By Steve Goddard
We are seeing a number of interesting polar ice milestones this month. First, WUWT now has a new permanent Sea Ice Page, where you can find all of the live graphs and images in one place. Details here.
Second, it has been the slowest July (1-17) Arctic melt in the eight year JAXA record.
Ice extent has declined at less than half the rate of 2007, and total ice loss has been more than 200,000 km² less than the previous low in 2004.
DMI now shows Arctic ice extent as second highest for the date, topped only by 2005.
Closeup below.
Cryosphere Today shows that ice extent and concentration is about the same as it was 20 years ago.
The modified NSIDC map below shows in green, areas where ice is present in 2010 but was not present in 2007.
The modified NSIDC map below shows (in red) ice loss over the last week. Note that ice extent has increased slightly in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas, while it has declined slightly in the East Siberian Sea.
The modified NSIDC map below shows the record low ice loss since the first of the month.
The modified NSIDC map below shows ice loss since early April.
The graph below shows PIPS ice thickness over the last five years. Average ice thickness in 2010 continues to track a little below 2006. It should bottom out in the next week or so between 2006 and 2009.
The low ice loss is consistent with the low Arctic temperatures we have seen this summer.
The North Pole webcam below shows that the meltponds are frozen over. Temperatures have been below -5°C this week. Very cold for July.
The video below shows ice movement since the start of June. Note that we are starting to see a clockwise circulation setting up again, which hints at increased ice loss over the rest of the month.
Another factor suggesting increased ice loss is the NCEP forecast, which projects warm temperatures over the East Siberian Sea and Arctic Basin for the next few days.
A third factor suggesting increased ice loss the rest of the month is that the the ice concentration has declined, due to winds exerting tensile stress on the ice. This allows more sunlight to reach the water and warm it. I expect to see the ice extent graphs showing steeper losses towards the end of the week, primarily in the East Siberian Sea.
GISS thinks it has been hot in the Arctic.
This is primarily due to the fact that they have almost no coverage there, and that they make up numbers extrapolate across vast distances with no data.
Meanwhile down south, sea ice continues at a record high level for the date.
July has been typified by record low ice loss in the north, and record high ice gain in the south. Global sea ice is above normal.
If the current trends were to continue, there is a small possibility that we will see a record maximum global sea ice extent towards the end of September. One thing is for sure – no matter what happens, the press will continue to be fed reports that the poles are “melting down” due to “record heat.”
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
@R Gates
The above referred SST graph of the Arctic shows quite clearly that the region is experiencing anomalous warmth, and not anomalous cold.
All that is needed for high SST is a few days of sunshine and low winds. They can be gone just as quickly. Temperatures down a few hundred meters, plus ocean currents e.g. north atlantic drift, are a bigger factor – but less easy to assess remotely from satellites.
Phil,
Exactly what I expected. You didn’t quote anything that I said in the South Pole article. You instead quoted the misinterpretations of that article which other people made.
Has anyone done a Fourier transform on the data set? Is there an 8.5 year cycle there?
Phil,
You were quibbling over the exact location where they were measuring the ice at Barrow. Who cares? You were claiming it was gone at least a week too soon.
I cringe when I see comments by skeptics that think sea level rise can be partially attributed to heavily laden tankers, and proof the CO2 theory of GHG is wrong because after the no-fly days following 11-Sept-2001, with that much less resultant CO2 being discharged by jets, the mean global temperatures dropped. *sigh*
I also enjoy reading the the pro-AGW comments here, because I do want to understand their viewpoint better; particularly in the context of the articles posted on WUWT. Steve’s articles seem to attract the most AGW proponents to them, and thus are some of the most informative comments to read.
However, when I see a comment like this, I have to cringe for the pro-AGW folks:
Phil. says:
July 18, 2010 at 10:33 pm
(highlights mine)
Phil, you have been here long enough, and I know you are not naive in knowing the difference between sea ice area and extent. You appear to be disingenuous with this comment. You can do better than this.
Also, I would like to know where you obtained the CT area data. I briefly looked on their site, and their archives appear to only contain maps. I did not see a numerical historical data base. I would appreciate if you could point me to the data sets. Thanks in advance.
As an aside to Steve, thank you for this series. If I could make a suggestion: in your comment replies, some frustration comes through when addressing the pro-AGW comments. I can understand it to a large extent – when you get the volume of comments you do, and many of those comments contain implied or explicit ad-hominem attacks, it is only natural to want to reply in kind. However, your scientific data stands on its own, and any expressed frustration only detracts from it. I would suggest when you reply, that you write the reply, walk away from it for 10 minutes, and then re-read the reply. If the reply contains anything other than your data, delete it.
stevengoddard says:
July 19, 2010 at 9:20 am
R. Gates
The melt pond you linked to is frozen over. Look closer.
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/latest/noaa2.jpg
____________
I guess our definition of “frozen over” is a bit different…but no comment about using a July 7 pic?
Thought you’d get a kick out of this:
http://arcticfocus.com/2010/07/19/sea-ice-melting-faster-in-arctic/
Sea ice melting faster in Arctic
Arctic Ocean sea ice melted faster last month than it has in any previous June since satellite measurements began 30 years ago, continuing a pattern that could see a record retreat by summer’s end, according to North America’s main ice-monitoring research centre, says vancouversun.com
The U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center, the Colorado-based institute that tracks the annual cycle of winter ice buildup and summer thaw, says in its latest report that June’s rapid melt — which followed a similar record-setting retreat in May — means the polar ice cover remained on pace to shrink more than it did in 2007, when an unprecedented loss of ice first prompted scientists to raise alarms about the Arctic as a harbinger of global climate change.
R Gates,
When there is ice on the surface of the water, it is a pretty good indication that the ice underneath is not melting.
Ron Dean and others,
Phil could have expressed his point better but he does have one. If the extent and concentration were the same now as at the same time in 1990 it would follow logically that the area would also have to be the same, since area = extent x concentration. Admittedly, “the same” is different from “about the same” but, assuming Phil’s area numbers are correct (and I second the request to know where he got them), the area is about 19% lower than for the same time in 1990., which strikes me as a significant enough difference somewhere in the combination of extent and concentration that I wouldn’t want to have to defend calling it “about the same”.
Djon
Look at the maps. There is more ice in the Arctic interior in 2010 than 1990, particularly around the East Siberian Sea,
John Peter says:
July 19, 2010 at 9:54 am
“As with religion they will not change their beliefs. Just read R Gates’ comments above: “Nothing so far has changed my forecast of 4.5 million sq. km. extent for this year’s melt seaon low, with a new record low of 2.5 million likely to be reached before 2015.” At least he is not forecasting an ice free Acrtic at that time. That will probably now follow in 2035 or thereabouts. I am still to see a comment from R Gates on the sea ice extent in Antarctica and the Global sea ice extent. Maybe I have missed these.
_____
John, you might be new here, but I posted extensively about Antarctic sea ice and global sea ice in past posts. As a short course, GCM’s have long shown that the Arctic would be more severely affected by AGW than the Antarctic and there are many very good reasons for this, not the least of which is the huge heat sink the is the southern ocean, but added to that is the very different environments and dynamical systems they are. Antarctica is a frozen continenent surrounded by water, with sea ice forming every year in that water. The Arctic is an ocean surrounded by mainly ice free land (the exception being Greenland). Those who point to Antarctica as “proof” that AGW is not happening truly do not know of what they speak.
In terms of my contention that we’ll see 2.5 million sq. km. sea ice extent by 2015, I’ve got very solid scientific reasons for this forecast, as so it is hardly a “religion”. This is based on:
1) The trend of Arctic Sea ice over the past 20+ years
2) The fact that even during a long and deep solar minimum of 2008-2009 with a La Nina added in for good measure, the Arctic Sea ice could not recover in any meaningful way. Yes, 2008 & 2009 showed some slight uptick from the very low year of 2007, but these would hardly be classified as recoveries by any expert.
3) We will be seeing increased solar activity and increased total solar irradiance between now and solar max in 2013. Should we get a decent El Nino in 2012-1013, we could see summer sea ice extent even lower than 2.5 million sq. km. A simple look at this graph will show you why the solar activity combined with El Nino in the same years can be so potent:
http://www.climate4you.com/ (click on “sun” in the left hand column)
Nothing that has happened this year, or any of the last few years in the Arctic has changed my forecast. The long term trend of Arctic sea ice on a seasonal basis is quite clear…and that’s down. Whether we end this year at 4.0 million sq. km. or 6.0 million, it won’t affect the longer term trend in the least, as anything in this range is far lower than the longer term average. We’d have to have 5 to 10 years of steadily increasing summer minimums, trending back up to the 7 or 8 million sq. km. range of summer minimums for any scientifically based contention that the Arctic sea ice was in recovery. A quick look at these graphs shows you why that is mathematically and scienficially true:
http://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/2009/stroeve.png
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.arctic.png
stevengoddard says:
July 19, 2010 at 11:10 am
R Gates,
When there is ice on the surface of the water, it is a pretty good indication that the ice underneath is not melting.
___________
Still no comment about using a web cam that is no longer sending data when a new pic was available? Why did you choose to use the July 7th pic from the non-operational cam #1 in your post when a more current pic (from an actual operational camera #2) was available? Just curious…
phlogiston says:
July 19, 2010 at 10:13 am
@R Gates
The above referred SST graph of the Arctic shows quite clearly that the region is experiencing anomalous warmth, and not anomalous cold.
All that is needed for high SST is a few days of sunshine and low winds. They can be gone just as quickly. Temperatures down a few hundred meters, plus ocean currents e.g. north atlantic drift, are a bigger factor – but less easy to assess remotely from satellites.
______________
Arctic SST’s and air temps have shown warm anomalies for many months. I’ve been talking about them since at least Jan-Feb. when all the AGW skeptics were crowing about the snow in Florida as proof of that AGW is wrong, I was pointing out the actual causes of that cold air in Florida…which was the high pressure systems parked over N. Canada and Greenland, bringing them warm temps and pushing the cold air south…to cause the snow in Florida.
stevengoddard,
“Look at the maps. There is more ice in the Arctic interior in 2010 than 1990, particularly around the East Siberian Sea,”
Whatever the term”Arctic interior” means, and I’m not aware of a precise definition, Phil’s data and therefore my point were not specific to the Arctic interior but related to all the northern hemisphere sea ice so it escapes me why you’re addressing that comment to me. If you think your observation has some bearing on whether your statement “Cryosphere Today shows that ice extent and concentration is about the same as it was 20 years ago.” is compatible with the data on sea ice area Phil offered, please explain how.
HR says:
July 19, 2010 at 9:12 am
Having said all that I think the AGW CO2 explanation for everything to do with climate is missing some major factors. I just wish I knew what they were.
__________
I don’t know of any global climate modesl that use only the increases in CO2 and other greenhouse gases as an explanation for “everything to do with climate”. I think some AGW skeptics would do well to study the actual global climate models to at least understand what factors they do look at when making longer range forecasts. These models are far from perfect (as we all know) but they are far more sophisticated then some skeptics might like to give them credit for being.
Djon says:
July 19, 2010 at 11:44 am
Steven said, “Cryosphere Today shows that ice extent and concentration is about the same as it was 20 years ago.”
He is limiting his statement to the data source of Cryosphere Today, in particular their compare tool in which pictures tell the story.
I tire of those who are rooting for the demise of Arctic Sea Ice, all in an effort to “prove” and validate their belief in AGW, by means of playing the “gotcha” game with every statement Steven makes. IMO you all seem rather petty and pathetic.
One of the reasons that I remain 75% convinced that AGW is a valid hypothesis is in multi modes of confirmatory data. The long term downward trend in Arctic sea ice is just one mode, but I also look to the predicted stratospheric cooling that has been predicted by AGW and is occurring as well as ocean acidification (through the absorption of CO2) that is occurring, and other smaller signs (but equally confirmatory), such as the warming of the Great Lakes. Those who live in the region know this well, and here’s a great recent story on it:
http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2010/07/19/19climatewire-lake-superior-a-huge-natural-climate-change-83371.html
Ron Dean says:
July 19, 2010 at 10:54 am
However, when I see a comment like this, I have to cringe for the pro-AGW folks:
Phil. says:
July 18, 2010 at 10:33 pm
Steve said: “Cryosphere Today shows that ice extent and concentration is about the same as it was 20 years ago.”
“Steve if you’re going to make stuff up at least make it plausible!”
“According to CT on this date in 1990 the area was: 6.8058658 Mm^2
whereas now it is: 5.5386882 Mm^2”
Phil, you have been here long enough, and I know you are not naive in knowing the difference between sea ice area and extent. You appear to be disingenuous with this comment. You can do better than this.
Yes I have been here long enough to know that Area=Extent*concentration (see other post quoted below), apparently Steve has not!
Djon says:
July 19, 2010 at 11:24 am
Ron Dean and others,
Phil could have expressed his point better but he does have one. If the extent and concentration were the same now as at the same time in 1990 it would follow logically that the area would also have to be the same, since area = extent x concentration.
Precisely and Steve and AAM have been around here long enough to know that.
Admittedly, “the same” is different from “about the same” but, assuming Phil’s area numbers are correct (and I second the request to know where he got them), the area is about 19% lower than for the same time in 1990., which strikes me as a significant enough difference somewhere in the combination of extent and concentration that I wouldn’t want to have to defend calling it “about the same”.
As I posted above I make it 21% but the point still stands.
Also, I would like to know where you obtained the CT area data. I briefly looked on their site, and their archives appear to only contain maps. I did not see a numerical historical data base. I would appreciate if you could point me to the data sets. Thanks in advance.
I second the request to know where he got them
Here it is:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/timeseries.anom.1979-2008
Despite the date range in the title it is maintained up to date.
R. Gates, one is either a skeptic regarding a hypothesis, or one is not. No percentages are involved, just as no one is 25% pregnant. Someone is either 100% skeptic, or 0%.
The only honest scientists are skeptical scientists, first, last and always. The rest have sold their souls.
stevengoddard says:
July 19, 2010 at 10:14 am
Phil,
Exactly what I expected. You didn’t quote anything that I said in the South Pole article. You instead quoted the misinterpretations of that article which other people made.
Good grief man are you so bound up in your own propaganda that you can’t honestly face up to your mistakes?
This how you opened that post:
By Steven Goddard
How cold is it in Antarctica? According to Weather Underground, Vostok, Antarctica is forecast to reach -113F on Friday. That is four degrees below the freezing point of CO2 and would cause dry (CO2) ice to freeze directly out of the air.
To which I responded:
“Phil. says:
June 10, 2009 at 12:20 am
This would only occur in an atmosphere entirely composed of CO2, i.e. a volume fraction of 1.0 not 385ppm. At a vapor pressure of ~1000ppm the sublimation point is approximately -135ºC
http://www.chemicalogic.com/download/co2_phase_diagram.pdf”
Steve’s response was:“Steven Goddard says:
June 10, 2009 at 6:13 am
We have a number of posters here boldly proving that according to their misinterpretation of how phase diagrams work, polar ice caps can’t exist on earth. Look at the phase diagram for water.
http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/phase.html
Water vapor partial pressure near the poles is close to zero during the winter. Using the brilliant interpretation of Phil et al, the freezing point of water in Antarctica and the Arctic would be close to -70C, and there could be no ice.
The reason why water freezes at 273C is because of the atmospheric pressure of 1KPa, not because of the partial pressure of water – which is much lower, and varies hugely from the poles to the tropics.
The freezing point of water (and CO2) is fixed by the atmospheric pressure – not the partial pressure. Likewise, the boiling point of water is fixed by the atmospheric pressure and is independent of the humidity or partial pressure of water in the air.
Does Phil also believe that water boils at room temperature on earth, due to the low partial pressure of water?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Water_vapor_pressure_graph.jpg
So where did I misrepresent your erroneous arguments in that thread?
Here’s another:“Steven Goddard says:
June 10, 2009 at 10:42 am
Phil,
2-D Phase diagrams refer to atmospheric or ambient pressure, not vapor pressure or partial pressure. Why don’t you censor yourself instead of spreading nonsense?
Exactly what I said above: “You were wrong about how to read a phase diagram and persisted in asserting that the pressure axis was total pressure rather than the partial pressure of the compound concerned. This lead you to assert that solid CO2 would be deposited at the S Pole which it can’t in our atmosphere.”
Just how am I quoting “the misinterpretations of that article which other people made”, you said it, you were wrong, face up to it!
which you claim “
Like R. Gates, I would rate myself as a 75%+ believer in Anthropogenic Global Warming, and the cheering is a mite premature, gentlemen.
(1) University of Bremen Arctic ROOS shows the ice extent in July to be the second lowest ever (2007 being the lowest).
(2) PIPS? How old? Well, say no more.
(3) Cryosphere Comparative maps? I stopped believing in these some time ago. The site calls them “Older Products”, which suggest to me they are no longer supported. The present day map shows much higher ice concentration than the current daily map.
(4) Global ice Extent? Well, there are two processes here – one (Arctic) is consistently below average, the other (Antarctic) consistently above. Hmm, suggests to me two different processes. Which of course is the case, Antarctica being most land ice, so the information to be gained by a simple addition is questionable.
(5) Ice blogger Neven shows a large crack opening where Steve sees melt pools freezing over.
http://www.tadpolesoftware.com/ice/noaa2_Jul_17_to_18.gif
All in all, 2010 is not yet over. There is a lot to wait and see about. Perhaps this time next year we will be looking at CryoSat-2 data.
R. Gates says:
July 19, 2010 at 12:05 pm
“One of the reasons that I remain 75% convinced that AGW is a valid hypothesis is in multi modes of confirmatory data.”
Everything you post indicates that you are 100% convinced of the validity of AGW and yet you regularly rate it down to 75% either as a subconcious form of submission or more likely as a comfort blanket or fig leave to cover your underlying doubts about the suitability of the Emperor’s apparel.
toby says:
“University of Bremen Arctic ROOS shows the ice extent in July to be the second lowest ever (2007 being the lowest).”
Lowest ever?? Can’t you see how ridiculous that statement is?
stevengoddard says:
July 19, 2010 at 10:43 am
Phil,
You were quibbling over the exact location where they were measuring the ice at Barrow. Who cares? You were claiming it was gone at least a week too soon.
No please can you stop lying about the posts, anyone can go back and read them to see that you are wrong, you’re just making yourself look foolish. One example follows:
Latest Barrow Ice Breakup On Record?
Posted on June 26, 2010 by charles the moderator
By Steven Goddard,
In my last post, we discussed how there has been no visible change in the landfast ice near Barrow, AK. during the last week.
To which I responded:
“Phil. says:
June 28, 2010 at 8:09 pm
Fortunately for Steve the Barrow site was down over the weekend otherwise his comments would have almost immediately contradicted since the fast ice at Barrow broke up over the weekend. As I mentioned just before the site went down it was showing ice free off the beach (25th at 19:22) with a boat in close to shore, in the fog the only ice visible is to the northeast.
http://i302.photobucket.com/albums/nn107/Sprintstar400/ABCam.jpg
Now the fog is gone and a remnant of the fast ice can be seen drifting offshore:
http://i302.photobucket.com/albums/nn107/Sprintstar400/ABCam-1.jpg
Contrary to Steve’s claim that nothing was happening to the ice if you look at the radar over the last few days you can see small pieces breaking off until about the morning of the 25th when it totally disintegrated and blew offshore. Steve expects the fast ice to the northeast to hang around for another two weeks, doesn’t seem very likely.
http://ak.aoos.org/data/ice/radar/BRWICE/staging/radar/SIRwebanim_more.gif”
And guess what, it didn’t last past the 4th.
Jon P,
“He is limiting his statement to the data source of Cryosphere Today, in particular their compare tool in which pictures tell the story.”
Phil’s area data was also sourced to Cryosphere Today – “According to CT on this date in 1990 the area was: 6.8058658 Mm^2 whereas now it is: 5.5386882 Mm^2”. If you want to claim the CT maps are good but their numerical data is bad, be my guest. I have more faith in their published numerical data than in anyone’s ability to eyeball the comparison maps and determine how two dates differ.