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
Chris Alemany:
I read your post at September 9, 2012 at 8:38 am and it is yet another example of a warmist rejecting the Precautionary Principle. We climate realists refute climate alarmism BECAUSE we care for future generations.
I here – yet again – explain it in hope that a warmist will understand.
1.
We know for certain fact that constraining the use of fossil fuels will kill many people. The effects would be worse than the oil crisis of the 1970s because the constraints would need to be more severe, energy use has increased since then, and the constraints would be permanent. Indeed, people need energy to live and human population is most conservatively estimated to peak at 2.6 billion more than now near the middle of this century. Those extra people need energy to live, so constraining energy use at its present level would kill billions of people, mostly children. And the ONLY sources of the needed extra energy are fossil fuels and nuclear power. The major increase has to be in fossil fuel use because not everything can be powered from the end of a wire.
2.
Discernible man-made global warming is a conjecture that has no supporting evidence of any kind and is denied by much empirical evidence. However, it has been emulated using computer models which have not been validated and have yet to demonstrate any predictive skill.
3,
The precautionary principle says we should not accept the risks from the inevitable horrors of constraining fossil fuel use on the basis that there is a conjecture which has no supporting evidence but has been described using computer games.
Richard
In fact it is logical that the heat from the sun is greater at the equator and released out through the poles. It is logically LAST affected by warming. We have passed a small peak of heating and are on the downward slope of the sine wave. A sixty year (peak to peak) cycle for example would NOT show in the satellite record. You have jumped the shark.
Chris Alemany:
At September 9, 2012 at 11:26 am you say
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.
Richard
“In fact it is logical that the heat from the sun is greater at the equator and released out through the poles. It is logically LAST affected by warming.”
Your logic is based on what… the ‘fact’ that the Earth acts like a big paper bag full of hot air with two holes in each end? And does the cow jump over the man in the moon?
Arctic air temps are running multiple degree C above normal and have done so for many years. The data is incontrovertible.
And now that the sea ice has melted away the Arctic sea is storing the heat and 2/3 of the mass of sea ice under the waves is gone.
The data is again incontrovertible.
Certainly every navy in the world knows it.
Precautionary Principle is always applied to what you chose to believe and what you feel is most detrimental
If I am wrong (along with every national science academy in the world). then yes we will have spent much money and suffered unnecessary hardship. (THough in our current world economic state how much worse can it actually get). Yet we will also have a system of economy that is itself sustainable. Not reliant on external regimes. And not polluting our atmosphere.
If you and WUWT are wrong and we continue business as usual as if this is all just a ‘natural cycle’, temperatures continue to rise and all that is predicted comes to pass then cities will have to be relocated. Nations will have to be relocated. The bread baskets of North America that feed the world will be decimated and millions or billions will starve or simply perish in the inevitable wars that will result.
You tell me which scenario you would apply the ‘precautionary principle’ to. It is a choice between money, and life.
David Ball says:
………
Mr. Ball
Going back some time : I would be interested in any further research you do on this subject.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/14/little-ice-age-thermometers-%e2%80%93-history-and-reliability/#comment-224886
Not exactly Hudson Bay, but could relate.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GSC1.htm
My email is on the graph, if you get in touch I will forward some details.
“Modern ice breakers are not “sailing ships”.”
Indeed they are not.
http://theadventureblog.blogspot.ca/2010/06/russians-challenge-norwegians-in-north.html
David: I’m glad you’ve lived off grid. You’re quite right that much hardship might come if we simply cut off all fossil fuel use in a day. That’s of course not going to happen nor is anyone advocating that. Don’t put words in peoples mouths… yet another tactic that is oh so tiresome.
Yet every day that we put off the inevitable we make the likelihood of that hardship, of that cliff, even greater.
Chris Alemany:
I am beginning to get fed up with your posting nonsense. Please check what you write before posting it. For example, your post at September 9, 2012 at 12:05 pm disputed the fact and logical deduction stated by David Ball saying;
1.
The greenhouse effect is a radiative effect. Check it.
2.
The tropics are net absorbers of radiative energy and the polar regions are net emitters of radiative energy. Check it.
3.
Heat is transferred from the tropics to the polar regions by the thermohaline circulation. Check it.
It is a logical deduction from those three facts that a change to the radiative greenhouse effect would be first noticed near the tropics (I know why it would not be IN the tropics but I am sure you don’t) and then would become progressively more effective over time with distance from the tropics.
If you have a rational argument to dispute that logical deduction (there is one but I am sure you don’t know it) then present it. Everybody can then assess your argument. But please don’t waste space on this blog with the type of non-argument that your post presents.
Richard
Chris Alemany says:
“Your logic is based on what… the ‘fact’ that the Earth acts like a big paper bag full of hot air with two holes in each end? And does the cow jump over the man in the moon?”
Don’t sound like a fool. David Ball is correct. It is based on Henry’s Law. You need to get up to speed on the subject, instead of simply repeating your nonsense talking points. And:
“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.”
Obviously, you did not read the links. And the Huffington Post is every bit as scientific as Scientology.
And as Richard Courtney makes clear to you: “Discernible man-made global warming is a conjecture that has no supporting evidence of any kind and is denied by much empirical evidence.” That is factual, as has been shown many times here. You are blind to that reality.
Once again, there is no scientific evidence, or measurements, showing that the current Arctic ice conditions are unprecedened. If you believe there are, post your evidence here. Because all you have been doing is posting your beliefs. Post scientific evidence that the current ice conditions are unprecedented as you claim, or everyone will understand that you are simply expressing your unscientific alarmist beliefs.
Keep in mind that you baseless claim that declining Arctic ice will cause climate diruption is the alarmist crowd’s own conjecture. As such, the onus is on you to provide supporting evidence. But so far, there is no evidence that Arctic ice fluctuations cause any problem at all, or that CO2 is anything but harmless and beneficial to the biosphere. More is better, and less Arctic ice is better.
Chris Alemany:
In response to my clear statement of the Precautionary Principle at September 9, 2012 at 11:42 am you have replied at September 9, 2012 at 12:14 pm.
Your reply does not dispute my statement in any way and, therefore, I understand that you accept it or – at least – you cannot refute it.
Your reply says to me
I agree, and my statement explains that what you advocate would kill billions of people. mostly children.
So, I am writing to ask why you want that.
Richard
IPCC, BEST, Hansen, Arrhenius. I need not post them. You know them full well. They’ve been there for decades Smokey and David call it ‘no scientific evidence’, others call it their life work based on the actual scientific method that has been in place for hundreds of years.
Huffington Post is just an outlet. If you choose not to read the writings of someone who actually does the work you claim to know so much about, then that’s your problem, not mine.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/andrew-weaver/harper-global-warming_b_1866587.html
Science is long past the stupidity of the AGW debate and is now doing what it must… assessing how the climate is actually changing with the Arctic front and centre.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu//abs/2011AGUFM.U32A..03M
The last link didn’t paste in properly… hopefully this one works
I posted a link above containing fifteen peer reviewed papers showing an ice-free Arctic at different times during the Holocene. Thus, an ice-free Arctic is routine, natural, and normal. Any claims that “this time it’s different” require scientific evidence. Note that “scientific evidence” consists of raw data, or detailed observations. The onus is on those proposing the conjecture that conditions are different now. So far, they have failed to make a credible case.
The only difference is that [harmless, beneficial] CO2 has risen. All other conditions during the Holocene are very similar to today, therefore the null hypothesis remains unfalsified. Here is an hypothesis that I challenge Chris Alemany to try and falsify:
At current and projected concentrations, CO2 is harmless, and beneficial to the biosphere.
Any claims of falsification must be according to the scientific method: testable and verifiable, based on raw data.
I am prepared to prove beyond any doubt that CO2 is beneficial to the biosphere. And of course, there is no verifiable evidence showing any global damage or harm from the enhance CO2 levels, therefore CO2 is harmless. And more CO2 is better, since the atmosphere is currently starved of it.
Finally, catastrophic AGW is a complete crock, and AGW itself has no measurable evidence to support it. It may exist, but it is so minuscule that it can be completely disregarded for all practical purposes.
There is no doubt that 2012 will be amongst the 6 lowest September Arctic sea ice minima in the 34-year satellite record. Here (again) is the data for the last 33 September minima.
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/Sep/N_09_area.txt
If you could post a link to the satellite data for the other years I’d be immensely grateful. I’d have to change my postulation, though. But, sticking with the data I have…
Looks like no one is going to admit a blindingly obvious conclusion.
If September sea ice minima are purely a result of random weather fluctuations, the odds that the 6 lowest September sea ice minima in the Arctic have all occurred in the last 6 years = 1 in 1,344,904
Therefore it is supremely unlikely – virtually certain – that the cause of the last 6 years’ minima is not random weather fluctuations.
Is that really so controversial?
“Thus, an ice-free Arctic is routine and normal.”
Congratulations. I’m glad you came to that conclusion. Unfortunately your conclusion is totally meaningless and worse, the “data” you so love to ignore shows it is absolutely based on a false premise. The other periods during the Holocene that exhibited these conditions are NOT the same as today. The only variable that is different is CO2. As beneficial and harmless as it is to most plants and animals, it is still, incredibly, still a gas that traps heat. So no matter if the Earth is ‘starved’ for it, it will have the same effect it would in any other place. And so we have what we have today.
I do love that line of reasoning.
“Oh don’t worry about the CO2, the Earth is “starving” for it… we must feed it by burning millions of years worth of stored CO2 so that the Earth is ‘healthy’ once again”
That’s pretty funny!
Meanwhile, 500 millions of years ago when the Earth was not, presumably, “starving” for it… Gondwana was hanging out at the South Pole where ice caps were generally non-existent for millions of years at a time.
From Chris Alemany says:
September 9, 2012 at 11:26 am
What, those other sites never told you another reason?
Black carbon linked to half of Arctic warming
Oh, soot!
New Earth-Moving UN Study Says Half Of Arctic Warming Caused By Soot (And Not CO2)!
Impure as the Driven Snow
Places like Russia and China burn their fuels “dirty”. Here in North America and what was formerly known as Western Europe, we cleaned up our diesel engine exhaust and coal-fired power plant emissions decades ago. The soot gets the ice dirty, causing more heating and melting of the ice. This is a temporary effect on the sea ice, gone once those other countries clean up their emissions as well, and older dirty sea ice is replaced by new clean sea ice.
What is happening in the Arctic is within natural variation, but it is un-natural due to the human-released soot.
And that is another reason besides CO₂.
Instead of accepting my challenge to try and falsify my hypothesis, the numpty makes fun of it, as if that settles the matter. Pure delusion. Alemany’s failure to step up to the plate is noted.
Next: barry, you still have not answered my question: what if you consider the six years as part of one cycle? How does that affect your arithmetic? There have been step changes before, the most recent in the late ’70’s. Also, for hundreds of years it has been accepted as received wisdom that an ice-free Arctic is entirely beneficial, with no downside.
But with the current state of government education, and the ignorance of the masses immersed in alarmist pseudoscience, some folks have flipped completely, and now improbably believe that somehow an ice-free Arctic is an entirely bad thing. They have zero evidence to support their belief, but like Jehovah’s Witnesses, nothing can open thier minds.
Sorry Chris, your comment does not have bearing on whether or not anthropogenic additions of CO2 are melting the ice cap. You are still relying on “it must be it” sub-par logic. Your premise should never be presented as a scientific conclusion. Not by serious students of modern science.
Smokey: You must be hard of reading. IPCC, BEST, Arrhenius, Hansen, Weaver. They are but a few of the purveyors of actual knowledge on the issue. But of course you don’t even acknowledge them because that would mean you’d have to argue against them.
Oh well…
Pamela. It is not my conclusion or logic. It is that of thousands of scientists that you choose to ignore. Unlike you and Smokey and others I actually trust the people who do the work.
Throwing out names is no substitute for the scientific method. Once more, since it doesn’t seem to be sinking in: there is no credible scientific evidence supporting the CO2=CAGW conjecture.
And I again note that Alemany still will not step up to the plate and attempt to refute my easily testable, falsifiable hypothesis: CO2 is beneficial, and causes no global harm. Shrinking from that challenge shows that Alemany only has his own scientifically baseless opinion. He needs to run along to Pseudoskeptical Pseudoscience for some new talking points, since all his current beliefs have been easily deconstructed by others more knowledgeable.
I would have trusted Anthony here too if he had actually continued with the work he started with BEST. But instead he chose to run away. His choice… and a very telling one.
lol. Smokey. I love how you make your posts sound like you’re putting me on trial. “Alemany still will not step up to the plate and attempt to refute my easily testable, falsifiable hypothesis”.
Guess what Smokey…. first… is your name really Smokey? lol.
Second. Your testable, falsifiable hypothesis is totally meaningless because “beneficial” is a subjective term. Plants will probably just love all that extra CO2… many other organisms will not… have you eaten an oyster lately? Shellfish Farmers around my area can’t grow them in the sea anymore because the acidity has reached levels that don’t allow juvenile oysters to form their shells reliably. They have to grow them first in tanks and then put them in the ocean once the shells are formed.
“Victoria – For more than two decades, Rob Saunders grew his shellfish larvae in ordinary seawater drawn from the pristine natural environment of Baynes Sound, one of the most productive shellfish farming areas on B.C.’s West Coast.
Now the water in Baynes Sound is so acidic, Mr. Saunders’ fragile seed stock will die unless he artificially adjusts the PH level in his hatchery tanks.
“Because of ocean acidification the only way we can grow any larvae – oysters, clams, mussels, geoducks, you name it – is to take the CO2 out of the seawater,” said Mr. Saunders, CEO of Island Scallops, the largest producer of shellfish seed stock on province’s West Coast.
“We would have been out of business this year if we didn’t figure out how to solve the problem.”
Ocean acidification, a worldwide phenomenon linked to global warming, was identified as a serious threat to the shellfish industry in Oregon and Washington state five years ago.
Caused by the absorption of excess CO2 from the atmosphere, ocean acidification lowers ocean PH levels and reduces the concentration of calcium carbonate, a key building block of seashells and other marine skeletons.
Mr. Saunders is currently taking part in a two-year, $250,000 study of pH levels in the waters between Denman Island and Vancouver Island, about 20 kilometres south of Courtenay.
Funded by the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans, the study involves rigorous daily testing using an infrared gas analyzer to detect ocean carbon dioxide. DFO officials refused to discuss data that has been gathered so far, saying preliminary results won’t be made public until sometime next spring.
However, Mr. Saunders said there’s no doubt that acidification is affecting the survival of shellfish larvae.
“We grow them under different concentrations of CO2 to see how they live and die,” he said. “And they die if we use the ocean water. Period.””
From barry on September 9, 2012 at 1:48 pm:
No, it is not so controversial that the last six minimums are not the result of random weather fluctuations.
The maximums of the satellite records were set circa 1979. That was around the start of the positive phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, leading to increased Arctic warming. Add in the effects of soot (black carbon) depositing on the sea ice. Low amounts of Arctic sea ice were the natural result of that. With those reductions, we end up with lots of thin new ice that are vulnerable to getting broken up by the winds and currents and easily flushed out of the Arctic basin, as we have seen.
The decline of Arctic sea ice is from mainly natural but also un-natural causes, like how percentages of grey hair increase from nautral aging with un-natural excess stress.
Now we are in the negative phase of the PDO. Other natural cycles are also turning around, that should lead to Arctic cooling. Once the soot problem gets taken care of, Arctic sea ice should make a nice recovery. All it takes is one or more good years where that thin new ice doesn’t get torn up by winds and storms and survives to become thicker multi-year ice.
I clipped that part as you apparently have one too many negatives as it says the opposite of what you’ve been claiming.