http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php
This seems like a fairly obvious question, but a few readers are having a tough time with it. Ice forms when the air and water are cold. In the case of salt water ice, the water has to be cold down to a depth of several tens of metres before ice starts to form on the surface.
So when you see a record fast freeze like this year, you can infer several things.
- The air is very cold
- The water is very cold
- Very little energy was absorbed by the water this summer
- 2010 is not the hottest year ever.
References : Consult your freezer
For your record fast freeze, are you only cherry picking this week out of your graph above? Because in every other year there is a section that is steeper, and therefore recovering even faster than the 2010 recovery.
In fact looking at 2008 it looks to have recovered faster than 2010 for the whole of this month.
Why do you limit the data to 6 years when you show much more and get a better perspective on where the health of the ice is at?
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/index.html
“The air is very cold”, “The water is very cold” but still warmer than in the past as we saw just a few posts ago.
“Very little energy was absorbed by the water this summer” – you got figures to back yourself up?
“2010 is not the hottest year ever.” – you can infer this from a “record fast freeze”? From a localised event you can tell us that 2010 is not the hottest year ever. Ha. I would have thought that you could do that by realising that 2010 hasn’t ended.
The gain since mid-September is at least as large this year as it was in 2008.
2008 also had very cold water and air.
2007 had warm water and air.
Thanks for answering one of the questions.
It’s good to know exactly which weeks you are cherry picking out of the data (which is a cherry pick of the full amount of yearly data available).
Your statment is only true if you choose the earlier of the two low points in 2008. If you line 2010’s low point up against the second of the two 2008 low points then 2008 is a clear winner.
Cherry pick? LOL
This article is about formation of ice. I used the period during which the ice is forming – since mid-September.
Yes, cherry picked. Either that or you are truely unaware that the years have different start dates for recovery.
If you compare 2010 to when 2008 was at it’s lowest point (the second time since 2008 shows several pixels at minimum) then 2010 is not the fastest.
Translate 2010’s lowest point start date to coincide with
2008’s lowest point and this is what you get.
http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/8504/noncherrypickedcomparis.jpg
2008 recovered much more.
But I think perhaps you’re still missing the point made earlier. The speedy recovery occurs because there was more open ocean. The greater the amount of exposed ocean, the more heat it can lose to the atmosphere. The more heat the ocean looses, the more rapidly ice formation will occur.
And more thing to note. It will obviously be one year old ice – not much to celebrate about unless you can find a new way to make it thicker and more resiliant to next years melting.
“This article is about formation of ice. I used the period during which the ice is forming – since mid-September.”
However, you choose only to look at data for the last 6 years, when you must know that if you were to look at all of the reliable satelite data, the same analysis would show that the current ice extent is not a “record” high, but is in fact 2 standard deviations below the mean. That is why it is a cherry pick.
Brendan
How does the current ice extent compare to say 1920’s + 1930’s?
Data for that time period is limited.
There is some info toward the bottom of this page … http://www.climate4you.com/SeaIce.htm
“2010 is not the hottest year ever.”
Whether the air/sea surface temps were hottest or not, doesn’t tell what the heat content of the earth is. The melting ice/rapid refreeze is an indication of the oceans giving up the latent heat that’s going to get “blown off” into space. Couple that with the quiet sun and I’m expecting the NH to have a cold winter and some nasty weather. /sarc Of course that’s proof of AGW /sarc off
Since the sea ice extent in June was at a “record low”, does that mean that temperatures were also at a record low in in the early part of the year when the melt started?
It means that the Arctic Oscillation was at a record low last winter and compacted the ice towards the pole.
I see you can’t give a direct answer to the question. Pointing out the other factors affecting ice extent when discussing rapid ice loss and ignoring them when discussing rapid ice gain is obviously disingenuous. Sadly there will be those that swallow it hook line and sinker.
It was a very precise answer to your question. Compaction means less surface area.
Yes, and there are still other factors that affect the rate of growth, such as wind, which your argument ignores, as has been repeatedly pointed out to you. It is disingenuous to chose to invoke or ignore these factors as it suits your argument. If you are going to be disingenuous, at least try to be subtle about it, so it isn’t so obvious!
It is remarkable to me that any serious person would question the premise of this article.
There are many factors such as wind + currents that can influence ice break up regardless of temperatures.
I am not aware of any factors that can cause a build up of ice regardless of temperature.
Perhaps you can enlighten me.
Steve it isn’t that I am not saying that rapid ice growth implies higher temperatures. I am saying that rapid ice growth does not guarantee that there were higher temperatures, as there are other factors involved, so the certainty of your conclusions is not justified by the strength of the argument as you ignore the effects of those other factors.
It is called science, before you make a strong claim, you need strong evidence, and a record over a six year dataset is never going to give you strong evidence of anything.
The conclusion that “2010 is not the hottest year ever.” is also (aside from being a straw man as nobody suggests it is – especially not Hansen) not supported by the evidence about ice melt simply because the arctic is only a relatively small part of the planet. It is perfectly possible for 2010 to be ON AVERAGE the warmest year on the instrumental record (which is what is actually claimed) whilst still being one of the coldest of the last six years in the Arctic.
Arctic ice isn’t worth blogging about.
That’s why no one has any opinions on it. Global warming believers feel no insecurity when they see Arctic ice growing fast. So when they see a post on it they just pass over it and go on to something else. They never stop in to leave any comments. And they never would invoke ‘cherry picking’. They just aren’t worried about what’s happening in Arctic ice because you can see such clear signs of global warming in it that it’s a slam dunk case. Antarctic ice is even more of a slam dunk. The growing trend there is a clear indication of global warming. It can all be explained by global warming theory. When you think about it, really, everything can be explained by global warming theory. The easiest thing to explain by global warming theory is this torrid growth of Arctic ice. Torrid growth of ice is part of what one could easily expect to see from a warming world. It’s what the models predict. It what the ‘consensus’ would say. Why would anyone think global warming isn’t happening when they see ice doing this. Come one, look closer at the theory. You’ll see, rapid growth of ice is caused by global warming. You just don’t understand because you aren’t looking for the right things. The ‘consensus’ knows. Listen to them. They will tell you what is the right thing to believe. They’re smart. Don’t worry about it. Only those engaged in diverting people from looking at real science would try to tell anyone that ice can only come from cooling and not from warming. I hope all this propagandizing about rapid ice growth coming from cooling comes to and end. Certainly there are oil companies behind all this talk of cold causing ice growth. You did know there’s lots of money involved with petroleum interest? It must be part of their propaganda campaign to tell people that cooling causes rapid ice growth. Everybody knows global warming is really the cause of what we see happening in the graphs.
But if you don’t see that, it’s ok. It’s a personal choice. No pressure.
sarc off
Paul H, we could indeed be seeing a “record” (for the last six years) becuase it is colder than it has been in the previous five years and the wind+currents have been about the same. Alternatively it could be that the temperature is about the same as previous years, but this year the wind+currents have not been inhibiting build up as much as it did in the previous five years. Thus while it is likely that it is colder in the Arctic this year, we cannot be sure of that without first excluding the possibility that the wind+currents etc. have not been more favourable to rapid growth.
That is the way science ought to work, if you want to make a strong claim, you must investigate and/or exclude other factors that could explain the effect you are interested in.
Brenden said:
“The greater the amount of exposed ocean, the more heat it can lose to the atmosphere. The more heat the ocean looses, the more rapidly ice formation will occur.”
I thought the mantra was that the greater the exposed ocean the more heat it gained and the more ice would melt. The warmists conveniently never said it worked both ways.
Actually it was already said here http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2008/111008.html
How Does Ice Form?
This seems like a fairly obvious question, but a few readers are having a tough time with it. Ice forms when the air and water are cold. In the case of salt water ice, the water has to be cold down to a depth of several tens of metres before ice starts to form on the surface.
The Oceanographic research ship CCGS Amundsen is going through the NW passage now and here are his readings:
Barometer 1003.6 mb
Air temperature -4.1 ° C
Dewpoint -4.3 ° C
Water temperature 2.9 °
The water temperature was as high as 6.6 degrees and never below freezing. It is presently NW of Nanisivik and the map shows the ice to be solid. I guess it depends on your defination of cold!
http://sailwx.info/shiptrack/shipposition.phtml?call=CGDT
http://ice-glaces.ec.gc.ca/prods/WIS55CT/20101011180000_WIS55CT_0005238735.gif
Sounds like an instrumentation problem
ice forms when water is used,recycled and is dumped in oceans.
THis is good lol x
I was with the idea that because particles In gases are further apart and those in a solid are compacted and so to make ice there must be a force to compact the particles of a gas or a liquid for ice to form.