Sea Ice News – Volume 3 Number 9

I don’t have much time for a detailed post, a number of people want to discuss sea ice, so here is your chance. We also need to update the ARCUS forecast  for August, due Monday August 6th.  Poll follows: 

0 0 votes
Article Rating
502 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Günther Kirschbaum
August 4, 2012 7:22 am

Never mind. There’s nothing happening in the Arctic any way!
REPLY: As usual, Günther plays the smart ass with snark. He’s actually Neven. No scruples with this one. – Anthony

Layne
August 4, 2012 7:22 am

I am wondering if they haven’t fiddled with the algorithm in order to get a lower minimum.
[REPLY: Some reasoning and/or evidence to support the wondering would be nice, otherwise it is just aspersion-casting. -REP]

Caleb
August 4, 2012 7:24 am

Did anyone notice the black plume of something (smoke?) on the horizon, in the pictures taken by North Pole Camera #1 Yesterday, (August 3.) It appeared in four pictures. You can see the pictures by Clicking on the “Sea Ice Page,” scrolling down to the “Drifting ‘NorthPole’ Camera” picture, and then clicking the “WebCam#1 Archive” tab to the right, under the picture.
What’s Up With That?

Camburn
August 4, 2012 7:26 am

I agree Gunther. There is nothing happening in the Arctic that hasn’t happened in the recent past when looking at the data through climate lenses.
Now, if you want to talk about weather…..that is a different story.

Caleb
August 4, 2012 7:28 am

This was over on “Tips and Notes.” It’s curious, as if the guys who drill for oil are saying there’s thick ice where the pictures we look at say there is less ice.
Mike Lallatin says:
August 4, 2012 at 2:16 am
For a valid declaration of current ice conditions in the Chukchi Sea:
http://gcaptain.com/aiviq-waits-in-dutch-harbor/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Gcaptain+%28gCaptain.com%29

August 4, 2012 7:32 am

I find it meaningful that the 2nd largest vote tally comes right around the ARCUS forecast.

Kelvin Vaughan
August 4, 2012 7:34 am

Caleb says:
August 4, 2012 at 7:24 am
Did anyone notice the black plume of something (smoke?) on the horizon, in the pictures taken by North Pole Camera #1 Yesterday, (August 3.) It appeared in four pictures. You can see the pictures by Clicking on the “Sea Ice Page,” scrolling down to the “Drifting ‘NorthPole’ Camera” picture, and then clicking the “WebCam#1 Archive” tab to the right, under the picture.
What’s Up With That?
That’s Zwally’s soot spray!

Rod Everson
August 4, 2012 7:48 am

Just a suggestion for a site improvement, Anthony. Could you put a map of the Arctic on the Sea Ice Page that indicates the various seas that make up the Arctic Ocean? I think that would be useful given the volume of traffic you get and the many times that various seas are referred to by name in the comments. I just spent several minutes Googling the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas and never did get to a map that had the full layout of both seas. Thanks for considering this. (And if it’s already on the site somewhere, could someone will post its location?–If it is on the site already, moving it to the Sea Ice Page, or duplicating it there would seem logical, by the way.)
[REPLY: I find this one helpful, myself. -REP]

pjie2
August 4, 2012 7:51 am

It’s the edge of a water droplet on the camera lens. Look through the archive, it happens a lot.

Ecco the Dolphin
August 4, 2012 7:55 am

Can those who voted >5.5 M Km2 explain their choice?
It would take a sudden and unexpected change of melting trend for that to happen in my opinion.
To me, seeing that arctic ice concentration appears to be overall visibly worse than 2007, with currently slightly less extent than 2007 and relatively large areas quickly melting in the last few days, it seems it wouldn’t be a pessimistic estimate to vote around 4.0-4.2 M Km2 as a minimum for this year.

Caleb
August 4, 2012 7:58 am

The four “black plume” pictures will eventually get “bumped” off the photo album you see, when you click “Webcam #1 Archive.” At that point you have to go to the bottom of that page-of-pictures, and click “Webcam #1” That will give you a list of every picture taken since they set the camera up last April 6. Then you scroll down to August. The last picture from August 3 and first three from August 4 have the odd black plume on the horizon.
I actually think it is a swarm of migrating penguins moving up from the south pole. (You didn’t know those critters could fly, but this offers proof.)

Caleb
August 4, 2012 8:01 am

Only the edge of a water droplet? Hmmm.
Never Mind.

August 4, 2012 8:03 am

With changes in atmospheric CO2 levels my guess is we will see an end to summer in America as early as this year and with that a noticable global cooling over the entire northern hemisphere.

beesaman
August 4, 2012 8:04 am

Neven has become so shrill with his warmist agenda that I’ve lost faith in his site’s objectivity so I look elsewhere for the data now…pity really…

Bryan A
August 4, 2012 8:13 am

Caleb says:
August 4, 2012 at 7:58 am
The four “black plume” pictures will eventually get “bumped” off the photo album you see, when you click “Webcam #1 Archive.” At that point you have to go to the bottom of that page-of-pictures, and click “Webcam #1″ That will give you a list of every picture taken since they set the camera up last April 6. Then you scroll down to August. The last picture from August 3 and first three from August 4 have the odd black plume on the horizon.
This is the first image with the “Plume”
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/northpole/NPEO2012/WEBCAM1/ARCHIVE/npeo_cam1_20120803141154.jpg
and this is the last
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/northpole/NPEO2012/WEBCAM1/ARCHIVE/npeo_cam1_20120803201639.jpg
it does appear to be something on the lens

fredb
August 4, 2012 8:16 am

@beesaman: “Shrill with his warmist agenda”??? Where do you see that on http://neven1.typepad.com? I’ve always found his text refreshingly agnostic.

R. Shearer
August 4, 2012 8:17 am

Looks like no ice come November. 😉

August 4, 2012 8:21 am

My honest guess is 4.8 million sq-km.

Otter
August 4, 2012 8:22 am

Neven, you are correct. There’s nothing going on in the Arctic, that hasn’t already happened at least a score of times in the past 10,000 years.

RCS
August 4, 2012 8:36 am

Interestingly, the DMI temperature profile has been consistently below normal during the current melt season while there has been a rapid loss of ice.

kent Blaker
August 4, 2012 8:43 am

The minimum sea ice area/extent is more dependent on wind than temperature. The minimum for 2007 was almost the same as 2008..9..10..11. Will we see 2012 being the same? We all wait with eager anticipation.

Editor
August 4, 2012 8:44 am

Re the ice situation in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas, NOAA has a new initiative for the oil industry: ERMA from which this image is taken: ice extent map more here

OssQss
August 4, 2012 9:09 am

Plume or debris ?
Considering the exact shape of the central bulge of said plume exists 6 hours later unchanged, but the overall size of the item is shrinking, I say melting ice on the lens. How fitting 🙂

beng
August 4, 2012 9:12 am

****
Ecco the Dolphin says:
August 4, 2012 at 7:55 am
To me, seeing that arctic ice concentration appears to be overall visibly worse than 2007
****
One could easily change “worse” to “better”.

Robert of Ottawa
August 4, 2012 9:23 am

Yes, it’s very interesting Caleb. I e-mailed the webmaster to ask; not the correct addressee but I couldn’t find a proper one.

Robert of Ottawa
August 4, 2012 9:39 am

4.8 km^2

P Wilson
August 4, 2012 9:43 am

Sea ice is a tremendous variable, fluctuating for many different reasons – wind, sea circulation patterns etc. However, it is one of the main signifiers for the AGW crowd, and wrongly so.
Since it has only been accurately measures since 1979 via satellite, that is not a fair starting point for finding a long term trend, as you would need several centuries at least to find a meaningful pattern.
to all those who worry about sea ice extent in the Arctic, there is quite a fair amount of observational data pre 1979 which indicates a trend. The arctic warmed, and sea ice vanished rapidly from 1910-1940. As far back as 1922, we have this scenario:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/03/16/you-ask-i-provide-november-2nd-1922-arctic-ocean-getting-warm-seals-vanish-and-icebergs-melt/
However, in 1932, some 10 years later, a Rusian ice breaker was found floating in free waters, some 300 miles from the North pole -a feat that would be physically impossible today.
Although we claim that sea ice extent is lower today than the average since 1979, it is likely (without the exact parameters of satellite data) that arctic sea ice was far less in extent that the last 7 years up until 2012

MattN
August 4, 2012 9:51 am

Meanwhile, Antarctica is having a stellar year for ice. Up almost .9M over normal. But nobody wants to look at that….

beesaman
August 4, 2012 10:23 am

Shhh, don’t mention the Antarctic, that’s not one of the Warmist’s cherries and besides we all ‘know” that global warming is a local thing…

Editor
August 4, 2012 10:30 am

It is worthwhile remembering that, during the period of minimum ice extent at the equinox of mid-September, removal of the ice coverage of the Arctic ocean water REDUCES water temperatures (evaporation losses from the exposed water surface exceed solar radiation absorbtion of the ice-free compared to ice-covered water) …..
On land, the opposite occurs (ice-covered land reflects more energy than open/pasture land/tundra), but there is NO land-covered ice left to melt in today’s climate and geography. The ONLY ice left to melt in today’s world is a small near-circular cap between 80 north and the pole at 90 north.
Therefore, the more ice melts, the lower the air temperatures in the Arctic above 80 north. So what’s to worry? The next ice age from Arctic ice feedback?

nc
August 4, 2012 10:44 am

In the TV reality show Deadiest Catch about catching crab in the Bering sea, there have been a few comments made about so called global warming considering the harshest conditions in years. Not in support of warming.

John F. Hultquist
August 4, 2012 11:01 am

Ecco the Dolphin says:
August 4, 2012 at 7:55 am
Can those who voted >5.5 M Km2 explain their choice?

My vote this time was 4.1, but let’s say I wanted to make WUWT look out of phase with the ice and I could do that by making a high estimate. If that high category was >7.5 I think you would find a few votes there also. Thus, rather than looking for your answer in “melting trend” reasons I suggest you look to the psychological mind-set of certain folks.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
REP, Nice map. Equal Area, too. Cool.

Gunga Din
August 4, 2012 11:02 am
kadaka (KD Knoebel)
August 4, 2012 11:03 am

Still predicting 4.5*10^6 km^2.
As often happens, differences in the assorted Arctic sea ice products are showing up. NSIDC, used for the ARCUS forecast, is 15% concentration for extent. As shown, they’ve been tracking 2012 under the current record low year of the satellite record, 2007. Looks terrifying, doesn’t it?
But IARC-JAXA (see “all years” version here), also 15%, shows 2012 has been tracking above 2007, barely, for about three weeks now.
As usual when this happens, the “blame” falls to different satellite sensors used, different processing algorithms (is this spot meltwater or open water?), etc.
But why does it seem NSIDC keeps showing up on the low end? Has it ever been discussed here that NSIDC was showing high compared to others?

Wayne Delbeke
August 4, 2012 11:14 am

This is a bit off topic but maybe not. It may be a bit on the political WIth the Ice “thinning” (for the moment), Alberta will have a new option for shipping their land locked oil. Obama has blocked the Keystone pipeline to the south. BC has said they have a lot of conditions to be meto for it to go west and the BC natives communities opposition is reportedly funded by many US and foreign foundations But as I said in my post several months ago, that still leaves train transportation like Warren Buffet is doing out of the Nebraska in the absence of a pipeline (wonder which side he is funding); pipelines to the east coast to Toronto, Montreal and the Irving oil refineries in the Maritimes; and the Northern Route through the Arctic into the Pacific. The Mackenzie Valley Gas Pipeline has finally been approved after decades of opposition. With the low price of gas these days, some northerners are suggesting the flow should be oil north and through the Arctic to Asia rather than gas from the Arctic to the US.
http://www.cbc.ca/thehouse/news-promo/2012/08/04/northwest-territories-offers-alternative-to-northern-gateway-pipeline/
Maybe this is a straw man, but that is what will happen if the flow south or west continues to be blocked. I wonder how Suzuki and Tides will think of successfully diverting flow from BC and into the Arctic? (Law of unintended consequences But then if they say the arctic will be ice free, then it should be quite safe, shouldn’t it? /sarc off
By the way, for those who understand inertia and complexity of systems as most here do, the temperatures today and ice extent today are highly misleading since they may reflect things that happened years ago. I fully expect it to be nasty cold in the near future so Alberta oil is a lot more likely to flow east than north if south and west are blocked … and after a few hundred people die in the upcoming cold, I am guessing a route south will be quickly opened for both oil and gas … and due to the time it takes to build projects, a lot of politicians and eco-trusts will be running for cover.
Nevertheless, if arctic ice trends down, it will bring more pressure to ship north. But personally, I expect a big uptick in ice extent over the next few years based on what I have read on these pages and others. The cycle continues.

August 4, 2012 11:15 am

Hmm. Interesting point. Of course, the cooling effect from evaporation is eventually canceled by the condensation effect when that same water precipitates, so from a global perspective the net should be zero. The evaporative cooling and condensing warming may occur in different locations, causing regional temperature differences, though.
Solar radiation gains, however, are not canceled, so the system as a whole gains energy from reduced ice cover over water.

Shevva
August 4, 2012 11:20 am

Warning if you believe that the Arctic will be ice free in the next few years like the models say do not read past the following point or you will be forced to think outside what you believe, this is the point: The Antarctic.

Brian H
August 4, 2012 11:48 am

Kirschbaum is German for Cherrytree. Picked enough for a big pie yet, Neven?
LOL

chris y
August 4, 2012 11:49 am

I voted in agreement with expert Zwally’s ice-free Arctic this year. I have learned from IPCC glitterati that this is the proper response.
After all, Zwally is the go-to expert on Arctic sea ice, I am paying a portion of his salary to get the science right, and his forecast for an ice-free 2012 Arctic sea ice is right on schedule.
If Zwally turns out to be wrong, he should be fired for incompetence and wasting everybody’s money on useless climate models.

August 4, 2012 12:06 pm

The big picture. Hardly any change in global ice. 23.5 MM km in 2000, about the same now.

DWR54
August 4, 2012 12:18 pm

chris y,
Zwally’s comment was not based on climate models. It was based, as he mentioned to the journalist who reported his comments at the time, on extrapolation of the rate of Arctic sea ice melt observed during 2007.
Furthermore, as I’m sure most people are aware, Zwally was not attempting to give a scientific forecast. He was making an off-the-cuff observation to a reporter from National Geographic.
So Zwally wasn’t making a ‘right or wrong’ forecast, and he certainly wasn’t reporting a scientific, model-based projection of future Arctic sea ice melt. In the same article, from memory, the journalist in question even made reference to a paper that did give an *actual* projection for summer Arctic sea being mostly absent.
It think it was around 2030?

Jimbo
August 4, 2012 12:33 pm

It’s finally in runaway mode. 😉 Now let’s look at the the IPCCs early 1970s graph which showed low sea ice extent if I remember rightly.
It’s actually much worse than we thought.

It will, without doubt, have come to your Lordship’s 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. This affords ample proof that new sources of warmth have been opened, and give us leave to hope that the Arctic Seas may at this time be more accessible than they have been for centuries past, and that discoveries may now be made in them, not only interesting to the advancement of science, but also to the future intercourse of mankind and the commerce of distant nations.’
20th November, 1817
Minutes of Council, Volume 8. pp.149-153, Royal Society, London. 20th November, 1817.
http://www.john-daly.com/polar/arctic.htm
http://climaterealists.com/attachments/database/Royal%20Society%20Letter.pdf

It’s even worse than that!

Historic Variation in Arctic Ice – Tony B
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/06/16/historic-variation-in-arctic-ice-tony-b/

How certain are Warmists that this isn’t just natural climate variation. The satellite record began in 1979.

Dinostratus
August 4, 2012 12:42 pm

Yep. Trending right between 2007 and 2011. Just as the gradient from 10e6sqkm to 8e6sqkm said it would.

CRS, Dr.P.H.
August 4, 2012 12:56 pm

Rod Everson says:
August 4, 2012 at 7:48 am
Just a suggestion for a site improvement, Anthony. Could you put a map of the Arctic on the Sea Ice Page that indicates the various seas that make up the Arctic Ocean?
[REPLY: I find this one helpful, myself. -REP]

Thanks for that map, REP! Very helpful indeed!

Bill Illis
August 4, 2012 1:12 pm

NSIDC’s data is really diverging (down) from Jaxa’s trends over the last several days (before that, pretty similar).
The sea ice extent will be low this year (2011 and 2007 levels).

August 4, 2012 1:12 pm

Here is another helpful Arctic map, with interactive goodness:
http://www.athropolis.com/map2.htm
[Click on yellow dots for current weather reports]

Matt
August 4, 2012 1:13 pm

As an amature photagrapher, my oppinion of the plume is debris on the lens. Given the location of the camera, the debris is probably ice.

Bill H
August 4, 2012 1:37 pm

Given the animal actions of the Midwest and western states along with the premature widening of the polar Jet, I would guess the arctic is about to get real cold and the melting will stop much sooner than the norm.
Just yesterday we had the first cold front of the season which is a full 6 weeks early from the average in Wyoming. If the polar jet is getting up enough speed and width to push the heat bubble across the US things are already changing… and very early to boot..
will wait and watch along with everyone else..

Gail Combs
August 4, 2012 1:40 pm

-REP, nice map. I would consider the advance and retreat of the tree line a much better indicator of climate than the summer Arctic sea ice melt. The melt is much too dependent on wind and other factors.

Eli Rabett
August 4, 2012 1:45 pm

kadaka (KD Knoebel): It;s the difference between area actually covered by ice (sea ice area) and the area where there is significant ice (sort of drawing a line around the ice pack. If the ice is broken up significantly the extent is much greater than the area, but in that case it is much more vulnerable to melting. This very day, the ratio of the area to the extent has hit a new low, which means you can expect both to nose dive soon

Bill Illis
August 4, 2012 1:50 pm

I’ve managed to put together NSIDC’s data in one chart (similar to the ones I’ve been doing for Jaxa).
NSIDC (climatology average of 1979 to 2000) with all the years shown from 1979 to 2012.
http://s8.postimage.org/auayvlo91/NSIDC_Daily_SIE_Aug_3_2012.png
And then the Nasa Team/JAXA sea ice extent to 2012 (average 1972 to 2011).
http://s12.postimage.org/g6wjujetp/Jaxa_Daily_SIE_Aug3_2012.png
You can probably open both in a new tab and click back and forth to the difference.

Günther
August 4, 2012 1:51 pm

Here’s a very nifty interactive map with lots of detail.

D. J. Hawkins
August 4, 2012 1:56 pm

I’m sticking with 4.1 million.

Patrick
August 4, 2012 2:16 pm

Your next poll needs an optional response “I have no qualifications to make an estimate, but I want to see the results.” It might be interesting to see how many people like me are following you guys. (Yes, I know you can get to the results without picking, as I did, but it would be an interesting data point to see how many do.)

Scarface
August 4, 2012 2:19 pm

The facts force me to lower my guestimate from 5.9 to 5.1
And in reply to Günther Kirschbaum a.k.a. Neven (comment 1).
He’s trolling dutch sites too. Hilarious junkscientific hugger to whom no one listens anymore.

Marcos
August 4, 2012 3:04 pm

Whatever happened with NSIDC saying they were going to change their normals period to run a full 30 years instead of the 21 years they do now? It seems like many months ago that they were saying they were trying to find the right time to make the switch…

Caleb
August 4, 2012 3:16 pm

RE: “Verity Jones says:
August 4, 2012 at 8:44 am ”
Thanks for sharing the link to that map.
It’s interesting that the “Cyrosphere Today” map shows no ice even near the coast of Alaska.
The Canadian Ice Service map shows some ice near the coast.
I guess we get to pick and chose the map that best pleases us.

Jimbo
August 4, 2012 3:26 pm

RCS says:
August 4, 2012 at 8:36 am
Interestingly, the DMI temperature profile has been consistently below normal during the current melt season while there has been a rapid loss of ice.

When will you learn that facts don’t matter. It is about belief in warm air temperature caused by co2 causing the low ice extent. Never mind natural climate variation, soot, low extent many times befor etc.

August 4, 2012 3:29 pm

Few people on this site seem alarmed about the disintegration of Arctic sea ice, and the implications for future northern hemisphere climate. I’m not suggesting we all sell our cars and move into caves, but surely it’s not too much to acknowledge that something very serious is going on, and it might be time to discuss it seriously rather than denying its importance.

August 4, 2012 3:30 pm

The map posted above shows ice extent. Green color is ice cover in Greenland, white color is ice cover in the Arctic:
http://www.athropolis.com/map2.htm
No guarantees of accuracy. But that applies to the others, too.

rbateman
August 4, 2012 3:31 pm

Bill H says:
August 4, 2012 at 1:37 pm
Considering that freezeup began on the 10-11th of September last year, a full 10 days ahead or normal, I’d say that this year might just as well do the same.

Entropic man
August 4, 2012 3:46 pm

The difference may be in the resolution. The whole Arctic map is derived from microwave data with a resolution of about 50km. The Canadian coast map is based on higher resolution data and shows more detail. Smaller patches which would not be resolved by the former would be identified by the latter. NSIDC had a discussion Icelight on this.
http://nsidc.org/icelights/2012/07/18/do-satellites-sometimes-see-ice-where-there-isnt-any/
PS I voted 4.0.

Entropic man
August 4, 2012 3:52 pm

Jimbo says:
August 4, 2012 at 3:26 pm
RCS says:
August 4, 2012 at 8:36 am
When will you learn that facts don’t matter. It is about belief …
I cannot believe someone in a science discussion actually wrote that!

Gary Pearse
August 4, 2012 3:55 pm

rbateman says:
August 4, 2012 at 3:31 pm
Bill H says:
August 4, 2012 at 1:37 pm
“Considering that freezeup began on the 10-11th of September last year, a full 10 days ahead or normal, I’d say that this year might just as well do the same.”
In the polar region NOAA surface temps (colored map on WUWT Sea Ice Reference) are already recording freezing in the high north (link on WUWT not working).

rogerknights
August 4, 2012 3:57 pm

This article says that Alberta oil is being shipped south by rail at nearly the efficiency of the delayed pipeline:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-02/buffett-railroad-beats-coal-slump-with-75-gain-in-oil-freight.html

pinetree3
August 4, 2012 4:01 pm

Ecco the Dolphin says:
August 4, 2012 at 7:55 am
“To me, seeing that arctic ice concentration appears to be overall visibly worse than 2007, with currently slightly less extent than 2007 and relatively large areas quickly melting in the last few days, it seems it wouldn’t be a pessimistic estimate to vote around 4.0-4.2 M Km2 as a minimum for this year.”
====================================================================
I agree. To me, 2007 looks great compared to the condition of the ice this year, and we still have at least 6 more weeks to go in the melt season. I’m guessing way under 4 million sq/km., and 2012 will easily shatter the 2007 record.

redc1c4
August 4, 2012 4:08 pm

is it okay to vote for the “ice free” option just because i’m a sarcastic PITA? %-)

James Abbott
August 4, 2012 4:14 pm

Well said Mike H:
“Few people on this site seem alarmed about the disintegration of Arctic sea ice, and the implications for future northern hemisphere climate. I’m not suggesting we all sell our cars and move into caves, but surely it’s not too much to acknowledge that something very serious is going on, and it might be time to discuss it seriously rather than denying its importance.”
The reason for this is that the sceptic/denial community is only interested in finding reasons to undermine the science. So even credible observations showing dramatic decline in arctic sea ice area and volume “must” have an alternative explanation to the mainstrean view – which is that it is largely caused by warming seas and atmosphere and that is largely due to human induced global warming.
The melt event in Greenland recently was dismissed by some as due to soot from Asia (hilarious) – until it was proven to be due to warm air sweeping over the landmass.
Many of the comments in this thread now talk of ocean currents being responsible for the melt in the arctic or that “it has happened before”. Well yes, ocean currents play a part and it has happened before – but not in modern history. There is no reliable evidence that there has been such a decline in recent centuries.
So for example P Wilson says
“However, in 1932, some 10 years later, a Rusian ice breaker was found floating in free waters, some 300 miles from the North pole -a feat that would be physically impossible today.”
Really ? In September 2007 the melt on the Siberian side was not far off that
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/deetest/deetmp.17565.png
If the melt trend continues – and only time will tell – it will be very interesting to see what the sceptic/denial community says when it is largely all gone – and on current trends thats sometime in September 2020 to 2060.
Maybe by then a different branch of science will be the favoured punchbag ?

pinetree3
August 4, 2012 4:20 pm

Mike H says:
August 4, 2012 at 3:29 pm
“Few people on this site seem alarmed about the disintegration of Arctic sea ice, and the implications for future northern hemisphere climate. I’m not suggesting we all sell our cars and move into caves, but surely it’s not too much to acknowledge that something very serious is going on, and it might be time to discuss it seriously rather than denying its importance.”
————————————————————————————————————–
Seems like they are whistling while walking pass the graveyard.

Mr.D.Imwit
August 4, 2012 4:27 pm

Just something picked up on the Internet somewhere,sometime.
“It will without doubt have come to your Lordship’s 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.
(This) affords ample proof that new sources of warmth have been opened and give us leave to hope that the Arctic Seas may at this time be more accessible than they have been for centuries past, and that discoveries may now be made in them not only interesting to the advancement of science but also to the future intercourse of mankind and the commerce of distant nations.”
President of the Royal Society, London, to the Admiralty, 20th November, 1817 ( Royal Society Archives).

kadaka (KD Knoebel)
August 4, 2012 4:28 pm

Re: Eli Rabett on August 4, 2012 at 1:45 pm
*ahem*
What The F### Are You Talking About?
I noted NSIDC 15% concentration extent was tracking 2012 below 2007, IARC-JAXA 15% concentration extent was tracking 2012 above 2007.
You Lobbed Off A Comment That It Was The Difference Between Area And Extent!
What Sort Of S### Are You Chewing On In Your Garden, little bunny rabbit?
Wrong Type Of Grass! Bad bunny rabbit! BAD!

August 4, 2012 4:38 pm

pinetree3,
“Shatter” the record? May I point out that the ‘record’ they are talking about only began in 1979?
I would like scientific evidence presented that the current Arctic fluctuations are anything other than natural variability. The Arctic has been completely ice free before, when humans were still in the hunter-gatherer stage.
It is even possible that the Antarctic had little ice several centuries ago. Now, of course, the Antarctic [which holds more than 90% of the planet’s ice] is steadily gaining ice.
You can see 30 years of natural variability here, both Northern and Southern Hemispheres. And the late, great John Daly found evidence of open Arctic seas here [read at least the first 2 paragraphs and the conclusion]. There are numerous other reports of open sea at the North Pole, this one from 1926.
So why all the maniac arm-waving and running around in circles over natural variability? The answer is simple: because every prediction made by the climate alarmist cult has come to naught. But they can point to a completely natural Arctic event, and falsely claim that human activity is to blame. They even cheat. But when all the observations are taken into account, the alarmist crowd is no more credible than Chicken Little [Chicken Licken in the UK].
The sky is not falling. But maybe the easy grants will start to dry up. And that prospect absolutely terrifies the mainstream climate crowd.

Entropic man
August 4, 2012 4:41 pm

It is unfortunate that the sea ice graph on wattsupwitthat includes the 1979-2000 average values, but not the +/- 2 SD boundaries. They help you judge how significant the changes in ice area actually are.
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png
With Friday’s value some 4 SD below the 1979 to 2000 average, the probability of the null hypothesis that conditions have not changed is less than 1%. (2SD is 5%, 3SD is 1%)
All years since 2007 also show significantly low values.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2012/07/N_stddev_timeseries2.png

James Abbott
August 4, 2012 4:47 pm

Smokey says
“It is even possible that the Antarctic had little ice several centuries ago. Now, of course, the Antarctic [which holds more than 90% of the planet’s ice] is steadily gaining ice.”
Blimey. That is a major scientific discovery.
So an icecap several kilometers deep formed in a few centuries – in one of the driest places on Earth – and those ice core drills must be all wrong.
I blame Superman.

Entropic man
August 4, 2012 4:48 pm

Those interested in the Antarctic might find this of interest.
http://nsidc.org/icelights/2012/01/11/sea-ice-down-under-antarctic-ice-and-climate/#more-601

Maus
August 4, 2012 4:57 pm

Mike H: “Few people on this site seem alarmed about the disintegration of Arctic sea ice, and the implications for future northern hemisphere climate.”
And you don’t seem to be alarmed that the Antarctic ice sheet is currently expanding and what the coming Ice Age will due to Argentina.
The problem here is that both need to be taken in context of cyclical variations throughout a day, year, and at longer terms. But what we lack at this point is enough knowledge of the relevant climate systems to state “We are DOOMED!”. There are simply no accurate and empirically verified models out there to even allow such outside having picnics with the Jonestown folks.
For example, in James Abbot’s response to you he stated: “Really ? In September 2007 the melt on the Siberian side was not far off that”
Which simply begs you to take the emotional hysteria pill and drink the Koolaid. But the limit of what we can say properly, and the factual limit that Abbot stayed within, is that 2007 is more or less the same as 1932. Otherwise known as: Been there, done that.

Jim Petrie
August 4, 2012 4:57 pm

Sea ice correlates with the calender. More sunlight -less ice. There can be slight variation correlating with changes in CO2 but the consistent driving force is the length of the day.
Temperature is determined by the sun. Greenkouse gases have a very minor role.

Bill Illis
August 4, 2012 4:59 pm

The Greenland melt at summit heights turns out to be not that unusual (ever second year versus every 150 years).
The Danish DMI posted this on July 28th (and they sound a little p’oed at NASA for the hype).
Google English Translation and historical data for the summit.
http://translate.google.ca/translate?hl=en&ie=UTF8&u=http://www.dmi.dk/dmi/t_vejr_pa_gr_nlands_top

James Abbott
August 4, 2012 5:08 pm

This is what the NSIDC say about pre-satellite era arctic sea ice – more reliable than vague ancient maps and newspaper cuttings:
http://nsidc.org/icelights/2011/01/31/arctic-sea-ice-before-satellites/
“Researchers delved into shipping charts going back to the 1950s, which noted sea ice conditions. The data gleaned from those records, called the Hadley data set, show that Arctic sea ice has declined since at least the mid-1950s. Shipping records exist back to the 1700s, but do not provide complete coverage of the Arctic Ocean. However, taken together these records indicate that the current decline is unprecedented in the last several hundred years.”

Gneiss
August 4, 2012 5:13 pm

Mark Serreze’s colorful 2008 comment increasingly seems prescient: because of positive feedbacks, Arctic sea ice is in a death spiral. This year looks very likely to set new record lows for extent, area and volume consistent with a steepening downward trend.

August 4, 2012 5:17 pm

Without admitting it, Entropic and Abbott would like everyone to believe that CO2 prefers the Arctic over the Antarctic.☺
Folks, it’s wind and ocean currents, and a few other factors. The amount of Arctic ice is a function of natural variability. That’s all. CO2, and especially the tiny amount of CO2 that is human emitted, has nothing to do with Arctic ice.
We’re talking about global warming of 0.8ºC over a century and a half. Any fool can see that a fraction of a degree difference will not melt the Polar ice cap. It’s simply wind and water, folks. Occam’s Razor.

kadaka (KD Knoebel)
August 4, 2012 5:19 pm

From James Abbott on August 4, 2012 at 4:14 pm:

The reason for this is that the sceptic/denial community is only interested in finding reasons to undermine the science.

Wow, another blanket insult against the entire grouping, and you just couldn’t stop yourself from slipping in the “d-word” despite the Site Policy.

So even credible observations showing dramatic decline in arctic sea ice area and volume “must” have an alternative explanation to the mainstrean view – which is that it is largely caused by warming seas and atmosphere and that is largely due to human induced global warming.

Gee, with regards to the 2007 record Arctic sea ice low, NASA said it was due to the wind:

“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,” said Son Nghiem of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory and leader of the study. When that sea ice reached lower latitudes, it rapidly melted in the warmer waters.

Wow, NASA is part of the “sceptic/denial community” embracing alternative explanations for a dramatic decline in Arctic sea ice. Someone better tell Hansen that NASA-GISS is no longer authoritative outside of the “sceptic/denial community”, maybe the shame will force him to retire.

Gneiss
August 4, 2012 5:28 pm

Maus writes,
“But the limit of what we can say properly, and the factual limit that Abbot stayed within, is that 2007 is more or less the same as 1932.”
But this is far from the truth. Neither 1932 nor any other year in the 20th century, as far as we can tell either from proxies and historical records, had Arctic-wide ice extent nearly as low as it is right now. Anecdotes about one particular coast having low ice don’t tell the story.
For example, in August 1932 although the ice edge was mostly north of the Siberian coast, there was still much ice in the Kara Sea, while the east coast of Svalbard and all of Franz Joseph Land were surrounded by ice. On the North America/Greenland side the NW Passage was firmly frozen, and there was ice in the Chukchi Sea, Baffin Bay, and southeast Greenland where we have open water today. Extent then was far greater than it is today.

Entropic man
August 4, 2012 5:35 pm

Smokey says:
August 4, 2012 at 5:17 pm
” the amount of Arctic ice is a function of natural variability.”
You talk a lot about this natural variability. Some peer reviewed evidence for the drivers you regard as causing this variability would not come amiss.

James Abbott
August 4, 2012 5:36 pm

Maus said
“For example, in James Abbot’s response to you he stated: “Really ? In September 2007 the melt on the Siberian side was not far off that”
Which simply begs you to take the emotional hysteria pill and drink the Koolaid. But the limit of what we can say properly, and the factual limit that Abbot stayed within, is that 2007 is more or less the same as 1932. Otherwise known as: Been there, done that.”
No, I was responding to P Wilson, who said
“However, in 1932, some 10 years later, a Rusian ice breaker was found floating in free waters, some 300 miles from the North pole -a feat that would be physically impossible today.”
It is hardly hysterical to point out that it would NOT have been physically impossible in 2007 to get about that distance from the pole. I am simply stating a fact.
Try this:
http://nsidc.org/icelights/files/2010/11/mean_anomaly_1953-2010.png
shows the steady decline in ice extent that set in around the 1970s, on a plot that goes back to 1953 and as previously posted, NSIDC says the current melt is unprecedented in several centuries.
So thats data produced by a scientific organisation that specialises in arctic research, based on the best evidence they can get from satellites and before that reliable shipping and other observations.
But you would rather cite a single Russian ice breaker in 1932 (and that assumes that report is accurate) as a better source of data ?

Maus
August 4, 2012 5:36 pm

James Abbot: “…more reliable than vague ancient maps …”
Based on ships logs.
“Researchers delved into shipping charts going back to the 1950s, which noted sea ice conditions. ”
Based on ships logs.
“However, taken together these records indicate that the current decline is unprecedented in the last several hundred years.”
So… like with the Greenland melt ‘unprecedented’ means ‘precedented cycle longer than 150 years’. There’s an apropos bit here: http://xkcd.com/605/

John F. Hultquist
August 4, 2012 5:38 pm

Entropic man says:
August 4, 2012 at 4:41 pm
“ . . . +/- 2 SD boundaries. They help you judge . . .
and so on
Sorry, I missed the post or comment where the characteristics of the sea ice data is demonstrated to meet the assumptions for application of the statistics being invoked. Can you link to that, please?

Luther Wu
August 4, 2012 5:42 pm

Entropic man says:
August 4, 2012 at 4:41 pm
It is unfortunate that the sea ice graph on wattsupwitthat includes the 1979-2000 average values, but not the +/- 2 SD boundaries. They help you judge how significant the changes in ice area actually are.
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png
With Friday’s value some 4 SD below the 1979 to 2000 average, the probability of the null hypothesis that conditions have not changed is less than 1%. (2SD is 5%, 3SD is 1%)
All years since 2007 also show significantly low values.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2012/07/N_stddev_timeseries2.png
_____________________
Do you have a real point; something meaningful to say?
In other words, SO WHAT?

August 4, 2012 5:45 pm

Entropic posts a link to NSIDC. I guess he missed the link where I showed that NSIDC cheats.
Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.

August 4, 2012 5:48 pm

“Mike H says:
August 4, 2012 at 3:29 pm
Few people on this site seem alarmed about the disintegration of Arctic sea ice, and the implications for future northern hemisphere climate. I’m not suggesting we all sell our cars and move into caves, but surely it’s not too much to acknowledge that something very serious is going on, and it might be time to discuss it seriously rather than denying its importance.”
Fascinating how we still have the odd “alarmist” heading here to warn us that things are really bad and that we should be doing something instead of nothing. Oh, and to take it serious as well. Well maybe Mike H. could supply us with the facts or is there something that he knows that we don’t. I am all ears, as it is still fascinating to witness the endless alarmism being waived but no specifics offered to support it. Sad really how others who have been waiving the warmist flag are looking to an honourable discharge.

James Abbott
August 4, 2012 5:51 pm

Smokey said
“Any fool can see that a fraction of a degree difference will not melt the Polar ice. It’s simply wind and water, folks. Occam’s Razor.”
And kadaka (KD Knoebel) said
“with regards to the 2007 record Arctic sea ice low, NASA said it was due to the wind:
“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,” said Son Nghiem of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory and leader of the study. When that sea ice reached lower latitudes, it rapidly melted in the warmer waters.”
Yes, the wind and water conditions can move the ice and break it up. We know.
And yes in 2007, as NASA said, wind patterns encouraged an even larger ice melt than the other big melts of the 2000s. We know.
I wonder if a fool can understand that the factors that influence the annual ice melt will include wind, currents, ocean and air temperature and other factors and that the influence of each can be measured and that when this has been done it is found that most of the melt cannot be explained by natural variation:
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326.

Eli Rabett
August 4, 2012 5:58 pm
Jim
August 4, 2012 5:59 pm

Looks like the arctic has survived another summer, contrary to the expectations of the warmistas.

Gunga Din
August 4, 2012 6:05 pm

Mike H (I think)
If the melt trend continues – and only time will tell – it will be very interesting to see what the sceptic/denial community says when it is largely all gone – and on current trends thats sometime in September 2020 to 2060.
========================================================================
I thought it was supposed to be this year? Or was it only supposed to be this year last year?

Mooloo
August 4, 2012 6:08 pm

Few people on this site seem alarmed about the disintegration of Arctic sea ice
The earth has been gradually warming for a couple of hundred years now. That it continues to warm is no surprise. The AGW argument is not proven by warming, let alone less polar ice.
I suspect warming is a blessing, because on the whole a warmer world is a nice world. So I don’t get alarmed by less ice. It’s hard to see many Canadians and Russians complaining their winters are too mild and they want them colder!
Even if it is heading towards a “too hot” world, I still don’t think the blame lies with CO2.
Rather than fret about a minor side-show like polar ice, I am prepared to wait to see what the cause of the long-term warning is. I’m certainly not joining the hair shirt brigade on the off-chance they are right.

August 4, 2012 6:13 pm

Abbott says:
“…it is found that most of the melt cannot be explained by natural variation”
BZ-Z-Z-Z-ZT!
WRONG!!
All of the changes are due to natural variability. Proof: it has all happened repeatedly before the industrial revolution, and to a greater extent than now. Learn about the null hypothesis or you will continue to be wrong.
And your silly pseudo-science link has articles like: “It takes a community”, and “how do we ditch fossil fuels?” Anti-science eco extremists belong on the Pseudo-Skeptical Pseudo-Science blog, not here on the internet’s “Best Science” site.
You are way out onto thin ice [intended] by picking an example someone posts of prior Arctic warming, and then arguing with it. That would be fine once, except that the number of examples of past Arctic melt are beginning to bury you. Here’s another one:
In fact, so little [Arctic] ice has never before been noted
Scare stories sell newspapers. But only the gullible believe everything they read.

kadaka (KD Knoebel)
August 4, 2012 6:18 pm

From James Abbott on August 4, 2012 at 5:08 pm:

“Researchers delved into shipping charts going back to the 1950s, which noted sea ice conditions. The data gleaned from those records, called the Hadley data set, show that Arctic sea ice has declined since at least the mid-1950s. Shipping records exist back to the 1700s, but do not provide complete coverage of the Arctic Ocean. However, taken together these records indicate that the current decline is unprecedented in the last several hundred years.”

You’re saying the “sceptic/denial community” doesn’t have the information to authoritatively state the Arctic sea ice conditions pre-satellite,
you point to an NSIDC piece, where they admit they don’t have the information to authoritatively state the Arctic sea ice conditions pre-satellite, but you decide the NSIDC piece must be able to authoritatively state the Arctic sea ice conditions pre-satellite, even unto “the last several hundred years.”
That makes sense to you?

August 4, 2012 6:40 pm

Let’s not forget climate change fears in the early 1900s because the Arctic was melting rapidly. For example …
The North Pole. Causes of Change of Climate
Is the North Pole going to melt entirely? Are the Arctic regions warming up, with prospect of a great climatic change in that part of the world?
Science (says ‘Popular Science’) is asking these questions. Reports from fishermen, seal hunters, and explorers who sail the seas around Spitzbergen and the eastern Arctic all point to a radical change in climatic conditions, with hitherto unheard-of high temperatures on that part of the earth’s surface. etc.
The Advertiser, 4 April 1923
http://www.waclimate.net/climate-history.html

Lyle
August 4, 2012 6:43 pm

It’s a local thing but Major ice concentrations in Frobisher Bay (southern Baffin Island) have seriously disrupted shipping to Iqualuit, Nunavut, Canada. A freighter that tried to push through has a bow resembling the side of the Costa Concordia.

Keith Pearson, formerly bikermailman, Anonymous no longer
August 4, 2012 7:09 pm

Entropic man says: August 4, 2012 at 3:52 pm
Jimbo says:
August 4, 2012 at 3:26 pm
RCS says:
August 4, 2012 at 8:36 am
When will you learn that facts don’t matter. It is about belief …
I cannot believe someone in a science discussion actually wrote that!
What I can’t decide is if you’re serious, or just trolling. Did you in fact read what the man said? He was engaging in snark, poking fun at your side and what they regularly say. In other words, he was giving your side of things. So, do you really believe what you said, or are you just trolling? I would hope for the latter. Trolls are at least a time honored part of internet discourse.

chris y
August 4, 2012 7:13 pm

DWR54-
“Furthermore, as I’m sure most people are aware, Zwally was not attempting to give a scientific forecast.”
I’ll keep that in mind the next time I read any comment from Zwally, or anyone at NSIDC for that matter.
Now, how about the comments made by the following experts. Which ones can I ignore because they are not giving a scientific forecast?
Hansen
Ehrlich
Schmidt
Mann
Trenberth
Santer
Jones
Briffa
Lovejoy
Pierrehumbert

pinetree3
August 4, 2012 7:16 pm

kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
August 4, 2012 at 5:19 pm
“Gee, with regards to the 2007 record Arctic sea ice low, NASA said it was due to the wind:”
————————————————————————————————————–
I mentioned that to a warmist back in 2007, and they said the wind patterns that summer were caused by man-made global warming.

MattN
August 4, 2012 7:22 pm

If we get wind in August ad September like we had in 2007, we will shatter that record low. And the howling from people like Eli (Halpern) won’t stop until glaciers knock on their front door…

Fred
August 4, 2012 7:41 pm

Why does Sea Ice News always just cover the Arctic and not also the Antarctic (where ice mass is up)?

Fred
August 4, 2012 7:41 pm

Why does Sea Ice NEws always just cover the Arctic and not also the Antarctic (where ice mass is up)?

RDCII
August 4, 2012 7:59 pm

DWR54-
“Furthermore, as I’m sure most people are aware, Zwally was not attempting to give a scientific forecast.”
The problem is, a dedicated scientist would never have made such an off-the-cuff statement to anyone, estimating a “trend” based on a singular event. This is, however, what an activist/alarmist might do.
To show how ridiculous this is, the next year the ice recovered. He could have said, with equal “validity”, that if THAT trend continued, we could be entering a new ice age.
He’s being held to his off-the-cuff remark to show how wrong it was to use his creds as a scientist to make an unscientific, alarmist and absurd statement as if that statement had any value. He has earned our derision for being more activist than scientist.
We hope to make him regret that enough that he won’t do that again. Hyperbole does not help his cause, or the discussion. I would hope YOU wouldn’t want him to say such nonsense again.
But there’s also this observation..if this is the way he thinks, is his science trustworthy, or does it need thorough…auditing? I would propose that the more activist a scientist is, the more important transparency and vetting is to evaluate the work of that scientist.

Louis Hooffstetter
August 4, 2012 8:00 pm

James Abbott says:
“I wonder if a fool can understand that the factors that influence the annual ice melt will include wind, currents, ocean and air temperature and other factors and that the influence of each can be measured and that when this has been done it is found that most of the melt cannot be explained by natural variation”:
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326.
The abstract of the article at the link you provided:
Sources of multi-decadal variability in Arctic sea ice extent (July 26, 2012)
Abstract
The observed dramatic decrease in September sea ice extent (SIE) has been widely discussed in the scientific literature. Though there is qualitative agreement between observations and ensemble members of the Third Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP3), it is concerning that the observed trend (1979–2010) is not captured by any ensemble member. The potential sources of this discrepancy include: observational uncertainty, physical model limitations and vigorous natural climate variability. The latter has received less attention and is difficult to assess using the relatively short observational sea ice records. In this study multi-centennial pre-industrial control simulations with five CMIP3 climate models are used to investigate the role that the Arctic oscillation (AO), the Atlantic multi-decadal oscillation (AMO) and the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC) play in decadal sea ice variability. Further, we use the models to determine the impact that these sources of variability have had on SIE over both the era of satellite observation (1979–2010) and an extended observational record (1953–2010). There is little evidence of a relationship between the AO and SIE in the models. However, we find that both the AMO and AMOC indices are significantly correlated with SIE in all the models considered. Using sensitivity statistics derived from the models, assuming a linear relationship, we attribute 0.5–3.1%/decade of the 10.1%/decade decline in September SIE (1979–2010) to AMO driven variability.
This abstract provides absolutely zero scientific evidence of anthropogenic global warming. But from the abstract two facts are clear. To paraphrase: 1) “The observational sea ice records are too short to assess the effect of natural climate variability”, However, 2) “September ice extent correlates well with two natural oscillations, the Atlantic multi-decadal oscillation and the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation.”
All that’s left are computer models and statistical analyses. Only a Real Climastrologist would try to pass off computer models and statistical analyses as scientific evidence. Feel free to try again, but remember that empirical evidence rules at this site.

kadaka (KD Knoebel)
August 4, 2012 8:05 pm

From James Abbott on August 4, 2012 at 5:51 pm:

I wonder if a fool can understand that the factors that influence the annual ice melt will include wind, currents, ocean and air temperature and other factors and that the influence of each can be measured and that when this has been done it is found that most of the melt cannot be explained by natural variation:
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326.

Couldn’t you have managed the direct link?
Sources of multi-decadal variability in Arctic sea ice extent
From the Abstract:

The observed dramatic decrease in September sea ice extent (SIE) has been widely discussed in the scientific literature. Though there is qualitative agreement between observations and ensemble members of the Third Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP3), it is concerning that the observed trend (1979–2010) is not captured by any ensemble member.

Translation: The models have fallen and they can’t get up.

The potential sources of this discrepancy include: observational uncertainty, physical model limitations and vigorous natural climate variability. The latter has received less attention and is difficult to assess using the relatively short observational sea ice records.

Translation: We don’t know enough about natural variability to work it into the models.

In this study multi-centennial pre-industrial control simulations with five CMIP3 climate models are used to investigate the role that the Arctic oscillation (AO), the Atlantic multi-decadal oscillation (AMO) and the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC) play in decadal sea ice variability. Further, we use the models to determine the impact that these sources of variability have had on SIE over both the era of satellite observation (1979–2010) and an extended observational record (1953–2010).

Translation: So we simulated natural variability with models.

There is little evidence of a relationship between the AO and SIE in the models. However, we find that both the AMO and AMOC indices are significantly correlated with SIE in all the models considered. Using sensitivity statistics derived from the models, assuming a linear relationship, we attribute 0.5–3.1%/decade of the 10.1%/decade decline in September SIE (1979–2010) to AMO driven variability.

Translation: Our simulated natural variability accounts for this much of the previously totally unaccounted-for model failure.
Once again, it’s models upon models, models all the way down.
Thanks for pointing out how easily real natural variability may be quantified by modeling simulated natural variability. At this rate, climate research soon won’t have to deal with the real world at all to understand reality, only models will be needed to tell us what reality really is.

RDCII
August 4, 2012 8:05 pm

Abbott and Mike H.:
Both of you have failed to address the observation that AGW seems to be only melting one pole. All your other observations about how this can’t possibly be happening with AGW are moot until you explain why Antarctic Ice is above “average” with AGW.

Justus
August 4, 2012 8:19 pm

lol @ 16 people. AGW trolls I tell ya :).

Steve B
August 4, 2012 8:26 pm

Mike H says:
August 4, 2012 at 3:29 pm
“Few people on this site seem alarmed about the disintegration of Arctic sea ice, and the implications for future northern hemisphere climate. I’m not suggesting we all sell our cars and move into caves, but surely it’s not too much to acknowledge that something very serious is going on, and it might be time to discuss it seriously rather than denying its importance.”
1. Why should we be alarmed?
2. What exactly are the implications for the northern hemisphere?
3. Why is it serious?
4. What makes it important?

temp
August 4, 2012 8:30 pm

kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
August 4, 2012 at 6:18 pm
“You’re saying the “sceptic/denial community” doesn’t have the information to authoritatively state the Arctic sea ice conditions pre-satellite,”
Hey [snip] how about reading the IPCC report… with the section found here…
http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/screenhunter_1565-jun-02-18-32.jpg?w=640
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_full_report.pdf
figure 7.20
Straight from the churches mouth you [snip]. 1979 was a way high year and dropping below that and even the current drops are completely normal…. according to the IPCC….

rogerknights
August 4, 2012 8:36 pm

What’s happening with the military satellite photos pre-1979? I thought some agency was studying them with an eye to extending our knowledge of arctic ice extent back in time.

Louis Hooffstetter
August 4, 2012 8:38 pm

DWR54 says:
“… Zwally was not attempting to give a scientific forecast. He was making an off-the-cuff observation to a reporter from National Geographic. Zwally wasn’t … reporting a scientific, model-based projection of future Arctic sea ice melt.”
And that is exactly the problem!! As Chris Y pointed out, “Zwally is the go-to expert on Arctic sea ice, (and we all are) paying …his salary to get the science right”.
RDCII correctly points out : “a dedicated scientist would never have made such an off-the-cuff statement to anyone, estimating a “trend” based on a singular event. This is, however, what an activist/alarmist might do.”
Instead of trying to be the ‘go-to experts trying to get the science right’ on Arctic sea ice, top NSIDC scientists make throw-away remarks and headline grabbing proclamations like: “The arctic is screaming! Arctic Sea Ice is in a Death Spiral!”
I second Chris Y’s comment: “If Zwally (or any taxpayer funded climatologist) turns out to be wrong, he should be fired for incompetence and wasting everybody’s money…” Hansen, Ehrlich, Schmidt, Mann, Trenberth, Santer, and Jones, et al. should all be fired for shouting alarmist BS to cover up the fact that their predictions/projections have failed to materialize.

Gunga Din
August 4, 2012 8:39 pm

One thing the Abbotts and the Costellos never say is just what the ice caps or the climate is supposed to be. If they want to claim that Man is somehow messing it up then that implies that they must know what it’s supposed to be. If they don’t know or can’t show what is “normal” then how can they possibly tell that Man has made things abnormal?

William Astley
August 4, 2012 8:58 pm

Meanwhile in the Antarctic sea ice is at record levels.
The phenomena where the Arctic warms and the Antarctic cools is referred to as the polar see-saw or as Svensmark call it the polar anomaly.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png
Based on what has happened, the Arctic will cool due to the interruption of the solar magnetic cycle. There is a delay of 10 to 12 years from the abrupt slow down in the solar magnetic cycle to the start of the cooling of the planet.
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1112/1112.3256.pdf
“The long temperature series at Svalbard (Longyearbyen) show large variations, and a positive trend since its start in 1912. During this period solar activity has increased, as indicated by shorter solar cycles. The temperature at Svalbard is negatively correlated with the length of the solar cycle. The strongest negative correlation is found with lags 10 to 12 years….
….These models can be applied as forecasting models. We predict an annual mean temperature decrease for Svalbard of 3.5±2oC from solar cycle 23 to solar cycle 24 (2009 to 2020) and a decrease in the winter temperature of ≈6 oC.”

Rick Powell
August 4, 2012 9:16 pm

Big kudos to WUWT for posting evidence that supports CAGW. The sea uce evidence by itself is certainly not conclusive, but by posting disturbing sea ice data, Anthony shows that he’s not just a run-of-the-mill PR spin doctor. Posting the bad with the good is a attribute of true scientific skepticisim.
If only everyone in this debate acted the same as Anthony Watts.

August 4, 2012 9:30 pm

Rick Powell,
There is no scientific evidence that supports CAGW. But I agree with you about Anthony.

August 4, 2012 9:36 pm

Fred asks:
Why does Sea Ice News always just cover the Arctic and not also the Antarctic?
Yeah, that’s funny. Especially because in Summer there is even less sea ice in Antarctic.

gopal panicker
August 4, 2012 10:50 pm

i have anecdotal evidence that the coal shipping season of the west spitzbergen ports increased from 3 to 7 months in 1919….fairly drastic reduction in ice…is it possible to get the records from what is now called Svalbard?….might be interesting

August 4, 2012 11:58 pm

Mike H says:
August 4, 2012 at 3:29 pm
Few people on this site seem alarmed about the disintegration of Arctic sea ice, and the implications for future northern hemisphere climate.

Some of us are concerned that Arctic sea ice loss is the trigger for the next glacial phase. As Arctic sea ice has declined, NH winter snowfall has increased and is now 20% above average.
It will probably take an additional trigger, GCRs, a major volcanic eruption? Although I could make a case that anthropogenic aerosols do a good just of simulating a major volcanic eruption.

wayne Job
August 5, 2012 12:01 am

Seems to be a few worryers and trolls out and about when it comes to the state of ice around Santas stables and work shop. Being but a lowly engineer and not a climatologist, it is my custom to stand back, observe and connect the dots. I see first some decades of rampant solar cycles and a warming phase that followed a cooling phase. This warming pumped some heat into the oceans, the southern ocean deals with this heat easily as Antarctica is an island and has a circular current that mixes and dilutes the warm water in short order.
The arctic is a different case and the warm waters in the northern hemisphere have no particular place to go and the currents and time makes the warm meander northward. Looking at the currant ocean anomalies, the only above average waters are surrounding the Arctic. Thus we have a slow thermostat. The melting of ice and the coming northern winter should deal with any warmth that is left in this anomaly.
That the sun has gone on holidays and the world has switched to a cooling phase, I do not like the chances of any time soon having an ice free Arctic.

Editor
August 5, 2012 12:10 am

Ecco the Dolphin says: “Can those who voted >5.5 M Km2 explain their choice? It would take a sudden and unexpected change of melting trend …“.
Currents and winds are major drivers of annual ice extent, not just temperature. For any one year, it’s a pure guessing game.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/21/peer-reviewed-paper-wind-contributes-to-arctic-sea-ice-decline/

Rob Dekker
August 5, 2012 2:03 am

P Wilson says

However, in 1932, some 10 years later, a Rusian ice breaker was found floating in free waters, some 300 miles from the North pole -a feat that would be physically impossible today.

It would be nice if you could at least give a reference to your assertion that in 1932 a Russian ice breaker was found floating in free waters, some 300 miles from the North Pole.
Also, the reference you give to the 1922 sea ice conditions report :

The expedition all but established a record, sailing as far north as 81 deg 20 min in ice-free water. This is the farthest north ever reached with modern oceanographic apparatus.

Now compare this to the 82 deg North that one could venture north of Svalbard in ice-free conditions, all through WINTER of 2011… Something that has not ever been recorded previously ?
When do WUWT readers realize that not Anthony’s paper on US land temperature records may be “unprecedented” but also developments in the Arctic ?
Does it all need to melt away first ?

Rob Dekker
August 5, 2012 2:32 am

gopal panicker said :

i have anecdotal evidence that the coal shipping season of the west spitzbergen ports increased from 3 to 7 months in 1919 – fairly drastic reduction in ice – is it possible to get the records from what is now called Svalbard?….might be interesting

West Spitzbergen (Svalbard) has been open ocean all year around.

Maus
August 5, 2012 2:43 am

Rob Dekker: “Now compare this to the 82 deg North that one could venture north of Svalbard in ice-free conditions, all through WINTER of 2011… ”
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2011/02/arctic-oscillation-brings-record-low-january-extent-unusual-mid-latitude-weather/
The NSIDC [snip – “disagrees” would be better]. You better write them a sternly worded letter.
[Please be more careful in your wording ~jove, mod]

Robin Kool
August 5, 2012 2:45 am

I understand that the most important factor in Arctic Ice melt is the wind breaking it up and pushing it into the North Atlantic. That ‘s exactly what has happened most of this spring and summer – and even last winter.
Just look at WUWT’s fantastic Sea Ice Reference Page’s section on Arctic Sea Ice Speed&Drift.
And I would like to see a study on the influence of soot on Arctic Sea Ice melt. The whole year round, soot rains down on the ice.
While the sun melts the ice, soot concentrations on the surface become higher and higher, the albedo becoming lower and lower. The warming influence of the sun must be strongly and progressively enhanced by the soot, but exactly how much?

Jesuswept
August 5, 2012 2:47 am

@Gneiss
August 1932 Arctic ice state:
http://brunnur.vedur.is/pub/trausti/Iskort/Pdf/1932/1932_08.pdf
So yeah, nowhere near as bad as 2007 as some claim.

Jesuswept
August 5, 2012 3:00 am

@Smokey
“There are numerous other reports of open sea at the North Pole, this one from 1926.”
I just cannot help but wonder if the open water they saw were nothing but Polynya…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polynya

Adam
August 5, 2012 4:14 am
Gneiss
August 5, 2012 4:31 am

Jesuswept writes,
“So yeah, nowhere near as bad as 2007 as some claim.”
Declarations that Arctic ice extent has been equally low in the recent past, in 1920 or 1940 or 1950s some other recent years have no scientific or historical basis. But people who want to believe this, and don’t grasp the scale of the Arctic, can always pick out anecdotes of open water occurring someplace.

Steve B
August 5, 2012 4:55 am

Robin Kool says:
August 5, 2012 at 2:45 am
“I understand that the most important factor in Arctic Ice melt is the wind breaking it up and pushing it into the North Atlantic. That ‘s exactly what has happened most of this spring and summer – and even last winter.
Just look at WUWT’s fantastic Sea Ice Reference Page’s section on Arctic Sea Ice Speed&Drift.”
I think Ice-Breakers are a significant factor in breaking up sea ice. How many ice-breakers and trips now versus 30 years ago?

beesaman
August 5, 2012 5:05 am

How refreshing it must be for the visiting Warmists to come to a site where differing views can be aired without the heavy hand of censorship. Maybe when they return to their usual web spaces they could remember that?
One thing you can count on, all of the ice that melts, no matter how many ‘millions’ of km2 are left, refreezes, as it always does by midwinter. Maybe AGW only works at certain times in certain places?

J.Hansford
August 5, 2012 5:17 am

2012………. And the Arctic Ice is still there.
So much for the catastrophism of the AGW crowd…. So what’s the next date? 2030 now?
I suppose they’ll try and say that it’s not really ice, it’s gone rotten or something…. It’s ice Jim, but not as we know it…. sigh.

Chris B
August 5, 2012 6:00 am

Verity Jones says:
August 4, 2012 at 8:44 am
Re the ice situation in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas…….
_________________________
Check our the latest Arcticrow post. LOL
http://www.arcticrow.com/2012/08/04/a-tough-spot/

Günther Kirschbaum
August 5, 2012 6:21 am

What are you LOLling, those people are in danger. They should get out of there.

Gneiss
August 5, 2012 6:31 am

beesamen writes,
“How refreshing it must be for the visiting Warmists to come to a site where differing views can be aired without the heavy hand of censorship.”
Those of us who post politically incorrect views here find that we quite often get censored, even on technical points like the direction of sea currents. Those censored comments sometimes get re-posted on other sites, but if you don’t venture there you never see the censored posts.
On the other hand, purely ad hom attacks against this site’s villains are encouraged.
“As usual, Günther plays the smart ass with snark. He’s actually Neven. No scruples with this one. – Anthony”
“Kirschbaum is German for Cherrytree. Picked enough for a big pie yet, Neven?”
[Reply: Gneiss: Site policy is here. That is what commenters get snipped for. That includes mindlessly repeating talking points over and over again or introducing topics to a thread which is devoted to something else. We also do not encourage ad hominem attacks… and your two examples are not examples at all. As the old soldier’s saying went: “If you can find a better ‘ole, go to it.” (The one in Fan-ling Station was always a favorite destination.) Now, if you want to continue falsely griping about moderation policy, that too will be snipped. Capice? -REP]

OssQss
August 5, 2012 6:42 am

I recall reading this about a year ago. Did it get published?
General comments linked ~
http://www.the-cryosphere-discuss.net/5/C843/2011/tcd-5-C843-2011.pdf

Gneiss
August 5, 2012 7:09 am

J.Hansford writes,
“2012………. And the Arctic Ice is still there.”
Not nearly as much of it, and it seems to be going down fast. Keep watching this month, and see which prediction looks more real: “death spiral” or “recovery.”
“So much for the catastrophism of the AGW crowd…. ”
The “AGW crowd” (Arctic scientists, in this case) are not certain, or agreed among themselves, on the exact date that summer ice will be mostly gone. How could they be? But they are agreed on predicting further decline, borne out by the physical reality. The decline is happening much faster than many (such as IPCC 2007) thought it would, and not very much slower than even the more pessimistic projections like Maslowski’s. All gone by 2012? Maybe not, but it’s going.
“So what’s the next date? 2030 now?”
Some modelers think so, while others think sooner. Boots-on-the-ice researchers seem to be among the pessimists. So am I.
“I suppose they’ll try and say that it’s not really ice, it’s gone rotten or something…. It’s ice Jim, but not as we know it…. sigh.”
In your mind, is all ice the same? In the ocean, it’s not. The thin, fractured and salty first-year ice that dominates the Arctic now is very susceptible to weather. Winds easily blow it around, whether out the door through Fram Strait or just spreading it which makes extent misleadingly look large, It’s more susceptible to both top and bottom melt too, depending on water temperatures and insolation.

Justthinkin
August 5, 2012 8:09 am

“Günther Kirschbaum says:
August 5, 2012 at 6:21 am
What are you LOLling, those people are in danger. They should get out of there.

Neven. Those publicity hounds are not in any danger.Well,yeah.Maybe in danger of having their scam exposed.Arctic Crossing.What a hoot. But then they are using the eco-cultists logic….one record high temp anywhere,AGW…..one open lead in the ice,ice free Arctic Ocean.One would laugh if your religion wasn’t so pathetic.

Chris R.
August 5, 2012 8:50 am

To chris y:
Among the so-called experts you cited “Ehrlich”. Would that be Paul Ehrlich, whose predictions of doom since the publication of The Population Bomb have all been false?

Kelvin Vaughan
August 5, 2012 8:50 am

Gneiss says:
August 5, 2012 at 4:31 am
Jesuswept writes,
“So yeah, nowhere near as bad as 2007 as some claim.”

Declarations that Arctic ice extent has been equally low in the recent past, in 1920 or 1940 or 1950s some other recent years have no scientific or historical basis. But people who want to believe this, and don’t grasp the scale of the Arctic, can always pick out anecdotes of open water occurring someplace.
So what use is Arctic ice to the human race?

Gneiss
August 5, 2012 9:36 am

Kevin Vaughn writes,
“So what use is Arctic ice to the human race?”
We seem to be running that experiment to find out. Loss of summer ice will certainly change mid-latitude weather, and ocean circulation, so the rain won’t fall and the winds won’t blow as we’re used to, and our farms and infrastructure expect. Will it stop the Gulf Stream? Modelers aren’t sure. Loss of a thermal shield from sea ice is already speeding the melt of Greenland land ice, which unlike sea ice could substantially affect sea level. Faster effects could be on permafrost, which hold enormous stores of methane and carbon. Or the submarine clathrates, released by warming water. Those are huge possible multiplier or positive feedback effects, that could take Earth’s climate somewhere that most of the human race won’t like at all.
The most striking thing about current Arctic melting is not just that it’s moving toward a state not seen in several thousand years. It’s that the change is happening so fast, with no external drivers except us.

Griffin
August 5, 2012 9:43 am

When will the next ice age occur? When will Chicago be covered by an ice sheet? It will happen.

chris y
August 5, 2012 9:57 am

Chris R.- regarding Paul Ehrlich. Yes, the famous bug biologist.
Ehrlich’s list of failed predictions is legendary. Remarkably, he was recently interviewed (2011) and asked about his list of failed predictions. He responded-
“Well first of all, the predictions that most people quote were actually scenarios, little stories about the future we said would not come exactly true…”
Ehrlich is a morally bankrupt publicity hound.

Jimbo
August 5, 2012 9:58 am

What matters is not that GLOBAL ice has hardly changed since 2000 but local ice. 😉 Unless of course that Arctic local ice picks up then its off to……………………….another local area. Even one receding glacier will do quite nicely. Next, ignore the tiny, local Antarctic which holds just a fraction of the world’s ice and absolutely ignore all advancing glaciers and soot, then blame a gas called co2.

Bruce Cobb
August 5, 2012 10:10 am

Gneiss says:
August 5, 2012 at 7:09 am
The decline is happening much faster than many (such as IPCC 2007) thought it would, and not very much slower than even the more pessimistic projections like Maslowski’s. All gone by 2012? Maybe not, but it’s going.
“So what’s the next date? 2030 now?”
Some modelers think so, while others think sooner. Boots-on-the-ice researchers seem to be among the pessimists. So am I.

By “pessimists”, don’t you really mean optimists? After all, if the Arctic sea-ice were to all melt, that would prove your CAGW religion was based on fact not fiction, which would be cause for celebration, yes?
But, have no fear; for when the ice does recover you can always claim that it isn’t ice extent that matters but the ice thickness.

Gneiss
August 5, 2012 10:20 am

Jimbo writes,
“What matters is not that GLOBAL ice has hardly changed since 2000 but local ice.”
Not true even with your cherry pick, the GLOBAL ice area anomaly has declined significantly over the whole satellite record, and more steeply (about 70,000 square kilometers per year) since 2000.
But I’ve never heard any polar scientist declare that Arctic ice did not matter, it’s GLOBAL ice that’s important. Have you?

Gneiss
August 5, 2012 10:36 am

Bruce Cobb writes,
“By “pessimists”, don’t you really mean optimists? After all, if the Arctic sea-ice were to all melt, that would prove your CAGW religion was based on fact not fiction, which would be cause for celebration, yes?”
No, I meant what I wrote. Also, I don’t have a CAGW religion, my views about the Arctic are based on facts, and I don’t view a harder future for my kids as cause for celebration. All this mind-reading is projection.
“But, have no fear; for when the ice does recover you can always claim that it isn’t ice extent that matters but the ice thickness.”
More failed mind-reading. Coming back to reality, why not argue with something I actually said?

Rob L
August 5, 2012 10:50 am

Antarctic area about 14,000,000km², Greenland Area about 2,000,000 km². Sea ice area is about 19,000,000 km² on average, so globally about 35,000,000 km² of ice coverage. And at the moment sea ice is about 1,000,000 km² down.
So we are talking about <3% reduction in ice cap area in this near low point of the 30 years that we have data for. Or less than 0.2% of earth's surface. All in areas that are get minimal sunlight compared to the rest of the world anyway.
Big hairy deal.
Clouds cause massively more global albedo variation.

Kasuha
August 5, 2012 11:04 am

It would help greatly if a table of values for years at least 2007-2011 was posted for reference. I would vote for something between 2008 and 2011 value, I could even draw it into the graphs on the sea ice page but I really can’t figure out what number should I vote for.

beesaman
August 5, 2012 11:06 am

My the Warmists get all excited when the ice goes down but we don’t hear a peep from them when it all freezes up again. The influence on the Arctic is far more from weather patterns. They appear to come under the influence of long term ocean cycles, what influences them is far more complicated than mere CO2. Time will prove this and when it does we won’t hear a peep from Neven at al because they will have moved on to the next alarmist fad.

Entropic man
August 5, 2012 11:27 am

Kasuha says:
August 5, 2012 at 11:04 am
“It would help greatly if a table of values for years at least 2007-2011 was posted for reference.”
This might help
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2011/10/

Fred
August 5, 2012 11:27 am

” noiv says:
August 4, 2012 at 9:36 pm
Fred asks:
Why does Sea Ice News always just cover the Arctic and not also the Antarctic?
Yeah, that’s funny. Especially because in Summer there is even less sea ice in Antarctic.”
WTF? Isn’t this a comparison to historic norms and not absolute values at each pole? Global warming is not changing the shape of the planet in the real world, or our orientation to the sun. Is it doing that in yours? I guess it must be, as that is the only way your comment makes sense.

R. de Haan
August 5, 2012 11:38 am

Just watching a movie on a Dutch channel. During the movie a text is blended in: Polar Ice Cap is Melting…
Something is going on right now. Prepare for a coup.

Gneiss
August 5, 2012 11:53 am

beesaman writes,
“My the Warmists get all excited when the ice goes down but we don’t hear a peep from them when it all freezes up again.”
That is called winter. Scientists watch winter closely, I hear a lot about that. Where are you listening, that no peeps get through? One thing they notice is that winter ice has been declining too, if you compare it with other winters instead of with summer.
“The influence on the Arctic is far more from weather patterns.”
Long-term trends are a definition of climate change, not weather.
“They appear to come under the influence of long term ocean cycles,”
Wait, long term ocean cycles are not weather either, which is it? And which long-term cycles do you mean? Conditions not seen in several thousand years imply a cycle far longer that the AMO, which is not cyclical anyway; and yet far shorter than orbital, which is. So what *is* your cycle? What’s the evidence, what’s the period, what drives it?
“Time will prove this and when it does we won’t hear a peep from Neven at al because they will have moved on to the next alarmist fad.”
Let me offer the opposite prediction that if summer sea ice stabilizes back at 1980s levels, you will hear a tremendous amount about that from scientists, and from people (like Neven) who pay close attention to the research.

August 5, 2012 12:11 pm

Smokey says:

BZ-Z-Z-Z-ZT!
WRONG!!
All of the changes are due to natural variability. Proof: it has all happened repeatedly before the industrial revolution, and to a greater extent than now.

BZ-Z-Z-Z-ZT!
WRONG!!
The original claim may or may not be correct, but your faulty logic doesn’t show anything one way or the other. Just because something has happened in the past due to one cause doesn’t mean that current occurrences are due to the same reason.
By your logic, the fact that I have been watering my lawn (man-made cause) this year has no effect on keeping it green, since it has been greener in the past (natural variability, AND to a greater extent).

Learn about the null hypothesis or you will continue to be wrong.

Learn about logic and critical thinking before jumping to conclusions.
To make your claim, you would have to know what factors play into “natural variability”, how important they are, AND that they can explain the current conditions. Conversely, those claiming man-made causes should rule out that “natural variability” CANNOT explain the changes.

Jimbo
August 5, 2012 12:13 pm

It’s worse than we thought!

Dr. James Hansen
“In fact, it’s now driven our climate outside the range that has existed the last 10,000 years, this geologic epoch that we call the Holocene”.

Does he mean the ice free central Arctic Ocean during some summers in the Holocene? Is he referring to the mega droughts during the last few thousand years? Is he referring to the Holocene Climate Optimum which was warmer than today. Did Eric the Red’s group farm in Greenland or not??? Sheesh!
http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2012/08/priceless-in-new-pbs-interview-hansen.html
H/T Tom Nelson

August 5, 2012 12:16 pm

Smokey says “It is even possible that the Antarctic had little ice several centuries ago. Now, of course, the Antarctic [which holds more than 90% of the planet’s ice] is steadily gaining ice.”
Have you still not learned the difference between Antarctic SEA ICE (which is unevenly gaining slightly) and Antarctic LAND ICE (which ‘holds more than 90% of the planet’s ice” and most accounts say is declining).

Jimbo
August 5, 2012 12:19 pm

Further to my last comment I have to add about Hansen’s claims:
“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” (Sagan)

Gneiss
August 5, 2012 12:20 pm

Rob L. writes,
“Antarctic area about 14,000,000km², Greenland Area about 2,000,000 km². Sea ice area is about 19,000,000 km² on average, so globally about 35,000,000 km² of ice coverage. And at the moment sea ice is about 1,000,000 km² down.”
No, we are about 2 million down in the part that gets sun now. You were counting a lot of area in the dark. Also, both Arctic sea ice and Greenland have declining summer albedo even where there’s ice.
“So we are talking about <3% reduction in ice cap area in this near low point of the 30 years that we have data for."
We have satellite data for a bit more than three decades, but many other kinds of data before that. The older data tell a similar story: current melting is exceptional on time scales from decades (submarines) to centuries (historical) to thousands of years (proxies).
"All in areas that are get minimal sunlight compared to the rest of the world anyway."
Did you forget the midnight sun? In the Arctic that falls mostly on sea ice, which is why the state of that ice kicks off feedbacks. In the Antarctic the midnight sun lights up land ice.

August 5, 2012 1:10 pm

tjfolkerts,
Instead of reading into my comment what you want, try to read it literally. It is correct.
And your confirmation bias leads you to believe baseless hearsay: “Antarctic SEA ICE (which is unevenly gaining slightly) and Antarctic LAND ICE (which ‘holds more than 90% of the planet’s ice” and most accounts say is declining).”
Wrong.

GeoLurking
August 5, 2012 1:14 pm

East Antarctica is four times the size of west Antarctica and parts of it are cooling. The Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research report prepared for last week’s meeting of Antarctic Treaty nations in Washington noted the South Pole had shown “significant cooling in recent decades”.

Ice core drilling in the fast ice off Australia’s Davis Station in East Antarctica by the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Co-Operative Research Centre shows that last year, the ice had a maximum thickness of 1.89m, its densest in 10 years. The average thickness of the ice at Davis since the 1950s is 1.67m.

Read more: http://www.news.com.au#ixzz22hkedTnW

u.k.(us)
August 5, 2012 1:29 pm

Gneiss says:
August 5, 2012 at 9:36 am
“The most striking thing about current Arctic melting is not just that it’s moving toward a state not seen in several thousand years. It’s that the change is happening so fast, with no external drivers except us.”
==============
Care to back-up this statement with data ?

August 5, 2012 1:29 pm

tjfolkerts says:
“To make your claim, you would have to know what factors play into ‘natural variability’, how important they are, AND that they can explain the current conditions.”
BZ-Z-Z-Z-ZT!
WRONG!! But thanx for playing, and Vanna has some lovely parting gifts for you on your way out.☺
See, scientific skeptics have nothing to prove. The climate alarmist crowd is asserting the conjecture that Arctic ice variability is caused by humans. So the onus to provide convincing scientific evidence is entirely on the alarmists — scientific evidence they have failed to produce.
As I have shown in numerous links here, the Arctic has been more ice-free than now many times in the past. Claiming that human activity is the now cause of the Arctic ice decline – without a shred of scientific evidence – is preposterous. You want people to actually believe that a 0.8ºC rise in temperature over a century an a half is now melting the Arctic?? Wrong. This is simply natural variability, and it has happened repeatedly in the past.

Gneiss
August 5, 2012 1:35 pm

Jimbo writes,
“Did Eric the Red’s group farm in Greenland or not???”
They raised sheep, and sheep are raised near the same area today. It was ice-free when Eric landed, it is ice-free now, and it has been ice-free in all the centuries between, though sometimes rather colder. One advantage that Eric had was that no wood had been cut, and no fields ever sheep-grazed, when he landed. Eric’s descendents did not have those advantages, which made them more vulnerable when the weather got worse.
One thing that Eric’s experience does *not* prove is that the southern coast of Greenland was any warmer a thousand years ago than today. It may have been about the same, or quite possibly cooler. A toasty 61 F near Eric’s farm tomorrow, sheep don’t mind that.

Chris B
August 5, 2012 1:39 pm

Günther Kirschbaum says:
August 5, 2012 at 6:21 am
What are you LOLling, those people are in danger. They should get out of there.
________________________________
According to their post they are within sight of restaurants and the only thing they are in danger of is looking foolish at not obtaining what they thought was an easy record, blocked by too much ice.
LOL to your silly comment as well.

Some European
August 5, 2012 1:46 pm

Greatly appreciated. Posting about Arctic sea ice now, when by all measures we are running at or below record levels, isn’t susceptible of accusations of deceit and denial. The numbers are there. Those who predicted sea ice recovery are clearly wrong. The next step for them is to claim fraud for all the different datasets. Or to admit they were wrong and revisit their assumptions…
This year’s melt was particularly interesting because during the period with maximum insolation (from about mid-May until now), ice cover and area were constantly tracking at or near record low levels. This has important implications for albedo and ocean heat content. With El Niño building and increasing solar radiation, we’re looking at 2013 potentially leaving 2010/2005/1998 in the dust for global warmest year on record.
Looking forward to more updates in September, thanks!

Gneiss
August 5, 2012 1:49 pm

Smokey writes,
“You want people to actually believe that a 0.8ºC rise in temperature over a century an a half is now melting the Arctic??”
That’s not actually what scientists are saying. First, the Arctic air temperature rise has been much faster than the global rate, something like .5 C/decade since the mid-70s. Second, much of the sea ice is melting from below, because of warmer water. This warming is unprecedented over the past 2,000 years, and linked to Arctic amplification of global warming. And third, we can see that the Arctic *is* melting, including ice shelves that are thousands of years old, and an ice sheet that’s much older.

Gneiss
August 5, 2012 1:56 pm

u.k. (u.s.) writes,
“Care to back-up this statement with data ?”
Here is one place your could start. You have probably been told how wrong it is, but have you ever tried to read it yourself?
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9.html

Bruce Cobb
August 5, 2012 2:01 pm

Gneiss says:
August 5, 2012 at 10:36 am
No, I meant what I wrote. Also, I don’t have a CAGW religion, my views about the Arctic are based on facts, and I don’t view a harder future for my kids as cause for celebration. All this mind-reading is projection.
Interesting, so then your cherry-picked facts and emotion-based fears for your imagined future for your kids are in fact genuine. I was wrong, my apologies.

Bill Illis
August 5, 2012 2:14 pm

First day of sea ice extent increase this season at the NSIDC. Only 60 km2 but a positive number nonetheless.
Perhaps they are only correcting the extra melt they have been throwing in over the last few weeks.
Data here – File with ending of “…nrt.csv” means “near real-time”.
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/north/daily/data/

August 5, 2012 3:06 pm

Gneiss says:
“This warming is unprecedented over the past 2,000 years, and linked to Arctic amplification of global warming.”
Horseapples. The planet has been considerably warmer over the past 2,000 years, and warmer still over the Holocene — well before CO2 began to rise.
It is obvious to the most casual observer that Polar ice cover waxes and wanes, just like it is doing today. You’re just needlessly scaring yourself. Relax.

David Gould
August 5, 2012 3:12 pm

1.) Heat melts ice.
2.) The Arctic has warmed significantly over the last 34 years: 0.53 degrees C per decade, or around 1.8 degrees C according to UAH.
See here: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt
Even if you do not believe that humans have caused that warming, surely you must accept that the upward trend in temperatures must be having some causal impact on the downward trend of Arctic sea ice.
To say that it is wind or ocean currents implies that there has been some trend in wind or ocean currents. While ice is certainly affected by such things and particular years, such as 2007, will have wind patterns that are more conducive to a reduction in ice, the trend is the important thing to consider here.
What could be causing the decline in sea ice on decadal time scales?
A decadal trend.
A decadal temperature trend.
Heat melts ice.

Jim
August 5, 2012 3:14 pm

Gneiss writes:
That’s not actually what scientists are saying. First, the Arctic air temperature rise has been much faster than the global rate, something like .5 C/decade since the mid-70s. Second, much of the sea ice is melting from below, because of warmer water. This warming is unprecedented over the past 2,000 years, and linked to Arctic amplification of global warming. And third, we can see that the Arctic *is* melting, including ice shelves that are thousands of years old, and an ice sheet that’s much older.
2000 years? That’s not very long. The earth has been here billions of years. It’s been way hotter, and way colder before. You know what? The earth has survived each time. I, for one, am not concerned over a degree temperature rise. It’s way to frigging cold here in Minnesota 9 months of the year anyways.

Gneiss
August 5, 2012 3:20 pm

Bruce Cobb writes,
“Interesting, so then your cherry-picked facts and emotion-based fears for your imagined future for your kids are in fact genuine. I was wrong, my apologies.”
Another mind-reading fail. You can’t rise to the challenge of arguing with something I actually said?
On the thread’s topic of sea ice, I’ve mentioned satellite data, submarine data, historical data, proxy data, time scales from seasons to thousands of years, winters as well summers, Antarctic as well as Arctic, effects on land ice and other latitudes, differences among modelers, the perspective of field scientists, and both history and current weather in south Greenland. All of that I could back up with citations to recent, refereed science articles. To wave it off as “cherry picking” simply demonstrates that you have no concept of what the term means.
Your two posts on this thread had zero content, and were silly even as insults.

Gness
August 5, 2012 3:30 pm

Smokey writes,
“Horseapples. The planet has been considerably warmer over the past 2,000 years”
Smokey, you’re classic. This technique is called “argument by personal incredulity.”
“It is obvious to the most casual observer that Polar ice cover waxes and wanes,”
…true
“just like it is doing today.”
…false. It hasn’t waned like this in quite a while, we know at least that much.

u.k.(us)
August 5, 2012 3:31 pm

Gneiss says:
August 5, 2012 at 1:56 pm
u.k. (u.s.) writes,
“Care to back-up this statement with data ?”
Here is one place your could start. You have probably been told how wrong it is, but have you ever tried to read it yourself?
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9.html
==============
I prefer non-fiction.

August 5, 2012 3:43 pm

Gneiss opines:
Arctic ice “hasn’t waned like this in quite a while, we know at least that much.”
We “know” nothing of the sort. There is observational evidence that the Arctic has routinely been ice-free thousands of years ago – well before anthropogenic CO2 began to rise. This geologic evidence destroys Gneiss’s hopelessly Gnaïve belief system.

Gneiss
August 5, 2012 4:18 pm

Smokey writes,
“We “know” nothing of the sort. There is observational evidence that the Arctic was ice-free thousands of years ago.”
Read your own link, Smokey, that’s not what it says. I can help:
“The climate in the northern regions has never been milder since the last Ice Age than it was about 6000-7000 years ago. We still don’t know whether the Arctic Ocean was completely ice free, but there was more open water in the area north of Greenland than there is today,” says Astrid Lyså, a geologist and researcher at the Geological Survey of Norway.”
So, 6 or 7 thousand years ago … remember that you were objecting to my comment about *your own claim* regarding the last 2 thousand years. You had to move the goalposts back 4 or 5 thousand years to save that one! And even so, Dr. Lyså specifically states they do not know whether the Arctic Ocean was completely ice free, only that there was more open water north of Greenland at that time.
“This geologic evidence destroys Gneiss’s hopelessly Gnaive belief system.”
Cute, but wrong.

August 5, 2012 4:31 pm

Gneiss,
Thank you for quoting from the link. It supports the fact that the planet was warmer in the past, meaning the null hypothesis remains un-falsified.
And it is not my “6 or 7 thousand years ago”. That is the peer reviewed paper’s number. But your cherry-picked “last 2 thousadn years” was just to avoid the scientific evidence showing that the planet was even warmer before that point in time.
Face facts, what we are observing right now is nothing unusual. It has happened repeatedly in the past, and to a greater extent. This is simply natural variability. That’s all. No need to frighten yourself.

Gneiss
August 5, 2012 4:37 pm

Jim writes,
“2000 years? That’s not very long. The earth has been here billions of years. It’s been way hotter, and way colder before. You know what? The earth has survived each time. I, for one, am not concerned over a degree temperature rise. It’s way to frigging cold here in Minnesota 9 months of the year anyways.”
This thread is surreal. Are thinking skeptics all at the beach today?
True, the planet has survived through billions of years, asteroid impacts and all. There have been a handful of Great Extinctions along the way, one of them happening right now, but the Earth itself is still here. And will be long after we’re gone.
Here’s a better answer than I gave, addressing one part of the “So what?” question about Arctic ice. It’s a presentation (J Francis & S Vavrus) made earlier this year at the American Meteorological Society.

Jimbo
August 5, 2012 4:50 pm

Gneiss says:
August 5, 2012 at 1:35 pm
………………
Take a good read from many papers about the Medieval Warm Period being a global phenomenon.
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php
Greenland MWP
http://www.co2science.org/articles/V13/N16/C2.php
http://www.co2science.org/articles/V4/N48/C2.php
Greenland Temperature History
http://www.co2science.org/subject/g/greenland.php

Entropic man
August 5, 2012 4:51 pm

Smokey says:
August 5, 2012 at 3:43 pm
” There is observational evidence that the Arctic has routinely been ice-free thousands of years ago”
———————
This is from your link.
“However, the scientists are very careful about drawing parallels with the present-day trend in the Arctic Ocean where the cover of sea ice seems to be decreasing.
“Changes that took place 6000-7000 years ago were controlled by other climatic forces than those which seem to dominate today,”
That was at the peak of the Milankovich warming for this cycle.
We are now in the cooling phase of this interglacial. Based on your earlier graph linking temperature, CO2 and Milankovich cycles we should be seeing decreasing CO2, a temperature decline of 0.3C per milennium, and increasing ice cover.

michael hart
August 5, 2012 5:04 pm

Hi, Entropic.
Have you seen the photo of The Skate from the North Pole in 1958?
http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQWt6vCq4PwLuKw3Y1IvYfF4eZ39QDCD-q8YB7Wgzf4q7fW3rQoyg

Gneiss
August 5, 2012 5:05 pm

Smokey wrote,
““Horseapples. The planet has been considerably warmer over the past 2,000 years.”
When I challenged Smokey’s claim he cited a paper that said the Arctic Ocean north of Greenland had less ice 6,000 or 7,000> years ago. But when I pointed out this was 4,000 or 5,000 years earlier than the period he or I had written about, Smokey wrote
“And it is not my “6 or 7 thousand years ago”. That is the peer reviewed paper’s number. But your cherry-picked “last 2 thousadn years” was just to avoid the scientific evidence showing that the planet was even warmer before that point in time.”
Very confusing!. But false besides. I had mentioned 2,000 in the first place because I was citing a paper by Spielhagen that said 2,000, no cherry picking involved. It’s what they found.
Have there been warmer and colder eras farther back in time? Of course there have, no scientist anywhere has ever denied that, so far as I know. Can conditions unseen for at least 2,000 years still be called exceptional, by human standards if not those of real gneiss? I think so. And all the more notable because global systems today are changing so fast.
+++++
Bill Illis wrote,
“First day of sea ice extent increase this season at the NSIDC. Only 60 km2 but a positive number nonetheless.
Perhaps they are only correcting the extra melt they have been throwing in over the last few weeks.”
If you have been watching the ice changes that closely, perhaps you can think of another hypothesis that’s more reality-based? Other people have, the discussion is all over the internets. Although oddly, nowhere on this Sea Ice News thread.

Jimbo
August 5, 2012 5:05 pm

Gneiss says:
August 5, 2012 at 4:31 am
………………
I’m sure you are fully aware of the following papers (abstracts) which show evidence of an ice-free central Arctic Ocean during some of the Holocene summers.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2010.08.016
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007AGUFMPP11A0203F
http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/abstract/21/3/227
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/30/new-peer-reviewed-paper-says-there-appear-to-have-been-periods-of-ice-free-summers-in-the-central-arctic-ocean/
With regards to recent (1920s / 1930s) comparisons it’s very difficult because the Arctic satellite record I recall started in 1979. If there is no scientific basis for such claims then please, please tell the IPCC to stop using grey literature which they still use today. This practice is very dangerous and can mislead policy makers just as Pachauri once tried to mislead people over peer review and the IPCC. Read it from his own mouth below.
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2011/01/21/grey-literature-ipcc-insiders-speak-candidly/
http://reviewipcc.interacademycouncil.net/Comments.pdf [678-page PDF]
Pachauri and fairy tales.
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2011/11/22/pachauris-rhetoric-vs-reality/

Kevin MacDonald
August 5, 2012 5:10 pm

Smokey says:
August 5, 2012 at 3:06 pm
The planet has been considerably warmer over the past 2,000 years, and warmer still over the Holocene — well before CO2 began to rise.

I like the bit where you conflate a tiny bit of the planet for the whole planet.

John F. Hultquist
August 5, 2012 5:16 pm

Bruce Cobb says:
August 5, 2012 at 10:10 am
“After all, if the Arctic sea-ice were to all melt, that would prove your CAGW religion was based on fact . . .

I, for one, object to the above statement. The appropriate concept is that of a non sequitur. Melting of the floating sea ice will not prove CAGW to be true – one does not follow the other.

barry
August 5, 2012 5:17 pm

“Interestingly, the DMI temperature profile has been consistently below normal during the current melt season while there has been a rapid loss of ice.”
DMI is a poor metric to match surface temps and melt, as explained by people working there quite a few tmes at this and other blogs. I emailed them two years ago on the matter and got this reply:

1) The surface in the +80N area is more or less fully snow and ice covered all year, so the temperature is strongly controlled by the melting temperature of the surface. I.e. the +80N temperature is bound to be very close to the melt point of the surface snow and ice (273K) and the variability is therefore very small, less than 0.5K. I am sure you will find a much clearer warming trend in the same analysis applied to the winter period. The winter period is more crucial for the state of the Arctic sea ice, as this is the period where the ice is produced and the colder the winter the thicker and more robust the sea ice will become.

(Indeed, there is a clear warming trend in the cooler part of the year over the decades.)

barry
August 5, 2012 5:46 pm

“All of the changes are due to natural variability. Proof: it has all happened repeatedly before the industrial revolution”
All forest fires are naturally occuring. Proof: there were forest fires before humans even existed.

u.k.(us)
August 5, 2012 6:07 pm

Kevin MacDonald says:
August 5, 2012 at 5:10 pm
“I like the bit where you conflate a tiny bit of the planet for the whole planet.”
=====================
OK, now follow the cash outflows, and tell me about “tiny bits”.

barry
August 5, 2012 6:28 pm

Smokey – “The climate alarmist crowd is asserting the conjecture that Arctic ice variability is caused by humans”
Nope. ‘Variability’ usually refers to weather-like phenomenon, such as the year to year variations in winds, pressure, temps, ocean/atmosphere systems (multi-year) that fluctuate and influence sea ice melt and growth. You introduced the term upthread, seemingly referring to long-term effects. It is the long-term decline, not the interannual variability, that is attributed to AGW.
No one denies that many factors influence sea ice cover and composition year to year. The ‘warmist’ researchers examine these influences extensively, and talk about them publicly. This allows skeptics to cite them when they speak exclusively about weather influence and then argue that therefore they do not believe AGW has an influence. I’m sure there is a name for that logical fallacy…
My prediction for this year’s September average is 4.25 million sq/km.
First time I’ve predicted a record-breaker, and I notice that at the moment it is the most favoured estimate on the poll here. I’ve based my prediction on the June difference beteen area and extent, the trend over the last 3 decades, and some wild guesswork.

barry
August 5, 2012 6:38 pm

“First day of sea ice extent increase this season at the NSIDC. Only 60 km2 but a positive number nonetheless.”
Bill, IIRC, the NSIDC figures for the most recent few days are estimates that usually are amended a few days later after more data comes in. IOW, the most recent few days have huge error bars.
Smokey provided a graph upthread showing a changing tail over three days (but he attributed it to deliberate deception rather than improved estimates).

barry
August 5, 2012 6:50 pm

Smokey wrote:
“Thank you for quoting from the link. It supports the fact that the planet was warmer in the past”
But the quoted excerpt says:
“The climate in the northern regions has never been milder since the last Ice Age than it was about 6000-7000 years ago.”
“Northern Regions” = “Planet” ???
Why do so many ‘skeptics’ have difficulty with the notion of regional climate change and global climate change being different things? Such is readily demonstrated just by paying attention to the timing of the seasons in each hemisphere. And you can see it over the long term in millenial reconstructions, where some parts of the globe are warming while others are cooling over the same centennial time frame. Easily seen in this chart of milennial temp reconstructions made by skeptics.
http://pages.science-skeptical.de/MWP/MedievalWarmPeriod.html

August 5, 2012 7:01 pm

barry says:
August 5, 2012 at 6:28 pm (Edit)
Smokey – “The climate alarmist crowd is asserting the conjecture that Arctic ice variability is caused by humans”
Nope. ‘Variability’ usually refers to weather-like phenomenon, such as the year to year variations in winds, pressure, temps, ocean/atmosphere systems (multi-year) that fluctuate and influence sea ice melt and growth.
Wrong, barry. Variability is not quite what your off-the-cuff, made up on the spur of the moment definition says. The term “variability” has been around for a long time. Here is M.I.T.’s Prof Richard Lindzen’s reference from about five years ago:

The notion of a static, unchanging climate is foreign to the history of the earth or any other planet with a fluid envelope. The fact that the developed world went into hysterics over changes in global mean temperature anomaly of a few tenths of a degree will astound future generations. Such hysteria simply represents the scientific illiteracy of much of the public, the susceptibility of the public to the substitution of repetition for truth, and the exploitation of these weaknesses by politicians, environmental promoters, and, after 20 years of media drum beating, many others as well. Climate is always changing. We have had ice ages and warmer periods when alligators were found in Spitzbergen. Ice ages have occurred in a 100-thousand year cycle for the last 700 thousand years, and there have been previous periods that appear to have been warmer than the present despite CO2 levels being lower than they are now. More recently, we have had the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. During the latter, alpine glaciers advanced to the chagrin of overrun villages. Since the beginning of the 19th Century these glaciers have been retreating. Frankly, we don’t fully understand either the advance or the retreat… For small changes in climate associated with tenths of a degree, there is no need for any external cause. The earth is never exactly in equilibrium. The motions of the massive oceans where heat is moved between deep layers and the surface provides variability on time scales from years to centuries. Recent work suggests that this variability is enough to account for all climate change since the 19th Century. [my emphasis]

Natural variability is sufficient to explain all changes since the 1800’s. Occam’s Razor says go with the simplest explanation. There is no reason to add an extraneous variable like CO2 to a simple explanation. And barry can believe that the global temperature is identical everywhere, but it varies. But overall the interactive map that barry linked to [and which I have used extensiviely] shows that generally the entire planet was affected by the MWP and the LIA.
Finally, barry can be an apologist for NSIDC’s “adjustments” of the record. But since 99% of all adjustments by government climate agencies show either a lowering of the past temperature record [thus making for a scary-looking rise], or higher current temperatures, maybe barry will understand that their motive might have something to do with their budget.

Bill Illis
August 5, 2012 7:15 pm

barry says:
August 5, 2012 at 6:38 pm
“First day of sea ice extent increase this season at the NSIDC. Only 60 km2 but a positive number nonetheless.”
Bill, IIRC, the NSIDC figures for the most recent few days are estimates that usually are amended a few days later after more data comes in. IOW, the most recent few days have huge error bars.
——————-
Sorry, Mr. barry, you don’t know what you are talking about.
Everyone else should make note of this.

barry
August 5, 2012 7:32 pm

In the context of declining sea ice, “variability” refers to short-term effects, while “trend” refers to long-term effects. This is also how the terminology is applied in statistics, BTW. The WMO distinguishes climate variability and change this way:

4. What is the difference between climate change and climate variability?
Climate variability is the term used to describe a range of weather conditions that, averaged together, describe the “climate” of a region. In some parts of the world, or in any region for certain time periods or parts of the year, this variability can be weak, i.e. there is not much difference in the conditions within that time period. However, in other places or time periods, conditions can swing across a large range, from freezing to very warm, or from very wet to very dry, thereby exhibiting strong variability…
For the scientific community to recognize a change in climate, a shift has to occur, and persist for quite a long time.

If you want to posit some natural mechanism/s that accounts for the decline in sea ice of the last 30 – 50 years, then you need to be a lot more specific than pointing out that climates changes. Assertions so obvious might seem like evidence, but it’s just rhetoric. (As is Lindzen’s utterly fatuous implication that the climate research community thinks that Earth’s climate has been stable until the holocene. Puhhleease!)
One paper has already been offered in this thread, attributing less than 5% of recent sea ice decline to natural causes. So, what are the natural causes of the 30% reduction in sea ice cover in the Arctic over the last ~30 years? Could you cite a detailed analysis (and not some graph of temps in central England/Greenland/Antarctica/Wazawoo)?
I didn’t think so. 🙂

August 5, 2012 7:48 pm

barry says:
“…Lindzen’s utterly fatuous implication that the climate research community thinks that Earth’s climate has been stable until the holocene.”
Wrong. Prof Lindzen said just the opposite; that in the past there were alligators in Spitzbergen, etc. Lindzen cited 100-thousand year cycles over the past 700 thousand years. But when someone like barry is ruled by confirmation bias and incurably affected by cognitive dissonance, he becomes ruled by and captive to a belief system, no matter what the planet is telling him.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/8YearTemps.jpg

kadaka (KD Knoebel)
August 5, 2012 8:04 pm

From barry on August 5, 2012 at 6:28 pm:

My prediction for this year’s September average is 4.25 million sq/km.
First time I’ve predicted a record-breaker, and I notice that at the moment it is the most favoured estimate on the poll here.

Vote leader is 4.5*10^6 km^2, been that way for over an hour now, I checked right after your post showed up.
After last month’s voting, ARCUS rounded the WUWT submission to the hundred-thousand mark (from 4.55*10^6 to 4.6*10^6) so splitting it to the five-ten-thousands mark doesn’t work, go with the vote leader.
Just checked again, 4.5*10^6 km^2 still leading.
Your observation skills are hereby noted.

elftone
August 5, 2012 9:06 pm

barry says:
August 5, 2012 at 6:28 pm
Nope. ‘Variability’ usually refers to weather-like phenomenon, such as the year to year variations in winds, pressure, temps, ocean/atmosphere systems (multi-year) that fluctuate and influence sea ice melt and growth. You introduced the term upthread, seemingly referring to long-term effects. It is the long-term decline, not the interannual variability, that is attributed to AGW.
No one denies that many factors influence sea ice cover and composition year to year. The ‘warmist’ researchers examine these influences extensively, and talk about them publicly. This allows skeptics to cite them when they speak exclusively about weather influence and then argue that therefore they do not believe AGW has an influence. I’m sure there is a name for that logical fallacy…

That would be “phenomena”. As for the ‘warmist’ researchers, they don’t seem to talk about cover and composition in the same breath. Links would be handy, ta, as would be links to peer-reviewed papers regarding observational data that support your – shall we say – argument. Ones without reference to models, for example, as they seem to be merely thought experiments. Love to see those. Empirical data does tend to trump statistics.
In fact, if you’d be so kind as to provide any kind of evidence that what you say is based on fact as opposed to simply the right words, I would be fascinated. Otherwise, spouting the kind of rubbish (interannual means nothing, ducky, and the “long-term” decline is not shown, either in short- or long-term [‘long-term’ in the geologic sense of the phrase]) of which you appear to be so fond does no-one any good at all…

alex
August 5, 2012 9:34 pm

Well. It melts down. May be not this year, but in a few years from now it is going to be ice free.
Not really surprizing!
Try to explain why it is not CO2. You are going to have hard time!

Gail Combs
August 5, 2012 9:56 pm

It is interesting that the vote is bimodal with 77 votes at 4.5 and 71 at 4.2 and the rest scattered.

Gail Combs
August 5, 2012 10:41 pm

Mike H says:
August 4, 2012 at 3:29 pm
Few people on this site seem alarmed about the disintegration of Arctic sea ice, and the implications for future northern hemisphere climate….
_______________________
MSM alarmist hype is for selling newspapers because Blood sells.
So why are we not alarmed by all the hype?
How about this peer reviewed paper.
Temperature and precipitation history of the Arctic
Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research and Department of Geological Sciences, University of Colorado, USA et al
Solar energy reached a summer maximum (9% higher than at present) ca 11 ka ago and has been decreasing since then, primarily in response to the precession of the equinoxes. The extra energy elevated early Holocene summer temperatures throughout the Arctic 1-3° C above 20th century averages, enough to completely melt many small glaciers throughout the Arctic, although the Greenland Ice Sheet was only slightly smaller than at present.
http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-2/public-review-draft/sap1-2-prd-all.pdf
Or this one
Lesson from the past: present insolation minimum holds potential for glacial inception
Ulrich C. Müller & Jörg Pross, Institute of Geosciences, University of Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany
Because the intensities of the 397 ka BP and present insolation minima are very similar, we conclude that under natural boundary conditions the present insolation minimum holds the potential to terminate the Holocene interglacial. Our findings support the Ruddiman hypothesis [Ruddiman, W., 2003. The Anthropogenic Greenhouse Era began thousands of years ago. Climate Change 61, 261–293], which proposes that early anthropogenic greenhouse gas emission prevented the inception of a glacial that would otherwise already have started….”
or this Graph
Or this article at WUWT by a Geologist.

The End Holocene, or How to Make Out Like a ‘Madoff’ Climate Change Insurer
…We live today possibly near the end of the most recent interglacial, the Holocene, or the 11,715 years since we melted our way out of the last glacial, the Wisconsin Ice Age, the interglacial in which all of human civilization has occurred. Five of the last six interglacials have each lasted about half a precession cycle. The precession cycle itself varies between 19,000 and 23,000 years and we are close to the 23kyr point now, making 11,715 years about half……..which is why this discussion has relevance…

It is a long article with a lot of information.
Other info:
600 million year graph of global temperatures – various proxies showing we are at near glacial temps.
Quick cooling to glaciation
Then there is the shorter climate cycles.
The Physical Evidence of Earth’s Unstoppable 1,500-Year Climate Cycle
Possible solar origin of the 1,470-year glacial climate cycle demonstrated in a coupled model
And again we maybe headed into a bond event (COLD) shortly.
From the historical perspective:
1/2 bond events
Of Time and Temperatures
Given a bit of warming or heading into a major cooling cycle possibly leading to “The big one” I will take melting in the Arctic thank you very much. Growing up during the Ice Age scare with a terminal moraine in the backyard (plus copperheads) makes you very aware glaciation is real.

August 5, 2012 11:46 pm

Smokey says: “See, scientific skeptics have nothing to prove. ”
And you are absolutely right. You are free to say “The climate has changed before, and I have no evidence that this current change is anything but natural variability”. But that is NOT the same thing as “The climate has changed before, and I am sure this current change is natural variability”.
Do you see the difference? As long as you are content to say “I don’t know one way or the other” then you indeed have nothing to prove. But you are making a different assertion … that you do know something, which makes you no longer simply a skeptic. Any time you make an assertion that you DO know something, then you need evidence. Just like proponents of AGW need to provide evidence to support their assertions.

Spence_UK
August 6, 2012 12:20 am

The driftwood proxies show that sea ice is still well within its range of natural variability, and natural variability extends further than barry would like to admit; see here for more details of Funder’s analysis:

For the last 10,000 years, summer sea ice in the Arctic Ocean has been far from constant. For several thousand years, there was much less sea ice in the Arctic Ocean – probably less than half of current amounts.

(This was reported at WUWT at the time)

Rob Dekker
August 6, 2012 12:58 am

Gneiss said :

First, the Arctic air temperature rise has been much faster than the global rate, something like .5 C/decade since the mid-70s. Second, much of the sea ice is melting from below, because of warmer water. This warming is unprecedented over the past 2,000 years, and linked to Arctic amplification of global warming.

to which Smokey answered :

Horseapples. The planet has been considerably warmer over the past 2,000 years, and warmer still over the Holocene – well before CO2 began to rise.

You reference GISP ice core, which tells something about Greenland’s summit temps up till 1900.
Do you honestly believe that temps at Greenland’s summit up till a century ago somehow ‘disprove’ Gneiss’ statement, let alone proves your own statement that “The planet has been considerably warmer over the past 2,000 years” ?

Rob Dekker
August 6, 2012 1:06 am

Spence_UK said :

For the last 10,000 years, summer sea ice in the Arctic Ocean has been far from constant. For several thousand years, there was much less sea ice in the Arctic Ocean – probably less than half of current amounts.
(This was reported at WUWT at the time)

Could you please provide a reference (WUWT or otherwise) to the claim that “for several thousand years, there was less sea ice in the Arctic Ocean – probably less than half of current amounts” ?

Kelvin Vaughan
August 6, 2012 1:07 am
Rob Dekker
August 6, 2012 1:20 am

Gail Combs quotes Müller et al when he writes :

Because the intensities of the 397 ka BP and present insolation minima are very similar, we conclude that under natural boundary conditions the present insolation minimum holds the potential to terminate the Holocene interglacial. Our findings support the Ruddiman hypothesis [Ruddiman, W., 2003. The Anthropogenic Greenhouse Era began thousands of years ago. Climate Change 61, 261-293], which proposes that early anthropogenic greenhouse gas emission prevented the inception of a glacial that would otherwise already have started.

If early greenhouse gas emissions (thousands of years ago) prevented the inception of a new glacial, then what would current greenhouse gas emissions result in ? Eocene / Miocene climate ?
While we are at it, does anyone here on WUWT have any scientific explanation for why glacial periods started at all (during the early Pleistocene) ? Why did the Pliocene/Miocene climate (with much higher temps and much higher sea levels) not persist ?

Carbon500
August 6, 2012 1:47 am
Rob Dekker
August 6, 2012 2:32 am

Bill Illis said :

First day of sea ice extent increase this season at the NSIDC. Only 60 km2 but a positive number nonetheless.

That would be a nice break from the 100,000 km^2/day losses we have been seeing over the past couple of weeks.
Still, this short-term stall in ‘extent’ reduction can very easily be caused by the initial divergence of sea ice caused by the cyclone that’s moving over the Arctic as we speak.
http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2012/08/cyclone-warning.html#tp
Why don’t we just follow these NSIDC numbers you referred to for the next week or so ?
Do you want to place any bets that your “positive number” assertion will sustain ?

Ecco the Dolphin
August 6, 2012 2:35 am

How much of the current arctic melting is promoted by atmospheric particulate matter (light ash from fires, soot from industrialization, volcanic ash from Kamkatcha and the Aleutian arc) ? Coincidentally, I would expect all of this to occur mainly in the Northern hemisphere while it would be almost nonexistent in the Southern hemisphere near the Antarctic. Perhaps this is one of the reasons why despite increasing global temperatures (regardless of the causes), antarctic sea ice does not appear to be affected negatively?

kadaka (KD Knoebel)
August 6, 2012 2:53 am

From tjfolkerts on August 5, 2012 at 11:46 pm:

Do you see the difference? As long as you are content to say “I don’t know one way or the other” then you indeed have nothing to prove. But you are making a different assertion … that you do know something, which makes you no longer simply a skeptic. Any time you make an assertion that you DO know something, then you need evidence.

Umm… No. “Within the range of natural variability” is the null hypothesis, which is assumed true until proven otherwise. Like toilets are installed in bathrooms or your cat in your house is alive. If you need to find a toilet in an unfamiliar house, you assume it will be in a bathroom and go looking for a bathroom. You don’t say “I don’t know where a toilet is” and check if one is in the kitchen or the den. While you may be inclined to quip “I don’t know if my cat is alive or dead” you still assume it is alive.
So you say “I know the toilet is in the bathroom” or “I know my cat is alive” until you find evidence to the contrary. That’s how a null hypothesis works, it’s what you know to be true until it’s proven to be not true.

August 6, 2012 3:06 am

Temperature in Arctic per season:
http://oi56.tinypic.com/vfv70g.jpg
As “warm” as in 40ties. Is the miniscule rise, half of that from the beginning of the century, really that unprecedented?

kadaka (KD Knoebel)
August 6, 2012 3:36 am

Eli Rabett said on August 4, 2012 at 5:58 pm:

The really big picture

The “really big picture” is global sea ice area, ignoring the large ice chunks on Greenland and Antarctica?
Perhaps you have a problem working directly with datasets. While that “daily global sea ice anomaly” is supposedly scary looking, it really isn’t. To better examine the figures, I went looking for them. Since I couldn’t find the South Hemispheric data on the Cryosphere Today site where that graph comes from, I scraped together the monthly NSIDC info from here:
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/
Goes from 11/1978 to 7/2012.
After assembling both North and South Hemispherical data into a spreadsheet, then adding them together for Global numbers (blanking out the nulls of course), a linear regression reveals a downward slope for Global sea ice area of -0.816*10^6 km^2 per century. At that rate the area will go to zero late in the year in 4198. Doesn’t seem that scary now, does it?
Of course linear fits are fraught with hazards, as seen when looking at the extent figures. With those the downward slope is -3.816*10^6 km^2 per century, and will hit zero about midway through 2619. Since it’s difficult to have sea ice area without any sea ice extent, unless the “area” is exclusively calculated from slush under the 15% concentration threshold for extent, it’s most likely that neither zero-point year is correct.
In any case, by current linear trends there’s at least about 600 years of sea ice left globally. By the sea ice area, subject of your “really big picture” chart, it’ll be around a lot longer that that. That’s a long time off, and there will undoubtedly be changes like natural climate variability and reductions in human GHG emissions from ordinary economics forces in the meanwhile. Those trends won’t last that long.
So what is there to worry about?

Gail Combs
August 6, 2012 4:52 am

tjfolkerts says:
August 5, 2012 at 11:46 pm
Smokey says: “See, scientific skeptics have nothing to prove. ”
____________________________
Smokey is talking about the Null Hypothesis in science. From the stand point of the scientific method, skeptics have nothing to prove PERIOD end of discussion. You can not wriggle out of the statement of the null hypothesis with any type of reasoning or rhetoric. It is up to climate scientists to prove the null hypothesis is incorrect and they have not done so.

Gail Combs
August 6, 2012 5:35 am

rogerknights says:
August 4, 2012 at 8:36 pm
What’s happening with the military satellite photos pre-1979? I thought some agency was studying them with an eye to extending our knowledge of arctic ice extent back in time.
_______________________________
It did not advance “The Cause” and since they are actual photos they can not fudge the data like they do the temperature record so they buried the results DEEP under the ice.

August 6, 2012 5:37 am

It is clear that Rob Dekker does not understand the concept of the Null Hypothesis. No wonder he is foundering on the rocks of science. He forgets that scientific skeptics – the only honest kind of scientists – have nothing to prove. And the alarmist crowd cannot prove their way out of a wet paper bag.
Natural variability fully explains the current Arctic ice extent. It has all happened before during the Holocene, and to a greater extent – and prior to the current rise in CO2. It is natural fluctuation, nothing more.
If it were not for pseudo-science, the alarmist contingent wouldn’t have anything with ‘science’ in it at all.

Gail Combs
August 6, 2012 5:53 am

noiv says:
August 4, 2012 at 9:36 pm
Fred asks:
Why does Sea Ice News always just cover the Arctic and not also the Antarctic?
Yeah, that’s funny. Especially because in Summer there is even less sea ice in Antarctic.
_______________________________
OH? It is summer in the Antarctic? (Do I really need the /sarc?)

Spence_UK
August 6, 2012 5:57 am

Rob Dekker,
There is a link in my previous post to a University of Copenhagen press release which is associated with a paper published in Science. The link may not be terribly obvious – just one word is hyperlinked, the word “here”. Paper is at
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/333/6043/747.full

Entropic man
August 6, 2012 6:05 am

Smokey and I have been agreeing (it does happen occasionally!) that the normal glacial/ interglacial cycle is driven by orbital eccentricity cycles which drive temperature changes which drive CO2 changes, with amplification of both changes by positive feedback. This is the natural trend on which any natural short term variation would be superimposed.
The problem with the 20th and 21st century changes is that most of those with an informed opinion regard our current situation as an example of unnatural variation.
This comment from our discussion on another thread seems apposite here too.
Smokey says:
August 5, 2012 at 2:57 pm
Entropic,
Not just on timescales of Ice Ages. On time scales of a few decades, too.
CO2 is a function of temperature. Is there any doubt?
——————–
There is a doubt, or we would not be arguing this point.
At this time we should be seeing temperature and then CO2 driven down by the Milankovich eccentricity changes presaging the next glacial period.
Instead we find ourselves in a new situation. The first intelligent organism on the planet is burning fossil fuels and releasing carbon dioxide in large enough quantities to raise the level way beyond normal interglacial levels.
This has reset our climate to a pattern usually seen early in an interglacial as rising insolation triggers increased CO2. We have restarted the positive feedback loop that stabilised some 6000 years ago, with no clear precedent from paleoclimates to guide our analysis of the result.
.

Gail Combs
August 6, 2012 6:09 am

wayne Job says:
August 5, 2012 at 12:01 am
….. I see first some decades of rampant solar cycles and a warming phase that followed a cooling phase. This warming pumped some heat into the oceans, the southern ocean deals with this heat easily as Antarctica is an island and has a circular current that mixes and dilutes the warm water in short order.
…..Thus we have a slow thermostat. The melting of ice and the coming northern winter should deal with any warmth that is left in this anomaly.
That the sun has gone on holidays and the world has switched to a cooling phase, I do not like the chances of any time soon having an ice free Arctic.
===========================
The real clincher is the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007 (AR4) intentionally keep out of the report the fact the energy from the sun was INCREASING.

IPCC “Consensus” on Solar Influence was Only One Solar Physicist who Agreed with Her Own Paper
…Objection to this was raised by the Norwegian government as shown in the AR4 second draft comments below (and essentially dismissed by the IPCC): “I would encourage the IPCC to [re-]consider having only one solar physicist on the lead author team of such an important chapter. In particular since the conclusion of this section about solar forcing hangs on one single paper in which J. Lean is a coauthor. I find that this paper, which certainly can be correct, is given too much weight”…
Judith Lean, along with Claus Frohlich, are responsible for the scandalous rewriting of graphs of solar activity. Satellites showed that the TSI (measured in watts) between 1986 and 96 increased by about one third. Judith Lean and Claus Frohlich (authors of the single study noted above) “manipulated” the data. People who were in charge of the satellites and created the original graphs (the world’s best astrophysicists: Doug Hoyt, Richard C. Willson), protested in vain against such manipulation. Willson: “Fröhlich has made changes that are wrong … He did not have sufficient knowledge of (satellite) Nimbus7 … pmode composites are useful for those who argue that global warming may be primarily due to anthropogenic causes.” [cautionary note English->Czech->English translation of Willson]
…Since the appropriate questions were not asked, the IPCC knows little about the sun. While the rest of the IPCC AR4 is rich in graphics, there is not a single graph of cosmic radiation, solar cycle lengths, or geomagnetism – which is very strange because they are important indicators of solar activity…

On the same subject Luboš Motl comment is even more revealing. It seems the IPCCs pet “Solar Physicist” isn’t even a Solar Physicist!

Judithgate: IPCC relied on one solar physicist
(Her CV lists some lower-grade institutions and reveals she didn’t get an academic job at some point. And her education is in environmental and atmospheric sciences only – no solar physics etc.)

Gneiss
August 6, 2012 6:14 am

u.k. writes,
“I prefer non-fiction.”
OK, that’s one way to science-proof your beliefs. Demand to be shown the data, then refuse to look when it’s offered. But you can prove me wrong: show that your reaction was based on knowledge and not a knee-jerk.
You indicated you knew nothing about the data, so I suggested a good place to start learning. The link you waved away,
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9.html
is Chapter 9, Understanding and Attributing Climate Change, from the WG I report. That’s a bit dated now. We’ve learned a lot about sea ice and other things since 2007, and I could cite newer stuff, but Chapter 9 is still a good place to start. That chapter alone cites results from more than 500 studies. So tell me, what’s the fiction in Chapter 9?

August 6, 2012 6:20 am

Entropic,
Cutting and pasting your comment from another thread does not make it legit. I showed that on all time scales, from years to hundreds of thousands of years, rises in CO2 follow rises in temperature. Therefore, changes in CO2 are a function of temperature. The only ones who ‘doubt’ that fact have already made up their minds, and are immune to reason and scientific evidence.
Also, I have not written one word about Milankovich eccentricity. So how do you presume that we agree? Is that yet another baseless assumption, like so much else that eminates from the alarmist crowd?

August 6, 2012 6:35 am

Gneiss,
Your reference is discredited. Ottmar Edenhofer, Co-Chair of the UN/IPCC’s Working Group 3, stated:
One must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore.
The IPCC is a political organization, with a thin veneer of pseudo-science. If you are going to cite a source, cite a credible source. The UN is not a credible scientific source, as Edenhofer’s statement makes crystal clear.

Gail Combs
August 6, 2012 6:58 am

Entropic man says:
August 6, 2012 at 6:05 am
Smokey and I have been agreeing (it does happen occasionally!) that the normal glacial/ interglacial cycle is driven by orbital eccentricity cycles which drive temperature changes which drive CO2 changes, with amplification of both changes by positive feedback. This is the natural trend on which any natural short term variation would be superimposed….
_______________________
It was I who brought up Milankovich eccentricity and you are trying to sneak in agreement with “POSITIVE FEEDBACKS” which has been throughly mangled shredded and disposed of HERE and HERE and HERE
You are also ignoring the fact that Milankovich eccentricity means the rate at which the ice is melting ACCELERATES (it is the derivative) The article HEREand Paper HERE
No positive feedbacks from puny little CO2 are necessary and that is why CO2 LAGS the temperature rise.
From the article:

…Gerard Roe realized a trivial mistake that had previously been done. And a similar mistake is being done by many people all the time – scientists as well as laymen; alarmists as well as skeptics. The problem is that people confuse functions and their derivatives; they say that something is “warm” even though they mean that it’s “getting warmer” or vice versa.
In this case, the basic correct observation is the following: If you suddenly get more sunshine near the Arctic circle, you don’t immediately change the ice volume. Instead, you increase the rate with which the ice volume is decreasing (ice is melting). Isn’t this comment trivial?
Nigel Calder knew that this was the right comparison to be made back in 1974….

Entropic man
August 6, 2012 7:04 am

Nasa has published a report showing a long term solar insolation trend of +0.05% per decade since 1978.
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/0313irradiance.html
By my quick mental calculation, a 1C black body temperature increase at the Earth’s surface would need an increase in insolation of about 0.34%. The observed insolation trend would produce about +0.14C per decade.
NASA/Goddard’s temperature data show an global increase of 0.7C since 1978 (0.23C per decade). On this basis the solar insolation change would account for 61% of the observed warming.
This is clearly a back-of-the-envelope calculation, with any number of complicating factors ignored. Would anyone more competent like to critique?

Entropic man
August 6, 2012 7:28 am

1) Smokey presents a graph showing temperature changes over the very long term, driven by the Milankovich eccentricity oscillations. He uses this to demonstrate that in that context temperature change precedes or marches in step with CO2 change. I agree. Now he says the graph is wrong.
2) Gail, your references are all critiques of published papers, published on a website with a widely recognised anti-cAGW bias. They are not evidence.Peer-reviewed links would be preferred.
3) I am not convinced that acceleration is not relevant to this argument. On the milennial time scales of interglacials there is time to reach equilibrium states and the short term rate of change is of lesser importance.
Over the decadal time scales of recent changes, the equilibrium has been upset, with consequences predicted by both sides, but no resolution yet.
I keep finding references to accelerating trends on WUWT. The NASA/Goddard temperature graph gradually steepens during the 20th century, indicating that the rate of change is accelerating, but I fail to see why the sceptics are so keen to debunk it.

Gneiss
August 6, 2012 7:32 am

Smokey, go ahead and take the challenge. What is the fiction, in WG I Chapter 9? It’s a trick question because to answer I’m hoping someone will look at the actual chapter (no sign of that yet), instead of making political declarations or pasting quotes they read on the internets.
And while we’re chatting … you often lecture scientists about what you think “null hypothesis” means, but in doing so give the impression that you don’t understand the concept yourself. I often test null hypotheses, in fact tested two (no more, no less) for one of my posts in this thread. Can you spot where that happened, and guess what those null hypotheses were? No trick here. I’m pretty sure that Rob Dekker, like most scientists, could answer easily.

Entropic man
August 6, 2012 7:33 am

“3) I am not convinced that acceleration is not relevant to this argument.”
Sorry, too many nots. that should be “3) I am not convinced that acceleration is relevant to this argument”
I am still wrestling with the word processing software.

Gail Combs
August 6, 2012 7:50 am

I should also note on the Milankovich eccentricity, that we are at the DECELERATION phase. This is a point that is never brought up in the discussions but you can certainly see it in the graphs. Antarctic and Arctic

Temperature and precipitation history of the Arctic
Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research and Department of Geological Sciences, University of Colorado, USA et al
Solar energy reached a summer maximum (9% higher than at present) ca 11 ka ago and has been decreasing since then, primarily in response to the precession of the equinoxes. The extra energy elevated early Holocene summer temperatures throughout the Arctic 1-3° C above 20th century averages, enough to completely melt many small glaciers throughout the Arctic, although the Greenland Ice Sheet was only slightly smaller than at present…

So we now have 9% less Solar Energy than we had when the sun kicked the earth out of the last Ice Age. The solar “Constant” now is 1370 Wm2 at TOA. 11ka ago it would have been 123 Wm2 higher than it is today.
Hansen’s calculations for CO2’s impact is 0.6Wm2 (see here )
If you go with energy at the surface (and given the Solar Energy interacts with the atmosphere on the way down that is being nice.) Total forcing (solar plus longwave) averaged around the globe 24/7 is about 500 watts per square meter. So 9% of that is still in the neighborhood of ~ 45Wm2.
Sorry CO2 is just plain puny.

Entropic man
August 6, 2012 7:51 am

Smokey says:
August 6, 2012 at 6:35 am
” If you are going to cite a source, cite a credible source.”
This is part of the reason we seem to spend so much time arguing past each other. The sources I cite are not credible to you, and the sources you cite are not credible to me.

beng
August 6, 2012 8:05 am

****
Entropic man says:
August 6, 2012 at 6:05 am
Smokey and I have been agreeing (it does happen occasionally!) that the normal glacial/ interglacial cycle is driven by orbital eccentricity cycles which drive temperature changes which drive CO2 changes, with amplification of both changes by positive feedback.
****
Sure, it’s called ice/albedo feedback. In interglacials, that positive feedback has essentially run-out (hence the unusual stability of interglacial temps compared to glacial temps). There’s no ice, including sea-ice, present that’s far enough equatorward to have any more than a local effect.
How the interglacial degrades to glacial is the question. Something has to “kickstart” the climate into a colder regime first (if not, we’d already be in a glacial regime since the summer sun in the N hemisphere right now is at a minimum). As the ice/snowline gets further equatorward from the kickstart, the positive feedback will come into play, exaggerating the inherent climate shifts during glacials.
This has zero to do w/CO2.

Gail Combs
August 6, 2012 8:13 am

Entropic man says:
August 6, 2012 at 7:28 am
2) Gail, your references are all critiques of published papers, published on a website with a widely recognised anti-cAGW bias. They are not evidence.Peer-reviewed links would be preferred.
________________________________
HUH??? These are NOT a reputable sources???
a The Department of Geological Sciences, University of Colorado
b Department of Geosciences, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA 01003 USA
c Department of Geosciences and Earth and Environmental Systems Institute, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, USA
d Earth Surface Processes, U.S. Geological Survey, MS-980, Box 25046, DFC, Denver, CO 80225, USA
e Mainz Academy of Sciences, Humanities, and Literature, IFM-GEOMAR, Kiel, Germany
f Department of Earth & Atmospheric Sciences, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB T6G 2E3, Canada
g School of Geography, University of Southampton, Highfield, Southampton SO17 1BJ, UK
h Geography Department, Royal Holloway, University of London, Egham, Surrey TW20 0EX, UK
i Department of Biological Sciences, Idaho State University, Pocatello, ID 83209, USA
j Geological Museum, University of Copenhagen, Øster Voldgade 5-7, DK-1350, Copenhagen K, Denmark
k Department of Geological Sciences, Brown University, Box 1846, Providence, RI 02912, USA
l Water and Environmental Research Center University of Alaska Fairbanks, Box 755860, Fairbanks, AK 99775, USA
m School of Earth Sciences and Environmental Sustainability, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ 86011-4099, USA
n Department of Geography, University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA
o Byrd Polar Research Center, The Ohio State University, 108 Scott Hall, 1090 Carmack Road, Columbus, OH 43210-1002, USA
p Department of Environmental Sciences, Rutgers University, 14 College Farm Road, New Brunswich, NJ 08901, USA
q Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, NSIDC, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, USA
r Department of Biology, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario K7L 3N6, Canada
s Leibniz Institute for Marine Sciences, IFM-GEOMAR, Wischhofstr. 1-3, D-24148 Kiel, Germany
t British Antarctic Survey, High Cross, Madingley Road, Cambridge CB3 0ET, UK
If you want the whole paper it is here: http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-2/public-review-draft/sap1-2-prd-all.pdf
Given all the evidence that “left-leaning” Academics block others from the Climategate e-mails, firings of editors and a newer study where they come right out and SAY they block papers from conservatives, Peer-reviewed now means SQUAT! http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/aug/1/liberal-majority-on-campus-yes-were-biased/?page=all#pagebreak
Yeah it is a news paper. You can go dig out the study since my computer is about to crash if I do not shut down.

Anonymous Coward
August 6, 2012 8:58 am

Beng, CO2 plays an important role providing positive feedback in glacial/interglacial transitions. That is well established.

August 6, 2012 9:09 am

kadaka (KD Knoebel) says: “Umm… No. “Within the range of natural variability” is the null hypothesis”
And Gail Says: “Smokey is talking about the Null Hypothesis in science.”
Yes, I understand the idea of “null hypothesis”, but I think you are all missing an important idea or two about the null hypothesis.
1) We need to agree on what the “natural variability” is. When rolling dice or flipping coins, that natural variability is. We KNOW the odds of getting 6 heads in a row (1/64) or rolling a total of at least 25 when rolling 5 dice (a little over 3%). This knowledge can be gained by studying the shape of coins or by rolling lots of dice.
With sea ice, we have only a limited knowledge of what the “natural variability”. There is excellent data since late 1978 from satellites. There is decent data going back 100’s of years (from people living near and traveling on Arctic water. There is various data going back thousands or millions or billions of years.
2) We need to know what the natural variability is FOR CURRENT CONDITIONS. It is natural for the Arctic to be pretty much ice-free in some natural conditions. It is natural for the Arctic to be pretty much solid ice well beyond the current limits in some natural conditions. Changes in earth’s orbit and plate tectonics have huge impacts. But what happened 5,000 or 5,000,000 years ago doesn’t really matter. We want to know the natural variability for current conditions.
3) We want to know the natural variability not only of the extent, but of the RATE at which extent changes. That is even less well known. Is it natural for the summer extent to drop from 7.5 to 4.5 million km^2 in 30 years?
Before we can even THINK about testing a null hypothesis, we need to know what the null hypothesis conditions are. It is one thing to say “we don’t know the natural conditions well enough to state that current conditions are unnatural.” It is a very different thing to say “we DO know the natural conditions, and this definitely is within the natural bounds.”
Can any of you tell me the probability of naturally getting 4.5 million km or less given current “natural” orbital/geological/atmospheric conditions (eg, for a “natural” CO2 level of ~ 350 ppm)? Can you tell me the odds of dropping from 7.5 to 4.5 million km in 30 years?
I don’t know either. People study this because they want to know. It seems most of them think the current extent and rate of change are NOT natural. Their expectations of “natural variations without human impact” are not consistent with current ice conditions.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Putting it the other way around, we are not testing if the current condition fall inside a known “natural variability range” (like we might be with dice or medical studies). We are instead trying to decide what those natural variability limits actually are to begin with.
The “null hypothesis statistical tests” are trivial once the natural variability is known. But either side needs to present evidence for the “natural variability” before coming to conclusions.

beng
August 6, 2012 9:15 am

****
Anonymous Coward says:
August 6, 2012 at 8:58 am
Beng, CO2 plays an important role providing positive feedback in glacial/interglacial transitions. That is well established.
****
No, it hasn’t been “well established”. Read Gail’s links about Roe’s Milankovitch-cycle analysis above, understand what that analysis means, and you’ll discover why.

August 6, 2012 9:36 am

Smokey says: August 6, 2012 at 6:20 am

Entropic,
Cutting and pasting your comment from another thread does not make it legit. I showed that on all time scales, from years to hundreds of thousands of years, rises in CO2 follow rises in temperature.

Similarly, repeating your point does not make it more valid, either.
The simple truth is that CO2 can be both a cause and an effect of warming.
* A warming ocean can hold less CO2, and will naturally out-gas in response to warming temperatures (e.g. from changes in earth’s orbit).
* Conversely, if you raise the CO2 levels, you will reduce IR emissions to space and warm the surface.
The fact that the first statement is true in no way speaks to the second statement or negates Entropic’s point. In the past, there were ONLY “natural” sources and sinks of CO2. In the last millennium (and especially the last half century), the natural order has been significantly impacted by anthropogenic causes. We have a “new experiment” running where CO2 changes not only in response to trees and ocean, but also gets changes “artificially” by people. The old rules need to be re-examined.
OLD EXPERIMENT: How does CO2 change in response to natural drivers.
NEW EXPERIMENT: How does nature change in response to anthropogenic drivers.
The analysis is complicated by the “old experiment” still running in the background. The analysis is complicated by other feedbacks (eg the water cycle). But you can’t simply quote “experiments” (ie history) done under different conditions and assume a priori that the same results still apply in new conditions.

August 6, 2012 9:44 am

Gail says: “So we now have 9% less Solar Energy than we had when the sun kicked the earth out of the last Ice Age. The solar “Constant” now is 1370 Wm2 at TOA. 11ka ago it would have been 123 Wm2 higher than it is today.”
Gail, you misinterpreted the passage you quoted. “Solar energy reached a summer maximum (9% higher than at present)” means that the distribution of energy in time and space was different. Specifically, there was 9% more solar energy in the Arctic during the summer. The earth as a whole got about the same, and the solar constant was about the same, too (certainly not 123 W/m^2 higher everywhere all the time).

August 6, 2012 10:28 am

Game over guys.
The storm over the arctic now will tear the thin ice to shreds. Expect a new Area record ( <2.9) before the end of the month. Extent will drop below the record 4.3.. maybe fall below 4.
Arctic hasnt seen a storm like this .. well.. lets just say its rare.
Now, before AGW, when the ice was thick.. no problem. But now.. the wind and wave action will pummel the ice. saltier water from lower depths ( also warmer) will get pumped up to the surface and cover the ice..

Bruce Cobb
August 6, 2012 10:31 am

, You appear to be saying that we simply don’t know enough about climate to know what, if any effect we are having on it. Perfect! That, in a nutshell is the skeptics’ stance as well.
Now, all you need to do is to agree that a cooling climate such as what occurred during the LIA would be what we need to fear, not warming, such as what occurred during the MWP.
To that end, you might find this interesting: http://www.wnd.com/2010/05/155225/

August 6, 2012 11:04 am

tjfolkerts,
Agree, CO2 both causes warming and rises as an effect of warming.
But the latter effect is large, while the former is too minuscule to measure.
And as Gneiss hides out from my challenge, he uses his usual alarmist projection to say, ‘go ahead and take the challenge’.
What a disreputable charlatan. Gneiss knows that my challenge stands unfalsified:
At current and projected concentrations, CO2 is harmless, and beneficial to the biosphere.
And because Gneiss cannot falsify that testable hypothesis, he prevaricates and dissembles.

August 6, 2012 11:30 am

re: Smokey (8/6/2012 11:04AM) Testable hypothesis?
“Harmless” “Beneficial”
Value judgments are testable? How?

August 6, 2012 11:33 am

Anonymous Coward says:
“Beng, CO2 plays an important role providing positive feedback in glacial/interglacial transitions. That is well established.”
Um… No. It is not. For at least the past 720,000 years, CO2 has risen and fallen as an effect of temperature, not a cause. But thanx for playing.
.
tjfolkerts says:
“Yes, I understand the idea of “null hypothesis”…”
Quite clearly you do not.
.
Entropic man says:
“2) Gail, your references are all critiques of published papers, published on a website with a widely recognised anti-cAGW bias. They are not evidence. Peer-reviewed links would be preferred.”
Right there is the basis of your confusion. Peer reviewed papers are not ‘evidence’. And Gail Combs has slaughtered you with her replies.
Entropic cannot even keep the commenters straight, no wonder he is so confused about the subject.
The wild-eyed alarmist crowd clings to natural Arctic variability like a drowning man clings to a stick. It is the only one of their endless scary predictions that might support their globaloney nonsense. Their problem is that the Antarctic has most all of the planet’s ice, and the Antarctic’s ice is steadily increasing. Thus, blaming the entirely natural Arctic variability on human activity is a major FAIL.
Wake me when/if the Null Hypothesis is ever falsified. Until/unless that happens, everything observed is natural. It has all happened before, and to a greater extent. But I don’t expect the handful of cognitive dissonance-afflicted true believers to ever accept that, because their minds are already made up and closed tight. Facts do not matter, it’s confirmation bias with them all the way. Leo Tolstoy explains their uncomfortable predicament:

I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives.

The Arctic has been repeatedly ice free during the Holocene. But cognitive dissonance is extremely difficult to treat. So expect more confirmation bias, cherry-picking, and ignoring facts by the reason impaired. They are driven by emotion, not by logic or facts. Have sympathy for their affliction. But disregard their climate alarmism, because Planet Earth is making clear that we have been through the same thing before. Many times. Naturally.

kadaka (KD Knoebel)
August 6, 2012 1:40 pm

From Steven Mosher on August 6, 2012 at 10:28 am:

Now, before AGW, when the ice was thick.. no problem. But now.. the wind and wave action will pummel the ice. saltier water from lower depths ( also warmer) will get pumped up to the surface and cover the ice..

Ice thickness: http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/hycomARC/navo/arcticictn/nowcast/ictn2012080418_2012080600_035_arcticictn.001.gif
Ice concentration: http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/hycomARC/navo/arcticicen/nowcast/icen2012080418_2012080600_035_arcticicen.001.gif
With most of the sea ice thicker than 2 meters and 75% or greater concentration, you expect this storm will tear apart this “thin” ice?
Current weather: http://www.athropolis.com/map2.htm
Roughly around the the Beaufort Sea it’s slightly windy. Barrow, Alaska and Resolute, Nunavut, Canada are reporting winds around 17mph with gusts around 23mph. Otherwise the stations around the Arctic aren’t reporting anything noticeable. Where are you getting your info about this “monster” storm over the Arctic now?

Warm
August 6, 2012 2:13 pm

Sea level pressure in the arctic bassin
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/weather/arcticweather.uk.php

August 6, 2012 2:22 pm

Smokey!
You are specifically claiming that “All of the changes are due to natural variability. Proof: … ” This is bad hypothesis testing no matter how you look at it.
That is simply NOT what you can claim based on hypothesis testing! The best you could possibly claim is “All of the changes are due to consistent with natural variability” which is very different from your claim that there are in fact ONLY natural variations and NO man-made changes. At best, the test can only say we didn’t detect the potential changes.

Paul K2
August 6, 2012 2:37 pm

Geez… After 240 some comments, someone finally mentions the storm. Talk about some clueless commenters.
kadaka: The center of the storm is around 80N and 170W, about a thousand miles north of Barrow. Here is a nice site showing the storm:
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/weather/arcticweather_imagecontainer.php
(note link auto updates)
But even at Barrow, the storm changed weather fast.
Here is the weather talk from Barrow today:
NORTHERN ALASKA FORECAST DISCUSSION
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE FAIRBANKS AK
437 AM AKDT MON AUG 6 2012
.DISCUSSION… (continued)
NORTH SLOPE…
“SCREAMING COLD AIR ADVECTION AND DRYING OF THE AIR MASS BEHIND THE FRONT AS EVIDENT ON THE 12Z BARROW SOUNDING. THE FREEZING LEVEL AT BARROW DROPPED FROM OVER 10K FT ASL AT 00Z/4PM AKDT SUNDAY AFTERNOON TO JUST 200 FT THIS MORNING! IT WAS 60F YESTERDAY AFTERNOON AT BARROW AND THE CURRENT TEMP IS 33F WITH A WIND CHILL OF 22F.”

August 6, 2012 2:42 pm

Smokey says: “The Arctic has been repeatedly ice free during the Holocene. But cognitive dissonance is extremely difficult to treat. ”
Talk about cognitive dissonance!
>> The Claim: The Arctic has been repeatedly ice free
>> The Proof: The Antarctic has been repeatedly varying in temperature a few degrees.
Or were you not trying to substantiated your claim, but merely trying to remind us that the “Holocene” lasted about 10,000 years ?
And for the third time (at least) you present this cognitive dissonance: Their problem is that the Antarctic has most all of the planet’s ice, and the Antarctic’s ice is steadily increasing.
Your problem is that the Antarctic has most all of the planet’s LAND ice (which seems to be decreasing), and the Antarctic’s SEA ice is UNEVENLY increasing. Overall, Antarctica’s ice (land and sea) seems to be declining. (Getting good info is tough. So many articles that I glanced at seem to jumble together the ideas of land ice, ice shelves, and sea ice.)

Paul K2
August 6, 2012 2:47 pm

It was fun reading this thread, waiting for the “WUWT Arctic ice experts” to wise up to this storm. Here is an abstract of a nice paper by a familiar name, Kerry Emanuel:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1600-0870.1989.tb00362.x/abstract
Polar lows as arctic hurricanes
ABSTRACT
Satellite observations of the polar oceans have revealed the presence of small, intense vortices that often resemble hurricanes, having clear central eyes surrounded by deep convective clouds. Recent aircraft and dropsonde data also show that these storms, like hurricanes, occur within deep moist adiabatic atmospheres and possess warm cores. We propose that at least some polar lows are indeed arctic hurricanes. Using a recently developed theoretical model of the mature hurricane, we show that the observed difference between the moist entropy of the troposphere and that representing saturation at sea surface temperature can sustain moderately intense hurricanes. Unlike the environments of tropical hurricanes, much of this moist entropy difference results from an air-sea temperature difference. Numerical experiments using an axisymmetric nonhydrostatic model confirm that intense hurricanes can develop in environments typical of those in which polar lows are observed to develop. Due to the relatively large values of the Coriolis parameter, these storms have smaller diameters than do hurricanes. The experiments also show that the deep, cold cut-off lows which create favorable thermodynamic environments for polar lows also inhibit their development because of the large intertial stability of their circulations. Finally, we show that, like hurricanes, surface flux-driven polar lows cannot arise spontaneously, but require an independent and presumably non-axisymmetric dynamical mechanism for their initiation.

August 6, 2012 2:50 pm

KD.
have a look at any MODIS imagery and you can see that the ice not in the CAB is broken up.
The other way to judge this is to do this : area/extent
Or look at this
http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de:8084/ssmis/arctic_SSMIS_nic.png
For weather.
UPPER AIR…A DEEP LOW NEAR 78N 160E EAST WILL CONTINUE TO DEEPEN
TO OVER THE NEXT 48 HOURS AS IT TRACKS TO THE NORTHEAST AND JUST
SOUTH OF THE POLE. ALL OF THE MODELS ALL HAVE AN ANOMALOUSLY DEEP
SUB 510 DM LOW AT 500 MILLIBARS BY 12Z TUE. A LOW THIS DEEP IN
AUGUST IS INDEED A RARE EVENT.
Area currently is at 3.5 Million. see all that 1 meter ice
http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/hycomARC/navo/arcticictn/nowcast/ictn2012080418_2012080600_035_arcticictn.001.gif.
Now, picture 2-3 meter seas sloshing over that.. The cold fresh water at the top
will be replaced with warmer saltier water pumped from the depths.
http://paoc.mit.edu/labguide/ekpump.html
This Ice? http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.9.html
gone
This Ice? http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.10.html
gone.
Game over. at 3.5M sq km and 5-6 weeks left in the melt season… say -40-50 days..
what would be unprecedented is a melt rate slow enough to AVOID setting a record.
In the end, this ice is all that left is this
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.1.html
and maybe some in the greenland sea.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.5.html
other tidbit

August 6, 2012 2:51 pm

And to me more directly on topic, I predict a September average extent of around 4.1 million km^2, based an a wide variety of statistical analyses of the conditions in the Arctic the last year or so.
An exceptionally low extent and area in June & July, coupled with unusually warm temperatures are among the key factors pushing the multiple regression predictions down.
Of course, statistical predictions can be wrong. But all indications are for a record low extent. (Predictions for September, 2013 are also for low extent, but it is way to early to put tight error bars on those numbers).

Paul K2
August 6, 2012 3:06 pm

Gee, Steve Mosher, you let the cat out of the bag. The guys on the other sites were watching and waiting to see how long the charade would go on, before the locals wised up (to the storm).
Neven will be sooo… disappointed.

Bill Illis
August 6, 2012 3:14 pm

Steven Mosher says:
August 6, 2012 at 10:28 am
Game over guys.
Arctic hasnt seen a storm like this .. well.. lets just say its rare.
Now, before AGW, when the ice was thick.. no problem. But now.. the wind and wave action will pummel the ice. saltier water from lower depths ( also warmer) will get pumped up to the surface and cover the ice..
—————————————
Just like everything on the warmer side (which Mosher is definitely on now), there is hype and then there is factual evidence.
When was the last time there was a large deep low in the Arctic? Well just 10 months ago so must be really rare. I doubt it. The Arctic has been completely cloud covered for the past two months.
The sea temperatures in the Arctic are between -2.0C and -0.8C (with a few coastal mudflats higher than this).
There is a slightly warmer layer 50 metres down, as much as -0.4C but less than this in most of the Arctic. This layer is thin and at 50 metres down, is extemely unlikely to be brought up by wind and waves (its density would have to change first anyway). It then gets colder again below this thin layer.
The next warm layer is 200 metres to 500 metres down and can get to +1.7C. Of course this is not going to get mixed with the surface either.
Then as one goes lower it gets colder and colder again, maybe down to -1.2C at the bottom.
Salinity follows a similar pattern.
A good reference comes from the Woods Hole Institute which has about 10 active bouys in the Arctic with continuous temp profiles down to 750 metres. (Archives for another few dozen)
http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=20781
The temp and salinity profile down to 750 metres for bouy 53 in the (probably melted) Beaufort sea right in the centre of this low.
http://www.whoi.edu/itp/images/itp53dat3.jpg

August 6, 2012 3:21 pm

Steve Mosher says:
“Game over.” Said it twice now.
So what happens next? Thermogeddon?☺

August 6, 2012 3:48 pm

Jeffrey Davis says:
“Testable hypothesis? ‘Harmless’ ‘Beneficial’
Value judgments are testable? How?”
Glad you asked. Listen up, and I will explain:
The Null Hypothesis states, in effect, that the climate will continue on within its historical parameters, as it has in the past. Now, if those parameters break out to the upside [in other words, if temperatures begin to accelerate above and beyond their long term parameters], then the Null has been tested and is falsified. That is the elevator explanation.
But so far temperatures have remained on their long term rising trend, despite a hefty 40% rise in [harmless, beneficial – prove me wrong] CO2. There has been no acceleration above those long term parameters.
Therefore, the Null Hypothesis remains unfalsified, and the alternative hypothesis [CO2=CAGW] founders and sinks against the rocks of logic: if a 40% rise in CO2 cannot make a measurable difference in temperature [and it doesn’t], then any effect from CO2 is insignificant, and thus can be completely disregarded for all practical purposes.
The Null Hypothesis is an accepted corollary of the Scientific Method. That is why Kevin Trenberth is so upset that it does not support his beliefs. As climatologist Roy Spencer puts it: “No one has falsified the hypothesis that the observed temperature changes are a consequence of natural variability.”
• • •
tjfolkerts says:
“…all indications are for a record low extent.”
Define “record”.
FYI, the temperature ‘record’ goes back ≈740,000 years in the ice cores. But let’s just look at the Holocene. Do you think maybe the planet was warm enough to make for an ice-free Arctic over the past 10 millennia? Or does the “record” only cover since 1979?
Face it, current Arctic ice cover is nothing unusual. Unless, of course, you limit the discussion to the past 33 cherry-picked years, instead of the past 10,000 years of the Holocene.

Editor
August 6, 2012 4:22 pm

Smokey
My word, mosh is getting excited isn’t he. Being so keen on modern technology he sometimes forgets that dramatic events happened before satellites came along and that data from only 1979 is a blink of the eye in the history of the arctic.
Sobering to think that William scoresby-the first great arctic explorer-who is buried not 7 miles from my home -recorded great storms and dramatic melting of the ice 150 years before the first satellites, and that the dramatic melting only 80 years ago and captured on pathe news reel for the entertainment of cinema goers seems to have been forgotten as well.
I am working on historic variations in arctic ice part two and was at the met office today collecting archive material for it. It will join the hundreds of papers I have already read. The only conclusion that can be dawn is that arctic ice melts with astonishing frequency and the modern era is by no means unprecedented- just ask any Viking
Tonyb

Jim
August 6, 2012 4:29 pm

Steven Mosher said:
August 6, 2012 at 10:28 am

Game over guys.
The storm over the arctic now will tear the thin ice to shreds. Expect a new Area record ( <2.9) before the end of the month. Extent will drop below the record 4.3.. maybe fall below 4.

Maybe, but not likely.

Arctic hasnt seen a storm like this .. well.. lets just say its rare.

I’m sure the Arctic has seen many storms much more severe than this one. The sea ice survived then, and will now.

Now, before AGW, when the ice was thick.. no problem. But now.. the wind and wave action will pummel the ice. saltier water from lower depths ( also warmer) will get pumped up to the surface and cover the ice..

There’s no evidence of AGW. There maybe some evidence of warming, but no evidence that it’s manmade or unusual in the context of the geologic record. And the ice has weathered wind and waves for hundreds of thousands of years. I’m sure it will be.
I’m half inclined to take a flamethrower to the ice, just to put the ice out of its misery. Man, watching ice melt — that’s even worse than watching paint dry! LOL.

Gneiss
August 6, 2012 4:31 pm

Yes, Mosher let the storm-cat out of the bag, folks elsewhere have been wondering how long it would take the WUWT “Sea Ice News” crowd to catch on. Two days, it turns out.
I hinted about this yesterday @5:05pm, in response to Bill Illis’ comical post, but no one picked that up:
+++++
Gneiss says:
August 5, 2012 at 5:05 pm
Bill Illis wrote,
“First day of sea ice extent increase this season at the NSIDC. Only 60 km2 but a positive number nonetheless.
Perhaps they are only correcting the extra melt they have been throwing in over the last few weeks.”
If you have been watching the ice changes that closely, perhaps you can think of another hypothesis that’s more reality-based? Other people have, the discussion is all over the internets. Although oddly, nowhere on this Sea Ice News thread.

Jim
August 6, 2012 4:34 pm

Smokey wrote:

Steve Mosher says:
“Game over.” Said it twice now.
So what happens next? Thermogeddon?☺

LOL. The Day After Tomorrow, maybe?

Gail Combs
August 6, 2012 4:35 pm

tjfolkerts says:
August 6, 2012 at 9:44 am
Gail says: “So we now have 9% less Solar Energy than we had when the sun kicked the earth out of the last Ice Age. The solar “Constant” now is 1370 Wm2 at TOA. 11ka ago it would have been 123 Wm2 higher than it is today.”
Gail, you misinterpreted the passage you quoted….. Specifically, there was 9% more solar energy in the Arctic during the summer. The earth as a whole got about the same, and the solar constant was about the same, too (certainly not 123 W/m^2 higher everywhere all the time).
_________________________________
You are not quite correct. (But neither was I , husband dragging me out the door befuddles the brain.) It is a combination of the two.

The 100,000 year stretch: The orbit of the earth gradually stretches from nearly circular to an elliptical shape and back again in a cycle of approximately 100,000 years. This is called the orbit’s eccentricity. During the cycle, the distance between earth and sun varies by as much as 11.35 million miles. [So distance from the sun and therefore insolation does change for the earth as a whole – G.C.]
The 41,000 year tilt: The earth’s axis is never perpendicular to the plane of its orbit; over the course of about 41,000 years the angle varies between 21.5 and 24.5 degrees. Because of the tilt, the solar radiation striking any point on earth fluctuates during the yearly orbit, producing seasons. When the tilt is greatest, summers are hottest, winters are coldest.
The 22,000 year wobble: Even while the shape of its orbit and the tilt of its axis are changing, the earth wobbles slowly in space, its axis describing a circle once every 22,000 years. Because of this movement, known as axial precession or the precession of the equinoxes, the distance between the earth and the sun in a given season slowly changes. Today, for instance, the shape of the orbit places the planet closest to the sun in the Northern Hemisphere’s winter and farthest away in summer. The combination tends to make winters mild and summers cool — and favors ice-sheet growth. However, 11,000 years ago, the arrangement was just the opposite, setting the stage for the Northern Hemisphere ice sheets to decay.
These variations were calculated mathematically by several workers during the latter half of the 19th century. Milankovitch used the existing calculations of variations in eccentricity, precession and tilt to calculate how much solar radiation strikes the surface of the earth during each season and at each latitude. He published his first results in 1920, which contained a graph showing how summer radiation at latitudes 55Deg, 60Deg, and 65Deg North varied over the past 650,000 years. His next results were published in 1930, and included radiation curves for each of eight latitudes ranging from 5Deg North to 75Deg North. The curves calculated for high latitudes are dominated by the 41,000 year tilt cycle, while those for low latitudes are dominated by the 22,000 year precession cycle. By 1941 he had finished his calculations. The value of the Milankovitch theory was that it made testable predictions about the geological record of climate….. http://corior.blogspot.com/2006/02/part-15-ice-ages-confirmed.html

Good animation illustrating eccentricity, precession and tilt here
Roe did the calculations in his peer-reviewed paper. Here is the Graph for June at 65N, insolation varies more than +/- 50Wm2 or The most recent for 11Ka seem to be ~ 110Wm2 not too far from the +123Wm2 in my very rough calculation. (NOTE: The Earth is currently on the extreme right and headed DOWN) This map shows latitude 65N as above the red X.
About the graph:

… you clearly get a spectacular agreement between the theoretically calculated insolation curve (cyan) and the derivatives of the reconstructed ice volumes (white). Moreover, this model requires no lag to be adjusted and no significant CO2 forcing to be added if you want to reproduce the data very well. Roe explicitly mentions – even in the abstract – that CO2 is not needed; moreover, it’s changes are lagging so they are (mostly) consequences, rather than causes, of the ice-volume and temperature changes. ~ Luboš Motl

(Sorry for the goof guys)

Gail Combs
August 6, 2012 5:45 pm

climatereason says:
August 6, 2012 at 4:22 pm
Smokey
My word, mosh is getting excited isn’t he…..
____________________________
I do not know about you guys but I much rather see the Arctic ‘ice free’ in the summer rather than the opposite. A year long solidly frozen Arctic down to 70N or worse 65N is NOT something I am wishing for! ( voted for 4.2 million sqkm BTW)

SteveSadlov
August 6, 2012 5:52 pm

Been hitting the minimum earlier the past few years. That could make a difference.

August 6, 2012 8:04 pm

Paul K2 says:
August 6, 2012 at 3:06 pm (Edit)
Gee, Steve Mosher, you let the cat out of the bag. The guys on the other sites were watching and waiting to see how long the charade would go on, before the locals wised up (to the storm).
Neven will be sooo… disappointed.
############################################
Paul K2, your writing on the storm is very clear and compelling. I learned a lot from it.

August 6, 2012 8:08 pm

Smokey says:
August 6, 2012 at 3:21 pm (Edit)
Steve Mosher says:
“Game over.” Said it twice now.
So what happens next? Thermogeddon
##########################
What happens next? Hopefully I win my bets at Lucia !!!
What happens Next?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtRvcXUIyZg

August 6, 2012 8:14 pm

climatereason says:
August 6, 2012 at 4:22 pm (Edit)
Smokey
My word, mosh is getting excited isn’t he. Being so keen on modern technology he sometimes forgets that dramatic events happened before satellites came along and that data from only 1979 is a blink of the eye in the history of the arctic.
##############
Tony? do you see me calling this unprecedeneted? Nope you dont.
Did dramatic events happen before 1979. You BET !
That said. ice is melted by heat. So yes, it is warmer now than in the LIA. and one sign of that is the state of the Arctic. has it ever been warmer? you bet. have we ever had storms like this? You bet we have.
Still for people betting on whether or not this year will set a record, my bet is game over.
decades of decline has left the ice in no condition to weather this weather .
Anybody want to bet extent will be higher that 5M?

August 6, 2012 8:18 pm

jim
“I’m sure the Arctic has seen many storms much more severe than this one. The sea ice survived then, and will now.
####
I’m sure the ice will survive as well? where do you see me saying otherwise?
“There’s no evidence of AGW. There maybe some evidence of warming, but no evidence that it’s manmade or unusual in the context of the geologic record. And the ice has weathered wind and waves for hundreds of thousands of years. I’m sure it will be.”
Sure there is evidence of AGW. It may be evidence you dont accept, but there is evidence.
At least you admit that its warmer now than in the LIA.
And yes the ice has weathered wind and waves before. Like duh!. the question for betters is what will happen this fall? my bet says we set a new record.. 8:1 odds.

Gail Combs
August 6, 2012 8:23 pm

While everyone is watching the Sea Ice they are neglecting this news:

AccuWeather: Endless Winter for Alaska’s Mountains This Year Aug 6, 2012
There aren’t many places you can go to in the United States to see snow in August, and usually, even Anchorage, Alaska, isn’t one of them.
But the city is still dealing with leftover snow from last winter in its bordering mountain ranges. The all-time record snowfall of 133.6 inches last winter – just over 11 feet – could give Anchorage an endless winter.
…The combination of heavy snowfall and a cool spring caused the lingering snow, said United States Department of Agriculture Snow Survey Supervisor Rick McClure. He said that it’s unusual to see snow still remaining in some of the mountains that surround Anchorage.
“Most of the time snow melts in the mountains, unless it’s a glacier or snowfield,” McClure said. “We’ve had snow in 4,000-feet elevations that usually melts by early June stay until that time in July. It’s very rare to see snow in the mountains that close to the solstice.”…
May, June and July have all seen colder monthly averages, with July making the cut as the seventh-coldest July in history. There were 24 days in May 19 days in June that fell below the average daily temperature.
Adding the record-shattering snowfall into the mix, it’s possible the melt of last year’s snow could overlap with new snow falls that can occur as early as September. When this happens, glaciers can form by compressing the old snow into ice….

Looks like the Sea Ice has sprouted feet and walked inland.