melt so far.”
    You also posted “The landfast ice is not showing any changes” in association with your animation despite the obvious growth of melt ponds on the surface of the landfast ice.

  80. I still think Steve should investigate the gyre of the edge. Wind alone does not make sense. A speed of 0.42 mph is pretty good for flotsam not breaking on a shore.

  81. Phil. says:
    June 25, 2010 at 8:03 pm
    “When it disintegrates like that piece did it’s pretty rotten.”
    June 25, 2010 at 11:04 am you stated: “The disintegration of that “large chunk of ice” shows how ‘rotten’ it really is.”
    Neither of those statements tells me anything about what measuring standard you applied in determining the two values for the extent off “rottenness”: “pretty rotten” and “how rotten it really is.”
    That is insufficiently concrete to base a scientific observation on, but I grant you that it is good enough for an unsubstantiated opinion.
    All I see is that the ice floe broke up when it hit something stationary. The broken pieces of the ice floe then drifted around that obstacle and merged with the ice sheet.
    What is that stationary obstacle? Is it perhaps an area of ice that is frozen to the ocean floor, or is it maybe an artificial island that was constructed for a drilling rig?
    As to the depth of the water in the area, Google Earth does not provide a good resolution for determining that very precisely, nor does it seem to indicate any of the many drilling islands that have been constructed during the last few years.
    Regardless of what Google Earth shows, the series of photos provided by Steven does show a stationary object. It seems to me that stationary objects are likely to cause ice floes that hit them to break up, even if the ice floes are comprised of solid, “healthy” ice.

  82. The amount of ice that formed in March melted off in the first few days of April. We’re down to an extent as low as it was in early to mid November.

  83. stevengoddard says:
    June 25, 2010 at 6:10 pm

    Tom
    The surface of sea ice is freshwater, because of snowfall and because the saltier ice tends to melt first.

    I have to add that ice in the icebergs is also mainly salt free.
    Ice is the crystal form of H2O and these crystals by the forces that form them are pure H2O. Now brine can be trapped in bubbles within large crystals, but there seems to be a process where even brine is squeezed out over time from the ice.

  84. stevengoddard says:
    June 25, 2010 at 8:41 pm
    Tom
    “There was a lot of thin ice around the periphery of the Arctic which formed very late in March. It has since melted quickly, just as it formed quickly. ”
    ________
    Now, where have I heard that before? Oh yeah, I said it way back in March and April when it was forming, but the AGW skeptics were pointing to the charts and getting all a twitter-pated, saying, “look the ice is back to normal!”
    _________
    But then Steve went on to add:
    “The most important thing to realize though is that the extent graphs are being primarily controlled now by regions of ice that always melt before September, so looking too closely at graphs now can only lead people to meaningless conclusions.”
    ___________
    That’s right, only look at the charts when they are showing some kind of ‘bump up” or anything that might be proof that the AGW models of a melting Arctic are wrong. So Steve, not only do you cherry pick the data, you cherry pick when the sea ice extent charts should and shouldn’t be used or when they are or aren’t meaningless– is that the plan? The only time the data isn’t “meaningless” is when it is telling you something that you want and expect to see based on your skeptic’s perspective?
    I would have to say that such selective use of when the sea ice charts are meaningful or not ought to be a big clue that more is rotten in the world than the ice in the Arctic basin.

  85. AndyW says:
    June 25, 2010 at 3:08 pm
    Andy, actually in 2007 there was a positive AO during winter, and negative during summer.
    According to Wang et al. (2009) (and note DA refers to the Dipole Anomaly)
    It was also found that the 2007 summer falls into state 3: −AO+DA, with the AO and DA indices being −1.5 and +2.2, respectively, both higher than 0.6 standard deviation as shown in Figure 2f (the AO/DA indices in 2007 winter, spring, summer, and autumn are 0.58/0.53, 1.35/0.15, −1.5/2.22, and 0.34/0.03, respectively). The resulting SLP anomaly was a DA-dominated two-center structure, and the wind anomaly was meridional, blowing from the western to the eastern Arctic (Figure 4a). This DA-induced wind anomaly was dynamically responsible for the 2007 summer minimum (Figure 1). The positive AO during the 2007 winter (AO index = 0.5, see Figure 2e) and spring (AO index = 1.35) also contributed warming to the Arctic, further thinning sea ice. To illustrate that the +DA and +AO are the key factors for the past ice minima, we construct the climate states to identify the latest five ice minimum summers against summer DA and AO indices, as shown in Table 2. Except for year 2002 (climate state 1) during which +AO played an important role in the Arctic ice minimum, in all four cases, +DA played a leading role for the summer ice minima, although the −AO tends to converge the sea ice inside the Arctic Ocean.
    Definitely as the summer progresses the AO has less of an impact and the DA becomes more important. The negative winter AO this year was different than a classic negative AO pattern. Really and AO index is just a small part of the story, the location of the sea level pressure anomalies and how much spatial area they coverage is more telling. So despite a very strong negative AO this winter, the ice export out of Fram Strait was actually normal (not reduced as you might expect during a negative AO phase). In addition, there was large transport of ice from the Canadian Archipelago into the Beaufort and Chukchi seas that didn’t turn northwards as you would expect under a stronger Beaufort Gyre, but instead transported that ice into the E. Siberian Sea.
    My estimate based on typical survival rates of ice of different ages was 5.5 million sq-km. But I’m not convinced that will be accurate because we have seen that survival rates are changing. If survival rates of 2007 are more appropriate then this September is estimated at 4.3 million sq-km. So I think this DA will be important to watch, since if it persists all summer like it did in 2007, then the extent will most likely end up very close to that in 2007.

  86. Steven Goddard,
    Thank you for your last set of answers, they are pretty much as I understood them to be, especially the gyre forcing the ice inward towards the pole. I think that’s the biggest problem with the ice extent graphs, they do not speak to the volume (although I accidently used that word when I meant extent), density, or integrity (By which I mean ice brick opposed to ice cubes or slush?!?). That’s why I see such a disconnect about someone trying to prove global temperature increase with Arctic ice extent. It’s one thing to try and predict the outcome of such a chaotic system, bad enough, but taking the final result (ice extent) and reverse engineering it to glean the minuscule change of one input (global temperature) out of several unknown inputs (all else mentioned before plus I’m sure, many more) would strike me as rather implausible.

  87. R. Gates says:
    June 25, 2010 at 2:58 pm
    Yes it’s important to find out what the SSTs and currents are doing this year. The Dipole Anomaly of 2007 did strengthen inflow of the warm Pacific water which no doubt played an important role that year. I haven’t looked at any of that for this year yet. It’s true air temperatures were anomalously warm all winter in response to the negative AO, but basically since about 2000, air temperature anomalies have been positive during all months. Guess it would be worth looking at the monthly air temperature anomalies for 2007 and 2010 and see how they compare. I do believe the ice is thin, and this is key to the fast pace of decline we’ve seen in May and June (and why June is now a new record low during the satellite era).
    One way to look at it is if you have thick ice (> 3m), you could have anomalously warm conditions (SSTs, air temperatures) that would translate into large ice volume loss, but it would have little impact on the ice extent since the ice remains thick enough to survive. But when the ice is thin, you can have the same anomalously warm conditions that would cause the same ice volume loss, but now it also translates into ice extent loss because the ice has melted out entirely.

  88. rbateman says:
    June 25, 2010 at 1:05 pm
    What do you see?
    A cold, miserable and lifeless place that nobody wants.

    Then give that piece of land to me. I’ll take care of that oil. Leave it to me.

  89. In my previous comment (June 25, 2010 at 9:17 pm), I mentioned drilling islands.
    I came across something that relates to that, “Marine Geological Research in the Canadian Beaufort Sea”, at http://www.bsstrpa.ca/NaturalResources.htm
    That web page shows fairly detailed sonar scans of various geological features that fall into a couple of subject areas that were covered at wattsupwiththat.com. One of those is methane bubbling from the sea floor. The other is geological features that could account for stationary obstacles to drifting ice floes: pingo-like mud-volcanoes, drilling islands and something that may be surprising, keels of ice pressure ridges that drag on the ocean floor and cause a proliferation of deep furrows in the ocean floor (mostly 50cm deep, with some up to more than 2m deep).
    “The mud volcanoes range from a few meters to more than 20m high and have diameters that can be 50 to 300m across.”
    As to the mud-volcanoes, one sonar scan illustrating one was taken in water at a depth of 60m. Moreover, that scan clearly shows a number of gauges that appear to have been left by ice keels.
    I imagine that the marine-geological conditions in similar water depths in the American Beaufort Sea do not have any national distinctions.
    The area of the Arctic Ocean that contains the stationary object against which the solitary large ice floe shown by Steven smashed itself appears to have a depth of about 36 to 38m (according to Google Earth).

  90. Gavin says:
    June 25, 2010 at 6:17 pm
    I see a lot of clear skies over the Arctic in the satellite images (and surface photos linked). All that sun… I really do expect to break 2007′s record this year.
    If it doesn’t happen will you be back here in the middle of September to say you were wrong?

  91. Rbateman:
    “Warmists just don’t get the concept: If your tropical warm water heads too far North, it’s no different that leaving your front door open in winter. The heat escapes and your house freezes.”
    How far north is too far north and how are you privy this this limit? What are the natural and unnatural drivers that could put warm water “too far north”?

  92. Global warming believers are showing up more and more for the Arctic ice posts. They should stop telling us that Arctic ice has no importance now and that it only will have importance in a decade or two. Because as it is now they are showing us by being here so persistently when Arctic ice comes up that it is important now.
    Their slip is showing.

  93. Phil. says:
    June 25, 2010 at 11:04 am
    The disintegration of that “large chunk of ice” shows how ‘rotten’ it really is.
    Gosh Phil, you must be right! Because, after all, how could ice break up in summer!? You got us there man. You’re good, really good.
    (yes, ‘sarc off’ now)

  94. When sea ice breaks up there can be no other reason than it’s rotted from global warming.
    When a huge snow storm hits there can be no other explanation than extra moisture in the air from global warming.
    When there is less snow there can be no other explanation than global warming is drying the air.
    When there is record cold there is no other explanation then global warming will soon be taking away all record cold. Or that all the cold in the earth is being pushed into a smaller region by all the warming thus concentrated cold is making record cold.
    When nothing unusual happens there can be no other explanation but to be told wait because disasters are coming.
    Believe in global warming so you can make Brooke Shields happy.

  95. stevengoddard,
    Now that my confusion regarding the units/area issue has been resolved, perhaps we can get to my main question.
    According to your graphs, average ice depth today is 2.5 metres. Average ice depth last year was 2.1 metres. Volume, however, is about the same. This implies a decline in ice area of 15 per cent. That seems unlikely to me. As I pointed out, if we are just looking at the Arctic Basin that would imply an ice area this year some 750,000 square kilometres lower than at the same time last year.
    Can you clarify whether you could the same result? I may be making another error, and would like to be sure of what it is that your analysis shows.

  96. I would hesitate to draw conclusions about how rotten the ice is based on that one piece that broke up. That piece obviously has an unusual history to be separated off from the main pack from that in the first place. In other words it was clearly not typical of the rest of the ice. It’d be interesting to backtrack it and see where it came from.

  97. Dave Springer says:
    June 25, 2010 at 6:18 pm
    Yes, its odd how the IPCC looks for CO2 and denies everything else. And the big research organisations do the same. Otherwise there will be no grants. Its a big Hoax.
    Turns out there are many cycles superimposed pluss delay effects from ocean currents, and dips from vulcanoes. And pluss-minus feedback-loops from clouds.
    These are the things that needs to be studied to fully understand.
    Not that silly little trace-gas.
    Here is a large cycle; Denied by IPCC CAGW crowd, as allways.
    But clear for everyone else to see;
    How much influence of it do we see from it today?
    http://www.phys.huji.ac.il/~shaviv/Ice-ages/GSAToday.pdf

  98. stevengoddard says:
    June 25, 2010 at 8:27 pm
    I have never produced any chart using cubic kilometres, and had you actually read my posts (as you claim) you would know that my measured units of volume are pixel-metres.
    ____________________________________________________________
    Well then, your pixel-metre volume calculations are off by a country mile.
    It’s extremely easy and straight forward to calculate square kilometers per pixel from the 354 pixel wide by 398 pixel high PIPS 2.0 imagery (hint 85, 80, 70, 60, 50, and 40 latitudes are shown and Photoshop CS5 is your friend);
    http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/pips2/archive/pips2_thick/2010/pips2_thick.2010033100.gif
    http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/pips2/archive/pips2_thick/2010/pips2_thick.2010062100.gif
    I have done so (for the above two dates) and checked your volume calculations against the PIOMAS 1979-2009 trend line;
    http://psc.apl.washington.edu/ArcticSeaiceVolume/images/PIOMAS_daily_mean.png
    And your volume numbers are off the chart(s), way off the chart(s), as it were.

  99. As a lowly engineer I do not have what one may call scientific qualifications. My world is reality and observations. Loss of the arctic sea ice at this point in our climate cycle is very worrying.
    The sun as it has every right to do is having a holiday, that is totally OK by me, but the timing is a little inconvenient. The up welling of the cold waters created by the LIA are starting to become apparent. This displacement of the warmer waters unfortunately appears to be impinging on the Arctic ice.
    This is the bad news, that ice is enough to cool a large volume of water. Forget the lose of ice and worry about the cold oceans.
    The oceans warm our planet and the sun warms our oceans, southern winter is not warm this year {ask Anthony} we have a ship load of ice in the Antarctic and very unusual sea ice around South Africa { cold killing penguins in SA}
    The entire world acts exactly like a heat pump, an old fashioned one without a compressor. Heat comes in from the sun and our oceans are our refrigerant, it takes heat to make water vapour, this makes clouds to moderate the heat input, but the ocean warms.
    The poles pump heat out of the system thus cooling the refrigerant. Cool it to much and the world gets cold. The loss of the Arctic ice normally is just getting rid of heat this time round it may be too much. I think soon sacrificing virgins to the sun may be too late. Interglacials always end often quickly, ours is much overdue.
    I am hoping the portends are wrong, perhaps my usual canny sense of foreboding
    has alluded me in my twilight years but investing in thermal clothing companies may be a good bet.

  100. So I think this DA will be important to watch,

    Julienne, how can a layman keep an eye on that Arctic Dipole Pattern? Do you have any links?

  101. EFS_Junior
    If you had actually read my articles, you would know that I am calculating only the region of interest shown in the maps in those articles – correlates to approximately the maximum September extent in the NSIDC record. You would also know that I zoom the ROI before counting.
    My PIPS calculations are quite accurate, thank you.

  102. If your pixels-metrea volume numbers are based on the original pixel sized images, than your volume numbers are indeed wrong.
    If not, than have the original images been resampled to a different higher resolution?

  103. Oh, sorry, forgot to ask what does ROI stand for in it’s current context, 8-bit GIF inages.

  104. Günther Kirschbaum says:
    June 26, 2010 at 4:08 am
    So I think this DA will be important to watch,
    Julienne, how can a layman keep an eye on that Arctic Dipole Pattern? Do you have any links?
    Gunther, I use NCEPs online analysis web site: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/data/composites/day/
    which allows you to input your time-period you want to look at (day of the month, year), the region you want to look at (I chose “custom” and then Northern Hemisphere Polar Stereographic for 60-90N and 0-360E). You can chose the variable (i.e. SLP) and look at means or anomalies. For the DA you can see the mean SLP field that shows the Dipole, but the strength of the SLP anomalies is more indicative of the DA pattern. There are many other variables you can look at such as air temperature at different levels in the atmosphere, meridional wind, SST, etc.)

  105. Julienne says:
    June 25, 2010 at 10:26 pm
    R. Gates says:
    June 25, 2010 at 2:58 pm
    Yes it’s important to find out what the SSTs and currents are doing this year. The Dipole Anomaly of 2007 did strengthen inflow of the warm Pacific water which no doubt played an important role that year.
    _________________
    Thanks for your response. I know that funding is always difficult, but considering the impact on melt in the Arctic, it would seem to me that a series of permanent bouys that monitor the WSC and Bering Strait heat flux inflows would be an excellent investment, or perhaps these already exist, but I don’t know where to find the data? Recent studies done by Weslawski et. al. on the WSC would seem to have been done via ship board measurements, rather than permanent bouys. Also, in terms of the sea ice volume, I would love to see some data that shows how smooth the ice is underneath and across the central Arctic basin. Though I’m not an expert such as yourself, I thought I had read somwhere that a great deal of the mass/volume of sea ice can be found in the fins from pressure ridges. If the “rotten” ice is overall smoother on the bottom or has less deep fins from pressure ridging, than this might account for a great deal of the volume loss, and might lead to quicker melting. I would presume this has never been studied, but perhaps you know differently?

  106. EFS_Junior said June 26, 2010 at 5:44 am:

    Oh, sorry, forgot to ask what does ROI stand for in it’s current context, 8-bit GIF inages.

    It’s easy enough to find where it’s discussed, just takes some advanced computer skills. First you have to access Google search, then look for “wuwt goddard region of interest arctic pips” to find it. When I just did it, the info was in the first two results.
    One thing is for certain, Goddard’s Arctic posts must really be popular. Every other result on that first page is from a (C)AGW proponent site griping about them (and also one result from Lucia’s site where there was griping, your call if that’s in the “other” list).
    Heh. Idiot Tracker at Blogger is complaining. A lot of people are taking notice of these posts and spending a lot of time and effort complaining. The Legend of Steve Goddard grows large indeed.

  107. Yes, I figured it out, Region Of Interest, which doesn’t mean a whole heck of a lot without an actual boundary definition.
    My ROI is the entire Arctic at the point of maximum sea ice extent (plus a few % for any sea ice movement ambiguities in the early part of the melt season) for the entire melt season.

  108. From: EFS_Junior on June 26, 2010 at 10:03 pm

    Yes, I figured it out, Region Of Interest, which doesn’t mean a whole heck of a lot without an actual boundary definition.

    Wow, who knew basic reading comprehension was now classified as an advanced computer skill, which you seemingly lack. Said definition is there, findable as I said. Maybe you should re-read all of Goddard’s articles, but slower this time so you can (hopefully) actually know what is in them.

  109. stevengoddard,
    I was hoping that you could address this:
    “According to your graphs, average ice depth today is 2.5 metres. Average ice depth last year was 2.1 metres. Volume, however, is about the same. This implies a decline in ice area of 15 per cent. That seems unlikely to me. As I pointed out, if we are just looking at the Arctic Basin that would imply an ice area this year some 750,000 square kilometres lower than at the same time last year.
    Can you clarify whether you could the same result? I may be making another error, and would like to be sure of what it is that your analysis shows.”
    Now, Arctic Basin area has, according to this: http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.1.html
    plummeted in recent days, and is now close to being 15 per cent below last year’s value at the same time. But at the time that you posted your analysis, this precipitous decline had only just begun. So can you tell me whether your analysis shows a 15 per cent decline in area in the Arctic Basin when this year is compared to last year?
    As I said, I may well have made another error. These are intended to be genuine questions – I want to understand what it is that you are doing.

  110. Anyhow here is a link to one page in one of my bloggs: Environment, Norah4history
    Well so far as I am aware; I have no Nordic connections. But right at the top of my list of all time favorite singers, would be Kirsten Flagstad; and next would be Birgit Nilson. So of course some Nordic Mythology, at least in the Richard Wagner manifestation of that, in “Der Ring des Nibelungen.” is among my favorite relaxing moment passtimes. Actually the Saturday, that I landed on the docks in Manhattan some 49 years ago, with $40 cash in my pocket, and no place to stay; my wife and I spent $20 out of that $40 for a pair of dress circle (returns) seats to the afternoon Matinee performance of “Tristan and Isolde”, with Birgit Nilson singing her final performance for the season, at the Metropolitan Opera.
    After that we looked for some place to stay; my wife was six months pregnant at the time, and I had no job or job offers.
    So I maybe bending your ear, at your blog, if only to find out what Dala Horses are all about.
    George

Comments are closed.