The western edge of the Northwest Passage through the Canadian Archipelago is completely blocked with thick multi-year ice.
arctic.io – Arctic Terra – (2013/169)
And Arctic temperatures remain at record lows for the date.
COI | Centre for Ocean and Ice | Danmarks Meteorologiske Institut
Ten dog crap AGW explanations to be produced forthwith (within the next two weeks)
I am reminded of the Sir John Franklin expedition in 1845. His ships became icebound off King Williams Island. In the summer of 1846, the ships were not freed from the ice. Multi-year ice blocking the NW Passage a century-and-a-half ago. All thought to have perished, though there is some evidence some survivors blended in with the Inuit.
Ah, well. I suppose they’ll say if it keeps up. AGW/CC causes more ice to build up.
Since they changed their tunes from AGW/CC makes milder snow is the thing of the passed Winters. To AGW/CC makes more snowy harsh winters. 🙂
Steve,
If the Arctic ice suffers a strong melt this season, in spite of the cool beginnings, will you accept that PIOMAS was correct in their assessment of ice volume?
PIOMAS is complete crap.
Steve,
Is it the US-Navy submarine observations, oceanographic moorings, or the satellite data they use to validate their findings that you have an issue with?
Ask these folks how late spring is faring for them:
http://www.webcams.travel/webcam/1198520951-Weather-Kimmirut-Kimmirut
http://www.webcams.travel/webcam/1326084816-Weather-Kullorsuaq-North-West-Greenland-Kullorsuaq
You are conflating food with excrement. I hope you don’t do that in other areas of your life.
chewer,
Your first link is for a place which is almost 40 degrees and the second is 35 degrees — is that what I am supposed to notice?
Yeah – Real Climate and Joe Romm won’t let me write anything on their shit blogs
Steve,
So, if it isn’t the satellites, submarines or moorings, then what exactly is it that you don’t like about PIOMAS other than they are “crap”?
And would they be less crap if it turns out the Arctic suffers one of the most extreme melt seasons even after the cool beginning thereby validating PIOMAS’s assertion that there is very low ice volume?
Locate the search bar near the upper right of the blog, and type in PIOMAS
Steve,
I am not looking to search through more unsubstantiated blogs. Certainly you must have some bona fide proof — some way of cross checking with a CREDIBLE source. That is all i am asking for. Why is PIOMAS crap? And would they be less crap if PIOMAS is proven correct in regards to low ice volume?
Did you catch that, Steven? He’s claiming (for at least the second time, I think) that the only sources you ever cite for all your posts are “other substantiated blogs” like he thinks yours is.
In other words, he is trying to slowly and methodically build a case to be cited elsewhere that you and your supporters are morally and functionally identical to holocaust deniers. Will he be allowed free reign to continue doing this as much as he wants to in your space?
RTF
His buds are having a giant circle jerk watching the ice not melt and the planet not warm,
Check out the permafrost depletion program run through NSF funding by the geophysical Institute of UAF. Permafrost has been growing in all regions around the northern hemisphere steadily since 2005. The depreciation seen from 1997-2004 was minimal and can be compared to the era of 1917-1941…
Will you agree PIOMAS is a sloppy approach to simulation when this Inter-Glacial comes to an end?
Chewer,
Are you referring to this paper from G.I.?
Methane seepage in the Arctic: GI’s Grosse and colleagues’ work in Nature Geoscience
“Here, we document the release of 14C-depleted methane to the atmosphere from abundant gas seeps concentrated along boundaries of permafrost thaw and receding glaciers in Alaska and Greenland, using aerial and ground surface survey data and in situ measurements of methane isotopes and flux. We mapped over 150,000 seeps, which we identified as bubble-induced open holes in lake ice. These seeps were characterized by anomalously high methane fluxes, and in Alaska by ancient radiocarbon ages and stable isotope values that matched those of coal bed and thermogenic methane accumulations. ”
Or this one?:
MODIS-Derived Arctic Land-Surface Temperature Trends
Muskett RR. 2013. MODIS-Derived Arctic Land-Surface Temperature Trends. Atmospheric and Climate Sciences. 3(1):55-60.
“Abstract: Across the Arctic changes in active layer, melting of glaciers and ground ice, thawing of permafrost and sequestration changes of carbon storage are driven in part by variations of land surface heat absorption, conduction and re-radiation relative to solar irradiance.. . . Over this decadal period we detect increase in the number of days with daytime land-surface temperature above 0?”
Did it cross your mind that the “Arctic” is defined by some people as the isotherm within the Arctic Circle that defines a 10 deg. C July temperature?
Brian,
Which people are they?
Some friends of ours
http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/arctic-meteorology/arctic.html
The interaction between solar O/P (summertime) and the ice lenses found within the permafrost and the gaseous regions have been thawing for 5,800 (+/- 250) years.
The themokarst anomalies are not happening any faster today then they have in past centuries.
Actually Brian,
It is defined as an area where the average daily temperature never rises above 10 deg. C. But what does this have to do with methane or permafrost (you linked your comment to the G.I. studies)?
The methane hydrates in the permafrost. This has been postulated as “enhanced global warming”
The NSF funded program, that began right around 8 years ago…
Chewer,
You asked me to check out the NSF program — I did. And I provided you a couple of their papers and with links.
I am happy to review any other referenced and pertinent information from them. I am just waiting for you.
Richard,
I have repeatedly asked Steve to provide an independent and FACTUAL verification in support his opinion that PIOMAS is “complete crap”. He steadfastly ignores the request and tries to use diversionary tactics.
If he has such evidence, why won’t he provide it? You may not care if Steve doesn’t use real evidence,to support his arguments but you should.
PIOMAS uses an average temperature within defined (large) regions and as you know the AO, PDO-MEI and NAO all have varying effects on the currents, similar to the triple-ocean convergence at the south pole. PIOMAS cannot have any degree of accuracy without measuring the sea temperatures directly below the ice mass and to -100 meters below.
I do, and he does. And now you have been advised that I do, so you can now officially stop speculating about what you think I care about.
RTF
Well Richard,
Perhaps you could “advise” me as to where ON THIS BLOG Steve has provided independent and factual evidence regarding PIOMAS?
Chewer,
i suppose that is why PIOMAS validates their findings with US Navy Submarine data.
TOOOOO Stupid. You asked for my opinion about PIOOOOMAS and then declared that I wasn’t allowed to provide it. I almost always cite my data sources and are almost always from government web sites.
You are just TOOOOOO dense to understand what is going on.
Steve,
I have looked high and low on this page andIi can;t find you citing one source for your claim about PIOMAS. And BTW, I did look at 5 of your other blogs and they are precisely the same — extravagant claims supported by home-made graphs or links to another of your blogs.
The real “death spiral” is the merry-go-round one enters when trying to find independent support for one of your arguments.
Not only that, but the methane bubbles under pressure are oxidized to CO2 and water upon expansion to the surface
T.O.O. arrives with an agenda, to make a bunch of “deniers” look “stupid,” ends up covered in mud he tries to fling.
Not funny one bit, it is a sad thing to witness
Brian,
Asking for independent and factual evidence is strange way to characterize mud slinging.
“circle jerk”, “holocaust deniers”, “conflating food with excrement” and phrases like those seem more like mud slinging to me.
BTW, have you notice that Steve has yet to provide any independent evidence regarding PIOMAS? Makes you wonder, doesn’t it?
One theory is that you are one of the experts whom the Arctic is making a fool out of this year? Is that why you are acting so stupid?
Steve,
And still you provide no independent evidence as to why PIOMAS is “complete crap”. I am getting the distinct impression that no evidence exists other than your ” gut feeling”.
You’re not really big on basic comprehension skills are you?
Will,
Actually, I am. But I could use a little help here. I am having a hard time finding any independent evidence to support Steve’s claim that PIOMAS is “complete crap”. I have noticed, in the comments, that you do some research now and then. Can I get you to do some of that for me here? The evidence can’t not be another opinion and should be factual and independent.
Thanks in advance. I owe you one.
I like the ice mass for the northwest passage. There’s an excellent chance these rowers never bothered looking at a sat photo. They think they’ll row through this summer!
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2013/06/18/bc-rowers-vancouver-northwest-passage.html
They better make sure some ice breakers can get to them if they need to be rescued, because a helicopter sure ain’t gonna save them.
More brain dead publicity stunts that typically end in near tragedy, ego and stupid people drive them on.
If they’re that stupid I wouldn’t consider it a tragedy. Darwinian theory.
T.O.O,
Talk is cheap. Time to put some links up and let Mr G deny them. Be pro-active.
For example.
Quote T.O.O, June 20, 2013 at 3:11 am:
“Steve,
Is it the US-Navy submarine observations, oceanographic moorings, or the satellite data they use to validate their findings that you have an issue with?”
Now I dunno if that is what Steve has “an issue with,” but, checking the PIOMAS website might be something :
“However, Arctic sea ice volume cannot currently be observed continuously. Observations from satellites, Navy submarines, moorings, and field measurements are all limited in space and time.”
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/wordpress/research/projects/arctic-sea-ice-volume-anomaly/
Good luck debating your points on that, T.O.O.
handjive,
i don’t understand your point. Because submarines can’t be positioned under every square meter the Arctic 24/7, then their sonar readings can’t be trusted? Have you ever heard of statistical analysis?
BTW handjive,
It was Steve who made the assertion that PIOMAS is “complete crap”. I have only asked that he provides factual and independent evidence as to why that is. For a man to write dozens of posts based on his poor opinion of PIOMAS and to not have a VALID reason for doing so is quite mystifying.
And, if you have noticed, he continues to avoid providing such evidence. After all, he titles his website Real Science — shouldn’t that mean something?
The model is useless because thickness is distributed according to how the individual thinks the distribution should look. I could run PIOMAS and reverse their trends.
Brian,
Which individual? Will you become the first person here to provide factual and independent evidence for regarding PIOMAS or is this just more “gut feelings” that you have to offer?
It isn’t my “gut feeling,” it is that of the modeler.
It is up to you to provide evidence that thickness estimates are a reliable reflection of reality.
Brian,
Making broad pronouncements devoid of all evidence and then compelling someone else to provide evidence to the contrary is not how science works.
PIOMAS is used by NOAA, the US Navy, the Canadian Navy, the NSDIC and others for their own projections. Their tools are moorings, sonar measurements, and various satellites. They employ experts in statistical analysis and their methodology is open sourced. They re-calibrate their findings based on real-world observations and it is all spelled out quite clearly on the internet. If improvements or problems are discovered, they are spoken of plainly and openly.
On the other hand, we have Steve telling us PIOMAS is “complete crap” and Brain telling us “I could run PIOMAS and reverse their trends” but neither of them are telling why or how and neither will provide independent verification. You are asking us to trust you but don’t verify what we say. Personally, I would rather put my trust in PIOMAS.
I’ll give you a statistical analysis of why PIOMAS is biased to a low estimate of ice volume.
For US $100, under contract. I’m not going to write all that out for free (I actually did this for a program review).
Deal?
Brian,
You want someone to pay you before you will provide the evidence for your grand pronouncements?
Are you for real?
I’m for real all right, and intelligent enough not to type out 10 pages for your free edification.
You paid for higher ed, didn’t you? Did you think it should have been provided to you for free?
Brian,
I am agog.
What I think, Brian, is that you should come equipped with evidence BEFORE you make grand pronouncements.
I can’t stop chuckling at your chutzpah. You have the balls of a herd of elephants.
Everybody wants free stuff. Why don’t you pay for it, then if it is wrong, you can claim ripoff?
Hansen does nothing of the sort for free. I’m using him as my role model.
You’re just gullible, ready to accept anything you like unquestioned.
Brian,
“You’re just gullible, ready to accept anything you like unquestioned.”
Just the opposite, I question everything and so far you (and Steve) have provided no verifiable answers.
And you want me to pay you. (FYI It is hard to type while laughing convulsively)
Then don’t type.
Brian,
Ouch.
i don’t normally laugh while I type, but I couldn’t help myself this time. BTW, do you have a cousin in the Nigerian Treasury Department?
Did you have cousins in the Nazi party in the era of the Third Reich?
Brian,
Nein.
T.O.O, to summarise.
Your original post-
.
T.O.O says June 20, 2013 at 3:00 am:
“Steve,
If the Arctic ice suffers a strong melt this season, in spite of the cool beginnings, will you accept that PIOMAS was correct in their assessment of ice volume?”
.
Steve responds, “It’s crap.”
.
You then request evidence why.
[Be Pro-Active:] You could do the research your self, post why PIOMAS is NOT crap, and dare Steve to be the denier so many would claim him to be.
Further …
June 20, 2013 at 8:08 am, in response to Will Nitschke (June 20, 2013 at 7:59 am),
quote T.O.O:
“But I could use a little help here. I am having a hard time finding any independent evidence to support Steve’s claim that PIOMAS is “complete crap”, thanking Will in advance for his response.
Evidence is given. Not “independent”, but straight from the source you quote.
Considering “Sea ice volume is an important climate indicator,” if “Arctic sea ice volume cannot currently be observed continuously,” and ALL the observations you cite “are ALL limited in space and time,” Mr G might have a fair observation on PIOMAS.
The point couldn’t be blunter.
PS. I have heard of “statistical analysis.”
Maybe you could link some supporting your point.
handjive,
I will point you to my comment above — science works by providing evidence in support of your arguments not by asking someone else to do disprove you. But I did so anyway — providing a synopsis of PIOMAS methodology, tools and validation.
You say that evidence is given — from who and where is it?
Independent evidence is evidence from a source other than yourself which validates your argument. Evidence is not someone else’s opinion found the comment section of another blog.
Steve bases many of his blogs on his opinion that PIOMAS is “complete crap” and he has yet to show that he has independent or factual evidence that supports that opinion. Why doesn’t that concern you?
T.O.O says: June 21, 2013 at 1:20 am-
“BTW handjive,
It was Steve who made the assertion that PIOMAS is “complete crap”.
I have only asked that he provides factual and independent evidence as to why that is.”
Let’s then re phrase your original big “IF” question:
T.O.O,
IF the Arctic ice ‘DOESN’T’ suffer a strong melt this season, in spite of the cool beginnings, will you accept that PIOMAS was ‘IN-correct’ in their assessment of ice volume?
You might wanna bet your house on PIOMAS, where “Arctic sea ice volume cannot currently be observed continuously, “or all their observation platforms are “ALL limited in space and time.”
Like MR G, I want a bit more certainty.
Until then, it’s crap, and completely un-related to carbon (sic) levels at 400ppm.
handjive,
First of all, why should we rephrase the question? I didn’t make the assertion about PIOMAS. For a website based heavily on climate change to not have solid, factual and independently supported evidence behind their arguments of a key issue — that a warming planet will reduce ice mass — is simply negligent.
I have already given my prediction for this melt season — extent will be greater than 2012 and less than 2007, but ice volume will be the lowest on record. Storms, prevailing winds, cloudiness, temperature all will play a factor as well as ice thickness for what the final September results will be.
My opinion is based both on recent trends and what PIOMAS tells us (which itself is based on sonar, satellites and moorings). What they tell us is that ice volume is very low and even if the extent is currently the highest in 10 years (although well below the 80’s and 90’s) and even though the melt season has cool beginnings, the ice thickness is too thin to last long or remain relatively large. So my answer is a provisional yes. I will change my opinion of PIOMAS if the melt season is unremarkable and that the other factors mentioned above are within the seasonal norms.
PIOMAS is CRAP and they are running a scam that you fell for. Just like GISS, NOAA and the rest of the Chicken Little crowd you worship.
Like most of the other models used in the CAGW BS business. PIOMAS is a what-if scenario. This is what GISS has to say about their temperature reports:
Q. If SATs cannot be measured, how are SAT maps created ?
A. This can only be done with the help of computer models, the same models that are used to create the daily weather forecasts. We may start out the model with the few observed data that are available and fill in the rest with guesses (also called extrapolations) and then let the model run long enough so that the initial guesses no longer matter, but not too long in order to avoid that the inaccuracies of the model become relevant. This may be done starting from conditions from many years, so that the average (called a ‘climatology’) hopefully represents a typical map for the particular month or day of the year.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/abs_temp.html
If you look enough you will probably find the same weasel wording at PIOMAS web site.
miked,
You pointed to one source of information used by PIOMAS and pointed to some of the issues involved. Here are some other sources PIOMAS utilizes:
Submarine ULS data: Over 120,000 km of tracks of ice draft have been processed for the Arctic Ocean since 1975 from both US and UK submarines.
North Pole Environmental Observatory (NPEO): An oceanographic mooring has been continuously deployed at the North Pole in more than 4000 m of water since the spring of 2001.
Institute of Ocean Sciences (IOS): IOS has deployed a series of ULS instruments in and around the Mackenzie Delta, in Nares Strait and in the eastern Beaufort Sea under the direction of Dr. Melling. Also, NOAA supported IOS in the deployment of a ULS-equipped mooring on the Chukchi Shelf in 2004—2005.
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute (WHOI): The Beaufort Gyre Exploration Project, under the leadership of Dr. Proshutinsky, has deployed 3 to 4 moored ULS instruments in the deep water of the Beaufort Sea since 2003.
Alfred Wegener Instititute (AWI): AWI has deployed moored ULS instruments in both the Arctic, primarily in Fram Strait, and in the Antarctic, primarily in or near the Weddell Sea (starting in 1990).
University of Alberta: Dr. Christian Haas has made a number of helicopter-borne surveys of the ice thickness with an electromagnetic induction (EM) instrument in both the Arctic and in the Antarctic.
ICESat Satellite data: ICESat laser-altimeter freeboard measurements and ice thickness estimates are available sporadically from 2003 to 2009.
Each source (above) has its own page in this web site. Each source typically has data from multiple moorings, submarine cruises, or field campaigns, but all are closely related by methodology and processing.
The data from each platform or cruise is averaged into one-month or 50-km samples. Two separate files are made for all the samples from each source, one with a summary of the measurement time and location and the mean, minimum, maximum, and standard deviation of the basic measurement, be it draft, thickness, or freeboard.
Additional statistics are included for the meaurement depth or height and the water temperature. A second file includes the full ice draft or thickness distribution (the probability distribution function, or pdf) of the measurement in 300 bins, each 10 cm wide. Both of these files can be accessed from the source web pages or through the Data Table page.
Finally there are metadata files that list various information about each platform. These are given in an Excel spread sheet in which each source has a worksheet and each mooring or cruise a column. It can be accessed either through the source page or the Data Table page
NOAA and GISS have millions of records for surface temperatures and the still produce BS what if scenarios that have little to do with reality, NSIDC and the other groups anxiously watching the global ice conditions are turning out what-if scenarios that have little to do with reality. It is all garbage and designed to Baffle you with Bull Shit because they ran out of Brilliance to dazzle you with.
Their main objective is to justify their jobs and to get more funding to keep doing the same. Science and knowledge took a back seat many years ago.
Yes miked,
The US NAVY,American and Canadian Universities and other organizations all band together to create BS just so they can get further funding. (I wonder who would want to pay for all that BS?)
I guess what you are saying is: That making their data and methodology freely available and then validated by independent sources is really a perversion of transparency — right?
What is so clever about this scam is the way they make all their data and methodology open sourced. Undoubtedly it is so gullible people will think “If this information is freely available, it can’t be secretly corrupted”. And to top if off, they post real-time photographs and “poof” — just like that — people are hooked into the giant AGW scam.
If you tell a lie often enough people will think it is the truth. The ice conditions in the Arctic vary from day to day and year to year. The ice conditions in the Arctic have been similar to current conditions and even less over the historic past. All due to natural fluctuations. As recently as 1500 years ago there was less ice in the Arctic than there is today. There is anecdotal evidence the Arctic was ice free for up to 3 months a year or even longer.
What you are seeing is a group circle jerk, where everyone wants a piece of the action after they found suckers to pay for crap that passed off as science. It is called confirmation bias. People want to believe humans are causing bad things to happen so they show bad things are happening. Pure Magic!
Their satellite photos are real images of real ice conditions. The problem is their evaluation of those images and their claims about what they “See”. Their claims about their “What-If scenarios”, Projections, or whatever they claim they are feeding us from their magic computers.
They need a minimum of 150 years of “Accurate” satellite data before they can even start getting an idea about regional weather conditions. They have a little over thirty years. One fifth of the way there. One minor problem with the current satellite images as related to those that came before is the improvements in resolution of the images and improvements in evaluation techniques. They are comparing different results as if they are the same and they are doing the same thing with surface temperature records. Last months’s near surface temperature anomaly was the same as 1980’s May anomaly. That is 33 years of natural temperature variations.
It does not matter how “Pretty” the idea is if the theory does not match reality it is disproved. Moving the goal posts also disproves the CAGW illusion!
I’m guessing you will not change your perception or opinion, regardless of the late august ice mass!
Chewer,
As I have said previously, If other factors are within the seasonal norms (storms, cloudiness, prevailing winds, temperatures, etc) and the ice mass and extent are relatively high, then yes, I will change my mind about PIOMAS.
Will you change yours, if the opposite occurs?
TOO:
What do you consider seasonal “Norms”?
In the Arctic region there is a long term weather pattern commonly referred to as the AO and the NAO, NAM and PDO also play a part in weather conditions in that region. Before you answer think about historical conditions over just the last 8,000 years. There is evidence of ice free conditions for many months of the year and there is evidence that the region was iced over for longer each year.
PIOMAS is a computer construct based on assumptions and guesses/ extrapolations. It is a good example of the GIGO principle! Just like the other climate models.