The headline is a quote by Dr. Judith Curry from a David Rose article in the Sunday Mail: Stunning satellite images show summer ice cap is thicker and covers 1.7million square kilometres MORE than 2 years ago…despite Al Gore’s prediction it would be ICE-FREE by now.
![1409435267461_Image_galleryImage_polar1_JPG[1]](https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/1409435267461_image_galleryimage_polar1_jpg1.jpg?quality=83)
The speech by former US Vice-President Al Gore was apocalyptic. ‘The North Polar ice cap is falling off a cliff,’ he said. ‘It could be completely gone in summer in as little as seven years. Seven years from now.’
Those comments came in 2007 as Mr Gore accepted the Nobel Peace Prize for his campaigning on climate change.
But seven years after his warning, The Mail on Sunday can reveal that, far from vanishing, the Arctic ice cap has expanded for the second year in succession – with a surge, depending on how you measure it, of between 43 and 63 per cent since 2012.
To put it another way, an area the size of Alaska, America’s biggest state, was open water two years ago, but is again now covered by ice.
The most widely used measurements of Arctic ice extent are the daily satellite readings issued by the US National Snow and Ice Data Center, which is co-funded by Nasa. These reveal that – while the long-term trend still shows a decline – last Monday, August 25, the area of the Arctic Ocean with at least 15 per cent ice cover was 5.62 million square kilometres.
This was the highest level recorded on that date since 2006 (see graph, right), and represents an increase of 1.71 million square kilometres over the past two years – an impressive 43 per cent.
Other figures from the Danish Meteorological Institute suggest that the growth has been even more dramatic. Using a different measure, the area with at least 30 per cent ice cover, these reveal a 63 per cent rise – from 2.7 million to 4.4 million square kilometres.
The satellite images published here are taken from a further authoritative source, the University of Illinois’s Cryosphere project.
They show that as well as becoming more extensive, the ice has grown more concentrated, with the purple areas – denoting regions where the ice pack is most dense – increasing markedly.
Crucially, the ice is also thicker, and therefore more resilient to future melting. Professor Andrew Shepherd, of Leeds University, an expert in climate satellite monitoring, said yesterday: ‘It is clear from the measurements we have collected that the Arctic sea ice has experienced a significant recovery in thickness over the past year.
Indeed, and the way things are going, it looks like WUWT (and Wang) will be closer to the final September Average for Sea Ice than any of the other forecast players in the ARCUS Sea Ice prediction Network:
Click to magnify the image
Figure 1: Distribution of individual Pan-Arctic Outlook values (August Report) for September 2014 sea ice extent. Labels on the bar graph are rounded to the tenths for readability. Refer to the Individual Outlooks at the bottom of this report for the full details of individual submissions.
NSIDC shows sea ice within the +/- 2 standard deviations range, far above the year 2012:
![N_stddev_timeseries[1]](https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/n_stddev_timeseries1.png?quality=75)
The WUWT Sea Ice Page has complete details and all sorts of plots and images.
It’s bad news for everyone, really. The climate is turning on us and it appears to be doing on its own (as far as we can tell)… which is a lot worse if anyone cares to consider it.
And, while we could argue that this will at least stop the insane spending of the political train-wreck that is “climate change”, these facts will not deter “climate change” activists in any way. Those guys lost the plot many years ago. My “green” acquaintances, for instance, would by now prefer to believe that the “missing heat” is being stolen by aliens than to concede the brutal error (and brutal ways) of their behavior.
Again, it’s bad news for everyone. Despite a “pause” in temperatures, it’s getting sufficiently colder for sea ice to increase.
Thats the horror of this particular fantasy – the way it snares its delusional victims.
What crime, what evil, couldn’t be justified if the future of the world was in the balance?
But if you ever have to admit that you were wrong, then you have to admit that what you did was just bad, that you are a criminal, that you are a bad person – not a world saver as you previously thought you were.
You are so correct. I asked my warmist green correspondents awhile back at what point they would consider AGW falsified. Summer ice on Lake Superior? Boston or New York harbor frozen in winter? AGW is falsified already, as Samurai pointed out; but none of these folks would give any potential conditions under which they would concede it a failed theory. Facts that highlight their errors are opposition propaganda, to be overcome by whatever means. AGW proponents act like members of a militant religion and many would like to see us (greedy,,sinful, heretical, deniers of thermagheddon) “put to the question”!
wonder if Mukherjee has read Rose’s article!
31 Aug: Times of India: Arup Chaterjee: Kolkata wildlife photographer off to ‘shoot’ polar bears
City-based wildlife photographer Amartya Mukherjee, who has been in the forests of India and many other countries to capture breathtaking moments from animal and bird life, is set to break new ground for himself.
On Wednesday, the 36-year-old chartered accountant will be off to the Arctic to open a new album. And, as on most occasions, to click on a message.
“My main focus will be on polar bears. The reason why I’m making this trip is similar to those that had me climb Kilimanjaro,” he told TOI. “Global warming and the accompanying climate changes have had glaciers retreat in most parts of the world. I saw far less than what Hemingway would have seen when he wrote ‘The Snows of Kilimanjaro’ and, by the time my three-year-old son grows up, there will be very little snow left on Africa’s highest peak. In polar regions, depletion of ice cover means lesser space for polar bears. As the frozen land disintegrates, they will have to swim unimaginable distances through cold oceanic water to go from one place to another and experts feel the polar bears may disappear in as little as 40 years time…”…
“We will be in the Arctic Sea for 11 nights with 10 other passengers on an ‘ice-strengthened’ ship called ‘Stockholm’. I’ve chosen a small ship because the deck, from where most of the photographs will be clicked, is relatively low and will help me get closer to eye-level. We will also land on an island or two in a rubber dingy to get close without being intrusive,” added Mukherjee, who says he is braving a colder climate to get the right light conditions in a place where half the year is in daylight and the other in darkness.
“Most people go on polar expeditions in July-August when temperatures are kinder. But the sun is overhead and harsh and it’s not good for photography…
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/kolkata/Kolkata-wildlife-photographer-off-to-shoot-polar-bears/articleshow/41292207.cms?
“But the sun is overhead…”
Overhead?
Is he aware of the latitude to which he is journeying?
He should be careful when traversing ‘disintegrating lands’. Polar bears can out-run, out-swim and out-climb a man ascending ice floes. Also please respect Canadian recycling rules: use carbon zinc-batteries in the cameras. The others are toxic and makes the bears burp.
this time of year, the MAXIMUM solar elevation of the sun at noon at the edge of the Arctic sea ice will be 10 – 12 degrees above the horizon. He will “see” sunlight between 6:00 AM and 10:00 am, and between 14:00 PM and 16:00 pm, at less than 5 degrees above the horizon; and the rest of the time it will be even lower.
“That bear is really active today, looks all riled up.”
“Accidentally ate a tourist’s camera, now it’s galvanized into action.”
Good one, ‘galvanized’.
========
He goes onto say “In September, the sun is there for almost 20 hours but it’s lower in the sky and the light softer,”
He maybe be misguided on some things but overhead light, as in August, is not what is required. So he has decided to go in September. From photographic POV he seems to have the right idea. Softer light, more akin to a longer ‘golden hour’.
“Also please respect Canadian recycling rules: use carbon zinc-batteries in the cameras. The others are toxic and makes the bears burp ”
now that made me laugh 🙂
Well, the ice-reinforced bow of the SS Stockholm sank the Italian passenger liner Andrea Dori many years ago, so I guess turnabout is fair play.
Only those who forgotten Archimedes principle could believe ice on Greenland and Antarctica to be of importance if and when it melt….. guess they never heard of landrise due to Archimedes principle’s
All objects reduced, pressed or held down in liquid [push] away the [equivalent] size of the object’s mass.
Oh never heard of that? Please take a look at The Baltic Sea in older Ages Land start to rise when ice melts. After all ice melted(if it ever does) the landrisespeed peaks and the melted ice seeks it’s way down to the ocean. That’s correct, but the Oceans depressed water by land pressed down in water is the same amount (but with an other density that makes the water cubic meters less than the frozen form of water ) as before.
Only fools or so called scholars may have forgotten that.
Only those who don’t understand Archimedes Principle could believe that melting ice on Greenland or Antarctica is of no importance.
Melting sea ice makes no difference to sea levels. Melting ice on land masses increases sea levels. Sea levels have risen by ~120 metres since the last ice age. It is true that, due to Post-glacial Rebound, land areas which were covered by ice during the LGM have risen slightly since (e.g. northern Europe, Canada etc) but this in no way compensates for the rise in sea levels and isn’t much help anyway for lower latitude countries.
You prove your incompetense. You don’t understand Archimedes Principle nor have you studied the correct consequences of same Principle on landrise around the Northern Hemisphere from Stone Age to year 1000 AS, year 1400 AD or up to today. That’s shines!’
Mind you. I took my Systemprogrammer exam 1971 had computerprograming up to date even today, When I needed to have the landrise/ice melting for a part of the coastline of the Baltic Sea for my D-essay back in 93 I had to establish the impact in and out of the Öresund and the Danish Belts on the Baltic Sea. thus I had to go over the sealevels especially in the Atlantic / Arctic region.
There are 43 necessary variables to take into account for any kind of reliability for a computer model.
Don’t try stupid things with me. Best for you to read : Julie Megan Ross, .4 Paleoethnobotanical Investigation of Garden Under Sandet,
a Waterlogged Norse Farm Site. Western Settlement. Greenland (Kaiaallit Nunaata), thesis Alberta 1977 quote from the thesis:
Most of the Viking expansion took place during what scientist refer to as the dimatic optimum of the Medieval Warm Period dated ca, A.D. 800 to 1200 (Jones 1986: McGovern 1991); a general term for warm periods that reached chere optimum at different times across the North Atlantic (Groves and Switsur 1991). During this time the niean annual temperature for southem Greenland was 1 to 3°C higher than today.”
Not to mention the fact that you seem to have forgotten or never learnt the water cycle.
Your problem. Not mine
John Finn doesn’t seem to realize the Greenland is like a bowl. Even if the ice in the interior were to melt, the water would remain there.
http://static.ddmcdn.com/gif/greenland-canyon-full-map-670.jpg
But when the melting ice water reach the Ocean, land rises. Landrise is a retarding movement- quickest inititially and then slower and slower. That I can confirm was the effect after the last Ice Age peak up to now. the graf for landrise rised quicker than the water at any period leaked out in the ocean. that’s due to Archimedes Principle as well as that water always tries in any form water exist to reach the lowest point due to gravidity……
One example here in Sweden. Had the “worst scenario” been true – which it isn’t but still had it been true, than the landrise north a line from Halmstad over to Gamleby and over the Baltic Ocean to Riga been larger than any possible sealevel-rise in any of the stupid computer models.
Katherine,
Here is a neat geology study that suggests a reason for mountains rising up around the borders of icecaps, both in Greenland, and around the icecap-that-is-no-more in Scandinavia.
http://folk.uio.no/yuripo/papers/medvedev_geology_2008.pdf
Thanks.
NH ice has never melted or increased out of natural variability since 75 anyway check out SG site http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/08/30/more-evidence-that-time-began-in-1979/
Are you saying that the US National Snow and Ice Data Center and the Danish Meteorological Institute are lying?
Also, please explain how the University of Illinois’s Cryosphere project has faked the satellite images.
Thank you so much for your efforts.
Brute,
See my comment above.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/30/the-arctic-sea-ice-spiral-of-death-seems-to-have-reversed/#comment-1723787
Thank you, Jimbo, but I found no answer to my questions.
They NSIDC are not lying they started in 1979. If they started in 1974 no one would panic. It’s all about the start date.
What panic? I don’t understand.
And what do you make of Eliza’s claim that “NH ice has never melted or increased out of natural variability since 75 anyway”. She proves no evidence whatsoever of any alternative to the null hypothesis.
So you’re comparing this year’s result to two years ago which happened to be the modern record for the least arctic sea ice, and because there’s more ice this year you’re claiming a win? As opposed to comparing it against say some long term average which shows it to be reduced? You really are stupid aren’t you?
That’s why nobody who matters takes you seriously.
Well, no, we do not take you seriously.
Now, please tell us why we should be worried about Arctic sea ice loss: from the levels of the last few years, continued sea ice loss between late August and early April will only [increase] heat loss from the open Arctic waters into the air and thus into space.
On the other hand, the continued record-breaking Antarctic sea ice increases are all at latitudes where the new ice DOES reflect more solar energy into space all the time through the entire year, and thus ALSO serves to cool the planet dangerously.
I thought that increased Arctic sea ice loss was to create some sort of “death spiral” of increasing heat and increased melting the next year. The many past years of sea ice recovery from low points in 2007 and 2012 prove that propaganda wrong.
“So you’re comparing this year’s result to two years ago which happened to be the modern record for the least arctic sea ice”.
NSIDC do the same thing:
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png
“comparing it against say some long term average which shows it to be reduced”
But “some long term average” is arbitrary in two ways: (1) the duration to be classed as “long term” and (2) which start date is supposed to be meaningful.
A recent record is not so arbitrary and it is a more relevant data point to test whether or not there is an ongoing trend.
If the record is broken in a given year, it can serve as some evidence of an ongoing trend and one side of the debate will use its bragging rights when this happens (as we saw in 2007 and 2012). Shorter the period between records is better “quality” of evidence.
Similarly, if the record is not broken in any year, it is useful evidence against an ongoing trend. The “quality” of the evidence will increase for increasing number of years since the record. Naturally, the other side of the debate will reach for the bragging rights when this happens so why complain?
The ultimate test of ideas would be if the Arctic ice cap is totally free of ice as predicted. By that, I mean TOTALLY FREE – no ambiguity. However, I suspect any reasonably large region of open water at 90degN in the next few years would be declared as an outright win by the climacatastrophologers.
Siberian_husky it was never supposed to be like this. Repeatedly we were told about darker Arctic ocean absorbing more heat leading to even less sea ice the following year and so on. This has so far not happened regarding Arctic sea ice.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/icecover/icecover_current_new.png
Two years ago the CBC told their viewers that climate scientists told them that the arctic would be ice free right now, as I type this. Instead Arctic ice is 43% greater, not all gone as we were told it would be.
since 2007 the trend is up. since 1973 the trend is likely flat, or will be soon.
Two years ago the CBC told BOTH their viewers?
Oh wait… I’ve just been informed that many people in Ontario and other neglected areas of the country that for whatever reason are unable to afford cable or satellite often have CBC on in the background while doing other things,
This was apparent about 12 years ago. It is not so much about the ice volume as the changes in wind and currents. That had less to with CO 2 , more to do with sun radiation and orbital factors.
Orbital factors have changed since 2 years ago, or even since 12 years ago??
SR
I am very happy to see that the Arctic ice crap is melting. Which algoreitm will be next?
It probably wouldn’t hurt to remember that we are still emerging from the last Ice Age (and the dip of the Little Ice Age) and the long-term trend is warming. However, as there is no definite knowledge of the cause of the trend it is conceivable that it has peaked and we are about to start cooling again.
About the only thing of which we can be sure is that the science of climatology is so imprecise that an authentic anthropogenic signal cannot be distinguished from the ‘noise’. This observation is unlikely to impress anyone who has ego, professional prestige and/or money invested in alarmism. But then, has it ever REALLY been about the science?
IMHO permanent loss of the Arctic ice would signal an approaching end to the geological ice age, and that would be good for humanity. That does not appear to be happening. Short term loss of Arctic ice happens even during major glaciation periods due to ocean heat transport and storms. Average Arctic ice is a climatic indicator if one could consider a period longer than the AMO/PDO cycles but currently we can’t.
We are in a medium term warm period (since ~1850) which indeed may have just peaked, but the longer term trend is colder. The warm periods since the Holocene climactic optimum have trended weaker and shorter while the cold periods are trending stronger and longer. So we may be well on our way toward the next glaciation, despite the current warm period.
I agree with you about the difficulty of discerning human effect on climate with current knowledge. It is even more difficult with the current reliability of data. As long as data is politically adjusted such small effects will remain invisible. The politics is much louder than the noise.
David Rose:: ” the size of Alaska, America’s biggest state”
Last time I looked Canada was America’s biggest area state, closely follow by Brazil.
Heh, but wrong. The US is the biggest state in America.
===========
Wrong, kim. Canada first, US second, Brazil third. Learn something new every day.
===============
Canadians are Canadians, Brazilians are Brazilian, United States of Americans are Americans, for short.
There is North, South & Central America. But no “America”, except for The United States of America.
When people say America, They mean United States of America.
Canadians, Brazilians et al, do not call themselves Americans.
Got that all you Old Worlders?
When people say Canada, They mean United Provinces of America.
Greg, The US including Alaska and Hawaii is bigger than Canada.
Rose said “America,” NOT, “North America”. There are two continents containing the word America, so you must add the North or South to designate which you are referring to (if both is intended, the plural Americas makes that clear). However, when talking about countries, reference to America is a unique designation; only one country has America in its formal name.
So simply saying America cannot be a reference to a continent, but can identify a single country. Beyond that, America is accepted worldwide as referring only to the USA. Those who take issue with it are displaying a false sense intelligence.
To repeat, “So what?”
Please tell us why a reduction in arctic sea ice levels from recent minimum extents in September is a ‘bad thing” .
Please tell us why you are ignoring the steady increase in Antarctic sea ice extents since 2003.
Please tell us why the recent record-breaking HIGH Antarctic sea ice extents in June was ignored.
In an article that got discussed on Judith’s site last year, I showed decadal trend was slowing.
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/2013/09/16/on-identifying-inter-decadal-variation-in-nh-sea-ice/
I also proposed a speculative model having a rapid turning point in 2011
http://climategrog.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/arctic_abscos_2014-5.png
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=972
Greg, your chart does not appear to have captured the early 1970s arctic ice lows…
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_full_report.pdf
Al Gore — American Bloviator
Forever, forever, its all Al Gore
Now, in the future and always before
Spinning himself with the words he can whirl
The earth is his oyster, he is its pearl
Carbon dioxide is filling the air
And there’s no escaping, its everywhere!
It up in the sky, its under your bed
Its deep in your lungs, comes out of your head!
The polar caps melt from CO2’s heat
The seas will be rising twenty-five feet
The ocean conveyor ceasing to flow
Where water goes stagnant algae will grow
A growth in plant life that carbon promotes
Green seas where sargasso seamlessly floats
If acid rain scared you think about this
Oceans acidic and warmer than piss!
The teddy bears — wait! — the polar bears drown
As carbon goes up survival goes down!
Whatever Al says he fully believes
First before others himself he deceives
Then sure of the truth his dictums are hurled
Like God by The Word creating the world!
The sky it is falling upon your head!
Sharknados increasing with thousands dead!
(That’s in a movie — I make movies too
Seeing’s believing so all of it’s true)
Weather is weirding and its everyplace
Our footprint of carbon on Gaia’s face
No refugee, no sanctum, none can escape
Gaia’s revenge for Capitalist rape!
Science is settled we know all the facts
These super storms need a new super tax!
The UN mandates the models are right!
Peer reviewed models! Mankind is a blight!
So go buy a bike and pedal to work
2000 was mine and Bush is a jerk!
Al’s actions say more than bluster explains
An angel with wings! He boards private planes
Mansions and autos, a party time yacht
Al owns such but preaches others must not!
Note: Al named his yacht the Bio-Solar One and
at the docks it’s referred to by all as the BS One.
Eugene WR Gallun
More Arctic ice is the surest sign it is disappearing just as cooler temperatures are the surest sign of warming. Come on people get with the program!!!!
Eugene,
You’ve outdone yourself this time.
XLNT!
Death spiral turns out to be a spring. Boing !
From the Mail article
“The apparent recovery in Arctic ice looks like good news for polar bears. If there is more ice at the end of the summer, they can hunt seals more easily.”
Just think about those poor seals, they will stand no chance against the blood thirsty Polar bears. We clearly need more warming to save the poor little things ;>)
“Look closely, the Polar Bears world is melting. Climate Change is causing their arctic sea ice hunting grounds to disappear right from under their feet, putting their very survival at risk. At this rate, two thirds of the worlds wild polar bears could be gone by the end of this century. We need your help before its too late for the polar bear. Using the latest science, World Wildlife Fund works to help conserve amazing wildlife like the polar bear and its arctic home, but we can’t do it without you…”
Just now on my TV, and several times throughout my evening of TV watching. Ugh.
I’m reminded of their White Rhino ads years ago (I have a copy of such an ad in my archives), especially reminded by a recent viewing of a Star Trek Next Gen episode where kids are shown a model of a white Rhino, that became extinct in the 22nd century.
“We need your help before its too late….”
Too late as in everyone realises it’s reversing and the fund-raiser is over.
Too late as in 16 years of no warming, the death spiral is dead and the UNFCC attempt to set up a $100 billion PER YEAR unaccountable slush fund is hitting the rocks.
We must act now !!
Due to the weak Gulf Stream ice in the Arctic will increase rapidly. Due to the low over Greenland will also be more snow on the glaciers.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/gif_files/gfs_z100_nh_f240.gif
http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/850hPa/overlay=mean_sea_level_pressure/orthographic=-65.00,73.83,365
It is a fair point to observe that the comparison is with earlier years where the ice extent was lower than ‘usual.’ I am sure all sceptics are aware of this, and the manner in which the data is presented.
But the thrust of the article is valid. The prediction was that there would be less and less ice and that by now (Al Gore was suggesting 5 to 7 years) the Arctic would be ice free. Clearly no matter how the data is presented, it is clear that that prediction was off target.
Again, no matter how the data is presented, it is clear that there has been some recovery these past two years. Will this continue, who knows? No one can predict the future, and I am confident that that applies to the IPCC and the Team.
Thank you Richard for your clarity.
As long as the Arctic is not ice free (1million sq. km or less) over the ensuing years you will see more and more articles like this from the Mail. Here is PROFESSOR PETER WADHAMS.
The surface temperature in the Arctic.
http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/overlay=temp/orthographic=-71.25,85.50,964
Odd to call it a ‘recovery’. It would suggest that there is an optimum or healthy size for the ice cap. I hope that by recovery he does not mean that the polar ice cap will be taking an ice age holiday in the Algarve at any time in the near future….
Change creates uncertainty , uncertainty creates fear.
Changing back to what is was before is nice. Recovery from fear.
Many of the comments, and the article itself, are not very sensible. If you check out the long term charts on this site you’ll see that Arctic ice is in long term decline. It is not going as fast as alarmists predicted. It is not going to make new lows this year, and in fact this year is a recovery from previous lows of the last couple of years. But the inescapable fact is that its in long term decline.
Now, whether it will reverse, whether its simply cyclical, whether its alarming, all that is an open question. But the fact is that it is in long term decline, and this year’s observations do not change that. The article is rather misleading to anyone who doesn’t know the detail, because the implication is that we are seeing a significant reversal of trend, and we are not.
This is unfortunately the same kind of nonsense and spin that Dana and Co indulge in, and its neither sensible nor effective.
Yes and no.
There was a clear prediction that the Arctic would be ice free by 2014. That was made 7 years ago by Al Gore when he received his Nobel Prize. That prediction was wrong.
Now, the other issue of the decline in Arctic Ice is correct.
But it is also irrelevant. I is merely cherry-picking. The Arctic is the only “canary” still keeling over. All the other signs of AGW have stopped signing already.
Wouldn’t it be strange if there were no signs consistent with AGW at all? We’d be well into an ice age by then.
Anticipating the possibility of further decline was not unreasonable in 2007.
1997-2007 did fit quite well of a quadratic model : “acceleratiing melting”. It was reasonable cause for concern.
The problem is that all those who jumped on this with a head full of bias confirmation, now refuse to look at the data and accept that it is no longer a credibile diagnosis of what is happening.
http://climategrog.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/arctic_abscos_2014-5.png
Micheal: “Now, whether it will reverse, whether its simply cyclical, whether its alarming, all that is an open question. ”
Well it may be an open question here, but most of the world has not been told yet. The alarmists are still weeping about dead polar bears but have decided to divert our attention to the Thwaite’s glacier in the Antarctic instead of be honest and report the changes in the Arctic.
The idea of “accelerating” melting , tipping points and death spirals are now dead. You can’t reach a tipping point then slow down a bit half way through the fall.
Apparently the feedbacks and drivers of the Arctic are poorly understood. Ice modellers, like the global modellers, completely failed to see the last two years’ changes and at are a loss to explain it.
Compare yourself how quickly may increase up ice in the Arctic.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/static_maps/min_seaice_extent1979_2013nsidc.png
The trouble is that you, and people like you, consider 30 years to be long term. The reality is that it is nothing in comparison to the time spans of, say, the Milankovitch cycles.
michel. Inescapable in the polar region ice decline is the desirability only.
And that’s not only my opinion. The green dominated Helsinki Council agrees. They have spent tax-payers funds to obliterate any new glaciers on their territory. And with what? The brute force of fossil-fuel powered machinery. http://yle.fi/uutiset/helsinki_still_copes_with_last_winters_snow/5429556.
Perhaps they are also wondering why would anyone purposefully wish our tiny nation back to the chilly temperatures of the pre-industrialized age. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_famine_of_1866%E2%80%9368. Would you care to reveal?
Michel,
Many here are aware of the ‘long-term’ decline (since 1979). The article is about sea ice and volume up on 2012. It also points out that Gore failed. It’s very simple.
OK Michel, here you go. What many here argue is that it’s mostly natural with some contributions from soot. Even Dr. Hansen once argued that in a paper. I have it if you want.
Jimbo,
Your archives and retrieval skills are AWESOME!
I think I speak for many here at WUWT, when I say “Thanks!” for doing what you do so well,
Mac
Jimbo never fails with history and links.
Ditto what MtK says.
Michel, Your assertion of long term decline makes sense only if you cherry pick your definition of “long term.” Arctic ice did not start in 1979 — but that is the start year for alarmists. Of course, we did not have satellites in the 1920s, but there are observations from back then the ice extent was lower 90 years ago than it is now. Even if you go to the era of satellites, indications from the early 1970s is that ice extent was lower then that it is now. And for a honest examination, in the era of Viking exploration 600 to 700 years ago, ice extent was less then that it is now.
Yeah, so what?
You need to define long term better. TonyB posted exhaustive evidence previously that there was significant decline in Arctic ice from about 1920 to about 1940. That is why Larson was able to complete a Northwest Passage transit in just 86 days. Third ever, and first ever in just one season. So the qualitative evidence (whichnis all there is) makes the recent ‘long term decline’ look a lot like the previous ‘long term decline’.
IT IS IN ANY CASE MEASURED AGAINST A MUCH TOO SHORT MEAN
Who decides that 35 years (1979 to present) is “long term” with respect to Arctic ice extents? 35 years is two dog lives, less than half a human lifespan and paleologically or geologically infinitesimal. 35 years being approximately a half cycle of the AMO or PDO, “long term” is nonsense. So don’t try to lay that “long term” BS on us.
“The speech by former US Vice-President Al Gore was apocalyptic. ‘The North Polar ice cap is falling off a cliff,’ he said.”
Al, seriously. The only thing apocalyptic is your PR management. There are no cliffs on the Earth seas/oceans. And even if the Flat-Earth Society would escape Obama’s taunting (which it doesn’t), your metaphors suçk.
What a information of un-ambiguity and preserveness of precious
experience regarding unexpected feelings.
Michel
Unfortunately you are indulging in short termism and not looking at the historic context.
Here is my article from a week ago demonstrating with hundreds of references that there was remarkable arctic ice melt in the period 1920-1950.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/22/historic-variations-in-arctic-sea-ice-part-two/
Unusually the Antarctic was also melting at the same time, unlike today.
In total the global sea ice area during the 1920-1950 period was probably not that dissimilar to today
tonyb
Ps I also wrote about the arctic warming in the 1820 to 1850 period. Did you see that? Freeze and Melt Freeze and melt all through the ages, with the largest melt we can see from observational records being during the Viking period
Tony B
No, this is not my point. And yes I have read your stuff and find it interesting and persuasive. My point is that Rose is playing a typical Nuccitelli trick, take a year, show movement from it, a proclaim triumpantly that its the end of a trend. When actually, the trend is in still place even with the movement in question.
I don’t hold any brief for Gore either. He is repeatedly wrong about almost everything important. A certain restricted interest attaches to showing up his mistakes but its rather restricted. Too easy!
I don’t think there is any cause for alarm. But, I also do not think you can take this year and compare it with the lows of a couple years ago and proclaim that the trend has reversed. It has not. It may. Or it may not. But it has not done it yet and Rose should know better. What is worse is that its so easy to point out what he has done.
He is writing for the Daily Mail however….
You play the same ‘trick’ when you state, “But the inescapable fact is that its in long term decline.” You declare a trend based on a timeframe far too short to capture the nonlinearities of the Arctic ice.
Jtom, one of the unfortunate things about this is that people are always trying to class remarks and stances into ‘us and them’. It is tiresome tribalism. I take each thing on its merits and am not playing any trick.
I am rather thoroughly skeptical about AGW, but I also, inconveniently, think there is evidence of a decline in Polar ice long enough to be called long term. I have approved of many of Rose’s articles, while deploring the paper he publishes them in, but think this one is pretty awful. As bad as Nuccitelli in fact. I do not take the view that Rose is one of ‘us’ and therefore that his occasional truly awful articles have to be defended. If they are bad they are bad, and yes, it does reflect badly on him.
Yes, there is evidence of long term fluctuation. Its not at all clear that the present downward trend is any reason for alarm or out of kilter with that. TonyB has written some very interesting pieces suggesting that fluctuations on this scale have occurred before in modern history. All the same, to proclaim a reversal of trend on the grounds that this year is higher than the readings of two years ago is nonsense, and Rose knows better.
What the field needs more than anything else is for people to recognise truths especially when they are inconvenient for the view of the matter they take.
Michel, I think the evidence is quite persuasive that fluctuations in Arctic Ice have occurred throughout history. Satellite information suggest that Arctic ice was lower in the early 1970s. Submarine records indicate that it was lower in the 1950s. Eye-witness accounts reveal lower levels in the 1920s. Viking exploration and settlements attest to lower levels 600 years ago. Finally, scientific analysis of sediments verify the fluctuations throughout history.