Sea Ice News Volume 3 Number 3 – Beaucoup Bering Sea Ice

NASA reports in Bering Sea Teeming with Ice that “…the Bering Sea has been choking with sea ice. ”

Bering Sea Teeming with Ice

acquired March 19, 2012 download large image (12 MB, JPEG, 6800×8800)

acquired March 19, 2012 download GeoTIFF file (95 MB, TIFF)

acquired March 19, 2012 download Google Earth file (KMZ)

For most of the winter of 2011–2012, the Bering Sea has been choking with sea ice. Though ice obviously forms there every year, the cover has been unusually extensive this season. In fact, the past several months have included the second highest ice extent in the satellite record for the Bering Sea region, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC).

The natural-color image above shows the Bering Sea and the coasts of Alaska and northeastern Siberia on March 19, 2012. The image was acquired by the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) on NASA’s Aqua satellite. Black lines mark the coastlines, many of which have ice shelves or frozen bays extending beyond the land borders.

NSIDC data indicate that ice extent in the Bering Sea for most of this winter has been between 20 to 30 percent above the 1979 to 2000 average. February 2012 had the highest ice extent for the area since satellite records started. As of March 16, National Weather Service forecasters noted that all of the ice cover in the Bering Sea was first year ice, much of it new and thin—which is typical in the Bering Sea

The accumulation of ice this season has largely been fueled by persistent northerly winds blowing from the Arctic Ocean across the Bering Strait. The local winter weather has been dominated by low-pressure systems—with their counterclockwise circulation—that have brought extensive moisture up from the south to coastal and interior Alaska, while sending cold winds down across the sea to the west.

Those winds pushed Arctic sea ice toward the narrow, shallow strait, where it piled up and formed an ice arch that blocked the flow. As arches fail because of wind stress, large floes of sea ice can move south into the Bering Sea. Ice also has piled up on the north side of St. Lawrence Island, near the mouth of the strait.

South of the strait and the island, those same winds push cold air and cold surface waters to lower latitudes, allowing the ice to grow farther south than usual. The widespread and persistent ice cover in the Bering Sea has posed significant problems for fisherman and for supply ships in the region. The weather driving the ice also brought extreme snowfall events to many parts of Alaska this winter.

The Bering Sea stands in stark contrast to the rest of the Arctic ice cap, where sea ice extent was below average in both January and February. Ice cover was down drastically on the Atlantic Ocean side of the Arctic, including the Kara, Barents, and Laptev Seas, where air temperatures were 4 to 8 degrees Celsius (7 to 14 degrees Fahrenheit) above the norm.

References

  1. NASA Earth Observatory (2012, January 22) Sea Ice off Southwestern Alaska.
  2. National Snow and Ice Data Center (2012, March 6) February ice extent low in the Barents Sea, high in the Bering Sea.
  3. National Weather Service, Anchorage Forecast Office Alaska Sea Ice Forecast. Accessed March 19, 2012.

NASA image by Rob Simmon based on data from Jeff Schmaltz, LANCE/EOSDIS MODIS Rapid Response Team at NASA GSFC. Caption by Mike Carlowicz, with image interpretation by Walt Meier and Ted Scambos, National Snow and Ice Data Center.

Instrument: 
Aqua – MODIS

==============================================================

The iceman giveth, the iceman taketh away. On the other side of the Arctic, there’s a dearth of sea ice, note the orange extent lines:

National Snow & Ice Data Center (NSIDC) – Click the pic to view at source

So while we have reached near normal levels this year so far, reaching into and staying in the ±1 standard deviation area (light gray):

We still find stories like this, for example in WaPo:

Can polar bears put climate change back on the agenda?

For various reasons, the climate crisis has disappeared from the political dialogue. This is unlikely to change in 2012, unless polar bears put it back on the agenda.

As yes, we need a cuteness campaign to save the Arctic, coming right up from an NGO near you, pay up suckas. What I found even more humorous was that Google News considers The Arctic Institute to be a credible news source:

You may recall from Sea Ice News Volume 3 number 1  and in subsequent comments its was revealed that The Arctic Institute is run out of the family apartment of founder Malte Humpert in Washington, DC and has no actual physical presence.  Malte Humpert apparently didn’t like the attention.

…and then there’s this story:

2011: warmest LaNiña year and lowest Arctic sea-ice volume on record

In related news, the sea ice record may be headed for yet another adjustment:

NRL Scientists Optimize Arctic Sea Ice Data Products

Scientists from the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory Marine Geosciences Division are assisting NASA, the US Army Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory (CRREL) and the European Space Agency (ESA) in developing more accurate monitoring and sustainable forecasting of Arctic sea ice.

arctic ice airborne science platform

The NRL team, using a specially equipped de Havilland DHC-6 Twin Otter aircraft (similar to aircraft shown), collect data to aid in the validation and calibration of data captured by the ESA Cryosat-2 satellite.

(NASA Glenn Research Center)

Recent dramatic changes in the characteristics of the Arctic sea ice cover have sparked interest and concern from a wide range of disciplines. The demand for an improved ability to monitor and forecast changes in sea ice cover is driven by diverse and varying priorities to include socioeconomics, maritime safety and security, and resource management, as well as basic research science.

Satellites provide an important and cost effective platform for instruments designed to monitor basin-wide changes in the volume of ice cover and snow pack depths. The primary focus of NRL and NASA is to collect data to aid in the validation and calibration of these data sets to further optimize instrument suites and the development of predictive sea ice models.

“Our project takes direct aim at this issue by targeting the largest identified contributors to errors in sea ice thickness measurements from airborne and satellite-based instruments,” said Joan Gardner, NRL geologist. “Central to our work is the rare opportunity for a multi-scale approach to mapping the snow depth and sea ice thickness distribution using the most comprehensive set of in situ data collected to date.”

In March 2011, a nine kilometer-long survey line was established on the sea ice cover by CRREL and NRL near the U.S. Navy Arctic Submarine Laboratory ICEX2011 ice camp. It was strategically located to cover a wide range of ice types, including refrozen leads, deformed and un-deformed first year ice, and multiyear ice. A highly concentrated set of in situ measurements of snow depth and ice thickness were taken along the survey line.

The first of its kind ICEX survey has proved to be of great value to both NASA and NRL in terms of better understanding the capabilities of airborne and satellite based instruments to measure varying ice types. This will aid in achieving a resolution that is adequate to minimize the degree of uncertainty in models that forecast future conditions and for monitoring decadal variability.

Once the survey line was in place, NASA IceBridge — a six-year NASA mission, and largest airborne survey of Earth’s polar ice ever flown – flew a dedicated mission along the survey line, collecting data with an instrument suite that included the Airborne Topographic Mapper (ATM), a high precision, airborne scanning laser altimeter; the Digital Mapping System (DMS), a nadir viewing digital camera; and the University of Kansas ultra-wideband Frequency Modulated Continuous Wave (FMCW) snow radar. The IceBridge measurements were further leveraged by complementary airborne measurements taken by NRL and submarine ice draft measurements.

“We plan to use this set of data to characterize the error on the IceBridge snow depth and sea ice thickness data products as a function of ice type,” adds Gardner. “These results will also be applied to improve understanding of new sensors.” Sensors include the IceBridge snow radar, NRL radar altimeter and the European Space Agency CryoSat-2 satellite carrying a state-of-the-art Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) Interferometer Radar Altimeter, or SIRAL.

Improved understanding of these measurements and their accuracies will allow scientists to develop new algorithms to incorporate this information into regional sea ice models used by the research community. The error estimates will also help tie the Ice, Cloud, and land Elevation Satellite (ICESat) and future ICESat-2 records together.

Remote techniques to monitor sea ice extent in all seasons are well developed – these observations reveal a dramatic decline in summer sea ice extent since 1979, when satellite records became available. Further, they indicate that the decline has been facilitated by a dramatic decrease in the extent of perennial or multiyear ice.

Combined estimates of ice thickness derived from submarine records between 1958 and 2000, and ICESat laser altimetry from 2003 to 2008, provided the longest-term record of sea ice thickness observations. These data suggest a decrease in the mean overall thickness of the sea ice over a region covering about 38 percent of the Arctic Ocean.

The ICESat satellite has been critical to meeting the goals of NASA’s Cryospheric Science Program by providing ice elevation information at continental scales with high spatial resolution. As of October 11, 2009, ICESat stopped collecting science data – increasing the urgency of continued observations during IceBridge missions. ICESat-2 is planned to launch no sooner than 2016.

This work directly addresses priorities to improve the utility of IceBridge data to estimate ice thickness and snow accumulation on Arctic sea ice. Because of its fundamental nature, the results from this research will also contribute to the priorities of improved understanding of the mechanisms controlling sea ice cover. These include quantification of the connections between sea ice, ocean and the atmosphere, and validated and improved predictive models of changes in sea ice cover, especially in the coming century, as well as, implications of these changes to the ocean, atmosphere, surrounding land areas and global system. The proposed work also addresses Arctic-related objectives of the US Navy, the Study of Environmental Arctic Change (SEARCH), and the U.S. Global Climate Change Research Program.

The Marine Geosciences Division conducts a broadly based, multidisciplinary program of scientific research and advanced technology development directed towards maritime and other national applications of geosciences, geospatial information and related technologies. Research includes investigations of basic processes within ocean basins and littoral regions. Models, sensors, techniques and systems are developed to exploit this knowledge for applications to enhance U.S. Navy and Marine Corps systems, plans and operations.

SOURCE: U.S. Naval Research Laboratory Press Release

================================================================

And finally, we have this essay from Dr. Roy Spencer:

Could Arctic Sea Ice Decline be Caused by the Arctic Oscillation?

March 22nd, 2012

While the IPCC claims that recent Arctic sea ice declines are the result of human-caused warming, there is also convincing observational evidence that natural cycles in atmospheric circulation patterns might also be involved.

And unless we know how much of the decline is natural, I maintain we cannot know how much is human-caused.

In 2002, a paper was published in the Journal of Climate entitled Response of Sea Ice to the Arctic Oscillation, where the authors (one of whom, Mike Wallace, was a co-discoverer of the AO) shows that changing wind patterns associated with the AO contributed to Arctic sea ice declines from one decade to the next: from 1979-1988 to 1989-1998.

The Arctic Oscillation involves sea level pressure patterns over the Arctic Ocean, North Atlantic, and North Pacific. Since sea ice moves around with the wind (see this movie example), sea level pressure patterns can either expose or cover various sections of the Arctic Ocean.

When there are many winters in a row with high (or low) pressure, it can affect sea ice cover on decadal time scales. Over time, ice can become more extensive and thicker, or less extensive and thinner.

There is a time lag involved in all of this, as discussed in the above paper. So, to examine the potential cumulative effect of the AO, I made the following plot of cumulative values of the winter (December-January-February) AO (actually, their departures from the long-term average) since 1900. I’ve attached a spreadsheet with the data for those interested, updated through this past winter.

Consistent with the analysis in the above-cited paper, the sea ice decline since satellite monitoring began in 1979 was during a period of persistent positive values of the AO index (note the reversed vertical scale). Since the satellite period started toward the end of a prolonged period of negative AO values, this raises the question of whether we just happened to start monitoring Arctic sea ice when it was near peak coverage.

Note that back in the 1920’s, when there were reports of declining sea ice, record warmth, and disappearing glaciers, there was similar AO behavior to the last couple of decades. Obviously, that was before humans could have influenced the climate system in any substantial way.

I won’t go into what might be causing the cyclic pattern in the AO over several decades. My only point is that there is published evidence to support the view that some (or even most?) of the ~20 year sea ice decline up until the 2007 minimum was part of a natural cycle, related to multi-decadal changes in average wind patterns.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of

Reblogged this on The Next Grand Minimum.

Latitude

…that’s convenient
Give a report, at the end of March…that doesn’t include March and that big uptick in March
I supposed the next report will cover the June/July time frame

Robin Hewitt

This is what sets WUWT apart. It may cherry pick the Bering Sea ice, but it isn’t afraid to admit, “The Bering Sea stands in stark contrast to the rest of the Arctic ice cap, where sea ice extent was below average in both January and February”.
That is the difference between science and propaganda.

pat

Prognosis? Quick decline in extent. However it is a normal extent. Something that will be quickly dismissed by Warmists who have gone from delusion to fraud.

Theodore White

Signs of the global cooling regime to begin in 2017. Mother Nature is warning all of us about this new regime – and I, for one, am all ears.

RobW

I know this is getting old but it must be the warm-ice we keep hearing about. (sarc)

Anything is possible

Very interesting article posted by Roger Pielke Sr. on the stratification of the oceans, paying particular attention to the Arctic :
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2012/03/23/interesting-climate-science-relevant-article-temperature-steps-in-salty-seas-by-carpenter-and-timmermans-2012/

Frank K.

The internet never forgets…

“At this rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012, much faster than previous predictions.”
NASA climate scientist Jay Zwally, December 2007



Arctic Sea Ice Gone in Summer Within Five Years?

Seth Borenstein in Washington
Associated Press
December 12, 2007
An already relentless melting of the Arctic greatly accelerated this summer a sign that some scientists worry could mean global warming has passed an ominous tipping point.
One scientist even speculated that summer sea ice could be gone in five years.
Greenland’s ice sheet melted nearly 19 billion tons more than the previous high mark, and the volume of Arctic sea ice at summer’s end was half what it was just four years ago, according to new NASA satellite data obtained by the Associated Press (AP).
“The Arctic is screaming,” said Mark Serreze, senior scientist at the government’s snow and ice data center in Boulder, Colorado.

Andrew

“Remote techniques to monitor sea ice extent in all seasons are well developed – these observations reveal a dramatic decline in summer sea ice extent since 1979, when satellite records became available. Further, they indicate that the decline has been facilitated by a dramatic decrease in the extent of perennial or multiyear ice.”
SOURCE: U.S. Naval Research Laboratory
Huh? Could someone help me understand what this means…

Jimbo

Scientists from the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory Marine Geosciences Division are assisting NASA, the US Army Cold Regions Research and ……………..

Will Dr. James Hansen be part of the ‘necessary’ calibration team?
Arctic ice retreat of 1922 is just a figment of ‘denialists” imaginations. We must make 1922 go away. Hailing Michael Mann……………..
It’s worse than we thought! Head for the hills………………….
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2010.08.016
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007AGUFMPP11A0203F
http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/abstract/21/3/227

kadaka (KD Knoebel)

First global warming came for the polar bears,
and I didn’t speak out because they ate my garbage and my dog.
Good riddance.
The end.

-anonymous Northern Canadian

Interstellar Bill

Reduced sea-ice is climate
Increased sea-ice is weather
Heat waves are climate
cold snaps are weather
Reduced snow is climate
Record snow pack is weather
Droughts are climate
Drought-ending rain is weather
Hurricanes are climate
Lack of hurricanes is weather
Glacial retreat is climate
Glacier growth is weather
Sea-level rise is climate
Sea-level drop is … unmentionable

Jimbo

Robin Hewitt says:
March 26, 2012 at 1:21 pm
This is what sets WUWT apart. It may cherry pick the Bering Sea ice, but it isn’t afraid to admit, “The Bering Sea stands in stark contrast to the rest of the Arctic ice cap, where sea ice extent was below average in both January and February”.
That is the difference between science and propaganda.

Exactly. They tried it with Arctic sea ice extent and I pointed them to the record Antarctic extent. They pointed to the warm USA and I pointed them to the unfortunate cold weather deaths in Europe this winter. And so on. It’s just the weather and the climate has always and will always change. It’s changing now but Warmists think it’s in their preferred direction.

Rosco

What’s so cute about a ten foot voracious carnivore that considers you breakfast as some delusional campers found out not too long ago ?

tealsand

“Ice cover was down drastically on the Atlantic Ocean side of the Arctic, including the Kara, Barents, and Laptev Seas”
Kara and Barents yes, but Laptev has been solid since mid November.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.8.html

Earle Williams

Interstellar Bill,
I think a few additions are in order:
Reduced sea-ice is climate
Increased sea-ice is not inconsistent with climate change
Heat waves are climate
cold snaps are freaky weather
Reduced snow is climate
Record snow pack is extreme weather
Droughts are climate
Drought-ending rain is mankind-induced weather
Hurricanes are climate
Lack of hurricanes is … hey, can you count to a billion?
Glacial retreat is climate
Glacier growth is voodoo science
Sea-level rise is climate
Sea-level drop is … unmentionable
Thanks for the inspiration! 🙂

Gary Pearse

“Since the satellite period started toward the end of a prolonged period of negative AO values, this raises the question of whether we just happened to start monitoring Arctic sea ice when it was near peak coverage.”
Is this news to scientists at Cryosphere Today, NSIDC, NASA, NCAR and the thousand other climate agencies with climate scientists tripping over each other in the halls? Is this an Epiphany for the IPCC scientists? Although a geologist and an engineer with a bit of understanding, am I ahead of many of the dyed-in-the-wool climate scientists? Thank you for this WUWT and Roy Spencer.

Rich

All that Sea Ice should make this years Deadliest Catch fun!

Marian

“For most of the winter of 2011–2012, the Bering Sea has been choking with sea ice. ”
So when the usual Summer melt season starts. We’ll hear cries of ‘unprecedented’ melting, starving and drowning polar bears, not enough ice for seals and walrus and all the other Arctic scares stories. Once some of this above average amount of Bering sea ice starts to go into decline by the usual AGW/CC Chicken Little brigade.

kbray in california

“On the other side of the Arctic, there’s a dearth of sea ice, note the orange extent lines:”
===============================================
But the combined Sea Ice Area in the Arctic is only 2.6% under the 79-08 mean.
About 97.4% of that average. Very respectable.
And the Antarctic Sea Ice Area is still about 10% above the 79-08 mean.
I hope the polar ice caps keep up this recovery, not because I want it colder, but because it is the only visual thing that will put the warmists totally out of business.

LazyTeenager

Jimbo says
It’s changing now but Warmists think it’s in their preferred direction.
——–
It’s not in warmists preferred direction. That’s the whole point.
When you guys run out of arguments saying its not warming you always fall back to warm is good, extra warm must be even better argument. For a bunch of old codgers who feel the cold I guess that makes sense,

Now’s a good time to make a simple over under bet.
Will the 2012 minimum be Over the 2011 minimum, or under?
Those folks who predict colder days ahead and a coming ice age should speak up.
Over or Under?

“I can walk to Russia from my house.”

@Lazy Teenager:
Um, no, it’s more substantial than that.
Crops grow better in warm, they grow less or die in cold. Learn the term “degree days” and look up “first and last frost dates” when it comes to gardening.
Worse still, THE signature event of the onset of the next glacial (due most any time now geologically speaking 1500 years is nothing) is the LACK of summer melt of Arctic ice. We only enter an interglacial when the Arctic is warm enough to melt ice, otherwise it’s glacierville and a mile of ice over New York. So rooting for “no summer ice melt in the Arctic” is rooting for the end of Canada. (No, no sarcasm or hyperbole there. Get an education about how Milancovich cycles work. It’s a simple and direct description of the physical manifestations.)
So, you see, “Warm is GOOD, Cold is BAD” is a statement about food, about not wanting a mile of ice over Canada, about wanting to preserves species and ranges as they are today, about wanting more fuzzy furry things to live rather than die, and even about wanting polar bears to have an easier life. (They do better hunting through holes in melting ice and populations have exploded in warm times, they die off in cold ones.) Oh, and yes, it does feel nicer too. But I enjoyed it more when I was a kid and could lay out in the sun more. Now I have to spend more time indoors working.
Here’s a little thing for you to try:
Go camping twice this year. Once in June in mid-latitude low elevation areas (whatever continent you are on, but somewhere like Sydney, San Diego California, or coastal Italy). Then again in February on a mountain top. (Like near Tahoe, in the Alps, or up the mountains of New Zealand. Dress in shirt, pants, tennis shoes, and light jacket in both cases. Stay 2 weeks with 2000 Calories of food per day. Sleeping bag under open sky in both cases. Then report back on which is better, warm or cold… and how much age matters….
I’ll be waiting for your report, under the sun in my back yard in summer or inside with the heater in winter…

LazyT says:
“When you guys run out of arguments saying its not warming…”
Strawman. I and many others have said repeatedly that global warming is happening. The difference is that the alarmist crowd mistakenly blames the warming on CO2. I have repeatedly shown that any warming due to CO2 is so small that it is unmeasurable. So, here we go again:
• The planet has been warming naturally since the LIA. The warming trend has not accelerated.
• Global warming since the LIA has remained within clearly defined parameters that are the same whether CO2 was 280 ppm or 392 ppm. Those parameters have not been exceeded since CO2 began to rise. THEREFORE the rise in CO2 has made no measurable difference in the rate of global warming.
Reputable scientists have said that it is possible that the rise in CO2 has no effect, or even a cooling effect. I don’t know the answer, but I do know that the predictions of accelerating global temperatures have been falsified by direct observation.
Conclusion: the effect of CO2 has been greatly overestimated. Global warming since the LIA appears to be mostly or entirely natural. Human emissions are not causing any measurable acceleration in the warming trend, therefore the CO2=AGW conjecture is either falsified outright, or the real effect of CO2 is so small the it can be completely disregarded for all practical purposes.
I invite the Teenager to try and refute the logic of the natural global warming trend since the LIA, as expressed here, instead of posting his strawman arguments.

Michael Jankowski

“Chokin?!?!?!?”
It’s worse than we thought!

Smokey
“I have repeatedly shown that any warming due to CO2 is so small that it is unmeasurable. So, here we go again:”
It is impossible to show the cause. Causes are never observed. Further, you cannot even analyze the problem as you try to because you first have to account for all other causes and then you have to understand that the physics requires time for the cause to have an effect.
You should remember what Lindzen, Christy, spenser, monkton and Singer told you about C02.
You are slipping back into your own special branch of wrongness

Smokey, The unfortunate thing about Girmas old chart is that it is wrong.
1. wrong data set
2. wrong time period
3. wrong statistics.
4. wrong approach
5 wrong approach done wrong in fact

treegyn1

Just a heads up folks – Hansen (repeated in lecture Mar 20 @ Willamette Univ in Salem, OR) refers to “ice volume,” and that it is consistently dropping in both the Arctic and Antarctic. He conveniently avoids “ice extent” in the Arctic when it suits his purpose, and lies about it in the Antarctic when it doesn’t.
Could one of you regulars help this forester understand this better? Is ice volume dropping, staying more or less the same within a range that doesn’t raise concern, or increasing?
In advance, thanks much.

Taphonomic

Frank K. says:
The internet never forgets…
“At this rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012, much faster than previous predictions.”
Just hedge your bets. Doing a google search on “arctic ice free by” (without the quotes) shows that there are multiple sites that say by the summer of 2013, or 2014 (from Nobel prize winning Al Gore [if he’s wrong does he have to give the prize back?]), or 2015, or 2016, or 2040, within 10 years (from 2009), within 30 years (from 2011), etc.

Louis Hooffstetter

Smokey nails it again!

Mosher
It is impossible to show the cause. Causes are never observed.
did you tell that to Ramsdorff and Foster?

Gail Combs

LazyTeenager says:
March 26, 2012 at 2:50 pm
…..For a bunch of old codgers who feel the cold I guess that makes sense,
____________________________
Do not forget those old codgers are also the farmers that are putting the food in your mouth, but then genocide of farmers is a tradition I guess…

steven mosher,
I must be doing something that pushes your buttons. Your response here, though, is not adequate. You say:
“The unfortunate thing about Girmas old chart is that it is wrong.”
OK, let’s say for the sake of discussion we throw out that chart. Then what?
Then nothing changes, that’s what. How many charts do you need to convince you that the long term trend line since the LIA has not changed? [It is actually trending down; note the green line]. There is still no accelerated warming, thus the effect of CO2 is still too small to measure. You should really try to accept the fact that you might be wrong about the effect of CO2. It might have a much smaller effect than you think. That’s what the planet is saying. Unless you’re saying the observations are wrong, too.

kbray in california

Steven Mosher says:
March 26, 2012 at 3:06 pm
Now’s a good time to make a simple over under bet.
Will the 2012 minimum be Over the 2011 minimum, or under?
==================================
At Cryosphere Today …
The Arctic ice snapshot compared to last year looks denser this year.
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=03&fd=23&fy=2011&sm=03&sd=23&sy=2012
I vote Over.
Over and Out.

Steven Mosher says:
March 26, 2012 at 3:06 pm
Now’s a good time to make a simple over under bet.
Will the 2012 minimum be Over the 2011 minimum, or under?
Those folks who predict colder days ahead and a coming ice age should speak up.
Over or Under?
*********************
Steven I though of being clever. I even thought of pointing to the cycles than can easily be seen when you look beyond the past 30 years for example to what Roy Spencer was alluding to above, I even thought on the lines of saying ‘one swallow [ice record] does not a summer make’ but in light of the tripe you usually put on here I could not help myself:
Unger, Oveur, Oveur, Dunn

Jimbo

LazyTeenager says:
March 26, 2012 at 2:50 pm

Jimbo says
It’s changing now but Warmists think it’s in their preferred direction.

——–
It’s not in warmists preferred direction. That’s the whole point.
When you guys run out of arguments saying its not warming you always fall back to warm is good, extra warm must be even better argument. For a bunch of old codgers who feel the cold I guess that makes sense,

I don’t believe you for one minute. Hot weather stories are blasted out by the media and warmists. Cold weather events are largely ignored. Stop the refusal to see reality and stop being so lazy. You are not kidding me one bit. Now, go and do your homework. Pronto! 😉

Steven Mosher says:
“Now’s a good time to make a simple over under bet. Will the 2012 minimum be Over the 2011 minimum, or under?”
You first.

Bill Parsons

What seems striking about Arctic Sea ice is its variability irrespective of temperature – as numerous people here have posted, the ice build-up is more dependent upon wind speeds and direction.
For example, there’s no way a wooden ship would want to try to make its way through the ice if it were as thick as the photo above shows.
Graphs of the earliest instrumental temperature records from NOAA show the coldest years on the globe (out of the last 150) were the decades of 1890s and 1910s.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/global-land-ocean-mntp-anom/201001-201012.gif
Yet, in 1890 a west-to-east Northwest Passage attempt succeeded in sailing through the Bering Sea, around the Alaskan peninsula, to the mouth of the Mackenzie River; and in 1910, Roald Amundsen succeeded (east-to-west).
Here’s my transcription (from pdfs of the old papers) of the former, lesser-known event, as it appeared on Monday, October 27, 1890, in the Boston Daily Globe and the Daily Alta, in California.

SAN FRANCISCO, Cal., Oct. 26.—The whaling schooner Alton, Captain. Newth, arrived at a late hour last night from the Arctic. She is the second of the whaling fleet to bring news from the north.
The Alton reports a very poor whaling season.
The most important news brought by the Alton was the details of her own attempt to reach the open Polar Sea and the northwest passage. The whaling season being so poor and Capt. Newth finding the Arctic remarkably clear of ice, determined to push onward, and if possible find the long-looked-for northwest passage. Although the little craft is but 84 tons burden, she succeeded in going further north than any sailing vessel has in years.
She sailed beyond the Franklin range of mountains, almost to the mouth of the Mackenzie River, for which point the captain aimed.
He was finally driven back by the ice. The turning point was 35 miles beyond Hirschell Islands opposite the mouth of the Mackenzie.

The significance of this seems to be that the ice extent is constantly being affected by winds. In the coldest time of the Dalton Minimum (much colder than today, according to warmists), the Alton, circled the entire Alaskan peninsula, through the Bering and Chukchi Seas, and all the way to the Beaufort Sea before turning back.

Jimbo

Steven Mosher says:
March 26, 2012 at 3:06 pm
Now’s a good time to make a simple over under bet.
Will the 2012 minimum be Over the 2011 minimum, or under?
Those folks who predict colder days ahead and a coming ice age should speak up.
Over or Under?

You first. 😉

Jimbo

Smokey says:
March 26, 2012 at 4:39 pm
Steven Mosher says:
“Now’s a good time to make a simple over under bet. Will the 2012 minimum be Over the 2011 minimum, or under?”
You first.☺

I swear Smokey I did not see your comment before I also decided to reply “You first”.
So Mosher, what is it?

Benjamin D Hillicoss

L T (lazy teen) warm IS good, which do you prefer a nice warm day in July are a 20 below day in February??? are you so stupid that you do not understand that warm is better? and that the glacial forcast (not models) of a cooler globe, if not colder globe is BAD!! are you so short sighted to think that an ice age is not coming, that colder kills, and starves Jesus to be so faithful to something so childish…..The Earth Warms, The Earth Cools…Lazy teenager can figure it out maybe SHE is to lazy…

elmer says:
March 26, 2012 at 3:09 pm
“I can walk to Russia from my house.”
Which would not be unprecedented:
http://www.odysseyxxi.com/

Downdraft

Over at Cryosphere Today, the global sea ice chart is touching the zero anomaly line on the way up. http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg

Jeef

If lazy teenager is typical of his username’s generation I bet he’s a great team player on World Of Warmcraft. Ah, fantasy, that great escape for the mentally active and befuddled.

Could one of you regulars help this forester understand this better? Is ice volume dropping, staying more or less the same within a range that doesn’t raise concern, or increasing?
We can measure sea ice extent with precision from satellites, but measuring sea ice volume is much more problematic. So it is easier for people like Hansen to make claims about ice volume which can’t easily be refuted.
Having said that, Arctic sea ice volume certainly declined along with ice extent up to 2007. Has volume continued to decline since 2007? Possibly by a small amount, but we don’t really know with any certainty.
The interesting question is why multi-year ice is melting faster than new ice? The likely answer (highly likely IMO) is that older ice has more black carbon embeded in it, that concentrates on the surface as the ice melts decreasing its albedo and accelerating the melt from solar insolation.
There is little multi-year sea ice around Antarctica, so volume and extent are pretty much the same.

I think you need to really look at the trend of temperatures overall rather than at one specific point in time as seasonal weather can have dramatic effects that cause people to overlook what is really happening.

Bill Illis

The winter has been dominated by the Arctic Oscilliation and the breakdown of the polar vortex.
For about 60% of the winter, the vortex re-established itself over Alaska (as well as over western Siberia).
This brought cold Arctic air to Alaska and the Bering Sea and brought warm Pacific air across the rest of the North America. It hasn’t always operated like this over the whole winter but much, much more often than is usually the case.
Is that a global warming signal or a global cooling signal or just something that happens every now and again.
I vote “every now and again”.
The rest of the planet has been in typical La Nina conditions.
In the recent few weeks, the Arctic Oscillation has gone back to more normal conditions in which the La Nina-influence keeps the northwest part of North America cold and the US South-east/East warmer than normal.
Weather; (something climate science has forgot about – wierd since this is what it is supposed to be about you would think).

It is impossible to show the cause. Causes are never observed.
The real world is a continuum of processes. For intellectual convenience we call an earlier point in a process continuum, a cause, and a later point, an effect. But all causes are effects (of earlier causes), and all effects are causes (of later effects).
Thus all causes can be measured (as effects).