We all need a break from the Gore-a-thon, so here’s some cheering news. As I reported on Sept 13th, Sea Ice News: Arctic sea ice “may” have turned the corner sea ice appeared then to have turned the corner for the melt season. It looks even more certain now (especially with NSIDC announcing it).
Source: http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent_L.png
Here’s the data, looks like the minimum was reached on 9/9/2011
09,01,2011,4734063
09,02,2011,4720781
09,03,2011,4683594
09,04,2011,4655156
09,05,2011,4617188
09,06,2011,4587969
09,07,2011,4561719
09,08,2011,4545000
09,09,2011,4526875 <
09,10,2011,4527813
09,11,2011,4537188
09,12,2011,4542656
09,13,2011,4589844
09,14,2011,4655000
And, by the JAXA data, there was no new record low.
Even NSIDC’s 5 day average is looking up. Way up.
From NSIDC just a few minutes ago: (it showed up while editing my first pass, thus I’ve edited this story within a few minutes of the original posting to reflect it).
Arctic sea ice at minimum extent
Arctic sea ice appears to have reached its lowest extent for the year. The minimum ice extent was the second lowest in the satellite record, after 2007, and continues the decadal trend of rapidly decreasing summer sea ice.
Overview of conditions
On September 9, 2011 sea ice extent dropped to 4.33 million square kilometers (1.67 million square miles). This appears to have been the lowest extent of the year, and may mark the point when sea ice begins its cold-season cycle of growth. However, a shift in wind patterns or late season melt could still push the ice extent lower.
This year’s minimum was 160,000 square kilometers (61,800 square miles) above the 2007 record minimum extent, and 2.38 million square kilometers (919,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average minimum.
And NSIDC has avoided a new record low…yet in Gore’s CRP panel last night, the obscure University of Bremen dataset, never before touted by warmists, was trotted out as proof of another record low. Told ya so:
The answer to why such language might be used, perhaps prematurely in the face of other datasets which presently disagree, may be found in the proximity of the upcoming Climate Reality Project (aka the Gore-a-thon) on September 14-15. Al needs something to hold up as an example of gloom, since sea ice didn’t repeat the 2007 low in 2008, 2009, or 2010, and the Antarctic has not been cooperative with the melt meme at all, remaining boringly “normal” and even above normal last year.
We’ll know the answer when we see if this Bremen missive is included in Al’s upcoming presentation.
Last night in hour 1 of the CRP I noted:
Anthony Watts says:
I suspect the “views” counter now over 170K shows the number of attempted/completed connections, but doesn’t show the number of dropped.
Ah there’s the Arctic Sea Ice HITS A NEW RECORD – I was right in my recent sea ice news
This use of the Bremen press release is the worst example of alarmist cherry picking ever. For years, NSIDC is the authority they tout, now they were thrown under the bus before they could even announce whether they had a record low or not so that Gore could have a talking point.
As always, keep up to date on the WUWT sea ice page
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Ice core data shows that we are [melting into a pool of anthropogenic gunk].
Just thought I would post for Gates and save him some time. When he gets around to it, all he has to do is copy my comment and add his own phrase inside the brackets.
Bremen, on inspection, would seem to have the “best” record for any product using a micro wave sensor. It has the highest resolution. MASIE might also lay claim to the most accurate record as it has an even higher resolution and multiple sensors ( including visible).
However, when playing a game you pick your rules before the start. No calvin ball.
The focus on records is kind of silly, given the state of ice volume when the right weather hits.. the arctic 2007 record will fall.
not a death spiral, more like a bumpy road.. and it aint going up.
@ur momisugly Tim Folkerts
“. Just like only time will tell if the global temperature is “turning a corner” or “pausing on the way up” or simply “settling at a new ‘normal’ “.
You left out, “or pausing on the way down to the next glaciation”, or was that what you meant by “turning a corner” ?
Wonder what the betting might be for October. The upturn might be steep and sustained.
@ur momisugly Anthony, I think you said that the September poll would be the last one for some external reason I can’t remember. I think it would be interesting to carry on the WUWT readership poll for October and future months regardless. Yes ? No ?
I don’t even know why we are watching the sea ice data when they only have 32 years of data and when 5,000 to 7,000 years ago, the Arctic may have had less ice, been ice free, and periodically may have had less ice than today.
It’s sort of like watching the DJIA in that the high value of it doesn’t really indicate a robust economy.
I find the question ‘why’ to be at least as important as ‘what.’ As kramer indicates, we are focusing on the what, without applying any perspective. Who was it that coined the phrase about mapping a trend from one data point? Admittedly, 30 years isn’t one data point, except when you start thinking in geological terms.
Let’s assume Mosher is right. The trend is downward. So? The trend (what) doesn’t tell us why. Even if the trend fits the mythical AGW ‘consensus,’ it still does not mean the ‘consensus’ is correct.
Steven Mosher says:
September 15, 2011 at 1:02 pm
“…………
However, when playing a game you pick your rules before the start. No calvin ball.
The focus on records is kind of silly, given the state of ice volume when the right weather hits.. the arctic 2007 record will fall.
not a death spiral, more like a bumpy road.. and it aint going up.”
=======================================================================
Hmm, I’d wait until this year’s maximum is hit. I suspect it may surprise a great many people this year.
Gore makes a practice of standing in a “cherry picker,” doesn’t he?
(Josh should draw a cartoon of him nearby a cherry tree with cherry stains around his lips and saying “I didn’t pick a cherry” to his scowling father below, while crossing his fingers behind his back.)
Oops — revise the above so that Gore is saying, “What, me cherry-pick?”
“Tim Folkerts says:
September 15, 2011 at 12:24 pm
2) Only a fool expects every year to set a record for least ice (or highest global temperature), even in a continually warming world. Come back in 5 years or 20 years and lets see how it is doing.”
I am sure we would all happily accommodate your political prognostication were it not for the fact that legislation has been and continues to be enacted in knee jerk reaction to a slew of failed predictions of which death spiral was but one.
Perhaps you would wish to enlighten us as to which particular law, passed for the mitigation of CO2, has benefited mankind in any material way?
Failing that , you could lobby the politicians and parliaments of Europe and the USA to repeal or delay implementation of said legislation for 5 to 20 years whilst we see if the sky falls in.
Tim Folkerts says:
September 15, 2011 at 12:24 pm
“Come back in 5 years or 20 years and lets see how it is doing”
I agree, Lets look at the state of arctic in 10 or 20 years and decide if some action is required. In the mean time, please don’t ask me to pay carbon taxes.
Russ
roger says: “I am sure we would all happily accommodate your political prognostication… ”
What did I say that was in the least political? I did make a prognostication about future ice levels (that they will continue to trend downward), but I have never considered the physical state of water to be a political issue.
I try to avoid politics and personalities in favor of discussing data and science. The science, as I see it at the simplest level, says that — everything else being equal — more CO2 will lead to higher temperatures. This conclusion is pretty sure — I would call it “settled science”. Among other things, this would logically lead to less Arctic ice (as has indeed been observed for both extent and volume).
The issue of what ELSE might be affecting temperatures is fascinating, but much of that is NOT “settled science”.
Political and economical decisions about how to deal with CO2 (or CH4 or soot or …. ) are completely different issues with myriad opinions.
Me thinks the Grímsvötn eruption of May 21 had some to do with the ice this year. The initial explosion of ejecta was quickly spent and it soon suffered from anejaculation. The stratosphere did not receive a big load, but the ice did. Had the stratosphere received a large blast the sun would have been dimmed instead of shining on all that dirty ice.
Lady Life Grows says:
September 15, 2011 at 12:30 pm
As a Biologist and Life-Advocate, I am a little sad that poorer weather for living things has to be celebrated as “good news.”
I often resent that the warmists have so distorted the argument that to effectively counter them means you are pressured to become a cheerleader for ice. Ice, other than in a nice highball, is seldom our friend. Personally I think the whole controversy about what the sea ice in the Arctic is doing or will do in the future is a waste of time, other than being the climate equivalent of fantasy football i e strictly for entertainment purposes. Other than all the ballyhoo on blogs and news shows I can’t think of a single thing in my personal environment that would provide the slightest clue about what has occurred with the Arctic sea ice over the last 30 years.
I find it bizarre that folk worry about the Arctic melting a bit, the Antarctic yes the Arctic, who cares except the poor Polar Bears?
Ice melting means that we haven’t quite turned the corner from the LAST ICE AGE, more ice would be a bigger problem as it would be heralding a NEW ICE AGE. I know which I prefer.
As it is the Warmists seem to have forgotten that big lump of ice down South…
@richard verney
As you point out, the trend is not negative for four plus years, now. I’d say we’ve definitely turned the corner and can expect the trend to go more positive.
“the obscure University of Bremen dataset, never before touted by warmists, “
Well, you’re happy to use it, when it shows a rise.
REPLY: Oh puhleeze Nick, that was just to put a picture on top of an article from Judith Curry. I made no claims other than it was on track for a record high, and later used other available datasets to show the issue.
I’ll also point out that I use it EVERY DAY, along with many other available datasets on the WUWT Sea ice page. I don’t all of the sudden choose one and ignore all the others like Mr. Romm and Mr. Gore does. Put your dunce cap on and go troll in the corner. You are really getting to be tiringly dour. – Anthony
Baby Ice dabbles and babbles in the bathwater.
===============
Watching this Ice opera reminds me of a “Rocky” movie..(Arctic ice is Rocky)..rocky still gets pummeled round after round after his near knockout in round 3…He refuses to go down & gets up ready to roll each round (Fall)….Its round 9 & he comes out SWINGING (incredible early upswing since sept 9th)…Dude he is fighting (R. Gates) is on the ropes wild eyed & confused….Dude thinks to himself….How can Rocky keep coming like that?!!!!!..
Stay tuned!!
“As always, keep up to date on the WUWT sea ice page.”
======
It is as it ever was.
Where the ‘ell is Gates anyway? My thinkolator suggests I call home and make sure he hasn’t any ideas of the most stunningly beautiful woman in the world! Call home… He’s untrustworthy…
Not only has the corner been turned here, but NOAA has officially announced the return of la Nina.
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2011/20110908_lanina.html
Now here’s a real cherry picker!
My eyballs detect a general trend in minimum extent dates becoming earlier and earlier.
Is there already a graph of day-of-year of minimum and maximum extent against year?
A third axis, being the area of ice cover on those days could provide an interesting picture.
Intrade may be setting up a betting “market” on the arctic ice extent maximum for 2012.
David Wendt beat me to it, but it bears repeating methinks.
You know we live in some twisted altered reality when those who argue that CO2 increases are not causing catastrophic warming must cheer the news of lower temperature indicators, despite lower temperatures being the one kind of climate change that our planet has repeatedly experienced in the past, and which was the one and only type of climate change that was catastrophic to life on the planet.