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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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.
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…
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.
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.
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.)
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 ?
John B,
Your statement means bugger all. If warming is ” global ” ti should affect both poles. So can your crap.
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.
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.
“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.”
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.
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.
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 ?
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
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”.
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.
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
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;
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:
As such, it appears that the primary reason for the divergence between maximum and minimum trends may be “natural variabilities”.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.