I’ve been watching this NSIDC graph for a few days, figuring it was just noise. Now, it looks like “something worth blogging about“. The Arctic sea ice extent is continuing to grow past the normal historical peak which occurs typically in late February/early March. [Note: I added the following sentences since at least one commenter was confused by “peak point” in the headline above, which I’ve now changed to “peak date” to clarify what I was referring to. -A] Of course it has not exceeded the “normal” sea ice extent magnitude line, but is within – 2 STD. The point being made is that growth continues past the time when sea ice magnitude normally peaks, and historically (by the satellite record) is headed downward, as indicated by the dashed line.
Source: National Snow and Ice Data Center – link
To be fair though, the Earth seems to be suffering from “bipolar disorder” as we have a similar but opposite trend in the Antarctic:
Source: National Snow and Ice Data Center – link
If we look at Cryosphere Today’s dandy sea ice comparator tool, and choose a standard 30 year climatology period span, it looks like we may actually be ahead this year, compared to 30 years ago. Certainly the arctic sea ice today looks a lot more solid than in 1980. I wish CT offered comparisons without the snow cover added (which was added in 2008) so as to not be visually distracting.
We live in interesting times.
h/t to WUWT commenter “Tommy” for the “tipping point”.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I have the ice graphs as a gadget on my home page so see them every morning. Have been observing the split personalities between the poles as well.
When you say however, Anthony, that the Arctic sea ice is growing beyond its normal historical peak, I am confused. Is it not approaching the average from below?
REPLY: Maybe I should clarify that, I’m talking about the timing of the peak growth curve, not the magnitude. I’ll make a note. -A
my bet is that you will not see that statement in Newsweek or Time— much less in NYT or WashPost
You have to be careful with these extent figures because this graph is 15% ice extent. In other words, it includes areas that are 85% water as “ice”. If you look at a graph of more consolidated ice such as this one which shows 30% concentration, you see that the ice is actually declining. What is happening is that the ice edge is breaking up as the ablation season begins and the wind and storms spread it about. This decreases the 30% concentration number but can increase the 15% concentration as the ice is less consolidated around the edges.
I personally see the 15% concentration number as practically useless. It is more of a storm proxy than anything else and the number can vary considerably as ice is broken up and dispersed. The 30% number gives a better indication of ice pack in my opinion.
You will notice in that 30% number that this year was higher than any of the previous 5 years and higher than last year. The 15% number peaked lower than last year. That just means that the storms were farther South this year and didn’t tear up the ice edge as much.
My prediction is that this year’s ablation season will be 2006-ish at minimum.
REPLY: You know, that’s an excellent point, worthy of its own post, and passing on to NSIDC. -Anthony
I’m sure the Antarctic ice extent will be commented on shortly if it continues down a low path.
I am disappointed in both the title for this post, as well as the interpretation of the data. In no way is the arctic sea ice “rising past the normal peak point”, as it has not had a positive anomaly since 2004. To make glaringly wrong statement, shows disregard for honest dialog and reporting.
A quick look at this graph:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.recent.arctic.png
Shows how wrong such a headline in a post is. Arctic sea ice continues below the normal for this time of year, with the normal being defined by the last 30 years of data. A quick look at this graph shows the entire 30 year trend, and it is plain to see by any honest objective observer that arctic sea ice continues to be below the year-to-year norm, and has been since 2004.
In regard to Antarctic sea ice, you did get that part right, as it now has ALSO slipped into a negative anomaly range (and has repeatedly for the past several years. If you look at the Global sea ice chart:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.recent.arctic.png
You see that beginning in about 2001 or so, we started seeing more negative anomalies (related no doubt to the arctic sea ice going lower), but now, if you look at the very end of the chart, the last few years in particular, you see that globally, sea ice is spending more time in a negative anomaly range than positive. If Antarctic sea ice, over the next few years, should start to decrease, as arctic ice has done, you could see the global sea ice really start to spend nearly all of its time in the negative range.
Again, I’m very disappointed in the inaccurate reporting of the data…as currently negative anomalies exist for BOTH the arctic and antarctic sea ice, and any statement about “rising past” the normal peak is simply inaccurate. For a last look at another chart that ilustrates the inaccuracy of your comment, see:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.arctic.png
REPLY: You know, jumping all over me and calling it “dishonest” when you misinterpret the headline and the point I’m making isn’t cool. I’ve added a note above for people like yourself that imagined I’m saying something else. My point is about the normal time of the peak, not the magnitude, as anybody can clearly see. I made no claim whatsoever about the magnitude. – A
@dbleader61 – I think what he meant was that usually, by this point in the season, the ice growth has “peaked” and started to trend down. That doesn’t appear to be happening so far this year. If we extrapolate out, the entire northern hemisphere could be covered in ice within a year! (Yes, the last part is ludicrous, but no more so than some of the AGW extrapolations that have occurred.)
Slight correction to previous post. Here is the global sea ice chart:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg
@ur momisugly dbleader61 (10:46:30) :
“REPLY: Maybe I should clarify that, I’m talking about the timing of the peak growth curve, not the magnitude. I’ll make a note. -A”
Yes, I see that, the peak, although still below the average, is coming at a later date.
Oh my, such robust results!
Is there some sort of extra North/South Hemisphere two-way heat channel that is evening things out?
This will call for Joe Romm to make significant adjustments to the narrative. Have to make the story more compelling since the facts hamper the agenda.
The JAXA data show that the peak was on 8th March:
Date…………Extent
03,01,2010,14037500
03,02,2010,14092344
03,03,2010,14159531
03,04,2010,14215000
03,05,2010,14314375
03,06,2010,14350938
03,07,2010,14358281
03,08,2010,14375000 <- Max
03,09,2010,14353438
03,10,2010,14330156
03,11,2010,14307969
03,12,2010,14316250
03,13,2010,14316563
03,14,2010,14290938
03,15,2010,14250156
03,16,2010,14300000
03,17,2010,14296563
03,18,2010,14299844
03,19,2010,14262031
03,20,2010,14242500
03,21,2010,14241094
03,22,2010,14214531
03,23,2010,14185469
03,24,2010,14242813
REPLY: see the point made above by “crosspatch”, which bears consideration. – Anthony
“R. Gates”
No, ice is not “below normal”. It is within one standard deviation of average … which means that it is in the “normal” range.
” kadaka (10:59:10) :
Oh my, such robust results!
Is there some sort of extra North/South Hemisphere two-way heat channel that is evening things out?”
Hollow Earth theory with openings at the poles would fit the bill. There are issues with this theory, though – the holes haven’t been observed.
R. Gates (10:54:21) :
Actually, if you start at 1999, you can see the bottom of the signal dipping down over the years and coming back up.
And the topic headline is correct, the ice is increasing past the point where it traditionally has already started it’s decline.
I would’ve thought you’d be stoked, as this is a discussion of trends.
Now, what do you suppose is the probability of the sea-ice extent running flat and going right through the 1979-2000 +-2 STD come May?
@R. Gates (10:52:25) : Yes, you are right sir but Anthony was very quick to clarify.
While I do watch the ice fairly closely, I do so because of the alarmist claims that the Arctic/Antarctic ice is disappaering at an alarming rate. It is decidedly not doing so, although Arctic ice extent is certainly at a low point for the satellite record era.
But anecdotal evidence clearly indicates periods of reduced sea ice at the poles many times in the past prior to 1979 (will leave others to provide the links – 1922 newspaper articles and 1959 North pole sub surfacings) We could be in one of those variations.
With the .5 to 1 degree per century global warming that is the record, however, we can expect to see reduced sea ice at both poles over time – that is until and unless the cyclical glaciation period begins anew.
Oops, they changed that graph on me. It now says 2 std deviations. Wonder if they mean one in each direction. The graph from that location used to show +- 1 std. deviation.
An El Nino displaced to the Antartic:
http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.gif
this may become the new trend.
with the PDO shifting into a cold mode, might we see northern cooling and southern warming?
if this is true, it may explain the divergence in the 2 hemispheres over the last 30 years in which the north has significantly outwarmed the south.
It should also be noted that WUWT hit stats keep rising and should hit 40 million sometime tonight (the next 12 hours) US Pacific time.
REPLY: Probably around 4-8AM tomorrow PST – A
Anthony said (to me):
“You know, jumping all over me and calling it “dishonest” when you misinterpret the headline and the point I’m making isn’t cool.”
I agree, and I apologize. Your point was about timing, not about magnitude, and I appreciate the note you added. You run a great site, and I admire your efforts for honest discourse…
R. Gates
REPLY: Thanks, no harm done. I should have been clearer in the first place. – Anthony
A quick glance at the CT comparison posted shows that the added snow cover greatly increases the area of Greenland, which, in turn, makes the sea ice appear to be less in later years.
Also, the new earth shadow minimizes the impact of the recent record snow covers.
@ur momisugly R Gates:
So a quick translation of your post is…
“The fact that Arctic sea ice extent (15%) has been continuously increasing since the anomalous, wind/sea current driven low of summer 2007 is totally irrelevant in my opinion as it contradicts my worldview.
I don’t like your headline because it could possibly be misinterpreted. Therefore, I have purposely misinterpreted it in a public post, even though it has already been updated to be more clear, in an effort to show how it might possibly have been previously misinterpreted before you updated it.
Because the Antarctic chart currently supports my views on AGW and polar ice loss (even though it is a well known FACT that Antarctic polar ice has been increasing in overall extent and volume for decades) I will incorporate it into my post as ipso facto proof that you got the Arctic Ice headline wrong in my opinion. Therefore, please accept my backhanded comment that you actually got something right, although I certainly wouldn’t want to ever imply that fact.
Below are some links to the University of Illinois that, while not actually being relevant to the main point of your article, I feel somehow substantiates my views.
Blah, Blah, Blah…
Hugs, Kisses, Sweetness & light,
R. Gates”
That sound about right?
Doc
@ur momisugly R Gates:
And the final translation:
“Crap!… Ok you WERE right, I was wrong. Next time I will read farther than the Headline. Sorry.”
Sugar and spice,
Doc
I blame Bush.
Just for perspective, what is the standard deviation of Arctic sea ice extent at its maximum based on 1979-2000 data?