“Steepest slope ever.”
By Steven Goddard
We have been hearing a lot about how the decline in Arctic ice is following the “steepest slope ever.” The point is largely meaningless, but we can have some fun with it. The Bremen Arctic/Antarctic maps are superimposed above, showing that ice in the Antarctic is at a record high and growing at the “steepest slope ever.” You will also note that most of the world’s sea ice is located in the Antarctic. But those are inconvenient truths when trying to frighten people into believing that “the polar ice caps are melting.”
There are several favorite lines of defense when trying to rationalize away the record Antarctic ice.
1. It is the Ozone Hole – which is also the fault of evil, American SUV drivers. That is a nice guilt trip, but sadly the Ozone Hole doesn’t form until August and is gone by December. Strike one.
The next one is to point out that some regions of the west side of the tiny Antarctic Peninsula have been warming. Never mind that the Antarctic Peninsula is an active volcanic ridge, and that the waters around it have not shown any significant warming. Strike two.
UAH shows Antarctica cooling slightly over the last 30 years.
The third favorite line of defense is to argue that “we expected Antarctica to warm more slowly because of the mass of the southern oceans.” Nice try – “slower warming” is not the same as “cooling.” Strike three.
(The AGW view of Antarctica is every bit as irrational as FIFA’s stand that not having instant replays somehow helps the referees’ reputations.)
On to the Arctic. First graph is a JAXA comparison of 2006, 2007 and 2010. Note that 2006 and 2007 were nearly identical, until early July. The main difference between 2006 (second highest in the JAXA record) and 2007 (lowest in the JAXA record) was that strong southerly winds compacted and melted the ice in 2007. As you can see below, the summer extent numbers are nearly meaningless before July/August. So far, 2010 is tracking very closely with both 2006 and 2007, and it appears the three will intersect in about a week.
Let’s take a closer look at the mechanisms using the PIPS ice and wind data. If we watch the movement of Arctic ice during the summer, we can see that when the winds blow away from the pole (i.e. from the north) the ice expands. When the wind blows from the south, the ice contracts. Some summers, the winds alternate between north and south, and the ice extent changes less during the summer – like in 2000 below.
Other years, like 2007, the summer winds blew consistently from the south, causing the ice to melt at a faster pace and compress towards the north.
So basically, it is weather (wind) rather than climate which controls the summer minimum. Of course, it is harder to compress and melt thick ice than thin ice – so the thickness of the ice is important. It is too early to determine if 2010 will see winds like 2007, or if summer winds this year will be more like 2006.
No one has demonstrated much skill at forecasting winds six weeks in the future, so it is really anybody’s guess what wil happen this summer. Before August arrives, the pattern should be clear.
The video below shows ice movement near Barrow, AK over the past 10 days.
The winds were blowing strongly and contracting the ice edge until the last few days, when they died down. Over the past two or three days, the ice edge has not moved very much.
Over the last week, almost all of the ice loss in the Arctic has been in the Hudson Bay, as seen in the modified NSIDC image below in red. The Hudson Bay is normally almost ice free in September, so the recent losses are are almost meaningless with respect to the summer minimum.
The modified NSIDCimage below shows ice loss since early April. All of the areas shown in red are normally ice free in September.
The modified NSIDC image below is a comparison of 2010 vs 2007. Areas of red had more ice in 2007. Areas of green have more ice in 2010.
‘
The modified NSIDC image below shows the current deficiencies in red. Again, all of those areas are normally ice free in September, so they don’t tell us much about the summer minimum.
Below is my forecast for the remainder of the summer.
But it all depends on the wind.
From the 9th century to the 13th century almost no ice was reported there. This was the period- of Norse colonization of’ Iceland and Greenland. Then, conditions worsened and the Norse colonies declined. After the Little Ice Age of 1650 to 1840 the ice began to vanish near Iceland and had almost disappeared when the trend re versed, disastrously crippling Icelandic fisheries last year.
The thick ice that has for ages covered the Arctic Ocean at the pole has turned to water, recent visitors there reported yesterday. At least for the time being, an ice-free patch of ocean about a mile wide has opened at the very top of the world, something that has presumably never before been seen by humans and is more evidence that global warming may be real and already affecting climate. The last time scientists can be certain the pole was awash in water was more than 50 million years ago.
Is it possible that the IPCC is trying to rewrite the history books?
Sponsored IT training links:
Guaranteed success in 350-029 exam with latest 70-290 questions and 642-974 practice test!
For those that are not so science savvy:
Just remember, all satellite computer models creating the data that draw all arctic sea ice maps are not created equal.
See the many ways you can count the sea ice:
http://arctic-roos.org/observations/comparison-of-algorithms
Some commenting tend to think that this sea ice extent and concentration data is just downloaded from the satellites, untouched by human and computer intervention, not so. The real raw data is ‘brightness’ readings of various microwave bands that is sent down and then massaged and adjusted by computer models to create the derived data that is used to draw and color all of the maps you see on the web.
Even if the satellite instruments are in perfect calibration, big differences still occur due to the different equations (algorithms) used to create the data.
Always keep clear what you are actually looking at and who created it!
We don’t need no stinkin’ IPCC.
Just The Facts says:
June 28, 2010 at 1:34 pm
“As Steve notes, Antarctic Sea Ice Extent continues to increase rapidly and is currently well above average, and significantly exceeds NSIDC’s misleadingly narrow “normal” range:”
xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
This is what the NSIDC says; “Unlike the Arctic, where the downward trend is consistent in all sectors, in all months, and in all seasons, the Antarctic picture is more complex. Based on data from 1979-2006, the annual trend for four of the five individual sectors was a very small positive one, but only in the Ross Sea was the increase statistically significant (greater than the natural year-to-year variability). On the other hand, ice extent decreased in the Bellingshausen/Amundsen Sea sector during the same period. http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/SeaIce/page4.php
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
So now the “normal line” is misleadingly narrow? Just reminding you not to confuse average with normal. Reading across the comments I sense that attention is now being switched to the Antarctic, given that the “recovered” arctic continues to be unwilling to co-operate. Today’s loss of 141,000 KM2 must feel depressing. The reality depresses me, mainly because it seems unstoppable and that’s not good for the planet.
Steve, Nice summary about arctic ice. I’m sure that Your forecast is not simple a guess and it would be very nice if You provide some arguments of Your forecast. What was taken in account ( average wind patterns, area and location of open water, ice volume, average ice volume loss for given period …). If statistical methods where used then You have some uncertainty. What is Your results for root quadratic mean …
899 says:
June 28, 2010 at 4:37 pm
Roald says:
June 28, 2010 at 1:44 pm
There’s no doubt that the wind has some influence in the Arctic sea ice extent, but it can’t explain the negative trend:
http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20091005_Figure3.png
Allow me to enquire: If the sea ice RECOVERS FULLY each year —after its melt period— then precisely what point would you be trying to make?
And do tell: Why haven’t you posted a corresponding graph showing ice extent in the deepest part of the maximum ice period of each year?
Would that have been too inconvenient?
Not inconvenient at all, thanks for the cue. Here you can see the trend in March sea ice extent:
http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20100406_Figure3.png
As many others have already pointed out, the sea ice does not fully recover each winter. The winds can’t be responsible for a several decades long decline, unless changes in wind patterns are driven by Global Warming themselves.
Curious Yellow
Reading your comment, I sense that you didn’t read the article very closely.
R. Gates says: June 28, 2010 at 8:47 pm
[–SNIP–]
“The fact is however, that the weather of the N. Hemisphere, where the bulk of the worlds populations resides, is more influenced by the Arctic than the Antarctic.”
Just The Facts says: June 28, 2010 at 9:36 pm
“I am not concerned with the number of scientists studying the Antarctic, nor the minor impact that Arctic sea ice changes may have on “the weather of the N. Hemisphere.””
“My question for you is, which of Earth’s poles’ sea ice offers a more accurate proxy of Earth’s temperature and temperature trend, and why?”
VILLABOLO RESPONDS:
As far as your question concerning which pole makes a more accurate proxy of GW the answer is neither of them.
The Arctic Sea Ice Cap is influenced by temperatures out of proportion to the statistical average for the Globe.
Antarctica, by virtue of its size compared to Greenland (10X), circular circulation of frigid waters around the continent and lower proportion of Global Warming temperature rise, is more resistant for the time being, to its effects.
Furthermore, the issue is moot. We are not going to learn anything meaningful by comparing either one to some abstract statistic. Instead, we have to take into account how the temperature rise in those particular regions and others will effect our immediate region as well as the climate in general.
Your statement: “I am not concerned with . . . the minor impact that Arctic sea ice changes may have on “the weather of the N. Hemisphere.”” shows a severe lack of understanding of the physical processes involved. Unless you, and any family of yours, live in some well hidden fortress stocked with essential supplies up the ying-yang your statement shows a flippant attitude towards the powerful dynamics of Earth’s climate.
The issue is not even what you believe as regards AGW but whether you aware of the repercussions that a rapid change in such an important feature of the environment will create. It seems like you equate the mere possibility of weather/climate catastrophe with AGW. If so, I advise that you pay some attention to the Mayans.
Jarmo’s comment needs attention, on NSIDC ice map for 06/27/10 there seems to be ice in Gulf of Finland which is certainly NOT the case. So how can I trust other areas??
Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
June 28, 2010 at 7:47 pm
From the 9th century to the 13th century almost no ice was reported there.
It was even warmer on earth 6000 years ago than then.
The Wet Sahara:
VILLABOLO RESPONDS:
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. One needs to know the whole background before making a judgment.
The Sahara, as the citation below indicates, was warmer than today because the Earth had a stronger tilt towards the Sun. This led to a shifting, not a disappearance, of desert area in the region. The desert simply shifted in position creating a desert to the south of what is now the Sahara.
The different dynamics involved simply changed the location of Earth’s deserts. What’s good for the Sahara is not good for the rest of the world.
See “Why Deserts Will Inherit The Earth”: http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/why-deserts-will-inherit-the-earth-481091.html
As to making a comparison with today’s situation, a continuing increase in CO2 will nullify any effect a previous amount would have had. It is simply not wise to argue by analogy.
************************************************************************
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahara#Climate_history
“Once the ice sheets were gone, northern Sahara dried out. In the southern Sahara though, the drying trend was soon counteracted by the monsoon, which brought rain further north than it does today. The monsoon is due to heating of air over the land during summer. The hot air rises and pulls in cool, wet air from the ocean, which causes rain. Thus, though it seems counterintuitive, the Sahara was wetter when it received more insolation in the summer. This was caused by a stronger tilt in Earth’s axis of orbit than today, and perihelion occurred at the end of July.[15]”
FYI, Just held a ruler up to the slope of the last few weeks of 2010. They won’t converge in the next week at that rate. In fact, they won’t converge even up to the end of that graph.
Well, all I’m interested in is the minimum mass of ice. And I would like to have it in kg. 😀 2-3 significant digits would be more than enough. What the helt are you talking about? Excuse the typo.
A quote from R Gates..and I’m not taking sides here..just making a 30K feet observation
‘I also to think the offer by one poster here for us to do an after the season analysis of why we were right/wrong and what we learned is a fantastic idea’.
You mean you guys (from whatever persuasion), don’t do this as a matter of routine every few months? What in military terms is a ‘debrief’…or in commercial life is a ‘wrap up’ or ‘project review’? You just plough relentlessly on, knowing that you are right, but never look back to check your methods or your errors? To learn anything about them? To do a bit of strategic thinking about the problem?
I’ve long been very dubious about the quality of the work presented as part of ‘climate science’, and this apparent lack of basic professionalism only strengthens that view.
I can only guess that you are all too obsessed with scoring points off the other guy that you have lost track of the big picture. Please tell me I am wrong and that I have misinterpreted Gates’ remark.
“The temperature of the winter season, in northern latitudes, has suffered a material change, and become warmer in modern, than it was in ancient times. … Indeed I know not whether any person, in this age, has ever questioned the fact.” —Noah Webster, 1758-1843 (founder- Websters dictionary)
Tonyb
Gail Combs: June 28, 2010 at 3:00 pm
Also another rewrite of history in hopes of getting rid of the Little Ice Age, is that the Norse left Greenland because of poor farming practices causing soil erosion and not because of the increasing cold.
How do they account for the fact that it was warm enough to grow crops *then* that can’t be grown there now because the growing season is too short? Do they claim the Vikings had magic, cold-resistant strains of grain or rapidly-maturing grasses suitable for making hay that have gone extinct because it’s getting *warmer*?
Moderators
Last night I posted a long item with some 17 historical links. Have they ended up in the spam bucket? My fault, must try to restrict the length-hence my 1.14 am is my shortest ever 🙂
tonyb
AndyW says:
June 28, 2010 at 10:24 pm
I don’t think the Antarctic extent is getting bigger due to colder ocean temps due to no El Nino and end of PDO cycle, if you look at current SST anomaly it is mainly same or higher than average—
Try looking at the data instead
http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst.html
Curious Yellow says:
June 28, 2010 at 11:48 pm
Reading across the comments I sense that attention is now being switched to the Antarctic, given that the “recovered” arctic continues to be unwilling to co-operate.
Actually, that’s another side to the same coin: The Global Sea Ice Extent and Anomaly.
If the Earth consisted solely of 1 hemisphere, you’d have a point. It does not.
Sea Ice floats, C02 induced Climate Change (nee AGW) does not, it sinks.
David Gould wrote:
June 28, 2010 at 7:38 pm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_ice_cap
“Larry Fields,
The terminology is problematic, but according to wikipedia there are two polar ice caps on Earth. If Gore claimed that both would melt away within five years or so, he is/was wrong. Where did he make that claim? Is it documented?”
Part A. I took a glance at the Wikipedia article. Reading between the lines of the first paragraph, a POLAR ice cap does not necessarily qualify as an ice cap! Why? Because the latter can form only on land, whereas this restriction does not apply to the former.
Sometimes arguing about the TRUE meaning of a word is not particularly productive. And I’m not a glaciologist. Nevertheless I’d like to filk the famous Supreme Court definition of pornography:
I can’t define a polar ice cap, but I can recognize it when I see it.
My follow-up question:
How much beer went into the crafting of this poorly-written Wikipedia article?
Part B. Here’s a quote from The Goracle. It’s in the context of his perception of a shift in view on the part of some business leaders.
“They’re seeing the writing on every wall they look at. They’re seeing the complete disappearance of the polar ice caps right before their eyes in just a few years.”
LINK.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/14/al-gore-climate-change1
Apparently “a few years” in Gorespeak translates to “5 years or so” in plain English. So now we have less than 4 years until all of the ice in Antarctica, much of which is more than one mile thick, is completely melted. Please pass the Kool-Aid.
The polar ice caps are in fact melting.
Both the Arctic and Antarctic ice sheets are losing ice at an accelerating rate, as per GRACE data.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL040222.shtml
It is good to know that pupils in American schools are being taught the scientific truth.
Also, I think newspapers tend to pander to sensationalist and exaggerated claims in order to sell more. I could quote newspapers articles about UFOs and psychics and all sort of unscientific crap. So I think we should stick to scientific publications in order to argue our points.
If global sea ice extent and associated albedo is of climatic significance then why don’t JAXA & NSISDC show a combined graph of both hemispheres with the real daily global cryosphere situation ?
Hypnos says:
June 29, 2010 at 2:14 am
Shall I trust your reference, which is behind a paywall, or the data?
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png
The antarctic is increasing, not decreasing.
OK Hypnos, (hope you are not asleep:) ) I found a pdf
http://thingsbreak.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/increasing-rates-of-ice-mass-loss-from-the-greenland-and-antarctic-ice-sheets-revealed-by-grace.pdf
If the analysis is to be trusted, then there is a large discrepancy between the two measurements.
Each gravity solution consists
of spherical harmonic (Stokes) coefficients, Clm and Slm,
up to l, m 60. Here, l and m are the degree and order of
the harmonic, and the horizontal scale is 20,000/l km.
The GRACE C20 coefficients, which are proportional to the
Earth’s oblateness, show anomalously large variability, so
we replace them with values derived from satellite laser
ranging [Cheng and Tapley, 2004].
[5]
He has changed the fit ,even, “hiding the decline” ?.
If I were peer reviewing this paper, I would ask to see the fits over a control region , for example that low region in the pacific shown in the recent article quoted here, http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/28/21178/ : the discrepancy could be reconciled if the geoid is changing at some rate, not yet measured. After all there still is continental drift, why not lift and sink also?
The basic assumption that is not stated is that the geoid does not change with time.
It is possible that the changes in gravity observed by GRACE have little to do with the ice and a lot to do with the underlying land masses.
It will be interesting to see whether the geoid calculated by GOCE changes in time, all over the globe. We have to wait and see.
Please tell me I am wrong and that I have misinterpreted Gates’ remark.
You have. Gates believes (as do I) that the real outcome will be worse than Goddard’s predictions. If/when it is, what’s the likelihood of Goddard doing a full and objective analysis of why he was wrong, and admitting that the AGW proponents may know more than him?
If global sea ice extent and associated albedo is of climatic significance then why don’t JAXA & NSISDC show a combined graph of both hemispheres with the real daily global cryosphere situation
Go on then, what’s the albedo effect of the winter ice in the Southern Hemisphere… which is currently in the dark? The underlined words should be a hint.
. It is the Ozone Hole – which is also the fault of evil, American SUV drivers. That is a nice guilt trip, but sadly the Ozone Hole doesn’t form until August and is gone by December. Strike one.
Steve:
Science shows that the ozone hole is mainly due to CFCs (chloroflouro carbons) that were formerly released from spray cans and as lost refrigerants. An international treaty lead to the banning of CFCs and their replacement by less dangerous products. This is a big success story. The only problem is that the half life of CFCs in the upper atmosphere is on the order of 50 years, so the ozone hole is expected to gradually recover over the next few hundred years. This story is found in many basic textbooks. Never heard scientists claim that CO2 caused the ozone hole.
Ray,
my point is not on the order of the polynomial but on the procedure itself, it’s incorrect and higly dependent on the starting and ending point.