I’ve been watching this NSIDC graph for a few days, figuring it was just noise. Now, it looks like “something worth blogging about“. The Arctic sea ice extent is continuing to grow past the normal historical peak which occurs typically in late February/early March. [Note: I added the following sentences since at least one commenter was confused by “peak point” in the headline above, which I’ve now changed to “peak date” to clarify what I was referring to. -A] Of course it has not exceeded the “normal” sea ice extent magnitude line, but is within – 2 STD. The point being made is that growth continues past the time when sea ice magnitude normally peaks, and historically (by the satellite record) is headed downward, as indicated by the dashed line.
Source: National Snow and Ice Data Center – link
To be fair though, the Earth seems to be suffering from “bipolar disorder” as we have a similar but opposite trend in the Antarctic:
Source: National Snow and Ice Data Center – link
If we look at Cryosphere Today’s dandy sea ice comparator tool, and choose a standard 30 year climatology period span, it looks like we may actually be ahead this year, compared to 30 years ago. Certainly the arctic sea ice today looks a lot more solid than in 1980. I wish CT offered comparisons without the snow cover added (which was added in 2008) so as to not be visually distracting.
We live in interesting times.
h/t to WUWT commenter “Tommy” for the “tipping point”.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The AGW community’s Arctic ice obsession is fading away, since the ice is simply not paying attention.
It does not help that those pesky denialists keep pointing out the historical context of the ice, and the Antarctic ice pack which contimues to grow.
But selling a climate crisis is tough work.
There is normally two peaks in the Arctic sea ice area and extent – one on day 58, February 28th and another on day 70, March 11th – not sure why there are two, could just be the lack of data – The Cryosphere Today has the same two peaks if you look closely.
March 24th is usually 150,000 km2 below the peak for ice extent.
Woah, so were you working on that, or did I remind you?
REPLY: I had been watching it over the past few days, your comment made a “tipping point” for me to blog about it. Perhaps I should have provided a hat tip but is was already on my radar. So I’ll say “thanks for the tipping point” 😉 . – Anthony
Regarding Crosspatch’s comment on concentration –
Here is the most recent NSIDC Arctic Sea Ice Concentration map.
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_daily_concentration_hires.png
As I have stated all winter, the major areas with ice decline are the Gulf of St. Lawrence and the Sea of Okhotsk – neither of which is directly linked with the Arctic Basin. Within the Arctic Basin proper, sea ice concentrations are well above 30%.
The geographical areas which NSIDC records as below normal (Sea of Okhotsk and Eastern Canada) are always the first to melt, so the trend line will continue to converge with the mean for at least the next week or two.
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_daily_extent.png
Ice area (a better measure of albedo than extent) is normal.
http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/observation_images/ssmi1_ice_area.png
rbateman said:
“Now, what do you suppose is the probability of the sea-ice extent running flat and going right through the 1979-2000 +-2 STD come May?”
________
I would say the probability is less than 20% – honestly…so it’s not impossible, but unlikely. I actually thought we’d might get a positive sea ice anomaly this winter, but that chance is decreasing. Based on trends (and partially on AGW models) I would say that more than likely we’ll see arctic sea ice continue in a negative anomaly range, with a summer low that is certainly less than 2009, and probably less than 2008, but not less than 2007. I think between now and 2015 we’ll see a new modern record low summer minimum.
In regards to the arctic, I’ve been waiting to it’s slow year-to-year rise in sea ice extent to flatten and then begin a decline similar to the arctic. This still may be years off, and it really has to do with the strong winds that are keeping warmer air from penetrating all but the most northern areas of the region. But there are early signs that the winds are starting to taper off a bit (related to the ozone layer thickening up a bit down there?). If AGWT is correct, eventually we’ll see the antarctic follow the slow downward trend of the arctic.
Finally, much has been made about arctic sea ice recovering since 2007. And certainly there has been some recovery, especially in the multi-year ice, and the negative anomaly for the region has not been quite as negative. This years very negative AO index helped that as well. I think however, that even this older ice ice still subject to rapid decline, as it may be older, but not necessarily as thick as “traditional” mult-year ice has been. When looking at mulit-year ice, and sea ice in general, it is not just age, but total mass that matters. Total mass of arctic sea ice is still below the long term year-to-year normal. Despite the apparent trend that shows arctic sea ice continuing to grow past it’s normal peak TIME, this is referring to areas of at least 15% sea ice, and so when it starts to melt in the spring (about now) you can get this little “blip” upward, as the ice starts to break up and the 15% sea ice area makes an apparent last expansion, when really it is breaking up. The regions of N. Canada and Greenland saw very warm temps in Jan & Feb, and early March, and these areas are prone to higher melt this spring and summer, so I’m confident in my prediction for lower summer sea ice than last year, thougt not a record low year…maybe 2011 for that. (unless one of these Iceland volanoes decides to really do something major)
dbleader61 (11:15:09) :
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/12/12/today-in-climate-history-dec-12th-1938-getting-warmer/
Anecdotal enough? Clear at 85°N, that’s within 300Nmls of the pole in December
DaveE.
The satellite record only goes back to 1979. That’s hardly the blink of an eye in the geological record. Even the last 10,000 years is very short term: click
The reason for all the arm-waving over the current minor fluctuation in one of the hemispheres is because it’s all that the purveyors of the catastrophic AGW conjecture have.
It will also be debunked in turn, as were the many other CAGW scares, such as ocean acidification, coral bleaching, increased hurricanes, disappearing islands, frog extinctions, Australian droughts, and every other local change blamed on a rise in CO2 — less than one thirty-fourth of which is due to human activity, the rest being natural emissions, and which have happened repeatedly in the past, and at much higher concentrations.
The planet is in an interglacial, and we should be happy at the prospect of any warming at all. The current local ice fluctuation in the Arctic is not due to increasing CO2, or to human activity in any measurable way, or it would be occurring the same way in the Antarctic. Rather, it is a function of changing winds, currents and precipitation.
But as stated, it’s all the climate alarmists have, so they zero in on the Arctic, ignoring the fact that the planet has gone through these same natural cycles, which have repeated many times since well before the first SUV came off the assembly line: click
It is a strange quirk of human nature that some folks have an innate need to believe the end of the world is nigh: click
Fortunately, most folks here have more sense than that, and understand that natural cycles – not a minor trace gas – explain the climate, and they understand Dr Trenberth’s exasperation when he says it a travesty that the planet refuses to cooperate with the his pre-conceived expectations.
Doc_Navy (11:29:24) :
R Gates has graciously conceded misinterpreted intent and indeed complemented Anthony on a well run & honest site.
Anthony has conceded that he could have been clearer.
Comments often cross over & do not always contain the most complete information. I hope I just missed your apology.
DaveE.
@ur momisugly Smokey
Wait… are you implying that it’s not TEOTWAWKI??
What am I supposed to do with a 10 year supply of MRE’s?
Curse you!
Does anyone know if Skull Island has a wherehouse?
Doc
Concerning the bipolar poles..
Svensmark covers the interesting polar sea-saw effect in The Chilling Stars, and notes that the phenomenon is to be expected if the galactic cosmic ray-climate relationship is valid.
Doc Navy said:
“Crap!… Ok you WERE right, I was wrong. Next time I will read farther than the Headline. Sorry.”
———
Yep, i jumped the gun, and quickly fessed up, and Anthony was gracious enough to also have made some helpful changes to the post based on my “jump”.
More importantly, as has been discussed, the graph is looking at areas with at least 15% sea ice, and this time of year, when the ice starts to break up, you get a spreading out of the ice and can get this little bump upward in total ice extent. Other posters have spoken to this as well, and if anything, the larger bump up than normal might actually indicate that more areas than normal are spreading out (i.e. melting). Bottom line: The arctic sea ice has passed its winter growth period for this season. Now it will be interesting to see if the greater quantity of multi-year ice can hold on and we get a higher summer minimum, as some posters here suspect, or if we’ll actually see a lower summer minimum than last year, as I suspect. We’ll know by mid-September…
Um … R. Gates… It is rising past the time of year when it normally peaks. This is obvious to anyone looking at the graph and was to me without Anthony clarifying. Your pretending anything else is, some might say, dishonest.
Were you this exercised during 2007 when everyone was trying to panic us about sea ice loss while the Antarctic estent was at record highs? Or is your fury only directed at people who blaspheme as Anthony does?
I am also not impressed with your ” since 2004″ thing, I don’t know how representative of “normal” the supposed normal extent line is. Maybe it is just as “good” as using the coldest stretch or the 20th century as the “normal” for temperature anomally? Of course no one would do something that ridiculous would they?
REPLY: OK let’s cut some slack, he could have been less quick to jump to a conclusion, I could have been clearer initially. Clarified -problem solved, lets move on. – Anthony
R. Gates,
One thing that is important to remember is that summer temperatures near the pole show almost no year over year variation. The mass of ice and constant low angle sunshine fixes them at close to 1C.
If the summer melt season starts with thicker ice (like this year) it isn’t going to decline as much as years which started with thinner ice.
R Gates and the traditional “multiyear ice argument”… Tell us where is the 100 years old Arctic sea-ice? The 50 y old? The 20 y old?
Oops Mr Gates already caught his mistake. Therefore my abuse was totally uncalled for Please snip
REPLY: we could all do well by backing away from “abuse”. – Anthony
Don B,
It does seem very unlikely that the fairly constant global sea ice anomaly is coincidental. Warmers love to claim that Antarctic trends are driven by different mechanisms, but those explanations seem extremely contrived.
Wondering:
Sorry you’re not impressed with the 2004 “thing” as that anomaly data (based on a 30 year trend) represents the best solid data that we have for the arctic. The 2004 “thing” is the last year that arctic sea ice showed a postive anomaly (again, based on 30 years of solid data). When speaking about climate change, I don’t care about one snowstorm, one winter, or one year. I care about the long term trends, and the 30 year of data with the last 6 showing continuous negative anomalies are the most important we have on the condition of the arctic sea ice. Discount it if you want, as you are likely an AGW skeptic, and this kind of data certainly must cause a fair amount of cognitive dissonance.
@ur momisugly David A Evans:
1. My first post was written and submitted before the aformentioned apology and compliment got through moderation.. thus my second post.
2. I admit that my posts might have come off more snarky than satirical (as it was ment), and for that I offer my whole-hearted apology to anyone who might have had their sensibilities bruised.
3. If you are gonna post publicly claiming that someone is “Dishonest” when all it takes is a bit more than a passing glance to confirm the main point of the article, and that your post comes to an *obviously* incorrect conclusion… expect flak or even flames. (My post is of the first, not second)
4. I suppose you are right that I should also apologize as we of the skeptical bent should hold ourselves above the manner in which we are treated by those of a consensus mind. To that end…
I’m sorry.
(next time read past the headline) 🙂
Peace be unto you,
Doc
R. Gates (10:54:21) : “Slight correction to previous post. Here is the global sea ice chart:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg ”
Thank you.
More on the polar see-saw from Svensmark; figure 6, page 5.
http://www.phys.uu.nl/~nvdelden/Svensmark.pdf
Doc_Navy (12:32:12) :
Peace unto thee too sir 🙂
DaveE.
If this upward trend continues, the world will be covered by ice in approximately two years.
The preceding was a satirical comment.
My point is that the natural cycles involved here appear to be at least 60 years in length so even if true, 6 years is nothing. In fact I would expect the bottom of the dip to last a lot longer, wouldn’t you? Couple this with the way they measure ice extent with varying instruments and based on 15% coverage and it just doesn’t look anywhere near as significant as we pretend. Natural variation is still mighty big compared to any trend.
By definition, scientific skeptics are pretty much immune from cognitive dissonance, as we have no hypothesis to believe in or to defend. Skeptics simply question. We can be convinced, but it takes solid empirical evidence, not “Trust us,” or “the models say…”
Testable, reproducible evidence. That’s what it takes. And that is what is missing from the CO2=CAGW hypothesis/conjecture.