I announced betting on the sea ice 2 weeks ago. Betting is open until the end of July. For those of you still figuring how you are going to estimate the 7-day minimum, I’m posting the current 7 day average, and plan to post again next Wednesday:
The vertical lines denote the close of betting and the day I will declare the official winner.
Of course, when betting on the minimum, it’s also worth considering the current loss rate in Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Extent. I’ve plotted that as well:
Examining the graphs:
- The ice is exhibiting record low 7 day average of Jaxa sea ice observations for this time of year.(Data here.)
- The loss rate in sea ice is currently a record for this time of year.
- Considering the current record low and high loss rates, it looks like we may set a record for the new low.
As some know, I already entered a bet putting in a value very near last years 7 day minimum. But like everyone, I can revise my bet as new data arrives. I’ve got until July 31 to come up with a new bet. Right now, I’m contemplating entering a lower value– possibly very near the record low.
To bet visit the ice betting page.
I was wondering when someone else was going to notice that we are on track for a record low in Arctic ice extent. Ice area is only slightly above 2007 at the moment.
The rate plot seems to be inverted.
dewitt–
You’re right. I was thinking “loss” as positive and inverted. I either have to change the words or the sign!
@Dewitt Payne
“I was wondering when someone else was going to notice that we are on track for a record low in Arctic ice extent. Ice area is only slightly above 2007 at the moment.
The rate plot seems to be inverted.
Can you please note that record begins in 1979 so that everyone knows that is irrelevant and misleading?
I’m not trying to be a jerk Dewitt but we cannot continue this liberal worldview that history began when were born. Frankly, I think it is ignorant because it is an insult to people’s intelligence and it dimisses history. Here is an analogy that might help you understand better.
Ex. I could make a wonderful graph showing the the coveted “trend” of wartime deaths. I could show that survival rates have been rising rapidly, and I would START THE GRAPH at 1980. Now, anyone who has a piece of a brain would know that this graph is stupid and idiotic.
@Lucia
This is OT but something I think you may consider the best idea I’ve ever had. When people talk about sea level rise, I am extremely suspicious. How much water toatl (not just fresh water) is in ice, globally? Secondly, what is the average depth of the ocean, in meters? The reason I ask this is because I was under the impression that ice only contains 4% of the world’s water, while the rest is in the oceans. Therefore, I am wondering if anyone has calculated sea level rise based on these facts? I don’t see how we see any significant sea level rise, given that so much of the water is already…well…water. How is a 4% addition going to do anything?
Jay/Shoosh.
First: I don’t think anyone is misled. Records are based on when data begin being recorded. They do not predate the creation of the universe, solar system, earth etc.
Second: I think anyone who looks at the graph can see the JAXA record begins in 2002 not 1979. But other records predate JAXA operation.
a)Please try to avoid feeding people straight lines.
b)I suggest you do the calculation yourself and tell us what you get.
Re: Dr. Jay Cadbury, phd. (Jul 20 12:13),
There are these things called search engines, Google, e.g. You can find out a lot of useful stuff using them like the average depth of the oceans, the total volume of ice, the annual rate of sea level rise. You can even find free copies of scientific papers that do a lot of the work for you. Here’s one for a start:
http://etienne.berthier.free.fr/download/Cazenave_et_al_GPC_2009.pdf
@DeWitt
Thank you for the link but it doesn’t have any of the information I want. You and Lucia think it is so easy to find these things on the internet but you are mistaken. Let me give you a task I’ve been unable to find an answer to. What is earth’s average atmopsheric content of co2? Try googling that and back to me in the next millenium because if it’s out there, I can’t find it.
Furthermore DeWitt, if the average sea level depth is in that paper, I’m going to have to ask you to paste that portion onto here because I’m not going to read that entire article when I need 1 single, simple clean number.
Re: Dr. Jay Cadbury, phd. (Jul 20 13:08),
Sorry, I can see no reason why that number should be of interest so it’s not worth my time. It’s completely irrelevant to what’s happening now and might happen in the next 100 years. I suspect the reason you can’t find it is because nobody else has cared to try to determine it. It probably wouldn’t be publishable in the scientific literature even if they did. OTOH, I get over 5,000,000 hits for ‘atmospheric carbon dioxide history’.
Re: Dr Shooshman^H^H^H^H^H^HDr. Jay Cadbury, phd (79375)
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=mean+earth+sphere+depth
@Jhudsy
Excellent link and it’s just what I thought. There’s absolutely no way that even if every piece of ice melted, there would be substantial sea level rises, based on the math. There simply isn’t enough water locked in the ice do anything substantial.
Re: Dr. Jay Cadbury, phd. (Comment #79380)
Excellent link and it’s just what I thought. There’s absolutely no way that even if every piece of ice melted, there would be substantial sea level rises, based on the math. There simply isn’t enough water locked in the ice do anything substantial.
I disagree with you. Another 5 second google search for “glacial ice volume” leads to the following:
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2000/HannaBerenblit.shtml
Which states that there is approximately 1.3 × 10^9 km^3 of water in the ocean, and 3.3 x 10^7 km^3 in the ice caps (I’ll ignore rivers, the atmosphere and glaciers for now). So approximately 3% of the Earth’s water is locked up in the ice-cap. As a first approximation, I reckon this means a 1.44% increase in height (cube root of 3%), i.e. 40m. This is similar to what yet another 5 second google search tells me: http://www.usatoday.com/weather/resources/askjack/2004-11-21-melting-polar-ice_x.htm
I’d hardly call that insubstantial.
Dr. Jay/Shoosh
It might help if you showed some math or even a few numbers when you make claims like this.
good stuff
http://www.met.reading.ac.uk/~ed/blog/2011/uncertain-climate-forecasts/#more-385
Re: Dr. Jay Cadbury, phd. (Jul 20 13:08),
what is earth’s average atmopsheric content of co2?
google your question
The forty foot figure doesn’t sound too far off. Assuming half of that ice is in Greenland it fits with the widely quoted figure that if all of Greenland melted you’d get twenty feet. Sure, studies have been done suggesting melting all of it would take a very long time even with very high CO2 levels, but if you could melt it, that’s about how much water you’d get.
@Andrew_FL (79402)
Just a small correction, it’s 40m rather than 40 feet. According to the article I linked to, the more refined estimate is 67m. I tend to agree that the chances of AGW melting all ice on the planet isn’t very high (in the next couple of centuries at least).
Jhudsy (Comment #79403), Jeez, I am rather embarrassed. Confusing meters for feet is not a small error, it’s a factor of about 3.3! I shouldn’t post so late at night, I guess. Well that throws out my rough calculation. Instead of half, Greenland apparently holds like one tenth of the ice. Thinking about it, I guess that makes more sense, Antarctica is bigger, but I didn’t think it was that much bigger.
That looks very very bad…
@JHudsy
See, this is where you guys lose the average people.
1.3 × 10^9 km^3 of water in the ocean, and 3.3 x 10^7 km^3 in the ice caps
What the hell is that? I can’t make anything out of that.
@Lucia
You can expand your reader base by using simple numbers.
@Mosher and Dewitt Payne
You guys keep saying it’s so easy yet you cannot produce a number. All talk and no action. Payne, you got 5 million hits and have nothing to show for it. Both of you shut your mouths and quit acting like its so easy. Obviously it isn’t because you can’t get a number either.
Dr. Jay/Shoosh
First: I’m not particularly trying to expand my reader base. Second: I’d consider the possibility that you know something about expanding reader base if you had a reader base… which you don’t.
I have a great experiment to test this. Take a 12oz glass of water and pretend it represents the entire ocean. Next, take a 12oz block of ice, shave it down until it is only 1.44% of it’s former self, pop it in the glass of water and you will see that nothing happens.
Dr. Jay,
I’m not sure why this is hard to follow. [I’ll use shorthand scientific notation, e.g. 1.23E7 rather than 1.23 x 10^7.]
From the stated volume of ice, 3.3E7 km^3, we account for the relative density of ice, which is about 90% of water’s. There is the equivalent of 3E7 km^3 of water equivalent in the ice — that is to say, if it all melted, this is how much water would be produced. Spread this equally over the area of the ocean, which is about 3.3E8 km^2, and one obtains an equivalent depth of 3E7 km^3 / 3.3E8 km^2 = .09 km = 90 m.
[It’s not quite the 65m from the article which jhudsy linked.]
The total amount of water doesn’t enter into it. Suppose the ocean were another kilometer deeper, or even ten — the fact that the meltwater would represent a much smaller percentage of the existing ocean water doesn’t change the additional height due to the new meltwater. 90 m only represents 14 millionths of the diameter of the earth, but it doesn’t mean we wouldn’t notice the extra water. [I add that this melt, if it occurs at all, is not going to happen within this century, nor do I consider it likely to happen within this millennium.]
Dr. Jay (#79416)
The average depth of the oceans is 3,790 meters ( taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean ) and will rise by 65 meters if all of the land ice melts (http://www.usatoday.com/weather/resources/askjack/2004-11-21-melting-polar-ice_x.htm). Thus, the fractional change in ocean depth is equal to (65/3790) = 0.017 (or only a 1.7% increase in depth) if all land ice melts (an unlikely scenario for the current century).
But 65 meters would wipe out many world cities.
Re: Dr. Jay Cadbury, phd. (Jul 21 08:19),
Mosher and I are not your servants. It’s not my problem that you can’t find stuff on your own. I might be willing to do what you ask if you pay my consulting fee of $150/hour, 15 minutes minimum charge. Otherwise, I have better things to do.
If you measured the height of the water in the glass with a cathetometer with sufficient precision, there would indeed be a change in height of water in the glass after adding 0.17 ounces of ice and allowing it to melt. If the starting height is 10 cm and the glass isn’t tapered, the height of water would increase by 0.14 cm. That wouldn’t be easy to eyeball if the glass weren’t graduated, but it would be measurable.
Dr. Jay. google your question. the answer is there at the first link.
I’ve done it. I know what the answer is.
this is a test for you.
do you know how to google.
google the EXACT thing I told you to google.
Your answer will be in the first link.
@Mosher
Okay I did and it took me here, which DID NOT HAVE THE ANSWER!
do you know how to read. I said average atmopsheric concentration of co2. Not what is today. I want the running historic average Did you know the earth wasn’t created when we were born? Lucia believes this, so I just need to make sure you don’t also.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth's_atmosphere
Just forget it guys, keep saying you have the answer and show nothing. You’re all talk. I’m trying to help you all out here and show you how stupid global warming theory is but you can’t put 2 and 2 together.
Let’s talk about the debt ceiling. My understanding is that the government is telling us that they cannot spend less than they did the year before. Also, they keep talking about this August 2nd deadline. On this date, does this mean that we will have spent the same amount as the total we spent in 2010? Obama is a good man, he puts his family first. Other than that, the man has no concept of economics and neither does Tim Geithner. I’m 26 and I see people my age complaining about the Republicans wanting to reform social security…this shows the depths of indoctrination kids face in school. The teacher’s union has brainwashed these kids into making decisions that will hurt themselves. Why in the world would anybody my age want to pay into social security for people who are already retired? In fact, really what we should do is abolish the program; it is nothing but a Ponzi scheme. We have 401K plans now and people are too stupid to save their own money then they should pay the price. Your thoughts.The debt ceiling is way too far of topic. I’ve increased your delay time in the “wait” plugin.- lucia
Dr. Jay Cadbury, phd. (Comment #79412)-I assume you speak for the “average person” and not yourself as a PhD, but for the average person, there is 1.3 billion cubic kilometers of water in the ocean, 33 million in all the ice. An average American male is a little under two meters tall. If you picture a container of water that height, depth, and width, it’s 8 cubic meters, or 0.000000008 cubic kilometers. You would therefore need about 162500000000000000 containers of water, as wide, thick, and high as you are tall to contain all the water in the ocean. The ice would be contained within just 5362500000000000 such containers. The difference between these volumes is a factor of about 30. There is thirty times as much water in the ocean as in ice.
http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~archer/Pierrehumbert.mp4
Why has the loss rate for the last 2 weeks been so high? Until then things looked set for a low near the new normal.
As for whether it matters: we are in a position where anything can swing peoples’ opinions from warmist to sceptic. A new record low and people will worry that the rest of the hype is true. Rather than following the misdirection of Dr phd (I thought the capitals were important but what do I know?), could someone get the discussion back to sea ice and even explain what’s going on.
I realise that nothing might be going on, but if the wind patterns are pushing ice out into the warm water to be melted (I think of this as like leaving the fridge door open) it would be good to see it.
JF
Julian Flood (Comment #79446)
…… could someone get the discussion back to sea ice and even explain what’s going on.
——————————————————–
See excellent discussion at: http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
The arctic melt started earlier this year, the surface pools formed reduced albedo and increased absorption of solar energy. Also the atmospheric temperature over much of the arctic is (relatively) quite warm.
Also the ice volume and thickness has been steadily decreasing so each year there is less ice to melt. (http://psc.apl.washington.edu/wordpress/research/projects/arctic-sea-ice-volume-anomaly/).
Northern snow cover anomaly has also been steadily dropping (http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_anom.php?ui_set=1&ui_region=nhland&ui_month=6) causing further loss of albedo and subsequent warming.
The current high pressure weather pattern over the arctic is changing and is expected to slow rate of ice loss. (http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2011/07/nsidc-arctic-sea-ice-news-mid-july-2011.html)
Julian–
I don’t know why the uptick was rather large. But if you look at each trace you can see they all have fairly large up and down wiggles at different times. This one isn’t horrifically large.
I know the ice is thin so we can expect extent to be vulnerable generally.
Well… yes. Ice progressively melting should make people believe that there is a tendency toward warming, particularly in the arctic. BTW: I’m not sure whether you put lukewarmers in the “warmist” or “skeptic” camp.
lucia:
It appears that the 2007 level is the over-under. Given that the there will probably be a large cluster of guesses around that point, I am trying to refine my model. Does anybody know if floating drowned polar carcasses count as part of the ice cover when the satellite does its thing?
Sorry reality check
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php
Lack of logic here: Check AMSU temps for last 6 months way below 2007 in fact looks like July might be 0.2C max, so its obviously AGW go back to school and learn science again its never too late LOL
Glad to see ol De Wit da pain back, he always jumps when the ice melts and disappears when it freezes over but I enjoy his rants welcome back!
Annabelle– That third comment served no function other than to insult someone with whom you disagree. Don’t do that.
AndrewFL, please don’t post messages with so many 0’s that I get a headache.
Surely everyone understands 1.3 × 10^9 km^3 ?
Well, maybe not everyone, but at least everyone over 5.475 x 10^3 days old?
@Andrew FL
No. You insist on using Michael Mannian tactics that are bunk. It’s very simple. Take a glass of water, pretend it represents the ocean. Take a piece of ice, the same size as the glass of water, and break off 97% of the ice. Put the 3% in the glass and see what happens. What happens is a big fat nothing, and that makes you cry. So sorry.
@Lucia
I disagree that the debt ceiling was off topic.
@Annabelle
Nice shot at Dufus Payne. The ice caps are an anomaly anyway, Lucia and company keep pretending that they’ve always existed and they’ve never melted before. History is shunned and discouraged here.
Re: Julian Flood (Jul 22 03:20),
The short term variation in extent is probably largely determined by air and water circulation. A given amount of ice can be packed closely together or be dispersed over a wider area. Ice concentration had been fairly stable recently, which is unusual at this time of year. The last two days of Cryosphere Today ice area have had large drops while the extent has declined less rapidly causing the concentration to drop rapidly.
In any case, both ice area and extent are very close to 2007 levels and have been for quite some time now. Global ice area, the sum of Arctic and Antarctic area, has also been at record low level recently.
I noticed elsewhere that Joe Bastardi has predicted that the AMO index will go negative next year. Last year, he was predicting a negative AMO index for this year. So far it hasn’t happened and the satellite lower troposphere temperature at high northern latitude has only decreased a little from its El Nino high.
Shoosh/Jay
You are now premoderated.
Dr, J
“@Mosher
Okay I did and it took me here, which DID NOT HAVE THE ANSWER!
do you know how to read. I said average atmopsheric concentration of co2. Not what is today. I want the running historic average Did you know the earth wasn’t created when we were born? Lucia believes this, so I just need to make sure you don’t also.”
Yes it does have the answer to the question you asked. You asked for the average concentration of C02. You got that answer. Now you want to ask the ‘ historic average”.
Well, ASK THAT QUESTION and you’ll find the answer as well.
epa site. but I’m not gunna give you the link.
we are testing your ability to frame good questions.
So. frame a question
what is the historical average concentration of C02.
then. ASK GOOGLE. it’s really easy. Google will answer your question. if you dont like the answer, ask a better question.
you can even ask “why are we here?”
i found the number(s).. dr. S
is this like a scavenger hunt?
Owen: “Northern snow cover anomaly has also been steadily dropping”
Only for Apr/May/June
Oct/Nov/Dec/Jan/Feb/Mar for 2010/2011 were up.
http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_anom.php?ui_set=1&ui_region=nhland&ui_month=3
Bruce,
I was responding to the following question by Julian Flood: “Why has the loss rate for the last 2 weeks been so high? Until then things looked set for a low near the new normal.”
Owen (Comment #79447)-One should not look only at the June data. When I look at all months at once, there is a sudden jump downward, and some increase since the late eighties:
http://devoidofnulls.wordpress.com/2011/06/28/a-step-change-in-northern-hemisphere-snowcover/
This is not quite a steady decline in snow. It is a net decline, however. It also behaves weirdly in different seasons.
steveta_uk (Comment #79467)-Sorry, it’s just someone apparently did not know what scientific notation is. I won’t bother helping someone if it gives you a headache. 🙂
Dr. Jay Cadbury, phd. (Comment #79470)-I really don’t understand the point you think you are making. I think you also don’t know what point I was making. I was merely working out the numbers quoted above for land ice volume. I should have been clearer about this, since this is technically not the right place, being a sea ice thread. If you melt that ice, and add it to the ocean water, you would get a certain amount of additional ice. Of course, if the ice is melted, it has a different, actually higher volume, so assuming it keeps the same volume is erroneous. Nevertheless, based on the figures quoted above, land based ice is about one thirtieth of the volume of the water in the ocean. If all of it melted, you’d get some amount of sea level rise out of it. I don’t know how to calculate the amount, and I did not try to, but others above quote values and I have little reason to doubt them. However, I ALSO have noted that all the ice melting is basically impossible (from AGW, unless we will be burning fossil fuels even a millenia or two from now, of course the sun going nova will likely melt all the ice, but that’s even further off) and melting large amounts with AGW improbable. What reason could you possibly have to take issue with that?
Are there any places with real-time soot, cloud cover, sunshine data for the Arctic?
With China coal now being used as an excuse for no warming … wouldn’t the increase in soot cause more melting?
Bruce–
I don’t know if there is any real-time soot data for the Arctic (or even the other things.)
Both China coal and volcanoes are put forward as the reason for no warming. Presumably this means people at least agree that there has been a slowdown in warming.
Oohhh boy, I am now premoderated.
@Mosher
Don’t even start Steve. You know exactly what the hell I meant and you just proved my point too. The information I am asking for is buried and you can’t admit it. I should be able to easily google that figure but it doesn’t come up. You honestly haven’t seen me ask a million times here what the average atmospheric concentration of co2 is. None of you answer because you know we’re below average and that doesn’t fit the story you want to tell. You also refuse to mention that we’re below average GAT, it is incredibly funny. At least 80% of the public does not know we’re below average temperatures, I wonder why that is because according to Dufus Plain and Mosh “(extremely haughty tone) ho, ho, well, well, just google it. It’s right there, just google it!” Furthermore, probably 90% or more don’t know we’re below average atmospheric levels of co2.
Everyone keeps talking about the record sea ice extent decrease, let me point everyone else to another record I’m noticing, and that’s a record amount of bullshit coming from a lot of people here whose apparent motive is to make everyone pay more taxes because that is the solution proposed.
@Julian Flood
I talked to my friend Dennis Drought and he told me you are not to be trusted yourself. And I think you are the one trying to misdirect everyone, not me.
Glory was supposed to be the satellite to measure aerosols. And Total Irradiance. But it crashed in March.
@Lucia “1.The ice is exhibiting record low 7 day average of Jaxa sea ice observations for this time of year.(Data here.)
2.The loss rate in sea ice is currently a record for this time of year.
3.Considering the current record low and high loss rates, it looks like we may set a record for the new low.”
O Ye of little faith. I could be wrong but I dont think it will be a record low this year. The Sea Surface Temperatures are way down.
But then again I am told that wind and sea currents play a major factor in Sea Ice loss, so maybe I shall revise my bet down a wee bit.
Lucia wrote:
quote
I don’t know why the uptick was rather large. But if you look at each trace you can see they all have fairly large up and down wiggles at different times. This one isn’t horrifically large.
I know the ice is thin so we can expect extent to be vulnerable generally.
[]
Well… yes. Ice progressively melting should make people believe that there is a tendency toward warming, particularly in the arctic. BTW: I’m not sure whether you put lukewarmers in the “warmist†or “skeptic†camp.
unquote
Can’t we call them ‘scientists’?
It’s getting warmer. It may or may not be us, it may or may not be CO2, the science is not yet in: that’s how I see the only rational position. However, what I’m talking about is those who don’t look at this affair logically. If I can point to a record low Arctic ice extent then many people will think ‘well, there must be something in it, look at the ice’ and go for CAGW.
I see that there are two reasons for cooling (or insufficient warming to match the models) being touted, volcanoes and aerosols. I don’t think either of those will make much impression if warming continues to stall (or, /pace/ your colourful and exuberant graphs, continues to fail to match expectations). People don’t think about this with their intellects, they react: put them in a room in July where the windows have been left open all night to negate the aircon and they’ll remember the heat and swallow the message wholesale.
Someone mentioned soot which would lower albedo. Image Google polar bear sea ice and look for the bear on a rectangular ice block. Behind, the sea surface gleams with an oil sheen. Oil smoothed ocean will have a lower albedo. Atmospheric dust levels have been going up for a couple of centuries and falling dust will lower albedo. Is pollution reducing the amount of DMS produced by phytoplankton under and around the ice? Have the wind patterns coincidentally been ideal for pumping ice out into the warm water? All of these things and more could be the cause of a record low but it doesn’t matter a damn. Show them a record low ice extent and they’ll accept that it’s CO2, look at the consensus and vote for windmills. A really low level could put back rational appreciation of the science by five years.
JF
Andrew_FL (Comment #79489) says:
“of course the sun going nova will likely melt all the ice, but that’s even further off”.
Not sure about that. I would expect direct sublimation followed by almost instant removal from the Earth’s vicinity, along with the rest of the atmosphere.
Surely someone must have modeled this, and have contingency plans in place, as required by the “Precautionary Principle”.
steveta_uk (Comment #79517) -Ah yes, good point, there wouldn’t be sea level rise from that ice loss, especially sense the oceans would also be boiling away.
Something tells me there is a model of this somewhere. Obviously however there isn’t a lot of interest in such a result.
Off topic but… Some bloggers are raising the idea that Murdoch was behind the climate gate hacking. Does any of you know of any reliable info substantiating/proving this? Or is this pure speculation?
denny–
Do you mean Joe Romm and the guys at Grist? As far as I am aware, there is no evidence to support the theory that Murdoch was behind the hacking. It also seems ridiculously implausible that Murdoch would hack in, get a story and then disseminating it by leaving a comment at The Air Vent.
Lucia, I read other sites, not those you cite. However, I agree that this is quite implausible and I think it is just mud slinging by leftie loons, like Olberman. The discussion of the story probably should end here.
Off topic, does anyone know the appropriate weights to use for combining land based CRUTEM with their sea surface temperatures to get global averages? I’m trying to combine the new HADSST3 with CRUTEM to see the impact it has on the HADCRUT curve.
I realize that I could just use the different areas of land versus ocean, but I’m not sure if this is directly comparable to the HADCRUT curve.
Andrew_FL, if I understand it correctly, you use the land/sea weighting by 5° strips. I.e., use something like the blue line on this figure. (I can provide a link to this data file if you need it.)
Carrick (Comment #79594)-That won’t be necessary, I was hoping there would be a simpler method for just doing the global averages, I don’t want to go and break the data into grid cells. Oh well. I guess I’ll just wait for the updated SSTs to be put into the official global averages.
Reality check
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php
Andrew_FL, the data is actually packaged in 5*x5* cells, so it wouldn’t be a huge amount of work to combine it that way.