Latest Barrow Ice Breakup On Record?

By Steven Goddard,

In my last post, we discussed how there has been no visible change in the landfast ice near Barrow, AK. during the last week.

The University of Alaska has been tracking breakup of this ice for the past decade. The latest breakup was July 11 which occurred last year. The earliest breakup occurred in 2004 on June 16. They have devised a model which forecasts the breakup, based on solar radiation already received and forecast into the future by NCAR’s WRF weather model. Their current forecast has it breaking up after July 10, which would at a minimum tie the record.

http://seaice.alaska.edu/gi/observatories/barrow_breakup

The current WRF forecast is predicting very cloudy conditions near Barrow through mid-July.

http://seaice.alaska.edu/gi/observatories/barrow_breakup/Barrow_SW.png

Temperatures in Barrow have been running well below normal this summer.

http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/PABR/2010/6/25/MonthlyHistory.html#calendar

This has been largely due to cloudiness. The current view of Barrow is seen below.

http://seaice.alaska.edu/gi/observatories/barrow_webcam

Long term weather forecasts change all the time. But for those of you expecting a big melt this summer, I hope you didn’t bet a lot of money on it.

Advertisements

108 thoughts on “Latest Barrow Ice Breakup On Record?

  1. Steven Goddard says:
    Long term weather forecasts change all the time. But for those of you expecting a big melt this summer, I hope you didn’t bet a lot of money on it.

    I hope they did!

  2. I just wonder how the recent activity from the unpronounceable volcano and the ongoing low sunspot activity is likely to impact the ice melt this year but could be counteracted by the recent acceleration in the release of methane from the Arctic Ocean seafloor, interesting times,
    All this has probable be covered before but only just found this website and logged on, so have some catching up to do.

  3. “This has been largely due to cloudiness. ”
    Cloudiness?
    Isnt 2500 scientists saying its because of a belt of CO2? A greenhouse?
    Dear, oh dear.
    Is it Unprecedented? Is it Robust? Is it worse than we thought?
    No? In that case, no grants for you.

  4. Mr. Goddard
    Going from memory, while reading books by early explorers in the arctic, I recall them referring to what they called a “water sky”. This meant open water ahead and was a very thick fog which formed over that water. They had to be off of the ice before this began I believe in either May or June–I’m too lazy to look it up for sure! But my question is, how do satelites and sensors deal with this thick fog or isn’t it an issue?

  5. Well well. Had they only been up to date up to 2000 with education-documentaries for students in ordinary school age 14-16, which of course their teachers must have missed to show in their classes. Or had didn’t they attend class?
    Eitherwhich. I am 61 years old and when we back in late 50’s and early 60’s were shown 8-mm films regarding the Ice breakups in Arctic, the now told story was what was told back then. When my diseased father, born 1915, studied what we call ‘Naturlära’ = Science of Nature their books from 1920’s contain same information. What am I to think of the ‘new’ but old information. Or about education. Same story here in Sweden as elsewhere. Don’t they ever learn?

  6. @ kwik,
    “isn’t 2500 scientists”
    You’re kidding me. You seriously think that the IPCC is credible? The IPCC has tons of activists, who consider themselves to actually be scientists.
    If you want to study grammar, please check out your English. Isn’t refers to a singular object, and last time I checked 2500 is not singular. You would use “aren’t” instead of “isn’t.”

  7. Steve,
    If any posting of your would cause me to loose all repect for your scientific objectivity and honesty, this would be it. You are taking one data point in the Arctic, relating to the date that shore-fast sea ice break up, combined with a local weather forecast, and actually making the statement:
    “Long term weather forecasts change all the time. But for those of you expecting a big melt this summer, I hope you didn’t bet a lot of money on it.”
    I am actually wondering why you are so fixated on Pt. Barrow. Did you have to scour (i.e. cherry pick) all the available data covering the entire Arctic to find one piece of data that might (if it were the entire Arctic!) represent what is happening across the Arctic? I know the trend this summer so far has not supported your long term contention that the Arctic sea ice is “recovering”, but such a blantant example of trying to cherry pick data to prove your point has got to be transparent to even you most faithful followers.
    Now, in regards to what is actually happening across the entire Arctic, we know that from the March 31, 2010 maximum sea ice extent through today, we’ve seen more total ice extent lost than any other year on record. Looking at this sea ice extent graph, (which I know you’ve told us not to look at until July), we can see how steep the slope has been since March:
    http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm
    Now, I am wondering, and I think some of your faithful followers should ask this honest question to themselves at least: If the circumstances had been different, and we somehow saw the very high extent of April continue through June, do we really think that you would not be using that sea ice extent chart in nearly every one of your Arctic Sea Ice Updates? I for one am quite certain you would, and it would be the topic of every AGW skeptic’s blog and conservative talk show hosts daily rant. Instead, you find one data point, that appears to support your notion of a “recovery” of Arctic sea ice.
    I guess the cherry’s to pick are getting pretty thin in the Arctic right now Steve, but really…

  8. “Is it Unprecedented? Is it Robust? Is it worse than we thought?”
    Nope. It’s rotten ice!
    Just as all of the “missing” CO2 warming of the last decade is “hidden” way deep down in the deep dark oceans.
    The “missing” decline in the sea ice extent is there, you just can’t see it or measure it or quantify it.
    Post-normal science and all that.

  9. Bryan, it’s not unpronounceable.
    1.) Clench your teeth together, fix your lips in an inane grin (think Wallace (& Gromit)) and say, quickly, “Hey ya forgot ya yoghurt”. When people say “What?”, you lose the grin and reply: “You know, that Volcano In Iceland!”, and then they say:”Is that how you pronounce it?”, and you say “Yes.” No word of a lie.

  10. My seat of the pants world view has always been that factors like insolation, wind speed, especially if it’s gusty, water current speed and maybe relative humidity have a very significant, if not dominate effect on ice pack break up. Living a half mile from Lake Huron which is a significant body of fresh water, the breakup always seems to be triggered on a sunny day with wind, not so much on the air temperature. Air just doesn’t have enough calories in it per unit of temperature to make a big dent in ice breakup. Seems the men of letters are starting to recognize this.

  11. Rather than talking about Pt. Barrow’s weather or when its local shore-fast ice will break up, to understand the conditions in the Arctic, it might be more helpful to look at how much warmer it was than normal over the Arctic during May:
    http://www.climate4you.com/images/ARCTIC%20Temp%20201005%20versus%201998-2006.gif
    Over most of the Arctic (yes, it was about normal or slightly cooler than normal in Pt. Barrow) it was 2 to 3 degree warmer than average in May and in April. These high temps might be more important to your expectations for or against a big melt this summer than when the shore-fast sea ice breaks up in Pt. Barrow.

  12. I’ve been out of town for a while and wow, the ice has really started to decline this summer. I have to agree with R. Gates here. It does seem that Steve is grasping at straws since the ice is not behaving as he would have liked. Or really as we all would have liked, since I certainly would prefer the ice to stay up there. But the reality is the ice continues its decline. It is silly to extrapolate from fast ice attached to the shore of Barrow to the entire Arctic and make such a bold statement that we shouldn’t be expect a big melt this year. What about all the open water already in the Beaufort Sea? And looking at the AMSR-E data from today and from 2007, the situation clearly looks worse this year since lower ice concentrations cover a much larger region today than then.
    Steve, honestly instead of trying to pretend the ice is not declining, why not focus on what is causing it. Just because the ice is declining, that does not necessarily imply it’s from CO2 (though that is what the climate models suggest). So why not start looking at the mechanisms for the decline we’re seeing this summer? Seems to me the negative AO this winter did nothing to help the ice and may have actually hurt it.

  13. Snowlover123 says:
    June 26, 2010 at 8:35 am
    The day you learn norwegian as well (or as little) as I know english, and german, I will take your advice.
    hehe.

  14. Some further information about the so-called “rotten ice”, and why remotely sensed projections can be so far off. See this study:
    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL041434.shtml
    And here is a summary of the study:
    “In September 2009 we observed a much different sea icescape in the Southern Beaufort Sea than anticipated, based on remotely sensed products. Radarsat derived ice charts predicted 7 to 9 tenths multi-year (MY) or thick first-year (FY) sea ice throughout most of the Southern Beaufort Sea in the deep water of the Canada Basin. In situ observations found heavily decayed, very small remnant MY and FY floes interspersed with new ice between floes, in melt ponds, thaw holes and growing over negative freeboard older ice. This icescape contained approximately 25% open water, predominantly distributed in between floes or in thaw holes connected to the ocean below. Although this rotten ice regime was quite different that the expected MY regime in terms of ice volume and strength, their near-surface physical properties were found to be sufficiently alike that their radiometric and scattering characteristics were almost identical.”
    He

  15. Answer to R. Gates June 26, 2010 at 10:31 am
    Average? You simply don’t haver reliable data for period before 1959! Thus you case is as best drawn from nonexisting data – at worst forged!

  16. Steve, while it is cloudy over Barrow today, the MODIS images show it’s clear over most of the Arctic Ocean and I can see lots of melt ponds…

  17. stevengoddard says:
    June 26, 2010 at 6:18 am
    It appears that seaice.alaska.edu is down this morning.
    ——-
    REPLY: Steve, I’ve been going to the site every day, and the worldwide activity map (showing locations of users) has been lighting up like a candle!
    Not surprising, with the increasing popularity of WUWT globally. Last I looked, Pt. Barrow looked pretty “normal,” a bit of melt close to shore (the UA website has some good graphics on the physics of the process), but foggy & frozen just as your screenshot shows.
    At what point do the icebreakers become implicated in the Arctic ice breakup?

  18. stevengoddard says:
    June 26, 2010 at 6:18 am
    But if you only relay for your assumption on one point single point in the Ocean for estamation- How much credibility can be found in such an assumption? 😛

  19. If these links have been posted before, sorry aboot that;
    Predictions of Summer Ice Conditions near Barrow Alaska 2010 Prediction Season (End of May 2010)
    http://psc.apl.washington.edu/lindsay/Alaskan_summer_ice.html
    Seasonal Ensemble Forecasts of Arctic Sea Ice ((see the movie below, updated on 6/2/2010)
    http://psc.apl.washington.edu/zhang/IDAO/seasonal_outlook.html
    http://psc.apl.washington.edu/zhang/IDAO/z.gif
    http://psc.apl.washington.edu/zhang/IDAO/z1.gif

  20. stevengoddard says:
    June 26, 2010 at 1:25 pm
    GISS extrapolations assume that Arctic weather is nearly uniform
    …..
    I take it that you aren’t aware that the distance from oceanbottom up to the sealevel even in good condition are at least +/- 48 meters depending on where our Earth are in the loob around the sun….. not to mention that in any given second the distance from oceanbottom up can be between 8- 28 meters +/- depending on the distance to the moon and the angle…..
    If that’s one thing you better learn and learn quickly this is it: NO GISS extrapolation can be used to assume the Arctic weather to be even close to uniform. I take it that you haven’t studied the loogs of the ones who first tried to reach the North Pole. If you had, you would have known just how stupied such a comment of yours are in real life!

  21. Do we have to have minamal ice loss this year or all is lost for us anti AGWers? Didn’t we have a strong El Nino this year? So what if we lose some extra ice this year, which I think we will. Take two steps froward and one step back. That’s how global cooling is going to happen. Chill out everybody. Joe Bastardi where are you? You seem to make the most sense, why don’t you post here once in a while?

  22. norah4you
    It is pretty clear from your comment that you have no idea what a GISS extrapolation is. So rather than calling people “stupid” you might want to try t0 get a clue about what it is that is being discussed.
    At that point you might be able to follow the conversation.

  23. stevengoddard says:
    June 26, 2010 at 3:12 pm
    It’s pretty clear Steven Goddard, that you aren’t aware that I have been dealing with this things from 1971. I managed to stop stupid comments like yours 1979 but of course than my platform was an other than today. I was active in a political party, the Liberals back then.
    Never try to step on someone who first studied computer science in 1970 and who also studied maths and other things on the way. Not to mention that my own father, now dead since jan 2008 was one of the real scholars in this type of questions from 1957 on forward. I grow up with all the documentations and studies you missed from 1957 up to now I haven’t missed much printed in English, German, French, Dutch, Norwegian, Swedish and Icelandic. Don’t ever try that stupid Ad Hominem again. You better present valid arguments for your assumption that one point is enough.
    And btw – I was given for free the first computer programs using GISS extrapolation.
    Was yo`?

  24. norah4you says:
    “[…]
    Swedish and Icelandic. Don’t ever try that stupid Ad Hominem again. You better present valid arguments for your assumption that one point is enough.”
    The GISS extrapolation method goes back to Hansen, not to Steven Goddard. You say it’s no good? Fine. Take the complaint to James Hansen.

  25. @ norah4you
    Always good to see a humble person singing their own praises LOL.
    You sound like a Jack of all trades – Master of none! Is there anything that you haven’t done?

  26. Steve Goddard,
    You sure have guts. Every time there is some sort of odd event, it seems there is someone ready to grab a microphone and predict flaming, screaming death for us all…by the end of the century. All very official, scientific, thrilling, exciting, yet the speaker will never have to eat crow.
    Occasionally there are predictions of gloom and doom that are made in shorter increments (ice-free arctic by 2013; specific droughts/floods); the prophet can get out of that one by maybe saying we have “better models” and point his/her finger at some other alarming phenomenon as a substitute. (See, it didn’t FLOOD in the US Midwest, there was a DROUGHT in India. My newer, better models show that this drought was brought on by shifts in ……”).
    But you, on the other hand, have made predictions that will shown to be either right or wrong in the next few months. I also have to respect your specific methodology for predicting the summer arctic minimums. You make a lot of sense to a layman, and once again we’ll all see soon enough if you’re right. Thank you for keeping this entertaining!

  27. CRS, Dr.P.H. says:
    June 26, 2010 at 12:27 pm
    ………..
    At what point do the icebreakers become implicated in the Arctic ice breakup?”
    I would really like to have this question answered also. It might be having no impact at all but it seems to me that if we have had an increase in icebreaker activity in arctic waters over the past 30 years this would have an adverse impact to a vulnerable ice pack. How is multi-year ice supposed to grow when we have icebreakers coming in and breaking apart the pack each summer?
    Not saying its a primary cause but it sure cant be helping. Surely if ice breakers cut long channels through first year ice its going to make the pack break up faster?

  28. norah4you says:
    June 26, 2010 at 1:42 pm
    “….If that’s one thing you better learn and learn quickly this is it: NO GISS extrapolation can be used to assume the Arctic weather to be even close to uniform. I take it that you haven’t studied the loogs of the ones who first tried to reach the North Pole. If you had, you would have known just how stupied such a comment of yours are in real life!”
    _____________________________________________________________________
    The comment refers to this article and others: GISScapades

  29. stevengoddard says:
    June 26, 2010 at 3:40 pm
    ” The onset of melting is typically in early June”
    http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/detect/ice-npole.shtml

    Their data shows otherwise, exactly as I posted. Here’s the continuation of that sentence which in your typically devious way you chose not to quote:
    “but occurred in late July in 2002, and late June in 2003 and 2004. The Web Cam images show very limited melt pond coverage in 2002, but widespread melt pond coverage in 2003 and 2004. In 2003, the melt ponds were widespread by July 4, but diminished in late July, and then reformed in mid-August. Freezeup began in late August in 2002, Sept 7 in 2003, and in mid-August in 2004. Summer sea ice transition information was not available for 2005 or 2007.”
    In 2008, the snow became waterlogged June 25, and extensive meltponds formed quickly, only five days later (June 30). Meltponds are still observed August 25 in standard web cam images. After that time, the only clear images are from another webcam with a fisheye lens observing sky conditions, but also revealing snow conditions. Meltponds are visible on the fisheye image from September 14. Although further images are at least partially obscured by water drops or snow on the lens, there appears to be snow cover in an image from Sepember 22. In summary, in 2008, the onset of melt progressed more quickly than in previous years, and melt ponds persisted longer and later than usual.
    In 2009, the snow became soft and meltponds started to form July 8, but never became very widespread, with the maximum meltpond extent observed around July 14-16.
    So over the lifetime of the program we have: late July in 2002, and late June in 2003 and 2004, N/A in 2005 & 2007, June 26 in 2006, June 30 in 2008, July 8 in 2009 and June 25 in 2010!

  30. Phil,
    Do you really think the three metres of ice at the North Pole is going to melt through?
    The Arctic Basin melts radially inwards, starting at Barrow and other similar locations at lower latitudes. That is why places like Barrow are interesting this time of year. If Barrow doesn’t melt early, a low minimum is going to be tough to achieve.

  31. David says:
    June 26, 2010 at 4:30 pm
    CRS, Dr.P.H. says:
    June 26, 2010 at 12:27 pm
    ………..
    At what point do the icebreakers become implicated in the Arctic ice breakup?”
    I would really like to have this question answered also. It might be having no impact at all but it seems to me that if we have had an increase in icebreaker activity in arctic waters over the past 30 years this would have an adverse impact to a vulnerable ice pack. How is multi-year ice supposed to grow when we have icebreakers coming in and breaking apart the pack each summer?

    As you can see below the Canadian icebreakers don’t operate in the Canadian Arctic until next month by which time the breakup is substantially under way. Last year the yachts entered the NW Passage from the west before the first icebreaker.
    Chart of service for the Canadian Arctic
    # Area Name Period dd/mm
    A01 Hudson Bay 03/07 – 24/10
    A02 Foxe Basin 20/08 – 15/09
    A03 Hudson Strait 03/07 – 24/10
    A04 East Baffin 14/08 – 18/09
    A05 Parry Channel East 10/08 – 15/10
    A06 Parry Channel West 10/08 – 15/10
    A07 Pelly 12/08 – 13/10
    A08 Ellesmere 24/08 – 05/09
    A09 Victoria 12/08 – 13/10
    A10 Beaufort 25/07 – 25/09
    A11 Barrow 25/07 – 25/09
    A12 West Greenland 05/07 – 15/08
    http://www.ccg-gcc.gc.ca/eng/CCG/Ice_Service_Dates

  32. But for those of you expecting a big melt this summer, I hope you didn’t bet a lot of money on it.
    I get the sense that those most ardent about ‘rotting ice’ aren’t the type to put their money where their mouth is.

  33. bhanwara says:
    June 26, 2010 at 7:21 am
    A model? You’re relying on a model?
    I have myself. But she (they) were kinda difficult. If you were to have a jet it helps a lot.

  34. Phil. says:
    June 26, 2010 at 9:19 am
    Interesting that there was a boat off the beach at Barrow yesterday.
    Ya, boats, water, weird to see them together. They probably came ashore to do some sunbathing as R. Gates has told us the Arctic is enjoying “warm conditions”.

  35. stevengoddard says:
    June 26, 2010 at 12:27 pm
    Some people think that their incessant talk will melt the ice.
    Nah, it just melts one’s desire to read their comments.

  36. Steve,
    Calving and any major break-up of ice-shelves are evidently the result of mechanical failures from tidal and wave action etc.
    For sea-ice, it seems to me, (a mechanical engineer), that in similar ways, within the limits of definition of the images shown, that the sea ice loss is greatly accelerated by mechanical failure. These mechanical failures are the consequence of various dynamics, and once they occur, ice loss becomes more rapid for a multitude of reasons. For just one important variable, see for example this late 2007 NASA release:
    EXTRACT: “…Nghiem said the rapid decline in winter perennial [Arctic] ice the past two years was caused by unusual winds. “Unusual atmospheric conditions set up wind patterns that compressed the sea ice, loaded it into the Transpolar Drift Stream and then sped its flow out of the Arctic,” he said. When that sea ice reached lower latitudes, it rapidly melted in the warmer waters…”
    As an ex back-country skier, I can also attest that strong winds late in the season can cause very rapid loss of snow cover…. and there was an earlier comment about rapid disappearance of lake ice in Colarado with just a couple of windy days

  37. Steve, you have lost. Admit that CO2 causes GW, and that the Arctic will be the lowest on record this year instead of distorting the facts.
    -G.W.

  38. Boy,
    These ice-related posts seem to draw the most response from the warmists. Must not be much to do during the week at the NSIDC. Our tax dollars at work. Or, rather, the loan money from China, at work.

  39. Steve, as a geologist I of course don’t buy the AGW narrow selection of data to support their alarmist view of the present trends of temp and CO2. Eventhough a gaggle of phyicists seem to have discovered climatology about 30yrs ago and believe they invented it, they must be aware that a 150yr sample of a 4Byr “record” is cherry picking in the extreme. Do they believe Hannibal crossed the Alps through tens of metres of snow? No his elephants ate of abundant high alpine grasses in the Roman warm period … Do they not wonder how (or know) that only some 12000yrs ago 50 million cu km of ice melted from the arctic and the sealevel rose 130m with anthropus probably numbering a million or two. It has been considerably warmer and considerably colder in the past. Steve, don’t choose only a few month’s data to say something about years of ice cycles. Make your prediction and relax. It will say absolutely nothing about the way of the world one way or the other. Also, don’t criticize the GISS silly extrapolations of temp across the Arctic and then resort to it yourself. Finally don’t disrespect our Norwegian visitor (norah4U). Norwegians did invent the Arctic and Antarctic and every child in Norway knows more about the polar regions than most adults anywhere else.

  40. Keith G said: (about Steve Goddard)
    “You make a lot of sense to a layman…”
    _______________
    That’s why people with a little more knowledge must come here to actually give the facts, versus a bit o’ cherry picked data…

  41. Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
    June 26, 2010 at 6:08 pm
    Phil. says:
    June 26, 2010 at 9:19 am
    “Interesting that there was a boat off the beach at Barrow yesterday.”
    Ya, boats, water, weird to see them together. They probably came ashore to do some sunbathing as R. Gates has told us the Arctic is enjoying “warm conditions”.

    But according to Steve G this beach is ice-bound!

  42. Phil,
    You are really turning into a comedian. I particularly liked this one.
    “Last year the yachts entered the NW Passage from the west before the first icebreaker.”

  43. Hey folks — how about we go for the science instead of commenting on people and their supposed abilities or lack thereof. Comments from a number of different people sound like they are from Real Climate. I think this site is above that level!

  44. you can see the satellite image, can’t you Phil?
    You do see the ice that he is talking about
    http://climateinsiders.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/barrow2.gif?w=510&h=322&h=322
    You can see a small segment without ice
    I don’t see where Steven Goddard said there is no open segment. I do see him talking about how the ice that is along the coast is not changing. “no visible change in the landfast ice near Barrow, AK. during the last week.”
    I think everyone can read the post for themselves. Are you a troll Phil?

  45. stevengoddard says:
    June 26, 2010 at 10:24 pm
    There is always ice moving out into the North Atlantic. Otherwise we would find ice many thousands of years old in the Arctic Basin.
    ___________________________________________________________
    You sure that wouldn’t be trillions of years?

  46. First I think it’s fair to say that while I do critizes Steven using his inproper methods, I by no means belive that CO2 is a problem. It isn’t. The inproper methods used by the climatebelievers aren’t better. What’s more is that both sides forgotten to read what was known in for example 1900 and what the figures for CO2 then, before our modern usage of cars etc increased the usage of oil, to be in for example 1995-2000.
    I take it that many people here, on both sides, forgotten that there haven’t been any real rising in CO2-levels for the last 120 years. How come you wonder. And my answer is to go back to around 1900 in order to find the first alarmist. One of those who were a scholar in many disciplines, in fact all needed except that he never lived into our days to learn about computers but that’s one down and many many ups for him even then.
    You better learn that Svante Arrhenius born 1859 (d. 1927) Professor of Chemistry as well as Physics, one of the men behind modern physical science, Nobelprize winner and a lot of other things including the dark side of him believing in racism, also known as the first alarmist believed that the figure 0.04 % by late 20th century should have reached close to 2 %…. Btw. 0.04 % it’s the round figure today as in 1920’s and in late 19th century….. the only figure in the raw behind that’s been changing one-two ‘levels’ up and down is the sixth figure behind the ‘.‘ never ever causing a rise up along the raw to 0.05 as round figure for co2 average around the world. On minor level such as within citizes and close to industries yes, but not on a major level.
    Before continuing I suggest both sides to read:
    Arrhenius Svante, Naturens värmehushållning : Föredrag, Stockholm Norstedts 1896
    Arrhenius Svante, Les atmosphères des planèts. : Conférence faite le 8 mars 1911.; Paris 1911
    Arrhenius Svante, Klimatets växlingar i historisk tid, Stockholm 1915
    Arrhenius Svante, Uber den Einfluss des atmosphärischen Kohlensäure-gehalts auf die Temperatur der Erdoberfläche. Stockholm, 1896. Bihang till K. Sv.Vet. akad. handl. Bd. 22: Afd.1: no 1.
    Arrhenius Svante, Uber die Wärmaebsorption durch Kohlensäuer und ihren Einfluss auf die Temperatur der Erdoberfläche. Stockholm 1901 Vet. Akad. K. Sv., Öfversigt af förhandlingar. 58(1901): No 1: [4].
    Arrhenius Svante, Die Chemi und das moderne Leben / von Svante Arrhenius ; Autorisierte deutsche Ausgabe von B. Finkelstein. Mit 20 Abbildingen im Text. Leipzig : Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft, 1922
    The known figures for different chemical substances on our globe was in 1920’s as well as today gives following readings:
    34.6% – Iron
    29.5% – Oxygen
    15.2% – Silicon
    12.7% – Magnesium
    2.4% – Nickel
    1.9% – Sulphur
    0.05% – Titanium
    …..
    0.018% Carbon (one of the 20 most common on Earth)
    Now the figure for atmospheric gases:
    Nitrogen 78.08%
    Oxygen 20.95 %
    Argon 0.93%
    Carbondioxid 0038%
    Neon 0002%
    Helium 0.0005%
    Methane 0.0002%
    Krypton 0.0001%
    Hydrogen 0.00006%
    What alarmist have done an masse, is mixing the figure for carbon percentage on planet earth with the figure for CO2 in athmosphere. Not to mention that more than one, in fact almost all, of the alarmist managed to miss that a circle proof doen’t prove anything at all.
    That said I think it’s fair in the present debate to inform you all that reality back in 1956 gave more ice breakups than ever today. The easiest way to start looking for this is in this quote: (many academic work been written about the breakingups between 1956 and the peak in 1959. Too qualified texts and often in German or French to be quoted and discussed here…)
    Antarctica shed a 208-mile-long berg in 1956
    One of the largest known Antarctic icebergs broke off in 1956. Julie Palis and Guy Guthridge of the Naitonal Science Foundation and Lyn Lay, the librarian at Byrd Polar Research Center, found an article about it in the Polar Times, vol. 43, page 18
    .” Själv hittade jag artikeln i USATODAY – Antarctica shed a 208-mile-long berg in 1956, USTODAY 20 januari 2005
    That’s said the next thing to be remembered is that our planet Earth have approximate 70% water surface…. Up to today there never ever been correct readings from more than 1% stationary weather stations, stationary on same GPS-readings, taking readings 1 meter down/up as well as 3 meter down/up not to mention 10 meter up/down. All figures needed to give a correct ‘picture’ of the temperature on each single point. Same up figures as well as surface figures goes for Arctic’s and Antarctic’s inner parts up to 1950’s….. It’s a disaster that some even believe that there exists correct readings from for example the North Pole and the South Pole BEFORE any humans known to have reached them…. but unfortunatly that’s to be found as facts within more than one of the computer models 😛
    All that said, I guess it’s time to make you all realise that the temperature in the Arctic between 980 AD to 1341 was 1-3 degrees up from today’s average….. In fact it was possible for the Scandinavian vikings to farm on ‘Garden under Sandet’ in Greenland:
    ”Most of the Viking expansion took place during what scientist refer to as the dimatic optimum of the Medieval Warm Period dated ca, A.D. 800 to 1200 (Jones 1986: McGovern 1991); a general term for warm periods that reached chere optimum at different times across the North Atlantic (Groves and Switsur 1991). During this time the niean annual temperature for southem Greenland was 1 to 3°C higher than today.” Julie Megan Ross, Paleoethnobotanical Investigation of Garden Under Sandet, a Waterlogged Norse Farm Site. Western Settlement. Greenland (Kaiaallit Nunaata), University of Alberta, Department of Anthropology Edmonton. Alberta Fa11 1997, sid 40
    Please note that you will find the pollen for Cyperaceae in high figures when reading the pollenanalysis….. that one shouldn’t have been able to be growing there at all if the alarmists fictions for the past temperature figures been correct.
    What’s forgotten among many other things is that the Norse Greenlanders did export (!) butter and hard cheese over to Norway and Denmark in late 14th century….
    I could ad much more, but I rest my case for now.

  47. EFS_Junior says:
    June 26, 2010 at 10:44 pm
    You sure that wouldn’t be trillions of years?
    I think the answer is no. But I think trillions is Al Gore’s new degree estimate for the temperature at the core of the earth.

  48. norah4you says:
    June 26, 2010 at 11:42 pm
    Nora, thank you for telling us about Svante and the Vikings. But most of the regulars here know all that already. Especially Steven Goddard.

  49. No I am not joking.
    So many here have tried to make belive that they know what Svante A wrote. But since they aren’t skilled in Swedish nor in German they have missunderstood a lot.
    Too much.
    The worst part is that persons on both sides in the debate never understood that one has to have a full background knowledge, doesn’t help with being a scholar in one subject and skilled in computer usage. When I wrote my C-essay in History, ~The waterways towards lake Roxen. (For BA-level. I also written an academic work D-level) I had to check waterlevels for oceans from Stone Age up to 1000 AD in order to get a correct landrise, when and how quick etc, for Ferro Scandia due to the fact that I in the ‘last’ stage had to relate waterlevels within todays Baltic Ocean from the days the Ice coat withdraw northward. One need at least 40 different variables and a good computer program. Fortunatly for me I am a systemprogrammer from beginning.
    So joking. By no means but several arguing here present assumptions as if they were facts and mix around with correct readings over and over again. And btw. one of you on the alarmist side was kind enough to send me your improper corrections of correct readings and also managed, I guess by mistake……

  50. norah4you,
    It’s just your writing is not easy to understand. It seems like you could be joking. But maybe you don’t write in English well.

  51. Roald says:
    June 27, 2010 at 5:05 am
    Never mind the ice conditions at Barrow. The Arctic sea ice anomaly has reached the lowest level since 2007.
    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.arctic.png
    What’s up with that?
    _________________________________________________________________
    What I find weird is The Cryosphere Today Daily Sea Ice Comparisons. The deep purple color is supposed to indicate 80-100% solid ice. 2010 seems to be mostly solid ice compared to other years. I took a quick look at five year intervals:
    Here is 2010 vs 2006 (2005 is not available)
    2010 vs 2000
    2010 vs 1995
    2010 vs 1995
    2010 vs 1990
    2010 vs 1985
    2010 vs 1980
    In all cases 2010 is show to be pretty much a solid block of ice compared to a bunch of ice bergs floating in the sea around the edges for the other years. I do not know if this is “true data” or an artifact. This article from a year ago seems to indicate the data is not exactly the most accurate available: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aIe9swvOqwIY

  52. “Steve, don’t choose only a few month’s data to say something about years of ice cycles. Make your prediction and relax. It will say absolutely nothing about the way of the world one way or the other. Also, don’t criticize the GISS silly extrapolations of temp across the Arctic and then resort to it yourself.”
    well put. When the alarmists run for the ice to prove their point it is NOT wise to follow them onto that slippery surface.

  53. Amino Acids in Meteorites better know that while I do have spelling problems when writing, as well as problems with grammar also when writing, I never had any problems in England – always been taken for a Londoner. Never had problems reading but as I try to explain – I am a bit dyslectic thus I can make spellings that seems funny because I don’t see that I spelt wrongly if the pronounce is alike. And grammar – well the only grammar I don’t make many mistakes in is German grammar….
    Back in 1976 I organized symposium as well as courses from an Humanecological perspective discussing among other things new Ice Age or global warming. Had good scholars in the panels.

  54. Gail Combs wrote,
    “In all cases 2010 is show to be pretty much a solid block of ice compared to a bunch of ice bergs floating in the sea around the edges for the other years. I do not know if this is “true data” or an artifact.”
    The”Compare Daily Sea Ice” maps on Cryosphere today appear to be very poor resolution, basically worthless. Check out the difference between their comparison map, on right in this image:
    http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=06&fd=26&fy=2000&sm=06&sd=26&sy=2010
    And this somewhat higher-rez version also from Cryosphere today, showing the same day with far more mixed ice:
    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/NEWIMAGES/arctic.seaice.color.000.png
    Or for a more direct visual impression, check out MODIS Arctic mosaic:
    http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/subsets/?mosaic=Arctic
    To see how fractured a lot of that solid ice really is, you can zoom the mosaic MODIS to 1 pixel=250m resolution and view such areas as the Beaufort Sea, the archipelago, and areas north of Fram and Nares Straits.

  55. I never said that the end was nigh.
    While we’re at it, it’s a shame that England’s been eliminated from the World Cup. We was robbed!

  56. Gail Combs wrote:
    “In all cases 2010 is show to be pretty much a solid block of ice compared to a bunch of ice bergs floating in the sea around the edges for the other years. I do not know if this is “true data” or an artifact.”
    ____________
    You can be pretty assured it is at artifact. There are very few “solid blocks of ice” as in large expanses in the Arctic right now. This map shows it well:
    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/NEWIMAGES/arctic.seaice.color.000.png
    There is some the Arctic basin, NE of Greenland, and a bit more near the E. Siberian sea, but overall, we’ve got a lot of melt ponds working down into broken and rotten ice from last year. So far, the melt is very closely following the model proejection set out by the PIOMAS model, as one can observe here:
    http://psc.apl.washington.edu/zhang/IDAO/seasonal_outlook.html
    But one needs to also look at Dr. Zhang’s assoicates web site and prediction (also based on PIOMAS, but also takes into account early seasson low sea ice exents in the Barants Sea, Beaufort Sea, and Kara Sea, which is of course exactlly what we saw this year, and he’s shown there to be high correlation between the early season extent in these areas, and the final extent. This is a great page to view, here:
    http://psc.apl.washington.edu/lindsay/September_ice_extent.html

  57. R. Gates says:
    June 27, 2010 at 2:47 pm
    Gail Combs wrote:
    “In all cases 2010 is show to be pretty much a solid block of ice compared to a bunch of ice bergs floating in the sea around the edges for the other years. I do not know if this is “true data” or an artifact.”
    ___________
    You can be pretty assured it is at artifact. There are very few “solid blocks of ice” as in large expanses in the Arctic right now. This map shows it well:
    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/NEWIMAGES/arctic.seaice.color.000.png

    You and others arguing for a record melt this year, are making a truly gigantic effort to ignore the data posted at Cryosphere Today. Do you consider the Cryosphere Today (“CT”) data wrong? If so, why, on what evidence (other than asking us to “be assured” – we’re not).
    O yes I remember now, its because the CT concentration data varies so much from day to day that it cant be relied on. So I checked this, choosing the month of June for 2 year-year comparisons, 2010-2000 and 2010-2006. I looked at every day in these 2 June comparisons. Sure, there was significant day to day variation. But there was not a single day in either June comparison when the ratio of much higher sea ice concentration in 2010 than the other year was altered. Even parity between the year pairs was never approached.
    We need to understand the difference between a single value and the ratio of two values. You argue for this highly consistent difference in concentration between years to be an artifact, by showing a single image from one year only at higher resolution. Elevated resolution does not make up for there being no comparator, no reference, no control. Remember, when you are talking about comparisons, errors associated with limited resolution have a tendency to come out in the wash.
    2006 is an interesting comparison – according to the AMSR-E sea ice graphs shown here on WUWT, 2010 is tracking approximately parallel with 2006 only lower. 2006 continued lowest of all measured years till sometime in early July when it started cutting across the other years and ended up at the September minimum among the highest extents of the decade. If 2010 has higher concentration than 2006, why could it not follow a similar path?

  58. phlogiston,
    In looking at the comparison charts on the cryosphere today web site, check the version on the main page. If you punch in the most recent data into the comparison page and compare the image that comes up with the image on the main page, you will see that they are very different. Which is right? Well, I tend to think that the main page version is the one that is correct – I think that there are resolution issues with the version in the comparison dataset. This makes it hard to make a comparison using these images, unfortunately.
    I also ask this queston regarding those comparison images: how credible is it that the ice in 1980 was in a worse condition than the ice of today? Not very.

  59. stevengoddard says:
    June 26, 2010 at 9:16 pm
    Phil,
    You are really turning into a comedian. I particularly liked this one.
    “Last year the yachts entered the NW Passage from the west before the first icebreaker.”

    Glad you liked it, I guess fact is stranger than fiction sometimes!

  60. FWIW, here in California we are having a generally cooler and cloudier than “usual” spring / early summer.
    My take on it all is that we are in Lava Lamp World, and California is under a cold blob sinking back toward the equator (thus the cool and overcast) while the east coast is under a hot blob moving north (to radiate away all the accumulated heat via an open window in the Ozone part of the spectrum – as the UV from a quiet sun as dropped a lot, and thus the UV window blocked by ozone has less ozone to ‘do the deed’… )
    So in about 5 years we ought to start noticing the impact of all this loss of heat in the world temperature averages (until then, it’s just the vast ocean heat sink keeping things more or less constant as the heat leaves from the poles, modulo a few snowy coasts in the South of France and a generally cold England… )
    So we likely have a few more years of endless bickering with the Global Warming folks until the heat balance has shifted enough that it’s clear in Lava Lamp World that things have been cooling since 1998. But it takes time. And folks are not good and realizing that in geologic time, a century is nothing and a decade is not even on the clock…
    But I’m pretty sure we’ll see the result in total snowfall numbers and ice formation long before we see it in temperature. After all, first you form a LOT of ice (at 32 F or 0 C ) before the temperature changes…

  61. David Gould says:
    June 27, 2010 at 7:42 pm
    To be clear, look at the image on the right:
    http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=06&fd=26&fy=1980&sm=06&sd=26&sy=2010
    and compare it with this image:
    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/NEWIMAGES/arctic.seaice.color.000.png
    The differences are fairly obvious.
    ___________________________________________________________
    The differences are obvious, and I’ve emailed CT asking for an explanation.
    You’ll also notice that the black hole at the NP is filled in and that some sort of “smearing” is done in addition to just filling in th NP hole. It’s like the NP is the hub of a many spoked wheel, as you can see a radial orientation to this “smearing.”
    See also;
    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/CT/ (which has all the imagery in different files/folders
    And see;
    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/CT/ANIMATE.ARCTIC.0/
    Which is a directory of medium sized images (must be scaled down from the daily high resolution file, but I can’t find the originals anywhere in the above file structure) showing the NP black hole and most of the detail of the original high resolution daily colored imagery. Note these medium sized files go back ~2 years, however the color scale was changed, to the current one, in March of 2009.

  62. 3rd times a charm?
    Also if you look at the “smeared” versus the “unsmeared” you’ll notice less open ice areas for the “smeared” imagery. The open water areas/boundaries in the “unsmeared” imagery look much more similar to the JAXA daily imagery.
    So for the moment, I must give the “unsmeared” imagery more weight, in terms of an accurate representation of the actual sea ice concentration and open water areas.

  63. Fudge.
    “less open ice areas” should be “less open water areas” in the 1st paragraph.

  64. Those looking at Cryosphere Today (“CT”) maps need to be aware that the scales on the side-by-side comparison page (70% = light purple) is not the same scale as what appears to be a higher resolution on the main page (70% = bright green)!
    The color scales are totally different so it can make the map on the main page to appear to have less ice.

  65. “”” norah4you says:
    June 26, 2010 at 8:07 am
    Well well. Had they only been up to date up to 2000 with education-documentaries for students in ordinary school age 14-16, which of course their teachers must have missed to show in their classes. Or had didn’t they attend class?
    Eitherwhich. I am 61 years old and when we back in late 50′s and early 60′s were shown 8-mm films regarding the Ice breakups in Arctic, the now told story was what was told back then. When my diseased father, born 1915, studied what we call ‘Naturlära’ = Science of Nature their books from 1920′s contain same information.
    Well norah4you; your post reminds me also of annual celebration of such an event; pretty much the way Americans today celebrate “Groundhog Day.” The “Annual Ice Breakup. ” But for the life of me, I can’t recall; just where that event was supposed to take place. Of course today, there are all kinds of visited calving glaciers and places; so I have no idea where the big event was supposed to happen.
    And not meaning any ill will to your family; either living or dearly departed; I assume when you said:- “”” When my diseased father, born 1915, “”” That you were not reporting on some family pestilence; but intended to say ” deceased” rather than “diseased”.
    And that is offered to be helpful; not critical; I can assure you that my “Swedish” is about as extensive as my “Sanskrit.”
    George

  66. R. Gates says:June 26, 2010 at 8:55 am
    Steve,
    If any posting of your would cause me to loose all repect for your scientific objectivity and honesty, this would be it.

    ROFLMAO!
    Gates, all pedantic rantings of yours give warmers everywhere the opportunity to lose all repect.

  67. Moderator: I intentionally misspelled words in my previous post to duplicate Gates original post. It doesn’t bother me that you corrected them, I just wanted you to know it was intentional so your wouldn’t loose repect for me. ;~P

  68. George,
    I do have spelling problems when writing. That and my problems with the grammar is my dyslectic problem no matter which language I use writing…. Not the same when speaking nor when reading. But if two words looks alike or sounds alike – I do have problems.
    Anyhow here is a link to one page in one of my bloggs: Environment, Norah4history

  69. R. Gates says:
    June 26, 2010 at 7:36 pm
    Keith G said: (about Steve Goddard)
    “You make a lot of sense to a layman…”
    _______________
    That’s why people with a little more knowledge must come here to actually give the facts, versus a bit o’ cherry picked data…
    *************************************
    R. Gates, from your answer you are presumably a climate scientist. Why not ask Anthony to allow you to guest-post some kind of thesis or engage in an on-line debate? He is certainly more open to debate and differing attitudes than many blogs. Lots of people have their minds made up on either side, but many would also welcome some kind of reasonable debate.
    You would also have a much better chance of convincing a skeptical public of your views. The current system of arranging apocalyptic articles in newspapers and popular magazines is not working. A layman like myself reads the article below and is struck by the fact that it was apparently warmer during the Bronze Age and Roman era in the Alps, and that the current retreat of glaciers may just be some kind of correction to these past times. This is a “worrying fact” to the scientist quoted in the article. There are other silly articles I could post, this is just one of my favorites.
    http://www.swisster.ch/news/education-health/swiss-glacier-melt-reveals-secrets-past.html
    Despite my lack of scientific training, don’t dismiss my opinion, because it is honed in one area. And that is being able to detect b.s. Why AGW strikes me as b.s.:
    1) We are being asked to completely revise our way of living, to ward off impending disaster. The United Nations is taking the lead. Heard that one, during the Cold War.
    2) This is going to be very expensive. Spend money now, the end is near. Heard that one, during the Y2K scam.
    3) The key spokesperson for AGW, Al Gore, is tainted. His soon-to-be ex-wife was a key player in the Parents Music Resource Center. With Al’s career so important to the two of them, this was either with his permission or at his request. PMRC had the worst kind of junk science, including mind control through “backward masking”. They even compiled a sort of worst offenders (enemies list?) that included Cyndi Lauper and Sheena Easton. This went on for years!
    4) All of this is being supported by an absolute swarm of scare stories, each one trying to top the other, with no one questioning the basic premise. Heard that before, it was the WMD ramp-up to the Second Gulf War.
    5) Those who question AGW have had veiled and not-so-veiled threats of prosecution made against them. More memories of the Cold War.
    6) There is a lot of money to be had in the battle to control AGW. There are subsidies for green energy, and all stripes are going along for the goodies. I think much of the cooperation of unions, manufacturers, insurance companies, etc is a way to eliminate competition. They are just jockeying for the best seat at a new table. This sort of money (cap and trade, government subsidies for green energy) is a big inducement for everyone to just go along with the story.
    7) The behavior of those who advocate it the most does NOT mesh with the behavior of someone who actually believes we are approaching a tipping point. I mean, if we were all about to enter an era of mass extinctions, wouldn’t Al Gore have a smaller, more energy efficient house? Wouldn’t some government somewhere build dykes around their low-lying cities? Or ban construction along the coast? Wouldn’t one country ditch fossil fuels just to shame everyone else into it? Ban airplanes except in emergencies? Tax vehicles in an effort to get everyone onto busses? To repeat, we are supposedly rapidly approaching a tipping point. If millions or billions of people are going to die, then no cost is too great. But I can’t think of ONE example of anything more than minor concessions to keep the story alive.
    So, I’d love for someone to enlighten me. Right now I’m in the skeptic camp for the reasons listed above. If we are all about to die, though, I could quickly become an AGW fanatic. I have three young children who I’d love to see have grandkids some day. So those who support AGW, please prepare coherent arguments that rebut, line by line, the many skeptical questions posed. Millions/billions of lives are at stake if you are right, and they are going to die unless you convince the public to go along with you. Also, trillions of dollars are going to be needlessly poured into the public trough if you are wrong…the quicker we get this resolved the less will go into the trough.

  70. “”” norah4you says:
    June 28, 2010 at 1:40 pm
    George,
    I do have spelling problems when writing. That and my problems with the grammar is my dyslectic problem no matter which language I use writing…. Not the same when speaking nor when reading. But if two words looks alike or sounds alike – I do have problems.
    Anyhow here is a link to one page in one of my bloggs: Environment, Norah4history “””
    Well Norah4you; here we are about communication; not verbal asphyxiation so however you can spit it out works for me. I have a mechanical typing dylsexia myself where I flip pairs of letters; including space bars; so “this, and that” invariably comes out as “this,a nd that”, and for some reason “the” often ends up as “teh”.
    I actually had a very interesting experience once with a very pretty young lady who came right from the heart of Communist Red China in Beijing, and had only been in the USA for three years, and was never in any class in the USA. She spoke English with virtually NO detectable Oriental accent; and she worked for our IT and support department. I had a problem with some Micro$oft program, and she was sent to help me fix it; which she did. A few days later I got an e-mail from her asking if everything was OK. It was, so I didn’t reply. But I noticed that her e-mail was “interesting reading”.
    A week later we met going into the cafeteria for lunch, and she asked why I hadn’t responded to her e-mail. I told her that everything was ok and I didn’t want to bother her; then I jokingly added; that her e-mail read like a “Japanese Transistor Radio manual.”
    She looked at me quizzically, and asked me what that meant. So I explained that a lot of ESL folks did tend to write English that showed it wasn’t their native tongue, and was a bit avant garde in the translation. As soon as she got the message; she smiled; and then after a couple of seconds, she said; well George; why don’t you fix it up for me and send it back; she thought for another few seconds, then added:- Why don’t I put you on my mailing list, so I can send you anything that isn’t personal so you can correct it for me. ”
    So I told her:- “here’s the deal; I’m not going to edit it for you; you will have to send it out cold turkey. But I will look at it when I get a chance and make suggestions or corrections; but if you don’t learn it, then I won’t be correcting it for you.”
    So she did just that; and I would suggest spelling or word changes; different sentence construction etc, and send it back to her.
    We did that for about a year; and as far as I can recall; she never ever repeated a “mistake”, once I had offered corrections; and our communications petered out for lack of errors on her part.
    You won’t believe the biggest problem I had to fix with her English. She spoke, and wrote British English with all the “harbour” spellings, and the like; and I had to tell her:- Mary; this is NOT incorrect; but it is NOT American; so if you don’t change it, it will still read like a Japanese Transistor Radio Manual. Mary of course is not her real name; her mother was a famous Chinese Stage Actress; and she was a delight to teach. I later attended her wedding to an Engineer, and won the privilege of having the first dance with the new bride.
    Language is strange.
    I’m not surprised that people who are multi-lingual have problems with grammatical construction, since that seems to vary quite a bit from one language to another. I’m either lucky, or unlucky, in that English is the only language I speak; although I am making an effort to learn some Maori.
    George

  71. Steve’s post: 06/26/2010.
    The following image: 6/27/2010, presumably at 04:15 local time Point Barrow
    Shore Ice Cam
    Enough said.
    There’s even less left today. (Yeah, there’s probably still shorefast ice off to the right of the camera view, but the “one day later” aspect of this is just hilarious.)

  72. David Gould says:
    June 27, 2010 at 7:01 pm
    phlogiston,
    In looking at the comparison charts on the cryosphere today web site, check the version on the main page. If you punch in the most recent data into the comparison page and compare the image that comes up with the image on the main page, you will see that they are very different. Which is right? Well, I tend to think that the main page version is the one that is correct – I think that there are resolution issues with the version in the comparison dataset. This makes it hard to make a comparison using these images, unfortunately.
    I also ask this queston regarding those comparison images: how credible is it that the ice in 1980 was in a worse condition than the ice of today? Not very.

    Resolution is a red herring raised repeatedly in this context. Sea ice in common with very many natural structures has fractal pattern so that the ability to visualise and qualtify differences between satellite images of the ice (please note emphasis on differences, not absolute values) is, in practice as has been demonstrated in may imaging studies, surprisingly well preserved with degraded resolution. Loss of resolution does NOT necessarily mean loss of ability to detect differences in a general quantitative parameter e.g. amount or concentration of ice. Structures are self-similar over a range of spatial scales.
    Again the Cryosphere Today shows abnormally high ice concentration (likely correlated with thickness) currently in the Arctic ice, compared to most other recent years. If there is a reason why this image data is wrong then “please declare it now or forever hold your peace” (but it’s not resolution).

  73. Fortunately for Steve the Barrow site was down over the weekend otherwise his comments would have almost immediately contradicted since the fast ice at Barrow broke up over the weekend. As I mentioned just before the site went down it was showing ice free off the beach (25th at 19:22) with a boat in close to shore, in the fog the only ice visible is to the northeast.
    http://i302.photobucket.com/albums/nn107/Sprintstar400/ABCam.jpg
    Now the fog is gone and a remnant of the fast ice can be seen drifting offshore:
    http://i302.photobucket.com/albums/nn107/Sprintstar400/ABCam-1.jpg
    Contrary to Steve’s claim that nothing was happening to the ice if you look at the radar over the last few days you can see small pieces breaking off until about the morning of the 25th when it totally disintegrated and blew offshore. Steve expects the fast ice to the northeast to hang around for another two weeks, doesn’t seem very likely.
    http://ak.aoos.org/data/ice/radar/BRWICE/staging/radar/SIRwebanim_more.gif

  74. phlogiston says:
    June 28, 2010 at 6:11 pm
    Again the Cryosphere Today shows abnormally high ice concentration (likely correlated with thickness) currently in the Arctic ice, compared to most other recent years. If there is a reason why this image data is wrong then “please declare it now or forever hold your peace” (but it’s not resolution).

    As I and others have pointed out the comparator does not give a fair comparison with the images taken since the change in imager necessitated by the failure of the SSMI imager about a year ago.

  75. Phil. says:
    June 28, 2010 at 8:36 pm
    Thanks. I thought the displayed high concentration seemed a little “too good to be true” from a skeptic point of view. Is there a consistent jump up in concentration in all months after this sensor replacement? I guess they would at least have tried to calibrate it to give results similar to the previous sensor (while it was working). In the coming months we will see how successful or otherwise they were. Was it faulty all the way back to 1990?

  76. phlogiston says:
    June 29, 2010 at 1:47 am
    Phil. says:
    June 28, 2010 at 8:36 pm
    Thanks. I thought the displayed high concentration seemed a little “too good to be true” from a skeptic point of view. Is there a consistent jump up in concentration in all months after this sensor replacement? I guess they would at least have tried to calibrate it to give results similar to the previous sensor (while it was working). In the coming months we will see how successful or otherwise they were. Was it faulty all the way back to 1990?

    The failure of the SSMI sensor that CT was using (and others such as NSIDC) became apparent early in 2009 (it was discussed on here at the time). CT stopped using that data and switched to the JAXA data which is what they show on there current front page. They developed an algorithm to produce a rescaled image for the comparator, most of 2009 is in fact missing. The impression is that the images since the changeover don’t have quite the same color palette. For recent years if you want to make a comparison it’s probably safer to use the JAXA archive, e.g. today’s map:
    http://iup.physik.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsr/arctic_AMSRE_nic.png
    2007:
    http://iup.physik.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsredata/asi_daygrid_swath/l1a/n6250/2007/jun/asi-n6250-20070628-v5_nic.png
    In that case you’re comparing like with like, the impression would be that today’s Arctic basin is at a lower concentration than on the same date in 2007. There’s a reason why Steve continues to use the comparator images for his posts rather than use the full resolution images!

  77. Is it really a “record” late breakup if scientists at the U of A have been tracking the date of ice break-up for only the last decade? I mean, technically, it is a record, but as a practical matter, people have been living in Barrow for quite some time.
    I would be more convinced by your scepticism if your data record went earlier than 1998. Even though we’ve never had a hotter year than 1998, isn’t it true that more than half of the ten hottest years “on record” (i.e., since weather data began being kept systematically) have taken place in the few decades? That seems like it should be the longer-term trend.

  78. Phil. says:
    June 29, 2010 at 5:48 am
    What a wonderfully democratic free market of science we have! Whatever you wish to believe about global warming (negative or positive) or Arctic ice, a data source is available to suit your preconceived outcome. How nice to live in the free world!
    So we apparently have a new SSMI sensor. But we dont know if the results it gives in terms of Arctic ice concentration/thickness is higher or lower than, or the same as, before.
    One thing is clear however from the Cryosphere today images from this June: the “colour” of the Arctic ice (shade of purple) is more uniform than in the same dates in previous years. But we dont know if this means that the ice is uniformly thin or thick. What to do.
    O yes, get some real data on thickness from the Arctic. In this thread we have an aircraft which towed a device finding the ice to be unexpectedly thick over a (needless to say totally unrepresentative) 2412 km transect:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/16/scan-of-arctic-ice-dispels-melting-gloom-researcher/
    The meltdown has not been as dire as some would suggest, said geophysicist Christian Haas of the University of Alberta. His international team flew across the top of the planet last year for the 2,412-kilometre survey.
    They found large expanses of ice four to five metres thick, despite the record retreat in 2007.

    Someone help me with the logic here. If
    (1) the ice thickness is uniform, BUT
    we dont know what the thickness is
    AND THEN
    (2) Someone measured it and ….
    ITS THICK !
    Then can we say..
    (3) It’s uniformly thick????
    OK lets try again
    Does UNIFORM and THICK equal UNIFORMLY THICK ?
    or did I get lost somewhere?

  79. Having said that – looking at today’s AMSR-E curve for 2010, now would be a good time for a dose of viagra.

  80. phlogiston says:
    June 29, 2010 at 2:27 pm
    Phil. says:
    June 29, 2010 at 5:48 am
    What a wonderfully democratic free market of science we have! Whatever you wish to believe about global warming (negative or positive) or Arctic ice, a data source is available to suit your preconceived outcome. How nice to live in the free world!
    So we apparently have a new SSMI sensor. But we dont know if the results it gives in terms of Arctic ice concentration/thickness is higher or lower than, or the same as, before.

    It’s not a new SSMI sensor, it’s a different sensor with a different operating frequency, and different resolution.
    One thing is clear however from the Cryosphere today images from this June: the “colour” of the Arctic ice (shade of purple) is more uniform than in the same dates in previous years. But we dont know if this means that the ice is uniformly thin or thick. What to do.
    I think you can only say that in respect of the reduced images, at the original scale that’s not apparent. In any case it says nothing about thickness, just that the ice is continuous with no breaks, not that it’s uniformly thick.

  81. Fail much, Steve?
    Seems the prediction is the 6th, not the 10th… And has more to do with winds in January than heat now; Grounded pressure ridges are a big variable factor here.

  82. Smokey says:
    July 3, 2010 at 1:46 pm
    Relax, Gates.
    Relax is not in the alarmist vernacular.

  83. Reminds me of the fundamental problem that gray whales have – they traditionally only feed in summer in the northern Bering Sea, so when it is ice clogged they have a serious problem.
    Apparently last summer, 2009, was difficult so a noticeable number died on this spring’s trip north, at least judging by carcasses in the straits and sounds leading from the Pacific ocean to Seattle and Vancouver BC, they probably were desperately seeking food. But some found food – one was feeding right in the city of Vancouver in False Creek – apparently there were many herring this year. From memory, there are about 20,000. gray whales in the eastern Pacific – not an endangered species at all. Some are enterprising – a few hundred feed off of the northern BC coast, a couple of thousand never go north of Oregon.
    Those who are versatile feeders will survive (and the clever in other ways – one in the Puget Sound area was observed to fend off Orcas by rolling over so his hard back was down (orcas aren’t called “killer whale” for nothing).
    (Gray/grey whales are baleen type – their mouth has a comb that filters food out of the water, rather than teeth as some whales have – and scoop invertebrates from the muddy ocean bottom though they also eat small fish.

  84. Archeopteryx said on July 1, 2010 at 5:39 am:

    Fail much, Steve?
    Seems the prediction is the 6th, not the 10th… And has more to do with winds in January than heat now; Grounded pressure ridges are a big variable factor here.

    Go trolling much, small primitive extinct bird?
    It should be noted the prediction has undergone significant tweaking as the time approaches. It was for July 7 on July 4, early in the day on July 5 it was July 8, then that got revised to July 5 on July 5, if you wish to consider basically saying “It looks imminent!” to be a prediction.
    Crowing about ‘Ah-ha! It says the 6th not the 10th, you’re wrong Steve!’ is most unseemly and unwarranted. Way back on June 26 when this article was posted, July 10 was the prediction and it looked valid then. Why aren’t you criticizing the experts of the Barrow site that made the July 10 prediction?

Comments are closed.