Fascinating! In spite of AGW, lower than expected temperatures and a change in weather patterns prevented the North Polar Ice cap from melting to the extent that models predicted.
What a shock!
Who would have guessed that the actual weather could confound the models and Climate Studies?
I can’t wait for Hansen’s spin on colder than expected Polar Regions… it will probably start with “the 7th warmest year in this century”.
The polar bears survive yet another year to eat more baby seals…I guess that’s comforting to all ........ except for the seals!
LOL Folks this is all just one years weather not climate.

In other words, 2008 ice is closer to 2005 than it is to 2007. Except for the last seven weeks, 2008 had more ice than 2005. April, 2008 had the third highest April extent on record.

http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent.png

This is all good news (despite the AGW spin) because first year ice will turn into second year ice over the winter and therefore will be that much harder to melt next year. I expect a near normal Artic Sea Ice maximum extent this winter.

Just passing along article in the The Christian Science Monitor/ September 25, 2008 :

With all the focus on human-triggered global warming, it may be hard to imagine that the world is riding a 50-million-year-long cooling trend.

But it is, and blame the trend on a continental-scale collision, say geophysicists Dennis Kent of Rutgers University and Giovanni Muttoni of the University of Milan in Italy.

Researchers say there is strong evidence that increases in atmospheric CO2 contributed to a warm spell 50 million years ago dubbed the Early Eocene climate optimum � the warmest period in 65 million years. But over the following 15 million years, deep sea temperatures fell by about 10.8 degrees F., reflecting a significant cooling at the surface. This cooling ultimately allowed the cycle of ice ages to emerge.
Drs. Kent and Muttoni have mined paleomagnetic and other data and suggest that atmospheric CO2 dropped because India collided with Eurasia, shutting down a productive, natural CO2 factory.

Some 120 million years ago, the subcontinent that is now India was migrating north from Antarctica. As it moved, it shoved the ocean crust that was ahead of it under an existing crustal plate. As long as this zone off the Eurasian coast was under water, bottom muck enriched by carbon from the biologically-rich ocean plunged under the plate. It got recycled as lava in volcanoes along a geological feature dubbed the Kohistan Arc, as well as in a vast lava-oozing formation called the Deccan Traps. The eruptions released the carbon as CO2, which helped warm the climate. But once India collided with Eurasia 50 million years ago, India rode over the top of the zone and shut off the process. This, plus changes in ocean circulation as continents rearranged themselves, contributed to the long chill, the researchers suggest.

The results appear in the current issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
http://features.csmonitor.com/innovation/2008/09/25/warming-in-a-global-cool-period/

And I thought we could blame it on global cooling.

My bad.

Bummer

"lower than expected temperatures"

Actually, ted, temperatures were expected to be lower this year compared with last year, due to the preceding La Nina earlier this winter & spring.

Frankly, I'm surprised at the amount of sea ice melt this year. I thought we'd have much more ice than we do considering the strong Nina. If last year's extreme anomaly hadn't happened, then we'd be talking about how extreme this year's anomaly is.

But remember kids: if last year was the warmest year on record, and this year was the 2nd warmest, then that means...the Earth...is COOLING!!! Straight outta the Deniers' playbook.

Considering the lag between ENSO events and Northern high-latitude surface temperatures, up to 13 months, it will be interesting to see what happens over the next year, especially with the possibility of another La Nina. The SOI is pointing in that direction. Refer to Figures 2 and 3 in the linked post at my blogspot.

"Sea ice motion also helps determine how the ice will fare each melt season. In 2007, a strong northward sea ice motion at the end of the melt season pushed ice floes together, compacting the ice. The tightly packed ice and high temperatures worked together to create a record-low extent.

This year, the wind patterns were different, leading to a less compacted ice cover. This, paired with slower summer melt, helped keep the overall extent larger."

The only thing they left out was "damnit".

In other words, 2008 ice is closer to 2005 than it is to 2007. Except for the last seven weeks, 2008 had more ice than 2005. April, 2008 had the third highest April extent on record.

Nice spin indeed. I'll match you with an equally irrelevant pairing of observations:

2006 still holds the record low extent for almost the entire period between January and June. 2007 ice was greater than 2006 ice for two-thirds of the year according to your same data. We all know how that turned out.

FYI, I believe earlier this year you used the 2007 Arctic sea ice minimum coupled with the almost average maximum to state that the Arctic had seen the greatest increase in ice in recorded history. Given that nearly all of it melted again, I believe we can now use your same logic to state that this summer saw the greatest decrease in Arctic sea ice on record. Even more than the storied 2007 season!

How's that for spin?

Travis/Mark:

No spin is needed; there isn't any "anthopogenic" or, for that matter, "greenhouse gas induced" warming in evidence. When you have some evidence of that, then you can crow about it. At this point, all you have is your pseudo-religious BELIEF that elevated CO2 levels have caused the Earth's climate to warm, when it has proven itself unable to do so at many points in the past - and at present.

"A"GW exists only in the fantasy world of computer models, which are little more than the classic example of GIGO (Garbage In, Garbage Out).

Travis,

Excellent spin. But so was Patrick's. And Patrick is not the one who started it. He is a counter-balance to certain individuals in NOAA, NASA, and NSIDC, just as you are a counter-balance to him.

I think another interesting spin would be to add up all the hours sunlight is actually hitting the Arctic Ocean, (exactly six months at the pole, and then a varying amount as you head south,) and to then combine it with the remaining area of the ice. This would give you a figure which could be called "reflection-hours," which would tell you how much solar warmth was bounced back into space. 2008 had more "reflection-hours" than 2007, and you could then take that data and run with it. (Adding cloud-cover might be interesting as well.)

I actually have no problem with spin, as long as the data behind the spin is truthful. However there is a point at which one's desire to make a point causes one to step away from honesty, and that is where the trouble begins. If, as John Keats said, "Truth is beauty," then it follows that "Untruthfulness is ugly."

An example is the tropical storm that formed, fit all the qualifications of a tropical storm, but didn't get named, off the Carolina coast the past few days. Truth is, it fit the definitions and should have been named. However the ugliness of egotism seemingly reared its head, and, because a tropical storm hadn't been forecast, apparently someone's fat pride was at stake. Rather than "look bad," they chose to distort definitions.

To not call a storm a storm might make an incorrect forecast look correct, and a forecaster might think this makes them "look good." In truth, distorting definitions makes them look bad. To those who see clearly, such distorters appear superficial and shallow. Sadly, distorters wind up missing the beauty of Truth, which is found deep, and is seen in humble people who care more for Truth than vanity.

You know, I am left with the observation that the ice cap is really quite small. So, in the end, I really have started to wonder what all the hub bub is about other than just an intriguing set of observations with no real context involved..

Ultimately, we have the followers of Gore (Darren, enough with the Goreacle, I am tired of editing it out on your posts) telling all of us how dire and drastic it is, and we have the skeptics saying that there is a rosy not drastic side to it.

So, let's see, if the condition is worse (as reported by the Gores, Hansens et al), there is less ice right? So, have there been any significant changes in sea levels? Is NYC flooded? Is the beach closer to my house in Central Ohio?

And the funny thing about all of this is, no one has even mentioned that the ENTIRE ice melt might be natural. Does AGW even play a role here? And if you think it does, what's the percentage?

Given 2007 was a record low why would anyone be surprised that 2008 melt came close to it, even given the 'strong' La Nina. There are many factors affecting Sea Ice levels as the report indicates, what would have been surprising was if the melt levels had been nearer to the average.

If the local bookmakers took bets on sea ice levels I would wager that the 2009 minimum level will be greater than 2008 but still lower than the average.

Mybrainwashed friends who buy into AGW now tell me that one anticipated effect of global warming is that the poles will become colder. Amazing that AGW is an explanation for all phenomenon...

Here is a good page that can answer many questions posted on this blog.

At least if gives you the context to look up deeper explanation.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/629/629/7074601.stm

Great article but your leap-year correction is in the wrong direction. 9/24/08 is 367 days after 9/23/07.

Reply: Thanks, I knew I would find a way to screw that up.

It is rather peculiar to discuss any of this in terms of records, when the extent of "record" keeping only goes back to 1979. That is very silly on a planet that is 4.5 billion years old.

We have log books and other anecdotal evidence that the ice has been relatively clear before during the summers in the 1920's and 1930's.

Why is the smaller extent such a big deal in the north, but the larger extent in Antarctica is all but ignored? I thought this was "global" warming.

What is the big concern even if the ice disappears in the summer. And as another poster commented, where is the evidential connection to CO2 volumes.

This really is a religious type of voodoo science completely lacking in any empirical foundation.

paulm,

Interesting link, but dated November 12,2007. In other words the BBC article represents the Alarmist "talking-points" one was likely to hear nearly a year ago.

Last November I had only been a Skeptic for three months, and found it impressive when Alarmists glibly replied to my doubts with the ten replies the BBC site mentions. I had no idea my friends were merely parroting "talking-points," and therefore went through the toil of studying each point. I wanted to see if there was, as you put it, "a deeper explanation."

I am not the only one who went through the points, one by one. The BBC needs to update these ten "talking-points," for there now exists ten Skeptic "replies-to-Alarmist-talking-points." (Also there was a plunge in world temperatures after these ten points were made, which changes the entire background of data.)

Many of these points remain debatable. I don't have the audacity to claim all ten points have been completely refuted. However it is clear the science is far from "settled."

What I found most upsetting, during my common-man research, was evidence men like Gore, Hansen, and Mann were attempting to ram their research down the public's throat, to claim authority they don't have, to claim a consensus existed that didn't exist, and to bully and marginalize any who dared even ask questions.

Add to this the evidence these men have, (at the very least,) been one-sided in the way they gathered data to support their theories, and one has a very strong motive to doubt them more strongly, and insist upon further questioning.

These ten points fail to mention an eleventh point which I find objectionable: "We must act NOW, without further discussion!" I don't like the attempts to panic the public, as if they are sheep which can be driven. (If you don't look before you leap you're a lemming.)

Lastly, please note the footer of the ten points states, "Compiled with advice from Fred Singer and Gavin Schmidt." (Check out RealClimate.) These gentlemen are not known for being particularly broad-minded, and Gavin is described by some as being Mann and Hansen's chief propagandist and attack-dog, (more interested in politics than true science.)

The ten points are, if anything, more open to debate now than they were a year ago. The science is far, far from settled. In fact the only thing settled is that the politics involved is neither mature nor dignified.

AGWinS,

No spin is needed; there isn't any "anthopogenic" or, for that matter, "greenhouse gas induced" warming in evidence. When you have some evidence of that, then you can crow about it. At this point, all you have is your pseudo-religious BELIEF that elevated CO2 levels have caused the Earth's climate to warm, when it has proven itself unable to do so at many points in the past - and at present.

Nowhere in my post did I advocate for the claims of AGW; I was simply countering the spin PH put on this year's Arctic melt. I have not in the past claimed that anthropogenic GHG emissions are the sole, or even necessarily the driving force behind the recent changes in climate. I'd appreciate it if you did not impose your one-dimensional caricature of AGW "believers" on me, because that is not the mold from which I come.

Caleb,

Your idea is an interesting one. However you would also have to account for the angle of the sun at each latitude as well as its change in angle based on the time of year. The angle of the sun relative to the horizon affects the amount of solar radiation that will ultimately reach the surface.

Also complicating such a calculation is the question of using sea ice area versus extent. Depending on wind patterns, the two metrics (one used by University of Illinois, the other by NSIDC) could provide very different inputs to the equation. The former, while more accurate, would also be much more difficult to calculate because you would have to me more precise about the exact location of the ice.

Having said that, there's no reason what you propose could not be done. It would just take a good deal of mathematical modeling coupled with daily updates of sea ice levels. I for one would be very interested to see what comes out of it.