Guest post by Steven Goddard
NSIDC Arctic Ice Extent Just a few pixels from “average”.
May 1st is May Day . “Mayday” is a universally understood distress call signifying that an aircraft or other vessel is headed on a collision trajectory. 2009 Arctic ice extent is on a collision trajectory with normal, which could be disastrous for AGW alarmists. “May Day” is an international holiday celebrated on May 1. In the Soviet Union it celebrated the worker’s “liberation” from capitalism, though they hadn’t yet thought up “cap and trade” at that time.
I have more news to report about the ongoing mystery of why NSIDC shows Arctic ice extent much closer to the 1979-2000 average than NANSEN is to the 1979-2007 average. It should be the other way around.
Dr. Walt Meier at NSIDC has again graciously responded to further questions:
Dr. Meier:
It is possible that there could be inconsistency in the Nansen data. I’m not familiar with their processing. I am confident that our dataset is consistent. However, it may simply be due to the ice conditions. Most of the time, the differences between algorithm should be an offset – though this offset can vary over the course of the year (particularly summer vs. winter). However, there can inconsistencies in this depending on the character of the ice cover.
My suspicion is that much of this is due to the Bering. The ice in the Bering is very broken up and, basically, on its last legs. It could be that our algorithm is more sensitive in picking up the ice than the Nansen algorithm. Or it could be that our algorithm is overly sensitive and is not catching open water.
Remember that the threshold for ice extent is 15%. So if you have low concentration ice, even small differences in the algorithms can result in relatively large differences in extent. If Nansen consistently shows 5% less ice that NSIDC, when there is 90% ice, that makes no difference, but where there is ~15% ice, it can make a difference. From other imagery, it looks like there is a lot of area with concentrations in the ballbpark of 15%.
Me:
If it were due to Bering Strait ice, I would expect to see a convergence between the two data sets as the Bering ice melts. It looks to me like they are actually diverging over the last week or two though?
Any ideas from the readers?
UPDATE: Dr. Meier just responded, minutes after posting this article:
Dr. Meier:
It is the Bering Sea, not the Strait and as it begins to melt, with all the old, broken up, sparse ice, you see the divergence. As it melts out completely, I expect that we’ll see things go back to being more consistent.
Addendum from Anthony:
A question to Dr. Meier: When are we going to see a date/time stamp on the NSIDC imagery? NANSEN has one.
This NSIDC graphic above is one of the most widely displayed and quoted on the net today, yet it lacks this most basic feature found in many scientific images presented for public consumption.
I realize the curve itself is marked against the x axis, but it is not easy to determine an exact date. Science is exacting, it would seem prudent to add a date/time stamp. Otherwise, the appearance of exacting science presented to the public is one of sloppiness, IMHO.
“fo pah” is “faux pas” if we’re going to get picky.
tty, there are other areas that are not contiguous either. Do you propose that all these other areas be excluded too because they are not within the bowl? What would you say if summer melt slacks off in a longer trend and thus allows year round ice to grow farther south into the NH? Would you then also want these non-contiguous areas to not count in some kind of average? As our data stream gets longer, someone will make the decision to create a new average. Which areas should be included?
“I do not understand the point you are making about current conditions vs. the average.”
The average for this date over the base period. Not the average irrespective of the season.
Pen Hadow was supposed to be live today in this conference:
http://www.bitc.org.uk/environment/the_princes_may_day_network_on_climate_change/the_princes_may_day_summit/take_part_online/index.html
Has someone checked if he really got live, or if there is a problem with the Catlin expedition. They seem to be having severe problems. BTW, it is interesting to follow there quotes, as this seen for today:
“Their spirits were lifted briefly today when they heard the distant engines of a DC3 aircraft overhead. They thought their minds were playing tricks on them, but sure enough a DC3 did indeed fly within 13 miles of their camp. However, it was part of a Danish research expedition and not the Twin Otter they were hoping for.”
Ecotretas
I don’t care what is done with pot legislation. What I care about is hemp. Such a useful plant and should be hybridized to grow in a variety of climate zones. End all restriction on hemp and pour dollars into varietal research.
I clicked on the link provided by ecotretas and found the following on the agenda:
13:55 Case studies:
“SHAPE THE FUTURE” – Educating school children via employee engagement,
“LESS IS MORE” – How business can reduce its air travel carbon footprint,
“YES WE CAN!” –The business and climate benefits of innovation and enterprise
The first one is positively scary in tone but what caught my eye is the last one. Does it look sort of familiar ?
Re: Fabius
Fabius does make a valid point the way I read it.
Showing a graph of current vs. mean doesn’t show decadal trends. Sure it’s approaching the mean but because the baseline is recent (2000) and ice extent was trending down throughout the baseline period, the graph doesnt do a good job of showing history.
IF the sea ice minimum has been decreasing for 15, 20 or 30 years (and it has) then the mean was pulled slowly down until 2000 which lessened the gap in extent.
Looking at such charts with such recent baselines has always bothered me, I prefer historical trends. If you were watching the seasonal variations on an O’scope for the last 30 years you would have been moving your 0 Volt reference up the entire time until very recently. (Any engineers in the house?)
Using an older, fixed baseline would be better but the data doesnt go back far enough, so you need to look at historical trends instead. Due to variations you can’t pick one day but you can look at yearly minimums and maximums.
I’m no alarmist but historical trend in ice minimums does not look good prior to the last few years. The earth did warm from 1979 – 2000 and ice extent decreased. Ice extent has been below the 79-00 mean every year since. Hopefully it continues the recent recovery. (Go baby ice!)
http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a003500/a003563/index.html
A couple days ago, I read a very interesting but incomplete and inaccurate translation (accredited to the Wall Street Journal) of an article by a German research organization, the Alfred Wegner Institute of Bremerhaven. So I found the original article in German, then translated it into English via a free web service which did a fair but imperfect job of it. I fixed it up a bit where I felt confident, but identified those fixes with parentheses. There are some grammatical errors from imperfect translation, some of which I could have fixed, but you should be able to get the gist OK — if not, let me know. I have copied and pasted below both the English and German versions.
Note the very significant comment that the ice is thicker than expected, but the 15 meter thickness must have been due to “pressure ridges” such as I encountered during my study of sea and river ice at and near Point Barrow and Umiat during winter 1947/48. These ridges are caused by wind and ocean currents and can create big variations in ice thickness depending on how the ice piles up as it is thrust up upon itself.
The original material in German can be found at : AWI-bremerhaven.de/de/
Pag
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
(The April 2009 flights by) German polar airplane (P)olar 5 (have come) to (an) end. The vierwöchige campaign brought singular measuring data due to the large range of the airplane and the assigned modern measuring technique over sea ice thickness, trace gases, aerosols and meteorological parameters. “We were in to a large extent unexplored areas on the way. Our northernmost position was with 88° 40′ North. Such flight operations in the Arctic require large being able and much experience, “ report Dr. Andreas (Herber), physicist and responsible for the research flight witness at the (Alfred Wegener Institute in Bremerhaven, Germany, identified as “AWI” hereafter). During most time the weather for the measurements was ideal. Air temperatures of under (minus) 30 °C however often became a challenge for the scientific devices. (Twenty) scientists and engineers of six research institutes from Germany, Italy (CNR ISAC Bologna), Canada (Environment Canada, University Of Alberta, York University) and the USA (NOAA ESRL Boulder) were involved and the data in the coming months will evaluate.
The flight of the (P)olar 5 of (AWI) for polar and exploration of the sea in the helmet getting time community led from Longyearbyen on Spitzbergen across Greenland and north Canada until Barrow in Alaska. In addition (the Polar 5 aircraft was the first to be) landed 5 as the first airplane on two meters thick ice with the position 87° 40′ Nord/117° 00′ West to the Russian Eisschollen Driftstation NP-36. The entire campaign owes its success of a close international co-operation and the outstanding support at the individual research stations such as Alert and Eureka.
An emphasis of the campaign were arctic aerosols. With several vertical and horizontal profiles in low-altitude flight height (60 meters) and in Normalflughöhe of 3000 meters an image of the aerosol distribution in the Arctic was provided. Aerosols belong with water droplets and ice crystals to the climaticrelevant trace materials and rank among the largest factors of uncertainty with the estimation of future climatic changes. The measurements over the arctic ocean permit quantification and its allocation to Asian, North American and European source regions to the aerosol load of arctic pure air. They supply a realistic basis for the urgently necessary improvement of the Modellrechungen for this inaccessible and region of our earth central for the climatic research.
A further emphasis of the campaign were wide ice thickness measurements in the internal Arctic, which were accomplished in close co-operation between the AWI and the (U)niversity (of) Alberta. Thereby an ice thickness probe, the EM-Bird so called, was used for the first time under an airplane. For the investigations (P)olar 5 pulled the probe to 80 meters is enough for steel cable into twenty meters height over the ice surface. Several flights of different stations northward resulted in ice thicknesses between 2.5 meters (two-year ice in the proximity of the north pole) and four meters (multiyear ice in coastalnear areas before Canada). Altogether the ice was somewhat thicker than in the past years in the same regions, which lets a temporary recovery of the arctic ice cover assume. Along the northern coast of Ellesmere Iceland the researchers the thickest ice found often (was) larger, with thicknesses (greater?) than 15 meters.
A further high point of the campaign were atmospheric soundings in the central Arctic as well as the measurement of very small ozone and mercury concentrations over widen parts of the arctic ocean covered with sea ice. The meteorological sounding by means of drop probes resulted in flat boundary layers in connection with pronounced temperature inversions and wind jet in the lowest 300 meters. These conditions promote the loss of near-surface ozone measured of the Canadian colleagues of Environment Canada over the sea ice, caused by reaction with bromine oxide. The combination of all trace gas measurements with the atmospheric soundings will make it possible to understand the processes of the near-surface Ozonabbaus in the Arctic better.
Only by the close international cooperation between all partners this logistically complex campaign could be mastered successfully with places of residence in four Arctic neighboring states.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Above Report in Original German (Except Photographs) :
29. April 2009: Forschungsflugzeug Polar 5 beendet Arktis-Expedition – Einzigartige Messflüge in der zentralen Arktis abgeschlossen
Bremerhaven, den 29. April 2009. Gestern ging in Oshawa (Kanada) die Arktis-Kampagne (PAM-ARCMIP – Pan-Arctic Measurements and Arctic Climate Model Intercomparison Project) mit dem deutschen Polarflugzeug Polar 5 zu Ende. Die vierwöchige Kampagne brachte aufgrund der großen Reichweite des Flugzeuges und der eingesetzten modernen Messtechnik einzigartige Messdaten über Meereisdicke, Spurengase, Aerosole und meteorologische Parameter. „Wir waren in größtenteils unerforschten Gebieten unterwegs. Unsere nördlichste Position lag bei 88° 40′ Nord. Solche Flugoperationen in der Arktis erfordern großes Können und viel Erfahrung“, berichtet Dr. Andreas Herber, Physiker und verantwortlich für die Forschungsflugzeuge am Alfred-Wegener-Institut. Während der meisten Zeit war das Wetter für die Messungen ideal. Lufttemperaturen von unter – 30 °C wurden jedoch oft zu einer Herausforderung für die wissenschaftlichen Geräte. 20 Wissenschaftler und Ingenieure von sechs Forschungsinstituten aus Deutschland, Italien (CNR-ISAC Bologna), Kanada (Environment Kanada, University of Alberta, York University) und den USA (NOAA-ESRL Boulder) waren beteiligt und werden die Daten in den kommenden Monaten auswerten.
Der Flug der Polar 5 des Alfred-Wegener-Instituts für Polar und Meeresforschung in der Helmholtz-Gemeinschaft führte von Longyearbyen auf Spitzbergen über Grönland und Nordkanada bis nach Barrow in Alaska. Polar 5 landete außerdem als erstes Flugzeug auf zwei Meter dickem Eis bei der Position 87° 40′ Nord/117° 00′ West an der russischen Eisschollen-Driftstation NP-36. Die gesamte Kampagne verdankt ihren Erfolg einer engen internationalen Kooperation und der hervorragenden Unterstützung an den einzelnen Forschungsstationen wie Alert und Eureka.
Ein Schwerpunkt der Kampagne waren arktische Aerosole. Mit mehreren Vertikal- und Horizontalprofilen in Tiefflughöhe (60 Meter) und in Normalflughöhe von 3000 Meter wurde ein Abbild der Aerosolverteilung in der Arktis erstellt. Aerosole gehören mit Wassertröpfchen und Eiskristallen zu den klimarelevanten Spurenstoffen und zählen zu den größten Unsicherheitsfaktoren bei der Abschätzung zukünftiger Klimaveränderungen. Die Messungen über dem Arktischen Ozean erlauben die Quantifizierung der Aerosolbelastung der arktischen Reinluft und ihre Zuordnung zu asiatischen, nordamerikanischen und europäischen Quellregionen. Sie liefern eine realistische Grundlage für die dringend erforderliche Verbesserung der Modellrechungen für diese unzugängliche und für die Klimaforschung zentrale Region unserer Erde.
Ein weiterer Schwerpunkt der Kampagne waren großflächige Eisdickenmessungen in der inneren Arktis, die in enger Zusammenarbeit zwischen dem Alfred-Wegener-Institut und der Universität von Alberta durchgeführt wurden. Erstmalig kam dabei eine Eisdickensonde, der so genannte EM-Bird, unter einem Flugzeug zum Einsatz. Für die Untersuchungen zog Polar 5 die Sonde an einem 80 Meter langen Stahlseil in zwanzig Meter Höhe über die Eisoberfläche. Mehrere Flüge von verschiedenen Stationen nach Norden ergaben Eisdicken zwischen 2,5 Meter (zweijähriges Eis in der Nähe des Nordpols) und vier Metern (mehrjähriges Eis in küstenahen Gebieten vor Kanada). Insgesamt war das Eis etwas dicker als in den vergangenen Jahren in den gleichen Regionen, was eine temporäre Erholung der arktischen Eisdecke vermuten lässt. Entlang der nördlichen Küste von Ellesmere Island fanden die Forscher das dickste Eis, mit Dicken oft größer als 15 Meter.
Ein weiterer Höhepunkt der Kampagne waren atmosphärische Sondierungen in der Zentralarktis sowie die Messung sehr geringer Ozon- und Quecksilberkonzentrationen über weiten Teilen des mit Meereis bedeckten arktischen Ozeans. Die meteorologische Sondierung mittels Dropsonden ergab flache Grenzschichten in Verbindung mit ausgeprägten Temperaturinversionen und Windjets in den untersten 300 Metern. Diese Bedingungen fördern den von den kanadischen Kollegen von Environment Canada gemessenen Verlust des bodennahen Ozons über dem Meereis, hervorgerufen durch Reaktion mit Bromoxid. Die Kombination aller Spurengasmessungen mit den atmosphärischen Sondierungen wird es ermöglichen, die Prozesse des bodennahen Ozonabbaus in der Arktis besser zu verstehen.
Nur durch die enge internationale Zusammenarbeit zwischen allen Partnern konnte diese logistisch aufwendige Kampagne mit Aufenthaltsorten in vier Arktis-Anrainerstaaten erfolgreich bewältigt werden.
Hinweise für Redaktionen:
Ihre Ansprechpartner sind Prof. Dr. Klaus Dethloff (Tel. 0331 228-2104; E-Mail: Klaus.Dethloff@awi.de) und Dr. Andreas Herber (Tel. 0471 4831-1489; E-Mail: Andreas.Herber@awi.de) sowie in der Presse- und Öffentlichkeitsarbeit Folke Mehrtens (Tel. 0471 4831-2007; E-Mail: Folke.Mehrtens@awi.de). Druckbare Bilder finden Sie auf unserer Webseite unter http://www.awi.de/
Das Alfred-Wegener-Institut forscht in der Arktis, Antarktis und den Ozeanen der mittleren sowie hohen Breiten. Es koordiniert die Polarforschung in Deutschland und stellt wichtige Infrastruktur wie den Forschungseisbrecher Polarstern und Stationen in der Arktis und Antarktis für die internationale Wissenschaft zur Verfügung. Das Alfred-Wegener-Institut ist eines der fünfzehn Forschungszentren der Helmholtz-Gemeinschaft, der größten Wissenschaftsorganisation Deutschlands.
This from Billingsgate London. Billingsgate is the site of the old fish market.
Strong smell of fish about this quote from Pen Hadow.
Ice thickness worse than ‘most aggressive forecasts’
The immediacy of the need to take action was illustrated in a unique way by a live link up to Pen Hadow, an arctic explorer and leader of the Catlin Arctic Survey survey team, who are measuring the impact of climate change on the ice caps. Live in front of the influential audience, Pen Hadow was able to illustrate in real terms just how much impact climate change is having on the thickness of the ice, and that the grave reality is worse than even the most aggressive forecasts predicted.
In his address that followed the link up to Pen Hadow, HRH Prince of Wales warned that the May Day global distress call is still going unanswered and that the ‘doomsday clock’ really is ticking.
Oh Dear! Sniff sniff, Where is the air freshener?
Pamela Gray
Thanks – I recall others saying they thought the Jet Stream would head equatorwards in a cooling scenario so your observation is very interesting. Trouble is I cannot remember who said it would head south!
If Stephen Wilde is reading this thread I recall he had some good thoughts on atmospheric circulation – perhaps he could comment?
Pamela Gray (09:37:57) :
“The bowl is plugged with hard ice, the winds are in the wrong direction and lack energy”
Thanks for the resource links. That 300 mb image can make your eyes hurt.
If your following the winds, it would be useful for you to post what’s happening periodically. IMHO, winds and currents are vastly overlooked as a major driving factor in seasonal ice loss. Have you seen any good resources tracking currents and SST’s in the arctic on a daily basis?
Is there a relationship between Antarctic sea ice extent and volume?
Guys, I’m just a school teacher who is over-educated (and still going to school after a BS and two Masters). I am only repeating what I have learned by following a fairly serious course of study in an area I consider to be one of my hobbies. I love anything having to do with weather. But just so ya know, I am no peer-reviewed expert on weather or climate. Any person who takes the time to post here in the comments section that is like me (a non-expert) can easily learn what I have learned. Just do it every day. But only if you really like it 7 days a week. Even on Sundays.
If not O/T, the April numbers are in for Heating Degree Days for the Los Angeles area.
Long-term Normal is 83 HDD.
Actual is 102 HDD.
That is 22.9 percent above normal. Meaning it was much colder than normal.
In fairness, the Cooling Degree Days were also slightly below normal, with 53 compared to 58 for an 8.6 percent change.
The GCMs tell us that global warming caused by man-made CO2 will cause the low temperatures to increase. Obviously, that did not happen in the month of April, 2009, in Los Angeles.
Maybe next month?
Steve You might want to contact CT about this (re image above)
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.365.jpg
Bet you will not get a reply….
Paul James (11:48:20) :
“fo pah” is “faux pas” if we’re going to get picky.
I wasn’t being picky – I was trying to be funny. Quelques personnes n’ont pas de sens de l’ironie.
Ice has been increasing impressively in the Barents Sea between Svalbaard and Novaya Zemlya:
http://i410.photobucket.com/albums/pp183/kiwistonewall/barents.jpg
h/t to Kiwistonewall on sc24.com…
Steve Goddard (10:51:50) :
Thanks for the reply.
I guess my next question is, why would they ignore data after ’00? An answer that comes to mind would be to make global warming look as bad as possible which suggests to me a bit of politics in play over objective science.
Radar,
But can you count 30 years as an “historical trend”?
In the previous post, Steve Goddard wrote: “But something odd happened with the NANSEN data on December 13, 2008. Overnight it lost about 500,000 km2 of ice.”
Isn’t this the specific event that Dr. Meier should be asked to address?
Why did sea ice drop by 500,000km2 on December13, 2008?
Is it an explainable event? Is it within reasonable parameters? Or is it an anomaly/error that has gone undetected until now and that Dr. Meier would be grateful that it has been uncovered since it will improve the accuracy of his data base?
Is this another one of those data sets where they “weight” certain parts of the data conveniently? Is it appropriate to weight the Bering Sea greater? The entire Sea lies below the Arctic Circle, so is it even appropriate to call this Arctic Ice?
We can go quite a bit farther back than 1979. Some accuracy will be lost, but it’s not difficult to show the trend based on other records. This link gives some good examples: click.
Since the planet began its last warming trend around 1980, it is no surprise that the extent of sea ice would gradually contract. Time will tell if the current global cooling continues. If it does, then it would be reasonable to expect global sea ice to gradually increase.
PaulHClark 12:28:20
Thanks for the testimonial. Sometimes I wonder if anyone notices.
As regards the jet streams I use the terms poleward or equatorward rather trhan north or south.
I noticed them move poleward during the warming spell and I noticed them star to move back equatorward around 2000.
They moved to their most equatorward position so far after the recent strong La Nina but are currently moving back poleward a little in response to the current neutral ENSO conditions.
However I judge that they are still in a net cooling position with lots of surges poleward and equatorward as they loop about.
I have said that the latitudinal position of the air circulation systems (especially the jets and the high pressure cells either side) is the best indicator we have as to what the global air temperature trend is doing.
The position is controlled by the energy emission rate of the oceans as a whole and the positions adjust the rate of energy flow from surface to space to prevent any disequilibrium between sea surface temperate and surface air temperature however caused.
As a mere blogger I expect it to take a while for my concepts to be taken seriously but if the real world keeps behaving accordingly then note will be taken eventually.
See these comments made elsewhere about the Met Office summer forecast for the UK: Please forgive the ironic tone, it was intended for a less scientific audience and, of course I won’t be sure myself unless the planet proves it.
“Remarkable.
The Met. Office is basing the entire UK summer forecast on ocean cycles and the latitudinal position of the jet streams which is what I have been suggesting for a year now. Have they been reading my material ?
My winter forecast was spot on having relied upon both ocean cycles and jet stream positions (see below). At least they can still take advice.
The trouble is that they are relying on the Pacific only instead of the net combined effect of all the ocean cycles and for us the Atlantic is more important in the short term.
Additionally they have ignored the Pacific Decadal Oscillation which, when negative as now, has the effect of offsetting warm El Nino and enhancing cool La Nina.
I’d expect a slightly warmer summer than the past two but not as warm as the Met Office expectation.
The strong cooling La Nina of a couple of years ago is still to work through the Atlantic and the current neutral Pacific conditions are not enough to offset the cooling effect of the other cooler ocean cycles and the current weak sun.
However one looks at it the primary global air temperature drivers are sun and oceans with CO2 yet to be shown as having any measurable effect at all.
The failure of the Met. Office predictions over recent years has been due to attributing too much weight to CO2 and not enough to natural influences.
Meanwhile the Arctic ice is recovering and Antarctic ice is at a high level.
I wonder when the media will wake up ?
Winter prediction for UK issued by Stephen Wilde, October 2008:
“On balance I think the coming winter will be colder and drier than the long term average, possibly by a surprising margin but too much depends on the winter jet stream which can be very unpredictable in Western Europe.
Last winter was, as they say, warmer than the average here and in W Europe. However that was during a colder than average N Hemisphere winter overall.
What happened was that the plunges of cold air over N America distorted the jet stream which then approached us persistently from the South West bringing frequent flows of mild air.
Since the recent global cooling trend has intensified since last winter (edit: due to the cooling oceans) I suspect that the jet stream will this year push more often into the Mediterranean thus cutting off the supply of warm air to us. IF that happens (no guarantee) then the Greenland and Scandinavian high pressure cells will affect us more than for many years past and give us persistent cold.”
Maybe they should correct the graph for “second year” ice. The nsidc graph which purported to show how much bad “second year” ice there was so odd because it was the only mention of “second year” ice on the nsidc website.
“Sea ice is classified by stages of development that relate to thickness and age. Most scientists describe sea ice only by its age, typically as first-year or multiyear. However, some experts who chart the extent of ice for navigational purposes use specific terms to relate the thickness of ice to its age”
…. http://nsidc.org/seaice/characteristics/index.html
“Multiyear ice has distinct properties that distinguish it from first-year ice, based on processes that occur during the summer melt. Multiyear ice contains much less brine and more air pockets than first-year ice. Less brine means “stiffer” ice that is more difficult for icebreakers to navigate and clear.”
…. http://nsidc.org/seaice/characteristics/multiyear.html
Anthony has already pointed out that Bouy 2008B has shown a characteristic increase from 2m to 3m (6ft to 9ft) that indicates a transition from first year to multi-year ice:
http://imb.crrel.usace.army.mil/2008B.htm
On the other hand, the (non-land fast) ice is really staring to move off Barrow:
http://www.gi.alaska.edu/snowice/sea-lake-ice/barrow_radar.html
Regards,
Bob
Does anyone have a good argument why the Sea of Okhotsk is figured in as Artic sea ice? Obviously, “it’s always been done that way” so it continues that way for comparison sake.
Yet it fails all three definitions of Arctic (see “the following map shows three definitions of the Arctic: the tree line; the 10 degrees Celsius isotherm, and the Arctic Circle”.)
http://nsidc.org/arcticmet/basics/arctic_definition.html
All least Hudson Bay is physically connected and part of it is in the isotherm boundary. The Sea of Okhotsk obviously gets significant sea ice unlike the Baltic Sea, but the Gulf of Bothnia has about the same relationship in terms of relative location. Suggestions have been made that the Antarctic Peninsula should be treated separately. If the huge variability of the Sea of Okhotsk was removed, the Arctic Sea ice even closer to the average. So I know that it won’t be removed.
Regards,
Bob