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”
Steven Mosher says:
July 19, 2011 at 10:25 am
“In a world that is warming, all other things being roughly equal, arctic sea will retreat, over time. It wont retreat every day or every month or every year ( cause all other things are not really “equal”) some years may see huge losses, some years may rebound. but over time, over long stretches of time, those few extra 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, shrinks a little more. and a little more.”
That phantasmagorical Trenberth-Kiehl cartoon “back radiation warming” should work at polar nights predominantly. However, most warming per season has been occurring during the summer times, hinting either AO thing, or cloud coverage, or influx of warmer Gulf Stream water into high latitudes due to warm AMO mode. Not speaking that the sine wave pattern has obviously nothing to do with Keeling curve, except so called experts w*nking tirelessly on the recent 30-years trend cunningly selecting 1979 as a point of creation of the Universe.
http://climexp.knmi.nl/plotseries.cgi?someone@somewhere+i+crutem3_hadsst2_0-360E_60-90N_n_su+CRUTEM3%HadSST2_T2m/SST_anom_0-360E_60-90N+Index+season
@Steve Mosher
Thanks for a reasonable, rational comment, as usual.
I admit I’m a little bit confused by the idea of ‘a few watts of energy adding up over time’. I think of it as a matter of moving the point of equilibrium. After all, if all the watts of solar energy received were to up over time, then the earth would have been a fireball long since.
In contrast, the extra energy retained by extra CO2 is subject to the law of diminishing returns, whereas the cooling down effect of extra heat is a fourth power phenomenon.
I know I’m misunderstanding you, but I’m not sure how. Could you please clarify for me?
to Steve E:
—- and in the Silurian there were tropical reefs in the Arctic Islands, now exposed. What does it prove? It confirms that the North Pole was not anywhere in that vicinity. In fact, the equator ran roughly through the Labrador Sea, from North to South, I believe.
It’s called “polar wandering” and it’s being going on throughout geologic time.
It also is an aspect of paleoclimatology that is often overlooked.
We’re feeling the effects of that lower Bering Sea temp in the PNW, being that the N. Pacific lows keeps dumping down on top of us.
La Beringa.
Gneiss says:
July 19, 2011 at 7:19 pm
Robert Grumbine wrote a nice analysis recently about the fantasy that arctic ice decline might be the work of a conspiracy.
I shouldn’t, I know. My apologies to the readers.
You are one troll I don’t mind commenting here Gneiss.
The predictability of your rhetoric mimics, with singular similarity, every eco-facist I’ve run across.
Whats that old adage, ‘Hypocrite! First get rid of the mountain of lies out of your own head; then you will see well enough to deal with the knoll of uncertainty in your friend’s mind.’
Forget Robert Grumbine. His thought analysis is about as effective as a colander holding water.
My issue is with the irregularities of the data from different sources, of the same event, from the same time. If data from 5 different sources can’t agree upon one particular conclusion, then it stands to reason that other conclusions cannot be agreed upon.
To have multiple services disagree with a products outcome, such that daily sea ice data is, I am not going to agree with any of their conclusions.
It’s not a freaking conspiracy when the data don’t match; It’s a travesty.
Just like Kevin Trenberth said.
Albert Jacobs says:
July 20, 2011 at 8:52 am
1) Read Wil’s comment and you might understand my response.
2) The pole might wander but the equator doesn’t, that’s always been there.
3) The pole didn’t wander down level with the equator during the Silurian
4) Don’t lecture a geologist on geology
SteveE says:
July 20, 2011 at 11:59 am
Albert Jacobs says:
July 20, 2011 at 8:52 am
<<1) Read Wil’s comment and you might understand my response.
<<2) The pole might wander but the equator doesn’t, that’s always been there.
<<3) The pole didn’t wander down level with the equator during the Silurian
<>
Well Steve, I stopped lecturing geologists a long time ago. I was just pointing out that Ellesmere Island was in the tropics during Silurian time and that pre-rift reconstructions – of which there are several – point to the Equator running “through the Labrador Sea”, a Jurassic feature which, as we both know, probably did not exist in Silurian times.
However your comment above is misplaced and I did not say what you said I did. Some of it sounds strange indeed and you miss it by a country mile.
You jump to conclusions about my qualifications. I did my doctoral exam in geology in the 1950’s.
I also resent being misquoted, which is something one does not do in science circles.
I have no desire to be in any further contact with you.
Well, Smokey called names and showed a monkey picture, but not to be outdone here comes CFA:
“eco-facist”
“Hypocrite!”
What’s it about? CFA noticed that different sea ice area or extent websites don’t show identical maps, which confused him,
“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?”
I wrote a simple note about the ice indexes,
“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.”
Perhaps someone can help CFA by articulating just what was eco-fascist and hypocritical in my statement. Far as I know it’s simple truth. Can you not learn more by reading what the host websites or ice scientists have written about these measures? Do the teams not use different algorithms and sometimes instruments? Or for that matter different smoothing, and different definitions of what they’re measuring such as “area” or “extent”? Given that, is it really suspicious or discrediting that they don’t get identical numbers? It would seem more suspicious if they did! And yet, despite minor differences, do they not all find similar trends, such as September means falling by around 160 or 170 thousand square km per year since 2002 (which is the starting point for IJIS; longer periods can be used to compare the older indexes)? Is there a controversy among arctic scientists about that fact?
@ur momisugly Gneiss
As I know, you know, gneiss is defined as:
A metamorphic rock with a banded or foliated structure, typically coarse-grained and consisting mainly of feldspar, quartz, and mica
=======
Why the short term view ?
If you are going to play the contrarian, I’d like to see more effort on your part.
Gneiss has moved the goal posts to “there have been open water leads near the north pole in the recent past, as today, but that’s not what interests the scientists.”
Since I didn’t raise the issue of open water leads, Gneiss is simply changing the subject. The early 1900’s citation I gave above for an open Arctic ocean as far as the eye can see has been morphed by Gneiss into ‘open water leads.’
If it were not for obfuscation, misdirection, changing the subject, and psychological projection, the alarmist claque wouldn’t have much to say. Their evidence is not even flimsy, it is non-existent. Yet they continue their scare tactics.
The fact remains that the current climate, including the Arctic, is well within it’s historical parameters. And nothing Gneiss has said changes that fact.
Albert Jacobs says:
July 20, 2011 at 1:17 pm
Sorry if you think I misquoted you, but you said:
“In fact, the equator ran roughly through the Labrador Sea, from North to South, I believe.”
That is simply not true and is why I expressed comments 2 & 3. Perhaps that’s not what you meant, but the way you phrased it gave that indication.
An old axiom: No one writes well the first time. It seems that most of the writers don’t express themselves very well in their haste to say something. Slow down, drafting is difficult. Now you know!
ukus writes,
“Why the short term view ?
If you are going to play the contrarian, I’d like to see more effort on your part.”
I’m not playing anything. My short term view (I’m guessing you mean since 2002) was chosen because IJIS data begin in 2002 and CFA’s post was about comparing it with other indices. If we drop IJIS then the other indexes go back to 1979 or 1972; there are reconstructions from submarine and other observations into the 1950s, and various ice-edge or proxy-based reconstructions going back much farther. There’s been some very interesting recent work on these topics. All of it underlines the exceptionally fast recent decline.
But you can look those studies up just like you did the definition of gneiss. Why would you like to see more effort on my part?
Smokey writes,
“Gneiss has moved the goal posts to ‘there have been open water leads near the north pole in the recent past, as today, but that’s not what interests the scientists.'”
The goal posts haven’t moved at all, scientists have been saying that all along. On blogs and in media, non-scientists often confuse the concept of an “ice-free central arctic” with commonplace polynyas or open water leads like the 1926 expedition saw. The current pan-arctic low extent has no precedent in recent historical times, according to recent studies I’ve seen. Much farther back there have been other ice-free eras, but the current rate of change still appears unusual.
Smokey also writes
“obfuscation”
“misdirection”
“changing the subject”
“psychological projection”
“alarmist claque”
“flimsy”
“scare tactics”
Joltinjoe says:
July 21, 2011 at 4:03 am
Well said. For the most part none of us know with whom we are conversing. Let us leave the jumping to conclusions, name-calling and obscuration to the challenged.
To throw some light on my use of the word challenged: Those who believe the climate only conformed to homoeostasis before mankind started burning stuff.
Henry Galt writes,
“Let us leave the jumping to conclusions, name-calling and obscuration to the challenged. To throw some light on my use of the word challenged: Those who believe the climate only conformed to homoeostasis before mankind started burning stuff.”
That leaves the jumping, calling, and obscuration to just about nobody, which of course would be a good thing.
Gneiss says:
July 21, 2011 at 7:15 am
“But you can look those studies up just like you did the definition of gneiss”
=====
OK, I took your bait.
You say:
“There’s been some very interesting recent work on these topics. All of it underlines the exceptionally fast recent decline.”
=====
Do you care to explain this statement, or should I take it at face value, considering it is the utterance of an Authority.
ukus writes,
“OK, I took your bait.”
If you took my bait you would have looked up some studies, that was a real suggestion. You seem not to have tried it, but here’s one place to start: Polyak et al. in QSR 2010.
“Arctic sea-ice extent and volume are declining rapidly. Several studies project that the Arctic Ocean may become seasonally ice-free by the year 2040 or even earlier. Putting this into perspective requires information on the history of Arctic sea-ice conditions through the geologic past. This information can be provided by proxy records from the Arctic Ocean floor and from the surrounding coasts. Although existing records are far from complete, they indicate that sea ice became a feature of the Arctic by 47 Ma, following a pronounced decline in atmospheric pCO2 after the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Optimum, and consistently covered at least part of the Arctic Ocean for no less than the last 13–14 million years. Ice was apparently most widespread during the last 2–3 million years, in accordance with Earth’s overall cooler climate. Nevertheless, episodes of considerably reduced sea ice or even seasonally ice-free conditions occurred during warmer periods linked to orbital variations. The last low-ice event related to orbital forcing (high insolation) was in the early Holocene, after which the northern high latitudes cooled overall, with some superimposed shorter-term (multidecadal to millennial-scale) and lower-magnitude variability. The current reduction in Arctic ice cover started in the late 19th century, consistent with the rapidly warming climate, and became very pronounced over the last three decades. This ice loss appears to be unmatched over at least the last few thousand years and unexplainable by any of the known natural variabilities.”
And here’s another, Spielhagen et al. in Science 2011:
“Abstract
The Arctic is responding more rapidly to global warming than most other areas on our planet. Northward-flowing Atlantic Water is the major means of heat advection toward the Arctic and strongly affects the sea ice distribution. Records of its natural variability are critical for the understanding of feedback mechanisms and the future of the Arctic climate system, but continuous historical records reach back only ~150 years. Here, we present a multidecadal-scale record of ocean temperature variations during the past 2000 years, derived from marine sediments off Western Svalbard (79°N). We find that early–21st-century temperatures of Atlantic Water entering the Arctic Ocean are unprecedented over the past 2000 years and are presumably linked to the Arctic amplification of global warming.”
Or, Kwok & Rothrock GRL 2009 (I’ll stop after this one).
“The decline of sea ice thickness in the Arctic Ocean
from ICESat (2003–2008) is placed in the context of
estimates from 42 years of submarine records (1958–2000)
described by Rothrock et al. (1999, 2008). While the earlier
1999 work provides a longer historical record of the
regional changes, the latter offers a more refined analysis,
over a sizable portion of the Arctic Ocean supported by a
much stronger and richer data set. Within the data release
area (DRA) of declassified submarine sonar measurements
(covering 38% of the Arctic Ocean), the overall mean
winter thickness of 3.64 m in 1980 can be compared to a
1.89 m mean during the last winter of the ICESat record—
an astonishing decrease of 1.75 m in thickness. Between
1975 and 2000, the steepest rate of decrease is 0.08 m/yr
in 1990 compared to a slightly higher winter/summer rate of
0.10/0.20 m/yr in the five-year ICESat record (2003–
2008). Prior to 1997, ice extent in the DRA was >90%
during the summer minimum. This can be contrasted to the
gradual decrease in the early 2000s followed by an abrupt
drop to <55% during the record setting minimum in 2007.
This combined analysis shows a long-term trend of sea ice
thinning over submarine and ICESat records that span five
decades."
Gneiss, Now you are clouding the issue with facts. That kind of behavior just don’t cut it round here 🙂
Gneiss, you have posted a load of horse manure, and I don’t care if it’s been pal reviewed or not. It still stinks.
For example, many millions of years are conflated with a few hundred thousand years, and then… Presto-chango! A conclusion! Human emissions are at fault. Of course. [<— sarc]
And: "We find that early–21st-century temperatures of Atlantic Water entering the Arctic Ocean are unprecedented over the past 2000 years and are presumably linked to the Arctic amplification of global warming.” Presumably, eh? and if it's "global," why isn't the Antarctic 'amplifying' at the same 'global' rate as the Arctic? In fact, everything observed can be fully explained as natural variability. But there's no grant money in that explanation, is there?
Smokey, said: “if it’s “global,” why isn’t the Antarctic ‘amplifying’ at the same ‘global’ rate as the Arctic?”
It is well known that the Arctic is predicted to warm more than the Antarctic. e.g. here:
http://courses.eas.ualberta.ca/eas570/arctic_amplification.pdf
“The Arctic is especially sensitive to the feedback because it is much warmer than the Antarctic and closer to the melting point, thus small perturbations in the surface energy balance can substantially alter the length of the melt season.”
A
Note the article title:
Bering sea water temperature, headed down
If CO2 was causing the Arctic to warm, the connected Bearing Sea would be warming, too. But of course, true Belief is impervious to reason.
Smokey writes,
“Gneiss, you have posted a load of horse manure, and I don’t care if it’s been pal reviewed or not.”
No, of course you don’t! You’re the guy who responded to this question,
“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?”
by posting a 1926 newspaper clipping about a dirigible expedition that saw rocky islands at the north pole.
Getting back to the science you don’t care about, here’s another piece to the puzzle,, Kaufman et al., Science 2009:
“The temperature history of the first millennium C.E. is sparsely documented, especially in the Arctic. We present a synthesis of decadally resolved proxy temperature records from poleward of 60°N covering the past 2000 years, which indicates that a pervasive cooling in progress 2000 years ago continued through the Middle Ages and into the Little Ice Age. A 2000-year transient climate simulation with the Community Climate System Model shows the same temperature sensitivity to changes in insolation as does our proxy reconstruction, supporting the inference that this long-term trend was caused by the steady orbitally driven reduction in summer insolation. The cooling trend was reversed during the 20th century, with four of the five warmest decades of our 2000-year-long reconstruction occurring between 1950 and 2000”