Sea Ice, Again!

More happenings in the sea ice world!  And a unique correlation.

Some readers may have already seen this ……

image

Now, because my memory isn’t what it used to be, I checked to see if this has happened before ….. recently.  Oddly, 2010 had a similar temperature pattern.

image

For those wondering, going back to 2000, the temps don’t seem to go back up, much once they start dropping up there.  Although, the cooling rate, at times, nearly stopped. 

In Norsex’ Ice Area map, it saw something I was a bit incredulous about, but, then I moved my eyes over a bit and saw that it wasn’t unprecedented, again ……

image

Both 2009 and 2010 have had similar events of the area flattening for a bit.  In 2009, the area just didn’t get much lower, but, 2010 did go a bit lower. 

Is this a precursor to what we can expect for the minimum?  Heck, I don’t know.  But, it seems to be lining up like that.  Further, we see the ice flow is significantly slower still.

image

It’s just not going anywhere very fast ….. although this is only for the last couple of days.  Still, we know it is the ice moving which causes ice loss.  The anomaly continues to move towards zero, gaining 350,000 km2 in the last few days. 

Meanwhile, down south …….

image

Wow!

To show this isn’t a “one-off”, let’s look at the anomaly graph ……

image

Since 2011, it has steadily grown.  There has been larger extents, and there has been longer periods of sustained growth, but, not as much for as long.  That said, I’m perceiving a pattern here.  I’ll have to look at this some more.  Sometimes, seeming patterns are simply coincidence. 

It’s starting to look like we’re not going to see an “ice-free” anything for a while, and that globally, we’re probably in for more ice than usual, not less.  We’ll see.  

This entry was posted in Climate. Bookmark the permalink.

44 Responses to Sea Ice, Again!

  1. philjourdan says:

    But as we know, winds seem to play a bigger role in the minimum ice extent than does the temperature. So the extent will continue to decline, but the trend is that it will not be much.

    • suyts says:

      Right, I expect more significant ice loss, but, it’s looking like the minimum will be closer to 2010 rather than 2007 or 2012. But, again, anything can happen.

      • Scott says:

        At the start of the season I was expecting something between the 2007 and 2012 values. I’m now thinking it will be in the 2008/2010 range. But what it really depends on is the “hole” that’s on the Siberian side of the NP (now). US Navy has that at 1 m or less in thickness as well as being a lower concentration. If the melt can make serious inroads into that, then we’ll be seeing a 2011 value or potentially less. If it makes no inroads there at all, we could see 2009/2005 sort of levels. Clearly, my guess has it somewhere between those extremes. I don’t see much of anything on the Canadian side of the NP melting (except for sections of the NW passage) because it’s all >1.5 m thick. The amount of sub-80 N ice below 1 m thickness is getting pretty low now, so I’m thinking overall melt rates will subside considerably after that melts. If it really is significantly colder than normal up there (I’m not 100% convinced), then the “hole” above 80 N won’t melt. Last I heard, PIOMAS mass is > 2010’s value, so hard telling what will happen.

        The thing is, if it’s really colder up there than it has been since 2000 but we have more like 2010-ish extent, then we could see a very early minimum this year (because the ice edge is farther north now than it was at the turn of the century). I haven’t updated my ice spreadsheet in a LONG time, but IIRC the only minimum on record to get into August was the 2005 AREA minimum, which was August 31 (its extent had a second dip in late Sept for the extent minimum). If conditions this year are as speculated, could we see something more like that as a minimum? Only 4-5 more weeks of melt (with the last week being almost nothing)? Maybe average 60k/day (extent) loss in that time? So does that mean 1.75 million km^2 more melt isn’t that unreasonable? That’d put staying at 2005 or 2009 levels still on the board, easily. I think that it’s a bit optimistic to predict something like that, but it surely is still a possibility. At this point, the 3 lowest extents on record are the three lowest for this date, with this year in the pack well above them by 400-500k km^2. Barring any huge change in behavior, I just can’t see the final minimum ending up lower than 2011…I’d put the possibility of being above 2010 higher than that for below 2011.

        Regardless, the remaining sea ice at the minimum this year looks to be ending up considerably west of where it’s been this century. This makes it less likely to drift out the Fram Strait over the winter, leading to more MYI that is thicker to start off next year…again barring any sort of crazy wind change. In one year’s time we’ll likely see the “reversal” of at least 3 years worth of “damage” to the ice even though that 3-year’s damage is supposedly the worst in history. I didn’t think something like that was supposed to happen?

        -Scott

      • suyts says:

        Agreed, that “hole” is what to watch. But, like you, I’m kinda leaning to the higher side of recent minimums rather than the lower …… barring some crazy event.

  2. David Appell says:

    Increased Antarctic sea ice with increasing CO2 and warming was predicted over 20 years ago by Manabe et al 1991:
    http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/bibliography/related_files/sm9101.pdf, page 795

    • suyts says:

      Right, one of the many spaghetti predictions alarmists like to point at. Just about every subtle change which could be predicted has been by warmists. Here’s a dated list of just some of the things predicted. …. http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm

      More ice, less ice, more snow, less snow, droughts, and floods, and ad nauseum.

      • David Appell says:

        This is Manabe we’re talking about. He is not just some “warmist” predicting everything and everything.

        PS: I’ve never found “warmist” to be at all insulting. Yes, we believe the physics says it’s going to get warmer. What is there to be ashamed of?

        • David Appell says: “Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket.”

          David, if you want to start a movement, eat prunes – result would be the same as the Warmist scaremongering

        • PhilJourdan says:

          Warmist is not insulting. Curry is a warmist. You are no warmist. You are an imbecile.

      • suyts says:

        No, the term “warmist” isn’t meant to be insulting, but, rather descriptive of a point of view. Neither is the term “alarmist” meant to be insulting, but, rather descriptive of a sub group of warmists, who believe the supposed impending warming will be catastrophic. Without being too verbose, I’m not sure what else to call them for purposes of classification.

        • David Appell says:

          I don’t know. Whenever I see the term “catastrophic” with respect to global warming, I always ask the person using it to define what they mean. Because it is a term of human values, not a scientific term, and hence will vary from person to person.

        • PhilJourdan says:

          You must have interesting conversations with Algore, imbecile.

        • suyts says:

          Well, that’s true. They are human terms. And, that’s probably the largest part of the disagreement between many “skeptics” and “warmists”. And it all comes down to subjective and relative thoughts. But, for instance, when we have a hurricane or a tornado, or some other weather or climate tragedy, we get the predictable proclamations of a “new normal”. Leaving people with the impression that our future holds nothing but an increase of disastrous events, when, in fact, that has been the entire human history. The likes of Joe Romm and Bill McKibbeon spring to mind. But, again, it is relative and subjective notions which causes the labels to get attached. Much like “Denier”. It’s never explained exactly what is getting denied, and the label is attached to an incredibly wide spectrum of people with very diverse thoughts. But, that’s a human trait by itself, we have a need to put people in different compartments. Hence, the labels. And, it works with rhetoric.

        • David Appell says:

          I *certainly* agree that some of those concerned about AGW attach their cause to every weather event that happens in order to promote it, and I’ve said so on my own blog many times.

          I also see similar things by those on the other side, who are forever pointing out that last night set a record low in Moosehut, Canada, as if that proves anything about global warming.

          Eric Hoffer once said that “Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket.”

          I don’t know how to overcome that. It often seems there is little room for truth — no matter whose — in a world dominated by rackets. All I (or anyone) can do it speak the truth as I see it, in the most honest way I can.

        • suyts says:

          True. As I see it today, it is mostly an ideological contest, with heavy on the “rackets”. And, “truth” is seen very differently, by different people.

        • PhilJourdan says:

          Sounds more like an imbecile’s lousy analysis of a scientist. But as we know with all imbeciles, YMMV.

      • David says:

        Indeed, even the name of the current true believers, “Last First expedition” What is that suppose to mean? (Certainly not a reference to the biblical quote.)

    • David Appell says: ”I’ve never found “warmist” to be at all insulting”

      every time they are lying about any phony GLOBAL warming – Warmist are insulting the human intelegence!!!.

  3. they should scare that; children’s ice-cream in the fridge will defrost – to get atleast children’s suport

  4. David says:

    How does David Appell define the C in CAGW. Currently, for the past 15 years, both the “C” and the W are missing from “CAGW”. The benefits however are well know and responsible for feeding about 12 percent of the worlds population.

    • David Appell says:

      I don’t use words like “catastropic” w.r.t. climate change.

      What benefits are feeding 12% of the world’s population?

  5. David says:

    Hundreds of studies, thousands of experiments on plant growth with regard to CO2 including hundreds of in field studies as well as lab experiments. Wheat, Soy Corn, Rice, the worlds staples, all do far better, more produce on less water, due to the globaly well mixed CO2 change from 280 to 400 PPM. (12% improvement is the low end of these experiments.)

    Since you do not engage in the “C” word, do you then reject the need to dramatically alter the worlds economy through mandated wind and solar energy plans and tax increases?

    • David Appell says:

      Which studies?

      How about this one?
      Environmental Research Letters Volume 2 Number 1
      David B Lobell and Christopher B Field 2007 Environ. Res. Lett. 2 014002 doi:10.1088/1748-9326/2/1/014002
      “Global scale climate–crop yield relationships and the impacts of recent warming”
      http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/2/1/014002

      If I may quote from it:
      “For wheat, maize and barley, there is a clearly negative response of global yields to increased temperatures. Based on these sensitivities and observed climate trends, we estimate that warming since 1981 has resulted in annual combined losses of these three crops representing roughly 40 Mt or $5 billion per year, as of 2002.”

      • Latitude says:

        another quote:
        “An important assumption in using models derived from
        year-to-year variations to compute impacts of climate trends is
        that crop yields respond similarly to rapid and gradual climate
        variations. In theory, farmers would adapt cropping systems
        as climate changes, thus minimizing or possibly reversing
        the adverse effects of warming ”

        that was from 2007…6 years ago they didn’t realize it had stopped
        ..and every one of their charts show yeilds greatly increasing

        • David says:

          Latitude, you are correct. From the abstract…”Despite the complexity of global food supply, here we show that simple measures of growing season temperatures and precipitation—spatial averages based on the locations of each crop—explain ~30% or more of year-to-year variations in global average yields for the world’s six most widely grown crops. For wheat, maize and barley, there is a clearly negative response of global yields to increased temperatures.”

          So, if you raise the T, and do nothing to increase the water, perhaps even decrease the water, IE, this location had a plus 2 degree anomaly during a drought, and the crop yield decreased.
          Well Duh.

        • Latitude says:

          I caught the “an important assumption” part…..it’s computer games
          ..and just like climate computer games….they don’t work without assumptions

          These ass wipes had to assume the results they got first….and there are people stupid enough to fall for it

  6. David says:

    Well contradicted by dozens of studies…
    CO2- and Climate-Induced Effects on Terrestrial Plant Production
    http://www.nipccreport.org/articles/2010/jul/01jul2010a2.html
    Friend (2010) calculated the percentage changes in terrestrial plant production that would occur throughout the world in response to (1) the projected climate changes alone, and (2) the projected concurrent changes in climate and atmospheric CO2 concentration. So, even using the very high IPCC numbers for warming there was revealed a mean increase in global NPP of 37.3%, driven by mean increases of 43.9-52.9% among C3 plants and 5.9% among C4 species. And in this case of concurrent increases in the globe’s air temperature and CO2 concentration, the largest increases occurred in tropical rainforests and C3 grass and croplands…

    Tilman et al. (2001) noted that “even the best available technologies, fully deployed, cannot prevent many of the forecasted problems.” This was also the conclusion of Idso and Idso (2000), who — although acknowledging that “expected advances in agricultural technology and expertise will significantly increase the food production potential of many countries and regions” — stated that these advances “will not increase production fast enough to meet the demands of the even faster-growing human population of the planet.”
    Fortunately, we have a powerful ally in the ongoing rise in the air’s CO2 content that can provide what we can’t. Since atmospheric CO2 is the basic “food” of essentially all plants, the more of it there is in the air, the bigger and better they grow. For a nominal doubling of the air’s CO2 concentration, for example, the productivity of earth’s herbaceous plants rises by 30 to 50% (Kimball, 1983; Idso and Idso, 1994), while the productivity of its woody plants rises by 50 to 80% or more (Saxe et al. 1998; Idso and Kimball, 2001). Hence, as the air’s CO2 content continues to rise, so too will the land use efficiency of the planet rise right along with it. In addition, atmospheric CO2 enrichment typically increases plant nutrient use efficiency and plant water use efficiency. Thus, with respect to all three of the major needs identified by Tilman et al. (2002), increases in the air’s CO2 content pay huge dividends, helping to increase agricultural output without the taking of new land and water from nature.

    More to help you David…

    The Long-Term Response of Plant Photosynthesis to Elevated CO2
    http://www.nipccreport.org/articles/2010/jul/01jul2010a6.html

    Elevated CO2 Boosts Iron’s Positive Impact on Phytoplanktonic Productivity
    http://www.nipccreport.org/articles/2010/jThe Many Benefits of Atmospheric CO2 Enrichment
    Press Release: 2 Feb 2011
    ul/01jul2010a5.html

    http://www.nipccreport.org/articles/2010/jul/15jul2010a2.html

    Nitrogen in soil is remarked upon at http://www.co2science.org/articles/V15/N26/EDIT.php although, besides, we use artificial fertilizer in modern agriculture to keep it not a limiting nutrient.
    http://www.co2science.org/data/plant_growth/dry/s/solanumt.php
    Plants were near starvation Carbon starvation in glacial trees recovered from the La Brea tar pits, southern California and now The Earth’s biosphere is booming, data suggests that CO2 is the cause we have pretty much halved the amount of land need to grow a bushel of wheat or corn.

    I can go on and on with direct field experiments with all the major crops that feed the world. I will look at you study, but I suspect it deals with climate models, a study of a localised drought in some location, and alarmist projections of increasing drought and heat, which are not manifesting.

    • David Appell says:

      First of all, why do you think a higher NPP is preferable? It means more weeds competing with crops, which is hardly a good thing.

      The rest of your links do not examine all the variables. It’s easy to prove CO2 is somehow “better” if you ignore weeds and most other climatic effects.

    • David Appell says:

      Wow — I just realized you’re quoting the NIPCC. What a joke.

      Really, man, up your standards. These people are getting *paid* to deny climate science.

      • suyts says:

        As opposed to people getting paid to espouse climate *science*.

        The source matters little. Can you refute what they’re saying……
        Weeds? Really? Weeds are easy. Mankind has known how to combat them for millennium, and longer. More, mankind has learned there’s food value in “weeds”. Some of the best greens I’ve ate was weeds.

        Do greens really object to the planet greening?

      • David says:

        David Appell, you are a sad excuse for a scientist. The second one, and in this case numerous, scientific arguments are placed before you, you attempt to denegrate the source, as opposed to address the issues raised. Your comment is not cogent. This places you rapidly in Troll territory.

        BTW, my links examine far more of the variables then the simple study you linked to, which excluded far more variables. The weed arguement, as James pointed out, is piss poor stupid. Yes all classifications of plant life grow better with additional C02. Make a specific arguement, and I will address it for you.

      • PhilJourdan says:

        No one is getting paid to deny climate science. You cannot deny what does not exist imbecile.

  7. David says:

    Also Mr Appell, the links to CO2 science, were to numerous studies well known in the literature, and not affiliated with and beyond your unwarranted disdane for the NIPCC. The last link took you to some studies that referenced dozens of experiments from over a dozen studies in the past decaqde.

    • suyts says:

      It’s easier to dismiss than to address.

      With Mr. Appell, it’s a process. I hold faith that he might find that there is legitimate thought in what we espouse. He may not always agree, but, it is my belief that he can come around to seeing things differently. But, it is a great process!

      Keep firing David!

      • David says:

        Thanks James, but I notice he failed to address my question to him…”Since you do not engage in the “C” word, do you then reject the need to dramatically alter the worlds economy through mandated wind and solar energy plans and tax increases?
        The sad thing is that there is so much in the eeisting scientific literature which refutes the poorly done model based attrition studies the warmist use, and in those studies they usually ignore the existing literature, without even a “how do you do” to the real scientist that did decades of research. (Like Mann eliminating the MWP without so much as a reference to previous contrary studies) In this thread David A claimed he only wants the truth. It is there for him to see if he looks.

      • suyts says:

        It is there for all to see. Ain’t it great!!!??!!!

  8. David says:

    David, here is a link to about seeven studies that directly address your weed concerns…
    http://www.co2science.org/subject/w/summaries/weedscompete.php
    (finding out how much David really wants to know what the scientific evidence says..)

    • suyts says:

      It’s a lot to absorb if you’re not familiar with most of it. I’ve found that for me, physics is hard, chemistry is harder, and biochemistry, …. I hate having to learn. Love it, but, hate it! 😀

      • David says:

        (-; I have the advantage of not being educated, (at least not educated beyond the abilty to have rational thought) so the maths, they is hard, the results, more CO2 = more food, rain stay about the same, droughts, come and go, about the same, night time T up a bit – is good, less frosts, day time T about the same , up a smidge maybe, overall very good, this em climate science not so hard. (-:

        David just needs to dissasociate his desire to be right, from what the science really says.

      • suyts says:

        Well, that’s charitable. I’d say David A needs to understand even more, but, that’s a start! ‘)

  9. David says:

    David, here http://www.co2science.org/data/plant_growth/dry/dry_subject_w.php
    you find a link to over 250 separate studies of common wheat, which demonstrate a 34% increase in growth (plus 300 ppm CO2) when water amounts and soil condidions and T remain the same.

    And since the CO2 benefit is known, and the ever predicted increase in droughts has failed, then the benefit is realised, and the harm is , via the scientific method of real world observations, rejected.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s