Sea Ice News Volume 3 number 12 – has Arctic sea ice started to turn the corner?

Nothing definitive, but interesting. The area plot above is from NANSEN. The extent plot also shows a turn:

DMI also shows it…

ssmi1-ice-extDanish Meteorological Institute (DMI) – Centre for Ocean and Ice – Click the pic to view at source

But JAXA does not….suggesting a difference in sensors/processes.

Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) – International Arctic Research Center (IARC) – Click the pic to view at sourceOf course NSIDC has a 5 day average, so we won’t see a change for awhile. Time will tell if this is just a blip or a turn from the new record low for the satellite data set.

More at the WUWT Sea Ice reference page

0 0 vote
Article Rating
501 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
stephen richards
September 4, 2012 1:32 pm

This would be a record refreeze wouldn’t it?

Steve M. from TN
September 4, 2012 1:33 pm

Dont’ be quick on the call 🙂 🙂 ice seems to bounce a bit at the bottom

Henry Clark
September 4, 2012 1:38 pm

In annual averages, less misleading than single months, a turning point was how, from 2007 to the last full year of data (2011), arctic ice extent has been increasing, as seen at http://www.webcitation.org/6AKKakUIo . The big picture of the 60-year cycle is illustrated by that plus http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/ArcticIce/Images/arctic_temp_trends_rt.gif (temperatures warmer in the late 1930s than at the end of the 20th century) in combination.

SanityP
September 4, 2012 2:03 pm

Am I seeing things or isn’t it turning a bit later every year, kind of shifting the curve to the right ever so slightly year by year?

Keith Gordon
September 4, 2012 2:13 pm

Looks to me like the sea ice the August storm broke up is beginning to refreeze, the fragmented area seems to be increasing in size, check to time stepping link below, The next few days should tell us if it has turned round early. http://ocean.dmi.dk/satellite/index.uk.php
Keith Gordon

BernardP
September 4, 2012 2:24 pm

From previous years’ graphs, it seems that similar fake inflexion points have happened in the past. The sad reality is that the 2012 minimum is lower than even 2007. This will provide endless fodder to fan AGW fires in the MSM.

AndyG55
September 4, 2012 2:27 pm

I suspect that the scattered ice will reform quite quickly. We will see.

AndyG55
September 4, 2012 2:32 pm

@ Henry..
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/ArcticIce/Images/arctic_temp_trends_rt.gif
And the trend between 1920 and 1940 is FAR steeper and for a lot longer than the tiny section they have highlighted at the right. Must have been.. ….. CO2 I guess 😉

mycroft
September 4, 2012 2:33 pm

Just think how( batshit crazy)( thanks Ryan M)it would make the AGW lot go if that line went straight up way above the 30 year average line……LOL

Steve Schapel
September 4, 2012 2:48 pm

Here’s one hilarious viewpoint on it:

Brian R
September 4, 2012 2:49 pm

If the upturn continues, what I find interesting is that the freeze would be happening 2-3 weeks earlier than anytime in the satellite record.

Gerald Machnee
September 4, 2012 2:59 pm

You mean the ice will not disappear on Sept 22???

kadaka (KD Knoebel)
September 4, 2012 3:06 pm

2012 went up rather high, then zoomed down very low… Looks like the amplitude of the signal is increasing, might destabilize.
We already know where the signal will clip on the low end. What’s the maximum high end?

mfo
September 4, 2012 3:07 pm

Using the info and link from the WUWT Sea Ice page, the daily mean temperature and climate north of the 80th northern parallel has already dipped below the melt line as normal.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php

September 4, 2012 3:11 pm

It appears that rapid melt coincided with the Arctic storm in the first 10 days of August. If the storm was indeed the cause, by breaking and churning the ice on one hand and ‘lifting’ the warm water from some depth, the saline warm water would have cooled by now and cold and brackish will sink, leaving only fresh water (from the ice melt) at the top, then unless there is another storm, a rapid freeze will follow.

rogerknights
September 4, 2012 3:18 pm

Henry Clark says:
September 4, 2012 at 1:38 pm
In annual averages, less misleading than single months, a turning point was how, from 2007 to the last full year of data (2011), arctic ice extent has been increasing, as seen at http://www.webcitation.org/6AKKakUIo . The big picture of the 60-year cycle is illustrated by that plus http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/ArcticIce/Images/arctic_temp_trends_rt.gif (temperatures warmer in the late 1930s than at the end of the 20th century) in combination.

Mods! Anthony! Post those images inline here for all to see! And add them to the Sea Ice reference page!

wayne
September 4, 2012 3:24 pm

Everyone should take the time to look at the arctic now that there are some big breaks in the clouds to the north of the Chukchi Sea (Bearing Straight). The current view is still Sept. 3 and you’ll have to really zoom in to see all of the ice many agencies seem to say there is none at all. That’s not what I see there. Watch for straight edges to help differentiate from some clouds and you can then see the broken chucks of ice. So that is where all of the missing 2012 ice went to.
http://www.arctic.io/observations/
That link is found on the Sea Ice Reference Page under “Arctic Satellite Imagery: True Color Arctic Satellite Image”.
Seems it’s been just cloud cover for almost a month, glad to finally see some breaks and would really like to know how these agencies count the area and extent underneath the solid cloud cover.
Compare http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/satellite/index.uk.php to http://home.comcast.net/~ewerme/wuwt/cryo_latest.jpg and even though the first is sea surface temperature it is that one that seems to come closer to match the satellite view. (and I know it is broken ice but sure looks like much more than 15% cover to me, or even 30%)
Just a personal observation.

James Abbott
September 4, 2012 3:25 pm

It would be surprising if it did not move up and down a bit near minimum – just as it does near maximum.
The story this year is a new record melt in the satellite record, not slightly, but by a large margin.
Just how much evidence is needed that the arctic is warming fast – look at the anomalies in sea surface temperature, ice area, ice extent and volume.
The spurious reasons put forward for this cannot deliver the energy required to produce the observed warming and melting across an entire region nor do they explain why this is happening now, so fast, or why the trend is one way.
There is likely to be a rapid refreeze because large areas of open water are going to be exposed to falling sub-zero air temperatures when the Sun sets at the pole, and then the rest of the arctic, over the next few months. But that ice will be thin and vulnerable to a big melt again next year.
Larger amplitude freeze/melt oscillations set in after the 2007 minimum
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.area.arctic.png
and could get larger as the summer minimum heads towards very low levels.
I previously posted a range of zero extent possibilities based on 3 interpretations of the September 1979-2011 minimum plot. Earliest 2019 (steady acceleration in decline), latest 2065 (linear).
If we take the current extent as the minimum (which of course it may not be), 2012 trends below the 2019 curve ie consistent with a largely ice free arctic in September within the next 6 years. Accepted it is one year, which alone cannot be used to predict the future, but I would suggest the trend is clear to anyone who looks at the data objectively.

george e. smith
September 4, 2012 3:31 pm

“””””…..SanityP says:
September 4, 2012 at 2:03 pm
Am I seeing things or isn’t it turning a bit later every year, kind of shifting the curve to the right ever so slightly year by year?…..”””””
Maybe you have it backwards. I seem to recall that the 2007 minimum was very late, and 2008 was at least a wek earlier. If this is a turn, it seems pretty early. But I’ll be happy if it just turns before next March.

Ammonite
September 4, 2012 3:36 pm

Over the years posters at WUWT have made multiple predictions of recovery and myriad derogatory remarks toward arctic scientists and their conclusions. In spite of this, an ocean of ice is disappearing before our eyes. Those that have bet against this trend in sites such as Intrade have lost heavily, melting away like the ice floes themselves. The arctic is telling us all something very important, if we will just listen.

george e. smith
September 4, 2012 3:37 pm

Just a WAG but other things being equal, if the sea ice gets all smashed up in a storm, thereby increasing the total ice perimeter ( assuming not a massive melt down), would one expect a refreeze; once it starts, to go somewhat faster ?
Just asking ?

kent Blaker
September 4, 2012 3:39 pm

The rapid decrease in sea ice area/extent was probably the result of one of the strongest Arctic summer cyclones ever recorded. Rain and windswept waves would have compromised the total area/extent numlbers. With the decrease in temperature, that fresh water rain will have frozen and the sea water would also have frozen. Notice the North pole camera shows that open sea water has now refrozen?
I have noticed many things at this site….Thanks Anthony and crew. One is that, while many sites deal with sea ice,none of them seem to relate that much to each other.The temp in one does not relate to the temp at another. Any site that ignores areas of 15 % or less has to have their methodology questioned. Not to mention that they limit coverage to 100%. Wind can blow sea ice one meter thick on top of one meter sea ice forming multi meter sea ice while reducing the area even when the amount of sea ice is the same.

AJB
September 4, 2012 3:44 pm

No, the variance has dropped off. Same as it does pretty much every year around Sept 9th or so.
Extent: http://postimage.org/image/4zv0qr3qt/full
7-day rate: http://postimage.org/image/rjbv2wofp/full
13-day rate: http://postimage.org/image/4vwlwr8vp/full
Noise: http://postimage.org/image/5gg8d6rhx/full
Hysteresis: http://postimage.org/image/nhzdazlit/full
Summary: http://postimage.org/image/pcc7sq8j9/full
Of course there are those that don’t recognise a noisy, hysteretic loop obviously driven by geography and zenith angle and claim to be able to predict an anomalous trend based on 30 odd plot points with huge error bars. Fine, carry on with the hand wringing. My lawn needs a trim.

polistra
September 4, 2012 3:58 pm

The main thing that strikes me in this graph is that there’s nothing special happening. Not a trend toward catastrophic melting, not a trend toward total freeze. 2012 is just a bit more extreme on BOTH ends than the previous few years, but the extreme-ness is very small compared to the summer-winter delta.

Pascal
September 4, 2012 4:02 pm

Hi…First time poster here. Have been following this site for a couple of years and love the info. Have come across @ “Not a Lot of People Know about That” titled “The Mystery Of The Disappearing Graph” very interesting read. http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2012/09/04/the-mystery-of-the-disappearing-graph/

September 4, 2012 4:03 pm

The interesting thing in that graph is the increasing winter maximum ice extent.
If I am right and the main cause of the record melt is increased solar insolation (from decreased clouds) melting dirty ice (with embedded BC), then we should continue to see above average winter maximum ice extent and increasing summer minimum extent as most of the dirty ice has been melted, and new ice with less embedded BC is more resistant to insolation driven melt. This will occur either next year or the year after.
BTW, I’m not discounting weather effects.

davidmhoffer
September 4, 2012 4:10 pm

Ammonite;
The arctic is telling us all something very important, if we will just listen.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
What? What is it telling us Ammonite? That the earth is getting warmer? We knew that. It has been getting warmer for 400 years now. That the arctic is warming faster? We knew that too. What? What is it trying to tell us? That natural variability is orders of magnitude larger than the long term trend? We knew that. That this has happened before? We knew that.
What, Ammonite, it it trying to tell us? Can you give us some specifics?

James Abbott
September 4, 2012 4:14 pm

Ammonite said
“Over the years posters at WUWT have made multiple predictions of recovery and myriad derogatory remarks toward arctic scientists and their conclusions. In spite of this, an ocean of ice is disappearing before our eyes. Those that have bet against this trend in sites such as Intrade have lost heavily, melting away like the ice floes themselves. The arctic is telling us all something very important, if we will just listen.”
Spot on.
The WUWT banner says the site is about commentary on (amongst other things) science. Call me old fashioned, but to do science you need data – evidence – observations. Predicting ice recovery based on wishful thinking, in turn based on a predetermined position, is anti-science.

eyesonu
September 4, 2012 4:17 pm

Ammonite says:
September 4, 2012 at 3:36 pm
“The arctic is telling us all something very important, if we will just listen.”
=========================
My grass is talking to me. I can hear it grow. Sometimes it grows more than others. Sometimes less.

Green Sand
September 4, 2012 4:35 pm

Have I missed this? I must have been away!
http://www.arcticrow.com/
Big news from Point Hope, AK!
“The team is happy to report that they completed their journey..”
There was me thinking they were going along the coast to Russia? Maybe they just had a night there and rowed back?
Hey, ho

Henry Clark
September 4, 2012 4:37 pm

AndyG55 and rogerknights:
Indeed and thanks.
Pascal says:
September 4, 2012 at 4:02 pm
“Have come across @ “Not a Lot of People Know about That” titled “The Mystery Of The Disappearing Graph” very interesting read. http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2012/09/04/the-mystery-of-the-disappearing-graph/
Good find. I’m actually surprised to see a whole article written on it quite already, since, as apparent from the webcitation for it I created on August 31st (guessing in advance it would be deleted), it was online as recently as literally just 4 days ago: http://www.webcitation.org/6AKKakUIo
But the timing makes sense. There is extra attention on arctic ice right now, so something so inconvenient would need one creative excuse or another to eliminate.

September 4, 2012 4:51 pm

James Abbott says:
“Predicting ice recovery based on wishful thinking, in turn based on a predetermined position, is anti-science.”
The climate alarmist crowd is anti-science, and Abbott’s comment is pure projection. I can only speak for myself, but I have never predicted ‘ice recovery’.
What I have stated many times is that the current Arctic ice cycle is entirely natural, and has been repeated throughout the Holocene. As we see here, Arctic ice is currently just about normal [since the 1970’s].
The one thing the alarmist crowd can brag about is their success in framing the Arctic ice debate. They say, “See! Arctic ice is declining! Global warming!”
But the planet has been warming at about the same rate for the past four centuries. Therefore, CO2 has nothing to do with it. The Arctic could become entirely ice free, and the alarmist crowd would still have no scientific evidence showing that human activity is the cause.
So, Abbott, post any scientific evidence you have. Or admit that what we are observing is nothing more than natural climate variability. Or stay in your anti-science bubble.

Dale
September 4, 2012 4:59 pm

I’m just a computer person, but here’s what I get from the graphs……
Start of August ~half a million km2 of ice was churned, moved, destroyed by a large Arctic storm. My thoughts are that the broken churned ice will melt very quickly (like a slushy melts quicker than a block of ice) hence the steep decline over the last month. Now looking at the trend up to the storm, this year’s melt was following a 2011 melt path (from mid June to first week of August). Note when the storm hit the deviation off the 2011 path. Now look at the current level. It’s ~half a million km2 lower than 2011 at the same date.
To me, we’ve seen the rapid melt of ~half a million km2 of churned ice after the storm, plus the normal melt that would have occurred under average conditions. Now the churned ice is gone there’s no ice where there was in 2011 (see the 2007-2012 comparison image on the ice page to see where all that ice went from). Now the line will play catch-up I believe, and stay about this level till refreeze takes over around the normal time it does.
And what if the storm had not have hit? Hard to say, but I think we’d have seen a melt a lot closer to 2011’s and no record.

kadaka (KD Knoebel)
September 4, 2012 5:00 pm

From Green Sand on September 4, 2012 at 4:35 pm:

There was me thinking they were going along the coast to Russia? Maybe they just had a night there and rowed back?
Hey, ho

Really? After such a long exhausting trip I would think they’d look for a warm bed and maybe a shot of vodka instead.

MattN
September 4, 2012 5:09 pm

This would indeed be an early start to the refreeze, but that isn’t going to stop the onslaught of press that will be trumpeting the “new all-time record low ice area/volume/whatever” which we clearly have set*.
*since we started looking at it constantly in 1979, that is…

September 4, 2012 5:41 pm

Ammonite said:
“…Over the years posters at WUWT have made multiple predictions of recovery and myriad derogatory remarks toward arctic scientists and their conclusions…”
Well, Ammonite, when you’re fed straight lines like this, the jokes just write themselves:
“…This week, after reviewing his own new data, NASA climate scientist Jay Zwally said: “At this rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012, much faster than previous predictions…”
He didn’t say we’d see a new record low, he said we’d be nearly ice free by the end of THIS summer.
Also, Al Gore (during his acceptance speech in 2007 for the Nobel) stated that “…Another new study, to be presented by U.S. Navy researchers later this week, warns it could happen in as little as 7 years…”
That means if it doesn’t nearly disappear this summer, then surely it will be gone in 2014.
Not to be outdone, another group (in an article from Reuters on Aug 30, 2012 8:00am EDT) said:
“… Ice on the Arctic Ocean could vanish in summertime as early as 2015 or linger for many decades after a thaw to a record low this month that is widely blamed on climate change, according to scientists…”
So either this year, or in 2014 or 2015 or it may linger for many decades…
And you wonder why we question the conclusions of “arctic scientists”?
Which arctic scientist should we listen to, just in case the Arctic isn’t taking our calls?

Bill Illis
September 4, 2012 6:00 pm

The earliest mininum date is from 1975 when it was August 31.
The average minimum date is September 12th (or September 11th in leap years such as 2012).

dp
September 4, 2012 6:00 pm

The refreeze started within days of the August storms in the arctic. That appears to have broken up large floes which regrouped. Quite a lot of it got relocated, and wave action likely is keeping it under the radar, even still. I expect to see the rebound be steeper than the decline (which by the way does not show the affect of the big blow in August – WUWT?).

Caleb
September 4, 2012 6:05 pm

RE:wayne says:
September 4, 2012 at 3:24 pm
For some reason my computer never can quite download that picture from outer space. I appreciate your observations, because I can’t observe.
If someone could do a quick post on the difference between what our lieing eyes actually see, and what the cryosphere today multicolored map shows, the map-makers might need to do some explaining.
All thast would be needed is a close up of ice floating in an area they call “ice-free.”
I prefer using my own eyes these days. Call me distrustful. That is why I like the “north pole camera.” It is still showing solid ice, (with meltwater pools starting to freeze over,) though it has drifted nearly into Fram Straights. Unfortunately snow is stuck to the lens of Webcam #1 today, and the view of Webcam#2 is partially obscured. However if the daylight lasts and it moves fast enough, we may get a view of the actual “edge” of the ice, and compare where the camera says the edge is (before the camera sinks into the sea) with where cryosphere today says it is.

Jason Calley
September 4, 2012 6:20 pm

@ Green Sand “There was me thinking they were going along the coast to Russia? ”
Yes, that was my memory as well, so I looked it up to verify. Sure enough here is a map of their planned voyage to Russia. http://bluecloudspatial.com/arctic-row-map Of course this is far from the described “rowing across the Arctic Ocean.”
Based on the map, I would say that they rowed more like 800 miles out of 1300 planned. And yet their web site says “The team is happy to report that they completed their journey.”
No, not even maybe. Yes, they are finished, but no, they did not complete their journey. For pity’s sake, it is a deadly ocean — can’t they just man up and admit that they got their behinds kicked?!

RACookPE1978
Editor
September 4, 2012 6:30 pm

AJB says:
September 4, 2012 at 3:44 pm
No, the variance has dropped off. Same as it does pretty much every year around Sept 9th or so.
Extent: http://postimage.org/image/4zv0qr3qt/full
7-day rate: http://postimage.org/image/rjbv2wofp/full
13-day rate: http://postimage.org/image/4vwlwr8vp/full
Noise: http://postimage.org/image/5gg8d6rhx/full
Hysteresis: http://postimage.org/image/nhzdazlit/full
Summary: http://postimage.org/image/pcc7sq8j9/full
Of course there are those that don’t recognise a noisy, hysteretic loop obviously driven by geography and zenith angle and claim to be able to predict an anomalous trend based on 30 odd plot points with huge error bars. Fine, carry on with the hand wringing. My lawn needs a trim.

No, put the mower away and get back in here. 8<)
Beautiful work. Now, from the DMI database of 80 north daily temperatures since 1958 (64 years of daily temperatures), plot the average summertime temperature (for each day that "model" average is above 0 deg C) time , and the (very small) std deviation for summertime days above the arctic ocean. Plot the rate-of-change for each day over the 64 years.
Now, my question is, why are day time Arctic temperatures above 80 north latitude – the only time of the year when the sun is actually shining – not increasing, if NASA-GISS is claiming the Arctic is now +5 deg C hotter than before?
My second question is, if actual measured Arctic temperatures in the air immediately above the Arctic Ocean in the only area of the Arctic where the sea ice actually is present (at minimum sea ice extent) are not increasing, then why do the CAGW extremists assume that ice melt is a symptom of supposed global warming? Air temperatures above the sea ice are demonstrably not increasing according to day-to-day measurements, so why is the ice melting?
Plot the average wintertime temperature (for every day for the days "off of the slope" of spring and fall). Plot the (very large) std deviation for each day, and the "slope" of that line over the 64 years of data. Are NASA-GISS/NSIDC able to use these wintertime temperatures to "force" a warmer yearly average because they "need" a warmer year-to-year average for their political purposes and continued funding from their government allies and controllers and agencies?
How much of these very, very large wintertime std deviations in daily temperatures coming from missing "M" (minus) sign errors in the records?

Arno Arrak
September 4, 2012 6:38 pm

What can I say? The Arctic is warming and has been since the beginning of the twentieth century. Prior to that there was nothing there but two thousand years of slow, linear cooling. I pointed this out in my book “What Warming?” and again in a peer reviewed article in E&E 22(8):1069-1083 (2011). What got the warming started was a rearrangement of the North Atlantic current system at the turn of the century that began to carry warm Gulf Stream water into the Arctic Ocean. There was no parallel increase of carbon dioxide when the warming started and this rules out the greenhouse effect because it would violate the radiation laws of physics. Direct measurement of water temperature reaching the Arctic in 2010 showed that it exceeds anything recorded for the last two thousand years. The warming was not steady but paused for thirty years in midcentury, then resumed, and is still going strong. This is another aspect of warming that is impossible to do with the greenhouse effect but easy if the previous flow pattern temporarily returned. What I can not understand is why all those so-called “climate” scientist are still clinging to the idea of anthropogenic warming in the Arctic after I proved that this is completely impossible.

September 4, 2012 6:39 pm

The chart is built using a 25km grid cell.
You dont learn a lot by picking and choosing the metric you like.
That said, bottom melt has pretty much ended.
There appears to some weather coming that may cause some havoc.
Should be an interesting week.

Bennett
September 4, 2012 6:42 pm

henrythethird said: “Which arctic scientist should we listen to, just in case the Arctic isn’t taking our calls?”
Priceless.

September 4, 2012 6:45 pm

“Now, my question is, why are day time Arctic temperatures above 80 north latitude – the only time of the year when the sun is actually shining – not increasing, if NASA-GISS is claiming the Arctic is now +5 deg C hotter than before? ”
Simple. There is ice north of 80N. Think about what happens if the air gets too much warmer than the melting point of ice..

Editor
September 4, 2012 6:48 pm

rogerknights says: September 4, 2012 at 3:18 pm
Henry Clark says: September 4, 2012 at 1:38 pm
In annual averages, less misleading than single months, a turning point was how, from 2007 to the last full year of data (2011), arctic ice extent has been increasing, as seen at http://www.webcitation.org/6AKKakUIo . The big picture of the 60-year cycle is illustrated by that plus http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/ArcticIce/Images/arctic_temp_trends_rt.gif (temperatures warmer in the late 1930s than at the end of the 20th century) in combination.
Mods! Anthony! Post those images inline here for all to see! And add them to the Sea Ice reference page!

I’ve inlined the images below, however the Sea Ice Reference Page only contains current and regularly updated graphs and images, and the graphs below are neither:
[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="578"]UK MET Office – Formerly – http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadisst/charts/NHEM_extanom.png [/caption]
[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="578"]NASA[/caption]
Can anyone offer any background on the MET chart, e.g. what data set is it based on, what percentage of ice coverage does it measure, etc.

DarrylB
September 4, 2012 7:51 pm

A. Arnak.—Thank You, Sorry that I have not read your book, but I will. I have been wondering about this and a concurrent gain in sea ice in the SH for a long time. Without having looked closely at reasons why, it has seemed obvious that these are observations beckoning to be explained.

kadaka (KD Knoebel)
September 4, 2012 7:51 pm

From Just The Facts on September 4, 2012 at 6:48 pm:

Can anyone offer any background on the MET chart, e.g. what data set is it based on, what percentage of ice coverage does it measure, etc.

This chart?
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadisst/charts/NHEM_extanom.png
You must have broken it, all that comes up for me is it’s 61×53 pixels and nothing is showing. I saved it, and image properties says “Failed to load image information”.
Info on the HADISST dataset is here, has major caveats on recent years due to satellite failure, note at the bottom says they are planning a new version:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadisst/
For their “Arctic sea ice 2012” report, they used NSIDC except for one small Sept time series extent graph. Link and excerpt:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/news/sea-ice-2012

Climate models which simulate future Arctic sea ice extent show wide variations, but Met Office results suggest the area could be nearly ice-free in summer as early as 2030. Periods of accelerating ice loss are not unusual in climate models, but there is no reason to expect that to continue. Models do not suggest the current accelerated rate of decline would continue or that there was any ‘tipping point’ from which ice extent could not recover. This implies that we could still see periods of relatively small loss in summer sea ice in the future.

Since everyone trusts the UK Met Office for reliable predictions, you know that must be true.

September 4, 2012 7:54 pm

I was reading stories about the Dark Knight Satellite which was supposedly detected in the 50’s and seen in the 60’s and has a Polar Orbit. Maybe some geek can communicate with it and get it to download all its Arctic Ice Data when the can find it again.
Seriously though Mother Nature is playing a ‘gotcha’ moment on all the warmists. She decided to create a new low so they can get into a lather and then end up with egg on face next year, while we sit back and say ‘so what’.
I still havn’t got a message from the Arctic yet.

September 4, 2012 7:58 pm

The storm that broke up ice gave global warmers a false sense of victory.

Steve from Rockwood
September 4, 2012 8:16 pm

James Abbott says:
September 4, 2012 at 4:14 pm
———————————————————
I am very sympathetic to your comments. As a follower of WUWT I have noticed the redirection away from this amazingly low Arctic ice extent. Talk about Antarctica, talk about an end to the melting for this year – but ignore the record low extent.
However, I remain a skeptic that the Arctic ice is to disappear for the summer forever starting in 2013 because of CO2. So next year when we are nowhere near a record low, I look forward to James Abbott discussing why the dire predictions of no summer ice are not coming true.

Jimmy Haigh
September 4, 2012 8:36 pm

Who cares if the ice area falls to a low in mid September? That is what it does. If it was to stay low throughout the winter then maybe that would be a reason to worry.
And not a word about what is happening at the Antarctic, eh? I thought it was GLOBAL warming they were worried about?

Eric E
September 4, 2012 8:36 pm

Where I live, down in the SW desert of CA, flocks of birds have been heading SOUTH since early August. Not just a few, BIG flocks… We’ve already had two frontal systems come in across the coast of CA when normally at this time of year they’re still harassing those fools up in Seattle. Why all the flockign south so early this year? Don’t know…

Eric E
September 4, 2012 8:48 pm

What was the cause of the August storm, btw, and what happens if a storm like that happens to whip up after the daytime temp has dropped below the freezing mark once more.
I am still amazed that climate scientists are all lathered up over a fractional rise in temperature when they still cannot determine how the Northern Hemisphere becomes one giant snowball during an Ice Age. Of the two I am far more concerned with massive snowfalls and crop-killing hard freezes than I am of being three-tenths of a degree warmer than I was last year or the decade before.

Editor
September 4, 2012 8:51 pm

kadaka (KD Knoebel) says: September 4, 2012 at 7:51 pm
This chart?
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadisst/charts/NHEM_extanom.png

Yes, that was where Henry Clark claims to have cited it from, i.e.:
http://www.webcitation.org/6AKKakUIo
Info on the HADISST dataset is here, has major caveats on recent years due to satellite failure, note at the bottom says they are planning a new version:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadisst/

Thank you, that’s good stuff, i.e.:

“08/MARCH/2011. The switch of satellite source data at the start of 2009 introduced a discontinuity in the fields of sea ice in both the Arctic and Antarctic.
03/DECEMBER/2010. The SSM/I satellite that was used to provide the data for the sea ice analysis in HadISST suffered a significant degradation in performance through January and February 2009. The problem affected HadISST fields from January 2009 and probably causes an underestimate of ice extent and concentration. It also affected sea surface temperatures in sea ice areas because the SSTs are estimated from the sea ice concentration (see Rayner et al. 2003). As of 3rd December 2010 we have reprocessed the data from January 2009 to the present using a different sea ice data source. This is an improvement on the previous situation, but users should still note that the switch of data source at the start of 2009 might introduce a discontinuity into the record. The reprocessed files are available from the main data page. The older version of the data set is archived here.”

It appears that the MET data diverges from the other datasets below around 2009, when “SSM/I satellite that was used to provide the data for the sea ice analysis in HadISST suffered a significant degradation in performance through January and February 2009.”
Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Area Anomaly:
[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="640"] Cryosphere Today – Arctic Climate Research at the University of Illinois – Click the pic to view at source[/caption]
Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Extent Anomalies for March:
[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="640"] National Snow & Ice Data Center (NSIDC) – click to view at source[/caption]
The MET’s reprocessed data can be found here;
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadisst/data/download.html
and the old data set is archived here;
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadisst/old_versions.html
in case someone wants to graph it out.

Eric E
September 4, 2012 8:56 pm

BTW-Why does the “Ice Area, NORSEX” chart show an average for “1979-2006” and exclude 2007, 2008, and 2009? Because, if they included those three years in the 30 year average, said average would be far closer to the “dramatic, unprecedented” drop that those years represent. It just wouldn’t look “newsworthy”, now would it?
Second thought, during the run up to a solar maximum, as weak as it is, I would expect to see a more aggressive summer melt if total solar irradiance is a little higher at the right time. A little more sunlight and a little fewer clouds, and voila, instant record ice melt. Haven’t we also had a few CMEs slapping the atmosphere around in the last few months?

kadaka (KD Knoebel)
September 4, 2012 9:03 pm

Regards this chart:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/ArcticIce/Images/arctic_temp_trends_rt.gif
Source is this old NASA piece, “Dwindling Arctic Ice”, October 24, 2003:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/ArcticIce/
Graph on page 3 with this caption:

The rapid warming trend in the Arctic over the last 25 years has dramatically reduced the region’s sea ice extent. Comparing this more recent trend with long-term data, scientists are trying to determine to whether this 25-year warming trend will continue, or is part of a longer-term cycle of ups and downs. (Graph by Larry Stock and Josefino Comiso, NASA GSFC)

Yes, they’re talking about a “25-year warming trend” using a graph showing a 20 year warming trend.
Besides the displayed trends lacking the last 11+ years of temperature numbers, with whatever “data” went into the graph likely having been “cooked” (“adjusted”) into different numbers since it came out…
Isn’t that graph just another example of picking endpoints for trend lines to show basically whatever you want? Haven’t we been warned before about using shorter and shorter periods this way?

Werner Brozek
September 4, 2012 9:04 pm

The sea ice may be low, but this year will not set any records globally. On all five of the data sets below, for their latest anomaly average, the 2012 average so far is close to that of 2011. If present trends continue, 2012 will be, for the most part, close to 2011, and a record is out of reach on all sets. My projection for the five sets below is that 2012 will come in 10th on 4 of the sets, but 5th on UAH.
2012 in Perspective so far on Five Data Sets
2012 started off rather cold but has warmed up since then. So the present rank is not the most meaningful number. Therefore I will also give what the ranking would be assuming the latest month’s anomaly will continue for the rest of the year. I will also indicate what is required for the rest of the year in each case to set a new record.
Note the bolded numbers for each data set where the lower bolded number is the highest anomaly recorded so far in 2012 and the higher one is the all time record so far. There is no comparison.

With the UAH anomaly for July at 0.28, the average for the first seven months of the year is (-0.089 -0.111 + 0.111 + 0.299 + 0.289 + 0.369 + 0.28)/7 = 0.164. If the average stayed this way for the rest of the year, its ranking would be 9th. This compares with the anomaly in 2011 at 0.153 to rank it 9th for that year. On the other hand, if the rest of the year averaged the July value, which is more likely if the El Nino gets stronger, then 2012 would come in at 0.212 and it would rank 5th. 1998 was the warmest at 0.428. The highest ever monthly anomalies were in February and April of 1998 when it reached 0.66. In order for a new record to be set in 2012, the average for the last 5 months of the year would need to be 0.80. Since this is above the highest monthly anomaly ever recorded, it is virtually impossible for 2012 to set a new record.
With the GISS anomaly for July at 0.47, the average for the first seven months of the year is (0.34 + 0.40 + 0.47 + 0.55 + 0.66 + 0.56 + 0.47)/7 = 0.493. This is about the same as in 2011 when it was 0.514 and ranked 9th for that year. 2010 was the warmest at 0.63. The highest ever monthly anomalies were in March of 2002 and January of 2007 when it reached 0.88. If the July anomaly continued for the rest of the year, 2012 would end up 10th. In order for a new record to be set in 2012, the average for the last 5 months of the year would need to be 0.82. Since this is close to the highest monthly anomaly ever recorded, it is virtually impossible for 2012 to set a new record.
With the Hadcrut3 anomaly for July at 0.477, the average for the first seven months of the year is (0.217 + 0.194 + 0.305 + 0.481 + 0.474 + 0.477 + 0.446)/7 = 0.371. This would rank 11th if it stayed this way. This is slightly above the anomaly in 2011 which was at 0.34 to rank it 12th for that year. 1998 was the warmest at 0.548. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in February of 1998 when it reached 0.756. If the July anomaly continued for the rest of the year, 2012 would end up 10th. In order for a new record to be set in 2012, the average for the last 5 months of the year would need to be 0.796. Since this is above the highest monthly anomaly ever recorded, it is virtually impossible for 2012 to set a new record. One has to back to the 1940s to find the previous time that a Hadcrut3 record was not beaten in 10 years or less.
With the sea surface anomaly for July at 0.386, the average for the first seven months of the year is (0.203 + 0.230 + 0.241 + 0.292 + 0.339 + 0.351 + 0.386)/7 = 0.292. This would rank it 11th compared to 2011 when it was 0.273 and ranked 12th for that year. 1998 was the warmest at 0.451. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in August of 1998 when it reached 0.555. If the July anomaly continued for the rest of the year, 2012 would end up 10th. In order for a new record to be set in 2012, the average for the last 5 months of the year would need to be 0.67. Since this is above the highest monthly anomaly ever recorded, it is virtually impossible for 2012 to set a new record.
With the RSS anomaly for July at 0.292, the average for the first seven months of the year is (-0.058 -0.121 + 0.073 + 0.332 + 0.232 + 0.339 + 0.292)/7 = 0.156. If the average stayed this way for the rest of the year, its ranking would be 12th. This compares with the anomaly in 2011 at 0.147 to rank it 12th for that year. 1998 was the warmest at 0.55. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in April of 1998 when it reached 0.857. If the July anomaly continued for the rest of the year, 2012 would end up 10th. In order for a new record to be set in 2012, the average for the last 5 months of the year would need to be 1.10. Since this is above the highest monthly anomaly ever recorded, it is virtually impossible for 2012 to set a new record.

September 4, 2012 9:06 pm

Just The Facts,
Then there’s this:
click1
click2
click3 [Antarctic has TEN TIMES more ice than the Arctic]
The ultimate cherry-pick is only looking at Arctic ice.

Ally E.
September 4, 2012 9:09 pm

Those dang goal posts will just keep shifting. If that ice doesn’t disappear this year… well, next year… No wait, the year after. 2015? What about 2020, anyone? How about 2025? By 2050 for sure.
It’s always out of reach, always after a few more years of funding, always the next generation will see it (or its lack). Shoot, if we all wait long enough and live long enough, we’ll watch the sun explode and that might just melt that nuisance ice once and for all.
You’d think as those goal posts shift like mirages forever into the distance, a few more warmists would wake up and become a touch skeptical themselves… Actually, I think many do.

wayne
September 4, 2012 9:29 pm

David Ball says:
September 4, 2012 at 9:05 pm
http://drtimball.com/2012/2012-arctic-ice-melt-claims-distorted-and-inaccurate-its-the-wind-stupid/

Great article Dr. Ball. Those large yellow areas NATICE calls ‘marginal ice’ on Aug. 31 must be what I am seeing between the clouds north of the Chukchi Sea in the Sept. 3rd satellite photos linked in my comment above. Is it really at less than 15% concentration? Sure doesn’t appear to be that sparse at all in the photos.

Dale
September 4, 2012 9:30 pm

@Werner Brozek
I find your analysis interesting, but I do wonder why the global average rises and falls noticeably with the Northern Hemisphere seasons. Especially this year when the Southern Hemisphere has experienced:
– The coldest winter in 14 years in Australia
– Snow across all of South Africa (an extremely rare event)
– South America has experienced a colder and longer than normal winter
Would I be correct in saying that this shows a lack of monitoring in the Southern Hemisphere? Or a case of the warmists trying to hide the decline?

Editor
September 4, 2012 9:33 pm

kadaka (KD Knoebel) says: September 4, 2012 at 9:03 pm
Regards this chart:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/ArcticIce/Images/arctic_temp_trends_rt.gif
Source is this old NASA piece, “Dwindling Arctic Ice”, October 24, 2003:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/ArcticIce/

Damn you’re good. So that chart is originally from page 3508 of this article, Warming Trends in the Arctic from Clear Sky Satellite Observations, by JOSEFINO C. COMISO, in the Journal of Climate:
http://www.geobotany.uaf.edu/library/pubs/ComisoJC2003_jcli_16_3498.pdf
It would be nice if someone would update that graph to current. It is quite compelling, even with the increase during the last decade, i.e. Northern Polar Temperatures ;
[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="578"] Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) – Microwave Sounding Units (MSU) – Click the pic to view at source[/caption]
it seems that current Arctic Temperatures are the same or less than they were in the 1930s, and the rise from 1920 – 1935 seems as steep, if not steeper, than anything we’ve seen in the last several decades.

Editor
September 4, 2012 9:42 pm

Smokey says: September 4, 2012 at 9:06 pm
The ultimate cherry-pick is only looking at Arctic ice.
Completely agree, Arctic Sea Ice seems like an awful proxy for “Global Temperature”:
[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="578"] Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) – Microwave Sounding Units (MSU) – Click the pic to view at source[/caption]
I am not sure that we should be using Sea Ice as proxy for “Global Temperature” at all given the multitude of other factors involved in Sea Ice change, e.g.;
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/16/the-economist-provides-readers-with-erroneous-information-about-arctic-sea-ice/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/02/sea-ice-page-upgrades-observations-and-questions/
but if we are going to use Sea Ice, then Global Sea Ice would be most logical, i.e.:
Global Sea Ice Area and Anomaly
[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="578"] Cryosphere Today – University of Illinois – Polar Research Group – Click the pic to view at source[/caption]
Global, Arctic & Antarctic Sea Ice Area
[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="578"] climate4you.com – Ole Humlum – Professor, University of Oslo Department of Geosciences – Click the pic to view at source[/caption]

September 4, 2012 10:05 pm

‘Completely agree, Arctic Sea Ice seems like an awful proxy for “Global Temperature”:
Nobody would suggest that you should. And nobody who understands Global warming would suggest that the ice WAS a proxy for global temperature.
Now, some people may suggest that Frost fairs in England are a good proxy for global temperatures.. Some people may suggest that Grapes growing on one place are a good global proxy.. but nobody would understands AGW would suggest that ‘ice is a good proxy for global temps.
What metric would you use? area? extent? volume?
It’s pretty simple guys. In a warming world we expect less ice floating in the warmer water.
Like duh. And looking a the fluxes into the arctic basin.. well go figure increase the heat flux into that region and the damn ice melts! rocket science!
Of course its not that simple every place on the globe because the system is pretty complex.
heat moves one place.. means…you will, you must find other places with the opposite effects.. over short times at least.
It does not take a BELIEF in AGW to note the obvious. If you put more heat into the arctic you will get less ice. Sometimes denying the obvious makes you look unscientific

donald penman
September 4, 2012 10:19 pm

http://www.intellicast.com/Global/Temperature/Maximum.aspx
http://www.intellicast.com/Global/Temperature/Minimum.aspx
how can the coast around siberia not be freezing?
It is perhaps better to look at anomilies rather thab sst on DMI which shows that it colder around the coast of Siberia than around the edge of the ice pack.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/satellite/index.uk.php
I repeat.Why is the coastline of Siberia not freezing?

davidmhoffer
September 4, 2012 10:28 pm

Steven Mosher;
It does not take a BELIEF in AGW to note the obvious. If you put more heat into the arctic you will get less ice. Sometimes denying the obvious makes you look unscientific
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I think that’s an unfair comment Mosh. Most commenters seem to be of the view that the importance of the current low ice area is being over stated by alarmists and others are pointing out that much of the low may be due to unusual storm activity. Both are reasonable comments in my view.
But as you yourself state, it is a system, and a complicated one with many feedbacks. In this case, we’re talking a monster feedback. Water exposed to air emitts a lot more energy to space than does ice. It absorbs a lot less energy from insolation than one would suppose also, because angle of incidence is quite low for most of the day, resulting in a lot of insolation being reflected back out to space, as much or more than would have been by ice. That has consequences that I don’t think we’re even close to knowing how to quantify.
Can we expect that when ice starts to recover in the next few weeks that it will recover more rapidly because the water beneath it is colder than it otherwise would have been? Will the colder water wind up dropping temperatures in lower latitudes as it is recirculated back toward the tropics by existing undersea currents? Will the currents themselves be modified in strength and path due to the change in temperature gradient? I think these are the more interesting questions.
The average skeptic accepts that the world had been warming for 400 years and that this must translate into less ice at some point. We just don’t consider it remarkable. The only remarkable thing about it is the attention it gets from the MSM and alarmists. If they didn’t shout it from the rooftops as evidence of their belief system, then I doubt we would remark on it in any great detail either.

mogamboguru
September 4, 2012 10:36 pm

AndyG55 says:
September 4, 2012 at 2:27 pm
I suspect that the scattered ice will reform quite quickly. We will see.
———————————————————————————————
Agreed.

Editor
September 4, 2012 10:37 pm

Steven Mosher says: September 4, 2012 at 10:05 pm
In a warming world we expect less ice floating in the warmer water.
I agree, but the question is how much of the decrease in Global Sea Ice do you think is attributable to the ~.44 degree C increase in “Global Temperature” during the last several decades versus the multitude of other factors involved?
It does not take a BELIEF in AGW to note the obvious. If you put more heat into the arctic you will get less ice. Sometimes denying the obvious makes you look unscientific
I am not sure what this means, i.e. who is “denying the obvious”? I see this as similar to AGW in the sense that AGW likely exists, but there is significant question as to how much of the ~.44 degree C increase in “Global Temperature” during the last several decades is due to AGW. Similarly, some portion of the decrease in Global Sea Ice is likely attributable to the ~.44 degree C increace in “Global Temperature” during the last several decades, but some portion is likely due to the multitude of other factors involved. Until we have reasonably accurate estimates of the portions attributable, Sea Ice seems more like a distraction to keep people scared while “Global Temperature” goes nowhere fast…

Andrew W
September 4, 2012 11:15 pm

From the comments anyone would think that this was the first ever recorded summer Arctic storm, or even that this was the first year weather, rather than climate, affected the melt.

September 4, 2012 11:16 pm

Ammonite;
The arctic is telling us all something very important, if we will just listen.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

This quote just made me laugh. This is science? We “listen to the arctic.”…..
Steven Mosher:
It’s pretty simple guys. In a warming world we expect less ice floating in the warmer water.
Like duh. And looking a the fluxes into the arctic basin.. well go figure increase the heat flux into that region and the damn ice melts! rocket science!

IS anyone debating whether the arctic is warmer today then say 30 years ago? This is not rocket science as you say.
You must have missed the fact that we sceptics were already told above like I showed you “that the arctic is telling us something very important if we will just listen.” Its right there…..I don’t make this stuff up, and something like that makes me think that lots of warmists really do believe that “Arctic sea ice extent” is a good proxy for temperature. Talk to them and tell them its not first. No idea why you are harping on sceptics for being unscientific first and foremost.

September 4, 2012 11:25 pm

If somebody wants a fun project
SAT from the arctic
http://iabp.apl.washington.edu/data_satemp.html

September 4, 2012 11:42 pm

Steven Mosher says: September 4, 2012 at 10:05 pm
In a warming world we expect less ice floating in the warmer water.

So why is Antarctic sea ice increasing?
By your logic, it follows the world isn’t warming and the seas aren’t getting warmer.
You have to explain all the data. Just ignoring some of it, because you can’t explain it isn’t science.
BTW, my embedded black carbon theory easily explains the Arctic/Antarctic difference. Antarctic sea ice has much lower levels of embedded BC, because atmospheric BC levels are much lower in the SH and very little Antarctic sea ice is multi-year and hence doesn’t accumulate embedded BC the way multi-year Arctic ice does.

NevenA
September 4, 2012 11:43 pm

Where’s the IMS graph?

September 4, 2012 11:44 pm

Just The Facts says:
September 4, 2012 at 10:37 pm (Edit)
Steven Mosher says: September 4, 2012 at 10:05 pm
In a warming world we expect less ice floating in the warmer water.
I agree, but the question is how much of the decrease in Global Sea Ice do you think is attributable to the ~.44 degree C increase in “Global Temperature” during the last several decades versus the multitude of other factors involved?
#########
That is a silly question. the arctic doesnt respond to the GLOBAL temperature. That is an average.
A mathematical entity that has no real physical meaning.
“attributing” a portion to the global average makes no sense because the global average is not a physical entity. no average exists as a physical entity. An average is a mathematical “model” that gives you a very low order estimate or understanding of a complex system.
If you want to start to break it down you;d start by reading the papers that cover the various heat fluxes into the basin.
Neven does a nice start of a lit review
http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2012/06/ocean-heat-flux.html#more

Nylo
September 4, 2012 11:53 pm

Brian R says:
September 4, 2012 at 2:49 pm
If the upturn continues, what I find interesting is that the freeze would be happening 2-3 weeks earlier than anytime in the satellite record.

Not really, it would be 2-3 weeks earlier than in the last few years, but only about 1 week earlier than average for the whole satellite record, and probably not the earliest.

September 4, 2012 11:59 pm

“Until we have reasonably accurate estimates of the portions attributable, Sea Ice seems more like a distraction to keep people scared while “Global Temperature” goes nowhere fast…”
You hardly need a reasonably accurate estimate of what portion is attributable to AGW.
You can of course find recent modelling work that attributes 70% of the loss to AGW.
you could, absent any information, attribute 50% of it to AGW. absent any information
about the true value ( 0-100%) the estimate that minimizes the error is 50%. the point being
Nothing turns on having or not having a “reasonable accurate” estimate of the portion.
For the sake of argument I could say 90% of the observed loss is due to ‘other factors”
whatever they are. The point would still be the same. In a warmer world we expect less ice floating in the water. It’s silly to argue otherwise, its silly to suggest, when you dont know, that other factors
explain the loss. However one sorts out the final “apportionment” the fact remains.
Adding GHGs will warm the planet. Ask Lindzen, if you dont like hearing that from me.
in a warmer world you can expect less floating ice in water. Poor your self a drink and figure that shit out.

Ally E.
September 5, 2012 12:44 am

Sorry, Mosher, but who cares? Climate has never been static and no one should want it to be. I see no problem with an ice free arctic. The planet is warming (or was up until recently). A warmer world is better for plants and animals alike – including people, we belong here too.
Unfortunately, the signs I’m seeing point to the opposite gearing up to happen, a colder more dangerous world. But I guess you don’t see that, being solely focussed the other way. That’s a shame. Somehow, though, I suspect the Big Chill will be blamed on global warming – it’s amazing how the alarmists can twist the tale and use absolutely anything to back their claims and demand more power and more money, blaming people and civilization all the way.
They lost me a long time ago.

Harry
September 5, 2012 1:18 am

When you look at the “satellite” photos, one from Cryosphere and the other from NSIDC, why does the NSIDC always seem to have much more snow on the ground than the Cryosphere ones? There really isn’t much more than a day between them, so I don’t think it is just the slightly different times. Is there some filtering taking place on the Cryosphere images?

Peak Warming Man
September 5, 2012 1:38 am

The good thing is that we wont get another record low Arctic sea ice extent for another four or five years (the record low before this new record low was 5 years ago), this means that every year before the next record low we will be able to tell those AGW believers that the ice is not melting, yay for us!

Graeme M
September 5, 2012 1:44 am

“in a warmer world you can expect less floating ice in water.”
Makes sense.
So… If over the next 10 years we find MORE floating ice in water?

September 5, 2012 1:46 am

Steven Mosher says:
September 4, 2012 at 11:59 pm
………
Steven, when you have some time take a look at: comment on the JC’s blog

Ken Nohe
September 5, 2012 2:34 am

I spent the time to read all the comments and found them unconvincing as a statistician. The aguments based on averages and trends mean nothing against a complex system made of multiple cycles most of which (at least their interactions) we do not understand yet.
In some areas there is indeed some warming but in others we can clearly see some cooling. (South hemisphere this winter) The variability also seems to be increasing with cooler winters and warmer summers as well as more violent swings in the spring and autumn. Is this the sign of a warming or cooling earth? I would personaly err on the side of cooling. Long term statistics tell us that a cooling period is overdue. Now, does the huge amount of CO2 we pump into the atmosphere has the relatively slow, gradual effect people expect? I am doubtful. I expect the effect will come at some stage and it will be violent and maybe not even a warming effect. The risk is that the atmosphere has “modes” of functionment that we do not understand because we haven’t experienced them yet. (We only see their effects in ice and sediments but without knowing exactly what happened.) I have seen an increadibly wet summer last year in the desert in Australia and conversely a very hot and dry summer this year in the Midwest in the US. We also can notice huge polar blasts in the spring in mid latitudes almost everywhere for the last 2 or 3 years. This is new. Is it significant? Hard to say but something seems to be happening. People working in the airline industry are well aware that the jetstreams are not always where they are suppose to be with unfortunate consequences (Less confort for the passengers and more costs for the companies.) But just looking at ice cover or Hurricanes may not tell us much. Here in Japan, we haven’t seen many hurricanes yet this year; they all went to China! This has probably no meaning whatsoever, or maybe the gods…

Venter
September 5, 2012 3:10 am

Notice how Mosher avoids answering Philip Bradley’s question about the Antartic.
As for your models Mosher, pure BS.

September 5, 2012 5:19 am

Reblogged this on shadowvigil.

Olavi
September 5, 2012 5:47 am

Russians have seaicemaps too. It’s bit diffrent.
http://www.aari.ru/odata/_d0015.php?lang=1
It has been wery similar after that storm.

September 5, 2012 6:06 am

Venter, the antarctic is a lot colder than the arctic, and that makes a difference to how it responds to warming. Imagine you have an ice block at a temperature of -50C. Add a little warm water to it, and the volume of ice will increase, because some of the water will freeze. Now do the same with an ice block at 0C. You’ll end up with less ice, because some of the ice will melt.

David Ball
September 5, 2012 6:13 am

Venter says:
September 5, 2012 at 3:10 am
Avoiding also my father’s article, ….

JohnB
September 5, 2012 6:21 am

Venter, as everyone should realise, the Antarctic is a very diffferent place. The Arctic is an ocean surrounded by land, the Antarctic is a continent surrounded by ocean. The Antartcic is much colder and drier. The increase in sea ice there (much less than the decrease in the Arctic) is dominated by increased snowfall. All well understood.

JJ
September 5, 2012 6:23 am

Steven Mosher says:
“In a warming world we expect less ice floating in the warmer water.”

&
“That is a silly question. the arctic doesnt respond to the GLOBAL temperature.”
Physician, heal thyself.

Gneiss
September 5, 2012 7:02 am

Lots of straw-grasping here. But contrary to pretty much all the predictions made by WUWT regulars in the past, and consistent with pretty much all the predictions made by real Arctic scientists (though much faster than many of them thought), arctic sea ice is going down.
* The annual minimum is going down.
* The annual mean is going down.
* The annual maximum is going down.
* The daily anomaly is going down.
* The extent, area and volume measured by different teams are all going down.
And,
* Arctic temperatures are rising.
* Arctic land ice is melting.
* Arctic permafrost is thawing.
* Arctic shores are eroding.
* Arctic ecosystems are on the move.
Now, there are ways to graph each of these facts if you need to hide them, some ways are explored on this thread. There are ways to deny that each data sets can be right. But climate changing now in the arctic is quite real, for anyone who looks.
So … Look somewhere else! There, the antarctic! That’s grasping a different straw. Like a patient told by his doctor that his left foot is falling off, and then answering heatedly “You’re cherry-picking the bad news, my right foot still looks fine!”

David Ball
September 5, 2012 7:07 am

JohnB says:
September 5, 2012 at 6:21 am
But not well advertised.

James Abbott
September 5, 2012 7:07 am

Steve from Rockwood said
“James Abbott says:
September 4, 2012 at 4:14 pm
———————————————————
I am very sympathetic to your comments. As a follower of WUWT I have noticed the redirection away from this amazingly low Arctic ice extent. Talk about Antarctica, talk about an end to the melting for this year – but ignore the record low extent.
However, I remain a skeptic that the Arctic ice is to disappear for the summer forever starting in 2013 because of CO2. So next year when we are nowhere near a record low, I look forward to James Abbott discussing why the dire predictions of no summer ice are not coming true.”
I would be very happy to discuss the situation in the arctic next year whether it is another record or not. And actually if you look at my post I made no mention of another record next year. What I said was that on the current trend we could be looking at a largely ice free arctic in September before the end of this decade.
But if that does not happen, then fine. The point is that the science must be based on the evidence and not wishful thinking (Smokey). I am not hoping for an ice free arctic, but just like lots of others, observing thats where we look to be heading.
But that does not mean that an ice free arctic is not a serious matter. The UK Met Office is looking at what the implications could be for weather patterns in the northern hemisphere precisely because changes are expected but uncertain as this is a situation not seen in the period of instrument records – and the UK holds some of the longest series of met data.
This thread has several comments ducking out of the seriousness of an ice free arctic by claiming its all part of a a natural ice cycle or part of a steady warming trend over several centuries.
Well no, the evidence does not support those claims.
The evidence says that until the late 1990s, the minimum ice anomaly was becoming more negative, but fairly steadily and pretty much on a linear trajectory. Then in the early 2000s we saw a much morer rapid decline setting in:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.arctic.png
We do not have accurate ice records going as far back as the temperature records, but the proxy records (NSIDC) show that the current melts have not been seen for several centuries at least. Its not helpful to try to confuse by comparing (interpreted) ice conditions many thousands of years ago to the current period of human influence on the climate of a few hundred years.
The temperature record shows that whilst there was C20th warming, it was modest until the 1980s and then much more rapid warming started:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.gif
shows about 0.3C warming in the century to 1980, then over 0.5C in the next 30 years.
So the “natural cycles” and “steady natural warming ” theory needs to explain the observed acceleration in change before it is credible.
Far more credible is that human induced climate change mainly due to CO2 is the primary reason for the observed changes (as anticipated in science papers as far back as the 1960s/1970s) and that whilst natural cycles of course exist, these cannot explain what is being observed in the arctic.

Some European
September 5, 2012 7:14 am

[Snip. Policy. ~ dbs, mod.]

Editor
September 5, 2012 7:17 am

Steven Mosher says: September 4, 2012 11:44 pm
That is a silly question. the arctic doesnt respond to the GLOBAL temperature. That is an average.
That’s a silly answer, I didn’t say anything about the Arctic, my question as written was, “how much of the decrease in Global Sea Ice do you think is attributable to the ~.44 degree C increase in “Global Temperature” during the last several decades versus the multitude of other factors involved?”
A mathematical entity that has no real physical meaning.
Funny, that’s sometimes how I feel about you…

izen
September 5, 2012 7:25 am

@- Philip Bradley says
“So why is Antarctic sea ice increasing?
By your logic, it follows the world isn’t warming and the seas aren’t getting warmer.
You have to explain all the data. Just ignoring some of it, because you can’t explain it isn’t science.”
The Arctic and Antarctic are opposites. The Arctic an ocean surrounded by land, the Antarctic land surrounded by ocean. The result is that in the Arctic the summer melt is significant but in the Antarctic the sea ice can melt back to the edge of the Antarctic continent, but can decrease no further.
However the land ice on the Antarctic ice-cap IS shrinking as shown by direct observation and GRACE satellite data.
So at BOTH poles the ice-caps are shrinking and at both poles summer sea ice is at or near the minimum that it could possibly reach.
Winter ice in both regions may vary, but is dependent on salinity, snowfall and currents as much as temperature so provides no clear guide to warming alone.
However the large summer reduction in ice both sea and land based at both poles confirms the significant addition of energy to the climate system.
For those that think it is a distant irrelevency, consider that the low Arctic summer ice triggers instabilities in the N.H. Jet stream that leads to increased winter snowfalls and increased summer droughts for many parts of the N.H. While other parts may see increased storms and flooding. It is changes in the Arctic that puts the local weather on steroids.

Editor
September 5, 2012 7:32 am

Gneiss says: September 5, 2012 at 7:02 am
Lots of straw-grasping here. But contrary to pretty much all the predictions made by WUWT regulars in the past, and consistent with pretty much all the predictions made by real Arctic scientists (though much faster than many of them thought), arctic sea ice is going down.
* The annual minimum is going down.
* The annual mean is going down.
* The annual maximum is going down.

Per the graph below, why do you think that the annual Minimum is going down so much faster than the annual Mean and Maximum?
Sea Ice Extent – Change in Maximum, Mean and Minimum;
[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="600"]ssmi1-ice-area Nansen Environmental and Remote Sensing Center (NERSC) – Arctic Regional Ocean Observing System (ROOS) – Click the pic to view at source[/caption]

September 5, 2012 7:36 am

James Abbott says:
“Far more credible is that human induced climate change mainly due to CO2 is the primary reason for the observed changes (as anticipated in science papers as far back as the 1960s/1970s) and that whilst natural cycles of course exist, these cannot explain what is being observed in the arctic.”
You are as crazy as Gneiss. Well, almost. Both of you suffer from confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance. Natural cycles fully explain all current observations, without the need for a magic molecule that knows the North Pole from the South Pole.
The Arctic is a region. Globally, temperatures are not rising. [That incredible GISS chart is a masterpiece of alarmist propaganda — and as debunked as Mann’s hokey stick chart.] And the Antarctic, with more than ten time the ice of the Arctic, is still growing.
Once you admit that the Arctic region fluctuates, maybe the scales will fall from your eyes, and you will see the truth: nothing unusual or unnatural is occurring. So relax, and worry about something real for a change.

David Ball
September 5, 2012 7:45 am

James Abbott says:
September 5, 2012 at 7:07 am
“I am very sympathetic to your comments. As a follower of WUWT I have noticed the redirection away from this amazingly low Arctic ice extent.”
You start with a blatant lie, and then continue in that vein.

Editor
September 5, 2012 7:55 am

Steven Mosher says: September 4, 2012 at 11:59 pm
“Until we have reasonably accurate estimates of the portions attributable, Sea Ice seems more like a distraction to keep people scared while “Global Temperature” goes nowhere fast…”
You hardly need a reasonably accurate estimate of what portion is attributable to AGW.
You can of course find recent modelling work that attributes 70% of the loss to AGW.
you could, absent any information, attribute 50% of it to AGW. absent any information
about the true value ( 0-100%) the estimate that minimizes the error is 50%. the point being
Nothing turns on having or not having a “reasonable accurate” estimate of the portion.
For the sake of argument I could say 90% of the observed loss is due to ‘other factors”
whatever they are. The point would still be the same.

No, the point would be completely different. If AGW is only responsible for 50% the warming and 90% of the observed Sea Ice loss is due to “other factors”, then we can all stop wasting our time arguing about minor variations in Earth’s Climate System and do more productive things with our lives…
In a warmer world we expect less ice floating in the water. It’s silly to argue otherwise, its silly to suggest, when you dont know, that other factors explain the loss.
What do you mean that I “don’t know, that other factors explain the loss”?
Wind and Atmospheric Oscillations:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/16/the-economist-provides-readers-with-erroneous-information-about-arctic-sea-ice/
Unusually Strong Storms, Soot/Black Carbon, other Local Anthropogenic influences, etc.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/02/sea-ice-page-upgrades-observations-and-questions/
Adding GHGs will warm the planet. Ask Lindzen, if you dont like hearing that from me.
in a warmer world you can expect less floating ice in water.

I agreed with this yesterday, and in thinking back over every comment and article I’ve ever written, I don’t believe I’ve ever disagree that GHGs warm the planet and that one would expect less Sea Ice in a warming world. This has always been a argument over attribution and magnitude.
Poor your self a drink and figure that shit out.
It’s 10:54 am and I am strongly considering your proposition…

September 5, 2012 8:10 am

izen says:
“The Arctic and Antarctic are opposites. The Arctic an ocean surrounded by land, the Antarctic land surrounded by ocean.”
Take an aspirin and lie down. We don’t want you to hurt yourself with all that thinking.

Werner Brozek
September 5, 2012 8:14 am

Dale says:
September 4, 2012 at 9:30 pm
Would I be correct in saying that this shows a lack of monitoring in the Southern Hemisphere? Or a case of the warmists trying to hide the decline?

As for why the “global average rises and falls noticeably with the Northern Hemisphere seasons”, my understanding is that it is due to the huge amount of land in the Northern Hemisphere that greatly absorbs the sun’s heat in the summer, despite the fact that the sun is furthest away around July 4. But as for “when the Southern Hemisphere has experienced:
– The coldest winter in 14 years in Australia”, I have no clue about that. However I believe we can rule out a lack of monitoring since the satellite data show the Southern Hemisphere only warming at a rate of 0.08/decade over the last 32 years but the Northern Hemisphere at a rate of 0.19/decade. See
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt
As for why this is happening, I do not know.

JohnB
September 5, 2012 8:15 am

Just The Facts says:
September 5, 2012 at 7:32 am

Per the graph below, why do you think that the annual Minimum is going down so much faster than the annual Mean and Maximum?
———————
The maximum is more stable than the miniumum because once the Sun sinks in the winter pretty much the whole region freezes over, and will continue to do so for some time yet. However, each year the ice is thinner, which is not captured by the extent figure, and so the melt in the Spring is more severe. Though, of course, weather and other natural variabilities, ensure it is not a straight line. (And the mean, of course, is just half way betwwen the two.)

James Abbott
September 5, 2012 8:37 am

Smokey said
“Natural cycles fully explain all current observations”
OK – give us the references for papers that can do this for the modern era ie instrument record period. Not anecodotes or wishful thinking, but peer reviewed science.
And
David Ball
you said
“James Abbott says:
September 5, 2012 at 7:07 am
“I am very sympathetic to your comments. As a follower of WUWT I have noticed the redirection away from this amazingly low Arctic ice extent.”
You start with a blatant lie, and then continue in that vein.”
You clearly have not been following the thread. The first bit in quotes was from Steve from Rockwood, not me.
Secondly you claim that what I did write to follow was a “blatant lie”.
Thats strong stuff – you can presumably evidence your allegation ?

Venter
September 5, 2012 8:56 am

John B,
Your statement means bugger all. If warming is ” global ” ti should affect both poles. So can your crap.

September 5, 2012 8:59 am

James Abbott,
You do not understand the concept of the null hypothesis, yet you insist on assigning me homework? First, get up to speed on the subject. The null hypothesis has never been falsified, and it shows conclusively that what is being observed right now is well within past climate parameters.
Therefore, the default scientific position is that current observations are fully explained by natural variability. There is no ned to introduce the magic CO2 molecule to explain anything, as William of Ockham would tell you.
The planet has been warming at the same rate since the LIA. It warmed at that rate when CO2 was 280 ppmv, and at the same rate when CO2 was 390 ppmv. Therefore, CO2 has no measurable effect on global warming, and thus can be entirely disregarded. Any effect from CO2 is minuscule, and most of the rise is due to ocean outgasing. As we know, changes in CO2 follow changes in temperature, on all time scales. Effect only precedes cause inside the deluded minds of CO2=CAGW believers.
Sorry to prick the anti-science bubble you’re in, but your arguments are based entirely on beliefs, not on scientific measurements. Nothing unprecedented is happening regarding Arctic ice. It has all happened before, repeatedly. But you believe that this time it’s different. I can’t help you there, your belief trumps logic.

Venter
September 5, 2012 9:00 am

Just the facts
Mosher : ” A mathematical entity that has no real physical meaning.”
Funny, that’s sometimes how I feel about you…
That was an absolutely perfect description of Mosher. A meaningless mumbler of maths and statistics with no science, physical meaning, common sense or rational thought.

krischel
September 5, 2012 9:24 am

“in a warmer world you can expect less floating ice in water. ”
The problem is that distribution counts. It’s quite possible to have a warmer world where the antarctic and arctic become colder, and it’s also possible to have a colder world where the antarctic and arctic become warmer. That doesn’t even address the topic of ocean warmth versus atmospheric warmth.
Maybe a better way of putting would be, “in a world with warmer poles, you can expect less floating ice in water.”

phlogiston
September 5, 2012 9:27 am

Henry Clark says:
September 4, 2012 at 1:38 pm
In annual averages, less misleading than single months, a turning point was how, from 2007 to the last full year of data (2011), arctic ice extent has been increasing, as seen at http://www.webcitation.org/6AKKakUIo .
This figure sure is an eye-opener, no wonder the UK met office hurriedly took it down.
The final part since 2007 is notable for the sharp increase in summer to winter variation. This is at an all time high (over instrumental record period). I see little discussion of this variation, it should be very significant.

Phil.
September 5, 2012 9:38 am

Smokey says:
September 5, 2012 at 8:59 am
James Abbott,
You do not understand the concept of the null hypothesis, yet you insist on assigning me homework? First, get up to speed on the subject. The null hypothesis has never been falsified, and it shows conclusively that what is being observed right now is well within past climate parameters.

What is this falsifiable null hypothesis you refer to, details please?
Therefore, the default scientific position is that current observations are fully explained by natural variability. There is no ned to introduce the magic CO2 molecule to explain anything, as William of Ockham would tell you.
Really? Despite the summer Arctic insolation falling over the last 10,000 years we are returning to the Arctic conditions that pertained then. So Ockham would say “entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem” (entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity), but in this case insolation is not sufficient so it is necessary to introduce another ‘entity’. Newton’s version: “We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances”, leads to the same conclusion. So Ockham disagrees with you.

James Abbott
September 5, 2012 9:39 am

Thanks Smokey
So there we have it – you cannot produce any references to papers covering the modern era to back your assertion that its all natural variability and you continue to reply on your favoured null hypothesis, which provides nil support for your claims.
You then completely ignore the evidence that I produced in my post that clearly demonstrated that your claim
“The planet has been warming at the same rate since the LIA. It warmed at that rate when CO2 was 280 ppmv, and at the same rate when CO2 was 390 ppmv. ”
Is completely untrue. The evidence shows that the planet has warmed much faster in the last 30 years than the previous century.
You then claim that what I have written is
“based entirely on beliefs, not on scientific measurements”
when what I stated was based on measurements taken by scientists and published by scientific institutions (I would obviously not try do to otherwise as I don’t live in the arctic and have never taken any of my own measurements there).
But you also, incredibly, seek to undermine one of the most fundamental findings in atmospheric physics, namely that the Earth’s climate is warmed by greenhouse gases, a finding first put forward nearly 200 years ago. Without the natural greenhouse effect the Earth’s mean surface temperature would be about 21C lower than it is (Houghton).
You say that the warming due to CO2 is “minuscule” and so therefore deny its importance in keeping the planet naturally warm.
If it is “minuscule”, perhaps you can tell us what the mean surface temperature of the Earth would be if CO2 were not present in the atmosphere ? Presumably you believe it would be little different to now ?

Phil.
September 5, 2012 9:59 am

phlogiston says:
September 5, 2012 at 9:27 am
The final part since 2007 is notable for the sharp increase in summer to winter variation. This is at an all time high (over instrumental record period). I see little discussion of this variation, it should be very significant.

Indeed, as can be seen below it’s largely due to the summer sea-ice falling to levels more than 1Gm^2 below previous summertime levels but returning in winter to levels about 0.5 Gm^2 below previous. This year we have so far dropped to an anomaly of -2.417 Gm^2 from -0.397 Gm^2 at maximum area (13.68-2.37), so while the minimum area is dropping so is the maximum but not as fast, thus the annual range is growing. While the refreeze is able to almost replace the missing ice area each year, it’s not able to replace the missing thicker, multiyear ice so each summer the ice is more vulnerable.
It used to be that first year ice would survive its circuit of the gyre and become progressively older and thicker, that doesn’t happen to the extent that it did.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.arctic.png

Phil.
September 5, 2012 10:11 am

Smokey says:
September 5, 2012 at 7:36 am
And the Antarctic, with more than ten time the ice of the Arctic, is still growing.

To support this you link to a graph of sea-ice, however Antarctic sea-ice varies from ~2 to ~15 Gm ^2 while the Arctic varies from ~2 to ~14 Gm^2 (this year). Another misleading statement by Smokey, in addition Antarctic sea-ice is not “still growing”.

Bill Taylor
September 5, 2012 10:20 am

clue = IF co2 was NOT in the atmosphere, WE would not be here………TRY for the chance to make this point co2 is a NUTRIENT required for life as we know it, and in no way is pollution.

Julienne Stroeve
September 5, 2012 10:50 am

James, from personal experience, it won’t matter how much evidence you present to Smokey, he doesn’t ever change his talking points.
REPLY: I could say the same thing about NSIDC’s activist director, Mark Serreze. – Anthony

Editor
September 5, 2012 10:54 am

JohnB says: September 5, 2012 at 8:15 am
The maximum is more stable than the miniumum because once the Sun sinks in the winter pretty much the whole region freezes over, and will continue to do so for some time yet.
What? “The whole region freezes over”? In a warming world sea ice should form slower and melt faster around the periphery, resulting in decreased extent and area throughout the year. Given that ice is thinnest around the periphery, one would expect the effects of increased atmospheric temperatures to be greatest there.
However, each year the ice is thinner, which is not captured by the extent figure, and so the melt in the Spring is more severe. Though, of course, weather and other natural variabilities, ensure it is not a straight line.
The primary reason that the ice is thinner appears to be;
“Recent wind driven high sea ice export in the Fram Strait contributes to Arctic sea ice decline”
http://www.the-cryosphere-discuss.net/5/1311/2011/tcd-5-1311-2011-print.pdf
The paper by L. H. Smedsrud, et al. used;

“geostrophic winds derived from reanalysis data to calculate the Fram Strait ice area export back to 1957, finding that the sea ice area export recently is about 25% larger than during the 1960’s.”

Also, this 2001 paper, “Fram Strait Ice Fluxes and Atmospheric Circulation: 1950–2000”
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0442%282001%29014%3C3508%3AFSIFAA%3E2.0.CO%3B2
by Torgny Vinjefound that:

“Due to an increasing rate in the ice drainage through the Fram Strait during the 1990s, this decade is characterized by a state of decreasing ice thickness in the Arctic Ocean.”

As such, it appears that the primary reason for the divergence between maximum and minimum trends may be “natural variabilities”.

J Martin
September 5, 2012 10:58 am

James Abbott said on September 5, 2012 at 7:07 am
“Far more credible is that human induced climate change mainly due to CO2 is the primary reason for the observed changes (as anticipated in science papers as far back as the 1960s/1970s) and that whilst natural cycles of course exist, these cannot explain what is being observed in the arctic.”
———————————-
Nice try, but no cigar.
Credible ? in what way ? You just made a bald statement of belief with no attempt at substantiation. Perhaps you’d like to explain the mechanism by which co2 has induced climate change (global warming) and how that translates into reduced ice cover. The air temperatures in the Arctic during the summer are not sufficient to melt the ice from above and a warmer atmosphere cannot directly transfer it’s heat to the ocean. So how do you think it works ? Put forth your theory and post some links.
You obviously haven’t been reading WUWT for very long otherwise you wouldn’t still be trotting out religious unsubstantiated statements.
For what it’s worth neither you, the Guardian, The New Scientist nor the Met Office need worry about or celebrate the reduced ice cover in the Arctic for very long, for unless the Sun makes a remarkable recovery, and soon, I believe in the coming years that you’ll be posting that mankind’s trivial contribution to co2 has caused a dramatic and worrying expansion of World ice.

September 5, 2012 11:06 am

Julienne Stroeve,
My “talking points” do not change because they are are factual. And I take pride in the weak and baseless criticism coming from someone with her snout firmly planted in the public trough.

J Martin
September 5, 2012 11:10 am

James Abbott said on September 5, 2012 at 9:39 am
“If it is “minuscule”, perhaps you can tell us what the mean surface temperature of the Earth would be if CO2 were not present in the atmosphere ? Presumably you believe it would be little different to now ?”
—————————–
Correct. It would be at most about one degree C cooler. This of course presumes that co2 has any heating effect at all. Water vapour is the primary greenhouse gas, 7 times more effective and vastly greater.
There are however some other interesting theories which are being fleshed out by physicists and mathematicians, that involve nothing more than the existence of atmospheric pressure. I only mention that to broaden (or blow) your mind. If you like, I will find some links, there has been plenty of discussion and mathematics on this subject on Tallbloke’s blog, and also on WUWT.

J Martin
September 5, 2012 11:33 am

James Abbott said September 5, 2012 at 7:07 am
So the “natural cycles” and “steady natural warming ” theory needs to explain the observed acceleration in change before it is credible.
——————————
Nope.
You make the assumption that temperatures were a straight horizontal line prior to the recent warming seen in the latter part of the century. You ignore the earlier warming period where co2 remained essentially flat, and you ignored all previous temperature ups and downs, some of them dramatic indeed where co2 could not possibly have played a role. Many with warming (and cooling) gradients every bit as steep and steeper.
It is for you to firstly show that those previous temperature gradients are not at play here, until you have done that you cannot make a credible argument for co2 as being of any relevance to warming over the latter part of the century, since co2 has never been shown to be relevant to historic temperature fluctuations. The onus of proof is on you not Smokey.
Global temperatures have been declining for the last 15 years and God has turned down the dimmer control on the Sun. You need to chill out, that ice is going to come back with a vengeance as per the Little Ice Age. So Julienne and Walt live in interesting times for sure.

September 5, 2012 11:39 am

Julienne Strove,
A while ago I asked you the following, in response to your Arctic/CO2 comment:
Are you arguing that human CO2 emissions are the cause of the current Arctic ice decline? If so, post your evidence, per the scientific method: testable, quantifiable scientific evidence, directly attributable to human CO2 emissions.
Otherwise, the default position must be natural Arctic ice variability, which has happened repeatedly during the Holocene, is happening. That is the null hypothesis. Arctic ice melt has occurred at other times in the 20th Century [in the 1920’s and the 1980’s], and is documented in Royal Navy observations in the 1800′s. The same cycle has happened throughout the Holocene. Why would the current cycle be anything but natural?
Post your evidence of human causation, if you have any.

You never answered the question or posted any evidence. That is because you have no direct evidence, per the scientific method, connecting human CO2 emissions with Arctic ice melt. And without any scientific evidence, all you have is belief.

DarrylB
September 5, 2012 11:40 am

J. M. Careful here. I have seen estimates regarding a no CO2 atmosphere from many credible scientists who are very skeptical of much warming by additional CO2. The estimates have been between 8 and about 20 Deg C.
A hundred years ago, in lab investigations it was determined that adding CO2 would not cause much warming (at one time there was thought it might cause some cooling) because almost all the IR frequencies that CO2 can absorb are being absorbed. Curiously, it was several German scientists about the time of WW11 that change our atomic model, and with it came quantum mechanics. Energy that is absorbed is remitted in all directions; up down, sideways and this happens in each molecule millions of times in a second. GHG is really a misnomer. It should be called the Tyndall gas effect. Greenhouses, or you car, warm because they prevent convection, those who believe there is positive feedback believe there will be changes in water vapor content at certain altitudes. This happens because of convection. However, the models showing this have been inaccurate.
An analogy might be putting on a coat to keep you worm. Each additional coat you put on warms you less.
IMO additional CO2 will cause progressively less warming, In fact so little that we will never be quite sure of how much, It such seems foolish to try spend money to limit a fundamental requirement of life.

Phil.
September 5, 2012 11:45 am

Smokey says:
September 5, 2012 at 11:06 am
Julienne Stroeve,
My “talking points” do not change because they are are factual.

Since many of them are shown to be mis-statements of your sources: for example your attempt to pass off a photo from John Daly’s site as mid-winter ice when in fact it was a generic photo of sea ice taken in September, also your representation of a graph as showing Holocene temperatures to be greater than today’s when it did not extend more recently than 165 years ago, your points are demonstrably not factual!
And I take pride in the weak and baseless criticism coming from someone with her snout firmly planted in the public trough.
And in being rude apparently, while maintaining your anonymity behind a pseudonym.

Jimbo
September 5, 2012 11:48 am

Ammonite says:
September 4, 2012 at 3:36 pm
Over the years posters at WUWT have made multiple predictions of recovery……

Over the years Warmists and worried alarmists have made multiple predictions of an ice-free Arctic for the following years:
1989, 2000, 2008, 2010, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2035, 2040
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/06/080620-north-pole.html
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/ice-free-arctic-forecasts/
http://select.nytimes.co/gst/abstract.html?res=F40A11FC3959147493C2AB1789D85F4D8685F9

JJ
September 5, 2012 11:50 am

James Abbott says:
The temperature record shows that whilst there was C20th warming, it was modest until the 1980s and then much more rapid warming started:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.gif
shows about 0.3C warming in the century to 1980, then over 0.5C in the next 30 years.

Actually, what that temp record shows is about 0.5C warming in the century to 1940, and a similar amount from 1980 to present.
So the “natural cycles” and “steady natural warming ” theory needs to explain the observed acceleration in change before it is credible.
There is no change in acceleration.
Further, any credible complaint against the credibility of a theory of “natural cycles” or “steady natural warming” would need to rely on a period substantially longer than one century. “Nature” did not begin in 1900, any more than arctic ice began in the 1970s.

Phil.
September 5, 2012 11:51 am

Smokey says:
September 5, 2012 at 11:39 am
Julienne Strove,
A while ago I asked you the following, in response to your Arctic/CO2 comment:
Are you arguing that human CO2 emissions are the cause of the current Arctic ice decline? If so, post your evidence, per the scientific method: testable, quantifiable scientific evidence, directly attributable to human CO2 emissions.
Otherwise, the default position must be natural Arctic ice variability, which has happened repeatedly during the Holocene, is happening. That is the null hypothesis. Arctic ice melt has occurred at other times in the 20th Century [in the 1920’s and the 1980’s], and is documented in Royal Navy observations in the 1800′s. The same cycle has happened throughout the Holocene. Why would the current cycle be anything but natural?
Post your evidence of human causation, if you have any.
You never answered the question or posted any evidence. That is because you have no direct evidence, per the scientific method, connecting human CO2 emissions with Arctic ice melt. And without any scientific evidence, all you have is belief.

And you posted no evidence to support your assertions upon which your question is based, not surprising really since they aren’t true. Using your logic we assume that you have no evidence to support your views. Start providing such evidence and maybe your questions will be taken seriously.

J Martin
September 5, 2012 11:52 am

James Abbott. You need to read this.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/05/is-the-current-global-warming-a-natural-cycle/
“The past natural warming events reported by Mulvaney et al. are similar in amplitude and duration to the present global warming signal, and yet the past warmings occurred before the industrial revolution and therefore were not caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gases. The present global warming cycle lies within the range of these past natural warming cycles, suggesting that the present global warming cycle may be of natural origin and not caused by human activity–as climate skeptics have been arguing for some time.”

September 5, 2012 12:15 pm

izen says:
September 5, 2012 at 7:25 am
@- Philip Bradley says
“So why is Antarctic sea ice increasing?
The Arctic and Antarctic are opposites. The Arctic an ocean surrounded by land, the Antarctic land surrounded by ocean. The result is that in the Arctic the summer melt is significant but in the Antarctic the sea ice can melt back to the edge of the Antarctic continent, but can decrease no further.
However the land ice on the Antarctic ice-cap IS shrinking as shown by direct observation and GRACE satellite data.

You present no physical mechanism, and this is just a psuedo-argument.
FYI, the mechanism I described above also accounts for Antarctic Peninsula melt and Greenland melt as well.
The melt of the Larson icesheets on the Antarctic Peninsula is interesting because Larsen B and C are surrounded by permanent sea ice that hasn’t melted.
How come the much thicker icesheet melts, when the thinner sea ice doesn’t?
The answer is that the icesheet, having originated on land, contains substantial embedded material (rock particles) which act like the embedded black carbon in Arctic sea ice. accumulating at the surface and decreasing the albedo, as solar insolation melts/sublimates the ice surface.

Werner Brozek
September 5, 2012 12:17 pm

James Abbott says:
September 5, 2012 at 9:39 am
“The planet has been warming at the same rate since the LIA. It warmed at that rate when CO2 was 280 ppmv, and at the same rate when CO2 was 390 ppmv. ”
Is completely untrue. The evidence shows that the planet has warmed much faster in the last 30 years than the previous century.

On the other hand, the last 30 years is no different from a 30 year period about 70 years ago. See
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1900/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1912/to:1942/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1982.5/to:2012.5/trend
“#Selected data from 1912
#Selected data up to 1942
#Least squares trend line; slope = 0.0154488 per year”
“#Selected data from 1982.5
#Selected data up to 2012.5
#Least squares trend line; slope = 0.0152531 per year”

September 5, 2012 12:41 pm

People are forgetting so quickly, that the satellite which made the sea ice measurements, over at “cryosphere today” had damaged it’s sensor and the satellite was replaced, so the instrument measurements for this year are from a different satellite and instrument. So then the new instrument has a difficulty in seeing ice cover which is fragmented, whereas the old sensor did not.
The result is all this wittering about whether the ice is in terminal decline or not, but it is an exaggerated “anomaly”. Furthermore when the “pendulum swings” more strongly in one direction, experience shows that it shall also swing more strongly in the opposite direction. Accordingly it is predicted that the forthcoming Winter will show a corresponding increase in Arctic sea ice.

September 5, 2012 12:47 pm

Kevin Trenberth wrote that “the null hypothesis should now be reversed, thereby placing the burden of proof on showing that there is no human influence.” Trenberth understands the null hypothesis. Maybe Phil can call him and ask for an explanation, because I’ve explained it often enough.
And Prof Richard Lindzen points out that natural variability fully explains the current state of affairs: “For small changes in climate associated with tenths of a degree, there is no need for any external cause. The earth is never exactly in equilibrium. The motions of the massive oceans where heat is moved between deep layers and the surface provides variability on time scales from years to centuries. Recent work suggests that this variability is enough to account for all climate change since the 19th Century.”
And as Dr Roy Spencer notes, ‘no one has falsified the hypothesis that the observed temperature changes are a consequence of natural variability.’
The null hypothesis is easily testable: simply show that temperatures have accelerated above their long term parameters. The fact that they have not means the null hypothesis remains un-falsified. In fact, temperatures are decelerating.
Werner Brozek,
If Abbott can cherry-pick the past 30 years, then I can cherry-pick the past 15 years. ☺
But here is the real, long term trend line. The green line shows the trend, which is clearly decelerating. And recent temperatures are not accelerating, despite Abbott’s wishing it were so.
The planet has been warming NATURALLY since the LIA, no matter if CO2 levels were low or high. There is no scientific evidence showing that human CO2 emissions have had any measureable effect. With no supporting evidence, the alarmist crowd is left with only one thing: their belief. But belief is not sufficient cause to spend $trillions, or $billions… or even $thousands.
What we need is scientific evidence showing that human CO2 emissions are the cause of melting ice, global warming, or anything else. But so far, there is no evidence. There is only belief.

J Martin
September 5, 2012 12:59 pm

DarrylB.
I am happy to listen to all four arguments;
(1). That co2 causes warming.
(2). That co2 causes neither warming nor cooling.
(3). That co2 causes cooling.
(4). That co2 causes both warming and cooling.
——————————————————————
(1) Considered by many to be well established, though not all.
(2) Is suggested by the incoherent ups and downs of previous temperatures and co2 levels.
(3) (a). The Pacific hot spot that turns out to be a cold spot. (b). The current rate of warming being less than previous warming events and therefore being held back by increasing levels of co2. (c). The cessation and ringing (like an electrical square wave) seen when exiting a glaciation, temperatures climb rapidly with co2 following, so if co2 caused warming then temperatures would not stop rising, but they do stop and a logical conclusion could be drawn that co2 causes cooling and brings the warming to a halt, we see some variation afterwards (ringing), before we meet the rear slope of the interstitial (temperature square wave).
(4) OK I can’t think how this last one might work, though perhaps different functions at different atmospheric heights.
At this time I consider;
(1) to be minor at best, and most probably unlikely, and in either event of no effective relevance to mankind, food supply or future temperatures.
I remain open minded about the other 3 and look forward to hearing many well argued cases for and against.

September 5, 2012 1:09 pm

J Martin,
How about: warming causes CO2?
On time scales out to 400,000 years this appears to be the case. Changes in CO2 always follow changes in temperature, as shown in this chart. Another chart. And another.
The only scientific evidence shows thart CO2 is a function of temperature, not vice-versa. Warmer temperatures cause CO2 to outgas from the oceans, like CO2 outgases from a warming Coke.
CO2 may also have some minor warming effect, but it is too small to measure, and therefore it can be disregarded for all practical purposes.

J Martin
September 5, 2012 1:19 pm

Smokey.
Yes I think warming definitely causes co2 levels to increase.
But in item (3) I wonder if the co2 that the warming pulls from the oceans on the way out of glaciation then pulls back the warming.
So we get a warming spike which increases co2, but co2 could have a cooling effect, thus causing the warming event to stabilise and level off and then temperatures are dragged back down by the co2 into a glaciation.
Yes the record of glaciations clearly show that warming causes co2 to increase.
Personally I would prefer to find a planetary cause for glaciations.

Gunga Din
September 5, 2012 1:44 pm

Jimbo says:
September 5, 2012 at 11:48 am
Ammonite says:
September 4, 2012 at 3:36 pm
Over the years posters at WUWT have made multiple predictions of recovery……
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Over the years Warmists and worried alarmists have made multiple predictions of an ice-free Arctic for the following years:
1989, 2000, 2008, 2010, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2035, 2040
====================================================================
Jimbo, I think you misunderstood. The predictions have been for “next” year or, sometimes, in the “next” five years or in the “next” decade, etc.
Again I’m reminded of the sign I saw painted on the side of a seafood restaurant, “Free Crabs Tomorrow!”.

krischel
September 5, 2012 1:52 pm

@Smokey: The mental model that seems to fit best for me is that of a buffer solution. In the same way that a buffer solution will neutralize both acids and bases, it seems that oceanic CO2 is probably buffering the levels in the atmosphere. Increased CO2 emissions by humans are buffered by the ocean absorbing more CO2. Similarly, if there were a *decrease* in CO2 emissions by humans, they’d be buffered by the ocean emitting more CO2. The set point of atmospheric CO2 levels buffered by the oceans is determined by ocean temperature (i.e., warming causes CO2).
If one doesn’t understand the concept of a buffer solution, I can see how one could get wrapped around the axle, imagining that it’s an elementary mathematics problem of putting soil into a hole, or taking soil out of a hole.

Phil.
September 5, 2012 1:59 pm

According to Smokey:
Smokey says:
September 5, 2012 at 1:09 pm
The only scientific evidence shows thart CO2 is a function of temperature, not vice-versa. Warmer temperatures cause CO2 to outgas from the oceans, like CO2 outgases from a warming Coke.

And he also says:
Smokey says:
September 5, 2012 at 12:47 pm
In fact, temperatures are decelerating.

And yet the CO2 levels are not decelerating, care to explain that Smokey?
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo.png

September 5, 2012 2:32 pm

Phil.,
You are right, CO2 levels are not decelerating. Of course, that is a lame strawman argument since I never wrote that CO2 levels are decelerating.
So what’s your point? The fact that CO2 keeps rising, but temperature does not follow, pretty much debunks your runaway global warming/Arctic melting nonsense. The evidence falsifies your belief.
• • •
J Martin,
Some folks say that CO2 causes no warming. Others say that CO2 is the result of warming.
In any case, there is nothing to worry about. The entire “carbon” argument is predicated on tyhe assumption that CO2 is easy to tax. And it is. But there is no scientific evidence to support the belief in CO2 as the cause of Arctic ice melt or runaway global warming. It is a complete alarmist scam.

Ammonite
September 5, 2012 2:55 pm

benfrommo says:
September 4, 2012 at 11:16 pm
Ammonite; The arctic is telling us all something very important, if we will just listen.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
This quote just made me laugh. This is science? We “listen to the arctic.”…..
Hi benfrommo. You choose to focus on a turn of phrase but ignore its underlying meaning. I offer it as an opportunity for regular WUWT readers to reflect on recent information and how if fits (or doesn’t) with their world view. Perhaps you would be more confortable if I provided tables of PIOMAS data, their confirmation by Cryosat 2 and plots under varying assumptions showing an imminent rendesvouz with zero?
So has this thread evidenced a reflective tone? As usual, no. Most posters are too busy proving themselves “right” to consider much in the way of implications. For example, how many times have WUWT readers been assured that purported temperature changes under AGW would have little effect in practice? Yet changes in the arctic show it to be far more sensitive to “small” perturbations (whatever their cause) than previously thought. Do you pause at this point or immediately fetch a graph to prove I’m an idiot?
On the whole, this thread reminds me of a recent comment by Steven Mosher on how to recognise fake skeptics (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/27/sea-ice-news-volume-3-number-10-part-1-new-arctic-extent-record/#comment-1066025). “Heads” meet “Sand”.

James Abbott
September 5, 2012 2:55 pm

J Martin said re CO2 warming
“Nice try, but no cigar.
Credible ? in what way ? You just made a bald statement of belief with no attempt at substantiation. Perhaps you’d like to explain the mechanism by which co2 has induced climate change (global warming) and how that translates into reduced ice cover.
You obviously haven’t been reading WUWT for very long otherwise you wouldn’t still be trotting out religious unsubstantiated statements.”
Well, like others who post here who believe in the scientific method, I am trying to substantiate a case, but its mighty difficult to put an argument to people who deny just about every basic starting point, even including that CO2 is a greenhouse gas – a scientific fact established nearly 200 years ago. I agree I have not been reading WUWT for long but it has not taken long either to figure out its purpose.
I asked Smokey to respond to the CO2 point, which he failed to do. He thinks the CO2 contribution to the natural greenhouse effect is negligable, and so I asked what would happen if CO2 was absent from the atmosphere. No answer.
You J Martin say
“at most about one degree C cooler. This of course presumes that co2 has any heating effect at all.”
But give no reference for either claim.
You also calim
“Global temperatures have been declining for the last 15 years”
No they have not. They have been flatlining for about the last 9 years, but not declining.
And
“God has turned down the dimmer control on the Sun.”
Which is an inane comment – and then you accuse me of having a religious belief in climate change ?
and you add
“chill out, that ice is going to come back with a vengeance as per the Little Ice Age”
Again – no evidence – just a pile more wishful thinking to back a pre-determined position.
JJ said
“Actually, what that temp record shows is about 0.5C warming in the century to 1940, and a similar amount from 1980 to present. There is no change in acceleration.”
So JJ you conveniently miss out the period 1940 to 1980 to calculate a rate of change to suit your case ? Thats some method you are using there. Maybe Governments can miss out the period since 2008 to show there has been no banking crisis ?
Getting back to the evidence
CO2 is an important natural greenhouse gas and much more important than a 1C contribution.
According to
http://phys.org/news/2010-10-carbon-dioxide-earths-temperature.html
CO2 accounts for about 20 percent of the greenhouse effect – that keeps Earth about 21 C (or more depending on source) warmer than it would be with just oxygen and nitrogen.
So here is the killer argument – if the amount of CO2 is increased substantially over natural levels, it will get warmer. How controversial is that ?
How does that melt ice ? Well lets see, a warmer ocean below the ice and a warmer atmosphere above the ice (reference the many anomaly maps on this website) ?
It seems that with the sceptic community it all boils down pretty much to one basic argument and that is that CO2 has much less warming potential than a host of studies have concluded or even that CO2 has no warming potential which turns atmospheric physics back to the early C19th.

David Ball
September 5, 2012 2:56 pm

James Abbott says:
September 5, 2012 at 8:37 am
“Thats strong stuff – you can presumably evidence your allegation ?”
It seems that you have been handed your hat already. You are clearly not a follower of WUWT? QED.

Robert
September 5, 2012 3:10 pm

I see a lot of comments here that although the Arctic sea ice area / extent minimums are dropping over time, the maximum area /extent is relatively unchanged. Several posters have noted that this is because more of the thicker / older ice is melting out over the passing years, but this thicker ice is being replaced by thinner ice in the frigid Arctic winters. So, although the ice area / extent returns to more or less the same value in the winter each year, because this ice is thinner, over time, more ice melts out in the summer, which leads to record low areas/extents as we are seeing this year.
Here are a couple of charts that back these claims up:
The first is a graph of the PIOMAS daily Arctic Ice Volume taken from the Arctic Sea Ice Blog:
http://neven1.typepad.com/.a/6a0133f03a1e37970b0177446fbf0e970d-pi
The data for this chart can be downloaded from the Polar Science Center at http://psc.apl.washington.edu/wordpress/research/projects/arctic-sea-ice-volume-anomaly/data/ .
Notice that the highest maximum Arctic ice volume can be seen in the 1979 – 2000 average and is around 30 million cubic kilometers. As you can see from the 2002 – 2012 graphed data, there have been year to year drops in the maxima for most years (with 2008 and 2009 being exceptions due to the extremely large drop in 2007) right up until 2012.
I checked the data, and the largest maximum volume that I could find for any year was in 1979 (the first year of satellite data) at 33 million cubic kilometers. The lowest maximum value is from 2012 and was 21.9 million cubic kilometers, a drop from the highest measured volume (in 1979) of about 11 million cu. km – a decrease of around 33 percent in maximum volume over the last 33 years.
The largest minimum volume that I could find in the data was in 1979 at 16.9 million cubic kilometers. The minimum volume was for day 238 of 2012 at 3.6 million cubic kilometers. This was the last date with data in the set – August 25th, if I have calculated correctly. This is a decrease in the minimum value of about 13.3 million cu. km, or 78 percent over 33 years.
So, although the minimum volume is decreasing faster (78% in 33 years vs. 33% for the maximum volume), the maximum volume is decreasing as well. Interestingly, it just occurs to me that although the percentage losses are very different, the total amount of ice loss at the two time periods (11 million cu. km at the maximum, 13.3 million cu. km at the minimum). It appears that, for the most part, once the ice is gone, it doesn’t come back.
As I and others have said, the facts that although the maximum Arctic sea ice area and extent have not changed much over the last 33 years, and the maximum Arctic sea ice volume has decreased by 33% over that same period lead to the logical conclusion that the ice has thinned at maximum volume/extent/area time (to the degree that these three measurements overlap). The Polar Ice Center demonstrates this with their graph of Daily Average Arctic Sea Ice Thickness:
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ice_volume/Bpiomas_plot_daily_heff.2sst.png
Notice that the average Arctic sea ice thickness has been declining over the last 33 years at all times of the year.
I hope this clarifies what posters mean when they say that even though the average Arctic sea ice area and extent both return to about the same value each year, Arctic sea ice is clearly declining over time due to a decrease in thickness.
Thanks,
Robert

James Abbott
September 5, 2012 3:29 pm

David Ball said
“James Abbott says (in response to being called a liar) “Thats strong stuff – you can presumably evidence your allegation ?”
It seems that you have been handed your hat already. You are clearly not a follower of WUWT? QED.”
I get it now. Unless you are a loyal follower of WUWT, prepared to agree with all that is pronounced on it, you are not welcome and also get branded a liar merely for referencing your case and asking others to do so.
That sounds more like a religious cult than a forum for discussion of science.

James Abbott
September 5, 2012 3:48 pm

This just published does not look like steady natural cyclical change:
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
“Following the new record low recorded on August 26, Arctic sea ice extent continued to drop and is now below 4.00 million square kilometers (1.54 million square miles). Compared to September conditions in the 1980s and 1990s, this represents a 45% reduction in the area of the Arctic covered by sea ice.
In 2012, the rate of ice loss for August was 91,700 square kilometers (35,400 square miles) per day, the fastest observed for the month of August over the period of satellite observations.
Between mid-March and the third week of August, the total amount of multiyear ice within the Arctic Ocean declined by 33%, and the oldest ice, ice older than five years, declined by 51%.”
So – a THIRD of multiyear ice and HALF the oldest ice melting in one summer ?

David Ball
September 5, 2012 4:11 pm

James Abbott says:
September 5, 2012 at 3:48 pm
The difficulty is that no baseline for what is “normal” has been established. You have far too little data to assume the things you are assuming. If you have cyclical variation of much larger timescales (for example twice the satellite era) you have no foundation for the assumptions being made. There is simply not enough information to confirm your “hypothesis”. To state with certainty based on so little data is a deception.

David Ball
September 5, 2012 4:15 pm

James Abbott says:
September 5, 2012 at 3:29 pm
I will ignore your puny comment about WUWT? and it’s “religious” nature. Confirms my statement even more.

September 5, 2012 4:35 pm

James Abbott says:
“I asked Smokey to respond to the CO2 point, which he failed to do. He thinks the CO2 contribution to the natural greenhouse effect is negligable (sic), and so I asked what would happen if CO2 was absent from the atmosphere. No answer.”
Well, excuse me if I don’t drop what I’m doing every time you ask a question. And yes, CO2 is a “greenhouse gas”, as I have stated many times.
So what?
And to answer your question, if there were no CO2 there would be no life on Earth. I’ve also stated many times that CO2 is harmless, and beneficial to the biosphere. More CO2 is better. The biosphere is starved of CO2. Worrying about an addition to that essential and beneficial trace gas is crazy. You’ve been listening to Algore too much.
And what, exactly, is the problem if Arctic ice melts? It has happened before, repeatedly and routinely. It has happened during the past century, and throughout the Holocene. No catastrophe resulted. So why all the wild-eyed arm waving? Running around in circles and screaming about the natural Arctic ice cycle makes you sound exactly like Chicken Little [that’s Chicken Licken to you]. But the sky isn’t falling, an acorn just hit you on the head, so now you believe the sky is falling.
It amazes me how crazy and worked up some folks get over what is clearly a natural cycle that has been repeated regularly. If you understood the concept of the null hypothesis, you would understand. But you believe that the current ordinary fluctuations are somehow unprecedented. They are not. They are completely normal.
Earth to Abbott: It’s all happened before, in exactly the same way, and during times when CO2 was much lower. Therefore, CO2 is not the cause. There is nothing unusual happening. You are just scaring yourself over a misguided belief that has no scientific evidence to support it. None. It is nature at work, that’s all.

David Ball
September 5, 2012 4:39 pm

The ignoring (or ignorance) of known historic and geologic information is another thing that reveal the systemic bias in government and academia. Selective information is the same as a lie, IMHO. The motive and opportunity are there. No need for a conspiracy theory. Back to you James,…….

David Ball
September 5, 2012 4:43 pm

Now would you like to discuss how the data is collected? Perhaps we can then discuss the “adjustments” made to the data. The rationale for said adjustments, etc., etc.

Werner Brozek
September 5, 2012 4:51 pm

James Abbott says:
September 5, 2012 at 2:55 pm
You also calim
“Global temperatures have been declining for the last 15 years”
No they have not. They have been flatlining for about the last 9 years, but not declining.

The above depends on the data set you are using. And for those sets below that are flat for over 15 years, they ARE slightly declining for the last 15 years. See the site below and note the yellow downward sloping line for RSS for example.
On all data sets, the different times for a slope that is flat for all practical purposes range from 10 years and 10 months to 15 years and 8 months. Following is the longest period of time (above 10 years) where each of the data sets is more or less flat. (*No slope is positive except UAH which is +0.0022 per year or +0.22/century up to July. So while it is not flat, the slope is not statistically significant either.)
1. UAH: since October 2001 or 10 years, 10 months (goes to July, but note * above)
2. GISS: since March 2001 or 11 years, 5 months (goes to July)
3. Combination of 4 global temperatures: since November 2000 or 11 years, 9 months (goes to July)
4. HadCrut3: since February 1997 or 15 years, 6 months (goes to July)
5. Sea surface temperatures: since January 1997 or 15 years, 7 months (goes to July)
6. RSS: since December 1996 or 15 years, 8 months (goes to July)
RSS is 188/204 or 92.2% of the way to Santer’s 17 years.
7. Hadcrut4: since December 2000 or 11 years, 8 months (goes to July using GISS. See below.)
See the graph below to show it all for #1 to #6.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997.08/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2001.16/trend/plot/rss/from:1996.9/trend/plot/wti/from:2000.8/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997/trend/plot/uah/from:2001.75/trend/plot/rss/from:1997.58/trend
For #7: Hadcrut4 only goes to December 2010 so what I did was get the slope of GISS from December 2000 to the end of December 2010. Then I got the slope of GISS from December 2000 to the present. The DIFFERENCE in slope was that the slope was 0.0049 lower for the total period. The positive slope for Hadcrut4 was 0.0041 from December 2000. So IF Hadcrut4 were totally up to date, and IF it then were to trend like GISS, I conclude it would show no slope for at least 11 years and 8 months going back to December 2000. (By the way, doing the same thing with Hadcrut3 gives the same end result, but GISS comes out much sooner each month.) See:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2000/to/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2000.9/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2000/plot/gistemp/from:2000.9/to:2011/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2000.9/trend

Henry Clark
September 5, 2012 5:54 pm

justthefactswuwt:
While aiming to not repeat too much of what is in my last recent lengthy comment in the other thread ( http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/02/sea-ice-page-upgrades-observations-and-questions ), a couple notes:
1)
Thank you for posting the two most important graphs as images. While http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/ArcticIce/Images/arctic_temp_trends_rt.gif displayed correctly, actually I see the other did not. The way to get http://www.webcitation.org/6AKKakUIo to display would be to use http://iceagenow.info/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/NorthernHemisphereSeaIceAnomaly.png as the actual image link for it.
2)
With the continued emphasis on highlighting contradictory Cryosphere Today graphs most, though, I would to add once more a reminder that Cryosphere Today is known to publish false data on ice:
Look at the sheer BS in http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seasonal.extent.1900-2010.png . That is about worse than even Mann’s hockey stick in being one of the blatantly false and dishonest presentations of “data” I’ve ever seen, pretending ice extent trends were near-flat in each decade from 1900 to 1950 when that is utterly impossible, not only in sheer contrast to the temperature trends like http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/ArcticIce/Images/arctic_temp_trends_rt.gif but also to historical maps of sea ice directly itself like http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/02/cache-of-historical-arctic-sea-ice-maps-discovered/ — not to mention newspaper articles of the time and basically the entire non-dishonest historical record.
As http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/02/cache-of-historical-arctic-sea-ice-maps-discovered/ described and noted, for instance:
The Sea ice decline documented year after year in DMI maps after 1921 apparently is not shown in Cryosphere data for some reason.
“Some reason” is being polite; more bluntly, Cryosphere Today is twisted false propaganda junk.
The WUWT Sea Ice reference page currently has more long-term arctic ice trend charts from Cryosphere Today than any other source. There is no problem in itself with showing such *if* you show other data (less false) as well. Let people see the contradictions, for that is the real world and truly educational. Restricting the page *solely* to continuously updated graphs is not best (as it tends to rule out most sources, including scientific papers, practically in favor of exceptionally well-funded public education/propaganda sources almost alone, a problem when funding is highly slanted). Best would be having a historical archive subsection as well.

Henry Clark
September 5, 2012 6:02 pm

By other data, I mean such as http://iceagenow.info/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/NorthernHemisphereSeaIceAnomaly.png most of all, which is the webcitation one from the U.K. government originally.
Currently, in ice trend charts, the reference page does show http://www.climate4you.com/images/NSIDC%20GlobalArcticAntarctic%20SeaIceArea.gif which is relatively somewhat good in context, as in better than Cryosphere Today anyway. (If one draws lines on it, it illustrates, according to even NSIDC data, arctic peak ice in 1996, 2000, 2008, and 2012 was equal within 1 pixel on its scale, which would be within 0.1 million square kilometers). But adding the former as well would give readers more of the overall picture.

Editor
September 5, 2012 6:22 pm

Henry Clark says: September 5, 2012 at 5:54 pm
Thank you for posting the two most important graphs as images. While http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/ArcticIce/Images/arctic_temp_trends_rt.gif displayed correctly, actually I see the other did not. The way to get http://www.webcitation.org/6AKKakUIo to display would be to use http://iceagenow.info/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/NorthernHemisphereSeaIceAnomaly.png as the actual image link for it.
Replaced with the iceage image above.
The WUWT Sea Ice reference page currently has more long-term arctic ice trend charts from Cryosphere Today than any other source. There is no problem in itself with showing such *if* you show other data (less false) as well. Let people see the contradictions, for that is the real world and truly educational. Restricting the page *solely* to continuously updated graphs is not best (as it tends to rule out most sources, including scientific papers, practically in favor of exceptionally well-funded public education/propaganda sources almost alone, a problem when funding is highly slanted). Best would be having a historical archive subsection as well.
Per my comment here;
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/02/sea-ice-page-upgrades-observations-and-questions/#comment-1072062
“I am open to building a historical climatic reference page, post whatever references you’d like in [the linked] thread, and I will review and build the page in the coming weeks when I’ve got time.”

JohnB
September 5, 2012 7:11 pm

Smokey says:
September 5, 2012 at 4:35 pm

And what, exactly, is the problem if Arctic ice melts? It has happened before, repeatedly and routinely. It has happened during the past century

Say what? Let’s see you back that one up. Let me guess, a photo of a submarine…

Henry Clark
September 5, 2012 7:27 pm

Just The Facts says:
September 5, 2012 at 6:22 pm
Replaced with the iceage image above.
Indeed it does display now. Thank you.
Just The Facts says:
September 5, 2012 at 6:22 pm
Per my comment here;
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/02/sea-ice-page-upgrades-observations-and-questions/#comment-1072062
“I am open to building a historical climatic reference page, post whatever references you’d like in [the linked] thread, and I will review and build the page in the coming weeks when I’ve got time.”

That would be good. I replied in the other thread. As noted there, a good start could be either http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/ArcticIce/Images/arctic_temp_trends_rt.gif and/or http://www.climate4you.com/images/GISP2%20TemperatureSince10700%20BP%20with%20CO2%20from%20EPICA%20DomeC.gif .*
Both are very powerful, exceptionally informative graphs.
If any one of those was added, I would figure there would be significant odds of a significant portion of references I could submit having an impact, so then at that point I would be quite happy to spend substantial time in subsequent days and weeks on assembling a list of others of potential.
* As usual, data for the latter:
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/greenland/summit/gisp2/isotopes/gisp2_temp_accum_alley2000.txt
and
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/antarctica/epica_domec/edc-co2.txt
where if so it could be noted as 200 to 11000 years ago

September 5, 2012 7:43 pm

JohnB,
I have posted numerous first-hand, eyewitness observations — the best available evidence. You, on the other hand, post only your unfounded beliefs.
No contest.
And you still will not answer my question: So what if the Arctic ice melts? BFD.

AJB
September 5, 2012 8:15 pm

RACookPE1978 says, September 4, 2012 at 6:30 pm
Mosh answered your question hopefully. I was trying to point out that you can’t sensibly predict outcomes of cycles that are clearly hysteretic. Notice I did not say there isn’t a trend. You might get lucky; if there’s a regime shift you might not. And in this situation you’ll likely underestimate.
Here are a couple of changes reported in 2007, attributed to changes in atmospheric circulation at the time.
Spielhagen et al 2011 was aired here briefly. Despite the uncertainty, it seems from this and an arm full of other papers that Arctic ice decline is primarily driven by increased energy delivered via North Atlantic currents. However, that paper attempts to go back further and Fig 3c suggests this has been on-going since 1835 or so but with a distinct pause midway through the last century. There’s a similar temp gradient in either half [vague and says nothing about flow rates]. The question of course is why.
For me that doesn’t stack up against the ramp up of CO2, Knorr 2009 (Fig 1) for example. How did this additional energy get into the Atlantic in the first place and what’s significant about 1835? Why the pause and where’s the evidence?

tjfolkerts
September 5, 2012 8:17 pm

It looks like the ices was just playing games with us. The area and extent are taking another downward turn.
In fact, the ice area just past below 1/2 of the 1979-2008 average!
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.recent.arctic.png

AJB
September 5, 2012 8:18 pm
tjfolkerts
September 5, 2012 8:34 pm

Smokey says: September 4, 2012 at 9:06 pm
“click3 [Antarctic has TEN TIMES more ice than the Arctic]”
Umm … the graph you link to says Arctic average area = 10 million km^2; Antarctic average area = 16 million km^2. Last time I checked, that is 1.6 times as much sea ice, not “TEN TIMES more”.
Or perhaps you are discussing LAND ice, but Antarctic land ice is not declining. I guess that doesn’t help your case, either.
Smokey also says:
“I have posted numerous first-hand, eyewitness observations [that the Arctic has melted repeatedly in the last century] … “
Yet some how from all that evidence, you cannot extract strong evidence from even ONE YEAR that there has been large-scale melting in the past century or two. Give it your best shot — which year and which specific eyewitness accounts support an Arctic-wide melting event similar to this year?

SideShowBob
September 5, 2012 8:36 pm

looks like the Watts effect is alive and well 🙂
As soon as Anthony calls it, it goes the other way!
We should hook him to a day trading machine, he’s peak or low picking abilities are uncanny, I propose as soon as he makes a prediction we short it the other way, sure as day follows night the watts effect will kick in, the stock will be jinxed and will do down not long after.

JJ
September 5, 2012 8:38 pm

James Abbott says:
JJ said
“Actually, what that temp record shows is about 0.5C warming in the century to 1940, and a similar amount from 1980 to present. There is no change in acceleration.”
So JJ you conveniently miss out the period 1940 to 1980 to calculate a rate of change to suit your case ?

The period you refer to was called “cooling”. I left it out because doing so helps your case, and I didn’t want to be accused of cherry picking as you had done. If you would rather I not leave it out, that is OK with me.
Putting it back in leaves a trend of 0.015C/year from the beginning of the century to 1940, and a trend of only 0.009C/year for the period 1940 to present. Apparently, the net effect of “global warming” is to cut the natural warming rate by 60%.
That is the accounting that accrues when one cherry picks periods like you did, instead of making an honest comparison as I did.
The legitimate way to look at such processes over such short time periods is to look to see if the short term warming that we experienced starting approx 1980 has any precident in the past, before alleged CO2 effects could have had any effect. It does.
Several, in fact. I showed you one. Ric showed you another, here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/04/sea-ice-news-volume-3-number-12-has-arctic-sea-ice-started-to-turn-the-corner/#comment-1071841
Looking at 1920-40 vs the recent warming period 1980-2000 is another. That one leaves out most of the flat spot that we have been in for the last decade or more. Leaving out that flat spot helps your case – let me know if you’d prefer I add it back in.
Of course, the better thing to do (as I stated earlier and you ran from like a frightened school girl) is to look at longer, more climatologically relevant periods. Smokey showed you one of those, here:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/compress:12/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1840/to:2010/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/trend/offset:0.15/detrend:-0.16/plot/hadcrut3vgl/trend/offset:-0.4/detrend:-0.18/plot/hadcrut3vgl/scale:0.00001/offset:1.5/plot/hadcrut3vnh/scale:0.00001/offset:-1.5
Your conclusions are the result of dishonest analysis. Feel free to lie to yourself, but we are under no obligation to accept such crap from you.
So here is the killer argument – if the amount of CO2 is increased substantially over natural levels, it will get warmer. How controversial is that ?
Quite. Because the incremental effect of CO2 declines as per a log function with increasing concentration, the potential effect of the second 300 ppm is much less than that of the first 300 ppm. It is perhaps 1C, if one accepts IPCC figurings. Too, that declining potential is not guaranteed to be realized, given that the Earth’s climate system is a complex beast with numerous recursive mechanisms that often manifest as negative feedbacks and swamping effects. How much warmer, if any? You don’t know. Be a dear and don’t pretend that you do.
It seems that with the sceptic community it all boils down pretty much to one basic argument …
Only in the minds of warmist bigots such as yourself.

September 5, 2012 8:43 pm

tjfolkerts,
Compared to the EVIDENCE that you lack, anything I post trumps your… nothingburger.
But cling to your unscientific belief that the Arctic has always had ice cover that never melted. Beliefs are comfortable things, and I wouldn’t want you to be upset when reality intrudes.

JJ
September 5, 2012 8:45 pm

James Abbott says:
This just published does not look like steady natural cyclical change:

Don’t be silly. Of course it does.

September 5, 2012 8:54 pm

Robert says:
September 5, 2012 at 3:10 pm
I see a lot of comments here that although the Arctic sea ice area / extent minimums are dropping over time, the maximum area /extent is relatively unchanged. Several posters have noted that this is because more of the thicker / older ice is melting out over the passing years, but this thicker ice is being replaced by thinner ice in the frigid Arctic winters. So, although the ice area / extent returns to more or less the same value in the winter each year, because this ice is thinner, over time, more ice melts out in the summer, which leads to record low areas/extents as we are seeing this year.

Thinner ice doesn’t mean more ice melts in the summer it means less ice melts in order to produce the same ice free area.
You appear to be assuming that over time the ice formed over the winter (single year ice) is getting thinner. I have seen no evidence this is the case and the return to the same winter maximum extent indicates this is not the case. As I noted above, the amount of ice formed over the winter is increasing.
If the reduced summer ice minimum is solely caused by melting of older multi-year ice, and I have seen no evidence this isn’t the case, then clearly the decreasing minimum extent will stop when this ice has all melted out.
The $64K question is whether new multi-year ice will have the same propensity to melt disproportionately faster than single year ice. If it does then minimum ice extent will stabilise around the current extent.
However, if I am right and embedded black carbon is the cause of the faster melt of older ice, then new multi-year ice will have less embedded BC as atmospheric BC levels have declined over the Arctic and new multi-year will be less susceptible to melt.
Thus summer minimum ice extent will start to rise again in the near future. I predict in the next 2 or 3 years.

David Ball
September 5, 2012 8:57 pm

tjfolkerts,
http://drtimball.com/2011/another-climate-change-scare-is-on-thin-ice/
“None of what’s going on today is outside long term variations in ice cover and thickness. On November 20, 1817 the President of the Royal Society proposed a letter to 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 inclosed (sic) the seas in the high northern latitudes in an impenetrable barrier of ice has been during the last two years greatly abated.
Mr. Scoresby, a very intelligent young man who commands a whaling vessel from Whitby observed last year that 2000 square leagues of ice with which the Greenland Seas between the latitudes of 74° and 80°N have been hitherto covered, has in the last two years entirely disappeared. The change in circulation was triggered by the eruption of Tambora in 1815.
In the heat of Cancun, Mexico, everyone is learning that the fallacies of climate science – and especially attempts to exploit fear and lack of knowledge or understanding – are on very thin ice because they are totally politically motivated.”

Editor
September 5, 2012 8:57 pm

Smokey
I am going to build a Long-Range Climatic History Reference Page, to contain long-range and and non-current graphs, in order to supplement what’s in the current Climatic History Reference Page;
http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/global-climatic-history/
which I’ll rename the Mid-Range Climatic History page or something.
You have a ton of good graphs at your disposal. Would you mind posting some of them here or elsewhere, when you get around to it? I’ll probably strawman out page in the next couple weeks and then do a thread to capture additional content, and accurate descriptions for each chart.
Thanks
JTF

JohnB
September 5, 2012 9:02 pm

Smokey, evidence:
http://nsidc.org/icelights/2011/01/31/arctic-sea-ice-before-satellites/
“Scientists have pieced together historical ice conditions to determine that Arctic sea ice could have been much lower in summer as recently as 5,500 years ago. Before then, scientists think it possible that Arctic sea ice cover melted completely during summers about 125,000 years ago, during a warm period between ice ages.
To look back into the past, researchers combine data and records from indirect sources known as proxy records. Researchers delved into shipping charts going back to the 1950s, which noted sea ice conditions. The data gleaned from those records, called the Hadley data set, show that Arctic sea ice has declined since at least the mid-1950s. Shipping records exist back to the 1700s, but do not provide complete coverage of the Arctic Ocean. However, taken together these records indicate that the current decline is unprecedented in the last several hundred years,”
And from there, follow the links to the primary sources. Note, it says possibly much lower 5,500 years ago, and ice-free 125,000 years ago. That’s what the evidence says. Now, if it was cherry-picked PR, why would it say that? Because it’s not, it is the honest result of real science. And it also says the current decline is unprecedented in the last few hundred years.
Now, if you want evidence it its anthropogenic, you have to look elsewhere. But you can Google as easily as I can. Only you don’t want to.

David Ball
September 5, 2012 9:05 pm

In fact, one would think the Royal Society would read their own records, ……

David Ball
September 5, 2012 9:12 pm

And of course it will be dismissed as “anecdotal”,….3,2,1,…….

September 5, 2012 9:13 pm

Nope.

Henry Clark
September 5, 2012 9:42 pm

Incidentally, a particularly good plot from a Russian source:
A depiction covering from the 1920s through the end of the 20th century:
http://nwpi.krc.karelia.ru/e/climas/Ice/Ice_no_sat/fig2.gif
As can be seen in the plot for the Siberian Arctic basin, there was major rapid loss of ice during the late 1920s through until the early 1940s. Then mostly ice grew until the late 1980s.
Particularly by the 1990s, ice extent went down again, but, as a multi-year average, ice loss then was not impressive at all compared to the how little ice there was in the early 1940s.
Unlike the prior Siberian Arctic basin data, the North-European basin data from that source unfortunately has a data gap about right exactly on the most interesting spot of comparison, the early 1940s:
http://nwpi.krc.karelia.ru/e/climas/Ice/Ice_no_sat/fig3.gif
(The data gap is understandable considering the war at the time).
Still, even with the gap, one sees more relative loss of ice during the first half of the 20th century than during the second half, relative to their start points in each case.
That is not surprising in the context of, for example, cross-checking with other data from non-dishonest sources like http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2006GL028492.shtml which notes global sea level rise was slower in the latter half of the 20th century than the first half:
“1.45 ± 0.34 mm/yr 1954–2003″ versus “2.03 ± 0.35 mm/yr 1904–1953″
Anyway, those and some other plots from Russian sources are at:
http://nwpi.krc.karelia.ru/e/climas/Ice/Ice_no_sat/XX_Arctic.htm

David Ball
September 5, 2012 9:43 pm
Eric E
September 5, 2012 9:53 pm

Arguing temperature changes, plus or minus, based on the flawed and falsely-adjusted data available to us right now is sheer madness, which we fight out with each and every new post from Anthony here on WUWT. Have we been warming for the last 11,000 years, since the end of the last ice age when there were glaciers pushing all the way to where the Ohio River sits today? Yes. Are there glaciers burying the land now? No. I.E. the climate has warmed somewhat steadily.None of this was caused by CO2 or by AGW. Will it still get warmer? Quite possibly yes, as there fossil-record palm fronds on the tops of the mountains north of California where it is too cold for palms to grow today. Even if they were laid down in marshes and flat-land swamps eons ago before being uplifted, their current latitude versus the seasonal variations of the tilting of the Earth argue toward the fact that the climate had to be much warmer overall for them to grow sucessfully to the point where they were thick enough to create fossils. The same can be said for the coal deposits in England.
So, y’all are spending a tremendous amount of time and mental resources to refight a useless argument over a negligable (and highly suspect given the tampering with the data) temperature increase (or decrease) during a comfortable period when the Earth isn’t a sauna or an ice cube. I come to this post to see what the ice is doing NOW, not to refight this same war over 1″ of territory.

David Ball
September 5, 2012 10:09 pm

Eric E says:
September 5, 2012 at 9:53 pm
Here to do some damage control? In your uninformed opinion, it is 1 inch of ground.

David Ball
September 5, 2012 10:16 pm

Henry Clark says:
September 5, 2012 at 9:42 pm
Excellent post.

Henry Clark
September 5, 2012 10:51 pm

David Ball:
Thanks. Having come across drtimball.com months ago (a good site), sometimes it feels like a small world.

September 6, 2012 4:13 am

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/04/sea-ice-news-volume-3-number-12-has-arctic-sea-ice-started-to-turn-the-corner/#comment-1072194
“Have we been warming for the last 11,000 years, since the end of the last ice age when there were glaciers pushing all the way to where the Ohio River sits today?”
No, we haven’t. The warming that started with the beginning of the current interglacial ended over 5,000 years ago. There has been a slight long term cooling trend over that time period as the Earth’s orbital peculiarities shifted ever so slowly away from the warming that initiated the Holocene. Any recent warming is taking place despite – not because of – the Earth’s long term orbital forcings.
As for the subject of this thread, NORSEX isn’t cooperating anymore:
http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/ice-area-and-extent-in-arctic

Jack G. Hanks
September 6, 2012 4:36 am

Wayne wrote:
Seems it’s been just cloud cover for almost a month, glad to finally see some breaks and would really like to know how these agencies count the area and extent underneath the solid cloud cover.
MASIE can see through clouds.
http://www.freedomsledder.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=61033
Quote 1) “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.”
Quote 2 (Regarding your spotting ice under the breaks in the clouds) “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 says we’re down to 3.8 million km^2 as of Sep. 4, 2012.

Jack G. Hanks
September 6, 2012 4:37 am

Okay, so ‘quote’ tags don’t work like I hoped they did…

Jack G. Hanks
September 6, 2012 4:41 am

Rereading, think I misunderstood what I read and quoted? MASIE doesn’t see through clouds?

Phil.
September 6, 2012 7:49 am

Re David Ball’s comment about the Royal Society reading their own reports. Perhaps they also read the reports of the Royal Navy’s expeditions that were undertaken as a result of those RS reports which were failures and encountered pack ice which impeded their progress?

mogamboguru
September 6, 2012 7:53 am

Re: SideShowBob says:
September 5, 2012 at 8:36 pm
looks like the Watts effect is alive and well 🙂
As soon as Anthony calls it, it goes the other way!
We should hook him to a day trading machine, he’s peak or low picking abilities are uncanny, I propose as soon as he makes a prediction we short it the other way, sure as day follows night the watts effect will kick in, the stock will be jinxed and will do down not long after.
————————————————————————————————————-
Objection.
According to the graph “Northern Hemisphere Sea Surface Temperature” from the Danish Meteorological Institute, as well as the graphs “Northern Hemisphere Surface Temperatures” by NOAA ESRL and “Arctic Sea Surface Temperature” by Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) – HYCOM Consortium for Data-Assimilative Ocean Modeling – HUGE swathes of the Arctic Ocean are at -2 degrees Celsius, the freezing point of saltwater.
In fact, these areas are so large that I assume a whole lot of ice forming there already – which, due to it’s “slushy” nature, only doesn’t show up on any microwave-, radar- od visual scan, becase said scans can’t distinguish it’s image from the scatter of waves, yet.
I, for one, expect a MASsIVE refreeze starting these days – in fact, so much of it, that some people will be going to bring up sensor issues to explain it away.

beng
September 6, 2012 8:01 am

***
Ammonite says:
September 4, 2012 at 3:36 pm
In spite of this, an ocean of ice is disappearing before our eyes.
****
There there. You’ll feel better in a couple months. And then there’s always the next ice-age to look forward to when everything’ll be hunky-dorry.

dvunkannon
September 6, 2012 8:22 am

For the several folks that have wondered why the maximum extent has been more stable a value than the minimum, consider that the Arctic Ocean is mostly surrounded by land. It has a definite maximum size, and when the whole thing ices over in winter, the area effectively flatlines at that amount – about 14 million sq miles. YMMV, depending on your definition of the area of the Arctic Ocean
No, Smokey, the Arctic has never been this ice-free in summer before. When has the Northeast Passage been ice-free? Instead of bringing non-existent evidence, you bluster ‘BFD’. Do you think the “Warm Arctic, Cold Continents” effect is a fantasy?

David Ball
September 6, 2012 8:23 am

Phil. says:
September 6, 2012 at 7:49 am
That’s your reply? Evidence please. Not that I don’t trust you to be accurate. Try also to ignore my response to tjfolkerts as he has done.

David Ball
September 6, 2012 8:26 am

dvunkannon says:
September 6, 2012 at 8:22 am
I know that Smokey is quite capable of defending himself, but you are trying to change the discussion. The northeast passage has been navigated by ICEBREAKERS. Wake up and smell the roses, not cow farts. Very poor redirect attempt.

tjfolkerts
September 6, 2012 8:29 am

Smokey says: September 5, 2012 at 8:43 pm ….
I must say, that was pretty amazing, Smokey.
In one brief post, you managed to:
1) completely avoid supporting your own position
2) counter-attack with an ad hominem argument.
3) rebut with a 100% straw man argument.
The challenge still stands:
Give it your best shot — which year and which specific eyewitness accounts support Arctic-wide melting similar to this whole past decade?

beng
September 6, 2012 8:39 am

***
Phil. says:
September 5, 2012 at 11:45 am
And in being rude apparently, while maintaining your anonymity behind a pseudonym.
****
Hypocrite much?
REPLY: Yes, stunning hypocrisy from an academic at Princeton. Me thinks maybe it is time to teach Phil some manners himself. – Anthony

David Ball
September 6, 2012 8:45 am

“Give it your best shot — which year and which specific eyewitness accounts support Arctic-wide melting similar to this whole past decade?”
The Royal Society is a good backup if they are spewing stuff that supports your assertions, but is not good enough when the evidence flies in the face of your ( and their ) beliefs.

tjfolkerts
September 6, 2012 8:58 am

David Ball.
Thanks for trying to support the proposition that there have been similar melt events in the past. As a skeptic, I would point out:
1) You refer to a single report by a single whaling vessel.
2) 2,000 square leagues is ~ 50,000 sq km. This is actually a relatively small change in the grand scheme of things, where the summer extent is typically two orders of magnitude larger than this (although I will grant you that we have no data about the changes in other areas — they may have also been unusually low areas, or they could have been close to normal (or even above normal)).
3) The Royal Society had economic incentives to push this idea (ie getting funding for scientific expeditions).
4) You provide no contemporaneous reports of the NW Passage or the NE Passage being open, nor of other areas being unusually ice-free.
So, yes, you have provided a glimmer of hope for the claims of other similar melting events in the last few centuries, but certainly nothing that is close to conclusive.

DarrylB
September 6, 2012 9:24 am

J. Martin—-Thanks for a respectful response. Two things before I continue.
Are you familiar with the absorption spectra of CO2, H2O, CH4 and the other gases referred to as GHG?
On a second item. Of course as water warms, gases become less soluble. By my own calculations, considering three phases of dissolved CO2, and the purported temp change over 100 yrs, of 0.7 deg Cel. (I think when all the facts are taken into account, the temp increase will be less) I calculated that about 5 % of the CO2 increase comes from CO2 escaping.
Now as a caveat to what I just said, that 0.7 deg change is change in the atmosphere and not water temp and there are other factors such as convection and salinity. It was just to give a general idea.

David Ball
September 6, 2012 9:29 am

tjfolkerts says:
September 6, 2012 at 8:58 am
1) You refer to a single report by a single whaling vessel.
I provided EXACTLY what you asked for. The first time.

David Ball
September 6, 2012 9:32 am

tjfolkerts says:
September 6, 2012 at 8:58 am
Read the articles posted.

tjfolkerts
September 6, 2012 9:35 am

dvunkannon says: September 6, 2012 at 8:22 am
“No, Smokey, the Arctic has never been this ice-free in summer before.
Be very careful using the word “never”. “Never” = 4 billion years and that is an impossible claim to support. Something like “never in the last 200 years” or “never in the last 2000 years” would make the hypothesis more testable and more relevant.
Even 10,000 years ago conditions were quite different, with the Arctic getting significantly more energy during the summer (due to changes in the earth’s orbit). Such conditions would have led to less summer ice — quite possibly even “nearly ice free” conditions.
Of course, the orbital conditions are different now, so this “natural cycle” cannot explain the current low ice conditions.

David Ball
September 6, 2012 9:50 am

tjfolkerts says:
September 6, 2012 at 9:35 am
“Of course, the orbital conditions are different now, so this “natural cycle” cannot explain the current low ice conditions.”
Do you have any understanding of what you write? Again, read the posted articles. To claim what is happening in the Arctic as being “unnatural” is completely false and completely unprovable.

dvunkannon
September 6, 2012 10:54 am

@David Ball
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Sea_Route#Ice-free_navigation
Not ICEBREAKERS… Commercial shipping. I’m sorry you consider it a redirect, but if Smokeydokey has evidence that current conditions are part of a ‘natural cycle’ that means they have happened before. (Sorta the definition of cycle…) So I think it appropriate to ask about a specific part of the current conditions, and see what evidence the Smokester has in his humidor. The ice has mainly retreated away from the Bering Strait and the northern coast of Russia, so if these conditions happened previously, that is what we would expect to have evidence of previously.
Was it ice-free in 1937, when the ICEBREAKER Sedov got trapped in the ICE for a couple of years? Was it ice-free in the 19th Century? 18th? 17th? 16th? How long is this natural cycle, anyway?
Of course, if Smogey _had_ evidence, he wouldn’t retreat to ‘BFD’…
– point taken! Someone upthread was saying how balmy it was during the Carboniferous, so things can’t be so bad…

tjfolkerts
September 6, 2012 10:59 am

David Bell queries: “Do you have any understanding of what you write? … “
I don’t understand your point. I never specifically claimed current ice conditions were unnatural, so that whole post is a straw man.
I DID claim that natural changes in the orbit could not be used as a reason for the current conditions.
* Do you doubt that the orbit was different 10,000 years ago?
* Do you doubt that the increased insolation at that time could have lead to nearly ice-free summers ~ 10,000 years ago?
* Do you think that this specific natural cycle of slow, predictable orbital change has suddenly changed to produce more summer heating, accounting for the current decline in ice?
David Bell also claims: “I provided EXACTLY what you asked for. The first time.
No, I asked “Give it your best shot — which year and which specific eyewitness accounts support Arctic-wide melting similar to this whole past decade?”
You did provide a year (1817) — that was a good start. I asked for “accounts” (plural) but you provided an account (singular) — a little weak, but still it is something. But you clearly failed to provide evidence of “Arctic-wide melting”, instead providing information about one coast of Greenland. Finally, your quote only shows that the ice in that area decreased, but gives no absolute values for the total area before or after, so it cannot directly confirm or deny even that the area in question was larger or smaller than current conditions.
On the other hand, navigation of both the NW Passage and the NE Passage were both first accomplished about a century ago – in expeditions that took 2-3 years to complete as they tried to navigate the summer ice. So despite massive efforts by many countries, no one ever found a way thru the Arctic in all of those other years that were supposedly similar to current conditions. In the last decade, however, many commercial ships have made the passage thru the Arctic with relatively little trouble. That provides pretty strong evidence that the current conditions are indeed different from the past!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So, once again, “Give it your best shot — which year and which specific eyewitness accounts support Arctic-wide melting similar to this whole past decade?”

September 6, 2012 11:37 am

Just The Facts,
I will be glad to help get the truth out.
dvunkannon,
I have posted observational evidence repeatedly. Your failure to understand it is no excuse. Here are more eye witness accounts from many different sources. If you believe they were all lying, you are a credulous dope:
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/polar-meltdown
Now, let’s see you post observational evidence showing that Arctic ice was not declining during those years. Ball’s in your court, chump.
tjf,
Thanx for your repectful comments. I suggest that you read the comments and newspaper accounts that I linked to here. It is unlikely that every one of those observers fabricated their stories. And if they didn’t, that is strong evidence that the Arctic routinely goes through periods of low or ice free conditions. Face reality, Arctic ice fluctuations are normal and natural events.

September 6, 2012 12:09 pm
September 6, 2012 12:17 pm

Smokey
“And if they didn’t, that is strong evidence that the Arctic routinely goes through periods of low or ice free conditions. Face reality, Arctic ice fluctuations are normal and natural events.”
1. The arctic does not routinely go through this kind of area wide retreat.
2. You have not defined the word “normal”. Your comment is not falsifiable and does not
count as a scientific statement.
Here is what we can say with evidence. We’ve seen nothing like this since 1979. Before 1979 all the data one would like to use to compare is sparse, uses different methods, is not supported by simultaneous multiple observing platforms, is highly uncertain, and is qualitative rather than qauntitative. A proper Null is based on a QUANTITATIVE statement that can be tested useing statistical methods.
Finally, We are now seeing annual cycles in the data that Willis himself argued would falsified the “natural variation null”

September 6, 2012 12:21 pm

Steven Mosher says:
“1. The arctic does not routinely go through this kind of area wide retreat.”
How could you know that? There are numerous observations that support that fact, and none that I know of that dispute it.

September 6, 2012 12:29 pm

Smokey there are NO scientific quantitative observations that support that fact.
None,
1. Scientific. Point me at the data source and the method used to compute it.
2. Quantitative. Numbers. as in sea ice area for each and every arctic sea.
And when you produce that data I will ask the proper skeptical questions. How was the measurement calibrated? are there multiple independent sources? what method was used?
was the method tested and calibrated?
Show me the data.
Hint. news clipping are not data.

David Ball
September 6, 2012 12:35 pm

Steven Mosher says:
September 6, 2012 at 12:29 pm
“Hint. news clipping are not data.”
Neither is computer model output.

kadaka (KD Knoebel)
September 6, 2012 12:38 pm

From Steven Mosher on September 6, 2012 at 12:17 pm:

Finally, We are now seeing annual cycles in the data that Willis himself argued would falsified the “natural variation null”

As Willis Eschenbach is fond of saying, QUOTE HIS WORDS. You know Willis can get quite upset, and rightfully so, about people saying what he said without quoting the exact words, and showing where he said them, since so many mis-paraphrase what he said and take it out of context.
So quote his words and show where he said them.
Or are you trying to slip something through before Willis officially returns from Burning Man while he’s not reading WUWT and doesn’t have the opportunity to respond?

David Ball
September 6, 2012 12:41 pm

tjfolkerts says:
September 6, 2012 at 10:59 am
You got beat at your little game and it bugs you so much, you stoop to mispelling my name. How juevenile.

September 6, 2012 12:46 pm

Willis on the Null
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/01/the-ice-who-came-in-from-the-cold/
“The oddity about the data is what happens after 2007. Suddenly, there is a strong annual signal. I have put in vertical black lines to highlight this signal. The vertical lines show the end of September of each year. Before 2007, there is only a small variation in the data, and it does not have an annual signal. After 2007, the variation gets large, and there is a clear annual aspect to the signal. The area in September (the time of minimum ice) is smaller than we would expect. And the area in March (the time of maximum ice) is larger than we would expect.”
As I point out this challenges the null
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/01/the-ice-who-came-in-from-the-cold/#comment-401837
Willis agrees
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/01/the-ice-who-came-in-from-the-cold/#comment-401862
And then he tries to blame it on a software change.. But gets the wrong satellite
I point out that the data is the data and the null is busted.. but people are free to
speculate that it could be something else.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/01/the-ice-who-came-in-from-the-cold/#comment-402036
Then.. willis points to a software change on the wrong satellite
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/01/the-ice-who-came-in-from-the-cold/#comment-402047
And finally there is a promise to write and see if there is any evidence of a software change
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/01/the-ice-who-came-in-from-the-cold/#comment-402155
######################
Let’s wrap this up in a nutshell. Willis observed a phenomena in the ice area that challenges the Null. I pointed that out. He accepted that it would challenge the null. that is what the data shows.
he then suspected the sensor software. With no evidence of a software change ( These are put in notes for researchers) he tries to reject the data. It’s now been two years. And still no reply. The record stands. The data show a rejection of the null. Speculations about changes to software have not been confirmed. There is no record of a software change in advisories that PIs routinely post about their data products. There is no follow up on the letter to the PI.
The data stands. The null is busted. The null is busted until you or somebody else proves that the data is an artifact. Arm waving doesnt make data disappear.

September 6, 2012 12:55 pm

thanks for the set up KD !!
Willis Eschenbach says:
June 2, 2010 at 12:00 am (Edit)
Steven mosher says:
June 1, 2010 at 10:46 pm
Dunno, looks like an issue for the null hypothesis. ice cycling like its never cycled before.
It would … if I thought it was real. I don’t, I think it is from the known change in the satellite and the way that is being dealt with by means of a new algorithm.
w.
#####################
1. Willis notes a cycling in the data.
2. I note that this challenges the Null.
3. He agrees. and ads the speculation that the data is in error.
A. There is no evidence that the data is in error ( so much for using data to falsify the null)
B. The speculation that it was a software change, has NO support anywhere.
So, there we have it. Data that contradicts the Null. When that happens do people pull out their book on Feynman and say.. REJECT THE NULL.
Nope. They attack the data.
Do they have any evidence to attack the data?
Nope. They speculate about a software change.
Do they have any evidence from the online records that software was changed?
Nope. They just speculate cause they want to keep the null.
Is there a way they can stop fooling themselves?
Yup.
Do they follow feynmans advice?
Nope.

u.k.(us)
September 6, 2012 1:07 pm

Steven Mosher says:
September 6, 2012 at 12:17 pm
Finally, We are now seeing annual cycles in the data that Willis himself argued would falsified the “natural variation null”
=====================
So, the new conjecture is, if Willis is wrong I am right ?
I know you never tried to sell that to a missles guidance system.

dvunkannon
September 6, 2012 1:09 pm

@Smokey – Thanks, I love reading the same wire service story picked up by different small town newspapers. Excellent coverage of Australia!
And yet, none of them are about the free passage of shipping via the Northeast Passage… why is that, do you think? To the contrary, one article calls Murmansk Russia’s only ice free port. But we know that isn’t true today, don’t we, Smokey?
Why talk about the ice thinning to 6 1/2 feet when you are claiming the area was ice-free, as it is today?
Newspaper cuttings aren’t science, Smokey. Where are the error bars?
You have, however, shown that global warming was a minor concern for most of the 20th century, to which some responded with the happy thought that the northern continental US might become sub-tropical. Do you know how well wheat grows in sub-tropical weather, Smokey? I’m guessing not as well as it grows with the current climate.
But tell me, are you claiming that these clippings represent the low of a previous cycle? Was there a low in the 50s? In the 20s? How long is the natural cycle, Smokey?

JJ
September 6, 2012 1:10 pm

Steven Mosher says:
1. The arctic does not routinely go through this kind of area wide retreat.
2. You have not defined the word “normal”. Your comment is not falsifiable and does not
count as a scientific statement.

A. With respect to your #1: You have not defined the word “routinely”. Your comment is not falsifiable and does not count as a scientific statement
B. With respect to your #2: See A.
Here is what we can say with evidence. We’ve seen nothing like this since 1979.
And then we can reflect on the irrelevance of such a short period to questions of “natural” and/or “routinely”, and yawn. With the evidence. Or at it.
Finally, We are now seeing annual cycles in the data that Willis himself argued would falsified the “natural variation null”
‘Willis himself’. Well, who needs evidence then?
LOL.

wayne
September 6, 2012 1:25 pm

@ Jack G. Hanks September 6, 2012 at 4:36 am :
Thanks Jack. I think I see what you are pointing out in your link at the end of August:

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.

The other thing that occurs, caused by large ocean-wide storms and powerful winds, is the fragmentation of the ice. A flat layer of ice on meter thick, let’s stay in even meters and you can scale as preferred, will register by satellites as one square meter of area per one cubic meter of ice volume. However, if this is broken into long slivers of ice (the worst case) a ten meter long sliver will rotate to float exposing one square meter of area per ten cubic meters of ice volume since ice floats with only 1/9th of the volume above the water surface. That is an immediate loss of 8/9ths of the visible surface area even though the same amount ice is really there.
Even a one cubic meter, one meter on each edge, will rotate to expose just a regular tetrahedron on the surface with 42% of the surface exposed and all surfaces at angles to zenith that limits radiation being sensed from above (satellites). I feel the huge drop in the visible-to-satellite surface area just shows, to some degree, the error in satellite readings as the ice was fragmented into chunks of various shapes and no longer floating flat. For a while the ice was still present (may still be) but no longer visible from a radiation standpoint (IR, microwave passively) from far above.

wayne
September 6, 2012 1:40 pm

Jack, please scratch or modify that portion of the comment as it stands about the sliver. That is of course not correct. Such a sliver will still float horizontally but would also still rotate to expose a decreased area to the volume present undeneath. (can’t believe I just wrote that, what was I just thinking?☺)

jonny old boy
September 6, 2012 1:49 pm

tried to debate this on the skpetical science site with ( guess what ) FACTS,,,, and ( guess what ) they did not like the FACTS and ( guess what ) ,,, they BANNED ME !! LOL !! I also smashed them on Glaciers, both their Site Manager and some bi-polar moron called “daniel” accused me of mis-representing one of the most basic facts in glaciology……and accused Jonathan Bamber ( Uni Bristol ) of talking rubbish !?!? …. guess I had better hang out here…..

tjfolkerts
September 6, 2012 2:28 pm

David Ball says: September 6, 2012 at 12:41 pm
You got beat at your little game and it bugs you so much, you stoop to mispelling (sic) my name. How juevenile (sic).
The irony — you misspell two words in one sentence, yet still assume that my typo is some evil plot against you.
You can’t seem to actually argue the facts, so you use a typo as an excuse to avoid addressing the issues. I point out specific facts, with quotes to back up both what I said and what you said, so you resort to ad hominem attacks. [sigh]

Steve Bensen
September 6, 2012 2:45 pm

In 2006 and 2007 there were four or five undersea artic volcanos that certainly helped melt the ice in 2007. Could those volcanos be back this year and reporting of them suppressed?

tjfolkerts
September 6, 2012 3:18 pm

Smokey says: “I have posted observational evidence repeatedly. ”
It is really YOUR job to explain your data, but I’ll look at a few if them (assuming you mean this link … http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/polar-meltdown/) Starting from the top, we have …
1

The current Greenland warming, while not yet quite matching the temperatures of 70 years ago …..

which is actually part of this …

6. GISS records show most of Greenland cooler today than 70 years ago. Why should we be concerned?

We should be concerned because the warming in Greenland of 70 years ago was part of the regional warming in the North Atlantic region discussed in questions 1 and 2 above. Seventy years ago one might expect temperatures to eventually cool as the regional climate fluctuated from a warmer state to a cooler state. The current Greenland warming, while not yet quite matching the temperatures of 70 years ago, is part of a global warming signal that for the foreseeable future will continue to increase temperatures (with of course occasional short-term fluctuations), in Greenland and around the world.

So the clipped quote significantly mus-interprets the intent of the original quote. 70 years ago, only parts of the Arctic seemed to be as warm as current conditions; now it all is warm.
2

“Examination of several proxy records (e.g., sediment cores) of sea ice indicate ice-free or near ice-free summer conditions for at least some time during the period of 15,000 to 5,000 years ago”

Conditions were significantly different 10,000 years ago, with considerably more summer insolation. So this does not apply to current times and cannot explain current conditions.
3&4 (actually from the same article)

CLEVELAND, Feb. 16 (A.A.P.) Dr. William S. Carlson, an Arctic expert, said to-night that the Polar icecaps were melting at an astonishing and unexplained rate and were threatening to swamp seaports by raising the ocean levels.
The glaciers of Norway and Alaska are only half the size they were 50 years age. The temperature around Spitsbergen has so modified that the sailing time has lengthened from three to eight months of the year,”

What is missing is this: “Dr. Carlson said it would take hundreds of years for the melting to have much effect, but the rate in the last half century had been exceedingly rapid.” That takes some of the hype out of the quote.
Also, looking at ice this past year, it appears that Spitzbergen had open water nearby ALL TWELVE months this past year! So whatever changes occurred in the 1st half of this century have only intensified recently.
I don;t have time to critique all of the articles. A quick glance through them suggests …
* Conditions in the 1940’s were almost certainly warmer than 50 or a hundred years earlier. But there is no evidence that they were as warm as today.
* “Polar” or “North Pole” are often used to mean the entire Arctic region, not a specific point.
* Glaciers were retreating throughout the 1900’s, but there is no indication that sea ice was anywhere near as low as the past decade.
All-in-all, I can find nothing even remotely supporting the hypothesis that Arctic conditions any time in the last few centuries were every similar to current conditions.

jonny old boy
September 6, 2012 3:50 pm

if you look at 2007 and 2012 SIE minimuma, its not melt that is causing it, its weather. Melt really stops a major influence past mid July. That said, the Alarmists are too thick it seems to spot one real indictator, that is the gradient or the graph during June ( the month of max energy exchange ) , in that respect the “melt” of early summer 2012 is remarkable. but the minimum is not. Being fools they are jumping up and down about the minimum that is not really relevant but missed the real indicator this season. Typical. Ironic really because something strange did happen this year , but it did not happen in August/September,

September 6, 2012 3:53 pm

tjfolkerts says:
“We should be concerned because the warming in Greenland of 70 years ago was part of the regional warming in the North Atlantic region…”
Thank you for pointing out that the Arctic is also a region. It has a regional climate, and being a polar region, it fluctuates much more than, say, an equatorial region.
And thus your entire belief in human causation falls apart.

u.k.(us)
September 6, 2012 4:09 pm

tjfolkerts says:
September 6, 2012 at 3:18 pm
================
What do you want to do ?
Stir the pot, or have a discussion ?
If it is the former, it should be taken outside.
We are only guests here.

Kevin MacDonald
September 6, 2012 4:49 pm

Smokey says:
September 4, 2012 at 4:51 pm
I can only speak for myself, but I have never predicted ‘ice recovery’.

Well, that’s not true:

Smokey says:
May 23, 2010 at 7:06 pm
the Arctic will eventually revert to the mean

Or:

Smokey says:
May 16, 2010 at 3:51 pm
the Arctic ice scare will be debunked by the planet soon enough

Not to mention the fact that your whole “Arctic ice cycle” schtick is somewhat contingent on their being a recovery at some point. Worse yet, you went further than predicting a recovery, you announced it had already begun:

Smokey says:
April 28, 2010 at 9:24 pm
the Arctic is rapidly recovering from its recent lows.

Smokey says:
April 8, 2010 at 4:47 am
Since ice cover is increasing compared with recent years

Smokey says:
August 18, 2009 at 3:56 pm
For a nice graphic from the University of Bremen: click [click on the image to expand].
If you look closely, you’ll see the ice extent increasing year-over-year for three years

You make my case so well I’ll leave you with the final word:

Smokey says:
April 18, 2010 at 6:28 pm
If someone makes numerous predictions, and one of them happens by chance to be a correct guess [at least temporarily], and the people making the predictions then tell the rest of us: “See! We told you!”, without also admitting that all their other predictions turned out to be wrong, then reasonable people will correctly deduce that they are afflicted with cognitive dissonance.

David Ball
September 6, 2012 5:08 pm

tjfolkerts says:
September 6, 2012 at 2:28 pm
You are not very worldly or informed. British spellings are outside your scope apparently. My observation of your behavior is not an ad hom. Trying to distance yourself from your pwning, I see.

wayne
September 6, 2012 5:11 pm

Interesting Aug. 28th article:
http://www.france24.com/en/20120826-arctic-melts-developers-new-shipping-northern-sea-route-russia-china-ice-loss
The Northeast Passage. Seems it’s not quite as simple as it looks on the current Cyrosphere sea ice maps…. ice breaker escorts are mandatory.

September 6, 2012 5:13 pm

Why, lookee there. Kevin MacDonald is saving all my comments, going back more than three years! Do I send a tingle up Kevin’s leg? Is he [trimmed] in his mom’s basement while re-reading my comments? After I’ve posted more than 17,000 comments, he seems to believe he’s caught me in a contradiction. But stating the obvious — that at some point Arctic ice will recover — isn’t quite the prediction, or the contradiction, that he thinks it is.
Keep on looking for a real contradiction, kevin. You might even find a valid one out of seventeen thousand posts. I am not perfect. But if this is the best you can find, you fail. If anything, I am consistent.
“Everyone has the right to be stupid, but comrade MacDonald abuses the privilege.” ~ Leon Trotsky
You can’t fix stupid. ☺
And I note that in attacking me, KM is avoiding the scientific points I’ve scored. Keep pounding the table; we’ll let the readers decide who argues the science better.

u.k.(us)
September 6, 2012 5:28 pm

Smokey says:
September 6, 2012 at 5:13 pm
“Everyone has the right to be stupid, but comrade MacDonald abuses the privilege.” ~ Leon Trotsky
==============================
I don’t care what he said about you Smokey, without you, he would be but a quote.

David Ball
September 6, 2012 5:42 pm

That is strange. My spell checker is not functioning in posts. WUWT? I stand corrected in my spelling errors. Rare for me. Happy that is the only thing that tjfolkerts could dispute.
Claims of him shooting down all my points are ludicrous. He has not even read the articles I posted, let alone shot any of them down. Keep trying though.

David Ball
September 6, 2012 5:48 pm

People posting that the Arctic has NEVER been ice free in the modern record are being disingenuous. There is little or no data as the area was essentially devoid of humans, and the humans that were there had no written records of any kind. To claim it has NEVER (within the written records) happened is completely misleading. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

David Ball
September 6, 2012 5:59 pm

tjfolkerts says:
September 6, 2012 at 2:28 pm
“You can’t seem to actually argue the facts, so you use a typo as an excuse to avoid addressing the issues. I point out specific facts, with quotes to back up both what I said and what you said, so you resort to ad hominem attacks. [sigh]”
This is hilarious. Do you think no one can read? You avoided answering ANYTHING in the articles. I will wait patiently. Just because you disagree with what was posted, you claim I was not arguing the facts (as you see them). Again, hilarious.
The desparation is palpable.

David Ball
September 6, 2012 6:07 pm

dvunkannon says:
September 6, 2012 at 8:22 am
Like I said, … ICEBREAKERS.
Thank you, wayne.

dvunkannon
September 6, 2012 7:31 pm

@David Ball – Did you read the section of the Wikipedia article I linked for you? Commercial shipping in 2009 through the Northeast Passage. To be sure, reinforced hulls and escorted by an icebreaker. But the cargo ships were not icebreakers themselves. In any case, check out the accompanying photo. The ice breaker is steaming ahead of them… through open water. Big change from the Sedov getting stuck in the same area for two years, through the summer, in ice.
The Arctic has never been ice free. It isn’t today. But it might be very soon, and that would be a very big change.

David Ball
September 6, 2012 7:33 pm

Mosher, the Hudson’s bay data is all archived. There are meticulous records and data points collected over the nearly 400 years that they were kept. The Hudson’s Bay company was doing some of the best science in the world at the time. A global experiment to map the transit of Venus in 1796 was accomplished, so try not to mislead the good denizen’s of WUWT?
Newspaper articles my ass. My guess is that you are in a new income tax bracket.

Richard Carlson
September 6, 2012 8:05 pm
pinetree3
September 6, 2012 8:10 pm

stephen richards says:
September 4, 2012 at 1:32 pm
This would be a record refreeze wouldn’t it?
=====================================================================
But how thick will it be for the next melt? Six inches? That’s what we need to be concerned about, not how fast it re-freezes this winter.

September 6, 2012 8:14 pm

I really don’t see a problem:
http://www.webcitation.org/mainframe.php

Venter
September 6, 2012 8:21 pm

David Ball,
Spot on, Mosher nowadays is all about hot air, non factual statements and BS. For a long time now he seems to have exhibited zero integrity in issues which threaten the CO2 = AGW and everything that happens in the world is due to AGW school of thought.

tjfolkerts
September 6, 2012 8:50 pm

David Ball says: “This is hilarious. Do you think no one can read? ”
Funny — I was thinking the same thing. But just to humor you, what questions have I avoided? What articles did you want addressed?

Editor
September 6, 2012 9:13 pm

Smokey says: September 6, 2012 at 8:14 pm
September 6, 2012 at 8:14 pm
I really don’t see a problem:
http://www.webcitation.org/mainframe.php

I assume you were going for this?
http://www.webcitation.org/6AKKakUIo
also available here:
http://iceagenow.info/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/NorthernHemisphereSeaIceAnomaly.png

kadaka (KD Knoebel)
September 6, 2012 9:16 pm

From Smokey on September 6, 2012 at 8:14 pm:

I really don’t see a problem:
http://www.webcitation.org/mainframe.php

I do.
You have been beset by a swarm of gnats, and have unwisely swung wildly.
That’s the main link, that only works if the browser remembers the last webcitation thing you looked at.
Stay calm, be sure of your weapons and targets, be prudent in your attacks.
And no matter how many gnats and tiny flies threaten you, never use a wind-powered bug zapper.

David Ball
September 6, 2012 9:17 pm

tjfolkerts says:
September 6, 2012 at 8:50 pm
Now I have to hold your hand?

David Ball
September 6, 2012 9:20 pm

dvunkannon says:
September 6, 2012 at 7:31 pm
“The Arctic has never been ice free. It isn’t today. But it might be very soon, and that would be a very big change.”
Your cognitive dissonance is showing.

September 6, 2012 9:30 pm

kadaka and Just The Facts,
Thank you for your advice. Genuine feedback is always appreciated.

Kevin MacDonald
September 7, 2012 1:10 am

Smokey says:
a href=”http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/04/sea-ice-news-volume-3-number-12-has-arctic-sea-ice-started-to-turn-the-corner/#comment-1072771″>September 6, 2012 at 5:13 pm
And I note that in attacking me, KM is avoiding the scientific points I’ve scored.

Of course, I’m not going to be advised on science by a man who repeatedly contrived to fail to differentiate between mass and area.

jonny old boy
September 7, 2012 3:36 am

I notice the brain-free cherry pickers from skeptical science spend a lot of time read posts and comments on WUWT only to then mis-represent them on their FB site !! Why is that ?? Oh sorry the answer to my question is in my question !!

kadaka (KD Knoebel)
September 7, 2012 4:01 am

Kevin MacDonald said on September 7, 2012 at 1:10 am:

Smokey says:
a href=”http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/04/sea-ice-news-volume-3-number-12-has-arctic-sea-ice-started-to-turn-the-corner/#comment-1072771″>September 6, 2012 at 5:13 pm
And I note that in attacking me, KM is avoiding the scientific points I’ve scored.

Of course, I’m not going to be advised on science by a man who repeatedly contrived to fail to differentiate between mass and area.

Looks more like he got bored with your repetitious obtuseness and lack of scientific rigor. You’re continually saying Antarctica is losing mass, while Antarctica is gaining ice area as Smokey was showing. How are both true? You never commented on the potential discrepancy, which an inquiring scientific mind should have noticed.
You talked up about Antarctica being in negative ice mass balance, repeatedly flogging this paywalled 2009 paper using GRACE results.
But you didn’t mention this 2011 paper covered on WUWT using additional methods and showing much different results:

Zwally and Giovinetto’s reassessment also included a challenge to some assumptions, substituting field measurements and making ‘preferred estimates’. These took account of the uncertainties inherent in the various techniques. Their reanalysis provides much lower estimates of net change in ice, ranging from +27 to -40 billion tons per year. For 1992 – 2001 they are prepared to go even further, estimating a loss of only 31 billion tons per year. These still sound like huge numbers, but to put it in perspective, 2400 billion tons of snow falls in Antarctica each year, so we’re dealing with a gain or loss in the range +1.1 to -1.7%.

So Antarctica could have either a positive or negative ice mass balance.
So which was it, you did insufficient research thus didn’t find this paper that nullified your claim (for me the Googling was somewhat easy),
Or did you deliberately cherry-pick and mention the “alarming” paper while not mentioning this non-alarming work?
(BTW, if you get CA Assistant you’ll have a handy Preview button so you can avoid making stupid HTML mistakes like leaving out a left angle bracket.)

dvunkannon
September 7, 2012 8:12 am

@David Ball You wrote:

People posting that the Arctic has NEVER been ice free in the modern record are being disingenuous. There is little or no data as the area was essentially devoid of humans, and the humans that were there had no written records of any kind. To claim it has NEVER (within the written records) happened is completely misleading. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Are you seriously putting forward the idea that the Arctic has been ice-free, but we didn’t happen to be looking at it when it happened? That after asking for scientific evidence of a natural cycle in Arctic sea ice area dipping as low as it is today (perhaps 1/3 ice covered, mostly ice-free along the coasts), and being offered Australian newspaper clippings and pictures of submarines as evidence, you are responding that the absence of evidence cannot be counted against your argument?
Yes, I am suffering cognitive dissonance. How can you consider that position scientific? We also have an absence of evidence of UFOs releasing farts into the atmosphere to increase the methane content. In fact, the number of things for which we have absence of evidence is quite literally infinite.
Since you’ve referred to written records, I’ve been assuming that your definition of ‘modern’ is within the last thousand years. If you intended to include the entire Holocene, you could have simply referenced http://www.sciencemag.org/content/333/6043/747.abstract (a readable precis is here http://www.lunduniversity.lu.se/o.o.i.s?id=24890&news_item=5634 ). As you can read, the hypothesis advanced to explain the ice-free Arctic at that time is a natural cycle, the cycle of solar irradiance due to changes in the Earth’s orbit and tilt. But I don’t think you can claim that the same cycle is responsible for today’s conditions.
At the same time, this article shows that even when literate humans are not staring at the ocean, evidence is accumulating.
So what is this cycle? What is its length? What is its cause? What are the error bars?

Tim Folkerts
September 7, 2012 8:17 am

David, perhaps you meant the article you linked to at http://drtimball.com/2012/2012-arctic-ice-melt-claims-distorted-and-inaccurate-its-the-wind-stupid/
You know — the one that says:
“These reconstructions (of sea ice before the satellite era) have no value.
and
If you can’t measure accurately with satellites, it’s impossible from the historic record.
Your own article says that it is “impossible” for you to use historical records to compare earlier eras to current conditions. That’s pretty much 180 degrees from your claim that you had “EXACTLY” shown a previous year (1817) was similar to the current decade’s conditions.
I was at least giving you the benefit of the doubt and accepting your one lone report of one lone region as a data point, and then simply asking you to provide further data to support your claim.

September 7, 2012 8:42 am

Back to the topic of this thread, it looks like NORSEX is still not cooperating with Mr. Watts thesis:
http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/ice-area-and-extent-in-arctic
The ice is still melting. No “corner turned” so far.
REPLY: Wasn’t a thesis, just a question. But we know we aren’t allowed to ask questions, so enjoy your moment rooting for less ice. – Anthony

barry
September 7, 2012 8:44 am

Interesting – last time I posted here I got a password sign in from colorado.edu, the website hosting NSIDC data. Intrigued I clicked on the NSIDC data page at ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/ and got the same authentic box asking me,
“Enter user name and password for ftp://sidads.colorado.edu
Strange enough to see that at all, but just bizarre to have it pop up on posting to WUWT. Something going on?
(i’m posting this also to test if it happens again – I’ll let you know either way)

barry
September 7, 2012 8:45 am

Wow, yes, it happened again. Just bizarre.

beng
September 7, 2012 9:09 am

Isn’t it strange that warmunists never have a credible explanation why arctic-ice melting would be a bad thing? How could such a basic question be missed/ignored?

September 7, 2012 9:10 am

“REPLY: Wasn’t a thesis, just a question. But we know we aren’t allowed to ask questions, so enjoy your moment rooting for less ice. – Anthony”
I’m not rooting for less ice, I’m just not hiding my head in the sand pretending that a blip in one day’s ice would mean that the ice might have “turned a corner”. It shows your willingness to hand-wave away this year’s record melt based on the flimsiest “logic”. Not as bad as Joe Bastardi’s claiming that there’s been a big uptick in ice this week (based on his misreading of a graph marked “Sea Surface Temperature” instead of looking at the one that actually showed ice extent), but not much better. The “smell of climate desperation”, indeed.

kadaka (KD Knoebel)
September 7, 2012 10:00 am

Something curious is happening when I reload this page. I’m getting a pop-up:

Enter username and password for ftp://sidads.colorado.edu

It doesn’t appear to like a valid email and “anonymous”, and “Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Extent Anomalies for March” found at this comment from Just The Facts isn’t loading.
Just remembered this note:

Service Interruption
On Friday, 07 September 2012 from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. (USA Mountain Time), our FTP services will be unavailable because of system maintenance. We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause you.

Goes with the red “Service Interruption Notice” at the top of this NSIDC Sea Ice Index page.
So when NSIDC goes down, so does the “colorado.edu” site?

dvunkannon
September 7, 2012 10:29 am

@beng – No love for Warm Arctic, Cold Continents?

David Ball
September 7, 2012 10:35 am

dvunkannon says:
September 7, 2012 at 8:12 am
Now you are just grasping at straws. There is no data either way. Who is right? I don’t know. You don’t either.

David Ball
September 7, 2012 10:38 am

Tim Folkerts says:
September 7, 2012 at 8:17 am
You really need to work on your reading comprehension.

September 7, 2012 10:56 am

I don’t see a problem:
http://www.webcitation.org/6AKKakUIo
No wonder this inconvenient chart has been deleted…

Louise
September 7, 2012 11:03 am

Smokey – perhaps it was deleted because it was wrong? Do you really think that all those different agencies measuring arctic ice are in a conspiracy together to lie to us? For what purpose? To get those oil executives all excited at the prospect of exploring for more oil in an arctic with less ice and then laugh at them as the freeze up?

Louise
September 7, 2012 11:07 am

For some reason my last post seems to have vanished without the ‘your post is in moderation’ note so I’ll try again. Please delete this if it is a duplication.
Smokey, perhaps they deleted that chart because it was wrong?
The alternative view is to think that all those different agencies that measure arctic ice are in cahoots to trick the oil companies into thinking they can explore the arctic for oil and then laugh at them as they freeze up. Doesn’t sound very likely.
[Reply: Your last post was rescued from the spam folder. It contained the word