Sea Ice News #21

This week was a true roller coaster ride with Arctic Sea Ice. It is best summed up by looking at the JAXA graph for extent, shown below:

click to enlarge

Below, see the area of interest magnified.

I’ve added the 5 million square kilometer line for reference.

The roller coaster ride actually looked for a day like it might cross the 2009 line, but soon turned down again, ending this week at 5,142,813. Here’s the recent JAXA data

08,28,2010,5342656

08,29,2010,5352500

08,30,2010,5348281

08,31,2010,5329375

09,01,2010,5332344

09,02,2010,5304219

09,03,2010,5245625

09,04,2010,5192188

09,05,2010,5142813

Source: http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/plot.csv

JAXA sea ice area has dropped to 2008 levels:

JAXA AMSR-E Sea Ice Area – click to enlarge

Sea ice concentration from JAXA:

While JAXA shows extent now lower than 2009, DMI and NANSEN plots show it to be about even. The differences in observing sensor/platform AMSRE -vs-SSMI  and methodologies at agencies are in play.

Above: Danish Meteorological Institute Arctic Sea Ice Extent – 30% or greater. Note that while this graph shows 30% concentration at the cutoff point, it is valuable to compare.

ssmi1-ice-ext

Above: NANSEN Artic ROOS- Sea ice extent 15% or greater – click for larger image

The differences appear to be in the low end of concentration, the 15% to 30% range. It suggests that the brief gains we saw may be wind related, blowing floating ice around, compacting it when winds are strong versus allowing expansion when winds are weak.

Temperature, after holding near freezing, now appears headed sharply downward.

Above: Danish Meteorological Institute – Mean Temperature above 80°N

Some light refreezing may take place before the end of September, which could minimize the ability of wind to sharply change extent like we saw recently.

With all these variables in play, choosing a winner will be as much a game of luck as of skill. Based on what we’ve seen, it seems probable that it will come from the middle of the pack between 2008 and 2009.

From SEARCH:

The estimates from the scientific community range from 4.0 to 5.6 million square kilometers, with 8 of the contributors suggesting a September minimum below 5.0 million square kilometers, 3 contributors suggesting a minimum of 5.0 million square kilometers, and 5 contributors suggesting a September minimum above 5.0 million square kilometers. Two contributors forecast a September minimum below that of 2007 at 4.0 million square kilometers and 3 contributors suggest a return to the long term downward linear trend for September sea ice loss (5.5 to 5.6 million square kilometers). None of the contributors indicate a return to the climatological sea ice extent of 6.7 million square kilometers.

Including all 18 contributions gives a September ice extent minimum of 4.8 +/- 0.77 million square kilometers, with a range of 2.5 to 5.6 million square kilometers.

Individual responses were based on a range of methods: statistical, numerical models, comparison with previous observations and rates of ice loss, or composites of several approaches.

Advertisements

313 thoughts on “Sea Ice News #21

  1. In the end, the northern waters will refreeze once again, the various passages will become choked with ice and the curves will begin their climb towards annual maximum. Ice melts and sublimates when the temps (air and water) warm up and ice reforms when temps are lowered. Will we have learned anything from another cycle, other than our own mortality and the fact that this dance will continue long after the six billion of us now living will have returned to star dust?

  2. Technical note: SEARCH estimates are supposed to be based (and will be judged) on the NSIDC extent figures, not the IJIS figures. There’s not much to choose between them, however the NSIDC graph does seem to be reading a little below IJIS, and is already below 5 million sq km.

  3. Mike, you are completely missing the point.
    As usual.
    Yes the sea ice will return every winter even after there is none in summer. However the impact of a summer absorbing sunlight instead of reflecting it, on the warming of this planet, will return many millions of us to dust much, much sooner than would normally be the case.
    Or do you just not care about the other 6Billion 999 million 999thousand and 999 people in the world?

  4. Well its been an interesting diversion, checking the IARC-JAXA and NOAA sites daily as well as this site twice a day or more however it proves nothing does it? Ice comes and goes, forms and reforms and gets blown around by wide and moved by currents.
    RGates was proven wrong because he chose to play the forecaster from an ideological perspective and its to be hoped he learned a valuable lesson but so was I and others too, PIOMAS was utterly wrong and PIPS was fairly right, the NOAA dudes were wrong and others were right(ish) and all the super duper models were dead wrong and the UK met office just continued to be a sad pathetic joke.
    I was tempted to think that this melt season would be the death blow for the AGW industry but its clear that the death will from a thousand cuts and not a long drop and short stop.
    So wrong and right we all of have hopefully learned valuable lessons and thanks to this site our education continues apace, a free site for free thinking sceptics contributing,sharing and receiving knowledge and so the motto should be ‘we aint all that but at least we are learning’.

  5. Whilst the area will vary, depending on wind and ocean currents, it would be good to know how thick the ice is compared to other years. It must be ice volume that has more bearing on climate than area which could be thin but of great extent but low volume. We must also remember that water temperature has much more effect on ice than air temperature and in 2007 it was discovered that warmer water had entered the Arctic from the Pacific. So not due to climate change as we were led to believe by the alarmists.

  6. So, two steps forward and one step back in a strong El Nino year. My estimate for 2011 is 5.6M km2 on Jaxa Sea Ice Extent, just below 2006 and ahead of 2005, as a result of El Nino sucking out all the heat out of the atmosphere, and the PDO shift sending colder waters to the Arctic. Will we see record sea ice extent in the Antarctic?

  7. It is always interesting to learn about the various approaches to measurement and to see the resulting difference in the graphs. I still wonder which conclusions anybody can draw from it.
    One thing I would like to see is the incorporation of the “Limit of permanent pack ice” line into these nice modern pictures of the artic. This line is for example shown in “The Times Atlas Of The World”, ed. 1997, and presumably in other atlasses and maps as well. Are these “old” informations considered at all in modern climatology? The cartographers must have had some facts about the reality in the areas they covered, I suppose.
    The incorporation of this line should clearly show open water, where the line had been – if the stories of the continously retreating artic ice are correct.
    It would be very nice if someone could point me to pictures/maps/etc. which show the actual ice cover and the “limit of permanent pack ice”. Preferably an established limit, that has been used in respectable maps. And if possible just a simple picture of the area on a clear, sunny day – I happen to have reservations about pictures/graphs which are constructed form highly sophisticated, complex (and thus potentially fault riddeled) sensors respectively calculations.
    Last not least: Thank you for this excellent site! It is the source of information about climate I use and trust the most.

  8. So Joe Bastardi was spot on. He predicted summer melt in spring to be between 2008 and 2009, but then strong refreeze and continuing summer recovery in style “two steps up, one step down”.

  9. Yeah, we have learned that if we act like pigs and wait for some cosmic force to clean our house for us, they will likely throw us out with the bathwater, leaving nothing for our kids.
    In case you haven’t guessed, i am an alarmist, [snip]

  10. Showing August forecasts (August of this year) for September (of this year) is a bit ridiculous; anybody should be able to get that right. One should look at the June forecasts to see who really understands what is going on.
    Note: SEARCH does not use the gold standard (JAXA), or even the notoriously honest Norwegian or Danish data, but some US produced numbers (by the same people who also take part in the competition). And their prognisis are for the September mean, not the minimum.

  11. Speculating on Sea Ice extents and areas is good sport.
    Especially if one does not have to visit the places where those 2 cams are.
    Sure am glad it ain’t me.

  12. While 15 % ice extend means little more than fractured, icy clutter on the edges of the arctic ice cover, Nansen’s 30 % ice extend seems to me to give a far better “feel” of the shape of things in the Arctic.
    And in that, the arctic ice extend seems to be quite well on it’s way back to normal.

  13. Mike Sphar: There speaks a man of wisdom. This AGW hoo-hah is born of Man’s belief that he has become so powerful that he is the cause of variation in Nature.
    There is conjecture that a black hole is at the centre of our galaxy. Has anybody told the polticians? They’ll want to find out whose fault this is, and what to do about it!

  14. It will be interesting to see what happens in the next week, currently there is still southerly winds blowing from the Russian side so that might compact / melt the ice to some extent. I doubt we will get anywhere near the 2008 Jaxa extent wise level though.
    Andy

  15. Hold on, wasn’t the North Pole supposed to be ice free this summer ?
    Funny how we are being told it’s the hottest weather ever since time began but the North Pole isn’t cooperating.

  16. NeilT I don’t think your argument about reflectivity is valid until the sea ice melts already in June. Now the arctic sun is already very low in the sky, at those angles even open water will reflect most of the weak sunlight.

  17. mrjohn says:
    September 6, 2010 at 5:28 am
    Hold on, wasn’t the North Pole supposed to be ice free this summer ?
    But look at the Cryosphere Today images right now – a small hole right in the middle – OMG THE NORTH POLE IS ICE FREE!!!

  18. Sea ice extent data on its own only tells part of the story. On my site:
    http://www.climatedata.info/Discussions/Discussions/opinions.php?id=8582852482576247641
    I have also plotted the variation in ice thickness. This shows that whilst 2007 had the lowest extent the lowest thickness was in 2008. The thickness recovered in 2009 and looks to be continuing its recovery this year.
    If you have a problemwith the link, go to:
    http://www.climatedata.info/Discussions/Discussions/opinions.php
    …and click in “Thesis 3”

  19. NeilT says:
    “Or do you just not care about the other 6Billion 999 million 999thousand and 999 people in the world?”
    ———–
    Neil, you’re implying you care and yet you don’t care about me! There are actually 7 billion and one people on Earth, not counting those in the space station.

  20. I honestly think you guys are trying to measure at the wrong times. You’re looking at the extremes, highs and lows.
    One thing is consistent, the May/June and Nov/Dec levels are just about always constant.
    No matter how wacked out the levels are in March or September, the extremes, it always goes back to almost the same in the middle, May/June and Nov/Dec.

  21. 1st year on this site & have learned A whole lot . I have a tremendous respect for the minds that contribute here & even just on this latest thread with just 18 responses I could quote quite a few that I like.
    THE WIND!..I learned that this is such a tricky player & I think that next year there will be a greater grasp on this factor. I agree that we should Identify the solid Ice mass & seperate that from the broken up stuff & then come up with some better F-casting tools for the compacting /wind shift which will have to be added to the much more accurate thickness value…..anyway obviously My posts here have been just a playful entertainment for me but the “Rocket Sturgeon” will return next year after retreating into my homework studies dungeon & come back strong next year!..While I’m still playing..the ice will slow to a trickle after the 6th & reach a min on the 12th…Word!..

  22. “mrjohn says:
    September 6, 2010 at 5:28 am
    Hold on, wasn’t the North Pole supposed to be ice free this summer ?”
    No, I believe Al Gore in his great alarmist wisdom predicted a forecast of a prognosis for an ice free arctic death spiral in summer 2012. So we will see in 2 years. I wonder if Phil. has already booked his Carneval cruise to the Northpole for that year.

  23. Latitude-
    I think that is a great point, for 80% of the year the ice extent has not changed. I think that deserves a post!

  24. Espen,
    There has been so much more melt, so much more open sea to absorb the sunlight and so much less ice in areas that should be solid pack ice in 2010 that it is just another step on the way.
    I can’t see melt stopping short of the last week in september. Much of the lower lattitude ice is simply vanishing as we watch. Much more interesting is the patches (multiple) of 400 sq miles of open water all around the pole on the Rusisan/European borders. It’s still melting/FAST.
    This is no regrowth. This is no summer magic to stop the advancing path of Global Warming. This is a disaster in the making. It might be slow, but it is irrevocable. We might watch a steamroller trundling along the road and muse on how easy it is to avoid it. The ant, on the other hand sees it in a very different way, much further off but much less time to get out of the way. In terms of Global Climate Change we are the ant.

  25. Remember the Al Gore 10 x 10 rule still applies.
    For ten years he has been telling us we only have ten years left before the Arctic ice melts.
    Can’t wait to sit under a palm tree on some nice Arctic beach, sip on a frosty and watch the bikini clad hotties stroll by . . .

  26. Back on August 18 Steve Goddard wrote:
    “Ice thickness is an excellent predictor, and my PIPS based calculations are quite accurate. The only forecast I have made is 5.5, and see no reason to change it now.”
    Steve’s miscalculations from PIPS, which left out the ice concentration, have turned out not to be so accurate. And he’s subsequently changed his “prediction” to 5.1 m km^2 on his new website. I wonder what changed his mind.

  27. Alexej Buergin says:
    September 6, 2010 at 2:36 am
    Showing August forecasts (August of this year) for September (of this year) is a bit ridiculous; anybody should be able to get that right. One should look at the June forecasts to see who really understands what is going on.

    My June prediction (here & at the Blackboard) was 5.1 million, which looks to be pretty close.
    But don’t ask me any questions. I’m completely at sea about this technical Arctic stuff. I just gave weight to Bastardi’s idea that there’d be a step backward this year, and then figured it would be only a small retreat (not the big one he envisaged), since that amount would leave both sides feeling unsatisfied. (This is what the Pranksters Above like to do.)

  28. As evidenced by comments of hysterical Alarm-o-trolls, when ice melts it’s both a calamity in itself, as well as “proof” of CAGW/CC. Skeptic/Climate Realists, on the other hand watch the ice both because it is interesting, and because it does in fact show that there is nothing at all unusual going on.
    What the Climate Bedwetters don’t seem to understand, and don’t want to (apparently preferring a continual state of alarmism) is that what ice does is a poor proxy for what the overall climate does, except on a very long-term basis (centuries). Yes, there has been a decrease in Arctic ice extent, as well as some glacial ice retreat since the end of the LIA, which is to be expected. It won’t happen overnight certainly, but with cooling expected in the coming decades, possibly even rivaling LIA conditions by mid-century, the ice will grow again. The worry about some ice melting is an irrational one, even crazy. If anything, it is cold, and what that does to the ability to grow food, as well as resulting higher demands placed on energy we should be worried about.

  29. Cassandra, you said:
    “PIOMAS was utterly wrong and PIPS was fairly right”
    PIOMAS predicted a JAXA minimum around 4.8 and PIPS about 5.5 (using Goddard’s method). It is now 5.14. So though we are still 2 weeks from the minimum the PIPS prediction is already further from the truth. In what sense was it fairly right?

  30. People get so heated up over Arctic ice extent. So we saw a low in 2007 and a thickness minimum in 2008. In 2009 and 2010 there was a recovery. What is the natural variation in ice extent / thickness in the Arctic anyway? Probably just about what we are seeing. An ice-free Arctic? You would have to go from 4 million sq km to zero in just a few months. I’ll start to worry when that happens. I have an unscientific feeling that zero ice would require much lower levels of winter ice from which to melt and that isn’t happening either.
    Oh and the Earth temperature remained constant for 1,000 yrs and then shot up uncontrollably in 1880, just 70 yrs before the serious increased use of fossil fuels. And still 4-5 million sq km of Arctic sea ice at the height of summer.

  31. “There has been so much more melt, so much more open sea to absorb the sunlight and so much less ice in areas that should be solid pack ice in 2010 that it is just another step on the way.”
    This type of thinking is what bothers me more than anything,
    The fact of the matter is
    WE DON’T EVEN KNOW WHAT WE DON’T KNOW ABOUT THE PLANETS CLIMATE.
    So haw can we say “There should be more ice”. We can not even understand the way climate varies according to the input energies, hell we are not even sure what the input energies are.
    What is needed is a sitdown and really determine what we don’t know, and determine the best way to go about finding the answers.

  32. Well, NeilT, even by your own estimations we’re too late to do anything about it, aren’t we? You claim that others are not facing climate facts, how about looking at some political facts: the right is taking over Congress in less than 60 days. There is not going to be any “Climate Change” legislation in the US, no “carbon cap”, no “green energy bill”. All that is dead for at least a decade now, and that’s too long for what you claim is happening, isn’t it? What’s more, there’s not going to be any Climate Bill in Australia no matter who ends up as PM, and given that these two have dropped out, China and India are dropping out of any remediation too, aren’t they? And this means that all of Europe’s efforts are pointless and will only hurt European Jobs, so they will drop their carbon caps pretty quickly too.
    Kyoto is going to die and NOTHING is going to replace it. The IPCC is dying and nothing is going to replace IT, either. The whole international scheme is crashing to the ground, and no one can stop it.
    So, if you really are a true believer, then you must admit that all the bad things you think will happen are going to happen and you can’t do anything about it. So I hope you’re wearing your sackcloth and ashes – maybe you can grow your hair long and carry a sign saying “THE END IS NEAR!” and hang out on a street corner somewhere.
    Because that’s about the only option left for anyone who believes as you do.

  33. NeilT, since you seem so sure that this melting is due to global warming, what matrices are you using that demonstrates this? Are you talking about ocean currents (there are naturally warm currents in the Arctic) in the Arctic that are “much warmer” due to AGW? Are you talking about atmospheric temperature systems (there are naturally warm atmospheric temperature systems in the Arctic) that were much more warm due to AGW? Are you talking about pressure systems, IE wind, (there are a variety of natural pressure system in the Arctic) that are somehow changed due to AGW? Please explain your alarmist opinion related to the Arctic in terms of mechanisms.

  34. one other thought – watching the betting on sea ice extent has been fun, but now it’s time to watch the betting on my fantasy football league, a topic which has just as much deep meaning to it as this Sea Ice extent issue does and which is actually a good bit more entertaining.
    The ice contracts, the ice expands. It always has, it always will. There’s really nothing more to it than that.

  35. Brad says:
    September 6, 2010 at 7:02 am
    Latitude-
    I think that is a great point, for 80% of the year the ice extent has not changed. I think that deserves a post!
    ==========================================================
    I agree
    If you don’t look at the extremes, and only look at May, June, July and Nov, Dec, Jan,
    There’s nothing to get excited about.
    No matter how extreme it was, either warm or cold, it seems to always end up back in the middle.
    If you closely at the little lines, in the middle, they are crossing each other and all over the place. But all within a narrow margin of each other.
    That just tells me it’s weather, no trend, no climate anything.
    Weather effects the extremes….

  36. NeilT says:
    September 6, 2010 at 1:48 am

    Yes the sea ice will return every winter even after there is none in summer. However the impact of a summer absorbing sunlight instead of reflecting it, on the warming of this planet, will return many millions of us to dust much, much sooner than would normally be the case.

    Can you cite evidence of the increased absorption being a greater factor than the increased heat loss due to a loss of ice cover?
    I won’t bother asking for citation on the “will return many millions of us to dust much, much sooner than would normally be the case” idiocy, of course.

  37. Neil T,
    Surely sea ice, which reflects sunlight (which there isn’t much of by the time minima occur anyway), also considerably lowers the emissive temperature of that area by insulating the relatively warm water underneath and thus slowing heat loss to space? Not unlike the effect that extra CO2 has in the atmosphere, in fact.
    So less sea ice will ultimately mean increased loss of heat to space from the warm exposed water and promote cooling of the climate. Ergo, less sea ice is a GOOD THING!
    Now, how do I make a powerpoint of that and sell it to Holywood so it becomes incontrovertible scientific truth?

  38. NeilT,
    what is happening in Arctic ice is normal. The talk about ice free summers is alarmism based on poor science. I do care about the people of the world that’s why I want the alarmism over natural variation to end. Please stop scaring children so they can’t sleep good anymore.

  39. So, Neil T, let’s assume for a moment that you are right, and the apocalypse is at hand. What do you propose we do to save those 6 or 7 billion souls whose future so haunts your days and nights? Stop generating electricity by burning fossil fuels? Right, that will make their last days and those of their children more comfortable. Waste time, money and resources covering the landscape with 17th century technology? Probably not going to work either, although it may make you feel better.
    It might give you some comfort to look at history and see that humans are remarkably adaptive creatures. You should also recognize that that the advent of widely available inexpensive electricity has done more to improve the lives of billions than any other tehnological development in human history. It is you and your alarmist friends preaching doom and advocating a dramatic and rapid change in current practices based on potentially flawed data and dubious projections who will destroy humankind’s future. We can, and will, deal with the issues raised by climate change (assuming they require dealing with) if you and your ilk will calm down and let the genius that is human civilization system work the problem. Like all the other apocalyptic predictons made by you and your ilk over the past century, this too will pass.

  40. Pamela Gray,
    one thing that is not being acknowledged is the warmth put into the Atlantic by the El Nino that ended in May. La Nina is occurring now and it will have an effect on Arctic ice throughout this winter and next summer. That effect should cause rapid growth in Arctic ice.
    But it will just be called an aberration by the alarmists. They will say rapid growth in one year doesn’t mean anything. They will say the Arctic will have ice free summers in 20 years regardless of what is happening in one year of rapid growth.
    Some people say alarmists trust predictions of doom more than text book knowledge. That does seem to be the case.

  41. NeilT says:
    September 6, 2010 at 1:48 am
    Mike, you are completely missing the point….
    Or do you just not care about the other 6Billion 999 million 999thousand and 999 people in the world?
    ______________________________________________
    Of course we care, that is why we are trying to stop. Pushing people into an anti-technology, anti-energy culture – the real purpose of CAGW – is guaranteed to kill off lots of people through poverty and starvation.
    You may want to become a serf of the Corporate/Banksters totalitarian world government, I do not. To see what I am talking about I suggest you read all the comments at: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/06/sustainability-teaching-lack-of-ethical-dimension/
    None of us are against better, cheaper, nonpolluting energy production like Thorium Nuclear. It is the activists who have kept the USA to polluting energy sources.

  42. NeilT try to relax and read what I wrote: the arctic water’s ability to absorb sunlight is very low at this time of year. And I’ve cover in June is, as others have commented, remarkably stable.
    Remember: submarines surfaced in open pools of water at the north pole in the late fifties. Varying arctic sea ice extent is nothing new.

  43. NeilT says:
    September 6, 2010 at 7:03 am
    Espen,
    There has been so much more melt, so much more open sea to absorb the sunlight and so much less ice in areas that should be solid pack ice in 2010 that it is just another step on the way.
    I can’t see melt stopping short of the last week in september. Much of the lower lattitude ice is simply vanishing as we watch. Much more interesting is the patches (multiple) of 400 sq miles of open water all around the pole on the Rusisan/European borders. It’s still melting/FAST.
    ——-
    I ‘ve seen the “much more open sea to absorb the sunlight” argument for a long time, but it wasn’t until I spent a significant amount of time checking satellite photos for the Jacobshavn glacier retreat when it was in the news, then the Northwest Passage, then the Petermann glacier calving, and lastly efforts to check aerially on the opening of the Northeast passage, that I noticed how extremely difficult it was using the MODIS site to find clear skies. Now I realize this effort using MODIS is only a daily snapshot and my method is limited by the scale, accuracy, and intent of the product I’m using, but I can’t leave unsaid my impression that a change in albedo from white ice to blue ocean may be only something like half the equation, in spite of the fact that the sun was always “shining” up there from June, when I started, through now.
    I haven’t found any source that tracks the degree that the arctic is overcast, such that the change in albedo issue can be put into some better context. Does anyone know of such a product?

  44. Confirmed JAXA 15% extent for Sept 5th is in: 5136094 (the provisional was 5142813, quite a difference). Updated charts …
    15-day: http://img26.imageshack.us/img26/6458/15day20100905.png
    7-day: http://img683.imageshack.us/img683/4774/7day20100905.png
    At the risk of “too many lines” confusion, I’ve added 2003 to the 7-day chart to show how violent these swings can get. While as Anthony notes above, the DMI above 80N temp is falling rapidly it still seems on the high side to me. Maybe we’re heading east and long, much as Joe Bastardi has been saying.
    Given all this is a bit like using a 24” chocolate pipe wrench as a micrometer, who knows where we’ll eventually end up? A lot of heat could get sucked up along the way though. Time to fetch in more popcorn, this could drag on a while :-).

  45. On one thing Neil is correct, we are ants on this planet. Nothing we do or do not do will stop the Earth from doing what it does best: causing extinction to the dominant forms of life. Once we accept the inevitable and move on, we will all be much happier.
    I really love the guilt trips alarmists try to put on me. Good try, but I still do not feel guilty about breathing and using energy. If you feel bad, go turn your computer off and join a hunting-gathering society. No one will stop you, it is a free country.
    You can’t preach to people and not follow what you preach.
    Oh, I have an idea, I will guilt you. Why do you not care about my children? You are using a computer and consuming energy and making their futures bleak!! Stop it Neil, stay off the computer and internet!

  46. What is clear already this year is that the Arctic Sea ice continues the pattern of a long-term downward trend. The brief so-called “recovery” in 2008-2009, was of course no real recovery at all and my guess is probably only brought about by the natural variability, the long and deep solar minimum, and the 2008 La Nina. From a purely scientific and mathematical perspective, any truly objective person, knowing that climate is seen over the longer term would have to say that indeed, there is no recovery and the 2008-2009 period was at best a levelling to the dramatic slide seen in 2007, but now in 2010, the downward trend continues.
    Earlier in the season, much was being made by AGW skeptics about the “dramatic increase” in MY ice, and how it was going to stick around through this melt season and that the “recovery” was continuing etc. In fact, pretty much the exact opposite has happened. Much of that MY ice has been melted away as the total amount of ice loss in 2010, from the March 31 peak to the approaching low is at record levels– meaning more ice has melted this season than any other. This frustrates the AGW skeptics I’m sure (at least those who are dogmatic about their skepticism), but I would suggest that they instead, use it as a motiviation to try to really understand what the Arctic is doing and more importantly, the bigger picture as to why. The very smart people at the NSIDC and other institutions may not get things exactly right all the time, (as you can’t with any system on the edge of chaos) but I fully trust that they have a good grasp on the bigger picture, and that within the lifetime of most people posting here, we will indeed see an ice free summer Arctic.

  47. Any chance of depicting a deseasonalized monthly trend of Arctic sea ice extend from (say) 1998? Descriptive rather than definitive, yes, but valuable as a projective baseline for future developments. Add a heuristic element in light of historically valid forecasts, and the resulting graph would supply a more intelligible if not necessarily more accurate means of extrapolating probable conditions.

  48. Personally I would like to see all the ice melt. Warmer is truly better. Very warm is best. (now who is smart enough to ask what I mean by warm and very warm?)

  49. That is a pretty graph of yet another natural cycle. What will be the next great false panic? Second coming of who, what? Miserable overal summer here on the edge of the arctic. We are all gonna freeze? Oh right did that one in 70’s. Malignant rashes from continuous bedwetting?That it, the great rash of doom. When do the Catlin nitwits go forth in the new year? I can’t wait for more, “We are in the arctic and its so cold”. Still I anticipate some real courtcases by Christmas, lying for profit, abuse of position ect. Indeed from the hysteria of the team and their useful idiots, the end is near.

  50. wow, R. Gates. you and your really smart friends can tell all that from a 30 year trend, which could be part of some natural cycles that are 60 or more years long? I have a 30 year trend of hair loss. Can you look in your crystal ball and tell me when the top of my head will be “hair free?” Or will I bake to death before then?

  51. R. Gates says:
    September 6, 2010 at 8:48 am
    What is clear already this year is that the Arctic Sea ice continues the pattern of a long-term downward trend. The brief so-called “recovery” in 2008-2009, was of course no real recovery at all and my guess is probably only brought about by the natural variability, the long and deep solar minimum, and the 2008 La Nina. From a purely scientific and mathematical perspective, any truly objective person, knowing that climate is seen over the longer term would have to say that indeed, there is no recovery and the 2008-2009 period was at best a levelling to the dramatic slide seen in 2007, but now in 2010, the downward trend continues.

    So, mathematically, you can’t judge a recovery from two years – that’s natural variability. But you can confirm, with absolute confidence, a return to a downward trend by a single year?
    I do try to be objective in posting but I’m afraid, mathematically, that’s just plain stupid.

  52. I’m astonished that there are still people — see posts above — who cling stubbornly to the man-causes-global-warming mysticism. Their behavior is akin to an 18-year-old adult who still believes in Santa Claus despite all the evidence to the contrary.

  53. Remember way back in February 2010, when AGW skeptics were still optimistic that the two year “recovery” from the record 2007 Arctic sea ice summer melt would continue ?
    Prediction: Arctic Ice Will Continue to Recover This Summer
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/09/prediction-arctic-ice-will-continue-to-recover-this-summer/
    69.75% of WUWT readers thought that the 2010 Summer Arctic Sea Ice Extent would be greater than in 2009. Anthony Watts and Steven Goddard predicted that “we’d see another 500,000 km2 of Arctic sea ice recovery in 2010” (since IARC-JAXA minimum was 5,249,844 km2 in 2009, that would have been about 5,750,000 km2 minimum this September)
    This sea ice extent was passed on August 20th, 2010.
    These attitudes and predictions made good sense, if you happen to believe that anthropogenic global warming is not happening: 2007 was just weird weather, winds like that hadn’t been seen since satellite data started in 1972. We saw 2008 and 2009 bounce back from that crazy summer low, and 2010 would continue the recovery.
    The 2009 summer minimum was passed on September 3, 2010
    What would someone who believes that the planet’s climatologists are competent predict ?

    May 11, 2010 at 8:00 am
    The question is not “Will the minimum summer Arctic ice be more than 2 std dev’s less than the recent average ?”
    Everyone knows it will be.
    The question is: Will it be lower than 2009 ? 2008 ? 2007 ?
    http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20091005_Figure2.png

    Since CO2 continues to go up, expect Arctic sea ice to continue to go down, with some random weather noise superimposed on the trend.
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/09/wuwt-arctic-sea-ice-news-4/#comment-387522

    Way before summer started, I predicted the summer minimum would be less than 2009:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/15/sea-ice-graphs-have-limited-predictive-value/#comment-391310
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/06/wuwt-arctic-sea-ice-news-8/#comment-404240
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/06/wuwt-arctic-sea-ice-news-8/#comment-404352
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/04/sea-ice-news-12/#comment-424592
    If you understand climatic trends, you don’t have to frantically change your prediction from 5.5 million sq km to 5.1 million sq km in late August, like some well known AGW skeptics.

  54. Brent Hargreaves says:
    September 6, 2010 at 4:18 am
    “There is conjecture that a black hole is at the centre of our galaxy. Has anybody told the polticians? They’ll want to find out whose fault this is, and what to do about it!”
    Brent, we know the answer. There will be no proper investigation into the science of blackholes and how they are created nor there effect. The politicians will simply decare that black holes are a recent manmade phenomenon, will cause unimaginble disasters if not brought under control and curtailed and will then tax us all. The financial whizkids will set up a new exchange dealing in blackhole offsets. The real problem is that government finance is the real blackhole and a bottomless pit in which we must all be forced to throw away our hard earned money. No one can spend money like a politician, mind you it is always easier to spend someone else’s money than your own.
    On a technical aside, does anyone know what is the real effect of diminishing ice on albedo given the angle of incident? How reflective is water at these low angles of incident?

  55. R. Gates says:
    September 6, 2010 at 8:48 am
    What is clear already this year is that the Arctic Sea ice continues the pattern of a long-term downward trend
    ========================================
    I know we’re only looking at 8-9 years on these charts.
    Serious question:
    No matter how high ice was in March, it goes back to normal in June.
    No matter how low ice was in Sept, it goes back to normal in Dec.
    And normal is defined by the fact the little lines criss cross all over themselves in June and Dec.
    Where’s the trend?
    Doesn’t that just tell you that weather controls the highs and lows, but it keeps going back to normal? Every year, no matter how high or low, at the same time every year, it all re-groups within a very small margin of normal.

  56. When tracking cause and effect of Arctic ice extent, what variables are simultaneously measured? Is there sorting for temperature? Wind direction and speed? Air quality (i.e. the presence of particulate) Cloud cover? Clearly the overriding factor is seasonal temperature. However, ice extent variations from year to year or within the seasonal cycle itself are not well understood. The easy (and lazy) answer is to jump to the conclusion that it’s solely due to temperature with little acknowledgment or exploration of other influences. It seems to me when the filling of your purse depends on only temperature mattering and you also control tracking and dissemination of data, there would be a very strong incentive to disregard any other factors. However, as the saying goes, if you live by the sword, then you die by the sword.

  57. One important point which has not been dealt with explicitly concerns what was predicted in 2007 which was talked of as a ‘tipping point’. The arguments about the albedo of ice versus open water and the positive feedback effect of reduced ice seemed sound – yet the ice seems to be recovering.
    Some people have commented on sea level rise. Since 1970 global sea levels have risen by 10 cm and temperatures by 0.6 C. This implies a rate of rise around 16.7. In previous interglacials sea levels have been from 3 m to 20 m higher than they are now. Taking the lowest figure of 3m and inverting the realtionship suggests that temperatures were 18 C higher than today – nonsense of course.
    What these two factoids demonstrate is that much work has to be done to improve the accuracy of projected impacts of climate change.

  58. Whilst I agree (at least in part) with some of the points raised by R. Gates in his post of September 6, 2010 at 8:48 am, I do not see why even if they were fully correct this frustrates sceptics. Most sceptics are not arguing that the world is not warming (although the extent and pace of any warming is a matter of debate) and accordingly most sceptics do not have a problem with Artic ice loss. I, for one, do not think ‘the decline in artic ice extent continues, gosh, those warmist must (after all) be right about AGW’
    The issue is whether this is just some aspect of natural variability (which is my own view) or whether it is due to manmade CO2 emissions.
    We all know the arguments about the reduced extent of ice cover in the late 1880s and the 1930s etc and that there is no quantative and qualative evidence that manmade CO2 emissions are the driver behind any recent warming so I will not repeat these.
    From the warmist perspective whilst they may point to a reduction in Artic ice extent, they have a problem with increased Antartic ice which increase does not fit their models.
    Their position will become more difficult should over the course of the next 10 years, the extent of Artic ice begins to show signs of recovery since such a long term trend would again go against their models.

  59. What global warming in the Arctic this year?
    Did I miss something?
    I don’t think so:
    http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/TempGr/meanT_2010vs58-09.jpg
    See that white space under the very middle of the ‘melt season’ range?
    That is where the temp in the Arctic fell back to freezing and left the 49 year range.
    For most of the ‘summer melt’, the temp above 80 North was at the lower end of that 49 year range of temp.
    It is now at the high end of that range…. after falling below freezing.
    Nothing in this years temperature above 80N indicates a warming planet. Nothing.
    There is something that happened up there that indicates exactly the opposite.

  60. Anu says:
    September 6, 2010 at 9:16 am
    Whatever melted the ice this year, it was clearly not air-temperature induced from a warming world.
    I have posted my proof of that.

  61. Well , all I can say about the melt season is that the small summer melt pool seen in the foreground of the North pole web cam froze solid and dissappeared under fresh snow weeks ago , how come the warth that is destroying millions of tons of ice every day has had no effect whatsoever on the patch of the North Pole we can see with our own eyes . It is a waste of the scientists time putting the cam up if no one is taking any notice of the weather it is showing us .

  62. R. Gates says:
    September 6, 2010 at 8:48 am
    What is clear already this year is that the Arctic Sea ice continues the pattern of a long-term downward trend.
    Just so we can all be on the same page, which year are you cherry picking as the start of your “long term trend”? Thanks in advance.

  63. latitude says:
    September 6, 2010 at 9:20 am
    R. Gates says:
    September 6, 2010 at 8:48 am
    “What is clear already this year is that the Arctic Sea ice continues the pattern of a long-term downward trend…”
    Where’s the trend?
    _______
    This graph tells the story of the long-term downward trend:
    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.arctic.png
    If you can’t see it in this graph, you simply don’t want to, and perhaps your supposed “skepticsm” is really your political or other bias?
    ________________
    Joe Horner says:
    September 6, 2010 at 9:11 am
    So, mathematically, you can’t judge a recovery from two years – that’s natural variability. But you can confirm, with absolute confidence, a return to a downward trend by a single year?
    ________
    First of all, there was no “recovery” in 2008-2009, so you can’t use those years as a guage for a recovery. 2008 and 2009 simply were a levelling to the dramatic drop seen in 2007, but those years did not suddenly bounce back to some pre-2007 ice extent. The only group calling 2008-2009 a “recovery” would be AGW skeptics. 2008 saw more total ice loss from peak to trough than 2007, and continued with a low that was more than 2 standard deviations below the 30 year norm. It looks like this year will see even more total ice area loss from the March 31 peak to the low than even 2008 with the sea ice area perhaps even dropping below 2008. There simply is no way to mathematically or scientifically state there has been a recovery.
    I would suggest that some skeptics might actually use this as an opportunity to get beyond the dogmatic platform of “AGW isn’t happening, there is no proof, it’s bad science, etc. to at least consider the possibility that it is happening and that what we’ve seen in the Arctic, not just in sea ice decline, but in permafrost melt, etc. is potential proof.
    I’ve stated that I am personally only 75% convinced that AGW is happening, and remain 25% a skeptic. I find this kind of balance to be very healthy, as I read everything I can about what other factors could be causing the warming and changes in the Arctic that we’ve seen. As such, I don’t discount that some longer term solar or ocean cycles could have an influence, and that these longer cycles just are just happening to mimic the effects of what GCM’s predict the 40% increase in CO2 since the 1700’s would cause. I would also sincerely suggest that some of those who are 100% skeptical about AGW, soften their position a bit, maybe to being a 75% skeptic, and 25% open to the notion that human activity could be causing the longer term changes we’re seeing in the Arctic. I know most skeptical posters here on WUWT won’t even consider this, as I fear the truth is their skepticism is more a personal or political stance, rather than one based in science or reason.

  64. rbateman says:
    September 6, 2010 at 9:50 am
    Agreed. Just look at that R. Gates post you referred. In it he claims the “recovery” in 2008 was in part from the La Nina, but he makes no such claim about this years decline with the strong and prolonged El Nino. It is never what Gates says, but what he does not says that interests me. Always leaving out logical thoughts that may counter the fault lying with AGW alone. 75% yeah right he has himself 98% convinced of AGW.

  65. Tom P says:
    September 6, 2010 at 7:08 am
    Back on August 18 Steve Goddard wrote:
    “Ice thickness is an excellent predictor, and my PIPS based calculations are quite accurate. The only forecast I have made is 5.5, and see no reason to change it now.”
    Steve’s miscalculations from PIPS, which left out the ice concentration, have turned out not to be so accurate. And he’s subsequently changed his “prediction” to 5.1 m km^2 on his new website. I wonder what changed his mind.
    ____________________________________________________________
    SG took his mulligan sometime between this time (August 24, 2010 at 9:46 am );
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/24/sewa-ice-news-arctic-mid-week-update/#comment-465399
    “Remember that NSIDC took a mulligan, changing their forecast in July. They started at 5.5 million.
    I haven’t taken my mulligan yet ;^)”
    and this (August 30, 2010 at 11:05 pm);
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/29/sea-ice-news-20/#comment-470770
    “By the Way: Congrats to Steve – – he submitted a Sea Ice Outlook. 5.1 million Square km — unless he persuades Helen to let him change it in the next 48 hours or so.”
    While I posted this comment (August 24, 2010 at 5:19 pm);
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/24/sewa-ice-news-arctic-mid-week-update/#comment-465833
    “Chance of 2010 Arctic sea ice extent minima exceeding 5.5E6 < 0.00010% (based off of 8/23/2010 estimate)."
    See also (August 24, 2010 at 9:06 am);
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/24/sewa-ice-news-arctic-mid-week-update/#comment-465356
    So will 2010 pass 5.1e6 km^2? You betcha! As in asymptotically almost surely (a.a.s.).
    JAXA is currently showing 5.14e6 km^2, NSIDC is showing 4.92e6 km^2, and Bremen is showing 5.07e6 km^2 (all three use the 15% concentration cutoff criteria).
    Based on JAXA (extent) and NSIDC (area) data sets, it's even money (50% or p = 0,5) that 2010 will pass (be lower than) 4.9e6 km^2.

  66. “I fear the truth is their skepticism is more a personal or political stance, rather than one based in science or reason.”
    Ah to be judged by R. Gates the all-knowing judge, who knows what is in the hearts and minds of other posters! LMAO I’m sorry but I find this absurd as I can only imagine others do as well or am I being unreasonable there Mr. Gates?

  67. Jon P says:
    September 6, 2010 at 10:52 am
    rbateman says:
    September 6, 2010 at 9:50 am
    Agreed. Just look at that R. Gates post you referred. In it he claims the “recovery” in 2008 was in part from the La Nina, but he makes no such claim about this years decline with the strong and prolonged El Nino. It is never what Gates says, but what he does not says that interests me. Always leaving out logical thoughts that may counter the fault lying with AGW alone. 75% yeah right he has himself 98% convinced of AGW
    _______
    Jon, I wouldn’t need to use the past winter’s El Nino as a reason for the continuation of a longer-term trend. Why interject unecessary causes? The Arctic Sea ice has actually been declining for many decades, so why would I want to use one year’s El Nino as a reason for a continuation of that decline? I only used the the solar minimum and the La Nina of 2008-2009 as plausible factors in why a dramatic downward spike (i.e. 2007) did not continue spiking downward as severely in 2008-2009.
    El Ninos don’t explain the mult-decade long downward trend in Arctic sea ice, so introducing it as a factor in this year’s ice loss seems extraneous.
    One final note, I personally feel that the long and deep solar minimum of 2008-2009, with its very low total solar irradicance was far more of a factor in the so-called “recovery” of 2008-2009, and that the La Nina played a much more minor role. When I saw that the solar minimum had been reached last fall and that irradiance was once more increasing toward the solar max in 2013, I speculated right then that we’d see lower sea ice this season than last.

  68. R. Gates says:
    September 6, 2010 at 8:48 am
    …within the lifetime of most people posting here, we will indeed see an ice free summer Arctic.
    You wont have to wait that long – look at the Cryosphere Today 9/4 pic – its ICE FREE NOW! OK – the small blue spot is a little off the actual pole, but your very smart friends at NSIDC wont have any trouble adjusting it to the exact pole. Halleluja! Break out the champagne! (but dont let any CO2 escape!)

  69. R. Gates says:
    September 6, 2010 at 11:12 am
    OK all, you heard it here. The El Nino had zero affect on the Artic Sea Ice this year and there is no lag with solar minimums.

  70. AGW alarmists blinded by belief and faith, Skeptics blinded by doubtand cynicism, the Scientists cannot predict, the truth is the ice and planet don’t care, the ice will come and go as it pleases, and confound all who dare to say they understand.
    It has always been that way for us humans, it is in our nature to believe our actions and beliefs will change the climate, but this is folly.

  71. R. Gates says:
    September 6, 2010 at 10:48 am
    If you can’t see it in this graph, you simply don’t want to, and perhaps your supposed “skepticsm” is really your political or other bias?
    ===================================
    Gates, I know you confuse easily, so let me try it again.
    I specifically asked about the graphs Anthony posted, starting in 2002 to the present.
    I said I know it’s only 8-9 years (that should have been a clue for you that I was only talking about the charts Anthony posted)
    I also said “serious question” which should have also been a clue to you that you did not need to post a personal attack or accuse anyone of being bias or any of your other tricks.
    Where it clearly shows the ice highs and ice lows all over the place, but in spite of that, all coming back together in the middle (the months around May/June and Nov/Dec).
    It seems clear to me – from the graphs Anthony posted – that the highs and lows are controlled by weather, and that where you would look for a trend is in the middle, which has not changed one bit.
    “If you can’t have a civil discussion, you simply don’t want to, and perhaps your supposed [self snip] is really your political or other bias?”

  72. The still positive AMO – and concomitant continuing above average supply of North Atlantic Drift warm water to the poles – may be responsible for continuing weak polar ice in the face of temperature downturn driven by PDO. AMO lags PDO by a decade or so. It has to be ocean currents since the air temps at the Arctic were unusually cold over the summer.
    It looks like Joe Bastardi called it right – in the context of a trend of recovery, this year’s weather and ocean currents gave an uptick in ice loss. But look out for 2011 and 2012 – JB predicts substantial North polar ice gain. Any early predictions here?
    Aside from all the point-scoring, its a stale-mate: 2 years increase (2008-9) does not overturn a 30 year (half PDO) trend of ice loss, one year of ice loss (2010) does not mean that turn-around and recovery could not be underway.
    It will take till 2020 for it to be clear if (a) a long term trend of ice loss is continuing, due maybe to CO2 increase or (b) if the ice is recovering in line with PDO and other solar / oceanic oscillations.

  73. rbateman says:
    September 6, 2010 at 9:50 am
    … 75% yeah right he has himself 98% convinced of AGW.
    No way. 100% with an evangelical cherry on top. Gatesy, there’s even more hysteresis staring back at you from that graph you linked to than in the limited JAXA data. No need to dig further. To even come close to understanding what’s going on there you’d need probably three centuries of data minimum. And you want us to draw a straight line through the last half, what sort of nonsense is that? LOL! So what happened in 96 then to radically change the cycle game plan for a while – big puff of CO2 was it? Oh look, there’s another shift in 2007. I’m damned glad you don’t do SPC in a machine shop somewhere for a living – imagine the scrap bill!

  74. Jon P says:
    September 6, 2010 at 11:07 am
    “I fear the truth is their skepticism is more a personal or political stance, rather than one based in science or reason.”
    Ah to be judged by R. Gates the all-knowing judge, who knows what is in the hearts and minds of other posters! LMAO I’m sorry but I find this absurd as I can only imagine others do as well or am I being unreasonable there Mr. Gates?
    _____
    Jon, you’re right, this strays from my generally a-political stance, and is simply based on a general observation I’ve made that seems to find clusters of attitudes in people. For example, one is more likely to be a conservative and be an AGW skeptic, etc. This clustering, which is seen for many issues, does not indicate cause and effect, but simply says what attitudes are likely to be clustered together. But certainly, like in all things, each person is an individual, and no one knows what is in the heart and mind of any single individual, nor would I ever attempt to. My point was, (and the reason that I remain partially skeptical) about AGW is that it is psychologically freeing to not attach completely to some dogma and hence, keep the possibility open that you might be wrong and could actually move closer to the truth. This probably explains why I am neither Republican nor Democrat, remain proudly Independent, never vote along strict party lines, and would in general like to see the end of the “2 party” system which simply has become a matter of who the special interests fill the check out to….and now, let’s get back to the sea ice, shall we?

  75. NeilT
    “There has been so much more melt, so much more open sea to absorb the sunlight and so much less ice in areas that should be solid pack ice in 2010 that it is just another step on the way.
    I can’t see melt stopping short of the last week in september”
    Neil, have you visited the sea ice page under references at the top of this site? This is what it looks like today at about 85N (north pole cam has drifted southeastward)
    http://psc.apl.washington.edu/northpole/webphotos/noaa2.jpg

  76. phlogiston says:
    September 6, 2010 at 11:30 am
    The still positive AMO – and concomitant continuing above average supply of North Atlantic Drift warm water to the poles – may be responsible for continuing weak polar ice in the face of temperature downturn driven by PDO. AMO lags PDO by a decade or so. It has to be ocean currents since the air temps at the Arctic were unusually cold over the summer.
    It looks like Joe Bastardi called it right – in the context of a trend of recovery, this year’s weather and ocean currents gave an uptick in ice loss. But look out for 2011 and 2012 – JB predicts substantial North polar ice gain. Any early predictions here?
    Aside from all the point-scoring, its a stale-mate: 2 years increase (2008-9) does not overturn a 30 year (half PDO) trend of ice loss, one year of ice loss (2010) does not mean that turn-around and recovery could not be underway.
    It will take till 2020 for it to be clear if (a) a long term trend of ice loss is continuing, due maybe to CO2 increase or (b) if the ice is recovering in line with PDO and other solar / oceanic oscillations
    ______
    Sorry, but I see no sign of a “stale-mate” in these graphs:
    http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Area.png
    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.arctic.png
    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/sea.ice.anomaly.timeseries.jpg
    What I see is a long-term downward trend in Arctic Sea ice, with this year’s ice behavior completely consistent with that long-term trend.
    In regards to Joe Bastardi’s predictions for next years ice, I’ve really not look specifically at next year, but if he is calling for a reversal to the long-term downward trend and some kind of “recovery” to the Arctic sea ice, my first reaction is– that seems unlikely. With the solar max ahead of us in 2013, solar irradiance increasing up to that max, and a good chance for another El Nino event before then as well, I would say that all of these factors lean against Joe being correct, but most of all, there is nothing to indicate that there has been any sort of reversal to the longer term decline.

  77. Anu says:
    September 6, 2010 at 9:16 am
    “Remember way back in February 2010….
    69.75% of WUWT readers thought that the 2010 Summer Arctic Sea Ice Extent would be greater than in 2009. Anthony Watts and Steven Goddard predicted that “we’d see another 500,000 km2 of Arctic sea ice recovery in 2010″ (since IARC-JAXA minimum was 5,249,844 km2 in 2009, that would have been about 5,750,000 km2 minimum this September)”
    Not so bad for a Feb 2010 prediction. Look at the predictions made by those you admire, some as low as 2.5msk and they made these in August 2010!!!

  78. latitude says:
    September 6, 2010 at 11:28 am
    Gates, I know you confuse easily, so let me try it again…
    I specifically asked about the graphs Anthony posted, starting in 2002 to the present.
    I said I know it’s only 8-9 years (that should have been a clue for you that I was only talking about the charts Anthony posted)
    I also said “serious question” which should have also been a clue to you that you did not need to post a personal attack or accuse anyone of being bias or any of your other tricks…
    _____
    I use “tricks”? Wow, I guess I should have continued with my 7th grade neighborhood magic show.
    But, to get back to the sea ice and your issue. Even in the very short time period of 2002-2010 we see the signal of the longer term decline, but why would we not want to look at the longest set of reliable data that we have? This chart is my road map when it comes to looking at the pulse of the Arctic sea ice:
    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/sea.ice.anomaly.timeseries.jpg
    There is no BS here, no cherry picking, no “renormalization”, and no politics. It simply shows what the ice has done over the past 30+ years. What is shows is this: Arctic sea ice has been in a long-term state of decline for many years, and nothing that has happening the past several years has indicated any sort of reversal to this decline…period. We’ve not had a positive Arctic sea ice anomaly since 2004, despite one of the longest and deepest solar minimums in a century. What else do I need to know? The only better chart to have then this would be one that showed my the actual Arctic sea ice volume over this time period, but we don’t have that data. In the next few years we can start gathering that data and create a new anomaly time series for that as well.
    What the longer term trend tells us, as of today, is that the Arctic is headed toward being seasonably ice free during the lifetimes of most people reading this post. It’s that simply. Notice, there is no warning of catastrophe or doom in my statement– just a simple extrapolation of current trends.

  79. Dusty says:
    September 6, 2010 at 8:32 am
    Try the earthshine project.
    Automated Observations of the Earthshine
    http://www.hindawi.com/journals/aa/2010/963650.html
    “…..The earthshine observations reveal a large decadal variability in the Earth’s reflectance [7], which is yet not fully understood, but which is in line with other satellite and ground-based global radiation data (see [8, 9] and references therein). In order to continue to contribute to a better understanding of the Earth’s radiation budget continuous observations from a global network of robotic telescopes are necessary.”
    Inter-annual variations in Earth’s reflectance 1999-2007.
    http://bbso.njit.edu/Research/EarthShine/literature/Palle_etal_2008_JGR.pdf
    The solar cycle is about a 9 to 11 year decadal cycle too.

  80. R. Gates:
    What I see is a long-term downward trend in Arctic Sea ice, with this year’s ice behavior completely consistent with that long-term trend
    Satellite measurements began in 1979, that’s almost exactly the year when both north Atlantic and north Pacific SST turned from a downwards trend to an upwards trend. It would be very strange if there hadn’t been any decreasing trend in Arctic sea ice since 1979. It’s quite convenient for the alarmists that we don’t have accurate sea ice measurements for the preceding 60 years, isn’t it?

  81. The only clear thing, that I can see, that went on up there this year was the big snowstorm that buried our Little Pond by the Camera. That was after the Little Pond by the Camera froze over.
    Now both Cameras (NOAA Drifting Arctic and Amundsen-Scott Antarctic) show the same bleak scene of pure misery to anyone who dares tread there.
    Now, what do you suppose is going to happen to that Anomalously warm water, trapped like a rat, between the Upwelling La Nina to the South and the soon-to-plunge Arctic cold?

  82. a holmes says:
    September 6, 2010 at 10:08 am
    “Well , all I can say about the melt season is that the small summer melt pool seen in the foreground of the North pole web cam froze solid and dissappeared under fresh snow weeks ago”
    This cam has actually drifted to about 85N to the southeastward, so the north pole is well and truly freezing

  83. R. Gates says:
    “There is no BS here, no cherry picking…”
    …except for cherry-picking only the Arctic, and disregarding the entire Southern Hemisphere because it doesn’t support the wild-eyed scare stories.
    “The Arctic seems to be warming up.” [source]

  84. R. Gates says:
    September 6, 2010 at 11:53 am
    With the solar max ahead of us in 2013

    Then that SC24 had better start shaking a leg, because it’s gone statistically nowhere with regard to sunspot area the last year.
    http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/TempGr/uSC24vs13_14.GIF
    I wouldn’t count on that chicken hatching from an egg lost since Easter.
    But if you ask Joe Bastardi, who isn’t here to defend himself, you might get a “calm down and stop jumping to conclusions” response.
    Joe will be doing some more Sea-Ice news tomorrow. Do check it out. Joe Cool Meteorologist.

  85. Gary Pearse says:
    September 6, 2010 at 12:24 pm
    Not fit for man nor beast, that North Pole.
    Where’s the Hot Dog Stand, a la the famous Asimov story?

  86. rbateman said:
    “Now, what do you suppose is going to happen to that Anomalously warm water, trapped like a rat, between the Upwelling La Nina to the South and the soon-to-plunge Arctic cold?”
    ______
    Funny thing is, that during this current La Nina (and even during a cold cycle of the PDO) we see a large pool of anomalously warm water in the N. Pacific. I am personally very skeptical that the building La Nina will have as big effect on the Arctic sea ice this winter as some would like to think. (ala Joe Bastardi) Also, the growing total solar irradiance will tend to balance out the effects of the La Nina on a global scale. The big story this summer isn’t the growing La Nina, but is the signs of a global acceleration in the hydrological cycle, which is consistent with GCM’s prediction of the effects from continually increasing amounts of CO2.

  87. AJB says:
    September 6, 2010 at 11:36 am
    ….To even come close to understanding what’s going on there you’d need probably three centuries of data minimum…..
    ______________________________________
    Oh you mean data like THIS
    I agree, three centuries of data minimum, 30 years just doesn’t cut it when you are looking at variability in the climate as this graph so nicely shows.

  88. R. Gates says:
    September 6, 2010 at 12:12 pm
    I use “tricks”? Wow, I guess I should have continued with my 7th grade neighborhood magic show.
    ===============================================
    Yes you did and you’re showing what a hypocrite you are.
    I tried you ask you a serious question.
    No personal attacks from me at all.
    You answered me by accusing me of having some political bias, and accused me of having supposed skepticism.
    ====================================================
    R. Gates says:
    September 6, 2010 at 10:48 am
    If you can’t see it in this graph, you simply don’t want to, and perhaps your supposed “skepticsm” is really your political or other bias?
    ==========================================================
    R. Gates says:
    September 6, 2010 at 10:48 am
    I would also sincerely suggest that some of those who are 100% skeptical about AGW, soften their position a bit, maybe to being a 75% skeptic, and 25% open to the notion that human activity could be causing the longer term changes we’re seeing in the Arctic. I know most skeptical posters here on WUWT won’t even consider this, as I fear the truth is their skepticism is more a personal or political stance, rather than one based in science or reason.
    =======================================================
    And you still have danced all around the question I tired to ask you.
    One more time,
    I’m not talking at all about any charts or graphs you want to post.
    I’m only talking about the graphs that Anthony posted on this blog.
    ====================================================
    latitude says:
    September 6, 2010 at 11:28 am
    Where it clearly shows the ice highs and ice lows all over the place, but in spite of that, all coming back together in the middle (the months around May/June and Nov/Dec).
    It seems clear to me – from the graphs Anthony posted – that the highs and lows are controlled by weather, and that where you would look for a trend is in the middle, which has not changed one bit.

  89. rbateman says:
    September 6, 2010 at 12:33 pm
    R. Gates says:
    September 6, 2010 at 11:53 am
    With the solar max ahead of us in 2013
    Then that SC24 had better start shaking a leg, because it’s gone statistically nowhere with regard to sunspot area the last year
    _____
    The solar minimum occurred in 2009 and Total solar irradicance and sunspot numbers have gone up since that time period. We may not have a gang-buster solar max event in 2013, but the slight increase in TSI in that time period, in addition to some little extra kick we may get from an El Nino, will only add to the forcing we have from the 40% increase in CO2 that we have seen since the 1700’s.

  90. R Gates, various
    At least you have to appreciate that when you have a good, thoughtful comment here, you hit the highlights chart in the sidebar despite your leanings. That must tell you that you are wrong about the notion of a monolithic, entrenched, right-wing idea about skeptics. And remember, skepticism isn’t a bad word, except in climate science. Galileo and other good company numbered among skeptics of their day (of course they spelled it backwards in the old days of consensus science – heretics). Also, a comment by Anu should help identify the position of skeptics better (the significance didn’t dawn on Anu):
    “Anu says:
    September 6, 2010 at 9:16 am
    Remember way back in February 2010, when AGW skeptics were still optimistic that the two year “recovery” from the record 2007 Arctic sea ice summer melt would continue ?
    Prediction: Arctic Ice Will Continue to Recover This Summer
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/09/prediction-arctic-ice-will-continue-to-recover-this-summer/
    69.75% of WUWT readers thought that the 2010 Summer Arctic Sea Ice Extent would be greater than in 2009. ”
    Gee over 30% disagreed even though at the time it seemed like a safe bet to me.

  91. latitude says:
    September 6, 2010 at 11:28 am
    Where it clearly shows the ice highs and ice lows all over the place, but in spite of that, all coming back together in the middle (the months around May/June and Nov/Dec).
    It seems clear to me – from the graphs Anthony posted – that the highs and lows are controlled by weather, and that where you would look for a trend is in the middle, which has not changed one bit.
    _____
    The “middle” is not the best place to see the anomaly. Everything will pass through the middle in the normal yearly fluctuations, but over time, GCM’s say that we’ll see a seasonally ice free Arctic, meaning of course, that we want to look for lower summer extent and area over time.

  92. NeilT: Re – September 6, 2010 at 7:03 am
    The praise of an idiot doesn’t mean that much, but ‘WOW’ – a breath of the fresh air of reality here in this strange little isolated, parallel community of Confusionism, where the ‘The Recovery’ of Arctic sea ice continues relentlessly, and Man has no influence on the planet!! (The enormity of what’s going on up there just hasn’t registered.)
    There’s an interesting section on the effects of less summer ice and unusual goings on here:
    http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/climate-assessment-2009-lo-rez.pdf
    Page 107. 5. Arctic. For example:
    “The heat accumulated in the surface and near-surface layers of the ocean during the summer is then released back to the atmosphere in the following autumn, impacting
    temperatures in the lower troposphere. The coupling between the atmosphere, ocean, and sea ice has also impacted the overall characteristics of the Arctic sea ice cover, which is now dominated by relatively thin seasonal ice. The effects of the retreating sea ice also influence the temperature and vegetation of adjacent lands. Temporal analyses generally show that, within a specific region, periods of lower sea
    ice concentration are correlated with warmer land surface temperatures and an increase in the amount of live green vegetation in the summer.”

  93. rbateman says:
    September 6, 2010 at 9:59 am
    Anu says:
    September 6, 2010 at 9:16 am
    Whatever melted the ice this year, it was clearly not air-temperature induced from a warming world.
    I have posted my proof of that.

    Warming worlds that are 71% ocean also have warming oceans. Did your “proof” deal with that ?

  94. R. Gates says:
    September 6, 2010 at 1:25 pm
    The “middle” is not the best place to see the anomaly. Everything will pass through the middle in the normal yearly fluctuations, but over time, GCM’s say that we’ll see a seasonally ice free Arctic, meaning of course, that we want to look for lower summer extent and area over time.
    ===============================================
    Thank you, I was beginning to think I had made a mistake by trying to engage your brain and get your opinion….
    It make sense that weather would have the most effect – anomaly – on the extremes.
    That’s just common sense.
    If you are not looking for weather, it makes sense to me that you would only be able to see the trend in the middle.
    No matter how extreme the weather has effected the high and low anomaly at the extremes, every year, at exactly the same time, the levels are almost exactly the same, at exactly the same months. May to June, and Dec to Jan.
    If the ice was not staying the same, that exactly same time period (May and Dec) is exactly where you would see the trend. But there is no trend there at all.
    No matter how high it’s been, no matter how low it’s been, it always came back to that exact same level twice a year.

  95. Village Idiot,
    From the NY Times, 1969:
    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/nyt_arctic_77442757.pdf
    From the late, great John Daly:
    http://www.john-daly.com/polar/arctic.htm
    And:
    http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2006/fireandice/fireandice.asp
    This has all happened before repeatedly. Nothing out of the ordinary is occurring, as any idiot can see in the links above.
    If CO2 was the cause of melting ice, Antarctica would also be melting. It’s not.
    Why does natural, regional climate variability frighten you so much?

  96. I started to reply to the comments on here. I met sarcasm with sarcasm, blind dogma with knowledge and evidence.
    After 6 pages and 1,975 words becoming increasingly more sarcastic with each comment, I stopped and thought; “What the hell am I doing”.
    So in short.
    Those of you who are insulted at being called unfeeling, uncaring people who don’t care about the misery and deaths of millions by their attitude:
    Suck it up or change your viewpoint. The predictions are clear, the costs have been weighed, we are on the high curve, not the low curve.
    For those who want to ridicule me with some smart inane comments. The evidence is clear the only way it is not clear is through dogma, blind faith or hard of thinking. I’m sure you all know best which slot you fit into.
    As an aside all seven of my computers are running on grids which are local to Nuclear power stations. What are yours connected to????
    I don’t watch NatGeo and I don’t go around frequenting liberal leftie occasions. I’m a right wing capitalist/realist who is ex army and thinks if you have Nuclear weapons SOGOTP rather than waving them around like surrogate penis’
    I shall now go away and see if I have any chance of getting some green energy ideas into the real world. I don’t have much hope as the industrialists who are Ecstatic at the readership of this site don’t want them. They’re too cheap and they don’t have enough profit for the Multinationals because Governments won’t let them make that much money out of them.
    Sweet delusions…..
    Reply: NeilT I would like to apologize for the treatment you received. I have sent an email to all moderators using your treatment on this thread as an example on how we should be doing better. ~ ctm

  97. R. Gates says:
    September 6, 2010 at 1:25 pm
    “Everything will pass through the middle in the normal yearly fluctuations,”
    =========================================================
    No it won’t. Not at the exact same time every year, twice a year. Won’t do it.
    If the trend was down, then it would cross the “middle” a little sooner each May, and later each Dec, each time. Not at the exact same time, every year, for the past 8-9 years.
    The middle is where you would look for a trend not effected by weather.

  98. R. Gates says:
    September 6, 2010 at 12:42 pm
    The solar minimum occurred in 2009 and Total solar irradicance and sunspot numbers have gone up since that time period. We may not have a gang-buster solar max event in 2013, but the slight increase in TSI in that time period, in addition to some little extra kick we may get from an El Nino, will only add to the forcing we have from the 40% increase in CO2 that we have seen since the 1700′s.
    ========================================
    Every sentence in this paragraph has half-truths and is full of assumptions.
    Come to think of it, that is characteristic of most of your posts, R.
    Would love to see you in a live debate with some the real scientists and experts on here [of which you are definitely not one].
    There you would not have the luxury of a time delay of sitting behind a computer screen to craft your next round of sophistry.
    Nothing like a live debate to weed out the talkers who are way out of their league.
    Every time you open your mouth, R, you spin sentences so full of fallacies and circular reasoning, it has become almost entertaining.
    But, along with that, it is tragic, because it is quite obvious you are either incapable of adjusting your views when confronted with the truth, or you refuse to.
    Either way…its like you live in a protective bubble where all you can hear, is hearing yourself talk.
    And repeat the same mantras over and over. Doesn’t matter how uninformed they are.
    I chuckle as I see you trying to take on Bateman on solar subjects. Don’t try that one, bud. You will get shredded.
    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  99. Seems to me, if memory serves, it was a “simple extrapolation of current trends” back in the 70’s that gave us- “Scientific face, meet custard pie”… as the frightening ice age scenario failed to develop. Also if memory serves, many of the same folks who tried to persuade us with “current trends” then are now asking for seconds on dessert.

  100. “”” NeilT says:
    September 6, 2010 at 1:48 am
    Mike, you are completely missing the point.
    As usual.
    Yes the sea ice will return every winter even after there is none in summer. However the impact of a summer absorbing sunlight instead of reflecting it, on the warming of this planet, will return many millions of us to dust much, much sooner than would normally be the case.
    Or do you just not care about the other 6Billion 999 million 999thousand and 999 people in the world? “””
    What’s your evidence (not a computer model) that a summer ice free arctic will be the doom of millions of people; or even billions as you intimate.
    Most people would believe that cold will kill more people than warmth; by choking of world food supplies. There’s plenty of good land available for agriculture if the growing season just got a bit longer; much more than might be lost with a wetter warmer climate.

  101. Gary Pearse says:
    September 6, 2010 at 12:11 pm
    Not so bad for a Feb 2010 prediction.

    Yes, a prediction of 5,750,000 sq km is not too bad (for example, it is much better than predicting a return to the 1979 to 2000 September average of about 7 million sq km – that era is fast receding), but it is still on the wrong side of the recovery line: the 2009 value.
    If 2010 summer minimum had been greater than that of 2009, that would have been hailed as the third year (2008,2009,2010) of “recovery” since the unusually low summer of 2007, and would have been touted as a death blow to the Arctic Sea Ice Death Spiral.
    Now, the Death Spiral is still on – 2010 sea ice is at 5,136,094 km2 and still falling.
    The September sea ice minimum is declining faster than a linear trendline:
    http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/pred2010.jpg
    Look at the predictions made by those you admire, some as low as 2.5msk and they made these in August 2010!!!
    You realize that two of those “admired scientists” making SEARCH predictions are just WUWT commenters with no cryology credentials, right ?
    Charles Wilson is the one making the 2.5 million sq km prediction in August.
    Here’s an example comment at WUWT:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/23/sea-ice-news-10/#comment-415942
    And stevengoddard (remember him ?) bailed on his longstanding 5.5 million sq km prediction when it became obvious in late August that the Arctic sea ice was, in fact, going to drop below 2009, something he denied at WUWT until he submitted his prediction to SEARCH for 5.1 million sq km:
    http://www.arcus.org/search/seaiceoutlook/2010/august
    Here’s all the SEARCH predictions:
    http://www.arcus.org/files/search/sea-ice-outlook/2010/09/images/summary/siofig1.jpg
    Almost everybody predicted that 2010 would be below 2009, ending the “recovery”.

  102. R Gates..Its in the upper thirties(hit 40 once) at around 71 north but over on the other side it is in the upper 20’s & snow..even on the Healy side on even lower latitudes its in the upper 20’s & snow over in the Canadian Arctic Islands..I think you knew that when you posted your facts….

  103. Gary Pearse says:
    September 6, 2010 at 1:08 pm
    Also, a comment by Anu should help identify the position of skeptics better (the significance didn’t dawn on Anu):
    “Anu says:
    September 6, 2010 at 9:16 am
    Remember way back in February 2010, when AGW skeptics were still optimistic that the two year “recovery” from the record 2007 Arctic sea ice summer melt would continue ?
    Prediction: Arctic Ice Will Continue to Recover This Summer
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/09/prediction-arctic-ice-will-continue-to-recover-this-summer/
    69.75% of WUWT readers thought that the 2010 Summer Arctic Sea Ice Extent would be greater than in 2009. ”
    Gee over 30% disagreed even though at the time it seemed like a safe bet to me.

    First, you didn’t read the poll results – there was also 6.81% that voted “it will be near normal” (which is the 1979 to 2000 average) – this is much greater than 2009.
    (there was also a “the North Pole will be ‘ice free’ in 2010” – which is much less than “less than 2007”).
    So, 76.56% of WUWT readers voted for the “recovery”, some a huge recovery.
    Second, it’s a good bet that those who voted “it will be less than 2007” [7.21%] or “the North Pole will be ‘ice Free’ in 2010” [3.64%] are not what are euphemistically called “skeptics”.
    Perhaps 23.44% of WUWT readers are not skeptics. Not everybody who silently reads the interesting articles and (some) interesting Comments enjoys arguing with skeptics commenting here. And clearly, not all Commenters are skeptics here.
    Third, how many pro-science readers thought it would come in between 2007 and 2008, and so had nowhere to vote ? Maybe the non-skeptic reader percentage is bigger than suspected…

  104. NeilT says:
    September 6, 2010 at 1:43 pm
    =================================
    Neil, no slams from me.
    Before I believe in any of the doom and gloom predicitons,
    someone will have to convince me that a longer growing season,
    milder winters, longer season for animals to raise their families, etc
    ….is a bad thing

  105. Anu says:
    September 6, 2010 at 2:06 pm
    My points were a Feb 2010 prediction of 57skm is not so bad given how far off some were in August 2010 also, I thought you might have noted a subtler point that 69.7% thinking greater than 2009 meant that 30.25% thought less than 2009- hey in this business these predictions were better than those who are paid to make such predictions. Re your descending ice extent at steeper than linear trends, tomorrow or the next day the line will bend up again – this is September. A lot of the trouble with the thinking on both sides of the debate (but more on the AGW side) is this simplistic notion of linear trends in a cyclic world. Watch the curve level off and curve up again as it even did in 2007 around this time. Also, recovery is not a week-long thing it, like the stockmarket, temperature graphs, and virtually any natural trend is a zig zag. Dont get too encouraged by a few 100k skm one way or the other. There were submarines cavorting at the North Pole in the 1950s and it was reported to the Royal Society in 1817 that navigation through the arctic was now possible because of warming ocean waters. Biologists were worrying about th plight of seals in the melting arctic in th 1930s…..

  106. Espen says:
    September 6, 2010 at 12:20 pm
    R. Gates:
    What I see is a long-term downward trend in Arctic Sea ice, with this year’s ice behavior completely consistent with that long-term trend
    Satellite measurements began in 1979, that’s almost exactly the year when both north Atlantic and north Pacific SST turned from a downwards trend to an upwards trend. It would be very strange if there hadn’t been any decreasing trend in Arctic sea ice since 1979. It’s quite convenient for the alarmists that we don’t have accurate sea ice measurements for the preceding 60 years, isn’t it?

    Actually, satellite measurements began in 1972:
    http://iup.physik.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsr/ice_ext_n.png
    Nothing in the 1972 to 1979 data showed an “increasing trend in Arctic sea ice” for that “crucial” pre-1979 period. Perhaps you can find some scientific papers that show differently.
    Too bad the Russians didn’t launch Sputnik in 1947 – maybe we’d have satellite data from 1962 now.

  107. Anu says:
    September 6, 2010 at 1:29 pm
    There is no need to the drag the world’s oceans into the Arctic when the Air Temp above 80N is proof aplenty.
    It fell, and it fell during the ‘melt season’.
    So much for an overheated atmosphere due to Global Warming.
    Besides, the La Nina forming in the Pacific is mighty strong and quite cool, having shoved and crammed the remaining warm water up North, where winter will gladly pounce all over it.
    But then, we are talking ocean anomalies, not absolute empirical data.
    Empirical Rules.
    80N DMI is empirical data.

  108. rbateman says: September 6, 2010 at 9:50 am
    What global warming in the Arctic this year? Did I miss something?
    http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/TempGr/meanT_2010vs58-09.jpg
    See that white space under the very middle of the ‘melt season’ range?
    That is where the temp in the Arctic fell back to freezing and left the 49 year range.
    For most of the ‘summer melt’, the temp above 80 North was at the lower end of that 49 year range of temp.
    Whatever melted the ice this year, it was clearly not air-temperature induced from a warming world.

    Robert, have you (or anyone else) plotted degree-days (above freezing) vs year, for the length of that 80N record?
    If not, where did you get the data. I’d like to plot the DD myself.
    I clicked thru the DMI graphs year by year and there didn’t seem to be any obvious downward trend.

  109. Anu,
    Why are you presenting August SEARCH predictions as a comparison with WUWT predictions from February? What about some other February predictions? What were these groups predicting then?
    Also, while diverting, I think the comments on this thread have been a bit too acerbic at times. I, for one, appreciate some differences of opinion, such as those provided by R. Gates. (On the other hand, from a limited observational viewpoint I would call the increase in minimum extent in 2008 and 2009 a “recovery”, i.e. the value went up. [I find it strange when this simple fact is seemingly glossed over.] I’m also impressed by the satellite photos from Cryosphere Today from the same dates in 2007 and 2010; again by the most straightforward (visual) criterion, it looks like a recovery to me.)

  110. Anu says:
    September 6, 2010 at 2:06 pm
    Now, the Death Spiral is still on – 2010 sea ice is at 5,136,094 km2 and still falling.

    So what if the 2010 Arctic sea ice is at 5,136,094 km2 ? The Arctic is not going to be ice-free this year.
    The Death Spiral was a transitory trend backed by fire & brimstone proclamations that didn’t happen, and it was never Global.
    This isn’t a Hollywood Sci-Fi flick where the script is a foregone conclusion.

  111. latitude:
    “I agree
    If you don’t look at the extremes, and only look at May, June, July and Nov, Dec, Jan,”
    you realize that the ice is threshholded by geography in certain months. That is there is max extent to which it can grow. so you have to take care to account for that.

  112. Tom in Texas says:
    September 6, 2010 at 2:55 pm
    I would also like to plot the DD data myself.
    DMI does not have it’s numerical data available, but you might ask them.
    What you see is a result of careful image processing to stack all years up.
    It took tedious work to get the 2008, 2009 and 2010 graphics to blink correctly with 1958-2007, because DMI has altered their timeline ticks and legend, which stretches the later years up and includes part of the next year.

  113. NeilT says:
    September 6, 2010 at 1:48 am:
    Mike, you are completely missing the point.
    As usual.
    Yes the sea ice will return every winter even after there is none in summer. However the impact of a summer absorbing sunlight instead of reflecting it, on the warming of this planet, will return many millions of us to dust much, much sooner than would normally be the case. [Don’t you care!]

    Neil, your “sensitivity” to all those Humans is what impresses me. So tell me what you have done in your personal life to lower your own personal CO2 “footprint”?
    While the Indians and Chinese are massively increasing theirs.

  114. latitude:
    “The middle is where you would look for a trend not effected by weather.”
    depends.
    Read this to understand why measures by area and extent are not the best thing to look at because of geography constraints, So just be wary of potentially rash statements about ‘where’ one looks and how one looks.
    In general I think discussions about the ice are a trap for both sides. slippery stuff and subject to many issues unrelated to the warmth increase we will see from GW.
    http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/08/22/on-ice-with-a-twist/#more-2989
    my advice is to practice good scepticism. If your opponent claims he can predict the ice, steer clear of any kind of competition with him. If you best him its only by luck. when the best science gets it hugely wrong ( in some years) its best just to sit back and let them be wrong again. Some however insist on following CAGW types in a run for the ice. The state of the ice says little about the truth of AGW one way or the other. Same with the hockey stick. So, its best just to engage in a critical exercise. That’s just a suggest. But people will continue to think there is something to be ‘won’ by trying to do ice science better than best. Not much hope for them.

  115. I do know that Mosh. Arctic ice has to float some where.
    Wind, clouds, currents, etc all things you might consider “weather” effects the highs and lows.
    Growth or melt does not seem to effect it. Even when it’s had a growing year, back to the set point in May. When it’s had a melting year, back to the set point in Dec.
    Each time, no matter how high or how low, it strikes that middle point around May and again in Dec. Almost so close each time that it could just be within the margin of error.
    It has not done that.

  116. Smokey:
    “If CO2 was the cause of melting ice, Antarctica would also be melting. It’s not.”
    As far as I can tell the theory makes no definitive statement about ice in the Antarctic. increasing C02 causes warming.
    For example in 2004 this was the state of the art:
    “Forecasts of Antarctic sea ice variation are very much in demand, not only because of the potential importance of sea ice in global climate, but also for the practical purpose of exploring the Antarctic continent. However, such forecasts are not presently feasible with any state-of-the-art GCMs, since the complex ice-air-sea interaction processes are still not well understood and by no means well simulated by these models. The alternative is then to apply statistical methods to Antarctic sea ice prediction. The linear Markov model described here represents one of the first attempts in this previously untravelled territory. ”
    It would be interesting to se what the theory predicts now. BUT you cannot falisify a theory that makes no claim about antarctic ice, by appealing to antarctic ice. that’s just a logic fail. Its like this. No GCM can predict the temperature in my shoes. None attempt this. Pointing out that my shoes are cooler than mean or full of ice, therefore says nothing about the models or the theory they embody.
    Look there is plenty to criticize about the predictions that the models DO make.
    But perhaps this IS an open question. What do the models predict about ice down south? Note of course that they can get this wrong and still be right about other things. In fact, by its very nature a GCM is likely to make all sorts of predictions that will be “wrong.” and it will still be right about others. Which means of course that the whole is not fully understood ( never will be) but that’s hardly a convincing argument to reject those predictions that are right. Our dilemma is this: will it continue to be right in the future about things it was right about in the past?” tougher question. But you only get to ask the toughest questions by accepting some of the truth.

  117. Steven Mosher says:
    September 6, 2010 at 3:35 pm
    As far as I can tell the theory makes no definitive statement about ice in the Antarctic. increasing C02 causes warming.

    It doesn’t have to. The theory is that the Earth is warming because of a trace gas. The Earth does not consist of a single hemisphere, where the proof of Global Warming is found in the Arctic. Smokey is right to question on the basis of the entire Earth.
    I question the validity of a theory that uses a single hemisphere to make its case.
    As far as I can tell, that case has not been made, and there is no need to continue taking seriously that which is not proven beyond the Null Hypothesis.

  118. Re: Steven Mosher on September 6, 2010 at 3:19 pm
    Great. Just great. The site lost one of its two headliner acts who went off to run his own blog, while the other had to take a brief break. The Wikio rankings dropped, #2 spot being lost to a ranting “godless liberal.” And now the “lukewarm” Goddard replacement is directing traffic to Tamino’s site, where he is (luke?)warmly received for his views.
    Forget CAGW, we have enough signs of IMPENDING DOOM!!!

  119. Espen says:
    September 6, 2010 at 5:40 am
    NeilT I don’t think your argument about reflectivity is valid until the sea ice melts already in June.
    ++++++++++++
    Espen I agree with this perspective. Darker water is a great deal more effective at radiating heat than white ice. Why is more not made of the temperature of the Arctic ocean then? If the absence of ice creates a much warmer ocean, supposedly, does the darker ocean cool much more rapidly than one covered with a sheet of ice? Sunshine reflects very efficiently off water at a low incident angle. That is how you get sunburned under an umbrella. The light ice/dark water theory seems a little thin at the edges. At the Autumnal equinox the nocturnal heat loss from the surface is surely an order of magnitude greater than the gain during the day. Even when it is covered in ice there is a large net loss of heat from the polar regions.
    An old ice-coated igloo is much warmer than a new one. Ice floating sheets insulate the ocean underneath from the much colder wintry air.

  120. There’s something that’s bothering me. R Gates provided the link to the following graph that shows arctic extent anomalies back to 1953:
    http://nsidc.org/sotc/images/mean_anomaly_1953-2009.png
    It clearly shows an almost straightline downward trend since 1969, which would imply that CO2 is not the major factor in that trend (there’s no real change in the rate, despite increasing levels of CO2).
    But what interested me was the earlier part of the graph. We know from photographic evidence that the ice at the North Pole was very thin in 1958/1959:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/26/ice-at-the-north-pole-in-1958-not-so-thick/
    But that graph shows that arctic sea ice extent anomaly well above what it currently is, and I believe that ice at the North Pole at the moment is still too thick for a submarine to surface.
    This inconsistency has me wondering how the sea ice extent anomaly for the 1950s and 1960s was calculated? The NSIDC web site has the following:
    http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/faq.html#presatellite
    That lead me to the page where the original graph was located:
    http://nsidc.org/sotc/sea_ice.html
    And the caption on that graph says:

    Mean sea ice anomalies, 1953-2009: Sea ice extent departures from monthly means for the Northern Hemisphere. For January 1953 through December 1979, data have been obtained from the UK Hadley Centre and are based on operational ice charts and other sources. For January 1979 through July 2009, data are derived from passive microwave (SMMR / SSM/I). Image by Walt Meier and Julienne Stroeve, National Snow and Ice Data Center, University of Colorado, Boulder.

    So the graph is two data sets joined together. The first data set, 1953-1978, shows very little in the way of trend. The 1979-current section (which I would trust as being more accurate, given the consistency in how it is measured) shows an immediate drop followed by a downward trend.
    My conclusion from this is that the first half of the graph is probably measuring differently to the second, and may not show the same trend as the satellite data. If we had satellite data from the 1950s and 1960s, I suspect it wouldn’t match what the graph shows… especially during the times when we had submarines surfacing at the North Pole. Thus, that graph does not provide any evidence of a change in sea ice extent anomaly behaviour because the change shown is too close to when the change in data set takes place.

  121. 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.

  122. Espen says: “NeilT I don’t think your argument about reflectivity is valid until the sea ice melts already in June. Now the arctic sun is already very low in the sky, at those angles even open water will reflect most of the weak sunlight.”
    True. The reflectance of open water overlaps that of ice. Zenith angle is the most important factor. Other factors include wind, age and dust content of the ice, clouds, and sea water plankton content.

  123. latitude,
    From the NSDIC data, May shows a statistically significant downward trend (R^2 of .497) of 32,000 per year since 1979.
    June shows an even more statistically significant downward trend (R^2 of .784) of 42,000 per year since 1979.
    November shows a downward trend of 50,000 per year with an R^2 value of .670.
    December shows a downward trend of 43,000 per year with an R^2 value of .776.
    So measuring in the middle of the seasons shows a consistently downward trend in sea ice since 1979.

  124. David Gould says:
    September 6, 2010 at 6:03 pm
    From the NSDIC data
    =====================
    David, ask three different snow and ice measurement thingys, and you will get four different answers.
    Thanks for putting all that together, but I was really just asking about the graphs that Anthony put up, and why people were looking at the extreme high and lows, when it’s obvious those are weather, and not looking at the May and Dec set points, when it’s obvious that if more ice is created, it melts faster and ends up at that same set-point, if less ice is created, it melts slower and ends up at that same set-point and the opposite happens six months later, when if less ice melts it grows back slower to reach the same set-point, and if more ice melts it grows back faster to reach that same set-point.
    (I’m competing for the longest run-on sentence 😉

  125. Is that all we have to talk about? Data? Where is the mechanism folks? So far the discussion is about data with little in the way of information. No matter what the trend is doing, trend alone does not illuminate mechanism. For those of you who say the Sun caused this or that, please tell us how. And I mean in scientific and mathematical terms. For those of you who say that CO2 is whut dun it, please explain. For those of you who say warmer waters is whut dun it, please explain where and how you think these warmer waters came to be in the Arctic. If you say it was weather, explain the weather systems that produced the data. Otherwise this thread is devoid of scientific discussion.

  126. jorgekafkazar says September 6, 2010 at 5:18 pm

    True. The reflectance of open water overlaps that of ice. Zenith angle is the most important factor.

    Do you know of any papers that have specifically looked into this aspect and tied it to area about the pole? I’m interested in what seems to happen around the 6th and 11th of September from the 15% JAXA record. Of course that’s very short and noisy and it’s far to easy to imagine patterns in anything if you stare at it long enough.

  127. Jeff P says:
    September 6, 2010 at 5:12 pm

    2009 Min:5,249,844: Busted 9/2/10

    Correction note for you Jeff P: that should be Sept 3 for going below 2009.
    -Scott

  128. Pamela Gray says:
    September 6, 2010 at 6:48 pm
    Is that all we have to talk about? Data? Where is the mechanism folks? So far the discussion is about data with little in the way of information. No matter what the trend is doing, trend alone does not illuminate mechanism. For those of you who say the Sun caused this or that, please tell us how. And I mean in scientific and mathematical terms. For those of you who say that CO2 is whut dun it, please explain.
    ==============================
    He won’t produce it because he can’t.
    R Gates, sensing that he was completely out of his league…for the thousandth time…and as usual…slipped away like an eel out of the net.
    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  129. David Gould says:
    September 6, 2010 at 6:03 pm
    So measuring in the middle of the seasons shows a consistently downward trend in sea ice since 1979.
    ======================================
    So??
    And when you combine that with the anti-death-spiral of the southern hemisphere ice…you get…..nothing.
    Big ******* deal.
    Moving on.
    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  130. jorgekafkazar says September 6, 2010 at 5:18 pm
    I forgot to mention … other interesting dates are May 6th and Nov 18th.

  131. Graeme W says:
    September 6, 2010 at 5:08 pm
    So the graph is two data sets joined together. The first data set, 1953-1978, shows very little in the way of trend. The 1979-current section (which I would trust as being more accurate, given the consistency in how it is measured) shows an immediate drop followed by a downward trend.
    ===================================
    Excellent sleuthwork, Graeme.
    Two data sets joined together. Cut and paste. Cut and paste.
    Where have we seen this before? “Hockeystick Syndrome”?
    [Though admittedly not as bad on this one.]
    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  132. Latitude, I’m not sure what point you are trying to make. Are you suggesting that it is only the mid-point that matters? So, a maximum of 50 million square kilometers and a minimum of 0 square kilometers is the same as a maximum of 15 million square kilometers and a minimum of 5 million square kilometers?
    Your conclusion is most definitely incorrect. There does tend to be a convergence in spring and fall. This is due to the seasonal change in solar radiation as well as geography (the ice growth/melt moving out of and into the Arctic Ocean proper).
    There are statistically significant declines of Arctic sea ice extent in all months and the annual average.
    Walt Meier
    NSIDC

  133. Mechanism: CO2 warms and warmer conditions melt more ice than cooler conditions.
    Seems pretty simple to me.
    And before you say, ‘There’s been no warming in the Arctic,’ have a look at the UAH data here:
    http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt
    The warming trend in the Arctic is 3 to 4 times the warming for the globe, with the Arctic ocean – where the ice is – warming even faster than that.

  134. savethesharks,
    I was responding to a particular idea regarding the middle of the seasons.
    The two poles are two very different regions. One is water surrounded (with gaps) by land; the other is land surrounded by water. It should not be surprising that there are differences in their responses to changes in the global climate. However, whether these differences are consistent with what was expected I am not certain – it is something that I will look into.

  135. latitude,
    Using the JAXA data from the graph posted, the trend is downwards for December by 62,000 a year, with an R^2 value of .496. Too few data points to get to statistical significance, but not really that different from the NSIDC data.
    For May, this result supports your hypothesis, with a positive slope of 25,000 per year. This is not statistically significant, however, with an R^2 value of .078.

  136. savethesharks says:
    September 6, 2010 at 7:21 pm
    2010 Global Sea Ice Area is within 1M km^2 of where it was in 1979 on the Cyrosphere Today chart, when one considers where global sea ice spends most of it’s time between the extremes of ranges.
    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg
    If you look closely at the upper plot in the graph, you’ll notice the ‘landings’ where sea ice spends most of it’s global area time.
    From 1979 to 1985, it spent most of it’s area time between 20 and 21 M km^2.
    After that, it dropped to 19-20 M km^2. It has wavered up & down ever since.
    Last year, it was at 19-20 M km^2. This year, it has already spent considerable time at that level.
    The phenomenon of record melts seems to be an exaggerated “V” on these area landings.
    Truth be told, global sea ice area is all over the place, suggesting 31 years worth of data is woefully short.
    Now for those extremes:
    Global Sea Ice Area falls to it’s extreme low point in January. It then rises quickly to it’s first pea, the height of which is random. It then falls, spending time at the elevated landing area, finally shooting up to it’s extreme max for the year (another crapshoot) before returning to next January’s low.
    Spend some time with the Global Sea Ice Area, it’s the only Global Sea Ice Area we got (plagiaried from Joe Cool Meteorologist), even if it is a total crapshoot.

  137. David Gould says:
    September 6, 2010 at 7:36 pm
    Mechanism: CO2 warms and warmer conditions melt more ice than cooler conditions.
    ==================================
    Huh? You have not identified a mechanism, at all.
    And CO2 is a trace gas in the atmosphere.
    So you have a double wall to break through.
    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  138. Walt Meier says:
    September 6, 2010 at 7:35 pm
    There are statistically significant declines of Arctic sea ice extent in all months and the annual average.
    Walt Meier
    NSIDC
    ===========================
    OK. Following your reasoning, how do you reconcile with the SH which has been increasing over those same 30 years?
    Are those SH increases….”statistically significant” too?
    And if that is the case…..then don’t the two signals basically cancel themselves out??
    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  139. David Gould says:
    September 6, 2010 at 7:36 pm
    I take it that those UAH figures are anomalies.
    What values of Degrees C or F do I add to those anomalies to get the observed values?

  140. savethesharks,
    The mechanism is the poorly named greenhouse effect. I would have thought that if you have been following the global warming issue for any length of time you would have been aware of this mechanism, whether or not you accept its existence or not.

  141. I have not been able to find the absolute temperatures that are the monthly means used in the UAH dataset. It is in degrees C, though.

  142. David Gould says:
    September 6, 2010 at 8:46 pm
    The mechanism is the poorly named greenhouse effect. I would have thought that if you have been following the global warming issue for any length of time you would have been aware of this mechanism, whether or not you accept its existence or not.
    =================================
    Ah….poorly named it is.
    Since most of the greenhouse panels are missing from the greenhouse….
    Again….it becomes difficult to describe a “mechanism” when there is no infrastructure to support the mechanism in the first place.
    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  143. stevengoddard says:
    September 6, 2010 at 9:01 pm
    =====================
    Bravo.
    Damn sure miss your posts on here.
    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  144. Brad said:
    September 6, 2010 at 7:01 am
    NeilT-
    Huh? Arctic ice conditions alone will not kill you, relax. Also, remember there is an Antarctic where we are at or near record highs for ice. meaning the global sea ice extent has varied little since 1979. Why don’t you read that in the papers?
    ____________________________________________________
    Because it is not true, looking at extent and area it seems to be close to the mean in the Antarctic curently
    http://www.iup.physik.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsr/ice_ext_s.png
    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.recent.antarctic.png
    Andy

  145. David Gould says:
    September 6, 2010 at 9:06 pm
    I would venture it’s critical that those observed temps, by satellite, should be out in the open, there being no such instrument as an anomalymometer.
    But, as long as the raw data is out-of-sight, it’s basically out-of-mind for serious consideration.
    Have you enquired about the raw data?

  146. savethesharks said:
    September 6, 2010 at 8:31 pm
    ===========================
    OK. Following your reasoning, how do you reconcile with the SH which has been increasing over those same 30 years?
    Are those SH increases….”statistically significant” too?
    And if that is the case…..then don’t the two signals basically cancel themselves out??
    Chris
    ______________________________________________________
    No, because as a percentage of the total amount of ice in those regions the loss in the Arctic is a lot more than the gain in the Antarctic.
    Andy

  147. Mr. Watts: Obviously you did not read the Sea Ice Outlooks.
    My 2.5 — the Low — was because I believe this to be a “freak” year.
    “None of the contributors indicates a return to the” [‘average] ??
    “the 60-year PDO says we will be getting twice the number of La Nina as El Nino — plus: stronger — for the next 27 more years. But … another 2010 would finish the job. Easily. HALF a 2010”. — Wilson, August Update.
    IF we survive the first few upcoming El Ninos, the Cold half of the 60-year Cycle will build us up to Above average – – of course, by 2060, the “up” half puts us back to risking a CATASTROPHIC MELT-OFF every year.
    As long as we listen to JUST 2 sides & IGNORE THE SCIENCE,. We will be vulnerable to a Combination of:
    1) Greens get $ to stop the Warming. Naturally they do not want to end the Joyride. So:
    2) They try to make it WORSE. —
    3) The “Opposition” put out this Ignoramus “we cannot possibly affect Mother Nature”. So they DO NOT STOP IT.
    — Now Industrial Pollution is fundamentally RANDOM. But:
    >> KILL the “Great Global Cooler” = Sulfur, and
    >> enhance BIG warmers like SOOT – – NOW You can Change things BIG TIME.
    SOOT comes from “forgiving” things because they “Cap” the “little warmer” — CO2: Sure, make the formerly bright reflective Ice absorb SUN & melt ! – – by: 1) sending Industry to China (where there are no Scrubbers at all), 2) “forgive” Diesels their Soot — did you see the way the Ice Melted back from Europe this Year ! – – 3). Italy, especially, is trying to reduce dependance on Nukes with — you guessed it: COAL.
    .. A lack of Sulfur — and for years FISHING has reduced Natural Sulfur by tilting the BALANCE against bony fish (bones decay & release sulfur Dimethyls) …and Tilting Nature, is easy: just watch the Deer Plague — because we killed the Wolves
    – – Low Sulfur =.a brighter SUN (not to mention reducing Crop Yields).
    – – Soot makes formerly bright white reflective things like Snow & Ice into polka-dots.
    The fact is, had this year been LESS strong an El Nino, the CLOUDS would have dissipated sooner, & revived the Ice / reflectance FEEDBACK effect (once Ice melts — Sea replaces it, & absorbs about 4 times the Sun (because it is DARK), heats, & the hot water melts more Ice, etc.).
    And we might be dead:
    … If 2010 had been a regular, not a “Modoki” which fades slower (putting the “transition” in July, not May).
    … Or, even so, if the “Ice that Always stays attatched to Greenland” hadn’t spread out (in a big Crescent that shielded the rest & when a hole burned through, the collapse of the thin remnant inside the ring, resulted in that Odd Shape you see).
    And: >>> Next Time, it won’t be there.
    But, as this is the 30 years of — well, we normally just say “Cooling” – – but actually it is just that there are twice the Cold (Nina) years as HOT (El Nino) instead of the reverse. So until ice builds up, there is always the danger of a “freak” like 2007.
    [PS most of the changes seem to be “freak”s like 2007 — COLD Freaks, need EL Ninos too — a NINO PLUS A VOLCANO = MOISTURE from the El Nino, results in a Mega-Freeze].
    But as long as the Ice is Low, I will fear – – oh, NOT the “big Wave” of that Disaster Movie. No. They CENSORED the 300 mph wind that follows, out of the Movie. Remember: the Wave was the Storm Surge in Front of the Giga-Cane ? NO buildings survive the Wind, ANYWHERE in the USA, & that means 99% of this Country will STARVE TO DEATH. There’d have been NO RESCUE, no Love Story – – Cannibalism instead.
    … I kind of preferred not having to watch the Cannibalism.
    Now the Last time, I said a 1-in-4 to 1-in-8 chance. Hard to geet excited about something that Probably won’t happen.
    Next Time — & we’ll likely have 2 Nina years before another Nino – – Because we now know Rules the Clouds follow:
    It’ll be 1-in-2.
    You prepared to risk your kids at those Odds ?
    Yet, again, even a Nino has to be just right. 1-in-2 is ONLY – – IF – – I call the Alarm – – which is ? 1 in 5 or less.
    But we cannot keep Playing Russian Roulette again and again, like Lousiana did, cancelling Hurricane alerts because they averaged 1-in-4.
    Sooner or later: BLOOWIE !
    (ps: i have run numbers on other Warming Dangers & none is a Thousandth the threat this is. Also, none other has a cost-to-stop-it of just $20 million ).

  148. savethesharks,
    CO2 is at around 400 ppm at present.
    If – for instance – the level of arsenic in your body was at 400 ppm, you would be, well, in a lot of trouble to say the least.
    Trace elements can have very large effects, so by itself the argument that CO2 is a trace gas is irrelevant.

  149. Michael Schaefer says:
    September 6, 2010 at 3:54 am
    And in that, the arctic ice extend seems to be quite well on it’s way back to normal
    I’d say it always was normal. What happened in 2007 I am certain has happened before.

  150. mrjohn says:
    September 6, 2010 at 5:28 am
    Hold on, wasn’t the North Pole supposed to be ice free this summer ?
    Funny how we are being told it’s the hottest weather ever since time began but the North Pole isn’t cooperating.

    Neither is the South Pole 🙂

  151. NeilT says:
    September 6, 2010 at 1:43 pm
    Those of you who are insulted at being called unfeeling, uncaring people who don’t care about the misery and deaths of millions
    Do you care about the people that starve to death from food shortages caused by biofuels?

  152. Charles Wilson says:
    September 6, 2010 at 10:31 pm
    Mr. Watts: Obviously you did not read the Sea Ice Outlooks.
    My 2.5 — the Low — was because I believe this to be a “freak” year.
    .
    .
    .
    (ps: i have run numbers on other Warming Dangers & none is a Thousandth the threat this is. Also, none other has a cost-to-stop-it of just $20 million ).
    ________________________________________________________
    Just a suggestion, as I’m sure you do have important points to make.
    Your posts have the appearance of random noise, formatting-wise.
    It would benefit you (but mostly us) a great deal if you at lease tried to clean up your post a bit.
    Also, your Arctic sea ice estimates of 1E6 km^2 and most recently 2.5E6 km^2 for 2010 are way out of line with the modern historical record, not by a factor of O(0.1) but between O(1) and O(10), 1E6 km^2 is clearly off by a factor of 4-5 (300% to 400%), 2.5E6 km^2 (made at the end of August of this year mind you) is off by a factor of 2 (100%).
    Even the 2007 record low, is only O(0.1) different with respect to all other recent recorded lows (2002-2010 JAXA, for example).

  153. David Gould says:
    September 6, 2010 at 6:03 pm
    So measuring in the middle of the seasons shows a consistently downward trend in sea ice since 1979.,/i>
    A warming trend began in 1976. Satellite measurements started at 1972 but for some reason are only used since 1979. There was a warming trend in most of the years you used in your comment, 1979 until around now. But now the earth is cooling. Let’s talk in 2030 about the growing trend in Arctic ice that began in 2007 and is still lasting until then.

  154. Anu: Actually, satellite measurements began in 1972:
    http://iup.physik.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsr/ice_ext_n.png
    Nothing in the 1972 to 1979 data showed an “increasing trend in Arctic sea ice” for that “crucial” pre-1979 period. Perhaps you can find some scientific papers that show differently.

    Your graph proves nothing and is difficult to compare with other graphs since it uses a different endpoint (2008) than NANSEN (2006) or NSIDC (2000). It shows a lower summer minimum than both those, though. Do you have any data that actually supports your claim? (And anyway, we’re talking about only 7 years)

  155. Jeff P says:
    September 6, 2010 at 5:12 pm
    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.
    _____________________________________________________________
    SG didn’t post this latest sea ice article, Anthony did.
    But I liked your list, so here’s an updated version after gazing at my JAXA crystal ball;
    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 Minimum: 5,500,000: Busted 8/26/10
    2005 Min: 5,315,156: Busted 9/2/10
    2009 Min:5,249,844: Busted 9/3/10
    Goddard Mulligan: 5,100,000: Busted 9/6/10 (JAXA provisional, NSIDC and Bremen are already lower)
    NOAA Mulligan: 5,000,000: Busted 9/13/10 (p ~ 1)
    100K Delta Min: 4,900,000: Busted 9/17/10 (p ~ 0.5)
    200K Delta Min: 4,800,000: Busted 9/21/10 (p ~ 0.15)
    2008 Min: 4,707,813: Busted 9/26/2010 (p ~ 0)
    NOTE: Last four estimates are the most conservative dates possible given the current JAXA database (2003-2010 inclusive) and analysis thereof, these dates will change or disappear entirely based entirely on future weather conditions.

  156. Why has the previously prolific sdteve goddard chosen to
    Take a step away now?
    Right at the crescendo lf the subject he has been at the centre
    Of for months he suddenly disappears?
    Am I alone in thinking its odd?

  157. 2008 was a cold year and then 2010 is a warm year with 2009 in between. The real cooling starts now. This La Nina is shaping up to be a big one. Joe Bastardi was spot on with his forecast on the ice extent, i.e. ice recovery one step back, two steps forward, and his prediction that there would be significant cooling, which he made before the La Nina started, looks like it will be spot on as well. As Joe predicts, in two years the warmists will have great difficulty justifying their position.

  158. jason says:
    September 7, 2010 at 1:09 am
    “Why has the previously prolific Steve Goddard chosen to
    Take a step away now?
    Right at the crescendo lf the subject he has been at the centre of for months, he suddenly disappears?
    Am I alone in thinking its odd?”
    No Jason, you’re not alone.

  159. An uptick today in the DMI 30% extent. Generally it looks like the DMI 30% extent bottoms out earlier than the 15% extent measurements. It is still possible that the DMI 30% extent wont go below the 2009 minimum.
    EFS_Junior says:
    September 7, 2010 at 12:38 am
    Dont hold your breath.

  160. Andyw:
    Looks like from the 1950′s onwards.

    I wonder what the error margin for those pre-satellite measurements is…

  161. Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
    “Do you care about the people that starve to death from food shortages caused by biofuels?”
    I don’t agree with Biofuels at all. It is fiddling whilst Rome burns. In order to resolve large issues you have to fixe the core underlying problems.
    Biofuels are targetting the issues not the problem.

  162. Regarding surfacing submarines: I wonder if observant people have taken into account the thermal energy released by their engines/reactors?
    They will have to be operational and powered-on during the surfacing, and the nuclear reactors in particular will always remain active (or at least to me that would seem very likely). The heat will have to be dissipated somewhere outside the boat — there would be a mighty big barbeque inside the boat were it not the case! Adding a few megajoules of thermal energy into a relatively small pool of water would make it melt spectacularly, as seen in the pics.

  163. AndyW says:
    September 7, 2010 at 2:40 am
    And how were those disparate datasets spliced together?
    What adjustments were made?
    Can those results be duplicated?
    Beware spliced data sets.

  164. @Graeme
    Re: It clearly shows an almost straightline downward trend since 1969, which would imply that CO2 is not the major factor in that trend (there’s no real change in the rate, despite increasing levels of CO2).
    Actually, if you add trend lines for five year periods or even each decade, thereby factoring out most of the noise, it would seem that a fundamental shift occurred mid 70s – I don’t know – somewhere between ’73 and ’77.
    Sound familiar?

  165. Arctic Sea Ice Area:
    http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/seaice.area.ANT_arctic.jpg
    2010 max sea ice in the Arctic was only .5 M km^2 below the level attained in 1981.
    Arctic min sea ice has dropped 2 M km^2, while the Antarctic has gone exactly nowhere.
    Arctic max sea ice has dropped 1 M km ^2 since 1979, while the Antarctic has risen 1M km^2.
    The data is all over the place, like drippy cheeseburger condiments.
    But, 31 years ago, in 1979 (oh what a convenient starting/ending date THAT is), all the rage was the Ozone Hole in the Antarctic with UV burning all life to a cinder, and the Coming Ice Age indelible proof of cyrogenic doom in the Arctic descending upon civilization.
    Now, this is what I call Cyclic Bi-Polar disorder.
    Message to those unable to sleep at night over climactic disaster disorders that have not materialized:
    Don’t throw your life away over flimsy marginal data. Suicide is not the answer.
    For the rest of us, there is adaptation and a couple of deep breaths.

  166. AndyW says:
    September 6, 2010 at 10:18 pm
    No, because as a percentage of the total amount of ice in those regions the loss in the Arctic is a lot more than the gain in the Antarctic.
    ==========================================
    For measurements that have only been taken for 31 years, and using accounts that go back to the 1800s of a clear NW Passage, submarines popping through to the North Pole in the 50’s [they definitely can’t do that now]….your definition of “loss” is at best, a guess.
    Natural variability, bud.
    Natural variability.
    http://www.john-daly.com/polar/arctic.htm
    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  167. Walt Meier says:
    September 6, 2010 at 7:35 pm
    Latitude, I’m not sure what point you are trying to make.
    =============================================
    Looking at the graphs that Anthony posted, there can be huge differences in Mar and Sept, that still come back together in May and Dec.
    That’s all.

  168. phlogiston says:
    September 7, 2010 at 3:06 am
    An uptick today in the DMI 30% extent. Generally it looks like the DMI 30% extent bottoms out earlier than the 15% extent measurements. It is still possible that the DMI 30% extent wont go below the 2009 minimum.
    EFS_Junior says:
    September 7, 2010 at 12:38 am
    Dont hold your breath.
    _____________________________________________________________
    Kind of like robbing Peter to pay Paul.
    Considering that an ensemble of Bremen, NSIDC, and JAXA (all three using the 15% concentration threshold) over the past dozen days (or so) show a nearly linear trend of -32K/Day (R^2 = 0.89) there is absolutely no reason necessary for holding one’s breath.
    If and when all three of the above indicies drop below 10K-30K/Day concurrently for a few sequential days, then and only then will we be able to see the light at the end of the Arctic sea ice extent minimum.

  169. It seems to me that all us sceptics are just going to have to sit back and eat some crow for a year (at least) on the Arctic Sea ice extent. There’s no denying at this point that 2010 will fisinsih below 2009, and given current trends (always subject to change) probably below 2008. The gloaters are pouring forth their sarcasm, and so it goes in these debates.
    I still have a couple of questions though. First is why a 30 year trend of ice loss on one half of the globe is considered gospel, and never subject to reversal. If there’s one thing all of us should recognize, climate seems to rarely if ever continue trends indefinitely. Many non anthropogenic factors could act to reverse this trend, and soon. We have to follow the trend for a lot longer than 30 years, which seems to me at least an impossibly tiny amount of time in the context of something as hopelessly complex as earth’s climate.
    Secondly, I still would like to know what our AGW believer colleagues propose to do about the trend (if it is primarily anthropogenic). When you answer, beware the law of unintended consequences, my friends.

  170. David Gould says:
    September 6, 2010 at 7:54 pm
    latitude,
    For May, this result supports your hypothesis,
    =====================================
    David, thanks again, but don’t elevate this to a hypothesis, it’s just an observation of the graphs that Anthony posted.
    All I was saying is that you can have trends on the extremes that don’t show up in the middle.
    You can have a lot less ice all year, that still comes back to what looks to be statistically insignificant in May and Dec,
    and have a lot more ice all year, that still comes back to what looks to be statistically insignificant in May and Dec.
    Almost the same levels, at exactly the same time each year..

  171. rbateman says:
    September 7, 2010 at 4:29 am
    AndyW says:
    September 7, 2010 at 2:40 am
    And how were those disparate datasets spliced together?
    What adjustments were made?
    Can those results be duplicated?
    Beware spliced data sets.
    *****************************************
    Espen says:
    September 7, 2010 at 3:45 am
    Andyw:
    Looks like from the 1950′s onwards.
    I wonder what the error margin for those pre-satellite measurements is…
    ___________________________________________________________
    Well whatever the error before the satellite age it seems to be fairly consistent up to the 1950’s and then drops. Also the splicing has nothing to do with it, it happens a lot later.
    The drop from the 1950’s seems to be big enough to take into account worse accuracy in those days, it is not a small fraction change or small trend.
    Andy

  172. Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
    September 6, 2010 at 11:31 pm
    Michael Schaefer says:
    September 6, 2010 at 3:54 am
    And in that, the arctic ice extend seems to be quite well on it’s way back to normal
    I’d say it always was normal. What happened in 2007 I am certain has happened before.

    Certain based on what? What do you mean by “well on its way back to normal”? What is normal; the 2008 minimum, the 2009 minimum, the expected 2010 minimum, the 1979-2000 average? The latter? If so, it has a long way to go, about 2 million sq km or so. That’s a lot of ice cubes.

  173. Steve’s departure while not surprising is disappointing. He did what few skeptics are willing to do, put out a testable theory (sea ice is recovering), make a prediction based on the theory (arctic sea ice extent minimum of 5.5 million k^2) and let the chips fall where they may.
    This is the core process of building scientific knowledge. Undertaken by brave individuals who are willing to be wrong in the search for knowledge and, if wrong, able to then get up and try again.
    So while Steve’s theory was not supported by the data his efforts should not be viewed as wasted. His work has been a refreshing departure from skeptics who mock and ridicule scientists from the sidelines while never putting a stick in the sand themselves for fear of being judged they way they judge others.

  174. Has anyone else made the connection between Daylight Saving Time and Global Warming? There seems to be more manmade global warming since we went to DST. Now THAT would be worth looking into wouldn’t it? Bet someone could get a grant for at least $1M per year for several years on that one. Psst.. DON’T tell Mann!

  175. rbateman says:
    September 6, 2010 at 8:15 pm
    savethesharks says:
    September 6, 2010 at 7:21 pm
    2010 Global Sea Ice Area is within 1M km^2 of where it was in 1979 on the Cyrosphere Today chart, when one considers where global sea ice spends most of it’s time between the extremes of ranges.

    Actually it isn’t (what a surprise).
    On average this year so far has been about 1.5 Mm^2 below 1979 and is currently over 2Mm^2 below the 1979 value for this date.
    Even if all the Arctic sea ice was gone Mr bateman would doubtless be telling us that global sea ice area was only 5Mm^2 below the 1979 value!

  176. rbateman says:
    September 7, 2010 at 5:10 am
    But, 31 years ago, in 1979 (oh what a convenient starting/ending date THAT is), all the rage was the Ozone Hole in the Antarctic with UV burning all life to a cinder, and the Coming Ice Age indelible proof of cyrogenic doom in the Arctic descending upon civilization.

    Really, I distinctly recall that Farman et al. discovered the Ozone Hole in 1985!

  177. ” AndyW says:
    September 6, 2010 at 10:18 pm
    No, because as a percentage of the total amount of ice in those regions the loss in the Arctic is a lot more than the gain in the Antarctic. ”
    We are only talking about sea ice here; the amounts are remarkedly similar.

  178. ” jason says:
    September 7, 2010 at 1:09 am
    sdteve goddard chosen to Take a step away now?
    Right at the crescendo lf the subject he has been at the centre
    Of for months he suddenly disappears?
    Am I alone in thinking its odd?”
    Excellent timing by Goddard; this might be the moment when a lot of ice followers deceide to see what his new blog is all about:
    http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/

  179. Phil Nizialek,
    “Secondly, I still would like to know what our AGW believer colleagues propose to do about the trend (if it is primarily anthropogenic). When you answer, beware the law of unintended consequences, my friends.”
    I suggest you read Al Gore’s “Our Choice” and James Hansen’s “Storms of my Grandchildren” and perhaps a few other books or, if you prefer, blogs if you really want to know what people who consider AGW a serious problem think ought to be done. If you’re too lazy to do some reading of easily available written materials in order to satisfy your desire, I fail to see how any of us here creating yet more detailed written material here in response to your question is going to help you.

  180. savethesharks says:
    September 7, 2010 at 6:05 am
    AndyW says:
    September 6, 2010 at 10:18 pm
    No, because as a percentage of the total amount of ice in those regions the loss in the Arctic is a lot more than the gain in the Antarctic.
    ==========================================
    For measurements that have only been taken for 31 years, and using accounts that go back to the 1800s of a clear NW Passage,

    Really, care to give us some citations of the ‘clear NW Passage’?
    submarines popping through to the North Pole in the 50′s [they definitely can’t do that now]
    They certainly can, the ice there is very thin and the ice surrounding the Pole looks like Swiss cheese on Modis, there’s open water all over the place!
    ….your definition of “loss” is at best, a guess.
    Far from a guess, here’s map of the Arctic ( Ice minimum in 1939) for your education.
    http://www.science20.com/files/images/arctic_1939_0.jpg
    (courtesy of Patrick Lockerby)

  181. In reverse chronological order, here are my weekly (p = 0.5 or 50% or even money chance of occurence) Monday estimates (JAXA 2003-2010 inclusive) for Arctic sea ice extent (date, extent (km^2), standard deviation (km^2));
    9/6/2010,4.869E06,0.054E6
    8/30/2010,4.916E6,0.091E6
    8/23/2010,4.898E6,0.152E6
    8/16/2010,4.835E6.0.215E6
    8/9/2010,4.812E6,0.267E6
    8/2/2010,4.681E6,0.332E6
    7/26/2010,4.587E6.0.360E6
    7/19/2010,4.493E6,0.418E6
    7/12/2010,4.271E5,0.476E6
    7/5/2010,3.973E6,0.534E6
    6/21/2010,3.886E6,0.646E6
    6/28/2010,4.048E6,0.711E6
    6/14/2010,4.057E6,0.716E6 (Time zero ~ midpoint of melt season or ~ three months before expected minimum)
    Quite consistent over the past month or so, but no guarantee of the final minimum, by any means.
    Date of minima is the same for all estimates 9/19/2010.
    The following sequence is for p = 0.5 or 50% or even money chance of occurence.
    -28,233 (9/7)
    -26,948
    -26,079
    -25,332
    -23,629
    -21,179
    -18,584
    -15,953
    -13,632
    -10,977
    -8,045
    -4,650
    -1,436 (9/19)
    Final extent = 4,868,605 km^2
    Updating (NSIDC for the 6th) the ensemble slope of Bremen (8/26-9/7), JAXA (8/25-9/6), and NSIDC (8/25-9/6), the ensemble slope is -0.33K/Day (R^2 = 0.89).
    For each individual dataset;
    Bremen slope is -23K/Day (R^2 = 0.92)
    JAXA slope is -30K/Day (R^2 = 0.92)
    NSIDC slope is -45K/Day (R^2 = 0.99).
    The following sequence is of very low probability (< 1% at this time) but is consistent with the current ensemble slope;
    -31,884 (9/7)
    -31,461
    -31,122
    -30,027
    -28,942
    -28,368
    -28,217
    -28,352
    -27,997
    -26,611
    -24,011
    -21,372
    -18,188
    -14,019
    -9,086
    -4,574
    -1,237 (9/23)
    Final extent = 4,707,812 km^2

  182. “Yes the sea ice will return every winter even after there is none in summer. However the impact of a summer absorbing sunlight instead of reflecting it, on the warming of this planet, will return many millions of us to dust much, much sooner than would normally be the case.”
    I think you missed the part where 2007 was the minimum (and was still far from ice-free) and 2008, 2009, and 2010 are all well above the minimum experienced in 2007.
    Show us some EVIDENCE that there will be ice-free summers. Until then, you are just fear-mongering, which has no place in science, sorry.

  183. R. Gates,
    You believe that within the lifetimes of most people posting here, we will see an ice-free arctic! Good! You made the right choice when you used the word “believe”. AGW religion requires faith and belief. Keep the faith man! Keep the faith!

  184. Boy, Gates, Anu, Neil, etc. sure seemed to have raised the ire of the regular readership, who apparently want an echo chamber site. The tone seems even worse than the the SG Arctic News postings.

  185. NeilT says:
    September 7, 2010 at 4:03 am
    In order to resolve large issues you have to fixe the core underlying problems.
    Exactly. And the core underlying problems are rooted in government-funded Post-Normal “Science”, one result of which was the biofuels and ethanol scam.
    Biofuels are targetting the issues not the problem.
    What they are targeting is peoples pocketbooks.

  186. AJB says:
    September 7, 2010 at 8:42 am
    That DST report to Congress was the highlight of the Energy Bill of that year. That’s all anyone could come up with, empty heads being in overwhelming preponderance.
    I did my own analysis: http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/TempGr/Dst2009_2010.GIF
    DST giveth, PST taketh away in a one-day wonder. Commuters have sun in their eyes morning/evening twice a year. Traffic accidents go up as biorhythms are thrown for a loop the next 2 weeks. A most costly and stupid idea carried about for decades like a rag doll, but what do you expect from emptyheads?

  187. PeterB in Indianapolis says:
    September 7, 2010 at 9:02 am
    Show us some EVIDENCE that there will be ice-free summers. Until then, you are just fear-mongering, which has no place in science, sorry.

    I see no reason to think that Maslowski’s analysis is wrong, in fact this year’s melt supports it, so summer 2013 looks rather interesting.

  188. To Charles Wilson:
    I agree with another poster’s suggestion that you work on your formatting, and have said so before (and I’m trying to be polite in suggesting this, not sarcastic.) Your posts are just hard to read. In addition, you tend toward burying your main point in tons of extraneous commentary, thereby risking that we either miss it entirely or miss the importance you ascribe to it.
    So, having dug through your last post looking for what I perceive to be your main point: What is the mechanism that would create the 300 mph wind that would have wiped us all out had the arctic ice completely melted this year?
    Rod

  189. rbateman says:
    September 7, 2010 at 9:53 am
    Hi Robert. Here in the UK we have the same arguments bandied about every decade or so and numerous stats are produced one way or t’other. In the end I doubt it makes much difference, except perhaps for road traffic accidents around the switchover as you say. What struck me about this report is that the words ‘climate change’ and ‘global warming’ don’t appear once, which is at least encouraging even if it is a rag doll 🙂

  190. rbateman says:
    September 6, 2010 at 2:55 pm
    There is no need to the drag the world’s oceans into the Arctic when the Air Temp above 80N is proof aplenty.
    It fell, and it fell during the ‘melt season’.
    So much for an overheated atmosphere due to Global Warming.
    Besides, the La Nina forming in the Pacific is mighty strong and quite cool, having shoved and crammed the remaining warm water up North, where winter will gladly pounce all over it.
    But then, we are talking ocean anomalies, not absolute empirical data.
    Empirical Rules.
    80N DMI is empirical data.

    Apparently you don’t realize DMI 80° N is from a model, and a not very good one:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/23/sea-ice-news-10/#comment-416008
    Julienne says:
    June 23, 2010 at 11:26 pm
    I know folks here keep pointing to the DMI web site to say that temperatures north of 80N are not as warm as climatology, but note the DMI site uses a model as well, and they are using different models to compute the entire time-series (and hence the climatology) which may not be correct. There have been papers that have shown a bias in the ERA40 air temperatures past 2002. Really, if you want to do this assessment of Arctic temperatures you should use a consistent reanalysis data set. If you want to stick with ERA40 then the ERA40 Interim should be used instead since they fixed the problems with the ERA40 data set that the DMI site is using.

    Also look at the DMI site itself:

    http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
    Calculation of the Arctic Mean Temperature
    The daily mean temperature of the Arctic area north of the 80th northern parallel is estimated from the average of the 00z and 12z analysis for all model grid points inside that area. The ERA40 reanalysis data set from ECMWF, has been applied to calculate daily mean temperatures for the period from 1958 to 2002, from 2002 to 2006 data from the global NWP model T511 is used and from 2006 to present the T799 model data are used.

    There’s plenty of open water above 80° N:
    http://img191.imageshack.us/img191/1166/arctic20100907waterabov.png
    But most of the summer melt is outside the 80° N circle.
    I don’t know what you think some Danish plot of model data “proves”…

  191. Gary Pearse says:
    September 6, 2010 at 2:43 pm
    My points were a Feb 2010 prediction of 57skm is not so bad given how far off some were in August 2010

    Yes, I think Anthony Watts will be proven more accurate than Charles Wilson, when this summer melt season ends.
    Well played.
    hey in this business these predictions were better than those who are paid to make such predictions.
    Those SEARCH predictions are just a friendly competition between scientists (and sometimes undergrads and grad students) – it is not considered their “day job”. It’s like pro baseball managers giving their opinion on who will win the World Series – they are definitely knowledgeable about the teams, but they are not “paid” to predict the Winner.
    Re your descending ice extent at steeper than linear trends, tomorrow or the next day the line will bend up again – this is September. A lot of the trouble with the thinking on both sides of the debate (but more on the AGW side) is this simplistic notion of linear trends in a cyclic world.
    Did you look at the plot ?
    http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/pred2010.jpg
    The data points are for September minimum sea ice extent – for 31, and soon to be 32, years. The decline is not linear, it is accelerating. The final September value might be slightly higher than that red dot in the plot – causing a slight refit of the quadratic, but the decline is still accelerating compared to the 80’s, 90’s and 00’s.
    Watch the curve level off and curve up again as it even did in 2007 around this time.
    You’re thinking of a different curve:
    http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent_L.png

  192. rbateman says:
    September 6, 2010 at 3:02 pm
    Anu says:
    September 6, 2010 at 2:06 pm
    Now, the Death Spiral is still on – 2010 sea ice is at 5,136,094 km2 and still falling.
    So what if the 2010 Arctic sea ice is at 5,136,094 km2 ? The Arctic is not going to be ice-free this year.

    Now it’s at 5,093,281 km2.
    Agreed, it won’t be ice free this year.
    The Death Spiral was a transitory trend backed by fire & brimstone proclamations that didn’t happen, and it was never Global.
    No, the Arctic Death Spiral is still occurring (and it is for the Arctic, as the name suggests). Yes, it did not happen yet, thanks for noticing:
    http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/pred2010.jpg
    When the Cryosat-2 data comes in, we will see just how accurate the PIOMAS model of Arctic ice thickness is this summer:
    http://psc.apl.washington.edu/ArcticSeaiceVolume/images/BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrent.png
    Maybe we’ll have to 2025, not 2018. Yay.
    This isn’t a Hollywood Sci-Fi flick where the script is a foregone conclusion.
    If it was a Hollywood movie, we would all be saved by construction worker, divorced father, and ex-navy seal Jag Laugerman:
    http://www.scorchermovie.com/
    You’re right, that’s not gonna happen.

  193. Phil Nizialek says:
    September 7, 2010 at 6:18 am
    It seems to me that all us sceptics are just going to have to sit back and eat some crow for a year (at least) on the Arctic Sea ice extent. There’s no denying at this point that 2010 will fisinsih below 2009, and given current trends (always subject to change) probably below 2008. The gloaters are pouring forth their sarcasm, and so it goes in these debates.
    I still have a couple of questions though. First is why a 30 year trend of ice loss on one half of the globe is considered gospel, and never subject to reversal. If there’s one thing all of us should recognize, climate seems to rarely if ever continue trends indefinitely. Many non anthropogenic factors could act to reverse this trend, and soon. We have to follow the trend for a lot longer than 30 years, which seems to me at least an impossibly tiny amount of time in the context of something as hopelessly complex as earth’s climate.
    Secondly, I still would like to know what our AGW believer colleagues propose to do about the trend (if it is primarily anthropogenic). When you answer, beware the law of unintended consequences, my friends.
    ___________
    First, though I am a “warmist” in the sense that I believe it is more likely than not that AGW is happening, I have no intention of making any AGW skeptic eat any crow…unless of course, they want to launch ad hominem attacks my way, then I may change my mind.
    My interest is, and always has been, one of looking for the truth. This is the main reason that I maintain a 75/25 warmist/skeptic split in my mind when it comes to AGW. Yes, I beleive it is likely happening, and if I had to place a bet, I would put my money on the line that it is happen, and furthermore, that we can see it most readily in the changes we are seeing in the Arctic. However, I am always on the look out for other alternative possibilities and influences, and certainly don’t completely discount the notion that a longer term cycle in the PDO, AMO, solar cycle, etc. could also be at work in adding to or even completely causing much of what is taken as AGW…but my belief right now is that these other influences are less likely than AGW.
    What to do about the loss of Arctic Sea ice? (if indeed it is from AGW). I’ve not gone there yet. Depsite the ad hominems on me, lumping me into the “catastrophic” category of AGW believers, I’m not there yet, I’ve never taken the next step and said what the consequences will be from an ice free summer Arctic, or what we ought to do about it. Some species may benefit and some will likely not be so fortunate. One thing I a definitely opposed to at this point is any sort of geoengineering to try to “fix” the issue. Just from a purely scientific perspective, if humans are causing the climate to change, then geoengineering efforts will likely only make the matter worse, as we would be introducing one more factor into the mix in a system on the edge of chaos that would already be out of balance. If humans are causing AGW and climate change, then probably the best solution is to create societies in which we all consume much less and consumption is not the basis of our economies. Of course, we can all practice this on our own, as I do, and I know others here (including Anthony) already do as well to one degree or another.

  194. David Gould says:
    September 6, 2010 at 10:37 pm
    savethesharks,
    CO2 is at around 400 ppm at present.
    If – for instance – the level of arsenic in your body was at 400 ppm, you would be, well, in a lot of trouble to say the least.
    Trace elements can have very large effects, so by itself the argument that CO2 is a trace gas is irrelevant.

    That is a horrible analogy. Back when CO2 concentrations were at say 280ppm before the industrial revolution it was not an issue. The same could not be said for having 280ppm of arsenic in your body. Additionally, adding CO2 to the atmosphere has a declining increase in “greenhouse effect” as there is exponentially less radiation to be reflected, or trapped, or whatever term you choose. Adding more arsenic to your body, at an increasing rate will kill you sooner as suffer organ failure at a quicker rate.
    A more appropriate analogy would be to say that loss of a baby toe (call it a trace toe) might have an adverse effect on your ability to walk, but it may not as your body will likely adapt. Lose the other baby toe and your ability to walk might be further impaired, but again, your body will likely adapt with time and since you have lost one in the past you can probably deal with it more easily. But then, that’s all the baby toes you have to lose, so that’s as bad as it is going to get in terms of loss of baby toes impairing your ability to walk. You could make little plasticine toes, put them on and cut them off again, but it won’t affect your ability to walk anymore as you have already hit the maximum baby toe loss impairment level. Note that losing other toes is different to losing baby toes in this analogy.

  195. All the talk of whose predictions were (or will be) more correct than others is interesting, but, just consider.
    What if the high arctic had been at average temps, instead of colder than usual?
    What if it had been a sunny year in the arctic, instead of unusually cloudy?
    What if the winds were favorable for ice export, instead of not?
    And still, look where it’s ending up.

  196. kenboldt says:
    September 7, 2010 at 12:24 pm
    David Gould says:
    September 6, 2010 at 10:37 pm
    “Trace elements can have very large effects, so by itself the argument that CO2 is a trace gas is irrelevant.”
    That is a horrible analogy. Back when CO2 concentrations were at say 280ppm before the industrial revolution it was not an issue.
    No the whole problem is referring to CO2 as a trace gas. That’s a true description if you’re referring to volume fraction, however if you’re talking about the absorption of light by the atmosphere CO2 is the major component.
    In that context N2 & Ar are zero contributors, O2 a trace gas, O3 a major component and CO2 the major component and water a major but variable contributor (remember we’re considering the whole atmosphere).

  197. Djon says:
    I suggest you read Al Gore’s “Our Choice” and James Hansen’s “Storms of my Grandchildren” and perhaps a few other books or, if you prefer, blogs if you really want to know what people who consider AGW a serious problem think ought to be done. If you’re too lazy to do some reading of easily available written materials in order to satisfy your desire, I fail to see how any of us here creating yet more detailed written material here in response to your question is going to help you.”
    Sorry to offend, Mr. Djon, but I think you missed my point. I’ve read a bit here and there about what Mr Gore, Mr. Hansen and others propose to do about AGW. I guess I could be a bit lazy, not having read it all, and maybe I needed to be more clear that I find most such ‘solutions” to be, at least to me, far worse and unpredictable than the perceived problem. My hope was to generate a conversation on possible solutions, since many here seem to think any further discussion of the nature of the problem is futile.
    Mr. R Gates, I certainly never meant to question your motives in presenting your evidence, nor your credentials as a lukewarmist. The bone I have several times tried to pick with you is your reliance for your views on a 30 year trend. I think the trend is too short, for reasons I’ve mentioned in earlier posts, to justify the crisis type predictions many here posit. You believe otherwise, which is fine, except that your statement that “my belief right now is that these other influences are less likely [a cause of the melt] than AGW” is not really a reason that causes me to seriously reevaluate mine.

  198. Apparently you don’t realize DMI 80° N is from a model, and a not very good one:
    Thats why I use my own Stations which at an ave of 77 north are showing an ave of slightly above 32 degrees…(35 to 39 degrees back on the end of Aug) I will study the temp/melt factor as I continue my education…There seems to be some warm air still flowing into the western side of the Arctic at the present time which Im hoping will die off soon…Long range GFS does show the whole Arctic area in the freeze by the 11th…min on the 12th??

  199. Phil Nizialek says:
    September 7, 2010 at 2:03 pm
    “Mr. R Gates, I certainly never meant to question your motives in presenting your evidence, nor your credentials as a lukewarmist. The bone I have several times tried to pick with you is your reliance for your views on a 30 year trend.”
    _____
    It is quite true that when looking at hard satellite data on Arctic sea ice, we can go back to only about 1979, before that, there were other methods, such as aerial analysis, etc. that gives us better than anecdotal information, and seems to show that sea ice has been declining longer than just since 1979.
    However, it is not just the decline in sea ice that makes me a warmist. I look at the sum total of evidence to AGW, with specific predictions made by GCM’s, to lead me to my 75% “warmist” stance. The decline in Arctic sea ice is just one piece of the evidence (though admittedly for me, a big one). The other confirmatory evidence (for me) of CO2 induced AGW are:
    1.The melting of permafrost and increase methane output from peat bogs in the arctic regions (wind is not a factor here, so the “wind did it” notion from skeptics doesn’t work for permafrost)
    2. The acidification of the oceans
    3. The cooling of the stratosphere
    4. The melting of Greenland and Antarctic ice caps
    5. The rise in ocean levels
    6. The general rise in Global Temps over the past century
    7. The general retreat of glaciers worldwide
    8. The increase in ocean heat content in the past 30 years
    Now, any one of these could be explained away through some other mechanism or natural variation such as the PDO, AMO, longer-term solar variability, etc, and some may be partially influenced through some of these other natural variations, however, it is the weight of all this evidence taken as a total, with the known solid physics behind the GH properties of CO2 combined with its 40%
    increase in the atmosphere in just over 200 years that makes me think it more likely than not that GCM’s in general have it right about the effect of this rapid rise in CO2 (geologically speaking) and thus about AGW in general. If only one or a few of these events were happening, I would be less inclined to believe the likelihood of AGW, but I look at the weight of the total evidence, and from my perspective, it seems convincing. Arctic sea decline ice just happens to be one of the most visible and dramatic of the predicted effects, (it’s hard for example, to get a good visual grasp of ocean acidification).

  200. “”” Phil. says:
    September 7, 2010 at 7:56 am
    rbateman says:
    September 7, 2010 at 5:10 am
    But, 31 years ago, in 1979 (oh what a convenient starting/ending date THAT is), all the rage was the Ozone Hole in the Antarctic with UV burning all life to a cinder, and the Coming Ice Age indelible proof of cyrogenic doom in the Arctic descending upon civilization.
    Really, I distinctly recall that Farman et al. discovered the Ozone Hole in 1985! “””
    Are you saying Phil, that 1985 is the first formal announcement of an “Ozone Hole” ?
    I would have bet any money that the discovery dated from the IGY in 1957/8; but you say it was as recent as 1985. I must be wrong on that.
    Actually; Ozone holes go back even before the IGY. I have a handbook of Optics that in the chapter on Natural Light Sources; deals with the sun as the most obvious natural light source.
    The handbook points out that back as far as the 1940s and 50s, it was known that the apparent color temperature of the sun varied seasonally, and also randomly from one year to another. The handbook goes on to say that the changes in color temperature of the sun are attributable to changes in the UV end of the solar spectrum.
    I suspect that as long ago as that, old sol was telling us that we had holes in the ozone; but they remained unknown until somebody looked for one and found it.
    We’ve always had ozone holes; now and then.

  201. Phil. says:
    September 7, 2010 at 10:09 am
    I see no reason to think that Maslowski’s analysis is wrong, in fact this year’s melt supports it, so summer 2013 looks rather interesting.

    Yes, I agree.
    Dr. Maslowski (of the Naval Postgraduate School ) actually predicted “sometime before 2020, perhaps as early as 2013”. So if it doesn’t happen summer of 2013, that doesn’t mean “no problemo” – that means it might still happen in 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018 or 2019.
    I think Dr. Maslowski has a deep insight into the Arctic melt season – before him, many researchers concentrated mainly on the air temperatures, the winds, the Arctic Oscillation, the Arctic Dipole, etc. Maslowski used a finer resolution, regional model of the Arctic and found that heat advection from the Pacific and Atlantic, and the extra solar heating of ocean top waters when the sea ice area shrinks more each summer, was leading to a thinning of the Arctic ice pack – this thinning was accelerating this decade. Even before the wakeup call of summer 2007, Dr. Maslowski was finding that his models predicted a much faster “Death Spiral” than the more conservative, low resolution models that suggested 2050 to 2100 before the Arctic summer would be ice free.
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7139797.stm
    (keep in mind, Maslowski considers essentially “ice free” to still contain a few 100,000 sq km of thick ice directly north of Canada and Greenland for awhile – this could take another decade or two to completely disappear in the summer, but the main damage will be done before 2020)
    Arctic ocean temperatures are poorly measured, because standard Argo style floats can’t operate under the ice pack, and buoy and ice station data are expensive point sources – but there are new “glider” floats that can operate autonomously under the ice for extended periods, then find open water and upload their data to the Argo network. These are starting to map the temperature data of the Arctic Ocean in more detail. I think such studies, and the soon-to-be operational Cryosat-2 ice thickness data, will show in much more detail why the warming oceans of the planet (and the summer positive feedback albedo affects of sea ice –> open water) are leading to such rapid ice mass loss in the Arctic.
    The predictions for 2011 will be based on much better sea ice thickness data – and hopefully much better Arctic Ocean upper-100-meters temperatures too.

  202. Phil
    I’m interested in old maps–do you have a source for your map of the Arctic ice from 1939? I didn’t see it on the science20 site, but would be interested in the source which said this was the minimum of extent and not just general schematic. Thanks in advance.

  203. Phil. says:
    September 7, 2010 at 1:51 pm

    In that context N2 & Ar are zero contributors, O2 a trace gas, O3 a major component and CO2 the major component and water a major but variable contributor (remember we’re considering the whole atmosphere).

    I would agree with that except for water should be listed as the major component with CO2 in 2nd place as major contributor, rather than the other way around. Water’s variability (absolute humidity) makes calculations on this not so trivial.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas
    -Scott

  204. At this point this may be on deaf ears, but a couple things in response to Graeme W. I’ve stated this before, but some may not have seen it before. So hopefully for a final time:
    1. Regarding the submarine surfacings at the North Pole during the 1950s. Sea ice is always in motion. When it diverges, cracks open up and there is open water. This can occur anywhere in the Arctic, even in thick ice. The cracks, called “leads” expose open water. In winter, that water will quickly begin to freeze, but the ice will be thinner – in that small region. The surfacings during the 1950s were in these leads. They are not an indicator of overall thickness of the ice and are not evidence of lack of thinning. All available evidence (including from submarine sonar data from under the ice) indicates that the ice is now substantially thinner over most of the Arctic compared to the 1950s.
    2. Regarding the 1953-1978 sea ice extent timeseries in conjunction with the satellite record since 1979. These data have been combined to be as consistent as possible. This cannot be done perfectly and is not as consistent as just using the satellite data. However, the errors are relatively small and while we can’t be as confident in the actual trend value, we can be very confident that recent extents have been much lower than during the 1950s.
    3. Regarding another comment about Antarctic extent trends and statistical significance. It take far longer than I have now to go into statistical significance in detail. In short, the Antarctic trends are statistical significant, but at a lower confidence level, and at a lower magnitude. Monthly trends in the Arctic vary between ~-3% (winter) and ~-11% (summer) per decade; in the Antarctic, the trends are between ~+0.5% (winter) and ~+4% (summer) per decade.
    walt

  205. Catastrophe : How ?
    …IF the Ice melts off Early, Sun in the Arctic is 24-hour per day.
    It actually gets MORE than further South.
    Ocean Currents are driven by Energy so … they Reverse.
    In Winter = No Sun, it gets COLD. Without the Warm current (which will take many MONTHS to arrive at a pokey 4 knots) the temps drop so far, either the Winds take over moving that much heat – – or the Air freezes & we get the winds anyway.
    300 mph is from the Oceans weighing 1900 times the atmosphere — but current paths are twisty, so we end up with 300 mph.

  206. All my analogy was meant to show is that just because the concentration of a substance is small does not mean that the effects cannot be large. C02 at 280 ppm still had a large effect on the temperature of the earth – 3 to 5 degrees, depending on which sources you read. This is enough to keep us out of an ice age.

  207. Amino Acids in Meteorites,
    If the earth warms over the next 10 years and the ice continues to decline, will you cease being a sceptic regarding global warming? For myself, I laid out a while ago what it would take for me to doubt that the earth was warming: if 6 years between 2009 and 2020 inclusive were cooler than 2008 (ignoring volcanos).

  208. On the “from 1950 ice went down” topic — I find the half-Century “trends” barely larger than a SINGLE “freak” year:
    (1) Cryopsphere’s 53 year decline from 10.3 (summer) to 7.8 in 2006 just BARELY exceeds the 2007 drop to 5.5 = near half the “trend” is a single “freak” year. — and that is at the most favorable site for a constant-slope Decline. http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seasonal.extent.1900-2007.jpg
    (2) Piomas (from 1950) implies a RISE in Ice until after the 60-year Pacific Cycle reversed in 1977 ). Then, a drop. (Submarine thickness Max was 1983 — Piomas has a higher peak in the 1960s, but that is 4 Volcanos, & should be disregarded) http://psc.apl.washington.edu/IDAO/retro.html
    Not only is this “trend” thus mostly the NATURAL CYCLE, not AGW …
    But the other (usual) PIOMAS Chart shows the Trendline from 1979, lost 9500 km3 by 2007, but as we know from ICESAT, 2007 lost 4000 km3 from the previous year (Piomas saw less of a change, but as discussed often before, cannot “see” Melt in the Central Arctic ), again, 2007 ALONE was nearly half the size of the total “trend” http://psc.apl.washington.edu/ArcticSeaiceVolume/images/BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrent.png — (updated to Aug 31 AS I WRITE — but little change: -9500 Anomaly = ~ 4500 km3 left, a record low ).
    Again, to summarize: I see “freak years” as at least as important to Climate, as Trends – – and far more Dangerous.

  209. Turn out the lights … the party’s over.
    With the rapidly dropping temp, refreeze may start early this year.

  210. SteveSadlov,
    It does not seem to be dropping any more rapidly than any other year and, according to here: http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php is still above average, above 2006, 2005 and 2009 and about equal with 2007 and 2008. Further, at this time of year it is not atmospheric temperature but water temperature and winds that are the largest determinants of when the melt season will end.
    According to here: http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/pips2/idis.html, movement of the ice is still quite large.
    According to here: http://polar.ncep.noaa.gov/sst/ophi/color_sst_NPS_ophi0.png and http://polar.ncep.noaa.gov/sst/ophi/color_anomaly_NPS_ophi0.png we still have relatively warm areas of sea water near the ice.
    We are certainly near the end. But it might not be for two weeks or so yet.

  211. SteveSadlov says:
    September 7, 2010 at 6:38 pm
    Turn out the lights … the party’s over.
    With the rapidly dropping temp, refreeze may start early this year.

    Open the last keg and get your bathing suit on – the party’s still on, and the water’s warm.
    JAXA shows another 59,062 sq km sea ice extent loss tonight – this September is just blowing away September 2009… it’s almost like the sea ice is extra thin or something.
    http://img838.imageshack.us/img838/4530/arclatestlargecircles.png
    Red circles – I bet skeptics didn’t expect that.
    Yellow circles – expect some more melt here in the next two weeks, till the melt season is over.
    Looks like the melt season will end with 4.xx million sq km of sea ice extent.

  212. Walt Meier says:
    September 7, 2010 at 3:22 pm
    At this point this may be on deaf ears, but a couple things in response to Graeme W. I’ve stated this before, but some may not have seen it before. So hopefully for a final time:
    ============================
    Your commentary about “deaf ears” is unwarranted.
    [snip] Walt Meier has made it quite clear his responses and posting on WUWT is on an individual basis and not as commentary in his official capacity. …. LK [/snip]
    Let me take an interlude here and say that I think you are a marvelous technician and scientist.
    Where you lose me is when you start to recite the CAGW religious creed.
    What death spiral? Nice covering up for the data splices, and the 1950s thing and especially the whitewash about the South Pole.
    What death spiral?
    The earth is 4.6 billion years old.
    I am tired of the chicken little alarms.
    They do nothing to help real environmental causes. Rather, they hurt them.
    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  213. Anu says:
    September 7, 2010 at 9:16 pm
    So how much latent heat do you estimate is being taken on board? Good picture, what is the actual source?

  214. If you are not looking for weather, it makes sense to me that you would only be able to see the trend in the middle.
    No matter how extreme the weather has effected the high and low anomaly at the extremes, every year, at exactly the same time, the levels are almost exactly the same, at exactly the same months. May to June, and Dec to Jan.

    Upthread there were many comments espousing that there is no trend in the mid-seasons of Arctic melt/recovery. This is quite wrong. For every single month of the year, the trend in sea ice coverage has declined over the last 30 years, with the most extreme trends occurring around summer.
    ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/
    Click on any month, then click on any ‘plot.png’, and you will get a trend to date.
    e.g May and December.

  215. The comment “deaf ears” from Walt is accurate when it comes to saying things constantly at it being ignored, the classic this year was that the NW passage was closed even after about the 50th post showing it was not and that it was very much open.
    Anyhow, agree with Anu, 4.xx is very much on the cards now. I’m not convinced about that latest BREMEN ice extent picture though, I think that open water near the pole might be spurious, I will see what tonights shows though.
    NSIDC have done their montly update , http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/ always good reading of course.
    Points of note
    1. “The Northwest Passage and the Northern Sea Route are largely free of ice” ( just for people who still thought it was closed this year .. 🙂 )
    2. August decline per day was slightly lower than the 1979-2000 average.
    3. The dipole anomaly returned with the classic southerly winds melting and pushing the ice together, this is still ongoing I believe.
    Andy

  216. ” David Gould says:
    September 7, 2010 at 4:55 pm
    For myself, I laid out a while ago what it would take for me to doubt that the earth was warming: if 6 years between 2009 and 2020 inclusive were cooler than 2008 (ignoring volcanos).”
    This is silly. If 6 years were slightly cooler and 6 much warmer, that would not indicate an absence of warming. And you better start with 1998, since that was the warmest year lately.
    The point, by the way, is not that the earth (fortunately) has been warming since the Little Ice Age. The point is that this warming was natural and not man made.

  217. AndyW says:
    September 7, 2010 at 10:31 pm
    The comment “deaf ears” from Walt is accurate when it comes to saying things constantly at it being ignored, the classic this year was that the NW passage was closed even after about the 50th post showing it was not and that it was very much open.
    Anyhow, agree with Anu, 4.xx is very much on the cards now. I’m not convinced about that latest BREMEN ice extent picture though, I think that open water near the pole might be spurious, I will see what tonights shows though.

    The open water near the pole is real, it can be seen on the MODIS images, here’s a composite image from the other day (day 250, courtesy of Neven):
    http://neven1.typepad.com/.a/6a0133f03a1e37970b013487143e1f970c-pi
    I agree with your response re ‘deaf ears’.

  218. Two Sites of Interest:
    1. Calculating the Open Water in the “Pole Hole”: so correct AREA numbers down ~ 87,000 km2 (0.09 million) on the 5th, 74 K now.
    Gee, I guess there is Open Water (near) the Pole.
    Well, 24% open.
    http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2010/09/north-hole.html#tp
    2. Central Arctic Basin 1981-2009 Area:
    … All years lie in a very narrow band 2500-to-2720 K km2 except: 1986 + 80 K … 2008 – 80 K … 2007 -390 K
    Long term trend ~ 2650 falling to ~2600 if you.ignore 2007.
    A trend of 2 / year. Then a “freak” year, below the Trend by by 490 K.
    = 245 times the trend.
    Source: last page of: http://www.arcus.org/files/search/sea-ice-outlook/2010/09/pdf/regional/tivyjulyoutlook.pdf
    http://www.arcus.org/search/seaiceoutlook/2010/august
    PS: 2010 slightly below 2500K: http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.1.html

  219. AJB says:
    September 7, 2010 at 9:59 pm
    So how much latent heat do you estimate is being taken on board? Good picture, what is the actual source?

    A cubic meter of pure water is 1000 kg, sea ice will be slightly less depending on salinity, temperature. About 17 thousand of cubic kilometers of sea ice have melted from April to now, and the latent heat of water is 334 kiloJoules per kilogram. You could work out a fairly good estimate, but suffice it to say “lots of heat”.
    University of Hamburg, Germany serves those images twice a day:
    ftp://ftp-projects.zmaw.de/seaice/NEAR_REAL_TIME/Arc_latest_large.png
    I just grabbed the most recent one and circled areas of interest.

  220. savethesharks says:
    September 7, 2010 at 9:35 pm
    Your commentary about “deaf ears” is unwarranted.

    He doesn’t actually think you’re deaf – he just thinks you won’t “get” what he’s saying. I know, those idioms are oblique.
    Where you lose me is when you start to recite the CAGW religious creed.
    Did people “lose you” when they said the Arctic sea ice would not recover this summer, and would be less than in 2009 ? Continuing the accelerating decline of Arctic sea ice summer after summer ?
    http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/pred2010.jpg
    If you grasped that, just try it for another 6 or 8 summers.
    Step by step.
    You’ll get it.
    http://soa.arcus.org/sites/soa.arcus.org/files/sessions/1-1-advances-understanding-arctic-system-components/pdf/1-1-7-maslowski-wieslaw.pdf
    What death spiral?
    That’s the spirit – keep asking questions. What jet stream movements ? What precipitation patterns ? What ocean heat content ?
    I am tired of the chicken little alarms.
    The actual data will be even more exhausting. Maybe you’re too close to all the bad news – plenty of people just ignore the whole depressing topic.
    They do nothing to help real environmental causes. Rather, they hurt them.
    Yes, I suppose enthusiasm for cleaning up the local beach for your kids might wane a bit in the face of a looming, possible global agriculture crash in a few decades, throwing all of Civilization into chaos.
    Don’t worry, I’m sure people will wake up after the Arctic Death Spiral.

  221. I also wrote a text answering Graeme W’s submarine meme, but it never showed up. Maybe it got stuck in the spam filter? OTOH, it was preceded by a slightly snarky comment, so maybe both were snipped.
    Thank you, Walt Meier, for dropping in.

  222. Anu says:
    September 8, 2010 at 7:44 am
    Did people “lose you” when they said the Arctic sea ice would not recover this summer, and would be less than in 2009 ? Continuing the accelerating decline of Arctic sea ice summer after summer ?
    Interesting logic here – two years of extent recovery in 2008 and 2009 are just statistical fluctuation non affecting a downward trend, while a 2010 minimum that may (or may not) go below 2008 is trousered as “continuing the accelerating decline”.
    This is “bobbing and weaving” regarding statistics and reference points. And not entirely honest.
    OK it is still true that in the last 30 years, our favorite frame of reference, that Arctic ice decline is significant. Even he whose name shall not be mentioned (Steven Goddard) emphasised that even if the 2010 extent minimum was the highest of the decade, the downward trend would still be intact. This is trivial and is not the point. Non-CAGW climate scientists – i.e. those who heretically believe that factors other than CO2 might affect climate – and who (equally heretically) recognise cycles in climate, have an a priory reason to expect a climate and Arctic turn-around somewhere around 2004-2008. PDO cycles, phase relation shifts between PDO/AMO etc (e.g. Tsonis et al), solar system barycentric oscillation inflection in 2007, solar cycle length rate of change (Paul Vaughan), solar activity, just plain looking at the undulating climate temperature record, etc. etc.
    In this context, signs of flattening / reversal of the Arctic “death spiral” since 2007 are important and significant – although another few years will be needed for any statistical significance. To argue “decline is still significant” relies on time period cherry-picking and misses the point. In the last 6 million years, starting from before the current glacial period, the Arctic trend is strongly upward. Equally irrelevant.
    Climate scientists sometimes like to detrend data. One way to detrend or normalise Arctic ice curves would be to correct somehow for weather patterns – compare years with similar Arctic weather, to focus on the status of the ice itself. The Arctic dipole and sustained warm pole-ward winds have compacted the ice and increased melt this year. The same happened in 2007. 2007 was – like this year – at the start of a La Nina rebounding from el Nino type conditions (stronger this time than in 2007). With gyres of el Nino warmed water scuttling clockwise round the Pacific rim and eventually warming the Arctic (dumping their heat to space at the Arctic). So it may be arguable that the most relevant comparison with the 2010 extent curve is that of 2007. And I dont see many predictions of 2010 going below 2007.
    At least we’re agreed on the agriculture crash, just differ on whether heat / cold will cause it. If cooling climate causes it, the warmistas will have no trouble bobbing and weaving to that it is what they were predicting all along (“when did I say anything about warming?”)
    If you grasped that, just try it for another 6 or 8 summers.
    Step by step.
    You’ll get it.

  223. Anu says:
    September 8, 2010 at 7:44 am
    “[…]Yes, I suppose enthusiasm for cleaning up the local beach for your kids might wane a bit in the face of a looming, possible global agriculture crash in a few decades, throwing all of Civilization into chaos.”
    Need a bridge?

  224. Scott says:
    September 7, 2010 at 3:15 pm
    Phil. says:
    September 7, 2010 at 1:51 pm
    “In that context N2 & Ar are zero contributors, O2 a trace gas, O3 a major component and CO2 the major component and water a major but variable contributor (remember we’re considering the whole atmosphere).”
    I would agree with that except for water should be listed as the major component with CO2 in 2nd place as major contributor, rather than the other way around. Water’s variability (absolute humidity) makes calculations on this not so trivial.

    Not for the whole atmosphere.

  225. Updating the ensemble Arctic sea ice extent slopes (km^2/Day) of Bremen (8/26-9/8), JAXA (8/25-9/7), and NSIDC (8/25-9/7), the ensemble (combining the data from all three indicies) slope is -35K/Day (R^2 = 0.91).
    Bremen, JAXA, and NSIDC all use the same 15% concentration cutoff definition, so combining all three should increase the confidence of the resultng ensemble slope (at least in the very short term of a few days).
    For each individual dataset;
    Bremen slope is -26K/Day (R^2 = 0.91)
    JAXA slope is -32K/Day (R^2 = 0.93)
    NSIDC slope is -46K/Day (R^2 = 0.99)
    NOTE: Fitting a quadratic to either the ensamble or any of the individual datasets results in concave down trend lines at this time. The whole purpose of the ensemble was to try to detect a concave up composite trend line (in other words, another method of determining the magnitude and timing of the 2010 minimum).
    The following sequence of hypothetical daily losses for the JAXA dataset is of very low probability (~ 2.3% at this time) but is consistent with the current ensemble slope;
    -30,595 (9/8)
    -30,154
    -29,126
    -27,922
    -26,988
    -26,367
    -25,971
    -25,238
    -23,609
    -20,946
    -18,161
    -14,972
    -10,993
    -6,415
    -1,921 (9/22)
    Final hypothetical extent = 4,707,812 km^2 (beating the 2008 JAXA minimum by one km^2)

  226. YFNWG says:
    September 8, 2010 at 9:31 am
    I think the melt minimum will occur this weekend. For example, the forecast for Resolute, Nunavut, Canada: http://www.weatheroffice.gc.ca/city/pages/nu-27_metric_e.html
    Early next week mean temps will be below average. The freeze up will commence.
    More importantly, Barrow and Svalbard are both going to remain warm. Also, SSTs in the waters near the edge of the ice are warm yet – http://polar.ncep.noaa.gov/sst/ophi/color_anomaly_NPS_ophi0.png

  227. Smokey says:
    September 8, 2010 at 8:36 am
    The Arctic Death Spiral just took another hit. The planet once again disagrees with the climate alarmists.
    But perhaps the planet does not disagree with climate scientists… since those earlier ice loss estimates were much higher than the IPCC report numbers.

  228. jakers says:
    “Boy, Gates, Anu, Neil, etc. sure seemed to have raised the ire of the regular readership, who apparently want an echo chamber site.”
    That is nonsense. If this site was an echo chamber, contrary opinion would be censored out – just like it is on most CAGW blogs like realclimate, climate progress, etc.
    If the ‘regular readership’ wanted an echo chamber, they would not have boosted the WUWT traffic count from zero to over 50 million hits in only three years, leaving those alarmist blogs in the dust. If this site was an echo chamber, it would never allow articles to be posted from folks like Dr Meier and other purveyors of the belief-based CO2=CAGW conjecture.
    People very much want to hear all sides of the story — and they don’t get that from the media or from warmist blogs. Sorry jakers can’t understand the difference.

  229. The ice is starting to look like a Canadian Maple leaf up there
    http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsr/arctic_AMSRE_visual.png
    I don’t really know how there can be such a large spike towards the East Siberian sea and yetbe melted to left and right, but it has. Looking at the Bremen ice loss movie it always seems to have a spike there, to greater or lesser extent, apart from 2007 when it got wiped out. Why does that segment of the Arctic basin nearly always have less ice loss? Very strange
    Looking at the Bremen maps tonight Phil and Charles were right, it is surprisingly Swiss cheese like around the pole and also to towards Svalbaard. This backs up Walt’s claim about thin ice nowadays compared to the 1950’s. Sub’s wouldn’t have to look for leads it seems at the moment.
    There seems to have been quite a lot of melt on the Atlantic side this year also.
    Andy

  230. Interesting logic here – two years of extent recovery in 2008 and 2009 are just statistical fluctuation non affecting a downward trend, while a 2010 minimum that may (or may not) go below 2008 is trousered as “continuing the accelerating decline”.

    No interesting logic needed, just maths. 2008 was below the trend line, and so was 2009, but only just. Take a look.
    http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20091005_Figure3.png
    2008 and 2009 values steepened the declining trend, despite being greater than 2007.
    If the 2010 September average extent is under 5.25 million square km, then this year will also be under the trend line, and thus steepened. But the last few years are mainly about weather variations, and not much can be read into them for long-term trends. 2007 may have been a tipping point, step-change, or just an anomaly. Time will tell. If not this year, then one soon, the September minimum will fall above the trend line, but until we get a succession of years reversing the trend significantly, a few fluctuations are only going to amount to weather variation around an obviously declining trend.

  231. Walt Meier says:
    September 7, 2010 at 3:22 pm
    At this point this may be on deaf ears, but a couple things in response to Graeme W. I’ve stated this before, but some may not have seen it before. So hopefully for a final time:

    My apologies for making you state something that you’ve stated before. I wasn’t aware of all of these details. I did see the comment on the website about how there appeared to be a good correlation between the two datasets, but I’ll admit that I found it suspicious that there seemed to be a change in trend around the same time as the change in dataset.
    And your comments were definitely not falling on deaf ears here. When I ask questions, most of the time it’s because I realise there are things I don’t know. The major trick is dredging through the responses looking for the correct answers!
    Data must be examined in context, and when data is taken out of context that it leads to confusion. You’ve provided the context for the submarine surfacing data, so thank you!

  232. Confirmed JAXA 15% extent for Sept 6th: 5027188. Updated charts (late, busy day)…
    15-day: http://img442.imageshack.us/img442/5673/15day20100907.png
    7-day: http://img188.imageshack.us/img188/6019/7day20100907.png
    The 15-day critical point has arrived and there’s not much doubt about where we’re headed now. Temps still appear to be on the high side. I suspect a major cycle regime shift is underway which may yet surprise even the warmists here, both this autumn and beyond. A while ago I posted this:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/22/sea-ice-news-19/#comment-469245
    Some more food for thought:
    http://img828.imageshack.us/img828/515/thinkingoutloud.png
    I don’t put much stock in chocolate tea-pots like R squared when derived from stochastic datasets, especially when hysteresis is present. They are what they are and should never be taken at face value. EFS_Junior correctly observes:

    NOTE: Fitting a quadratic to either the ensamble or any of the individual datasets results in concave down trend lines at this time.

    While I like this approach, it is likely to underestimate the eventual melt for a while yet IMHO but will gradually zero in. I look forward to daily updates with interest. Anu, many thanks for the useful link.

  233. Alexej Buergin,
    Picking 2008 as the year of interest is the key to this. If there is warming, we would expect 2008 not to be a minimum, given that it was a la nina year in the middle of a deep solar low. If 6 of the those years are lower than it, it would be a pretty clear indication to me that the world was not warming as predicted.
    As for the argument being about whether the warming is human caused or not, that may be the case with some people. However, the person whom I was taking to, Amino Acids in Meteorites, says that the world is cooling. So, the first step in convincing them of the danger is to convince them that the earth is indeed warming.

  234. barry says:
    September 8, 2010 at 3:44 pm
    .
    .
    .
    If the 2010 September average extent is under 5.25 million square km, then this year will also be under the trend line, and thus steepened.
    _____________________________________________________________
    Actually, if we’re both using the same monthly NSIDC data set (http://nsidc.org/data/g02135.html), a value of 5.37E6 km^2 would maintain the current 1979-2009 September trend line slope.
    It now appears (using seven days of NSIDC data and seven days of JAXA data and comparing to the 30 day JAXA September monthly averages) that the NSIDC 2010 monthly average will be ~4.9E6 km^2 (+/- 0.69E6 km^2 95% confidence), and will most likely be the 3rd lowest monthly average in the 1979-2010 NSIDC dataset.
    Three out of four lowest years (2007, 2008, 2010) or four out of the four lowest years (2007, 2008, 2010, 2009) for the 1979-2010 time span is highly suggestive of something (e. g. very low sea ice volumes over the past four Arctic seasons).

  235. phlogiston says:
    September 8, 2010 at 8:50 am
    Interesting logic here – two years of extent recovery in 2008 and 2009 are just statistical fluctuation non affecting a downward trend, while a 2010 minimum that may (or may not) go below 2008 is trousered as “continuing the accelerating decline”.

    “Non affecting a downward trend” ? They are part of that downward trend.
    See for yourself:
    http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/3219/septemberminimums.jpg
    2008, 2009 and expected 2010 data point are circled in purple – these are all just datapoints on the accelerating decline curve. Calling 2008 and 2009 “extent recovery” doesn’t affect the trend at all. Try calling them “icy yearnings for normalcy” – maybe that will slow down the Arctic Death Spiral.
    “This is “bobbing and weaving” regarding statistics and reference points. And not entirely honest.”
    Yes, sorry to confuse you with a simple graph.
    OK it is still true that in the last 30 years, our favorite frame of reference, that Arctic ice decline is significant.
    Or 32 years – our favorite unbroken series of satellite data.
    Or 39 years – if you throw in the 1972 to 1978 satellite data (which had a gap, so is often not used – but University of Bremen still uses the early data in calculating its average):
    http://iup.physik.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsr/ice_ext_n.png
    Non-CAGW climate scientists – i.e. those who heretically believe that factors other than CO2 might affect climate – and who (equally heretically) recognise cycles in climate…
    I don’t think you realize what climatology is. Both things are in basic climatology textbooks.
    In this context, signs of flattening / reversal of the Arctic “death spiral” since 2007 are important and significant – although another few years will be needed for any statistical significance.
    Maybe that explains the poll I mentioned above, where almost all “skeptics” at WUWT predicted 2010 minimum sea ice extent would be above the 2009 value – the prediction value given by Watts and Goddard was “another 500,000 km2 of Arctic sea ice recovery in 2010”.
    As of right now, that bit of WishfulThinking was 772,500 sq km too high. More than 3/4 of a million sq km.
    Think about that.
    And the summer is not over yet.
    Compare this to the trendline prediction – almost an exact fit.
    One way to detrend or normalise Arctic ice curves would be to correct somehow for weather patterns – compare years with similar Arctic weather, to focus on the status of the ice itself.
    Every summer has Arctic weather that is hard to predict – yet the sea ice extent keeps trending down. (Did I mention the trend is accelerating ?) There is a physical reason for this:
    http://soa.arcus.org/sites/soa.arcus.org/files/sessions/1-1-advances-understanding-arctic-system-components/pdf/1-1-7-maslowski-wieslaw.pdf
    Keep watching the Arctic this decade. Eventually you’ll have your “aha” moment.

  236. IJIS extent has just gone below 5 million km2 and currently stands at 4,977,344 km2. I wonder when extent will stop dropping like a rock. Should be any day now.

  237. Phil Nizialek,
    “Sorry to offend, Mr. Djon, but I think you missed my point. I’ve read a bit here and there about what Mr Gore, Mr. Hansen and others propose to do about AGW. I guess I could be a bit lazy, not having read it all, and maybe I needed to be more clear that I find most such ‘solutions” to be, at least to me, far worse and unpredictable than the perceived problem. My hope was to generate a conversation on possible solutions, since many here seem to think any further discussion of the nature of the problem is futile.”
    It wasn’t particularly offensive, just…. I’ll stick with lazy, even though I wouldn’t expect anyone to have read anywhere near all that has been written on the topic. After all, how are we supposed to get your point when you didn’t bother to express it but instead stated, inaccurately, that you didn’t know what solutions people are advocating be implemented? Even with your last post, you haven’t specified what proposed solutions you are aware of nor which you think are problematic and which, not included in “most” you presumably think aren’t problematic, nor what your objections are to the ones you think would be worse than the possible consequences of future AGW.

  238. Günther Kirschbaum says:
    September 8, 2010 at 8:34 pm
    IJIS extent has just gone below 5 million km2 and currently stands at 4,977,344 km2. I wonder when extent will stop dropping like a rock. Should be any day now.
    _____________________________________________________________
    Will you let me take a SWAG on this one?
    I think it has a lot to do with the freezing point of salt water (~28F) versus freshwater (~32F) and the SST in areas of low concentration ice versus areas of high concentration ice.
    It also has a lot to do with the distribution of sea ice throughout the Arctic. Particularly the lower concentration areas (e. g. 15% concentration can go down as 30% concentration goes up as the areas < 15% are not moving into the 15%-30% concentration areas as fast as the 15%-30% concentrations are moving into the 30%+ concentration areas).
    It also has a lot to do with boundary conditions and associated forcings (primarily wind). Think of these constraints in the context of a constraint based random walk model in 2D. If done right, than the low concentration ice will have net movements to higher concentration ice areas.
    Areas of higher concentration ice are assumed to be no longer melting and might also have lower SST's and should freeze first as these SST's approach the freezing point of saltwater (~28C).
    Areas of lower concentrtion ice might have higher SST's and given the amount of open water and wind conditions, the upper layer of the Arctic Ocean is well mixed and will not freeze this saltwater until the SST's in these areas hit 28F.
    You also have to consider the freezing temperature density hump that exists for saltwater (for freshwater the density hump is at ~4F). In other words there will be movement (mixing or turnover) due to saltwater stratification at this time. The coldest water is not the highest density water so it will move down the water column at this time of year (assuming equal salinity with depth in the lower concentration areas).
    So, in closing, the current conditions are ripe for consolidation, but are not ripe for freezing throughout the Arctic Ocean at this time.

  239. Correction: ~4F should be ~7F (~4C). Ignore 2nd to last paragraph as freshwater must be present at the top of the water column for this argument to have any weight at all (bass ackwards as written)

  240. Correction Part Deux: OK, I found it, I knew I saw this somewhere before.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_ocean#Climate
    ” The density of sea water, in contrast to fresh water, increases as it nears the freezing point and thus it tends to sink. It is generally necessary that the upper 100–150 meters of ocean water cools to the freezing point for sea ice to form.[12]”
    Reference [12];
    http://nsidc.org/seaice/intro.html
    “The process by which sea ice forms is also different from that of lake or river ice. Fresh water is unlike most substances because it becomes less dense as it nears the freezing point. This difference in density explains why ice cubes float in a glass of water. Very cold, low-density fresh water stays at the surface of lakes and rivers, forming an ice layer on the top.”
    “In contrast to fresh water, the salt in ocean water causes the density of the water to increase as it nears the freezing point, and very cold ocean water tends to sink. As a result, sea ice forms slowly, compared to freshwater ice, because salt water sinks away from the cold surface before it cools enough to freeze. Furthermore, other factors cause the formation of sea ice to be a slow process. The freezing temperature of salt water is lower than fresh water; ocean temperatures must reach -1.8 degrees Celsius (28.8 degrees Fahrenheit) to freeze. Because oceans are so deep, it takes longer to reach the freezing point, and generally, the top 100 to 150 meters (300 to 450 feet) of water must be cooled to the freezing temperature for ice to form.”

  241. Enjoyed your post EFS Junior…Caught a thread from last year which sort of reminds me of this year allthough we have had different results..http://anhonestclimatedebate.wordpress.com/2009/06/25/%E2%80%9C%E2%80%A6arctic-temperature-is-still-not-above-32f-the-latest-date-in-fifty-years-of-record-keeping%E2%80%A6%E2%80%9D/
    Looking at the warmer than normal waters in the Bering Strait/north..Our only hope right now is the prediction that this year would see a large ice melt but not as large as 07 but with a dramatic refreeze made by Joe Bastardi back in may I think.
    Air Temps are averaging just below freezing at the outer ice edge areas that have seen the most melt as far as I can tell…

  242. Scott:
    … a while back you ran a sort of 2-stage forecast … sort of a “learning” function.
    It gave an ABSURD result:
    4.5 million (extent) …. on OCTOBER 6.
    Run it again.
    You really ought to send this in – I mean the WHOLE METHOD — to the Sea Ice List at the Arcus site.
    Of course they might already be doing that, but it sounds right up their alley.
    And it Might be Correct.
    You HAVE to make the Bizarre predictions BEFORE they are reasonable, for True Science.
    To TEST a theory, it has to be on the table BEFORE the result is in. I know _I_ looked silly with 1.0 m km2, but PARTS of my theory worked, I will have the bad parts fixed Next time.

  243. JAXA revised upwards to 4989375..Whew!??..still a 38,000 drop but hopeful. My Temps at 77 north have dropped to an ave of 30.8…

  244. Updating the ensemble Arctic sea ice extent slopes (km^2/Day) of Bremen (8/26-9/9), JAXA (8/25-9/8), and NSIDC (8/25-9/8), the ensemble (combining the data from all three indicies) slope is -36K/Day (R^2 = 0.92).
    Bremen, JAXA, and NSIDC all use the same 15% concentration cutoff definition, so combining all three should increase the confidence of the resultng ensemble slope (at least in the very short term of a few days).
    For each individual dataset;
    Bremen slope is -29K/Day (R^2 = 0.90)
    JAXA slope is -34K/Day (R^2 = 0.94)
    NSIDC slope is -46K/Day (R^2 = 0.99)
    NOTE: Fitting a quadratic to either the ensemble or any of the individual datasets results in concave down trend lines at this time (i. e. no change from yesterday). The whole purpose of the ensemble was to try to detect a concave up composite trend line (in other words, another method of determining the magnitude and timing of the 2010 minimum).
    The following sequence of hypothetical daily losses for the JAXA dataset is of very low probability (~3.3% at this time) but is consistent with the current ensemble slope;
    -30,275 (9/8)
    -29,238
    -28,050
    -27,160
    -26,599
    -26,269
    -25,583
    -23,984
    -21,329
    -18,563
    -15,374
    -11,371
    -6,749
    -2,253 (9/22)
    Final hypothetical extent = 4,707,812 km^2 (beating the 2008 JAXA minimum by one km^2)
    On another note, the set of JAXA minimum dates (2002-2009) are;
    9/9/2002 (included even though there is missing data)
    9/18/2003
    9/11/2004
    9/22/2005
    9/14/2006
    9/24/2007
    9/9/2008
    9/13/2009
    The average or mean (or p = 0.5 or 50% or even money chance) of the above is 9/15 with a standard deviation of 6 days, giving a p = 0.68 (68%) chance of the minimum date falling between 9/9 and 9/21.
    Note that the two dates that fall outside these bounds were 2005 and 2007, and both fall outside on the high side for whatever reason (I noticed this a few days ago, in looking at the time series, and thinking to myself that 2010 had visual minima characteristics most similar to 2005/2007).

  245. Charles Wilson said
    September 9, 2010 at 7:06 am
    To TEST a theory, it has to be on the table BEFORE the result is in. I know _I_ looked silly with 1.0 m km2, but PARTS of my theory worked, I will have the bad parts fixed Next time.
    _____________________________________________
    I don’t think any parts of your theory worked when you are so far out. I don’t think there will be a next time either for you to be brutally honest, I think the scientists will have put you in the “bit of a crank” bucket and will stop it happening again.
    Anyone who mixes up capitals and lower case in a poorly written out blog post should not be having the chance to submit items to scientific web sites. That’s the problem with the Internet, no peer review.
    I don’t really like being so blunt, but somebody had to say it.
    Andy

  246. Anu says:
    September 8, 2010 at 8:10 pm
    “Non affecting a downward trend” ? They are part of that downward trend.
    See for yourself:
    http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/3219/septemberminimums.jpg

    Interesting curve indeed. Being a humped curve, both ends have a downward trend. Extrapolating backwards, I guess your point here was that ice was increasing prior to 1980? How exactly does that fit in with CAGW? (The GCMs in your link show conveniently flat Arctic ice prior to 1980 but that’s not quite data).
    Keep watching the Arctic this decade
    I will indeed …
    The powerpoint by Maslowski attributed Arctic ice decline to ocean warming; however looking at ocean temperature trends, the central and western Pacific upper 300m heat content appears on a slow decline over the last 10 years (NOAA) as does the PDO expressed as a temperature anomaly (JISAO) over the last 30 yrs.
    ( http://www.climate4you.com/ )
    plus North Atlantic OHC appears on a downward trend (Bob Tisdale’s blog). Also, the rate of sea level rise – an indicator of OHC change – was much smaller for the last 2010 el Nino than for the previous one in 1998 (Colorado Center for Astrodynamics Research), although the air temps in both were more similar.
    Where is the ocean warming coming from going forward?

  247. I just pulled up the PIPS2 page for a lark. I can’t believe some of the stuff they show- (http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/pips2/ithi.html) – ice thickness of >2.5m off Banks Island (see sat. image – http://exploreourpla.net/explorer/?map=Arc&sat=ter&lon=-133&lat=76,9&lvl=7&yir=2010&dag=251) and ice > 4m N of Svalbard (image – http://exploreourpla.net/explorer/?map=Arc&sat=ter&lon=53.8&lat=83.1,9&lvl=7&yir=2010&dag=251), which is just delusional. Wonder what else is wrong there.

  248. AndyW says:
    September 7, 2010 at 10:31 pm
    Anyhow, agree with Anu, 4.xx is very much on the cards now.

    Yup, the cards cooperated – 4.xx is in the history books now.
    http://img713.imageshack.us/img713/1296/jaxalatestseaiceextent.png
    The recent slope is pretty steep – it’s unlikely to V up in the next few days, but it could flatline. It’s also possible that it could drop below 2008, but without Cryosat-2 data on the thickness of the broken up ice margins, and better temperature data of the upper 100 meters of ocean in those areas, it’s just a guess at this point.
    http://img838.imageshack.us/img838/4530/arclatestlargecircles.png
    Some of those yellow circles could include sea ice that is merely 10 or 5 cm thick now – bottom melt this next week could be 1 to 2 cm per day. It’s a race to the finish line.
    I hear a lot of talk about the importance of ice drifting out the Fram Strait, but I don’t see evidence of more than 5,000 sq km or so making it to the “melt zone” per day. Perhaps someone has more accurate, timely data.

  249. phlogiston says:
    September 9, 2010 at 12:07 pm
    Interesting curve indeed. Being a humped curve, both ends have a downward trend. Extrapolating backwards, I guess your point here was that ice was increasing prior to 1980?

    Don’t get confused by the ‘infinite in both directions’ properties of a quadratic curve – mathematics is just a tool. If you fit a sinusoidal curve to the annual changes in distance from the Earth to the Sun, that curve doesn’t imply the Earth existed 8 trillion years ago. Try to focus on the data of interest.
    A sigmoid function might make an interesting fit to this dataset – try it if you think it will give some insight into the future. But the data doesn’t have to follow any easy mathematical function – it can just drop off the cliff in an ugly, jagged way.
    (The GCMs in your link show conveniently flat Arctic ice prior to 1980 but that’s not quite data).
    You’re right – prior to 1980 the satellite data already showed a slight decline:

    http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?old=2003111016173
    The Nimbus 5 ESMR data covered from December 1972 to March 1977, with the Nimbus 7 SMMR combined with the Defense Program’s SSMIs picking up data from October 1978 to December 2002.

    I’ve previously posted on WUWT scientific papers that looked at this satellite data starting in 1972. “Skeptic speculation” that data before 1980 would show increasing Arctic sea ice extent are unfounded.
    The powerpoint by Maslowski attributed Arctic ice decline to ocean warming; however looking at ocean temperature trends…
    Look at the Argo data for the upper 2000 meters of the worlds oceans. This has been hashed out on many previous threads at WUWT – Bob Tisdale doesn’t understand how surface ocean heating can move down in the ocean in small area vertical currents and then back up at a later time and place. The oceans have complicated underwater-surface topology, salinity profiles, currents from winds, the spinning planet, heat differentials, etc. Looking at a small region or upper 700m gives an incomplete picture.
    The oceans are warming, and the Arctic summer sea ice is disappearing:

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/?report=global
    Northern Hemisphere Ocean
    temperature anomaly +0.61°C (+1.10°F) 3rd warmest on record (out of 131 years)
    2009 (+0.64°C/1.15°F) was the warmest year on record.

    Where is the ocean warming coming from going forward?
    Ultimately, the Sun. The increasing fraction of CO2 in the atmosphere is causing the radiation budget to become imbalanced, and the overall temperature of the Earth will rise until the energy budget is balanced again. This will warm the oceans, the lithosphere (rocks and dirt), the atmosphere, the cryosphere, etc.
    Watch the Arctic – the skeptics will be proven hopelessly confused there much earlier than for the rest of the planet.
    Things will be pretty clear for most people by 2020, except for the most [snipped, no personal ridicule please. Robert]

  250. Andy W.
    In 2007, Everyone’s prediction was FAR off.
    So every Professional in the World is a Crank ?
    My Outlook was conditional: _IF_ Sunny, like 2007
    — no one could tell me whether it would be.
    Next time: Someone will have figured it out.
    Me.
    I predicted the Dipole’s return right. I predicted High Pressure’s return & when.
    NOAA predicted Record High Hurricanes.
    _I_ predicted Saharan Dust Storms would kill the HURRICANES – – Result: record Low Hurricanes. Are they ALL cranks ? – – And I was Right, again
    When NOAA’s Method predicts a Disaster, they have to come out with it even if it is unceertain – – the typical Hurricane prediction is 1-in-4, thus the Governor cancelled the Katrina evacuation, killing an extra 1000. Because all the Experts were Cranks. PS Look at the Aerosol Daily map: http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/ml/air/index.html – – a wind shift sent the dust south, the “hurricane Nursery” is clear, just like before Earl : LOOK OUT East Coast. Will I be Right or Wrong ?
    >> Yet you are right in this: if Scott keeps his Method secret
    .. he cannot be Wrong & no one will call him a Crank.

    This is why I praised Steve for putting up an Outlook. Guts. (excuse the use of Capitals for Emphasis).

  251. Anu says September 8, 2010 at 7:21 am
    Believe it or not I do know what the density and latent heat of fusion of water are thanks. Interested to know where your volume estimate has come from though, and what the tolerance is.

  252. Charles Wilson says:
    September 9, 2010 at 4:59 pm

    Yet you are right in this: if Scott keeps his Method secret
    .. he cannot be Wrong & no one will call him a Crank.

    Sorry to burst your bubble Charles, but I explained all my methods in Sea Ice News #19. They are all very simplistic and statistically-based. Nothing an undergrad student in a stats class couldn’t do. If I remember right, the method you refer to is highly dependent on the endpoint data and consequently it was just random chance that it gave an interesting prediction on that day.
    Also, others have commented on it, but if you could format your posts to be a little more readable (an extra line break between thoughts would do wonders) would make them much more reader-friendly.
    In regards to the ice, the past week’s losses have been nothing less than brutal. It’ll be exciting to see what kind of records are going to be broken and see if we can catch back up (or down) with 2008’s minimum.
    -Scott

  253. Scott said (Sea Ice #19)
    … I was looking for an approach that wouldn’t need previous years’ data to work. As a first shot, I tried plotting daily loss on the y-axis with date on the x-axis. I then used a linear fit to this to predict future performance, extrapolating to the minimum. Again, I arbitrarily started the plot on Aug 1. …it’s predicting a minimum of 4.52e6 km^2 on Oct 6,.
    … How does a Linear extrapolation produce a Late Minimum … by 2 weeks more than the Record ? … and without using previous years … it is the Time element I was shocked by, as Sea temps imply a very late melt, but not How late. I figured you’d stumbled onto something that indicated that. Can you explain your derivation of minimum DAY ?

  254. Anu says:
    September 9, 2010 at 2:06 pm
    Look at the Argo data for the upper 2000 meters of the worlds oceans. This has been hashed out on many previous threads at WUWT – Bob Tisdale doesn’t understand how surface ocean heating can move down in the ocean in small area vertical currents and then back up at a later time and place.
    I dont think Bob Tisdale is the only one who has problems with warm low density water sinking down into colder higher density water. OK you have wind and surface currents and choppiness, and on the small scale convection can overcome thermodynamics and density. The new Argos data about previously unavailable complex spatial structure of water temperature which are interesting. New data of this sort will always throw up unexpected complexity and structure – this makes experimental science interesting and rewarding.
    But you yourself have admitted that data that goes even as far down as 2000m (sometimes) is incomplete. Just as many surprises await us in the 2000-4000+ m ocean depth in terms of temperatures and movement patterns.
    If we are talking about multidecadal and even longer duration oceanic cycles, then what we are talking about is THC – the currents going all the way to the ocean floor that are largely unaffected by what is happening at the surface. Even undergraduate oceanography makes this clear (or at least did 20 years ago). THC is driven by large scale downwelling at places such as the Norwegian Sea and some locations in the Southern Ocean. The other side of the coin of downwelling is of course large scale oceanic upwelling such as in the south eastern Pacific off Peru (driving the ENSO cycle and fortunes of the Peruvian anchovy fishery). It would be nice if downwelling and upwelling were tidy, constant and predictable but of course the reality is natural quasi-chaotic complexity with emergent patterns such as cyclic rise and fall in upwelling. It is often repeated on this site that the oceans hold the vast majority of climate heat energy. So subtle changes in THC and upwelling spatio-temporal pattern could easily exert a controlling influence on global temperature oscillations. I dont think the temperature sea surface structures revealed by Argos tell the whole story concerning global THC.
    When a new technology arrives in a scientific field e.g. Argos floats, it is human nature for young practitioners of the new tools to dismiss all work done by the older generation of scientists with supposedly “out-dated” tools. The problem with this is that the old-timers are generally proved right in the end. Young scientists sometimes dont like reading papers more than 10 years old and only condemn themselves to re-discovering repeatedly what was already known.
    The oceans have to be considered as a whole system where THC plays the leading role, in order to understand its role in climate, rather than selectively looking at parts of it which paint a picture to one’s liking.
    Finally – next year we will be in a full on La Nina and some such as Joe Bastardi are predicting that cooler water will gate-crash even the Arctic. JB accurately predicted a near-2007 ice minimum now, against many on WUWT including myself, but predicts strong recovery for 2011-12. It would take courage to bet against that with JB’s track record. A 2011-12 uptick in minimum would spoil the stats on Tamino’s quadratic curve.
    But the data doesn’t have to follow any easy mathematical function – it can just drop off the cliff in an ugly, jagged way.
    ..or an equally ugly jump-up (beauty is in the eye of the beholder 🙂
    The oceans are warming, and the Arctic summer sea ice is disappearing:
    One can only admire your faith. Preach it sister!
    Things will be pretty clear for most people by 2020
    Once again, here we agree – who could argue with that? You say death spiral I say recovery, lets call the whole thing off. Till 2020. (or maybe not)

  255. Updating the ensemble Arctic sea ice extent slopes (km^2/Day) of Bremen (8/26-9/10), JAXA (8/25-9/9), and NSIDC (8/25-9/9), the ensemble (combining the data from all three indicies) slope is -37K/Day (R^2 = 0.93).
    Bremen, JAXA, and NSIDC all use the same 15% concentration cutoff definition, so combining all three should increase the confidence of the resultng ensemble slope (at least in the very short term of a few days).
    For each individual dataset;
    Bremen slope is -31K/Day (R^2 = 0.91), current extent is ~4.70E6 km^2
    JAXA slope is -34K/Day (R^2 = 0.95), current extent is ~4.97E6 km^2
    NSIDC slope is -47K/Day (R^2 = 0.995), current extent is ~4.72E6 km^2
    This makes the JAXA extent significantly higher than the other two sites, by an average of ~0.26E6 km^2, suggesting that JAXA might drop some more, following a pattern similar to what occured a little over a week ago (but only time will tell).
    NOTE: Fitting a quadratic to either the ensemble or any of the individual datasets results in concave down trend lines at this time (i. e. again, no change from the past two days). The whole purpose of the ensemble was to try to detect a concave up composite trend line (in other words, another method of determining the magnitude and timing of the 2010 minimum).
    The following sequence of hypothetical daily losses for the JAXA dataset is of very low probability (~2.1% at this time) but is consistent with the current ensemble slope;
    -29,305 (9/8)
    -28,126
    -27,263
    -26,737
    -26,446
    -25,789
    -24,208
    -21,558
    -18,802
    -15,614
    -11,597
    -6,948
    -2,450 (9/22)
    Final hypothetical extent = 4,707,812 km^2 (beating the 2008 JAXA minimum by one km^2)

  256. On my special AMSR-E sea-ice extent anomaly plot (with a 31-year average NSIDC melt-freeze shape subtracted) it looks like the worm has turned and is now back in negative anomaly territory again (below average for AMSR-E data.) Based on recent years, this declining anomaly trend may last until the first of October.

  257. Confirmed JAXA 15% extent for Sept 10th: 4952813. In case anyone is still following this nonsense, updated charts …
    15-day: http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/2103/15day20100910.png
    7-day: http://img203.imageshack.us/img203/290/7day20100910.png
    Take a look at: http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icedrift_anim/index.uk.php
    Select Ice Concentration and pan forward and back a few days. Look at the coasts and inlets. Is the variance pinch around 6th to 8th due largely to coastal geography and zenith angle? Will there be a second late bite of the main cherry or not? Lumps of it still look vulnerable but temps seem to be falling.
    Only time will tell. Chocolate pipe wrenches do not good micrometers make. Seems to me extent numbers tell us very little about the thermal dynamics of what has taken place. A pretty pointless exercise really, good press fodder on both sides of the argument at particular points in the season but that’s about it.

  258. AJB says:
    September 11, 2010 at 8:18 am
    Cryosphere today has the area increasing by ~29000 km^2 with the extent being essentially equal to yesterday. This year’s area is still above 2008’s minimum by ~100000 km^2, so pretty doubtful we’ll see it go under, but it’s definitely possible.
    Extent is now closer to 2008’s minimum than 2009’s, which was a fairly important, though arbitrary, mark to me. 2009 showed a lot of improvement over 2008, so we’ll have to see a lot of improvement between 2010/2011 to see 2011 go above 2009, which will be nearly required for the sceptics to make claim of recovery. Another drop like 2009/2010 and we’ll see 2011 below 2008, which would be a big blow to the sceptics.
    -Scott

  259. JAXA Extent Changes versus the recent years:
    … A bit longer than my normal chart, to show how the RATE of Loss/day is falling.
    … Also, some Weather forecasted for the next week.
    … Pips Drift for tomorrow, weakens for the first time in weeks.
    … Most Area measures dropped faster than Extent, but abruptly stopped today.
    Daily: ___________2007___ to___
    2010__&__(2009__2008
    Spt_6-to-7______ – 10,312_____ -66,093___(-16,250__-68,437
    Spt_7-to-8______ – 23,281_____ -37,813___(-_1,563__-24,375
    Spt_8-to-9______ – 13,907_____ -16,719___(-14,531__-_7,656
    Spt_9to10______ – 32,343_____ -25,994___(-20,625__XX=Min
    Spt_10-11______ – 25,650_____ – ?__? ___(-19,219__-_
    Spt_11-12______ – 15,569_____ – ?__? ___(-_9,531_-_
    Spt_12-13______ -_4,219 ___(Anti-Dipole)_(XX=Minimum_
    Spt_13-14______ – 32,500_____ – weird __
    Spt_14-15______ – 23,437_____ – ?__? _(2007=Bottom +469)
    Spt_15-16______ -__157 _____ – High over Pole (clear?)
    2007 then rose 42,567 in 4 days, then lost that AND 312 more.
    On the other hand, both the Lowest & Highest Concentration maps imply the 1/2 million km2 “arm” to the New Siberian Islands is breaking in the assault of 50 degree (F) water (!) from the Bering Strait (but the passing Gale will slow, even reverse, this for 2-3 days):
    Low: http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/ml/mspps/seaiceprd.html (does not show ice under 25%)
    High: http://polar.ncep.noaa.gov/seaice/Analyses.html (mid-page)
    PS Love to see Steve lay into these 2. Not because I’d believe 1 is a “conspiracy”, but because we might find out why they are different. Perhaps Anthony can ?

  260. Doomsdayers need to “Drift” over to this site..http://www.science20.com/chatter_box/arctic_ice_september_2010_update_1
    Long range F-casts for Arctic Temps back on the 24th of Aug which made me “Hope” that the melt would slow down to a trickle after the 6th & halt by the 12th have been about 80% correct…
    I will have to adjust some figures for next year, paying more attention to SST though, since the slow down started on the 9th but with air temps at the outer Ice edge at -1.5 to -3.5 c I’m still thinking that the melt will halt in the next couple of days…
    I know that none of you Brainiologists pay a hoot to what I post but My game plan is to find a user friendly way to f-cast ice melt than the uncomprehenable methods presented by most of you’all…. This year is my 1st practice,..next year i will be better but maybe I can find someone to follow & I won’t have to think so much..ruins my beer buzzzz!

  261. Actually I made the Predict on the 23rd..Like I said,.I know no one is paying me no mind ..This is just Practice for Me!…The 12th is tomorrow!!

  262. Preliminary JAXA number for Sept 11 is up…shows a 10000 km^2 gain. There’s a fair chance that Sept 10 was the minimum, but it would be a pretty abrupt minimum like in 2008. Last time we saw some gains, a few days later gave some brutal losses. The gain in yesterday’s area according to Cryosphere Today hints that the minimum might be here though. Still, late minima like 2005 or 2007 are still easily possible, even if we have several days of gain in a row.
    Current extent predicts a minimum extent of 4.89e6 km^2. My preferred method gives 4.88e6 km^2 with a std dev of 120000 km^2. At this point, these methods don’t mean much because current extent is within the uncertainty of the minimum extent.
    -Scott

  263. With JAXA 2010 ice extend minimum standing at 4813594 sq.km, if that holds it is remarkably close to the average (4.8 million sq.km) that our scientists predicted.
    Also interesting that Watt’s/Goddards prediction of ice “recovery” is back to fairy tale land. Not just did 2010 not “recover” to the average over the past 30 years, it did not even “recover” w.r.t. last year. In fact, it is painfully close to being the second smallest ice extent since satellite recordings started. On the positive side, 2011 now has a higher chance of seeing some “recovery” in Arctic Ice extend. Or maybe not. Will Anthony issue a new prediction for 2011 ? [he already has . . mod]
    With all due respect for opinions, but maybe we should listen to what our scientists tell us rather than what bloggers (even wattsupwiththat) reports.

Comments are closed.