Sea Ice News #16

Strong La Nina plus negative AO. What happens weather-wise over North America?

Over to you Mr R Gates….

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?

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

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?

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.

Steinar
Good time for Lewis Pugh to take off in his kayak towards the North Pole.

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

stevengoddard says:
August 1, 2010 at 1:49 pm
Steinar
Good time for Lewis Pugh to take off in his kayak towards the North Pole.
_______________________________________
And have a meaningful encounter with a polar bear…. No thank you! http://www.explorersweb.com/oceans/news.php?id=19544

Steinar,
When I see these lists of temperature anomalies I go looking for the Stevenson Screens. We know where the one at Svalbard Luft is located, right next to the large, paved, parking area. Jan Mayen isn’t located much better. It’s right next to the meteorological building, which is next to the airstrip.
http://www.jan-mayen.no/met-stn/Bilder/mettenOgBeerenberg_panorama.jpg
Should I search for the others?

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/

With all these anecdotal stories of ice melting, can someone answer a simple question?
Is the world inventory of ice increasing, or decreasing?
Anyone?

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

@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.

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/

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.

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

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? 😉

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

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 ?

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

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. 😉

The world inventory of ice has been decreasing since the end of the last ice age, when glaciers covered Chicago and New York a mile deep.

Otter,
You don’t need to go back half a billion years – 6/7 thousand will do it!
http://www.ngu.no/en-gb/Aktuelt/2008/Less-ice-in-the-Arctic-Ocean-6000-7000-years-ago/

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

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.
***
?

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

DirkH
Thanks. It is much easier to visualize the earth in equal area 3D projections.

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.

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.

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).

Julienne,
OK, your new prediction is noted.

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)

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.

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.

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.

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.

Fuzzylogic19
I bet you miss those days when all of Canada and much of Northern Europe were buried under miles of ice.

Maybe some comments about the Northwest Passage next week for us with less time to look around.

Robert,
Note NCEP is forecasting freezing temperatures in portions of the NWP next week.
http://climateinsiders.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/ncepaug1.jpg

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.

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!!

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

AndyW
8806563 – 6922031 = 1884532
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/plot.csv

153,000,000

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.

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!

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.

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.

Einar Midtskogen writes:
“It’s currently possible to circumnavigate all of Svalbard without meeting ice, which is unusual.”
According to Norsk Polarinstitutt it was possible in 7 out of 10 years in the thirties (1930-31, 1933, 1936-39). See ice-maps at:
http://acsys.npolar.no/ahica/quicklooks/looks.htm

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?

So, it’s *not* looking good for a water-ski circumnavigation of the Pole.
Again…

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.

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.

Jimmy Haigh
That pond has been frozen for several weeks.

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.

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?

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.

Sea ice area in the Arctic Basin continues to decline at an anomalous rate.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.1.jpg
Maybe it is a little early to declare a climate “recovery”.
[maybe it is a little too early to declare anomalous rate from one graph without comparing it to other years. look at how fast the increase i ice happened ~mod]

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.

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.

“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

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…

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.

” 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.

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.

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.

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
Now I know that traditionally Bremen shows less than the Candian ice service, but I have never seen such a big difference. Any thoughts Steve or anyone?
Andy

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
Sarcasm off.
Hard for ice not to melt when the water is so warm all around it.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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

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.

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.

Other SST anomaly site –

jakers
As you move away from 90N, the temperatures get warmer.

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.

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?

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.

Anu
Here is my forecast. You will say in September that I just got lucky.

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.

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

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

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

‘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.

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.

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/

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!

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.

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?

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).

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.