Open Sea Ice Thread

With Sea Ice News # 20 closed here is a place for ongoing discussing the 2010 season.

That’s it. I may add a picture later.

Advertisements

192 thoughts on “Open Sea Ice Thread

  1. Allright, shoot. I’ll shoot first.
    I was looking at the Antarctic ice graph earlier, and the fact that the ice just doesn’t ever seem to extend beyond a certain point is interesting. Maybe the large amount of sea is a barrier to more ice without more continent to freeze over?
    Hmm, that last sentence looks weird, but I can’t figure out a better way to write it. Brainfreeze. ;-D

  2. DMI Arctic temperatures seem to be finally falling after a large above-average excursion to near zero. Was this partly latent heat release of freezing or just winds from a warm Russia-Siberia?

  3. Dave F says:
    September 1, 2010 at 9:14 pm
    You might say that the Antarctic Sea Ice is operating within it’s natural climactic bounds.
    The Antarctic Current is probably eating away at any higher ice extent, and in doing so, cooling itself off.
    I have noted that as the La Nina waters poured into the Eastern Pacific this summer, they seem to emanate from the Antarctic Region. Perhaps part of the AAC is diverted upwards along S. America, some on the surface, some down under.

  4. phlogiston says:
    September 1, 2010 at 9:58 pm
    Joe Bastardi gives a good account of the late dropoff of the DMI 80N temp in this week’s (Monday) Sea Ice Report.
    It’s been spreading the joy of cold down onto Canada and Siberia.

  5. phlogiston says:
    September 1, 2010 at 9:58 pm
    DMI Arctic temperatures seem to be finally falling after a large above-average excursion to near zero. Was this partly latent heat release of freezing or just winds from a warm Russia-Siberia?
    It’s global warming. 😉

  6. Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
    September 1, 2010 at 10:17 pm
    It’s global warming. 😉

    Hey, Ice Surf’s up, I mean Dawn has returned to Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station.
    Get your tickets (gasp) while they are hot.
    Great place to build some Pyramids. It never rains.

  7. rbateman says:
    September 1, 2010 at 10:30 pm
    Get your tickets (gasp) while they are hot.
    I think I’ll get some popcorn and watch for minimum, and maximum at the Antarctic. And I need to save some for next Thursday night to watch the Vikings (and #4) beat the Saints! I saw a show one time where Vikings robbed and beat some priests. Different Vikings though. The Vikings I’m watching next weeks were robbed by Saints.

  8. Hi
    A few months ago I asked Steve Goddard a question: If the ice extent maximum is shifted in time, could the ice minimum extent be also shifted?. As far as I remember Steve told me that only sun’s high is important and decides on it. He was wrong.

  9. Duke C. says:
    September 1, 2010 at 9:30 pm
    Here’s a NASA photo comparison of the 50KM^2 Ellesmere Island shelf break-
    http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=45463
    “Look’s like the break was due to stress from encroaching ocean ice- not induced by global warming.”
    Really? that’s not what NASA think is it?
    “Driftwood and narwhal remains found along the coast of Ellesmere Island where the shelf is attached have radiocarbon dates from roughly 3,000 to 6,800 years ago, implying that the ice has been in place since those remains were deposited. Breakup along the Ward Hunt indicates a change in the conditions that previously allowed this ice shelf to persist for millennia.” http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=45463
    Or do you think, that NASA thinks, the shelf is breaking up due to pressure from accumulating ice?
    It’s not as if this wasn’t predicted either…http://www.thestar.com/News/World/article/413677
    ” Pinned in place by islands and landfast ice, the Ward Hunt Ice Shelf is unlikely to drift out to sea, said Mueller. It’s more likely to become increasingly fractured and deteriorate where it sits.
    The bottom line is the vast plain of ice is now on “life support,” he said. Ice shelves are not replenished by glaciers. Cracks in them are permanent.
    “You can’t go back,” said Mueller( Derek Mueller of Trent University). “It’s broken.”

  10. phlogiston says:
    September 1, 2010 at 9:58 pm
    DMI Arctic temperatures seem to be finally falling after a large above-average excursion to near zero. Was this partly latent heat release of freezing or just winds from a warm Russia-Siberia?
    ————————————————————-
    The latter – like was predicted here at WUWT two weeks ago.
    Regards.

  11. I’ll have another try at this question.
    Does anybody know where there is a series of daily Antarctic sea ice extent or anomalies in a txt or csv file (something that can be read into Excel).
    It’s easy to get NH data at JAXA but SH data nowhere to be found in that format.

  12. phlogiston says:
    September 1, 2010 at 9:23 pm
    “Rage, rage against the coming of the ice”
    Modified from Dylan Thomas.
    Or my favourite piece of English prose, modified of course!
    ” and from the arctic winter sidles out with snow upon it’s breath”

  13. [snip] lets’ leave the triple point discussion out of sea ice, this is why the previous thread was closed. – Anthony

  14. To a moderator: can you change the slash sign to the other way round in the closing bold tag in my previous post.
    Thanks,
    Patrick.
    Reply: Did. Didn’t change anything. ~ ctm
    [Fixed, ~dbs]

  15. rbateman
    Amino Acids in Meteorites
    Michael Schaefer
    roger
    Thanks for the replies.
    Is it just me or do the Cryosphere today images show the ice firming up a bit in the last few days?

  16. Duke C. says:
    September 1, 2010 at 9:30 pm
    Here’s a NASA photo comparison of the 50KM^2 Ellesmere Island shelf break-
    http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=45463
    Look’s like the break was due to stress from encroaching ocean ice- not induced by global warming.
    Interesting article. I didn’t take me long on a google search to find this old document about much larger ice islands breaking off Ward Hunt in the 1950’s.

  17. “Hmmmmm. R. Gates seems awfully quiet these days!”
    Hubris, nemesis, and hostages to fortune spring immediately to mind. As for catharsis we wonder what form that might take as the AGW brigade nudge gently up against reality.
    Who are the denialists now?

  18. Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
    September 1, 2010 at 10:20 pm
    Interesting point. Actually only 2007 and 8 show major drops at this point in the season. All the other JAXA tracks are flat.

  19. ” Pinned in place by islands and landfast ice, the Ward Hunt Ice Shelf is unlikely to drift out to sea, said Mueller. It’s more likely to become increasingly fractured and deteriorate where it sits.”
    If it’s pinned in place, it can most assuredly re-freeze.
    The alternative is to sit there permanently, keep thickening until the ice stops floating and sits on the ocean floor, thereby cutting off ocean currents. Ice Ages do end, and they do begin.

  20. Last few days it has flattened with about 5.340, 5.351, 5.352, 5.320, 5.329. If you look at previous years it has flattened around here but dropped lower later in September so I wouldn’t conclude anything yet, but there’s still a chance of beating 2009, which would be powerful symbolically even if the years are a statistical wash, and it’s definitely pulling away further from 2008.
    Clearly Steve and R Gates were both influenced
    by their biases and we will end up somewhere between them. However, R Gates knowledge
    about thin ice is not being validated, and the piomas volume model is looking increasingly ridiculous.

  21. Hmm, sorry I missed out on the triple point fray, but I’m not going to continue it here, especially since the issues go well beyond.
    Jeez – I don’t think I have your Email address – drop me a note if you’d like my comments offline.

  22. Mark/Roger – It was Steve Goddard’s posts that Gates apparently had the problem with, so I would imagine he will make his presence felt at his (Steve’s) new blog.

  23. September 1, 2010 is 5,329.
    2009 minimum was 5 ,249.
    Unless this is a very early bottom, historically unlikely, one would expect another drop to go below the 2009 minimum.
    If it beat beats 2009 the crickets in the international media will be deafening.

  24. Duke C. says:
    September 1, 2010 at 9:30 pm
    Here’s a NASA photo comparison of the 50KM^2 Ellesmere Island shelf break-
    http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=45463
    “Look’s like the break was due to stress from encroaching ocean ice- not induced by global warming.”
    —————————————————
    Tim Williams says:
    September 1, 2010 at 10:56 pm
    Really? that’s not what NASA think is it?
    “Driftwood and narwhal remains found along the coast of Ellesmere Island where the shelf is attached have radiocarbon dates from roughly 3,000 to 6,800 years ago, implying that the ice has been in place since those remains were deposited. Breakup along the Ward Hunt indicates a change in the conditions that previously allowed this ice shelf to persist for millennia.” http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=45463
    ….” Pinned in place by islands and landfast ice, the Ward Hunt Ice Shelf is unlikely to drift out to sea, said Mueller…..
    —————————————————————
    Perhaps another interpretation of the data is that the area is “stagnant” and even when there is a break in the ice there is refreezing.
    Otherwise how do you explain the Greenland temperatures for the last 10,000 years (10 millennia) in this graph Or the findings of a peer reviewed paper that early Holocene summer temperatures throughout the Arctic 1-3° C above 20th century averages And that “Solar energy reached a summer maximum (9% higher than at present) ca 11 ka ago and has been decreasing since then, primarily in response to the precession of the equinoxes.”

  25. Have we reached the 2010 Arctic sea ice minimum yet?
    Serious question.
    I’ve been looking at the JAXA concentration imagery coupled with the PIPS 2.0 ice displacement (I have a lot of faith in Fleet Numerics global wind fields (been there, done that), but have little faith in PIPS 2.0 ice thickness/concentration model data considering it’s operational/navigational mode status and it’s older (two-to-three decades) software technologies) vector maps, coupled with the MODIS (Aqua/Terra) imagery;
    http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/cgi-bin/seaice-monitor.cgi?lang=e
    http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/pips2/archive/retrievepic.html?filetype=Displacement&year=2010&month=8&day=16
    http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/realtime/?calendar
    And I’ve noticed a near continuous wind vector field (from left-to-right) since August 16th.
    The JAXA concentration imagery confirms that significant sea ice has been moving into the Fram Strait, increasing the ice concentrations/areas there (in other words the ice there is diverging there at the moment).
    So, I’m wondering that if this pattern will continue over the next two weeks, then it is doubtful that the minimum will be much less than what it already is.
    Also, if this turns into a seasonal pattern, the majority of the ice lost through the Fram Strait, into/through the fall season, could be multi-year ice (> two years).
    Finally, I’m expecting that PIOMAS will show a new record low in Arctic sea ice volume in the September time frame. So, at this time, I’ll SWAG an ice volume of 5E3 km^3 for the 2010 PIOMAS minimum sea ice volume.

  26. Breaking news in The Netherlands, a big Dutch University (Delft University of Technology) has found that :
    “Melting rate icecaps Greenland and Western Antarctica lower than expected
    The melting of the ice sheets of Greenland and West Antarctica is about twice as slow as previously thought. The study, conducted by TU Delft, SRON and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. The scientists published their findings in the September issue of Nature Geoscience. http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v3/n9/index.html
    Grace
    The melting of ice sheets since 2002 is mapped with measurements of the two GRACE satellites. These detect from space small changes in the gravitational field of the earth. These changes are related to the exact distribution of mass on Earth, including ice and water. As ice melts and sea, is this influence in the gravity field.
    Image: NASA
    Giga Tons
    Based on this principle were previous estimates for the Greenland ice sheet at 230 gigatons of ice that melts each year (that’s 230,000 billion pounds). This results then in an average global sea level rise of about 0.75 mm per year. For West Antarctica was the estimated 132 gigatons each year.
    With these results, it now appears, however, not corrected for glacial Isostatic adjustment, the phenomenon that the earth’s crust continues to soar due to the melting of large ice sheets of the last Ice Age, about 20,000 years ago. These movements of the crust should you take in the calculations for these vertical motions change the mass distribution of the earth and so they also affect the gravity field.
    GPS
    Researchers from TU Delft have the necessary fix now, along with scientists from SRON Netherlands Institute for Space Research and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena (USA), carry out much more accurate information. They did this with combined data from the GRACE mission, GPS measurements on land and ocean bottom pressure data. This shows for example that the soil drops below Greenland, perhaps one may indicate more mass in the past.
    Bert Vermeersen of TU Delft: ‘The corrections for the deformations of the crust, have considerable impact on the estimated annual amount of ice melt. We conclude that the melting of ice sheets on Greenland and West Antarctica, about twice as slow, as was first thought. ”
    The corresponding mean sea level by melting the ice caps is lower.
    Model
    “The innovation of our method is to offer current ice mass changes and glacial Isostatic adjustment are simultaneously fitted to the observations, rather than to assume that a glacial Isostatic adjustment model is correct,” says Vermeersen.
    “Especially for Greenland we find a glacial adjustment Isostatic model quite significantly from what is commonly assumed. But there are currently insufficient data available to verify this independently. An extensive network of GPS observations in combination with geological indicators of regional and local sea level change around Greenland for the past 10,000 years, will this in the coming years may give inconclusive. ”
    http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=nl&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=nl&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tudelft.nl%2Flive%2Fpagina.jsp%3Fid%3D7a6c3d15-1c1e-4869-b378-840a000c6803%26lang%3Dnl

  27. [snip] lets’ leave the triple point discussion out of sea ice, this is why the previous thread was closed. – Anthony

  28. Confirmed JAXA 15% extent for Sept 1st just in: 5332344. Updated charts, for what they’re worth …
    15-day: http://img525.imageshack.us/img525/5715/15day20100901.png
    7-day: http://img841.imageshack.us/img841/1295/7day20100901.png
    Picking up too soon and too quickly for comfort IMHO, could do with shedding another 30-40K tomorrow. Interesting that DMI average temp above 80N is showing a sudden decline; it’s been going out on a limb recently. Not sure what to make of that, no past year back to 1958 seems remotely comparable.

  29. [snip] lets’ leave the triple point discussion out of sea ice, this is why the previous thread was closed. – Anthony

  30. Hmm, past days i have seen @ NOAA Webcam 2 heavy Snowfall with more than 20cm snow.. I think that is why the Temperature of DMI in past Weeks was high, but now its beginning to be cloudless and the Temperature going instant down, Webcam 2 shown that Temperature is falling above 2 Day about 5 Grad, most of it today..

  31. Interesting… sea ice extent has flattened in the last few days, while sea ice area has dropped.
    Currently Arctic sea ice area is clearly the third lowest in the record (see Cryosphere today also).
    Immediate hunch is that the ice is spreading out even as it melts. As the melt may continue for a few more weeks, area may yet drop to the second lowest, even if extent doesn’t.
    Bring on the cold weather.

  32. [snip] REPLY: Steve you are welcome to post comments on sea ice issues here, but we aren’t going to have you open the “triple point of water” discussion again. – Anthony

  33. Anthony,
    Then “snip” all posts on the topic.
    REPLY: didn’t see the earlier ones, as the comment moderation interface only shows new ones, done

  34. It is already open
    REPLY: yes and the entire issue is fixed now. Feel free to post on extent, winds, area whatever else, but triple point is not a subject for this thread – Anthony

  35. bbttxu says:
    September 2, 2010 at 9:08 am
    What software did you use to produce those graphs?
    Just Excel and a screen-grab, nothing fancy.

  36. You absolutely can not have a serious discussion about the behaviour of the Arctic ice this time of year, without discussing the sensitivity of the phases to small changes in temperature.
    That is what determines the inflection point in the area/extent graphs, normally in the first couple of weeks of September.
    REPLY: yes, you absolutely can, and you did, many times on the blog have such serious discussions without mentioning the triple point of water. We won’t be discussing it here. You have your own blog, discuss it there all you want and anyone can join in. Here, everybody can go to this link: http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/09/02/a-banner-day-for-climate-censorship/
    – Anthony

  37. Grr, I didn’t see this new thread and posted last night in Sea Ice News #19 instead. I’ll repost (with slight modifications) here:
    I hope people are still paying attention to the ice, because the JAXA number for Sept 1 shows a 2969 km^2 gain. If this gain sticks (unlike the one from Aug 30, which was revised to a 4219 km^2 loss), it’ll be the second day of gain this year. Note that in 2008 the second day of gain marked the day after the extent minimum. In 2009, it was the third day of gain. Now don’t get excited, because I believe for all the others years in the JAXA record it was at least the 4th day of gain.
    Current extent is predicting a final minimum of 5.086e6 km^2, the second highest (starting on July 1) of the year, with only Aug 8 predicting higher (effectively a tie really). My alternative method is predicting an average of 5.103e6 km^2 with a std dev of 99,800 km^2. Probability of staying above 2009 has jumped to 7.1% according to this method. 🙂
    I’m glad people stopped comparing this year to 2008 a few days ago, because we’re now a whopping 374688 km^2 ahead of it and 2008 still loses an above average amount between now and the minimum. At only 91406 km^2 behind 2009 for Sept 1, we’ll still need to set a record minimum loss (<82500 km^2 to be exact) between now and the minimum to stay above 2009. This amount can be lost in as little as one day potentially…but we'll see.
    And as a final note, using my admittedly poor "3rd method" given in Sea Ice News #19, a prediction of 5.270e6 minimum on Sept 8 is acquired…doubt that will happen, but the sceptics can always hope. 🙂
    Any comments?
    -Scott

  38. Its getting cold up at 84.6N!
    http://psc.apl.washington.edu/northpole/POPS13_atmos_recent.html
    Drifting “north pole” cam POPS 13 gave the following 24hr temps
    Mo/Dy/Hr Latitude Longitude Temp Press
    09/02/0800Z 84.604°N 4.990°E -11.3°C 1005.1mb
    09/02/0700Z 84.604°N 4.979°E -11.5°C 1005.1mb
    09/02/0600Z 84.605°N 4.980°E -11.4°C 1004.2mb
    09/02/0500Z 84.605°N 4.994°E -12.6°C 1002.5mb
    09/02/0400Z 84.606°N 5.018°E -15.5°C 1001.4mb
    09/02/0300Z 84.609°N 5.045°E -15.3°C 1001.5mb
    09/02/0100Z 84.619°N 5.080°E -14.2°C 1003.6mb
    09/02/0000Z 84.625°N 5.074°E -13.2°C 1004.2mb
    09/01/2300Z 84.631°N 5.052°E -13.2°C 1004.0mb
    09/01/2200Z 84.635°N 5.019°E -13.5°C 1004.0mb
    09/01/2100Z 84.639°N 4.985°E -13.9°C 1004.1mb
    09/01/1900Z 84.642°N 4.942°E -13.0°C 1005.5mb
    09/01/1800Z 84.644°N 4.948°E -12.4°C 1005.5mb
    09/01/1700Z 84.647°N 4.971°E -11.7°C 1005.9mb
    09/01/1600Z 84.652°N 5.002°E -12.1°C 1006.3mb
    09/01/1500Z 84.659°N 5.037°E -11.9°C 1007.2mb
    09/01/1400Z 84.668°N 5.061°E -11.4°C 1007.9mb
    09/01/1300Z 84.678°N 5.070°E -11.1°C 1008.2mb
    09/01/1200Z 84.687°N 5.066°E -10.7°C 1008.2mb
    09/01/1100Z 84.696°N 5.055°E -10.6°C 1008.1mb
    09/01/0700Z 84.718°N 5.018°E -10.4°C 1007.3mb

  39. Scott says:
    September 2, 2010 at 10:17 am
    Grr, I didn’t see this new thread and posted last night in Sea Ice News #19 instead. I’ll repost (with slight modifications) here:
    I hope people are still paying attention to the ice, because the JAXA number for Sept 1 shows a 2969 km^2 gain. If this gain sticks (unlike the one from Aug 30, which was revised to a 4219 km^2 loss), it’ll be the second day of gain this year. Note that in 2008 the second day of gain marked the day after the extent minimum. In 2009, it was the third day of gain. Now don’t get excited, because I believe for all the others years in the JAXA record it was at least the 4th day of gain.

    I’d be surprised if there isn’t further significant decline in extent because the area is still dropping fast and might even close in on record territory! This means the concentration is very low compared with previous years and therefore the potential for compaction beyond what has been observed in previous years.
    Last year the min area (CT) was ~3.85 vs ~5.25 a differential of 1.4 presently it’s ~3.25 vs 5.33 which is a differential of over 2.

  40. Looks like the arctic cap north of Svalbard is disintegrating, so spreading southwards and increasing the ice extent. It’ll probably re-freeze before much of it exits the chute.

  41. The extraordinarily low ice extent on the east coast of Greenland bodes well for an early minimum. This area keeps on melting later than anywhere else.
    I’d be shocked if it doesn’t drop any more, but it’s possible. Some areas are already freezing up.
    Get some popcorn and enjoy the horse race.

  42. I hope there isn’t any bad blood here over this triple point issue. It doesn’t appear that there is. It does look like some misunderstandings have happened. I hope that Steven Goddard will still be doing guest posts. His posts have been interesting. I know there have been flare ups from a few people over some of the things he has said. But flare ups are nothing new global warming.

  43. Christian Steger says:
    September 2, 2010 at 8:51 am
    Yes, I believe you are correct: The DMI held steady because it has been snowing heavily. Wonder if it is also coming down hard in Greenland?

  44. Strongly recommend this be added as a new thread!
    Better translation and much more analysis needed, but preliminary data from the summary he provided indicate that the earlier “catastrophic Greenland/Anarctica ice field melting” from processed GRACE satellite data was wrong.
    From above:
    seven says:
    September 2, 2010 at 7:29 am
    Breaking news in The Netherlands, a big Dutch University (Delft University of Technology) has found that :
    “Melting rate icecaps Greenland and Western Antarctica lower than expected
    The melting of the ice sheets of Greenland and West Antarctica is about twice as slow as previously thought. The study, conducted by TU Delft, SRON and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. The scientists published their findings in the September issue of Nature Geoscience. http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v3/n9/index.html
    Grace
    The melting of ice sheets since 2002 is mapped with measurements of the two GRACE satellites. These detect from space small changes in the gravitational field of the earth. These changes are related to the exact distribution of mass on Earth, including ice and water. As ice melts and sea, is this influence in the gravity field.

  45. rbateman
    The Canadian Ice Service shows the Northwest Passage almost closed in parts of the McClure Straits. There is evidence there is anywhere from 40% to 80 % concentration of ice in those places. There is talk by some that the Northwest Passage is open. But they don’t have evidence for it. And a boat is stuck in the Northwest Passage.

  46. Phil. says:
    September 2, 2010 at 11:41 am
    Your suspicions may be right, and I think they likely are, but it’s hard to say given the big disagreements in the different databases. NORSEX has 15% extent roughly equal to 2009 and area about halfway between 2008/2009. Bremen has 15% extent about halfway between 2008/2009. JAXA has 15% extent slightly lower than 2009, but well above 2008, while area is close to 2008, though slightly above.
    What’s odd is that if area is well below 2009 while 15% extent is a touch under 2009, I’d expect the DMI 30% extent to be somewhere in between, but DMI’s 30% extent seems to give the highest rating for 2010 of all the measures, with it effectively tracking 2009 the last several days and being slightly above it today.
    Overall, much of the ice does seem low concentration…not too surprising given the subpar starting point of the ice and the El Nino this year…the ice has taken a real beating. But I’m wondering if it’s too late in the season for it to have a precipitous drop, as temperatures are dropping and refreezing may begin to take place…only the next 1-3 weeks will tell.
    Preliminary JAXA number for Sept 2 showed its biggest loss in the last 5 days: ~31000 km^2. If this number holds, then the ice is officially below 2005’s minimum…2009 is next and very close. After that, a huge amount (another 5.4e5 km^2 when the most lost in any year from here to the minimum is 362500 km^2) to lose to reach 2008.
    -Scott

  47. So, if I’m seeing this right, the reason Sea Ice #20 was closed is because of the heated argument that started. It is now over at Steven Goddard’s blog.
    I remember Anthony said he wanted to lighten things up here at WUWT (my paraphrase). So with that in mind I could understand why he wanted the discussion to end here. And, contrary to what some have said, it looks like Steven Goddard is not ‘banned’ here but will still be posting here at WUWT.
    So then, anytime a discussion that gets hot in a Steven Goddard post and is stopped because of it, which jeez, Mosher, Phil, and others turn them in to, it can always go over to his blog and continue there. It’s a quick click to get there. Wow! That works! 🙂 And I think there will be some good fruit come of it over there. It’s a win-win!
    Great idea Anthony! Chalk one up for Anthony Watts!

  48. Arctic Sea Ice 2010 – Good to see the Recovery continueing in full swing again this year, the NW Passage closed all summer, and temperatures at the pole under freezing!
    (Do I sense a slight tension here between the Master and Oracle Goddard who, we were lead to believe, recently voluntarily left the Village to start his own community? Was the Oracle in reality sent into exile?)

  49. Amino Acids, finally you are right about something being closed ! 🙂
    The area at Cryosphere is very low,
    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.recent.arctic.png
    and the anomaly in the Antarctic is now roughly 0,
    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.recent.antarctic.png
    so how does that show up on rbateman’s black and white anomaly graph comparison?
    Drop of 30 000 today, with area dropping and extent currently staying level it will be interesting to see what happens in the next week or so.
    Andy

  50. Village Idiot said
    September 2, 2010 at 9:58 pm
    Arctic Sea Ice 2010 – Good to see the Recovery continueing in full swing again this year, the NW Passage closed all summer, and temperatures at the pole under freezing!
    _____________________________________________
    I don’t think anyone will fall for your trap of stating the complete opposite of what actually happened this year just to make an argument 😉
    Andy

  51. Scott says:
    September 2, 2010 at 9:31 pm
    DMI’s 30% extent seems to give the highest rating for 2010 of all the measures….. Overall, much of the ice does seem low concentration…
    That is a contradiction.
    The reason DMi is high compared to the others is because almost all of the ice is at a high concentration. 30% concentration being so different could be a sign of cooling in the earth.
    Arctic ice is not rotted and alarmingly thin as some claim. Mostly the edge around the ice is at low concentration making it susceptible to winds and temperature. It’s normally like that. That makes it highly variable. And that will make the difference in the graphs.
    There is the hypothesis that Arctic Ice in the Beaufort Sea is rotted by manmade emissions. But no evidence has been presented that proves ice in the Beaufort Sea is any different than it has been in the past, say 50, or 100 years ago. Until evidence come along that ice in the Beaufort Sea is different than it has been at other times the rotted ice hypothesis is just a hypothesis; just another one of many hypothesis’ about global warming that has no proof.

  52. hey guys… I am commenting up a storm on Arctic ice over at Goddard’s place as Zinfan94. But I am the only one there! Come over, and join in.
    He now claims the warm winds are melting the ice pack… he won’t accept any other explanation for ice melt except thermal energy carried into the ice pack by warm winds. This theory depends on air temperatures being significantly (10-15 deg F) above freezing, so it appears that Steven Goddard now believes that Arctic surface temperatures are much higher than freezing.
    He seems to have bought into the GISS extrapolation of warmer surface air temperatures across the Arctic. Comments?

  53. AndyW says:
    September 2, 2010 at 10:02 pm
    so how does that show up on rbateman’s black and white anomaly graph comparison?

    You rang? It would be nice to have been requested in the 1st person.
    Nevertheless:
    http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/seaice.anomaly.Ant_arctic.jpg
    The composite of Arctic/Antartic Sea Ice Anomaly graphs courtesy of Cyrosphere Today shows a musical duet.
    A product only of numerical coincidence, these 2 anomalies wander in and out of step like 2 clocks on different frequencies.
    Both are fully within thier respective ranges of trend. Somewhere around 6 months ago, they touched each other, meeting at a mind-boggling and stupendoulsy amazing Global Average of -0.25 M sq km.
    A really big deal, for in early 2009 they were inverted to what they are today, with the Arctic at min and Antarctic at max.
    Hey, isn’t this like, you know, predictable stuff?

  54. Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
    September 2, 2010 at 10:33 pm
    I suppose the NW Passage is open today if you are at the helm of an Icebreaker.
    Can you imagine the nightmares that the Cruise Ship Captain gets over that close encounter with rocks last month in the NW Passage? That’s got to be one sickening crunch. No word on whether the crippled ship can be retrieved before the Ice claims it as another trophy ship.

  55. Jeez,
    I understand your constraints. But you are being most unreasonable here. And don’t launch into a diatribe against me like you did the last time.
    This is a blog….not a peer reviewed journal. I certainly appreciate your intellect and have learned the ropes (the hard way) on this blog.
    But for you to throw the steven goddard baby out with the bathwater is just not right, is distasteful, and rather unscientific.
    I realize I run the risk of becoming myself snipped and censored and if it is a problem you can always email me at sharkhearted@gmail.com
    I personally appreciated steven’s sea ice posts. They may not have been perfect but they were not necessarily wrong either.
    He has a style about reporting that is very brief and to the point.
    For you guys to ban him because he is broaching a “forbidden” subject is just ridiculous.
    All the great minds on here need to figure out how to work together and solve problems rather than degenerating into un-evolved ape-like battles of raw ego.
    Hey, we all do it, but that don’t make it right.
    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA
    Reply: Steven is not banned. He is just not going to be a contributing author. I may have to back read this thread to see if I’ve missed something. ~ ctm

  56. … a NEW phenomena is running — or about to start up: low angle Sun / Oceanic REFRACTION. Or actually: two:
    1. At the Ocean Surface, a very low angle ray can be even more likely to reflect off the SEA, than even bright white Ice.
    2. Above the surface, Sunlight refracts over the Horizon even if it the Sun is technically Set. See: http://www.eh2r.com/
    Either of these could be VERY significant. If, that is, the Sun ever returns !
    … I have 3 new calculations of ___ THE DAY THE SUN RETURNS – –
    the 5th, 12th or 19th, based on the time delay for High pressure to return – – times the strength of the El Nino relative to 2007’s.
    This is because the 2010’s El Nino was 1.64 times the rating of 2007’s (1.8/1.1) so CLOUDS would be generated IN PROPORTION (& then take longer to get wiped out by the La Nina — again see Wayne Davidson’s site, above) . 2007 seems to have slowed melt in May/early June for 5-6 weeks – – this year’s El Nino was a “Modoki” which lasts ~ 2 months longer, so the CLOUDS arrived on June 28 … so I am “trying” 3 Methods: #1 = June 29 + 6 weeks times the El Nino ratio (1.8/1.1=1.64) … Method #2m = 5 weeks times the ratio, PLUS 33% for El Nino “Modoki” that last longer, … Method #3 = 6 weeks times (1.8/1.1) + 33%
    – – it makes sense that if there are more Clouds, it takes longer for the New La Nina to dry them out.
    MAYBE this will work for Upcoming years. AS you may know, the EXTREME Outlook [ = ZERO Ice ] came from Me – – BUT, as I said, If I am wrong, it will be the Clouds”. Not one of the Experts could tell me – – even STEVE – – what the Clouds would do. So I made up my Own theory … OK, I actually just Hijakked Wayne’s Theory – – & added two “tweaks” : his reasoning is fine, but he was unaware of “Modoki” – – which delayed the El NINO/La NINA switch to JULY, KILLING THE BEST MELTING MONTH, and, that there were more Clouds (1.64 times, or maybe +33% = 2.2 TIMES, though offset by the fact the La Nina is itself a kind of “rebound” effect, & as such, one after a Modoki should be STRONGER — & this one looks like FIMBUL WINTER is coming (La Ninas are COLD).
    On the subject of Ice Area, there is a SECOND Area number Source, at Nansen, the Parent of the Arctic Roos/Norsex Quad of graphs.
    Look on the Bottom of the Page. The number for All-time Minimum has apparently been increased 10% to account for a new Algorithm, if the NSIDC explanation that the new Algorithms may be better, yet invalidate comparisons to previous years, has been heard & provoked a re-calculation of the Old figures ( 2010 Norsex Daily Area seems to match the 2010 Nansen Daily number precisely).
    Compare Nansen & JAXA/Cryosphere numbers:
    (taking Older Nansen Numbers off the Arctic Roos graph)
    Year: ___________ 2007 _____ 2008 _____ 2009 ______ 2010
    Nansen/Norsex: ___ 3.62 ______ 3.90 ______ 4.27 _______ 4.350662
    Cryo / ijis ______ 2.9194391 __ 3.0035558 __ 3.4265975 ___ 3.2508845
    Last 4 days N. :___ +_ 9,124___ -29,380.0 ___ -33,505.7 ___ +45,367.4
    Last 4 days Cry___-143,476___ – 29,903.9___ + _4,424____ -71,642.4
    # to Min. Nansen = __ 1006 K ___450 K _____ 80 K__(K = 1,000km2)
    # to Min (Cryo) = ___ 332 K ___ 245 K ____ -180 K _(Min=MINimum)
    # To Go to Min(Na) =__17 % ____ 10 % _____ 2 %
    # To Go ( Cryo )___=__10 % _____ 8 % _____ PASSED ( by 5 %)
    – – Obviously, these are two SERIOUSLY DIFFERENT area measures.
    Perhaps that is why, for the Extent numbers, only ONE (the Jaxa) is published
    #ToGo EXTENT = __ 19.5% ____11.2% _____ 0.2 % (JAXA)
    Nansen AREA at http://www.nersc.no/main/index2.php — note Link: to Norsex via SSMI
    Cryo/ijis AREA at : http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/timeseries.anom.1979-2008
    JAXA/ijis EXtent at: http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/plot.csv
    Topex has the ONLY comparison of SSMI & AMSR-E data on the same Graph: on row #2 from the Top: http://arctic-roos.org/forecasting-services/topaz/topaz-model-forecast
    DMI & Norsex use SSMI, AMSR-E is NSIDC, JAXA/CRYO, Bremen (Bremen’s graphs also look like previous years were adjusted); note NSIDC still uses the old Algorithm.

  57. Paul K2, Steve:
    Paul=Z introduced a lot of Numbers, showing 3 inches = 7cm maximum melt, Steve countered that the Air could be replaced:
    I figure:.
    To replace the Air = 5000 miles at 20 mph = 10 days = 5 to 10 times in a Melt Season.
    = 15 to 30 inches in a Melting Season.
    But remember the LIMIT to how much moisture Air can take up, applies to this AND bright Sun sublimating the Ice to vapor.
    >> They have to Share. << More, would force continuous Fog.
    Let me repeat something cited by the 2007 Sea Ice update Redux: <http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20071222/fob2.asp
    " … About 70 cm of that shrinkage resulted from melting of the ice's upper surface-a typical amount for the summer, says Perovich. However, a whopping 2 m or so of that erosion, about five times the normal summer loss, occurred from below”.
    …. so 30 inches = "70 cm from above", & does seem to be a "typical amount for the summer". At least the numbers hold up to scrutiny.
    >> But: I don’t know how to tell WHICH process is doing the melting “from Above” !.
    — For Newbies: Nearly half of Ice Loss — but WILDLY varying – – is “export” out of Fram Strait East of Greenland. When it gets into the Atlantic, it Melts.
    The Winds were pushing it BACK in July, so Even though they REVERSED in mid August, and A LOT is moving NOW, only a small part of the Whole is close enough to “escape” in even a Month. Thus with the heavy CLOUDS (in part, a symptom that the Air is INDEED pretty “Full Up”)
    & low SURFACE air temps – – maybe — we have some thin ice forming. Or is it the Strong Winds that make it APPEAR to be adding Ice ? Big Storms in the Arctic this last Week & Now.. And they PUSH the Pack.
    This results in the several measures of Area & Extent bouncing Up & down a LOT lately.
    So I cannot tell: how much is Which factor : Low) Local surface Air temp, Warm Winds, Strong Winds, or
    Water temp (a big Squirt of heat in next to Svalbard which ironically has caused a LOW temp spot due to so much Melt, there. And it looks like the Pacific water is just about to impact the Westernmost Ice)
    …>> My Guess is: all of the above.
    Except the Sun: currently a Dead Letter.
    But if it DOES come out – – will it just reflect off the Water ?? That would be ironic.

  58. The final days of the 2010 melt season are here and the horse race is on.
    2010 is the 9th year in the JAXA record. How will it place?
    Today 2010 has 2005 beat leaving the Goddard Minimum far behind.
    Let’s look at the standings.
    2003 Min.: 6,041,250: Busted 8/14/10
    2004 Min.: 5,784,688: Busted 8/19/10
    2006 Min.: 5,781,719: Busted 8/19/10
    2002 Min: 5,646,875: Busted 8/22/10
    Goddard Min: 5,500,000: Busted 8/26/10
    2005 Min: 5,315,156: Busted Today!!!
    2009 Min:5,249,844: ???
    This puts 2010 in the top four lowest sea ice extents in the JAXA record and there is still time on the clock.

  59. Using my highly refined analytical ability, I’ve determined there is still ice at the north pole. It has been sufficiently referenced in past threads that N polar ice has been quite minuscule in the recent past relative to current conditions (See sea ice news 1-19).
    Don’t worry, be happy.

  60. Reply: Steven is not banned. He is just not going to be a contributing author. I may have to back read this thread to see if I’ve missed something. ~ ctm
    With the popularity of Steven Goddard’s posts it’s odd that he won’t be continuing with posts. His posts have generated 1000’s of comments. His posts consistently have more comments in each than anyone else posts. I can see that a couple of commenters don’t like his posts. But those commenters don’t run WUWT, do they? It seems that a couple of people have something personal against him.

  61. stevengoddard says:
    September 3, 2010 at 6:30 am
    Mine is looking almost perfect.
    —–
    You’re desperation is palpable.

  62. Jeff P says:
    September 3, 2010 at 5:06 am
    This puts 2010 in the top four lowest sea ice extents in the JAXA record and there is still time on the clock.
    Or in the top 5 highest. It depends on how you want to look at it.
    But 9 years of data is too short. Nothing important could be determined about Arctic ice with a short data set like that. If there was a data set 1000 years long then we could see what is really going on with Arctic ice and we could draw conclusions about 2010 that would carry weight.. But we only have 9 years in JAXA. Something that we can see though is that Arctic ice is not heading in the direction manmade global warming says it should be. It’s growing since 2007. Antarctic ice is also not doing what global warming ‘science’ says it should. The manmade global warming hypothesis continues to not have supporting evidence.

  63. Jeff P says:
    September 3, 2010 at 7:03 am
    stevengoddard says:
    September 3, 2010 at 6:30 am
    Mine is looking almost perfect.
    —–
    You’re desperation is palpable.

    Look at the graph. It is almost fair smack on. With how highly variable Arctic Ice is his prediction is pretty good. Predicting what Arctic Ice totals will be is like trying to make free throws at a hoop that is moving. He almost put this one in.

  64. Jeff P says:
    September 3, 2010 at 7:03 am
    “You’re desperation is palpable.”
    As is your obsession/stalking of Steven.

  65. Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
    September 3, 2010 at 7:38 am
    But 9 years of data is too short.
    ———–
    Funny, I don’t recall this criticism of the JAXA data when Steve was using it in post after post to support his arctic sea ice recovery theory. Why didn’t you bring it up then?
    You wouldn’t be biased, would you?

  66. Jeff P says:
    “You wouldn’t be biased, would you?”
    Everyone is biased to a certain degree. Jeff P happens to be more biased than most. The real problem is the warmists’ heavy-handed use of disreputable Saul Alinsky tactics: isolate the individual, then go after him using a non-stop series of personal ad-hominem attacks. We know that the crowd wouldn’t bother if their target was ineffective.
    It’s the same tactic used against Lord Monckton. Being fixated on a personality rather than on the issue is a realclimate-tamino-climateprogress modus operandi. Monkey-piling on those who man up and write articles is nothing to be proud of. I notice that the alarmist contingent hides their charlatan scientists safely behind an impenetrable wall of censorship and official whitewashes, with no contrary voice allowed. Now that is major bias.

  67. Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
    September 2, 2010 at 10:14 pm

    Scott says:
    September 2, 2010 at 9:31 pm

    DMI’s 30% extent seems to give the highest rating for 2010 of all the measures….. Overall, much of the ice does seem low concentration…

    That is a contradiction.
    The reason DMi is high compared to the others is because almost all of the ice is at a high concentration. 30% concentration being so different could be a sign of cooling in the earth.

    Yes, that was part of the point of my post…that there is lot of contradicting information from the various databases right now. They all seem to agree that 15% extent for 2010 is at or below 2009’s level (though varying considerably). The also agree that area is below 2009’s level (again, varying considerably). Yet 30% extent from DMI has tracked 2009 well and is slightly above it now, whereas intuitively I’d assume that 30% would behave somewhere between area and 15%.
    I guess I should revise my statement to something like “Much of the ice seems to be of intermediate concentration.” Presumably, there has to be a decent amount more ice in the 50% (roughly) range compared to last year for both area and 15% extent to be below 2009 while 30% is above.
    That said, I really do think it’s too late in the season for Phil to be right about us losing a lot more extent. And though most people seemed to write it off nearly a week ago, I’m still rooting to out-extend 2009. However, if the recent slowdown in loss doesn’t hold, we could still see extent drop all the way to 5.oe6 km^2 (statistically we should be closer to 5.1e6 km^2, and I have a gut feeling that to 2 sig figs we’ll see 5.2e6 km^2…though that means nothing). A lot of it depends on how accurate the DMI graph is (and of course the weather :-).
    The final JAXA number results in less loss than the initial number did, but we still only have 54375 km^2 to go to reach 2009’s minimum. The only year in JAXA that lost less than even 100000 km^2 from here to the minimum was 2004, but apparently several years back in the 80’s had their minimum extent in August, which is interesting.
    -Scott

  68. Smokey says:
    September 3, 2010 at 9:32 am
    Everyone is biased to a certain degree. Jeff P happens to be more biased than most. The real problem is the warmists’ heavy-handed use of disreputable Saul Alinsky tactics: isolate the individual, then go after him using a non-stop series of personal ad-hominem attacks. We know that the crowd wouldn’t bother if their target was ineffective.
    It’s the same tactic used against Lord Monckton.

    Please, Monckton is the biggest user of ad hominem, remember “overcooked prawn”, “bedwetters”, “half-assed Catholic Bible college”, “this creep of a president” etc.

  69. AndyM. September 2, 2010 at 10:04 pm
    Hey, just trying to stay on message (and some!). Saves a dunking on the ducking-stool at the Village pond for herecy 😉
    Just between you and me (don’t tell the Master or his toadies) – AMRS-E shows the Arctic sea ice is ravaged (again) this year. And why can’t somebody stop those imbeciles sailing backwards and forwards through tha NW passage – don’t they know it’s blocked with ice??

  70. Scott says:
    September 3, 2010 at 9:37 am
    That said, I really do think it’s too late in the season for Phil to be right about us losing a lot more extent.

    The main reason is that the ice has already gone, all that’s necessary is for the wind to compact the existing ice, comparing with previous years gives a false sense of security since most of those years didn’t have such low ice concentration. Another 60,000 sq km of area went today, four more days like that and it’s below 2008.

  71. Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
    September 3, 2010 at 6:56 am

    With the popularity of Steven Goddard’s posts it’s odd that he won’t be continuing with posts. His posts have generated 1000′s of comments. His posts consistently have more comments in each than anyone else posts.

    Quantity doesn’t not imply quality, and a lot of my posts were to clarify or correct points Steve raised. I think that overall the world is a better place with Steve having his own blog. I don’t mean that as criticism, Steves’ posts there will certainly be better than those on many blogs. However, given the number of readers here, I think Steve’s posts could be more clear more to the point. His mention of the triple point of pure water in a comment that only needed a reference to the freezing point of sea water started a very unproductive exchange. I’m rather glad I missed it, most of the points I would have made others did for me.
    I and others held Steve’s posts to the standards I/they expect at WUWT, but in doing so the ensuing discussion almost always goes off in unfortunate directions. I will comment on Steve’s posts at his blog (note not all of my comments are critiques), and it will be a lot easier for me to hold his posts to his standards.
    Steve’s blog gives him a chance to go off in directions that would be OT here, another reason I think things will be better with his own blog.

  72. roger says:
    September 2, 2010 at 4:47 am
    “Hmmmmm. R. Gates seems awfully quiet these days!”
    Hubris, nemesis, and hostages to fortune spring immediately to mind. As for catharsis we wonder what form that might take as the AGW brigade nudge gently up against reality.
    Who are the denialists now?
    ________
    This last week has been an interesting one in the Arctic and Antarctic as both are reaching critical extrema points. Globally of course, the total sea ice continues to be on the underside of the long term norm, related mostly to the Arctic continuing to be well below the 30 year running average, but of course we’ve seen the Antarctic now dip below the running 30 year average as well. A few things an objective observer would note in looking at this longer term Global sea ice anomaly graph:
    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg
    First, the graph has spent more time below the average than above over the past 10 years. If you took the definite intergral of the graph you’d see that it was negative over the past ten years. But something else that should become apparent is the high degree of variability that has been introduced in the graph in the past few years (a very high beta). A final thing that should be noted is the significance of this graph in terms of the the total sea ice related albedo of the planet. This graph can be thought of as a direct measure of sea ice albedo, meaning of course that we have seen some very low albedos being reached these past few season, and thus of course, more solar warming of ocean water. This has of course been primarily in the N. Hemipshere, but as I’ve pointed out many times, the S. Hemisphere sea ice has seen negative anomalies over the past few years (just this week in fact) when in fact the N. Hemisphere has not had a positive anomaly since 2004.
    To those who would posit any sort of N. Hemisphere sea ice “recovery” I would ask you how there can be any recovery without a positive sea ice anomaly? From a mathematical or scientific point of view you can’t.
    In regards specifically to the past few days of N. Hemisphere sea ice activity. We had s stunningly rapid “turn around” in sea ice extent earlier this week. After losing 70,000 sq. km or so for a few days, we saw a rapid halt to this, before a continued downward trend, those much less steep than was happing last weekend for example. This is exactly what wind can do during a period when a great deal of the ice is at such a low concentration. The slow down in the drop in extent was NOT caused by a sudden and rapid freezing of the Arctic, but rather by a shift in the winds that was once more causing divergence in the ice. This divergence, coming so late in the season is an interesting event in itself, that easily sets up the regions of the Beaufort and W. Arctic Basin for more of the “rotten ice” that David Barber reported last year when he visited the area.
    Here’s a nice pic from our good and faithful friend the Ice Breaker Healy, on the western side of the Arctic Basin right now. Imagine this ice getting a nice thin layer of ice over the top. Guess what you’ll find here in month or so…rotten ice!
    http://mgds.ldeo.columbia.edu/healy/reports/aloftcon/2010/20100903-1701.jpeg
    But getting to the heart of the matter, which is what does this lasts weeks period of divergence mean for the final sea ice extent? It depends purely on water temps now, as I’ve been saying for several weeks. If the divergence has kept enough of the ice just a bit further south over warmer waters, then we might get a bit more actual melting. But just as we’ve seen the divergence come upon us quickly this week, the winds could shift and we might get another round of quick compactification. Again, the only thing that makes this kind of rapid change between divergence and compactification possible is the low over all extent in many areas of the N. Hemisphere sea ice. Also, as I point out in my last post, no one should be under the impression that sea ice extent changes right now are measuring primarily melt rates– as they are not. Sea ice extent changes at this point in the melt season (and with the concentration rates where they are) are primarily measuring changes in the wind. Earlier in summer the extent changes were a good measure of melting, but not now. There is a very small amount still going on, but it is occurring only in the areas at the southern most regions of the Arctic.
    Continued high SST anomalies across much of the Arctic make me remain confident that we’ve got a few more weeks of decline in ice extent here in September (depending on winds of course), and am still calling for the final summer low to be set between Sept. 20 to Sept. 25.
    Today of course we dropped below 2005’s low, and now the next point of interest is 2009’s low. With this year’s melt likely lasting several weeks longer than 2009’s, we should easily fall below that mark…again, though, depending on the timing of the winds and the periods of compactification and divergence.

  73. Smokey says:
    September 3, 2010 at 9:32 am
    ….It’s the same tactic used against Lord Monckton. Being fixated on a personality rather than on the issue is a realclimate-tamino-climateprogress modus operandi. Monkey-piling on those who man up and write articles is nothing to be proud of. I notice that the alarmist contingent hides their charlatan scientists safely behind an impenetrable wall of censorship and official whitewashes, with no contrary voice allowed. Now that is major bias.
    ________________________________________________
    Well said Smokey. You know you are hitting close to the truth when the ad hominem attacks come fast and furious.

  74. Village Idiot says:
    September 3, 2010 at 10:04 am
    Just between you and me (don’t tell the Master or his toadies) – AMRS-E shows the Arctic sea ice is ravaged (again) this year. And why can’t somebody stop those imbeciles sailing backwards and forwards through tha NW passage – don’t they know it’s blocked with ice??
    ______________________________
    They can’t stop sailing those Ice breakers back and forth because they have to ferry all those CAGW scientists up there so they can exclaim about all that broken up ice. They also have to rescue the ships trying to sail thru the passage or break a path for the ships trying to sail thru.

  75. rbateman said:
    September 3, 2010 at 12:55 am
    AndyW says:
    September 2, 2010 at 10:02 pm
    so how does that show up on rbateman’s black and white anomaly graph comparison?
    You rang? It would be nice to have been requested in the 1st person.
    Nevertheless:
    http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/seaice.anomaly.Ant_arctic.jpg
    The composite of Arctic/Antartic Sea Ice Anomaly graphs courtesy of Cyrosphere Today shows a musical duet.
    A product only of numerical coincidence, these 2 anomalies wander in and out of step like 2 clocks on different frequencies.
    Both are fully within thier respective ranges of trend. Somewhere around 6 months ago, they touched each other, meeting at a mind-boggling and stupendoulsy amazing Global Average of -0.25 M sq km.
    A really big deal, for in early 2009 they were inverted to what they are today, with the Arctic at min and Antarctic at max.
    Hey, isn’t this like, you know, predictable stuff?
    __________________________
    It’s rather impossible to request stuff from you in the first person but I get your point.
    You normally mention your graphs when they are in ying /yang so I thought I would point out when they weren’t just to show there really isn’t any correlation between the two.
    Andy

  76. Gail Combs says:
    September 3, 2010 at 12:32 pm
    Well said Smokey. You know you are hitting close to the truth when the ad hominem attacks come fast and furious.

    So you think that Prof. John Abraham was hitting close to the truth then?

  77. You normally mention your graphs when they are in ying /yang so I thought I would point out when they weren’t just to show there really isn’t any correlation between the two.
    Andy
    ________
    I doubt there is some long term teleconnection between Antarctic Sea ice and Artic Sea ice, though, as predicted by GCM’s, they will each behave a bit differently to AGW. Of particular note should be the fact that the Arctic has not seen a positive anomaly since 2004, whereas as the Antarctic has seen both positive and negative anomalies in that time period. This long period on time without seeing a positive sea ice anomaly in the Arctic is very significant, as it shows that something has happened beyond simple year-to-year variability. It is far too much outside the limits of standard deviation for far too long not to take notice. One would have thought that the longest and deepest solar mimimum in a century would have at least snapped this long term decline if it was just “natural” variabililty, and hence this is just one of the major reasons why I am a “warmist” and remain 75% convinced that AGW is the reason behind this long decline of Arctic Sea ice. Could it be other factors, such as a longer term cycle in the PDO, etc? Absolutely it could, but I think that is far less likely scenario than AGW. In this way, I part ways with people like Joe Bastardi in particular, in that he thinks that Arctic Sea ice is going to bounce back over the next few years, and I think this is unlikely, and we’ll continue to spiral down to a seasonally ice free Arctic in the next 20 years or so.

  78. Gail Combs says:
    September 3, 2010 at 12:32 pm
    You know you are hitting close to the truth when the ad hominem attacks come fast and furious.
    ——
    Oh, that’s why all the Super Skeptics are attacking my data driven posts by calling me names. Thanks for clearing that up Gail.
    My post that generated all the heat:
    Today 2010 has 2005 beat leaving the Goddard Minimum far behind.
    Let’s look at the standings.
    2003 Min.: 6,041,250: Busted 8/14/10
    2004 Min.: 5,784,688: Busted 8/19/10
    2006 Min.: 5,781,719: Busted 8/19/10
    2002 Min: 5,646,875: Busted 8/22/10
    Goddard Min: 5,500,000: Busted 8/26/10
    2005 Min: 5,315,156: Busted Today!!!
    2009 Min:5,249,844: ???
    This puts 2010 in the top four lowest sea ice extents in the JAXA record and there is still time on the clock.

  79. I Know what the P in Jeff P stands for….By the Way..Saw a 23 degree reading on the Healy Cam at 76 north..WUWT?…Stay tuned to the 6th of Sept..Its Over Johnny!!

  80. R. Gates says:
    September 3, 2010 at 11:54 am
    > Continued high SST anomalies across much of the Arctic
    > make me remain confident that we’ve got a few more weeks
    > of decline in ice extent here in September (depending on
    > winds of course), and am still calling for the final summer
    > low to be set between Sept. 20 to Sept. 25.
    Thank you for a testable prediction. I’m calling for a min around Labour Day (September 6th). See my post back in mid-August at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/15/sea-ice-news-18/#comment-458213 for the rationale. I’m in the same boat as Livingston+Penn, in that I’m extrapolating statistics, and I don’t have a solid explanation for the root cause. Almost like “technical analysis” in the stock market.

  81. Jeff P says:
    September 3, 2010 at 1:21 pm
    Gail Combs says:
    September 3, 2010 at 12:32 pm
    You know you are hitting close to the truth when the ad hominem attacks come fast and furious.
    ——
    Oh, that’s why all the Super Skeptics are attacking my data driven posts by calling me names. Thanks for clearing that up Gail.
    ______________________________________
    Another lie from Jeff P. imagine that. Not a single person on this thread attacked any of your data driven posts. And the only “names” you were called (using a very loose definition) was “biased” and I said, as much as Steven is obviously desperate you are obsessed/stalking him.
    Now was this year the 4th lowest or fifth highest in the JAXA record?
    Also I like the exclamation points you use when the extent drops below anothe threshhold. It seems you are rooting for it to drop further so you can say I told you so, even though you proclaim that declining sea ice is a big problem we face. You are a very emotional person. Oops did I call you name?

  82. Jeff P.
    “Oh, that’s why all the Super Skeptics are attacking my data driven posts by calling me names. Thanks for clearing that up Gail.”
    Evidence please.

  83. Walter Dnes says:
    September 3, 2010 at 2:07 pm
    R. Gates says:
    September 3, 2010 at 11:54 am
    > Continued high SST anomalies across much of the Arctic
    > make me remain confident that we’ve got a few more weeks
    > of decline in ice extent here in September (depending on
    > winds of course), and am still calling for the final summer
    > low to be set between Sept. 20 to Sept. 25.
    Thank you for a testable prediction. I’m calling for a min around Labour Day (September 6th). See my post back in mid-August at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/15/sea-ice-news-18/#comment-458213 for the rationale. I’m in the same boat as Livingston+Penn, in that I’m extrapolating statistics, and I don’t have a solid explanation for the root cause. Almost like “technical analysis” in the stock market.
    _____
    SST’s and winds (causing compacting or divergence), not the DMI (even if it was completely accurate), have more influence on the final extent number. SST’s remain higher than normal and there is lots of low concentration ice still around the Arctic, for example, as found in this Ice Breaker Healy photo from today:
    http://mgds.ldeo.columbia.edu/healy/reports/aloftcon/2010/20100903-1801.jpeg
    It doesn’t take a lot of imagination to imagine the wind either compacting or diverging this ice, causing the extent to fall or rise in response.
    I would be very suprized if we had the final summer low hit on September 6th. The only way I could see this happening would be from lots of divergence that hit, and then a quick freeze over, which would of course lead to even more “rotting ice”. The amount of warmer than normal water leads me to push the final low being set Sept. 20th to 25th.

  84. R. Gates says:
    September 3, 2010 at 2:43 pm

    The amount of warmer than normal water leads me to push the final low being set Sept. 20th to 25th.

    How much warmer is the water (or how much more warm water is there) in 2010 at this time relative to 2008 (JAXA minimum on Sept 9) and 2009 (JAXA minimum on Sept 13)?
    -Scott

  85. AndyW says:
    September 3, 2010 at 12:57 pm
    I never said the Arctic and the Antarctic were correlated. Since they move in a mathematical relationship (like 3:2 eg) they would be poor candidates for a hypothesis such as AGW. And they should not be used as such in any short-term analysis. Even worse is to try and use one of them (Arctic) as a canary for Climate Change. Until enough time has passed to see 3 crossings of anomalies, it’s an exercise in futility, and the NULL hypothesis has to stand.

  86. Jeff P says:
    September 3, 2010 at 5:06 am
    All of your comparison data are to times before the 2007 melt occured.
    This is the same thing that is done when a paper is put out with data ending in 2000. Where’s the current data?
    It’s a big cherry pick, especially when justification for comparison years selection to avoid bias in not stated.
    When you don’t include your justification for selection, your conclusion is suspect if you do not use all the data.

  87. Don’t those who feel global warming is real have a blog of their own to dominate? Why do they feel they must talk and talk here? I think they are whistling past the cemetery.

  88. Gail Combs says:
    September 3, 2010 at 12:38 pm
    They can’t stop sailing those Ice breakers back and forth because they have to ferry all those CAGW scientists up there so they can exclaim about all that broken up ice. They also have to rescue the ships trying to sail thru the passage or break a path for the ships trying to sail thru.

    There’s been precious little ice there to break up this year, and a couple of Royal marines might take issue with you about following icebreakers, they just finished their ‘yomp’ from Gjoa Havn to Resolute by rowing the last 12 miles into port.

  89. > There’s been precious little ice there to break up this year
    So why don’t the Canadian, US, and Russian governments save tens/hundreds of millions of dollars by leaving their icebreakers dry-docked for the summer?

  90. Hey Idjut,
    I saw it too! That ole co2 ravaging the ole sea ise. Sssshh! its herezy.
    backwards and forwards, backwards and forwards, ravaging, ravaging.
    hell in a handbasket. ravaging,ravaging.

  91. It’s might difficult to tell from an Anomaly reading, but the current Global Sea Ice is around 92% of the 30 year mean.
    Seems that data is mighty hard to come by, especially when it comes to analysis that supports theory.
    So I have decided to call attention to the origin of the analysis that leads to the claims of an Arctic Death Spiral:
    Anomalopogenic

  92. Phil. says:
    September 3, 2010 at 6:39 pm
    The NW passage, last I looked, is not limited to the last 12 miles to the unnamed port.
    Lots of climbers attempt to scale this icy mountain in my part of the woods.
    Some of them are welcomed as brave and newsworthy. Some of them are not so lucky.

  93. rbateman says:
    September 3, 2010 at 8:38 pm
    Phil. says:
    September 3, 2010 at 6:39 pm
    The NW passage, last I looked, is not limited to the last 12 miles to the unnamed port.

    I suggest you reread the post since you appear to have missed some of it!
    Lots of climbers attempt to scale this icy mountain in my part of the woods.
    Some of them are welcomed as brave and newsworthy. Some of them are not so lucky.

    Not clear what the relevance of this is?

  94. stevengoddard says:
    September 3, 2010 at 7:23 pm
    Just for you Jeff P
    ==============================
    True to form, Steven. Hahaha you crack me up.
    Nothing like a few pictures and visuals to get your point across.
    Nice.
    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  95. stevengoddard says:
    September 3, 2010 at 7:23 pm
    Just for you Jeff P

    Interesting graphic, what does the green dot represent?
    What happened to the NSIDC June prediction?
    Also the scale appears to be distorted, based on your two predictions one ring increment represents 0.4, in which case the NSIDC marks appear to be misplaced.

  96. Marcia, Marcia
    That is how I feel about the sea ice thread this year, I am tired of hearing their views on rotten ice and an ice free arctic in summer. If they believe in AGW why don’t they post on a pro AGW website.

  97. Jeff P says:
    September 3, 2010 at 8:14 am
    Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
    September 3, 2010 at 7:38 am
    But 9 years of data is too short.
    ———–
    Funny, I don’t recall this criticism of the JAXA data when Steve was using it in post after post to support his arctic sea ice recovery theory. Why didn’t you bring it up then?
    You wouldn’t be biased, would you?

    You are comparing things that are not the same. It seems that since you trolls think Steven Goddard is banned from WUWT you have turned your attention on me. I just don’t think you guys know what you are doing.
    If you cannot see that Arctic ice is growing since 2007, if the data that is right in front of you isn’t showing you that, if it isn’t legible to you, then my arguments aren’t going to be legible to you either. So I’m not going to try to argue with you. I’m not in the business of trying to change the minds of people who don’t want to change their mind. All of you fellows can take your shots. Knock yourselves out. But the data will stay the same 🙂
    Nothing out of the ordinary is happening in Arctic ice. Manmade influences are not changing the weather and the climate. There is no evidence that Arctic ice is in a death spiral, or that there is going to be ice free summers in the Arctic in 20 years. To claim either of these things from 30 years of data, i.e., 1979 until now, is wrong. The earth is 4.5 billion years old. Making predictions of doom from 30 years of data is the same as saying the sky is falling because an acorn fell onto your head.
    People reading these comments can decide what to think of what they read from you and from me.

  98. Walter Dnes says:
    September 3, 2010 at 7:22 pm
    > There’s been precious little ice there to break up this year
    So why don’t the Canadian, US, and Russian governments save tens/hundreds of millions of dollars by leaving their icebreakers dry-docked for the summer?

    Walter,
    I think these commenters who are talking about the Northwest Passage being open don’t know what they are doing. It looks like they are living in some sort of fantasy and are comforting themselves by imagining the Northwest Passage is open. It’s like they are pretending with each other.

  99. Phil
    go ahead and nit pick, but why don’t you just admit he almost got it right. And why don’t you admit your Barber’s alarmism about rotted ice is wrong.
    If you don’t want to that’s up to you. But agreeing with the truth will only help you. Not agreeing with what is plainly happening will be bad for you. It’s up to you. You determine what kind of person you will be.

  100. Phil. says:
    September 3, 2010 at 9:09 pm
    Not clear what the relevance of this is?

    There is nothing new about people defying dangerous mountain conditions nor risking life & limb in the Arctic.
    Your story of 2 marines rowing the last 12 miles to an undisclosed port was not substantiated by reference, and
    There’s been precious little ice there to break up this year implies ‘piece of cake’ conditions, which would be news if it were substantiated.
    Why then, if the ice was nowhere to be found, did they row the last 12 miles only?
    Contradictory on face value.
    So, my tale of bravery vs stupidity is just as unrefereced as yours.
    suggest you reread the post since you appear to have missed some of it!
    Only the reference to the unlinked story.

  101. So why don’t the Canadian, US, and Russian governments save tens/hundreds of millions of dollars by leaving their icebreakers dry-docked for the summer?
    The Russians have special cargo that needs to get through and mineral resource staking to do.
    The Canadians have territory issues to monitor and NW Passage mad-dashers to rescue.
    The US is up there to keep an eye on everyone else and check out the mineral resources situation.

  102. The north west passage is open this year, definition of being open, not being blocked by ice. At one point if you picked your route the most “blocked” part you would have come across, according to the Canadian ice service, was between 1 /10 – 3/10
    http://ice-glaces.ec.gc.ca/prods/WIS56CT/20100830180000_WIS56CT_0005166651.gif
    http://ice-glaces.ec.gc.ca/prods/WIS55CT/20100830180000_WIS55CT_0005166701.gif
    and according to the nice images Amino kindly linked to in an earlier thread that looks like this
    http://www.ec.gc.ca/glaces-ice/default.asp?lang=En&n=19CDA64E-1
    (see under comcentration of ice 2/3 down)
    which is described as ” very open drift”. Note the word “open”, And “very”.
    So all this talk of being closed is [snip] rewriting of history, it seems the people who keep saying it simply think it will come true if they say it for long enough. Here’s a clue, it won’t.
    Andy
    REPLY: That [snip] was a poor word choice on your part, please don’t use that word again to describe readers of this blog. – Anthony

  103. AndyW says:
    September 3, 2010 at 11:16 pm
    The north west passage is open this year, definition of being open, not being blocked by ice. At one point if you picked your route the most “blocked” part you would have come across, according to the Canadian ice service, was between 1 /10 – 3/10

    That’s not ice free, and that’s still dangerous territory to navigate. Sea ice today moves, and closes in on ships, the very same way it did 160 years ago. It moves quickly. The only reason people are ‘attempting’ these passages is that they have GPS and can be rescued before perishing. The people who do attempt passage are seasoned Arctic venturers, travel light & small, and go in the general style of Amundsen. For serious shipping, don’t leave home without an Icebreaker Escort.
    Witness the hapless Cruise ship torn on the unnavigated rocks last month. Why? Because so little of it is accessible to sounding for so brief a time.
    The Arctic is not the rose garden some would like to paint it as.

  104. Marcia, Marcia says:
    September 3, 2010 at 5:59 pm
    Don’t those who feel global warming is real have a blog of their own to dominate? Why do they feel they must talk and talk here? I think they are whistling past the cemetery.

    Isn’t this a science blog? According to the moderator “here is a place for ongoing discussing the 2010 season”, where’s the part that says ‘only those comments supporting Arctic sea ice recovery welcome’?

  105. rbateman says:
    September 3, 2010 at 10:52 pm
    Phil. says:
    September 3, 2010 at 9:09 pm
    Not clear what the relevance of this is?
    There is nothing new about people defying dangerous mountain conditions nor risking life & limb in the Arctic.
    Your story of 2 marines rowing the last 12 miles to an undisclosed port was not substantiated by reference,

    The port was explicitly named, Resolute, as was the start point Gjoa Havn!
    There’s been precious little ice there to break up this year implies ‘piece of cake’ conditions, which would be news if it were substantiated.
    For most of the yachts this year that seems to have been the case, apart from those trying to get through early.
    Why then, if the ice was nowhere to be found, did they row the last 12 miles only?
    Well it’s not the only part they rowed, but in this case the wind died away short of their destination so they rowed the rest of the way.
    Contradictory on face value.
    So, my tale of bravery vs stupidity is just as unrefereced as yours.
    “suggest you reread the post since you appear to have missed some of it!”
    Only the reference to the unlinked story.

    Your posts contain no references to all these rescues you talk about and ships being trapped in the ice, of course they didn’t happen. Whereas if you google ‘marines NW passage’ the 2nd entry will confirm my post.

  106. Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
    September 3, 2010 at 10:23 pm
    Walter Dnes says:
    September 3, 2010 at 7:22 pm
    > There’s been precious little ice there to break up this year
    So why don’t the Canadian, US, and Russian governments save tens/hundreds of millions of dollars by leaving their icebreakers dry-docked for the summer?
    Walter,
    I think these commenters who are talking about the Northwest Passage being open don’t know what they are doing. It looks like they are living in some sort of fantasy and are comforting themselves by imagining the Northwest Passage is open. It’s like they are pretending with each other.

    You are the one with the fantasy of the NW Passage being closed, check out the map at http://ice-glaces.ec.gc.ca/prods/WIS38CT/20100903180000_WIS38CT_0005170816.gif
    Look at the route Cambridge Bay, Gjoa Havn, Taloyoak, Resolute.

  107. Amino writes:
    If you cannot see that Arctic ice is growing since 2007, if the data that is right in front of you isn’t showing you that, if it isn’t legible to you, then my arguments aren’t going to be legible to you either. So I’m not going to try to argue with you. I’m not in the business of trying to change the minds of people who don’t want to change their mind. All of you fellows can take your shots. Knock yourselves out. But the data will stay the same 🙂
    Amino, do you not agree that the 2007 ice extent was an anomaly triggered by an anomalous circulation pattern? I believe if that same circulation pattern would have occurred again this year, the ice extent would have dropped below that of 2007. The trend in sea ice continues downwards (and continues to accelerate, you can perform your own statistics on the time-series and see that for yourself). The ice is not recovering, this year will mark the 3rd lowest ice extent in the modern satellite data record and to at least 1953 when earlier satellite data, aircraft and ship observations made good measurements of the ice cover. Even more of the old ice was depleted this summer as the old ice that was transported into the Chukchi Sea under the strong negative AO this past winter has ALL disappeared.
    What 2007 was not, was a tipping point. But that does not mean the sea ice is not still in a strong decline.

  108. Confirmed JAXA 15% extent for Sept 3rd is in: 5245625. Updated charts …
    15-day: http://img259.imageshack.us/img259/8676/15day20100903.png
    7-day: http://img801.imageshack.us/img801/7278/7day20100903.png
    OK, did it in one. That’s a good few Joules, back to the mean tomorrow. Stay tuned, the interesting bit starts the day after. This doggy may have a wet tail to shake once around the 10th or 11th. Looks like a Spaniel rather than 2003’s big Red Retriever though.

  109. Scott says:
    September 3, 2010 at 4:19 pm
    R. Gates says:
    September 3, 2010 at 2:43 pm
    The amount of warmer than normal water leads me to push the final low being set Sept. 20th to 25th.
    How much warmer is the water (or how much more warm water is there) in 2010 at this time relative to 2008 (JAXA minimum on Sept 9) and 2009 (JAXA minimum on Sept 13)?
    -Scott
    _____
    Good questions Scott, and not only do I not have answers, I’m really not so sure I care about the anomaly over just a few years. I care about the longest term persepctive that we have hard data. We know the waters all around the Arctic are warmer than the longer term average, as can be seen in this chart:
    http://polar.ncep.noaa.gov/sst/ophi/color_anomaly_NPS_ophi0.png
    Areas like the Beaufort have been warmer than the longer term average for most of the melt season, and these kinds of warmer waters than normal lead me to thinking we’ll see a later melt season than normal as all that warm water keeps the melt season going a bit longer as all that heat must be exhausted. This warm open water also has implications for general changes in Arctic weather and circulation patterns, but that’s for another post.
    2009 saw it’s low come on September 13th and today it appears that we’ve already fallen below 2009. 2008 saw the low mark hit on Sept. 9, but I think this year’s melt looks more like we’ll see the low come somewhere between the 20th and 25th., which is more similar of to the timeframe we saw in 2005 and 2007.
    As I’ve said for many months, I think the so-called “recovery” of the Arctic sea ice that AGW skeptics were so excited about during 2008-2009 was more related to the long and deep solar minimum and the La Nina. Of course, this was really not much of a true recovery as we never even saw a positive Artic sea ice anomaly during this period. We are entering a more active period of solar activity (even if it is lower than normal, it is still higher than 2008-2009), and with the activity will come higher total solar irradiance. By spring of 2011, the currently developing La Nina will be over with, and we’ll be inching closer to the next solar max, with even higher total solar irradiance.
    It will be very interesting to see how close we come to falling below 5 million sq. km, and then approaching 2008’s record low in the next few weeks. Those are the final marks that I see as any kind of statistical interest, as at best, the AGW skeptics can now only talk about a “recovery spiral” – 2 steps forward and one step back, etc., though the same skeptics poked fun at the notion of a “death spiral”, where it woulld be a few steps down, and then one step up. The longer term trend strongly favors the “death spiral’ being the correct dance step.

  110. Phil. says:
    September 4, 2010 at 4:56 am
    It’s your story, so far, as you have not pasted a single link.
    Oh, don’t get me wrong, Phil., if you are interested in mincing words for the sake of pure argument, I have nothing at all against doing so in open thread. It’s actually more fun, don’t you agree?
    So, can we get some neat photos of this Armada of yachts sailing carefree through the NW Passage?
    How many got through?

  111. So, if this NW Passage thing is going to be a mainstay permanent thing, why not make it into an annual event, with multimillion$ purse attached? Like the Iditarod or Breakup. The thrill of victory and the agony of defeat.
    Now, who’s the lucky dog that made it 1st this year?

  112. “R. Gates says:
    September 4, 2010 at 9:39 am
    It will be very interesting to see how close we come to falling below 5 million sq. km, and then approaching 2008′s record low in the next few weeks. Those are the final marks that I see as any kind of statistical interest, as at best, the AGW skeptics can now only talk about a “recovery spiral” – 2 steps forward and one step back”
    The recovery does not depend on going forward every year, and my prognosis of 5 from last year was based on that fact (ice never went up 3 years in a row). And nobody calls “two steps forward, one step back” a spiral (look up what that is), but of “reculer pour mieux sauter” (look up what that is).

  113. R. Gates says:
    September 4, 2010 at 9:39 am

    Good questions Scott, and not only do I not have answers, I’m really not so sure I care about the anomaly over just a few years. I care about the longest term persepctive that we have hard data.

    The reason I ask is that using positive SST anomalies based on a long time series to say the end of the melt season will be later (thus, saying it will cause a positive anomaly in end date) compared to more recent years is comparing apples and oranges. Now, if you say it’ll be later than the long-term (same length of time as the above) average end date, that I believe…but wasn’t the minimum in late August a few decades ago (I’m not sure if it was…can someone answer that)?
    If we’re going to use SST anomalies to predict the end date, what if 2008 and 2009 showed similar positive SST anomalies? Would we then expect a similar minimum date? Or did the strong El Nino this year result in higher SSTs this year than the last two? If that’s the case, then finishing below last year’s minimum should have been expected (even if the Arctic is “recovering”). Isn’t this similar to what Charles Wilson has been saying all along?
    On another note, it looks like Phil was right at least in the short term about a pickup in extent loss. At least I can be sure of my statistic now: the probability of finishing above 2009’s minimum in the JAXA record is 0.00000% now (unless there was some sort of processing error yesterday ;-).
    -Scott

  114. don penman says:
    September 4, 2010 at 11:19 am
    Your “natice” links didn’t work for me.
    In regards to your post right before this one, you’re only looking at the ROOS data (which seems to show give the best outlook on area right now). You should go to the sea ice page to compare all the databases…there’s a lot of scatter in the numbers. The general consensus right now is that 15% extent is between 2008/2009 (closer to 2009) with the area being around what it was in 2008. What’s bizarre is that 30% extent is running even or slightly above 2009, whereas I’d expect it to fall somewhere between the 15% and area trends.
    -Scott

  115. R. Gates says:
    “I care about the longest term persepctive that we have hard data.”
    Here’s a reasonably long-term perspective, using hard data out to 740,000 ybp:
    click1
    click2
    See? Natural climate variation. And we are currently in the sweet spot. As we can clearly see, the threat comes from a frigid planet. That is the historical norm.
    A warmer, more temperate and pleasant climate isn’t a threat, it is most desirable — despite what the UN and the other self-serving pigs at the grant trough claim.

  116. Taking an aside for the moment from this years curve, I had often wondered about two dips from the normal curve, as per here
    http://www.zen141854.zen.co.uk/dips.jpg
    The reasons for these dips are as follows
    “Sept. 2005 was largely wind-driven. The melt season was pretty much done, but freeze-up was slow to start. Then some winds pushed the ice together, which allowed the extent to go down more.”
    “Nov. 2006 was probably due mainly to warm ocean waters. The ice grew for a while until it reached ocean waters that were above average and it couldn’t grow further until the ocean lost its heat. There may have also been some contribution by winds keeping the ice from expanding. ”
    Not my own words of course, I’m too dumb, from one of well reknowned scientists who sometimes posts here.
    Nice to fill in the knowledge gaps. Thanks mystery scientist !
    Andy

  117. Phil. says:
    September 3, 2010 at 6:39 pm
    “There’s been precious little ice there to break up this year, and a couple of Royal marines might take issue with you about following icebreakers, they just finished their ‘yomp’ from Gjoa Havn to Resolute by rowing the last 12 miles into port.”
    Was Resolute their destination?
    “After the success of completing two thirds of the passage last year, Kev and Tony are returning to Gjoa Haven on 11 August 2010 to meet up with their tiny boat and finish their epic journey. The ice looks thinner than last year and they have 750 miles to go to Pond Inlet, through some of the most dramatic scenery in this remote corner of the world.”
    yet the website also claims
    “The 2010 Arctic Mariner Expedition is now complete. Kev and Tony have arrived at Resolute Bay and are now preparing for the trip home.”
    Pond Inlet is more than 500km from Resolute.
    Last year they did not complete their journey after battling “worst ice conditions in over a decade”, and at one point had to haul their 17 foot rowboat over the ice for 10 miles.
    http://www.arcticmariner.org/#thestory
    Phil, you wouldn’t be using this example to show that the NW passage is open, would you?

  118. Even more of the old ice was depleted this summer as the old ice that was transported into the Chukchi Sea under the strong negative AO this past winter has ALL disappeared.
    Julienne, if you’re still around: How about the old ice in the Beaufort and the East Siberian Sea? Do you think that will be gone too by the end of this melting season?

  119. Alexej Buergin says:
    September 4, 2010 at 10:08 am
    “R. Gates says:
    September 4, 2010 at 9:39 am
    It will be very interesting to see how close we come to falling below 5 million sq. km, and then approaching 2008′s record low in the next few weeks. Those are the final marks that I see as any kind of statistical interest, as at best, the AGW skeptics can now only talk about a “recovery spiral” – 2 steps forward and one step back”
    The recovery does not depend on going forward every year, and my prognosis of 5 from last year was based on that fact (ice never went up 3 years in a row). And nobody calls “two steps forward, one step back” a spiral (look up what that is), but of “reculer pour mieux sauter” (look up what that is).
    _____
    Alex, neither does the death “spiral” of summer Arctic Sea ice extent depend on it going down every year, but the longest term trend is down. From the broadest perspective, a spiral is something that does not do a linear nose dive (or rise), but that fluctuates, but has an ultimate terminal point. “2 steps forward and one step back” is not an exact year by year description of what either a “recovery” spiral or “death” spiral will do, but is meant to convey exactly the same general point– an oscillation (though not specfically regular in frequency) that still is tending toward an ultimate destination. I think any clear minded person would know this term is meant in the broadest metaphorical sense. In this case of course AGW “warmists” would say that terminal point is a seasonal ice free arctic, and I suppose the AGW skeptics would see the summer ice extent returning to something near the longer term average of somewhere between 7 and 8 million sq. km. Since Arctic sea ice has not even poppped gone above the longer term average since 2004, I would say it looks like currently the death spiral is the correct spiral with the terminal point being a seasonal ice free arctic sometime in the next 20 years or so.

  120. Looking at AJB’s charts for Daily Ice loss http://img801.imageshack.us/img801/7278/7day20100903.png … do the last few days (beyond his data for 2010) look like 2005 ??
    As you may know I predicted near ZERO Ice based on the UNUSUALLY STRONG EL NINO.
    … as it was an El Nino MODOKI, & rebounded into a La Nina … it confused eveyone, because all the “rebound” effects – – like CLOUDS – – kicked in 2 months LATE = 2005, ALSO a “Modoki”.
    …JULY, thus became the “Month of Cloud”
    … but as 2010 is stronger, the Clouds made by all this Hot MOIST El Nino … are lasting 10 weeks, hot 5.
    Yet it is STILL Hot Water … under that Cold, Sunless Air.
    A furious Dipole is pushing Ice out into the Atlantic but it only started in Mid-August & a 1,000 km journey at 30 km/day ….
    In short:: I think we’ve looked at years for a Model, that do not have similar driving factors to this years’. Thus:
    >>> _I_ project: a LATE “MELT”, even to October 1. & similarity to 2005 (though stronger & longer). How’s that ?
    PS: 2009 was just passed (Min=5291094) (Jaxa)
    Daily: ___________2007___ to___ 2010__&__(_2008 )
    Aug31-S1_______ -_5,156 ____ +_2,106___(-72,188 )
    Spt_1-to-2______ +_6,107 ____ -28,135___(-20,625 )
    Spt_2-to-3______ +37,031____ -58,594 ___(_-3.188 )
    Spt_3-to-4______ +51,875_____ – ?__?____(-58,125 )

  121. Julienne Stroeve,
    Hi,
    I’ve already said the data set from 1979 to 2007 is too short a data set to draw conclusions from. If there was a data set going back to the Medieval Warm Period for Arctic Ice then everyone would see the alarm over Arctic Ice now has political and environmental activist coloring, because people would see what is happening in the Arctic is within normal variability.
    I understand what you are saying about cycles. I hope you understand what I am saying about short data sets.
    The NSIDC forecast for Arctic Ice is wrong this year. The man that runs the NSIDC says Arctic Ice is in a death spiral. Walt Meier, and apparently you too, say the Arctic will have ice free summers within about 2 decades or so. If I thought that what the data from 1979 to 2007 shows was going to continue for decades more I would feel that may happen too. But the earth goes through natural warming and cooling phases. It has been far warmer in the past than it is now. And it has been far cooler in the past than it is now. Since 1976 the earth had been warming. And now since 1999 the earth is cooling. The trend seen from 1979 to 2007 is not going to continue. CO2 does not control climate.
    The natural warming and cooling times in the earth are not going to stop. In the 70’s there was alarm over a coming ice age. Now there is alarm over unstoppable warming—unless we change our ways, that is. There was a time when some cultures thought man had an influence over eclipses of the sun, and if growing seasons were going to be long because they did things that made the sun pleased. There must be something in humans that makes them tend to think their actions can influence natural occurrences.
    The earth has natural warming and cooling phases. That’s the answer I have given before when alarm over 2007 Arctic Ice comes up. It’s the answer I will give the next time it comes up.

  122. Another 50k lossday, two in a row. Scott what is your estimate now, how does it effect your values for minima?
    Andy

  123. rbateman
    You’re right about them not attaching links about the boats supposedly passing through the Northwest Passage. For instance, what are the names of the boats? And, more importantly, what kind of boats? I’m sure there’s ice breakers getting through. What are these others we are being told about? And are they following in the path that an ice breaker made?
    Is it Captain Stubing? 😉

  124. AndyW,
    I did not say ‘closed’ when referring to the Northwest Passage. In fact, I was careful to not use the word closed. Please be more careful to when referring to what other people are saying. You painted an image of me that is wrong.

  125. AndyW,
    You said:
    So the recovery stops
    Actually it doesn’t. DMi still has 2010 higher than 2009. Even if it drops slightly below (though it looks like it won’t, but it could) it is still higher than 2007, 2008 and only slightly lower than 2009. This after an El Nino year leaving warmth in the Atlantic.
    That goes the same for JAXA. If there was ice loss from rotting/alarming thinning occurring the warmth in the Atlantic should have had a larger effect on the melt. The fact that with El Nino warmth in the Atlantic we see only a slightly lower level in 2010 compared to 2009 in JAXA is evidence that the earth is in a cooling phase. 🙂

  126. Whew, with Steven Goddard not putting comments here today some people focused their attention on me instead. I think those people think Steven Goddard has been banned from here. That’s just so ridiculous of them. I’m looking forward to his next post. They get lots of comments in them because they create so much interest.

  127. “R. Gates says:
    September 4, 2010 at 4:21 pm
    From the broadest perspective, a spiral is something that does not do a linear nose dive (or rise), but that fluctuates, but has an ultimate terminal point.”
    A spiral is a mathematical curve, the simplest one being the Archimedean spiral with the eqation r = const*phi . This curve goes around the center and at the same time away from it, so r really is getting bigger constantly and always and does not fluctuate at all.
    People with no scientific background use scientific words out of context, of course. The death spiral of an airplane would be a circle (seen from above) with constantly diminishing height (helical). ( Another example: In some places they call a roundabout a “Kreisel” (=gyro).)

  128. Latest scarey story on ice.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/sep/05/climate-change-ice-caps-antarctica
    Seems that the Antarctic ice has melted before 150K years ago allowing 2 seas to cross contamiate their organisms. So instead of pointing out that that just shows climate change has been around for a long time and its been a lot warmer in the recent past it instead confirms todays danger. Must find out which drugs they are on and try it myself.
    ‘Nevertheless, the research indicates that the great ice sheet, once thought to be impregnable, is really highly vulnerable.’

  129. AndyW says:
    September 5, 2010 at 12:57 am

    Another 50k lossday, two in a row. Scott what is your estimate now, how does it effect your values for minima?
    Andy

    Good question, using the preliminary JAXA number from 09/04, the first method (current extent to predict final extent) is predicting 5.00e6 km^2. My second method is giving 5.01e6 km^2 with a std dev of 123000 km^2. My third method (note: poor due to high dependence on start/end points) is giving a minimum of 4.99e6 km^2 on Sept 21.
    The last two days’ brutal losses (plus the day before being slightly above average loss) have hit hard and put us back to just a bit higher than we were a week ago, negating the 4 or so days of nearly no loss. Your 4.9e6 km^2 is definitely still in play.
    Looks like my excitement a few days ago was ill-advised. Unless of course the loss essentially stops today and we end up in the 5.15-5.20e6 km^2 range. This isn’t unheard of, as 2003/2006/2008 all had a >50000 km^2/day loss within a few days before the minimum (and 2004 had one after the minimum even), but it would be surprising (IMO) if that happened. However, with DMI’s 30% extent value still doing well (which I still don’t understand), maybe it’ll happen.
    -Scott

  130. Alexej Buergin says:
    September 5, 2010 at 2:13 am
    “R. Gates says:
    September 4, 2010 at 4:21 pm
    From the broadest perspective, a spiral is something that does not do a linear nose dive (or rise), but that fluctuates, but has an ultimate terminal point.”
    A spiral is a mathematical curve, the simplest one being the Archimedean spiral with the eqation r = const*phi . This curve goes around the center and at the same time away from it, so r really is getting bigger constantly and always and does not fluctuate at all.
    People with no scientific background use scientific words out of context, of course. The death spiral of an airplane would be a circle (seen from above) with constantly diminishing height (helical). ( Another example: In some places they call a roundabout a “Kreisel” (=gyro).)
    ______
    Thank you for the math lesson, but perhaps you ought to learn about the definition of a metaphor. The term “death spiral” was not a mathematical description of exactly what the Arctic Sea ice was going to do, but a metaphorical one. It was meant to indicate that over the course of many years, while it might not go straight down, and one year may be followed by a higher low, that eventually it will reach a lower low, until the low gets to zero. The same term is used in looking at other things, such as the behavior a particular stock in the stock market. It seems the only people who take issue with this metaphorical use of the term “death spiral” in regards to general behavior and trend of Arctic sea ice are the AGW skeptics.

  131. Scott said:
    “Looks like my excitement a few days ago was ill-advised.”
    _____
    Scott, why would you get excited about where the Arctic sea ice extent is going or not going? Is there some kind of emotional attachment you have to the final extent?
    In the world of science, the best scientists are those that keep an open and objective mind, thereby more accurately observing what is actually happening. The general rule of the human psyche is especially applicable to the scientist– when we start to “want” things to happen, our ability to be objective diminishes very rapidly. Neither “warmist” nor “skeptic” is immune from this.

  132. As we all know, sea ice extent, especially this late in the year is very much subject to the changes in the wind. This sea ice area chart more clearly shows how 2010 has behaved in terms of melt:
    http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Area.png
    Note how close it is to 2008, and how different than 2009. Also of interest would be the fact that 2010’s total ice area loss as of today (the total from the March 31 peak to the trough) is very close to the record ice loss seen in 2008. Julienne has pointed out before how 2008 actually saw more total ice loss than 2007 as it started at a higher point, and now 2010 is coming close to matching or exceeding 2008’s record total loss and 2010 still has a bit to go before the lowest point.

  133. Today NSIDC shows the ice extent has dropped below 5.0 at 4.97.
    Gunther to answer your question, in the Chukchi all the ice ages 3+ disappeared this
    summer despite the fact that this spring saw the most 3+ ice in that region than in 14
    out of the last 20 years.
    In the Beaufort there was a 40-50% reduction in ice ages 2 and 3, a 20% increase in ice age class 4 and a 24% reduction in ice ages 5+ (note this is between the end of April and the end of August). The increase reflects transport from the central Arctic
    into the Beaufort.
    In the E. Siberian Sea, there was no ice ages 3+ in the region during winter, but there was some transport during summer of 3 year old ice into the region that still remains at the end of August.
    Overall, the Arctic saw a further depletion of the very old, thick ice (ages 5+) this year.
    Finally note, this analysis uses a 40% ice concentration threshold, so there may be some low concentration old ice that is not accounted for.

  134. Thanks a lot for the answer, Julienne. I hope we’ll see more of those figures in the coming NSIDC reports. Is the ice transport through the Queen Elizabeth Islands – that has been going on for a few weeks now – also having an effect on the amount of multi-year ice?
    As we all know, sea ice extent, especially this late in the year is very much subject to the changes in the wind.
    That’s true, but normally at this phase of the melting season one would expect wind influence to particularly express itself through compaction. In that sense 2010 has a very, very weird end of the melting season. Unlike anything we have seen in recent years.
    I would venture to say there is not that much compaction going on – or in any case it is compensated by the spectacular divergence of the ice pack on the Atlantic side of the Arctic -, but that most of the extent decrease is due to melting. Of course, wind is still responsible for this, as it is transporting the ice towards (still) warmer waters. Melting, at this time of the year…
    What this could mean, is that ice floes are not piling up on top of each other and the ice pack will thus be a bit thinner yet next year (barring an extraordinary cold winter, depending on La Niña). If we do see some serious compaction in these last few days of the melting season – and the ice pack has enormous compacting potential – extent could decrease further still. But that depends on the moment the water between all those scattered little ice floes starts to freeze up for real.
    In any case, the extent seems artificially high, as low as it is nonetheless. There is no recovery, and I don’t think we can even be speaking of a stalemate. This year, despite of the six weeks of adverse-for-melting weather conditions and a reversal of the Beaufort Gyre during ‘peak insolation’, the Arctic ice pack has received another body blow. Bastardi better be right with his two-step theory, or else R. Gates is.

  135. I will be glad when this summer melt is over in the arctic, I am getting bored with all the same comments and analysis coming again from the same people.Are we there yet?

  136. Julienne,
    In an earlier post today I alluded to the total ice area loss from peak to trough this year as compared to 2007 or 2008. It appears that 2010 is approaching 2008’s record loss, but I can’t seem to find exact data on this. Do you know where I might look? (or perhaps you have it handy?) 🙂 It would be of interest I would think to see a side by side chart of the last 10 years or so displaying total ice loss from the March maximum to the September minimum.
    Thanks in advance for any help you can give.

  137. ” R. Gates says:
    September 5, 2010 at 7:38 am
    The term “death spiral” was not a mathematical description of exactly what the Arctic Sea ice was going to do, but a metaphorical one. It was meant to indicate that over the course of many years, while it might not go straight down, and one year may be followed by a higher low, that eventually it will reach a lower low, until the low gets to zero. ”
    “Death spiral” is a very old figure in skating, made popular again in recent years by Belusova/Protopopov, and if it is performed like you describe it the judges will deduct a lot of points. As a (momentary fashionable) metaphor it implies some form of feedback, so a worsening of the situation makes the worsening go faster, as in going down the drain. Thus the US-Dollar, the Euro, Greece, US health insurance, Obama and the F-35 JSF are all in death spiral and will not be with us for much longer. Maybe.
    The trouble with Serreze is that his metaphors are as silly as his science; in 2 years we will laugh about the prognosis of Gore, but in 20 everybody will luckily have forgotten the prognosis of Ms Stroeve (the one about the disappearing ice, not the June forecast of 5.5 Million sq km). As of now, for 3 years in a row we will have had more ice than in 2007.

  138. As of now, for 3 years in a row we will have had more ice than in 2007.
    To be more precise, we have had 4 years in a row of (much) less ice than in 2006. And looking at volume…

  139. Günther Kirschbaum says:
    September 5, 2010 at 9:58 am
    Bastardi better be right with his two-step theory, or else R. Gates is.
    ______
    This comment made me smile. Joe Bastarid is a supposed “expert” and I am an armchair amateur. He gets paid to do what he does, and I earn my living elsewhere. Having said that, my main contention has been all along this year that the long and deep solar mimium (with the very low total solar irradiance) in combination with the 2008 El Nino gave the AGW skeptics a bit of extra breathing room as the Arctic sea ice levelled off a bit from the deep plunge down in 2007. Most remarkable to me is that the Arctic sea ice did not recovery more in those years, but I think that gives testimony to the longer term signal coming from AGW. It is precisely here that I part ways with Joe Bastardi, as he seems to discount the longer term forcing from CO2, and thinks that natural variation explains it all.
    Günther, overall your last post was very much right on target with the likely dynamics of the end of the 2010 melt season. There are many interrelated dynamics going on, from lower conentration to older ice diverging into warmer waters, winds, and the timing of the dipole anomaly as it came and went and came back again, etc. What can be said for certain is that we’ve seen record or near record total ice loss this year (from the March peak to the September trough) and this came despite a small uptick over 2009 in older MYI that existed at the start of the melt season.

  140. Alexej Buergin says:
    September 5, 2010 at 11:12 am
    ”…in 20 everybody will luckily have forgotten the prognosis of Ms Stroeve…”
    ___
    I’m am 75% certain that it is more likely that in 20 years this general period of skepticsm toward AGW will be looked on an anomaly. Julienne seems to me to be a very objective scientist who is simply reporting what she sees and her “prognosis” is based on solid science and looking at the longest term trends.

  141. Indeed, with 9.22 million square km of total melt (maximum-minimum extent) 2010 has already surpassed 2009’s 9.16 million square km. 2007’s 9.69 million square km and 2008’s 9.80 million square km won’t be threatened this year.
    I’m basing these figures on IJIS extent data, BTW.
    It’s a bit early to tell, but judging from the coming La Niña, next year will probably be a stalemate. Like R. Gates says, the next El Niño combined with a more active sun should seriously threaten the 2007 record minimum extent.
    The ice remains thin, it is just a matter of waiting for persisting weather conditions such as witnessed in 2007 to really drive the message home.

  142. R. Gates says:
    September 5, 2010 at 7:47 am

    Scott, why would you get excited about where the Arctic sea ice extent is going or not going? Is there some kind of emotional attachment you have to the final extent?
    In the world of science, the best scientists are those that keep an open and objective mind, thereby more accurately observing what is actually happening. The general rule of the human psyche is especially applicable to the scientist– when we start to “want” things to happen, our ability to be objective diminishes very rapidly. Neither “warmist” nor “skeptic” is immune from this.

    R. Gates, there is a big difference between having an emotional attachment and allowing an emotional attachment to interfere with the experiment and/or analysis. In the lab, I can’t recall the last time I wasn’t excited about an experiment I was running. Did that excitement interfere with my results and keep me from doing quality work? I suppose that’s impossible to answer with any certainty. But while still in grad school (in science) I have 7 first-author, peer-reviewed publications and am currently writing number 8 (with a few second-author papers to add to that). That number far exceeds anything any previous member of my advisor’s research group has accomplished (with my works also being published in higher-impact journals) even though I had more personal distractions than the average student in my lab (marriage, children, family deaths, etc). Thus, in the view of “the world of science” I am highly successful. Would that success be higher if I was an emotionless automaton? Possibly, but I would argue “no”. One example to support this is Sir Isaac Newton. He was driven by a variety of emotions and other factors, yet was one of the, and possibly the most, successful scientists ever.
    Another thing that might be worth mentioning is that one can get excited over something without wanting a particular outcome. This will likely happen with me in terms of the World Series this year. My favorite team will almost certainly not make it this year, so I will likely be excited to watch the World Series even though I don’t want a specific outcome. I believe the same can be said of the Arctic Ice. Have you seen a change in my analysis methods over time to believe I’m changing them to support a viewpoint that I “want”? I have even mentioned several times that I don’t believe that one year’s minimum extent number means all that much…it’s just one data point in the larger scheme of things.
    -Scott

  143. don penman,
    These arguments do go in the same circles.
    It’s odd to me that global warming believers are posting numerous and long comments in this thread. They really are dominating it. I think it’s a way of dealing with their doubts over their beliefs in what is happening in climate. Global warming is not obviously happening. Everything happening can be explained by natural variation. So maybe these long comments are a way of reinforcing in their mind what they believe, or hope, will happen in years to come. Over time I’m seeing that they have those beliefs and hopes for varying reasons.

  144. Günther Kirschbaum says:
    September 5, 2010 at 12:08 pm
    Indeed, with 9.22 million square km of total melt (maximum-minimum extent)
    ______
    Günther, I was more interested in maximum to minimum AREA loss, as we might gather from this graph:
    http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Area.png
    In looking at sea ice AREA loss, it appears that 2010 already exceeds 2007 and is somewhere closer to 2008’s record loss. When considering the condition and status of sea ice in general I would say:
    Total Extent data is more accurate than having no data or simple anecdotal information.
    Total Area is more accurate than Total Extent.
    Total Volume is more accurate than Total Area. (come on CryoSat 2 data!)
    Total Mass is more accurate than Total Volume. (will we ever have this?)

  145. Repsonse to Scott
    September 5, 2010 at 12:40 pm
    ______
    A genuine congratulations on your success thus far with your publications. I would like to make a big distinction between being, as you say, an “emotionless automaton” and not getting wrapped up emotionally in the whole AGW issue. From you post, when you claim you were “excited” about the direction the Arctic Sea ice was headed, this is quite different than getting exciting about conducting an experiment. If you are honest here for a moment, you know quite well that your excitement means you want to prove your “side” to be right in the AGW debate, or at least prove that the other side hasn’t got the data to support its contention.
    Passion in the act of scientific discovery is quite a bit diffferent than having a wish to see your side right and the other side wrong. I don’t know exactly what field of science you are in, but despite your success thus far, I think you’ll even do better by keeping your passion but leaving your expectations and prejudices behind as they obscure and dull the clear vision that is required for the truly extraordinary discoveries.

  146. R. Gates says:
    September 5, 2010 at 1:09 pm
    Günther Kirschbaum says:
    September 5, 2010 at 12:08 pm
    Indeed, with 9.22 million square km of total melt (maximum-minimum extent)
    ______
    Günther, I was more interested in maximum to minimum AREA loss, as we might gather from this graph:
    http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Area.png
    In looking at sea ice AREA loss, it appears that 2010 already exceeds 2007 and is somewhere closer to 2008′s record loss.

    I make it 10.57 so far vs 10.88 in 2008.

  147. R. Gates says:
    September 5, 2010 at 2:21 pm “If you are honest here for a moment, you know quite well that your excitement means you want to prove your “side” to be right in the AGW debate, or at least prove that the other side hasn’t got the data to support its contention.”
    IOW Scott you ar either a [snip] or too stupid to realize what your own emotions are w/o R. Gates to interpret (project?) them for you.
    Seriously R. Gates just stick to your own interpretations of data and stop pretending to understand other peoples motivations and emotions.

  148. R. Gates says various ad nauseam.
    … definition of a metaphor … emotional attachment … general rule of the human psyche … passion in the act … expectations and prejudices … obscure and dull … etc.
    And now we have … in 20 years this general period of skeptic[i]sm toward AGW will be looked on [as] an anomaly.
    Careful now, your 75% underpants are showing again. Tell me, what manner of profession owns the freehold on the other 25% and why do you now choose to wear them inside out?
    Please clean up your cheap, transparent propaganda act. Your pompous hectoring diatribes to imprecision and indefinite appropriation are becoming extremely boring. This is a blog, let’s at least leave out the desperate psyops mumbo-jumbo eh? We’re supposed to be guessing this year’s final JAXA 15% minimum extent number – a batty idea I’d agree but a bit of fun nonetheless.

  149. Just For Reference:
    If anyone would like to see what the Arctic Region Sea-Ice Anomaly looks like after removing (subtracting) the average annual melt-freeze cycle from the data, here are the terms I use to calculate the average melt-freeze curve over the largest available integer-year span in the NSIDC data. For AMSR-E data I use the same curve, except the constant value is a similar integer-year average for AMSR-E data. I did fill the data gaps in the original files with linear interpolation. I believe this subtraction gives a better view of year to year changes.
    In Microsoft Excel, I create a table of cosines and sines for each date and use recursion relationships to create the higher order (n>1) values. I use the SUMPRODUCT() function of the cosine-sine values for each date against the Fourier table coefficients, all in a single row, to calculate the approximation.

    Unofficial Fourier Series Terms for the Approximation of
    the Average Melt-Freeze Curve of Arctic Region Sea-Ice
    NSIDC
    order n    0         1         2         3         4         5
    cos(nx)  11.87624  -3.75218  -0.50341  -0.08146   0.08140   0.01741
    sin(nx)   0.00000   1.74899   0.50190   0.33105   0.12596   0.07983
    AMER-E
    order n    0         1         2          3         4         5
    cos(nx)  10.43384  -3.75218  -0.50341   -0.08146   0.08140   0.01741
    sin(nx)   0.00000   1.74899   0.50190    0.33105   0.12596   0.07983
    x=2*pi()*(Decimal_Date-1994.750)
    
  150. rbateman says:
    September 4, 2010 at 9:44 am
    Phil. says:
    September 4, 2010 at 4:56 am
    It’s your story, so far, as you have not pasted a single link.

    Neither have you with all your suggestions of rescues, I did tell you how to substantiate the Marine journey but you’re unwilling to do so.
    Oh, don’t get me wrong, Phil., if you are interested in mincing words for the sake of pure argument, I have nothing at all against doing so in open thread. It’s actually more fun, don’t you agree?
    So, can we get some neat photos of this Armada of yachts sailing carefree through the NW Passage?
    How many got through?

    The ones that I know of: RX II and Salema W to E, RX II tried to circumnavigate the Arctic last year but were held up by bureaucracy in the Bering Strait. They completed their journey with a transit of the NW Passage this year.
    Young Larry and Ariel IV E to W both cleared the passage and are near Tuk currently.
    Northern Passage and Peter I are both trying to circumnavigate in one season: both have completed the NE Passage and are currently near Barrow en route to the NW Passage. NP are trying to do it by pure sailing (no motor) which will be tricky in the NWP.
    No rescues as far as I’m aware, perhaps you’ll enlighten me?

  151. Another 50 k loss yesterday. Now extent is 5.1 milj km2. It seems that R. Gates’s 4.5 will be more close than Steve’s 5.5

  152. Amino Acids in Meteorites said
    September 5, 2010 at 1:26 am
    AndyW,
    I did not say ‘closed’ when referring to the Northwest Passage. In fact, I was careful to not use the word closed. Please be more careful to when referring to what other people are saying. You painted an image of me that is wrong.
    __________________________________
    What did you infer by this then?
    “There is talk by some that the Northwest Passage is open. But they don’t have evidence for it. ”
    To me that suggests that you take the opposite view to other people who think it open, as would anyone else reading it.
    Andy

  153. R. Gates says:
    September 5, 2010 at 10:48 am
    R. Gates, this link gets you to the monthly ice extent fields used in NSIDC’s sea ice news and analysis web site (ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/). Just click on the month you want to look at and you can download the text files. For the actual maximum (not the monthly mean), some of that data is available here: (ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/seaice/polar-stereo/trends-climatologies/ice-extent/nasateam/) though the most recent data based on near-real-time fields are not in that last link. Those you would have to get from NSIDC’s user services, or derive from the near-real-time ice concentrations that are also available on the ftp site.
    The last few years maximum’s were (based on 5-day averages):
    2007: 14.64
    2008: 15.23
    2009: 15.14
    2010: 15.25
    The last few years minimum’s were:
    2007: 4.13
    2008: 4.55
    2009: 5.10
    2010? below 5.0 (right now at 4.97)

  154. AndyW
    To me that suggests that you take the opposite view to other people who think it open, as would anyone else reading it.
    I think people see what they want to see. So I don’t think it’s correct to assume ‘anyone else’ would think like you do. I guess you want to see that everyone thinks like you.

  155. The Arctic really is worth blogging about. But these arguments over words and motivations and whether boats are safe to try the Northwest Passage really aren’t worthy to be majored on.
    The complexion of this blog has changed since Anthony isn’t around so much. I’m not diggin’ it.
    REPLY: Well dig it now. See Sea Ice news #21 – Anthony

  156. Today 2010 has 2009 beat leaving the Goddard Minimum way far behind.
    Let’s look at the standings.
    2003 Min.: 6,041,250: Busted 8/14/10
    2004 Min.: 5,784,688: Busted 8/19/10
    2006 Min.: 5,781,719: Busted 8/19/10
    2002 Min: 5,646,875: Busted 8/22/10
    Goddard Min: 5,500,000: Busted 8/26/10
    2005 Min: 5,315,156: Busted 9/2/10
    2009 Min:5,249,844: Busted 9/2/10
    2008 Min:4,707,813: ???
    This puts 2010 in the top three lowest sea ice extents in the JAXA record and there is still time on the clock.
    FYI, Steve,
    Maybe you shouldn’t brag about being accurate until the last bullet is shot.

  157. Just for reference, a very minor observation. When I compared extrapolated NSIDC sea-ice extent data with AMSR-E sea-ice extent data over the period of 7/29/2002 through 7/29/2010 I found that the NSIDC values were, on average, about 0.72135 million square km higher than the equivalent AMSR-E readings over the same period of time. I assume this is some ‘built-in’ offset between the two measurements.

Comments are closed.