Continuation of Sea Ice Stretch Run #2.
-
Tip Jar
(The Tip Jar is working again, via a temporary location) -
Pages
-
Categories
-
Articles
-
Blogroll
- Accuweather Blogs
- Andrew Revkin
- Anthony Watts
- Bishop Hill
- Bob Tisdale
- Dan Hughes
- David Stockwell
- Icecap
- Idsos
- James Annan
- Jeff Id
- Josh Halpern
- Judith Curry
- Keith Kloor
- Klimazweibel
- Lubos Motl
- Lucia's Blackboard
- Matt Briggs
- NASA GISS
- Nature Blogs
- RealClimate
- Roger Pielke Jr
- Roger Pielke Sr
- Roman M
- Science of Doom
- Tamino
- Warwick Hughes
- Watts Up With That
- William Connolley
- WordPress.com
- World Climate Report
-
Favorite posts
-
Links
-
Weblogs and resources
-
Archives
Climate Audit 
1268 Comments
Yay! Room to write at last. Sort of an echo in here though. Or its it just the silence of the Baby Ice?
Long-time lurker here. Who is adjusting the daily numbers, and is that common, and to such large degrees? There are many who would like to make sure their prediction comes true, and we’ve seen that they like to “adjust” things that maybe shouldn’t be.
Has re-freeze started? (August 22-25?)Cryosphere today NH graph flattening now?
JAXA extent adjusted down again by 10,000 km2 (5.222969). Two day loss is over 200,000 km2. 2007 minimum extent is now just inside the 99% lower prediction limit but still outside the 95% lower limit.
When you open a new thread continuation, you’re supposed to close the old thread. There’s at least one new post today on #2.
John Goetz: Unfortunately, while I can edit and delete your comments, I cannot close them on a thread started by Steve.
Re #2
As a longtime lurker you will know that Steve takes a dim view of accusations on malfeasance! For the record the adjustments are done daily by JAXA ( see here), earlier in the summer they were predominantly upwards now they are predominantly downwards.
This morning’s graphs can be found here
For easy checking without having to go back to previous threads, here is the NSIDC Arctic sea ice extent comparison for 2008 vs 2007 (updated each day).
The gap does seem to have closed quite a bit (and of course 2008 sea ice extent is well below the 1979-2000 average).
Since that link takes for ever:
extent loss rate
extent
extent difference
drop from peak
HTH
Fair enough, Phil, although most of those comments appear as >SNIP< when I read them. Lacking an “edit” function, I can’t go back and re-phrase.
Please amend my question to include – Why are adjustments made, and what method is used to make them?
The only way to get a clear picture is to graph a variance. Below is the variance from the 2003-2007 average.
Bottom line: the globe is cooling, and as long as that happens, the Arctic sea ice will eventually catch up. Continued upwards climb in temperatures, as was seen from 1977-98, would concern me a lot more than sea ice loss.
The best way to view what is happening is to graph a variance. Below is the variance of years 2003-2008. It is the variance from the 2003-2007 average.
[IMG]http://i528.photobucket.com/albums/dd326/aztecbill/image003-4.gif[/IMG]
Visually, it looks that decline is still pretty linear. If the breaks do not come on soon, 2008 will cross day 257 (in about two weeks). We keep looking at graphs covering 2002 to now and they do not have a slow down this late. Does anyone have graphs going back longer? I would be interested to see just how exceptional it is to have a slow down this late in the year.
CT has area graphs going back to 1979, but no digital data and the graph resolution isn’t good enough to tell much.
CT area update 8/26/2008
region area(Mm2) difference anomaly
Arctic 3.572 -0.007 -1.817
Antarctic 14.309 0.003 -0.362
Concentration continues to increase, 68.4% today, not surprising considering the large decrease in extent and the small decrease in area. The smoothed rate of change has almost returned to normal, -0.041 Mm2/day now compared to -0.032 Mm2/day from the average data used to calculate the anomaly. That’s also more than half way to zero rate compared to the maximum smoothed loss rate of -0.1 Mm2/day back in early August. Projected minimum area is still 3.3 Mm2. At this time in 2007, area was very near it’s minimum. U. Hamburg area for the same year day in 2007 was 3.32 Mm2
Re #907 on #2
Interesting, however I don’t think we can blame it all on a couple of week’s of favourable conditions in August, after all if that were the case we could say that 2007 was only due to a week or so of favourable weather in July! (Around day 180 here.)
Actually if you look at 2008 it’s been rather consistent so far, and if you read some of Chris’s posts he keeps telling us how bad the conditions have been for melting, low SST etc.
Good try Phil, however the fact is that there has been more 2008 ice than 2007 ice for the whole season so far and no guarantee that it will yet match the 2007 melt at any point at all.
If 2009 ice levels are greater than 2008 ice levels for a significant part of the next melt season then where does that leave alarmist theory ?
If it moves back towards the 2007 level again then they might gain some time but with a quiet sun and a negative PDO flowing through the oceanic system there isn’t going to be enough warmth beneath the ice to maintain the recent high melt levels.
I’d better stop there or I’ll be getting too far off topic.
So it appears that with the cooling Earth, arctic ice will soon grow larger than at any time during the 20th century. Antarctic ice is already well on the way.
Natural cycles of cooling and warming are fascinating, but one should not try to make too much of them.
Is the current behavior dominated by melting, or by compaction?
#12
This is fallacious for two reasons:
1) Any reasonable trend analysis does not show a cooling trend. For example here are the anomaly averges (relative to 1951-1980) for the last three five-year periods, assuming 2008 ends up at the current .37 deg C (averages derived from NASA Gistemp Land-Ocean Index):
1994-1998: +.38 deg C
1999-2003: +.45 deg C
2004-2008: +.51 deg C
Interestingly, the relatively cool 2008 is in a statistical dead heat with the average for 1994-1998.
2) The Arctic continues to warm at an even faster rate than the global surface as a whole.
#13, 14
I would say variance from the 1979-2000 average would be better, in order to show how recent years fit into the longer term trend. Also monthly averages would be clearer, rather than the daily “squiggles”.
#15
The graph I posted (#8) from NSIDC shows that, on average in 1979-2000, the rate of ice extent loss started slowing in early August, with a minimum reached in early September.
Mr Clarke
Interesting groups of years you have chosen. Ant particular statistical reason. Also, interesting temp anomaly stats you have chosen (GISS, home of the famous soothsayer) any particular reason.
For an alternative view see Hadley, UAH and Remss.
1994 – 2008 = 0.358
2000 – 2008 = 0.402
2002 – 2008 = 0.419
Each year
2002 0.455
2003 0.465
2004 0.444
2005 0.475
2006 0.421
2007 0.399
2008 0.280
Notice the warming trend ? It’s from 2008 to 2002
#17 Phil (and Stephen)
“Actually if you look at 2008 it’s been rather consistent so far, and if you read some of Chris’s posts he keeps telling us how bad the conditions have been for melting, low SST etc.”
Just a quick clarification. I kept saying throughout this month how the weather conditions where the ice was thinnest were pretty much as “bad” as it gets if you don’t want the ice to melt. These rapidly increased the SST’s in the area, but still not up to 2007 levels there or in the Arctic as a whole. What’s happened in recent days looks like a temporary event caused by the weather patterns finally reversing. Since this reversal has brought much colder atmospheric conditions, and there is not so much low concentration ice left to melt now away from the main ice “edges”, it is only a matter of time before the extent reduction rate slows significantly, even if the extent gets a lot closer to the 2007 minimum in the meantime.
I don’t think it’s a matter of blaming the 2008 melt on anything, it’s a matter of understanding all the factors at play and I’ve emphasised the warm winds because they have been a huge driver of the recent melt and no one else was really mentioning them. I could be an ultra-alarmist or an ultra-skeptic emphasising the winds, it wouldn’t make any difference, they have simply been a major link in the chain, whatever you consider the chain to be.
My personal speculation is that the changes in weather patterns were partly a result of the changes in Pacific SSTs associated with the recent La Nina (and PDO “cool phase” pattern), which were already well underway by the time 2007 melt was about to go into overdrive –
Certainly, La Nina has been widely accepted as the reason for the jet stream moving south over Britain the last 2 summers bringing particularly cool/wet weather (e.g. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/weather/article4474220.ece ) so why shouldn’t it have been responsible for changes in weather patterns elsewhere?
Also we’ve seen significant global cooling over the past year (albeit there was some recovery towards last month) and so the warm winds blowing towards the Arctic (and melting a lot of ice in the summer) could even be seen as a removal of heat from the global system, rather than a warming.
As for AGW, in the absence of the rest of the world being unusually warm, it’s hard to see an obvious connection. Certainly I can’t see the 2007 and 2008 melts being down to unusually strong net downward radiative effects from greenhouse gases in the Arctic troposphere (!)
I’d say the burden of proof is on proponents of AGW to explain the mechanisms that led to the weather patterns of 07 and 08, beyond the background global warming of ~0.6C already claimed.
Has anyone calculated heat flows?
First year ice is .3-2.0 m thick vs multi-year ice which is 2-4 m thick. So it takes over twice the heat to melt the older ice of the same surface area.
Seems to me that given that the 2008 ice that was melted is mostly first-year ice and the ice melted in 2007 is has more multi-year ice, and presumably much thicker, that if 2008 were the SAME heat-flow wise, then we should be much further along this year as compared to last year.
But, we are not.
Given that less ice melted this year and it took a lot less heat to do this, then this year has had a MUCH lower heat flow into the Arctic. I come up with 2008 having 40% of the heat flow as 2007.
Ideas?
Current sea ice conditions in the MSM —–>
#22
Five year averages are one simple way to smooth out year-to-year variations; in my view five years is the minimum one should use for tracking longer-term trends. But if you prefer a 10-year smoothed average, go for it.
The overlapping periods are pretty well meaningless, as are year-to-year variations. But, here are the corresponding Hadley numbers for succesive five-year periods (this is apparently based on a later baseline, 1961-1990):
94-98 0.29
99-03 0.36
04-08 0.40
Again there is continued warming. The Metoffice website has a more complete explanation of continued warming trends using a smoothed ten-year average. Key quote:
“Another way of looking at the warming trend is that 1999 was a similar year to 2007 as far the cooling effects of La Niña are concerned. The 1999 global temperature was 0.26 °C above the 1961-90 average, whereas 2007 was 0.37 °C above this average, 0.11 °C warmer than 1999.”
By the way, GISS incorporates Arctic temperatures, while Hadley does not, a distinction particularly germane to the current discussion, and one that may account for part of the difference in trends. But make no mistake: neither one shows actual cooling.
The satellite records (UAH and RSS) have, of course, much greater uncertainty and volatility than the surface records, and are therefore less appropriate for trend analysis.
#21 ” ‘Bottom line: the globe is cooling, and as long as that happens, the Arctic sea ice will eventually catch up.’
This is fallacious…”
It might have been fallacious if Jared had said “the globe is on a ~ 7+ year cooling trend”. But he didn’t – he used the present tense. It will also be fallacious if it turns out that the global temperature anomaly is higher this winter than it was last (since that would suggest we are currently warming). On that point, we’ll have to wait and see….
The years before and after a peak in anything will always be higher than the ‘norm’.
Therefore using 3, 5 or 7 year averaging can often be just a means of denying for a while that a peak has been passed.
It is,however, reasonable to be cautious but not to the extent of ignoring the first year evidence of a potential change in direction of trend.
Until enough time passes even a single year that backs of from an earlier trend should be taken seriously.
“The satellite records (UAH and RSS) have, of course, much greater uncertainty and volatility than the surface records, and are therefore less appropriate for trend analysis.”
@27 That’s a unsustantiated claim!
BTW, your reasonning on trends to deny the current cooling is rather curious.
It’s as if somebody is 50 lbs overweight and is losing 1 pound each year. He is still obese but you can’t deny he is losing weight, can you ?
Not sure whose number this is, but it certainly isn’t UAH or RSS. RSS has 2008 at +.027, and UAH has it at -.024. Neither have 2008 anywhere close to any year this century.
Absolutely, completely, 100% not true. At all. You are so wrong, I don’t even know where to begin to correct you…
:shakes head:
#26
Jared’s statement implied some sort of meaningful trend, or “bottom line” as he put it, which would let the Arctic sea ice “catch up” eventually.
On the other hand, if one chooses to compare “current” temperatures (defined in some arbitrary way) to some past temperature (also in some arbitrary way), one can say that the globe “is cooling”. Or one could choose different definitions and say the globe “is warming.”
For example, January 2008 was quite cool (still 0.14 deg above baseline, though) compared to both January 2007 (the warmest month ever recorded in GISS at .85 above baseline), and July, 2008 (at .51). In fact all months have been warmer since last January. So I guess that means the globe “cooled” from January 2007 to January 2008, but now “is warming” again.
Or we could go further – and say the globe is cooling or warming according to how the immediate past month compares to the previous month. So it cooled in June but warmed in July.
Well, that’s enough of that – with all due respect, I think I got it right the first time.
Dave, your problem is you quote GISS data….
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080827/ap_on_sc/sci_arctic_ice
RE: Your comment is awaiting moderation.
Since when is this a moderated forum?
[Note: it’s an auto-spam-detect system. Unfortunately, your posting was tagged. Links add to the risk…]
Re: 22 and 25 Last 8 years , warming, flat or cooling? Looks like we’re ‘dancing on the head of a pin’ again. I can’t believe the temperature measurement equipment ( plus massaging) is trustworthy within 0.11C per year. The instructive key to these discussions is that temps are basically flat the past eight years. If carbon taxes had been in effect, I’d ask for a refund.
LOL. Spend some time on Anthony Watts’ site.
I have to agree with the others. While MSU was not designed to do the job, RSS and UAH did a good job of making things happen. The new space craft will just improve things. Hopefully. we will get a better budget for more sophisticated space craft.
If the ice remains above 2007 and it looks like it will it is quite a recovery.
And the PC Passage may not open except ice breaker capable ships.
The southern route is also closing.
Dave’s real problem (#21, #25) is he’s looking at the individual teeth on a sawtooth function, by cherry-picking his time-frames. On a real sawtooth function you can cherry-pick the framing differently and come up with a series of negative trends. Proves nothing. The edge of the saw is still straight*. (*Yes the analogy breaks down slightly when you look at the details of the data. The main point stands, however.)
The sea ice debate is absurd. Alarmists and inactivists vying for the right to claim victory over a tiny bit of noise – whether 2008 exceeds 2007 – when in reality there is little to choose between the two given measurement error and stochastic variability. This is about posturing for media exposure, has nothing to do with robust scientific inference.
Please stop being ridiculous so I can get back to lurking. Any further absurdity will result in a fiery Phil threatening to blow hot air all over baby ice.
Hi Steve, I think that the current situation is dominated now by compaction, as the recent reports from Cryosphere Today on ice area seem to indicate that melting has nearly stopped, but the extent reduction is falling faster than just about any other time. I can’t think of any other reason than the fact that the ice area is remaining constant, but it is all getting compacted. Here is a graph of daily ice area reduction(melting) and ice extent area reduction:
CT compared to JAXA
Very nice graph Aaron. I’m going to steal it….
re #25, Dave Clarke- you say “By the way, GISS incorporates Arctic temperatures, while Hadley does not,…”
Partly wrong. GISS uses estimates of arctic temperatures based on GCM model calculations. Hadley studiously avoids mixing guesses and measurements for arctic temperatures. UAH and RSS do not cover the high arctic or antarctic.
“The satellite records (UAH and RSS) have, of course, much greater uncertainty and volatility than the surface records, and are therefore less appropriate for trend analysis.”
What stunning ignorance of the SOTA.
Preliminary Unofficial Day 240 Race Report
2008 has a moderate day, remaining about 450K behind 2007.
8 28 2002 5.957656 -0.037657
8 28 2003 6.353125 -0.012344
8 27 2004 6.024844 -0.045781
8 28 2005 5.771250 -0.024844
8 28 2006 5.966406 -0.001719
8 28 2007 4.724844 -0.049062
8 27 2008 5.175313 -0.047656
Dave, to amplify MattN, if you’re serious about this issue you need to back away a bit from GISS as your source of information. The boss there has some credibility problems-not that make him a bad person or a bad scientist (that is NOT being inferred here). It’s a matter of being caught up in politics and a conflict of interest–and this occurs with any scientist whose research funding depends on how dramatic the implications of the research are. Then, it’s a matter not only of the personal politics of the scientist, but, more importantly, the pressure brought to bear upon him or her by the special interest(s) who would benefit from their “scientific conclusions”. Truly, it takes one of special character NOT to get caught up in a powerful conflict of interest such as this. There are SO many judgments involved in merely tracking temperature that, unfortunately, you need to consider the motivations of those who are making those judgments. And you REALLY need to call for the scientific process to be transparent…and to be perhaps more diligent/critical in reviewing the process.
So I’d make sure your point squares with other sources before you wish to make a point here, or with anyone seriously looking at temperature trends…or lack thereof.
The level of scrutiny is a little higher here than at most blogs. That’s why it won the science blog award for 2007. Dave will not be scoring any points with that sort of nonsense.
Dave seems to have some experience with believer blogs where simply making a statement makes it so.
He does however make a valid point about how long a time to consider for trends. I would be even more conservative than his five years. While I recognize the current cooling for what it is, I do not think it validates any particular alternative to the AGW hypothesis – or invalidates AGW for that matter.
We should look at periods which would encompass events such as the PDO shift, and better yet several of them. I believe that the number of “adjustments” and quality control problems with the surface records make that data set inappropriate for such use, but we are now getting close to a reasonable length of record to use the more reliable MSU data.
So maybe Dave can calculate some trends and get back to us. I’ve done as much, and while I am not terribly impressed by the slope of the trend, it still shows a warming trend.
At 60 years apiece, three full PDO ‘cycles’ is 180 years. Looking over that recommended time scale it is no shocker that temperatures are rising as the earth lurches out of the LIA.
Have you been following the Koutsoyiannis thread? You should. Inferring a “trend” requires the assumption of some sort of underlying error (or noise) model. Koutsoyiannis outlines some ideas about what kind of noise model is most appropriate. There have been two pulses of global warming: the 30s and the 90s, both dominated by Arctic warming. Is this a “global” “trend”? Sure, sort of. But the slope depends how much you attribute to thermodynamic “noise”, for lack of a better term. (Not to mention the anthrogopenic contaminating signal resulting from land use change.)
The operative question is: has the GHG forcing effect been overestimated. Phrasing the discussion any other way is to erect straw men. It is not a question of “validating” dichotomous “alternatives”. It is a question of accurate estimation of forcing effects and uncertainties.
# 47 bender,
Just in the spirit of your first sentence, how does your second sentence follow?
Bender,
I voted CA, but can not say we won due to the level of scrutiny here. More, the level of scrutiny on the vote site was exceptionally low. An election best forgotten.
The Northwest passage has been declared open, and dozens of ships are attempting it. But I have not heard of any ships completing it yet, just starts. Anyone heard any completions reported, other than by icebreakers?
Was the declaration realistic, or merely religious?
Austin at Re: #24
“Given that less ice melted this year and it took a lot less heat to do this, then this year has had a MUCH lower heat flow into the Arctic. I come up with 2008 having 40% of the heat flow as 2007.
Ideas?”
Heat flow is definitely worth exploring and describing in contrast to just radiation (where only “albedo changes => global warming”). Convection has a major contribution to heat flow, not just radiation.
Check out the major difference in ocean flows during 2007 vs other years. e.g., See:
NASA Sees Arctic Ocean Circulation Do an About-FaceNovember 13, 2007
Arctic Ice Extent Discrepancy: NSIDC versus Cryosphere Today”
“We know that Arctic summer ice extent is largely determined by variable oceanic and atmospheric currents such as the Arctic Oscillation. NASA claimed last summer that “not all the large changes seen in Arctic climate in recent years are a result of long-term trends associated with global warming”.”
#52
NASA:
This is consistent with their same lack of explanation for the 1930s Arctic warming, which is mentioned briefly in a Hansen paper, 2005 I think it was.
This boat went through the southern route.
http://awberrimilla.blogspot.com/
Interesting that the St. Roch easily sailed through the PC passage in 1944 and by 1947 a large ice breaker couldn’t get through.
Judging by the past the ice can return very guickly.
Now 453.4K behind 2007 🙂
8 27 2008 5.178281 -0.044688 (adjusted)
(#44 “2008 has a moderate day, remaining about 450K behind 2007…”)
Here are my graphs for yesterday’s ice extent data, based upon IARC/JAXA Ice Extent data. The baby ice is not ready yet to throw in the towel.
Daily Arctic Sea Ice Extent Reduction Day 240
Arctic Sea Ice Extent Day 240
2008 Arctic Ice Extent Differences From Previous Years Day 240
Arctic Sea Ice Total Drops from Peaks Day 240
The current rate of daily loss has hardly flattened at all. In every other year the loss curve was bottoming by now. In 2008 we still have not even reached the diminishing point, let alone the net minimum. In previous years the diminishing point was hit by day 220-230. History (six years data) argues “this can’t continue”. But of course, nature doesn’t read history books. Without a solid quantitative understanding of the contributions of all the dominant processes, prediction is a fool’s game.
Re: bender,
The loss rate has bottomed. The exponentially smoothed rate curve shows a maximum loss rate of -0.091 Mm2/day on 8/7 and a more or less steady decrease to the current -0.071 Mm2/day yesterday. On the same date in 2004, the smoothed rate was -0.060 Mm2/day, not all that different. The raw data is too noisy to see small changes in trend quickly. Exponential smoothing works much better and is used in industrial process control charts for that purpose.
That explains why most of us keep coming back to this thread! 😉
But in reality, none of us are seriously predicting as much as just watching and wondering and having fun. Like the original thread framed it… we are watching a horse race.
Alarmists man the barricades:
Arctic sea ice melts to 2nd-lowest level on record
In this case “on record” refers to 1979 and satellite records.
Can anyone show historical “records” to infer quantitatively higher melting in the early 1900s?
Aaron Wells, are you interested in adding trend lines with confidence intervals to the 2007, 2008 curves in your first figure? (Interesting to do the same for the other years.) I’m smelling early warning signs of a 2008 divergence. Could be a false alarm. It usually is.
#59 I would not be so quick to chide the “alarmists” on this one. It IS a horse race. And remember the prediction here: something surprising and unprecedented will happen. This is a horse race … and it’s at The Derby. Don’t bother about the media spin. Look at Aaron’s graphs.
Considering that the CT area seems to be returning to normal behavior, 2008 still looks to be approximately tracking 2004 loss rate but with variations. At this point in 2004, the extent loss rate was dropping rapidly. 2004 only lost about 0.25 Mm2 additional extent from the same year day. 2007 lost less than 0.5 Mm2. That puts the expected 2008 minimum at 4.6 to 4.9 Mm2, still above 2007. So is there enough vulnerable ice left for 2008 to seriously challenge, much less exceed 2007? Maybe, but history says not. I see the news accounts are using the current days extent difference between 2007 and 2008 as if it were the difference between 2008 now and the 2007 minimum. Typical.
In particular, his fourth graph. 2008 “extent drop from peak” passed 2007 three days ago (no fanfare) and shows no sign yet of slowing. Would be good to scale these graphs as proportion of starting extent since 2007 and 2008 started with different initial extents.
#62 2008 is not tracking 2004. They diverged four days ago.
Re: bender,
Diverged is rather a strong word. The smoothed rate for 2007 was less than the smoothed rate for 2004 for four days before the ‘divergence’ by about the same amount it’s now greater than 2004. Noise, or rather much too soon to claim divergence.
YTD average extent on 8/27:
2003 11905420.7 km2
2004 11655003.37
2005 11334233.87
2006 11157853.64
2007 11137755.34
2008 11593277.65
Max – Min can be misleading.
I’m afraid that my graphing abilities don’t extend much beyond what I can coax out of Excel. I can use Excel to add some simple trend lines (linear, exponential (not ewma), logaritmic, polynomial, moving average), but I don’t see any option for confidence intervals. I am afraid that I am not an expert at statistics. If anyone can suggest to me how to add trend lines with confidence intervals, I would certainly consider adding it.
DeWitt, can you give more explanation of what these numbers represent?
Re: Aaron,
Sorry, I missed your post until just now. The Year To Date average extent is just that, the average of all the daily extent numbers from January 1 to the current date. I think it is more indicative of the behavior of the ice and hence heat transfer to the Arctic than the difference from peak extent to current extent. In order to compare year and include 2008, I use YTD. The best number is of course the full year average extent, but we won’t know that until December 31 data is published.
Is CT not updating the area or has that stabilized? The ipod thingy says 3.572 which was the same as yesterday, I think.
The adjusted numbers for extent are in and have gone down a small amount 5.175313 -0.047656(unofficial) vs 5.178281 -0.044688 (11:50 EDST)
2008 has been well above the average extent loss lately, but did come back somewhat yesterday. Still well above average for this date.
Re #70
It’s been updated, it’s now 3.539 (anom -1.824)
See Comparison of CT vs JAXA
CT updates at noon EDT. Speaking of which:
region area(Mm2) difference anomaly
Arctic 3.539 -0.033 -1.824
Antarctic 14.275 -0.034 -0.429
The Arctic area anomaly has been about -1.8 for almost two weeks. Projected minimum is still 3.3 Mm2, about the same as U.Hamburg for 2007 but higher than CT, if I’m reading their graph correctly. The smoothed rate is still less than average, but decreasing normally and only about 4 days behind the average. That would put minimum area on about 9/8 or about two weeks from now.
Re 71, 72, 73
Would someone tell me where the numbers are? The pseudo IPhone interface isn’t showing that number.
Perhaps you are getting a cached page? Try refreshing while holding the shift key down.
R 75
My bad. Thanks.
While mostly being just a fascinated observer of the ice race, I asked a question on the earlier thread which I didn’t see getting a response, so let me try again. In a recent report, there was mention of 60 or 70 nations conducting research in the Arctic. Presumably most of these will be using some sort of ice breaker as their support vessel, so the question arises, does broken ice melt faster than intact sheets? My gut feeling is that many broken bits of ice will be exposed to more water contact than one whole sheet and I would expect water to have a much greater melting effect than warm air. I suspect that broken ice would also be more subject to being moved around by the wind and currents.
Thoughts, anyone?
Tony, I remember a discussion in one of these threads about the disruption that occurs to the halocline salinity layer, which affects the stratification of fresh water and salt-water, and the effect is that if it is mixed, then the fresh water gets mixed with saltier water, thus inhibiting re-freezing.
For what it’s worth:
http://pafc.arh.noaa.gov/ice.php?img=ice
(the value I see in this, is that it is a compilation of boat and plane info – no potential data issues owing to the vagaries of remote sensing – it’s done the old fashioned way – problem is, you can’t cover the entire Arctic this way, it’s too labor intensive)
Sea Ice as a variance shows the data with a better scale.
Opps
#66 DWP: Agreed. “Diverged” is too firm, conclusive a word. But I thought that was clear from context, given I specifically mentioned it was only a few days’ worth of “divergence”.
Tony 77,
You are absolutely right. Broken ice melts faster because of greater exposed surface area and is at the mercy of the winds and currents. Broken ice can also rebuild in areas where wind, waves and currents allow it to be driven against land or solid ice.
If 50 ships take journeys through the arctic, and cause ice to melt on a path 5000km long, and 100 m wide, then this would be 25 000 sq km of ice melted.
#84 (Michael Hauber)
“If 50 ships take journeys through the arctic, and cause ice to melt on a path 5000km long, and 100 m wide, then this would be 25 000 sq km of ice melted.”
How black carbon is spewed by those ships? A number of studies have shown that black carbon pollution will increase ice melt.
85 raven
<blockquote 84 (Michael Hauber)
“If 50 ships take journeys through the arctic, and cause ice to melt on a path 5000km long, and 100 m wide, then this would be 25 000 sq km of ice melted.”
How black carbon is spewed by those ships? A number of studies have shown that black carbon pollution will increase ice melt.
True about the studies, but if BC was the cause the early 1900’s would have had more melting if the Greenland ice core are correct. There was worse BC pollution in 1908 than 1998 based on those cores. Then there were fewer ice breakers then as well.
Re: #86captdallas2:
There is a difference between global BC and local BC in the immediate vicinity of the emitters. The absolute BC concentrations from ship would likely be larger in the local area than any global BC measured in the ice cores.
# 84 Michael Hauber,
Could you possibly be overamping a bit? I’d think there are far fewer than 50 vessels in the ice at this time. Quite a few in other seasons, but only the research people have a reason to enter the ice now. Melting is enhanced by ship disturbance, if the temperature conditions for melt are present. In the winter, when there is significant ice breaking occurring, the ice refreezes.
5,000 km is a long way, even in the cold season to pay the fuel bill needed to manage passage through the ice. Usually there are several vessels trailing a breaker. The Russians power a number of their breakers with nukes. The path of disturbed ice usually isn’t that much wider than a vessels beam. There’s some peripheral effect, but the ice shears fairly cleanly. 50 meters would be a lot closer to reality.
No direct knowledge, just speculation and looking at a few photos.
Some scientists do have concerns about the amount of soot coming from ships and that it may acellerate AGW.
http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/esthag-w/2008/jul/science/nl_soot.html
Re #1
Baby ice! There’s not much of that left. 😉
Green is baby ice, brown is old ice.
East arctic
Raven
I am not saying you are wrong but isn’t that splitting hairs? My ex split hairs and I hated that.
BTW global BC is really NH BC because of population density. In the 1900’s it was especially NH. A few hundred thousand factories and a few million homes versus a couple of boats. China and India have only recently started churning out serious pollution. Prior to the clean air act the US was doing the churning. Still the early 1900’s was worse than the 70’s or today. Food for thought.
Btw. Jim Hansen spoke to one of the Bushes and mentioned that BC has nearly the same impact on climate as carbon dioxide. I forget his exact number, but BC was a big deal for admiral Jim. Which ever Bush said great and worked on legislation to reduce ash/BC because it was cheaper than carbon sequestering. Admiral Jim then started saying he was censored. That must have been Bush the Elder. The Admiral Jim has a few stories about Al the Great.
Before I hit the sack, Admiral Jim is a proponent of clean coal technology but not of coal. Clean coal technology can retrofit any coal plant and should be a shared technology with the ROW. Admiral Jim is also a pro-nuker. Fourth generation nuke reactors, basically a breeder reactor is one of his latest topics. Then he is also considering metal based combustion engines (metal dust being the fuel). Is the a tempest in his teapot dome?
Phil–
I mourn for the lost baby ice. 😦
jeez, that’s your cue.
re: #94 Lucia,
Actually by definition there must be baby ice equal to or more than the difference between minimum 2007 ice and current 2008 ice. And there’s likely quite a bit more as lots of older ice passes out into the N. Atlantic or piles up creating thicker ice but with less surface area.
For a given area of ice, doesn’t less first ‘baby’ ice and more multi year ‘grown up’ ice mean its going to be longer lasting and harder to melt?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/08/080828120314.htm
Don’t you all see how cunning Baby ice has become?
It has merely disguised itself temporarily as cold water in order to hide from its enemies and is ready to transform itself back into new and reinvigorated Baby Ice when its enemies have crept away under the cover of darkness.
The old Baby ice is dead!
Long live the new Baby ice!
Tony Brown
Hey, no figures for day 241? Is there a problem with the satellite data? If we trust cryosphere, there should have been an enormous lost…
Preliminary Unofficial Day 241 Race Report
2008 has a very slow day, falling to about 500K behind 2007.
8 29 2002 5.912813 -0.044843
8 29 2003 6.337813 -0.015312
8 28 2004 5.971563 -0.053281
8 29 2005 5.728125 -0.043125
8 29 2006 5.957344 -0.009062
8 29 2007 4.664844 -0.060000
8 28 2008 5.163281 -0.015000
What a difference a day makes. Baby ice extent is rallying. The smoothed rate dropped from -0.0706 to -0.0651 Mm2/day. That gained six days on the rate method putting minimum extent on 9/29 and minimum area at 4.32 Mm2. The rate curve is still somewhat below but close to 2004. 2004 even had a big extent loss at about the same time as 2008, the local rate minimum in 2004 was two days before 2008. The area remaining method puts minimum extent at 4.86 Mm2 on 9/15. 2007 is back outside the 99% prediction limit as well. It is extremely unlikely that 2008 can catch 2007, but anything can happen in the next month.
I’m not going to have internet access this weekend so I would greatly appreciate someone posting the CT Arctic and Antarctic areas and anomalies for Saturday and Sunday. I could interpolate from Friday to Monday, but I would rather have the actual data.
Wow, these numbers are seriously different from what can be seen on the NSIDC site or cryosphere!
Well, CT does not publish extent area values, so they are not comparable by definition. At NSIDC, they don’t publish anything but a graph of ice extent area (actually you can download data from them, but it is in binary format which is not documented, so generally useless except as input to their tools). It appears that their sea ice extent graph is a couple of days behind, given that it is now the 29th, and their graph does not appear to be very close to the end of August. I expect that when they update their graph, you will see a leveling off.
Re #105
Aaron has pointed out the difference from CT, NSIDC say in their caption that their graph has a 1 day lag, also they quote an extent of 5.26 on Aug 26th which seems to match the data given here.
This is the first time in awhile that 2008s extent loss has dropped below the average for the date
( -0.036156)
So there is .908×106 km2 of baby ice left, but some of this is “new born” ice right? Do we know where it’s hiding and whether there area any big bad weather systems searching for it or it’s older sibling?
Here are my graphs for yesterday’s ice extent data, based upon revised IARC/JAXA Ice Extent data. The baby ice, at least for today, showing signs of determination to become multi-year ice. (In reality, it probably just didn’t compact as much as the last few days).
Daily Arctic Sea Ice Extent Reduction Day 241
Arctic Sea Ice Extent Day 241
2008 Arctic Ice Extent Differences From Previous Years Day 241
Baby ice is desperately trying to cross back over the 2007 curve in drop-from-peak graph.
Arctic Sea Ice Total Drops from Peaks Day 241
Re: #109
I would think that these data that you provide would in turn provide fodder for a simple-minded model to relate passed years Ice Extent and particularly ice thickness for predicting the current year’s ice extent and seasonal changes. I have not followed this thread in detail but has not phil. reported ice thickness measurements and could not that add to the measurements reported here. There has to be some short to medium term persistence involved here. With the baby ices and thinner adult ice, that resulted from an extraordinary year like 2007, I would think the diverging trend for 2008 makes sense -at least to me – at a distance.
Jeez, I hope is like the color commenter who loses interest in the game only to return for the exciting finish to lend his poetic skills for all to enjoy.
If you think of the daily-seasonal tracking problem as a daily melt/freeze/dispersion problem then there are two sources of “persistence”. One is the necessary illusion of persistence that is really the product of an accumulation process: daily carryover results in a smoothish looking seasonal trend. Second is the possible but non-necessary persistence in some of the drivers of melt/freeze/dispersion (AO, QBO, etc. as they affect SSTs, winds, etc.). That is why I prefer looking at the daily loss/gain plots. They contain far more information than the total extent plots. You see the seasonal forcing trend, and there is no illusion of persistence in them.
Certainly would make it a lot easier to compute confidence intervals if you were predicting daily loss/gain rates, as the observations from day to day are largely independent. (Ok, maybe not AR(0), but not more than AR(1).)
Re #110-111:
It would be nice to see an ACF of the data in this one of Aaron’s plots:
Daily Arctic Sea Ice Extent Reduction Day 241
You would have to use ARIMA to remove the seasonal cycle of course.
Win some, lose some.
CT area update 8/28/2008
region area(Mm2) difference anomaly
Arctic 3.479 -0.06 -1.857
Antarctic 14.297 0.022 -0.426
Projected minimum area drops to 3.27 from 3.30 Mm2. With the small change in extent, the concentration drops too.
It’s off to the races. Me that is. SCCA Double Regional @ Summit Point, WV.
Spectating, working or driving? I race karts with the occasional autoX in my MX-5.
Re: Jaye Bass (#115),
Working: Flag&Comm. Turns 5 & 7 on Sat/Sun and 1 & 2 on Monday.
As sea-ice area in it’s minimum should be strongly correlated with the area of multi-year ice at the beginning of the year, the variation of multi-year ice area should be the main parameter of observations.
I see the good news in graphs but I think DeWitt Payne is right to take the weekend off. Need a few days to see if it is a trend or a wiggle. To think people bet on boring things like horses!
About 1000 posts and two threads ago this exchange took place:
384
tty: July 21st, 2008 at 6:03 am
Phil
If I were you I wouldn’t put too much faith in those density measures. Take a look at the area of very dense ice off northeast Greenland from about lat 77 to lat 80. That is an area of fast ice, i. e. a continuous ice sheet frozen to the coast. You can verify this by checking a satellite image, or if you prefer an expert opinion, by looking at the Norwegian sea-ice site(http://polarview.met.no/).
Now go to cryosphere and run through the 30-day view of ice conditions. You will see that area changing from dense to open and back to dense, though it has been fast ice all the time. So what is the satellite relly seeing? Probably that the snow on the ice has melted, formed melt pools, and then drained away.
386
Phil.: July 21st, 2008 at 11:57 am
Re #384
I tend not to pay too much attention to individual days, the uni-bremen image from AMSR-E gives a higher resolution for such small structure and there is some variation in that region but it seems fairly systematic and I assume that it’s cloud effects. The large area of broken ice to the west is a consistent feature.
388
John Lang: July 21st, 2008 at 12:22 pm
Re 384 and 386,
Here is a MODIS sat picture of the area from a few hours ago. There is some cloud cover but the false color image shows the visible sat picture is a pretty accurate depiction.
The ice on the coast looks solid (there are some melt ponds on the surface which might disrupt the density measures) but as you move off the coast there is a lot of broken ice.
4km resolution
That shows the ‘fast ice’ referred to quite clearly especially if you look at the 250m high resolution image.
In the last month that ice has been spectacularly destroyed!
Here’s a look at it 10 days ago, image rotated 90º counter-clockwise.
Today
As above the clarity of the images when viewed at 250m resolution is mind-blowing!
Warning, the 250m res images take a long time to load if you have a slow connection, but they’re well worth a look.
Dave is right folks, come on. Tropospheric data responds more strongly to el nino/la nina than surface data. (Look at 1998 for an example.)
Don’t fall in love with MSU now because you’ll just have to break up with it when the next el nino hits.
Instead of tip jar, Steve Mc should set up a pari-mutuel window for betting on the ice-melt outcome this year. “C’mon, baby ice, c’mon!”
Dave and Boris are right:
The satellite data have more volatility. That’s why the measurement set that most strongly contradicts the IPCC 2C/century is HadCrut. Satellites show larger negative trends, but they also either exhibit more “weather noise” or more “measurement noise”. (It’s impossible to tell the difference from the data I’ve looked at).
Here is an outrageous story appearing in the Daily Telegraph regarding the ice cap melt and wildlife.
Nine polar bears at risk of drowning in global warming meltdown
Outrageous for the pic of the bear. Am I incorrect to say that the animal is distressed due to helicopter downwash, not a long swim? Isn’t this pic being presented to show a bear is drowning due to a long swim, fitting with the narrative of the article, but the animal’s distress is helicopter made, disrupting the animal’s peace and the tranquility of the water?
122 (Follow the Money) That photo has been discussed elsewhere and the consensus seems to be that the bear is standing in shallow water. Swimming bears just have their noses above water. This was the usual garbage propaganda, and I’ve had fun referring the people who’ve fallen for the disinformation to the Baby Ice threads here.
===================================================
122 (Follow the Money) Andy Revkin at DotEarth claims that that photo is unrelated to the finding of the bears far from land, and that this photo was distributed by the WWF. It was ignorant journalism to put the two together.
====================================
Thank you Kim. One disagreement. It was not journalism that matched the photo. The WWF is promoting the photo with the same news. The WWF is fostering the association of pic and story.
http://www.worldwildlife.org/who/media/press/2008/WWFPresitem9878.html
The pic is attributed to “Geoff York” who is at the bottom of the page described as “WWF polar bear conservation coordinator” His cell phone no. is given.
Also at http://www.worldwildlife.org home page the story and photo are currently being promoted first.
RE: “Green is baby ice, brown is old ice.”
Based on what, isotope tracking? If not something deterministic like that, what is it based on?
Apparently, the official record of the 9 polar bears seen swimming in open ocean is the following as quoted by a poster on Dot Earth:
1. “one polar bear with seal kill…COMIDA1 – Flight 4 – June 23 2008
Area flown: Block 18; entire; Block 14, ice percentage was variable .The lower 1/3 portion of block 18 was largely ice free.”
2. “and multiple bears swimming in open water…COMIDA2 – Flight 12 – August 16 2008
Area flown: Block 13, completed with excellent conditions; Block 14, four easternmost transects
Broken floe ice (up to 50%) was present in the northern half of block 14 and the upper northwest corner of block 13.”
3. “one swimming polar bear…COMIDA2 – Flight 14 – August 18 2008
Area flown: Block 12, search survey conducted parallel to the shoreline at 5 miles and 15 miles off shore;”
Out of 15 survey flights, these are the only Bears they saw. Flight 4 has a Polar Bear with a Seal kill. Also, there seemed to be plenty of ice in both search both blocks. Nothing unusual!
Flight 12 says “multiple Bears”, so all we know is there was more than one. I’m betting they did not give an exact count for fear of counting the same Bear/s over again. And yes, there was ice close by.
Flight 14 counts one Bear, and this while flying just off the coast. Nothing unusual!
The propaganda just keeps coming and coming. Eventually, someone has to call “The emperor has no clothes.”
Preliminary Unofficial Day 242 Race Report
2008 has a moderate day, losing another 6K to 2007.
8 30 2002 5.856250 -0.056563
8 30 2003 6.325938 -0.011875
8 29 2004 5.951406 -0.020157
8 30 2005 5.662344 -0.065781
8 30 2006 5.953594 -0.003750
8 30 2007 4.616094 -0.048750
8 29 2008 5.120938 -0.042187
The actual science shows that the Canadian Polar Bear populations have increased or remained stable. The Inuit hunt them. Two Polar Bears swam to Iceland this year where they were promptly shot. Just more junk science.
Interesting article. Probably a little early but…
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/aug/29/north-pole-remain-frozen/
Cheers!
I’m a layman. So I am lost in these number and graphs. But I am still very interested in this. So, please, can someone just give a short, simple reply to what is happening to the NH (Northern Hemisphere) ice now? Can you speak in layman’s terms and tell me 1) is the Northwest Passage open, or, is it expected to open? 2) Where, with no numbers like “8 29 2008 5.120938 -0.042187” or graphs, is the NH ice now compared to the same time last year? And 3) when, approximately, is NH ice expected to start growing again?
If someone finds the time to do this THANKS!!!
#131 Check the website Cryosphere Today to see images of where ice is and isn’t. Both today and in the past. Whether a NW “passage” is “open” depends on exactly how you define “open” and where you define the “passage”. Open enough for a kayak?
According to this plot by Aaron Wells (#109) sea ice area starts increasing historically around Day 250-260, which is the 1st-2nd week of Sept.
Someone will correct me if I’m wrong. Phil knows his ice.
This is a comparisn. More ice in 2008 than 2007.
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=08&fd=30&fy=2007&sm=08&sd=29&sy=2008
Re: #131 and #132 Another layman question.
The daily extent figures. Does this include the
ice on Greenland, or is it only ice floating on
the sea? TIA.
There has been a bunch of news articles catched by google news lately.
http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/08/arctic-ice-on-t.html
(this one is funny, it says ‘Arctic Ice on track for another all time low. And it also mention the ’empirical computer model’ published by Nature that ‘predicts’ an arctic free of ice during summer 2013. Let’s see if they only are wrong in the first statement or if both forecasts fails)
http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2008/08/28/Arctic_ice_at_near_record_low/UPI-74701219948274/
http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2008/08/melting-polar-i.html
There are too many to copy their links in here. It seems that nobody cares about the south pole.
Here are my graphs for yesterday’s ice extent data, based upon revised IARC/JAXA Ice Extent data.
Daily Arctic Sea Ice Extent Reduction Day 242
Arctic Sea Ice Extent Day 242
2008 Arctic Ice Extent Differences From Previous Years Day 242
Arctic Sea Ice Total Drops from Peaks Day 242
In 1944 the St. Roch easily went through the PC route of the NW Passage.(pre AGW) In 1947 neither the St. Roch or a large American ice breaker could get through. Is history going to repeat?
The headlines should be, “Arctic Cools and the Ice increases in 2008”.
Re #104
Here you go:
Aug 30th
Arctic 3.379, -1.928
Antarctic 14.440, -0.291
#Boris:
The satellite records (UAH and RSS) have, of course, much greater uncertainty and volatility than the surface records, and are therefore less appropriate for trend analysis.
Dave is right folks, come on. Tropospheric data responds more strongly to el nino/la nina than surface data. (Look at 1998 for an example.)
Don’t fall in love with MSU now because you’ll just have to break up with it when the next el nino hits
While UAH, RSS MSU may respond more strongly to el nino/nina events, the main quality criterium in climate science is their ability to measure the correct (currently cooling) trend – in contrast to the not peer reviewed data collection and data manipulation of some surface records.
#Boris:
The satellite records (UAH and RSS) have, of course, much greater uncertainty and volatility than the surface records, and are therefore less appropriate for trend analysis.
Dave is right folks, come on. Tropospheric data responds more strongly to el nino/la nina than surface data. (Look at 1998 for an example.)
Don’t fall in love with MSU now because you’ll just have to break up with it when the next el nino hits
While UAH, RSS MSU may respond more strongly to el nino/nina events, the main quality criterium in climate science is their ability to measure the correct (currently cooling) trend – in contrast to the not peer reviewed data collection and data manipulation of some surface records.
I have learnt many things from Steve and the rest of you on this site.
Steve’s latest lesson is one we might all do well to follow!
That is to get on with our lives, leave the ice for a couple of weeks, to do what it chooses, and go somewhere nice and warm, and expeirience life without worrying about things that may or may not happen.
I am off to Mallorca to be surrounded by semi naked orange women from Essex, and wonder what the probability is that I can beat the Germans to the sun-beds.
Aaron: That saw-tooth pattern is very intersting. I’m surprised to see so much change within a day’s time.What can explain those really big “teeth?”
Re #139
A couple of points, how do you know what the ‘correct’ trend is and how does it relate to the surface trend?
While the data collection aspect of MSU is common there are at least three groups who use different algorithms to manipulate that data to give the derived temperatures, which one is the correct one?
Re #141
Enjoy yourself John, in my experience you will have to get up very early in the morning!
Re 143
And you don’t think the surface record is manipulated? You must not have been paying attention here.
Re #144
No it’s you that’s not paying attention!
First of all, what you are seeing in the “saw-tooth” graph is the derived daily reduction from the daily report of current ice extent areas, derived from subtracting the current day’s area from the previous day’s area. There is some amount of error in estimating daily area, and error’s made in reporting one day are compensated by the reporting of area on the next day. That can produce huge upward spikes followed by huge downward spikes. These average out. That explain’s some of the “toothiness”. Some of it is also explained by large variations caused by compaction which occurs as a result of ice concentrations in lower ranges (~15% to 50% or so) being manipulated by storms and winds.
UK john #141
After our performance in the Olypics it is your patriotic duty to beat the Germans to the Sun beds.
Tony Brown
Re 145
So you believe that the GISS and Hadley temperature records are actual values and have not been algorithmically adjusted?
Re #148
Where on earth do you get that from, reading comprehension sadly lacking!
Re #148
No my reading comprehension is fine, however, by ability to infer things from some of your statements is obviously deficient. I took your original comment about the satellite data and made the inference that you believed that the GISS et. al. were accurate enough to identify the global trend and their adjustments were not equivalent to the sat adjustments in terms of the affect on the accuracy of the produced trends. That’s why I made the comment I did and why I asked the last question. Sorry if I offended. I’ve been reading Lucia’s blog where someone has been denigrating the sat data (and some of her analysis), but assumed that the ground station data is golden, and I’ve taken my irritation at his attitude over here. No excuse for bad manners.
I’m not trying to be argumentative, I just want to understand your position since it appears that I’ve missed something. Since both sat groups and ground groups use adjustments and get differing answers, even among the equivalent types of data sets, then would you say that there are no source of temp data to identify a valid trend, or do you disagree with that statement? Do you consider any of the temperature sets valid for trend computation?
BarryW–
I think Phil is saying every single “official” temperature record is algorithmically adjusted in some way or another. He’s not saying GISS and Hadley aren’t adjusted– he’s saying the other sets are also adjusted.
You can argue which method of estimating changes in the anomaly makes the most sense to you. However, it is an unfortunate fact that we can’t just stick one good reliable thermometer on the earth’s surface an get a known reliable measurement.
The satellites have the advantage of not suffering from UHI, and giving more continuous coverage over the surface. The surface measurements have the advantage of being on the surface and being based on more direct thermometry. (But there is the difficulty with ocean measurements over time, as sometimes “the surface” is based on water drawn up from the ocean in buckets, and sometimes the “surface” is the top of a roof etc.)
Every measurement system has flaws and weaknesses.
But, the fact is: it’s accurate to observe that the satellites have more variable measurements. They do. This may be due to phenomenology, it may be a measurment artifact or both!
BarryW–
I don’t think Robert Grumbine is saying the surface temperature is Golden. I think he’s saying that for some reason, I must not compare the IPCC projections to the satellite measurements at all even if I compare them to the surface measurements. Or he’s convinced I didn’t compare to surface measurements (though I did). Or something…. Actually, it’s not at all clear to me what he is saying. But it’s clear he wants to tell me there is something horrible horrible about comparing to the satellite measurements, and explain that the lower troposphere is not precisely the surface.
But, regardless, Phil is not Robert Grumbine! What Phi says is true: the satellite measurements contain more “noise” (weather or measurement.)
I look at the direct surface measurements and the lower troposphere measurements because none are perfect. Right now, anticipating ice, if it’s important to predict, it’s best to look at many indicators.
It also looks like Phil may win the “rank exploits” ice bet! (The prize is bragging rights. I may send Phil brownies or something.) Alas, I have clearly lost! I mourn for the baby ice.
Preliminary Unofficial Day 243 Race Report
2008 has another moderate day, gaining 18K on 2007.
8 31 2002 5.834844 -0.021406
8 31 2003 6.282188 -0.043750
8 30 2004 5.932188 -0.019218
8 31 2005 5.650938 -0.011406
8 31 2006 5.974688 0.021094
8 31 2007 4.607031 -0.009063
8 30 2008 5.088750 -0.027344
#phil
Regarding the trend and standards of adjustments, GISS is definitely an outlier.
The cooling trend is also confirmed by different measurement systems.
#phil
Regarding the trend and standards of adjustments, GISS is definitely an outlier.
The cooling trend is also confirmed by different measurement systems.
Sorry Mike (#153) (mistyped Mike as Mark…)
Re: Graeme Rodaughan (#158),
Hi folks… I encourage you to try out “reply and past link” (on the right hand side) when you respond to a comment. It turns the typical “Re: Lucia (#999), ” into a proper link. You can change it as you like as long as you don’t muck with the text inside the <> characters.
Re: MrPete (#160)
and might I add, because it generates a “relative” link, most (all?) browsers will just simply reposition in the page without reloading it, so navigation is fast, really sweet, and doesn’t suffer the deleted comment re-numbering problem. I think it does however mess up with preview at least on my v.oldish netscape
ian
lucia (151): can you say what your estimate for the standard deviation of a monthly measurement is for each of HadCRUT3 and a (or some) satellite measurement? Likewise for annual (it would be /sqrt(12) if monthly was i.i.d., but they are not).
TIA,
Rich.
The “cooling trend” is established by cherry picking a starting date that gives you the result you want. i.e. “GISTEMP exaggerates warming”
RSS shows more warming than GISTEMP over the entire satellite era.
RSS, GISTEMP, and HadCRUT3v all show similar rates of warming since the satellites went online. UAH shows about 20% less. It is the outlier. The fact that the two satellite analyses differ the most should say something about the magnitude of the adjustments applied to that data. The “lower troposphere” “measurements” are, in fact, synthetic products extrapolated from MSU2.
Worth reading:
Click to access mears_science_2005.pdf
This is what temperatures looked like in the early days of Australian work:
<img src=”Regional temp not in Jones.jpg at my.mashable.com” alt=”a” />
which was compared with the following to show UHI:
<img src=”Large cities(most in Jones.jpg at my.mashable.com” alt=”b” />
The temperature plots seem to have changed rather a lot since then. (This is partly a test for image hosting)
#161 CCE–there is something wrong with your GISS temp data. GISS shows 2007 as the warmest:
http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/GISSglobal.html
Back on topic:
Re #104
DeWitt Payne:
August 29th, 2008 at 5:59 am
I’m not going to have internet access this weekend so I would greatly appreciate someone posting the CT Arctic and Antarctic areas and anomalies for Saturday and Sunday. I could interpolate from Friday to Monday, but I would rather have the actual data.
Here you go:
Aug 31st
Arctic 3.239, -2.043
Antarctic 14.455, -0.283
Hi lucia, yes you’re right it seemed ridiculous to me that a poster could say “While UAH, RSS MSU may respond more strongly to el nino/nina events, the main quality criterium in climate science is their ability to measure the correct (currently cooling) trend – in contrast to the not peer reviewed data collection and data manipulation of some surface records.”
As we know MSU measures microwaves not temperature and relies on extensive data manipulation to yield temperatures, the poster also referred to the ‘correct trend’, does that use the Fu et al correction or is it the UAH or RSS one, is it in the troposphere or is it at the surface? Dumb statements deserve to be shot down no matter what their POV! And you’re right I’m not Bob Grumbine!
By the way lucia did you ever check out my sister’s website?
Here are my graphs for yesterday’s ice extent data, based upon revised IARC/JAXA Ice Extent data.
Daily Arctic Sea Ice Extent Reduction Day 243
Arctic Sea Ice Extent Day 243
2008 Arctic Ice Extent Differences From Previous Years Day 243
Arctic Sea Ice Total Drops from Peaks Day 243
Lucia,
Phil’s original statement:
I jumped to the conclusion since he didn’t mention the ground based records that he did not think they were subject to algorithmic adjustment. I apologize for implying something about Phil’s position that I know nothing about. Obviously different algorithms and data are used since the ground based temperatures reported from different groups are not the same. So all temperature sets are subject to the question of “which is the correct one” not just the MSU based. The arguments about polar coverage and whether the fact that the sat data is based on an altitude layer rather than the ground, could be made, but as has been pointed out the ground has it’s own coverage and altitude problems.
As far as Dr. Grumbine goes:
I did infer that he must think the surface temps data sets are “golden” since he makes a number of comments about why the MSU based aren’t, but makes no comment as to any issues with the ground based. He used NCDC as an example, but didn’t mentioned any issues, for example. He mentions coverage at the poles being a problem for the MSU sets, but doesn’t seem to know or care that the ground based temperatures at the poles are based on sketchy and extrapolated data. He complains that the MSU data doesn’t represent the ground using a 13,000 ft figure as proof. Funny, that seems to cover most ground level elevations fairly well. He could make a more definitive argument as to why, but only makes a generic analogy. Oh well, I’m only a lay person.
(I do have to stop inferring things from what I don’t see stated though).
Re #131, #132 on topic: the high resolution picture at Cryosphere Today seems to show that not only is the Northwest Passage pretty much open, but the Northeast Passage is too. I think that didn’t happen last year?
Re #168 off topic: I think the troposphere temperature measurements are important because under AGW theory the troposphere is supposed to warm more than the surface.
Rich.
#164
The data is current as of the last posting by RSS and GISS. 2005 is the warmest year in the GISTEMP analysis, followed by 2007 and 1998 (tie). January 2007 is the warmest month in the GISTEMP analysis, while January 2008 is the coldest month since May 1995.
#147 Tony Brown
Will do my best, see you in 3 weeks.
I will be cycling round the North of Mallorca, we were quite good at Olympic cycling weren’t we!
Question for Phil, one thing I have not been able to determine on CT is how they derived the 1979-2000 mean, is it in the right place?
#171 Uk John
We’re on a roll, challenge the Germans to a game of cricket as well! Have a good holiday
Tony Brown
Has Baby ice been iced?
Say it ain’t so!
Phil done it.
Today in NOS jeugdjournal (dutch TV news for kids)
http://player.omroep.nl/?aflID=7804077
Item starts at minute 4:00 ends at 4:27
“It is possible to circumnavigate the north pole, there was never so little ice in the arctic.”
Which is not true, of course…
Note that the satellite depicts a bit of the antarctic peninsula.
Evan, we had a fun competition in the poetry thread. Everyone is looking forward to how you do at continuing the saga of the baby ice.
hmmm. will stand up to the throwdown and write the next installation of baby ice.
I doubt it.
Evan, baban hi’ wedi mynd! Hwyl fawr!
The British News service ITN is following the Kayaker hoping to paddle to the North Pole. They are filing daily reports which end up here
http://www.itv.com/News/newsspecial/KayaktotheArctic/default.html
Tonight the kayaker said the weather had got noticeably colder and the sea temperature had dropped from 4C to zero. Perhaps Baby ice is fighting back.
Tony Brown
Steve Goddard at Anthony Watts’ site.
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/08/31/arctic-ice-growth-2008-how-much/#more-2648
Some good questions?
Cheers!
I guess my link got eaten…
Head over to Watts up with that for a post by Steve Goddard. Rather interesting.
Hmmm, the reply and paste link doesn’t seem to work on my machine when there is a website (the name is clickable). Works fine for other posts.
Re : 179
I think he started from the wrong side. The lower concentration is over on the Siberia/Alaska side. Looks like 100% on the Iceland/Greenland side, based on Cryosphere Today
Re: BarryW (#182),
You said
What do you mean by “when there is a website”? Can you give an example of a comment where the reply-and-paste does not work?
Thanks.
Re: MrPete (#191), try Lucia’s #193 here. It doesn’t work, and when you hover over it you can see that it looks different in the status bar.
Whilst on the subject of Lucia, hi Lucia, did you see that question I posed you about standard deviations of HadCRUT3 versus RSS or UAH?
Rich.
Re: MrPete (#191), Re: MrPete (#191),
On my system, unless the reply and paste link is clicked twice, nothing registers in the preview area.
Re: MrPete (#191),
For this message with only one click on the reply and paste link, nothing shows in the preview area.
Re: MrPete (#191),
.
Sorry I haven’t responded, I’ve been without internet access. False alarm. What ever it was that wasn’t working for me is working now. What I meant was that when you have a website filled in in the name,email, website above the comment block it highlights the name in the reply for example lucia’s comment 350 above. If I click on her name that’s in the reply heading I get her website.
“Sea Ice Stretch Run”
See Ice Run. Funny, Funny Ice.
Phil: (Un)fortunately only my name is Welsh.
Ancient Ice has Mama Ice
Upon her back to melt it
Then methane rise killed Baby Ice
And he who smelt it dealt it.
[long pause]
I’ll come in, again . . .
I thought fart jokes were banned
It was a dark and stormy night. (Wind 23 knots, 3°C, barometer falling.) But was it enough? The slow, steady drip told the grim story. Three weeks to go, maybe four. it didn’t look good. A shot rang out, heralding a chain of events that would soon lead to world war. As the global temps rose inexorably, millions of people were starving, and the king lived in luxury.
At that very moment, a young intern at City Hospital was making an important discovery. Unfortunately it was merely the cure to a devastating disease, one of the very few that was non-climate related. Drip, drip, drip . . . how long could it go on? Meanwhile, on a small farm in Kansas, a boy was growing up. It didn’t have a lot to do with anything, but many were forced to agree it was more interesting than watching ice melt. Eventually, we could watch ice freeze, which would be far more interesting. But how long? How long? How long to the Point of Know Return?
Preliminary Unofficial Day 244 Race Report
2008 has a big day, now 430K behind 2007.
9 1 2002 5.810000 -0.024844
9 1 2003 6.218125 -0.064063
8 31 2004 5.918125 -0.014063
9 1 2005 5.649531 -0.001407
9 1 2006 5.993438 0.018750
9 1 2007 4.610938 0.003907
8 31 2008 5.040781 -0.049219
#184
“It didn’t have a lot to do with anything, but many were forced to agree it was more interesting than watching ice melt.”
Funny! But seriously I have mixed feelings about 2008 being so far behind 2007. Once again alarmists are going to be embarrassed by another wrong, and this time profoundly wrong, prediction. Part of me is sublimely satisfied about that. But an even bigger part of me is noting the inactivity in the sun that has been a large part of the recent cooling and the predictions of scientists like David Archibald, Boris Komitov, Habibullo Abdussamatov, and Piers Corbyn who are saying a Dalton Minimum type Little Ice Age could well occur within the next ~40 years. Is the world preparing for this? I don’t think so. Instead it’s being traumatized by Al Gore’s movie.
Re: GeneII (#187), the alarmists are not going to be embarrassed, because even if ice extent doesn’t close on 2007, ice area now looks to be getting very close, so they will concentrate on that (rightly IMHO).
And this year the NE passage is open too. In the UK paper The Independent, they are not saying that this (both NW and NE open) is unprecedented in a millyun years. But they are saying that it is unprecedented in 125000 years (that’s an eighth of a millyun). How can they know that? Someone ought to embarrass them by proving it wrong, but of course that is hard to do.
Rich.
correct me if I’m mistaken, but isn’t 2007 the closest extent ever measured compared to 2008? In any case, if I were you I would wait for mid-september before drawing conclusions. It is especially striking to me that we had two years of verys trong melt in the arctic despite the relative weakness of the sun.
Re: Flanagan (#187), It is especially striking to me that we had two years of verys trong melt in the arctic despite the relative weakness of the sun.
Relative to when? With the exception of solar cycle 20 the sun has been at it’s most active
since 1945 (18,19,21,22,23). That’s an awful lot of stored energy in the oceans. More like
the present cooler spell is due to PDO, La Nina and NAO all moving into more or less cooler
or neutral phases. I not sure anyone seriously thinks that the climate or arctic are going
to suddenly go into rapid freezing on the strength of a few sun spot free days or even one
weak solar cycle. Unless of course they are of the catastrophe mind set. 🙂
Re: MartinGAtkins (#192),
Relative to when? With the exception of solar cycle 20 the sun has been at it’s most active
since 1945 (18,19,21,22,23).
Should read:-
Relative to when? With the exception of solar cycle 21 the sun has been at high activity
since 1945 (19,20,22,23).
The alarmists already have their newsflash: “unprecedented circumnavigation” and conveniently “forgetting” that there is more arctic ice this year than last year.
OT: Steve, a few months ago you somehow beat RSS and UAH to press with monthly anomaly numbers. Now that August is over, care to take a stab at it again any time soon?
BarryW–
Let’s face it: What Grumbine means to communicate with his writing is not entirely clear! He did go on an on about how inaccurate the satellite measurements are and that discussion was side by side with prose telling us how we should use only the surface record.
But Grumbine’s writing style is quite different from Phil’s!
There are issues with all data sets available. They are different issues.
Phil– I did check out your sister’s site, but I haven’t been knitting so much.
Out of curiosity, since you mentioned FU: Are you aware of any accessible source of updated observation of the anomalie for the lower troposphere using the FU correction? If the data are available, I’d like to look at it and see if we get any different trends for 2001-now compared to RSS and UAH.
well your graph is not up to date… The TSI (total solar irradiance) has been declining since the 80s following PMOD, and though it has been relatively stable following ACRIM Sacfetta et al showed that the increase in temperatures since the 90s cannot be accounted for. The same holds for the arctic melt which was especially strong since the 90s despite the stable (and actually declining again since the last 10 years) solar activity.
#188
“verys trong melt in the arctic despite the relative weakness of the sun.”
You are expecting change to quickly. Yes, the sun has been dramatically less active for 21 months now. And it is having an effect on climate worldwide. But ocean temperatures change very slowly. 21 months of very low activity on the sun isn’t enough to change ocean temps enough to cool them The cool PDO however will have an effect on NH ice size. Time will show the Arctic shrinking less and less because of the decrease in activity in the sun and the cool PDO. This only makes sense. It only makes sense, that is, for those who want sense.
OK, let’s wait and see. Maybe it’s the best to do just rightnow…
There is a wealth of data to indicate the North had low levels of ice in the pre AGW 1930’s and early 40’s. Science just chooses to ignore this.
Henry Larsen easily sailed the St. Roch from Halifax to Vancouver in 86 days in 1944. Through the Northern route of the Northwest Passage that is blocked this year. In 1947 the St. Roch and a large American ice breaker attempted to go through the same passage, the St. Roch from the West and the ice breaker from the east. Neither could make it. In 3 years the PC NW passage had gone from mostly ice free to impervious to a large powewrful ice breaker.
In 1937 the Nascopie and the Aklavik combined to cross the NW Passage.
“In 1937 the ship sailed from the East to Prince Regent Inlet and into the Bellot Strait to allow the Hudson’s Bay Company to establish Fort Ross. There she was met by the schooner Aklavik which had sailed into Bellot Strait from the West. With the historic meeting of the two at Fort Ross, the North West Passage became a reality.”
http://www.hbc.com/hbcheritage/history/transportation/nascopie/
#189
“conveniently “forgetting” that there is more arctic ice this year than last year.”
Boy, they sure do have short term memory problems. Because I’ll go one further– one profoundly further– than you : they are also forgetting their prediction of “The North Pole may be briefly ice-free by September as global warming melts away Arctic sea ice…” found at this link :
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/weather/06/27/north.pole.melting/
Also note this inaccuracy in the same CNN report : “The ice retreated to a record level in September when the Northwest Passage, the sea route through the Arctic Ocean, opened briefly for the first time in recorded history.”
I would not call a 1-shot example of an ice breaker going through ice “a wealth of data”.
Re #192:
Pierrehumbert’s incantation:
And the seasons, they go round and round
And the painted ponies go up and down
Re #104
DeWitt Payne:
August 29th, 2008 at 5:59 am
I’m not going to have internet access this weekend so I would greatly appreciate someone posting the CT Arctic and Antarctic areas and anomalies for Saturday and Sunday. I could interpolate from Friday to Monday, but I would rather have the actual data.
Here you go:
Sept 1st
Arctic 3.199, -2.022
Antarctic 14.396, -0.361
re 199. ok evan. game over. you lose.
However jeez has been a total slacker on baby ice, a deadbeat dad of sorts: he owes us the penultimate
post on his progeny.
Steven Mosher #201
Yes, I entrusted the safety of Baby Ice to Jeez whilst I went on holiday at the end of July. I think he needs a visit from social services to teach him his childcare obligations
Tony Brown
An empty fridge, a pool of water on the floor, and a whiff of methane . . . jeez, what have you DONE?
Can Baby Ice withstand trickledown economics?
Rich– Yes I did! It’s labor day and I didn’t want to post until I had a chance to look at files and couble check!
When I do OLS fits Jan 2001-now, I get standard error for residuals of
GISS sy=0.121 C
Hadley sy=0.094 C
NOAA sy = 0.105
RSS 0.124 C
UAH 0.144 C
So, the variability isn’t hugely different, but variability higher for the satellites. It really doesn’t matter what time periods we pick– the satellites tend to be more variable. The satellites also disagree with each other a little more. So, it might be something to do with precision of the measurements. Or, it might have something to do with the phenomenology. OR, it could just be the fact that it’s difficult to get precise estimates of variability.
bender quotes:
“…Temperature goes up. Solar stuff goes up and down and up and down and up and down…”
Funny, the last time I checked the temperature does the same, yet, they manage to get a tiny trend out of it anyway!!
Even CO2 goes up and down diurnally, anually, seasonally, epochally… Again, they get a trend out of it.
Yet, they can’t get a trend out of solar????
Amazing people those trend setters!!
Sorry for being so late posting my graphs today. I drove 516 miles today, so I was on the road when they posted the revised data.
Here are my graphs for yesterday’s ice extent data, based upon revised IARC/JAXA Ice Extent data. The final revision was a disappointingly large downward revision of the ice extent area (by about 10,000 km^2).
Daily Arctic Sea Ice Extent Reduction Day 244
Arctic Sea Ice Extent Day 244
2008 Arctic Ice Extent Differences From Previous Years Day 244
Arctic Sea Ice Total Drops from Peaks Day 244
lucia, I hope you had an enjoyable Labor day?
In Fu’s 2005 paper he describes how the method of developing a ‘synthetic’ channel to correct for stratospheric influence increases noise:
“To correct for the stratospheric influence, the UAH
team created a synthetic channel called T2LT, where LT
means ‘‘lower-middle troposphere’, by subtracting signals
at different view-angles of MSU Channel 2 [Spencer and
Christy, 1992]. However, this approach amplifies noise
[Christy et al., 1998], increases satellite inter-calibration
biases and enhances contamination from the surface
[Hurrell and Trenberth, 1998]. The effective weighting
function for T2LT is also shown in Figure 1a. Christy et
al. [1998] pointed out that confidence in the MSU T2 and T4
is much higher than T2LT for trend analyses.”
Click to access grl.fu.2005.pdf
I’m glad you checked Di’s website, big brother’s done his duty!
#205 See – owe to Rich: “the alarmists are not going to be embarrassed”
I should have been more specific. I was talking about the “North Pole Ice Free” prophetic utterance given by some of their prophet-like “children in closets with flashlights trying to tell scarier stories than the other” (reference Lindzen on that one). But I agree. They won’t feel shame. They’ll just spin out some damage control, something that will make them feel they are still on top, some whistling past the cemetery, some band-aid on a broken hypothesis. Because after all to them the Hockey Stick is still “robust” with scientific pith. Sorta puts me in mind of that football player who picked up a fumble and ran the wrong way with it. He thought he was scoring a touchdown–OPPS
Preliminary Unofficial Day 245 Race Report
2008 has a very big day, now 350 behind 2007.
9 2 2002 5.781719 -0.028281
9 2 2003 6.217500 -0.000625
9 1 2004 5.893594 -0.024531
9 2 2005 5.670469 0.020938
9 2 2006 5.977813 -0.015625
9 2 2007 4.617031 0.006093
9 1 2008 4.964219 -0.065625
Phil,
Thanks for posting the data from CT while I was away.
It would take a miracle at this point to save baby ice area. The last few days have been a repeat of the disaster of early August. Ice concentration is down to less than 64% when it should be over 70%. Projected minimum is now 3.05 Mm2 and falling fast. The CT area is now below the 2007 minimum area from U.Hamburg. Time for last rites.
Extent, OTOH, still has some life, although the loss rate is still not decreasing fast enough for comfort. Projected area by area remaining to a 9/16 minimum is 4.73 Mm2 and 4.21 Mm2 on 10/1 calculated from smoothed rate compared to average. Since I consider the latter figure extremely pessimistic, ice extent should end above 2008, but not by all that much.
bosir wrote:
The satellite records (UAH and RSS) have, of course, much greater uncertainty and volatility than the surface records, and are therefore less appropriate for trend analysis.
phil wrote:
While UAH, RSS MSU may respond more strongly to el nino/nina events, the
…a couple of points, how do you know what the ‘correct’ trend is and how does it relate to the surface trend?
your statement may be true or not for the past, but recent satellite data is much more reliable than landbased GISS/NOAA data.
GISS data
UAH data
In the comparison of march 2008 both data sets showed similar temperature anomalies during la nina, but the average in GISS is much higher, simply because vast areas with below average data were missing in GISS. Obvioulsy, GISS average data is not correct and satellite data is better, even during la nina at that time.
The coverage of GISS is now so poor that this ensemble is not sufficient for computation of a reliable global average mean.
Every scientist and even non-scientist should agree with that, the pictures speak for themselves. You do not even have to start a discussion about Hansen’s so called data correction.
Race watchers
Visually it still looks like 2008 could cross 2007 around day 267. It all depends when the up tick takes hold. As the slow down was so late and so little, there is a real chance the up tick will be late too. I think we we will be here another month.
Re #217
Just to make things clear Manfred wrote the italicised text originally in #139, not I:
While UAH, RSS MSU may respond more strongly to el nino/nina events, the main quality criterium in climate science is their ability to measure the correct (currently cooling) trend – in contrast to the not peer reviewed data collection and data manipulation of some surface records.
I said: “A couple of points, how do you know what the ‘correct’ trend is and how does it relate to the surface trend?”
Nothing in Manfred’s post #217 addresses this.
#217
The March GISTEMP coverage is currently much better than it was when it was first computed. Also, GISTEMP uses satellite SST for ocean areas which is absent from the graphic posted. You can go to the GISTEMP website and generate a new plot that includes the Reynolds et al ocean data.
The difference between the long term trends of UAH and RSS indicates there is more uncertainty between them than between GISTEMP and HadCRUT (and RSS for that matter). That would indicate that the “corrections” applied to the various satellite measurements are more significant than the “corrections” applied to the surface measurements.
Well, we’ve seen some winter storminess the last few days blowing the ice around, but also cooling things down further in the Arctic. Now it’s remaining cold, with high pressure forecast to build to N of Beaufort Sea. Sea temperature anomalies are continuing to fall http://www.weatheroffice.gc.ca/data/analysis/351_100.gif and are now a full 4C lower than this time last year over the (western) Chukchi Sea – which is pivotal since it is closest to the most vulnerable first-year ice, closest to the Bering Strait (suggesting a lack of influx of warmer waters from the Pacific), and located between the Siberian seas and Beaufort seas which will also be crucial to the size of any remaining melt, and the date that net re-freeze begins. The southern Beaufort sea remains about 1C warmer than this time last year, but this is surprisingly little considering how much longer it’s been open sea, and the freezing temperatures currently spreading from the Arctic Basin (as well as the colder sea temperature anomalies spreading from the Chukchi) are rapidly cooling the Beaufort.
East Siberian seas are also cooling quickly, and already up to 3C cooler than this time last year. (If they cool down much more they will be close to re-freezing)
http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.html [current global SST]
http://weather.unisys.com/archive/sst/sst_anom-070902.gif [global SST on 1 Sep 07]
http://www.uni-koeln.de/math-nat-fak/geomet/meteo/winfos/synNNWWarctis.gif [current Arctic temps/weather]
This thing is going to go to the wire. As I see it, it’s now a battle between the competing factors of much colder seas and air on the one hand, and thinner ice than last year on the Siberian side** , storminess and slightly higher salinity on the other hand.
** NOT elsewhere – see the buoys http://www.crrel.usace.army.mil/sid/IMB/newdata.htm which show 1.3m to >3m thickness except for the one which drifted into open water in the Beaufort.
“This thing is going to go to the wire” (from my last post)
I meant that in the sense that it’s likely to be open to interpretation until the end of the melt season. I’m more optimistic beyond that as I think re-freeze could be surprisingly quick. For example, I just trawled the (Unisys) SST archives for the last few years and I had to go all the way back to 2001 to find a year when the southern half of the East Siberian Sea was this cold in early September.
#220 Manfred “but recent satellite data is much more reliable than landbased GISS/NOAA data.”
Especially true when you have landbased stations being relocated to heat sources, such as, say, ummm, on to a black top parking lot… But that would never be done intentionally…right?
GeneII–
Be careful not to make the mistake of thinking that because the sources of error and noise in the surface measurements are visible to us, they are larger than the sources of noise in the satellite measurements.
We don’t know which set is more prone to bias for whatever reasons.
That’s why it’s good to look at various sources, including fiduciary sources.
Phil– Thanks. I had read the paper. I was just wondering if there was an actual, regularly updated source I was missing. When I hear rumors…. I like to look. (You are not the source of the rumor.)
Jeez– Get back here and encourage the baby ice!
CT area update 9/2/2008
region area(Mm2) difference anomaly
Arctic 3.221 0.022 -1.954
Antarctic 14.373 -0.023 -0.41
Arctic ice concentration 65%
U.Hamburg for 9/3/2007 3.404 Mm2
Projected minimum area 3.07 Mm2
The low concentration means, I think, that things could rapidly get better or worse. Minimum area is usually in early September, but with these conditions, who knows?
http://pafc.arh.noaa.gov/ice.php?img=ice
Note area “E.”
DeWitt Payne, it looks to steep for a minimum early Sept – thats now. Just looking at the graphs, most years it is hard to find the minimum, as the whole of Sept is flat. 2008 is clearly not flat yet. It is halfway between 2005 and 2007 both were late minimums – so best guess a minimum late Sept too.
Re: sean egan (#230),
I was referring to area minimum. JAXA 2002 to 2007 extent minimum is in mid-September +/- one week. The U. Hamburg 2003 to 2007 Arctic ice area average has a minimum on 9/5. With the digital data, one can always find a minimum.
Re #229
Indeed, all that old ice moving out!
What is your operational definition of old ice?
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3242
No melting going on here. Drift, yes, But no melting.
FZAK80 PAFC 011827
ICEAFC
SEA ICE ADVISORY FOR WESTERN AND ARCTIC ALASKAN COASTAL WATERS
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE ANCHORAGE ALASKA
1030 AM AKDT MONDAY SEPTEMBER 1 2008
FORECAST VALID…SATURDAY SEPTEMBER 6 2008
ANALYSIS CONFIDENCE…LOW
SYNOPSIS…HIGH PRESSURE WILL PERSIST OVER THE BEAUFORT SEA THROUGH
SATURDAY.
-ARCTIC OCEAN-
-BEAUFORT SEA-
-CHUKCHI SEA-
PKZ225-CAPE THOMPSON TO CAPE BEAUFORT-
PKZ230-CAPE BEAUFORT TO POINT FRANKLIN-
PKZ235-POINT FRANKLIN TO CAPE HALKETT-
PKZ240-CAPE HALKETT TO FLAXMAN ISLAND-
PKZ245-FLAXMAN ISLAND TO DEMARCATION POINT-
THE MAIN ICE EDGE LIES FROM 10 MILES NORTH OF POINT FRANKLIN TO 70.8N
160.8W TO 71.1N 165.7W TO 72.8N 169W TO 73.6N 177W AND SOUTHWEST TO
WRANGEL ISLAND. THE EDGE IS MAINLY 3 TO 7 TENTHS FIRST YEAR THIN
ICE…YOUNG…NEW.
FORECAST THROUGH SATURDAY…
AIR TEMPERATURES IN THE LOWER 30S. EAST WINDS NEAR THE SOUTHERN EDGE
THROUGHOUT MOST OF THE FORECAST PERIOD.
EXPECT THE SOUTHERN LOBE NORTHWEST OF POINT BARROW TO MOVE SOME 20 TO
30 MILES TO THE WEST BY SATURDAY.
The graphical images at CT seems to understate the sea ice north of Alaska, as compared with the NOAA analysis done “the old fashioned” way.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/
Busted cooking the books?
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.11.html
It would appear that the anomaly is known ahead of time!
Then, is the area “made” to accomodate that prestated anomaly?
Not in the Arctic, but anyway related to Arctic.
Despite this year we are recording a second record minimum for sea ice area in the Arctic, cold snaps from the North Pole started very early.
Anomalous low temperatures, with widespread frost, are interesting or interested since late August Canada, Greenland, Scandinavia and far east to Mongolia: a very early and pretty anomalous start of the cold season this year.
And looking to mathematical forecast models, it is just the beginning.
In the next days of this week, Hudson Bay, Labrador and South Greenland should be hit by a cold snap bringing frost and snow down to the sea shores, originating by a very cold area (for the season) between Greenland and Canadian Archipelago (-12/-10°C at 850hPa): I think North-West passage will soon close, this year.
Next, for the mid September winter could start very early for Europe too: forecasts are still not very likely after 1 week, but anyway today they see frost and snow from Svalbard to the Baltic and going through East Europe and Russia, with minor cold effects on Central Europe, Italy and the Balkans. A situation “normal” by mid October, but unusual for mid September when weather should be still mild if not warm.
I am sorry for the enviromentalists, but I am starting worrying about Russian gas this autumn, not for swimming polar bears…
Oh sorry, I misread. According to this, Beaufort’s area has been 0 since the first of August (The Barrow lobe and the “Area E” lobe noted by NOAA were taken off the books). But, strangely, the anomaly grew during that time. I guess CT use fuzzy math? So, still a form of book cooking, but not what I initially thought.
This is clearly incorrect:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.10.html
Satellite remote sensing to ascertain sea ice area, extent and concentration are not ready for prime time. I consider them to be in the realm of prototype technology.
Re #237
Sadlov, you’re getting in deeper and deeper, quit now before you really embarrass yourself. Hint, how does one calculate an anomaly?
Geoff (re: #163),
I’m intriguied by the 25-station Australian anomaly series, which is in substantial disagreement with the official BOM series (beginning 1905) by showing current anomalies below past values. Can you direct me to a source for the digital data? I’d like to do cross-spectrum analysis between the pair and share the results with you.
By the way, the discrepancy between the BOM anomalies and those from a cursory 5-station Australian average shows a curvilinear trend rising from negative values early in the past century to positive values currently.
It’s astonishing how “diet science” curricula (light on analytical tools)have persuaded many that a secular trend can be revealed by just a few decades of data. “Trends” of such short duration are too variable and too dependent upon chosen time interval to provide any reliable indication. And this hold true no matter what the month-to-month variability.
Likewise astonishing is the notion that residuals from a short-term trend are an indication of data quality. Weather is the physical basis of climate, and the dismissal of “weather noise” as immaterial shows lack of scientific maturity.
#227 lucia
snip –
Steve: Phil below is correct. It is unnecessary and against rules to speculate on intent.
GeneII–
I didn’t realize you were suggesting the biases were intentional. I tend to think biases are not intentional. (There could be confirmation bias– or there may be none. But that’s not precisely the same.)
Either way, because I know there are those who think there are people intentionally distorting the surface based records, I do always look at lower troposphere measured by satellites.
Phil is correct that there are issues with the satellite systems too– and of course the lower troposphere is not, precisely, the surface. But, I think it’s useful to look at both.
I think it’s good that we have various measures.
Re #244
Gene II making such accusations is against Steve’s rules for this blog.
No matter how you slice it, the anomaly for Beaufort is odd. So, let’s say Beaufort opened one month earlier than normal, and ergo, a negative anomaly. All well and good. But it did not, and still has not. “Area E” must be counted. NSIDC and CT do not count it, NOAA do. I go with NOAA. Their sea ice product is relied upon by people who rely on it to help run their businesses.
On a related note, if the Beaufort anomaly has risen toward zero, then it would appear the melt in that region has slowed if not stopped, for this year.
Preliminary Unofficial Day 246 Race Report
2008 maintains a fast pace, now 340K behind 2007.
9 3 2002 5.735938 -0.045781
9 3 2003 6.198906 -0.018594
9 2 2004 5.880000 -0.013594
9 3 2005 5.689375 0.018906
9 3 2006 5.958125 -0.019688
9 3 2007 4.580000 -0.037031
9 2 2008 4.912031 -0.045625
Re # 242 John S
The temp graphs from early Australia came in graph form from Warwick Hughes. I have not seen them in digital form. They were about my first introduction to the rigour of data treatment in climate science and I tried to get more explanation but failed. The point of posting them was to show that mathematics and adjustments appear to have altered the raw picture. I make no public allegations of fiddling. A potted history is here, without the graphs attached:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1545
#244 was not posted by GeneII. Why are the people fraudulently using my ID?
This is GeneII. I see there are the same type of people posting comments here in Climate Audit that I find in other places on the internet. I did not post the comment #244.
I don’t have a PhD but that is not necessary because even a child will know you can’t do what is seen in this photo :
p.s. whoever used my ID please stop it
Re: GeneII (#251),
GeneII, or III, or IV…
At first glance the location of that station in Tucson looks silly. Surely a paved parking lot is not representative of that region. Then I looked closer and thought a little more about it.
I lived in Tucson for 3 years, and it seems to me that the color and shade of that lot is fairly similar to the average color and shade of the nearby northern Sonora desert. (that’s asphalt, but it’s not “black top”) Natural flats in the Sonora are mostly open surface soil with very sparse plant growth scattered across it.
While this station’s placement isn’t typical of the surrounding area, I’m not sure that it’s necessarily a warmer location. Too many variables.
The white-roofed surrounding buildings are no doubt air conditioned, with their excess heat vented from rooftop units. I don’t see why their waste heat would flow downwards from the rooftops to station.
Also the grass lawns and lush trees are not native, and have a cooling effect.
I’m not saying that this location is cooler than the regional average, but I’m also not convinced that it’s necessarily any hotter.
It would be interesting to compare a few days of recorded temperature for that station with one from the surrounding desert.
BTW, I can understand why it’s located where it is. From my hiking experience I can tell you that any man-made object in the open desert is a magnet for saps with guns. Signs, etc. are usually turned to swiss cheese by the beer and bullets segment of the population. I’ve seen irrigation pumps, farm equipment, and remote sheds, pocked, and holed from small and large caliber ammo. Just imagine what fun they’d have sighting in on a weather station with a number of little protruding components.
Just thought I’d re-write history:
“Preliminary Unofficial Day 246 Race Report
2008 maintains a fast pace, now 340K behind 2007.”
ADJUSTED: 2008 maintains a moderately fast pace, now 344K behind 2007 (in fact was 332K behind before adjustment)
9 3 2002 5.735938 -0.045781
9 3 2003 6.198906 -0.018594
9 2 2004 5.880000 -0.013594
9 3 2005 5.689375 0.018906
9 3 2006 5.958125 -0.019688
9 3 2007 4.580000 -0.037031
9 2 2008 4.912031 -0.045625
ADJUSTED:
9 2 2008 4.924219 -0.033437
Probably shouldn’t give me so much pleasure to report this 🙂
Here are my graphs for yesterday’s ice extent data, based upon revised IARC/JAXA Ice Extent data. Apologies for the lack of updated graphs yesterday. Actually I did post them, but they were lost in the server crash, and I didn’t bother re-posting them.
Daily Arctic Sea Ice Extent Reduction Day 246
Arctic Sea Ice Extent Day 246
2008 Arctic Ice Extent Differences From Previous Years Day 246
Arctic Sea Ice Total Drops from Peaks Day 246
2008 daily melt rate has now diverged from all years, including 2007. A proper analysis of Aaron’s first graph will reveal the difference is significant. Calculations here will indicate whether and when 2008 will pass 2007.
Re: bender (#255),
It will take more than a few days of high loss rate before I would say that the extent rate has diverged from the normal range.
EWMA smoothed extent rate plot. (alpha = 0.10)
EWMA smoothed extent rate anomaly plot.
The UL and LL (95% prediction interval) in the anomaly plot are calculated from the daily standard deviations with no correction for autocorrelation, etc. Hence, they are almost certainly too low. Even then, 2008 is barely at the lower limit.
Re: DeWitt Payne (#265),
I agree. However that’s the same line you used a week ago, is it not? How many days do you require before one is allowed to conclude that the rates have in fact diverged? IMO the sample loss rates have diverged. That is a calculable fact, no statistical inference required. Whether this divergence will be sustained … that is the question.
Re: bender (#269),
I use the same line because the current smoothed rate is still not outside the bounds of normal variation and the 2007 minimum continues to be outside the bounds of the predicted minimum. We only have digital data for 6 years. That’s not many degrees of freedom.
Predicted minimum extent 4.72 +/- 0.29 Mm2 on 9/15 by area remaining. The low rate today combined with a flat spot in the average rate curve decreased days remaining to 24 (9/27) and 0.22 Mm2 less loss remaining. The projected minimum extent by that method is now 4.43 Mm2. Both methods now predict a minimum extent greater than 2007.
But the situation is still in flux and will remain that way for about a week. A couple of big days of extent and area loss, fairly probable given the low ice concentration, could shift the situation enough that I would agree that there is enough divergence that the 2007 extent minimum is in reach. A few more days like today, though, and the 2008 rate will return to average while the 2007 rate will exceed the average.
I was conservative on July 22 when almost everyone else seemed certain that the 2008 minimum would be above 2005 and 2006. I remain conservative now.
Re: DeWitt Payne (#274),
First, as I said, no statistical inference is required to compare the sample 2008 to the other sample years. There is no issue here about what is “normal” or how many “degrees of freedom” are available. The 2008 daily loss rate has for some two weeks been higher than 2007. That is a fact. Not an inference. (Ok, there’s a bit of an inferential step where you assume the set of days over the last two weeks represents an idealized daily melt rate for late August. But this is not a between-years inference.)
Second, I have been linking my statements to specific graphs by Aaron Wells. If you want to make an assertion it would be best to link it with a specific graphic. “bounds of normal variation” is, as you yourself point out, a dodgy concept (due to limited degrees of freedom). Invoking it weakens your argument. Same for “the bounds of the predicted minimum”. If I reject your prediction method, then this premise also fails.
You say you were “conservative” on July 22. I don’t know what that means. The folks who are being “conservative” here are Phil and AndyW, because they suggest there are some unknowns (some incalculable inhomogeneities in ice-climate interactions) that could come into play in 2008. Your projection method is assuming homogeneity. i.e. It is not “conservative”. It is, in fact, quite optimistic in its level of certainty. Being “conservative”, to me, means speculating within reasonable bounds. Your bounds are unreasonable. Your error bars are over-confident. The irony is that you yourself point out that the degrees of freedom are limiting.
To close by saying “we shall see” is to dodge the issue. If 2008 passes 2007 then the weakness in your approach shall be seen. If 2008 fails to pass 2007 then the weakness in your approach will not be exposed until a later date. Therefore I do not close by saying “we shall see”. The GW hypothesis is that there are temporal inhomogeneities in ice-climate interactions that will lead to surprise. An empirical forecasting model is an inappropriate model for that kind of non-stationary process.
Phil is wise not to commit himself to a prediction. The reward of guessing right is not worth the risk of being wrong.
Re: bender (#277),
At least I have an approach.
The year to compare rates is still 2004. After today’s revision 2008 is slightly more than 3 days behind 2004. In the graph linked above. 2008 was 4 days behind. 2004 lost less than 0.2 Mm2 extent from that time to minimum. And for the last two days 2008 has lost less extent than 2007.
Re: bender (#255),
The amount of ice that has melted is no more significant than the fact that the 2007-2008 freeze was an all-time record – which it was.
Re: Aztec Bill (#266),
A provocative remark. Shall we engage?
The important thing is that there is more ice in 2008 than 2007 and the Arctic temps are colder than at the same time last year, which bodes well for an early freze.
Whether the station’s location is warmer than the surrounding area or not is immaterial. There are specific rules that must be followed when siting these stations.
Re: Mike Bryant (#257),
Agreed. Just don’t forget the Kevlar housing, or better yet, reactive armor!
CT Ice Area update 9/3/2008
region area(Mm2) difference anomaly
Arctic 3.247 0.026 -1.912
Antarctic 14.455 0.082 -0.365
projected minimum area 3.10 Mm2
For area from the U.Hamburg data, the minimum for 2002 to 2006 was late August to early September. In 2007 the minimum was on 9/15 but area was nearly constant from late August until then and increase from that point was initially very slow.
If the current area is the minimum, then extent will reach its minimum in mid September and 2008 extent will not be lower than 2007. Projected minimum extent is 4.71 +/- 0.3 Mm2 in mid September or 4.21 in late September to early October. Ice concentration increased to 66%, still well below the recent average of 73% at this time. While the current smoothed extent rate is higher than any previous year, it would still only take a few days of low extent loss for the smoothed loss rate for 2008 to be less than either 2004 or 2007.
Thought I’d pre-empt the inevitable debate on this:
“Thinner Ice
One thing that strikes me is the change in the sea ice when I compare it to my Arctic trip last year. Last year at this latitude (around 82°C North) I saw lots of three meter thick ice – multi-year ice. This year, out in the kayak, I am only paddling past single-year ice which is significantly thinner, about one metre in depth. It is no surprise to me this is a record-setting year for thinness of Arctic summer sea ice.”
From: http://polardefenseproject.org/blog/
Firstly, the northern islands of Spitzbergen (where he left from) are at ~80.5N, and he is currently at ~82N. The sea ice to the north of Spitzbergen has advanced ~1 to 2 degrees southwards since this date a year ago, and this time the advance appears to be due to re-growth of ice over the past year, rather than the flushing out of multiyear ice we saw last year. So it doesn’t mean much that the ice he is currently encountering is significantly thinner. It would be more important if he could establish that the ice closer to the North Pole is any thinner than it was a year ago.
http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsredata/asi_daygrid_swath/l1a/n6250/2007/sep/asi-n6250-20070902-v5_nic.png [Sep 2nd 07]
http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsredata/asi_daygrid_swath/l1a/n6250/2008/sep/asi-n6250-20080902-v5_nic.png [Sep 2nd 08]
Secondly, what is the evidence for the statement “this is a record-setting year for thinness of Arctic summer sea ice”? Last year the average thinness was apparently 1.3m. This year, of the buoys available with a comparison to a year ago, one shows an increase in thickness from ~2.9m to ~3.2m with only a couple of weeks potential melt to go (http://www.crrel.usace.army.mil/sid/IMB/2007J.htm) and the other shows the thickness exactly the same at ~1.2m but with half the melt (http://www.crrel.usace.army.mil/sid/IMB/2006C.htm). The others all show thickness of significantly greater than 1.3m (except for one which drifted into open water in the Beaufort hence drop in thickness to 0).
If there were buoys between ~77N and ~84N in the Arctic Basin on the Pacific side between ~165W and ~125E, they would show big increases in thickness over a wide area – because much of this area was open water in early Sep 07 and is now covered with first year ice (soon to become multiyear?). This area would easily cancel out the much smaller area in the northern Beaufort that has lost ice coverage/reduced in concentration from ~90 per cent to ~70 per cent, albeit the lost ice was thicker i.e. up to ~3m.
83 78
Oops accidentally left my notes at the bottom. I couldn’t decide whether to say “~77N and ~84N” or “~78N and ~83N” Anyone concerned can make up their own mind from the satellite images!
Following on from #259, turns out he was actually at ~80.5N when writing the blog entry about the thinner ice, which can only strengthen my point!
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps/ms?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&ie=UTF8&msa=0&msid=105384431693060155128.0004559ae4a5303345bd7&ll=78.061989,0.175781&spn=13.627552,78.75&t=h&z=4
(Thanks to WAWT!)
Should have said, thanks to WUWT. It’s been a long day…..
Anyone have a link to data on Greenland glacier speeds? Didn’t the accelerate last year? I wonder if that’s still on, or if it’s flattened out.
Geoff (re: #249),
Thanks anyway for the info and for the amusing excursion down the rabbit-hole of your correspondence with Phil Jones (though the talent level of his logic is well below Lewis Carroll’s).
I’m also searching for updates of the Cape Leeuwin record, so if you or anyone else know of a source for current years, please steer me that way.
Daily Tech reports:
Arctic Sees Massive Gain in Ice Coverage Increase twice the size of Germany: “colder weather” to blame.
Juxtaposed with:
New Climate Study Indicates Hottest Decade in 1,300 Years!
#268
Is the Daily Tech report true? Has the melt stopped? Is 2008 ice 13% larger than 2007 ice?
Preliminary Unofficial Day 246 Race Report
2008 slows for a day, slipping to 380K behind 2007.
9 4 2002 5.701563 -0.034375
9 4 2003 6.148750 -0.050156
9 3 2004 5.887031 0.007031
9 4 2005 5.682500 -0.006875
9 4 2006 5.935313 -0.022812
9 4 2007 4.528125 -0.051875
9 3 2008 4.911563 -0.012656
Correction: Preliminary Unofficial Day 247 Race Report
2008 slows for a day, falling to 380K behind 2007.
9 4 2002 5.701563 -0.034375
9 4 2003 6.148750 -0.050156
9 3 2004 5.887031 0.007031
9 4 2005 5.682500 -0.006875
9 4 2006 5.935313 -0.022812
9 4 2007 4.528125 -0.051875
9 3 2008 4.911563 -0.012656
#254 lurker bill
“and it seems to me that the color and shade of that lot is fairly similar to the average color and shade of the nearby northern Sonora desert.”
So the characteristics of that parking lot are satisfactorily comparable to desert sand (if that is indeed pertinent)? In day, night, summer, winter, rain, sun, that parking lot’s effect on temperature performs the same as desert sand? Ok. We’ve all been told by those on your side of this debate how important “peer-review” is. So could you provide for me a link to a peer-reviewed work that confirms this about the parking lot?
And after providing it, if you can, I think we should get back the the topic of this thread which is NH ice and the prediction that the North Pole would be “ice free” this summer.
Re: GeneII (#275),
Gene, I don’t have a side in this. I’m am rooting for neither the vindication, nor the embarrassment of your “alarmists”. That would be silly; what I want makes not a whit of difference to the forces that affect our climate. I’m just here to educate myself on what’s happening in the Arctic.
And, as I said before, I don’t know if that lot is hotter or cooler than the surrounding area. I was just making the observation that, to me, the lot looked to have a similar shade to the surrounding area. That’s why I said it would be interesting to compare it to a desert location. If you insist that I get a peer review of my personal observations, prior to posting them here, I will suggest that you too seek peer reviews of your observations re. embarrassment, sublime satisfaction, and traumatization. Deal?
And while you’re at it, could you tell me how your examination of a weather station in Tucson helps us “get back the the topic of this thread which is NH ice and the prediction that the North Pole would be “ice free” this summer”? If my discussion of your weather-station post is off-topic, then how is your post germane? If you talk the talk, ya gotta walk the walk.
Cheers,
Bill
Just back from holiday where the only artic news on the tv was the guy who was going to kayak to the north pole. Hope he has some good strong boots.
I also bought the Daily telegraph for the ridiculous price of 5 euro and read a piece saying AGW was bunkum. The writer, just some old hack, obviously knew little about it so although it put the other side of the coin across was as bad as all the present pro AGW media coverage such as the kayak person.
One bit of journalism that was better was the update and blog for Steve Goddard at the Register. Although I disagree that he should have posted that piece before checking with source, the resultant exchanges have been very informative and a lot better than the above mentioned pieces. Unfortunately Daily Tech’s pieces fall into the bad category….
Chris, for SST’s your unisys graphs are still different to the fnmoc ones
Compare –
http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.html
Fnmoc shows a lot warmer for north of Alaska, Hudson Bay, New Foundland etc. Is Unisys underestimating or is FNMOC overesting mating. That’s taking into account warm colourisation of the FNMOC one.
Finally, even though yesterday was a slow day good to see 2007 still backing up my contention that this year showed that the young ice has shifted the melt laterally to later in the year. It could still stretch out beyond 15th September because of this and perhaps hit 10milion km ^2 total loss in extent for the year.
Regards
Andy
I think bender’s comments above are in the main accurate but to clarify my position is not that I think a high melt and therefore low extent /area this year is supporting evidence for AGW but that, apart from the initial scientists sensationalist claim that the North Pole might be ice free this year, they have a good reason for describing what was likely to happen and then modified it midseason and described why when it was too optimistic.
I do agree with their general observations so am “happy” how the year has turned out and hope that the melt continues to show that lots of first year ice can show a trend of melting that differs from the normal and is not overly reliant on any short term cold or hot periods within the whole. Phil pointed out a few times and from early on how the concentration and fracturedness of the ice has been different this year because of this young ice (hope I am not putting words in his mouth here, no doubt he will correct me if wrong… ).
Of course the yearly trend is the more important and it will be interesting to see what the max extent in early 2009 will be and how more (or will there be?) multiyear ice effects next summer.
But this year has proved a lot of interest over an early morning cup of coffee in the meantime.
Regards
Andy
#276 AndyW:
“Fnmoc shows a lot warmer for north of Alaska, Hudson Bay, New Foundland etc.”
I don’t see it. Remember Fnmoc numbers are in Fahrenheit. If anything, Fnmoc shows more negative anomalies in the Arctic e.g. East Siberian Sea, NW of Alaska, eastern Beaufort.
Thanks Chris for pointing out they were not using standard C and using American F .. I am in total agreement with your analysis on the matter therefore.
They’ll be sending probes to Mars using inches, feet and furlongs next! 😀
Regards
Andy
#277 Bender “You say you were “conservative” on July 22. I don’t know what that means. The folks who are being “conservative” here are Phil and AndyW, because they suggest there are some unknowns (some incalculable inhomogeneities in ice-climate interactions) that could come into play in 2008.”
I think that is harsh. Everyone here is intelligent enough to know that there are “unknowns” as you call them. Personally I have found Dewitt Payne’s statistics-based projections to be extremely useful as a benchmark for considering what might happen, just as I have found Phil’s consistent emphasis on evidence suggesting greater melt and AndyW’s more opinionated pessimism about the ice to be a very useful counter-balance to my own (as it turns out) earlier over-optimism.
My focus has been on the weather, and if you look at the RSS LT temperature anomaly for August at 60-82.5N, you will see that my insistence on the importance of Siberian heatwaves to the melt of the most vulnerable first year ice in August has been confirmed – an anomaly of +0.935 compared to +0.384 in June and +0.354 in July, all this while the global anomaly remained unchanged at just under +0.15 between July and August, and the Alaskan/Canadian/Greenland side of the Arctic had relatively cold weather.
The weather patterns changed in late August so that there were no longer any continental heatwaves directly impacting the Arctic, although it inevitably took some time for the knock-on effects of rapidly warmed surface waters on the most vulnerable ice to fade, especially with the period of storminess that the change in weather patterns ushered in.
Thus it appears that in August the “unknowns” favoured Phil and Andy, as it turned out. But I’m not sure that is enough reason for such strong criticism of DeWitt Payne’s less pessimistic approach (if you can apply the term “pessimistic” considering he has been presenting trend-based stats with explicit provisos about their limitations)
Lighten up guys. This is all just an exercise in fun… there is no risk in being wrong… on either side. We’re just watching what’s happening and making our own guesses based on our own respective methods.
Talking about what’s happening: the revised September 3rd figures from IARC-JAXA show an extend INcrease for the first time this year! A measly 2812 square kms, but nonetheless…
Here are my graphs for yesterday’s ice extent data, based upon revised IARC/JAXA Ice Extent data.
This is a major day in the saga of baby sea ice. The end of the race may be in sight. This morning’s revision actually resulted in reversing the original area reduction to the FIRST EXTENT AREA INCREASE of this melt season (an increase from yesterday’s final area of 2812 km^2)!
Daily Arctic Sea Ice Extent Reduction Day 247
Arctic Sea Ice Extent Day 247
2008 Arctic Ice Extent Differences From Previous Years Day 247
Arctic Sea Ice Total Drops from Peaks Day 247
Looking at the Canadian Ice Service map, it is clear that NSIDC and IARC/JAXA are failing to see new ice near Canada and Alaska. There is now ice touching Point Barrow.
Re #286
Those sources don’t show areas with less than 15% coverage.
Re #284
About 2 days later than a similar event last year.
OK Bender, tell me what do you make of the net effect of the two months since the “Sea Ice Stretch Run” started?
Let me remind you of Steve Mc’s first posted results on July 2nd, many aeons ago (or certainly it feels like it!)
———————-
Day 183 (starting at 0) in the books. This was a very big day last year and 2008 fell behind another 100,000 sq km. Now over 600,000 sq km off the pace.
7 3 2007 8.925000 2007-07-03 13697 200707 183 -0.201875
7 2 2008 9.546406 2008-07-02 14062 200807 183 -0.098594
———————–
If I took the previous day, I could start with 2008 an extra 100,000 km2 closer to 2007 for the purposes of the point I’m about to make, but I won’t……….
So on 2nd July 2008, the extent was 6.9 per cent behind the equivalent date in 2007.
Now on 3rd September 2008, the extent is 8.8 per cent behind the equivalent date in 2007.
9 4 2007 4.528125
9 3 2008 4.927031
Now I’m going to have to be rather mean to Phil here and quote from his post #55 which followed Steve Mc’s in the original thread:
“It’s not my graphic by the way it’s from the NSIDC as I indicated.
Your reasonable person would also doubtless realize that only one of the previous 25 years would provide a model which would lead to a minimum extent that was greater than 2007. Average (over the last 25 yrs) melt conditions of first year ice would lead to ~0.5 million sq km smaller extent than the 2007 record. Not too difficult really.”
This wasn’t a prediction, but it was an endorsement of the original NSIDC position which many of us thought was over-pessimistic.
So it may be too early to tell whether Phil was so wise where the rest of us weren’t.
(Apologies to Phil, I’m the one who’s got predictions most wrong since the beginning of August, and I’d say most of your posts have been spot on, it’s just that I think Bender may have over-stated his point which used you as an example.)
Re: Chris (#289),
Disagree. I was referring to a very specific warning that Phil gave any and all attempting to make predictions based purely on historical patterns. Look back over the thread(s) and see if you can spot it. If you can’t, you haven’t been following. I need no reminders of who said what when as it is all laid out here for all to see. I’ve been reading. I chimed in only when it seemed to me the skeptics were starting to beat their chests a little much given their flimsy forecasting method. Bottom line: 2008 is going to come close to 2007. Whichever side it falls on is ultimately fairly inconsequential – as with all horse races. The substantive question is what you think will happen in 2009, 2010, 2011, etc. That is the context that makes the 2008 outcome meaningful.
Re: bender (#295),
I never claimed my methods were anything but crude and flimsy. You’re the one that insisted that I add confidence/prediction intervals with almost no guidance on how I, as an admitted non-expert statistician, was to accomplish that.
As for “beat their chests”, cite please.
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/03/open-water-circling-north-pole-not-quite/
There is a good article here. Here is a quote.
“And one of the groups focusing most closely on possible Arctic shipping lanes, the National Ice Center operated by the Navy and Commerce Department, says flatly that the satellites are misreading conditions in many spots and that there is too much ice in a critical spot along the Russian coast (highlighted in the smaller image above) to allow anything but ice-hardened ships to get through. In an e-mail message Wednesday, Sean R. Helfrich, a scientist at the ice center, said that ponds of meltwater pooling on sea ice could fool certain satellite-borne instruments into interpreting ice as open water, “suggesting areas that have substantial ice cover as being sea-ice free.” The highlighted area is probably still impassible ice, including large amounts of thick old floes, he said. I sent the note to an array of sea-ice experts, and many, including Mark Serreze at the National Snow and Ice Data Center, concurred.”
If we are running two days behind 2007, the uptick starts 269+2=271. Still too early to call.
Re: sean egan (#291),
How are we running 2 days behind 2007?
We are currrently at 4,927,031.
2007 was at 4,908,438 on 8/23.
That puts us 12 days behind 2007.
Further good news from CT today, +0.032 I think it is for the Arctic (much bigger gain for the Antarctic too)
Check out the first ice in the Hudson bay area, for real this time, 2 months ahead of last year.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.13.html
#290 An absolute diamond of a post. This is something I’d already speculated (re: melt ponds being mistaken as open water) at the thread on another site far, far away where I’ve also been posting recently, and it’s great to see that it was a valid point.
#292 (my last post) “Check out the first ice in the Hudson bay area….”
Or for the pedantic among you, the first significant ice in the Hudson bay area, 2 months ahead of last year, or one month if you count the much smaller blip at the beginning of Oct 07, and all with the proviso that by saying “first ice” I’m not suggesting it’s anything more than fleeting given how early in the autumn it is.
Ok maybe I’ve gone completely mad. The graph I linked shows that there was still ice in the Hudson Bay area in any event until a few days ago. I guess the question is, therefore, is the new ice in a different location and if so, where? I hesitate to draw a conclusion from the satellite data because people have drawn previous conclusions that have been incorrect. In any event, I’m not that interested in the issue, except from the point of view of it potentially providing evidence of the magnitude of the current/recent cold snap in northern Canada.
Re: Chris (#296),
Here’s the local Hudson bay data for the first Sept.
And the weekly coverage for the season.
The detailed map shows a trace of leftover ice.
Re: Phil. (#304),
Graphic #2, weekly coverage for the season for Hudson Bay, predicts a minimum occurring Oct 1. Which is, what, two weeks later than the number I keep seeing for the Arctic as a whole? This is the question: when will that minimum occur? To assume it will be a particular date is, well, an assumption, not a prediction.
Re: bender (#306),
I assume you’re referring to the green line which is not a prediction but the median value from the period 1971-2000.
Re: Phil. (#314)
Thanks for the correction, Phil. To restate: I remain unconvinced by any of the analyses that I’ve seen so far that the date of the minimum is as predictable as many are willing to assume. Prove to me it won’t be Oct 15, for example.
Re: John Lang (#315)
That’s the sort of argument that I think needs to be had. This horse race needs a little context. And that latter assertion is at the core of it.
Re: bender (#316),
I agree, the date of the minimum is so subject to the influences of the weather that I’d expect a std dev of about a week.
In the case of Hudson Bay, less so, for the last 10years it’s completely melted by ~ now and appears to have a protracted period at 0. The key factor there is how long the sea route to Churchill stays open.
Yesterday had the first increase in Ice this season. Below are dates of such events over the past 5 years.
Date of First Increase in Ice = F..G
Date of Lowest Ice Extent = L..P
Date of Last Ice Loss = L..L
Year F..G L..P L..L
2003 9/12 9/18 9/22
2004 9/03 9/11 9/19
2005 9/02 9/22 10/16
2006 8/24 9/14 9/29
2007 8/31 9/23 9/23
2008 9/03 ?/?? ?/??
CT ice area update 9/4/2008
region area(Mm2) difference anomaly
Arctic 3.279 0.032 -1.86
Antarctic 14.592 0.137 -0.271
Recent history says we’ve seen the minimum for the year. I have my doubts considering the low ice concentration and how closely the 2008 area has been tracking the 2007 U.Hamburg area. The CT average area is still decreasing as well.
Based on what, isotope tracking? If not something deterministic like that, what is it based on?
How can ice be forming in Hudson Bay when the temps are greater than zero?
http://www.meteo.uni-koeln.de/meteo.php?show=En_We_Wk
Maybe the temps are lower than that though? Certainly the SST’s are not that cold either
(jumping on the Unysis bandwagon).
So I don’t understand that.
As for over-reading of ice extent due to surface puddles for space based observation then as long as all recent years are susceptible to this then there is no issue, if they have changed the measuring instrument or way of judging what is ice then certainly this be taken into account.
Regards
Andy
Better link for temps above
http://www.uni-koeln.de/math-nat-fak/geomet/meteo/winfos/wetterk_arctic_world.html
Regards
Andy
PS and correction to Unisys!
DWP, you are taking this too personally. You can blame me for the weakness of your model if you like. But the fact is I advocated a completely different approach. I encouraged you to include error bars only as a first step to lead you further down the path to the realization that your approach can not work in a changing climate. Since you didn’t bite, I didn’t pursue it much further, other than for two ancillary comments #57, #111.
Re: bender (#305),
The Socratic method doesn’t work for me.
I’ve also made my position clear on future years in this and other threads. The AMO or NAO or whatever has passed its peak and we will see more not less ice in the future. The statistic to watch is annual average, not zenith or nadir.
#255
So do the calculations and dazzle us with your brilliance. My cat bit me and it’s infected and so yes I’m taking it too personally.
Re: DeWitt Payne (#307),
I can see that.
It’s not brilliance, it’s arithmetic. And I explained already why I won’t do the calcuations. The reward of being right is not worth the risk of being wrong. I leave the ice modeling to the people who do that for a living. I don’t see that they need the same level of scrutiny as, say, the paleoclimatologists. Frankly, I’m puzzled why there is so much interest in a horse race whose result – as you admit yourself – is irrelvant at the decadal scale.
As for your self-promotional forecasting of “more not less ice” – this is precisely the example of chest beating that you asked for. If you can’t calculate a confidence interval, why should anyone pay attention to your medium-term or long-term sea-ice forecasts? You can treat this as a jab. Or you can treat it as a question.
#297 Not sure you should read too much into specific days, as opposed to multi-day averages.
Consider the following:
08,07,2008,6485625
08,08,2008,6485000
A mere 626 km2 more ice on the 8th Aug 08 and there would have been an increase. Would that have meant a projected minimum ice extent in mid- to late-August?
Though having said that, thanks for compiling the data, it is useful to look at, I just would take it with a pinch of salt in terms of projections, as I’m sure you’re aware in any event.
AndyW: consider what “Hudson Bay Sea Ice Area” refers to i.e. it’s not just Hudson Bay – see map of regions at
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/
Also consider: http://www.weatheroffice.gc.ca/data/analysis/351_100.gif
Thus to the north of Hudson Bay it’s cold enough. (What confuses the issue is that the satellites keep showing bit of ice further south)
“As for over-reading of ice extent due to surface puddles for space based observation then as long as all recent years are susceptible to this then there is no issue, if they have changed the measuring instrument or way of judging what is ice then certainly this be taken into account.”
Actually this issue could be critical. 2008 has been vastly different to 2007 in terms of relative magnitudes of surface melt and melt from underneath (i.e. relatively much more surface melt). There has been what could be (compared to recent history) a unique combination of low SST anomalies and reduced ice extent in August/Sep 08. I can’t prove this here and now, but I have a very strong suspicion there have been a lot more areas with ice in the less than 15 per cent bracket than last year (or even than normal, perhaps). And to cap it all (apologies for the pun) there appears to have been a particularly early onset of winter this year (compared to last year at least) which has brought heavy snows to many areas. See e.g. this buoy http://www.crrel.usace.army.mil/sid/IMB/2008E.htm which appears to show suddenly ~1.5m of snow from mid-August, diminishing sharply to ~1m around the end of the month. Or this one which shows up to 1.5m of snow from early August http://www.crrel.usace.army.mil/sid/IMB/2008D.htm.
Now I take the buoy snow data with an absolutely massive pinch of salt. But I’ve followed the snow via other meteorological sources and it seems clear that there was a lot of it in certain areas in late August (as well as now again). The question is, what is the effect on the satellites of a sudden melting of a large area of snow over ice caused by a final temporary mild spell before winter proper sets in?
I haven’t presented these points in a very logical order, and maybe I shouldn’t have mentioned the buoys as they give the impression of being rather erratic re: snow data.
But when all is said and done, I wouldn’t be surprised if the real truth of the matter (beyond my superficial attempts to try and point towards it) is that ice area has been under-stated in 2008 relative to 2007. And this is critical because until very recently ice area had remained at least 20 per cent above the 2007 minimum. And if we really have seen the minimum already, it was only under 10 per cent above 2007 for one day. It’s now back up to 12.3 per cent.
So say area was being under-stated by just over 5 per cent relative to last year, that’s the difference between 2008 getting within 9.6 per cent of the 07 minimum (as things stand) and it only getting within 15 per cent of it which incontrovertibly shows recovery, especially as 2007 stayed almost flat at the bottom for some time.
Of course this is very hypothetical, because on recent trends I wouldn’t be surprised if 2008 has further substantial drops to confound my optimism. But even then, the same arguments apply (perhaps even more so)
#304 Thanks Phil
#309 Bender
If you look at the forum far far away I’ve been cryptically referring to (i think you can guess which it is), you will see that many commenters have already read into the 2008 results (even before the season has finished) the confirmation a tipping point has been crossed which could spell the end of the world as we know it.
Hence so much interest in the “race”, its results and exactly what they signify.
Re: Chris (#311), I understand. However the best skeptic response to an alarmist presuming the consequence (the 2008 result) is NOT to sink to their level and assert the opposite. It is to ask “What the hell is the ‘tipping point’? How exactly was it calculated?” Because if 2008 fails to melt more than 2007 the alarmist will simply blame the weather and assert that 2009 (or 2010, or …) will have us crossing the “tipping point”. By admitting that 2008 sea ice is the issue you are letting the alarmist phrase the terms of the debate.
I ask you, what, precisely, is this “tipping point”? How was it computed that such and such open water yields such and such a positive feedback, yields such and such a temperature rise, and that this was all triggered by X amount of CO2. SHOW ME THE MATH.
Fact: The math ain’t in the IPCC reports.
#312 “I ask you, what, precisely, is this “tipping point”?”
I’ve addressed this comprehensively in the “other place” and I believe my arguments are quite convincing 🙂
I think it’s perhaps a matter of opinion re: the significance of the fate of the 2008 sea ice. If 2008 had seen a significant further reduction in extent, area and thickness under conditions less favourable to melt than in 2007, then even if CO2 was at pre-industrial levels this could be seen as genuinely alarming, since it could be strong evidence that the Arctic had crossed a tipping point, even if it was caused by say urban heat effects.
The true “tipping point” was 4.45 billion years ago when the collision that created the moon and tilted the earth’s axis occured.
The true “tipping point” will occur again on September 21st, when the sun sets below the horizon and stays there for six months just like has in the Arctic every year for the last 4.45 billion years.
The average temperature at the North Pole is -24.5C. So there is a little melting in late August and early September just like there is every year. ALL the ice will return in short order when the temps fall to -30C to -45C for the next six months, just like it has every year.
I imagine there has not been a single year in the last 4.45 billion years, when it has not snowed at the North Pole in the winter given there has always been six months of darkness.
A little melting in August will never be a tipping point.
Re: John Lang (#315),
Thank for saying something that even an idiot like me can understand.
Can someone give me a link to the daily area values perhaps similar to the spreadsheet for extent we/I have been using? After all this time I realise I don’t have any link.
Thanks
Andy
Re: AndyW (#318),
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/plot.csv
Re: AndyW (#318),
The only digital area data is here: http://www.ifm.uni-hamburg.de/~wwwrs/seaice/amsr-e.html
Go to the ftp server link and the extent-area folder. Unfortunately, they only update once/month so the data can be up to six weeks or so behind. August area numbers should show up sometime next week. And to keep the authors happy here’s the full citation:
John Lang #315
You gotta wonder what the atmosphere was like 4 billion years ago and of course the continents weren’t in their present location and the million’s of other variables. Was there snow 4 billion years ago? Was there an Arctic Ocean?
Temperature anomoly comparisn for 2007 and 2008.
Much less heat in the ocean in 2008.
Re: Shawn Whelan (#321),
How about accurate 2-week forecasts for sun, wind, rain, and air temperature – the other major factors that could influence the timing and depth of the sea-ice extent minimum? What if an active hurricane season moves a lot of moist tropical heat up north? Etc.
looks like it might be refreezing now cryosphere today
re previous compare here
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=09&fd=02&fy=2008&sm=09&sd=03&sy=2008
The melt for this year is over (it may have been over a while ago). There will be drift, and there may be compaction, but the melt, per se, is over.
Re: SteveSadlov (#325),
But the only way to effectively measure it is Ice Extent. That will continue to decline for a little while.
I look at this place in the north of Canada to get an idea of temperature.
http://www.findlocalweather.com/forecast/nanisivik+arctic+bay_nu_ca.html
It looks like it is now below freezing. It wasn’t a week ago. So you are right about the “melt” being over but movement of ice will still change the metrics for a period of time. between now and 3 weeks from now we will hit the low ice for the year.
Bender #324
I wish these same scientists that can predict the future climate(well they can’t really since their computer models never work forward)could predict the weather 2 weeks ahead.
I am more worried that, what if Santa’s Village catches on fire.
Bill #327
Another spot for Arctic weather
http://www.weatheroffice.gc.ca/forecast/canada/index_e.html?id=NU
Preliminary Unofficial Day 248 Race Report
2008 has another big day, remaining about 380K behind 2007.
9 5 2002 5.667188 -0.034375
9 5 2003 6.116406 -0.032344
9 4 2004 5.899531 0.012500
9 5 2005 5.670625 -0.011875
9 5 2006 5.934531 -0.000782
9 5 2007 4.484531 -0.043594
9 4 2008 4.868125 -0.058906
Interestingly, the NSIDC tends to think that the extent could continue declining in some regions, where the sea temperatures were higher than normal in August. This includes sea north of alaska and siberia and would be due to heat being released to the surrounding atmopshere. However this region is much less extended than it was last year, as highlighted by others here. Maybe we will have a strong refreeze season…
To anyone who knows :
Since 2008 is not going to pass 2007 is all the remaining new ice from 2007-2008 winter freeze to which new growth will happen this year “multiyear ice”? I’m a layman so please use simple terms like “yes” and “no”.
We can tell if the melt is over if the area value goes down in same proportion to the extent, might be some latent heat still there. Aztec, thanks for that link but I am now looking for area value not extent as per my first sentence.
As per multiyear ice next year true there is likely to be about 10-15% more but looking at
a good proportion of that 10-15% is low concentration ice and as NSIDC said the young ice was thicker than expected this year because of lack of insulating snow cover the extra percentage this year may have this snow cover meaning it may be thinner next year and so be as susceptible as the newer first year ice*. It will be interesting to watch this area next year to see how it goes or stays.
Regards
Andy
*neglecting chemical changes.
Regards
Andy
“As per multiyear ice next year true there is likely to be about 10-15% more”
so there will be new multiyear ice. Thanks for the answer!
There was no report on British ITV last night (thursday) concerning the kayaker attempting to paddle to the North Pole
http://www.itv.com/News/newsspecial/KayaktotheArctic/default.html
Apparently he has been stuck in new ice. It will be interesting to see if there is a report today
Tony Brown
Beware if you think melt it over. There’s currently a strong flow of mild southerlies from weatern Russia all the way up to the North Pole. http://www.uni-koeln.de/math-nat-fak/geomet/meteo/winfos/arcisoTTPPWW.gif
Likely to bring some further melt/compaction on the ice edge, and extensive surface thaw (probably mostly lying snow) until about Tuesday:
http://www.weather-forecast.com/locations/khantayskoyeozero/forecasts/latest [i.e. forecast for 86N]
http://www.tageo.com/index-e-rs-v-74-d-500437.htm?Khantayskoye+ozero [i.e. map of forecast location]
This map shows visual evidence of melt/compaction on the relevant ice edge between 3rd and 4th Sep. http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=09&fd=03&fy=2008&sm=09&sd=04&sy=2008
Any surface melt causing large pools of freshwater could cause the yellow patch at ~75 to ~90E on the satellite maps to appear to show further reductions in concentration
Luckily I’m about to go away, with no internet access, so if extent/area are topsy turvy in the next few days at least I won’t have the trauma of following it daily, and hopefully will be able to see a relatively benign net effect over the next week as a whole?! Wouldn’t bank on it though….. As I’ve said before, there’s a good chance this whole saga will go to the wire…….
#335 You could be right but looking at a comparison of ice forming for the lasts 2 days here:
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=09&fd=02&fy=2008&sm=09&sd=04&sy=2008 it seems the melt could be over. Its quite subtle but notice new ice on both east west coasts of Greenland Northern Siberian coast and northern part of polar cap image. Also new islands of ice seems to be consolidating…
#336 Sure – there’s melt in some places, re-freeze in others. That’s why I think the short-term net effect is so unpredictable.
Meanwhile……. the SOI has rocketed up into La Nina territory, with 30-day SOI now +11.08 (La Nina is typically associated with SOI consistently above +10)
http://www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/SeasonalClimateOutlook/SouthernOscillationIndex/30DaySOIValues/index.html
Here’s the monthly values since the beginning of last year:
2007 1 -8.88
2007 2 -2.85
2007 3 -1.22
2007 4 -4.23
2007 5 -2.50
2007 6 5.38
2007 7 -4.84
2007 8 1.84
2007 9 2.17
2007 10 6.14
2007 11 9.88
2007 12 13.34
2008 1 12.72
2008 2 20.99
2008 3 10.21
2008 4 4.44
2008 5 -3.53
2008 6 2.95
2008 7 2.27
2008 8 7.97
And a graphical representation: http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/soi2.shtml
Of course, all the high positive SOI indicates is strong trade winds in the Equatorial Pacific. It’s not an indicator of low SSTs which are the essence of La Nina. However, the longer the strong trade winds persist, the more cold upwelling they are likely to generate and the more the warmer waters in the central Equatorial Pacific are likely to be pushed back westwards.
So two key questions are: (1) how long will the uptick persist, and (2) if it persists, how much cold upwelling will it result in?
It’s hard to get comprehensive answers to either question.
However, here’s the latest expert discussions of the current situation, which don’t talk much about the SOI, but assume that recent models predicting ENSO-Neutral conditions continue to be correct:
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/
Click to access enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf
Note that an El Nino this winter has now pretty much been ruled out, but there is no mention of the possibility of a return to La Nina. Of course, the SST indicators are still the El Nino side of 0 on average despite cooling in the last three weeks or so – see NOAA update page 5.
But also note NOAA update page 11 (sub-surface temperature departures in the Equatorial Pacific, and in particular the following: “The most recent period (below) shows that negative temperature anomalies at thermocline depth have strengthened in the central Pacific.”
I wonder if anyone really knows what is going to happen over the next year? I wouldn’t rule out another La Nina, but then perhaps I wouldn’t even rule out another El Nino either.
And sorry if this seems OT, my reasoning is ENSO affects global temperatures which affect the likely strength of Arctic ice recovery this winter.
A conference of meteorologists, including van Loon, in June in NYC expected moderate temperatures through this winter, and La Nina returning with a vengeance next year.
==========================================
That Kayak person is really starting to annoy me. It just seems to be personal fame and gratification being proped up by the media bias 😦
And whats more he’s not adding to the global pool of information on this thread at all !!!!!!
I hope he gets diarrhea 😀
Regards
Andy
#339 AndyW …If a polar bear eats him for breakfast/lunch/dinner,
that polar bear surely will get diarrhea….
AndyW– I think the Kayaker has discovered some premature 2009 Baby Ice that decided to arrive early.
#338 Kim – thanks for the info.
#339 AndyW – did you know Richard Branson’s son Sam is also on the kayak expedition and is keeping a travel log for the Mirror? http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2008/09/01/sam-branson-s-arctic-diary-115875-20720564/
Just did a quick calculation: 2008 has seen ~28 per cent faster extent reduction than 2007 in the last 3 weeks (up to today’s preliminary figure). Note the difference is much more if you compare absolute extent reductions (I’m comparing percentage extent reductions). If the rate persists at ~28 per cent faster, it would indicate a minimum of ~4.5 million km2. Still above the 2007 minimum, but below the 4.7 level I would hope for to achieve a minimum of 10 per cent above the 2007 minimum. [Bender – this is NOT intended as a prediction!]
Re: Chris (#342),
No, it’s a “projection” 🙂
#343 Ok!
A scrap of good news: new ice in the Chukchi – see “G” area to west of picture.
A prize for the best suggestion as to what “G” could stand for? (“Grand-son ice” perhaps??)
Sorry for an unconscious bias that crept into my last post. I should have said grand-child ice. [ Before anyone accuses me of being chauvinist do you think Chris is short for Christopher or Christina? Or maybe I just made the name up 🙂 ]
re#339
…or hemorrhoids. 🙂
Staffan #340
Surely the polar bears are too busy drowning to have the time to eat the kayaker? I’ll watch the Itv news tonight and see if they make any reference to Mr Pugh. They didn’t even mention him last night, which is surprising bearing in mind all the fuss they’ve made about covering this event.
Tony Brown
Tony, nothing on the BBC either, though they reported on his attempt here. I suspect there will be a media blackout, as the story does not conform to the media’s warmist agenda (tried to get to N Pole, stopped by ice about 1/10 of the way).
…
I think Chris is short for Christmas as per his/her cold bias is seen to offset my warm bias 🙂 Hope you have a good time away from the Internet and I hope it is a place suffering as much from AGW as my Portugese veranda seemed to have rather than rainy old England. Of interest, I read one of the BBC weather forecasters say it was not unduly rainy this summer which is true if you just tot up the mm but not true if you read human perception on days out to the beach! Here human perception actually takes on more importance than pure measurement because 23mm is no different from 28mm apart from if that 5mm happened when you were down at Camber Sands trying to have a good time.
If you look at the Environment agency results then it has been a rather wet year in the UK.
http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/subjects/waterres/457898/?version=1&lang=_e
“Over two thirds of reservoirs or reservoir groups were higher than normal and overall reservoir storage for England and Wales increased by 2% to 91%.”
91% in June, not bad at all considering we get a hosepipe ban at the seeming drop of a hat. Wonder whether the ENSO in the Pacific is cooling and watering jolly old England? Suspect it is.
Regards
Andy
Chris (#342),
Branson seems to be on the ship with the Pugh. Pugh and “Robbie” were in the kayaks. The project includes a large support vessel, reporters, and what appears to be quite a large team.
Based on the Branson story you link, it appears they are packing up, turning around and going home.
The kayaker’s website is at this link.
http://polardefenseproject.org/blog/
It appears there was no kayaking on September 3rd or 4th and they are still battling pack ice with the companion ship. They planted some flags on the ice and are going east now (versus north) to find another way through the ice.
Location: 80.5N 13.2E about 50 miles north of Spitsbergen
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps/ms?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&ie=UTF8&msa=0&msid=105384431693060155128.0004559ae4a5303345bd7&ll=78.061989,0.175781&spn=13.627552,78.75&t=h&z=4
Here are my graphs for yesterday’s ice extent data, based upon revised IARC/JAXA Ice Extent data.
Daily Arctic Sea Ice Extent Reduction Day 248
Arctic Sea Ice Extent Day 248
2008 Arctic Ice Extent Differences From Previous Years Day 248
Arctic Sea Ice Total Drops from Peaks Day 248
Thanks Aaron.
I think my 10MM peak drop for the year is looking VERY optimistic, though I will be interested to see how things turn out on the morn on TAC’s listing. At this time of year you would expect a 10-30k drop as being a relatively large amount as things ebb away but that would not be good enough for 1×10*7 extention melt.
Judging final figures is just for the fun and nothing can be gathered as we have said before though.
Regards
Andy
I’ve compared rates from 2007 and 2008 and plotted the ratio of the difference. 2008 cannot catch 2007 unless the ratio goes below -1 and stays there.
Rate Deficit Plot
And for what it’s worth:
Projected Minimum Plot
CT area update 9/5/2008
region area(Mm2) difference anomaly
Arctic 3.285 0.006 -1.833
Antarctic 14.664 0.072 -0.242
To expand on my comment above that recent history says we’ve seen the minimum area: The data from U.Hamburg from 2002 on shows that there has never been a minimum set after seeing three days of increasing area totaling greater than 0.05 Mm2 after 9/1. Obviously, that’s not a hard and fast rule, but given the nearness to the autumnal equinox, it’s not unreasonable.
Phil (or anyone),
Do we know what CT does about the hole in the satellite scans at the north pole for purposes of calculating ice area? U.Hamburg states that they assume it’s 100% ice.
#347 Tony Brown, as you know too many polar bears live on 10, Drowning
Street… I wonder about Branson et al … Don’t they even look at our
informative and comprehensive site [and some other arm-chair ice travelers DITO…]IF they had, they would have understood that only an ice-breaker in
the “Yamal-class” would make it all the way to the NP…
GLP is to give his testimony to the Congress…:”Ladies and gentlemen, too many ice-breakers in the way….trying to ram the multi-
year ice …Next summer we’ll make another attempt…Do I hear 5 millions, 10, 15….” [sigh, another “polar low”, Lindström]
And now for a completely OT rant: Socrates got off too easy. There should be a special spot in one of the lower circles of hell for anyone who thinks the Socratic Method is a useful means of imparting knowledge. /rant.
Re: DeWitt Payne (#360), Socratic only works if you swallow the good doctor’s medicine. But yes, there is a place for us. And I assure you: I’m already halfway there.
The kayakers give up.
I await the BBC story on this.
http://polardefenseproject.org/blog/
Shawn #361 The guy claims that no one has paddled further North before. I am sure I read about Nansen and others using folding Kayaks and getting much further years ago? Not got time to explore the web to check this out just now, as I need to get some work done before I watch the ITV news and see what they say about this sham. Staffan #359 10 Drowning street is pretty good…!
Tony Brown
Since new multiyear ice is beginning to grow (even if there is still slight melting in other limited areas of 2007-2008 winter NH ice) it can be said that melting of mutliyear ice has stopped. It can be said that multiyear ice is growing.
#302
Yes, Nansen did leave the Fram at about 84 degrees and headed north on foot (sledges and dogs) with a collapsed kayak. He used it to cross open leads that he would encounter. He made it to 86 degrees and then turned south reaching the ice edge around 83 degrees and made for some islands where he spend the winter. Technically he didn’t kayak all that much, but he did cross open water at a higher laditude then what was tried this year.
Read more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fridtjof_Nansen
re #365
No offence but isn’t wiki a dirty word around here?
#355 Thanks DeWitt Payne.
No TAC result but provisionally a fairly large reduction of 55 000 for yesterday.
Regards
Andy
Asmodean. #365 Thanks
I will do a bit of delving again as I remember researching this on a different thread some months ago and was astonished by the number of Arctic expeditions in folding kayaks!
Th UK ITv news showed the failed Puigh expedition. I was very struck by the visual reinforcement of conmments made here, in as much the open water and the melt water on top of what is otherwise sold ice looked identical. I can’t see how satellite pictures can possibly distinguish between the two. Are there other methods used to correlate the satellite data?
Tony Brown
Phil said in #286 we were two days behind 2007 by comparing similar events. The event was the first day extent rose, not fell – 1st Sept 2007,3 Sept 2008. The 3rd Sept 2008 rise was small enough to be within measurement error.
Assuming we are now flatish around 4813000, will probably dropping to a minimum of 4500000. In 2007 we were flatish lower until 24/9/2007 when an uninterrupted rise started.
On the 3rd Sept 2007 we crossed the current 4813000 level. If we are two days behind, we would expect the uninterrupted rise around 28/9/2008, and not to cross 2007. IF we are 12 days late which has also been suggested,
the rise will start around 6/10/2008 and we will cross 2007.
Yes I know comparing a 2008 minimum with 2007 rising apples and oranges, but it would still be nice if 2008 did not cross 2007.
Preliminary Unofficial Day 249 Race Report
2008 has another big day, remaining about 370K behind 2007.
9 6 2002 5.657344 -0.009844
9 6 2003 6.113750 -0.002656
9 5 2004 5.903125 0.003594
9 6 2005 5.668438 -0.002187
9 6 2006 5.918438 -0.016093
9 6 2007 4.447031 -0.037500
9 5 2008 4.813906 -0.055000
Sea surface temps show much less heat than 2007.
Interesting to see how this will impact the freeze.
Here are my graphs for yesterday’s ice extent data, based upon revised IARC/JAXA Ice Extent data. There was a small upward revision of the area this morning (around 11,000km^2).
Daily Arctic Sea Ice Extent Reduction Day 249
Arctic Sea Ice Extent Day 249
2008 Arctic Ice Extent Differences From Previous Years Day 249
Arctic Sea Ice Total Drops from Peaks Day 249
As always thanks Aaron.
Looking at ice extent differences and total drops graph since about day 220 2008 has been pretty mighty, with only 2004 holding up for while, but now beaten to a bloody pulp as well. Wonder how close we will get to the 10million total loss this year?
Chris has gone on holiday but it did make me chuckle how he managed to squeeze in a final post at the other place thread. In fact he had about 3 final posts and I can imagine his wife telling him they would miss the plane but Chris bravely bashing out ..just..one…more…post… for clarification 😀 Hope he is having a good time and can sneak internet access in when not being observed.
Had a quick look at antartic figures on CT and it seems to be having a strange turn of late
what’s the explanation for that from antartic watchers? Is it me or is there a multiyear pattern here as well
6 year rise and then fall? Is this a multiyear ocean cycle having an effect? I thought the southern ocean shielded Antartica from that sort of thing?
Regards
Andy
Re: AndyW (#373),
There doesn’t appear to be a significant trend in Antarctic ice area. I wouldn’t attach any significance to a lower maximum area this year or the high maximum last year. The U.Hamburg data from 2002 on is highly variable at the peak and we still have at least two weeks left in the season.
CT ice area update 9/6/2008
region area(Mm2) difference anomaly
Arctic 3.214 -0.071 -1.873
Antarctic 14.729 0.065 -0.174
Arctic ice concentration drops to 66% compared to about 75% at this time last year based on U.Hamburg 2007 area. I think CT area was significantly lower than U.Hamburg at this same time last year so the difference in concentration between 2007 and 2008 may not be quite as large as it appears.
Thanks Dewitt.
The SH will have to get it’s house in order in the next two weeks to stop the NH pushing the global anomaly down at this rate. Not too long to wait to find out.
Regards
Andy
#375
I think the cooling trend of Antarctic temperatures says more about the Antarctic than ice area size. Doesn’t it?
Re: GeneII (#377),
The cooling trend in the Antarctic is small compared to the warming trend since 1994 in the Arctic. There seems to be a correlation between MSU 60 to 82 latitude (NoPol in the table) temperature anomaly and ice area calculated as (max + min)/2 using CT data from 1979 to the present. No such correlation exists in the Antarctic. The temperature change may be too small in the Antarctic to see an effect.
The Antartic is rather unique in that it is the only continent to be completely surrounded by it’s own continuous weather system. That system might be “protecting” it from a similar fate the artic seems to be progressing down but also it puts a cap on maximum extent achievable because there is just too much kinetic energy in the southern ocean nowadays (which is getting stronger as it happens).
Regards
Andy
#378
I should have been more specific. If I’m not mistaken AGW was supposed to warm the Antarctic. Instead there is cooling there. Am I wrong?
DeWitt…you may have covered this earlier…but I’m feeling a bit lazy this morning so I haven’t scrolled back too far to check.
At this point in the Arctic season, would you agree that much of the extent loss we are seeing can be attributed to compaction as opposed to melt?
Re: Lee W (#381),
Since 2002, U.Hamburg ice area has hit its minimum from 6 to 23 days earlier than JAXA extent reaches its minimum for the same years. A process other than compaction that can cause this would be that high concentration ice could be forming close to the pole while low concentration ice further from the pole is still melting. Somebody may have done the detailed analysis to determine if one process or the other dominates, but I haven’t seen it.
Just turning from cold to warm for a moment Ike looks like it will give Cuba a fair amount of rain and then head towards New Orleans.
http://www.wunderground.com/tropical/tracking/at200809_5day.html#a_topad
Golly
Regards
Andy
Been talking on another blog and someone said this to me :-
“Ice area is just extent x thickness”
“If you have two blocks of ice of the same area, but one has twice the extent, it will be much more effective at controlling future temps.”
“I have to go back to real work now, so I won’t reply again. If you still don’t understand, just try reading slowly. Maybe take off your shoes so you can count higher. ”
Given the first two paragraphs I feel rather aggrieved at the third slanderous one!
Regards
Andy
Re: AndyW (#383), Someone more qualified than me will probably chime in, but your adversary on the other blog does not know what it is they speak of!
My understanding is that the good folks IARC/JAXA use satellite imagery to measure ice extent. This is done by gridding the image and then tediously counting pixels where the ice can by clearly observed. Each pixel represents an area, and then all the pixels are added up and viola, a new total for the day. It is a simple two dimensional measurement, as indicated in the value released each day, KM2.
To state that ice thickness is also calculated would imply that they have the means to add a third dimension (or maybe Santa’s elves have a second job) to add depth to their measurements. As far as I am aware, this is not the case.
Now, I have to go back to work, wait, it’s Saturday, scratch that!
Re: AndyW (#383),
You can’t have two solid blocks of ice with the same area and different extent. Your opponent was apparently confusing extent with volume.
It’s my understanding that what the satellite measures is gridded ice concentration. Extent is defined by JAXA as the total area of all grid boxes with an ice concentration of 15% or greater. Ice area is then the sum over all grid boxes of the area of each ice containing grid box times the ice concentration for that grid box. I don’t think there is sufficient thickness data to reliably calculate ice volume for the entire Arctic Ocean.
Re #362 etc. and the Polar Defense Fund’s claim that nobody has ever paddled kayaks further north (the quixotic Swedish balloonist Solomon Andrée and his doomed chums paddled non-kayakical small boats further north, as no doubt did generations of 17th- and 18th-century “Greenlander” whalers) on the open ocean (Nansen paddled kayaks on enclosed waters further north, as did Dupre and Larsen in 2006) with only the support of a 30-strong backup team and the food, comfort, company, gadgets and warm bedding to be found aboard a specially prepared 33-metre steel-hulled trawler to break the monotony and hardship – call me old-fashioned but I’m somewhat more impressed by a feat achieved in August 1773 seventy-five miles due east of the northernmost point reached by the stunting canoeists: a 14-year-old midshipman from the wooden bomb-ketch HMS Carcass advanced on a polar bear he had seen at 80 deg 31′ N 18 deg 48 E and attacked it with a blunt object – and survived to become an admiral! ‘Strordinry!
Vinny#384
Great post and great link to the painting. You wouldn’t have thought the polar bear would have stayed still long enough for the artist to have painted it though would you?
Tony Brown
Preliminary Unofficial Day 250 Race Report
2008 has a slower day, now about 370K behind 2007.
9 7 2002 5.663281 0.005937
9 7 2003 6.104375 -0.009375
9 6 2004 5.887344 -0.015781
9 7 2005 5.657031 -0.011407
9 7 2006 5.921875 0.003437
9 7 2007 4.436719 -0.010312
9 6 2008 4.803906 -0.021719
Hi Lee. I have been tracking the JAXA ice extent area daily reductions compared to the CT ice area reductions on a daily basis for the past month or so. Below is a link to graphs of the 2, with linear trend lines, and it appears that CT ice area reduction is tapering off faster than the ice extent area reduction, suggesting that compaction is playing a bigger role than ice melt.
JAXA vs CT with linear trend lines
……2008-03-24 14.269844 KM2
……2008-03-26 14.279844 KM2…+10.000 KM2 IN 2 DAYS
……2008-04-05 13.925156 KM2
……2008-04-06 13.925156 KM2…+-0, NADA IN 1 DAY
……2008-04-09 13.895156 KM2…-30.000 KM2 IN 3 DAYS
……2008-05-08 12.569531 KM2
……2008-05-12 12.309531 KM2…-260.000 KM2 IN 4 DAYS
……2008-05-21 11.748281 KM2
……2008-05-22 11.728281 KM2…-20.000 KM2 IN 1 DAY
……2008-06-07 11.077656 KM2
……2008-06-10 10.827656 KM2…-250.000 KM2 IN 3 DAYS
……2008-06-18 10.499531 KM2
……2008-06-19 10.449531 KM2…-50.000 KM2 IN 1 DAY
……2008-07-18 8.254844 KM2
……2008-07-21 7.989844 KM2…-265.000 KM2 IN 3 DAYS
……2008-07-19 8.168125 KM2
……2008-07-22 7.883125 KM2…-285.000 KM2 IN 3 DAYS
……2008-08-05 6.724844 KM2
……2008-08-06 6.579844 KM2…-145.000 KM2 IN 1 DAY
……2008-08-22 5.555156 KM2
……2008-08-23 5.500156 KM2…-55.000 KM2 IN 1 DAY
……2008-09-04 4.868906 KM2
……2008-09-05 4.813906 KM2 PRELIMINARY [WHO SAVED IT?]
……2008-09-06 4.803906 KM2 PROBABLY PRELIMINARY??!!
…WHAT’S PUZZLING YOU, IS IT THE NATURE OF MY GAME…?
PS. …A LITTLE MORE FARFETCHED…:
……2008-08-06 6.579844 KM2
……2008-08-31 5.029844 KM2…-1.550000 KM2 IN 25 DAYS DS.
Why is there more ice in 2008 than 2007?
The Arctic had a much colder winter followed by a colder summer in 2008. I have a difficult time understanding how this points to the world burning up from a tiny increase in CO2.
Re: Shawn Whelan (#395),
… how a trend inference requires more than a single data point?
This is a massive distortion of IPCC’s position. The world is not “burning up”, and the CO2 increase is not “tiny” when measured over suitable time scales of a couple of decades. CO2 and temperature are both trending up, whether you measure over decades or centuries. There is simply no denying this. The predicted 2xCO2 rise is, as always, 3C. This was the a priori prediction made in 1987, based on known GHG physics and first-generation climate models.
There is no room on this blog for denialist propaganda. Please constrain yourself to reality, and to the topic at hand.
Re 384
To put Nansen and Johansen’s kayaking in “enclosed waters” into perspective, they used the kayaks from 7 August to 26 August 1895 over a distance of more than 200 km from Eva’s Island to Jackson’s Island between 81 deg 45 min and 81 deg 10 min. They did pull the kayaks across ice occasionally during this time period, but that hardly simplified things. Also they of course did it without any “support” whatsoever. When walruses became troublesome, they kept them off by bashing them on the head with the paddle! On one occasion the kayaks drifted off and Nansen had to jump into the sea and swim out to them. Incidentally while paddling back wet and freezing he took the time to shoot and pick up two auks!
Also Re 384
The inuits are of course the original inventors of the kayak. Currently there are no inuits living north of 80 degrees, but during the MWP inuits lived all along the northeren and eastern coast of Greenland and undoubtedly used kayaks. However this inuit population died out during the LIA (except for the isolated southernmost group at Ammasalik), so I suppose they don’t count being both non-european and making use of a non-orthodox climatic oscillation.
CT Arctic area update 9/7/2008
region area(Mm2) difference anomaly
Arctic 3.193 -0.021 -1.875
Antarctic 14.815 0.086 -0.09
New low in the Arctic but not by much (0.006 Mm2). There’s a curious divergence between the average rate of change for U. Hamburg and CT. More later when U.Hamburg posts the August results.
Bender, where is the basic physics which shows a 3C increase for 2XCo2???
Re: Bob B (#400),
It’s encoded in the climate models.
Re: Bob B (#397),
And why the computer modelers don’t use that figure in their models and they use a range that goes from 2C to 4.2C per CO2 doubling instead?
Here are my graphs for yesterday’s ice extent data, based upon revised IARC/JAXA Ice Extent data. There was a small upward revision of the area this morning (around 4,000km^2).
Daily Arctic Sea Ice Extent Reduction Day 250
Arctic Sea Ice Extent Day 250
2008 Arctic Ice Extent Differences From Previous Years Day 250
Arctic Sea Ice Total Drops from Peaks Day 250
…Here we go again …After revision of yesterday’s extent…
……2008-08-27 5.178281 KM2
……2008-09-06 4.808281 KM2…370.000 KM2 IN 10 DAYS
…So what’s the probability that these even numbers are “real”…
Oh, sorry I forgot since 2002-06-21, the Arctic ice is placed in
perfect IKEA modules…hence the even numbers…
Re: STAFFAN LINDSTROEM (#400),
As I think I told you before Staffan, the data is pixelated therefore any difference must be an integral number of pixels. Each pixel is 6.25 X 6.25 km^2 so multiples of 16 will give you nice round numbers, in this case 9,472 of them!
“So what’s the probability that these even numbers are “real”…” So the odds of getting nice round numbers is 1 in 16.
#402 LOL
# Bob B …#403 COL [CRYING OUT LOUD]
Staffan,
Now that you caught them, it will stop. They might even change the history.
Could someone be assuming a false identity and making comments like the one below with the purpose of making the AGW Team look less than scientific?
From bender_teammember,September 7th,2008, at 10:01 am #394:
#403 Mike Bryant…Thanks! But in the world of AGW, almost everything
seems to be explained just a little bit too easily, so most laywomen/
laymen[…] can’t tell whether a story is true or not…
#404 M. Jeff … If not the real “bender” puts “_teammember” after
his signature when he is “extra” ironical aka sarcastical…??
The other day, bender? admitted he was halfway to hell [Welcome
to my little club, “lil bender” (LOL)] Or did I misunderstand his
lines…?? Gotta work for bread and DVD’s now …[When blueray-discs
are sold for less than 2.70 USD[15 SEK], I’ll buy a burner. 2010?
JUST in time for snowy? world cup in Rep of South Africa?
Corrected for accuracy….
Re: MattN (#407), six decimal places for pixel counts from a screen?
Re: TerryBixler (#408),
The data from the imager is read out in the form of 6.25 X 6.25 km grid, counting on a screen has nothing to do with it.
Oops 406 Phil
#404
“based on known GHG physics and first-generation climate models.”
Two things here. This is referring to a hypothesis and only a hypothesis. Second, he brings up climate models. Peer-reviewed works have shown climate models to be flawed. Here are 3 of those works,
Click to access DOUGLASPAPER.pdf
Click to access Spencer_07GRL.pdf
(this third one is being discussed in Climate Audit)
http://www.atypon-link.com/IAHS/doi/abs/10.1623/hysj.53.4.671
Preliminary Unofficial Day 251 Race Report
2008 has a big day, now about 340K behind 2007.
9 8 2002 5.649688 -0.013593
9 8 2003 6.103750 -0.000625
9 7 2004 5.856563 -0.030781
9 8 2005 5.642656 -0.014375
9 8 2006 5.935781 0.013906
9 8 2007 4.413438 -0.023281
9 7 2008 4.751406 -0.056875
Phil
More dumb questions, how big is the imager’s CCD, (I assume a CCD), and I really didn’t think that they did a screen scan. I have read that the image is mapped to represent a flat surface area. Further it seems a bit peculiar that the low order 3 digits can match with a 1 in 16 selection, unless more digits are shown than is in the actual data.
Re: TerryBixler (#414),
Not a dumb question at all, the imaging doesn’t work quite the way you’re thinking. What happens is that the satellite orbits in a near polar orbit and records a narrow swath of data, on the next orbit it records a new partly overlapping swath. After a certain number of orbits there’ll be complete polar coverage that data is then transformed into a grid 6.25km sq in the case of the AMSR-E imager. The recorded extent is the sum of the grids that contain greater than 15% ice so today it’s 4.751406 Mm^2 which is 121636 grid cells. Sometimes when you look at the image at uni-bremen you’ll see missing grey sectors, those are due to incomplete swaths being available at that time, the grey circle at the pole is the piece that isn’t seen by the satellite because it doesn’t have a perfect polar orbit, its size changes when the satellite is replaced.
HTH
Here are my graphs for yesterday’s ice extent data, based upon revised IARC/JAXA Ice Extent data. There was a large downward revision of the area this morning (around 11,500km^2).
Daily Arctic Sea Ice Extent Reduction Day 251
Arctic Sea Ice Extent Day 251
2008 Arctic Ice Extent Differences From Previous Years Day 251
Arctic Sea Ice Total Drops from Peaks Day 251
The rate of area reduction in the past few weeks appears to be consistently faster than in all of the previous six years.
Re: bender (#416),
Change area to extent reduction and I agree. The CT area rate of change has returned to average the last few days. The question is, though, is the extent loss fast enough for 2008 extent to be less than 2007? The data I have says not, unless the date of minimum extent is well into October.
The extent loss came at a later date in 2008 than 2007 so there has been more ice on average for 2008 than 2007. More ice should equal higher albedo and less solar energy absorbed when the sun was higher in the sky and delivering more flux than now. Daily average solar flux at the top of the atmosphere is down to about 125 W/m2 at 80 N and is dropping rapidly. The average albedo at 80 N is about 0.55. The heat flux from lower latitude amounts to about 120 W/m2 at 80 N and the average OLR is about 180 W/m2. So there should be an energy deficit, on average, at this date. The rate of change of extent has slowed by over 40% from its maximum on 8/7 (exceeded in lateness only by 2004 on 8/10). Atmospheric and oceanic energy flux is variable, so the heat engine doesn’t run like clockwork.
bender 416
Not surprising, really. You have scattered broken ice that was relatively thin and now the winter winds are starting to blow. What will be interesting will be next year when we have more ice >1 year old than we had this year. The speed of this year’s recovery is more interesting to me than how low it goes. Considering that 2008 started with more thin/new ice than 2007 did, even if the extent goes somewhat lower than 2007 did won’t mean much to me. 2009 will give the indication of how well things “recovered”, in my opinion.
CT area update 9/8/2008
region area(Mm2) difference anomaly
Arctic 3.146 -0.047 -1.897
Antarctic 14.858 0.043 -0.059
2008 closes in on 2007 and pushes back the likely date for minimum extent. U.Hamburg minimum area for 2007 was on 9/15.
Here is a link to the daily difference 2008-2007 ice area from U.Hamburg. Red means less area in 2008 and green means more. I’m going to be really curious to see the U.Hamburg areas when they finally get around to updating. By eye, it looks like there may be significantly more ice area in 2008 than 2007.
Re: DeWitt Payne (#420), Thanks for the correction, re: extent vs area. Also: the distribution of where there is more (~ocean centroid) and where there is less (closer to land) is very interesting. Agree with crosspatch: 2009 should be interesting.
I agree with Dewitt that 2008 will not beat 2007 and I agree with bender that the increase in melt towards maxima Q1 2009 will be a big factor for summer 2009. This year has shown a marked difference how the ice has melted (time shifted and still not finished) so the next interesting point is where the minima does actually end up. Last year it was about the 3rd week of September. Anyone betting on first week of October?
If you look at September 2007 and measure ice loss for the first 15 days and ice gain for the second 15 days you get a nice couple of points to measure 2008 against. 2007 ended up with +60 000 Kmsq for the month about the start of October, what will 2008 have? I think it will be nearer to zero or negative than 60 000 given past history this year. Will that be another “unprecidented” first ? 😀
Finally, if there is more ice, but it is thinner and more fractureed ice it will be interesting to see what the NSIDC scientists say will happen next year. Of course they rather over estimated minima in the year before they corrected….
Regards
Andy
Re: AndyW (#422)
It would not surprise me. (But is a court jester ever surprised?)
Re: bender (#423),
No, but a court jester can act surprised if the effect is humorous. See for example Claude Rains in Casablanca accepting his winnings while expressing shock that there was gambling at Rick’s.
Re: AndyW (#422),
Rather than sum losses, I just subtracted extent on 9/1/2007 from extent on 9/30/2007 and found a difference of -18,000 km2. Doing the same for the 2003-2007 average the result is +133,000 km2. 10/1/2007 had a big increase so you get +60,000 km2 if you subtract 9/1 from 10/1.
When I compare the current exponentially smoothed rate to the exponentially smoothed rate for the 2003 to 2007 average with the data for each year adjusted to minimum extent on day zero, the result is 22 days until minimum or 9/28, I think. Since I’m not a court jester, or at least I’m not trying to be one, I will be surprised if the actual minimum date is even that late. The North pole will have been in 24 hours darkness mode for a week by then and 80 N won’t be getting more than a very few hours of very low sun angle light, less than 50 W/m2 daily flux at the TOA and less than half that for absorption at the surface.
Re: AndyW (#422),
Minimum extent in 2007 was on 9/24/2007.
Years – Min Date – Melt on that day.
2007 9/24 -12,813
2006 9/14 -32,344
2005 9/22 -469
2004 9/11 -40,312
2003 9/18 -1,250
Sometimes the last day of melt has a big melt area. So we can’t know the last day until it happens. The earliest in the last 5 years was 9/11 in 2004.
I think this maybe this was discussed before and I missed it? I just noticed something on UIUC which I’m surprised I didn’t notice before. Under its daily comparison maps
e.g. http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=09&fd=06&fy=2008&sm=09&sd=07&sy=2008
it has the text “Sea ice concentrations less than 30% are not displayed in these images.”
But can I presume (as I have been) that sea ice concentrations less than 30% but greater than 15% are included in CT area calculations?
Other sources which are explicit about their cut-off being 15% show significantly higher area minima for recent years, e.g.
http://www.nersc.no/~knutal/NORSEX_current.html
and http://www.ifm.uni-hamburg.de/~wwwrs/seaice/amsr-e.html
Melt is done, now everything is about winds. Compaction may be huge. Resulting ice will be immensely thick.
Re: SteveSadlov (#425),
There’s your wild card.
I just read yesteray that an ice breaker was going through the Northwest Passage and ran in to unexpected ice. You fellows posting here have access to information I don’t have the first clue as to how to obtain. So could you tell me is it true that the Northwest Passage really didn’t open this year in some places? Or is what this ice breaker found new growth in a limited little area? Or is the report wrong?
I incorrectly use the phrase “last day of melt” above. I always am referring to the ice extent minimum. There may, of course, be days of ice extent reduction after that.
@ 426
There is the Northern Passage and the Southern Passage Of the Northwest Passage. The Southern Passage has been navigated this year by non-icebreakers. The Northern Passage never really opened to non icebreakers in 2008. Yet the Northern Passage was open in 1944.
The Canadian Ice Service provides the best maps of ice conditions.
http://ice-glaces.ec.gc.ca/app/WsvPrdCanQry.cfm?CanID=11081&Lang=eng
This will show you the passages.
http://www.ucalgary.ca/arcticexpedition/larsenexpeditions
Significant new ice in the Chukchi Sea: http://ice-glaces.ec.gc.ca/prods/WIS45SD/20080908180000_WIS45SD_0003959666.pdf (pink areas are new ice)
Re: Fred Nieuwenhuis (#433),
Note that it’s new ice forming in the gaps between the old ice as indicated by the egg codes, the last column in those cases being the new ice. The numeral 1 in the 3rd row indicates new ice less than 10cm thick.
#432
As in Mini-Me running against Ussain Bolt in the 100 meter dash sort of wild card?
#433, 436 Fred, Phil. … Number of that file …666 … Hell is freezing
in now …
Preliminary Unofficial Day 252 Race Report
2008 maintains a fast pace, now about 310K behind 2007.
9 9 2002 5.646875 -0.002813
9 9 2003 6.086406 -0.017344
9 8 2004 5.839219 -0.017344
9 9 2005 5.628281 -0.014375
9 9 2006 5.936094 0.000313
9 9 2007 4.399531 -0.013907
9 8 2008 4.707188 -0.032656
The Northwest Passage (Northern Passage) doesn’t seem to be open. I can see at this link
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=09&fd=07&fy=2007&sm=09&sd=07&sy=2008
that is was clearly open (Northern Passage), a straight shot through last year (2007) at this same time. But it appears not not be open this year. In fact there is a section with a fairly thick concentration of ice blocking it. I didn’t hear Al Gore specify Northern or Southern arm last year. But I think I can assume he was referring to the Northern arm, the straight shot of the Northwest Passage that is easy to eye on a map. That same Northern Passage looks to definitely not be open this year.
Am I wrong?
Re: GeneII (#439),
That resolution isn’t the best to see the narrow passages. The southern route has been open for about a month, Berrimilla and several other yachts cleared the last barrier on or about 15th Aug and it substantially cleared thereafter and still is.
A couple of regions of the Northern route have been periodically obstructed by old ice blowing around but frequently have been in the ‘green for go’ category, certainly the St Roch would have got through. This is fairly typical of conditions at the outlet (W end).
Here’s an overall view from a week ago the W end was a little more congested then
Here’s a close-up of Larsen’s E-W route through, and a look at the E end near Resolute today.
#439
Or is that straight shot actually the Southern arm?
“The Arktika-2008 Russian expedition is landing on the drift ice that is home to the Russian Polar Station North Pole-36. The flagship of Russia’s polar research fleet Academician Fedorov is currently located at 82 degrees 34 minutes of North latitude and 171 degrees 52 minutes of East longitude. The equipment disembarkation and camp fixing is due to be followed by a ceremony to open up the station.
03.09.2008” (http://www.ruvr.ru/main.php?lng=eng&q=32018&cid=50&p=03.09.2008)
“The researchers spent only two day on the finding of the appropriate ice flow for the mission, far less than last year’s North Pole-35 expedition. The ice floe has a diameter of 6 km and is up to 2,8 meter thick.” (http://www.barentsobserver.com/russias-new-arctic-station.4506414.html)
Now consider what happened last year:
“When this latest expedition was launched last year at the time of the record melt, it took the team three weeks to find a suitable piece of ice on which to establish a base.
According to Professor Peter Wadhams of Cambridge University, a veteran of Arctic research, the Russians usually prefer to set up their camps on ice at least three metres thick but the thaw was so extensive that they had to settle for a floe that was only around 1.5m thick.”
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7503060.stm)
Last year’s expedition appears to have been set up at 81 deg 26 North, 103 deg 30 East, i.e. western Laptev Sea close to the Kara.
That’s multiyear ice, yet the thickest they could find was 1.5m thick.
This year’s has been set up at 82 deg 34 N and 171 deg 52 E, i.e. a little way into the Arctic Basin from the East Siberian sea.
This is an area that was open water throughout September 2007, but a year later the Russians have found an ice floe with a diameter of 6km up to 2.8m thick.
Since there are no buoys on the Siberian side of the Arctic, this is the first measurement “on the ground” (rather than estimated from satellite data) I have seen from the area in months. And the result seems encouraging 🙂
Here are my graphs for yesterday’s ice extent data, based upon revised IARC/JAXA Ice Extent data. There was a moderate upward revision of the area this morning (around 8000 km^2).
Daily Arctic Sea Ice Extent Reduction Day 252
Arctic Sea Ice Extent Day 252
2008 Arctic Ice Extent Differences From Previous Years Day 252
Arctic Sea Ice Total Drops from Peaks Day 252
CT area update 9/9/2008
region area(Mm2) difference anomaly
Arctic 3.178 0.032 -1.848
Antarctic 14.811 -0.047 -0.109
Arctic area is near the minimum. Last year’s recovery from the minimum was quite slow. It will be interesting to see how this year compares.
JAXA and U.Hamburg have significantly different extent results for 2007. U.Hamburg is always lower and the minimum in 2007 was earlier. Still waiting for them to post August results so I can get a better idea how they compare to CT for ice area.
The NIC still has not declared the Northern Route of the NW Passage open.
“And one of the groups focusing most closely on possible Arctic shipping lanes, the National Ice Center operated by the Navy and Commerce Department, says flatly that the satellites are misreading conditions in many spots and that there is too much ice in a critical spot along the Russian coast (highlighted in the smaller image above) to allow anything but ice-hardened ships to get through.”
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/06/confirmation-of-open-water-circling-north-pole/
Re: Shawn Whelan (#445)
Andy Revkin’s NY Times blog, DOT EARTH, reported Friday that both routes are “open”.
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/06/confirmation-of-open-water-circling-north-pole/
NIC press release:
http://www.natice.noaa.gov/press_release/index.htm
NIC had said earlier that the Eastern passage was actually obstructed.
#441
So you are saying the Northern arm of the NW Passage is open? According to the photo from Cryosphere Today one section is closed, blocked by a fairly dense concentration of ice. The photo resolution is that bad?
And, according to comment #445 the Northern arm has not be declared open.
So, going by these two factors it’s not open. Maybe you don’t agree.
But certainly everyone can agree from looking at side by side photo comparisons of last years and this years melt that the Northern Passage is not anywhere near in the state it was in last year. AGW true believers will insist it is this way because of the cooling PDO that started recently. If they wish to do this then they must follow suit and say that the more than 25 years of warming PDO eventually wore down Artic ice summer melts, year by year, the consequence being that the Northern Passage of the Northwest Passage opened in 2007.
#446
I think the DotEarth article is talking about the Southern arm of the Northwest Passage being open. I don’t think he’s talking about the Northern arm which is the Passage most importantly in question. The writer of the article shows an obvious bias also.
The other link is talking about the Northeast Passage, the route on the Russian side of the Arctic. The WMO uses the word “appears” and the NIC uses the word “suggests“. Are these the official words used to denote opening, i.e, appears and suggests? I’m not being sarcastic. I am really wondering.
The Modis satellites (real pictures versus software-generated maps) show that there has been a lot of new ice formation all along the Siberian coast and in a couple of areas in the northern Northwest Passage route.
For the past two or three weeks, just about any ship would have had few problems getting through either area but now any ship short of an ice-breaker is taking a very big chance of getting stuck.
This is the nature of these passages. They are only open for a few short weeks of the year and if you want to get through, you have to hit them at exactly the right time and you have to go fast. Even then, an ice floe can appear out of nowhere and leave you stuck until August 24th comes around the following year.
It is NOT a shipping route. It is an adventure tour.
And it used to be a great area to kill seals, walruses and whales from your Kayak in August and September. If there was no open water in these areas in the past, why did the Inuit and the Eskimo invent the Kayak?
Amundsen went though both the Southern Route of the Northwest Passage and the Northeast Passage in the early 1900’s. The Northeast passage was navigated by vessels long before Amundsen went through.
@449
M’Clure sailed right into the M’Clure straight in the 1800’s and then became stuck in the ice. He was rescued by others from the East by dogsled thus proving the existince of the Northwest Passage.
The Southern Northwest Passage was freely navigated in the 30’s and 40’s by the boats of the Hudson Bay Company and the English carefully documented it. In the late 40’s it froze up.
Henry Larsen does not mention navigating through much ice in 1944. It was more of a walk in the park through previously unavigated waters.
Re: Shawn Whelan (#451),
Yes Shawn, as always you underplay how difficult that was.
Again you exaggerate, Larsen was frozen up for a couple of years on his W-E passage and described 42-43 as the worst ice he’d experienced in his career. The S passage wasn’t freely navigated in the 30’s and 40’s other than short trips from CB to GH etc.
Yeah check this photo out, he wouldn’t have much trouble in the Prince of Wales strait now either. There was a reason why he went that way in ’44!
Found this at WattsUpWithThat?
RECENT HEADLINE?
“Arctic Ocean Getting Warm; Seals Vanish and Icebergs Melt
…The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consul Ifft, at Bergen, Norway… great masses of ice have now been replaced by moraines of earth and stones… at many points well-known glaciers have entirely disappeared.”
Actually this story is from The Washington Post, Nov. 2, 1922
see these links
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/03/16/you-ask-i-provide-november-2nd-1922-arctic-ocean-getting-warm-seals-vanish-and-icebergs-melt/
and
Click to access mwr-050-11-0589a.pdf
Re: GeneII (#452),
You neglect to mention that at the same time other parts of the Arctic which are now accessible were ice bound for years! Here for example
Re: GeneII (#447),
Hey Gene your bias is so obvious, you’ve been shown that the resolution of those comparison images isn’t adequate to tell you much about the NWP, accept it. Every year the ice gets blown around in the straits, sometimes it opens up completely, sometimes it doesn’t, this year it’s the least ice in the Canadian W Arctic for this date since their records started in 1971.
Preliminary Unofficial Day 253 Race Report
2008 loses steam, back to about 330K behind 2007.
9 10 2002 5.655156 0.008281
9 10 2003 6.060469 -0.025937
9 9 2004 5.835313 -0.003906
9 10 2005 5.599844 -0.028437
9 10 2006 5.926094 -0.010000
9 10 2007 4.367188 -0.032343
9 9 2008 4.696250 -0.019219
The ice level in the 1920’s, 30’s and early 40’s was at a similar low level. The St. Roch went easily through the Northern route of the NW passage which is closed this year and that was in 1944. The HBC had many other boats freely navigating the southern route of the NW Passage.
Gjoa Haven(1930) and Cambridge Bay(1929) pictures showing low ice level. A lot more info in that link.
http://www.kitikmeotheritage.ca/Angulalk/hudsons/hudsons.htm
This little boat the Aklavik also made it through the NW Passage in 1937.
http://iain-cameron.blogspot.com/2007/07/test.html
Nascopie and Aklavik meet from East and West in 1937
The Nascopie commonly travelled through the passage in the 30’s.
http://iain-cameron.blogspot.com/2007/07/aberdonians-arctic-feat.html
This evidence is ignored by science, and it shows the conditions in the Arctic in the thirties were similar to today. And then in the late 40’s the Arctic froze up and the HBC shut some of their posts due to the increased ice.
What is called science has become an embarassment.
‘Yeah check this photo out, he wouldn’t have much trouble in the Prince of Wales strait now either. There was a reason why he went that way in ’44!”
And just how did Larsen go so easily through the Northern passage some 60 years ago? Hasn’t the Arctic been progressively melting every year? You can quibble about the amount of ice(and in Larsens biography he says there was little ice in ’44) but how can you explain that the ice has been decreasing for so many decades, which of course means it was a totally solid ice sheet Larsen went through in ’44.
“The S passage wasn’t freely navigated in the 30’s and 40’s other than short trips from CB to GH etc.”
Why would you just go from CB to GH?
The boats came up from Vancouver every year and then the goods were distibuted around the HBC posts in the Southern Passage. It is well documented and you may have your belief that the north was frozen solid in the 20′, 30’s and 40’s but that would have prevented trips like the St.Roch so easily navigating a solid sheet of ice in the Artic.
#454 Whose bias is so obvious. For someone who said that they are just interested in ‘the science’ the bias is just a little on the nose.
Re: Steve B (#459),
Exactly, I’m interested in the science, unlike someone who refers to an image at such low resolution that some parts of the straits are ~ a pixel wide and who repeats the same nonsense even when they’ve been shown high resolution images that contradict their belief! Here for example, Re: Phil. (#441),
Here are my graphs for yesterday’s ice extent data, based upon revised IARC/JAXA Ice Extent data. There was a large upward revision of the area this morning (around 11,000 km^2), resulting in the daily extent area loss dropping to just 7,656 km^2.
Daily Arctic Sea Ice Extent Reduction Day 253
Arctic Sea Ice Extent Day 253
2008 Arctic Ice Extent Differences From Previous Years Day 253
Arctic Sea Ice Total Drops from Peaks Day 253
#406 Phil. … Sorry for delay, but: JAXA seems to use half grid-cells
as well, otherwise how do you explain extent numbers ending in 031,094,156 or
344 etc etc so probability is one in 32, I have more on this but I’m
digesting… Phil. as you like low numbers… What was der Universität
Bremen’s 2007 numbers?? DWP just showing the graph, looks like around
3.554.000 km2 or so?? [I chose that number because it’s 700.000 km2 less
than JAXA!] NSIDC and Mark Serreze are at 4.120.000 or something like that, if I recall approximately correctly…
Re: STAFFAN LINDSTROEM (#461),
U.Hamburg minimum area for 2007 was on 9/15/2007 at 3.2586 Mm2. Minimum extent was 3.53523 Mm2 on 9/17/2007. JAXA minimum extent was 4.254531 Mm2 on 9/24/2007. I don’t have the numerical data for CT, but the minimum, IIRC was about 3.0 Mm2 in mid September 2007. U.Hamburg is predicting a September average extent of 4.7 Mm2, up from 4.3 Mm2 in 2007. You can download the data as a .csv file from their ftp server in the extent-area folder. They have extent and area data covering the same time period (2002-present) for the Antarctic as well.
Re: DeWitt Payne (#462),
As I recall the exact number was 2.92, today it is 3.098, around the thickness of the line on their graph.
Re: STAFFAN LINDSTROEM (#461),
As I recall JAXA uses 6.25×6.25 for the hemispheric plots and half that for the regional, either way is a ‘pixelated’ image hence the numbers that you’ve commented on.
CT current area – 3.098 (or ~6% more than last year’s minimum)
This is getting frustrating. I do not believe that there has been 80,000 km2 of sea ice turned into open sea since yesterday. The conditions have been unfavourable to ice melt across virtually the whole Arctic (in contrast with conditions a few days ago) and certainly much more unfavourable than during the peak melting season when the average daily area reduction was little more than the same figure of 80,000 km2.
CT area cannot be in any way equivalent to JAXA extent times concentration. You only have to eyeball the more high res satellite data
to see that average concentration cannot be less than about 80%, since anything purple represents greater than 90 per cent concentration, and anything yellow represents greater than 70 per cent concentration.
Like I have suggested before, firstly, CT area appears to have a higher concentration threshold for inclusion (as much as 30%?) which would leave it even more affected by compaction/dispersal issues than JAXA extent. Certainly the gigantic 350,000 km2 reduction day in early August (compared with JAXA’s 140,000 km2 day around the same time) would seem to bear this out.
Secondly, CT area may be more affected by surface melt issues, which are critical this summer given the much higher ratio of surface to bottom melt. This is what I suspect may have contributed to the recent crash in area, with compaction/dispersal in the last day or so emphasising the dip.
Notice I say compaction/dispersal. Compacting ice already above the concentration threshold can cause an area/extent reduction, but so can dispersing ice to below the concentration threshold. I suspect we saw compaction over the Atlantic side of the Arctic up until the last couple of days, followed by dispersal on the Alaskan/Siberian side.
The reason I find it so frustrating is that if area dips any lower, people will use comparison of minima to reject the idea of any recovery this year, yet minima may not be very representative if this proves to have been a short term dip caused by short term factors irrelevant to the size of any recovery, in a month with a significantly higher average overall than a year ago.
Changes in ice thickness will be telling – however, the results of this are still unclear, except that it’s certain there’s been a hugely reduced volume loss within the core Arctic ice area (i.e. inside of the peripheral areas that normally become open water in summer) compared with 2007.
Following on from my last post, here’s the most recent Arctic temperatures:
That’s -13C between Ellesmere and the NP (85N), -8C just NW of Banks Island on the edge of the Beaufort Sea (76N), -4C between the Chuckchi and Arctic Basin (80N), -2C on the north Alaskan coast, -1C on Wrangel Island to NE of Siberia (71N), 0C on the north Russian coast (72N) -1C on northernmost islands of central-north Russia (80N), -1C on next islands to the west (80N), 1C at Spitzbergen (78N) and -2C in NE Greenland (81N)
Sea temperatures are already down to -2C on the Beaufort/Siberian side way south of the ice that shows up on the satellite maps: http://www.weatheroffice.gc.ca/data/analysis/351_100.gif
And both sea/air temperatures are clearly significantly colder (overall) than this time last year, from the evidence i’ve seen.
So it’ll really annoy me if large “melt” continues over the next couple of weeks to push CT area even lower 🙂 Hopefully instead it’ll start to go up….soon…..significantly….. hopefully???
Compare the following to see surface thaw north of Svalbard, and dispersal of ice in Beaufort/Chukchi, since yesterday:
And for evidence of (mainly surface) thaw setting in again north of Svalbard, see the following:
http://www.wunderground.com/global/stations/01008.html
i.e. for the next week, temperatures between 4C and llC, and wind mainly SSW between 6 and 15 mph. All at 78N 😦
I think i’ll just ignore CT and focus on JAXA for now……………. Maybe JAXA is the best measure after all 🙂 And it better not start accelerating downwards again too…………
in last post for some reason my “eleven degrees C” didn’t appear quite right, but that’s how it should read.
ABOUT PROBABILITY…JAXA WAS IN A FLOW EARLY THIS YEAR:
……2008-01-02 12.383.281 KM2
……2008-01-03 12.448.281 KM2
……2008-01-05 12.561.250 KM2
……2008-01-06 12.611.250 KM2
……2008-01-07 12.654.844 KM2
……2008-01-08 12.709.844 KM2
……2008-01-09 12.725.938 KM2
……2008-01-10 12.755.938 KM2
……2008-01-12 12.863.594 KM2
……2008-01-13 12.903.594 KM2
RE:469
What’s striking about these numbers is taht all the ones with the matching last 3 numbers are also in very round rises or drops (exactly in 5K incriments). This is too regular to be real. From this series, not the 1/7 and 1/9 rises (which are mismatched last #s) have more legitimate (ie random) looking changes. So maybe they estimate every other day or so?
……2008-01-02 12.383.281 KM2
……2008-01-03 12.448.281 KM2–35K
……2008-01-05 12.561.250 KM2
……2008-01-06 12.611.250 KM2–50K
……2008-01-07 12.654.844 KM2–57K???
……2008-01-08 12.709.844 KM2–45K
……2008-01-09 12.725.938 KM2–16K???
……2008-01-10 12.755.938 KM2–30K
……2008-01-12 12.863.594 KM2
……2008-01-13 12.903.594 KM2–60K
Re: Matt (#470),
5000 corresponds to 128 grid cells, it’s the sort of patterns you expect from pixelated data.
JAXA uses a 2-day average.
Chris, I really appreciate your rheological sensibilities. Many Cryologists appear to lack such training let alone intuition.
CT area update 9/10/2008
region area(Mm2) difference anomaly
Arctic 3.098 -0.080 -1.918
Antarctic 14.800 -0.011 -0.134
Concentration using CT area and JAXA extent continues to hover just above 65%. JAXA and CT use different satellites with different resolution (JAXA 3x higher resolution) and different algorithms. U.Hamburg uses the same satellite as JAXA but use their own algorithm that produces significantly lower numbers than JAXA for extent, but the area numbers appear to be higher than CT, at least at the minimum. As a result, the concentration using UH extent and area never drops much below 85%. If Phil’s memory is correct, the U.Hamburg minimum area was about 0.4 Mm2 higher than CT for 2007. I wish UH would hurry up and post their August data.
Re: #473, Phil,
It’s probably your abrasive edge (along with that side order of condescension) that leads people to feel you are not unbiased. Also, I don’t jump to believe someone I don’t know. You have links to “photos” but they aren’t photos. They are diagrams. They may be from a prestigious place. But as of yet I haven’t seen any official statement that the Northern Passage of the Northwest Passage is open from end to end. It seems that if it was open again this year we would have seen a video byte of Al Gore talking about it on CNN. I think he once again would have used the occasion as a tool for is “moral cause”.
I’m not quick to believe things. I was in my younger days. But now I like to take as much time as I feel is neccesary to find the truth of things. This is why I don’t believe “An Inconvenient Truth”. I took time to look in to it, and boy, did I find problems with it.
Re: GeneII (#475),
No they’re not photos, they’re detailed ice charts provided for navigation by the Canadian Ice Service for mariners in the Canadian Arctic, i.e. people who owe their living and perhaps lives to having accurate information available. The yachts that pushed through the NW Passage earlier this summer relied on them to get through at the earliest date possible. This was the ice chart at the time they slipped through.
You’re free to not believe the experts on the area but please don’t pontificate on it based on the lower resolution images you referred to, you didn’t even use the higher resolution images available on the site you were using. Why was that, (by the way those images are ‘photos’ either)?
Re: Phil. (#528),
I wrote the CIS and they deny ever declaring the Northern Route open and the NSIDC has not declared the N. Route open.
#473 Phil,
I seem to have struck a note with you that I was wholly unaware of, and completely had no intention of striking. Maybe you could find another commenter to focus your energies on.
Regards, GeneII
Phil (447) says:
That seems odd to me. Why 128 rather than 8, 16, 24, etc …
While I have not looked at the data, I would imagine that each byte contains a concentration 0-99 plus some values encoding land, not sensed, etc …
So, why is 128 grid cells special?
Re: Real Richard Sharpe (#478),
Might be just some artifact of byte formated data or how they’re doing the math. 128 is 28 or eight bits (one byte). Truncation? They might be chopping the last byte off or rounding.
Re: BarryW (#479),
Not that it relates to the peculiar data but one byte might hold a value of 255d
Further 6.25KM X 6.25KM = 39.0625 KM2/ ‘pixel’ and 1/39.0625 KM2 = .0256/KM2 which could be multiplied times the area to get the number of ‘pixels’. But without knowing the overall grid size and the method of counting the pixels full or half it is hard to say more than 5000/39.0625 = 128. Funny the .0256 number which if the decimal point was in the right place would be a binary number ($x’100′). I agree the numbers should not map to even number of 5K blocks.
Re: TerryBixler (#483),
or +127 -128 if it’s signed two’s complement. I was thinking of bit truncation of the lower 7 bits of an 8 bit unsigned byte that might be part of a word . Speculation based on Phil’s comment about 128 grid cells.
Well, 128 is 0x80 … there should be nothing special about that. It’s only 1 bit set out of 8.
Preliminary Unofficial Day 254 Race Report
2008 loses ground against previous day; now about 370K behind 2007.
9 11 2002 5.674063 0.018907
9 11 2003 6.041250 -0.019219
9 10 2004 5.825000 -0.010313
9 11 2005 5.581875 -0.017969
9 11 2006 5.896719 -0.029375
9 11 2007 4.343438 -0.023750
9 10 2008 4.711250 0.003437
Can I relax now? Or do I need to wait a couple more weeks?
Phil…
Don’t deny your bias, it is blatantly obvious. Most people on here have a bias of some sort, and yours is clearly in favor of ice melt – most likely to see a form of vindication for AGW? Do you or do you not believe in AGW theory?
And say what you want, you were still wrong about the ice this year. You expected 2008 to catch 2007, correct? You certainly seemed to allude to the fact that you thought this would happen. Well, it didn’t. But despite cooler temperatures and ice recovery, I’m sure you will continue to do your best to spin the facts to the tune of your “scientific” interests.
Apologies if don’t look at the whole thread…has anybody else attempted to digitize Cryosphere Today’s graphs for each individual Arctic sea?
I just did and the results are not exactly identical to the values reported for the whole Northern Hemisphere. Am I missing a sea or what?
To clarify: I am not trying to “expose” anybody.
Jared #484
I have always thought Phil to be a warmist and welcomed it as he challenges (with very good figures) some of the wilder excesses of Sceptics (which includes me) which doesnt mean he is always right but it doesnt automatically mean he is always wrong either.
CA seems to be a broad church (but with an obvious bias) and all the better for it-we don’t want the monotone of views such as is found on Real Climate. On the whole people tolerate other peoples bias on this blog with good grace. Chucking an alternative theory into warmist blogs is often like throwing meat into a cage of lions-you will get savaged.
Tony Brown
Re: Tony Brown (#486)
snip – no need to go there.
PS – I might have snipped the wrong post. If I did, sorry bout that.
At least it doesn’t look like latest surface thaw on Atlantic side will make it very far past 80 degrees N, see forecasts for e.g. Khantaskoye Ozero (86.2N, 90E) mostly beween -6C and -8C for the coming week except for Sunday (http://www.weather-forecast.com/locations/khantayskoyeozero/forecasts/latest) and Alert (82.5N, 62.3W) between -3C and -8C for the coming week (http://www.weather-forecast.com/locations/alert2/forecasts/latest)
Canadian/Alaskan side of the Arctic looks freezing for the next two weeks (http://wxmaps.org/pix/temp2.html) and Siberian side is getting steadily colder too (http://www.wunderground.com/global/stations/21824.html)
So Mike (#482) perhaps you can relax a fraction. But I’d wait until at least 21st September (i.e. equinox) before starting to draw any conclusions. Personally I want to try and wait until the end of the month. There’s been people arguing (not on this thread, but elsewhere) that 2008 should see the latest date of minimum ice ever seen. I disagree with this for various reasons, but notably because of colder sea (and to a lesser extent, air) temperatures than a year ago. So at the end of the month, I will be especially interested to see how the JAXA graph has developed, and how the CT ice area/anomaly over the whole month (as opposed to just the minimum) compares to a year ago.
As for ice thickness, this could yet represent the best indicator of recovery. Of the buoys installed in 2008, thickness changes up to 10th Sep are as follows:
2008B 2m April, 2m now (first year ice – i.e. baby ice, so where’s the expected meltdown?)
2008C 2.7m April, 2.7m now (multiyear)
2008D 2.95m April, no sign of line on graph since, perhaps because graph doesn’t go below 3m? (multiyear)
2008E 1.9m April, 1.3m now, but then it has drifted about 5 degrees south towards the Atlantic (first year)
2008F 3.5m August (i.e. newer buoy), 3.1m now, but then it has already drifted a couple of degrees south into the Beaufort Sea (multiyear ice)
As for the other buoys, two of the 2007 buoys have drifted right out into the Beaufort Sea, so are of limited relevance to thickness changes over the main ice areas. The remaining 2007 buoy has stayed within the main ice area and shows an increase in thickness from 2.8m a year ago to 3.3m today (2007J). The only 2006 buoy (2006C) shows thickness identical to a year ago (1.2m) but only half the summer melt.
Always bear in mind we were told by NASA that average ice thickness at the end of last summer was 1.3m.
The missing link is how thick the ice is on the Siberian side. Of course it’s thicker than a year ago, because the 2007 summer melt exposed large new areas of open water, and over half of these areas are now ice-covered again. (i.e. some ice is definitely thicker than no ice!) This is where the evidence from the latest Russian polar research expedition (#442) is so interesting because it suggests the ice on the Siberian side may be much thicker than many have been assuming. This could well be setting the Arctic up for a bigger recovery in 2008/9 than even some of the more optimistic observers have been suggesting.
My personal opinion is that the race is now over. There appears to be extremely little chance that the baby ice extent will reach the low levels of 2007. My own estimates for extent minimum have been trending back up for the last few days, and Lar Kaleschke’s estimates (U. Hamburg) error bars have nearly precluded a minimum as low as 2007. I think you can relax.
Here are my graphs for yesterday’s ice extent data, based upon revised IARC/JAXA Ice Extent data. There was a massive upward revision of the area this morning (around 18,438 km^2), resulting in a daily extent area increase of 21,875 km^2. This is significant in that it is the largest single-day extent increase of extent area of any of the past 6 previous years up to and including this Julian day.
(I have no illusions that there won’t still be some set-backs in the coming days, but I expect that we have entered the phase where the daily graph will straddle the 0 mark back and forth.)
Daily Arctic Sea Ice Extent Reduction Day 254
Arctic Sea Ice Extent Day 254
2008 Arctic Ice Extent Differences From Previous Years Day 254
Arctic Sea Ice Total Drops from Peaks Day 254
Tony #486…
snip – no need to go there.
From
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/plot.csv
I see that there was an Extent increase yesterday of 3,437. The 2007 minimum Extent was on 9/24/2007. 9/24/2008 is 14 days from today. 2008 would have to average over 90,000 a day to catch 2007 by 9/24. The last 90,000+ day was 8/25/2008. I agree the race is over. These numbers show it clearly.
9/24 is a late date for minimum extent, so it is doubtful that 2008 will not acheive minimum before that.
Minimum Extent Dates:
2003 9/18
2004 9/11
2005 9/22
2006 9/14
2007 9/24
2008 9/??
CT area update 9/11/2008
region area(Mm2) difference anomaly
Arctic 3.107 0.009 -1.900
Antarctic 14.877 0.077 -0.076
The data other than the smoothed extent rate doesn’t look like what I would expect for a late September minimum but I’m not going to call the race over yet.
U.Hamburg updated their area and extent data through 8/29/2008 yesterday. As I expected, there is a bias between CT and UH and it isn’t a constant offset or ratio. The difference between CT and UH increases as the area decreases. A regression with UH as the X values and CT as the Y has a slope of 1.13 with a p value of 4.3E-21 and an intercept of -0.76. The R2 value is 0.95. Plugging in the UH minimum for 2007 of 3.32548 Mm2 gives a CT value of 2.93 in good agreement with Phil’s 2.92 Mm2. I’m going to adjust the UH data in some of my graphs to reflect the regression results and see if the concentration data makes more sense.
The exact 2007 minimum extent date of 24th Sep is kind of meaningless. 2007 in fact had two sub-minima:
09,16,2007,4267656
09,24,2007,4254531
The difference was a mere 13,125 km2 i.e. so small it was smaller than the midday revision to today’s data.
I would split the difference and think of the 2007 extent minimum as being on ~20th Sep.
As for area, the exact CT 2007 minimum was on 16th Sep (2.92 million km2)
note: midday if you live in the uk!
The current ice concentration is still low compared to the adjusted U.Hamburg average and 2007 data, but not by as much. Current concentration is 66% compared to the average of 69% or 70% for 2007.
Adjusted Arctic Ice Concentration
Jared#490
Perhaps we ought to ask Steve to introduce the smilie icons used in the other place and add some additional ones for use next to our names. These would include ‘sceptic’ (using the English spelling of course) ‘Warmist’ and ‘agnostic’, then we wouldnt need to try to second guess everyones motive! (there should be a smilie icon here) Just a joke, but in the abscence of being able to see someones face the smilies do tend to defuse some of the passion.
The serious point of this post is to suggest people track the bbc news web site over the next few days, they seem to be taking up where ITV left off last week and have a reporter in the Arctic to show the alarming (unprecdented?) warming
Tony Brown
With the much lower amounts of heat in the Arctic and the much lower temps than last year could we have an early end to the melt?
Bill, you are using the preliminary data. The final data gave a much larger extent area increase of 21,875 km^2.
Re: Aaron Wells (#498),
First positive extent growth of 2008 for the end of the season and well above the 2003-7 average for this date. All the others still show extent reductions for this date although some years had already had positive numbers before this date.
What’s the weather forecast for the baby ice?
My post #496
sorry, here is link
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7609382.stm
Tony Brown
@489
Phil does a have a bad habit of making statements like this that have no basis in fact.
“The S passage wasn’t freely navigated in the 30’s and 40’s other than short trips from CB to GH etc.”
Re: Shawn Whelan (#500),
Actually it’s you Shawn who make such non-factual statements, the S Passage wasn’t freely navigated from end to end by a single vessel once during those three decades!
Re: Phil. (#510),
There you go again!
I never said from end to end. It is well documented that the boats would come up from Vancouver every year with supplies for the HBC outposts in the S. Passage and then travel down the Passage to deliver them.(The HBC kept records of everything, it is all documented) And the Nascopie often came in from the East.
This little boat the Aklavik went through the S. Passage in the 30’s.
http://iain-cameron.blogspot.com/2007/07/test.html
Re: Shawn Whelan (#536),
Well I did, sailing around in a partially melted strait is not the impression you have been attempting to convey with your descriptions of an Arctic like today’s during the 20’s through 40s.
“The trip of the Akluvik required a great deal of preparation at its home port of Cambridge Bay. The crew had to be prepared, for example, to spend the winter away from home if caught in the ice. The big drop of trading goods on this trip in late 1937 was to be at Gjoa Haven on King William Island, and then the target was to transit the Northwest Passage – Bellot Strait, on this occasion – by 1 September, before freeze-up.”
From your source, note that although it was so easy to navigate the S Passage at this time a journey from CB (halfway along the route) to GH or the Bellot Strait, by no means through the Passage required preparing for a winter trapped in the ice! This year and last this whole passage has been ice free for a month!
And the Nascopie often came in from the East.
Yes the Ice-breaker Nascopie did enter from the East but didn’t make it through.
Re: Phil. (#538),
Phil,
You do realize these sailors did not have access to satellites, airplanes, GPS, helicopters, icebreakers, etc. and it would be quite prudent to be well equipped? Just how do you think the Akluvik arrived in CB? It sailed there from the East. So this boat did complete a sail through the S. Passage. And after sailing through the Bellot Straight they merrily sailed back to CB with no problems.
There you go again!
“In 1937 the ship sailed from the East to Prince Regent Inlet and into the Bellot Strait to allow the Hudson’s Bay Company to establish Fort Ross. There she was met by the schooner Aklavik which had sailed into Bellot Strait from the West. With the historic meeting of the two at Fort Ross, the North West Passage became a reality.”
http://www.hbc.com/hbcheritage/history/transportation/nascopie/
It still makes no sense that the Arctic has been getting colder every decade yet the HBC had a multitude of boats easily navigating the passage and bringing supplies each and every year from Vancouver back in the 30’s and 40’s.
Re: Shawn Whelan (#540),
There you go pushing your propaganda again!
You’re consistently overstating how navigable the NW Passsage was in the 20’s, 30’s and 40’s, one wonders why Larsen waited so long if it was as easy as you say?
The fact remains that the passage, both North and South arms was sporadically open in parts through that period and often closed up for years, that is the point I am making and which you continue to deny despite citing books which contradict your own position!
Above you again say that “the HBC had a multitude of boats easily navigating the passage and bringing supplies each and every year from Vancouver”, which is not true and which I’ve repeatedly called you on. It’s not possible any longer to say you’re mistaken because you’ve been shown several times that it’s not true.
For example, in 1943 the Canadian government asked the USAAF to fly a rescue mission for the staff of an HBC outpost who had been marooned on Somerset Island for two years. The Ice-breaker Nascopie, the one you describe as sailing around freely, had been unable to deliver supplies during that time because of the ice.
I suggest you look at a map, East to CB and back through the Bellot Strait and back to CB is not a traverse of the passage (nor is it in one season, one of the caveats you used above but later abandoned)!
The trading post built by the Hudson’s Bay Company where the Nascopie and Aklavik had their historic meeting, Fort Ross, on September 2, 1937, was abandoned five years later after thick summer ice prevented re-supply for two years in a row. Even then Fort Ross wasn’t built where the HBC had wanted to because that location was blocked by ice which the Nascopie couldn’t penetrate. Freely sailing indeed! The first parachute jump north of the Arctic Circle took place here in 1943, as part of the rescue I referred to above. None of this is consistent with the tale you are attempting to tell.
Note that Gall’s navigation through the Bellot Strait was the first time by ship, how could that be possible in the ice free decades you describe? This year it was sailed single handed by the yacht ‘Arctic Wanderer’.
I’m chuckling over the tough commentary by Phil and other alleged warmies on the blogs. Actually a ‘tough warmie’ is an oxymoron if there ever was one. Academics may be accused of being ‘semi-tough’, but never really tough.
Just a minor correction – it appears CT area in 2007 reached minimum of 2.92 million km2 on 12th Sep as well as 16th Sep.
Re: bias I’d say we all have some form of bias. I’d say a less aggressive way of putting it would be that each person has a different emphasis. As long as people are learning something from the points put forward by other people, those points should be welcomed, in my opinion.
N.b. on a thread on another site, i’ve been accused of a “cheap rhetorical trick”, not being able to “see the wood for the trees”, having a “flawed analysis”, “cherry picking”, “harping on” and “playing”, as well as the gem: “Chris, would you call the 10th tallest man in the world “short”?”. All for daring to present reasonable arguments that (1) 2008 would not necessarily catch up 2007 in extent (2) 2008 should have an earlier, rather than later, date of net refreeze beginning (3) 2008 has shown a discernible recovery from 2007 (4) accelerated recovery is possible into next year (5) the long term decline in arctic ice in the last couple of decades might not be bound to continue.
Let’s not descend to those kinds of accusations here……
Incidentally, my response re: the tallest man question was: “judging by his growth in recent decades, would you say he will inevitably be taller than the tallest man by 2013? Or even 2030?”
#503 BarryW – see #487 for some relevant weather forecasts.
Plus see http://www.uni-koeln.de/math-nat-fak/geomet/meteo/winfos/synNNWWarctis.gif for latest Arctic weather. Note we’ve seen the first (persistent) -15C of the winter the last couple of days (at 85N on the Canadian side)
As a warmest I like Phil’s comments here! Actually I am a pro scientist who thinks they are right rather than a pro media-ist who hates all the AGW biased arguments that are so biased due to it being flavour of the month and subject to warping, a la the kayak w*nker
He is a bit more ascerbic than me but then he brings a lot more info as well to counter. As someone said it does give CA a broadchurch. I hope we all have mutual respect based on our common interest. Think how good the pub comment would be if we were all down there with a pint in our hands. Would be far more fun than talking about soaps or our new car with heated head rests …
Going from cold to hot check out
http://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/station_page.php?station=42001
For hurricane watching the buoys really do give you a sense of elemental forces, far more so than a weather guy getting wet and windy with a microphone next to his mouth pretending to be almost blown away.
They ought to strap a weather reporter to one of these buoys, that would really give a good report….
Regards
Andy
I think GeneII is actually Sen. Inhofe. Gene, can you disprove that, preferably with a peer-reviewed study? C’mon Senator, ‘fess up! But I just love hearing him accuse others of bias. Talk about being called ugly by a toad!
I also get a kick out of the latest rant from the Ostriches, about the data being fixed. I guess when you don’t like what you see, it’s time to suspect your eyes of bias. Pluck them out boys! Your eyes have an obvious Warmist Bias!
What a hoot. This is the most entertaining site on the web.
Okay!! I confess. I’m Senator Inhofe. I couldn’t just sit back and let Gene take the heat. And I’m no toad! 😉
Re: Aaron Wells (#508),
Aha! I knew you were in here somewhere, Senator!
Does it occur to anyone here that rooting for ice to melt, or for water to freeze, is a little silly? I mean, it’s going to do what it’s going to do, whether we cheer or boo. I just wish I could hear more about why we’re seeing these minimums, and the acceleration of the Greenland glaciers, etc. I don’t care if deep down you side with Inhofe or Gore, just give me sensible scientific explanations for what we’re seeing. And please, don’t waste my time with split-hair quibbles over pixellation grids, and suspicious number-patterns. The data is what it is. Moaning about who’s counting which checkerboard squares just seems petty. I don’t believe anyone’s fixing the data, since they know damn well that any monkey-business will be found out and careers will end. Let’s assume we’re seeing the real picture and spend some time discussing what it means, instead of pissing on any data points that don’t back our particular perspective. That just seems trite.
GeneII, I’ve had the above observations and opinions peer-reviewed and will be forwarding those reviews to you telepathically. Prepare to receive!
Re: lurker bill (#512),
One of the more interesting aspects of the modern age is the greatly extended ability to measure the ultra small (nano stuff and parts per million of things that become legally binding limits where they could not even be measured 30 years or so previously) and the ultra – large – in this case parts of the planet with the deployment of satellites.
In both cases should one accept what one is told?
Well, in the case of nano and physical measurement we probably should since engineering makes use of such microscopic measures on a daily basis. The methods are supported by the volume of individual uses day in day out.
For ppm measurements … probably OK for similar reasons although some of the measurements may not have anywhere near the frequency and and breadth of users that engineering measurements attract.
The Macro – Satellite based …?
Well, there are fewer sources and fewer users, very different technological applications and far less opportunity for parallel checking of the measurements and the results on a like for like basis.
So with that, and given the relative newness of the opportunity together with technology changes over the current short life of such measurements I think I would certainly want to people to be discussing methods and results for only then can we begin to feel comfortable attempting to discuss what it means on the basis of seeing the real picture.
The data are indeed what they are, but what are they?
I’ll do this on the five year average eventually, but I’ve correlated 2007 U.Hamburg extent with JAXA 2007. I actually have six years of data but not from 1/1 to 12/31. The best fit was to do a two day moving average on U.Hamburg and lag JAXA 2007 by two days. Just in case I don’t have the sign correct on my definition of lag, 1/1/2007 UH corresponds to 1/3/2007 JAXA. The slope and intercept with U.Hamburg MA as X is and JAXA as Y is Y(t+2) = 0.945X(t) + 1131305 km2. R2 is 0.999, p value for slope is 0 and 2.E-175 for the intercept. The residual plot isn’t pretty, it’s negative on both ends and positive in the middle, so there’s some non-linear effect I’m not including, but it’s pretty small.
#510 For newbies and others: CB here is Cambridge Bay and GH is Gjoa
Haven, n’est-ce pas, Phil? [and if you don’t understand “n’est-ce pas”
you aren’t born in the kingdom where the sun never sets LOL]
Übrigens waiting for the next JAXA bulletin …
Gee, I hope you’re right about the ‘any monkey-business will be found out and careers will end’.
============================================================
We root root for sporting teams, even though its going to do what its going to do, whether we cheer or boo (unless we are at the venue, then maybe when they hear our cheering/booing it will have an effect).
On the implications of the current ice state, I have been considering the possibility that a tipping point has been passed and that the ice cap will continue to melt, unless significant cooling sets in.
Think of a tipping point as pushing a cart over a hill. At first you have to keep pushing it to get it to go any further. At some point the cart will go further all by itself without being pushed. Call that the tipping point.
What do we know about global temperatures? They stopped warming temporarily 5 years ago. The last year has been cooler due to a la nina. But the arctic melt has been strong over the last 5 years. The melt has paused this year, maybe reduced slightly, but there has been a significant short term cooling, so its like the cart is past the top of the hill and we are pulling back on it a bit to hold it in place.
If temperature continue to cool, we’d be pulling back on the cart harder, and it should come back – the ice would grow. But if the cooling is only temporary it looks like the cart will continue on its merry way once the cooling is over and bye bye ice cap.
Unless the reasons why the ice cap has been melting the last 5 years is because someone other than the guy with the ‘global warming’ shirt is pushing it. Perhaps ocean or atmospheric circulation variations. Or black soot. To no for sure whether we are at a tipping point we would have to be able to show that these factors are giving less of a push on the arctic melt than can be explained by what we’ve observed.
Temperatures in the arctic area do appear to have increased in the last 5 years as global temperatures have stalled. So it could be a local circulation pattern issue. But if its a tipping point, this would happen by increasing the local warming due to albedo change. A clever climate scientist should be able to work out how much albedo change we’ve had as we’ve measured the ice reduction. And then work out how much temperature increase this would cause and whether it matches what we’ve observed. Clever scientists I’d expect would already have had this idea and checked, and the fact I haven’t heard any claims to this effect would probably means we can’t show that a tipping point has been passed.
Re: Michael Hauber (#514), Currently the sun is experiencing a minimum. It remains to be seen if this particular minimum is ordinary or extended. Currently the sun has been showing signs that it might be an extended minimum. The question is will this change the climate of the earth. In fact has the climate already been changed by this minimum and by how much.
Re: Michael Hauber (#514),
The whole concept of climate tipping points has been highly overblown. At this point it is only speculation that they even exist. Analogies are all well and good for purposes of illustration, but without a valid quantitative model they are often an appeal to emotion not reason.
Calculating Arctic annual average ice area from 6/18 to 6/17 of the next year, there’s six years of high resolution satellite data on the U.Hamburg ftp server. A simple linear trend calculation says that average area is decreasing by 0.14 Mm2/year. But six years just isn’t long enough, especially if you want to extrapolate for 30 years.
Ocean circulation is an important means of transporting heat away from the Antarctic and toward the Arctic. There are plots elsewhere on this thread that indicate that both the AMO and the PDwhatever are in a decreasing phase and that something somewhat similar happened in the first half of the twentieth century. But we really can’t compare because we don’t have the detailed data from then that we have now.
On the Atlantic side, the loss of ice from 1918 until the early 1940’s was very likely as large or larger than it is now. Coal freighters were able to dock in Spitzbergen up to 170 days/year without the assistance of ice breakers. It’s also very likely that there was much less Arctic ice during the Holocene Optimum 5,000 years ago based on things like driftwood deposited on the north coast of Alaska that can be traced to Siberia.
Re: Aztec Bill (#517),
Please consider the plight of those with slow internet connections and or slow computers and post a link to the graph not the graph itself on long threads like this.
#512 … lurker bill … perhaps you should change your ‘artist name’
to “lurker and poster bill”…just a suggestion! OK I’m responsible
for bringing the low probability numbers up but NOTA BENE: I or anyone
else have never said they were “fixed”, the numbers from 01/02/2008
until 01/13/2008 were of very low probability…so “lurker bill” I
JUST waited for someone to complain about it:
……2004-05-11…11.901.406 km2
……2004-05-12…11.871.406 km2
……2004-05-24…11.375.313 km2
……2004-05-25…11.355.313 km2
……2004-07-12….9.321.094 km2
……2004-05-13….9.226.094 km2
So these 3 pairs were all there were in 2004…Quite high probability
by a factor of 3.7 or so …
ANOTHER low probability thing: 9/11/2001 I delivered the morning
papers in the northern part of the inner city of Stockholm. At
Ynglingagatan “Youngman Street” there was a car-bomb Here is
low probability nr 1 this date: The car was outside nr 19. In
that house lived, or had lived a Swedish artist by the name of
“Martin Eriksson” aka “E-type” because he claims his conception
took place in a Jaguar E-type. The same day the biggest Swedish
morning paper has a story about celebrities rumoured to be dead
on the internet: They give 2 examples: Britney Spears and, bang
your drum bill, E-type. At high-school I was wrongly called
“Martin” by my old teacher in English…She later broke her leg
in the stairs of the school…And I went to France in the summer
to study french and french women, I fell in love with a “Martine
Mary”…She came to Sweden the following year BUT we had not been
in contact so where do I meet her? At my work-place, John Wall,
a hardware store…just by coincidence…Low probability there too…
But the oddest low probability is 9/11/2001 later when in the
morning around 07:00, I entered an office and said: “A car-bomb at
Ynglingagatan, just you wait until Usama bin Laden and Company gets
started…” Well, we all know what happened less than 8 hours later…
And BTW “lurker bill” you’re not Bill Clinton talking from your own
experience…”any monkey-business will be found out”…LOL
BTW The bus line near my brother has number “666” and my 51th
birthday was 06/06/06 have you guessed my name by now???
The links for different scientific views of ice thickness are mainly
in “Sea ice stretch #2” Russian and Chinese teams. Phil. likes Maslowski et al
But the jury is still out, we aint seen nothing yet, billie…
PS The man living in Ynglingagatan 19 was at least a name-sake…DS
Acceleration of Greenland glaciers, Bill? More snow accumulating
in the inner parts of Greenland, but temporarily? warmer at the coasts,
The ice-quakes, why no reports from the warm 1920-50’s? Instruments,
electronics…Please use google, “lurker bill” provide us with links
Gotta deliver more morning papers now ARRIVIDERCI
Re: STAFFAN LINDSTROEM (#520),
Staffan if I understand you aright you’re saying that three times in 2004 the increment was a multiple of 5000? So in pixels the only way that this can occur is when the difference is a multiple of 128, 3 times a year seems reasonable.
Re: Phil. (#522),
I have some new evidence that CT is indeed a week behind. It’s not conclusive yet, though. I need at least another month’s data from U.Hamburg to improve the statistics.
Here’s what I’ve done. I downloaded the U.Hamburg Antarctic area and extent data. Then I compared the area data to the CT Antarctic area data I’ve been collecting (with your kind help). The peak at about 8/15 in the CT area does not correspond to the data for the same date from U.Hamburg. If you shift the CT data back 7 days, however, the fit improves dramatically. Unfortunately, that reduces the number of data points from 26 to 19, which is less than ideal. It will be another month before U.Hamburg updates. I can do the same thing with the Arctic data, but with less structure, the better fit may be due to fewer data points.
Re: #504
“judging by his growth in recent decades, would you say he will inevitably be taller than the tallest man by 2013? Or even 2030?”
Funny!
The best way to handle these not very well thought out rebutts is with humor!
Re: #508
Well thanks Senator Inhof, aka, Aaron Wells. But let the heat fall down on me. You have to get back to Washington and start getting some oil rigs set up in ANWR. But seriously, Im not Sen Inhof. But who knows… maybe I’m Lindzen, or Christy, or Legates, or Crichton, or Carter, or Spencer, or Mörner, or…. (cue the dramatic music bite from a tacky detective show) TIMOTHY BALL (woman screams, baby cries, earth opens up, Exxon falls in, earth closes back up!!) that’s right, “The emperor has no clothes.” Actually I’m Dennis Miller….. just kidding.
Nah, I’m not any of those folks. But come on. Any one who questions manmade global warming with any degree of persistence is said to be someone like the good scientists mentioned above or on the take from Exxon. I have even been told my username in YouTube is in ExxonSecrets, that’s right, I really have been told that.
The good thing about all this is I get a real good, long laugh from these things when I read them.
Masking off the lower seven bits (or truncation if you will) should produce a fairly random reduction in the number unless the number was originally non-random.
However, here, presumably, we are talking about counting the number of grid cells with less than (or more than) a certain percentage of ice … thus the only way for that non-random pattern in the lower 7 bits you suggest (all zero) suggest some sort of problem in the actual counting process.
Preliminary Unofficial Day 255 Race Report
2008 gives up more ground against the previous day; now over 400K behind 2007.
9 12 2002 NA NA
9 12 2003 6.105625 0.064375
9 11 2004 5.784688 -0.040312
9 12 2005 5.545000 -0.036875
9 12 2006 5.864219 -0.032500
9 12 2007 4.327969 -0.015469
9 11 2008 4.735781 0.006093
I’ve always said that the earth and her inhabitants would be fine without the arctic ice cap. However, I must admit, it feels good to see this rally.
Re: Mike Bryant (#527),
Life without the arctic ice cap, in the summer, would be better. Greatly reduced Shipping costs, huge Oil and N.Gas more easily available, great Fishing, there is no downside that comes close to the benefits. Ice in the northern summers is not the norm. It is what we know but our experience is like looking at a single day in the middle of March and thinking “this is normal weather and any change from this is usual and bad”.
Two days increase on the trot whereas 2007 was having a nice loss around this time.
Maybe the low point will be more around now, the middle of the month then the end, will be interesting to see.
I’m trying to think of tipping points in nature and I can’t think of too many past examples. The one that does strike me is cod stocks off the NE seaboard of the USA and Canada, that seems to have reached a point where it is having trouble recovering even with much reduced fishing.
Regards
Andy
“I’ve always said that the earth and her inhabitants would be fine without the arctic ice cap”
I believe Earth has spent most of its existence without any ice at the poles. Didn’t the latest round of ice ages only start in the last couple of million years?
I believe we should all wait 2 weeks at least before drawing conclusions. CT shows large parts of ice became very low-concentration areas within the last 48 hours. These could compact and lead to a rapid reduction of the extent… The melt behavior is somehow more chaotic this year compared to the previous ones..
Re: Flanagan (#531),
The charts show dips in previous years 2006-7 about two weeks from now so I don’t think we can call it over yet.
I noticed that even when smoothed this year seems to have more variation than previous years in terms of changes in extent loss.
Interesting take on the Pugh expedition:
http://www.mounteverest.net/news.php?id=17551
Chris #532
What a great site and it deals with facts, which I like, rather than extreme and unsubstantiated theory-which I don’t.
All the better as I also mentioned Nansens canoe trip as predating Pughs.
The answer to why the guy got more publicity than others is that I believe part of his party included Richard Bransons son. Obviously the (ice) chip off the old block has picked up some tips from his dad- a past master at media manipuluation.
Has anyone got any similar high quality links to the Polar bear featured in the British Daily Telegraph last week and mentioned here? It was standing on an ice shelf and obviously terified by the helicopter hovering a few feet above its head. The original photo is now circulating in British schools as proof of bears terrified by climate change.
Tony Brown
“The melt behavior is somehow more chaotic this year compared to the previous ones..”
Of course it is… haven’t you heard? It’s Climate Chaos!
RE: the 5K multiples
I’m a total novice so please point out if/where I’m wrong… I spent a bit of time looking at the actual JAXA data (http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/plot.csv). And I think I have figured out the apparent 5K/unusual looking number matching Staffan has been showing (even though I contributed to flaming the fire). I was a skeptic of the legitimacy of these numbers but have come full circle on this.
As said previously by others pixels are 6.25X6.25 km, (39.0625 km^2) and that would lead to so you would think that 128 pixels (or any multiple) = 5000 km^2 (or any multiple). This should only happen ~1/128 days. Looking at the raw data, it turns out the data, for some reason only comes in numbers that are all divisible by 4 before you hit primes or numbers without other common denomenators (I’ll just show the last week, but this holds for the whole record):
.
Date…..Extent…..Change…Change…pxl/4
………..(km^2)…..(km^2)….(pxl)
9/5/08…4825625.-43281…-1108…-277
9/6/08…4808281.-17344….-444…-111
9/7/08…4739844.-68437…-1752…-438
9/8/08…4715469.-24375….-624…-156
9/9/08…4707813..-7656….-196….-49
9/10/08..4729688..21875…..560….140
9/11/08..4735781…6093…..156…..39
This makes in 4X more common to get a reduction in extent that is a round multiple of 5000. So the chances are really 1/32 times, or about once a month. There have been 11 times in 8 months. A high frequency in Jan, but otherwise a pretty random occurrence.
Date…….Extent Chng (km^2)
1/6/08….12611250..50000
1/8/08….12709844..55000
1/10/08…12755938..30000
1/13/08…12903594..40000
1/17/08…13025000..12500
2/18/08…14051719..135000
4/6/08….13925156..0
5/22/08…11728281..-20000
6/19/08…10449531..-50000
8/6/08…..6579844..-145000
8/23/08….5500156..-55000
You can also simply sort the data to rank by change and see if, for instance, a change of -20000 comes up more often than say -20156 or 19844 (which didn’t actually come up). And you can clearly see throughout the record there is no bias that puts too many round numbers in the record. Just a portion of that sort:
Date Extent Chng (km^2)
4/17/04..12879531 -20157
8/29/04…5951406 -20157
12/31/4..12265000 -20156
6/23/02..10575156 -20000
5/25/04..11355313 -20000
5/22/08..11728281 -20000
9/3/06….5958125 -19688
3/31/07..13459375 -19688
8/23/06…6041563 -19687
So here I am, full circle and with a slightly better grasp of the method. I still don’t know why the pixel counts are all divisible by 4, but I don’t really care and I trust the #s for what they are.
Matt
Here are my graphs for yesterday’s ice extent data, based upon revised IARC/JAXA Ice Extent data. There was another quite significant upward revision of the area this morning (around 16,000 km^2), resulting in another daily extent area increase of 21,875 km^2.
We see a dramatic turn in all of the graphs with the data from the past few days.
Daily Arctic Sea Ice Extent Reduction Day 255
Arctic Sea Ice Extent Day 255
2008 Arctic Ice Extent Differences From Previous Years Day 255
Arctic Sea Ice Total Drops from Peaks Day 255
Actually I think the ice is an advantage for oil exploration. They build roads on it in the Winter and supply the drilling sites by truck.
Re: Shawn Whelan (#542),
Sea platforms would be easier because oil has to be cooled so it doesn’t melt the ice platform that any ice rigs sit on. Shipping is better than trucking by an order of magnitude.
Phil is definitely overstating how “open” the NW Passage has been this year. Yes, the narrow southern route has been mostly ice free for a time (though that is changing now), but the main northern passage has been consistently clogged – without a doubt more so than last year.
Re: Jared (#544),
No I am not, I have given the CIS charts showing exactly how open it has been. The overstating has been by the likes of Shawn in his portrayal of the ice free Arctic of the 20’s -40s’
Re: Shawn Whelan (#543),
Not something I ever claimed, however they have shown it on the charts as ‘green for go’, conditions that the Nascopie , Aklavik and St Roch would have sailed through with ease. Here’s the clear S route as of the 8th (cleared by the yacht Berrimilla ~ a month ago). It also shows Larsen’s N route open to a few small sections of 2/10, something he’d laugh at!
Re: Phil. (#550),
So your saying the ice in 1944 and the ice in 2008 are at a similar level after 60plus years of AGW?
I have never seen a green for go chart and the Northern Passage has no been open to non icebreakers. At least the NSDIC will not say so.
Re: Shawn Whelan (#554),
No, although it’s possible that it was similar in the Parry Strait, McClure was blocked then though.
Further proof if any were needed that you haven’t bothered to read my posts!
Although you have managed to post one yourself!
From CIS:
The Colour Code
The colour code is intended to assist navigation decisions in ice infested water. It is loosely based on the concept of a traffic light, where green means proceed, yellow means caution and red signals danger. The objective of the colour code application is to enable a person to quickly assess general ice conditions. A ship sailing in a given area can easily assess the general ice conditions and, hence, qualify the difficulty or ease to either navigate through easily, reduce speed or stop the ship.
In that context this present regional map shows the NW Passage to be capable of passage being either clear or green except for a small patch of yellow at the mouth of McClure. So by their own literature CIS have declared NWP to be passable with only that small area of caution.
Re: Phil. (#562), If I were the captain of a boat responsible for the passengers and cargo I would not try to make the passage, would you?
Re: Phil. (#562),
There you go again
You are once again just making that up as you have no factual evidence to backup your claim that the McClure Straight was blocked in 1944. Much earlier McCLure easily sailed right into the McClure Strait from the East and discovered the NW Passage.
What is your ultimate point? That the level of the ice in 1944 and 2008 were similar. Obviously they were.
About Larsen
There you go again!
Of course Larsen made it through the Passage in ’42 and then sailed all the way to Halifax. That is a fact.
If you look at this map you will see that Larsen travelled all over between CB and Tuk.(you say it was impossible and Larsen said he did it, I am going with Larsen) He was working in ’40 and didn’t set out to go through the Passage till late in ’41. Probably would have made it if not for the late start. The Nascopie went easily through the Eastern part not long ahead of him.(it is in Larsen’s book)
The Aklavik crossed the passage. Your arguments are childish.
What is your point? Are you trying to convince me the Arctic was a solid sheet of ice in the ’30’s and ’40’s when Larsen so easily sailed around the Arctic?
Re: Shawn Whelan (#566),
I await with interest your quote from Larsen’s book explaining that he decided to take the risky narrow route through Prince of Wales strait in 1944 when the much wider McClure strait lay wide open in front of him? What possible relevance is the state of McClure strait in 1850 to its state in 1944?
However that statement does illustrate your rather cavalier use of the english language and your ignorance of the history.
Firstly McClure sailed from the West via Hawaii and the Bering St! Secondly your use of the word ‘easily’ which you throw around when you post here, some highlights of his journey follow:
“He rammed the ship through one patch of pack ice and then had to use five rowboats to tow the Investigator past Point Barrow. Forced by the pack ice of the Beaufort Sea to travel eastward along the coast of Alaska to the Mackenzie delta, McClure turned northwards east of the Mackenzie and reached the south shore of Banks Island,”
“Off the east coast of Banks Island, McClure saw a channel, later named Prince of Wales Strait, with a clear stretch of water leading to the northeast. As he sailed up it, he realized that if this body of water connected with Melville Sound, already sailed by Parry, he would have found the long-sought-after Northwest Passage.
By then, however, it was getting late in the year. On September 17, 1850, at a point about 30 miles from Melville Sound, McClure was forced to stop by increasing ice and rising winds. Wind pushed the Investigator 30 miles farther back down the channel. The growing ice toppled the ship on its side and threatened to crush it against some rocks. The men on the ship were convinced they were doomed and broke out the store of alcohol. On September 28, however, the storm died, the ship righted itself and was iced in for the winter.”
“On October 21, 1850, McClure took seven companions and headed north over the ice in sledges. On the fifth day, they reached the north end of Banks Island. On October 27, 1850, they climbed a small mountain and looked out on Melville Sound – McClure and his men had found the Northwest Passage.”
Note that at this point McClure and his ship have not yet entered the eponymous strait, easily or otherwise!
After overwintering:
“In the summer of 1851 he tried to sail through Prince of Wales Strait into Melville Sound once again. This time he was stopped by ice 25 miles short of his goal. He then decided to sail south and try to get around Banks Island from the west side. Initially, he made very good time – 300 miles in three days. Then, on August 20, 1851, the ship got caught in the ice once again. It was wedged in a small channel of open water too narrow to turn around in – so McClure continued north for another week. Once he had sailed around the northern end of Banks Island into Melville Sound he was once again stopped by ice.”
Following another winter in the ice:
“During the summer of 1852, McClure tried to get the Investigator free from the ice that blocked Mercy Bay but to no avail. By September when it became obvious that they were going to have to spend another winter in the Arctic, food supplies were dangerously low. Two of the junior officers showed signs of insanity, and 20 men were ill with scurvy. The following spring, McClure proposed to split up his crew into three different groups to try to get help overland.”
That following spring:
“On April 6, 1853, shortly before he was to send out his land parties, McClure and his first officer were walking on the beach discussing the burial of a crew member who had died of scurvy. They looked up to see a strange man running down the beach towards them. It was Lieutenant Bedford Pim, an officer from Kellett’s ship sent to fetch them.
At first, McClure refused to abandon the Investigator, and three more men died while waiting for supplies. When only four men volunteered to stay with him, McClure was forced to give up and leave the Investigator in Mercy Bay. Once his men reached Kellett’s ship and crowded on board, it was too late in the year to depart. The following year, on the orders of Sir Edward Belcher, they abandoned Kellett’s two ships and used supply ships to sail back to England via Baffin Bay, arriving home in September 1854.”
That ain’t my idea of easy, not only that McClure never entered the McClure strait by ship!
Interesting revision of history, does anyone sense a pattern here?
“The first passage began in Vancouver in June of 1940. Through the Bering Strait and across the north coast of Alaska, the St. Roch entered the Arctic Archipelago through Amundsen Gulf. However by September the passage had begun to freeze and the crew was forced to winter on the coast of Victoria Island.” So Larsen and the St Roch were already on their way and in the Passage by Sept 1940.
“With the breakup in August 1941 the St. Roch continued its passage east.”
After overwintering the journey was continued in 1942 and the Atlantic reached in Oct 1942, i.e. the 28 months of the history books, according to Shawn I’m wrong to say that he overwintered, and that Larsen ‘made it through the Passage in ’42’.
By way of comparison the yacht Berrimilla left Dutch Harbor, Ak, this year ~17th June and reached Nuuk in Greenland by 25th August.
Re: Phil. (#594),
Larsen took the Prince of Wales Strait in 1944 because it was open. He had no problem going through the strait.(right now it is frozen solid) Simple as that. He had planned on taking the Strait in the earlier voyage and actually headed up it only to be called back and returned to Tuk and then started the voyage late and now finding the P of W blocked decided to take the Amundsen route.
There you go again.
McClure did easily sail into the McClure Strait. Mercy Bay where McClure became stuck is in the McClure Strait at the North end of Banks Island. I did make a mistake saying East instead of West. But in 1819 to 1820 W.E Parry sailed from the East into the McClure Strait and as far as Melville and Banks island.(very nearly completed the NW Passage voyage through the Parry Channel route and likely would have if the satellites and ice breakers were working)
“Parry left in May 1819 to try to meet Franklin coming over land, and confirmed that there were no mountains such as Ross had seen. He went on to Prince Regent Inlet (which was ice-bound), Barrow Strait, and then a group of islands, which he called North Georgian (now the Parry Islands). For the first time, European ships had entered the Arctic Archipelago. Continuing west, Parry was the first to reach 110º west longitude, off Melville Island, but the ice prevented his going further and he put in at Winter Harbour, on Melville Island, where the freeze-up kept him until August 1, 1820. He then continued west to around Cape Dundas. After having discovered a new land to the south, Banks Island, he had to give up his research because of ice conditions and return to England.”
http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/2/24/h24-1820-e.html
The story of the 1940 to 1942 voyage. And remember Larsen said these were the worst years for ice in the Arctic in the 20 plus years he spent there. Yet he still made it through the Passage.
This book is taken from the “The Big ship”, Larsen’s biography.
http://books.google.ca/books?id=YoKHRtwgUKgC&pg=PA128&lpg=PA128&dq=larsen+the+St.+roch+and+minerals&source=web&ots=_5_NeYz41-&sig=7avLHA_-4m5oXxXu8gZL3p0fP1c&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA129,M1
CT area update 9/12/2008
region area(Mm2) difference anomaly
Arctic 3.05 -0.057 -1.948
Antarctic 14.934 0.057 -0.028
The recent extent increase appears to be primarily due to a decrease in concentration as noted above. The current average concentration has dropped to 64%. The extent minimum for the last 6 years has occurred after the area minimum. We haven’t seen the area minimum yet. Let’s not get too excited yet.
Turned very cold in the Arctic.
I predict a cold Winter and a big freeze.
http://www.weatheroffice.gc.ca/jet_stream/index_e.html
http://www.weatheroffice.gc.ca/city/pages/nu-22_metric_e.html
“The recent extent increase appears to be primarily due to a decrease in concentration”
But has 130,000 km2 of sea ice actually been turned into open water within 3 days? No, there’s been surface thaw/precipitation on the European side of the Arctic making the satellites *think* there’s more open water, and dispersal to below the CT concentration inclusion threshold but above the JAXA concentration inclusion threshold on the Alaskan/Siberian side.
Once the “gaps” fill in, area increases may be dramatic. To see how quickly apparent concentrations can change, consider the following dramatic changes in just one day, between 4th and 5th Sep:
Re: Chris (#548),
And yet the European side shows no reduction in area in that time.
You’re letting your emotions getting in the way again, it’s noticeable that you were quite prepared to accept a change in the other direction.
The sea ice area is now within 5% of last year’s minimum.
Larsen spent around 20 years in the Arctic and the Passage and never once reports it frozen over for the Summer.(he wrote a book) He was working for the RCMP in the Arctic not joyriding around amd routinely ventured up and down the Passage. He reports years of much less ice than ’44 and says the first time he went through was the worst year for ice that he saw in his years in the Arctic.
“Larsen made several requests to proceed through the North West passage during years when ice conditions appeared conducive to success. For example in 1936-37 when Sir James MacBrien toured the North he asked if he could proceed through, only to be reminded they were RCMP officers and not explorers. It wasnt until World War II that the “Great Assignment” was ordered. In 1940 they had a secret war-time mission – to head through the NW Passage into the eastern Arctic as part of a 250 man Canadian force to secure the cryolite mines of Greenland. Denmark was under Nazi occupation.”
http://lit.lib.ru/t/tatarin_l_s/msword-29.shtml
There was fleet of boats left Vancouver every year to stock the Arctic. The HBC carefully recorded everything.
Larsen writes in his book that they would race from Vancouver and it was an honour to be the first to make it North. What exactly is your proof I am wrong. You just make up stuff. It seems to be a habit.
Gjoa Haven(1930) and Cambridge Bay(1929) pictures showing low ice level. A lot more info in that link.
http://www.kitikmeotheritage.ca/Angulalk/hudsons/hudsons.htm
I never mentioned anything about one year it was you that stated;
Once again no basis in fact since the little Aklavik travelled the entire length of the passage. The Aklavik sailed from the West to Cambridge Bay and then sailed the rest of the Passage later.
The Arctic cooled in the 40’s and several HBC posts were abandoned.
Larsen reports much lower ice years in the 30’s than the 40’s. He says ’42 was the worst year for ice in the Arctic yet he still made it through the Passage.
There you go again.
“In 1858, after his fifth attempt, Captain Leopold McClintock claimed that he “steamed through the clear water of Bellot Strait this morning and made fast to the ice across its western outlet.” Though many small trade-ships may have used its 30 tortuous miles in the past 80 years, on the record it has remained uncharted, impassable.’
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,770864-1,00.html
Re: Shawn Whelan (#552),
Which part of ‘through’ don’t you understand? The Western end was blocked!
Except of course he didn’t, he was forced to spend two winters in the passage iced in! That was the time that the icebreaker Nascopie couldn’t make it to Fort Ross for two years and they had to carry out the airborne rescue of the staff.
You play fast and loose with the word ‘through’ and use it to infer easy sailing in the Arctic seas, unlike you I have a great deal of respect for the bravery and skill of men like Larsen and Gall and recognize their achievements for what they were rather than to diminish them as you do for some political talking point.
There’s no evidence that that occurred, do you have any evidence that Aklavik sailed further East than Bellot? Bear in mind that she sank a couple of years after her first navigation of the Strait. An intermittent journey broken up by winter sojourns in the ice doesn’t constitute ‘freely navigating’ to me.
Phil – European side *of the Arctic* (http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.1.html)
I accepted changes either way as long as JAXA/CT showed equally higher figures than a year ago. But I find the recent crash in CT harder to accept, and I’ve explained why.
Phil and Shawn can stop arguing. Generated down the side bar of this very website is an advert for ‘Alberts easy introduction to the science of climate change’
http://journeybystarlight.blogspot.com/2007/10/climate-change-made-simple.html?gclid=CJi5z_X11pUCFROA1Qodmz7dXg
It’s all you will need to know to understand the subject and seems to come complete with unreconstructed mannian hockey sticks and thus clearly shows that Phil must be right… I wonder if they can claim ‘endorsed by Climate audit?’
On a more serious note surely you are both right? The North pole seems a suprisingly fragile environment whose ice area and character can vary from one year to the next as can be seen from records from the Royal Society, The Hudson Bay co and artefacts left by the Vikings, Inuits and the Thule as well as more modern records.
My own mother, who died recently well into her 80’s, would refer with exasperation to the newsreels and newspapers of the 30’s and 40’s showing a melting arctic whenever todays media showed modern reports claiming it was ‘unprecedented’. For certain we have too many records from that time to dispute the fact. All that is in doubt is whether melting was slightly less, slightly more, or the same as today.
The apparent fragility of the arctic is not that surprising when you look at how enclosed it is and how suspectable it is to weather systems and extended periods of wind or sun.
If the climate has changed as frequently on Land as records show, whether it is Holocene, Roman, WMP or LIA, it is surely not surprising that an environment like the arctic will change with it but perhaps more rapidly than we had previously believed. Bearing in mind that even in the LIA there could be very warm periods (the 1730’s were remarkably similar to today according to the Hadley figures) I don’t know why we should doubt that our climate changes frequently and unexpectedly then reverts to an underlying pattern which until recently demonstrated a relatively short warming period.
Keep up the interesting references both of you, but I think you are arguing about nuances rather than the underlying facts.
Tony Brown
Here’s another perspective on the 1930s/40s vs the present.
Looking at HadSST2 data (i.e. sea surface temperature anomalies with respect to 1961-90 in degrees C) for the northern hemisphere –
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadsst2nh.txt
– the figures for 1937, 1941, 1944, 2007, and 2008 (so far) were as follows:
1937 +0.137
1941 +0.167
1944 +0.142
2007 +0.355
2008 +0.310
Well Phil you said earlier that Larsen would have laughed at his “N route open to a few small sections of 2/10”. Perhaps he would also have laughed at how much people are worried about NH seas being ~0.2C warmer 70 years later. And perhaps this 0.2C correlates fairly well to the small size of the difference in ice between then and now you have been emphasising so strongly.
By the way, there was no El Nino in 1937 or 1944. (There was an El Nino beginning at the end of 1941 – thus Oct/Nov 1941 had a 2-month anomaly of +0.37, which was only ~0.2C short of the peak of the 1998 El Nino (+0.58C in Jul/Aug 1998)
The recent (2007/8) La Nina was nothing special in historical terms see e.g. http://ggweather.com/enso/oni.htm
The SST anomalies in the equatorial Pacific were not as great as in previous La Nina episodes, and the Weak La Nina threshold was only crossed for ~10 months (c.f. 24 consecutive months between 1998 and 2000)
Re: Chris (#556),
Hadley sst does have this bucket correction issue, doesn’t it?
Not to interrupt this entertaining food fight, but I’ll illustrate my contention that CT is 5 days behind U.Hamburg, which would put it 3.5 days behind JAXA (two point moving average), if JAXA were reporting area. I’ve calculated an EWMA rate of change (alpha 0.1) for Antarctic ice are data from CT and U.Hamburg. I plotted CT using the date the number was reported. I plotted U.Hamburg by adding 5 days to the date reported, i.e. 8/29 is plotted as 9/3. I think the conclusion is obvious, but more data with more structure would firm it up a lot.
Antarctic Area Rate of Change
Re: DeWitt Payne (#557), on the lag of CT’s published graphs and data, if you are right then my claim of July 31will have been roughly vindicated, and I shall be looking forward to Phil’s apology for his snotty rebuttal at #198 of that thread.
Rich.
Before I get accused of cherry picking in my previous post, here’s a comparison of the longer-term averages for HadSST2:
1930s and 1940s (i.e. 1930-1949) -0.02C
1990s and 2000s (i.e. 1990-2008) +0.28C
As for the bucket correction issue, it appears that’s already been taken into account –
“After gridding the anomalies, bias corrections are applied to remove spurious trends caused by changes in SST measuring practices before 1942.” (http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadsst2/)
In any event, the average anomaly for 1942-1945 is +0.08.
(Then the PDO shift to cool phase kicks in and the average anomaly for 1946-1949 is -0.16)
In #560 I was referring to HadSST2 NH, as in #556.
A few days ago I asked if anyone here knew if the Northwest Passage is open this year. I see there are many responses to this. But it’s still clear as mud to me if the Northwest Passage opened this year or not. I did read one commenter saying it was broken open by boats. But that doesn’t count for opening. I wanted to know if it opened naturally. I’ll keep looking to find the answer.
I wonder if these newsreels still exist.
Re: Help-a-Layman (#564),
The S. Route that Amundsen used is open.
The NSIDC has not yet declared the N. Route(Parry Channel Route) open and only icebreakers traversed the N. Route this year. If it opened it was for a very short period and there was much more ice in the Parry Channel than last year.(in 1819-20 Parry sailed the length of the Parry Channel all the way to Melville and Banks Island)
“Based on NASA Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer—Earth Observing System (AMSR-E) satellite images from the University of Bremen the wider, deeper Northwest Passage through the Parry Channel is almost open. The United States National Ice Center confirms that Amundsen’s Northwest Passage is navigable. The AMSR-E data furthermore indicate that the Northern Sea Route (also called the Northeast Passage) is open.
Last August, the Amundsen and Parry Channel routes both opened, but the Northern Sea Route remained blocked.”
http://www.nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2008/082508.html
Ice is right across the passage and the temps are now below freezing.
If you E-mail the NSIDC they will likely give you your answer.
American thinker has an interesting new bend from NASA up.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/09/new_scientist_sea_ice_increase.html
So much evidence of low ice levels in the Arctic. Who would quarrel with that?
From September 13, 1937
“Across the Pole is the Northeast Passage to China along the top of Norway & Russia. Sebastian Cabot initiated its search in 1553. Henry Hudson twice attempted a passage but it was not until 1879 that the route was navigated. Now Russia currently operates 160 freighters on summer schedules in the Northeast Passage’s more open but colder waters.”
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,770864-2,00.html
Re: Shawn Whelan (#567),
Phil’s assessments are always balanced and data-rich, never exaggerated or one-off anecdotal. Wheras Shawn Whelan’s counterpoints often consist of a single anecdote presented as though it were a long-term, large-scale, objective data set. Stories are fun. But they are not a resaonable basis for comparing past and present.
Preliminary Unofficial Day 256 Race Report
2008 has a slow day; now over 420K behind 2007.
9 13 2002 NA NA
9 13 2003 6.180313 0.074688
9 12 2004 5.806719 0.022031
9 13 2005 5.506563 -0.038437
9 13 2006 5.814063 -0.050156
9 13 2007 4.323750 -0.004219
9 12 2008 4.744688 -0.006875
#569
Sorry but Phil’s assessments are biased with cherry picked data that he can agree with. A story from the past written by someone who has done it puts holes in the rubbish data used by scientists to prove their senseless theories.
Re: Steve B (#570),
You obviously haven’t been reading the recent Mann threads carefully. Ben is bender’s alter ego who posts as if he were a Hockey Team member. His screen id was shortened from bender_teammember to Ben. If I were defended by Ben, the first thing I would do would be to check if all my limbs, including my head, were still firmly attached and there were no knives in my back. The next thing I would do would be to carefully re-examine the premises of my argument. Think ‘with friends like these, who needs enemies.’
Correction. I think the sign of the final figure in post 568 should be positive. As shown below.
Preliminary Unofficial Day 256 Race Report
2008 has a slow day; now over 420K behind 2007.
9 13 2002 NA NA
9 13 2003 6.180313 0.074688
9 12 2004 5.806719 0.022031
9 13 2005 5.506563 -0.038437
9 13 2006 5.814063 -0.050156
9 13 2007 4.323750 -0.004219
9 12 2008 4.744688 +0.006875
At this point it may be worth reflecting on the Party Line at the beginning of the story. Phil put forth an estimate of 3.59 mil sq km. The crux of the tale being that a tipping point had been breached. Well, pretty clearly this is not so.
Re: Jon (#572),
This is silly. Proof doesn’t come in the form of a single data point. In dynamical systems when a tipping point is breached you only recognize that fact years later as the system is racing for the new equilibrium point. That is why I keep emphasizing that results over the next few years will be far more important than one result this year. Sea ice extent is a stochastic process. You have to make allowances for that.
Looking forward to Phil’s reply all the same.
Re: bender (#576),
Indeed.
Still, for completeness, Phil’s post back in part 1 gave the NSIDC’s prediction of a minimum extent of 3.59 Mm2 compared to the minimum of 4.13 Mm2 in 2007 or 0.54 Mm2lower in this somewhat confusing graph. I say confusing, at least to me, because it’s not at all clear what the bars for each year represent. And that’s their extent measurement. JAXA minimum was 4.26 Mm2.
Now let’s see if the superscript exponents carry over to the actual post.
#571 … RK … Corrections of correction 1. Sign is negative -6875 km2
BUT … This is only the PRELIMINARY number wait 6 hours or so and we’ll get the definitive, which may be positive of course?!
#572 Jon, for clarification, is 3.59 million km2 AREA or EXTENT??
I turn to Phil. himself: A or E?
#522 Well, I was a little wrong with factor 3.7, around 3 times,
so 2004 was clearly underperforming in terms of probability…[JAXA SIE]
But Phil. What about my personal probabilities, just a little
selection…[CIA hasn’t called yet LOL]
…And Phil. and Shawn, there should be some film(s) somewhere from
the archipelago in the 30’s, not to talk of pictures…
John Logie Baird, the Scottish inventor of mechanical TV system
made video recordings on 78rpm!! He should have been there…
I’ve changed my mind about Phil, following his treatment of me recently (especially at another site)
So consider this. I’ve made several references to the new Russian “North Pole 36” station, in particular a detailed post here: http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3463#comment-295952
Phil has ignored this since my post provides evidence of greater ice thickness than a year ago.
Yet consider his earlier aggressive highlighting of the demise of “North Pole 35”, and his highlighting of the reduction in thickness evidenced by its initial deployment – see e.g. http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3229#comment-276880
“….”An ice-floe suitable for the unit could not be located until September 18, when the Akademik Fedorov scientific-expedition ship, following in the path of a Russian ice-breaker, discovered an area with a two-year build up of ice.”
Note that they usually like to select a site with 2.5m thick ice.
What we’ve had here and elsewhere on the web is a bunch of posters who want to downplay the fact that the station had to be left early and are prepared to ignore the facts in order to do so….”
What we’ve got now is a poster who has completely ignored the story of the next station’s deployment because it doesn’t suit his views.
Last year it took them 3 weeks, and even after that time, all they could find was a 1.5m thick floe. This year it took them 2 days, and the floe they have found is up to 2.8m thick.
(And before you pick at this, yes 2.8m appears to be its maximum thickness, i don’t have its average thickness because it isn’t given. And yes it’s in quite a different location to last year, i went through this in my earlier post.)
I may be biased, but I frequently volunteer evidence which goes against my “beliefs” and “emotions” as Phil has referred to them. Phil only ever seems to volunteer evidence that ice melt is and will be greater, and was less in the past, and oversteps the mark in his criticism of those whose views don’t match his own. He may be factually very correct, and have a fuller understanding of ice dynamics than many of us. But I’m starting to have a problem with his attitude too 🙂
#571 RK: you need to look at the latest JAXA data (http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm) rather than comparing with the previous day’s initial (unrevised) figure.
Re: Chris (#574),
“I’ve changed my mind about Phil, following his treatment of me recently (especially at another site)”
You may be on to something, Chris. Phil may be a witch. Get the stake and the firewood ready. There may be other witches needing burning here as well. Let’s start making a list!
Re: Chris (#574),
I haven’t ignored it, I just haven’t posted anything about it, I thought your post was fine. It doesn’t post evidence of greater ice thickness though just that the fragmented old ice out in that region of the Arctic provided good targets unlike last year. Possibly this year they’re looking for a different flow path too, this map would certainly suggest so. It’s interesting that the budget for NP-36 has tripled over NP-35, not unconnected with mineral resource exploration I suspect.
I did not highlight the demise of NP-35 at all, I was responding to others who raised the subject and made inaccurate statements about it.
If I’d commented on the deployment of NP-35 you might have a point!
Given the data I posted previously the average thickness for multiyear ice in the basin is ~2.5m, so failing to find a floe that thick is remarkable, finding one is not, especially given the state of the ice out W this year.
You post with a clear bias using emotional descriptions which are really inappropriate in a scientific discussion, example:
“So it’ll really annoy me if large “melt” continues over the next couple of weeks to push CT area even lower”
“this is getting frustrating. I do not believe that there has been 80,000 km2 of sea ice turned into open sea since yesterday.
“The reason I find it so frustrating is that if area dips any lower, people will use comparison of minima to reject the idea of any recovery this year”
“Since there are no buoys on the Siberian side of the Arctic, this is the first measurement “on the ground” (rather than estimated from satellite data) I have seen from the area in months. And the result seems encouraging”
etc.
The reason that I am often posting evidence regarding thinner ice now vs the past is that so many post erroneously here and require correction, note that several have posted here re the warming in Norway in 1922, I think I’m the only one who pointed out that at that time Wrangel Island was ice-bound for two years and all but one of an expedition died. I don’t recall your commenting on the bias of those posters?
Chris: #575 Thanks. I can’t seem to get at the actual data although I see the graph where you linked.
The graph shows increasing sea ice.
I look forward to the graphs from Aaron. He uses final figures.
#577 RK. What I do is go to the JAXA page, click on “Data Download”, open the file with notepad, copy all and paste to Wordpad and all the data appears in a nice neat column.
Is the NH Sea Ice Area graph on Cryosphere Today correct? It looks like 08 is about equal to 07. I’m guessing this thread would be a combination of hyper-elation and suicidal ideation if that graph were accurate. Can someone clarify?
Re: lurker bill (#580),
A witch!! A witch!! Phil turned me into a newt! ….. I got better.
Here are my graphs for yesterday’s ice extent data, based upon revised IARC/JAXA Ice Extent data. There was a very small upward revision of the area this morning (around 1,000 km^2).
Daily Arctic Sea Ice Extent Reduction Day 256
Arctic Sea Ice Extent Day 256
2008 Arctic Ice Extent Differences From Previous Years Day 256
Arctic Sea Ice Total Drops from Peaks Day 256
#580 lurker bill
Compare: http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/ice-area-and-extent-in-arctic
#579 lol! maybe i was just in a bit of a bad mood before……
A Map of the area.
#584 DWP “…check…there were no knives in my back…” That I call
focused blogging, if you have to check if you have any knives in your
back…Little LOL … JAXA 2007 NH Sea Ice Extent Min 4.254531 km2, no??
I think the bickering now just shows this to be a score draw year for the summer ice loss and so both sides can pick points.
As for the Russian route not being open it does make you wonder how much blue Bremen are going to have to have to put on for it to be open
Or Are AMSRE results so far out they should not be used?
This was the first day for 3 months I did not check the results first thing as I got too involved with Ike. One of the buoys showed a perfect time series for the eye wall, the eye and the opposite eye wall where the wind values went from 70 knots ENE to 0 knots in the eye and then to 70 knots SSW in the other side of the eye. Fantastic! Rather than Geraldo with a microphone getting his hair wet it is far better just to watch the data come in and picture it in your mind.
Regards
Andy
PS Do people think we have already reached the minima this year or not? Bets?
CT area update 9/13/2008
region area(Mm2) difference anomaly
Arctic 3.029 -0.021 -1.962
Antarctic 14.998 0.064 0.000
Re: AndyW (#588),
Unless today is the minimum for CT area, we haven’t seen it yet. It would also be a first if extent reached its minimum before area did.
Re: STAFFAN LINDSTROEM (#587),
Ben’s knives are very sharp and there aren’t many nerves in the skin on your back. I have heard or read of people being stabbed in the back and not know it until someone else noticed it. Those stories may be urban legends, though. The other way to look at Ben is as a Devil’s Advocate. Unfortunately, even the Catholic Church has abolished that position.
#589 DWP “It would also be a first if extent reached its minimum before area did.”
2003 had three extent sub-minima – 11th (6041250), 18th (6032031) and 22nd (6047031)
The 2003 area minimum was on 16th Sep (http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/sea.ice.minimum.2007.html)
So far in 2008, we’ve already had an extent sub-minimum on 9th.
Therefore it’s plausible that area minimum will be anytime now, and extent might not go much more than fractionally lower (than on the 9th)
Re: Chris (#590),
I was comparing U.Hamburg area minima to JAXA and U.Hamburg extent minima. The area minimum for U.Hamburg was on 9/5/2003 while U.Hamburg extent was at it’s minimum on 9/9. If you plot the six year average data, U.Hamburg looks much more symmetric at the minimum than JAXA.
I missed that link at CT.
Re: DeWitt Payne (#591),
It would help if I compared apples to apples. I used UH average area (6/18/2003-6/17/2008) instead of extent, which explains the difference in shape in the referenced post. I’m still using an offset of two days. The fit equation is JAXA(t+2) = UH(t)*0.938154881 + 1.188405689. The p values are 0 for the slope and 2E-231 for the intercept. JAXA average is 6/21/2003 – 6/20/2008. For both UH and JAXA missing data was filled by linear interpolation.
Annual average ice extent corrected graph
Funny!
So it was
Re: GeneII (#592),
That should do for the Monty Python references.
#585 Shawn Whelan
Thanks for that post. It was the easiest to understand so far. And thanks for the map in #586
In reference to the Northwest Passage opening last year I can see that some commenters here are talking about the Prince of Wales Straight seen here But I think the McClure Straight, seen here opening last year, seen here is what Al Gore made a big deal out of last year. Am I wrong?
Also, the McClure Straight did not open this year?
And certainly this ill advised, monster-under-the-bed-hysteria prediction
“North Pole May Be Ice-Free This Year” didn’t happen
Re: GeneII (#595),
Nobody is declaring the Northern route of the NW Passage open this year to anything but icebreakers. And nothing but icebreakers have gone through. Much more ice than 2007.
Foul. Falsification that 2007 was a tipping point has occurred. Your statement is thus too broad and your snark misplaced. A bad 2008 would not have validated a 2007 tipping point–one data point is not enough for that. As to your only substantive point: we may look back and see that 1987 was the tipping point; however, that’s hardly germane to the discussion which is and has been about the reporting of the 2007 meltback and the wild prognostications that followed for this year.
The bars repesent a model based on one year of data giving the fraction of meltback for new and old ice. The model itself is a tipping point model because it assumes linearity: new ice melts further, can only be replaced with new ice, which then melts further. The prediction given failed precisely because the meltback is nonlinear. As I mentioned in the prior discussion, this is due to latitudial effects. New ice that is more Northenly melts back less than southernly new ice–ceteris paribus.
Re: Jon (#596) No “snark” at all. Your statement was so silly as to be “not even wrong”. I could explain why … unless you are happy living in denial.
Re: bender (#600):
There is a simple lesson here which is too delicate for your cocksure attitude. If 2008’s melt season ends with more ice than 2007, 2007 was not the tipping point. The tipping point is the point such that when we have no ice left in a persistent fashion we find the year which bounds all subsequent years. Other factors of variability may prevent us from finding the tipping point but they do not prevent us from ruling out particular melt seasons as the tipping point onto themselves.
Re: Jon (#602), You’ve asserted that incorrect statement twice now. Care for a lesson in dynamics?
Re: bender (#607):
I encourage you to go ahead, because what I see going on here is good faith elaboration on my part–repeating and expanding the same point didactically, meanwhile you chant wrong, wrong–earning yourself a bad reputation. I suggest before you write anything though that you deeply think to yourself, “I, bender, am wrong; I, bender, was curt and inattentive. I failed to read and carefully consider.” Do this meditation then reread the post. We await your reformation into an actual participant on this topic.
Re: Jon (#621),
When a “tipping point” is crossed the system proceeds quickly, inexorably, and deterministically toward the new equilibrium state. But it does not necessarily do so without stochastic deviations away from the deterministic trend. You are confusing measurement and sampling error with stochasticity. Whereas I am not. The failure of the 2008 ice extent to drop below that of 2007 does not at all indicate that a tipping point was not crossed. Do not forget that the existence of a tipping point says nothing about the shape of the basin of attraction around, or the separatrix between, the two attracting points. If the basin of attraction is shallow, then stochastic deviations about the deterministic trend may be quite large. By ignoring the issue of the shape of the basins of attraction and focusing simply on the existence or not of a tipping point you endorse an overly simplistic model that leads to an overly simplistic interpretation of the data.
This mistake is understandable, as it seems very few of the alarmists actually understand what a “tipping point” is and how to determine (1) whether one exists, (2) whether it has been crossed, and (3) whether it represents an irreversible hysteresis effect. These things things are assumed without proof.
To be concrete. Suppose AGW-driven melt rate has a hysteretic structure. A high/low rate of ice compaction due to the presence/absence of wind in 2007/2008 could easily pull the system temporarily away from its deterministic trend (ever decreasing ice extent) as it crosses a thermodynamic tipping point.
This is why it is silly to make too much out of one or two years of data.
Re: bender (#630),
Now that you’ve had your say, go back and read what I wrote. The tipping point may have occurred in the before 2007 or for other reasons but it is not 2007’s meltback onto itself–which is the subject of this thread.
That theory pushed in the media which was the start of this discussion gave a single state variable. Since we’ve returned to the initial conditions (and beyond), we can conclude that 2007 was not the threshold year in the terms of their argument.
So again your rightness about generalities does not make you right on the subject at hand which luckily is a weak argument that can be disproved by a single year of data. You need to be more aware of the subtle details of the arguments being made and discussed else you risk giving comfort to foolery.
Re: Jon (#642),
No we cannot. You have not understood the argument.
Re: bender (#646),
No ben, you keep wanting to recast the argument of the UK Independent into somethng more than it was. The logic of the original accounts to which we’ve been responding was a one parameter model.
Its really very disturbing that you cannot distinguish between the model on which an argument is based and the ‘true’ physical dynamics in the abstract. Your argument is false in this instance even if it is true about a more general physical system.
I happen to understand your point but apparently you do not understand what is that we’re talking about… and thus are rather severely wrong and misleading.
Re: Jon (#649), I simply responded to what you wrote in #572 – suggesting that a tipping point had clearly not been breached. I do not agree that such a conclusion is possible.
Now you suggest:
I’m concerned with your unsupportable statement in #572, nothing more. Shifting the context is not going to salvage the incorrect statement in #572.
Re: Jon (#642),
So now that you’ve had your say – again – go back and read what I wrote.
Re: Jon (#621), You may be a “participant” however your argument is flawed. And that is the substantive difference between my participiation and yours. Now, back to your incantations to the contrary.
#594 “By way of comparison the yacht Berrimilla left Dutch Harbor, Ak, this year ~17th June and reached Nuuk in Greenland by 25th August.”
OK i’ve just looked at this NW Passage issue for the first time. According to Phil’s link -http://www.ucalgary.ca/arcticexpedition/larsenexpeditions
– Larsen in 1944 left Greenland no earlier than the end of July, reached Pond Inlet by 12th August, then sailed through the Parry Channel, through the Prince of Wales Strait, out into the Beaufort Sea, and by September 27th had reached the Pacific.
( This is confirmed in more detail at http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=PYdBH4dOOM4C&pg=PA377&lpg=PA377&dq=larsen+%22pond+inlet%22&source=web&ots=hbB_wMFxih&sig=ygXOACEZCqZH2-4uvV8gcqxoGyw&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA377,M1 )
Is there anything more I need to know? NW Passage sailed with ease in 1944, sailed with ease again in 2008.
Re: Shawn Whelan (#585),
The S. Route that Amundsen used is open.
The NSIDC has not yet declared the N. Route(Parry Channel Route) open and only icebreakers traversed the N. Route this year. If it opened it was for a very short period and there was much more ice in the Parry Channel than last year.
Northwest Passage navigable, says federal ice authority
Randy Boswell , Canwest News Service
Published: Wednesday, August 13, 2008
The Northwest Passage has been declared “navigable” again this summer by the federal government’s ice authority, the latest indication of how Canada’s polar frontier is being transformed by retreating ice and the prospect of increased shipping, tourism and resource development.
While noting that the southern route of the passage is “not yet open water” and that “lots of ice” remains in the Larsen Sound area east of Victoria Island, Canadian Ice Service senior forecaster Luc Desjardins told Canwest News Service on Wednesday that “a navigable corridor surely exists now as one can avoid the various ice floes.”
Oh dear, just reviewed my last post, and realised someone’s going to pick me up on the “with ease” references. OK here’s a quote from the Berrimilla blog on 15th Aug re: 1 to 2/10 ice which Phil said Larsen would “laugh at”:
“Ice this dense,1/10 to 2/10, doesn’t just float around, it plays bumper penguin. One moving piece bumps into the next stopping but causes the next piece to take off, and so on. Openings close quickly and new opening happen just as fast. It’s hard enough in the daylight, just try it in the dark. The unlucky boat gets caught. The really unlucky boat gets damaged. You really have to stay on your toes. Add land and the ice stacks up with a continuous buildup. Extreme buildup causes pressure ridges and kills ships.”
And a quote from 17th August:
“…we have been astoundingly lucky so far and I don’t think we could have got through a day earlier. If all the six or seven boats that we know about get through this year, there will be a hundred trying next year. For their benefit, I think I should say loud and clear that it isn’t as easy as it might look. It has been the most difficult thing I have ever done – makes Cape Horn look like a jolly by comparison – and we have done it in an easy year. If just a couple of things had gone the other way, we could have been in very serious trouble – and we’re by no means on our way home yet.”
http://awberrimilla.blogspot.com/2008_08_01_archive.html
From the “Exploring Polar Frontiers” book linked to in previous post:
“…Ice conditions were difficult, but Larsen was generally able to find open water along the northern side of Parry Channel, though he had to make his way north of Byam Island to do so. By now, the experimental gyrocompass with which St Roch had been equipped was not working, and the magnetic compass remained firmly stuck straight ahead. With continuous snowstorms obscuring the sun, all Larsen had to guide him were Admiralty charts (for the most part compiled in the middle of the nineteenth century) and his sense of direction. Fortunately, the weather cleared before he had to cross McClure Strait to find the narrow entrance to Prince of Wales Strait”
Enough respect to both the crew of the Berrimilla, and to Larsen. Both sailed the NW Passage in a matter of weeks, and both made it look easy despite some difficult conditions.
Re: Chris (#599),
Indeed I’d be reluctant to describe any of it as easy, Berrimilla is closing in on Ireland near the end of their voyage from Sydney, Australia to Falmouth England via the NW Passage! This last week they’ve been ‘surfing along’ with a 35 – 40 mph wind, left over hurricanes? Going through the Passage at one point they found themselves sharing a wave with a Bowhead whale, no joke in a 10m fibreglass yacht. The 2/10 ice they went through is of much more concern to an unreinforced yacht compared with an ice reinforced boat like the St Roch which by Larsen’s descriptions went through far worse as this photo shows.
Re: Chris (#599),
The Berrimilla would never have made it through Larsen’s Northern route in 2008.
# 601 Phil. before leaving for work and others including Geoff Sherrington GWS, “Berrimilla” means ‘kingfisher'[bird] in one (or several??)
aboriginal language(s), if the source is correct…[I didn’t really think
it was ‘strein’ or ‘Sydneyan’ for “Barry Miller”, just a silly joke!]
#606
Thanks Shawn
The difference in area between 2008 and 2007 is about the same as California.
Here is an August documentary from Australia’s ABC 4corners program called “Tipping Point” that might interest you. It’s pretty alarmist as most TV docs are nowadays:
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/special_eds/20080804/arctic/default.htm
– Ernie.
Ill-informed layman question again. During August in the Arctic there was a lot of wind. This caused compaction of (new?) ice and exposed large areas of sea surface which I believe registered as increased melt. The compacted (new?) ice will be frozen together this winter. Although the volume may not be large, will it not add to the multi-year ice and be less likely to melt in 2009?
Re: Richard111 (#611),
The unstated assumption here is “all things being equal”. The AGW prediction is that, year to year, not all things are equal – that there are overriding factors governing melt that will supercede the compaction and re-freeze effect.
Re: bender (#617),
The summer ice extent has been decreasing over the satellite period. Even if 2008 does not exceed 2007 that will not change the trend appreciably. Obviously on average each year must have melted multiyear ice. So while it may slow the trend some, I can’t see where it’s going to prevent a decrease if the conditions are the same.
Re: BarryW (#622), We are currently experiencing a solar minimum. I went to http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~obs/intro.html, and I note that they have seen no sun spots for 56 days. This could relate as a change of conditions for the arctic ice, elsewhere as well.
Re: Richard111 (#611),
The winds in the latter half of the summer has not been compaction, they have typically been blowing fragmented old ice out from the Arctic basin towards Beaufort and Chukchi into more favorable conditions for melting, hence the divergence between area (still decreasing) and extent (currently increasing).
If anything if the current distribution of ice was frozen in place it would be more likely to breakup in a similar manner next summer. However some good gales over the next few weeks could lead to compaction in which case there still could be a rapid drop in extent. Basically we have the same area of seaice as last year spread out over ~12% more sea.
Preliminary Unofficial Day 257 Race Report
2008 has another slow day; now over 440K behind 2007.
9 14 2002 NA NA
9 14 2003 6.146563 -0.033750
9 13 2004 5.854375 0.047656
9 14 2005 5.522344 0.015781
9 14 2006 5.781719 -0.032344
9 14 2007 4.291250 -0.032500
9 13 2008 4.732344 -0.012812
Just how warm have the last two summers been in the NW Passage area?
I’ve had a look through GISS station data:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/
(Taking summer as June/July/Aug; please bear in mind I haven’t triple-checked my calculations below)
There’s only two stations in the area with data back as far as the early 1940s. Averaging their results gives summers 2007-8 (7.03C) as being marginally cooler than summers 1941-1944 (7.1C)
Cambridge Bay
1941-1944 average: 6.5C
2007-8 average: 6.75C
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en&q=map+cambridge+bay&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=X&oi=geocode_result&resnum=1&ct=title
Coppermine
1941-1944 average: 7.7C
2007-8 average: 7.3C
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Coppermine,+Kugluktuk,+Nunavut,+Canada&ie=UTF8&ll=67.829286,-115.122213&spn=0.00745,0.034719&z=15&iwloc=addr
Such a comparison for Resolute would also be interesting, however its data only go back to 1947. Nonetheless, i’ve compiled a league table of its warmest summers since then:
1st equal – 1958 and 2007: 4.5C
3rd equal – 1962 and 1998: 4.1C
5th – 1960: 3.8C
6th – 2008: 3.7C
7th equal – 1949, 1951, 1952 and 1977: 3.2C
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=resolute&sll=67.829286,-115.122213&sspn=0.00745,0.034719&ie=UTF8&ll=74.698434,-94.839993&spn=0.020839,0.138874&z=13&iwloc=addr
I’d have thought we should be seeing rather a more striking change in summer temperatures if we were nearing a tipping point?
Adjusted JAXA sea ice extent:
09,13,2008,4742344
i.e. an upward revision of 10,000 km2 exactly.
So daily change now -0.002812 (rather than -0.012812)
Resolute was established in 1947. The original plan was to locate it on Melville Island. Larsen could not get through the Prince of Wales Strait which was frozen solid and a large American icebreaker from the East could not reach Melville Island so the base was located where Resolute now is.
In ’44 Larsen easily sailed the Passage and in ’47 it was froze up solid. Things change fast in the Arctic.
Hence net increase has now extended to 6 days
09,07,2008,4739844
09,13,2008,4742344
On the other hand, note the biggest late season drop in recent years was in 2005:
09,14,2005,5522344
09,22,2005,5315156
So if you want to be pessimistic, we could still see a minimum close to 4500000 km2 (or ~5 per cent above 2007 minimum).
As compared to the 10.7 per cent increase on the 2007 minimum if the 9th Sep remains the 2008 minimum.
Just wondering. When the arctic begins a rebuilding of ice over the next several years, as it has so many times in the past, what thread will AGW latch onto?
Re: Mike Bryant (#619),
Do you mean climate change?
CT ice area update 9/14/2008
region area(Mm2) difference anomaly
Arctic 3.004 -0.025 -1.985
Antarctic 14.950 -0.048 -0.069
Still no minimum for the Arctic. Ice concentration continues to decrease, now 63%. It’s a large stretch for me to believe that compaction can cause both a decrease in area and an increase in extent. It’s really too bad that U.Hamburg only updates once/month. Compared to U.H., JAXA appears to overstate extent and CT understates area.
“The amount of sea ice around Antarctica has grown in recent Septembers in what could be an unusual side-effect of global warming, experts say.”- from New Scientist
Perhaps global warming will now increase the sea ice in the Arctic.
Re: Real Richard Sharpe (#625), It is true that maybe 3 or 4 spots have been recorded by the observatory at Catania but Mt. Wilson has not seen these events during the last 56 days. There has been arguments about mixing the historical record with more modern observations. All that aside the sun is currently in a minimum and it remains to be seen how this is changing the climate and if so how to quantify the changes.
Is climate change the preferred moniker of AGW on this blog?
Re: Mike Bryant (#627),
With CO2 emmissions hugely increasing and the Earth cooling it sounds better if you call it Climate Change rather than referring to it as AGW.
#623 “Perhaps global warming will now increase the sea ice in the Arctic.”
See excerpt from dictionary last updated Sep 2018:
“El Arctico – popular name given to periodic Arctic weather fluctuation causing greater summer melt in the Arctic Ocean than usual. There was a strong El Arctico episode during 2007-2008…”
And see e.g. quote from blog, also Sep 2018: “Of course if you draw a line from the 2007-8 El Arctico to now, you can claim the summer ice is on an upward trend. But remember the 2009-2010 recovery was merely a bounce caused by La Arctica, and since then we’ve had some of the lowest summer extents on record. And this year’s minimum (remember it’s no higher than in 2006) was merely a brief return to La Arctica. Anything less than a 2-decade average is merely noise…..”
And so on and so forth, until 2030.
Preliminary Unofficial Day 257 Race Report
2030 has another slow day; now over 440K behind 2029.
9 14 2025 2.146563 -0.033750
9 14 2026 1.854375 0.047656
9 14 2027 1.522344 0.015781
9 13 2028 1.781719 -0.032344
9 14 2029 0.291250 -0.032500
9 14 2030 0.732344 -0.012812
I hope I’ve managed to get a life by then, rather than keep returning to watch this ridiculously addictive “race” 🙂
At least in the scenario above there would be no disputes over how open the NW Passage is 🙂 🙂
It’s a shame satellites weren’t in orbit during the Medieval Warming Period and the Roman Warming Period (600 BC-200 AD). Arctic ice may have been completely gone for a stretch of time during those Periods.
There is unsound emphasis being put on the last 29 years of satellite records.
It’s a shame satellites weren’t in orbit during the Medieval Warming Period and the Roman Warming Period. Arctic ice may have been completely gone for a stretch of time during those Periods.
There is unsound emphasis being put on the last 29 years of satellite records.
Re: GeneII (#631),
That is essentially my point.
Tipping points are defined by models, not by short-term time-series data. To determine whether or not you’ve crossed a tipping point is not a trivial exercise that can be definitively answered in a short paragraph. To think it can is silly.
From Lubos Motl at The Reference Frame, this story
NORTHWEST PASSAGE OPEN! But not this year. Time Magazine Archive, Monday, Sep. 13, 1937
Re: GeneII (#635), There is unsound emphasis being put on one-off anecdotes in this thread.
Re: GeneII (#635),
Typical Motl nonsense, but it was GeneII who said this:
“NORTHWEST PASSAGE OPEN! But not this year.” Which is of course not true.
Re: Phil. (#643),
Phil,
I’m puzzled.
Motl links to Time article from the magazine’s historic pages and makes a logical comment about the observation that, reportedly, 2 ships sailing in opposite direction met up in the course of their voyages and you classify that as “Typical Motl nonsense.”
Typical Time magazine nonsense, surely?
Or is there another explanation for your opinion?
Here are my graphs for yesterday’s ice extent data, based upon revised IARC/JAXA Ice Extent data. There was an upward revision of the area this morning (10,000 km^2).
Daily Arctic Sea Ice Extent Reduction Day 257
Arctic Sea Ice Extent Day 257
2008 Arctic Ice Extent Differences From Previous Years Day 257
Arctic Sea Ice Total Drops from Peaks Day 257
#613 …Chris…I think the UHIE of these hamlets [to be or not to bees…] is at least 0.5C higher now compared to the 40’s. See for example Hinkel et al’s Barrow
winter UHI survey…Iqaluit has some 2.000 more inhabitants than Barrow!!
But no astro-turf fotball field?? [I would also say that the bigger
research stations on the Antarctic peninsula have considerable UHI:s…]
Population increases by 1-2% a year in the Nunavut minitowns. The
mayor of Resolute, Aziz Kheraj, of Tanzanian-Indian decent, is also
a hotel owner and apparently some of the other 228 or so inhabitants
think he shouldn’t be both…
#637 Staffan: the Hinkel survey looks great! Haven’t got time to read it properly now, but did enjoy one phrase skimming through the first couple of pages – “The population of high-latitude communities is typically relatively small, and urbanized areas often lack
the towering skyscrapers associated with large cities.” High latitude doesn’t equal high rise then? I suppose you’ve got to spell it out for people who thought Resolute was Manhattan on ice!!!
Is the Arctic ice really so unusually spread out. On CT it looks pretty compact compared to 1993, which had a similarly “shaped” September ice extent, albeit obviously on a larger scale.
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=09&fd=14&fy=1993&sm=09&sd=14&sy=2008
Re Tipping Points. I would just like to point out that the only climatic tipping point known to exist is the one between glacial and interglacial climates. It is known that this shift happens quite rapidly and apparently represents a switch between two relatively stable climatic modes that is probably irreversible in the short term.
There is absolutely no evidence that there is a similar tipping point between an interglacial and “superinterglacial” climate. This is of course not proof that one does not exist, only that it has not been reached in the past, not even during the last interglacial when arctic temperatures were 4-10 degrees higher than now.
On the other hand it is known that the shift to glacial climate at the end of the Eemian occurred when high-latitude insolation was only about 3 % lower than today. So it is to be hoped that the various harebrained technological fixes for global warming are never tried. They might just possibly succeed…..
Steve McIntyre pointed out this story in “Sea Ice – the Stretch Run (#1 of this thread)” in comment #4
Will we find DotEarth posting any comments on this prediction being wrong?
Re: GeneII (#645),
GeneII, Andy Revkin promised to do another post at ice minimum. He’s a believer, but fair and honest.
=============================================================
Re: GeneII (#645),
A rather strange thing to do when it wasn’t wrong!
Re: Phil. (#651),
Well, Phil, I’ve observed both Andy Revkin and you in action and I think he will not be willing to wriggle out from those predictions sophistically. He understands that ice extent at minimum is the standard, and won’t get disingenuous with ‘extraordinary’ and ‘retreat’. At least I don’t believe he will.
==================================================
Re: kim (#654),
There’s nothing to ‘wriggle out’ of, it’s a histogram of the different forecast values.
Re: GeneII (#645),
GeneII, Andy Revkin’s article about ice extent is now up at DotEarth, and my faith in his honesty is affirmed. I disagree with his article, but it is not unfair. He does admit that ice extent at minimum this year is greater than last year.
=======================================
Another guy that went through the Northern Route of the NW Passage and then turned back. The Passage that was frozen in all of history until 2007(according to scientific ‘consensus’) was sailed by W. E Parry in 1819-20, Bernier in 1908-9 and again in 1910-11 and Larsen in 1944. And a few others I have not mentioned. And was entered from the West by McClure around 1850. Maybe it hasn’t actually been frozen solid all those years before 2007? And the warming experienced in the Arctic is nothing new?
“The next year the Arctic was again dispatched north. During the expedition of 1908-9, Bernier was able to get as far west as Cape Hay on Melville Island, wintering in Winter Harbour until the spring of 1909. While icebound, parties from the ship crossed McClure Strait and explored the surrounding region. Before leaving Melville on July 1, 1909, Bernier erected a tablet proclaiming the annexation by Canada of the entire Arctic Archipelago. This tablet still stands on that uninhabited island.
On the Arctic’s third expedition in 1910-11, Bernier took the vessel North to patrol the Davis Strait, Baffin Bay, Lancaster Sound, Barrow Strait, Viscount Melville Sound and McClure Strait. Open water in McClure Strait tempted Bernier to attempt the Northwest Passage, but because this would have exceeded his orders, he resisted. Once again the vessel wintered in the North, but this time it anchored at Admiralty Inlet. Parties on sled were dispatched across the region to explore and conduct scientific surveys. ”
http://www.ucalgary.ca/arcticexpedition/icebreakers/cgs-arctic
#651 Phil, for various reasons extent is important when sea ice refreeze, otherwise why does your automatic freezer defrosting function
not stop 2/3 into defrosting (if it works properly, GWS) [Myself stuck
with 9 years old Gorenje (Slovenia)manual freezer defrosting, but makes
nice ice experiments…] Consider this post being number 666…Gotta
work the mouldy bread crumbs again…Chris: I phoned John Christy in
Huntsville about that Hinkel Barrow survey just before Katrina 2005…
Well, he didn’t say he had heard of it(?) and I don’t know of other similar UHIE
high latitude minitown investigations…There is still research to do
folks…
#657 …Gotta work FOR the mouldy bread…
Re: #648 kim
Ok. I will wait to see if he admits his blog post was biased and that the story should have been posted at his New York Times blog with a clear, visible disclaimer about the prediction.
I will also await his acknowledgment that since Al Gore’s movie there has been a rash of hysteria in the media about this issue and that he clearly has been a part of it.
Preliminary Unofficial Day 258 Race Report
2008 slump continues; now over 460K behind 2007.
9 15 2002 NA NA
9 15 2003 6.049844 -0.096719
9 14 2004 5.901094 0.046719
9 15 2005 5.492500 -0.029844
9 15 2006 5.794063 0.012344
9 15 2007 4.267813 -0.023437
9 14 2008 4.731719 -0.010625
One commenter from the Revkin thread, doug l, says:
Count me among those who think prediction one year in advance is a fool’s game. The uncertainty on the causes is too large. The ice extent time-series are uninterpretible.
Revkin aptly named the thread “most-experts-foresee-a-repeat-at-least-of-2007-arctic-ice-loss”. Given the stochasticity and uncertainty there is little to choose between the two years 2007 and 2008. A “recovery” can not be concluded. Neither can it be concluded that they system has not crossed a deterministic tipping point. Both camps are wrong. The undecided win.
Another reasonable comment from the Revkin thread:
There is an important distinction between healthy skepticism and unhealthy denial.
Ice Extent Plotted
Definitely will be interesting to see if we get a double dip.
Here is another reasonable comment:
No one knows what the next ten years holds for the future of the sea ice. If it all melts, no one knows how it will affect the polar bears, or the rest of Earth’s climate.
Re: Mike Bryant (#664),
Ten years? That’s pessimistic. I would start by answering doug l’s question in #661. Maybe the 5 research groups that refused to issue a one-year prediction, 2007 vs 2008, did so figuring it would be too close to call. In which case (1) they would have been right and (2) their 10-year predictions might be of interest.
Re: bender (#667),
Or ten years might be optimistic if the loss of ice causes the moderation of climate. My point was that no one knows. GCMs definitely have no clue.
Yes its called regression to the mean.
The trouble is when actors try to play both sides of the coin. They rely on the emotional force of the layman’s interpretation, and admit when pressed “excepting weather variability”. You see the variance should give you pause about whether the model is complete. For instance, a model which assumes that changing albedo of the arctic is the only cause of the sea ice extent variance is demonstrably wrong with only one year of data. We can make such a strong conclusion because the model excludes any other explanation by definition.
“If it all melts, no one knows how it will affect the polar bears”
I predict it will cause polar bears to feast on seals who would then be forced on shore to rest. The bears would not need to forage nearly as far for seals.
#655 Phil
“If I’d commented on the deployment of NP-35 you might have a point!”
See quote from your earlier post.
“….”An ice-floe suitable for the unit could not be located until September 18, when the Akademik Fedorov scientific-expedition ship, following in the path of a Russian ice-breaker, discovered an area with a two-year build up of ice.”
Note that they usually like to select a site with 2.5m thick ice.”
Looks like you commented on its deployment to me.
Or check out #316 earlier on same thread:
“…This had been presaged by the difficulty that they’d had in finding a suitable floe to site the station on last fall, they appear to have picked a thinner one than usual as a result…”
Again looks like you commented on its deployment to me.
“Given the data I posted previously the average thickness for multiyear ice in the basin is ~2.5m”
So let’s get this straight, on RC, you’ve used the strongest language to discredit my reasonable interpretation of the buoy data, and my questioning of the NSIDC map, which does not show a single buoy thickness of more than 2.39m, even in the area with the thickest ice N of the Canadian Archipelago/Greenland, by 20th August.
And now you’re suggesting the average thickness for multiyear ice in the basin is still ~2.5m when it suits your argument!
“You post with a clear bias using emotional descriptions which are really inappropriate in a scientific discussion”
Unfair. At least when I post with a bias, it is clear. You are selective with the facts in order to promote your equally strong views, while claiming to be unbiased – which is worse.
“…note that several have posted here re the warming in Norway in 1922, I think I’m the only one who pointed out that at that time Wrangel Island was ice-bound for two years and all but one of an expedition died. I don’t recall your commenting on the bias of those posters?”
Wrangel Island is a long way from Norway. I didn’t follow the discussion, but sounds like they were posting re: how one part of the Arctic was relatively ice-free at that time, and you pointed out that another part was relatively ice-bound. Relevance to my “bias”?
Actually I did assume that some of the posters re: Norway, NW Passage etc were biased, especially given your responses to many of their posts, which appeared to demolish theirs. However, I hadn’t looked at any of these issues in detail myself. So for example re: the NW Passage, I got the impression, from the exchanges, that it was never sailed in one season in the 1930s/1940s. Then when I eventually got round to looking into it for myself, I discovered in 10 minutes that Larsen did indeed sail straight through the northern route of the passage in a matter of weeks in 1944. Surely this is more important than which particular sub-passages may have been blocked, or whether he could have taken a detour through the McClure strait towards the end (what would have been the point?). Or whether conditions were difficult for Larsen in the S Beaufort sea in late September. If you were so unbiased, couldn’t you have at least accepted that the NW Passage was indeed sailed in a matter of weeks, and made this clear so that people not focussed on the issue would get the right impression?
What is even more important than being clear about what is opinion/emotion, in what is after all a semi-light-hearted blog discussion rather than a full-on scientific discourse, is simple generosity of spirit. Volunteering information that doesn’t sit easily with your views. Putting people right about factual points and biases in a helpful way rather than using condescension. Not having to always be right at all costs.
In my post #555 I made reference to my mother claiming that the modern day warming of the Artic had been replicated in her own formative years of the 1920/30’s as she had seen the newsreels. The initial comments are relevant to unprecedented arctic warming and the unprecedented storms that warming supposedly brings, so please stick with it
Our fishing town of Teignouth on the South Coast of Devon has regularly had its fishing fleet destroyed by great storms-the earliest documented event being in 1317. The family of my daughters best friend sailed with Elizabeth the first and escaped when another great storm destroyed the Spanish armadas in 1588. One vessel was destroyed just off our beach and to this day its guns lie in our museum with which I am involved
The fortunes of the town changed drastically from 1497 when ‘the townspeople were greatly excited by the discovery of Newfoundland and in particular by the stories of great amounts of cod.’ Our men spent 6 months a year there, sailing in tiny 30 ton ships and many Teignmouth families settled there. ‘There was great competition to get the dried and salted cod back to Teignmouth and gain the best prices.’ The fish store is here to this day.
According to the great gazetteer of 1759 ‘many handsome buildings were erected due to the Newfoundland trade’.
The wars of Independence meant many local boats were caught by the French at the Grand Banks fishing area and letters in the 1790 express concern at the activities of the French-understandably as our town was sacked by them in 1690. It was during the colonial wars that two things happened.
Firstly the amount of ice in the arctic dramatically reduced-an observation made by whalers, the Hudson Bay co and the admiralty. It eventually came to the notice of the President of the royal society in 1817. His comments are so well known they do not need repeating to such an illustrious audience, as a botanist he was very excited about new lands opening up and asked the navy to investigate the sources of the ‘unprecedented warming’. The consequence of this warming event from the 1780s was two fold in Teignmouth. Firstly the great cod shoals moved on and was replaced by herring which was not as popular. This causing the catastrophic decline of the local fleets and seamen had to do something else. Many joined the navy to fight the wars against the French, went whaling or turned to trade—one local family stopped fishing, fought with Nelson then became greengrocers-which they are to this day. The effects on the Teignmiuth Newfoundland fleet were dramatic, with vessel numbers dropping from 43 in 1770 to some six by 1790-due to a combination of the missing cod caused by changing climate and the French.
Fast forward to my mums era who was born in 1922. This well known ref to climate change in the arctic was published that year
‘Sailed 81 degrees north in ice free water which showed the Gulf Stream very warm.’
Undoubtedly the warming my mum referred to and the newsreels she saw would be related to the renowned Canadian ice captain Bob Bartlett who had an illustrious career, most notably in the vessel ‘Morrissey’ and was said to have been as famous as the pop stars were to my generation raised in the sixties. The link below should be followed down to the ‘statement of significance’ .Bartlett made some 20 voyages into the arctic getting as far north as 80 degrees north, remarkably similar to the Kayaker Pugh.
http://www.nps.gov/history/maritime/nhl/ernest.htm
Some of the videos made from the newsreel seem to be available for purchase.
‘Beginning in 1926, Bartlett made annual voyages into the Arctic — many with professional cameramen on board. The newsreels made on these voyages made Bartlett and the Morrissey household names across North America.
The voyages were more than mere publicity stunts, however. Sponsored by a number of museums and institutions, the Morrissey carried teams of scientists to the Arctic where they collected flora and fauna, conducted experiments and gathered data on the little known regions of the Far North. Bartlett took the Morrissey on an expedition to Greenland in 1940, pushing her relentlessly through the pack ice to set a record for any wooden sailing vessel by reaching latitude 80 degrees 22 minutes North- only 578 miles from the North Pole.
In 1932 my mum would have seen reports of further Arctic melting
My mother would have been aware of all these events during her formative years, from reading the newspapers and watching the Pathe newsreels.
The arctic has had well documented periods of recent warming. It is sophistry and nuance to argue over Larsen’s voyages. Whether the ice melt today was the same as, more than, or the same as the events recorded here I will leave it to others to debate, but I think we are talking about ‘very similar’.
Bearing in mind the 20/30’s was a warm period not as pronounced as the MWP I am surprised that people have such short memories of events. After all we are not talking about events a thousand years ago, but ones within the memory of our oldest inhabitants.
Sorry for the length of this post but we are splitting hairs. Warming is nothing new and the lesson to be learnt is surely that arctic sea ice is perhaps much more fragile than we have been taught to believe. Unfortunately my mother died last year so I can’t ask for her memories, but as we cascade down the generations our local records remain as a continuous thread illuminating the past. From Bronze Age dwellings through medieval farm houses abandoned on Dartmoor as the climate cooled, through crop records demonstrating changes from warm weather to cool weather crops, Temperature records dating to 1659. Accounts of the changing climate by learned people from Tacitus the Roman, through the Venerable Bede, the Doomsday book, Chaucer, Pepys et al all demonstrate that history continually repeats itself with events and climate.
I do get fed up when people refer to such evidence as ‘anecdotal’ yet happily promote the most weird, wonderful and unproven theories based on computer models.
Tony Brown
Re: Tony Brown (#670),
Time Magazine covered the sailing of the NW Passage in the 30’s.
Re: jae (#689),
This isn’t news. If you had actually read the thread, you would have seen that this was posted yesterday here.
Regarding Revkin’s thread, recall that he wrote: ice retreat at least as extraordinary as last year’s or even more dramatic. That can be interpreted a number of ways. If 2008 has, let’s say, only 15% more ice at its minimum than 2007, certainly some will claim that it is “at least as extraordinary as last year’s”.
Re: John Goetz (#671),
There is no need for interpretation since the data he was referring to were in numerical form and he linked to them here.
Also although the predictions were made in reference to sea ice extent we have the situation this year of a relatively lower sea ice area, although that might yet change.
Re: Phil. (#674), Observation, so far, puts us right in the middle of that histogram. i.e. Observed matches predicted within uncertainty bounds.
Re: Mike Bryant (#675), I got your point and I am disputing that “no one knows”. The forecasters who figured 2008 would be close to 2007 might have a credible guess at what to expect over 10 years. There is uncertainty on these predictions. But there is not total ignorance.
Re: bender (#676),
It’s not the middle. The median is 4.2 and the current extent is 4.7 Mm2. Only 3 predictions are higher while 8 are lower. The bounds are so wide, a range from 3.1 to 5.5 Mm2, that it’s much like the problem with falsifying GCM’s, you can claim almost anything is within the predicted bounds. But a sawed off shotgun isn’t very useful at long range.
Re: DeWitt Payne (#683)
Agreed. Except that some of the individual guesses may have been more credible than some of the others. In which case the most appropriate uncertainty level to consider may not be the ensemble uncertainty, but that of the best guess. The ensemble uncertainty may be far larger than that of the best guess.
I have no idea how these guesses are made. Maybe there is nothing to choose betwen them. I rather doubt it, though.
Re: bender (#676),
OK, I’ll try to get a response one more time. “credible guess”, “uncertainty”, That means they do not know. I feel like I’m stuck in a wierd nightmare, or an old movie. Do you work for the ministry of truth? Why can’t you simply say, “No one knows.”?
Why can’t you say, “There IS total ignorance of the future?”
Re: Mike Bryant (#686),
You think “there is total ignorance” about how the climate system functions? No predictability whatsoever?
Re: bender (#693),
I never said there is total ignorance about how the climate functions. Did you even read my comment? I said we are ignorant of what the future holds. When anyone makes a good prediction of sea ice extent, you can bet that there were many others who missed it completely. Also, one good prediction does not guarantee that the next prediction will be good. This does not say that these gentlemen are ignorant, only that they do not know the future. As you said,
“I am disputing that “no one knows”. The forecasters who figured 2008 would be close to 2007 might have a credible guess at what to expect over 10 years. There is uncertainty on these predictions. But there is not total ignorance.”
You said “MIGHT have a credible GUESS” and “UNCERTAINTY on these PREDICTIONS” which both mean that they do not know, which is what I said from the beginning. Please do not change what I said. Please do not obfuscate. Please give me the name of the person who knows what the future holds for sea ice extent. All I need are the low extent numbers and dates for the next ten years. If no one knows, just say that no one knows.
Why does this have to be so difficult?
Re: Mike Bryant (#704),
Yes. And you are misquoting me. There were two parts to what I said and you pasted the first in order to distort my position.
It is a massive distortion of reality to suggest that nothing is known about the future. Temperatures were predicted in 1987 to rise, and they did, up until 2001. Should the trend return in the next few years, the projections will be heading in the direction predicted, possibly even back on track. I don’t call that “total ignorance”. You do. Whatever.
Jon in #665 complains that the models are possibly incomplete and then you protest when someone attempts to complete them. The skeptics can’t have it both ways. We know the models are incomplete. We know they will need to be revised as new data come in. This is not suspicious if the changes can be explained and justified.
Jared’s #706 is a more tempered position:
In short, we do not know yet if Hansen was right. If GMT has stopped rising because oceans are heating and ice is melting, he may have been more-or-less right. Your assertions that he was wrong carry no weight.
Re 670
Sorry – 80 deg 22 min north is definitely not a record for a wooden sailing ship. William Scoresby got to 81 deg 30 min near Spitzbergen in 1806.
As a matter of fact plenty of Norwegian sealers probably got north of 80 deg 22 min during the nineteenth century. They regularily sailed through Hinlopenstraedet between West Spitzbergen and Nordaustlandet. The northern end of the strait (Verlegenhuken) is at 80 deg 3 min.
As a matter of fact even the dutch whalers probably got further north back during the LIA in the seventeenth century. The old dutch whaling station Smeerenburg on Amsterdamöya is at 79 deg 45 min.
Here’s some extracts from Nansen’s record of his voyages:
http://ia360638.us.archive.org/3/items/farthestnorthbei02nans/farthestnorthbei02nans_djvu.txt
“…Friday, May 24th…While we were having breakfast to-day I went out and took a meridian altitude, which, to our delight, made us 82° 52′ N….
Sunday, May 26th….I reckon that we did 20 miles southward yesterday, and should thus be now in latitude 82° 40′ N….I am in a continual state of wonderment at the ice we are now travelling over. It is flat and good, with only smallish pieces of broken-up ice lying about, and a
large mound or small ridge here and there, but all of it
is ice which can hardly be winter-old, or at any rate has
been formed since last summer. It is quite a rarity to
come across a small tract of older ice, or even a single
old floe which has lain the summer through — so rare, in
fact, that at our last camping-place it was impossible to
find any ice which had been exposed to the summer sun,
and consequently freed from salt. We were obliged to
be content with snow for our drinking-water. Certain
it is that where these great expanses of flat ice come
from there was open water last summer or autumn, and
that of no little extent, as we have passed over many
miles of this compact ice the whole day yesterday and
a good part of the previous day, besides which there
were formerly a considerable number of such tracts in
between older, summer-old ice….
Friday, May 31st…..The ice we are now travelling over is almost entirely new ice with occasional older floes in between. It con- tinues to grow thinner, here it is for the greater part not more than 3 feet in thickness, and the floes are as flat as when they were frozen…..Took a meridian altitude to-day, and we should be in 82° 21′ N……
Sunday, June 2d…….The lane which stopped us yesterday did not close, but opened wider until there was a big sea to the west of us, and we were living on a floe in the midst of it with- out a passage across anywhere. So, at last, what we
have so often been threatened with has come to pass:
we must set to work and make our kayaks seaworthy….All this, of course, had to be done with care, and w^as not quick work ; but then we had the satisfaction of knowing that the kayaks were fully seaworthy, and capable, if need be, of weathering a
storm on the way over to Spitzbergen……
Saturday, June 8th….When we tried the kayaks in a little lane just here we found them considerably leaky in the seams and also in the canvas, from their rough usage on the way, but it is to be hoped no more so than will be remedied when a
little soaking makes the canvas swell out…..”
Then later in the summer:
“…Wednesday, August 24th…”It was at midnight between the 17th and i8th that we set off from our last camping-ground in splendid weather. Though it was cloudy and the sun invisible, there was along the horizon in the north the most glorious ruddy glow with golden sun – tipped clouds, and the sea lay
shining and dreamy in the distance : a marvellous night. . . . On the surface of the sea, smooth as a mirror, without a block of ice as far as the eye could reach, glided the kayaks, the water purling off the paddles at every silent stroke. It was like being in a gondola on the Canale Grande. But there was somethinc: almost nn- canny about all this stillness, and the barometer had gone down rapidly. Meanwhile, we sped towards the headland in the south -southwest, which I thought was
about 12 miles off…..I now thought I could safely conclude that we were on the west coast of Franz Josef Land, and were at this moment a little north of Leigh Smith’s most northwesterly point, Cape Lofiey, which should lie a little
south of 81° north latitude, while our observation that day made us about 81° 19′ north latitude…..
The following day (August 29th) we prepared to try
our luck at walrus-hunting…….
….We had now had enough of this sport, however; the walrus only lay gasping for breath, and just as we rowed towards it it turned its head a little, and received two bullets just behind the ear. It lay still, and we rowed up to throw our harpoon ; but before we got near enough it sank and disappeared……
……Meanwhile the storm was steadily increasing, the spray dashed over us, and we drifted farther and farther out to sea. The situation was not pleasant. At length, however, we got clear, and now discovered, to our joy, that by exerting our utmost strength we could just force the kayaks on against the wind. It was a hard pull, and our arms ached ; but still we crept slowly on towards land. The sea was choppy and bad, but our kayaks were good sea -boats; and even mine, with the bullet-hole in it, did so well that I kept to some extent dry…..”
Anecdotes, anecdotes. Why don’t we tell stories about the width of tree rings in 1930?
Re: bender (#677),
Well, once you can find the official satellite observations from the 1800-1940s, then there will be no need to look at anecdotes from that period.
Re: Jared (#705),
You can misrepresent and ridicule my position. Or you can agree with me that one should not speculate beyond the limits of the available data. Your choice is telling.
Re: bender (#707),
I was simply pointing out that science requires we all the information we have to draw conclusions. To only look at the satellite data of the past 30 years would be short-sighted, foolish, and not very scientifc at all.
Re: bender (#707),
I must admit I find it somewhat humorous that people cling to the theory that the Earth is reaching a tipping point and will burn to a crisp due to a tiny amount of manmade CO2 added to the atmosphere. Of course the funny part is that as CO2 emissions have hugely icreased the Earth has cooled yet the converted blindly cling to the theory and refuse to even condider evidence that refutes it.
Re: Shawn Whelan (#714),
“Burn to a crisp?” Is that what IPCC AR4 predicts? What page?
These systematic distortions of the facts are most distasteful.
Re: Shawn Whelan (#714),
Yes, that’s me to a T. Blindly clinging to my precious, fragile faith.
Re: Shawn Whelan (#714),
Evidence which exists only in the fertile imagination of the commenter.
#672 and 673
With my post #670 I was not for one minute attempting to claim a record for the Northwards advancement of a weooden ship-in fact quite the opposite. My point is there is lots of proof that the current arctic cicumstances are nothing extraordinary and man has frequently found the Arctic sea ice to be melting. What all these records demonstrate perhaps is that the Arctic sea ice is more fragile than we generally believe.
Post 677
Bender-how are these anecdotes? These are accounts written down by real people living real lives often in considerable hardship and who are very aware of their surroundings. I find them far more convincing than many computer models which even the IPCC admit are flawed.
Tony Brown
“credible guess”, “uncertainty”, I may be completely nuts here, but that sounds like they don’t know. Perhaps we should try speaking german?
Maybe Bender or Phill can explain this.
The last ten years have seen a huge increase in Manmade CO2 emissions yet the temperature of the Earth has decreased. Is the AGW theory therefore invalidated?
Oh ya, the written record is not anecdotal evidence.
Written records and photos are isolated snapshot samples in time and space. When I say they are “anecdotal”, I mean in the statistical sense. I don’t dispute their reliability, only their interpretibility vis a vis trends. Oh ya, there’s a problem too when they are cherry-picked.
Re: bender (#681),
So do you consider the work of Hansen, etal predicting the correlation of an increase in manmade CO2 emmissions and temperatures which of course has now been proven wrong by the passage of time as more relevant than a twenty year record of the actual conditions in the Arctic of the 20’s, 30’s and 40’s? Science has become so pathetic.
Re: Shawn Whelan (#687),
Has it? “Proven wrong?” That’s a pretty bold statement. I think you may be overinterpreting the current pause in land surface air temperature rise. Some are falsely claiming it to be a “cooling trend”. You are among them, I suppose? Have you given much thought to ocean temperatures?
Deniers do a great disservice to honest skeptics.
Re: bender (#695),
How have Hansen’s computer models worked out?
Totally wrong. There has been a huge increase in manmade CO2 and no increase in temps. That is not what was predicted.
Re: Shawn Whelan (#698),
May we take this to mean that you’re in denial over the possibility of ocean heating or ice melting accounting for the difference?
Re: Ben (#701),
So now your saying the natural trends of climate are the overiding force and a tiny increase of CO2 in the atmosphere has a neglible effect?
Re: Shawn Whelan (#709),
So now you’re imagining that I’ve changed my position?
Re: bender (#717),
No I am not saying that. If you look at the changing facts it might be a good idea.
Re: Ben (#701),
Hmmm, could it be that ice melt most certainly does not “prove” temperatures are rising still, as temperatures at a high equlibrium will continue to cause ice decrease as well? Could it be that you are in denial about temperature trends, and are now grasping at anything else to use as a “proxy”, since the data doesn’t fit your expectations?
Re: Jared (#711),
What on earth are you talking about? First, the temperature data are what they are. Don’t tell me we’ve now got to start throwing around linkies to GMT? Second, I have no “expectations”. Expectations are supplied by models invented by people other than me. And Hansen’s expectations have largely been met, although they are still not able to explain arctic warmth in the 1930s. The fact is an eight-year flat trend in GMT is not inconsistent with predictions from the GCMs. Are are you in denial over that fact?
Re: Shawn Whelan (#698),
You are so supremely confident of your assertions. They should pass critical review at RC without difficulty. As there are threads for that exact topic , I dare you.
But this is about sea ice, not GHG theory. To pursue this discussion further, please post in an appropriate thread.
Re: bender (#695),
Yes, bender, currently Hansen’s temperature projections are wrong, there is no way around it. Now, could temperatures catch up to his trend line sometime in the future? Possibly, but the longer temperatures refuse to rise, the more unrealistic it becomes.
Re: Jared (#706), So you prefer to argue against straw men then realistic models. That is a telling choice too.
Re: bender (#708),
“Straw men”? Lol, that term is easily the most overused and misused of all by the true believers. How is pointing out that Hansen’s temperature projections are growing increasingly further from actual trends a straw man?
And what do you mean by “realistic models”? What would it take for those models you trust so much to become unrealistic? Or do you even think they are falsifiable?
OK, I looked it up in German… “credible guess” and “uncertainty” both mean that an unknown is being referred to. So I believe that I can surmise that no on knows.
Here are my graphs for yesterday’s ice extent data, based upon revised IARC/JAXA Ice Extent data. There was a fairly large upward revision of the area this morning (about 14,000 km^2), turning an area loss into a small area gain (2,969 km^2).
Daily Arctic Sea Ice Extent Reduction Day 258
Arctic Sea Ice Extent Day 258
2008 Arctic Ice Extent Differences From Previous Years Day 258
Arctic Sea Ice Total Drops from Peaks Day 258
I still find it hard to swallow that the area is still decreasing and on the other hand these figures for extent show an increase… Which is also at odds with what can be seen for example on CT and NSIDC. Could it be that there will be a global revision of numbers soon?
They’re still at it….if all else fails, add another variable:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080915/ap_on_sc/arctic_ice_2
#660 …JAXA FINAL 09,14,2008…4.745313 km2…+2.969 [2xÖland approx.]
CT area update 9/15/2008
region area(Mm2) difference anomaly
Arctic 3.035 0.031 -1.959
Antarctic 14.87 -0.08 -0.153
The long term average also increased from 4.989 to 4.994 so if this is the minimum, it would appear to fall on the average minimum date. Concentration increased to 64%.
Bender #681 said in response to my #670 and #678
“Written records and photos are isolated snapshot samples in time and space. When I say they are “anecdotal”, I mean in the statistical sense. I don’t dispute their reliability, only their interpretibility vis a vis trends. Oh ya, there’s a problem too when they are cherry-picked.”
We are often told a climatic event is ‘unprecedented’ vis arctic ice melt. My dictionary defines that as ‘unparalleled or novel.’ All that I and others are attempting to show is that this is clearly untrue. These events such as cod fishing decline happened over decades and caused real people to seek new ways of making a living, which included joining the Navy or becoming Greengrocers. The records reflects this, how long does it take to create a trend?
Slightly off topic but relevant to trends is nearby upland Dartmoor. This is an area whose past episodes of climate change have been well documented since Victorian Times.
There were five medieval settlements grouped in one area, several of which are still visible including their field systems.
Pole records “Hugh de Houndtor Kt was in King Richard’s tyme seised of the whole tything of houndtor and has issue: Richard, Henry, Turgis and Osbert. Sir Richard de Houndtor has issue John and Andrew.” ‘In the middle of the 13th century Thomas, son of Hugh Langdon, bought Houndtor from John de Houndtor,58 indicating that Houndtor may not have had a resident lord from that date.’
We therefore have records showing owners of farms and settlements from 9th century onwards. We have the maps showing their position, we know what arable crops they grew and how those crops changed as the climate cooled and the fields moved from the 1300 foot contour down to the 950 mark, and we know which buildings were adapted to accept the different crops. The arable line today is around 1000 foot. Is 400 years of records an isolated snap shot in time and space? How long does it take to make a trend?
I do statistics as well Bender, and statistically 400 year old records have got to be as good as Arctic ones dating from 1979 against which this sea ice strech is mostly being measured.
We have had too many senior people making a good living out of climate change who should know better than trying to rearrange history in order to suit their theories. If they want to say “Yes we agree the weather has been as warm or warmer in the past but this time its different because…” thats fine by me, as differing orbits in the past or the earths wobble never get debated here as an alternative reason for contemporary warmth.
As for ‘cherry picking’ which warmist was it that said “You have to cherry pick if you want to make cherry pie.”
Sorry Bender, this wasn’t intended to be a go at you, I greatly enjoy both yours and Phils posts, but sometimes we do seem to slip away from the factual to the theoretical and take the latter as having more weight than the experiences of past generations.
Tony Brown
Re: Tony Brown (#696), Anecdotes become data when they are stitched together in a comprehensive, audited mosaic. I have yet to see that happen, but look forward to it. Claims of “unprecedentedness” when it comes to isolated events are not worthy of serious attention. What matters is the deterministic response to GHGs. It is the “unprecedentedness” of only that PORTION of GMT, sea-ice extent, sea-level rise, ocean heat content, etc. that is at issue. Stochastic weather noise is the primary driver of photo-worthy anomalous events. It’s deterministic trends that we need to be discussing. The sort of thing that interests auditors, but not newspapers.
#685 Flanagan.
This source has been revised – was showing a steep rise in extent, now flat:
http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/ice-area-and-extent-in-arctic
I’m not going to try and predict at the moment because the recent area results have somewhat confounded my expectations. But I note that there appear to be a large number of regions with 1 to 2 tenths ice, which would show on the extent figures, but not necessarily on the CT area figures
http://ice-glaces.ec.gc.ca/prods/FICN14CWIS/20080915140000_FICN14CWIS_0003970905.txt
So it seems to me that a lot depends on whether these areas are tending to be on the verge of re-freeze, or whether they risk being compacted further in the next couple of weeks (or perhaps a messy combination of both). I do have an opinion on what will happen, from analysis of weather forecasts etc, but I’m not going to say anything as probably my opinion is of limited use – better to wait and see what actually happens……
Incidentally, there is a distinct ‘trend’ for this thread to take ever longer to load and send. Is it time for Sea Ice strech #4?
Tony Brown
#651 Phil.
Actually, yes, the predictions from the experts were mostly wrong. Their average guess for minimum extent was close to 4.0, when it looks like the minimum will be 4.6-4.7. So the consensus of the 14 was an overestimation of the ice melt.
#698 Maybe give it another year or so to see whether or not the recent dip in global temperatures is a mere blip on an upward long-term trend, caused by La Nina. Remember, if we’d had an El Nino in the last year and temperatures had gone up by an average El Nino amount, the 5-year trend would be very definitely upwards (and every other trend i.e. 2,3,4,6,7,8,9,11,12 etc) apart from perhaps a 10-year trend drawn directly from 1998 El Nino)
As for the Arctic ice, anyone who wants to claim that the 2008 summer melt is “proof” of anything that confounds consensus AGW theory is arguing themselves into a corner, in my opinion. If the ice area was still more than 10 per cent above last year’s, as well as extent (and both remained so), and the ice was demonstrably thicker (as opposed to arguably thicker) it would be closer to being reasonable, but still extremely sketchy.
I’d say the Arctic ice is currently the weakest link in climate optimists’ arguments. Thus it’s right to spend time focusing on it (“you’re only as strong as your weakest link”) but to use it to attack is perhaps ill-advised!
What really matters (in my opinion) is what has actually *caused* the 2007 and 2008 melts. If it is largely AGW, then proponents of the consensus theory ought to be able to prove it. This is where I see gaps in the arguments. The best approach for those who want to keep things balanced is to try and note objectively the changes (since the past) and their magnitudes, while seeking to understand all the factors relevant to ice melt and how they have behaved/interacted in the past two years.
If then there turns out to be a recovery in the next few years, arguments about disproving hypotheses might start to become more reasonable again.
By the way, I would suggest that one of the strongest arguments climate optimists have in the next year is re: global temperatures. Consensus theorists have used La Nina to dismiss the dip in global temperatures from 2007 into 2008 (perhaps correctly, to a large extent). However, the recovery seems to have stalled, and the longer global temperatures remain depressed (or even begin to fall again) the harder it is going to be to explain using the usual arguments. (There may be another La Nina on the way as we speak, in which case this could explain away temperatures remaining depressed, but not a further dip if this happens).
If temperatures start to defy expectations, the obvious arguments to explain it would be changes in ocean oscillations, and solar minimum. But invoking either of these could cause some loss of credibility (seeing as they appear to have been essentially ignored in relation to other recent temperature trends e.g. PDO ignored re: temperature dip from the 40s, with aerosol effects favoured instead) Not to mention that we haven’t recently had any large volcanic eruptions to depress global temperatures (unlike in the 1980s and 1990s).
With the loss of perennial Arctic ice it will be hard (though not impossible) for summer minimum extent to recover quickly to levels that would reverse the decadal trend, and as long as the decadal trend remains downwards AGW proponents are in a position where quite often they can say what they like because it is hard to challenge. E.g. Mark Serreze (NSIDC) and the “death spiral” – sounds alarmist but challenge it too strongly and you may look pretty stupid if the ice really does continue to crash in the next few years. So all the more important to keep it balanced – sorry if i’m a hypocrite in this respect on occasion 🙂
“But invoking either of these could cause some loss of credibility”
Note i was referring to loss of credibility on the part of consensus AGW proponents (if certain scenarios were to occur in the next year)
#716 “If GMT has stopped rising because oceans are heating and ice is melting, he may have been more-or-less right.”
What if the oceans are cooling (PDO shift i.e. warmer anomalies shifted polewards where heat loss greater) and the ice melting represents a cooling (i.e. increased loss of heat via the poles). This could be a real mechanism by which actual global cooling is taking place (as opposed to changes in surface/near-surface temperatures which are deceptive because as heat is released and lost they could temporarily go in the opposite direction to the net overall heat changes – like this summer???)
Re: Chris (#719),
Then that is some of the stochastic weather noise/internal climate variability that will, over short time scales, mask deterministic responses to GHGs.
You folks need to read more. Bye.
Re: bender (#721),
LOL, you just can’t see how ridiculous this sounds? What you are saying basically is that no matter what trends or data shows up, they are just “noise”, because all that matters is what the models predict? Surely you don’t really believe that?
Again, I ask: do you even think the models are falsifiable? If so, what would it take?
Re: Chris (#719),
In your happy model world, perhaps. But in the models built by those who do this for a living the snow-ice albedo positive feedback is stronger than any negative-feedback from any insulating effect, and melting “represents” warming, not cooling.
But publish your special little model and the world can marvel how you were right when everyone else in IPCC was wrong. Good luck!
Re: bender (#726),
Oh no, the IPCC couldn’t ever have anything wrong, could they? Nevermind hockey sticks and all…and keep in mind the 2007 report predicted that at least half of the years from 2009-2015 would be warmer than 1998. I have a feeling they will be regretting than one in a few years.
Re: Jared (#735),
That they are fallibile does not imply they are altogether wrong. Your tendency to distort and ridicule my comments says more of you than it does of me.
Re: Shawn Whelan (#727),
A half dozen times now I have seen the comment that the globe is cooling. This is a deliberate lie and the tellers are propagandists. Go ahead and prove me wrong by plotting the data right here, right now. I will happily eat my words.
Re: Shawn Whelan (#727),
Yep. That’s the way things appear when nuance is beyond your mental capacity.
Re: oakgeo (#736),
A single year of data should not overwhelm anyone. The problem is when it occurs year in, year out. The decadal trend in arctic sea ice is overwhelmingly clear. And the source of the melting heat is not mysterious. It is tropical weather systems that penetrate otherwise cold polar air. Do GHGs affect tropical regions? Or is that unlikely belief just part of the IPCC conspiracy?
Grow up.
Re: bender (#737),
My understanding is warm ocean currents are the primary driver for ice melt and air temps are a secondary factor. Now warmer seas are an expected consequence of GW but oceans also operate on a much longer timescale. i.e. ice melt could be another manifestation of LTP.
I also don’t believe we have any data that tells us how far the ice retreated in the 1940s. Anecodotes tell us that there was less ice in the 1940s than there was in the 80s. However, we have no way to quantify the degree of melt nor the rate. The significance of the current melt would depend very much on that data.
In any case, we need to wait and see. If the warmers are right warming and ice met will resume with a vengence. If they have missed something significant it will become painfully obvious over the next five years.
Re: Raven (#741), Agreed.
Re: Raven (#741),
Thanks for stating what should have been obvious from the beginning. Now can we stop the dueling anecdotes, please.
Re: Raven (#741),
Somebody explain this. Larsen going through a largely ice free Northern Passage in 1944 and the biography of his time in the Arctic are anecdotes? The millions of pages the HBC has stored in Winnepeg are anecdotes? The other historical acounts of Arctic exploration are anecdotes?
Here is the definition of an anecdote:
: a usually short narrative of an interesting, amusing, or biographical incident
Sounds more like a description of Hansen’s climate computer modelling.
Re: Shawn Whelan (#749),
Are those anecdotes? Yes.
That is a definition of an anecdote. There are others more pertinent. Try looking up ‘anecdotal evidence’, and look up ‘beating a dead horse’ while you’re at it.
Re: DeWitt Payne (#752),
So you would consider the 100 of years of weather records of the HBC company anectodal and Larsen’s 20 years of logs anecdotal?
Please provide your definition of anecdote that includes such historical factual information.
Re: Shawn Whelan (#758),
FWIW…Luterbacher, when he did his studies of the Mediterranean (and other parts of Europe) using grid series, referred to this type data as a “Documentary Proxy”, which includes written histories, precipation records, etc.
Re: Shawn Whelan (#749),
The plural of anecdote is not data. However, these anecdotes do tell us that the artic does naturally go through spells of melting and that the warmers are grossly exgarrating their case when they insist that the current melt is unprecidented and evidence for CO2 induced AWG. OTOH, the warmer thesis cannot be rejected with the *data* available. Time and new data will be final arbitrator here.
BTW – here is some actual data which hints at a similar melt in the recent past: http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/change_in_permafrost_temperature_in_fairbanks_alaska
Re: bender (#737),
Look up any temperature data except Hansen’s well massaged data and you will see the truth.
I think you may be about to open your eyes to the truth.(I am pulling for you)
Re: Shawn Whelan (#750), Right here, right now. I am pulling for you too.
#721
Unless GCMs assume a certain percentage of the last century’s warming to have been caused by greenhouse gases. In which case if “internal climate variability” caused by changes in ocean oscillations is greater than assumed by the models, changes such as the incipient PDO shift could start to invalidate some of the models predicting the highest sensitivities to greenhouse gases.
But I know you’re being deliberately provocative 🙂
Manmade CO2 is hugely increased in the last ten years and temps have dropped. Seems rather clear cut and simple.
No one knows…
Just to lighten the mood, when I spell checked an earlier piece the spell checker suggested I use ‘Hansen’ instead of ‘Nansen’ The warmists have even taken over Microsoft!
Tony Brown Re: bender (#720),
I’m not trying to make any controversial point here Bender, but if the Scientific Hindcasts failed to pick up the 1930’s warming do you know of any model that picked up the various other episodes of warming referred to in various posts here?
Tony Brown
Re: Tony Brown (#729),
They do, and moreover Hansen et al (2005) have admitted as much.
Can you clarify? Which episodes? Which posts?
Re: Chris (#733),
Yes. When you find an idea “absurd” the first thing to question is your own judgement. That’s science. It’s fundamentally self-critical. The idea that some diaper-bearing noob in a blog can outthink a modeler with 20 years experience is the height of laughable arrogance.
“Manmade CO2 is hugely increased in the last ten years and temps have dropped. ”
Unless you work at New Scientist where one would believe that:
Interesting that they would think that *global* warming causes more sea ice. That is new “science” indeed.
#726 “But in the models built by those who do this for a living the snow-ice albedo positive feedback is stronger than any negative-feedback from any insulating effect, and melting “represents” warming, not cooling.”
In 2007 there was record Arctic melt from July. (Hence ~1.5 months of significant extra albedo positive feedback, mostly to be cancelled out by opposite effect in Antarctic in any event).
Then we had significant global cooling for the next six months.
In 2008 there was record Arctic melt, but only in August (Hence ~0.5 months of extra significant albedo positive feedback).
What happens if this winter brings further global cooling, and no months of extra significant albedo positive feedback next summer?
http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.html
Spot the blue spreading along the equator to snuff out the East Pacific warm plume, and spot more of the “hottest decade ever” warmth draining away from the Arctic, North Pacific and North Atlantic – to be radiated and re-radiated into space following enhanced convection into a lower troposphere that has been colder in every month of this year than in the deep 1998-2000 La Nina.
http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/execute.csh?amsutemps+003
Don’t need to publish a model, mother nature can simply do her work for us all to see…….
If that’s all what I really think of course.
New Science, newspeak, warming is cooling. Newthink, ignorance is strength. Doubleplus cold or doubleplus warm, only Big Brother knows. No crimethinker I, only bellyfeel for AGW. Back to the world of the unperson. Back to the world of the prole.
Re: Antarctica. There are established theories and models explaining why ice might increase for some time before eventually decreasing, it’s not just a knee-jerk reaction to the most recent trend in Antarctic ice extent (I say most recent, the very latest is that the extent is back to normal, or slightly below). Personally I think the theories are quite weak compared to most of AGW consensus theory, but they still need to be engaged with even if you find the initial idea somewhat absurd.
Maybe my understanding is poor, but I would think that 24-hour summer sunlight is the main source of heat melting Arctic ice, and I would also think that the Arctic waters – with heat capacity magnitudes higher than air – should be a significant modifier to that.
How can limited atmospheric GW (regardless whether AGW or not) override the 3 orders magnitude difference in oceanic water heat capacity? It would require a huge amount of heat be transfered to the oceans. Has anyone done an energy balance calculation to estimate how much lower atmospheric heat needs to be transfered to the upper ocean to initiate melting of this degree, even assuming it is limited to the Arctic region?
Throw in the effect of winds, the relatively shallow Arctic waters, and the ocean currents on sea ice melt and I can’t help but feel a little over/underwhelmed. GW or AGW may be at the root, but what are the actual mechanisms of melt?
Gee Bender, thanks for noticing me. I see you on many threads… do you live at CA?
I re-read my post, and I didn’t specify one year. My point is that the complexity of climate systems involved are not easily understood, at least by me, hence the “overwhelmed”. And too many posts offer simple answers, hence the “underwhelmed”. I was being facetious.
To quote Shawn Whelan, “Seems rather clear cut and simple.” Is there no room for nuance?
Bender
44 years online real time programming, NASA capsule reentry calculations as for man in space program, I am not impressed with the models, logic, and lack of professionalism. I still write and support several million lines of code. Code runs world wide. I am not even close to being impressed by people who are so insecure that they force audit to pull facts out of undisclosed programs and data sets. If these people worked for me and even hinted at that attitude they would be gone in a heart beat. The reason that there is so much debate is that the facts have been obscured by public employees protecting their jobs! Further it is a nontrivial subject with an agenda of framed very poorly around AGW, either for or against. Not thermal mass, and heat transfer, not solar radiation and its affect. I understand the sea ice is a proxy battle as it is quantifiable. How about more why and be willing to take a fail now and then.
#740 Terry Bixler
Could you explain a little more what you mean?
Re: GeneII (#743), Hansen at the front. GeneII do you trust the GISS dataset. The group think from NOAA “NOAA understands and predicts changes in the Earth’s environment, from the depths of the ocean to the surface of the sun, and conserves and manages our coastal and marine resources.” GeneII do you believe NOAA can live up to that quote? Are the GCMs commented so that the code is understandable? If a priest is required to interpret the code then the job is secure.
We are currently spending something like 4 billion/year on an agenda that is framed as AGW, why. Why do we come to this post to look at Aaron Wells presentation of the daily ice is because we trust him not NOAA. Why do we come to this post for numbers in general, because we trust most of the presentations beyond what we would see from the organizations that are paid to present the data. Did you see the photo shop effort in a document that is supposed to educate the US population on AGW, the document was withdrawn. More? I really come her for the facts not some blathering by this old man.
Preliminary Unofficial Day 259 Race Report
2008 is on the move, but still over 450K behind 2007.
9 16 2002 NA NA
9 16 2003 6.041875 -0.007969
9 15 2004 5.912188 0.011094
9 16 2005 5.447656 -0.044844
9 16 2006 5.806094 0.012031
9 16 2007 4.267656 -0.000157
9 15 2008 4.719531 -0.025782
#474 Terry Bixler
No. 1934/1998 makes that an easy answer.
Looks like 2008 might have already reached it’s lowest extent, slightly before the middle of the month so the late charge in August hasn’t really carried over until September.
On a side note, the 6-7 year cycle in the Antartic seems to be getting more pronounced
(in relations to Chris’ comments in #733)
What’s the theory behind that, that Chris hinted at?
Regards
Andy
Re. Raven #741, but open questions to anyone:
Warm ocean currents as the primary driver are great, but how is the melting heat energy brought into the Arctic Basin? Influx of warm Pacific or Atlantic ocean currents? Direct in situ solar heating of Arctic waters? Or both? Tropical weather systems heating the Arctic waters? Something else or some combination of factors? Can it be / has it been quantified?
I’m wondering about the increased total energy in the basin over the last few years – both atmospheric and oceanic – and how it reconciles with the global warming trend we have experienced. My understanding is that the Arctic is more sensitive to GW than temperate and equatorial regions. Why is that?
Re: oakgeo (#755),
I’ve looked at monthly temps from RSS “polar” zone (60-82,5 degrees north) against monthly anomaly data from NSIDC and come up with -0,53 and correlation (i.e. higher temps correlate to lower extend). Of course it’s difficult to say which is cause and which is effect, if any. One can easily imagine it working both ways – which is of course similar to/part of the ice-albedo feedback.
Correlation between AMO-index and NSIDC extend is slightly higher: -0,58. As it is less obvious (at least to me, but I welcome any enlightenment) how a larger extent could lead to a cooler AMO, there might be some merit to the idea that a warmer Atlantic leads to less extent.
I’m not well enough versed in statistics to say anything about the significance of it, though…
Some will say the earth is not in a cooling trend? BE REAL! No year since 1998 has been warmer than 1998. You say 1998 doesn’t count because there was an “intense El Nino event” that year? You’d like to truncate 1998 from the record? Alright. Then you must go through the entire history or temperature records (including ice cores and sediment cores) and truncate out all El Ninos in order to have homogeneity. Or do you think the El Nino of 1998 was the only El Nino in the history of the world?
And if that isn’t good enough for you then let’s start in 2005 and see if a cooling trend begins then.
Oh wait–in order to say there is no current cooling trend you must be using James Hansen’s temperature data set and discarding all others. Ahhhh, that explains it. Certainly we can all trust the godfather of manmade global warming! You’re right to do it! We all should believe in James Hansen’s monsters under our bed scenario!
But seriously, why don’t we, instead, discard any information coming from a man with ties to politics and environmentalism.
Re: GeneII (#757), Right here. Right now. Post the data to support your position or shut up. There ain’t no cooling trend, friend.
Re: Shawn Whelan (#758), I already explained what I meant by my use of the term “anecdotal”, so that is indeed a dead horse.
Shawn Whelan and Gene II, you have hereby descended to teh level of propopagandist denialist trolls.
For other readers who are rational people, Lucia’s analysis of the various surface records is as convincing as anything I’ve seen. Here are the trend stats. [Trolls, stay away. These are numbers. They’re very complicated. You need to go to school to understand them. Some of them are pointy and can harm you if you run with them.]
Re: bender (#760),
Bender, did you mean to link to that to support your point? From her table, here are the trends since 2000, the 1st column using OLS (Ordinary Least Square) and the 2nd column using CO (Cochrane-Orcutt). Am I mis-reading the table, or are not almost all of these negative trends?
GISS -0.3 ± 2.6 (Fail to reject 2C/century.) -0.9 ± 2.2 (Reject 2C/century.)
HadCRUT -1.3 ± 2.2 (Reject 2C/century.) -1.7 ± 1.7 (Reject 2C/century.)
NOAA 0.0 ± 1.8 (Reject 2C/century.) -0.5 ± 1.6 (Reject 2C/century.)
RSS MSU -1.3 ± 2.3 (Reject 2C/century.) -2.1 ± 2.3 (Reject 2C/century.)
UAH MSU -1.0 ± 4.0 (Fail to reject 2C/century.) -2.2 ± 3.3 (Reject 2C/century.)
Re: Aaron Wells (#767),
Yes. Your problem is that you are ignoring the standard errors on the slope estimates. Much as ‘radar’ in #764 (who had to rescue the trolls with some numbers). That the SEs are all larger than the slope estimates means the slopes are effective not different from zero. i.e. Flatline. The denialist propagandists amonst us may want to consider those facts.
Re: Jared (#788),
In fact, Jared, what is happening here is you have trolls claiming the OPPOSITE – that the climate is cooling. Surface temperatures are, as you say, not warming much if at all.
Then there are the other category of deniers who deny that ocean heating is part of the equation. Oceans are warming, even is surface air temperatures are flat.
All: Please go ahead and skewer me and call me a true believer and avoid all mention of fact. It helps clarify for the real skpetics amongst us who the antiscientific nutcases are.
Re: bender (#760),
When and why did they bar common sense from science?
Re: Shawn Whelan (#772),
As Einstein said “Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen”, and I believe it was Voltaire who said “The thing about common sense is, it’s not that common.”
However, Thomas Huxley remarked that “Science is simply common sense at its best–that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
You would do well to observe the caveats in the second part of his remark!
Shawn #758
Apparently 400 years of written Dartnmoor records are anecdotal as well and don’t compare to 30 years of satellite records. Equally suspect are fish records,crop data,ships logs, contemporary references by Tacitus, Venerable Bede, Chaucer, Pepys Gilber White et al. If the computer says ‘no’ it must be correct, even if it has been fed on data of an interesting pedigree.
As a matter of interest-and I don’t want to upset DeWitt Payne (or Bender) whose posts I greatly admire, but exactly when does written evidence, plus photos and newsreels pass the threshold in order to become ‘evidence’ instead of ‘anecdotal evidence?’ This is not intended to be a ‘smart’ question but I would genuinely like to know so I can raise my game to the level of evidence that both he and Bender would consider as being of some merit.
Tony Brown
Re: Tony Brown (#759), Compile your impressive collection of anecdotes into a coherent monograph and publish them in the peer-reviewed literature, if that has not already been done. If there’s some value there that no one else has considered, then capture it.
Re: bender (#763),
Bearing in mind the vitriol you are pouring on other people I will take your post as a grudging admission that such a piece of work might have some merit. I can only research the UK, firstly because I know it well but also because we have a wealth of records.
The Met office and Hadley say UK temperatures are ‘indicative’ of the Northern hemisphere so whilst such a piece of work would not be global in scope it would still have some merit I believe. Agreed? If so I would like to start a new thread to find out if such a work already exists (obviously I know of Lambs work)
To publicise this do you have any objections to me referring to your definitions and acceptance that this has some merit?
Tony Brown
Re: Tony Brown (#759),
The thing you have to remember is that saying something is anecdotal evidence does not mean it isn’t accurate. It means that it can’t be used as proof of anything larger. For example, all medical case studies are by definition anecdotal. That doesn’t mean they are useless. But they don’t prove safety and efficacy of a drug or procedure. The ice buoy thickness data is also anecdotal in terms of overall Arctic ice thickness and volume because there aren’t enough buoys to be a representative sample for that purpose. As Raven stated above, the anecdotal evidence taken together strongly suggests that there was relatively low ice extent in parts of the Arctic in the 1930’s compared to the 1950’s to 1980’s. But it does not and cannot prove that overall ice extent then was greater than, equal to or lower than the present.
Here are my graphs for yesterday’s ice extent data, based upon revised IARC/JAXA Ice Extent data. There was a fairly large upward revision of the area this morning (about 11,000 km^2).
Daily Arctic Sea Ice Extent Reduction Day 259
Arctic Sea Ice Extent Day 259
2008 Arctic Ice Extent Differences From Previous Years Day 259
Arctic Sea Ice Total Drops from Peaks Day 259
Re: Bender
Cooling since 1998
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/trend/plot/uah/from:1998/plot/uah/from:1998/trend/plot/rss/from:1998/plot/rss/from:1998/trend
(1998 Super El Nino – “not fair” you say.)
Cooling since 2001
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001/trend/plot/uah/from:2001/plot/uah/from:2001/trend/plot/rss/from:2001/plot/rss/from:2001/trend
1911-1946 Temp rise was .026 deg / year
1950-1998 Temp rise was .021 deg / year
(But wait, 1998 Super El Nino – not fair I say.):
1950-2008 Temp prise .010 deg / year
(Looking at peak to peak.)
The temperature rise since mid century is neither unprecedented nor extraordinary. The remaining arguments are whether or not it can be explained as “natural” without GHG theory, and whether or not it will continue.
Re: radar (#764), Where are your trend stats? Those slopes appear not significantly different from zero.
Anecdotes and anecdotal evidence starts to become relevant only when it is stitched together using robust methods to form a “documentary proxy”. Stories about what happened in one month of one year in one channel are so isolated in time and space as to be irrelevant.
But this is what trolls do. They cherry-pick tiny scraps of data that fit their hypothesis, too lazy to look up any larger scale, longer term data to the contrary. This is called “confirmation bias” and you see the problems this causes in other areas of alarmist climate science.
I’m referring to the 2001 analysis.
Bender, your language has degraded recently. Please cease calling other people on this thread “trolls”. My own personal opinion. I’m obviously not a moderator, but your use of such words brings down the discussion significantly.
Re: Aaron Wells (#769),
Phil and Shawn together hijacked this thread by engaging in an extended, high bandwidth, boring food fight that shed little or no light on the subject of the thread. That’s trollish behavior in my book.
Re: Aaron Wells (#769),
Yes. But Aaron, you should be agreeing with DeWitt Payne that trollish behavior is the source problem. Ask yourself why I have descended to that level. It’s the trolls. Trollish behavior includes failure to cite data, failure to admit mistakes, failure to constrain oneself to reality, failure to desist from speculation, denial of facts, ad hominem attack, and much beating of dead horses. This is on top of all the dodging and shifting and parsing and an overall tendency to stray far OT.
I see a half dozen of complaints about Phil and nothing about these half dozen trolls. The asymmetry is notable. It is bad for the CA brand – which is supposed to deal in facts, not junk speculation. Please upgrade your standards.
Aaron Wells, September 16th, 2008 at 8:36 am,
Which one of the “Three Faces of Ben” are you addressing.
http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?bcb0b0a8-86dc-4f0d-acce-dec9605c9b7a
This is a good read.
Problems with the Climate Models
“No longer. The well-known name calling, the dismissiveness, the ad hominem attacks, is regrettably now the standard level of discourse. Additionally, these include many laboratory directors, media editors, and Ph.D.s who for whatever reasons adopt the same low roads of discourse and the abandonment of science.”
http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?bcb0b0a8-86dc-4f0d-acce-dec9605c9b7a
Shawn#775 I think you posted the same link twice-had you intended to post two separate ones?
re; DeWitt Payne (#771),
Thanks for your own clarification. This presumably makes a lot of data thought of as ‘scientfic’ rather inadequate, including that from the relatively small number of weather stations that are used to accurately represent the worlds weather, and using selected Bristlecone pines as a major proxy?
Tony Brown
Re: Tony Brown (#777),
My bad. Only meant to post once.
CT area update 9/16/2008
region area(Mm2) difference anomaly
Arctic 3.066 0.031 -1.946
Antarctic 14.772 -0.098 -0.258
That’s two days of significant increase. Arctic ice concentration increased to 65% (CT/JAXA). The exponentially smoothed rate (-0.0181 Mm2/day) is also in the ballpark for a minimum. When the smoothed rate goes positive, it’s very likely over. The smoothed rate for extent is still negative, but it’s no more than 6 days from the average rate for 2002-2007 at minimum. If that means anything.
The 2008 ice extent closed on 2007 all summer and reached its closest point on September 8th. On September 8th the difference between 2007 and 2008 stood, at a still large, 315,938 SKM. Yesterday’s difference was 477,500 SKM. Increasing its ice extent over 2007 by 161,562 SKM in a week, this late in the year, puts to rest any outsdie chance of 2008’s ice extent falling below 2007’s.
I guess the debate is over for the melt of 2008.
A large increase in ice in 2008 and perhaps more importantly a huge decrease in the amount of heat in the Arctic.
Re: Shawn Whelan (#780),
I doubt that very much.
There certainly hasn’t been “A large increase in ice in 2008”, the melting of ~10.7 Mm^2 of arctic sea-ice (the most in the satellite era) represents a large increase in the amount of heat in the Arctic!
Re: Phil. (#794),
“There certainly hasn’t been “A large increase in ice in 2008″, the melting of ~10.7 Mm^2 of arctic sea-ice (the most in the satellite era) represents a large increase in the amount of heat in the Arctic!”
Actually the ice requires a large amount of energy to change state and will remove energy and lower the heat in the Arctic.
Look at this for proof. Much less heat in the Arctic this year as compared to ’07.
Given the forecasts for the Canadian Arctic through to next spring, we’ll probably see ice levels through 2009 continue to expand relative to the 2007 low:
http://www.weatheroffice.gc.ca/saisons/image_e.html?img=s234fe1t_s
http://www.weatheroffice.gc.ca/saisons/image_e.html?img=ccatemp_06_s
http://www.weatheroffice.gc.ca/saisons/image_e.html?img=ccatemp_09_s
Note that the relative temperature is shown against the cold 1961-1990 average!
And Shawn, don’t waste your time with this Bender guy. He obviously does not want to see the truth!
All this fuss over the Arctic ice levels reminds me of the similar fuss made in the summer of 2007 over Great Lakes water levels by the AGW alarmists who claimed that global warming meant that water levels in the Great Lakes would continue to drop and we were all going to die, blah, blah, blah!
Well it seems that lake levels have recovered quite nicely for 2008 thank you very much. Superior is back to close to the norm:
and Huron-Michigan is on its way.
So it looks like the AGW frauds are 0 for 2. With another few months of sustained low or even lower temperatures we just may see 3 strikes:
http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/UAHMSUglobe.html
Let’s just hope the general public is aware enough to call them on the out.
Agreed. That is viewable graphically with my chart, day 252, lowest part of the recent dip in the ’08minus’07 curve :
2008 Arctic Ice Extent Differences From Previous Years Day 259
The difference between today’s JAXA ice extent and the 2007 minimum is 475,469 km^2. The date of the 2007 minimum was a little later in September than normal, Sept. 24. Factor in leap-year that is Sept. 23 for this year, day 267. Assuming that 2008’s minimum is that late as well, that means there is only about 8 days until minimum (again assuming the minimum is the same date as last year). For 2008’s ice extent to drop by 475,469 km^2 in 8 days, that means ice extent area loss will have to average 59,434 km^2 to match that level. Considering that we haven’t seen losses that large in over 2 weeks, and then it was unusual. And since yesterday’s trailing 7-day average is for a daily gain of 2,076 km^2, the likelihood of averaging a 59,434 km^2 daily loss over the next 8 days is extremely unlikely. The minimum date for 2008 could possibly stretch out beyond last years date, but unlikely, as it’s fighting the ever-growing extended night period. That is a brick wall that will really resist the minimum date stretching out very far beyond 2007’s minimum date, if at all.
NSIDC declares minimum extent reached and the Parry Channel route never opened. Almost a 10% increase in ice from 2008. World saved.
“On September 12, 2008 sea ice extent dropped to 4.52 million square kilometers (1.74 million square miles). This appears to have been the lowest point of the year, as sea has now begun its annual cycle of growth in response to autumn cooling.
The 2008 minimum is the second-lowest recorded since 1979, and is 2.24 million square kilometers (0.86 million square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average minimum.”
“Unlike last year, this year saw the opening of the Northern Sea Route, the passage through the Arctic Ocean along the coast of Siberia. However, while the shallow Amundsen’s Northwest Passage opened in both years, the deeper Parry’s Channel of the Northwest Passage did not quite open in 2008.”
http://www.nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
Gee you wouldn’t think so from the title at the top: “Arctic sea ice settles at second-lowest, underscores accelerating decline”
Huh? Do these people not understand the meaning of the word “decline”:
From Merriam-Webster:
Main Entry: 1de·cline
Pronunciation: \di-ˈklīn, dē-\
Function: verb
6: to become less in amount
And where does “accelerating” come into the picture?
I don’t know exactly how they will do it, but I do know that there will be several comments here that explain that “accelerating decline” is EXACTLY what the data indicates,
Anyone who denies there has been (at the very least) little or no warming the past 8-10 years is being a “denialist” in the truest sense. If AGWers wish to sound objective, they should at least admit reality and then ask the question “Why?” and “Is the current halt in warming (and perhaps even cooling) significant?” Most would say no, and that they expect the warming trend to return soon. But the longer it doesn’t, the harder the explaining will become. Conversely, if warming returns soon (despite possible continued low solar activity and -PDO), it will be much harder to be a skeptic. Perhaps we should all just keep an open mind to the empirical evidence as it comes in.
…Should the planet by now warm a lot due to albedo-change?? So little ice in the arctic 2nd summer in a row? How many low ice summers
can the planet sustain, sorry, endure? Has anybody checked cloud area
especially altocumulus from 50-70 degrees N … Next summer we can
check both ice AND cloud area/extent, am I right NASA??
bender: what is your source for your repeated comments that the ocean is warming? Argos buoys don’t say so. Altimetric based global sea level measurements have started to decline. Wouldn’t it be more accurate to say that lack of ocean heating is part of the global climate equation?
Re: Mike (#791),
That’s a fair question. I’ll get back to you in an appropriate thread. For the record, it’s not something I’m convinced of. But that’s a longer story best told elsewhere.
#783 Mark
In my experience with the other side I don’t know if the amount of strikes matters. I haven’t seen a consistent following of rules, or protocol, from them, and sometimes not any following of any sort of protocol at all. For example, this article shows some of the methods used by some of their, um, can I say ilk, in editing global warming entries at Wikipedia.
But I agree with you, if the earth continues cooling the way it has been for months now the average person will just turn a deaf-er and deaf-er ear to Al Gore and co..
Re: GeneII (#795),
Yes, that’s it. Extrapolate over future decades based on observations from the last few months. Perfectly reasonable. Statistically defensible. GeneII happily uncaring that the GCMs that predict long-term warming frequently produce temporary cooling trends over short time intervals of a decade. Keep it up. And keep the topic off sea ice.
Re: GeneII (#795),
It’s already happening with the current Canadian election. Climate Change was supposed to be a central issue but the Liberal’s Green Shaft carbon taxation plan is such a steaming turd that they don’t seem to be pushing it too much any more. The average person knows what the weather is doing outside and with the past snowy winter, a cool summer and another cold, snowy winer predicted, many people are now rightly questioning all this AGW nonsense.
Re: Mark (#835),
And the denialist dribble continues, despite the venom. What precisely is Mark denying? Weather is a noisy variable. AGW is deterministic. If your model does not include natural variability, then of course you will not be able to see a deterministic trend. One should be careful not to assume that a bit of noise is a new change in trend. Investors know this intuitively. AGW is no different.
Re: bender (#839),
Bingo. That’s why the Alarmist doom laden projections are crap. They do not even come close to modelling the true impacts of natural variability like the sun (including the Svensmark effect) and changes in the major ocean oscillations.
Phil–
I like that!
Bender- and those arguing with Bender.
Bender is correct to point out that the uncertainty intervals are important in my charts. The recent trends cannot be understood to prove cooling or to falsify AGW as a whole. Much longer trends with 0C/century are required to disprove AGW as a whole. (Really, really long trends are required!)
I don’t think we will ever see trends that disprove AGW as a whole– because the general theory is almost certainty correct.
The relevant questions are: What is the trend? Can GCMs predict the trend with at any reasonable level of precision? Etc.
I realize that some might be hope to disprove AGW in one fell swoop– but even if you can, realistically, you must content yourself with addressing narrower questions first.
So, my various analyses are geared toward looking at the various different ways of testing the narrower question: Is the IPCC projection of 2C/century correct?
(Of course, there are those who defend the projection by insisting they project something lower. Or, they include uncertainty bounds. or something. But, that doesn’t particularly bother me, as the question “Is that line smack down the middle of the graph they published on track” seems worth asking to me.)
But, it’s still worth remembering that the question I address is: is 2C/century consistent with the current trends?
This is an entirely different question from asking whether AGW is totally false, or whether we are in a long term cooling phase. While the short term data doesn’t contradict a cooling phase, it also doesn’t contradict some degree of warming. And the past trend, and theory suggests warming. So, suggesting the data indicates AGW is incorrect is simply wrong. The recent data does not overturn the theory of AGW. When I think it does say so, I’ll tell ya’ll I think so. (That said, I’ll be stunned if the flat trend lasts long enough to suggest AGW is wrong.)
Re: lucia (#796),
Oh no lucia, haven’t you heard? GeneII has a Gene-o-matic that he is using to forecast the future based on the last few months. I’ve heard it is quite algorithmic this robust little thing of his. The next ice age is coming! The next ice age is coming!
Re: lucia (#796),
I read a comment in the Revkin thread criticizing kim (yes, Dano’s kimbot) for calling lucia a “scientist”. Gasp. He insisted she was nothing more than a lowly mechanical engineer. As though engineers have never heard of the scientific method, don’t use it in their daily work. Sheesh.
Re: lucia (#796),
When you say
I agree with that statement, but to go a little deeper, I think it would also be fair to state, in a similar vein to Pielke Sr, that we cannot say with any certainty at this point how strong a forcing CO2 is in driving global climate. That is, we don’t know if it’s a primary, secondary, or even tertiary driver.
I would be curious to hear your take on that, as I have followed with some interest the analytical work you conduct on your blog? Obviousy, any other informed parties are invited to provide their opinions as well. 🙂
Re: lucia (#796),
“I don’t think we will ever see trends that disprove AGW as a whole– because the general theory is almost certainty correct.”
Of course the theory is not correct.
There has been a huge increase in manmade CO2 emissions in the last ten years and the Earth has started to cool. China is now the number one emitter of greenhouse gasses in the world and ten years ago they emitted relatively little. Ditto for India and the rest of the emerging third world. The science is obviously wrong and only the politics in the scientific community carries the AGW theory forward.
When there is a few miles thick of ice in the middle of NA once again then the zealots will maybe concede.
Re: Shawn Whelan (#811),
Prove that the earth has “started to cool” or else admit you are a lying propagandist. Then look up the definitions of “stochasticity” and “lag” and report back to us why you expect a perfect correlation.
The topic is arctic sea ice, not “what Shawn Whelan imagines about GHG theory”.
Re: lucia (#796), always good to hear from you. However, sometimes you surprise me by sticking your head in a bear trap. In this case, it’s when you say:
Could you lay out for us what you see as the “general theory” of “AGW as a whole”?
Also, could you include with the “general theory”, the lines of evidence that make you think that the “general theory” is “almost certainly correct”.
I ask because everyone I talk to has a different idea, and sometimes a very different idea, of what constitutes the “general theory” of AGW. These range from the utterly simple ones like “Human-released CO2 increases downwelling forcing, therefore the earth must warm” to quite general ones like “Humans caused some unknown portion of the general warming trend of the last century through one or more possible means”, to detailed claims like “CO2 downwelling, plus various theoretically possible but never observed feedbacks, cause a temperature rise of 3K for a doubling of CO2” or “Human produced black carbon is melting the snow and ice in the Arctic, and thus warming the world”.
So is one of these your “general theory” of AGW? Or are you speaking of some totally different “general theory”, and if so, what is it? And what is the evidence that convinces you that the “general theory is almost certainly correct”.
Many thanks,
w.
PS – As a counterweight to simplistic ideas and “general theories”, consider what happens when we stick one end of a 170 pound mass into a bucket of hot water.
The general theory here says that heat flows from hot to cold. It also says that initially the end of the mass that’s in the bucket will warm up, and eventually the entire mass will warm. You add warmth to one end, it spreads out down the thermal gradient. And for the same reason, if CO2 increases IR downwelling, eventually the earth will warm up. Seems like my general theory of masses and buckets of hot water is “almost certainly true”, after all it’s simple physics and thermodynamics.
So to test my theory about the 170 pound mass and the bucket of water, let me take my shoes off and put my feet into the hot water bucket, and stick a thermometer in my mouth …
Curious. Despite the fact that the “general theory” is “almost certainly true”, despite the physics and thermodynamics, while the feet warm up, my overall body temperature doesn’t change in the slightest …
This is why I am always very suspicious when people want to discuss AGW with reference to “simple physics” and “general theory”. Such things often do not provide reliable insights into complex, constructally ruled flow systems. Changing the temperature of the earth can be compared to changing the course of a river.
You can put in a breakwater to direct the river where you want it to go … only to find out that the river responds to the pressure of your breakwater, not by changing the direction of its flow as you and your “general theory” and your “simply physics” predict, but by breaking its banks upriver, changing its course entirely to cut you off, and leaving you without a river at all …
A true analysis of the river sees it as a self-organized flow system which is constrained and governed by the Constructal Law … and in such a situation, simple physics and many (but not all) “general theories” of rivers simply will not work in the slightest.
Anyhow, I’m interested in your general theory and your supporting evidence.
Yeah GeneII,
Give people a little time to mourn. As soon as that temperature starts skyrocketing at the rate of .02 degrees per year, you are gonna feel a little silly. Just keep saying over and over, the GCMs are always right, the GCMs are always right. Maybe if we strung some beads on a little string we could keep track of those positive climate affirmations. GCMs are always right, the IPCC is never wrong, James Hansen is a prophet, Don’t lose faith now. Besides even if the trend in sea ice does turn around (oh wait the one year trend did turn HAHA), the climate models have already predicted it.
Re: Mike Bryant (#800),
Wow, a perfect paraphrase of what I was saying. Amazing. I should get you to translate all of my references into such easy to understand common sense language. You don’t disotrt a thing!
Re: Mike Bryant (#800),
Listen up, folks, Mike Bryant is channeling Draper and Smith. The “one year trend” – what a neat invention. Ha ha ha.
Bender–I describe myself as a mechanical engineer. BS. More S and pile it higher and deeper ME. 🙂
But yes, I am aware that when people can’t engage the specifics of an argument, they want to debate which degrees people have. Are you aware Gavin is a mathematician by training? And isn’t Hansen an astronomer or astrophysicist…. or something? Or am I mixed up on this? 🙂
Having spent a lot of time perusing the MODIS satellite images, I can tell you there is no difference in Albedo between an Arctic free of ice and an Arctic full of ice.
The Arctic is nothing but cloud cover – mile after mile of white cloud cover. It looks white whether there is ice there or not.
Now, white is a visible EM spectrum phenomenon so that doesn’t mean that some EM radiation from the Sun gets through the clouds and heats open ocean but does not heat ice covered ocean but ALL the visible spectrum (the majority of the Sun’s energy) is reflected back into space in the Arctic whether ice-covered or not.
Re: John Lang (#802),
Regarding the effect on albedo produced by larger-than-normal arctic sea ice reduction, it has always struck me as a possibly a rather large exaggeration of the actual impact. First, the period of time when the ice area is reduced is, on a relative scale, pretty brief. Ice reduction and ice recovery happens fairly rapidly. The period of time when arctic sea ice is open is, on average, generally a matter of weeks. (Yes, I know that the area of ice that melts near the beginning of the melt season is open longer, but most ice melts in August and begins to refreeze, fairly rapidly, by late September. Couple this brief period of reduced ice coverage with the fact that when the arctic waters are most open, it occurs during a time when the angle of incidence of sunlight is quite small. Albedo is very dependent upon light angle, and when the arctic is most ice-free is during a period when the sun is beginning to get lower and lower on the horizon. So I think that the albedo impact from ice-reduction during August and September is likely not as big an impact as some make it out to be.
Any thoughts on this theory? (Can we keep them civil?)
Re: Aaron Wells (#865),
You’re bang on Aaron. All this talk of changing Albedo and accelerating impacts is just unbridled alarmism. As I indicated in an earliest post, the area within the Arctic circle receives on average just 1.4% of the solar radiation incident to the earth which is hardly going to cause any ‘tipping points’. Even at summer solstice this would only increase to less than 3% and as you indicated, much of the melting doesn’t occur until close to equinox so we’re talking under 2% of the incident radiation. The earth’s weather systems are largely driven by the transfer of heat from the tropics to the poles and this transfer is a varying process. Since satellite records began in 1979, this transfer process driven by ocean currents has entered a high cycle and that is the primary reason that ice melt and temperatures have increased in the Arctic region. The same things happened in the 1930’s and 1940’s. Today’s situation is no different despite the shrill cries of the Alarmists who fail to recognize historical fact!
Re: Mark (#868),
I didn’t know this — do you have a reference?
Re: Pat Keating (#875),
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elnino/anatomy/machine.html
And yes I oversimplified. The transfer of heat is both an atmospheric and oceanic process. However, given the much greater heat carrying capacity of the oceans, it is the fluctuations in the ocean currents which drives the longer term variance in Arctic temperatures and sea ice levels.
http://www.intellicast.com/Community/Content.aspx?a=128
Re: Mark (#868),
In actual fact, Hansen was the first to point this out, and he even admitted as much in a published paper (available upon request). Hansen does not deny the inability of the models to explain this phenomenon. I have mentioned this a half dozen times now. What “alarmists” do and do not “fail to recognize” is inconsequential. It’s what the Hansens think that matters. And the tone of that paper is anything but “shrill”.
Re: bender (#882), Re: bender (#882),
Au contraire. It’s what they say that matters. How many people are going to dig into his papers?
They’re going to follow what he says in his many public outbursts!
http://blogs.nature.com/news/thegreatbeyond/2008/06/he_wants_you_all_to_sing_along.html
http://www.kentnews.co.uk/kent-news/NASA-scientist-defends-Greenpeace-Kingsnorth-stunt-newsinkent15878.aspx?news=local
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/09/10/note-to-nasa-fire-dr-james-hansen-now/
Re: Mark (#886),
Finally, something we can agree on. Yes, what Hansen says does matter. If there is something weak in his argumentation, point to it. Just don’t wave your hands and call the guy an “alarmist”. No rational person is going to listen to that for very long. We know he’s an alarmist! He even admits as much in his testimony. The question is: what, if anything, is logically or factually incorrect in his argument?
Re: bender (#885),
Re: Mark (#879),
So you are cherry-picking two data points, 1988, 2008, to suggest that temperatures have dropped in the 20 years between Hansen testimonies? Oh come on, Mark, you know you can’t justify those choices. That Aaron lets this pass without comment is bordering on shameful.
When I ask to point to a specific piece of an argument, your one-line linkies aren’t going to work. This thread is so mismanaged it may be beyond repair.
Re: bender (#881),
The shame is all yours Bender. As Mike has already pointed out, those dates were chosen by Hansen – that’s when he testified. And the deceit around the 1988 testimony is legendary with his political cronies arranging to leave the windows open in the testimony room to defeat the air conditioning on that hot day. There is nothing spectacular about the 1988 temperatures. They are typical for the period from 1980 onward that were not affected by volcanic impacts or La Ninas/El Ninos.
Bender–
I googled. Looks like a typical food fight in comments at a blog. No one is really reading what other people say and they are all rebutting irrelevancies.
It appears someone “rebutted” Kim’s main points by criticizing him/her calling me a scientist. That said, I couldn’t find the comment where Kim said I was a scientist. So, that would be a double logical fallacy on the part of the person criticising. The main points could be correct even if kim made the mistake of calling me a scientist, and it appears kim did not even call me a scientists. So the “rebuttal” was to a strawman “mistake” which kim did not make.
That said, those comments are L-O-N-G. Maybe Kim called me a scientist. Maybe kim said something I would disagree with. I’m not wading through 100s of comments to sort that out!
Thank heavens I’ve never cared what other people think!
Re: lucia (#803),
Oh, lucia, this is all very amusing. I did call you a scientist, and the objection that you were an engineer not a scientist was so laughable I don’t think I responded to it.
Bender, I don’t know how you define a trend, but tropospheric temperatures are dropping via UAH and RSS, oceanic temperatures to 2000 meters are dropping via Argos, and sea level is dropping via Topex, presumably from thermal contraction, ruling out ‘extra heat’ accumulating in the deeper ocean. These are all very short term phenomena, but given a PDO flipped to a 20-30 year cooling phase, and given a sun entering a minimum, Grand or Lesser, I expect these short term phenomena to develop into an unambiguous trend. I could certainly be wrong, but the data is trending my way.
Truly the magnitude of the effect of CO2 on climate is simply unknown. We are not even completely certain of the sign of its effect, despite the basic physics of CO2 greenhouse effect, because we do not know the result of all the other feedbacks and forcings and convections and other variables when processed in the great analog computer that is our climate regulatory mechanisms.
Certainly, Arctic Ice extent at minimum is a poor proxy for global temperature trends. As we all know by now, Arctic Ice responds more to local events, wind, currents, water temperature, and storms. Nonetheless, ice extent has great symbolic value, which is why we are all fighting about it. I predicted last Spring that ice extent at minimum would be greater this year than last and I’ll now predict that ice extent at minimum next year will be greater than this year. Both of my predictions depend on the dramatic cooling we have seen globally very recently; my guess was and is that the amount of global cooling would overwhelm the local processes, and that the ice this year and next would serve as a proxy for global temperature.
I’m certainly prepared to be wrong; I’ll not be surprised if I’m right. And I am not a scientist, at least, not much of one.
=======================================
Preliminary Unofficial Day 260 Race Report
2008 gains a bit on 2007, but still nearly 450K behind.
9 17 2002 NA NA
9 17 2003 6.033281 -0.008594
9 16 2004 5.882813 -0.029375
9 17 2005 5.422344 -0.025312
9 17 2006 5.828281 0.022187
9 17 2007 4.268750 0.001094
9 16 2008 4.715156 -0.016719
Re: TAC (#804),
I’m still seeing 9/15 results on JAXA which are slightly different from the 10 AM number. Where did you get 9/16 results? Or did they put them up and take them down again. I guess I could look at the .csv file.
Re: DeWitt Payne (#808), I get the numbers from:
url=’http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/plot.csv’
Not that it really matters anyway. Although it is asking a lot because so many of the AGW proponents seem to have little grasp of basic science and mathematics, they need to do the math. The math that indicates that the Arctic region on average receives only 1.4% of the total incident radiation to the earth. So even if a little ice melts and libido increases it will make little difference to the earth’s energy balance.
If there is increased melting of ice in the Arctic it’s because of the increased transport of heat from the more temperate parts of the planet that is driving the process and this is because the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation and the associated Arctic Oscillation is in +ve mode. When they swing back negative which is likely within the next 10 years, it’s back to ice cube city just like what happened following the 30’s and 40’s where measured Arctic temperatures were higher than those of today. Unfortunately we didn’t have satellites back then so it would be clear to the dim bulbs that what we are currently seeing in the Arctic is nothing extraordinary!
Re: Mark (#806),
ROFLOL 🙂
I think we have a divergence problem!! 🙂
Of course the BBC and the rest of the media also push the AGW agenda and scare the simple masses.
You’re welcome bender.
Shawn,
“When there is a few miles thick of ice in the middle of NA once again then the zealots will maybe concede.”
That would not even be considered a minor setback. There is always a thread somewhere that can be pulled.
Is this the sort of thread you want, Aaron, polluted with nonsense and bogus “predictions” by religious nuts?
Re: bender (#817),
I’m afraid it may be too late to save this thread. Everyone looking to resurrect Unthreaded, this is exactly the reason why it was killed. And there’s lots of blame to go around. Trolls are harmless if they are ignored. You fall into their trap when you engage them.
Also, anyone who thinks that 2008 is all that much different from 2007 should look at the following graph:
U.Hamburg Arctic Ice Area
I’ve cheated a little and used a lagged fit to extend the 2008 line to 9/12 with CT area data. The big difference between 2008 and 2007 is lower concentration in 2008 leading to somewhat higher extent with about the same total ice area. The only question now is whether we will see a normal or delayed freeze as in 2008. A normal freeze would mean a slight increase in the small lead in annual average area that 2008 currently has compared to 2007.
Your comment at 816 is out of line Bender. You diminish yourself by making them. Let it go.
Not me bender, I would much rather have bogus predictions from experts.
#821 Willis Eschenbach
Thanks for #821. And it was an interesting read and made me laugh here :
This illustrates, roughly, what is spoken of in this study, this “peer-reviewed” study. This work is also presented in video, part1, part 2, by one of the authors Roy Spencer.
While I understand the sentiment, you need to be careful about your remarks. The entire edifice of modern science is built on the foundation of reduction to simple principles. We push lower-and-lower, say understanding subatomic interactions. What you learn in a Physics program is how to select the right level of approximation for a given problem.
Such an education has taught me to be weary of the complexity you seem to call upon. e.g., I am rather suspicious that the seven layer soil aspiration model used in ModelE is an appropriate level of detail.
Again, I find it humorous as AGWers consistently are shifting the focus to area, rather than extent, despite the fact that many of them predicted a lower minimum for EXTENT in 2008…and that obviously has not occurred.
The facts:
1. 2008 has a greater extent of ice going into fall, which will likely lead to a greater build-up of multi-year ice going into summer 2009.
2. Arctic temperatures have been and are markedly cooler than they were last year and the several years before that.
3. Arctic SSTAs are cooler this year than last year overall, meaning a faster refreeze is likely.
Re: Jared (#824),
Why is it humerous that someone considers sea ice area a better measure than extent?
What you’ll have is the same amount of ice more spread out over the ocean with the gaps between it freezing during the winter. That will likely lead to faster breakup and melt next year. That is not more multiyear ice, in fact replacing the multiyear ice lost in the Beaufort by one year old ice elsewhere leads to an overall drop in average age.
And yet we had a greater melt this year ~10.8 Mm^2 that in the summer of 2007 which might indicate a greater vulnerability?
I’d like to see your data on that.
Re: Phil. (#845),
That is just as speculative as the statements about increased ice next year. Your position is strong enough you don’t need to do that. Besides, that’s pretty much what was said at the beginning of this year’s melt season and it didn’t happen. There was more ice longer this year than last. Maybe not much more, but the speculation (I don’t think it rose to the level of prediction) was that there would be much less much faster.
Re: Phil. (#845),
That sounds like what you predicted last year.
Less heat in the Arctic than last year. expect an early and hard freeze.
Re: Shawn Whelan (#853),
And was correct, or did you miss the rapid loss of old ice in the Beaufort this year?
I have been following this thread for quite some time, and recently I’ve been noticing some very disturbing trends that I wouldn’t expect to rear its ugly head on this site, let alone this thread.
The amount of venom being thrown about is absurd. Is it not possible to have a discussion with out throwing in ad hom attacks. I guess it’s getting to the point that we will no longer be able to have a civil debate!!
Re: Lee W (#825),
I agree. I was expecting this thread to exhibit a playful tone as appropriate for sports discussions, with passionate opinions and occasional epithets (references to Army boots, e.g.), but overall a playful tone and frequent reconciliations and agreeement.
My sense is that Mother Nature played her part perfectly: What curve balls! Excitement to the finish.
FWIW, I agree with bender on the technical points about trend uncertainty (which leads to deeper questions, e.g. does there exist a rigorous and meaningful definition of trend?). At the same time, I think such comments make more sense, and are more likely to be understood, in the context of the Koutsoyiannis threads (here and here). I hope everyone takes a look at Koutsoyiannis, which is beautiful and brilliant, though not easy to follow. To give away the ending: DrK’s work casts doubt on the scientific underpinnings of the whole debate, but it is a non-trivial result that should leave everyone scratching their heads.
This thread, on the other hand, is more appropriate for light-hearted discussion. Enjoy the ball game!
And don’t despair because this season is almost over: If you can find something to occupy your time during the next few months, next year the excitement will begin anew.
🙂
Re: Lee W (#825),
What Lee said. This is an amazingly high quality site.
Thanks dewitt for the #819 post on the German ice results and also once again to Aaron for his stirling ( but not sterling unfortunately for him as they were gratis!) work on the graphs.
Just thought I would put a bit of “love” onto the comment chain there 😀
#824, yes Jared in relation to 1 I wonder what NSIDC will say in their October statement in regards to this? We know that they said that lack of ice last summer meant the young ice was thicker than they expected this year, so what does a bigger extent but less concentrated extent mean for the thickness next year? I certainly don’t know being a 1st year novice myself at this game.
It’s a good point about focus on extent possibly shifting to area, however perhaps both should have been equally covered from the start as both seem to be important, I know that a section of us where not even aware between the difference of extent and area though at sea ice stretch run 1 !!
In regards to the argument about old evidence for ice extent in the artic, i do agree that this should be taken into account for further investigation but I’d be unhappy if it was compared to modern ways of marking ice extent / area such as satellite, simply because consistency breaks down. It’s similar to the measurement of number of hurricanes before the modern era, in the past the number was probably higher than seen by sailors so the values there are not consistent either. That’s not to say the old records are not untrue of course.
As for AGW I think the Scottish courts would classify it as “unproven”, ie not proved or disproved at this point, hence why it is so interesting looking at pointers and data to see which way the case is going and arguing the t oss on the Internet.
Hopefully in a civil way of course.
Anyway here’s a toast to an ice free artic in 2009 ! :p
Regards
Andy
Re: Jon (#823), thank you for your comment.
You are correct that modern science is based on reduction to simple principles. Note that I did not say that regarding climate, “simple physics” is wrong. It isn’t. But its explanatory power is small, and it often leads to incorrect conclusions … as in my example with the bucket of hot water.
I’ve just had it tossed in my face too many times. “CO2 will absorb more IR, and this means the earth will warm. Therefore AGW is true. Simple physics.” Unfortunately, climate is not that simple.
You say:
I made no comment on the ModelE level of complexity. Not sure what you mean by that.
In any case, if you want to model the response of my human body to sticking my feet in hot water, you will not do it with “simple physics”. In the case of the human body we are lucky, we have a general (and fairly detailed) theory of heat regulation works in our bodies (thermoregulation via evaporation and respiration). With our theoretical knowledge, we know enough about how heat regulation works and how heat flows in the body to make educated guesses on things like “if I stick my feet in a bucket of hot water, how much will it warm the blood leaving my heart.” Whatever is the minimum amount of computational detail necessary to do that is what we need. The KISS principle rules in model making on my planet.
In climate science, however, we have no such luxury of a clear and detailed theory. There is no generally agreed upon “theory of planetary thermoregulation”. There is no agreement on whether there is planetary thermoregulation. (I say clearly yes … and I am in the minority). We have only recently identified many of the main flows. We have very little knowledge about forcings, and less about feedbacks. Unlike measuring the temperature of blood in a vein, it is very hard to measure say poleward-flowing energy in the atmospheric band between 500 and 200 mBar.
Bejan has done the best job of explaining the dynamics (pdf here). Let me quote a bit. First, the abstract:
And the method:
However, as always, it’s not quite that simple.
“Bigger whorls have smaller whorls,
That feed off their velocity.
Smaller whorls have smaller yet,
And so on to viscosity.”
There is the terawatt scale spinning whorl that is the climate heat engine, always shifting its tropics-to-polar flow geometry to maximize performance subject to global constraints of continent locations and coriolis effects and the like.
The driving force of the whole circulation, however, are the smaller heat engines called thunderstorms. These are self-organized emergent entities that are born, move huge amounts of energy both upwards and downwards, have a finite lifespan, and then die out. The actions of the thunderstorms (forming in response to rising temperature above a certain threshold, reflecting incoming energy back into space, moving energy aloft, and cooling the surface to below starting temperature) form the thermoregulatory mechanism that keeps the planet from overheating.
And once again, I recommend the minimum amount of complexity in modeling that system as we possibly can. But even at its simplest, modeling the planet as a huge heat engine whose temperature is regulated by the independent formation of a large number of much smaller heat engines (thunderstorms), which are an emergent property of a complex system …
… well, you won’t do it with “simple physics”.
My best to you,
w.
There once was a girl named lucia
Her statistics a great sight to see uh.
But engineer be
Or scientist she
She’d never think to disinform ya’.
=======================
Re: kim (#829),
Being an engineer vs. a scientist are not mutually exclusive. In fact most engineering degrees incorporate the term science. In the US engineering degrees will typically be along the lines of “BSME (Bachelor of Science – Mechanical Engineering)” while in Canada most degrees are along the lines of “BASc (Bachelor of Applied Science)” – the Canadian degrees do not convey the specific field of engineering study.
Most people don’t understand that mechanical engineers are especially well positioned to comprehend the various facts and claims associated with global warming. Typical nicknames for mechanical engineers such as “gearhead” or “metal basher” reflect only one of the many dimensions of mechanical engineering studies. Typical studies also widely embrace calculus, differential equations, other advanced mathematics, fluid mechanics, heat transfer, thermodynamics, thermal energy systems, control systems and physics – all fields of study germain to the topic at hand.
One notable difference between engineering and science programs however is that following the Canadian tradition, more and more engineerings schools are adopting the practice of incorporating the practice of issuing rings with an accompanying obligation ceremony whereby the engineer makes a formal statement of their responsibilities to the public and to the profession. While the details of the Canadian ceremony are private, the text of the U.S. obligation is freely available:
It is therefore a shame that all scientists, not just engineers, do not take a similar obligation. Perhaps it would have curtailed some of the abhorent and dishonest practices exhibited by some of the extremist scientists fronting the AGW hysteria.
Interesting headline on the BBC News 24 channel this morning (early). Paraphrasing a bit, but :
2008 Arctic Ice passes minimum extent, fails to beat 2007 record, scientists say.
Looking for it on the BBC website now…
#830 Slippery Freud and soon? slippery roads here in Sweden?!
In Finland, I just checked road air temps: between 3.8 and 8.9C
90 % of Sweden has CLIMATIC AUTUMN by now [SMHI definition: 5
consecutive days of average temps below +10.0C … And here in
S Sweden, even more southerly than Solna/Stockholm area, the airport
of Jönköping set a new early autumn “record” last year: Aug 28, old
“record” 1978: Aug 29…Citation marks because SMHI statistics available on line are only from 1965…Hmmm … 14 more years than
some other statistic series…[Slippery toads can also mean slippery
roads…]
833 TAC
How about a new thread titled; “Sea ice; “The first turn”?
And I also agree with Bender’s “wait and see” approach to this whole issue. If only that were the real world approach as well…
Cheers all! Damn fine sport, what?
I’m right and the trolls are wrong. All trolls deserve the occasional blast of venom when they are that far in the wrong. Once they are outed, they can be left to lie amongst themselves.
If you don’t like being labelled a troll, then reform your behavior. Support your points with data. Listen to reason. Don’t mock. etc.
Re: bender (#838),
The AGW Bolshevik has spoken. Calm down, as you sound irrational.
The AGW theory is falling to pieces, a regular Humpty Dumpty and as the Earth cools it will be very difficult to put back together.
Re: Shawn Whelan (#840),
Shawn, Bender’s glue for Humpty-Dumpty would be whatever deterministic effect CO2 has on climate. First, though, we must know the sign and the magnitude of the effect.
==================================================
Re: kim (#842),
The usual climate that has been acting for a long time is currently overiding any effects of the small amount of manmade greenhouse gas released into the atmosphere. Even though there has been a huge increase in the amount of manmade CO2 the Earth has cooled. The effect of the slight increase in atmospheric CO2 is minor at best.
Here in Canada we have had a cold Winter folowed by a cool Summer and predictions of a very cold Winter staring us in the face. Gonna make it hard to sell AGW even if you call it Climate Change.
Re: Shawn Whelan (#844),
Re: Shawn Whelan (#811),
It’s big. It’s small. It’s whatever it needs to be to try to score a point here and there.
Re: bender (#847),
Bender I will make it simple.
There has been a huge increase in manmade greenhouse gasses in the last 10 years.(relative to the previous amount of greenhouse gasses) No matter how much CO2 man produces the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere in miniscule. So it is a small amount of CO2 that man releases relative to the atmosphere.
You are really grasping at straws.
Re: Shawn Whelan (#850),
Your consistent failure to support your claims with data is noted. Call them ‘straws’ if you like.
Re: bender (#856),
Bender– you make yourself look like a religious fanatic promoting AGW and refusing to look at the changing facts. You won’t even take a peek.
Re: kim (#842), There is no doubt whatsoever that the effect of CO2 is non-zero positive. The issue is as you put it: what, precisely, is the magnitude. There are problems with the way that estimate is made. My sincere advice to deniers masquerading as skeptics is to focus on REAL weaknesses, instead of imaginary strawmen. So, yes, kim, this is the glue.
However, glue is not necessary, as the theory is not broken. Shawn continues to deny the fact that the GCMs produce 8-year cooling trends in, what, 11 out of 52 runs? Something like that. References available upon request. A little cold weather does not break the theory. And if Koutsoyiannis is right, then a whole lot of cold weather wouldn’t break the theory. But of course Shawn is in denial about the implications of Koutsoyiannis’s work.
Speaking of investors, the one single most important piece of information that we lack in order to rightly inform the decisions of investors and policymakers is the sensitivity of the climate to CO2. Without that information, action is done in ignorance, and is more likely to be wrong than right.
James Hansen was a director at Lehman, presumably not a managing one. A managing director there, Theodore Roosevelt IV, was also a director, with Al Gore, of the Alliance for Climate Progress. Lehman was heavily into climate schemes and carbon trading. To the extent that Lehman failed because of its reliance on global warming from CO2, just so will the influence of Gore and Hansen be questioned. If there has been misrepresentation of the state of knowledge in climate science, inquiring minds will want to know. I suspect they already do know.
Calling lucia not a scientist because she is an engineer is like calling Steve not a scientist because he is an economist. Surely some days, his work is dismal. But auditing ore samples ultimately saves money, and auditing climatology will also ultimately save money. Lots and lots and lots of it. More importantly, if we are headed towards a long term and deep cooling, then Steve’s work will not only save money, but lives; treasure and souls. Who could ask for anything more?
Anybody care to bet about the hang time of this comment?
=====================================
#838 Bender…”TCO turns Chucky” It’s a test, no?!
Here are my graphs for yesterday’s ice extent data, based upon revised IARC/JAXA Ice Extent data. There was a small downward revision of the area this morning (about 2,500 km^2). I don’t know how TAC got the numbers he posted last night, because it’s nowhere near what I downloaded last night, or what it is reporting this morning. The correct margin between 2007 and 2008 extent is 457,500 km^2.
Daily Arctic Sea Ice Extent Reduction Day 260
Arctic Sea Ice Extent Day 260
2008 Arctic Ice Extent Differences From Previous Years Day 260
Arctic Sea Ice Total Drops from Peaks Day 260
The kind of thread I want, bender, is one where mature adults contribute posts lacking in this kind of childish dribble.
Hmmm, bender (847), you seem to have made a category mistake here
One is talking about the amount of human produced CO2 in the atmosphere, the other is talking about the time derivative of the amount of human produced C02.
A doubling from 0.01% to 0.02% (or 0.1% to 0.2% or even 1% to 2%) is still a huge increase in a very tiny amount.
Re: Real Richard Sharpe (#852),
It appears that way because of the way I have extracted the quotes and placed them in parallel, to maximize the contrast. Read the fuller context and you will see it is not a mistake of category. I recognized when I made the quote that one was amount and the other was rate. I wanted the commenter to follow up with his own clarification. Now that he is alerted, the opportunity for clarification is spoiled.
Re: Aaron Wells (#851),
Aaron, IMO you are too tolerant of people posting unsupported claims. Best, then, if I leave your thread. The race is over anyways. It’s all about rhetorical spin now.
#851 Aaron
In fairness to TAC, I’m pretty sure JAXA did an extra revision this morning (UK time), so from my point of view the revision a couple of hours ago was upwards.
Shawn, the facts aren’t “changing”. You are over-interpreting the tiny tails of the time-series. I’ve seen the data. You are blinded by your own faith, imprisoned by your own confirmation bias. Did graduate school not cure you of that malady? Open your eyes to the robust statistics of those time-series. It is WAY too early to predict a change.
Willis==
That’s the one I mean.
When people make bold claims that the recent trends falsify “the” theory of AGW without explaining what they think “the” theory is, I assume they mean this utterly simplistic one.
If they mean something else by “the” theory of AGW, they should say so. In that case, we can figure out if the specific theory they consider “the” theory could be overturned.
The recent trends are useful for testing model predictions. Some data is useful for testing whether GHG’s are the dominant forcing. But people making claims that the trend over turn “the” theory are incorrect, because at it’s core, the general theory is the simplistic one. The actual magnitude of sensitivity, the time constant of the earth, cloud models and the effects of land use are details that we must look at individually.
Mark– 866:
Well… I had took some control systems as an undergraduate and then never looked at it again. My Ph.D. is in the “thermal-fluids” area. So, that means coursework focused on fluid mechanics, heat transfer, thermodynamics. You can’t do those without diffy-Q etc.!
The idea that a randomly selected scientists automatically has a better grasp of the topics that are important to AGW than a randomly selected Mechanical Engineer is odd. Each specialty will know more about some aspect of science that affects AGW. But, few biologists and chemists generally know much about computational fluid dynamics; mechanical engineers know little about atmospheric chemistry and so on.
Re: lucia (#874),
Some might question how “Control Systems” would be germane to AGW discussions. However, it astounds me how often people jump into a discussion about solar impacts with statements along the lines of “well solar activity hasn’t increased since 1980 therefore it can’t be responsible for temperature increases since then” followed by the inevitable “therefore it HAS to be CO2!” As part of basic control systems understanding (and just plain common sense), one of course knows that most responses to any change in input to a system are usually not reflected on an instantaneous basis and can continue for some time until a steady-state equilibrium is reached.
Mark–
Well… of the things you listed, control systems was the one I have the least exposure too. I agree with you that fluids, thermo, heat transfer etc. pop-up all over AGW discussions. Those are the areas I studied and worked in. 🙂
Still, there are topics covered in control systems that are also useful to AGW.
ON the “solar activity hasn’t…” issue: On both sides of the debate, “People want to say “X” did (or didn’t) happen between 19XX and now so it that can’t have anything to do with AGW!” You’ve described the version the warmers’ like. In the coolers’ version “X” is CO2 rose between 2000 and now, and temperature dropped.
Topics covered in control theory tell us it’s more complicated than that. Topic in turbulence or statistics tell us it’s more complicated than that. Heck, econometrics tell us it’s more complicated than that! 🙂
Re: lucia (#878),
Hmmm. I would argue that the circumstances of the two are quite different. In both cases the proponents argue that their factors drive temperature increase (solar and CO2 respectively). In the case of solar, it is very possible for temperatures to continue to increase while solar levels are static until a steady state is reached. However in the case of CO2, if CO2 is the primary driver of temperature increase as the Alarmists argue, that maxim starts to become highly suspect if temperatures remain static or even drop while CO2 continues to monotonically increase. Now we all know that in the end it will be a combination of factors that drive climate and yes CO2 is likely to be one of them, although likely on an order of magnitude impact lower than what the Alarmists advocate. With the drop in temperatures the Alarmists now claim that other factors related to natural variability such as ocean currents are just “masking” the CO2 warming. Funny how they just can’t bring themselves to admit that they have most likely played the major role in the temperature increases we’ve seen since the end of the LIA in the first place!
How is the baby ice doing?
Bender
When you take a trip over to the Kingsnorth enquiry thread do you put a jacket and tie on? You are much more polite over there (sorry – I had intended to add a smilie here)
Re: Tony Brown (#770),
It is fair that historic material should pass some sort of rigorous climate audit. I liked your defintions of trends and your tacit acceptance of the merit of audited historical evidence. I would like to use your quotes in order to start a thread asking for historical evidence and just wanted to ensure you are happy to be mentioned. Purely a courtesy.
Tony Brown
WWF spin:
paraphrasing: although the minimum ice area is greater than last year, the ice is thinner, therefore we have an unprecedented record
Arctic sea ice at lowest level ever
http://www.panda.org/news_facts/newsroom/news/index.cfm?uNewsID=145182
Bender
Whilst you are around I would like to ask a question I didnt dare put to the guys in Dinner jacketrs over at Kingsnorth. There is much talk there of tectonic plates and Continents moving, which is going back so far it is difficult to know the real effects.
As you will know Britain was attached to the continent and we became an island only after the last ice age. Lots of neolithic material has been found in the North Sea in what is known as Dogger land. As you know the Gulf stream flows around our coast and heads up to the Arctic and as mentioned in another post was observed at 82 degrees North in the 1930’s.
My question is did the flooding of the North sea fundamentally affect the existing current patterns by permitting a two way flow round the British Isles and could this have had any influence on the Arctic? Anyone else able to answer?
Tony Brown
#886 Tony Brown…You mean the continent was attached to Britain …
[This thread is becoming more and more of a Sit down comedy stretch…
bender I can’t prove most people sit when typing, just an assumption]
…”dinner jackets” as opposed to straight jackets here…??
bender, interesting as always. You say:
OK … I hereby request both sets of references.
w.
Re: Willis Eschenbach (#882),
Willis–
The reference on the number of runs with cooling trends is a RC article by Gavin.
However, having downloaded the runs, I can confirm that the runs do produce cooling trends at more or less the rate Bender is saying. I can also report that the runs have some of the weirdest “weather” you have ever seen.
Also, reading the IPCC AR4, I find it impossible to credit the claim that the authors believed spread of the individual runs described the spread of possible weather. (That’s basically Gavin’s argument at RC.)
In fact, the variability of 8 year trends across models used by the IPCC is greater than what you’d get if you download observations and compute the variability in the thermometer record! ( References are my blog… But, you can download data and calculate an OLS trend to check. That’s better than a reference. 🙂 )
So, what Bender says is correct. I don’t happen to think that’s spread is particularly relevant if we want to test if the recent GMST is consistent with the trend for the average temperature the IPCC projected in figure 10.4 of the AR4. (And I think the trend in the average is worth discussing because that’s the information people are given directly.)
Re: Willis Eschenbach (#882),
1. I first referred to Hansen et al. (2007) here, and this is the paper. See p. 673
2. lucia, I’ll be damned if I can locate that article. Can you? Thanks for your #885!
Re: Willis Eschenbach (#882),
For those too impatient to download a large paper, here is the relevant quote from Hansen et al 2007:
When I asked at RC if the current arctic warmth could be caused by exactly the same thing, mike suggested this possibility could not be ruled out.
CT area update 9/17/2008
region area(Mm2) difference anomaly
Arctic 3.069 0.003 -1.941
Antarctic 14.845 0.073 -0.196
Arctic smoothed area rate of change continues to increase (become less negative). Because of the group delay caused by the smoothing, the smoothed rate reaches zero at least 6 to 8 days after the actual area reaches minimum. The ice concentration is still about 65%, so the potential for a late dip in extent as in 2005 is still there.
The Canadian Ice Service is showing significant amounts of first year ice hanging around the Canadian Archipelago with new ice being formed in the far northern areas. See: http://ice-glaces.ec.gc.ca/prods/WIS55SD/20080915180000_WIS55SD_0003974849.gif
BTW, the “climate advisor” at WWF(see referenced article in comment#875 above) is actually an ecologist, not a climatologist or ice expert(ice-ologist??). ‘Nuff said.
“So you are cherry-picking two data points, 1988, 2008, to suggest that temperatures have dropped in the 20 years between Hansen testimonies? Oh come on, Mark, you know you can’t justify those choices.”
I don’t think Mark chose those dates, Hansen did.
Re: Mike Bryant (#887),
Cute. Everyone following this?
Over a week ago I wrote, in not so many words, stick a fork in it, the melt is over. I was right. Now for a riddle – when is baby ice not a weak and frail infant?
Bender & Willis,
The RC article with the variability in 8 year trends in models is:
post.
Re: lucia (#890),
That’s it!
Here’s the quote:
I said 11 out of 52. The correct number was 9 out of 55.
Sorry Lucia I can’t get that link to work.
Mike, does this work better?
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/what-the-ipcc-models-really-say/
That worked bender, thank you. So if you have enough models and do enough runs, you can actually find something, somewhere, on a few of the models that actually show some cooling, before they show warming again. Is that about right?
Re: Mike Bryant (#895), Yes, that’s not incorrect. It is very important to distinguish between short term stochastic climate variability and long-term determinstic responses (i.e. forcing trends). That is why lucia spends as much time as she does trying to characterize the “noise”, and why we argue so much about what is weather noise vs. climate signal. The consensus does not define these things. They use heuristic devices of convenience to distinguish the two (e.g. “climate is what you expect, weather is what you get”), and that’s not good enough under the LTP hypothesis.
Re: Mike Bryant (#895),
And read the Kingsnorth thread, where mzed is trying to defend the Stainforth paper. These guys chuck out roughly half the runs (they keep 1148/2017) as unstable, unphysical, or whatever, using some ill-defined criteria. And many of these runs are “cool” runs! So the model outputs may be way more variable than we are often led to believe. The problem is the alarmist scientists don’t tell you this until they need to reveal that fact to prop up the theory by making it one notch less refutable.
bender and lucia, many thanks for the links.
For a comparison, I took a look at the variability in 8 year trends in the GISS EH model from the KNMI data. I find that negative 8-year trends occur in some 7% of the total possible 8 year runs in the three different century-long datasets.
Since this is very close to p less than 0.05, I took a look to see what the numbers were for longer runs.
9 years – p = 0.048
10 years – p = 0.044
In IPCC terms, this means that it is “very likely” (p less than 0.10) that if you pick a random year in the period Jan 2008 – Dec 2100, the previous 8 year trend is positive.
And it is “extremely likely” (p less than 0.05) that if you pick a random year in the period Jan 2009 – Dec 2100, the previous 9 year trend is positive.
Finally, for fun I looked at the chances that a single monthly temperature exactly twenty years later would be cooler than at the single month at the start of the period. The odds on this one occurring in the model runs were only 0.8% … so in IPCC terms, it is “virtually certain” (p < 0.01) that either Hansen is monumentally unlucky (August 2008 was cooler than August 1988), or Hansen’s own simulations are not matching the reality.
Coincidence? … you be the judge.
w.
Re: Willis Eschenbach (#898),
Careful Willis. The timing of that 1988 testimony was, shall we see, carefully scripted to coincide with a natural opportunity: El Nino? This would significantly lower the probability that the temperature 20 years later would be higher. Via regression to the mean. The 2008 testimony was not prompted by natural opportunity, but by political opportunity. Cute, hunh?
Re: bender (#899),
Thanks for your comment. I understand your point, that he picked a hot month to testify. This would of course increase the odds that the same month twenty years later would be cooler.
My point was more to do with how well the models simulate natural variability. In the model, the odds of it happening by chance are less than 1% … and although they would improve, I don’t think they’d improve much by only picking “warm” starting years.
Finally, once again most (73%) of the “twenty years later the same month is cooler” ending years occur at the end of the record, in this case post 2095.
w.
I wonder if congress called Hansen in each time, or Hansen made his own appointments?
Perhaps some really, really smart congressional aid made the second appointment.
Oh, yeah, forgot to mention … the majority of the negative trends in the model runs are at the beginning and the end. From 2025 to 2092, for example, only 1.1% of the 8 year trends were negative.
But from 2093-2100, a full 36% of the 8 year runs are negative! … this probably relates to the SRES scenario leveling out at the end of the century.
So if we look at only the first 90 years of the GCM forecasts, the number of negative 8 year trends drops from 7% to 4.4%, which makes it “extremely unlikely” that our recent eight year negative run is somehow contained in the model results …
w.
Re: Willis Eschenbach (#901), I disagree. To get your model runs to compare with Hansen’s 1988/2008 testimonies you need to have your first point start just after a modeled El Nino.
Re: Willis Eschenbach (#901),
If you want to post that, I have a blog that would be happy to invite you to guest post. 🙂
My general impression is the large variability over all models runs is artificially boosted by:
a) the different parameterizations in models. Basically, we have “planet GISS-EH”, “planet FGOAL” etc.
B) Some models include volcanic forcing in the history, some don’t. This means each model has different amounts of cooling “in the pipeline” as we enter 2001. (I don’t know how much it is, but it’s some.)
c) some models have insane “weather noise”.
bender (899) says:
I don’t understand this regression to the mean?
We are told that higher CO2 means higher temperatures, so how does regression to the mean work here?
Re: Real Richard Sharpe (#904),
Richard, I took that to mean that with a higher starting point, the mean would be higher, which would lower the probability that the end point would be higher than the start point.
====================================================
#903 Willis Eschenbach
Yes, picked it intentionally to add drama to his around-the-camp-fire-horror-story. Don’t believe me?
There’s a clip in this video from minute 0:50 to minute 1:13 from a PBS Frontline documentary.
#833 TAC
Maybe. But I’m not so certain. This year’s interest was stirred up by the “North Pole ice-free” talk and by the “11 research teams”. Unless there is some sort of new, equally inconceivable scenario as the ice-free North Pole in the news next year there may not be another thread with 1000’s of comments and with hundreds of graphs again for the 2009 summer Arctic melt.
Well, bender, I don’t know about the connection to the El Nino, that sounds suss to me. To start with, despite myriad claims, the El Nino is not all that well correlated with temperature. Let me go get some data …
OK, I got the El Nino 3.4 Index. If we look at monthly data, the peak in the correlation is with about a three month lag between El Nino and temperature (I’m using HadCRUT), and is only 0.36. It is statistically significant after allowing for autocorrelation … but it is small.
A linear estimation of the effect of El Nino on temperature shows that the best fit is with
Temp = 0.08 * El Nino – 2.1
Now, the average value for the El Nino index 3.4 is 27.0, with a maximum value of 29.2 (back in 1878). That means that the most we can show the El Nino driving global temps above average is 0.08 * (29.2 – 27.0) = 2.2 * .08 = 0.17°C.
The 1988 El Nino, on the other hand, peaked at at 27.5 … so the most we could justify ascribing to the 1988 El Nino is 0.5 * 0.08 = 0.04, four hundredths of a degree …
To check my results, I redid them with the Multivariate Enso Index (MEI) instead of the El Nino 3.4 Index … almost identical outcome, the effect is small, for the MEI the effect in August 1988 is a few hundredths of a degree.
So I’d say your El Nino theory doesn’t hold water …
w.
PS – The reason I suspected this is because I did a similar exercise for the 1998 El Nino that the AGW crowd are always saying skews recent results … but even adjusted for El Nino, it is still the warmest year in the record, because the adjustment is fairly small.
#836 kim
It was worded in a biased way. It created images of trepidation. It had no disclaimer. It was not neutral.
Sorry, but if I sound harsh. But he tried to give a feeling of hysteria in his presentation.
#841 kim
Can you give links to all of these? I want to read up on this.
Steve: I’ve seen no evidence that Hansen was a director of Lehman. I checked. Please do not repeat tittle-tattle. Lehman’s failure was unrelated to CO2 schemes as well. Stop this stuff.
Re: GeneII (#910),
GeneII, Steve’s right, I’m wrong. Icecap.us on 9/16/08 has an article about the connections of James Hansen and Al Gore to Lehman.
And yes, all those things you say about Andy Revkin’s piece are true. For a believer, though, the admission that melt did not reach last year’s extent, was a lot.
====================================================
Steve
The reason I wanted links is because it was a new idea to me. I was not trying to promote the idea.
Sorry if it seemed I was.
You tried to be ironic and ended up trying to advance an incorrect statistical argument. Willis is on to you. It won’t be long before others see my logic and your illogic. That’s ok. I’m patient.
Lucia, coment 885 says
However, having downloaded the runs, I can confirm that the runs do produce cooling trends at more or less the rate Bender is saying. I can also report that the runs have some of the weirdest “weather” you have ever seen.
My question is so what? Don’t the GCMs have to produce the right answers for the right reasons? I could put 52 random estimates of future climates and some are bound to be right. For instance how many of the GCM runs predicted the cooling without a major volcanic event and similar ocean circumstances to what we have had for the past seven years?
Is there a global “cooling trend”? Depends on what you mean by that, and whose data you choose. Me, I choose monthly satellite data, in particular UAH data, because I don’t like the RSS algorithm. However, on this particular question, the two are quite close.
Since mid-2000, there is no month when a trend to the present (August 2008) is positive. So if you define a cooling trend as “the historical trends are all negative back to date X”, there is a cooling trend.
However, is it significant? Some are, some are not. Adjusted for autocorrelation (Nychka method), the trend from any month in the latter half of 2004 to the present is significant at p less than 0.05.
In addition, the trend for all months from 2006/04 to 2007/08 to the present is also significant. So the UAH data definitely indicates a recent, statistically significant cooling over the last couple of years.
Don’t like satellites? In the HadCRUT3 data, negative trends from the following dates to the present are statistically significant ..
2001/03
2001/04
2001/05
2001/06
2001/07
2001/08
2001/09
2001/10
2001/11
2001/12
2002/01
2002/02
2002/12
2003/01
2003/02
2003/03
2003/04
2003/05
2003/06
2003/07
2003/08
2003/09
2003/10
2004/08
2004/09
2004/10
2004/11
So the HadCRUT trend from over half the months of 2001-2004 to the present is both negative and significant.
My conclusion? The earth has been cooling gradually since about the start of the century to the present, and the cooling trend has accelerated in the last couple years. However, only some of these cooling trends are statistically significant.
w.
PS – in IPCC terms, per both datasets we can say that it is “likely” that the earth has been cooling since 2000 … and per the UAH data, it is “extremely likely” that it has been cooling for the last two years.
Re: Willis Eschenbach (#916),
Don’t cha’ know. Tamino has disavowed Nychka for GMST. 🙂
Now we are supposed to use ARMA(1,1), getting coefficients since 1975. Evidently, we are to overlook the fact that the “noise process” was influenced by Fuego, El Chicon, and Pinatubo eruptions during the first 20 years, but then they all stopped erupting.
I calculated parameters based on a less volcanic intensive period (1914-1943.) I’m still not entirely pleased with that period because there were eruptions in 1912, 1921 and a smallish one in 1929. But the loadings are still small compared to Fuego/ El Chicon and Pinatubo!
Needless to say, if we estimate parameters from a less variable periods, and then run montecarlo with those parameter, the montecarlo runs show less variability. Go figure! 🙂
Re: lucia (#921),
The inexplicable arctic warming in the 1930s (see #894 above), if it was indeed due to ocean currents, requires a high-order, nonlinear AR process and a really long-time series to estimate the coeffs. Linear ARMA(1,1) over 30y ain’t gonna do it. Not by a long shot.
Sorry I now see Bender (892) So then what were the ocean charteristics of these 9 runs?
Re: David (#917),
Ask RC. It’s their study.
David (#917),
My answer to your question is “I don’t know”. I suspect that’s Bender’s answer also.
To answer that question, someone needs to download lots of data and compute some ocean characteristic of interest. Gavin didn’t post about that. I haven’t computed any ocean characteristics. So, basically… don’t know!
Re: lucia (#919), Gavin would likely tell you to figure out for yourself if you think it’s such a good question, he’s busy.
I don’t get it. So Hansen picked a warm year to predict the Earth was going to continually warm up due to manmade global warming gasses and then the Earth cooled back to the original temperature and since Hansen deliberately picked a warm year to prove his point that justifies the Earth not warming according to the models?
As I see it there has been a huge increase in CO2 in the last ten years and no corresponding increase in temperatures. There is a wealth of information from the 20’s 30’s and early 40′ showing that there was a low level of ice in the Arctic similar to today. Even in 1911 the CGS Arctic traversed the NW Passage through the Parry Channel route showing there must have been a low level of ice. Yet the ‘scientific’ community looks at the last 30 years and uses that as the basis for stating that it is the first time the Northwest Passage was open or the first time the Northeast and Northwest passage was open. Seems more like politics than science.
Re: Shawn Whelan (#923),
Shawn, it is very, very simple. This happens in 9 out of 55 GCM runs. Temperatures are not expected to rise monotonically with increasing CO2. Stop pretending that that is what is supposed to happen.
Watching this debate between bender and Shawn et al I am reminded of one of my favorite quotes…
Willis, I would hope you would take Lucia up on her offer of a guest post at her blog. I believe that you could provide some interesting insight into the type of analysis she is doing over there.
Re: Lee W (#925),
Dyson also said: “One of the main causes of warming is the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere resulting from our burning of fossil fuels such as oil and coal and natural gas.”
Re: lurker bill (#945),
The reason I like that particular section from Dyson’s essay is that it cuts both ways, it doesn’t take sides, just makes a very simple observation that both extreme sides (alarmist and denier) in this debate are surely guilty of.
However, regarding the quote you mention, I would advise that you reread the entire section on Climate and Land Management and then get back to me. 😉
Before quoting figures from RC, one should consider the source. First, they say it “happens in 9 out of 55 GCM runs”. While that may be true for the 55 carefully handpicked runs submitted to the IPCC … what do you reckon the true figure is?
I’ll go get the data, and see what it says …
w.
Have to diagree with the comment that the excitement is over till next year and we have to find something else to do, the refreeze season is just as interesting to watch and pontificate over.
Looking at past seasons refreeze, what happened to 2006 between Nov and Dec?
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm
That seems an unusual levelling off. Anyone know the reason?
Regards
Andy
OK, no time, but consider this. RC says they are looking at:
However, in good RC fashion, that’s not all the truth. For some of the runs, for example the nine GISS ER and EH runs, the years 2000-2003 used actual data, not the data from SRES A1B … so they are not forecasting the period that the “9 of 55” claim is made for, they are hindcasting half of it … bad scientists, no cookies.
The same is true to a smaller degree for 23 other models that started their runs in 2001 … again, they are hindcasting 2000, so if we want to see what the models do when they are not fed historical data, we can’t use those runs either.
At this point, just on the question of whether we are looking at hindcasts or forecasts, 32 out of 55 models did not forecast the full period …
More later,
w.
Re: Willis Eschenbach (#928),
I thought they initialized in 1880 or so, and ran with whatever past forcings they used. (Of course, different models use different things.)
Then, they followed the SRES after 2000. So…is that not true?
If it’s not true, that would really explain a lot! Obviously, if everyone is using different forcings, that could explain different variability in trends. And, if they are all free to vary their forcings for the first few years, they are obviously not going to get off track as quickly!
Re: lucia (#931), I held my nose and went to RC. Gavin said the source of his data was the CMIP3 project. I went there and stumbled across a spreadsheet called time_correspondence_summary.xls, which shows when the various models switched gears.
Gavin also commented that he didn’t know why the CMIP3 dataset was not used more. It might possibly have something to do with the fact that each model ensemble has a single solitary 30 to 40 megabyte mondo dataset containing everything from surface temperature to vertically integraged ice fraction or something. So if we just want surface air temperature for 55 model runs, that’s about a gigabyte and a half download … and I’m at the end of a very sketchy internet connection on a tiny South Pacific island. Looks like I won’t check the 55 datasets after all as I had hoped. KNMI makes downloading them much easier … but it only has 44 of them.
But I digress …
w.
Re: Willis Eschenbach (#939),
Gavin’s inability to see why it is not used means Gavin is the only one to be unaware of what’s wrong with that site. It is hardly well organized in the sense of permitting users to search. All the data is… well, you described it.
I suspect it is mostly used by MS students or technical support staff who pick up the phone and ask contributors the precise order of clicks to get them to what they want. Of course, once you know where things are, you can find it. If you have a half-way decent memory, you can remember it was there too.
I got my monthly data from the climate explorer in the netherlands. It’s processed. Unfortunately, some of the runs aren’t uploaded. Still, I think using 38 instead of 50+ or so is good enough for blog purposes, and even just initial testing.
Kim said in #828
“Certainly, Arctic Ice extent at minimum is a poor proxy for global temperature trends. As we all know by now, Arctic Ice responds more to local events, wind, currents, water temperature, and storms. Nonetheless, ice extent has great symbolic value, which is why we are all fighting about it. I predicted last Spring that ice extent at minimum would be greater this year than last and I’ll now predict that ice extent at minimum next year will be greater than this year. Both of my predictions depend on the dramatic cooling we have seen globally very recently; my guess was and is that the amount of global cooling would overwhelm the local processes, and that the ice this year and next would serve as a proxy for global temperature”
But this doesn’t sound very consistent. In the first sentence local forces make ice extent a poor proxy for (warming) processes, but in the last sentence, when the processes are cooling, then ice extent is a good proxy because it overwhelmes the local forces. That sounds like a wish for something to be true than what is actually happening.
Rather than 2008 extent being higher because of dramatic cooling I think it more accurate to say that the extent was not as low as 2007 because 2008 was a more normal year for local conditions compared to 2007 which was more freakish. Certainly, 2008 has not sprung back to something typical between 2002 and 2006, or even higher.
If we are going through a very cold period, which you seem to indicate, then why do you not think the minima will be greater than 2006 or 2005 next year? Saying it will be bigger than 2008 is not really too much of a gamble. Mind you, you have had the guts to put your marker in the ice already, something that scaredycat Andy is not prepared to do until at least March 2009 .
Regards
Andy
Regards
Andy
Re: AndyW (#929),
Yes, Andy, I did not phrase that well enough to remove the inconsistency. I do believe Arctic ice is a proxy for global temperature, but each year’s events don’t reflect the trend well. Local conditions derange the proxy erratically from one year to the next and so on. It was the magnitude of the cooling for the last year or so which I considered to be capable of trumping local effects and indicating a real cooling trend by ice extent. Yes, there is wishful thinking in my prediction, but the PDO has shifted and the sun is hibernating.
==========================================
Preliminary Unofficial Day 261 Race Report
2008 gains a bit more on 2007, but still nearly 430K behind.
9 18 2002 NA NA
9 18 2003 6.032031 -0.001250
9 17 2004 5.821250 -0.061563
9 18 2005 5.385156 -0.037188
9 18 2006 5.874063 0.045782
9 18 2007 4.281406 0.012656
9 17 2008 4.710625 -0.015625
Which historical data are the models using Willis? Are you talking about actual forcing data perhaps? They cheated by using the real increase in Co2 forcing based on real Co2 data instead of a projected increase in CO2 from A1B? Or am I guessing wrong?
Per the IPCC, some subset of co2, ch4, n2o, strat ozone, trop ozone, cfcs, so4, urban, black carbon, nitrate, 1st indirect, 2nd indirect, dust, volcanic, sea salt, land use, and solar.
A question to those who say that temperatures are decreasing. Based on Hadcrut, what would you have said back in 1985 for example? Ten years of cooling? Proofs that global warming is not true? Now look at where we are today… About 0.5 degrees higher.
This is only to illustrate that you cannot dismiss a long-term theory on the basis of a short time series.
Bender
Just to let you know that I have posted a new thread ‘Have we been this way?’ before follwing our series of exchanges as to what is anecdotal and what is evidence.
If Shawn is around I would be interested in having some base references (but not all the debate with Phil!) about Larsen and 1920/30’s arctic cooling in general.
However the evidence collecting is intended to be aimed at the wider world not just the Arctic, so anyone from this thread is welcome to wander over.
Tony Brown
Re: Tony Brown (#935),
Kinda new and I do not know the location of the site?
Re: Shawn Whelan (#951),
Link is below. Visitors must wear a suit and tie (females smart casual)and leave all feuds and weapons at the door.
http://www.climateaudit.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=520
To get back go to ‘Board Index’ at top and after clicking on that
‘link to Climate climate Audit Blog.’
Tony Brown
Willis
RE: #908 enso effects on temperature
A few months back (July I think) RC did a post on ENSO and global temperatures. In it they provide a link to enso-adjusted data for both GISS and HadCrut. If I remember correctly the method used for the adjustment was one which was developed by Thompson et al.
Re: John Finn (#936),
ENSO has enough of an effect you can notice it without doing special, some what confusing massaging of the data. But it’s still not phenomenally strong.
If you apply that correction Gavin discussed to the recent data, it doesn’t make much difference to asessement about whether 2C/century is inside or outside the uncertainty bounds.
But once again: That the 2C/century trend doesn’t hold up under some common, popular statistical tests doesn’t overturn all of AGW at its very core. It doesn’t even make the models “worthless”. It just means there is something not quite right going on.
Re: lucia (#955),
Lucia
I’m sure what you say is correct particularly the bit about the RC method still supporting 2 deg/century increase. They wouldn’t have posted the article otherwise.
I was simply inviting Willis to compare his “simple” regression method with an alternative.
Bender I understand your point to Shawn when you said…Shawn, it is very, very simple. This happens in 9 out of 55 GCM runs. Temperatures are not expected to rise monotonically with increasing CO2. Stop pretending that that is what is supposed to happen.
However if nobody understands the very “not simple” GCM runs and they are not audited, then an objective person would find it hard to draw any conclusions from them no??
Re: David (#940)
David, you do not need to trust GCMs to understand that short-term cooling is not inconsistent with long-term warming. Why are you pretending that the GCMs are necessary?
Willis is wasting his time checking the 9/55 numbers. Audit is great, but c’mon, that’s a lot of effort for such little reward! There is a point here and the point is robust. Even if the numbers turned out to be 6/100 over 5 years instead of 9/55 over 8 years, it would still be the case that short-term, stochastic/random/chaotic/LTP cooling is not inconsistent with long-term deterministic warming. It’s just not. So stop pretending that it is. According to the models a 20-year cooling “trend” is, under GHG forcing, improbable, but it is possible. You can mistrust the models, dispute the numbers, but the principle doesn’t change.
Stop pretending that the last few months indicate that there has been a change in the deterministic GMT trend. This assertion is statistically unsupported.
So what if the PDO etc. go negative and keep GMT down and ice up? Do you really think that a bit of noise is going to permanently stave off a deterministic response to external forcings? That is nonsense. You get, what, 30 years of cool before the warm kicks in and the deterministic response is free to reveal itself?
The issue here is the magnitude of the GHG forcing effect. We know it is non-zero. It is important to figure out what it is with as much precision as we can.
Re: bender (#946),
snip
Getting more specific it comes down to the feedbacks – are they positive or negative? The Alarmists put forth that they are positive but they have no proof of that what so ever. Climate rationalists advocate that they are significantly negative. We’re talking an order of magnitude difference here! If they are negative then there should be little to be concerned about as there is no case that a slight warming is not in the best interests of mankind. Given other manmade impacts (land use change, aerosols, etc.) do we even know whether we’ll even see any warming at all?
So let’s wait another 5 years and see what the temperature does.
snip – policy
Re: Mark (#947),
There are both negative and positive feedback processes. Sun-ice albedo is (+) and moist convection is (-). The question is the magnitude of each, and then how they all sum up to strike a (unsteady?) balance between hothouse and icehouse.
Hansen asserts that 450 ppm CO2 is a tipping point toward hothouse earth. If he is right, then there is quite a large penalty for waiting. If he is wrong, then action might be a complete waste of resources.
Thus it is very important to examine the factual basis to these assertions about GHG sensitivity and the existence and exact value of the GHG “tipping point”.
This is relevant to the ice extent thread because the icesheets are thought to be a primary indicator whether the system is on a hothouse or icehouse trajectory.
Re: bender (#949),
Hansen’s and other alarmists’ talk of tipping points is so much speculative garbage. There is absolutely no proof that this is something to be concerned about regardless of the fact that Hansen “asserts” it. We know for a FACT through ice core temperature reconstructions and physical evidence (e.g. Extracted remnants from ice of forests growing in Greenland and under alpine glaciers) that the world was several degrees warmer through prior interglacials. Funny no “tipping points” then! The only tipping point we’re likely to see is when the Climate Alarm bandwagon tips over from the cumulative weight of its own BS.
And as to the your words “icesheets are THOUGHT TO BE a primary indicator” don’t we have enough “thoughts” out there on global warming? What we need instead is proof. What about the impact of changes to ocean current oscillations? Actual history SHOWS a striking correlation between positive phases of major ocean oscillations and Arctic temperatures. Do we just ignore that? Unfortunately the satellite records only go back to 1979 so there is no definitive proof, either one way or the other, as to what happened to the associated ice levels. However, the anecdotal evidence, ships sailing through the NW passage and photos showing iceless conditions suggest that what we are seeing wrt ice levels today are unlikely to be a unique occurrence over the last century. However as is evident in your earlier comments in this thread, you seem delighted to ignore these facts and take joy in kicking Shawn in the shins.
Re: Mark (#954),
Calm down. I was not asserting this as a fact. I was explaining its relevance to the thread. That there are people who think it’s a tipping point indicator makes it relevant to the thread.
Hansen’s talk about tipping points is indeed speculative – and I think I made that fully clear in the bit you quoted – but it’s not “garbage”. Claptrap alarmists, well of course what they spout is not worth discussing. But Hansen is not in that category. What he says about ice sheets is worth discussing.
And don’t you dare tell me I’m off-topic. It was pointed out to me earlier, rather rudely, that this was PRECISELY the reason sea-ice was topical – because of what was said in the Revkin thread about 2008 and tipping points.
Re: Mark (#954),
Shawn clearly enjoys putting his teeth in front of my boot. He ups the ante again and again until he loses and goes cryin to mama.
Folks, there is a line between healthy and unhealthy skepticism. Please find it.
Re: bender (#946), you say:
Some questions, bender:
1. While the change in GHG forcing is definitely non-zero, how do you know that the effect of changes in GHG forcing is non-zero? You are assuming what you are trying to prove. My own studies lead me to the conclusion that the temperature of the world is limited by the dual forces of tropical cloud feedback and thunderstorm production. If that is the case (and there is much evidence in support), then the effect of the GHG forcings at our current planetary temperature could easily be, if not zero, at least much lower than our ability to detect. (Note that I am not saying the greenhouse effect does not exist, merely that at current temperatures it may be totally overpowered by the “cap” on temperature from increasing cloud albedo plus thunderstorms.)
As an excellent physical example of such a system, consider a pot of water on a stove. There is a roughly linear “deterministic” trend in the temperature, a trend that is correlated with the amount of heat supplied … but only up until boiling. At that point the deterministic trend is overwhelmed by the “cap” on temperature from evaporation.
2. You say that various fluctuations cannot “stave off a deterministic response to external forcings” … unfortunately, you are begging several questions at once. First, you need to establish that the climate system’s response to external forcings is in fact “deterministic”. I look forward to that exposition.
Second, you need to show that there are no feedbacks, not natural variations but feedbacks, which could overwhelm whatever effect the “external forcings” might otherwise have.
Your unsupported statement alone does neither.
3. I showed above that the recent trend (~ 2006-2008) is statistically different from zero, in the negative direction. You come back to say “Stop pretending that the last few months indicate that there has been a change in the deterministic GMT trend. This assertion is statistically unsupported.” First, you claim that there is a “deterministic GMT trend”. This is an interesting hypothesis, but one which Dr. Koutsoyiannis might disagree with. It is also a hypothesis which as far as I know is “statistically unsupported”.
Next, leaving that question aside, there is in fact a statistically significant recent drop in the temperature … do you simply not read what I write, or do you ignore it? Now you may want to say that the statistically significant recent drop is meaningless for a variety of reasons, and I’d likely agree with you 100% … but despite your assertion to the contrary, it is in fact statistically supported. You can discuss what this means, but you can’t merely claim it’s not statistically supported.
4. You say “Willis is wasting his time checking the 9/55 numbers. Audit is great, but c’mon, that’s a lot of effort for such little reward!” Oh, I see, you know what the “reward” will be before checking the numbers? Gosh, foolish me, I thought you needed to check the numbers first to see how much reward there is. I was merely investigating the claim because I don’t trust RC, and what did I find out for my reward?
That out of the 55 model runs claimed to support their statistics, some 32 of them did not cover the period in question … so since we don’t know if the 9 were among the 32 that didn’t cover the period, we’re left with NO CLAIM AT ALL!
Not nine out of 55, not 6 out of one hundred as you suggest.
NOTHING.
I have demolished their claim, and you think that’s a “little reward”? And in response to my pointing out that your citation was nothing but the usual RC bulls***t, you want to tell me I’m wasting my time? My friend, you are wasting our time citing RC numbers, and even more of our time trying to patch up their bogus claims with your meaningless estimates of what the models might possibly show. Your citation is totally busted, admit it and move on.
5. Does the recent cooling, as evidenced by increasing Arctic sea ice, by satellite records, and by a two-year hiatus in sea level rise, mean that the models are wrong? No, as we have seen, and as you restate above, the models give results that are so widely scattered that it is nearly impossible to falsify them. If the modelers were honest enough to show all of the model runs, including those thrown out because they went negative, it would be impossible to falsify the models.
But that does not mean they are true, just that they are so widely scattered that they are very hard to falsify, which is a very different thing. It also means that they are useless to answer questions like “how often should we see statistically significant cooling?”.
.
bender, I agree with you about making large claims based on small changes. I agree with you that a possible deterministic trend hidden by the PDO is different than a change in a possibly deterministic trend.
But you will never get any traction along that road until you can first establish your underlying claims, the questions you are begging. These seem to be, if I understand you correctly:
1. The temperature of the earth is not significantly limited in how warm it can rise.
2. There are no feedback processes which can override the effect of an increase in CO2 forcing.
3. The change in temperature over say the last thirty years represents a “deterministic trend” rather than natural variation.
4. Despite the lack of any apparent correlation, most or all of this “deterministic trend” is caused by increased GHG forcing.
When you can show that those are true, your further points in the section I just quoted might be able to be established. But until you establish your underlying points instead of just assuming them, it is all a house of cards with no foundation.
My best to all,
w.
PS – I see the question of “will increasing GHGs warm the earth” as being akin to asking “will a car slow down when it goes uphill”? Well, it depends on whether it is running under “Cruise Control” or not, doesn’t it …
The missing link in most analyses, in my opinion, is that the earth’s climate is not a passive system. It is not like a pool ball on a level table, where a shove will deterministically move it a distance proportional to the applied forcing, and in the direction of the forcing.
Instead, it is like a madly spinning pool ball on a complex surface with hills and hollows. When you push it, it pushes back. It sometimes moves less than the forcing applied, and sometimes more. At certain points, an immeasurably small difference in the direction of the shove will take it along a totally different trajectory. It does not move in straight lines.
All of which makes talk of “deterministic trends”, in my opinion, absurdly simplistic. Very little in Nature is linear, very little is “deterministic”. Climate exhibits self-organized criticality at a host of levels from ice melting to thunderstorms forming, and if there is anything which is definitely “non-deterministic”, it would be self-organized criticality.
.
We now return you to our regularly scheduled Ice Capades, wherein baby ice, beset by Canadian sealers with wicked clubs, is fighting for its life in the face of deterministic trends …
Re: Willis Eschenbach (#1002),
Willis, the issue is the frequency of 8-year cooling trends, not the the frequency of 8-year cooling trends within a particular time frame. So the number of relevant runs is what they say they are. The 9/55 number is correct.
Re: bender (#1007),
Bender– I think in that RC post, the issue is the frequency of 8 year cooling trends within the 8 years starting in 2000. It was quite specific. There are supposedly 55 runs so that should give a distribution.
Re: Willis Eschenbach (#1002),
Thanks for looking at the run Willis. So… now I need to understand precisely what you mean by the time period in question. I think the time period does matter to many questions. My understanding of claim at RC was all 55 runs were for 8 years starting in 2000 and that all used the same forcing scenario during those 8 years. This means they might differ in solar forcing etc. but generally, the GHG forcing would be similar across model runs.
Also, I was under the impression all those runs used their various hindcast runs as initial conditions.
If these things are not so, then the claim about the variability in trends is tenuous. If some runs have lower applied forcings and some have higher applied forcings, we would generally expect those with lower forcings to tend to have lower trends during the analysis period. So, what would the negative ones mean in this context?
Anyway, if you could clarify what you mean by different time periods, I’d like to understand that better!
Re: lucia (#1011),
Hmm, maybe I spoke too soon then. I may end up owing Willis a dinner.
Re: bender (#1007), thanks for the post. You say:
Quite the contrary. The RC article did not mention anything about how many 8 year cooling trends there are in the whole period covered by the datasets. The figure they gave (9/55) was for a very particular time frame, 2000-2007. They said:
So no, the 9/55 number is absolutely not correct. You can’t determine the internal variability of the models when they are running off of historical observations, particularly when the transition from hindcasting to forecasting occurs in the middle of the time period as is the case here.
I fail to see a) why you cited something from RC without a careful inversion of all visible rocks to see what crawls out (omitting that step at RC is generally a very risky move, they’ve studied at the foot of the Mann himself), and b) why you would jump back in to defend their bad science without even determining if what I had said was correct.
My best regards to you,
w.
*
PS – I absolutely loved their comment that “the largest trend has a range of -0.21 to 0.61ºC/dec in 4 different realisations, confirming the role of internal variability” … ummm … might be … or just possibly, it could merely confirm the inaccuracy of the models and say nothing about internal variability …
*
PPS – I agree with you that it would be worthwhile to audit Hansen’s claim about 450 ppmv being a “tipping point” for our beloved Baby Ice. But unfortunately (like most of his claims) that claim rests solely on his TinkerToy© model. I don’t even know where I would start in such an audit. I could point out the way that his GISS model handles pools of meltwater on the ice … here’s the Fortan, for those who enjoy this kind of thing:
C**** pond_melt accumulates in melt season only
if ((J.gt.JM/2 .and. (jday.ge.152 .and. jday.lt.212)) .or.
* (J.lt.JM/2 .and. (jday.ge.334 .or. jday.lt.31))) then
pond_melt(i,j)=pond_melt(i,j)+0.3d0*RUN0
end i
This is obviously a kluge designed to mitigate how bad their ice model is. It states that no matter what the polar temperature might be, melt pools can only form during a two month period in each hemisphere … riiiiight, that’s definitely a model that is based on “physical first principles” as they like to claim.
Or we could consider what they say about their own model:
So I suppose we could start the audit with those encouraging quotes, but it is a long and tortuous trail from that starting point to the “450 ppmv, irreversible tipping point, EVERYBODY PANIC” conclusion. We would have to perform V&V and SQA on the code for starters … ugly, not a job I’d care to undertake.
*
PPPS – The question of “irreversibility” is equally hard to audit. First, I’d need some kind of definition of “irreversible”. However, I doubt his claim greatly for several reasons.
One is that NOAA found that as the ice in the North has been melting over the last decade or so, the clouds have been increasing. The net result has been that there is very little change in albedo, which is the mechanism to which they ascribe the “irreversibility” [change in ice albedo].
Another is that the poles get very little of their heat directly from the sun (due to low sun angle, more atmosphere to absorb incoming SW, frequent stratus clouds, and the rapid increase in surface albedo at low angles of incidence), so the changes in polar ice don’t make a big difference in how warm the poles get from solar radiation.
The third is that in addition to reflecting sunshine, sea ice also insulates and isolates the underlying water, thereby reducing LW radiation to space. So a reduction in sea ice area does not have a simple “makes it melt more” effect, as always, climate is more complex than that.
I suspect (although I certainly can’t substantiate) that their model overestimates the warming effects of reduced ice for the reasons above, making the forecasts … um … well, I don’t quite know what to call them, perhaps I’ll say that they are “accidentally or deliberately over-pessimistic” and leave it there.
It is precisely our lack of understanding of these kinds of forcings and feedbacks which make the GCMs worse than useless. A broken compass is useless. A compass with an unknown error is worse than useless, because we might actually believe it …
Re: Willis Eschenbach (#1016),
Willis, I see that now. I already admitted I need to take a closer look at this. Just once, I took RC numbers at face value. Just once. And yes, I did not pay close enough attention to the time periods involved. I think the main point will hold, but I do not know that. wrong method + right answer = bad science. Lesson learned.
Re: Willis Eschenbach (#1002),
I did not mean to dismiss your efforts. Inded, I suggested audit is good. So thanks. I just wanted to suggest that where audit is REALLY needed is on the 450ppm (+/-100) CO2 number that Hansen says will trigger the irreversible melting of the ice sheets. The irreversibility proposition and the threshold number seem like targets worthy of audit. Arguing whether ice is increasing or decreasing is, well, retarded, given the data.
#938 Thanks for explaining more thoroughly your explanation, that makes more sense now.
Regards
Andy
Re: AndyW (#941),
You are welcome. By the way, I expect progressive freezing up of the Arctic until El Sol wakes up and allows the PDO to birth a whole series of Las Ninas. Even if the sun cycles normally, I expect cooling for the duration of this half cycle of the PDO, perhaps 15-30 years. If the sun slumbers on, well……then I don’t know.
=====================================================
@Flanagan
Consider volcanos. Try clicking Lucias name three posts above yours.
Niels: the same question would hold for someone by the end of the 70ies
Here are my graphs for yesterday’s ice extent data, based upon revised IARC/JAXA Ice Extent data. There was an upward revision of the area this morning (about 8,000 km^2).
Daily Arctic Sea Ice Extent Reduction Day 261
Arctic Sea Ice Extent Day 261
2008 Arctic Ice Extent Differences From Previous Years Day 261
Arctic Sea Ice Total Drops from Peaks Day 261
Can we please limit the discussion in this thread to the original intent of the thread? (Discussions of sea ice, how 2008 compares to other years, etc…) This thread has really gotten off track.
I agree with Aaron … the extent of this discussion has grown more rapidly than arctic sea ice in December.
Could someone open a new thread (Sea Ice 4) and limit the discussion in that thread to sea ice?
Then, this thread could be left open and everyone who is not interested in sea ice particularly could continue to duke it out in this space.
bender (953) says:
I think there is very good evidence from Geologists that he is wrong. To argue that 450 ppm CO2 is the tipping point, it seems to me one has to find evidence that geologists are wrong when they say there is evidence we have seen periods of 8000 or more ppm, or that CO2 sensitivity as become much, much greater for some reason.
Of course, just recently, we have seen good arguments for reevaluating things that geologists thought they understood, but that paper presented evidence.
Re: Real Richard Sharpe (#958),
I don’t see that the geologists have provided any such evidence, even if the level was once 8000+ppm (which I doubt) it certainly wasn’t consistent with life on earth as we know it. To keep the post on topic, given the present geography of the planet it would be inconsistent with a frozen Arctic Ocean.
Re: Real Richard Sharpe (#958),
I don’t see that the geologists have provided any such evidence, even if the level was once 8000+ppm (which I doubt) it certainly wasn’t consistent with life on earth as we know it. To keep the post on topic, given the present geography of the planet it would be inconsistent with a frozen Arctic Ocean.
Thank you Aaron for the fine graphs and the steady work you have done in this thread. I usually scan past the vitriol and look for the graphs and data first! Then, if I’m mentally stable enough, (a rare occurrence) I read Phil and Bender et al to prep for my anger management training… 😉
I like the idea of a “hardcore” ice thread. Suit and tie only as it were.
Cheers!
For any interested in following how JAXA Ice extent reductions compare to CT Ice area reductions, here is a graph of the past few weeks:
JAXA Ice extent reductions vs CT Ice area reductions
CT area update 9/18/2008
region area(Mm2) difference anomaly
Arctic 3.092 0.023 -1.928
Antarctic 14.907 0.062 -0.139
Another four day run of increasing area. The difference this time is that the smoothed rate of change is less than half what it was at the end of the last run about two weeks ago. Average ice concentration is up to 65.5%. Historically, once the smoothed rate crosses zero, it increases rapidly.
Aaron, you are the one who let nonsense bogus talk on “global cooling” pass on this thread without comment. If you want a thread to stay on track, nip that in the bud. If you don’t, I’ll do it myself. At least until such time as Steve asks otherwise. Sea ice #4 will be a train wreck if the trolls on this thread carry over to that one, I assure you.
Aaron Wells, September 18th, 2008 at 8:38 am,
Your graphs are excellent and useful.
You can’t post graphs and not discuss their relevance.
Re: bender (#969),
Or the CA Gestapo led by you will do what?
Please plot the trend lines for the data up to 2007 and then again for the data up to 2008. Then tell me all about the trend “reversal” that is indicative of “cooling”. I think you’ll have a very hard time with that one. What you will find is that 2008 strengthens the conclusions that were just hinted at in 2007. An unwillingness to post that analysis would be revealing. I will be impressed if someone beats Phil to the punch.
Re: bender (#971),
Why use a proxy for temperatures when we have temperatures? If you are interested in cooling look at the temperatures. They are going down.
Re: Aztec Bill (#976),
Aaron wants us to focus on ice extent. Ice albedo is a postive feeedback process, so ice extent should be a very sensitive indicator of any alleged “tipping” behavior. GMT is expected to respond somewhat more linearly to GHGs. That’s why ice is relevant – it’s response, especially about the alleged tipping point – is supposedly highly nonlinear.
Also, “icy” and “ice-free” are easy ways to characterize the two extreme states that earth has experienced in geological time. Qualitative iciness may be easier to deduce than quantitative GMT.
Re: bender (#979),
Talking about “calling” someone out, please explain to us how ice cover in the Arctic can be a “tipping point” for global climate when only 1.4% of the radiation incident to the planet strikes within the Arctic Circle. If you question my 1.4% then do the math – if you can!
Re: Aztec Bill (#976),
I give up. You folks are impossible. You are in total denial over the difference between short-term stochasticity and long-term determinisim. You can not conclude the globe is not “cooling” until you have accounted for natural variations due to:
-sampling error
-time lags
-temporary radiative imbalances
These things are not trivial. So go ahead and spout your misinformed untruths. I am leaving. You win an ugly war of attrition. This is a shameful new low for CA.
Close the thread by doing the analysis in #971. Or else I will do it myself and pass it to lucia, who will then make you look like bumpkins.
Re: bender (#971),
That may be true with linear trend lines but if you use polynomial trend lines you see a drop at the end.
But trend lines are only a tool to help show what is happening. When solar scientists predict a cooling and the cooling happens and the minimum ice extent increases, one shouldn’t have to rely on trend lines within a chart to get a clue.
Please snip #970. This is counterproductive provocation.
[Mark, of course you can post data and not discuss their relevance. No one’s going to do anything. Except ask questions that make you look silly.]
Revkin:
The analysis suggested in #971 will reveal this to be a conservative statement. The trend has strenghtened, not just stayed “on track”. Why? Because the process continues to fail to regress back to the mean. The uncertainty on the slope has likely decreased now that 2008 data are available and you have an extra degree of freedom.
I do believe we are entering a period of global cooling.
The satellite data backs that up.
I was unaware that disagreeing with Bender was against the rules. For this I apoligize.
Re: Shawn Whelan (#974), Don’t be cute. You are disagreeing with data, not me. Reply to #971 or admit you are a charlatan.
Re: Shawn Whelan (#974),
I know what your faith is. That’s why I’m calling you on it.
I have used Aaron’s graphs in e-mail correspondence. In those e-mails, I made my own interpretations. Is that permissible?
Re: M. Jeff (#978), What I meant was that Aaron can not reasonably ask that the relevance of sea ice extent not be discussed. It is relevant for the role it is alleged to play in an unstable transition between hothouse and icehouse earth. [He suggested the thread is OT. I’m trying to correct that.]
Re: bender (#980),
I did not ask that “the relevance of sea ice extent not be discussed”. As long as you are talking about sea ice extent, I don’t consider the discussion OT. But the thread began to become a debate about GCM’s and whether a short-term cooling trend (or flat trend) falsifies the general AGW theory. That, in my opinion, was getting off-topic and high-volume at that.
Keep in mind that this thread (including all previous Sea Ice threads) was started by Steve as a light-hearted look at the race between 2007 and 2008 sea ice extents. It was more for fun than anything else. Lets try to get it back to that (in my opinion… I am not a moderator, nor am I a thread police… I just reserve the right to comment when I see the thread becoming rancorous or off-topic).
I offer my graphs as information to whomever find them interesting or valuable. It is not my obligation to club people over the head about what they mean.
Graph of sea ice variance from 2003-2007 average.
#981 is not the analysis I called for. Please do what I ask.
#982 Aaron, this is a request to take the thread off topic. I will not respond on those grounds.
Enjoy sea ice #4. I will let you fester now.
Re: bender (#984),
No – this is very on topic and a direct response to your posting #979. You will not respond because you cannot do so with any merit. We’ll be seein’ ya’!
Re: Mark (#986), You are wrong – as usual. Bye!
Re: bender (#988),
Sure, cut and run! That’s because you cannot back up your statements!
Aaron, the issue of short vs long-term noise vs signal is directly relevant to the issue of interpreting the annual sea ice data. There is no evidence that the world is getting icier. Quite quite the opposite.
Re: bender (#987),
You’re getting too serious. The only real question behind these fun threads have been whether 2008 would be “icier” than 2007 (and for a while there, 2005). You need to relax and have some fun. You’re too tense. 😉
September 30, 2018
The sea ice extent has reached record high levels for the last five years, however this in no way reverses the downward trend of satellite measurements.
Bender #987 says
‘There is no evidence that the world is getting icier. Quite quite the opposite.’
I think the jury is out depending on which records you want to believe and how the data has been adjusted, but for sure there isn’t any sort of trend that is at all statistically meaningful enough to read anything profound into them
But let us insert the words ‘modern era’ here. Has this happened before or is this current warming truly a unique event in mans history? I don’t think so and I hope Bender takes the time to drop in on my new thread on ‘unthreaded’ and that he also keeps posting his valuable comments in this thread, albeit wearing his suit and tie a bit more often. http://www.climateaudit.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=520
Ps But please dont visit at the same time as Shawn!
Tony Brown
Let’s look at annual average area rather than maximum or minimum. Here’s the bad news for those who think it’s getting colder.
mid-June to mid-June 12 month U.Hamburg average Arctic Ice Area
That doesn’t include the difference in area between 2007 and 2008 that started in June. So here’s a different graph.
1/1-12/31 U.Hamburg Average Arctic Ice Area
The upper line on this graph represents the average area for each year calculated from 1/1 to 8/29 of each year or Year-to-Date. This line shows that 2008 might have an annual average area close to 2004 and greater than 2005, 2006 and 2007. But we still have about 3.5 months to go yet.
Re: DeWitt Payne (#993),
Who think it is getting colder? I think we have thermometers for that.
This past winter we had a month that set an all time total polar ice record (since 1979) – North and South combined. So the world is getting icier.
Re: Aztec Bill (#996),
Really, care to link your data because as far as I can see here that was far from the case.
Re: Aztec Bill (#996),
Pretty hard to deny the data posted in #1001.
DeWitt Payne:
Next year was better.
You can not compare 2007 with 2008 because the nature of the ice at the start of the season was completely different. 2007 began with something close to the average amount of multi-year fresh water ice. 2008 began with mostly yearling brine ice. The characteristics of the ice is vastly different. It takes much less heat to melt 2008 ice than it does to melt a given area of 2007 ice. So you can not simply go by the amount of area. 2008 ice was also, on average, vastly thinner and had a higher salt content. Area this year compared to area this year mean absolutely nothing. It is apples to oranges. The ice in 2009 will be closer to the ice in 2007.
Re: crosspatch (#995),
Hand waving and speculation. Boring. This entire thread should be closed or moved to the bulletin board. bender has been entirely too polite in the tone of his recent comments here.
Far be it for me to jump into the abyss that this thread has become. Usually, I constrain myself to lurking with an ocassional comment.
However, and I would like to get a feel of what others think (but give me some time to hide before the grenades fly), from what I have been able to surmise based on 2007 & 2008 is that one year does not a trend make. If, in the next few years we continue to see the area of sea ice in the Arctic increase, then, it could be feasible to infer a shift in the trend, or at least that some sort of weird anomaly has occurred to cause the ice area to expand (such as the AMO shifting…or maybe even some other “unkown” causes).
I would ask, does this sound like a reasonable course to track? But then again…reasonable and climate change may replace military and intelligence as the poster child of oxymorons!! 🙂
feel free to lob grenades at will!
Re: Lee W (#997),
This year the probable minimum in sea ice area is basically a deadheat with last year (within about 3%), I wouldn’t describe that as a continuation of an increase. See here for a plot of the continuing decrease in sea ice area. As anyone familiar with fitting trendlines to data will know last year’s drop in minimum area will have increased the downward slope and this year’s maintenance of that level will accelerate that rate of decline.
Re: Phil. (#1003),
Your response leads me to another question. While you say
I would like to focus on the 3% remark if you wouldn’t mind. Granted, 3% in one year does not seem statistically relevant, but at what point would a number of 3% years equate to a trend? Frankly, I am not interested in whether this 3% is gaining or losing area, I am more interested in determining what is an acceptable period of time with consistent small gains (or losses) that would cause you to stop and pause to consider if, even though the percentage on an annual basis is small, the fact that it does continue to move in a particular direction, that you would now consider it to be of some significance?
Re: Lee W (#1005),
Take a look at the graph I linked to, runs of 5 down and three up with a consistent downward trend since ’78, so it would need to more than that.
Re: Phil. (#1003),
This year the probable minimum in sea ice area is basically a deadheat with last year (within about 3%), I wouldn’t describe that as a continuation of an increase.
True Phil, but would you care to quantify where the melt would have gone if arctic conditions had remained the same. In other words as there was so much “baby ice” and baby ice melts X percent faster the minimum would have gone to???
Or alternatively if the arctic this year had started with say a year 2000 minumum of both old and new ice, then what would we expect the melt to have been if arctic conditions of 2008 followed?
Is it not fair to say that a percentage of the decline is internal to the inherited conditions from the previous year and not related to the current years weather? Can this be quantified?
WWF claims
“although there is greater extent than last year, the ice is thinner, therefore we have an unprecented record”
Arctic sea ice at lowest level ever
http://www.panda.org/news_facts/newsroom/news/index.cfm?uNewsID=145182
Here is an sea ice extent anomaly map from the Hadley Centre going back to 1953.
According to this (monthly) anomaly map, sea ice extent has been declining since about 1968 so I guess there is nothing unusual happening (just sea ice experts finding ways to make the numbers look worse and worse as they go along – the minimum in September 2007 doesn’t even look like it was such a big record in this chart.)
#997 Lee W
You ask an excellent question, and hopefully some of the statisticians here will provide an enlightening response; at least as far as the effect on the GCM’s are concerned. You have put, in a nut shell, the very thing I have been wanting, but was in fear for my life, to ask!
My addition to your query would be; just how long must the trend be evident to make the statement that there is indeed a quantifiable trend? Also, are the current “mainstream” climate models able to project a cooling trend, given the auditing we have witnessed here at CA over the past year?
P.S. Any room in your shelter?
I think we have to wait for another El Nino to come and go before we can falsify the models.
If temps don’t jump up to the magic 0.2C increase per decade after a good El Nino comes and goes, the modelers will be forced to admit that they have over-estimated the impact.
There is no doubt the modelers are looking at current temps and scratching their heads a little bit. Hansen’s 1988 Scenario B predicted temps would have increased by 0.85C by this time (1984 to 2008) – while we are looking at only 0.3C of an increase.
They will have to go back to the drawing board if a positive PDO doesn’t jump temps up to the 0.85C Scenario B figure. You can’t get to a 3.0C increase for a doubling of CO2 without that kind of trendline to date.
No one has done #971 yet. Phil is good enough with numbers he knows the outcome in advance. I can tell by his #1003:
Re: Aztec Bill (#994),
A polynomial trendline over linear? First, on what basis, pray tell? Second, do you *really* think one data point is going to curve a polynomial upward? As John S admonished me: “get real!”
People, the statistics show the arctic is getting less icy. Lee’s question on how long before a trend reversal could be concluded is easy to ask, very hard to answer. At the present rate (2007-2008) … a hundred years maybe? But enough. This is not an auditing question.
As for those various comments on alleged ocean cooling – find an appropriate thread and I’ll discuss it.
#925 Lee W
Freeman Dyson video
on climate models
on stratospheric cooling
signatory to
100 Prominent Scientists
(Antonino Zichichi is also a signatory)
#923 Shawn Whelan & #935 Tony Brown
This study (it’s peer-reviewed (for what that’s worth)) should bring some more evidence to your comments on 20’s and 30’s warming :
Greenland warming of 1920-1930 and 1995-2005
“To summarize, we find no direct evidence to support the claims that the Greenland ice sheet is melting due to increased temperature caused by increased atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide. The rate of warming from 1995 to 2005 was in fact lower than the warming that occurred from 1920 to 1930.”
Re: GeneII (#1017),
Great comment. Would you like to call across to
http://www.climateaudit.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=520&start=10
and have the honour of posting it yourself-we give air miles…If not I will post it myself over the weekend. There is some great material bulding up demonstrating that warming is nothing unusual and all are invited to come and look and to contribute material
Tony Brown
Speaking of the sun’s influence on temperatures, and also of uncertainties in surface temperatures, here’s a nice video in YouTube on these.
I’m not convinced that 2008 can now get under 4.7Million extent and think that it has shot it’s bolt for the year.Bit of a damp squib finish considering the impressive performance in the latter half of August.
It will be interesting if the normal steep gradient of increased ice extent is followed until the end of 2008.
Regards
Andy
Preliminary Unofficial Day 262 Race Report
2008 gains ice, but still closes the gap a bit on 2007; remains nearly 430K behind.
9 19 2002 NA NA
9 19 2003 6.088906 0.056875
9 18 2004 5.809688 -0.011562
9 19 2005 5.368438 -0.016718
9 19 2006 5.892500 0.018437
9 19 2007 4.296250 0.014844
9 18 2008 4.723594 0.005000
Re 1016
quote One is that NOAA found that as the ice in the North has been melting over the last decade or so, the clouds have been increasing. The net result has been that there is very little change in albedo, which is the mechanism to which they ascribe the “irreversibility” [change in ice albedo]. unquote
Dr Essenhigh has predicted this — I like proper predictions, they lend a finished look to a science, so much nicer than projections or other weasel-worded fudges.
http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/nowarm.htm
quote Another is that the poles get very little of their heat directly from the sun (due to low sun angle, more atmosphere to absorb incoming SW, frequent stratus clouds, and the rapid increase in surface albedo at low angles of incidence), so the changes in polar ice don’t make a big difference in how warm the poles get from solar radiation. unquote
Smoothed surfaces cool slower than ruffled ones. I’d like a look at Arctic emissivity.
I trust someone is keeping an eye on DMS levels in the Arctic: if, as I suspect, the local flora is upping DMS levels in order to save its home by putting a cooling cloud cap over the top then the signal would show. James Lovelock would be interested — welcome to Daisy World.
Before I get into Sakhalin oil spills I’d better stop — our host dislikes speculation. However, I would like to point out one of the reasons I have become more inclined to the sceptic cause: Dr Essenhigh sent me information on his work which, considering I no doubt come over as one of the usual swivelly-eyed climate loonies, was gentlemanly of him. This has been my experience with three scientists who have held non-consensus views, while the consensus big guns can be typified by their less than mannerly responses to innocent and ignorant questions. Readiness to politely share compared to bluster and insult: not a difficult choice. (I was impressed by Dr Curry’s attitude and hope it’s more widespread than it appears to be at the blog level.)
JF
(I didn’t mention to the good doctor that he bears an uncanny resemblance to my bother — trying to look sane while proposing a non-consensus theory of gloabl warming is hard enough already.)
Re: Julian Flood (#1023), There is to be a paper in Science today announcing the discovery of permafrost ice pockets with ice 700,000 years old.
Re: for Julian Flood (#1036),
… and this would suggest that the methane hydrate GHG forcing referred to in Hansen’s testimony may be over-estimated. (Relevant because permafrost melting is supposed to contribute to the NH solar-icesheet feedback/tipping point.)
Bender
I think I understand what you do and why .
However in your attempt at a balancing act , do not overdo it .
More specifically Willis arguments deserve much more than a cursory glance and a 1 sentence comment .
Most importantly here when Willis writes :
I happen to be pretty much on the same wavelength as Willis and these questions are really important ones .
It is neither trivial nor sure that the climate behaviour can be modelled by a “non stationary trend + noise” process .
D.Koutsoyannis very convincingly argues in his excellent paper (Nonstationarity versus scaling) that the use of scaling processes is more consistent than the use of nonstationnary processes (aka OLS + residuals) .
While his argument is based on statistics , I have commented that this conclusion would also be supported by the dynamical system approach (selfsimilarity) and the topology of the chaotic attractors .
So it appears that what most people take for granted (e.g that by making an OLS and applying all kinds of traditionnal statistics on the residuals , meaningful results are oobtained) is neither granted nor obvious .
Yet common sense should tell us that there is à priori no reason that a “trend” be linear and as OLS only produces residuals to a straight line , it must be full of artefacts and inconsistencies everytime when the trend is NOT linear .
The scaling process being only one example of such a process .
.
What I question personnaly is the relevance of the WHOLE “linear trend + noise” approach .
So before I begin wasting my time looking on some exotic noise colours , I pretty much demand the proof that the basic hypothesis has some physical sense .
It is not done by only hand waving and saying that everybody knows that “weather is random” or the more sophisticated variant of the same “weather is ARMA(1,1)” .
I respect Lucia who decided to play the IPCC game and see where it leads and she very early made it smartly clear that “OLS + residual” was only an unproven hypothesis what makes her safe from any inconsistency criticism .
However if those statistics should be supposed to mean more than only playing the game with IPCC (or RC) rules , then it would be necessary to show that the hypothesis is true .
If such a proof was possible , be sure that we’d have heard it trumpeted everywhere by all the Hansens and Schmidts of the world .
I don’t see anybody obtaining any results in that proof anytime soon while I think that the falsification of this hypothesis is beginning to take shape .
.
What actually everybody SHOULD know is that there is absolutely nothing random about the weather and that it is perfectly deterministic all the way at all scales .
Statistics is not physics even if out of SOME physics may emerge SOME statistics when the concepts “iso” or “equi” are valid hypothesis (isotropy , energy equipartition f.ex) .
If the whole quantitative conclusions of the AGW theory was only statistics on numbers generated by computers in wildly different conditions and with wildly different assumptions then it could never be falsified .
An AGWer could always say “Rejected with 95 % confidence ? So what , it’s only that the noise masked the signal . Wait 10 years more . Rejected with 99 % confidence ? So what , we just discovered another noise that masked the signal , wait 100 years . Rejected with 99,9 % ? So what , this damn thing really looks noisy . Wait 1000 years .”
.
A particular mention : the last statement is no more the initial “climatologue” , it is his grandson .
And while the Earth will be heading in the next glaciation we could still have the 1000th generation of AGWers still saying “So what … noise … wait more ….” 🙂
Re: Tom Vonk (#1025),
Yeah, I overdid it a bit, but not by much.
Willis said:
1. There won’t be an “exposition”. This is semantic nitpicking at the meaning of the term “deterministic”, which really does not affect my point. (But I am more than happy to listen to people’s ideas on determinism and temporal scaling, as I am not all that happy with Hansen’s neat dichotomy either.)
2. I fully agree with Willis that negative feedbacks could override the positive. That is PRECISELY why I suggest that this 450ppm “tipping point” be audited.
Please spare me the piling on. This is the OT discussion that Aaron has indicated more than once he does not want. Give me a chance to read over both comments before piling on, and let us discuss in an appropriate thread.
Re: Tom Vonk (#1025),
Might be true if this were a classical physics world, but it can’t be true in a quantum world.
Re: Tom Vonk (#1025),
There is nothing here I do not disagree with. Please realize that when I endorsed Hansen’s dichotomy, it was not a full endorsement, but a temporary acceptance that allowed me to make a point. Instead of picking at my assumptions (which is fair), argue the point. The point, gentlemen, is that short-term cooling is not inconsistent with long-term warming.
I variously insert the terms “deterministic” and “signal” and “stochastic” and “noise” in that sentence purely for expository purposes, not because I believe them to be mechanistically/causally accurate.
Argue the point. From the models. Ok: RC’s 9/55 numbers appear bunky. So let’s get the right numbers. From theory: it is not about determinism, it is about scaling. Agreed. Now argue the point.
Thanks Tom and Willis both for paying attention. Now argue the point.
Re: bender (#1030),
Which is illustrated by the graph of ice area that I posted earlier which shows downward runs of 6 yrs and upward runs of 3 yrs while maintaining a decades long decline.
Re: Phil. (#1039),
You have to remember that you are only looking at the trend since 1979. This is not a cycle, but similar to looking at temperatures for half a year, such as February to July expecting that the trend will continue to December. I was in the high Arctic in 1972 when there was more ice and I fully expect to to return.
Re: Gerald Machnee (#1056),
An unsupported assertion.
Re: Gerald Machnee (#1056),
So what, I posted the graph to show that short term cooling does not contradict long term warming. That there may be even longer term cycles doesn’t affect that statement, such data as this would suggest that such cycles are very long indeed.
Re: Phil. (#1071),
The “reversal” hypothesis is not going to seem very likely once 2008 is plotted on that graph.
Re: Phil. (#1070),
Interesting graph/data but where did it come from and how valid is it given that satellite measurement did not begin until 1979? That would mean that at least 2 methods of measurement are being used and that certainly is problematic particularly given that who the heck would be coming up with these measurements particularly in the dead of winter!
Re: Mark (#1080),
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/SEAICE/arctic.historical.seaice.doc.txt
Re: bender (#1082),
**These sources of data have changed
over the years from observationally derived charts to satellite
data. Gaps within observed data are filled with climatology or other
numberically derived data.
Please note that much of the pre-1953 data is either climatology or
interpolated data and the user is cautioned to use this data with care.**
The above quote is from the reference in #1082. It means use carefully. Note the derivation – climatology and interpolated. Thought I saw that somewhere before.
In other words, satellites are seeing a lot more holes.
Re: Gerald Machnee (#1095),
Thus serving to put into context the problem with anecdotes, which are even more full of holes. Long live audit.
Re: bender (#1081),
As I suspected, this graph is a mish mosh of various sources of data and interpolations so one must be careful in drawing any conclusions from it. For those who haven’t followed and read the link, some key things mentioned at the beginning include:
Re: Mark (#1080),
On my computer when I connect to a link it tells me where it came from, but I see bender has already posted the link, the sources used prior to satellites are listed there. (bender, I share your repugnance, I guess the old adage “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” might be appropriate? 🙂 )
Re: Phil. (#1070),
Anecdotes tell us that there was a significant melt back in the 30s and 40s that was subsequently reversed by the 70s. We cannot know how big those melt backs were but data that suggests that summer ice extent was much larger in 1940s that in 1970s must be viewed sceptically
Re: Raven (#1088),
You forgot the emoticon, 😉 at least I assume that you were joking?
I’ll take the measured data over anecdotes.
Re: Phil. (#1094)
Our ability to measure the arctic ice extent prior to satellites was very, very limited and there is no reason to beleive the data is accurate. The mismatch between anecdotes and data of dubious reliability suggests that the data is not presenting a realistic picture and should be used with caution.
Re: Raven (#1104),
There’s absolutely no reason to think that your anecdotal evidence is more reliable than the earlier data even if that data isn’t as good as satellite data. Care to produce some of these anecdotes and compare them against the data I’ve linked to above?
Re: Phil. (#1070),
**So what, I posted the graph to show that short term cooling does not contradict long term warming. That there may be even longer term cycles doesn’t affect that statement, such data as this would suggest that such cycles are very long indeed.**
I have seen that graph before. However, the last 20 or 30 years are not based on the same information as the early years. Look at the autumn extent – I have a difficult time accepting that it was a constant for so many years. Some of the hurricane researchers are only using the satellite data from the last 30 years and coming to a similar conclusion – hurricanes are increasing. They are also ignoring long term cycles.
Re: Gerald Machnee (#1092),
Read my post! I’m not trying to say what you are claiming!
Your difficulty accepting the data isn’t my problem, the sources are clearly stated as are the caveats. Even if you want to throw the autumn data away you still have summer, winter and spring data which still don’t show your anecdotal meltbacks.
Re: Phil. (#1097),
**Even if you want to throw the autumn data away you still have summer, winter and spring data which still don’t show your anecdotal meltbacks.**
I do not want to throw only the autumn data away. I will not accept any of it as similar to the last 30 years unless it passes an SM type of audit. Different techniques were used to come up with the results of 50-100 years ago. They used climatology and interpolation. That is similar to adding temperatures to the proxies in the hockey stick.
Whether the ice data is accurate or not cannot now be proven as we do not have enough data. That is all I want to show. What can be said is 2007 was lowest since 1979, no more than that, NOT the lowest on record. That is for the media and grant applicants.
Re: Gerald Machnee (#1102),
And none of this is at all relevant to my earlier comments: Re: Phil. (#1039), about time to take some reading comprehension lessons Gerald! Likewise I will not accept your stories about your mythical cycles since you don’t produce even a scintilla of evidence to support them. The data I referenced was the result of ships and planes reporting where the ice ended where’s the data for your ‘cycles’.
Re: Phil. (#1107),
I said:
**Whether the ice data is accurate or not cannot now be proven as we do not have enough data. That is all I want to show. What can be said is 2007 was lowest since 1979, no more than that, NOT the lowest on record. That is for the media and grant applicants.**
You said in #1107:
**The data I referenced was the result of ships and planes reporting where the ice ended where’s the data for your ‘cycles’.**
That is not enough, cycles or not. They “in-filled” the missing data. In case you missed it, your reference also included: **Please note that much of the pre-1953 data is either climatology or interpolated data and the user is cautioned to use this data with care.**
So the bottom line is you cannot make predictions or long-term warming trends based on 1979-2008 data. I do not need to show cycles. Debate is pointless.
Re: Gerald Machnee (#1113),
It certainly is with you, despite several prompts you still haven’t addressed the original point, you appear to be arguing against a straw man. And when you introduce cycles into the argument you do need to justify it.
Re: Phil. (#1117),
C’mon Gerald, you can’t suggest that something cyclic is going to turn GMT or sea ice around and then not support that claim! If you’re not going to do that then debate IS pointless … with everyone.
Re: bender (#1118),
OK, I will nibble, but not bite. I do not believe that there is enough evidence to show that global temperatures are rising mainly due to GHG. More research is needed to identify the reasons for climate variation more accurately. In years of work I have noted cycles (long and short)in temperatures and precipitation, some locally, some over larger areas. I looked at temperatures in some of the Arctic stations such as Resolute where I had worked, and I did not see where they have risen multiple degrees as has been suggested in some reports. There are only a few stations with data going back to the early 1900’s so only a few will show the warming of the 1930’s and 1940’s. So back to the previous – can we link these temperature trends to ice area or extent and say that the ice “must have decreased (in the 40’s) with the warmer temperatures”? There have also been some suggestions on the threads linking ice area to flow as well as temperatures. So which is mainly responsible? So now we are back to anecdotes. So I stop as I will not be doing detailed research or audits.
Re: Phil. (#1117),
**It certainly is with you, despite several prompts you still haven’t addressed the original point, you appear to be arguing against a straw man. And when you introduce cycles into the argument you do need to justify it.**
You are hung up on cycles now. As I said, the satellite data does not go back far enough to show a long term trend (or Cycle). In a number of years you will have proof. Until then you have missed my “pointless” more than once – there is not enough RELIABLE data to show a trend or debate.
Re: Gerald Machnee (#1119),
There was probably a fair amount of ice during the LIA and if not then the LGM. Or do those events exist only when it’s convenient? Look at IPCC Fig 6.1 or Hansen’s testimony Fig. 1. Earth was going icehouse not that long ago.
Re: bender (#1121),
**There was probably a fair amount of ice during the LIA and if not then the LGM. Or do those events exist only when it’s convenient? Look at IPCC Fig 6.1 or Hansen’s testimony Fig. 1. Earth was going icehouse not that long ago.**
I agree with your first sentence. Then you mention Hansen and IPCC. What is your point?
My point was that you cannot compare Satellite ice observations with the earlier period.
Re: Gerald Machnee (#1134),
Did you look at the graphs I referred to? Or do you automatically dismiss everything put in front of you that has an IPCC/Hansen label?
If you agree with the first sentence you get my point.
Re: Gerald Machnee (#1119),
Yes Gerald you’ve proved you can’t understand english or science, thanks for playing. Do us all a favor and save us bandwidth.
Re: Phil. (#1130),
As long as you make selective use of data, I will comment.
Now, where is today’s data?
Re: Gerald Machnee (#1132),
Since, after several false starts, you’ve totally failed to address the point I made earlier I won’t hold my breath! Try commenting on what was posted next time rather than making something up, it works better.
Re: Phil. (#1135),
**I won’t hold my breath! Try commenting on what was posted next time rather than making something up, it works better.**
So your “Science” consists of a fill in the blanks map back to 1900(which you posted a link to)? Was that data “scientifically” added? This is better than the Russian missing data? Can you understand this English? Cherry picking in the Arctic is what you have done.
Re: Phil. (#1070),
The upside down hockey stick graph of Arctic ice.
Not possible that, that graph is accurate.
Larsen would have needed an iceboat to make his 1944 voyage.
Re: Shawn Whelan (#1093),
That graph says absolutely nothing about Larsen’s ability to make the journey in 1944, nor does Larsen’s journey say anything about the graph!
Re: Phil. (#1099),
That graph shows there was twice as much ice in the Arctic summer of 1944 than in 2008. The NSIDC didn’t even declare the Parry Channel Route(that Parry went through in 1919) open this year yet with supposedly double the amount of ice in the Arctic Larsen waltzed through. Pretty far fetched. Reminds me of that song about ocean front propery in Arizona.
Looking at the historical evidence the Arctic has rapidly changed from low levels of ice to a large increase in ice very rapidly. Nothing in the past history shows that lower levels of ice in the Arctic were a linear trend that continued downwards. The ice has always returned.
More significant than the increased ice extent this year is the lower temperatures that caused this and the the resulting lowering of the heat in the Arctic.
Bender,
The tRe: Aaron Wells (#956),
Re: Shawn Whelan (#1031),
Try reading; it’s good for you. #1028:
Shawn, the issue here is sea ice extent in 2009.
Re: bender (#1032),
In which case I am predicting that due to the lower heat in the Arctic and the colder climate resulting from the less active Sun and the climate events in the Pacifac that there will be a very cold winter and large increase in minimum ice extent in the Arctic in the year 2009.
Re: Shawn Whelan (#1033), Shawn, why don’t you back up your “forecast” with an analysis such as the one suggested in #971? You might want to do that *before* issuing your prediction.
Re: Shawn Whelan (#1033),
The climate event that you refer to in the Pacific is I assume the change to the ‘cool’ phase of the PDO? Should that be the case I would expect the effect on the Arctic to be warming. See here.
Re: Phil. (#1057),
The Farmers Almanac is predicting a cold Winter we will see who is correct.
Re: Shawn Whelan (#1060),
Fair enough. Can you provide an exact quote? Does this “forecast” cover the pole and the Russian arctic? And can you provide some numbers validating the reliability of forecasts taken from your source? And, lastly, what does your source say about the long-term trend over the next ten decades? TIA.
Re: Shawn Whelan (#1046),
How about answering the question?
Re: Phil. (#1052),
See 1048
Re: Shawn Whelan (#1054),
I did you didn’t answer the question!
Re: Phil. (#1062), Shall I help him find the question? (He clearly does not read because he missed my #1049. I had assumed it was snipped, but no, he just didn’t read it.) Nah, I’ll wait a bit yet.
Re: Phil. (#1062),
see 1060
Re: Shawn Whelan (#1066),
Still not answered!
The question was:The climate event that you refer to in the Pacific is I assume the change to the ‘cool’ phase of the PDO?
That little curly thing at the end of the sentence is called a ‘question mark’, it indicates that an answer is required.
Re: Phil. (#1073),
My bad.
Sorry I just assumed you would know about La Niña and PDO.
Re: Phil. (#1057),
“Several independent studies find evidence for just two full PDO cycles in the past century: “cool” PDO regimes prevailed from 1890-1924 and again from 1947-1976, while “warm” PDO regimes dominated from 1925-1946 and from 1977 through (at least) the mid-1990’s. Shoshiro Minobe has shown that 20th century PDO fluctuations were most energetic in two general periodicities, one from 15-to-25 years, and the other from 50-to-70 years.”
Anectdotal, but 1947 was the year that Larsen reported the Northern Passage froze up solid. If you look at the PDO cycles on the graph they match up quite closely to the periods of less ice and more ice from the historical record.
Re: Shawn Whelan (#1065),
You’re making progress! Yes, that IS anecdotal. And it could well be a coincidece, as n=1. Arctic weather is not doctated by PDO. There is also NAO, AO, and a bunch of weather-thingies we just don’t understand. The bigger issue, beyond 2009, is LONG TERM climate.
Re: bender (#1049),
On this we agree.
Re: Shawn Whelan (#1055),
Your agreement means nothing because your judgement is questionable. Your dodge of Phil’s question is telling. Why not go back to lurking? You will learn a lot from reading the archives, possibly even a thing or two about the commenters here.
Re: bender (#1057),
see 1048. The PDO cycles line up almost exactly with the historical record of ice levels in the Arctic. Interesting.
Re: Shawn Whelan (#1060), Knock it off. You’ve caused the loss of several dozen comments now, including the one where I pointed out that (1) your dependent variable is anecdotal and (2) n=1 observations means it is likely a coincidence.
Here are my graphs for yesterday’s ice extent data, based upon revised IARC/JAXA Ice Extent data. There was a large upward revision of the area this morning (about 13,000 km^2).
Daily Arctic Sea Ice Extent Reduction Day 262
Arctic Sea Ice Extent Day 262
2008 Arctic Ice Extent Differences From Previous Years Day 262
Arctic Sea Ice Total Drops from Peaks Day 262
Bender, for the umpteenth time, please stop quoting me as if I am a moderator or owner of this(these) thread(s). My comment about keeping on-topic was just one poster’s opinion, and was driven by the fact that this particular thread is now over 1000 posts and is getting progressively long to load each time. At the risk of being inconsistent, I rather enjoyed Willis’ and Tom’s smack-down of RC propaganda. I withdraw my earlier comment about topic, but still make a non-moderator, non-owner, individual poster request that the discussion remain civil and free of name-calling.
CT Ice Area update 9/19/2008
region area(Mm2) difference anomaly
Arctic 3.084 -0.008 -1.947
Antarctic 14.951 0.044 -0.099
Arctic concentration drops back to 65%.
Shawn, read the bleedin’ blog, will ya?
Anyone here engaged in theatrical emoting?
I am reposting these ontrack questions. If anyone cares to answer in lieu of Phil that would be great.
Re: Phil. (#1003),
This year the probable minimum in sea ice area is basically a deadheat with last year (within about 3%), I wouldn’t describe that as a continuation of an increase.
True Phil, but would you care to quantify where the melt would have gone if arctic conditions had remained the same. In other words as there was so much “baby ice” and baby ice melts X percent faster the minimum would have gone to???
Or alternatively if the arctic this year had started with say a year 2000 minumum of both old and new ice, then what would we expect the melt to have been if arctic conditions of 2008 followed?
Is it not fair to say that a percentage of the decline is internal to the inherited conditions from the previous year and not related to the current years weather? Can this be quantified?
Re: David (#1052),
Patience, some of us have classes to teach!
Well since the amount of ice that melted this year is ~equal to the amount that formed over-winter, to a first approximation you could say that all the ‘baby ice’ has gone! Of course that’s not quite true since we know that old ice has melted in the Beaufort sea this year which means that some ‘baby ice’ must have survived elsewhere (implies overall loss of volume wrt ’07). Since we know that some of this ‘baby ice’ drifted over the pole it’s not surprising that this didn’t melt this year, NSIDC said that they thought that normal survival rates probably couldn’t be applied there.
“However, the unusual location of some of this year’s first-year ice may help more of it survive than otherwise might be expected. This year, much of the first-year ice is farther north than normal, and those northern areas receive weaker solar radiation. So, northern first-year ice may be less vulnerable to melt than first-year ice in typical locations.”
Probably less, but it didn’t.
To a certain extent but history would appear to say ‘not much’.
Look at this plot of % coverage at minimum for the Canadian Arctic, the year with the highest % (39.85% in 1972) was followed by a drop to ~30%, similarly the year with the lowest % (15.94% in 1998) was followed by a recovery to ~23%. By eye-ball the persistence in the past doesn’t seem strong, perhaps one of the Stats wizards here could analyze it? Although the second lowest year in that plot ’07 has now been followed by a lower year.
Re: Phil. (#1051),
Thank you for the response and I did not mean to be impatient, I just thought that in the banter my questions may have been lost.
It appears to be difficult to quantify the tenacity of old ice verse “baby ice” Would a simple experiment help, say cutting out of the arctic two identical demension blocks of ice, one baby,one multi year, and subjecting them to identical air temperture, water temperture, and currents and measureing their response to said stimuli? Would this be of value?
Sorry if my layman questions are of little use.
Re: David (#1078),
Banter? Its more like attempted murder.
Thanks for the ice information Aaron. Any chance someone can stop squabbling for five minutes and point me to the temperature graphs they believe are most relevant? Thank you
Tony Brown
Re: David (#1078),
I think these data are already known, the trouble is it’s all subject to the caveat ‘all things being equal’, the different types of ice are in different places and subject to different stimuli. For example the fragmented multiyear ice in the Beaufort sea this year melted faster than it would have done if it were a solid block but more slowly than if it had been first year ice in the same location.
HTH
Re: Phil. (#1086),
I asked the following…
Thank you for the response and I did not mean to be impatient, I just thought that in the banter my questions may have been lost.
It appears to be difficult to quantify the tenacity of old ice verse “baby ice” Would a simple experiment help, say cutting out of the arctic two identical demension blocks of ice, one baby,one multi year, and subjecting them to identical air temperture, water temperture, and currents and measureing their response to said stimuli? Would this be of value?
Your response was…
I think these data are already known, the trouble is it’s all subject to the caveat ‘all things being equal’, the different types of ice are in different places and subject to different stimuli. For example the fragmented multiyear ice in the Beaufort sea this year melted faster than it would have done if it were a solid block but more slowly than if it had been first year ice in the same location.
HTH
What then is the data? Also an additional question if you please. Raven has submitted other data here from post 1131, “And finally, a paper was published in 2004 (before An Inconvenient Truth was released) that discussed some Arctic ice data that wasn’t included in the dataset that underlies Gore’s image. This “new” set of old data sounds like the same Russian dataset discussed by Ahlmann and more recently Mahoney. When Johannessen and colleagues used the “hitherto under-recognized” Russian sea ice extent observations to create a long-term 20th century record of sea ice, they produced a Arctic sea-ice extent history that looked quite different from the Gore hockey stick version and, in fact, exhibited a much higher correspondence with the Arctic temperature history (as you might imagine). Figure 5 shows Johannessen’s Arctic sea-ice reconstruction (red line), together with the one likely used by Gore (green line), and the Arctic temperature history (black line).
Your response was to question the reliability of the data. Is this not inconsistent with you position. Should not the scientific response be to compare both data sets , see where they agree and disagree, and exam the methods of both sets as suggested by Raven in an earlier post?
I am not trying to be argumentive, just to better understand the thread while I filter out the personnel attacks from both sides.
Could someone confirm the current state of the ice compared to 2007? What I seek is a clear statement that the ice today is greater or smaller by a specfic % in both area and extent. Could Bender or someone also point me to ‘real’ (i.e. not adjusted by any vested interests) temperature graphs dating from 2000 that clearly shows what is happening- if anything. Thank you.
Tony Brown
Re: Tony Brown (#1044),
Hello Polite person in the room wearing a nice suit and tie and getting a little worried about the ugly crowd over in the corner
Could someone take the time to respond to the double question in my post in as clear, unambigous and unbiased manner as possible. Thank you
Tony Brown
Re: Tony Brown (#1074),
Hi Tony, I can only give data based upon the JAXA/IARC extent data but here is the current situation:
Ice Extent this day, 262 of 2008 compared to 262 in 2007, 2008 is 10% higher than 2007.
Ice Extent this day, 262 of 2008 compared to the 2007 minimum, 2008 is 11% higher than the 2007 minimum.
Ice Extent at the 2008 minimum (thus far) compared to the 2007 minimum, 2008 minimum (thus far) is 10% higher than the 2007 minimum.
Re: Tony Brown (#1075),
Area data can be found at: http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/
Extent data can be found at: http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm
Or: http://iup.physik.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsr/amsre.html
Re: Tony Brown (#1074),
In addition to Phil’s links, here’s the U.Hamburg AMSR-E site:
http://www.ifm.uni-hamburg.de/~wwwrs/seaice/amsr-e.html
Re: Tony Brown (#1044),
That’s not a trivial question because 2008 isn’t over yet and significant data like U.Hamburg area and extent is only posted monthly and can be up to six weeks behind (currently at 8/29/2008). CT by and large only posts the daily digital data (which may be 4 to 5 days behind the current date) with everything else in graphical form so we can only eyeball the curve from 2007. So if you mean the extent and area as of 9/18/2008, the only data is JAXA extent which is 4736406 km2 compared to 4296250 km2 on 9/19/2007, 365 days ago. The most recent CT area is 3.084 Mm2 compared to a minimum in 2007 of 2.92 Mm2. I posted a link to a graph of 2007 and 2008 ice area above.
I could make the argument that there are no un-adjusted temperature data. For the Arctic, there probably are not enough surface temperature stations for reliable data or at least the Hadley Center doesn’t think so anyway. The satellite data is not surface temperature and only goes to 82.5 N latitude. The two main versions of the lower troposphere satellite temperature data subdivided geographically are UAH and RSS. The middle troposphere and lower stratosphere tables are also available by navigating around at those sites. The UAH tables contain land + sea, land only and sea only. The RSS table is land + sea only, but the land only and sea only tables are in the same directory.
Could someone guide our friend to a bulletin board somewhere?
Today, the North Pole gets about 12 hours of sunlight with the Sun just barely above the horizon. In a few days, the Sun will set and it won’t be back for 6 months.
Temps will fall to -40C to -60C a little later in the winter and lots of ice will be created in these conditions (as has occurred every year for the past 4.5 billion of them anyway.) It is going to take a lot of warming to rid the North Pole of ice.
A quick question if I may…
Would it be safe to assume that the general speed of the ice floes decrease in proportion to lower air temps? Or, is water flow/temperature more of a driver in this regard? Also, how much of an effect does lower air temperature have on ice “evaporation”?
Cheers!
I have been busy this week, just when this thread has been going through the roof!
Kim #828, great post, very rarely do I disagree with you.
I should like to make a few points about spotting trends in warming and cooling, first briefly, then more expansively.
1. 2008 shows that ice has not reached a tipping point.
2. The globe has cooled for a very short period – from early 2007 until now.
3. Solar Cycle Length (SCL) adherents have been predicting cooling.
4. The turnaround in ice extent and surface temperatures is heartening to them – it is a first indication they could be right.
5. But it is too early to be sure – agree with John Lang that we need to wait for an EL Nino to judge – except we might have to wait a good while!
6. Cooling, whether via SCL or not, does not disprove AGW.
7. But statistically it must limit estimates of the sensitivity to CO2.
Now more expansively.
1. Strictly a tipping point is when something falls unstoppably off an attraction basin into a different one. There should be no reversals until the thing lies in the new attraction basin. You can quibble and make a less strict definition if you like, but it will be harder to impress folk with inevitability in your new definition. So, if 2008 ice had been less than 2007, it would have been tenable that a tipping point could have been passed.
2. I am going on HadCRUT3 6-month moving averages from 2007.2 until now, with a fall of 0.25C. The January 2007-January 2008 single month comparison was the greatest such fall since 1874. Of course, it may not continue that way.
3. See my graph on the BB, and David Archibald’s papers. I expect a mean fall of about 0.2C during Cycle 24, to +0.18C, followed by a partial recovery in Cycle 25, then onward and upward to +0.9C in 2100 (really scary that :-)). But the standard deviation within a cycle is 0.089 by my within cycle ANOVA, so some individual years could be as high as 0.18+2*0.09 = 0.36.
4. Needs no expansion, except to say that if they are right then we will not see the immediate sustained rebound which we saw in 2001 after the even larger 1999-2000 fall from the 1998 peak.
5. The ENSO phenomenon may well react to external events such as the Sun, so a weak Sun could delay the next El Nino. Someone should correlate ENSO to SCL…
6. Again, see my graph. The predictions use a sensitivity of 1.38C, and give cooling for one cycle (probably 10-13 years), followed by a recovery and more warming. The cooling years do not prevent future warming from occurring.
7. This is obvious. If SCL has a minor effect and CO2 has a large sensitivity, like 3.2C or more, then cooling from solar effects must rapidly be overtaken by CO2 effects. I could use my model to make a falsifiable prediction in this regard, though it would doubtless require many years of future data – it’s a thought for a continuation of my BB thread.
Rich.
Re: See – owe to Rich (#1063),
A common misconception, which I anticipated and addressed previously – this is true for systems with simple attractor geometries, which the climate probably does not have.
See arguments in:
#313
#514
#634
The exchange with Jon is where I assert that I have refuted this idea that we certainly have not crossed a tipping point.
Rich, one problem with your assertion is the bit about reversal. True that in a simple system reversal cannot happen beyond a tipping point, but who says a reversal has happened? (Most alarmists present this argument incorrectly or they oversimplify it.)
Many alarmists talk about tipping points as though there is necessarily only one of them in earht’s climate. But it is possible to have more than one unstable point interspersed among several stable points. In which case the system will charge off to a new state, linger there for a bit, then charge off to a new state. In this way the path to hothouse or icehouse may have several steps involved; it may not run straight away. I’m not saying this is happening, just pointing out that Rich’s model is simple.
I can’t believe I’m aligned with Phil. Ugh!
At the risk of offending Tom Vonk I use the term “stochastic” in a heuristic way. I understand that the system is fundamentally deterministic.
Stochastic systems that have tipping points do not necessarily proceed smoothly between opposing states. They proceed inexorably, yes; however small departures resulting from stochastic perturbations are permissible. In the case of arctic sea ice, cloud cover and wind are two “random” varables that could result in a faster or slower transition across the tipping point. That 2008 did not drop below 2007 proves nothing.
Re: bender (#1076),
That a process is deterministic is fully compatible with its being random. Compare a set of numbers produced by a roulette wheel (in which a great number of independent causal influences operate) with those produced by a quantum process (say geiger counter ticks modulo 36 or somesuch). So far as any mathematical tests are concerned, there need be no way of telling the difference, yet the roulette wheel results could be fully deterministic whilst the quantum process is not. So far as statistics is concerned, there ain’t no difference.
Re: KimberleyCornish (#1089),
I know. But thanks. I was trying to pre-empt a rash of ill-founded complaints.
WWF claims an unprecedented low in arctic ice for 2008:
“bigger area x thinner ice = less ice”
Re: Hans Erren (#1098),
Seems likely, the area only increased by ~3% so a 10cm decrease in mean thickness would do it easily.
This is like playing ball with the 9 year old kids in the neighborhood. Can’t win? Change the rules until you do…
#1101 Shawn Whelan … Excuse me,”… Parry went through in 1919…”
I don’t think so, Sir William Edward Parry (1790-1855) And he didn’t
go through his “own” channel, unless you believe in ghosts…
This is not to contradict that I think “bender” suffers from
“OBD”…
Re: STAFFAN LINDSTROEM (#1108),
Should be 1819-20.
Re: STAFFAN LINDSTROEM (#1108),
Shawn has a very idiosyncratic definition of ‘through’, he misuses it regularly! The furthest Parry sailed West was 113º 46′, in sight of Banks in the distance, stopped by impenetrable pack-ice.
#1105…Phil. you believe in ghosts???[see 1108!] L O L . . .
#1020 Tony brown
Kinda have my hands full in this thread and at the unfriendly confines of YouTube global warming threads. Go ahead and post it and you can even act like you found it yourself 😉
Re: GeneII (#1109),
No, I’ll giver you credit but I’ll keep the air miles. Hope you’re wearing your stab vest over here
Tony BrownRe: Raven (#1122),
I’ll also post these up on my new thread-same rules though if you dont make a trip over yourself I keep the air miles but you get the credit
Re: Phil. (#1129), This is truly UNPRECEDENTED Phil and Bender being nice to each other.
I am busy the next few days but have a number of peer reviewed studies to post up in next few days illustrating the time and extent of the MWP. Looking at all the stuff flooding in it is very difficult to see how the Hockey stick was ever conceived let alone lauded. It is bogus science that has ignored our past.
Tony Brown
Re: Tony Brown (#1140),
I last swept up Weather/climate data from this thread with the above post. I am attempoting to draw together factual information on previous warming events in both the Arctic and elsewhere to a quality that will pass ‘The bender’ test. If you have any weather/climate related information or links, please post them on ‘Have we been this way before?’ which can be reached by following;
http://www.climateaudit.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=520
There is no entry fee whatsover but squabbling results in a heavy fine.
Tony Brown
Phil. (#1106)
I said that any data with unknown reliability should be used with caution – especially if secondary information appears to contradict the claims made by the data. The only reasonable statement we can make at this time is to say that we don’t know what was happening to the ice in the 1940s – the data might be right – could be wrong. We simply do not know.
Insisting that the data should be treated as accurate until proven otherwise is an example of “uncertainty denial” – a phenomena that can lead to very bad decision making.
Re: Raven (#1111),
Re: Phil. (#1115),
This thread has turned into an anti-scientific disaster because of people’s unwillingness to support their claims with data. Let’s see if we can turn that around.
Re: bender (#1120),
I keep trying, I appreciate your support, especially as we haven’t always seen eye-to-eye on other issues, sometimes you just have to keep pushing back!
Re: Phil. (#1115)
The 85 day trip of the St Roch from Halifax to Vancouver in 1945 found a clear passage. Other evidence of a clear north west passage are posted on this thread.
In 1922 the ice retreated further north of Svalbard than it has today:
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/03/16/you-ask-i-provide-november-2nd-1922-arctic-ocean-getting-warm-seals-vanish-and-icebergs-melt/
Temperatures in Greenland where higher in the 20-40s that they were from 95-05
http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Chylek/greenland_warming.html
I don’t see how you can argue that the ice extent data is consistent with other observations. If it is not consistent it cannot be blindly treated as a fact.
Re: Raven (#1123),
Do you even know what extent means? It means the whole area of sea ice across the Arctic, the anecdotal ‘evidence’ you cited refers to individual locations around the edge of the basin, which locations melt differently from year to year. If you want to use your anecdotes to refute the extent measurements show that the relevant 1ºx1º grids show that the NW Passage was blocked when the St Roch went through it otherwise you’ve got nothing!
In 1922 when your anecdotes say that the ice had retreated further north of Svalbard than it has today Wrangel Island was cut off for two years by impenetrable pack-ice, here’s an image of it this August. Your anecdotes say nothing about the sea ice extent show that they contradict the data as I suggest or shut up.
Re: Phil. (#1128)
Where’s is your evidence that the data prior to 1950 is based on another other than a few ships collecting data a random positions? Climate science is filled with data which is nothing more than SWAG.
Here is some more data:
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2007/10/30/arctic-sea-ice-another-hockey-stick/
Re: Raven (#1131),
Should make it easier to prove it wrong then, have at it.
But of course the data you just referred to, extrapolated from partial coverage of the arctic ocean doesn’t fall into that category, those Russians had ways of determining the ice extent that the Japanese, Danish, Americans, Canadians, and British didn’t of course. Such dedicated guys too, reporting all that data while the revolution and Great Patriotic War was going on! Although I note that the paper you refer to says “the data are inadequate during World War II and the early post-war years”, but also comment on ” a large decline from 1900 to the 1940s, a recovery from the 1940s into the late 1960s”, just when was that war?
Re: Phil. (#1134)
I don’t know if the Russian data is any better. I am not claiming it is. But it does support my argument that we simply do not have any reliable data that can tell us what was going on with the ice in the first half of the century.
In any case, take a look at the notes from Cyrosphere today on the historical ice cover:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/SEAICE/arctic.historical.seaice.doc.txt
Gee, that is EXACTLY what I have been saying. Are you still going to insist that you graph should be treated as the gospel truth?
It only makes sense that is was warmer in the Northern Hemisphere in some time periods in the past in than it is now.
During the time of Vikings in Greenland, during the Medieval Warming Period, it had to be warmer than now. Most of us, if not all, have seen documentaries or photos of Greenland showing ruins of Viking villages. These ruins are in regions where the ground now is only permafrost. It would have been very difficult to build houses in these regions and then live in them for years if it had been colder (as the Hockey Stick shows, much colder) back then than now. It only makes sense that it was warmer, that the Vikings built houses where there was no permafrost and where they could have gardens for food.
Can we think they used pick axes to break up the permafrost–permafrost that would have been harder then than now if indeed it was colder back then than now–and then build houses, live off only fish and what wildlife they could hunt, with no fruits and vegetables? I just can’t see it.
It had to be warmer at times in the past than now.
Just as a preemptive note : I don’t care that this is “anecdotal”. So relax with the firing squad that fires the “that’s only anecdotal evidence” bullets.
Instead, be more direct and say this,
“Sure it was colder back then. Yes the Mann Hockey Stick is right! Sure they used pick axes to dig in ground that was frozen harder than now. Yes they ate only fish and what wildlife they could hunt. Sure the winters were longer back then and the summers were shorter. Greenland was never green–No! That was just a sales pitch from Lief Erikson to get even more Vikings to move to Greenland to live in these same difficult conditions. And even when the new people arrived and found permafrost everywhere they decided to stay and build houses in it and live there for decades. That’s just the way the Vikings were, and they liked it!”
Say something like that instead of the hackneyed “that’s just anecdotal’.
Re: GeneII (#1116),
You are trying to exaggerate the point that was being made, by pretending we said that ALL anecdotal is equally useless, so that you can pretend you’ve refuted it. Anecdotes are not useless. There is just a huge amount of imprecision around them such that their utility depends on the degree of imprecision, just like any datum. The Viking story is not about a particular week’s worth of weather in 1947, but a period of climate integrated over a much longer period, perhaps several decades or a century. It is one anecdote, but it integrates weather over a longer period of time then a ship traveling through a channel one summer. Because of that it has some enhanced credibility. (Although it is still a local observation, not regional, not global.)
It is very revealing when someone distorts what you say so that they can prove that distortion wrong. Someone here complained about the “strawman” accusation that “alarmists” always use. My advice, if you don’t want to hear that accusation, is to not erect strawmen arguments.
#1123 Raven
from Greenland warming of 1920-1930 and 1995-2005
From 1932, looks like history repeats. iwonder what great granpa Phil and Bender were doing back then?
“Next Great Deluge Forecast by Science
Melting polar Ice Caps to Raise the level of Seas and Flood Continent”
http://adamant.typepad.com/seitz/2007/02/global_warming_.html
This whole debate has been corrupted with anger; the rhetoric is in the toilet. Bender you erred in valuing Phil’s scientific precision over his scientific integrity. The Arctic is freezing up because the sun is hibernating, and CO2’s deterministic effect on climate is small enough to be immaterial. My opinion, of course; no numbers to back it up, just words.
=======================================================
Re: kim (#1144),
kim, if those are just words – and they are – then I did not “err”. You will want to retract some of those “just words”.
See the graph of actual Arctic temperatures in this article.
“The Arctic Climate Impact Assessment group releases a hyperbolic report predicting dire consequences for the Great White North. But when it comes to accuracy, they’re skating on thin ice.”
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2004/11/15/predictable-distortion/#more-21
What we really need is ice-nine. That would solve the melting problem for good.
From the Autumn of 1929 until April 1930, the whole West coast of Spitsbergen was free of ice. After a little ice in May and June, the coast was again completely clear, and in July and August, and in July and August the ice edge lay in lat. 81deg N.
Click to access mwr-059-05-0202c.pdf
so is anyone going to keep giving updates? i have had so much fun watching ice melt….that i can hardly imagine how much fun it is going to be to see water freeze!
seriously….i really am excited. it will be fun to see if it can catch last year’s record.
by the way,i would be happy to post the data more often than not, but i don’t know where to get it…..if someone wants to teach me how, i will do it about 5 nights per week.
Re: mark in austin (#1147),
Given van Loon’s expectation of a mild winter followed by a cold summer, I expect this winter’s maximum ice extent to be less than last winter’s and next year’s minimum extent to be greater than this year’s. That’s giving precedence over local effects to the ice’s value as a proxy of global temperatures, but I’m on a roll, so wothehell.
================================================
#1145,1150 … bender, have you read “Cat’s cradle”??
Here are my graphs for yesterday’s ice extent data, based upon revised IARC/JAXA Ice Extent data. There was a large upward revision of the area this morning (about 14,000 km^2).
Baby ice is beginning to close the gap between 2008 and 2005. It is moving to a point nearly midway between 2005 and 2007.
Daily Arctic Sea Ice Extent Reduction Day 263
Arctic Sea Ice Extent Day 263
2008 Arctic Ice Extent Differences From Previous Years Day 263
Arctic Sea Ice Total Drops from Peaks Day 263
AAron Wells
THANKS FOR ALL THESE GRAPHS!! These are the best thing in this thread!!!
….Last 2 weeks from JAXA
09,06,2008,4808281
09,07,2008,4739844
09,08,2008,4715469
09,09,2008,4707813
09,10,2008,4729688
09,11,2008,4751563
09,12,2008,4745156
09,13,2008,4742344
09,14,2008,4747188
09,15,2008,4731875
09,16,2008,4726250
09,17,2008,4718594
09,18,2008,4736406
09,19,2008,4745000…in plain numbers
Day 263 Extent Report
9/20/2002 5.929105 0.028338
9/20/2003 6.122656 0.033750
9/19/2004 5.808750 -0.000938
9/20/2005 5.345156 -0.023282
9/20/2006 5.846875 -0.045625
9/20/2007 4.310313 0.014063
9/19/2008 4.745000 0.08594
1. The main problem with Phil’s (i.e. CT’s) graphs is, like the original hockey stick, they have no uncertainty bounds on them. This is Raven’s & Gerald’s point – and it is a good one.
2. Anyone wishing/needing to make the argument that navigability (especially anecdotal navigability) is a good proxy for sea ice extent (especially historically) is going to have a difficult task ahead of them. I am extremely skeptical of that highly tenuous argument. Again, Raven & Gerald fall in that category, among others.
Re: bender (#1156)
I did not intend to claim that anecdotes are a proxy for sea ice extent. I was really only looking at them as a way to estimate the uncertainty in the data presented. i.e. if the anecdotes suggest NWP and Svalbard had similar ice levels to the late 1990s – early 2000s then one would expect the uncertainty intervals to overlap.
CT area update 9/20/2008
region area difference anomaly
Arctic 3.156 0.072 -1.894
Antarctic 14.963 0.012 -0.099
Looks like the race is definitely over for area. The smoothed rate is negative, but barely (-0.0033 Mm2/day). Ice concentration is up to 66.5%.
Re: DeWitt Payne (#1157),
Correction: 66.5% Arctic ice concentration.
http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/ice-area-and-extent-in-arctic
I’m not going to make any comment, pessimistic or optimistic (or neutral). Too much could be read into it in the recent “climate” on this thread 🙂
Re: Chris (#1159),
Please do comment. If we can agree to stick to facts then the “recent climate” will be irrelevant.
IMO those data don’t suggest anything we don’t already know. 2008 is a virtual tie with 2007. Depending how one chooses to measure “iciness” (area, extent, volume, mass, or changes in these), one year can be shown to exceed the other. Incocnlusive. Null hypothesis that 2007=2008 can not be rejected.
These data suggest that there is no evidence yet of a trend “reversal”.
Speculating on a “hiberating sun” effect is worse than wild-ass-guessing, given that there is no solar cycle evident in the long-term ice extent data from CT. No cycle at all, in fact.
Re: bender (#1163),
Bender, a 10% difference in ice extent is hardly a virtual tie. Nonetheless, I’ll agree that the ice data do not strongly suggest a trend reversal. The basis for belief in a trend reversal are more global effects, the PDO in a cooling phase, and a hibernating sun.
I’m not certain of these, and if I’m wrong I’m sure I’ll be corrected, but it seems to me that for the period of time for which CT has long term ice extent data, the sun has been cycling ‘normally’. As of now, Old Sol is not cycling normally. The number of spotless days, and the number of runs of spotless days in a row is higher for this cycle transition than for other ones. So you should not expect to see evidence in the recent record to estimate what the coming cycles will show or what their effects on Arctic Ice will be.
As I’ve said, I’m not certain the trend of Arctic Ice has reversed. But the data and supporting rationale are running in my favor.
===========================================================
Re: kim (#1171),
kim, don’t get too attached to cherry-picked statistics and fictional models.
Re: kim (#1171),
solar, solar, solar. What does this have to do with the LONG-TERM sensitivity of ice sheets to CO2? I would have thought you’d be more interested in arctic clouding.
Re: bender (#1174)
Ice sheets are not sensitive to CO2. They are sensitive to isolation, ocean currents and air temperature. Co2 causes some temperature increase but seperating that effect from other variations in a chaotic system is a challenge.
Re: Raven (#1177),
I think the imagined mechanism is transfer of tropical heat to arctic, through ocean currents, air cells, and storms. It’s not direct CO2-ice. (I just didn’t want to be falsely accused of being OT with GHG stuff.)
Re: bender (#1174),
The numbering has gotten off by one. We do not know the long term sensitivity of ice sheets to CO2 just as we do not know the long term sensitivity of temperature to CO2. We do know the long term relationship of ice sheets to temperature; they are closely correlated. I contend, on the basis of cooling temperatures as the sun nods off, and the divergence between temperature and CO2 levels, that the long term sensitivity of ice sheets is to the sun and derivatively, to temperature. Where did this curiosity about sensitivity of ice to CO2 come from? It would seem, from the meager evidence, that such sensitivity is relatively immaterial.
===========================================
#1159 Or ~75% if you go by the Arctic ROOS graphs I linked to in #1158, which are comparable in a way which CT and JAXA are not. I know you are aware of this DeWitt. But for those that aren’t, consider
Purple represents greater than 90% concentration. Hence 75% is the more plausible overall figure for the extent covered by JAXA.
Re: Chris (#1160),
I recognize that there are problems using JAXA extent and CT area to calculate average concentration. But when I started, that’s all I had. U.Hamburg concentration never goes below 80% and rarely below 85%. But they only update once/month. U.Bremen seems to only have images. You make do with what you have.
Hence:
1. There is a true figure for total ice area (i.e. greater than 0 concentration).
2. There is a true figure for ice area at greater than 15% concentration. This appears to be over 4 million km2.
3. There is CT area, which is currently at ~3.15 million km2. What does this represent?
#1161 “Re: bender (#1156)
I did not intend to claim that anecdotes are a proxy for sea ice extent. I was really only looking at them as a way to estimate the uncertainty in the data presented. i.e. if the anecdotes suggest NWP and Svalbard had similar ice levels to the late 1990s – early 2000s then one would expect the uncertainty intervals to overlap.”
What a shame people are having to hedge their words so much now on this thread. I could re-phrase it as follows: “I did not intend to say that accounts of what the ice extent really was like tell about what ice extent really was like. I was really only looking at them as a way to check if the presentation of the unprecedentedness of current ice extent is fair. i.e. if the anecdotes suggest NWP and Svalbard had similar ice levels to the late 1990s – early 2000s then one would expect this really could be true”. See what this “bender” guy has done to you……
Re: Chris (#1166),
ME?!! Who started this? I was merely correcting a bunch of errors. Don’t you blame me.
Re: Chris (#1166),
And why is it “hedging”? What’s wrong with Raven being asked to clarify his statement? It sounds like you feel like you can’t speak your mind? Nonsense – go right ahead.
Re: Chris (#1165)
It is not hedging – it was what was really getting at all along. Phil and Bender are right – one cannot replace data (even if it is a SWAG) with a few anecdotes. But one can use anecodotes to guage the reliability of the data (i.e. sanity check/estimate uncertainty intervals). I also stand by my point that the person presenting the data is responsible for demonstrating that the data with worth considering (i.e. Phil has no business insisting that others prove that there is a problem with his preferred data – he should be explaining how that data was collected and what caveats/limitations exist).
Re: Raven (#1174),
I am suspicious of any data series where the uncertainties are not explicitly estimated. But at the same time anecdotes from decades ago a very weak check on the historical data because the spatial dimensions do not match. As Phil said, it does not take much of a gap to create a navigable passage. Navigability is an extremely poor proxy for ice extent/area/vol/mass/etc.
I don’t ever recall disagreeing with Raven on any point in the past. And I don’t disagree now.
#1163 “These data suggest that there is no evidence yet of a trend “reversal”.”
OK sorry for last comment in #1165 (though your last response to one of my posts involved something about “noobs in diapers”….)
I think what you say is sort of true, but also sort of misleading. What I mean by this is that there could well be a “reversal” underway which would mean 2008 does turn out (in hindsight, in a few years) to show evidence of this. A lot of what you keep saying appears to rule out this possibility (even if this is not your intention)
Re: Chris (#1168), That was directed at someone else who I won’t name.
Re: Chris (#1168),
Chris, there is NO evidence of a reversal. Others have confidently concluded that a reversal is underway and that there’s proof of that. That is wrong. It was my duty to correct those errors. But that doesn’t necessarily make the alternative right. The fact remains, Chris: #971. Did you do the analysis? Do you understand what it means? 2008 INCREASES the probability that the trend is longer and stronger than previously thought.
#1171
On the other hand, let’s say for the sake of argument that a reversal is indeed underway. The graphs at
http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/ice-area-and-extent-in-arctic
look within the range I would expect to see for the beginning of such a reversal.
But this does not provide much evidence that it IS underway, only that your “Chris, there is NO evidence of a reversal.” is wrong.
Re: Chris (#1176),
Chris you cited those graphs already and I already looked them. That is not a proper test of trend. Did you read #971? There is NO sign whatsoever of a reverse. NONE.
Re: bender (#1182),
How about taking the huge increase in Arctic Ice extent at maximum, last Spring, as evidence of a ‘sign’. Will we quibble about the meaning of ‘sign’ next. Surely it doesn’t mean ‘definitive proof’.
========================================================
#1174 I agree with bender here. The more the 2007/8 cooling is due to solar minimum, the less it is evidence against higher CO2 climate sensitivity.
#1165 Chris
not everyone is being so picky, just a select few
Re: GeneII (#1181),
What a joy that people are actually starting to pay attention to what they say.
#1177 “Navigability is an extremely poor proxy for ice extent/area/vol/mass/etc.”
That’s why I referred to hedging. If you’re simply going to dismiss a discussion of the weight and relevance of evidence provided by navigability etc by asserting it’s “an extremely poor proxy”, then if enough people take the bait the discussion is going to die and people are going to start having to phrase everything re: proxies and uncertainty intervals instead, which is of questionable benefit…… Having said that, I take your earlier point about bias in the discussion…
“Re: Chris (#1176),
Chris you cited those graphs already and I already looked them. That is not a proper test of trend. Did you read #971? There is NO sign whatsoever of a reverse. NONE.”
So that settles that then? No. I just re-read #971 yet again. And? Perhaps you would like to read #1175 again?
We know that there was a downward trend in ice to the 1930/1940s. We also know that at some point that trend reversed. We also know that at the point the trend reversed, there was almost certainly a 10-year (say) trend that was essentially just as steeply downward as the 10-year trend to the previous year. In hindsight, we can say that any 10% increase in extent there may have been that year was indeed evidence of a reversal.
Re: Chris (#1186),
Bender meant to say ‘There is NO certain sign of a reverse. NONE’.
==========================================
Just for the record, personally I’m grateful for the anecdotes. I would never have know otherwise that the northern route of the NW passage was sailed in a matter of weeks in the 1940s. I also would never have got closer to understanding the true ice situation that Nansen encountered in the 1890s, which I ended up reading up on for myself. (i.e. the Fram got stuck in ice north of Siberia on ~22nd Sep at a location that is currently ice-free on the satellite maps, and on Nansen’s sledging expedition he came across large areas of thin first-year ice north of 82N, as well as doing some paddling in his kayak…)
Re: Chris (#1188),
I’m a little struck by the persistence of the search, historically, for a Northwest Passage. Much treasure and lives were spent on the search, but not for a Southwest Passage. What was the reason for the persistent belief in a ‘Northwest Passage’?
I know Menzies belief in a Chinese transit of the Arctic is based on tenuous evidence, but might not there have been sailor stories, passed along with other arcane lore, of travel to, if not completely through, the Arctic.
This is beyond anecdote, and not the least bit scientific, but what pointed those guys north, not south?
==============================================
Re: kim (#1189),
I am not sure what you mean by a Southwest passage?
To reach the Asian trading centers in Japan, China, etc. one needed to make a long, difficult and dangerous sail around the African or South American continents prior to the building of the Panama Canal. If the boats could sail through the NW Passage it would hugely shorten the voyage. Look at a globe and you will be amazed at the distances. It is the same reason that there is such excitement about shipping through the Northwest Passage today. A huge cost savings.
#1188 “i.e. the Fram got stuck in ice north of Siberia on ~22nd Sep at a location that is currently ice-free on the satellite maps”
Oops I got that totally the wrong way round! I meant to say it got stuck in ice at a location that is further north than the current ice edge. I was doing it from memory just now, and in a rush. More on the subject can be seen in my relevant post at RC from a few days ago….
Re: Chris (#1190),
There are others that crossed the passage.
Bernier took the CGS Artic across the Northern Route of the NW Passage in 1908-9 and again in 1910-11.
“On the Arctic’s third expedition in 1910-11, Bernier took the vessel North to patrol the Davis Strait, Baffin Bay, Lancaster Sound, Barrow Strait, Viscount Melville Sound and McClure Strait. Open water in McClure Strait tempted Bernier to attempt the Northwest Passage, but because this would have exceeded his orders, he resisted.”
http://www.ucalgary.ca/arcticexpedition/icebreakers/cgs-arctic
#1189 I’m afraid I don’t know enough about the subject to be able to add much to what you say. But certainly I would love to know more, although I fear much of the truth is already buried in the mists of time….. Anyway, it was fascinating to read Nansen’s account of his travels, and the captain’s account of the Fram’s voyaging/ice-bound years.
Many sailed the Passage besides Larsen.
“South of Melville Island, in Viscount Melville Sound, is a small speck of land called Dealy Island. The St. Roch visited the island in the summer of 1944 before turning south out of Parry Channel. Dealy Island had been visited before and contained a large cairn and a cache established in 1853 by Cpt. Henry Kellett. The crew of the St. Roch could see the cairn from miles away, however the cache had been largely destroyed by marauding bears.
At nearby Winter Harbour, the crew managed to locate Parry’s Rock into which the names Hecla and Griper had been carved. Hecla and Griper had been the names of Sir Edward Parry’s two vessels which had reached that point in 1819.”
http://www.ucalgary.ca/arcticexpedition/larsenexpeditions/dealy-island
The Resolute was abandoned in the Passage and then easily sailed out all by herself.
“In 1853, the men of a British Navy enterprise under the command of Captain Henry Kellett, H.M.S. Resolute, and Francis Leopold McClintock of H.M.S. Intrepid constructed a storehouse on Dealy Island, off the south coast of Melville Island in the Western Arctic Archipelago.”
http://pwnhc.learnnet.nt.ca/exhibits/nv/kellet.htm
Since this thread is still in a fairly unproductive mode, with the exception of much appreciated posts of real data on sea ice extent, and because much is still being made of the unprecedentd 2007 decline in Arctic areal ice extent, I am reposting material I posted to an earlier version of this thread in Sept. 2007.
At that time I decided to eyeball northern stations to look for trends, and the following are my then observations. Given the ongoing dispute about historic curves of ice extent, it seems that no progrees has been made. Pity. I still stand by my last statement , underlined below. Old anecdotal info. is almost certainly better than old “data”.
On Sept 11 2007 at http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/ I checked stations north of 63 with records from 1935 to 2007.
The first thing that shows up is that only a few Canadian stations are updated to 2003, and almost none later. Why isn’t GISS data current? Even the few Canadian stations listed as having data to 2007 only have the plots to 2003.
The next thing that becomes apparent is that there is no consistent circumpolar pattern. Western Siberia shows a very cold event in 1976, warming sharply in 1977/78, but little or no shift in the average level. Alaska and the Yukon have their cold event in 1975, with sharp warming to 1977 or 1978, and with a shift in the average upward by from 0.5 degrees C in the Yukon to >1.5 degrees C in western Alaska (Nome and Kotzebue, respectively on the Bering and Chukchi seas, south and north of the Bering strait, and nearly at the same longitude). This discontinuity is evident all over Alaska, so has to be a climate event. See: http://markov.ldgo.columbia.edu:81/%28/siberia/alexeyk/mydata/TSsvd.in%29readfile/.SST/.PDO/figviewer.html?map.url=T+fig-+line+-fig showing a major PDO switch starting about 1973, which may have been manifested in west Alaska temperatures starting in 1975.
Neither of these events is apparent in the NWT and eastward to Norway. However from Baffin Island, across Greenland to Iceland there is a low in 1993 followed by a big recovery lasting 2 to 5 years of from 1.5 degrees C in eastern Canada and Iceland to 4.5 degrees C in Greenland. In Greenland there is also an upward shift in the average of at least 1.5 degrees C. See http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/jhurrell/nao.stat.winter.html . The jump seems to have happened about 2 years after the smoothed peak of the NAO. This event is not apparent in Siberia.
Out of 50 stations checked around the Arctic only 20 are clearly warmer in the last decade, than in the decade from 1932 to 1942. Of this 20, at least 3 in Alaska appear to have moved from a snow strip to a paved airport runway in 1997/98, so maybe evidencing microsite effect. A couple of others show what appear to be localized discontinuities (Olenek 1966/67 and Iakutsk 1988) that may also be microsite effects that I couldn’t track down. Fifteen out of 50 appear to be clearly warmer, with most of the warming being higher annual minima. Only a few have a recent maximum higher than the 1930s high. The recent peak year is 2003, 2005 or 2006, with 2003 being most common. In the few cases where there is a value for 2007 it is always cooler than the nearest peak. I didn’t count but only a few sites are clearly cooler than the 1930s or trending down. Surprisingly, Fairbanks is clearly cooling since a 1987 peak. Net net, there is no obvious reason to believe that the Arctic is warmer now than in the 1930s. I don’t see record GW from the Arctic unless it is in the missing Canadian records, or comes from an upward bias. Of course I am only eyeballing plots so cannot detect a few tenths of a degree. Since AGW theory says that warming will be much stronger at high latitudes I expected a trend obvious to an eyeball check.
As for Arctic sea ice extent, the two major sources I could find are http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere and http://nsidc.com/news/press/2007_seaiceminimum/20070810_index.html . The nsidc site seems less problematic and more credible. The uiuc site has min. extent of 3.99x10e6 sq. km. at 6 Sept vs 4.24 for nsidc at 9 Sept. The nsidc curve of ice extent suggests that the major loss has been during July/Aug. See
http://nsidc.com/sotc/sea_ice.html, whereas uiuc seems to show the fastest loss from 6 to 15 May, by scaling the annual info at http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/sea.ice.anomaly.timeseries.jpg.
NSIDC accounts for the July/Aug loss as a combination of unusually high insolation (little cloud cover), and atmospheric circulation transporting warm air around a stationary Siberian high. There is no obvious reason for a sharp drop in May. However it could be that uiuc depends on satellite microwave data to the exclusion of visual data, and microwave can be fooled by water ponding on the ice. In any case the ice extent is at an unprecedented low since satellite supported estimates have been made starting in 1972.
NSIDC notes that ice extent has been declining since the early ‘50s. The only plot I could find is here: http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seasonal.extent.updated.jpg . There is an apparent anomaly at 1953, and NSIDC notes that sometime after 1972 the “Dehn ice charts” for the Canadian Arctic for 1953 to 1986 became available. Incorporating them is probably the source of the anomaly. If the summer curve pre 1953 is moved down to reattach directly at 1953, it becomes clear that the ice extent began to shrink about 1970, which would be reasonably consistent with the return to warming of the global average surface instrument plot. NSIDC further notes that estimation accuracy was at best +- 5 to 10% from 1972 to 1995, and that estimates are subjective, especially prior to the beginning of training of estimators in 2003. Accuracy prior to 1972, and especially prior to 1953 is anybody’s guess. Just eliminating the 1953 anomaly moves the 1940 minimum (PDO high, NAO low) in the referenced plot to the same level as 2002/3. A 10% overestimation would move it below the 2005 level, the lowest prior to 2007. Since the apparent 1953 correction was downward, one would expect overestimation more likely than underestimation. It is not unlikely that Arctic sea ice extent now is just at the lowest level of the 1932-1942 decade.
Does anyone have a source for Canadian Arctic temperature plots extending to 2006? Or PDO sst to near 2007? Or the NAO to near 2007?
See http://nsidc.com/news/press/2007_seaiceminimum/images/20070910_extent.png On further reflection, if the melt in the late ’30s looked like now, there is neither reason or likelihood that any sailors would have sailed into that huge bay that has melted, and less probability that aircraft would have overflown more than a small part of it. It is close to a dead certainty that, under such conditions, the ice extent would have been substantially overestimated in the years near to and including 1940. Murray
For those of you who don’t look at published (on the internet)curves and data too critically, I also sent the following letter in Sept. 2007. Never received a reply. However, if you are going to use “Cryosphere” as a source, also use a little caution. It is less than consistent
Dear Professor Chapman,
RE: http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/
I came across this website only yesterday, Fri. Sept 7, and was at first quite delighted to find so much information on Arctic ice. However after a few minutes of examination I noticed a couple of peculiarities, that led to more detailed examination and more oddities, so I am writing to you in hopes of getting clarification.
1) To start with consider the plots labeled “Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Extent”. For the summer curve in particular there is a sharp discontinuity downwards in 1953, with the trend before and after the discontinuity essentially unchanged. What could have caused such an abrupt disappearance of Arctic sea ice during a period of global cooling? A close examination of the smoothed HADCRUT long term global temperature trend shows cooling from ca 1943 through ca 1973, with about 2/3rds of the cooling from 1943 to 1953. Indeed your summer sea ice plot shows increasing extent from 1940 to the break at the end of 1952. If one eliminates the discontinuity, and reattaches 1953 horizontally to 1952, one sees that sea ice extent continued to grow to a peak in 1963, with virtually no trend from 1952 through 1970, largely consistent with average global warming. After 1970 we have a linear decline in sea ice extent to a min. in 1995 that is not regained until 2005. Again this is consistent with average surface instrument temperature that grew from the early 1970s to the late 1990s, and has then shown no trend from mid 1997 through mid 2007. The 1953 discontinuity appears to a consecutively less degree in the spring and fall plots, but not at all in the winter plot, while the downward jog in the winter plot for 1959/1960 appears also in the spring, summer and (albeit greatly attenuated) autumn plots. One also notes that from 1934 to 1952, spring sea ice extent is >= winter, which seems very unlikely, especially for the very warm period from the early 1930s to the early 1940s. If one re-attaches 1952 to 1953 by lowering the 1900 to 1952 section the anomalies essentially go away. It seems probable that a new method of estimating sea ice extent was introduced in 1952/53 that introduced an artifact which should be corrected.
2) There are also peculiarities in the extended curve of anomalies to average sea ice extent, (tale of the tape). By rough scaling the problem seems to appear in May, and is dramatically most evident in May (in fact in the middle 2 weeks of May), of 2007. This discontinuous decline in sea ice extent over such a short period is, at the least, mysterious. Note, there are declines similar in timing but smaller in degree in 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003(June), 2005, and 2006. With the exception of 1993, there is no such event prior to 1999, even though several earlier years show sharper annual declines than any of the years from 1999 through 2006. What unprecedented phenomenon began occurring in May in 1999, and reached an extreme in 2007? My own limited experience in the Arctic (in the early 1950s) is that snow storms were still common in May and only ceased after mid June, to recommence in late August. With global warming one would expect a longer summer season, but your data suggests that refreeze starts only =< 2 weeks later than in the ‘50s. It seems odd that since 1998 the big thaw would start at least a month earlier. This change seems like a 6 week lengthening, but your data give only 4 weeks more of sea ice a week. Is the plot in error, at least for 2006?
6) What is the summer sea ice extent in the graph discussed in 1) above? 2006 is way above the min. presented in the plot of 5) above, but below the average even of 2007, which was very low. Where would the point for 2007 appear on the summer plot of Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Extent?
7) AGW theory posits that GW will be largest at high latitudes, in winter, and at night. Even several degrees F of warming in the Arctic winter (which is mostly night), would have little to no effect on sea ice extent. The ice would not get thinner in the winter except if sea surface temperature (SST) increased. If SST is the major contributor, warming Gulf Stream water should reach the Arctic from the mid-Atlantic in not more than 2 years. Mid-Atlantic SST dropped measurably in 2003, and has not yet recovered to the 2002 level. 2007 SST in the Atlantic side of the Arctic should be cooler than say 2004/5, so should not be the cause of the abrupt 2007 decline in sea ice. As noted in 1) above, the average surface instrument GW trend has been flat since mid 1997. Even the 1998 global GW peak is not apparent in pre-2007 exceptional Arctic sea ice change. If neither GW nor SST caused the 2007 loss of ice, what mechanism do you suggest? Is there some mechanism that could bring the exceptional 1998 GW peak to the Arctic with a 9 year delay? Was there exceptionally heavy rainfall for a couple of weeks in May?
8) I live in South Carolina and Georgia. We have had a markedly unusual drought this year, with YTD rainfall less than ½ average. At the same time, Texas and the central region have had way above average rainfall. I haven’t been following anomalous weather in the rest of the world, but seem to remember that there was snow much farther north than usual in the South American winter. For the second year in a row we seem to be having anomalously low Atlantic hurricane activity. There are indications that solar activity is slowing sharply (a major reduction in prominences and SMEs, a slowing of the solar conveyer, and a 6 month or more delay in the onset of SS cycle 24). I wonder if response to solar activity is increasing low and/or mid latitude cloud cover, and reducing Arctic cloud cover while changing upper level and circumpolar wind patterns. Comments??
I’m sorry that this query is so long, but there are a lot of mysteries to resolve. I look forward to your elucidation.
Sincerely yours,
Murray Duffin
(murrayv@msn.com)
Re: Murray Duffin (#1196),
Murry–
Chapman maintains a site that lets us access data.
In your first very long paragraph, you are asking him to provide you physical interpretations for an observation recorded in 1953 explaining your theory about something and asking a numer of rhetorical questions. I would strongly suspect Chapman wasn’t even born in 1953. He maintains an archive of data which he did not collect himself. Quite likely, he hasn’t gone to the same efforts as Hansen to “adjust” the data into submission. Whether he can explain the data or not, the data record is the data record.
If I read your whole letter to Chapman, it appears to say:
1) I have an involved theory your data are wrong: To your knowledge, has the method of measuring ice extent changed over time? In particularly interested in changes that may have occurred during the 50s.
2) I have an involved theory your data are wrong: To your knowledge is there any reason the data could be in error for 2006?
6) I have an involved theory your data are wrong: Please read a graph for me, then do a lot of work for me.
7) I have an involved theory your data are wrong: Please provide your theory to explain the data.
8) Please speculate about the weather in Georgia and the effect of the solar cycle on cloud cover.
I think you’d be more likely to get an answer if you sent this brief email:
Dear Dr. Chapman,
To your knowledge, has the method of measuring ice extent changed over time? In particularly interested in changes that may have occurred during the 50s and any issues that might affect data in 2006. Are there any references that might help me learn more?
Sincerely,
Murray
If you receive a reply, you can then try to figure out if there are any problems with the data in 1952 or 2006.
Re: lucia (#1223),
On the money lucia, not even close to ’53, born in ’64!
#1165 Chris
“petty” would have been a better choice of words than “picky”
Sorry for using the wrong word!
Re: GeneII (#1198),
Sort of. But it’s the ones who don’t choose their words carefully who are being most petty. The rest of us are quite careful about not speculating beyond the bounds of the data. Hard to see how #1198 improves the quality of the thread.
Murray, may I suggest that your letter to Dr Chapman was too long and confrontational-sounding for an opener? Were you really expecting a reply?
Re: bender (#1198),
Agreed
#1195 Murray “On further reflection, if the melt in the late ’30s looked like now, there is neither reason or likelihood that any sailors would have sailed into that huge bay that has melted, and less probability that aircraft would have overflown more than a small part of it. It is close to a dead certainty that, under such conditions, the ice extent would have been substantially overestimated in the years near to and including 1940.”
This is the million-dollar question. Any Russians reading this thread who might be able to help us? Maybe dig up some archived material in Russian most of us wouldn’t understand?
I just did a quick google search, and although it’s not re: the 1930s/40s (or from the Russians), I did at least come up with the following from the late 1950s:
Click to access 0343.pdf
(ENUMERATION OF MARINE BACTERIA OF THE CHUKCHI SEA)
It suggests that in 1957, there was rapid ice melt in the Chukchi Sea off Point Barrow between 14th June and 24th July, such that by 24th July the offshore water temperature (NW of Point Barrow) was about 7C, and by September “the region was free of sea ice”
Here’s another link I just found:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/hx2566t765q322k0/
Rather tantalising as we can only see the article abstract, but this sentence hints at the nub of the issue:
“September ice extent in the majority of the Siberian Arctic seas and in the Barents Sea reveal rapid shrinking during Arctic warmings in the 1920–1940s and 1990s.”
#1195 Murray Duffin
I don’t want to think the worst but this reminds me of this photo (here from a 2nd angle).
Do you know of the reasons given that these three were moved from a snow strip to a paved airport runway?
Now I’m getting somewhere – see the following:
http://nwpi.krc.karelia.ru/climas/Ice/Ice_no_sat/XX_Arctic.htm
“Variations of Arctic sea ice extent in the 20th century from dataset based on available Russian observations”
Fig 2 is the best light I think I can shed so far to the million-dollar question re: summer ice extents in the Siberian Arctic basin earlier this century. Looks like late August ice extent here more than doubled between the dips of the 1940s/50s (not so much 1930s, note) and the peaks of the 1960s/70s.
Also note:
Table 9
Mean annual ice area in Siberian Arctic waters, thousand km2
[I’ve calculated averages below]
2,148,000 km2 1940s
2,144,000 km2 1990s
However, also note the long-term trend in the Arctic overall still appears down (though not as dramatically as the graph at http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seasonal.extent.updated.jpg suggests), and note the closing words of the article, written as it was at the turn of the century:
“If further development of events in this direction continues over a significant area of the Arctic Basin, a real threat to the ice cover existence will appear.”
So the article provides some evidence that the 1940s were closer to current conditions than asssumed, but at the same time the point shouldn’t be over-stated.
Re: Chris (#1203),
Looking into the availability of Russian data is a great idea. Very likely to act as an independent check on what the North Americans have said. (With obvious caveats.)
#1200 Chris
A relationship to this study where you got this quote would be seen in this study of Greenland (mentioned before) which says
“Across the Pole is the Northeast Passage to China along the top of Norway & Russia. Sebastian Cabot initiated its search in 1553. Henry Hudson twice attempted a passage but it was not until 1879 that the route was navigated. Now Russia currently operates 160 freighters on summer schedules in the Northeast Passage’s more open but colder waters.”
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,770864-2,00.html
Unofficial Day 263 Race Report
9 20 2002 NA NA
9 20 2003 6.122656 0.033750
9 19 2004 5.808750 -0.000938
9 20 2005 5.345156 -0.023282
9 20 2006 5.846875 -0.045625
9 20 2007 4.310313 0.014063
9 19 2008 4.745000 0.008594
Preliminary Unofficial Day 264 Race Report
9 21 2002 NA NA
9 21 2003 6.085469 -0.037187
9 20 2004 5.818906 0.010156
9 21 2005 5.315625 -0.029531
9 21 2006 5.847656 0.000781
9 21 2007 4.284531 -0.025782
9 20 2008 4.738750 -0.006250
re Bender 1197′ I wasn’t narky. Just factual. I would expect a real scientist to offer explanations, if possible, or corrections if necessary. Chapman’s failure to respond indicates either undue sensitivity or perhaps an inability to to explain possibly careless work, or maybe he thinks correcting his work would be an embarrassment. Do you think he might have responded if I had sent 3 shorter requests? Murray
Re: Murray Duffin (#1209),
The best approach would have been to pick the most important point you wanted clarified, and, if he replies, try to gradually develop a conversation. Sorta like dating; you can’t ask all those questions on the first date.
Re: Murray Duffin (#1209),
Your expectations are simply not realistic. I would expect a real (i.e. busy) scientist to ignore your letter, interpreting it exactly as lucia has in #1223.
Although the internet changes everything, putting experts at your finger tips like never before, the experts, and their institutions, have not yet adjusted to the new reality. Kid gloves and caution. Not knives and gnashing teeth.
Re: Murray Duffin (#1209),
Or as he indicated in a rare response on Watts’ site, (to erroneous accusations of errors in his area calculations):
“William Chapman (08:43:15) :
1) Why don’t you answer your email contact link on the CT web page? I and other have sent queries this year, with no response. For example, I sent an email two days ago.
limited time – sorry.”
Re: Gene 1200 to provide close to year round service to growing towns, with the growth aided by warming.
Re: Murray Duffin (#1210),
So the location near the paved runway has no effect on the temperature reading as compared to the station be located over snow? It must be different. Isn’t it? You seem to have suggested that possibility. Did I understand you comment correctly?
Re:Gene 1201 (not so much 1930s, note)
the dips may have been there also in the 30s but not observed for lack of ships having any reason to penetrate such a big bay.
It appears to be difficult to quantify the tenacity of old ice verse “baby ice” Would a simple experiment help, say cutting out of the arctic two identical demension blocks of ice, one baby,one multi year, and subjecting them to identical air temperture, water temperture, and currents and measureing their response to said stimuli? Would this be of value?
Phills response was…
I guess I am looking for what this “known” data is. It would appear to be logical that knowing the isolated response rate of at least one of many factors would be helpfull. One could then say for instance, “The 2008 maximum had X sq K more new ice then 2007, and so if conditions had been identical the known expected loss, due to this higher % of “baby ice” would have been X. The actuall response was Y. The difference was caused by XY and ZZZZ.
If anybody knows what this “known” data is your sharing it would be appreciated in advance.
Re: David (#1213),
You could try the following sites:
http://ice-glaces.ec.gc.ca/App/WsvPageDsp.cfm?Lang=eng&lnid=3&ScndLvl=no&ID=10160
http://nsidc.org/seaice/
#970 Bender: “Please plot the trend lines for the data up to 2007 and then again for the data up to 2008. Then tell me all about the trend “reversal” that is indicative of “cooling”. I think you’ll have a very hard time with that one. What you will find is that 2008 strengthens the conclusions that were just hinted at in 2007. An unwillingness to post that analysis would be revealing. I will be impressed if someone beats Phil to the punch.”
Here’s the NSIDC annual trend lines up to 2008 for the months of May, June, July and August:
http://nsidc.org/cgi-bin/bist/bist.pl?annot=1&legend=1&scale=75&tab_cols=2&tab_rows=2&config=seaice_extent_trends&submit=Refresh&hemis0=N&img0=trnd&hemis1=N&img1=plot&mo0=05&year0=2008&mo1=06&year1=2008&.cgifields=no_panel
http://nsidc.org/cgi-bin/bist/bist.pl?annot=1&legend=1&scale=75&tab_cols=2&tab_rows=2&config=seaice_extent_trends&submit=Refresh&hemis0=N&img0=trnd&hemis1=N&img1=plot&mo0=07&year0=2008&mo1=08&year1=2008&.cgifields=no_panel
June and July (peak insolation months) both show a deceleration of the long-term trend from 2007 to 2008.
May also shows a deceleration of the trend.
August shows an acceleration, which roughly cancels out the May deceleration.
Overall, the 4 highest insolation months appear to show a small net deceleration of the long-term trend (especially if the peak insolation months of June and July are given a higher weighting, as they should be).
The graph Phil links to http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/sea.ice.minimum.2008.html
is re: CT area. If I could plot the CT trends for each month I would do so – they would likely show similar results, judging by
http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/ice-area-and-extent-in-arctic
i.e. 2008 area only diverged from 2006 area after July, just like with extent.
So just comparing the September minima is somewhat misleading. September is a time when insolation is already very much lower than in midsummer, and indeed if anything greater open water starts to represent greater net heat loss
– see http://www.bom.gov.au/bmrc/clfor/cfstaff/matw/maproom/OLR/m.lm.html
i.e. outgoing longwave radiation within most of the Arctic circle has been at least 5 W/m2 above average for the last month (compared with roughly neutral values the previous month).
The whole idea of the “tipping point” is that less ice means more heat is absorbed by the ocean by the end of the summer, such that the ice can no longer recover. If the graph of minimum ice was the full story, one would expect current SST anomalies in the Arctic to show little change from a year ago.
In fact, the overall cooling can almost be described as dramatic:
http://sharaku.eorc.jaxa.jp/cgi-bin/amsr/polar_sst/polar_sst.cgi?lang=e&mode=main&date=set&y=2007&m=9
http://sharaku.eorc.jaxa.jp/cgi-bin/amsr/polar_sst/polar_sst.cgi?lang=e&mode=main&date=set&y=2008&m=9
For anyone who has already tried to look at my last links and failed, don’t despair. That part of the JAXA site appears to have gone down in the last half hour. I’ve used it many times in the past with no problem, so just wait a while and try clicking on the links again later or another day. It’s worth waiting for as they’re quite telling (I think).
I also should have mentioned before that the first half of August ice extent/area should be given a higher weighting (re: insolation) than the second half, i.e. the effect of the 2008 August ice melt on ocean heat absorption is somewhat less than the monthly average suggests, since it was only as the month went on that the acceration in ice loss (relative to previous years) became progressively more marked.
“you can’t ask all those questions on the first date.”
That’s pretty funny bender.
Also consider the following re: ice extent and thickness trends (on the Russian side of the Arctic) during the 20th century:
http://www.frontier.iarc.uaf.edu:8080/~igor/research/ice/index.php#fig3
(Long-term ice variability in arctic marginal seas)
“Analysis of records (Figures 2, 3) also shows that long-term ice trends are small and generally not statistically significant (at 95% level), while trends for shorter records are not indicative of the long-term tendencies due to large-amplitude LFO. Over the entire Siberian marginal-ice zone the century-long ice-extent trend is only -0.5% per decade. In the Kara, Laptev, East Siberian, and Chukchi seas the ice-extent trends are not large either: -1.1, -0.4, 0.3, and -1.0% per decade, respectively. Moreover, statistical analysis based on the bootstrap technique shows that these trends, except for the Chukchi Sea, are not statistically significant. The fast-ice records do not show a significant trend either (Figure 3). In the Kara and Chukchi seas trends are positive, and in the Laptev and East Siberian seas trends are negative. In all of the seas the trends are relatively small, about 1 cm/decade, close to the resolution of the measurements. These trends are not statistically significant at the 95% confidence level.”
The retreat from Moscow is now probably over
Now we can concentrate (literally) on the run to the maximum. Already we have had people put ideas forward on the maximum for 2009 and therefore the minimum in 2009 also, all good stuff.
Unfortunately the thread seems to have been corrupted slightly. For the majority of the thread we have been comparing data from the JAXA spreadsheet which is only a few years but adequate for comparisons as long as we all knew it would not show any underlying rule. It is just for fun.
So all this talk of 10,50,100 year cycles and how a tough bastid from the 1940’s said the ice was clear, at least from his beard, has no relevance on the matter in hand at all.
I’m sick of hearing about Larson. He was probably so tough he thought icefree was something he couldn’t chew through (about 2m thickness). Conversly he boat was made out of reeds so only an ice cube falling out of his icemaker for the G&T’s could have stopped him. So who knows what his “ice free” actually meant?
As for PDO, damn, I’m sick of hearing about that as well. That thing gets everywhere, my fridge probably is influenced considering it’s ALMIGHTY POWWAA….
Aaarrgghhhh……..
Regards
Mr Upset.
…Chris… STAFFAN LINDSTROEM:
August 13th, 2008 at 10:43 pm
# …help us out … Ice Bond comes to your assistance
…What about Polyakov et al :
Click to access ice.pdf
…Phil. Enjoy!!??
[CLIMATE AUDIT SEA ICE STRETCH RUN # 2 POST 584…]
Phil. we have a match again, Polyakov, the RRRussian slugger VS
Maslowsky the Polish-American submariner…
AND Chris and everyone else see CA SISR # 2 POST 610 ice thickness
outside Alert, Ellesmere Island, Nunavut, Canada…
#1218 AndyW
LOL! I am told that he used to lash himself to the keel so he could gnaw through the thick stuff! (He also preferred his G&Ts at room temperature)
Well said!
CT area update 9/21/2008
region area(Mm2) difference anomaly
Arctic 3.076 -0.08 -2.001
Antarctic 14.889 -0.074 -0.151
Big drop, but still above the recent minimum.
The properties of first year ice v. multiyear ice are not interesting per se. trouble arises easily because the age of the ice is merely a proxy for the parameters that actually determine its propensity to melt to clear ocean: thickness, salinity, and soot.
Ice age can be determined by comparing ice-coverage which we have instrumentation for. Our knowledge of the other parameters arises from very sparse sampling.
My prediction and why.
The PDO has entered a cold cycle
LaNina now active in the Pacifac
Lack of activity from the Sun
Less heat in the Arctic than last year
Earlier cooling in the Arctic this year
The Farmers Almanac is predicting a cold year
Looking at past history the Arctic has rapidly gone from a low level of ice to a much higher level
The amount of ice in the Arctic is now trending upwards
Canada and Alaska have just gone through the coldest Winter and Summer in several years
From this I am predicting a solid freeze in the Arctic and a much higher level after the melt next year.
Re: Shawn Whelan (#1226),
It’s called “winter”.
Re: Shawn Whelan (#1226),
If I may…
I hope I am not being too presumptuous to dare speak for the large number of Lay/novice lurkers in here when I say that we are all abundantly aware of your beliefs and predictions; we have heard them a thousand times already. Perhaps you might in future simply post a link back to this comment of yours and save us all the bandwidth. You might want to take note of the site rules regarding repeatedly stating an opinion for the purpose of inciting an argument.
I have enjoyed the links you have provided, and am also aware that you are posting them on the BBR thread Tony has graciously set up. I will look forward to you posting many more there.
Perhaps a new thread entitled ““My pet theories and how I get there” on the BBR would be a good outlet for speculation?
Thank you, and my apologies for taking up this space.
Here are my graphs for yesterday’s ice extent data, based upon revised IARC/JAXA Ice Extent data. There was a large upward revision of the area this morning (about 15,000 km^2).
Daily Arctic Sea Ice Extent Reduction Day 264
Arctic Sea Ice Extent Day 264
2008 Arctic Ice Extent Differences From Previous Years Day 264
Arctic Sea Ice Total Drops from Peaks Day 264
Re: Aaron Wells (#1232), An amazingly flat month compared to August. (Thanks, as always, for these graphs.)
I thought this might give you something interesting to discuss. Its a document from an EU marine agency and relates largely to fish
Click to access MB_Climate_Change_VLIZ_05031.pdf
If you go to page 3 of the Executive summary very close to the start of the document, it shows six graphs with average sea temperatures dating back to 1930.
Interestingly 5 out of the six are showing temperature declines-the only one going up is the Barent sea. The document is from Feb 2007 and I have just got figures from Defra (a British agency) that show the Celtic Biscay shelf has lost around another half a degree from the figures shown. I don’t have figures from the others. Perhaps an early sign of cooling with the Arctic lagging behind? Or perhaps not.
Tony Brown
September 16, 2008 headline from WattsUpWithThat?, says, Arctic Sea Ice Melt Season Officially Over; ice up over 9% from last year, the graph from the story looks much like Aaron Wells’ Arctic Sea Ice Extent Day 259 graph,
end of article “…we’ll be watching how much ice we add this winter…”
Preliminary Unofficial Day 265 Race Report
The race between 2008 and 2007 has all but ended, with minimum ice apparently a couple of weeks back. 2008 made a great effort, beating 2003-2006, but, in the end, could not keep up with 2007.
9 22 2002 5.985781 NA
9 22 2003 6.047031 -0.038438
9 21 2004 5.866719 0.047813
9 22 2005 5.315156 -0.000469
9 22 2006 5.851406 0.003750
9 22 2007 4.276719 -0.007812
9 21 2008 4.750938 -0.001562
Unless something changes dramatically, this will be my last report.
Re: TAC (#1237),
Thank you; you don’t know how I waited for these. Or maybe you can guess.
===============================================
Re: TAC (#1237),
Ok, now what am I supposed to do for entertainment in the evenings?!
Re: TAC (#1237),
Thanks TAC! I guess the end is nigh…
Dave Dardinger #1239
I propose the butter test as a replacement to Ice Stretch #3.
Every year our family changes- at the onset of colder weather- from ordinary butter to soft spread as the ordinary butter becomes impossible to spread. In the spring we change back again. I could give daily reports of the lead up to both events and the actual dates when the use of one or the other spread becomes the status quo. My wife could peer review this process, or we could set up a web cam on the worktop. I am predicting a change over by October 5th this year-two weeks earlier than ever before. Truly unprecedented.
Any comments anyone on my Re: Tony Brown (#1234), regarding sea temperatures?
Tony Brown
Re: Tony Brown (#1240),
“My wife could peer review this process”
If you get an independent “peer-reviewer” your work would be more credible. You need to be wary of audit and possible embarrassment like James Hansen is having to endure. You don’t want to the reputaion of not being on top of things, especially when it comes to the family butter! Also, be careful, Mark Serreze might come along and say you’ll never have butter in your refrigerator again.
Re: GeneII (#1256),
I don’t think I’ve ever seen the words ‘independent’ ‘peer’ and ‘review’ used in that order before in relation to climate science. Isn’t it illegal?
Tony Brown
Re: Tony Brown (#1257),
You mean peer-reviewers of a work are supposed to be as close in relation to the person being reviewed as a wife? Ok, I see. Well that explains a lot. I thought the opposite was true.
Speaking of audits, I’ll have to give an audit here :
Are you talking about butter, or is it margarine? Or is it some butter/canola oil combo? Because I looked in to it–soft spread is not technically “butter”. You’re busted! Is this your 1934/1998, butter/margarine/butter hybrid moment?
pssst, by the way, I may be on the payroll of big dairy corporations to do this audit, but don’t tell anyone, just keep that between you and me.
Re: GeneII (#1259),
Look the type of butter I’m going to use is my secret and you will just have to accept what I say…
Tony Brown
Re: Tony Brown (#1263),
Ok, got ya Mr. Mann
TAC, tell us where you get this info! i will keep it going. i think it would be quite fun to watch how the ice rebuilds this winter…….
Re: mark in austin (#1242),
That would be terrific. The url is:
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/plot.csv
I downloaded the data directly into R using a (lightly edited) script provided by SteveM (here):
racereport = function(day){
url=’http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/plot.csv’#AMSR-E sea ice concentration algorism developed by Dr. Comiso in NASA/GSFC.
daily=read.csv(url,header=FALSE)
dim(daily) #[1] 2406 4
names(daily)=c(‘month’,’day’,’year’,’ice’)
daily$ice[daily$ice== -9999]=NA
daily$date<-as.Date(paste(daily$year,daily$month,daily$day,sep=’-‘))
daily$julian<-julian(daily$date,start=’1970-01-01’)
daily$mm=100*daily$year+daily$month
daily$dd=factor(daily$year)
m0=tapply(daily$julian,daily$year,min)
m0[1]=julian(as.Date(‘2002-01-01′),start=’1970-01-01’)
levels(daily$dd)=m0
daily$dd=as.numeric(as.character(daily$dd))
daily$dd=daily$julian-daily$dd
daily$ice=daily$ice/1E6
daily$diff=c(NA,diff(daily$ice))
subset(cbind(daily$month,daily$day,daily$year,daily$ice,daily$diff),daily$dd==day-1)
}
Each day’s data become available at about 11:03 p.m. (Eastern U.S. time), at which time you can enter a command like:
temp=racereport(265);print(temp);print(temp[7,4]-temp[6,4])
[,1] [,2] [,3] [,4] [,5]
[1,] 9 22 2002 5.985781 NA
[2,] 9 22 2003 6.047031 -0.038438
[3,] 9 21 2004 5.866719 0.047813
[4,] 9 22 2005 5.315156 -0.000469
[5,] 9 22 2006 5.851406 0.003750
[6,] 9 22 2007 4.276719 -0.007812
[7,] 9 21 2008 4.750938 -0.001562
[1] 0.474219
A little light editing, and voila!
Thanks!
🙂
#1234 Tony Brown
You ought to try “I can’t believe it’s not Colder” which allows you to spread all the way through the winter.
Regards
Andy
Re: AndyW (#1244),
I tried ‘I can’t believe its not hotter’ once, but it disappeared as soon as it was exposed to the cold light of day.
Tony Brown
Here are my graphs for yesterday’s ice extent data, based upon revised IARC/JAXA Ice Extent data. There was a very large upward revision of the area this morning (about 23,000 km^2).
My 13 year-old son already thinks I’m pretty weird for tracking and posting posting the sea ice extent through this summer period. To continue very far up the re-freeze track would probably damage my reputation with him beyond repair ;-), so I will probably post my graphs a few days more, and then call it a year. If anyone is interested, I will try to find a way to upload my excel spreadsheet to somewhere where it can be downloaded by anyone wanting to see the various things I tracked with it.
Daily Arctic Sea Ice Extent Reduction Day 265
Arctic Sea Ice Extent Day 265
2008 Arctic Ice Extent Differences From Previous Years Day 265
Arctic Sea Ice Total Drops from Peaks Day 265
Re: Aaron Wells (#1246),
Aaron, thank you for your graphs. Tell your son your graphs have made you famous around the world.
==========================================================
Re: Aaron Wells (#1246),
Aaron, many thanks for your graphs – I’m sure I’m not alone in
thinking it would be great to follow the re-freeze as well.
Thanks again for your time and effort,
John
I plan to keep tracking CT at least until I get a full year so I have their 20+ year average curve. Then I’ll probably just follow U.Hamburg when they update monthly like I’m doing with UAH and RSS MSU data. If there’s still a suitable thread available, I’ll post some updated graphs on at least a monthly basis. A data only thread, some comments allowed but only related to the specific data, would be nice.
CT area update 9/22/2008
region area(Mm2) difference anomaly
Arctic 3.043 -0.033 -2.073
Antarctic 14.916 0.027 -0.115
Arctic behavior is starting to look like 2007, little or no increase while the long term average is starting to increase rapidly, leading to a steep drop in the anomaly. Seems a little odd, though, considering that the extent rate is very close to average at this point.
Re: DeWitt Payne (#1250),
The difference is that area will track re-freeze whereas extent will track re-freeze and compaction due to wind. Since re-freeze requires that the temperature of the surface layer (down to the pyncocline) drops below the freezing point there’s usually a delay (except in shallow water). The warmer the water and the more open water is over deeper parts of the arctic the longer the delay, which is probably why last year and this are rather flat.
Re: DeWitt Payne (#1250),
This is exactly what you’d expect given the abnormally low ice concentrations.
Contrary to Phil 1254, Jaxa reports Arctic SSTs close to the past 6 year average. Overall, The SST anomaly is skewed by the loss of ice coverage–Jaxa reports ice as cold SST, thus open ocean appears as a substantial anomaly. This is wrong because the water under the Ice is of course warmer.
Re: Jon (#1260),
I’m not sure why this is contrary to what I posted, a misunderstanding perhaps?
I wasn’t suggesting that this year’s water was particularly warm just that warmer water would lead to a longer delay as would deeper water. Given that in years of relatively low melt a lot of the open water would be shallow and therefore freeze quickly whereas this year and last the larger expanses of open water would take longer to refreeze hence rather flat minimum last year and possibly this. I agree about the SST it’s a point I’ve made here before.
not sure if i am savvy enough to know what the heck TAC is talking about, but i will give it a quick look. anyone else understand how to use a “script?”
also, once i open this deal in excel….how do i make a command like the one TAC gave me? i see the raw data and i can read it, but i don’t understand how to tell it to print out just what he has it print out by use of that handy command he gave me. where do i enter such a command?
Steve: You have to install R. If you’re going to do statistical analysis, it’s long past time to abandon Excel. We don’t support VHS here either.
The extent increase has been running above the average for the last few days and was near the average for some time before that. Interested to see what the extent is this winter.
Day 2008 avg 2003-7
262 0.017812 0.01237520
263 0.008594 -0.00440640
264 0.007500 -0.01631260
265 0.021250 0.00096880
BTW who won the bet on the minimum extent?
On wattsupwiththat Dr. Walt Meier from The US National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) answers 10 questions on Ice from Steven Goddard. After reading the responses, they give the sense of being scripted as well as not providing supporting documentation.
I’m sorry… I just have to post this link I found at NRO. It’s just too funny.
Warning. Possibly graphic content!
http://www.metro.co.uk/weird/article.html?Giant_ice_penis_-_is_climate_change_to_blame?&in_article_id=304450&in_page_id=2&penis
LOL!
Thanks to TAC, Aaron and Dewitt for their graphs and figures over the 3 threads, appreciated.
Looking at the JAXA graph at http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm
it seems that for the small number of years tracked in this graph that the maximum extent really depends from January onwards with all years prior to that being very closely bunched in December. I guess this would tie in with the increasing difficulty of ice to freeze as it gets to lower latitudes so variations in local temps for that year have more effect on the total extent. So really it is impossible to guess the total extent until 2009.
It will be intersting to see if the apparent cold snap we are having or is forecast will be observable. The Antartic ice extent certainly has not shown it this year ( perhaps due to it’s unique circumstances of surrounding climate and ozone hole).
Regards
Andy
JAXA sea ice extent is now well over half a million km2 more than a year ago (i.e. already ~ half-way back to 2005 extent at this point) with a day to go until the date of the 2007 minimum.
09,23,2005,5335156
09,23,2006,5883281
09,23,2007,4267344
09,22,2008,4793906
There is a reason why extent is such a commonly used indicator of Arctic ice: it avoids many of the numerous problems involved in trying to calculate area correctly – hence extent as the indicator of choice for this thread, and for the NSIDC. If anything it is CT area which is more affected by compaction, not JAXA extent, and I would suggest JAXA extent is the better measure of re-freeze.
In any event, the surface thaw/compaction north of Spitzbergen has just come to an end (with freezing temperatures now taking hold), and it remains relatively cold on both N American [see below] and Siberian sides of the Arctic. Expect accelerating increases in both area and extent, continuing the ~10 day earlier re-freeze than a year ago which can be seen at:
http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/ice-area-and-extent-in-arctic
SEA ICE ADVISORY FOR WESTERN AND ARCTIC ALASKAN COASTAL WATERS
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE ANCHORAGE ALASKA
230 PM AKDT MONDAY SEPTEMBER 22 2008
FORECAST VALID…SATURDAY SEPTEMBER 27 2008
ANALYSIS CONFIDENCE…HIGH.
FORECAST THROUGH SATURDAY…MUCH COLDER AIR WILL SPREAD ACROSS THE
BEAUFORT SEA AFTER WEDNESDAY. NEW ICE WILL DEVELOP IN MUCH OF THE ICE
FREE WATERS BETWEEN 140W AND 155W WHERE SEA SURFACE TEMPERATURES ARE
1C OR LESS. ICE WILL DEVELOP ALONG THE ALASKA BARRIER ISLANDS ALONG
THE NORTHWEST AND NORTH COASTS NORTH OF 70N.
A NOTE ON THE ICE FORECAST…SEA SURFACE TEMPERATURES ALONG THE
ALASKA CHUKCHI AND BEAUFORT SEA COASTS ARE 2 TO 8 DEGREES CELSIUS
COLDER THIS YEAR THAN AT THE SAME TIME LAST YEAR . SEA ICE IN THESE
AREAS IS AT OR VERY NEAR THE SEASONAL MINIMUM. SIGNIFICANT ICE WILL
BEGIN DEVELOPING ALONG THE ALASKA COAST NORTH OF 70N WITHIN THE NEXT
10 TO 14 DAYS.
http://pafc.arh.noaa.gov/marfcst.php?fcst=FZAK80PAFC
Re: Chris (#1264),
The logic of this claim escapes me. Perhaps you can describe in more detail why this might be so.
I just wanted to pick up on a point that Phil has made several times re: the PDO.
He highlights the SST anomaly patterns at
http://jisao.washington.edu/pdo/
to counter the idea that a PDO shift to cool phase could reduce Arctic melt.
A couple of comments:
– These are wintertime SST anomalies; we need summertime anomalies to complete the picture;
– We also need to know about atmospheric conditions, given the importance of surface melt;
– Over much of the Alaskan coast/Beaufort Sea, the SST anomalies appear cooler in the cool phase if you look closely.
– They do of course appear significantly warmer in the Siberian Arctic Basin. This fits with Fig 2 at http://nwpi.krc.karelia.ru/climas/Ice/Ice_no_sat/XX_Arctic.htm which shows that late August ice extent in this area had a relatively slow recovery after the ~1946 PDO shift to cool phase. But recover it did (just like this year incidentally), and by the 1960s [side note: after particularly strong late 1950s solar max was out of the way?] ice area was consistently nearly 50% more than in the early 1940s. This also fits well with the drop in mean air temperatures in the region between the early 40s and 60s.
– I suspect that similar arguments may apply re: the Canadian Archipelago area.
Latest JAXA revision means #1264 needs to be amended:
09,23,2005,5335156
09,23,2006,5883281
09,23,2007,4267344
09,22,2008,4809219
i.e. now 541,875 km2 greater extent than a year ago, and 525,937 km2 less than at this point in 2005.
From the NSIDC
“The 1930s to 1940s saw significant high latitude warming and therefore it is important to document accompanying changes in ice conditions for comparison with those of summers since 1990.”
complete with graphs
http://nsidc.org/research/projects/Barry_Eurasian_Arctic.html
Re: Shawn Whelan (#1267),
This is not disputed. Not only that, I’ve linked to a 2007 Hansen paper that admits as much. Not only that, they admit the warming is inexplicable. None of this is news, Shawn. Read the blog.
Re: bender (#1268), The relevant posts in this thread are #53, #738, #871, #885. The last one is where I link to the paper (it was 2007, not 2005) and state the relevant page number.
CT area update 9/23/2008
region area(Mm2) difference anomaly
Arctic 3.036 -0.007 -2.086
Antarctic 14.864 -0.052 -0.145
Small drop, still above the minimum. Concentration at 63%. That’s lower than 2007 on this same day because the area was about the same, but the extent at this point in 2007 was, as noted above, over 10% lower.
#1271 Jon
I’ve been through this quite a lot in previous posts, and I’m not sure I’ve got the energy to do so again – sorry, I know it’s not your fault as you’ve just joined the debate!
I’ll try and explain in a nutshell. If you consider other sources of area data e.g. Arctic ROOS, Uni Hamburg, you will see that they have area at ~1 million km2 more than CT. These sources are explicit that their concentration threshold for inclusion of ice in their area figure is 15%. Thus CT almost certainly has a higher threshold (or equivalent).
Let’s say the CT threshold is 30% (as it is for their “Compare Daily Ice” pictures, incidentally). And let’s say 500,000 km2 of ocean around the periphery of the Arctic Basin has ice at a concentration of 40%. Now that ice disperses WITHOUT MELTING. If it’s twice as dispersed, then there will now be 1,000,000 km2 of ocean with ice at a concentration of 20%.
The effect on CT would be a reduction in area of 500,000 km2 since none of the ice concerned is now at a high enough concentration to count in its figures.
The effect on JAXA would be an increase in extent of 500,000 km2, since twice the surface area of ocean contains enough ice to count in its figures.
Thus true area appears to stay the same while CT and JAXA diverge. But with re-freeze, as older ice disperses, new ice will start to form in the gaps, and both here and in areas of open water it may take time for new ice to reach the higher concentration threshold.
Thus dispersal tends to favour new ice formation at the higher latitudes, hence the 20% cited above may in fact be 25% – i.e. re-freeze, but still not enough to cross the CT threshold.
And JAXA extent will pick up on new ice formation in open water before CT.
A lot of this is merely for illustration purposes of course – the reality is naturally far more complicated……
In your previous post you refer to “the abnormally low ice concentrations”. But how are you so sure of this? You can’t get concentration by comparing CT with JAXA, for example, you’re not comparing like with like. Using other sources of data, or looking at AMSR-E satellite maps reveals that average concentration cannot be less than about 80% (taking 15% as threshold). Sure, concentration is less than a year ago. But you only need to go back to 2006 to find a concentration which appears even less:
(There’s also possible issues to do with the effects of surface thaw and precipitation on satellite data which may have been exacerbated this year due to the relative prevalence of surface (vs bottom) melt. These have continued relevant – e.g. in Spitzbergen temperatures have been close to double figures for much of the past week or so with southerly winds driving the thaw northwards over the ice)
It’s an interesting time for this years refreeze and the subsequent melt next summer, most of the factors suggested to increase it/decrease it are now in play :-
La Nina
Cool PDO
Low solar activity
So the ice this year has everything in it’s favour for rapid increases in extent compared to the last 3 years. No excuses!
Regards
Andy
It is cold in the Canadian Arctic this year.
The Northwest Passage Parry channel route is already frozen solid.
Maybe it’s time for a race to the top. We can use the same years for comparisons and many of the same graphs. I would like to go ahead and predict that the next apex will be at 15,500 KM2.
Here are my graphs for yesterday’s ice extent data, based upon revised IARC/JAXA Ice Extent data. There was a very large upward revision of the area this morning (about 29,000 km^2).
Daily Arctic Sea Ice Extent Reduction Day 266
Arctic Sea Ice Extent Day 266
2008 Arctic Ice Extent Differences From Previous Years Day 266
Arctic Sea Ice Total Drops from Peaks Day 266
As noted by others, the 2008 ice extent is now nearly equidistant between 2005 and 2007. Also, the “drop from peak” graph shows that 2008 is just about to cross back over the 2007 graph.
i just hope this keeps going….is it time for a new thread???
thanks chris! keep ’em coming.
mark in austin, texas is loving this!
Aaron thanks for your charts.It has already been suggested the next apex will be at 15,500 KM2. What do you think?
Many many thanks for your time and efforts in providing these charts to the world.
Oops I meant 15,500,000 KM2.
Mike Bryant
I thought that was what you meant.But one never knows when the sentiments for the Arctic Ocean to be ice free by 2009 will begun to build.Let us have a big laugh over it.Not at you but with you.