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.
And the cold is not staying on the South Pole, it’s spreading outward:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/07/19/argentine-polar-cold/
has more, but one quote from Bloomberg:
So stock up on those pre-2004 Argentine Reds, as the vintage is going to be a bit cold challenged for a while.
Oh, and from one of the ICCC presentations I learned that it’s a several year lag for the temperature changes in the Pacific center to drift up and reach the North Pole. So we’ve got a couple of more years before it starts to get Really Really cold up north. You can look forward to several more years of increasing, and, dare I say it, even record cold and ice levels before we run out of “cold in the pipeline”…
Phil,
You do understand the difference between the freezing point and the dew point?
Think H2O. Ice freezes directly out of the air below the freezing point, but doesn’t accumulate until below the dew point. The freezing point is not affected by the partial pressure. Above the dew point, sublimation occurs as fast as freezing.
I’m sorry that you have had difficulty understanding this.
E.M.Smith says on July 19, 2010 at 1:07 pm
I sure hope you are wrong. Just give some of that old-time global warming!
toby says:
July 19, 2010 at 12:37 pm
(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
Yes that crack has been there for a month or so as animations showed the small buoy moving laterally compared with the larger one and indications on the surface of a crack. As of this morning the crack appears to be widening as you point out.
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/npole/2010/images/noaa2-2010-0717-011419.jpg
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/npole/2010/images/noaa2-2010-0719-070908.jpg
Based on data at NSIDC:
July 17 1990 July 17 2010
ice extent = 9.09 ice extent = 8.21
so even when you look at actual ice extent you can tell that 2010 has less ice than 1990.
Djon,
I make no claims other than the ridiculous nature of people to play gotcha games with people’s statements rather than trying to contribute information for all of us to share. It breaks up the flow of those of us that are trying to learn and hear a fair representation from BOTH sides. The only thing that Phil and now you seem to contribute is contention and accusations. I’ll pass on further posts from the both of you.
R. Gates and Anu keep up with your counter posts I find them informative and a good presentation of the other side, even if R Gates is stubborn as heck!
@richard Sharpe.
From my notes at:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/05/17/iccc-day-two/
So take 2010 and subtract 18 years, that’s 1992. We’re feeling the impacts of 1992 Pacific Ocean now in the waters arriving at Alaska. So the Arctic AIR has already been cooling since 1998 and has cooled things off some. But just wait until the water joins the “Bit ‘O Cold” show…
Things are shaping up pretty much along the lines predicted by several folks for a very very cold 2014-2040 time period.
from the same link, Habibullo Abdussamatov:
Hope you packed warm jammies…
from: http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/05/19/iccc-day-three/
the cold prediction also matches a prediction via a different analysis technique by:
Victor Herrara
So it looks like we have about 30 years of darned cold in front of us, and the present cooling is not even a hint of what’s to come, as the cold ocean impact has not yet joined the cold air up at the Arctic.
Might want to consider buying that beach front condo in Floria now…
But yes, I’d really really like to be wrong on this one. I don’t like the idea of living through our own New Little Ice Age. Yet we’ve got a couple of Ph.D. types doing analysis from differing directions on different data reaching similar conclusions; and we’ve got the “facts on the ground” with recent snow patterns (much more, and in ‘warmer’ places than expected) along with a stubbornly sleepy sun.
So I’d expect you’ve got a few decades of ‘increasing arctic ice extent’ and ‘slowest ice melt season on record’ postings to ‘tee up’… And I wouldn’t be buying any Arctic Ocean Front property any time soon…
As of today, it looks like the polar temperature has dropped to 273.15 K.
The last time I took high school chemistry, it was hard for ice to keep melting at that temp.
Jon P says:
July 19, 2010 at 1:36 pm
Djon,
I make no claims other than the ridiculous nature of people to play gotcha games with people’s statements rather than trying to contribute information for all of us to share. It breaks up the flow of those of us that are trying to learn and hear a fair representation from BOTH sides. The only thing that Phil and now you seem to contribute is contention and accusations. I’ll pass on further posts from the both of you.
Your loss, you’ll have to put up with Steve’s errors without correction, if he didn’t make so many silly mistakes and instead of correcting them, defend them to the death there would be no need to disrupt your reading.
Jon P,
“I make no claims other than the ridiculous nature of people to play gotcha games with people’s statements rather than trying to contribute information for all of us to share. It breaks up the flow of those of us that are trying to learn and hear a fair representation from BOTH sides. The only thing that Phil and now you seem to contribute is contention and accusations. I’ll pass on further posts from the both of you.”
Your apparent inability to acknowledge that Phil did contribute information in the form of data on the northern hemisphere sea ice area in 1990 versus 2010 doesn’t suggest to me that you’re interested in giving both sides of arguments here a fair hearing. If your mind is already that closed, your threat to ignore anything Phil and I write in future strikes me as rather empty. So go ahead and add us to your personal kill file. Julienne too, I suppose, since she also has the temerity to offer data showing that the extent is lower now than at the same time in 1990.
stevengoddard says:
July 19, 2010 at 1:09 pm
Phil,
You do understand the difference between the freezing point and the dew point?
Yes I do, unfortunately you have failed to learn anything in the last year since you last posted your erroneous beliefs on the subject.
Think H2O. Ice freezes directly out of the air below the freezing point,
No it doesn’t, ice is deposited directly out of the air below the triple point.
but doesn’t accumulate until below the dew point.
The freezing point is not affected by the partial pressure.
More nonsense as the accompanying phase diagram shows:
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.standnes.no/chemix/images/scrshpic/phase-diagram-water.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.standnes.no/chemix/english/phase-diagram-water.htm&h=573&w=797&sz=35&tbnid=SO1pxFdInBDrcM:&tbnh=103&tbnw=143&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dphase%2Bdiagram%2Bwater&usg=__mXp0F37hAIyMBJ8zVCMk9v6uIB0=&sa=X&ei=j7ZETIL-CIH58AbPte2vDw&ved=0CBoQ9QEwAg
Above the dew point, sublimation occurs as fast as freezing.
More nonsense, the dew point is the temperature at which a horizontal line drawn through the atmospheric water vapor pressure intersects the cyan/yellow line on the diagram. At temperatures below that point water will condense.
If the water vapor pressure is below 0.006 atm it is termed a sublimation point and if the temperature falls below that value ice will deposit.
I’m sorry that you have had difficulty understanding this.
I have no problem understanding the subject, your stubborn refusal to learn about it and your persistent propagation of mis-statements on the subject does puzzle me though.
In all fairness, Steven, why don’t you just admit that you didn’t see that the image from webcam #1 hasn’t been updated since July 7th (I didn’t notice it either until now) and have it over with? It’s no big deal, certainly not worth dodging questions for.
Yep, inconvenient July for you. As the new AQUA channel 5 chart shows, July has been at or near record high levels all month long.
http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/
Here are youtube links for Adussamatov :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tYf5oOpi3i8
“We have found that climate sensitivity to CO2 dropped with
increasing water vapor concentrations” – he uses radiative transfer codes like Miskolczi.
R Gates. tsk tsk. The cooling of the stratosphere is overwhelmingly Solar related. CO2, if enough of it is up there to act as more than an insignificant coolant (and there is no data to say it is or whether or not its percentage has changed), acts as an additional insignificant coolant that is probably well within the cyclical solar caused temperature noise. You also cannot relate the contention that the rise of CO2 to stratospheric cooling to a confirmatory mode of global warming, since its presence there does not affect our temperature. Very weak point and easily counterpointed.
R Gates July 19, 11:42 am
SSTs are a shifting mosaic giving scope for selectivity. On a wider scale there has been a trend of a receding tail of warm surface water in the Atlantic from the dying el Nino, and a more pronounced reversal to surface cooling in the Pacific. There is an interesting tension between a PDO well into negative phase against an AMO near the end of a generally positive phase, giving some sporadic warm holdouts in the Atlantic; however within a few years the AMO will join the PDO in negative territory. And Bob Tisdales website and analysis show OHC in the Atlantic to have been on a downward slope for a number of years.
I feel that the analysis of Tsonis to be pesuasive with emphasis on a kind of nonlinear “regime change” triggered by ocean cycle phase synchrony. This could correspond with Abdussamatov’s 2014 NLIA, after which we may find ourselves in EM Smith territory. Better find some jars for pickling fruit and veg.
O and BTW the AMSE site shows Arctic temps heading stubbornly lower despite those SSTs.
roger says:
July 19, 2010 at 12:43 pm
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.
_______________________
Nope, 75% is exactly where I’m at. To ever be 100% means I’ve closed my mind to other possibilities, and I don’t plan on doing that. Even if Arctic Sea ice drops to 2.5 million sq. km. (or lower) by 2015, I’ll only go up to about 90%, simply because my personal experience has taught me that to 100% convinced of anything, means there would be no opening for the as yet unknown phenomenon to be discovered. When you’re at 100%, you have 100% blinders on. It’s a good thing that Einstein was never 100% convinced that Newton had given the last word on gravity…
R Gates said
“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. 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
R Gates We have had this discussion before whereby you seem to ignore the lessons of history. The great lakes have had low ice cover in the past and will again. This study refers to the low ice cover in the period early 1920’s to late 1950’s
http://www.glerl.noaa.gov/pubs/fulltext/1990/19900009.pdf
By the way, I’m still hoping to get an answer to the link I posted on another thread whereby I asked how come we have been warming since 1690 (not 1880) prior to enhanced man made Co2? Vuk also posted a very good question to you.
Tonyb
Dirk H, July 19, 3:14 pm.
Indeed, water vapour, clouds and the hydrological cycle supplanted CO2 as climate controller 500 MYA. The global ice ages of the precambrian (snowball earth with CO2 at several thousand ppm) provided the silicate weathering and eventually soils that set the stage after the Cambrian eukaryotic explosion for the Ordovician-Silurian evolution and spread of macroflora and large trees in particular, creating the humic soils and forests to retain water on land and make the hydrological cycle dominant in climate. Complete with negative feedbacks for stability and insensitivity to CO2.
Trees killed CAGW, think on that R Gates, Phil, Julienne, next time you’re out together tree-hugging.
James says:
July 19, 2010 at 2:48 pm
Yep, inconvenient July for you. As the new AQUA channel 5 chart shows, July has been at or near record high levels all month long.
http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/
Funny you should bring that up. It is generally accepted that there is 2-3 month delay in the atmospheric temperature response to the ENSO cycle. 2-3 months after an El Nino fades away, we can expect AMSU temps to start cooling.
The latest El Nino collapsed as we went from April to May. Therefore, we would expect to see those satellite temperatures to start cooling mid-July, not before! Yesterday was the first day all year that the AMSU temperature fell below the temperature line from last year, and the cooling in recent days has been rather abrupt, much like the demise of the El Nino.
I think it is a pretty safe bet to say that UHA AMSU temperatures will continue to cool and that the rest of the year will likely be below last years temperature line. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if the average temperature for 2010 ended up below the average temperature for 2009, but I wouldn’t put money on it just yet.
The extent includes now a lot of open water:
http://ice-map.appspot.com/?map=Arc&sat=ter&lvl=8&lat=80&lon=-139&yir=2010&day=199
Is there a reason why the still on record level concentration data was dropped?
noiv says:
July 19, 2010 at 5:12 pm
“The extent includes now a lot of open water:”
Yeah, enough to drown a kitten.
By the way, I’m still hoping to get an answer to the link I posted on another thread whereby I asked how come we have been warming since 1690 (not 1880) prior to enhanced man made Co2? Vuk also posted a very good question to you.
Tonyb
___________________
Truly sorry I missed that. Which tread was it? I’ll be glad to go have a look.
In terms of temps rising since 1690, I don’t know what specfic data you’re looking at but my knowledge of the data is that after the MWP, temperatures generally declined until the end of the Maunder Minimum in 1715. They started rising gradually with a bump down from 1790 to 1830 or so during the Dalton Minimum and then started rising again gradually, but really took off at the beginning of the 20th century.
After factoring out solar cycles, and the the shorter term oscillations of ENSO, etc. the longer term signal seems to be CO2. If you know of something else that acts on the climate over a centuries, such as the steady accumulation of CO2, my skeptical side would love to know more about it. Of course the Milankovitch cycles happen over much longer periods, and so CO2 forcing fits in that longer gap between Milankovtich cycles on one end and solar cycles, ENSO etc. on the other.
Pamela Gray says:
July 19, 2010 at 3:22 pm
R Gates. tsk tsk. The cooling of the stratosphere is overwhelmingly Solar related. CO2, if enough of it is up there to act as more than an insignificant coolant (and there is no data to say it is or whether or not its percentage has changed), acts as an additional insignificant coolant that is probably well within the cyclical solar caused temperature noise. You also cannot relate the contention that the rise of CO2 to stratospheric cooling to a confirmatory mode of global warming, since its presence there does not affect our temperature. Very weak point and easily counterpointed
_______________________
Pamela,
My point is that it is happening and it was predicted to happen by GCM’s when factoring in the increase in GHG’s. Of course it is not proof, but is one additional data to help tip the scale in my estimation. For example, if it wasn’t happening, AGW models would be hard pressed to give an explanation as it is not a side-effect or minor effect, but a prime and principal effect of increased CO2 levels.
I sense desperation.