Claim: Earth’s cryosphere shrinking by 87,000 square kilometers per year

AMERICAN GEOPHYSICAL UNION

Research News

IMAGE
IMAGE: THE PERCENTAGE OF EACH AREA THAT EXPERIENCES ICE, SNOW OR FROZEN GROUND AT SOME POINT DURING THE YEAR (1981-2010). view more CREDIT: PENG ET AL. (2021) EARTH’S FUTURE HTTPS://DOI.ORG/10.1029/2020EF001969

WASHINGTON–The global cryosphere–all of the areas with frozen water on Earth–shrank by about 87,000 square kilometers (about 33,000 square miles), a area about the size of Lake Superior, per year on average, between 1979 and 2016 as a result of climate change, according to a new study. This research is the first to make a global estimate of the surface area of the Earth covered by sea ice, snow cover and frozen ground.

The extent of land covered by frozen water is just as important as its mass because the bright white surface reflects sunlight so effectively, cooling the planet. Changes in the size or location of ice and snow can alter air temperatures, change the sea level and even affect ocean currents worldwide.

The new study is published in Earth’s Future, AGU’s journal for interdisciplinary research on the past, present and future of our planet and its inhabitants.

“The cryosphere is one of the most sensitive climate indicators and the first one to demonstrate a changing world,” said first author Xiaoqing Peng, a physical geographer at Lanzhou University. “Its change in size represents a major global change, rather than a regional or local issue.”

The cryosphere holds almost three-quarters of Earth’s fresh water, and in some mountainous regions, dwindling glaciers threaten drinking water supplies. Many scientists have documented shrinking ice sheetsdwindling snow cover and loss of Arctic sea ice individually due to climate change. But no previous study has considered the entire extent of the cryosphere over Earth’s surface and its response to warming temperatures.

Contraction in space and time

Peng and his co-authors from Lanzhou University calculated the daily extent of the cryosphere and averaged those values to come up with yearly estimates. While the extent of the cryosphere grows and shrinks with the seasons, they found that the average area covered by Earth’s cryosphere has contracted overall since 1979, correlating with rising air temperatures.

The shrinkage primarily occurred in the Northern Hemisphere, with a loss of about 102,000 square kilometers (about 39,300 square miles), or about half the size of Kansas, each year. Those losses are offset slightly by growth in the Southern Hemisphere, where the cryosphere expanded by about 14,000 square kilometers (5,400 square miles) annually. This growth mainly occurred in the sea ice in the Ross Sea around Antarctica, likely due to patterns of wind and ocean currents and the addition of cold meltwater from Antarctic ice sheets.

The estimates showed that not only was the global cryosphere shrinking but that many regions remained frozen for less time. The average first day of freezing now occurs about 3.6 days later than in 1979, and the ice thaws about 5.7 days earlier.

“This kind of analysis is a nice idea for a global index or indicator of climate change,” said Shawn Marshall, a glaciologist at the University of Calgary, who was not involved in the study. He thinks that a natural next step would be to use these data to examine when ice and snow cover give Earth its peak brightness, to see how changes in albedo impact the climate on a seasonal or monthly basis and how this is changing over time.

To compile their global estimate of the extent of the cryosphere, the authors divided up the planet’s surface into a grid system. They used existing data sets of global sea ice extent, snow cover and frozen soil to classify each cell in the grid as part of the cryosphere if it contained at least one of the three components. Then they estimated the extent of the cryosphere on a daily, monthly and yearly basis and examined how it changed over the 37 years of their study.

The authors say that the global dataset can now be used to further probe the impact of climate change on the cryosphere, and how these changes impact ecosystems, carbon exchange and the timing of plant and animal life cycles.

###

AGU (http://www.agu.org) supports 130,000 enthusiasts to experts worldwide in Earth and space sciences. Through broad and inclusive partnerships, we advance discovery and solution science that accelerate knowledge and create solutions that are ethical, unbiased and respectful of communities and their values. Our programs include serving as a scholarly publisher, convening virtual and in-person events and providing career support. We live our values in everything we do, such as our net zero energy renovated building in Washington, D.C. and our Ethics and Equity Center, which fosters a diverse and inclusive geoscience community to ensure responsible conduct.


Notes for Journalists:

Earth’s Future is an open access journal. Download a PDF copy of the paper here. Neither the paper nor this press release is under embargo.

Paper title:

“A Holistic Assessment of 1979-2016 Global Cryospheric Extent”

From EurekAlert!

1.8 18 votes
Article Rating
182 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
fretslider
July 2, 2021 6:12 am

And before 1979?

Ric
Reply to  fretslider
July 2, 2021 6:20 am

According to AGW advocates, there was no Earth before 1979.

Bill Toland
Reply to  Ric
July 2, 2021 7:59 am

This reminds me of Bishop James Ussher who calculated that there was no Earth before 4004BC. But climate alarmists always remind me of religious zealots.

MarkW
Reply to  fretslider
July 2, 2021 8:34 am

Apparently, if we didn’t see it (with satellites), it didn’t happen.

griff
Reply to  fretslider
July 2, 2021 8:59 am

There has been an effort to collect and collate all existing arctic sea ice records back (so far) to 1865… Russian/Soviet, Danish, Icelandic, Canadian, individual ships logs, the lot.

And that shows arctic sea ice extent after 2000 is the LOWEST in that entire period.

Then there is evidence using proxies which shows that the sea ice was not lower at any point since the end of the Eemian Milankovitch cycle induced low…

So we have an excellent idea of arctic sea ice before 1979 -and evidence it is now LOWER

Bill Toland
Reply to  griff
July 2, 2021 9:17 am
griff
Reply to  Bill Toland
July 3, 2021 3:33 am

And that’s completely irrelevant, because the conditions during the Eemian, when the summer N hemisphere was tilted sunwards, due to the Milankovitch cycle, aren’t in play now.

Our climate NOW will be worse for us in the near future because the level of ice we had in the 20th century is continuing to decline

Rich Davis
Reply to  griff
July 3, 2021 5:52 am

griff
You’re a sad, pathetic case, if you’re really as angsty as you make yourself out to be. Every cyclical trend freaks you out and makes you assume imminent doom.

I certainly hope that you don’t live on the coast, what with tide waters rising and falling ominously all the time. Who knows if we’ll hit a tipping point this time?! When the king tide comes, you’d be saying that high tides are increasing at an unprecedented and certain-doom-portending rate.

How exactly does summer sea ice benefit us or any life form in your fevered imagination?

Andrew Dickens
Reply to  Rich Davis
July 4, 2021 1:04 pm

Don’t be rude to Griff, he makes us think. He knows more about this stuff than most warmists. One day he might realise he’s wrong.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Andrew Dickens
July 4, 2021 3:57 pm

You can’t be serious Andrew. Nothing penetrates griff’s belief system. If you can find one example where he listened to objective evidence and changed his mind I’d be shocked.

A lot of people have questioned whether griff might be a chatbot cleverly deployed by Anthony to discredit warmunists.

Skeptical Realist
Reply to  griff
July 4, 2021 7:03 am

Please explain how warmer is worse, when cold kills MUCH more than warm, CO2 is benefitting food crops and natural greening, people are living longer and healthier, where in the 1970’s and before when it was cooler on average, the planet was struck with massive famines, one after the other. REALITY matters.

Last edited 26 days ago by Skeptical Realist
Smart Rock
Reply to  griff
July 2, 2021 9:40 am

Got a reference for that?

NB from the summer of 1979 to the winter of 1980, 9.35 million km² of fresh new sea ice was formed in the Arctic. From the summer of 2020 to the winter of 2021, 10.81 million km² of new sea ice was formed in the Arctic (from nsidc.org).

griff
Reply to  Smart Rock
July 3, 2021 3:34 am

But in 2020 there was far less ice at the start of winter… and the new ice will melt out this summer

Rich Davis
Reply to  griff
July 3, 2021 7:59 pm

Even if so, you haven’t explained why open water with increased plankton and a subsequently enhanced food chain would be a bad thing for any living creature near or far from the Arctic.

Mark - Helsinki
Reply to  griff
July 2, 2021 10:02 am

Dear lord Griff, reconstructions show there is a lot more ice now in the cryosphere than for most of the Holocene 😀

1 What are you smoking ?
2 Where can I get some?

😀

pHil R
Reply to  Mark - Helsinki
July 2, 2021 10:11 am

Mark,

It’s obvious she’s smoking something, but you don’t want any…it destroys your brain.

griff
Reply to  Mark - Helsinki
July 3, 2021 3:36 am

It is irrelevant if there’s more ice than during a period in which summer sea ice vanished due to Milankovitch effects…

We are experiencing the change from pre-twentieth century levels in the form of a continuing decline and that’s what is important for our current and near future climate.

Rich Davis
Reply to  griff
July 3, 2021 8:27 pm

At the summer solstice at noon, the sun reaches 23.5 degrees above the horizon at the north pole. Every other day of the year it is lower or below the horizon. Mostly much lower. Have you ever observed a sunrise or sunset over water? Nearly all of the light reflects off so that you see a shimmering path toward you from the sun.

So basically there isn’t going to be much difference in terms of albedo in the Arctic, whether the glancing rays of sunlight hit water and reflect off or hit ice and reflect off.

So griff, what other negative effect can we expect from ice conditions that were observed several other times in recorded history?

How again are the polar bears harmed by more seals from more fish from more plankton?

Tim Spence
Reply to  griff
July 2, 2021 10:03 am

yeh, this site carried some viking maps of the Arctic gruff, have a look at them to get some perspective.

Michael
Reply to  griff
July 2, 2021 10:50 am

That is small potatoes on a geological time scale. Meaningless, really.

Sara
Reply to  griff
July 2, 2021 11:31 am

Let me see if I can analyze griffy’s anxiety level: things warm up, people go garden or hunting (at the grocery store), snow and Ice melt, and… — oh, nose!! Ice & snow melt when the temperature goes above 32F on a sunny day. Sometimes, it turns to slush.

Sounds fairly normal to me.

Failing to take seasonal changes into account, griffy-poo has left out those inconvenient facts that in winter, it is cold and water generally freezes into something, either ice or snow or slush or icebergs or whatever, but – well, WATER FREEZES. Anywhere it is cold enough (including the fridge), water FREEZES!

Then there’s that inconvenient change in temperature, designated by the seasons on this little planet of ours, in both hemispheres, and when things warm up, ice and snow melt. And that upsets poor grrify. Poor fellow, snowflakes weep….

Moving on….

Bob boder
Reply to  griff
July 2, 2021 11:49 am

Lol

Reply to  griff
July 2, 2021 1:54 pm

So if all that ice is melting, why isn’t the Arctic ice free by now, griff?
That was supposed to happen by 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2018 and 2020, but didn’t. When’s it really going to happen, this time for sure?
https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-of-failed-eco-pocalyptic-predictions/

griff
Reply to  Ralph Dave Westfall
July 3, 2021 3:37 am

Those predictions extrapolated from a single season’s ice loss.

If that had continued, sure we’d be ice free by now.

Check out the prediction curves for ice free summer: continually getting closer

MarkW
Reply to  griff
July 3, 2021 11:13 am

And yet we still haven’t gotten anywhere close to the lows seen in 2012.

BobM
Reply to  griff
July 2, 2021 4:45 pm

Griff, please answer my question.
Would you prefer living in 1700 to 1775 when CO2 was so benign, or this terrible time in “dangerous” levels of CO2, 1950-2025?

Reply to  griff
July 4, 2021 4:26 pm

All you are saying is that it is warmer now than when it was colder, ALL the way back to 1865, or about the end of the littel ice age. .

Anon
Reply to  fretslider
July 2, 2021 9:09 am

This really triggers my suspicions. If you look at some of the work of Willie Soon and the current state of the Sun, my guess is that the CAGW are fretting about a possible “narrative” problem. What happens if there is a substantial return of ice to the Arctic, near the 1979 levels?

Solution: Ah, the ice may have returned to the Arctic, but look at the Cryosphere!

Same dodge as: don’t believe your long term high quality tide gauge, but look at our satellites.

And it is a better fund raising gimmick: Cry for the Cryosphere!!! (sigh)

Last edited 28 days ago by Anon
griff
Reply to  Anon
July 3, 2021 3:38 am

Oh: Willie Soon – who paid him for his research?

Wayne Townsend
Reply to  griff
July 3, 2021 10:25 am

Griff, there is zero evidence that Willie Soon had any direct connection with the funders of any of his projects.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/09/12/state-of-delaware-lies-about-willie-soon-as-a-scientist/

By the way, by the same level of evidence, who’s paying you?

Besides you haven’t refuted the link posted above showing this is one of the highest levels of ice in the arctic in the Holocene.

http://notrickszone.com/2017/11/30/2-more-new-papers-affirm-there-is-more-arctic-ice-coverage-today-than-during-the-1400s/#sthash.yS4LGZe7.dpbs

Last edited 26 days ago by Wayne Townsend
MarkW
Reply to  griff
July 3, 2021 11:17 am

1) It doesn’t matter who paid for his research. If his research is good, accept it. If his research is bad, then prove it. Attacking the man is nothing more than an admission that you can’t refute his research.
2) When new lies aren’t working, griff drags up old ones. A year or two prior to Soon being hired by Heartland, Exxon gave a small grant (about 1% of Heartland’s annual budget) earmarked for a program that had nothing to do with climate. From this, those who should know better have concluded that Soon was paid by Exxon.

Climate believer
Reply to  fretslider
July 2, 2021 1:25 pm

A very interesting article from the Daily Mercury (Australian newspaper) from 1923, concerning extraordinary warmth in the Arctic, when CO² was ~300PPM.

(originally posted on WUWT by someone else, sorry I forget who)

https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/168839462?searchTerm=arctic%20glaciers%20%20melting&searchLimits=

Andrew Burnette
July 2, 2021 6:14 am

So, an area the size of Lake Superior goes missing each year. Look at the map in the graphic and estimate what percentage that lake is of the total cyrosphere. I am guessing maybe a 10th of a percent (including adjustments for the map projections at the poles). Can they reliably measure that? I doubt it.

Last edited 28 days ago by Andrew Burnette
davetherealist
Reply to  Andrew Burnette
July 2, 2021 7:28 am

some years the entirety of the Great Lakes freeze over. Some years not. So we are talking about a cycle of snow and ice on the surface that is so small that a single identifiable body of water represents what they are claiming? This is so stupid and using bad data and assumptions that it belongs in the heap of Junk Science. Because it is NOT at all a scientific finding. its complete BS.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Andrew Burnette
July 2, 2021 7:45 am

Yes, once again the alarmists trot out some big number to scare readers. What is important is the percentage of the cryosphere that waxes and wanes.

pHil R
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
July 2, 2021 10:13 am

…once again the alarmists trot out some big number to scare readers.

Apparently, judging by Griff, it works.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  pHil R
July 2, 2021 3:20 pm

He/she/it is prone to jump on anything that smells like confirmation bias.

Paul
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
July 3, 2021 3:21 pm

Could be “they” I reckon.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Andrew Burnette
July 2, 2021 7:49 am

The figure caption doesn’t say what map projection is being used. I’m pretty sure that it isn’t an equal-area projection. Therefore, the high-latitude areas are exaggerated.

hiskorr
July 2, 2021 6:17 am

It is interesting to see from the map that 60% of southern Canada does NOT see snow or ice “at some point during the year”. I’ll change my Christmas vacation plans.

Tim Crome
Reply to  hiskorr
July 2, 2021 6:34 am

Same for Norway, where I live, where 100% of the country sees snow and ice for long periods virtually every year. There’s something dubious about that plot!

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Tim Crome
July 2, 2021 8:40 am

Dubious is being too kind.
It is completely wrong.
IOW, just another warmista pack of lying lies told by those lying liars.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Tim Crome
July 2, 2021 6:02 pm

They are only using the most reliable recent data, since last Thursday to be exact.

Rick C
Reply to  hiskorr
July 2, 2021 8:08 am

The map is garbage. At least all the area above about 42 N lat. should show 100% “ice, snow or frozen ground” for that part of the year known as winter. If their map was generated from the same data as their claim of area shrinkage of the cryosphere, that claim is also garbage.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  hiskorr
July 2, 2021 8:39 am

Yes, that map is complete horseshit.
Most of the US sees some ice or snow for at least a part of almost every year.
That map has yellow extending way up into Canada.
There are huge areas of the US that have snow cover for several months pretty much every year.
And when there is no snow, the ground is frozen to some depth.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
July 2, 2021 9:57 am

Oh come now. Horseshit is at least useful for something.

Reply to  Jeff Alberts
July 2, 2021 2:21 pm

Tomatoes like it 😀

July 2, 2021 6:21 am

Apparently these folks figure it is a bad thing that the glaciers have melted off of New England.

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  Wayne Raymond
July 2, 2021 7:43 am

. . . and that Chicago is no longer under 3000 feet of ice and Boston is no longer under 4000 feet of ice, which each were just 21,000 years ago.

A point often missed: Without global warming, human civilization as we know it today would not exist.

jtom
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
July 2, 2021 4:00 pm

Chicago, New York, and Boston were better places when covered by thousands of feet of ice.

Rich Davis
Reply to  jtom
July 2, 2021 6:07 pm

Yes, you have a good point.

griff
Reply to  Wayne Raymond
July 2, 2021 9:03 am

Well its a bad thing for European ski resorts (and water supplies)

Every Year, the Swiss Cover Their Melting Glaciers in White Blankets | Live Science

Chris from Switzerland
Reply to  griff
July 2, 2021 9:42 am

Sorry. There are some very few Swiss that cover a bit of one glacier in a small but nice place in South Western Switzerland. It’s not a long time ago they organized catholic processions and prayers to stop growing the very same glacier. Because it nearly destroyed their village. This glacier is at the end of a long valley which is known for thousand years to be dry and hot. It is famous for nice apricots and vineyards. At least this has nothing to do with catastrophic climate change.

The many other glaciers in Switzerland are not covered with blankets.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Chris from Switzerland
July 2, 2021 3:23 pm

Some people have no shame and will exaggerate any story that supports their view of the world.

pigs_in_space
Reply to  griff
July 2, 2021 1:06 pm

For the last 2 seasons the amount of snow has been enormous especially in the very cold spring this year in France.

what has made life impossible for ski resorts was some human invented crisis involving lots of denial from the CCP, a fake & failed anti-virus strategy, and the quite deliberate closure of the resorts for no useful purpose at all..throwing 1000s out of work.

(The swiss ones stayed open!)

BobM
Reply to  griff
July 2, 2021 8:25 pm

Griff, please answer my question.
Would you prefer living in 1700 to 1775 when CO2 was so benign, or this terrible time in “dangerous” levels of CO2, 1950-2025?

griff
Reply to  BobM
July 3, 2021 3:30 am

That’s an irrelevant question: I live now and it is the effects of climate change now which are important.

Is climate change going to bring the same climate to me as in 1775? No.

Do you prefer the impact of a little ice age to that of a warming climate? both might disrupt your life, the economy, civilisation in general

Sara
Reply to  Wayne Raymond
July 2, 2021 8:51 pm

Now, now, guys! You must NOT say such things!!! You will upset the little snot-nosed CAGWers and others of Their Ilk, and they will have emotional spasms, because ice is ONLY supposed to exist in the icemaker thingy in your fridge.
Have pity on them! They are doomed to live in a warm, life-friendly place in the Universe, and it scares the peanut brittle right out of them!!

Oh, and /sarc!

Editor
July 2, 2021 6:24 am

If we assume that the cryosphere presently covers about 86 million sq km, the annual loss of 87 thousand sq km claimed by the headline is not even worth a yawn.

Regards,
Bob

nicholas tesdorf
Reply to  Bob Tisdale
July 2, 2021 7:23 am

1979 to 2016 = 37 years. 37 x 87,000 = 3,219,000
.
3219000/86000000 = 0.0375
.
3.75% is not worth a yawn?

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  nicholas tesdorf
July 2, 2021 8:10 am

Well, it is worth a drink . . . a drink of fresh water.

Editor
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
July 2, 2021 9:10 am

Gordon, 2 to 3 decades ago, I would’ve asked for the icy cold fresh water to be splashed over some Justerini and Brooks.

Regards,
Bob

Gary Pearse
Reply to  nicholas tesdorf
July 2, 2021 8:15 am

Nicholas, remember we had the “Ice Age Cometh” from 1950 to 1980, so the ice was building up certainly as fast (дT~0.5). As with Michael Mann’s hockey stick (1998), ironically the upswept blade was already to flatten down again into the 18yr “Pause”.

In this ice cover case we are into the sixth year of cooling – another inflection point. Probably, new data, is already showing beginnings of ice expansion.

Editor
Reply to  nicholas tesdorf
July 2, 2021 8:45 am

In reply to your question, nicholas, 3.75% over 37 years is still not worth a yawn.

Regards,
Bob

nicholas tesdorf
Reply to  Bob Tisdale
July 2, 2021 11:30 am

How much is worth a yawn from you ? 5%, 8%, 10% ?

Last edited 27 days ago by nicholas tesdorf
Sara
Reply to  Bob Tisdale
July 3, 2021 4:51 am

Barely 0.10% per year over 37 years, and anyone is sniffling over it?

MarkW
Reply to  nicholas tesdorf
July 2, 2021 1:12 pm

3.75% over 37 years, starting from the coldest period of the last 100 years and ending during a big El Nino.

A pittance.

Reply to  Bob Tisdale
July 2, 2021 7:37 am

The loss of cryosphere seems to be causing lots of crying….and my spellcheck suggests hydrosphere instead of cryosphere for some unknown reason. Nevertheless, determined forces will melt all ice and raise all ocean levels – you have been warned and you are doomed.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Anti-griff
July 2, 2021 7:52 am

… my spellcheck suggests hydrosphere instead of cryosphere for some unknown reason.

The size and quality of the dictionary used by Microsquish spell checker has declined — like a lot of other things related to the ’empire.’

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
July 2, 2021 8:12 am

Funny . . . I get a hit when I type in cry-o-sphere 🙂

David Holliday
July 2, 2021 6:24 am

In a year when snow cover was way above normal. Brilliant!

comment image

icisil
Reply to  David Holliday
July 2, 2021 9:51 am

Yeah the article study doesn’t go beyond 5 years ago. This year and last snow cover in the northern hemisphere was way above normal. Greenland surface mass balance is currently at an insanely high level compared to normal.

http://polarportal.dk/fileadmin/polarportal/surface/SMB_combine_SM_day_EN.png

http://polarportal.dk/en/greenland/surface-conditions/

clarence.t
July 2, 2021 6:25 am

“The average first day of freezing now occurs about 3.6 days later than in 1979”

Yes, we all know that the period around 1979 was at the very bottom of the AMO cycle.

Regardless of that, there is still far more ice and frozen land surface than during most of the last 10,000 years.

And please, what use to humans is frozen land ???

nicholas tesdorf
Reply to  clarence.t
July 2, 2021 7:56 am

Frozen land?
.comment image


Maybe drill for oil?

MarkW
Reply to  nicholas tesdorf
July 2, 2021 8:38 am

You can still drill for oil if the land wasn’t frozen.

rbabcock
July 2, 2021 6:35 am

If they are so good (and precise) in measuring area, how about volume which is probably the better indicator. If they can measure sea levels to a couple millimeters, volume to couple of cm2 should be easy.

Bruce Cobb
July 2, 2021 6:36 am

The ice was in the pool!

Thomas Gasloli
July 2, 2021 6:53 am

Is there even such a thing as “the cryosphere”?

Step one-make something up
Step two-declare a trivial and likely unmeasurable change proves we are all going to die!😱

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Thomas Gasloli
July 2, 2021 7:55 am
Stephen Philbrick
Reply to  Thomas Gasloli
July 2, 2021 11:38 am

Not a made up term. Relatively rare before 1980, but very common since then. Have you read an IPCC report?

Right-Handed Shark
Reply to  Stephen Philbrick
July 2, 2021 12:13 pm

I prefer non-fiction.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Stephen Philbrick
July 2, 2021 3:30 pm

When I was teaching geology in the ’70s, “cryosphere” was a fundamental term used to describe Earth.

MarkW
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
July 3, 2021 11:23 am

I’ve used the term for years when I talk about the 5 interacting spheres that control climate.

atmosphere
hydrosphere
lithosphere
biosphere
cryosphere

The sun also plays a role, but I usually leave it out because while it influences the other spheres, none of them influence it.

Jo Ho
July 2, 2021 7:05 am

I believe parts of Scotland, in mid-Summer (1st July), had below freezing conditions.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Jo Ho
July 2, 2021 6:18 pm

Aye, a brutal heatwave as not been seen in many a season it was.

Rich T.
July 2, 2021 7:13 am

Love the years they picked, only the warmer years. Now that it is cooling off since 2016. Wonder what that data would do to the study? Greenland is still adding to the snow. Cold and snowing in Aus, NZ , South America , South Africa. Bet the trend in Global temp is still cooling.Also wonder what it would look like if it stopped in 2015.

rbabcock
Reply to  Rich T.
July 2, 2021 7:24 am

Ryan Maue keeps a good long term temperature site. Looks like it has cooled from the quick spike up in 2015 back down to where it was during the time from 1995 to 2015. The question is will it remain here or drop further? If the La Niña comes back this winter, the pressure will be on the lower side. (note it is not https:)
http://climatlas.com/temperature/jra55/jra55_globe_t2m_1990_2021.png

griff
Reply to  Rich T.
July 2, 2021 9:00 am

The Greenland ice cap is still losing mass, despite an increase in some recent years in precipitation (as snow)

rbabcock
Reply to  griff
July 2, 2021 11:43 am

Not so sure about “still” losing mass. Keep in mind Greenland ice volume is mostly from the Grace satellite which was launched in 2002. It also doesn’t measure ice volume directly, but like in most cases with satellite data, it is inferred. While melt has been up, snow deposition has been down. Wind patterns change, pressure patterns change and you get short term results up and down. Latest has shown late season snow blocking the melt season so far. Note fresh snow also raises the albedo, which slows the melting even more. http://polarportal.dk/en/greenland/surface-conditions/

MarkW
Reply to  rbabcock
July 3, 2021 11:24 am

Magma movements also influence the GRACE data.

Retired_Engineer_Jim
Reply to  griff
July 2, 2021 12:40 pm

Reference?

Hal McCombs
Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
July 2, 2021 8:27 pm

Dream on.

Reply to  griff
July 2, 2021 2:27 pm

Does it ??
comment image

No, you are lying

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Krishna Gans
July 2, 2021 3:34 pm

Who would have thought that most of the melting would occur on the edges of the ice sheet, where the elevation is low, the ice is thin, and wind off the ocean and rain fall on the ice? Certainly not griff!

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Rich T.
July 2, 2021 9:43 am

I’ve noticed research papers seem to take so long that their last data point is several years old even when they start off having already decided what the conclusions are. It must take oodles of computer trials using every known statistical method to submit their data to in search of significance.

In the Mann case, key data points were selected from a proxy series that best fits the target conclusion. It included selection of one tree from the Yamal (Russian) dendro collection (WUWT- “Once you’ve seen one, you’ve seen Yamal”). Proxies that showed a strong hockey stick were also heavily weighted, etc. (several postings on McIntyre’s Climate Audit). The eight year delay in Mann’s lawsuit against Mark Steyn is basically reluctance to show his convoluted work iterations in discovery (Mann can’t just drop the suit because he has been countersued for 20 million+).

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Gary Pearse
July 2, 2021 10:03 am

People often get this wrong. The One Tree in Yamal was Briffa’s alarmism source. Mann’s was the bristlecone pines in the US Southwest. Those were the ones that were heavily weighted so as to overwhelm all the other proxies.

davetherealist
July 2, 2021 7:22 am

They make more absurdly worded , and irrelevant claims each day. I thought we were measuring in Manhattans? now we measure in Lake Superiors? Is there anything that CO2 can’t do?

Last edited 28 days ago by davetherealist
Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  davetherealist
July 2, 2021 8:11 am

Make crazy people sane.

Stephen Philbrick
Reply to  davetherealist
July 2, 2021 11:40 am

I prefer Manhattans/ Lake Superiors are too watered down for my taste.

Rich Davis
Reply to  davetherealist
July 2, 2021 6:26 pm

Damn another conversion factor to memorize. 1,389 Mh = 1 LS

Dave Andrews
Reply to  Rich Davis
July 3, 2021 5:47 am

I’m surprised they didn’t use Manhattans as 1389 is certainly more worrying to the unknowing than 1.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Dave Andrews
July 5, 2021 12:53 pm

Yep. Seems like bad strategery to me as well!

Jean Parisot
July 2, 2021 7:30 am

Is the cryosphere dominated by Temperature or Humidity?

It would seem that those areas would have to warm significantly to have an observable effect. However, less transported water vapor from a cooler, dryer earth could reduce the observable area within the typical temperature ranges.

Then the transport issue – winds – would need to be addressed as well.

Steve Case
July 2, 2021 7:31 am

“… in some mountainous regions, dwindling glaciers threaten drinking water supplies.

That’s where I stopped reading. Just because the glacier in a valley recedes or even disappears does not mean water will cease to be available. Rain will still fall, snow will still melt, and the rivers will continue to flow. In other words, the statement is bullshit.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Steve Case
July 2, 2021 7:59 am

And if the glaciers were advancing, and not melting as much, the drinking water supplies would be threatened by that also. It is only during the relatively rare times that a glacier is in balance with accumulation and ablation that there will be a dependable water supply. Long term, it is NOT dependable.

Steve Case
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
July 2, 2021 8:07 am

If there’s rain, there will be a water supply.
If there’s snow melt, there will be a water supply.
If there’s ice melt there will be a water supply.

You sure you don’t want to reconsider what you wrote?

MarkW
Reply to  Steve Case
July 2, 2021 8:40 am

To be dependable, you need to be able to count on it producing sufficient water, each year.

Steve Case
Reply to  MarkW
July 2, 2021 9:33 am

What? You think it doesn’t rain and snow in the mountains every year? How do you think glaciers formed in the first place? Mountains produce precipitation – lots of it. For the fairy tale that alpine water is threatened by CO2 and the warming it causes, you have to believe it produces less precipitation.

The IPCC’s AR4 Chapter Ten page 750 says:

Mean Pricipitation
For a future warmer climate … Globally averaged mean water vapour, evaporation and precipitation are projected to increase. 

Hardly a prescription for less rain.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Steve Case
July 2, 2021 3:46 pm

The reason that people build dams is because rain water will run off and empty into the ocean within a few days to weeks. People want water every day, not only when it rains.

MarkW
Reply to  Steve Case
July 3, 2021 11:27 am

The amount of rain and snow can vary greatly from year to year.
Just witness the huge changes in the Colorado river each year.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Steve Case
July 2, 2021 3:43 pm

You sure you don’t want to reconsider what you wrote?

No, I don’t. When it rains, the water runs off quickly, sometimes in torrential floods that last, at most, hours or days. People need water nearly every day. Depending on rain alone in an area that has monsoons, means too much water sometimes, and not enough water later. That is why some people build dams. However, the point is, melting glaciers provide water whether it is raining or not. So, whether the glaciers retreat above the ablation line, or advance in a colder climate, and establish a new ablation line below the former position, the amount of water available for human use will decline.

Ian Johnson
Reply to  Steve Case
July 2, 2021 11:58 am

There doesn’t seem to be a water shortage in Scotland, Snowdonia and the English Lake District.

Gordon A. Dressler
July 2, 2021 7:36 am

The above article’s headline states “. . . Earth’s cryosphere shrinking . . . “.

Well, isn’t that to expected because the Earth very recently, in a geological time sense, exited a glacial interval and is now in the early stage of an interglacial period (the Holocene) that necessarily implies global warming and, in turn, the melting of surface ice?

And is there anything particularly newsworthy in the fact that the start of the Holocene was about 12,000 years ago and natural factors brought on global warming and “cryosphere shrinking” without involving any GHG emissions from humans?

Thank you for this report, AGU . . . or should I henceforth refer to you using the nickname “Captain Obvious”?

Steve Case
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
July 2, 2021 8:00 am

Bingo

Many years ago (1956) The lecture at the Moraine Museum in Colorado’s Rocky Mountain National Park noted that the moraine for which the museum was named was the furthest the ice age glaciers extended. Since then they have retreated and continue to retreat to this day.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
July 2, 2021 10:04 am

If anything, we’re in the late stages of an interglacial.

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
July 2, 2021 11:33 am

Jeff Alberts, I disagree.

If you look at the prior three cycles of glacial-interglacial climates (aka stadials-interstadials), you will see that they averaged about 100,000 years duration. Furthermore, using the average mid-point between warmest temperature and coldest temperature of a full cycle interval as line of demarcation between “warm” (interglacial) and “cold” (glacial), one finds there is a consistent average of about 22% of each full cycle period being on the warm side of the midpoint of max/min temperatures for those cycles.

Therefore, even if we conservatively assumed Earth immediately jumped to the warm side of the Holocene interglacial 12,000 years ago (clearly, it did not), historically we would expect to spend about 22,000 years there before the interglacial started cooling back down and experiencing glacial conditions over the remaining 78,000 years of the expected total cycle duration.

Bottom line, based on historical data, Earth has at least another 22,000 – 12,000 = 10,000 years of being in the generally warm portion of the Holocene, understanding fully that any interglacial can be sprinkled with brief intervals of sudden cooling (e.g., the Little Ice Age).

That is, one can only assert we are, under worst-case conditions, about midway into the Holocene interglacial based on paleoclimatology science data documenting the previous three such interglacial intervals.

Last edited 27 days ago by Gordon A. Dressler
Steve Case
July 2, 2021 7:47 am

“… in some mountainous regions, dwindling glaciers threaten drinking water supplies.“

Water flow in the mountains is a function of precipitation, not whether glaciers are present or not. After a short search Hawaiian glaciers disappeared with the end of the last ice age. They no longer exist but those gorgeous water falls still exist.

While my earlier post is awaiting for approval, maybe this will post right up.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Steve Case
July 2, 2021 8:16 am

Exactly right.
Places with no glaciers or ice or snow, have year around flowing streams down mountains.
Growing glaciers lock up precip in a useless mass of ice.
Melting glaciers release water that has been stored and trapped, often for centuries at a time, in this useless form.
Glaciers are a hugely destructive thing, that wipe away habitat down to bedrock.
Melting glaciers give water, they do not threaten it.

Last edited 28 days ago by Nicholas McGinley
Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
July 2, 2021 3:56 pm

Places with no glaciers or ice or snow, have year around flowing streams down mountains.

I don’t think that you are justified in making such a broad statement. It is true some places and some times, and false other times and places. That is, places like Hawaii that have very high precipitation rates and porous rocks, can have continuous flows because of rain and groundwater keeping them flowing. Places with less rainfall, strong seasonal rainfall, or very tight (low permeability) bedrock have much less dependability. Good examples of the latter can be found in many places in Africa where rivers dry up annually, and the remaining pools become the only source of water for the animals and fish.

griff
Reply to  Steve Case
July 2, 2021 9:02 am

Frontiers | Melting Himalayan Glaciers Threaten Domestic Water Resources in the Mount Everest Region, Nepal | Earth Science (frontiersin.org)

Melting Himalayan Glaciers Threaten Domestic Water Resources in the Mount Everest Region, Nepal’
And you can find a huge amount of similar research

Steve Case
Reply to  griff
July 2, 2021 9:35 am

And you know what? I won’t believe a word of it. See my posts above.

Thanks for the reply.

griff
Reply to  Steve Case
July 3, 2021 3:27 am

Well look at the evidence

Here’s another example:

Glacier melt and water security | Grantham Institute – Climate Change and the Environment | Imperial College London

In th eHimalayas, Alps, Andes receding glaciers threaten water security

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  griff
July 2, 2021 10:06 am

Advancing glaciers would remove their water supply, and crush villages.

Steve Case
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
July 2, 2021 10:26 am

Bingo!

What’s better, lush wetlands or ice?
comment image

Reply to  Steve Case
July 2, 2021 2:31 pm

Wrong perspective and angle

Steve Case
Reply to  Krishna Gans
July 3, 2021 12:14 am

There are lots of then and now glacier photos on the net, I chose one from my files. They all show the same thing, glaciers are receding. The Marxists and their chicken little useful idiots are screaming that it’s a disaster caused by fossil fuels.

Mr.
Reply to  griff
July 2, 2021 10:25 am

I guess the people who depend on that glacier melt for their water source in those regions would be more concerned if the glaciers did NOT melt.

Steve Case
Reply to  Mr.
July 2, 2021 11:29 am

That is EXACTLY correct. If the glacier is receding, the outflow will be water from ice melt plus precipitation. If the glacier is static like Clyde Spencer believes it should be, out flow will equal precipitation (minus some evaporation etc.) If the glacier is advancing (Is that really what the climate crusaders want?) the net outflow will be less due to the increase in ice.

The climate crusade really does seem to think that a steady state climate is what we had prior to the industrial revolution when human activity didn’t add much CO2 to the air. Besides that they won’t consider that a warmer world with increased food production due to all that added CO2 is a benefit.

They aren’t crazy, stupid, ignorant, ill-informed or any of a number of qualities that questions their mental abilities. What they are is political. It’s only in politics where you find double speak, double think and organized propaganda campaigns.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Steve Case
July 2, 2021 4:10 pm

If the glacier is static like Clyde Spencer believes it should be, …

I never made a subjective judgement about what should or shouldn’t be. You are putting words in my mouth, or perhaps you just didn’t understand what I said.

Let me see if I can re-phrase it so that you understand: It is only a static ablation line that will allow the melt water to equal the amount of precipitation received in the zone of accumulation. That would theoretically allow water to be used indefinitely, except such conditions are only transient. At the moment, the outpouring of melt water appears to be exceeding that received in the zone of accumulation; unfortunately, the population of the region has grown accustomed to the larger runoff. Whether the glaciers eventually disappear, or start to grow again, the people will have less water than they are accustomed to. Either way, they will be in trouble because they don’t realize that things are always changing.

Steve Case
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
July 3, 2021 12:18 am

Here’s what you wrote:

 It is only during the relatively rare times that a glacier is in balance with accumulation and ablation that there will be a dependable water supply. Long term, it is NOT dependable.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Steve Case
July 4, 2021 12:34 pm

Where did I use the word “should?”

Right-Handed Shark
Reply to  griff
July 2, 2021 12:26 pm

Cry me an o-sphere.😢

Nigel in California
Reply to  griff
July 2, 2021 12:31 pm

.

Last edited 27 days ago by Nigel in California
Nigel in California
Reply to  griff
July 2, 2021 12:36 pm

“threaten” = Too subjective a term. Unscientific.

We should not react to ‘threats’. We should act on sound arguments.

Reply to  griff
July 2, 2021 1:44 pm

The paper “Melting Himalayan Glaciers Threaten Domestic Water Resources in the Mount Everest Region, Nepal” is somewhat incoherent, but the message is clear. Much as with the US SW (different reasons), this region has become dependent of a cyclical source of water – from the melting glaciers. Like groundwater aquifers, it is a one-time supply – exhaustible until climate changes again.

A cooler climate will reduce meltwater. A warmer climate will melt the glaciers faster.

There are solutions, such as better water management (eg, dams to hold monsoon waters) and more efficient farming methods. As with people everywhere and always, adapt or suffer.

But alarmists are not interested in helping these people, merely in using them as props in the crusade.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  griff
July 2, 2021 4:00 pm

It wasn’t very long ago that concern was expressed that the Himalayan glaciers would soon be gone. More careful analysis demonstrated that the concerns were unfounded.

From your link: “But the extent to which such communities are vulnerable is not yet understood, largely because melt contribution to water supplies is rarely quantified at the catchment scale.” Do you even bother to read the things that you toss out?

Ian Johnson
Reply to  griff
July 2, 2021 4:56 pm

How come the upland areas of the UK don’t have water shortages?

MarkW
Reply to  griff
July 3, 2021 11:28 am

Would this be some of the same research that predicted the Himalayan glaciers would be gone by now?

Olen
July 2, 2021 7:50 am

China is interested in climate change! ?

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  Olen
July 2, 2021 8:07 am

Yes, China (as well as Russia) take extreme delight in seeing capitalistic democracies and republics chasing and spending untold $trillions on “climate change”, a meme which amazingly has never been quantitatively defined by anyone.

Last edited 28 days ago by Gordon A. Dressler
bluecat57
July 2, 2021 7:50 am

So, a million or billion until it is gone?
I want to know when to stop cutting my lawn.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  bluecat57
July 2, 2021 10:05 am

“I want to know when to stop cutting my lawn.”

I’ve seen several alarmist articles lately promoting the idea of people giving up their lawns as a means of reducing CO2 output. The authors don’t like gasoline lawnmowers.

One author suggested paving over your lawn and then you won’t have to cut anything. The author of that piece must not have a very big lawn.

bluecat57
Reply to  Tom Abbott
July 2, 2021 11:19 am

Some of those just came through my news feed too.
I have family and friends in California.
Family are growing dirt and using their water only for their fabulous Fuerte Avocado tree. The Hass avocados you get taste like… compared to a Fuerte.
The friends have a beautiful hilltop garden with lush vegetation and vegetables too.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Tom Abbott
July 2, 2021 4:14 pm

If they remove their grass lawns, less CO2 will be removed from the air, and the Urban Heat Island effect will be exacerbated.

Clay Sanborn
July 2, 2021 8:12 am

And how about the Laurentide Ice Sheet melt-off for which mankind couldn’t possibly have influenced. All of the area that is now Canada (3,855,100+ sq mi) and much of what is now northern USA was covered by up to 2 mile thick ice – GONE. Who done it? Ans: Mother Nature (God). Moral of Story: Mother Nature (God) decides whether there is supposed to be ice, and how much. We puny mankind have no power or authority over Mother Nature; but we apparently desire it, eh?

Kevin kilty
July 2, 2021 8:15 am

I find it fascinating how journalists and scientists involved in promoting worry about global warming manage to step carefully through the messy realities of earth’s history and present climate to get the story just right and to avoid bringing up inconvenient facts. As other people mention here, they look at the present loss of ice and snow as a very important “worry metric” while completely ignoring that the Earth has been emerging from an ice age the past 12,000 years. Enormous amounts of ice and snow have vanished during this time. How did this happen without being aided by human activity? Why would these folks decide, axiomatically, that having reached the present state, this state should be absolutely static with any deviations up or down being considered signs of a problem? What is the uncertainty associated with their measures, which is almost never supplied? If the ice/albedo feedback is so important, then how did we escape a growing “ice age” back in January 2009 when it seems nearly the entire northern hemisphere was covered in ice and snow?

As I once heard John Griffin say, people have incredible ability for selective inattention.

Mr.
Reply to  Kevin kilty
July 2, 2021 10:33 am

incredible ability for selective inattention

Yes Kevin.
As I commented earlier this week – I’m perplexed at how AGW boosters can exhibit competent numeracy abilities when it comes to quoting temps variations etc in the hundredths of degrees, yet can’t get their heads around the basic numbers that show that wind & solar power generation can NEVER supply grid scale base load electricity.

Seems that their numeracy skills are as intermittent as the wind & solar power output.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Mr.
July 2, 2021 4:16 pm

Humans are basically irrational creatures that are generally only capable of rational behavior for short periods of time in order to achieve their irrational goals.

griff
Reply to  Kevin kilty
July 3, 2021 3:23 am

Yes, but now the rate of warming is faster than in that long slow flaw… glacier melt has for example accelerated since 1995

Dave Andrews
Reply to  griff
July 3, 2021 6:15 am

Griff,

Worldwide glacial retreat began in the 1850s long before any significant increase in CO2.
For example, glaciers in Alaska have been melting for over 200 years and European glaciers are documented to have been reducing in extent since the mid 1800s.

MarkW
Reply to  griff
July 3, 2021 11:32 am

Like most of the things griff believes, this one is also not true.
There were many periods during the warm up from the last glacial cycle, when temperature rise was well above the mild warming we are seeing at present.

Bill Toland
July 2, 2021 8:18 am

Is this supposed to be a bad thing? Surely we should be celebrating that the world is becoming more habitable. At this rate, the world will become as pleasant as it was during the Holocene Climate Optimum in just a few hundred years.

griff
Reply to  Bill Toland
July 3, 2021 3:23 am

apart from the heatwaves, droughts, storms, hurricanes, typhoons, flooding and flash flooding, etc

MarkW
Reply to  griff
July 3, 2021 11:33 am

Good thing none of those are increasing.

griff
July 2, 2021 8:55 am

Not a ‘claim’. A fact!

MAL
Reply to  griff
July 2, 2021 9:39 am

No a fact, since they did not show you the error bar you have no idea whether is a claim or a fact. For it to be a fact they would need satellite photos take all over the world for the time period specified at the same time of the day for each grid cell the last 30 years for every day. Somehow I don’t think that happen. Snow cover can change rapidly in during the day. Add in cloud cover and you don’t have a clue. If you spent a life time driving long distance in the winter you would know a few hours can make all the difference in the world.

Last edited 27 days ago by MAL
clarence.t
Reply to  griff
July 2, 2021 3:50 pm

Snow cover is increasing in the NH

Fact…

comment image

MarkW
Reply to  griff
July 3, 2021 11:33 am

Only in griff’s world, are beliefs facts.

Tom Abbott
July 2, 2021 9:00 am

From the article: “WASHINGTON–The global cryosphere–all of the areas with frozen water on Earth–shrank by about 87,000 square kilometers (about 33,000 square miles), a area about the size of Lake Superior, per year on average, between 1979 and 2016 as a result of climate change, according to a new study.”

I wonder how much the global cryosphere shrunk during the period from 1910 to 1940? I would bet it shrunk as much or more than the period from 1979 to present.

comment image

Keep in mind that 1998 in the Hansen chart above is statistically tied with 2016 for the warmest year in modern times, so that means the 1930’s were as warm or warmer than today, and so we could assume the cryosphere would react in the same way then, as now.

In other words: Nothing new to see here.

Last edited 28 days ago by Tom Abbott
taxed
July 2, 2021 9:14 am

ln the NH nearly all of the shrinking of the snow extent has been happening during the spring and early summer. Which is what you would expect if the climate was warming.
But the real puzzle here is why has there been no delay or shrinking of the snow extent during the Autumn as well. As this would surely to be expected as well within a warming climate. But this has not been happening, since the late 1960’s the has been a rising tread of snow cover over the NH during the Autumn.This trend is also been picked up in my record of the date of the first snow in my local area. Which has shown since 1977 a slight trend towards earlier first snows.
Not what you would expect in a warming climate.

griff
Reply to  taxed
July 3, 2021 3:22 am

Increased precipitation as a consequence of more water vapour in a warming atmosphere

CD in Wisconsin
July 2, 2021 9:44 am

Off topic: For those who haven’t noticed yet, the UAH satellite temp record has been updated for June. Back down to -0.01.

Latest Global Temps « Roy Spencer, PhD (drroyspencer.com)

CD in Wisconsin
Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
July 2, 2021 10:16 am

….And I’m thinking: So much for the Big Heat Wave that the Pacific NW had late last month. Meanwhile, Biden’s climate czar (Secretary Ketchup) is calling for a global economic revolution on the scale of the Industrial Revolution to fight climate change.

John Kerry: Fighting climate change could entail ‘bigger economic transformation’ than industrial revolution | Fox Business

griff
Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
July 3, 2021 3:21 am

The UAH data depends on indirect observation and so many adjustments I don’t believe it shows anything reliable

MarkW
Reply to  griff
July 3, 2021 11:37 am

It really is fascinating how many excuses griff has developed.
The temperature trends shown by the surface sensors match what griff is paid to believe, therefore the fact that are frequently and heavily adjusted doesn’t matter.
UAH data doesn’t agree with griff’s beliefs, therefor the fact that they are adjusted disqualifies them.

Frank from NoVA
July 2, 2021 10:15 am

“Peng and his co-authors from Lanzhou University…”

I’m sure it’s a great institution where students and faculty alike are both free and highly encouraged to assist decadent western democracies in their ongoing economic collapse. Full disclosure, I didn’t read the attached paper, so maybe someone can let me know if the authors therein strongly advised the CCP to cancel China’s plans to continue rolling out coal-fired power plants for the foreseeable future.

Btw, /S

n.n
July 2, 2021 11:28 am

Observation over one climate unit. A cascading problem with attribution.

Doonman
July 2, 2021 12:46 pm

Don’t worry. Its only the average ice that is melting. Above and below average ice is not affected as it is not mentioned in the study.

pat
July 2, 2021 12:49 pm

1979 is a very poor year to commence such studies because it was extraordinarily cold. Perhaps a better year would be 1922 when trees started to sprout in Greenland. However that would also be unfair. Chose a marker that either reflects an average, or choose a calendar year back far enough for reasonable norming and is inclusive of most mid-length cycles, both oceanic and solar. Say 1900.

griff
Reply to  pat
July 3, 2021 3:20 am

Well even if you go back to 1865, currently the point at which detailed studies of all sea ice records have reached, post 1979 low extents are lower than anything since 1865

Dave Andrews
Reply to  griff
July 3, 2021 6:30 am

“In Spitsbergen the open season for shipping at the coal port lengthened from three months in the years before 1920 to over seven months of the year by the late 1930s. The average total area of the Arctic sea ice seems to have declined by between 10 and 20 per cent over that time.”

H.H. Lamb Climate, History and the Modern World 2nd edition p260

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Dave Andrews
July 3, 2021 7:21 am

It looks like Griff was wrong.

John Sandhofner
July 2, 2021 7:30 pm

“Those losses are offset slightly by growth in the Southern Hemisphere, where the cryosphere expanded by about 14,000 square kilometers (5,400 square miles) annually.” This statement is in opposition of a claim in the article that the temperature increase in global not regional. Climate change seems to be more regional which means various parts of the planet is increasing while others are decreasing and then, over time, it flip-flops. There is nothing happening that is uniform throughout the entire planet.

Greg
July 3, 2021 1:49 am

Yet more banal straight line analysis.

What is the point in having daily resolution data for every day of over forty years and reducing it to one scalar number: a “trend”.

If you want to gain any understanding a system you need to study how it changes over time, not throw out all the information you possess to produce a “trend” you know from the outset you are going to spuriously attribute to AGW caused by the rise in atm CO2.

Arctic sea ice , which was supposed to be the “canary in the coal mine” recovered after the 2012 OMG minimum and is now at about the same level a whole ten years later. However, they manage to avoid noticing that by taking a straight line back to 1979 and ignoring what is actually happening.

AGW was supposed to lead to “run away” melting but when this fails to happen and it flat lines for 10 years, they deliberately ignore that this contradicts their predictions.

Linear trend analysis seems to be the summit of technical analysis these clowns are able to do. Anything more than clicking on “fit trend” is Excel is too much to ask when the future of life on Earth is supposed to be in the balance.

Last edited 27 days ago by Greg
griff
Reply to  Greg
July 3, 2021 3:19 am

While we haven’t seen another 2012, arctic sea ice has not ‘recovered’…

It has less old ice, thinner ice, lower winter maximums, less mass and of the 15 lowest years, 13 were in the last 15 years.

2020 and 2019 feature in top 5 lowest years…

Dave Andrews
Reply to  griff
July 3, 2021 6:50 am

Minutes of Council, vol8 pp149-153 Royal Society, London 20 November 1817

President of the Royal Society to Admiralty 2O November 1817

“It will without doubt have come to your Lordship’s knowledge that a considerable change of climate, inexplicable at present to us, must have taken place in the Circumpolar Regions, by which the severity of the cold that has for centuries past enclosed the seas in the high northern latitudes in an impenetrable barrier of ice has been during the last two years, greatly abated.

(This) affords ample proof that new sources of warmth have been opened and give us leave to hope that the Arctic Seas may at this time be more accessible than they have been for centuries past.”

Last edited 27 days ago by Dave Andrews
MarkW
Reply to  griff
July 3, 2021 11:39 am

That was the excuse used. The problem is that measuring “old” ice is difficult and in fact nobody does it.

Anthony Banton
Reply to  Greg
July 3, 2021 6:19 am

AGW was supposed to lead to “run away” melting”

Not according to the IPCC
comment image

Kevin
July 3, 2021 8:06 am

I’ve noticed that many climate change papers are authored by Chinese academics. So why isn’t there an active climate change movement in China???

July 4, 2021 6:52 am

The side-by-side pictures of much of the northern hemisphere that were in the lead to this article on WUWT’s main page are not a fair comparison. The 1980 one omits snow cover, the 2009 one shows snow cover.

July 4, 2021 7:24 am

Regarding “THE PERCENTAGE OF EACH AREA THAT EXPERIENCES ICE, SNOW OR FROZEN GROUND AT SOME POINT DURING THE YEAR (1981-2010)”: I see a lot of ground that gets thoroughly covered with snow and/or ice every winter. So, I went to the paper this image came from to look for the original caption (under Figure 3), and it is: “1981-2010 shown as the percentage of each grid cell that is occupied by one or more cryospheric components”. The text in the paper that refers to this figure (section 3.1.3) says this is annual cryospheric percentage. The previous section (3.1.2) in the paper refers to monthly cryospheric percentages. The annual cryospheric percentage is an average of the 12 monthly cryospheric percentages, and shows percentages well above zero and well below 100% for areas that have high cryospheric percentages for at least one calendar month of every year.

%d bloggers like this: