Latest Barrow Ice Breakup On Record?

“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.

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?

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?

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…

“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.

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.

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.

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

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…

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?

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? 😛

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

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!

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.

norah4you
Well thein yew must theenk GISS ees reel stupied to extrepolate 1200 km frum one pint in the Arcteec.

@ 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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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…

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.”

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?

There is always ice moving out into the North Atlantic. Otherwise we would find ice many thousands of years old in the Arctic Basin.

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.

norah4you,
You are joking, right?

Latest Barrow Ice Breakup On Record?
Ya, but it’s just weather.

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?

Roald
The ice in the Barents sea melted earlier than normal this year. It doesn’t figure into the summer minimum.

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.

stevengoddard
The Barents sea ice area has been below average most of the time since last fall, except for the growth in late winter/early spring. However, the Arctic basin ice is already running low, too, at -0.5 mill sq.km:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.1.html

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!

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

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.

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.

Oops, the last link above are the “smeared” imagery, not the “unsmeared” medium sized color inages which are here;
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/CT/NEWANIM.ARCTIC.0/

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

“”” 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

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

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.

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.)

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?

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.

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

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.

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.