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
Richard Carlson says:
September 10, 2012 at 7:09 am (responding to)
Smokey says:
September 8, 2012 at 5:28 pm
Richard Carlson says:
“Now under 4 million square km and still plummeting. It’s a train wreck.”
————————————————————————————————————-
Hmmm, I’m one of those hated mouth breathing, knuckle dragging, flat earther “deniers.” Doesn’t matter, because what’s happening to the Arctic still isn’t good.
Now, just “why” is a (potential) loss of Arctic Ice “bad”?
At the latitude where today’s ice is actually present (between 80 north latitude and the pole during the month of September at minimum ice extent), removing ice coverage increases heat loss from the Arctic surface, and cools the atmosphere.
Catastrophic positive ice-albedo-feedback is a myth – per square meter, there is more energy lost by evaporation from ice-free waters than can be gained by either direct sunlight absorption into the ocean, or indirect sunlight after being scattered by clouds.
Sure, IF ice were covering the tropical waters off of Africa or South America or Australia, THEN loss of ice WOULD increase net albedo and WOULD increase energy absorption. But there isn’t any ice in those regions. There is no sea ice left to melt on tundra and tree-covered regions on land where localized warming has occurred.
But between 80 north latitude and the north pole? Doesn’t happen. Can’t happen when you do the calculation. And, to prove this, look at the last 64 years of daily temperatures by the DMI. Summertime daily temperatures at 80 north are DECREASING. The only Arctic temperatures increasing are in the interior regions already ice-free. Regions already tree and tundra covered during their months of summertime sunlight. Regions which ARE increasing their albedo due to the 15% to 27% GREATER growth of all the earth’s vegetation due to greater CO2 levels in today’s world. Sure, we have yearly average Arctic temperatures from regions 1200 to 1600 km SOUTH of the Arctic ice that are increasing. But those temperatures have nothing to do with air temperatures up where the ice actually is.
Chris Alemany says:
September 9, 2012 at 6:52 pm
http://drtimball.com/2012/soil-moisture-illustrates-why-ipcc-computer-models-fail/
http://drtimball.com/2012/errors-and-omissions-in-major-tropical-climate-mechanism-invalidate-ipcc-computer-models/
You have confirmed my suspicion that your career depends on the models being correct. They are not. You cannot be unbiased and are not a reliable contributor to the discussion. I do not expect that you will read any links I have posted as it is clear that you have your fingers in your ears.
Dr. Tim Ball?
“You have confirmed my suspicion that your career depends on the models being correct”
Oh do explain how my career as a Computer Technician at a University depends on IPCC models being correct.
While you are at it why don’t you share your career as well?
As for your links to what I presume is your website, have your assertions on soil moisture been peer reviewed and published? There doesnt seem to be a single reference to a single research paper on any of those pages… Or is that level of scrutiny only for the BEST.
Chris Alemany:
Your evasions, obfuscations, smears and lies are fooling nobody (except perhaps yourself).
Your post addressed to me at September 10, 2012 at 6:05 am provides examples of them all.
Firstly, that post says to me
That quote proves you are a liar and that you are smearing me because
1. At no time have I mentioned “spending money”,
2. I have not suggested, implied or agreed that “spending money kills children”.
and
3. I have not discussed constraining fossil fuel use and replacing it with something else. On the contrary, at September 9, 2012 at 11:42 am I said
Importantly, it was you – not me – who raised the issue of the future for children in your post at September 8, 2012 at 4:31 pm where you wrote
My post at September 9, 2012 at 11:42 am replied by explaining that constraining the use of fossil fuels at their present levels would certainly kill billions of people, mostly children, in the coming decades.
Your response has been to ignore what I explained despite repeated reminders from Smokey and from me. Instead, you have persistently raised this red-herring about “spending money” that I have refused to catch. And you have continued to call for reduction of fossil fuel usage. Indeed, your post I am answering continues that call and says you want fossil fuels usage replaced by “something else”.
There is no “something else” and you have not suggested any “something else” because you know there is no “something else”. Wind, wave, solar and muscle powers were abandoned when the greater energy intensity of fossil fuels became available by use of the steam engine. What else do you think could provide the energy obtained from fossil fuels; unicorn farts?
Your call for a constraint on fossil fuel usage and constraining the use of fossil fuels at present level would kill billions of children. Reducing the use of fossil fuels would kill more. Your response to my explaining that has been your continued call for constraint of fossil fuel use, so I have repeatedly asked you
Why do you want to kill the children?
You persist in not answering but you lie, obfuscate and smear instead.
You obfuscate by claiming the oceans are neutralising to a degree that shellfish are being destroyed. That side-track is daft because your claim is a physical impossibility: in the unlikely event that you want to know why it is physically impossible then look up oceanic buffering.
And, in these circumstances, you have the gall to smear me by saying I am a “hypocrite”! And you try to flame by suggesting I “lack guts”. Well, I don’t need much “guts” to stand up to lies, smears and obfuscations from a little oik like you.
Stop blathering and answer the question,
Why do you want to kill the children?
Richard
Chris, I found the abstract list for the Oregon/Washington shellfish symposium of 2008 after the 2007 crash. The crash was not caused by acidification of our coastline. Our ph varies within the normal range. Do you check your sources or do you leave that up to others?
http://www.pcsga.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/2008-Abstracts.pdf
barry:
At September 10, 2012 at 6:15 am you quote in isolation my statement saying
and comment saying
No! It is an indisputable reality as I explained in my post at September 9, 2012 at 11:42 am.
But, you and I both know that you know it is a reality whatever you care to imply.
Richard
“Catastrophic positive ice-albedo-feedback is a myth – per square meter, there is more energy lost by evaporation from ice-free waters than can be gained by either direct sunlight absorption into the ocean, or indirect sunlight after being scattered by clouds”
Care to provide a source for this rejection of basic thermo-dynamics?
“More open water has led to enhanced solar heat input and warming of the upper ocean and greater ice melt. While there may not be a tipping point for Arctic sea ice cover, positive feedbacks do contribute to rapid changes. The declining Arctic sea ice cover is affecting human activities.”
Donald K. Perovich | US Army Corps of Engineers Engineer Research and Development Center, Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, and Thayer School of Engineering, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH, USA
Careful though… Dr. Perovich may be an ecologist employed by the US Army! DANGER!
Yes.
He’s employed by, and being exploited specifically because of this type of catastrophic extrapolation. His statement – at the areas north of 80 north latitude specifically where today’s minimum ice areas exist – is wrong.
His employer, his funding, his publicity IS driven by the results (the new taxes, the greater power, the new control enabled by such CAGW extremism).
His claims are not supported by the physics.
His claims are not supported by the physics.
So because he’s employed by the Government he cannot be trusted? Do you think that of all other members of the US Army?
Boy… sure is easy for you to say that. Why don’t you show the published articles that he’s missing.
While you are at it… why don’t you refute every one of his referenced articles in his work.
Does every come back in this place amount to “he is payed off by the boogey man therefore he’s wrong and doesn’t know basic thermodynamics”?
[Snip]
Oh… so because he works for the US Army he can’t be trusted either? Does that apply to everyone in the US Army or just him.
Does every defense you guys come up with revolve around the boogey man paying the other boogey man to tell you lies and kill the children?
Sorry folks, you’re wrong. The issue is ice cover vs. open ocean. One reflects the majority of the suns heat and light. The other absorbs it.
If you are still not convinced of that perhaps some more Science will convince you. Of course… these are likely all payed off US Army employees or ecologists or shellfish researchers.
[Snip]
Consider this: Warmed pools of water from ENSO pattern oscillations, riding on the surface conveyor belt, spills (part of it) into the Arctic where it warms the undersurface of the ice, melting it away. But that also allows this abundant warmed water to cool, eventually letting it sink where it flows back out into the currents, this time riding on the deep water outgoing currents. What we are seeing might be a necessary part of the recharging method that keeps the overturning conveyor belt moving.
As to Chris’ idea that open Arctic water leads to warmer water, he may not understand that at this point in time, the Sun is at such an angle, solar warming is minimal and evaporation is in high gear. When ice cover is low as it is now, could be the method that expels oscillation-driven periods of oceanic warming back into space.
This also means that cooler water from ENSO pattern cooling oscillations will also head to the Arctic where it will not melt the ice very well.
Oscillations folks.
barry says:
“I have data for my postulation. If you can provide some hard data (not graphs) for your cycle postulation, then I can have at least some facts with which to formulate/test a conjecture.”
No, barry. Graphs are based upon data, and most folks can see at a glance what the graphs are saying. For example, there was a step change in Arctic ice in the late 1970’s, That happened when the narrative was “Global Cooling”, so it was generally ignored.
There is a natural explanation for declining Arctic ice: the Atlantic Oscillation [Michael Mann takes credit for discovering the AO, but as usual he is lying].
The AO fully explains why the Arctic is losing ice, but the Antarctic is gaining ice. The current alarmist narrative has not one iota of scientific evidence supporting it, and as Richard Courtney accurately points out, if alarmist policies continue many will die including plenty of children. Alemany is a blinkered fool who refuses to respond to that sad reality, because he is part of the problem; an enabler of disastrous policies that impact the world’s poorest.
12 days to go until Arctic ice is essentially gone. Wagers, anyone?☺
Chris, I found that oyster stuff you quoted here. It was published in the Globe and Mail. Is this the sort of “peer reviewed research” you approve of?
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/an-acidic-ocean-threatens-shellfish-farms/article559811/
Doesn’t sound much like absorption of atmospheric CO₂ by surface waters, if the CO₂ is trapped under pressure like in a can of soda pop. Actually, the describing of it as “trapped” doesn’t sound very scientific at all, since that implies when the water approaches the surface and the pressure is relieved then the CO₂ is released. If it is dissolved in the water and causing “ocean acidification”, why would it be released at all?
Gee, no wonder you didn’t provide the link.
From you on September 9, 2012 at 8:46 pm: (bold added)
*groan*
I take it you don’t know much about the Great Ocean Conveyor Belt, thermohaline circulation, and how long it really takes for the ocean water to circulate. Here’s a free access paper from the American Meteorological Association:
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JPO2699.1
Primeau, François, 2005: Characterizing Transport between the Surface Mixed Layer and the Ocean Interior with a Forward and Adjoint Global Ocean Transport Model. J. Phys. Oceanogr., 35, 545–564.
Long piece, you can skip to Figure 8, get the high-resolution image.
From the deep water depths of 3785 and 1655m, the water upwelling against the North American Pacific Northwest is about 1400 years old, could be more. That water last saw the top of the ocean around 600 AD. From only 792m, that water has been in transit for around 400 to 500 years.
Thus the age of the water is definitely Pre-Industrial, from long before the geologically recent rise in atmospheric CO₂ concentrations.
Care to share from where you pulled out that “50 years ago” number?
“Graphs are based upon data, and most folks can see at a glance what the graphs are saying.”
Why don’t you provide that data then so we can all see it.
“The AO fully explains why the Arctic is losing ice, but the Antarctic is gaining ice. ”
Really? Care to provide an actual published bit of research on that or should we just take your word for it.
[Snip]
[Snip]
[Snip]
[Snip]
[Snip]
[Snip]
[Snip]
[Snip]
[Snip]
[Reply: Threadbombing violates site Policy. More such threadbombing will get your comments deleted. ~dbs, mod.]
KD:
On the ‘published peer review’: I never said the quote was from a peer reviewed journal. The study in BC is still in the throws of publishing by the researchers at SFU and UBC. Which is why I linked to the announcement of the already published work in Oregon showing the same thing at oyster farms there.
UBC/SFU researchers have already published research on shellfish responses to acificidication though in August 2011. They find that if you enjoy eating muscles you might have problems finding ones grown in the sea in a few decades. But sea urchins (which are delicious by the way) should be OK.
PLOS One:
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0022881
that is also where the 50 years came from.
http://oregonstate.edu/ua/ncs/archives/2012/apr/hatchery-managers-osu-scientists-link-ocean-acidification-larval-oyster-failure
“A previous study co-authored by Hales found the water that is being upwelled in the Pacific Ocean off the Oregon coast has been kept at depth away from the surface for about 50 years – meaning it was last exposed to the atmosphere a half-century ago, when carbon dioxide levels were much lower. “Since atmospheric CO2 levels have risen significantly in the past half-century, it means that the water that will be upwelled in the future will become increasingly be more corrosive,” Hales said.”
I know I know… can’t trust anyone in Oregon. They’re all payed for by Greenpeace and granola companies.
[Reply: Who is Robert Wager? ~dbs, mod.]
Alemany’s appeals to authorities and threadbombing grandstanding are unconvincing, because he admitted that he does not think for himself. Therefore, he is cherry-picking only those [generally corrupt] authorities that say what he wants to hear. All he is doing is demonstrating what I have been saying: that $Billions in federal grants handed out every year to ‘study climate change’ generates reams of papers. And no one gets the free money if they tell the truth: that nothing exceptional is happening. The planet has seen it all before. [And note that papers are not ‘scientific evidence’, they are opinion. Evidence is raw data and verifiable observations].
Alemany says: “Why don’t you provide that data then so we can all see it.”
Someone who does not think for himself does not need raw data, which is reflected in the charts themselves. And:
“Care to provide an actual published bit of research on that or should we just take your word for it.”
I have provided plenty of published research, but Alemany confesses that he lets others do his thinking for him, so it is casting pearls before swine.
One serious problem is the WUWT time stamps, which indicate that Alemany is deliberately wasting his employer’s time and money by posting during working hours. Typical excuses given by others have been: ‘I post on my breaks’, and, ‘My employer says it’s OK’. As if.
I suspect Alemany’s misappropriation of funds will become known by his employer, and it will create bad publicity, as it has for others [Jan Perlwitz comes to mind]. We can help out, because those time stamps never go away.
Moderator:
I write to respectfully request that a new moderation policy be considered.
If poster has a point then s/he needs to state it and can cite references and/or links to support the point. However, the practice of ‘snowing’ the thread with ‘cut & paste’ references – many with no relevance – forces ‘onlookers’ to scroll past these meaningless lists. The scrolling may deter them from continuing with the thread and makes it likely they will miss real posts that appear within the lists.
Clearly, the only possible reason for the lists is to disrupt the thread.
Please consider a policy for snipping such disruptive posts.
Richard
REPLY: Noted, but also note that we are down one regular moderator since REP died, and I have a business to run during the day. – Anthony