From Wiley
Study explores atmospheric impact of declining Arctic sea ice
There is growing recognition that reductions in Arctic sea ice levels will influence patterns of atmospheric circulation both within and beyond the Arctic. New research in the International Journal of Climatology explores the impact of 2007 ice conditions, the second lowest Arctic sea ice extent in the satellite era, on atmospheric circulation and surface temperatures.
Two 30-year simulations, one using the sea ice levels of 2007 and another using sea ice levels at the end of the 20th century, were used to access the impact of ice free seas. The results showed a significant response to the anomalous open water of 2007.
The results confirm that the atmospheric response to declining sea ice could have implications far beyond the Arctic such as a decrease in the pole to equator temperature gradient, given the increased temperatures associated with the increase in open water, leading to a weaker jet stream and less storminess in the mid-latitudes.
“In the context of decreasing Arctic sea ice extent, our experiments investigating the impacts of anomalous open water on the atmosphere showed increased heat transfer from the ocean to the atmosphere and warmer temperatures in areas of reduced sea ice. Comparing the model simulated circulation to the observed circulation for the summer of 2007 (the year of focus for the model experiments), we found the simulated circulation to be quite different than what was observed for spring and summer while more similar for autumn and fall,” said Elizabeth Cassano from the University of Colorado.
“This suggests the sea ice conditions in the months preceding and during the summer of 2007 were not responsible for contributing to a circulation pattern which favored the large observed sea ice loss in that year. The circulation during autumn and winter which was more similar between the model simulations and the observed circulation suggests that the reduced sea ice in 2007 was in part responsible for the observed atmospheric circulation during autumn and winter of that year.”
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Arno Arrak says:
May 29, 2013 at 10:00 am
————————————–
Could solar radiation variation account for the stronger Gulf Stream early in the last century?
Dr. Lutz has cited the Gulf of Mexico bulge, which might have enlarged under more TSI or higher energy irradiance late in the 19th century, after the LIA.
still others have a more focused opinion from qualitative observation in situ…
Kajajuk says:
May 29, 2013 at 10:16 am
==========================
Less academic and a bit older is a news release from BBC in 2012…
Arctic Ocean freshwater bulge detected;
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16657122
And a youtube version with out all the letters and stuff…
One more item from nasa that visualizes the freshwater sources for the Arctic Ocean (as well as oceans around the globe) which makes it easier to appreciate the size of the “bulge” and how it must effect the weather in the Arctic…as well as all the other factors…which was my original intent to augment the discussion; but my research binging on this topic is showing.
http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a003800/a003886/comiso_flat_glacierBoxes_V18.2013_03_21_flat.tif
Models are not evidence, period. They are constructs that can be made to produce any result their maker desires. And for this reason they can generally be assumed to be deceptive, and you can be absolutely sure of that if anyone claims that his model represents fact.
As it appears the planet is cooling we can observe what are the differences in extreme weather with a greater differential in temperature between both poles and the equator.
I have been waiting for observational evidence of cessation of the mechanism that was inhibiting GCR modulation of planetary cloud cover.
I would assume as there now appears to be the start of cooling at both poles, that the mechanism where changes in GCR modulates the amount of low and high level planetary cloud cover has been reactivated.
Based on the peer reviewed papers that analyzed low level planetary cloud cover for the period 1981 to 1994 Vs the level of galactic cosmic rays GCR (GCR create ions in the atmosphere which affects both the amount of planetary cloud cover and the albedo of clouds) – prior to the two mechanisms that inhibited the GCR modulation of cloud cover mechanism – an increase in GCR results in an increase in low level planetary cloud cover 40 to 60 degree latitude both hemispheres. There is currently observed ocean cooling 40 to 60 degree latitude both hemispheres. The mechanism that most recently inhibited cooling did so by increasing the amount of high level cirrus clouds. An increase in cirrus clouds warms the planet by the greenhouse effect.
Arctic temperatures are now cooling, returning to ‘normal’. Arctic sea ice will now ‘recover’, from the perspective of warmists who appear to not understand the consequences of a massive increase in sea ice: crop failures, droughts, increase in severe winter/spring storms and so on that is the result of a colder planet.
The following is a comparison seasonal temperature variation the Arctic above 80 degrees latitude.
2013
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
Compare to 2012 (Click to access 2012 data at same site.)
Compare to 1986 (Click to access 1986 data at same site.)
Arctic Temperature Trend – 1979 to Present
There was been warming of 0.33C/decade or roughly 0.7C for the time period. This warming trend will now be reversed.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/sea-ice-page/
(Scroll down to graph Arctic temperature Vs time, the direct link to the graph is too slow.)
It is assumed as Antarctic sea ice in 2013 is greater than the 1979 to 2008 mean for all months that there is cooling in the Southern hemisphere. The hypothesis where melting Antarctic sea ice or ice sheet ice results increased fresh water which in turn results increased Antarctic sea ice fails as there is increased sea ice for all months and the Antarctic ice sheet temperature has not warmed.)
Antarctic Sea Ice, 2013 compared to 2012 and compared to 1979 to 2008 mean
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_timeseries.png
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.recent.antarctic.png
Carl says:
May 29, 2013 at 5:28 am
————————————
I think you are missing the point of the “If…” camp, or i have; that being…
A calm voice trying to stop the yelling between the extremes scenarios of what WILL happen so that we (human civilization) can step back from the bickering and address what IS happening AND hedging our bets to survive as global sentient beings into the future…come what may.
Reflective moderation as opposed to Reactive exaggeration; the former being much more effective when not only is the data not all “in” but is being generated as ‘we’ chew the fat, so to speak…
Chad Wozniak says:
May 29, 2013 at 10:45 am
————————————-
Models are necessary to understand profoundly complicated systems like the motion of an infinity small negative charged moving around a positively charge piece of matter some 1800 times larger that is too tiny to observe directly…
And yes, many people ‘saw’ what they wanted to ‘see’ or believe; but it was the evidence and the mathematics that prevailed all the belief systems…er…well not all hahaha
….some creatures to not evolve for millions of years (again pun intended)
I wonder if anyone has bothered to go back to the beginings of the “climate alarmism” and looked at what % of their models have been incorrect? 75? 85? 95? 100?
ferd berple says:
May 29, 2013 at 7:42 am
The polar see-saw, whereby arctic warming is offset by antarctic cooling is a well known natural cycle. It is exactly what we see happening today.
————————–
Really?
“However, since insolation in the Northern Hemisphere is out of phase with that of the Southern Hemisphere, Croll believed that the ice ages would alternate from the Northern to Southern Hemispheres. Although the alternating ice age theory was proved to be wrong, his ideas laid the foundation for ice age causality. He was the first to recognize the importance of ocean currents, solar radiation, and the eccentricity of the Earth’s orbit in building an explanatory model”
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_iceage.htm
I thought it was a mystery why both poles form glaciers at the same time, was unaware of the “see-saw” effect.
An interesting observation here
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
if you go back and check all the years to say 2004 you will see that CURRENT 2013 has the lowest current arctic surface temps above 80 degrees latitude and greatest extent ice so far… Now it appears that 2007 had also the lowest CURRENT temperatures but reached lowest ice extent in September (except for 2012). what does it mean? Arctic air temperatures has nothing to do with ice melt. and they shouldn’t because there very much below 0 most of the time except maybe during mid summer slightly above 0. So -30C is the same as -20C during most of the year as far as ice melt goes? As Prof Physics Happer said in his talk its 100% due to sea temperature and wind. The AGW proposition that polar ice is melting, will or may melt because temps are higher is mute. BTW he also said that Hadcrut 4 (not sure: but could be 3 but its one of them and he doesnt use that one, see his talk), is nonsense because it is selectively adjusted for higher Arctic temperatures
Dr. Lurtz says:
May 29, 2013 at 9:19 am
———————————–
Very interesting, too bad i did a face plant into the pay-wall.
My impression also is that arctic 5 year old ice is now increasing (from CT graphs, deep purple color) but needs to be confirmed. Also would be interesting to trend 5 year old ice in Antarctica. Anyone know?
The multi year ice in Antarctica is on the land and flows down towards the ocean(s). I guess the 5 year ice is near the high elevations, mostly on the Eastern Antarctica ice sheet. The only part that may have multi year ice might be around the Weddell Sea, on the eastern side of the Antarctic Peninsula.
The Arctic is land locked, more or less, and so multi year ice is more likely to form. According to http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/29/modeling-sea-ice-loss/#comment-1320683 the multi year ice will start to rebound after the observed loss in the recent decades. But Antarctica, covered in glaciers (ice is multi year in the extreme), is surrounded by the cycling Southern Ocean which tends to melt the sea ice during the summer or cycling ice into warmer waters.
This is what i know/deduce about multi year ice in Antarctica.
kjjk
This morning I went to WUWT’s solar page to see the latest on solar news. When I came to the graph showing the neutron stream, which never registered any thoughts before within me, I saw a potential connection with some recent comments from http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/10/why-reanalysis-data-isnt-2/#comment-1303136. In that post i had made this comment regarding volcanic events overlaid on a graph with sst data and the different levels of the sea. I made this comment…”If you look approximately 6 years out past each eruption, the graph shows a large upward heat spike on the surface:ICOADS SST line. That spike following all three eruptions gains approximately 2.5C from the point where the ICOADS line crosses the eruption event to the peak of the ICOADS line 6 years out. Is this just a coincidence? Also, there are 16 peaks in that time span or slightly over 3.5 years between spikes on the surface:ICOADS. It seems so regular, but what would cause that? The surface:ERSST closely follows the same pattern”.
Then Greg Goodman commented that he had noted this several years earlier and that he had labeled this possible effect as ‘volcanic rebound’. So in looking at the neutron stream data which starts around the late 60s, I could not help but notice that there is possible correlation with the above comment. The neutron record is not very long so there are only 2 good connections with El Chichon in late 1982 and Pinatubo in mid 1991. If you look at the neutron graph, the low of the neutron flow matches exactly with these two volcanic events. Then some 6 years later there is the peak of the neutron flow, or the possible ‘volcanic rebound’. How is it that the neutron flow can fit in so exactly, or was it the neutron flow changes that created the impression of ‘volcanic rebound? There is one other signal from the neutron data. Around mid 2000 the neutron flow hits a weaker low as compared to 1982 and 1991. It then stays at that low for 4 years until the end of 2004, which lines it up with the Sumatra Christmas Quake and Tsunami. This is followed about 6 years later with a new neutron high at the end of 2009 or into 2010. This is certainly not linked to co2. Can neutron flows cause temperature changes? or can they partner/enable other processes that have not been included in CC studies?
Stephen Wilde says:
May 29, 2013 at 3:55 am
Of course open water has an effect on the air above as compared to ice cover.
At least they recognise that such a situation results in faster cooling of the water and faster loss of energy to space.
In contrast, AGW theorists previously said that the open water would lead to more sunlight getting into the water for runaway warming of the polar regions.
Exactly, thanks for putting that Stephen. The ice coverage was at its minimum in September. In September the sunrays hit the ocean at an incidence between 0° and 10° over 80° North. Even if they come over open ocean, water reflectivity is very high at this incidence (look at the values between 80 and 90). However without the protective skin of ice the ocean can lose much more heat through radiation & mostly evaporation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Water_reflectivity.jpg
I wonder if their models do take this into account or do they live in a flat world? I never understood how they would come out with runaway warming through ice free ocean, when the opposite is happening.
William Astley says:
May 29, 2013 at 10:56 am
As it appears the planet is cooling we can observe what are the differences in extreme weather with a greater differential in temperature between both poles and the equator.
I have been waiting for observational evidence of cessation of the mechanism that was inhibiting GCR modulation of planetary cloud cover.
Thanks for the interesting posts!
I remember there was the interesting project measuring Earth albedo: Earthshine. Is the project still gathering data? Would that not be a confirmation of the increased cloud cover? I have seen no further updates after 2008:
http://www.bbso.njit.edu/Research/EarthShine/
it always makes me stop reading when I reach the words ”Warmer temperatures”.Higher,lower,unchanging perhaps, but never warmer or colder.
Lars P. says:
May 29, 2013 at 1:16 pm
I remember there was the interesting project measuring Earth albedo: Earthshine. Is the project still gathering data? Would that not be a confirmation of the increased cloud cover? I have seen no further updates after 2008:
http://www.bbso.njit.edu/Research/EarthShine/
Hello,
I have been looking for an update on Enric Palle’s Earthshine Albedo project and have not found anything new to date. If there is planetary cooling, one of the prime suspects will be planetary cloud cover. The Earthshine data is preferred over planetary cloud cover, as an increase in ion increases the size of water droplets in clouds which increases their albedo. Measuring cloud cover alone could underestimate the forcing change.
In reply to:
erd berple says:
May 29, 2013 at 7:42 am
The polar see-saw, whereby arctic warming is offset by antarctic cooling is a well known natural cycle. It is exactly what we see happening today.
Your comment is correct.
The following is a comment to clarify.
The polar see-saw in the Southern hemisphere is limited to the Antarctic ice sheet and occurs for Dansgaard-Oeschger cycles not Heinrich events. The regions of the planet that warm during a Dansgaard-Oeschger cycle are the same regions that warmed during the 20th century.
The D-O cycles can be seen on this graph: Greenland ice temperature, last 11,000 years determined from ice core analysis, Richard Alley’s paper.
http://www.climate4you.com/images/GISP2%20TemperatureSince10700%20BP%20with%20CO2%20from%20EPICA%20DomeC.gif
http://www.climate4you.com/
During a D-O cycle, the Northern Hemisphere warms with most of the warming occurring at higher latitudes and on the Greenland ice sheet. During the warming phase of a D-O cycle, the Antarctic ice sheet cools and there is some warming of the Southern Hemisphere. The reason for the cooling on the Antarctic ice sheet is the albedo of the Antarctic ice sheet is higher than clouds. So the affect due to a reduction in cloud cover over the Antarctic ice sheet is warming where for other regions of the planet a reduction in planetary cloud cover causes warming.
It should be noted that warming and cooling on the Antarctic ice sheet (polar see-saw is relatively minor). As noted in next comment Southern Hemisphere (excluding the Antarctic ice sheet during the D-O cycle) and Northern Hemisphere cool and warm synchonorously
A Heinrich event is a very, very, strong Dansgaard-Oeschger cycle. Specifically what cause a Heinrich event is not known however recently it has been found that there are geomagnetic excursions that coincide with Heinrich events.
It has been found during the glacial phase both the Southern Hemisphere and the Northern Hemisphere are cold. That is anomalous as the orbital modulation of insolation in the summer period for the two hemisphere is 180 degrees out phase.
An explanation for the observation that both Hemispheres warm and cool synchronously is that it is the reduction in the strength of the geomagnetic field during and after an geomagnetic excursion that causes on increase in GCR that strikes the planet. The increase in GCR that strikes the planet in turn causes an increase in planetary cloud cover that cools the planet. As the geomagnetic field takes 1000s and in some cases tens of thousands of years to recover, that is the explanation as to why the glacial/interglacial cycle occurs, rather than insolation at N65.
Glacial Records Depict Ice Age Climate in Synch Worldwide
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=24476
Glacial Records Depict Ice Age Climate in Synch Worldwide
An answer to the long-standing riddle of whether the Earth’s ice ages occurred simultaneously in both the Southern and Northern hemispheres is emerging from the glacial deposits found in the high desert east of the Andes. … ….“During the last two times in Earth’s history when glaciation occurred in North America, the Andes also had major glacial periods,” says Kaplan. … ….The results address a major debate in the scientific community, according to Singer and Kaplan, because they seem to undermine a widely held idea that global redistribution of heat through the oceans is the primary mechanism that drove major climate shifts of the past.
The implications of the new work, say the authors of the study, support a different hypothesis: that rapid cooling of the Earth’s atmosphere synchronized climate change around the globe during each of the last two glacial epochs.
“….we found the simulated circulation to be quite different than what was observed for spring and summer while more similar for autumn and fall,” said Elizabeth Cassano from the University of Colorado. Spring, Summer, Autumn and Fall…followed by Winter in the next paragraph. Apparently when they made this ‘comparison’ the ‘result’ was 5 seasons. No wonder it is giving me trouble.
When facts don’t go your way, redefine the dictionary. Curious description of open water they have these days. Julienne Stroeve and her maniacal mentor Mark Serreze have explained that 15% sea-ice concentration is the basis for the ice-free threshold, therefore 14.99% sea-ice concentration is, well, same as 0.00% sea-ice concentration. Now when I was a kid I was told that 90% of sea-ice lies below the water, so if you have a sea quantified as 14.99% sea-ice concentration you have quite a large amount of sea-ice that is packed together below the surface. These are hardly navigable waters. Indeed, even the polar bears would laugh at these climate kooks while they struggle to locate actual open water in this up-to 14.99% icy sea, perhaps even finding themselves fatally trapped underneath all this open water. Does anyone know what the sea-ice concentration was in the North Atlantic the night the Titanic met her demise? I suspect it would be counted by satellites as 0.0001% or even less. Pad more zeroes behind the decimal point as needed.
Moreover, when they point to 2007 and describe it as “anomalous open water of 2007”, not only are they counting 14.99% as ice-free, but it is only that one week or so at the end of the melt season before it immediately turns around and begins re-freezing. So the week before the minimum, and the week after the minimum are approximately equal in sea-ice extent, and we can continue the comparison at two weeks, and three weeks, etc. We wind up with actual anomalies only at the opposing peaks of the full season above and below the X-axis, and who really expects each year to mirror any other year unless they actually believe in a static planet devoid of all those other variables? When you collect data it is inevitable that there are going to be highs and lows, what else could they expect? In a warming climate on a planet that is experiencing a Holocene inter-glacial and a post-Little Ice Age and a post 1960’s-1970’s warmup simultaneously, there had better be some recorded “minimums”. If not, we could be in serious trouble.
Welcome to the pop-Science Cult of Scientific Dyslexia, frauds who are historically known as ‘putting the cart before the horse’. Previously demonstrated by AGW cultists that invert the cause-effect of the warming to CO2 increase with an ~800 year lag. So what is more logical, that sea-ice distribution affects atmospheric circulation, or, atmospheric circulation affects sea-ice patterns? Astonishingly there are observed atmospheric circulation patterns on all planets, including Earth, in places that have no sea-ice and never will. Furthermore, such atmospheric circulation patterns are known to push around and even block many things including storm fronts, hurricanes, boats, houses, windmills and even people. This is quite a a discovery they are onto. It seems that with the right combination of construction human beings could alter the atmospheric circulation patterns favorably to thwart all these events and steer, manage and control the wind to our liking. Let’s get these computer models on that job now, ‘kay?
The WUWT Sea Ice Reference Page has a great deal of information on Arctic sea ice Area and sea ice Extent, but nothing at all on Arctic sea ice Volume. It would be good to see this added.
Accurate and comprehensive Arctic and Antarctic sea ice Volume data, extending to 80 degrees north and south, has been available since the successful launch and commissioning of the European Cryosat-2 radar satellite in 2010.
Prior to that, more limited polar coverage was available from multiple radar instruments aboard the European ERS-1 Satellite (1991-2000) and its successor ERS-2 (1995-2011).
Prior to that, radar remote sensing of polar ice had been carried out as far back as 1978, during the brief (110 day) but comprehensive and highly successful Seasat mission.
There are a number of current graphical products displaying changes in Arctic ice volume since 1979 that are produced by the US Polar Ice Centre at the University of Washington (PIOMAS). These are produced from data and observations other than those of the instruments noted above, but have been recently validated against the current high resolution Cryosat-2 data.
The reason that sea ice Volume data (rather than area/extent) is particularly interesting, is that changes in sea ice Volume are directly proportional to the amount of heat energy that is being absorbed or released by the ice-ocean system.
This means that in the case of the floating Arctic ice sheet, the net ice volume loss to ice melt over a period of years or decades is a measure of heat energy that has been taken up from the underlying ocean: energy that would otherwise have contributed to ocean temperature rise.
The amount of tis heat energy taken up from the system is not insignificant either. The specific heat capacity of water is 1/80th of the latent heat of water, so the heat that is taken up in melting one cubic kilometre of ice is the same amount of heat energy that would otherwise raise the temperature of eighty cubic kilometres of water by one degree Celsius. Basic high school physics.
The current PIOMAS Arctic Sea Ice Volume graphs show that the Arctic has lost a seasonal average ice Volume (not area) of about 10,000 cubic kilometres of ice between 1979 and 2012.
This volume of ice melt will have absorbed enough heat energy to have otherwise raised the temperature of 800,000 cubic kilometres of ocean by 1 degree Celsius. That is a significant quantity of heat energy.
Given that the world’s oceans have a total volume of about 1,300,000,000 cubic kilometres, and an average depth of about 3,700m, that is enough heat energy to have otherwise raised the temperature of the entire oceans by just under 1/1,000 degree Celsius, or the temperature of the top 3m by about 1 degree Celsius, or the top 1m by about 3 degrees Celsius, and so on. So if that heat had accumulated in the upper layers of the ocean instead, which it might otherwise have been expected to, would have caused a material increase in sea surface temperature rather than ice melt.
This suggests that the Arctic sea ice may have been acting as a massive heat sink and a massive moderator of global ocean temperature up to this point. If however we reach the point at which Arctic sea ice had melted entirely, and if we still have excess heat coming into and being retained by the system, then in the absence of other heat sinks such as increased evaporation, this heat energy will produce a sharper rise in global ocean temperature instead. Which if the PIOMAS graphics are accurate, may well occur.
The Antarctic will not take up global heat in the same way, for the same reason that it is not melting at present: because it is grounded on solid rock, not floating on a liquid, thermally convective, circulating ocean.
None of this has any bearing on the man-made carbon dioxide hypothesis, or the politics and name calling that surrounds that controversy, and I have no view on or interest in those issues.
As a geologist though, I believe the research findings of Professor Bob Carter and the excellent Julie Brigham-Grette, who’s Lake El’ Gygytgyn research presentation was linked to by an earlier commenter. Both of them are sedimentologists who study the detailed paleoclimatic and geochronological sequences preserved in continuous ocean floor and lake bed sediment borehole records.
As both of them have shown, global climate has never been stable: it has always changed. In geologically very recent times it has been significantly hotter than the present (look closely at Julie’s graphs for the peak of the Holocene Climate Optimum, just 10,000 years ago), and at times global temperatures have risen and fallen very rapidly indeed – sometimes a matter of degrees over timescales of as little as 100 years.
So if the PIOMAS data and graphic is correct, it is showing something important that should be watched by us all. Recent ‘global warming’ has currently levelled out, but Arctic ice volume loss has not. And if the (steady-temperature) melting of Arctic ice continues to the point where its volume is zero and this sea ice heat sink is completely gone, then we may suddenly find ourselves living in one of those times of more rapid global temperature change.
And if the recent global temperature variation is natural, as I rather think it might be, any further rise will be completely beyond our control.
Here is a link to some of the PIOMAS graphics and webpage:
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/wordpress/research/projects/arctic-sea-ice-volume-anomaly/
Minor correction to my comment above:
Para 8, line 2 should read: 1/80th of the latent heat of FUSION of water.
Larry Kirk says:
May 30, 2013 at 1:51 am
The WUWT Sea Ice Reference Page has a great deal of information on Arctic sea ice Area and sea ice Extent, but nothing at all on Arctic sea ice Volume.
and you name PIOMAS.
What one sees there is the result of a model and not data which rings for me all alarm bells, as models have been overused in climate science for alarmist messages without proper cross data validation.
If I correctly remember PIOMAS had a major correction in the recent past.
“The long term trend is reduced to about -2.8 103 km3/decade from -3.6 km3 103/decade in the last version.”
This seems to be into the error range:
“From these validation studies we arrive at conservative estimates of the uncertainty in the trend of ± 1.0 103 km3/decade.”
but very close to the limit. With further more precise data accumulation I expect new corrections to come.
As per your post:
“Accurate and comprehensive Arctic and Antarctic sea ice Volume data, extending to 80 degrees north and south, has been available since the successful launch and commissioning of the European Cryosat-2 radar satellite in 2010. “
That would be indeed interesting to see. However I would not mix it with previous estimations which are a total different quality – as similar case for the energy measurements of the oceans and ARGO buoys versus previous data.
Furthermore the starting point at 1979 is flawed. I would rather have PIOMAS validated against the new radar data for the last 2-3 years. That would give a better understanding.
And if the (steady-temperature) melting of Arctic ice continues to the point where its volume is zero and this sea ice heat sink is completely gone,
As the global sea-ice anomaly is above average and we talk of global,climate I do not see your point being valid. This North Hemisphere sea-ice heat sink is certainly not the “missing heat” and not balancing the lost energy:
“To melt the additional 280 km3 of sea ice, the amount we have have been losing on an annual basis based on PIOMAS calculations, it takes roughly 8.6 x 1019 J or 86% of U.S. energy consumption.”
On the other side, to put things into perspective, the whole energy produced by the whole humanity not only the US, in 1 year, is equal to 1 hour of incoming solar energy.
In addition talking energy balance makes sense only on a global level including Antarctic sea ice volume.
This my two cents.
@JustAnotherPoster May 29, 2013 at 3:36 am:
“…Making it up as we go along after the event. Artic sea ice is currently bang on average.”
Yes, the real point is that if the extent goes back into the “normal range,” then the momentary low means nothing. As an example, say the 2008 figures were preceded by the 2001 levels instead of the 2007 levels. The ice wouldn’t know the difference. It would be in the normal range, and nothing that preceded it makes one bit of difference. It could have been preceded by the LARGEST extent year, and it still wouldn’t make a difference.
Steve Garcia
I think it is worth noting that back in 2007, when this caused such a ruckus, the climate science world was a totally different place.
Being 2 years before Climategate, the warmists had the podium to themselves.
Being only about 9 years after the flattening out of global average temps, no one had yet registered the leveling off of the real world curve and it being “other” divergence” problem.
Back to the present, I have to say that there will always be “local” peaks and valleys, short term extremes in the record. In a field like climate science, when 15 or 20 years is almost not considered climate yet, then with such a short record as ice extent, it is utterly ridiculous and preposterously premature to see a low (or high!) in the first few decades and think it has any significance whatsoever. “Records” in such a short history are made to be broken, and will be, several times over, in just the next 100 years. ALL mentions of the low ON BOTH SIDES should have been accompanied by a disclaimer, “But the record is so short it is simply too early to read anything into this bit of data.”
Steve Garcia