Comments on: Arctic sea ice extent in January fourth lowest on record

By: Rob Rubis

Rob Rubis — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 12:21:21 +0000

Finally! An online conversation that I can relate to. Except for “Googler’s” small diegression to “wattsupwithat”, which gets me cranked up every time I get sucked into reading it, this dialog actually seems to have rational minds behind it!

Thank you, gentlemen. Next time I’M in Colorado, I’ll buy either (or both) of you a beer- to talk about energy technology innovation! Speaking of which, what do you think of Gary Reysa’s experiments with solar in Montana? I’m planning my retirement place in north-central BC, and need all the good ideas I can get.

By: Tom Yulsman

Tom Yulsman — Sun, 07 Mar 2010 20:45:59 +0000

Uhm, no, that’s the not the bet. I am betting that the overall trend will continue, but we know from looking at the line that there are annual variations, with up and down swings. So I think our bet must be longer term — over the course of a few years or more.

But it wouldn’t do to wait that long to contribute to a Haitian relief. So I’ll make my contribution now. I’m partial to the American Jewish World Service: http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=3269 And here: http://ajws.org/who_we_are/news/haiti_emergency.html But you can pick any one you like. Here’s a resource for picking charities with a good track record overall and in Haiti particularly: http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=content.view&cpid=1004

For our actual bet on sea ice, we must remember to check back in, say, February of 2013. If I win, I buy you a beer the next time you come to Colorado. If you win, I buy you a beer the next time you come to Colorado. One stipulation: Over the beers, WE WILL ONLY TALK ABOUT ENERGY TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION, NOT “GLOBAL WARMING: YES OR NO?”

Do we have a deal?

By: John Zulauf

John Zulauf — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 00:34:44 +0000

Tom — you have a bet. If the 2010 NSIDC maximum arctic 15% sea ice level is below the 1979-2009 trend-line (as extended from the 2009 maximum), you win.

As for charity — do you have a preferred disaster relief fund perhaps for Haiti or Chile?

By: Tom Yulsman

Tom Yulsman — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 23:56:12 +0000

John, I misspoke: Over the long-term, the extent of winter ice has been shrinking. (Some winters there is more or less ice than the year before, but the overall trend is down.)

By: Tom Yulsman

Tom Yulsman — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 23:54:23 +0000

John: Sorry to give the impression that I think the extent in any particular month is important. The data are reported every month, and so I update my readers here pretty much every month. What’s important is that the extent of winter ice is shrinking every year. And January’s extent is part of that trend. As for ice coverage trending up, I will make you a bet:

I bet that at the end of 2010, the trend of declining sea ice will have continued along the same slope as shown in the graph above. If I win, both you and I pay $50 to the charity of our choice. If you win, both you and I pay $50 to the charity of our choice. What do you say?

By: John Zulauf

John Zulauf — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 21:01:21 +0000

Tom, give me a failing mark then… the only documentation I could find about “winter” sea ice was about the importance of the “maximum” coverage not the importance of coverage on a particular calendar date. So “can I buy a vowel” — please point me to the relevant clueification source?

BTW, I saw the NSIDC coverage this morning both JAXA and DMI measures are still trending up as well.

By: googler

googler — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 21:14:21 +0000

An alternative commentary on this story is here:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/04/nsidc-confirms-wuwt-ice-forecast/

By: Tom Yulsman

Tom Yulsman — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 18:53:26 +0000

John, you don’t understand the science. The extent in winter is not arbitrary or irrelevant. Read up and then we’ll talk.

By: John Zulauf

John Zulauf — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 17:13:46 +0000

one other problematic… the “Jan” extent seems arbitrary and irrelevant, max sea ice happens in Mar. What happens before and after “max” (or “min” for that matter) is likely “weather not climate” correct?

A plot of “max” sea for the last several years would be interesting in April.

By: John Zulauf

John Zulauf — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 17:24:12 +0000

Thank you for saying “on record” and not “in history”. It would be more accurate to say “on satellite record” as the open Northwest passages of 1940 and 1908(?) suggest low arctic ice coverages during those warmer periods.

After reading the NPR interview about 20,000 square kilometers of Antarctic ice loss being “between the size of TX and AK” when it’s the size of NJ… accuracy is appreciated. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124178690

What is problematic is 1) the late 70′s were cold, with mainstream media “summer of shark” stories about global cooling, and 2) we don’t have a good baseline (w.r.t. geologic time) for “normal” vs. “abnormal” during an interglacial period. There were certainly (non-AGW driven) interglacial periods with a clear Arctic. (insert orthogonality argument here, no point repeating)