by P Gosselin on 10. September 202
This year’s Arctic sea ice minimum reaches third highest level in a decade, latest data show.
Die kalte Sonne here presents its latest climate video. The first part looks at this year’s Arctic sea ice melt season. Now that it’s September, sea ice extent has just about reached its minimum for the year and soon the annual refreeze will begin.
We recall that years ago alarmist scientists and wacko activists, like al Gore, predicted an ice free Arctic by now. Today we look at the most recent data and we see that we are a very long way from that point.
Very slow August melt this year
What follows is the chart from the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC):
Chart source: http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
This year’s result is eye-opening: The German Die kalte Sonne site reports: “The Arctic sea ice is surprisingly stable” and “truly robust”.
Third highest level in 10 years
Die kalte Sonne also looks at the chart from the Alfred Wegener Institute (AWI) in Bremerhaven, Germany, where we see the September minimum ice level (15%) in 2021 is the third highest in the past decade:
Die kalte Sonne notes that we are still a long way from the once projected iceless Arctic – of the sort that climate-crisis bedwetter Al Gore predicted.
Ice volume same as 80 years ago
When one looks at Arctic ice volume going back 170 years, today’s levels are in fact very similar to those seen in 1940:
As the above chart suggests, there’s a lot more to ice volume at the poles than mean global surface temperature. Other cyclic natural factors, which man has absolutely no control over, are very much at play.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
When we look at the graph below
we see that indeed, the Arctic sea ice extent is way above that of the last five years.
But in my understanding, one should speak about September ice when that month comes to end.
In addition, we can also see in this daily chart that the lowest peaks are slowly moving towards October.
Perhaps we should pay a little more attention to this and wait a little longer before having to step back from a hasty opinion.
*
At the other side, Antarctic shows pretty good:
Source
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/north/daily/data/
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/south/daily/data/
Well, actual data, at least. And it supports my contention, “We don’t know what will happen. Why don’t we wait and see?”
Even during the last ice age the Arctic was similar to today. Maybe all those pesky volcanoes that run under the Arctic.
“The Arctic Ocean between the huge ice sheets of America and Eurasia was not frozen throughout, but like today, probably was covered only by relatively shallow ice, subject to seasonal changes and riddled with icebergs calving from the surrounding ice sheets. According to the sediment composition retrieved from deep-sea cores, even times of seasonally open waters must have occurred” 12
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Glacial_Period
12 Spielhagen, Robert F.; et al. (2004). “Arctic Ocean deep-sea record of northern Eurasian ice sheet history”. Quaternary Science Reviews. 23 (11–13): 1455–83. Bibcode:2004QSRv…23.1455S. doi:10.1016/j.quascirev.2003.12.015.
From DMI it almost looks like it’s reached minimum already.
http://polarportal.dk/en/sea-ice-and-icebergs/sea-ice-extent0/
Volume has definitely turned:
http://polarportal.dk/en/sea-ice-and-icebergs/sea-ice-thickness-and-volume/
Greenland’s ice sheet surface mass balance is also above the mean.
Yes it is. Keep in mind that this is only the surface mass balance. There is the grounding line mass balance and the total mass balance following T = S + D where T is the total mass balance, S is the surface mass balance, and D is the grounding line mass balance. S does not include losses past the grounding line. Actually S is almost always positive while D is almost always negative. D losses have outpaced S gains over the last several decades so as a result T has declined significantly.
bdgwx
Weather and climate are what happen at the surface.
What happens at the base of ice sheets is geology, not climate.
First…weather and climate happen everywhere; not just the surface.
Second…I’m not talking about the base (presumably bottom) of the ice sheet per se. I’m talking about the grounding line or the point that separates the portion of the ice sheet that is grounded from that which is not. The ice sheets flow off the land and calve into the ocean. Ice mass discharges (D) from Greenland via this process. See Mouginot 2019 for more information.
Has any of the predictions of the crazy climate changers come to pass yet ?
Remember, we are in an ice age if EITHER of the poles is frozen. Both poles are frozen which apparently has only happened 11% of the time period that we can figure out.
These people are keeping them honest:
https://extinctionclock.org/
What is your definition of “crazy”? What criteria do you use to separate the crazy from the non-crazy?
… or the criminal?
The Media thinks, it is much more dramatic to report on hurricanes, storms, twisters, forest fires, with all sorts of color pictures.
That sell tons of newspapers made with CO2 absorbing tress.
Presumably that third highest level of ice we are being told about epitomizes the “extreme weather” the fear-mongers are complaining about.
Al Gore said in 2009 that “the North Pole will be ice-free in the summer by 2013 because of man-made global warming.”
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/mar/02/facebook-posts/fact-checking-claims-al-gore-said-all-arctic-ice-w/
Pleasing mini recovery but last 2 years has seen very slow rebound after hitting the bottom.
A cooler year so hopefully will continue to surprise us.
Mike:
As a fellow ex-Forecaster, I find your concentration on the politics in this, rather than the science, a tad dispiriting.
Never mind what Gore said.
Politicians are politicians and he was spouting off non-consensus opinion
The science said/says much different – as I’ve posted up several times on here.
“Gore attributed the prediction to researchers, but it appears he misstated the findings.
A day after the speech, Maslowski told the London Times that it was unclear “how this figure was arrived at … I would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this.”
The article said that Gore’s office “later admitted that the 75% figure was one used by Dr. Maslowski as a ‘ballpark figure’ several years ago in a conversation with Mr. Gore.”
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/mar/02/facebook-posts/fact-checking-claims-al-gore-said-all-arctic-ice-w/
But also:
“In his Academy Award-winning 2006 documentary “An Inconvenient Truth,” Gore warned about the coming impact of climate change on the Arctic ice cap, but he said studies showed it would be gone in the summertime “within the next 50 to 70 years” — so by 2056 or 2076.”
So Wadhams and Maslowski are not scientists? Not that it matters, both were spectacularly wrong.
If he agrees with them, they are scientists.
If he disagrees with them, the are politicians.
if you say so.
Just observing your patterns.
I said “non-consensus opinion”
Can still and does come from scientists.
As they are people first and foremost.
The Ice at the poles keeps our martini’s just perfect.
Yes- remarkably stable- about 2 million square kilometres less than the average from 1981-2010. Seriously, how stupid do you think your readers are?
Let me guess, the AMO will be considered last.
If at all
Well basically, not a single one of the climate alarmists’ global climate crisis predictions have come true. Not one. Surprised ?
The tragedy of the Arctic sea ice volume chart is that it peaks just about at the start of the satellite age, so all charts of satellite data show ice loss, rising temperatures, etc. The huge error of climate science is that the modellers assume that the trends in the satellite age are caused by CO2. When they ignore all the data and arguments that show that they have got it wrong, then it becomes fraud. It became fraud a long time ago.
The more it goes on, the more reasonable it is to think that it was all intended as a fraud in the first place. There is certainly some evidence of that –
https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2015/12/discovering-maurice-strong/
I agree that it is unfortunate that the satellite datasets start at a local peak.
I disagree that scientists assume (without justification) the decline is caused by CO2. This conclusion comes from the abundance of evidence which say the perturbation on the Earth Energy Imbalance (EEI) from naturally modulated agents is negative. This leaves anthropogenically modulated agents accounting for slightly > 100% of the positive EEI. Of the positive anthropogenic components of the EEI CO2 accounts for about 75%’ish. And we know from the 1LOT and because the specific heat capacity of the atmosphere, hydrosphere, cryosphere, and land are all finite that means CO2 necessarily contributes to the energy uptake in the climate system including the cryosphere resulting in less ice overall including but not limited to sea ice. Don’t hear what isn’t being said. There are still heat transfer processes that move energy to/from the heat reservoirs without affecting the total energy profile and these mechanisms cause a lot of month-to-month and even year-to-year variation in the sea ice extents. This is all acknowledged by scientists including a bunch of other factors that haven’t even been addressed in the comments section here yet.