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.
Att John Nicklin
No this was not casual reporting but a regular series of hydrographic surveys.
Att Rhys Jagger
There is a wealth of historical data on this which is usually discounted by climate scientists: for instance ship’s logs noting when and where they encountered ice. A colleague is compiling a survey of this. This is a small offshoot of the programme to compile and analyse all the met data of all RN ships’ logs from the late 18th century onwards. This is a huge project which will take several years but should give us a wealth of information on the climate around the world from that time onwards.
Kindest Regards.
John W-
I was hoping Jeff Id woud respond by comparing his results with the graph I referenced.
Good post. Reproduction of results in the practice of science as we used to understand it is essential to the health of the beast. In the biological sciences, most ‘scientists’ only contribute at this level.
First Ice Extent/Area/Thickness report I’d hang my hat on.
a jones (07:04:18) :
‘Att Rhys Jagger
There is a wealth of historical data on this which is usually discounted by climate scientists: for instance ship’s logs noting when and where they encountered ice. A colleague is compiling a survey of this. This is a small offshoot of the programme to compile and analyse all the met data of all RN ships’ logs from the late 18th century onwards. This is a huge project which will take several years but should give us a wealth of information on the climate around the world from that time onwards.
Kindest Regards.’
Thanks a jones – I look forward very much to hearing about this in the future.
Regards
RJ
There has been criticism of CO2 warming theory supporters for cherry-picking and manipulating data to justify their beliefs. A very recent example of apparant manipulation is the “discovery” of a warming Antarctica, even though scientists had believed for 50 years that it was cooling. http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=5077
Like Caesar’s wife who must appear virtuous as well as be virtuous, skeptics ought to refrain from appearing to do what they accuse others of doing.
It ought to be enough to note that the above normal summer sea ice melting in 2007-and to a lesser extent in 2008-was probably due to unusual current and wind patterns, and that freezing has brought areal coverage back to recent normality. There should not be any jumping through mathematical hoops to try to make a point.
Wait, record lows in ice extent is followed by a record rate of refreezing? Its almost as if having less ice at the end of the summer might allow for more area to refreeze…
Financial meltdown …. consistent with AGW theory.
Cinderella …. consistent with AGW theory.
The Bible …. consistent with AGW theory.
I Ching …. consistent with AGW theory.
1984 …. consistent with AGW theory.
Yup, finally I got it.
AnonyMoose (21:31:20) :
“This means their use of the monthly data to establish a monthly trend was in error …”
So what happens when one uses yearly data to establish a yearly trend?
The monthly data is sensitive to short term filtering/processing, annual trend from a monthly anomaly would not be very sensitive to that.
—-
I don’t go around looking for these things, they just happen. I was exploring the magnitude of the difference in ice melt to see how much faster the ice had melted. BTW: Everyone knows some arctic ice has melted.
I like numbers, it is my belief that there is a great deal more to be learned from actually working with the data than you can get from just reading the papers. When I saw that the ice had set two record growth rates in 07 and 08 and the maximum melt rate was actually before 07, it kind of pisses me off. That isn’t what we were told by the ‘experts’ and it sure as heck isn’t what I expected when I spent the days of time working on the data.
One thing I’m interested in now is in the measurement quality. I want to look at how the ice concentration near the pole change from one satellite transition to the next. My first look at it showed that there may be some differences in sensitivity to concentration percentage on what I would expect to be 100% ice.
I flew over the Hudson bay area, last month. It was solid ice as far as you could see with clear skies from 30,000 ft but I see a light grey color in the hudson bay in the Feb 09 plot above. It’s difficult for me to imagine that any of that area wasn’t completely covered with ice. That’s for the future though.
Don B,
It is not the skeptics who have abused the process, and showing that AGW promotional claims about ice, temeprature, data quality, negative feedbacks, sea levels, storm strength, tree rings, future predictions, past history and the present are all full of falsehoods is not an excercise in extremist behavior.
We must not flinch in trying to head off the emergin catastorphe of AGW.
It now seems that AGW hypesters are in competition to scare people about climate:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-warming4-2009feb04,0,7454963.story
Dr. Chu needs to join Tom Daschle.
“Personally, I am most happy for “sceptics” to keep talking about sea ice because these data are irrefutable evidence of a rapidly warming world.”
Nah, they’re not. Truth is, we don’t know what they’re evidence of. They may, as Pamela Gray suggests, be evidence of a relocation of some existing heat. Or not. From my view as a biologist, I laugh at a lot of the smug commentary that comes out of the “climatologists”. One thing that slaps a biologist upside the head in his early days of study, is the extent to which we really have no handle on the base periodicities of many natural phenomena, and worse, no handle on the fact that we likely haven’t even identified many that exist. Couple that with the alarmist propensity for trying to define everything in time-frames of human lifespans (as if) and you have content for movie scripts, not prognostications based on science. It has to be kept foremost in one’s mind that the alarmist’s concerns are not for the planet, but for themselves. The planet will continue to do just fine, as it did before us, and will after, in its own way.
Craig Moore
“I was hoping Jeff Id woud respond by comparing his results with the graph I referenced.”
You referenced the ice extent graph, which is actually the same data as ice area, if the percent infill of a pixel is greater than 15% the measured pixel is considered full.
Beyond that, I don’t really know what you are looking for.
Tom:
You and I and everyone else inhale carbon dioxide every time we take a breath.
Unlike those other compounds you mentioned, carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. Another inconvenient fact is that carbon dioxide is necessary for life. Reduce carbon dioxide enough and plants will die. Add more carbon dioxide and most plants grow better.
Another inconvenient fact is most of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere comes from natural sources. Human civilization produces only a fraction of the carbon dioxide Gaea produces.
A really inconvenient fact is stopping carbon dioxide emissions won’t reduce real pollution, unless the idea is to just shut down everything.
[snip, try a lighter tone, post was mostly ad-hom]
Actually everyone seems to be forgetting that black carbon was found to be a significant driver for Arctic warming and ice melt.
Philip_B (19:46:46) : The NOAA global temperature anomaly is showing a huge +12C temperature anomaly for the North Pole. The same anomaly has persisted for the last week at least.<
How can that be if the northern-most terrestrial weather station at Barrow (Wiley Post Memorial marker) is showing a -6°C temperature anomaly for its portion of the Arctic? That same anomaly has persisted for the last week at least. Is there a surface station at the North Pole?
Maybe Philip was thinking of North Pole, Alaska, which is 1,700 miles south of the geographic North Pole. That far south (south of the Arctic Circle) should be warmer, right? Wait! Their temp range today is -26°C for a high and -32°C for a low. The February average is -12°C for the high and -26°C for the low. That-14°C difference on the high is an anomaly, right?
Is it possible that, in the dead of winter with no sunlight, the North Pole can be showing a +12°C anomaly while North Pole, AK, 1700 miles to the south is showing a -14°C anomaly at the same time? That’s a 26° difference!
Black carbon is not part of the currently agreed upon AGW narrative, at least until such time that it is.
We have always been at war with Eurasia.
TallDave: it is exactly the fact that “ensemble mean” predict a continuous trend, and not individual realizations of the simulations that proves that none of these predictions states that sea ice will decrease EACH year…
There seems to be a “consensus” among skeptics that 30 years is just one point in climatology, so not much can be said. Good for sea ice, satellites, etc. So what is you idea? Let’s wait for 300 years, so that we have 10 “points” and then say “oh, yes, it is a consistent trend after all. Too bad we weren’t sure before”.
Anybody read McKinsey’s report on how much fighting global warming should cost? Wanna bet?
John Galt,
Actually, the reason your body exhales carbon dioxide is because it is a waste product; try inhaling some, as I’ve suggested.
True, small quantities are harmless. The trouble comes in when you put in more carbon dioxide whilst and at the same time, you cut down the trees which filter it out.
Look, I am skeptical of all science because for the most part, we’ve only been doing real science for such a short time that to jump to any conclusions about anything is un-scientific.
All I’m saying is we need to pollute less; a lot less. We are involved, as a society, in a scientific experiment, the outcome of which is totally unknown. The outcome doesn’t even matter unless you take into consideration our future generation.
So, what happens when we add all of these chemical compounds to our environment? Maybe nothing.
All I know is it is making our home planet stinky and detrimental to all biological life. What happens to humans who are consistently exposed to the mercury from jet exhaust? How about all of the exhaust from burning all of that coal? Maybe there’s a reason all of that stuff is buried.
So, the question becomes “what kind of home do you keep?”
cbone (06:21:10) :
“I expect the alarmists will say that the winds were caused by CO2!”
Actually, they do say that. On another discussion forum I brought up the fact that the unusual melt was due in large part to a change in the Arctic Oscillation, wind not heat. The True Believer (TM) response was that the changing wind pattern was…. consistent with AGW theory.
cbone,
Maybe this article provides some help to close the subject of the AGW Hoax for good:
http://globalwarmingnot.blogtownhall.com/2009/02/03/greenhouse_theory_disproved_a_century_ago.thtml
Also take a look at: http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com for extensive scientific reports and arguments.
the rate going from one extreme to the other (minima to maxima) will always increase if the difference between those extremes increases. while the maximum sea ice is slowly declining, the minimum sea ice appears to be declining even more, making for a larger gap and greater changes between the two.
as lulo pointed out, this works both ways – freezing and melting.
ftp://ftp-projects.zmaw.de/seaice/AMSR-E_ASI_IceConc/area-extent/
Now updated 31/12/08
I inhale carbon dioxide with every breath I take. No problem!
My question is are we still talking about carbon dioxide, a benevolent and essential atmospheric gas, or are we talking about pollutants such as sulfur dioxide or toxins, such as mercury. You keep lumping these together. Drinking too much water can kill you, should we classify water as a poison?
Trying to redefine carbon dioxide as a pollutant is another losing tactic for the alarmists. Reasonable voices are getting drowned out by the extremists. It’s too bad because we could be spending our time and valuable treasure on solving real problems like reducing toxic emissions, fighting poverty or disease.
tom (08:19:11) :
“True, small quantities are harmless. The trouble comes in when you put in more carbon dioxide whilst and at the same time, you cut down the trees which filter it out.”
The quantities of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere are so miniscule, scientists find it difficult to determine whether or not the amounts are an artifact of instrumental error in their measurements or real.
Despite the fact humans have already used somewhere in the vicinity of half or more of known reserves of petroleum within only the past 150 years, the carbon dioxide released from the combustion of that petroleum remains virtually too small to be measurable. By contrast, the carbon dioxide released by humans from the production of cement is far more significant, yet it remains too small to reliably measure.
Anyone who wants to jump to a conclusion and presume the carbon dioxide released by human activities must somehow be overwhelming the environment needs to learn just how insignificant the quantities are in total and in comparison to the natural sources which make up the vast contributions of the gas.
If it is not a poisonous gas (to animals), then why do we exhale it as a waste product? In other words, if it was a “benevolent” gas, as you say, why are our bodies constantly getting rid of it. Why do our bodies not use it, like oxygen, for instance.
The argument is getting off the point. A little carbon dioxide isn’t going to kill us. So, what happens when we keep putting more and more into the atmosphere, while and at the same time, we cut down the forests. Where is the tipping point between non-toxic doses and levels which are too high to support animal life?
We could go round and round with this one but, I do believe we agree on the need to clean up the planet.
Global warming is a non-issue. Global pollution is. Perhaps we should spend more time trying to address those issues.
The maximum allowable limit for C02 in a working environment is 5000ppm for an 8 hour shift. That’s 5%. Reason why: It’s not a toxic gas, it just replaces O2. Consult OSHA/MSHA for PEL’s.