« 2018 Arctic sea ice minimum | Main | PIOMAS October 2018 »


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


Very strange indeed. Is the situation south of Victoria Island also odd?

William Crump

The delayed and slower than average rebuild of ice in the CAB continues based on data from the time series plot from MASIE.

Is this due to weather or climate?

Since we are dealing with a single time period the correct answer is weather, as noted by Neven in the post above.

Climate should be measured by decade or multi-decade averages.

Arctic sea ice remains well below historical averages with the melt season trending toward longer periods and later dates for the September minimum. Using decade and multi-decade averages shows that arctic sea ice is in decline.

It is not necessary for arctic sea ice to meet a specific prediction of an arbitrarily chosen figure by a specific year like the predictions made by Wieslaw Maslowski or by Peter Wadham.

The failure of these predictions only lends weight to those who are attempting to deny the obvious. Arctic sea ice is in decline.

The exact year conditions in the Arctic reach an agreed upon standard of ice free may be difficult to predict, but it will surely happen.

I continue to be unimpressed with the predictive power of graphs, particularly linear graphs using whole arctic ice data, to predict when this event will occur. The factors that drive a specific year's minimum, which have been well documented by this website, and are far too complex to make an accurate prediction of next year's minimum using such a crude methodology.

I appreciate the work of Neven and others on this website who are reporting on current arctic sea ice conditions.

My only caution is that conditions for a specific day or month which fit a particular bias or preconceived view should not be used as confirmation of climate changes, as these values may subsequently swing in the opposite direction. Instead, I would advocate using trends from long term averages which are not susceptible to a particular moments weather conditions. Such items may lack the visceral impact of a report on current conditions, but they are more than sufficient to show the declining trend of arctic sea ice.

Keep up the good work, Neven.


The freezing-season-temp-anomaly graph is equal lowest....

HOWEVER the 2015/16 freezing season-temp-anomaly curve is not present for comparison. Does anyone know why this is because it would seem to be of the utmost interest--> ESPECIALLY AT THIS MOMENTOUS POINT IN TIME!!


breaking sea ice news,: 2018 is in 2nd place as far as overall extent, chasing 1st place likely catching up with it within 2 weeks.

One can sense that there is something warm in the Arctic air, but it is everything, air, land and sea. Once warmed a whole lot, it takes time to refreeze. The coldest zone, the isolated CAA from mainly everywhere else warmer, still has open water readily melting new ice from calm nights refreezing.

There are basically 4 great geophysical events which cause a refreeze stall, circulation; mainly CAA north Greenland Vortex pushing cyclones to the Arctic Ocean, persistent High North of Alaska, being a complement to CAA vortex, 2 Sea ice status, broken up and fluid likely a great source of low clouds because it is thin. 3. Warm air advection which fuels the heat engine creating a general l stable circulation. 4. Very warm sst's, often not readily identifiable because of expansive fresher water melt zones nearest the pack ice.

You may consider 2 minimum time observations, one guided by purely extent values, or the 2nd, which is proper for 2018, is how it rebounds, in this case exceedingly slowly, which means it was a potential great extent melt season avoided with ice flow moved away from Fram Strait., redirected mainly towards the Beaufort sea. But not every year should have perfect circulation favoring a maximized melt impact, 2018 gives a glimpse of the future, no matter what weather condition most if not all of the sea ice will melt. In fact sea ice is a pure Climate metric, it reflects the state of climate and causes it.


There use to be a core of highly compressed compacted sea ice from Northern Greenland and CAA coast northwards, this localized the trans continental gyre current to head to Fram Strait, since about 2016 this compression zone is largely gone as well. As we have seen wide open water where compaction should normally be:



Posted by: William Crump | October 09, 2018 at 01:22

"Is this due to weather or climate?"

It has been a long time since I last posted and although I read the postings of others every day my thoughts have been that in so many ways the postings have lost a sense of 'purpose' and 'direction'. Yes, it is very interesting to read about everybodies technical explanations based on the latest peer reviewed papers and private theories based on endless hours of reading and work to develop new ideas but I have to ask myself 'to what purpose?' The answer is usually along the lines of 'to better understand what is happening' and 'so that we might be better prepared'.

Two days ago, on Monday the 8th May at 10.00pm I heard for the first time, at peak viewing time in UK on Sky News, the truth about AGW being publicly announced to the nation, 'The planet has 12 years to avoid catastrophic climate change'. Even the newsreader looked somewhat incredulous as he read out the lead topic of the evening news.

The news source quoted the Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change:
- Sky News quotes from a leaked copy of the preliminary Report to be submitted for ratification in November 2018.

"Warns that the goal set in Paris three years ago is fast slipping out of our reach".

"The report was prepared by more than 90 scientists and review editors from 40 countries".

"It includes more than 6,000 scientific references, 133 contributing authors and more than 42,000 expert and government review comments".

"To even start to try and reach this goal, the world would need rapid and far-reaching changes in how we use energy and land; and how we design our cities and transport systems, the report adds".

"To have even a 50-50 chance of staying under 1.5C, the world has to be carbon neutral by 2050, with emissions of carbon dioxide falling sharply from 2020. But that is a big ask, considering we released more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere last year than ever before".

For the first time the consensus of scientific opinion concedes that the removal of CO2 and sequestration will be required to achieve any of the targets set by the IPCC.

I am mindful of a quote from Neven in a radio interview, "It is like watching a train crash in slow motion". So, as the train has now reached the station at high speed and about to crash into the buffers, should the question not be, 'Are the first responders in position having been forewarned?', 'Do they have all the necessary equipment?' and 'Can the supporting infrastructure cope with the aftermath?'. 'No' is the answer to each question.

William's conclusion is correct that it is the trend of events over a period of time and not single events that are important, hence his question. However, the conclusion is incomplete because it ignores the point of impact of the crash, to continue with the analogue of monitoring the runaway train journey.

We know that the crash will happen. Do we have to continue to analysis the journey and reasons behind the failures that set the train on is runaway destructive path. If more time and effort were now committed to discuss and find solutions to mitigate the consequences of catastrophic global warming, would this not be more constructive than naval gazing about 'why', 'how' and 'when'.

I know, there is a place for this type of posting at the ASIF...political correctness I suppose, perhaps that is just one of the reasons we are in such a mess.


It is still melting especially about Fram Strait :


Very warmed SST's not having a chance to do some melting was waiting for any arrivals....


The 30 day anomaly and DMI temps are officially still looking super scary...


2018 is now lowest for Global sea ice extent,.. but not for area!

William Crump

D-Penquin Thank you for reading my post.

I am in agreement with the recent special report by the Sixth Assessment Cycle of the IPCC.

I do appreciate the hard work that goes into monitoring current sea ice conditions and support the purpose of this web site.

I respectfully disagree that we need to focus on technical solutions - there are plenty of proposals and technical solutions.

I would suggest that the focus be on obtaining the political cooperation that will be needed to mitigate the problems of AGW.

I am pessimistic about obtaining such cooperation and optimistic that technical solutions are already available.

The problem is not a lack of solutions, as there are plenty to be found.

The issue is whether humans have the ability and political will to address the problem and implement mitigation.

What are people going to agree to give up in order to meet this crisis?

It is simple human nature that we deal with immediate threats first. Putting food on the table, having a roof over our head, and being financially able to send children to college - these things take precedence over the threat of AGW, not because AGW does not deserve our attention, but because we are hardwired to deal with these immediate needs.

As you note, AGW is a slow moving crisis and humans are not very good at processing its dangers, in spite of the work of the good people at the IPCC, until it is too late.

The need to gain the cooperation of people across the globe in addressing the problem is a far more pressing issue than finding solutions.

It will be easy to gain the cooperation of people who see their island domains being swallowed by rising sea levels. However, in other areas cooperation is more difficult.

How do you get a person who lives far from rising seas to join in rather than see the solution as moving people in coastal areas inland. I am jealous of people who have the money to have ocean front homes. For a person on high ground, rising sea levels are the coastal dweller's problem and not something that people on high ground feel they need to incur costs to solve. And yes, I know the problem is more complex that just sea level, but disappearing ice and rising sea levels are easier to process as a problem than a gradual temperature change of a few degrees and shifts in weather patterns.

People in countries with developing economies will look suspiciously on developed economy solutions as an attempt to keep them economically disadvantaged. People in colder climates may welcome the changes AGW brings.

Gaining political cooperation appears to be a far more difficult proposition than finding technical solutions, and I agree with you that this is a major reason we are in such a mess.

I no longer have an automobile, and I have looked into putting solar cells on my roof, but the economics are such that I can not afford to do this with my limited resources.

At the same time, on a hot day, you damned well better leave your hands off my air conditioner. The power company already has specific days that I have agreed to let them shut down the compressor for short periods of time - to save money - and it is miserable when they do so.

I have no doubt I could do more, I could change my diet to eat less meat, but I like meat and it is relatively inexpensive.

How do you propose that we find the means to obtain the political consensus to implement technical solutions?

Jim Williams

"The report was prepared by more than 90 scientists and review editors from 40 countries".

"It includes more than 6,000 scientific references, 133 contributing authors and more than 42,000 expert and government review comments".

Scientists are a notoriously conservative bunch. If they say 12 years you can safely assume it is already too late.


@ William Crump...

You ask: "How do you propose that we find the means to obtain the political consensus to implement technical solutions?"

Ain't gonna happen except by the barrel of a gun.

You are 100% correct when you say that humans are hardwired to deal with immediate threats first but even then, we deal with them on an individual level as you also allude to. You would need to get at least 50% of the planet's population on board with you to do anything IMO.

In a nutshell try this on for size:

JB's Law of Societal Problem Solutions:

"The gestation period of a problem's solution is greater than the gestation period of a human being. The implementation period of the solution is much greater than the time it takes to potty train a child. All solutions are imperfect. Thus the problem to be ameliorated will grow faster than any solution can be implemented."

Sorry to be a Debbie Downer but time truly is of the essence and I highly suspect the hourglass is about finished. Just my 2¢.



William Crump | October 11, 2018 at 02:58

Thank you for your comments related to my posting October 10, 2018 at 03:15

However, I do feel the need to correct your interpretation of my comments. I did not say we needed to find "technical solutions", just "solutions". Solutions in the context of technical, political, financial, industrial and commercial systems.

I also referred to the recent admission of the scientific community, that the avoidance of catastrophic events will necessitate the removal and sequestration of CO2 from the atmosphere. Again, I must respectfully disagree with your assertion that "we already have the technical solutions". Yes, we have some ideas and concepts but very little in the way of tested prototypes backed by political planning, financial commitment, industrial up-scaling with commitment from the commercial sectors. The potential 'technical' solutions have a long, long way to go before these could be rolled out on a 'global scale' to guarantee successful deployment and results; much development work and modification would be required before we could say that we have 'the technical solutions'.

Notwithstanding my comments above, your posting articulates perfectly the true nature of the problem.

Posted by: Jim Williams | October 11, 2018 at 13:58
Posted by: wndchaser | October 11, 2018 at 22:33

Both of the above posting references underline the nature of the problem.

And so to your final paragraph:
"How do you propose that we find the means to obtain the political consensus to implement technical solutions?"

I wrote:
"If more time and effort were now committed to discussion and finding solutions to mitigate the consequences of catastrophic global warming, would this not be more constructive than naval gazing about 'why', 'how' and 'when'?".

My question is exactly the same as your question.

Where is the debate?

Would it be possible to organise all the Blog sites to co-ordinate and manage mass individual postings:-
1. To target individual Politicians.
2. To target Political Campaign Managers
3. In the UK a petition of 100,000 requires a parliamentary debate and official government response to the petition.
4. To target specific News Channels in different countries.
5. To target National Newspapers in different countries.
6. To target individual and groups of scientists to encourage them to individually and collectively join in with the mass postings.
7. To collectively encourage and support scientists to seek political office.
8. To target Donald Trump's Twitter account?

Any marketing experts out there?

I truly believe that only mass and continuous public agitation will stand a chance of mitigating the most catastrophic events of AGW.

William Crump


There are some existing mitigating solutions.

Increase use of solar and wind.

There are also plenty of ways individuals can reduce their carbon footprint and the web has many sites that list examples.

You could also try to tax automobiles based on their CO2 efficiency.

Use of electric cars. - This is expected to have an impact on the electrical grid as it will create a battery reserve for power as excess power is currently wasted.


Having price differentials for time of use of electrical power consumption.


I understand that these measures are unlikely to get the reductions necessary to meet the IPCC targets.

Carbon capture at the source for coal power and other fossil fuel power plants is a solution that I recommend advocating.


Another solution is to use biologicals like genetically modified blue-green algae to produce fuel, but this is likely too expensive and at best you may only get this source added as part of the mix with fossil fuel sources.


One concern I have with any solution is that the economics of the solution must be within a range to make it practical.

We are addicted to receiving cheap power from fossil fuel sources. A marketing campaign is unlikely to change this.

I have seen a number of schemes for carbon capture directly from the atmosphere. These solutions do not appear as economical as capturing carbon at the source at a power generation facility.


Recent studies conclude that the first CCS projects in the power sector are likely to cost between €60 – 90 per tonne of carbon dioxide abated although these costs are expected to decline signifi­cantly reaching €35 – 50 in the early 2020s primarily as a result of cost reductions for carbon dioxide capture.


Pulling carbon dioxide (CO2) from the air and using it to make synthetic fuel seems like the ultimate solution to climate change. But such technology is prohibitively expensive—about $600 per ton of CO2, by one recent estimate. Perhaps that cost could drop below $100 per ton — which this article claims, but there are doubts this is achievable.


Even $100 per ton is not a practical economic solution, besides, who is going to pay for this?

There is no magic bullet solution. It will likely take an approach integrating multiple types of solutions.

I would caution you that the idea of using carbon capture directly from the atmosphere appears the least viable solution economically.

Using this solution removes the burden from the individual to practice carbon conservation. Having CCS at a power source has the advantage of encouraging individual conservation due to the increased cost of electricity.

However, no amount of marketing is going to convince people that paying more for their electricity bill is a solution and no politician would be so stupid as to advocate legislation implementing such a plan and if they did, I assure you they would be quickly voted out of office.

We can't get people to agree to an increase in a gasoline tax of 10 cents a gallon for use to improve roads. How are you going to convince them to double or triple their utility or gasoline cost for something as esoteric as

I do wish you luck but keep in mind who is going to pay for your solution.

Sadly, people may be more willing to accept the costs of AGW and have the costs assessed against the most vulnerable people rather than directly pay the cost for the mitigation of AGW.

Remember the example of the person on high ground, why should they pay to help the coastal dweller?

William Crump

Global average sea-level could rise by nearly 8 feet by 2100 and 50 feet by 2300 if greenhouse gas emissions remain high and humanity proves unlucky, according to a review of sea-level change and projections.



I would guess the global political will could achieve a 50% reduction of current CO2 emissions by 2050 but nowhere near 100%.


Gentlemen, this is what the Arctic Sea Ice Forum is for.

William Crump

Keep up the great work Neven.

With Thick Ice Gone, Arctic Sea Ice Changes More Slowly


The entire letter can be read at the link below as it is open access.

Arctic sea ice thickness, volume, and multiyear ice coverage: losses and coupled variability (1958–2018)


Large-scale changes in Arctic sea ice thickness, volume and multiyear sea ice (MYI) coverage with available measurements from submarine sonars, satellite altimeters (ICESat and CryoSat-2), and satellite scatterometers are summarized. The submarine record spans the period between 1958 and 2000, the satellite altimeter records between 2003 and 2018, and the scatterometer records between 1999 and 2017. Regional changes in ice thickness (since 1958) and within the data release area of the Arctic Ocean, previously reported by Kwok and Rothrock (2009 Geophys. Res. Lett. 36 L15501), have been updated to include the 8 years of CryoSat-2 (CS-2) retrievals. Between the pre-1990 submarine period (1958–1976) and the CS-2 period (2011–2018) the average thickness near the end of the melt season, in six regions, decreased by 2.0 m or some 66% over six decades. Within the data release area (~38% of the Arctic Ocean) of submarine ice draft, the thinning of ~1.75 m in winter since 1980 (maximum thickness of 3.64 m in the regression analysis) has not changed significantly; the mean thickness over the CS-2 period is ~2 m. The 15 year satellite record depicts losses in sea ice volume at 2870 km3/decade and 5130 km3/decade in winter (February–March) and fall (October–November), respectively: more moderate trends compared to the sharp decreases over the ICESat period, where the losses were weighted by record-setting melt in 2007. Over the scatterometer record (1999–2017), the Arctic has lost more than 2 × 106 km2 of MYI—a decrease of more than 50%; MYI now covers less than one-third of the Arctic Ocean. Independent MYI coverage and volume records co-vary in time, the MYI area anomalies explain ~85% of the variance in the anomalies in Arctic sea ice volume. If losses of MYI continue, Arctic thickness/volume will be controlled by seasonal ice, suggesting that the thickness/volume trends will be more moderate (as seen here) but more sensitive to climate forcing.


William Crump

The letter by Ronald Kwok in the link below provides an excellent explanation of why the volume and area coverage of Arctic Sea Ice are expected to slow.

This is the proposition that I have been unable to properly articulate in my prior posts.

I encourage the various commenters on this site to post comments concerning the conclusion reached in this article.




The article is a fine discussion of MYI. The final conclusatory sentence that suggests that first year ice will melt more slowly is. It supported by the data or article. It is without basis.

The last few years trend in ice melt may suggest that to be true taken apart from all other factors (Various Oscillations, changing flow fields ...). But it cannot be assessed apart from those.

Equally, the apparent lessening rate of melt loss may be a statistical happenstance in a random data set.



Drat. Spell checker nonsense ...

Should read
... melt more slowly is not supported ...

William Crump


Intuitively the idea that first year ice (FYI) will melt more slowly does not feel correct.

I am speculating that this could reflect a difference in where the FYI is found.

I do not think the article is saying that (FYI) in regions outside the central arctic basin (CAB) is melting more slowly as warmer temperatures in these regions and the near complete disappearance of ice each year in these regions clearly contradicts such a finding.

The result of FYI melting more slowly may be related to FYI replacing MYI in the CAB. With colder temperatures in the CAB, FYI has a greater survivability in the CAB than it does in other regions. This could result in data that shows FYI melting more slowly in total arctic data when what it is actually measuring is an increase in the mix of FYI in the CAB.

It is intuitive that FYI in the CAB melts slower than FYI outside the CAB.

Sam - is it possible that this change in mix in the CAB could be producing what you are calling a "statistical happenstance in a random data set"?

I do not know the answer, but if this is what is behind the data, it does not mean the melting process has ended, it only means that the rate has slowed in comparison to previous data that included a higher percentage of MYI and ice outside of the CAB.

If the prior data was based on arctic wide data that included regions which have reached a state of complete melting by the September minimum this would introduce a bias in extrapolations using this data. The decline of ice in these regions has reached the point that these regions can not contribute to decline statistics because there is no such thing as negative ice.

Is it possible that this is what the article is measuring?



Yours seems to be a reasonable supposition in my opinion worth examining. The most vulnerable ice is or was at the lowest latitudes. At least to a first order assessment, ice farther north seeing less heat input from the sun would seem to be less vulnerable to melt than more southerly ice. That might in theory result in slower melt toward the end as the heat energy is less

However, in the Arctic we have the case of ice caught with land to the south, and open ocean to the north. That changes things a lot.

My argument wasn't about what may happen, or even what is happening. I am a spectator along with everyone here. My argument was with the assertion in the conclusion of the paper lacking a basis in the data presented in the paper. That too is fine as a conjecture. It isn't actually a conclusion. Unless I missed something or misunderstood the authors argument, it appears to be a belief that crept in where it shouldn't have been.

It is possible that it is correct, though it seems unlikely to be so (to me). It seems more likely that other factors have resulted in the at least apparent slowing in the rate of loss of ice. And one of the most likely there I suggest is that it has little or nothing to do with the underlying systemic processes, and instead has to do with what appears to be (and which may actually be) randomness in the system.

It may equally as well be due oscillations in the climate that we already know about which have a real or pseudo random appearance impacting the melt rates. Or, it may be due to things we either simply do not know or understand, or that we do know but have failed to correctly apply.

Going back in the annual data, it is easy to find other times in the last 30 years where short term apparent trends appear that suggest changes in what's happening. They weren't real. They were seemingly random walk anomalies.

However, there appears at least to be some degree of autocorrelation in the data. This has been commented on before as being a pattern with a four or five year period. If that is real, it suggests something like one or more of the various oscillations playing a key role. And if that is indeed true, the apparent several year trend toward slowing melt may be highly misleading. We may well see a rapid reversal over the next several years with anomalies that push strongly toward a rapid melt out of the whole Arctic.

But this too is simply conjecture. We seem to be missing key pieces to understanding precisely what is happening on the 1 to ~5 year time scale. And since by any measure we seem to be within 10 years of the first ice free Arctic September, it seems unlikely that we will solve that quandary before solving it becomes entirely irrelevant.

On the other hand, if we do see a strong shift toward rapid melt out, that could hasten the first time we see an essentially ice free Arctic September. The psychological shock of that might make a difference in humanities response to catastrophic climate change.

I won't hold my breath for that to happen. I think it is far more likely that humanity will respond with the equivalent of a global shrug, or using a new word, responding with a global meh! as the fully fail to understand the consequences for all of us, and for the Earth's biosystems as a whole.

I also expect that humanity as individuals won't understand even as the impacts batter down their doors from natural and human duisasters maiming and killing them, and those they love.

The human animal though in specific instances appearing to be brilliant in general seems not to be all that bright.


Jim Hunt

I don't seem to be able to log in via Facebook at the moment, so I'm trying via Twitter instead.


You may wish to take a good look at the "Slow Transition" thread over on the Arctic Sea Ice Forum?


My own brief thoughts on Ron Kwok's paper, plus an SAR animation of the sea ice north of Greenland this year amongst other things:


The “oldest, thickest sea ice in the Arctic” seems to be vanishing before our very eyes.



Curiouser and Curiouser
NSIDC Charctic as of Oct 15 shows 2018 bumping along near the all time bottom for this date. Climate Reanalyzer Arctic 2m air temp forecast for coming week suggests refreezing rate might be relatively slow in the near term at least.

Right now 2012 still holds the record, with 2007 slightly below 2018 and 2016 slightly higher. By late October, 2016 becomes the all time low Extent until end of the year. Will be interesting to see how 2018 fares. Seems very possible that while 2018 did not set a new September minimum record low, the end of year average Extent and total year average Extent values may yet set record lows.

Links to where running 12 month average and nominal whole calendar year average for Arctic ice Extent/Area/Volume updates are posted would be appreciated, to save me search time. If I'm on a sinking ship I'd like to know where the water line is.

Hansen message yesterday included ominous estimate of recently increased warming rates of 0.24, 0.32, and 0.38C per decade based on change between recent La Nina minimum years to present. 2018 ca. 95% likely to end up being 4th warmest in 1880-1920 NASA GISS record at about 1.09C above 1880-1920 avg. as proxy for preindustrial (=1.05C above 1850-1900 proxy).

Meanwhile the President of the U.S. assures us that the climate could change back again so why worry.

Climate change has been categorized as yet another environmental quality problem that we can either ignore or eventually correct with some legislative tweaks. The public needs to understand it as an existential threat. If we could blame some external actor as the cause perhaps more would be done to reverse trajectory. At least the public is beginning to understand human responsibility, but time is short.

As for the politicians not wanting to disrupt the economy, they fail to understand that without a livable environment you don't have an economy to support. Vote as if your children's lives depended on the leaders you elect, because it does.


I cannot log in at ASIF. Forgot Password and read link sent to my e-mail address to rest password but I never receive a message in my e-mail account. Can I sign in to ASIF with Yahoo like I do here.

Any help much appreciated.


Now I can log in to ASIF.

William Crump


What if the public decides AGW is a real threat but they decide to pass the buck to the next generation to fix the problem or they choose to deal with problems as they occur in order to keep the economy growing?

A foolish choice perhaps, but a choice nevertheless.

Politicians understand that if you do not have a job now or if the economy grows too slowly you will vote them out of office today.

What if I am on high ground 300 feet above sea level, why should I pay for people who foolishly build on sand on the coast and barrier islands or live in designated flood plains?

The threat is a slow moving threat.

Coastal areas get hit with more powerful hurricanes - why isn't this a problem for the people living on the coast to deal with by constructing homes more able to handle the storms, increasing shore protection with higher sand dunes or simply abandoning housing on barrier islands that were built on sand that would shift location even in the absence of AGW, although perhaps not as fast?

People put homes in New Orleans in locations below sea level, did not spend the money to build a proper levy system despite decades of warning. They still do not have a system sufficient to meet existing threats even after seeing the threat first hand from Katrina.


Why is their failure my problem?

People in Houston built homes in the designated flood areas designed to be flooded during a heavy storm - why is that my problem?


The hurricanes do not occur every year and there is a certain randomness in where they hit and how much damage results.

Chicago in 1995 got hit with a heat wave that resulted in many deaths - solution, get air conditioning and increase programs to check on or assist people in homes without a/c the next time a heat wave hits.


A similar heat wave has not struck Chicago since 1995.

What politician in their right mind is going to endorse a tax that substantially increases the cost of gasoline at the pump or substantially increases (double or triple) utility bills so carbon capture at the source is included in the cost of utilities?

People will vote a politician out of office if they support a $.25 a gallon tax even if the funds are used to eliminate potholes and gridlock. How are you going to get them to pay substantially more now for mitigation that helps 12 years from now?

In the U.S. we are going to run a TRILLION DOLLAR Federal deficit with none of those funds going for climate mitigation. This also represents a threat to our children but we go merrily on our way.

Arctic ice melts to nothing in September and new shipping routes open up. More northern latitudes become warmer and more habitable.

Look at the temperatures in the Southwest US like Phoenix AZ. People manage to live in that heat, they will manage in other localities as temperatures rise.

The ponds of my youth do not refreeze sufficiently for ice skating these days so I pay to skate at an indoor rink.

Slow changes in climate will shift where crops are grown and they may become more expensive. That will be the "tax" paid for not dealing with AGW, but people will carry on just as they always have done.

People who rely on glacial runoff for water will adapt. In the U.S. we are pumping underground water out of an aquifer faster than it is being replaced. People do nothing about this well documented slow moving threat over which there is no scientific doubt in the mind of the public.


This is cruel, but people in countries with sea level issues and no high ground will have to move or die.

I am being purposefully harsh, and I do respect your view that something needs to be done, but AGW is not the only environmental disaster we need to address and based on how little humans are reacting to existing well accepted threats I hold a dim view that people will address AGW.

Best of luck though. I will not be here to see the damage in 2050 and you will likely not be here in 2100 and none of us will be here for the big stuff in 2300. That still leaves 280 years to do something.

I accept the IPCC report that we have less time to "fix" the problem. I am on a fixed income and can make ends meet, but if your solutions are implemented I will not be able to do that.

How are you going to convince me who fully buys the dangers of AGW to vote for a significant diminishment of my well being to help someone I will never meet.

PS. I have no grandchildren, but if I did I would be more concerned about their healthcare and affording college than AGW.


Now I can log in to ASIF.

Good. I forgot to look at this yesterday, so I'm glad it worked out by itself.

William Crump

Perhaps America needs to be more concerned about building sea walls to protect coastal properties from storm surges rather than worrying about building a wall on the border with Mexico.


Sorry Neven, I know this is not why Arctic Sea Ice Blog exists, but if I may:

To William Crump
RE: Hurricane vulnerability along Gulf and East Coast "Why is their failure my problem?"
-- Because your taxes pay for insurance claims and for military bases in those areas, because our economy, national government, and integrated system for production of food and other necessities connects us all.

RE: People live in the heat of Phoenix, nothing new to them.
-- Yes but even where they are used to 100F on a regular basis, 120F and above becomes life threatening. Yes, people can hide out next to the air conditioner but eventually the outside world matters because you or somebody you depend on has to deal with it. Extra heat exacerbates existing water shortage (which climate change also affects directly through precip changes). So, no, Phoenix can't just keep on keeping on with business as usual. The physical world matters.

RE: People who rely on glacial runoff for water will adapt.
-- Large popluations in Peru, China, India, Pakistan etc. rely on timing, not just the amount, of glacial runoff for supplying water to summer crops. Not a simple matter to replace that. Glacial runoff is one of the slower developing issues because for a while you get more runoff as glaciers melt, but after mid-century increasingly more watersheds lose both timing and amount. That combination could lead to forced migrations. The military budget that competes with your Social Security will be impacted, so it's also your problem.

RE: "I will not be here to see the damage in 2050". I wish you a long and joyful life, but it won't take until 2050 to see tangible society wide impacts even in developed countries. A bit of number crunching tells me that 2030 is when we could really turn the corner without sharp change in trajectory now. Above 1.5C, self reinforcing feedback loops make turning down the heat even more difficult, eco/enviro and esp. social impacts increase non-linearly, and chance for abrupt or catastrophic system state changes increases greatly. The "too bad for our grandkids" perspective no longer applies.

We are all in this together. The requirement to reinvent our energy systems etc. does provide an opportunity to make a much improved world on the other side of climate crisis. The real problem is not lack of technical solutions, but exercising foresight and political will. We can do it, but will we react in time. We are already too late for substantial impacts, and not much time left to prevent civilization upending changes.


As for Arctic sea ice:
1) Arctic temperature forecast suggests above normal temps. and from that I would suppose below normal refreezing over the next week, though I know there's more to it than that.

2) As of Oct 18, 2018 is second from all-time low Arctic sea ice exent for this date on the NSIDC Charctic. 2018 is just below 2016 and the infamous 2012. Only 2007 is lower, and 2018 is less than 2 days ahead of 2007 level. All other years well above those three. https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/

3) Tamino compared annual average sea ice extent across years. Downward trend not nearly as dramatic a percent drop as the Sept. minimums, but the trend plainly evident and much more consistent/less variable. 2018 looks like 2nd lowest on his chart. He also shows a notable decline since 2000. https://tamino.wordpress.com/2018/10/16/arctic-sea-ice-more-than-just-the-minimum/#more-10133


Thinking Americans have every right to build a wall that actually works along the Mexican border given they actually know what happens on it and you apparently don't!

Elisee Reclus

I don't live on the Mexican border, and maybe I don't know what's going on there, but I do live in South Florida and I know exactly what's happening here. We have the best border wall of all, the Straits of Florida, and that hasn't stopped thousands from coming here. They come on rafts. They also come on airplanes.

You can keep out economic immigrants by simply prosecuting those who give them jobs.
But walls can't stop refugees fleeing for their lives any more than they can stop a rising sea.

William Crump

Sorry to all for mentioning the border wall.


I agree with your statements and yes we are all in this together and that was not the point of my post.

My point is that people can accept AGW is real, which I most certainly do, and accept the mantra that we are all in this together, but choose to deal with problems as they arise rather than take preemptive action.

You can label this irrational. It is clearly not the best choice, but it is a choice.

I understand there is a threat.

I have no additional resources and outside the few personal efforts I engage in, I am not willing to do more.

If you come up with solutions that require no expenditures on my part or changes to my rather minimal lifestyle you have my full support, but that is not the reality.

The facts are that there are no such solutions that would not materially affect my survival. Your solutions would essentially slowly kill me the same way people on low lying islands are going to succumb to rising sea levels. They can move, moving will not prevent me from being overwhelmed by the solutions you would advocate to mitigate AGW.

Solutions are not free. Doing nothing entails costs, but I can survive doing nothing, I will not survive if your solutions are implemented.

Who are you going to get to pay for the mitigation efforts?

Why shouldn't people who choose to look down the gun barrel of AGW by living in coastal areas that will be most affected by rising sea levels and more severe hurricanes bear the brunt of any remediation costs?

Why should I pay to support their poor decision?

People with large families make AGW worse - it is a matter of numbers. Why should I with one child and no grandchildren be forced to pay so their profligate propagation habits can be supported?

I am already forced to pay for their wanton reproduction through property taxes supporting public schools. Enough already!

Tax people based on their reproduction habits to support your AGW mitigation costs and I am all in.

Good luck getting a politician to go against a group of people who hold the most votes.

William Crump


September Arctic sea ice is now declining at a rate of 12.8 percent per decade, relative to the 1981 to 2010 average.


Current State of the Sea Ice Cover


Climate Change: Minimum Arctic Sea Ice Extent


Polar Ice Is Disappearing, Setting Off Climate Alarms


Here’s what vanishing sea ice in the Arctic means for you



You need to isolate which existing "solutions" are economically practical if you want to gather political support. Tax credits will work better than imposing direct costs as it results in the most economically efficient methods being applied rather than a particular person's "favorite solution."

The "solution" these people propose costs more per ton of CO2 removed than carbon capture at the source and is therefore impractical.


"Climeworks says that its direct air capture (DAC) process – a form of negative emissions often considered too expensive to be taken seriously – costs $600 per tonne of CO2 today."

This is a ridiculously expensive method of carbon capture.


These people focus on producing energy without using carbon sources, however, no one suggests this is a practical method to operate the entire electrical grid.

Carbon Capture And Storage: An Expensive Option For Reducing U.S. CO2 Emissions

"Our analysis shows coal plants equipped with CCS are nearly three times more expensive than onshore wind power and more than twice as expensive as solar photovoltaics (PV). Although these costs will decline with research and development, the potential for cost improvement is limited. Coal with CCS will always need significant subsidies to complete economically with wind and solar."


The estimated cost of carbon capture is about $60 per metric ton for coal-fired plants and around $70 for natural-gas plants, according to a 2015 report from the Office of Fossil Energy. Another $11 goes to transporting and storing the carbon dioxide."

This article suggests using tax credits to support carbon capture.


This article explains the impact of current tax credits to assist carbon capture.

Funded by new tax credits, US carbon-capture network could double global CO2 headed underground.

Note: this legislation was passed with bipartisan support under the Trump Administration.

"The authors propose in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences a pipeline network that would transfer carbon dioxide waste from ethanol refineries in the American Midwest—where grains are fermented to produce the alcohol-based fuel—to oilfields in West Texas. The captured carbon would then be pumped into near-depleted oil fields through a technique known as enhanced oil recovery, where the carbon dioxide helps recover residual oil while ultimately being trapped underground."

"The authors were motivated by a tax credit passed by Congress in the 2018 Bipartisan Budget Act to encourage investment in carbon capture and storage."


Here is an idea for carbon capture at natural gas power plants.


gkoehler, I could manage a $.02 cost per kilowatt hour of electrical production. These people think that is possible.

They are looking at carbon capture at the source for power plants using integrated coal gasification combined cycles (IGCC), pulverized coal-fired simple cycles (PC), and natural gas-fired combined cycles (NGCC)

They claim "based on the studies analyzed, there is a consensus that using today’s capture technology would add 1.5-2¢/kWh to the busbar cost of electricity for an IGCC or NGCC power plant. For a PC plant, the incremental cost of electricity would be over 3¢/kWh. The strongest opportunities for lowering the capture costs in the future were identified as gains in heat rates and reductions in the amount of energy required by the separation. New technologies like coal gasification show the most long-term promise, with incremental costs for CO2 sequestration at IGCC power plants being potentially reduced to about 1¢/kWh in the next decade."



I agree the time to act has long since passed and action is required, but please do not kill me with your solution.

The comments to this entry are closed.