This is Jim Pettit's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Jim Pettit's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Jim Pettit
Recent Activity
Such "dialogues" could be an effective mechanism by which the debate could be depolarized. But the debate doesn't exist because of conflicting views on the data that can be hashed out through presentation of facts and polite discussion, but because one side simply refuses to recognize those data in the first place. On the one side: scientists with a rapidly-growing mountain of corroborated evidence that the planet is warming, and that our burning of fossil fuels is largely to blame. On the other side: ideologues and fossil fuel profiteers who fear a change in the status quo that could cost them politically and/or financially. The latter side is never going to be convinced of their wrongness through being buried by facts from the former. Never. Even were the Arctic to fully melt out, and all the world's glaciers to vanish, and sea levels to rise five meters, and massive, year-round heat waves to suddenly develop, and so on, that side would still kick and scream and obfuscate and lie about what was happening. A hundred or a thousand dialogues could be convened to help prod them into accepting reality, but they would all prove to be as ultimately fruitless as the Dutch one--well-intentioned though it is--will be.
Yesterday's CT SIA decrease is definitely not unprecedented; as noted by Neven, it's happened before, and as recently as last year. We are now past the time of fastest historical area growth, so it's expected that the rate of increase will slow down, and on some days actually reverse. The current SIA is about 700,000 km2 (or about 9%) lower than it was on this date last year, and more than 750,000 km2 lower than it was on this date in 2007. FWIW, 2012 has seen 31 days with century growth in area. By comparison, both 2007 and 2011 ended the year with 49 total. (2011 saw 18 more such days after today, and 2007 saw 24.) It'll be interesting to see where we end up this year...
Just to add to the excellent work done by Wipneus: --CT SIA area increased by 203k km2 yesterday; that was the fifth double century increase this year, equalling the number of such days seen last year (three of which occurred in the first week of November). --Area now stands at 6.19 million km2. That's more than 300k km2 less than last year on the same day, and nearly 50k less than 2007. --Area has increased by 3.955 million km2 in the 47 days since the minimum was reached. --SIA is the lowest ever seen on day .8301. 2012 has had the lowest daily area 139 times, or 45.4% of the year. --The SIA daily average for October was 4.3076575 million km2, barely edging out 2007's 4.3089695 km2. --The negative SIA anomaly fell below two million km2 yesterday, the first time it's done so since August 1. The anomaly had been greater than two million for 90 consecutive days, including the top three, and 12 of the top 20, largest negative anomalies on the record. --Statistically-speaking, there's roughly one week left in which the largest daily SIA increases have been seen. The rate of increase generally tends to begin slowly flattening out after that as it moves toward the maximum in March or early April.
As Wipneus correctly noted, a new CT SIA anomaly record has been set. 2012 has now seen 76 days with a negative anomaly greater than 2 million km2, including the last 74 consecutive days. (Only 130 days in the entire CT SIA record have seen a negative anomaly greater than 2 million km2.) During this ongoing 74-day stretch, 11 of the 20 largest anomalies have occurred, including the first, fourth, sixth, and ninth largest ones (The remainder of the top ten occurred in October 2007). 2012 daily SIA has set a new daily record minimum for the last 107 consecutive days, and 123 of the past 128.
Excellent post, Neven, and I agree completely with your assessment of the current situation. CT SIA dropped below the 13 million km2 mark yesterday, day 112. That was the latest it's done so since 2001 (day 121). More interestingly, that's two days later than the 1979-2011 average of day 110, and a full 22 days later than the 2005-2011 average of day 90. (2011 saw the 13 million km2 mark crossed earlier than ever before, on day 71. However, it took another 46 days to drop below 12 million km2, the longest ever, and more than twice as long as the 1979-2010 average of 22 days.) Looking at forecasts and reading what others here have written, my guess--and, given my utter lack of success in the "Guess The Maximum Extent" poll, you should probably just ignore me--is that dropping below 12 million km2 will take about two weeks (and, to stick my neck out even farther, 11 million will only take another two weeks after that).
Toggle Commented Apr 22, 2012 on ASI 2012 update 1: a new beginning at Arctic Sea Ice
Here's a little chart I threw together to highlight the outlier nature of this year's SIA maximum: Full-sized image here: Pretty anomalous, no?
Call me dumbfounded. The latest maximum on record by a full week; nearly 800,000 km2 more ice than on this date last year; and nearly 1.1 million km2 more ice than there was on this date in 2007. Two more days of growth and we'll be in April; think we'll make that? How about a June maximum? Can I hear July? ;-)
"That is slightly higher than the 1 in 10 years so I think the 1 in 10 wasn't far off or was too low rather than dismissing one occurance as flukish." I see what you're saying. But my point--which I failed to put across clearly and without adequate substantiation--was that the large growth of ice up to day 82 in 2003 was flukish due to the amount of overall ice that was added. Using your table of the top ten SIA increases after day 75 (YYYY.2), I've added a third column to show what percentage of each year's maximum area was added after day 75. (The asterisks indicate years in which the increase occurred after maximum had been reached. That is, the post-day 75 increase failed to result in a new maximum.) As you can see, the amount of overall ice that was added after day 75 was abnormally large (>3%) in both 1985 and 2003--thus, my use of the term "flukish". 0.4986028 1985 3.42% 0.4723453 2003 3.29% 0.3902941 1997 2.72% * 0.2576638 1984 1.81% 0.2289477 2001 1.58% * 0.1987982 2009 1.49% * 0.1971932 2004 1.43% * 0.1997900 1999 1.4% 0.1696053 1992 1.18% * 0.1740398 1991 1.15% ----------------------------- 0.2358441 2012 1.72% I added the 2012 line at the bottom to show how much SIA would have to increase in the next week or so in order to surpass the YTD high on day 66. As you, Neven, and others have said, it certainly seems possible that we could add enough this year to set a new maximum--though we'd have to see another 450,000 km2 added this year to achieve the same percentage added after day 75 in the "flukish" year of 2003, and I really don't see that happening. ;-)
Thanks to yesterday's 32,000 km2 drop in SIA, 2012 is now about 134K below 2011's max, and 306K below 2007's. 2007's peak occurred on Day 58 (this Monday, 2/27), while 2011's peak was on day 68 (3/9), still two weeks away (and, coincidentally, the average SIA peak day since 1979). FWIW, the earliest maximums have been on day 49 (2/18) in '92 and '97, while the latest was on day 83 (3/25) in '85. (The '03 peak was on day 82). IOW, it could happen any day--and may even have happened already (though I wouldn't count on it).
Toggle Commented Feb 23, 2012 on 2012 Maximum Area Pool at Arctic Sea Ice
As Neven noted, CT SIA has shot up pretty well the last few days. In fact, the nearly 416K km2 gained is the greatest four-day gain since the first week of January. Comparison-wise, we're 404,862 km2 behind the 2007 peak (on 2/27 of that year), but just 232,084 km2 behind last year's 3/9 peak. Seems odd to think that we won't see a quarter million km2 added in the next three weeks when we've added almost double that amount in just the past five days. But even without a new record--which doesn't seem at all likely at the moment--the new Barentsz ice forming is obviously only going to have a few weeks to grow in earnest, so I imagine we'll see several huge decreases in area once the sun starts shining up there...
Toggle Commented Feb 17, 2012 on Barentsz and Kara at Arctic Sea Ice
My bad. That second paragraph was supposed read as follows: 2011 saw an additional 462K km2 after this date, while 2007 saw an additional 591K. That 2011 number would obviously keep 2012 under the 13 million mark, while the 2007 number would still mean a record low max. Thanks for pointing it out...
Toggle Commented Feb 13, 2012 on Bering the load at Arctic Sea Ice
CT SIA updated pretty late today, and I see there was yet another nice-sized drop (34,626 km2), which had the effect of taking back a good chunk of Friday's increase. In the past 28 days--four full weeks--less than 20,000 km2 of ice has been added, an amount less than 2% of what was added over the same span last year. That's a pretty amazing statistic in my book. 2011 saw an additional 462K km2 after this date, while 2011 saw an additional 591K. That 2011 number would obviously keep 2012 under the 13 million mark, while the 2007 number would still mean a record low max. It's gonna be fun to watch...
Toggle Commented Feb 13, 2012 on Bering the load at Arctic Sea Ice
On this day in 2011, there were still 29 days until the maximum was reached; during that time a net total of 396,834 km2 of ice was added, for a mean average of 13,684 per day. In 2007, there were just 19 days until the max; during that time a net total of 668,612 km2 of ice was added, for a mean average of 35,190 per day. While it doesn't seem likely given the current state of things, is it possible we could see another 700K or 800K km2 of area added before the peak? A net gain of less than 688,045 km2 will, I believe, produce a new record low maximum area.) (CT SIA used for all the above.)
Toggle Commented Feb 9, 2012 on Barentsz and Kara at Arctic Sea Ice
"But as long as some of the ice is still there in September, they can do their thing. There's a good chance it's game over once that point is reached." But then they'll simply change their argument, claiming that the satellites have it wrong, or ice loss isn't that big a deal anyway because the water is still cold, or the ice was that low back in 19-whatever, and so on. CT area saw its largest drop in three weeks yesterday (58,998 km2). I should note, however, that in 2007, February 7 was the beginning of a 10-day stretch during which nearly 650K km2 of ice area was added.
Toggle Commented Feb 9, 2012 on Barentsz and Kara at Arctic Sea Ice
I won't attempt a takedown of the post over on WUWT; Chris did a great job above. But in short, it appears the post is desperately trying to make two points: 1) If all the ice that's south of the Arctic Circle is removed from calculations involving area, extent, and volume, the total amount of ice that melts every year is much less than we're currently counting. 2) While that ice at the North Pole melts every summer, ice is thickening at the South Pole. When considered as a whole, then, the drop is much less than we're currently counting. The faulty "logic" is obvious, of course; the first point is cherry-picking by omission, and akin to saying, "If you don't count that last Giants touchdown, the Patriots actually won." And the second is simply a logical fallacy, and akin to claiming that the 20-pound cancerous growth on my right leg cancels out the fact that my left leg has been lost to gangrene, and therefore I'm perfectly fit.
Toggle Commented Feb 6, 2012 on February 2012 Open Thread at Arctic Sea Ice
Jeff Masters over at Weather Underground believes 2011 will give 2007 a run for the money over the next couple of weeks: "A strong high pressure system with a central pressure of 1035 mb has developed over the Arctic north of Alaska, and will bring clear skies and warm southerly winds to northeast Siberia and the Arctic during the coming week, accelerating Arctic sea ice loss. Widespread areas of northeastern Siberia are expected to see air temperatures 4 - 12.C (7 - 22.F) above average during the coming week, and the clockwise flow of air around the high pressure system centered north of Alaska will pump this warm air into the Arctic. Arctic sea ice extent, currently slightly higher than the record low values set in 2007, should fall to to its lowest extent for the date by the third week of August as the clear skies and warm southerly winds melt ice and push it away from the coast of Siberia." Much more here:
Heya, Rich. long time, no hear. Miss you guys over there... For the record, I agree with you almost completely, though I think we'll reach zero-ice much sooner. One problem with this type of thing is, of course, that denialists will ignore any large and overriding downward trend and instead latch onto any stabilization or increase, no matter how minor or short-lived. (They're already jumping on this study, distorting it to claim that Arctic Sea ice loss has stopped.) I guess it's just gonna make the job a little more difficult for us truth-tellers...
This isn't really new news, is it? Here, have a look at this snippet of an NYT piece: "Dr. Brinkhuis and many other veteran Arctic researchers caution that there is something of a paradox in Arctic trends: while the long-term fate of the region may be mostly sealed, no one should presume that the recent sharp warming and seasonal ice retreats that have caught the world's attention will continue smoothly into the future. "The same Arctic feedbacks that are amplifying human-induced climate changes are amplifying natural variability," explained Asgeir Sorteberg, a climate modeler at the Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research in Bergen, Norway. "Indeed, experts say, there could easily be periods in the next few decades when the region cools and ice grows." That was from October 25, 2005. ( So, yes, Arctic Sea ice may temporarily stabilize or even increase--but is hasn't happened yet, and there's no guarantee that it will.
Jim Pettit is now following The Typepad Team
Aug 11, 2011