Recently I’ve seen and heard a number of stories saying that the winter sea ice levels in the Arctic are right back at 1979 levels, so what’s to worry? On the polar bears thread I expected this story to appear, and didn’t have to wait long. First Mark and then Jono obliged. Thankyou to sjk and MikeM for setting them straight while I was otherwise engaged. For the record, from the National Snow and Ice Center, the 2008 story looks like this:
Tamino at Open Mind tracked down the source of the story.
According to Tamino the guy behind it all drew a trend line like this:
It seems to me that you can have any story you like if that is how you go about it. Please note that in the National Snow and Ice Center graph above, the reference line is the 1979-2000 average, not 1979.
The more important issue is the summer minimum ice coverage, not the winter maximum. In summer the sea is absorbs heat causing global warming and the female polar bears need ice for hunting to build up their weight for birthing and suckling. In terms of minima the news is bad as shown in this graph:
I used that graph in a post in June last year subsequently updated in September and again in November.
There is plenty of information in those posts but the best graph to show where the trend has come from and where it is going in relation to the projections of just a few years ago is shown in a graph from a Dr Sorteberg via Carbon Equity:
Ice coverage has been decreasing since the 1960s. In 2007 the trend line fell out of bed. There was a small recovery in 2008, as there was in 2006 from the then record low of 2005.
We need to keep in mind that “ice coverage” is defined at 15% coverage or more, quite a low standard. Also the ice is thinning rapidly. From memory it was about 3.5 metres thick in the 1960s compared with 1 metre in 2007. In 2008 the ice apparently thinned even more with an estimated further loss in volume of 10%. So the ultimate breakup of the ice in summer does seem possible in the near future.
While sea ice in the Antarctic does appear to be increasing this is no reason for celebration as the links provides by MikeM show. The bottom line appears to be that both the Greenland and the Antarctica ice sheets are losing mass. I went into some detail about this last July.
I’m not going to link to the original story, which you can get from Open Mind, nor to a less than edifying exchange on a local blog, linked from this comment.
I sometimes think deliberately misleading the public should be an indictable offense. But what do you do about the reckless, the careless, the ignorant and the muddle-headed?
Update 1: This graph shows the increase of atmospheric CO2 which kicks on from the 1950s. Dr Sorteberg’s graph suggests that there was a quick response in Arctic ice loss dating from that time. See comment below.
I used the graph in in this post. I’m sorry, I can’t recall it’s source.
Update 2: Following Huggy’s comment @ 4 (see also my comment @ 12) here is a graph showing sea ice age from 2007 to 2008 from my post of last November.
The white area, signifying ice coverage of 15-50%, has increased markedly within the basin, also an astonishing decrease in third-year plus ice. These are worries. If the increase in first-year stays to grow old, that’s good, but I wouldn’t hold my breath.
What is the black satelite line in the last graph telling us, Brian?
What the hell?!? The IPCC severely under-predicted summer sea ice loss with their models. Sack the lot of ‘em – obviously in thrall to big oil
Looks like one of those graphs Robert McNamara would have pulled-out of his desk drawer and placed-up on the overhead at an early ‘66 press conference, to prove that the US was kickin’ Gook ass and winnin’ the Vietnam War.
About as accurate and reliable, too.
I understand that it is the thickness, mass and age of the ice that is important.
Extent is a second order parameter.
Huggy
So we’ve been measuring this for just 30 years (Satellites since 1979), and the IPCC models can’t explain the extent of the ice cover loss.
So my conclusion is that the data period is incredibly short, and the models are wrong?
PANIC! Oh… I mean yawwwwwn
Ice extent is very very important as it affects albedo. Lower summer sea ice area = less radiation reflected = more warming = +ve feedback.
Not a problem Brian
Evan, can you actually point to where the graph is wrong? It may be inconvenient, but it is designed to tell the trend story and certainly reflects the way scientists have been surprised at the rapid deterioration of Arctic ice. A few short years ago they thought the Arctic would be ice free in the late summer/autumn about 2080 (as per the IPCC projections in the graph). Then in the face of the rapid deterioration in the decade to 2005, some said 2050. Now quite conservative scientists are suggesting before 2020. Jay Zwally in the face of 2007 said maybe five years, that is 2012.
The IPCC has tended to put melting ice sheets in the too hard basket. There is a problem with models, because there have been no ice sheets that completely disintegrated in the recent past covered by the capacity to make scientific observations. The latest IPCC report had a cutoff time of June 2006. Hansen’s work looking at what we can learn from the paleo record was published after that date and probably has not yet been fully appreciated by the mainstream.
But Nexus 6 is spot on in mentioning the albedo effect, which has not been taken into account in IPCC forward projections. We had a look at Hansen’s work here. In short, when the Arctic ice and the two big ice sheets are engaged, as they definitely are now, climate sensivity (temperature rise for the doubling of atmospheric CO2) becomes 6C rather than the 3C which is based on short-term feedbacks only and informs the conservative IPCC view. Furthermore the momentum in the system, ie. the temperature rise that will flow from current levels of CO2 without adding more, is actually about 2C rather than about 0.6C as thought.
As I explained here current CO2 levels are likely to give us a temperature of 2.7 to 3.7C above pre-industrial and a sea level of 15 to 35m. Last interglacial, about 127kya, we had 1.7 to 2.7C and a sea level of 4-6m with CO2 at 280-300ppm.
Hansen’s work gives a reasonable explanation for what is happening at the top of the world, which is a concern for all of us.
Well my apartment is on top of a hill AND on the 3rd floor, so I’m allright Jack.
Water treatment plants / sewage might be a problem, but I reckon I can get a composting toilet ok, and I’ll just boil the water.
Eyyy…
Gee, which am I? A scientist, a denialist, an unconscionable fraud? Tough choice. Not the former but you don’t need to be a scientist to see mass hysteria brewing. A denialist – well I deny that!! A fraud perhaps?
Here’s a thought…perhaps its possible for two people to look at the same data, apportion different significance to different data and honestly reach different conclusions.Now I know that in the new alarmist church, deviation from the mantra, even honest deviation, is not permitted but then I don’t adhere to that religion’s dogma as yet. So there we are – I’m a heretic.
If you read my post without the foaming mouth you might realise that I was mainly addressing the verbaling of Bolt(which I note no one is trying to refute!). You might also realise that when I talked of some circles saying that sea ice levels had returned to 1979 levels I was talking of global sea ice. As far as I’m aware no-one talks of Arctic sea ice having returned to 1979 levels – but it’s revealing to see how well you can erect and then destroy a straw-man. I did also mention Arctic sea ice bouncing back from the 2007 low and note that you have managed to side step that inconvenient truth.
The issue around the Arctic melt needs to be addressed. Even if it is melting – so what? That’s a long way from proof that it caused by anthropological CO2 levels. Maybe its just melting – it’s happened before without our help. Why do people get all warm and fuzzy over polar bears? Because that’s the only down-side that can be prised from the melt. It’s sea ice and therefore its state doesn’t affect sea levels – dam and blast! So the concentration is on those cuddly bear cubs – even though their numbers are rising.
And we hear so much about the Arctic right now because it is one of the few places that is even close to following the script. Antarctic ice is on the increase so we won’t talk about that. World temps are falling , so we’d best ignore that for the moment as well. Record snows all over the place. And so on and so on.
So the Arctic becomes the scare du jour to keep the hysteria at fever pitch – and the heretics are shouted down.
Who knows what the scare-du-jour will be next week – “Upper Kumbukta West has record temps, we’re doomed” – and the heretics will be shouted down.
Mark, I’ll come to you later. BilB @ 1 I’ve included an update at the end of the post a graph (should be there in a few seconds) which shows the increase of atmospheric CO2 from 1750. The kicks on from the 1950s which reflects post-war industrialisation. Dr Sorteberg’s graph suggests that there was a quick response in Arctic ice loss dating from that time.
The pattern suggests to me that the ice/albedo effect is a relatively short-term feedback. For me to feel comfortatble in the world and to feel OK about our legacy to future generations I’d like to see the Arctic ice coverage minima increasing, which would seem to require cooler water entering via the Bering Stait.
Since policy makers show no signs of coming to grips with any of this, I expect to die uncomfortable.
Huggy @ 4, that’s fair enough, I think. Coverage matters for the albedo effect, and obviously the bears and seals like it. But the story of the trend is possibly better reflected in mass, thickness and age. It’s just that area is easier to measure. See update 2 at the end of the post for an image.
Mark – you are defending Andrew Bolt by claiming he has been “verballed”? The man is a walking media industry LOL! Bolt’s comments, including his amazingly ill-informed treatment of climatology data, are all out there on the record, so to claim he has been verballed is pretty amusing.
>
As to your general understanding of climate science, shall we just point out that comments like “so what if the ice is melting” demonstrate a less-than-cutting-edge level of analysis? In the meantime, I’m going with James Hansen’s analysis, not yours.
I take it that “Mark” is not the Mark who founded this site. That’s fairly obvious both from their positions and the intellectual depth (or otherwise) of their comments.
Still, most large blogs have a rule that you can’t take a name that is already used by a regular on the site, and since Mark Bahnisch is more than just a regular I would have thought this new Mark would be required to adopt some less confusing moniker.
A shame we can’t get him to actually do some thinking at the same time.
No that’s not me, Feral.
Presumably we can be distinguished by the fact that I’ve got a gravatar, but it might be helpful if “Mark” were to adopt a moniker that distinguished himself from me in case there’s any confusion.
“but it might be helpful if “Mark” were to adopt a moniker that distinguished himself from me in case there’s any confusion.”
Consider it done. Sorry for the confusion. I wasn’t aware that there was another me and assumed the site would knock back my nick if it was inappropriate.
I just dropped in via OLO and, being a regular reader of the Bolt site, noticed that his views were being entirely misrepresented thru over-simplification. So I thought I’d offer some enlightenment.
But I’ve learned things already. It seems that since Bolt is a “walking media industry” its perfectly acceptable to attribute things to him that he never said. Just wondering if that ‘rule’ applies to people like Flannery as well or do I have to show his errors by (ahem) actually showing his errors?
hazym aka Mark
hazym aka Mark, personally I’m not interested in the minutiae of whether Bolt is or is not accurately quoted on this thread since it’s not about him. The less of my brain space he takes up the better, frankly.
The problem with Bolt is that it’s hard to decide whether he exists as a commentator to drive public opinion or tjust to reflect it. The number of people who take their news off the internet instead of newspapers is probably negligible compared to those who get their entire international news from triple M radio while waiting for the traffic reports.
It’s fighting over lunch money. If it wasn’t, then we would not be bombarded with political ads on TV and Radio. Bolt et al are just proxies for people like us who are actually interested in politics and want to let people know what they should be doing. I like to think of internet politics as a grown-up version of uni politics without the interfactional sex. It’s an opportunity to state our beliefs, refine our arguments, and expose ourselves to other people’s positions.
I can’t think of a single person who’s changed their vote based on me suggesting that they read a website or blog.
All this fanarkling over charts and statistics and bah blah blah. means shit. The climate isn’t subject to policy or polemic. If the scenarios happen it will be obvious. And when they do I’m gonna track Bolt down and make him apologize. I’ve told him so.
.
I think there’s a lot of over-simplification, dishonesty and downright ignorance all over the spectrum on this issue. But Bolt is being an exemplary propagandist. He’s lying outright and he knows it. Given the gravity of the situation he really should be ashamed of himself.
I like to think of internet politics as a grown-up version of uni politics without the interfactional sex.
Still there are other modes of self-indulgence…
.
Well I’m not sure about grown-up but, sigh, there’s no interfactional sex.
.
It’s an opportunity to state our beliefs, refine our arguments, and expose ourselves…
.
That was the good bit about student politics, really…
As for Bolt, his influence is probably more important insofar as other members of the Canberra closed circle think he’s “the voice of the people” or something. “Insiders” and all that – and reinforcing the more mindless sections of the Coalition in what they’d like to believe anyway. I doubt that he has any discernible electoral influence as such.
I doubt that he has any discernible electoral influence as such.
.
Ooh I don’t know about that. I think he’s an conduit for a certain slice of the populace. I’m not sure he changes peoples’ voting behaviour but he hardens and shapes views for damn sure.
Up to a point, Adrien. I think you’ve got the same syndrome as with Alan Jones – preaching to a small minority of the converted.
His influence also derives from the very existence of the denialist position shifting the terms of the debate to allow corporate interests more leeway.
I don’t know. It would be interesting to see how small this influence is and how it actually operates. I’d also include such as Michael Moore. It’s the same thing only from the Left. I’ve met heaps of people with very firm and very uniformed views based solely on Fahrenheit 911 or some such. Same with Boltaburbia.
.
But considering how seriously Jones, for example, is taken by politicians. I reckon his influence is not inconsiderable.
It was until someone put the demographics together and discovered that the vast majority of his listeners were rusted on Coalition voters over 60. The pollies who decided to stop taking notice of him faced on backlash!
Never forget the number of Australians who take a continuing interest in politics is very small indeed. And Bolt can’t even get as many page views on his blog – operating under a metropolitan masthead – as we do on this one!
I know it’s OT but:
“And Bolt can’t even get as many page views on his blog – operating under a metropolitan masthead – as we do on this one!”
Be really interested in any figures.
http://larvatusprodeo.net/2008/08/01/bolts-hits-are-bigger-than-lps-hits/
Unfortunately, take a look at the latest Essential Research polling on Pollbludger. Most Australians are now totally freaked by the global financial situation and the climate change debacle has slipped in terms of peoples’ concerns. I think there’s been something of an hiatus with the smaller Bush exiting, and Obama entering, in the U.S., as to whether there might be some shift in the U.S. position on climate change. Given the dire financial state of the U.S., for the short term at least, it may take some time before they can pay any attention to climate change seriously. Then, there’s the Middle East, and what do you do about that as an incoming POTUS? I suspect it means it’s too late. Sorry to be so pessimistic, and I hope I’m wrong
The thing is Harry the way out of the financial crises is to have a green bubble. I don’t care if we have it because the Ice is melting or the millionaire factory smells the money. I wish the denialists would just go away. They are slowing down the financial recovery. Silly wankers!
Mark, thanks for that.
No probs, wpd.
I wonder how long it will be before the world starts to measure the cost to the worlds environment of the two idiots in the next thread. What would be happening now had Gore won the US presidency?
BilB@32: “What would be happening now had Gore won the US presidency?
“
See T A Frank in the Grauniad today.
Thanks, andyc. That’s gold!
Apologies for taking the thread off-topic.
No apology necessary. It’s partly about deniers, delusionists (Quiggin’s term) or however they can be politely designated. I’m a bit busy today, but I plan to get back to him. Generally I don’t spend much time on Bolt but he’s classic on the Arctic.
If you want examples of him being found to be dishonest, try this from Tim Lambert.
On his influence generally, it’s hard to say. His notorious ’six graphs’ article was sent to me by country relatives. It was obviously being shared around. I’m assured by my rellies that they do not know a single person out there who buys the AGW story. But I ran into a guy a couple of years ago who was a neighbour on the farm next door. He had read a book by a bloke called Yeomans, the son of the Yeomans who invented the chisel plow and keyline farming. This guy, who was always prepared to stand apart from the rest, was definitely a full bottle on AGW.
Never forget the number of Australians who take a continuing interest in politics is very small indeed.
.
Hard to forget. I live in the middle of Luvvieland and no-one I know gives a royal rat’s. Which is probably why I plague the blogs.
.
And Bolt can’t even get as many page views on his blog – operating under a metropolitan masthead – as we do on this one!
.
N’ah, n’ah-n’uh, n’ah-n’ah!