Death Spiral Update : Area Of Old Arctic Sea Ice Has Tripled Since Mid-2011

 

NSIDC graphics showing 4/5 year old ice in week 35, 2011 and week 51, 2013.

PaintImage99 PaintImage93

About these ads

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

48 Responses to Death Spiral Update : Area Of Old Arctic Sea Ice Has Tripled Since Mid-2011

  1. Psalmon says:

    Don’t show this stuff, come on!

    It’s too much fun watching guys like Paul Beckwith up there in Ottawa make “for the record” predictions of the zero-ice Arctic.

    It’s as entertaining as reading about the Arctic temperatures above average, blazing hot -36 deg C today in Alert, Nunavut Canada.

  2. rw says:

    Well, it’s runoff from the melting, just like all that ice around Antarctica.

  3. omanuel says:

    The globe may not be warming, but government deceivers are definitely feeling the heat !

    Thanks, Steven, for reminding them of the final conclusion to this drama:

    “Truth is victorious, never untruth !”

  4. Josh says:

    The graph resets at week 36 when surviving 1st year ice is moved up to 2nd year. If you would compare week 51 2013 to week 36 2011 the difference would be less dramatic (though still significant).

  5. Billy Liar says:

    You only have to look at the Barrow radar:

    http://seaice.alaska.edu/gi/observatories/barrow_radar

    to see that it is a very dynamic environment. Unfortunately, by this time of year, the fast ice attached to the shore extends almost out to the range of the radar but if you look at the 3-day animation you will see that beyond about 5 miles out the ice is rushing past the fast ice from east to west. At other times depending on wind/tide/current it’s going the other way; early in the season there is no fast ice so all the ice moves one way or another.

    To visualise the ice a static entity floating at the north pole is way wide of the mark. It is all in constant movement. Ask Professor Chris Turney about how fast ice can move under the effect of wind and current – he’s the expert (well, he is now!).

  6. dannyheim says:

    Um, old ice has been more exposed, but not increased, it’s decreasing actually but it’s gotta get exposed before it does and it’s getting exposed. Besides, you can’t get more old ice in the short run, because it’s old ice, get it?

    • Hopefully you aren’t this stupid in real life.

      • Gail Combs says:

        Hopefully he is able to express himself more clearly in real life too.

        I have no idea if what he actually said is what he was trying to express.

        It sounds like he is saying all the old ice was piled up and now it is being spread out and therefore it is more exposed to melting. However you can not melt ice if the sea is around 0C (freezing)

        http://ocean.dmi.dk/satellite/index.uk.php

        And the air temperature is 20C or more below freezing. (The blue line is freezing BTW)

        http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php

        The sea ice GROWS this time of year because it is WINTER.

        You can see we haven’t even reached maximum ice levels yet.
        Here is the Danish sea ice extent:

        http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php

        I wish people would do a bit of independent research instead of parroting the junk science they get from the propaganda sites.

      • Jason Calley says:

        One of the things that seems to be fairly consistent among CAGW believers is a failure to understand time. Suppose you have a chart of the last fifty years average global temperature. If temperatures have not risen for 15 years, a sceptic says “It has stopped warming.” A CAGW believer will look at the same chart and see that the temperature is higher than it was at some different point in the past (say twenty five years ago) and say, “NO! It has not stopped warming! Look at how high the temperature still is!”

        Apparently, this sort of non-temporal thinking is at work with polar ice. Polar ice must be like old growth forests — probably hundreds of years old and incapable of changing more than a small fraction over just a few years… :)

      • dannyheim says:

        Steve, speaking of stupid, every time I’ve ever heard or read anything about you, it’s been thought of as stupid, as is this article. BUT, I’ll take it back if you could explain to me how this old ice suddenly tripled itself when it takes 9 yeas for old ice to become old ice. Did we suddenly get 9 years packed into 1? Explain.

      • I see that you have difficulty counting past the numbers 4 and 5.

      • dannyheim says:

        I believe it’s you that is digging a whole Steve. What do you mean, “Arctic sea ice almost never reaches nine years old”. There is ice that is thousands of years old in the arctic and some of it has been popping up in recent years from below because of the severe melting at the top that usually holds it down. I’m sure much of the new ice melts like you said and some old ice as well, but old ice can not suddenly increase, new ice yes, but not old ice as it has to be 9 years old to be old ice, so what the hell are you talking about? Explain.

        • My patience for complete morons is limited, and you are near the brink.

        • dannyheim says:

          I was wrong, old ice is ice that has made is through one melt season, sorry. The 9 years thing is what was shown on the graph that Micheal Smith linked and they nly showed ice that was 9 years or older as the oldest ice, bad mistake. However, this doesn’t change much except to point out that you are talking about a 3 year span, that doesn’t tell much about the condition of the arctic as it is too short of a time span and I would think it’s just natural variability, so what? Natural variability as not let the earth…yet. In any case, I was confused by your article because I misunderstood the definition for old ice and I apologize. But don’t worry, that “supposed” tripling of old ice will be a short live thing as the arctic is sure to continue it’s death spiral, of that I have no doubt no matter what I temporarily misunderstand.

        • Kepler says:

          Congratulations! You are the new alarmist idiot poster child. Shoot off your mouth first, do the research later. You are the champion.

    • 1 year old ice is always 1 year old. Right?

  7. Andy DC says:

    All that nice thick ice, tucked safely away from the evil forces of wind and waves. Reggie is going to have to work overtime with his blowtorch this summer.

  8. Gail Combs says:

    I just went over to have a look at dannyheim’s website.
    Danny’s blog as a permanent parting remark has Evolve Now

    This immediately brought to mind some of Geologist William McClenney’s recent remarks.

    Danny,
    McClenney is a California Licensed Professional Geologist and Registered Environmental Assessor. He was appointed the first Certified Environmental Auditor in Victoria, Australia in 1991, empowered to sign-off on contaminated site cleanups. He has been investigating and cleaning up hazardous waste sites for 22 years, so this is a guy you should be willing to listen to.

    McClenney said:

    Is the Holocene interglacial, our interglacial, just about kaput? Well, that’s the trillion dollar question, isn’t it? The present consensus seems to be that we will not have an extended interglacial this time…

    The Holocene interglacial, or MIS-1, is now 11,500 years old, or half a precessional cycle. Five of the 6 interglacials dating back to the Mid Pleistocene Transition have each lasted just half of a precessional cycle. There is a very intense debate, happening right now, regarding which of the most recent interglacials is the best analogue for the present one, the Holocene…

    Onset of the Little Ice Age after the Medieval Warm Period, right when the Holocene reached about half a precession cycle old, was harrowing enough. The Modern Warm Period, reportedly less warm then the MWP, marks the second thermal pulse, a few centuries older than half a precession cycle, and still within the Holocene.

    Let me explain the significance of that remark. Glacial inception is not a straight drop. The temperature spikes back up a couple times. He goes on to say MIS-11 which is considered a close analog of the Holocene had two ‘Thermal pulses’ before the descent into the freezer. We are presently having that second pulse….

    McClenney continues:

    … Aside from Loutre and Berger’s 2003 astronomical model, which was soundly trounced by Lisiecki and Raymo’s 2005 rebuttal, there has only been one well-accepted means of preventing glacial inception discussed in the literature: greenhouse gases. This, of course, is not how it is meant to be discussed in the “new science.” Can anyone suggest another means of delaying or preventing glacial inception except GHGs?

    But perhaps the most important question of all might be should we attempt to delay or prevent onset of the next glacial? Would a ~90,000 year long glacial (aka ice age) be just what the doctor ordered for at least (as reported today) say 42% of the US population?

    42% is the present number of voters registered as Democrats.

    One of McClenney’s articles outlines the great evolutionary leaps in Hominids spurred by our nonhuman ancestors having to deal with the evolutionary stress caused by glaciations.
    ……

    Why would I pay attention to Wiliam McClenney? Because he has slogged through over 300 geology papers on the subject of glacial inception (He has given me copies)

    • dannyheim says:

      Sounds like a science breakthrough that never got anywhere, why’s that?

      • Gail Combs says:

        If you knew we were staring at glaciation and the earth could only support ~ 1/2 billion if that, what would you do?

        Tell the world and promote panic? Or move yourself and selected genetically perfect individuals (or their DNA) to a safe location and strip northern countries of their technology and manufacturing capability while insuring the rejected population dies quickly of starvation (or bullets)?

        With that in mind read the 1974 CIA report and look at what the US government has actually DONE since then not what has been said.

        For example under Reagan (R) leveraged buyouts stripped well run mid-sized companies of their assets. Under Clinton (D) US technology and manufacturing was shipped overseas and the five banking laws that set up the Foreclosure crisis were passed and signed.

        The World Bank, wealthy investors and even US Universities are participating in a land grab in Africa and Latin America.

        ALL US and UK babies are DNA tested and the DNA is banked. There are seed vaults and Animal DNA has also been banked. Most telling is Epicyte’s Spermicidal Corn financed by the USDA.

        Now notice that there is NOTHING in the news mentioning any of these papers about possible imminent glaciation. To the general public they do not even exist.

        As the Chinese curse says “May you live in interesting times”

  9. dannyheim says:

    So Steve, I admitted my wrong and apologized. So, I’m not asking you to admit you are wrong, but would like to ask you do you think this tripling of old ice is an indication that the arctic is coming back? And please don’t say it never receded in the first place, I’m sure you are aware that the ice has diminished in recent decades, quite considerably. In that regard, I’d make any sort of bet you want that over the next 10 years there will be a net decline of ice in the Arctic, you wouldn’t take that bet I’d imagine, but if so, please do.

    • dannyheim says:

      How about 750 bucks?

      • I suggest you calm down, take a deep breath, and do some reading.

        • dannyheim says:

          Still waiting. I know you’re a big shot and all that Steve, but could you please answer my simple question, do you think that this tripling of old ice is an indication that the ice is now going to recover and stop declining, a simple yes or no will suffice but feel free to editorialize. Good luck.

        • Arctic ice extent, volume and thickness are all up from three years ago.

        • dannyheim says:

          My God Steve, you sure know how to avoid a question don’t you? Maybe you didn’t understand, let me ask it again, do you think this tripling of old ice is an indication that the arctic is coming back? Here, maybe this is a better way to ask it, do you think this tripling of old ice is an indication that the arctic is coming back and will continue to come back for the next 30 years, something like that?

        • What part of “extent and thickness is increasing since 2011″ isn’t clear to you?

        • dannyheim says:

          Would you please quit playing these games. OK, ice has been recovering for 3 years you say, what does that mean? Does that mean you are saying the ice is now going to continue to recover, and for how long? Is that something you can throw me a bone with?

        • I’m not a prophet, sorry.

        • Shazaam says:

          OK, ice has been recovering for 3 years you say, what does that mean?

          Have you considered that the Arctic recovery, and Antarctic non-melt just might be “inconvenient” facts and nothing more??

          i.e. None of the hundreds of computer generated climate model runs have predicted such a thing. In fact, at least 97% of the models indicate that the polar ice should be melting at a some fantastic rate right now.

          So, these huge increases in Arctic and Antarctic ice (facts) fly in the face of hundreds of computer generated climate approximations and estimations (models, not reality)…..

          What do YOU think it means????

        • dannyheim says:

          Your not only not a prophet Steve your kind of a nothing from what I’ve seen of you today, I’d of thought you had a little more than slams to offer, but I guess not.

          And Shaazm to answer your question, I don’t think it means much in the light of 30 plus years of decline and when you look from where this small rebound has been you can’t count it, it’s not a long enough period to know anything for sure, what else would I think? So I think nothing about your 3 years of rebound, nothing. And finally I think it will continue over time to decline and decline rapidly just like it has been, but of course with ups and downs in natural variability but over time a steady decline, bet me, please.

        • Shazaam says:

          it’s not a long enough period to know anything for sure, what else would I think? So I think nothing about your 3 years of rebound, nothing.

          Indeed.

          And I do believe that you speak the complete truth when you say that you “think nothing”….

          If you are looking for prophets… I’d suggest haunting whitehouse.gov….

    • Andy Oz says:

      many climate nazis have poked the bear and had to leave in a hurry, Danny. Maybe you might last more than a day but I doubt it.

  10. Gail Combs says:

    dannyheim says: @ February 22, 2014 at 2:51 am
    ……, I don’t think it means much in the light of 30 plus years of decline…..
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Actually you answered your own question. The PDO, NAO and AO are quasi-cycles of ~60 years. Sea Ice melts from the bottom and not from the top so the temperature of the sea water is the controlling factor. With both the NAO and PDO going cold/negative you will see increase in sea ice. If the quasi-cycles have both flipped and stay negative you could see 25 to 30 years of increase in Arctic Sea Ice.

    The PDO has turned cold: (wwwDOT)nwfsc.noaa.gov/research/divisions/fe/estuarine/oeip/ca-pdo.cfm

    This is the NAO up to 2000: (wwwDOT)ldeo.columbia.edu/res/pi/NAO/

    This is more recent info and it looks like the NAO has also just gone cold. (negative)
    (wwwDOT)nc-climate.ncsu.edu/climate/patterns/NAO.html

    More Information:

    https://climatedataguide.ucar.edu/climate-data/hurrell-north-atlantic-oscillation-nao-index-station-based

    (wwwDOT)arctic.noaa.gov/future/warm_arctic_cold_continent.html

    You might also be interested in the correlation to drought:

    If I use more than two active links the comment gets booted into the ether so just copy and paste or type in the first eleven characters

  11. Brian H says:

    Nice ice, insulates polar water, keeps us warm. Nice ice!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s