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:
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…
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.
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 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!
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).
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!
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.
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.
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.
Here’s a very nifty interactive map with lots of detail.
I’m sticking with 4.1 million.
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.)
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.
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…
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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!
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).
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
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.
is it okay to vote for the “ice free” option just because i’m a sarcastic PITA? %-)
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 ?
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.
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).
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!
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.
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
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.
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