Weather

There’s been a sharp gain in Arctic sea ice since the summer record minimum in September 2012, which Real Science has claimed to be the biggest recovery on satellite record.

 

But a team team of scientists led by University College London yesterday reported there was a substantial decline in ice volume during the previous two winters.

 

The analysis uses data from the European Space Agency’s (ESA) Cryosat satellite, using its high resolution radar altimeter.

 

This confirms reports that alongside the decline in the spatial extent of ice which has been widely reported using satellite data since 1979, there is crucially much less multi-year (year-round) ice.

 

This is important, since multi-year ice is older and hence thicker and slower to melt in summer.

 

First year ice, which is forming now in the Arctic following the record ice-loss this summer, is thinner and much more prone to melting.

 

Nevertheless it’s been an impressive recovery in Arctic sea ice since last summer.

 

It’s important to us here in the UK because scientists believe what’s happening in the Arctic may have a direct impact on our summer climate.

 

According to research at Sheffield University, which I wrote about here, the decrease in Arctic ice extent may be to blame for our run of poor summers – and if it continues, cool wet summers may be something we have to get used to.

 

Only time will tell whether the recovery in sea ice extent so far this winter is the start of a new trend, or, as most scientists believe, just one of the many false dawns when it comes to talk of a proper meaningful recovery in Arctic sea ice.

 

Follow me on twitter @Hudsonweather

Comments

This entry is now closed for comments.

  • Comment number 66. Posted by buythermals

    on 21 Feb 2013 20:32

    The records on arctic ice simply don't go back far enough to know what 'normal' is. There's anecdotal evidence that the 1920's and 1810's also had very low levels of ice.
    But slightly off topic, http://principia-scientific.org/supportnews/latest-news/135-atmospheric-co2-not-linked-to-humans-says-global-and-planetary-journal.html#.USZrmwv4Cus.twitter
    It doesn't fit the story so I expect it'll be ignored.

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 66: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 66: 0
    Loading…
  • Comment number 65. Posted by ukpahonta

    on 21 Feb 2013 18:50

    #63 Lazarus

    ?? Keep up with previous posts old boy.

    This Big Oil funding is that like big Green fundin,g only not as much?

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 65: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 65: 0
    Loading…
  • Comment number 64. Posted by lilylee700

    on 21 Feb 2013 18:00

    Long-term prediction from short-term data. That would be stupid.
    [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 64: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 64: 0
    Loading…
  • Comment number 63. Posted by Lazarus

    on 21 Feb 2013 17:33

    ukpahonta said:

    "Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis:"

    James Taylor being involved in Heartland and no climate expert should have had the alarm bells of real sceptics ringing;

    "http://scholarsandrogues.com/2013/02/18/heartland-institute-taylor-makes-false-claims-about-new-study/

    If you actually read the paper you have linked to you will find it says;

    " The proportion of papers found in the ISI Web of Science database that explicitly endorsed anthropogenic climate change has fallen from 75% (for the period between 1993 and 2003) as of 2004 to 45% from 2004 to 2008, while outright disagreement has risen from 0% to 6% (Oreskes, 2004; Schulte, 2008). This drop in endorsement may be a manifestation of increasing taken-for-grantedness (e.g., Green, 2004) of anthropogenic climate science; the rise in disagreement may be a result of increased funding of sceptics by fossil fuel industries, conservative foundations and think tanks (McCright & Dunlap, 2010). "

    Given those figures it is hard to see how Taylor can claim the "Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis" with a straight face and somewhat telling that he doesn't mention the possibility that the increase in the percentage of sceptical papers is due to Big Oil funding Skeptic groups.

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 63: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 63: 0
    Loading…
  • Comment number 62. Posted by Lazarus

    on 21 Feb 2013 16:47

    This comment was removed because it broke the house rules. Explain

  • Comment number 61. Posted by greensand

    on 21 Feb 2013 10:32

    #55. QuaesoVeritas

    Re your interesting point regarding SSTs as measured with buoys, ships etc and the "above the sea surface" temperatures measured by satellites. I think the Reynolds SST data set is a combination of the two? So just to confuse matters a little further:-

    Reynolds Global SSTs anomalies re 1971 - 2000

    Nov 12 - +0.24C
    Dec 12 - +0.22C
    Jan 13 - +0.18C

    Reynolds SH SSTs anomalies re 1971 - 2000

    Nov 12 - +0.15C
    Dec 12 - +0.13C
    Jan 13 - +0.14C

    Reynolds NH SSTs anomalies re 1971 - 2000

    Nov 12 - +0.36C
    Dec 12 - +0.34C
    Jan 13 - +0.22C

    Reynolds data-

    http://nomad1.ncep.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/pdisp_sst.sh

    Reynolds background-

    http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/aboutsst.shtml
    http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/data/gridded/data.noaa.oisst.v2.html
    http://icdc.zmaw.de/sst_reynolds.html?&L=1

    I think the above numbers are correct but would appreciate any confirmation/correction.

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 61: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 61: 0
    Loading…
  • Comment number 60. Posted by lateintheday

    on 21 Feb 2013 09:16

    newdwr54 . . . . are you saying that the LIA did not exist? If so, then you are arguing against the consensus position yourself. There is of course some disagreement as to the extent of the LIA and whether it was global or regional by nature, but even here, I believe the consensus position is that it was primarily a NH cooling. Are you then suggesting that in a colder NH, there would be less sea ice?
    My question stands. It is perfectly reasonable because it sits within the 'consensus' framework of historical temperature reconstructions. I understood the consensus position to be that early 20thC warming can not be attributed to CO2 mathematically because assumed or theoretical sensitivity to CO2 used in models precludes this.
    The word 'recovery' is widely used by advocates of AGW as well as sceptics, but you can choose another one if it offends you in some way.

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 60: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 60: 0
    Loading…
  • Comment number 59. Posted by ukpahonta

    on 20 Feb 2013 20:19

    #58 newdwr54

    You are certainly entering the same area that you are critising if you try and state that the study maintains the promoted consensus scientific view, that much is obvious from the study.
    Even with the authors carefully worded reply they pull away from the 'consensus' view point:

    'In addition, even within the confines of our non-representative data set, the interpretation that a majority of the respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of global warming is simply not correct. To the contrary: the majority believes that humans do have their hands in climate change, even if many of them believe that humans are not the only cause.'

    Is a vast difference from 97% of scientists agree that man made CO2 is directly resposible for the increase in warming during the last century.

    'Why would Taylor distort something in this way? Why would anyone do that? Did he just misunderstand it?'

    Now you understand why bias is levelled at the BBC with Harrabin and formerly Black also others like Louise Gray, Julia Slingo etc.

    You should now agree that at the least there is sensationalism for the story if not leading to an agenda as has been apparent with so many BBC and UK newspaper articles promoting alarmism.

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 59: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 59: 0
    Loading…
  • Comment number 58. Posted by newdwr54

    on 20 Feb 2013 19:08

    54. ukpahonta

    We can agree that the Forbes article was both completely wrong and a transparent and a highly typical attempt to misrepresent both the paper in question and the consensus scientific view on AGW?

    Why would Taylor distort something in this way? Why would anyone do that? Did he just misunderstand it?

    If he did understand what he was doing, then what are Taylor's motivations for twisting and spinning a social science paper so lamentably out of context that even the authors feel obliged to publicly publish a clarification?

    I think we both have our opinions as to what James Taylor's motivation is.

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 58: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 58: 0
    Loading…
  • Comment number 57. Posted by NeilHamp

    on 20 Feb 2013 18:59

    Here are the 2013 forecasts for HadCRUT4 submitted so far
    only 8 entries to date (new entries and revisions still accepted)
    The figures in brackets show the degree of error for 2012 and 2011 entries

    “Warmists”
    +0.57 Met Office (+0.08,+0.09)
    +0.51 John Cogger (+0.03:N/A)
    +0.50 Newdwr54 (+0.05:N/A)


    “Neutralists”
    Mr Bluesky (+0.02:N/A)
    Lazarus (+0.02:N/A)
    +0.49 quake (+0.01:+0.36)
    Paul Briscoe (0:2012 winning entry 0.4)
    Gagetfriend (0:+0.30) (2012 winning entry 0.4)
    +0.48 NeilHamp (0:-0.08)(2012 winning entry 0.4)
    “Coolists”

    +0.41 QuaesoVeritas (-0.06:+0.31)
    +0.38 ukpahonta (-0.12:0) (2011 winning entry 0.35)
    +0.35 Lateintheday’s Holly Bush (-0.03,No entry)
    millinia (-0.11:+0.24)
    LabMunkey (-0.11:+0.25)

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 57: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 57: 0
    Loading…
More comments

More Posts

Previous