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.
Julienne says:
July 19, 2010 at 1:17 pm
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.
____________________
Thank your for that, Julienne. It’s nice to have a true expert step in and keep the facts accurate.
UAH temperatures are well below record levels and are dropping quickly
http://climateinsiders.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/uah_global_temperature_anomalies.png
R. Gates says:
“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.”
There you go again with that false “if we don’t know what causes natural cycles, then it must be CO2” Argumentum ad Ignorantuim. The fact that we have not verified the mediator of gravity does not negate the effect of gravity.
For at least the past 420 million years rises in CO2 have always followed temperature rises; never vice-versa. Therefore, rising CO2 is an effect of rising temperature, not a cause.
And CO2 levels have been much higher in the geologic past — while the planet descended into a long Ice Age. What happened to carbon’s heating power??
Since everything observed today has happened many times over in the past, and at times going to much greater extremes, there is no reason to think this isn’t simply natural climate variability at work. Falsify that statement. ☺
Smokey says:
July 19, 2010 at 12:28 pm
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.
__________________
My good friend Smokey, using percentages to predict the probability that something is or isn’t true is the hallmark of the scientific process. More and more data only increases of decreases the probability of something. Curiosity, not skepticism is the hallmark of science. I am skeptical of any explanation for events occurring in the natural world until I begin to acquire knowledge of more data that either proves or disproves that explanation. Regarding any specific theory, such as AGW, before I knew anything about it at all, I would be 100% skeptical, as I would as yet have no basis for being anything else. As I have access to more and more information, that percentage will either stay at 100% or decrease, depending on the nature of the data. Also, regarding any specific theory, I personally would never drop my skepticism to less than 5%, so as to make certain my mind stays open to other possibilities.
Curiosity is the hallmark of the science, with skepticism being a tool that is adjusted up or down to each specific theory based on data that seems to supports or refute the theory.
R, you know too little of the scientific method and skepticism. 25% skeptic? Either you’re a skeptic or you’re not. It’s either/or, see?
Skeptics say, “show me.” And, “may I have a copy of your code?” When they’re stonewalled it tells you the globaloney promoters have traded in their scientific ethics.
For the past twelve years Michael Mann has stonewalled data requests. So much for the Scientific Method.
Pamela Gray says:
July 19, 2010 at 3:22 pm
R Gates. tsk tsk. The cooling of the stratosphere is overwhelmingly Solar related.
OK Pamela, kindly explain how?
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.
So what are the significant radiative coolants up there in your opinion?
I’ll await your justification with interest.
Julienne
I’m looking at areas of potentially perennial ice in the Arctic interior. There appears to be more ice there in 2010 than 1990 in the UIUC maps.
In my reports, I have consistently ignored those regions which almost always melt before September
Smokey says:
July 19, 2010 at 6:33 pm
R, you know too little of the scientific method and skepticism. 25% skeptic? Either you’re a skeptic or you’re not. It’s either/or, see?
___________________
That’s not the way the universe works Smokey. At the most fundamental quantum level, things are not black and white, but intermingled fields of probabilities. This drove Einstein crazy, but you’re not Einstein, so don’t let it bother you. I can be 25% skeptical about AGW, and thus 75% convinced it’s really happening. It’s really quite in keeping with the true spirit of the way the universe works at the most basic of levels. Black/white, yes/no thinking makes things nice and neat but the universe is far more messy than that.
Phil,
An individual molecule has absolutely no knowledge of vapour pressure. Molecules freeze below the freezing point. The dew point is where sublimation is equal to freezing.
Vapour pressure is a statistical concept, and has no impact on the behaviour of individual molecules. The fact that you don’t understand something does not make someone else a “liar.” You lack both education and manners.
Gates, don’t speak for the universe. You’re either pregnant or you’re not. Either/or, see?
Same for being a skeptic. You’re either skeptical of unproven assertions until convincing physical evidence is provided, or you’ve drunk the CAGW Kool Aid, and your ‘evidence’ comes out of a computer climate model.
Either/Or. See?
Smokey,
Nothing can be ‘proven’ as such outside mathematics or logic, which each require unproven assumptions or axioms to begin with.
Thus, you can remain sceptical of – for example – quantum mechanics, but operate as if it is true. I and others term this ‘provisional acceptance’. This means that you accept it due to the overwhelming preponderance of evidence in its favour and operate as if it is true, with the understanding that it is possible for it to be demostrated as likely false at any moment.
This means that you are not 100 per cent certain – you cannot be, as such certainty is beyond both deductive and inductive reasoning, the only two kinds of reasoning that we have.
Re CAGW, I provisionally accept it, which means that I operate as if it is true while understanding that it could be overturned at any moment.
I am probably not with R Gates on his 75/25 percentages, or even his never going lower than 5 per cent. Indeed, accepting something ‘100 per cent’ – whatever that means – is not something that I really understand, either. At a functional level, I operate as though I accept a multitude of theories 100 per cent (I do not throw myself out of one out of every 100 tall buildings I come across, for example). But I still accept that the theory of gravity will in all likelihood be modified in the future. Likewise with CAGW.
So in a sense you are correct: either you operate as if proposition X is true or you operate as if proposition Y is false (100%/0%). But looking at that in a binary way does not do justice to how people mentally operate, which in my case is ‘if the evidence for proposition X seems strong enough to me, provisionally accept it’.
stevengoddard says:
July 19, 2010 at 8:18 pm
Phil,
An individual molecule has absolutely no knowledge of vapour pressure. Molecules freeze below the freezing point. The dew point is where sublimation is equal to freezing.
Goddard you’re starting to piss me off, you don’t have a clue what you’re talking about and spout rubbish like this
Vapour pressure is a statistical concept, and has no impact on the behaviour of individual molecules. The fact that you don’t understand something does not make someone else a “liar.” You lack both education and manners.
I understand it perfectly, your nonsense I find difficult to understand, you lied about what you said in the thread on ‘CO2 freezing’ a year ago, you’ve proved it here today. The education that is lacking is yours, read a basic undergraduate text on the subject and spare us all your rubbish. My education is certainly not lacking, I’ve even taught this subject at the graduate level. Your rudeness and arrogance about subjects you know nothing is annoying and it’s about time you took another hiatus like last year when you embarrassed yourself on this same subject.
Looks like DMI polar temperature has touched zero C, a month ahead of schedule.
Smokey says: July 19, 2010 at 6:01 pm
“… CO2 have always followed temperature rises…. Therefore, rising CO2 is an effect of rising temperature, not a cause.”
CO2 is a greenhouse gas and as such increasing its level in the atmosphere will increase temperature (all other things being equal). The fact that CO2 is not the only climate forcing does not mean it has no effect. Rising temperatures (lets say due to orbital forcing ending a glacial period) cause CO2 to release which in turn causes temperatures to increase further. The two effects are coupled.
Its a little like saying gasoline didn’t start my house burning so its ok to have bucketloads of it lying around inside. (Disclaimer: this analogy has not been vetted by any respected climate scientist and no doubt contains major flaws, ‘alarmist’ tendencies, unwarranted assumptions and so forth.)
David Gould says:
July 19, 2010 at 8:42 pm:
Re CAGW, I provisionally accept it, which means that I operate as if it is true while understanding that it could be overturned at any moment.
Which then, in turn, means that you will do exactly what, in regard to how you “operate” in life?
Well, Billiard Balls seem to have approximately the same amount of functional thinking…and fate. Except that Billiard Balls don’t have to obey the “Precautionary Principle”, so at least they are allowed to move.
Phil., at the Blackboard, insinuates about the UAH record instead of proving his point, and wants to claim moral high ground here? Fah!
======================
phlogiston says:
July 19, 2010 at 9:56 pm
Looks like DMI polar temperature has touched zero C, a month ahead of schedule.
Yup. And I got a really bad feeling about that too. Maybe the melting ice is what’s making it so cold. Maybe the salt water is melting the ice because it isn’t a thick and as solid as usual. That would fit with the Nares strait ice bridge being broken up. It also would fit with the unusually low concentrations here:
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_daily_concentration_hires.png
It would also fit with all the AGW chatter about “rotten ice”. And the latest melt from JAXA isn’t encouraging either:
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/plot.csv
We’ve had 3 big melt days in a row since this this thread first began, with each day bigger than the one before. The last two weeks of July could turn the title of this thread back on us. It’s not a repeat of 2007 but the lower predictions that have been made on this blog are starting to look more informed.
JPeden,
I have taken and will continue to take steps to reduce my emissions of CO2. I push others to vote for parties and policies that will reduce emissions of CO2. I write submissions to government on the issue. And so on.
I am not sure what point you are making re billiard balls. My actions are caused by my thoughts/feelings/beliefs, as I am sure is true for all people.
R Gates
Presumably as you passed no comment on my great Lakes link you accept that the ice levels wax and wane over the decades?
As regards the comment you missed, both my commnt and that of Vuk are towards the end of this one.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/16/a-spot-check-on-noaas-hottest-so-far-presser/
I have previously cited other instrumental records and contemporary observations relatng to the period. !715 was in the middle of a warm period that was, at its peak decade in 1730, only some 0.6C cooler than todays (dubious) values.
Tonyb
Sea Ice News #14 – an inconvenient July
Posted on July 18, 2010 by Anthony Watts
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.”
———————————————————————————–
I have some difficulty with the last sentence above. The bar graph shows sea ice extent and without including sea ice volume, one cannot use the simple word melt.
————————————————————————————
“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.”
————————————————————————————-
While the sentence opens with “ice extent” it then says “total ice loss”, which would be more clearly expressed using “total ice extent loss”.
The article is therefore misleading to the casual reader. Unless we know starting volume and compare it with volume a certain later date, we cannot claim to know an amount of melt. It is possible, if not likely, that depending on the state of the ice, including thickness, the ice extent may slow down if thin ice has melted and thicker ice encountered.
I don’t think it is helpful to take a 2 week period of a slow melt of one year and comparing with another. These events are not synchronised and to prove the point, let’s take a four week period, adding 18 to 30 June. Total measured ice extent decline 18 June to 17 July.
2003-1.97 msk (million square kilometres.
2004-2.11 msk
2005-2.03 msk
2006-2.19 msk
2007- 2.81 msk (record low year)
2008- 2.09 msk
2009- 2.24 msk
2010- 1.93 msk
Hence, for this 60 day period, 2010 trails 2009 by 310,000 sk and 2008 by 160,000 sk. A few 100k+ melt days will wipe out such differences.
I won’t bother to include the May melt, the “record low” would vanish.
If I count the unrivised 19 July figure as 100K, then both 2009 and 2010 will have had 10 100K+ melt days. 2009 had another 5 such days, sequentially, between 21-25 July.
From 17 July, the ice extent in 2009 declined by 2.8 msk at a rate of 50,000 sk/day.
Let’s assume that the remainder of the 2010 melt season melts at an average of 60,000 sk/day then assuming another 56 days, the total extent loss would be 3.3 msk.
Take that of todays figure of 7.77 msk and the end figure would be 4.47 msk, only just above the 2007 record. The weather, wind, warming water and currents will determine the outcome. The headline “Sea Ice News #14 – an inconvenient July” may well become an inconvenient/convenient one for the remainder of July and August/September.
Correction; Take that of todays figure of 7.77 msk; read Take that OFF todays figure of 7.77 msk…
Smokey: “Since everything observed today has happened many times over in the past…there is no reason to think this isn’t simply natural climate variability at work. Falsify that statement.”
The claim that “everything observed today has happened many times over in the past” (in relation to climate) can be shown to be false by the observed levels of man-made CO2 in the atmosphere, and this phenomenon has not occurred in the past.
Therefore, since the premise of the argument is false, the conclusion: “there is no reason to think this isn’t simply natural climate variability at work” must also be false.
David Gould:
If people ‘mentally operate’ in such a way that they jettison the Scientific Method in favor of true belief, then nothing will help them unless the scales fall from their eyes and they see the world as it is, not as they fear it might be.
For example, Brendan H says:
Nothing can help a person who plays word games like that. The amount of CO2 emitted by human activity is minuscule compared with the natural emissions of the planet — which are due to warming since the LIA; rises in CO2 follow rises in temperature, therefore thay can not be the cause of any increased temperature. And for those who know better, CO2 levels have been much higher in the past [click on chart to embiggen]; about one molecule from human activity out of every 34 molecules emitted in total by the planet.
The assumption by the true believer contingent is that there is something magic about human emitted CO2, which will cause runaway global warming and thermogeddon — while naturally emitted CO2, at a 34 times higher level, is benign and won’t cause a problem. Only the evil CO2 from people is bad.
Sounds silly, doesn’t it? And it is. But that’s what some folks actually believe. It’s no crazier than some other religious beliefs, is it?
Phil,
You are completely out of control.
The Arctic is behaving exactly as I forecast, and you seem to be having difficulty coping with the fact that WUWT has made the most accurate Arctic forecast – three years in a row.
Steve:
… the Arctic is behaving as NOBODY FORECAST.
You said a “recovery” from 2009. That’s NOT what has been happenning ! — unless you want to pick out particular days.
Even at DMI http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php
–2010 is back up to #2 — & dropping like a Stone – – Today.
A New Soap Opera Tomorrow.
Even Wayne Davidson missed the El Nino being a “lingering” Modoki type — at some Point, the La Nina OPEN SKIES will take over (& I do not mean this mini-clearing). SUN = MEGA-MELT. When ???
…2007 had 8 Strong days following today:
JAXA Data: at
Comparing _______2007___ to___ 2010
Ahead June 28______ no________ 679,531 Square Kilometers
Ahead July 17____ 458,437________ no __but ahead of ’06 by ___56,719
Ahead July 19____412,188_________no __ but ahead of 2006 by __99,531
Daily: ___________2007__________2010__
July16-17 ______ – 93,906 _____ – 67,969
July17-18 ______ – 71,406 _____ – 81,562 (was 84,687preliminary)
July18-19 ______ – 63,907 _____ – 100,000p
July19-20 ______ – 92,187 ____
July20-21 ______ – 103,438 ____ ( PS half of preliminaries fall 1-to-10 % next day)
July21-22 ______ – 100,250 ____
Next:—— 5 more days @ur momisugly 95,000
———– 5 days @ur momisugly 50,000
———– 4 days @ur momisugly > 100,000
———— 4 Days @ur momisugly 80,000
————22 days @ur momisugly 50,000
PIOMAS Update – – 31 days & no update.
Pips Displacement = Ice Drift is what I follow most, lately:
http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/pips2/archive/retrievepic.html?filetype=Displacement&year=2010&month=7&day=19
__IF__ it firms up, then the Weather has stabilized — the last few days, 2007 had a glitch – – we’ll see about 2010: Today was like 2007’s which MAY Melt it ALL off — but also closes the dangerous Taimyr-to-Pole corridor that had been melting instead. But I think maybe a week or 4, or 6, till OPEN SKIES = OPEN ARCTIC. I hope, several weeks. Early Melt = DEATH. Read my Sea Ice Outlook or even the joking summary at http://hot-topic.co.nz/arctic-sea-ice-projections-6-billion-dead-within-a-year-it-really-is-grim-up-north
Re Wayne Davidson: http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2010/06/a-correlation-.html “ships at the Pole will wander unobstructed in August 2010”