Earlier today in part1, I posted about the new record low claimed by NSIDC: Sea Ice News – Volume 3 Number 11, part 1 – new Arctic satellite extent record. The number given is 4.1 million square kilometers:
That of course is being trumpeted far and wide, new life has been given to Mark Serreeze’s “Arctic death spiral” in the media. But, here’s a curiosity, another NSIDC product, the new and improved “multi-sensor” MASIE product, shows no record low at ~ 4.7 million square kilometers:
Note the label at the bottom of the image in red. NSIDC doesn’t often mention this product in their press releases. They most certainly didn’t mention it today.
Another product, NOAA’s National Ice Center Interactive Multisensor Snow and Ice Mapping System (IMS) plot, also shows no reason for claiming a record at all:
Their number is (for 8/22) ~ 5.1 million square kilometers. (NOTE: NSIDC’s Dr. Walt Meir points out in comments that IMS and MASIE use the same base data, but that this one product from IMS only updates weekly, unlike all other sea ice plots which are daily. They should be in sync on the next update cycle, but right now MASIE and IMS should both be at 4.7 million sqkm. -A)
Another curiosity is here. On the NATICE interactive maps on demand page (click on Arctic Daily in the pulldown menu):
The numbers they give for 80% and marginal ice add up to an extent of 6,149, 305 square kilometers.
So who to believe? It depends on the method, and who thinks their method is most representative of reality. Measuring sea ice via satellite, especially when you use a single passive sensor system that has been show in the past to have degradation problems and outright failure (which I was told weren’t worth mentioning until they discovered I was right and pulled the plug) might be a case of putting all your eggs in one basket. I suspect that at some point, we’ll see a new basket that maybe isn’t so worn, but for now, the old basket provides a comfort for those who relish new records, even though those records may be virtual.
Note that we don’t see media pronouncements from NOAA’s NATICE center like “death spiral” and “the Arctic is screaming” like we get from its activist director, Mark Serreze. So I’d tend to take NSIDC’s number with a grain of salt, particularly since they have not actively embraced the new IMS system when it comes to reporting totals. Clearly NSDIC knows the value of the media attention when they announce new lows, and director Serreze clearly knows how to make hay from it.
But this begs the question, why not move to the new system like NOAA’s National Ice Center has done? Well, it is a lot like our July temperature records. We have a shiny new state of the art Climate Reference Network system that gives a national average that is lower for July than the old USHCN network and all of its problems, yet NCDC doesn’t tell you about the July numbers that come from it. Those tasks were left to Dr. Roy Spencer and myself.
In fairness though, I asked Dr. Walt Meier of NSIDC what he thought about MASIE, and this is what he wrote to me today:
It can provide better detail, particularly in some regions, e.g., the Northwest Passage.
However, it’s not as useful for looking at trends or year-to-year
variations because it is produced from imagery of varying quantity and quality. So the analyses done in 2007 have different imagery sources than this year. And imagery varies even day to day. If skies are clear, MODIS can be used; if it’s cloudy then MODIS is not useful. Another thing is that the imagery is then manually analyzed by ice analysts, so
there is some subjectivity in the analysis – it may depend on the amount of time an analyst has in a given day.
Our data is from passive microwave imagery. It is not affected by clouds, it obtains complete data every data (except when there may be a sensor issue), it has only consistent, automated processes. So we have much more confidence in comparing different days, years, etc. in our passive microwave data than is possible using MASIE.
Finally, MASIE’s mandate is to try to produce the best estimate they can of where there is any sea ice. So they may include even very low concentrations of ice <15%. In looking at visible imagery from MODIS, in the few cloud-free regions, there does appear to be some small concentration of ice where MASIE is mapping ice and our satellite data is not detecting ice. This is ice that is very sparse, likely quite thin. So it will probably melt out completely in the next week or two.
MASIE has tended to lag behind our data and then it catches up as the sparse ice that they map disappears. This year the difference between the two is a bit larger than we’ve seen in other years, because there is a larger area of sparse ice.
You can thank the big Arctic storm of August 4th-8th for that dispersal.
“The Great Arctic Cyclone of 2012″ effect on Arctic sea ice is seen in this before and after image:
Figure 4. These maps of sea ice concentration from the Special Sensor Microwave Imager/Sounder (SSMIS) passive microwave sensor highlight the very rapid loss of ice in the western Arctic (northwest of Alaska) during the strong Arctic storm. Magenta and purple colors indicate ice concentration near 100%; yellow, green, and pale blue indicate 60% to 20% ice concentration.
Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center courtesy IUP Bremen
Trends -vs- records, just like July temperatures. One system might be better at trends, another might be better at absolutes used to determine records. In this case we have three other respected methods that show absolute values higher than that of NSIDC’s older method which they have a high confidence in. I suppose these systems are like children. In a competition, you always root for your children over the children of the other parents, so it is no surprise that NSIDC would root for their own well known media star “child” over that of NATICE’s IMS and NSIDC’s own lesser known child, MASIE.
Oh, and then there’s Antarctica, that other neglected ice child nobody talks about, with its above normal ice amounts right now:
No matter what though, its all just quibbling over just a little more than 30 years of satellite data, and it is important to remember that. It is also important to remember that MASIE wasn’t around during the last record low in 2007, and IMS was just barely out of beta test from 2006. As measurement systems improve, we should include them in the discussion.
UPDATE: Andrew Revkin reports on the issue in his Dot Earth article here
He’s a bit skeptical of the sound byte hype coming from NSIDC writing:
That’s one reason that, even with today’s announcement that the sea ice reached a new low extent for the satellite era, I wouldn’t bet that “the Arctic is all but certain to be virtually ice free within two decades,” as some have proposed. I’d say fifty/fifty odds, at best.
…
But is this a situation that is appropriately described as a “death spiral”? Not by my standards.
Revkin also takes Al Gore to task on Twitter:
help him out, retweet this
UPDATE2: Commenter Ron C. provides this useful information in comments that helps explain some of the differences and issues:
The main point is that NIC works with images, while the others are microwave products.
“Polar orbiting satellites are the only source of a complete look at the polar areas of the earth, since their orbits cross near the poles approximately every two hours with 12 to 13 orbits a day of useful visible data. This visible imagery can then be analyzed to detect the snow and ice fields and the difference in reflectivity of the snow and ice. By analyzing these areas each day, areas of cloud cover over a particular area of snow and ice can be kept to a minimum to allow a cloud free look at these regions. This chart can then be useful as a measure of the extent of snow and ice for any day during the year and it can also be compared to previous years for climatic studies.”
http://www.natice.noaa.gov/ims/snow_ice.html
“NIC charts are produced through the analyses of available in situ, remote sensing, and model data sources. They are generated primarily for mission planning and safety of navigation. NIC charts generally show more ice than do passive microwave derived sea ice concentrations, particularly in the summer when passive microwave algorithms tend to underestimate ice concentration. The record of sea ice concentration from the NIC series is believed to be more accurate than that from passive microwave sensors, especially from the mid-1990s on (see references at the end of this documentation), but it lacks the consistency of some passive microwave time series. ”
http://nsidc.org/data/g02172.html
Some have analyzed the underestimation by microwave products.
“We compare the ice chart data to ice concentrations from the NASA Team algorithm which, along with the Bootstrap algorithm [Comiso, 1995], has proved to be perhaps the most popular used for generating ice concentrations [Cavalieri et al.,1997]. We find a baseline difference in integrated ice concentration coverage north of 45N of 3.85% ± 0.73% during November to May (ice chart concentrations are larger). In summer, the difference between the two sources of data rises to a maximum of 23% peaking in early August, equivalent to ice coverage the size of Greenland.”
From Late twentieth century Northern Hemisphere sea-ice record from U.S. National Ice Center ice charts, Partington, Flynn, Lamb, Bertoia, and Dedrick
http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1058&context=usdeptcommercepub
The differences are even greater for Canadian regions.
“More than 1380 regional Canadian weekly sea-ice charts for four Canadian regions and 839 hemispheric U.S. weekly sea-ice charts from 1979 to 1996 are compared with passive microwave sea-ice concentration estimates using the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Team algorithm. Compared with the Canadian regional ice charts, the NASA Team algorithm underestimates the total ice-covered area by 20.4% to 33.5% during ice melt in the summer and by 7.6% to 43.5% during ice growth in the late fall.”
From: The Use of Operational Ice Charts for Evaluating Passive Microwave Ice Concentration Data, Agnew and Howell
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.3137/ao.410405
IMS is currently showing lowest extent for this time of year.
I think from this plot of regional sea ice it can be gleaned that the MASIE product is showing the lowest sea ice coverage for this time of year.
http://nsidc.org/data/masie/masie_plots.html
2012 shows as a flat line at the bottom of some of the graphs where there is no sea ice in that region.
The numbers would be better, but I’m having difficulty unearthing a long-term data stream I can directly plot in Exel. But as MASIE data stream seems to begin in 2008 (at best), it’s not a good metric to discern whether records may be broken, not to mention it is not quality controlled for year-to-year comparison (but good for day to day).
I think it’s safe to say that every sea ice data set for the Northern Hemisphere is showing a record for this time of year, and most of them are showing outright record daily minimum.
Of course, record-breakers are only indications. What really matters is the long-term trend.
So Meier has pretty much totally trashed MASIE. So why the heck do they even bother with it?
“The Great Arctic Cyclone of 2012″ effect on Arctic sea ice is seen in this before and after image:”
———————————————————————————————————–
And the True Believer warmists are blaming man-made global warming for that cyclone itself, just like they have blamed man-made co2 for each and every weather event this spring and summer.
The latest MASIE (Aug. 27) is down to 4.5 million.
This just in –Mark Serreze *still* wrong.
kadaka (KD Knoebel), Thank you for the reference. Using the Acronym finders on line sometimes produces amusing results thanks to the predilection of other disciplines for generating their own jargon.
Smokey says:
August 28, 2012 at 5:55 pm
I have repeatedly provided solid scientific evidence showing conclusively that CO2 rises as a function of temperature. CO2 does not cause any net temperature rise. The planet is still warming from the Little Ice Age, causing CO2 to outgas from the oceans just like it outgases from a warming beer. You have cause and effect reversed. Rising CO2 is the effect, not the cause of global warming.
So the 25 ppm rise in CO2 levels since 1998 is because the earth is now much warmer than
it was in 1998. The rise in CO2 cannot be explained by warmer ocean temperatures. It is true there will be net out gassing during warm (EL Nino) years but this should be offset by net absorbtion in colder (La Nina) years. Other points:
1. What do you think happens to CO2 which comes from fossil fuel burning?
2. Despite your assertion that increased CO2 comes from ‘outgassing’, the oceans have actually become slightly more acidic – because they have become net CO2 absorbers over the past few decades.
3. Following the last ice age, there was a ~100 ppm rise in CO2 which took thousands of years to fully realise. The rise was in response to a temperature change of around 6 deg C. Since ~1900 CO2 has increased by ~100 ppm – supposedly (according to you) in response to a temp increase of just 0.8 deg C. This CO2 rise has taken just 100 years. In 1982 CO2 levels were ~341 ppm; In 2011 they were ~391 ppm, so the rise the rise in the last 30 years alone has been ~50 ppm.
Gail Combs:
As somebody else has mentioned, the Arctic sea is still absorbing a lot of sunlight so even though the air is below freezing in some areas, it is not everywhere in the Arctic and the sea may not be below zero, particularly at mid and lower Arctic latitudes. At 78 degrees north (mid Arctic) the sea is still seeing 19 hours of sunshine.
Every year the total area and extent of sea ice continues to reduce well into September even though “average” Arctic air temperatures may be as low as -8c to -10c.
I have no scientific basis for the following, other than past observations of ice melting in a tub of water, but it seems to me that breaking up ice and spreading it around a larger area of water will tend to increase the rate of melt? The more fragmented the ice the greater the surface area of ice that is exposed to water. Smaller ice cubes melt quicker than larger ones.
Where has the ice gone? I conjecture that it has been blown out into the open sea by the storm where a larger proportion of it than in past years has melted – but we shall see when the sea ice grows again as it will tend to start forming around existing bergs.
I would count myself as a AGW “sceptic” simply because I distrust models and prefer evidence from the real world. I am fully willing to accept that evidence when it is clear and unambiguous. To me it is abundantly clear from many sources that we are seeing a very rapid loss of sea ice consistently for all the years we have records.
Whether this is part of a natural cycle or caused by anthropogenic global warming is still open to some argument, but the longer it goes on the less likely the “natural cycle” theory – particularly if it continues even after the AMO moves into a cold phase. However this sea ice melt is fully consistent with predictions resulting from the AGW hypothesis. The “warmists” are definitely winning this one!
Deniers are definitely on defensive here. If I were one I would stop posting on this, undertake a tactical retreat and only return if the evidence starts to point in my favour again!
When one reads this entire thread it becomes quite apparent that a similar argument occrued Thousands of years when a group of persons decided that the sun would keep going down after December 20 or there abouts never to return. One side of the argument was that the failure of men to live a good moral life was causing the gods to be displeased (please deposit donation to appease said gods). The otherside said that it is pointless and unreasonable to suggest that some unknown force created out of fear in anthropromorphic form could possibly be requesting donations that merely lined the pockets of the moralists in ashen cloak. The argument became so heated that one side or the other drug a bunch of really big stones to a place in Southwest England and built an observatory to track whether or no the sun would actually return. After a great deal of arguing, hand waiving, gesturing, fighting and perhaps a little human or animal sacrifice, they figured out there was more or less a cycle and not a straight line pointing to their impending doom. Once the donations fell off, the moralists looked for another means of shearing the sheep. The rationalists were left there penniless having disporoved more or less the moralists original assertions, but not having understood that there never really was an argument about whether the sun would go up or down. In the end it was just a confidence game intended to steal from the easily swayed.
Sheep will always find a new master.
I would like to thank Walt Meier for his professional, timely and courteous responses on this thread.
John Finn,
You are worried sick over the fact that CO2 is slightly higher recently. However, looking at the bigger picture, we see that CO2 levels are about as low as they have ever been.
You ask what happens to CO2 produced by fossil fuel burning. The answer is that it becomes part of the carbon cycle. The biosphere greatly benefits from the added CO2. And there is no evidence of any global harm resulting. Therefore, more CO2 is harmless and beneficial.
Next, you assert that “the oceans have actually become slightly more acidic”, without any testable, verifiable scientific evidence that this is true. Thus, the oceans becoming ‘acidic’ is only your personal belief. Several previous WUWT articles and comments show conclusively that “ocean acidification” has no credible supporting evidence. But beliefs are comfortable, so you don’t really need verifiable evidence. The rest of us do.
Finally, you say: “Following the last ice age, there was a ~100 ppm rise in CO2 which took thousands of years to fully realise. The rise was in response to a temperature change of around 6 deg C.”
You probably don’t realize it, but your statement supports the evidence that CO2 levels rise as a function of temperature. Sorry to see you shoot yourself in the foot like that.
In your March 31, 2010 post entitled “Arctic Sea Ice about to hit ‘normal’”, you put a lot of faith in the Danish, Norwegian, NORSEX, and JAXA calculations—to quote you:
The Danish Meteorological Institute shows Arctic ice extent at the highest level in their six year record. … Source: DMI Ice Extent
The Norwegians (NORSEX) show Arctic ice area above the 30 year mean. … Source: NORSEX Ice Area
And the NORSEX Ice Extent is not far behind, within 1 standard deviation, and similar to NSIDC’s presentation. Note that is hit normal last year, but later. … Source: NORSEX Ice Extent
And JAXA, using the more advanced AMSR-E sensor platform on the AQUA satellite, shows a similar uptick now intersecting the 2003 data line. … Source: IARC-JAXA
Can you comment on what those sources tell us today?
Thanks.
Chris Kennedy
Anchorage, Alaska
Oh, look! Another Hockey-stick graph….who would believe it?
Richard Carlson said on August 28, 2012 at 7:29 pm:
He didn’t trash it, just pointed out that MASIE and the NSIDC Sea Ice Index are separate things for separate purposes.
It’s like the difference between a flashlight and headlights. If you’re walking around outdoors at night, you use a flashlight to identify what’s there. If hurtling down the highway in your car and you need to know what might be ahead, you use headlights. Sure, what looked like it might be a possum in the road can turn out to be an old shopping bag, but you need to know something is there while driving, thus headlights. When casually walking around, use the flashlight and know for sure what it is.
MASIE is a fine resolution operational-type product, suitable for more-urgent tasks like keeping your boat away from sea ice. False positives aren’t an issue as you’re avoiding hitting ice. The SII is for careful thoughtful results when the speed of obtaining results is less important than the definitive accuracy of them. Headlights versus flashlights.
That said, one doesn’t need a flashlight to verify a freaking tree fell onto the road. For such a dramatic loss with such a record low, MASIE should have picked it up just fine.
Chris
As explained in the post above, and again in the thread, those indices are reasonably accurate to measure winter ice extent–for the melt season, not so much.
Smokey says:
August 29, 2012 at 9:08 am
John Finn,
You are worried sick over the fact that CO2 is slightly higher recently. However, looking at the bigger picture, we see that CO2 levels are about as low as they have ever been.
Really, according to ice core data they’re the highest for the last half million years!
http://tinyurl.com/cajhx5q
In fact the evidence is that the last time that the that CO2 levels were this high was 15 million years ago. At that time the geography of Earth was different: no Panama canal and hence much different ocean circulation patterns.
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/last-time-carbon-dioxide-levels-111074.aspx
Next, you assert that “the oceans have actually become slightly more acidic”, without any testable, verifiable scientific evidence that this is true. Thus, the oceans becoming ‘acidic’ is only your personal belief. Several previous WUWT articles and comments show conclusively that “ocean acidification” has no credible supporting evidence. But beliefs are comfortable, so you don’t really need verifiable evidence. The rest of us do.
Well in that case here’s some.
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/file/pH+Time+Series
Finally, you say: “Following the last ice age, there was a ~100 ppm rise in CO2 which took thousands of years to fully realise. The rise was in response to a temperature change of around 6 deg C.”
You probably don’t realize it, but your statement supports the evidence that CO2 levels rise as a function of temperature. Sorry to see you shoot yourself in the foot like that.
Unfortunately Smokey it’s you who has shot yourself in the foot, since as Finn pointed out a ~100ppm requires a sea surface temperature rise of ~6ºC. For this to have occurred over the last century would have required about 8X the observed temperature rise which I take it you are not claiming? Note that this is consistent with the citation above, i.e. the temperature required to give the present level of CO2 would eliminate the Arctic sea ice!
Phil. is clearly fixated on my comments. That’s what happens when you exist in your own bubble of belief in manmade runaway global warming.
Phil says, “… according to ice core data [CO2 levels are] the highest for the last half million years!”
BFD. Look at the chart I posted for the big picture. The biosphere teemed with life when CO2 levels were high. Phil provides zero evidence showing any global harm due to the added CO2. Therefore, his frantic arm-waving and wild-eyed alarmism has no supporting evidence. It is just his belief, nothing more.
Phil also seems to believe that the Panama Canal lowers CO2 levels! Which would provide an easy way to correct high CO2 — if more CO2 was any kind of problem. But it is not, except to those trapped in their CO2=CAGW belief bubble.
Finally, Phil still cannot understand that if CO2 rises after temperature rises, then CO2 is an effect of temperature. Rising temperature causes rising CO2, but people living in a CO2=CAGW belief bubble cannot seem to understand that basic fact. The chart Phil posted shows conclusively that even on very long time scales, temperature leads CO2.
Phil. says:
August 29, 2012 at 11:17 am
In fact the evidence is that the last time that the that CO2 levels were this high was 15 million years ago. At that time the geography of Earth was different: no Panama canal and hence much different ocean circulation patterns.
Should be ‘Panama Isthmus’ of course.
[you would do well to show the proportionate effect of the Panama Canal on ocean currents. By pure eyeball Mk.1 it is trivial. You look like a troll but another opportunity to show you aren’t is extended . . kbmod]
“Before the present-day isthmus was created, water covered the area where Panama is today. A significant body of water (referred to as the Central American Seaway) separated the continents of North and South America, allowing the waters of the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans to mix freely. Beneath the surface, two plates of the Earth’s crust were slowly colliding, forcing the Pacific Plate to slide under the Caribbean Plate. The pressure and heat caused by this collision led to the formation of underwater volcanoes, some of which grew large enough to form islands as early as 15 million years ago. Meanwhile, movement of the two tectonic plates was also pushing up the sea floor, eventually forcing some areas above sea level.
Over time, massive amounts of sediment (sand, soil, and mud) from North and South America filled the gaps between the newly forming islands. Over millions of years, the sediment deposits added to the islands until the gaps were completely filled. By about 3 million years ago, an isthmus had formed between North and South America.
Scientists believe the formation of the Isthmus of Panama is one of the most important geologic events in the last 60 million years. Even though only a small sliver of land relative to the sizes of continents, the Isthmus of Panama had an enormous impact on Earth’s climate and its environment. By shutting down the flow of water between the two oceans, the land bridge re-routed ocean currents in both the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. Atlantic currents were forced northward, and eventually settled into a new current pattern that we call the Gulf Stream today. With warm Caribbean waters flowing toward the northeast Atlantic, the climate of northwestern Europe grew warmer. (Winters there would be as much as 10 °C colder without the transport of heat from the Gulf Stream.) The Atlantic, no longer mingling with the Pacific, grew saltier. Each of these changes helped establish the global ocean circulation pattern in place today. In short, the Isthmus of Panama directly and indirectly influenced ocean and atmospheric circulation patterns, which regulated patterns of rainfall, which in turn sculpted landscapes.[1]
Evidence also suggests that the creation of this land mass and the subsequent, warm wet weather over northern Europe resulted in the formation of a large Arctic ice cap and contributed to the current ice age.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama_Isthmus
Phil. says:
August 29, 2012 at 12:21 pm
Phil. says:
August 29, 2012 at 11:17 am
In fact the evidence is that the last time that the that CO2 levels were this high was 15 million years ago. At that time the geography of Earth was different: no Panama canal and hence much different ocean circulation patterns.
Should be ‘Panama Isthmus’ of course.
[you would do well to show the proportionate effect of the Panama Canal on ocean currents. By pure eyeball Mk.1 it is trivial. You look like a troll but another opportunity to show you aren’t is extended . . kbmod]
Did you read the correction to the typo?
In case you made the same typo and really meant ‘Panama Isthmus’ try reading the following:
http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/viewArticle.do?id=2508
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v393/n6686/abs/393673a0.html
Smokey says:
August 29, 2012 at 9:08 am
John Finn,
You are worried sick over the fact that CO2 is slightly higher recently. However, looking at the bigger picture, we see that CO2 levels are about as low as they have ever been.
I’m not worried about anything. I’m disputing your claim that the recent increase in atmospheric CO2 is the result of the less than 1 deg C rise in temperatures since 1900. As you haven’t specifically addressed this or any other point I’ll assume you have nothing to support your assertion. Simply repeating the fact that CO2 follows temperature won’t do. We have a pretty good understanding of the processes involved and the rise in CO2 since, say, 1980 cannot in any way be explained by the increase in SST. I note Phil (August 29, 2012 at 11:17 am) has responded fully to the rest of your comments.
Your reference to CO2 from fossil fuel burning being “part of the biosphere” is meaningless. We (humans) have introduced an additional source of atmospheric CO2. Before around 1750
there was a natural annual cyclical exchange of CO2 between atmosphere and the oceans/vegetation etc. This resulted in atmospheric CO2 levels which were broadly stable, i.e. they remained within a narrow range centred around an annual average of ~280 ppm. That ‘equilibrium’ has since been disturbed by the increase in fossil fuel burning . Several lines of evidence point to the fact that this is the reason for the increase in CO2 levels over the past century
Smokey says:
August 29, 2012 at 11:59 am
Phil. is clearly fixated on my comments. That’s what happens when you exist in your own bubble of belief in manmade runaway global warming.
On the points under discussion there are many, many responsible “sceptics” who don’t agree with you but don’t necessarily think that “runaway global warming” is likely.
Finally, Phil still cannot understand that if CO2 rises after temperature rises, then CO2 is an effect of temperature. Rising temperature causes rising CO2, but people living in a CO2=CAGW belief bubble cannot seem to understand that basic fact. The chart Phil posted shows conclusively that even on very long time scales, temperature leads CO2.
You don’t seem to understand the processes by which rising temperatures cause increases in CO2. You certainly seem not to understand that a 1 deg rise in temperature is NOT going to result in a 100ppm rise in CO2. To get a 100ppm CO2 rise requires a temperature increase of several degrees and several hundreds – if not thousands – of years so that CO2 can be ‘dug out’ from the deep ocean.
No ice at 81N 160W in the NSIDC sea ice maps.
But real pictures from a real webcam beg to differ.
http://icefloe.net/Aloftcon_Photos/albums/2012/20120829-1601.jpeg
From the Healy ice breaker on a research cruise. It spent the first 2 weeks of its journey going in circles near Barrow Alaska trying to avoid the ice that exists there with as much vigour as the ship could muster.
Now it looks like they are making a direct break for the pole.
webcam archive.
http://icefloe.net/Aloftcon_Photos/index.php?album=2012
ship track archive (which they carefully expunge every few days it seems).
http://icefloe.net/uscgc-healy-track-map
John Finn says:
“You don’t seem to understand the processes by which rising temperatures cause increases in CO2.”
That is what I have been trying to tell you. Rising temps cause CO2 to rise. But there is no measurable evidence of the reverse.
So thank you for your opinion. Now, if you can provide a chart based on evidence such as Vostok or GISP-2 showing that rises in CO2 precede rises in temperature, I will be interested. But so far, the only scientific measurements show that CO2 lags temperature. So… post your evidence, please.
Smokey says: August 29, 2012 at 2:22 pm
Now, if you can provide a chart based on evidence such as Vostok or GISP-2 showing that rises in CO2 precede rises in temperature, I will be interested. But so far, the only scientific measurements show that CO2 lags temperature. So… post your evidence, please.
====
Yeah, except for Snowball Earth transition. I’m curious, Smokey, can you specify another point in Earth’s history, even pre-Vostok/GISP-2, where humans, or other life forms, unearthed millions and millions of years worth of sequestered carbon deposits and combusted them into the atmosphere? That might provide a comparable circumstance to current times. As you might detect, I don’t find your argument and position very persuasive.