Sea Ice Stretch Run #3

Continuation of Sea Ice Stretch Run #2.

1281 Comments

  1. Dave Dardinger
    Posted Aug 27, 2008 at 6:56 AM | Permalink

    Yay! Room to write at last. Sort of an echo in here though. Or its it just the silence of the Baby Ice?

  2. Chris V
    Posted Aug 27, 2008 at 8:20 AM | Permalink

    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.

  3. Vincent Guerrini Jr
    Posted Aug 27, 2008 at 8:39 AM | Permalink

    Has re-freeze started? (August 22-25?)Cryosphere today NH graph flattening now?

  4. DeWitt Payne
    Posted Aug 27, 2008 at 8:53 AM | Permalink

    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.

  5. DeWitt Payne
    Posted Aug 27, 2008 at 9:10 AM | Permalink

    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.

  6. Posted Aug 27, 2008 at 9:27 AM | Permalink

    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.

  7. Posted Aug 27, 2008 at 9:33 AM | Permalink

    This morning’s graphs can be found here

  8. Dave Clarke
    Posted Aug 27, 2008 at 9:41 AM | Permalink

    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).

  9. Posted Aug 27, 2008 at 9:51 AM | Permalink

    Since that link takes for ever:
    extent loss rate
    extent
    extent difference
    drop from peak
    HTH

  10. Chris V
    Posted Aug 27, 2008 at 10:06 AM | Permalink

    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?

  11. AztecBill
    Posted Aug 27, 2008 at 10:56 AM | Permalink

    The only way to get a clear picture is to graph a variance. Below is the variance from the 2003-2007 average.

  12. Jared
    Posted Aug 27, 2008 at 10:56 AM | Permalink

    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.

  13. Aztec Bill
    Posted Aug 27, 2008 at 10:58 AM | Permalink

    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]

  14. Aztec Bill
    Posted Aug 27, 2008 at 11:00 AM | Permalink
  15. Sean Egan
    Posted Aug 27, 2008 at 11:06 AM | Permalink

    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.

  16. DeWitt Payne
    Posted Aug 27, 2008 at 12:43 PM | Permalink

    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

  17. Posted Aug 27, 2008 at 12:46 PM | Permalink

    Re #907 on #2

    Stephen Wilde:
    August 27th, 2008 at 10:43 am
    Even if the 2008 ice melt catches up with 2007 for a few days that could just be a result of short term melt favourable weather conditions rather than an indication of consolidated climate change. The fact is that for most of the summer there has been more ice than during the 2007 melt season and therefore a higher planetary albedo during all that time.
    Whatever happens over the next 2 weeks the alarmist expectations have been frustrated even if they fail to admit it.
    Next season will be the clincher either way.

    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.

  18. Stephen Wilde
    Posted Aug 27, 2008 at 1:51 PM | Permalink

    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.

  19. Phillip
    Posted Aug 27, 2008 at 1:58 PM | Permalink

    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.

  20. SteveSadlov
    Posted Aug 27, 2008 at 1:59 PM | Permalink

    Is the current behavior dominated by melting, or by compaction?

  21. Dave Clarke
    Posted Aug 27, 2008 at 2:04 PM | Permalink

    #12

    Bottom line: the globe is cooling, and as long as that happens, the Arctic sea ice will eventually catch up.

    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.

  22. Stephen Richards
    Posted Aug 27, 2008 at 2:22 PM | Permalink

    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

  23. Chris
    Posted Aug 27, 2008 at 2:35 PM | Permalink

    #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.

  24. Austin
    Posted Aug 27, 2008 at 2:40 PM | Permalink

    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?

  25. D. Patterson
    Posted Aug 27, 2008 at 3:22 PM | Permalink

    Current sea ice conditions in the MSM —–>

    Arctic sea ice drops to 2nd lowest level on record By SETH BORENSTEIN and DAN JOLING, Associated Press Writers

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080827/ap_on_sc/sci_arctic_ice

  26. Dave Clarke
    Posted Aug 27, 2008 at 3:27 PM | Permalink

    #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.

  27. Chris
    Posted Aug 27, 2008 at 3:45 PM | Permalink

    #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….

  28. Stephen Wilde
    Posted Aug 27, 2008 at 4:02 PM | Permalink

    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.

  29. Demesure
    Posted Aug 27, 2008 at 4:22 PM | Permalink

    “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 ?

  30. MattN
    Posted Aug 27, 2008 at 4:23 PM | Permalink

    2008 0.280

    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.

  31. MattN
    Posted Aug 27, 2008 at 4:25 PM | Permalink

    “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.”

    Absolutely, completely, 100% not true. At all. You are so wrong, I don’t even know where to begin to correct you…

    :shakes head:

  32. Dave Clarke
    Posted Aug 27, 2008 at 4:33 PM | Permalink

    #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.

  33. MattN
    Posted Aug 27, 2008 at 4:41 PM | Permalink

    Dave, your problem is you quote GISS data….

  34. SteveSadlov
    Posted Aug 27, 2008 at 5:07 PM | Permalink

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080827/ap_on_sc/sci_arctic_ice

  35. SteveSadlov
    Posted Aug 27, 2008 at 5:08 PM | Permalink

    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...]

  36. Joe Solters
    Posted Aug 27, 2008 at 5:13 PM | Permalink

    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.

  37. jae
    Posted Aug 27, 2008 at 5:46 PM | Permalink

    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

    LOL. Spend some time on Anthony Watts’ site.

  38. Posted Aug 27, 2008 at 6:04 PM | Permalink

    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

    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.

  39. Shawn Whelan
    Posted Aug 27, 2008 at 6:08 PM | Permalink

    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.

  40. bender
    Posted Aug 27, 2008 at 6:10 PM | Permalink

    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.

  41. Aaron Wells
    Posted Aug 27, 2008 at 6:18 PM | Permalink

    Is the current behavior dominated by melting, or by compaction?

    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

  42. MattN
    Posted Aug 27, 2008 at 6:42 PM | Permalink

    Very nice graph Aaron. I’m going to steal it….

  43. paminator
    Posted Aug 27, 2008 at 8:57 PM | Permalink

    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.

  44. TAC
    Posted Aug 27, 2008 at 9:06 PM | Permalink

    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

  45. Tolz
    Posted Aug 27, 2008 at 9:20 PM | Permalink

    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.

  46. bender
    Posted Aug 27, 2008 at 9:54 PM | Permalink

    I’d make sure your point squares with other sources before you wish to make a point here

    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.

  47. deadwood
    Posted Aug 27, 2008 at 11:23 PM | Permalink

    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.

  48. bender
    Posted Aug 28, 2008 at 12:01 AM | Permalink

    We should look at periods which would encompass events such as the PDO shift, and better yet several of them.

    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.

    while I am not terribly impressed by the slope of the trend, it still shows a warming trend

    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.)

    I recognize the current cooling for what it is, I do not think it validates any particular alternative to the AGW hypothesis

    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.

  49. WhiteBeard
    Posted Aug 28, 2008 at 12:25 AM | Permalink

    # 47 bender,

    The level of scrutiny is a little higher here than at most blogs. That’s why it won the science blog award for 2007.

    Just in the spirit of your first sentence, how does your second sentence follow?

  50. sean egan
    Posted Aug 28, 2008 at 12:48 AM | Permalink

    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.

  51. Posted Aug 28, 2008 at 4:40 AM | Permalink

    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?

  52. David L. Hagen
    Posted Aug 28, 2008 at 6:35 AM | Permalink

    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”.”

  53. bender
    Posted Aug 28, 2008 at 7:30 AM | Permalink

    #52
    NASA:

    not all the large changes seen in Arctic climate in recent years are a result of long-term trends associated with global warming

    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.

  54. Shawn Whelan
    Posted Aug 28, 2008 at 7:58 AM | Permalink

    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.

  55. Chris
    Posted Aug 28, 2008 at 8:33 AM | Permalink

    Now 453.4K behind 2007 :)

    8 27 2008 5.178281 -0.044688 (adjusted)

    (#44 “2008 has a moderate day, remaining about 450K behind 2007…”)

  56. Aaron Wells
    Posted Aug 28, 2008 at 8:54 AM | Permalink

    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

  57. bender
    Posted Aug 28, 2008 at 9:06 AM | Permalink

    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.

    • DeWitt Payne
      Posted Aug 28, 2008 at 9:35 AM | Permalink

      Re: bender,

      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.

      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.

  58. Aaron Wells
    Posted Aug 28, 2008 at 9:11 AM | Permalink

    …prediction is a fool’s game.

    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.

  59. David L. Hagen
    Posted Aug 28, 2008 at 9:15 AM | Permalink

    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?

  60. bender
    Posted Aug 28, 2008 at 9:15 AM | Permalink

    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.

  61. bender
    Posted Aug 28, 2008 at 9:21 AM | Permalink

    #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.

  62. DeWitt Payne
    Posted Aug 28, 2008 at 9:22 AM | Permalink

    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.

  63. bender
    Posted Aug 28, 2008 at 9:29 AM | Permalink

    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.

  64. bender
    Posted Aug 28, 2008 at 9:32 AM | Permalink

    #62 2008 is not tracking 2004. They diverged four days ago.

    • DeWitt Payne
      Posted Aug 28, 2008 at 9:42 AM | Permalink

      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.

  65. DeWitt Payne
    Posted Aug 28, 2008 at 9:47 AM | Permalink

    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.

  66. Aaron Wells
    Posted Aug 28, 2008 at 9:57 AM | Permalink

    Aaron Wells, are you interested in adding trend lines with confidence intervals to the 2007, 2008 curves in your first figure?

    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.

  67. Aaron Wells
    Posted Aug 28, 2008 at 10:02 AM | Permalink

    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.

    DeWitt, can you give more explanation of what these numbers represent?

    • DeWitt Payne
      Posted Aug 29, 2008 at 5:38 AM | Permalink

      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.

  68. BarryW
    Posted Aug 28, 2008 at 10:05 AM | Permalink

    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.

  69. Posted Aug 28, 2008 at 10:25 AM | Permalink

    Re #70

    Is CT not updating the area or has that stabilized? The ipod thingy says 3.572 which was the same as yesterday, I think.

    It’s been updated, it’s now 3.539 (anom -1.824)

  70. Aaron Wells
    Posted Aug 28, 2008 at 10:32 AM | Permalink

    It’s been updated, it’s now 3.539 (anom -1.824)

    See Comparison of CT vs JAXA

  71. DeWitt Payne
    Posted Aug 28, 2008 at 10:39 AM | Permalink

    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.

  72. BarryW
    Posted Aug 28, 2008 at 11:41 AM | Permalink

    Re 71, 72, 73

    Would someone tell me where the numbers are? The pseudo IPhone interface isn’t showing that number.

  73. Aaron Wells
    Posted Aug 28, 2008 at 11:48 AM | Permalink

    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.

  74. BarryW
    Posted Aug 28, 2008 at 11:59 AM | Permalink

    R 75

    My bad. Thanks.

  75. Tony Edwards
    Posted Aug 28, 2008 at 1:51 PM | Permalink

    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?

  76. Aaron Wells
    Posted Aug 28, 2008 at 3:34 PM | Permalink

    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.

  77. SteveSadlov
    Posted Aug 28, 2008 at 4:00 PM | Permalink

    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)

  78. Aztec Bill
    Posted Aug 28, 2008 at 4:24 PM | Permalink

    Sea Ice as a variance shows the data with a better scale.

  79. Aztec Bill
    Posted Aug 28, 2008 at 4:25 PM | Permalink

    Opps

  80. bender
    Posted Aug 28, 2008 at 4:33 PM | Permalink

    #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”.

  81. Posted Aug 28, 2008 at 4:36 PM | Permalink

    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.

  82. Michael Hauber
    Posted Aug 28, 2008 at 5:09 PM | Permalink

    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.

  83. Raven
    Posted Aug 28, 2008 at 5:54 PM | Permalink

    #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.

  84. Posted Aug 28, 2008 at 6:15 PM | Permalink

    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.

    • Raven
      Posted Aug 28, 2008 at 7:43 PM | Permalink

      Re: #86captdallas2:

      There was worse BC pollution in 1908 than 1998 based on those cores. Then there were fewer ice breakers then as well.

      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.

  85. WhiteBeard
    Posted Aug 28, 2008 at 7:21 PM | Permalink

    # 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.

  86. Michael Hauber
    Posted Aug 28, 2008 at 7:26 PM | Permalink

    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

  87. Posted Aug 28, 2008 at 7:54 PM | Permalink

    Re #1

    Yay! Room to write at last. Sort of an echo in here though. Or its it just the silence of the Baby Ice?

    Baby ice! There’s not much of that left. ;)

    Green is baby ice, brown is old ice.
    East arctic

  88. Posted Aug 28, 2008 at 8:11 PM | Permalink

    Raven

    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.

    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.

  89. Posted Aug 28, 2008 at 8:24 PM | Permalink

    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.

  90. Posted Aug 28, 2008 at 8:42 PM | Permalink

    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?

  91. Posted Aug 28, 2008 at 9:10 PM | Permalink

    Phil–
    I mourn for the lost baby ice. :(

  92. bender
    Posted Aug 28, 2008 at 9:22 PM | Permalink

    jeez, that’s your cue.

  93. Dave Dardinger
    Posted Aug 28, 2008 at 9:29 PM | Permalink

    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.

  94. Michael Hauber
    Posted Aug 28, 2008 at 10:09 PM | Permalink

    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?

  95. Pierre Gosselin
    Posted Aug 29, 2008 at 2:02 AM | Permalink

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/08/080828120314.htm

  96. Posted Aug 29, 2008 at 2:25 AM | Permalink

    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

  97. Flanagan
    Posted Aug 29, 2008 at 2:34 AM | Permalink

    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…

  98. TAC
    Posted Aug 29, 2008 at 3:09 AM | Permalink

    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

  99. DeWitt Payne
    Posted Aug 29, 2008 at 5:56 AM | Permalink

    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.

  100. DeWitt Payne
    Posted Aug 29, 2008 at 5:59 AM | Permalink

    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.

  101. Flanagan
    Posted Aug 29, 2008 at 6:42 AM | Permalink

    Wow, these numbers are seriously different from what can be seen on the NSIDC site or cryosphere!

  102. Aaron Wells
    Posted Aug 29, 2008 at 6:54 AM | Permalink

    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.

  103. Posted Aug 29, 2008 at 7:20 AM | Permalink

    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.

  104. BarryW
    Posted Aug 29, 2008 at 8:21 AM | Permalink

    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?

  105. Aaron Wells
    Posted Aug 29, 2008 at 8:27 AM | Permalink

    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

  106. Kenneth Fritsch
    Posted Aug 29, 2008 at 9:01 AM | Permalink

    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.

  107. bender
    Posted Aug 29, 2008 at 9:38 AM | Permalink

    There has to be some short to medium term persistence involved here.

    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).)

  108. bender
    Posted Aug 29, 2008 at 9:44 AM | Permalink

    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

  109. bender
    Posted Aug 29, 2008 at 9:45 AM | Permalink

    You would have to use ARIMA to remove the seasonal cycle of course.

  110. DeWitt Payne
    Posted Aug 29, 2008 at 10:26 AM | Permalink

    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.

  111. Jaye Bass
    Posted Aug 29, 2008 at 12:37 PM | Permalink

    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.

    • DeWitt Payne
      Posted Sep 1, 2008 at 9:16 PM | Permalink

      Re: Jaye Bass (#115),

      Working: Flag&Comm. Turns 5 & 7 on Sat/Sun and 1 & 2 on Monday.

  112. Manfred
    Posted Aug 29, 2008 at 1:19 PM | Permalink

    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.

  113. sean egan
    Posted Aug 29, 2008 at 2:36 PM | Permalink

    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!

  114. Posted Aug 29, 2008 at 2:40 PM | Permalink

    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.

  115. Boris
    Posted Aug 29, 2008 at 2:48 PM | Permalink

    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.

  116. John S.
    Posted Aug 29, 2008 at 3:07 PM | Permalink

    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!”

  117. Posted Aug 29, 2008 at 4:48 PM | Permalink

    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).

  118. Posted Aug 29, 2008 at 5:13 PM | Permalink

    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?

  119. kim
    Posted Aug 29, 2008 at 5:47 PM | Permalink

    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.
    ===================================================

  120. kim
    Posted Aug 29, 2008 at 5:51 PM | Permalink

    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.
    ====================================

  121. Follow the Money
    Posted Aug 29, 2008 at 6:16 PM | Permalink

    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.

  122. SteveSadlov
    Posted Aug 29, 2008 at 6:16 PM | Permalink

    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?

  123. John Lang
    Posted Aug 29, 2008 at 6:42 PM | Permalink

    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.”

  124. TAC
    Posted Aug 29, 2008 at 9:03 PM | Permalink

    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

  125. Shawn Whelan
    Posted Aug 29, 2008 at 9:05 PM | Permalink

    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.

  126. DaveM
    Posted Aug 29, 2008 at 9:10 PM | Permalink

    Interesting article. Probably a little early but…

    http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/aug/29/north-pole-remain-frozen/

    Cheers!

  127. GeneII
    Posted Aug 29, 2008 at 10:16 PM | Permalink

    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!!!

  128. bender
    Posted Aug 29, 2008 at 10:59 PM | Permalink

    #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.

  129. Shawn Whelan
    Posted Aug 30, 2008 at 7:14 AM | Permalink

    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

  130. Richard111
    Posted Aug 30, 2008 at 7:20 AM | Permalink

    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.

  131. Urederra
    Posted Aug 30, 2008 at 7:57 AM | Permalink

    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.

  132. Aaron Wells
    Posted Aug 30, 2008 at 8:43 AM | Permalink

    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

  133. Shawn Whelan
    Posted Aug 30, 2008 at 8:52 AM | Permalink

    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″.

  134. Posted Aug 30, 2008 at 10:03 AM | Permalink

    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 30th
    Arctic 3.379, -1.928
    Antarctic 14.440, -0.291

  135. Manfred
    Posted Aug 30, 2008 at 12:47 PM | Permalink

    #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.

  136. Manfred
    Posted Aug 30, 2008 at 12:48 PM | Permalink

    #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.

  137. UK John
    Posted Aug 30, 2008 at 1:00 PM | Permalink

    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.

  138. jae
    Posted Aug 30, 2008 at 1:27 PM | Permalink

    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?”

  139. Posted Aug 30, 2008 at 2:30 PM | Permalink

    Re #139

    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.

    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!

  140. BarryW
    Posted Aug 30, 2008 at 3:03 PM | Permalink

    Re 143

    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?

    And you don’t think the surface record is manipulated? You must not have been paying attention here.

  141. Posted Aug 30, 2008 at 3:41 PM | Permalink

    Re #144

    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?
    And you don’t think the surface record is manipulated? You must not have been paying attention here.

    No it’s you that’s not paying attention!

  142. Aaron Wells
    Posted Aug 30, 2008 at 3:42 PM | Permalink

    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?”

    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.

  143. Posted Aug 30, 2008 at 4:00 PM | Permalink

    UK john #141

    After our performance in the Olypics it is your patriotic duty to beat the Germans to the Sun beds.

    Tony Brown

  144. BarryW
    Posted Aug 30, 2008 at 4:28 PM | Permalink

    Re 145

    So you believe that the GISS and Hadley temperature records are actual values and have not been algorithmically adjusted?

  145. Posted Aug 30, 2008 at 9:02 PM | Permalink

    Re #148

    So you believe that the GISS and Hadley temperature records are actual values and have not been algorithmically adjusted?

    Where on earth do you get that from, reading comprehension sadly lacking!

  146. BarryW
    Posted Aug 30, 2008 at 10:04 PM | Permalink

    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?

  147. Posted Aug 30, 2008 at 10:05 PM | Permalink

    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!

  148. Posted Aug 30, 2008 at 10:14 PM | Permalink

    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.

  149. TAC
    Posted Aug 30, 2008 at 10:33 PM | Permalink

    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

  150. Manfred
    Posted Aug 31, 2008 at 1:56 AM | Permalink

    #phil

    Regarding the trend and standards of adjustments, GISS is definitely an outlier.

    The cooling trend is also confirmed by different measurement systems.

  151. Manfred
    Posted Aug 31, 2008 at 1:58 AM | Permalink

    #phil

    Regarding the trend and standards of adjustments, GISS is definitely an outlier.

    The cooling trend is also confirmed by different measurement systems.

  152. Graeme Rodaughan
    Posted Aug 31, 2008 at 2:22 AM | Permalink

    Sorry Mike (#153) (mistyped Mike as Mark…)

    • MrPete
      Posted Aug 31, 2008 at 4:38 AM | Permalink

      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.

      • Ian
        Posted Aug 31, 2008 at 6:57 AM | Permalink

        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

  153. See - owe to Rich
    Posted Aug 31, 2008 at 3:30 AM | Permalink

    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.

  154. cce
    Posted Aug 31, 2008 at 4:56 AM | Permalink

    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:

    http://www.remss.com/papers/mears_science_2005.pdf

  155. Geoff Sherrington
    Posted Aug 31, 2008 at 7:02 AM | Permalink

    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)

  156. Bob B
    Posted Aug 31, 2008 at 9:47 AM | Permalink

    #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

  157. Posted Aug 31, 2008 at 10:09 AM | Permalink

    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

  158. Posted Aug 31, 2008 at 10:34 AM | Permalink

    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?

  159. Aaron Wells
    Posted Aug 31, 2008 at 10:40 AM | Permalink

    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

  160. BarryW
    Posted Aug 31, 2008 at 11:02 AM | Permalink

    Lucia,

    Phil’s original statement:

    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?

    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:

    She includes satellite observations of temperatures through the lower-mid troposphere (the UAH and RSS), rather than using only surface air temperatures.

    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).

  161. See - owe to Rich
    Posted Aug 31, 2008 at 11:19 AM | Permalink

    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.

  162. cce
    Posted Aug 31, 2008 at 12:12 PM | Permalink

    #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.

  163. UK John
    Posted Aug 31, 2008 at 1:02 PM | Permalink

    #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?

  164. Posted Aug 31, 2008 at 1:10 PM | Permalink

    #171 Uk John

    We’re on a roll, challenge the Germans to a game of cricket as well! Have a good holiday

    Tony Brown

  165. Evan Jones
    Posted Aug 31, 2008 at 2:18 PM | Permalink

    Has Baby ice been iced?

    Say it ain’t so!

  166. Evan Jones
    Posted Aug 31, 2008 at 2:19 PM | Permalink

    Phil done it.

  167. Hans Erren
    Posted Aug 31, 2008 at 2:22 PM | Permalink

    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.

  168. jeez
    Posted Aug 31, 2008 at 3:08 PM | Permalink

    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.

  169. steven mosher
    Posted Aug 31, 2008 at 3:12 PM | Permalink

    hmmm. will stand up to the throwdown and write the next installation of baby ice.

    I doubt it.

  170. Posted Aug 31, 2008 at 3:28 PM | Permalink

    Evan, baban hi’ wedi mynd! Hwyl fawr!

  171. Posted Aug 31, 2008 at 4:41 PM | Permalink

    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

  172. DaveM
    Posted Aug 31, 2008 at 6:09 PM | Permalink

    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!

  173. DaveM
    Posted Aug 31, 2008 at 6:12 PM | Permalink

    I guess my link got eaten…

    Head over to Watts up with that for a post by Steve Goddard. Rather interesting.

  174. BarryW
    Posted Aug 31, 2008 at 6:31 PM | Permalink

    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

    • MrPete
      Posted Sep 1, 2008 at 7:58 AM | Permalink

      Re: BarryW (#182),

      You said

      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.

      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.

      • See - owe to Rich
        Posted Sep 1, 2008 at 2:21 PM | Permalink

        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.

      • M. Jeff
        Posted Sep 1, 2008 at 3:36 PM | Permalink

        Re: MrPete (#191), Re: MrPete (#191),

        On my system, unless the reply and paste link is clicked twice, nothing registers in the preview area.

      • M. Jeff
        Posted Sep 1, 2008 at 3:40 PM | Permalink

        Re: MrPete (#191),
        For this message with only one click on the reply and paste link, nothing shows in the preview area.

      • BarryW
        Posted Sep 5, 2008 at 10:45 AM | Permalink

        Re: MrPete (#191),
        .

        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?

        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.

  175. Evan Jones
    Posted Aug 31, 2008 at 7:09 PM | Permalink

    “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 . . .

  176. steven mosher
    Posted Aug 31, 2008 at 7:19 PM | Permalink

    I thought fart jokes were banned

  177. Evan Jones
    Posted Aug 31, 2008 at 7:59 PM | Permalink

    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?

  178. TAC
    Posted Aug 31, 2008 at 9:06 PM | Permalink

    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

  179. GeneII
    Posted Sep 1, 2008 at 3:53 AM | Permalink

    #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.

    • See - owe to Rich
      Posted Sep 1, 2008 at 2:16 PM | Permalink

      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.

  180. Flanagan
    Posted Sep 1, 2008 at 5:27 AM | Permalink

    2008 being so far behind 2007

    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.

    • MartinGAtkins
      Posted Sep 1, 2008 at 8:49 AM | Permalink

      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. :)

      • MartinGAtkins
        Posted Sep 1, 2008 at 10:09 AM | Permalink

        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).

  181. Hans Erren
    Posted Sep 1, 2008 at 5:31 AM | Permalink

    The alarmists already have their newsflash: “unprecedented circumnavigation” and conveniently “forgetting” that there is more arctic ice this year than last year.

  182. MattN
    Posted Sep 1, 2008 at 7:52 AM | Permalink

    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?

  183. Posted Sep 1, 2008 at 8:51 AM | Permalink

    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.

  184. Flanagan
    Posted Sep 1, 2008 at 9:17 AM | Permalink

    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.

  185. GeneII
    Posted Sep 1, 2008 at 10:26 AM | Permalink

    #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.

  186. Flanagan
    Posted Sep 1, 2008 at 10:30 AM | Permalink

    OK, let’s wait and see. Maybe it’s the best to do just rightnow…

  187. Shawn Whelan
    Posted Sep 1, 2008 at 10:31 AM | Permalink

    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/

  188. GeneII
    Posted Sep 1, 2008 at 10:40 AM | Permalink

    #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.”

  189. Flanagan
    Posted Sep 1, 2008 at 10:54 AM | Permalink

    I would not call a 1-shot example of an ice breaker going through ice “a wealth of data”.

  190. bender
    Posted Sep 1, 2008 at 11:26 AM | Permalink

    Re #192:
    Pierrehumbert’s incantation:

    Say it three times every night before going to sleep: Temperature goes up. Solar stuff goes up and down and up and down and up and down. You can no more make a trend out of that than you can make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear.

  191. Evan Jones
    Posted Sep 1, 2008 at 11:45 AM | Permalink

    And the seasons, they go round and round
    And the painted ponies go up and down

  192. Posted Sep 1, 2008 at 12:14 PM | Permalink

    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

  193. steven mosher
    Posted Sep 1, 2008 at 12:41 PM | Permalink

    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.

  194. Posted Sep 1, 2008 at 1:02 PM | Permalink

    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

  195. Evan Jones
    Posted Sep 1, 2008 at 2:09 PM | Permalink

    An empty fridge, a pool of water on the floor, and a whiff of methane . . . jeez, what have you DONE?

  196. Evan Jones
    Posted Sep 1, 2008 at 3:41 PM | Permalink

    Can Baby Ice withstand trickledown economics?

  197. Posted Sep 1, 2008 at 5:32 PM | Permalink

    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.

  198. kuhnkat
    Posted Sep 1, 2008 at 6:40 PM | Permalink

    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!!

  199. Aaron Wells
    Posted Sep 1, 2008 at 6:41 PM | Permalink

    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

  200. Posted Sep 1, 2008 at 6:55 PM | Permalink

    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.”

    http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~qfu/Publications/grl.fu.2005.pdf

    I’m glad you checked Di’s website, big brother’s done his duty!

  201. GeneII
    Posted Sep 1, 2008 at 8:38 PM | Permalink

    #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

  202. TAC
    Posted Sep 1, 2008 at 9:05 PM | Permalink

    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

  203. DeWitt Payne
    Posted Sep 1, 2008 at 9:52 PM | Permalink

    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.

  204. Manfred
    Posted Sep 1, 2008 at 11:29 PM | Permalink

    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.

  205. sean egan
    Posted Sep 2, 2008 at 12:04 AM | Permalink

    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.

  206. Phil.
    Posted Sep 2, 2008 at 12:55 AM | Permalink

    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.

  207. cce
    Posted Sep 2, 2008 at 3:01 AM | Permalink

    #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.

  208. Chris
    Posted Sep 2, 2008 at 4:37 AM | Permalink

    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.

  209. Chris
    Posted Sep 2, 2008 at 5:15 AM | Permalink

    “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.

  210. GeneII
    Posted Sep 2, 2008 at 8:14 AM | Permalink

    #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?

  211. Posted Sep 2, 2008 at 9:38 AM | Permalink

    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!

  212. DeWitt Payne
    Posted Sep 2, 2008 at 10:16 AM | Permalink

    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?

  213. SteveSadlov
    Posted Sep 2, 2008 at 10:44 AM | Permalink

    http://pafc.arh.noaa.gov/ice.php?img=ice

    Note area “E.”

  214. sean egan
    Posted Sep 2, 2008 at 10:57 AM | Permalink

    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.

    • DeWitt Payne
      Posted Sep 2, 2008 at 2:24 PM | Permalink

      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.

  215. Phil.
    Posted Sep 2, 2008 at 11:44 AM | Permalink

    Re #229

    Indeed, all that old ice moving out!

  216. SteveSadlov
    Posted Sep 2, 2008 at 1:25 PM | Permalink

    What is your operational definition of old ice?

    http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3242

  217. SteveSadlov
    Posted Sep 2, 2008 at 1:30 PM | Permalink

    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.

  218. SteveSadlov
    Posted Sep 2, 2008 at 1:35 PM | Permalink

    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/

  219. SteveSadlov
    Posted Sep 2, 2008 at 1:39 PM | Permalink

    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?

  220. Filippo Turturici
    Posted Sep 2, 2008 at 1:39 PM | Permalink

    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…

  221. SteveSadlov
    Posted Sep 2, 2008 at 1:44 PM | Permalink

    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.

  222. SteveSadlov
    Posted Sep 2, 2008 at 1:49 PM | Permalink

    This is clearly incorrect:

    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.10.html

  223. SteveSadlov
    Posted Sep 2, 2008 at 1:55 PM | Permalink

    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.

  224. Phil.
    Posted Sep 2, 2008 at 1:56 PM | Permalink

    Re #237

    Sadlov, you’re getting in deeper and deeper, quit now before you really embarrass yourself. Hint, how does one calculate an anomaly?

  225. John S.
    Posted Sep 2, 2008 at 2:45 PM | Permalink

    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.

  226. John S.
    Posted Sep 2, 2008 at 2:57 PM | Permalink

    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. GeneII
    Posted Sep 2, 2008 at 5:59 PM | Permalink

    #227 lucia

    snip –

    Steve: Phil below is correct. It is unnecessary and against rules to speculate on intent.

  228. Posted Sep 2, 2008 at 6:14 PM | Permalink

    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.

  229. Phil.
    Posted Sep 2, 2008 at 6:27 PM | Permalink

    Re #244

    Gene II making such accusations is against Steve’s rules for this blog.

  230. SteveSadlov
    Posted Sep 2, 2008 at 6:49 PM | Permalink

    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.

  231. TAC
    Posted Sep 3, 2008 at 3:15 AM | Permalink

    Preliminary Unofficial Day 246 Race Report
    2
    008 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

  232. Geoff Sherrington
    Posted Sep 3, 2008 at 3:30 AM | Permalink

    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

  233. GeneII
    Posted Sep 3, 2008 at 5:39 AM | Permalink

    #244 was not posted by GeneII. Why are the people fraudulently using my ID?

  234. GeneII
    Posted Sep 3, 2008 at 5:46 AM | Permalink

    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

    • lurker bill
      Posted Sep 3, 2008 at 9:02 AM | Permalink

      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.

  235. Chris
    Posted Sep 3, 2008 at 8:11 AM | Permalink

    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 :)

  236. Aaron Wells
    Posted Sep 3, 2008 at 8:49 AM | Permalink

    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

  237. bender
    Posted Sep 3, 2008 at 9:08 AM | Permalink

    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.

    • DeWitt Payne
      Posted Sep 3, 2008 at 2:15 PM | Permalink

      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.

      • bender
        Posted Sep 3, 2008 at 5:55 PM | Permalink

        Re: DeWitt Payne (#265),

        It will take more than a few days of high loss rate before I would say that the extent rate has diverged

        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.

        • DeWitt Payne
          Posted Sep 3, 2008 at 10:22 PM | Permalink

          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.

        • bender
          Posted Sep 4, 2008 at 4:48 AM | Permalink

          Re: DeWitt Payne (#274),

          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

          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.

        • DeWitt Payne
          Posted Sep 4, 2008 at 8:53 AM | Permalink

          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.

    • Aztec Bill
      Posted Sep 3, 2008 at 3:30 PM | Permalink

      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.

  238. Shawn Whelan
    Posted Sep 3, 2008 at 10:31 AM | Permalink

    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.

  239. Mike Bryant
    Posted Sep 3, 2008 at 10:38 AM | Permalink

    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.

    • lurker bill
      Posted Sep 3, 2008 at 1:53 PM | Permalink

      Re: Mike Bryant (#257),

      Agreed. Just don’t forget the Kevlar housing, or better yet, reactive armor!

  240. DeWitt Payne
    Posted Sep 3, 2008 at 12:03 PM | Permalink

    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.

  241. Chris
    Posted Sep 3, 2008 at 12:27 PM | Permalink

    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

  242. Chris
    Posted Sep 3, 2008 at 12:31 PM | Permalink

    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!

  243. Chris
    Posted Sep 3, 2008 at 1:38 PM | Permalink

    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!)

  244. Chris
    Posted Sep 3, 2008 at 1:41 PM | Permalink

    Should have said, thanks to WUWT. It’s been a long day…..

  245. lurker bill
    Posted Sep 3, 2008 at 1:55 PM | Permalink

    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.

  246. John S.
    Posted Sep 3, 2008 at 4:00 PM | Permalink

    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.

  247. David L Hagen
    Posted Sep 3, 2008 at 4:19 PM | Permalink

    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!

  248. Help A Layman Out
    Posted Sep 3, 2008 at 7:11 PM | Permalink

    #268

    Is the Daily Tech report true? Has the melt stopped? Is 2008 ice 13% larger than 2007 ice?

  249. TAC
    Posted Sep 3, 2008 at 9:11 PM | Permalink

    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

  250. TAC
    Posted Sep 3, 2008 at 9:13 PM | Permalink

    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

  251. GeneII
    Posted Sep 3, 2008 at 10:41 PM | Permalink

    #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.

    • lurker bill
      Posted Sep 4, 2008 at 10:07 AM | Permalink

      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

  252. AndyW
    Posted Sep 4, 2008 at 3:34 AM | Permalink

    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

  253. AndyW
    Posted Sep 4, 2008 at 5:06 AM | Permalink

    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

  254. Chris
    Posted Sep 4, 2008 at 6:33 AM | Permalink

    #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.

  255. AndyW
    Posted Sep 4, 2008 at 6:40 AM | Permalink

    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! :D

    Regards

    Andy

  256. Chris
    Posted Sep 4, 2008 at 7:12 AM | Permalink

    #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)

  257. Aaron Wells
    Posted Sep 4, 2008 at 7:57 AM | Permalink

    Phil is wise not to commit himself to a prediction. The reward of guessing right is not worth the risk of being wrong.

    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.

  258. ared
    Posted Sep 4, 2008 at 8:18 AM | Permalink

    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…

  259. Aaron Wells
    Posted Sep 4, 2008 at 8:24 AM | Permalink

    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

  260. Patrick Henry
    Posted Sep 4, 2008 at 9:06 AM | Permalink

    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.

  261. Phil.
    Posted Sep 4, 2008 at 9:23 AM | Permalink

    Re #286

    Those sources don’t show areas with less than 15% coverage.

  262. Phil.
    Posted Sep 4, 2008 at 9:27 AM | Permalink

    Re #284

    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)!

    About 2 days later than a similar event last year.

  263. Chris
    Posted Sep 4, 2008 at 9:34 AM | Permalink

    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.)

    • bender
      Posted Sep 4, 2008 at 10:17 AM | Permalink

      Re: Chris (#289),

      Bender may have over-stated his point which used you as an example

      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.

      • DeWitt Payne
        Posted Sep 4, 2008 at 10:42 AM | Permalink

        Re: bender (#295),

        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.

        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.

  264. BrianO
    Posted Sep 4, 2008 at 9:58 AM | Permalink

    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.”

  265. sean egan
    Posted Sep 4, 2008 at 10:00 AM | Permalink

    If we are running two days behind 2007, the uptick starts 269+2=271. Still too early to call.

    • Aztec Bill
      Posted Sep 4, 2008 at 10:36 AM | Permalink

      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.

  266. Chris
    Posted Sep 4, 2008 at 10:07 AM | Permalink

    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.

  267. Chris
    Posted Sep 4, 2008 at 10:15 AM | Permalink

    #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.

  268. Chris
    Posted Sep 4, 2008 at 10:24 AM | Permalink

    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.

    • Phil.
      Posted Sep 4, 2008 at 10:43 AM | Permalink

      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.

      • bender
        Posted Sep 4, 2008 at 10:57 AM | Permalink

        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.

        • Phil.
          Posted Sep 4, 2008 at 1:06 PM | Permalink

          Re: bender (#306),

          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.

          I assume you’re referring to the green line which is not a prediction but the median value from the period 1971-2000.

        • bender
          Posted Sep 4, 2008 at 1:16 PM | Permalink

          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.

        • Phil.
          Posted Sep 4, 2008 at 2:01 PM | Permalink

          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.

  269. Aztec Bill
    Posted Sep 4, 2008 at 10:24 AM | Permalink

    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 ?/?? ?/??

  270. DeWitt Payne
    Posted Sep 4, 2008 at 10:26 AM | Permalink

    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.

  271. Posted Sep 4, 2008 at 10:27 AM | Permalink

    Based on what, isotope tracking? If not something deterministic like that, what is it based on?

  272. AndyW
    Posted Sep 4, 2008 at 10:34 AM | Permalink

    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

  273. AndyW
    Posted Sep 4, 2008 at 10:36 AM | Permalink

    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!

  274. bender
    Posted Sep 4, 2008 at 10:49 AM | Permalink

    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.

    • DeWitt Payne
      Posted Sep 4, 2008 at 11:06 AM | Permalink

      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

      Calculations here will indicate whether and when 2008 will pass 2007.

      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.

      • bender
        Posted Sep 4, 2008 at 11:19 AM | Permalink

        Re: DeWitt Payne (#307),

        Socratic method doesn’t work for me.

        I can see that.

        So do the calculations and dazzle us with your brilliance.

        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.

  275. Chris
    Posted Sep 4, 2008 at 11:16 AM | Permalink

    #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)

  276. Chris
    Posted Sep 4, 2008 at 11:21 AM | Permalink

    #304 Thanks Phil

  277. Chris
    Posted Sep 4, 2008 at 11:24 AM | Permalink

    #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.

    • bender
      Posted Sep 4, 2008 at 11:50 AM | Permalink

      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.

  278. Chris
    Posted Sep 4, 2008 at 12:03 PM | Permalink

    #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.

  279. John Lang
    Posted Sep 4, 2008 at 1:07 PM | Permalink

    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.

    • IainM
      Posted Sep 4, 2008 at 1:21 PM | Permalink

      Re: John Lang (#315),

      Thank for saying something that even an idiot like me can understand.

  280. AndyW
    Posted Sep 4, 2008 at 1:45 PM | Permalink

    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

    • Aztec Bill
      Posted Sep 4, 2008 at 3:18 PM | Permalink

      Re: AndyW (#318),

      http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/plot.csv

    • DeWitt Payne
      Posted Sep 5, 2008 at 9:13 AM | Permalink

      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:

      Spreen, G., and L. Kaleschke (2008), “AMSR-E ASI 6.25 km Sea Ice Concentration Data, V5.4″, Institute of Oceanography, University of Hamburg, Germany, digital media (ftp-projects.zmaw.de/seaice/).

  281. Shawn Whelan
    Posted Sep 4, 2008 at 1:48 PM | Permalink

    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?

  282. Shawn Whelan
    Posted Sep 4, 2008 at 2:22 PM | Permalink

    Temperature anomoly comparisn for 2007 and 2008.
    Much less heat in the ocean in 2008.

    • bender
      Posted Sep 4, 2008 at 2:41 PM | Permalink

      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.

  283. Vincent Guerrini Jr
    Posted Sep 4, 2008 at 2:22 PM | Permalink

    looks like it might be refreezing now cryosphere today

  284. Vincent Guerrini Jr
    Posted Sep 4, 2008 at 2:26 PM | Permalink

    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

  285. SteveSadlov
    Posted Sep 4, 2008 at 3:06 PM | Permalink

    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.

    • Aztec Bill
      Posted Sep 4, 2008 at 3:24 PM | Permalink

      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.

  286. Shawn Whelan
    Posted Sep 4, 2008 at 8:01 PM | Permalink

    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

  287. TAC
    Posted Sep 4, 2008 at 9:12 PM | Permalink

    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

  288. Flanagan
    Posted Sep 4, 2008 at 11:41 PM | Permalink

    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…

  289. GeneII
    Posted Sep 5, 2008 at 12:03 AM | Permalink

    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”.

  290. AndyW
    Posted Sep 5, 2008 at 12:56 AM | Permalink

    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

  291. GeneII
    Posted Sep 5, 2008 at 1:13 AM | Permalink

    “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!

  292. Posted Sep 5, 2008 at 1:50 AM | Permalink

    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

  293. Chris
    Posted Sep 5, 2008 at 2:02 AM | Permalink

    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…….

  294. Vincent Guerrini Jr
    Posted Sep 5, 2008 at 2:39 AM | Permalink

    #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…

  295. Chris
    Posted Sep 5, 2008 at 3:25 AM | Permalink

    #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/

    http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/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.

  296. kim
    Posted Sep 5, 2008 at 5:14 AM | Permalink

    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.
    ==========================================

  297. AndyW
    Posted Sep 5, 2008 at 6:25 AM | Permalink

    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 :D

    Regards

    Andy

  298. STAFFAN LINDSTROEM
    Posted Sep 5, 2008 at 6:30 AM | Permalink

    #339 AndyW …If a polar bear eats him for breakfast/lunch/dinner,
    that polar bear surely will get diarrhea….

  299. Posted Sep 5, 2008 at 6:39 AM | Permalink

    AndyW– I think the Kayaker has discovered some premature 2009 Baby Ice that decided to arrive early.

  300. Chris
    Posted Sep 5, 2008 at 6:44 AM | Permalink

    #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!]

  301. Chris
    Posted Sep 5, 2008 at 6:59 AM | Permalink

    #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??)

  302. Chris
    Posted Sep 5, 2008 at 7:06 AM | Permalink

    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 :) ]

  303. Fred Nieuwenhuis
    Posted Sep 5, 2008 at 7:10 AM | Permalink

    re#339

    …or hemorrhoids. :)

  304. Posted Sep 5, 2008 at 7:35 AM | Permalink

    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

  305. Posted Sep 5, 2008 at 7:52 AM | Permalink

    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).

  306. AndyW
    Posted Sep 5, 2008 at 8:00 AM | Permalink


    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

  307. Posted Sep 5, 2008 at 8:01 AM | Permalink

    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.

  308. John Lang
    Posted Sep 5, 2008 at 8:05 AM | Permalink

    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

  309. Aaron Wells
    Posted Sep 5, 2008 at 8:18 AM | Permalink

    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

  310. AndyW
    Posted Sep 5, 2008 at 8:38 AM | Permalink

    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

  311. DeWitt Payne
    Posted Sep 5, 2008 at 9:00 AM | Permalink

    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

  312. DeWitt Payne
    Posted Sep 5, 2008 at 10:52 AM | Permalink

    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.

  313. DeWitt Payne
    Posted Sep 5, 2008 at 10:56 AM | Permalink

    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.

  314. STAFFAN LINDSTROEM
    Posted Sep 5, 2008 at 11:18 AM | Permalink

    #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]

  315. DeWitt Payne
    Posted Sep 5, 2008 at 11:53 AM | Permalink

    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.

    • bender
      Posted Sep 5, 2008 at 2:05 PM | Permalink

      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.

  316. Shawn Whelan
    Posted Sep 5, 2008 at 11:59 AM | Permalink

    The kayakers give up.
    I await the BBC story on this.

    http://polardefenseproject.org/blog/

  317. Posted Sep 5, 2008 at 1:29 PM | Permalink

    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

  318. GeneII
    Posted Sep 5, 2008 at 6:44 PM | Permalink

    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.

  319. asmodean
    Posted Sep 5, 2008 at 8:12 PM | Permalink

    #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

  320. DaveM
    Posted Sep 5, 2008 at 9:06 PM | Permalink

    re #365

    No offence but isn’t wiki a dirty word around here?

  321. AndyW
    Posted Sep 5, 2008 at 11:10 PM | Permalink

    #355 Thanks DeWitt Payne.

    No TAC result but provisionally a fairly large reduction of 55 000 for yesterday.

    Regards

    Andy

  322. Posted Sep 6, 2008 at 1:40 AM | Permalink

    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

  323. sean egan
    Posted Sep 6, 2008 at 2:10 AM | Permalink

    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.

  324. TAC
    Posted Sep 6, 2008 at 4:36 AM | Permalink

    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

  325. Shawn Whelan
    Posted Sep 6, 2008 at 7:42 AM | Permalink

    Sea surface temps show much less heat than 2007.
    Interesting to see how this will impact the freeze.

  326. Aaron Wells
    Posted Sep 6, 2008 at 8:51 AM | Permalink

    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

  327. AndyW
    Posted Sep 6, 2008 at 9:09 AM | Permalink

    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 :D 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

    • DeWitt Payne
      Posted Sep 6, 2008 at 10:50 AM | Permalink

      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.

  328. DeWitt Payne
    Posted Sep 6, 2008 at 10:40 AM | Permalink

    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.

  329. AndyW
    Posted Sep 6, 2008 at 11:03 AM | Permalink

    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

  330. GeneII
    Posted Sep 6, 2008 at 11:12 AM | Permalink

    #375

    I think the cooling trend of Antarctic temperatures says more about the Antarctic than ice area size. Doesn’t it?

    • DeWitt Payne
      Posted Sep 6, 2008 at 11:28 AM | Permalink

      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.

  331. AndyW
    Posted Sep 6, 2008 at 11:39 AM | Permalink

    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

  332. GeneII
    Posted Sep 6, 2008 at 12:17 PM | Permalink

    #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?

  333. Lee W
    Posted Sep 6, 2008 at 12:27 PM | Permalink

    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?

    • DeWitt Payne
      Posted Sep 6, 2008 at 10:39 PM | Permalink

      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.

  334. AndyW
    Posted Sep 6, 2008 at 1:24 PM | Permalink

    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

  335. AndyW
    Posted Sep 6, 2008 at 2:52 PM | Permalink

    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

    • Lee W
      Posted Sep 6, 2008 at 5:28 PM | Permalink

      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!

    • DeWitt Payne
      Posted Sep 6, 2008 at 10:56 PM | Permalink

      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.

  336. Vinny Burgoo
    Posted Sep 6, 2008 at 4:15 PM | Permalink

    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!

  337. Posted Sep 6, 2008 at 5:17 PM | Permalink

    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

  338. TAC
    Posted Sep 6, 2008 at 8:47 PM | Permalink

    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

  339. Aaron Wells
    Posted Sep 6, 2008 at 9:51 PM | Permalink

    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?

    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

  340. STAFFAN LINDSTROEM
    Posted Sep 7, 2008 at 7:47 AM | Permalink

    ……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.

  341. Shawn Whelan
    Posted Sep 7, 2008 at 9:38 AM | Permalink

    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.

    • bender_teammember
      Posted Sep 7, 2008 at 10:01 AM | Permalink

      Re: Shawn Whelan (#395),

      I have a difficult time understanding

      … how a trend inference requires more than a single data point?

      the world burning up from a tiny increase in CO2

      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.

  342. tty
    Posted Sep 7, 2008 at 9:50 AM | Permalink

    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!

  343. tty
    Posted Sep 7, 2008 at 10:04 AM | Permalink

    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.

  344. DeWitt Payne
    Posted Sep 7, 2008 at 10:37 AM | Permalink

    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.

  345. Bob B
    Posted Sep 7, 2008 at 12:22 PM | Permalink

    Bender, where is the basic physics which shows a 3C increase for 2XCo2???

    • bender
      Posted Sep 7, 2008 at 1:04 PM | Permalink

      Re: Bob B (#400),
      It’s encoded in the climate models.

    • Urederra
      Posted Sep 8, 2008 at 3:03 AM | Permalink

      Re: Bob B (#397),

      Bender, where is the basic physics which shows a 3C increase for 2XCo2???

      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?

  346. Aaron Wells
    Posted Sep 7, 2008 at 12:31 PM | Permalink

    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

  347. STAFFAN LINDSTROEM
    Posted Sep 7, 2008 at 1:41 PM | Permalink

    …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…

    • Phil.
      Posted Sep 7, 2008 at 6:52 PM | Permalink

      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.

  348. Bob B
    Posted Sep 7, 2008 at 2:07 PM | Permalink

    #402 LOL

  349. STAFFAN LINDSTROEM
    Posted Sep 7, 2008 at 2:28 PM | Permalink

    # Bob B …#403 COL [CRYING OUT LOUD]

  350. Mike Bryant
    Posted Sep 7, 2008 at 4:49 PM | Permalink

    Staffan,
    Now that you caught them, it will stop. They might even change the history.

  351. M. Jeff
    Posted Sep 7, 2008 at 4:57 PM | Permalink

    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:

    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.

  352. STAFFAN LINDSTROEM
    Posted Sep 7, 2008 at 6:43 PM | Permalink

    #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?

  353. MattN
    Posted Sep 7, 2008 at 6:54 PM | Permalink

    The predicted 2xCO2 rise is, as always, .6C.

    Corrected for accuracy….

    • TerryBixler
      Posted Sep 7, 2008 at 7:38 PM | Permalink

      Re: MattN (#407), six decimal places for pixel counts from a screen?

      • Phil.
        Posted Sep 7, 2008 at 11:44 PM | Permalink

        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.

  354. TerryBixler
    Posted Sep 7, 2008 at 7:39 PM | Permalink

    Oops 406 Phil

  355. GeneII
    Posted Sep 7, 2008 at 8:35 PM | Permalink

    #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,

    http://icecap.us/images/uploads/DOUGLASPAPER.pdf

    http://blog.acton.org/uploads/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

  356. TAC
    Posted Sep 7, 2008 at 9:10 PM | Permalink

    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

  357. TerryBixler
    Posted Sep 8, 2008 at 7:29 AM | Permalink

    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.

    • Phil.
      Posted Sep 8, 2008 at 7:34 PM | Permalink

      Re: TerryBixler (#414),

      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.

      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

  358. Aaron Wells
    Posted Sep 8, 2008 at 8:17 AM | Permalink

    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

  359. bender
    Posted Sep 8, 2008 at 9:09 AM | Permalink

    The rate of area reduction in the past few weeks appears to be consistently faster than in all of the previous six years.

    • DeWitt Payne
      Posted Sep 8, 2008 at 9:53 AM | Permalink

      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.

  360. crosspatch
    Posted Sep 8, 2008 at 9:48 AM | Permalink

    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.

  361. DeWitt Payne
    Posted Sep 8, 2008 at 10:19 AM | Permalink

    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.

  362. DeWitt Payne
    Posted Sep 8, 2008 at 10:26 AM | Permalink

    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.

    • bender
      Posted Sep 8, 2008 at 10:33 AM | Permalink

      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.

  363. AndyW
    Posted Sep 8, 2008 at 11:18 AM | Permalink

    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 ? :D

    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

    • bender
      Posted Sep 8, 2008 at 11:22 AM | Permalink

      Re: AndyW (#422)

      Anyone betting on first week of October?

      It would not surprise me. (But is a court jester ever surprised?)

      • DeWitt Payne
        Posted Sep 8, 2008 at 3:53 PM | Permalink

        Re: bender (#423),

        But is a court jester ever surprised?

        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.

    • DeWitt Payne
      Posted Sep 8, 2008 at 3:48 PM | Permalink

      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.

    • Aztec Bill
      Posted Sep 8, 2008 at 4:14 PM | Permalink

      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.

  364. Chris On Holiday
    Posted Sep 8, 2008 at 11:41 AM | Permalink

    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

  365. SteveSadlov
    Posted Sep 8, 2008 at 12:53 PM | Permalink

    Melt is done, now everything is about winds. Compaction may be huge. Resulting ice will be immensely thick.

  366. Help-a-Layman
    Posted Sep 8, 2008 at 1:27 PM | Permalink

    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?

  367. Aztec Bill
    Posted Sep 8, 2008 at 4:17 PM | Permalink

    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.

  368. Shawn Whelan
    Posted Sep 8, 2008 at 6:07 PM | Permalink

    @ 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

  369. Fred Nieuwenhuis
    Posted Sep 8, 2008 at 7:29 PM | Permalink

    Significant new ice in the Chukchi Sea: http://ice-glaces.ec.gc.ca/prods/WIS45SD/20080908180000_WIS45SD_0003959666.pdf (pink areas are new ice)

    • Phil.
      Posted Sep 8, 2008 at 7:45 PM | Permalink

      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.

  370. GeneII
    Posted Sep 8, 2008 at 7:29 PM | Permalink

    #432

    There’s your wild card.

    As in Mini-Me running against Ussain Bolt in the 100 meter dash sort of wild card?

  371. STAFFAN LINDSTROEM
    Posted Sep 8, 2008 at 8:30 PM | Permalink

    #433, 436 Fred, Phil. … Number of that file …666 … Hell is freezing
    in now …

  372. TAC
    Posted Sep 8, 2008 at 9:08 PM | Permalink

    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

  373. GeneII
    Posted Sep 8, 2008 at 10:04 PM | Permalink

    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?

    • Phil.
      Posted Sep 8, 2008 at 11:02 PM | Permalink

      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.

  374. GeneII
    Posted Sep 8, 2008 at 10:18 PM | Permalink

    #439

    Or is that straight shot actually the Southern arm?

  375. Chris On Holiday
    Posted Sep 9, 2008 at 6:29 AM | Permalink

    “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 :)

  376. Aaron Wells
    Posted Sep 9, 2008 at 8:24 AM | Permalink

    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

  377. DeWitt Payne
    Posted Sep 9, 2008 at 10:28 AM | Permalink

    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.

  378. Shawn Whelan
    Posted Sep 9, 2008 at 10:36 AM | Permalink

    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/

  379. GeneII
    Posted Sep 9, 2008 at 2:05 PM | Permalink

    #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.

  380. GeneII
    Posted Sep 9, 2008 at 5:28 PM | Permalink

    #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.

  381. John Lang
    Posted Sep 9, 2008 at 6:38 PM | Permalink

    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?

  382. Shawn Whelan
    Posted Sep 9, 2008 at 7:17 PM | Permalink

    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.

  383. Shawn Whelan
    Posted Sep 9, 2008 at 7:32 PM | Permalink

    @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.

    • Phil.
      Posted Sep 9, 2008 at 10:48 PM | Permalink

      Re: Shawn Whelan (#451),

      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.

      Yes Shawn, as always you underplay how difficult that was.

      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.

      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.

      Henry Larsen does not mention navigating through much ice in 1944. It was more of a walk in the park through previously unavigated waters.

      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!

  384. GeneII
    Posted Sep 9, 2008 at 7:46 PM | Permalink

    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

    http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/050/mwr-050-11-0589a.pdf

    • Phil.
      Posted Sep 9, 2008 at 9:45 PM | Permalink

      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.

  385. TAC
    Posted Sep 9, 2008 at 9:11 PM | Permalink

    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

  386. Shawn Whelan
    Posted Sep 10, 2008 at 5:43 AM | Permalink

    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.

  387. Shawn Whelan
    Posted Sep 10, 2008 at 6:38 AM | Permalink

    ‘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.

  388. Shawn Whelan
    Posted Sep 10, 2008 at 7:45 AM | Permalink

    “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.

  389. Steve B
    Posted Sep 10, 2008 at 8:22 AM | Permalink

    #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.

    • Phil.
      Posted Sep 10, 2008 at 12:16 PM | Permalink

      Re: Steve B (#459),

      #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.

      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),

  390. Aaron Wells
    Posted Sep 10, 2008 at 8:47 AM | Permalink

    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

  391. STAFFAN LINDSTROEM
    Posted Sep 10, 2008 at 8:53 AM | Permalink

    #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…

    • DeWitt Payne
      Posted Sep 10, 2008 at 9:14 AM | Permalink

      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.

      • Phil.
        Posted Sep 10, 2008 at 10:14 AM | Permalink

        Re: DeWitt Payne (#462),

        I don’t have the numerical data for CT, but the minimum, IIRC was about 3.0 Mm2 in mid September 2007.

        As I recall the exact number was 2.92, today it is 3.098, around the thickness of the line on their graph.

    • Phil.
      Posted Sep 10, 2008 at 10:19 AM | Permalink

      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.

  392. Chris
    Posted Sep 10, 2008 at 10:46 AM | Permalink

    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.

  393. Chris
    Posted Sep 10, 2008 at 11:07 AM | Permalink

    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???

  394. Chris
    Posted Sep 10, 2008 at 11:24 AM | Permalink

    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…………

  395. Chris
    Posted Sep 10, 2008 at 11:29 AM | Permalink

    in last post for some reason my “eleven degrees C” didn’t appear quite right, but that’s how it should read.

  396. STAFFAN LINDSTROEM
    Posted Sep 10, 2008 at 11:30 AM | Permalink

    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

  397. Matt
    Posted Sep 10, 2008 at 11:59 AM | Permalink

    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

    • Phil.
      Posted Sep 10, 2008 at 4:16 PM | Permalink

      Re: Matt (#470),

      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.

      5000 corresponds to 128 grid cells, it’s the sort of patterns you expect from pixelated data.

  398. Aaron Wells
    Posted Sep 10, 2008 at 12:11 PM | Permalink

    So maybe they estimate every other day or so?

    JAXA uses a 2-day average.

  399. SteveSadlov
    Posted Sep 10, 2008 at 12:16 PM | Permalink

    Chris, I really appreciate your rheological sensibilities. Many Cryologists appear to lack such training let alone intuition.

  400. DeWitt Payne
    Posted Sep 10, 2008 at 12:35 PM | Permalink

    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.

  401. GeneII
    Posted Sep 10, 2008 at 2:14 PM | Permalink

    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.

    • Phil.
      Posted Sep 11, 2008 at 10:14 PM | Permalink

      Re: GeneII (#475),

      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.

      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)?

      • Shawn Whelan
        Posted Sep 12, 2008 at 9:36 AM | Permalink

        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.

  402. GeneII
    Posted Sep 10, 2008 at 2:23 PM | Permalink

    #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

  403. Real Richard Sharpe
    Posted Sep 10, 2008 at 5:41 PM | Permalink

    Phil (447) says:

    5000 corresponds to 128 grid cells, it’s the sort of patterns you expect from pixelated data.

    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?

    • BarryW
      Posted Sep 10, 2008 at 8:22 PM | Permalink

      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.

      • TerryBixler
        Posted Sep 10, 2008 at 10:16 PM | Permalink

        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.

        • BarryW
          Posted Sep 11, 2008 at 12:30 PM | Permalink

          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.

  404. Real Richard Sharpe
    Posted Sep 10, 2008 at 9:00 PM | Permalink

    Well, 128 is 0x80 … there should be nothing special about that. It’s only 1 bit set out of 8.

  405. TAC
    Posted Sep 10, 2008 at 9:17 PM | Permalink

    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

  406. Mike Bryant
    Posted Sep 10, 2008 at 9:55 PM | Permalink

    Can I relax now? Or do I need to wait a couple more weeks?

  407. Jared
    Posted Sep 11, 2008 at 3:04 AM | Permalink

    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.

  408. Posted Sep 11, 2008 at 3:26 AM | Permalink

    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.

  409. Posted Sep 11, 2008 at 3:30 AM | Permalink

    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

    • Aaron Wells
      Posted Sep 11, 2008 at 9:38 AM | Permalink

      Re: Tony Brown (#486)

      snip – no need to go there.

      PS – I might have snipped the wrong post. If I did, sorry bout that.

  410. Chris
    Posted Sep 11, 2008 at 3:40 AM | Permalink

    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.

  411. Aaron Wells
    Posted Sep 11, 2008 at 9:15 AM | Permalink

    Can I relax now? Or do I need to wait a couple more weeks?

    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

  412. Jared
    Posted Sep 11, 2008 at 10:15 AM | Permalink

    Tony #486…
    snip – no need to go there.

  413. Aztec Bill
    Posted Sep 11, 2008 at 10:18 AM | Permalink

    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/??

  414. DeWitt Payne
    Posted Sep 11, 2008 at 10:24 AM | Permalink

    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.

  415. Chris
    Posted Sep 11, 2008 at 10:42 AM | Permalink

    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)

  416. Chris
    Posted Sep 11, 2008 at 10:49 AM | Permalink

    note: midday if you live in the uk!

  417. DeWitt Payne
    Posted Sep 11, 2008 at 10:57 AM | Permalink

    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

  418. Posted Sep 11, 2008 at 10:59 AM | Permalink

    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

  419. Shawn Whelan
    Posted Sep 11, 2008 at 11:12 AM | Permalink

    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?

  420. Aaron Wells
    Posted Sep 11, 2008 at 11:14 AM | Permalink

    I see that there was an Extent increase yesterday of 3,437.

    Bill, you are using the preliminary data. The final data gave a much larger extent area increase of 21,875 km^2.

    • BarryW
      Posted Sep 11, 2008 at 12:38 PM | Permalink

      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?

  421. Posted Sep 11, 2008 at 11:19 AM | Permalink

    My post #496

    sorry, here is link

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7609382.stm

    Tony Brown

  422. Shawn Whelan
    Posted Sep 11, 2008 at 11:21 AM | Permalink

    @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.”

    • Phil.
      Posted Sep 11, 2008 at 3:48 PM | Permalink

      Re: Shawn Whelan (#500),

      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.”

      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!

      • Shawn Whelan
        Posted Sep 12, 2008 at 8:02 AM | Permalink

        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

        • Phil.
          Posted Sep 12, 2008 at 8:32 AM | Permalink

          Re: Shawn Whelan (#536),

          I never said from end to end

          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.

        • Shawn Whelan
          Posted Sep 12, 2008 at 9:08 AM | Permalink

          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.

        • Phil.
          Posted Sep 12, 2008 at 11:31 AM | Permalink

          Re: Shawn Whelan (#540),

          There you go pushing your propaganda again!

          It still makes no sense that the Arctic has been getting colder every decade (sic) 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.

          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.

          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.

          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’.

  423. Joe Solters
    Posted Sep 11, 2008 at 12:15 PM | Permalink

    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.

  424. Chris
    Posted Sep 11, 2008 at 12:46 PM | Permalink

    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?”

  425. Chris
    Posted Sep 11, 2008 at 12:52 PM | Permalink

    #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)

  426. AndyW
    Posted Sep 11, 2008 at 1:53 PM | Permalink

    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

  427. lurker bill
    Posted Sep 11, 2008 at 2:51 PM | Permalink

    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.

  428. Aaron Wells
    Posted Sep 11, 2008 at 3:35 PM | Permalink

    I think GeneII is actually Sen. Inhofe. Gene, can you disprove that, preferably with a peer-reviewed study?

    Okay!! I confess. I’m Senator Inhofe. I couldn’t just sit back and let Gene take the heat. And I’m no toad! ;-)

    • lurker bill
      Posted Sep 11, 2008 at 4:39 PM | Permalink

      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!

      • GP
        Posted Sep 11, 2008 at 5:20 PM | Permalink

        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?

  429. DeWitt Payne
    Posted Sep 11, 2008 at 3:43 PM | Permalink

    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.

  430. STAFFAN LINDSTROEM
    Posted Sep 11, 2008 at 4:32 PM | Permalink

    #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 …

  431. kim
    Posted Sep 11, 2008 at 5:02 PM | Permalink

    Gee, I hope you’re right about the ‘any monkey-business will be found out and careers will end’.
    ============================================================

  432. Michael Hauber
    Posted Sep 11, 2008 at 5:18 PM | Permalink

    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.

    • TerryBixler
      Posted Sep 11, 2008 at 5:46 PM | Permalink

      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.

    • DeWitt Payne
      Posted Sep 11, 2008 at 6:28 PM | Permalink

      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.

  433. Aztec Bill
    Posted Sep 11, 2008 at 6:11 PM | Permalink
    • DeWitt Payne
      Posted Sep 11, 2008 at 6:30 PM | Permalink

      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.

  434. STAFFAN LINDSTROEM
    Posted Sep 11, 2008 at 6:39 PM | Permalink

    #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

    • Phil.
      Posted Sep 11, 2008 at 7:21 PM | Permalink

      Re: STAFFAN LINDSTROEM (#520),

      ……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

      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.

      • DeWitt Payne
        Posted Sep 11, 2008 at 8:58 PM | Permalink

        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.

  435. GeneII
    Posted Sep 11, 2008 at 7:12 PM | Permalink

    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!

  436. GeneII
    Posted Sep 11, 2008 at 7:38 PM | Permalink

    Re: #508

    “I think GeneII is actually Sen. Inhofe.”
    Okay!! I confess. I’m Senator Inhofe. I couldn’t just sit back and let Gene take the heat.

    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.

  437. Real Richard Sharpe
    Posted Sep 11, 2008 at 8:40 PM | Permalink

    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.

    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.

  438. TAC
    Posted Sep 11, 2008 at 9:15 PM | Permalink

    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

  439. Mike Bryant
    Posted Sep 11, 2008 at 9:28 PM | Permalink

    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.

    • Aztec Bill
      Posted Sep 12, 2008 at 9:23 AM | Permalink

      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”.

  440. AndyW
    Posted Sep 11, 2008 at 11:50 PM | Permalink

    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

  441. crosspatch
    Posted Sep 12, 2008 at 12:10 AM | Permalink

    “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?

  442. Flanagan
    Posted Sep 12, 2008 at 3:11 AM | Permalink

    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..

    • BarryW
      Posted Sep 12, 2008 at 4:14 AM | Permalink

      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.

  443. Chris
    Posted Sep 12, 2008 at 3:27 AM | Permalink

    Interesting take on the Pugh expedition:

    http://www.mounteverest.net/news.php?id=17551

  444. Posted Sep 12, 2008 at 6:28 AM | Permalink

    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

  445. Mike Bryant
    Posted Sep 12, 2008 at 7:06 AM | Permalink

    “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!

  446. Matt
    Posted Sep 12, 2008 at 8:15 AM | Permalink

    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

  447. Aaron Wells
    Posted Sep 12, 2008 at 8:43 AM | Permalink

    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

  448. Shawn Whelan
    Posted Sep 12, 2008 at 9:31 AM | Permalink

    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.

    • Aztec Bill
      Posted Sep 12, 2008 at 10:50 AM | Permalink

      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.

  449. Jared
    Posted Sep 12, 2008 at 10:02 AM | Permalink

    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.

    • Phil.
      Posted Sep 12, 2008 at 11:47 AM | Permalink

      Re: Jared (#544),

      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.

      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),

      I wrote the CIS and they deny ever declaring the Northern Route open and the NSIDC has not declared the N. Route open.

      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!

      • Shawn Whelan
        Posted Sep 12, 2008 at 1:05 PM | Permalink

        Re: Phil. (#550),

        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!

        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.

        • Phil.
          Posted Sep 12, 2008 at 4:16 PM | Permalink

          Re: Shawn Whelan (#554),

          So your saying the ice in 1944 and the ice in 2008 are at a similar level after 60plus years of AGW?

          No, although it’s possible that it was similar in the Parry Strait, McClure was blocked then though.

          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.

          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.

        • TerryBixler
          Posted Sep 12, 2008 at 5:06 PM | Permalink

          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?

        • Shawn Whelan
          Posted Sep 12, 2008 at 6:27 PM | Permalink

          Re: Phil. (#562),

          No, although it’s possible that it was similar in the Parry Strait, McClure was blocked then though.

          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

          Except of course he didn’t, he was forced to spend two winters in the passage iced in!

          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)

          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.

          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?

        • Phil.
          Posted Sep 13, 2008 at 2:05 PM | Permalink

          Re: Shawn Whelan (#566),

          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.

          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.

          McCLure easily sailed right into the McClure Strait from the East and discovered the NW Passage

          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!

          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.

          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.

        • Shawn Whelan
          Posted Sep 13, 2008 at 9:50 PM | Permalink

          Re: Phil. (#594),

          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?

          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.

          That ain’t my idea of easy, not only that McClure never entered the McClure strait by ship!

          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

  450. DeWitt Payne
    Posted Sep 12, 2008 at 10:43 AM | Permalink

    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.

  451. Shawn Whelan
    Posted Sep 12, 2008 at 11:00 AM | Permalink

    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

  452. Chris
    Posted Sep 12, 2008 at 11:22 AM | Permalink

    “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:

    • Phil.
      Posted Sep 12, 2008 at 12:20 PM | Permalink

      Re: Chris (#548),

      “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.

      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.

  453. Shawn Whelan
    Posted Sep 12, 2008 at 12:58 PM | Permalink

    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?

    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

    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.

    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 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)!

    I never mentioned anything about one year it was you that stated;

    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!

    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.

    Fort Ross, on September 2, 1937, was abandoned five years later after thick summer ice

    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.

    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’.

    “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

    • Phil.
      Posted Sep 12, 2008 at 3:49 PM | Permalink

      Re: Shawn Whelan (#552),

      “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.”

      Which part of ‘through’ don’t you understand? The Western end was blocked!

      He says ’42 was the worst year for ice in the Arctic yet he still made it through the Passage.

      There you go again.

      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.

      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.

      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.

  454. Chris
    Posted Sep 12, 2008 at 1:05 PM | Permalink

    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.

  455. Posted Sep 12, 2008 at 2:09 PM | Permalink

    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

  456. Chris
    Posted Sep 12, 2008 at 2:18 PM | Permalink

    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)

    • Hans Erren
      Posted Sep 12, 2008 at 2:33 PM | Permalink

      Re: Chris (#556),
      Hadley sst does have this bucket correction issue, doesn’t it?

  457. DeWitt Payne
    Posted Sep 12, 2008 at 2:31 PM | Permalink

    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

    • See - owe to Rich
      Posted Sep 13, 2008 at 3:38 AM | Permalink

      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.

  458. Chris
    Posted Sep 12, 2008 at 3:51 PM | Permalink

    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)

  459. Chris
    Posted Sep 12, 2008 at 3:57 PM | Permalink

    In #560 I was referring to HadSST2 NH, as in #556.

  460. Help-a-Layman
    Posted Sep 12, 2008 at 5:53 PM | Permalink

    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.

    #555 Tony Brown

    the newsreels and newspapers of the 30’s and 40’s showing a melting arctic

    I wonder if these newsreels still exist.

    • Shawn Whelan
      Posted Sep 13, 2008 at 9:31 AM | Permalink

      Re: Help-a-Layman (#564),

      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.

      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.

  461. DaveM
    Posted Sep 12, 2008 at 6:07 PM | Permalink

    American thinker has an interesting new bend from NASA up.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/09/new_scientist_sea_ice_increase.html

  462. Shawn Whelan
    Posted Sep 12, 2008 at 6:32 PM | Permalink

    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

    • Ben
      Posted Sep 12, 2008 at 9:23 PM | Permalink

      Re: Shawn Whelan (#567),

      Who would quarrel with that?

      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.

  463. TAC
    Posted Sep 12, 2008 at 9:05 PM | Permalink

    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

  464. Steve B
    Posted Sep 12, 2008 at 9:59 PM | Permalink

    #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.

    • DeWitt Payne
      Posted Sep 13, 2008 at 9:03 AM | Permalink

      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.’

  465. RK
    Posted Sep 12, 2008 at 10:25 PM | Permalink

    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

  466. Jon
    Posted Sep 12, 2008 at 11:10 PM | Permalink

    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.

    • bender
      Posted Sep 13, 2008 at 4:21 AM | Permalink

      Re: Jon (#572),

      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.

      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.

      • DeWitt Payne
        Posted Sep 13, 2008 at 8:50 AM | Permalink

        Re: bender (#576),

        This is silly. Proof doesn’t come in the form of a single data point.

        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.

  467. STAFFAN LINDSTROEM
    Posted Sep 13, 2008 at 2:19 AM | Permalink

    #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…

  468. Chris
    Posted Sep 13, 2008 at 3:09 AM | Permalink

    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.

    • lurker bill
      Posted Sep 13, 2008 at 7:21 AM | Permalink

      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!

    • Phil.
      Posted Sep 14, 2008 at 6:39 PM | Permalink

      Re: Chris (#574),

      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.

      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.

      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

      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.

      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.

      If I’d commented on the deployment of NP-35 you might have a point!

      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.)

      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.

      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

      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?

  469. RK
    Posted Sep 13, 2008 at 4:30 AM | Permalink

    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.

  470. Chris
    Posted Sep 13, 2008 at 5:27 AM | Permalink

    #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.

  471. lurker bill
    Posted Sep 13, 2008 at 7:29 AM | Permalink

    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?

  472. Chris
    Posted Sep 13, 2008 at 8:23 AM | Permalink

    #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……

  473. Shawn Whelan
    Posted Sep 13, 2008 at 9:33 AM | Permalink

    A Map of the area.

  474. STAFFAN LINDSTROEM
    Posted Sep 13, 2008 at 9:51 AM | Permalink

    #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??

  475. AndyW
    Posted Sep 13, 2008 at 10:34 AM | Permalink

    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?

  476. DeWitt Payne
    Posted Sep 13, 2008 at 12:01 PM | Permalink

    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),

    PS Do people think we have already reached the minima this year or not? Bets?

    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.

  477. Chris
    Posted Sep 13, 2008 at 12:23 PM | Permalink

    #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)

    • DeWitt Payne
      Posted Sep 13, 2008 at 12:38 PM | Permalink

      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.

      • DeWitt Payne
        Posted Sep 14, 2008 at 12:36 PM | Permalink

        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

  478. GeneII
    Posted Sep 13, 2008 at 12:54 PM | Permalink

    A witch!! A witch!! Phil turned me into a newt! ….. I got better.

    Funny!

    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.

    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.

    So it was

    merely a flesh wound?

    • DeWitt Payne
      Posted Sep 13, 2008 at 1:01 PM | Permalink

      Re: GeneII (#592),

      And now for something completely different…

      That should do for the Monty Python references.

  479. GeneII
    Posted Sep 13, 2008 at 2:30 PM | Permalink

    #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

    • Shawn Whelan
      Posted Sep 13, 2008 at 10:06 PM | Permalink

      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.

  480. Jon
    Posted Sep 13, 2008 at 3:11 PM | Permalink

    This is silly. Proof doesn’t come in the form of a single data point

    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.

    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.

    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.

    • bender
      Posted Sep 13, 2008 at 3:44 PM | Permalink

      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.

      • Jon
        Posted Sep 13, 2008 at 6:15 PM | Permalink

        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.

        • bender
          Posted Sep 13, 2008 at 10:10 PM | Permalink

          Re: Jon (#602), You’ve asserted that incorrect statement twice now. Care for a lesson in dynamics?

        • Jon
          Posted Sep 14, 2008 at 10:43 AM | Permalink

          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.

        • bender
          Posted Sep 14, 2008 at 12:55 PM | Permalink

          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.

        • Jon
          Posted Sep 14, 2008 at 3:11 PM | Permalink

          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.

        • bender
          Posted Sep 14, 2008 at 4:13 PM | Permalink

          Re: Jon (#642),

          we can conclude that 2007 was not the threshold year in the terms of their argument

          No we cannot. You have not understood the argument.

        • Jon
          Posted Sep 14, 2008 at 4:53 PM | Permalink

          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.

        • bender
          Posted Sep 14, 2008 at 5:23 PM | Permalink

          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:

          2007’s meltback onto itself–which is the subject of this thread

          I’m concerned with your unsupportable statement in #572, nothing more. Shifting the context is not going to salvage the incorrect statement in #572.

        • bender
          Posted Sep 14, 2008 at 4:21 PM | Permalink

          Re: Jon (#642),

          Now that you’ve had your say, go back and read what I wrote.

          So now that you’ve had your say – again – go back and read what I wrote.

        • bender
          Posted Sep 14, 2008 at 1:00 PM | Permalink

          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.

  481. Chris
    Posted Sep 13, 2008 at 3:15 PM | Permalink

    #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.

  482. Phil.
    Posted Sep 13, 2008 at 3:30 PM | Permalink

    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.

    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.”

  483. Chris
    Posted Sep 13, 2008 at 3:36 PM | Permalink

    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.

    • Phil.
      Posted Sep 13, 2008 at 4:55 PM | Permalink

      Re: Chris (#599),

      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.

      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.

    • Shawn Whelan
      Posted Sep 13, 2008 at 9:55 PM | Permalink

      Re: Chris (#599),

      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.

      The Berrimilla would never have made it through Larsen’s Northern route in 2008.

  484. STAFFAN LINDSTROEM
    Posted Sep 13, 2008 at 7:45 PM | Permalink

    # 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!]

  485. GeneII
    Posted Sep 13, 2008 at 10:18 PM | Permalink

    #606

    Thanks Shawn

  486. Mike Bryant
    Posted Sep 13, 2008 at 10:28 PM | Permalink

    The difference in area between 2008 and 2007 is about the same as California.

  487. Ernie
    Posted Sep 14, 2008 at 12:48 AM | Permalink

    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.

  488. Richard111
    Posted Sep 14, 2008 at 1:19 AM | Permalink

    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?

    • bender
      Posted Sep 14, 2008 at 9:52 AM | Permalink

      Re: Richard111 (#611),

      will it not add to the multi-year ice and be less likely to melt in 2009?

      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.

      • BarryW
        Posted Sep 14, 2008 at 11:07 AM | Permalink

        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.

        • TerryBixler
          Posted Sep 14, 2008 at 11:38 AM | Permalink

          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.

    • Phil.
      Posted Sep 14, 2008 at 10:20 AM | Permalink

      Re: Richard111 (#611),

      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?

      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.

  489. TAC
    Posted Sep 14, 2008 at 2:01 AM | Permalink

    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

  490. Chris
    Posted Sep 14, 2008 at 2:33 AM | Permalink

    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?

  491. Chris
    Posted Sep 14, 2008 at 8:06 AM | Permalink

    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)

  492. Shawn Whelan
    Posted Sep 14, 2008 at 8:14 AM | Permalink

    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.

  493. Chris
    Posted Sep 14, 2008 at 8:16 AM | Permalink

    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.

  494. Mike Bryant
    Posted Sep 14, 2008 at 10:31 AM | Permalink

    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?

    • Shawn Whelan
      Posted Sep 14, 2008 at 12:14 PM | Permalink

      Re: Mike Bryant (#619),

      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?

      Do you mean climate change?

  495. DeWitt Payne
    Posted Sep 14, 2008 at 10:36 AM | Permalink

    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.

  496. Mike Bryant
    Posted Sep 14, 2008 at 11:28 AM | Permalink

    “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.

  497. Real Richard Sharpe
    Posted Sep 14, 2008 at 11:54 AM | Permalink

    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.

    I think there is some disagreement with that statement … seems there was a something that would formerly not have been called a sunspot (and observers reported it in bot the southern and norther hemispheres of the sun) that has been counted and capped the run of spotless days at 42 or something less.

    • TerryBixler
      Posted Sep 14, 2008 at 3:35 PM | Permalink

      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.

  498. Mike Bryant
    Posted Sep 14, 2008 at 12:22 PM | Permalink

    Is climate change the preferred moniker of AGW on this blog?

    • Shawn Whelan
      Posted Sep 14, 2008 at 5:11 PM | Permalink

      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.

  499. Chris
    Posted Sep 14, 2008 at 12:22 PM | Permalink

    #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 :) :)

  500. GeneII
    Posted Sep 14, 2008 at 12:59 PM | Permalink

    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.

  501. GeneII
    Posted Sep 14, 2008 at 1:00 PM | Permalink

    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.

    • bender
      Posted Sep 14, 2008 at 1:03 PM | Permalink

      Re: GeneII (#631),

      There is unsound emphasis being put on the last 29 years of satellite records.

      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.

  502. GeneII
    Posted Sep 14, 2008 at 1:36 PM | Permalink

    From Lubos Motl at The Reference Frame, this story

    NORTHWEST PASSAGE OPEN! But not this year. Time Magazine Archive, Monday, Sep. 13, 1937

    • bender
      Posted Sep 14, 2008 at 2:23 PM | Permalink

      Re: GeneII (#635), There is unsound emphasis being put on one-off anecdotes in this thread.

    • Phil.
      Posted Sep 14, 2008 at 3:12 PM | Permalink

      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.

      • GP
        Posted Sep 14, 2008 at 5:22 PM | Permalink

        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?

  503. Aaron Wells
    Posted Sep 14, 2008 at 1:39 PM | Permalink

    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

  504. STAFFAN LINDSTROEM
    Posted Sep 14, 2008 at 2:00 PM | Permalink

    #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…

  505. Chris
    Posted Sep 14, 2008 at 2:12 PM | Permalink

    #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!!!

  506. Chris
    Posted Sep 14, 2008 at 2:45 PM | Permalink

    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

  507. tty
    Posted Sep 14, 2008 at 2:59 PM | Permalink

    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…..

  508. GeneII
    Posted Sep 14, 2008 at 3:56 PM | Permalink

    Steve McIntyre pointed out this story in “Sea Ice – the Stretch Run (#1 of this thread)” in comment #4

    On June 11, Andrew Revkin reported that 11 of 14 expert teams predicted that this summer’s melt would be at least as extraordinary as last year’s.

    Fourteen research teams studying the impacts of warming on the Arctic Ocean have issued independent projections of how the sea ice will behave this summer, and 11 of them foresee an ice retreat at least as extraordinary as last year’s or even more dramatic.

    Another busted flush.

    Will we find DotEarth posting any comments on this prediction being wrong?

    • kim
      Posted Sep 14, 2008 at 4:35 PM | Permalink

      Re: GeneII (#645),

      GeneII, Andy Revkin promised to do another post at ice minimum. He’s a believer, but fair and honest.
      =============================================================

    • Phil.
      Posted Sep 14, 2008 at 5:21 PM | Permalink

      Re: GeneII (#645),

      Will we find DotEarth posting any comments on this prediction being wrong?

      A rather strange thing to do when it wasn’t wrong!

      • kim
        Posted Sep 14, 2008 at 6:21 PM | Permalink

        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.
        ==================================================

        • Phil.
          Posted Sep 15, 2008 at 1:17 AM | Permalink

          Re: kim (#654),

          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.

          There’s nothing to ‘wriggle out’ of, it’s a histogram of the different forecast values.

    • kim
      Posted Sep 17, 2008 at 7:26 AM | Permalink

      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.
      =======================================

  509. Shawn Whelan
    Posted Sep 14, 2008 at 7:28 PM | Permalink

    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

  510. STAFFAN LINDSTROEM
    Posted Sep 14, 2008 at 7:29 PM | Permalink

    #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…

  511. STAFFAN LINDSTROEM
    Posted Sep 14, 2008 at 7:34 PM | Permalink

    #657 …Gotta work FOR the mouldy bread…

  512. GeneII
    Posted Sep 14, 2008 at 7:57 PM | Permalink

    Re: #648 kim

    Andy Revkin promised to do another post at ice minimum. He’s a believer, but fair and honest.

    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.

  513. TAC
    Posted Sep 14, 2008 at 9:05 PM | Permalink

    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

  514. bender
    Posted Sep 14, 2008 at 9:25 PM | Permalink

    One commenter from the Revkin thread, doug l, says:

    I’m curious as to why the 5 groups mentioned chose not to issue a report. It seems to be a curious kind of consensus.

    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.

  515. bender
    Posted Sep 14, 2008 at 10:23 PM | Permalink

    Another reasonable comment from the Revkin thread:

    In this discussion of global climate trends, it is important to remember that individual year events are not necessarily as revealing as longer-term (decadal scale or more) trends.

    I am not a sea ice expert, and 2008 very well may be a low sea ice minimum, but just based on statistics, it is also reasonable to expect that because 2007 was an extremely low sea-ice year, 2008 may actually have more sea ice because of interannual variabillity.

    This is just because the odds of having one extreme year (2007) followed directly by another extreme year (2008) is lower than having an extreme year followed by a more moderate year. But of course this does not take into account directional trends.

    The reason that I bring this up is that there is often the trend to want to point to single climate/weather events as important indicators of global warming, but then if the pattern reverses for a year or two, this seems to add ‘fuel’ to skeptics who can say that predictions were wrong.

    So, my guess for 2008 is that the sea-ice minimum will not be as small as 2007 just based on the odds. But that doesn’t mean I’m still not worried for the polar bear and sea-ice albedo feedbacks! (and also remember that I’m not out there making direct observations like the science groups are!)

    — teddy shed

    There is an important distinction between healthy skepticism and unhealthy denial.

  516. Jon
    Posted Sep 14, 2008 at 11:02 PM | Permalink

    Ice Extent Plotted
    Definitely will be interesting to see if we get a double dip.

  517. Mike Bryant
    Posted Sep 14, 2008 at 11:15 PM | Permalink

    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.

    • bender
      Posted Sep 15, 2008 at 12:00 AM | Permalink

      Re: Mike Bryant (#664),

      No one knows what the next ten years holds for the future of the sea ice.

      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.

      • Mike Bryant
        Posted Sep 15, 2008 at 6:57 AM | Permalink

        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.

  518. Jon
    Posted Sep 14, 2008 at 11:24 PM | Permalink

    So, my guess for 2008 is that the sea-ice minimum will not be as small as 2007 just based on the odds.

    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.

  519. crosspatch
    Posted Sep 14, 2008 at 11:44 PM | Permalink

    “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.

  520. Chris
    Posted Sep 15, 2008 at 1:20 AM | Permalink

    #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.

  521. Posted Sep 15, 2008 at 3:45 AM | Permalink

    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

    http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2008/09/01/was-there-less-arctic-ice-in-1932/

    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

    • jae
      Posted Sep 15, 2008 at 10:08 AM | Permalink

      Re: Tony Brown (#670),

      Time Magazine covered the sailing of the NW Passage in the 30’s.

      • DeWitt Payne
        Posted Sep 15, 2008 at 10:28 AM | Permalink

        Re: jae (#689),

        This isn’t news. If you had actually read the thread, you would have seen that this was posted yesterday here.

  522. John Goetz
    Posted Sep 15, 2008 at 3:49 AM | Permalink

    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”.

    • Phil.
      Posted Sep 15, 2008 at 6:38 AM | Permalink

      Re: John Goetz (#671),

      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”.

      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.

      • bender
        Posted Sep 15, 2008 at 7:47 AM | Permalink

        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.

        • DeWitt Payne
          Posted Sep 15, 2008 at 9:16 AM | Permalink

          Re: bender (#676),

          Observation, so far, puts us right in the middle of that histogram. i.e. Observed matches predicted within uncertainty bounds.

          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.

        • bender
          Posted Sep 15, 2008 at 10:20 AM | Permalink

          Re: DeWitt Payne (#683)

          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.

          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.

        • Mike Bryant
          Posted Sep 15, 2008 at 9:34 AM | Permalink

          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?”

        • bender
          Posted Sep 15, 2008 at 10:26 AM | Permalink

          Re: Mike Bryant (#686),

          Why can’t you say, “There IS total ignorance of the future?”

          You think “there is total ignorance” about how the climate system functions? No predictability whatsoever?

        • Mike Bryant
          Posted Sep 15, 2008 at 11:15 AM | Permalink

          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?

        • bender
          Posted Sep 15, 2008 at 11:50 AM | Permalink

          Re: Mike Bryant (#704),

          Did you even read my comment?

          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:

          could temperatures catch up to his trend line sometime in the future? Possibly

          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.

  523. tty
    Posted Sep 15, 2008 at 4:27 AM | Permalink

    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.

  524. Chris
    Posted Sep 15, 2008 at 5:09 AM | Permalink

    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…..”

  525. bender
    Posted Sep 15, 2008 at 7:48 AM | Permalink

    Anecdotes, anecdotes. Why don’t we tell stories about the width of tree rings in 1930?

    • Jared
      Posted Sep 15, 2008 at 11:26 AM | Permalink

      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.

      • bender
        Posted Sep 15, 2008 at 11:32 AM | Permalink

        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.

        • Jared
          Posted Sep 15, 2008 at 11:38 AM | Permalink

          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.

        • Shawn Whelan
          Posted Sep 15, 2008 at 11:42 AM | Permalink

          Re: bender (#707),

          You can misrepresent and ridicule my position.

          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.

        • bender
          Posted Sep 15, 2008 at 12:08 PM | Permalink

          Re: Shawn Whelan (#714),

          burn to a crisp

          “Burn to a crisp?” Is that what IPCC AR4 predicts? What page?
          These systematic distortions of the facts are most distasteful.

        • bender
          Posted Sep 15, 2008 at 12:11 PM | Permalink

          Re: Shawn Whelan (#714),

          blindly cling

          Yes, that’s me to a T. Blindly clinging to my precious, fragile faith.

        • bender
          Posted Sep 15, 2008 at 12:13 PM | Permalink

          Re: Shawn Whelan (#714),

          evidence that refutes it

          Evidence which exists only in the fertile imagination of the commenter.

  526. Posted Sep 15, 2008 at 8:13 AM | Permalink

    #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

  527. Mike Bryant
    Posted Sep 15, 2008 at 8:21 AM | Permalink

    “credible guess”, “uncertainty”, I may be completely nuts here, but that sounds like they don’t know. Perhaps we should try speaking german?

  528. Shawn Whelan
    Posted Sep 15, 2008 at 8:21 AM | Permalink

    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.

  529. bender
    Posted Sep 15, 2008 at 8:26 AM | Permalink

    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.

    • Shawn Whelan
      Posted Sep 15, 2008 at 9:56 AM | Permalink

      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.

      • bender
        Posted Sep 15, 2008 at 10:34 AM | Permalink

        Re: Shawn Whelan (#687),

        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

        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.

        • Shawn Whelan
          Posted Sep 15, 2008 at 10:44 AM | Permalink

          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.

        • Ben
          Posted Sep 15, 2008 at 11:01 AM | Permalink

          Re: Shawn Whelan (#698),

          There has been a huge increase in manmade CO2 and no increase in temps. That is not what was predicted.

          May we take this to mean that you’re in denial over the possibility of ocean heating or ice melting accounting for the difference?

        • Shawn Whelan
          Posted Sep 15, 2008 at 11:34 AM | Permalink

          Re: Ben (#701),

          May we take this to mean that you’re in denial over the possibility of ocean heating or ice melting accounting for the difference?

          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?

        • bender
          Posted Sep 15, 2008 at 11:52 AM | Permalink

          Re: Shawn Whelan (#709),

          now your saying …

          So now you’re imagining that I’ve changed my position?

        • Shawn Whelan
          Posted Sep 15, 2008 at 11:59 AM | Permalink

          Re: bender (#717),

          So now you’re imagining that I’ve changed my position?

          No I am not saying that. If you look at the changing facts it might be a good idea.

        • Jared
          Posted Sep 15, 2008 at 11:36 AM | Permalink

          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?

        • bender
          Posted Sep 15, 2008 at 12:01 PM | Permalink

          Re: Jared (#711),

          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?

          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?

        • Ben
          Posted Sep 15, 2008 at 11:10 AM | Permalink

          Re: Shawn Whelan (#698),

          How have Hansen’s computer models worked out?Totally wrong.

          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.

        • Jared
          Posted Sep 15, 2008 at 11:31 AM | Permalink

          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.

        • bender
          Posted Sep 15, 2008 at 11:33 AM | Permalink

          Re: Jared (#706), So you prefer to argue against straw men then realistic models. That is a telling choice too.

        • Jared
          Posted Sep 15, 2008 at 11:42 AM | Permalink

          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?

  530. Mike Bryant
    Posted Sep 15, 2008 at 8:50 AM | Permalink

    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.

  531. Aaron Wells
    Posted Sep 15, 2008 at 9:17 AM | Permalink

    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

  532. Flanagan
    Posted Sep 15, 2008 at 9:25 AM | Permalink

    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?

  533. jcl
    Posted Sep 15, 2008 at 9:57 AM | Permalink

    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

  534. STAFFAN LINDSTROEM
    Posted Sep 15, 2008 at 10:13 AM | Permalink

    #660 …JAXA FINAL 09,14,2008…4.745313 km2…+2.969 [2xÖland approx.]

  535. DeWitt Payne
    Posted Sep 15, 2008 at 10:21 AM | Permalink

    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%.

  536. Posted Sep 15, 2008 at 10:42 AM | Permalink

    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

    • Ben
      Posted Sep 15, 2008 at 10:54 AM | Permalink

      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.

  537. Chris
    Posted Sep 15, 2008 at 10:43 AM | Permalink

    #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……

  538. Posted Sep 15, 2008 at 10:44 AM | Permalink

    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

  539. Jared
    Posted Sep 15, 2008 at 11:06 AM | Permalink

    #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.

  540. Chris
    Posted Sep 15, 2008 at 11:35 AM | Permalink

    #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 :)

  541. Chris
    Posted Sep 15, 2008 at 11:41 AM | Permalink

    “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)

  542. Chris
    Posted Sep 15, 2008 at 12:00 PM | Permalink

    #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???)

    • bender
      Posted Sep 15, 2008 at 12:04 PM | Permalink

      Re: Chris (#719),

      What if the oceans are cooling

      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.

      • Jared
        Posted Sep 15, 2008 at 2:48 PM | Permalink

        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?

    • bender
      Posted Sep 15, 2008 at 12:21 PM | Permalink

      Re: Chris (#719),

      ice melting represents a cooling (i.e. increased loss of heat via the poles). This could be a real mechanism

      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!

      • Jared
        Posted Sep 15, 2008 at 2:52 PM | Permalink

        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.

        • bender
          Posted Sep 15, 2008 at 5:48 PM | Permalink

          Re: Jared (#735),

          Oh no, the IPCC couldn’t ever have anything wrong, could they?

          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),

          temps have dropped

          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),

          Seems rather clear cut and simple.

          Yep. That’s the way things appear when nuance is beyond your mental capacity.

          Re: oakgeo (#736),

          I can’t help but feel a little over/underwhelmed

          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.

        • Raven
          Posted Sep 15, 2008 at 8:31 PM | Permalink

          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.

        • bender
          Posted Sep 15, 2008 at 9:23 PM | Permalink

          Re: Raven (#741), Agreed.

        • DeWitt Payne
          Posted Sep 15, 2008 at 9:29 PM | Permalink

          Re: Raven (#741),

          Thanks for stating what should have been obvious from the beginning. Now can we stop the dueling anecdotes, please.

        • Shawn Whelan
          Posted Sep 15, 2008 at 10:31 PM | Permalink

          Re: Raven (#741),

          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.

          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.

        • DeWitt Payne
          Posted Sep 15, 2008 at 10:51 PM | Permalink

          Re: Shawn Whelan (#749),

          Are those anecdotes? Yes.

          : a usually short narrative of an interesting, amusing, or biographical incident

          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.

        • Shawn Whelan
          Posted Sep 16, 2008 at 7:46 AM | Permalink

          Re: DeWitt Payne (#752),

          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.

          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.

        • Lee W
          Posted Sep 16, 2008 at 8:15 AM | Permalink

          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.

        • Raven
          Posted Sep 15, 2008 at 10:58 PM | Permalink

          Re: Shawn Whelan (#749),

          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?

          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

        • Shawn Whelan
          Posted Sep 15, 2008 at 10:35 PM | Permalink

          Re: bender (#737),

          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.

          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)

        • bender
          Posted Sep 15, 2008 at 10:40 PM | Permalink

          Re: Shawn Whelan (#750), Right here, right now. I am pulling for you too.

  543. Chris
    Posted Sep 15, 2008 at 12:15 PM | Permalink

    #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 :)

  544. Shawn Whelan
    Posted Sep 15, 2008 at 12:25 PM | Permalink

    Manmade CO2 is hugely increased in the last ten years and temps have dropped. Seems rather clear cut and simple.

  545. Mike Bryant
    Posted Sep 15, 2008 at 12:27 PM | Permalink

    No one knows…

  546. Posted Sep 15, 2008 at 1:03 PM | Permalink

    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

    • bender
      Posted Sep 15, 2008 at 6:05 PM | Permalink

      Re: Tony Brown (#729),

      if the Scientific Hindcasts failed to pick up the 1930’s warming

      They do, and moreover Hansen et al (2005) have admitted as much.

      do you know of any model that picked up the various other episodes of warming referred to in various posts here?

      Can you clarify? Which episodes? Which posts?

      Re: Chris (#733),

      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.

      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.

  547. crosspatch
    Posted Sep 15, 2008 at 1:09 PM | Permalink

    “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:

    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.

    Interesting that they would think that *global* warming causes more sea ice. That is new “science” indeed.

  548. Chris
    Posted Sep 15, 2008 at 1:18 PM | Permalink

    #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.

  549. Mike Bryant
    Posted Sep 15, 2008 at 1:34 PM | Permalink

    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.

  550. Chris
    Posted Sep 15, 2008 at 2:27 PM | Permalink

    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.

  551. oakgeo
    Posted Sep 15, 2008 at 4:54 PM | Permalink

    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?

  552. oakgeo
    Posted Sep 15, 2008 at 7:04 PM | Permalink

    Gee Bender, thanks for noticing me. I see you on many threads… do you live at CA?

    A single year of data should not overwhelm anyone.

    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.

    And the source of the melting heat is not mysterious. It is tropical weather systems that penetrate otherwise cold polar air.

    To quote Shawn Whelan, “Seems rather clear cut and simple.” Is there no room for nuance?

  553. TerryBixler
    Posted Sep 15, 2008 at 8:08 PM | Permalink

    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.

  554. GeneII
    Posted Sep 15, 2008 at 8:59 PM | Permalink

    #740 Terry Bixler

    The reason that there is so much debate is that the facts have been obscured by public employees protecting their jobs

    Could you explain a little more what you mean?

    • TerryBixler
      Posted Sep 15, 2008 at 9:53 PM | Permalink

      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.

  555. TAC
    Posted Sep 15, 2008 at 9:05 PM | Permalink

    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

  556. GeneII
    Posted Sep 15, 2008 at 10:10 PM | Permalink

    #474 Terry Bixler

    GeneII do you trust the GISS dataset.

    No. 1934/1998 makes that an easy answer.

  557. AndyW
    Posted Sep 15, 2008 at 11:07 PM | Permalink

    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

  558. oakgeo
    Posted Sep 15, 2008 at 11:10 PM | Permalink

    Re. Raven #741, but open questions to anyone:

    My understanding is warm ocean currents are the primary driver for ice melt and air temps are a secondary factor.

    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?

    • ared
      Posted Sep 16, 2008 at 6:17 AM | Permalink

      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…

  559. GeneII
    Posted Sep 16, 2008 at 6:40 AM | Permalink

    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.

    • bender
      Posted Sep 16, 2008 at 8:09 AM | Permalink

      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.]

      • Aaron Wells
        Posted Sep 16, 2008 at 8:30 AM | Permalink

        Re: bender (#760),

        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.]

        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.)

        • bender
          Posted Sep 16, 2008 at 6:26 PM | Permalink

          Re: Aaron Wells (#767),

          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?

          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),

          Anyone who denies there has been (at the very least) little or no warming the past 8-10 years is being a “denialist”

          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.

      • Shawn Whelan
        Posted Sep 16, 2008 at 9:12 AM | Permalink

        Re: bender (#760),

        [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.]

        When and why did they bar common sense from science?

        • Phil.
          Posted Sep 16, 2008 at 9:37 AM | Permalink

          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!

  560. Posted Sep 16, 2008 at 8:05 AM | Permalink

    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

    • bender
      Posted Sep 16, 2008 at 8:17 AM | Permalink

      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.

      • Posted Sep 16, 2008 at 8:56 AM | Permalink

        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

    • DeWitt Payne
      Posted Sep 16, 2008 at 9:03 AM | Permalink

      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.

  561. Aaron Wells
    Posted Sep 16, 2008 at 8:13 AM | Permalink

    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

  562. radar
    Posted Sep 16, 2008 at 8:26 AM | Permalink

    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.

    • bender
      Posted Sep 16, 2008 at 8:29 AM | Permalink

      Re: radar (#764), Where are your trend stats? Those slopes appear not significantly different from zero.

  563. bender
    Posted Sep 16, 2008 at 8:26 AM | Permalink

    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.

  564. bender
    Posted Sep 16, 2008 at 8:30 AM | Permalink

    I’m referring to the 2001 analysis.

  565. Aaron Wells
    Posted Sep 16, 2008 at 8:36 AM | Permalink

    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.

    • DeWitt Payne
      Posted Sep 16, 2008 at 9:14 AM | Permalink

      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.

    • bender
      Posted Sep 16, 2008 at 7:25 PM | Permalink

      Re: Aaron Wells (#769),

      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.

      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.

  566. M. Jeff
    Posted Sep 16, 2008 at 9:16 AM | Permalink

    Aaron Wells, September 16th, 2008 at 8:36 am,

    Which one of the “Three Faces of Ben” are you addressing.

  567. Shawn Whelan
    Posted Sep 16, 2008 at 9:35 AM | Permalink

    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

  568. Posted Sep 16, 2008 at 10:19 AM | Permalink

    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

  569. DeWitt Payne
    Posted Sep 16, 2008 at 10:32 AM | Permalink

    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.

  570. Aztec Bill
    Posted Sep 16, 2008 at 10:41 AM | Permalink

    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.

  571. Shawn Whelan
    Posted Sep 16, 2008 at 10:51 AM | Permalink

    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.

    • Phil.
      Posted Sep 16, 2008 at 7:45 PM | Permalink

      Re: Shawn Whelan (#780),

      I guess the debate is over for the melt of 2008.

      I doubt that very much.

      A large increase in ice in 2008 and perhaps more importantly a huge decrease in the amount of heat in the Arctic.

      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!

      • Shawn Whelan
        Posted Sep 16, 2008 at 9:17 PM | Permalink

        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.

  572. Mark
    Posted Sep 16, 2008 at 11:12 AM | Permalink

    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!

  573. Mark
    Posted Sep 16, 2008 at 11:30 AM | Permalink

    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.

  574. Aaron Wells
    Posted Sep 16, 2008 at 11:40 AM | Permalink

    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.

    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.

  575. Shawn Whelan
    Posted Sep 16, 2008 at 11:45 AM | Permalink

    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/

  576. Mark
    Posted Sep 16, 2008 at 1:59 PM | Permalink

    NSIDC declares minimum extent reached and the Parry Channel route never opened. Almost a 10% increase in ice from 2008. World saved.

    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?

  577. Mike Bryant
    Posted Sep 16, 2008 at 5:08 PM | Permalink

    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,

  578. Jared
    Posted Sep 16, 2008 at 5:44 PM | Permalink

    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.

  579. STAFFAN LINDSTROEM
    Posted Sep 16, 2008 at 6:20 PM | Permalink

    …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??

  580. Mike
    Posted Sep 16, 2008 at 7:23 PM | Permalink

    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?

    • bender
      Posted Sep 16, 2008 at 7:27 PM | Permalink

      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.

  581. GeneII
    Posted Sep 16, 2008 at 7:59 PM | Permalink

    #783 Mark

    sustained low or even lower temperatures we just may see 3 strikes

    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..

    • bender
      Posted Sep 16, 2008 at 8:24 PM | Permalink

      Re: GeneII (#795),

      if the earth continues cooling the way it has been for months now

      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.

    • Mark
      Posted Sep 17, 2008 at 7:20 AM | Permalink

      Re: GeneII (#795),

      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..

      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.

      • bender
        Posted Sep 17, 2008 at 7:32 AM | Permalink

        Re: Mark (#835),

        a cool summer and another cold, snowy winer predicted, many people are now rightly questioning all this AGW nonsense

        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.

        • Mark
          Posted Sep 17, 2008 at 8:56 AM | Permalink

          Re: bender (#839),

          If your model does not include natural variability, then of course you will not be able to see a deterministic trend.

          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.

  582. Posted Sep 16, 2008 at 8:17 PM | Permalink

    Phil–

    “Science is simply common sense at its best–that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”

    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.)

    • bender
      Posted Sep 16, 2008 at 8:34 PM | Permalink

      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!

    • bender
      Posted Sep 16, 2008 at 8:40 PM | Permalink

      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.

    • Lee W
      Posted Sep 16, 2008 at 9:29 PM | Permalink

      Re: lucia (#796),

      When you say

      I don’t think we will ever see trends that disprove AGW as a whole– because the general theory is almost certainty correct.

      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. :-)

    • Shawn Whelan
      Posted Sep 16, 2008 at 9:30 PM | Permalink

      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.

      • bender
        Posted Sep 16, 2008 at 9:52 PM | Permalink

        Re: Shawn Whelan (#811),

        There has been a huge increase in manmade CO2 emissions in the last ten years and the Earth has started to cool.

        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”.

    • Willis Eschenbach
      Posted Sep 16, 2008 at 10:33 PM | Permalink

      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:

      I don’t think we will ever see trends that disprove AGW as a whole– because the general theory is almost certainty correct.

      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.

  583. Mike Bryant
    Posted Sep 16, 2008 at 8:41 PM | Permalink

    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.

    • bender
      Posted Sep 16, 2008 at 9:09 PM | Permalink

      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!

    • bender
      Posted Sep 16, 2008 at 9:23 PM | Permalink

      Re: Mike Bryant (#800),

      one year trend

      Listen up, folks, Mike Bryant is channeling Draper and Smith. The “one year trend” – what a neat invention. Ha ha ha.

  584. Posted Sep 16, 2008 at 8:51 PM | Permalink

    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? :)

  585. John Lang
    Posted Sep 16, 2008 at 8:52 PM | Permalink

    STAFFAAN LINDSTROEM#789…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 …

    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.

    • Aaron Wells
      Posted Sep 17, 2008 at 11:17 AM | Permalink

      Re: John Lang (#802),

      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.

      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?)

      • Mark
        Posted Sep 17, 2008 at 11:36 AM | Permalink

        Re: Aaron Wells (#865),

        Any thoughts on this theory?

        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!

        • Pat Keating
          Posted Sep 17, 2008 at 12:14 PM | Permalink

          Re: Mark (#868),

          The earth’s weather systems are largely driven by the transfer of heat from the tropics to the poles and this transfer….process driven by ocean currents

          I didn’t know this — do you have a reference?

        • Mark
          Posted Sep 17, 2008 at 12:51 PM | Permalink

          Re: Pat Keating (#875),

          I didn’t know this — do you have a reference?

          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

        • bender
          Posted Sep 17, 2008 at 1:01 PM | Permalink

          Re: Mark (#868),

          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!

          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”.

        • Mark
          Posted Sep 17, 2008 at 1:16 PM | Permalink

          Re: bender (#882), Re: bender (#882),

          It’s what the Hansens think that matters.

          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/

        • bender
          Posted Sep 17, 2008 at 1:27 PM | Permalink

          Re: Mark (#886),

          It’s what they say that matters.

          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?

        • Mark
          Posted Sep 17, 2008 at 1:41 PM | Permalink

          Re: bender (#885),

          If there is something weak in his argumentation, point to it

        • bender
          Posted Sep 17, 2008 at 1:57 PM | Permalink

          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.

        • Mark
          Posted Sep 17, 2008 at 8:48 PM | Permalink

          Re: bender (#881),

          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.

          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.

  586. Posted Sep 16, 2008 at 9:03 PM | Permalink

    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!

    • kim
      Posted Sep 17, 2008 at 3:46 AM | Permalink

      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.
      =======================================

  587. TAC
    Posted Sep 16, 2008 at 9:08 PM | Permalink

    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

    • DeWitt Payne
      Posted Sep 16, 2008 at 9:20 PM | Permalink

      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.

      • TAC
        Posted Sep 17, 2008 at 4:58 AM | Permalink

        Re: DeWitt Payne (#808), I get the numbers from:
        url=’http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/plot.csv’

  588. Mark
    Posted Sep 16, 2008 at 9:13 PM | Permalink

    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.

    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!

    • TAC
      Posted Sep 17, 2008 at 4:56 AM | Permalink

      Re: Mark (#806),

      …a little ice melts and libido increases…

      ROFLOL :-)

  589. Lee W
    Posted Sep 16, 2008 at 9:32 PM | Permalink

    I think we have a divergence problem!! :-)

  590. Shawn Whelan
    Posted Sep 16, 2008 at 9:45 PM | Permalink

    Of course the BBC and the rest of the media also push the AGW agenda and scare the simple masses.

  591. Mike Bryant
    Posted Sep 16, 2008 at 9:47 PM | Permalink

    You’re welcome bender.

  592. Mike Bryant
    Posted Sep 16, 2008 at 9:51 PM | Permalink

    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.

  593. bender
    Posted Sep 16, 2008 at 9:54 PM | Permalink

    Is this the sort of thread you want, Aaron, polluted with nonsense and bogus “predictions” by religious nuts?

    • DeWitt Payne
      Posted Sep 16, 2008 at 10:16 PM | Permalink

      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.

  594. DaveM
    Posted Sep 16, 2008 at 10:10 PM | Permalink

    Your comment at 816 is out of line Bender. You diminish yourself by making them. Let it go.

  595. Mike Bryant
    Posted Sep 16, 2008 at 10:19 PM | Permalink

    Not me bender, I would much rather have bogus predictions from experts.

  596. GeneII
    Posted Sep 16, 2008 at 11:23 PM | Permalink

    #821 Willis Eschenbach

    Thanks for #821. And it was an interesting read and made me laugh here :

    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