Sea Ice News #16

By Steven Goddard,

http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php

Summer is rapidly winding down in the Arctic, and (based on DMI graphs) the region north of 80N appears set to finish the summer as the coldest on record. So far, there have only been a small handful of days which made it up to normal temperatures. The Arctic is one of many places described by climate scientists as “the fastest warming place on earth.”

Ice melt during July was the slowest in the JAXA record.

NCEP is forecasting below freezing temperatures for the next two weeks across much of the Arctic.

http://wxmaps.org/pix/temp2.html

Solar energy received in the Arctic is in rapid decline, as the sun drops towards the horizon.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/EnergyBalance/page3.php

As we forecast two weeks ago, PIPS average ice thickness has bottomed out between 2006 and 2009.

Ice thickness has increased by 25% since 2008, indicating that PIOMAS claims of record low volume are probably incorrect. PIOMAS models are often used as a “data” source by global warming activists as evidence that the Arctic is in a “death spiral.”

Below are the PIOMAS forecasts for the rest of summer. PIOMAS is expecting a big melt in August, because they believe that the ice is very thin.

Next week we will start visual comparisons of actual extent vs. PIOMAS forecasts.

Ice extent is tracking below 2006 and above 2009, just as the PIPS thickness data has indicated all summer. Evidence so far points towards PIPS being a very reliable data source.

http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php

The modified NSIDC image below shows how 2010 has diverged from 2007. Green areas have more ice than 2007, and red shows the opposite.

The modified NSIDC image below shows ice loss over the last week in red. As predicted in last week’s Sea Ice News #15, there has been substantial loss in the East Siberian and Chukchi Seas. Based on NCEP weather forecasts, this will continue for at least one more week.

The next modified NSIDC image below shows the differences between current Arctic ice and September, 2006. Areas in green indicate how far the ice will have to melt back to exceed the 2006 minimum. Areas in red show where ice loss has already exceeded the 2006 minimum.

Our PIPS based forecast of 5.5 million km² continues to be right on track.

Meanwhile down south, Antarctic ice continues near record highs.

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_stddev_timeseries.png

There has been much press this year about a “record polar melt” in the works. This information is incorrect, but it is seems extremely unlikely that the scientists behind those reports will make much of an effort to set the record straight.

The Arctic Oscillation is forecast to turn negative again, hinting at cooler weather in the Northern Hemisphere starting in about a week.

Much of Russia, Siberia and the former Soviet Republics are already seeing well below normal temperatures, but this is (of course) not being reported by the press.

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/map/ANIM/sfctmpmer_01a.fnl.30.gif

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/map/ANIM/sfctmpmer_01a.fnl.30.gif
Advertisements

216 thoughts on “Sea Ice News #16

  1. I hope you’re right, I could use some cooler weather down here in Oklahoma! Not looking forward to this winter though.

  2. Once again, nice post, and thanks for data synopsis. Will anyone call the folks from GISS on their inter-/extrapolated from limited data, projected hottest “ever” 2010 Arctic ‘high’ anomaly I wonder?

  3. All stations in the Norwegian arctic were above normal (1961-1990) in July, though:
    Jan Mayen 70.9333N 8.6667W 6.2 °C (+2.0)
    Bjørnøya 74.5167N 19.0167E 5.5 °C (+1.1)
    Hopen 76.5097N 25.0133E 3.6 °C (+1.7)
    Sveagruva 77.8833N 16.7167E 6.1 °C (+0.3)
    Svalbard lufthavn 78.2500N 15.4667E 6.6 °C (+0.7)
    Ny-Ålesund 78.9167N 11.9333E 5.7 °C (+0.8)
    It’s currently possible to circumnavigate all of Svalbard without meeting ice, which is unusual.

  4. Seeing well below normal temperatures?? ….Like you said…..
    “….Much of western and central Russia is suffering through a severe drought, thought to be the worst since 1972, in what has been the hottest summer since record-keeping began 130 years ago. This year’s harvest was already in trouble, and the fires have finished off vast fields of golden wheat and other crops.
    Temperatures have topped 95 degrees (35 Celsius) for much of the past three weeks, with an all-time high of close to 100 degrees (38 Celsius) recorded in Moscow last week….”
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100801/ap_on_re_eu/eu_russia_fires
    Yup.
    Record cold = weather
    Record hot = climate

  5. Hi Steven. Thanks for you weekly sea ice update. It is great to have all the relevant info, so I can check the arguments against the facts.
    The developing story of GISS vs DMI is especially fascinating.

  6. Is Bastardi making you guys do his homework for him? 🙂
    Just found this site thanks to Joe…great stuff. Keep up the good work.

  7. Summer winds down at the same rate everywhere! 🙂 But your point is well made. The Seattle area has been very cool, too. Apparently all the heat is in Russia – that part of Russia that is not Siberia.
    When does enough weather become climate?

  8. Bruce
    I can’t wait to see the GISS hot red spot over the North Pole in their July map- accompanied by Hansen’s explanation about how they have the best Arctic coverage as justification for this being the hottest year since humans inhabited the planet.
    Some people are desperate to imagine themselves as world saviours. Facts and reality no longer matter.

  9. Whether PIPS is technically more accurate than PIOMAS is kind of irrelevant in the significance of this summer’s ice extent. PIPS’ “relative” values have been a much better predictive tool than PIOMAS. If you were using both tools to predict the ice extent the past month, PIOMAS would say we should be light years below 2007 right now, while PIPS says we should be slightly ahead of 2009…neither is true, but we are nearly neck and neck with 2009 right now on extent (and significantly higher than 2007) which makes using PIPS a lot MORE accurate for the purposes these posts have been made for.
    It will be interesting to see if 2010 finishes ahead of 2009 and see each group’s volume values in September.

  10. Perma frost does not burn, Tundra does Ask any one who’s fought wildland fire in Alaska-I have…

  11. john says:
    August 1, 2010 at 1:11 pm
    Over to you Mr R Gates….

    We may just hear less and less of him as the weeks go by. However, should the Arctic go into a massive death spiral then you will hear no end of comment. I do miss him really. :o(

  12. I find myself curious how GISS can validate 1200km given the obvious difference between DMI and GISS. I mean, I understand the rationale that the patterns look real, but that seems like a line of reasoning used when you are guessing, doesn’t it? Still, it’ll be interesting to see how this all plays out.

  13. Bill Illis says:
    August 1, 2010 at 2:26 pm
    It has been extremely hot right around Moscow since the beginning of June but this hotspot has been surrounded by areas which are cooler than normal.
    This is the hi-res Modis temperature map for July 29th (lots of missing pixels but you should be able to see it).
    http://neo.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/RenderData?si=1508381&cs=rgb&format=JPEG
    This is the week of July 20th to July 27th.
    http://neo.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/RenderData?si=1508290&cs=rgb&format=JPEG
    __________________________________________
    So where did the super cold in South America go??? http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/30/frozen-tropics-as-la-nina-takes-hold/

  14. Meanwhile, 2010 is the second lowest sea ice extent and area on record, second only to the summer of 2007:
    http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent_L.png
    http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Area.png
    Notice all that melting ice south of 80° N which doesn’t care what DMI’s model of air temperature north of 80° N says:
    ftp://ftp-projects.zmaw.de/seaice/NEAR_REAL_TIME/Arc_latest_large.png
    or the open water north of 80° N, for that matter.
    Here’s the Arctic sea ice on 9/13/2009, the day of the summer minimum last year:
    http://iup.physik.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsredata/asi_daygrid_swath/l1a/n6250/2009/sep/asi180-n6250-20090913_visual.png
    Notice all that open water north of 80° N, and how easy it is for sea ice south of 80° N to melt in the next month and a half.
    Sometime in mid September, we’ll see what the 2010 summer minimum is.
    Until then, I’ll be enjoying the beach each weekend …

  15. “The Arctic Oscillation is forecast to turn negative again, hinting at cooler weather in the Northern Hemisphere starting in about a week.” Last week 3 flocks of geese, in their typical V formations, took off from the pond and grainfields behind our house, and then settled back down. This is the earliest (in southeastern Washington Sate) I have seen them exercising for their fall migration.

  16. dp says:
    August 1, 2010 at 1:43 pm
    When does enough weather become climate?
    ———————————————————–
    Easy!
    cold is weather
    Hot is climate!

  17. @Steinar Midtskogen
    And i forgot to mention the fact that they are using 61-90 as so called normal, which was a rather cold period in that area.

  18. You all do not understand how Climate Science works. You create model than change the KM’s to be the one that best agrees with what you think it should be.

  19. To beat 2009, assuming another 44 days of melt, the average daily melt needs to stay under 30,000 sk a day. It better slow fast.

  20. Hoskald says:
    August 1, 2010 at 1:14 pm
    “I hope you’re right, I could use some cooler weather down here in Oklahoma! Not looking forward to this winter though.”
    I’m looking forward to this winter…

  21. Charles S. Opalek, PE says:
    August 1, 2010 at 3:08 pm
    With all these anecdotal stories of ice melting, can someone answer a simple question?
    Is the world inventory of ice increasing, or decreasing?
    Anyone?

    I’m not sure about “ice” but here is sea ice.
    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg
    Some people argue that we have turned a corner. We shall have to wait and see.
    More ice below:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/sea-ice-page/

  22. I wonder if the next winter will be “the hottest” on record. Is it possible the same situation like “snow Armageddon” last winter? Let’s collect some firewood before it!

  23. And yet…
    * Arctic ice extent is the second lowest on record for this time of year
    * Arctic ice area is the second lowest on record for this time of year
    * Arctic ice average concentration (= area / extent) is the lowest on record for this time of year
    * The rate of ice extent loss was slowed in early July by cloudy conditions, and winds tending to spread out the ice pack. It has since accelerated again. The current rate of ice extent loss is considerably faster than 2009, and running parallel to 2008
    There is no way to spin this as “continued recovery” as things stand, we all have to wait for the final factor: the length of the melt season. 2008 showed rapid continuing ice loss through to the start of September and beyond, whereas 2009 showed a sharp decline in ice loss around the start of August. Whether 2010 follows the former pattern or the latter determines whether this year’s ice loss will be disastrous, or merely extremely bad. If there’s any kind of acceleration, e.g. due to the Dipole Anomaly returning and compressing the low-concentration ice, we’re into the realms of catastrophic. The state of the central pack is not good, looking at the MODIS images. I don’t have the background to tell how much worse it is than 2007/8/9, but it’s certainly no better.

  24. Pretty much neck and neck with 2009 right now. If it finishes higher than 2009, I’m sure we’ll hear the “4th lowest extent on record” thing…eventually we might get to a 2013 ice free arctic. It better get melting quick though!!

  25. Charles S. Opalek, PE says:
    August 1, 2010 at 3:08 pm
    With all these anecdotal stories of ice melting, can someone answer a simple question?
    Is the world inventory of ice increasing, or decreasing?
    Anyone?
    ——–
    REPLY: Chas, thanks for asking! It depends on who you talk to, and if they have a dog in the AGW fight.
    Much attention in the media is paid to Arctic/Antarctic ice extent, but not as much to actual mass of the ice. WUWT posters often postulate that, although some of the thin ice close to shores has melted, the overall area (extent) is doing well, and the lack of melting of Arctic ice & movement out of the Arctic basin this summer due to wind patterns will lead towards increasing thickness of ice. In other words, we see the glass half-full, and recovery of the Arctic mass. Similarly, the Antarctic seems to be faring well.
    I cannot speak for land mass ice (glaciers and ice fields), but media reports of massive & rapid depletion seem to be rather, well, premature. Glaciers come and go, wax and wane, and man’s influence is uncertain. Deposition of soot from combustion of fossil fuels and biomass might be a greater factor than the media tends to report.
    Mine through this blog for past threads, you’ll find a wealth of information. Fascinating reading! Cheers, Chuck the DrPH, Univ of Illinois

  26. Charles S. Opalek, PE says:
    August 1, 2010 at 3:08 pm
    Is the world inventory of ice increasing, or decreasing?

    It makes a difference whether the ice is at your house or below. Believe me.

  27. Bill Illis says:
    August 1, 2010 at 2:26 pm
    This is the hi-res Modis temperature map for July 29th (lots of missing pixels but you should be able to see it).
    That is quite a hot spot from Russia to Europe. Is that that blob from last year? 😉

  28. noaaprogrammer says:
    August 1, 2010 at 3:09 pm
    “The Arctic Oscillation is forecast to turn negative again, hinting at cooler weather in the Northern Hemisphere starting in about a week.”
    Am I remembering right—the AO (-) pushes cold air from the Arctic down toward Russia and the US?

  29. Completely ignoring the Antarctic and the global sea ice extent by the mainstream media borders on incompetence.

  30. Gail Combs says:
    August 1, 2010 at 3:01 pm
    So where did the super cold in South America go???

    Apparently, according to the Short Term Climate at NCEP:
    http://wxmaps.org/pix/temp8.html
    It’s still there, and it’s predicted to hang around.
    If it is a preview of the N. Hemispere’s winter, it’s going to get ugly.

  31. I dont understand : thickness and area are approximately at 2006 level, but volume is much much lower (according to PIOMAS model), how can this be possible ?

  32. Looking at the 1st graph, I don’t see how the atmosphere / greenhouse / co2 can melt much ice.

  33. Peter Ellis says:
    August 1, 2010 at 3:53 pm
    “Whether 2010 follows the former pattern or the latter determines whether this year’s ice loss will be disastrous, or merely extremely bad. If there’s any kind of acceleration, e.g. due to the Dipole Anomaly returning and compressing the low-concentration ice, we’re into the realms of catastrophic.”
    Reply: Your comment appears a bit hyperbolic. Can you please describe the extremely bad disasters and catastrophes we face? We can start from there. Thanks.

  34. Benjamin says:
    August 1, 2010 at 4:53 pm
    I dont understand : thickness and area are approximately at 2006 level, but volume is much much lower (according to PIOMAS model), how can this be possible ?
    It’s evidence that PIOMAS is wrong. That will make it easier to understand. 😉

  35. Whether 2010 follows the former pattern or the latter determines whether this year’s ice loss will be disastrous, or merely extremely bad.
    Compared to What, PE? We only have 30 years of ice record. Can you say for certain that the north polar ice has NEVER disappeared entirely in the past half billion years of climate change?

  36. Ralph,
    He is using the Ellis scale which ranges from catastrophic thru disastrous via not good, bad, extremely bad and much worse.
    (Yep, he managed all of those in one post. Clever chap)

  37. Sorry, your bus has left the station.
    Now that this year’s brief “window of opportunity” for solar radiation to defrost the Arctic Ocean is closing fast we can see that it hasn’t amounted to very much at all. Early on in the period of (relatively) high solar angle, short atmospheric obstruction path and long polar days there appeared to be the inception of a significant departure toward more absorptive open water and less high-albedo sea ice. (According to the crude “ice extent” graphs we are given). However, midway through the season the ratio shifted back into the decade-long fold and no new trend was established. The complexities of that ever-shifting triple intersection of ice, water and air remain “equivocal” and “unsettled”.

  38. Mr Ellis also managed “decline” but I missed it the first time as it was hidden in the middle of the paragraph.

  39. stevengoddard says:
    August 1, 2010 at 1:49 pm
    Good time for Lewis Pugh to take off in his kayak towards the North Pole.
    These days it appears he’s hung up his oars and now dons a pair of speedos for extreme-cold water swim stunts, such as in a glacial lake beneath Mt. Everest.
    His motto is “time to believe”. At least he’s upfront about it. Nothing to do with science, just Belief.

  40. stevengoddard says:
    August 1, 2010 at 1:48 pm
    Stephen Pruett
    PIOMAS gives the answer which warmists want to hear, so they make up justifications for that idea.
    ***
    ?

  41. Thrasher says:
    August 1, 2010 at 2:02 pm
    ***
    Extent, extent,extent…..ice volume anyone?

  42. rbateman says:
    August 1, 2010 at 4:44 pm
    Gail Combs says:
    August 1, 2010 at 3:01 pm
    So where did the super cold in South America go???
    Apparently, according to the Short Term Climate at NCEP:
    http://wxmaps.org/pix/temp8.html
    It’s still there, and it’s predicted to hang around.
    If it is a preview of the N. Hemispere’s winter, it’s going to get ugly.
    ________________________________________________________________
    I am glad I moved from New Hampshire to North Carolina.
    Then how come the cold in S. America does not show on these maps or am I missing something?
    This is the hi-res Modis temperature map for July 29th
    http://neo.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/RenderData?si=1508381&cs=rgb&format=JPEG
    This is the week of July 20th to July 27th.
    http://neo.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/RenderData?si=1508290&cs=rgb&format=JPEG

  43. Douglas DC says:
    August 1, 2010 at 2:04 pm
    Perma frost does not burn, Tundra does Ask any one who’s fought wildland fire in Alaska-I have…
    ***
    It is burning in Siberia right now. Think melt, sun, heat, dry, …lightning. If interested you can see it on satelite images.

  44. Damn, guys, I just want to play poker with a bunch of Warmistas. That’s a large part of my income, and these guys have tells that any fool can see from a mile away.

  45. Why do the Warmistas (Calamitologists) never look south? Maybe they don’t want to see what’s sneaking up behind them? Boo!

  46. Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
    August 1, 2010 at 4:57 pm
    It looks like PIOMAS shows the M’Clure Strait (or McClure) as open. But Cryosphere Today does not show that it’s open.
    M’Clure Strait
    http://img829.imageshack.us/img829/7357/arctic.gif
    Cryosphere Today, 7/31/10
    http://img713.imageshack.us/img713/9458/arcticseaicecolor000d.png
    ___________________________________________________________________
    Great pictures. It looks like Ellesmere Island is covered in snow (ice?) which is interesting. Given the following tidbit:
    Abstract
    “In 1875, members of the British Arctic Expedition under the command of George S. Nares discovered two ancient-looking stone cairns on Washington Irving Island at the entrance to Dobbin Bay, eastern Ellesmere Island, Nunavut, Canada. At least one of these cairns was destroyed by the expedition members to construct their own cairn. The possibility that these cairns were built by Norse voyagers to Kane Basin is supported by the large number of Norse artifacts recovered from Thule culture Inuit sites in the Bache Peninsula region just south of Washington Irving Island. Surveys of the island have identified scattered boulders marking the location of the cairns, but the question of the builders’ identity still remains a mystery.”
    Makes you wonder what else might be buried under the ice.

  47. Regarding the comment by:
    “Peter Ellis says:
    August 1, 2010 at 3:53 pm”
    and concerning the statement:
    “…Whether 2010 follows the former pattern or the latter determines whether this year’s ice loss will be disastrous, or merely extremely bad.”
    I found your use of the words “disastrous” and “merely extremely bad” a bit subjective.
    Let me take you back, if I may, to the year 1200, in the northern of the two main Viking settlements on the west coast of Greenland. They had roughly 1000 cows and roughly 100,000 sheep and goats. At this time of year they were frantically gathering hay, during the short summer, to keep all these cows, sheep and goats alive during the very long and cold winters.
    If the summer of 1200 had been as “warm” as this past summer was, they could not have gathered enough hay to feed 1000 cows and 100,000 sheep and goats. You see, everything is relative. What you call “warm” they would have cursed as “cold.”
    They would not have called this summer “merely extremely bad.” They would have called it “disastrous.”
    If it warms enough to raise 1000 cows and 100,000 sheep and goats in that part of Greenland again, will it be a disaster?

  48. Ok, as most knowledgeable readers understand, the elevated heat experienced has come from the oceans. What will be of most interest to me is the OHC data in the next 12-18 months.
    It appears the oceans have released a substantial amount of heat, so where does that put us in 6 months? I’ll hazard to say the majority of the NH will be seeing anomalously cold temps, if not even exceeding that of 1999.

  49. Gail Combs says:
    August 1, 2010 at 6:14 pm
    The swaths on the July 29th Modis map are not calibrated to each other, but to themselves.
    That much is obvious.

  50. Some ice extent numbers from the last 4 years from NSIDC’s daily extent fields:
    July 31st 2010: 6.88 million sq-km
    July 31st 2009: 7.12
    July 31st 2008: 7.56
    July 31st 2007: 6.69
    average for 1979-2000: 8.61
    not sure how that makes 2010 a recovery in some folks eyes, to me it looks like ice melt in 2010 is like it has been the last few years.

  51. Doesn’t minimum extent only matter Julienne? That’s what everyone said back in April when 2010 had the big spike…and they said it back in 2008 when it was doing well until the big August melt. So why should 2008 matter on that list when we know it’s probably going to fall below 2010?
    I don’t understand all these double standards? If 2010 ends up at a higher min than 2009, is everyone going to say “well for most of the summer is was below it, so it doesn’t count”? What if this -PDO cycle and incoming -AMO cycle (lagging the PDO cycle) cools the arctic and we start seeing an increase in extent that continues since 2007…is that just going to be “cycles” and not “climate”? I’m pretty dumbfounded at all the cherry picking that goes on. It happens on both sides. Not just the AWG side as this site sometimes claims.
    I’ve been quite turned off by the the fact that none of the official agencies (such as the NSIDC) have even mentioned such fairly rudimentary climate cycles such as the PDO/AMO in any of their discussions. Maybe they did once but I didn’t notice. However, from the general context of their discussions it sounds like the arctic sea ice will never rebound at all…it sounded like that in 2008 and still sounds like that now.
    It reeks of a fairly close minded mentality that climate is in a “Death spiral” and ignores that maybe climate actually goes in cycles whether there is an underlying human contribution or not. At any rate, hopefully these agencies will start researching more into actual climate cycles rather than just promoting this death spiral garbage…we heard it in 2007 and all we’ve gotten is an increase in ice every year since. It would be nice to get back to the actual science.

  52. Hey Steve … I’m a tad late to the party, but hopefully you’ll read this.
    I have a publishable idea for you. I notice on the cryosphere “tale of the tape” the anomoly of arctic ice over the year. … idea … it would be nice to see and compare the area under the curve of anomoly from year to year to see if their is a metric. It’s obvious that the area for 2007 would be the largest. By the eyeball, it looks as if 2008 would be next, followed by 2009. [ based purely on the eyeball of anomoly line under [or over] the 1 million mark. IF .. 2010 spikes up above -1 million rather rapidly, it would produce what looks to be a nice trend that can be detected, even though the maximum anomoly of 2008-2010 look to be similar.
    Do you have any data looking at yearly area under the curve for the arctic melt??

  53. Steven Goddard,
    I do remember that, but their posts have been quite skewed toward how low the ice is right now and I was just pointing out the bias in perception of a lot of people’s posts. I actually think the min might be a bit lower then 5.5 mil sq km, but I think that forecast isn’t that bad.
    I just think the perception of the articles and posts made by a lot of these agencies always points to how low things are and always attributes that to a “Death spiral” or a continuous decline rather than pointing out some other multi-decadal factors that might be significant. I was merely trying to open up a little debate on that subject, though maybe I came across as too critical. I apologize if that was the case.

  54. Thrasher, you’re right one day does not matter. More telling would be the fact that 2010 has tracked low throughout the summer, which is continuing the trend towards lower summer ice conditions this past decade compared to what was seen in the 1950s-1990s (that’s about as far back as we can go with a high degree of confidence on conditions arctic-wide). I do find discussions of recovery very misleading when the data do not support it.
    NSIDC has not discussed the AMO or the PDO in their blogs. The arctic sea ice news and analysis blog did not start until 2006, and the site focuses on atmospheric and oceanic conditions that have influenced each summer’s ice loss for those years. Neither the PDO or the AMO appear to be explaining the changes we’ve seen from 2006-2010.

  55. Ed Caryl says:
    August 1, 2010 at 6:49 pm
    “Why do the Warmistas (Calamitologists) never look south? Maybe they don’t want to see what’s sneaking up behind them? Boo!”
    Reply: my dad always warned us to beware the enema attacking from the rear!

  56. Steve, NSIDC does not just rely on just AMSR-E data. Thus for NSIDC to show all the years used in analysis would make for a graph that would be impossible to distinguish individual years from. But the data is easily downloaded from NSIDC’s web site for anyone to do their own analysis with, allowing anyone to track how 2010 compares to prior years.
    Even though I did a September prediction based on March ice age distribution and typical survivability of ice of different age classes, I think it is highly likely that 2010 will drop below 5.5 million sq-km. It is clear that the rates of survivability have been changing (i.e. less ice survives the transit through the Gyre in summer), so making estimates based on how the ice used to behave are likely to be conservative. MODIS imagery still shows a lot of openings in the ice pack so I expect ice loss to continue at a decent pace through August. Average ice loss from August 1 to August 31st is 1.5 million sq-km (based on an average from 1979-2000).

  57. Thanks for the response Julienne. I do not think the 2006-2010 period is long enough to “explain” any climate cycle. Its a 5 year sample size. The PDO/AMO would not be felt on a long term basis for another 5-10 years at the earliest (assuming we are truly entering that negative phase). I’m just surprised that its never mentioned and its always “death spiral” talk. We are coming out of a +PDO/+AMO peak which would favor lower ice coverage anyway, but that is never mentioned either. While we cannot exactly explain how much this affects the ice in absolute terms, why do we keep seeing references to AGW for the 2007-2010 ice coverage? Surely the AGW argument would mean we keep decreasing from 2007, right? Or even 2008? The AGW theory cannot explain the upward tick since that time either. Why has is it not continued downward in the past 3 years? We heard the “death spiral” talk back then, and its been pretty much regressing back to the 2002-2005 mean each year since then.
    I’ll make a disclaimer that I am in no way saying we aren’t warming from AGW…just questioning the validity of its actual significance on our much larger climate. So while the PDO/AMO do not explain the changes from 2006-2010 as you say, what explains the the changes between 2007-2010?

  58. Fuzzylogic19 says:
    August 1, 2010 at 6:13 pm
    Extent, extent,extent…..ice volume anyone?
    It was covered. You may have overlooked that. Just read the post again.

  59. CRS, Dr.P.H. says:
    August 1, 2010 at 4:11 pm

    Glaciers come and go, wax and wane, and man’s influence is uncertain.

    … but not Mann’s!
    (sorry, couldn’t resist)

  60. The next few weeks are going to be darn interesting, but based on the current trajectory of the decline, it looks like 2010 will end below 2009 and 2008 in sea ice extent and volume, but not below 2007, just as I forecast in March. Notice how rapidly we are diverging from 2006 (the year that Steve was saying this year was most like). In fact, 2010 was only similar to 2006 for a very short period of time (a few weeks) due to ice spreading as the general melt dynamics were really never similar. 2010 saw a lot more open water early in the season in key areas such as the Beufort, Kara, and Barants Seas. The low concentration ice is now spreading out and melting in some of those same waters that have been warmed this summer. If you look at the sea ice area anomaly time series over the past few years:
    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/sea.ice.anomaly.timeseries.jpg
    You can see that 2010 and 2006 really are quite different in their dynamics, and 2010 is actually more like a hybrid between 2008 and 2007. (and not coincidentally, that’s where it appears we’ll end up). We’re primed for a rapid decline in extent over the next few weeks as the ice that has spread out over open water begins to melt and fall below that 15% concentration threshold for JAXA extent. The lower concentation ice that doesn’t end up melting, but has a lot of open water around it, will of course go on to become that infamous “rotten ice” this winter.
    In sum, 2010 will show no improvement or marked reversal in the longer term decline of Arctic Sea ice…but with increasing solar irradiance, and the high probability of a decent El Nino in the next few years leading up to Solar Max in 2013, there is also a high probability of 2007’s record low extent and volume being surpassed by an even lower 2.5 million sq. km. (and this is conservative) summer low extent before 2015.

  61. Julienne Stroeve says:
    August 1, 2010 at 7:36 pm
    Some ice extent numbers from the last 4 years from NSIDC’s daily extent fields:
    July 31st 2010: 6.88 million sq-km
    July 31st 2009: 7.12
    July 31st 2008: 7.56
    July 31st 2007: 6.69
    average for 1979-2000: 8.61
    not sure how that makes 2010 a recovery in some folks eyes, to me it looks like ice melt in 2010 is like it has been the last few years.
    ======================================================
    I’ll ask again if 1979-2000 is a fair baseline? 21 years of data is a short period to base any conclusions on, especially since the early part of that data set was affected by the cooling of 1945 to 1975. The only way to not see a rapid growing trend in Arctic ice is to compare it to a data set that is too short. What would be fairer is a data set that goes back to 800 A.D. But we don’t have that. So we cannot conclude anything alarming about Arctic ice. And really, we cannot conclude anything.

  62. Thrasher says:
    August 1, 2010 at 8:47 pm
    “Surely the AGW argument would mean we keep decreasing from 2007, right? Or even 2008? The AGW theory cannot explain the upward tick since that time either. Why has is it not continued downward in the past 3 years?”
    Reply: I believe you’ve just hit the nail on the head, but you’ve got to be more careful with your terminology. It is not an AGW “theory”. It is simply a conjecture. And you’ve just proven it as such!

  63. The 2010 Arctic sea ice extent minimum will be below that of 2009.
    “Recovery” has been cancelled due to global warming.
    But all skeptical amateurs are free to revise their predictions upwards to 2006, 2003, or above. It’s the summer – shoes, shirts, and prediction rules are casual.

  64. Julienne Stroeve says:
    August 1, 2010 at 8:38 pm
    Neither the PDO or the AMO appear to be explaining ……(based on an average from 1979-2000).
    Apparently the alarming thinning ice hypothesis is based on currents from the oceans. So I cannot see how PDO (+) and PDO (-) aren’t affecting Arctic ice.
    Most of the years from 1979-2000 were PDO (+) years.So average melt was higher than it would be in mostly PDO (-) years. The earth has entered PDO (-) for a few years now—and it shows in the Arctic ice totals since 2007. The average ice loss during 1979-2000 may not play out this August.

  65. Arctic ice is an immense mass. To think that PDO (+) or PDO (-) would track along in step with what Arctic ice does couldn’t be true. They would be a lag.

  66. Ralph Dwyer says:
    August 1, 2010 at 9:51 pm
    Thrasher says:
    August 1, 2010 at 8:47 pm
    “Surely the AGW argument would mean we keep decreasing from 2007, right? Or even 2008? The AGW theory cannot explain the upward tick since that time either. Why has is it not continued downward in the past 3 years?”
    Reply: I believe you’ve just hit the nail on the head, but you’ve got to be more careful with your terminology. It is not an AGW “theory”. It is simply a conjecture. And you’ve just proven it as such!
    ____________________
    This is completely erroneous. The long and deep solar minimum we’ve just passed through in 2008-2009 and it’s subsequent low total solar irradiance is a known and accounted for “reason” why the summer ice minumum didn’t continue strait down from 2007. 2007’s low summer extent was a shocker to many sea ice experts, just as the lowest in a century solar minimum as a shocker to many solar experts, but a simple glance at total solar irradiance when charted against global temps shows why the slow down in the decline of summer sea ice in 2008-2009 was hardly unexplainable. Go here and look at the graphs by clicking on “sun” in the left hand column:
    http://www.climate4you.com/
    Probably more remarkable is that the summer sea ice did not mount an even bigger recovery during this longest and deepest solar minimum in a century.

  67. Charles S. Opalek, PE says:
    August 1, 2010 at 3:08 pm
    With all these anecdotal stories of ice melting, can someone answer a simple question?
    Is the world inventory of ice increasing, or decreasing?
    Anyone?
    ***
    Decreasing, both Arctic, Antarctica and glaciers show ice volume losses.

  68. Fuzzylogic19 says:
    August 1, 2010 at 10:16 pm
    Decreasing, both Arctic, Antarctica and glaciers show ice volume losses.
    In comparison to what?

  69. When glaciers retreat and reveal tree stumps and remains of villages we cannot conclude that the loss of ice is alarming but only that it has happened before, and that it has been warmer in the past than it is now.

  70. Fuzzylogic19 says:
    August 1, 2010 at 10:16 pm
    Only in places not easily accessible.
    Mt. Shasta is a freakin snow-cone this summer. The Warmists claim it is a rare exception, but then everybody & his brother can see it. It’s the places you can’t get to that the Warmists claim are cooking faster than ever.

  71. The UK soccer season is soon to start.
    As everyone here seems to be so fascinated with making forecasts rather than seeing what actually happens..- much like the criticism rightly made of those who mistake climate model output for experiments – can anyone help me with my wee little flutters for the footie?
    I need outright winners for the Premiership, Championship, Division1 and the FA Cup.
    Thanks in advance.

  72. Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
    August 1, 2010 at 10:29 pm
    Tree stumps where glaciers previously existed?
    I’ve been brushfired, I’ve been treeringed, and now I’m stumped.

  73. JER0ME says:
    August 1, 2010 at 9:37 pm
    CRS, Dr.P.H. says:
    August 1, 2010 at 4:11 pm
    Glaciers come and go, wax and wane, and man’s influence is uncertain.
    … but not Mann’s!
    (sorry, couldn’t resist)
    —–
    REPLY: LOL!!

  74. R. Gates says:
    August 1, 2010 at 9:43 pm
    In sum, 2010 will show no improvement or marked reversal in the longer term decline of Arctic Sea ice…but with increasing solar irradiance, and the high probability of a decent El Nino in the next few years leading up to Solar Max in 2013, there is also a high probability of 2007′s record low extent and volume being surpassed by an even lower 2.5 million sq. km. (and this is conservative) summer low extent before 2015.
    =======================
    You are hopelessly biased and predisposed on your “data” and beliefs.
    There is almost no point in discussing or trying to have an honest debate with you…because, specifically, your deductivenes…overrides any attempt at being inductive.
    That is completely contrary to any semblance of the Scientific Method.
    And there is really NO cause for alarm whatsoever in relation to your enemy, the demon, CO2.
    There IS cause for alarm in the fact that we are polluting, overfishing , and generally screwing up the planet with genetically modified crops and disrupting natural biological cycles.
    But all of this really has nothing to do with CO2.
    It is a shame though, as all of these worthy causes get thrown under the rickety, belching, tie-dyed volkswagen CO2 bus.
    The good thing is….Mother Nature does not lie. She never does.
    Earth is not “in the balance” as Gore has said.
    Earth balances herself out….every time. We are witnessing that at both poles.
    Mother Earth does not give a fat flying **** what we think one way or the other.
    She will keep on going on as she has done for billions of years…and if our drop-in-the-bucket species is a casualty of her wrath, then so be it.
    I hope not, though.
    Current conditions in the “warm” Antarctic. Vostok: Temperature -113F.
    http://www.wunderground.com/global/stations/89606.html
    Get your head out of your model cloud (or model a*s*)…and come join the real world.
    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  75. Steve, how come you get 2010 so low in your graph
    http://climateinsiders.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/jaxa_july_ice_melt.png?w=541&h=284#
    From Jaxa I work it out as 1.986×10^6 km-2 but you seem to have it around 1.875 ??? I’m summing the values from the JAXA spreadsheet that is linked from the graph page.
    Meanwhile, in the Antarctic, the positiv ice anomaly is decreasing now :-
    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.recent.antarctic.png
    meaning the global anomaly is well below zero as well. I’d be interested to see R.Batemans black and white graph now, or Just the Facts thoughts on this.
    Andy

  76. What fuzzylogic19 and RGates and many others can not seem to comprehend…(or don’t want to comprehend)….in regards to 30 years of satellite measurement of ice:
    How many 30 year periods does it take to get 4.6 billion?
    4.6 Billion / 30 = 153,000,000

  77. Amino Acids in Meteorites said:
    August 1, 2010 at 9:50 pm
    “The only way to not see a rapid growing trend in Arctic ice is to compare it to a data set that is too short.”
    I don’t agree with that sentence, the shorter the data set the more likely you are to see, or what appears to be, a rapid growing trend. For instance if you take Jaxa, which is a lot shorter, it would appear that there is now a growing trend in Arctic ice from 2007, but is it? Or is it just walking back to the longer term trend?
    Andy

  78. Striling English
    Rooney stunk in the World Cup and Ronaldo is gone. Man U lost to Kansas City last week! Write them off. I’d go with Chelsea.
    Champions, gotta go with Real Madrid.
    FA and Division 1, who cares?
    If Everton pays 11 million for Donovan, they are idiots. He can’t make or receive a pass and looks totally spaced out most of the time. Without Altidore his WC would have stunk.

  79. R Gates confidently asserted that 2010 would be “one heck of a melt season” and he also predicted the sea ice minimum of 4 million sq KM or less.
    I cannot help but wonder if R Gates stands by his assertions in view of the evidence thus far? I note that he seems to be pushing back his predictions of doom a couple of years and I also note that he now seems to be convinced of the effect of solar cycles on global temperatures when the AGW orthodoxy denied any such link for years.
    The goal posts they are a changin? As a great poet once said(apologies to Bob Dylan). I see as reality confronts the beliefs of the AGW advocates they change the rules of the game and the parameters of indicative effects and we get flip flops and evasions like extent Vs area and Jerry built lash ups like the “dipole anomaly”
    To coin a phrase, our esteemed contributor Mr Gates shot his bolt way too early and bet the farm on an anomalous indicator and making the error of viewing the evidence through the lens of his emotional beliefs. It will be 30 days or so before we know what the actual reality will be and even then one swallow a summer does not make, I fear we have been trapped into short termism to prove or disprove a theory when the climate opperates in cycles of hundreds and thousand years.
    I hereby challenge Mr Gates to stand by his earlier assertion regarding this years melt season he confidently made at the start of the summer.

  80. This is a great service in giving clear and authoritive information in a way even non scientists like myself can grasp. I have been blogging on hostile green site, mostly Monbiot, where I find your name (Steve Goddard) is being trashed (maybe orchestrated). They are trying to laugh your work off, I think using your Spring forecast which appeared to go astray for a few weeks as an example. (They never notice how bad their models have been to predict anything).
    I think this simple demonstation of the data is really getting to them and they really do not like what you are doing.
    Well done, you are a star!

  81. savethesharks says:
    August 1, 2010 at 10:59 pm
    What fuzzylogic19 and RGates and many others can not seem to comprehend…(or don’t want to comprehend)….in regards to 30 years of satellite measurement of ice:
    How many 30 year periods does it take to get 4.6 billion?
    4.6 Billion / 30 = 153,000,000
    ***
    And the relevance?

  82. Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
    August 1, 2010 at 10:27 pm
    Fuzzylogic19 says:
    August 1, 2010 at 10:16 pm
    Decreasing, both Arctic, Antarctica and glaciers show ice volume losses.
    In comparison to what?
    ***
    Simple, compared to what was there before.

  83. Thanks for taking the time to produce another good update of what’s going on in the far north.
    I think we are going to have an early start to the NH winter, as the first batch of swallows have already congregated on the telegraph poles and departed for warmer climes. This is 5 weeks earlier than normal here on the south coast of the UK and is not a good sign.
    The good news is that I am now feeling more confident of my guess that Arctic sea ice will end up around the 5.9m km^2 level. The continuing quiet sun and cooler oceans will mean more ice than many of the ‘experts’ predict.

  84. Amino Acids and Thrasher, I’m always reluctant to put too much emphasis on statistical linkages with climate indicies, but I understand there are many who want/like to make these links. Typically, I’m more interested in getting to the underlying physics, and you miss that with statistics.
    However, my view on the current situation of Arctic sea ice does depend in part to a link with an atmospheric index. In the late 1980s/early 1990s there was large export of the older, thicker ice out of the Arctic basin through Fram Strait under the persistence of the positive winter AO phase. This left behind a rather thin ice pack that is more vulnerable to further atmospheric and oceanic forcing. While the statistics made sense then, you would have to further note that the ice has continued to thin (and more of the old ice has continued to disappear) under a more neutral AO state since that time period. According to previous links between the winter AO and summer Arctic sea ice, there should have been some recovery after those positive AO years and yet this didn’t happen. But statistical linkages do not always work in the same way each time, and perhaps those linkages start to break down as the energy/mass balance of the system changes. We constantly need to revise our thinking as we accumulate more data and gain better understanding of how all the components of the climate system interact.

  85. stevengoddard says:
    August 1, 2010 at 10:25 pm
    Fuzzylogic19
    I bet you miss those days when all of Canada and much of Northern Europe were buried under miles of ice.
    ***
    Can’t say much about Canada, but as for Northern Europe, yes I saw the paper headlines, “Europe freezing” with photo’s of snow. However, snow in quantity doesn’t fall with extreme cold (it tends to be dry, low humidity and powdery snow at best) but at temperatures around freezing point (makes for big flakes). I was there in 1966/67 and that was a bad winter, -27C in some places; hasn’t happened since though. Yes, last winter there was snow in Holland, but not all that much and they didn’t even get a white X-mas. Mind you, to achieve that there has to be a snow cover on both X-mas days of X-mas; because snow melts so quickly over there that it only happens about once every 17 years. Dutch winters tend to start 3 weeks later and a end 3 weeks early. Not much skating though because snow on ice acts as a blanket, not much thickening. Just wondering, how did Northern Europe get burried under miles of ice? Does it fall in blocks from the sky? Big blocks? Is there much of a population left? Sorry, couldn’t resist.

  86. rbateman says:
    August 1, 2010 at 10:43 pm
    Fuzzylogic19 says:
    August 1, 2010 at 10:16 pm
    Only in places not easily accessible.
    Mt. Shasta is a freakin snow-cone this summer. The Warmists claim it is a rare exception, but then everybody & his brother can see it. It’s the places you can’t get to that the Warmists claim are cooking faster than ever.
    ***
    Are you referring to weather or climate?

  87. R Gates writes:
    “The lower concentation ice that doesn’t end up melting, but has a lot of open water around it, will of course go on to become that infamous “rotten ice” this winter.”
    It is obvious that you do not live anywhere where you have practical experience of sea-ice. “Rotten ice” is ice in the last stage of melting. However unlike rotten meat, rotten ice does not stay rotten. If temperature sinks below zero it refreezes and is as good as new. As a matter of fact better than new if it is in salt water, since the partial melting flushes the salt out. So, there is positively no rotten ice in winter.

  88. Here is the prognosis of the man with the highest IQ in climatology for 2009 (on Aug 7, 2009):
    Steve McIntyre
    Posted Aug 7, 2009 at 9:47 PM | Permalink | Reply
    2009 is now slightly behind 2008. My prediction is that 2009 will end up over 500,000 sq km behind 2008.
    BarryW
    Posted Aug 8, 2009 at 6:57 AM | Permalink | Reply
    Re: Steve McIntyre (#28),
    That puts it at about 5.2 Mkmsq.
    (Translation: In Canada “behind” means “above”).
    For comparison Serreze at al: 4.7 Mkmsq, released Aug 19, 2009
    (To be honest: It was called Meier et at, but since Meier seems to be a decent chap, let us blame Serreze).
    How about asking SMcI for this year’s outlook?

  89. Fuzzylogic19 says:
    August 2, 2010 at 12:00 am
    Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
    August 1, 2010 at 10:27 pm
    Fuzzylogic19 says:
    August 1, 2010 at 10:16 pm
    Decreasing, both Arctic, Antarctica and glaciers show ice volume losses.
    In comparison to what?
    ***
    Simple, compared to what was there before.
    ***********************
    And what was there 40 years ago? 100? 200? 1000?
    claiming we are all doomed based on 30 years data is insane. Especially when we have no idea if the baseline is average or high, or low.
    Also at a time of very high solar irradiance, at a time with very strong El Nino’s and positive AO.
    And when there is plenty of historical evidence that there was less ice in the 1930’s, and even less when the Vikings were rowing their little boats around the globe.

  90. Looks like that meltwater pond in front of the camera at the north pole is now starting to freeze over…

  91. Tenuc says, August 2, 2010 at 12:10 am:
    “I think we are going to have an early start to the NH winter, as the first batch of swallows have already congregated on the telegraph poles and departed for warmer climes. This is 5 weeks earlier than normal here on the south coast of the UK and is not a good sign.”
    Is it possible that you have been seeing swifts, rather than swallows?
    Swifts migrate back around the middle of August, swallos and house martins stay until September.
    But even if you saw swifts rather than swallows – it is indeed a bit early for them to start leaving.

  92. Julienne says “I’m more interested in getting to the underlying physics, and you miss that with statistics.”
    I completely agree with that philosophy.

  93. “Stevengoddard says:
    August 2, 2010 at 3:57 am
    Julienne says “I’m more interested in getting to the underlying physics, and you miss that with statistics.”
    I completely agree with that philosophy.”
    I disagree. When you have a great number of things, you need statistics (see the discussion about the ideal gas). The problem starts when you have to decide whether
    the results make sense (are “significant”). That is where the hockeystickians fail utterly.

  94. Julienne,
    You talk about “ice survivability” as if something fundamental has changed.
    Yet I see cold temperatures and favorable winds. I don’t see any reason to believe the ice is more vulnerable in August this year than 10 years ago.

  95. Fuzzylogic19,
    Not only is your logic fuzzy, but your information is incorrect.
    Please cite your sources showing that global ice volume has decreased for glaciers and both poles. Once you give us your sources we can at least evaluate them. Until then, you are just making an uneducated guess.

  96. savethesharks says:
    August 1, 2010 at 10:48 pm
    R. Gates says:
    August 1, 2010 at 9:43 pm
    ***
    Current conditions in the “warm” Antarctic. Vostok: Temperature -113F.
    http://www.wunderground.com/global/stations/89606.html
    Get your head out of your model cloud (or model a*s*)…and come join the real world.
    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA
    ***
    What’s your idea of a ‘warm’ Antarctic? Is it winter in the southern hemisphere or am I mistaken?

  97. Julienne Stroeve says:
    August 2, 2010 at 12:27 am
    Typically, I’m more interested in getting to the underlying physics, and you miss that with statistics.
    I’m not much for statistics either. That’s why I noted your “Average ice loss from August 1 to August 31st is 1.5 million sq-km (based on an average from 1979-2000).”
    ……neutral AO state since that time period. According to previous links between the winter AO and summer Arctic sea ice, there should have been some recovery after those positive AO….
    So you are attributing Arctic melt to AO and not co2? I ask only to clarify.

  98. blackswhitewash.com says:
    August 2, 2010 at 3:03 am
    And what was there 40 years ago? 100? 200? 1000?
    ….30 years data…no idea if the baseline is average or high, or low.

    This is the point I’m trying to make.

  99. Just “eyeballing” the ice extent graph for the arctic, it appears that at least for 8/1 the years 2008,2009, and 2010 are pretty much a statistical tie. It will be interesting to see where it goes in the next 6 weeks or so.

  100. Alexej Buergin says:
    August 2, 2010 at 5:49 am
    “Stevengoddard says:
    August 2, 2010 at 3:57 am
    Julienne says “I’m more interested in getting to the underlying physics, and you miss that with statistics.”
    I completely agree with that philosophy.”
    I disagree. When you have a great number of things, you need statistics (see the discussion about the ideal gas). The problem starts when you have to decide whether
    the results make sense (are “significant”). That is where the hockeystickians fail utterly.
    _______________
    Both points of view are correct, only one of them will tell you what, and the other aims toward finding out why. As a scientist, of course Julienne would be interested in the physics behind the phenomenon.
    In terms of the Arctic Sea ice, GCM’s have long projected the slow decline in overall summer extent, though as we all know, it appears currently (the past 5 years) to be happening even faster than predicted. There is real physics behind why the general decline has long been forecast, but the GCM’s have not been accurate in predicting the faster decline, which is probably due to unpredictable feedbacks. Why the melt is happening faster than any of the GCM’s forecast is certainly the topic of much research and speculation, and finding out why will push the science and knowledge forward. The graph (a point of statistics) that Julienne produced is very helpful in seeing what is happening over the longer term:
    http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_KfE5s-4q1s4/TAUmb9TrqoI/AAAAAAAAAEk/XQ4BhJEOC-U/s1600/stroeve.png
    Though I am not a career scientist, I am one who is far more interested in why this decline in Arctic Sea ice is happening faster than the GCM’s predicted just a few years back. So statistics tell us what, but the gold (for me) lies in the why…and the longer term trend is climate, and knowing why is climate science– not climate or weather statistics.

  101. stevengoddard says:
    August 2, 2010 at 5:54 am
    Julienne,
    You talk about “ice survivability” as if something fundamental has changed.
    Yet I see cold temperatures and favorable winds. I don’t see any reason to believe the ice is more vulnerable in August this year than 10 years ago.
    ___________
    Steve,
    That’s because you’ve discounted David Barber and his “rotten ice” entirely. A great In addition to ice extent, and ice volume, is of course ice density. Lower density ice=greater vulnerability to melt. Simple thermodynamics.

  102. blackswhitewash.com says:
    August 2, 2010 at 3:03 am
    Fuzzylogic19 says:
    August 2, 2010 at 12:00 am
    Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
    August 1, 2010 at 10:27 pm
    Fuzzylogic19 says:
    August 1, 2010 at 10:16 pm
    Decreasing, both Arctic, Antarctica and glaciers show ice volume losses.
    In comparison to what?
    ***
    Simple, compared to what was there before.
    ***********************
    And what was there 40 years ago? 100? 200? 1000?
    claiming we are all doomed based on 30 years data is insane. Especially when we have no idea if the baseline is average or high, or low.
    Also at a time of very high solar irradiance, at a time with very strong El Nino’s and positive AO.
    And when there is plenty of historical evidence that there was less ice in the 1930′s, and even less when the Vikings were rowing their little boats around the globe.
    ***
    So what’s the problem, it is sea ice and more than half melts in summer. We have about 30 years of satellite data and the baseline is determined by that. Do you have some magic means to determine how much ice there was up to 1000 years ago? Did the Vikings have GPS devices locked onto a satelite? Historical evidence, like stories?
    This ice is not like the stuff on land, most of what freezes in winter melts in summer. For the last 30 years the former is losing the latter winning.

  103. tty says:
    August 2, 2010 at 12:47 am
    R Gates writes:
    “The lower concentation ice that doesn’t end up melting, but has a lot of open water around it, will of course go on to become that infamous “rotten ice” this winter.”
    It is obvious that you do not live anywhere where you have practical experience of sea-ice. “Rotten ice” is ice in the last stage of melting. However unlike rotten meat, rotten ice does not stay rotten. If temperature sinks below zero it refreezes and is as good as new. As a matter of fact better than new if it is in salt water, since the partial melting flushes the salt out. So, there is positively no rotten ice in winter.
    ___________
    It is obvious that you don’t understand what David Barber et. al. mean by “rotten ice” as pertaining to the Arctic Ice pack. I think a simple google on this topic will help you understand. Rotten ice (in David Barber’s use of the word) is far less dense and continuous than solid ice pack and there are very good reasons for that. But again, google it, read a bit, and then we can discuss it without you attacking my knowledge base.

  104. “Julienne Stroeve says:
    August 2, 2010 at 12:27 am
    Amino Acids and Thrasher, I’m always reluctant to put too much emphasis on statistical linkages with climate indicies, but I understand there are many who want/like to make these links. Typically, I’m more interested in getting to the underlying physics, and you miss that with statistics.”
    ——————
    It is not hard to work out the physics behind how a cyclically warm and cold northern Atlantic ocean and a cyclically warm and cold north Pacific ocean (or a cyclic Arctic Oscillation) affects the sea ice. Pretty straight-forward.
    There are numerous papers which link the AMO and/or the AO to the Arctic sea ice using climate model simulations. Relatively recent one which uses both here (these are not sceptical researchers).
    http://www.lanl.gov/source/orgs/ees/ees14/pdfs/09Chlylek.pdf

  105. The past two days have had close to 100,000 melt each day. I refer to look at the numbers rather than the charts.
    An average around 40, 000 for the rest of the melt season will approach 2007 lows.
    Like I said , it will take an average under 30,000 per day to set a low of Steve’s predicted 5.5 million. Unless it slows quickly it should end up less than that.

  106. Cassandra King says:
    August 1, 2010 at 11:30 pm
    R Gates confidently asserted that 2010 would be “one heck of a melt season” and he also predicted the sea ice minimum of 4 million sq KM or less.
    _________
    Cassandra, I never projected 4 million sq. km. or less. Please retract your assertion or back it up with a post of mine. I’ve consisently put my projection for extent at 4.5 million sq. km. and everyone who’s been reading this blog since March knows that.
    We’ve got a solid month of melt left at least and currently the sea ice extent is higher than 2007, but lower than 2008 or 2009, which is exactly where I said we would end up this year. Right now, the low concentration ice is melting fast. I would hold your bashing of my forecast for a few weeks…

  107. Julienne,
    Your understanding of arctic sea ice creation and melting correlates with the period of satellite observation from 1978 to now. This period is associated with an anomalously positive NAO index and sea ice volume decline similar to that which likely occcured during the 1930’s. Much progress has been made to hindcast sea ice volume to the pre satellite era. The retro page of the Polar Ice center website illustrates how rapidly ice can build up under negative NAO indices as happened from 1955 to 1969.
    http://psc.apl.washington.edu/zhang/IDAO/retro.html#Satellite_ice
    NAO historic graph
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Winter-NAO-Index.svg
    Gerdes’s JGR paper published in 2007 looked at hindcasts for the twentieth century and found no long term change in sea ice volume.
    http://www.agu.org/journals/ABS/2007/2006JC003616.shtml
    Using the post satellite period as a basis for prediction of sea ice volume decline is cherry picking the longer trend.

  108. Save the Sharks said:
    Earth is not “in the balance” as Gore has said.
    Earth balances herself out….every time. We are witnessing that at both poles.
    Mother Earth does not give a fat flying **** what we think one way or the other.
    She will keep on going on as she has done for billions of years…and if our drop-in-the-bucket species is a casualty of her wrath, then so be it.
    I hope not, though.
    Current conditions in the “warm” Antarctic. Vostok: Temperature -113F.
    http://www.wunderground.com/global/stations/89606.html
    Get your head out of your model cloud (or model a*s*)…and come join the real world.
    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA
    ___________
    Chris,
    I disagree with you about CO2. The 40% increase in the past few hundred years I think are having an effect on climate (though I’m only 75% certain of this). It’s a big change, and the real question will be how sensitive will the climate be to this increase. How much warming will we see by 2100? 3 degrees C, 4 degrees?
    The earth does have a natural way of balancing things out when CO2 gets too far out of whack, but it takes millions of years in the geological cycle, as increased CO2 means greater weathering rock as the hyrdrological cycle intensifies. The weathering rock removes CO2 from the atmosphere, thereby decreasing the global temps. This a fascinating long term feedback loop and worth a google, trust me.
    The rapid anthropogenic CO2 is more like a volcanic episode (without the accompanying sulfur for cooling). The earth’s ability to react to this rapid event through natural feedback processes might be overwhelmed (hence why the issue of sensitivity is so important). In addition to the decline in Arctic Sea ice, the acididification of the oceans(and apparently the decline of planckton) are good indications that the earth’s systems cannot respond fast enough to the changes that rapid CO2 increases may be causing.
    I have no doubt that the earth will survive this episode of rapid CO2 increase, though perhaps there will be adjustments to the biosphere.

  109. R. Gates wrote: The graph (a point of statistics) that Julienne produced is very helpful in seeing what is happening over the longer term:
    http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_KfE5s-4q1s4/TAUmb9TrqoI/AAAAAAAAAEk/XQ4BhJEOC-U/s1600/stroeve.png
    Though I am not a career scientist, I am one who is far more interested in why this decline in Arctic Sea ice is happening faster than the GCM’s predicted just a few years back. (end of quote)
    Robert, I looked at the graph above, a compendium of global warming models that you seem to be so curious about, and have a question. Based on others’ comments in here, it would seem that the 1930’s saw as much, or more, melting in the arctic as we are seeing now (or at least close, and I really have learned not to trust the historical data in this field by the way, so perhaps they really weren’t close?)
    Assuming the 1930’s was a time of relatively low summer arctic ice extent, what’s with the backcasting of the models on the graph you presented? They show a more or less continuously high ice extent for the entire century until about 1970. No variation for the 1930’s is evident, except in the one outlier at the bottom of the graph. (And that one becomes lost in the confusion around the year 2000 or so.) Furthermore, the “observed extent” shows a huge drop from 1950’s (when we had lousy data) to the 1980’s (when presumably the data was better), so I’m not even sure that drop actually occurred. (It wouldn’t surprise me if it didn’t, given the way records seem to be made up in this field.)
    Anyway, my point is that the models didn’t even backcast properly, and as all of them are apparently structured to have increasing CO2 drive higher temperatures, why would you pay any attention to them at all? They are models that don’t predict the past, apparently, so why would anyone put any trust at all in their ability to forecast the future? Just curious.
    (I can understand, given the reliance on these models, why various parties are so desperate to make sure the current temperature record shows a continuing increase, even if it means employing the sort of “tricks” revealed here on an almost daily basis.)

  110. ” R. Gates says:
    August 2, 2010 at 7:46 am
    Julienne says “I’m more interested in getting to the underlying physics, and you miss that with statistics.”
    Both points of view are correct, only one of them will tell you what, and the other aims toward finding out why. As a scientist, of course Julienne would be interested in the physics behind the phenomenon. ”
    It is not about “physics or statistics”, it must be “physics AND statistics”. That is why tome 5 of the great book of theoretical physics by Landau and Lifshitz, the one about thermodynamics, has the title “Statistical Physics”. Chapter 1 starts with statistical distributions, chapter 2 with temperature, chapter 4 is about the ideal gas.
    This is one of the good things of the Soviet Union, R.I.P.

  111. R. Gates
    Within two days, 30% concentration ice will be the highest since 2006.
    But I appreciate your determination to melt the ice. Keep cranking that CO2 out of your computer!

  112. It looks like we will see a pretty steep halt in the ice melt later this week into next week. The sea ice “area” has been a decent precursor to that. We saw it flatten big time before the halt in early July, and now we are seeing it again the past several days. The ice that is left is going to be tougher and tougher to melt as it tries to penetrate some of that multi-year ice that the -AO left in the Beaufort Gyre from this past winter that hasn’t been present the past several years.

  113. stevengoddard says:
    Meltponds confusing the satellite data.

    So the abnormally low concentration data is due to an abnormally high degree of melt ponding? Are these the same melt ponds you keep telling us are frozen over? Just for the record…

  114. Like I said , it will take an average under 30,000 per day to set a low of Steve’s predicted 5.5 million. Unless it slows quickly it should end up less than that.
    And this after 4 weeks of very adverse to melting weather conditions in the period it matters most. Low pressure areas dominated the Arctic, making it colder, cloudier – less insolation with the Sun high in the sky – and preventing the ice from being transported out of Fram Strait. In short, the exact opposite of the weather conditions that made 2007, with its thicker ice, the record holder for minimum extent.
    That there’s still a chance of minimum extent going below 5 million square km is quite amazing in itself. the end result depends on ice thickness, of course, but even more on atmospheric conditions. This much is clear.
    Had the thicker ice of 2007 experienced the weather conditions the Arctic has witnessed in this July, there is no chance the minimum would have ended up below 5 million square km.

  115. Steve Goddard said
    “AndyW
    8806563 – 6922031 = 1884532
    http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/plot.csv
    As JAXA does the day before loss/gain shouldn’t that be from 8723594 to 6819531, ie from the measurement posted on the 2nd July to the measurement posted on the 1st of August? That would give you the loss or gain from 1st July to 31st July. That equals 1.987032. Your measurement is the total from the 30th June to 30th July.
    Andy

  116. R Gates how can a change that is taking place over the course of 50 years be rapid for the biosphere? In glasshouses (the best testbed for the greenhouse effect) they artificially increase CO2 levels to make plants grow faster. A crop takes a season to grow not 50 years. After 50 years we should be able to measure the impact if somebody was interested. What else but increased CO2 levels explains the greening of the Sahel? Pitty WUWT does not give satelite measures of this annually. I always hear that the worst affected are the poorest. Who is poorer then the people in the Sahel? The answer is easy, increased CO2 just like in glasshouses increases biomass. There is a video somewhere on the Internet where Freeman Dyson explains how the US could offset China’s industrial revolution by applying new land usage techniques. What is in the atmosphere is a fraction of the CO2. Clearly earth is reponding to increased CO2 levels with increased biomass. Please explain me where this is negative? How can increased biomass be negative for humans and animals alike? Personally I would be more interested in a weekly update of the greening then in an Artic Ice volume. I somehow think it matters more to mankind. This Artic Ice volume is an irrelavant side battle. I challenge Steven or anybody at WUWT to get me a similar measurement for Biomass. The Sahel is a great starting point as somehow the poor are precisely the people the AGW crowd claim to protect.

  117. LucVC says:
    August 2, 2010 at 10:56 am
    R Gates how can a change that is taking place over the course of 50 years be rapid for the biosphere? In glasshouses (the best testbed for the greenhouse effect) they artificially increase CO2 levels to make plants grow faster. A crop takes a season to grow not 50 years. After 50 years we should be able to measure the impact if somebody was interested. What else but increased CO2 levels explains the greening of the Sahel? Pitty WUWT does not give satelite measures of this annually. I always hear that the worst affected are the poorest. Who is poorer then the people in the Sahel? The answer is easy, increased CO2 just like in glasshouses increases biomass. There is a video somewhere on the Internet where Freeman Dyson explains how the US could offset China’s industrial revolution by applying new land usage techniques. What is in the atmosphere is a fraction of the CO2. Clearly earth is reponding to increased CO2 levels with increased biomass. Please explain me where this is negative? How can increased biomass be negative for humans and animals alike? Personally I would be more interested in a weekly update of the greening then in an Artic Ice volume. I somehow think it matters more to mankind. This Artic Ice volume is an irrelavant side battle. I challenge Steven or anybody at WUWT to get me a similar measurement for Biomass. The Sahel is a great starting point as somehow the poor are precisely the people the AGW crowd claim to protect.
    __________
    Outside of the obvious ones, like sea ice loss, ocean acidification, stratospheric cooling, and now apparently plankton decline, I haven’t studied the actual effects on the biosphere from increases in CO2. From a geological and climatological persepctive, the 40% increase in CO2 is very rapid, and it would be hard to imagine that natural systems would be in place that could accomdate this rapid change. Some species may benefit and some may not. If plankton are indeed declining, as some recent research suggests, this could be a negative effect for the chain of life in the sea, and also for land based plants, and potentially animals. I think it is far too simple a viewpoint to say that a 40% increase in CO2 will be overall beneficial for the biosphere. There are too many other variables to consider, and over the past 400,000 years at least, the web of life on earth has gotten used to a much lower level of CO2 than we are seeing now.

  118. Dan in California says:
    August 2, 2010 at 11:14 am
    The north polar sea ice quantity seems to be rather low in 1987, judging from this photo of 3 submarines on the surface.
    http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/07/north_pole_ice_melting_fear_mo.html
    The photo was taken on 18 May, long before the minimum extent for that year. Yet the web pages referenced by richcar 1225 above show extents higher than current. How am I reading this wrong?
    ____________
    This is akin to looking at the weather. We have plenty of satellite data from 1987, and we know that there was pretty much HIGHER than normal Arctic Sea ice that entire year. See:
    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/sea.ice.anomaly.timeseries.jpg
    And scan to 1987.
    It seems skeptics love to post these kinds of pics as proof that nothing unusual is happening with the Arctic, but thankfully, we’ve got hard data and we know that the long term trend is down and has been for decades. The picture is interesting though meaningless from a climate perspective.

  119. Steve, if I look at rates of ice survivability for different ice age classes during the satellite record, I find that the last few years have shown lower survivability for MYI. Part of it appears to be a result of ice not surviving the transit through the Beaufort Gyre in summer like it used to, which could be a result of overall thinner MYI, warmer ocean and atmospheric temperatures, changes in the timing of melt onset and freeze up, etc.
    A prediction based on ice age survivability unfortunately does not take into account how thick that ice is. I think statistics can be insightful but they have their limitations, and thus my prediction may give a ballpark estimate based on “typical” ice behavior but it then needs to evolve with additional information such as thickness, atmospheric/oceanic circulation, etc.

  120. R Gates writes:
    “It is obvious that you don’t understand what David Barber et. al. mean by “rotten ice” as pertaining to the Arctic Ice pack.”
    Apparently I don’t, because I thought that it meant what it has always meant when dealing with sea-ice, i e ice in the last stage of melting. This is an universally accepted term that has been used and is used in ice reports (including the arctic) for decades.
    Apparently the term now has some new and mysterious meaning when used by the climate science community.

  121. Amino Acids, yes the positive AO state in the late 80s/early 90s is an important factor in the ice losses observed during this past decade. I don’t look at CO2 as causing that AO phase.
    Yet the AO is just one part of it. Other changes in atmospheric and oceanic circulation that are bringing more heat into the Arctic (temperatures have been anomalously warm in all seasons in the Arctic since about 2001), the timing of melt onset/freeze-up, changes in summer wind patterns, etc. are all contributing to the continued ice losses in summer.
    How much CO2 is contributing to these changes remains unclear, but it is only when you run climate models with the observed record of GHGs are you able to reproduce the decline in the summer ice cover (though not as quickly as what has been observed). Running the models with pre-industrial levels does not show the summer ice cover shrinking. I know climate models have lots of uncertainties, and strengths of feedbacks may not always be realistic, but they can be useful tools to help us better understand responses in the climate system.

  122. R Gates writes:
    “Yes, please look at how cold those SST’s are in the Arctic:
    http://polar.ncep.noaa.gov/sst/ophi/color_anomaly_NPS_ophi0.png
    That is a pretty fascinating map. I wonder how they manage to measure the water temperature under the ice? And apparently they have been doing it long enough to have a standard period (30 years?) to compare it with too.
    Incidentally the temperatures are rather badly off for the bay of Bothnia, which is colder than indicated on the map.

  123. stevengoddard,
    A suggestion – since your 5.5 million km² minimum extent prediction for this season isn’t based on the DMI extent graph but rather (I believe – correct me if I’m wrong and you prefer the NSIDC measure or some other one, not that you’re showing it either) on the published IARC-JAXA ice extent data, wouldn’t it be better to at least show the IARC-JAXA sea ice extent chart in each of these Sea Ice News posts? Sure people can go look at it themselves but how can you justify not showing the progress of the actual metric by which the success or failure of your prediction will be judged?

  124. From: R. Gates on August 2, 2010 at 11:10 am

    Yes, please look at how cold those SST’s are in the Arctic:
    http://polar.ncep.noaa.gov/sst/ophi/color_anomaly_NPS_ophi0.png

    For an anomaly map without notation of what the baseline was nor how it was calculated, with -1 to 0°C on the edges where melt is expected and only 0 to 1°C for the majority of the area, looks rather average and not that bad for the Arctic basin. Heck, that could be just +0.1 above for most of the basin for a baseline with covers some very large sea ice extents, thus boding well for the 2010 minimum.

  125. Fuzzylogic19 says:
    August 1, 2010 at 11:55 pm
    savethesharks says:
    August 1, 2010 at 10:59 pm
    What fuzzylogic19 and RGates and many others can not seem to comprehend…(or don’t want to comprehend)….in regards to 30 years of satellite measurement of ice:
    How many 30 year periods does it take to get 4.6 billion?
    4.6 Billion / 30 = 153,000,000
    ***
    And the relevance?
    =====================================
    Figure it out yourself.
    Res Ipsa Loquiter

  126. From: AndyW on August 2, 2010 at 10:41 am

    Which is right?
    Check out the ice to the north of Canada in this estimate
    http://ice-glaces.ec.gc.ca/Ice_Can/CMMBCTCA.gif
    touching the coast at the left. Now Bremen
    http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsr/arctic_AMSRE_visual.png

    Bremen link is not working, neither is:
    http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de:8084/
    Page Load Error
    Connection Interrupted
    The connection to the server was reset while the page was loading.

    I think you broke it.
    🙂

  127. Djon said:
    August 2, 2010 at 12:53 pm
    stevengoddard,
    A suggestion – since your 5.5 million km² minimum extent prediction for this season isn’t based on the DMI extent graph but rather (I believe – correct me if I’m wrong and you prefer the NSIDC measure or some other one, not that you’re showing it either) on the published IARC-JAXA ice extent data, wouldn’t it be better to at least show the IARC-JAXA sea ice extent chart in each of these Sea Ice News posts? Sure people can go look at it themselves but how can you justify not showing the progress of the actual metric by which the success or failure of your prediction will be judged?
    _____
    For exactly the same reason Steve used to show the NSIDC graph for the Arctic when it was close to the mean value in March, but now it has gone well below he has swapped to the Antarctic version which is well above. When that goes below, and the trend is down, it will be forgotten too.
    It’s all part of the big game, however, Steve’s posts here are very worthwhile daily reading and I am glad he and Anthony are concentrating on this fascinating subject since climateaudit sadly gave it up for more spurious matters such as the weather in East Anglia, England, even though we tend to disagree in the main. It would be very boring if we all did 🙂
    Andy
    Andy

  128. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
    August 2, 2010 at 12:59 pm
    From: R. Gates on August 2, 2010 at 11:10 am
    Yes, please look at how cold those SST’s are in the Arctic:
    http://polar.ncep.noaa.gov/sst/ophi/color_anomaly_NPS_ophi0.png
    For an anomaly map without notation of what the baseline was nor how it was calculated, with -1 to 0°C on the edges where melt is expected and only 0 to 1°C for the majority of the area, looks rather average and not that bad for the Arctic basin. Heck, that could be just +0.1 above for most of the basin for a baseline with covers some very large sea ice extents, thus boding well for the 2010 minimum.
    ________
    Heck, with logic like that, you’ll convince yourself that we are seeing much colder SST’s in the Arctic than normal. The data is what it is. Wide ranging higher than normal SST’s in and around the Arctic. And I’m not sure what you mean by “boding well for the 2010 minimum. The minimum is tracking below 2008 & 2009 but slightly above 2007 right now, with lots of lower concentration ice melting rapidly, tracking pretty much where I thought it would be. 2010 is a continuation of the sharp drop in summer minimums we’ve been seeing the past few years…nothing surprising.

  129. savethesharks says:
    August 2, 2010 at 1:04 pm
    Fuzzylogic19 says:
    August 1, 2010 at 11:55 pm
    savethesharks says:
    August 1, 2010 at 10:59 pm
    What fuzzylogic19 and RGates and many others can not seem to comprehend…(or don’t want to comprehend)….in regards to 30 years of satellite measurement of ice:
    How many 30 year periods does it take to get 4.6 billion?
    4.6 Billion / 30 = 153,000,000
    ***
    And the relevance?
    =====================================
    Figure it out yourself.
    Res Ipsa Loquiter
    _________
    Except for the fact that there were not humans around during 99.9% of that time dumping CO2 into the atmosphere are rates far beyond anything that the natural geological cycle would create. To argue that the last 30 years are not important because they are ONLY 30 years of a much longer history of earth is like saying that the 10 seconds that someone is having a heart attack ought to be ignored as a aberration if they enjoyed a lifetime of good health up to that point. Illogical…

  130. A request:
    There is ~6 weeks left till minimum. This is getting interesting. Could Arctic updates be twice a week instead of just once a week for these last 6 – 7 weeks? Let’s say Wednesday and Sunday, or Thursday and Sunday, instead of just Sunday? There is a long list of comments in this thread since yesterday so I can see it’s not just me sitting on the edge of my seat waiting until minumum happens. Both sides, and those that are neutral, (if there are any of those), seem to be watching a good sporting event.
    There could be enough change in Arctic ice during the week where a second update would be worth it.

  131. This may have been answered before, but has anyone seen or know of an explanation of the continuing large discrepancy between the Arctic ice area numbers for CT and Nansen Arctic ROOS?

  132. Dave says:
    August 2, 2010 at 8:04 am
    The past two days have had close to 100,000 melt each day. I refer to look at the numbers rather than the charts.
    An average around 40, 000 for the rest of the melt season will approach 2007 lows.
    Like I said , it will take an average under 30,000 per day to set a low of Steve’s predicted 5.5 million. Unless it slows quickly it should end up less than that.”
    The thing is, an average of 40,000 per day during August is not out of line with what we’ve seen in recent years. After August you generally see another 200-300 sq km lost. If both these things occur then its going to be very close to Stephens prediction.
    I’m still expecting a significant slowdown in melt within a week once most of the ice in the East Siberian and Chukchi Seas is gone. Were very shortly going to find out how “rotten” the ice is in the Arctic Basin.

  133. Viv Evans says:
    August 2, 2010 at 3:51 am
    [Tenuc says, August 2, 2010 at 12:10 am:
    “I think we are going to have an early start to the NH winter, as the first batch of swallows have already congregated on the telegraph poles and departed for warmer climes. This is 5 weeks earlier than normal here on the south coast of the UK and is not a good sign.”
    “Is it possible that you have been seeing swifts, rather than swallows?
    Swifts migrate back around the middle of August, swallos and house martins stay until September.
    But even if you saw swifts rather than swallows – it is indeed a bit early for them to start leaving.”

    No Viv, it was definitely swallows. I’ve not seen any swifts locally for the last three years only swallows and martins. This is why I was surprised and think we’re in for a very early winter.

  134. Peter Ellis says:
    August 2, 2010 at 10:33 am
    stevengoddard says:
    Meltponds confusing the satellite data.
    So the abnormally low concentration data is due to an abnormally high degree of melt ponding? Are these the same melt ponds you keep telling us are frozen over? Just for the record…
    Too bad it’s been so dang cloudy up there that looking at the sat. images has been less fun. Still, are those melt ponds, or open water spaces that can be seen all over through the clouds?
    http://ice-map.appspot.com/

  135. stevengoddard says:
    August 2, 2010 at 10:13 am
    R. Gates
    Within two days, 30% concentration ice will be the highest since 2006.
    But I appreciate your determination to melt the ice. Keep cranking that CO2 out of your computer!

    There’s probably some heavy breathing going on making more co2 as everyone watches the graphs.

  136. @jakers Anything you can see by eye from a sat image is open water, not melt ponding. The *highest* resolution satellite pictures are 250 m / pixel. You can see the size of melt ponds from the arctic webcam: from a few metres to a few tens of metres. It would be a very rare melt pond that occupied even a single pixel of a satellite image. On such images, melt ponding manifests as an overall darkening / “greying out” of the ice, rather than anything large enough to see as a distinct feature.

  137. Why is the arctic already starting to re-freeze this year?
    I thought this never occurred until September. Does anyone have any older references or data of this early of an occurrence this early?
    My only guess is that due to the low angle of the sun of about 16 degrees now and the melt ponds being calm nearly totally reflect all radiation at that angle or lower. With zero degree air above even with the clouds you get a radiance-to-sky freezing. The satellites still see darker areas but they are looking nadir or straight down and not at this narrow angle.
    Anyone else noticed this?

  138. jakers,
    In the UIUC animation you can see how flaky the microwave satellite data is. Areas of low concentration ice bounce around hundreds of miles, appear and disappear just about every day.
    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/CT/animate.arctic.color.0.html
    Unfortunately, UIUC appears to have taken their archive of more believable lower resolution images off line. I wonder what’s up with that?
    http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh
    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/ARCHIVE/

  139. David W says:
    August 2, 2010 at 2:54 pm
    I’m still expecting a significant slowdown in melt within a week once most of the ice in the East Siberian and Chukchi Seas is gone. Were very shortly going to find out how “rotten” the ice is in the Arctic Basin.

    Don’t forget the Beaufort Sea:
    ftp://ftp-projects.zmaw.de/seaice/NEAR_REAL_TIME/201008/Arc/20100801.png
    ftp://ftp-projects.zmaw.de/seaice/NEAR_REAL_TIME/201008/Arc/20100802.png
    And yes, we’re going to find out many things in the next two months.

  140. Slightly off topic, but why has “Cryosphere Today” changed the way it colors the ice? 90%, 85% and 80% concentrations all used to be shades of purple, but now 90% seems to be vivid red, 85% is vivid yellow, and 80% is a lime green.
    In other words, where “Cryosphere Today” once showed vast areas of purple, one now sees an extraordinary patchwork of clashing hues.
    The first day I clicked onto ” Cryosphere Today ” and witnessed this new color scheme, I had the sense some amazing calamity had overtaken the polar ice. Had the North Pole been nuked?

  141. Anu says:
    August 2, 2010 at 5:12 pm
    Don’t forget the Beaufort Sea:
    ftp://ftp-projects.zmaw.de/seaice/NEAR_REAL_TIME/201008/Arc/20100801.png
    ftp://ftp-projects.zmaw.de/seaice/NEAR_REAL_TIME/201008/Arc/20100802.png
    And yes, we’re going to find out many things in the next two months.”
    According to Cryosphere Today, the Beaufort Sea ice is nearly all gone already and there hasnt been anything spectacular about the rate of loss for that area this season. As far as i can tell it hasnt been a major driver of this seasons variations and won’t be for the remainder of the melt season.

  142. Caleb says:
    August 2, 2010 at 6:52 pm
    “Slightly off topic, but why has “Cryosphere Today” changed the way it colors the ice? 90%, 85% and 80% concentrations all used to be shades of purple, but now 90% seems to be vivid red, 85% is vivid yellow, and 80% is a lime green.
    In other words, where “Cryosphere Today” once showed vast areas of purple, one now sees an extraordinary patchwork of clashing hues.”
    The AGW block has such a culture of data manipulation that this sort of thing will continue its crescendo like a sky rocket until the final explosion of stars into darkness. Each is doing what he/she can in the short time available in the face of their failure to convince the public – 58% rejection and counting.

  143. I think it’s clear Arctic ice is not in a death spiral. Everyone can agree. 😉

  144. Arctic ice should be near minimum about the same time Brett Favre and the Vikings are getting some vengeance for their playoff loss to New Orleans.

  145. Julienne Stroeve says:
    August 1, 2010 at 8:38 pm
    I think it is highly likely that 2010 will drop below 5.5 million sq-km.

    My guess, posted at the end of June on The Blackboard along with about two dozen others’ guesses, was 5.1 million. My reason was that I figured this would be the most annoying to both sides.

  146. From: R. Gates on August 2, 2010 at 1:40 pm

    Heck, with logic like that, you’ll convince yourself that we are seeing much colder SST’s in the Arctic than normal. The data is what it is.

    The last part is my point. You threw up a link to an anomaly graph of unknown baseline while talking about how warm the waters were. At best, it shows temps relative to something, with most of the Arctic basin at some unknown temp somewhere between 0 and 1°C above something. Since the salt water of the basin can be below zero without freezing, by that anomaly map relative to something, for all one can tell that whole yellow area could be below the freshwater freezing point, while you are talking about the ice melting due to warm water.
    Thus that anomaly graph is not data, as it is not known what it is referencing. It is garbage.
    And since the baseline is unknown, it may well be showing that temps are below what is currently normal, although offhand since you threw up a simple link it likely is related to something current.
    Backing up the URL, I found the originating page:
    http://polar.ncep.noaa.gov/sst/ophi/Welcome.html
    Which lead to this graph showing actual temperatures:
    http://polar.ncep.noaa.gov/sst/ophi/color_sst_NPS_ophi0.png
    Which clearly shows most of the Arctic basin is at least MINUS 1.5°C and colder. Good luck getting lots of sea ice melt at those “warm” sea surface temperatures.

  147. R. Gates says:
    August 2, 2010 at 2:14 pm
    savethesharks says:
    August 2, 2010 at 1:04 pm
    Fuzzylogic19 says:
    August 1, 2010 at 11:55 pm
    savethesharks says:
    August 1, 2010 at 10:59 pm
    What fuzzylogic19 and RGates and many others can not seem to comprehend…(or don’t want to comprehend)….in regards to 30 years of satellite measurement of ice:
    How many 30 year periods does it take to get 4.6 billion?
    4.6 Billion / 30 = 153,000,000
    ***
    And the relevance?
    =====================================
    Figure it out yourself.
    Res Ipsa Loquiter
    _________
    Except for the fact that there were not humans around during 99.9% of that time dumping CO2 into the atmosphere are rates far beyond anything that the natural geological cycle would create. To argue that the last 30 years are not important because they are ONLY 30 years of a much longer history of earth is like saying that the 10 seconds that someone is having a heart attack ought to be ignored as a aberration if they enjoyed a lifetime of good health up to that point. Illogical…
    ================================
    Assumptions. Assumptions. ASSumptions.
    All you know how to do is make ASSumptions, R.
    You can’t prove rates “far beyond the natural or geological record.”
    You can’t make the link between anthropogenic pollution (no one will deny there is a problem there) and CO2 being a “pollutant” and CO2 rises in the atmosphere being largely anthropogenic in origin.
    And don’t spin my argument and say that I said the last 30 years are not important.
    I did NOT say that.
    Also, thanks for the good laugh on the “heart attack” analogy.
    The Earth is about to have a heart attack?
    Well you can go on believing that.
    I am glad though, that you ended your words with the word “illogical” because that is the pot calling the ole kettle black.
    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  148. Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
    August 2, 2010 at 8:09 pm
    I think it’s clear Arctic ice is not in a death spiral. Everyone can agree. 😉
    ____________
    Thanks for the comic relief.

  149. David W says:
    August 2, 2010 at 6:56 pm
    According to Cryosphere Today, the Beaufort Sea ice is nearly all gone already and there hasnt been anything spectacular about the rate of loss for that area this season. As far as i can tell it hasnt been a major driver of this seasons variations and won’t be for the remainder of the melt season.

    OK, fair enough – let me be more explicit:
    Don’t forget the Beaufort Sea, and the Arctic Basin north of its boundary line. The Beaufort Sea has the warmest water closest to the sea ice:
    http://ocean.dmi.dk/satellite/plots/satsst.arc.d-00.png
    Cryosphere Today has useful graphs for the various Seas, but its mask of the regions is not too accurate:
    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/region.mask.gif
    The Beaufort, Chukchi and East Siberian Seas are defined differently outside of the Arctic Climate Research group at UIUC:
    http://www.deepseawaters.com/image/Beaufort_Sea.jpg
    http://www.worldatlas.com/aatlas/infopage/chucksea.gif
    http://www.worldatlas.com/aatlas/infopage/esibsea.gif
    As long as Cryosphere Today covers the entire Arctic, and is consistent year to year, it doesn’t really matter how they slice it up…
    However the different organizations define the regions, the Beaufort, Chukchi, East Siberian, and Laptev Seas and the Arctic Basin north of them are the areas that will melt most in the next 6 or 7 weeks.
    http://www.worldatlas.com/aatlas/infopage/laptvsea.gif
    Looks like the ice is pretty thin already in many places:
    ftp://ftp-projects.zmaw.de/seaice/NEAR_REAL_TIME/Arc_latest_large.png

  150. stevengoddard says:
    August 2, 2010 at 6:43 pm
    Anu
    Here is my forecast. You will say in September that I just got lucky.

    That’s the spirit !
    Don’t admit defeat until the bitter, bitter end.
    That makes it more fun for me.

  151. ‘Striling English says:
    August 1, 2010 at 10:43 pm
    The UK soccer season is soon to start.
    As everyone here seems to be so fascinated with making forecasts rather than seeing what actually happens..- much like the criticism rightly made of those who mistake climate model output for experiments – can anyone help me with my wee little flutters for the footie?
    I need outright winners for the Premiership, Championship, Division1 and the FA Cup.
    Thanks in advance.’
    The Premiership will oscillate wildly until Christmas, as then the scottish journos can back and lay multiple horses and make money from them all through fluctuating odds. Then after Christmas the serious money will back one horse and the matches will be arranged accordingly. As the Arabs are the richest, they should not be disregarded.
    Championship: I’d back Notts Forest as Billy D. didn’t want to get promoted last year as he got promoted too soon with Derby and lost his job as a result. And SAF wants another Scottish manager in the EPL: they’re always his friends.
    League 1: Southampton.
    FA Cup: not Arsenal as Wenger thinks it’s a diddly cup.

  152. R. Gates says:
    August 2, 2010 at 9:19 pm
    Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
    August 2, 2010 at 8:09 pm
    I think it’s clear Arctic ice is not in a death spiral. Everyone can agree. 😉
    ____________
    Thanks for the comic relief.
    ——————————————————————–
    I knew there would be a few that didn’t agree.

  153. Phil writes:
    “What part of ‘surface’ don’t you understand?”
    In most of the central Arctic there is no water surface to measure, because it is covered by ice. I just wondered how they manage to measure the water temperature there.

  154. ” Marcia, Marcia says:
    August 2, 2010 at 2:39 pm
    Could Arctic updates be twice a week instead of just once a week for these last 6 – 7 weeks? There is a long list of comments in this thread since yesterday”
    Please not.
    Unfortunately, it is just a few people writing the same thing over and over again. And while I agree that Goddard’s way of presenting things is very good, you can get the most “important” information yourself (see Sea Ice Page).

  155. The “death spiral” of Dr. Mark Serreze:
    Who said this:
    “…probably too much was read into 2007, and (Serreze) would take some blame for that”
    Yes, it was, and he did:
    ttp://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/06/seaice_models/

  156. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
    August 2, 2010 at 8:32 pm
    Which clearly shows most of the Arctic basin is at least MINUS 1.5°C and colder. Good luck getting lots of sea ice melt at those “warm” sea surface temperatures.
    _____________________________________________________________
    And what is the melting point of sea ice?
    Or conversely. what is the freezing point of seawater?
    “Sea ice is largely formed from seawater that freezes. Because the oceans consist of salt water, this occurs below the freezing point of pure water, at about -1.8 °C (28.8 °F).”
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_ice
    “The freezing point of sea water decreases with increasing salinity and is about −2 °C (28.4 °F) at 35 g/L (equivalent to 599 mM). The coldest sea water ever was discovered in a stream under a glacier in the Antarctic in 2010 and measured −2.6 °C (27 °F).”
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seawater
    Methinks “lots of sea ice melt at those “warm” sea surface temperatures” will indeed occur, until oh, sometime in the middle of September. D’oh!

  157. savethesharks says:
    August 2, 2010 at 8:36 pm
    R. Gates says:
    August 2, 2010 at 2:14 pm
    savethesharks says:
    August 2, 2010 at 1:04 pm
    Fuzzylogic19 says:
    August 1, 2010 at 11:55 pm
    savethesharks says:
    August 1, 2010 at 10:59 pm
    What fuzzylogic19 and RGates and many others can not seem to comprehend…(or don’t want to comprehend)….in regards to 30 years of satellite measurement of ice:
    How many 30 year periods does it take to get 4.6 billion?
    4.6 Billion / 30 = 153,000,000
    ***
    And the relevance?
    =====================================
    Figure it out yourself.
    ***
    Help!

  158. A couple of comments above about ocean temperatures below the sea ice.
    Here is an Arctic Ocean basin cross-section of temperatures down to the 4000M bottom for August produced by the US navy.
    The temps will be close to -2.0C at the surface – there is a warmer layer from 300 metres to 1000 metres which will be around +0.5C to 0.0C and then lower, the temperatures are about -0.5C to about -0.8C. [There is a slight seasonal change so that it is a little cooler in the winter months].
    http://a.imageshack.us/img62/7945/arcticdeepoceantemp.gif
    Antarctica is similar to this cross-section with the coolest water in the Weddel Sea.

  159. Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
    August 2, 2010 at 9:48 pm
    R. Gates says:
    August 2, 2010 at 9:19 pm
    Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
    August 2, 2010 at 8:09 pm
    I think it’s clear Arctic ice is not in a death spiral. Everyone can agree. 😉
    ____________
    Thanks for the comic relief.
    ——————————————————————–
    I knew there would be a few that didn’t agree.
    ___________
    I knew exactly what you meant…and that’s what made it so funny. Thank again for the chuckle! :))

  160. Isn’t this the time of year when the Russian nuclear-powered Ice Breakers head off to do thier escort duty?
    The Arctic is in no death spiral.
    What you see is a heat-pump effect to transfer the precious ocean heat energy out to space. The Sea Ice is merely in the way…temporarily. When the oceans have nothing less to burp up, that is when the cold reality sets in.
    Are we there yet?

  161. rbateman says:
    August 3, 2010 at 7:46 am
    Isn’t this the time of year when the Russian nuclear-powered Ice Breakers head off to do thier escort duty?
    The Arctic is in no death spiral.
    What you see is a heat-pump effect to transfer the precious ocean heat energy out to space. The Sea Ice is merely in the way…temporarily. When the oceans have nothing less to burp up, that is when the cold reality sets in.
    Are we there yet?
    ________________
    Are we waiting for cold? Outside of the cyclical La Nina, don’t hold your breath. When the next El Nino rolls around in 2012-2013 on top of Solar Max from Cycle 24 increased irradiance, you’ll see some very warm temps…take that to the bank.

  162. My current estimate for minimum Arctic sea ice extent (based off of 2003-2010 JAXA data) = 4.66E6 km^2 (standard deviation = 0.31E6 km^2).

  163. Fuzzylogic19 says:
    August 3, 2010 at 2:27 am
    4.6 Billion / 30 = 153,000,000
    ***
    And the relevance?
    =====================================
    Figure it out yourself.
    ***
    Help!
    ————————-
    Ok, I’ll bail you out. He’s pointing out the insignificance of a 30 year period compared to the age of the earth.

  164. R. Gates says:
    August 3, 2010 at 9:11 am
    ________________
    Are we waiting for cold? Outside of the cyclical La Nina, don’t hold your breath. When the next El Nino rolls around in 2012-2013 on top of Solar Max from Cycle 24 increased irradiance, you’ll see some very warm temps…take that to the bank.
    ————————–
    another prediction. With a smaller solar max likely for cycle 24 than 23 or 22, I wouldn’t bet the farm on it.

  165. stevengoddard,
    “WUWT has a great link which takes you to JAXA and the rest of the data.
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/sea-ice-page/
    Your sea ice page also includes the DMI temperature and arctic sea ice extent graphs and the NSIDC Antarctic sea ice extent graph and yet somehow you saw fit to include them in this Sea Ice News even though none of them show the progress of the metric by which your 5.5 million sq km minimum (which I take it from your not correcting me on it you agree is a prediction for the IARC-JAXA minimum, not one of the other extent measures out there) will be judged. It’s as though you were in charge of auditing the way an annual budget was spent and you gave a monthly status report that only included expenditures to date in a separate appendix that people had to take the initiative to go look at after your presentation.

  166. From: EFS_Junior on August 3, 2010 at 1:38 am

    And what is the melting point of sea ice?
    Or conversely. what is the freezing point of seawater?
    “Sea ice is largely formed from seawater that freezes. Because the oceans consist of salt water, this occurs below the freezing point of pure water, at about -1.8 °C (28.8 °F).”
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_ice

    Said entry clearly states:

    The sea ice is largely fresh, since the ocean salt is expelled from the forming and consolidating ice by a process called brine rejection. The resulting highly saline (and hence dense) water is an important influence on the ocean overturning circulation.

    And with SST’s of -1.5°C and below, not only is most of the Arctic basin below where that largely fresh-water ice will melt, it’s possible there is new ice being formed right now. A temperature map with a resolution of 0.1°C, or at least 0.2°C, is indicated to confirm if new ice could be forming.

    Methinks “lots of sea ice melt at those “warm” sea surface temperatures” will indeed occur, until oh, sometime in the middle of September. D’oh!

    Well, at least it’s true your statement does have a Homer Simpson-ish quality to it. “D’oh!” indeed.
    Got donuts?
    Random brain farts musings: “Donut” was “doughnut” which is a ring of dough which does not resemble any food item commonly known as a nut but does bear a passing resemblance to the mechanical fastener known as a nut due to the ring shape. Though it has been hypothesized that “doughnut” referred to what we now know as donut holes, although said holes likely existed before donuts as rings existed leading to the paradox where the holes existed before the item that was holed.
    Were pretzels almost known as doughknots? That could be confusing, having “donuts” and “donots” both exist.

  167. Steve M. from TN says:
    August 3, 2010 at 9:54 am
    R. Gates says:
    August 3, 2010 at 9:11 am
    ________________
    Are we waiting for cold? Outside of the cyclical La Nina, don’t hold your breath. When the next El Nino rolls around in 2012-2013 on top of Solar Max from Cycle 24 increased irradiance, you’ll see some very warm temps…take that to the bank.
    ————————–
    another prediction. With a smaller solar max likely for cycle 24 than 23 or 22, I wouldn’t bet the farm on it.
    __________
    Even with the long and deep solar minimum, we only saw global temps flatline, but not make any dramatic plunge. If you believe that CO2 is driving long term trends in AGW, then the smaller and short-lived cycles such as the solar cycles and ENSO are simply riding on top of this forcing, and any extra push we get from them pushes temps toward records, as we saw in the first half of 2010. Solar cycle 24 need not be robust to give an extra kick to temps, especially when added to an El Nino. A good review on the handy graphs found here: (click on sun in the left hand column)
    http://www.climate4you.com/
    Displays all of this quite nicely.

  168. Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
    August 1, 2010 at 9:50 pm
    Julienne Stroeve says:
    August 1, 2010 at 7:36 pm
    ======================================================
    I’ll ask again if 1979-2000 is a fair baseline? 21 years of data is a short period to base any conclusions on, especially since the early part of that data set was affected by the cooling of 1945 to 1975. The only way to not see a rapid growing trend in Arctic ice is to compare it to a data set that is too short. What would be fairer is a data set that goes back to 800 A.D. But we don’t have that. So we cannot conclude anything alarming about Arctic ice. And really, we cannot conclude anything.
    ***
    How does a period from 1945 to 1975 affect the baseline calculation of 1979 to 2000? There seems to be a four year gap during which sea ice extent was not even measured by satelite, which began mid 1979. Sea ice comes and goes, more than half melts in summer so how would you envisage by what means we could have sea ice measurements going back to 800 AD? It almost sounds like a lament. You cannot make something fairer by comparing with an impossible scenario. Can’t use a baseline for data over 21 years? A lot of people here use 24 hours.

  169. Steve M. from TN says:
    August 3, 2010 at 9:51 am
    “Ok, I’ll bail you out. He’s pointing out the insignificance of a 30 year period compared to the age of the earth.”
    ***
    Thanks for the help, however, that wasn’t too hard to figure out, hence I asked for relevance. He just looked back 4,599,999,970 years back, blissfully unaware that during that time the arctic may have been a continent and Antarctica an ocean, several times perhaps and a few snowball earths inbetween.
    He said that it would have been more fair to have gone back to 800AD, which we can’t, so why say it to begin with. Wishful thinking using absurdity.

  170. R. Gates says:
    August 3, 2010 at 11:41 am
    Displays all of this quite nicely.
    _________________________
    hmm, sorry, don’t see the correlation. 1998 el nino hit early in the solar cycle. And the drop (back to the same temperatures) after the peak of the el nino came at the peak of the solar cycle.

Comments are closed.