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.
Over the years Warmists and worried alarmists have made multiple predictions of an ice-free Arctic for the following years:
1989, 2000, 2008, 2010, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2035, 2040
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/06/080620-north-pole.html
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/ice-free-arctic-forecasts/
http://select.nytimes.co/gst/abstract.html?res=F40A11FC3959147493C2AB1789D85F4D8685F9
James Abbott says:
The temperature record shows that whilst there was C20th warming, it was modest until the 1980s and then much more rapid warming started:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.gif
shows about 0.3C warming in the century to 1980, then over 0.5C in the next 30 years.
Actually, what that temp record shows is about 0.5C warming in the century to 1940, and a similar amount from 1980 to present.
So the “natural cycles” and “steady natural warming ” theory needs to explain the observed acceleration in change before it is credible.
There is no change in acceleration.
Further, any credible complaint against the credibility of a theory of “natural cycles” or “steady natural warming” would need to rely on a period substantially longer than one century. “Nature” did not begin in 1900, any more than arctic ice began in the 1970s.
Smokey says:
September 5, 2012 at 11:39 am
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.
And you posted no evidence to support your assertions upon which your question is based, not surprising really since they aren’t true. Using your logic we assume that you have no evidence to support your views. Start providing such evidence and maybe your questions will be taken seriously.
James Abbott. You need to read this.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/05/is-the-current-global-warming-a-natural-cycle/
“The past natural warming events reported by Mulvaney et al. are similar in amplitude and duration to the present global warming signal, and yet the past warmings occurred before the industrial revolution and therefore were not caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gases. The present global warming cycle lies within the range of these past natural warming cycles, suggesting that the present global warming cycle may be of natural origin and not caused by human activity–as climate skeptics have been arguing for some time.”
izen says:
September 5, 2012 at 7:25 am
@- Philip Bradley says
“So why is Antarctic sea ice increasing?
The Arctic and Antarctic are opposites. The Arctic an ocean surrounded by land, the Antarctic land surrounded by ocean. The result is that in the Arctic the summer melt is significant but in the Antarctic the sea ice can melt back to the edge of the Antarctic continent, but can decrease no further.
However the land ice on the Antarctic ice-cap IS shrinking as shown by direct observation and GRACE satellite data.
You present no physical mechanism, and this is just a psuedo-argument.
FYI, the mechanism I described above also accounts for Antarctic Peninsula melt and Greenland melt as well.
The melt of the Larson icesheets on the Antarctic Peninsula is interesting because Larsen B and C are surrounded by permanent sea ice that hasn’t melted.
How come the much thicker icesheet melts, when the thinner sea ice doesn’t?
The answer is that the icesheet, having originated on land, contains substantial embedded material (rock particles) which act like the embedded black carbon in Arctic sea ice. accumulating at the surface and decreasing the albedo, as solar insolation melts/sublimates the ice surface.
James Abbott says:
September 5, 2012 at 9:39 am
“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.
On the other hand, the last 30 years is no different from a 30 year period about 70 years ago. See
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1900/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1912/to:1942/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1982.5/to:2012.5/trend
“#Selected data from 1912
#Selected data up to 1942
#Least squares trend line; slope = 0.0154488 per year”
“#Selected data from 1982.5
#Selected data up to 2012.5
#Least squares trend line; slope = 0.0152531 per year”
People are forgetting so quickly, that the satellite which made the sea ice measurements, over at “cryosphere today” had damaged it’s sensor and the satellite was replaced, so the instrument measurements for this year are from a different satellite and instrument. So then the new instrument has a difficulty in seeing ice cover which is fragmented, whereas the old sensor did not.
The result is all this wittering about whether the ice is in terminal decline or not, but it is an exaggerated “anomaly”. Furthermore when the “pendulum swings” more strongly in one direction, experience shows that it shall also swing more strongly in the opposite direction. Accordingly it is predicted that the forthcoming Winter will show a corresponding increase in Arctic sea ice.
Kevin Trenberth wrote that “the null hypothesis should now be reversed, thereby placing the burden of proof on showing that there is no human influence.” Trenberth understands the null hypothesis. Maybe Phil can call him and ask for an explanation, because I’ve explained it often enough.
And Prof Richard Lindzen points out that natural variability fully explains the current state of affairs: “For small changes in climate associated with tenths of a degree, there is no need for any external cause. The earth is never exactly in equilibrium. The motions of the massive oceans where heat is moved between deep layers and the surface provides variability on time scales from years to centuries. Recent work suggests that this variability is enough to account for all climate change since the 19th Century.”
And as Dr Roy Spencer notes, ‘no one has falsified the hypothesis that the observed temperature changes are a consequence of natural variability.’
The null hypothesis is easily testable: simply show that temperatures have accelerated above their long term parameters. The fact that they have not means the null hypothesis remains un-falsified. In fact, temperatures are decelerating.
Werner Brozek,
If Abbott can cherry-pick the past 30 years, then I can cherry-pick the past 15 years. ☺
But here is the real, long term trend line. The green line shows the trend, which is clearly decelerating. And recent temperatures are not accelerating, despite Abbott’s wishing it were so.
The planet has been warming NATURALLY since the LIA, no matter if CO2 levels were low or high. There is no scientific evidence showing that human CO2 emissions have had any measureable effect. With no supporting evidence, the alarmist crowd is left with only one thing: their belief. But belief is not sufficient cause to spend $trillions, or $billions… or even $thousands.
What we need is scientific evidence showing that human CO2 emissions are the cause of melting ice, global warming, or anything else. But so far, there is no evidence. There is only belief.
DarrylB.
I am happy to listen to all four arguments;
(1). That co2 causes warming.
(2). That co2 causes neither warming nor cooling.
(3). That co2 causes cooling.
(4). That co2 causes both warming and cooling.
——————————————————————
(1) Considered by many to be well established, though not all.
(2) Is suggested by the incoherent ups and downs of previous temperatures and co2 levels.
(3) (a). The Pacific hot spot that turns out to be a cold spot. (b). The current rate of warming being less than previous warming events and therefore being held back by increasing levels of co2. (c). The cessation and ringing (like an electrical square wave) seen when exiting a glaciation, temperatures climb rapidly with co2 following, so if co2 caused warming then temperatures would not stop rising, but they do stop and a logical conclusion could be drawn that co2 causes cooling and brings the warming to a halt, we see some variation afterwards (ringing), before we meet the rear slope of the interstitial (temperature square wave).
(4) OK I can’t think how this last one might work, though perhaps different functions at different atmospheric heights.
At this time I consider;
(1) to be minor at best, and most probably unlikely, and in either event of no effective relevance to mankind, food supply or future temperatures.
I remain open minded about the other 3 and look forward to hearing many well argued cases for and against.
J Martin,
How about: warming causes CO2?
On time scales out to 400,000 years this appears to be the case. Changes in CO2 always follow changes in temperature, as shown in this chart. Another chart. And another.
The only scientific evidence shows thart CO2 is a function of temperature, not vice-versa. Warmer temperatures cause CO2 to outgas from the oceans, like CO2 outgases from a warming Coke.
CO2 may also have some minor warming effect, but it is too small to measure, and therefore it can be disregarded for all practical purposes.
Smokey.
Yes I think warming definitely causes co2 levels to increase.
But in item (3) I wonder if the co2 that the warming pulls from the oceans on the way out of glaciation then pulls back the warming.
So we get a warming spike which increases co2, but co2 could have a cooling effect, thus causing the warming event to stabilise and level off and then temperatures are dragged back down by the co2 into a glaciation.
Yes the record of glaciations clearly show that warming causes co2 to increase.
Personally I would prefer to find a planetary cause for glaciations.
Jimbo says:
September 5, 2012 at 11:48 am
Ammonite says:
September 4, 2012 at 3:36 pm
Over the years posters at WUWT have made multiple predictions of recovery……
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Over the years Warmists and worried alarmists have made multiple predictions of an ice-free Arctic for the following years:
1989, 2000, 2008, 2010, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2035, 2040
====================================================================
Jimbo, I think you misunderstood. The predictions have been for “next” year or, sometimes, in the “next” five years or in the “next” decade, etc.
Again I’m reminded of the sign I saw painted on the side of a seafood restaurant, “Free Crabs Tomorrow!”.
@Smokey: The mental model that seems to fit best for me is that of a buffer solution. In the same way that a buffer solution will neutralize both acids and bases, it seems that oceanic CO2 is probably buffering the levels in the atmosphere. Increased CO2 emissions by humans are buffered by the ocean absorbing more CO2. Similarly, if there were a *decrease* in CO2 emissions by humans, they’d be buffered by the ocean emitting more CO2. The set point of atmospheric CO2 levels buffered by the oceans is determined by ocean temperature (i.e., warming causes CO2).
If one doesn’t understand the concept of a buffer solution, I can see how one could get wrapped around the axle, imagining that it’s an elementary mathematics problem of putting soil into a hole, or taking soil out of a hole.
According to Smokey:
Smokey says:
September 5, 2012 at 1:09 pm
The only scientific evidence shows thart CO2 is a function of temperature, not vice-versa. Warmer temperatures cause CO2 to outgas from the oceans, like CO2 outgases from a warming Coke.
And he also says:
Smokey says:
September 5, 2012 at 12:47 pm
In fact, temperatures are decelerating.
And yet the CO2 levels are not decelerating, care to explain that Smokey?
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo.png
Phil.,
You are right, CO2 levels are not decelerating. Of course, that is a lame strawman argument since I never wrote that CO2 levels are decelerating.
So what’s your point? The fact that CO2 keeps rising, but temperature does not follow, pretty much debunks your runaway global warming/Arctic melting nonsense. The evidence falsifies your belief.
• • •
J Martin,
Some folks say that CO2 causes no warming. Others say that CO2 is the result of warming.
In any case, there is nothing to worry about. The entire “carbon” argument is predicated on tyhe assumption that CO2 is easy to tax. And it is. But there is no scientific evidence to support the belief in CO2 as the cause of Arctic ice melt or runaway global warming. It is a complete alarmist scam.
benfrommo says:
September 4, 2012 at 11:16 pm
Ammonite; The arctic is telling us all something very important, if we will just listen.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
This quote just made me laugh. This is science? We “listen to the arctic.”…..
Hi benfrommo. You choose to focus on a turn of phrase but ignore its underlying meaning. I offer it as an opportunity for regular WUWT readers to reflect on recent information and how if fits (or doesn’t) with their world view. Perhaps you would be more confortable if I provided tables of PIOMAS data, their confirmation by Cryosat 2 and plots under varying assumptions showing an imminent rendesvouz with zero?
So has this thread evidenced a reflective tone? As usual, no. Most posters are too busy proving themselves “right” to consider much in the way of implications. For example, how many times have WUWT readers been assured that purported temperature changes under AGW would have little effect in practice? Yet changes in the arctic show it to be far more sensitive to “small” perturbations (whatever their cause) than previously thought. Do you pause at this point or immediately fetch a graph to prove I’m an idiot?
On the whole, this thread reminds me of a recent comment by Steven Mosher on how to recognise fake skeptics (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/27/sea-ice-news-volume-3-number-10-part-1-new-arctic-extent-record/#comment-1066025). “Heads” meet “Sand”.
J Martin said re CO2 warming
“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.
You obviously haven’t been reading WUWT for very long otherwise you wouldn’t still be trotting out religious unsubstantiated statements.”
Well, like others who post here who believe in the scientific method, I am trying to substantiate a case, but its mighty difficult to put an argument to people who deny just about every basic starting point, even including that CO2 is a greenhouse gas – a scientific fact established nearly 200 years ago. I agree I have not been reading WUWT for long but it has not taken long either to figure out its purpose.
I asked Smokey to respond to the CO2 point, which he failed to do. He thinks the CO2 contribution to the natural greenhouse effect is negligable, and so I asked what would happen if CO2 was absent from the atmosphere. No answer.
You J Martin say
“at most about one degree C cooler. This of course presumes that co2 has any heating effect at all.”
But give no reference for either claim.
You also calim
“Global temperatures have been declining for the last 15 years”
No they have not. They have been flatlining for about the last 9 years, but not declining.
And
“God has turned down the dimmer control on the Sun.”
Which is an inane comment – and then you accuse me of having a religious belief in climate change ?
and you add
“chill out, that ice is going to come back with a vengeance as per the Little Ice Age”
Again – no evidence – just a pile more wishful thinking to back a pre-determined position.
JJ said
“Actually, what that temp record shows is about 0.5C warming in the century to 1940, and a similar amount from 1980 to present. There is no change in acceleration.”
So JJ you conveniently miss out the period 1940 to 1980 to calculate a rate of change to suit your case ? Thats some method you are using there. Maybe Governments can miss out the period since 2008 to show there has been no banking crisis ?
Getting back to the evidence
CO2 is an important natural greenhouse gas and much more important than a 1C contribution.
According to
http://phys.org/news/2010-10-carbon-dioxide-earths-temperature.html
CO2 accounts for about 20 percent of the greenhouse effect – that keeps Earth about 21 C (or more depending on source) warmer than it would be with just oxygen and nitrogen.
So here is the killer argument – if the amount of CO2 is increased substantially over natural levels, it will get warmer. How controversial is that ?
How does that melt ice ? Well lets see, a warmer ocean below the ice and a warmer atmosphere above the ice (reference the many anomaly maps on this website) ?
It seems that with the sceptic community it all boils down pretty much to one basic argument and that is that CO2 has much less warming potential than a host of studies have concluded or even that CO2 has no warming potential which turns atmospheric physics back to the early C19th.
James Abbott says:
September 5, 2012 at 8:37 am
“Thats strong stuff – you can presumably evidence your allegation ?”
It seems that you have been handed your hat already. You are clearly not a follower of WUWT? QED.
I see a lot of comments here that although the Arctic sea ice area / extent minimums are dropping over time, the maximum area /extent is relatively unchanged. Several posters have noted that this is because more of the thicker / older ice is melting out over the passing years, but this thicker ice is being replaced by thinner ice in the frigid Arctic winters. So, although the ice area / extent returns to more or less the same value in the winter each year, because this ice is thinner, over time, more ice melts out in the summer, which leads to record low areas/extents as we are seeing this year.
Here are a couple of charts that back these claims up:
The first is a graph of the PIOMAS daily Arctic Ice Volume taken from the Arctic Sea Ice Blog:
http://neven1.typepad.com/.a/6a0133f03a1e37970b0177446fbf0e970d-pi
The data for this chart can be downloaded from the Polar Science Center at http://psc.apl.washington.edu/wordpress/research/projects/arctic-sea-ice-volume-anomaly/data/ .
Notice that the highest maximum Arctic ice volume can be seen in the 1979 – 2000 average and is around 30 million cubic kilometers. As you can see from the 2002 – 2012 graphed data, there have been year to year drops in the maxima for most years (with 2008 and 2009 being exceptions due to the extremely large drop in 2007) right up until 2012.
I checked the data, and the largest maximum volume that I could find for any year was in 1979 (the first year of satellite data) at 33 million cubic kilometers. The lowest maximum value is from 2012 and was 21.9 million cubic kilometers, a drop from the highest measured volume (in 1979) of about 11 million cu. km – a decrease of around 33 percent in maximum volume over the last 33 years.
The largest minimum volume that I could find in the data was in 1979 at 16.9 million cubic kilometers. The minimum volume was for day 238 of 2012 at 3.6 million cubic kilometers. This was the last date with data in the set – August 25th, if I have calculated correctly. This is a decrease in the minimum value of about 13.3 million cu. km, or 78 percent over 33 years.
So, although the minimum volume is decreasing faster (78% in 33 years vs. 33% for the maximum volume), the maximum volume is decreasing as well. Interestingly, it just occurs to me that although the percentage losses are very different, the total amount of ice loss at the two time periods (11 million cu. km at the maximum, 13.3 million cu. km at the minimum). It appears that, for the most part, once the ice is gone, it doesn’t come back.
As I and others have said, the facts that although the maximum Arctic sea ice area and extent have not changed much over the last 33 years, and the maximum Arctic sea ice volume has decreased by 33% over that same period lead to the logical conclusion that the ice has thinned at maximum volume/extent/area time (to the degree that these three measurements overlap). The Polar Ice Center demonstrates this with their graph of Daily Average Arctic Sea Ice Thickness:
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ice_volume/Bpiomas_plot_daily_heff.2sst.png
Notice that the average Arctic sea ice thickness has been declining over the last 33 years at all times of the year.
I hope this clarifies what posters mean when they say that even though the average Arctic sea ice area and extent both return to about the same value each year, Arctic sea ice is clearly declining over time due to a decrease in thickness.
Thanks,
Robert
David Ball said
“James Abbott says (in response to being called a liar) “Thats strong stuff – you can presumably evidence your allegation ?”
It seems that you have been handed your hat already. You are clearly not a follower of WUWT? QED.”
I get it now. Unless you are a loyal follower of WUWT, prepared to agree with all that is pronounced on it, you are not welcome and also get branded a liar merely for referencing your case and asking others to do so.
That sounds more like a religious cult than a forum for discussion of science.
This just published does not look like steady natural cyclical change:
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
“Following the new record low recorded on August 26, Arctic sea ice extent continued to drop and is now below 4.00 million square kilometers (1.54 million square miles). Compared to September conditions in the 1980s and 1990s, this represents a 45% reduction in the area of the Arctic covered by sea ice.
In 2012, the rate of ice loss for August was 91,700 square kilometers (35,400 square miles) per day, the fastest observed for the month of August over the period of satellite observations.
Between mid-March and the third week of August, the total amount of multiyear ice within the Arctic Ocean declined by 33%, and the oldest ice, ice older than five years, declined by 51%.”
So – a THIRD of multiyear ice and HALF the oldest ice melting in one summer ?
James Abbott says:
September 5, 2012 at 3:48 pm
The difficulty is that no baseline for what is “normal” has been established. You have far too little data to assume the things you are assuming. If you have cyclical variation of much larger timescales (for example twice the satellite era) you have no foundation for the assumptions being made. There is simply not enough information to confirm your “hypothesis”. To state with certainty based on so little data is a deception.
James Abbott says:
September 5, 2012 at 3:29 pm
I will ignore your puny comment about WUWT? and it’s “religious” nature. Confirms my statement even more.
James Abbott says:
“I asked Smokey to respond to the CO2 point, which he failed to do. He thinks the CO2 contribution to the natural greenhouse effect is negligable (sic), and so I asked what would happen if CO2 was absent from the atmosphere. No answer.”
Well, excuse me if I don’t drop what I’m doing every time you ask a question. And yes, CO2 is a “greenhouse gas”, as I have stated many times.
So what?
And to answer your question, if there were no CO2 there would be no life on Earth. I’ve also stated many times that CO2 is harmless, and beneficial to the biosphere. More CO2 is better. The biosphere is starved of CO2. Worrying about an addition to that essential and beneficial trace gas is crazy. You’ve been listening to Algore too much.
And what, exactly, is the problem if Arctic ice melts? It has happened before, repeatedly and routinely. It has happened during the past century, and throughout the Holocene. No catastrophe resulted. So why all the wild-eyed arm waving? Running around in circles and screaming about the natural Arctic ice cycle makes you sound exactly like Chicken Little [that’s Chicken Licken to you]. But the sky isn’t falling, an acorn just hit you on the head, so now you believe the sky is falling.
It amazes me how crazy and worked up some folks get over what is clearly a natural cycle that has been repeated regularly. If you understood the concept of the null hypothesis, you would understand. But you believe that the current ordinary fluctuations are somehow unprecedented. They are not. They are completely normal.
Earth to Abbott: It’s all happened before, in exactly the same way, and during times when CO2 was much lower. Therefore, CO2 is not the cause. There is nothing unusual happening. You are just scaring yourself over a misguided belief that has no scientific evidence to support it. None. It is nature at work, that’s all.
The ignoring (or ignorance) of known historic and geologic information is another thing that reveal the systemic bias in government and academia. Selective information is the same as a lie, IMHO. The motive and opportunity are there. No need for a conspiracy theory. Back to you James,…….