“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!








Hypnos says:
June 29, 2010 at 2:14 am
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…..
_____________________________________________________________________
Yes, the “Antarctic ice sheets are losing ice at an accelerating rate” as long as you only look at the ice sitting on top of an ACTIVE volcano(es)! There are a lot of links to that information in this WUWT article
Peter Ellis
The peak Antarctic positive anomaly normally occurs during the Antarctic summer.
Hypnos
Greenland and Antarctica are both buried in very thick ice, which makes it nearly impossible to get gravity reference data anywhere other than the coast.
This makes it nearly impossible to interpret gravity data accurately. i.e. they can’t tell the difference between isostasy and changes in ice thickness.
haris
I have been laying out the arguments for my summer estimates over the last few weeks.
However, seeing as how 2006 and 2007 were nearly identical in all aspects on this date, it becomes clear that it is nearly impossible to guarantee an accurate prediction without knowing what winds will be like the rest of the summer.
Nobody knows that, so it is really a crap shoot.
rbateman says:
June 29, 2010 at 1:40 am
Try looking at the data instead
http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst.html
No, you have to look at the anomalies, looking at your link just shows the water gets colder in general as you go to the poles.
The SST anomalies are same or higher around Antarctica so the large extent is not due to ocean temps being cold due.
Andy
Perhaps it’s worth mentioning that Arctic basin sea ice area dropped from 4 mil to 3.4 mil sq.km within a week, and is currently 0.6 mill sq.km below mean. The shrinkage has started two or three weeks earlier than last year. Wind piling up slabs of multi-year ice?
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.1.html
Wow! There is hope after all.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/world-cup-2010/7860378/World-Cup-2010-Fifa-president-Sepp-Blatter-apologises-to-FA-over-Frank-Lampard-goal.html
Steve Goddard, maybe this explains the officiating.
Roald
Perhaps it is worth mentioning that the Arctic Basin “drop” you are seeing is due to SSMI sensor errors.
Smokey
Good one.
stevengoddard says:
June 29, 2010 at 4:41 am
Peter Ellis
The peak Antarctic positive anomaly normally occurs during the Antarctic summer.
Except in recent years it occurs during the refreeze whereas the melt curve almost exactly follows the average curve, as does the minimum. The maximum has fluctuated around in the 15-16Mm^2 range over the last 20 years.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.recent.antarctic.png
The winter maximum was reached in late December 2009 but it was obvious to all but a hard core of psuedo-scientists that the bulk of the accretion was rotten. Since then the graph of it’s decline has been precipitous and alarming to those argue for it’s recovery. Many postings have been and will continue to be made to try to “hide the decline” but the tipping point has been reached – the MSM write less and less articles promoting AGW scare stories and even Geoffrey Lean in the Daily Telegraph has turned his attention to real green issues that most posters here could sympathise with.
So please, be good little Trolls, accept the whole theory is totally discredited and run along and play with your vuvuzelas somewhere else.
Gail Combs:
Yes, the “Antarctic ice sheets are losing ice at an accelerating rate” as long as you only look at the ice sitting on top of an ACTIVE volcano(es)! There are a lot of links to that information in this WUWT article
________________________________
The study you linked states very clearly that the volcano is not responsible for the melting:
“This eruption occurred close to Pine Island Glacier on the West Antarctic Ice Sheet. The flow of this glacier towards the coast has speeded up in recent decades and it may be possible that heat from the volcano has caused some of that acceleration. However, it cannot explain the more widespread thinning of West Antarctic glaciers that together are contributing nearly 0.2mm per year to sea-level rise. This wider change most probably has its origin in warming ocean waters.”
Furhtermore, GRACE confirms accelerated loss of mass on the Antarctic East Sheet as well.
So to sum up:
1) The volcano is not a determining factor in the melting of the ice sheet
2) The ice sheet is also melting where no volcanoes have been found
Anna and Steve Goddard:
GRACE is adjusted for glacial isostasy. Validations are performed via comparisons to direct measurements of isostasy, for example in Fennoscandia (at least, this is my non-expert understanding).
http://www-app2.gfz-potsdam.de/pb1/JCG/Timmen-etal_jcg.pdf
However, I have read a bit around and there seems to be some variance between estimates of glacial rebound impact on gravity measurements over Antarctica, so you have a good point.
I’d like to have an expert chime in on this. I haven’t been able to assess how big the glacial rebound effect is on the total mass-change detected by GRACE. That should be relevant.
@Mike:
Here are WUWT threads critiquing Steig’s article, in date order. Asterisked threads are the most important ones:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/21/antarctica-warming-an-evolution-of-viewpoint/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/22/antarctic-warming-part-2-a-letter-from-a-meteorologist-on-the-ground-in-antarctica/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/02/04/snow-job-in-antarctica-digging-out-the-data-source/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/02/15/redoing-steig-et-al-with-simple-data-regrouping-gives-half-the-warming-result-in-antarctica/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/02/28/steigs-antarctic-heartburn/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/12/a-challenge-to-steig-et-al-on-antarctic-warming/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/18/what-happens-when-you-divide-antarctica-into-two-distinct-climate-zones/
* http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/20/steig-et-al-antarctica-warming-paper-process-is-finally-replicated-and-dealt-a-blow-to-robustness/
(“A central prerequisite point to this is that Steig flatly refused to provide all of the code needed to fully replicate his work in MatLab and RegEM, and has so far refused requests for it.”
Say, I wonder if the recent statements by scientific societies re the Jones case that such data withholding can’t be justified can be used to shake the code loose from Steig?)
** http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/29/steig-et-al-falsified/
* http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/07/steigs-antarctic-peninsula-pac-mann/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/08/06/the-climate-science-credit-crunch/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/04/dmi-arctic-temperature-data-animation-doesnt-support-claims-of-recent-arctic-warming/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/20/antarctica-warming-ice-melting-not/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/13/frigid-folly-uhi-siting-issues-and-adjustments-in-antarctic-ghcn-data/
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
http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.html”
Looking back at some of the historical SST anomalies 2010 appears to be the coldest around Antarctica that its been in the last decade:
http://weather.unisys.com/archive/sst/sst_anom-090628.gif
http://weather.unisys.com/archive/sst/sst_anom-080629.gif
http://weather.unisys.com/archive/sst/sst_anom-070624.gif
http://weather.unisys.com/archive/sst/sst_anom-060625.gif
http://weather.unisys.com/archive/sst/sst_anom-050626.gif
http://weather.unisys.com/archive/sst/sst_anom-040627.gif
http://weather.unisys.com/archive/sst/sst_anom-030629.gif
http://weather.unisys.com/archive/sst/sst_anom-020630.gif
http://weather.unisys.com/archive/sst/sst_anom-010701.gif
http://weather.unisys.com/archive/sst/sst_anom-000611.gif
Do you concur?
Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
June 28, 2010 at 10:56 pm
Your arguments are always shallow. But let’s go with that for a moment anyway: if what you call “skeptics” don’t have a real argument and they are crazy then why do you spend so much time here? It’s because you’re afraid? You must not be convinced of your own arguments.
When my arguments are more complex, “skeptics” like yourself just ignore them and amuse yourself with side issues, like belittling the Nobel Peace Prize, e.g.:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/27/the-list-goes-on-%E2%80%A6-and-on/#comment-418332
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/27/the-list-goes-on-%E2%80%A6-and-on/#comment-418513
When I counter an assertion of yours directly, you ignore that as well:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/10/concentration-vs-extent/#comment-407546
I don’t spend much time on this blog – I’m mainly waiting for late September, to see how the summer melt is “spun” here. Now that will be interesting. Get your excuses ready, don’t wait till the last minute.
Andres says:
June 29, 2010 at 12:24 am
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??
I suggest you and Jarmo read the notes for the images just click on ‘Read about the data’.
Hypnos
You can’t correctly adjust for isostasy without bedrock reference points, and there are very few available in the interior of Greenland or Antarctica. The fact that they did some sort of correction does not mean it is accurate.
stevengoddard says:
June 29, 2010 at 5:58 am
Roald
Perhaps it is worth mentioning that the Arctic Basin “drop” you are seeing is due to SSMI sensor errors.
That would be remarkable since the CT data he quotes doesn’t use SSMI!
villabolo says:
June 29, 2010 at 12:26 am
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. One needs to know the whole background before making a judgment.
And your judgment is the correct judgment?
Anu,
complex?
Anu says:
June 29, 2010 at 6:50 am
Al Gore won the Nobel for his movie. Some may say it was for his book or his speaking engagements. But it was for his movie. Without his movie he would not have won it. His movie is criticized for inaccuracies even by global warming proponents. What does that leave an unbiased person to conclude about the Nobel? I’m not asking what it leads you to conclude.
Curious Yellow says: June 28, 2010 at 11:48 pm
“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.”
The “normal” range, i.e. +-2 standard deviations, is misleadingly narrow, because the NSIDC only uses data from 1979 – 2000 to calculate the range:
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png
If one was to add in the data from 2001 – 2009 the “normal” range would expand, making the current conditions look less anomalous. Furthermore, if we could add in data for earlier decades, centuries or millennia we would likely see that the current sea ice conditions at both poles are well within the “normal” range of variability.
Anu,
I am not a “skeptic”. Something must have a possibility of being real for someone to be skeptical of it.
Just The Facts says:
June 28, 2010 at 9:22 pm
R. Gates says: June 28, 2010 at 8:47 pm
“you may want to check your very opening graph however. It seems you’ve got the Antarctic sea ice topping out each year close to 18 million sq. km. It usually tops out around 15.5 million.”
I assume you are speaking of Antarctic Sea Ice Area:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.area.antarctic.png
whereas Steve posted a chart on Antarctic Sea Ice Extent:
http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsr/ice_ext_s.png
__________________
Yep, I was, and Steve…I apologize for not looking as close as I should have, as I wanted to really move onto the discussion about the Arctic Dipole Anomaly, as this relatively new development with the Arctic winds is probably more important to our N. Hemisphere weather. Be that as it may, I do find the LONGER term upward slope in Antarctic ice interesting in the same way that the longer term downward slope n the Arctic sea ice interesting. These have more connection to potential AGW effects.
The longer term upward slope in the Antarctic anomaly:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png
is not nearly so dramatic as the the longer term downward slope in the Arctic anomaly:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.arctic.png
And even more important is the fact that the Antarctic has crossed below the normal line into a negative anomaly state several times over the past few years, whereas the Arctic has not crossed the line into a positive anomaly since 2004. This is a significant difference. Also, studies (not related to the ozone layer depletion) have shown how AGW can lead to increases in Antarctic sea ice:
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/zhang/Pubs/Zhang_Antarctic_20-11-2515.pdf
Though I know that AGW skeptics just love to ignore these kinds of AGW related studies to Antarctic sea ice.
It seems that as we see the Arctic sea ice NOT recover, and new weather patterns emerge (the Dipole Anomaly for example) from the changes in the Arctic that could have major consequences for the majority of the worlds population that live in the N. Hemisphere, that the AGW skeptics want to shift focus to other things such as the Antarctic.