Last week I mentioned how WeatherUnderground was touting the ‘Great Arctic Cyclone of 2016’ as being a repeat of the ice crusher cyclone in the summer of 2012. People that want to see Arctic sea ice reach new lows, so that they can shout things like “See, told you! Climate change!” were banking on it to bring sea ice extent to new record scarcity, accompanied by much wailing and gnashing of teeth, while secretly grinning to themselves “take that, deniers”. It’s a strange bunch of people, in my view, that rally around wanting to see such things happen.
So far, NSIDC hasn’t shown much of an impact from the GAC16, and in the last couple of days, ice has upticked slightly as it regrouped (magnified inset mine):
Source: http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
The storm last week, if it had major impact, would have put the plot closer to the green 2012 line. We are now just about a month away from the seasonal minimum, which usually occurs somewhere between Sept 15th and 25th. There’s still the possibility that another cyclone might roar through and save the day for the doomsters, but it looks like NSIDC and NASA could well be correct.
It seems those that were touting the GAC16 have now gone quiet about it, as there doesn’t seem to be any new mentions of the “Great Arctic Cyclone of 2016” popping up. Be assured though that we’d never [hear] the end of it had it turned out to beat the Arctic cyclone of 2012 in ice breaking capability. Of course, the caveat here is that weather is not climate.
Meanwhile, Professor David Wadhams doubles down on his “ice free” predictions with a new book: A Farewell to Ice.
Wadhams prediction from June this year contained his usual doominess.
“My prediction remains that the Arctic ice may well disappear, that is, have an area of less than one million square kilometres for September of this year,” he said.
“Even if the ice doesn’t completely disappear, it is very likely that this will be a record low year. I’m convinced it will be less than 3.4 million square kilometres [the current record low].
“I think there’s a reasonable chance it could get down to a million this year and if it doesn’t do it this year, it will do it next year.
“Ice free means the central part of the Arctic and the North Pole is ice free.”
But, both NSIDC and NASA have said since then that a record low isn’t likely, much less ice free:
NSIDC: ‘A new record low September ice extent now appears to be unlikely.”
NASA: ‘…highly unlikely that this year’s summertime sea ice minimum extent will set a new record’
But there’s always that hope for doom next year. So far, Wadhams track record on this point has been pretty dismal. Plus, he keeps moving the goalposts.
And, it seems none of Wadhams professional and private peers who made sea ice predictions for the Sea Ice Prediction Network this year agree with his forecast, not one said below 1 million square kilometers:
Source: https://www.arcus.org/sipn/sea-ice-outlook/2016/august
Sad when nature just won’t kowtow to the doomsters, isn’t it? But, human history is fraught with visionaries who said impeding doom is right around the corner. It’s a lifestyle choice I suppose.
The great Ice Crusher will start tomorrow looks like, with winds over half the Artic over 20mph and and area about the size of Alaska will have 45 to 50 mph winds. Goodbye cruel ice or was that the known world.
Re: Weather Underground. FWIW, I tend to have trouble believing a guy who’s named his website after a domestic maoist terrorist group.
Well said!
I’m hoping for ice too thick and dense for the stupid cruise ship to make it through, forcing them to retreat back to the Pacific instead of making it to the Atlantic and New York. I don’t wish them harm, just a blocked passage.
Matthew Epp
Now on the original Ship Of Fools I remember myself gleefully hoping — maybe they’ll have to begin eating each other!
I guess you are a nicer guy than I am.
Eugene WR Gallun
The Crystal Serenity and her 1700 passengers and crew hauled anchor after a 12 hour port call in Nome Alaska; and headed up through the Bering Straight Sunday evening the 21st. They will continue on and pick up an ice breaker near Uluhaktok Canada, Victoria Island and enter the narrow channel to the south of Victoria Island. I’m not sure but I believe they are on schedule after leaving a week ago.
http://www.ktva.com/on-the-crystal-serenity-keeping-alert-for-an-icy-voyage-ahead-337/
http://www.adn.com/arctic/2016/06/12/this-luxury-cruise-ship-will-soon-sail-through-the-arctic-heres-what-that-means-for-alaska/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/08/16/a-luxury-cruise-ship-sets-sail-for-the-arctic-thanks-to-climate-change/
They’re just getting into the “interesting” part of the voyage – have a closer look at a map/chart of the area ahead of them.
BTW: the Canadian Coast Guard does not provide ice breaker escort to clear the way, so they must be referring to research vessel that is accompanying the cruise ship. That vessel has no ice breaking capabilities though.
Their way – heading east bound across north Canada, trying to wind their way through the narrow ice-packed straits and shallow waters up there between the islands – is the hard way. Far, far easier (more realistic!) is the north Europe-across Siberia path the other ship is attempting. That direction at least puts most of the ice on the other side of the pole, and gives average paths much deeper and far wider … both make it easier to get across and not be trapped.
Isn’t it Peter Wadhams not David Wadhams?
He figured if he changed his first name no one would remember.
Plus many, you sly little devil.
Warming melts ice. It is the “skeptics” who don’t get, natural variation, not “warmers.”
Pardon me Jim, but warming that occurs below 0 C does not melt ice. If you will check the stats, around 75% of the recorded warming has been during the winters at the poles. Summer temperatures in the arctic have been at or below normal.
The ocean cycles rule the arctic ice , not the global temperature. Check back in when the AMO, PDO and ENSO are all in a cold phase and tell us then how man’s influence has caused the ice to melt.
Jim Y.,
Keep in mind the 2 big questions:
1. Is a bit of warming going to be catastrophic? (CAGW)
2. Should Bill McKibben be followed?
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/08/21/bill-mckibben-goes-full-jackboot-on-climate-change/
Okay, a 3rd question. How fast and by what amount can regulating emissions change the future temperature?
Perhaps we should adapt, as we can do.
1. A “bit” is subjective and so is “catastrophic.” A temperature change of a few degrees is the difference between now and Chicago being under a mile of ice, and could also be the difference required for the South Pole not to be under a mile of ice.
What would you consider to be catastrophic? A thousand deaths? A million? A billion?
2. I followed your link on Bill McKibben to this link;
https://newrepublic.com/article/135684/declare-war-climate-change-mobilize-wwii
I didn’t see anything on the link about suspending civil liberties or anyone’s constitutional rights. Perhaps I missed something, but I doubt it.
I agree with him that a massive effort to develop new energy sources would result in millions of new jobs, and not unemployment. But, there are somethings I don’t agree with;
Stopping pipelines is not a solution. Few people are willing to shut everything down until we can run everything on solar power. It will take decades to replace fossil fuels. There is enough room for new pipelines and for fracking and the oilsands if we stop importing oil from overseas.
I also don’t think that we should try to reduce carbon dioxide to 350ppm, but rather, contain it to 550ppm, not because the extra carbon dioxide is beneficial, but because removing that much carbon dioxide from the atmosphere would take centuries or millennia. Also, the notion of being able to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere sounds to me like an excuse to drive gas guzzling vehicles and to have accidents in our pants every time toilets back up at nuclear power plants.
As far as your third question goes, ending the use of fossil fuels would not change future temperature, but only stop unnatural warming.
The Arctic has been ‘warm’ in the period since c2000 – about as warm as the period c1930-1940!
Can you explain why it was natural and safe in 1944 and mam-made and dangerous in 2014?
What is your data source?
Five of the warmest months at Barrow, Alaska were in the interval 1928-37. Five other of the warmest months there occurred during 1993-98 (two in ’96), if those records can be trusted. The other two happened in 1954 and 1968.
http://www.intellicast.com/Local/History.aspx?location=USAK0025
I love the way warmists actually seem to believe that natural variation only occurs when their predictions aren’t being met.
I love the way “skeptics” actually seem to want to ignore natural variation when it is the answer to their question to “warmists.”
Natural variations happen. If they explain why models need to be adjusted, that is how science works.
Jim Y says:
I love the way “skeptics” actually seem to want to ignore natural variation…
And I love the way you’ve ignored every reply some folks have made to your comments.
I’d ignore those replies too, if I didn’t have any credible evidence quantifying “dangerous AGW”. The alternative is to argue by assertion. Best to just ignore factual replies.
In fact, natural variability does explain all current temperature observations, since there is nothing unusual or unprecedented happening.
Plenty of evidence has been posted showing that the temperature changes being observed now also happened before human industrial emissions existed—and to a much greater degree. I can post the evidence again if anyone requests it.
Occam’s Razor says that the simplest explanation is most likely the correct one. Ockham also warned against adding extraneous variables to the explanation. Carbon dioxide is the extraneous variable in the climate alarmist debate.
Whether CO2 is low, or high, global temperatures don’t act any differently. Any rational person who considered that evidence would begin to at least question the “carbon” narrative.
So the promoters of “dangerous man-made global warming” are either irrational, or they aren’t being honest for whatever reason.
After a one-third rise in CO2, global warming stopped for almost twenty years (the ‘Pause’). The belief that CO2 is the control knob of the planet’s temperature just doesn’t make sense any more.
OMG!! The second lowest Arctic sea ice ever recorded!!! (On the satellite era). We’re doomed!!!
I assume the use of a +/- 2 sigma band instead of the standard +/- 3 sigma used in industry, is to make changes seem more alarming?
That is the only thing I can think of. We thought everything was normal if it fell within +/-3 sigma. Of course one might have to torture the process to make the output conform. It worked for chips, ICs.
Well, actually back in the day when I had indirectly (and regretably) significant 1 sigma production responsibilities, we would flog non-performers then keel haul them. 6sigma forever. Even in the faux HR, Legal, and Financial departments. i kid you not. Senior management was that nuts, and I was #16 in the pecking order. Of course, that Fortune 50 corporation has since failed, been split into multiple pieces, one sold to the Chinese and another to PE. Just like jackals scavanging a Serengeti kill. Same result. Darwin at work.
Sorry, 2 sigma defines the 95% confidence interval. 3 sigma is 99.73% – a level achievable in precision manufacturing, but not very meaningful in observation of the natural world. 2 sigma is the most common usage to quantify uncertainty.
95% is really not good enough for scientific work either.
What about 97%?
Good job. Can you zoom in a little more please ?
so that everybody can see the recovering of sea ice ?
August 23th will stay in history as the beginning of global cooling.
I assume you don’t want us to zoom on ton cul…
I’m sure that the followers of Harold Camping were a little (extremely?) disappointed when the world didn’t end in 2011 as he prophesied. Some people thrive on expectations of doom and gloom. Others simply profit from them.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_end_times_prediction
Anthony said:
“It’s a strange bunch of people, in my view, that rally around wanting to see such things happen.”
Well, I bet that when zee Germans invaded Poland, there were a lot of smug told you so’s going round, and I doubt that many of them actually wanted WW2 to start.
A couple of observations, Mr. Shaeffer:
1. The miniscule warming since the end of the Little Ice Age makes the Poland invasion a rather silly analogy.
2. Given that your analogy isn’t silly, the AGWer’s conjecture would be that the sauerkraut Ad0lph ate when he was 8 years old would cause an invasion of Poland.
lololol
#(:))
?? Anyone else not have a clue what that means, or is it just me?
My point is simply that taking pleasure in being right is not the same thing as wanting something bad to happen.
Miniscule warming? Compared to what? Not to the temperature change during the previous 850 years.
[citing Mann’s Hockey Stick? Really? -mod]
Re: [citing Mann’s Hockey Stick? Really? -mod]
JY needs to get up to speed. The best alarmist chart to date is Marcott’s:
http://www.realclimate.org/images//Marcott.png
Total bogosity, to be sure. But the public isn’t very interested in reality:
http://i1.wp.com/www.powerlineblog.com/ed-assets/2015/10/Global-2-copy.jpg
i am old enough to remember when the title “scientist” connoted a positive image
darn shame that standard deviations are linear.
I would offer this observation from 2007-8 ish as an active participant at the WU. It was stated (via live web cast) by the grand marshal (JM) that he participated in a 2 week seminar in Denver on how to basically embellish any weathrer event into a climate related disaster to move forward the energy contol agenda. They have certainly carried out that philosophy in full at that site. The reference to the Russian Heat wave blocking high event years back as a verified man made climate event not seen in 1,100 years of records was too much to take.
Quack Masters lost a follower that day, for all the right reasons.
It looks like Arctic surface temps could hit -2C within the next few days, which is when new sea ice begins to form:
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
All the recent cyclone seems to have done is remove heat from Arctic waters, which means it should result in some rather spectacular sea-ice expansion this fall starting from early September….
With a cold La Nina cycle developing over the next 2 years, “The Blob” having already dissipated, the PDO already in its 30-year cool cycle, the North Atlantic ocean temps collapsing, the AMO quickly approaching its 30-year cool cycle (from 2019?), and the current solar cycle already producing near zero sunspots, Arctic sea ice extents from next year on should start exceeding the 2012 record Minimum by +2 MILLION KM^2 every year and start tracking within 2 standard deviations of the mean for the entire year starting from 2018/19 and continue doing so consistently for the next 30 years when both the PDO and AMO are in their respective 30-year cool cycles.
Once CAGW alarmists’ Arctic sea ice hobby horse lies shattered in pieces, they’ll have a REAL hard time explaining why NONE of their doom and gloom predictions are coming CLOSE to matching reality: sea level rise stuck at 7 inches per century, global warming trends flat for 20 years, severe weather incidence at average levels for past 60~100 years, longest US large-hurricane drought since 1850, global crop yields setting record highs, global greening increased 25~50% just since 1980 from the CO2 fertilization effect, ocean pH stuck at 8.1, Antarctic land ice growing at 100 billion tons/year, Arctic sea ice extents increasing, methane concentrations stuck at 1.7ppm for 20 years, etc., etc., etc.,
CAGW has already far surpassed the criteria necessary for hypothetical disconfirmation under the rules of the scientific method…
Why is CAGW still a thing?
Money.
*
*
(and I know you knew that SAMURAI — just had to state the disgusting truth once again — your post is GREAT and so true! AGW IS DEAD. It is only a matter of time until the money which is already flowing elsewhere, dries up completely. Until then, we science realists have to hold the line for truth for, above all, Enviroprofiteers are opportunists.)
Back to the drawing board, O Vile Snake Tessssla (et. al.) you’re on your own.
Oh, that reminds me of a funny TV ad I saw last week. A solar power products manufacturer boasted about 30 years in business! (or the like). Thirty years. And they still can’t make a profit (without tax/rate surcharge funds and heavy handed government regulations to give them contrived market share).
Janice–
Yes, the trifecta of government tyranny; the never ending process of illegally expropriating: money, power and control from the governed…
Wow… a solar company that’s actually been feeding off the trough of government subsidies for 30 years… How proud they must be…
Too bad about the 112 wind and solar corporate debacles that have already gone bankrupt over the past 20 years at the cost of $billions to taxpayers…
Ah, yes… The “price of progressivism”…
Just let the free-market decide when and what new power sources eventually replace fossil fuels, because governments SUCK at picking winners and losers….
“It looks like Arctic surface temps could hit -2C within the next few days, which is when new sea ice begins to form:”
5 days out
http://pamola.um.maine.edu//DailySummary/frames/GFS-025deg/ARC-LEA/T2/40.png
But SST is probably more important
http://polar.ncep.noaa.gov/sst/ophi/color_newdisp_sst_north_pole_stereo_ophi0.png
Steven Mosher
In the SHEBA long-term sea ice experiment when frozen in and drifting across the Arctic, Judith Curry found new surface ice on the (formerly open) melt ponds began forming overnight on August 12, latitude 78-79 north. Each night thereafter, it re-formed, and froze deeper (thicker) each night. A few days later, the new fallen snow was being supported through the day by the night ice layers. Regional Albedo quickly followed back up to the wintertime average level by mid-September.
So, the melt ponds freeze first (a few days ago actually as we write this on 24 August). The ice on these melt ponds (above the sea surface) then supports more new snow each day, and the combination reflects more and more energy every hour. Much, much earlier than your “seawater” freeze date of 30 August-1 September.
Instead, by 30 August-1 September, there is no difference in the daily heat energy reflected by open Arctic ocean waters and the sea ice. By 1 September, and for the next 7 months, more open ocean waters mean more cooling of the upper ocean layer.
if you think the minimum has been reached.. go ahead and offer a bet.
Minimum has absolutely NOT been met. But the refreezing has started based on Dr Curry’s observations on 12 August. That would be an inflection point on the arctic sea ice curve based on her observation of frozen melt ponds in 1996-1997, not a minimum point.
If the decline is sea ice volume is linear, then a guess of when zero will hit is about 2035.
http://psc.apl.uw.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ice_volume/BPIOMASIceVolumeAprSepCurrent.png
A linear model is UNPHYSICAL..
how to tell?
Take the equation…compute.. the volume 100 years from now ( it will be negative)
A better model would be one related to survivial.. like a gompertz regression
Lots of linear models have zero bounds. For instance, I’m losing interest in this thread, but I project my interest will bottom out at zero.
The older PIOMAS version (before they adjusted it when they realized how silly it was) trended toward the sea ice volume being ZERO by:
2009,
2010,
2013,
2015,
etc. etc.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-bbQ4vIdJyvE/ULQ-HPk-flI/AAAAAAAAG88/NXa5Dz0q3pw/s1600/FIGURE11.JPG
http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsr2data/asi_daygrid_swath/n6250/2015/aug/Arctic/asi-AMSR2-n6250-20150823-v5_nic.pdf
http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsr2data/asi_daygrid_swath/n6250/2016/aug/Arctic/asi-AMSR2-n6250-20160823-v5_nic.png
http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsr2data/asi_daygrid_swath/n6250/2012/aug/Arctic/asi-AMSR2-n6250-20120823-v5_nic.pdf
if the winds change and you get compaction it will be an interesting ending
compaction is NOT melting and is not a loss of ice in fact long term it is thickening the ice, the total volume now is much higher than in 2012, and i dont care which models you select the reality is the ice is thickening rapidly over the last year.
Just what my neighbour the Canadian ice breaker captain has been telling me for a few years now from “boot-on-the-ground” observations. More of it, and multi year… No model can beat that.
volume is modelled.
be careful son
Nothing significant has (yet) happened with the ice extent after the Big Cyclone.
But something has started to eat the Arctic sea ice. Look at the recent drop in ice volume:
http://polarportal.dk/fileadmin/polarportal/sea/CICE_curve_thick_LA_EN_20160824.png
every single chart showing volume is guesswork. no matter how educated those guesses may be they are just guesses. nowhere do i ever see the 10, 20, 30 plus metre thick ice mentioned. hell there is ice up there over 50 m thick as can be seen from any arctic voyage images.
as to the possible late season compaction mentioned, i truly hope so, and the wind keeps blowing strong, ripping more heat from the surface and the wave action keeping the heat insulating ice abated.
Climate protection keeps busy:
http://m.spiegel.de/international/world/a-1107252.html
Air traveling 300 days a year against coral bleaching.
Considering it is still spinning and expected to intensify again, it is a bit early to write off the effects of this cyclone. Even more intriguing models have a set up early next week with intense winds off the coast of Siberia through the Fram Straight. Let’s wait to see what that does with ice transport/compaction/melting before drawing conclusions.
Re:
volume is modelled.
be careful son
The first empirical measurements of sea ice thickness are now in:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL065704/full
From the paper:
…very little ice thickness information actually exists. We present results of the first ever airborne electromagnetic ice thickness surveys over the NWP carried out in April and May 2011 and 2015 over first-year and multiyear ice… Results indicate that even in today’s climate, ice conditions must still be considered severe.
Looks like Bill Taylor was right.
TY for that, i have spent my life being “right” on issues that can be proven with science……and have also been MOCKED by “scientists” for daring to post TRUTH.
repeat after me
the NWP is not the arctic
2011 and 2015 are not 2016
The ONLY complete ( cover everything) Long term volume records…. are
MODELLED
Now, folks are start to collect bits and pieces of observational data ( which also requires modelling)
to do comparisons..
Oh, Noes!
Arctic Sea Ice Extent Is 940,000 sq km Higher Than 2012…
EVERYBODY PANIC!!
dbstealey
And, very conveniently for the “impressionable” who look at short-term plots … The 2006-2007 sea ice plots are no longer visible. Only the “very dangerously low” 2012 dip is left below the wanderings of today’s sea ice extents up north.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/icecover/icecover_current_new.png
Oh. By the way.
In just a few days (1 September on a normal recent year sea ice extents, earlier if there is less sea ice) , there will no longer be any heat gain difference (energy difference) over a 24-hour clear day between the total sunlight reflecting from sea ice and and reflecting from the open arctic ocean. From 1 September through 31 March: Less sea ice = More global cooling!
Hold on to your hats
http://web.nersc.no/WebData/arctic-roos.org/observation/ssmi_ice_ext.png
the next 10 days… looking at the weather forcast….
5% chance of a new record low
but the key thing is all the old ice that is exporting through the Fram
Just a little reality update: extent is now on NSIDC showing equal to 2007 – so a tie for second lowest extent…
And there’s still a storm blowing and its still melting…
Recovered since 2007? No! No better extent, worse condition than 2007.
and if melt conditions in June had been the same as 2007, you’d be looking at a new record…
arctic storms split the ice. It is obvious it will not melt immediately. 15% sea ice will therefore momentarily increase or probably stay the same. However if it has been split sufficiently it will melt more quickly. you need to wait to see the effect of an arctic hurricane.
I’m not sure why the writer mocks all mentions of the low pressure over the arctic. None of the reports referenced glorifies the hurricane and the possible record low ice extent. Weird?
Seems like the Arctic sea ice has made a signficant drop in the last few days. So what happened???