Caleb: Are you from the Baah Harbaah area. Or a Boston dude. I go up to Maine a lot. Friends in Yarmouth,Nova Scotia. Just like Ireland.
Last night on the news there was an article about the fires of California, and showing a plume of smoke trailing not out to the pacific, but up to the Arctic. They said that this effect may cause a slight cooling for a few years.YES! PATRICK!
ICE IS NICE.
KIPP

The arctic started the freezing season with the least ice since they started measuring it. If the arctic continued warming, the new ice should have been thinner than usual and cover less area than usual. Going into the melting season, the thin new ice should have quickly melted and the additional arctic warming should has eaten into even more of the multiyear ice than ever before.
Obviously that didn't happen. Let the excuses begin.

hmmm;

No urban heat islands in the arctic ocean.

So, how can there be so much loss of sea ice?

Can you say greenhouse gases; CO2 and CH4?

Evil Oil Executive will of course have their dis-information available for those gullible enough. Maybe they will try to claim there are under water volcanos to blame.

The NSIDC says that sparse snow cover over the Arctic Ocean last winter resulted in less insulation from the bitterly cold air, resulting in faster, first-year ice growth.

Wow ..........global warming now causes "bitterly cold air" AND more ice ..... Wow ......What more can I say!

The spin doctors have a lot of work to do on this one! With sooooooooooo much money invested by the AGW camp (to prove the A in AGW), they can't afford to let this go unchallenged!

No hysteria .......No money!

Cryosphere Today has a new view of the "ice free Arctic" as predicted by the "International Polar Year Secretariat," and the "ice-free North Pole" as predicted by the "National Snow and Ice Data Center."

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/CARTESIAN/seaice.20080727.jpg

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-03/01/content_7696460.htm

With an important sounding titles like that, they must be a very smart people.

As of today Arctic sea ice extent is midway between 2007 and the average 1979-2000 level. You can see it monitored daily at this site:

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png

Probably true, but, since ice extent is about 1 million sqkm ahead of last year (and most of the melt last year occurred between mid June and mid July it appears that the desire for an ice free pole is a pipe dream.

Not sure but the deltas look very small - are they of any significance?

"So why is the first-year ice thicker than anticipated? Sparse snow cover last winter may have hastened its growth: less snow on the ice means less insulation from the frigid winter air, and faster ice growth. Much of the snowfall over the Arctic Ocean occurs in early autumn, but early last autumn much of the Arctic Ocean was still ice-free and could not collect snow. Once the ice formed, it grew quickly."

What a crock.

Put another way.

The "thin ice" was supposed to melt quick this year. This should have meant that Artic sea ice would have melted fast, probably to lower levels than last year. The problem is it's not happening. So hence the ready excuse provided above.

Lets add it to the list.

1. Thin Arctic ice-AGW
Thick Arctic ice-caused by less snow, which resulted in less insulation, creating more ice, all in fact a result of less ice last year, caused, of course, by AGW.
Makes perfect sense.

2. Shrinking glacier-AGW
Growing glacier-more snow due to AGW

3. Warm winter-AGW
Cold winter-weather stupid. No one said there wouldn't be cold spells even with GW. Oh yea, and more extremes.

4. Shrinking ice sheet-AGW
Growing ice sheet-more snow due to AGW

5. Less Artic ice-AGW
More Antarctic ice-a variety of factors, none of which involve it being colder. Besides it's not significant.

6. More hurricanes-AGW
Less hurricanes-AGW
Makes sense right.

7. Droughts-AGW
Heavy rain and floods-AGW

I can't imagine why anyone would be skeptical.

The implication of this story is that NSIDC didn't bother to measure the actual ice thickness before predicting it's demise in June. The Canadian Government had reported all winter that ice was recovering to near normal thickness - but that apparently wasn't significant enough to stop the publicity hounds in Boulder.

http://www.france24.com/en/20080628-north-pole-may-briefly-have-no-ice-summer-climate-north-pole

Great science.

iceman/PH: basically they are trying to go for the "thickness" now because the "extent" ain't happening. Predict NH ice will increase both in thickness and extent... from now on and will probably be above anomaly for much of 09. We shall see....

Of course SH ice is extraordinarily ABOVE anomaly considering it ain't gone below once in the last 11 months! (1-2 km2 million but thats not important....)

Hi Iceman, loved the last post, brilliant!!

That sums up the almost entirely pro AGW media in the UK, the only exception I can think of is the Telegraph which seems to be more balanced in its approach to both sides of the debate.

Just reading your post again and I can almost imagine the BBC newsreaders reading this word for word!!

Greenland has been unusually cold and getting heavy snow all summer, but Earth Observatory seems to have somehow missed that story.
http://www.snow-forecast.com/maps/static/europe/last7days/snow
http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/map/images/fnl/sfctmpmer_01a_30frames.fnl.anim.html

Some locations have received over 20 inches of snow in the last week. I'm surprised that the experts under the thumb of the preeminent Dr. James Hansen, haven't prominently highlighted this massive failure in his theory.

Anonymous,

More disinformation and misinformation.

Arctic sea ice extent is 1 million sqkm ahead of this time last year and doesn't appear to be melting as quickly as last year (regardless if it is 1st year or thin).

Antarctica sea ice extent is setting another record for extent this year even though there aren't any UHI there either.

Did CO2/CH4 levels decrease in the Arctic and Antarctic?

Alaska is having the coldest summer on record - http://www.adn.com/life/story/473786.html - guess the CO2 and Methane levels in Alaska must have decreased too, or maybe increased CO2/CH4 is causing lower temps? Of course what would help is if the eco-tourists would stop traveling to gawk at the melting glaciers, dumping tons of soot from their cruise ships on said glaciers and ice, increasing the melt rate.

It is apparent that the AGW proponents have a poor understanding of the arctic climate and the mechanisms which affect the ice sheet. They see an anomaly and jump to false conclusions because it supports the AGW hypothesis; that isn't science. If the computer models were accurate then they would have predicted this but they didn't.

The AGW folks are not willing to admit that they don't understand these phenomena and, instead, try to reconcile contradictory real world events with AGW dogma. They should simply be honest and declare that they don't understand why the ice sheet isn't behaving the way they said it would. They lose credibility with every false prediciton.

Seems to me that a lot of the alarmist camp "scientists" are kind of like fortune tellers, thay make enough predictions that eventually they will get one right and then crow "see I told you so". Sooner or later these guys need to be right on one before we can annoint them as prophets.

RE: Iceman, a few more:

8) Warming ocean temps - AGW
Cooling ocean temps - Equipment failure (Bad argo system, bad!)

9) Rising sea level - AGW
Falling sea level - Equipment failure (bad satellites, bad!)

10) A hot spot in the caribbean trophosphere would prove AGW theory.
No hot spot in the caribbean trophosphere - Equipment failure (Bad radiosondes, bad!)

HI all - I was looking at this over the weekend & it is of interest that the ice melt rate starts to slow & is near flat by August 20th & then the freeze begins in earnest about ( surprise ) Sept 20th ... the start of total darkness at the pole.
I always considered this topic one of the most exagerated by the global warming alarmists.
Brett, did you catch the snow in Sydney yesterday? First since the 1830's if I remember correctly ... global warming appears to be manifesting itself in some strange ways!!

Reply: I checked it out closely, it looks like that was an accumulation of soft hail. Temperatures did not drop below 40. Still impressive though!

houston, we have a problem!!! the pontificating darkside's polar melting co2 superlaser on the hysterics-fueled deathstar appears to be malfunctioning...some sort of leak in the "doublespeak translator" is causing a chain reaction of doubt, prohibiting the consensus modulator to short circuit the melting of first year ice...worse yet, the AGW cloaking device is failing, causing the ethanol injected solar panneled wind turbines to freeze over...you gotta love how these dudes can admit they dont have a clue whats going on, then reason it all out with some hocus pocus shift of explanations....its better than reading the national enquirer....have a nice day, bros!!!

It is nice to see things not going according to plan.

It is nice to know that humans aren't God like and can predict everything.

It is nice to be able to admit hypocrisy and try and be honest (myself included).

I'm nice. But are they (AGW supporters)?

And, since they may not be nice...should I listen to them?

I don't think so.

sammy k:
Very funny post! Nice job!

If you want a good look inside the AGW movement, take a look at these three videos from a Penn & Teller cable show. They are each about 10 minutes long but worth the time. Check out the petition which the activists quickly signed banning water.

Warning: They use some bad language so if you're offended by that don't click this link:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/07/26/penn-teller-expose-whats-behind-environmentalist-hysteria

Soft hail ... isn't that graupel? I believe it is a type of snow ... or at least it sure seems to be snow when you are skiing / boarding on it and the Swiss have a name for it. Soft hail seems to be an oxymoron , in that if it ain't ice, it ain't hail.
Again it makes for the most amazing skiing since the tiny balls are like styrofoam ball bearings under your feet & it is hero snow, almost impossible to not ski well & fast on. Also, on TV I saw a snowman made from the stuff & since there is no such thing as a hailman it has to have been snow!!

How inconsiderate of the 'weather' not to allow snowfall in the Arctic Ocean last winter and thus upset all the climate models and scientists!

SammyK: Think of sitting on a beach in Acapulco, and look at that Margaretta you just ordered, then watch the ice melt as the sun bears down on it. That is what the Arctic will be like in five years, and all the perma frost around it. And you'll be sitting there saying"could I have a glass of ethanol this time, my car won't start. Just look at the images and you'll see the transition, and if you go there don't forget your canoe. Don't light any matches around those bogs either. Methane, is what I don't look forward to.
The Earth is warming and I don't give a damn what the IPCC predicts. There are too many sources, from too many areas of science that agree that global warming is a reality. If America doesn't get it's alternate energy act together soon then we won't be able to capitalize on that.
I don't think stalling anymore is a profitable soulution, and if China now is producing the majority of solar panels, why aren't we. Even if I thought like PatrickH that the ice age is starting, as a venture capitalist, I would go into the energy field yesterday. You guys don't sound like Republicans anymore. Look what the largest owner of natural gas in the world just did. He made an agreement with Texas to build the worlds largest wind farm. So!Wake UP!!Americans.When the price of gas went up, that was the time you knew we had to change or die,as they say in New Hampshire. Everyone say's Ya! we need gas, but not off my state. Just happened in New Jersey. Got the picture yet!
KIPP

Patrick Henry,

I recall on some of the temp anomaly maps that it seemed that Greenland had had a warm June. It's hard to tell if the Summit station has been cool, because I have never been successful in finding Summit's historical means, probably because the station is not old enough.

Kipp Alpert:
Caleb: Are you from the Baah Harbaah area. Or a Boston dude. I go up to Maine a lot. Friends in Yarmouth,Nova Scotia. Just like Ireland.
Last night on the news there was an article about the fires of California, and showing a plume of smoke trailing not out to the pacific, but up to the Arctic. They said that this effect may cause a slight cooling for a few years.YES! PATRICK!
ICE IS NICE.
KIPP

Posted by Kipp Alpert | July 27, 2008 3:10 PM

What about all the soot from the fires landing on the ice and actually causing it to melt faster at a lower temperature?

Then what happens to the dirt when it refreezes?

Looks like winter is returning to the North Pole.
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/latest/noaa1.jpg

Temperatures are below freezing and a fresh layer of snow appeared today on the surface.

Brett do any of these maps or graphs exist for years in the 70s,80s,90s? I would assume flucuations are the norm for here, depending upon wind, snow , etc as much as the temp. I do agree with the assumption the more melt the more first year ice next year, just for the fact that there is more open water to freeze and less area for snow to insulate so the first year ice would also be thicker, correct. And say that area stays drier than normal and it does cool over the next X amount of years, couldn't it build back up fairly rapidly and in a few years these maps could look like the coming of the next ice age? Climate change just won't quit. Also I had a low of a pleasant 47 this morning, refreshing.

Reply: I am not sure, I would guess they would exist back to at least 1980, but I have not found them. I am sure the NSIDC knows.

Rick Ressler: What you have said of any substance amounts to zero. You believe that AGWers all accept everything that Hansen and the IPCC proposes. That is a fallacy, and an invalid assumption. Just because skeptics run to Ice Cap, or The Australian Herald for there fodder does not mean that AGWers don't have a mind of their own and don't base their insights on scientific reality. KIPP

Radar,

Thanks for the additions. I'd forgotten about the dreaded "equipment failures".

The fact that those "equipment failures" only seem to happen with findings that punch holes in AGW, well that's just a coincidence.

Josh,

Last August NSIDC had an animation in one of their sea ice updates that shows the progressive decrease in multi-year ice since 1982. This gives us a rough idea of how the thickness of the ice has changed over time since older ice tends to be thicker ice. Most of the old ice has historically been pushed out of the Arctic through Fram Strait (between Greenland and Svalbard), but is usually replenished by first-year ice that didn't melt. Typically about 70% of first-year ice melts during the course of the summer, leaving 30% to thicken during the following winter.

Yes, if we have several cool winters in a row, we could see a build-up of multi-year ice again. The obvious question follows: will we?

Here's a link to the NSIDC report in the archive page. Scroll down for the animation; it's figure 4 in the August 22nd report.

It's also worthy of note that melting season in the Arctic has about seven more weeks to go. I highly doubt this year will see a minimum extent eclipsing last year's record low, but we could still easily see the extent dipping below the previous record from 2005.

I do agree with the assumption the more melt the more first year ice next year, just for the fact that there is more open water to freeze and less area for snow to insulate so the first year ice would also be thicker, correct.

I just want to clarify; the NSIDC article did not say the first-year ice was thicker than normal; they said it was thicker than expected. The numbers accompanying the three thickness maps back this up; this year's new ice is marginally thinner than (i.e. about the same as) the previous two year's new ice.

It's not an obvious result, and it may not be a consistent one year-to-year depending on winter and spring weather in the Arctic. This year the Arctic had a particularly cold winter (as is evident by the significantly larger sea ice maximum extent compared to the past several years). If it had instead been a more typical or a warmer Arctic winter, the first-year ice would very likely have been much thinner.

Consequently, I can't think of any circumstance in which Arctic sea ice soon returns to positive anomalies for an extended period of time as Vincent suggests, especially seeing as the Arctic hasn't seen a positive sea ice anomaly in over five years. Given that history, I'm not ready to share his optimism. If we get another cold winter this year, I might be willing to reconsider.

Rick Ressler,

Every person, from both sides of the argument, should watch the videos that you posted and also the trailer videos about the sun and testimony from former environmental movement organizers, that accompany them.

They clearly show the misguided history of the environmental movement and how easy it is to recruit the mis-informed.

If you watch these videos with an open mind and still don't get the truth in it, then you deserve to be a mis-guided follower, until the next cult comes along and recruits you.

I laughed out loud when I watched how many hundreds of folks at the "save the earth rally" gladly sign the petition to ban H20, when it was presented to them in the full chemical pronounciation and were told we must get rid of it because it was getting into all our plants and food and what we breathe.

It is a taste of reality that is the reason I am a sceptic and not a lemming for the very rich and devious AGW spinners.

How sad that so many seemingly intelligent folks can be taken in so easily, by so few, with so little effort through a simple, well funded, mis-information campaign.

It would have been a miracle if the ice had melted completely in the North pole region!

The trend is there though! It probably will go sooner rather than later unless some thing changes.

Hard to draw any conclusions from this, but it is a very colorful animation...
sea ice animations
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/all.final.1978-2006.mov

"This is Houston calling: Copy That Major K ,looks like The CATACLYSMASTOROIDS have done it again. All Hands , Prepare for Emergency AGW evasive manuvers. Stand by to energize all Anti BS-o-meter Shields......Engage!!!"

Kipp Alpert:
The leaders of the AGW movement have declared that there is a scientific consensus; it is nice to know that you are not part of it. I guess that makes you a skeptic. Welcome!

Just because skeptics run to Ice Cap, or The Australian Herald for there fodder does not mean that AGWers don't have a mind of their own and don't base their insights on scientific reality.

Really?

Kipp, let's talk about this acidification of the oceans you often point to for a moment.

At what pH do saltwater fish start to have issues with reproducing?

What is the pH of the oceans today?

At what pH do shelled organisms start to have their shells dissolve?

What is the pH today? What was it in 1750?

Lastly, can you name one study that shows how much CO2 contributes to GW? Have you even heard of one being conducted?

Thanks,

Steve

Kipp,

Keep in mind, skeptics are not skeptical of global warming, we are skeptical of AGW.

It is a very big difference, I know the earth has warmed. I dont know thati t is because of all the man-made CO2.

Arctic still breaking up...
http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2008/07/29/iceshelf-fracture.html

GW Steve, here is very compelling analysis that links GW and man made CO2.

http://residualanalysis.blogspot.com/2008/06/anthropogenic-global-warming-is.html

GWSTEVE
Steve, I thought you knew the answers to these easy questions. You keep writing a small p with the larger H. That is incorrect as PH was nicknamed the power of hydrogen only. No meaning for the small p.
Secondly, it's not about saltwater fish but shell making because to make shell fish you need more alkaline not more acid(calcification). Shells won't dissolve, but they will not be as dense. There has been a loss of one unit,10 as a negative logarithm. .Read the Discovery of Global Warming by Spencer Weart. I thought you knew more about these topics then you apparently show because of your questions. Well your still good at Algebra.
Next time I think you should make a thesis instead of trying to tear down what other people hold true. Start with Global cooling, if you can find such a sparce topic. Thanks, KIPP

Travis,

If you take a longer look at the Arctic, you can see that the last 30 years are a very small part of the Arctic cycle.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=431042500000&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1

BTW - the spam filters apparently ate my response to your complaint about UAH June temperatures. UAH is the only data set (of the four) which has good coverage of Antarctica, and Antarctica was exceptionally cold in June. That is why UAH showed June global temperatures below normal.

MARK-Denver,CO:: So today you are an environmentalist. I was finding a silver lining in the California disasters and was not sticking to the main AGW consensus as skeptics stick to denial. Anything I have learned about climate is that it is always changing. How much soot will land in the Arctic I don't know. I don't presume that the soot will re-freeze however. In my first postings I had discussed going out to California, where firefighters new that it was Global Warming that is making the difference. More land is giving up it's frost and moving north. They call them Super fires. Soot does effect the reflectivity of
long wave infrared bands. What is your point. If you are saying that fires are bad then I agree totally. It is not paradoxical that good and bad things happen at the same time. We must have biomass as part of the carbon cycle, and because it is our mother Earth, that we must learn to love, and not destroy.
KIPP

kipp,

how about me and you call a truce, go out and have a brew...we can discuss why temperatures are plummeting at the same time co2 is rising and what that means about co2 driving climate...the winner of the debate buys the other a brew...by the way, its your round...lol...boone pickens is sucking off government subsidies in an uneconomic energy alternative...i agree he has alot of gas eh hotair...

rick...thanks for the kind words....

Kipp,

Corals evolved during the Cambrian Era, when CO2 levels were 20X higher than today. I suspect that sea life may be a bit more tolerant of CO2 than advertised.

A huge chunk just broke off an arctic ice shelf, so I had to watch "The Day After Tomorrow" DVD to learn more about the science behind this scary news. BTW, Al Gore is great as the president!

Seriously, is anyone doing modeling of the arctic? This should be a show piece for how good modeling can be. It's a relatively closed system compared to the whole globe. But everyone is just extrapolating from lines in graphs -- how crude!

Kipp,

I lived on the coast of Maine 1974-1981, and among other things managed the night shift of a herring cannery. That's why I get long-winded about the rough times the local fishermen endured and endure.

This single picture of three subs in open water at the North Pole in 1987 tells us that the idea the Pole was once brick hard, and now is falling apart, isn't correct. http://www.john-daly.com/NP1987.jpg

If such a situation reoccurred, do you think the media would reassure us, saying, "Don't worry; it happened back in 1987 and the world didn't end?"

Probably not. That doesn't sell papers as well as a blaring headline, "Open Water At North Pole! Scientist Predicts Disaster!"

I wish I had more time to sit about watching ice melt, but I can only visit this site occasionally these days. It's good to see that the ice-watchers are on the job.

John D:
Yes, the videos are revealing. I also thought the comments from the former co-founder of Greenpeace were cogent. The environmental movement has become a political movement and the evidence in support of this is compelling.

What's scary is that there are too many people (voters) who would gladly sign the petition to ban dihydrogen monoxide if someone knocked on their door. Many of these folks simply don't think for themselves and are quick to jump on any bandwagon which claims to be about saving the planet. Even the leaders of the rally and the spokesperson couldn't answer fundamental questions in defense of their cause.

paulm,

Even so, (and that particular area has been breaking up since 1900), sea ice extent is 1 million sqkm ahead of last year http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png and, while it is still below the 20 year average, it appears to be headed towards the 20 year average rather than last years record (no ice free pole this year I'm afraid).

If you want to see the current weather/temp in the Arctic go here http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/latest/noaa1.jpg.

Also, Alaska is having the coldest summer on record and there appears to be more ice than normal in some areas of the Arctic.

The 'Arctic' in not 'breaking up', that's a misleading exaggeration of a relatively normal process, plus, breaks in ice sheets are caused by pressure, not melting.

Their is no insulation from snow over the ocean.

OK, you're wrong. You posted the data, but didn't bother reading it! First year ice at the END of the accumulation season for 2008 was 1.6m, which is LESS than the 1.8m for 2007, and also LESS than the 1.7m for 2006. Yep, once it got started in 2007, it did well, but the later start, warmer ocean, and earlier end ensured that the first year ice that formed was THINNER by 0.2m. Your bias blinds you to facts. You zeroed in on a factoid instead of using a holistic approach. Please open your eyes.

What does amaze me is the gullibility with which our populace is able to embrace AGW with such a heightened sense of guilt.
Look to advertising and the media in general to answer this.
We are constantly told via advertising that were too fat too thin, have poor skin, need more clothes because ours are out of date or dont look good anymore - etc buy buy buy - all based on the guilt complex! Just watch advertising for a while and guilt is the dominating emotion that carries forward the sales pitch.
Couple this with fear propagated by the media at large and we have fanatical tendencies exhibited by a populace that can be directed at will by media hype and speculation.
Sensationalism if you like and ruling by fear via the media services.

Services indeed - who do they really serve?

The oldest tricks are the best and with our nurtured sense of guilt we have bred a fascist green movement on a religious mission to stamp out life as we know it.
Keeping us squabbling among ourselves while the banks manipulate our economy beyond all recognition and with the use of our own money to do so in the first place!
DIVIDE AND CONQUER!!

You all should be ashamed of yourselves - suckered in by the highly evolved feudal system and manipulated by a sociological experiment of global proportions.

You all deserve the bleakness that is coming this time ironically it really is Anthropologically Caused but has nothing to do with the weather.

Hope it works out for you all!