There was a lot of controversy leading up to this moment, as we covered previously on WUWT where NSIDC put a new trailing average algorithm online with no notice, and bungled the climatology in the process, needing a fix. As has been the case before when NSIDC data goes wonky it was those bloggers of “breathtaking ignorance” who spotted the issue before NSIDC did and brought it to their attention.
Here’s today’s graph: (NSIDC publishes a day behind)
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png
Now, it should be pointed out that it hasn’t crossed the normal line, and it only touches it because of the line width, it is still ever so slightly below normal according to Cryosphere Today.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.arctic.png
I noted yesterday that the difference was -0.070, so it has nudged away from the normal line a bit. This is supported by the NORSEX data, enlarged here:
http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/observation_images/ssmi1_ice_ext.png
Clearly though, by the NORSEX data, Artic Sea Ice was briefly above the 1979-2006 monthly average, but is now headed back down. NSIDC’s trailing average will filter out this short above normal excursion, and I predict that it will turn slightly away from the normal line tomorrow or the next day.
Overall though, we have a pretty full north polar ice cap, especially in the Bering Sea, which has seen record high extents this year. This is encouraging:
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_bm_extent_hires.png
All of this bears watching at the WUWT Sea Ice Reference Page but we’ll soon be into the ho-hum period when all of the years data converge on the way to the minimum sometime in September. While we have near normal extent now, that doesn’t always translate into near normal minimums.
But it’s rotten ice, it’s not pure ice like we had before SUV’s. It’s tainted by industrial progress so it doesn’t matter.
My usual gripe about this: the ice extent for yesterday shows ice cover in the sea around the Danish islands. There is no ice there now: http://www.itameriportaali.fi/html/icef/icemap_c.pdf
No after work drinks for the folks at the NSIDC today. They’re probably pretty glum about this new revelation…
I feel thirsty!
Well…isn’t it a dramatic sign that it is news to put on the WUWT blog that the Nordic sea ice approaches normal ? Who is talking about normal ?
Ice covers slightly less than (or maybe just over) the recorded average. It is interesting that the fraction of new, 1st year ice has increased dramatically, while ice over 4 years old (which was about 20% of ice area through the 80’s) is now almost non-existent (about 2%).
I read that link about the breathtaking ignorant bloggers, can I have my black helicopter ride now?
What about the three week shift from fƩbruary to march for the maximum ice extent?
Leif:
This standard cited is for 15% ice cover. That is less than 1/4 of an ice cube in a glass. You are saying that there is zero floating ice in the area at all? As far as one can see? I think a satellite may have a better viewing perspective than a land-bound person.
I want to know what is sacrosanct about the 1979 to 2000 average?
I have images of US subs sailing around the north pole in the 1950’s and 1960’s. and so does WUWT
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/26/ice-at-the-north-pole-in-1958-not-so-thick/
Jeremy says:
April 26, 2012 at 8:37 am
Yes Jeremy, we need to stop all carbon use and emissions to correct this.
A woman in Switzerland tried “zero carbon use”.
Check out her end results:
http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/health/swiss-women-dies-giving-water-food-thought-live-sunlight-article-1.1067359
Carbon is the basis of Organic Chemistry, and life on this planet.
Condemn it and you condemn yourself.
Goodcheer, yes, and next year the 4 year old ice will be a higher percentage because the effect of the 2007 record low will have moved on. In a few years time 3,4 and 5 year plus old ice will be hitting much higher levels.
Who can forget this blast from the past:
Arctic ice ‘could be gone in five years’
The Telegraph
5:01PM GMT 12 Dec 2007
The hot Northern Hemisphere summer sharply increased the rate at which Arctic ice is melting and scientists now believe summer ice could be gone completely within five years.
New Nasa satellite images reveal so much ice has disappeared that an irreversible tipping point has already been reached because of global warming.
The volume of Arctic sea ice at the end of last summer was half what it was four years ago and that the Greenland ice sheet lost almost 19bn tonnes of its volume – more than ever before.
“The Arctic is screaming,” said Mark Serreze, senior scientist at the US government’s Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado.
And Nasa climate scientist Jay Zwally said: “At this rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012, much faster than previous predictions.”
Classic death spiral profile. /sarc
2008: The ice is in a “death spiral” and may disappear in the summers within a couple of decades, according to Mark Serreze
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/09/080917-sea-ice.html
2010: “I stand by my previous statements that the Arctic summer sea ice cover is in a death spiral. It’s not going to recover,” — Mark Serreze, director of the National Snow and Ice Data Center in the U.S. city of Boulder, Colorado. http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=52896
Sea Ice in Its āDeath Spiralā
by Matthew McDermott
http://biophile.co.za/the-biofiles/sea-ice-in-its-%E2%80%9Cdeath-spiral%E2%80%9D
Arctic Death Spiral: Sea Ice Passes De Facto Tipping Point Thanks to Deniers, Media Blow The Story, Again
By Joe Romm on Aug 9, 2011 at 4:02 pm
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/08/09/291788/arctic-death-spiral-sea-ice-tipping-point/
Arctic ice in ādeath spiralā means civil resistance is our best hope
Saturday, October 30, 2010
By Simon Butler
http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/45871
According to Prof Peter Wadhams of Cambridge University, the ice that forms over the Arctic sea is shrinking so rapidly that it may vanish altogether in four years’ time, destroying the natural habitat of animals like polar bears. …[] …Dr Maslowski’s model, along with his claim that the Arctic sea ice is in a “death spiral”, were controversial but Prof Wadhams, a leading authority on the polar regions, said the calculations had him “pretty much persuaded.”
http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2011-11-09/news/30377863_1_arctic-sea-million-square-kilometres-ipcc
There’s so many but I think I’ve tortured the Mods enough so I’ll just stop here.
[Sorry, Mods ]
“Now, it should be pointed out that it hasnāt crossed the normal line, and it only touches it because of the line width, it is still ever so slightly below normal according to Cryosphere Today.”
As it is said…. “Close enough for government work.”
I’ll give it another week for a true 100% or an ongoing “glancing blow”.
There’s a dip in the average coming up…
“All of this bears watching at the WUWT Sea Ice Reference Page…”
I first read this as, “All of the bears…”
Polar Bears would be interested, right?”
The will be a lot more silence in the press as the AMO turns down and sea ice extent goes up. It puts a new twist on the phrase silent spring.
All of this bears watching at the WUWT Sea Ice Reference Page
I first read this as, “All of the bears…”
Polar Bears would be interested, right?
But the headline in June will read “Fastest Decline In Sea Ice In 15 Years. Arctic Dissolving Equal To 3 Manhattan Islands Per Day”.
Last night on main BBC TV channel they showed a documentary about the ‘old Pulteney Row to the pole’ from last year called ‘Rowing the Arctic’. To be fair, the guys seemed nice and the commentary stated explicitly they were rowing to the 1996 magnetic north pole, but it was full of comments how it could never have been done previously and it will get easier in years to come etc etc. thanks to climate change. Highlight for me was then hauling the boat over the ice – not quite rowing was it?
I followed the “breathtaking ignorance” link to the willfully ignorant Joe Romm who completely misses the point about polar amplification. Yes, melting polar ice has a significant albedo feedback effect, causing incoming solar to be absorbed by the ocean instead of reflected back into space, but Romm fails to note that this albedo feedback effect is much stronger in the cooling direction, as snow and ice descend to latitudes that cover much more of the planet’s surface. This is how the planet drops into a glacial period, which is why I don’t like to see Anthony call this recovery from recent ice losses “encouraging.”
It is encouraging in a couple of ways. It makes the remote possibility of serious methane hydrate feedbacks even more remote, and it helps in our political battle against the eco-left, but on balance, given that the real danger has always been global cooling, I would describe growing sea ice extent as significantly worrisome.
āThe Arctic is screamingā (Frank K’s comment) – Yes indeed. It’s screaming “Look on my works, ye warmists, and despair!” š
If NSIDC hadn’t changed the algorithm when they did, the line would have crossed yesterday. Imagine the comments if they’d changed it *after* that happened?
On a side note, Gavin Schmidt and Joe Romm deserve a joint “Lifetime Award” nomination for the Duranty…
Only one more year to go. NASA says we are “getting at” tipping point. Arctic “COULD” be mostly ice free by 2013.
“very likely”, “possibility”, “models”, “predict”,
don’t worry, we have the best minds working on this right now…
goodcheer, you write “Ice covers slightly less than (or maybe just over) the recorded average. It is interesting that the fraction of new, 1st year ice has increased dramatically, while ice over 4 years old (which was about 20% of ice area through the 80ā²s) is now almost non-existent (about 2%).”
Absolutely true. But you need to understand the why. Ice extent has been decreasing ever since satellite records began in 1979. in 2007, a most unusual wind event occurred, which blew huge quantities of old ice, out of the Arctic Ocean, into the Atlantic Ocean, where it melted. How unusual this wind event was, we have no idea; our records dont go back far enough to know.
What we do know is that since then there has been a little recovery from the low levels in 2007. It takes time to make old ice, and not enough time has elapsed to overcome what happened in 2007. What we may be seeing this year, is an acceleration of this recovery process. But it is far too early to know what is happening.
John West says:
April 26, 2012 at 9:07 am
Arctic ice in ādeath spiralā means civil resistance is our best hope
Saturday, October 30, 2010
By Simon Butler
What are the odds that Simon Butler is related to Steve Zwick?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/19/climate-craziness-of-the-week-forbes-steve-zwick-loses-it/
Inquiring minds and all that, y’know?
So it is true! President Obama has stiopped the seas from rising, restored the ice to the poles and prevented the global catastrope. Another Nobel prize is in order, no?
bubbagyro … Leif is correct … there are often errors in the ice charts as shown. For example the ice shown to the south of Newfoundland and in the Gulf of St. Lawrence does not exist … see here: http://ice-glaces.ec.gc.ca/prods/WIS28/20120425180000_WIS28_0006413677.gif
bubbagyro says:
April 26, 2012 at 8:50 am
This standard cited is for 15% ice cover. That is less than 1/4 of an ice cube in a glass. You are saying that there is zero floating ice in the area at all? As far as one can see? I think a satellite may have a better viewing perspective than a land-bound person.
People there have boats too. I used to live there. There is no ice there now.
bubbagyro says:
April 26, 2012 at 8:50 am
This standard cited is for 15% ice cover.
The green areas here are for 10-40% ice cover:
http://www.itameriportaali.fi/html/icef/icemap_c.pdf
there is no ice there now.
And this one is even more telling:
http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/observation_images/ssmi1_ice_area.png
Arctic ice is actually above the average since 1979…..
The “Normal” line? No one actually knows what the mean represents within extended Natural cycles so saying its “Normal” is a bit over the top for me.
dcb283 – The Polar Bears are defiantly interested. They may soon resume their hockey season.
The wind has been moving ice to the extent boundaries recently. I suspect this has something to do with the current situation. If that’s true, then that means more ice will be vulnerable to melting as we get into the warmer months.
I had thought the winds were helping to thicken the ice most of the winter. It will be interesting to see how it all plays out.
On the odd occasion that the current sea ice extent touches the normal line, everyone starts crowing that everything is normal. This is madness! The current sea ice needs to trend as much over the line as it does below it, over the course of a full year, for a true recovery to be declared. While this is encouraging, it’s still far from normal! In the meantime, this “glancing blow” is most probably just that. It is also sad state indeed, when the best we can expect in terms of sea ice extent, is a brief flirtation with normal conditions.
Go, Baby Ice, Go. But don’t go too far, now; please stick to the ocean.
==============
J. Philip Peterson says:
April 26, 2012 at 10:11 am
And this one is even more telling:
==================
This is my favorite, note its 30% and interactive (can select any year(s) to view and points within each year — complete satellite record):
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/arctic.sea.ice.interactive.html
Ben Kellett,
Arguing with the planet is a fool’s errand.
2 things
I believe our ice is running 9 day mean while norsex may be the daily. Not sure, please clarify.
As far as the normal. The only reason that there is hoopla about it is BECAUSE PEOPLE WERE SAYING IT WOULD BE GONE THIS SUMMER, and given the cold pdo and soon to be cold ( 10years amo) there is no death spiral. If your team is forecasted to win 0 games in a football season and you find they win half the games, it may be no big deal as far as the playoffs but the people saying they would win none are plainly wrong
And those of us that said the dropping would level off and the “death spiral” and no recovery were nonsense are plainly right.. up to now. Remember while the left wing hit pieces came after
me for being underdone on ice melt last year but my forecast was for a return to 1978 levels in 2030, and that is simply based on the reality of the cold pdo and amo returning. It is a lot closer to my way of thinking than a death spiral from which there is no escape.
I said in 07 it was absurd to think we would lose the icecap in 12 or 13, as did most rationale clear thinking humans, and the hoopla is over the fact that touching normal at the end of April is no where near the end of the ice.
And guess what, next year it will be higher, even as s hem icecap has been mainly above normal
heh, I heard Joe Biden today say Obama can run on a mantra, Bin Ladens Dead, GM is alive. why not add, and so is the ice cap.
Leif, we saw the same earlier in the year with NSIDC showing sea ice round the southern UK – where it simply never happens, and I don’t count a bit of slush on the beaches.
“…it hasnāt crossed the normal line, and it only touches it because of the line width, it is still ever so slightly below normal .”
Considering the stochastic variability of the measurements involved, I would say this reading is *indistinguishable* from the “normal.”
I dislike the word “Normal” when it comes to anything regarding climatology, temperature readings, and any function of the planet we live on. Because we’re not talking about “Normals” we’re talking about “Averages” from the time we started keeping track of what’s happening on our planet as a whole. The word “Normal” is a deceptive thing and can make the gullible think that science knows what is “Normal” for our planet. And in fact there truly isn’t a “Normal” for this planet, unless you want to say a Glaciated state is normal, since it’s in that state now longer than it’s in an inter-Glaciated state.
Is it just me or do others have a problem with the term “Normal” that is used for the 1976 to 2006 average?
Joseph Bastardi says:
April 26, 2012 at 10:33 am
As far as the normal. The only reason that there is hoopla about it is BECAUSE PEOPLE WERE SAYING IT WOULD BE GONE THIS SUMMER,
Actually they were saying ‘Could’ and ‘mostly/nearly ice-free’, and most of them around 2013-2016.
and given the cold pdo
Which means warmer water in the Bering and southerly wind stress.
http://jisao.washington.edu/pdo/
And those of us that said the dropping would level off and the ādeath spiralā and no recovery were nonsense are plainly right.. up to now.
Premature, not much sign of a ‘plain’ recovery in the minimum in September.
Remember while the left wing hit pieces came after
me for being underdone on ice melt last year but my forecast was for a return to 1978 levels in 2030, and that is simply based on the reality of the cold pdo and amo returning.
Your guess that they would return, not the ‘reality’.
It is a lot closer to my way of thinking than a death spiral from which there is no escape.
I said in 07 it was absurd to think we would lose the icecap in 12 or 13, as did most rationale clear thinking humans, and the hoopla is over the fact that touching normal at the end of April is no where near the end of the ice.
And guess what, next year it will be higher, even as s hem icecap has been mainly above normal
We’ll see.
A lot of weather reports report above normal or below normal when they really mean above or below average. Average should include the period of time that was used to compute the average of whatever they are reporting on. (and you wonder how accurate that average number is now with all the revisionist shenanigans going on).
“bubbagyro says:
April 26, 2012 at 8:50 am
Leif:
This standard cited is for 15% ice cover. That is less than 1/4 of an ice cube in a glass. You are saying that there is zero floating ice in the area at all? As far as one can see? I think a satellite may have a better viewing perspective than a land-bound person.”
Bubbagyro
As another Dane (like Leif Svalgaard) I can guarantee you that there is at present absolutely no sea ice around the Danish Islands of Fyn and Sealand etc. End of story.
This is interesting! Note that the sun is much higher in the Arctic sky at this time of year – only 9 weeks before summer solstice – than at the time of sea ice minimum in September. So the ice cover in the next 9 weeks (and at the other side of the solstice, i.e. until mid-August) is much more important for the albedo feedback than the time of the minimum! And in September and later, the open sea cooling faster than if it had been covered with ice, constitutes a negative feedback…
J. Philip Peterson says:
April 26, 2012 at 11:03 am
I agree, it’s the 1979-2000 Average line (On the NSIDC graph)
Resourceguy says:
April 26, 2012 at 9:26 am
The will be a lot more silence in the press as the AMO turns down and sea ice extent goes up. It puts a new twist on the phrase silent spring.
Nah they will say that global warming causes the pole to freeze!
Ferd says:
April 26, 2012 at 11:00 am
Is it just me or do others have a problem with the term āNormalā that is used for the 1976 to 2006 average?
===========
I do, the term is inappropriate and unscientific at best. Its a dysfunctional interpretation of the observations and completely out of context yet speaks to the fundamental disconnect in the debate.
>>>kbray in california says: April 26, 2012 at 8:54 am
Regards the Swiss woman ‘living on sunlight’. From e newspaper article:
Quote:
The Zurich newspaper reported Wednesday that the unnamed Swiss woman in her fifties decided to follow the radical fast in 2010 after viewing an Austrian documentary about an Indian faker and charlatan, who claims to have lived this way for 70 years.
There, fixed that for you…….. (and for – hopefully – for all theother liberal nutters that believe everything that nutty religious cults preach).
.
Paul Westhaver says:
April 26, 2012 at 8:51 am
I want to know what is sacrosanct about the 1979 to 2000 average?
==========================================================
Paul, this explained it to me better than anyone had……
Rewriting The History Of The Arctic
NSIDC tells us that the satellite era began in 1979, and they show extent declining steadily during that period.
This is fascinating, because the 1990 IPCC report told us that the satellite era began in 1972, and that ice extent was much lower in 1974 than in 1979.
NSIDC has been hiding the incline, but what about the period before 1974? The widely published graph below shows a sharp drop in ice extent from 1969 to 1974.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/04/25/rewriting-the-history-of-the-arctic/
but, but, but the Arctic screams “Its Piomas chart after Piomas chart all the way down!”
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
In my opinion, the temperature chart on WUWT Sea Ice reference page is the most critical. If there comes a summer where the temperature in the Arctic does not cross above the horizontal black line (melt line), then we might be in serious trouble. This chart is also, IMHO, the best predictor of summer minimum, barring unusual wind conditions like those in ’07.
Bill
Frank K. says:
April 26, 2012 at 9:03 am
John West says:
April 26, 2012 at 9:07 am
If it wasn’t for all that nonsense, this would be a complete non-issue.
As it is, there is nothing more enjoyable that the prospect of watching self-appointed, so-called “experts” fall flat on their backsides.
I wouldn’t be too excited about this, it was very similar in 2008, 2009 and 2010 as well, this year’s value is only slightly above this new cycle. I’m pretty sure it won’t hold near the line and will sink again. Check the interactive chart:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/arctic.sea.ice.interactive.html
…and disable all years before 2008. you’ll see this year is pretty normal.
Before we start blasting all the ecomentalist about their bad/wrong predictions of an ice free arctic, let’s remember, there are 4-5 months before the minimum is reached. It’s could happen :^)
Would it be possible to find graphs, or make graphs, of each years ice extent plotted against the ’79-’06 average? It could be done in 5 year blocks to keep the lines readable. It might help in understanding variability over the years.
“Normal” – does that mean it is at right angles to the plain of existence?
RE: GoodCheer says:
April 26, 2012 at 8:46 am
Ice covers slightly less than (or maybe just over) the recorded average. It is interesting that the fraction of new, 1st year ice has increased dramatically, while ice over 4 years old (which was about 20% of ice area through the 80ā²s) is now almost non-existent (about 2%).
I used to love hearing Paul Harvey. “The Rest Of The Story” is quite revealing……
“In the last few years, the melt and export of old ice was less extreme than in 2007 and 2008, and multiyear ice started to regrow, with second and third-year ice increasing over the last three years.”
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
Does this mean the nice warm weather is over? (And here I was just barely able to grow ripe tomatoes. I suppose I’ll have to drop back to carrots now.)
Mean while Huffington post has great post of the Antarctics melting????http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/04/26/antarctica-melting-quicker-than-scientists-thought_n_1454848.html
sarc off
Silver Ralph says:
April 26, 2012 at 11:28 am
“… about an Indian faker and charlatan, who claims …
…(and…all the other liberal nutters that believe everything that nutty religious cults preach).”
—————————————————————————
As related to Global Warming Religion the following comes to mind:
Indian faker and charlatan who claims…
liberal nutters
nutty beliefs
nutty religious cults
nutty preaching
The IPCC seems to have a lot in common…
It’s all the same crazy stuff.
Ben Kellett says:
April 26, 2012 at 10:22 am
“On the odd occasion that the current sea ice extent touches the normal line, everyone starts crowing that everything is normal. This is madness! The current sea ice needs to trend as much over the line as it does below it, ”
Globally.
Mycroft says:
April 26, 2012 at 1:04 pm
more nutty.
“and given the cold pdo
Which means warmer water in the Bering and southerly wind stress.
http://jisao.washington.edu/pdo/”
This is incorrect. You graphic shows the ‘winter time’ pattern. The key factor for ice melt is the summer pattern. Have a look at the link below and you’ll see that an NOAA study clearly shows the cold PDO results in cooler water in the Bering sea.
http://www.appinsys.com/globalwarming/PDO.htm
To be honest this is consistent with the fact that ice there is above average at present – and there seems to have been a recovery in that region since the PDO flip in 2007.
Yill Barber says:
The temperature chart on WUWT Sea Ice reference page is the most critical. (….) This chart is also, IMHO, the best predictor of summer minimum.
It sounds logical to me, but have you done any analysis supporting a relation between temperature and summer minimum? And which time frame is most critical or predictive, in your view?
After 2007, 2008 came with a noticeable recovery in the September minimum, and then there was another big recovery in 2009. I believed that a full recovery was posible and that 2007 had really been an anomalous thing. But when everyone was expecting further recovery in 2010, it went down a little bit. And at that point (even with the two recoveries, they were all in the top 3 of the years with less ice in September), I remember saying to myself, well, it doesn’t matter, I still think ice will recover, it just fluctuates, so a bit down now doesn’t matter as long as we get some more recovery in 2011. But September 2011 came and we had another big loss, reaching almost 2007 levels.
I definitely don’t believe in claims of ice loss predicted for any time closer than 20 years from now. But I do think that we will end up there. Since 2007, we have had very low solar activity and two years with La NiƱa, and in spite of it all summer ice didn’t really recover to pre-2007 levels. I can’t tell whether that’s a bad or a good thing. But less arctic ice in the future is to be expected.
No-one much cares about the winter ice. Its the summer min that is always the exciting bit.
So, who wants to bet that the summer minimum won’t be substantially below “normal” this summer? I mean, with real money, not just empty words.
REPLY: A number of readers care, and my inbox was full of requests to get an update. You don’t have to read posts or comment on them, nobody is forcing you when you “don’t care”.
My suggestion to Mr. Connolley, is to enter the ARCUS contest as I have done the past two years – Anthony
Rewriting The History Of The Arctic
NSIDC tells us that the satellite era began in 1979, and they show extent declining steadily during that period.
This is fascinating, because the 1990 IPCC report told us that the satellite era began in 1972, and that ice extent was much lower in 1974 than in 1979.
NSIDC has been hiding the incline, but what about the period before 1974? The widely published graph below shows a sharp drop in ice extent from 1969 to 1974.
I have to defend the NSIDC here. They have been learning more about the oldest arctic and antarctic ice from satellites. There are some very good people that work for Walt Meir and my company produced updated Nimbus I (1964), Nimbus II (1966) and Nimbus III (1969-70) images from their High Resolution Infrared Radiometer.
Sometime in the future we will have an almost continuous record going back to the early 1960’s.
The thing is area of rotten ice in the Arctic is some thirteen million square kilometer above average now, because in the old days none of it was rotten, but now one can hardly find a piece that escaped rotting. Admittedly, it is hard, thick, dense and cold as hell, but at its core it is nothing else but water, albeit with molecules being arranged in a curious way. However, it does not make it genuine ice, does it?
I seem to recall some Russian reports covering about 150 years of artic port data as recording artic ice as possibly fluctuating on a 70 year cycle. If the peak ice of the cycle was about thirty years ago then we would have been on steady decline over the most recent period. But if the reports of weakening of the solar cycle potends a bit of cooling, maybe the arctic ice extent will swing back up again.
If it is a cycle then the “normal” line is meaningless, and if the cycle is 70 years then you cannot deduce much over just 30 years. The Stephen Goddard link above is great – could that have been the upswing in ice extent, peaking around 1971?
Personally, I wouldn’t care about arctic ocean ice cover at all if it weren’t for its (apparently) “strong influence on the weak-minded.” š
[off topic, old news ~mod]
“Ice is nice, but liquor is quicker” (after DP).
[page boy wandering around]
“Death Spiral!”
“Death Spiral!”
“Death Spiral anywhere in the house?”
[resounding silence…]
> [off topic, old news ~mod]
Ha ha. So “Rewriting The History Of The Arctic…” was on topic. And Dennis Ray Wingo replying, above, was on topic. But me presenting a highly relevant blog article (not mine) that actually explains the basis of the IPCC ’90 figure in question is suddenly off topic. Or is there some reason why you don’t want people to actually know what is in that figure?
REPLY: FYI I didn’t see the other replies above,[but I do now – the moderation tool only shows what is pending, I have to go back to the thread to see all replies] the moderation is such that I don’t see an approve every comment. No, I don’t care if people see the figure, there’s a note on the original post where they can see it, but I do care when you try to hijack a current thread about what’s happening now with historical stuff Mr. Connolley. I have a lower tolerance for you because of your attitude and baggage, and because you really spend a lot of your time here now trying to disrupt the discussions. Mr. Wingo adds to conversation without telling all the other posters they are idiots and act condescending as you do. I don’t invade your living room with rudeness and snark, so you can take a lump once in awhile here. You have this strange idea that after you write insulting posts about myself and the people here, that somehow we should treat you with respect. This trait is probably why you keep falling further from grace in your other endeavors. Be as upset as you wish. – Anthony Watts
PS. Here’s the link Connolley posted http://moregrumbinescience.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/tempest-in-ice-pot.html
Had I seen the upstream comments, I probably would not have cared…but it looked just like another attempt for WMC to launch a snark tirade as he does – A
If you look at the cryosphere today’s comparison between 2007 and 2012 you will see that the concentration is greater now than then. ( more area with 100% coverage). This would indicate that the area loss will be slower this year than then, which is what has happened so far.
Meanwhile the BBC have a whole article about global warming in the Arctic and not a word about this “good news”.
The simple truth is the BBC are now little more than a propaganda machine.
Wilt
Good question but unfortunately NO. I started watching it last year. Would need to get data for the past 32 years and analyze. I realize the black curve represents the average temp from the ’79-2000 data but the actual temps vary greatly. Last year we stayed above and right of the black line most of the months of Mar, Apr & May and the summer months of Jun, Jul & Aug were all bouncing around the top of the warmest part of the average line. It will be interesting to see what happens over the next 3-4 months and then maybe we can validate my prediction.
I’ll make my ’12 minimum public based on this temperature chart and we can see how well I do. Was significantly high in my miminum predition last year, hope I can do better this year.
Bill
wmconnolley says:
April 26, 2012 at 2:19 pm
No-one much cares about the winter ice. Its the summer min that is always the exciting bit.
So, who wants to bet that the summer minimum wonāt be substantially below ānormalā this summer?…
—————————————————————————-
We just had a summer minimum down South.
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_timeseries.png
Above normal all year as the chart shows.
Not shabby for a warming planet with oceans forecast to boil…
Billy Connolley says:
“So, who wants to bet that the summer minimum wonāt be substantially below ānormalā this summer? I mean, with real money, not just empty words.”
I’ll fade you. But since you used the weasel word “substantially”, I get to define it. And I define it as below 2007 for the Summer months. Loser pays a hundred bucks to the WUWT “Donate” button. Real money.
Anthony said: “thereās a note on the original post where they can see it”
===================
excellent…missed that post…..thank you!
Joe Bastardi -mour casual blog forecast for the weather in the UK over April has been too close for comfort…why not bring us some sunshine, you meanie?
So the NSIDC change the “normal”, doesn’t note it in the graphic to tell what version it is,doesn’t show the old version for reference… they have no shame.
Intrade’s current bid/asked spread on whether 2012 will have a lower minimum ice extent than 2007 is $3.20 / $3.90. That’s where WMC should go to get the best bang for the buck. (Put down $35.50 (the midpoint, where a buy bid should be placed) to win $64.50.) Here’s the link:
https://www.intrade.com/v4/markets/contract/?contractId=758776
Truthfully, we have NO idea what “normal” is – that grey line is an ill-educated guess – which is why any worry or fear about how much ice is or isn’t melting is like worrying about an invisible animal’s weight – who cares about how much weight is lost when you don’t even know if the darn thing is a mouse or an elephant!
Is the Arctic a mouse? Do ounces matter? Is the Arctic an elephant? Does 100 pounds mean anything?
But the weird thing is, we DO know that the Arctic has been BOTH mouse and elephant, many times, over the millennia… Myself, I have no fear of mice, but elephants, well, even the gentle ones are deadly when they sit on you…
It was more windy than usual in the arctic last winter, which I imagine created more leads, in areas where winds diverged, and more pressure ridges, where winds converged.
When leads form it can create an abrupt area of open water as much as a mile wide. Because the water is at 28F while the air is between minus 30F and minus 50F, the water “smokes” briefly, as heat is lost up into the midday darkness. Then very swiftly the lead freezes over. Because the air is so cold the new ice can be a foot thick in a day, but because it is thinner than surrounding ice the lead tends to be the weakest area, and when winds shift and converge the lead’s ice cracks and buckles, as the area which was a mile wind closes back together, forming a pressure ridge, which is basically a jumble of plates of ice loosely glued together with starchy snow and frozen spray.
Pressure ridges retain their integrity as long as it remains cold. As with icebergs, nine tenths of them are underwater. Therefore a small one only two feet high sticks downwards eighteen feet. The largest can stick up two stories, and thrust downwards eighteen stories. (These downward keels were big enough for subs to hide behind, back in the days when US and USSR subs used to play hide-and-seek up there.)
Once the weather warms up and the sun shines for twenty-four hours a day, the “glue” holding the plates of ice together tends to get slushy, and the pressure ridges disintegrate back into the plate of ice they were made of.
Pause and think for a moment what this means.
If a pressure ridge was made of a lead which was a mile wide, it will fall apart into many small plates of ice that will cover an area a mile wide. Considering the pressure ridge may have been only ten feet wide, if it was only two feet tall, this falling-apart creates a baffling expansion of ice to those who see all in terms of “area” and “extent.” After all, how can melting increase the extent? However, when a pressure ridge falls apart, this is exactly what occurs.
I think this is what occurred in 2006. Extent was lower than most recent years, during the winter, because the winds were crunching the ice together into a web-like system of pressure ridges. It was as the hands of the North were packing the ice together like a child packs a snowball. Then, as melting occurred, all the pressure ridges fell apart, and the packed-together ice spread apart, making the extent of 2006’s ice higher than most recent years, by September.
I think we will see the same thing this year. The winter was windy, and more pressure ridges were formed. They hold a great deal of ice-plates which can spread out and cover a large area.
When Alarmists are frustrated by “area” and extent” of ice refusing to behave like a “death spiral,” they always revert to talking about “volume.” The problem is, attempts to measure volume use a radar beam bounced down from outer space, and I fear the radar does a poor job of picking up the narrow pressure ridges. And the pressure ridges hide much volume under water.
Smokey says:
April 26, 2012 at 3:40 pm
Smokey – don’t feed the troll. He just wants his ego stroked…and he hasn’t come to grips with the big mistakes climate science has made about global ice loss…
This must be the first generation EVER to celebrate increased ice coverage. Our ancestors must be shaking their heads in amazement. GK
http://www.athropolis.com/map.htm
^that site is partly how i get a guess about where the line might be in the next day.
you click on the various weather station sites, and pay attention to wind speed and cloud cover.
i thought today/yesterday the lines would cross, since clouds were not that heavy overall, and wind was not great. now/recently, it is overcast and windy on the russian side, but not very windy and not very cloudy, and clear in some places, on the euro side and american side.
so, i predict the lines will have crossed for 04-26-2012.
to me, scientifically, i agree that ‘normal’ is unknown, but we are looking at a key piece of rhetoric for the warmers is about to fall, or not. the provided baseline of ‘normal’ serves that purpose. you cannot claim that arctic ice will be gone by 2012 when it is having something of an upswing. it is not yet time to hand over the keys of global energy expenditure (which can only be done by controlling most govt and industry) to al gore.
Really people. It should not be left to me to do math.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.recent.arctic.png
Current Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Area sq km
(ave) 12,961,000 ā (current) 12,877,000 = -84,000
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.recent.antarctic.png
Current Southern Hemisphere Sea Ice Area sq km
(current) 6,238.000 ā (ave) 5,558,000 = + 680,000
12,961,000 + 5,558,000 = 18,519,000 Total World Sea Ice (Average)
680,000 ā 84,000 = 596,000 Total Sea Ice above World Average
596,000 / 18,519,000 = .0321831 of 1% above average
Not much but a win is a win.
Caleb says:
April 26, 2012 at 7:33 pm
It was more windy than usual in the arctic last winter, which I imagine created more leads, in areas where winds diverged, and more pressure ridges, where winds converged.
==============
Yep, next year will be different.
Beware that climate change stuff.
wmconnolley says:
April 26, 2012 at 2:19 pm
No-one much cares about the winter ice. Its the summer min that is always the exciting bit.
So, who wants to bet that the summer minimum wonāt be substantially below ānormalā this summer? I mean, with real money, not just empty words.
=====================
Define “substantially”, Vegas probably has a line.
Why is the graph at this link above.
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png
Now, it should be pointed out that it hasnāt crossed the normal line, and it only touches it because of the line width, it is still ever so slightly below normal according to Cryosphere Today.
Labelled the way it is, and goes to a local file, when the actual NSIDC link provides a different graph with a lower extent – am I missing something here?
If I am correct, and the 2012 September ice extent follows a pattern like 2006’s, I’ll be expecting an odd reaction to occur in 2013, which may give the Alarmists hope.
If the sun remains “quiet,” I’ll expect an unexplained cooling to effect the planet. (Some have interesting ideas of what the reasons may be, but then Leif always appears and shoots the reasons down.)
However one odd side-effect of cooling is a brief period of arctic warming.
For example, consider the huge explosion of Tamboro in 1815, which led to the coldest summer in New England’s written history. “Eighteen hundred and froze to death.”
I know a lot about that summer, because my grandfather, (born in 1888,) talked to me about things his father, (born in 1850,) told him. Besides hearing second hand what it was like to be a teenager in the Civil War, I also heard a bit about my grandfather’s father’s grandfather, (born in 1808,) who actually lived through the summer of Eighteen Hundred and Froze to Death. He apparently was very grouchy in his old age about the farms of New England being abandoned and growing over with brush. A primary reason for abandoning the farms was that the summer of Eighteen Hundred and Froze to Death was so nasty no one wanted to risk ever going through a similar summer ever again. There were frosts in June, July and August, and hunger in the harvest.
Because that summer was such a big deal in my family-lore, I tend to get irate by suggestions that Tamboro did not have a cooling effect. However it apparently had a warming effect in the arctic. I first became aware of this when I first visited John Daly’s site, back when he was still with us, and read the quote near and dear to many Skeptics:
āIt will, without doubt, have come to your Lordshipās knowledge that a considerable change of climate, inexplicable at present to us, must have taken place in the Circumpolar Regions, by which the severity of the cold that has for centuries past enclosed the seas in the high northern latitudes in an impenetrable barrier of ice, has been during the last two years greatly abated.ā
That quote dates from 1819, and Tamboro blew in 1815, and the summer of Eighteen Hundred and Froze to Death was 1816.
Apparently cooling at lower latitudes may cause warming in the “circumpolar regions.” Things are not as simple as they seem.
And if the cooling caused by Tamboro, (which was much larger than Pinetubo or even Krakatoa, ) could have such an effect, might not the cooling caused by a “quiet sun” produce a similar effect?
I myself will be nervous if we see increased melting the summer of 2013, though I’m sure the Alarmists will be skipping for joy, and insisting they were right all along. Of course, no one will listen, if our farmlands at lower latitudes see frosts in July.
Marlow Metcalf says:
April 26, 2012 at 8:21 pm
You’re right, it shouldn’t be left to you. It’s 3.2%, not 0.032 of 1%.
-Scott
It would be well above normal for the whole of the satellite period.
Oops. Thanks Scott.
Willem De Rode says:
April 26, 2012 at 8:45 am
In context, Willem, yes this is dramatic. In the context of a death spiral, a tipping point, an ice-free Arctic, yes, definitely dramatic. In the context of Post-Normal, I guess not…
I offered to bet against anyone who thought the sea ice this summer wouldn’t be substantially less than normal. No luck so far:
Smokey says:> define it as below 2007 for the Summer months
So you’re only prepared to be that the ice won’t set a new record min? That doesn’t sound like a belief in a substantial recovery to me.
rogerknights> Intradeās … Thatās where WMC should go to get the best bang for the buck.
Thanks. But I’m not actually interested in making money off this, and I suspect if I went there I’d get fair odds. I don’t want that, I want unfair odds. You get unfair odds when two people have wildly different ideas about outcomes. From the language people use here, I’d hoped that someone might actually believe the “ice is recovering” stuff that people talk about, in which case we’d have a chance for a good bet that both sides would be happy with. No luck so far.
u.k.(us) says:> Define āsubstantiallyā
Well, I was hoping you folk who believe in the recovery might know what you believe in. I think the ice is likely to continue, roughly, on its long-term decline. From the top chart at http://gfspl.rootnode.net/index.php/arcticiceart, would you accept half-way between the long-term mean, and 2010, as the boundary? You believe this summers ice will be above that, I believe below?
@Ben Kellett
On the odd occasion that the current sea ice extent touches the normal line, everyone starts crowing that everything is normal. This is madness! The current sea ice needs to trend as much over the line as it does below it, over the course of a full year, for a true recovery to be declared. While this is encouraging, itās still far from normal!
Since ‘normal’ is incorrectly defined as 1979-2000, and the ice dropped back a lot in 2007, we are actually WAY above normal if it is measured properly using the ‘last 30 years’.
Could someone with the statistical skills do an updated ‘average’ line to show us where the ice would be if the correct marker is used?
Silent cooling?
My paying job involves me teaching MAST (Maths and Science teaching) in a leading UK teaching university, but for my own pleasure I also study history. To the point where after my Science degree I carried on and took another in History. As part of this interest I must confess I love pouring over old maps and one of the cartographers that caught my eye recently was August Heinrich Peterman. I love the comments he, or his collaborators, added to his maps.
For example his map of the Arctic in 1852 reproduced here:
http://www.lindahall.org/events_exhib/exhibit/exhibits/ice/39_img1.shtml
(courtesy of the Linden Hall Library)
Note at the top of Baffin Bay around Parry Island it says “Open sailing ice March 1851.”
Or between the Laptev and Kara Seas it says “Open water March and April.”
There are more of these notes, pointing out open sea and no ice, dotted around the map.
Of course it could all be a set up by that well know skeptical institution the British Admiralty of the 1850s. Or it could be more historical evidence that the Arctic ice was not as thick and extensive as certain people would like us all to believe. But I’m sure they have a model somewhere that can explain it away.
Reasons here are clear, intensive industrial activity due to vast hidden factories, like the sort the Germans used to make in salt mines etc. in WW2, in the wake of strategic bombing by Allies, but this time in the ice itself, perhaps in north Greenland margins, have produced aerosol induced warming hole over entire Arctic. This warming hole, produced by Arctic Ruhr in as yet to be determined localities along north Greenland icesheet margins, has led to a relative incraese in ice mass balance due to its influence on solar heat budget in region. Simple really.
Caleb says:
āIt will, without doubt, have come to your Lordshipās knowledge that a considerable change of climate, inexplicable at present to us, must have taken place in the Circumpolar Regions, by which the severity of the cold that has for centuries past enclosed the seas in the high northern latitudes in an impenetrable barrier of ice, has been during the last two years greatly abated.ā
That quote dates from 1819, and Tamboro blew in 1815, and the summer of Eighteen Hundred and Froze to Death was 1816.
Very interesting. I assume ‘abated’ refers to the ice.
I’ve argued that the recent Arctic sea ice retreat was caused by increased solar insolation combined with particulate deposition on the ice. There are several reasons for this, including the disproportionate melting of older ice. Older ice has more particulates embedded and these accumulate on the ice surface decreasing the albedo and accelerating the melt (or sublimation) from insolation.
It appears the particulate deposition had a similar effect post the Tambora eruption.
The reality as I see it currently is that, after a deviation toward lower ice extent, it appears that the first point of recovery is at annual maximum and perhaps the last place to recover is annual minimum.
What IS indisputable now is that for some months now, the total polar ice extent (arctic plus antarctic) has been above the long-term mean.
That’s the key number in my opinion.
Don’t tell me that this year we’ll be reaching that ‘tipping point’ AGAIN…..
Mr. Connolley, are you saying that skeptics believe in a catastrophic rise in ice? Seems to me, those that hung their hat on catastrophic ice decrease made a faulty assumption about how this whole thing works. What I see is a trend back up, roughly. It surprises me that you don’t. If you had no dog in this fight, you might have suggested that such a thing is occurring. I have no dog in this fight and have no qualms about saying there appears to be an extent anomally trend back the other way.
That said, betting on what the Earth will or will not throw at you is a fool’s bet. Are you such a fool?
Just me, Anthony, but anything away from ice-age conditions is encouraging. š
> Pamela Gray says: Mr. Connolley, are you saying that skeptics believe in a catastrophic rise in ice? Seems to me, those that hung their hat on catastrophic ice decrease made a faulty assumption about how this whole thing works. What I see is a trend back up, roughly.
People here seem to keep saying they believe in sea ice “recovery”, whatever they mean by that. But oddly enough they – like you – whilst happy enough to *talk* about this recovery aren’t willing to put any money on it. Saying you “see” a trend back up is cheap.
The words average and normal are not synonyms.
How can anyone call the 1979 level normal when 79 was the year they started taking the satellite Data? Maybe the 70’s were abnormal high with area and extent??? Maybe the average is where we are today. the problem is we just don’t know but the warmists use the 79 average like it’s the holy grail !!!!
Nothing says that sea ice extent has a mean (normal). At least not a constant mean. A constant mean only exists for limited types of time series. Statistically, it would be abnormal for the sea ice extent to remain unchanged.
WmConnelly says: “Well, I was hoping you folk who believe in the recovery might know what you believe in…. You believe this summers ice will be above that, I believe below?”
People commenting in here generally don’t “believe”; they look at data and try to make sense of it. It’s you and your ilk, including the leaders of the IPCC, who have attempted to foist your “beliefs” upon the rest of us, with the clear intent of taxing the begeezus out of us in the process, for your own benefit. We’re called “skeptics” by your side because we remain skeptical of your beliefs, since thus far they seem unsupported by the science, so unsupported, in fact, that your side has had to resort to corruption of data, tainted studies, and outright propaganda, to maintain a following.
Fortunately, people are catching on to your game.
Arctic ice at near normal extent, Antarctic Ice exceeding normal extent, how the hell can that point to a death spiral, catastrophic warming or any of the other weird warmist claims is beyond me.
No instead warmists claim we have less ice mass, as though they have some magic crystal ball that they can look into to tell them how much ice there was hundreds of years ago. In the past there were no satellites, virtually no data or measurements. So it comes down to just guessing, interesting guessing but with very rough trends that could be way out in terms of accuracy. Then we get some dimwit who says, ‘if you don’t want to bet then you can’t play my game!’ get over yourself or don’t you have the cognitive capability to recognise when an argument is not only invalid but incredibly asinine?
I must confess if I hear about another ice core sample or sediment sample that somehow can magically give me data on temperatures or ice thickness, Iāll be very miffed I can tell you! We donāt know what CO2 does over thousands of years trapped in ice, we donāt know what sediment chemistry is over thousands of years or come to that influences on tree ring growth over decades. We calculate making assumptions that have huge errors built in. But do scientists admit this? Of course not, because it would threaten the filling of the funding trough. Because we as a society expect our scientist to have definitive answers down to the last place value and if they donāt play our game then they donāt get the grants. Itās about time our scientist started to admit the truth about much of their research and instead of trying to control the message via political machinations owned up and started being real scientists again. Because if they donāt, trends like this in the Arctic ice are just going to make them look irrelevant.
Right thatās my weekly rant over withā¦
With the AMO sea surface temp falling along with the South Atlantic sea surface temp, I am not surprised by the Arctic ice measures turning up in relative terms. The question now is about further moves as the AMO rolls farther over and its impact on north Atlantc ice margins plays out. The big difference between a skeptic and an AGW priest in this era is the facsination with relationships emerging from the unknown by skeptics versus the shoehorning of observations by AGW rank and file. One approach leads to new discovery and the other side leads to wasted time—oh the humanity of it all! Where oh where is the Martin Luther of climate science, or does the need for change have to become so obvious to so many that it is more of a spark than a genius to set fire to change?
Temps are still pretty cold up in the Arctic, please check them at http://www.athropolis.com/map.htm
Chicago is nice & cool lately, we like this! Frost warning last night. Something tells me we are going to have a nice, white Arctic ice extent this summer. Polar bears are happily feasting on harp seals, I’m sure.
Willy Connolley says to Pamela Gray:
“People here seem to keep saying they believe in sea ice ‘recovery’, whatever they mean by that. But oddly enough they ā like you ā whilst happy enough to *talk* about this recovery arenāt willing to put any money on it.”
^This^ is the ultra hypocritical William Connolley, the Wikipedia censor who snivels like a spoiled child when one of his comments is occasionally snipped for violating site policy.
Connolley pretended to want to bet “real money”, so I took him up on it. Now he doesn’t have the trousers to accept. All hat ‘n’ no cattle. All *talk* and no action. Backing and filling. Had his fingers crossed. I made it crystal clear that I am willing to put money on it.
C’mon, Connolley, it’s only a hundred bucks. Grow a pair, you
chickenweasel.The Cryosphere Today anomaly is now -0.047. It’s playing with us!
The growing ice cover will cause a new trend. Climate “scientists” will start to embrace the Russian scientists who have long said the Arctic cap extent is much about wind patterns and cycles off northern Asia. Thus growing ice is not a falsifier of their CO2 and temperature claims-for their position’s sake.
And being “climate scientists,” upon embracing the old science they will congratulate themselves as progressive and on the cutting edge. Then they will search for a new “proxy” to show current warming, like decreasing glaciers, because those damn thermometers aren’t showing what the UN IPCC science says they should be showing!!
Yet, I am going to join this game and apply for a grant from the NAS for my study of rising women’s hemlines as a proxy for global warming. I will suggest semi-annual conferences on this important matter to be set in Paris and Tahiti.
So, the only bet offer I’ve had so far only pays out to me if there is a new record minimum. Since I don’t think that is particularly likely, the bet is unattractive. But its good to know that none of the folk here actually think that sea ice is likely to recover this summer. Reading your words would have given the opposite impression, but reading your money is clearer.
Rod Everson says:> People commenting in here generally donāt ābelieveā; they look at data and try to make sense of it…
For example, using past data to try to predict the future. That’s the essence of science, no? I’m looking at the past data, and I can see something. You’re saying that you look at all the past data and… you haven’t got the slightest idea what might happen in the future. You haven’t been thinking very hard in that case.
Yes, Mr.Connolley, we look at past data. For example, the data that shows insignificant warming for over a decade now, despite the earlier dire warnings by the “modelers” that such would not be the case.
Do the modelers consider their models to be disproven? No. They just change the name of the game from “global warming” to “climate change.” As for not having the “slightest idea what might happen in the future,” that would seem to describe your camp’s circa 1998 description of the future quite accurately.
I’ll give you this though. Our esteemed leader, President Obama, looks to make good on his promise to stop the seas from rising.
Caleb says:
April 26, 2012 at 8:53 pm
So, Caleb, just where were you for http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/15/missing-the-missing-summer/ ? Working on taxes? I coulda used some support!
William,
Actually, Smokey’s offer was perfectly justifiable. You originally said “So, who wants to bet that the summer minimum wonāt be substantially below ānormalā this summer?”
Since I don’t know what “substantially” means, let’s go with “significantly”.
I’ll define “significant” as deviation by more than 2 sigma, which is not outside the bounds of reasonableness.
I’ve estimated values from the following plot and calculated that in the 33 year history of satellite data, the average September area minimimum is 5.0 sq. km with a standard deviation of 0.75 sq km.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.area.arctic.png
So looks like an offer based on NH sea ice area falling below 3.5 sq. km, matches a criteria based on “significantly” lower than “normal.”
wmconnolley,
From your taunting you give the impression that you have no understanding of what climate or climate change mean.
If we have a warm winter or a cool summer — that’s weather. If the arctic sea ice anomaly increases or decreases over last years summer low — that’s weather. Climate is long term. Betting on what the weather is going to do makes as much sense as playing Russian roulette.
John M says:
April 27, 2012 at 5:28 pm
William,
Actually, Smokeyās offer was perfectly justifiable. You originally said āSo, who wants to bet that the summer minimum wonāt be substantially below ānormalā this summer?ā
Iāll define āsignificantā as deviation by more than 2 sigma, which is not outside the bounds of reasonableness.
Here is a University resource that defines “substantially below” as:
“Substantially below is usually defined as a discrepancy of more than 2 standard deviations”
http://www.mcburney.wisc.edu/information/documentation/lddisdocguide.php
So, it looks like the bet is on. Smokey has accepted Connelley’s offer of a bet, and wagered $100.
An offer made (Connelley)and accepted (Smokey) is a legally binding contract. The terms are clear. More than 2 standard deviations below the average and Connelley wins. Anything else and Smokey wins.
Interestingly, the original source for:
“Substantially below is usually defined as a discrepancy of more than 2 standard deviationsā
is taken from:
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Health Disorders IV-TR (2000)
Seems appropriate somehow…
RE
kbray in california says:
@ April 26, 2012 at 8:54 am
A woman in Switzerland tried āzero carbon useā.
Check out her end results:
http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/health/swiss-women-dies-giving-water-food-thought-live-sunlight-article-1.1067359
——————
Astonishing. What the human mind is capable of. I imagine she would be up for ‘Darwin Award’ for removing herself from the gene pool in such an audacious way – and with such flare! (excuse the pun)…
I’m looking forward to actually SEEING the incredible sea ice extent in the Bering Sea this season on Deadliest Catch. Should make for a VERY interesting season! I’m impressed with the fact that the Bering Sea ice is still so far south this far into April.
Leif Svalgaard says:
April 26, 2012 at 8:41 am
“My usual gripe about this: the ice extent for yesterday shows ice cover in the sea around the Danish islands. There is no ice there now: http://www.itameriportaali.fi/html/icef/icemap_c.pdf”
I remember I saw a discussion about this. If I correctly remember there is a warning that such sensor error might appear in shallow waters and/or missing waves and is discounted for sea ice surface. Am too lazy now to search for discussion and link but there is an explanation.
Of course one can reject all data based on some errors – as one could do with all climate data or any other data – it will never be 100% accurate.
Correction,
Average is 4.5 sq km. Misread the hashmarks and grids.
Standard Deviation is the same. (Doesn’t change the reasonableness of Smokey’s offer.)
For the record, here are the Sept. minima values I extracted from the plot:
1979 5.3
1980 5.5
1981 5
1982 5.2
1983 5.4
1984 4.6
1985 5
1986 5.4
1987 5.3
1988 5.1
1989 4.8
1990 4.6
1991 4.5
1992 5
1993 4.4
1994 4.8
1995 4.4
1996 5.2
1997 4.9
1998 4.3
1999 4.2
2000 4.1
2001 4.6
2002 4
2003 4.1
2004 4.3
2005 4.1
2006 4
2007 2.9
2008 3
2009 3.5
2010 3
2011 2.9
Bill Jamison says:
April 28, 2012 at 1:46 am
Iām looking forward to actually SEEING the incredible sea ice extent in the Bering Sea this season on Deadliest Catch. Should make for a VERY interesting season! Iām impressed with the fact that the Bering Sea ice is still so far south this far into April.
I’ll be surprised if there would be much to see, the crab fishing season is October -January. In any case I’d expect the extent to pull back a lot over the next week or so, and a move away from the ‘normal’ line. Statistically the extent in April is a poor indicator of the fall minimum anyway.
The always astute Ferd Berple comments:
“Actually, Smokeyās offer was perfectly justifiable…. Iāll define ‘significant’ as deviation by more than 2 sigma, which is not outside the bounds of reasonableness… So, it looks like the bet is on. Smokey has accepted Connelleyās offer of a bet, and wagered $100.”
And for a good cause, too. WUWT doesn’t get Big Oil money, so it must rely on contributions from readers. Ferd continues:
“An offer made (Connelley) and accepted (Smokey) is a legally binding contract. The terms are clear. More than 2 standard deviations below the average and Connelley wins. Anything else and Smokey wins.”
Really, WUWT wins in either case. Of course I will pay if I the planet says that I was wrong. That is a given. I would never welsh on a bet.
It remains to be seen if Connelley is a Welch name!
Looking at John M’s numbers I agree with his calculations. The norm is 4.47 and the std is 0.74. However it may be worthwhile to review the data as 2007 appears the same as 2011, which doesn’t appear to match the graphs?
If John M’s numbers are correct then the bet would be Connelley wins if the minimum is below 2.98, else Smokey wins.
Interestingly, I did a straight line projection on the minimum, and it has the Arctic ice free in 2060. If you do the same in the Antarctic, then the whole world will be covered in ice eventually.
There is clear evidence from the past that changes in the earth’s magnetic field can significantly affect climate. (hat tip to Leif). We know that the earth’s magnetic field is changing more rapidly as CO2 is increasing.
Thus, using the IPCC’s climate science methodology, we must conclude that CO2 is changing the earth’s magnetic field and thus changing the climate. (Since we can’t think of what else can be causing the accelerating rate of change in the earth’s magnetic field).
Thus, with the accelerating rate of change in the earth’s magnetic field as a result of carbon pollution, it could well be that I’m spot on with both projections. Anyone care to bet? Arctic ice free in 2060. World covered in ice eventually.
After 2060, the projections are that the Arctic sea ice minimum will go negative. There will be anti-ice in the Arctic, which will consume an equal volume of positive ice, finally releasing the missing heat that Trenberth and Hansen have long been seeking. The modern day equivalent of Amundsen and Scott in their heroic quest for the anti-pole.
Fred,
Yes, it would be nice to find the full 33 year data in one place. That blended sea ice area plot was the best one I could find for “digitizing” the data since 1979.
I see that Connolly is still trying to put money on that fool’s bet. You seem to think I believe the ice has recovered, or will. Don’t paint me with fool’s color. It hasn’t “recovered” from anything. But it does appear to be trending in the opposite direction than the way you think it is going. If you think extent is currently entrenched in a downward spiral, stop looking at the graph while standing on your head.
For the record, I believe in the rather unpredictable nature of natural weather and climate variations, IE the odd random weather pattern, long term weather pattern changes, etc. And I wouldn’t bet on what will happen tomorrow for a penny. That you would, speaks volumes about you, not the people who refuse to play a fool’s game.
However, I can and do make predictions. I predict that the summer melt will be less than spectacular and will not further the argument that the Arctic is on a death spiral. It will either bolster the idea that the death spiral is on a hiatus, or it will continue the slow trend back to average.
ferd berple says:
April 28, 2012 at 8:46 am:
“It remains to be seen if Connelley is a Welch name!”
Clever and funny!
[And Pamela, I didn’t take the bet to predict the future. I did it to call Connolley’s bluff. It’s a guy thing.]
Yeah, I figured. Kinda like a double dare or king of the hill. Definitely a guy thing. And rather fun to watch.
> Pamela Gray says: However, I can and do make predictions. I predict that the summer melt will be less than spectacular and will not further the argument that the Arctic is on a death spiral. It will either bolster the idea that the death spiral is on a hiatus, or it will continue the slow trend back to average.
Thats nice, but its just words, not numbers. It is in no way verifiable. The words you’ve used – death spiral, spectacular, slow trend – can’t be converted into a yes/no criterion. We’ve had two suggestions so far: that the bet be about whether there is a new record or not – I’ not interested in betting on that, because we don’t disagree enough. Or mine of here where I’ve offered “half-way between the long-term mean, and 2010, as the boundary?” You would win if the ice cover was above that. Interested?
RE: “Ric Werme says:
April 27, 2012 at 4:36 pm”
Sorry, Rick. That post by Willis actually got me steamed to a degree where I whipped off a counter article and submitted it here. I suppose it was fairly badly written, for it wasn’t printed.
My main point was that the Year Of Eighteen Hundred And Froze To Death was very real, for my family at least. Sometimes I think science has a blind spot, when it comes to so-called “lore.” Science will quibble over .001 th of a degree, as long as it is old records on yellowing paper in a musty file cabinet, but when it comes to a country bumpkin stating what he heard from a grandfather, they look down their noses.
I think they miss a lot. My family name has blotched the fair face of New England for 384 years, all within a sixty mile radius of where I now live, but many scientists would rather squint at a computer screen than listen to a garrulous old geezer.
This is not to say the young men of my family didn’t get wanderlust and sail off on clippers, but they always seemed to come home in the end. I myself ran away to California for a couple years. One odd thing about that place was that it was hard to find anyone my age who was actually born there. The entire state seemed to comprise of run-aways. There was zero tradition.
I nearly landed a good job at a California computer place. That would have put me ahead of the curve, however the place went belly-up a few days before I was to start working. (Apparently the owners got too rich and invested in cocaine.)
Instead I ran away from the run-aways, and wound up on the Navajo Reservation for four years. That put me behind the curve, when it came to computers, but did teach me to respect traditions, (though with a grain of salt.)
In any case, when it comes to predicting the weather, who do I trust? An old farmer, or the computer ten-day-forecast?
One thing I noticed that summer after Pinatubo was that, though there was no mid-summer frost, my tomatoes simply stayed green. And the old lore about the summer of Eighteen-hundred-and-froze-to-death mentions the same sort of weakness-of-the-sunlight. It was a problem above and beyond the frost, back in those days, because in those days a lot of foods were sun-dried.
This is not to say weather patterns were not knocked out of kilter in 1816, and there wasn’t melting up at the edge of the arctic. However anyone who suggests it wasn’t colder in New England spends too much time looking at numbers, and not enough time listening to garrelous old geezers.
“At its maximum extent on March 18, Arctic sea ice extent was within two standard deviations of the average, a measure that scientists look at as an estimate of the natural range of variability for the data.”
Bold added for emphasis.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
Pamela,
I double dog dare Billy to stop being a chicken and a welcher. I took his bet, now he’s backing and filling. Making excuses. He doesnāt have the huevos to play fair. All hat ānā no cattle. All talk and no action. Had his fingers crossed behind his back the whole time. He welched: now he’s “not interested” in being a stand-up guy. We “don’t disagree enough” is his latest excuse. But the bet was not about disagreeing, that’s just weasel talk; Connolley is simply weaseling out.
Several commentators have pointed out much the same thing, in their own words. And it’s only $100, which I’m fully prepared to pay if I lose. [And 2007 was not any kind of a “record”, either. The geological record goes back way before the Holocene.]
I took Billy’s bet, but now he’s “not interested” in keeping his end of the wager. He’s chickening out. I guess $100 is too scary for an unemployed Welchman.
John M,
From your link:
Arctic sea ice extent for March 2012 was the 9th lowest in the satellite record, but the highest since 2008 and one of the highest March extents in the past decade.
Cherry-picking. The satellite era began in 1971. And University of Bremen records go back much farther, with routine on-site reports. Also, Tony Brown [tonyb] has compiled really extensive historical documentation of Arctic sea ice extent.
I might take NSIDC seriously if they didn’t post alarming charts like this. What they don’t show is the contrast between the poles. The Antarctic has much more ice than the Arctic, so the NSIDC is propagandizing with their scary looking chart.
Hey Smokey,
Just pointing out that 2 standard deviations thing again…all sanctioned by the NSIDC.
wmconnolley says:
Thats nice, but its just words, not numbers.
The words were your own.
quote:
wmconnolley says:
April 27, 2012 at 12:28 am
I offered to bet against anyone who thought the sea ice this summer wouldnāt be substantially less than normal.
unquote:
You make the offer. The terms are clear: “substantially less than normal” is 2 STD below the NORM. Smokey accepted for $100. An offer made and accepted, that is a legal contract.
Technically, the bet is on and there is nothing further to decide until the results are in.
John M says:
April 29, 2012 at 7:07 am
āAt its maximum extent on March 18, Arctic sea ice extent was within two standard deviations of the average, a measure that scientists look at as an estimate of the natural range of variability for the data.ā
Looking at the site, they use 1979-200 to compute the average and deviation. That is a cheat. The data from 2000-2012 must also be included in the computation of average and deviation, otherwise their methodology implies that natural variability ended in 2000. Faulty statistics.
Smokey says:
April 29, 2012 at 2:45 pm
I guess $100 is too scary for an unemployed Welchman.
Come Sept if you win there are always bragging rights. willie the welcher sung to the tune of minnie the moocher? You are named in the 2nd and 5th verses.
Folks, hereĀ“s a story about Minnie the Moocher
She was a red hot hoochie-koocher
She was the roughest, toughest frail
but Minnie had a heart as big as a wha-a-le
She messed around with a bloke named Smoky
She loved him though he was cokey
He took her down to Chinatown
He showed her how to kick the gong around ()
She had a dream that the King of Sweden
He gave her things that she was needinĀ“
He built her a house of gold and steel
A diamond car with platinum wheels
he gave her his townhouse and his racing horses
Each meal she ate was a dozen courses
She had a million dollars worth of nickels and dimes
she sat around and counted them all a million times
Now Min and Smokie, they started jaggin’
They got a free ride in a wagon
She gave him money to pay her bail
But he left her flat in the county jail
Poor Min met old Deacon Lowdown
He preached to her that she ought to slow down
But Minnie wiggled her jelly roll
And Deacon Lowdown yelled, “Lord save my soul!”
They took her where they put the crazies
Now poor Min’s kicking up those daisies
You’ve heard my story this is her song
She was just a good gal, but they done her wrong
Poor Min, Poor Min, Poor Min.
ferd berple,
Ah, that brings back memories!