Alarmists Claim ‘Global Heat Wave’ Is Melting Polar Bear Sea Ice – Facts Say Otherwise

polar bear hunting seal

According to The Guardian, there is a “global heat wave” going on right now.

In Siberia, the heat is supposedly “completely unprecedented” and will surely (we are told) impact Arctic sea ice — the habitat of the iconic polar bear. Yet a comparison of previous years shows little to no impact on sea ice: there is more ice present than there was in 2007.

Said The Guardian (July 9, 2018):

“But though we cannot say definitively that the current heatwave is caused by carbon emissions, it fits the pattern of long-term changes that we call climate. It is part of a global phenomenon, even if not the most important part.

The really significant change is happening in eastern Siberia at the moment, where a completely unprecedented heatwave is warming that Arctic coastline, with consequences that are unpredictable in detail but surely bad on a large scale.” [my bold]

The heat — which some folks admit they not only expect during this season called summer but anticipate with joy — has been around since late June, with several locales outside Siberia affected, including southern OntarioQuebecLos Angeles CA, Britan, many locations in the eastern USAEurope.

With so many locations across the Northern Hemisphere experiencing very hot weather over the last few weeks (maybe record-breaking, maybe not), let’s take a look at what all that heat is doing to Arctic sea ice compared to previous years.

Look at 2007 first, for the date of July 8 (courtesy NSIDC’s new sea ice comparison tool).

Recall that 2007 had the 2nd lowest summer sea ice minimum since 1979.

It turns out that 2007 also had late June heat waves in western North America and Asia (here and here) but I guess not as hot as this year or this year’s heat waves surely would not be newsworthy.

Below is what sea ice extent looked like for 8 July 2007, with a big patch of open water off Siberia in the East Siberian Sea, the Southern Beaufort, Chukchi, and Kara Seas and virtually no ice left in Hudson Bay:

And below is what sea ice extent looked like for 8 July 2018 (Sunday), with a big patch of open water off Siberia (but not much larger than 2007), a small patch in the Southern Beaufort but lots of ice still in the Western Beaufort, the Chukchi Sea around Wrangel Island, in the eastern Laptev Sea and the western Kara Sea.

Although there is less ice in the Barents Sea than in 2007, the Central Canadian Archipelago is still clogged with ice and southern-most Hudson Bay is still half-filled with ice:

8 July 2018 sea ice map

Bottom line: NSIDC shows slightly more ice this year than in 2007 at 8 July (here), despite weeks of record-breaking, late June/early July ‘global’ heat waves in 2018.

sea-ice-extent-2007-and-2018-nsidc-interactive-graph-at-july-8-2018

Note that the patch of open water off Siberia in the western Laptev Sea that is garnering attention was present in mid-June (shown below), well before the recent heat wave:

ice_extent_map-15-june-2018

Did early summer heat waves cause sea ice to decline rapidly in 2007? If so, then the heat waves of the last few weeks cannot be as extraordinary as they are being made out to be.

OTHER YEARS BELOW, FOR COMPARISON:

ice_extent 8-july-2010

ice_extent 8-july-2011

ice_extent 8-july-2012

ice_extent 8-july-2013

ice_extent 8-july-2014

ice_extent-8-july-2016

ice_extent-8-july-2017

Find more years or more recent data at NSIDC’s new sea ice comparison tool (these maps were generated by setting both maps to the same date).

Conclusion: I don’t see any startling differences to ice extent in 2018 that could be blamed on the last couple of weeks of ‘global heat’ (aka “summer”) during late June and early July.

So far, it looks more or less like the same kind of Arctic ice retreat we’ve been seeing for the last 9 years, except slower.

Read more at Polar Bear Science

Advertisements

147
Leave a Reply

41 Comment threads
106 Thread replies
2 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
66 Comment authors

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
HotScot

A tad parky tonight, in the middle of our UK heatwave, AKA, a summer at last without the usual monsoon rains.

Is this ‘Unprecedented’

Latitude

nope…but obviously unpredictable…..”with consequences that are unpredictable”
That line made me LOL…..

Patrick MJD

The UK had it’s heat wave…in 1976! LOL

Greg

1976 was the only summer worthy of the name which I experienced in my first 25 years of life in that country. I waited expectantly for another one and then gave up and went to live in a country with a decent climate.

With “global warming” hovering around 1 deg C / century, you will dies waiting for an improvement in UK weather.

Greg

Please note that this AGW BS from the Guardian is posted under the “Opinion” heading, where they basically have no editorial standards: it’s “opinion” not reported news.

They do not even pretend this BS as science or reputable journalism any more. It’s just “opinion”.

HotScot

Greg

Sad as I am, I rather like British weather. I couldn’t live in Spain or California, I find persistent good weather too tedious.

I spent a weekend home in the Campsie hills a couple of weeks ago. It was 25°C, vegetation was beyond lush, the countryside stunning.

Worth waiting for, for me.

Chris from Oz

I find persistent bad weather even more tedious.

Dipchip

Check out the JAXA data here

https://moyhu.blogspot.com/p/latest-ice-and-temperature-data.html#ice

Currently more ice than 8 of the previous 15 years.

Joel Snider

Here in Oregon, we’ve had a very mild, almost cold, summer – with daytime highs peaking in the mid-seventies.
Although, they are promising a roaring heatwave of up to ninety Thursday and Friday.

commieBob

The temperature north of 80 cleaves very close to the long time average during the melting months. As long as there is ice to melt, there is about zero chance of a heat wave. link

joelobryan

Apparently Alaska didn’t get the memo.
comment image

shrnfr

There’s cold in them thar hills!!

rbabcock

Please, PLEASE don’t use NOAA’s forecasts. Use the Euro’s (ECMWF). NOAA uses the GFS which has an abysmal record. The Euro has a basic Canada/US cooling trend starting in the Rockies extending east over the next 46 days; the exception being the west coast and southeast, which are warmer but not overly so.

And after all the screaming of record heat, the global temp is only around +.11C and trending down. Even as LA was “all time hot”, Charlotte NC tied a record low.

tty

Odd, I follow both, and here in northern Europe GFS is distinctly better than ECMWF, particularly with regard to precipitation.

RHS

Do you have a link? I hate searching on someone else’s expectation that I’d find the correct link quickly.
I think it would be a benefit to everyone, not just me.

Sheri

Probability of? So it’s not even real numbers and real things happening?

jimA

I’m sorry.. I dont understand those images. You show 2 identical dates, and ‘both’.
Am I going senile finally?

Yes. The author stated

these maps were generated by setting both maps to the same date

Sheri

It looks odd, but many programs that generate maps and graphs have a start date and an end date. Both fields are required, so the only way to map one day is to put the start and the end date the same.

MarkW

Yes …
What was the question again?

J Mac

Ahhh… the great internal debate.
“Am too!”
“Am not!”
“Am too!”
“Am not!”
“Stop it! Both of you!”

Schitzree

Don’t make me pull over!

George Lawson

Both of the Polar Bear pictures have been Photoshopped. The water is too smooth to be natural. The second picture shows a Polar Bear in a position that would make it unbalanced. Its paw seems to be on a solid surface, otherwise there would be ripples in the water and there would not be a clear reflection of the bear.

commieBob

The water is too smooth to be natural.

There are small stretches of water between ice. Much of that water overlies submerged ice. Remember that you only see a tenth of the ice. The rest is submerged. Waves don’t really have a chance to develop because there’s no room to do so.

Yirgach

Oh, so that’s how HE did it!
And Galilee was so much warmer too.

Latitude

“Both of the Polar Bear pictures have been Photoshopped.”

.nope…….George it’s real

http://images.amcnetworks.com/bbcamerica.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/TheHunt_chase_7.jpg

J Mac

The picture of the ‘leaning polar bear’ looks authentic to my Wisconsin ice melt and refreeze trained eyes. The area under the polar bears foot and extending forward towards the viewer is slush-ice that has refrozen. The diffuse reflection results from the slight roughness of the refrozen surface. The bear has had prior experience with this kind of ‘refreeze’ ice and is tentatively testing it by placing part of his weight on it to see if it cracks.

The picture of the polar bear lunging out of the water at a basking fur seal pup also looks authentic. Climax predators are successful because they are stealthy in their approach to prey.

Chris

It’s not unbalanced in the second picture, the bear is testing the ice to see if it will support his weight. Solid surfaces can give a clear reflection if the top layer has barely melted.

Tom Gelsthorpe

Obviously we don’t have enough data to determine trends. However, we have more than enough data to show that the human animal has too much horsepower for the chassis. Passion outruns thought on issue after issue. As Mark Twain put it, “There’s something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.”

Here’s a thought experiment, re: the alleged, dwindling polar bears — if that were true, which it isn’t. They’re being used as props for activists.

Suppose we had enough data to determine how many humans need to be impoverished or hounded into early graves by dismantling the industrial development that keeps them alive today, in order to keep another 10,000 polar bears alive? I have a modest standard of living. If you took away my car, OR my central heat, OR my refrigeration, OR half my net worth, OR stuffed three more survivors into my small house, we’d all be impoverished. If you took away our fossil fuels, nearby forests would suffer, as they did suffer before fossil fuels came into common use.

In India & China, about 500 million people have been raised from absolute poverty to middle class living standards in the last 25 years, by deploying the industrial machinery that raised 400 million Westerners’ living standards in the previous century. What if we had to ruin the lives of 50 million people to save each bear? (500 million human lives destroyed, their hopes of betterment extinguished, for 10,000 bears). Would we do it? Who would the “we” be? Bureaucrats in rich capital cities, who would not suffer personally? Would they sacrifice their peasants in order to feel that moral satisfaction?

I contend the trade-offs that Paris Climate Accord types propose are in that numerical range. It doesn’t seem far removed from monarchs of old tossing virgins onto bonfires to appease the gods. Yet the big shots didn’t know then, and we don’t know now, if the gods would be satisfied.

Mr.

But as usual Anthony, the problem is that when media such as The Guardian run these kinds of stories, it’s a few days later before more diligent analyses such as yours can be completed and published.
By this time, the alarmist view as first published has become the real situation in the minds of millions of ‘headline only’ readers all around the globe.
And it’s what the teachers are telling the kids at schools (and universities).
It’s the climate disinformation effects that will undo developed countries, not actual changes in the climate(s).

RAH

Alarmists are alarmists because they want to be. It is who they are. Lack of critical thinking and the curiosity to question and really learn is the basis for their existence. Some grow out of it when they confront the hard realities of the world. Others, especially those that choose to cloister themselves in the realm of academia or are otherwise insulated from those cold hard realities, never learn.

Alan Tomalty

NASA are doing junk science.

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2641/keeping-an-eye-on-earths-energy-budget/

If you go to the bottom of the page you will see the last update was July 10 2018. Susan Callery is the science editor . Here is a quote from her after she got hired by GISS.

“I can work in the field of Earth science and enjoy and learn about space science at the same time.”

I wonder how that fulfills NASA’s GISS mission statement. Space studies is within the name of GISS. GISS is the Goddard Institute of Space Studies. So they hire a science editor who is learning on the job. The mind boggles.

1) The energy chart on the above page shows that the back radiation is exactly the same amount as total incoming solar radiation. If the atmosphere is cooler than the surface especially at night, how can you have a transfer of IR the opposite way? Even in the daytime the surface heats up much more than the atmosphere. A room 4 metres by 3 metres with a large single glazed window may need 80 watts/m^2 to heat it by a infrared heater in the winter time. So NASA are asking us to believe that back radiation will supply over 4 times the heating capacity of a 1000 watt infrared heater Don’t forget infrared heaters don’t heat the air , just the walls and floors and objects including people. So why would IR from the surface heat anything?

2) They show IR emitted from the surface at 117% of total incoming solar radiation. NASA does not understand algebraic flowcharts. You cannot have an ongoing flow of energy within a system that is greater than the source energy. If you put air into a balloon it will eventually burst so that the flow in will be equal to the flow out. Since the atmosphere is NOT a balloon, the energy flow in will always equal the energy flow out. The temperature of the troposphere is determined by the pressure and thus the lapse rate. To be sure that that pressure is caused by the N2 and O2, H2O and argon and to a much lesser extent by CO2. We are not warmed much by the temperature of H2O and CO2 but are instead warmed by the 99% of the atmosphere which is N2 and O2. Any decrease in outgoing IR would warm the troposphere but NOAA studies show that outgoing radiation has not decreased since they started measuring it.

3) The chart shows a piddly amount of convection of only 18.4 Watts/m^2. Since the earth surface is covered by 70% water the oceans would have boiled over by now if only 18.4 watts/m^ escaped in latent heat by convection. In fact convection accounts for 2/3 of the heat flux escaping from the surface with only 8% escaping IR and 25% from evapotranspiration (evaporation and plant evaporation).

So since NOAA measurements show no decrease in TOA IR from 1974 to 2012, NASA GISS should be disbanded for practicing junk science

http://www.climate4you.com/images/OLR%20Global%20NOAA.gif

Crispin in Waterloo

Alan

“You cannot have an ongoing flow of energy within a system that is greater than the source energy.”

Of course you can, and the fact that you don’t know that is a source of concern. If you are missing the basics, you are going to also miss what is complex. The energy flow between two reflective sheets of aluminum (the total emitted and received by one side) is far more than the energy going in or out. I think you need a refresher on how radiation and reflection work.

If you stand between two mirrors, you can see dozens of reflections of yourself. Each one is a copy of the radiation from you, the first time. The total energy (light) reflected back and forth is far greater than the initial energy used to illuminate you.

The reflected total energy between the two mirrors in a laser is FAR more than the input energy. Infrared detectors of gas rely on the repeated reflection of an input of IR – typically 100 bounces – to create the emissions from the gas being detected. They call it the optical path length. It can be as much as 80 metres in some cells only a few cm long. The total emission from one end towards the other is hundreds of times the energy input. The air and clouds do is the same thing a lot less efficiently.

The missing factor in the calculations is that the radiation directed to the ground from the air is not 100% turned into IR at the surface – which is a large conceptual error. Each time some IR hits the surface some is lost as thermalized air, which convects upwards. Trenberth’s 2009 cartoon showing the radiation pathways omits this additional surface heating and cooling mechanism driven by back radiation.

Heated air does not emit at the surface, it emits higher in the atmosphere bypassing at least some of the atmosphere. Thus the calculations are not correct if they treat all back radiation as being re-radiated as IR from the surface (as per the cartoon, 333 W).

The air near the surface is heated by contact with the warm surface (A) and by IR interacting with GHG’s (B). A+B. Unfortunately when demonstrating that the GHG’s “cause warming” they claim that as the GHG’s (the factor B) go down, the air will get colder, forgetting about the contribution by A. Oops.

As the atmosphere loses its ability to cool by radiation, it heats up because A continues in the absence of GHG’s, and in fact gets much stronger (double) when they are not in the way, yet air would not cool radiatively as it does now. It is very likely that in the complete absence of B (no GHG’s) the air temperature would be higher than it is now because of the factor A being continuously present. Every statement holding that in the absence of GHG’s the air temperature would be -18C is false; c.f. Dr Gavin Schmidt and many others who make that error.

Alan Tomalty

“The reflected total energy between the two mirrors in a laser is FAR more than the input energy.”

So you have just invented a way to create energy out of nothing?

KAT

Its called “reflected bounce perpetual energy” and will eventually replace and make completely redundant all windmills and solar panels. Ships will simply fit a mirror at the bow and another at the stern and fossil fuel will not be required. Umm…after careful reflection (of the non bounce type) this set up may not work. Back to the drawing board!

Michael S. Kelly, LS, BSA, Ret.

Good argument. I love it! I’m not sure I completely agree with it, yet, but it seems well reasoned.

Phoenix44

I think you and Alan are arguing about different things. At any point in time the energy in a system can only be equal to the energy put into that system. But over a period of time the total flows can be higher.

Alan Tomalty

” But over a period of time the total flows can be higher.”

If you have a long pipe that is constricted in many places the flow speeds up during each constriction. Fluid or air velocity is inversely proportional to the cross sectional area. However the volumetric flow is the same because the cross sectional area is smaller. THE TOTAL FLOW CAN NEVER BE HIGHER OVER ANY PERIOD OF TIME AT ANY POINT IN THE SYSTEM. The amount of flow(volumetric flow rate) V1 at input at the beginning of the pipe can never be lower than at any point in the system for a continuous flow. dV2/dt is always equal to dV1/dt because V2 always = V1 (initial and ongoing volume of flow). The same thing with heat flux. Unless you dont have an equilibrium , the amount flowing out always equals the amount flowing in. If you have a multi pipe system where all the pipes are connected like in the outer space/surface /atmosphere layout of the earth , you cant have an amount of flow through one of the pipes that is greater than the amount at the beginning and is ~ the solar input.

Crispin in Waterloo

Alan

By your logic, holding water in a bucket, with the water touching the sides, and the water naturally circulating randomly so different molecules come in contact with the sides, increases the total mass of water over time. That is silly.

You are, at root, confusing heat conduction with electromagnetic radiation. This is common when novices go exploring, keeping in mind the oft-repeated dogma that heat cannot ‘flow’ from a colder to a warmer object but fundamentally misunderstanding how radiation works.

The “total flow” when light bounces back and forth between two mirrors is not higher than the original source of light. So what? Who said it was? Passing water back and forth between two cups does not increase the volume of water. Each cup, however, contains a total sum of a lot of water. These are two different metrics. You keep confusing them.

If you are unable to get a grip on the way GHG’s work by insulating the surface be means of back-radiation, you are going to be stuck forever in the land of almost-science.

GHG’s heat the surface by back-radiation. Some of it is absorbed and heats the air, some is re-radiated. Trenberth claims it is all re-radiated without heating the surface which is a Big Mistake.

The atmosphere responds by reducing the amount of water vapour at high altitude so as to maintain the same optical thickness, currently 1.82 where is has remained for at least 60 years. See Miskolczi 2012 etc. GHG’s also cool the atmosphere by radiation: the more, the lower in the atmosphere they are effective. The result is a cooling at high altitude. Evidence for cooling and drying at high altitude abounds, as does evidence of GHG’s at lower altitude. The net effect on temperature is about zero. Not zero: about zero. It is also non-linear, and at low concentrations, the atmosphere heats up due to an inability to cool effectively.

The rest, as they say, is noise.

Alan Tomalty

“The total energy (light) reflected back and forth is far greater than the initial energy used to illuminate you.”
“The “total flow” when light bounces back and forth between two mirrors is not higher than the original source of light. So what? Who said it was?”

The above are your 2 quotes not mine. They are from different posts on this ridiculous argument.

“Passing water back and forth between two cups does not increase the volume of water. Each cup, however, contains a total sum of a lot of water.”

Each cup cannot contain a greater volume amount of water flow (key word being flow here) than the volume flow of the input. Look again at the NASA graph. It has surface to atmosphere flow of more than 100%.

“GHG’s heat the surface by back-radiation.”
Back radiation is a big overblown myth( a tiny amount of heat is provided this way). The atmosphere’s most heat is provided by N2 and O2 which have in total 4000 times the heat capacity of CO2. Most of the IR that is absorbed by CO2 is then transferred to N2 and O2 through 10^10 collisions per second. Convection then carries away most of this transferred energy to the upper atmosphere and then to
space. If convection wasnt a hugely important player here, whenever it rained, the released latent heat would overwhelm the surface. Why do you think it is always colder after a rainstorm? The latent heat (which is now sensible heat) has to go somewhere. If it went back to the surface you would always feel warmer after a rain.

rocketscientist

Given the quality of the temperature readings of late, can we trust that the artic is actually experiencing a heat wave?

rbabcock

What heat wave? The way up North is actually below normal (barely above 0C) http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php

tty

It isn’t. It is hot inland in Siberia (as usual), but the polar coast is cold (also as usual).

Hugs

So what exactly is not cold to you?

The heat wave, by the way, is now at the Hudson Bay. Siberia is down to +14C and even colder.

ren
ren

This year ice in the Arctic will not miss.
https://weather.gc.ca/saisons/animation_e.html?id=month&bc=sea

RACookPE1978

Bottom line: NSIDC shows slightly more ice this year than in 2007 at 8 July (here), despite weeks of record-breaking, late June/early July ‘global’ heat waves in 2018.

I will politely disagree (slightly) with this “bottom line” statement. It needs to be substantially expanded:

1. NSIDC (9 July 2018) shows the 9 July 2018 Arctic Sea Ice extent is GREATER than 10 out of the previous 12 years of historical sea ice records. Since 2005, only 2015 and 2008 are larger than today’s 9 July 2018 Arctic Sea Ice extents.

2. NSIDC Sea Ice extents are within the 2 standard deviations of their long-term 1980-2010 daily averages.

3. NSIDC sea ice records confirm the opposite of conventional wisdom regarding the mythical sea ice death spiral : The larger the arctic sea ice extents at maximum in March-April, the lower the sea ice minimums have been. In fact, the ONLY positive Arctic sea ice anomaly (March-April 2012) in the past seventeen years was immediately followed five months by the all-time lowest sea ice extents (September 2012).

4. Arctic sea ice “maximums” in 2016, 2017, and 2018 were admittedly low, well below the 2 standard deviations from the nominal 1980-2010 average sea ice maximum. However, Arctic sea ice minimums each of the following Septembers was right in the middle of all recent Arctic sea ice minimums.

5. Arctic sea ice further south at latitude 60 (Hudson Bay, Bering Sea, Sea of Okhotsk, and Gulf of St Lawrence) reflects (or absorbs – depending on how you want to look at it) roughly twice the net energy difference than what we think about all of Arctic Sea ice up past latitude 71-90 in the Arctic Ocean. (Antarctic sea ice surrounding the South Pole reflects 1.7 times the annual solar energy difference that the Arctic sea ice does.)

6A. For the first time EVER, the Bering Sea remained covered by sea ice through all of August in both 2016 and 2017. In fact, parts of the Bering Sea ice in both years remained solid through all but two days in September! Clearly, we are not yet through July 2018 yet, much less August and September. But 2018 Bering Sea ice areas remain at or above their 2016 and 2017 levels thus far in 2018. And more than 3x their 2014-2015 average daily levels on several days this year.

6B. For the first time EVER, the Sea of Okhotsk remained covered by sea ice through all of both August and September in both 2016 and 2017. 2018 Sea of Okhotsk sea ice areas remain at or near their 2016 and 2017 levels thus far in 2018.

6C. At 1.2 Mkm^2 at maximum, the Hudson Bay sea ice is larger than either the Sea of Okhotsk and the Bering Sea. Unlike either of the small seas, Hudson Bay sea ice area has never melted out completely in the modern satellite era, so there is no dramatic (record-breaking) summer or winter sea ice area news in 2016-2017-2018 for Hudson Bay. However, more ominously, the daily 2018 Hudson Bay sea ice area averages 1.20 times its 2017 daily areas. Not every day is greater, but – on average – every 2018 Hudson Bay daily sea ice area is greater than the same day compared to the 2010-2011 daily average, 2012-2013 daily average, 2014-2015 daily average, or the 2016-2017 daily average.

6D. Gulf of St Lawrence sea ice areas for both 2016 and 2017 remained frozen more than a month longer than ANY previous NSIDC record. The Gulf of St Lawrence is admittedly very small (compared to the total Arctic Sea ice area), but this area represents the furthermost south Arctic Sea Ice, and thus reflects much more solar energy than any similar-sized area closer to the pole.

Actual “bottom line”? 2018 Arctic Sea Ice extents are lower than the establishment-sponsored long-time 1980-2010 average. However, 2018 Arctic Sea ice areas are comparable to ALL recent daily sea ice extents (2007-2018), and are increasing from every recent two-year sea ice daily average.

Regardless, from today’s Arctic sea ice areas, calculations show that, when totaled over the entire year, less Arctic sea ice means more heat is lost from the newly-exposed Arctic Ocean to the infinite frozen blackness of space than can be gained during the fleeting days of the Arctic summer.

zazove

“less Arctic sea ice means more heat is lost from the newly-exposed Arctic Ocean to the infinite frozen blackness of space”

Are you saying the more heat in the Arctic the more is lost to space, net result zero.

RACookPE1978

zazove

Are you saying the more heat in the Arctic the more is lost to space, net result zero.

No. I am not saying that.
I am saying that, over the course of the entire year, the calculations show that more heat is lost from the newly exposed Arctic Ocean due to increased evaporation from the open water, increased LW radiation losses from the newly exposed sea surface, increased convection and reduced conduction losses than can be gained from the increased absorption of solar radiation into the “darker” sea surface.

MarkW

Especially since at those low angles, water reflects as much, if not more light than ice does.

RACookPE1978

MarkW

Especially since at those low angles, water reflects as much, if not more light than ice does.

Well, the difference between the two (SW energy absorbed into sea ice, measured at each hour of each day of the year at every latitude of the sea ice) and SW energy absorbed into the open ocean, also calculated at each hour of each day of each day of the year at every latitude the sea ice used to be) does become near-zero every time the solar elevation angle becomes low, but – strictly speaking – only the direct solar radiation is reflected proportionally to solar elevation angle (SEA). Below 10 degrees SEA, the albedo of open ocean water becomes much larger (0.35 or higher) for direct radiation. In July, Arctic sea ice albedo has been measured as low as 0.38, and the sea ice albedo is getting dirtier each year since measurements began back in 1950. (Soviet Union’s NP-2 drifting ice station reported sea ice albedo of 0.60 in July 1950. Its winter albedo of 0.86 was the same as Judith Curry’s 1998 winter-spring SHEBA measurements.)

Now, the albedo of open water struck by diffuse radiation – and the amount of diffuse radiation is ALWAYS much less than the direct radiation on clear days – is independent of SEA: It stays at the “classic” Wikipedia-NSIDC-NASA-GISS “average albedo for water” value of 0.067 regardless of sea state, solar elevation angle, or wind speed.
What really matters is atmospheric attenuation at low SEA angles. The total solar radiation reaching the ocean surface/ice surface at SEA values under 10 degrees is less 5% of the value at noon on the same day.

There simply isn’t very much solar energy to be absorbed up in the Arctic on a flat surface at sea level. The number of days that solar radiation is available to a flat surface up north is very limited. Then, making things worse, the difference between the albedo of the open ocean water and the dirty sea ice is very low in the critical months of June, July, and August.

Yes, there are 24 hours of “light” on most areas of the Arctic ice. There just isn’t very much “solar energy” in that little bit of light hitting a flat surface up north.

“Excess” solar energy IS absorbed into the newly-exposed Arctic ocean when sea ice melts 4 months each summer (mid-April to mid-August). However, the extra heat losses from that same area of newly-exposed ocean water continue 24 hours a day every day of the year. Those increased losses from open water are greater than the little bit of extra solar energy absorbed in the 4 summer months.

zazove

So whether or not more radiation is lost to space is a moot point, the Arctic is now a lot warmer. The ice will continue its inexorable disappearing act.

RACookPE1978

zazove

So whether or not more radiation is lost to space is a moot point, the Arctic is now a lot warmer. The ice will continue its inexorable disappearing act.

Why do you claim the Arctic is hotter than ever? Summer time air temperature out over the Arctic sea ice have not changed since DMI record-keeping for latitude 80 north began in 1950’s. (Winter air temperatures are higher – and with a much larger standard deviation. But we are NOT in winter up north on today’s date.)

Do you want to cite average year-round temperatures for “everything north of 60 north latitude”? Those are mid-July temperatures either. There ain’t no sea ice between 60 north and 70 north, and only one land-based weather station north of 80 north latitude.

zazove

“Summer time air temperature out over the Arctic sea ice have not changed since DMI record-keeping for latitude 80 north began in 1950’s. ”

No and they wont as long as the energy is going into melting ice (latent heat of fusion for water at 0 °C is approximately 334 joules per gram), so it is effectively capped. But after that… the lid comes off.

RACookPE1978

zazove

No and they wont as long as the energy is going into melting ice (latent heat of fusion for water at 0 °C is approximately 334 joules per gram), so it is effectively capped. But after that… the lid comes off.

True, the exposed ocean waters will absorb more solar energy from mid-April to mid-August. But the remaining 8 months of the year, less sea ice = More heat lost from those same ocean waters. Net, over the entire year, more heat is lost due to increased radiation, convection, evaporation and reduced conduction than is absorbed in the summer months.

MarkW

The more heat lost to space, the cooler the planet.
Even you should be able to figure that out.

zazove

Thats not even wrong.

tty

There is no ice in the Sea of Okhotsk or the Bering sea at this time (which is perfectly normal). Nor was there in the autumns of 2016 or 2017. Take a look at MODIS if you don’t believe me.

RACookPE1978

tty

There is no ice in the Sea of Okhotsk or the Bering sea at this time (which is perfectly normal). Nor was there in the autumns of 2016 or 2017. Take a look at MODIS if you don’t believe me.

Dead wrong. I’m not looking at images of pixels, but at the daily NSIDC regional sea ice spreadsheets.
See Link nbr 6: Daily sea ice extent, by region (Sea_Ice_Index_Regional_Daily_Data_G02135_v3.0.xlsx)
at https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/sea-ice-tools/

Now, I grant that there was no much sea ice remaining over the summers in 2016-2017 in either the Sea of Okhotsk or the Bering Sea (and there were two days in Sept 2016 that were recorded as 0 for the Bering Sea), but these were the first years EVER that they did not melt out entirely in August.
And, this year in 2018, parts of the Gulf of St Lawrence remain ice-covered well into mid-July – we shall see if that sea ice remains as long as it has the past two years. (In 2016 and 2017, the Gulf retained sea ice 31 days later into the summer months than ever before.)
Yesterday, Hudson Bay has 3x the amount of sea ice it had in 2017!

Phil.

Now, I grant that there was no much sea ice remaining over the summers in 2016-2017 in either the Sea of Okhotsk or the Bering Sea (and there were two days in Sept 2016 that were recorded as 0 for the Bering Sea), but these were the first years EVER that they did not melt out entirely in August.

The only place that the seaice shows up in NSIDC sea ice in Okhotsk is in a few pixels at the coast which result from the coast effects in the algorithm. If you look at the actual images from MODIS you’ll not see ice there. Also check on when they changed the satellite used for those measurements.

RACookPE1978

Phil.

The only place that the seaice shows up in NSIDC sea ice in Okhotsk is in a few pixels at the coast which result from the coast effects in the algorithm. If you look at the actual images from MODIS you’ll not see ice there. Also check on when they changed the satellite used for those measurements.

Phil. You’re not being your usual (careful) self here. Again: I am NOT using ANY screen image of pixels for the sea ice areas of the Bering Sea or Sea of Okhotsk. I am reading the NSIDC’s own day-by-day regional sea ice reports from their original spreadsheet files from their own website.

Further, while the polar Arctic sea ice radar scans suffer from omisions and blank areas right at the North Pole itself, those “areas” that cannot be scanned are less than 1,00,000 sq kilometers around the pole itself. Thus, the NSIDC eliminates entirely the sea ice between 85 North and the Pole in its “Sea Ice Area” reports, but includes this area in its “sea ice extents” reports.

Regardless, the daily NSIDC REGIONAL Sea Ice area reports for the Sea of Okhotsk, Hudson Bay, and Bering Sea are well far south of the latitude 85 satellite blank area because, by definition, they are the only sea ice regions at 60 north latitude. Your comment only confirms my observation that sea ice at latitude 60 north in 2016-2017-2018 is greater in the past three years than it ever has been in the recent past.

Phil.

Phil.

“The only place that the seaice shows up in NSIDC sea ice in Okhotsk is in a few pixels at the coast which result from the coast effects in the algorithm. If you look at the actual images from MODIS you’ll not see ice there. Also check on when they changed the satellite used for those measurements.”

Phil. You’re not being your usual (careful) self here. Again: I am NOT using ANY screen image of pixels for the sea ice areas of the Bering Sea or Sea of Okhotsk. I am reading the NSIDC’s own day-by-day regional sea ice reports from their original spreadsheet files from their own website.
On the contrary I was pointing out to you that the satellite used changed in spring 2016 also the algorithm used to process the data and the associated mask data changed last fall. I was not suggesting that you were using the screen image pixels but that the algorithm does and often errors are made which indicate pixels of ice adjacent to the coast which aren’t actually there. Comparing the pixels shown in such locations with MODIS in Okhotsk indicates they are phantom ice not real.

RACookPE1978

On the contrary I was pointing out to you that the satellite used changed in spring 2016 also the algorithm used to process the data and the associated mask data changed last fall. I was not suggesting that you were using the screen image pixels but that the algorithm does and often errors are made which indicate pixels of ice adjacent to the coast which aren’t actually there. Comparing the pixels shown in such locations with MODIS in Okhotsk indicates they are phantom ice not real.

Regardless. The NSIDC has never reported sea ice at these levels this late in the year in the Bering Sea AND Gulf of St Lawrence AND Sea of Okhotsk at these levels ever before years 2016, 2017, and 2018. (See my comment about new NSIDC record-setting sea ice areas a few minutes ago above: Sea of Okhotsk did record higher sea ice areas in 1982 and 1983, so those “pixels” reported today in 2018 have been reflected before. )

Further, my values are for sea ice AREA records (not sea ice extents) so the ten thousand total sea ice area reported today at latitude 60 degrees north are NOT the “at least 15% area coverage, but the far more stringent requirements for 85% coverage.

If you wish to dispute the values, go call the CAGW extremists inside your NSIDC CAGW-fearing bureaucracy. Or get Russian permission to go overfly the coastlines of the Bering Sea and Sea of Okhotsk.

Phil.

I don’t need permission to fly over the coastlines I can see them from the Terra and Aqua satellites, just need some cloudless days.
The Sea of Okhotsk area report is ~4000 km^2 from the max of ~750,000 km^2 earlier in the year. The resolution is 25×25 km so each pixel is 625 km^2 so that amounts to ~7 pixels. Prior to 2016 that amount of ice would disappear in a day, however as I pointed out, since then a different sensor and different processing algorithm and mask has been in use. You’re straining at a gnat.
Note uni-bremen with its 5km resolution isn’t showing ice in the sea of Okhotsk.
https://seaice.uni-bremen.de/databrowser/#day=11&month=6&year=2018&img={“image”:”image-1″,”sensor”:”AMSR”,”type”:”visual”,”region”:”SeaOfOkhotsk2″}

Javier

During the warm periods known as interglacials, the main role of sea ice is as insulator, limiting the amount of heat lost at the poles. It acts as a negative feedback (stable systems are dominated by negative feedbacks), so more heat is lost when it is warmer due to less ice, and less when it is colder due to more ice. It does so by having its maximum extent at winter and insulating the ocean from its contact with a very cold, dry atmosphere in the dark. During summers it reduces its extent, limiting the loss of energy from the albedo effect.

Only when the ice expands to lower latitudes and over land, resisting melting during the summer, the albedo effect becomes dominant and a positive feedback pushes the planet towards a glacial period. Only the change of net feedback from negative to positive can explain the system becoming unstable at glaciations and deglaciations.

The loss of ice of the 1990’s and early 2000’s has increased the amount of heat lost at the Arctic so much during winter that the warmest period of 2015-2017 had no effect on Arctic sea ice, despite the Arctic receiving higher amounts of heat transported from the tropics, that manifested in higher winter temperature in the Arctic. Now that the heat peak is past we might see some Arctic sea ice extent increase.

RACookPE1978

Javier

Only when the ice expands to lower latitudes and over land, resisting melting during the summer, the albedo effect becomes dominant and a positive feedback pushes the planet towards a glacial period. Only the change of net feedback from negative to positive can explain the system becoming unstable at glaciations and deglaciations.

Granted. Your observation of the “negative” feedback of the loss of sea ice across the Arctic agrees with my calculations.

Which is why I report the last three years of slowly increasing sea ice at latitude 60 as “ominous”. (There is virtually no sea ice at all between the four separated small sets of sea ice at latitude 60 (Hudson Bay, Sea of Okhotsk, Bering Sea, and Gulf of St Lawrence) and the greater mass up north of Alaska, Canada, and Greenland that is over the Arctic Ocean itself.)

On the other hand, today’s higher CO2 levels means that the tundra and forests SOUTH of the arctic ocean (Alaska, Canada, Canadian Islands, Iceland, Scandinavia, and the Russian-Siberia north coasts are now “greener”, more productive. And so the LAND becomes much darker earlier in the year, stays much darker later into fall.

Thus it is the land ice between 70 north and 60 north that faces the greater challenge if it is to expand and increase the total albedo of that earth between 60-70 north required for year-round ice and the start of a new glacial period.

zazove

“the last three years of slowly increasing sea ice”

Thats weather Cookie. A summer like 2012’s would end that run, three years is quite a small sample. Here’s a smoothed out ‘climate-length trend for you to ‘splain.

comment image

RACookPE1978

zazove

“the last three years of slowly increasing sea ice”

Thats weather Cookie. A summer like 2012’s would end that run, three years is quite a small sample.

Nope. Didn’t happen in 2012. Through the ice season in 2012 nor 2013, the Bering sea ice exceeded its long term average sea ice area by more than 150,000 sq kilometers. Sereze’s much-hyped theory of “positive feedback” and “the death spiral” of continued warming caused increased warming is either incomplete or dead wrong. It’s predictions fail over in the long run of many decades, and in the shorter season-season comparisons.

In 36 years, the Bering Sea, the Okhotsk Sea melted out EVERY year in August and September. That’s “climate” not “weather.

In 2016 and 2017, for the first time in recorded history, those two areas far south of the Arctic did not melt out. 2018 continues to show high sea ice levels in both thus far this summer. (Spring 2018 was notably lower in the Bering Sea, but that only disproves the death spiral theory even more.) Further east, the Hudson Bay and and Gulf of St Lawrence stayed frozen far longer at far higher levels than ever before.

John V. Wright

Any journalist still using polar bears as a poster child for catastrophic anthropogenic climate change is either an idiot or a charlatan.

ResourceGuy

This now qualifies as fake news deliberately taking advantage of the uninformed. The government funded metrics are out there and available. Wake up or be used.

Tom Halla

Judging fro the maps of sea ice, the variations look quite random, so having “unprecedented” open water in one area does not seem to signify anything.

Tom Gelsthorpe

“Unprecedented” is an alarmist word used to scare people when the data is unconvincing.

Bruce Sanson

Let me say what I think is happening. Currently, large areas of open Arctic waters are rapidly freezing in winter allowing the release of increased latent into the atmosphere, weakening the polar vortex. This is causing two things to happen. Firstly, more deep water formation, cooling the Arctic Ocean at depth and very slowly the northern North Atlantic. Secondly, the weaker polar vortex is weakening the Icelandic low. Associated with this the Azores high is also weakened causing a reduced water flow northward, also cooling the northern North Atlantic. We should let them enjoy their current warm summers in Europe as the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation is slowly turning negative.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_multidecadal_oscillation

zazove

February extent from NSIDC

comment image

“The linear rate of decline for February is 47,000 square kilometers per year (18,000 square miles per year), or 3.1 percent per decade.”

RACookPE1978

The linear rate of decline for February is 47,000 square kilometers per year (18,000 square miles per year), or 3.1 percent per decade.

Odd. After all these many years since accurate records began in 1979, the ACTUAL change in maximum sea ice extents (February-March) is “only” 1.25 million square kilometers in 39 years.
(14.350 Mkm^2 March 17, 2018 vs 15.500 Mkm^2 March 4 1981-2010 NSIDC average.)

Hmmmn. 92.6 percent of the “average” March maximum in 39 years.
Or an actual loss of 7.4 percent in 39 years.
1.9 percent per year? But that’s not a “straight-line” average.
That’s just the actual change. Only a 7.4% loss at maximum.

RACookPE1978

Oh, now I get it!

The NSIDC took a sine/cosine type of oscillating record, used the maximum ever and minimum ever values for a period of less than 1/2 full cycle, then extrapolated that “straight line linear trend” into the infinite future!

rocketscientist

Its even more absurd when you realize there is an asymptotic limit and therefore the trend cannot be linear. (Although if you snippet a short enough segment, you can fool the innumerate).
I lament the fools who only see the down swing of a pendulum and expect it to crash into the floor.

Alan Tomalty

According to the Danish Meteorological Institute Arctic sea ice volume (extent is meaningless) is the highest it has been in 10 years as of July, 2018

http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icethickness/images/FullSize_CICE_combine_thick_SM_EN_20180709.png

Brett Keane

Zaz: What your graph purports to cover, is mostly the last warm phase of the AMO etc.. Circa 32yrs. Show full cycles or ship out, deceiver. learn about the extensive [records] from Sailors, Navies, and Scientists over the centuries. Whaling and Fishery records are vast, for instance. The Royal Navy started sailing up there in King Alfred’s time, for instance.
But the pursuit of understanding is not your purpose, is it.

zazove

It purports nothing, it is just data. Your umbrage is ill-conceived and your arm-waving hilarious.

King (cough) Alfred? As in Alfred the Great, 871 to 899? Lol.

Phoenix44

Iceland was settled in 874. What’s so funny about that?

zazove

Um, nothing? But Alfred the Great, Cryospherologist is.

mikewaite

And some , admittedly disputed , recent carbon dating puts the earliest stage of Norse exploration of iceland at about 700AD . Whatever the conclusion of that debate it is known that the colonisation in the 9th century resulted in the hasty departure of hermit monks from Ireland who had been there for 150 – 200 years.
The latter were not, presumably, borne there by angels. The Norse also established hunting and trading posts in the Lofoten Islands by 500AD .
Alfred translated Orosius’s “History of the world” and incorporates narrative of North Sea navigation from 2 mariners a Norse : Ottar and Wulfstan , possibly English , who sailed from England to the Baltic .
However zazove is probably correct in thinking that only the Norse had the ships capable of extended ocean sailing at that time (by the end of the 10th Cent sailing to Greenland from Iceland involved a minimum of 4 days at sea , in good conditions).

Phil.

That for most of his reign Alfred was fighting off an invasion by the Danes in southern England. Such a ‘Royal Navy’ as existed was fighting the Danes around the south of England. The early settlers of Iceland frequently travelled there via Scotland and Ireland but I strongly doubt that King Alfred’s navy played any part.

Khwarizmi

ever so slightly off topic, but it looks like an interesting day over the Atlantic…
cyclone skirting the eastern US, + plus a HUGE swirl of dust from the Sahara:
comment image

animation/loop:
http://col.st/l4VTz

J Mac

Global Warming? I’m just not feeling it, here in the Great NorthWet!

Smart Rock

The arctic (in Canada) is experiencing above-average temperatures, but nothing “unprecedented”

Here is a selection of reports for yesterday’s high temperatures, plus historical highs, for the northernmost 14 weather stations in Nunavut Territory (all in degrees C). This is from Environment Canada website, which being primarily a weather service, tends to have reliable data. WordPress doesn’t seem to do tabular formatting very well)

Weather 
station	High     Hist. High   Year
Eureka	4.1	16.2	2015
Resolute	2.4	16.5	1981
Pond Inlet	7.8	21.0	1991
Clyde River	14.6	18.3	1943
Qikiqtrjuuak	7.5	15.2	2000
Pangnirtung	13.7	20.0	2012
Hall Beach	8.9	20.4	1994
Kugaaruk	16.0	23.0	1994
Taloyoak	10.4	21.1	2008
Gjoa Haven	16.3	19.8	1988
Cambridge Bay	16.2	23.3	1954
Kugluktuk	23.4	30.1	1990
Iqaluit	8.9	22.8	2000
Cape Dorset	7.9	19.9	1990

So -to summarise:
Warmer than average? Yes.
Heat wave? Maybe
Unprecedented? NO

Added “pre” text formatting around table for clarity. .mod]

Marcus

And we want the “Great White North” to stay “Frozen” …why ?

mikewaite

It looks prettier than a grey swell covered in plastic rubbish.

ldd

Lots of ice still in the north according to this link.
http://ice-glaces.ec.gc.ca/cgi-bin/getprod.pl?prodid=MODISCOM-T&wrap=0&lang=en
It’s visually showing that Hudson Bay is still half covered in ice on the east side.

RACookPE1978

Yes, the Hudson Bay has averaged about 20% more sea ice every day this year than the same date in 2016-2017.

The past few weeks, the 2018 daily sea ice areas in the Hudson Bay have been as much 2.85 times the same date in 2017.

In the mean time global surface oceanic temperatures continue to fall.

Richard M

Nope, they stopped falling back in February and have now risen the past 4 months. Most likely it is due to a warmer equatorial Pacific (now at El Nino conditions).

Imo, the reason why Arctic temps are currently running below average, and that the sea ice is fairly stable during this warm season is that the surface wind changes from 2+ years ago are still in effect. Those surface wind changes make all of the difference, and will continue to make a difference until the pattern changes. That could well be a decade or more from now, if the reason for this change is that this is due to the cyclical change to a cooling trend versus the prior warm trend, short cycles for both cool/warm.

As for the warming in Eastern Siberia that is all due to surface winds starting in the SH which have been crossing the Equator and then moving on a northeasterly trajectory. The winds have then flowed around the Himalayas, warming the Gobi Desert to the north and much of China before moving into Eastern Siberia. I have daily pics saved which show the entirety of all of that. The surface winds pattern started up in the middle of April and has consistently held ever since with the exception of the recent impact from Typhoon Maria in the Western Pacific. here is the change which the typhoon has caused. …https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/overlay=total_cloud_water/orthographic=-255.72,17.12,672/loc=-129.443,42.984

I see that those winds are regaining their former direction now. The typhoon had been pulling those winds due east for the last 5 days, but as you can see this is now changing as the typhoon draws close in to the coast. One interesting aspect of these surface winds which I noted back in the middle of May is that they caused a warm spot to develop high up at 500 hPa. It took me until the other day to figure out why that was so. The surface winds must be pushing into the Himalayas, and then are forced upward to create this warm spot at that elevation. Also note how typhoon Maria has also recently caused a warm spot at that same elevation as it extends up to 500 Hpa as well, a string typhoon in its own right. …https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/500hPa/overlay=temp/orthographic=79.83,36.45,671/loc=84.702,30.781

One last thought, a warm eastern Siberia is also seen when a gsm is underway as can be noted when looking back in time.

Surface winds moving back to their previous path after being drawn east by the typhoon. …https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/orthographic=82.87,18.83,671/loc=84.702,30.781

RACookPE1978

goldminor

Imo, the reason why Arctic temps are currently running below average, and that the sea ice is fairly stable during this warm season is that the surface wind changes from 2+ years ago are still in effect.

Well, that is an idea. But the Arctic sea ice anomaly has been oscillating slightly since 2006 (12 years ago now), but it (in general) has been pretty steady all year, during every season of every year during that period at -1.0 to -1.5 Mkm^2.

So something else is causing the difference in sea ice area.

Arctic summer temperatures since 1950 at DMI 80 north has NEVER changed even 1.0 degree, but winter daily temperature forecasts for the same 80 north latitude are now routinely +5 to +7 degrees C warmer. Yet the Arctic sea ice extent anomalies do NOT change from summer melting to fall minimums to winter freezing to spring maximums.

I look at 2006/07 as being the shift point to the cooling trend, which I then expect to hold into the early 2030s.

Steven Mosher

dont get your science from the guardian.

‘science’ for people who Can’t Do Sums

Bryan A

Don’t get your Science OR your News from Grauniad

frankclimate

Just the facts about the daily Sea Ice Extent:
http://www.dh7fb.de/noaice/min13akt.gif

Phoenix44

Mosher’s been hacked!

Richard

Yes. Summer is absolute proof of global warming. Okay, so, actually, it’s only proof of half global warming, because the other half is experiencing global cooling. But let’s not allow facts to get in the way of a good propaganda scare.

J Mac
Frederick Michael

And if you zoom in on the Charctic graph, you can see that the July melting has been slower than average.

To zoom in, hold the mouse button down and drag a rectangle on the chart.

I think that this is a great indicator of current Arctic conditions. Today’s Greenland smb. Consider that the melt season is likely to end in around 35 to 40 days from now. What will that mean for sea ice? The cruise ships better start sending out cancellation notices for the Northwest Passage this year.

comment image

Blackcap

Can you please explain what those graphs mean. Genuine question from someone who has see similar graphs before but unsure what to make of them.

Javier

Gigatonnes of ice gained or lost over Greenland’s surface due to precipitation and melting. One is the daily chart, and the other is the cumulative chart.

It is not the final accounting on Greenland’s ice because there is also a great amount of ice that is lost from glaciers into the sea every year. So nearly every year Greenland loses ice.

@ Blackcap …note the continuing trend on Greenland, now 6 days later.

comment image

tty

The upper graph is daily snow accumulation on the Greenland ice cap. The lower is cumulative since Sept 1 last year.
The takeaway message is with nearly half the normal melting season now gone the melt has barely started.

Phil.

The takeaway message is with nearly half the normal melting season now gone the melt has barely started.

No the takeaway message is that precipitation has exceeded melt, the melt started in May and is continuing. Since May melt has mostly been above the median, currently melt extent is ~26% (median ~17%).
http://nsidc.org/greenland-today/
DMI data is slightly different, shows 17/07 data as 42% melt (mean ~31%).
http://www.dmi.dk/uploads/tx_dmidatastore/webservice/e/n/i/b/m/Melt_combine.png

Craig from Oz

Something no one seems to have picked up on here from this article,

“But though we cannot say definitively that the current heatwave is caused by carbon emissions…”

Remember this is published in The Guardian, the paper that secretly thinks Marx was in it for the money, so coming from them this like is the equivalent of them openly stating that the threat of man made Global Warming is a scam.

tty

It seems that Guardian has missed that Siberia has an extremely continental climate with very cold winters and hot summers. The July temperature in Yakutsk (capital of Yakutia) for example is higher than in Paris. But on the other hand in January it is 15 degrees (C) colder than Barrow, Alaska.

Crispin in Waterloo

It reached -68 C one Tuesday in January. Yakutia is one heck of a cold place. I was in Ulaanbaatar that day and it was -42 C at 9 AM. And windy.

steve

Well I was in travelling in the Rockies in Canada 10 days ago and I woke up in my truck camper to a temp of -3 C at an altitude of 4500 feet and snow on the ground, the snow was then repeated 2 days later on AB40 Forest Trunk Road about 100 miles south west of Calgary. Most people inc locals were shocked at the cold weather. Of course that week or so of cold weather over a vast area that included Idaho, Montana Alberta and BC did not make the media.

meteorologist in research

Why should a wave like that make news?

ldd

Because it’s been “unusually” cold from BC to Newfoundland… breaking all kinds of low NIGHT time temp records that they; the msm conveniently ignores.

meteorologist in research

How many times can the media say records are broken because the energy content of the Rossby waves has gone up. People’s eyes glaze over.

ldd

Obviously not enough when it comes to the cold records is all I’m pointing out.

Regardless of the Rossby waves -(we’re back in the 70s again) – but where’s the heat if c02 is the heat generator?

https://canoe.com/news/national/more-than-half-of-n-s-blueberry-crop-wiped-out-by-killer-frost-producers

Have family/friends from Alberta to Nova Scotia – we’re in ON. The night time temp dips have been very noticeable and does affect crop growth negatively.
Similar pattern set in last year for the summer as well.

Current heat wave – most heat we’ve had in a while. It’s mid summer here +30C is like having -30C in Jan. That’s really NOT that abnormal as compared to ALL the single digits nights we’ve been getting since May-June of last couple of years. June 28 in Ottawa – coldest am on record, +7.2 C.; +5C in areas around.

meteorologist in research

We don’t know.
CO2 slightly warms the planet (insufficient outflow), so the planetary waves gain the energy. They become elongated longitudinally, so there’s fewer of them. They’re wider which allows for persisting conditions which results in droughts, flooding, cold records and heat waves. It’s a complicated picture.

Is it the sun causing it instead?, magnetic changes? It’s very slight. We don’t know. But by the second part of this century it will be obvious to everyone.

ldd

It’s not C02, it’s barely 4% of the total atmosphere – to believe that it can change the global temps is just foolish. Truly foolish.
PS there is no heat increases as opposed to the increase in your magical C02.

Crispin in Waterloo

Small correction: 0.04% of the total atmosphere.

GrumpyGuts

A recent media report here in the UK said that “it is the hottest June since 1940!”. i.e. The June temperature has never been surpassed so it’s getting cooler. Maybe made-made global warming has failed.
Similarly June had very little rain – in fact it has been the driest June since 1925, so it was dryer in 1925. I suppose one could conclude that it’s getting wetter…

Sheri

I wasn’t aware sea ice was so easily melted. A couple of weeks of hot and poof! It’s gone?

meteorologist in research

AGW warnings are about conditions for our great grandchildren.

ldd

Oh ok – so in 2 generations you think that the north pole will be all melted and won’t be in darkness with – 50C temps for months on end? lolz.

RACookPE1978

Oh ok – so in 2 generations you think that the north pole will be all melted and won’t be in darkness with – 50C temps for months on end? lolz.

Careful. Don’t claim -50 daily air temperatures across the arctic sea ice as ANY routine occurance. Far more accurate to use DMI’s -31 to -33 degree C daily average. That value is supported by all modern long-term records.

Average daily air temperatures across the sea ice around the north pole seldom get below -32 degrees C (Soviet and Russian Ice Drift Station NP-1 through NP-33). But their coldest (extreme) drift station mean daily temperature did get down to “only” -48.9 C by NP-32.
However, note that the average daily temperatures from the Fram (ship) expedition through their months frozen in across the Arctic in 1895 DID (twice) get below -40 deg C twice. See Figure 2.25, Section 2.5 (Changes in meteorological conditions in the Arctic Basin, The Arctic Basin – Results from the Russian Drifting Stations by Ivan E. Frolov.)

ldd

Thank you for that clarification. I shall happily stand corrected.

meteorologist in research

ldd – the poles cool because of the long night.

ldd

Yes, so cool that it freezes and not much life as we like it thrives.

RACookPE1978

I wasn’t aware sea ice was so easily melted. A couple of weeks of hot and poof! It’s gone?

Yeppers. Starts mid-April. Every year. Begins freezing up again mid-August. Every year.

Johann Wundersamer

Said The Guardian (July 9, 2018):

“But though we cannot say definitively that the current heatwave is caused by carbon emissions, it fits the pattern of long-term changes that we call climate. It is part of a global phenomenon, even if not the most important part.”
_____________________________________________________

The radical green left is invincible – due to sheer dumb stubborn arrogance.

La-La-Land – fingers stucked into the ears “I can’t here you! “

ralfellis

Extra ice stands to reason.

If there are big blocking highs as we have over the UK, which is stopping all the Atlantic low pressure systems, then less energy is being transported by the atmosphere to the poles. In a normal year the Atlantic would be throwing a low pressure system (and all its warm air) every week, up into the polar regions.

I have not looked to see if the Pacific is doing the same sort of thing.

R

meteorologist in research

Your point is something unusual is going on now with cold core lows?

pseudo-intellectual

The only “global” aspect to the issue is the mass hysteria so far this summer.

The poor seal!!! Looks like it’s about to be eaten. Where are the “Save the Seals ” people?

Here is something of interest. Space.com has a post on an eclipse which will take place this Thursday which will affect the SH. The greatest impact will be in Antarctica. It will be interesting to watch and see if there will be noticeable temp changes due to the eclipse. …https://www.space.com/41115-solar-eclipse-above-antarctica.html

RACookPE1978

Hmmmn. From the Ominous News Department about sea ice at latitude 60 north.

July 11, 2018. (From the NSIDC’s Regional Sea Ice database)
https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/sea-ice-tools/

The NSIDC now confirms that yesterday’s Bering Sea Ice area of 2850 sq kilometers is now at its third-highest value ever recorded for 10 July! Only 1982 (3130.784 sq kilometers) and 1983 (3111.902 sq kilometers) were higher on July 10.

Nearby, also at latitude 60 north, the Sea of Okhotsk did set an all-time record for July 10 sea ice area at 4666.0 sq kilometers. (Average this date for the Sea of Okhotsk is 0.0 sq kilometers, so having any sea ice at all at this time of year is record-setting, but this 10 July Okhotsk sea ice record area is admittedly a low bar to cross as sea ice expands in future years.)

Further east, the 10 July 2018 Gulf of St Lawrence sea ice remains in a solid third place for all-time July 10 sea ice record highs with 1391.0 sq kilometers, behind 2016’s 2244.0 sq kilometers and 2017’s 1797.0 sq kilometers. As with the Sea of Okhotsk, no previous sea ice was ever recorded in the Gulf of St Lawrence on 10 July, so having any sea ice at all this far south is noteworthy by itself.

(The Bering Sea usually retains a little sea ice through July, melting out completely by 5 August in all years prior to 2016 and 2017. However, at 2850 sq kilometers, yesterday’s 10 July 2018 Bering Sea ice area is 2.5 times the average for this late in the summer melt season.)

Phil.

As pointed out above you’re stretching the limits of the technology being used.
Bering Sea ~5 pixels
Sea of Okhotzk ~7 pixels
Gulf of St Lawrence ~3 pixels
The higher resolution satellites don’t show ice there and it’s not visible in the MODIS images.

RACookPE1978

As pointed out above you’re stretching the limits of the technology being used.

If you don’t like it, go complain to the NSIDC. I am repeating their actual actual numbers, NOT straining at pixels.

By the way, when the Bering Sea this February was at a -200,000 sq kilometer regional sea ice anomaly (after your claimed Bering Sea “boundary adjustment” to the masking algorithm, but had almost no sunlight striking its surface, there was no heat energy to be absorbed was there? Less sea ice late November to early March = Increased heat loss from the “additional” Bering Sea sea ice loss. Today, when Bering, Okhotsk, Hudson Bay and St Lawrence Gulf are recording positive (very small, nonetheless positive anomalies) some 166 times the size of those much-publicized “icebergs the size of Manhattan”, the energy reflected from the sea ice IS true heat reflected back into the infinite cold blackness of space.

Yes, I am using their own words, their own fears and exaggerations about “the Arctic death spiral” to show the simplistic linear-extrapolated failures of that claim.
Yes, I am (deliberately) stretching the limits of the surveys, because doing so illustrates the absurdity of the simplistic “death spiral” assumptions about Arctic Sea Ice loss due to increased atmospheric CO2.

Sereze’s claims are correct – For sea ice floating offshore of Miami or Key West.
The NSIDC’s own diagram illustrating the Arctic Death Spiral theory is correct – for sea ice floating in the Potomac River on June 22.
For a few days each year, his theory even holds true for excess sea ice at latitude 60 north. Like 2016, 2017, and 2018.

Phil.

If you don’t like it, go complain to the NSIDC. I am repeating their actual actual numbers, NOT straining at pixels.

Actually that’s exactly what you are doing, straining at the limiting resolution of the measurement. By the way if you’re going to claim I posted something by putting it in quotation marks please have the decency to make sure it’s actually something I posted.

the energy reflected from the sea ice IS true heat reflected back into the infinite cold blackness of space.

If those pixels are really ice not resolution errors they are still minuscule compared with the clouds that are present so again you are straining at a gnat!

Phil.

Here’s an illustration showing the ‘fake’ ice in the Bering sea on the 17th July.
https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2223.0;attach=104868;image

Joel Snider

Funny thing is – after all these ‘even worse than we thought’ scenarios, no matter what area they focus on – at least for those of us who have been watching for upwards of thirty years – NOTHING is worse than they said it would be. OR as BAD as they said it would be. And arguably better than it was then.

Then only thing that has really gotten any worse are the headlines and the attitudes.

Max

Once again, the areas you see (where you live) are warm (summer), but the big story is where you can’t see (the arctic), with its UNPRECEDENTED!!! Conditions. Sad for them, we can see the sat maps, which blows their whole story. It has always seemed a little too convenient that the areas claimed “most sensitive” to AGW are also most difficult for the average person to visit.