
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;

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.
“We find a clear, physically plausible correlation of increasing CO2 and decreasing sea-ice cover.”
Only if you cherry pick the Arctic and ignore the Antarctic. If you look at global sea ice there is a negative correlation with CO2. Thus, according to their analysis, proving increasing CO2 causes increasing sea ice.
More junk climate science.
Smokey, seems you didn’t read the earlier posting at WUWT on the sea ice during the Eemian warm period…
I should know you would react the way you do, it’s how you react to anyone who provides a different point of view than your rigid dogma. At least you’re consistent.
btw…nothing you wrote or referenced supports that the last 9000 years had less ice than today.
Jim says: June 16, 2012 at 2:05 pm
Look at Antarctica… ice is at all-time record highs!
No, Antarctic Sea Ice Extent is average;
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_timeseries.png
and Southern Hemisphere Sea Ice Area Anomaly is bit above average.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png
Global Sea Ice Area below average;
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg
but certainly not indicative of rapid and catastrophic decline.
I should have said,
There is a positive correlation with CO2 levels.
Good grief, Lazy teenager, gets something right
Quote
A bit like calling yourself a democratic republic.
Unquote
Exactly right, a Democratic republic as opposed to a theocratic republic or a communist republic.
A pity his understanding of the difference between Republic and Democracy does not extend to his knowledge of climate.
Travis says: June 16, 2012 at 3:58 pm
“In fact, the largest influences on Arctic Sea Ice appear to be wind and Atmospheric Oscillations”
I do not understand why people are so ready to treat winds, climate patterns, and temperature as three completely unrelated variables when it comes to changes in the Arctic
I don’t know any of these “people” who are “so ready to treat winds, climate patterns, and temperature as three completely unrelated variables”. but the rest of know that some variations in Atmospheric and Sea Surface Temperatures are driven by Atmospheric and Oceanic Oscillations, e.g.
Are weather and climate not dictated by the uneven heating of earth’s surface and interactions with regional topography?
There’s a lot more to it than that, rotation, tidal forces and ocean circulation are just a few. Read through this list;
http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/potential-climatic-variables/
and let me know if there’s anything I’ve missed.
Why are we acting like none of these variables affect any of the others?
I am not sure who the we is but, something I wrote last year seems apropos, i.e.
“I am often amused by claims that we understand Earth’s climate system, are able to accurately measure its behavior, eliminate all potential variables except CO2 as the primary driver of Earth’s temperature and make predictions of Earth’s temperature decades into the future, all with a high degree of confidence. I have been studying Earth’s climate system for several years and have found it to be a ridiculously complex, continually evolving and sometimes chaotic beast. Furthermore, our understanding of Earth’s climate system is currently rudimentary at best, our measurement capabilities are limited and our historical record is laughably brief.”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/30/earths-climate-system-is-ridiculously-complex-with-draft-link-tutorial/
I gave up on The Economist years ago. They claim to be for free markets, but their heart isn’t really in it. Why else would would they endorse people like Obama?
They try to be “practical” leftists by conceding something to the market; they can then be “sophisticated”. Dishonest poseurs who believe their own BS.
Indea says:
“…nothing you wrote or referenced supports that the last 9000 years had less ice than today.”
What?? You are crazy. Literally. I provided a peer reviewed citation, which you specifically asked for, along with a supporting graph of Holocene temperatures. Your predictable response is this.
It will probably come as a real surprise to you, but scientific skeptics have nothing to prove. Your outlandish and easily refuted belief that the Arctic ice record goes back only to 1979 is typical of the alarmist crowd’s cognitive dissonance. Your cherry-picking of only the time frames that fit your belief system is indicative of a scientifically illiterate Economist reader. As you’ve noticed, I have no patience with someone who is not up to speed on the subject. I recommend taking several weeks off and reading up on the WUWT archives, keyword: arctic. You need a lot of basic education.
The fact is that you have the onus of showing that what is observed today is anything unusual. You have failed, because I have shown you conclusively that it is not. If you don’t like the scientific method, go argue with the study’s authors. Go argue with R.B. Alley. Because I’m not really interested in debating with a closed-minded newbie who refuses to accept the findings of the scientists who actually went out on-scene, and collected real data. So believe whatever your eco-religion tells you. For me, I’ll stick to the scientific method and testable evidence.
The shine started to come off my view of the Economist some years ago.
They used to give the major economies a ‘grade’ on their economic management. They were still putting Japan at #1, edition after edition, even as the Japanese economy was going down the pan in the 1990’s.
Did they ever acknowledge that their ‘superior’ analysis was really just flawed bravado; following the herd? Not that I saw. Ultimately, they simply did away with the rankings entirely. Reduces the embarrassment of having to admit being wrong.
I’m still persevering with the Economist. Alone amongst the weekly mags, it usually presents both sides of challenging issues, before rebutting one view and settling on the other. Unfortunately, it is becoming too easily predictable on almost all subjects and particularly on anything remotely connected to fashionable environmental issues.
One of its directors and investors, David Rothschild, wrote an intemperate book about global warming in 2010 and is clearly imbued with religious zeal on this subject. He joined the board about 5 years ago, and may have been part of the publishers’ decision regarding future editorial positioning.
I canned my subscriptions to New Scientist and Scientific American some time ago. Looks like The Economist is also off the menu for any reader whose IQ has made it into double figures!
The economist site seems to be down. I was about to write them to tell what a piece of trype their magazine has become and why I don’t buy it anymore. It incredibly expensive for this sort of BS.
Unoidea,
A quick glimpse at the first chart in the Younger Dryas thread
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/16/younger-dryas-the-rest-of-the-story/
shows that the Earth is quite likely pretty near the coolest its been in the last 10,000 years.
Jim says:
June 16, 2012 at 2:05 pm
I’m not even convinced the ice is melting! Look at Antarctica… ice is at all-time record highs! Wonder how these alarmists at the Economist explain that away.
Easy, that will be due to the wind.
Alien plants, birds, fish and animals are creeping north: Atlantic mackerel, haddock and cod are coming up in Arctic nets.
Last time I checked, Atlantic mackerel, haddock and cod were all native to Planet Earth, and there’s nothing new or unusual about any of those species turning up in Arctic nets.
The Atlantic salmon’s normal range includes Russia and western Siberia, haddock spawning grounds include the waters around Iceland and Norway, and cod are common on both coasts of Greenland, Iceland, and well into the Barents Sea — all in areas well above the Arctic Circle.
As to Arctic temperature trends we have this for the melt season (which is the important one for sea ice) and here is another one for the yearly Arctic anomalies. Sorry for not including the links the first time, just forgot but an estimate of .8 K/decade since 1980 is not so bad.
NOTE: Eli Rabett is actually Joshua Halpern of Howard University
A lot of shooting the messenger going on here.
Smokey, perhaps I need to spell it out for you a bit more clearly. You pointed to a news summary of a paper that says there was open water north of Greenland at some time 6000-7000 years ago. A couple points you fail to neglect. First off the error bars on any paleoclimate reconstructions are LARGE. It is impossible to tell how for how long, and exactly when this open water occurred. It certainly does not support Amino’s assertion that most of the last 9000 years had less Arctic sea ice than today. Second, it says nothing about Arctic wide ice-conditions. So you have yet to support the statement that most of the last 9000 years had less sea ice than today, and you have said nothing about Arctic-wide sea ice conditions. Thirdly, as the WUWT story on sea ice in the Eemian suggests, sea ice could have been more extensive locally despite warm air temperatures.
Thus far, you have proved nothing.
That Gisp2 ice core graph that Smokey posted is very interesting for the periodicity it shows in major past warmings:
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/lappi/gisp-last-10000-new.png
Minoan, Roman, Medieval, all almost exactly 1100 years apart, with the next spike in the sequence due to occur right about now.
That should set everybody’s alarm bells ringing over attribution of present warm temperatures.
@Eli, of course you meant .08K/decade. I think most analyses come to somewhere between .10K/decade and .15K/decade.
Thanks to the WUWT team for bringing up Arctic Sea Ice, once in a while.
Does anyone know the current state? Last time I read something on this blog, it was at exactly the same level as the average (1979-2000, am I right?). Is the ice cover still recovering?
I’m looking forward to see regular updates al through the melting season!
Indea,
You asked for a citation, so I gave you a peer-reviewed citation. [Not a “news summary”.] Plus, I provided a graph showing that most of the Holocene was significantly warmer than now. Warmer would mean less ice, no?
But now you’re still arguing about those facts like a typical religious eco-fanatic. Earth to Indea: You have the onus of showing that the Arctic was continually ice covered during the Holocene, and that current levels are unprecedented. I have provided ample contrary evidence, which refutes your belief system. All I needed to do to show you were wrong was to provide one contrary fact. I provided more than is necessary.
You can believe that the current Arctic ice extent is unprecedented, or you can accept the plain fact that this has all happened before, repeatedly, and to a greater extent than today. But that would deconstruct your anti-human eco-alarmism, so your response is predictable.
I suggest that you run along back to the pop-sci Economist, where you can emit your baseless opinions without the discomfort of being contradicted by scientific facts. They like fact-free, baseless opinions there, so long as they support the alarmist narrative. You fit right in.
justthefactswuwt says:
June 16, 2012 at 8:56 pm
“the rest of know that some variations in Atmospheric and Sea Surface Temperatures are driven by Atmospheric and Oceanic Oscillations, e.g….”
How about the idea that the relationship goes both ways? It can be implied by your statements, though you do not do so yourself, nor do most people who post here and blame the changes in temperature and ice extent/thickness on wind patterns and climate oscillations. My argument isn’t that climate is not a complicated, perhaps even chaotic, system; it is that even people here who realize that still seem to get stuck in the frame of mind that since the most visible and direct cause of a particular sea ice event is wind, therefore another variable like temperature cannot have had anything to do with it. I claim that this “complicated natural causes” line of thought is as narrow-minded and simplistic as the thought that any particular event is solely due to anthropogenic causes.
For heaven’s sake Lazyteenager, now you are just typing without thinking. Wind can move solidly packed floating ice. It can even move chunks of sea ice onto land and into your patio. This has been well-documented and is uncontended by all sea ice scientists. Now if you meant to say that wind cannot move Arctic ice that is frozen from the surface down to the ocean floor in the entire “bowl” you may have an imaginative point. Maybe. In reality, both wind and Arctic currents move solidly packed ice this way and that.
That’s why I’ve cancelled my three decades long subscription two years ago.
That’s why I’ve cancelled my three decades long subscription two years ago.