“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!
Acting on your suggestion, with quotes, none of the links in the first few pages matched my rebuttal – that a scientists says this in the present tense, about both the Arctic and Antarctica. Most of the articles I checked discussed the Antarctic and Greenland – ice sheets, not sea ice.
So I searched google scholar with your suggested parameters. 104 hits, only a handful of which matched the parameters. The IPCC refers to Arctic sea ice as sea ice, and puts Greenland and Antarctica under the heading ‘ice cap’.
You have conflated Antarctic sea ice (slightly increased over 30 years), with the Antarctic ice sheet (slight decrease with heavy caveats).
As in:
There is a logic to diminishing ice sheet and increasing sea ice. If the loss is a result of ablation around the cost, more ice can end up in the sea.
villabolo says:
June 29, 2010 at 12:26 am
the links you give are to a article from a newspaper that quotes from a book writen by a climate alarmist, “The Last Generation: How Nature Will Take Her Revenge for Climate Change”, and wiki article that draws no conclusions based on data but uses the word “perhaps”. This is what I have found over and over from global warming believers.
The video I posted is a scientist that uses geological findings.
So we have a choice, do we believe opinions or data?
i notice that the goalposts are already being moved over to the antarctic….
Steve, any comment on Barrow? as Phil pointed out, the ice broke up the day before you wrote your post. (latest-barrow-ice-breakup-on-record)
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/26/latest-barrow-ice-breakup-on-record/#comment-419178
there is a picture of global sea ice AREA anomaly. it is negative at the moment.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg
the arctic sea ice area anomaly fell dramatically, and is the second lowest anomaly in the record, after 2007.
Steve since as you mention no one knows what the winds are going to be this summer, and given the current slope, 2010 would not cross 2006 or 2007, what do you base your predictions on? Several posters over the last few weeks have shown your PIPS2.0 thickness fields are incorrect. You seem to ignore clear sky conditions that enhance surface melt, You seem to ignore anomalously warm SSTs in the Barents and Kara seas, you seem to ignore that temperatures have been anomalously warm all year, you seem to ignore the dipole pattern, you even seem to ignore visible melt ponds on the ice.
So really, what are you basing your prediction on?
villabolo says: June 29, 2010 at 12:21 am
“As far as your question concerning which pole makes a more accurate proxy of GW the answer is neither of them.”
So we can expect the Warmists to stop touting changes in sea ice as key indicator of Earth’s impending boiling doom?
“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.”
Funny, because we are the ones who are arguing for the “the powerful dynamics of Earth’s climate”, it’s the Warmists who are arguing that humans have learned how to manipulate and control these dynamics by simply burning some coal and unleashing plethora of cow farts. Note to self, CO2 is not Earth’s thermostat and humans cannot control and adjust Earth’s average temperature at will.
“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.”
Yes, the last time Arctic Sea Ice likely diminished greatly, during the Medieval Warming Period, was very catastrophic, Vikings thriving is Greenland, longer growing seasons, crops grown in Northern latitudes such as vineyards in the North of England, giant cathedrals built across Europe, etc. Scary stuff…
Steve,
You’ve made a few, rather contradictory claims about forecasting sea ice. First you claim:
“It’s all a crap shoot.”
then you say that the 2010 extent will cross over the 2006 & 2007 lines in the next few days.
Do you mean to say, that if the 2010 trend lines does not match up with your prediction, then it’s all a crap shoot? And of course, those models, such as PIOMAS, that are predicting a near record low for this summer extent will be just lucky if they get it right, but if you get it right, then you knew better, right?
I assume you think that once the Hudson bay is ice free, that the 2010 extent line will stop declining so fast. This would be based on your assumption of your PIPS 2.0 derived “40%” increase in thickness since 2008? On the ice observations from last winter in the Arctic basin:
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL041434.shtml
Might indicate that your PIPS 2.0 model thickness is about to go POP.
Anu says:
June 29, 2010 at 6:50 am
Anu,
Explain to me why I should care one way or the other what happens to the ice in the Arctic Ocean.
It was much warmer during the Medieval Warm Period. Polar bears, seals, etc. did fine.
I know it was much warmer because the Vikings were raising cattle, sheep, and other foodstuffs, in Greenland. Today’s Greenlanders must import their food.
I must offer ANU a note of caution, we simply do not know what the summer melt will bring and what the minimum will be.
It is unwise for both sides to make confident claims and make statements of certainty before the facts are in, we are entering a period of uncertainty and neither realists nor alarmists dont have a clue yet, in fact we have so little historical data that this next few weeks will be extremely interesting.
Isnt it much better to wait and see because the fact is that by marking out a set position based on beliefs is simply painting yourself into a corner should reality not turn out in the anticipated manner.
By taking a set position now before the facts are known it will mean your future posts will not be listened to, I for one enjoy reading your posts along with R Gates they offer a different perspective and a contrarian angle which I feel is valuable. IF and thats a big IF but if you are wrong and the melt does not meet your hopes then you cannot backtrack and your future posts will be seen through that lens alone.
Isnt it more sensible to admit doubt now and not run the risk of looking foolish later? This blog would be the poorer for your departure even though I may disagree with your positions.
R. Gates
The decline over the last week has been > 80% in the Hudson Bay, which is about to run out of ice, so the slope will break. It is a simple geometry problem.
Usual suspects – please take a chill pill. You all seem to be hyperventilating.
Hypnos says:
June 29, 2010 at 2:14 am
It is good to know that pupils in American schools are being taught the scientific truth.
You are confusing Alarmist propaganda with scientific truth. This is an easy and quite common mistake for climate bedwetters to make, as they don’t seem able to tell the difference, which is sad.
Most people believe that Antarctica is melting, because they have been continuously fed disinformation about it from authorities.
http://www.ktuu.com/Global/story.asp?S=10140922
In response to Cassandra King
June 29, 2010 at 9:51 am:
_______
A good precautionary post. I think it is very interesting for example that Steve was so bold as to say that 2010 will cross the 2006 and 2007 extent lines in the next few days based purely expectations that as we enter the month that sees the most rapid of declines, that we will not see accelerated melt from other regions besides Hudson Bay. We are already seeing signs in the Arctic Basin:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.1.html
Of a dramatic melt getting set up for July and August. True, the “winds” may change, but Steve is must be quite confident in his PIPS 2.0 make the claims he has. I’ve cast my lot with PIOMAS and David Barber, and now the true test is upon us.
But a few things about me:
1) I am not a “catastrophic” AGW follower, nor am I an “alarmist”. I do think AGW theory is in general correct, but what that means in terms of actual effects is an entirely different issue which I’ve not really studied enough to know anything about. If effects such as the Arctic Dipole Anomaly can truly be related to AGW as positive feedback effect, then there obviously will be very interesting times ahead for N. Hemisphere weather as the Arctic warms, but even David Barber, who has documented the “rotten” ice in the Arctic this past winter, has noted how some types of changes in the Arctic sea ice are actually better for Polar Bears in terms of their hunting grounds.
2) I will be here after the minimum this fall, and have no problem looking at how and why I was right/wrong with my prediction. This is science for me, not politics or personal ego at stake. I simply want to know what and why, and something can be learned from every bit of data.
Once more I will stress that the ice has been diminishing since the Little Ice Age ended, the temperatures have been rising ever since then, both a hundred years before any appreciable human induced hydrocarbon burning appeared . I do not think anybody doubts this.
Also there should be nobody of some scientific background who could doubt that the true prophecy is that the next ice age will come, and that the ice core data show diminishing temperatures through the Holocene. .
So this bickering on whether this will be a record melt or not has nothing to do with CO2 and the feedback mechanism that is supposed to trigger the catastrophic warming.
So the ice keeps on melting and the temperature rising? We are lucky to be coming out of the Little Ice Age instead of tumbling down the next Little Ice Age on the way to the bottom.
The fact is that the only thing incriminating CO2 for any drastic climate changes are GCMs that are failing on all fronts :
These models have failed to reproduce:
1) the cloud cover. ( see AR4, they are all over the globe wrong)
Considering that a 2 percent change in albedo over compensates for this observed change in temperature since the little ice age, this is an extremely important failure.
2) they fail to reproduce the absolute temperature, that is why they are playing card games with anomalies of temperatures. The failure is larger than the anomalies predicted.
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2009/fact-6a-model-simulations-dont-match-average-surface-temperature-of-the-earth/
The exact same runs that average so nicely on the global anomaly measurements.
3)They predict a tropical hotspot that has not materialized
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/GHGModsvsReality.jpg
4) they predict a rise of sea surface temperatures that have not materialized. Since 2005 the famous CO2 effect cannot change the SSTs, though CO2 is merrily rising still.
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT
5) the sensitivity of the atmosphere to the water content is the opposite of that given by the models and so necessary to the magic feedback with H2O they invoke.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/05/strong-negative-feedback-from-the-latest-ceres-radiation-budget-measurements-over-the-global-oceans/
http://www.drroyspencer.com/Lindzen-and-Choi-GRL-2009.pdf
The models should be back to the drawing board and the use of CO2 as a terror weapon is passee.
Watching the ice is like playing Pooh sticks, and has nothing to do with CO2.
It is true that the surest way to win the skeptic argument would be for the climate to fall into the next Little Ice Age, but wishing for this is like cutting one’s nose to spite one’s face.
R. Gates says: June 29, 2010 at 7:37 am
“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.”
This really isn’t significant, because, as I pointed out above, the Antarctic resets each year by mostly melting away, thus it is more sensitive to annual variations, whereas the Arctic is stuck with the impact and memory of non-temperature related events, such as the Arctic Dipole Anomaly you’d prefer to talk about.
“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.”
I cited and linked to this study earlier in this thread, hardly what one might consider ignoring. Furthermore, don’t you find it slightly suspicious that Zhang is responsible for both deflating Arctic Sea Ice Volume;
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/ArcticSeaiceVolume/IceVolume.php
while simultaneously trying to minimize the importance and obscure the causes of increasing 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”
Yes, as I noted above, “the last time Arctic Sea Ice likely diminished greatly, during the Medieval Warming Period, was very catastrophic, Vikings thriving is Greenland, longer growing seasons, crops grown in Northern latitudes such as vineyards in the North of England, giant cathedrals built across Europe, etc. Scary stuff…”
“that the AGW skeptics want to shift focus to other things such as the Antarctic.”
You mean like shifting focus to the more accurate proxy of Earth’s temperature and temperature trend, which currently seems to indicate that Earth is cooling? Guilty as charged…
I watched a recent History Channel program entitled “Who Really Discovered America” and thoroughly enjoyed a segment about the exploits of Zheng He in the 15th century. It highlighted a map copied from the map made by the Zheng He party in the early 1400’s. The map shows open water at the North Pole, not as an anomaly, but as the norm.
Wow I has never seen such poor science represented as truth. Steve, your mother should be ashamed of you for deliberately misleading your readers and your father should be ashamed of you for not mastering science and not understanding what you see. You bring shame upon your family. Shame on you.
You may wish to read a few books on climate science and mayhaps the latest IPCC report, especially the “Physical Basis for Climate Change” section.
The graph showing the complementary growth and decline of Antarctic and Arctic Sea Ice should be pointed to each time the AGWs get pushy on regional Arctic issues. Also, I find it useful to remind my friends who are terrified by the sex poodle’s prognostications about the Arctic Ice, that floating ice upon melting has little change in the sea level (Archimedes principle). Next I point out to them that something like 90% of polar ice is at the South Pole, where it has been getting slightly colder, not warmer, the last few decades. Lastly, I try to explain that the truth of these issues most likely lies somewhere in understanding ocean current oscillations, the activity of the sun, changes in cloud cover, and subtle changes in the Earth’s orbit over the millenia…..plus a heavy dose of chaos.
Those with a religious commitment to the AGW “tenets” are not persuadable by facts or logic. They hate and despise us heretics. They long for an Apocaplypse, any apocalypse, to satisfy their feeling/belief that Man is evil, a disease upon the Earth, and God (Gaia) will punish him. The Warmistas are mostly post-Christian nihilists, who cannot turn for satisfaction to the Book of Revelations for their need to believe that punishment is coming.
But I have friends who have sipped the Koolaid, do not like its taste, and are casting about for real facts and arguments to counter the constant proselytizing from the AGW hysterics. WUWT is a great direction to point these people toward, to find what they need to escape this anti-human insanity.
And I saw this mentioned on History or National Geographic:
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-06/uoca-gic061808.php
I know I know, it was regional warming only so the current warming is still “unprecedented”! lol
Check out Cryosphere Today,
In the last couple of weeks the ice area in the Arctic basin has started to decrease.
And you can’t argue with facts, there are at this time sheep farms in Greenland, and no Greenland does not import all of its food.
They even grow cabbages and broccolli there.
Jongo Gurmola says:
June 29, 2010 at 11:22 am
Could you please be more specific in your accusations? Broad all-encompassing comments about Steve’s parents do not a good argument make.
Personally, I don’t agree with all the conclusions/statements that Steve makes, but I don’t go making broad claims about shaming his family, etc…
-Scott
Just the Facts said:
“whereas the Arctic is stuck with the impact and memory of non-temperature related events, such as the Arctic Dipole Anomaly you’d prefer to talk about.”
___________
Ummm, have you actually read the research on the Dipole Anomaly? I would imagine that if you had you wouldn’t have made this comment.
You could start here, and simply read the first few sentences:
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/atmosphere.html
“It is apparent that the heating of the ocean in areas of extreme summer sea ice loss is directly impacting surface air temperatures over the Arctic Ocean, where surface air temperature anomalies reached an unprecedented +4°C during October through December 2008. There is evidence that the effect of higher air temperatures in the lower Arctic atmosphere is contributing to changes in the atmospheric circulation in both the Arctic and northern mid-latitudes.”
Really, to call yourself “Just the Facts”, and then to ignore them…seems like you may want to change your name to “Just the (cherry picked) Facts.”
Tracie Potts is a journalist for NBC news. I don’t rate her as an authority on Antarctic ice. I’m not sure she even got the scant information in her very brief article right.
The general view from scientific ‘authorities’ (ie, scientists) is that the antarctic ice cap is is melting – nit precipitously, as yet. Antarctic sea ice, on the other hand, has increased slightly over the last 30 years.
Steve, you’ve gone from no melting of Antarctic ‘sea ice’ (correct), to no-melting Antarctic ice cap (likely incorrect), and now just ‘Antarctica’ (huh?). The original quote is referenced to a hit count from a google search. These conflations are way too woolly to address. If you cannot be more precise, your commentary only has rhetorical value – and rhetoric is what you are attempting to dislodge. Thus, your comments read like counter-propaganda instead of reasoned analysis.
It is agreed by all that Antarctic sea ice has increased slightly over the last 30 years. So, do you take issue with the notion that the Antarctic ice sheet (cap) has likely decreased slightly, as the science suggests? This appears to be your position according to your post.
Jongo Gurmola says:
June 29, 2010 at 11:22 am
Jongo, you forgot /sarc off
Jongo Gurmola,
Since you are privy to the Truth, why don’t you make a prediction.