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:
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.
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 @ur momisugly 16 people. AGW trolls I tell ya :).
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?
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.
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.
Rick Powell,
There is no scientific evidence that supports CAGW. But I agree with you about Anthony.
noiv
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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…
Why does Sea Ice News always just cover the Arctic and not also the Antarctic (where ice mass is up)?
Why does Sea Ice NEws always just cover the Arctic and not also the Antarctic (where ice mass is up)?
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.
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.
From James Abbott on August 4, 2012 at 5:51 pm:
Couldn’t you have managed the direct link?
Sources of multi-decadal variability in Arctic sea ice extent
From the Abstract:
Translation: The models have fallen and they can’t get up.
Translation: We don’t know enough about natural variability to work it into the models.
Translation: So we simulated natural variability with models.
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.
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.
lol @ur momisugly 16 people. AGW trolls I tell ya :).
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?
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….
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.
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.
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?
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.”
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.
Rick Powell,
There is no scientific evidence that supports CAGW. But I agree with you about Anthony.
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.
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
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.
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.
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/
P Wilson says
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 :
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 ?
gopal panicker said :
West Spitzbergen (Svalbard) has been open ocean all year around.