Arctic Sea Ice Nears Annual Low Point, Denialist Arm Waving Ensues..
September 15, 2015
UPDATE: Maybe they read this blog post first thing this morning – but NSIDC has now called the annual minimum as having occurred on Sept. 11.
National Snow and Ice Data Center:
On September 11, Arctic sea ice reached its likely minimum extent for 2015. The minimum ice extent was the fourth lowest in the satellite record, and reinforces the long-term downward trend in Arctic ice extent. Sea ice extent will now begin its seasonal increase through autumn and winter. In the Antarctic, sea ice extent is average, a substantial contrast with recent years when Antarctic winter extents reached record high levels.
We are now in the window of time when the National Snow and Ice Data Center(NSIDC) will declare this year’s sea ice minimum, which typically occurs in or around the third week of September. Here’s what we know, according to Accuweather.
1. August 2015 was the fourth lowest sea ice extent since 1979.
2. The decadal rate of sea ice extent decline in the Arctic for the month of August is 10.3 percent.
3. The southerly route through the Northwest Passage is currently open.
4. The northern sea route, which is north of the Russian coast is mostly clear of ice, according to the NSIDC.
Above, see the NSIDC graph for August ice, which should be a fairly close indicator of where we will end up, something like third or fourth lowest extent. What stands out on the graph is the deep trough of the 2012 melt year, the lowest in the modern record, and the steady downward trendline that has been consistent since the mid-twentieth century, as this graph from the University of Illinois shows.
As the ice wanes in key areas of biological importance, the animals that have evolved in tandem with the ice, and depend on it for hunting and reproducing, find themselves forced into abnormal behaviors. Here’s a new picture of walruses hauled out on a spit of land in the Alaskan arctic.
The Fish and Wildlife Service has estimated that approximately 35,000 walruses are currently hauled up on shore, a number that rivals last year’s haul-out. As of Aug. 28, the service had estimated that only 5,000-6,000 walruses had already gathered, although biologists suspected more would be coming.
The haul-out was first confirmed by the service on Aug. 26. It’s the seventh time in the past nine summers that a haul-out has occurred, thanks to the effects of climate change in the Arctic, which have caused all the sea ice the walruses usually rest on to melt. With nowhere else to go, the animals were forced to seek refuge on the coast.
The walruses are likely to remain on shore for another month or so, as sea ice in the region probably won’t start refreezing until October. Until then, the animals are being closely monitored by local Fish and Wildlife Service officials and residents of Point Lay. Walruses that are crammed onshore together are easily frightened and prone to stampeding into the water, which can cause them to trample and kill the smaller members of their herd. Such stampedes have led to thousands of fatalities in the past, so officials are eager to make sure the area remains as isolated and free of human disturbances as possible.
The haul-out behavior is new, according to local natives, who have a long memory. Here’s my video on the walrus from (holy crap!) 2010. Informative if you have not seen.
Predictably, what we see from deniers on the sea ice issue is – whenever we don’t set a new low record, the ice is said to be “recovering”. So as you can see from the graph, the ice is damn near always “recovering” – except when it’s uh..not.
Finally, here is the NSIDC’s most current graph of sea ice extent. Although it looks like it’s bottoming out, experts will wait till they are sure before declaring this.
More on the arm waving, below.The predictably nutso World Net Daily cites psychotic blogger “Steven Goddard” (who won’t use his real name, I don’t blame him..)
Blogger Steven Goddard at Real Science is citing information from the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colorado, showing the Arctic ice mass, as of Sept. 7, is substantially bigger than it was in September 2012.
Duh. There’s more ice than there was in the record low year. See graph above.
“..scientists and others on a team assembled by the Chicago-based Heartland Institute, which focuses on free-market solutions to problems, said the “scare” of global warming from the use of carbon fuels and other human activities “is over.”
So, thanks World Net Daily, for settling that one!
Climate Denial Crock of the Week 
September 15, 2015 at 12:01 pm
[…] Sinclair has something on sea ice. This is actually a bad year for sea ice. For various reasons related to climate change, Antarctic […]
September 15, 2015 at 1:16 pm
Yes, after two years in which the increasing seasonal ice melt seemed to go into reverse, the minimum arctic ice cover this year is likely to be about equal to those of 2007 and 2011, though nowhere near as low as the exceptional year of 2012. Yes, the southern North West has been open since the 13th August (not a record early) and the main North West Passage since 30th August (nothing like a record) but the North East Passage has been open since 24th July (which was almost a record). Yes, the Arctic Vortex is behaving in a very peculiar way at times, yes the jet stream has moved north, yes, it looks as though El Nino will produce very warm water in the northern Pacific next year but none of this proves global warming caused by man-made CO2.
It does indicate arctic warming, yes. In fact, El Nino may well produce a new record low Arctic ice minimum in 2016, but have we any geological or other records indicating that an increase in global CO2 causes rapid global warming which itself leads on to increasing deserts and huge rises in sea levels, etc? No, we don’t.
Have we such records which indicate rapid arctic warming that leads on to the sudden cessation of the North Atlantic Drift which itself leads on to global freezing. YES, we do. It has happened at the end of every interglacial period over the course of the current Ice Age.
Why should all you so-called experts expect something that has never happened before but refuse to expect an event that has happened periodically many times over?
Is that not illogical to the point of stupidity? We are at at the end of THIS interglacial period; all these phenomena in this article are what we should expect at this point; and unless humans act to stop the process (which is possible) civilisation across North America and Northern Europe will be destroyed.
Who are the real Deniers?
September 15, 2015 at 1:52 pm
I don’t know. Sea ice extent measures sea ice extent. That gives us two dimensions, not three.
Not that sea ice volume measurements are going to contradict what you have said! – they are likely to underline your statements.
I just think we have to look at the whole picture. I wish we only used one metric so as to minimize confusion. Deniers talk about sea ice extent as if was a measurement of how much ice is actually there.
September 16, 2015 at 4:50 am
Yes sea ice melt was delayed somewhat due to smoke and cloud cover from the intense early forest fires in Alaska, Canada and Siberia commencing rather early in April and continuing even up until August.
So your point was ?
Strangely there are countless geological records that tie temperature and ocean levels to CO2 concentrations
September 16, 2015 at 9:23 am
There wasn’t any point. Sadly.
September 15, 2015 at 1:30 pm
“Have we such records which indicate rapid arctic warming that leads on to the sudden cessation of the North Atlantic Drift which itself leads on to global freezing. YES, we do”
uhm. dude, that happened already, about 14,500 years ago. maybe you missed it.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/abrupt/data4.html
however, some of the scientists I have worked with wonder if we might be causing it to happen again.
continue arm waving.
September 18, 2015 at 11:27 am
How can you say, “Ir happened already”? The North Atlantic Drift is still going and is what keeps Western Europe and Eastern North America inhabitable. The abrupt beginning of the big melt at the ice age phase change happened when so much H2O was locked up in ice that sea levels fell to the point that the Siberia-Alaska land bridge appeared. With no currents across the Arctic it froze all year and the thermohaline global circulation went into reverse again – to what it is now. Of course the process took thousands of years and there were short term reversals as in your link regarding the Younger Dyas period, but the process is inexorable and the thickness of Arctic sea ice – the third dimension – gets less and less and glacial doomsday draws near.
There is a possibility that man-made emissions have sped up the process to the next phase change and circulation reversal (back to glacial) but it won’t change the process. In fact the emissions of small particulates at high altitudes actually block the energy received from the sun so human activity may have made no difference at all.
September 20, 2015 at 5:36 pm
watch the video. the scientists are an oceanographer, a glaciologist, and an atmospheric specialist. They tell us that an event like the younger dryas is not
going to occur this time around, because the build up of heat in the oceans is so much greater than it was 14 thousand years ago.
We may very well have some other kinds of repercussions, but highly unlikely that an event exactly like the dryas will recur this time around.
September 16, 2015 at 5:13 am
Talking of endangered species there is a new report prepared by the World Wildlife Fund and the Zoological Society of London, that should be taken note of from feeding the populous, over-fishing and climate change perspective.
Marine population halved since 1970 – report
“Populations of marine mammals, birds, fish and reptiles have declined by 49% since 1970, a report says.
The study says some species people rely on for food are faring even worse, noting a 74% drop in the populations of tuna and mackerel.
In addition to human activity such as overfishing, the report also says climate change is having an impact.”
We must continue employing carbon free technologies . . . . . . .
or our fate hangs by a thread . .
https://www.worldwildlife.org/stories/an-uncertain-future-for-our-living-blue-planet
September 16, 2015 at 5:15 am
“The report says carbon dioxide is being absorbed into the oceans, making them more acidic, damaging a number of species.
The authors analysed more than 1,200 species of marine creatures in the past 45 years.”
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-34265672
September 18, 2015 at 11:29 am
This is far more believable and is built on far stronger evidence than potty global-warming-catastrophe theories.
September 18, 2015 at 6:02 pm
so you’ll join in the effort to limit greenhouse emissions? if so, good on you.
September 20, 2015 at 1:26 pm
Oho, not so fast! The report says, “Human activity has severely damaged the ocean by catching fish faster than they can reproduce while also destroying their nurseries,” said Marco Lambertini, head of WWF International. That is the main cause of the 49% drop in numbers.
It adds in a bit late, “carbon dioxide is being absorbed into the oceans, making them more acidic, damaging a number of species,” so that’s a minor cause but typically global warming nutters falsely portray it as the major cause. So fanatically deceitful.
If you are going to discuss this sort of issue – as opposed to shout down all dissenters – you also have to take into account that increased atmospheric CO2 produces high yields in the crops which is the basis for all the diets of the increasing population of the world – even fish. How do we balance that out with all the alleged woes of more CO2? Has anyone done any honest research into that question?
September 20, 2015 at 1:50 pm
“Oho, not so fast!”, says our latest BS slinger from the denier world as he madly flips through his “Handbook of AGW Denier Lying BS to Repeat Endlessly Until It Becomes Truth” to find a rejoinder. He can’t find anything, and he obviously doesn’t know much science, so he starts nit-picking and misinterpreting what the report REALLY said.
He shows his ignorance of science by launching off into the fantasy world of “CO2 is good for plants and all living things”, with “increased atmospheric CO2 produces high yields in the crops which is the basis for all the diets of the increasing population of the world – even fish”. Idso and friends at Heartland will love him for saying that, but that is simply NOT true, and the “honest” research that has been done shows it. Major food crops are indeed threatened by increased CO2 levels alone to say nothing of the DROUGHT, FLOODS, EXTREME WEATHER, TEMPERATURE INCREASES, and all the other AGW effects that are closely tied to that CO2 increase.
Ignoring the bias shown by the insertion of “honest” in his question—“Has anyone done any HONEST research into that question?”, the answer is yes, and Peter I.S. should google “is CO2 bad for plants” and look to the many sources he will find, especially at skepticalscience.com. If he can’t understand the scienc, he should find someone to explain it to him.
If you are going to discuss this sort of issue – as opposed to shout down all dissenters – you also have to take into account that increased atmospheric CO2 produces high yields in the crops which is the basis for all the diets of the increasing population of the world – even fish. How do we balance that out with all the alleged woes of more CO2?
September 20, 2015 at 1:54 pm
Oooops, forgot to delete Pete’s last paragraph. I AM sorry, especially if anyone therefore read it twice and lost even more IQ points.
September 20, 2015 at 6:08 pm
“has anyone done any honest research into this question?” Yes.
Ask the farmers in California how much all that extra co2 is helping them.
There are other factors besides co2 in plant development, – water is one. Heat is
another. At a certain level of temperature, yields go down, co2 notwithstanding.
September 22, 2015 at 8:38 am
Normal reaction of global warming fanatics – attack anyone who disagrees with accusations of mental deficiency, dishonesty, and anything else that comes to mind. All they actually prove is their own arrogance and inability to consider that they may actually be wrong – or misled.
And then there’s the showing of a real-life disaster movies which is supposed to convince everyone that natural disasters are caused by increased CO2. No evidence provided, of course. It’s obvious, ennit?
“In the case of CO, enrichment, which tomato growers now routinely use to increase photosynthesis and raise crop productivity, the factors that influence the economics of enrichment are the effects of CO, on crop production and crop value, and the amount of CO, used and its price. ” That’s from the British Govt’s Horticultural Development Council
“CO2 enrichment is now an established technique for improving the productivity of plants grown in controlled environments. It is used extensively in large-scale greenhouses for cultivating tomatoes, peppers, cucumbers and salad crops. Increasing and maintaining the levels of CO2 in an enclosed growing space is known to enhance growth in some plants; it helps them to flourish and therefore increases yield and profitability. Tests have shown that elevating the CO2 from the atmospheric level of 350ppm to 700ppm (parts per million) may boost production by up to 30%.”
http://www.analoxsensortechnology.com/blog/2015/09/co2-enrichment-in-horticulture-a-good-life-for-all/ dated 17th September 2015
Google “CO2 in horticulture” and see how much there is on this subject.
And you try to tell me that I’m ignorant
September 22, 2015 at 9:22 am
Yes, Peter, you ARE rather ignorant (and cognitively dissonant, and a motivated reasoner). You prove it once again by your comments here, which are the “normal reaction of clueless global warming DENIER fanatics”—which is an absolute refusal to look at RELEVANT facts and a doubling down on the same old BS from the manual of BS talking points for deniers.
I suggested that you google “is CO2 bad for plants”. Did you do so? Nope.
Instead you quote here some more clips about how CO2 is GOOD for plants. Of course, what you’re quoting is about plants grown in CONTROLLED ENVIRONMENTS rather than out in the real world, which is just more proof that you lack training and knowledge in science. Here are just two links that you WOULD have found if you were interested in seeking truth rather than spreading lies.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food.htm
http://www.salon.com/2015/05/22/scientists_destroy_another_climate_denier_myth_rising_co2_levels_arent_good_for_plants/
And you say “Google “CO2 in horticulture” and see how much there is on this subject”. LOL. “How much” there is on a topic is meaningless—-what matters is how much of the info is TRUE or at least not distorted or misinterpreted by ideologues like you.
Here is the classic example of a piece with MUCH info (it’s actually a condensation of a book by the Idso’s of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change and published by the Science and Public Policy Institute. All are Heartland-affiliated, Koch-funded deniers of the first order.
And it’s nearly all lying bullshit. I’m sure you will suck it up. Reasons #’s 21, 22, 23, and 24 of the 55 Reasons Why CO2 is Beneficial are perhaps my favorites.
Click to access 55BenefitsofCO2Pamphlet.pdf
September 22, 2015 at 9:25 am
Got “moderated”—-too many links perhaps? Let’s try again with just two.
Yes, Peter, you ARE rather ignorant (and cognitively dissonant, and a motivated reasoner). You prove it once again by your comments here, which are the “normal reaction of clueless global warming DENIER fanatics”—which is an absolute refusal to look at RELEVANT facts and a doubling down on the same old BS from the manual of BS talking points for deniers.
I suggested that you google “is CO2 bad for plants”. Did you do so? Nope.
Instead you quote here some more clips about how CO2 is GOOD for plants. Of course, what you’re quoting is about plants grown in CONTROLLED ENVIRONMENTS rather than out in the real world, which is just more proof that you lack training and knowledge in science. Here’s just one says-it-all link that you WOULD have found if you were interested in seeking truth rather than spreading lies.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food.htm
And you say “Google “CO2 in horticulture” and see how much there is on this subject”. LOL. “How much” there is on a topic is meaningless—-what matters is how much of the info is TRUE or at least not distorted or misinterpreted by ideologues like you.
Here is the classic example of a piece with MUCH info (it’s actually a condensation of a book by the Idso’s of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change and published by the Science and Public Policy Institute. All are Heartland-affiliated, Koch-funded deniers of the first order.
And it’s nearly all lying bullshit. I’m sure you will suck it up. Reasons #’s 21, 22, 23, and 24 of the 55 Reasons Why CO2 is Beneficial are perhaps my favorites.
Click to access 55BenefitsofCO2Pamphlet.pdf
September 22, 2015 at 9:50 am
“And you try to tell me that I’m ignorant”
No, I’m telling you that you’re stupid.
If you can’t distinguish the difference between a “controlled environment” in an “enclosed space”, with perfect lighting, temperature, and climate control, where the only limiting factor is CO2 – and the real world, then I don’t think there is any logical, reasoned response that you are likely to be able to grasp.
September 23, 2015 at 6:10 am
So increased CO2 produces higher plant yields in controlled environments, so much so that businessmen pay good money for it, but not in the “real world”? Would you like to provide any biological explanation of that? Do you think that the plants know that they are in a controlled environment and act differently? Like VW engines knowing when they are being tested perhaps?
Not that this actually matters to my main focus – which is completely different to that of the “Deniers” with whom you incorrectly insist on associating me – that the Arctic melting will eventually result in the shut-down of the North Atlantic Drift which will in turn reverse the whole global thermohaline circulation and switch the world into the glacial phase. This has happened many times in the last 2.5 million years so no reason why it should not happen again (unless mankind intervenes) as opposed to your crank theory which has never happened in all that time.
When the “Gulf Stream” shuts down, perhaps you and the whole global warming industry will stop shouting and insulting and start thinking.
September 23, 2015 at 8:48 am
I’ll stick with “ignorant” rather than “stupid”. You’re smart enough to wander around in the “fields of knowledge”, but you confirmation bias and lack of science background keeps you from picking the right “plants”.
YOU are the one that started talking about hothouse grown tomatoes, not us, and that is a very specialized and unnatural situation. Yes, an increase in CO2 in the planet’s atmosphere CAN stimulate plant growth, but the negative effects due to changes in temperature, moisture, and weather brought on by CO2-induced AGW far overweigh that small benefit. You need to do some real studying rather than just “cut and paste”. If you do, you will also find that the present levels of increased CO2 are hurting the yields of some crops, and are causing the nutritional value of some crops to drop (including those relied on by people who are on the verge of starvation).
I am glad that you have found a “main focus”—-every dog should have a favorite bone of his very own to gnaw. Again, you should do more study, and perhaps you will then understand that the “North Atlantic Drift” is just a small part of the thermohaline system, and that the system is impacted by many more things than arctic ice. You are a poster child for “knowing just enough about a topic to be dangerous” .
PS I for one would love to hear more about:
“This has happened many times in the last 2.5 million years so no reason why it should not happen again (unless mankind intervenes) as opposed to your crank theory which has never happened in all that time”.
Could you expand on “this” and “crank theory”? It’s not clear what you’re talking about. And where did you get the “facts” upon which these conclusions rest?
PPS And yes, VW engines DO “know” when they are being tested—-they were engineered and programmed that way, just as plants have evolved to “know” when they are in a controlled environment and grow differently than they would outside. Your rhetorical BS outpaces your science in both cases.
September 24, 2015 at 6:07 am
The ending of the interglacial period and the mechanism that brings it about has been my main focus in considering climate for many years, long before the AGW craze began. That is the “this”. I presume that even you do not deny that there have been many (actual number disputed) glacial and interglacial periods over the past 2.5 million years.
Your posts as ever alternate between abuse and assertions based on unprovable assumptions, both of which are tedious.
September 24, 2015 at 10:04 am
MY posts are full of “assertions based on unprovable assumptions”? LOL. Actually, that statement fits YOUR comments here, which are nothing BUT bald assertions, except for the one where you provided a link. And that link was not to a science source, but to the website of a company that sells gas control technology and has a commercial interest in pushing “good” CO2. You ARE clueless. I have answered you in kind, with opinions, except that I HAVE provided several legitimate links, apparently none of which you have read.
What is “tedious” is watching you keep coming back here when your clueless BS has been rejected by so many Crockers (not just me). Or haven’t you noticed? .My crap detectors are wiggling, and I am coming to believe that, rather than someone who has “considered climate change for many years, long before the AGW craze began”, that you are at best a college student or even a semi-bright high schooler that is merely trolling on Crock. I myself have been studying environmental issues of all sorts since “long before the AGW craze began”, and you have shown us nothing but an ability to cut and paste irrelevant horsepucky.
I’m still waiting for some substantive answer about your use of “this” and “crank theory” rather than the evasive non-answer you gave here. Let’s talk about the Milankovitch Theory and the more recent work of Doughty et al that seems to contradict it. Let’s talk about the studies that say AGW has likely caused the cancellation of the next ice age and perhaps the one after it.
And yes, I will send much “abuse” your way until you either go away and leave us in peace or say something of substance here. You are either a young and ignorant troll as I suspect, or you are a poster child for Dunning Kruger. Eother way, you waste our time.