Jeff Id at the Air Vent has been doing some interesting work lately. Before the NSIDC Arctic Sea Ice anomaly plot went kaput due to failure of the satellite sensor channel they have been using, they had created a vast archive of single day gridded data packages for Arctic sea ice extent. Jeff plotted images from the data as viewed from directly over the North Pole. It took him over 15 hours of computational time. An example image is below.
Jeff gathered up all the resultant plotted images and turned them into a movie, but placed them on the website “tinypic” where the movie won’t get much airplay.
I offered Jeff the opportunity to have it hosted on YouTube and posted here, where it would get far greater exposure and I completed the conversion this afternoon.
What I find most interesting is watch the “respiration” of Arctic Sea Ice, plus the buffeting of the sea ice escaping the Arctic and heading down the east coast of Greenland where it melts in warmer waters.
Jeff writes:
I find the Arctic sea ice to be amazingly dynamic. Honestly, I used to think of it as something static and stationary, the same region meltinig and re-freezing for dozens or even hundreds of years – not that I put much thought into it either way. Shows you what I know.
This post is another set of Arctic ice plots and an amazing high speed video. The NSIDC NasaTeam data is presented in gridded binary matrices in downloadable form HERE.
The data is about 1.3Gb in size so it takes hours to download, I put it directly on my harddrive and worked from there. The code for extraction took a while to work out but was pretty simple in the end. This code ignores leap years. Formatting removed courtesy of WordPress.
filenames=list.files(path=”C:/agw/sea ice/north sea ice/nasateam daily/”, pattern = NULL, all.files = TRUE, full.names = FALSE, recursive = TRUE)
trend=array(0,dim=length(filenames)-1)
date=array(0,dim=length(filenames)-1)
masktrend=array(0,dim=length(filenames)-1)
for(i in 1:(length(filenames)-1))
{
fn=paste(”C:/agw/sea ice/north sea ice/nasateam daily/”,filenames[i],sep=””) #folder containing sea ice files
a=file(fn,”rb”)
header= readBin(a,n=102,what=integer(),size=1,endian=”little”,signed=FALSE)
year=readChar(a,n=6)
print(year)
day=readChar(a,n=6)
print(day)
header=readChar(a,n=300-114)
data=readBin(a,n=304*448,what=integer(),size=1,endian=”little”,signed=FALSE)
close(a)
if(as.integer(year)+1900<=2500)
{
date[i]=1900+as.integer(year)+as.integer(day)/365
}else
{
date[i]=as.integer(year)+as.integer(day)/365
}
if(i==1)
{
holemask= !(data==251)
}
datamask=data<251 & data>37 ## 15% of lower values masked out to match NSIDC
trend[i]=sum(data[(datamask*holemask)==1])/250*625
}
###mask out satellite F15
satname=substring(filenames,18,20)
satmask= satname==”f15″
newtrend=trend[!satmask]
newdate=date[!satmask]
After that there is some minor filtering done on 7 day windows to dampen some of the noise in the near real time data.
filtrend=array(0,dim=length(newtrend))
for(i in 1:(length(newtrend)))
{
sumdat=0
for(j in -3:3)
{
k=i+j
if(k<1)k=1
if(k>length(newtrend)-1)k=length(newtrend)-1
sumdat=sumdat+newtrend[k]
}
filtrend[i]=sumdat/7
}
So here is a plot of the filtered data:
Here is the current anomaly.
This compares well with the NSIDC and cryosphere plots. This anomaly is slightly different from some of my previous plots because it rejects data less than 15% sea-ice concentration. Cryosphere rejects data less than 10%. In either case the difference is very slight but since we’ve just learned that the satellites have died and are about 500,000km too low, my previous graph may be more correct. I hope the NSIDC get’s something working soon.
All of that is pretty exciting but the reason for this post is to show the COMPLETE history of the NSIDC arctic sea ice in a video. I used tinypic as a service for this 27mb file so don’t worry, you should be able to see it quite well on a high speed connection. It took my dual processor laptop computer more than 15 hours to calculate this movie, I hope it’s worth it. Brown is land, black is shoreline, blue is water except for the large blue dot in the center of the plot. The movie plays double speed at the beginning because the early satellite collected data every other day. You’ll see the large blue circle change in size flashing back and forth between the older and newer sat data just as the video slows down.
After staring at the graphs above you think you understand what is happening as ice gradually shrinks away. Well the high speed video shows a much more turbulent world with changing weather patterns in 2007 and 2008 summer blasting away at the south west corner of the ice. I’ve watched it 20 times at least, noticing cloud patterns (causing lower ice levels), winds, water currents and all kinds of different things. I’m not so sure anymore that we’re seeing a consistent decline to polarbear doom, with this kind of variance it might just be everyday noise.
Maybe I’m nuts, let me know what you see.
No Jeff you aren’t nuts. Here is the YouTube Video, suitable for sharing:
Here is another video I posted on You Tube last month which shows the flow of sea ice down the east coast of Greenland. Clearly there is more at work here than simple melting, there is a whole flow dynamic going on.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“”” RoyFOMR (15:55:23) :
Joel Shore (14:38:27) :
“Sea ice is important in terms of the polar bears but another reason is that there is a positive feedback involving it…I.e., as the sea ice extent in summer decreases, less of the solar radiation is reflected back out into space and hence further warming of the arctic results.”
(1) Sea ice and Polar bears… Both Ursus maritimus and preferred diet share the same sea-ice thus, if computer-models have it right and sea-ice diminishes, would this not tend to favour a scenario that advantages the predator over the predated? Less places to hide and hunt may give rise to a new genus- Ursus Adipose- and an extinction of Seal!
(2) Positive feedback from decreased albedo resulting in an enhanced insolation that drives Arctic Warming to flood the planet with glacial and thermically-expansionist sea-level risings? Get real Joel, let us ignore the science ( easier for you than me – sorry mate but true) and look at the present. “””
Please sir; why is there sea ice there in the first place ? There’s no sea ice where I live, but we have plenty of sunshine; yet it doesn’t get unliveable, and I’m sure we don’t have some special high albedo where I live.
I notice that it is also damn cold up there in the arctic; is there a reason for that. I would think that the people and creatures that live up there would want to gather all the sunshine they can muster so it isn’t so cold up there.
I don’t understand how on earth the presence or absence of sea ice could change the insolation; doesn’t that depend on the sun; and how would the sun know whether there is ice or not until the light gets there, in order to adjust the insolation level.
Would the presence of such a huge expanse of open very cold water sans sea-ice result in the removal of more CO2 from the atmosphere thereby resulting in less global warming, and wouldn’t that loss of atmospheric CO2 to the extra open water, also result in water vapor positive feedback that further cools the arctic by removing water vapor from the atmosphere as a result of less CO2 atmospheric warming.
Or does water vapor positive feedback only work in the warming direction?
I notice when it is warmer you get more clouds, and the warmer it gets, the higher the clouds are when they form, and if it is colder, the clouds form lower down, or you don’t get any clouds at all when it is really cold.
Are warmth and clouds associated in any way; it often seems that when it is nice and balmy at night there are high clouds formed in the sky; but when it is chilly cold at night you don’t get any clouds, or if you do they are lower.
Strange don’t you think ?
George
Richard Mackey (04:34:31) :
Thank you for posting this, I wanted to write some notes along this line at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/23/evidence-of-a-lunisolar-influence-on-decadal-and-bidecadal-oscillations-in-globally-averaged-temperature-trends/ but didn’t have time. And you did a much better job anyway.
If you haven’t seen that post, be sure to check it out and its mention of half-LNC cycle effects.
If you have a chance, please post it over there, a few of us to refer to the old posts from time to time.
I take away from this discussion that growth and decline of ice on the Arctic Ocean is way more complicated than I had suspected – and I didn’t expect it to be simple. Even if the processes are totally figured out the MSM will not be able to convey it in sound bites and video clips. As research continues we need to provide some more “skeptically startling” and easily disseminated views promoting the failure of the AGW message. The ice dynamic shown by Jeff Id is an excellent example – compelling and easily internalized.
TonyB (15:29:46) : suggests another post on ocean uptake of CO2
A recent one is:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/?s=alkaline
. . . now with 701 comments. If, as suggested, this becomes the new best thing of the AGW crowd there is a need for (similar to Jeff’s ice video) a compelling and easily internalized “this is not an issue”-moment.
So, Jeff, Anthony, and commenters – Thanks for a great learning opportunity – and keeping me from the chores; keep it coming, I really don’t mind. jfh
RoyFOMR says:
Actually, the history shows that sea level has been significantly higher or lower in the past. In particular, during the last interglacial about 100,000 years ago, sea levels were likely several meters higher. We will be hard-pressed not to equal or surpass the temperatures at that time later this century.
smallz79 (15:45:17) :
The sun? Sure people are investigating it. I’ve posted this video maybe 4 times now on it. You must have overlooked it.
George E. Smith:
I have re-read my post (and RoyFOMR’s) and I can’t find a place where either of us talked about a change in insolation. I did explain that less of the solar radiation gets reflected back out into space when there is less ice, but surely you understand the difference between this and less or more solar insolation?
No, it doesn’t work only in one direction but the problem is that you have simply invented something out of whole cloth and not shown any calculation to believe it is true. Even if the open water in place of ice does result in a somewhat increased uptake of CO2, it will not be enough to lower CO2 levels but will merely decrease the rate of rise. And, my guess is that any such effect will be small if it occurs at all. Do you have evidence otherwise?
Yes…There are some associations. In particular, nights tend to be coldest when the skies are clear to allow maximal radiative cooling. As for the level of the clouds, the cause-and-effect relationship that I know of works primarily in the other direction from what you talked about (although it may work partly in the direction that you discuss too). I.e., high clouds tend to cause net warming because they reduce radiational cooling more than they reduce the heating from the incoming solar insolation (although this depends on the optical thickness of the clouds…and it is possible for these clouds to cause net cooling if they are thick enough). Low clouds tend to cause net cooling because they reduce radiational cooling less than they reduce heating from the incoming solar insolation.
If you were correct that the cause-and-effect works the other way too…i.e., that warming tends to increase high clouds and decrease low clouds, then the result would be a significant positive feedback from clouds. Apparently, some of the climate modeling does predict this, but there is far from a consensus on this, which is why the cloud feedback remains the biggest source of uncertainty in the climate modeling.
” We will be hard-pressed not to equal or surpass the temperatures at that time later this century.”
Sounds like today’s temperatures aren’t unprecedented then… For some reason the small rise in temperature over whichever time period you would like to point out, does not me feel hard-pressed at all.
Wonderfull work guys. I think it demonstrates that we live on a dynamic planet and that so called climate change, is really just another way of saying “We wish things would stay as they are.” You’ve clearly demonstrated that change and variability are the norm in arctic ice. Keep up the great work !
Joel Shore sez:
Back up a minute. Back right up to the question of CO2=AGW? Because if you can’t demonize CO2, then the whole anthropogenic global warming conjecture fails.
Speaking of someone inventing something out of whole cloth, along with all the other believers in in the repeatedly falsified CO2=AGW conjecture [downgraded from a hypothesis], here’s the truth: CO2≠AGW.
Only AGW zealots continue to believe in teh evil CO2. [Yes, I wrote ‘teh.’ It was fun!]
Don’t put too much faith in a “calculation”. That’s what got the True Believers into trouble in the first place. Listen to Prof. Freeman Dyson: go with empirical evidence. Calculations that are not based on the real world are for the convenience of computer modelers — and for Catlin’s 3 stooges. [Same-same, IMHO.]
Svensmark and his teams’ work is fascinating but also critically important to understanding climate and our relationship to the solar system and galaxy. Thank god for all the wonderfull people, such as yourself and Svensmark, who are pushing the envelope and risking being an outsider.
Joel Shore (14:38:27) :
Joel,
You sound like a clone.
You speak of positive feedbacks. These only exist in climate models. Here are 2 videos on negative feedback in relation to clouds. And just to satisfy the clone in you—the theory in the videos has been PEER REVIEWED :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LpFk0zTW-ik
Joel Shore (14:38:27) :
part 2
Francis (14:40:42) : “Solar radiation will be reflected more from perennial ice.”
Aside from the fact that there is no such thing as “perennial ice,” on what do you base that statement? Why should the albedo of “perennial ice” be any different from “first year” ice? What is that albedo? Is it 100%? 95%?
Just Want Truth… (18:00:07) :
Brilliant video!
Thanks.
RoyFOMR (15:55:23) :
Joel Shore (14:38:27) :
After restrictions were enacted on the hunting of polar bears, especially from airplanes (too much CO2 therein, I think), the total population began a recovery. Studies have also shown that some do have an alternative source of food — eggs.
http://www.amnh.org/science/papers/polar_bears.php
The bears have gone through lesser-ice episodes before. They likely will do so again. Further, if it can be shown that they do need a helping torso or two that likely could be arranged more cheaply than the non-helpful plans coming out of the Greens and the US Government. [In the State of Washington elk are fed each winter at over $100 per each per year as mitigation for fencing off their natural habitat in which we have built roads and houses.]
jorgekafkazar (19:38:09) :
Do you think the crystalline structure of the
snow ice, sitting on top of the sea ice, will
be the most reflective?
JAXA and DMi are different :
DMi
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php
JAXA
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm
Off topic. I need some advice from Anthony or any other temperature measurement experts on constructing a bet on temperature rises.
It’s basically an over-under bet on average temperature for 2019-2021. I’m betting that the anomaly will increase less than .2 deg C compared to 1999-2001. The motivation for the bet is that I believe the total second order forcing for a rise in CO2 is zero while the other party believes they are significantly greater than zero.
I’d like to use a satellite anomaly series and could use some help in precisely wording the specification: e.g., which series, which altitude, which channel, etc.
Thanks in advance. I can be reached at kevin at dick dot org and will also check back here.
D. King (19:42:59) :
If you are interested in Nir Shaviv’s paper :
from his web site :
http://www.sciencebits.com/ice-ages
abstract :
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TJK-471854M-3&_coverDate=01%2F31%2F2003&_alid=349105989&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_qd=1&_cdi=5313&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=03a8c7135f97eb3ca2084cc15a78d8a1
PDF :
http://www.phys.huji.ac.il/~shaviv/articles/long-ice.pdf
Jeff Id (13:19:19) :
Phil. (11:52:29) :
The NSIDC does an excellent job maintaining and making available data to the public. I’ve also found them responsive to questions, I take it NOAA 17 is an unknown.
—-
Sorry, I forgot to answer that I was in a rush this afternoon. It is unknown to me, but from what has been said I would think it would depend on how bad the quality of the F-13 data is during the cross calibration period.
The Arctic ice set the record for recovery rate in the summer of 2007 according to my NSIDC data.
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/02/03/arctic-sea-ice-increases-at-record-rate/
Now we can discuss thickness and other issues but the recovery rate was a 30 year record.
Which is not what I understand from ‘strong annual recovery’, also that ‘recovery’ was followed by record remelt.
LonDog (11:53:36) :
Jeff Id (10:10:05) :
Phil. (09:13:04) :
“…..it gives a no information of the actual cyclic variation while highlighting summer minima and the last two years of decline. ”
It’s almost as if they were “pushing an agenda”. Gee, they wouldn’t do that would they?
Wouldn’t it be a shock if we got the data, the whole data, and nothing but the data?
I take it the reason you haven’t posted since my subsequent post was that you are shocked that that is exactly what they have done?
No slanting, no censorship by omission, no highlighting of data for political reasons?
The data’s there for anyone to present in the way they want with some tools provided to achieve that.
Thanks for the method for saving youtubes; could not get the first one to work though, any suggestions?
Second worked fine.
Tony B.
I had the opportunity to interview the late Reid Bryson http://ccr.aos.wisc.edu/bryson/bryson.html
He told me a story about his work in the Pacific theater in WWII. He was to forecast high-altitude winds over Japan. All he and his colleagues had were a few temperature observations from Siberia to the Phillipines. They applied the Thermal Wind Equation to the situation and came up with a forecast for the wind–190 knots. When they turned their forecast into their superior officer, he swore at them and ordered them to redo it. They came up with the same number.
The next day the superior came into the weather office and announced “Your forecast was wrong! The wind wasn’t 190 knots. It was 200 knots!
D. King (19:42:59) :
A shortened version :
A link to Henrik Svensmark works :
http://www.space.dtu.dk/Medarbejdere.aspx?lg=showcommon&type=publications&id=38287
E.M.Smith (22:46:28) : “…In both cases, I don’t see the opportunity for a whole lot of time x albedo change. The minimal ice is not for long, and the maximum ice is not much more maximum…Over all, it looks to me like an oscillator that saturates at each end. It’s going to keep right on oscillating, even if you push it a bit one way or the other, and dampen back to stability.”
Correct. The system is self-stabilizing, and via more than one mechanism. What many people ignore is the fact that the solar zenith angle never gets much below 70° at the north pole in the summer. Have you ever driven down to the sea and seen the sun reflecting off the water in the morning or afternoon? As you can see for yourself, at such high zenith angles, the albedo of open water isn’t greatly different from ice.
Also, for much of the year, open water (which has an emissivity of about 0,993) will rapidly cool as it radiates to the black body temperature of the night sky, ~4°K, at a rate roughly proportional to the fourth power of the absolute temperature. The higher the heat anomaly, the higher the rate of shedding it.
Remember, too, that it’s albedo times ice area that determines heat reflection rate, NOT albedo times ice thickness.
Next time, let’s talk about increased cloud formation over open water and its effect in moderating solar input to the Arctic Ocean…
kevindick (20:20:01) : “Off topic. I need some advice from Anthony or any other temperature measurement experts on constructing a bet on temperature rises. It’s basically an over-under bet on average temperature for 2019-2021…”
2019 to 2021? I’m sorry, that information will only be released to Party members. Please refer to the official IPCC GCM figures for those dates, instead.