Earth's attic is on fire: Arctic sea ice bottoms out at a new record low

By: Dr. Jeff Masters , 3:46 PM GMT on September 20, 2012

Share this Blog
67
+

The extraordinary decline in Arctic sea ice during 2012 is finally over. Sea ice extent bottomed out on September 16, announced scientists at the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) on Wednesday. The sea ice extent fell to 3.41 million square kilometers, breaking the previous all-time low set in 2007 by 18%--despite the fact that this year's weather was cloudier and cooler than in 2007. Nearly half (49%) of the icecap was gone during this year's minimum, compared to the average minimum for the years 1979 - 2000. This is an area approximately 43% of the size of the Contiguous United States. And, for the fifth consecutive year--and fifth time in recorded history--ice-free navigation was possible in the Arctic along the coast of Canada (the Northwest Passage), and along the coast of Russia (the Northeast Passage or Northern Sea Route.) "We are now in uncharted territory," said NSIDC Director Mark Serreze. "While we've long known that as the planet warms up, changes would be seen first and be most pronounced in the Arctic, few of us were prepared for how rapidly the changes would actually occur. While lots of people talk about opening of the Northwest Passage through the Canadian Arctic islands and the Northern Sea Route along the Russian coast, twenty years from now from now in August you might be able to take a ship right across the Arctic Ocean."


Figure 1. Arctic sea ice reached its minimum on September 16, 2012, and was at its lowest extent since satellite records began in 1979. Image credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC).

When was the last time the Arctic was this ice-free?
We can be confident that the Arctic did not see the kind of melting observed in 2012 going back over a century, as we have detailed ice edge records from ships (Walsh and Chapman, 2001). It is very unlikely the Northwest Passage was open between 1497 and 1900, since this spanned a cold period in the northern latitudes known as "The Little Ice Age". Ships periodically attempted the Passage and were foiled during this period. Research by Kinnard et al. (2011) shows that the Arctic ice melt in the past few decades is unprecedented for at least the past 1,450 years. We may have to go back to at least 4,000 B.C. to find the last time so little summer ice was present in the Arctic. Funder and Kjaer (2007) found extensive systems of wave generated beach ridges along the North Greenland coast, which suggested the Arctic Ocean was ice-free in the summer for over 1,000 years between 6,000 - 8,500 years ago, when Earth's orbital variations brought more sunlight to the Arctic in summer than at present. Prior to that, the next likely time was during the last inter-glacial period, 120,000 years ago. Arctic temperatures then were 2 - 3°C higher than present-day temperatures, and sea levels were 4 - 6 meters higher.


Figure 2. Year-averaged and 3-month averaged Northern Hemisphere sea ice extent from Chapman and Walsh (2001), as updated by the University of Illinois Cryosphere Today. I've updated their graph to include 2011 plus the first 9 months of 2012.


Figure 3. Late summer Arctic sea ice extent over the past 1,450 years reconstructed from proxy data by Kinnard et al.'s 2011 paper, Reconstructed changes in Arctic sea ice over the past 1,450 years. The solid pink line is a smoothed 40-year average, and the light pink areas shows a 95% confidence interval.  Note that the modern observational data in this figure extend through 2008, though the extent is not as low as the current annual data due to the 40-year smoothing. More commentary on this graph is available at skepticalscience.com.

When will the Arctic be ice-free in summer?
So, when will Santa's Workshop need to be retrofitted with pontoons to avoid sinking to the bottom of the Arctic Ocean in summer? It's hard to say, since there is a large amount of natural variability in Arctic weather patterns. Day et al. (2012) found that 5 to 31% of the changes in Arctic sea ice could be due to natural causes. However, the sea ice at the summer minimum has been declining at a rate of 12% per decade, far in excess of the worst-case scenario predicted in the 2007 IPCC report. Forecasts of an ice-free Arctic range from 20 - 30 years from now to much sooner. Just this week, Dr. Peter Wadhams of Cambridge University predicted that the Arctic will be ice-free in summer within four years. A study by Stroeve et al. (2012), using the updated models being run for the 2014 IPCC report, found that "a seasonally ice-free Arctic Ocean within the next few decades is a distinct possibility." Of the 21 models considered, 2022 was the earliest date that complete Arctic sea ice occurred in September.


Video 1. A powerful storm wreaked havoc on the Arctic sea ice cover in August 2012. This visualization shows the strength and direction of the winds and their impact on the ice: the red vectors represent the fastest winds, while blue vectors stand for slower winds. According to NSIDC, the storm sped up the loss of the thin ice that appears to have been already on the verge of melting completely.Video credit: NASA.

But Antarctic sea ice is growing!
It's a sure thing that when Arctic sea ice hits new record lows, global warming contrarians will attempt to draw attention away from the Arctic by talking about sea ice around Antarctica. A case in point is an article that appeared in Forbes on Wednesday by James Taylor. Mr. Taylor wrote, "Antarctic sea ice set another record this past week, with the most amount of ice ever recorded on day 256 of the calendar year (September 12 of this leap year)...Amusingly, page after page of Google News results for Antarctic sea ice record show links to news articles breathlessly spreading fear and warning of calamity because Arctic sea ice recently set a 33-year low. Sea ice around one pole is shrinking while sea ice around another pole is growing. This sure sounds like a global warming crisis to me."

This analysis is highly misleading, as it ignores the fact that Antarctica has actually been warming in recent years. In fact, the oceans surrounding Antarctica have warmed faster than the global trend, and there has been accelerated melting of ocean-terminating Antarctic glaciers in recent years as a result of warmer waters eating away the glaciers. There is great concern among scientists about the stability of two glaciers in West Antarctica (the Pine Island and Thwaites Glaciers) due the increase in ocean temperatures. These glaciers may suffer rapid retreats that will contribute significantly to global sea level rise.

Despite the warming going on in Antarctica, there has been a modest long-term increase in Antarctic sea ice in recent decades. So, how can more sea ice form on warmer ocean waters? As explained in an excellent article at skepticalscience.com, the reasons are complex. One reason is that the Southern Ocean consists of a layer of cold water near the surface and a layer of warmer water below. Water from the warmer layer rises up to the surface, melting sea ice. However, as air temperatures warm, the amount of rain and snowfall also increases. This freshens the surface waters, leading to a surface layer less dense than the saltier, warmer water below. The layers become more stratified and mix less. Less heat is transported upwards from the deeper, warmer layer. Hence less sea ice is melted (Zhang 2007). As the planet continues to warm, climate models predict that the growth in Antarctic sea ice will reverse, as the waters become too warm to support so much sea ice.


Figure 4. Surface air temperature over the ice-covered areas of the Southern Ocean surrounding Antarctica (top), and sea ice extent, observed by satellite (bottom). Image credit: (Zhang 2007).

Commentary: Earth's attic is on fire
To me, seeing the record Arctic sea ice loss of 2012 is like discovering a growing fire burning in Earth's attic. It is an emergency that requires immediate urgent attention. If you remove an area of sea ice 43% the size of the Contiguous U.S. from the ocean, it is guaranteed to have a significant impact on weather and climate. The extra heat and moisture added to the atmosphere as a result of all that open water over the pole may already be altering jet stream patterns in fall and winter, bringing an increase in extreme weather events. This year's record sea ice loss also contributed to an unprecedented melting event in Greenland. Continued sea ice loss will further increase melting from Greenland, contributing to sea level rise and storm surge damages. Global warming doubters tell us to pay attention to Earth's basement--the Antarctic--pointing out (incorrectly) that there is no fire burning there. But shouldn't we be paying attention to the steadily growing fire in our attic? The house all of humanity lives on is on fire. The fire is certain to spread, since we've ignored it for too long. It is capable of becoming a raging fire that will burn down our house, crippling civilization, unless we take swift and urgent action to combat it.

References
Funder, S. and K.H. Kjaer, 2007, "A sea-ice free Arctic Ocean?", Geophys. Res. Abstr. 9 (2007), p. 07815.

Kinnard et al., 2011, "Reconstructed changes in Arctic sea ice over the past 1,450 years".

Walsh, J.E and W.L.Chapman, 2001, "Twentieth-century sea ice variations from observational data", Annals of Glaciology, 33, Number 1, January 2001, pp. 444-448.

Related info
Half of the polar ice cap is missing: Arctic sea ice hits a new record low. September 6, 2012 blog post
Wunderground's Sea Ice page

Jeff Masters and Angela Fritz

Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

or Join

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 259 - 209

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31Blog Index

Quoting SFLWeatherman:
Antarctic sea ice set another record this past week, with the most amount of ice ever recorded
Link


I'd recommend you avoid that website due to well...lies...in both the headlines and articles.

Observe the "Major hurricanes less frequent" lie, and then go look at how many hurricane records have been set in the past decade, for total number per year, most majors, most category 5s, most major landfalls, etc.

The U.S. has been lucky the past few years, but it has nothing to do with GW, it's just a slump.

What these idiots don't tell you is that wind speeds in the past were greatly over-estimated, and further, as we well know ever since Katrina and Ike, storm surge is NOT a reliable tool for post-analysis of pre-modern hurricanes SS wind scale category, because a larger, weaker storm can make a larger surge.

So what if Ike and Isaac were not "Major" when they made landfall? The produced category 3 surges, with isolated category 4 surges.

Ike is in the top 10 for damage, and even if you adjust the damage for inflation and population increase, it would still beat most of those "Major" storms from 50+ years ago in monetary damage, and would still beat most of them for maximum Integrated Kinetic Energy and storm surge as well.

More people died in Katrina than in any hurricane season since the 1928 Florida hurricane and the Great Galveston Hurricane, and the monetary damage and storm surge heights were greater still.

This is a case of both scientists and skeptics misinterpreting the data.

The SS scale is an arbitrary system, which was never even used the way it was intended to be used. If it was done with the "Either/or" specification as it was designed to be used, Ike and Isaac would each be a category 3 or 4.

So their argument is really about an absurd technicality over human categorizations, rather than the greater scheme of things, which is that storm surge actually does more damage than wind in most hurricanes. This was was always the case, even in terms of loss of life, up until the modern satellite era.

People should consider all facts, instead of isolating one detail which does not at all tell the whole story.

They totally ignored the obscene number of record storms and record number of storms in 2005, or the fact that almost every hurricane season has been above average in number of total named storms for the past 15 years.




Ah well, forget it.

It takes ten times as much work to repeatedly debunk misinformation and perverted interpretations as it does for people to make them up.
Member Since: January 25, 2012 Posts: 33 Comments: 1520
Quoting Xandra:
Edison was a brilliant man ahead of his time...If any of you have a chance to visit the Edison museum in Fort Myers , please do so.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting JazzChi:


So you favor the last two years and ignore the previous sixteen? Based just on persistence, wouldn't you think the trend would take some time to reverse? What forcing could possibly cause such a dramatic and permanent shift? Especially considering there are many data points (including the biggie, Greenland) that point to increased surface ice melting?



No my point is that most models projected the sea level to rise exponentially in that time frame, but in fact they have fallen. There can be numerous forces at play beyond man-made global warming. We should be relishing this time of warmth instead of spending billions in prevention of a catastrophic theory that, to this point, has been unsubstantiated. Should we take care of our environment, resounding yes. Should we keep gravitating to an eventual tax on carbon output; overreaction much?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting RTSplayer:


Actually, they already have offered ways to fix it, which have mostly been hindered by the Republican party and Libertarians for at least the past 30 years. In fact, they want deregulation of nearly everything that is regulated at present: pollution, wages, taxes, ethics, etc.

The solution is already known, as I pointed out in the other blog.

For the U.S. Geothermal can provided around 20% of our electricity needs for a virtually indefinite time period, at CHEAPER prices than coal.

Wind and solar can take up most of the slack for many regions.

In order to even out the Keeling Curve, we need to reduce net annual CO2 productiong by 2PPM equivalent, or about 10 gigatons per year, or about 1/3rd of our actual annual production.

Since population is going to grow by nearly 1/3rd over the next 20 years, we actually need to cut even more than that to make up for the population growth, BUT for the U.S. anyway, I've already shown how 20% can come from Geothermal. In fact, we have the land resources to power the entire country be either wind OR solar, either/or, but with both combined, we should actually have excess power and would be able to sell geothermal, wind, and solar power to parts of Canada and Mexico.

Instead, American energy companies import oil and coal from other nations, like a bunch of brain dead fools.




When I was a manager, I told my employees to never bring me a problem unless they had an idea on how to fix it. I would expect an employee that came running in and told me the attic is on fire would have already thought of some way to put out the fire, rather than study the fire some more to predict how long it will take for the building to burn down.


That's a fairly idiotic policy. One body, but many members, eh? It's not a new concept that different people have different functions and expertise.

I would not expect a computer service tech to diagnose a certain brand of memory to determine why it keeps failing, never mind offer a fix.

I would not expect a line man to tell his boss how to engineer a longer-lived transformer.

It would be nice if they could, but actually expecting that is just plain silly.


Is there some reason we can't discuss this without the use of such pejoratives and name-calling? It does not strengthen your case.

I worked for a large west coast utility. We had the largest geothermal power field in the country. Your statement about geothermal being cheaper is not true from my experience. It's very difficult to extact steam from highly mineralized deposits. Separating the minerals from the steam creates huge tailing ponds full of a witches brew of highly polluting materials that we have no way of recycling. There's also a small problem of creating earthquakes. Look at the earthquake history of the The Geysers geothermal power field in California since the plants started operating. Geothermal fields only exist in seismically active areas. Extrapolate the problem if we produced 20% of our power from geothermal. It is not cheaper to produce power from geothermal than other sources. Our costs were between 10 cents to 17 cents per kilowatt hour higher compared to gas fired power plants. We only continued to operate the plants because the ratepayers were forced to subsidize the cost difference by the Public Utilities Commision.

Yes, believe it or not, we did expect linemen to give us ideas on how to improve the performance and serviceability of things like pole mounted transformers and circuit breakers. They worked on them every day, not management. They came up a lot of good ideas, many of which were implemented. As long as you think the people who work for you know a lot more about their jobs than you do, the idea is not idiotic at all.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:


Nadine
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting aburttschell:



Thats a nice sample from 1994 to present, however since its highest point in 2010 the sea levels have seen a decline. Which is my point.


So with the overall trend still going up and these bumps have happened before you come here and say the sea level is lowering, come on?
Member Since: March 16, 2012 Posts: 127 Comments: 7948
Quoting guygee:
Not only that, but he is wrong about the 10,000 years. We are in a benevolent period with respect to eccentricity of the Earth's orbit, so if we didn't tamper too much the climate would stay mild for more like 50,000 years.

Unfortunately you are right about us being in overshoot. I do not know what gets use first, the climate change or economic breakdown. How is the fishing down in Key West?
Big Mutton snapper from Palm Beach county to the keys has been hot
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting TropicalAnalystwx13:
Tropical Storm Jelawat is very large, but it will probably become very strong as well.


These storms have been like that this year, hopefully doesn't track into land.
Member Since: March 16, 2012 Posts: 127 Comments: 7948
Quoting wxmod:


No Tom, I don't. In fact, if you talk to anybody on the ground in France, you could find out if your theory is correct.

I have people on the Ground in France!
Can you please let me have a list of questions you would like to put to them and I will submit all for answers and comments ASAP!
If as you are implying the air above France is being sprayed with some sort of "Agent," then it must be being done by commercial airliners, as the area is vast and the French Air Force probably dont have enough planes to carry out the task. Even if they had enough planes the Air Force activity would be noticed as they are centered in only a few areas where they have bases and numerous flights would be noted.
Commercial flights spraying would be difficult as they originate in many different countries and the planes would have to be surreptitiously fitted with spraying devises and loaded with spray agent, which would then have to be discharged at the right time.This would probably contravene quite a few civil aviation laws and codes of conduct. Etc Etc.
Enough for a novel here, at least.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting kwgirl:
But before that happens Largo, we will be very hot with droughts, disease, famine, etc. Then the ice starts and wham. Either way, nature is going to replace humans as the dominant race. I think next will be giant insects. Glad I won't be around:)
Not only that, but he is wrong about the 10,000 years. We are in a benevolent period with respect to eccentricity of the Earth's orbit, so if we didn't tamper too much the climate would stay mild for more like 50,000 years.

Unfortunately you are right about us being in overshoot. I do not know what gets use first, the climate change or economic breakdown. How is the fishing down in Key West?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Tropical Storm Jelawat is very large, but it will probably become very strong as well.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting aburttschell:



Thats a nice sample from 1994 to present, however since its highest point in 2010 the sea levels have seen a decline. Which is my point.

Ok...but the overall trend is clearly up. No surprise to see slight bumps along the way.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting GTcooliebai:
12z Canadian shows a 1006 mb. system in the Eastern Caribbean, will be interesting to see if the GFS also continues to show the area west of the Cape Verde Islands developing.


It is a possibility and conditions should be favorable for some development.
Member Since: March 16, 2012 Posts: 127 Comments: 7948
Another strong typhoon in the making.



WTPN31 PGTW 202100
MSGID/GENADMIN/JOINT TYPHOON WRNCEN PEARL HARBOR HI//
SUBJ/TROPICAL CYCLONE WARNING//
RMKS/
1. TROPICAL STORM 18W (JELAWAT) WARNING NR 002
UPGRADED FROM TROPICAL DEPRESSION 18W
01 ACTIVE TROPICAL CYCLONE IN NORTHWESTPAC
MAX SUSTAINED WINDS BASED ON ONE-MINUTE AVERAGE
WIND RADII VALID OVER OPEN WATER ONLY
---
WARNING POSITION:
201800Z --- NEAR 13.5N 131.2E
MOVEMENT PAST SIX HOURS - 260 DEGREES AT 11 KTS
POSITION ACCURATE TO WITHIN 060 NM
POSITION BASED ON CENTER LOCATED BY SATELLITE
PRESENT WIND DISTRIBUTION:
MAX SUSTAINED WINDS - 035 KT, GUSTS 045 KT
WIND RADII VALID OVER OPEN WATER ONLY
REPEAT POSIT: 13.5N 131.2E
---
FORECASTS:
12 HRS, VALID AT:
210600Z --- 13.0N 130.1E
MAX SUSTAINED WINDS - 045 KT, GUSTS 055 KT
WIND RADII VALID OVER OPEN WATER ONLY
RADIUS OF 034 KT WINDS - 030 NM NORTHEAST QUADRANT
030 NM SOUTHEAST QUADRANT
030 NM SOUTHWEST QUADRANT
030 NM NORTHWEST QUADRANT
VECTOR TO 24 HR POSIT: 245 DEG/ 03 KTS
---
24 HRS, VALID AT:
211800Z --- 12.7N 129.5E
MAX SUSTAINED WINDS - 055 KT, GUSTS 070 KT
WIND RADII VALID OVER OPEN WATER ONLY
RADIUS OF 050 KT WINDS - 020 NM NORTHEAST QUADRANT
020 NM SOUTHEAST QUADRANT
020 NM SOUTHWEST QUADRANT
020 NM NORTHWEST QUADRANT
RADIUS OF 034 KT WINDS - 045 NM NORTHEAST QUADRANT
045 NM SOUTHEAST QUADRANT
045 NM SOUTHWEST QUADRANT
045 NM NORTHWEST QUADRANT
VECTOR TO 36 HR POSIT: 260 DEG/ 02 KTS
---
36 HRS, VALID AT:
220600Z --- 12.6N 129.0E
MAX SUSTAINED WINDS - 060 KT, GUSTS 075 KT
WIND RADII VALID OVER OPEN WATER ONLY
RADIUS OF 050 KT WINDS - 025 NM NORTHEAST QUADRANT
025 NM SOUTHEAST QUADRANT
025 NM SOUTHWEST QUADRANT
025 NM NORTHWEST QUADRANT
RADIUS OF 034 KT WINDS - 055 NM NORTHEAST QUADRANT
055 NM SOUTHEAST QUADRANT
055 NM SOUTHWEST QUADRANT
055 NM NORTHWEST QUADRANT
VECTOR TO 48 HR POSIT: 295 DEG/ 02 KTS
---
EXTENDED OUTLOOK:
48 HRS, VALID AT:
221800Z --- 12.8N 128.6E
MAX SUSTAINED WINDS - 070 KT, GUSTS 085 KT
WIND RADII VALID OVER OPEN WATER ONLY
RADIUS OF 064 KT WINDS - 020 NM NORTHEAST QUADRANT
020 NM SOUTHEAST QUADRANT
020 NM SOUTHWEST QUADRANT
020 NM NORTHWEST QUADRANT
RADIUS OF 050 KT WINDS - 035 NM NORTHEAST QUADRANT
035 NM SOUTHEAST QUADRANT
035 NM SOUTHWEST QUADRANT
035 NM NORTHWEST QUADRANT
RADIUS OF 034 KT WINDS - 080 NM NORTHEAST QUADRANT
075 NM SOUTHEAST QUADRANT
080 NM SOUTHWEST QUADRANT
080 NM NORTHWEST QUADRANT
VECTOR TO 72 HR POSIT: 325 DEG/ 02 KTS
---
72 HRS, VALID AT:
231800Z --- 13.5N 128.1E
MAX SUSTAINED WINDS - 080 KT, GUSTS 100 KT
WIND RADII VALID OVER OPEN WATER ONLY
RADIUS OF 064 KT WINDS - 030 NM NORTHEAST QUADRANT
025 NM SOUTHEAST QUADRANT
025 NM SOUTHWEST QUADRANT
030 NM NORTHWEST QUADRANT
RADIUS OF 050 KT WINDS - 045 NM NORTHEAST QUADRANT
045 NM SOUTHEAST QUADRANT
045 NM SOUTHWEST QUADRANT
045 NM NORTHWEST QUADRANT
RADIUS OF 034 KT WINDS - 090 NM NORTHEAST QUADRANT
085 NM SOUTHEAST QUADRANT
085 NM SOUTHWEST QUADRANT
090 NM NORTHWEST QUADRANT
VECTOR TO 96 HR POSIT: 335 DEG/ 04 KTS
---
LONG RANGE OUTLOOK:
---
96 HRS, VALID AT:
241800Z --- 15.1N 127.4E
MAX SUSTAINED WINDS - 090 KT, GUSTS 110 KT
WIND RADII VALID OVER OPEN WATER ONLY
VECTOR TO 120 HR POSIT: 330 DEG/ 05 KTS
---
120 HRS, VALID AT:
251800Z --- 17.0N 126.3E
MAX SUSTAINED WINDS - 105 KT, GUSTS 130 KT
WIND RADII VALID OVER OPEN WATER ONLY
---
REMARKS:
202100Z POSITION NEAR 13.4N 130.9E.
MAXIMUM SIGNIFICANT WAVE HEIGHT AT 201800Z IS 11 FEET.
NEXT WARNINGS AT 210300Z, 210900Z, 211500Z AND 212100Z.
//


Member Since: Posts: Comments:
I'd say the chance of development for 94L is just a little higher than what the NHC says. Nadine is still looking good but I don't think much strengthening will happen.
Member Since: March 16, 2012 Posts: 127 Comments: 7948
12z Canadian shows a 1006 mb. system in the Eastern Caribbean, will be interesting to see if the GFS also continues to show the area west of the Cape Verde Islands developing.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting kwgirl:
But before that happens Largo, we will be very hot with droughts, disease, famine, etc. Then the ice starts and wham. Either way, nature is going to replace humans as the dominant race. I think next will be giant insects. Glad I won't be around:)
kwgirl.....Reminds me of a wonderful, scary book I read when I was a teenager... Metamorphosis by Franz Kafka...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting RTSplayer:
twenty years from now from now in August you might be able to take a ship right across the Arctic Ocean."


Using the 5 year running average of net melt rate, August 1 will be ice free in about


using the updated models being run for the 2014 IPCC report, found that "a seasonally ice-free Arctic Ocean within the next few decades is a distinct possibility


The 5 year running average net sea ice minimum volume loss is now 602cu km/yr, the same as this years net loss.

If this rate is linear and there is no further acceleration, then the volume minimum will be zero for at least one day in September in 6 years or less, assuming no more "giant drops" like 2007 or 2010. If the rate is exponentional with a growth factor of the 5th root of 2 per year, as it appears to be, then there will be at least one ice-free day in September in 4 or 5 years.

There will be at least one ice free day in both August and October in 10 years or less, and more likely 7 or 8 years, with September being totally ice free by then.

August will be totally ice free, for the ENTIRE MONTH, some time between 10 and 15 years, at the present 5 year average LINEAR rate of net loss.


As I said on another board, Volume is what melts, not extent or area. Extent and Area simply describe how the Volume is distributed.

Since most of the volume loss is coming from the thinning of ice in the past 5 years, it will eventually start coming more and more from loss of area and extent as average thickness reaches 1 meter or less, because all three values: volume, area, and extent, are squeezed to zero simultaneously for the real world value, not our estimates.

See below:




and



Notice the VERY rapid decline in annual minimum Area and Extent in the past year or two? This happened because THICKNESS has become so little that it is very easy for area to be lost.


This trend in loss of area will now grow exponentially at a rate of ~15% per year, roughly matching the exponential rate of volume loss, rather than 10 to 15% per decade as in the past, because the thickness is approaching 1 meter.

In the past, the area was partially maintained as thickness decreased, now that is no longer possible, and the graphs are beginning to show the evidence, though it will take another year or two for the data to convince any legitimate skeptics.


Further, winter maximum volume will be below the 1979 September minimum volume in about another 6 to 9 years, representing a complete seasonal bifurcation.


Now remember, warming does not stop when the ice melts. In fact, it greatly accelerates as I've pointed out many times. Remember, the Heat of Fusion of water is around 80 times the Specific Heat Capacity of water, so the "heating" of water will be far greater in terms of temperature than anything we have yet seen once this ice melts completely.


Now that I've come to have a better understanding of these trends, I am convinced that not only is AGW real, it is significantly worse than the IPCC has ever predicted.

It should be noted that the "linear" rate would remain approximately the same even if we magically quit producing net gains in CO2 and Methane tomorrow and never looked back.


Great analysis! It should be reposted every day.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Forbes is clearly a product that caters to the pro-corporate neo-liberal elite, the heart of which pumps fossil-fuels as its life-blood. To argue otherwise is like wearing a clown-suit in public. Refine yourself, synthetic aperture radar guy! No wait, focus yourself!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting aburttschell:



Thats a nice sample from 1994 to present, however since its highest point in 2010 the sea levels have seen a decline. Which is my point.



So you favor the last two years and ignore the previous sixteen? Based just on persistence, wouldn't you think the trend would take some time to reverse? What forcing could possibly cause such a dramatic and permanent shift? Especially considering there are many data points (including the biggie, Greenland) that point to increased surface ice melting?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting LargoFl:
we now in our lifetimes, are inbetween Ice Ages..which happen roughly every 10,000 years or so, and the Last ice age ended roughly 10,000 years ago..what does that tell you?..sometime people will be worrying...NOT about the ice vanishing..BUT..OMG..ICE everywhere..what happens when it gets 2 miles thick?....POOF we go, thats what happens...the start could..be getting started in our childrens or grand childrens lifetimes, time will tell..so enjoy the global heating, it surely wont last.
But before that happens Largo, we will be very hot with droughts, disease, famine, etc. Then the ice starts and wham. Either way, nature is going to replace humans as the dominant race. I think next will be giant insects. Glad I won't be around:)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
237. BDAwx
Quoting wxmod:


They're not the same images. They're hours apart. The so called contrails are not dissipating. So, what do you think. Do contrails last all day, a month, ten years?


From my meteorology text book:"Sometimes, contrails will rapidly evaporate when the air is really dry. At other times, they spread out horizontally into a long ribbon of high wispy clouds. Ultimately, the life span of a contrail depends on the relative humidity of the air at cruising altitudes. If the air is close to saturation, for example, the contrails may persist for hours (although winds may spread it out or break it up). Around busy airline hubs like Atlanta, GA, long-lived contrails can dramatically increase high cloud cover.""
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting TomTaylor:
That is no help. Here is a statement from the website you provided



Sea levels are rising.



Thats a nice sample from 1994 to present, however since its highest point in 2010 the sea levels have seen a decline. Which is my point.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting LargoFl:
guess i'll go watch tv, no weather here...



Plenty of weather here.

Everything I've discussed is directly relevant to weather.
Member Since: January 25, 2012 Posts: 33 Comments: 1520
Quoting Neapolitan:
It was an inadvertent typo, chief, not a statement on my lack of reading skills. Speaking of: you've twice brought up my mentioning the Forbes piece without once addressing the content of my comment. That is, that as a paid spokesman for the fossil fuel-funded, climate-scientists-are-sociopathic-serial-killers Heartland Institute, Taylor's climate science credibility is less than zero. Do have a response to that? Or do you plan to just point out for a third time that I inadvertently referred to Forbes as a newspaper and not a magazine?

You just can't stop yourself, can you? Not only is Forbes funded solely by fossil fuel, big-oil industry, (which was the point of my original reply, since you clearly have no proof of such a statement), but you continue to refer to an opposing institution in terms that are clearly inflammatory and polemic. You apparently claim to be a scientist, although I haven't seen your credentials, yet write things like the above. We are never going to come close to a solution as long as this continues.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Antarctic sea ice set another record this past week, with the most amount of ice ever recorded
Link
Quoting GTcooliebai:
img src=" ">
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
guess i'll go watch tv, no weather here...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
I feel sorry for the Polar Bears and other animals that would be effected if all the Arctic Ice melted. They would have to adapt to a new environment. It is these kinds of drastic changes in the climate that causes the extinction of some species of animals.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting sar2401:

No, it does not, Nea. If you stop pontificating and answer my question, it would help. The scientists have and continue to spread the word on what they believe is a major problem. What I want to know are what solutions these same scientists propose to reverse this issue that policymakers and the public will accept. We cannot change the way the entire way the world operates next week. There will have to be phased, economically viable changes made to correct this problem. One more study on how the climate is changing will not make a whit's worth of difference. Since scientists are the ones sounding the alarms bells, both policy makers and the public are looking to them for proposed solutions. Scientists cannot be divorced from this piece of the puzzle unless their goal is to produce more studies showing doom ahead and not applying their scientific skills to at least offer ways to fix it.


Actually, they already have offered ways to fix it, which have mostly been hindered by the Republican party and Libertarians for at least the past 30 years. In fact, they want deregulation of nearly everything that is regulated at present: pollution, wages, taxes, ethics, etc.

The solution is already known, as I pointed out in the other blog.

For the U.S. Geothermal can provided around 20% of our electricity needs for a virtually indefinite time period, at CHEAPER prices than coal.

Wind and solar can take up most of the slack for many regions.

In order to even out the Keeling Curve, we need to reduce net annual CO2 productiong by 2PPM equivalent, or about 10 gigatons per year, or about 1/3rd of our actual annual production.

Since population is going to grow by nearly 1/3rd over the next 20 years, we actually need to cut even more than that to make up for the population growth, BUT for the U.S. anyway, I've already shown how 20% can come from Geothermal. In fact, we have the land resources to power the entire country be either wind OR solar, either/or, but with both combined, we should actually have excess power and would be able to sell geothermal, wind, and solar power to parts of Canada and Mexico.

Instead, American energy companies import oil and coal from other nations, like a bunch of brain dead fools.



When I was a manager, I told my employees to never bring me a problem unless they had an idea on how to fix it. I would expect an employee that came running in and told me the attic is on fire would have already thought of some way to put out the fire, rather than study the fire some more to predict how long it will take for the building to burn down.


That's a fairly idiotic policy. One body, but many members, eh? It's not a new concept that different people have different functions and expertise.

I would not expect a computer service tech to diagnose a certain brand of memory to determine why it keeps failing, never mind offer a fix.

I would not expect a line man to tell his boss how to engineer a longer-lived transformer.

It would be nice if they could, but actually expecting that is just plain silly.
Member Since: January 25, 2012 Posts: 33 Comments: 1520
the 12z GFS ensembles spread bring Nadine halfway back across the atlantic..

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
<>img src=" ">
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
"-" for all the weather mod trolls until they show there is enough of "chemical X" being manufactured that will persist in the atmosphere and modify the weather on the scale that they claim.

"Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Proofs", or get of of town, clowns.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
226. beell
A couple of cobbled-together web pages put together to obscure the hidden truth regarding chemtrails and the nasty mind-altering chemicals "THEY" are spraying over us. No doubt to cause large numbers of people to spend their days on the internets in tranquilized, mind-numbing, self-absorption. Weather bloggers excluded, of course.
:-)

Contrail Science
NASA Contrail Forecast Page

A problem with the Contrail Forecast portion of the second link.
Member Since: September 11, 2007 Posts: 143 Comments: 16722
Quoting wxmod:


No Tom, the government has nothing to do with it. It's a private enterprise.
oh really, which one?

Quoting wxmod:


That's right Georgia, it's nothing special, just a satellite photo of a typical man made weather system the size of a large country. Happens all the time. Almost every day.
It's not a weather system at all. It's called condensation.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
224. wxmod
Quoting wxchaser97:

I still don't see why you post those same images of all the chemtrail stuff.


They're not the same images. They're hours apart. The so called contrails are not dissipating. So, what do you think. Do contrails last all day, a month, ten years?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
I see I came here at a bad time.

94L is wrapping up nicely and we should see it become a subtropical or tropical storm not too long from now.
Member Since: March 16, 2012 Posts: 127 Comments: 7948
I did like the statement in the Nadine discussion:

IN THESE SITUATIONS IT IS USUALLY BEST TO MOVE THE SYSTEM VERY SLOWLY IN THE LATTER PART OF THE FORECAST PERIOD.

Well, if Avila wrote the discussion it would've read perhaps like that:

"We threw the dices, we even asked the oracles but in deed we don't have a clue what will happen."

;-)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Arctic ice free in summer looks to be fast approaching with the ice also getting thinner.
Antarctic ice maximum (southern late winter) is now greater because entire ice shelves have broken off and the massive floes floating away expand the area that can easily freeze. Temporarily... in the middle of winter. The expansion of winter ice in Antarctica IS another sign of global warming - falling to pieces is not equal to sustainable growth.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting aburttschell:


Perhaps you'll find these numbers interesting


Link
That is no help. Here is a statement from the website you provided

Quoting AVISO:All indicators point to a rise in the mean level of the world's oceans. Rising sea level is an important consequence of global warming observed in recent decades, connected with the anthropogenic activity and the concentrations of greenhouse gases increasing in the atmosphere. Whatever the underlying trends, we must prepare for the significant human, ecological and economic impacts of these variations.


Sea levels are rising.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting sar2401:

[...]What I want to know are what solutions these same scientists propose to reverse this issue that policymakers and the public will accept. [...]

"Dammit! I'm a Doctor, Jim, not a Fireman!"
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting yonzabam:



I don't believe there's a solution. Even if the world stopped using fossil fuels tomorrow, we are committed to additional warming. This is because of positive feedback effects, such as decreasing albedo, increasing emission of CO2 from warmer oceans, release of methane from permafrost and clathrates etc.

We've already warmed the planet by 0.9 degrees C. Not sure how much extra warming is delayed, but it could be double that.

It'll be bad enough for some people in the developed world, because of heat stress, droughts, floods, hurricanes, spread of mosquito borne diseases and rising food prices.

But, for many in the developing world, it'll be a catastrophe. Already, many African cities have a problem with environmental refugees from rural areas, because they can no longer grow crops. This will only get worse.

One possible technological fix might be to equip airliners with the means to spray sulfur dioxide in flight. As long as this is done in the stratosphere, above the weather, the SO2 would persist up there for a year or more, reflecting back incoming solar radiation. It's a depressing thought that it might come to that.

So, you're offering two solutions. One is DOOM, and we're all going to die. The other is spraying sulfer dioxide from planes in flight, a solution that hasn't been tested but, if it works, you find it to be depressing. Compared to a mass die off, I find it hard to get depressed by any proposed solution. I'm hopeful science can come up with a few more alternatives.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Neapolitan:
And if that employee doesn't know how to use the fire extinguisher, would you rather he simply ignore the flames coming from the top of your roof?

That's one of those business practices that sounds great in a motivational seminar, but it fails miserably in the real world. After all, if, heaven forbid, my child comes to me with a broken arm, I don't ask her what she's going to do about it, then tell her I don't want to hear about it until she can carefully list the steps required to fix it. And if a giant asteroid is headed toward earth, I think the astronomers who spotted it have an obligation to tell the world about it, and not withhold that information because they don't have a practical solution to make it miss us.

One should never blur the line between science reportage and setting policy. It's ludicrous to insist that scientists withhold facts until and unless they can also tell us how to effectively deal with them.


So basically the scientists are telling us checkmate....we're screwed, blued, and tatooed.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
216. wxmod
Quoting TomTaylor:
It's not my theory. I know they are real images. I suggested you might not believe them since they are supplied by our government, which you seem to believe is behind a massive aluminum dump in our atmosphere.


No Tom, the government has nothing to do with it. It's a private enterprise.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
If hot air were ever proven to add to GW, this blog could be the biggest contributor.



Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting sar2401:

No, I got you because of your polemic description of publication you misidentified as a newspaper indicates you rarely or never read Forbes, but feel qualified to pass judgement on how it makes a profit. You then answer with another sarcastic, insulting polemic. This does not pass my sniff test of civilized discourse.
It was an inadvertent typo, chief, not a statement on my lack of reading skills. Speaking of: you've twice brought up my mentioning the Forbes piece without once addressing the content of my comment. That is, that as a paid spokesman for the fossil fuel-funded, climate-scientists-are-sociopathic-serial-killers Heartland Institute, Taylor's climate science credibility is less than zero. Do have a response to that? Or do you plan to just point out for a third time that I inadvertently referred to Forbes as a newspaper and not a magazine, as if that has some bearing on the conversation?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting wxmod:


That's right Georgia, it's nothing special, just a satellite photo of a typical man made weather system the size of a large country. Happens all the time. Almost every day.

I still don't see why you post those same images of all the chemtrail stuff.
Member Since: March 16, 2012 Posts: 127 Comments: 7948
Quoting Tropicsweatherpr:


Dont forget 93E at EPAC and now TS Jelawat at WPAC.

About the floater, the same thing happened during Hurricane Gordon in this area, SSD use images from GOES to their floater imagery, Nadine has moved into the area covered by METEOSAT and they are restricted to using only imagery every six hours from METEOSAT.
Unfortunately in Europe EUMETSAT (supported by taxpayers) don't have the same policy of providing free satellite imagery as in U.S., they charge money.You can use this alternative.

Link

Ahh, thanks for telling me that. I already have that link I was just confused as to what happened.
Member Since: March 16, 2012 Posts: 127 Comments: 7948
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
210. wxmod
Quoting GeorgiaStormz:



nothing special...


That's right Georgia, it's nothing special, just a satellite photo of a typical man made weather system the size of a large country. Happens all the time. Almost every day.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
THIS HAZARDOUS WEATHER OUTLOOK IS FOR WEST CENTRAL AND SOUTHWEST
FLORIDA.

.DAY ONE...TODAY AND TONIGHT.

...THUNDERSTORM IMPACT...
SCATTERED TO NUMEROUS AFTERNOON THUNDERSTORMS WILL PRODUCE SOME
LOCALLY HEAVY RAINFALL WITH MAY CAUSE LOCALIZED FLOODING OF URBAN
AREAS AND NORMALLY FLOOD PRONE AND LOW LYING AREAS. A FEW OF THE
STRONGER STORMS COULD PRODUCE WIND GUSTS TO AROUND 40 MPH AND
FREQUENT CLOUD TO GROUND LIGHTNING.

.DAYS TWO THROUGH SEVEN...FRIDAY THROUGH WEDNESDAY.

...THUNDERSTORM IMPACT...
SCATTERED THUNDERSTORMS CAN BE EXPECTED THROUGH THE MIDDLE PART OF
NEXT WEEK. THE STRONGER STORMS COULD PRODUCE WIND GUSTS TO AROUND
40 MPH AND FREQUENT CLOUD TO GROUND LIGHTNING.

.SPOTTER INFORMATION STATEMENT...

SPOTTER ACTIVATION WILL NOT BE NEEDED TODAY.

$$

CARLISLE
Member Since: Posts: Comments:

Viewing: 259 - 209

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31Blog Index

Top of Page

About

Jeff co-founded the Weather Underground in 1995 while working on his Ph.D. He flew with the NOAA Hurricane Hunters from 1986-1990.