By Steve Goddard
Last month, a number of well known web sites and commenters were getting themselves worked up with comments like “Arctic ice dropping at the fastest rate in history” and “Arctic ice is dropping like a rock.” I advised repeatedly that prior to July, looking at the extent graphs is pointless.
July is here now, and the rate of ice extent decline has dropped dramatically over the last week. To put this in perspective, according to JAXA data, the June 28-July 4 rate is -53361 km²/day. In 2007 during the same period, ice was lost at -123104 km²/day.
In other words, 2007 was losing ice 2.31X faster than 2010.
This can be seen most dramatically in the DMI graph, which measures only higher concentration ice (30%.)
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php
Close up image below.
So why the dramatic difference in slope? One reason is that sea ice concentration is at the highest level in the satellite record. Compare below vs. 1980, when ice was considered very “healthy.” Current concentration is considerably higher.
Ice concentration is particularly important this time of year because the sun is relatively high in the sky. When the ice concentration is low, sun shines into the water in “Swiss Cheese” holes around the ice, warms it, and corrodes away the edges of the ice. This year, ice concentration has been close to 100% in most of the Arctic – which means very little sunlight is reaching the water in the Arctic Basin. As a result melt will occur more slowly than during low concentration years.
The videos below represent an exaggerated visualization of the process. The first video shows an idealized view of future Arctic Basin melt during 2010 – i.e. a single large circle of ice surrounded by water.
The next video shows what happens in years when the concentration is lower. The sun is heating the water between circles, and because of the smaller circles a much larger surface area of ice is exposed to warm water. Warmer water and more exposed surface area causes melt to proceed faster.
Conclusion : Cold temperatures, cloudy skies, favorable winds and high concentration ice – all point to continued slow melt over the next few days.
Cassandra King says:
July 5, 2010 at 9:56 pm
casting of the bones…..seduced by models
It seems some people want to believe in the mystical. Maybe it’s more tantalizing than reality. Or maybe it’s a way they can fool others to gain a level of control over them.
I think Richard Lindzen put it well when he compared climate models to Ouija boards:
R. Gates
I didn’t make any claims about Arctic ice disappearing and would appreciate it if you didn’t imply that I did.
R. Gates says: July 5, 2010 at 10:42 pm
This is a curious little positive feeback loop that’s developed in the Arctic over the past 10 years or so.
According to what I found the Arctic is behaving as expected.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC1.htm
thethinkingman says:
July 5, 2010 at 11:43 pm
the proof of this pudding will be in the eating
We’ve already got a few bites: bad recipe coming from the ‘thinning ice’ crowd. Steven Goddard and Anthony seem to have a few good recipes though.
Stephan said
“2July 5, 2010 at 11:08 pm
I think R gates is one of many AGW trolls who has been instructed to try to “overcome” the Climategate problem by “appearing” to really know what he is talking about LOL but the answers here are not helping his cause so let him continue please…LOL. As I mentioned in previous posting some warmistas are going to be very surprised at NH minima this summer.”
I don’t think R Gates fits the definition of a troll at all, he is well informed and generally courteous and it is good to have another perspective to challenge us.
For his information I have previously posted on another thread historical references showing that todays warming is nothing new (1820 plus 1920, and at his request posted one showing the arctic was reckoned to be ice free some 6000 years ago).
It would be nice if he looked at the historic precedent a bit more instead of getting so excited about a thirty year record, but from that I guess he is relatively young himself and prefers computer models to history.
tonyb
vukcevic says:
July 5, 2010 at 11:52 pm
According to what I found the Arctic is behaving as expected.
vukcevic,
maybe it would help to get your ideas across if you made them into videos and post them on YouTube. It might take you 20-30 minutes to present findings in bite size pieces, making it 2 or 3 ten minute YouTube segments for each aspect of a finding. Video is mightier than the pen. It’s easy to attach a video in comments here. It could save you some repetitious typing. 🙂
“No, I think it’s just low-paid script writers with no incentive to be accurate. How else could both CNN and CBS (Katy Couric’s show, no less) be reporting that the A Whale can gobble up 21,000,000 gallons (500,000 bbls) of oil a day. Anyone with common sense would know that number is wrong.”
I agree. Someone else had worked out that the oil reservoir in the gulf that is gushing oil has a capacity of 4 quadrillion gallons, owing to a news anchor stating that it was the same size as Everest.
Surely that would make it a bigger stock of oil than Saudi Arabia and Iraq combined and therefore when the relief wells get into it, it would solve all Americas foreign oil problems for decades to come?
The news people were trying to scare people, but surely you would think that there would be the most basic level of fact checking?
R. Gates says:
July 5, 2010 at 10:42 pm
Your recursive DA feedback mechanism should have started in 2007, and by now there would be zero Arctic ice.
It would be a true hockey stick.
Run backwards, the Arctic in the 70’s should have grown exponentially and the Antarctic continued to shrink likewise.
That didn’t happen.
vukcevic,
I like how Joe Bastardi does video. His graphs are on one side of the screen and on the other you see him explaining. It’s easier after a day at work to come home and watch a video rather than read. Some times after work I don’t have the energy to open a PDF and start reading. And I think lots of people are the same. But it’s refreshing to watch a video.
Joe Bastardi on video:
http://www.accuweather.com/video/103968440001/major-cooling-on-the-way-worldwide.asp?channel=vbbastaj
Can you imagine the time and work it would have taken him to present what he says in 4:50 minutes of video on paper instead. And if he did present it on paper the reader may not have understood as much as they did from watching him on video.
Like I said: video is mightier than the pen!! 🙂
R. Gates, rbateman:
The difference between your posts is Mr. Gates talked about July 5 & the site rbateman specified refers to July 3
— BOY what a change.
But that’s CONCENTRATION for you.
Worthless ? … well, as I have said, LASER & other DIRECT MEASUREMENTS are the ONLY REAL THINGS.
Because the Piomas “models” are NOT some single fake thing, but a framework apparently derived from Zhang’s work on Pips 3.0, it ASSIMILATES such data. That’s “Add” in English.
That’s why it is used by many DIFFERENT Researchers with differing Ideas, they Plug things in.
And get different Results.
They even offer a site for YOU to plug in a future temp & project.
But since May there hasn’t been any new Laser Data – – – from the central Basin.
IceBridge Airplanes aren’t flying over the Sea Ice anymore.
SO – – Piomas is like a cripple — albeit there are more ship measurements now, but they are FAR FROM THE CENTER.
Anyway Steve:
… You want to LIVE BY THE DAILIES – – you FRY by the Dailies.
First it was LOOK at the Big Extent ! Then: they’re all LIES.
Up Pips !
Now: Pips is DEAD, long live Concentration.
Funny, they all were FINE until they reported what you didn’t want.
Then, you pick & choose – – and change, every few days.
As I have said, FORGET AGW
Anti-AGW too.
It’s about the El Nino.
That is WHY 2007 was different. That was a 1.1 & this year was a 1.8.
Yes, it is dissipating – – at the Equator – – but the HEAT will still be months working North via the Hot North Atlantic.
Therefore, this year will melt off.
Let’s look at the Dailies:
Comparing _____2007___ to___ 2010
Ahead July 5 _____ no_______ 222,813
Daily Loss in Extent:
July 3-4 ___ – 130,937 _____ – 82,969
July 4-5 ___ – 89,844 ____- 111,563
July 5-6 ___ – 93,125_____ ? ?
Note that since I posted on Update #12 there has been 8,594 km3 shifted from July 4 to 5. This is a Glitch, corrected the next day. These happen, as we saw above, courtesy Amino Acids: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/02/16/errors-in-publicly-presented-data-worth-blogging-about/
General:
Honest people MAKE Errors BUT thay also correct Errors, like Hansen when he accepted Steve MacIntyre’s correction.
Honest People get solicited by DISHONEST, which is what ClimateGate was about: CROOKED EAST ANGLIA ASKING Americans TO LIE.
But that PROVES Hansen & his people are Honest.
Steve is not in Cahoots with Zhang because both their estimates are FAR higher than mine.
They are both near “normal’ … because they are WRONG.
I picked REAL WEATHER to base My Projection on – –
– – these trend-associations are only slightly better than Numerology in my book.
Sorry, Mr. Zhang, but the Big jumps are Volcanos & El Nino s. Gee, a third of the total 30-year Drop is 1 year: 2007 !
And the Long-term trends are in line with the 60-year PDO (which, of course, is expressed by the Earth as: twice as many & stronger El Ninos in the “Hot” half of the Cycle, vs the Cold La Nina – – then reverse for 30 years ).
Zhang is honest enough to have graphs showing this (page past the Sub Data): http://psc.apl.washington.edu/zhang/IDAO/retro.html#Submarine_ice <http://psc.apl.washington.edu/zhang/IDAO/retro.html
Again, My theory: 2007's Ice loss times the strength of the El nino relative to 2007's = Ice Loss
4000 km3 loss (ICESAT) x 1.8/1.1 = -6545 km3
And ICESAT said 6000 was left (in November, so the minimum was maybe 5,050 ).
I do use Piomas a bit – – but only because 5800 for Last Year’s Minimum was during the time LASERS were pinning Piomas to reality …
when all the other concentration-based measures were just RELATIVE concentration, inferred from Heat-sensing Satellites.
Projection: still near ZERO, save for what is trapped between the islands & landfast Greenland Ice.
We better put Planes up there fast or your kids might be dead
… as: An early melt-off = Open Water: then the Pole’s “MIDNIGHT SUN” heats up the water = Ocean Currents reverse = in Winter warm water takes months to arrive, temps drop to near Air freezing temp, winds rise to 300 mph … but as it has to come off JUST RIGHT, I still give it 1-in-4 to 1-in-8.
Please write the Prez & your congresscritters.
I’m not sure I understand your theory… Heres what I think you’re saying:
1) lower concentration means more melting due to the larger surface area available for melt
2) higher concentration means less melting due to less surface area available for melt
If I have these right, then the comparison between 1980 and 2010 you show in your article doesn’t make sense. Why is the extent so much higher in 1980 given that the concentrations are much lower than in 2010? Given points 1 and 2, shouldn’t 1980 have the lower extent instead of 2010?
Amino Acids in Meteorites
Thanks for the suggestion, worth considering for someone having required skill and knowledge, not to mention charisma. In my case would turn out into an unmitigated disaster. Old doc Svalgaard would delight in a new opportunity for a public ridicule.
stevengoddard says:
July 5, 2010 at 10:34 pm
Curious Yellow
You must have missed the part about prior to July, the melt season extent maps are nearly meaningless.
———————–
It is your comparing of two June 28 to 4 July segments that is meaningless.
High-melt days don’t come by appointment. Just admit that it made for a false but attention grabbing headline;
“In other words, 2007 was losing ice 2.31X faster than 2010.”
No doubt it will fly around the bloggosphere for a while.
Loss of ice coverage in the arctic may be fully explained by wind direction change, not the temperature of the air, and by the temperature of sea currents arriving at the polar surface waters -which can be higher or lower in temperature without the average global sea temperature having risen.
It is the duty of AGWA’s to show that air temperature drives ice change and that CO2 drives air temperature.
DCC says:
July 5, 2010 at 7:27 pm
“All they have is talking points that the commentators regurgitate from the teleprompter written by their corporate overlords.”
____________________________________________________-
The corporate overlords write this stuff? They surely aren’t dumb enough to make as many mistakes as there are in the news scripts…..
_______________________________________________________
They do not write the stuff but the ” corporate overlords” own the presses and the advertising dollars so they can veto news that will keep money from filling their pockets. Most want to make a killing in the “carbon trading” racket or “green energy” subsidy racket and are intent on killing the golden goose (the tax payer)
You would think they would prefer a health economy, but if they know when the bankers are going to “crash” the economy, they can get out of the market before hand and then make a killing getting back in after the crash. It has been done before. Since 1913 and the creation of the Federal Reserve, depressions are now scientifically created. Using a central bank to create alternate periods of inflation and deflation, and thus whipsawing the public for vast profits, had been worked out by the international bankers to an exact science.
Bob Lawson,
of course air temperature drives ice change, as exemplified by the decline in ice extent around summer time in the Arctic every year.
Matt
There are many factors which affect the summer extent minimum. One of the more important ones is the average thickness of the ice at the start of the melt season. 1980 was not as concentrated as 2010, but the ice was generally thicker.
Me too (I’ve done my bit, bet-wise, on the lots-of-ice side). Here’s a clickable link: https://www.intrade.com
So you’re telling me that since 1980, the overall ice thickness has been reduced, in addition to the extent. So this would lead me to believe that there is less overall ice now. I’d imagine that this fact is well established in the scientific community. So the question would seem to be – what is causing this ice loss?
Curious Yellow
People can quote me out of context all they want. (The same people who cherry picked the “fastest decline ever” and then scream about me cherry-picking.)
The important thing is what happens over the next eight weeks.
“Conclusion : Cold temperatures, cloudy skies, favorable winds and high concentration ice – all point to continued slow melt over the next few days.” (By Steve Goddard)
____________________________
Sounds reasonable.
Matt
The ice loss has been driven primarily by winds over the last decade which have pushed older, thicker ice out into the North Atlantic. Most notably during the winter of 2007-2008.
I am not sure what the big concern on the variation in Arctic melting is all about. The Antarctic sea ice is increasing so that total sea ice is near constant. The change in Earth’s average albedo is thus not being changed by sea ice variation. That is the only reason sea ice is an issue at all.
jcrabb,
Air temperatures only slightly above freezing have very little to do with sea ice melt during the summer. Water currents under the ice, and to some (generally smaller) extent sunlight on the ice, result in almost all of the melting. The nearby open water, heated by absorbing sunlight, speeds up the process from the currents.
R. Gates says:
July 5, 2010 at 8:18 pm
You just have to look at the scales on each of the graphs. They all (including Steve’s) show the same result, the first one you show still shows all the ice in the central Arctic >80%, still a very high level for this time of the year. I think the Crysphere Today graphs that Steve shows have the benefit that they can be compared ton previous years. What Steve shows has been occuring for the whole of this year, the ice conc has been extraordinarily better than every other year on record.
Steve I don’t think it’s wrong that recent comment has focused on the recent fast extent drop. Afterall, like the concentration, it does represent a historical extreme and it did happen.