An update on the state of the sea ice is in order. After beginning my usual boring sea ice post, I ran across the NSIDC news story on sea ice. You know the unbiased scientific review of the conditions of sea ice globally. I’m pissed off now that they would post this kind of rubbish. Previously, I’ve been complimentary of the NSIDC, but this story is way over the top. It reads like a Joe Romm post more than a scientific one. It’s a prayer to the gods of AGW, a worship at the altar of funding and a blatant attempt to leave layman’s heads full of global warming cobwebs.
I’ll leave the Jaxa graph up below and the first three graphs including the original wording here. This was written before I read the NSIDC article so think of it as a reminder of how unexciting sea ice updates usually are.
Jaxa has the Arctic ice anomaly over the last several months lower than the last 8 years.
From the cryosphere page using the NSIDC data. I’ve replicated this plot enough times here that I don’t worry much about it anymore.
This June was actually the second lowest arctic ice extent anomaly on record and we’re told from the NSIDC that it was the lowest June ever measured.
The NSIDC didn’t post any other months on their main page but conveniently allowed selection of the Antarctic June months on the same link.
It seems we have a record June in the Antarctic as well.
What is amazing is the story that the NSIDC told. I don’t know who writes for the NSIDC, but the bias is incredible. Not only do they fail to recognize the record HIGH ice in the Antarctic they do everything to cover it up from laymen. They don’t even mention the Antarctic except for three small paragraphs at the bottom of a long dry discussion of Arctic ice loss and weather. After declaring one record ice loss after another for the Arctic they say:
At the end of June, Southern Hemisphere mid-winter, the sea ice surrounding Antarctica was more than two standard deviations greater than normal. On June 30, Antarctic sea ice extent was15.88 million square kilometers (6.13 million square miles), compared to the 1979 to 2000 average of 14.64 million square kilometers (5.65 million square miles) for that day.
While recent studies have shown that wintertime Antarctic sea ice has a weak upward trend, and substantial variability both within a year and from year to year, the differences between Arctic and Antarctic sea ice trends are not unexpected
Compare that too:
Rapid ice loss continues through June
Average June ice extent was the lowest in the satellite data record, from 1979 to 2010. Arctic air temperatures were higher than normal, and Arctic sea ice continued to decline at a fast pace. June saw the return of the Arctic dipole anomaly, an atmospheric pressure pattern that contributed to the record sea ice loss in 2007.
and
In June, ice extent declined by 88,000 square kilometers (34,000 square miles) per day, more than 50% greater than the average rate of 53,000 square kilometers (20,000 square miles) per day. This rate of decline is the fastest measured for June.
and
At the end of May 2010, daily ice extent fell below the previous record low for May, recorded in 2006, and during June continued to track at record low levels. By the 30th of June, the extent was 510,000 square kilometers (197,000 square miles) below the same day in 2006.
In fact RECORD was used eleven times in describing the Arctic sea ice loss. Whereas the June record HIGH in the Antarctic got not one mention. Instead we got a lecture about greenhouse gasses, models and unsubstantiated bullcrap about the ozone layer, and it is unsubstantiated.
In reality, the scientists don’t know what causes Antarctic sea ice to rise. Despite the fact that nobody predicted the increase they write –IT WAS NOT UNEXPECTED.
Ever hear the politician joke with a little twist?
How do you know when a climatologist is not telling the truth? —-
Remember this is the area where the Wilkens sea ice shelf dies every year. Every year we hear how global warming will continue the breakup of the Antarctic ice, and lately, despite the god-like hubris of the climatology community, the true god of physics in fact refuses to listen. Maybe they are praying to the wrong god? Maybe they need bigger computers?
The link to the special NSIDC Sea Ice NEWS AND ANALYSIS is here:
As everyone knows, biased and blatantly dishonest scientists don’t get good treatment here. Well if you can’t get the truth from the NSIDC where can you get it? Right here my friends, from the uncompensated aeronautical engineering department of the Air Vent, where climate science conclusions are rendered after looking at the data, and NOT according to the best path to funding and prestige. And even less-so than by computer models projecting hundreds of years in the future.
Antarctic ice extent from the Cryosphere, which seems to be far less dedicated to biasing the interpretation of data than the NSIDC. At least on the main page. Although they also prefer to show declining seasonal Arctic graphs at the top without the corresponding rising Antarctic ones.
The plot shows Antarctic sea ice peaked at the third highest level on record this year and continues to buck the EXPECTED trend predicted by global warming politicians.
From the global sea ice plot atUIUC Cryosphere global sea ice was slightly above the average level a couple of months ago and basically sits on the line today. In other words, despite 31 years of global warming data the sea ice won’t melt. Despite the doom predictions of the scientists, it’s just not happening. Maybe it will in the future, but today, the data shows…..
Nothing
So from the NSIDC page, when referencing the NSIDC graphs:
Please credit the National Snow and Ice Data Center for image or content use unless otherwise noted beneath each image.
I’m not sure if this is what they meant by ‘beneath’ but I believe in giving credit where credit is due, and the NISDC should be ashamed of this post and whichever politician wrote it deserves full credit.
Not that they are.
the Air Vent 
“The plot shows ‘Arctic’ sea ice peaked at the third highest level on record this year and continues to buck the EXPECTED trend predicted by global warming politicians.”
Ahem. That should be ‘Antarctic’.
When I read it, I was surprised they even mentioned the Southern Hemisphere.
Jeff, I think the statement ‘This June was actually the second lowest arctic ice extent anomaly on record’ is about as ambiguous as one can get. Is it good, is it bad, does it actually mean anything?
Bit like politicians enthusing about a lowering of the rate of increase of national debt?
I suspect using ice volumes instead of areas might show a slightly different picture as well?
#1, thanks.
#2, I’m not convinced any of this means anything other than the models, papers and news keep missing the point. It was going to be a rather bland sea ice report just to rebut some of the alarmism again — until I saw what the NSIDC wrote.
Jeff,
It looks to me like this year is being driven by the AMO. The AMO index has been positive for the last 12 months and has been above 0.4 for the last three months. The AMO index turned positive on average in about 1995, not coincidentally about the time that Arctic ice loss accelerated. But a positive AMO index means excess heat is being transferred from the south to the north, so it’s not at all surprising, to me anyway, that Antarctic ice area and extent increased over the same period. In 2007, the record low Arctic ice was also matched by record high Antarctic ice. It looks like something like that will happen again this year. Arctic ice area from Cryosphere Today is tracking 2007. The recent slowdown in extent loss in the JAXA data means that the extent is now about the same as for 2007 on the same day. The Antarctic, OTOH, is way ahead of any previous year, but the behavior starts getting very noisy near the peak, so it’s not at all guaranteed that we’ll get a new Antarctic record.
The AMO index looked like it was headed for negative territory until the last twelve months. If it ever does go negative again, then look for a recovery in Arctic ice and a decline in Antarctic ice. Then also look for an end to the hand waving about how the Antarctic is somehow isolated from the rest of the planet so that an increase in Antarctic sea ice doesn’t mean anything. What that really means is that the global sea ice is the real indicator of the state of the planet as a whole and that’s declining very slowly.
It’s good that you (and others) are there to keep these guys honest – to some extent at least.
And these kinds of stories are nonsense on multiple levels. Sure, tracking polar ice is mildly intersting for its own sake. But at the end of the day: who cares. Melting ice, does not a catastrophe make.
How many people have been killed by melting polar ice. How much wealth has been destroyed by melting polar ice. Polar ice contributes how much exatly to our standard of living, life expectancy, economy.
Nothing that anyone is measuring in the climate system today poses any danger to humanity. Nothing. At all. The “catastrophe” exists only in climate forecasts – by and large the outputs of computer models that have not proven themselves reliable.
I despair. Elections in November!!
Another irritating concept is the “metrics” of this anomaly. Based on the JAXA graph, one can easily see the Jul-2010 slip lower than the Jul-2007 low. If you look at the The Cryosphere Today comparisons of July 1, I see how Steve Goddard gets wound up.
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=07&fd=01&fy=2007&sm=07&sd=01&sy=2010
I do not know about the rest of you, but extent and quality appears to be much better this year.
DeWitt Payne at Post #4:
A thought provoking post to say the least.
#7 yup. DeWitt is the iceman.
#4;
Yep; basically what is happening is that the AMO is moving ice back and forth between the poles. LOL! And without exchanging icebergs across the equator! Neat trick. 😉
Anyway, I’m all for global warming and getting rid of the damn Arctic ice pack. Bring on the NW Passage and orchards in Greenland, say I! Both humans and polar bears will flourish.
We’ll see if NSIDC is the goat over the next month or so. Look at the JAXA graph and 2010 is right on the same point as both 2007 and 2006, but they wound up as the lowest (07) and one of the highest (06). Not only that but 2007 was for a time higher than 2006. I’d say you’d be better off playing red at the roulette wheel than using just the extent charts for betting on the minimum extent for 2010.
To answer your question: When he/she’s at work?
IF arctic ice recovers and Antarctic ice subsequently declines I suspect the story line will change to the Southern Hemisphere being the real barometer of Global Warming.
We can see one part of the story line change with an increasing number of stories about acidification of oceans-if AGW fails to materialise this will be the next battleground.
Tonyb
And if you look at the 30% arctic extent you will notice that it is now at 2006 levels and has actually increased over the past couple of days:
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php
I suggest fixing the above quoted bit. Don’t give the alarmists ANY ammunition.
I should remember to look that stuff up. Thx.
i say we track at 2006/2004 i don’t think it will be the highest on record 2002/2009(2003)
Tim
Prediction, the melt flattens, the minimum for the year is at or above 2007/08 levels, and probably above 2009.
I predict… 1 mill. Quantloos
All the ice will NOT melt this interglacial.
#13;
you mean — it’s declining to decline? Zounds!
I reckon I can be as scientific as the IPCC and it’s cohort scientists.
Looking at the data, it is “very likely” the northern hemisphere will experience Catastrophic Global Warming, and it is “likely” the southern hemisphere will experience a little ice age.
All grant cheques made out to Baa Humbug please.
Yes, I can see it now: an ice sheet a mile thick that stops abruptly at latitude 0.1°S. North of that, sweltering jungles and deserts right to the tip of Greenland, where on a clear day you can see across the open Arctic to Siberia, with the help of a heat mirage or two. 😀
Your blog seems to be a good example of the Dunning-Kruger Effect in action.
Arctic sea ice constitutes most of what ice there is in the Arctic (excepting Greenland and some glaciers). The dramatic loss of sea ice extent and thickness is important and a definite sign of global warming.
Antarctic sea ice is a fringe of ice only about 1 to three meters thick surrounding the Antarctic continent which is supporting ice sheets around two miles thick. The sea ice, which is increasing slightly, constitutes only about 2% of the total ice mass in Antarctica. The ice sheets are losing significant ice mass due to global warming. The sea ice is gaining in extent due to global warming increasing the moisture in the air available to fall as snow. The Antarctic sea ice is relatively unimportant compared to the Arctic ice cap melt.
You anti-science AGW denier cultists are a joke to anyone who actually understands science. Your assumption that you understand this better than the thousands of climate scientists who’ve spent their lives studying this is based only on your own ignorance and political biases.
Sea ice is irrelevant, as it is already floating. Only the ice caps on Greenland and the Antarctic mainland are relevant, and the Antarctic mass is growing.
In any case warming would be great; open up the Arctic for shipping, ASAP, please! And Greenlanders can then also get back to growing their food rather than stripping the local fish stocks.
As for sea level rise, mitigation is infinitely cheaper and easier than choking off energy supplies and thereby starving hundreds of millions to death — or are you hoping for billions, to get back to those halcyon 17th Century feudal days so you can (you imagine) play at being a local aristo benignly (or not) lording it over the local peasantry, preferably composed of us former deniers?
In your dreams, idiot.
#22 where did I deny AGW? You are a drive by troll with no understanding and less thought.
#22, your post is completely ignorant of the predictions and total sea ice on this rock. Me thinks you’ve spent too much time in the green sunlight.
LOL. #23 – Brian, you have no idea what you’re talking about. Antarctica is losing ice mass, as numerous recent studies have shown. Example – “Antarctic ice loss vaster, faster than thought: study – November 22, 2009” – http://www.physorg.com/news178122015.html
Global warming would not “be great”, it would be disastrous. You obviously believe some very silly and mistaken myths about Greenland which has always been only marginally habitable. You must be an idiot if you think “mitigation” of sea level rise is easy. There are many trillions of dollars of infrastructure on the world’s coastlines. The majority of the world’s population lives within twenty miles of the coastlines.
Double LOL to you Jeff. Your blog is a stupid denier cult blog that denigrates reputable scientists because their findings disagree with your political prejudices. You are a gullible fool who’s swallowed the fossil fuel industry propaganda. Jerk your head out of your ass and read some real science.
There is evidence that water temps under the coastal ice in Antarctic are at or below normal, which is incompatible with melting. In any case, the growth through 2006 followed by shrinkage would fit into normal oscillations.
The max shrinkage estimated currently is 100 Gt or cubic km/yr., which is (100×100)/30,000,000 = 1%/3,000. The mass estimate error bar is rather larger than that, I believe, but even so it would take 10s of centuries to cause a few meters of rise at that rate. Given the feebleness of the GHG causality link evidence, that certainly is not a time scale that justifies any precipitate action whatsoever. Particularly not the deadly, drastic, but fruitless measures proposed/demanded by the IPCC cabal. And you.
“stupid denier cult blog”
“You are a gullible fool”
“Jerk your head out of your ass”
Charming stuff….. Balls to you Ghonadz
Ghonadz – look forward to your verification of the CAGW hypothesis. I won’t hold my breath, though. Face it – the models don’t stack up, and your heroes have even less understanding of Earth’s climate than you think you do.
Triple LOL. pwnt (looks for roll-eyes smiley then realises this a leet science blog not a kidz chatroom).
Re: Brian in #27.
Antarctica has been losing ice mass for some time now. It was not “growing through 2006” and this current melting is not part of any “normal oscillation”. Antarctica lost a huge amount of ice at the end of the last glaciation about 14,000 years ago but it has been the same size since then.
One billion metric tons is what one cubic kilometer of water weighs, and it is called a gigaton. The article I cited said the scientists’ research and the satellite measurements indicated a total ice mass loss of about 190 gigatons/year with a minimum loss under the margins of error of about 110 gigatons per year and a maximum loss of about 260 gigatons per year.
Brief excerpts from the article:
“Consistent with earlier findings based on different methods, they found that West Antarctica dumped, on average, about 132 billion tonnes of ice into the sea each year, give or take 26 billion tonnes.
They also found for the first time that East Antarctica — on the Eastern Hemisphere side of the continent — is likewise losing mass, mostly in coastal regions, at a rate of about 57 billion tonnes annually.
The margin or error (for the East Antarctica ice loss), they cautioned, is almost as large as the estimate, meaning ice loss could be a little as a few billion tonnes or more than 100.
“Acceleration of ice loss in recent years over the entire continent is thus indicated,” the authors conclude. “Antarctica may soon be contributing significantly more to global sea level rise.””
Climate scientists are now predicting that, under a ‘business as usual’ model, world average temperatures could go up by 7 to 10 degrees centigrade by the end of the century. A study by Professor Chen of the University of Texas found that in a previous inter-glacial period called the Eemian, when CO2 levels were roughly the same as today’s levels, global temperatures were 6°C higher than today and sea levels were about 5 meters (15 feet) higher than today. Mankind has raised the CO2 levels so quickly that the actual warming has not yet caught up to the magnitude of the increased greenhouse effect. Ice sheets form slowly but are subject to rapid accelerating collapse under certain circumstances.
And BTW Brian, your delusions about “the feebleness of the GHG causality link evidence” are a product of your scientific ignorance and your heavy duty brainwashing by the fossil fuel industry propagandists. The entire world scientific community understands and acknowledges the validity of the greenhouse effect and link between mankind’s carbon emissions and rising temperatures and changing climate patterns.
ghonadz said
July 12, 2010 at 2:40 am
Mom always told me that some people think with their gonads.
In many cases people say what the want to say and see what they want to see. And it’s not always true. But it’s particularly unpleasant when this people make others believe in and share their viewpoint.
Cheer up Ghonadz.
My bet is that the glaciers of Greenland will melt first, and by then (14010 and the year 21010 http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/23/on-being-the-wrong-size/) humans should be coming out of our robot war and harvesting The Spice Melange from the planet Arrakis. Climatologist should have an idea of the science enough to save the Antarctic Ice Shelves by then 😉
I am sorry, GRACE is a fantastic device, but it is not a tool, but a toy. 10-40% error margins does not cut it in engineering or any hard science.
Nutz;
CO2 and Warming are both good, but have little to do with each other. 😀
Sea ice extent rants are amusing at best. The volume of existing ice is what matters. The fact that sea ice extent is larger or smaller year to year in either the arctic or antarctic is an interesting side note which really means nothing. It is apparent from the GRACE data that the total volume of ice is declining both North and South. Picking something to rant about which does not make any difference does not show a great deal of integrity.
Total ice volume is declining so fast it will only last 10-20 millennia or so. So we’ve obviously got to fix it by next year.
Or not.
We are cooling, Ghonadz; for how long even kim doesn’t know.
================
:0
Check this site and Regster. It’s Free and easy to join. :)http://www.ceylonpal.com/
Friends,Community,Dating,Videos,Songs,Arcade,Blogs,Forums,Markert,Shop,Ecards,Classifieds and ect.
Re: #33 – LOL. Anyone who takes the rantings and lies of the senile old retired weatherman on the Wattatwat site is quite obviously a scientifically ignorant and very gullible fool.
Re: #34 – How’d you get so brainwashed, Brian? CO2 is a powerful greenhouse gas that is essential at normal levels but the 40% increase in CO2 levels created by mankind’s burning of fossil fuels is the cause of the current abrupt global warming and accelerating climate changes. More CO2 and more “warming” are not good, as you so blindly declare.
Re: #36 – LOL, you have no idea how long the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets will last as mankind warms the Earth. Many scientists think that the ice sheets are subject to fairly swift collapse in a warming world. The glaciologist’s worst nightmare http://www.thestar.com/news/article/552439
Re: #37 – Wow, Kim, you really have your head up your ass. 2009 was the second warmest year since at least 1880. This year is shaping up to be the warmest year on record. Where do you hide this “cooling”? LOL. You denier cult freaks crack me up.
#39, A little better tone would be nice.
A 40% increase in CO2 is pretty darned small when you have a baseline of 280 parts per Million. And my understanding is that only a fraction of that increase can be attributed to man.
Why isn’t more warming good?
Actually, the 280 baseline is cherry-picked bogus. Callendar ignored 60%+ of the readings. The full data set actually averages out to 335.
In any case, in geological time terms, readings in the 300-500 range are at rock-bottom CO2 famine level. Most of the species on Earth evolved in up to 10 or 20X higher levels.
Re: #40 – Jeff, a 40% increase in atmospheric CO2 levels is not “small” because greenhouse gases were already responsible, even at pre-industrial levels, for keeping the Earth 33 degrees C warmer than it would be without them. The power of these ‘greenhouse’ gases to retain heat is not a function of the amount of other gases that are transparent to infrared radiation.
A very large part of the extra CO2 in the air is traceable to mankind’s fossil carbon emissions, as can be seen just by looking at how much oil, natural gas and coal the human race is burning every year. Confirmation that rising CO2 levels are due to human activity comes from examining the ratio of carbon isotopes (carbon atoms with differing numbers of neutrons) found in the atmosphere. Carbon 12 has 6 neutrons, carbon 13 has 7 neutrons. Plants have a lower C13/C12 ratio than in the atmosphere. If rising atmospheric CO2 comes fossil fuels, the C13/C12 should be falling. Indeed this is what is occurring (Ghosh 2003 – http://www.bgc.mpg.de/service/iso_gas_lab/publications/PG_WB_IJMS.pdf). The C13/C12 ratio correlates with the trend in global emissions.
#42 your link is broken but I’ve probably read the paper anyway.
You will probably like this post
https://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/12/05/it-is-what-it-is-and-the-god-of-physics-will-have-it-no-other-way/
I still say the CO2 contribution is very small and probably overestimated even by the basic radiative calcs.
Re: #41 – Like a good little brainwashed and duped AGW denier cultist, you fall for the pseudo-science on rightwingnutjob websites like CanadaFreePress and ignore all of the real science that actually gets published in reputable peer-reviewed science journals.
From Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere :
The most direct method for measuring atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations for periods before direct sampling is to measure bubbles of air (fluid or gas inclusions) trapped in the Antarctic or Greenland ice caps. The most widely accepted of such studies come from a variety of Antarctic cores and indicate that atmospheric CO2 levels were about 260 – 280 ppmv immediately before industrial emissions began and did not vary much from this level during the preceding 10,000 years (10 ka).
The longest ice core record comes from East Antarctica, where ice has been sampled to an age of 800 ka.[3] During this time, the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration has varied by volume between 180 – 210 ppm during ice ages, increasing to 280 – 300 ppm during warmer interglacials.[20][21]
Atmospheric CO2 is at its highest level in 15 to 20 million years (Tripati 2009 http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1178296 ). A natural change of 100ppm normally takes 5,000 to 20.000 years. The recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 120 years.
Re: #43 – hey Jeff, sorry about the link. Try this one:
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:rj8_ZqzDMMcJ:caos.iisc.ernet.in/faculty/pghosh/content/Publications/14.pdf+Ghosh+2003&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESg1sovE1QrPSzpGJU6hCplR1CllTbe1Poaq7jWtRG2IwausZUmHhJ9VZoYvNHLQ0Kr7rRlzO1yZIWsoWcE9xhOdBC2T2zAWi70SQTmtZP1B2GhQYjNZTe0_j-NKveIm8E-nd1ZW&sig=AHIEtbTy1hZijeCRk7empHsJcdHb7-v0rQ
You can say whatever you please about the “CO2 contribution” but the world scientific community disagrees with you and since they know a lot more and are way better educated in climate science, I’m going to believe their analysis rather than your uninformed guesses based on your political prejudices.
#46 REad the link I gave you. I’ll check yours later.
So ghonadz,
Would you be ever so kind as to share with me, in your personal journey to AGW enlightenment, which evidence(s) do you find most compelling?
Is it the basic physics, the global average temperature, the computer model projections, the climate reconstructions, or the certainty with which we can predict the consequences of warming (storms, droughts, that kind of thing)?
Also, what do you propose as the best path forward and why?
Actually, Kdk33, Ghonadz is (are) nhutz.
Jeff, I read your other screed at the link. All of it up to the part titled “Where do we go from here” is pretty straight science (and most of that you copied from someone else) but everything after that point is silly conspiracy drivel based on your own ignorance.
The main feedback that increases climate sensitivity to increases in CO2 levels is water vapor, not clouds. This feedback is not “completely unknown and untested” as you so ignorantly claim. Water vapor is a greenhouse gas and has been studied just as much as carbon dioxide and it definitely multiplies the greenhouse effect of a CO2 increase. Clouds are another separate feedback that can have a dual effect of holding more heat in and of reflecting more of the solar energy input back out into space. The net effect of clouds is not yet fully understood but the effect of water vapor is pretty definitely an enhancement of the warming.
There is not, as you claim, “a lot of evidence” that feedbacks resulting from CO2 increases will result in less warming. Just the opposite. Just because you’re so ignorant about climate science doesn’t mean that the scientists who’ve studied this for decades are also that ignorant, as you seem to want to assume.
Your ‘conclusions’ were really stupid and based on your politics, not science.
Oops the link didn’t come through on that last post.
Here is the response to your ignorant comments on the accuracy of the climate models.
How reliable are climate models? – http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm
Meanwhile the latest Arctic Ice Extent data from JAXA for the 13th July is out and the slowdown fo the “melt” continues. The rate of ice loss since the slowdown commenced on 27th June (16 days ago) has been less than 63,000 sq km a day.
For those predicting a record melt this season, time is fast running out.
My prediction is still for a minimum extent in excess of the 2006 season potentially over the 6 million sq km mark. Given current conditions I can’t see a rapid melt in the Arctic Basin occurring and most of the first year ice in outlying areas is already gone.
Dave, do you have a link for that JAXA data? ‘Cause I’ve searched their website and I can’t find any reference to it. The NSIDC data is easy to find though.
Rapid ice loss continues through June – http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
July 6, 2010
Average June ice extent was the lowest in the satellite data record, from 1979 to 2010. Arctic air temperatures were higher than normal, and Arctic sea ice continued to decline at a fast pace. June saw the return of the Arctic dipole anomaly, an atmospheric pressure pattern that contributed to the record sea ice loss in 2007.
Overview of conditions
Arctic sea ice extent averaged 10.87 million square kilometers (4.20 million square miles) for the month of June, 1.29 million square kilometers (498,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average and 190,000 square kilometers (73,000 square miles) below the previous record low for the month of 11.06 million square kilometers (4.27 million square miles), set in 2006. In June, ice extent declined by 88,000 square kilometers (34,000 square miles) per day, more than 50% greater than the average rate of 53,000 square kilometers (20,000 square miles) per day. This rate of decline is the fastest measured for June.
During June, ice extent was below average everywhere except in the East Greenland Sea, where it was near average.
Conditions in context
At the end of May 2010, daily ice extent fell below the previous record low for May, recorded in 2006, and during June continued to track at record low levels. By the 30th of June, the extent was 510,000 square kilometers (197,000 square miles) below the same day in 2006.
Nutz;
http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2010/07/sea-ice-extent-update-15-improving-ever-so-slightly.html
Ghonadz
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm
which is two weeks more up to date than your reference.
Referring to your other comment about “the scientific community” – this is itself a typical leftist construct – “the black community” “the gay community”, attempting to create a monolithic group of people defined by a label. Real people are not like that unless they choose to sublimate their individuality to a perceived group identity, and generally they can’t keep that up for long, hence the fissiparous nature of activist groups. Monty Python nailed it with the People’s Front for the Liberation of Judaea. The “scientific community” is no different,, which is why the emails show desperate attempts by Mann and Jones to corral dissenting voices.
#50, Gonadz,
It turns out that clouds are based on water vapor of course and while you clearly are a leftist, you failed to understand the subtlety of the loudly written argument. BTW, If you don’t think I can work Planck’s equations myself, you haven’t been here long. After searching the web for graphics and explanations, Lucia did the best job so I got permission and posted it.
My point in that post was of course that most of us are not deniers of the CO2 warming effect, but rather we have varying degrees of skepticism on the unproven issues, and there are quite a few of them.
Including moisture feedback in the atmosphere. — you can find a lot of handwaiving in that part of climate science.
Thanks David S.
You can actually download the data back to 2003 from that site and they generally update it each day at around 1pm (Brisbane time).
I’ve spreadsheeted and charted the data back to 2003 on both a 15 day moving average and a 120 day moving average. 7 years really isnt a long time when your looking at variations in an annual cycle, but i have noticed that in years where there’s a higher rate of ice loss prior to July, you see a slower rate of loss in July/August.
This is why I formed the conclusion that we’ve already seen the peak rate of ice loss for this season and we will see a minimum extent close to 6 million sq km.
I don’t know though, like I said, for an annual cycle, 7 years really isnt a lot to go on when your looking for trends and patterns.
As it stands now, we are only 86,000 sq km off the July 13th 2006 extent. However, the ice loss from 14th July to 20th July 2006 averaged only 43,000 sq km per day so I doubt the gap will close in the short term.
Ghonadz @ comment #39.
We are starting a La Nina in the cooling phase of the PDO and with an unusually behaving sun, suggesting an imminent Solar Grand Minimum. Just keep an eye on the thermometers, wherever you find your head.
=============
Re: #54 – LOL Brian, interesting link. Do you ever read more than the headline? LOL. The first graph shows the 2010 ice extent to have been lower than all previous years for the last month and a half and it is now at the same point as 2007, the year with the lowest extent on record. The article says: “The Sea Ice Area trend on Cryosphere Today keeps plummeting. It is currently 1.333 million square km below the 1979-2008 mean (it was almost 2 million square km below it two weeks ago).” The second graph in the article shows this year’s sea ice area to be consistently below the 1979-2008 mean. I’m curious as to what point you imagine you’re making?
Re: #55 – As far as your link goes, David, same comment as to post #54. Your graph shows ice extent to have been lower than all the previous years for the last month and a half and it is currently at the same point as it was in 2007, the year of record low ice extent. So this year may turn out to be the next record setting low or it may only be close to a record setting low ice extent and the next year or two will see the next record low ice extent. The Arctic is still melting and shrinking.
As to the rest of your rant – LOLOLOLOLOL. That is a typical rightwingretardo construct based on ignorance. “The scientific community” is in common usage.
Scientific community http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_community
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The scientific community consists of the total body of scientists, its relationships and interactions. It is normally divided into “sub-communities” each working on a particular field within science. Objectivity is expected to be achieved by the scientific method. Peer review, through discussion and debate within journals and conferences, assists in this objectivity by maintaining the quality of research methodology and interpretation of results.[1]
It is not an “attempt to create a monolithic group of people defined by a label“, as you so idiotically declare. It is the appropriate and commonly used label for the scientists of the world. Scientists don’t “sublimate their individuality to a perceived group identity” by being de facto members of the ‘world scientific community’, that’s just a delusion arising from your ignorance of science and what scientists do. Your precious stolen emails don’t show any “desperate attempts to corral dissenting voices” as you’re been duped into believing. They show good climate scientists dissing the shoddy work of some oil corp stooge scientists.
#59, today the cryosphere site UIUC has global sea ice 255,000 km^2 above average and you’re screaming about the sky falling.
Re: #56
GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 35, L20704, 4 PP., 2008
doi:10.1029/2008GL035333 – http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2008GL035333.shtml
Water-vapor climate feedback inferred from climate fluctuations, 2003–2008
A. E. Dessler
Department of Atmospheric Sciences, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, USA
Z. Zhang
Department of Atmospheric Sciences, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, USA
P. Yang
Department of Atmospheric Sciences, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, USA
Between 2003 and 2008, the global-average surface temperature of the Earth varied by 0.6°C. We analyze here the response of tropospheric water vapor to these variations. Height-resolved measurements of specific humidity (q) and relative humidity (RH) are obtained from NASA’s satellite-borne Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS). Over most of the troposphere, q increased with increasing global-average surface temperature, although some regions showed the opposite response. RH increased in some regions and decreased in others, with the global average remaining nearly constant at most altitudes. The water-vapor feedback implied by these observations is strongly positive, with an average magnitude of λ q = 2.04 W/m2/K, similar to that simulated by climate models. The magnitude is similar to that obtained if the atmosphere maintained constant RH everywhere.
©2010. American Geophysical Union. All Rights Reserved.
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)
#62, are you one of those who posts a lot of abstracts but hasn’t read the paper? I can’t get behind the paywalls myself, if you want me to read it my email is on the left.
Re: #61 – Jeff, why don’t you ever provide a link? I went to the UICU Cryosphere Today site and couldn’t find those figures.
Of course you’re trying to cheat by changing the discussion from the sea ice extent in the Arctic, which is way below average, to the global sea ice average, which includes the Antarctic sea ice. I already (in post #22) talked about the reasons why the Arctic and Antarctic sea ice are different cases. There are scientifically determined reasons why the sea ice around Antarctica is growing now.
What’s Holding Antarctic Sea Ice Back From Melting? – http://www.physorg.com/news171129293.html
The North Polar ice cap is melting away and you’re fatuously trying to claim that it doesn’t matter because sea ice is increasing slightly on the other side of the planet. LOL.
#64, The ozone thing has been building for some time. I don’t buy it as much more than an excuse, a tweak to a model with some assumptions. You can even see in the title ‘what is holding the Antarctic back from melting’ that they are not anticipating growth.
“The North Polar ice cap is melting away and you’re fatuously trying to claim that it doesn’t matter because sea ice is increasing slightly on the other side of the planet. LOL.”
The other side of the planet has grown to compensate the north. Think of it as illegal alien ice.
The only hiding place for you is volume, you had better go there.
Your link is in the article.
Re: #63
Jeff, I have my doubts that you’re sincerely interested in finding the truth of the matter but if you are, you might try reading this and following the links:
Study: Water-vapor feedback is “strong and positive,” so we face “warming of several degrees Celsius”
October 26, 2008 – http://climateprogress.org/2008/10/26/study-water-vapor-feedback-is-strong-and-positive-so-we-face-warming-of-several-degrees-celsius/
#67 Were one looking for truth, climateprogress would not be a ‘preferred’ destination.
These papers need to be read and interpreted carefully. Data quality and feedback time are critical issues. Have you read the paper you linked?
#64 Ghonadzo
What’s the matter? You can’t do the math for yourself? Look at the total sea ice AREA graph. It’s above average.
How much? The Arctic shows 7.283 – 5.876 = 1.407 below average. The other end shows 14.24 – 12.58 = 1..66 above average. You can do the rest of the calculation?
Your link at Physorg is a winner. Did you read it? They have it nailed.
Yeah! They’ve got it nailed. Can’t argue with that.
Nice.
I’ve never actually seen anyone kill a troll in one comment before.
Re: #68
Jeff, if someone is looking for the truth about AGW and climate change, ClimateProgress is an excellent site run by a highly qualified scientist. On the other hand, your dimwitted denier cult blog is about the last place anyone should look for anything even close to the truth of the matter. As I first said to you, your blog is a good example of the Dunning-Kruger Effect in action. You base everything on your partisan political beliefs, not on science.
Re: #69 – LOL.
Yeah, RomanMeal, they do have it nailed but you’re obviously an anti-science denier cultist who’s so clueless, all you have going is really lame sarcasm about stuff you don’t understand.
The fact is that mankind’s emissions of fossil carbon and our deforestation practices have created an excess of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere that has overwhelmed the capacity of the natural carbon sinks and it has accumulated to the point of raising world average temperatures and creating changes in our climate patterns. The melting of the Arctic is one such change.
This blob thread is an idiotic attempt to deny the reality of this Arctic melt by claiming that an insignificant increase in the relatively unimportant Antarctic sea ice somehow balances the massive Arctic meltdown. You denier cultists don’t understand anything about climate science but you’re stupidly arrogant enough to imagine, based only on what you read on blogs sponsored by the fossil fuel industry, that you know what’s happening better than the actual scientists who’ve studied this subject for decades. You’ve been duped by clever propaganda designed to fool people about the reality and dangers of AGW in order to delay any effective action to limit carbon emissions because that would also limit the massive profit stream that selling fossil fuels provides to the fat cats. You are bamboozled dupes and fools.
You act like a scared little kitty cat, all puffed up and sideways, Ghonadz. Can you hiss a little more convincingly?
===========
#73 wow… In summary!
—–
Yeah, RomanMeal, they do have it nailed but you’re anti-science denier cultist clueless, lame sarcasm about stuff.
emissions fossil carbon deforestation overwhelmed natural changes idiotic deny melt unimportant Antarctic massive Arctic meltdown. denier cultists don’t understand science but stupidly based on blogs “sponsored by the fossil fuel industry” actual scientists who’ve studied this subject for decades. duped by propaganda fool dangers of AGW limit carbon emissions limit massive profit fossil fuels fat cats. bamboozled dupes fools.
Oh my, Ghonzo, you should get out more often.
Once you grow up and perhaps attain a little maturity, you can get over the alarmism and exaggeration and even get some grasp of reality. Although your use of the standard personal attack verbiage and claims of big oil propaganda bespeaks the results of a strong and effective indoctrination, but there still may be hope for you.
…anti-science denier cultist! It has sort of a ring to it… 🙂
captain adjective.
Roman,
I suspect you don’t care to stir him/her up but wow, I think your post took Gonadz a little off message. Hell, I wasn’t going to even bother to get the link until he admitted and demonstrated actually reading it.
Papers are like Christmas, the abstract is the wrapper but what’s inside is a mystery — until you shake it.
Ice area is more meaningful than ice extent, IMO. Cryosphere Arctic ice area is still tracking 2007 and is still 300,000 km2 below 2006 for the same day of the year. Based on the average loss of extent (JAXA) for 2003-2009 from today to the minimum of 3.25 Mm2, the projected minimum is 4.84 Mm2. A minimum of 6.00 Mm2 is not out of the cards but is unlikely considering how near it is to the projected value plus 3 st.dev. figure of 6.36Mm2. A similar calculation for area projects 3.31 Mm2, above 2007 and 2008, but below 2009.
Ghono’s scientists can come up with 3 explanations for the meaningless, useless Antartic ice growth, while your scientists can only come up with, what, 0 explanations?
He is winning (and big if this was soccer).
Kan;
Nope, their irrelevance and incoherence makes them “own goals”! 😀
#80 Kan, what do you mean, “your scientists”? Real scientists should be scientists, not “ours” and “yours”. This says a lot about your view of the world.
Only in climate science does speculation constitute proof. Exactly what deep insight tells you that Antarctic ice growth is “meaningless and useless? What do you do, make it up as you go along?
Do you want an explanation of the growth? How about ice melts in summer and freezes in winter. Every summer is not necessarily the same as every other nor are all winters necessarily identical. Weather is variable on longer scales than you seem to appreciate.
History tells us that there are also other cycles on this planet which also have had an effect on the ice long before we supposedly altered the environment. Due to satellites we are now able to observe many details which prior to that were hidden from us and some of us seem to fixate on every variation, but there is no real evidence that the current situation is unprecedented or unnatural.
RomanM
““your scientists”? Real scientists should be scientists, not “ours” and “yours”.”
“meaningless, useless Antartic ice growth”
Sorry, did not come through clearly.
#80, Kan your post was clear. Because these guys made up 3 reasons, rather than one, they have demonstrated the obvious monster that drives all science.
We don’t know why!!
The answer is completely unknown, there is suspicion but if you notice, none of the suspicion leads to questioning of perhaps — too high a modeled climate sensitivity to CO2.
That’s my hypothetical. So now you have one from me which sits on equally demonstrable footing to the pro’s.
Am I a climate scientist now??!
We are all climate scientists now.
==================
Re: #84 – LOL, Jeff, you’re just projecting your own ignorance onto scientists who are actually way more knowledgeable than you are. It is only the Dunning-Kruger Effect that makes you imagine that you are ‘equal footing’ with them. No, you are not a climate scientist, you are an ignorant dufus with delusions of competence.
Re: #85 – No Kim, you denier cultists are all ignorant, duped, rightwingnut wackos now.
Dr. Nadz,
A little better tone would be nice.
I could ask again if you have actually read the papers you linked, but that would be fruitless.
Nhutz;
The D-K effect you tediously throw around is not much more than a twist on ‘confirmation bias’, which is an equal-opportunity phenomenon. No one has called you on it because it’s so obvious you are simply tossing it out as another form of abuse.
It’s not fear that keeps the posters here so much more civil than you. It’s a combination of pity and self-respect.
Brian – “so much more civil” – LOL.
#49
Brian H said
July 13, 2010 at 6:06 pm
Actually, Kdk33, Ghonadz is (are) nhutz.
#89;
Yes, Nhutz, compared to your vast volumes of vapid and vile vitreolic vituperation, very civil indeed!