Arctic Ice

[IanC]

What do you make of this?

I dunno, what do you make of it?

first off, it seems odd that the Little Ice Age would have low arctic sea ice, rising to a max around 1900. does that match up with historical documentation?

 

[IanC]

the only non paywalled link to Kinnard 2011 I could find was dead. do you have one? I am interested in finding out how they turned mostly temperature proxies into ice proxies.

edit- SI here http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v479/n7374/extref/nature10581-s1.pdf

 

[IanC]

McIntyre seemed impressed that Kinnard et al brought a lot of previously unpublished 18O proxies into the open. Kinnard Arctic O18 Series Climate Audit .

they dont seem to be the reason for the LIA dip or blade.

s noted in the preview, this means that the derivation of the Kinnard hockey stick must come from elsewhere: either from the other ice core proxies (Na+, melt, MSA), from the D’Arrigo tree rings or from the other proxies (a few sediments and documentary series) or from regression procedures. If so, one needs to check out which series have been heavily weighted and whether series have been flipped through the regression methods. Splicing is also something that needs to be looked at: for example, while the O18 series from the Eastern Islands don’t permit a direct medieval-modern comparison, has their stepwise introduction introduced a medieval-modern differential that does not exist in the long series?

Whatever the results of this analysis may be, Kinnard et al deserve credit for ensuring this remarkable expansion of the public archive of Arctic O18 series.

 

[IanC]

more on the tree ring proxies- Kinnard and the D Arrigo-Wilson Chronologies Climate Audit

Here is the complete transposition (as archived. It’s possible that it’s an archiving error rather than a substantive error):

Tornetrask – relocated to Central Northwest Territories;
Forgfjorddalen, Norway – relocated to Yakutia, Siberia
Central Northwest Territories, Canada – relocated to Taymir, Siberia
Yakutia, Siberia – relocated to Polar Urals, west Siberia
Taymir, Siberia – relocated to Yukon, Canada
Yamal, Siberia – relocated to Tornetrask, Sweden
Yukon, Canada – relocated to Forgfjorddalen, Norway

If the error in their archive exists in their data as used, these erroneous locations will obviously affect spatial maps of loadings and weights, to the extent that these proxies are used. This sort of error should have been observable almost immediately to anyone familiar with the proxies.

Over and above the transposition error, Kinnard et al have incorrectly used the Yamal chronology as the “Polar Urals” chronology (with Polar Urals core counts). In fairness to Kinnard et al, D’Arrigo et al incorrectly labeled the Yamal chronology as Polar Urals and then refused to issue a Corrigendum acknowledging the error.

as usual peer review fails miserably to catch even obvious mistakes.

 

[Wuwei]

I dunno, what do you make of it?

first off, it seems odd that the Little Ice Age would have low arctic sea ice, rising to a max around 1900. does that match up with historical documentation?

At first I was suspicious that the recent fast drop in ice came from "modern observations". The two different methods might not jibe in reality. But I saw that Kinnard's results did closely overlap the modern observations. That gives credibility to the earlier history that Kinnard showed.

more on the tree ring proxies- Kinnard and the D Arrigo-Wilson Chronologies Climate Audit
as usual peer review fails miserably to catch even obvious mistakes.

I usually don't give credibility to analyses from blogs, but that's the only references I could find that discuss Kinnard.

 

[IanC]

I have serious doubts that the proxy records would pick up low ice extents like the present. Or even temperature spikes like the present. Proxy reconstructions have their uses but only give a general indication of what was going on. The recent fad of grafting instrumental data onto proxy data is unscientific at best and dishonest at worst.

 

[mamooth]

Arctic Sea ice is back down to 2-sigma below normal.

At far as final extent numbers go, the sea ice on the periphery isn't important, as it always melts out. The core is what matters. And in the core, the persistent heat over Alaska and Northwest Canada (75F on the north slope, all the snow is gone there way early) has extended out to sea and started melting into the ice. That means lots of melt ponds, which means more sunlight absorbed later for more melting.

I think it's safe to say 2015 will be a low year. It started low, and conditions are ripe to get much lower. It's just a matter of how low.

 

[mamooth]

jc, I reported that for spamming and trolling. That was just the last straw. You've been breaking board rules constantly. Stop it. The "No trolling" rule means that if you have nothing to say, don't say it.

Now, let's look at today's update.

Arctic ice, a bit more below the 2-sigma line.

Above-freezing temperatures continue over the polar regions north of Alaska. Forecast is they'll spread over most of the Arctic ocean this week.

So, lots of melt ponds to keep absorbing that solar energy over the summer, meaning a big melt season.

 

[jc456]

jc, I reported that for spamming and trolling. That was just the last straw. You've been breaking board rules constantly. Stop it. The "No trolling" rule means that if you have nothing to say, don't say it.

Now, let's look at today's update.

Arctic ice, a bit more below the 2-sigma line.

Above-freezing temperatures continue over the polar regions north of Alaska. Forecast is they'll spread over most of the Arctic ocean this week.

So, lots of melt ponds to keep absorbing that solar energy over the summer, meaning a big melt season.

 

[jc456]

and more from the Cryosphere:

 

[Old Rocks]

My goodness, jc, are you joining the side of science? That graph shows a very rapidly dropping anomaly.



Click for high-resolution image. —Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center

Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag

 

[jc456]

holy crap, look at the ice left overs from Lake Superior and the Arctic is losing ice. LMAO

Thanks to Radio Canada International

Lake Superior ice amazes this year

 

[Crick]

I have serious doubts that the proxy records would pick up low ice extents like the present. Or even temperature spikes like the present. Proxy reconstructions have their uses but only give a general indication of what was going on. The recent fad of grafting instrumental data onto proxy data is unscientific at best and dishonest at worst.

It's not a "recent fad" and its neither unscientific nor dishonest when done - as it has been done - openly.

 

[depotoo]

Really?
University of Illinois - Cryosphere Today

April 2015 compared to previous years

Figure 3. Monthly April ice extent for 1979 to 2015 shows a decline of 2.4% per decade relative to the 1981 to 2010 average.

Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center

Looks like the decline is continuing.

 

[depotoo]

Wow, you mean the 50's thru 70's were a cool phase, they don't map?? I wonder why.. not.

Kind of goes along with the warning of the coming ice age in the 70's. Hmmm.

 

[Old Rocks]

Ice age warning in the '70's? By the scientific community? Care to show me? And Time or Newsweek are not scientific journals.

 

[depotoo]

Aug, 1974.
A Study of Climatological Research as it Pertains to Intelligence Problems

“The western world’s leading climatologists have confirmed recent reports of a detrimental global climate change. The stability of most nations is based upon a dependable source of food, but this stability will not be possible under the new climatic era. A forecast by the University of Wisconsin projects that the earth’s climate is returning to that of the neo-boreal era (1600- 1850) – an era of drought, famine and political unrest in the western world.

http://www.climatemonitor.it/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/1974.pdf
Neo-Boreal. a central North American climatic episode, known to some as the "Little Ice Age", which dates approximately A.D. l550 to l850. Average temperatures were l C cooler throughout this period than the present.

"Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols: Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate,"
Institute for Space Studies, Goddard Space Flight Center, National Aeronautics and Space Administration

"Effects on the global temperature of large increases in carbon dioxide and aerosol densities in the atmosphere of Earth have been computed. It is found that, although the addition of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does increase the surface temperature, the rate of temperature increase diminishes with increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. For aerosols, however, thenet effect of increase in density is to reduce the surface temperature of Earth. Because of the exponential dependence of the backscattering, the rate of temperature decrease is augmented with increasing aerosol content. An increase by only a factor of 4 in global aerosol background concentration may be sufficient to reduce the surface temperature by as much as 3.5 ° K. If sustained over a period of several years, such a temperature decrease over the whole globe is believed to be sufficient to trigger an ice age."
1971

Ice age warning in the '70's? By the scientific community? Care to show me? And Time or Newsweek are not scientific journals.

 

[Old Rocks]

Well done, now for the rest of the story;

They predicted an ice age in the 70 s

They predicted an ice age in the 70's
Posted on 24 September 2007 by John Cook

The argument "they predicted an ice age in the 70's" has barnstormed into the Top Tenthanks largely to an Investor's Business Daily article claiming James Hansen believed we were heading for an ice age. This is based on the 1971 paper Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols: Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate (Rasool 1971) that speculated if aerosol levels increase 6 to 8 fold, it could trigger an ice age.

However, James Hansen wasn't an author of the Rasool paper and never made any ice age predictions. So what was his involvement? According to Investor Business Daily, "Aiding Rasool's research was a 'computer program developed by Dr. James Hansen'." [ UPDATE - James Hansen explains in more detail about his program used in Rasool's paper ] As Tim Lambert succintly puts it at Deltoid, "By their logic, if I borrow a pen from you, you must agree with everything I write with your pen."

Putting James Hansen aside, the whole logic that "climate scientists got it wrong in the 70's so they must be wrong now" is a flawed ad hominem argument that says nothing about the current science of anthropogenic global warming. Is it really appropriate to compare a single study in the 70's to the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming today?

National Academy of Sciences - now and then
The most comprehensive study on the subject (and the closest thing to a scientific consensus at the time) was by the US National Academy of Sciences. It's basic conclusion was "…we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course. Without the fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate…"

Contrast this with the US National Academy of Science's current position: "there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring... It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities... The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action." Incidentally, this is in a joint statement with the Academies of Science from Brazil, France, Canada, China, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Russia and the United Kingdom.

 

[jc456]

April 2015 compared to previous years

Figure 3. Monthly April ice extent for 1979 to 2015 shows a decline of 2.4% per decade relative to the 1981 to 2010 average.

Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center

Looks like the decline is continuing.

credit Climate Science.com

Evidence Of Thicker Spring Sea Ice In Arctic

"11.05.2015 09:18 Age: 22 days

Direct measurements of sea ice thickness by satellite confirm computer model analysis in suggesting Spring sea ice volumes in the Arctic have to some extent recovered from their record low"

 

[Old Rocks]

Fig.1 Arctic sea ice volume anomaly from PIOMAS updated once a month. Daily Sea Ice volume anomalies for each day are computed relative to the 1979 to 2014 average for that day of the year. Tickmarks on time axis refer to 1st day of year. The trend for the period 1979- present is shown in blue. Shaded areas show one and two standard deviations from the trend. Error bars indicate the uncertainty of the monthly anomaly plotted once per year.
Polar Science Center PIOMAS Arctic Sea Ice Volume Reanalysis

The 'recovery' is well within the range of normal variability. The slope of that line is not normal variability. When there is enough recovery that the slope of that line is in the other direction, then there will be something to celebrate.