Arctic Sea ice data collected by DMI 1893-1961
Guest post by Frank Lansner
I came across a number of maps showing Arctic ice extend from 1893 to 1961 collected by DMI in “Nautisk Meteorologisk Aarbog”. Each year DMI have collected information on sea ice extend so that normally each of the months April, May, June, July and August ice extend was published.
There is much more to be said about these, but this is my summary for now.
Fig 1. 1901-1910 Arctic sea ice data collected by DMI. Click to enlarge!
Sadly, just for a few years we also have March or September available, and thus we normally can’t read the Arctic ice minimum (medio September) from these maps. The August trends will have the main focus in this writing.
First of all I would like to thank “Brunnur” in Iceland for making these maps available on the net beautifully scanned. This is a gold mine and I’m sure you know this, Brunnur.
Fig 2. August 1902.
The August data in the beginning of the century normally resembles December ice area for recent years. Year after year in the period 1901-1920 we see pretty much same picture. The sea east of the Russian island Novaja Zemlja is often frozen over even in August, and there is still sea ice between Baffin Island and Greenland.
Fig 3. 1911-1920. Click to enlarge!
Fig 4. August, 1916. The December-like August ice area continues to be observed year after year, and in 1916 most of the ocean between Baffin Island and Greenland is ice filled (- even in August!).
Fig 5. 1921-30
Fig 6.
Finally in 1923 something new happens: The ice east of Svalbard and east of Novaja Zemlja is on retreat.
Fig 7.
In 1930, the retreat has gone even further: Svalbard Is ice free, and ice free waters have been observed far east of Novaja Zemlja. In addition, the Baffin bay is now almost ice free. Puzzling is, that the ice extends on the pacific side of the Arctic remains rather constant in all these years.
Fig 8.
In 1932 we see in August open ice almost all along the Russian shore. So even though we do not see the September ice minimum here, we almost have an open NE passage.
Fig 9.
After a rather icy 1934, then 1935 again in August shows an almost open NE passage and in 1935 open waters are observed not that far from the North pole.
Fig 10.
In 1937, more open waters are observed in the Pacific and East Siberian areas.
Fig 11.
1938: Unprecedented areas of open waters.
(And again, this is not the ice minimum but just the August ice area)
Fig 12. 1931-1946
Already the year after, 1939, the ice extend resembles the pre 1923 extend.
We see that a decline in Arctic ice area from around 1921 ends possibly in 1938.
Fig 13. 1947-1956
Sadly we don’t have the Arctic warm years 1940-45, but just the colder years 1946-56.
Fig 14.
In 1952, The August sea ice area once again appears like the 1900-1920 extend. If Arctic ice areas reflects temperature well, then years around 1946-54 should be as cold as before 1923. It appears that the ice cover from 1938 to 1946 has recovered quickly.
Fig 15.
Here is an August–September comparison for 1901. For most of the Siberian shores in September we see open waters as far back as 1901.
Fig 16.
Some warm Arctic years in the 1930´ies from DMI compared to recent Cryosphere Today August graphics.
It seems that ice area for 1935 and 1996 were roughly similar (and it seems that ice area for 1938 and 2000 were roughly similar etc.):
Fig 17.
However, Cryosphere Today do not show 1935 ice area similar to 1996. Instead Cryosphere has added roughly 1,9 mio km2 to the ice area 1935 compared to 1996 (- The size of Greenland is 2,1 mio km2… ).
Fig 18a. We can also illustrate the missing Cryosphere ice decline after 1921 in another way.
The Cryosphere Arctic ice area data actually suggests a little more ice in 1937 than 1921 – but as shown above DMI, suggests a strong decline after 1921.
Fig 18b – and here the ice decline 1921-38 in four stages.
Fig 19. Also in another context it appears that the ice area data on Cryosphere has added area to older data:
If we compare the Cryosphere annual sea ice extend with the IPCC SAR 1996 data, we can see that the dive in 1996 data before 1979 is not represented in Cryosphere data. The divergence is perhaps 0,9 mio km2 over just the period 1973-1979.
Fig. 20, NW Passage in DMI data.
In September 1901 we are not far from having open NW passage and in September 1907 we do have an open NW Passage. We don’t have September images later thse to have an open NW passage.
What have we learned according to DMI´s international compilation of sea ice data?
– That sea ice data has declined strongly even in the recent past before human CO2 outlet.
– That Sea ice from a level not far from the 2006 level has recovered very fast 1938-1946.
– That the Sea ice decline documented year after year in DMI maps after 1921 apparently is not shown in Cryosphere data for some reason.
We do not have the WW2 data, but the maps of 1957-61 ice areas EXIST!
These are the years where we had a strong Solar max and photos of US Navy submarine on a slushy North pole.
If ANYONE have these maps, I would be grateful to see them!
Further, this series of maps as I understand it was also published by DMI for the years 1962-72 in a series called “Oceanografiske Observationer”. Do anyone have these?
Link to Brunnurs scans of DMI maps:
http://brunnur.vedur.is/pub/trausti/Iskort/Jpg/1935/1935_08.jpg
What a wonderful find, a real treasure trove!
What beautiful maps…I’ve sent them already to my Warmist friends, yes I do have Warmist friendsm. (Just because you’re a Warmist, doesn’t mean you’re a bad person)
Besides, I think they know that Warmism is on pretty thin ice right now!
Given the massive scale of funding for the alarmists, it is very difficult to explain how they were not aware of this.
It’s like discovering treasure maps! Congrats to all who found them and recognised their importance. I’m sure Tonyb, amongst others, will be esctatic.
Glean what we can from them before NDSC and GISS digitise and ‘adjust’ them over time so that eventually they have sea ice extending down to the Equator pre-war!
awesome! smoking cannons!
And the hits just keep on comin’ — Arctic ice historical records that can’t be “adjusted.”
Somewhere (probably centered around Progressive Climate Central), warmie heads are exploding…
It’s understandable that the work of the DMI would be disrupted by WWII and Nazi occupation, but from 1941 onwards Britain was sending supply convoys around the top of occupied Norway to the Russian ports of Murmansk and Archangel. Surely the military would have been carefully monitoring and recording the sea ice extent in this area at least ?
Somewhere there must be records, fully declassified by now ? Does anyone know where to start looking ?
Wow! Score one for the pile of boxes in the attic!
I note in passing that the period of similar ice extent has a 60 year offset. Rather like the PDO cycle… Could it be that we have a simple, and natural, 60 year arctic ice cycle…
Frank
This is really excellent stuff, well done. I hope you find the additional maps and write it up into a bigger article.
You may remember my article covering the period of melt prior to the one in the 1920’s/30’s which dealt with 1818-1860?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/20/historic-variation-in-arctic-ice/
I think the melt area was probably around the same as the 1920’s/30’s but possibly a little more extensive. I am currently writing a follow up to that going back to the early Holocene and it is clear there are around seven major periods of melt and a number of additional short term melts.
You might find it interesting to read Arnd Bernaerts book on the period you write about ‘The Arctic heats up’ which might add some background.
Due to the length of time I am covering with my next article I deal with the period you refer to fairly briefly, but my research has thrown up a few things which you might find interesting should you decide to expand your article at some point.
The first item may or may not give clues about ice cover, but it concerns British Pathe news reel that highlights the 1952 US air base in Thule Greenland from which it was intended to bomb Russia
http://www.britishpathe.com/video/u-s-arctic-air-base-aka-thule-air-base/query/Greenland
I have managed to tie together two intriguing pieces concerning the Arctic warming from 1918-1939. The first is again British Pathe news reel which is unfortunately silent but has the intriguing title;
“To Prevent Repetition Titanic Disaster – Ice “Patrol” now finds & warns all vessels of location of Icebergs brought down by abnormal heat from Greenland Coast.” From 1922
http://www.britishpathe.com/video/ice-patrol-aka-to-prevent-repetition-titanic-disas
This relates directly to the newspaper reports of that same year of which this is a good example.
“The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consul Ifft, at Bergen, Norway.
Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers, he declared, all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met with as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm.
Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared. Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts, which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.”
Note; The source report of the Washington Post article on changes in the arctic has been found in the Monthly Weather Review for November 1922.
It was originally carried here
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/changing-artic_monthly_wx_review.png
Use the above link-goes direct but may need to enlarge.
All in all yours was a great find and I hope you will continue your research as the more of us trying to fill in the pieces of the jigsaw the better. Once again. well done!
All the best
Tonyb
Hi Frank,
Here are lots of newspaper references on historical Arctic ice retreat and warming observations. It would go nicely with the graphs.
http://www.real-science.com/arctic-meltdown
Great find! I’m not surprised that the thirties weren’t that different from current times, long lasting temperature series show the same. I’m open to the idea that the CWP is a bit warmer (and the melt a bit stronger) in the Arctic than the warm period in the thirties – but not different enough to “prove CAGW”.
I got black listed from commenting on a certain Closed Mind’s blog because I questioned the unlikeliness of current Arctic condition by referring to the thirties. I then wrote “Sea Ice conditions 60-70 years ago may not have been similar to the conditions of the last 5-10 years, but temperature conditions were indeed very similar, and that was my point.” – it would be great to go back to that thread and add a reference to this thread, but since I’m black listed, I’ll have to do it here instead 🙂
On the C.T. being different: they do not show any uncertainty estimate on that graph. Probably records that far back are a bit sketchy to say the least and there may be a fair amount of guestimating going on.
If they showed uncertainty it would very likely be more than enough to allow for the two records to agree with in the margins of uncertainty.
Since most climate science now seems to have a strong element of we “know” what’s happening , so let’s correct the data, some of the infilling maybe a bit one sided.
Hi Frank,
Here are another well researched page with references historic Arctic ice.
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/06/16/historic-variation-in-arctic-ice-tony-b/
Ahhhh.
“Here IS another well…”
Frank as well as fellow commenters,
There is a concept called volume. If you are a skiier, would you consider a mountain with 3″ of snow to be just as suitable for skiing as one with 43″? Of course not! Take 2 ice cubes of equal dimensions, put one on a warm surface, the other on a cold surface. While the surface areas of the 2 (as viewed from above) may not be much different after, say, an hour, one cube will have considerably less volume than the other. Because the surface temperature of the ocean in the arctic is warming, ice begins forming later in the fall, and thus does not form as thickly. Likewise, the volume of the permanent ice is declining over time. For a summary, see: http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/335040/title/Science_%2B_the_Public__Really_bad_year_for_Arctic_sea_ice
It’s no secret that the European side of the arctic had a sharp decline of sea ice in the 1920’s, though probably less than what we experience today. This letter from 1928 illustrates how the long, warm spell after the cold 1910’s surprised scientists of those days: http://voksenlia.net/met/lyr/green_harbour.pdf
A quick translation:
“I’m sending you a report of the monthly means in Green Harbour and an explanation by meteorologist Birkeland, where he states his opinion that there must have been a change in the thermometer setup, since the climate seems to have become milder during the recent years.”
“While not denying that there can be temperature fluctuation in the arctic regions lasting such a long time as this, I’d still like to ask you whether you’re aware of any change in the thermometer setup, or in anything else that could influence the temperatures that are recorded.”
Green Harbour is in Svalbard, near today’s town of Barentsburg.
CCIS, The Chryosphere graph i compare with is not volumen.
Besides, There are also different opinions on the volume-story, (PIPS2 vs. PIOMAS) but this article is about how ice area apparently has not been portraited well by Chryosphere.
Last time I analysed PIPS2 volumes it looked like this, see fig 3:
http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/posts/climate-trends-ultimo-feb-2011-221.php
Im not saying that PIPS2 is perfect at all, just saying that there is more to the volume-story than what you might think, just as there is more to the area-story as shown in this article.
The man behind Piomas has made extremely questionable “results” for Antarctica, so hold your horses on his work.
Tonyb, my hero!!
Again and again i see your impressing work, yes one could combine many of your findings with the DMI results, correct!
K.,R. Frank
Do they measure extent as 15% or more as is the usual way today or did was it solid ice, more like the value for ice area. By the way, just a small nit-pick, in this context the word is extent not extend. Good article, it should stir up a lot of interest.
CCIS
Do we have references for the volume between 1893-1961?
Frank notes the unchanging ice in the maps around the Bering Strait. My conjecture is that DMI observation around Scandanavia (into Russian shelf waters) and Greenland areas (into Canadian shelf waters) is quite good. But the furthest extent away, (ie, the Bering Strait) where (I presume) Nordic vessels seldom travelled, is likely deficient because of poor observations.
This is just a conjecture – one worth checking against field reporting practices from which (I assume) these maps have been made.
O/T, but what a joy it is to look at old maps – an art form as well as a record.
I hate to be a downer, but I already see one chart which shows ice declining from 1905 onwards, with a huge spike down in recent years. While we know that the Earth has warmed since the depths of the Little Ice Age, warmists WILL ignore that little fact, and focus on the decline, in relation to human output of CO2. For them there can be no other explanation. The fact that sea ice in the 30s is charted as having fallen to similar level, will be meaningless to them.
CCIS,
Take 2 ice cubes, spray one with black paint, put both outside on a sunny, but well below freezing day.
After 1 hour, you will have one unchanged ice cube and a puddle of frozen water around the black paint.
This illustrates the process that has occurred in recent years in the Arctic.
And CCIS, when we see photos of US navy submarine surfacing near the north pole around 1960, does that really suggest extremely thick ice back then?
And when you see ice retreat until around 1940, why would such an ice retreat be accompanied by thicker ice than seen in ice retreat with similar area like year 2000-2006 ?
But as I said, the volume topic does not explain howcome Chryosphere Today can end up not showing the decline in ice area 1921-38.
Yet another “hidethedecline” as we say on http://www.hidethedecline.eu 😉
CCIS says:
May 2, 2012 at 1:38 am
//////////////////////////////////////
The point you make about volume and the speed of ice melt is well accepted and this is why there was no prospect that the Himalayan Glaciers could melt in 30 years; heck given the altitude, the prevailing temperatures, these glaciers could not fully melt in 1000 years and any scientist would immediately be struck about the poor quality of the science in the IPCC report in relation to the claim that they could melt within a period of about 30 years. This point alone shows that the report is not subject to scientific scrutiny because if it was, that claim would never have gone into print.
However, the remainder of your comments is pure speculation. What was the volume of ice in 1850 and where is the source of the data? What was the volume of ice in 1851 and where is the source of the data? The same apples for each and every year to present.
The fact is that we do not have data or knowledge on the volume of Artic ice on a historically basis going back to pre-industrial times. We have all but no idea as to the volume of ice say in the 1920s,1930s 1940s, 1950s etc and therefore we do not know how present volumes compare with earlier periods and in particular to periods prior to the significant increase in manmade emissions of CO2.
This recent find of maps dealing with the area extent is extremely useful in opening a window into the past and to see whether conditions today appear to be out of the ordinary or not. This find warrants a most thorough review and detailed presentation of what it reveals.
orson2 says:
”
May 2, 2012 at 2:10 am
Frank notes the unchanging ice in the maps around the Bering Strait. My conjecture is that DMI observation around Scandanavia (into Russian shelf waters) and Greenland areas (into Canadian shelf waters) is quite good. But the furthest extent away, (ie, the Bering Strait) where (I presume) Nordic vessels seldom travelled, is likely deficient because of poor observations.
”
I agree 100%. I think some of these bering strait results and even West-Canadian early illustrations are not that well covered. They show almost “max” extend all the time, so if anything is wrong, they show too much ice over there.
K.R. Frank
@Steinar Midtskogen
On the subject of thermometers,I recently made a collection ot data from those thermometeres that are most in direct contact with the sea ice around the Arctic. This way one would get an indication of the ice-extend from thermometers, and these results are in compliance with the above DMI maps:
“Estimating Arctic sea ice area 1920-78 using temperature stations” :
http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/posts/estimating-arctic-sea-ice-area-1920-1978-using-temperature-stations-234.php
K.R. Frank
CCIS says:
May 2, 2012 at 1:38 am
Frank as well as fellow commenters,
There is a concept called volume.
>>>>>>
Why yes there is. Now, if we are talking sea ice, is the volume of the ice significant as a measure of warming and cooling. Consider that:
1. For ice to form in sea water, the entire water column must first cool to the freezing point. This is opposite to what happens in fresh water where the water below the ice is warmer than freezing. Salt changes both the freezing point and the maximum density of water such that when some of it does freeze, it expels salt into the water below, and that water becomes more dense, sincking to the bottom and forcing warmer water up. This process must continue until ALL the water from surface to bottom is at the freezing point. Only then can the ice thicken.
2. As a consequence of the abovem changes in sea ice extent are representative of changes in the volume of water from surface to bottom. For water at the freezing point, ice thickening represents no change in temperature per se, but a change energy level due to transition from liquid state to solid (and vice versa).
3. Compared to the amount of energy required to warm or cool the entire water column by just a degree or two, the energy change due to state change of water to ice is miniscule. Before anyone starts harping about the fact that heat of transition for ice/water is relatively large, keep in mind the point that CCIS made about volume. The volume of water makes even very thick sea ice look like a sliver on top of the ocean. It is the volume of water and the energy required to change itz temperature that is significant.
The logical conclusion CCIS, is that changes in ice thickness are not as signicant as you are trying to suggest.
CCIS says:
May 2, 2012 at 1:38 am
…the volume of the permanent ice is declining over time.
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/335040/title/Science_%2B_the_Public__Really_bad_year_for_Arctic_sea_ice
The volume must obviously increase over time, too — it’s cyclical.
To say that it’s *not* cyclical, you have to posit that the ice couldn’t possibly have been thin enough for submarines to pop up at the Pole during the ’60s to give their crews bragging rights.
CCIS:
Congratulations on your post May 2, 2012 at 1:38 am.
It is an excellent ad hoc excuse for why the data does not conform to what you expected. Of course, your excuse is pure conjecture which has no supporting evidence of any kind.
However, it is normal practice for ‘climate science’ to offer conjectures as ad hoc excuses which “explain” why empirical data must be suspect when it does not conform to what ‘climate science’ expects. So, your post is in accord with the practice of ‘climate science’.
Indeed, your post is an example of ‘climate science’ at its best. Well done!
And I hope you will forgive those of us who conduct science when we do not reject the evidence provided by the discovered maps but, instead, we
(a) assess the reliability, accuracy and precision of the information provided by the maps
and
(b) consider the indications, the limitations and the implications of that information.
Richard
“And CCIS, when we see photos of US navy submarine surfacing near the north pole around 1960, does that really suggest extremely thick ice back then?”
Or more likely surfaced at Ice Station Alpha. Closer to Barrow, Alaska, than the North Pole.
… and there is another concept called empirical data.
Now we have 2 sets of data proving that sea ice declined from 1900 to the 30’s and then it recovered in the 50’s. These maps and Amundsen’s polar circumnavigation.
Can you prove that ice volume in the Arctic has been declining since 1900 with no recovery whatsoever? No, you cannot.
Can you prove that the surface temperature of the ocean in the Arctic has been warming since 1900? No, you cannot.
The ice volume hypothesis is not valid if you cannot back it up with data. Real data, no computer modeled data.
Stop hiding the decline, and the subsequent recovery.
So assuming the same cycle is at play today, we could well be literally within a couple of years now of a’ sharp’ recovery in Arctic sea ice (sometime around 2015 by way of a rough guess). It should be fun to watch them explain the increase in ice on C02 increasing.
I’ll add that Chryosphere Today need to respond to this data and explain themselves.
Thanks, Frank.
A search on Brunnur turned up this pdf which lists a variety of sources going back to the 1750s.
http://nsidc.org/noaa/iicwg/presentations/IICWG_2011/Fetterer_Back_to_1870_Plans_for_a_Gridded_Sea_Ice_Product.pdf
There are also partial maps on the Brunnur site for the 1890s
richard verney says:
May 2, 2012 at 2:26 am …
I agree with what you wrote and would only add, that how come Alarmists feel that the lack of comparable ice thickness data means that they feel that it is somehow scientifically OK to ASSUME that the ice was thicker back then, without ANY empirical evidence whatsoever to back up that assumption?
An excellent post. I just love old maps, they tell you so much in pretty pictures, nice & simple just ow I like them! Well done.
Scottish Sceptic says:
May 2, 2012 at 12:43 am
Given the massive scale of funding for the alarmists, it is very difficult to explain how they were not aware of this.
Easy, peasy, they just ignore it because it doesn’t fit the mantra. Or they would say something like, “they didn’t have the right equipment to measure accurately enough” etc, despite historical evidence that many map makers throughout history were indeed very accurate considering the technology available at the time!
@ richardbriscoe
From my knowledge of WW2 history, the arctic convoys to supply Russia were amongst the most dangerous of all, with ships facing the extreme elements of cold, ice formation by the hour, mountainous seas, severe frost bite, as well as raiding U-Boats, & air attacks from long-range bombers based in Norway! Gun crews having to chip the ice off their gun & warming it up & making sure the lubricants hadn’t frozen, before loading & firing, everything taking twice as long to do due to the extreme cold. I suspect the Royal Navy was a little preoccupied with other things at the time, like survival! 😉
I’d like to put it into context with Dr. Spencer’s recent article:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/03/could-arctic-sea-ice-decline-be-caused-by-the-arctic-oscillation/
Note that the graph doesn’t show temperatures, rather Arctic Oscillation index which is related to jet stream characteristics rather than temperature. However its value change between 1936 and 1946 which coincides with reglaciation ends up in values only slightly higher than today’s.
“What have we learned according to DMI´s international compilation of sea ice data?
– That sea ice data has declined strongly even in the recent past before human CO2 outlet.
– That Sea ice from a level not far from the 2006 level has recovered very fast 1938-1946.
– That the Sea ice decline documented year after year in DMI maps after 1921 apparently is not shown in Chryosphere data for some reason.”
Additional data like this is a good find indeed, especially the maps which have not been *adjusted* like the Cryosphere graphs.
Based on http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/ArcticIce/Images/arctic_temp_trends_rt.gif temperatures in the Arctic were as high in part of the 1930s as in the late 20th century. Such as the warming over the 1920s in the graph matches “the Sea ice decline documented year after year in DMI maps after 1921.” Both support each other in context.
Of course, local temperature is not the sole influence on ice, like any variation in wind or current patterns on how much is blown away matters too, but there certainly appears a lot of relationship.
C’est vraiment magnifique….. Wunderbar!
Many thanks Brunnur and Frank. [Minor criticism: In the commentary on WUWT it is not always obvious to me which diagram is being referred to.]
One question: Is the authenticity of these rediscovered maps effectively complete? Being a sceptic, I have to ask.
“It’s understandable that the work of the DMI would be disrupted by WWII and Nazi occupation, but from 1941 onwards Britain was sending supply convoys around the top of occupied Norway to the Russian ports of Murmansk and Archangel. Surely the military would have been carefully monitoring and recording the sea ice extent in this area at least ?”
The Arctic Convoys were opposed crossings, people’s minds were concentrated on spotting U-Boats and the Luftwaffe. The ships were sailing zig-zag patterns at constantly varying speeds. Not the ideal environment for scientific measurement.
WOW !
The “Dead Sea Scrolls” of arctic ice .
Someone please download all the maps and archive them before the Warmists get their hands on them and begin “adjusting”the data.
Russian data: http://www.aari.nw.ru/gdsidb/gdsidb_2.html
and in book descibed in http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/16/arctic-ice-rebound%C2%A0predicted/
The post is just too confusing for the general public. Since all data are digital now, this sort of thing will never happen again. It is just too much for the ordinary mind to bear, especially after that other confusing picture of people with umbrellas waiting for the bus with the proper information stating, “We are in drought”. Perhaps these maps were measuring the wrong kind of ice in supposedly ice-free areas. Or perhaps they were just the wrong kind of maps to begin with. Indeed, let’s just ignore them. Nothing to see here.
CCIS says:
May 2, 2012 at 1:38 am
There is also the concept of albedo – shallow snow and deep snow reflect about the same amount of sunlight. In the spring, shallow snow should melt sooner, so while it may have some predictive value, snow remains the more important indicator of high albedo.
Please be very careful about Janet Raloff’s blog at Science News. I frequently post the other side of the story there. While she’s somewhat gracious about it (especially after I referred to a story about copper and fructose I remembered from about 1990), She’s active in The Society of Environmental Journalists, which was staunchly supportive of attempts to warn the public about CAGW. They may have moderated a bit over the last few years, but their stand and list of resources is still badly tilted, see http://www.sej.org/initiatives/climate-change/overview .
In the article you cite, the theme is that last year was worse than what the NSIDC said. I don’t see any reference there to the ocean surface warming. There is:
Perhaps you can contact some of the scientists mentioned in that article and ask them for comments on the current ice extent (and depth, but emphasize the albedo) of Arctic ice. Do ask them why the thin ice is hanging in so well this year. And ask about the ice around Svaalbard (sp), I’d like to know what gives with those conflicting observations.
BTW, while it isn’t Raloff’s, and it’s really more reporting than editorializing, we seem to have missed the April 23–24 event at the University of Wisconsin titled “Science Writing in the Age of Denial.” http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/340239/title/On_the_Scene__Science_denial_in_the_21st_century . While it covered more than climate issues, both Naomi Oreskes and the 97% of climate scientists reference were there. Overall, it sounds like a very biased meeting.
“Fig 4. August, 1916. The December-like August ice area continues to be observed year after year, and in 1916 most of the ocean between Baffin Island and Greenland is ice filled (- even in August!).”
No! The white are areas are “State of Ice Unknown”. In fact, some of the white patches (especially between Baffin Island and Greenland) are specifically labeled “Probably Open Water”!
The data is the red patches. They have pretty good data north of Scandinavia. They often have data around Greenland. There are smatterings of data along Siberia and Alaska and Canada. They simply did not have the resources or ability to look at the whole Arctic.
You CANNOT look at the white and assume it is ice!
Matthew W says:
May 2, 2012 at 5:07 am
> WOW !
> The “Dead Sea Scrolls” of arctic ice .
We’ll be in trouble when the Dead Sea freezes over. 🙂
Scottish Sceptic says:
May 2, 2012 at 12:43 am
”
Given the massive scale of funding for the alarmists, it is very difficult to explain how they were not aware of this.
”
Yes, and im very ambivalent here.
Im proud – as a Dane – that the DMI made these world class maps indicating that Danes were in front with these things to some degree.
But then it turns out that the same DMI must have known about these maps but never said a word?
Why have not DMI at any point said: “We have data showing that recent ice decline is not that unique as you might think” ? Why the silence?
I don’t think that this study has been mentioned, also from DMI
Abstract
The extent of ice in the North Atlantic varies in time with time scales stretching to centennial, and
the cause of these variations is discussed. We consider the Koch ice index which describes the
amount of ice sighted from Iceland, in the period 1150 to 1983 AD. This measure of ice extent is a
non-linear and curtailed measure of the amount of ice in the Greenland Sea, but gives an overall
view of the amounts of ice there through more than 800 years. The length of the series allows insight
into the natural variability of ice extent and this understanding can be used to evaluate modern-day
variations. Thus we find that the recently reported retreat of the ice in the Greenland Sea may be
related to the termination of the so-called Little Ice Age in the early twentieth century. We also look
at the approximately 80 year variability of the Koch index and compare it to the similar periodicity
found in the solar cycle length, which is a measure of solar activity. A close correlation (R=0.67) of
high significance (0.5 % probability of a chance occurrence) is found between the two patterns,
suggesting a link from solar activity to the Arctic Ocean climate.
http://www.dmi.dk/dmi/sr05-02.pdf
This graph might also interest. http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0485%281979%29009%3C0580%3AAAOASI%3E2.0.CO%3B2
anon2nz says:
May 2, 2012 at 3:29 am
”
There are also partial maps on the Brunnur site for the 1890s
”
This is true, and they tell a story of extremely large winter ice areas where the ice extends from Greenland and covers half of Iceland!
Impressing!
These images also tells us what we might expect to see in the future. They tell how fast things can change.
michael hart says:
May 2, 2012 at 4:29 am
”
One question: Is the authenticity of these rediscovered maps effectively complete? Being a sceptic, I have to ask.
”
Im also a stamp collector (big time) and im used to see whats fake and whats real.
Making such perfect old looking huge maps today would be a job beyond belief.
And if fakes: I found these because I read in old DMI writings that these existed. So if they are fake, then DMI are part of it. I dont find that to be logical.
Fakes? No way. If they had have been fakes it would have been the warmists who faked them – let’s face it;there’s a bit of previous there – and there would have been loads of ice.
Hi Mick J,
Heres where I originally found information that there existed this “Nautical” yearbook,
From DMI, see page 30 in the middle:
http://www.dmi.dk/dmi/tr11-07.pdf
Then i started to search for this “Nautisk Årbog” and there it was, put on the net by a “brunnur”.
K.R. Frank
This may be of interest to collectors:
http://www.abebooks.co.uk/servlet/SearchResults?kn=Nautisk+Meteorologisk+Aarbog&sts=t&x=51&y=13
Mick J
This is a joke!
You can even buy it on Amazon, the one from 1935…
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Nautisk-meteorologisk-%C3%A5rbog-Nautical-meteorological-annual-etc/dp/B000X72AT4
Frank said;
“But then it turns out that the same DMI must have known about these maps but never said a word?
Why have not DMI at any point said: “We have data showing that recent ice decline is not that unique as you might think” ? Why the silence?”
In truth I think it is likely they forgot about the stuff. Nothing is ‘real’ these days unless it is digital or famous. I spent several days at the Met office archives recently amd there is a wealth of material there that seems to be little used by the climate researchers upstairs. I was subseqiently sent the Worlds first detailed weather diary dating to the 1340’s. Ths was famous in the 1930’s but was then forgotten.
In short there is a mass of evidence out there concerning the ever changing climate, which is languishing in a variety of places and whils some of it-such as ships diaries-become fashionable, there is much that will never see the light of day.
It comes down to lack of funding for sceptics-for example each article of mine takes hundreds of hours to put togerther. If someone would fund us half a dozen of us for two years we could produce a vast repository of information that would counter the far better fiunded warmists. Its not going to happen though, the EU specifically forbids funding for projects that are not intended to prove climate change.
tonyb
repeat after me ‘ they don’t give perfect coverage so there not worth anything ‘
Tonyb
I will chose to think that you are correct, for some reason DMI staff simply did not think of this old material. Im a patriot!
And you are correct: ” Nothing is ‘real’ these days unless it is digital or famous”
K,R. Frank
I note the quote: “In September 1901 we are not far from having open NW passage and in September 1907 we do have an open NW Passage.”
Here are some relevant extracts that fit nicely, although Silas Bent is obviously before this map series:
THERMAL PATHS TO THE POLE, THE CURRENTS OF THE OCEAN, BY SILAS BENT, SAINT LOUIS: 1872.
Just as the work was completed upon these currents in the North Pacific, in 1855, the news was received in the United States that Dr.Hane had discovered an open sea near the Pole, and people began to ask how that could be possible, when it was well known that a belt or region of ice several hundred miles in width must lie to the south of that sea, and which was never dissolved.
==========================================
THE NORTH WEST PASSAGE BEING THE RECORD OF A VOYAGE OF EXPLORATION OF THE SHIP “GJOA” 1903 – 1907 BY ROALD AMUNDSEN
“We encountered no ice with the exception of a few narrow strips of old sound ice, carried by the wash. Of large Polar ice we saw absolutely nothing. Between the ice and the land, on either side, there were large and perfectly clear channels, through which we passed easily and unimpeded.
The entire accumulation of ice was not very extensive. We were soon out again in open water. Outside the promontories, some pieces of ice had accumulated; otherwise the sea was free from ice. The water to the south was open, the impenetrable wall of ice was not there.
At 5.30 P.M. we met a quantity of ice off Cape Maguire,a fairly broad strip of loose ice. Beyond this we could see clear water.
Captain Knowles reports the season the most open he has ever known. He entered the Arctic on the day we left Sari Francisco, May 22, and thinks the straits were open even earlier than that.
============================================
Anomalies and Trends of Sea-Ice Extent and Atmospheric Circulation in the Nordic Seas during the Period 1864–1998 Issn: 1520-0442 Journal: Journal of Climate. Volume: 14 255-267 Authors: Vinje, Torgny:
“It is not until the warming of the Arctic, 1905–30, that the NAO winter index shows repeated positive values over a number of sequential years, corresponding to repeated northward fluxes of warmer air over the Nordic Seas during the winter. An analog repetition of southward fluxes of colder air during wintertime occurs during the cooling period in the 1960s. Concurrently, the temperature in the ocean surface layers was lower than normal during the warming event and higher than normal during the cooling event.”
=========================================
Taurisano, A., Boggild, C.E. and Karlsen, H.G. 2004. A century of climate variability and climate gradients from coast to ice sheet in West Greenland. Geografiska Annaler 86A: 217-224.
“the temperature data “show that a warming trend occurred in the Nuuk fjord during the first 50 years of the 1900s, followed by a cooling over the second part of the century, when the average annual temperatures decreased by approximately 1.5°C.” Coincident with this cooling trend there was also what they describe as “a remarkable increase in the number of snowfall days (+59 days).”
========================================
Climate variation in the European Arctic during the last 100 years Hanssen-Bauer, Inger, Norwegian Meteorological Institute, Co-Author Førland, Eirik J. (CliC International Project Office (CIPO) 21 June 2004)
“Analyses of climate series from the European Arctic show major inter-annual and inter-decadal variability, but no statistically significant long-term trend in annual mean temperature during the 20th century in this region. The temperature was generally increasing up to the 1930s, decreasing from the 1930s to the 1960s, and increasing from the 1960s to 2000. The temperature level in the 1990s was still lower than it was during the 1930s. In large parts of the European Arctic, annual precipitation has increased substantially during the last century.”
Nothing new under the sun…..
My full support to the comment by tonyb ( May 2, 2012 at 1:21 am). This finding is great, and demonstrates that there has been information available allowing a much more in-depth research since long.
Indeed it is a pity that:
____“Sadly we don’t have the Arctic warm years 1940-45, but just the colder years 1946-56.”.
Actually there has been a drop in air temperature between 1939 and about 1945 (north of 70°N), and after a brief increase until 1950 a long decline until the 1970s happened, which is well illustrated by NASA-Giss for Isfjord Radio (Spitsbergen) http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=634010050010&data_set=14&num_neighbors=1
Timing and extent may help to solve the question, which role did the two World Wars played in the climatic trends of the Arctic during the last century, which is discussed in Chapter G and Chapter I, here: http://www.seaclimate.com/_ToC/_ToC.html
It is also a matter of recorded history that the Vikings in Greenland in the MWP (working their farms under the permafrost according to the warmists) had to pay taxes to the Catholic Church to support various crusades, the Vatican maintains the receipts to this day.
Strangely, records like this which can’t be contorted by Michael ‘piltdown’ Mann and his PCA rack are not popular with climatologists.
Scottish Sceptic says:
May 2, 2012 at 12:43 am
Given the massive scale of funding for the alarmists, it is very difficult to explain how they were not aware of this.
==========
The evidence in the old charts has not been shown, not because no one knows about them, but rather because they don’t support the theory of CAGW.
If you are asked by your boss to write a report that supports CAGW, you sure as shooting are not going to drag out old charts that argue against CAGW. You are going to keep your mouth shut about them, or start looking for a new career.
Old charts exist in archives all over the world. They are not used in climate science because they don’t support the notion that the warming from 1980-2000 is unique, caused by humans, and will have catastrophic results.
The old charts show that there has been a gradual warming, with a cyclical component, since the LIA. That climate changes, that observed sea level rise over this period has been minor, and for the most part the 300 years of warming has been beneficial.
What climate science has done is to look at a very small section of the cyclical component of the warming, and extend a straight line projection from this, because it supports what they are trying to show. That we need to de-industrialize to save the world.
In reality, the movement to de-industrialize is a movement of industrial processes from developed countries to un-developed countries to take advantage of lower labor rates and lower infrastructure costs, paid for by the consumers in the developed countries.
The movement however does not reduce CO2. It results in a net increase in CO2, because the infrastructure in the un-developed countries is cheaper because it lacks the pollution regulations enforced as a cost of doing business in the developed countries.
In other words, it has the opposite effect of what was intended.
Frank Lansner!
So who are you! I’d like to know more about this find and how you came across them and why.
That data is provoking to say it modestly and I want to understand it more. Have you contacted the cryosphere people with this yet?
Fantastic.
For those interested, here are sources of sea ice data that I’m aware of:
•Multi-channel satellite passive microwave fields from NSIDC, 1979-present
•North American Ice Center digital data (grids from U.S. National Ice Center, 1972-1978; Canadian Ice Service, 1958-1979)
•U.S. Naval Oceanographic Office (1953-1971)
•Dehn charts, NOAA Alaska Ice Desk charts for Alaska (1953-1979)
•Japanese Meteorological Agency Sea of Okhotsk ice charts, 1960s onward
•AARI gridded data, 1930-1970s [1990s]
•Danish Meteorological Institute yearbooks, 1870s-1960s
•ACSYS sea ice databank (North Atlantic ice edges, 1750-1966
•National Research Council of Canada (B. Hill), Newfoundland ice extent, 1810-2000+
•Alaskan ship reports (whaling and others) K. Wood and Bockstoce/Mahoney/Eicken, 1850-early 1900s
FYI, John Walsh has been working to bring all these data sources together into one monthly data set of ice extent. As you can imagine it’s not an easy task. Even trying to reconcile ice charts is difficult as the US began reporting ice concentrations in eights rather than tenths, and then returned to tenths reporting in 1980. Canada retained the tenths format throughout their ice chart reporting. And then there’s the different nature in how groups drew ice features, and different use of ice analysis code or notations.
Wops,
In this presentation from NSIDC/NOAA Page 3, the DMI graphic from June 1924 is present!
And yet they write
” – but sea ice is essentially climatology (flat, no variability) prior to 1950s “
Link provided by anon2nz , thank you.
So fully awware of these maps, someone within NOAA is still claiming that ice trends before 1950 were essientially flat ..
Can one still dig up some kind of excuse?
I should also add that John Walsh et al. will be producing a final product that is a hierarchy of versions ranging from the most conservative depiction of E/U to the least conservative/greatest potential value added (A/I):
E/U: Extent (ice/no ice, 30% threshold), Uninterpolated
A/U: Area (concentrations), Uninterpolated
E/I: Extent (ice/no ice, 30% threshold), Interpolated
A/I: Area (concentrations), Interpolated
Paul and others, the sea ice community is well-aware of these DMI charts, and other earlier sources of sea ice information.
Frank I think you are missing the point, the data are essentially climatology in the Had1SST data set. That’s because they didn’t include some of these earlier sea ice charts when they produced the Had1SST.
Hence the reason for updating that data set.
tjfolkerts says:
May 2, 2012 at 6:14 am
” There are smatterings of data along Siberia and Alaska and Canada. They simply did not have the resources or ability to look at the whole Arctic. You CANNOT look at the white and assume it is ice ”
I agree, in fact many illustrations are likely to show larger white areas than the actual ice extend.
Thus the 1935-38 years might very well resemble 2009-2010, but… i would have to have hard arguments to go into that.
In mane maps they do seem to place this “white area” in a pattern that looks like classic ice areas, and that goes for the Baffin sea too. And the white areas in some years seems to be supported by data from previous years. But you are correct, they also state something else, its a little confusing, but buttom line: if anything, the maps seems to overestimate ice areas.
Obviously ice is a lousy proxy for temperature…
ArndB says:
“Actually there has been a drop in air temperature between 1939 and about 1945 ”
This is true, but stil relatively warm years not too far apart might amplify the open water effect even though temperatures have peaked?
Paul Westhaver says:
“Frank Lansner! So who are you!…”
Hmmm, try:
http://joannenova.com.au/2011/10/messages-from-the-global-raw-rural-data-warnings-gotchas-and-tree-ring-divergence-explained/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/30/co2-temperatures-and-ice-ages/
http://www.hidethedecline.eu
http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/ruti.php
http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/posts/a-brief-overview-of-chosen-frank-lansner-articles-in-english-208.php
K.R. Frank, and thank you for your interest.
Let’s notice that the decline of sea ice correspond roughly to the Dust Bowl period in the 1930s during which pressure increased on continental US, bringing extended periods of anticyclonic stability and heatwaves… Leroux of course identified this period as a rapid mode of circulation and the renewed advection of warm air displaced by more powerful MPHs meant Arctic Sea ice melting along the corridors of advection. Just as we see today… Once again Marcel Leroux got it right as he explained that sea ice extent is a counter intuitive proxy. Dynamic Analysis of Weather and Climate, 2010, 2nd ed. Springer/Praxis
Alan the Brit says:
May 2, 2012 at 3:38 am
Yes, but for exactly that reason there should be good records on sea ice. The convoys wanted to sail as far North of Norway as possible to avoid the Stukas (not sure where those bases were, but there were several north of Trondheim — Narvik perhaps?), and the U-boats based in Bergen and Trondheim. The convoy courses should be a good indicator of sea ice.
ICEGATE!
J Bowers says:
May 2, 2012 at 2:52 am
“And CCIS, when we see photos of US navy submarine surfacing near the north pole around 1960, does that really suggest extremely thick ice back then?”
Or more likely surfaced at Ice Station Alpha. Closer to Barrow, Alaska, than the North Pole.
=======================
Or more likely . . . What’s this about?
That surfacing is known:
“. . . the U.S. nuclear submarines Nautilus and Skate (when they) first entered the Arctic Ocean in 1958. The USS Skate surfaced at station Alpha on 11 August 1958, . . .”
http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1966/sep-oct/smith.html
Posts and comments regarding surfacings of subs near the North Pole have been the topic on many occasions. Maybe I misinterpret this comment but will point out these links anyway:
April 26, 2009
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/26/ice-at-the-north-pole-in-1958-not-so-thick/
August 3, 2010
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/03/open-water-at-the-north-pole/
Follow the many links in the comments.
March 17, 2012
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/17/submarines-in-the-winter-twilight/
Julienne Stroeve
When will John Walsh produce his final product and how do we gain access to it? Thanks.
tonyb
Interesting that the time period of declining ice corresponds with the large forest fire years in the mountain west (U.S.) from 1919 to 1935. Those years were about as severe as the more recent period 1988 to 2003.
The maps have been online since 26-Oct-2010 according to the server date.
Tony, the data set (when complete) will be archived at NSIDC. I would anticipate it being ready sometime in 2013, though I’m not sure how far along they are with their processing.
NSIDC is also digitizing satellite imagery (that is saved as film) from the 1960s to extend the satellite estimates of sea ice back to 1964. Most of this is visible imagery though, so clouds don’t allow you to see the surface. Thus, we will be looking at producing a monthly sea ice extent and ice edge product from that earlier satellite data.
It is indeed important to go back as far as we can with the ice records to better understand the last 30 years of changes and what it means for the future of the ice cover.
Here is another set of historical ice maps (for the North Atlantic sector of the Arctic). They tell essentially the same story:
http://acsys.npolar.no/ahica/intro.htm
And for the war years, it is correct as somebody has remarked that there are military records at least for the Barents Sea and the Fram/Denmark Strait. Some can be found e. g. in Roskill’s Official History of the British Navy in WW2.
There are much more unused data, for example the declassified Corona satellite photographs from 1960-1975 (the very first satellite photo ever taken, in August 1960, shows that the waters off Mys Shmidta in northeastern Siberia were ice-free that autumn):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CORONA_first_image.jpg
Further the USAAF photographed the whole of Greenland in the summer of 1946, and (surreptitiously) most of the siberian coast in 1956 (though these latter images may still be classified).
I’d like to repeat the caution of expressed by tjfolkerts at 6:14 am. The most trustworty data on these maps are the red data from reports. The rest is cartographer’s guestimates based upon prior year’s reports, theory, and conjecture.
Let us not forget: “Not only is it easy to lie with maps, it is essential.” (Monmonier, 1996). These maps are valuable finds! They should be respected as representing the best information of ice extent made and used by people who need to navigate the Arctic Ocean. But let’s be carefule of what we don’t know.
For instance, do we know WHEN in August the data was collected? In any given year, the Arctic Ice extent drops by approx. 2 million km^2 from Aug. 1 to Aug 30. About 20-25% of the ice on Aug 1 is gone by Aug 30. So the red points are good, with an error bar (or uncertainty bar) on date, and the white area are “maximum extent that fits the control.” BTW, don’t assume that the uncertainty is symetrical, indeed the uncertainty in “ice area” may be highly skewed toward smaller areas where there are no observations.
When the methods used to draw the maps are calibrated lemme know.
REPLY: Rather than poo-poo this, you should embrace more data, especially data where there was little. Tsk. – Anthony
Frank Lansner says:
May 2, 2012 at 6:38 am
Hi Mick J,
Heres where I originally found information that there existed this “Nautical” yearbook,
From DMI, see page 30 in the middle:
—————
Hi Frank, thanks for that, very useful. So much information made freely available. 🙂
Mick.
Marvelous post. Always good to hear from Frank Lansner. Kudos to Brunner, too.
Additional information perhaps
Admiralty Sailing Directions NP10The Arctic Pilot Vol. 1 , vol 2 and vol 3
Steven Mosher says:
“When the methods used to draw the maps are calibrated lemme know.”
Steven, you have been handed over the BEST data.
I may be wrong, but as I understand it you have not really analysed it as a “sceptic” should. You have just examined the whole data pile havent you?
Did you check out if De Bilt in BEST was the adjusted one or the raw one???
Darwin? NZ data? Milano? Berlin? Durban !!? Beyruth?
Did you find the obvious fraud in Mozambique data?
Did you try?
Why should BEST results tell something else than Hadcrut/GHCN etc if several IN data sets are in fact the adjusted ones??
J Bowers says:
May 2, 2012 at 2:52 am
Or more likely surfaced at Ice Station Alpha. Closer to Barrow, Alaska, than the North Pole.
No. All official DoD photographs which were mailed for public release (and they were mailed prior to the mid-’90s) were either stamped or had a label affixed to the back of the photo with an official caption describing the unit or person involved, the event, the date, and the location, along with the photographer’s name. If the description was “USS Fishname surfacing at the North Pole,” it was a photo of the USS Fishname surfaced at the North Pole — not Ice Station Alpha.
This is perfect and exactly what one would expect based on the documented high temperatures in the Arctic at that time. With present concentrations of CO2 at most adding 0.2 C, all this Arctic warming must be caused by heat flux from the ocean into the air, and therefore there had to be low sea ice during that time. The Cryosphere Today’s early century representation of steady ice concentrations of sea ice always throughout that time s directly contradicted those observed temperatures. In a 2004 paper “The Early Twentieth-Century Warming in the Arctic—A Possible Mechanism” by BENGTSSON had reported that
“The largest warming occurred in the Arctic (60–90N) (Johannessen et al. 2004) averaged for the 1940s with some 1.7C (2.2C for the winter half of the year) relative to the 1910s. As can be seen from Fig. 1, it was a long-lasting event commencing in the early 1920s and reaching its maximum some 20 years later. The decades after were much colder, although not as cold as in the early years of the last century. It is interesting to note that the ongoing present warming has just reached the peak value of the 1940s, and this has underpinned some views that even the present Arctic warming is dominated by factors other than increasing greenhouse gases (Polyakov and Johnson 2000; Polyakov et al. 2002).”
BENGTSSON’s theory suggested warm water incursions from an earlier positive NAO had opened the Barents Sea, and those exposed warmer waters altered the winds which then maintained the open water even after the NAO went negative. All the recent buoy observations had also identified more rapid intrusion of warm water when the recent NAO was positive and we observe a very similar opening of the Barents Sea. With the PDO going negative the Bering Sea has had abnormally high ice extent and the Chukchi an d East Siberian are right at maximum average.The Barents is always the last to refreeze due to greater warm water intrusions. So with the NAO going negative, and about a 14 year life span of the warm water, via the Gulf Stream, to complete its circulation in the Arctic, I would predict the Barents Sea should begin to freeze over by about 10 years from now.
I started to post this argument on RealClimate, but being good climate scientists, they deleted half my posts and and stuck others in the borehole. You should post a link to Brunnar’s site so they can peruse real observations
Regarding the missing WWII records of ice conditions, why not try the Imperial War Museum? They should have records concerning the arctic convoys to Russian harbours, especially the PQ and JW convoys. The Yanks probably have something in their vaults as well.
Alan Watt says:
May 2, 2012 at 8:43 am
Yes, but for exactly that reason there should be good records on sea ice. The convoys wanted to sail as far North of Norway as possible to avoid the Stukas (not sure where those bases were, but there were several north of Trondheim — Narvik perhaps?), and the U-boats based in Bergen and Trondheim. The convoy courses should be a good indicator of sea ice.
The convoys were trying for speed — hugging the edge of the ice rather than making a direct run would not only have prolonged their agony, but simplified the U-boats’ search for them. Most aerial attacks on the Murmansk convoys were by He-111s, Bf-110s, and FW-200s (based at Stavanger), which had the range to pick up the convoys a day after they passed Iceland and follow them to Tromso, where they’d get picked up by the Ju-87s and get hit all the way to Murmansk.
Julienne
Thanks for that-look forward to seeing them
ttty said:
“May 2, 2012 at 9:07 am
Here is another set of historical ice maps (for the North Atlantic sector of the Arctic). They tell essentially the same story:
http://acsys.npolar.no/ahica/intro.htm ”
——
I am aware of these and was attempting to get them into a graphical format. Anyone know if that has already been done?
tonyb
Steve and Anthony interact thusly:
Steven Mosher says:
May 2, 2012 at 9:11 am
When the methods used to draw the maps are calibrated lemme know.
REPLY: Rather than poo-poo this, you should embrace more data, especially data where there was little. Tsk. – Anthony
I think a useful exercise would be to to accept the paper plots as-is but then to see if there is a cross-over point compared with modern satellite images. That would serve to calibrate the DMI methods and records. Also, it seems to me that it would fall within the frame of interest of the Cryosphere folks to look at it. It will certainly be better data than “Tree Ring” data as a proxy for satellite images. The Cryosphere folks are however infected with PolarBear-itis. and science has given way to activism.
With regard to info from the war years, as one or two posts have already said, ships logs may well contain much useful data. Warships especially had to keep accurate plots of their positions and that could be tied in to notes in the logs about the proximity to ice.
If memory serves the hunt for the Bismark is one example: she was shadowed by British cruisers along the edge of the ice for a couple of days.
Quite how such info could be excavated, I am not sure.
.
So Cryosphere Today are “Hiding the Decline” in the 1930s? Where have I heard that before??
Note also the 60-year nature of this cycle, which fits into the PDO rather nicely. Has anyone graphed the two together? Had Cryosphere Today not hidden this decline, the 60-year nature of the climate cycle would have been fairly obvious a decade ago.
.
J. Stroeve speaks for “the sea ice community” when stating they have been well aware of DMi information regarding historical Arctic sea ice. Which specific elements of the sea ice community are included in her statement? Have any of these elements gone on record explaining the significance of historical DMI type sea ice observations in comparison with “the last 30 years of data to better understand” what causes these fluctuations over time? Has NSIDC conducted or published any studies to date comparing ” the last 30 yrs” to DMI type historical ice measurements of the Arctic? Cites, if so. Any reasons, if not? Thanks in advance for response.
Outstanding find and post, Frank, my congratulations. I took the liberty of correcting the spelling (“Cryosphere Today ” for “Chryosphere Today”) and adding a link to Cryosphere Today.
Very well done,
w.
Steven Mosher says:
May 2, 2012 at 9:11 am
Generally, I find myself surprised by the abilities of the map-makers of previous days. Dig out some of the charts from Captain Cooks voyages (mostly drawn by the infamous Captain Bligh of the Bounty mutiny fame), and you will be amazed by their accuracy.
In any case, I’d say that ice charts made by dwellers in the Northlands whose livelihoods and safety depended on knowing about the ice would score well above tree rings and Mg/Ca ratios in the calibration sweepstakes …
w.
Bill Tuttle says:
May 2, 2012 at 10:32 am
Well clearly the convoys could not have sailed north of the sea ice, so their courses do establish the maximum possible southern extent of the ice. In Churchill’s excellent 6 volume history of the war he details multiple attempts to enlist US participation in the recapture of Norway (probably in ’43). Among the reasons he gave are the elimination of German naval and air bases, which would allow a more southerly route for the Murmask/Archangel convoys. This would reduce loses, reduce round-trip time, and thereby increase total tonnage delivered.
If I recall correctly, Churchill asserted the convoys had to detour 200 or more miles north to avoid the worst of the U-boat and air attacks.
Clearly not as accurate as an actual survey map, but I still think there is some value in the convoy routes as an indicator of sea ice, if you have nothing else to go on.
Jim Steele says: May 2, 2012 at 10:19 am
“BENGTSSON’s theory suggested warm water incursions from an earlier positive NAO had opened the Barents Sea… “
Much more helpful is a paper by Juraj Vanovcan (2010) “European climate, Alpine glaciers and Arctic ice in relation to North Atlantic SST record”, which Anthony Watts indicated as a ‘must read’, commenting that: “The conclusion from this essay is that the oceans drive the temperature of the atmosphere, not the other way around.”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/26/a-must-read-european-climate-alpine-glaciers-and-arctic-ice-in-relation-to-north-atlantic-sst-record/
See the discussion at: http://www.seaclimate.com/g/g3.html
Frank – have you seen the work of Mahoney et al?
“Observed sea ice extent in the Russian Arctic, 1933–2006”
Andrew R. Mahoney, Roger G. Barry, Vasily Smolyanitsky, and Florence Fetterer
Here the link: seaice.alaska.edu/gi/publications/mahoney/Mahoney_2008_JGR_20thC_RSI.pdf
It contains some further documents & charts but covering only the russian side of the arctic (it is based on russian-soviet observations) – but could contain some complementary information.
It also shows clearly the warming in the 30s- 40s with reduced sea ice extend but draws conclusions that it was only restricted to the Russian Arctic?
Congratulations for your finding and thank you for saving all this important documentary material!
“That the Sea ice decline documented year after year in DMI maps after 1921 apparently is not shown in Cryosphere data for some reason.”
Well, they’d have to be honest to do that, wouldn’t they? It wouldn’t fit the meme of AGW.
@CCIS: given the entire history and attitude of the CAGW movement and its adherents, I find no reason – none whatsoever – to trust ANYTHING said by any warmist in the past, present, or future, nor do I ever intend to. I will trust data only – NOT endless conjecture and excuse-making based on preestablished biases rooted in an obvious “green” or money-making agenda.
J Solters says:
May 2, 2012 at 11:20 am
J. Stroeve speaks for “the sea ice community” when stating they have been well aware of DMi information regarding historical Arctic sea ice. Which specific elements of the sea ice community are included in her statement? Have any of these elements gone on record explaining the significance of historical DMI type sea ice observations in comparison with “the last 30 years of data to better understand” what causes these fluctuations over time? Has NSIDC conducted or published any studies to date comparing ” the last 30 yrs” to DMI type historical ice measurements of the Arctic? Cites, if so. Any reasons, if not? Thanks in advance for response.
You’ll find it discussed here:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/SEAICE/arctic.historical.seaice.doc.txt
“The data sources for the ice concentrations vary spatially and temporally.
There are seven basic data sources for the ice concentrations:
1. Danish Meteorlogical Institute
2. Japan Meteorological Agency
3. Naval Oceanographic Office (NAVOCEANO)
4. Kelly ice extent grids (based upon Danish Ice Charts)
5. Walsh and Johnson/Navy-NOAA Joint Ice Center
6. Navy-NOAA Joint Ice Center Climatology
7. Temporal extension of Kelly data (see note below)
8. Nimbus-7 SMMR Arctic Sea Ice Concentrations or
DMSP SSM/I Sea Ice Concentrations using the NASA Team Algorithm”
Willis Eschenbach says:
May 2, 2012 at 11:49 am
Extremely accurate cartography had been developed well before 1900. Starting in 1800 William Lambton began the great trigonometric survey to map the Indian subcontinent. Completed nearly 50 years later by George Everest after Lambton’s death in 1823 it was a monumental achievement. From the description on Amazon ( here ):
(the book is worth a read, BTW).
So by the time these maps were made, there was an established high standard for cartography.
It is also worth noting that around 1922 the US Geological Survey team (part of the US army) established the distance between Mt. Wilson and Mt. Baldy in California (over 11 miles) to within 0.25 inches, to support Michaelson’s experiments determining the speed of light. They did this packing survey equipment on mules into the scrub hills and canyons between these two mountains.
So to support WIllis’ point, if it was important maps made around 1900 could be very accurate, even without satellites, lasers, and atomic clocks.
Paul Westhaver says:
May 2, 2012 at 10:35 am
I think a useful exercise would be to to accept the paper plots as-is but then to see if there is a cross-over point compared with modern satellite images. That would serve to calibrate the DMI methods and records. Also, it seems to me that it would fall within the frame of interest of the Cryosphere folks to look at it.
As indicated above, they have done so.
These maps are further proof CAGW “scientists” do not do any research of past records before publishing their BS papers. And neither do their buddies who do the peer review of their work.
Jay Davis
Tonyb,
thanks very much, just spent 2 hours watching old Pathe news clips. You did that deliberately didn’t you…
There’s a PH.D to be had from this data !!
Willis E, thank you very much for your editing and comment, its very appreciated.
Lars P, super Mahoney 2008 link, but it takes some time to eat my way through it 🙂
Thank you.
Frank Lansner says:
May 2, 2012 at 2:26 am
And CCIS, when we see photos of US navy submarine surfacing near the north pole around 1960, does that really suggest extremely thick ice back then?
According to the commander of the Skate the ice at the N Pole was too thick to surface through in 1958. The following year they were able to break though the ice in frozen leads, at their first attempt they were unable to break through so surfaced faster the next time and broke through. The surfacing at the pole itself was their toughest one which took about two hours to break through, when they surfaced they were surrounded by ten foot hummocks of ice which implies one hundred foot thick ice!
In 1944 an intrepid crew of 9 Mountie sailors sailed a 140 ft. wooden vessel through the northern(!!) route of the NW Passage from east to west. In one season.
Doesn’t speak to extensive sea ice that year.
http://www.ucalgary.ca/arcticexpedition/larsenexpeditions
This is quite simply the best historical Arctic ice mapping ever found, DMI have to be given even more respect for this work done in the past. The implications are huge and it’s about time certain groups were more honest with their historic Arctic ice data. The Cryosphere should use these to represent a more accurate picture of past Arctic ice.
tonyb said:
May 2, 2012 at 6:42 am
… there is a mass of evidence out there concerning the ever changing climate, which is languishing in a variety of places and whils some of it-such as ships diaries-become fashionable, there is much that will never see the light of day.
It comes down to lack of funding for sceptics-for example each article of mine takes hundreds of hours to put togerther. If someone would fund us half a dozen of us for two years we could produce a vast repository of information that would counter the far better fiunded warmists.
It occurred to me that perhaps diaries and similar records kept by missionaries in places such as Labrador and Greenland might be worth examining. I just spent about 20 minutes searching with Google and found an account by William Thoresby of his work in Newfoundland that contained quite a few mentions of the weather. I copied part of his entry for 24 March 1797 below.
Narrative of God’s Love to William Thoresby (1801)
http://www.mun.ca/rels/meth/thoresby.html
1797 March 24.
The weather yet continues very severe; it has been frost and snow in general ever since last October, and sometimes so intense that it has froze the ink in my pocket, nay, it has froze the ink in my pen when writing not far from a large fire! Those persons in England who have never been here, can have no just idea of the nature of the frost, and the depth of snow in Newfoundland in the winter season.
Wilfred Grenfell, a missionary doctor in Labrador, also had quite a bit to say about the weather in his autobiography, the full text of which is available on the Internet.
A Labrador Doctor, by Wilfred Thomason Grenfell
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/22372/22372-h/22372-h.htm
Roy
The ice minima – with open waters on the Siberian coast – in those maps seem (to my untrained eye) to be the same as those marked on my old Reader Digest Great World Atlas (1961), p. 45.
Steven Mosher says:
Mosher, May 2, 2012 at 9:11 am
When the methods used to draw the maps are calibrated lemme know.
==
I guess marine charts were inexistant before satellites… /sarc
Phil.’s response to my question about comparing DMI type studies of Arctic sea ice with the ’30 year record’ referenced by S. Stroeve is that they’ve done so. I reviewed his cite and it contains no such analysis other than a cryptic statement that data before 1953 should not be relied upon. His response appears misleading at best.(100 ft thick ice?) There is not one word of content addressed to any actual comparison of historical DMI data with more recent satellite data. Perhaps J. Stroeve could answer the question herself since she raised the issue of “ice community awareness’ of the DMI type observations. Given their awareness, has any ice community group specifically reviewed the DMI type historical ice data and compared results with the 30 yr recent record in any studies to date? That’s a simple yes or no. If yes, can we please have cites.
Phil. says:
May 2, 2012 at 1:15 pm
According to the commander of the Skate the ice at the N Pole was too thick to surface through in 1958. The following year they were able to break though the ice in frozen leads, at their first attempt they were unable to break through so surfaced faster the next time and broke through. The surfacing at the pole itself was their toughest one which took about two hours to break through, when they surfaced they were surrounded by ten foot hummocks of ice which implies one hundred foot thick ice!
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
A ten foot hummock does not mean 100 foot thick ice, it just means it has piled up from wind action or from re-freeeziing of the leads (like the one they likely surfaced in) I have seen many of these on frozen lakes in northern Canada. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressure_ridge_(ice)
RE: CCIS says:
May 2, 2012 at 1:38 am
“…There is a concept called volume…”
Which is poorly understood and very difficult to measure. Your link is to an article where some guy toodles about on an ice-breaker at the edges of the ice, and thinks he has an idea of the total v0lume. It also mentions aircraft buzzing along with a dangling radar. (It does not mention the satalite that bounces radar from way out in space, or the other, now-defunct satallite that measured using a lazer beam.)
You seem totally satified, when this fellow assures you the total volume is less. I am not. First of all, any data gathered today cannot be compared with earlier data, for all the data is recent and no earlier data exists. However I am also disatisfied because the actual data is never made public in a manner that allows the public to digest it.
I have seen no evidence that either radar or lazer are precice enough to pick up the pressure ridges which web the frozen surface of the arctic sea, yet these very narrow ridges, which look like the finest webs in even the most enlarged pictures from outer space, hold a disproportionate amount of the total volume.
Even in the depths of winter, ice can stretch like an accordian when winds diverge. This forms leads of open water even in the pitch dark, and at thirty to fifty below they swiftly freeze over. Then, when winds converge, the ice is like an accordian compressed. This forms pressure ridges where the ice is buckled and crunched and piled up, (and also piled down, for nine-tenths of any iceburg is under water.)
These pressure ridges are high enough to get in the way of brave and foolish people attempting to trudge north in the dead of winter, and therefore such people stick to the flat stretches, which are the frozen-over leads. (When such explorers take measurements with core-samplers, it is upon a nice, flat lead, where ice is newest and thinnest, and not up on the peak of a pressure ridge, which, if it sticks up six feet, also sticks down fifty-four feet.) (Likely this is smart, for it is easier to drill down through six feet of ice than sixty.)
Considering pressure ridges hold so much volume, it is important to determine whether radar and lazar beams can actually pick them up.
Don’t point laymen to numbers and computer-code that they can’t understand, but rather translate that data into an easy-to-digest picture of the surface that the radar or lazer beam actually sees. Does it show the big pressure ridges but not the small ones? Does it show them at all, or does it just show the surface as a flat average?
Until I can see a nice, neat illustration like that, I don’t want to hear talk about “volume.” As far as I can see “volume” is still basically an unknown, and is simply a topic Alarmists bring up when they are looking bad, in terms of “extent” and “area.”
RE: Wayne Delbeke says:
May 2, 2012 at 6:09 pm
“….A ten foot hummock does not mean 100 foot thick ice, it just means it has piled up from wind action or from re-freeeziing of the leads (like the one they likely surfaced in) I have seen many of these on frozen lakes in northern Canada. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressure_ridge_(ice)…”
Get real. If you actually have experience on northern lakes you know that the ice gets so thick you can drive large vehicals, even moter homes, across the ice. You also know that, as the large vehicals pass, the ice sinks without cracking. After the moter home passes, the ice rises back up. You cannot put a heavy weight on ice without the ice sinking. Given enough time, the ice will obey the old rule, “Nine tenths of an iceburg is under water.”
I lived on the coast of Maine during some very cold winters, in an area where the tides were twelve feet. The pressure ridges that formed were not “only upwards.” Furthermore, they were not solid, but tended to be a jumble of broken plates of various thickness, only loosely glued together by starchy snow and frozen froth and spray.
I can imagine cases where a 10 foot hummock might be very light powder snow, and not depress the ice beneath all that much, and even imagine cases where various sideways pressures might slow the settling of heavier chunks of ice, however the idea of ice sticking up ten feet without a very considerable downwards bulge is a bit like a man walking on water. (Possible for only the greatest of saints, and not for the likes of you and I, or dumb hunks of ice.)
I think it may be up to Walt Maier to retract his previous reconstructions (more or less flat before satellite era) given all this historic data and the multitude of agreeing reports and news articles.
Bill Tuttle says:
May 2, 2012 at 10:32 am
“The convoys were trying for speed — hugging the edge of the ice rather than making a direct run would not only have prolonged their agony, but simplified the U-boats’ search for them. Most aerial attacks on the Murmansk convoys were by He-111s, Bf-110s, and FW-200s (based at Stavanger), which had the range to pick up the convoys a day after they passed Iceland and follow them to Tromso, where they’d get picked up by the Ju-87s and get hit all the way to Murmansk.”
Incorrect on several counts. The convoys did try to keep as far away from the Norwegian coast as possible and did quite often “hug the ice”. In December 1943 the germans were quite surprised when convoy JW55B passed by only about 350 nautical miles from the Finnmark coast and used the opportunity for a surface attack by battle-cruiser Scharnhorst and 5 destroyers. However in this case the convoy was deliberately used to “bait” the Scharnhorst,
The Fw 200 (more often from Trondheim/Vaernaes than Stavanger/Sola by the way) were not much used in the Arctic where the shadowing was usually done by BV 138’s from Tromsö/Skatöyra. Ju 87’s were essentially useless in this environment (they were short-range, daytime, fair-weather aircraft) and the attacks were normally carried out by Ju 88’s or He 111’s. Finding and shadowing the convoys in foul weather and winter darkness was quite difficult both for aircraft and submarines and many convoys were never even spotted. Note that after the PQ17 disaster in June 1942 convoys only sailed in winter until JW59 in August 1944.
Incidentally it even happened that North Atlantic convoys were re-routed so far north to avoid U-boat concentration that they encountered ice off Greenland.
As a matter of fact I remember seeing maps (both german and allied) showing the position of the ice edge during various convoy battles, particularily during the Bismarck breakout (May 1941), PQ17 (June 1942) and JW55 (December 1943). More certainly exist in the archives:
Roy
Thanks very much for your links which I have put in my archives. It amply illustrates my point you were replying to, that there is a great deal of inforation out there but first it has to be found, next it has to be read, then it has to be sifted for relevance THEN it has to be put into context in an article. There are not enough hours in the day nor money to fill those hours for those sceptics not on the Big oil payroll, which as far as I can tell is ALL of us.
If you come across anything similar do let me know, Thanks
tonyb
steve fox said t me
Steve Fox says:
May 2, 2012 at 12:33 pm
“Tonyb,
thanks very much, just spent 2 hours watching old Pathe news clips. You did that deliberately didn’t you”
Yes, I have the concession rights on the popcorn!. THey are a fascinating insight into a recently lost world aren’t they?
tonyb
tty says:
May 2, 2012 at 11:14 pm
Bill Tuttle says:
May 2, 2012 at 10:32 am
“The convoys were trying for speed — hugging the edge of the ice rather than making a direct run would not only have prolonged their agony, but simplified the U-boats’ search for them. Most aerial attacks on the Murmansk convoys were by He-111s, Bf-110s, and FW-200s (based at Stavanger), which had the range to pick up the convoys a day after they passed Iceland and follow them to Tromso, where they’d get picked up by the Ju-87s and get hit all the way to Murmansk.”
Incorrect on several counts. The convoys did try to keep as far away from the Norwegian coast as possible and did quite often “hug the ice”.
The early convoys did, by all accounts. “On 21 May [1942] our convoy [PQ-16] of 36 merchant ships, PQ16, set off for Russia [from Hvalfjord, Iceland] with an initial escort of a minesweeper and four armed trawlers. We sailed between Iceland and Greenland and continued in a north-easterly direction, keeping as far away from Norway as the Arctic ice would allow.”[*] During 1943, when convoys were more heavily-escorted, convoy commanders sometimes opted for speed — it seems to have depended on what weather conditions were like, because a low overcast or storms would keep the Luftwaffe grounded.
The Fw 200 (more often from Trondheim/Vaernaes than Stavanger/Sola by the way) were not much used in the Arctic where the shadowing was usually done by BV 138′s from Tromsö/Skatöyra.
From the same account of PQ-16’s trip: “Early on the 25th, we were joined by four heavy cruisers and eight destroyers, so we now had protection against U-boats, aircraft and enemy battleships. The cruisers stationed themselves within the columns of the convoy.
“Soon we were spotted by a Focke-Wulf or FW Condor. From then on we always had one of these spotters circling the convoy out of gun range, day and night — only there was no night, just 24 hours of daylight.” The convoy and its shadow were well into the Arctic by this time.
Ju 87′s were essentially useless in this environment (they were short-range, daytime, fair-weather aircraft) and the attacks were normally carried out by Ju 88′s or He 111′s. Finding and shadowing the convoys in foul weather and winter darkness was quite difficult both for aircraft and submarines and many convoys were never even spotted. Note that after the PQ17 disaster in June 1942 convoys only sailed in winter until JW59 in August 1944.
I/St.G 5 flew Ju-87Rs, which were purpose-built for anti-shipping. They carried two external drop tanks, which gave them a useful range of over 700NM. Ju-87Rs and Ju-88s tag-teamed PQ-16: “Early on the 29th, there was another air attack, which was beaten off without loss. Late in the evening the convoy split up, six ships going to Archangel, which had just become free of ice, and the rest, including our ship, heading for the Kola Inlet.
“Shortly after the parting of the ways, we were attacked by JU 88s, some going for the Archangel section and the rest attacking us. Both attacks were beaten off without loss.
“About noon on the following day, just as we were lining up to enter the Kola Inlet, we suffered the final bombing raid, this time by JU 87s, the dreaded Stuka dive bombers.”
In 1942, I/StG 5 was deployed to Finnmark specifically to attack the Murmansk convoys. On 7 July 1942, they lost an R-4, serial number 6209, in an attack on the docks at Murmansk, probably shot down by a Lend-Lease Hurricane.
http://www.luftwaffe.no/SIG/Losses/tap422.html
As a matter of fact I remember seeing maps (both german and allied) showing the position of the ice edge during various convoy battles, particularily during the Bismarck breakout (May 1941), PQ17 (June 1942) and JW55 (December 1943). More certainly exist in the archives:
If you saw them in a hard-cover publication, my guess is that they’d be in the Admiralty archives — finding them would fill in a lot of blanks from the war years.
*the full PQ-16 narrative is at
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ww2peopleswar/stories/15/a2223415.shtml
“Here be Dragons”
Accurate sea Ice maps of the whole Arctic from the start of the 20th century, from DMI !!
From the link to scanned sea ice map (1935):
“The red curves indicate the obseved limit between open sea and ice”
The rest is presumably guesswork??
Hey Frank. Any reply from DMI on the methods for collecting the data back then, the source of the data, the reliability of the maps? I assume you’ve checked it all through? Can we see a copy of thier reply??
Village Idiot.
There are several issues im trying to resolve with them. I dont see the problem in showing this summary to people without making a PHD to begin with.
If you believe that for ex the stunningly similar patterns 1938 vs 2000 north of siberia is random and thus useless, thats your decision. If you believe that the still smaller ice area 1921-1938 is a freak error, be my guest.
Folks, I played around with the web address and found the source of all of the maps. The link at the end of this article is just for one image.
http://brunnur.vedur.is/pub/trausti/Iskort/Jpg/
Amazing stuff!!
With all the obvious caveats, this does fit in with the opening of the Russian Northern Sea Route along the Siberian coast in the 1930s.
J Solters says:
May 2, 2012 at 5:53 pm
Phil.’s response to my question about comparing DMI type studies of Arctic sea ice with the ’30 year record’ referenced by S. Stroeve is that they’ve done so. I reviewed his cite and it contains no such analysis other than a cryptic statement that data before 1953 should not be relied upon.
Didn’t you see this:
“These data are a compilation of data from several sources integrated
into a single gridded product by John Walsh and Bill Chapman,
University of Illinois. The source of data for each grid cell is
included within a separate file. These sources of data have changed
over the years from observationally derived charts to satellite
data. Gaps within observed data are filled with climatology or other
numberically derived data.”
Or this:
” During October, 1996, updates were made to the Walsh sea ice database.
The database previously contained data through December, 1990. Updates to
this dataset are, and will continue to be made using ice concentrations
obtained via the SSMI sources using the NASA Team algorithm. Ice
conditions derived from these sources are flagged as “8” in the
aricesrc.dat dataset description file.
In order to maintain a consistent data source for the last part of the
period, all data from October, 1978 through August, 1995 are from the
SMMR/ SSMI sources. This means that data from previous versions of this
data set were replaced by SMMR and SSM/I data from Oct. 1978 – Dec. 1990.
It appears that the SMMR and SSM/I data contains significant differences
poleward of the ice edge for most months. Ice concentrations are
generally lower in the central Arctic for the these data than for
other data sources. Ice extents appear to be consistent across datasets,
ice areas derived from pre-1978 data may be significantly higher than
those calculated from the satellite period. The figure contained in
icearea.ps provided with this data illustrates the rather abrupt jump in
total northern hemisphere ice area around October 1978. The figure
contained in icextnt.ps, ice extents calculated assuming 100% coverage
everywhere ice was observed, illustrates that the extent data is more
consistant between data sources.”
His response appears misleading at best.(100 ft thick ice?)
That was not in response to your post.
There is not one word of content addressed to any actual comparison of historical DMI data with more recent satellite data. Perhaps J. Stroeve could answer the question herself since she raised the issue of “ice community awareness’ of the DMI type observations. Given their awareness, has any ice community group specifically reviewed the DMI type historical ice data and compared results with the 30 yr recent record in any studies to date? That’s a simple yes or no. If yes, can we please have cites.
Perhaps you should read the one you’ve already been given! They explicitly stated that they incorporated the DMI data in their database along with the satellite data from the more recent years.
So much for ‘not one word’:
“Ice concentrations are generally lower in the central Arctic for the these data (satellite) than for other data sources (charts like DMI). Ice extents appear to be consistent across datasets, ice areas derived from pre-1978 data may be significantly higher than those calculated from the satellite period.”
Italics are my comments.
Frank Lansner says:
May 2, 2012 at 2:30 am
orson2 says:
”
May 2, 2012 at 2:10 am
Frank notes the unchanging ice in the maps around the Bering Strait. My conjecture is that DMI observation around Scandanavia (into Russian shelf waters) and Greenland areas (into Canadian shelf waters) is quite good. But the furthest extent away, (ie, the Bering Strait) where (I presume) Nordic vessels seldom travelled, is likely deficient because of poor observations.
”
I agree 100%. I think some of these bering strait results and even West-Canadian early illustrations are not that well covered. They show almost “max” extend all the time, so if anything is wrong, they show too much ice over there.
The results for the 20’s are consistent with the historical accounts of the difficulties associated with supplying various expeditions to Wrangel Island, also earlier with Amundsen being trapped in ice in early September 05 after his expedition cleared the NW passage, and having to over-winter for another year. There were plenty of fishing boats operating in that area then Amundsen’s book reports the contacts with them.
Any chance of getting one or two of the charts scanned at high enough resolution to be able to read the annotations?
By the way these maps were actually scanned and put online by the Icelandic Meteorological Office. (Vedhurstofa Islands). Just click your way up from the maps and You end up on their home page:
http://www.vedur.is/
If anyone is interested in other old sea-ice data the entire declassified satellite imagery for 1960-80 is easily searchable and can be browsed (at low resolution) here:
http://earthexplorer.usgs.gov/
And here is an example. An image that shows the ice distribution around the entire Spitzbergen archipelago beautifully:
http://earthexplorer.usgs.gov/browse/DIT/9034A/008M/C/DS09034A008MC022.jpg
It was taken on May 16, 1962, almost exactly 50 years ago.
“Any chance of getting one or two of the charts scanned at high enough resolution to be able to read the annotations?”
Just go to the site where they are. They are very high resolution (big files). And the annotation is quite good and clearly indicates areas of uncertainty, contra some of the commentators here:
http://brunnur.vedur.is/pub/trausti/Iskort/Pdf/
http://brunnur.vedur.is/pub/trausti/Iskort/Jpg/
tonyb said:
Thanks very much for your links which I have put in my archives. It amply illustrates my point you were replying to, that there is a great deal of information out there …
I am glad it was of interest. If I do come across anything similar I will let you know.
Roy
Good job Frank. Present what you’ve got and let the chips fall wherever.
Reply to Phil. I repeat: the study you reference contains no specific comparative analysis of 1900 to 1960 pre-satellite DMI Arctic ice area measurements and the abrupt significant fluctuations, including very low ice measurements recorded there, with the current 30 year period identified by J Stroeve. Absolutely nothing you’ve repeated in your latest comment, and others, addresses that specific comparison in any meaningful way. Your response addresses satellite updates which are not remotely similar to the issue I’m addressing. After examining these exchanges, I’m convinced you have no intention of addressing directly the very narrow question of analytical comparison of these two time-periods. At this point, I’ve tenatively concluded that no such specific analytic comparison has been made between DMI data for 1900 /1960, and the recent record for the last 30 years in an effort to reconcile ice fluctuations between these periods.
To clear up some confusion some of you may be having, John Walsh, Bill Chapman and Florence Fetterer (at NSIDC) are busy working on a data-recovery project to add several new sources of data into their earlier version of the historic dataset. Perhaps some don’t realize that the digitization process is time-consuming, and then you have to try to get everything on the same grid, as well as try to decode the different ways that ice was recorded in these historical data sets so that you can develop a consistent data set. They don’t anticipate having any updates to the historical data set until the beginning of 2013. In the meantime you can go here: http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/SEAICE/ for the earlier version of this data set that spans 1870 to present.
Also note that these are the data sources in the current version of the dataset, which shows that DMI was already one of the sources.
The data sources for the ice concentrations vary spatially and temporally. There are eight basic data sources for the ice concentrations:
1. Danish Meteorlogical Institute
2. Japan Meteorological Agency
3. Naval Oceanographic Office (NAVOCEANO)
4. Kelly ice extent grids (based upon Danish Ice Charts)
5. Walsh and Johnson/Navy-NOAA Joint Ice Center
6. Navy-NOAA Joint Ice Center Climatology
7. Temporal extension of Kelly data (see note below)
8. Nimbus-7 SMMR Arctic Sea Ice Concentrations or
DMSP SSM/I Sea Ice Concentrations using the NASA Team Algorithm
Julienne says:
May 3, 2012 at 4:45 pm
Also note that these are the data sources in the current version of the dataset, which shows that DMI was already one of the sources.
Julienne, I’ve already told him that and linked him to the CT page which discusses the database, for some reason he appears unable to accept that. The references to the papers are there too!
Very strange that they did not use the norwegian ACSYS data from Norsk Polarinstitutt which are the most comprehensive for the North Atlantic. And no Russian data at all, apparently.
tty says:
May 3, 2012 at 11:18 pm
Very strange that they did not use the norwegian ACSYS data from Norsk Polarinstitutt which are the most comprehensive for the North Atlantic. And no Russian data at all, apparently.
*Accurate* Soviet topographic maps were considered state secrets — that extended to aeronautical charts in the Arctic showing sea ice extent, too, although the maritime charts would have been accurate. I know Russian helicopter pilots who flew oil exploration support and settlement resupply in the ’80s and ’90s, and one of the things they always mentioned was that the maps they were given had distorted coastlines and river courses — each one had a small notebook containing headings and flight times between towns, rigs, and refueling points.
Where did Lansner get the bizarre notion that data from early 1900s shows the state “before human CO2 outlet”? The Industrial Revolution began in the late 1700s, and massive commercial collieries and other energy resource extraction enterprises sprung up in the Americas, in Europe and elsewhere in that time frame to fuel it. As an example, the collieries in the Lackawanna Valley of Pennsylvania alone were producing nearly 100 million tons of coal a year by the end of the 1800s – all of which was going to fuel voracious industrial consumption all throughout the 1800s. Mr. Lansner should be deeply embarrassed with this apparent lack of understanding of global industrial history.
Mr “Joe F11”
Let me rephrase so also you get the point:
“before human CO2 outlet”
Should be
“before human CO2 outlet exploded”
or
“When CO2 level were still well below Hansens safe level on 350 ppm”
Since I honestly cannot imagine you did not really understand this yourself, I get the impression that you are retorical here. And how can that be?
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/graphics/global.total.gif
Perhaps Mr. Lansner is not familiar with classic works of Dickens and others, describing a sooty, smoke-spewing Industrial London of the 1800s and the “Killer Fogs” from industrial emissions that struck repeatedly, in some instances killing hundreds, even thousands. If you want to point to a date of exploding human CO2 output, you have to go back to at least the 1850s, which is when we began pumping billions of tons of additional CO2 into the atmosphere. Many of the coal-fired power plants that people are concerned about being shut down date back to the 1930s and 1940s, and are now held together with bailing twine and duct tape, well beyond their intended service life. Governments didn’t even begin to regulate emissions until the 1950s (1956, in the case of the UK). Yet you seem to want to ignore history and start in the mid-1900s, rather than acknowledge that there were significant emissions well prior.
“Joe F11”
– Before 1938 CO2 levels were less than 310 ppm in Siple Vostok data – far below Hansens 350 ppm for dangerous CO2 warming.
Even Phil Jones believes that warming before 1940 is mainly naturally driven.
– DMI have documented a strong dive in Arctic ice area before 1938 when CO2 was not supposed to be an important driver of warming.
If strong dives in Arctic ice occured before 1938, then the recent strong dive in Arctic ice itself appears less dependent of human activities.
Honestly, im sure you are perfectly aware of this simple point, but you choose to try some retoric none the less.
Again, it’s about a growing trend of CO2 emissions over time from 1850 on. Even the ORNL graph that you yourself presented earlier in this thread reflects this growing trend of human CO2 contribution having a far longer tail than you want to admit. And as such, human CO2 increases the likelihood of declining sea ice not just in 1938, but overall. 1938 becomes particularly evident when combined with other factors, such as the many known heat waves of the 1930s, and timing of the solar cycle – which for example contributed to the Dust Bowl. But heat waves and solar cycles only tell a fraction of the story. There are many contributors to climate, both additive and subtractive, both natural and manmade, climate is complex. Yet this forum always rushes to trot out one natural source after another, with its’ own partial contribution, and no matter how spurious, while steadfastly denying any of the many human contributors, and trying to obfuscate with red herrings. Given the reality is that it is a combination of many things, it represents intellectual dishonesty to steadfastly only cling to one part of the equation and deny all else.
Joe F11,
Do you ever wonder why CO2 was @393 ppmv two years ago, and now it’s @392? Same world economic situation, same coal burning, etc.
And of course the last desperate hope of the alarmist crowd — Arctic ice cover — is rapidly increasing. Global polar ice is above its long term average now. The fact is that the real world is falsifying all of the alarmist crowd’s doomsday predictions. Climate skeptics have been proven right, and climate alarmists have been debunked.
Sorry about that. But when you’re wrong, you’re wrong.
Joe F11,
I should add that more CO2 is entirely beneficial to the biosphere. There is zero downside at current or projected levels. It’s all good. More CO2 is better.
Further, more CO2 is completely harmless. No one has been able to point to any verifiable global harm due to the increase in CO2.
No harm = “harmless”. QED
And despite your eco-handwaving about smog, etc., note that people are living much longer and healthier lives now, despite the large increase in CO2, and in coal-fired power plants, and nukes, and natural gas plants, and all of the beneficial aspects of modern industrial society that seem to scare you.
If you want to live like people did before the industrial revolution, it is entirely possible. But you won’t like it.
Joe F11
You write:
“Again, it’s about a growing trend of CO2 emissions over time from 1850 on.”
In the period 1900-1920 before the DMI-documented Arctic melting, Co2 was around 300 ppm,
In the period of Arctic ice melting 1921-1938 it was around 310 ppm.
Honestly, not many insists that this change 300 ppm to 310 ppm is responsible of the heating 1920-40 compared to the colder 1900-1920.
Thus its quite normal to consider the pre 1940 events as mostly natural, again, even Phil Jones does so.
-So im supposed to consider CO2 as important heat driver before 1938 even when alarmists often doesnt?
If what happened around year 1850 (where CO2 concentrations were even more constant according to vostok/Siple) was so important why did we not see any sudden warming around 1850 globally?
Would you expect Ice retreat around 1850 then, Joe F11 ?
Smokey,
I saw the word “desperately”..
Yup, what the DMI also show is:
1 Ice can recover very fast
2 in the pre 1923 data, ice areas were really large compared to now. December conditions in August.
So, this focus on Arctic ice as an important parameter for global temperatures can actually be crucial for the pro-IPCC team.
Any year things can take a turn aproximately as they did 1938-1939.
Any year the death of AGW can be the result of the massive focus on Arctic ice.
Then “desperate” seem like the correct word.
Smokey, it’s not “all the same”. There has been a significant reduction in emissions from coal-fired plants in the US over the last decade (yet US energy supply has continued to increase). China and other parts of the emerging world have been diversifying in energy generation technologies like hydro, wind and solar, particularly as Chinese industries dependent solely on coal have seen blackouts due to insufficient fossil fuel supply.
I would turn the “desperate” question around, and ask YOU why YOU are so desperate to “debunk” man’s impact on the Earth?
CO2 may be “good for the biosphere” but melting ice and resultant coastal flooding, by whatever source, is currently not good for man. There are already international geopolitical issues arising from coastal populations being displaced around the Pacific. Continued dependence on energy resources that are dwindling, and which place dependence on hostile foreign nations is not good for nations. Monopolistic dominance of certain energy technology to the detriment of others is not good economically. Resistance to innovation and more efficient technology is not good economically. Independently of any “AGW” or “CO2” arguments, why are you so desperately fighting so hard to cling to antiquated energy sources which will only get more and more scarce and expensive?
Joe,
– do you want our children to learn in schools what is not true?
– do you want people to be so scared over consequences of claimed CO2 heating even if it is not true?
– do you ant the Western world to be “responsible” for all kinds of weather related disasters all over the world if it is not true?
– do you want us to have a “climate dept” even if the science is not supporting this at all?
– do you want the world to be prepaired for warming even if we are in fact facing cooling with much greater risks for us all?
I dont.
One day you will see that “the bad guys” were “the good guys”.
K.R. Frank
Joe F11 says:
May 5, 2012 at 6:54 am
Smokey, it’s not “all the same”. There has been a significant reduction in emissions from coal-fired plants in the US over the last decade (yet US energy supply has continued to increase).
Your talking points are out of date — China surged into the lead in the CO2 emissions race.in 2006.
http://www.pbl.nl/en/dossiers/Climatechange/moreinfo/Chinanowno1inCO2emissionsUSAinsecondposition
China and other parts of the emerging world have been diversifying in energy generation technologies like hydro, wind and solar, particularly as Chinese industries dependent solely on coal have seen blackouts due to insufficient fossil fuel supply.
China has been having blackouts because they’ve been building coal-fired plants faster than coal can be delivered — an average of two new ones each week since 2007.
http://www.netl.doe.gov/coal/refshelf/ncp.pdf
Seriously, you need to update your talking points.
For Mr. Lansner, the problem is that it has not been shown to be “not true”. Yes, one can point to solar variability and other factors, but there is no model in existence that accounts for everything, conclusively ruling out human factors. Can you for example explain exactly why ice advanced in the Bering Sea in 1924, 1928 and 1930 without then also negating your other arguments? The only thing that has been shown is that climate is complex, with a multitude of contributors. Nothing has shown conclusively that man has no or insignificant impact. We know we have impacted our atmosphere with CFCs, damaging the ozone layer, we know that human emissions caused acid rain damage, we know that human-generated particulates and other emissions can trigger human respiratory disease – many examples of global impact – so why would anyone in their right mind be so arrogantly and dismissively certain and steadfast that we could not possibly be having other impacts?
For Mr. Tuttle, if you are tracking China, then surely you would also know that China, despite their dependence on fossil fuels, has been making a massive investment in solar and other technologies, and now leads the world in production of solar panels, producing nearly half the world’s supply – they also have tripled installed solar plants in just the period 2010 to 2011 and are adding far more solar capacity than the US is. China is on track to surpass the United States in solar energy output in the next few years. It seems the Chinese do not at all consider solar to be the “phony boondoggle” that others seem to want to insist it is.
Joe F11 says:
May 5, 2012 at 10:36 am
“For Mr. Lansner, the problem is that it has not been shown to be “not true”. Yes, one can point to solar variability and other factors, but there is no model in existence that accounts for everything, conclusively ruling out human factors. Can you for example explain exactly why ice advanced in the Bering Sea in 1924, 1928 and 1930 without then also negating your other arguments? The only thing that has been shown is that climate is complex, with a multitude of contributors. Nothing has shown conclusively that man has no or insignificant impact.”
JoeF11 what are you talking about? We are all well aware of humans impact on environment. What we want is science and correct information. No bias no tricks no indulgences and no climate church.
You spew a lot of nonsense about climate and china and solar and so on.
Try to stay on topic, the thread was historical ice coverage and it was shown that “official statistics” is missing important information and is wrong. We want to have it put right to have the correct science done based on it.
If one has wrong historical data then models – will model the wrong story – so the work to put it right has a great value for all, alarmist or skeptic.
If you want to discuss china solar, go to a solar energy thread don’t mix it here, you disturb constructive discussion. If you want to discuss ozone go to ozone thread or open thread on week-end.
If you just want to spew non-sense be warned that moderators will have to moderate you, that’s what they are doing to keep the conversation on topic and efficient.
Lars P, thankyou for comment, very well said indeed.
Here are a large number of Greenland temperature stations taken from Nordklim and GHCN v2 raw.
http://hidethedecline.eu/media/ARUTI/Europe/GreenlandIceland/fig8.jpg
(Taken from RUTI Greenland and Iceland:
http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/ruti/europe/greenland-iceland-and-svalbard.php )
The Greenland temperatures seems to match the above trends in sea ice as illustrated by DMI in generations. So.. “Why the fuzz?”
While the thesis that Scandinavian ice maps from early in the 20th century are not accurate for the Bering area because they had little data from there is a possible cause, though speculative, there were boating people in Alaska and nearby areas then. People on the B.C. coast for example, (US attempted to chase them away from the Pribilof Islands in 1886, Russia sold AK to the US circa 1867) and probably fishers from Japan.
As for Arctic ice data points, note that the small wooden boat St. Roch somehow transited the NW passage back in 1944 and WUWT had a map in a thread about “Warming Island”. (Alarmists thought they had found a previously ice-covered island, someone found it on a map in an old book.)
Some of you are saying things that don’t make sense. Is there always thick ice at the north pole? I doubt it, in part because wind and currents blow ice around. (And didn’t someone detail the time of submarine visits, just a few weeks ago? Some of you – like “J Bowers” are being irresponsible. But we often see herein the power of the Internet to counter erroneous claims.
Yes, ice ridges are common in the Arctic ocean, have been accused of fouling up submarine measurements due comparison of average-reading vs peak-reading sensors. Can’t understand what “Caleb” is harassing Wayne Delbeke for given that Delbeke says “it has piled up from wind action”. It only takes in the order of magnitude of 10 feet of ice to support a 727 airplane, done frequently in the 1970s. But ice ridges (upward) would be a problem. I once flew over the NW Arctic with a bunch of geologist/geophysicists from TX, they were excited to see the ice ridges (and rock outcrops on the low dry islands).
Frank;
Wonderful compilation, well presented. Thank you. A beautiful demonstration of the variances that occur naturally! Actually, bring on the NE and NW Passage(s)! They’d be wonderfully useful.
____________
Oh, a wee English hint: “August ice extend” is “August ice extent” (see Fig 19 title, e.g.) Extend = verb, “extent” = noun.
[SNIP: Sorry, but we really do require valid e-mail addresses. A less derogatory screen name would not be amiss either. -REP]