Summer is gone, and with it the annual sea ice melt. This year was, depending on your point of view, either the second straight year of increasing sea ice or the third lowest extent of sea ice known. Both are true. So which one’s more important? NSIDC obsesses over the second part of that. But I disagree.

The rebound is far more important than NSIDC’s lead of it being the third lowest extent. This is because the rebound demonstrates just how little we know of climate and how it works. Allow me to explain.

Two years ago, when we saw the dramatic loss of sea ice, we were inundated with warnings that the arctic was in a downward death spiral. See, the loss of ice meant a loss of whiteness, which means the arctic would absorb more heat, which means that more ice would melt, etc., etc. And then winter of 2007 came, and arctic ice immediately refroze and jumped back up to where it was a few years ago. But that was irrelevent, we were told, because it was all new ice. Because there was all new ice, it would melt faster the following year. Which would mean more new ice, which would mean a more rapid meltoff the following year, etc., etc.

2008 came. 2008 went. While the ice melt was extreme, it wasn’t as bad as 2007. Clearly, it wasn’t a death spiral. And then it, too, rebounded to historical levels during the refreezing. But that’s ok. Because now, most of the ice was less than 2 years old. Which means it will also melt really fast, meaning the arctic is still doomed!

And now 2009 has come and gone. And the melt is improved yet again. I wonder if 2010 is doomed because the ice is all less than 3 years old…

Don’t believe me? Here’s a list of expert predictions made in July of this year (H/T: Watt’s Up With That). One model predicted minimum extent would be less than 2007, seven predicted it would be between 2007-2008 levels, three predicted it would be just above 2008 levels, and three substantially above 2008 levels. In the end, every single model lowballed the estimate. Every. Last. One.

Clearly we don’t know enough about arctic sea ice to be able to make predictions 2 month in advance, much less to tell us anything important about climate change.

We know now that 2007’s rapid meltdown was due to shifting ocean currents and not global warming. 2008 and 2009 are likely just returning the ice levels back to its initial level. The fact that it’s taking so long during the summers (remember, during winter it’s already back to normal) is probably due to the young ice issue I alluded to. However, instead of the feedback leading to a death spiral, it just means there’s a slow recovery. Within a year or two, barring any more weird currents that take away a huge chunk of ice, we should be back to our normal, slightly negative trend of losing ice every year.

But that trend only shows ~25-30 years or so of good data. So what do we actually know about long term trends? What information can this actually tell us?

Pretty much nothing, actually. Without any long term trends, we don’t know if sea ice extent is cyclical, how quickly it can rebound, or if this is part of a longer trend and not necessarily related to warming (note that our data picks up as soon as global warming started again, so we have no baseline to know what sea ice will do during a few decades of cooling). So why does it get so much press?

Because it’s dramatic. 2007 was dramatic. Antarctic ice is boring. Greenland ice is boring. Temperature trends are boring. But concerns that Santa’s workshop might melt away? *GASP*

Le National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) a réalisé une animation temporelle sur Google Earth, montrant les images satellites de la rupture du pont glaciaire qui s’est produite ces dernières semaines.

L’animation à partir des images satellites se trouvr ici

Source : Google Earth/NSIDC Google Earth Blog

A voir également : NSIDC

The state of the Antarctic ice shelves continues to deteriorate.  Following the end of the 2008-2009 Southern Hemispheric melt season, a bridge holding the Wilkins Ice Shelf to an island off the coast of Antarctica has finally collapsed.  I wrote about the worsening conditions that the Wilkins Ice Shelf was facing here and here (this second post was written just about one year ago, actually).  The Wilkins Ice Shelf will now be able to calve (break up and float away in ocean currents) allowing continental ice to flow to the ocean more quickly.

The National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, CO has the following two pictures – the first from two months ago (Feb 3) and the second two weeks thereafter (Feb 17):

Since the 2nd picture was taken, the ice bridge collapsed.  It was providing stability to the Wilkins Ice Shelf behind it.  In the 1990s, the Wilkins Ice Shelf measured about 5,000 square miles in area.  In 2008 alone, nearly 14% of the ice mass (~700 square miles) melted.  The Western Antarctic area has seen the largest amount of warming of all of Antarctica.  Similar, though much smaller shelves have broken off in recent years as warming air temperatures and warming sea temperatures attack them from two sides.  This BBC article describes the situation:

Many of its ice shelves have retreated in that time and six of them have collapsed completely (Prince Gustav Channel, Larsen Inlet, Larsen A, Larsen B, Wordie, Muller and the Jones Ice Shelf).

When Wilkins calves, it is expected to be the largest calving event seen by modern people.  Once that happens, ice sheets on continental Antarctica nearby this shelf won’t have thousands of square miles of ice holding them back from the ocean.  This acceleration phenomenon and its effects were not included by IPCC) when it made its latest projections on likely future sea level rise. Its 2007 assessment acknowledged that ice dynamics were poorly understood.  More recent studies recognize that warmer polar conditions will also lead to 30% less ice coverage in the Arctic, due in no small part to the very thin ice volume left after recent melt seasons.

These events are occurring many years ahead of recent projections.  The state of the climate system is worse than many assume.  We are running out of time to act and actions like Democratic Senate “moderates” forcing 60 votes to pass meaningful climate legislation clearly are not taking into account the following:

* Staggeringly high temperature rise, especially over land — some 15°F over much of the United States
* Sea level rise of 5 feet, rising some 6 to 12 inches (or more) each decade thereafter
* Widespread desertification — as much as one-third of the land

These impacts and more will be the results we witness by 2100 if we don’t act to stop them today, as I think the Obama administration believes.  Read this quote from Sec. of State Clinton at a two-week conference of parties to the 50-year-old Antarctic Treaty:

“With the collapse of an ice bridge that holds in place the Wilkins Ice Shelf, we are reminded that global warming has already had enormous effects on our planet, and we have no time to lose in tackling this crisis,” she told the first-ever joint meeting of Antarctic Treaty parties and the Arctic Council at the State Department.

I certainly can’t imagine any Bush “administration” officials saying such a thing.  In this sense, change has come to Washington.  Will Sens. Udall and Bennet agree when the time comes to make the hard votes?  Forcing 60 votes to maintain tradition and come across as “bipartisan” sounds really good.  5 feet of sea level rise, desertification of U.S. land and 15°F warmer temperatures do not sound really good.  When the time comes to make those hard votes, not only do I expect Sens. Udall and Bennet to vote to do something concrete, I also expect them to bring more than enough Republican votes over to the same side.  That’s the frame they wanted to work from.  They upped the bid and I’m seeing them.

Cross-posted at SquareState.

March is the time of year when the ice in the Arctic reaches its yearly maximum areal extent.  The Vernal Equinox is coming up in a couple of weeks, which means that the Northern Hemisphere is going to start receiving more sunlight than not every day.  The National Snow and Ice Data Center released a news update this morning on this subject.  Here are a few items worthy of examination.

Ice extent averaged for February 2009 is the fourth-lowest February in the satellite record.  February 2005 had the lowest ice extent for the month; February 2006 was the second lowest; and February 2007 is in third place. Including 2009, the downward linear trend in February ice extent over the satellite record stands at –2.8% per decade.

The news release has a times series graph demonstrating this decline.  The site also has an ice extent vs. date graph in which it compares winter 2008-09 extent to the climatological average (1979-2000) and to the 2006-07 data.  2006-07 is used because the record minimum extent occurred in the fall of 2007.  Comparing today’s conditions to the worst ever is a good idea, I think.  I’ve read murmurings from the climate change denialists that things are fine since today’s extent isn’t as bad as the worst case.  That’s like saying today’s economy is fine since it’s not quite as bad as the 1st Republican Great Depression.  It’s a ridiculous statement to make.  The extent of Arctic ice today is nearly 1,000,000 sq. km. below normal (dynamic link – only good for a few days).

The long-term trend is clear and it isn’t good.  The Arctic needs but the right kind of summer weather conditions in order for even more ice to melt this year.  And that’s what’s hidden in the areal extent data: it says nothing about ice volume, which is dangerously low.  The amount of multi-year ice decreased to very low levels last summer/fall.  That makes this year’s ice pack all the easier to melt.

Related to the news release is the state of the Antarctic ice sheet.  It appears to have reached this year’s minimum areal extent of about 2,000,000 sq. km (dynamic link – only good for a few days).  That’s the climatological norm for this time of year, which is quite a different story than what denialists would have the public believe.  According to them, Antarctic glaciers and ice are increasing.  That is devoid of the requisite detail to describe the actual reality.  Compared to this same date last year, there is ~600,000 sq. km. less ice today.  I won’t speculate on whether this is indicative of any kind of trend.  It’s certainly at the long-term average.  My worry last fall was the maximum areal extent reached a near-record low, which was a clear break in a recent trend.  How the ice sheet fares this austral winter remains to be seen, of course.

Recent news of melt rates increasing at both poles is very disconcerting.  Global ice conditions remain in less than healthy shape, as this graph demonstrates.  Last spring saw the only above-average areal ice extent since 2003.  Every other data point since then has been at or well below average.

Never let the truth get in the way of good old-fashioned, down-to-the-bone, leftist hysteria.

Recall the amusing little story from late last week that flung yet another delicious dagger into the heart of the Global Warming industry – the report of a glitch in satellite sensors that caused scientists to miscalculate, i.e. underestimate, how much arctic sea ice there was by nearly 200,000 square miles. Some had apparently noticed that there was actually ice in areas listed by the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) as “open ocean.”

The error was triggered by a problem known as “sensor drift,” according to scientists at the NSIDC. In short, it turns out there’s actually more ice up there than originally thought – an area that equals the size of the states of New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, New Jersey and all of New England combined.

This story, indeed, received a fair amount of play over the weekend and into early this week.

However, one thing in the story that went largely unnoticed (written by Alex Morales) was this little paragraph:

The extent of Arctic sea ice is seen as a key measure of how rising temperatures are affecting the Earth. The cap retreated in 2007 to its lowest extent ever and last year posted its second- lowest annual minimum at the end of the yearly melt season. The recent error doesn’t change findings that Arctic ice is retreating, the NSIDC said.

The hilarity – and absurdity – of what is being said here cannot be overstated.

In 2007, according to the NSIDC, the Arctic ice cap shrank to its lowest levels ever. (All Arctic ice cap measurement data covering the years 2,000,000 BC through 1843 AD were lost in a flood, I believe). The following year, 2008, the Arctic ice cap posted its “second lowest annual minimum.”

Second lowest.

For those who are Al Gore, that means there was more ice in 2008 than in 2007.

Yet, the NSIDC went on to say conclusively that the error does not, in any way, contradict the assertion that Arctic ice continues to dwindle. In other words, the fact that the ice is growing does not mean the ice isn’t shrinking.

(I’m thinking of the scene in the movie Animal House, where a young Kevin Bacon is standing amidst the exploding chaos of the “disrupted” homecoming parade, screaming, “All is well!“)

If the Arctic ice in 2007 was at its lowest extent, and the following year it was at its second-lowest extent, i.e. more than the year before, how exactly does one draw the conclusion that Arctic ice, despite “sensor drift,” is still retreating?

True, I have no degree in climatology, nor do I play a meteorologist on television, but I’m obviously missing something here.

The finer distinctions and nuances have clearly gone over my head.

Maybe I need to stop trying to comprehend the amazingly explicit and stick to the merely explicit.

Pesky data.

-

Feb. 20 (Bloomberg) — A glitch in satellite sensors caused scientists to underestimate the extent of Arctic sea ice by 500,000 square kilometers (193,000 square miles), a California- size area, the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center said.

The error, due to a problem called “sensor drift,” began in early January and caused a slowly growing underestimation of sea ice extent until mid-February. That’s when “puzzled readers” alerted the NSIDC about data showing ice-covered areas as stretches of open ocean, the Boulder, Colorado-based group said on its Web site.

Baltimore Fire-Destruction Led to Rebirth

Bendann Art Gallery Didn't Fare Well, But is Back Today

On This Date in History: I told you yesterday how I spent lots of time in Baltimore for the past week and stayed at the Admiral Fell Inn.  Now, the Admiral Fell Inn is really made up of parts of some 8 buildings, some dating back to the 18th century.  But, the buildings had been redone in the early 20th century.  Snow White pointed out to me that there had been a big fire, but I’m not sure how much the property was affected.  Well, low and behold, on this date in 1904, the Great Baltimore Fire broke out.  It was the first big  fire since the Great Chicago Fire in 1872.  No cow in this story though but there was wind.  This one is thought to have started by a cigarette or cigar in the basement of the Hurst Building, which was a wholesale dry good place on the south side of German Street at Liberty.  The fire burned down some 1400 structures over an 80 block area. 

38 Cities Responded to Help

A couple of interesting facts show up in this fire.  The fire burned for about 31 hours and fire companies from as far away as New York, Philadelphia and Altoona, PA showed up.  The companies uncovered a problem that had been urged to be addressed for some time.  There is a saying that the people of Venice did nothing about the waste water problem until sewage came into the homes.  Same is true in so many instances today and it was true in 1904 when, for years, experts had urged a uniform fire hose couplings.  At the time, there were about 600 different sizes in use in the United States.  So, when the Washington DC Fire Department showed up to help,

These Are Politician Buildings...Just the Facade

none of their hoses fit.  Same was true of other companies from 21 other cities that came to lend aid.  But, it wasn’t all bad.  The opportunity was presented for Baltimore to upgrade the docks, the electric and gas lines and also new pumping station and vastly improved sewer system.  That only served to bolster Baltimore’s position as a shipping and rail center when the automobile age came about a decade later.  Baltimore boomed partly because of the fire.  Many of the structures destroyed were only insured for their construction value. So, instead of 1400 buildings with an insured value of $13 million, 800 buildings replaced them with  a value of $25 million.  All told, the fire cost some $150 million…which was a ton of money at the turn of the century….and guess what…Baltimore didn’t ask for a bailout.

Arctic Sea-Ice Graph Through Jan 2009

Arctic Ice Update:  I won’t say too much about the sea ice report from the the NSIDC except to harp on something I’ve said for sometime and that is how it is reported.  The story begins by saying that the sea ice for January 2009 was below the 30 year average and was the 6th lowest on record…which I think only goes back 31 years.  Then you read down and find that the amount of ice was actually an increase from last year, which was the 3rd lowest ever recorded.  So, they could have just as easily said that the sea ice was growing which probably would have made a bigger splash as it goes against conventional wisdom of the arctic ice disappearing.  It is interesting when you find that east of Greenland, the ice actually decreased in the last two weeks of the month but elsewhere it increased.  That makes sense if you consider that is about the time that the northeastern quadrant of North America got terribly cold during that time.  When you get a big dip in the polar jet stream, it gets cold in one place but tends to be warm in the front and back of the trof with ridges building in.  In fact, in spite of the fact that we have been very cold for much of the winter, particularly the last 30 days, early data indicates that global temperatures actually were significantly warmer in January.

Weather Bottom Line: Same thing as yesterday’s report.  We get to the low to mid 60s with clouds on Saturday.  Low 50s with a few showers on Sunday with a weak front then a resurgence of warm air as a storm moves up through the midwest in the early part of the week and drags a warm front through.  We push to near 70 on Wednesday but there are still indications that the next storm coming out of the southwest is closer to us than the first and that could bring the prospects of at least t’storms on Wednesday if not severe thunderstorms.  Remember, last year in early February we had a pretty good tornado outbreak around here…but I wasn’t here. I was enjoying mid 70s to near 80 in New Orleans for Mardi Gras.

Based on The Air Vent post carried by Watts Up With That, the National Snow Ice Data Center has issued several corrections to the documentation of their sea ice area time series.

Most will remember my earlier post which plotted global sea ice trends. After initially concluding that the global ice level wasn’t decreasing measurably Tamino pointed out a problem in my analysis. After issuing my corrections, thanks and apologies to Tamino and the um…..thousands of readers of Watts Up With That, I went back to work investigating what was really happening to the ice area time series.

It was actually quite lucky that Tamino mentioned the step in the data and criticized me for not reading carefully (something which was mentioned in several comments on the various threads). When I first learned of it, I found the criticism was based on an entirely different set of ice area data with different source documentation. Still, I checked closely and found the tiny step in the time series and was convinced that I had missed something. I had spent a huge amount of time learning the data before I made my post so it was frustrating to say the least. Understand, I used several resources to check my work; not the least of which was the National Snow Ice Data Center (NSIDC) anomaly graph which has the same shape as the one I generated.

The first graph below is from the NSIDC website, the second is my calc. Differences in the noise between the two are explained by the daily resolution used in my graph compared to what my eyes tell me must be monthly data for their plot. They also seem to have an additional year (2007) in their data plot which is not available in the bootstrap time series I used.

After reading everything with great care, this graph and a similar one for the SH were used to verify my results before my original post. This paragraph below used to be on the NSIDC website describing the data of these time series.

In computing the total ice-covered area and ice extent, pixels must have an ice concentration of 15 percent or greater to be included; thus, total ice-covered area is defined as the area of each pixel with at least 15 percent ice concentration multiplied by the ice fraction in the pixel (0.15-1.00). Total ice extent is computed by summing the number of pixels with at least 15 percent ice concentration multiplied by the area per pixel. Sea ice concentrations are assumed to be 100 percent around a circular sector centered over the Northern Hemisphere pole (known as the pole hole) which is never measured due to orbit inclination. The Southern Hemisphere also has a pole hole; however, it does not affect this sea ice data set; since only land is under this hole. For SMMR, the hole is 611 km in radius and is located poleward of 84.5 degrees north. For SSM/I, the hole is 310 km in radius and is located poleward of 87 degrees north.

After checking this for about the hundredth time along with the rest of the extensive documentation, I wrote to the NSIDC and asked them to confirm that the area anomaly for the NH wasn’t corrected another way. Several emails back and forth later they confirmed that the area anomaly wasn’t accounted for. I then pointed out that the graph above and the paragraph in the data description were in error. After a short time, the NSIDC replied that they had their sea ice team was reviewing the data and planning an immediate update to their site.

That same day the site was corrected to read:

In computing the total ice-covered area and ice extent with both the NASA Team and Bootstrap Algorithms, pixels must have an ice concentration of 15 percent or greater to be included. Total ice extent is computed by summing the number of pixels with at least 15 percent ice concentration multiplied by the area per pixel, thus the entire area of any pixel with at least 15 percent ice concentration is considered to contribute to the total ice extent. Total ice-covered area is defined as the area of each pixel with at least 15 percent ice concentration multiplied by the ice fraction in the pixel (0.15-1.00). There is a circular section over the Northern Hemisphere pole (known as the pole hole) which is never measured due to orbit inclination. For the purposes of ice extent, pixels under the pole hole are always considered to be at least 15 percent. For total ice-covered area, the pixels under the pole hole are not used. The Southern Hemisphere also has a pole hole. However, it does not affect this sea ice data set because there is only land under this hole. For SMMR, the hole is 611 km in radius and is located poleward of 84.5 degrees north. For SSM/I, the hole is 310 km in radius and is located poleward of 87 degrees north. Note: The difference in pole hole areas between SMMR and SSM/I results in a discontinuity in the Northern Hemisphere ice-covered area time series across the instrument transition.

Link HERE. They are still considering how to handle the area anomaly graph.

Since this changes how you interpret area data substantially, there is no easy method for updating the trend graph. Still, the step in the data is quite small as shown below.

It occurs right after 1987.5 which corresponds to the 87 July/August boundary which is different from tamino’s reference. If we assume worst case that the NH hole in the data was 100% filled with ice (it wasn’t), the calculation from before produces a slight downslope in comparison to the flat trendless line in my original post. The result is only a trend equaling a 4% reduction in global sea ice over a nearly 30 year period. Not exactly disastrous either way. I am going to continue my work on this by matching (regressing) the last two years from other sites on the end of the data. With the recent global cooling, it should be interesting to see where global sea ice is today.

I need to offer thanks to Anthony Watts for putting the original post on his blog. His professionalism was commendable in handling this matter quickly and transparently. IMO this openness to correction is lacking on several AGW blogs. I also need to thank the NSIDC (particularly, Dave, Molly and the Sea Ice Team) who really blew me away with their responsiveness and professional demeanor in making these corrections.

For those of you who advocate drilling over everything else, consider the following.  Sharp is planning on increasing its market share of thin-film solar cells to 50% by 2012.  That’s an industry America created not too long ago.  The current U.S. market share?  10% and falling.  Opening up lands to drilling won’t deliver a drop of oil or natural gas to market for 10 years.  By that time, Japanese and German solar cell manufacturers will have a lock on the market.  Republican energy policy has been short-sighted since Reagan.  Our economy and national security have been paying the price for it ever since.

While Arctic sea ice melted to the 2nd lowest area on record this summer, it likely melted to the lowest volume on record.  The ice that formed last winter was thin.   The volume of ice now versus the same point two years ago has radically decreased.

California Edison will begin buying energy from a solar thermal plant being built by eSolar Inc., a renewable energy startup backed by Oak Investment Partners, Idealab, and Google’s for-profit philanthropic arm, Google.org.  One of Google’s many goals is to get solar electricity rates to compete with rates for fossil fuels (which receive incredible corporate welfare, keeping their rates below actual market cost).  The project could generate 105 megawatts in a few short years, with the option to expand to 245 megawatts.  Note that those megawatts would be baseload, not variable.  That’s the big advantage solar thermal enjoys over solar photovoltaic.

An EPA plan would allow coal power plants and oil refineries to be built closer to National Parks.  The EPA is being run by pro-corporate hacks appointed by Bush.  The way in which pollution levels in the parks would change under the EPA plan.  Instead of monitoring three- and 24-hour results, pollution will be averaged over an entire year before action is taken to control it.  Republicans’ plans to foul our public lands comes closer every day.  How patriotic.

12 governors signed a pledge yesterday to work against global warming forcing.  The document was signed at the end of a two-day international conference hosted by California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.  The meeting was held in advance of the U.N.-sponsored climate change treaty negotiations being held in Poland next month.  Among the realistic assessments, here is a quote from Sabine Miltner, a director at Deutsche Bank:

She said sufficiently reducing emissions will require capital investments of roughly $500 billion a year between 2010 and 2030. Miltner suggested the U.S. and other governments weighing economic stimulus packages invest some of the money in energy efficiency projects, transmission lines for renewable power sources and public transportation systems.

It’s always nice to see more realists address the environment and the economy at the same time.  My Governor, Bill Ritter, was among the signees.  His New Energy Economy plan is well under way.  Seeing as how it will end up costing more later if we do nothing now, I’m glad Ritter and others are taking action, despite the science-haters in Bush’s government.

Arctic sea ice reformed quickly during October, as expected.  It’s not hard for a small layer of ice to form with sub-freezing atmospheric temperatures and 24-hour darkness.  The areal extent at the end of the month was still well below the 1979-2000 climatological average.  It should be noted that the rate of ice formation slowed noticeably by the end of the month.  Also of note is the large anomaly of high atmospheric temperatures in a deep layer above the Arctic Ocean.  As the warm water gave off its heat once the Sun retreated from the sky and prior to ice formation, massive amounts of energy in the form of heat was transferred from the Ocean to the atmosphere above it.  The NSIDC notes:

In the past five years, the Arctic has shown a pattern of strong low-level atmospheric warming over the Arctic Ocean in autumn because of heat loss from the ocean back to the atmosphere. Climate models project that this atmospheric warming, known as Arctic amplification, will become more prominent in coming decades and extend into the winter season. As larger expanses of open water are left at the end of each melt season, the ocean will continue to hand off heat to the atmosphere.

As I’ve written before, the total area of ice that melted this year set a record: 10.58 million square kilometers (4.08 million square miles).

From ABC News online:

I hate to be the bearer of bad news but I have already brought you an awful lot of it from the Arctic already. So here it. More grim news on the sea ice levels and what it means to us. Experts at the National Show and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colorado believe the overall volume of Arctic sea ice has reached the lowest level since satellite measurements began in 1979. Although the numbers are still coming in, the data was collected by measuring the area covered and the thickness of the ice there.

“We’re pretty confident this is a record low,” said Walt Meier, a research scientist at the center.

Scientists at the center monitor the health of the ice by looking at many factors, including how much of it can be seen from space, the thickness of ice hidden underwater and the overall volume of existing ice. Their study has revealed that sea ice at the top of this planet has apparently reached the lowest volume ever recorded. This is scary enough but conditions are declining towards a point where the Arctic Ocean may soon be completely without ice in the summer.

I know I have reported on this before and it seems like an echo in here. But the more evidence that keeps piling up, the more authoritative the voice becomes. I plan to hammer away at what the scientists are saying, pumping into the carbon bloated ether, until all the naysayers either disappear or get their butts in order and help us out. We just don’t have time to coax people gently; this problem is staring us down and it looks like a big black monster to me. We have every reason to be scared.

“It’s like a building and a Hollywood set of a building,” Meier has also said. “You take a picture of both of those, and they look exactly the same. But if you go and peer around the corner, one is thick, and one isn’t. And so, what we’re seeing now is that ice, that used to be like a building, is kind of becoming more like a Hollywood movie set.”

The experts have all been saying that the old ice is fading away and has been replaced by newer but thinner ice. Older ice is in place for years, accumulating snow and ice year after year, and was ordinarily thicker and more robust than the thin new sheets that are there now. This thin new ice is more prone to melting quickly when exposed to temperature gains. In March 2008, data showed that a record 73% of the sea ice in the Arctic was made up of this newer, thinner ice.

“The arctic is fundamentally changing in character, and we’re going to continue this downward trend and eventually reach the point when we have entire sea-ice melts during the summertime,” Meier explains.

The experts are sending out threats of doom and gloom. They are warning that, without Arctic sea ice, there will be major, if as of yet unknown, consequences. And they say that these consequences will extend far beyond the Arctic. Overall, this region acts as an “air conditioner” for the rest of the planet, allowing it cool down. This effect helps stabilize global temperatures and weather patterns in the lower latitudes, much like the jet stream.

“You’re changing the equation,” Meier said. “And that’s going to potentially change traditional wind patterns, ocean currents, and storm tracks. And which way the wind blows has tremendous impact in certain areas, particularly on where it rains and when it rains.”

Consider also that less there is of sea ice, the darker the water. And darker water absorbs more energy from the Sun. And, in turn, this heated water melts even more ice. It’s a vicious conundrum. And I do not believe that people have any idea what to do about it, if, in fact, they will admit it’s happening.

The year 2007 broke the record for the lowest extent of sea ice, and 2008 came in second. The third-lowest year on record is 2005, part of a dramatic downward trend that has lasted three decades and doesn’t appear to be slowing. This is expected to continue into the near future, with no projection of when it might stop or what can be done to make it stop.

But some small good news appears the basic fact that there may be some cooler years when the ice might not melt as much or as fast. There is unlikely to be a lot of gain in ice levels in the interim, just a year here or there where losses may be lessened. However, the long-term trend toward warmer temperatures makes a complete recovery or even partial reversal unlikely.

“We don’t see it turning around,” Meier said. This man believes that the Arctic could be ice-free in in the summer as early as 2030 or 2040, reluctantly adding that more pessimistic estimates predict that could happen as soon as 2013. Does everybody realize that this is 2008? I mean, we’re talking about 5 years!

“Five years ago, if you’d gone to a conference of scientists and said, ‘by 2013 the Arctic sea ice in summertime is going to be gone,’ you might have been laughed out of the room,” he said. And then, sadly adds, “No one is laughing now.”

Technorati Tags: arctic, ice levels, melting, global warming, carbon, scientists, study, research, NSIDC, Walt Meier

Polar ice increases 9% from last year

Watts Up With That?
September 17, 2008

Business & Media Institute
September 18, 2008

So much for the media hype about Arctic ice disappearing this summer.

Earlier in the summer, media outlets warned ominously that the ice could melt away. “Today” host Lester described the story as “surprising and, frankly, alarming news from the scientific community, a new report that says the North Pole could soon be ice-free.”

La dépêche, O.A., le 13 Septembre 2008

Climat. Le feu à la banquise

Les glaces de l’Arctique fondent plus vite que prévu. Pour la première fois, le pôle Nord n’est plus relié à la terre ferme.

On se réjouit souvent des premières fois. Premier baiser, première voiture, première fois sur la lune…

Mais il en est certaines qui sont inquiétantes, comme celle de ce début septembre : le pôle Nord est pour la première fois en eau libre. On peut désormais faire le tour complet de cette calotte en bateau.

Jusqu’à présent, la couche de glace de la banquise n’avait jamais cédé simultanément le long des côtes sibériennes et canadiennes. Le Centre national américain de la neige et de la glace (NSIDC) vient de révéler que c’était chose faite.

Selon Étienne Berthier, glaciologue au CNRS (Legos) de Toulouse, « ce phénomène est une réponse au changement climatique global, et on peut être pessimiste ». Certains experts prédisent la disparition complète de la banquise aux alentours de 2020.

« On avait depuis 20 ans une décroissance linéaire » de la banquise, témoigne le chercheur toulousain. « 2007 avait été très déficitaire (NDLR : le record absolu de fonte des glaces, 40 % de moins que la superficie moyenne des vingt dernières années) on ne s’y attendait et on pensait à un artefact. Force est de constater que 2008 confirme cette accélération. Ceci noircit le tableau pour l’avenir ».

La fonte de la banquise du pôle Nord ne joue pas de rôle direct dans la montée du niveau des océans (l’eau occupe la même place que lorsqu’elle était glace). En revanche, elle intervient dans le réchauffement climatique. « Il renvoie l’énergie solaire, alors que l’eau la garde. Donc en remplaçant la banquise par des mers, on amplifie le réchauffement général ».

Pour Étienne Berthier, la disparition des glaces au pôle Nord « doit être prise comme un signal d’alarme. On considère le pôle Nord comme le canari dans les mines de charbon ». Sous-entendu, le dernier avertissement avant l’explosion. La dernière chance.

Il est donc plus que temps. « Car avant que des décisions soient prises et appliquées à l’échelon international – et on en est loin – et en prenant en compte l’effet d’inertie, le réchauffement climatique se poursuivra longtemps encore ».

Tant que le coût financier du dérèglement climatique n’apparaîtra pas clairement comme insupportable, il y a peu de chance que les choses changent. Ou alors ce sera une question de survie.

Une réserve de ressources énergétiques

Si l’Antarctique (au Sud) est protégé par un traité international, il n’en est rien pour l’Arctique. Aussi, les cinq pays riverains du pôle Nord (Russie, États-Unis, Canada, Norvège et Danemark) se livrent-ils une course à la conquête, à la revendication, avec en ligne de mire d’énormes ressources énergétiques coincées dans les grands fonds, mais techniquement exploitables.

Il faut dire que selon les dernières estimations d’experts gouvernementaux américains, l’Arctique recèlerait « 22 % des ressources énergétiques non découvertes mais exploitables » de la planète. On y trouverait l’équivalent de 90 milliards de barils de pétrole, 47 milliards de m3 de gaz naturel et 44 milliards de m3 de gaz naturel liquéfié. Sans compter les gisements d’or, diamants, nickel, fer, etc. De quoi aiguiser des appétits. Tout comme la possibilité pour les navires marchands de relier Atlantique et Pacifique en gagnant 5000km par rapport aux routes habituelles.

Et l’environnement dans tout ça ? Probablement sacrifié sur l’autel de la consommation à outrance. Jusqu’à ce qu’il soit trop tard.

We have news from the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC). they Say The melt is over. And we’ve added 9.4% ice coverage from this time last year. Though it appears NSIDC is attempting to downplay this in their web page announcement today, one can safely say that despite irrational predictions seen earlier this year, we didn’t reach an “ice free north pole” nor a new record low for sea ice extent.

Here is the current sea ice extent graph from NSIDC as of today, notice the upturn, which has been adding ice now for 5 days:

Here is what they have to say about it:

The Arctic sea  ice cover appears to have reached its minimum extent for the year, the second-lowest extent recorded since the dawn of the satellite era.  While above the record minimum set on September 16, 2007, this year further reinforces the strong negative trend in summertime ice extent observed over the past thirty years. With the minimum behind us, we will continue to analyze ice conditions as we head into the crucial period of the ice growth season during the months to come.

Despite overall cooler summer temperatures, the 2008 minimum extent is only 390,000 square kilometers (150,000 square miles), or 9.4%, more than the record-setting 2007 minimum. The 2008 minimum extent is 15.0% less than the next-lowest minimum extent set in 2005 and 33.1% less than the average minimum extent from 1979 to 2000.

Overlay of 2007 and 2008 at September minimum

The spatial pattern of the 2008 minimum extent was different than that of 2007. This year did not have the substantial ice loss in the central Arctic, north of the Chukchi and East Siberian Seas. However, 2008 showed greater loss in the Beaufort, Laptev, and Greenland Seas.

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.

A word of caution on calling the minimum

Determining with certainty when the minimum has occurred is difficult until the melt season has decisively ended. For example, in 2005, the time series began to level out in early September, prompting speculation that we had reached the minimum. However, the sea ice contracted later in the season, again reducing sea ice extent and causing a further drop in the absolute minimum.

We mention this now because the natural variability of the climate system has frequently been known to trick human efforts at forecasting the future. It is still possible that ice extent could fall again, slightly, because of either further melting or a contraction in the area of the pack due to the motion of the ice. However, we have now seen five days of gains in extent. Because of the variability of sea ice at this time of year, the National Snow and Ice Data Center determines the minimum using a five-day running mean value.

Ongoing analysis continues

We will continue to post analysis of sea ice conditions throughout the year, with frequency determined by sea ice conditions. Near-real-time images at upper right will continue to be updated every day.

In addition, NSIDC will issue a formal press release at the beginning of October with full analysis of the possible causes behind this year’s low ice conditions, particularly interesting aspects of the melt season, the set-up going into the important winter growth season ahead, and graphics comparing this year to the long-term record. At that time, we will also know what the monthly average September sea ice extent was in 2008—the measure scientists most often rely on for accurate analysis and comparison over the long-term.

It will be interesting to see what they offer in the October press release. Plus we’ll be watching how much ice we add this winter, and what next year’s melt season will look like. Hopefully we won’t have a new crop of idiots like Lewis Gordon Pughtrying to reach the “ice free north pole” next year.

In giugno di quest’anno, alcuni scienziati hanno dichiarato a National Geographic che c’erano buone possibilità che il Polo nord si sarebbe trovato libero dai ghiacci entro l’estate, a causa del riscaldamento globale (antropogenico, sottinteso). La storia ha trovato una buona risonanza sui nostri media.

Ma la previsione si è avverata? Andiamo a vedere le misure prese dai professionisti del ghiaccio, ovvero lo NSIDC.

Per iniziare, in agosto il Polo Nord è rimasto completamente occupato dai ghiacci. Inoltre, il grafico, aggiornato giorno per giorno, della differenza fra l’estensione del ghiaccio nel 2008 e quella del 2007 dimostra che l’estensione del ghiaccio è stata leggermente minore rispetto all’anno scorso in giugno, per poi portarsi a valori costantemente maggiori – anche se di poco. L’andamento dell’estensione del ghiaccio in agosto (rispetto alla media 1979-2000) ha una decisa pendenza negativa, ma l’estensione ha raggiunto il suo punto più basso nel 2007 per poi risalire bruscamente quest’anno.

La previsione del Polo Nord libero dai ghiacci si è rivelata finora errata, e la situazione complessiva sembra essere migliore dell’anno scorso. Sembra, perchè una maggiore estensione di ghiaccio più sottile può corrispondere and un minore volume totale, ed il minore scioglimento di quest’anno può essere dovuto a fattori transitori che scompariranno nel 2009.

Ma i media sono notoriamente di memoria corta quando si tratta di smentire storie sensazionali da loro stessi pubblicate, e quindi il Corriere e La Repubblica (la seconda in particolare) continuano a passare articoli dal taglio allarmistico, battendo sull’apertura simulatanea del passaggio a Nord-Ovest e quello a Nord-Est.

Aggiornamento: Il grafico della differenza di superficie ghiacciata viene aggiornato quotidianamente. Dopo l’insolitamente alto tasso di scioglimento in agosto 2008, sembra che il disgelo sia ormai arrivato alla fine con l’estensione ghiacciata maggiore che nel 2007.

Fabster