I know, it’s just the weather. But this year, it appears that arctic ice will return to normal levels. From the story:
Barring an about face by nature or adjustments, it appears that for the first time since 2001, Arctic Sea ice will hit the “normal” line as defined by the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) for this time of year.
NSIDC puts out an article about once a month called the Sea Ice News. It generally highlights any bad news they can find about the disappearance of Arctic ice. Last month’s news led with this sentence.
In February, Arctic sea ice extent continued to track below the average, and near the levels observed for February 2007.
But March brought good news for the Polar Bears, and bad news for the Catlin Expedition and any others looking for bad news. Instead of ice extent declining through March like it usually does, it continued to increase through the month and is now at the high (so far) for the year. If it keeps this trend unabated, in a day or two it will likely cross the “normal” line.
According to one theory, the earlier lower levels and the current normal levels were not caused by significant warming or cooling, but wind patterns:
WUWT asked NSIDC scientist Dr. Walt Meir about this event to which he responded via email:
It’s a good question about the last time we’ve been above average. It was May 2001. April-May is the period when you’re starting to get into the peak of the melt season for the regions outside of the Arctic Ocean (Bering Sea, Hudson Bay) and the extent tends to have lower variability compared to other parts of the year as that thinner ice tends to go about the same time of year due to the solar heating. Even last year, we came fairly close to the average in early May.
He also mused about a cause:
Basically, it is due primarily to a lot more ice in the Bering Sea, as is evident in the images. The Bering ice is controlled largely by local winds, temperatures are not as important (though of course it still need to be at or at least near freezing to have ice an area for any length of time). We’ve seen a lot of northerly winds this winter in the Bering, particularly the last couple of weeks.
As we’ve been saying on WUWT for quite some time, wind seems to be a more powerful factor in recent sea ice declines than temperature. Recent studies agree. See: Winds are Dominant Cause of Greenland and West Antarctic Ice Sheet Losses and also NASA Sees Arctic Ocean Circulation Do an About-Face.
This certainly doesn’t disprove that we are warming, or even more, that we have now entered a cooling trend. But I think it does provide another reason to reject hysteria.
April 1st, 2010 | 10:49 am
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Vince Humphreys and R, American Dude. American Dude said: RT @CO2HOG: SHS: Global Warming Hysteria:Skeptic Notes Arctic Ice Back to Normal http://bit.ly/97y6j7 #tcot [...]
April 1st, 2010 | 1:01 pm
Dr. Smith is right, this proves nothing about the long-term climate trend. However, it is refreshingly fun to rub this “snow” in the collective noses of the nosenholers who have for so long cited weather events of all kinds as proof of global warming.
Yes, this changes nothing. Global-warming-as-an-immediate-crisis-requiring-draconian-economic-measures is still the HOAX that it always was, and those who love to promote the hoax will continue to rant and rave.
Speaking of which, I eagerly await the comments of David and Jeffery on this post!
April 1st, 2010 | 1:15 pm
Wesley: Why did you misrepresent the original NSIDC graph by eliminating the plus-or-minus 2 standard deviations boundaries? The “normal” line represents a 21-year average for the months in question.The standard deviation data are necessary if we are to differentiate between simple spikes in daily readings vs. actual multi-year trends.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
April 1st, 2010 at 1:23 pm
I didn’t do any such thing. Heck, I wouldn’t know HOW to do such a thing. I copied and pasted. WJS
April 1st, 2010 | 1:32 pm
One ought to be careful how he or she interprets such data.
Look at the units on the Y-axis.
Ice exists in 3 dimensions. You can have great coverage, but not much depth. Hence, you may not have as much ice as you think. Consider how bodies of water freeze in the winter. The surface freezes, then you build depth. (I won’t go into the thermodynamics and chemistry of why this happens)
I do agree the arctic ice has rebounded from all time, modern lows – like the polar bears. Will it stay? Is there as much volume as there ought to be? Is it as healthy as it should be? Will it continue to recover?
Unfortunately, too much other data suggests our habitat continues to struggle.
BTW, the issue with wind and ice cover is not a theory. It remains a hypothesis. In science, a theory must have significant evidence and data, from multiple lines of inquiry, that is widely (almost entirely) accepted by primary experts. This is why there are actually very few theories in science (cell theory, gravity, atomic theory, quantum mechanics, relativity, evolutionary theory, among some others).
April 1st, 2010 | 6:46 pm
Well, Joe DeVet asked. I was just gonna let things slide at my previous post about area vs. volume. For starters, I personally am always skeptical of two dimension “ice” area covers. How easy is it to destinguish between ice and snow from instrument readings as well? (I don’t know, I’ve searched, briefly, for this answer) And how far back can we effectively go?
But if one is going to use ice area, here we go.
Here comes the data.
As everyone ought to be aware, the U of Ill at UC has one the nation’s foremost sea ice analysis centers.
I want everyone to take a look at the data presented here by the UI researchers.
How do the trends look?
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seasonal.extent.1900-2007.jpg
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.arctic.png
Here’s data demonstrating a recent ‘rebound’:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.recent.arctic.png
How about the total ice cover on Earth:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg
This last one is the data all the conservatives are pointing to, of late. How does it compare with other data?
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.area.arctic.png
So, what’s the deal with ice cover? Well, as the temperature warms, more ice/glaciers melt, more water is available (sea level rise) and more water evaporates. This evaporation is key. It will fall back to Earth as rain or snow. Indeed, data suggests we are getting more net rainfall/snow, worldwide. What happens in the polar regions? This causes an increase in snowfall, and this snow that lands in Antarctica, for example, turns into ice. The polar regions, actually, don’t normally get that much snow (compared to the Rockies, for example). So, with the increased moisture in our atmosphere, should one expect even more ice than we are seeing, if, by some chance, the temperature was not a bit warmer?
My real question is, have many people spent an afternoon studying and thinking about this stuff, or does everyone cherry-pick info from some journalist working in for-profit media, where emotions sell better than truth?
April 2nd, 2010 | 12:03 pm
Wesley: Go back to the NSIDC site and have a look. You’re saying you copied and posted THIS graph?
April 3rd, 2010 | 10:19 am
Nice post, David. Thanks for the links. This is like seizing on the 1998 El Nino event as a convenient way to disguise global warming trends.
April 4th, 2010 | 12:18 pm
Nice post Dave
Followed the first link and was a little bit disappointed that the last few years of increase in Arctic sea ice were not included, but what the heck, I’m sure you know what you’re doing.
Warmists are often accused of moving the goal posts and retro fitting their pseudo-science to fit the emerging reality.
Just to clear things up can you make a real clean strong statement about how Arctic sea ice is a key indicator of AGW and how it’s disappearance indicates that we’re heading for meltdown.
After you’ve done that can you re-assert that the path future climate will take can be predicted effectively.
Then you can outline a few things that we won’t be seeing any time soon.
For example you could say that if the Arctic summer minimum were to match the 1979-2000 average later this year then this AGW is utter nonsense.
You could say ‘it’s nothing to do with the extent … it’s the thickness’, then you could indicate exactly how thick the ice would have to be in order to put this charade to rest.
I don’t care really. If it’s a very strong thesis, and you have an ability to predict climate then you can make a whole raft of assertions about things that can’t possibly occur.
But the thing is, it’s not a strong theory and you don’t know what’s round the corner because the tools that climate science uses have no predictive ability whatsoever.
… we all knew you’d say ‘this isn’t significant’ to this rise in sea ice, so just tell us a few things that WOULD BE SIGNIFICANT.
April 4th, 2010 | 5:54 pm
Nice post C Lane
You should have continued to the second link where the data are up to date and shows the continued decline in Arctic sea ice.
I suspect from my reading of what you typed that you likely have limited understanding of the concept of variability. Growing new ice in the arctic one winter does not signal the cessation of global warming any more than an especially hot summer in British Columbia signals worsening global warming. Climate scientists must take a longer view and see how the climate is responding over decades. Given the amount of carbon dioxide we are adding to atmosphere allows a reasonable approximation of how much the Earth will warm decades from now. Yet those same climate scientists cannot forecast how warm it will be next June!
But you do almost ask a good question. How much reversal of the effects of global warming would convince climate scientists (whom you malign as “warmists” for some reason) that the Earth is no longer warming? I can’t say with certainty but perhaps a decade.
Look at this chart of Earth average temperatures through 2009.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Satellite_Temperatures.png
See how the record varies from year to year. 93 and 94 cooler than the average, 98 much warmer, 2007 cooler. What will 2015 bring? Can’t predict. What will it be like from 2021 to 2030? Warmer, probably about 0.3C-0.4C warmer than now by the end of that decade. Yet 2030 may be cooler than 2029! In fact, I’ll bet you $10K that that decade will be warmer than 2001 to 2010. Easy money provided we have no natural catastrophes like a supervolcano erupting or an unnatural catastrophe like global nuclear war.
Pseudo-science in climate research? Please point it out rather than make an unsupported blanket statement.
April 5th, 2010 | 2:07 pm
There are three bits Jeff (can I call you Jeff, is that OK?)
Anyway, there are three bits.
First state that the extent of Arctic sea ice is a key indicator of AGW. This is so you can’t back out of it in a few months or years time if the ice comes back in spades.
Second, indicate that climate scientists can predict future climate. This is so you can’t play the projection/prediction game in the future.
Third, list a whole bunch of things that we might expect normally from the climate ,that your AGW theory and climate prediction tools preclude. That means tell us some stuff that isn’t going to happen.
… by the way ad hominem attacks and condescension are no substitute for simply answering the questions.
April 5th, 2010 | 7:46 pm
C,
I can call you C, can’t I? I apologize if you interpreted my comments as ad hominem attacks. I assumed from your use ad hominem attacks that you were comfortable with that sort of banter. Again my apologies for misreading your sensitivities.
Rather than answer your laundry list of questions why don’t you make your points with evidence?
Arctic sea ice is one of several dependent indicators of global warming. Is your demand for this statement to allow you an AHA! moment if Arctic ice increases some year? What’s your point?
Climate scientists can predict future climate. Why do you demand this statement?
Things that will not happen? Read the conservative IPCC 2007 report. Why do you demand this statement?
April 6th, 2010 | 4:36 pm
Jeff
There are three parts … I thought I made that clear.
I’d expect you to say three things:
1) The extent of Arctic sea is a core indicator of AGW
2) Models allow us to predict future climate
3) AGW precludes Arctic summer minimum returning to the 1979-2000 average.
Simple stuff to say, but then again quite difficult. Let’s have a look at where the difficulties might be.
It impossible to predict global climate on decadal and centennial time scales, the tools don’t exist to do it. Because future climate can’t be predicted, AGW must always be couched in language that takes this into account. Vague positive statements are always true. The statement “Melting ice caps show us that AGW is serious” is a nonsense. If the ice caps melt it’s true, if they don’t … they might soon. If the ice comes back,that’s just the natural variability we forgot to mention in the first place. If the ice comes back in spades, well, just ditch the totem for another, perhaps ocean temperature or an expanding Sahara.
So that’s one and two. You can’t predict climate and because of this fact you won’t make any real strong statements about what AGW is all about, especially with regard to Arctic sea ice now things are going the wrong way.
The third bit is about strong predictive statements. If AGW had real substance, it would have to preclude certain eventualities, but it isn’t and it doesn’t. The quality of any theory can be measured, not by what it says will happen, but what it says can never happen. AGW precludes nothing, as you indicate.
You mentioned AR4, it’s not an interesting read is it? Don’t you find it strange how people can write so much and say so little. In “The Physical Science Basis” they reference Karl Popper early on .. and I think Einstein. In the whole report there are no grounds for falsification or preclusions, I don’t think Karl or Albert would approve really, do you? In fact, I don’t think a clearly testable and therefore falsifiable description of AGW is ever even stated in any part of AR4. You might put me right on that one … then again, perhaps not.
You also ask me for evidence. Evidence of what exactly? I make no statement whatsoever about how the climate will behave, and I’m certainly not asking for any money to be spent to turn back the tide, make more sea ice, or get Spring to start later. If Chicken Little says the sky is falling down, Chicken Little has to prove it.
April 22nd, 2010 | 7:28 am
[...] warming: Arctic ice back to normal I am allowed to dream, am I [...]
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact