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
Pamela Gray says:
September 8, 2012 at 6:25 pm
Good point. Also a large storm at the right time (as we saw this year) can easily break up even very thick ice. The arm waving by alarmists is quite impressive.
Enso events do not correlate with global temperature but they do with regional weather pattern variations within regional climate boundaries. That tells me that ENSO events can and do affect and drive temperature trends.
All one has to do is look at analogue years, which still out-perform dynamical model scenarios three months out. The Arctic is the last place oceanic currents carry the result of ENSO events before their return trip to the equatorial belt. Because of amplification (due to concentration in a relatively smaller space) the melt makes sense as a response to natural events. In fact, if it were not melting, I would be worried. Why? Because some other stronger factor than the oceans (which have by far the greatest capacity to move all that ENSO heat around) is overwhelming incredibly strong intrinsic natural events. That’s when we should all panic. That stronger factor would be so big we could not miss it. There would be no arguing. It would be hitting us all in the face. Think something as hard to ignore as the totally imaginary alien ships in Independence Day.
‘you can’t produce the evidence CO2 can cause global warming’ blah blah blah.
Arrhenius, Hansen, IPCC…. Grade 12 science class.
If this were the best science site in the world it’d actually have, you know, actually produced science. Oh wait. It did a bit..I think it was called….. BEST. But you didn’t like the results of those either, so you don’t talk about that now….
The faxt that anyone at all can look at The billions of tonnes of CO2 that humanity has pumped into the atmosphere and say with a straight face it has no effect is pretty stunning really.
Hope y’all are getting plenty of oysters from the sea while you can.
Barry – Red Noise-
I have articles from the early 1970’s warning of as much as a 13% increase in Arctic ice in one year. –and many years trending upwards. Dire Warnings of a coming ice age.
Same thing— Red Noise.
Look at Cryosphere Today. Total Sea Ice has remained about the same. Ocean Currents,
various oscillations, currents causing movement of more saline water and other causes seem to be moving some heat from the South to the North. South Africa having the most snow they have had in a long while (or any snow at all) might be related. Nothing definite.
Read Judith Curry at Climate Etc. Good Blog, She talks about the uncertainly monster.
Anyone with a science background should always be hesitant about being very certain.
Pamela Gray says:
September 8, 2012 at 7:09 pm
“the melt makes sense as a response to natural events.”
My father thinks it is a change in the Rossby waves. Storm in the Arctic, etc. Wish people would read his stuff.
Chris Alemany says:
September 8, 2012 at 9:52 pm
‘you can’t produce the evidence CO2 can cause global warming’ blah blah blah.
This is NOT what I said.
Reading-kindergarten
DarrylB says:
September 8, 2012 at 10:05 pm
“Anyone with a science background should always be hesitant about being very certain.”
Very succinct.
Chris Alemany says:
September 8, 2012 at 9:52 pm
“The faxt that anyone at all can look at The billions of tonnes of CO2 that humanity has pumped into the atmosphere and say with a straight face it has no effect is pretty stunning really.”
So show me. I’ll be waiting.
From Chris Alemany on September 8, 2012 at 5:45 pm:
Chris, I used to worry about global warming too. I too worry about the environment, know full well how badly we humans can screw it up. At the site I was hanging out at, there were a lot of people who were very worried.
So I researched it. Hit up Wikipedia, read the summaries of the IPCC Third Assessment Report, many other things…
And found global warming wasn’t going to be fixed in five years, or ten. Or even in my lifetime. The effects from the already-released emissions would continue for many centuries to come. Even if we shut down civilization as we knew it, the CO₂ would remain elevated for centuries, the continuing warming of the oceans would release more CO₂…
The warming couldn’t be avoided. It was happening, and would continue to happen for centuries, even if we stopped all anthropogenic emissions right now.
Logically, especially with the timescales involved, the only real choice was adaptation. Wait to see how bad it gets, make changes then.
It’s a choice people make all the time. People get old, accidents and diseases happen. So why not make your house fully handicap accessible, right now? Someone could be in a wheelchair someday, so put in ramps, widen the doorways, have low cabinets and a sit-down shower, if there’s more than one story then install an elevator or at least a stair lift… Blindness is possible, have a clean floor layout, no throw-rugs a foot could catch on, put Braille stickers on appliances… Could go deaf, so flashing smoke alarms chained to lights that flash in all rooms, which automatically call one of those security companies that will dispatch fire crews in case the alarms are missed…
Why do we even build houses that are only for able-bodied people? Make the initial investment up front. Heck, make full handicap accessibility a government mandate for all construction. Think of it as an insurance policy. Sure it’ll cost a bit, with unending maintenance costs. But if you ever need that stuff, won’t you be glad you have it? Won’t it have all been worth it?
But we humans don’t do that. We wait, see what happens, then make any changes required. And then only as much as required right then.
So I stopped worrying about global warming. The mandate of evolution is to adapt or die. Humans should well be able to adapt to the effects of global warming as they happen, with our minds and our technology.
And once I read the research and stopped worrying, I wondered why so many were saying we had to act now.
“We must enact this legislation now to stop global warming.”
“There are only five years left to act, contact your elected representatives today.”
“Our organization is dedicated to fighting global warming, send us your donation before it’s too late.”
Didn’t these people read up on the science?
Over time I noticed the message getting shriller. The consequences of inaction were greater than they thought, the urgency was greater than anyone expected. As the public continued caring less, the Catastrophic part of global warming, the absolute certainty of unimaginable disaster, kept getting larger, more imminent.
I had read the science. I had studied and accepted the data, those reams of research. Global warming would go on for centuries regardless of what we do. So why are these politicians saying if we vote them in and they enact their legislation, it’ll all be fixed? Why are the environmental groups insisting donations to them are urgently needed right now, or the planet is screwed?
Then I found this site. I learned about the natural cycles. About how screwed up the temperature records are. About the natural collusion between politicians, scientists, and environmental advocates, all seeking power and money.
And now you should see the problem. Alarmism sells. It’s how print media brings in readers and TV broadcasters bring in viewers. It’s how politicians get votes. It’s how environmental groups get government funding and donations. You give them the power over you they say is required, you let them take as much money as needed out of your wallet, or bad things will happen.
But there is no quick fix. That’s what their science said. It’ll go on for centuries regardless.
Plus, we here in the developed world have options. We can build more nuclear plants to replace the dependable baseload energy we now get from coal. We can build more efficient homes, vehicles, and appliances. Sure, we can do our part to reduce CO₂ emissions.
But the developing world is not playing along. And why should they? We built our wealth on cheap fossil fuel energy. We have the resources to adapt to whatever the effects arise from global warming. They don’t. Why shouldn’t they have the opportunity to be prosperous that we had? Sure, the different global “carbon control” plans call for giving them money in compensation, which is simply paying their governments to ensure their ordinary citizens live miserable and short lives.
To people who need basic refrigeration for food preservation, and clinics and hospitals that need reliable 24/7 power to save lives, they must suffice with the vagaries of sunlight and wind? For simple and productive manufacturing, the sort that lifts local people out of poverty, instead of the power of a diesel engine or coal-fired steam boiler, they need to destroy many acres of forest and farmland to set up solar panels and windmills?
It is your choice to give up power and money to those telling you ever-scary stories, who say they must act now to stop global warming now when their own science said it will irrevocably go on for centuries. You may tell yourself that you have not been frightened by their scary stories, that you have boldly chosen to take a proactive stance against a known danger.
But know that when you agree to their demands to save your own children, you are agreeing with the condemning of someone else’s children. Is that made easier for you by their being faceless and nameless, people that you will never meet nor even see?
Are you smart enough to realize that when politicians and professional activists say these things must be done for the greater good, it will be for their own good first and foremost?
“Good point. Also a large storm at the right time (as we saw this year) can easily break up even very thick ice. The arm waving by alarmists is quite impressive.”
But this wasn’t just any storm, was it? You see, this low pressure was the deepest summer arctic storm ever recorded. n fact I’m wrong in calling it a storm as it was classed as a Cylone. These don’t usually happen in the summer and when they do, they aren’t half the strength and they used to develop further South.
There’s research done out there explaining why summer storms like this will become more frequent as the ice goes completely… do the leg work 🙂
kadaka,
I know extent and area are two different things. I mentioned them at the same time because in the 34-years NSIDC database, the last 6 years have all been the lowest September sea ice in both extent AND area. My subtext was, “take your pick.”
Your analogy has an inbuilt trend – aging – which causes more grey hairs to appear. It reinforces my point (see below).
Me:
You:
I think it’s exactly the right test for the postulation, which is based on comments here implying that any trend in Arctic sea ice is purely a result of weather fluctuations. Below is the posit again – how would you improve on my method?
If recent record-breaking September sea ice minima are purely the result of random weather fluctuations, calculate the odds that the 6 lowest September minima would all occur in the last 6 years of 34.
Werner @ur momisugly here
No, in a chaotic system we expect behaviour like this, even if there is a long-term trend. That is what makes the observation about Arctic sea ice minima for the last 6 years such a clincher – there is a definite trend that is a result of more than just random weather (most people agree, I think, but not everyone here).
Jesuswept says:
September 9, 2012 at 3:02 am
This is the point of the whole discussion. I have provided some evidence that this is not unprecedented. Alarmists need to show that it is different this time. I also provided a natural explanation that requires NO mysterious Co2 connection. I am waiting for someone to show why it is different this time (even though it isn’t). I have done more research than you could possibly imagine. I have looked at ALL proxies, all reconstructions, the historic records. Held my nose through Hansen’s stuff (mysterious adjustments that all seem to go in the direction required to support his theory), Mann’s stuff ( some big questions not only in the proxies used, but also the statical method applied). I have read Lindzen’s papers, Spenser’s papers. All of it.
I suspect that you have only read papers (and other info) that supports your assertion and nothing else. I have seen NOTHING in all those papers that can truly support the position that it is all down to Co2. In fact it smells to high heaven that those touting Co2 as the cause are SO certain this is how it works, yet if you understand their own papers, it has been way oversold, and the uncertainties have not been overcome.
Read Anthony’s paper and look at how the data is collected. Look at the pictures of the stations. This shakes the very foundations of the data. The lack of weather stations and data throughout the world (especially the Polar regions, where a huge amount of “smoothing” of the data is done) calls into question the validity of a “global temperature”. You do know what “smoothing” is, don’t you?
As for doing it “for the children”. I have children, so do not try that one on me. I am as concerned about their future and their children’s future as you are. I have ideas using technology that will make the future a bright, clean, healthy place for all. My future does not include the continued use of fossil fuels, or the raping of the earth (as enviro-nuts say). To get there, we need cheap abundant energy. Skyrocketing the price of energy will not solve the problem, but only hurt those who are living in or close to poverty. The wealthy will be able to absorb this cost no problem. Does that make sense?. It does to the wealthy and powerful. Hmmmmm, …..
Nice handle by the way. I am not a religious person (and I don’t think you are either), but your handle tells me a lot about your mindset.
Last sentence in the first paragraph should read “statistical method”. Mods, leave it if you are too busy. I don’t mind.
barry says:
September 9, 2012 at 5:21 am
“If recent record-breaking September sea ice minima are purely the result of random weather fluctuations, calculate the odds that the 6 lowest September minima would all occur in the last 6 years of 34.”
You need to prove this is a “record breaker”. That is all I am asking. Your calculation is meaningless if you do not.
And 34 years out of 4.5 billion is a pretty small sampling. Statistically speaking.
Chris Alemany:
At September 8, 2012 at 9:52 pm you assert
No!
The fact that nature emits at least 34 molecules of CO2 for each molecule of CO2 emitted from the total of all human activities makes it pretty stunning that anybody would think there would be a discernible effect from the CO2 humans have pumped into the atmosphere.
It is more than pretty stunning: it is is astonishing because CO2 is a trace gas in the atmosphere (i.e. less than 0.04%) that is essential for life on earth, and there has been tens of times more CO2 in the atmosphere when life flourished. But it is now being asserted that a small variation in the emission of this trace gas would convert it from being the stuff of life into a harbinger of Armageddon.
The assertion may be true because there is insufficient evidence to completely refute it, but there is no evidence to support it, and it is clearly an extraordinary suggestion.
I think you would benefit from study of the still on-going discussion of the carbon cycle in the thread at
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/30/important-paper-strongly-suggests-man-made-co2-is-not-the-driver-of-global-warming/
Richard
IMO one of the worst things to come of the entire AGW emphasis is that other environmental concerns will be ignored and society as a whole will doubt the entire science community.
I think water: where it is, where it isn’t and what is in it is a much worse problem.
Richard, when you say “The fact that nature emits at least 34 molecules of CO2 for each molecule of CO2 emitted from the total of all human activities makes it pretty stunning that anybody would think there would be a discernible effect from the CO2 humans have pumped into the atmosphere.” it would be interesting to add the nubmer of CO2 molecules nature absorbs too.
My bath might fill as quickly as it empties if I set the taps to the correct (balancing) flow rate. If I then add another source of water, the bath will eventually overflow.
Not to mention the proportion of CO2 naturally absorbed when discussing that emitted by both nature and man doesn’t tell the full story.
David: you know full well the amount of research that has predicted the Arctic would be the first to be affected by rising temps and would cause the ice to become seasonal. Its part and parcel to AGW. And now it’s happening faster than any of the predictions.
As for Adaptation. Of course we will have to adapt. We in the short term have committed ourselves to that. However, I’ve seen too many people basically treat this as a grand experiment. That is totally selfish and basically amounts to not wanting to give up ones own lifestyle or expectations and selling out the generations beyond. And with the [snip] that this website promotes, that is exactly what this website is facilitating. You are talking about the well being of millions, perhaps billions of people in the next decades.
• • • • •
[First and last warning: Use of “deniaist” or similar pejorative will result in your entire comment being deleted. Read the site Policy. ~dbs, mod.]
Chris Alemany says:
“… and basically amounts to not wanting to give up ones own lifestyle or expectations and selling out the generations beyond.”
You have it completely backward. By wasting immense amounts of current dollars on an evidence-free Precautionary Principle, we are literally robbing from the next generations. Therefore, the selfishness is entirely on the part of those pushing the AGW conjecture.
And I note that you still have produced no scientific evidence showing that the current Arctic ice extent is unprecedented. I doubt you want facts that contradict your beliefs, but for other readers, here are some links that show Arctic ice levels at or below current levels, as recently as the 1900’s:
click1
click2
click3
The first link has numerous contemporary maps showing that Arctic ice levels fluctuate quite a lot, and that both the Northwest and Northeast Passages were ice free at times.
In the early 1900’s CO2 was under 300 ppmv. Today it is over 390 ppmv. Yet ice levels in 1938 were as low or lower than today. Thus, CO2 is not the cause of declining Arctic ice. If you cannot understand that, be assured that most everyone else can.
Chris Alemany says:
September 9, 2012 at 8:38 am
“David: you know full well the amount of research that has predicted the Arctic would be the first to be affected by rising temps and would cause the ice to become seasonal. Its part and parcel to AGW. And now it’s happening faster than any of the predictions.”
You need to provide evidence of this. Perhaps it is the last affected. “The ice to become seasonal”? This is just myopic and funny. “Faster”? There is NO proof of this. Let’s trash the economy of the western world on NO evidence. The Chinese and the Russians are laughing at you and wringing their hands in anticipation of the fall (sabotage?) of the western economy.
Smokey: Are you blind?
The images from the DMI for August in the early 20th century don’t approach anything anywhere near what has happened in the past 3 decades let alone since 2007. The whole Canadian Archipelago is open, both the Passages have opened first independantly and then simultaneously for multiple years now.
No one disputes the Arctic was likely seasonally ice free 3000-8000 years ago. That does not mean this time it is melting for the same reasons. It has been shown in fact that it cannot be any other reason than the CO2 we have ejected into the atmosphere.
The only sailing ships that have actually sailed through ice free Nortwest and Eastern Passages are those that did in the past 5 years. It has never been done before. Ever.
Here is some Sunday reading for you, from someone I respect a lot. Much like I wouldn’t dispute if my family doctor told me that I had cancer, nor do I dispute this Doctor when he says we are spreading a cancer on our own civilization.
He writes a scathing rebuke to our current government here in Canada whos MPs happily deny a problem exists on one hand, while using the problem to further its economic agenda and fill the pocket books of big business while endangering Canadians and all citizens of the world.
(He notes on his posting of the link that he did not write the headline, only the content of the article)
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/andrew-weaver/harper-global-warming_b_1866587.html
Andrew Weaver Professor and Canada Research Chair, University of Victoria
Louise:
The reply you provide to me at September 9, 2012 at 8:17 am is a muddled account of the mistaken ‘mass balance’ idea.
Clearly, you did not read the part of my post which advised reading the still on-going discussion of the carbon cycle in the thread at
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/30/important-paper-strongly-suggests-man-made-co2-is-not-the-driver-of-global-warming/
Please get back to me after you have got up to speed on the subject.
Richard
Chris Alemany says:
September 9, 2012 at 8:38 am
You are aware that I lived “off grid” for 3 years in Canada no less. Can you say that? I have far more experience in the wilderness that you can even imagine. Who do you think you are talking to? Spend 2 weeks outdoors (especially in winter) and we will then see if you want to pursue your line of thinking. Then consider children in the mix. Think it through.