By Joseph D’Aleo, AMS Fellow, CCM
The average arctic temperature is still not above (take your pick) 32°F 0°C 273.15°K–this the latest date in fifty years of record keeping that this has happened. Usually it is beginning to level off now and if it does so, it will stay near freezing on average in the arctic leading to still less melting than last summer which saw a 9% increase in arctic ice than in 2007. H/T to FredM and MarcM
Data from DMI (Danish Meteorological Institute)
See larger image here. Compare with DMI charts in other years here.
[NOTE: as a second source to Joe’s article I’ve added this weather station data from the “North Pole Cam” operated by NOAA. Link is here: http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/gallery_np.html
There is a webcam at the “North Pole” (at least it starts out very near there) that reports via satellite data uplink at regular intervals. They also have a weather station with a once weekly data plot. Note it is still below zero centigrade there.
Latest data (updated approximately weekly) Readers should note that the station really isn’t at the north pole anymore due to significant ice drift. – Anthony ]
The AMSR-E shows the ice situation on June 23rd:
See where we stand relative to recent years in terms of total extent here. We are using JAXA-IJIS AMSR-E data to track ice as NSIDC is using older satellites and the new director Mark Serreze has proven untrustworthy. The next two months will be interesting. Temperatures usually begin flatlining in late June which would suggest less ice loss, although the water temperature beneath plays a key role and all of the warm water that entered the Arctic when the Atlantic was very warm in the middle 2000s (now is nearer normal) may not have circulated out yet.
The other question is what effect the early spring Mt. Redoubt eruptions may be having. Are the sulfate aerosols trapped in the arctic stratosphere reflecting back some of what sunlight reaches the high latitudes?
Along the edge of the arctic, Ross Hays who worked for CNN and then NASA who last year posted from Antartica sent this note to me “They have me working in arctic Sweden until mid July. One of the Esrange staff members told me that so far Kiruna had had the coldest June in 150 years!”
See PDF here.
I think the red line is average polar temps, seemed to be well above average at the beginning of the year.
Also on the forecast maps provided by Intellicast, it seems it’s still getting cold enough to snow in parts of the Canadian Rockies and other small parts of Canda and Siberia, we’re under a heatwave (despite falling short of 100 for the past 3 days) that’s supposed to disapate in a few days, India will get a nice temp. drop after being hot all year, Europe warms up, parts of the US (other than the already cool’ish Pacific Northwest) will cool off with Pheonix forecast to fall below 100 again sometime soon.
SST-wise, the SST comparison plot with last year seems to show El Nino falling apart before it got anywhere if you go by the actual shading and not the lines (which the lines are pretty close to the front page plot but SST shading colors are somewhat different.)
Phil. (09:16:17) :
Actually JAXA does at present:
06,23,2008,10198438 (leap year)
06,24,2009,10171719
The key to your analysis is using the 366th day, since 6/24/2008 was 10112031 in Jaxa’s data.
One way to consider 365.24 days in a year is to do a weighted average of the 6/23 & 6/24 days from 2008. The weighted average is 10132769.
A longer term average would be more meaningful, but the latest single day number does show a tiny bit more ice this year than last.
Any democrats on this site? You have to be proud how they are picking our pockets, ramming bills through without being read, now this, health care etc. How’s that change thing working out for you.
The thing that absolutely amazes me about the democrats, not one of them has decided enough is enough and decided to switch parties.
[REPLY – Yes, there are some democrats on this site. Yes, there are those who have had enough and decided to switch parties. There are also some liberal republicans. There are believers in AGW and skeptics. All are welcome. And, no, this is not On Topic. So, having been informed, no more on this subject, please. ~ Evan]
I am reading Watts right here on the shore of the Arctic Ocean at Prudhoe Bay (vacation?). Despite 24-hour daylight, I can agree that the water is extremely cold (and an eskimo confirmed that this past winter had been one of the snowiest ever).
Lee Kington 7:27, TJA 8:01;
I was being sarcastic. I would think that the National Academy of Science, the Royal Society, GISS, etc. would already perform this function. At least two of those institutions have been involved in data scandals that should’ve warranted an absolute (figurative) French Revolution in management. Any organization dedicated to science for the sake of learning and understanding does not tolerate or accept willful data manipulation for purposes of proving the hypothesis. Too many mistakes have been made in the same direction for it to be an accident. They are either corrupt or incompetent. Take your pick, but the leadership of these organizations is due for replacement. They no longer represent science, but rather a political advocacy in the name of science that should not be tolerated by scientists (or honest politicians, either for that matter, if there is such a thing).
Pamela Gray, 8:31;
I know you can pick the data and make it look as you want it to. I understand the difficulty (in some limited way) or modeling chaotic systems. My experience is in the financial arena. Do you know how many models have been pitched in this industry in the last two years?
Now; you have a great understanding of statistics. Look at that graph, and tell me; five different people randomly sample the same infinite data set for 10 years. I wont comment on the sampling methodology or the composition or analysis as that makes this exercise too difficult. 4 of them establish negative trends based on their sample. 1 of them comes up with a positive trend line. Tell me what are the odds that the 1 is correct and the others are incorrect. (Assume statistically significant samples and similar/accurate data interpretation methods.) Is there a statistically significant chance that he’s sampling correctly and that his methodology is untainted?
As to the point that you cannot use trend analysis on a chaotic system; I think there’s a whole bunch of climate “scientists” out there right now who’s carrers are dependent on that very notion. Without that simple positive sloping line based on a bunch of squiggles, they don’t have any point in their arguments whatsoever.
Thank you for your continued patience with a very simple laymen.
Why does the Danish page say the data comes from a MODEL?
“When did they change Global warming to Climate Change?”
http://www.google.com/trends?q=global+warming%2C+climate+change&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all&sort=0
Seems that “climate change” became more common in news articles starting in around 2007.
I would hypothesize that was right about the time people started to notice that global surface tempertaures had been treading water for a few years.
By the way Flanagan, you never answered my question:
If arctic surface temperatures rise and start exceeding 0 C earlier than usual, is that also consistent with global warming? Or would that be evidence against the hypothesis?
brazil: well I never said it was consistent with global warming, only that it is consistent with the rapid melting of the last months. Please don’t extrapolate…
Why does the Danish page say the data comes from a MODEL?
I nearly always prefer my data to come from a Danish model.
I would hypothesize that was right about the time people started to notice that global surface tempertaures had been treading water for a few years.
Actually, Jan. 2007 was when climate began an abrupt change — in a generally downward direction.
O/T,
So is this massive cap-and-trade bill going to make it through today??
“Such major oscillations are part of a bumpy ride toward global warming,” said Thomas Karl of the National Climate Center. “For awhile at least this will be the shape of things to come.” — Thomas Karl of the National Climate Center
“People often confuse climate with weather, and this spring is a weather phenomenon,” said an Environment Canada spokesperson.” — Environment Canada spokesperson.
So which is it, proof the the ‘predicted’ “bumpy ride to global warming” that is to say “Climate” or proof of nothing, that is to say “Weather”. The warmies are always good for a laugh.
Yiipes! Sorry about the lack of a proofread [red smiley goes here]
evanmjones, my thoughts exactly on Jan. 2007. The slow pumping temperature stagnation with some evidence of decrease was, in my opinion, the echo of El Nino warm phase oceanic conditions. The sudden sharp change was the onset of the flip to La Nina cool phase conditions. My hunch is that the Earth has an equilibrium to its current oceanic, geographic, and atmospheric conditions and that oceanic oscillations around the globe build up, release, and cool down Earth’s global temperatures in a noisy chaotic pattern of steps above, below, and around that equilibrium, burying any kind of different driver signal such as Solar or CO2.
crosspatch (10:10:57) :
Forgive me if someone else has already posted this link in the comments. The North Pole cam also reports temperature data which is available here. It actually has been above 0C at times. It was for most of the 23rd.
REPLY: thanks, hadn’t seen that data link, all I knew about was the weekly updated graph. Also so everyone is clear, that buoy is not at the NP but has drifted on the ice about 160 miles SSW last time I checked. – Anthony
NP-36 was above 0ºC on 6/11 & 12 and at 0ºC on 6/08 & 09 when it was closer to the NP than the ‘North Pole Cam’ now is.
timetochooseagain (10:50:58) :
Why does the Danish page say the data comes from a MODEL?
Well there aren’t many weather stations north of 80ºN to get data from.
For the past 30 years, a certain faction has said “look at the signs, here comes disaster! The Earth is on fire!”
Of course, they were fabricating the “signs” and hyping things that were not relevant leading indicators of climate change in the warm direction.
Now, here we are, with real, relevant, leading indicators of actual climate change in the cold direction.
Not a word in the MSM. Many establishment organizations try to down play it.
Oh and by the way, we now have an all time record both quantity and percent wise of starving people on Planet Earth. Nothing to see here, move along.
TJA (11:22:52) : One might add that the rules are:
1. Cold Weather is Weather
2. Warm Weather Is AGW
3. Lots of Cold Weather Is Climate Change
4. Non Temperature Weather Is Climate Change During Winter, AGW During Summer
5. There Is No Mild Weather, Only Extreme Weather. Only Hot Sauce Is Mild.
I’ve lived in Colorado Springs for 19 years, and this is the first year we’ve had snow cover on Pikes Peak this late into the summer. We’ve had brief periods of new snow, but the existing snow usually melts first. It hasn’t this year. Tell me it hasn’t been cooler. I’ve got a bridge for sale, too…
Jack green wrote:
All the evidence you need is when the liberals changed Global Warming to Climate Change. Why would you do that? Global Warming is more scary and fear mongering then CC.
Jack, if you’d investigate that you would soon find that it was actually the Republicans who forced this change in description.
“The memo, by the leading Republican consultant Frank Luntz, concedes the party has “lost the environmental communications battle” and urges its politicians to encourage the public in the view that there is no scientific consensus on the dangers of greenhouse gases.”
And here it is:
“The phrase “global warming” should be abandoned in favour of “climate change”, Mr Luntz says.”
Read all about it: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2003/mar/04/usnews.climatechange
You can watch Mr Luntz confirm it in person here from 2.03 onwards: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_WiTVL9iT1w
ON-TOPIC
Like tulbobroke said: Can someone explain what happened in the beginning of the year? What does that jagged red line above the green one mean? The one that is 5-15K above the green line.
“The *average* arctic temperature is still not above” — D’Aleo
“I think it is misleading. Many people here clearly think it means 273 K hasn’t been reached yet this year. The expression “is still not above 0″, in my sense, means that it hasn’t done it, not that it did but isn’t anymore.” — Flanagan.
I guess that Flanagan is right. The huge number of readers who come here and comment, and haven’t read the first sentence of the post are definitely being misled. Thank you Flanagan for shining the light of truth for that misbegotten horde.
You have just defined the anti AGW camp with this statement. Unfortunately if you ignore the science the problem will not go away. Try listening and reading reliable papers rather than the usual blogosphere pseudoscience…you might learn something.
“”” Flanagan (01:58:17) :
Actually, this is exactly what is to be expected…
Melting is mainly due to contact with “hot” water, not melting from the top. When ice melts, energy is pumped in the environment (i.e. the process is endothermic) which tends to cool the surrounding atmosphere. If melting is brutal, then a lot of heat will be absorbed and the surface temperature will drop. The April-May melting this year was quite impressive, and we’re now below last year levels. So I think it’s pretty coherent.
A similar phenomenon takes pace in the winter, but in the other direction. Since we had a lot of open water at then end of the summer, refreeze was pretty quick last year, which freed a lot of heat in the atmosphere – as can be seen on the graph (surface temperatures being higher than normal). “””
How do you go about making this stuff up ? Floating sea ice, is 9/10 or 10/11 or some such factor underneath the water, so the surface area in contact with the sea water is huge compared to what is in contact with the atmosphere. So the source of the energy (80 cal/gm) to melt that ice, is the ocean, and not the atmosphere, and the resulting ocean cooling causes the sea level to fall.
When the re-freeze happens, the freezing water does not “give up heat” to the atmosphere and thereby warm the atmosphere; the atmosphere first cools until it is below the freezing point, and then energy starts flowing from the water into the atmosphere to be lost to space; but the atmosphere does not warm up, in fact it keeps on getting colder, as the sunlight goes away.
True the rate of cooling of the atmosphere slows because of the energy flow from the water, and the water temperature basically stops dropping while it freezes; but at no time during the freezing process does the atmosphere warm up because of the energy loss from the sea water. That would only occur if the sun changed course and started to supply my solar energy.
Is this some sort of “Green” disease ? Increased carbon dioxide causes the temperature to rise 800 years beforehand; high cold low pressure low mass clouds emit vast amounts of infra-red radiation downwards, to warm the denser more massive warmer solid earth surface (or oceans); the higher and less dense, and colder the clouds, the warmer they make the higher heat capacity earth. Sea ice melts and delivers vast amounts of “heat” to the atmosphere making it warmer.
Do you guys ever put the horse in front of the cart to pull it, like normal human beings do, instead of trying to push everything ?
And they actually teach this stuff in schools ?
From the original piece
” leading to still less melting than last summer which saw a 9% increase in arctic ice than in 2007.”
2008 saw more melting than 2007 because it was starting off from a lot higher extent value over winter.
Regards
Andy
pyromancer76 (07:23:56) :
Anthony, when the names of these Un-scientists are outed on your blog, would you be interested (in your spare time) in some kind of an Unscientist Dumb-A$$ Award? (Sorry, crude I know, but I am not very imaginative at present.) We, your many, many readers could send the Award banner along with article that explains the scientific truths directly to each Un-scientist. In my imagination, their names could grace your award area “permanently”, perhaps recalled with a button on the top. The world should know who, EXACTLY WHO, is altering data, making up analyses, and, in effect, lying to us.
I hereby nominate Lord Monkton as the inaugural winner.
So let’s stop this silly cherry picking and forget plotting trends over such short time intervals
Well, if you want to take the longer view, for the last century, raw data shows under 0.15C warming. With TOBS, c. +0.3C. Fully adjusted, c. +0.7C (which number I doubt, considering they adjust station history UPWARD).
In any case, it would seem obvious from this trend that we are in absolutely no danger, whatever.
The IPCC average projection for the 21st century is around five times the fully adjusted amount. Temps are already off from 2001 (technically the beginning of the 21st century) by around 0.15C, so that has to be made up, and the rest done in around 90 years.
So we need to warm by around 0.4C/decade to catch up.
Oh and by the way, we now have an all time record both quantity and percent wise of starving people on Planet Earth.
Not by percent. Probably not by numbers, either. In 1970, nearly all of China and India were starving (by today’s standards).
(But I agree that today’s situation is not good.)