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.
tonyb says:
“…We’ve yet to see this 25% scepticism you claim to have :)…”
__________
Fair enough. From MWP to UHI effects, there’s lots of potential fodder for my skeptical side. In addition to these two, some other areas that I’m keen on getting some answer on:
1) Where is Dr. Trenberth’s “missing energy”? I don’t mean this in any mocking way toward him at all, for I highly respect him, but I’m skeptical that it will actually be found completely in the oceans. I think when the mystery is solved it will surprize both the “warmist” and skeptic alike. There is some missing piece– a negative feedback loop somewhere not yet accounted for. For example, how much heat can be transmitted from the ocean currents to the bottom sediments, i.e. in melting of clathrates?
2. The whole role of clouds and their place in GCM’s is quite poorly worked out. This is a bigger “travesty” to me than the missing heat.
Steve, my opinion hasn’t changed yet…:)
And geo, NSIDC doesn’t make predictions on their site, though scientists do contribute to the SEARCH outlook efforts. The reality is, weather remains very important in determining the end of summer extent, even though preconditioning by thin ice is playing an important role as well. Like I said in my earlier post, the ice in places like the Chukchi has melted back to the lobe of old ice and right where the ice has melted back to in that region is ice that is 5+ years old. So it’s not surprising that ice loss has slowed a bit recently.
Ok, but that doesn’t really answer my question. So the winds are driving the loss – where were these winds before? Whats causing the change in wind strength/direction/whatever?
Looking at the record (http://nsidc.org/sotc/images/arc_antarc_1979_2009.gif) the decline in arctic ice seems to be an ongoing trend. Based on this fact, and if, as you say, the change in winds is limited to the last decade, then I would have to guess there is more going to cause ice loss than just winds.
I must say, I’m a bit confused at the focus on the 2010 summer arctic minimum. So the extent might be greater than 2007, it might be less, so what? One year does not a trend make.
R Gates
Yes, two good sceptical points. As regards the second I suppose we”l get some answers when we get an update on the Cern cloud project. I read the Svensmark book last year and thought he was on to something.
As regards your first point I have increasingly come to believe that we know far less about the climate than we think, yet we act as if we know everything. The trouble is that computer models can look very convincing to ‘sponsors’ such as lay people in Governments but as the IPCC themselves admit that models should not be relied on perhaps we should take them at their word.
This is my web site-it contains pre 1850 instrumental temperature records-there are lots of articles there as well, some by me. If you are interested in UHI there is a good article there written by Prof Ole Humlum
http://climatereason.com/LittleIceAgeThermometers/
By the way, can I recommend ‘Chill’ by Peter Taylor and also ‘Climate, history and the Modern World’ by Hubert Lamb. Both illustrate that todays climate is nothing new whilst Chill has a distinctly green twist to it and shows the motivations behind the enthusiastic promotion of AGW by NGO’s.
(by the way do you have a first name or do you prefer ‘R Gates?’
Tonyb
Julienne,
I have a question for you as a professional in the business of studying the the cryosphere. How impressed are you so far with what you’ve seen from CryoSat 2, and how much general anticipation is there in the professional community for this data to really start rolling in? It seems to me that it will quickly become one the most important tools of your trade– not replacing other tools such as satellite imagery, but when used in combination, extremely powerful.
R. Gates, I haven’t seen any images from CryoSat over sea ice yet, but there is a lot of anticipation in the sea ice community that this data will be invaluable for our studies. And when ICESat-2 is launched, together the two instruments should provide very accurate estimates of ice thickness. So I for one am excited to start seeing the data roll in.
This:
Stephan says:
July 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,
[REPLY – I don’t think he is being “instructed” by anyone. I just think he’s probably wrong. If Brother Gates wishes to argue climategate, he’s welcome to; most of us here have actually read the emails, anyway. He’s duking it out in “enemy territory”, which I can respect. Of course when we try that we tend to get censored rather heavily. #B^1 But Anthony and we mods here allow a free and open debate inasmuch as we can. We snip every now and then, but we do so at a minimum and tend to confine it to what we consider to be unduly abusive posts. ~ Evan]
___________
Please note: With little exception, I don’t think I’ve ever really talked politics here, nor have I sounded an “alarmist” trumpet, or talked about coming catastrophe. I have no agenda other to get at the truth of things. I put up with being called names like “warmista” or whatever because I really could care less. This is a great place to discuss with (mostly) well-informed people. It seems there is a tendency here to label those who think the general AGW hypothesis is likely correct as “trolls” or whatever, or think they have some “agenda”. As long as I play nice, don’t get personal, and try to contribute something related to the topic at hand I appreciate being “allowed” to remain.
We snip every now and then, but we do so at a minimum and tend to confine it to what we consider to be unduly abusive posts. ~ Evan
I think you guys don’t snip enough. But maybe I have shell shock from ClimateAudit.
TonyB,
Thanks for that link and other suggestions. I shall do a bit of studying, and spend some recently acquired gift cards to go shopping on Amazon.
Just curious, how do you size up data like this:
http://www.uni-koeln.de/math-nat-fak/geomet/meteo/Klimastatistik/baurtempfruehgross.gif
BTW, thanks for asking, but I do prefer to go by R. Gates (and so I’ve found out, others do as well from time to time).
Matt says:
“I must say, I’m a bit confused at the focus on the 2010 summer arctic minimum. So the extent might be greater than 2007, it might be less, so what? One year does not a trend make.”
__________
You are so right…unless that year happens to be so remarkably lower (like 2007) that is really shakes up even the most pessimistic assumptions as to when the Arctic will be seasonally ice free. Lot’s of the experts went scrambling for answers after 2007, looking at lots of different things. Some experts over-reacted and assumed that 2007 was the beginning of some very rapid decline to an ice free Arctic in 2013. Bottom line: none of the global climate models predicted it as such is the nature of a chaotic system. Now, the skeptics seem to looking for signs of a big recovery from 2007, (but didn’t really get it in 2008 or 2009) and those who think that AGW is likely the ultmate culprit and there will be no recovery, are looking for another data point to help more accurately spot the longer term trend to understand how steep the decline to a seasonably ice-free Arctic will actually be. Where will this curve displayed in this report by Julienne:
http://www.smithpa.demon.co.uk/GRL%20Arctic%20Ice.pdf
Actually wind up? 2020? 2030? 2050?
Anyway, that’s why one year matters.
jcrabb says:
The warmth of the summer air is not the result of global warming. Being 0.7 centigrade higher on average globally can’t do much to melt the artic ice. But if the wind up there pushes ice to where water coming from somewhere else can get at it then some summer’s will have more melting ice than others – with or without global av. temps. having done much at all.
Cassandra King says:
July 5, 2010 at 11:08 pm
I realise that our R Gates has a narrative to stick to which he does as best he can but I wonder if his recent obssession with what he calls the “dipole anomoly’ is just another mechanism to reinforce his narrative and linking this ‘anomoly’ with the alarmists beloved ‘positve feedback’?
“unpredictable but quite deterministic” huuuh?
” the DA is a self reinforcing wind and TEMPERATURE event” I find this statement quite confusing and it seems to fly in the face of thermodynamics laws, we have enough evidence now to state with some confidence that the so called ‘positive feedback’ theory has not worked as advertised yet it is still being pimped on the back of every event that seems at first glance to fit the AGW narrative.
It seems the so called DA is simply another convenient vehicle to explain a short term unpredicted event as a long term mechanism and as a temporary vehicle my guess is when the vehicle has outlived its usefulness it will be discarded and another will take its place.
At the moment this dipole anomoly is the latest in climate science fashion and one can only wonder how long it will last? I suspect the the DA theory will last as long as the current melt cycle and no longer.
Our Mr Gates is painting himself into the mother of all corners at the moment, if the melt cycle does not comply with his obviously set beliefs then his reputation will be damaged beyond repair and that would be quite sad, I can predict that nobody will listen to him on this blog again. Much better to show doubt and hesitation and humility now than face ridicule later I think.
_________
Cassandra,
First, I will gladly face ridicule later on, but I think one suggestion that was made for us all to actually learn from the melt season is much better. I have very specific reasons for my belief in a 4.5 million sq. km. forecast for the summer minimum, and not much has changed to waiver me from this. I’ve had this forecast since March, and some things that have happened since then could force it higher, and some lower, so it still seems quite reasonable to me, and so when September comes, I would hope we’d all have a post-analysis as adults, rather than heaping “ridicule” on each other like a group of school-yard bullies.
In respect to the statement “unpredictable but quite determinstic”, means that the climate (as a chaotic) system is not random, but is subject to real and multiple causes and effects, and new effects can appear suddenly and upredictably from the seemingly smallest of inputs or changes as a new levels of equalibrium are sought. The Arctic Dipole anomaly could easily be one such effect that appeared (unpredictably but deterministically) as some threshold was passed with the geologically speaking rapid increase in CO2 that began several hundred years ago. The DA is a self-reinforcing event (or attracctor) with anomalous heat causing changes in wind patterns that leads to more heating and so on. Though starting out as a anomaly, as all new features of chaotic systems do, it’s become an increasingly non-anomalous condition in the Arctic as it creates the very conditions that insure its continuation.
R. Gates says:
July 6, 2010 at 4:47 pm
__________
You are so right…unless that year happens to be so remarkably lower (like 2007) that is really shakes up even the most pessimistic assumptions as to when the Arctic will be seasonally ice free. Lot’s of the experts went scrambling for answers after 2007, looking at lots of different things. Some experts over-reacted and assumed that 2007 was the beginning of some very rapid decline to an ice free Arctic in 2013. Bottom line: none of the global climate models predicted it as such is the nature of a chaotic system. Now, the skeptics seem to looking for signs of a big recovery from 2007, (but didn’t really get it in 2008 or 2009) and those who think that AGW is likely the ultmate culprit and there will be no recovery, are looking for another data point to help more accurately spot the longer term trend to understand how steep the decline to a seasonably ice-free Arctic will actually be.”
Wild predictions of an ice free Arctic by 2013 were made following the single year 2007 minimum ice extent. Alarmist predictions flew thick and fast. In this context, it is certainly reasonable to question what the 2008/9 increases in extent were telling us.
One question I would ask is whether the 2008 and 2009 results brought the trendline back to where it was in 2006. I would have expected this not to be the case as the 2007 result should have significantly dropped the trendline.
I guess the simplest way to put this, is given the 2007 result was extreme and probably more due to an unusual confluence of conditions (borne out by the fact the 2007 result was not repeated in 2008 or 2009), how much higher should the 2008 and 2009 minimums have been if Artic Ice is in its so called “death spiral” as opposed to 2007 being the bottom of the cycle and the ice being on its way to recovery.
R. Gates
You keep going on and on about 4.5 million. It isn’t going to happen.
stevengoddard says:
July 6, 2010 at 7:26 pm
R. Gates
You keep going on and on about 4.5 million. It isn’t going to happen.
____________
Wow, your certainty on this is impressive. I take it you’re basing this on this solid core of multi-year ice that you claim has built up, or do you know for certain that the Arctic Dipole meridonal winds will not persist into late August or September?
kwik says:
July 6, 2010 at 10:16 am
Anu says:
July 6, 2010 at 9:53 am
Yes, but we can see no such humility on your part. We didnt expect it either.
Good call – I don’t do humility.
But ominously pointing out that R. Gates making predictions that don’t come true might lead to “then his reputation will be damaged beyond repair” and he will “face ridicule” in late September does bring to mind Mr. Goddards predictions – Steve is the most prolific and opinionated writer at WUWT on the Arctic sea ice melt, and he has made concrete predictions. They are preserved on the Internet for all to see. This autumn is a good opportunity for everyone to compare predictions and results, and see what this might teach us. For all the defensive talk about R. Gates being such a nice, mild mannered non-troll, who will be allowed to continue to make his arguments in enemy territory and not sent away, nobody pointed out this important point – others should also be held to their predictions.
WUWT was the winner of “Best Science Blog” in 2008 – science strives to understand nature, and making predictions is an integral part of demonstrating that “understanding”, or at least, challenging it. Whatever standards are applied by the Commenters here to R. Gates or others who think that climatologists might be competent or not bought off, should be applied to the people more comfortable in R. Gates’ “enemy territory”.
Anything less would be hypocritical, something even Smokey understands (I presume).
stevengoddard says:
July 5, 2010 at 10:32 pm
R. Gates
I have discussed the “high resolution” concentration graphs extensively. Their precision is much higher than their accuracy. The low res maps correlate much better with visible satellite imagery.
And yet they are wrong wrt to Hudson Bay:
Anu says:
July 5, 2010 at 10:37 pm
I realize the University of Illinois has to use some ancient algorithm on modern data to get images “comparable” to what they were using in 1980:
http://climateinsiders.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/deetmp-13164.png
(stevengoddard’s image in the above article)
but isn’t it weird that this algorithm makes it seem like Hudson Bay is two-thirds filled with sea ice on 7/3/2010 ?
Hudson Bay is almost empty of sea ice:
http://iup.physik.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsredata/asi_daygrid_swath/l1a/n6250/2010/jul/asi-n6250-20100703-v5_nic.png
Where else does “low res maps correlate much better with visible satellite imagery” not apply ? And how does this affect predictions based on this assumption ?
R. Gates says:
July 6, 2010 at 2:31
2. The whole role of clouds and their place in GCM’s is quite poorly worked out. This is a bigger “travesty” to me than the missing heat.
You evidently do not follow Lucia’s board. Have a look at the temperature plots from the GCM,
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2009/fact-6a-model-simulations-dont-match-average-surface-temperature-of-the-earth/
Neither do temperatures from the models match the measurements. That is why the mantra on the importance of “anomalies” dominates the chorus: absolutes do not matter if anomalies match.
(This is an evident fallacy since, for example, ice melts above 0C and is stable bellow. How could absolute temperature not matter in ice regions?)
Note that the differences of the model projections from the data are larger than the anomalies that agree with the anomalies of the data.
Going back over the past 8 years I’m now convinced we’ve seen the worst of this years ice loss. I.e The daily ice loss on a 15 day moving average may have peaked at 86,614 sq km on 2nd July.
If this is correct then it is still likely that the minimum for this year will be above the 2009 minimum (somewhere in the 5.4-5.7 million sq km range). Incidentally the peak ice loss on a 15 day moving average for the each of the years from 2003 to 2009 fell on the following days.
2003 – 25th July
2004 – 10th August
2005 – 30th July
2006 – 6th July
2007 – 14th July
2008 – 25th July
2009 – 27th July
2010 – 2nd July????
These dates are based on the IARC-JAXA data. Incidentally, the ice loss for the 6th July is now up on the site and it was a measeley 47,344 sq km (the previous day was adjusted down to under 100,000 too).
It is worth noting that on each of the past 7 years the rate of ice loss has fallen quite quickly once the peak was reached.
We live in interesting times. I wonder what the natural climate variation denialists would make of 3 consecutive years of higher September minimums. I also wonder where we might see the September minimum go next year if temps cool further on the back of a strong La-nina event.
R. Gates says:
July 6, 2010 at 6:12 pm
The Arctic Dipole anomaly could easily be one such effect that appeared (unpredictably but deterministically) as some threshold was passed with the geologically speaking rapid increase in CO2 that began several hundred years ago.
I hope this is a slip of the keyboard, several decades of increase is what the data show, including the infamous hockey stick. If you seriously contend that the CO2 rise started several hundred of years ago, you are so wrong it is not worth discussing with you.
David W says:
July 6, 2010 at 8:41 pm
“We live in interesting times. I wonder what the natural climate variation denialists would make of 3 consecutive years of higher September minimums.”
_______________
They will say it is simply walking back to the general reduction from the exceptional year of 2007 and then will start it’s downward march again. Certainly at the moment there have not been enough years with increasing summer minina to disprove that claim.
I’m still going for a 4.7-4.999999 extent on JAXA.
Andy
Anna V. said: (about R. Gates)
“If you seriously contend that the CO2 rise started several hundred of years ago, you are so wrong it is not worth discussing with you.”
_____________
Anna,
I like you, but I cannot lie…yes, I think that CO2 levels have been going up for several hundred years– since at least 1700. They were about 280 ppm at that time and now are close to 390 ppm. Very extensive ice core sampling would confirm this over many sites around the world, and of course we have direct measurements since the late 1950’s. I’m sure there are many honest skeptics on this site who would not deny these basic facts. Here’s a pretty good graph that would show you the general trend:
http://healthandenergy.com/images/carbon%20dioxide%201700-2000.jpg
If this is not worth discussing…then so be it.
R. Gates, if we accept your claim about 280ppm in 1700 as valid, this begs the question: is the climate of 1700 the sort of world you actually would want to live in?
R. Gates says:
“In respect to the statement “unpredictable but quite determinstic”, means that the climate (as a chaotic) system is not random, but is subject to real and multiple causes and effects, and new effects can appear suddenly and upredictably from the seemingly smallest of inputs or changes as a new levels of equalibrium are sought. The Arctic Dipole anomaly could easily be one such effect that appeared (unpredictably but deterministically) as some threshold was passed with the geologically speaking rapid increase in CO2 that began several hundred years ago. The DA is a self-reinforcing event (or attracctor) with anomalous heat causing changes in wind patterns that leads to more heating and so on. Though starting out as a anomaly, as all new features of chaotic systems do, it’s become an increasingly non-anomalous condition in the Arctic as it creates the very conditions that insure its continuation.”
I agree that the levels of Arctic sea ice are driven by deterministic chaos, however the system does not “seek new levels of equilibrium”, rather it oscillates around a different attractor until the next ‘kick’ pushes it back again. This is what causes the quasi-cyclic nature of Arctic sea ice levels we observe on multi-decadal time scales, with sea ice always increasing or decreasing and never stable.
It is also folly to assume that a change to the Arctic Dipole is caused increased levels of CO2, or indeed, that the Arctic Dipole is a major player in the system. There are a multitude of inter-related factors effecting climate the in Arctic region and at this early stage of climate science we do not understand enough to make even broadly correct predictions.
Looking at the current evidence, my money is on a 2010 minimum of 5.9m sq. km and it will be interesting to see how this stacks up against what others prophesy.
Here’s an interesting look at the fallibility of Arctic climate modelling from a 2007 paper ‘Is the Earth still recovering from the “Little Ice Age”? A possible cause of global warming’, by Syun-Ichi Akasofu, International Arctic Research Centre, University of Alaska Fairbanks.
“We asked the IPCC Arctic group (consisting of 14 sub-groups headed by V. Kattsov) to “hindcast” geographic distribution of the temperature change during the last half of the last century. To “hindcast” means to ask whether a model can produce results that match the known observations of the past; if a model can do this, we can be much more confident that the model is reliable for predicting future conditions … Ideally, the pattern of change modelled by the GCMs should be identical or very similar to the pattern seen in the measured data. We assumed that the present GCMs would reproduce the observed pattern with at least reasonable fidelity. However, we found that there was no resemblance at all.”
Graphic of result:
http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/RS_Arctic_files/image069.gif
URL full paper:
http://www.iarc.uaf.edu/…/2007/akasofu…/Earth_recovering_from_LIA.pdf