Arctic Sea Ice Increases at Record Rate
Guest Post by Jeff Id on February 3, 2009
Something I’ve been interested in for the last several months is sea ice data. What makes it interesting is that as I understand it, models demonstrate the poles should be most sensitive to global warming leading the planet temp, especially in the Arctic. Recently I have been able to process the monthly and daily gridded arctic data as provided by NSIDC. The daily values allow a better analysis of trend than can be provided by the monthly data.
If you’re like me you recall the claims of fastest melt rate ever were made about 2007 , I fully believed them, because the graphs showed a much more negative value than in the previous 30 years as shown in Figure 1 below.
This effort was originally intended to investigate how bad the melt rate was in comparison to the natural variation, I didn’t get that far yet. Accessing and processing the gridded data was critical to the analysis, so I spent the time reading the literature and writing code. Having full access to the NSIDC data allows some interesting analysis, they do an excellent job on their site.
There are two primary algorithms used for processing ice data NasaTeam and Bootstrap. The descriptions of the data state the difference between the two is very small and the sets are interchangeable except that bootstrap is recommended for trend analysis in research publications. Bootstrap is only provided in monthly data format while NasaTeam is provided in both monthly and daily provided you’re willing to download over 1G of data, write code to process it, refit the land and missing data mask and sum the results. I am. Also, NasaTeam provides a near real time version of the polar ice data which has a different land mask and hasn’t been processed for missing data. This data isn’t as clean but I wanted to use it. I applied the same land mask as the rest of the series to insure that there was a consistent baseline for trend analysis. The missing data from Jan 2008 onward created noise in the series which I simply filtered out using a 7 day sliding window filter.
The mask looks like this Figure 2
The brown is land, black edges on land are coastline and light blue is the satellite data not measured. This mask is applied consistently through the entire data series. There was some question about masking on one of my other posts at WUWT where visually the land area seemed to change size, in the case of the NSIDC data they apply masks consistently except for the satellite hole and the near real time data.
The NasaTeam version of the arctic ice data looks like the plot below for 2009 (note the small size of the satellite data hole). This graph was created in R using the actual Nasa Team masks and data. I used the worst case land and polar masks to adjust the entire dataset to eliminate problems with consistency. Figure 3
Of course it’s an interesting picture, but what I wanted to know when I started this post was how bad was the worst melt rate in history and what is the actual melt area. In the plot below the arctic is losing sea ice at a rate of only 56K km^2/year. Of course sea ice area went up in the Antarctic during the same time frame though. Note the strong recovery in 08 of Figures 1 and 4, which actually exceeds values of most of the record, matching data back to 1980. Much of this is first year ice so the melt in 08 was expected to be a new record.
If you recall, in 2007 and 08 we were treated to headlines like this, which most of us accepted with a shrug.
Scientists warn Arctic sea ice is melting at its fastest rate since records began
NASA data show Arctic saw fastest sea ice melt in August 2008
Arctic Just Witnessed Fastest August Ice Retreat in History
I processed and analyzed the NasaTeam land area and missing data masks spending hours understanding different variances they list on their own website. After nearly everything I could find (except satellite transitions errors) was corrected (a different post) and corrections for variance in the measured pixel size, the final result in 30 day trends of arctic sea ice looks like the graph below (Figure 5). This graph is a derivative of the ice area plot. The maximum peaks and valleys represent the maximum rates of change in 30 day periods through the ice record.
Looking at this plot of the 30 day slopes of actual NASA gridded data, the maximum ice melt rate occurs in 1999 and in 2004 not in 2007. Surprisingly the maximum ice growth rates occur in 2007 and 2008, I don’t remember those headlines for some reason. Don’t forget when looking at the 2008 – 09 peak, the data is preliminary and hasn’t been through the same processing as the other data. From looking at the unprocessed data I doubt it will change much.
Certainly the 30 year arctic trend in ice area is downward, even the most committed global warming scientist has to admit this happens regularly in climate along with regular 30 year uptrends. The questions are, did we cause it or not, and was CO2 the instigating factor. The rapid recovery of ice levels has to have some meaning regarding the severity of the problem. This goes directly in the face of accelerated global warming and the doom and gloom scenarios promoted by our politicians and polyscienticians.
Why are my conclusions different from the news reported records? I think it’s likely due to the fact that the scientists used the monthly data which is processed using a weighted filter of the daily data that incorporates a longer time frame than a single month. This means their use of the monthly data to establish a monthly trend was in error and the real record down trends were actually set in 1999, 2003 and 1984. While the record uptrends were in 2007, 2008 and 1996.
Sponsored IT training links:
If hankering after 642-591 preparation then CT0-101 online training is best answer to your problem. Just go through practice questions and pass your 1Y0-A23 exam on first try.
Phil. (07:24:35) :
“As I told you before Judith Lean, the author of that reconstruction, no longer supports it and has published a revised version. If you want a graph of the currently accepted position I suggest you contact Leif.”
Judith Lean revised her reconstruction, but her 2004 revision and other later reconstructions did not change the finding of increasing TSI in the early 20th Century (Lean 2004, Wang 2005, and Svalgaard 2007).
I don’t get the fear. There have been a few posts which have stated the current climate is bad for business.
This makes no sense. If we embark on this journey to clean up the toxins we spew, not only will this present opportunities for entrepreneurs to cash in on this trend, it will also better our standing around the globe. New jobs will be created to tackle new initiatives. WE ALSO END UP WITH CLEANER AIR! So, if this mad dash to reduce CO2 produces the reduction of the real noxious gasses as a side effect, where is the problem?
Seems to me all who oppose the “green initiatives” have a vested interest in keeping things the same. I would say they are scared of things changing in this “green” direction because their current business model or, mode of income, depends on the continuation of unsustainable, polluting practices.
Run scared. The “green” economy is coming. Adjust or, be left behind.
I, for one, will cash in on the clean up process just as others have cashed in on industries which have screwed up our air quality and poisoned our water.
Here, Illinois Dept. of Natural Resources publication;
Look at the Enadangered and threatened species, consumption advisories and aquatic nuisance species. All of these problem are here because some industries and individuals don’t give a damn. Profit above all else.
I made a mistake in an earlier post. Mercury in fish comes from coal fired electric plant;
http://www.dnr.state.il.us/fish/digest/digest.pdf
We have been neglectful in our clean up duties. Now, when the time has come to enact laws which will hold us responsible, we argue about whether or no the current climate models are right. Of course they are not right. The climatologists are trying to make sense of a chaotic system. So what?
Are we ok with dirty air and water?
“Are we ok with dirty air and water?”
That is a complete non-sequitur.
The U.S. has cleaned up its environment better than anyone else. Since most of the world signed the 1992 Kyoto protocol:
We didn’t sign on to Kyoto; those other countries did. Yet we have a significantly cleaner environment.
Finally, you’re getting off the track by falsely implying that people want dirty air and water. It’s a dishonest tactic. Stop it.
The central issue is the validity of the AGW/CO2 hypothesis. And so far, nothing but always-inaccurate computer models support it. The problem isn’t AGW, it’s the alarmists’ computer models.
TonyB (03:41:39) : and D. Patterson (05:15:54) :
Rhodes Fairbridges sea level curve is not terribly unlike the Nederlands one you (TonyB) shared. The Fairbridge curve adds a few more details and the extent of rises and falls are greater (+3m to -2m). By looking into supporting documentation and subsequent studies, Fairbridge’s +3m maximums and +1m during the MWP I find to be more like what actually happened. The Dutch graph is a bit understated and may represent local conditions that might have involved PGR as well.
Those well-establish facts that we know about the period — indeed the entire late Holocene interglacial optimum for the past 6,000 years — are what the AGW promoters [like Chris Schoneveld (12:28:15)] choose to ignore or try in vain to refute with obtuse arguments. If every one involved in the debate were aware of the sea level proxy for climate conditions since agriculture led to civilizations, and in particular the simple fact that the worst case scenarios postulated by Hansen, Mann, and the IPCC would achieve only the average during that period, the entire discussion would have a completely different emphasis. Perhaps we could then focus on deforestation, ocean pollution, and over population rather than this convoluted emissions nonsense.
Does someone know the cause of the ice loss in the Barents Sea from last days?
Because, at the same time, Kara Sea doesn’t seem to melt.
Is this the wind, or still something else?
Yes, tom, the government can pick winners and has done so many times in the past, with a long track record of failure.
I just want to thank everyone again. Especially Anthony for the huge daily effort he puts into providing this excellent forum. If I missed some questions or comments that need to be addressed, I apologize. Feel free to try me at the Air Vent.
Jeff
>The only thing you’ve proven, DJ, is that you are an AGW True Believer.
Bruce you have no expertise in climate and that you make such statements makes it clear you do not understand the scientific process or risk managment. Science moves through peer review. The literature on sea ice is absolutely clear. One is reckless as a scientist not to support action in a considered way on the basis of the literature, particularly given the cost of mitigation will be slight – again this is evident in the litearture even if industry lobbiests and blogs like to claim otherwise.
>That just “begs” the response, “I’ll agree to a bet when you warm-mongers agree to compensate the victims of mitigation efforts if you are wrong.”
The cost of early mitigation – Roger – will be tiny. The cost of delaying to mitigate if the peer reviewed science is right (and lets face it the data looks pretty much on the predictions) will be massive. Basic risk managment tells you that you should move cautiously and sensibly in the direction of mitigation. If you delay mitigation and the peer reviewed science is right then you have to fast track the decommissioning of stranded infrastructure which is massively expensive and also deal with a climate which is changing at an accelerating pace.
Let us not pretend that the economics of climate change or risk management for climate change supports a do nothing position.
Given that the cost of early mitigation efforts will be zero or perhaps even negative what have you got to fear? Given that 25% of human emissions come from deforestation what have you got to fear – we can slash emissions overnight by putting an end to this crazy practice.
Why don’t you give reducing your foot print a go Roger. I’ve saved $1000s in recent years by doing simple things like changing light bulbs, getting rid of inefficient appliances, insulating and the like.
tom (10:00:49) :
Run scared. The “green” economy is coming. Adjust or, be left behind.
I, for one, will cash in on the clean up process just as others have cashed in on industries which have screwed up our air quality and poisoned our water.
“Green” is a buzzword which can pretty much mean anything. Ever hear of “greenwashing”? Change a few light bulbs, design a marketing campaign, and voila, you’re “green”. It’s more about the APPEARANCE than anything else, and above all, it’s about making money. But, now, with things like Cap n’ Trade and/or carbon taxes we all get to pay a lot more for energy, and for what?
Sure, we all want cleaner air and water, and there’s always room to improve that. But, it is wealth that has given us the means to clean up our environment. Spending trillions of dollars stupidly on AGW-inspired “industries” like CCS, geoengineering, wind farms, solar, and geothermal energies will only serve to make everyone poorer. Every one of those things, though they may be feasible in some situations, in addition to being costly has environmental concerns. Corn-based ethanol was supposed to be “green”. How’d that turn out?
Pieter F (10:39:02) :
“Those well-establish facts that we know about the period — indeed the entire late Holocene interglacial optimum for the past 6,000 years — are what the AGW promoters [like Chris Schoneveld (12:28:15)] choose to ignore or try in vain to refute with obtuse arguments.”
It is quite funny to see how I – a very outspoken global warming skeptic – get labelled as a AGW promoter only because I make a remark of caution not to use ancient shore line indicators as evidence of past higher sea levels. One can be a skeptic but that doesn’t mean one cannot be critical of certain arguments that are not well thought through.
As a sceptic of global warming I nonetheless remain concerned about artic Ice extent. (This is of course not an issue in the antarctic where there has recently been record ice).
The maximum and minimum arctic ice extent is recent times is none the less lower.
What interesting is the negative feedback that these recovery rates show. This whole fast recovery process seems to be as a result of a negative feedback in polar ice coverage something the models certainly do not reflect.
So then, we can leave out references to gods in climate discussions (except tongue in cheek, of course).
DJ (12:18:27) :
Bruce you have no expertise in climate and that you make such statements makes it clear you do not understand the scientific process or risk managment. Science moves through peer review. The literature on sea ice is absolutely clear. One is reckless as a scientist not to support action in a considered way on the basis of the literature, particularly given the cost of mitigation will be slight – again this is evident in the litearture even if industry lobbiests and blogs like to claim otherwise.
“No expertise in climate” is a non sequiteur, and is a typical AGWer tactic. I understand the scientific process. Do you? Science moves through peer review? Sorry, no, not necessarily. Fraud can easily slip through peer review, since reviewers often don’t have access to the data the paper is based on. With AGW “climate science”, what we have is a self-perpetuating cycle, with the ASSUMPTION that C02 drives climate. Sorry, wrong again, a scientists job isn’t to “support action”, that is the politician’s job.
Cost of mitigation will be slight? That’s a laugh. It will certainly be multi-trillions of dollars, despite claims to the contrary from your AGW “literature”.
Stop deforestation? Sure. Sounds great. How exactly? They’re slashing and burning rain forests to grow biofuels, in order to “cut carbon”. Gee, that doesn’t seem to be going so well, does it?
DJ:
The likes of Einstein, Newton and Darwin will be rolling in their graves.
Peer review is (or rather, has become) little more than glorified rubber-stamping.
Which planet do you come from? It’s already costing me personally around GBP3000 (yes, you read right, that’s three grand) a year just in fuel tax just to commute to work. And that’s something I can’t do much about without creating even bigger expenses for myself, or reducing my income to well below the level I need.
Pamela: “Candace Purt” should be “Candace Pert”
Regarding replies by D. Patterson and Kohl Piersen in response to my comment.
D. Patterson, who gets my point, writes: “In the AGW or Global Warming discussion, proponents of AGW tend to deny most of the pre-human climates as being relevant to the discussion or otherwise a norm to be used in comparisons of climate change. ” And I would just add that the question of “norm” is more than just a statistical one. The whole notion of a “norm” implies an ideal — a “should.” The debate — especially on the AGW side — also weirdly presumes that human beings are somehow outside or separate from nature, rather than being a part of nature.
~snip~ With earlier climates, other life forms flourished. Why this prejudice against dinosaurs? They were nothing if not efficient animals. (Of course I do understand the sentiment here that we human beings want to flourish. I’m definitely pro-flourish.)
I think Kohl Piersen doth protest too much. ~snip~ In a random system where things just happen in consequence of “laws of physics” and where life “evolves” in response to those events, what is to say that AGW isn’t just another fact like other facts (assuming that it is true). Perhaps it is part of evolution. Intelligent beings build cars, make lots of CO2 and change the climate, according to which new life forms adapt, human beings evolve into the next great thing, and randomness goes merrily along its random way.
I would think that any self-respecting atheist would see this point in its crystaline clarity. Mind you, I am making a “devil’s argument,” but a valid one.
As I say, I’m definitely pro-flourish. But I am not convinced that AGW is real. And I do see the hyped up advocacy on behalf of the idea as having a negative impact on scientific credibility.
[Sorry ANF, no religious/atheist discussion allowed here, it will only trigger similar comments ad infinitum. ~ dbstealey, mod.]
To dbstealey, mod.
I understand. Thanks for the heads-up. ANF
I can’t believe there are still posters who are asking why the sea ice is behaving like it has over the past week. Can I just cut and paste?
DJ
Personally, I am most happy for “sceptics” to keep talking about sea ice because these data are irrefutable evidence of a rapidly warming world.
If you consider 0.6 degrees C +/- 0.2C over 100 years to be rapid, I guess anything is possible.
a jones
No this was not casual reporting but a regular series of hydrographic surveys.
By that I saaume that they found the same chunks of ice from measurement to measurement, not just the same tracks plotting waypoints. If not, then my comment still stands.
Chris Schoneveld (12:59:11) :”One can be a skeptic but that doesn’t mean one cannot be critical of certain arguments that are not well thought through.”
Sorry, Chris. Point taken. Critique welcome. However, the Greenland shore habitation sites, even when adjusted for PGR, as sell as many other sources indicate a much warmer period during the Medieval Optimum. They also suggest a largely ice-free Arctic for many summers during the period. According to the AWGers, we should all be deathly afraid of conditions half way as warm as the MWP.
DJ, tell me what you know about sea ice behavior as a function of land boundaries, Arctic currents and various temperatures of said currents, and wind patterns/air temperatures. Specifically, tell me how large these effects are on a daily, weekly, and monthly basis, as well as on a decadal basis. Then please inform me of the tested relative affects of CO2 and soot on sea ice behavior. Don’t use model or projection papers. Please cite any paper that has studied sea ice data collected up to the current date and that includes testable mechanisms. Please note that NOAA has already published a seminal report on the above variables and the rapid melts of the recent past.
P Folkens (00:23:17) :
Psi (17:19:12) : “I wonder if Eskimo folk memory recalls these warmer days?”days?”
I wintered over in Barrow a few years back, working on a project at the Iñupiat Heritage Center. I got to talking with the director and a historian at the center about exactly that. The oral tradition speaks of the days when the Iñuits hunted mostly caribou and waterfowl because the ice was not conducive to hunting seals and the whale….[snip]
Fabulous. I second my own call for Anthony to please consider having you do a guest blog on this topic. I myself am ABD in Anthropology — went on to the Fudd degree in another field — and I think this stuff is just perfect. Of course the hardcore AGW folk will pooh pooh it since its not part of their models, but for everyone else, hearing this story, through which you can now correlate at least three significant data points (hard scientific evidence of higher sea levels in the Arctic, tradition of MWP, and Eskimo folk memory), will begin to look mighty intriguing to us ordinary folk who aren’t sufficiently trained in the arcana of “Climate Science” to understand all the fuzzy math that goes into those exalted models.
<If the only way to report Antarctic warming is to rely on <statistical error, then the reportage and the “science” it is <based upon is not worth a hill’o’beans!
Ken Hall (00:45:52) : I must comment on your commentage!
hill’o’beans: obvious spelling error- “billions” more likely. reference see:paradigm vs ‘ “pair o’ dimes” shift ‘ – spare a dime. o! taxes my lexicon! a Con you say? Solomon said – like striving after the wind. They should Pull Their Skirt and walk out, or blame it on the dog.
brian
pumping fossil water into the air
every day
Bruce Cobb
. Spending trillions of dollars stupidly on AGW-inspired “industries” like CCS, geoengineering, wind farms, solar, and geothermal energies will only serve to make everyone poorer.
LMFAO
Might as well spend it on a war…..at least thats productive. 🙂
btw VG..Rupert Murdoch owns The Australian
Warren
Bruce Cobb
. Spending trillions of dollars stupidly on AGW-inspired “industries” like CCS, geoengineering, wind farms, solar, and geothermal energies will only serve to make everyone poorer.
LMFAO
Might as well spend it on a war…..at least thats productive. 🙂
Relevance? You AGWers just LOVE your non sequiteurs, don’t you? Saves having to use your brain, I guess. LMFAO