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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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.
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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.
Another 50k lossday, two in a row. Scott what is your estimate now, how does it effect your values for minima?
Andy
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? 😉
Joe Bastardi is right—2 steps forward, 1 step back. 🙂
But boy, how wrong is that PIOMAS thingamajig!
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.
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. 🙂
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.
“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).)
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.’
AndyW says:
September 5, 2010 at 12:57 am
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
Goddard’s “September 5 Sea Ice News” can be seen here:
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/09/05/september-5-sea-ice-news/
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.
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.
Confirmed JAXA 15% extent for Sept 3rd is in: 5192188. Updated charts …
15-day: http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/8148/15day20100904.png
7-day: http://img409.imageshack.us/img409/2906/7day20100904.png
Whoa fella, steady up a bit. Now, will the next three days go through the eye of the needle or not? That needs around 10-20K loss per day. Maybe we’ll see 30K and slide in gently, what will be will be.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
” 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.
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…
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.
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.
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.
R. Gates says:
September 5, 2010 at 7:47 am
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