Sea Ice News – July ARCUS forecast published

Credit: Arctic Research Consortium of the U.S. (ARCUS).

Figure 1. Distribution of individual Pan-Arctic Outlook (July Report) values for September 2010 sea ice extent. Credit: Arctic Research Consortium of the U.S. (ARCUS). Click to enlarge.

Download High Resolution Version of Figure 1.

Thank you to all contributors of the July Sea Ice outlook. We received 16 responses for the Pan-Arctic report (Figure 1), with estimates in the range of 4.0 to 5.5 million square kilometers for the September arctic mean sea ice extent. The median value was 4.6 million square kilometers; the quartile values were 4.3 and 4.7 million square kilometers, a rather narrow range given the intrinsic uncertainty of the estimates on the order of 0.5 million square kilometers. It is important to note for context that all 2011 estimates are well below the 1979–2007 September climatological mean of 6.7 million square kilometers.

There continues to be a consensus for continuation of an anomalously low sea ice extent similar to the values for 2008-2010 and below all previous values before 2007. The data show a continuing low value of sea ice extent at the beginning of the summer season and an appearance of a weather pattern (the Arctic Dipole) that tends to favor summer sea ice loss, in contrast to weak and variable summer winds of previous decades. Ocean changes may also be involved. According to the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC), arctic sea ice extent for June 2011 was the second lowest in the satellite data record since 1979. These new factors over the last several years seem to be holding the September sea ice extent at persistent low values below 5.0 million square kilometers.

The Regional Outlook can help shed light on the uncertainties associated with the estimates in the Pan-Arctic Outlook by providing more detail at the regional scale. We received 7 regional outlooks. With the exception of the Greenland Sea, all regions are expected to exhibit below-average ice extent throughout the remainder of the season.

This month’s Outlook reports also include a more detailed discussion of sea ice thickness information provided from field measurements and model results. This year, several airborne campaigns have collected ice thickness or surface topography data in the North American Arctic. Such surveys can help inform predictions of summer and fall ice conditions.

There continues to be a consensus for continued anomalously low sea ice extent similar to the values for 2008-2010 and below all previous values before 2007. If the observed 2011 sea ice extent is in the range of 2008-2010 values, similar to the 2011 Outlook projections, it would point towards the absence of “tipping point” behavior after the record minimum of 2007, but would not indicate a return to the previous state observed prior to 2007. The data from 2011 shows a continuing low value of sea ice extent at the beginning of the summer season and an appearance of the Arctic Dipole weather pattern with southerly winds that tends to favor summer sea ice loss, in contrast to weak and variable summer winds of previous decades. Ocean changes may also be involved. These new factors over the last several years seem to be holding the September sea ice extent at persistent low values below 5.0 million square kilometers.

JUNE 2011 ICE AND ATMOSPHERIC CONDITIONS

The ice extent through May and June was at or below previous record sea ice extents from 2007 and 2010, and converges towards both values at the beginning of July (Figure 2). According to the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC), arctic sea ice extent for June 2011 was the second lowest in the satellite data record since 1979. Sea ice extent was lower than normal in much of the Arctic, and the Kara Sea region had particularly low ice extent. Ice has also started to break up off the coast of Alaska in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas. These early open water areas absorb the sun’s energy, which will help to further ice melt through the summer.

Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC).

Figure 2. Daily sea ice extent as of the beginning of July 2011. The solid blue line indicates 2011; the dashed green line shows 2007; the narrow dark line is 2010 and the thick solid gray line indicates average extent from 1979 to 2000. The gray area around the 1979–2000 average line shows the two standard deviation range of the data. Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC).

Normally (i.e., before 2007) light winds prevail during summer in the Arctic. However, throughout the summer of 2007, the persistence of the Arctic Dipole Anomaly (AD) sea level pressure pattern, with high pressure on the North American side and low pressure on the Siberian side, contributed substantially to the record low ice extent in September 2007. In June 2011, similar to June 2010, the AD was present in early summer (Figure 3), but in 2011 the pattern is shifted toward the Siberian coast. This is consistent with developing early sea ice losses along the Siberian coast and the Kara Sea.

Figure 3. Map of sea level pressures (SLP) for June 2011

Figure 3. Map of sea level pressures (SLP) for June 2011 showing an Arctic Dipole (AD) pattern over the central Arctic Ocean, but with stronger pressure gradients shifted toward the Siberian side.

ICE THICKNESS IN THE NORTH AMERICAN AND GREENLAND ARCTIC

The importance of the ice thickness field in controlling summer ice evolution has been well established, including by contributions to the Sea Ice Outlook in past years from ensemble simulations with coupled ice ocean models (Kauker et al., Zhang et al.). This year, several airborne campaigns, including the German-Canadian-US collaborative effort PAMARCMIP (see Figure 4), the NASA IceBridge flights, and others have collected ice thickness or surface topography data in the North American Arctic. Figure 4 shows a comparison between this data and model output by Kauker et al. used in their September ice extent prediction. It is noteworthy that the model over-predicts ice thickness along the North American and Greenland shelf margin. It is not clear whether this difference is also connected to the comparatively high prediction for September ice extent by Kauker et al.’s group; the October retrospective analysis will provide more insight into that question. However, it does appear that the band of thick ice north of the Canadian Archipelago and Greenland has further thinned (see also Figure 5). At the same time, the ice in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas is seeing less multiyear ice drifting in from the Canadian Arctic, with more first-year ice prevalent in 2011 than in past years. As discussed in the Regional Outlook, this has implications for the summer ice season in the region. Overall, while we are lacking ice thickness data over the central Arctic (though with Cryosat in orbit this will change soon: http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEMAAW0T1PG_index_0.html), there is some indication that the regions of the thickest ice may have seen further thinning. However, at present it is unclear whether any of this will manifest itself in milder ice conditions this year, since the ice with thicknesses well above 2 m (where the biggest changes have occurred) will not melt out completely.

Provided by F. Kauker, OASYS/AWI.

Figure 4. Map of ice thickness based on airborne electromagnetic measurements from 31 March to 28 April 2011 by Alfred Wegener Institute and collaborators (top, PAMARCMIP data binned into 20 km cells). Shown at bottom is the output from the NAOSIM coupled ice ocean model for 14 April 2011. The model simulation does not contain assimilated ice thickness data and shows significant differences in particular in the region north of Greenland. Provided by F. Kauker, OASYS/AWI.
Provided by S. Hendricks and C. Haas.

Figure 5. Ice thickness frequency distribution (preliminary data) for Lincoln Sea transects in Figure 4 (region north of Canada and Greenland) for 2011 and 2009. Note that 2011 thicknesses of multiyear and deformed first-year ice are lower both with respect to the ice thickness mode and the distribution of thick ice. Provided by S. Hendricks and C. Haas.

2011 NORTHERN SEA ROUTE THROUGH SIBERIAN ARCTIC OPENED FOR ICEBREAKER-ESCORTED SHIPPING

On the 30 June the 2011 Northern Sea Route (NSR) “opened” for icebreaker-escorted sea transit along the northern shore of Russia. The nuclear powered icebreaker NS Yamal, with shark’s teeth painted on her bows, left Murmansk to rendezvous with the oil tanker MV Perseverance and escort her along the NSR to her China destination. This year the arctic sea ice is melting so rapidly that the NSR is opening earlier than ever. Updated from: http://articles.maritimepropulsion.com/article/2011-Northern-Sea-Route-n….

CHANGES IN OCEAN HEAT TRANSPORT ON THE ATLANTIC SIDE?

The temperatures of North Atlantic Ocean water flowing north into the Arctic Ocean—the warmest water in at least 2,000 years—are likely related to the amplification of global warming in the Arctic. The Fram Strait water temperatures today are about 2.5 degrees F warmer than during the Medieval Warm Period. http://dirwww.colorado.edu/news/r/9059018f4606597f20dc4965fa9c9104.html

KEY STATEMENTS FROM INDIVIDUAL OUTLOOKS

Key statements from the individual Outlook contributions are below, summarized here by author, organization of first author, Outlook value, standard deviation/error estimate (if provided), method, and abstracted statement. The statements are ordered from highest to lowest outlook values. The full individual contributions are available in the “Pan-Arctic Individual PDFs” section at the bottom of this webpage, and provide more detail.

Kauker et al. (Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research); 5.5 ± 0.5; Model

For the present outlook the coupled ice-ocean model NAOSIM has been forced with atmospheric surface data from January 1948 to June 22, 2011. This atmospheric forcing has been taken from the NCEP/NCAR reanalysis (Kalnay et al., 1996). We used atmospheric data from the years 1991 to 2010 for the ensemble prediction. The model experiments all start from the same initial conditions on May 22, 2011. We thus obtain 20 different realizations of sea ice development in summer 2011. We use this ensemble to derive probabilities of ice extent minimum values in September 2011.

WattsUpWithThat.com (Public Contribution-Poll); 5.1; Heuristic

Website devoted to climate and weather polled its readers for the best estimate of 2011 sea ice extent minimum by choosing bracketed values from a web poll (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/26/july-arcus-forecast-poll-what-will…). 15.38% chose 5.0 to 5.1 million km2, with second greatest vote of 11.17% choosing 5.4 to 5.5 million sq km2.

Morison and Untersteiner (Polar Science Center, APL-UW); 4.8; Heuristic

The ice extent was below the extent at the same time in 2007 but is now even with 2007. As we argued in June, if loss rates don’t become anomalously large in the next couple of months, the ice extent should be a little greater than the extent in 2007.

Stroeve et al. (National Snow and Ice Data Center); 4.7; Statistical

This estimate uses the same approach as last year: survival of ice of different ages based on ice age fields provided by Chuck Fowler and Jim Maslanik (Univ. Colorado, Boulder). However, this year we are using a revised ice age product, one based on a 15% sea ice concentration threshold rather than the earlier version, which used a threshold of 40% [see Maslanik et al., in review for more details]. The use of a 15% threshold on sea ice concentration captures greater detail within the marginal ice zone, matches NSIDC’s threshold used for mapping overall sea ice extent and should therefore provide a better estimate of the September 2011 ice extent.

Meier et al. (National Snow and Ice Data Center); 4.7 ± 0.6; Statistical

This statistical method uses previous years’ daily extent change rates from July 1 through September 30 to calculate projected daily extents starting from June 30. The September daily extents are averaged to calculate the monthly extent. Rates from recent years are more likely to occur because of the change in ice cover. Thus, the official project is based on the rates for 2002-2010.

Beitsch et al. (University of Hamburg); 4.7 ± 0.5; Statistical

The estimate is based on AMSR-E sea ice concentration data derived using the ARTIST sea ice (ASI) algorithm (Spreen et al., 2008; Kaleschke et al., 2001). To obtain an estimate, the ice area from a central Arctic subregion is regressed with the previous years and their September mean extents. Daily updates can be found here: http://icdc.zmaw.de/cryosphere.html?&L=1

Note (7/13): During the past few days, the estimate dropped to a value of 4.1 +- 0.2 Mio km.

Canadian Ice Service; 4.7 ± 0.2; Heuristic

Since Arctic multi-year ice (MYI) did not experience free passage through Nares Strait throughout the winter of 2011 as it did in 2007 and 2010, a normal concentration of MYI currently exists in the Lincoln Sea area and north of Ellesmere Island at the beginning of July 2011. This factor may be just enough to prevent record-breaking minimum ice concentrations and extents in the Arctic Ocean in 2011.

Blanchard-Wrigglesworth et al. (University of Washington); 4.6 ± 0.5; Model

Our forecast uses a state-of-the-art General Circulation Model (GCM) initialized with average May 2011 sea ice area and volume anomalies obtained from the Pan-arctic Ice-Ocean Modeling and Assimilation System (PIOMAS). The GCM used is the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)’s Community Climate System Model version 4 (CCSM4) [1] at 1_ resolution in all components.

Lukovich et al. (Centre for Earth Observation Science, U. of Manitoba); 4.6; Heuristic-Dynamics

Spatial patterns in difference maps for springtime stratospheric relative vorticity and winds in 2011 relative to 2007 highlight a westward shift in anticyclonic/cyclonic circulation and significant differences over the Beaufort Sea and Canadian Archipelago, with implications for stratosphere-surface coupling and thus surface winds in this region. A combined lack of coherence in ice drift fields and reduced ice concentrations in April 2011 relative to April 2007 suggest that springtime ice dynamical contributions to fall sea ice extent may be associated with sea ice deformation and ridging within an increasingly mobile and fractured ice cover.

Hamilton (University of New Hampshire); 4.4 ± 0.9; Statistical

This is a naive, purely statistical model. It predicts September mean extent simply from a Gompertz curve representing the trend over previous years. Estimation data are the NSIDC monthly mean extent reports from September 1979 through September 2010.

Randles; 4.4; Statistical

A Gompertz fit of the NSIDC September extent figures is used as a starting point. Multiple linear regression is then used to predict the residual from the Gompertz fit. Two predictors have been used which are:

a) The residual of the end of June Cryosphere Today area numbers at the end of June from a Gompertz fit of those end of June area numbers.

b) The residual of the end of June PIOMAS volume numbers at the end of June from a Gompertz fit of those end of June volume numbers.

Arbetter et al. (National Ice Center) 4.3; Statistical

In the July update, using sea ice conditions from the end of May (June used end of April) as well as air temperatures and sea level pressures, the timing of the minimum is moved forward two weeks, although the value remains the same as before. This is because the update predicts slightly lower ice extent through July and August, which does not decelerate until the second week of September, rather than the first as in the June Outlook. The minimum forecast value may be constrained by observations. That is, since the projection is based on the previous 10 years’ observations, the value can be no higher than the highest ice amount and no lower than the lowest ice amount in the past 10 years. The forecasts so far are robust in predicting close to near-record minimums. It must also be noted that the Outlook does not project conditions in the Canadian Archipelago; it has not been determined how much lower the ice extent is because of this. Since the July Outlook also suggests a delayed refreezing of the ice compared to June, the possibility exists that a record low could be seen. In 2010, the July Outlook was the lowest projected value and too low compared to the actual value. A thorough re-examination of ARIFS over the past 10 years could better characterize error in the model.

Zhang (Applied Physics Lab, University of Washington); 4.3 ± 0.5; Model

This is based on numerical ensemble predictions starting on 7/1/2011 using the Pan-arctic Ice-Ocean Modeling and Assimilation System (PIOMAS). The ensemble consists of seven members each of which uses a unique set of NCEP/NCAR atmospheric forcing fields from recent years, representing recent climate.

Folkerts 4.2± 0.2; Statistical

Various single and multiple regression results with r2 > 0.6 suggest that the September extent will be close to, or perhaps below, the minimum value set in 2007. Analyses based on extent, area, and volume.

Lindsay and Zhang; 4.1 ± 0.4; Statistical

This is quite a bit lower than the prediction from last month.

Peterson et al. (UK Met Office); 4.0 ± 1.2; Model

This projection is an experimental prediction from the UK Met Office seasonal forecast system, GloSea4 (Arribas et al., 2011). GloSea4 is an ensemble prediction system using the HadGEM3 coupled climate model (Hewitt et al., 2011). A more complete description of the GloSea4 system can be found in the June report and accompanying references (http://www.arcus.org/files/search/sea-ice-outlook/2011/06/pdf/panarctic/…)

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

112 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
kadaka (KD Knoebel)
July 14, 2011 10:44 am

From Theo Goodwin on July 14, 2011 at 10:15 am:

I read an article from the University of Colorado which I found here:
file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/WileyParsons/My%20Documents/7-14%20Warming%20North%20Atlantic%20water%20tied%20to%20heating%20Arctic,%20according%20to%20new%20study%20%20%20News%20Center%20%20%20University%20of%20Colorado%20at%20Boulder.htm

And did Mr. Parsons find out that you were looking around on his M$ Windoze hard drive?
To avoid angering Mr. Parsons, try reading it here instead:
http://www.colorado.edu/news/r/9059018f4606597f20dc4965fa9c9104.html
Warming North Atlantic water tied to heating Arctic, according to new study
January 27, 2011

July 14, 2011 10:53 am

“…However, the main point remains that our only trustworthy measure of Arctic ice extends just to 1979. There is no serious science behind our existing study of Arctic sea ice…”
But I thought we had Ice Core records that went back thousands of years.
Wait – that’s the Antarctic.
So ask the climate scientists what the longest ice record that ANYONE ever got from an Arctic ice core. If there has been an ice cap for thousands of years, there should be an ice core showing it, right?
That alone would show the variability of arctic ice.

Theo Goodwin
July 14, 2011 10:59 am

kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
July 14, 2011 at 10:44 am
Kadaka,
Thank You. That’s what I get from not watching what I am doing.

Theo Goodwin
July 14, 2011 11:58 am

henrythethird says:
July 14, 2011 at 10:53 am
I was referring to sea ice extent, not temperatures. Anyway, they are talking about the Fram strait, whose other end is the Nares strait. Ice cores might not work for the Fram strait. The Fram strait and surrounding coast lines probably have a mixed history as ice coverage goes.

roger
July 14, 2011 12:22 pm

“Or did the Danes breed cold cows and frigid-loving hay?”
If only they had known about the foraminifera shells (accurate to 2.5 F) on their doorstep they would not have resorted to using seaweed to forecast the local weather. Perhaps they used tree rings for temperatures, or maybe they just threw them on the fire.
In India they use bull sh#t for cooking…………….

stephen richards
July 14, 2011 12:23 pm

Brian says:
July 14, 2011 at 8:41 am
“Smokey,
Did you miss the part where the article states that water temps in the Atlantic are 2.5 above the Med warm period and that it’s lkely caused by Global Warming?
It seems that you missed that part.”
So Brian, how in hell’s name did they measure temps to 0.5°C in the MWP? Don’t be soooo naive.

dwright
July 14, 2011 12:27 pm

I really hope Parks Canada finds the Franklin expedition this summer. Let the chicken little s explain how 2 – 20 hp sail ships managed to get stuck there.
http://www.pc.gc.ca/eng/culture/expeditions2011/index.aspx

phlogiston
July 14, 2011 12:49 pm

Was this post written by R Gates? He is the one who has been endlessly repeating the “warmest in 2000 years” Mann-associated sediment data – while avoiding mentioning that it is sediment proxy data. Sediment proxy data is highly variable and one proxy alone not solid evidence of a trend. Other sediment proxy data from the north Siberian coast (WUWT post – search for “9000 years”) showed the opposite – water temperatures currently near their minimum for the Holocene.

July 14, 2011 1:04 pm

henrythethird,
The GISP-2 ice cores from Greenland show continuous ice cover for hundreds of thousands of years:
http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k247/dhm1353/Climate%20Change/alley.png
However, the Arctic has been ice free during historical times, and it was undoubtedly ice free during warmer episodes such as the MWP, the Minoan Warming, Holocene Optimum, etc:
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/lappi/gisp-last-10000-new.png
It’s regional variability, and the null hypothesis remains un-falsified.

July 14, 2011 3:11 pm

Smokey: what is the null hypothesis? To TEST a null you have to specify a null with NUMBERS.
so what is that null? with numbers, so we can test or falsify it.
Do you believe like Lindzen, Spencer, eschenbach, and watts, that GHGs do in fact warm the planet? To be sure, these 4 hold that the warming effect is smaller than the IPCC holds. But do you or do you not believe that radiative physics is correct? You know the physics guys like me used to build things that protect our wonderful country?

Theo Goodwin
July 14, 2011 3:21 pm

Steven Mosher says:
July 14, 2011 at 3:11 pm
“Smokey: what is the null hypothesis? To TEST a null you have to specify a null with NUMBERS.
so what is that null? with numbers, so we can test or falsify it.”
The null hypothesis is that natural variation includes “today’s warming.” We will have to argue about the number, as different folks disagree. (Actually, no one knows diddly about what causes the numbers or the numbers themselves. In that context, it is unreasonable to ask for the numbers. When are the Warmista going to engage in the activity of science and create some physical hypotheses that can be used to explain warming?)
“Do you believe like Lindzen, Spencer, eschenbach, and watts, that GHGs do in fact warm the planet? To be sure, these 4 hold that the warming effect is smaller than the IPCC holds.”
They believe that the warming from GHGs will not be dangerous.
“But do you or do you not believe that radiative physics is correct?”
I take it that Arrhenius’ physical hypotheses are highly confirmed. But from those hypotheses, it is not possible to infer dangerous warming. (Actually, it is not possible to infer any warming at all because whether there is warming or cooling depends entirely on the forcings, such as the effects of CO2 on cloud formation, but Warmista have not developed one reasonably confirmed hypothesis about cloud formation and, as a matter of fact, have not even tried to do so. You have to get up from the computer, don’t ya know?)
“You know the physics guys like me used to build things that protect our wonderful country?”
So, when did you go to the other side?

ldd
July 14, 2011 3:27 pm

@Steven Mosher:
Deliberately spelling Eschenback and Watts with small caps on their last names – shows an intent of insult to me. Can’t have merit and conduct oneself that way … just my opinion.

Rational Debate
July 14, 2011 3:32 pm

Hi Anthony & Mods,
Just wanted to point out an article typo in the article’s text caption for figure 1 – the date ought to be 2011, not 2010.

July 14, 2011 3:55 pm

Steven Mosher,
I’ve given you the definition of the null hypothesis, and explained it regarding the past parameters of temperatures and trends at least a dozen times now. I’ve given Dr Spencer’s explanation of the null hypothesis, along with his statement that the null hypothesis has never been falsified. I’ve pointed out that Trenberth wants to change the definition of the null hypothesis because it stands in the way of his wild-eyed eco-alarmism. Otherwise he wouldn’t care, would he?
But none of this sinks in, because you’re a models guy, not an empiricist. I’ve also stated on many occasions that CO2 has an effect. Why do you still question it? I’m in complete agreement with the folks you mentioned, and for the same reasons they’ve given. My position, as I’ve stated repeatedly here, is that CO2 may result in ≈1°C for 2xCO2, ± a fraction of a degree either way [maybe a little more, and just as likely, maybe a little less]. Like the folks you mentioned, I absolutely reject the preposterous ≥3°C model-based sensitivity number bandied about by the self-serving UN/IPCC. [You might have noticed that planet earth doesn’t agree with the IPCC models, either.]
Furthermore, I have repeatedly stated that more CO2 is harmless and beneficial on balance — based on verifiable, real world observations. Conversely, there is no evidence showing global damage as a result of more CO2; thus, it is a harmless trace gas. And since the evidence and the models disagree, I prefer to go with the evidence. The beneficial effect of more CO2 is indisputable, as is the net beneficial effect of a slightly warmer planet. I have been entirely consistent in my position. Why doesn’t it sink in?
BTW, thanx for mentioning that you’re a physics guy. I thought I’d read somewhere that you were a Professor of English, or something similar. But that could not possibly have been correct, could it?☺

phlogiston
July 14, 2011 4:36 pm

This is the post I had in mind:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/23/surprise-peer-reviewed-study-says-current-arctic-sea-ice-is-more-extensive-than-most-of-the-past-9000-years/
Least ice in 2000 years? Or most in 9000 years? Take your pick.
O – nearly forget – the null hypothesis according to Steven Mosher would be a snowball earth ice age – anything else must be proof of runaway CO2 global warming.

Frank Kotler
July 14, 2011 6:49 pm

I hate to mention it, but currently both Arctic and Antarctic sea ice appears to be at a “record low for this date”, or close to it. Pretty short “record”, so I don’t think this “proves” much, but the “see-saw” (sea-saw?) appears to be broken right now.
Melting sea ice won’t raise sea level, but one might expect melting sea ice to indicate melting land ice as well, and one might expect this to cause a spectacular increase in the rate of sea level rise. This doesn’t seem to be happening. Something’s wrong with my expectations!
Best,
Frank

Richard
July 14, 2011 7:05 pm

I have been following IJIS and Arctic Roos daily, and the collapse of ice in the Arctic this summer is stunning. (by the way, I`m not a believer in agw) The ice is plummeting like an elevator. Sadly, I believe this summers minimum will break the `07 record minimum by a good margin.

rbateman
July 14, 2011 8:48 pm

Welcome to the new Arctic Sea Ice norms for the next 20 years or better.
It has everything to do with pumping precious warm water up to the Arctic, where the heat energy is used up in melting the ice and escapes to space. Then there’s that darn Arctic Dipole shoving the ice around and making the job more efficient. This is cooling at its worst, for each winter renews the pack ready to divert more of our planets warmth out to space. Not to mention the disruption of weather patterns necessary for good ag. yields plus unseasonalbe precip. and tornadoes. Helped in part by jets stream further south than what they have been for many decades.
The Arctic can dish out a yearly supply of ice: We in the Temperate Zones have to live with the cooling that is ships down to us. We cannot live in the Arctic, so we’re between a rock and an icy place.
In this less than zero-sum chilling game, we in the Temperate Zone are the losers.

rbateman
July 14, 2011 8:54 pm

henrythethird says:
July 14, 2011 at 10:53 am
I believe that the longest ice-core record from the Arctic comes from Greenland and is comparable, for the most part, with the Antarctic Cores.

AndyW
July 14, 2011 10:01 pm

People always complain about the record only going back to 1979 for the Arctic, but then fail to mention same about the Antarctic, I wonder why ?
To me it smacks of not liking the results and so coming up with any stick to beat it with.
Andy

John F. Hultquist
July 14, 2011 10:10 pm

Frank Kotler says:
July 14, 2011 at 6:49 pm
“ . . .one might expect this to cause a spectacular increase in the rate of sea level rise. This doesn’t seem to be happening. Something’s wrong with my expectations!”

Snow is ice and there is a lot of it where folk’s expectations (a few years ago) were wrong also. One example:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2015604936_apwacrystalmountainski.html
The resort says the longest season in its 48-year history was made possible by record-breaking snowfall . . .

R. Gates
July 14, 2011 10:17 pm

Theo Goodwin says:
July 14, 2011 at 10:15 am
“There is no serious science behind our existing study of Arctic sea ice.”
___
This is an absurd statement, and I would hope that the majority of those reading it, regardless of your particular position on the subject of anthropogenic global climate change, realize what an absurd statement it is.

BigWaveDave
July 14, 2011 10:26 pm

There is far more heat radiating from the poles than they receive from the Sun. Much like heat from Earth’s surface is transported by the mass flow of buoyant heated air up to where it radiates to space, heat from lower latitudes is transported poleward by atmospheric and oceanic mass flows toward the poles. Air temperature at the surface is a result of the compression of the cooled air falling to the surface.
If there is a greenhouse involved other than gravity, its effect must be slight.
.

rbateman
July 14, 2011 10:32 pm

AndyW says:
July 14, 2011 at 10:01 pm
They should (sticks) come in pairs with which to beat a drum with.
One stick rises, the other falls.
You mean all this time AGW has been beating a drum solo?

DR
July 15, 2011 4:13 am

@R. Gates,
Until GCM’s are not so heavily relied upon, conclusions made about the future of Arctic ice will not be serious science. They cannot model the atmosphere or the oceans correctly for the rest of the globe, including precipitation and cloud cover, so what would make anyone think the Arctic is any different?