“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!
barry
Nice FUD
OK, continuing for Hypnos,
There is an anomaly for the geoid given by GRACE:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GRACE/page3.php
It is the difference for the month of August of 2002 from the average of the year for 2001.
So on a scale of tens of meters, (as the GOCE plot of two months shows in the other thread,) anomalies are of the order of mms all over the globe.
It seems very risky to me to assign these anomalies to ice melts, when the underlying continental shelfs may be redistributing on these scales. I know that Africa approaches Europe something like 2cms a year. From wikipedia plate tectonics:
The lateral relative movement of the plates varies, though it is typically 0–100 mm annually.[1]
Tectonic plates are able to move because the Earth’s lithosphere has a higher strength and lower density than the underlying asthenosphere. Their movement is thought to be driven by the motion of hot material in the mantle. Lateral density variations in the mantle result in convection, which is transferred into tectonic plate motion through some combination of drag, downward suction at the subduction zones, and variations in topography and density of the crust that result in differences in gravitational forces. The relative importance of each of these factors is unclear. Bold mine.
Maybe that is why there is only one author for the paper though there must be a multitude of scientists working for GRACE.
Anyone noticed the 2 holdouts have joined & ALL 4 Norsex Indexes are now at Record Low Arctic Ice for this date … along with NSIDC, AMSR-E & PIOMAS. http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/ice-area-and-extent-in-arctic
However: Barrow Break-up Day is not considered to include areas opened by the Wind.
The South ? North ? Winds should be Labeled as ‘From Siberia’
In 2007 this:
1. Pushed the Whole Mass towards Greenland. Much curved away into the North Atlantic.
2. The suddenly Open area soaked up Sun & heated to 40 (F) degrees, melting Ice from underneath.
. . . the whole area rolled up like a Carpet towards the Pole
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/figures/Fig5c2_2008.jpg
You should read that Sea Ice Oulook.
Funny stuff when they refer to 2007 in charts where the melting was 5 times the expected.
The Problem is not the AGW predicting a Decline: they want a GRADUAL DECLINE ~ 300 cubic Kilometers a year.
… it has been going below record by that much MORE, every week for 9 weeks until the 18th.
The problem, is the (Natural, if unusual) El Nino Plus the Gradual warming of the last 30 years being TRIPLED by CAP & TRADE.
(.39 Gradual + 1.09 Cap&Trade + 1.1 from the El Nino = 2.5 (C) over normal for the last 6 months http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt
The PROBLEM, is, the AGW lobby is TRYING to heat things up so they can make more Trillions in fraud.
Of course the AGW lobby, funded by $100 B Euros /year, want to make it worse !
Well, they’ve suceeded.
I do not think the Ice will last July, save near Greenland.
That means 300 mph Winds in February & we all die.
Unless the Clouds come. Please.
So, Barry tries to achieve clarity using correct definitions and asks Steven to confirm/clarify his statements using those definitions. His request is hardly complex – just to properly distinguish between Antarctic land ice (the “ice cap” or “ice sheet”) and Antarctic sea ice.
And Steven replies “nice FUD”.
For some reason I’m thinking of the psychological phenomena called “projection”.
R. Gates says:
June 29, 2010 at 8:07 am
Might indicate that your PIPS 2.0 model thickness is about to go POP.
_________________________________________________
POP goes the PIPS?
I don’t think anyone has brought this up before.
PIPS X.X is used by the Navy for NAVIGATION purposes only.
Having worked for the USACE and having spent almost my entire professional career dealing with navigation and harbor issues of large ocean going containerships and bulk carriers (Ports of LA/LB, Charleston Harbor, Barbers Point Harbor, and the Panama Canal (ENSO 1997)), I can attest to entrance channel designs, dredging depths, ship drafts, over dredging, anf underkeel clearances.
In the case of submariners, they are also concerned with minimum save underkeel clearances when transiting entrance channels, likewise, when transiting ice congested areas, submariners would be concerned with “overkeel” clearances. In other words, you don’t want to bump your head on the ceiling of ice, EVER.
You want to be absolutely certain that the navigation charts you use guarantee that you don’t hit something, on the bottom, or ON THE TOP.
And that’s all that PIPS X.X does, it gives the submariner absolute certainty that if he keeps his head down, thet’ll never hit the ceiling of ice.
Thus, PIPS X.X overestimates ice thicknesses, as a factor of safety, guaranteeing absolute certainty that your sub won’t be damaged under ANY CONDITIONS.
GFW
Why is it that some people feel the need to constantly drag the conversation off topic ?
R. Gates says: June 29, 2010 at 11:58 am
“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.”
No, I did a cursory review to understand how the Arctic Dipole Anomaly impacts sea ice;
http://research.iarc.uaf.edu/amg/acs2.html
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008AGUFM.C51A0538W
but haven’t had time to dig any further, as I have two full-time jobs (neither of which is for a fossil fuel company or a cushy Warmist blog seeding gig like you’ve got), think Steve is doing an exceptional job researching the Arctic and prefer to spend my WUWT time on less addressed areas, i.e. currently the Antarctic. Furthermore, the statement I made above stands, the Arctic Dipole Anomaly impacts Arctic Sea Ice via wind, not temperature.
“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.””
Now that’s amusing, perhaps I’ll use that some day, right after you change your name over to “R. (Warmist Stooge) Gates”… 🙂
Reply: Both sides stop the name calling. ~ ctm
Just The Facts said:
“Furthermore, the statement I made above stands, the Arctic Dipole Anomaly impacts Arctic Sea Ice via wind, not temperature.”
________________
Uh…did you decide to shift gears away from what you said originally, which was:
“…whereas the Arctic is stuck with the impact and memory of non-temperature related events, such as the Arctic Dipole Anomaly…”
You said the DA was a non-temperature RELATED event. You weren’t talking about what causes what. If you’d taken even 2 minutes to actually read the research I provided for you you see that the DA is all about being a temperature related event– and more critically, a potential positive temperature related event, meaing that seems to have been caused by higher temps and then turns around and brings higher temps to the Arctic.
Finally, a Weather 101 fact for you…you can never separate wind from temperature. They go hand in hand like heads and tails on a coin as proxies for or forms of energy.
Funny how the global ‘ coolers ‘ suporters ignore the fact that just 20,000 years ago New York was under a kilometer of ice ! Doing the math ( 100,000 years between glaciantions peak means that half the way we are in the middle of WARMING !! ) , means that right now we are very close to the warming peak , at least another 1,000 years before achiving it …
When the global sea water is going UP fro the last few decades it takes either a moron or some one with a hiden agenda to deny the present global Warming .
See world solutions at RecipeForaNation.vox.com
BBC has the the following article:-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/science_and_environment/10450425.stm
“Cryosat-2 focuses on ice target”
“The Cryosat-2 mission is delivering on its promise to make high-precision radar measurements of polar ice.”
HOW TO MEASURE ICE THICKNESS FROM ORBIT
I don’t know enough to evaluate this article, but thought it maybe of interest
Hot of the Press and of great interest to those who love to study the cryosphere. Early calibration data from CryoSat-2 starting to come in…and it is nothing short of stunning. See:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science_and_environment/10450425.stm
Both the PIOMAS and PIP x.x and CICE and countless others are going to have lots to look at when the full data starts to come in later this year. Some models will rise, some will be modified, and some will be left behind. None of us will look at sea ice in the same way, and probably many other things as well because of what CryoSat-2 will show us…
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.
Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
June 29, 2010 at 7:18 am
And your judgment is the correct judgment?
VILLABOLO RESPONDS:
That’s a rhetorical answer. Concerning the other statements you made on June 29, 2010 at 7:48 am let me state the following:
You did not read the Wikipedia article carefully. The “perhaps” was stated in context of rainfall that came immediately after the Ice Age ended. The article then specifically states that the Sahara dried out right after that specific event. The “greater heat = more rain” explanation was with reference to how the Sahara got wet afterwards.
Furthermore you paint yourself into a corner by implying that this “Heat Pump” explanation, the universally accepted one, is not worthy of attention. How then, in your opinion, did higher temperatures make the Sahara green?
As for the PHYSICIST whose video you posted, he states two things:
A) Higher Carbon Dioxide levels today will increase temperatures and mimic the “Wet Sahara”.
B) Should the situation today be preferred over that of the Holocene? He answers no. Meaning of course that he was recommending the CLIMATE back then.
Please note that he stated that the “heresy” was not necessarily true but that “it won’t harm us to think about it”. Well Amino, when you do think about it the following becomes obvious:
1) Since you’re using “Arguments of Authority”, which are illegitimate in logic, let’s play with that game for now. He is a “PHYSICIST” not a CLIMATOLOGIST. If you’re too prejudiced to acknowledge the importance of getting the right professional, then by all means, go to a Heart Surgeon to perform your brain surgery.
Also you give no credence those you deride as ‘ALARMISTS” and yet you quote a physicist, who is not only well known for being a Skeptic (I will me be more gracious than you and not use the “D” word), but who clearly admits that:
“My objections to the global warming propaganda are not so much over the technical facts, about which I do not know much, but it’s rather against the way those people behave and the kind of intolerance to criticism that a lot of them have.”
http://www.e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2151
I don’t know who he means by “those people” and their intolerance since I’ve seen plenty of this on the Skeptic side but one thing is sure.
He says that his “OBJECTIONS TO THE GLOBAL WARMING PROPAGANDA ARE NOT SO MUCH OVER THE TECHNICAL FACTS, ABOUT WHICH I DO NOT KNOW MUCH”. He therefore says, in the same breath, that it is “propaganda” but he’s ignorant of the facts!
How can one rationally assume that something is propaganda if he simultaneously admits that he admits ignorance of it?
2) Some very basic knowledge and sense should allow us to agree on his first assumption as far as CO2 reestablishing a “Wet Sahara” but that is where his sense stops all together.
3) His thinking goes out the window when he starts generalizing the situation in the Sahara and portions of Europe to the whole Globe. I do not even have to be a Geologist to see through the absurdity of that.
4) Throughout past eras the Earth has had a kaleidoscopic changing of ecozones but, with some radical exceptions, not a homogeneous ecology from pole to pole. The exceptions are Snowball Earth and other periods when the Earth was virtually all desert.
SO WHY DOES HE AND YOU ASSUME THAT THE CONDITIONS THAT CAUSE A “WET SAHARA” IS GOING TO BE GOOD FOR THE WHOLE EARTH? IT IS INTUITIVELY OBVIOUS THAT DESERTS WILL SIMPLY BE SHIFTED IN POSITION. WHAT IS NICE AND WARM FOR ONE AREA WILL BE DAMNABLY HOT FOR ANOTHER.
In fact this was the case with the immediate vicinity of the “Wet Sahara” where the region to its south became desert. That region, until recently, was productive farmland but it is being encroached on by the Sahara which is expanding south and also north to the southern fringes of Spain.
When taken together with the greening this expansion is a clear indication that the desert area of the Sahara, is, not so much disappearing, but simply shifting to other locations.
5) I stated in conclusion of the post you quoted “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.”
Since you have given credence to that Freeman Dyson’s assumption that CO2 is obviously a full fledged Greenhouse Gas (otherwise why quote him at all?)* why do you not factor in what CONTINUOUS INCREASE IN CO2 WILL DO? Just because he assumes that a certain level of CO2 is good for the greening of the whole Earth that does not mean that further increases in CO2 will have no further impacts which could then be negative.
Do you really think that the Universe is set up in such a way that by adding an indefinitely increasing amount of ANY element or substance to a situation it will improve things INDEFINITELY?
6) In conclusion, we cannot make simple minded predictions for Earth based on one dimensional thinking.
Furthermore, it is in a normal Interglacial that Civilization came to be and altering the climate within a span of several decades is going to do, at best, a changing of ecozones, with all the mass migrations and starvation that implies. At worse it will cause a radical shrinkage of the inhabitable Earth.
SO WHY IN HADES DO YOU WANT TO SCREW AROUND WITH THE CLIMATE WHEN YOU HAVE NEITHER FIGURED THINGS OR ARE NOT EVEN IN CONTROL? HAVEN’T YOU HEARD OF THE SAYING “IF IT AIN’T BROKE WHY FIX IT”?
__________________________________________________________
*By the way I thought that you did not believe that CO2 was a contributor to any warming whatsoever? Nevertheless you are using the argument of a Geologist who assumes that it is.
R. Gates says: June 29, 2010 at 2:45 pm
“You said the DA was a non-temperature RELATED event. You weren’t talking about what causes what. If you’d taken even 2 minutes to actually read the research I provided for you you see that the DA is all about being a temperature related event– and more critically, a potential positive temperature related event, meaing that seems to have been caused by higher temps and then turns around and brings higher temps to the Arctic.”
Into weeds with you. I am not going to argue what you know I meant and what you want to construe it as. How about an answer to the question you dodged above, which of Earth’s poles’ sea ice offers a more accurate proxy of Earth’s temperature and temperature trend, and why?
sod says:
June 29, 2010 at 7:49 am
“i notice that the goalposts are already being moved over to the antarctic….”
VLLABOLO SAYS:
You seem to be right but even before then they seemed to be moving in the direction of “Ice Free Arctic is Common and Harmless”.
Jack Simmons says:
June 29, 2010 at 9:05 am
There are also maps of the northern coastline of Greenland from the time of the Vikings. That coastline is now covered with ice. There had to of been less ice in the Arctic in the time of the Vikings.
stevengoddard says:
June 29, 2010 at 10:19 am
Usual suspects – please take a chill pill. You all seem to be hyperventilating.
LOL, it’s true.
Interglcial John says:
June 29, 2010 at 11:09 am
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.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Do you recall the title of the program?
I saw a program on History that was about how far the Vikings could have traveled into what is now the US. They think they got as far as what is now Manhattan. They also talked about a skirmish in Canada near the Atlantic in which Lief Erikson’s brother was killed by, what they called, a Canadian Indian. They showed a drawing of those Indians. They looked just like people dressed in clothing of the Ming Dynasty. So Lief Erikson’s brother may have been killed by a Ming Dynasty soldier.
I wish I could remember the title of the show!
R. Gates says:
June 29, 2010 at 3:28 pm
Hot of the Press and of great interest to those who love to study the cryosphere.
And I’ve noticed you’re quite the student of that.
sarcoff
villabolo:
June 29, 2010 at 3:36 pm
you’re really sloppy. you’re just flinging stuff anywhere.
R. Gates says:
June 29, 2010 at 3:28 pm
Hot of the Press
Oh, thanks for being the first, err, second to tell us.
villabolo says:
June 29, 2010 at 3:36 pm
And your judgment is the correct judgment?
VILLABOLO RESPONDS:
That’s a rhetorical answer
Of course, because you’re always correct. And we didn’t think so all we have to do is ask you and you’ll tell us so.
Pamela Gray, please use “forecast” not “prediction”.
Unless you’re using a crystal ball.
villabolo, all I can say is “damn”!
Short version: The climate is Dynamic (active and changing)
stevengoddard at June 29, 2010 at 5:58 am,
How do you know that it is due to sensor errors? Did someone publish something about this or make a statement?
And I am still curious regarding your area figures for the Arctic basin. Your graphs from a few posts back seem to show that there has been a 15 per cent decline in artic basin ice area between this time last year and this time today. You did not publish these ice area figures – I just worked them out using the formula you gave of volume = area * thickness. Is this 15 per cent decline figure correct, or have I made another error?
Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
June 29, 2010 at 4:11 pm
“Of course, because you’re always correct. And we didn’t think so all we have to do is ask you and you’ll tell us so.”
VILLABOLO SAYS:
It would be nice if you responded to the issues I brought up.
Please remember, it was you who brought up Dysons video. I loved Dyson back in the 1980’s when I loved what he had to say on space colonization, something that I was very much into at that time.
Nevertheless, you brought up someone who himself admitted that he did not know much about Global Warming. It only took a quick Google to find that quote.
Steve says … “off-topic”.
I thought the Topic was Sea Ice.
Phil: … I stand Corected: the Barrow site Steve uses still predicts July 6 Ice Break-up but the Webcam shows NO Ice & the Radar ONLY a patch of Landfast Ice 1000 yards by 50 (Range about 10km). Rain, & Warm water pushing the Ice Edge North, is making “Break-Up” Day moot. At http://seaice.alaska.edu/gi/observatories/barrow_breakup … Click RADAR or WEBCAM to the Left: There are Clear skies & NO ICE VISIBLE on the Webcam a couple hours ago (the photo below the CLOUD Chart on the main page is not a current photo),
>>> But the Most Fun was tracking down the source of Steve’s MASS-BALANCE Charts that “show” thickness still hasn’t changed:
http://seaice.alaska.edu/gi/observatories/barrow_sealevel
[exerpt] : ” Barrow Sea Ice Mass Balance Site 2010
The Mass Balance Probe was recovered from the ice and is not operational anymore since 14 June 2010.
Snow depth data are incorrect since a bear tampered with the instruments on 5 June, 2010. ”
… imagine: ‘ Mommy, Bear ate our Data’ … Don’t Worry: Steve can put it to use … as Proof the Ice has stopped melting & We’ll SAVE THE WORLD by pretending that it has. If we all Pretend together that makes it True, right ?
… OK, in REALITY, if _I_ didn’t see that for weeks, so: Steve missed it _Unintentionally_ .
But that is not the ONLY fun thing.
Zhang is co-author of the Evil PIOMAS Model, dripping with EVIL at every pore.
Continue to the page bottom:
” This is a summary of recent weather observations at the Barrow airport (courtesy ) and a weather forecast for Barrow based on a regional weather forecast model (courtesy Zhang and Krieger , ARSC). Note that weather forecasts are unreliable beyond approx. 3 days (cf. dispersion in GFS ensemble forecasts due to uncertain initial conditions. ”
The “ensemble” is Zhang’s GROUP, most of them here : http://www.arcus.org/files/search/sea-ice-outlook/2010/06/images/summary/sioresultschartfig1rev.jpg — that’s me, the 1.0 party-crasher. But the “ensemble” predicted a 1% chance of beating 2007, something happenning on ALL major indexes ! But that’s Science. I picked the El Nino strength 1.8 to 2007’s 1.1, as my Theory. They are not bad, it’s just that the Weather followed my theory. And it can CHANGE, too — something the Weather is FAMOUS for doing.
More !
Not only does Zhang do the Barrow Forecast, but he Updated Pips too !
. http://www.oc.nps.edu/~pips3/stand_alone_ice.html
” ice rheology of Hibler (1979) with more efficient numerics of Zhang and Hibler (1997)”
and here is why: his wife is NAVY ! & worked with Pips’s current supervisor Wieslaw Maslowski in 2000: http://www.arsc.edu/support/news/T3Enews/T3Enews200.shtml “We are at the Department of Oceanography of the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey California.” > Home page URL? http://www.oc.nps.navy.mil … The best Discussion of Pips is in the American J. of Meteorology:: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/1520-0426%282004%29021%3C0944%3AFVOTPI%3E2.0.CO%3B2 … note especially the 3rd paragraph of #2.
.
Ahhhh, but Obi Wan: maybe that was Before he turned to the Dark Side ?
BUT Enough Fun: THIS IS _IMPORTANT_:: Ocean Warming REVERSING ??
Steve hit the Nail on the head here.
— We need updates of Dr Roy’s Ocean Temp Chart cf to the Average (at drroyspencer.com), which is PLUNGING.
That … is REAL.
Proving IF we survive this year, we’ll find we are REALLY in the cold half of the 30-year cycle (the present El Nino is just the Weather being its usual wacky self).
… But we need updates … most sites give a Map that show only … that Temps get colder to the North.
We need the DIFFERENCE from norm = “Anomaly”:
http://bulletin.mercator-ocean.fr/html/produits/bestproduct/welcome_en.jsp
Hint: pick the button, below right, saying “Deviation from seasonal norm” .
Not a Chart, though, only a MAP — so I have to make memory serve me — but hasn’t the former North Atlantic Hot Spot become the “Slightly Warmer” spot ?
And Mercator does a Pip-like Thickness:
http://bulletin.mercator-ocean.fr/html/produits/psy3v2/ocean/regions/bull_ocean_arc_en.jsp?nom=psy3v2_20100623_22088#ici
Watch out for the trademark of Pips-type Thickness — look at the Arctic: where the Photo Satellites show those 3 big Open water patches, Mercator shows Blue = BELOW normal. As I warned you: on the simpler sites Open Water shows up as MORE Ice. Pips itself manually cuts Open Water areas off, but compare 2009 to 2010 — WOW — Open Water is Eating the Arctic
Pips shows the Open spots quickest, if you have Dial-up like Me:
http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/pips2/archive/retrievepic.html?filetype=Thickness&year=2009&month=6&day=29
… for 2009 … for 2010, just change the 2009 in the url above. Scary.