In the latest ARCUS Sea Ice Outlook, WUWT, Stroeve (NSIDC), and Meier (NSIDC) agree at 4.5 million square km. Whether those values turn out to be high due to the recent ice loss as a result of a strong Arctic storm which broke up a lot of sea ice remains to be seen. Here is the storm report from NASA:
==============================================================
Image mosaic of Arctic storm. (Credit: NASA/Goddard/MODIS Rapid Response Team)
› Related image and story from NASA’s Earth Observatory
An unusually strong storm formed off the coast of Alaska on August 5 and tracked into the center of the Arctic Ocean, where it slowly dissipated over the next several days.
The Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) on NASA’s Aqua satellite captured this natural-color mosaic image on Aug. 6, 2012. The center of the storm at that date was located in the middle of the Arctic Ocean.
The storm had an unusually low central pressure area. Paul A. Newman, chief scientist for Atmospheric Sciences at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md., estimates that there have only been about eight storms of similar strength during the month of August in the last 34 years of satellite records. “It’s an uncommon event, especially because it’s occurring in the summer. Polar lows are more usual in the winter,” Newman said.
Arctic storms such as this one can have a large impact on the sea ice, causing it to melt rapidly through many mechanisms, such as tearing off large swaths of ice and pushing them to warmer sites, churning the ice and making it slushier, or lifting warmer waters from the depths of the Arctic Ocean.
“It seems that this storm has detached a large chunk of ice from the main sea ice pack. This could lead to a more serious decay of the summertime ice cover than would have been the case otherwise, even perhaps leading to a new Arctic sea ice minimum,” said Claire Parkinson, a climate scientist with NASA Goddard. “Decades ago, a storm of the same magnitude would have been less likely to have as large an impact on the sea ice, because at that time the ice cover was thicker and more expansive.”
Aqua passes over the poles many times a day, and the MODIS Rapid Response System stitches together images from throughout each day to generate a daily mosaic view of the Arctic. This technique creates the diagonal lines that give the image its “pie slice” appearance.
In the image, the bright white ice sheet of Greenland is seen in the lower left.
===========================================================
My best guess is that because of this storm breaking up ice packs, the September minimum will be lower than 4.5 million sqkm. The median of August ARCUS outlooks is 4.3, but the possibility exists that it will come in lower than that.
The value for the JAXA plot is similar:
And the most recent JAXA value for 8/13/2012 is 5,152,969 sqkm (data source here). More maps and graphs exist on the WUWT Sea Ice Reference Page.
Here’s the August ARCUS report compiled by Helen Wiggins:
With 23 (thank you!) responses for the Pan-Arctic Outlook (plus 5 regional Outlook contributions), the August Sea Ice Outlook projects a September 2012 arctic sea extent median value of 4.3 million square kilometers, with a range of 3.9–4.9 (Figure 1). The quartiles for August are 4.1 and 4.6 million square kilometers, a narrow range given that the uncertainty of individual estimates is on the order of 0.5 million square kilometers. The consensus is for continued low values of September 2012 sea ice extent. The August Outlook median is lower by 0.3 million square kilometers than the July estimate, consistent with low summer 2012 observed values. According to the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC), the arctic sea ice extent for July 2012 was the second lowest in the satellite record behind 2011; the ice extent recorded for August 1st of 6.5 million square kilometers is the lowest in the satellite record. Twelve of the contributions give a value equal to or lower than the 2007 record minimum (monthly average) extent of 4.3 million square kilometers.
Individual responses are based on a range of methods: statistical, numerical models, comparison with previous rates of sea ice loss, composites of several approaches, estimates based on various non-sea ice datasets and trends, and subjective information.
Again, we are comparing these Outlook values to the September average sea ice extent as provided by NSIDC. NSIDC is not the only data source for ice extent; their estimate is based on a long-term time series and we use their value as an operational definition.
Download High Resolution Version of Figure 1.
DEVELOPMENT OF SUMMER 2012 SEA ICE CONDITIONS AND RECENT WEATHER
The NSIDC time history for 2012 compared with previous years is shown in Figure 2. As noted in previous Sea Ice Outlook reports this year, sea ice extent in May started higher than several previous years and there were indications of increased thickness on the North American side. But late May and the first half of June had the Arctic Dipole (AD) Pressure pattern that is favorable for ice loss, resulting in a record trend in sea ice loss. At the end of June the AD was replaced by low sea level pressure. At this point, the sea ice loss showed more of a historical loss trend, but because of the low June value it has remained below the previous lowest value from 2007. The sea level pressure field for the second half of July and early August (Figure 3) shows that the low pressure centered along the dateline has persisted for most of the summer. This a a fairly typical historical summer pattern, if perhaps a bit stronger.
The pattern in Figure 3 is favorable for sea ice loss near the Canadian side of the North Pole and in the Kara Sea, but not in the Pacific Arctic as in previous summers. The recent NSIDC sea ice chart from 9 August (Figure 4) shows major open water areas in the eastern Beaufort Sea, East Siberian Sea, and Kara Sea, and a strip of sea ice continuing in the Chukchi Sea. These areas opened up quickly in the last few weeks. Also note the open areas within the ice pack.
Except for early June, the weather was not particularly favorable for sea ice loss in summer 2012 as it was in 2007 and some other recent years. Given the lack of meteorological support and several indications that the sea ice was rather thin, we note that thermodynamic melting of thin, mobile sea ice is now a dominant process, justifying the low sea ice predictions in the Sea Ice Outlook.
KEY STATEMENTS FROM INDIVIDUAL OUTLOOKS
Wang et al, 3.9 +/-0.3, Model
The outlook is based on a CFSv2 ensemble of 40 members initialized from Jul 27-Aug 5, 2012. The model’s systematic bias, forecast RMS errors, and anomaly correlation skill are estimated based on its historical forecasts for 1982-2011. The CFSv2 has shown long-term decrease of sea ice extent during the past 3 decades, as in the observation. The CFSv2 was also found to have some skill in predicting year to year variability at seasonal time scales.
Arbetter, 4.0, n/a, Statistical (updated 13 August)
Using conditions from week 30 of 2012 (ie August 1, 2012), a revised minimum Arctic sea ice extent of 4.03 million km2 is projected for the week of September 7, 2012. This is substantially lower than the earlier estimates, reflecting both lower than average sea ice extent used as initial conditions this summer and a persistent downward trend in sea ice extent over the past decade (and longer). The output continues to suggest 2012 will be at or below the previous record minimum September ice extent, recorded in 2007 and repeated in 2011.
Klazes, 4.0 +/- 0.7, Statistical
Extent is predicted by first estimating minimum ice volume for September. Using a linear minimum ice volume-extent model the extent is calculated. Only data up to 2011 is used. The method is statistical, based on mean September ice extent and minimum September ice volume (PIOMAS, Zhang and Rothrock, 2003).
Hamilton, 4.0 +/- 0.3, Statistical
A simple regression model for NSIDC mean September extent as a function of mean daily sea ice area from August 1 to 5, 2012 (and a quadratic function of time) predicts a mean September 2012 extent of 4.02 million km2, with a confidence interval of plus or minus .32. This supersedes an earlier year-in-advance prediction based on a Gompertz (asymmetrical S curve) model that used data only through September 2011.
Beitsch et al, 4.1 +/- 0.1, Statistical
The KlimaCampus’s outlook is based on statistical analysis of satellite derived sea ice area.
We introduced the following method: use of near-real-time (SSMI/S) sea ice concentration data combined with long data sets (SSM/I: 1992{2011), a time-domain _lter that reduces observational noise, and a space-domain selection that neglects the outer seasonal ice zones. The daily estimate of the September extent, the anomaly of the current day and a time series of daily estimates since May 2012 can be found on our ftp-server: ftp://ftp-projects.zmaw.de/seaice/prediction/2012/
Folkerts, 4.1 ± 0.2, Statistical
A variety of publicly available monthly data from 1978 forward (including area, extent, volume, regional extent, NCEP Reanalysis Data, and various climate indices) was collected. For each year, monthly data up to 24 months before the September minimum extent was organized and correlated with the minimum extent. Multiple regression analysis was also performed on a variety of combinations of these explanatory variables, seeking sets of data that correlate well with September extent, while trying to avoid overfitting. In addiction, analysis was also performed using the annual change in extent as the dependent variable (which, together with the extent the previous September, also allows predictions of the upcoming minimum).
Andersen, 4.1, n/a, Statistical
Same as last month.
Morison, 4.2, n/a, Heuristic
Same as last month.
Randles, 4.2, ± 0.7, Statistical
I use an average of two methods. One is as used in my previous submissions this year of a linear regression to predict the expected residual from a gompertz fit of September Extent using the residual from a gompertz fit of Cryosphere Today area. The other method is to calculate a weighted average of Cryosphere Today area and NSIDC Extent giving 1.5 weight to area. The difference between this and the NSIDC September average extent is calculated and estimated with a linear trend.
Naval Research Laboratory, 4.3 +/- 0.6, Model
The Arctic Cap Nowcast Forecast System (ACNFS) was run in forward model mode, without assimilation, initialized with a July 1, 2012 analysis, for nine simulations using archived Navy atmospheric forcing fields from 2003-2011. The mean ice extent in September, averaged across all ensemble members, is our projected ice extent. The standard deviation across the ensemble mean ice extents is an estimate of the uncertainty of our projection given we do not know the atmospheric conditions that will occur this summer. Please note, this is a developmental model that has not been fully validated in non-assimilative mode, but the assimilative system has been validated to provide an accurate ice forecast [Posey et al. 2010].
Netweather.tv, 4.3, n/a, Heuristic
The prediction method was based on a poll of Netweather.tv forum members. The question was “What do you think the MEAN September sea ice extent will be?” The mean (4,338,095km2) of the…votes was rounded to the closest 100,000 and used to form the prediction.
Lukovich et al, 4.3, n/a, Heuristic
It is hypothesized that the 2012 fall sea ice extent will attain values comparable to those of 2011 based on a heuristic assessment of sea ice and surface atmospheric dynamics, with regional losses governed by local wind and ice conditions.
Zhang and Lindsay, 4.4, +/- 0.4, Model
These results are obtained from a numerical ensemble seasonal forecasting system. The forecasting system is based on a synthesis of a model, the NCEP/NCAR reanalysis data, and satellite observations of ice concentration and sea surface temperature. The model is the Pan-Arctic Ice-Ocean Modeling and Assimilation System (PIOMAS, Zhang and Rothrock, 2003). The ensemble consists of seven members each of which uses a unique set of NCEP/NCAR atmospheric forcing fields from recent years, representing recent climate, such that ensemble member 1 uses 2005 NCEP/NCAR forcing, member 2 uses 2006 forcing …, and member 7 uses 2011 forcing…In addition, the recently available IceBridge and helicopter-based electromagnetic (HEM) ice thickness quicklook data are assimilated into the initial 12-category sea ice thickness distribution fields in order to improve the initial conditions for the predictions.
Keen et al (Met Office), 4.4, +/-0.9, Model
Same as last month.
Kauker et al, 4.5, +/- 0.4, Model
Sea ice-ocean model ensemble run – For a more detailed description we refer to our July report. The ensemble model experiments for the August outlook all start from the same initial conditions on July 30th 2012. The simulated daily ice extent for all 20 realizations of the ensemble is shown in Figure 1 from the initialization until end of September. Note that August and September atmospheric conditions similar to 2007 would result in a September minimum of 3.6 million km2 (thick black line in Figure 1). Atmospheric forcing similar to the years 2008 and 2010 would give a September mean of about 4.0 million km2 .The mean September value of the ensemble mean is 4.46 million kmÇ (bias corrected). The standard deviation of the ensemble is 0.38 million km2 which we provide as uncertainty estimate of the prediction.
Meier et al, 4.5, +/-0.3, Statistical
This statistical method uses previous years’ daily extent change rates from August 1 through September 30 to calculate projected daily extents starting from July 31. The September daily extents are averaged to calculate the monthly extent. Rates from recent years are more likely to occur because of the change in ice cover. Thus, the official projection is based on the rates for 2002-2011, yielding a September 2012 average of 4.47 million square kilometers; the range however is still quite large with a standard deviation of 335,000 square kilometers. Using all years (1979-2011) yields a slightly higher estimate of 4.66 million square kilometers, but a similar range of 337,000 square kilometers. Five out of the 33 scenarios (using rates from 1979, 1999, 2004, 2007 and 2008) would yield a new record minimum September extent. This suggests the chance for a record low this year is ~15%, though this probably underestimates the probability because recent years have tended to follow faster decline rates.
WattsUpWithThat.com, 4.5, n/a, Heuristic
Reader poll.
Stroeve et al, 4.6, range 4.1-5.2, Statistical
Same as last month.
Tivy, 4.7, +/-0.5, Statistical
A persistence forecast based on anomalies in July extent where the mean period is defined as the average of the previous five years. Persistence is a benchmark for more sophisticated techniques.
Kay et al, 4.7, range 4.0-5.7, Heuristic
An informal pool of 23 climate scientists on June 1, 2012 estimates that the September 2012 Arctic sea ice extent will be 4.68 million sq. km. (stdev. 0.32, min. 4.00, max. 5.70). In 2008, 2009, and 2011, our informal pool estimates of the mean September ice extent were within 0.10 million sq. km. of the corresponding observed value, making our informal method competitive with more sophisticated prediction efforts.
Canadian Ice Service, 4.7, n/a, Multiple Methods
As with CIS contributions in June 2009, 2010 and 2011, the 2012 forecast was derived using a combination of three methods: 1) a qualitative heuristic method based on observed end-of-winter Arctic ice thicknesses and extents, as well as an examination of Surface Air Temperature (SAT), Sea Level Pressure (SLP) and vector wind anomaly patterns and trends; 2) an experimental Optimal Filtering Based (OFB) Model which uses an optimal linear data filter to extrapolate NSIDC’s September Arctic Ice Extent time series into the future; and 3) an experimental Multiple Linear Regression (MLR) prediction system that tests ocean, atmosphere and sea ice predictors.
Wu et al, 4.7, +/-0.3, Model
Same as last month.
Blanchard-Wrigglesworth et al, 4.9, +/-0.6, Model
Same as last month.
John Daily said (by Smokey’s quote)
And there we have another example of an assertion by a self-proclaimed “skeptic” which is not sustained by scientific evidence. The hypothesis is that there exists a “thinning cycle”.
Now, using the scientific method, which evidence does John Daily present that this “thinning cycle” exists, other than an anecdotal note from 1817 ? And if a cycle exists, what is it’s frequency and amplitude ? And what may be it’s physical cause ?
Without any evidence nor theory supporting John Daily’s assertion of a “thinning cycle”, the scientific method dictates that we discard his hypothesis.
THAT is how the scientific method works, and you know that, Smokey.
Rob Dekker,
You just don’t get it. The entire debate is over the conjecture that CO2=CAGW. Climate alarmists make the claim, therefore the onus is on them to provide supporting evidence. The fact that there is no scientific evidence to support the CO2=CAGW conjecture means that the conjecture is a belief system.
Smokey,
Apart from the fact that you fail to sustain your own assertions with any evidence, you now resort to a strawman argument.
You fail to define CAGW, you fail to specify WHO the “climate alarmists” are and you fail to specify WHERE these “climate alarmists make the claim” that CO2=CAGW.
Can you not back up ANY of your claims with ANY evidence, Smokey ?
Smokey, as an expert on natural variability, please give us your predicion of the number of flood events, on the scale of Hurricane Irene, that New York should expect over the rest of this century.
IPCC was set up specifically to answer questions like these. If you wish to replace IPCC with its sceptic equivalent (NIPCC?) these are the sort of questions you will need to demonstrate your ability to answer.
Rob Dekker
I posted this elsewhere yesterday but it is still relevant;
Once again you are referring only to very modern Arctic dominoes (from 1979).. People of a similar alarmist nature to you were saying exactly the same in 1922;
http://www.examiner.com/x-32936-Seminole-County-Environmental-News-Examiner~y2010m3d2-Arctic-Ocean-is-warming-icebergs-growing-scarcer-reports-Washington-Post
“The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consul Ifft, at Bergen, Norway.
Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers, he declared, all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met with as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm.
Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared. Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts, which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.”
The red hot arctic was news in all the media at the time as this Pathe newsreel demonstrates;
“To Prevent Repetition Titanic Disaster – Ice “Patrol” now finds & warns all vessels of location of Icebergs brought down by abnormal heat from Greenland Coast.” From 1922
http://www.britishpathe.com/video/ice-patrol-aka-to-prevent-repetition-titanic-disas
The warming lasted from 1918 to 1939
In Part 1 of my series on Arctic ice melt I examined the warming of the arctic that commenced in the early 1800’s and lasted for some 60 years, which was first officially noted when the Royal Society brought it to the attention of the British admiralty;
“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, Minutes of Council, Volume 8. pp.149-153, Royal Society, London. 20th November, 1817.
Part 1 was carried here;
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/20/historic-variation-in-arctic-ice/
You will be delighted to note that I am currently writing Part 2 which demonstrates once again that historical context is required in order to gain a better perspective of todays events which bear remarkable similarity to the past. The arctic has melted to a greater or lesser degree at least 8 times during the holocene
tonyb
Entropic man says:
Smokey, as an expert on natural variability, please give us your predicion of the number of flood events, on the scale of Hurricane Irene, that New York should expect over the rest of this century.
IPCC was set up specifically to answer questions like these.
It was not.
If you wish to replace IPCC with its sceptic equivalent …
Gads. Who would want to do that?
Not sure how that would work, anyways. Tough to make a global power grab based on skepticism. False certainty or “post normal decision making” are what you need for that. Hence, IPCC.
Smokey says:
August 20, 2012 at 3:56 pm
Phil says:
“Really, there’s nothing in that outdated site that supports your claims.”
Outdated?
Yes outdated for the reason I stated which as usual because it’s inconvenient for your propaganda you omit from your ‘cherry picked’ quote.
In case you forget it’s now 2012, Daly’s site doesn’t include data on Arctic seaice since 2000.
During the last 12 years the seaice extent has decreased significantly which is why Daly’s site is outdated and one of the reasons it’s worthless as a source of evidence in these discussions. Over the period for which he showed data the average anomaly was ~0, since then it’s more like –1.5 million sqkm with excursions below –2 million (like now). His site mostly consists of anecdotal cherry picking so I can see why it appeals to you.
John Daly rcounts the historical fact that the Arctic lost sea ice in the 1800′s, just like today.
Just because there was a decrease in seaice does not make it ‘just like today’, in fact it was not even close to conditions today.
For example, Daly includes the famous quote to the Royal Society from 1817 about loss of ice in the circumpolar regions. The following year John Franklin tried to sail from Spitzbergen but had to return due to pack-ice. The following year he led the overland Coppermine Expedition on a trek from Hudson bay to Great Slave Lake, due in part to “unusually harsh weather”, over half of the expedition died.
I understand that the alarmist crowd “adjusts” the temperature record. But since they cannot “adjust” John Daly’s site, they resort to labeling the historical record “outdated”. Lame.
Outdated it certainly is, not to mention it’s far from a historical record, and extremely cherry-picked, it is he who has ‘adjusted’ history. Also Daly’s assertion of ‘cycles’ is unsupported by any evidence other than the ice has fluctuated in the past, it takes much more than that to demonstrate a cycle!
Your statement “In 1817 CO2 levels were much lower than they are now. Therefore, CO2 is not the cause of declining sea ice,”, makes no sense, firstly because you attempt to equate conditions then and now, secondly you attempt to assert that the only parameter that has changed is CO2, whereas for example Arctic insolation has decreased since then.
As pointed out before you make the assertion “eyewitness observations confirm that Arctic ice was this low in 1958, in the 1920′s, and in the 1800′s which you have failed to substantiate despite repeated requests to do so, Daly’s site does not come close to doing this!
“I see tjfolkerts for you back-radiation is like electric heater or sun radiation.
If the atmosphere is backradiating 333 W down, is it also radiating 333 W up? So to say losing 666 W? Where does it come from? Please do for me the heat transfer calculation with back radiation numbers, would be very interested to understand.
I haven’t been looking at this thread, and an open thread might be better … but here is a very brief answer. First if you want to treat the atmosphere as radiating 333 up and 333 down, then you are clearly focusing on the bottom of the atmosphere. So at a minimum we need to treat the atmosphere as having 2 separate layers (more would be better, but 2 will do).
The “lower layer” of the atmosphere radiates
* 333 W/m^2 up and
* 333W/m^2 down
as you say for a net outward IR radiation of 666 W/m^2.
The lower atmosphere receives
* 356 W/m^s from surface IR
* 80 W/m^2 from evapotranspiration
* 17 W/m^2 from thermals.
* 199 W/m^2 from the “upper layer” of the atmosphere (The upper layer is radiating 199 W/m^2 upward to space in the diagram, so it must also be radiating 199 W/m^2 downward.)
So far we have a total of 666 W/m^2 out, and 652 W/m^2 in, so we are nearly balanced, but we 14 W/m^2 to finish the balance. Fortunately there is still the “78 W/m^2 absorbed by the atmosphere” from the incoming sunlight. Presumably 14 W/m^2 of that sunlight is absorbed by the lower atmosphere, and 62 by the upper atmosphere. And voilà, we are balanced.
(Or we could play games with some of the numbers .. some of the evapotranspiration could go straight to the upper layer (thunderstorms), but more of the 78 W/m^2 could get absorbed by the lower atmosphere. The point is that there is plenty of energy available to provide 333 W/m^2 upward AND 333 W/m^2 upward from the lower layers of the atmosphere).
PS Lars, I misread your comment about reflection. I know about Fresnel reflection equations, but didn’t realize that is what you were discussing … sorry. Light in general does indeed reflect well if it hits water at a glancing angle.
tonyb said :
Please note that there is very little scientific data in any of this story from 1922. The exception may be this sentence :
Or did you even check if open ocean as far as 81.5 deg North was present during summers and fall in the past decade ? or even last winter ?
If open ocean as far north as 81.5 deg North is very common in satellite history, even in fall/winter, and this does not even get reported on internet blogs, let alone in MSM, then why would you want to highlight a newspaper article from 1922 reporting it as “relevant” ?
Now let’s look at summer time extent in 2012 :
http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de:8084/ssmis/arctic_SSMIS_nic.png
Lo and behold. We can sail all the way to 82.5 North without encountering much ice at all.
Not just that, but BOTH the NE and the NW passage are open simultaniously. Just sail right through.
If that would have happened in any of your already cherry-picked time frames, we would have seen a completely different story in these old newspapers, now wouldn’t we ?
The “historical” accounts you present are not just cherry-picked and out of date, they are actually confirming how much warmer the Arctic has become since then.
Update on ARUS minimum Arctic Sea Ice extent predictions :
Mother Nature seems to be the ultimate ‘alarmist’ among us.
Here is NSIDC’s extent overview from the past couple of days :
2012, 08, 15, 4.80838,
2012, 08, 16, 4.67673,
2012, 08, 17, 4.63991,
2012, 08, 18, 4.55608,
2012, 08, 19, 4.44738,
2012, 08, 20, 4.33489,
2012, 08, 21, 4.33137,
Yes folks, 4.33 M km^2 right now (200k below WUWT’s realistic forecast of 4.5), still going down fast, and the melting season has a couple of weeks to go.
Many records have been broken already, decline is far worse than even the most agressive model projections (other than Maslovski’s high-resolution models that forecast ice free Arctic in 2016 +/- 3 years) and we are not done yet.
Even the conservative Arctic Roos is still nose-diving after already breaking the 2007 minimum SIA record earlier this week.
http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/observation_images/ssmi1_ice_area.png
All this while the 2012 summer was not exceptional, weather-wise.
While holding your breath until minimum extent is reached in the next couple of weeks, remember that you are watching history in the the making in the Arctic.
Phil says:
“Outdated it certainly is, not to mention it’s far from a historical record, and extremely cherry-picked, it is he who has ‘adjusted’ history. Also Daly’s assertion of ‘cycles’ is unsupported by any evidence other than…” & blah, blah, etc…
I post links, which Phil dismisses as being ‘cherry picked’ …while Phil posts nothing but his baseless opinion. That opinion amounts to: “I don’t agree! WAAAH!”
Here I present literally dozens of links confirming to all but the most closed-minded that the Arctic regularly becomes ice free. I have more links, just ask and I’ll post them.
And Rob Dekker, my response to your comments is only two words: So what?
The Arctic is routinely ice free. It is completely natural. Deal with it.
Dekker does not understand that empirical observations are “evidence”. Thus, there is ample evidence showing that the Arctic becomes ice free on a regular basis. There is no reason to blame “carbon” – as if CO2 can distinguish between the growing Antarctic ice cap and declining Arctic ice. They are both completely natural cycles, and human activity has had no measurable effect. None. Human activity=Arctic ice decline is just a baseless belief system. No science is involved; those who believe, believe despite the historical record. It’s their religion. Science is just a thin veneer covering their unscientific true belief.
Smokey says:
August 23, 2012 at 10:27 am
Phil says:
“Outdated it certainly is, not to mention it’s far from a historical record, and extremely cherry-picked, it is he who has ‘adjusted’ history. Also Daly’s assertion of ‘cycles’ is unsupported by any evidence other than…” & blah, blah, etc…
I post links, which Phil dismisses as being ‘cherry picked’ …while Phil posts nothing but his baseless opinion. That opinion amounts to: “I don’t agree! WAAAH!”
You post cherry picked links which don’t support your assertions and make no attempt to rebut any of my statements, in fact you pretend they don’t exist. You have yet to post a single link in support of these three assertions: “eyewitness observations confirm that Arctic ice was this low in 1958, in the 1920′s, and in the 1800′s.”
Here I present literally dozens of links confirming to all but the most closed-minded that the Arctic regularly becomes ice free. I have more links, just ask and I’ll post them.
Just post one that confirms that “the Arctic regularly becomes ice free”. You’ve failed to do so so far, a link to ‘Steve Goddard’ and a bunch of newspaper articles which often don’t exist, doesn’t make it. Not one of those demonstrate that the Arctic became ‘ice free’.
And Rob Dekker, my response to your comments is only two words: So what?
The Arctic is routinely ice free. It is completely natural. Deal with it.
It is neither “routinely ice free” nor is it’s current state “completely natural”, you deal with that.
Dekker does not understand that empirical observations are “evidence”. Thus, there is ample evidence showing that the Arctic becomes ice free on a regular basis.
Yet despite that you’ve failed to produce one piece of evidence showing that!
There is no reason to blame “carbon” – as if CO2 can distinguish between the growing Antarctic ice cap and declining Arctic ice. They are both completely natural cycles, and human activity has had no measurable effect. None. Human activity=Arctic ice decline is just a baseless belief system. No science is involved; those who believe, believe despite the historical record. It’s their religion. Science is just a thin veneer covering their unscientific true belief.
It’s your religion that those natural cycles exist and there is no evidence provided by you to show that human activities have no effect. It is you who believe in that despite the historical record.
Phil. says, regarding the dozens of eyewitness accounts of previous Arctic melting:
“… you’ve failed to produce one piece of evidence showing that!”
Observations are evidence. But Phil’s mind is closed tight. Obviously, he will reject all those contemporary newspaper reports of declining Arctic ice because they debunk his alarmist true beliefs.
But the fact is that Arctic ice regularly melts due to natural climate variability. Attempting to lay the blame on human activity has no scientific support. It is a desperate tactic used by desperate people. In fact, the truth is there for anyone who looks for it.
Smokey says:
August 24, 2012 at 3:44 am
Phil. says, regarding the dozens of eyewitness accounts of previous Arctic melting:
“… you’ve failed to produce one piece of evidence showing that!”
Observations are evidence. But Phil’s mind is closed tight. Obviously, he will reject all those contemporary newspaper reports of declining Arctic ice because they debunk his alarmist true beliefs.
The mind that’s closed is yours ‘Smokey’. The point is, evidence of what, you produce every newspaper article that ‘Steve Goddard’ can find that describes some melting in some part of the Arctic and say that this shows that “the Arctic regularly becomes ice free”, which it patently obviously fails to do! You post a cherry picked quotation about melting in the circumpolar regions in 1817 as if this represented melting similar to today’s but ignore contemporaneous reports of Royal Navy expeditions unable to progress north of Spitzbergen because of pack-ice! Likewise with the melting in the Atlantic/Arctic in 1922 you ignore the newspaper articles about the stranding of the expedition to Wrangel Island by ice for 2 years (1921-1923).
But the fact is that Arctic ice regularly melts due to natural climate variability.
Yes it regularly melts every year but previously not to the extent that it has done for the last several years and particularly not like this year. If it had done so as you claim the NW Passage would have regularly been open like it has been recently.
Attempting to lay the blame on human activity has no scientific support. It is a desperate tactic used by desperate people. In fact, the truth is there for anyone who looks for it.
Indeed the truth is there for anyone who looks for it, it’s about time you opened your eyes and stopped posting your nonsense.
Phil, may I point out that you only have an opinion? Yet you provide no links to support your opinion, while I posted dozens of first hand eye-witness accounts of Arctic ice declines. Just because you are anxious to dismiss them does not mean that those observations – from numerous sources – were fabricated. By that standard you could argue that the Roman Empire was fabricated.
You are entitled to your opinion, no matter how baseless it is. But common sense tells us that since the Holocene was much warmer in the past than currently, Arctic ice cover must have also been sparse to non-existent at times.
Thus, the default position must be that the current Arctic ice cycle is entirely natural. The planet is still emerging from the LIA. And Arctic melting has happened repeatedly in the past, when CO2 was much lower. You can argue with that. But you are only fooling yourself.
Look who’s coming to dinner.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/08/17/china-environment-idUKL6E8JH9AY20120817?envprodukx=0
Entropic,
What’s your point?
The pseudo-science of CAGW?
Nothing to do with cAGW. Just the Chinese starting to take an interest in your backyard.
Smokey says:
August 24, 2012 at 12:27 pm
Phil, may I point out that you only have an opinion? Yet you provide no links to support your opinion, while I posted dozens of first hand eye-witness accounts of Arctic ice declines. Just because you are anxious to dismiss them does not mean that those observations – from numerous sources – were fabricated. By that standard you could argue that the Roman Empire was fabricated.
I don’t argue they are fabricated, I argue that they don’t support your position that “the Arctic regularly becomes ice free”. What they show is that at various times certain parts of the Arctic became less ice-bound than formerly which is quite a different matter (often while other parts of the Arctic became more ice-bound). Not only that, they are cherry picked because you post selected links showing melt while ignoring contemporaneous accounts showing freeze-up (for example the examples I gave you for 1817 and 1920s).
You are entitled to your opinion, no matter how baseless it is. But common sense tells us that since the Holocene was much warmer in the past than currently, Arctic ice cover must have also been sparse to non-existent at times.
Perhaps about 7,000 years ago but none of your links refer to that period, here’s one which shows evidence of melt back then, it also indicates the natural cause, significantly higher insolation. Absent that higher insolation now what do you think is causing the present Arctic sea-ice to melt away? Remember according to you the Globe is cooling at present, although of course when it suits, you also claim it’s warming!
http://www.gisp2.sr.unh.edu/DATA/alley1.html
Thus, the default position must be that the current Arctic ice cycle is entirely natural. The planet is still emerging from the LIA. And Arctic melting has happened repeatedly in the past, when CO2 was much lower. You can argue with that. But you are only fooling yourself.
No, the default position must be that it’s unnatural since the sea-ice is disappearing during a period of reduced insolation, also there’s no evidence that it’s a cycle. Your assertion of repeated Arctic melting is still unsupported unless of course you refer to the annual summer melt although by implication you mean the ice-free state that you referred to before. Here’s a link for you that states that “There is no paleoclimatic evidence for a seasonally ice free Arctic during the last 800 millennia”. http://atoc.colorado.edu/~dcn/reprints/Overpeck_etal_EOS2005.pdf
Phil,
In addition to the dozens of eye witness observations that the Arctic was nearly ice free in recent times, there is evidence that the Arctic was periodically ice free 6,000 – 7,000 years ago.
So forget your 800,000 year fantasy, it isn’t true. You cling to that preposterous notion because it supports your belief that humans are the cause of the current natural Arctic ice decline. The only problem with your belief is that it is wrong, as I’ve shown in the peer reviewed link above. I have more such links if you’re interested in learning.
You are also wrong about the default position. Occam’s Razor and the null hypothesis would help you understand. If you need yet another explanation of either one or both, just ask. I’m patient, and I’m here to help make the scales fall from your eyes.
I’m also here to keep new readers from being swayed by anti-science, which is what you’re preaching. Anyone who looks at Holocene temperatures knows that prior warming episodes have been hotter than now, and thus Arctic ice would have receded more than currently.
According to these sites, it looks like we have a new record ice extent record.
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php
This site shows this melt has smashed the 2007 area record and are very, very close to breaking the 2007 extent record.
http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/ice-area-and-extent-in-arctic
And we still have at least 3 more weeks to go in the melt season with no indication whatsoever that the melting is even slowing down. There’s nothing left up there but soupy mush.
Smokey says: “In addition to the dozens of eye witness observations that the Arctic was nearly ice free in recent times…
You still seem to be missing Phil’s point!
Yes, you have shown dozens of eye witness accounts that SPECIFIC SMALL SECTIONS of the Arctic were nearly ice-free.
Yes, there have been times when the Arctic truly was nearly ice-free — perhaps 10,000 years ago. Probably during many of the interglacial periods. Almost certainly at some times when the dinosaurs were around. But conditions were different then, so it is not an apples-to-apples comparison.
But we are talking about recent times (say the last 500 years) covering all of your “eye witness accounts”. And we are talking about your claim of having most of the Arctic “nearly ice free”. It looks like the extent this summer may well be down near 4.0 million km^2, but even that is not all that close to “ice free”. So “nearly ice free” would mean something smaller than this year.
Since there are apparently so many years when eye witness observation confirm that the Arctic was nearly ice free, choose ONE specific year and provide evidence that the entire Arctic was nearly ice-free that year (ie even less than this year). With all those records you have, the only tough part should be narrowing down which year to choose!
tjfolkerts,
Phil claims that the Arctic was never ice free over the past 800,000 years. You say: “Yes, there have been times when the Arctic truly was nearly ice-free — perhaps 10,000 years ago.”
So we are in agreement, and Phil is wrong as I made clear in my link to a peer reviewed study.
The fact is that Arctic ice cover comes and goes. It is cyclical. And human activity has nothing to do with it. If I am wrong, then provide chapter and verse – per the scientific method – showing conclusively that human emitted CO2 is causing Arctic ice decline.
Smokey says: “Phil claims that the Arctic was never ice free over the past 800,000 years. ”
1) I looked back briefly thru this thread and found nothing to support that claim. Where does he say the Arctic has never been nearly ice free in the summer in the last 800,000 years? What “peer reviewed study” are you referring to?
2) You still are side-stepping any effort to support your claims that the Arctic has been nearly ice free any time within the recent past based on all those “eye witness reports.” Which specific year was nearly ice free? What reports show extensive melting over the entire Arctic basin?
3) If you refer to “cycles” then you are referring not to random variations, but to specific cycles with specific causes. Nature is not simply random, after all. Climate does not change for no reason. So a few 1000 years ago, the insolation to the Arctic in the summer was higher and there would be good reason to expect less summer ice. But that is not the case today. You can’t appeal to “cycles” causing changes in the past when those cycles are not occurring now. That is logically equivalent to saying “day and night are cyclic, so daylight is perfectly natural and seeing sunlight at midnight could be attributed to natural cycles”.