« IPCC crisis meeting | Main | Freezing season 2013/2014 open thread 1 »


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Chris Reynolds

Jai Mitchell,

Tangentially related.

Kurita 2011, "Origin of Arctic water vapor during the ice-growth season"

Recent extreme minima in Arctic summer sea ice extent have led to enhanced heat flux from the ocean to the atmosphere. This change may increase the humidity in Arctic air masses during the ice-growth season. Humidity increases may also be sustained by enhanced moisture transport into the Arctic and the relative influence of local- versus distant-moisture sources remains uncertain. Here we examined the predominant origin of Arctic water vapor during the ice-growth period, using water isotopologues (HDO, H218O) as tracers. An exploration of the isotopic evolution of surface water vapor in the Arctic Ocean found that isotopic values of moisture originating from the Arctic Ocean were characterized by higher d-excess values, a second-order isotopic parameter, than those of moisture originating from lower latitudes. These high d-excess values (>20‰) in Arctic-origin air masses were observed in mid-autumn. Subsequently, high d-excess values gradually decreased to the global average (d = 10) and disappeared in early winter, when sea ice covered a large part of the Arctic Ocean. This change suggests that the humidity source of Arctic air masses switches in early winter from locally driven to moisture transport from lower latitudes.


Topographically, to my amateur eyes, the WAIS and Greenland both have the feature of grounding lines.
The difference is that the WAIS grounding line is already under attack, per WALSE 2007.


'but the rate of loss will continue to accelerate until about 2065 when the Thermohaline Current drops to about 1/12th of its current rate.'

... do you have a citation for that?


... do you have a citation for that?

Funny, I was just about to ask the same thing.

I'd like to see the logic behind that prediction. Until we have a year round ice-free arctic, it seems to me the annual melt back of winter ice would tend to enhance, rather than retard thermohaline circulation. There will be a long time where exactly that kind if wild variation - 2-3000 KM3 of ice annually melting back to zero - will be taking place.


I’ve contributed only twice last weeks, though 13 times on the Forum to compensate. I haven’t got as much time to spend like before.
Some time ago, I concluded I had to do something with the amazing knowledge and insight Neven’s blog, all you commenters and often painstaking sifting through the rich internet dossiers have provided.

So I embarked on city farming and green politics. I have no intention to go for the seats, I like to see myself as an enthousiastic activist. Helping out a team for a goal of green, social rehabilitation on the local stage, on behalf of people.

Consequently, I’ve got a lot less time to immerse in the amateur climatologic challenges this stage of our collective reel into global warming offers.

I lean on you all to keep coming up with any relevant information. Meanwhile, I’m supporting our local Green Party as good as I can to gather momentum. Locally, the Arctic isn’t the main theme to do that. But the challenge is to dose the information according to the scope and capabilities of the public.

Right now, I’m spinning the “Global Day of Solidarity” to help the Arctic 30 jailed in Russia on a ludicrous accusation of “piracy”. Tomorrow I’ll join whatever crowd will gather in front of the Russian Embassy in The Hague. Please, join in actions in your own countries.

This is one thing we can do… to extend our concern into positive action. May it also be a growing positive feedback to save our climate.


Oh, and sorry for being off-topic...


Werther, you are forgiven ;)

We will try to pick up the slack. Best of luck!


" Jai Mitchell Models show "

Weather and climate models are in fantasy world. If you cherry pick and do not add all factors like they have, models will always bust like they have been doing.

Real data from the past is best way to figure out the future and lots of data has been tampered with to make the past look colder for agenda reasons is my feeling.
Model watchers become brainwashed and let down every time. Models throw darts and 97% miss outcome and target and that is no lie past one week.
The past always repeats...


If you or any other (fake) skeptic has a better model than wishful thinking or sticking a wet finger in the wind, then go ahead. I fear none of you will get very far, because modelling is difficult. But imperfect as they are, models are the best thing we have to try to get an idea of what adding millions of tonnes of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere might mean for modern society. We want to know, or don't we?

And of course, the imperfection works both ways, as seen with Arctic sea ice.

Enough off-topic. I'm opening open threads soon.

Jai Mitchell

cited references are not as clear as we need. In fact, no one, to my knowledge has incorporated the PIOMAS data, and subsequent ice-free arctic states by 2020(ish) with AMOC models, they all still show ice free states around 2080 or so.

Still, if you look at the technical summary found here:


and then scroll down to graphic TFE.5. You can see the projections of AMOC declines under the RCP 8.5 scenario. The fact that these models incorporate an arctic ice melt that was established in 2008, indicates that they are not accurately predicting this effect and need to be shortened by about 30 years.

Similarly, some models in CMIP5 predict a 60% decrease under the RCP 8.5 scenario by 2100 but again predict a significant cover of summer sea ice through 2080.

consequent to the loss of sea ice, an increase in the melt rate of GIS will contribute to a further decline of the AMOC beginning sometime around the middle of the 2030s.

That is why I expect the AMOC to decline to about 1/12 of its current value by 2065.


"Real data from the past is best way to figure out the future and lots of data has been tampered with to make the past look colder for agenda reasons is my feeling."

This refrain is the drumbeat of global warming skepticism, is not proven, and for which, there exists utterly no incentive.

Regarding AMOC, I'm skeptical the loss of summer ice will reduce it that much. Annual seasonal changes in volume (summer melt, winter refreeze) will still drive circulation on the thermo-haline side.

There are no doubt other atmospheric and circulatory factors involved, but a 92% slowdown in less than a century sounds far too abrupt, without some associated catastrophic event (e.g. the drainage of Glacial Lake Agassiz ~13,000BP).

Connie Quirk

"lots of data has been tampered with to make the past look colder for agenda reasons is my feeling."

And my feeling is that conspiracy theory is crap.

Whose 'feeling' rules? Or should we perhaps go with logic and data?

Chris Reynolds


Utter crap (again).

Look at the six model results from Wang & Overland.

The red trace is observed ice extent. The blue are model runs with human factors included, the grey/light blue are model runs with human factors excluded. Given the different history of development for each model, such a result can only be due to the common fundamental physics in each model. i.e. That the ice doesn't melt without human forcings, but when human forcings are included the ice recedes, therefore human forcings are driving sea ice loss. And this happens not just in one model from one institutions but in every physical model.

And as for: "lots of data has been tampered with to make the past look colder for agenda reasons is my feeling." Your feelings are utterly irrelevant, this is especially the case for someone who's previously claimed the sun is responsible for sea ice loss when you have no evidence for that - I called you on it and you failed to produce evidence to counter mine.

You also have no evidence for 'lots of data has been tampered with'. That claim is utter bollocks.

You clearly have not got the least clue as to how science and the peer-reviewed literature system works. This is clear because you seriously believe that some form of conspiracy is at play. This un-evidenced _belief_ shows how stupid you are.

1) Stupid enough not to realise the logistics of arranging such a conspiracy given the numbers of people involved - the authors (many on many papers), the reviewers, the many readers of the relevant scientific literature. You've obviously never read all of the papers out there that set out to show the flaws in the work of other scientists.

2) Stupid enough not to realise that this is an ongoing physical process, if someone lies about it the process will prove them wrong.

3) Stupid enough to think that the scientists are as stupid as you (and the rest of the denialist idiot-brigade) and don't realise point 2.

I didn't point it out at the time because it seemed unworthy of me, but when you ran away from my offer of a bet what you were demonstrating was that the limits your confidence in your own comprehension of the process of loss of Arctic sea ice was....

...one paltry bottle of an alcoholic drink.

Wang & Overland, 2009, "A sea ice free summer Arctic within 30 years?"


Neven said to keep on topic but I just want to respond with a few answers.
Data tampering chart, yeah it is from Steve Goddard but shows how past data was changed.

[Yes, data tampering and Steve Goddard make a perfect couple. 95% of what he says is stupid, purposefully misleading or lied. I don't have time any longer to put in the effort to see if by any chance what he says or writes, is part of that precious 5%. Goddard is totally untrustworthy as a source, so don't link to his site; N]

The Sun,
I did come across this TSI (solar Flux) reconstructed chart from LISIRD: LASP Interactive Solar Irradiance Data Center.

It clearly shows a stronger TSI from 1900 to around to 2009 when the chart ends.


One more chart November average Sunspots and Global March average lows, 1875 to 2012. Not sure why they used November sunspot data and not march but March average temps I guess were used for the Start of Spring.

I also asked a few climate scientist is the effects of icebreaking ships on Arctic sea ice and if factored into any climate models. Two responses one,
Chris Beal ‏@NJSnowFan 2 Oct
@ClimateOfGavin How much of 60% is that from Giant Ice Breaking ships like this? http://www.marinetraffic.com/ais/shipdetails.aspx?mmsi=273316240
yearly summer trips to N pole

Gavin Schmidt ‏@ClimateOfGavin 2 Oct
@NJSnowFan None. Trends are in the million Sq miles/decade - much too large for such a small factor to be important

Chris Beal ‏@NJSnowFan 3 Oct
@flimsin My Q is are the destructive nature of ice breaking ships put into Arctic ice climate models. Thanks

Tamsin Edwards ‏@flimsin 3 Oct
@NJSnowFan I've never heard of them being put in models or thought to be important. You could search IPCC report as online (though long).

My response

I also Asked the question to the panel of climate scientist on Ask a climate scientist with Google hang out and they only took a few softball comments
and not mine on TSI.

Just some quick info on me. I am a environmentally conches person. I hate wasting things and inefficient things.
I do compost not only for the environment but for the benefits of that organic soil that is your reward in the end.
When I see something that is not right or feel I do not agree I will speak my mind.

[If you hate wasting things and inefficiency, then stop trolling. N.]


Thanks, Chris.

Now try to learn, NJSnowfan, or shut up.

Most of us are too busy transforming knowledge into action to waste precious energy on deniers. But in the right time and place it is necessary to put matters straight in a firm riposte. And I’m glad Chris Reynolds just did that.

I’m joining in a fight right now, a Gandhi-like struggle for justice and compassion with people and planet:

 photo 8DeprotestmarsdoorDenHaagverysmall_zps3c152ab9.jpg
Yesterday, The Hague. A march between the Russian Embassy and the palace of peace (Vredespaleis) to support the Greenpeace crew held in Murmansk.

I know the "political" part could better be relayed to the right Forum thread. But the blog is still the eyecatcher and I hope you all might be interested in Werther’s transformation from lurker/poster to activist.


Interesting times getting ice data this year. First Boulder gets flooded out then US gov agencies close their doors.
An interesting note for me is the fact that despite the fact melt conditions were so poor with cold temps and lots of cloud, there still was a 10.2 million km2 melt off.
As for the theory that the cold is coming back just remember despite Antarctic extent slightly increasing the PIG is losing 2 in/DAY underneath. Do not know the math on that, all I know that takes a LOT of heat energy to do that.


Siberian snow cover anomalies seem to be soaring, and I must admit I am slightly surprised by seeing this so early in the season. I suspect the chronically wacked up jet stream somehow is to blame for this, but I would appriciate if someone could give us some more insight into what might become a record breaking event.


Doomcomessoon, Early snow cover Might also have something to do with the many fires that produced lots of smoke over Siberia. Cyclones stayed over Arctic into late summer then the snow started to fall with lots of smoke in the air. Smoke particles help with snow growth.
My post on Data 2006-2013 ice and snow cover for first day of fall. All dates 9/23

People who put observers that love weather and climate like me in a denier category are just wrong.

I do believe man has some influences on climate like the IPCC repot showed. I feel it is lower then the 50% they say and more like 15 to 20% with ALL greenhouse gasses from man.
I do feel man is responsible for more like 50% for the Arctic Sea Ice since the early 80's.
Arctic Sea Ice Break down, Green house gasses(10%), the sun (20%) Icebreaking ships and ship activity including oil and gas exploration(20%)

Many here on this blog do know from observations that ICE grows ice much faster then if new ice started to form in an open body of water. When ice breaking ships cruse along breaking up first and multi year ice that is covered with snow and freshwater ice the ships roll the ice over exposing it to sunlight and salt water melting the fresh water ice much faster.

Almost every Buoy in the Arctic is visited by an ice breaking ship in the spring or summer during melt season to relocate because of moving ice.
If only a study could be done where a large are could be deemed off limits to icebreaking ships for a 3 year period and the truth will come out.
Back before the late 70's not many Ice breaking ships were crushing the ice during the melt season.


@NJSnowFan - PLEASE, enough with your obsession with ice breakers. One day of gale force wind in the Beaufort does more damage to the ice than every icebreaker in the world could do cruising non-stop the entire melt season. Your intransigent refusal to understand or accept facts of energy and scale is becoming tiresome.


If recent events are any indication, there are two key reasons we are seeing more snow, and some others possibly contributing.

1) huge imports of moisture out of the tropics are penetrating all the way to sub-arctic latitudes.

2) breakdown in Hadley cell circulation (demonstrated by the squirrelly jet stream) is permitting more significant breakout of cold polar air to lower latitudes.

In short, massive heat transfer to the arctic. The moisture is also being fed by extensive (though not as much as last year) open arctic water, which in some areas (the Barents) is far, far warmer than it has been historically. Along the ESS and Beaufort in particular this could be a factor as well.


A cool Arctic summer in some parts, precedes a very warm fall. The illogic of this is exciting. Reveals that the cool summer was an artificial untenable wind construct. I work on the details

Yes, details reveal that it takes energy to make clouds, which if present continuously in one region , may buck the warming trend from the warmer regions of high evaporation values.

Surface temperatures explained in other words than it was simply "cooler" or "warmer", are invaluable in making out the truer nature of what is happening on a global scale.

Kevin McKinney

"...the theory that the cold is coming back..."

Guess I missed the 'theory,' but I'll weigh in that 'DMI temps north of 80' graph, after having never once exceeded the norm for the melting season, has since then never once failed to do so--though it's been on a decline the last few days and now threatens to:



OT @j_w: Reminds me of last year on a weather blog and all the talk of the big drought in the US. Guy claim to live there and denied a drought existed because he was having regular rain all summer. Based on that all you had to do is look at the drought map and you almost got down to his house address as that was the only spot it was raining for 100s sq miles around. This means NS will only see what he wants to see and forget what the facts really are. Like maybe the ice breaker was taking that course because it already was the easiest way through the ice/non-ice.
So wayne, could we have a 'warm' winter, thus setting up for a bad melt down next summer if conditions are right?


why are you all feeding this troll NJSnowFan?

Neven with the greatest of respect the only thing to do with trolls is ban them not keep wasting time on censoring their nonsense. this constant banging on about icebreakers and other fantasy material is downgrading the credibility of your blog as some visitors will tar you with the same brush.


The BBC on the Greenpeace/Gazprom confrontation:


Igor Chestin, chief executive of the environmental group WWF Russia, warns that because of the low temperatures an oil spill in the Arctic could be catastrophic.

"If you look at oil spills which happen in tropical waters, normally within a few years you don't find the oil anymore," he said, "because there are bacteria which actually absorb the oil and the oil disappears.

"But if you look at the northern environment, and for example the famous Exxon Valdez accident near Alaska, you still find the oil there. It's still poisoning the environment 24 years after the accident happened. It's still there. It didn't disappear - there are no micro-organisms which can absorb the oil."

He says that an oil spill that might disperse in three years in warmer waters might take 100 years to disperse in the Arctic.

Further to NJSnow Fan's icebreker theory, there is this, though I suspect that it may not have passed peer review:


Otherwise imho there is little to commend it.


It would appear I have been assigned a number so for clarity my name is Mark and I have been visiting this site for 2 years now as it provides such a high insight in to the polar ice conundrum.

I think that the level of debate here lead by Neven is superb and I am glad to see some different ideas appearing. Not that I am a denier - far from it I like to absorb all the arguments that are put forward.

So I have a few questions of my own. why is the approach of a Dalton minimum cycle not taken in to account - is it because this theory is in doubt, or because accelerated warming has countered the effect or is a cooling cycle not treated as relevant to the overall warming trend.

I ask this merely because the current trends lean towards a cooling period but noone here seems to want to factor it in, which in a scientific sense confuses me as I would have thought it would support the longer term warming trend rather than disproving it.

As for the atmospheric CO2 argument - I was lead to understand that a lower percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere would produce very marked changes in radiation absorption for small changes but as concentrations increased these changes are much less significant (on a logarithmic scale in fact). So even localised increases over the ice at our present concentration levels would only have a small variance in potential temperature change.

And lastly on ice breakers - surely at this time of year any exposure of the sea surface would allow increased local cooling as the sea would be able to lose heat more effectively. Would this not have the effect of negating the disturbance caused by the ice breaking itself. In the melt period when the reverse would be true I would assume ice breaking activity is much reduced.


Interesting Buoy deployment, drift and ice concentration map movie 1979-2010.

Most of the buoys are placed on the ice April-August during the Melt season by IB ships. Click on IABP Buoy drift map to watch the movie. As I stated before I only have concerns from around March 1 around Oct 1.
Movie is good, you can see Ice drift patterns and minimums of all the years. http://iabp.apl.washington.edu/data_movie.htmlaly


Working link to the movie.. 1979-2010


Hi Mark. Welcome to the fray.

I'm not sure what specific claim about the Dalton Minimum you are referring to. But it is certainly the case that, just based on where we are at this point in time in the interglacial period, we should be expecting cooling of about .2 degrees C since pre-industrial times, iirc.

So yeah, that supports and amplifies what people are saying here and elsewhere--gw is kicking in very strongly already, with probably over 1 degree of warming C since 1850 once you factor in that expected cooling. (And that's not factoring likely aerosol cooling.)

But I may be misunderstanding your point entirely. If so, please forgive me and do clarify.


LRC the coming winter looks warmish already, especially if great cloud coverage persists. The larger question is whether ENSO will stop having a split North South personality, if it goes full El-Nino , as it currently trends towards, we (the Arctic) will likely have the warmest Arctic winter ever. As far as sea ice is concerned, all eyes on the refreeze, which equally appears sluggish, wide open sea water in darkness or under a low sun looses a great deal of heat fast, like what happened last year. The warming from the sun over late summer, the heat gained went back to space fast in clear skies. If cloudy from now on, the compared heat budget, with 2012 refreeze , balances out. We may have a similar ice accretion come next maxima.


Thanks wili - I'm a sceptic on everything scientific - thats why I dont take sides - I like to absorb as much as I can within my capabilities. ..... You read me quite right. Whilst current trends go the opposite way to those expected I am keeping my mind open to the reasons why. So so long as arguments are based in fact I will take them onboard, but if they do not entirely hold up then I wait until more info comes forward. Climate is so chaotic and the mere fact that models have tended to be wrong in the short term means that inputs are inadequate ie we are missing factors that are currently not included.

The info on this blog is great and hard to absorb. Its difficult to get a grip on why the Arctic ice fluctuates like it does when most theories are speculative. My view for what its worth (and having followed this site for some time) is that there are too many factors running all the time to be able to predict future behaviour from 'trending'. In effect a neverending task I reckon which leaves me having the greatest of respect for those on here so adept in translating input into recognisable data and illustration.

Anyhow - if you dont mind I wont take up any more space on here as I am sure I am not adding much!


Chris Reynolds


There is no indication of the solar cycle within the decline of Arctic sea ice during the satellite record, therefore no reasonable suspicion that the exit from the grand solar maximum will lead to an increase in sea ice.

Current trends do not indicate a cooling trend. Research shows that the post 2002 levelling of global temperature is due to a mix of ENSO, sulphate aerosols, and solar activity (see list of papers at end of post). The models did not get this wrong as it is stochastic climate variability around the trend (~0.17degC/decade), Foster and Rahmstorf adjust for those factors and find the warming trend continues. However this period of levelling of GW has happened at the same time as sea ice loss has accelerated, area/extent/volume, therefore there is no reasonable expectation of a cessation of ice loss.

CO2 forcing is logarithmc, but over small variations (e.g. recent decades) approximates to linear. Calculated radiative forcing over the last several decades is approximately linear (Myhre's formula).

Theories are not speculative, the evidence is getting stronger with time. Back in the late 1990s it was common to see changes in sea ice as due to cycles, there is now no scientific literature supporting that view. The regression of CO2 and sea ice loss clearly shows CO2 is a valid ultimate cause, the fact that all GCMs show now loss of sea ice for natural forcings, but loss of sea ice for anthropogenic forcings, shows that the ice is being lost due to human forcings, of which the largest is CO2. CO2 increases are also the main cause of GW, which involves ocean warming, warmer atmospheric and ocean heat transports are implicated in sea ice loss.

1, Kaufman et al, Reconciling anthropogenic climate change with observed temperature 1998–2008.
2, Foster & Rahmstorf, Global temperature evolution 1979–2010.
3, Kosaka & Xie, Recent global-warming hiatus tied to equatorial Pacific surface cooling.
4, Cohen et al, Asymmetric seasonal temperature trends.

Lids roll in concentrate....


Mark H. said, " I'm a sceptic on everything scientific."

Not quite sure what you mean by that.

science = skepticism (essentially)

So are you saying that you are skeptical of skepticism?


Hi Chris, thank you for that, that is a very concise answer, much appreciated. I hope i didnt rattle any cages - not my intention. I shall enjoy the further reading.

And Wili - I think essentially you know what I mean - sorry for my mangled prose!


@wayne Thanks.
@will 'skeptics' as they like calling themselves, I find are those who try and play both sides of the fence on any issue. That way they can claim to have gotten it right no matter what the out come is. As far as scientist go I like to quote a scientist I once heard answering a question about the differences in degrees (bachelor, master PHD etc.). " The difference between a Masters and a PhD is NOT the amount of knowledge you have as they a basically the same. The difference is the Master thinks he knows everything and the PhD discovers he knows nothing."


The same scientist in that interview also said that although in science we have theories which we are are still not comfortable in declare laws even if they have still held up to scrutiny and we have laws which we are comfortable in saying they will always hold up to scrutiny. Even laws we as scientists should understand that they may at some point fail because we still know so little.
That is true skepticism in science.

Rob Dekker

Neven has often said that in the Arctic nothing is certain, and it never fails to surprise.

And indeed, just like 2012's unprecedented extent decline alarmed even the most alarmist of us, 2013 showed us that the Arctic is not going to give up without a fight.

NSIDC called this summer melt season "A better year" with "relatively cool and stormy conditions" and measuring minimum extent left over in September, indeed it seems to be for summer Arctic sea ice (and all wildlife that depends on it).

A question remaining for us ice watchers remains :

How "cool" was this Arctic summer in historical context ?

Here I did notice is that the temperatures over Arctic during the 2013 summer were lower than what we have seen since 2001 :


Statistically speaking, the probability of this cold a summer repeating itself in 2014 is low, when seen over record from the past decade. But when seen over the past 30 years, 2013 was not "cooler" than about average.

If this means that the previous 10 years were exceptionally warm, or if the summer of 2013 was simply extremely cool, I don't know.

Some more experiments with the semi-empirical super-simple model I used previously
seems to suggest that this summer was indeed the coolest since 2001, and that by itself may suggest that 2013 summer was a once-in-a-decade kind of cool summer, while 2012 was more in line with the long term trend.

As they say in Holland "een zwaluw maakt nog geen lente".

In fact, we should count ourselves lucky if 2014 won't see a repeat of 2012. The ice is thin, summer snow cover is very low, and global temperatures are still rising.

Rob Dekker

Thanks to the US government shut-down, that NOAA web reference does not work.
I still have a screen shot of that page.
Let me see if I can up-load it somewhere.

Rob Dekker

OK, here is the NOAA page showing the Jun-Aug 2013 temperatures at 925 mb, north of 75N+ :

Showing that Arctic summer 2013 may have been the coolest since 2001.

Seems the image does not want to scale, so please click on the link to see the full NOAA timerecord.


Has this site died a death? There has been no update for almost a month and useful as the site is, it will stop receiving visits if nothing new is posted for extended periods of time.


"Rob Dekker, In fact, we should count ourselves lucky if 2014 won't see a repeat of 2012. The ice is thin, summer snow cover is very low, and global temperatures are still rising."

I would not say Summer snow cover is very low, it is lowest high highest since 2006 and above the mean now. http://moe.met.fsu.edu/snow/

Global temperatures flat for 17 years. How is that still rising. C02 has been still rising is true and models continue their out of the strike zone predictions.

[The game appears to be this: NJSnowFan links to untrustworthy sources (like Joe Bastardi who is a joke), and then Neven removes it and asks not to link to untrustworthy sources. The end of the game is when Neven gets tired of the game. :-) N.]

Hans Gunnstaddar

"Has this site died a death?"

Maybe it's seasonal? You know, because ice waxes and wanes.

Jim Hunt

There's plenty more action to be had over on the Arctic Sea Ice Forum.

Has this site died a death?

No, it's in cryosleep. Must be the cold. ;-)

I did get a tad close to death today while building our house, by falling off a scaffold. Luckily I had thought about what I would do if it occurred (because I have a fear of heights), and somehow my subconscious must have registered it, because I jumped back (so as not to fall on anything) and then landed 6 feet lower flat on my back. Luckily it was just 6 feet, and the soil is very soft. I kissed it afterwards. I'm so stiff from computer work, that I actually felt as if I had had a massage. Gravity therapy! :-P

We're nearly done with the building's exterior, and then I hope to have a bit more time again for a post-season auto-flagellation and analysis.


Oh, and here's my two cents for MarkH's question:

I ask this merely because the current trends lean towards a cooling period

Well, it's a plateau or hiatus at best (depending on start and end point), but it actually should've been cooling with La Niña dominating, inactive Sun, PDO and aerosols. But strangely enough, it's not cooling. It makes one wonder what happens when ENSO becomes more neutral again of El Niños dominate, when the Sun becomes more active, when the PDO flips, when BRIC countries start cleaning up their act, etc.

I guess we'll see in coming years whether this now has a (postponed) effect on Arctic sea ice. I don't think it will (see Chris Reynolds' answer), but you never know.


I think you are spot on jdallen, and it will indeed be interesting to see what kind of winter we get in the northern hemisphere this season. Things are not boding well for those who are expecting "normal" conditions I'm afraid.

I also cannot avoid noticing how all kinds of data comming from NOAA is left unavailable because of the US shutdown; I guess what is going on in the Arctic is defined as "non essential". How ironic...

Rob Dekker

Another indication that the 2013 Arctic summer has been unusually cool is reflected in how early snow cover started to expand this year :

These numbers suggests that there has not been a cooler end of the summer around the Arctic than since 1999.

What a change a few months make, since the start of the summer (May and June) numbers still showed the near record breaking low snow cover that amplify Arctic sea ice melt and seem to set the long term trend.


In summary, snow cover over the summer and NOAA temperature over the Arctic suggest that the 2013 Arctic summer was exceptionally cool when compared to the data over the past 10-15 years.

Gerhard Trausner


The Antarctic is the climate in the NH barely influence.
The large ice in the Antarctic has also
another reason. It is very broken.
The floes are drifting far to the outside.
In Rothera we had +4 ° C in September. Neumeier is accustomed to something cold.
But otherwise were the average temperatures
in the Antarctic
One must also note the thermohaline circulation.
The surface currents (NA-current) transport the water in a relatively short time from the south to the north.
The depthwater needs from north to south + / - 1000 years. This allows the ocean to save a lot of heat. And for 1000 years.
June to September too high.

Gerhard Trausner

Oh Sorry !
"But otherwise were the average temperatures
in the Antarctic June to September too high."

Gerhard Trausner

So, I 'm back from Greece .
Was nice to sail in the Aegean sea . but many
Jellyfish. The water was too warm.

Well, I do not think the ice has recovered in the Arctic this year .
The most worries me the thin ice
north of Greenland. for east Coast
of Greenland that is something very bad .
The ice from the Arctic in the summer of 2014
not drift far to the south. It will hardly come through Fram Strait . MYI is gone on the east coast . Now there are
30 - 50 cm of ice , where in 2012 at this time
2 - were 3 m ice. In the summer of 2014, which quickly disappear . The water is warmer. What this means for the glacier?
Zachariah , 79, Bistrup and Storstossen will experience a strong basal melt.
I do not know if it will increase its flow rate quickly . But they will . The open water
at the calvingfront of Zachariah is to awaken from his sleep . And he is a giant. He may soon overtake the Jacobshavn glacier .

Colorado Bob

“We have entered a new ecological state,” says Smol .............................

The study says the change is “unprecedented in the past approximately 1500 years,” based on analysis of sediments in the region.

Smol says there plenty of other signs of the remarkable shift underway in the region, including the fish kills caused by heat stress, dropping water levels, and three weeks less ice cover on Hudson Bay than there was prior to 1995.

“This is unprecedented,” Smol says of the changes. “We are entering new ecological states and we are not really prepared.”



Jai Mitchell

Rob Dekker,

It is interesting that the May/June northern hemisphere snow cover anomaly is so low for 2013 but the May NH temperature anomaly was actually much cooler than recent years.


Much of Europe, the United States of America, north-west Russia and parts of Japan had a much colder than average spring (1 March to 1 June), which ended with heavy rain in some European countries.

According to provisional figures, the UK reported the 5th coldest spring in national records dating back to 1910 and the coldest spring since 1962. France also reported below average temperatures from 10 May.

Germany reported its coldest spring since 1987, with an average temperature of 6.7 degrees Centigrade, 1 degree below the 1961-1990 average. Germany had its second wettest May since the beginning of records in 1881, with 178 percent of the average May rainfall.

Switzerland also recorded below average temperatures with a big deficit of sunshine compared to the long term average. In Austria, spring was one of the seven wettest on record. May was one of the three wettest of the past 156 years (along with 1962 and 1965), with twice as much precipitation as the long-term average. Austria received as much rain from 30 May-2 June as it would normally receive in one and a half to two months.


So I was wondering, have we shifted into a new climate regime with cooler spring temperatures, cycling with higher temperatures caused by increased North-South air movement from/into the polar region and increased atmospheric moisture content leading to more mega floods?


As with most summarized descriptions, the regional differences and complexity tend to get overlooked. I think Jai mentioned the regions right, but the maps give the best insight:

 photo Asiamarch2013maxtempsmall_zpsa5ca290b.jpg

may 2013 photo Asiaapril2013maxtempsmall_zps79c8331e.jpg

april 2013 photo Asiamay2013maxtempsmall_zpsd6dbb621.jpg

The above mean daily max temp anomalies reflect the rapid loss of snow cover in a large part of mid-NE Siberia during spring.

 photo Asiaokt2013maxtemp1to8102013small_zps8bb94257.jpg

This last one shows 1-8 October and is probably well in line with unusual moist and cloud covered weather over the same part of mid-NE Siberia right now. It seems obvious that the moisture leads to extended snowfall.


Wether: http://robertscribbler.wordpress.com/2013/08/06/ocean-heat-dome-steams-coastal-china-shanghai-to-near-very-dangerous-35-degree-celsius-wet-bulb-temperatures-this-week/ had pointed out that the Pacific Ocean off Japan was extremely warm this summer. Note: Don't know how to insert images, but terrific image of SST That would explain 2 things possibly. 1)large number of intense Typhoons hitting Asia this year and 2) the high temps in Japan and China. That probably explains the all that moister also.
If it starts snowing before the ground gets to dry up too much would not that potentially keep the ground warmer and when the spring comes melt everything really fast?

Rob Dekker

Jai said

So I was wondering, have we shifted into a new climate regime with cooler spring temperatures, cycling with higher temperatures caused by increased North-South air movement from/into the polar region and increased atmospheric moisture content leading to more mega floods?

I don't think there are cooler spring temperatures in the NH. With the valuable resource NCEP/NCAR off-line due to the shut-down, it's hard to give you immediate data for that, but I think that Werther made a good point that there are regional effects that get overlooked, and also temporal differences matter.

For example, the reference you give :
talks about 'spring' as 3/1 to 5/25. Not just May alone.

Rob Dekker

Werther, these are cool graphs.
Where did you get them, and how many parameters can be changed for that data source ?


Hi Rob,
You can find it on wetteronline.de. Hit the third scroll-label on their main menu saying “messwerte”. Then go for the second label, “ruckblick”. Next you use “farbkarten”.

There, you’ll find all continents. It has monthly averaged actual means as well as anomalies for temp, SLP, wind dir, precipitation.

And it goes back to 2002.

This is a second try. First was 'eaten" ?

[It was indeed eaten by the spam filter, thanks for trying again; N.]


My sense is... With 400ppm CO2, and considerably more H2O in the atmosphere, we know more heat overall is being retained. With "cool" regional temps, the $64 question is, what heat sink is picking it up?

Has circulation changed to change regional concentration of heat? If we examine anomalies and evaluate available specific heat, does it smooth out?

How much of this might be transfer of heat to either the oceans or permafrost,for example? Brainstorming....

Gerhard Trausner

Rob !

Rob Dekker

Thanks, Gerhard, Werther,

Interesting is that the September temps over Asia were well below normal, as shown by wetteronline :

and seem to quite accurately match the September snow cover numbers from Rutgers :

September is not quite 'summer' any more, but this data does add to the NOAA Arctic temp data that suggests that the 2013 melting season, including the tail end of it, was well below average.

Does that make sense ?

Rob Dekker

Let me re-word that conclusion.

For the start of the summer, the wetteronline graphs from Werther, show that March 2013 (before ice melt starts) was colder than normal, while during the melt season significant warm-spots in Asia occurred (which presumably caused the significant snow melt shown in the May and June Rutgers numbers) while the Arctic (above 75 N) cooled down according to the NOAA graph I presented.

Then, at the end of the melt season, wetteronline for September shows that Asia went back to cooling, which explains the early excessive snow numbers from Rutgers over September.

All in all, it seems to me that the 2013 melt season (spring, summer and fall) presented a "best case" scenario for ice preservation, maybe even better than what we have seen over the past 15 years (since 1999

Is that better ?


Looks like the years with a lot of melting are melting on the Bering side. And the years with a low melting melt on the Lofoten side.


I came across this short video where an argument is presented in the format of the Johari Window about whether or not we should fully address climate change: http://www.upworthy.com/one-guy-with-a-marker-just-made-the-global-warming-debate-completely-obsolete-7?c=ufb1
Personally I couldn't make much of an argument against his logic. Maybe somebody here can make such an argument but at least I think it is worth watching.


LRC, the Pacific ocean along the North American coast has been very warm this fall as well. We have been under a stagnant intense blocking high pressure ridge for the past 3 weeks and the Climate Prediction Center http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/predictions/814day/index.php
forecast calls for it to last at least another 2 weeks pushing copious warm moisture into Alaska. Like what has been discussed here several times these blocking highs are becoming more persistent sending tropical moisture north on the western side and Arctic air south on the eastern side. it is nice to be out in the latter part of October when the temperature is 75F...but really now?

Espen Olsen

Jakobshavn Glacier retreated ~ 3 km this season (2013), this can be watched here:

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)