Arctic ice experts say that recent data offer powerful evidence that summer sea ice has passed a point of no return.
Arctic Tipping Point: A North Pole Without Ice by Fen Montaigne: Yale Environment 360
That explains why ice extent is close to what it was in 1971.
It sure did tip; not the way The Warmish expected.
They kept harping on about dark sea water absorbing more heating leading to a death spiral. That hypothesis is being tested today, and next year and so on. If we see good growth over the years then it goes into the trash.
Well actually it doesn’t because there are other factors to consider. How exactly do you propose to isolate one variable from all of the others?
In fact, it has already been proven wrong as the “dark water” this year is smaller than 2012.
The evolution of the icecap I believe is more connected with the geography of the Arctic. The accumulation of ice over Canada at the minimum of 2012 and “favorable winds” this year, were 2 of the main reasons of the great recovery.
Another point is the lowering of the temperatures, this year in comparison with 2012, record low temps during summer, all contributing to the recovery.
The geographic distribution of ice and the favorable winds can be looked as “lucky” factors to some extent, but the lowering temperatures are an *obvious* consequence of solar radiation levels IMO.
Sorry, that – whilst interesting – doesn’t address the point, which was about dark sea water absorbing more energy.
There’s a lot of work being done on the effects of variation in solar output. What I’ve seen doesn’t suggest the link is that simple. As far as Arctic ice is concerned we need to see the trend. One rebound doesn’t signal a turn, as I’m sure you’ll acknowledge.
The AGW models put too little emphasis on the Sun and that it IMO their greatest failure. If they analyzed solar forcing more carefully, especially its effects on atmospheric composition, they’d see that CO2 is actually not important for climate. The Arctic region follows this forcing very closely and, although less albedo naturally corresponds to more absorption, if there is less radiation to absorb the effect can be the opposite.
The present ice recovery is not just a “lucky” phenomenon, it has been indicated by the strong rebound of ice extent during the recent winters, after 2008… caused by the present low level of solar radiation.
I’d be very impressed if the oscillations of ice extent return after 2013, for a long time. I don’t think it was possible to predict when exactly they’d stop but after a first year of good recovery (2013), and given the present favorable condition (especially the present pronounced solar minimum), the recovery should naturally continue.
Similar oscillations happened during the WWII years and at the beginning of the 1960’s, although not with the amplitude they happened in this century.
If you look at the real cause of the present recovery, analyze how it has been evolving in the last few years since 2008, you will conclude that there is no good reason for the oscillations to return as the PDO is negative and the AMO should become negative in a couple of years (also forced by solar radiation), to accelerate the process… again, as happened before.
You do realize that the 1971 October geographic map shows the maximum MYI extent? I’ve watched you make this sort of post 4 times, and you still haven’t realized your mistake. I suggest you zoom in and look carefully at those national geographic maps and you will see that I am right, and that these maps are entirely useless because you are not comparing like with like.
You do realize that NSIDC advances the age of the ice in the middle of September, so that it all is all about to become MYI? Or perhaps you just wanted to make noise?
So this is an admission that your chart is completely wrong. Incidentally you should know that the national geographic map doesn’t specify the time of year. It is only for the maximum MYI extent around that period. I am right, your red/green map looks pretty but it is meaningless (you have plotted maximum possible MYI extent circa 1970s minus 2013 daily/monthly extent in summer).
So you are admitting that you have no idea what you are talking about?
It is the middle of September now, and all of the current ice is about to become one year older. In a few months, all of that ice will be 3+ metres thick, and you alarmists will be crying in your kool-aid
This is more autumn. Multi year ice is going to flip and already events on the ground have overtaken the NSIDC.
Ice extent has increased since.
Here’s a 1938 Aug map along with JAXA Aug 16 map.
1938
http://hidethedecline.eu/media/Nautisk/fig11.gif
JAXA
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/data/201308/AM2SI20130816IC0.png
If this is ab example of the ice cover in the past, how could Roald Amundsen and the other explorer before 1938 actually sail through the northwest passage?
http://libweb5.princeton.edu/visual_materials/maps/websites/northwest-passage/amundsen.map2.jpg
http://northwestpassage2012.blogspot.ie/2012/01/north-west-passage-discovered-by.html
Guess what, without GPS, ice maps and ice breakers not one of this years expedition through the NWP would have made it.
Interesting, 1938 map of the Aug Ice. I bet in a few years the Aug Ice will look the same as 1938 map. Will only happen if the Fleet of Giant Ice Breaking Ships, nuclear and diesel Leave the ice alone. In 1938 there were no such ice breaking ships crushing and destroying the ice during the melt season.
The the BABUSHKA (FRA) http://www.sebroubinet.eu/index.html had to be rescued the Russian icebreaker Admiral Makarov went through a lot of ice. The BABUSHKA was at 82 13.97N, -171 47.09W and the journey of the icebreaker to the location of BABUSHKA was about 1000 miles (1600 km) and to the port Pevek (Russia) about 900 miles (1440 km).. A lot of the journey was through ice.
http://northwestpassage2013.blogspot.ie/2013/09/babushuka-calls-it-quits-on-their-trek.html..
Even if that statement was correct, its completely irrelevant. Sea ice is no where near what it was in 1971, and I have just explained why your diagram is nonsense.
You have no idea what are talking about. NCAR and the CIA both reported a huge increase in ice from 1971 to 1972.
Find another satellite map for 1971 or quit bitching about this one.
Its not a frigging satellite map. I keep telling you that. What you are doing is effectively saying “Here is an orange, its the colour orange, therefore apples are orange.”. Me: “thats not an apple”, You: “well if you can find another apple then show me?!”. Even if I could give you data from 1971 (I can); that is entirely irrelevant because what you have presented is rubbish. It is not a satallite image, it has nothing to do with sea ice extent and you CANNOT use it to make claims about 2013 having as great as an extent.
Yes it is. It was derived from Nimbus satellite data.
Until you can come up with the goods it sounds a lot like you are just bitching for the sake of it. Casting wild assertions without offer an alternative view of the facts.
To put it bluntly were is you data? Or is it just something you imagined?
“I have just explained why your diagram is nonsense.”
No you haven’t explain anything, you’ve made a wild, and so far unfounded, assertion. To put it bluntly you’ve offered nothing.
Find the original national geographic map. Zoom into it (say 500%), then look at the area just north of the new Siberian islands, and just south of the white area. Then you can tell me I’m wrong.
It says that. But what does it mean in the context of 1971 terminology? I am interpreting it as the minimum extent, meaning all the ice that survived past one year.
I’m sorry but you are obviously mistaken and have proved nothing. I repeat you have proved nothing.
Provide a citation then Steven. Prove to me that that national geographic map is satellite data of sea ice extent, from the year 1971. Or is it, historical data (including satellite data) used to give an indication of the maximum MYI ice extent for any given year around that time. Who is going to be right about this?
You are one trying to prove me wrong. The onus is on you.
You asked for it:http://s14.postimg.org/dpvtw1qy9/wrong_againn.png
If that is all you have to offer then is case not proven. Steven Goddard’s argument stands.
Stevens argument revolves around comparing 2013 extent with 1971 extent. I have proved that the 1971 map does not show sea ice extent. To claim otherwise is to claim that the national geographic map is wrong, in which case Steven shouldn’t be using it to support his case. Now, tom0mason what would you say to me, if I took the sea ice extent in January 1979 and compared it to the MYI sea ice extent (from the colarado age maps) and used to conclude that sea ice has nearly vanished?
You keep saying that Steven is wrong but offer no proof of his error.
You provide a link to an image of a map whose provenance is unknown. Did you photoshop it yourself or did you have help?
Do you really want to go down this road? You are accusing me of Photoshop!? Actually the source you desire comes from Stevens post when he first made it: http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/09/06/arctic-ice-almost-as-extensive-as-it-was-42-years-ago/.
You are going to dig yourself into a hole. Tell me what you find….
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/07/31/arctic-ice-growth-since-1971/
My apologies, I linked you to the same article you are viewing. The above is the source you desire.
End this rat hole discussion please. If you want to prove that the minimum was greater than the National Geographic map, produce some actual evidence. You are arguing semantics which you don’t understand.
“I am interpreting it as the minimum extent, meaning all the ice that survived past one year.”. So you are saying 100% of the ice on the minimum extent is multiyear?! Do you realize how much ice gets flushed down the Fram every year?! Some of the ice will still be younger than a year, look at the colarado age maps, and find me a single year where all the September min ice is MYI. If you think its acceptable to compare maximun MYI extent with arbitrary daily/monthly sea ice extent; then I will have alot of fun showing you how much the sea ice has vanished.
Do you not understand that immediately after the minimum extent in September, NSIDC ages all the ice by one year?
If you insist on using NSDIC methodology, then why would you not use the data they provide? http://nsidc.org/icelights/files/2010/11/mean_anomaly_1953-2010-300×190.png
That would certainly sort out the ambiguity.
That data (wherever it came from) has always looked flawed to me, because it does not correspond well with the satellite data in the 1990 IPCC report, or with 1972 comments from NCAR and the CIA
The 1990 IPCC report doesn’t even give figures for 1971. The closest I can get is a figure from 1972 which the IPCC report links too. A graph is provided in this paper 10.1029/JC093iC09p10666 which has data from the Nimbus 5 satallite. It was definately less in ~1972 then circa 1978 but is no where near as low as 2013. Read the paper.
NCAR and the CIA reported a 12% increase from 1971 to 1972. The NSIDC graph does not show that. Nat Geo maps from the time show a lot more ice in 1974 than 1971. The NSIDC graph does not show that. I think the NSIDC graph is crap.
Well, I’m using the 1990 IPCC report here. The DOI I provided was a paper linked from that very report, that does show the sea ice increase that you seem to want. This has nothing to do with NSDIC, but your source does not support your claim that 2013 is about the same as 1971, as you will see if you read the paper I sent.
Well I am using the 1971 National Geographic map. Did you forget that is what this article is all about? Or are you just here to make noise?
“Until you can come up with the goods it sounds a lot like you are just bitching for the sake of it. Casting wild assertions without offer an alternative view of the facts.
To put it bluntly were is you data? Or is it just something you imagined?” I am making no claims about 1971 sea ice cover, the burden of proof is not on me to prove the converse. However I can question the use of a comparison between MYI extent limit before 1971, with a daily or monthly figure from 2013 presented as a direct comparison. This is extremely bad science as I keep saying. Even if 1971 did turn out to be similar to 2013, sea ice extent minimum (it won’t), then it doesn’t validate the use of such shoddy methodology.
I mean Steven make up your mind. You used the NSDIC to justify the interpretation of ‘multi year ice limit’ being equivilant to the sea ice minimum circa 1971, now you are saying they are crap? But in any case second year ice is not the same as multiyear ice (which has to survive one melt season); that’s the most commonly used definition. And since this seems to be ambiguous and open to interpretation (limit might even mean minimun rather than maximun) don’t you think it was silly to try and debunk climatologists that literally spent months on data analysis using this?!
My troll detector has gone off scale
“Well I am using the 1971 National Geographic map. Did you forget that is what this article is all about? Or are you just here to make noise?” Yeh and the 1971 geographic map is ‘multi year sea ice limit’ not ‘sea ice extent’, not sea ice minimum extent in September!
So find out what they meant by that in 1971 if it troubles you, and then get back to us.
That’s what you should have done before posting this article. ‘Real science’ isn’t based on this sort of guesswork. Or instead you could have just looked on google scholar for some sea ice extent stuff in 1971 journal papers – I even provided you with one from your own source! Or if you don’t want to do that AARI provide some raw data. Here is some stuff from the russian arctic in 1971, and this actually is extent! http://www.aari.nw.ru/gdsidb/sea_ice/arctic/images/ct/ru/tempo/25-09-71.gif
Piss off
http://www.aari.nw.ru/gdsidb/sea_ice/arctic/images/ct/ru/tempo/15-09-71.gif
This one might be a little closer to the min.
Similar to the National Geographic map.
The problem is with detection methods. That Russian map shows areas of lower concentrations along the edge. NSIDC would not be showing the ice like Russia did. Happens even now. Microwave detection has issues with lower concentrations. So the 1971 map would be real close to what NSIDC would be reporting today, along with a few others. Russia, Canada, MASIE, NIC, etc, do a much better job of ice detection.
Are you kidding me Steven. The ice on that AARI map nearly toaches the coast at one point. The national geographic map gets no where near that amount of ice in the Laptev and east siberian. Which is not suprising as I have said: that map is not 1971 specific, it is not sea ice extent minimun; it is MYI extent limit. Have you read the paper I sent you, linked from the 1990 IPCC report yet? It definitely is above 2013…
And the current Russian maps also show ice almost to the coast.
And what does your 1971 national geographic map show? Perhaps you should do an MS paint map showing where your MYI national geographic map and that 1971 AARI map overlap. Are you still trying to argue that this post is anything but useless?
Heres a figure for you. Min sea ice extent in 1972 was 7.29M. ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/nsidc0192_seaice_trends_climo/esmr-smmr-ssmi-merged/gsfc.nasateam.extent.1972-2002.n
From the combined sat data. FYI 1979 was 6.90M……
Not that this isn’t interesting, but its kind of beside the point. You go on about SKS for example truncating 1 1979 point on their graph which really makes no difference at all. In light of making a deal over this, you think its okay to compare a non specific, ambiguous MYI limit with an August 2013 sea ice extent map?!
Why are you sending data about 1972? This discussion is about 1971. NCAR says there was a 12% increase from 1971 to 1972.
Clearly it isn’t about 1971 since you choose to use such a non specific map. MYI limit is more likely to refer to an average limit around that sort of time. Of course we don’t know because you didn’t do your homework. Link me to where NCAR says there was a 12% increase, i’ll play along (of course its still going to be well above 2013 in the end anyway). Did you read my last paragraph, like I said; I am more interested to know why you used such bad science in this post. For instance, why didn’t you use journal articles/ actual data instead of an extremely flawed (at best) comparison to a non-academic source, with a measure entirely different from what is desired?
Incidentally the national geographic do something similar for 1983. This time they call it ‘minimun MYI extent’. If this is the same as the other map (and it looks to be) then its quite a bit less ambiguous. If we assume they used the methodology where they aged the ice in September, then we should be looking at the amount of 3 year + ice just before that min. But more interestingly you can compare 1983 min sea ice extent, with that national geographic map. It looks nothing like it. Even if my interpretation is dubious (although less so than yours) it is irrelevant because I made no claim on these national geographic maps. It was you that chose to make this flawed comparison between two different measures without making any attempt to find out exactly what they did measure; if you had just looked at the scientific lit in the first place this wouldn’t have happened. I find it amazing that you can nitpick at graphs starting at 1980 rather than 1979 when you are perfectly fine with comparing apples to oranges like this.
The 1983 map says that it’s the “average MYI extent”. Meaning +/- that line any given year. Nat Geo also has a 1965 map that shows an ice extent they call “unnavigable polar ice” which is about the same as 1983. Steve’s map has that line in black.
Detection methods vary between different agencies in the world. The lower concentrations on the Russian map may not have been counted in the US, at least not as robust. We see the very same problem today. Compare Russian and NSIDC maps now and you’ll see that.
The 1971 map is a very close representation of what the NSIDC would have put out at the time of minimum.
The 15% threshold is also bogus, because they continually miss that ice. Microwave is really not up to that task. They need to take a much more robust approach like others do in ice detection.