Arctic Sea Ice Mimics Stock Market

Tue, 2008-10-07 13:58Ross Gelbspan
Ross Gelbspan's picture

Arctic Sea Ice Mimics Stock Market

Sea ice in the Arctic Ocean has melted to its lowest volume in recorded history, according to new measurements. At the end of last summer, the sea’s ice pack melted to the lowest coverage ever, following an exceptionally warm winter. But the winter of 2007-2008 was colder than the last few years have been, and even after this summer's melt season there is still more acreage of ice covering the water than last year. The problem is, the ice may be thinner than ever.

Comments

Wow, the ice is more prone to melting this year but it still didn't reach as low as last year. Something really must have changed for it to do that against all odds.

Before the season, it was guessed that there was a 50:50 chance of breaking the previous year's record. So, I suppose it was against half the odds that sea ice extent was greater in 2008 than in 2007. Trciatim is only off by 50%. Good work! And you can read about the "something" that was different in 2008 compared to 2007 by following the link.

Thing is, TRCIATIM, that the thin skin of ice that is there now, after the melt season is over, will not last the summer next year. Crowing about the extent of the surface area of first-year ice is a bit silly, since it will be the first to go next spring, and the old ice will once again be vulnerable to temperatures and wind. As more and more of that old ice is eroded, it won't matter how much area there is every winter. More and more open sea will be exposed to the sun every year. Try visiting the NSIDC site (http://nsidc.org/)for more information about the implications. Fern Mackenzie

First year winter ice means nothing - but if it survives the summer (which some did this year) we give it a ceremony and a special gown and it graduates to grade 2.

Now if, if, if, that ice makes it through next summer, it will be on to grade 3 - oh joy!

not that I care that much about ice or swimming bears.

http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2008/09/01/was-there-less-arctic-ice-in-1932/

Arctic Becomes an Island for the first time in human history“…really???

On Dec 5, 1932, The New York Times reports the “feat, accomplished for the first time” of circumnavigation of Franz Josef Land (actually, an Arctic archipelago). The same expedition (led by a Professor N.N. Subkov) was also described in March 1933 in the pages of Nature.

Notably, in the words of the NYT, that circumnavigation had been “heretofore regarded as impossible“. It actually took just 34 days, from Aug 17. It was warm enough for the “Eva” and “Liv” islands to be recognized as one, joined by “a low stretch of land” and thereby renamed “Evaliv”.

Fast forward to 2008. Cryosphere Today shows two tongues of ice still clinging to Franz Josef Land as of Aug 31.

Prof. Subkov would not have been so lucky this time around.

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/06/confirmation-of-open-water-circling-north-pole/

"Sean R. Helfrich, a scientist at the ice center, said that ponds of meltwater pooling on sea ice could fool certain satellite-borne instruments into interpreting ice as open water, “suggesting areas that have substantial ice cover as being sea-ice free.” The highlighted area is probably still impassible ice, including large amounts of thick old floes, he said. I sent the note to an array of sea-ice experts, and many, including Mark Serreze at the National Snow and Ice Data Center, concurred."

Less Arctic sea ice melts in 2008 than in 2007 and the warmies spin that as evidence of global warming. What would cooling look like?

Did you read the entire press release, JMD? The extent of the ice is not the whole story. Volume matters. Thickness matters. Read the release here:
http://nsidc.org/news/press/20081002_seaice_pressrelease.html
Then we'll talk some more.

Fern Mackenzie

In the summer of '07, the warmies and the compliant MSM were ballyhooing the amount of open water in the Arctic as evidence of the advance of global warming. They had these nice satellite shots showing shrunken ice surrounded with open water. This past summer the satellite shots showed more ice and less open water. But now the warmies say it is volume and thickness that really matter.

In summer '07 scientists explained that unusual winds had pushed the ice pack into warmer waters therefore the melt was larger. The warmies weren't interested in this sort of explanation. Look at the satellite shots, they howled, they don't lie. But now its a all about nuance, say the warmies.

Nice try boys and girls but you can't have it both ways.

The actual surface area of the ice has an impact on the albedo. The extent to which this retreated in 2007 indicates the potential for more warming of the oceans.

Thickness & volume of the surviving ice pack has an impact on how much ice is likely to survive the melt season. A little less ice retreated in 2008 than in 2007, true. But the volume and thickness of the pack indicates that we can expect ice area retreat of this magnitude more frequently.

Read the scientific analyisis at the NSIDC site.

Fern Mackenzie

and you'll get an unrealistic interpretation like yours. First detail: who were the warmies that said only global warming is responsible for the low ice extent in 2007? Global warming definitely played a large part, but the wind patterns (which could be a symptom of warming) and the clear skies also played important parts. "Warmies" in general argued against volcanic activity and black carbon as being important drivers. I believe they're still right.
Second detail: "pushed the ice pack into warmer waters" -- I think this conveys a misunderstanding on your part. Without warming, if the ice was leaving cold water behind as it went to warm water, the area the ice vacated would have frozen. In contrast, I think the wind generally brought warm air. Please provide a url to the location where the 2007 happenings were described similarly to what you've provided above.

desmogblog 30 Oct 07 by kevin G
For some of our readers, the video we posted last week of the startling loss of Arctic sea-ice as recorded by NASA this summer just wasn't enough to convince them that the planet is in serious trouble.

So here's a new NASA video showing the massive Arctic sea ice loss over the last 28 years.

Look at the difference between 2005 and 2007 alone. Startled now?

Nope. Just normal fluctations. Without an historical reference to compare you cannot make any claim "that the planet is in serious trouble."

BTW, Antarctic ice the largest it's been in 50 years.

"...Antarctic ice the largest it's been in 50 years." Prove this.

http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn14724-antarctic-sea-ice-increases-despite-warming.html?DCMP=ILC-hmts&nsref=news6_head_dn14724

Antarctic sea ice increases despite warming
16:50 12 September 2008
NewScientist.com news service
New Scientist and Reuters

http://www.livescience.com/environment/060810_antarctic_precip.html
Antarctic Snow Constant for 50 YearsBy LiveScience Staff
posted: 10 August 2006 02:01 pm ET

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/antarctic_020822.html

Antarctic Sea Ice Increases over Past Two Decades

If I post too many they won't get accepted, that damned Service Unavailable. Just google antarctic ice growing

Arctic ice is "mimicking" the stock market?

Well, if that's true, then you'll have to admit over the long run Arctic ice will increase, just like the stock market.

But then, global warming alarmists are the the world's worst stock market investors. They have absolutely no perspective.

"Alarmists" are probably bad in a stock market environment. But realists can find facts to be alarming, and what's happened in the stock market is alarming. And climate realists are concerned about alarming trends with respect to the planet's atmosphere, oceans, and albedo.

But let's not focus on semantics. Accepting your use of "alarmists", what data do you have that "global warming alarmists are the world's worst stock market investors." AGW-deniers tend to spout worthless junk because they have a disdain for data.

BTW, and this is tongue-in-cheek, isn't it time for one of you to go off harping about how the colder 2008 resulted in the human misery in the stock market? Tongue still in place: maybe a drop from 2003 to now in the DOW is making you question whether the stock market should increase over the long run?

"maybe a drop from 2003 to now in the DOW is making you question whether the stock market should increase over the long run?"

Nope. Sorry. See what happens when you have no perspective? But please, send yourself into another wrist-flapping panic because your data only goes to 2003, and sell off all your equities. Some of us will be happy to take them off your hands -- at a substantial discount, of course.

Your perspective is so fogged-over that you can't see a sarcastic comment even when it is flagged for you: "tongue in cheek".

I should have also pointed out that you have provided no data regarding your assertion about AGW-alarmists being the worst stock market investors. Instead you swung wildly at a sarcastic comment and made a joke of yourself. Good one.

You sound like a deeply angry little person.
You should get out more.

I haven't heard the word "ninny" for maybe 30 years.
way to break the streak Steve!

now lets all agree to not use that word again until at least 2050.

and no substance, what a surprise!

Panic doesn't work well in the stock exchange. I suspect the same is true in dealing with climate change.

On AGW folks being bad investors.

perhaps it's a simple extrapolation and reasonable expectation.

They are so heavily invested in the current climate orthodoxy, despite the uncertainties of the global climate future. This orthodoxy itself is based on partial knowledge of the foggy and complex and really impossible to measure Earth climate system.

They are locked in for the long haul with no escape route. Wise investing reasonably includes some flexibility. AGW folks are not known for flexibility.

It's going on big time. 2008 Arctic Ice has now caught up to 2005 on this date and is a solid 3 weeks ahead of 2007 - 3 weeks! - that aint global warming.

Getting many bites these days?

and it aint easy when I get blocked out by the service unavailable screen so much. I shall valiantly press on or not.

you know it's real trolling when I make the same comment on 2 threads

This would be cause of Global warming wherein, the temperature rises and this cannot control the temperature in North and South Pole that causes it to melt. Climate change is primary reason why lots of animals even man dies. Well this is unstoppable! 2009 will have Good Friday on April 10th, and oddly enough, the stock market closes on Good Friday.  It isn’t an official or state holiday in the United States, and you can get payday loans or mail on the day just like any other, but it has been an NYSE holiday, or New York Stock Exchange, since the dawn of the 20th century.  The explanations for it vary, among them was that Irish Catholics working on the exchange got it instituted, after a massive sell off in 1907.  It has closed every year on Good Friday since then, reportedly.  Oh well – you can still get quick payday loans on Good Friday.