WUWT reader Warren Smith writes in with this quiz:
TEST YOURSELF: What is your knowledge of how fast the polar ice caps are melting?
1) According to data from the National Snow and Ice Data Center, as of the end of December 2014, the extent of Arctic sea ice coverage, when compared to the year-end averages from 1981 through 2010, was:
A) About 90% below normal
B) About 75% below normal
C) About 50% below normal
D) About 25% below normal
E) Less than 5% below normal
F) About 33% above normal
2) According to data from the National Snow and Ice Data Center, as of the end of December 2014, the extent of Antarctic sea ice coverage, when compared to the year-end averages from 1981 through 2010, was:
A) About 90% below normal
B) About 75% below normal
C) About 50% below normal
D) About 25% below normal
E) Less than 5% below normal
F) About 33% above normal
3) Anybody who questions that the polar ice caps are in the process of a catastrophic melt-off most likely:
A) Is a mentally retarded orangutan who is not a real climate scientist, so should sit down and shut up
B) Works for Fox News
C) Is directly or indirectly on the payroll of the Koch Brothers
D) Is a racist, homophobic, creationist, evangelical, birther, gun-toting, inbred, flat-Earth Republican bigot who tortures puppies for fun on weekends, and who is actively waging war not just on the environment, but on women, people of color, and poor people as well.
E) Is committing a thought crime, and should be prosecuted as a danger to society.
F) All of the above
Answers:
1) E: Less than 5% below normal. The average extent of Arctic sea ice coverage for the end of December from 1981 to 2010 is given as 13.06 million square kilometers. This year it was 12.52 million square kilometers, down about 4.1% from the average. This is about the same as the historic low in 2011-2012. SOURCE: http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
2) F: About 33% above normal. The average extent of Antarctic sea ice coverage for the end of December from 1981 to 2010 is shown as about 4.2 million square kilometers. This year it is shown as about 5.7 million square kilometers, up about 33% from the average. This is the greatest Antarctic ice coverage since records were kept. SOURCE: http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/ (the “Antarctic Daily Images” link)
For those “warmists” who are alarmed that global warming is not going as catastrophically as planned, take heart: there is an encouraging statement at the top of the official analysis, stating that although Antarctic sea ice extent was again at a record high, it is “poised for a rapid decline as the austral summer wears on.” There is still hope that the catastrophe we have all been so excited about may yet materialize!
3) This is a trick question. ALL of the answers are equally correct. As is the case with most things having to do with “climate change,” what is important is not the correct (that is, “scientifically supported”) answer, but the socially constructed reality (i.e., “mass hysteria”) that drives the policy to save us from the evils of fossil fuels. The correct answer is whatever helps you to best maintain your belief in the boogie man of global warming.
Ho, ho. ho. Xmas is coming!
Is there a Badger in the house by any chance? If so, in answer to the question “Is Antarctic albedo increasing?” please see:
http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1128.0.html
“After 2050 the Antarctic Sea Ice extent will almost certainly decrease”
Please let Warren and DB have a go at this one first. Do you fancy your chances too Anthony?
Q4. When was the NSIDC Arctic sea ice extent last at the lowest level ever (since satellite records began) for the day of the year?
Answers on a postcard to:
Snow White
Great White Con Ivory Towers
Nr. Santa’s Secret Summer Swimming Pool
Cloud Cuckoo Land
Jim Hunt
Answer: Who cares?
From today’s Arctic sea ice extents, the more sea ice is lost to open ocean between August and April each year, the greater the heat loss to the atmosphere and then into space.
The greater the Antarctic sea ice excess, the more heat energy is lost being reflected back into space.
Catastrophic Arctic sea ice loss feedback is a myth.
I care! No prizes for that.
Anybody else care to hazard a guess?
That is all you do, which leaves you no time to think or learn.
No prizes for that Phil. Not even close.
Can nobody here even look up the right answer?
Whooosh! Goes right over your head again. Which just proves, you have no time for thinking.
Not sure about NSIDC but for the IARC-JAXA Arctic Sea-Ice Monitor I think it was about January 9th 2015 that the most recent all-time low for that day in the satellite era occurred.
David,
Even with the benefit of your helpful hint, it seems nobody else here can work out how to work out the correct answer. You are close, but still no cigar I’m afraid.
Could you possibly be persuaded to make a final push, go the last extra mile, and claim the astonishing prize? A no expenses paid trip to sample the myriad delights that await you up here in the penthouse at GWC Ivory Towers and outside in Santa’s Secret Summer Swimming Pool!
You see, David, this is why proper contextual reporting is so critically important! Rather than leaving it as “Panic — Arctic ice is at an all-time low” (the gist of your posting, causing one to envision a 95% melt-off or something), it is much more HONEST to add the fuller picture of “…. which is about 7% below the average for the previous three decades — and the total extent of polar sea ice is at a historic high.” Presenting the “all-time low” statement along promotes MISunderstanding, and thus despite the fact being true, in my opinion is fundamentally dishonest.
Gave me a good chuckle but I can already hear the warmistas response. Ice increase is due to the Antarctic and not the Arctic. We all know the Antarctic is melting away to nothing with all that fresh water laying on top of the salt water and we all know it’s easier to freeze fresh water…At least that’s what I’ve been told several times.
Well Darren – Those who believe in the CAGW religion do often make that argument, don’t they?
So, let’s start a conversation about it perhaps even in a different thread if it gets interesting, shall we?
1. How deep would freshwater runoff from the continent have to be to affect seawater salinity off the coast? 10 meters of seawater diluted?
1 meter of seawater – right up at the bottom of the sea ice?
100 meters? (Seems a bit too deep.)
50 feet is only 15 meters, is that deep enough to avoid the freshwater getting swept away by the currents around Antarctica? .
How dilute does the “original” sea water around Antarctica have to become before the air temperature above the diluted seawater is able to freeze it out – freeze it out more than of course it has ever been freezing before, that is?
How much freshwater is running off of the Antarctic continent every year?
Is this runoff constant, or does it vary by the seasons of the year?
Is this freshwater runoff evenly spread around the whole continent, or is it localized to one area or one bay or one glacier or one peninsula?
What was the freshwater runoff rate (seasonally or yearly or by area) BEFORE the recent Antarctic sea ice increase, and when were those original measurements made, and how were they made and who made the original measurements?
Having asked that, who made the new measurements and when were they made and how were they made over what intervals of the melt season around Antarctica?
The premise of the entire argument is that the freshwater runoff is diluting the seawater around Antarctica, and thus the global warming “problem” is causing the increasing sea ice around Antarctica. If so, what were the original seawater salinity measurements, where were they made and how were they taken? Who made the new (latest) seawater salinity measurements and where were they made and when were they made?
Any other parts of the question I’ve missed?
100% here. What did I win?
An all expenses paid 1-week vacation in Detroit, Bruce.
(I missed #3. I won an all expenses paid 2-week vacation in Detroit.)
But I just saw a TV report about the Totten Glacier in Antarctica melting from warm seas. We are all doomed.
(Though the scientist being interviewed did say doom would take several hundred years)
Warren: This is a science blog; you need to define what you mean by “normal” sea ice coverage and explain why you chose that definition. You also need to explain why you chose or cherry-picked sea ice coverage on one particular day (December 31, 2014) when the answer to your questions varies from day-to-day throughout the year and between years. Given that Arctic sea ice levels have fallen during the satellite era and the globe has warmed, it is difficult to characterize the 1980-2010 average sea ice coverage as something that is “normal”. The 1980-2010 period is merely useful for defining sea ice anomalies. Both you and the alarmists are over-simplifying a fairly complicated phenomena. Over-simplification aids the enemy in characterizing skeptics are orangutans, Fox News or Koch Brothers employees, bigoted, or heretical.
This is a great question, Frank, and deserves a thoughtful answer. It should be understood however that the point of the blog entry was not to provide a scientific paper that postulates new knowledge, but to provide an educational tool to enhance understanding by putting old facts in context. Specifically, among climate activists, the general population, and (shockingly) even among professional climatologists there is a pervasive belief that the ice caps have essentially vanished. My posting was supposed to be a snap shot indicating that the ice caps are still there (at least for now), and that the common perception is grossly incorrect.
To answer your specific questions: First regarding the selection of the particular day, clearly this was an arbitrary decision. If the extent of polar sea is were a rapidly-varying metric then “cherry picking” the day for which the data is reported could be used in deceptive reporting. In this case, however, the RATIO of sea ice extent to a given reference denominator for that day of the year greatly eliminates all short-term noise factors and cyclicality (as sea ice extent is a factor that acts as an integral (in respect to time) for a host of other factors), making the choice of day less susceptible to any reporting bias. Hence, such “cherry picking” is not really possibility. My actual choice of date was purely for convenience — this was the date of the year-end reporting by the National Snow and Ice Data Center, meaning that data were readily available. More importantly, the data I used were already discussed and in circulation, giving them more credibility. Even more importantly, these were data produced and endorsed by a decidedly alarmist organization (as indicated by their “poised for a rapid decline” comment), so were apt to be accepted by even the alarmist crowd.
Your second question is much more important — how can I characterize the 1980 – 2010 values as “normal”? You are exactly right, of course. How can one define “normal” amidst a sea of short- and long-term cyclical and non-cyclical variable factors, many of which are yet poorly understood? Fortunately the point of the posting was not to define “normal,” but merely to provide a snap shot showing that, despite the media hype, the extent of sea ice is not that much different from what it has been for many year: “Yes, the polar ice is somewhat smaller, but not materially so!” For this purpose, I was happy to again use the denominator already used by the National Snow and Ice Data Center, to use the data from the year-end report from that institution to provide a greater understanding of the numbers that THEY (not I) reported. I agree that their choice is of questionable validity and value — but because the numbers they published based on that choice are in circulation, it seemed wise to put those same numbers into a clearer context.
I have to admit though — when, in an attempt to understand their report, I calculated the reduction in the extent of the arctic ice from their baseline, I was flabbergasted, and had to recheck my thought process/calculation several time (and even again as I write this response!). Even I, a regular reader of WUST and a bit of a “rational policy” activist, expected to find a substantial DECREASE in sea ice, not a net gain. Given that my informal surveying of people’s perceptions regarding “melting of the polar ice caps” indicates that nearly everyone (including professionals who really ought to know better!) reports a belief that the ice caps are at least 90% smaller than they were a few years ago, pointing out that the Arctic sea ice extent is down only trivially, and that the Antarctic sea ice extent is up substantially is important to helping both the layman and the professional to have a more realistic understanding of “climate change.”
Well done!
Hey Jim!
That makes two of us, plus a James.
Would you care to take a stab at question 4?
Normal is ice all the way to Cleveland.
Just a small correction in Item “Quiz” 3) above, A and D are already accounted for in the requirements for B so the author is repeating himself! Hate that!
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2015/01/Figure3.png
Look at this chart. It looks like December 2014 Arctic sea ice extent is the highest since 2005.
Yet not long afterwards the daily extent was at the lowest ever (satellite era) value for the day of the year!
Q4 redux. When exactly?
So you create trends from a single point, eh? NO wonder you are clueless.
NO Phil! Who mentioned trends, apart from you? Just what ought to be a simple quiz question.
NO JIM. Do you always base your predictions on single points? I thought the in thing was spot the trend. So how do you do that with a single point?
The climate science way! Draw the line any way you want to! Right show white?
The chart is average for month of December. I don’t know what day of the year you are referring to as lowest ever. For sure a month is more relevant than a day. Seasonal and annual variations in sea ice extent cannot be represented by a single day datum.
Very odd indeed. I just downloaded the “raw data” from the National Snow and Ice Data Center from ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/north/daily/data/ and graphed it, and while the overall shape is the same, there are substantial differences from the graph above. I wonder why. (The differences are not substantial enough that the data would tell a different story, its just that the data are different….)