Is the Arctic Ice Levels Starting to Return to Normal?

Question

The melting of the Arctic ice has slowed and is starting to return to 1979-2000 average levels.

Is this signaling the end of global warming, and the return to normal cool temperatures?

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png

Doesn't this graph give credence to the theory that the Sun is the cause of global warming, and not man?

Answer 1

Well actually no!

Did you look at your graph it clearly shows in both the 1979-2000 and the 2007 lines that the largest drop in ice extent doesn't happen till mid july through to the end of Aug, but thanks for the link which effectively disproves any questions that the ice has stopped melting by this time of year(July)

davem : you are 100% correct about Amundsen except for a couple of little things he wintered (i.e. was frozen in) for 2 years near King William Is. and it was actually a third winter before he got through to the other side. Amundsen discovering  the Northwest passage in 1903 would come as a surprise to John Ross who tried to get through it in 1823 or the entire Franklin expedition in 1845 all of whom died attempting to get through, 2007 was the first time it was possible to get through in one year.

Answer 2

Yes.  Shelf ice melts much more some years than other years.  When Amundsen first discovered the Northwest Passage in 1903 he was able to navigate clear through to the Pacific Ocean because it was ice-free and open water.  (This is not the polar ice cap, but a 'shipping lane' of sorts much farther south in the Arctic.)

In following years attempts to get through this passage failed because the ice didn't melt enough.  Whether it will be open from one year to the next is one of life's mysteries.  Sometimes it is - sometimes it isn't.  Some years the ice is so thick that even large icebreakers can't get through and won't try to in case they get stuck.

A certain amount of melting is the norm in the Arctic, and it does change from time to time.  This has nothing to do with AGW or any other man-made thing.

Answer 3

It is unusual for the weather to be usual.  Temperatures will continue to vary up, and down.

If they really want to do something about carbon dioxide, they should stop making carbonated beverages.  But I do not quite get the CO2 scare, since CO2 encourages plant growth, which soaks up heat from the sun and releases oxygen.

Answer 4

No.

As with all climate data, year to year variability should not be confused with the long term trend.  Here is the extremely clear long term trend.

http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews...

You could have said the same thing about 1990-91, 95-96. 2006-2007.  A one year change doesn't mean anything.

Scientists have PROVEN global warming is not caused by the Sun.

"Recent oppositely directed trends in solar

climate forcings and the global mean surface

air temperature", Lockwood and Frolich (2007), Proc. R. Soc. A

doi:10.1098/rspa.2007.1880

http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media/pro...

News article at:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6290228.st...

Answer 5

Heresy!   Blasphemy!   Evidence contrary to the theory of AGW must be the devil's work!    You are just a denier, denying that you deny your denialist denial!    You are a Bush-bot, anti-science, big-oil-funded, fat-cat, big corporate, homophobic, racist, white-trailer-park-trash-redneck creationist neokkkon Republican, or worse yet, a Libertarian!

And don't you dare point out that the above answer is absolutely devoid of meaning, or I'll call you a denier again!

Denialist denying denier!

Answer 6

Well, let's compare current Arctic ice with that of the same time of year in 1979:

http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test...

And 1980:

http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test...

And 1981:

http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test...

And 1982:

http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test...

And 1983:

http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test...

Doesn't look like it's going back to "normal" to me.

You're right about one thing though; this year is not as bad as last year.  Last year just happened to be a particularly bad year.  So let's look at this year compared to 2006:

http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test...

And 2005:

http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test...

And even, the "hottest year on record," 1998:

http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test...

Answer 7

Erm... no.

The chart shows two things:

1) That no two years are identical (big surprise there!)

2) That the area of ocean covered by ice this year and 2008 is still approx. 1,000,000 sq. km less than the average of '79-00

Of course, a chart showing area doesn't get into volume which is unfortunate as that is the real concern - 45% of arctic ice has melted into the sea in the past 30 years...

As for a link between the sun and GW... this graph doesn't even mention the sun so how would that be possible?

Answer 8

Good news for sure, if it discredits the AGW crowd, before they destroy our energy infrastructure.  Do you think it'll reach the media?  I mean, before the new glaciers do?

   I've read that the sun seems to be going into a time of unusually low sunspot activity, which is associated with a colder climate, perhaps for a decade or two. I hope it's not another little ice age. Just enough to discredit the AGW proponents, and remind everyone that a warm climate is much preferable.  

     http://www.universetoday.com/2008/06/12/...

  Manda -1979  was about the time of "new ice age " scare, in which a couple decades of cooling trend were  extrapolated into a coming ice age.  If we had satellite photos from the 1940s, there'd be less ice than now.  It goes in cycles. In the middle ages, the vikings were farming in greenland.

Answer 9

No.  But thanks for the laugh - seriously.  That was a good one.