Nothing definitive, but interesting. The area plot above is from NANSEN. The extent plot also shows a turn:
DMI also shows it…
Danish Meteorological Institute (DMI) – Centre for Ocean and Ice – Click the pic to view at sourceBut 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
tjfolkerts,
I have presented much in the way of observational evidence to support the fact that the Arctic has pretty recently gone through the same thing that we are seeing now. I have also provided peer reviewed papers stating that the same thing has happened earlier in the Holocene, and to a greater extent.
You, on the other hand, have provided no scientific evidence showing that the current Arctic ice conditions are unprecedented. Thus, you are completely blinkered on the subject. You are arguing from belief, not from science. I think that is because if you were to accept the fact that Arctic ice has frequently declined, just like it is doing now — but during times when CO2 was much lower — your entire argument would be destroyed. And in fact, it is.
David Ball says: “If you are talking 30 years, that seems like a very very small sampling of the 4.5 billion years of earths existence. It seems that the data point I provided, is still more than you have.”
Ah.. now we are actually talking. So let me address this issue.
My position is that:
1) in the “satellite era” (the last ~ 35 years) it is clear that a dramatic decline is taking place. There is significantly less ice each decade than the previous decade.
2) I’ll come back to the “historical era” (~ 1000 AD to 1980 AD) shortly, since it is the most contentious.
3) in the “pre-historic era” (~ 10000 BC to 1000 AD), there were periods near the beginning of that era when the Arctic had much less ice than now … perhaps even ice-free in the summer. But that era had much larger summer Arctic insolation than now, so the “natural cycle” of earth’s orbit that contributed to that era does not apply to this era.
4 ) in the “geologic era”, many things happened — the world went thru eras when it was much warmer and much cooler. The world also was varying in several ways — moving continents and Milankovitch cycles and changing atmospheres. Once again, the conditions were SO different then, that comparisons of current melting to these times are pointless.
So what about that “historical era” — basically since the vikings started exploring and documenting their travels until satellites routinely started flying over the poles?
Certainly there have been times when the sea ice advanced and times when it retreated. The world’s climate — and hence sea ice — was still influenced by solar cycles and El Ninos and volcanoes and …. It seems that from ~ 1900 – ~ 1940, the ice did retreat some — but I have seen nothing that suggests that the ice in 1940’s was similar to the most recent decade. The question thus comes back to my challenge:
Did the retreats during the past ~ 1000 years ever match the retreat seen now?
You give one specific account of one whaling boat — as I said, that is a good start. If we take the account at face value, the ice was different by “2,000 square leagues” or about 60,000 sq km.
In the satellite era, we have records that show:
* The Greenland Sea melts and re-freezes twice this area each month during the spring and fall, so if the observations were even a couple weeks different in time, the ice would be expected to vary by this much.
* It is not unusual for the ice to be 60,000 km^2 different from one year to the next even during the same month (even back in the 1980’s when the ice was still relatively large). Even if the observations by the good captain were on the same dates at the same places, the variations are not unusual.
In other words, the captain could well to be observing natural variations for the Greenland Sea where BOTH numbers are well above current values. We simply have no way of knowing 1) the values before 1816, 2) the values in 816 & 1817 3) the accuracy of the measurements.
You claim I have presented no evidence, but in fact I have presented a LOT of evidence — the fact that repeated searches for both the NW Passage and the NE Passage failed to find open waters like are observed now. Given the economic and military significance of such routes, there was considerable incentive. If conditions were similar to the past 5 years, then sailing thru should have been relatively easy (I think — but I am hardly an expert on sailing in Arctic water). Instead, even the expeditions that finally did succeed ~ 100 years ago faced ice during the summer and took 2-3 years to actually make it thru.
I’s be willing to consider FURTHER evidence, especially with specific longitude and latitudes of ice.
In a simple calculation, the odds of the last 6 years all being the lowest September minimum in a random scenario, is 1 in 1,344,904. That’s the chance that the last 6 years of minimums are purely a result of weather fluctuations.
tjfolkerts says:
“2) I’ll come back to the “historical era” (~ 1000 AD to 1980 AD) shortly, since it is the most contentious.”
No, you are just trying desperately to make it contentious.
You admit that Arctic ice ebbs and flows. I have posted photos of Arctic ice that show as much decline as currently. I have posted dozens of accounts, with quotations from people who live in the far North. Two facts are crystal clear:
1. Arctic ice has repeatedly declined, some times more than now. Naturally. And
2. CO2 was far lower during those times
Inescapable conclusion: human emitted CO2 cannot be the cause of declining Arctic ice.
You are sqirming around like a slippery eel, muddying the waters with wild-eyed nonsense. A few thousand years ago the sun was that much dimmer? And I suppose that the sun only gets bright when it’s shining on the Arctic? Please. Post that on RealClimate, they eat up that nonsense.
Tim, you are simply a dyed-in-the-wool True Believer, and no facts will ever change your mind.
But for others, here is an intersting historical find:
http://xoomer.virgilio.it/dicuoghi/Piri_Reis/Finaeus_eng.htm
I’m not posting that as evidence, and by itself it doesn’t prove there was an ice-free Antarctic. But it would be tough to make a map that accurate of land that is now covered with ice and surrounded by sea ice.
Finally, the idea of a static climate is a Michael Mann fabrication. It is not the truth, and never was. Any objective person looking at Holocene temperatures would conclude that plenty of ice has melted over the past 10,000 years. To believe otherwise is alarmist nonsense.
barry says:
“In a simple calculation, the odds of the last 6 years all being the lowest September minimum in a random scenario, is 1 in 1,344,904. That’s the chance that the last 6 years of minimums are purely a result of weather fluctuations.”
Preposterous. But I’ll play along: since you appear to know the causes of Arctic ice fluctuations, why don’t you post them here for everyone to see? Make sure you include the odds and percentages of each factor. Who knows, you might win the next Nobel prize in Climastrology.☺
I suppose it never occurred to you that those six years might all be part of the same natural cycle.
tjfolkerts says:
September 8, 2012 at 1:20 pm
Wow. You must own an ACME goal post mover. I still don’t see any evidence of the calibre you are asking me for. You have admitted the sea-ice ebbs and flows. The fossilized coniferous trees on Ellesmere Island (although they are 50 million years old and at the same latitude they were fossilized ) are more than empirical evidence for a warm Arctic in the past. It is called variability as it fluctuates due to differing variables. You KNOW this.
Now what I want you to show me why it is different this time (although it isn’t).
Wow, barry is getting knowledge wholesale from absolutely zero data. He (or rather the puppeteer he is guided by) is making up numbers for his models that are just NOT known. Mathematics only helps if the values imputed are KNOWN.
Smokey,
It’s not preposterous, it’s math. I think you’ve misunderstood what it is I’m testing. Let me explain.
Proposition: The behaviour of Arctic sea ice is purely a result of weather variation. There are no long-term factors creating a trend. The trend is just an artifact of random variation (weather). The fact that the last 6 years of September minimums have all been the lowest in the satellite record is just a coincidence.
Data: 34 years of September minimums – I’ve included 2012. The 6 lowest extents (and areas, according to NSIDC) have all occurred in the last 6 years of the period.
Test: Calculate the odds of the 6 lowest numbers occurring all together at one end of the sequence. This is essentially a lotto situation, where to win you have to get the exact 6 numbers, in any order, of 34 possible.
Calculation: 1 / (34/6 x 33/5 x 32/4 x 31/3 x 30/2 x 29/1) = 1 / 1,344,904
So, the odds that the six lowest September minimums have all occurred in the last 6 years – if sea ice coverage has only been affected by random weather variations – is 1 in 1,344,904.
Therefore it is virtually certain that the last 6 years of record minimums are not a result of random weather fluctuations.
—————————————————————————————————————————
That’s what I was testing. If you confine your comments to what I’ve written in this post, do you see anything wrong with the above?
Can we eliminate random weather fluctuations as being a cause for the last years years of lowest minima?
Smokey says: “The point isn’t the Antarctic at all. ”
Then why keep bringing it up — especially since you apparently KNOW you are disingenuously conflating land ice and sea ice?
“I have also provided peer reviewed papers stating that the same thing has happened earlier in the Holocene, and to a greater extent. ”
Yes, I know that. And in return, I have repeatedly reminded you that insolation was greater then, so less summer Arctic was would be EXPECTED 10,000 years ago. Are you arguing that the conditions 10,000 years ago still hold and can explain the CURRENT decline? Or that conditions from 10 million years ago or 100 million years ago hold and can explain the current rapid decline?
“I have presented much in the way of observational evidence to support the fact that the Arctic has pretty recently gone through the same thing that we are seeing now.”
“Presented” is a pretty generous verb to use. You have made broad references to reams of newspaper clippings. However …
1) you steadfastly refuse to make any conclusions about any specific year when your evidence supports that the Arctic was similar to now.
2) when you DO make specific reference to one newspaper clipping (September 7, 2012 at 12:49 pm), it is clear that you don’t understand that your evidence is for SURFACE ice as observed from the air, not open water.
So far, I have not seen one specific bit of evidence that you have presented that strongly supports your hypothesis of conditions in the historical past (the last 1000-2000 years) were similar to today. Every time I look closely, the evidence is sadly lacking. The conclusion seem to be that you yourself never look closely.
So show that I am wrong. With your reams of evidence it should be easy. Pick one year that you think was similar to the last few years. Or even pick a half dozen articles throughout the past few hundred years that you think strongly support your position that some other year in the last ~ 1000 years was similar to this year.
PS I am not currently addressing any question of what damage this loss of ice might cause, nor what caused current or past changes. I am simply asking you to either provide evidence to support THIS claim, or to admit that you don’t have sufficient evidence to support THIS claim. We can address subsequent issues once we have come to
CO2 is the only possible explanation. The sun is at minimum. The Earths orbit is at minimums. Every other process/variability from PDO to ENSO is outlasted even just by the trend in Arctic sea ice….
And what is the position of folks here? That the Antarctic has more ice…. avoiding are we?
The Arctic is going to be ice free for the first time in millennia. Your familyneed not be frightened. Just stop making excuses and do something about it so your children (and my children) and grandchildren and family down the line have a chance.
Chris Alemany says:
September 8, 2012 at 4:31 pm
You are not familiar with WUWT, are you? You haven’t understood anything here. Your fear-mongering is not based on evidence. I am just as concerned about the future as you are. Present some evidence or get up to speed.
Now under 4 million square km and still plummeting. It’s a train wreck. With so little multiyear ice left, it could be under 4 million next July.
From barry on September 8, 2012 at 6:43 am:
Rookie mistake, extent and area are separate items thus 68 data points. Rankings based on one may not match rankings based on the other.
Examining extent and area separately, odds of getting the first number you want from the pool is 1/34, except it could be any of six so 6/34.
Next number is 5/33 with pool shrinkage, any of the remaining five from the remaining thirty three. Etc.
So 6/34 * 5/33 * 4/32 * 3/31 * 2/30 * 1/29
= 0.000000744
Invert, odds are 1 in 1,344,904
From barry on September 8, 2012 at 1:34 pm:
That’s the odds of six draws from a 34-count pool matching all six numbers of a list, nothing more.
The odds that the previous six years of my life would have the highest percentages of grey hairs on my head would similarly calculate high, yet is true by natural processes. Why can’t the Arctic minimums also be by natural processes?
I think my post showing how I calculated the odds went into the spam filter for some reason – can mods rescue, please?
[Rescued & posted. ~dbs, mod.]
Chris Alemany says:
“CO2 is the only possible explanation.”
That is a textbook example of the Argumentum ad Ignorantium fallacy; the argument from ignorance. What Chris is actually saying is: “Since I can’t think of any other explanation, then it must be due to CO2.”
And just “do something about it” is the classic Precautionary Principle. Hey, you might get hit by an asteroid. So ‘do something about it’: don’t go outside. Same-same. There is no scientific evidence showing that human activity causes ice loss, so there is no need to “do something”.
Chris, unless/until you can post verifiable scientific evidence showing that the current decline in Arctic sea ice is unprecedented, I don’t think we need to do anything about what is entirely a natural event. My advice: stop scaring yourself.
As for Folkerts, nothing will open his closed mind. Glaciers could move down and bury Chicago under a mile of ice again, and he would still be a believer in CO2=CAGW. [And for the record, I dispute most everything in his latest post.]
I have a slim hope that Chris Alemany has not drunk too much Kool Aid, but is instead only repeating talking points from alarmist sources. If he simply accepts the scientific method and its corollary, the null hypothesis, the scales will fall from his eyes. The scare is all motivated by money, Chris. Really. All of it.
For those rooting for an ice free Arctic, the ice controls rainfall and weather patterns in the U.S. Less ice or no ice and we could see a lot more droughts and crop failures like this summer. I don’t look forward to the U.S. being forced to import most of it’s food in the future.
Richard Carlson says:
“Now under 4 million square km and still plummeting. It’s a train wreck.”
1) Run in circles waving your arms
2) Scream & shout
3) Wring your hands
4) Sound a [false] alarm. The more wild-eyed, the better
In centuries past that was the typical response to an eclipse — another completely natural event. It worked then, so it should work now, no? You’re off to a good start.
And who needs scientific evidence, anyway? Mindlessly frightening yourself is much more satisfying.
[Then again, you could calm down and contemplate this.]
pinetree3 says:
“I don’t look forward to the U.S. being forced to import most of it’s food in the future.”
I guess you’re running out of things to worry about.
No smokey… The only ones arguing from ignorance here are the ones ignoring the data and the reams of research. And that ain’t me.
I’m not going to post the evidence because you should be a big enough boy to find it yourself. Im not getting into the nauseating circular arguments that sustains your conspiracy theories. I don’t fall for that never ending loop of a tactic. i know all the links have veen posted here and all you will do is ignore them.
The sorry truth is this. It’s not about money, it’s about science. You actually follow the science and there is no other conclusion but AGW. I know I know, no one wants to believe an actual scientist in their field these days unless they agree with them. But one day Mr. Watts will have no choice but admit to the world he’s either been duped or been the duper. Such is life.
Meanwhile, the Arctic melts and weather patterns in the Northern Hemisphere will (continue to ) change to something we have absolutely no recorded history to be able to figure out.
It should be an interesting ride.
barry says:
September 8, 2012 at 1:34 pm
In a simple calculation, the odds of the last 6 years all being the lowest September minimum in a random scenario, is 1 in 1,344,904.
According to RSS, UAH, Hadcrut3, and Hadsst2, the record year was 1998. And 2012 is NOT going to set a record on any of these sets. Now presumably when more CO2 is continually being added, the chances of a future year beating 1998 should be more than 50%, right? However if we assume only a 50% chance that any given year could beat 1998, the odds of 1998 NOT being beaten by any of these 4 data sets in 14 years would be 2^14 = 1 in 16384. Is that correct?
Well Chris, since you are a fan of data, show me data that says weather patterns continue to change to something we have absolutely no recorded history to be able to figure out. According to all AGW scientists who have published research on weather patterns, weather patterns have yet to go beyond climate boundaries, meaning that weather patterns are still within climate parameters within each climate region. Unless you have data that says otherwise.
Chris Alemany,
Once again you fail to produce any scientific evidence showing that the current Arctic conditions are unprecedented. That is because there is no such evidence. The only evidence extant shows that Arctic ice has declined similarly — and more — in the past. [And note that your pal reviewed papers do not qualify as ‘scientific evidence’.]
So saying you’re not going to post any evidence simply means that you have no such evidence to post. You’re winging it. But that doesn’t fly here at the internet’s “Best Science” site. Put up or shut up is the operative phrase here.
And if you don’t believe the CAGW scare is about the money [$BILLION$ every year in federal grants handed out – and they don’t give those grants to scientists who honestly point out that what is happening now has happened to an even greater extent in the past], then you are being truly credulous.
So keep on scaring yourself, since you seem to like it so much. But don’t fool yourself; it certainly isn’t science. Your baseless conjecture is only your belief, nothing more.
Chris Alemany says:
September 8, 2012 at 5:45 pm
There is no data to back up your assertion. The Arctic has melted before. There is no link between the current decline and Co2. I am not asking for much. Just something that shows that mankinds Co2 output is what is causing the current melt. There is no evidence to support the proposition that this melt is unprecedented.
Chris, the affects of ENSO events can linger around for a long time. It takes years for warmed pools to move into other areas on the globe. You can see the echos when studying anomalies by time and anomalies by time and lattitude.
Chris Alemany says:
September 8, 2012 at 5:45 pm
“But one day Mr. Watts will have no choice but admit to the world he’s either been duped or been the duper. Such is life.”
================
Nice try,
Now tell me why you even have a forum to spew this crap.