Apparently, not all the Arctic is warming to script. This is an interesting graph from PICES, titled The Bering Sea: Current Status and Recent Events.
It is accompanied by this text:
Normally, a moderate El Niño (as in winter 2010) would have resulted in a warmer Bering Sea and La Niña in winter 2011, and weakening in spring would have supported cooler conditions. However, in recent years it appears that the location of the Aleutian Low had more influence on the Bering Sea in 2010 and 2011 than did the intensity of the low or the ENSO connection.
Additionally, the report suggests the ecosystem of the Bering sea is not so bad after all, with plankton and fish volume on the rise.
There’s too much to reproduce here, read the entire article at PICES here:
http://www.pices.int/publications/pices_press/volume19/v19_n2/pp_35-37_BS_June2011.pdf
h/t to reader “Rosey”
This entire discussion shows how little direct relationship there is between SST’s in a portion of the Bering Sea and the overall state of sea ice across the whole of the Arctic, where SST’s are, and have been above average for many years– and the low year-to-year sea ice extent certainly reflects that. And this little extract from the research posted above mentioned:
“Both years, 2011 and 2010, exhibited warm temperature
anomalies in the northern Bering and Chukchi Seas that
have remained an Arctic-wide feature since the beginning
of the 21st century.”
Note: WARM TEMPERATURE ANOMALIES…ARCTIC WIDE FEATURE
So the Arctic waters have been warmer than average for the past 11 years, despite multiple El Nino’s and La Ninas, and despite an intense solar minimum…and not just the waters, but the land as well as permafrost is melting too. These are all inconvenient truths for some who might want to place all climate forcing on oceans or sun alone.
After Drought, Waters In Lake Mead Start To Rise
by Ted Robbins
http://www.npr.org/2011/07/18/138484216/after-years-for-drought-lake-mead-waters-start-to-rise
Interesting. Even NPR is beginning to hedge their writing against the possibility of cooling trends. This is a post-drought story, for example. I think they’ve given up trying to conflate higher snowfall averages with harbingers of warming. At least, not with a straight face.
Steven Mosher says:
July 19, 2011 at 3:25 pm
“What I mean by all other things being “roughly equal”…”
____
Problem is, all things can never be “roughly equal” again when looking at the recent past, as we have an atmosphere that is not equal in composition to the range it had been in for the past million years, as greenhouse gases are at their highest levels in at least a million years. How can “all things be equal” under those conditions? The best we can hope for is too look to the past, when things were roughly like they were now in terms of Milankovtich cycles, atmospheric composition, etc. and see what the earth was like then. That takes us back to the Pliocene, roughly 3 million years ago:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/features/199704_pliocene/
http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Bright-Green/2010/0108/Comparing-Earth-s-current-warming-to-the-Pliocene
http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/feature/2011/3/pliocene-climate-lessons
Steve Mosher,
If you added an extra 7w/m2 year in, year out, the earth would heat up by about two degrees and reach an new equilibrium. The ocean heat content would appear to take about 5 years reach the new equilibrium and Ice might take a decade to a couple of centuries depending on its formation processes.
With regards to arctic ice there is a huge number of variables such as fresh water outflow from russia which creates a fertile low density high freezing point layer for ice to form.
As for feedbacks you need to consider the two dominant negative feedbacks, the increase in black body radiation where increasing temp decreases the proportion emitted at wavelengths corresponding to the critical CO2 band, and the increase in convective cooling which is responsible for greater energy transfer than radiation from the surface, increases exponentially with increasing temp and is deliberately underestimated in computer models (which model it as a linear process)
I’m sorry wayne co2 won’t do us much good if our government spends billions to bury it underground like they are doing here in Alberta!
Speaking of the arctic, has anyone else noticed that the temps have been below normal for the past 50 days?
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
That DMI air temp (N of 80N) graphic doesn’t seem very predictive, does it? During the past 50 Arctic sea ice has been melting like crazy.
The Arctic is going through its normal natural variability cycle. The North Pole has been ice free in the recent historical past, and there is no doubt at all that the N. Pole has been ice free at various times during the Holocene – when CO2 was below 300 ppmv.
The climate alarmist crowd clings to the current Arctic ice cycle like a drowning man clings to a popsicle stick. It’s all they have left of their endless scary predictions. Too bad the Antarctic isn’t cooperating with the scaremeisters. And they still cannot produce one iota of testable evidence showing the current decline is caused by human emissions.
Without evidence, it’s all just arm-waving.
Steven Mosher says:
July 19, 2011 at 10:25 am
***
Steven – I rephrase your post, but applying the same logic:
“In a world that is COOLING, all other things being roughly equal, ANTARCTIC sea [ICE] will GROW, over time. It won’t GROW every day or every month or every year (’cause all other things are not really “equal”) some years may see huge GROWTH, some years may SHRINK. But over time, over long stretches of time, those few FEWER Watts per year integrate slowly, methodically, they integrate, and since 1979 that is what you see. The ice that grows and shrinks every year, every year, on average, GROWS a little more. and a little more.’
***********************************************************
I live at 43.5 degrees south, visitors to Scott base from this part of the world confirm the growth of sea ice over time, as also recorded in the satellite photo record since 1979.
All the best.
Smokey, of course there have been open water leads near the north pole in the recent past, as today, but that’s not what interests the scientists. An ice-free central arctic has probably not existed for at least several thousand years, but we’re moving very rapidly in that direction now. What’s your evidence for a “natural cycle” like that?
As for the Antarctic, better not look now.
Information has become so suspect on sea ice data, that I don’t know who, what, or where to get reliable data anymore.
Example.
Anthony has on his Sea Ice page images from several sources and none of the visual data seems to match each other.
The University of Illinois – Cryosphere Today image for 7-17(19?) shows sea ice in Baffin Bay, but not in Hudson Bay or parts of the Beaufort Sea.
The NSIDC shows a similar image but with a speck of ice in the Hudson.
The CIS shows ice for both the Baffin and Hudson and more pronounced ice in the straits of the Beaufort.
Another image that isn’t displayed on WUWT, but can be found at the NIC, show more pronounced ice in the Baffin, Hudson and the Beaufort.
Having said this, any data to suggest more or less melt from previous years, cannot be determined, if this current data from these providers, cant agree or show even a modicum of regularity.
I even supported JAXA until last years spring, when their data started to become suspect.
There are too many irregularities among these data providers for me to feel comfortable to agree or disagree with the amount of sea ice loss anymore.
Is it possible that these different images are being taken at different times of the day, and
could there be enough discrepancies throughout the day to skew the data?
/rhetorical
I would like to just come out and say that the data is falsified, but its probably more likely that the culprit is an ‘interpretation’ of the data.
Too many jobs are at stake.
Too much money is on the line.
Just more garbage.
When Kevin mentioned that it was a shame that they couldn’t ‘hide the decline’ (re: global temps), little did we know that his statement would become a mission for men of his ilk to do so.
Arctic air temperature vs solar activity: click
Gneiss says:
“What’s your evidence for a ‘natural cycle’ like that?”
Glad you asked: click
An ice-free North Pole is routine. But by all means, continue that impotent arm-waving if it satisfies some inner urge. ☺
Smokey, you missed the boat. As I said,
“of course there have been open water leads near the north pole in the recent past, as today, but that’s not what interests the scientists.”
But,
“An ice-free central arctic has probably not existed for at least several thousand years, but we’re moving very rapidly in that direction now. What’s your evidence for a “natural cycle” like that?”
CFA, you could learn more about the different arctic ice measures by reading about them. Their own websites contain some information, and so do science-oriented blogs. The calculations are made by different research teams using different algorithms and sometimes different instruments, so of course they do not all get the same numbers. They do all get pretty much the same trends, there is no controversy among arctic scientists about that.
Robert Grumbine wrote a nice analysis recently about the fantasy that arctic ice decline might be the work of a conspiracy.
Gneiss,
My citation didn’t refer to “open water leads.” That was your own misdirection. My citation was a first hand account of entirely open water at the North Pole. If you want more first hand reports, just ask. My evidence for a ‘central ice free Arctic’ has been presented. Unfortunately for you, your response was to ignore that first hand evidence.
You are a true believer and therefore can’t be convinced of real world events, but for the undecided readers: if the current cycles exceed the Holocene parameters, then something unusual is occurring. But so far, the current cycles are well within historical parameters. Sorry about that, Gneiss, I know you desperately crave climate doom. But it just isn’t happening.
Alistair Ahs says:
“Do you also have no comment about the statement from NSIDC about northern hemisphere snow cover? It turns out that while you were oh-so-excited about lots of snow in a couple of places in the US, it was overall the year with the second lowest snow cover in the northern hemisphere since 1966.”
But what about snow depth? What caused all the flooding around Minot, North Dakota?
@Steve Mosher
You appeal to the long term in regard tot the supposed radiative balance effect of CO2. Hovever the long term offers no respite for CAGW; over the whole Phanerozoic the correlation between proxy measured CO2 and global temperature is non-existent.
(Data posted by Bill Illis, sorry no link, this is from a mobile phone.)
Likewise data posted recently by Norm Kalmanovich over at Climate etc. compares temperatures on earth with Venus (much more CO2) and Mars, and shows that the relation between planetary temperature, atmospheric pressure and proximity to the sun shows no effect whatsoever of CO2.
Within the next year or 2 as the AMO (of which Arctic ice is an inverse index) starts to fall from its current peak, your faith in CAGW and the Arctic death spiral will increasingly be put to the test.
@ur momisugly Kev-in-UK
I suspect you can find the information you seek in the WGI section of the AR4 report from the IPCC. For example, from the technical summary there is this figure of energy content change:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-5-4.html
I reckon that if you take that and then have a look at some of the SST/OHC data and play around with the numbers you will be able to get the answer you want.
Short answer is: Yes, of course, many people have thought of that question already.
“What caused all the flooding around Minot, North Dakota?”
A local anomaly. As I said, these will happen in the opposite sign to the overall anomaly. We’re concerned, in the first instance, with the global long-term signal. You can’t contradict a global long-term signal with noise at one point in time and space.
“My citation didn’t refer to “open water leads.”
Yes, it did. The central arctic covers well over 4 million km2, and neither your news story nor any other has reported that water open in historical times.
“I know you desperately crave climate doom.”
You know many things that aren’t true.
Folks, observe cognitive dissonance in action: Gneiss fabricates his own reality, and when contrary evidence is presented, this is his response.
Gneiss will never accept the reality that the North Pole has been ice free numerous times throughout the Holocene, when global temperatures were much warmer. We’re not trying to convince true believers like Gneiss – he is beyond reason and into fantasyland. But we can show the undecided that there is nothing unusual happening. The Antarctic ice cover is increasing, therefore human emissions are not the cause of the Arctic decline, which is simply natural variability.
“Gneiss will never accept the reality that the North Pole has been ice free numerous times throughout the Holocene, when global temperatures were much warmer.”
Smokey, you’re tossing a flurry of insults about who you imagine I am and what you imagine I think, without stopping to read what I actually wrote. Here it is a third time:
“Smokey, of course there have been open water leads near the north pole in the recent past, as today, but that’s not what interests the scientists. An ice-free central arctic has probably not existed for at least several thousand years, but we’re moving very rapidly in that direction now. What’s your evidence for a “natural cycle” like that?”
A few clues, in case any calmer readers are following this exchange:
– “North pole” does not equal “central arctic ocean.” One is a geographic point, the other a 4+ million km2 area.
– Similarly, leads in an ice pack at or near the north pole do not equal an ice-free central arctic. You could surface a sub in a lead; you could sail Barrow to Franz Josef across an ice-free central Arctic.
– “Recent historical past” (past few decades? a few centuries?) does not equal “the Holocene” (past 11,700 years).
– When someone writes “has probably not existed for at least several thousand years,” they are agreeing it could have happened during the Holocene. When someone writes “”Gneiss will never accept the reality that the North Pole has been ice free numerous times throughout the Holocene” they prove they didn’t read or understand that, even though it was repeated twice.
Wil says:
July 19, 2011 at 11:30 am
CO2 concentrations during the Eocene (~55 million years ago) were >1000ppm, more than 4 times pre-industrial levels. That might be the answer why it was warmer back then…
Kind of shot yourself in the foot with that arguement!
Smokey says:
July 19, 2011 at 6:57 pm
That article also states that the party saw “rocky islands” at the pole. The nearest island to the pole is north of Greenland and about 700km away. I guess they must have been in the wrong place after all.