by Steve Goddard
In April, I pointed out that PIOMAS forecasts for the summer didn’t make much sense.
The computer model is predicting that 3+ year old ice (which is probably in excess of 10 feet thick) is going to melt by early August. That seems rather far fetched.
It is now early August. Let us see how they did. They expected most of the ice to be gone in the Beaufort Sea by now, and much of the remaining ice to be very thin.
The most recent NSIDC newsletter included this map, showing that the thick multi-year ice is still present in the Beaufort Sea. This is in stark contrast to the PIOMAS prediction of thin ice in that region.
The image below shows in red where PIOMAS mispredicted the ice edge vs. NSIDC August 6 map. Green indicates areas where they overestimated the amount of ice.
This discrepancy will get worse through the remainder of the month. PIOMAS extent/thickness predictions are way off the mark, and their volume calculations are much too low.
As I forecast last week, DMI now shows 2010 ice extent highest since 2006.
Ice thickness remains between 2009 and 2006, just as PIPS data indicated it should back in May.
JAXA shows that divergence from 2007 continues steadily, and is now in excess of 700,000 km².
The JAXA area graph show that ice melt has dropped off dramatically.
NSIDC maps show little ice loss so far this month. There has been nearly as much gain (green) as loss (red.)
NCEP forecasts generally below normal temperatures for the next two weeks in the Arctic.
DMI shows that summer is just about done north of 80N, and has been the coldest on record (for that dataset starting in 1958). Average temperatures have fallen below freezing there.
Conclusion : There will probably be minimal ice loss during August. The minimum is likely to be the highest since 2006, and possibly higher than 2005. So far, my forecast of 5.5 million km² is looking very conservative. Ice extent is higher than I predicted for early August.
Meanwhile, down south. Antarctica continues gaining ice at a record pace. NSIDC showed it the highest on record for July.
Bremen shows it likely headed for a new record.
In Greenland, we are bombarded with stories about “losing Manhattan sized chunks of ice.” The BBC made it one of their lead stories yesterday. Yet the ice isn’t lost and the Greenland ice sheet has been having an exceptionally cold summer, as seen in the NOAA anomaly animation below.
Perhaps “some scientists” might want to actually check the Greenland temperature data before talking to the press? Under any circumstances, how would “abnormally warm” temperatures cause a 700 foot thick block of ice to fracture? The concept doesn’t make much sense from from an engineering point of view. A few months of (imagined) warm temperatures might cause a little surface melt, but the thermal conductivity of ice is much too low to alter the temperature and material strength of ice more than a few feet below the surface. I had this same discussion with Ted Scambos at NSIDC a few years ago about Antarctic Peninsula ice shelves.
The whole story is a complete ruse.
We are bombarded with misinformation about the state of polar ice. People’s brains have been programmed to believe that the last few ppm of CO2 have made a huge difference in the behaviour of the ice, and that belief makes their thought process irrational. People will find what they expect to find. It is human nature.
[snip – comparisons to WWII misinfo is not the tone we want to start this thread with ~mod]
10 day average is falling now. I would estimate 25 more days of melt at 40,000 sq km average. So 5.45m sq km left mid Sept.
I made some general comments on the CNN web-site ice-island story. The comment was liked by as many people as commented on my comment BUT all of the comments were questioning my sanity, authority, perspective etc. All demanded proof but none suppled anything of substance to rebut the lack of proof of CO2 contributing to “catastrophic” global warming, inaccuracy of climate models, connivance of Mann, the IPCC et al in proposing an agenda that ignored facts and included innuendo.
There is still a long row to hoe, but I am so glad that the upcoming and continuing cool spell will not be able to be co-opted by the climate change crowd as proof of the effect of their proposed taxes and restrictions. Timing IS everything.
Great article! The money quote:
[Maybe that should be: “75% irrational.”☺]
Steve and Anthony thank you for the reality update. It seems that this is the only place to get real science news. Probably a bit strong but certainly more accurate information than comes from corrupted U.S. government agencies.
Yet another nice and interesting posting, Steve.
Although I’m far from convinced that sea ice extent near the poles has more than a tangential and peripheral bearing on Global Warming. Let alone Anthropogenic Global Warming. Or that the sum of human happiness would be greatly different if there was twice as much ice in the Arctic, or half as much ice.
Still interesting though.
I’m still hoping our old chum R. Gates will stop by and let us know whether the “3xManhattan” ice chunk is a good thing or a bad thing. Bad in the sense that it is the biggest (worst??) for 60 years and signifies Climate Doom. (Although I suppose R. Gates might think this was 70% a “good thing” and 30% a “bad thing”. Or perhaps that should be the other way round?
Or altenatively a “good thing” because it was certainly colder in 1962 (according to all the climate models, anyway) and the chunk that broke off then was more than twice as big.
So, perhaps it is a bad good thing or a good bad thing. I must admit it is a little confusing. And I’m 70% sure it is all due to CO2. Or not.
It’s frustrating. I just have to keep hoping he’ll level with us. After all, as the Arctic Sea Ice’s answer to Dr. Sheldon Cooper, he’s bound to know.
Other points about this years melt are the number of days when the 10 day ave has exceeding 80k sq km/day
Year 80k or more
2003 11
2004 12
2005 18
2006 16
2007 37
2008 25
2009 24
2010 17
Something new is when this fast melt occurred this year. The fast melt has been in May and June , none since July 5th . In the other years the fast melt has been in July and August.
This implies that the melt this year has been thin 1 year ice. The multi-year ice is harder to shift and won’t melt now.
Considering what is coming this winter, next years minimum might get back to the 6.25/6.5m sq km range.
I suggest actually reading the NSIDC report from which the map came. Does the critique here still hold up?
looking good been watching sea ice everyday for years. whats happening warmers???????????
Regarding the Greenland glacier calving: What’s not being mentioned is the fact that if less ice were being ‘manufactured,’ then there would be less ice calving.
The glacier is merely shedding excess ice as glaciers will.
If there were LESS ice, then it would be losing its mass by melting, rather than by calving.
doug carmichael says:
August 8, 2010 at 8:20 am
I suggest actually reading WUWT.com. Then you’d know they actually cover the NSIDC newsletters and don’t just quote/data mine.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/05/analysis-of-nsidc-august-4-news/
Does your critique here still hold up?
-Scott
Steve, I noticed on the sea ice page that one of the data sets is showing a slight uptick in ice extent…presumably due to spreading of the ice:
http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/observation_images/ssmi1_ice_area.png
Since the 30% extent is high relative to the last few years and the ice is also thicker than 2008/09, is this part of the reason you think we may top 5.5 M sq. km?
Also, any updates/comments with respect to the NSIDC data discrepancy versus the other data sets?
-Scott
The AO is slightly positive and the NAO remains negative as it has since a year ago and is no doubt correlated with the sea ice volume buildup last winter that PIOMAS some how cannot find.
http://ioc3.unesco.org/oopc/state_of_the_ocean/atm/nao.php
Note how fast the sea ice volume was estimated to have increased from 1955 to 1969 when the NAO remained strongly negative.
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/zhang/IDAO/retro.html#Satellite_ice
Even though the last few days have been of slow melt, I still think we will end up just a tad below last year. But, that’s more than I first originally thought.
In the event we do finish higher than last year, then it starts looking contradictory for the NOAA to be claiming the hottest year on record, yet sea ice area keeps growing.
Doug .. .it doesn’t matter what “commentary” NSIDC put up. The “critique” is based purely on data.
I would say it is specticular, as a skeptic, even back to early July I thought it is hard to have the 2010 minimum NH ice area higher than 2009, but now, with an arctic temperature dropping below zero almost 1 whole month before “normal” and the outlook that support a negetive abnormalty for more than a week, the odd is now far better than 50/50 that 2010 minimum NH sea ice area will be higher than that of 2009.
I haven’t looked at how the ice broke, but I’d imagine it has to do with the glacier extending too far out over the water and thus being subjected to an extremely high bending moment where water meets land.
As the glacier protrudes out into the sea, the part sticking out over the water is not in deep enough – there’s not enough buoyant force acting to it. Eventually the bending moment is too much and the glacier fractures and sinks into the water.
Isn’t this called calving? Or is calving more a shearing force type of failure?
What happened to my last comment?! It melted away!
[Both of your comments found in the spam filter & posted now. ~dbs]
In fact, it will be interesting to see when the 2010 minimum NH sea ice area take place, given the arctic temperature already dropping below 0 in early August.
We are living in interesting time.
The glacier breaking off was probably due to an excessive bending moment acting on the part protruding over the water. It sounds to me it was some kilometers into the water and not submerged as much as it should have been. And so the chunk broke off.
“We are bombarded with misinformation about the state of polar ice. People’s brains have been programmed to believe that the last few ppm of CO2 have made a huge difference in the behaviour of the ice, and that belief makes their thought process irrational. People will find what they expect to find. It is human nature.”
___________________________
It’s a Dog eat Dog, Man eat Dog world out there! It’s produce or perish everywhere you go! And if you work for the MSM, you better publish what the Boss wants to see and hear or you, your wife and kids, and your cat, dog, and parakeet are toast. Imagine trying to make it in today’s world without all the perks, and health insurance, and social security, and union protection, and stocks and bonds and Roth IRA’s. Can’t be done! It just can’t be done! Human Nature has always been about Man eat Dog, or anything else he can get his hands on. Such is life. Civilization, law and order, Hav’erd MBA’s, whatever, it’s all just a lot of smoke and mirrors. It’s a Dog eat Dog, Man eat Dog world out there! Always has been! The AGW stuff? It’s just another excuse to bite somebody’s leg off or steal from their savings account.
Do note that the ice fracture mechanism for antarctic ice shelves is quite well known and is due to melt ponds on the surface reaching the bottom of the ice shelf causing it to fracture and break up. That is why larsen A and B both split into tiny pieces. Another thing to consider that many times ice losses in polar regions are not so well correlated with air temperature but rather with sea temperature. Warming oceans are the major cause of ice losses in much of Greenland therefore wouldn’t it be more accurate to make that comparison? I do think that whoever said it was “abnormally warm” was wrong but that by showing it was cold doesn’t address the real mechanisms at play. Once again Goddard it seems that you ignore the real issues at play to make a swipe at the glaciological community.
899’s comment above seems correct. Further, it might have been used as proof of global cooling in the early 70’s.
Well, they say that there is nothing global warming cannot do. Or AGW alarmists.
That appears to be about right. They have made watching the ice melt exciting.
Them and our St. God!
As usual, I’m confused.
So we have this really great graph of ice thickness, over the entire Arctic? If so, what was the purpose of the Catlin expedition? If we know the thickness and extent, we should know the volume, an issue of much contention on previous threads.
Will someone pound some information into my thick head?
Robert said
“Another thing to consider that many times ice losses in polar regions are not so well correlated with air temperature but rather with sea temperature. ”
————————————————————————————–
Arctic ocean heat content has been falling rapidly since 2007. From Bob Tisdale:
http://i49.tinypic.com/5ebpua.jpg
“We are bombarded with misinformation about the state of polar ice. People’s brains have been programmed to believe that the last few ppm of CO2 have made a huge difference in the behaviour of the ice, and that belief makes their thought process irrational.”
=================================
Repeated here for effect.
Hear, hear, Stephen!
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Smokey says:
August 8, 2010 at 7:49 am
[Maybe that should be: “75% irrational.”☺]
===================================
Roger that! LOL
Here is a nice peer reviewed paper that says it all. Not even Mann can make these warm periods disapear!?
http://www.giub.unibe.ch/klimet/docs/climdyn_2007_grosjean_et_al.pdf
Regards from the colder than “normal” Swiss mountains, Freddie
Hang on, I read that correctly, DMI 80 plus temperature has gone minus.
Bugger, it’s worse than we thought! CO2 has changed the latent temperature ice melts!
Oh noes! It’s that pesky weather thing, on a slight tangent, well a lot more than slight.
When the temperatures start to plummet around Moscow in a week or so’s time will the MSM report it? I suspect there will be rather more people dying from cold in and around Moscow from cold this winter than the 2000 or so drowning drunks.
There you go that’s my prediction, ( not projection or any other weasel word BS. prediction ), I think it is also fair to make another prediction in my home country, UK there will be absolute carnage amongst the elderly this winter. If I was a betting man I’d put the death toll at around 40,000, at least half of them because our environmentalist scum have put the price of fuel up.
Over in Europe they are doing their version of the DDT ban, environmentalists Tch! they hate people with a passion, if it really is that bad why don’t they lead by example and off themselves.
Sorry for the rant, just come back from explaining economics to the “entitled”, *sigh*
Buy long underwear now . . . we are all going to need it over the next 30+years.
And make sure your car’s antifreeze is up to snuff.
Generally ice sheets and glaciers break off when they are too big, as the stress exceeds the strength of the structure. Glaciers do not extend to the ocean and calve because they are suffering extended melting – it’s because they are moving forward and exceeding their limits. Of course, there are some cases where melting may exacerbate calving, but the case would usually be that the ice would not be melting at the sea’s edge, if the glacier were not at the sea’s edge. Melting glaciers generally recede, not advance.
Robert says:
August 8, 2010 at 9:07 am …….
I am somewhat confused by your post – are you suggesting that it was melt ponds that caused the ice to break off, and that the melt ponds were caused not by high air temperature but by warm oceans? I’d be fascinated to know how that works.
Steve, I’ll just just right to your conclusion to save time:
“Conclusion : There will probably be minimal ice loss during August. The minimum is likely to be the highest since 2006, and possibly higher than 2005. So far, my forecast of 5.5 million km² is looking very conservative. Ice extent is higher than I predicted for early August.”
__________
I’m not sure what you mean by “minimum”, but already for the first 8 days of August we’ve lost about 400,000+ sq. km in extent. In the past few days we’ve seen some divergence in the ice, as it has spread out more, reducing the APPARENT RATE of ice loss (if you are measuring ice loss solely by extent, and not volume). But this does not mean the ice has ceased to melt during this time. Divergence is a tricky thing if you’re measuring rates of melting only based on extent. Suppose for example, that I have a pile of melting ice cubes on a warm table in a room near freezing in air temperature and am measuring the total amount of ice only looking at the shrinking area that ice cubes occupy on the table as the cubes melt, disregarding the actual volume. Then suppose I “diverge” the ice cubes, scattering a few around the edges of the pile, then I might say the ice APPEARS to be melting more slowly, as the extent of the ice on the table has grown. The point to understand here is that the melting is occuring from the table (i.e. water) not from air, so that the rate of melt really didn’t change, only the area or extent diverged. I posit that this is exactly what is happening right now, and I based this on the warmer than average SST’s in the Arctic. (http://polar.ncep.noaa.gov/sst/ophi/color_anomaly_NPS_ophi0.png) The primary melting right now is from the water, and we’ve seen divergence in the ice, so we have in effect, spread the ice cubes out over a larger area of the table, and if anything, the actual melt rate (if we could measure volume) is higher. (where is CryoSat 2 data when you need it!)
As a side note, “rotten” comes about when this diverged ice doesn’t completely melt, and a new layer of ice forms between and on top of the diverged ice, giving the appearance of a more continuous expanse. But I know David Barber and his “rotten ice” are not very well received by some here on WUWT, but I thought I just point that out for those who care.
In terms of my own prediction of 4.5 million sq. km. extent, I’m standing by it, though it may not come until around the 20th to 25th of September. This will be a similar later low such as 2007 that saw a low on Sept. 24, or 2005 that saw a low on Sept. 22, as contrasted to years of earlier Sept. lows such as in 2008 when we hit it on Sept. 9. I base this later low, again, on the warmer water temps.
I think right now it is a matter of how fast this diverged ice actually melts enough to show up in a lowering of the extent. The period of divergence should come to an end fairly soon, but that is based mainly on weather of course.
Congressman Ed Markey doubles down on stupidity. All AGW “deniers” should be condemned to live out their last days on Manhattan size ice “island”. And…
“So far, 2010 has been the hottest year on record, and scientists agree arctic ice is a canary in a coal mine that provides clear warnings on climate…He said it was “unclear how many giant blocks of ice it will take to break the block of Republican climate deniers in the US Senate who continue hold this critical clean energy and climate legislation hostage.”
Somebody please inform this dullard that all the taxes in the world won’t prevent an ice shelf from calving off from momma glacier when the conditions are right.
http://motls.blogspot.com/2010/08/ed-markey-wants-icy-concentration-camp.html
I looked late last night at the JAXA area directly from their site, not the sea ice wuwt page, and it showed a tiny uptick to the area. This morning, gone. Anyone else notice that blip (or am I seeing things 🙂 )?
Robert,
Looks like you need to catch up on your reading.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19726433.500-natural-rifts-may-have-weakened-antarctic-ice-shelf.html
I understand Al Gore made sea ice (arctic only) a proxy for global temperature. It seems to me a very poor proxy. Clearly season (winter/summer) has the greatest short-term effect on arctic sea ice. But the next biggest factor is NOT global temperature but ocean currents. The 3rd biggest factor is likely prevailing winds — especially in the spring/summer.
An even worse proxy for global temperature is “ice thickness”. Ocean current flow is INTO the arctic from the N Pacific then a “bit of “wandering” and out into the N Atlantic … where any ice quickly melts whatever its thickness. By a “bit of wandering” I mean there are some circular currents within the arctic ocean which may delay the overall movement of water/ice to the SE. (The trip takes < 2Y for water not caught up in a circular flow).
In the diagram titled "Arctic Sea Ice: End of July 2010" there is clearly some multi-year ice along the east coast of Greenland. This ice is headed south and will melt over the next several months. There is also a lot of 1st year ice in the NE corner of the diagram. This ice is headed towards the pole and will NOT melt for over a year.
My recollection (from reading Surface at the Pole) is open sea (created when an ice flow cracks) will freeze about 4" in a day … another 3" the next day and about 1 foot in a week? The thicker the ice the more insulation it provides deeper water from very cold arctic air. Consequently, ice that is 2Y old is nearly at thick as ice that is 3Y old. Moreover an 11' thick ice flow is not going to last much longer than an ice flow 8' thick once it arrives in the N Atlantic in the summer?
My gut feeling is this whole thick-ice vs rotten-ice discussion is a straw-man used to confuse, rather than enlighten, the AGW debate.
How is this discussion possible. The respected Mr. Kallio says there is no sea ice!
http://climatesanity.wordpress.com/2010/07/03/entire-arctic-ocean-melted-as-early-as-august-8th-this-year/
R. Gates,
When September comes, are you going to just admit that I was correct?
Martin Brumby says:
I’m still hoping our old chum R. Gates will stop by and let us know whether the “3xManhattan” ice chunk is a good thing or a bad thing.
________
Martin,
I try not to use the terms “good” and “bad” when talking about natural events. I’ve never for example, be an “alarmist” here on WUWT, as I try to approach AGW from an objective as possible perspective.
Regarding the large chunk of ice that has broken off in Greenland. We know that in general Greenland has been losing ice mass (thank you GRACE), but whether or not that fact, or this particular event is related to AGW is still an unknown. We know that temps (especially water temps) in an around Greenland have been much warmer than average for many months, and last winter, with the negative AO index, we saw warmer temps over Greenland while the cold air was pushed south (to Florida, of all places!).
In looking at the general trend of Greenland losing ice mass and the calving of this glacier– neither is not out of character with the effects predicted by AGW, but that is not proof.
Scott
Just back from a nice ride in the mountains.
I’ve noticed that it is a common occurrence for ice to take a downtick right around NSIDC newsletter time.
PIOMAS is based on hypothesis. That hypothesis is turning out to be wrong. It doesn’t work in Nature. So that current hypothesis must be discarded and the folks at PIOMAS have to figure out where things went wrong.
“If it disagrees with experiment it’s wrong” ~ Richard Feynman
NSIDC maps today show extent more than 13% higher than the same date in 2007.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFEpSvTib9o]
People will find what they expect to find. It is human nature.
“Believing is easier than calculus. And we find that it is so much easier for someone to grasp a belief system in an idea and then just block out anything that might contradict that belief.”
~ John Christy
Has anybody actually looked at the satellite images lately? http://exploreourpla.net/explorer/?map=Arc&sat=ter&lon=0&lat=89,9&lvl=4&yir=2010&dag=219
The ice looks like it’s thin enough to be getting blown apart across nearly the whole arctic basin. It’s really spreading out. Wish we had an archive of these images to compare prior years.
video accompanying my previous comment
By definition the sea ice extent counts up to 85% open water as ice. As long as the floes are spreaded nicely, the sceptics will lean back and continue two dimensional thinking.
But the radar images speak the truth: extent is as usual, concentration is low.
http://exploreourpla.net/2010-08-06/arctic/envisat-asar-image-2010-08-06/
Scambos in New Scientist – February 16, 2008
Does the twice-a-day bending up and down of a floating glacier tongue due to tides cause it to break off near where the ice is grounded?
jakers
I will put you down as forecasting a huge melt the rest of the month.
noiv,
In 2007, ice extent was critically important. Now that it is recovering, that metric is no longer important.
Can someone please reconcile these two graphs, one of temps above 80 degrees north from DMI showing below average temps currently and the other from NOAA (via R. Gates) showing above average temps currently. It would appear the first would generate a negative anomaly while the second shows a generally positive anomaly.
DMI: http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
NOAA: http://polar.ncep.noaa.gov/sst/ophi/color_anomaly_NPS_ophi0.png
Either two data sources are reporting diametrically opposed data, or I clearly don’t understand what’s going on. Maybe SST is measuring something other than surface temps? Is that it?
stevengoddard says:
August 8, 2010 at 10:06 am
R. Gates,
When September comes, are you going to just admit that I was correct?
________
When the September LOW arrives and passes, we’ll see who is admitting what. It seems you don’t even address the issue of divergence in an honest way, equating melts rates with extent decline rates– which I feel is not at all accurate, and even misleading. The thermodynamics of the ice melting from the water doesn’t change on a dime, but extent can because of weather causing divergence in a short period. To think that this divergence means the ice suddenly stopped melting or even slowed down considerably in melting is misleading…it simply means the extent loss slows (i.e. the ice cubes spreading out on a warm table)
But as always, if I have been confused about the impact of warmer water temps, or the dynamics of divergence, or anything…the of course, come the September low, if you’re forecast of guess of 5.5 million sq. km. (or is it now 6.0?) is closer than my forecast of 4.5 million sq. km….then it will Mea Maxima Culpa…but either way I win, as my ultimate goal is to learn.
The McClure Straits (or M’Clure) are open in the PIOMAS August 6, 2010 forecast. But it is not open.
McClure Straits location
http://img411.imageshack.us/img411/3082/arcticu.gif
Cryosphere Today from 8/7/2010
http://img704.imageshack.us/img704/4298/arcticseaicecolor872010.png
Reuters reports:
“The ice island has an area of 100 square miles (260 square km) and a thickness up to half the height of the Empire State Building, said Andreas Muenchow, professor of ocean science and engineering at the University of Delaware.
Muenchow said he had expected an ice chunk to break off from the Petermann Glacier, one of the two largest remaining ones in Greenland, because it had been growing in size for seven or eight years. But he did not expect it to be so large.
“The freshwater stored in this ice island could keep the Delaware or Hudson Rivers flowing for more than two years,” said Muenchow, whose research in the area is supported by the National Science Foundation.
“It could also keep all U.S. public tap water flowing for 120 days.”
He said it was hard to judge whether the event occurred due to global warming because records on the sea water around the glacier have only been kept since 2003. The flow of sea water below the glaciers is one of the main causes of ice calvings off Greenland.
“Nobody can claim this was caused by global warming. On the other hand nobody can claim that it wasn’t,” Muenchow said.
Scientists have said the first six months of 2010 have been the hottest globally on record. The El Nino weather pattern has contributed to higher temperatures, but many scientists say elevated levels of man-made greenhouse gases are pushing temperatures higher.
The initial discovery of the calving was made by Trudy Wohlleben of the Canadian Ice Service.
The ice island could fuse to land, break up into smaller pieces, or slowly move south where it could block shipping, Muenchow said.
The last time such a large ice island formed was in 1962 when the Ward Hunt Ice Shelf calved an island. Smaller pieces of that chunk became lodged between real islands inside Nares Strait.”
Another professor who makes sure he does leave the door open for more funding…
The recently snapped-off chunk of Pederman Glacier in Greenland was a result of 20km movement over the period August 2007 to August 2010. Must be some serious buildup in Greenland to shove that much ice, that far, in that short of a time frame.
Excuse me while I grab a mouthful of helium.
jakers says:
August 8, 2010 at 10:29 am
Has anybody actually looked at the satellite images lately? http://exploreourpla.net/explorer/?map=Arc&sat=ter&lon=0&lat=89,9&lvl=4&yir=2010&dag=219
The ice looks like it’s thin enough to be getting blown apart across nearly the whole arctic basin. It’s really spreading out. Wish we had an archive of these images to compare prior years.
________
I’ve looked at it quite extensively and it my whole point about divergence (also mentioned by Julienne on a recent post). Common sense actually tells you if you spread ice cubes out on a warm table, it may appear (in a 2-dimensional way) that you have more, but in fact, if anything, the melt rates increase as you have more ice in contact with the warm table.
But even with the concentration data we have, although useful, we still need the CryoSat 2 data to give us a some true volume data. I would hope that next year perhaps we’ll get a Sea Ice Volume chart similar to the Extent chart that we have now, and it will be data and not a model. (Julienne, would this even possible from the CryoSat 2 data or do we know yet?)
Rod Everson says:
August 8, 2010 at 10:40 am
Your links are trying to compare DMI 80N temps with SST anomalies.
Try this:
http://polar.ncep.noaa.gov/sst/ophi/color_sst_NPS_ophi0.png
R. Gates
I’ll take that as a a “no.”
stevengoddard says:
August 8, 2010 at 10:38 am
jakers
I will put you down as forecasting a huge melt the rest of the month.
You can say the, um, oddest things…
So, what’s your take then on the images – you tend to never mention them, so maybe you don’t look at them or think it’s significant to eye-ball them?
stevengoddard says:
August 8, 2010 at 10:39 am
noiv,
In 2007, ice extent was critically important. Now that it is recovering, that metric is no longer important.
I think they’re hoping what has happened since 2007 will go away. Hoping something will go away is nothing new:
“The Americans are not here. We are pushing them back. We are cleaning them out.”
~ Baghdad Bob
Rod Everson says:
August 8, 2010 at 10:40 am
Can someone please reconcile these two graphs, one of temps above 80 degrees north from DMI showing below average temps currently and the other from NOAA (via R. Gates) showing above average temps currently. It would appear the first would generate a negative anomaly while the second shows a generally positive anomaly.
DMI: http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
NOAA: http://polar.ncep.noaa.gov/sst/ophi/color_anomaly_NPS_ophi0.png
Either two data sources are reporting diametrically opposed data, or I clearly don’t understand what’s going on. Maybe SST is measuring something other than surface temps? Is that it?
_________
They are measuring two different things, but I think you need to understand that the DMI “data” is a model, and not actual data as it uses ERA40 reanalysis data. Julienne spoke to this on a recent post and is far more qualified to address it, but in general, I don’t look at DMI “data” as a reliable guage. It might show you general trends.
Retired Engineer./ re Catlin
The answer to you question Sir is;
the world has to many idiots, Catlin, ( who is a prime example ) was fortunate enough to find some fellow travels who had deep pockets, after giving a ‘show’ the ticket holders not to compound their error, tip-toed out the fire exit.
The DMI page: http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php has an interesting feature. You can quickly click from year to year and get graphs of the data for each year starting in 1958. I did that and noticed something I found interesting.j
If you start in 1958, looking only at the summer months when the temp is above 273 K, it’s interesting how little variation there is from the average temp for that day. Almost none for the first 20 years or so. (My understanding of this phenomenon is that the ice prevents the air temperature from rising, much like water in a glass of ice responds as long as there’s ice remaining, but my understanding might be incorrect.)
Now, if you keep clicking through the years, you’ll start to see a bit more variation. 21 of the remaining 33 years (1978-2010) I would characterize as varying quite a bit from the average, especially considering the behavior from 1958-77.
The years 1978 and 1986 appear somewhat colder; otherwise the years from 1979 to 1989 fit the pattern from 1958 to 1977. Then, starting in 1990 things start jumping around and some years are clearly warmer than average (in the summer), some clearly colder, and some are erratic.
Here’s a breakdown:
Warmer than average: 1990, 91, 93, 94, 95, 98.
Erratic around the average: 1992, 97, 2000, 01, 07, 08
Colder than average (besides 78 and 86): 1996, 2003, 04, 05, 06, 09 and now 2010 the coldest of all it would appear.)
Only 1999 and 2002 tracked the average closely during the years 1990 to present.
Note now the warm years. All were in the 1990’s when most everyone agreed the average global temps were rising.
And now note the cold years: Aside from one random appearance in each decade from 1970 through the 1990’s, all of the six of the remaining cold years appear from 2003 to 2010, again with this year clearly the coldest of all. This corresponds to the period when many are saying the earth is cooling again, while others are arguing that it’s hotter than ever. However, for many of the warmists, the Arctic has become their “canary in the coal mine.” If so, the canary isn’t singing if we look directly at the variable we’re most concerned with, i.e., the actual temperature as measure directly by a thermometer, instead of spending day after day looking at a proxy for temperature (ice extent, area, volume) that we can’t easily measure and that is apparently also subject to wind, waves and other extraneous variables, including previous years’ conditions.
Or are we to not believe the DMI? Someone did comment a while back that one of their thermometer readings appeared stuck at -20 degrees C. But was it stuck for the past decade? I realize I’m only looking at a few months of each year, but it still seems to me to be relevant somehow. Thoughts?
From: Robert on August 8, 2010 at 9:07 am
Do note this previous WUWT article:
Scripps: Antarctic Ice Shelf Collapse Possibly Triggered by Ocean Waves
Good reading.
“….with the negative AO index, we saw warmer temps over Greenland while the cold air was pushed south (to Florida, of all places!).”
====================================
So?? Snow and cold events in Florida are not unheard of throughout its history.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_snow_events_in_Florida
And just because it was orange and red in Greenland this past winter, R, compared to the blues and purples in Florida, does NOT mean [LOL] that it was all freaky-thawy warm up there in Greenland last winter.
Against the means, yes….but still below freezing.
As to the Arctic Oscillation, it went profoundly negative in 1899, 1908, 1935, 1940, 1947, 1969…and many other negatives. See for yourself.
http://jisao.washington.edu/ao/aojfm18992002.jpgone
None of it, the Arctic Oscillation, the Florida purple and the Greenland and NE Canada orange of last Winter, has nothing to do with anything, and is ALL within the realms of natural variability.
Your posts are sometimes 75% interesting and informed, but sometimes 75% ridiculous.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
wayne says: ” .. JAXA showed a tiny uptick to the area. This morning, gone. Anyone else notice ?”
I closely watched the daily JAXA sea ice extent data during August/September in the last couple of years. Didn’t hold onto the data.
To recollection, initial daily data in the trough has tended to come out on the low side, as it tended to be revised upward (increasing the extent) for a period after initial publication. Don’t know why this might be.
Also April 2010 was highest in the sea ice extent series. Again, I did not keep the data, but the high appears to have diminished somewhat since first published.
I’d urge a good dash of caution when initial data comes out across the August/September trough.
stevengoddard says:
August 8, 2010 at 10:39 am
noiv,
In 2007, ice extent was critically important. Now that it is recovering, that metric is no longer important.
________
Steve, you have actually made the call that Arctic sea extent is “recovering”? Hmmm….seems a tad bit premature I’d say. Sort of like your excitement during the March-April “bump up” event this year, where even the much beloved skeptic pundit Rush Limbaugh was claiming the Arctic sea ice was recovering, only to see the steep decline we saw in May and June.
I personally would think no “recovery” of Arctic sea ice extent could even be seen for several years, during which time the summer minimum would have to consistently rise into the 6, 7 and 8 million km. range. Anyway, that would be the scientific standard for a recovery, but I understand there may be other standards that have nothing to do with science.
For some reason that above link would not post. Let me try that again…
http://jisao.washington.edu/ao/aojfm18992002.jpg
The professor said:
“The last time such a large ice island formed was in 1962 when the Ward Hunt Ice Shelf calved an island. Smaller pieces of that chunk became lodged between real islands inside Nares Strait.”
————————————————————-
1962 was in the middle of a period (1955-1969) when arctic sea ice volume was estimated to be rapidly growing.
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/zhang/IDAO/retro.html#Satellite_ice
“Nobody can claim this was caused by global warming. On the other hand nobody can claim that it wasn’t,” Muenchow said.
Nobody can claim this was caused by the fairies at the bottom of my garden. On the other hand ….
stevengoddard says:
August 8, 2010 at 10:10 am
Scott
Just back from a nice ride in the mountains.
I’ve noticed that it is a common occurrence for ice to take a downtick right around NSIDC newsletter time.
GeoFlynx – The only NSIDC newsletter this year, not given at the usual beginning of the month, was the one on July 20, 2010. On July 20, NSIDC announced a change in circulation, the dipole anomaly, during a pronounced “UPTICK”. I do not see your comment here as being objective or fair to the good people at the NSIDC.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
R. Gates says:
But as always, if you’re forecast of guess of 5.5 million sq. km. (or is it now 6.0?) is closer than my forecast of 4.5 million sq. km….then it will Mea Maxima Culpa…but either way I win, as my ultimate goal is to learn.
===================================
There is nothing in your arrogant accusations to Steve of being intentionally “misleading”….or in the nonsensical last statement here above…that gives any evidence whatsoever that your “ultimate goal is to learn.”
I guess religious dogmatics can say their “ultimate goal is to learn” etc.
But when they already deductively have their minds made up, they can say all they want that they are open minded.
Their agenda, however, precedes everything they say and clouds their ability to think.
In religion, I guess it can be said that metaphysics are in charge, so arguably, they could be cut a little more slack when it comes to using deductive reasoning.
In the scientific method, there is no such wiggle room.
Inductive is the only way to go when it comes to science, and every time you open your mouth to speak, there is a pre-determined agenda of deductions, deductions, assumptions, assumptions.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
stevengoddard said
August 8, 2010 at 10:38 am
jakers
“I will put you down as forecasting a huge melt the rest of the month”.
——–
Maybe he is suggesting the other way, large extent? If the temps are low as you claim and the wind is making the remaining spread apart then it will be a high extent as little melting of that ice, even though it is ripe for it. Or perhaps not 🙂
Your estimate is still looking ok at 5.5, perhaps won’t be too far away. I went for 4.9, still possible, it’s pretty finely balance this year. Where is that poster on here who put in 1.0 has the calculation on the prediction website ? What are his thoughts now I wonder, it always was a bit wacky.
Not sure I agree with your Antarctic thoughts on it being a record, it seems to be coming back in. However the Antarctic can be quite spiky around maxima so you may well be right.
Andy
All extrusions, and that is what this ice island is, break off sooner or later. This was somewhat later so it was bigger.
QED
Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
August 8, 2010 at 10:46 am
There are currently 3 Canadian icebreakers in the vicinity Resolute making sure the Barrow Strait ice is ‘rotten’. Or are they preparing the way for Bear Grylls?
Looks like PIOMAS needs a severe re-fudging of its fudge factors.
R. Gates
Six weeks of wind driven compaction in 2007 was enough to declare the imminent end of the Arctic. Doesn’t three years of recovery count for anything?
R. Gates says:
August 8, 2010 at 11:14 am
…”but I understand there may be other standards that have nothing to do with science.”
============================================
Oh, you have made yourself crystal clear of your understanding of those ‘other standards’, many times over. 🙂
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
I was watching a Nature program on penguins last night and finally got fed up about its continued referrences to the Artic’s ice extent declining due to global warming. I wrote a comment in PBS’s Ombudsman site that basically informed them that either “Nature is grossly uninformed and thus has no credibility which they should value, or they are an activist organization.” I went on to say that as an “activist organization” their non-profit status under section 501(c) needs to be reconsidered.
Additionally, PBS’s biased choices in airing such “activist” programs of only one side of the argument, by proxy makes them an “activist organization”, and they too should have their non-profit status reconsidered.
Non-profit status is a pretty complex legal issue. However, I believe there is room for many challenges using this tactic. Additionally, such challenges are not limited to only the federal government. Non-profit status can be denied by a state, even if granted by the Fed. States AG’s could challenge such misinformation in court. I plan on writing mine if PBS doesn’t respond.
If any of these organizations loose their non-profit status, it would be quite a blow. In any event, it would keep them accountable to telling more truth, than continually publishing misinformation.
Rod Everson says:
August 8, 2010 at 11:07 am
The DMI page: http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php has an interesting feature. You can quickly click from year to year and get graphs of the data for each year starting in 1958. I did that and noticed something I found interesting.
The problem as I see it is that the DMI modeling was never meant to be a long-time-scale comparison. Now, they get most of their input data from satellite measurements, and from buoys and a few shore stations outside the area. In the 1950s, 60s and 70s, they had hardly any data to input – so just what do you think the error bars would look like on that?
It may well be that there is minimal ice loss during August. But it is early to count chickens. We all know the ice is vulnerable to the weather and a week’s high pressure, or a quick cold snap, could make a tremendous difference.
The ice is vulnerable to weather because it is much thinner than in years gone by.
DMI differs from JAXA & Bremen so personally I tend to discount it – ice extent is at the second lowest ever at this time according to their charts
Piomas is not the issue here, because the coming year will tell all when comparisions with CryoSat-2 are made. The issue is whether the “Arctic Ice recovery” meme has any basis in reality.
From: Rod Everson on August 8, 2010 at 10:40 am
That’s just R. Gates pulling a “hide the decline” trick. He uses the anomaly map to argue how “warm” it is up there. The real map you want for comparison to the current DMI figure is:
http://polar.ncep.noaa.gov/sst/ophi/color_sst_NPS_ophi0.png
Originating page for both (with lots of other SST maps and data):
http://polar.ncep.noaa.gov/sst/ophi/
With that map you can see how nearly all of the Arctic basin is at or below 0°C with most of it at or below -1.5°C. With sea ice being mostly freshwater, most of the Arctic basin looks too cold for melting.
For the anomaly aspect, you have to know the baselines the anomalies were calculated from. The DMI page is rather direct, 1958 to 2002 is the green line on the graph. For that NOAA anomaly graph… If you can go from that originating page and figure out what the baseline is, please let me know and supply links as needed. Near as I can figure out the baseline started just in 2005, when they started using that analysis method, but I can’t tell if the upper end is a fixed date or it runs to the current values (which would make previous anomaly maps basically worthless for comparisons).
Reply to savethesharks:
August 8, 2010 at 11:11 am
______
Chris,
As you know, I look at the trends to see the climate changes, not the AO or snow in Florida or any of that. On the same token, when I see skeptics looking at weather events (like snow in Florida) and claiming it proves that AGW is not happening, then I feel compelled to speak up and point out the truth of the situation.
During last winter’s snow in Florida and deep record snows along the East Coast, I pointed out AT THE TIME that it was combination of events (the negative AO + El Nino) bringing this about and received a great deal of scorn for this from some here on WUWT. Recently, of course, a study confirmed exactly what I was saying then:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=weather-or-not-last-winte
So, I think uninformed (or worse, unscrupulous) people on both sides of the AGW issue can use short term weather events to try and make their case. This isn’t scientific and isn’t honest. I always look at the longest term trends of RELIABLE DATA to make my own judgements. This is why, for example, no matter what happens this summer with Arctic Sea ice, it won’t change my mind about the accuracy or inaccuracy of the AGW hypothesis. I’ve stated all along that I’m waiting for a few more years to see what the ice does…and then I expect my own 75/25 split to change one way or another. I do expect to see a new summer low before 2015, and look at the flattening of 2007’s steep decline in 2008-2009 to be more a result of the long and deep solar minimum than anything. This chart:
http://www.climate4you.com/Sun.htm#Global temperature and sunspot number
Is one the most useful around as it shows the effects of ENSO, (look at 1998 for example in temps) and solar cycles all in one. These ride on top of the steady rise in temps we’ve seen for many decades. Just looking this chart for example, you can see why the rise in global temps flattened in the later 2000’s as the solar minimum began. Anyway, it is these longer term trends that I look at.
stevengoddard says:
August 8, 2010 at 11:38 am
R. Gates
Six weeks of wind driven compaction in 2007 was enough to declare the imminent end of the Arctic. Doesn’t three years of recovery count for anything?
If it was just compaction in 2007, then the ice didn’t melt, it stayed in the arctic. And if it stayed, then 2008 and 2009 weren’t a “recovery”, the had just as much, or just as little depending on perspective. The ice just wasn’t compacted as much in 2008 and 2009. Unless extent is the only parameter which has any value for arctic sea ice measurements…?
savethesharks says:
August 8, 2010 at 11:40 am
R. Gates says:
August 8, 2010 at 11:14 am
…”but I understand there may be other standards that have nothing to do with science.”
============================================
Oh, you have made yourself crystal clear of your understanding of those ‘other standards’, many times over. 🙂
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
_____
Ouch…and here I thought we were friends. Anyway, so you think that Steve’s pronouncement of an Arctic sea ice extent “recovery” is an honest and scientifically valid thing to do? Is like like stepping outside at one second past midnight and taking the temperature after seeing the warm day on the previous day and saying, “looks like today is cooler!”
Personally, as you must know, I look at the longer term and see no possibility of any scientifically valid assessment of a longer term recovery of Arctic Sea ice even possible for several years— and certainly nothing that has happened this year would give validity to that claim.
Retired Engineer says:
August 8, 2010 at 9:23 am
As usual, I’m confused.
So we have this really great graph of ice thickness, over the entire Arctic? If so, what was the purpose of the Catlin expedition? If we know the thickness and extent, we should know the volume, an issue of much contention on previous threads.
Will someone pound some information into my thick head?
No pounding needed. It’s just that you are looking into things for yourself. Anyone who looks into global warming for themselves finds that there’s a lot of running around in a panic over things that aren’t happening. And there’s some people making money while doing it. Catlin has sponsors. I think the only reason global warming has lasted for so long is that people in general just believe what tv, politicians, and environmentalists tell them without verifying it for themselves. That’s easier than looking things up i guess.
jakers
The ice compacted during the summer of 2007 and then blew out of the Arctic during the following winter.
There are some interesting insinuations in the comments that suggest this site or that site collects data one way or another (85% open water is ice! OMG) as if to suggest one method is better than another – perhaps silently suggesting they need to change what they count as ice or that they should be ignored for the way they track ice.
The moment that happens – the very instant any of these sites changes the way they collect and analyze date, they no longer have a trend regarding magnitude, but a new starting point. It matters not if the methods are wrong if they are consistent over time, and finally over a very long time, which none have, the truth will present itself. But if the methods change they should end the previous series and start anew.
We have a number of such sites to compare against to determine, to the extent it can, what the reality is.
It should come as no surprise that the long term trends for these sites are quite similar even if absolute numbers, which we can never know to my satisfaction, are different. Am I wrong to presume the magnitude is weather, and the trend is climate?
Steven Goddard says
“R. Gates
I’ll take that as a a “no.””
Have you figure out the rules yet Steve? If your prediction is correct, R.Gates has already said it won’t count since the ice is merely diverging.
stevengoddard said August 8, 2010 at 11:38 am
Maybe he doesn’t like the wording. Let’s just say the Arctic Ice Death Spiral is “in remission” and wait until the Arctic Ocean has been “spiral free” for five years. Sound good to you? 😉
The Great Circle of Life
Littlefoot,
This is how the game works. NSIDC makes a news release showing that ice is collapsing towards a record low and the MYI is disappearing. Joe Romm writes an hysterical piece based on the NSIDC newsletter. Romm’s fellow travelers in hysteria declare it as proof that Goddard/WUWT don’t know what they are talking about.
Three days later the NSIDC graph drastically changes shape and flatlines towards 2006 …. Will there be mea culpa? LOL
toby
Another possibility is that I actually analyzed the weather and wind forecasts for the next two weeks.
jakers
Given that the DMI temperatures match buoy temperatures on line, it is pretty easy to conclude that DMI knows what they are talking about.
Or do you prefer the Hansen methodology, which uses no actual temperature measurements? Hansen delivers the Arctic numbers needed to make 2010 #1.
dp
Walt Meier tells me that the amount of ice in the early 1980s was unusual. (This was right after the ice age scare of the 1970s.)
It should come as no surprise that ice has declined from those unusually high levels.
@R. Gates says: August 8, 2010 at 10:06 am
Martin Brumby says:
I’m still hoping our old chum R. Gates will stop by and let us know whether the “3xManhattan” ice chunk is a good thing or a bad thing.
________
Martin,
I try not to use the terms “good” and “bad” when talking about natural events. I’ve never for example, be an “alarmist” here on WUWT, as I try to approach AGW from an objective as possible perspective.
—————————–
Phew. That’s a relief.
Not about the Monster Ice Chunk or even about AGW.
But I’m glad you showed up again! These debates aren’t the same without your (somewhat patronising but certainly well informed) contributions. Even if I’m extremely sceptical about your claims.
What is genuinely “bad” is (nothing to do with natural events) the use of AGW scares to justify changing NOW to a “low carbon economy” despite clear evidence that the technology is unaffordable and simply doesn’t work. A war against the poor.
See, Anthony! Even I can play nice!
“either way, I win…”
==========================
Reminds me of when I was a little tyke. There was this neighborhood kid who, in order to play in his sandbox, he would stack the game and the rules, so that he “won” every time.
Eventually, all the other kids caught on and quit playing with him.
So what did he do? Learn and change?
Nah….he just invented imaginary friends who would play by his “rules.”
Maybe Steve could you also give us a link to the wind forecasts, so that we can have the same information as you at our disposal?
R. Gates says:
Anyway, it is these longer term trends that I look at.
===========================================
I’m all about looking at longer-term trends, like on scales of hundreds and even thousands of years.
Seen from those high altitudes, the chicken-little “science” of CAGW, becomes meaningless and lost.
Has anyone charted the DMI summer arctic temperature for the entire data period? We continually hear that the arctic is warming fast but the DMI data doesn’t seem to support that conclusion, at least not during the summer melt season from what I can tell.
I think it would be interesting to compare the arctic winter temperature trend to the summer temperature trend based on the DMI data.
Rod Everson says:
August 8, 2010 at 10:40 am
“Can someone please reconcile these two graphs, one of temps above 80 degrees north from DMI showing below average temps currently and the other from NOAA”
That one is easy. As has been discussed at length:
– DMI is doing its best to display the temperatures over the area north of 80, grabbing all the data it can including land station reports, balloon sonds, floating buoys and other sources – which can and will vary from day to day and year to year. Hence the data cannot be assembled into a long time series with clear rules and clearly understood replicability.
– NOAA (and more importantly GISS) use only data sources with long time series (either directly, or indirectly through clearly-explained splicing). Hence more interpolation and extrapolation. The objective is a long-term data series with stable rules and explanation.
Two different approaches, with two different objectives and sets of priorities. It is not surprising the result is two different interpretations.
But for my vote, just one person’s opinion, I put more credence on the more data-intensive approach in understanding the situation in a particular season.
R. Gates: August 8, 2010 at 11:14 am
I personally would think no “recovery” of Arctic sea ice extent could even be seen for several years, during which time the summer minimum would have to consistently rise into the 6, 7 and 8 million km. range. Anyway, that would be the scientific standard for a recovery, but I understand there may be other standards that have nothing to do with science.
So, the scientific standard of a recovery is seeing the same amount of ice in September that we normally don’t see until December.
Got it, chief.
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
August 8, 2010 at 12:10 pm
stevengoddard said August 8, 2010 at 11:38 am
R. Gates
Six weeks of wind driven compaction in 2007 was enough to declare the imminent end of the Arctic. Doesn’t three years of recovery count for anything?
Maybe he doesn’t like the wording. Let’s just say the Arctic Ice Death Spiral is “in remission” and wait until the Arctic Ocean has been “spiral free” for five years. Sound good to you? 😉
___________________
If 2008 and 2009 and now 2010 represent a “recovery” I’m glad you don’t manage my finanaces. The 2007 minimum was not an isolated event, but occurred after many years of a slow decline of summer sea ice. 2007 was simply an acceleration of that trend based on weather extremes. 2008 and 2009 were only marginally above the 2007 low, and this year will be pretty much the same. I’ve stated more than once that it my contention that the flattening in the rise in global temps we saw in the later half of this decade, and the flattening of the fall in Arctic Sea ice are both related to the long and deep solar minimum as well as the La Nina of 2008-2009. That solar minimum is well passed and total solar irradiance is increasing as we head toward solar max in 2013. Also, I don’t think the current La Nina will be as strong as the previoius. In short, the behavior of the sea ice prior two and after 2007 would only indicate that it was on the extreme of what should have been expected that summer (based on the winds) and likely a harbinger of things to come.
I believe Anthony covered DMI in a topic thread. DMI uses data points, lots of them, from real thermometers.
GISS uses precious few data points in the Arctic, and relies instead on interpolated NAN’s (IRAF speak) for thier anomalymometer data.
savethesharks says:
August 8, 2010 at 12:26 pm
R. Gates says:
Anyway, it is these longer term trends that I look at.
===========================================
I’m all about looking at longer-term trends, like on scales of hundreds and even thousands of years.
Seen from those high altitudes, the chicken-little “science” of CAGW, becomes meaningless and lost.
_______
If a person is really looking at things from a longer term perspective, then you would recogize the 40% rise in CO2 in a matter of a few hundred years is an extreme event, and have questions about how sensitive the climate might be to this change…and so I do.
rbateman says:
August 8, 2010 at 10:56 am
“Your links are trying to compare DMI 80N temps with SST anomalies.”
Yes, but if I understand how anomaly is used here, it’s quite easy to see that the daily DMI anomaly has been running negative all through the summer months. Yet Gates keeps putting up SST displays showing positive anomalies during the same period. I don’t understand, though his explanation is that the DMI “data” is just the output from a model. Well, except for each individual data point, EVERYTHING that is represented as a temperature of a region has to come from a model of some sort. That implies human intervention, along with all the potential biases that come along with such intervention, and the SST “data” would be no different. Clearly, two different “models” are yielding diametrically opposed results. Which is right, or at least closest to truth? I don’t know. But I do know that when one person says temps are warmer than average and another says the temps of the same region at the same time are cooler than average, one of them is apparently wrong. At a minimum it says that one should be wary of both presentations until more information is available.
R. Gates
My compliments – Hurrah for upholding the scientific method.
The amount of tap dancing that R.Gates does is incredible, but all too believable. No predictions, but plenty of explanations.
Much like the original anti-General Relativity “Scientists”. They could explain everything, but they had absolutely no predictions, no theories which admitted falsification – their theories were literally untestable.
The theories of CAGW have been tested over the last 22 years (making Hansen’s 1988 predictions the baseline). None of them have passed muster.
Now, all of the predictions are once again – 20, 30, 50 years out. But of course, we can’t wait to see if these are valid, we must act now. They don’t want to wait for their monetary compensation – Big Gov must give them grants NOW! Alms for the poor, alms for the poor!
Meanwhile BP, GE, and other “Green” organizations are aligning themselves to make money from Cap and Tax, and other “green energy” revenue sources. This makes me positively ill.
Yes, I’m a cynic, and I do follow the money. Given the mantra by the Collectivists that “It’s all about the money”, I think I’m justified in finding this the height of hypocrisy.
R. Gates
Look for a large increase in MYI next spring.
“I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.”
Thomas Jefferson
wsbriggs says:
August 8, 2010 at 1:02 pm
The amount of tap dancing that R.Gates does is incredible, but all too believable. No predictions, but plenty of explanations.
_______
How is seeing a new summer low of 2.5 million sq. km. by 2015 not a specific “prediction”? I’ve even given my early reasoning behind this forecast.
In regards to the rest of it…the politics of it all…I stay clear of it. Politics is ultimately about the rich and powerful waving whatever banner they think will get the most votes and figuring out ways to stay rich and powerful, all the while keeping the masses arguing about meaningless issues as a distraction from the truth of the plutocracy they’ve created. (this is the last politcial statement I’ll make, promise)
stevengoddard says:
August 8, 2010 at 12:17 pm
dp
Walt Meier tells me that the amount of ice in the early 1980s was unusual.
I think I disagree with him. Unusual is a relative term. It is unusual compared to what?
It’s normal. What happened in 2007 was normal. What is happening this year is normal. What happened in the Little Ice Age was normal. And what happened during the Medieval Warm Period was normal.
Nothing unusual is happening in climate. Climate always changes. As some scientist said (I don’t remember which to give him credit), “If climate didn’t change that would be what is unusual”.
stevengoddard says:
August 8, 2010 at 1:02 pm
R. Gates
Look for a large increase in MYI next spring
_____
This is consistent with your overall predictions. I have my doubts, but we’ll see. A lot of MYI has spread (i.e. diverged) into the Beaufort and is melting right now.
“My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government.”
Thomas Jefferson
Bill Jamison says:
August 8, 2010 at 12:26 pm
I think it would be interesting to compare the arctic winter temperature trend to the summer temperature trend based on the DMI data.
Richard Lindzen did touch on that in this video
rbateman says:
August 8, 2010 at 12:46 pm
“I believe Anthony covered DMI in a topic thread. DMI uses data points, lots of them, from real thermometers.
GISS uses precious few data points in the Arctic, and relies instead on interpolated NAN’s (IRAF speak) for thier anomalymometer data.”
Thanks to both you and Bruce Friesen for explaining the difference. So is the SST display is based on one of those 1200km extrapolations that NOAA used to come up with the warm arctic this year?
Regardless, this display: http://polar.ncep.noaa.gov/sst/ophi/color_sst_NPS_ophi0.png
that someone helpfully provided shows the arctic at colder than minus 1.5 degrees C on Aug 7th, while this display: http://polar.ncep.noaa.gov/sst/ophi/color_anomaly_NPS_ophi0.png
provided by Gates as evidence of a warm arctic on Aug 7th are hard to reconcile.
If you look at the DMI summer data on their site, year after year show summer temps, including most of August, above zero degrees C. Yet NOAA on one display shows unusually low temperature (below zero) and on the other claims a positive anomaly across most of that same area. Does this really make sense?
As an aside, the more I learn about all this the more I’m convinced that data/model corruption is rampant even down to the slightest, most seemingly innocent detail. Are people just flat out lying to one another to support an agenda, or are they innocently deciphering data and just not bothering to check their work against others attempting to do the same thing using different devices?
R. Gates,
you really ought to quit while you’re ahead, and you’re not really ahead. But hey, it’s not my reputation.
Rod,
“Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity”
– Hanlon’s Razor
Steven Goddard wrote:
“R.Bates, Look for a large increase in MYI next spring.”
Just a request. I’ve been a reader for a couple of months now, and even then it took me a few seconds to translate MYI to “multi-year ice.” I really enjoy the back and forth in here, but it would be helpful if people would translate the acronyms the first time in a post for those of us relatively new to this who are trying to follow along.
R. Gates,
When you say that you expect just slightly above 2007, does that mean you are forecasting an asteroid impact in the next six weeks?
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php
Because that is the only way it is going to happen.
stevengoddard says:
August 8, 2010 at 1:34 pm
“Rod,
“Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity”
– Hanlon’s Razor”
Well said, and ordinarily, I would agree. But toss a few billion dollars of readily available government funding into the mix and perhaps “malice” becomes the more likely explanation?
R. Gates: August 8, 2010 at 12:58 pm
If a person is really looking at things from a longer term perspective, then you would recogize the 40% rise in CO2 in a matter of a few hundred years is an extreme event, and have questions about how sensitive the climate might be to this change…and so I do.
Looking at a *really* longer term perspective, a 40% rise in CO2 in a few hundred years is not an extreme event at all. Temperatures have risen while CO2 was rising, and temperatures have *fallen* while CO2 was going through the roof. Temperatures have fallen while CO2 was falling, and temperatures have *risen* while CO2 was falling.
http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap01/icecore.html
Ice cores. Gotta love ’em.
stevengoddard says:
August 8, 2010 at 1:02 pm
R. Gates
Look for a large increase in MYI next spring.
Nah. We’re supposed to continue to believe PIOMAS even though we can see it diverges from reality. Because, after all, how could anyone believe PIOMAS could be that wrong? It’s the observed data that is wrong. Climate models and the scientists who make them are right. Data and the scientists who collect it, and the scientists that make forecasts from it, are wrong. Climate models are peer-reviewed. Data is not peer-reviewed.
That’s some more rules. 😉
evanmjones says:
August 8, 2010 at 9:20 am
Well, they say that there is nothing global warming cannot do. Or AGW alarmists.
That appears to be about right. They have made watching the ice melt exciting.
I have carried out extensive observations of paint drying over recent years and have also taken core samples from painted surfaces at many sites around the world. By direct measurement and correlation with tree rings and upside down Finnish mud, I have established beyond doubt that paint is now drying faster that ever before in the last 15 million years.
In fact the rate of drying has doubled in the past month.
Laugh that off, you skeptics!!
Excerpt from: R. Gates on August 8, 2010 at 12:32 pm
Good enough for government work. Haven’t you noticed how the US economy has been in a recovery, as declared over a much shorter period than three years? And remember, if you’re collecting Social Security then the administration that declared that recovery is managing your finances, at least a portion of them.
Feel free to take it up with them how to define a “recovery.”
🙂
stevengoddard says:
August 8, 2010 at 1:46 pm
R. Gates,
When you say that you expect just slightly above 2007, does that mean you are forecasting an asteroid impact in the next six weeks?
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php
Because that is the only way it is going to happen.
No, he told me yesterday he never made any predictions about dramatic ice loss in August. So asteroid impact is out of the question.
(but maybe a meteorite with amino acids in it is a possibility 😉 )
I would not be surprised to see NH ice go above 2005-2006 judging from the time lapse CT video it seems to be freezing over again but then again let us see… In any case as some above say, I don’t think polar ice is in any way a measure of hypothetical AGW
stevengoddard says:
August 8, 2010 at 1:46 pm
R. Gates,
When you say that you expect just slightly above 2007, does that mean you are forecasting an asteroid impact in the next six weeks?
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php
Because that is the only way it is going to happen.
___________
I don’t need to rely on such a random occurance, as I’ve trained a large group of Orcas with lasers mounted on their heads to melt the ice. Once in a while they miss and hit a polar bear, but this is simply the the cost of doing business. I understand they were using a certain glacier in Greenland for target practice and a bit of it may have broken off. Oops…sorry about that Greenland…
Amino
Remember – the US Navy (PIPS) is wrong. The Navy knows nothing about the ocean.
Professors bludgeoning the art of computer programming from their office using a 40 year old antiquated language (Fortran) know much more about the ocean than the US Navy does.
Once again, each ice data point as well as land temperature data points are a measure (snapshots if you will) of oceanic and atmospheric weather conditions at that moment. The average is therefore the average of these snapshots, IE weather.
The statistical average does not magically become climate related to CO2. The only way that can happen is if you can prove that each and every ice or weather data point is the result of anthropogenic CO2 on top of the weather. In other words, if it is currently 89 degrees at 2:46 in NE Oregon, you must be able to show that without the anthropogenic CO2 increase, it would be 88.8 degrees. Even if you could prove it with a mathematical equation, the problem with that is that given the atmospheric conditions that clearly explain the current temperature, the standard deviation of these weather conditions is much larger than the effect that CO2 would have on the temperature right now.
R. Gates, you don’t even realize what you are doing. It’s pretty obvious to many of us. You are practicing confirmation bias to the extreme. Look at the divergence situation. It’s a two edged sword. If the temps drop the water between the ice partitions will freeze and that will lead to an increase in the extent. However, you didn’t even consider this in your post.
And, along this vein, have you considered what the extent would be now without the wind based 2007 ice loss? How would that impact the trend?
Finally, if the extent had recovered without the 2007 loss, what would that have meant for global temperatures? With increased albedo would we have seen a lowering of the global temperature indicies? If you ever want to understand issues like climate you need to practice some critical thinking. So far, I haven’t seen much.
john edmondson says:
August 8, 2010 at 7:46 am
10 day average is falling now. I would estimate 25 more days of melt at 40,000 sq km average. So 5.45m sq km left mid Sept.”
Actually, in 2006 the rate of ice loss from this point forward to the minimum was only 25,000 sq km per day (similar in 2003 i think). Whilst other years had much higher averages (in the JAXA extent data), those were generally due to late melting first year ice.
As the DMI temp graph is showing temps matching those we saw in 2006 (perhaps even lower), I’m very much inclined to agree with Stephen although I do think it less likely we’ll get above 5.6 million sq km.
The 2009 result was 5.3 million sq km btw so, were we to beat that figure it would represent 3 years of increasing minimums. Looking at the multi-year ice starting to make its way back into the East Siberian I would argue there is fairly strong evidence the ice pack is starting to recover. Certainly more than there is to support any continuation of the “death spiral”.
And yes Anu, for the past week the daily rate of ice loss has been:
“dropping like a rock”
What will be interesting to see is when we will have the first day of increased extent. In the years that the JAXA data covers, 24th August has been the earliest. Although this doesnt signify the minimum which is normally 100-200,000 sq km below that mark.
Ice seems to be increasing tonight.Is it possible it has reached minimum?dmi arctic temperature remains low.If arctic ice remains above the 2007 minimum this year or shows an increase on the 2009 minimum then this shows that the mathematical models showing constant decline of the arctic sea ice minimum no longer are realistic,people should accept that decline has stopped.
donald penman says:
August 8, 2010 at 2:57 pm
Ice seems to be increasing tonight.Is it possible it has reached minimum?dmi arctic temperature remains low.If arctic ice remains above the 2007 minimum this year or shows an increase on the 2009 minimum then this shows that the mathematical models showing constant decline of the arctic sea ice minimum no longer are realistic,people should accept that decline has stopped.”
I think its very unlikely that we’ve reached the minimum yet Donald. Expect to see decreasing extent for at least another month.
I dont know where anyone is seeing an uptick on JAXA data. Could be just an optical illusion on the JAXA chart. In terms of the data for 7th August, it was about 44,000 sq km loss when initially posted, adjusted to 39,000 sq km overnight.
I am not a scientist and it is from this perspective I read the contrasting comments between Steve Goddard and R Bateman with a lot of interest. I think Bateman ‘s ice cubes analogy on a table is interesting and it seems he is talking common sense when he says that warmer water will affect the melting speed more than air temperature or weak sunshine from a low altitude sun; so water temperature will be a bigger factor than air temperature in how fast the ice is melting. What I do not understand is his point scoring, especially the childish claims that he wins both ways, which seems to be making a presumption that Goddard will lose if the ice extent goes on falling beyond a given point. It seems to me that Bateman is trying to make a point that he learns from making observation but Goddard does not. It as if Bateman is saying I am sincere but Goddard is not.
It troubles me that Bateman is casting aspersions on the sincerity of his opponents; this is because Himalayagate is still fresh in my mind. I remember the stupid predictions in the AR4 report that the Glaciers on the Himalayas would be gone within 30 years, and the even more stupid comments from the chairman of the IPCC that a scientist who disputed the IPCC predictions was a voodoo scientist.
Bateman may have some good points to make and as an outsider I am interested to read his contributions, but his manner of attack does not give me much confidence to take him as sincere. I am left wondering whether he is really a scientist or just another variant of the Pachauri cult: avoid debate by calling all opponents’ voodoo scientists (or in this case insincere). As a reader I would like to assume both sides are sincere and the object of the debate is that both sides will come closer together.
Julian in Wales
In a few weeks it will be clear who was being sincere.
Jordan says:
August 8, 2010 at 11:13 am
…
I’d urge a good dash of caution when initial data comes out across the August/September trough.
___
Yes, the extent data tends to move daily as you described. First too much melting reported with a correction for less melting later in the day. This was just on the graph of ‘area’, not ‘extent’, and surprised me that it was going up… or so I thought. No big deal. Probably just a glitch that was soon corrected in hours.
Julian in Wales: August 8, 2010 at 3:32 pm
I am not a scientist and it is from this perspective I read the contrasting comments between Steve Goddard and R Bateman with a lot of interest.
I believe you meant “R. Gates” — “rbateman” hasn’t shown up on the thread as yet.
Thanks for the interesting post. Hopefully we will end the 2010 Arctic melt with more ice than last year.
I have one question. Where did you find the JAXA Sea Ice Area graph? I found the Sea Ice Extent graph, but not the area graph. Please post a link.
R. Gates
If a person is really looking at things from a longer term perspective, then you would recogize the 40% rise in CO2 in a matter of a few hundred years is an extreme event
______
Why?
—–
Bill Tuttle says:
August 8, 2010 at 1:55 pm
Looking at a *really* longer term perspective, a 40% rise in CO2 in a few hundred years is not an extreme event at all. Temperatures have risen while CO2 was rising, and temperatures have *fallen* while CO2 was going through the roof. Temperatures have fallen while CO2 was falling, and temperatures have *risen* while CO2 was falling.
http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap01/icecore.html
Ice cores. Gotta love ‘em.
—-
So R. Gates:
Are you aware of ice core data? Or is it too old for you? Or maybe its not model generated? What’s wrong with factual data? And why should anything as trace as 4 parts per 10,000 be significant?
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
August 8, 2010 at 11:55 am
That’s just R. Gates pulling a “hide the decline” trick. He uses the anomaly map to argue how “warm” it is up there. The real map you want for comparison to the current DMI figure is:
http://polar.ncep.noaa.gov/sst/ophi/color_sst_NPS_ophi0.png
Originating page for both (with lots of other SST maps and data):
http://polar.ncep.noaa.gov/sst/ophi/
___
You’re right, much better. Didn’t realize an actual-temperature matching chart was available there. Thanks.
After several months of reading the articles here and staring at the data ’til I got a feel for it, my gut gave me a number, 5.7.
As the season has progressed, I have seen confirmation of it in the trends. Now I want to be more hopeful, but I’ve learned throughout my life the problems from being too hopeful, but also what happens from not being hopeful enough.
So put me down for a 5.7 +/- 0.1 million km^2 minimum by the IARC-JAXA sea ice extent numbers. That’s my prediction.
stevengoddard says:
August 8, 2010 at 2:33 pm
he US Navy (PIPS)
Speaking of the Navy it looks like they think La Nina will get stronger:
http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/GLBhycom1-12/navo/equpacsst_nowcast_anim30d.gif
It could be a cold winter for Canada and the northern 1/2 of the USA.
http://faculty.washington.edu/kessler/ENSO/nawinter.html
How far negative is the temperature anomaly going to go because of La Nina? Joe Bastardi has said it could go as low as the cooling from Mt. Pinatubo went.
http://img808.imageshack.us/img808/1943/uahlt1979thrujuly10.gif
I can’t myself tell because I don’t have experience but I can see the fast Sea Surface Temp drop suggests it going to go negative.
http://img827.imageshack.us/img827/943/amsresstglobalandnino34.gif
At “cryosphere today” (just now) it appears that the global sea ice anomaly is at least temporarily back under 0.1 million square km. Something to think on at least.
Julian in Wales says:
August 8, 2010 at 3:32 pm
____
My contention with Steve’s analysis is that he keeps refering the the extent slow down as a measurement of the rate of melting slowing down. This is erroneous (as my long ice cubes on a table analogy relating to divergence points out). The truth is, no one knows what the actual melt rate is, and so, since CryoSat 2 thickness data is not yet on line yet (at least to some of us), then extent data or area data serve as a poor man’s proxy to actually knowing what the ice is doing. During times of divergence, the ice spreads out, which can suddenly slow down the decline in extent, but it absolutely does not mean the ice isn’t continuing to melt at the same, or even faster rate. Think of it logically– if most of the melt is occurring from the water, do you think the water can cool that fast (i.e. in a matter of days) to change the rate of melt that fast? But weather system can move across the Arctic and spread the ice very rapidly, causing this divergence and the extent to stop dropping so fast, though the ice is melting at the same rate. In short, extent loss does not equal melt rate loss. Some other have pointed out this recent divergence, and also the low concentration across much of the Arctic.
Now, if the Arctic water temps were anomalously cool right now, I would have a different take on things, and perhaps even agree with Steve, but temps remain anomalously WARM across most of the Arctic waters, and so, that diverged ice has moved further over that open warm water and, well…it is melting as we speak.
____________________
stevengoddard says:
August 8, 2010 at 3:37 pm
Julian in Wales
In a few weeks it will be clear who was being sincere.
________
In a little more than a month or so it will be clear who was closer to forecasting the 2010 minimum, which I think will occur sometime between Sept. 20-25. But make no mistake, I am always sincere, and despite our different perceptions, have the greatest amount of respect for Steve and the other honest seekers of truth here, and do sincerely apologize for being abrasive at times, but hopefully not abusive. We may see the world differently, but the more honest we are with ourselves and others, the more clearly we’ll see that world. In regards to my statement, “I win either way”, I honestly feel this way. If I’m right, and sometime during the end of September the Arctic sea ice touches near the 4.5 million sq. km. mark before heading back up for the winter, then my analysis will be proven correct, and I’ll have more faith in some of my longer term projections. If I’m wrong, then I’ll look at the reasons why and hope to learn something in the process.
Julian in Wales says:
August 8, 2010 at 3:32 pm
It is R. Gates who opposes Steve Goddard routinely, not I.
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
August 8, 2010 at 4:45 pm
After several months of reading the articles here and staring at the data ’til I got a feel for it, my gut gave me a number, 5.7.
As the season has progressed, I have seen confirmation of it in the trends. Now I want to be more hopeful, but I’ve learned throughout my life the problems from being too hopeful, but also what happens from not being hopeful enough.
So put me down for a 5.7 +/- 0.1 million km^2 minimum by the IARC-JAXA sea ice extent numbers. That’s my prediction.
______
So you think we’ll only lose 700,000 sq. km. in the next 40 days days or so to the minimum, despite the fact that we’ve lost 400,000 in the last 8 days…wow…very amazing prediction!
Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
August 8, 2010 at 4:51 pm
http://faculty.washington.edu/kessler/ENSO/nawinter.html
If you look at the usnisys SST anomaly, you’ll see that the Blocking High for La Nina is already close to being in place.
http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.html
And that High is supposed to be OVER the Pacific Northwest for our summer, not out to sea.
wayne says:
August 8, 2010 at 4:33 pm
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
August 8, 2010 at 11:55 am
That’s just R. Gates pulling a “hide the decline” trick. He uses the anomaly map to argue how “warm” it is up there. The real map you want for comparison to the current DMI figure is:
http://polar.ncep.noaa.gov/sst/ophi/color_sst_NPS_ophi0.png
Originating page for both (with lots of other SST maps and data):
http://polar.ncep.noaa.gov/sst/ophi/
___
You’re right, much better. Didn’t realize an actual-temperature matching chart was available there. Thanks
_____
There was no “trick” involved in looking at an anomaly map. It is the only thing that can tell you if things are warmer or colder than average. The best chart, for example, that you can currently look at to give you the long term sense for what is going on in the Arctic sea ice is the long term anomaly chart:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/sea.ice.anomaly.timeseries.jpg
This tape is the closest thing we have to a “heartbeat” of the Arctic, and there is no “trick” to using it to tell a great deal.
From looking at the various graphs, it would appear that the average minimum is around 1,000,000 sq. km. of what the ice is at this date (using the 30% extent from DMI). So losing 700,000 between now and minimum will be possible. I would likely say something closer to 1,000,000 though. The ablation rate drops off significantly from this point forward.
Come on, Steve, it’s a bit unfair to claim “The computer model is predicting that 3+ year old ice (which is probably in excess of 10 feet thick) is going to melt by early August. That seems rather far fetched.”. The Beaufort Sea ice does have the “tongue” containing multi-year ice, but the VAST majority of the ice even inside that tongue is first-year and second-year ice according to the NSIDC map (and even open water, the melt “broke through” in the last week of July). Look closely – those blue and purple pixels dominate, and have since the April 2010 version of NSIDC arctic sea ice news. Therefore, once that “interspersive” young ice melts, it is entirely plausible that the spatially smoothed thickness is consistent with that given by PIOMAS.
As much as you are going to wish to call me “alarmist” for saying this, the old ice appears rotten…
stevengoddard says:
August 8, 2010 at 2:33 pm
“Professors bludgeoning the art of computer programming from their office using a 40 year old antiquated language (Fortran) know much more about the ocean than the US Navy does.”
Steve Goddard,
That’s OT and I hate to disagree with you on anything, but insulting Fortran as an antiquated language is too much.
I know, C and C++ are “modern” languages, i.e. 10 years younger than Fortran. However, no matter what you think, inside every C/C++ program, is a Fortran program trying to get out.
Personally, I think the decline in science is due to the lack of LISP programmers, now there was a language. (Excuse me while I get some popcorn).
Do note that warmists are making this stuff up as they go.
R. Gates says:
August 8, 2010 at 5:06 pm
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
August 8, 2010 at 4:45 pm
After several months of reading the articles here and staring at the data ’til I got a feel for it, my gut gave me a number, 5.7.
As the season has progressed, I have seen confirmation of it in the trends. Now I want to be more hopeful, but I’ve learned throughout my life the problems from being too hopeful, but also what happens from not being hopeful enough.
So put me down for a 5.7 +/- 0.1 million km^2 minimum by the IARC-JAXA sea ice extent numbers. That’s my prediction.
______
So you think we’ll only lose 700,000 sq. km. in the next 40 days days or so to the minimum, despite the fact that we’ve lost 400,000 in the last 8 days…wow…very amazing prediction!”
Actually, as much as it pains me to say this, I have to side with you on this one R Gates. It is quite unlikely the ice loss for the remainder of the year will be as low as 700,000km. Not in the realms of impossibility though.
The thing which works against this is the 2007 multi-year ice loss. In 2006 which is the benchmark for the lowest rate of loss if were measuring from August 7th to minimum extent (regardless of the date it falls) the ice loss was about 1 million sq km from this point forward. The next lowest were 2002 and 2003 with about 1.2 million sq km.
I’m looking at us potentially equalling the 2006 result for 2 reasons.
1) Lower temps as measured by DMI – despite Mr Gates argument on water temps under the ice being more important I’m still convinced the DMI air temps play an important factor also.
2) The above average early season loss. Other seasons which saw higher rates of loss from Ausust 7th onwards either had more first year ice remaining at that date of saw loss of multi-year ice due to unusually adverse conditions. I don’t see either present this season.
So in the end I think the most likely outcome is just at or possibly slightly under the 5.5 million originally predicted by Stephen. With the potential to go about 250,000 sq km either way due to the unknowns with regards the condition of the multi-year ice.
What I cant imagine is us hitting 4.5 million sq km. This would require a loss of a further 2 million sq km. Theres no possible indication of this occurring at the moment and it would take a very significant loss of multi-year ice from this point forward for this to occur. Even in 2007 the loss of ice from this point forward was only 1.7 million sq km in extremely adverse conditions and DMI temps a degree or two higher than they are right now.
An illustration of typical La Nina pattern only:
http://img838.imageshack.us/img838/9975/cpctutorialnawinter.gif
The triangle from Montana to Kansas to Michigan may be getting hit with some Saskatchewan Screamers this winter where temperature could go down to -50F at night.
http://img802.imageshack.us/img802/4382/usmap.gif
At least that would be my experience when the Jet Stream curves down from Canada into the US in the middle of winter and brings Arctic air behind it.
rbateman says:
August 8, 2010 at 5:15 pm
the Blocking High for La Nina
I see. You’re right. La Nina is forming quick. I see the magenta forming along the equator too.
http://img203.imageshack.us/img203/8695/sstanom.gif
I read Bill Illis say he saw La Nina coming before it showed up in the SST maps because of how the underwater currents in the Pacific along the equator were going to make a La Nina form.
Please excuse my inexcusable blunder in confusing the names of Bateman and Gates. Sorry to you both.
It seems to me that both approaches are valid (Gates’ point that the seawater is going to be a big factor in deciding melting rates and Goddard’s point that the proponents of Global warming have been using sea ice extent as a measure of warming, which is clearly a scare tactic if warm ocean currents are more important than air temperatures). The clear conclusion to me is that this science is not going to be decided by the date or extent of ice minimum, but the data as presented by Steve Goddard is a clear and visual representation of the state of the ice.
Obviously there are so many variables; previous ice levels, wind direction, ocean currents and sea temperatures, that it impossible to really make any conclusions; other than sea ice extent is a rather loose indicator of global weather trends. This ball was set rolling by the warmists, I hope they will now withdraw this scare story and give us another reason to believe the AR4 report which was put together under the chairmanship of railway engineer who also runs TERI which owns a big stake of the Chicago and Indian Carbon exchanges.
I do wonder how sensible debate can take place when there is such a polluting influence coming from the IPCC. It seems to me Steve Goddard’s work gives a good opportunity for a better more mature assessment to take place of why the ice levels vary and what it means (if anything).
crosspatch says:
August 8, 2010 at 5:22 pm
Hi crosspatch. If I remember right, in March you thought the 30% extent figure was more important than the 15% extent number and stated why…do you still feel this way? If so, what do you (or anyone else here) make of the 30% extent doing well (> 2007/2008/2009, approaching 2005) relative to the 15% number? Does anyone think it points to less dispersal of the ice near the edge and therefore less reduction of the 15% in the coming month?
-Scott
R. Gates says (August 8, 2010 at 5:06 pm):
“So you think we’ll only lose 700,000 sq. km. in the next 40 days days or so to the minimum, despite the fact that we’ve lost 400,000 in the last 8 days…wow…very amazing prediction!”
Indeed, as we now get closer to the end, things get crunchier. I have the same question of you, R. Gates. In predicting a drop from 6.45 mkm2 now to 4.5 by Sept 25 (giving you the largest extent of your projected dates of minimum, to give you the most days to work with), you are predicting an average of 40,000 per day right through to the flat bottom of the curve. We have lost an average of 50,000 August to date.
So the same question to you: are you serious? Does that math work for you?
My prediction, for what it is worth, is above 2009. Let’s say 5.5 +/- 0.2.
As a further comment, this years peak rate of ice extent loss, measured on a 15 day moving average (based on JAXA) has been at it lowest since 2003 and even then the difference to the 2003 result is marginal. The peak rates for those years are:
2003 86,156 sq km per day
2004 86,822
2005 90,552
2006 91,656
2007 118,906
2008 89,447
2009 101,541
2010 86,614
For those who say the 2010 season is not yet over, the latest date for peak loss was in 2004 on 9th August which had a very slow early season melt and subsequently lost a lot of first year ice later in the season. 2009 also reached its peak rate fairly late but saw significant losses in the latter part of July which contributed to this.
The current 15 day moving average for this year stands at 68,114 but is likely to fall signifcantly in the next few days as we drop a couple of bigger days from 14-15 days ago.
Nightvid Cole
Why is concrete much stronger than cement by itself?
wsbriggs says:
August 8, 2010 at 5:43 pm
inside every C/C++ program, is a Fortran program trying to get out.
I remember sitting in front of a computer screen in college back when FORTRAN was the hot language to learn for getting a computer job and trying to find what period I had either omitted or put in the wrong place that was causing my assignment to have a bug. Those days of staring at the green lettering on the screen (there was not multi-color then) for hours—gosh I don’t miss them.
Julian in Wales says:
August 8, 2010 at 3:32 pm
==============================
Ummm….you mean Gates and not Bateman.
You need to pay a little more attention.
Don’t drag Rob (Bateman) into this.
He is one of the best posters on this site.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
R. Gates says:
If a person is really looking at things from a longer term perspective, then you would recogize the 40% rise in CO2 in a matter of a few hundred years is an extreme event, and have questions about how sensitive the climate might be to this change…and so I do.
===========================
40% rise in the last few hundred years?
40% from what? Oh the bottoming out from the last Ice Age?
From 180 ppm?
You may want to remember that plants SHUT OFF production at 150 ppm. That almost happened in the last Ice Age.
Now THAT would have been an extreme event.
Also, you forget the logarithmic curve of CO2 rise to temperature rise.
Diminishing returns, R.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/co2_temperature_curve_saturation.png
No “extreme event” there.
Moving on….
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
rbateman
here’s the equator currents animation
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/tao/vis/vis5d/sst-wind-cur-eqt-20c-med-spin.html
R. Gates says:
If a person is really looking at things from a longer term perspective, then you would recogize the 40% rise in CO2 in a matter of a few hundred years is an extreme event, and have questions about how sensitive the climate might be to this change…and so I do.
Depends on the context. If it is a minor greenhouse gas whose net effect is obliterated by the effects of other green house gases then this statement is one hell of a stretch.
Nice segue into the SH Steve!
Bruce Friesen says:
August 8, 2010 at 6:05 pm
R. Gates says (August 8, 2010 at 5:06 pm):
“So you think we’ll only lose 700,000 sq. km. in the next 40 days days or so to the minimum, despite the fact that we’ve lost 400,000 in the last 8 days…wow…very amazing prediction!”
Indeed, as we now get closer to the end, things get crunchier. I have the same question of you, R. Gates. In predicting a drop from 6.45 mkm2 now to 4.5 by Sept 25 (giving you the largest extent of your projected dates of minimum, to give you the most days to work with), you are predicting an average of 40,000 per day right through to the flat bottom of the curve. We have lost an average of 50,000 August to date.
So the same question to you: are you serious? Does that math work for you?
My prediction, for what it is worth, is above 2009. Let’s say 5.5 +/- 0.2
___________
A reasonable prediction, but I think too high. Here’s why:
1) Water temps are higher than normal across the Arctic
2) We’ve had recent divergence in the ice, causing the extent drop to slow down, but as I’ve pointed out, this does not mean the rate of melting has slowed! We won’t really know about melt rates in real terms until we get volume data from CryoSat 2.
I think that we are setting up for a final month or so of melting to be something very much like 2008. Take a look at this rate of change chart:
http://iup.physik.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsr/ext_rates_n.png
Now, look closely at 2008 at about this time of year. We had a sudden rapid decline in the extent at the end of the season and you can see that the rate of change of the extent fell off a cliff, so to speak. You can see what 2008 did in the actual extent here:
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent_L.png
The ice spread just prior to the late season drop in 2008, and then the extent rate really fell off the cliff and 2008 extent dropped dramatically at the end of the season. This I think is how we’ll end this year. I think the rate of change will move toward 2008’s. Watch for this period of divergence come to a fairly rapid end, and the extent to track right along 2008’s trail until the end, where I think by the nature a a bit later date for the minimum (2008’s minimum came Sept. 9th, and I don’t see this years minimum coming until Sept. 20-25), we’ll see 2010 just edge under 2008’s minimum.
R. Gates said on August 8, 2010 at 5:06 pm:
Note the margins. I expect 5.6 million km^2 as the realistic amount. This puts it on the high end of the SEARCH September Sea Ice Outlook: July Report, and in previous years the vast majority of SIO respondents have been too pessimistic, by considerable margins.
I also see cooling coming on fast, so 5.7 is not absurd. And in case you missed it, according to the authoritative terrifying PIOMAS Arctic Sea Ice Volume Anomaly chart, things are getting better. Note the sharp upward trend of reduced daily deficits relative to 1979-2009. The thin bits appears gone to just about gone, leaving a large thick mass (or masses to get technical) that will be resistant to further loss. See how the above JAXA area chart shows a sharp reduction in rate of loss while the extent continued dropping, with the thickness by PIPS stabilizing. Yup, it’s down to the big stuff and the energy just doesn’t seem to be there to get much more loss. The extent loss will soon level off.
Perhaps I should have written it as 5.6 +0.2/-0.0 million km^2, or just 5.6-5.8 10^6 km^2.
BTW, proper nomenclature is important in science. The correct terminology to describe my prediction is not “amazing.” More precisely, it is “ballsy.” 😉
Julian in Wales says:
August 8, 2010 at 7:13 pm
R. Gates says:
If a person is really looking at things from a longer term perspective, then you would recogize the 40% rise in CO2 in a matter of a few hundred years is an extreme event, and have questions about how sensitive the climate might be to this change…and so I do.
Depends on the context. If it is a minor greenhouse gas whose net effect is obliterated by the effects of other green house gases then this statement is one hell of a stretch.
______
I suppose where we differ is looking at CO2 as being a “minor” GH gas. Certainly water vapor plays a bigger role, but it hasn’t increased 40% since the mid 1700’s.
Joe Bastardi on why he thinks there’s a shift in Arctic ice relating to PDO
7:16 video
http://www.accuweather.com/video/407515952001/sea-ice-and-common-sense-explain-global-warming.asp?channel=vbbastaj
R. Gates said (August 8, 2010 at 7:31 pm)
“I think that we are setting up for a final month or so of melting to be something very much like 2008” and “the extent rate really fell off the cliff and 2008 extent dropped dramatically at the end of the season”.
Excellent response. Better than math, better than a believable time series of 48 melt days averaging 40,000 per day from now through Sept. 25 – a historical example. Thanks for that!
Now we can easily compare, on the chart, your prognosis with the actual situation as things evolve.
Clearly, for 2010 to follow the path followed in 2008, things must start lining up side by side very soon. I am tempted to ask how many days we can go at lower-than-2008 melt rates before you throw in the towel, but it would be rude of me to try to pin you down that tightly. It will be fun to watch actual outcomes versus your scenario, and judge the residual realistic-ness of a forecast minimum of 4.5 mkm2 each day. My opinion: the next week will tell the tale on the “follow 2008” scenario.
Thanks again for your clarity of response! Sincerely.
Rod Everson says:
August 8, 2010 at 1:39 pm
it would be helpful if people would translate the acronyms the first time in a post for those of us relatively new to this who are trying to follow along.
Glossary:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/glossary/
Oddly enough though, MYI isn’t in it. Lots of others are.
R. Gates says:
August 8, 2010 at 7:46 pm
I suppose where we differ is looking at CO2 as being a “minor” GH gas. Certainly water vapor plays a bigger role, but it hasn’t increased 40% since the mid 1700′s.
40% increase of 250 ppm is still measured in Parts Per Million.
Put into everyday perspective: Your CEO makes $20 on every part per million of water vapor/year, while you make $20 on every part per million of C02/year.
stevengoddard says:
August 8, 2010 at 2:33 pm
Amino
Professors bludgeoning the art of computer programming from their office using a 40 year old antiquated language (Fortran) know much more about the ocean than the US Navy does.
_____________________________________________________________
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fortran
“Fortran came to dominate this area of programming early on and has been in continual use for over half a century in computationally intensive areas such as numerical weather prediction, finite element analysis, computational fluid dynamics, computational physics, computational chemistry, and electricity supply systems state estimation. It is one of the most popular languages in the area of high-performance computing and is the language used for programs that benchmark and rank the world’s fastest supercomputers.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fortran#Fortran_2008
“Since Fortran has been in use for more than fifty years, there is a vast body of Fortran in daily use throughout the scientific and engineering communities. It is the primary language for some of the most intensive supercomputing tasks, such as weather and climate modeling, computational fluid dynamics, computational chemistry, computational economics, plant breeding and computational physics. Even today, half a century later, many of the floating-point benchmarks to gauge the performance of new computer processors are still written in Fortran (e.g., CFP2006, the floating-point component of the SPEC CPU2006 benchmarks).”
The Navy codes in what language now? FORTRAN!
Those old farts, they should have been coding in C, which BTW, was a retarded programming language before the release of C99, no double precision floating point instruction set before than, now that’s retarded!
And all the while FORTRAN has stayed ahead of the pack for one simple reason, it’s the most computationally efficient compiler out there, and it will stay that way, despite obvious biases of certain people who no nothing of which they speak.
FORTRAN is dead, long live FORTRAN!
2008 is a lousy model to predict 2010
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2008/081108.html
Again, “melt” isn’t the best word to use because there is a lot involved besides just melt. I use the word ablation because it includes all sorts of different things that help to break up and disperse ice pack, especially storms, surf, and wind currents.
How what remains of the ice pack behaves has less to do with temperatures than it has to do with weather. Major storms can break up and disperse a lot of ice while a storm-free period with exactly the same temperature of air and water will result in a completely different ablation profile.
Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
August 8, 2010 at 6:13 pm
wsbriggs says:
August 8, 2010 at 5:43 pm
inside every C/C++ program, is a Fortran program trying to get out.
I remember sitting in front of a computer screen in college back when FORTRAN was the hot language to learn for getting a computer job and trying to find what period I had either omitted or put in the wrong place that was causing my assignment to have a bug. Those days of staring at the green lettering on the screen (there was not multi-color then) for hours—gosh I don’t miss them.
At least you got to skip the punch cards, the green screen was a step up. Trying not to shuffle the cards, or figure out on what card the typo was on. Re-typing the whole program when you couldn’t figure out if it was a typo or a card out of order.
From: Amino Acids in Meteorites on August 8, 2010 at 6:13 pm
You got to start on a terminal? Lucky! Back in high school I learned punch cards first. No terminals but later we used these workstation-like IBM things, the monitor was built into the top at an angle, the program was transferred to 8-inch floppies which were then stuck into the mainframe. And to change tasks, you pulled out a drawer and loaded in a different stack of large magnetic disks. They looked so nice under their Plexiglas covers.
Dang, I miss line printers. Code just doesn’t look right if not on a long continuous strip of green-barred tractor feed printer paper, easy to scan through, with notes written right on the sheets. Plus they can be very environmentally-friendly. Back in college, the backs of those once-used wide sheets were THE paper for assignments for both the math and physics departments. Now that was practical recycling.
stevengoddard says:
August 8, 2010 at 8:27 pm
2008 is a lousy model to predict 2010
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2008/081108.html
August 11, 2008
The pace of sea ice loss sharply quickened in the past ten days, triggered by a series of strong storms that broke up thin ice in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas.
______
Once more, I disagree of course. I think 2010 has much more in common with 2008 then any other year, especially as both were very close in where they were on April 1, and both saw very large drops in sea ice from April through July. Divergence can do much the same as “strong storms” in breaking up the ice so it can melt more readily.
And so now we are really coming down to the wire, so it is getting a bit “fun” I suppose.
I suppose where we differ is looking at CO2 as being a “minor” GH gas. Certainly water vapor plays a bigger role, but it hasn’t increased 40% since the mid 1700′s.
==========================================
You can’t be serious that you would actually write this….LOL?
Oh….I see that you are…and that you did.
You just don’t know how to keep quiet for your own good at all, do you, R?
Right. I forgot.
To quote you from earlier in this thread: “Either way, I win.”
This post on a site by someone named Neven dedicated to Arctic Sea Ice speaks volumes for supporters of AGW. I’ve put the link to the site underneath. I’ll let the quote speak for itself.
“Extent melt rates have plummeted again after yet another extension of the adverse weather that is keeping the ice pack from converging towards the Pole. The month started out well with a small century break and some decent daily melts, due to an intensification of winds that were still blowing in the wrong direction but had an effect on the very mobile ice pack nonetheless. But this has reverted back to the state we have witnessed the past 6 weeks: Arctic skies dominated by low-pressure areas that increase cloudiness, decrease air temperatures and stall the Beaufort Gyre. The exact opposite of the conditions in 2007 that resulted in a record minimum extent.”
That someone can be happy to see increased melt and disappointed when conditions become adverse to ice tells you quite a lot about where their headspace is at.
http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2010/08/sea-ice-extent-update-23-last-chance-for-change.html
Ooops. I meant to say adverse to ice loss in the last paragraph there.
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
August 8, 2010 at 8:59 pm
punch cards…..IBM things,…8-inch floppies…magnetic disks. ..
They are prettier and much easier to use now. But I still think it’s funny that some people actually believe computers will “attain consciousness” some day. They aren’t any different than they were at the beginning they just have longer sets of instructions to follow that they do faster, with smaller parts doing the instructions.
Computers coming to life and co2 controlling climate; two things we should see on Myth Busters.
Re: David W says:
August 8, 2010 at 9:24 pm
Well, I dunno David, I’m one AGW sceptic who believes warmth and NW passage navigability would be great. Warmth is good, cold bad. I don’t know where you live, but you may come around to this thinking when you’re freezing it off this winter.
kadaka (KD Knoebel) said:-
August 8, 2010 at 4:45 pm
“After several months of reading the articles here and staring at the data ’til I got a feel for it, my gut gave me a number, 5.7.
As the season has progressed, I have seen confirmation of it in the trends. Now I want to be more hopeful, but I’ve learned throughout my life the problems from being too hopeful, but also what happens from not being hopeful enough.
So put me down for a 5.7 +/- 0.1 million km^2 minimum by the IARC-JAXA sea ice extent numbers. That’s my prediction.”
With about a month to go that’s not really very impressive, if you had made that 6 months ago then it would have been. Given your late start why not wait till September 1st :p
Andy
crosspatch said:-
August 8, 2010 at 8:39 pm
“Again, “melt” isn’t the best word to use because there is a lot involved besides just melt. I use the word ablation because it includes all sorts of different things that help to break up and disperse ice pack, especially storms, surf, and wind currents.”
What’s your terminology for after the minimum and extent increases again? Reverse ablation? Or do you revert to freeze?
Andy
I am a passer-by today and I find it interesting to seperate air temperature and sea surface temperature ( SST ) as two completely different thing while the reality is that they are correlated but in a longer sense.
My secondary education tells me that given an isolated environment, the water temperature and air temperature will get to an equalibrium eventually.
Given the air temperature is slightly above 0 for 2-3 weeks already, roughly 1-2 degrees lower than “normal”, the SST should start to fall or at least flattened the warming trend. I suppose this is the way why air temperature is important. Of course I always admit that sea current and sunshine are also important in shaping the SST, but I need to remind those who claim that SST is the “real” factor for melting about this fact.
The other thing that I find interesting is for those who claim a specticular drop in the next one and a half month to secure a very low NH sea ice extent, I would remind you those very low years are always accompanied with a large drop in early-mid August when the overall temperature is still comparatively high, this is a matter of specific heat capicity of air/sea transforming to latent heat capicity of ice melting. The reality is, given the air temperature is forecasted to be sub-zero near Arctic for at least another week, a realistic conclusion is that in at least another week, the ice melting mechanism is very much halted. Even the temperature is going to return to normal in say two weeks time, it will take time to restart the whole mechanism and with a lower overall temperature than it could be in early August. So reasonably it is realistic to say that the remaining part of the 2010 ice melting season is going to be at a slower pace than 2007,2008,2009.
Tim McHenry says:
August 8, 2010 at 9:45 pm
Well, I dunno David, I’m one AGW sceptic who believes warmth and NW passage navigability would be great. Warmth is good, cold bad. I don’t know where you live, but you may come around to this thinking when you’re freezing it off this winter.”
I hear where your coming from Tim but I’m not so sure Neven’s delight when he sees higher rates of Artic ice loss is due to him being a fan of warmth and an ice free NW passage.
….and possibly higher than 2005.
I think it will. I’ll put up 2 guesses, the latter one in September has the better chance to be right….I think.
DMi without my guesses, so my black circles don’t cover any parts
http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/6084/icecover201088.png
DMi with my guesses, the black circles
http://img38.imageshack.us/img38/3491/icecover20108.png
It could hit the slightly aggressive downturn 2005 (the red line) took just before the middle of August. But if not that, then I’m thinking it’s likely to pass through the downturn 2005 took in the middle of September just before it hit minimum. So 2010 would be higher than 2005, which would be pretty interesting. 🙂
190 comments here today. Maybe Arctic updates should be everyday till minimum. 😉
I am glad I can read about the arctic here at WUWT.
Imagine a situation were one could get info about it in MSM only ….which relys on press releases from Hansen et.al. …… good grief !
From: AndyW on August 8, 2010 at 10:26 pm
True, I should have trusted my gut and posted this prediction well over a month ago. But this is my first time doing something like this, thus I was hesitant. Next year I should be earlier, but meanwhile I need to severely update my programming skills and learn statistics so I can analyze things better.
Although more than seven months before the minimum would be quite a stretch for a prediction. Just looking at the SEARCH outlooks you can see how even the professionals will adjust their predictions as the minimum draws closer.
BTW, what’s your prediction?
The satellite pictures of this iceberg (?) shows that it is stuck in the fiord with sea ice across the mouth of it. Looks to me as if it will stay there for some time whilst winter approaches and it will freeze in situ. Ice shelfs fracture due to storm surges not temperature. Ice becomes more brittle the colder it gets and the Arctic has has some cold da
This ice shard looks locked in the fiord and will be frozen in situ over winter. Ice becomes brittler the colder it gets and the Arctic has been cold this summer. Ice shelves fracture due to storm surges and this could have broken off due to just this funneling up the fiord and the ice breaking at an old crevasse. No problem.
David W,
You need to read more at Neven’s place, specifically the post on the alarmist’s dilemma. Basically, it is all about the difficult position that we alarmists are in. On the one hand, we think that – for example – the melting of the Arctic is a bad thing and the longer it takes the better; on the other hand, there is the thought that the only things that is going to prompt action to prevent bad things are things with significant symbology – such as the melting of the Arctic ice.
So we are trapped. If the Arctic ice melts slowly, that may be worse for the planet than Arctic melting rapidly. But the truth is that we do not know what will trigger action and what will trigger bad things. Hence, the dilemma for us.
To be fair Steve, its pretty tough to judge the accuracy of ice thickness without a more refined regional chart. They did get the direction of the currents and most of the ice area correct.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/CT/animate.arctic.color.0.html
Sorry, the link from my comment to the 30 day animation from the UIUC front page is broken; here’s the home page: http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/
Regarding the live-shot from the north pole camera:
A lead formed between the near buoy and the far buoy early in the summer. You’ve been able to watch the far buoy drift first to the left of the near buoy, and then to the right. I thought it might be interesting if this lead opened up, and we saw an expanse of water large enough for a sub to surface in.
Instead the opposite seems to have occurred. The lead has slammed shut with enough force to cause the ice to buckle in one place.
Maybe we will get lucky, and be able to watch the formation of a pressure ridge.
Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
August 8, 2010 at 1:17 pm
stevengoddard says:
August 8, 2010 at 12:17 pm
dp
Walt Meier tells me that the amount of ice in the early 1980s was unusual.
I think I disagree with him. Unusual is a relative term. It is unusual compared to what?
It’s normal. What happened in 2007 was normal. What is happening this year is normal. What happened in the Little Ice Age was normal. And what happened during the Medieval Warm Period was normal.
Nothing unusual is happening in climate. Climate always changes. As some scientist said (I don’t remember which to give him credit), “If climate didn’t change that would be what is unusual”.
—————————–
I think this bears repeating. I always get a little cross when I see “anomaly” bandied about applied to some arbitary mean value. It sounds good but is in fact devoid of meaning.
One thing I have been noticing of late is how the solar minimum is being used to explain the short term recovery in the ice, the unusual 2008 dip in cold temperatures, colder winters etc. Well only a few years ago the influence of the sun was non-existent on climate. If the arctic does recover and a new strong La Nina appears, I suspect that the climate scientists will be arguing that it would be warming but for the weaker solar cycle, hmm does anyone see a new consensus emerging?
PIOMAS did not get “ice area correct.”
http://climateinsiders.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/piomasvsnsidcaugust62010.jpg
Thanks, Steven, for excellent update on the unpredictable Arctic sea ice.
“jakers says:
August 8, 2010 at 10:29 am
Has anybody actually looked at the satellite images lately? http://exploreourpla.net/explorer/?map=Arc&sat=ter&lon=0&lat=89,9&lvl=4&yir=2010&dag=219
The ice looks like it’s thin enough to be getting blown apart across nearly the whole arctic basin. It’s really spreading out. Wish we had an archive of these images to compare prior years.”
With the current temperature hovering around 0 degrees C, I think it more likely we will see an early re-freeze. Should this happen, my guess of 5.9mk^2 minimum will be lower than actual. However, due to the deterministic chaos inherent in climate, trying to make accurate predictions, even at short time scales, is fraught with difficulty.
Re: Bob from the UK says:
August 9, 2010 at 4:19 am
I’ve noticed the same thing.
Back in 2007 I used to merely ask questions about the influence of the variations in the sun’s intensity, primarily because the “established” graph had been replaced by a “new and improved” graph. I wanted to know what they had discovered which caused the old graph to be discarded, and also what the difference between the “high” and “low” points of the new graph were.
I was somewhat surprised by the tongue-lashing I received for even asking questions. Apparently even asking questions suggested I might have doubt that the sun had no effect. I was told in no uncertain terms the sun had no, zero, zilch, nada effect on world temperatures……or…..well…..maybe just a tiny, itty-bitty effect, but certainly not enough to matter in the slightest.
Times change.
stevengoddard says:
August 8, 2010 at 1:34 pm
““Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity”
– Hanlon’s Razor”
Why not? Malice is often the simplest and most likely explanation. Practically all the time in politics.
Perhaps the key lies in the phrase “adequately explained by stupidity”. With successful and intelligent people it is questionable whether mere stupidity can ever be an adequate explanation for persistent, blatant and unrepentant error. At the very least, it requires some sort of culpable refusal to examine the possibility of error, or to think things through rationally, or to avoid a possible blind spot by coming at things from another direction.
David Gould says:
August 9, 2010 at 2:04 am
Good point, and well put.
The skeptics’ dilemma is similar. We want it to get cold because it would demonstrate that CO2 is not to blame for recent warming, and yet we generally feel that cold is bad and warm is good. History certainly shows us that! If we are merely rebounding from the LIA and its associated hardships and famine, then that should be heralded as a good thing all round, not a cause for alarm. Cold kills far more people than warmth.
jlc says:
August 8, 2010 at 1:59 pm
evanmjones says:
August 8, 2010 at 9:20 am
“I have carried out extensive observations of paint drying over recent years and have also taken core samples from painted surfaces at many sites around the world. By direct measurement and correlation with tree rings and upside down Finnish mud, I have established beyond doubt that paint is now drying faster that ever before in the last 15 million years.
In fact the rate of drying has doubled in the past month.”
While I would not dissent from your conclusions concerning the long-term trend (which I would ascribe to secular shifts in the composition and use of paint, such as the very serious lead depletion problem, and the increasing prevelance of allegedly “improved” formulas) I must note that local observations do not entirely support such unprecedented rapidity as you report. On the contrary, a recently applied coat of varnish took a noticeably longer time to dry than a similar coat applied to the same surface only a few days previously, though it should be remarked that a variance in the zenithal angle of the sun may have contributed to the latter result. One should also consider the possibility that paints and varnishes may belong to significantly different populations with divergent trends.
Tune into Bastardi’s vids if you can. Not up yet….but he posted this on his blog:
“Also, remember its the Monday Morning global sea ice/temp report and you wont want to miss this as there is evidence of a an ICE RALLY in the northern hemisphere well before its supposed to start increasing. The southern hemsiphere is well above normal.”
David Gould says:
August 9, 2010 at 2:04 am
David W,
“You need to read more at Neven’s place, specifically the post on the alarmist’s dilemma. Basically, it is all about the difficult position that we alarmists are in. On the one hand, we think that – for example – the melting of the Arctic is a bad thing and the longer it takes the better; on the other hand, there is the thought that the only things that is going to prompt action to prevent bad things are things with significant symbology – such as the melting of the Arctic ice.
So we are trapped. If the Arctic ice melts slowly, that may be worse for the planet than Arctic melting rapidly. But the truth is that we do not know what will trigger action and what will trigger bad things. Hence, the dilemma for us.”
Sorry, but the nature of the post kind of makes me a little too cynical to accept your explanation.
I’m inclined to believe its more a case of Neven being happy at any sort of ice loss news that he thinks proves he is right.
Be damned with the consequences. Harsh but I call it as I see it.
Bob from the UK says:
August 9, 2010 at 4:19 am
One thing I have been noticing of late is how the solar minimum is being used to explain the short term recovery in the ice, the unusual 2008 dip in cold temperatures, colder winters etc. Well only a few years ago the influence of the sun was non-existent on climate. If the arctic does recover and a new strong La Nina appears, I suspect that the climate scientists will be arguing that it would be warming but for the weaker solar cycle, hmm does anyone see a new consensus emerging
____
Bob,
Not sure what sources you’re using to say that the sun was “non-existent” in climate (I take it you mean climate forecasts)?
Anyway, nothing could be further from the truth. From the longer term Milankovitch cycles to the shorter term solar cycles, the amount of solar energy reaching the earth and how and when it strikes the earth are obvious drivers to climate. No reputable climate expert denies the role of the sun. The dips and rises in global temps during solar minima and maxima respectively are easy to see on any global temperature chart, and amount to a tenth of a degree or so either way. If you go here:
http://www.climate4you.com/
and click on sun in the left hand column, and then schroll down to see the chart that looks at solar cycles vs global temps it is very obvious to anyway the influence of solar cycles. This chart, if you look closely is a wealth of other information as well, for it shows the effects of El Nino’s and La Ninas (check out 1974 or 1998 for example). But these effects are short lived and ride on top of the much longer term uptrend in global temps that can readily be seen.
Just looking at the same chart, and looking at the flattening of the rise in global temps during the later part of this decade (up until this year), it is more than obvious that the flattening occurrred after the peak of the last solar max (23) and during the onset of the long and deep solar minimum we saw in 2008-2009, where the sun was very quiet and saw long stretches of time with a blank sun. This was the most quiet sun in a century or so. Added to that solar minimum, we had good sized La Nina in 2008, followed by another wave of near-La Nina conditions in 2009. Is it any wonder that global temps cooled in this time frame?
But that period is passsed us now, and though we are likely in for another La Nina this fall and winter, I don’t see it getting as severe as the 2008 episode and as we approach the next solar max in 2013, I’m betting we’ll have another El Nino in that time frame (or slightly earlier) as well, and going back to the chart I introduced at the start of this post, it is fairly easy to predict more record high global temps between now and 2015.
The “race” this year is between 2009 and 2005. 2008 is pretty much unreachable and 2007 is beyond that.
JER0ME says:
August 9, 2010 at 6:27 am
Yes, cold kills far more than heat. The whole point is that the Warmist Activits are pumping out the wrong message about what is happening (or about to happen) to the world. Ill-advised governments do not properly prepare for contingenicies.
The difference between NSIDC’s Aug 4th graph (http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20100804_Figure2.png) and the current graph (http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png) is remarkable. There’s an issue their data processing somewhere…
R. Gates says:
August 9, 2010 at 7:10 am
….. This was the most quiet sun in a century or so. Added to that solar minimum, we had good sized La Nina in 2008, followed by another wave of near-La Nina conditions in 2009. Is it any wonder that global temps cooled in this time frame?
But that period is passsed us now, and though we are likely in for another La Nina this fall and winter, I don’t see it getting as severe as the 2008 episode and as we approach the next solar max in 2013, I’m betting we’ll have another El Nino in that time frame (or slightly earlier) as well, and going back to the chart I introduced at the start of this post, it is fairly easy to predict more record high global temps between now and 2015.”
Actually the last La Nina was not classified as a strong event whereas the one that is coming is certainly showing the signs of being much stronger perhaps the strongest since 1974.
In terms of solar activity, it is now looking likely that the coming solar maximum might well be the quietest in a century. If we see unfudged global temp maximums in the coming 5 years I will be very surprised.
The key word being “unfudged”. Outside of people working or connected to the CRU and NASA, global temperature data is treated with a very healthy dose of scepticism these days. Sorry but there are only so many times someone can cry “wolf”.
I suspect things are going to get worse though. As more cold snaps are seen around the globe and the public is continually bombarded with stories of record high temps they will continue to treat both the news stories and the data with increasing disdain.
rbateman says:
August 9, 2010 at 7:25 am
Yes, cold kills far more than heat.
Twice as many:
0:46 video
Cold, or I should say extreme situations, also makes people become superstitious and turn on each other:
7:39 video, Sallie Ballunis
Fred N.
The explanation for the NSIDC graph discrepancy is very simple. If you look closely at the change to the most recent graph, you can see that NSIDC gave the Arctic a dose of Viagra on August 3.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMIn2SKTXNU]
I believe we are in an interesting couple of years. All climate sceptic experts are predicting the temps. to not only go down but stay down. We will see. It is fascinating how the solar cycle has weakened at the time when the cooling was predicted i.e. the 60 year cycles. I’m also interested to see how CO2 reacts. I noticed how the CO2 rose very strongly as the El Nino peaked.
I just want to say that I think I’ve sorted out some of my confusion over the SST/DMI data differences I was asking about yesterday in the comments. I was apparently misinterpreting what SST was actually measuring, thinking it was air temperature, rather than temperature of the water at the surface. I just want people to know that I’d rather have obvious mistakes of mine pointed out, rather than ignored, and I appreciate the time anyone takes to set me straight. Keeps me from wasting time chasing ghosts.
Rod
R Gates said:
“it is fairly easy to predict more record high global temps between now and 2015.”
Yes I can see that you would wish for record temps, the problem is however that your predictions since the start of the year have not exactly been accurate have they?
The dogma dictates sea ice death spirals/record declines/record highs etc so you use the alarmist tool box to supply us with predictions aplenty but predictions and models are one thing whereas actual reality is quite another.
Some time ago you predicted with surprising confidence that this years polar sea ice minimum would be a record or near record low and you backed this up by using the PIOMASS model among other tools. You stated that this year would be “one heck of a melt season”, it seems you and your model were wrong and the PIPS model you derided and thought outdated and inaccurate was in fact correct.
So my friend, you cast the dice early in the year and now you are faced with the reality, a reality that you did not predict, your models did not predict and your sources did not predict. I await your revised position and predictions for the coming maximum with eager anticipation, it seems you represent the consensus view and use the consensus tool box and its very interesting to see the disconnect between the alarmist models and actual reality.
BTW I enjoy reading your posts, you bring a different side to the debate that is very useful and interesting.
You start the post with the following quote concerning PIOMAS from your april post:
“The computer model is predicting that 3+ year old ice (which is probably in excess of 10 feet thick) is going to melt by early August. That seems rather far fetched.”
In the April post, this concerns ice “north of Barrow”:
“They are showing that by August 18, all ice will be gone north of Barrow, AK.”
I think in nine days or so you should discuss what has happened north of Barrow. Before that, it is too early to claim clear victory on this front, since although PIOMAS people did go wrong partly, your April guess hasn’t been confirmed either. Right now it seems that by August 18th, practically all ice at the coast near Barrow will indeed be gone.
We’ll see how the melt season ends only when it ends.
Cassandra King says:
August 9, 2010 at 9:21 am
R Gates said:
“it is fairly easy to predict more record high global temps between now and 2015.”
Yes I can see that you would wish for record temps, the problem is however that your predictions since the start of the year have not exactly been accurate have they?
The dogma dictates sea ice death spirals/record declines/record highs etc so you use the alarmist tool box to supply us with predictions aplenty but predictions and models are one thing whereas actual reality is quite another.
Some time ago you predicted with surprising confidence that this years polar sea ice minimum would be a record or near record low and you backed this up by using the PIOMASS model among other tools. You stated that this year would be “one heck of a melt season”, it seems you and your model were wrong and the PIPS model you derided and thought outdated and inaccurate was in fact correct.
So my friend, you cast the dice early in the year and now you are faced with the reality, a reality that you did not predict, your models did not predict and your sources did not predict. I await your revised position and predictions for the coming maximum with eager anticipation, it seems you represent the consensus view and use the consensus tool box and its very interesting to see the disconnect between the alarmist models and actual reality.
BTW I enjoy reading your posts, you bring a different side to the debate that is very useful and interesting.
_____
Thanks for your input. The melt season is far from over.
From: R. Gates on August 8, 2010 at 5:19 pm
We’re talking specifically about the Arctic, and you whip out a “Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Anomaly” chart, which could include ice off the coast of New Jersey as that’s in the Northern Hemisphere.
Tricky!
It ain’t over till the fat lady sings. I hear her.
From: R. Gates on August 8, 2010 at 5:19 pm
I want the ice cubes in my freezer to not melt. Do I analyze the difference in temperature from the average temp last year, or do I simply check the current temperature reading of the thermometer inside?
Really, you’re just complicating the issue needlessly.
Any volunteers to go to squeege the pole cam?
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/northpole/webphotos/noaa2.jpg
Looks like the north pole cam shows snow covering up that ice pond!
Sean Peake says:
August 9, 2010 at 1:55 pm
And what temperature does GISS claim the pole is right now? If it’s >0 C, then clearly the picture (data) is wrong, as the extrapolation model has to be correct.
Has anyone else noted that the flow of sea ice out through the Fram came to close to a complete halt about 3 weeks ago
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/CT/animate.arctic.color.4.html
The flow out the Fram tends to dwindle during each melt season but, to my eye at least, it has tended to bottom out later and less completely in most other years. Usually closer to the minimum.
I remember FORTRAN punch cards. Thats what there was when I learned FORTRAN. I do not miss the cards, but I learned a Lot. (Back in the sixties) Then I was an instructor for a long time in electronics.
Thanks WUWT. Your effect on the world will go a long way toward saving sanity.
Al Cooper
I learned a lot from Fortran punch cards, like to be careful not to drop your deck.
JER0ME,
That is certainly an interesting insight into the mirror image dilemma that you sceptics have. 🙂
DavidW,
My advice is that it is always best to take a charitable view of your opponents and assume that they – while being completely wrong, of course – have good intentions. I do not always manage to follow this advice myself, unfortunately, but I still think that it is the best policy.
Steve,
2007 had record low extent due to compacted ice. Do you think there is now more ice because it is not compacted?
Check the satellite pictures, every black or grey pixel equals 1 square kilometer open water and the extent counts them as ice.
http://exploreourpla.net/explorer/?map=Arc&sat=ter&lvl=7&lat=85&lon=-170&yir=2010&dag=220
Your assertions are based on water.
noiv,
There is something very interesting in that satellite image. The leads are freezing up several weeks early this year.
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
August 9, 2010 at 10:42 am
From: R. Gates on August 8, 2010 at 5:19 pm
There was no “trick” involved in looking at an anomaly map. It is the only thing that can tell you if things are warmer or colder than average. The best chart, for example, that you can currently look at to give you the long term sense for what is going on in the Arctic sea ice is the long term anomaly chart:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/sea.ice.anomaly.timeseries.jpg
This tape is the closest thing we have to a “heartbeat” of the Arctic, and there is no “trick” to using it to tell a great deal.
We’re talking specifically about the Arctic, and you whip out a “Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Anomaly” chart, which could include ice off the coast of New Jersey as that’s in the Northern Hemisphere.
Tricky!
______
Hmmm…ice off the coast of New Jersey?
Well, again, I guess we just disagree then, because the chart is the best resource you can have to get a pulse for the long term trends of Arctic Sea ice, but if you’d rather look at something else, like pictures of submarines coming up in open water that happens all the time in the Arctic, then have it my friend.
R Gates: you have told us that the water temperature in the Arctic are warm and this will make the ice continue to melt even if the air temperatures in the region are below freezing. That seems a common sense statement.
Where did the heat in the water come from; was it transported from southern oceans, maybe with the Gulf Stream or did the Arctic sun heat it up? I would guess the heat is transported northwards from areas where the sun intensity is stronger?
If this is correct then the volume of the ice melt is really more related to what the ocean currents are doing during any one year and how much heat is transported northwards than polar temperatures? If this is the line to be taken then it really is pointless to point to variations of the ice levels (thickness or extent, which ever measurement you choose) as being a reliable barometer of global warming or warmer Arctic air temperatures (which seems to be one of the big conclusions in AGW models). From this point of view ice levels are mostly related to ocean current which might be called “ocean weather”?
Is that an argument you are making?
Julian in Wales says:
August 9, 2010 at 7:07 pm
R Gates: you have told us that the water temperature in the Arctic are warm and this will make the ice continue to melt even if the air temperatures in the region are below freezing. That seems a common sense statement.
Where did the heat in the water come from; was it transported from southern oceans, maybe with the Gulf Stream or did the Arctic sun heat it up? I would guess the heat is transported northwards from areas where the sun intensity is stronger?
If this is correct then the volume of the ice melt is really more related to what the ocean currents are doing during any one year and how much heat is transported northwards than polar temperatures? If this is the line to be taken then it really is pointless to point to variations of the ice levels (thickness or extent, which ever measurement you choose) as being a reliable barometer of global warming or warmer Arctic air temperatures (which seems to be one of the big conclusions in AGW models). From this point of view ice levels are mostly related to ocean current which might be called “ocean weather”?
Is that an argument you are making?
_______
There is some influx of heat from both the Atlantic and from the Pacific currents that come into the Arctic, and we know that the N. Atlantic, especially around Greenland has been warmer than normal since last winter, and so certainly some of this heat could have made it’s way into the higher Arctic, but the primary source of heat came from solar insolation earlier in the summer. May and June’s melt opened up water that received a good dose of sunlight just as the sun was reaching its highest point in the Arctic sky. This combined with some influx and higher than normal air temps in the early season brought about the warmer than normal water.
The Arctic air right now (in some areas) may even be a bit cooler than normal, but not dramatically so. But the air temps are not as critical right now as the water temps and the diverged ice that has spread out into the warmer waters. This lower concentration ice is melting as we speak (despite those who would lead you to believe that the melt has stopped). Here’s the key point: Diverged ice (ice that has spread) makes the extent decline appear to slow, but it doesn’t slow the melt, but if anything, actually increases the melt as there is more surface area of the ice in contact with the open water. The extent decline slow down does not mean a melt slow down necessarily– you have to take divergence into account before making that determination. The only way we’ll really eventually have an accurate determination of real melt rates is when we have a true 3-D perspective of the ice, that can be updated on a regular basis. Then when we get spreading, we can still look at total area times thickness, and see what the volume is doing. This is one reason that I look forward to CryoSat 2 data, besides the fact that it will offer some amazing graphical looks at the ice.
Julian in Wales,
And the temperature of these currents has, of course, no relation to the overall temperature of the earth …
PIOMAS is checked with LASERs. ICESAT got a TRUE VOLUME and it was BELOW PIOMAS.
PI-AS. was developed by the same people as PIps2. Zhang was co-author of Pips 3.0 !
… the “AS” in PIOMAS is ASSIMILATION & it is Pips 2 PLUS:
Buoys, ships, planes that actually MEASURE Ice thickness.
The 1 disagreement with the Laser Sat was 2007 – – because PIOMAS had no measurement from the Center.
Too far from Land — except 2008-to-May 30 this year, when Icebridge planes lasered the whole Ocean.
Basically ALL the OTHER indexes take the “broad-swath” Satellites which measure reflected IR or MW & get a RELATIVE CONCENTRATION.
RELATIVE
If Winter spreads out 1 foot of Ice, or 20 feet thickness … PIPS 2.0 will SHOW THE SAME – – an ASSUMED Thickness, modified by seasonal averages, for the whole Arctic — then where CONCENTRATION is High, they make it thicker THAN AVERAGE.
Do they MEASURE the Average ??
NO.
The Lasers measure it all, Pips MEASURES THICKNESS NOT AT ALL. Nor do JAXA, NSIDC, DMI, etc.
Piomas … adds Any measurement it can get, but that is VERY SPOTTY. Right now, you cannot trust it . But for the past, both hundreds of Sub tracks’ average, & the Laser sats, confirmed it as EXCELLENT – – except for 1 situation — which is the same one we are in now (maybe).
What really disturbs me is the LOW is gone, High Pressure Rules – – and the Clouds ARE STILL THERE.
I was expecting a “Cascade Melt” & it looks like the 9-week Enso Time Lag, as opposed to the 6-week Cold Tongue Index, will set when we get Clear Skies. And that is just too late (Well: Yippeee! I really did not WANT 300 mph winds ! ) … although the 10-day forecast — click N. Hemis(phere) at http://www.wetterzentrale.de/topkarten/fsecmeur.html
– – implies a Wild storm & thus MASSIVE Fram outflow – – as the Big Low returns (but that means Clouds, so any apparent extent “gain” is not really a melting). Update after JAXA:
Comparing _______2007___ to___ 2010_____&____2009__
Ahead June 28______ no________ 679,531 Sq.Km___no__
Ahead Aug8____+753,437=15days__no___________no__
(2009 now -164,219 behind = 4 days)
OCEAN CURRENT STOP: RISK : net -3.5% = 6.5 % … and under 2% if the clouds hold.
Daily: ___________2007___ to___ 2010_____&____2009__
Aug 7-8________- 75,625 _____ – 50,313 ___(-43,281)
Aug 8-9________- 83,750 _____ – PIOMAS is checked with LASERs. ICESAT got a TRUE VOLUME and it was BELOW PIOMAS.
P. was developed by the same people. Zhang was co-author of Pips 3.0 !
… the “AS” in PIOMAS is ASSIMILATION & it is Pips 2 PLUS:
Buoys, ships, planes that actually MEASURE Ice thickness.
The 1 disagreement with the Laser Sat was 2007 – – because PIOMAS had no measurement from the Center.
Too far from Land — except 2008-to-2010: May 30, when Icebridge planes lasered the whole Ocean.
TYpu see basically ALL measures take the “broad-swath Satellites which measure what is being reflected & get a RELATIVE CONCENTRATION.
RELATIVE. If Winter spreads out 1 foot of Ice or 20, PIPS 2.0 will READ THE SAME – – and ASSUMED Thickness, modified by seasonal averages, for the whole Arctic — then where CONCENTRATION is High, they make it thicker THAN AVERAGE.
Do they MEASURE the Average ??
NO.
The Lasers measure it all, Pips MEASURES NO THICKNESS AT ALL, as JAXA, NSIDC, etc. Piomas … gets any measurement made, but that is VERY SPOTTY. Right now, you cannot trust it . But for the past, both hundreds of Sub tracks’ average, & the Laser sats, confirmed it as EXCELLENT – – except for 1 situation — which is the same one we are in now (maybe).
What really disturbs me is the LOW is gone, High Pressure Rules – – and the Clouds ARE STILL THERE.
I was expecting a “Cascade Melt” & it looks like the 9-week Enso Delay, as opposed to the 6-week Cold Tongue Index, will be the return of CLear Skies. And that is just too late. although the 10-day forecast — click N. Hemis(phere) at http://www.wetterzentrale.de/topkarten/fsecmeur.html
– – implies a Wild storm & MASSIVE Fram outflow – – as the Big Low returns (but that means Clouds).
Comparing _______2007___ to___ 2010_____&____2009__
Ahead June 28______ no________ 679,531 Sq.Km___no__
Ahead Aug 8____+753,437=15days____no__________no__
(2009 now -164,219 behind = 4 days)
OCEAN CURRENT STOP: RISK : net -3.5% = 6.5 % … and under 2% if the clouds hold 2 more weeks*.
Daily: ___________2007___ to___ 2010_____&____2009__
Aug 7-8________- 75,625 _____ – 50,313 _______(-43,281)
Aug 8-9________- 83,750 _____ – 76,094prelim.__(-35,000)
Aug 9-10_______ -37,500 _____ – ?___ ? _______(-45,819)
* minus .1% if under 150K ice loss, .2 under 100K, .4% under 50K// if Over 150K: Add.
But the air temps are not as critical right now as the water temps and the diverged ice that has spread out into the warmer waters. This lower concentration ice is melting as we speak (despite those who would lead you to believe that the melt has stopped). Here’s the key point: Diverged ice (ice that has spread) makes the extent decline appear to slow, but it doesn’t slow the melt, but if anything, actually increases the melt as there is more surface area of the ice in contact with the open water.
Charles Wilson
How is your 1 million km2 forecast working out?
R. Gates: August 9, 2010 at 7:44 pm
Diverged ice (ice that has spread) makes the extent decline appear to slow, but it doesn’t slow the melt, but if anything, actually increases the melt as there is more surface area of the ice in contact with the open water.
You have two ice cubes in a bowl, six inches apart. Now you move them six inches farther apart (you have a *large* bowl) and have therefore increased their divergence, but you have not increased their surface area in contact with the water.
stevengoddard says:
August 8, 2010 at 6:10 pm
Nightvid Cole
Why is concrete much stronger than cement by itself?
___________________________________
Steven Goddard,
Why won’t a rubber balloon with even a few small holes hold air for even a few minutes?
Seriously, let’s not become famous for our abuse of unthinkably bizarre analogies!
Steve,
you may want to use the infrared bands and learn to distinguish thin clouds from ice:
http://exploreourpla.net/explorer/?map=Arc&sat=367&lvl=7&lat=76&lon=-155&yir=2010&dag=220
noiv: August 10, 2010 at 5:59 am
Steve,
you may want to use the infrared bands and learn to distinguish thin clouds from ice
Here’s a better one for that — it’s actually over the pole, and not in the middle of the Beaufort Gyre:
http://exploreourpla.net/explorer/?map=Arc&sat=ter&lon=0&lat=89,9&lvl=4&yir=2010&dag=221
Bill Tuttle says:
August 10, 2010 at 1:39 am
R. Gates: August 9, 2010 at 7:44 pm
Diverged ice (ice that has spread) makes the extent decline appear to slow, but it doesn’t slow the melt, but if anything, actually increases the melt as there is more surface area of the ice in contact with the open water.
You have two ice cubes in a bowl, six inches apart. Now you move them six inches farther apart (you have a *large* bowl) and have therefore increased their divergence, but you have not increased their surface area in contact with the water.
______
This is not exactly an appropriate analogy to what happens with divergence. You have one solid piece of ice floating in a bowl of water. Spread that ice into 4 smaller pieces and see how much more actual ice is in contact with the water. In reality, what happens with diverging sea ice is somewhere in between the example you gave and my illustration. Pieces both spread out as well as break up, opening up places to have more contact with water. Added to this is the fact that the diverging tends to go more south where the water is even warmer. Remember my whole point here it that simply looking at a slow down in the sea ice extent drop is not necessarily a good indicator that the melt has slowed down. Certain times of the year, especially when the ice is diverging, it a bad time to think the slowdown in the extent drop is sign the melt has slowed. Steve has equated a slowdown in the the extent drop with a slowdown in the melt, with no evidence that is an accurate guage.
This most recent update to sea surface temps in the Arctic tells you that there’s plenty of warmth left in the water (lots higher than normal areas) to melt the ice.
http://polar.ncep.noaa.gov/sst/ophi/color_anomaly_NPS_ophi0.png
R. Gates: August 10, 2010 at 7:43 am
This most recent update to sea surface temps in the Arctic tells you that there’s plenty of warmth left in the water (lots higher than normal areas) to melt the ice.
That’s the anomaly chart. Anomalies don’t melt ice, warmth does, and according to the sea *temperature* chart, it’s downright *cold* up there…
http://polar.ncep.noaa.gov/sst/ophi/color_sst_NW_ophi0.png
Bill Tuttle says:
August 10, 2010 at 8:31 am
R. Gates: August 10, 2010 at 7:43 am
This most recent update to sea surface temps in the Arctic tells you that there’s plenty of warmth left in the water (lots higher than normal areas) to melt the ice.
That’s the anomaly chart. Anomalies don’t melt ice, warmth does, and according to the sea *temperature* chart, it’s downright *cold* up there…
_____
Bill, to know how ice may behave this year compared to past years, you’d have to know how the sea surface temps compare to past years, and that’s why anomalies are so important. Looking only at temps doesn’t tell you how those temps are different from what the averages are. But either way you want to equivocate it— SST’s are generally higher than average across most of the Arctic right now.
The SST anomaly charts show that most of the open water in the Arctic Basin is well below normal temperatures.
My current estimate for Arctic sea ice extent, bases on JAXA data 2003-2010 inclusive is 4.79E+^ km^2 (standard deviation is 0.25E+6 km^2).
It looks like 2010 is going to track somewhere between 2009 and 2008 (the statistics to date suggest 2010 will be closer to 2008).
Zhang and Lindsay heve updated their forecast for August 2010 with an Arctic sea ice extent of 4.8E+6 km^2 (same as their July forcast);
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/zhang/IDAO/seasonal_outlook.html
R. Gates says:
August 10, 2010 at 7:43 am
All that yellow looks scary until you realize it stands for 0 to +1 degree anomaly. And since we’re comparing to 2007-2009, how do these anomalies compare to this year’s?
-Scott
R. Gates: August 10, 2010 at 9:16 am
Bill, to know how ice may behave this year compared to past years, you’d have to know how the sea surface temps compare to past years, and that’s why anomalies are so important. Looking only at temps doesn’t tell you how those temps are different from what the averages are. But either way you want to equivocate it— SST’s are generally higher than average across most of the Arctic right now.
To know how ice may behave this year compared to past years, you also have to take atmospheric circulation into effect, since the strength, temperature, and direction of the wind has as much to do with it as the water temperature — as graphically demonstrated in 2007.
And, anomaly or not, that water is still *cold* up there.
stevengoddard says:
August 10, 2010 at 9:36 am
The SST anomaly charts show that most of the open water in the Arctic Basin is well below normal temperatures.
Not according to JAXA:
http://sharaku.eorc.jaxa.jp/cgi-bin/amsr/polar_sst/polar_sst.cgi?lang=e
From: EFS_Junior on August 10, 2010 at 11:08 am
You’re getting confused by the permanent “Zhang and Lindsay” header on that page. The SEARCH September Sea Ice Outlook: July Report is clear.
From: Bill Tuttle on August 10, 2010 at 8:31 am
Hey, that’s cute. Compare it with the polar projection,
http://polar.ncep.noaa.gov/sst/ophi/color_sst_NPS_ophi0.png
and you can see how the “ring around the pole” artifact looks when stretched out.
I wonder when they’re going to fix that.
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
August 10, 2010 at 4:08 pm
—…—…—
Well sir, you have only about 15 – 18 days left in this year’s melting season before Arctic air temperatures at 80 north go back below 0.0 C.
What is your explanation for the steady DECREASE in Arctic daily summer temperatures the DMI have measured at 80 North since 1958?
Bill Tuttle says:
August 10, 2010 at 1:39 am
R. Gates: August 9, 2010 at 7:44 pm
Diverged ice (ice that has spread) makes the extent decline appear to slow, but it doesn’t slow the melt, but if anything, actually increases the melt as there is more surface area of the ice in contact with the open water.
You have two ice cubes in a bowl, six inches apart. Now you move them six inches farther apart (you have a *large* bowl) and have therefore increased their divergence, but you have not increased their surface area in contact with the water.
—…—…—…—
Several CAGW proponents have cast aspersions on this analogy in various ways, but ALL have forgotten the real numbers involved. NONE have noted the real world values involved.
The ice is very, very shallow (almost never greater than 3 meters (10-11) feet thick, and most between 1.5 and 2.5 meters thick. The ice – even when broken up in to small platforms and separated by tens of thousands of varying width water “valleys” (or rivers ?) – is melting from below. Not from the +1 to +3 (max!) air temperature touching the ice mass upper surface.
Therefore, melt rate is strictly proportional to the exposed area of the ice to the water.
A 2 meter thick mass of ice 1000 meter x 1000 meter in area has 1.8 meter below water. Total area exposed to the water is 1000^2 + 4 x 1.8 m x 1000 m^2 = 1,007,200 m^2
Break that ice up into one hundred 100 meter x 100 meter sections. Note: Square ice blocks are unlikely, but easy to calculate. 8<) Each ice block has 100^2 m^2 + 4 x 100 x 1.8 m^2 = 10720 m^2 exposed to the water.
total area exposed for melting = 1,072,000 m^2
Net increase? A whooping, breathtaking 1.064 increase when the ice breaks up.
Rod Everson says:
August 8, 2010 at 11:07 am
The DMI page: http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php has an interesting feature. You can quickly click from year to year and get graphs of the data for each year starting in 1958. I did that and noticed something I found interesting.j
If you start in 1958, looking only at the summer months when the temp is above 273 K, it’s interesting how little variation there is from the average temp for that day. Almost none for the first 20 years or so. (My understanding of this phenomenon is that the ice prevents the air temperature from rising, much like water in a glass of ice responds as long as there’s ice remaining, but my understanding might be incorrect.)
Now, if you keep clicking through the years, you’ll start to see a bit more variation. 21 of the remaining 33 years (1978-2010) I would characterize as varying quite a bit from the average, especially considering the behavior from 1958-77.
—…—…—
A WUWT reader (and far better programmer than I, who began with Fortran 80 character punch cards back in 1974 – “hoping” for a CRT with even dot-matrix green letters and a printer!) recently plotted ALL DMI daily temperature data for Latitude 80 north.
Net result?
1) Average Arctic Summer Temperatures (those in the dates when the average temperature at 80 degrees north latitude is above 0.0 C) have steadily declined from 1958 through 2009/2010.
2) Winter temperatures (those in Nov-Dec-Jan-Feb) have shown much, much higher standard deviations (much greater variability!) but have increased slightly since 1958.
3) Hansen’s GISS claims of +4 degree rise in Arctic (surface) Temperatures (extrapolated 1200 km across the Arctic Ocean from three land stations) is completely false.
RACookPE1978 says:
August 10, 2010 at 6:29 pm
Bill Tuttle says:
August 10, 2010 at 1:39 am
R. Gates: August 9, 2010 at 7:44 pm
Diverged ice (ice that has spread) makes the extent decline appear to slow, but it doesn’t slow the melt, but if anything, actually increases the melt as there is more surface area of the ice in contact with the open water.
You have two ice cubes in a bowl, six inches apart. Now you move them six inches farther apart (you have a *large* bowl) and have therefore increased their divergence, but you have not increased their surface area in contact with the water.
—…—…—…—
Several CAGW proponents have cast aspersions on this analogy in various ways, but ALL have forgotten the real numbers involved. NONE have noted the real world values involved.
The ice is very, very shallow (almost never greater than 3 meters (10-11) feet thick, and most between 1.5 and 2.5 meters thick. The ice – even when broken up in to small platforms and separated by tens of thousands of varying width water “valleys” (or rivers ?) – is melting from below. Not from the +1 to +3 (max!) air temperature touching the ice mass upper surface.
Therefore, melt rate is strictly proportional to the exposed area of the ice to the water.
A 2 meter thick mass of ice 1000 meter x 1000 meter in area has 1.8 meter below water. Total area exposed to the water is 1000^2 + 4 x 1.8 m x 1000 m^2 = 1,007,200 m^2
Break that ice up into one hundred 100 meter x 100 meter sections. Note: Square ice blocks are unlikely, but easy to calculate. 8<) Each ice block has 100^2 m^2 + 4 x 100 x 1.8 m^2 = 10720 m^2 exposed to the water.
total area exposed for melting = 1,072,000 m^2
Net increase? A whooping, breathtaking 1.064 increase when the ice breaks up
___________
Very well done analysis, and while the increase in surface area (at least using square blocks) is only modest, there are two more important features that I pointed out:
1) The diverged ice moves over areas (such as the Kara sea) that has warmer waters than the waters it was previously in closer to the central Arctic. For example, look at his Kara Sea ice graph for the last few days, (when divergence has been happening):
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.7.html
If you were looking at only the extent as a measure of whether or not the melt had slowed, you'd say that it had pretty much stopped completely. But it is thermodynamically impossible for ice to stop melting under the conditions we see in the Kara sea. Ice has been diverging in the Kara Sea, making the extent drop stop, but the melt has not stopped. The Kara sea has otherwise shown anomalously low levels of ice all summer (hence why the water is anomalously warm).
So yes, divergence only increases surface area (with perfect cubes) modestly, but more importantly, it can send ice over warmer waters, causing the extent decline rate to slow, but the melt doesn't actually slow. Later on in September, the divergence is over, the waters begin to cool rapidly, the extent begins to increase once more and we come to the end of the melt season.
Phil. said on August 10, 2010 at 3:42 pm:
Ah good, we can have a game of “Map Duel!”
Here are the DMI Arctic Sea Surface Temperatures anomaly maps:
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/satellite/index.uk.php
Select Parameter: Sea Surface Temp. (anomalies)
You can see the band of -2 to 0°C anomaly water surrounding the ice. Yup, sure looks (relatively) cold. 😉
R. Gates: August 10, 2010 at 10:20 pm
So yes, divergence only increases surface area (with perfect cubes) modestly, but more importantly, it can send ice over warmer waters, causing the extent decline rate to slow, but the melt doesn’t actually slow.
Which is why I said that “you also have to take atmospheric circulation into effect, since the strength, temperature, and direction of the wind has as much to do with it as the water temperature” — it’s not just the currents that cause divergence.
Popcorn?
Just thought people might be interested in this analysis…
As we all know, current extent is a fairly poor predictor of September minimum (poor correlation). Using the 2002-2009 JAXA record, I get R^2 values of:
July 1 – 0.540
July 15 – 0.712
Aug 1 – 0.812
However, by Aug 10 the R^2 is at 0.914. The prediction currently sits at 5.08e6 +/- 4.74e6 km^2(95% confidence interval), very slightly favoring Steve over R. Gates. This method was indicating ~record lows at the start of July and has steadily increased in value, though it has leveled off the past 4 days or so.
In just a few days, this predictor will be doing far better in terms of uncertainty, as the Aug 15 R^2 value is 0.954 and the Aug 20 R^2 value is 0.974. For instance, input the value from Aug 17, 2009 and one gets 5.33e6 +/- 2.77e6 km^2…actual low was 5.25e6 (I know this isn’t a fair comparison given that 2009’s number is part of the regression too, but I wanted to demonstrate the improved uncertainty). On August 31, the R^2 value is 0.995, so we should have a pretty good idea by that point (which I believe agrees with what someone said months ago that the Aug 31 order equals the order of the minimum). 2009’s value for this day was predicting 5.19e6 +/- 0.88e6 km^2.
Also, does anyone know where I can get data (not graphs) of 30% ice concentration? I was wanting to see how well this correlates to final minimum (both 30% and 15%), as well as trying multiparameter regression on them.
-Scott
you may want to use the infrared bands and learn to distinguish thin clouds from ice:
Isn’t it amazing how a self-professed sceptic who constantly questions maps, models and graphs will categorically refuse to show his readers the satellite images that show a lot of what is actually going on in the Arctic? Are there too much unprecedented holes in the interior of the pack that need to remain hidden?
Bill Tuttle wrote:
Here’s a better one for that — it’s actually over the pole, and not in the middle of the Beaufort Gyre:
What Beaufort Gyre? The thing has stalled 6 weeks ago and even reversed at times. It is the main reason that 2010 will not be setting a new record. If highs would have continued dominating the Arctic, like they did in 2007, we’d all be asking Charles Wilson what he expects to happen next.
The fact that the 2010 extent is still below 2008 and 2009 after 6 weeks of cloudiness, low temperatures and northerly winds during the most important period of the melting season, is incredible in itself. If this would have happened in 2007 – when conditions remained consistent during the entire melt season – it would most probably have ended above 2005. Instead we saw a very strong Beaufort Gyre, with lots of ice transport through Fram and Nares Strait, lots of winds, lots of clear skies and high air and sea surface temperatures.
It’s just a matter of time before another season à la 2007 comes about and all the ultra-mobile ice gets pushed into oblivion. It will not even require the perfect storm we saw in 2007, as there is less and less thick ice.
There is simply no recovery to speak of. CryoSat-2 will put that one to rest for good.
Günther Kirschbaum says:
August 11, 2010 at 1:10 am
IIRC, R. Gates said the temperatures were well above normal during the melt session. If they were indeed low, how is this at all related to global warming. Also, why were they low during an El Nino year?
We’ll see how 2010 ends up compared to 2008/2009.
-Scott
IIRC, the DMI temperature graph that is featured prominently shows that temps have been below average. I don’t know about the rest of the Arctic, the area above 80N is much smaller than the total Arctic area above 66N. Temperatures were anomalously warm this winter. I don’t think they were this spring and summer, but I’m happy to stand corrected.
If they were indeed low, how is this at all related to global warming. Also, why were they low during an El Nino year?
All the extra warmth that is pumped out of the oceans isn’t distributed evenly across the globe. So if for instance the Arctic is dominated by low-pressure areas, high-pressure areas are sitting around it at lower latitudes. For instance over Moscow.
We’ll see how 2010 ends up compared to 2008/2009.
Those 6 weeks of atmospheric patterns that made sure the ice didn’t melt too fast, haven’t been enough to kill 2010 off yet. Perhaps if some extreme weather conditions come about the minimum extent will be set very early and some extra time will be bought to fool people into believing the Arctic sea ice is recovering. Other than that it will be quite plain to see the opposite is true.
Or you can have a look at the satellite images and all the things that are going on in the interior of the pack and for instance in the straits and channels of the Queen Elizabeth Islands now, and see already that the opposite is true. All that is needed is one season à la 2007 – like R. Gates says perhaps in the next El Niño year with increased solar activity to boot – and the Arctic will be practically ice-free.
http://www.nunatsiaqonline.ca/stories/article/100810_Northwest_Passage_still_hard_to_navigate/
YESTERDAY August 10, 2010
Canadian icebreaker Admundsen takes several
tries to smash one ice ridge –
and it has dozens (which might constitute an ice arch
impeding flushing)more to go —
thereby opening the Northwest Passage and
encouraging FLUSHING–
Breaking these ridges and
Ice Arches was NOT possible 50 years
ago with the icebreakers and other
vessels then available (AND SO THE PASSAGE
WOULD THEREFOR have been CLOSED THEN
UNDER TODAY’S ICE CONDITIONS-
but we know the passage was open then)–
Heads up to Northwest Transit fans–
–the transit is NOT getting EASIER TODAY–
EVEN WITH hundreds of
IMPROVED AND MORE POWERFUL ICEBREAKERS
AND OTHER VESSELS(ALL ALL
subsidized by your tax money)
WITH
REINFORCED HULLS–research vessels
(Using explosives for seismic),
tourist ships(atomic powered and otherwise)
ferry services FERRIES, supply ships
and military ships,
—
all smashing away at the ice year round
(Except tourist boats and Canada icebreakers
which hole up during the winter)and encouraging
FLUSHING(YES man made FLUSHING!–THE BANE OF TRUE HOTTIES,
never to be acknowledged –look only at man made warming)
THe point is flushing–
without all these boats deliberately encouraging flushing
the arciic waters would today be frozen solid.
Flushing is encouraged by the following vessels year round–
that is correct–
year round most of these vessels plow the arctic smashing
ice and ice arches and encourage flushing,
open water and “rotten ice”–
NUCLEAR ICEBREAKERS–
http://www.barentsobserver.com/next-generation-nuclear-icebreakers-gets-funding.4582270-116320.html
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Russia_Tests_Nuclear_Icebreaker_On_Open_Sea_999.html
http://solarcycle24com.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=globalwarming&action=display&thread=346&page=112
http://www.quarkexpeditions.com/our-fleet/kapitan-khlebnikov
http://www.vancouvermaritimemuseum.com/modules/vmmuseum/treasures/?artifactid=86
http://solarcycle24com.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=globalwarming&action=display&thread=346&page=81#25960
etc
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2009/09/pictures-tell-story.html
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2009/09/turd-eaters.html
In 2004, $4.5 billion dollars worth
of orders were placed for the construction of ice class tankers.
Additionally, the ice class tanker fleet will grow by 18 million
deadweight tons (dwt) by 2008; 262 ice class ships are presently
in service and another 234 are on order (ABS, 2005).”
Full document on this site:-
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11753&page=31
the 220 ice armored hull metre scow
(700 feet)named “Arctic”
http://www.wellandcanal.ca/salties/a/arctic/arctic.htm
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/14/north_eastern_passage/
http://solarcycle24com.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=globalwarming&action=display&thread=346&page=109#29638
http://www.smhi.se/oceanografi/istjanst/produkter/sstcolor.pdf
http://yle.fi/uutiset/news/2010/03/ice_still_hampering_baltic_ferry_traffic_1509929.html
http://www.athropolis.com/arctic-facts/fact-st-roch.htm
http://www.athropolis.com/library-cat.htm#boats
http://www.athropolis.com/arctic-facts/fact-manhattan.htm
http://solarcycle24com.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=globalwarming&thread=346&page=98#28425
http://solarcycle24com.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=globalwarming&action=display&thread=346&page=112
http://www.flickr.com/photos/cutterhealy/page2/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/cutterhealy/page5/
http://cc.bingj.com/cache.aspx?q=anguteq+ittuk&d=4587562012184154&mkt=en-CA&setlang=en-US&w=5be99496,ce919f4b
http://www.royalarcticline.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=51&Itemid=60
http://129.35.38.254/PGM/sejlphvcl.pgm?1+NRQ
http://129.35.38.254/PGM/sejlphvcl.pgm?1+QAQ
http://cc.bingj.com/cache.aspx?q=anguteq+ittuk&d=4666713965135471&mkt=en-CA&setlang=en-US&w=d06deca,2bf1c93
http://www.royalarcticline.com/images/stories/pdf/2010Sejlplaner/master/masterplan%202010%2C%20version%2020jan2010%20%2810-11dages%20rotation%29.pdf
http://www.randburg.com/gr/royalarc.html
http://www.randburg.com/ca/internav.html
http://sermitsiaq.gl/indland/article108384.ece?lang=EN
http://www.thelocal.se/25364/20100305/
http://yle.fi/uutiset/news/2010/03/ferries_collide_near_sweden_passengers_safe_1504779.html
http://yle.fi/uutiset/news/2010/03/three_ships_caught_in_ice_near_stockholm_1499137.html
http://solarcycle24com.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=globalwarming&action=display&thread=976&page=11
http://solarcycle24com.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=globalwarming&thread=346&page=117#30583
http://www.rosatom.ru/en/armada/
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf34.html
http://www.springerlink.com/content/q55123171232r164/
http://solarcycle24com.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=globalwarming&action=display&thread=591&page=3#19857
http://solarcycle24com.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=globalwarming&action=display&thread=346&page=123#31541
http://www.bbc.co.uk/london/weather/big_freeze.shtml
http://solarcycle24com.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=globalwarming&action=display&thread=1179&page=85
http://earthsciences.dal.ca/research/facility/ftl/ftl-nares.html
http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/collection_2007/nrcan-rncan/M44-2002-E11E.pdf
track MAP of icebreaker Louis S. St-Laurent
http://epic.awi.de/Publications/Polarforsch2004_1-3_1.pdf
http://www.bgr.bund.de/cln_109/nn_335066/sid_CB86F27798F1B23EF3C9248BD7F01460/EN/Themen/MeerPolar/Meeresforschung/Projekte__und__Beitraege/Nares__Strait/mcs__naresstrait__en.html?__nnn=true
http://www.bgr.bund.de/cln_109/nn_328884/EN/Themen/MeerPolar/Meeresforschung/Projekte__und__Beitraege/Nares__Strait/Nares__Strait__en.html
http://www.bgr.bund.de/cln_109/nn_322956/SiteGlobals/Forms/Suche/serviceSucheForm,templateId=processForm.html?resourceId=337598&input_=&pageLocale=de&searchEngineQueryString=Nares&sortString=-score&language=ALL&maxResults=1000&x=11&y=11
http://www.bgr.bund.de/cln_109/nn_328884/EN/Themen/MeerPolar/Meeresforschung/Projekte__und__Beitraege/Nares__Strait/mcs__naresstrait__en.html
http://www.bgr.bund.de/cln_109/nn_328884/EN/Themen/MeerPolar/Meeresforschung/Projekte__und__Beitraege/Nares__Strait/mcs__kane__hall__en.html
http://www.bgr.bund.de/cln_109/nn_328884/DE/Themen/MeerPolar/Meeresforschung/Projekte__und__Beitraege/Nares__Strait/Nares__Strait.html
http://www.bgr.bund.de/cln_109/nn_336668/EN/Themen/MeerPolar/Meeresforschung/Projekte__und__Beitraege/projekte__node__en.html?__nnn=true
http://www.bgr.bund.de/cln_109/nn_328884/EN/Themen/MeerPolar/Meeresforschung/Projekte__und__Beitraege/Nares__Strait/Nares__Strait__en.html
http://www.bgr.bund.de/cln_109/nn_335066/sid_CB86F27798F1B23EF3C9248BD7F01460/EN/Themen/MeerPolar/Polarforschung/Arktis/Expeditionen/expeditionen__inhalt__en.html?__nnn=true
expeditions to nares elsemere
1997 1998 2001 2003 2004
http://www.bgr.bund.de/cln_109/nn_335066/sid_CB86F27798F1B23EF3C9248BD7F01460/EN/Themen/MeerPolar/Polarforschung/Arktis/Expeditionen/expeditionen__inhalt__en.html?__nnn=true
http://www.canadiangeographic.ca/magazine/ma06/indepth/people.asp
http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/story.html?id=2db7c461-4252-44f4-8c7a-ceac2af1469d
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/north/story/2009/08/27/arctic-icebreakers.html
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/north/story/2006/10/02/icebreakers-new.html
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/north/story/2008/08/28/new-icebreaker.html
http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/marinesafety/debs-arctic-shipping-operations-icebreaker-422.htm
http://www.carc.org/pubs/v14no4/5.htm
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/578384
http://www.thestar.com/News/article/187468
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=b49e29f5-ed50-443f-86a9-6c62a9b46c06
http://pm.gc.ca/eng/media.asp?category=1&id=2251
http://www.carc.org/pubs/v14no4/index.html
http://www.casr.ca/ft-harper1-2.htm
http://www.treaty-accord.gc.ca/text-texte.asp?id=101701
http://www.lloydslist.com/ll/news/articleSearch.htm;jsessionid=018F1922206D945311B65CF12E101673.5fa4e8cc80be35e2653c9f87d8b8be45bf6ba69a
St. Laurent, classed a heavy Arctic icebreake
Sir Wilfred Laurier
Sir Wilfred Grenfell
Ann Harvey
duke
Polarbjorn
Polar Pevek
Smit Sakhalin
Vladimir Ignatyuk
Ary Rongel
Talagy
Terry Fox
Sampo
Smit Sibu
Royal Greenland
polar viking
Nordica
Vidar Viking
Stena Forth
Stena Don
http://sermitsiaq.ag/erhverv/article120900.ece
http://english.sina.com/china/p/2010/0210/304031.html
http://www.liaoning-gateway.com/gateway/349/3439349.shtml
http://en.rian.ru/russia/20090421/121232033.html
http://www.interferry.com/node/1908
http://www.lloydslist.com/ll/news/a-week-navigating-through-arctic-ice/1267707454734.htm?highlight=true&containingAll=icebreaker&containingPhrase=&containingAnyWords=
http://www.lloydslist.com/ll/news/lloyds-list-arctic-adventure/1267468683548.htm?highlight=true&containingAll=icebreaker&containingPhrase=&containingAnyWords=
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2010-01/14/content_12810731.htm
http://english.sina.com/china/p/2010/0210/304031.html
http://www.liaoning-gateway.com/gateway/349/3439349.shtml
http://www.sikunews.com/art.html?catid=12&artid=7250
http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/story.html?id=967a7bcf-53f6-4963-99af-4be36121ef0b
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Sealing_ships_trapped_in_ice_off_coast_of_Newfoundland
http://www.sikunews.com/art.html?catid=2&artid=7437
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/climate-change-catastrophe-worst-ice-year-on-record-leads-to-harp-seals-demise-89105962.html
http://english.ruvr.ru/2010/03/26/5708245.html
http://www.archive.org/details/arcticproblemnar00heil
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/30197/30197-h/30197-h.htm
http://www.archive.org/details/farthestnorthbei02nansuoft
http://solarcycle24com.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=globalwarming&thread=976&page=36#46836
http://english.ruvr.ru/2010/06/10/9558839.html
http://english.ruvr.ru/2010/06/10/9558839.html
http://english.ruvr.ru/2010/06/05/9175021.html
http://en.rian.ru/infographics/20100524/159136732.html
http://solarcycle24com.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=globalwarming&thread=1179&page=63#50837
http://solarcycle24com.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=globalwarming&action=display&thread=1179&page=85
http://solarcycle24com.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=globalwarming&thread=1270&page=3#50814
CRUISE REPORTS
Bering Strait 2000 – RV Alpha Helix – HX235
Bering Strait 2001 – RV Alpha Helix – HX250
Bering Strait 2002 – RV Alpha Helix – HX260
Bering Strait 2003 – RV Alpha Helix – HX274
Bering Strait 2004 – RV Alpha Helix – HX290
Bering Strait 2005 – CCGS Sir Wilfrid Laurier – SWL2005
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/HLD/Bstrait/HX235cruisereport00.pdf
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/HLD/Bstrait/HX250cruisereport01.pdf
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/HLD/Bstrait/HX260cruisereport02.pdf
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/HLD/AH2003/AlphaHelix2003.html
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/HLD/AH2004/AlphaHelix2004.html
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/HLD/SWL2005/SWLBeringStrait2005.html
Khromov 2009 (Aug/Sept)
Lavrentiev 2008 (Oct)
Sever 2007 (Aug/Sept)
Sir Wilfrid Laurier 2006 (July)
Sir Wilfrid Laurier 2005 (July)
Alpha Helix 2004 (Aug/Sept)
Alpha Helix 2003 (July)
Alpha Helix 2002 (June)
Alpha Helix 2001 (Sept)
Alpha Helix 2000 (Aug/Sept)
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/HLD/Bstrait/Khromov2009Cruise.html
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/HLD/Bstrait/UWmooringreportLAVRENTIEV2008Oct.pdf
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/HLD/Bstrait/UWmooringreportSEVER2007Aug.pdf
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/HLD/SWL2006/SWLBeringStrait2006.html
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/HLD/SWL2005/SWLBeringStrait2005.html
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/HLD/AH2004/AlphaHelix2004.html
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/HLD/AH2003/AlphaHelix2003.html
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/HLD/Bstrait/HX260cruisereport02.pdf
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/HLD/Bstrait/HX250cruisereport01.pdf
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/HLD/Bstrait/HX235cruisereport00.pdf
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/HLD/Bstrait/Khromov2009Cruise.html
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/HLD/Bstrait/UWmooringreportSEVER2007Aug.pdf
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/HLD/Bstrait/UWmooringreportLAVRENTIEV2008Oct.pdf
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/HLD/Bstrait/IPYbstrait.html#A_HIGH_RESOLUTION_MOORING_ARRAY_FOR_IPY
http://sailwx.info/shiptrack/shipposition.phtml?call=VCLM
military vessels–
clssified–
contact the military of the country
you wish information about–good luck.
In fact, today, if icebreakers were
not being used in very expensive efforts
to shatter ice bridges and ice dams
to support profit making shipping industries
and mineral oil exploration industries,
the arctic
shipping season would
shorten by several months
(or be eliminated totally)
and many cargo vessels would remain stranded in the arctic–
-And the NW transit is NOT getting EASIER TODAY-
Despite the billions of dollars squandered
on this moronic fantasy activity-
(not to mention the millions of barrels of diesel bunker fuel
burned and wasted on this nonsense plus environmental damage-
-the destitute eskimos could be
using some of that fuel for warmth
and to improve their lives in their
concentration camps).
Günther Kirschbaum says:
August 11, 2010 at 6:10 am
And how do those images compare to those of other years? Do you have an “image anomaly” to back up your claim that this picture represents a dying Arctic? Seems to me like both sides pick and choose when they want to use data vs. anecdotal evidence…
-Scott
Günther Kirschbaum: August 11, 2010 at 1:10 am
“Bill Tuttle wrote:
Here’s a better one for that — it’s actually over the pole, and not in the middle of the Beaufort Gyre:”
What Beaufort Gyre?
Good point.
I *should* have written, “…and not in the middle of an empty patch of the Beaufort Sea where the Beaufort Gyre normally forms (but isn’t home at the moment) , because this shot allows you a frame of reference in order to interpret the different colors appearing in the IR shot, thereby enhancing your ability to differentiate between land, water, ice, and clouds, because there’s no frikkin’ legend associated with the Terra 369 color use and all of us aren’t as used to false-color IR imagery-interpretation as Günther is.”