
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.
From Eli Rabett on June 17, 2012 at 5:16 am:
Title of graph at link: Arctic Temperature Anomaly 1900-2008
Caption:
Topic is Arctic Sea ice, you provide a graph of land surface air temperature anomalies, and so far south it includes practically all of Alaska, Finland, most of Canada, large chunks of Russia, all of Iceland, etc. Wonderful selection of readings and lower latitude to catch UHI from growing population centers using more energy as it got cheaper and more available over 109 years.
As seen on this large map, the Arctic Region may be defined as the area:
1. Within the Arctic Circle, currently at about 66°33’N (it moves around slowly, currently northward).
2. Where the average temperature for the warmest month (July) is below 10°C (50°F), aka north of that isotherm (noted on NSIDC’s Arctic map).
3. North of the treeline, noted on this map and added without the definition on NSIDC’s map.
Your “Arctic” temperature map fails on all three definitions of being of the Arctic.
And despite its URL identifying the page as “Sea Ice” it has nothing to do with the sea temperatures.
And is wonderfully selected to pick up not trends of the Arctic Ocean temperatures that’d actually affect the sea ice, but those from temperature readings contaminated by growing population centers, increasing urbanization, and increasing energy usage.
Gee whiz, Mr. Joshua Halpern, as smart as Eli thinks Eli is, Eli should think Eli would be too smart to select such a lame off-subject graph. Eli should think Eli can try harder than that.
http://arctic.synergiesprairies.ca/arctic/index.php/arctic/article/view/1738
The Economist is controlled by The Rothschilds.
They also own The Weather Channel.
The Economist is NOT an economics magazine or even a news magazine it is a weekly propaganda puff magazine and a tool to support the agenda of the elite. As such, it targets intellectuals and professional with propaganda messages that support the notion of a need for control by the elite for the good of everyone else. CAGW fits this meme perfectly; it calls for the elite to adopt & unilaterally enforce “save the planet measures” ostensibly for all our own good but in reality to strengthen the corrupt rule by the unelected elite.
If the earth is losing ice at a faster rate than before then it will be gaining sea at a faster rate than before. As it isn’t, it ain’t. That’s logic.
John Brookes says:
June 17, 2012 at 6:31 am
A lot of shooting the messenger going on here.
Shooting a messenger bearing bad news is a bad idea. Shooting a propagandist delivering a false message is acceptable (that was not a death threat).
I started reading The Economist since freshman year in college and subscribed to it for decades. For years I was impressed by its appearance as being the least biased newspaper out there. But the times and stewardship of that newspaper have certainly changed. Now it’s a shadow of its former self and not worthy of my time any more.
Smokey, your comments are getting a bit silly. I never asked for anything except for Amino to link to some studies/data that would validate his/her statement that much of the last 9000 years has seen less Arctic sea ice than today. You tried to respond to that, but you didn’t give anything except a link to a news report on a paper that said sometime between 6000 and 7000 years ago there was open water north of Greenland. You are the one that failed to address the question at hand. And because you have failed you resort to name calling, innuendos, etc. What that shows me is that you can’t think outside the rigid confines of your mind. You are stuck. And that is sad. An open mind is something you never want to lose. You have no idea what I think about climate, except that I said the ice cover right now is at the lowest it’s been for this time of year during the satellite record and that this decline is consistent with climate model predictions. Both of those statements are true.
Indea says:
June 17, 2012 at 2:28 pm
” ice cover right now is at the lowest it’s been for this time of year during the satellite record” -accurate
“this decline is consistent with climate model predictions” – disingenuous
The truth is computers cannot accurately predict traffic flow, never mind multiple layers of variability in a system as complex as the climate. The only ones who want you to believe they can are the modellers themselves. It is getting more shrill in the academic echo chamber. Implosion imminent.
“During the satellite record” is the “weasel phrase” in the first statement. It is not completely accurate either upon further reflection.
Travis says: June 17, 2012 at 8:20 am
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.
They are absolutely inextricably intertwined, e.g. changes in ocean temps can influence atmospheric oscillations, that can lead to a decrease in sea ice extent, that can increase atmospheric temps, that can influence atmospheric oscillations, etc.
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.
But this is an issue primarily for the Warmists not of the skeptics. It was the Economist that wrote that, “It is a stunning illustration of global warming, the cause of the melt.” and it was a Warmist study cited in comments above that claimed that, “In the end, only the increase in CO2 remained on our list of possible drivers”. No where in my article did I state or infer that Wind and atmospheric oscillations were the only variable, rather I stated that “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 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.
No, “natural causes” is the null hypothesis. If you want to try to refute it, present some evidence to support the inclusion of “anthropogenic causes”.
“Indea says:
“…where is your proof that the last 9000 years have had less Arctic sea ice than today???…nothing you wrote or referenced supports that the last 9000 years had less ice than today.”
First, you must accept the premise that if Arctic temperatures are colder, more sea ice will be present, and if Arctic temperatures are warmer there will be less ice – all other thing being equal, such as wind and currents.
Agreed? If you agree, we can continue. I will assume you agree with that uncontroversial premise.
That said, here are some charts for you to study:
click1
click2
click3 [Arctic ice extent, greater present than past]
click4
click5 [much warmer earlier in the Holocene]
click6 [much warmer earlier in the Holocene]
click7 [much warmer earlier in the Holocene]
click8 [much warmer in the geologic past]
Conclusion: Natural variability in Arctic ice cover is completely normal. There is more Arctic ice now than during most of the planet’s recent geologic history. There is NO evidence that humans are the cause of Arctic ice cycles. It is an entirely natural occurrance, like an eclipse, and its being used to alarm the public. An alarmed public is easy to tax.
If you have testable evidence showing that human emissions are the cause of the recent decline in Arctic ice, post it here. Otherwise, use your head. Arctic ice variation is not going to affect you any more than an eclipse will.
Smokey, I’m curious about what you think the future holds for the Arctic? Do you think companies like Shell Oil would spend millions to do exploratory drilling in the Arctic, getting ready to drill 10 years from now, if they didn’t believe the climate model predictions that sea ice will continue to decline as temperatures warm from increases in atmospheric gases? They are just one example of many companies preparing for a much reduced Arctic sea ice cover.
While it is likely that there have been many episodes in the past where there was less sea ice in the Arctic than there is today, that does not disprove that human activities are in part responsible for the current temperature trends (and subsequent sea ice trends).
I don’t see anywhere that Indea said there have not been periods in the past with less sea ice. What Indea seems to be wanting is proof to support Amino’s statement that much of the last 9000 years had less ice than today. We don’t have sea ice reconstructions from the last 9000 years to support that statement, though I’m optimistic that scientists will continue to find more clues as to what the ice cover was like in the past. The indigenous people of the North are a valuable asset in that effort as ice conditions have been stored in their stories and songs for millennia.
David Ball, the current sea ice decline is in agreement with climate model hindcast simulations of Arctic sea ice conditions. Indea is correct in that statement. You can read my Stroeve et al. 2007 paper on the subject. I have recently completed analysis of the CMIP5 models, and the story remains the same.
And during the satellite data record, sea ice conditions right now are the lowest for this time of year. That doesn’t necessarily mean we’ll see a new record minimum this September, but given the current thickness distribution it’s doubtful there will be any significant recovery in the ice cover again this summer.
Julienne Strove says:
“What Indea seems to be wanting is proof…”
We would all like proof, Ms Scientist. You write about ‘hindcasting simulations’ as if that is conclusive proof of anything. It is not, so how about predicting a forecast of Arctic ice extent by month for 2013, 2014, and 2015? I’ll save it for you. Use all the computer models you want.
If you’re right, I’m sure Big Oil will have a check ready for you. But despite your assigning them motives, they may simply be making a prudent business decision to be first out of the gate; you have your assumptions for their actions, and I have mine.
In my conversation with Indea, who seems to be a good photographer but believes, based on her received indoctrination, that the current Arctic ice cycle must be caused by human activity, the usual alarmist Argumentum ad Ignorantium: “What else could it be??” But I pointed out, with links: “There is more Arctic ice now than during most of the planet’s recent geologic history. There is NO evidence that humans are the cause of Arctic ice cycles. It is an entirely natural occurrance, like an eclipse, and its being used to alarm the public. An alarmed public is easy to tax.”
Show me that human emitted CO2 is causing the current Arctic ice decline [I could possibly be convinced that it is due to industrial soot. But how can the government tax Chinese soot?]. The global warming scare is based on the rise in [harmless, beneficial] CO2, not on soot, and the corrollary is that CO2 is causing Arctic ice to decline. So show me. [And you won’t get far with the Asian soot argument, even if it turns out to be true. I have yet to hear Chinese soot credits proposed.]
Kindly provide testable evidence showing that X amount of anthropogenic CO2 emissions cause Y amount of Arctic ice loss, using Popper’s scientific method. I like science. But I don’t think much of witch doctors, and science without rigor is pseudo-science; AKA: PNS. So please provide any empirical, quantifiable evidence you have, showing that human CO2 emissions are causing Arctic ice loss. Make it testable and replicable, because I want to test and verify your methods. Include your metadata and code. Thanks.
Julienne Stroeve asks if Shell & others would be spending money on oil exploration if they thought the ice would return. Since they are drilling on ice platforms, that would be “yes”. The technically difficult part is for the extraction and delivery equipment to survive the ice build up and break up. (same reason there are no piers north of Nome.)
Julienne Stroeve says June 17, 2012 at 6:20 pm
Do you think companies like Shell Oil would spend millions to do exploratory drilling in the Arctic, getting ready to drill 10 years from now, if they didn’t believe the climate model predictions that sea ice will continue to decline as temperatures warm from increases in atmospheric gases?
It seems like Shell isn’t waiting for Global Warming and they are doing everything they can to accelerate the breakup and melt of the ice, e.g.:
“Shell plans to drill new wells in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas in 2012 and 2013. The company has invested billions in Arctic leases since 2005 but ran into opposition from environmentalists and native Alaskan groups. Last August, however, Shell received a Bureau of Ocean Energy Management conditional permit to explore for oil in the Beaufort Sea, east of the Chukchi. In October, the EPA issued a final air-discharge permit sought by Shell to drill in the Beaufort Sea. With that air permit, Shell can use its Kulluk rig for 120 days a year in Arctic waters, the agency said. In mid-December, BOEM conditionally approved a revised, Shell plan to drill six, oil-exploration wells in the Chukchi Sea next year.
Together, the Beaufort and Chukchi seas could hold 27 billion barrels of oil and 132 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, according to the U.S. Geological Survey. In comparison, 17 billion barrels of oil have flowed out of Alaska’s Prudhoe Bay fields in the past 30 years. ”
http://www.marinelink.com/news/exploration-arctic-awaits342119.aspx
“The Nordica is one of two Shell-contracted icebreakers owned by the Finnish government. It is heading to Alaska to join its sister ship, the Fennica, to support the Kulluk and Noble Discoverer, the two drilling vessels en route to the north coast of Alaska to drill five exploratory wells for Shell in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas later this summer.
Shell has said it intends to begin drilling in the two neighboring seas on or about July 10 and continue until just before ice forms this autumn. ”
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/may2012/2012-05-01-01.html
“Icebreaker, support
Good ice management is necessary to enhance station-keeping performance of arctic drilling units, Shell stressed to OGJ. The company has contracted two Russian icebreakers and two Finnish and Swedish-flagged anchor handling-ice management vessels to accompany the two drilling units.
The I/B Kapitan Dranitsyn, owned by the Russian Federation and operated by Murmansk Shipping Co., is the primary icebreaker assigned to the Discoverer drillship. The conventionally propelled ship was built in 1982 at the Wartsila Shipyard in Helsinki, Finland. It was remodeled in 1994, upgraded in 1999 and received a passenger vessel certificate.
The anchor-handling vessel and secondary icebreaker for the Discoverer drillship is the Finnish-flagged Fennica, owned and operated by Finstaship. Built in 1993, the Fennica is 116 m long, 26 m wide, and draws 8.4 m. This vessel has reamers on the hull, which improve turning in ice, break a wider channel, and reduce rolling and midship friction.2
The anchor-handling tug supply (AHTS) M/V Vladimir Ignatjuk is the primary icebreaker assigned to the Kulluk platform. The ship is owned by the Russian Federation and operated by Murmansk Shipping Co.
Gulf Canada built this Canadian-designed vessel in 1982 at the Victoria Yard of the Burrard Yarrrows Corp. in British Columbia. It was originally named the Arctic Kalvik when it worked in the Beaufort for Gulf Canada. It has an overall length of 88 m, breadth of 17.5 m, draft of 8.3 m, and accommodates 23 crew members. The Vladimir Ignatjuk is classified by Lloyd’s Register of Shipping as a 100 A1 icebreaker tug and LMC ice- breaking tow, ice class 1A super.
The anchor-handling vessel and secondary icebreaker for the Kulluk is the Norwegian-built AHTS M/V Tor Viking. This KMAR 808 vessel was built in 2001 and is owned and operated by Viking Supply Ships AS, based in Kristiansand, Norway, a wholly owned subsidiary of Kistefos AS. The Tor Viking is 83.7 m long, with a breadth of 18 m, and draft of 6 m.
In addition to the redundant icebreakers that protect the two drilling units, Shell has committed to three other vessels as part of its oil spill response (OSR) system, including the Affinity, an ice strengthened arctic oil tanker; the Arctic Endeavor barge with Point Barrow tug; and the Chouest Nanuq, a new, ice-strengthened resupply vessel.”
http://www.ogj.com/articles/print/volume-105/issue-37/drilling-production/shell-alaska-readies-ice-class-drilling-units-for-beaufort-sea.html
Julienne Stroeve says: June 17, 2012 at 6:20 pm
I’m curious about what you think the future holds for the Arctic?
Well if we’re talking about Beaufort Sea and Chukchi where Shell is drilling, Beaufort Sea Ice Area has been anomalously low every summer since 2007;
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.11.html
and this year is trending at the bottom of its 5 year range:
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02186/plots/r01_Beaufort_Sea_ts.png
Chukchi Sea Ice Area has been anomalously low every summer since 2002;
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.10.html
but this year is trending towards the top of the range:
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02186/plots/r02_Chukchi_Sea_ts.png
With Shell and co running around there with icebreakers and support ships, I am going to predict that the ice is going to break up and melt faster than it did previously, and that little or no multi-year ice will survive in the Beaufort Sea.
John C, the oil companies do use results from climate models for planning purposes. I have personal experience with two oil companies on this issue.
Justthefacts, I think it would be interesting to do a study on the impacts of ships on Arctic sea ice.
The Beaufort/Chukchi seas have become a region of significant multiyear ice loss in recent years. You may have missed our 2011 paper on the impacts of the 2010/2011 negative AO on the sea ice cover. While some of the papers you referenced above discuss that during a negative winter AO phase, more sea ice is tends to be retained in summer, whereas the reverse is true during a positive AO phase, that wasn’t true during the extremely negative AO of winter 2010/2011. The old, thick ice that was transported into the Beaufort and Chukchi seas during that anomalously negative AO phase all melted out the following summer. The energy balance of the Beaufort/Chukchi seas has changed in the last several years, resulting in significant melt.
The Ogi, Yamazaki and Wallace (2010) paper you cited as one example showing the importance of wind in arctic ice melt actually mentions in the abstract that their conclusions show that “roughly 1/3 of the downward linear trend of SIE over the past 31 years” and the “combined effect of winter and summer wind forcing accounts for 50% of the variance of the change in September Arctic sea ice extent from one year to the next”. It would have been better to include this in your cited quote from them, rather than choosing their much less specific “general statement” conclusion.
Of course their conclusions point to the fact that 2/3 of the downward linear trend has to have come from somewhere else. They also don’t discuss any reasons for changes in arctic wind activity.
And a little more from the Nghiem, Rigor, Perovich, Clemente-Colo, Weatherly and Neumann paper. The quote you found said 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.”
But the paragraph before this one said:
“A warming trend, increasing long-wave radiation, and Atlantic water intrusion in various regions over the Arctic Ocean have been reported [Richter-Menge et al., 2006]. These thermodynamically induced changes to the ice cover may in turn be impacting ice dynamics, with the thinner ice exhibiting enhanced motion and export by the PE. Dynamic and thermodynamic effects appear to be combining to expedite the loss of Arctic sea ice as evident in QSCAT observations of a faster reduction rate and a 10% decrease in total ice extent by the first week of August in 2007 compared to those at the same time in 2005 and 2006.”
A little more too from the Smedsrud paper you cited:
“The dramatic loss of Arctic sea ice the last decades is thus only partly caused by increased long-wave radiation related to ongoing atmospheric CO2 increase (Smedsrud et al., 2008). A number of feedback eðects have contributed once the ice thickness decreased (Perovich et al., 2008; Rampal et al., 2009; Screen and Simmonds, 2010), but as demonstrated by the General Circulation Models, additional forcing is needed to explain ongoing changes. Contrary to previous conclusions (Vinje, 2001; Kwok, 2009), 15 the ice export has likely been an eðective contributor to Arctic ice loss since the 1960’s.”
So yes, winds, ice export play a major part in the decline in sea ice. The debate seems to be more about the extent to the contribution of the various forcings, rather than that one forcing is the cause of it all.
I could go on but, I think there is enough here to indicate that your conclusion,
“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”.”
also really mischaracterises the scientific debate, as your own cited sources show.
Julienne Stroeve says:
June 17, 2012 at 6:20 pm
The indigenous people of the North are a valuable asset in that effort as ice conditions have been stored in their stories and songs for millennia.
Their stories can tell you about conditions during the old story or song, but good luck attaching a specific time to the narration. I’d trust their oral tradition that an event happened, but nailing a specific year to “the summer that my great-great-great grandfather caught two foxes in the same trap” is gonna be tough.
justthefactswuwt says:
June 17, 2012 at 8:46 pm
“Last August, however, Shell received a Bureau of Ocean Energy Management conditional permit to explore for oil in the Beaufort Sea, east of the Chukchi.”
Sure ’nuff.
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2012/05/24/science/earth/24arctic-map.html
justthefactswuwt says:
June 16, 2012 at 5:25 pm
“1-Wind is caused by differences in pressure.
2-On a rotating planet, the air will be deflected by the Coriolis Effect, except exactly on the equator.
3- Globally, the two major driving factors of large-scale winds (the atmospheric circulation) are the differential heating between the equator and the poles.
4-The thermal wind is the difference in the Geostrophic wind between two levels in the atmosphere. It exists only in an atmosphere with horizontal temperature gradients.
5- Additionally there is;
“katabatic wind, from the Greek word katabatikos meaning “going downhill”, is the technical name for a drainage wind, a wind that carries high density air from a higher elevation down a slope under the force of gravity.”
Is this Global Warming behind the curtain of the “WIND”?
I haven’t seen any evidence to support Global Warming’s Wizard of Oz-esque effect on wind. Can you provide any?”
_________________________________
Thank you to the exact expression. My goal was the same.
“differential heating between the equator and the poles” as one of the major driving factors of large-scale winds, “The thermal wind” …….and “katabatic wind…….high density air from a higher elevation down a slope under the force of gravity.”
Again the main theme is still the “HEAT”.
“Pressure” mainly is the aftermath of “HEAT”.
“Global Warming” not as an ideology, but under the scientific definition, which means “heat”, may be the fact for more “WINDS”. It’s the throttling pedal for the above dynamic model.
“differential heating” is a fact. Increasing the potential of this “differential heating” means more “WIND” and irregularities. New system with large scale changes in presence of a rotating planet, what else should we look for new indications? Heat-pressure-rotating planet-gravity.
Question:
Is this planet independent from “WARMING”, if any “WARMING” happens?
In fact, it is constantly being done, but for now, this is about the capacity of the planet and the creatures.
Once the progressives home in on a publication to subvert from within, its days are numbered. The Economist fell to the dark side a couple of decades ago.