While not hugely significant by itself, it is interesting to note that the DMI 30% Arctic extent has reached its highest number for this date, exceeding 2006. The refreeze has been very fast:
Here’s the zoom:
The JAXA 15% plot show it equal with 2006, and a steepening slope:
JAXA AMSR-E Sea Ice Extent -15% or greater – click to enlarge
@ur momisugly Pamela Gray says:
October 12, 2010 at 9:53 am
So, by inference, it can be said that the “climate zone” of any point on earth is determined primarily by its angle of exposure to the sun?
Richard Sharpe says:
October 12, 2010 at 10:04 am
Well done, Richard. Got it in one.
As I recall, the pebbles in a tin can method was employed by a University of Alaska graduate student during some biological field work. It didn’t turn out well for him.
With polar bears you have to use three pebbles.
The MSM is wonderfully silent . Apparently they are only interested in bad news , because probably their readership , a lot of them Obama voters , wishes to experience how bad this world is . So the unhappy feelings are projected on a situation completely beyond their control . It is a signature on the wall that nothing about the french shale oil is reported in the meanstream medie , which is in the oil world one of the biggest
endeavours of this moment and may lead to an overabundance of relatively cheap european oil in the near future . Already Shell postponed an extension of its oil production from tarsands in canada for an unknown period of time and gasprom apprently is slowing up its siberian gas production . What came first the club of Rome or the belief in carbonfootprints ? Let us keep cool , the weather will be helping .
I think it is interesting how the ice has already connected to the shoreline in East Siberia, close to where the Russian heat wave’s south winds melted the ice so swiftly last July. I wonder if those warm south winds pushed the warm coastal waters towards the poles, contributing to the melting back in July, but also causing upwelling of the deep waters close to the coast, bringing cold water up from the depths to the surface and hurrying the freeze-up in the fall.
On another post someone theorized that the quicker the ice forms, the longer the ice has to get thick. Then, the following spring, the thicker the ice is, the longer it takes to break up to a degree where it can be flushed south by winds. Therefore, in theory, the earlier the ice freezes in the fall, the greater the next summer’s extent should be.
I thought that was an interesting theory to mull over.
There is plenty to wonder about, withoiut involving politics at all.
In the interest of evaluating scientific methodology, an important function of this blog, it should be pointed out that the request for evaluations of the pebbles in a can trick would tend to elicit empirically valid responses that are biased in its favor. As several comments have noted, a more valid proxy might be derived from the field of ursine scatology.
And yet, the standard drum beat goes on: http://news.discovery.com/earth/arctic-ice-is-younger-thinner-and-disappearing.html
You’d think that facts would eventually sink in. The ice isn’t younger, thinner, and disappearing. In fact, at the moment it is higher than it has been for the last five years.
“…while Grizzly and Polar bear droppings smells like pepper and contains bells, bits of tin and a few small rocks. ”
What, no blueberries?
I like only italian ice.
What is the ice on the pole for? I would certainly prefer it a bit warmer…
Anthony Thompson says:
October 12, 2010 at 8:57 am
If you take the data from the JAXA website and calculate an annual running average since 2002, you will find that, overall, the ice extent has actually declined by about 5% in the last 8 years. The thickness has also declined.
Reports in recent history indicate that this is not the first time for Arctic ice to reduce to low levels. It is the first time with satellites viewing it. The research that includes the pre-satellite reports indicates that there are cycles in Arctic ice and one of these appears to be ~60 years in length. We may be passing the lowest point of such a 60 year cycle. It follows that if you look back 8 years you will see a decline. Indeed if you look back 20 years you will see a decline. This apparent ‘decline’ will continue until the cycle climbs out of the lowest point. Your metrics approach should cover around 60 years and ideally 120 years before conclusions can be drawn.
Pamela Gray
The null has been challenged and not defended
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/01/the-ice-who-came-in-from-the-cold/
1. The ice is cycling like never before in the recorded era
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/01/the-ice-who-came-in-from-the-cold/#comment-401837
2. Willis Agrees it challenges the null
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/01/the-ice-who-came-in-from-the-cold/#comment-401862
and tries to blame the sensor, but gets the wrong plaform
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/01/the-ice-who-came-in-from-the-cold/#comment-402047
promises to contact the scientist,
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/01/the-ice-who-came-in-from-the-cold/#comment-402155
but we still havent heard back
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/01/the-ice-who-came-in-from-the-cold/#comment-407150
You were on the thread.
I’ll repeat what I said there : the annual pattern is clear in the data as Willis showed. That pattern challenges the Null, as willis agreed. The only defense is to challenge the intrument or the instruments algorithms. No answer there.
basically, the artic is acting differently. What to make of it? That’s a different question. But the Null hypothesis ( there nothing interesting going on that we havent seen before ) is challenged by Willis’ observation of new pattern in sea ice loss and recovery.
Djozar says:
[Snip]
What, no blueberries?
Maybe if you are carrying trail mix.
{One Grizzly bear to another}
“They’re smarter than pigs but just as good”.
I partially agree with Thompson, especially as it applied to ice ceverage.
Cherry picking should be avoided for a lot of good scientific reasons, but even more important it should avoided because it makes skeptics look like hypocrites.
Ice cover in the Arctic appears to be recovering from a 30 year low extent. It is a fact
that current ice extent is well below the 30 average. We know from anecdote that ice extent has fluctuated before, but do not have any idea of what maximum and minmum are for it natural variation.
“”” Ed Fix says:
October 12, 2010 at 9:42 am
David Phillips:
“reached its highest number, not it’s (it is)…”
Alan says:
“…replace “it’s” by its full form “it is”…”
Newer grammer texts actually allow the optoinal use of the apostrophe for the posessive of “it”, m but I’m with you guys. I prefer to lump the posessive of “it” with the other pronouns (his, hers, ours, theirs, yours) and save the apostrophe for contractions. People tend to SO overwork the poor apostrophe, don’t you think? “””
Well Dr Richard Lederer; the world’s foremost authority on the English language would disagree completely with any “newer grammar texts” that dare to offer an optional use of a possesssive apostrophe for it. And I would suggest that it is a spelling issue; not a grammar issue. But I’m sure some “newer grammar texts” might disagree on that too. So lets all hear it for hi’s, her’s, your’s, their’s, our’s.
Texting is going to destroy language. Imagine reading “Anna Karenina”, in texting speak.
Question for the brainiacs in the crowd – if we are currently seeing a very steep recovery in extent will things naturally tend to flatten out more than they might otherwise have later as the area of open water is covered with an insulating layer of ice? – OR all other things being equal, does an early steep refreeze tend to contribute significantly to maximum greater extent [or possibly thickness as well] later on down the road?
Just wondering,
~ your friend W^3
Douglas DC was absolutely correct!
For a poley bear I’d use the same as I’ve used on an African buffalo, nothing smaller than a .458. And I’d use THREE rounds, just to be sure.
James F. Evans says:
October 12, 2010 at 9:25 am
Where’s all that Global Warming?
It’s in the N.H. atmosphere, courtesy of El Nino 09/10. When it’s gone, it’s really gone, because the ocean heat is exhausted and doesn’t have a surplus to expend. The climactic ball rests squarely in the corner of La Nina, and to the level to which La Nina drops/is caused to drop. One would hope (you know what they say about wishful thinking) that the episode in S. America Winter was the peak of it. I wouldn’t want to bet on it, as the rapid refreeze in the Arctic is not the best of signs for adjacent areas.
Got wool?
Polar Bear proxy proof that the Arctic is melting.
The record low temps in the Arctic Summer 80N should have been the clue to this rapid refreeze.
Until just yesterday, this link : http://ice-map.appspot.com/ took me to the Google Arctic/Antarctic daily maps of Aqua/Terra and Band 367. It’s broken now, so don’t try it.
Does anyone know of an alternate link to these maps?
They were great to follow.
How many Manhattan’s in a California?
Eminent environmentalist predicts imminent disappearance of Arctic summer ice!
OMG
Already at a record high level in the satellite era, sea ice extent in the polar region is expanding at an enormous nearly unprecedented rate.
If not stopped in the next few months this great onslaught of ice could signal the end of the Holocene interglacial and an end to civilization as we know it. (Such as it is)
Or summer might be over… either one.
The null hypothesis is that Polar climates have, intrinsic to the parameters that make up a Polar climate, naturally occurring weather pattern variations that result in ice formation and melt patterns tied to those weather pattern variations. So far, no Polar weather pattern variation currently understood can be connected mechanistically to an increase in greenhouse gasses, and in particular, to fossil fuel CO2 increased emissions.
In response to another commenter, the Polar climate is directly tied to its angle of interaction with solar irradiation. Topography influences ice build-up and melt patterns, but solar irradiation is key to a Polar climate. Other climate types have both topography as well solar exposure parameters.
The null hypothesis stands. 1. The Polar climate is not changing. And 2. The Polar climate has within its definition, natural short and long-term weather pattern variations that influence ice build-up and melt, but that cannot change the Polar climate or the fact that it will continue to ice up, unless the angle at which Polar regions face solar irradiation changes.
In reply to R Bateman @ur momisugly 11:52am
This link still works :
http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/subsets/?mosaic=Arctic
In ancient times, we had oracles and soothsayers who told us why calamity has befallen us, which gods were angry, and what sacrifices we had to make.
Today, we still have oracles (they have different job titles now) who tell us of calamities that have befallen us (or will do so real soon now), that humans (gods are sooo yesterday) are the cause and what sacrifices we have to make.
“plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose”