The Economist Provides Readers With Erroneous Information About Arctic Sea Ice

http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/hycomARC/navo/arcticicespddrf_nowcast_anim30d.gif
Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) – HYCOM Consortium for Data-Assimilative Ocean Modeling – Click the pic to view at source

By WUWT regular “Just The Facts”

A June 16th article in the Economist “The vanishing north” states that;

“Between now and early September, when the polar pack ice shrivels to its summer minimum, they will pore over the daily sea ice reports of America’s National Snow and Ice Data Centre. Its satellite data will show that the ice has shrunk far below the long-term average. This is no anomaly: since the 1970s the sea ice has retreated by around 12% each decade. Last year the summer minimum was 4.33m square km (1.67m square miles)—almost half the average for the 1960s.

The Arctic’s glaciers, including those of Greenland’s vast ice cap, are retreating. The land is thawing: the area covered by snow in June is roughly a fifth less than in the 1960s. The permafrost is shrinking. Alien plants, birds, fish and animals are creeping north: Atlantic mackerel, haddock and cod are coming up in Arctic nets. Some Arctic species will probably die out.

Perhaps not since the 19th-century clearance of America’s forests has the world seen such a spectacular environmental change. It is a stunning illustration of global warming, the cause of the melt. It also contains grave warnings of its dangers. The world would be mad to ignore them.”

However, the Economist’s assertion that “global warming” is “the cause of the melt” is demonstrably false.

There is ample evidence that the Arctic has warmed over the last several decades, e.g.; the RSS Northern Polar Temperature Lower Troposphere(TLT) Brightness Temperature Anomaly;

Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) – Microwave Sounding Units (MSU) – Click the pic to view at source

shows a .337 K/C per decade increase.

However, atmospheric temperatures are just one of numerous variables that are the “cause of the melt”. In fact, the largest influences on Arctic Sea Ice appear to be wind and Atmospheric Oscillations, i.e.:

In this 2007 NASA article “NASA Examines Arctic Sea Ice Changes Leading to Record Low in 2007“;

“Son V. Nghiem of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, said that “the rapid decline in winter perennial ice the past two years was caused by unusual winds. “Unusual atmospheric conditions set up wind patterns that compressed the sea ice, loaded it into the Transpolar Drift Stream and then sped its flow out of the Arctic,” he said. When that sea ice reached lower latitudes, it rapidly melted in the warmer waters.”

“The winds causing this trend in ice reduction were set up by an unusual pattern of atmospheric pressure that began at the beginning of this century,” Nghiem said.”

This 2007 paper “Rapid reduction of Arctic perennial sea ice” by Nghiem, Rigor, Perovich, Clemente-Colo, Weatherly and Neumann, found that;

“Perennial-ice extent loss in March within the DM domain was noticeable after the 1960s, and the loss became more rapid in the 2000s when QSCAT observations were available to verify the model results. QSCAT data also revealed mechanisms contributing to the perennial-ice extent loss: ice compression toward the western Arctic, ice loading into the Transpolar Drift (TD) together with an acceleration of the TD carrying excessive ice out of Fram Strait, and ice export to Baffin Bay.”

This 2010 Guardian article “Wind contributing to Arctic sea ice loss, study finds” states that;

“Much of the record breaking loss of ice in the Arctic ocean in recent years is down to the region’s swirling winds and is not a direct result of global warming, a new study reveals.”

This 2011 paper “Recent wind driven high sea ice export in the Fram Strait contributes to Arctic sea ice decline”  by L. H. Smedsrud, et al.;

“used “geostrophic winds derived from reanalysis data to calculate the Fram Strait ice area export back to 1957, finding that the sea ice area export recently is about 25% larger than during the 1960’s.”

This 2004 Science Daily article, ”Winds, Ice Motion Root Cause Of Decline In Sea Ice, Not Warmer Temperatures” states that,

“extreme changes in the Arctic Oscillation in the early 1990s — and not warmer temperatures of recent years — are largely responsible for declines in how much sea ice covers the Arctic Ocean, with near record lows having been observed during the last three years, University of Washington researchers say.”

“It may have happened more than a decade ago, but the sea ice appears to still “remember” those Arctic Oscillation conditions, according to Ignatius Rigor, a mathematician with the UW’s Applied Physics Laboratory.”

This 2004 paper “Variations in the Age of Arctic Sea-ice and Summer Sea-ice Extent” by Ignatius G. Rigor & John M. Wallace, found that;

“The winter AO-index explains as much as 64% of the variance in summer sea-ice extent in the Eurasian sector, but the winter and summer AO-indices combined explain less than 20% of the variance along the Alaskan coast, where the age of sea-ice explains over 50% of the year-to year variability. If this interpretation is correct, low summer sea-ice extents are likely to persist for at least a few years. However, it is conceivable that, given an extended interval of low-index AO conditions, ice thickness and summertime sea-ice extent could gradually return to the levels characteristic of the 1980′s.”

This 2010 paper, “Influence of winter and summer surface wind anomalies on summer Arctic sea ice extent” by Masayo Ogi, Koji Yamazaki and John M. Wallace, published in Geophysical Research Letters states that;

“We have shown results indicating that wind‐induced, year‐to‐year differences in the rate of flow of ice toward and through Fram Strait play an important role in modulating September SIE on a year‐to‐year basis and that a trend toward an increased wind‐induced rate of flow has contributed to the decline in the areal coverage of Arctic summer sea ice.”

This 2001 paper, “Fram Strait Ice Fluxes and Atmospheric Circulation: 1950–2000” by Torgny Vinje found that:

“Observations reveal a strong correlation between the ice fluxes through the Fram Strait and the cross-strait air pressure difference.”

“Although the 1950s and 1990s stand out as the two decades with maximum flux variability, significant variations seem more to be the rule than the exception over the whole period considered.”

“A noticeable fall in the winter air pressure of 7 hPa is observed in the Fram Strait and the Barents Sea during the last five decades.”

“The corresponding decadal maximum change in the Arctic Ocean ice thickness is of the order of 0.8 m. These temporal wind-induced variations may help explain observed changes in portions of the Arctic Ocean ice cover over the last decades. Due to an increasing rate in the ice drainage through the Fram Strait during the 1990s, this decade is characterized by a state of decreasing ice thickness in the Arctic Ocean.”

This 2003 paper “Arctic climate change: observed and modelled temperature and sea-ice variability“, by By OLA M. JOHANNESSEN, LENNART BENGTSSON, MARTIN W. MILES, SVETLANA I . KUZMINA, VLADIMIR A. SEMENOV, GENRIKH V. ALEKSEEV, ANDREI P. NAGURNYI, VICTOR F. ZAKHAROV, LEONID P. BOBYLEV, LASSE H. PETTERSSON, KLAUS HASSELMANN and HOWARD P. CATTLE states that;

“The decreases in recent decades, which are also partially due to circulation-driven ice export through the Fram Strait between Greenland and Svalbard (Vinje, 2001), have coincided with a positive trend in the NAO, with unusually high index values in the late 1980s and 1990s. During this period, the variability of ice motion and ice export through the Fram Strait was correlated strongly with the NAO; r∼ 0.86 for the ice area flux (Kwok and Rothrock, 1999) and r∼ 0.7 for the ice volume flux (Hilmer and Jung, 2000), although the relationship was insignificant (r∼ 0.1) before the mid 1970s (Hilmer and Jung, 2000). Deser et al. (2000) analysed a 40-yr gridded data set (1958–97) to determine the association between arctic sea ice, SAT and SLP, concluding that the multidecadal trends in the NAO/AO in the past three decades have been ‘imprinted upon the distribution of Arctic sea ice’, with the first principal component of sea-ice concentration significantly correlated (r∼−0.63) with the NAO index, recently cause-and-effect modelled by Hu et al. (2002). None the less, our calculations and those of Deser et al. (2000) indicate that, even in recent decades, only about one third of the variability in arctic total ice extent and MY ice area (Johannessen et al., 1999) is explained by the NAO index,”

This 2002 paper “Response of Sea Ice to the Arctic Oscillation” by IGNATIUS G. RIGOR, JOHN M. WALLACE and ROGER L. COLONY found that

“Hilmer and Jung (2000) note a secular change in the relationship between the Fram Strait ice flux and the NAO; the high correlation noted by Kwok and Rothrock (1999) from 1978 to 1996 was not found in data prior to 1978. We expect our overall results to be more robust given the strong relationship between the AO and SIM over the Arctic, as compared to the weaker relationship between the north–south flow through Fram Strait and the AO. Even if one ignored the effect of the AO on the flux of ice through Fram Strait, the divergence of ice in the eastern Arctic would be still be ;50% greater under high-index conditions than under low-index conditions, and the heat flux would be ;25% greater.”

”We have shown that sea ice provides memory for the Arctic climate system so that changes in SIM driven by the AO during winter can be felt during the ensuing seasons; that is, the AO drives dynamic thinning of the sea ice in the eastern Arctic during winter, allowing more heat to be released from the ocean through the thinner ice during spring, and resulting in lower SIC during summer and the liberation of more heat by the freezing of the ice in autumn. The correlations between the wintertime AO and SIC and SAT during the subsequent seasons offers the hope of some predictability, which may be useful for navigation along the Northern Sea route.”

This 2000 paper, “Arctic decadal and interdecadal variability” by Igor V. Polyakov and Mark A. Johnson, found that;

”The decadal-scale mode associated with the Arctic Oscillation (AO) and a low-frequency oscillation (LFO) with an approximate time scale of 60-80 years, dominate. Both modes were positive in the 1990s, signifying a prolonged phase of anomalously low atmospheric sea level pressure and above normal surface air temperature in the central Arctic. Consistent with an enhanced cyclonic component, the arctic anticyclone was weakened and vorticity of winds became positive. The rapid reduction of arctic ice thickness in the 1990s may be one manifestation of the intense atmosphere and ice cyclonic circulation regime due to the synchronous actions of the AO and LFO. Our results suggest that the decadal AO and multidecadal LFO drive large amplitude natural variability in the Arctic making detection of possible long-term trends induced by greenhouse gas warming most difficult.

And lastly, in this June 16th, 2012 Economist article “Uncovering an ocean“, which is part of their “Cold comfort” Arctic Special Report, it states that;

“A simultaneous thinning of the sea ice is also speeding up the shrinkage, because thinner ice is more liable to melt. According to Peter Wadhams of Cambridge University, the average thickness of the pack ice has fallen by roughly half since the 1970s, probably for two main reasons. One is a rise in sea temperatures: in the summer of 2007 coastal parts of the Arctic Ocean measured 7°C—bracingly swimmable. The other was a prolonged eastward shift in the early 1990s in the Arctic’s prevailing winds, known as the Arctic Oscillation. This moved a lot of ice from the Beaufort Gyre, a revolving current in the western Arctic, to the ocean’s other main current, the Transpolar Drift Stream, which runs down the side of Siberia. A lot of thick, multi-year ice was flushed into the Atlantic and has not been replaced.”

As such, there is ample evidence that “global warming” is not “the cause of the melt” as the Economist erroneously infers in its article “The vanishing north”. The Economist’s over simplifications, poor reporting and overt alarmism are indicative of the sad state of formerly respected information source.

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
0 0 votes
Article Rating
166 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
dennisambler
June 16, 2012 4:11 pm

As usual the arguments are still around the short period of satellite measurements, just a finger snap in the overall scheme of things and yet there is ample evidence from geology and archaeology that there is nothing unique about the current Arctic. Equally, satellite measurements started at the end of the 60’s and 70’s cooling, when cod moved south to warmer waters, leading to the “Cod Wars” between the UK and Iceland, as Iceland sought to establish a 200 mile exclusion zone as they chased their south-migrating fish stocks. During that cold period, there were serious suggestions of geo-engineering to warm up the planet, including turning the Arctic into an ice free ocean.
The quoted link to the 2009 Tonyb comprehensive post on Arctic ice history is well worth re-visiting in terms of “modern” ice history.
The Arctic was much warmer in pre-history and A paper by Willerslev E. et al, “Ancient Biomolecules from Deep Ice Cores Reveal a Forested Southern Greenland”; published in Science, 6 July 2007, showed that Greenland was covered in a dense forest teeming with flora and fauna less than a million years ago.
“Using DNA extracted from plants and insects embedded deep in ice cores scientists found evidence that Greenland, today a frozen island, was considerably warmer during the past 450,000 to 900,000 years than previously thought.”
According to Robert McGhee, Head of the Scientific Section, Archaeological Survey of Canada, based at the Canadian Museum of Civilization in Ottawa this also the case in relatively recent times:
Climate and People in the Pre-Historic Arctic
http://www.carc.org/pubs/v15no5/5.htm
“By about 7000 years ago the massive glaciers of the last Ice Age had retreated to the mountain peaks of the eastern Canadian Arctic. Tundra vegetation had become established, and was grazed by caribou, musk oxen, and, in some areas, by bison. The gulfs and channels between the arctic islands had long been at least seasonally ice-free, and provided a home to populations of seals, walrus, and whales.”
“There is considerable evidence that for the next 3500 years the arctic climate was noticeably warmer than today, the tree-line was north of its present position, sea ice was less extensive, and animal populations were large and well established.”
It is for these reasons that I cannot get excited about each latest monthly ice extent recorded by satellite, because one thing is certain, there will be continuing climate change and artificially pushing up our energy costs by regulation and taxation will not stop it one iota.

Kaboom
June 16, 2012 4:15 pm

It seems the Economist has fallen prey to the old meme that required the writer to include the words “in accordance with the prophecy” in all missives. Only they use “global warming can be seen in how [enter phenomenon]”.

Ron H.
June 16, 2012 4:18 pm

I can’t help but laugh when I read something like the following quote from the GRL article:
The scientists first considered natural variability, or the effect of short-term and seasonal weather conditions and winds. While variable winds and weather clearly play a role in how much ice melts each summer, they found that the amount of variability was far too low to explain the intensity of the decline. […] “In the end, only the increase in CO2 remained on our list of possible drivers,” Notz said,
As if such a method should be considered seriously. I am always reminded of watching episodes of the TV crime drama CSI, in which supposed forensic “experts” attempt to determine the murder weapon by fitting a variety of objects to the fatal wound of the victim until something fits exactly. “Ahah! This tire iron fits the dent in the victims skull, so the murder weapon must be a tire iron. Mystery solved.”
It must be that, because we don’t know what else it could be.
What nonsense.

Olaf Koenders
June 16, 2012 4:19 pm

If their only focus is beginning all their worry series from the 1970’s, no wonder they report such dribble. Maybe we should ask them (shove it in their face, actually) what caused this interglacial and got us out of the last major ice age and, if a carbon tax has any relevance:

http://earthintime.com/holocene.jpg
http://earthintime.com/phartempco2.jpg

Makes me wonder just what evidence they rely on? WWF/Greenpeace anyone..?

George Steiner
June 16, 2012 4:20 pm

For over ten years, probably more actually, I have read the Economist from cover to cover exclusively. Until I gradually realized that it is all style and no substance. Then I stopped my subscription. This was about ten years ago.
Their writing style is very good.This is in large measure why even today many think that it is a serious newspaper. But in fact it is very shallow.

Olaf Koenders
June 16, 2012 4:20 pm

Then again, I’m wondering what caused then to shift their worry series from the 1800’s to the 1970’s. Hansen not doing a good enough job..?

Indea
June 16, 2012 4:38 pm

The ice cover is now the lowest for this time of year in the satellite data record, and it’s due to many factors, winds, air temperatures, ocean temperatures. In all the publications mentioned in this post, not one of them says the majority of the ice loss we’re seeing in the Arctic is a result of winds\, and in fact statistically speaking, it’s less than 50%.
I suppose it may be hard for some die-hard climate skeptics to accept this is going to be another anomalously low sea ice year, but it is. The loss of Arctic sea ice is consistent with climate models that for quite some time now have been predicting the Arctic will become seasonally ice-free as temperatures warm in response to rising concentrations of greenhouse gases.

Indea
June 16, 2012 4:55 pm

Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
June 16, 2012 at 3:16 pm
People that advocate “global warming” make it a habit of not bringing up the past. There has been less ice in the Arctic for most of the last 9000 years than there is now. They want only to talk about the last 30 years when Arctic ice had been in a small decline. They also don’t want to say there has been increase in Arctic ice since 2007. The decline that had been happening is over. There is now an increase in ice happening. It is normal for Arctic ice to go through these fluctuations.
Amino (surely not your real name), where is your proof that the last 9000 years have had less Arctic sea ice than today???

Indea
June 16, 2012 5:08 pm

justthefactswuwt,
I don’t agree with the Notz paper that the only factor is GHGs, I think the paper has some serious flaws, and using statistics to identify the primary drivers is one of my major complaints. Statistics doesn’t provide cause and effect. It’s difficult because in our observations, no matter what variable we are observing, there are several factors contributing to the value of that observation. And we only have one observation. That’s why scientists try to model the climate system, so that they can do experiments to see how the climate will respond to perturbations in a variable.
Just because April was near normal and June is low(lowest) in several decades doesn’t mean “global warming” has kicked in since April. It’s the long-term decline that is of interest, not the bumps and wiggles along the way. What is driving the long-term trend and how that is going to impact future development in the Arctic is what is of interest to me.

Neapolitan
June 16, 2012 5:11 pm

I’m so glad I read this post, as it reinforces what I’ve known all along: heat doesn’t melt ice! See, I built a snowman for my kids in my backyard in February, but it had vanished by early April. Of course, some silly alarmists tried to tell me it was because it had “melted” due to “warmer temperatures”, but I knew better–and this post proves that it wasn’t temperature that did Mr. Frosty in, but rather wind and Atmospheric Oscillations!
Now, with the Fourth of July coming up, I plan a simple experiment to once and for all prove to my warmist friends and family members that it’s not temperature that melts ice. I’m going to buy one of those 20-pound blocks of solid ice from the corner store and place it on the sidewalk, then cover it with a see-through glass cube. The glass will protect the ice from winds and Atmospheric Oscillations, so there’s no way it’ll melt, even if I leave it in the sun all day long. That’ll definitely show them! They’ll have no choice but to retract and recant their silly alarmist beliefs! I’ll be sure to let everybody here know how it goes!

TomRude
June 16, 2012 5:22 pm

Eli Rabbett, a recent paper showed that during the LIA, Arctic sea ice extent diminished, and thus is a poor proxy of Global Warming…

LazyTeenager
June 16, 2012 5:37 pm

So a guy called just-the-facts wants to reject the notion that warmer temperatures cause ice to melt faster. Oh the irony in that name. A bit like calling yourself a democratic republic.
I wonder if many consider that when all the ice is frozen no amount of blowing is going to push that ice out the Fram strait. And it gets a whole lot easier for wind to push ice out of the strait if a whole lot has already melted.

June 16, 2012 5:43 pm

The Economist lost the plot years ago and I never read it now. The magazine was originally founded as classical liberal publication with a focus on free markets, liberty and trade.
But then it was captured by a statist leadership that incredibly led it to announcing support for Tony Blair and Obama. Their support for catastrophic AGW is just another waymarker of their descent into a snobbier version of Newsweek.

AndyG55
June 16, 2012 6:07 pm

“It is a stunning illustration of global warming, the cause of the melt.”
One might actually want to look at the current temperature (after the ice area graphs on the sea ice page) its right there on the 40 yr average for this time of year. It looks to me as if the current loss of ice is due to the warmer winter temps, which were due to the sea currents, probably making the ice that formed during winter not as thick.
But it isn’t Global !! Antarctica is still increasing year by year.

Richards in Vancouver
June 16, 2012 6:09 pm

Randolph Resor, 11:00AM — You write:
“So I wonder, and so must many others, that with all that’s going on in the world, from the collapse of the Euro to the rise of Chinese military power, why The Economist chose to lead its June 16 issue with a poorly researched and poorly written article about the Arctic.”
I reply with one word: “Rio”.
Cheers!

June 16, 2012 6:30 pm

Indea says:
“…where is your proof that the last 9000 years have had less Arctic sea ice than today???”
Here is a peer reviewed paper, which says exactly that.
And a glance at this chart should convince any rational person that there was significantly less sea ice during the earlier Holocene.
Now you can ask the pseudo-science author at the Economist for some new talking points.

Indea
June 16, 2012 6:41 pm

Smokey, .you point to a paper that says 6000-7000 years ago there may have been less ice north of Greenland, but that does not support Amino’s assertion that much of the last 9000 years had less ice than today, nor does it give an idea of ice conditions Arctic-wide, again not proving Amino’s statement. I’m sure there has been less ice today in the past, and there have been times with no ice. That does not disprove that warming temperatures (from GHGs, from natural variability, from both forces) is causing the current ice reductions.

Werner Brozek
June 16, 2012 6:52 pm

Eli Rabett says:
June 16, 2012 at 3:18 pm
and there is a warming since 1980 of about .8 K/decade

So it warmed by 2.6 C since 1980? What is your source?
The following gives a slope = 0.0143316 per year or 0.14/decade
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:1980/plot/wti/from:1980/trend
In this article, RSS only gives 0.337 C/decade for the northern polar region only.
Also note that the article talked about “global warming” and not polar warming.

James Sexton
June 16, 2012 7:07 pm

Neapolitan says:
June 16, 2012 at 5:11 pm
I’m so glad I read this post, as it reinforces what I’ve known all along: heat doesn’t melt ice!
===================================
Sis, you need to check when the temp anomalies occur. Ice doesn’t melt at -20° F, just as much as it doesn’t melt at -40° Do try to keep up.

June 16, 2012 7:16 pm

Indea,
As JTF says, since you cannot refute the facts I’ve presented, your response is misdirection. Your statement was, “where is your proof that the last 9000 years have had less Arctic sea ice than today???” I provided you with a credible, peer reviewed citation showing exactly that. So now your red herring argument has morphed into: “that does not support Amino’s assertion that much of the last 9000 years had less ice than today, nor does it give an idea of ice conditions Arctic-wide, again not proving Amino’s statement.”
First, that is specifically what it shows. There is currently little Arctic ice, and temperatures now are cooler than during much of the Holocene. What does that tell you? It tells any reasonable person that an ice-free Arctic is a routine occurrence during the many warmer episodes of the Holocene.
Your desperation to blame GHG’s, specifically CO2, is apparent but scientifically baseless. The primary causes of Arctic ice loss are wind and currents, not CO2. If it were due to CO2 then the Antarctic would be losing ice, too. But as we know, the Antarctic is gaining ice.
Run along now to the illiterate morons at the Economist for some much needed alarmist talking points. Because you are in over your head here at the internet’s “Best Science” site.
I subscribed to the Economist for some thirty years. When Mickelthwaite was appointed due to his misguided belief in the climate alarmist nonsense, I unsubscribed. I have no need to spend money on agenda driven pseudo-science written by scientific illiterates. Pass that on to them for me, will you please? Thanx.

jourtegrity
June 16, 2012 7:18 pm

The Economist brags hard on its objectivity but the needle has been pegged hard left for the last few years. Becoming another lefty boutique rag.