This is funny:
“According to a Coast Guard officer, the icy conditions “are the “worst he’s seen in 20 years“
“A carefully planned, 115-day scientific expedition on board the floating research vessel, the CCGS Amundsen, has been derailed as the icebreaker was called to help resupply ships navigate heavy ice in Hudson Bay.“Obviously it has a large impact on us,” says Martin Fortier, executive director of ArcticNet, which coordinates research on the vessel. “It’s a frustrating situation.”During the summer, the Amundsen operates as a floating research centre with experiments running 24 hours a day. This year it was scheduled to reach North Baffin Bay.But the icebreaker has been rerouted to escort commercial ships en route to resupply communities in Northern Quebec on the eastern side of Hudson Bay.Johnny Leclair, assistant commissioner for the Coast Guard, said Tuesday conditions in the area are the worst he’s seen in 20 years.”
Full story: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/ccgs-amundsen-re-routed-to-hudson-bay-to-help-with-heavy-ice-1.3162900
There is a still a lot of ice up there:
![N_bm_extent[1]](https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/n_bm_extent1.png?quality=75)
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_bm_extent.png
h/t to WUWT reader “catcracking”
The dread Gore Effect in action.
Dr. Brown, the NSIDC doesn’t present actual “data” but its own politically driven interpretation of observations.
I’ll bet posting this article was a serious challenge for the CBC, given their official position as CAGW true-believers. ;->
I have been repeatedly assured that the ice at the north pole was in a death spiral. This news leads me to wonder if the alarmists know what a “death spiral” is.
markstoval
I conclude that the ‘death spiral’ is dead, long before its appointed time, but will gain new life? Will the Death Spiral Zombie come back from the clutch of its icy grave? Stay tuned for “Death Spiral II – The Reenactment (this time without so much ice)”.
So the “too much ice” is in Hudson Bay not Baffin Bay and the asst comm for the Coast Guard Johnny LeClair was speaking of the ice in Hudson Bay as being the worst he’d seen in 20 years. So it has nothing to do with arctic sea ice. But I should ask, isn’t Hudson Bay usually ice free by now?
No, as shown in the OP (see yellow lines) and at Cryosphere today.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.13.html
interesting trend there the last 5 years 😉
Numbers from MASIE for day 202 (yesterday):
2014 Hudson Bay 271k km2
2015 Hudson Bay 512k km2
So a lot more ice extent right now.
2014 Hudson Bay minimum was day 262 with only 862 km2.
A more telling comparison is to the last late breakup year (2009), when on day 202 (21 July) ice coverage was 362 thousand km2 (according to MASIE) – in 2009, polar bears came ashore as late as they did in 1992. The pattern of remaining ice is different but there is still far more ice this year than 2009, perhaps rivaling 1992:
2009 Hudson Bay 362 k km2 [most recent late breakup year]
2015 Hudson Bay 512 k km2
http://polarbearscience.com/2015/07/21/alarm-over-future-summer-polar-bear-habitat-disguises-how-good-conditions-are-right-now/
Susan
Thanks for that confirmation. As I have often said:
No one what will happen with Arctic ice.
Except maybe the polar bears.
And they are not talking.
Except, of course, to the ad men from Coca-Cola
Thanks for that confirmation. As I have often said:
No one knows what will happen with Arctic ice.
Except maybe the polar bears.
And they are not talking.
Except, of course, to the ad men from Coca-Cola
If this “global warming” keeps up, we’ll be in an ice age soon.
Not so much Antarctic ice at the moment. There would probably be a bit more artic sea ice to if it weren’t for the current now moderate El Niño.
“Not so much Antarctic ice at the moment.”
Wait, what?
Seriously?
If by “not so much”, you mean les than at this time last year, then I agree with you.
But, although we are not setting another record this month, it is still the second highest evah measured for the month of June…EVAH!
(And by evah, I mean since 1980.)
There’s a 38% chance that it is the highest? 😉
True Dat!
Have no fear, though; Jimmy “Coal Trains of Death” Hansen sez the Antarctic and Greenland glaciers are gonna melt ten times faster than originally thought, with resultant SLR of “at least 10 feet in as little as 50 years”.
We’re doomed.
Any net loss year over year of North or South ice sheets result in a fear campaign. My brother and I debates briefly yesterday whether or not the Antarctic “melt” would be catastrophic. News on the street is that sea ice will rise drastically and this reported by the world’s best scientific Antarctic researcher. So hey folks, kiss your lives goodbye, a dude who is the very best of the best says its all over. Who are we simpletons to question?
“at least 10 feet in as little as 50 years”.
On a straight-line basis, this equates to 2.4″ per year. This rate was not recorded in 2014, and is unlikely to be recorded in 2015, so when is this rise supposed to start? There must be a start date that can be adopted as a benchmark – has it ever been set?
The climatastrophologists haven’t said yet. Soon though. Real soon, you betcha.
Here is a link to the tide gauge records for the US and other locations.
Due to geological factors and the many other reasons for varying sea levels in a given spot, the numbers for nearly every location are quite variable, but f one opens a whole bunch of the links and looks at data from many sites which are widely spaced, it becomes apparent that for over a hundred years, sea levels have risen about 2 millimeters per year, or 11 inches in a hundred years. And this is with lots of ground water extraction, the Aral sea being drained, the LIA ending and glaciers shrinking in places, etc.
Given that hour to hour variations are many times this amount, it seems almost trivial over that much time.
But another thing which stands out, to me anyway, is that for nearly every location one might pick, one can see that there are years back in the 1800’s during which the average sea level were equal to or higher than years in the past decade. In other words, the amount of total rise is less than the variations in annual mean for just about everywhere. In still other words, a person who was very long lived and has been watching the ocean from his beachfront home for the past 100 years would be hard pressed to even see any difference in sea level at all.
Predicting rates of rise to accelerate by a factor of ten is not based on any observations, that much is clear.
It is just a wild ass guess.
One thing it is not, is science.
Since when is guesswork worth a tinker’s damn?
Try to find even a single place where the trend is accelerating.
I can’t find any.
Besides for all of that, most places where tides may encroach have a much more realistic chance of being flooded by a storm event. Over a hundred years, any structure on the water may have a likelihood of flooding approaching 100%.
And anyone building on the water would do well to keep that in mind.
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_us.htm
Let me guess: Hansen sez ” It’s even worse than we thought…since the last time we said it was worse than we thought…even though we were wrong then, and instead it was nowhere near as bad as we warned. But this tiMe is different, because it is now, not then, and this is a fresh warning of doom, not to be taken lightly BECAUSE IT IS WORSE THAN WE THOUGHT!”
Thanks Anthony for this tidbit.
Couldn’t resist
Instead of the North Baffin Bay
the Amundsen did turn away.
“Too much ice in July,
all our models awry.”
Must break ice down in Hudson’s ice bay.
http://lenbilen.com/2015/07/22/global-warming-ice-breaker-rerouted-to-hudson-bay-to-assist-commercial-ships-rather-than-doing-research-on-global-warming-a-limerick/
http://www.snopes.com/politics/science/globalwarming1922.asp
Climate Change we can go midnight skinny dipping at the North Pole
Unexpected extreme weather events are predicted to happen more often with climate change. So this fits!
Dr Wadhams of the “Arctic will be ice free by 2016” fame should comment. (Cambridge University – God help us)
So as long as they keep getting blocked by the ice they can claim they’ve found no evidence to disprove global warming.
Keep in mind that Hudson Bay is right in the path of the cold air that brought the much below average past two winters to the NE US. While it is sometimes good to throw back failed predictions into the faces of the alarmists, we should realize there’s a good reason for the extra ice this year. It doesn’t really tell us much about the overall Arctic sea ice situation. Besides, it will probably all still melt before the summer minimum.
That said, it will be interesting to see if the past two yearly increases in Arctic sea ice volume continues in 2015.
Interesting, as in “Gotcha!”, or interesting, as in “Ice melts and then refreezes every year, and these fluctuations are highly variable, and always have been, and there are long term trends we have not been observing for even one cycle of yet, so we really cannot say with even a trace of certainty what will happen next, and it hardly matters, because if the past three years have demonstrated anything, it is that fears of “a one way death spiral and inevitable sudden collapse due to increasing albedo” are completely unfounded?”
I agree.
It’s still cold. In Newfoundland it was 10 degrees C today. It has been wet and cold all spring and summer. And dry and hot in the west. The same WEATHER pattern as has persisted for months.
You’re saying, basically, that we should count ice due to CLIMATE and ignore ice due to WEATHER. I think you didn’t actually mean that, though.
I think this is hilarious. To think, just a few years ago, these guys were predicting ice-free summers in the Arctic, almost for good. So much for that alarm.
Rgbatduke is quite right about the 2SD Arctic ice but has missed the direction of the story. It is not saying there is more ice in the Arctic, only that an expedition has been waylaid by the unpredictability of the ice distribution.
The irony is that they were not going to study ice melting, they were going to prove that it melts faster when watched.
There is a huge discrepancy between extent and volume at the moment.
If volume, read Piomas and DMI 30% ice is to be believed, in hand with the recent pronged negative AO then sea ice extent be quite higher than it currently is.
Melt pools, funny measurements?
Who knows.
The Antarctic is still freezing but the WUWT map from NSIDC is showing those little black holes along the coast again.
Cut and paste to reduce the Antarctic volume which was getting too big?
The NISDIC (sic) view of Hudson Bay is at an oblique angle. The Canadian Ice Service view is from overhead. The oblique angle will give a very different impression even if it were more accurate.
The total area of Hudson Bay is 1,230,000 km2
When Arctic ice hit it’s maximum on February 25, 2015, it was 14.54 million square kilometers.
…
So, we’re talking about an area that is less than 9% of the ice cover of the polar region.
…
How’s the other 90% doing?
The ice breaker and the ship behind in the picture dated July 17 tells the story in 2015. The article in the newspaper clearly states that the icebreaker was diverted in 2015. I see heavy ice in the picture.
Not that it matters but the photo is from north of Hudson Bay going into Iqaluit on Baffin Island. My company redid the runway there back in the 80’s.
Wayne,
Check out the post at the bottom of this thread, the photo is from the Hudson Bay and the year is 2015 July not decades ago as you try to claim.
Can you agree that your statements were wrong..
catcracking July 23, 2015 at 6:09 pm
Wayne,
Check out the post at the bottom of this thread, the photo is from the Hudson Bay and the year is 2015 July not decades ago as you try to claim.
Can you agree that your statements were wrong..
Wayne is correct, read the caption to the photo, it’s from Iqaluit not Hudson bay.
What it says is that the ship is being escorted TO Iqaluit. It does not say from where. Without knowing where the journey originated, and at what stage of the rip the pic is from, one cannot say that it is not Hudson Bay.
Since the Pierre Radisson was on escort duty in Frobisher Bay at the time (and still is), Wayne and I are correct about the location of that photo, it was not in Hudson bay.
Think these warmists might learn from their fellow scientists. Last year a bunch of Australian scientists when on an expedition to see how much the ice had melted in Antarticia, and they got stuck in the ice. Cost to Australian taxpayers million to rescue them.
http://www.weather.com/news/news/russian-ship-stuck-antarctic-ice-rescue-update-20140121
Too bad.
Would have made a fine meal for those poor, hungry wolves.
Here’s an amusing counterpoint. From March of this year.
Discussing the peril that awaits when there is no arctic sea ice in September 2015?!?!
And I think that they think that they are serious:
http://arctic-news.blogspot.co.uk/2015/03/september-2015-without-arctic-sea-ice.html
THE ICEBREAKER COMETH — my vision for a new play
I see an icebound ship of fools, the passengers deranged, frivolous, and utterly self-possessed.
The play opens with the passengers milling about on the deck of their icebound ship remarking to each other about the swift progress they are making — but their voices are too loud, too shrill and there are worried looks on their face. Soon someone shouts in a desperate voice — “There is no pause!” and one by one they take up the chant — There is no pause! There is no pause!
Then over a loudspeaker a nameless voice informs them that an icebreaker has been contacted and it is coming to save them.
Basically this will be a Christian religious play about mankind’s ambivalence towards salvation. One of the requirements for salvation is that you admit that you are a corrupt sinner. It demands the death of all that you have been before. So the icebreaker that is coming to save them represents “death”. But in Christianity death is really the beginning of life eternal — if you are saved.
The passengers will engage in many esoteric discussions while waiting for the icebreaker to arrive. Should they welcome it or send it away? Is the price of salvation to great — that being that they have to admit that they have been wrong?
On board there will be a murder and some suicides — for variety — to maintain interest and plot momentum.
The play ends when someone shouts “I think I see the icebreaker^ followed by a loud frightening off-stage scream. The lights go out.
If I work on this I think I might have something.
Eugene WR Gallun
This will also be good because these scientists on board will now be forced to see how much ice there is in the Hudson Bay, first hand — lest they have their own denial that such ice exists.
Hmm, on reflection, this may be a bigger deal than meets the eye. Now, NSIDC & NOAA can no longer wipe the Hudson ice off their Sea Ice charts while their scientific brethren are held hostage on icebreakers clearing paths through that ice to coastal towns. They will have to “turn the dials” on their software to start counting melt ponds as being ice instead of open water — else the Hudson ice would disappear off their charts. I’ve been suspicious that they are intending to not “turn the dial” this year in order to make the summer minimum as low as possible in preparation for Paris in November. If true, now they’ll have to change that plan. So possibly this icebreaker diversion will be a big deal.
Has anybody been looking at the delta between DMI and NSIDC lately (at the 15% reference level). Their numbers are now over 1.5M square KM apart. And the winter highs were pretty close together. DMI shows a recent slowing of ice loss, NSIDC shows acceleration. DMI within 1SD, NSIDC around 2SD. This is worse than the well-known deviations between land and satellite temperature data.
What’s going on? Who should we believe?
Taylor
Taylor I noticed this also. It seems in March NSIDC (NOAA) made adjustments to their algorithm which brings them closer now to what MASIE reports. I don’t know what DMI has done.
https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2015/07/13/arctic-sea-ice-uncertainties/
What’s going on is exactly what I wrote above your comment. DMI (actually OSISAF in Norway) is “turning the dial” to start counting melt ponds as ice whereas previously melt ponds were counted as open water. Look at their 2013/14 tracks — they do this at this time every year. But NSIDC hasn’t started this process at all yet.
This is an annual event designed to cope with satellite microwave sensors’ inability to distinguish between open water and melt ponds sitting on top of ice. The satellites measure both Arctic and Antarctic and up to 2006 the satellite polarizer filter was turned twice a year with the goal to better recognize the melt ponds in the summer hemisphere — these turnings were done on the 1st January and 1st July. This caused the notorious “bump” in the middle of the Arctic ice extent charts in the middle of the chart (on 1st July), so starting in 2007 the filter turning was replaced by a software algorithm which replicated the turning, and could be tweaked gradually to remove the “bump”. However, in the first year, 2007, they didn’t implement the software at all so the switchover never happened. The result was the record low Arctic ice extent & simultaneous record high Antarctic ice extent of 2007 — because the polarizer must be set opposite for the two hemispheres to replicate the physical instrument. Since then, the software is implemented gradually at the midpoint of each melting season (as you can see on the DMI chart) except it was once again omitted in 2012 — with consequent simultaneous record low Arctic extent and record high Antarctic extent in that year, again. I find it remarkable that no-one has questioned those simultaneous “record” low Arctic ice extent and high Antarctic ice extents which are so obviously an instrumental/software artifact.
So the consequences of NOT “turning the dial” are very clear. Looking at Hudson Bay, note that the Canadian Ice Service shows about 20% of it is still at 90%+ ice cover but the NSIDC chart shows only 40% ice cover max. This is the difference when you count melt ponds as ice or as open water. With the big climate conference coming in Paris in November, it’s clear that the alarmists want to present as dire a picture as possible to make their conference a “success” (for them that is, but a disaster for the rest of us), and the above shows how much of an effect they have to play with simply by not “turning the dial” when presenting their ice extent charts. Thus my suspicion that they’re planning to not “turn the dial” at all this year. The recent plunge in Antarctic ice extent (0.5 million km2 in one day) indicates the plan is to absolutely minimize the ice area extent in both hemispheres (i.e., count melt ponds as open water in BOTH hemispheres) which is counter to all previous work done and crosses the line into the unethical.
The above is my own interpretation of events from watching the global ice wax & wane over the past 15 years, so I’ve had a lot of time to think about what’s going on. I’ve used similar deconstruction to solve problems in my (engineering & software) work. Today’s prostituted science can be read in a simple way: the more they’re paid, the less they’re to be believed. So trust the USA charts the least, the Canadian & Danish & Norwegian charts more, and the best of all are the Russian charts whose authors are paid zilch. Apply to other disciplines & recycle. Cheers.
Willy says: “So trust the USA charts the least, the Canadian & Danish & Norwegian charts more, and the best of all are the Russian charts whose authors are paid zilch.”
Can’t argue against that. I do make an exception for NIC, who are Navy types just trying to accurately report daily the ice conditions for the sake of ships operating in these seas. However, they are under the NSIDC bureaucracy, and so their numbers are erased after 30 days.
Agreed, ice charts for boaties are most trustworthy, and includes the Anchorage Ice Desk at http://pafc.arh.noaa.gov/ice.php — which is a NOAA office. Click on the top map, see the huge swath of 80%-100% ice in the north. That same region is reported as 40% ice by the crooked NSIDC.
I think you’ll find it’s the difference in resolution between the sources. Higher resolution gives a more accurate value, deals better with the fragmented ice that exists at present.
It is a little difficult to believe that high resolution visible photos could not be taken, and a computer program used to discern the areas of white ice from dark ocean.
Or this: Take a series of such high resolution visible light pictures, and string them together in a video. Over a year, ten years, whatever.
The human brain is very adept at discerning trends in such visual imagery.
I am not at all surprised at the extra ice in the Arctic. According to Environment Canada data, the winter temperature departures from 1961-1990 averages for the Tundra , Mountains and Fiords which includes most of the CANADIAN FAR NORTH have declined steadily for 5 years in a row from 6-5.5 C in 2010 to 0.4 -(-0.2) C in 2015 , a drop of some 6 degrees C or 10.8 F. This extra cold will create a lot of extra ice . You will never hear about this from NOAA .
Here is another example of hiding declines in temperatures
NOAA recently reported on JUNE 2015 TEMPERATURES
“Most of the world’s land areas were much warmer than average, that is falling within the top 10 percent of their historical temperature range for the January–June period, as in dictated by the Temperature Percentiles map above. These regions include nearly all of Eurasia, South America, Africa, and western North America, with pockets of record warmth across these areas. All of Australia was warmer than average. The oceans were also much warmer than average across vast expanses, with much of the northeastern and equatorial Pacific, large parts of the western North Atlantic, and the Barents Sea notably record warm. Over land, only northeastern Canada was much cooler than average during the first half of 2015, as was the North Atlantic Ocean to the south of Greenland, with a region of observed record cold.”
Yet not a word about CONTIGUOUS US where the YEAR TO DATE temperature anomaly to the end of June was only the 10 th warmest and not a record at all. Everything east of the Great lakes was cooler than normal both in Canada and the US. When one considers that American tax payers fund NOAA entirely, the tax payers are getting very little value for their money as NOAA seems to have become more of an global warming alarmists than providing balanced analysis and information for all regions of United States . Hide the declines and emphasize the warming seems to be the main focus.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201506
June in England is the month of a rare property: 350 years with virtually zero temperature trend.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-Jun.htm
2015 Great Lakes surface temperatures are tracking about the same as 2014 temperatures … VERY COLD … coldest in several years … some are slightly higher some are slightly lower, to me this is odd as the 2014/15 winter was less severe than the 2013/2014 winter (starting point for 2013/2014 lake temperatures was colder than for 2014/15). It can only mean the 2015 summer in the Great Lakes area is colder than the 2014 summer, which might have something to do with Hudson Bay being frozen.
http://coastwatch.glerl.noaa.gov/statistic/avg-sst.php?lk=m&yr=0
The Great Lakes were over 80% covered this past year and the year before. The last time for 2 years in a row over 80% was in the late 70s when it was over 80% for 3 years running. I think the way thing are going we will tie that record this year.
Taylor
Here’s the chart:
http://www.glerl.noaa.gov/data/ice/imgs/IceCoverAvg1973_2015.jpg
Taylor
A question that has been on my mind for a while, does anyone know if they throw the Great Lakes temperatures out of the “land area” temperatures summaries? 3% of the US land area constantly being 10F below normal has to be inconvenient and hurtful to the global warming moevment, heck that’s the same as 30% of the US land area constantly being 1F below normal, now that’s just plain unacceptable to a global warming data massager, I have a hard time believing they don’t throw that data out, call it part of the ocean or something, and ignore it.