2010-09-19 12:49:47Sea Ice Extents dropping still !
Robert Way

robert_way19@hotmail...
142.162.13.137
Hello all,
Thought it would interest some of you that despite the minimum arctic sea ice extent having been supposedly reached according to NSIDC and WUWT, it seems that the ice just does not seem to want to listen.

It is falling again and looks like it will be extremely close between the 2008 and 2010 minimum. From what I can see, this year has been extremely volatile so predictions kinda go out the window. My estimate: 2010 will be the second lowest sea ice extent on record.


2010-09-19 13:47:08Sea ice extent over on WUWT
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
121.222.93.62
They sure are obsessed with sea ice extent over on WUWT. I especially enjoy how they jump from metric to metric depending on which gives them the answer they want at the time. I've been monitoring it myself but resist the urge to blog about it regularly (not that I have the time even if I wanted). I did fall into the routine of blogging about monthly global temperature anomaly but it only took a few months before I realised how silly it was :-)
2010-09-19 14:49:23response
Robert Way

robert_way19@hotmail...
142.162.13.137
Yeah I agree it isnt worth the time to blog regularly on these topics. I did find it funny how they spent all summer obsessing over sea ice and each week reporting on it and now all Goddards fancy predictions are gone down in flames. The best for me is seeing how badly they freaked out at WUWT when NOAA mistakenly said 2nd lowest instead of 3rd and yet now after the fact it will probably be 2nd lowest. They were looking at the Satellite temperatures for a while too in the past but I dont think they want to anymore now that the temperatures are too close to call for 2010 versus 1998.

I think the only time it will be worth blogging is when it passes by 2008 (could already be there with the delay in the figures being updated) and then only to make a little short blog post of it. Just kinda a, the results are in and it shows 2nd lowest.. followed by who was right about it. Someone on some website did a poll ( i dont know if it was here) and it had like a bunch of  predictions. Be interesting to see who was right. 
2010-09-19 16:27:57Arctic sea ice post
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
121.222.93.62
Definitely with doing a post once the September minimum has passed so whoever wants to sink their teeth into that topic is welcome to it. Would be a good sequel to Doug's post on sea ice minimum predictions. On that note, I wonder if there's lots of air punching and high fives in the lab whose prediction is closest. I wonder if it's worth getting a comment from that lab :-)
2010-09-19 16:52:56Comment
Robert Way

robert_way19@hotmail...
142.162.13.137
that was dougs eh... zhang and gauthier et al. look to me to be the closest...

http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/sioresultschartfig1rev.jpg
2010-09-19 20:17:09
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.93.252.19
It's a death spiral!.
2010-09-19 22:03:13Sea Ice Update!
Robert Way

robert_way19@hotmail...
142.162.13.137
Since the 13th we have been losing roughly 42,000 Km2 per day with a loss of 43281 km2 occurring from the 17th to the 18th (the most recently updated date). The sea ice extent area for September 18th was 4798750 km2 which is 90937 km2 above the 2008 minimum. Therefore if the sea ice extent losses continue over the next few days it is a certainty that we will be at the 2nd lowest ice extent in recorded history. Cryosphere Today shows an area of low concentration ice which has shifted away from the main pack (middle of screen) and has descended to lower latitudes near Russia.



Time will tell how the ice will do but it seems likely that this is going to be a close one.
2010-09-19 23:41:15
Riccardo

riccardoreitano@tiscali...
93.147.82.180

SkS cannot follow this yearly game not last because we're never tired to repeat that a single year does not matter. Our death spiral would be to be engaged in the "recovery" issue from the weak position of having talked about a single year event.

If anything, we could do a detailed analisys of the weather events that produce the observed melting. But it's not so easy and probably not of general interest.

2010-09-20 02:29:32Riccardo is kind of right
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
195.202.153.35

We have to be consistent that short-term weather is not of real interest - hot or cold.

With that general and consistent message, however, we can still do a "by the way, the actual records have been in the wrong direction recently"

2010-09-20 04:40:15Comment
Robert Way

robert_way19@hotmail...
142.162.13.137
Oh I just thought it would be worth looking into because a common skeptic thing is that sea ice is recovering and Goddard and Co have spent all summer with a very successful (in terms of drawing numbers) comparison of sea ice trends. Not a big blog post but just note it and show the cryosphere today image or whatever.
2010-09-20 06:03:42post worth doing
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
121.222.93.62

I think it's definitely worth doing but that you put the weather effect in its proper context. This is a blog post back in 2008 that put the 2007 sea ice extent in its proper perspective:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Arctic-sea-ice-melt-natural-or-man-made.html

So yes, it acknowledge the long-term warming effect but also acknowledged the short-term weather effect that was in play in 2007, then the conclusion brought it all together.

2010-09-20 06:13:09Comment
Robert Way

robert_way19@hotmail...
142.162.13.137
What you have to acknowledge is there was extraordinary events (wind driven) which caused the anomalously low 2007 ice extent. Whereas 2010 is due to significant high latitude warming... certainly you have to put it in context, but you also have to be clear that these aren't the same conditions as 2007. This year is probably more in line with what would be expected of climate change.
2010-09-20 06:23:54Good framework for a blog post
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
121.222.93.62
Robert, that line of thinking sounds like a good skeleton to build a blog post around.
2010-09-20 06:34:43
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.92.77.184

Yup, I agree with you Rob, we did not have an anti cyclone parking itself over the Arctic for months on end like 2007, yet we now have a record low sea ice volume, and the 3rd (perhaps 2nd) lowest sea ice extent on record. Factor in the rotten ice that the satellites see as thick multi-year ice & conditions are being primed for a spectacular melt season in the coming years (Not that I'm suggesting you put anything like that in a blog post).

I think it'll make a good blog topic, dealt with in the manner you & John suggest. It's not like we're hanging our hats on this, there will still be annual variability unless we can somehow get the weather to be the same every year!.  

 

2010-09-20 06:42:42Another thought to possibly include
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
121.222.93.62
A phrase from some scientist, possibly David Barber, that comes to mind. As the ice is much thinner now, it takes a lot less energy to melt it.
2010-09-20 21:10:27
Riccardo

riccardoreitano@tiscali...
192.84.150.209
I'd suggest as title (and post) something like "Arctic sea ice minimum in context: 2007 vs 2010"
2010-09-21 13:23:38Comment
Robert Way

robert_way19@hotmail...
142.162.201.161
09,18,2010,4813594

That is the low extent for this year so far. Increases have occurred on the 19th and 20th according to Jaxa. I'm not sure whether to call it done for just yet but who knows.