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”.
Mr. Watts, yes it does appear the sea ice extent is increasing to previously observed levels. Please remember that the “normal” average is taken from 1979-2000 and is assumed to be the absolute reference for posterity. This is a completely arbitrary selection of data with NO STATISTICAL BASIS for its use.
If I were cynical, I would suggest that this “normal” average (with SD) was selected in anticipation of the expected decline – making it all the more dramatic.
Keep up the good work. It keeps me sane!
Wondering aloud,
It seems a bit convenient for the AGW believers to now say that the 15% issue is significant, when it is the same data that has been used the entire satellite period.
It is sort of like coming up with ice volume- which is not at all well measured- as the new stat.
The bottom line is that the ice is pretty much in line with where it ever has been, in the Arctic, and has increased a bit in the Antarctic.
The fuss is due to AGW hysterics conflating these variations, which seem to well within historical data, actually means a doom is at hand.
OT but interesting…
There is an interesting (almost real-time) discussion over at:
http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2010/03/01/global-average-temperature-increase-giss-hadcru-and-ncdc-compared/#comments
Here’s a quote from Tom Fuller (you know, the guy who co-wrote that book up there on your upper right of the screen, right under the twitter link.) about the discussion:
“And what’s going on on his website is one of the most signficant and unexpected happenings in all the debate on global warming. For three weeks now, a discussion on something as unlikely as statistics is coming close to rewriting climate change history. Because for just about the first time, scientists from all parts of the spectrum are engaging in almost real time on an issue of substance that can actually be resolved in front of the viewing audience. It has engaged the attention of physicists, statisticians, webloggers and an army of viewers. If you read through it you will never think of the term ‘unit root’ in the same way again” (ref: http://www.examiner.com/x-9111-Environmental-Policy-Examiner~y2010m3d24-Global-warming-Bigger-than-Climategate-more-important-than-Copenhagenits-statistical-analysis )
Enjoy.
Doc
The 15% ice thing may not be useful for us armchair folks, but when you are in a transport vessel, it is VERY important. The use of 15% ice extent is intended for sailors and seamen, not the rest of us all warm and comfy sitting next to a cracklin fire.
Or, if it’s something along the lines of an infomercial you want, there’s always the Catlin Arctic Survey 2010. Yep, they’re at it again:
http://www.catlinarcticsurvey.com/
with tales of rotten ice, or, in their words, “flippy floppy ice.”
Dr Weinstein thinks Arctic is in the normal range:
http://climatecooling.blogspot.com/2009/11/truth-about-arctic-and-greenland-ice-by.html
Leon,
Tom Nelson is already poking fun:
http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2010/03/catlin-warmists-think-that-we-stupid.html
It is quite obvious what is going on.
The Arctic is boiling hot right now according to GISS, and
the latest scientific evidence clearly shows that hot water freezes faster than cold.
😉
Wondering said:
“Natural variation is still mighty big compared to any trend…”
Normally, yes. But AGWT is not about what is normal, but about looking for the signal within the natural variation. And for those who think that AGW might be correct are always looking toward the arctic for proof, that’s only partially true. The arctic region is one of the first to be affected by the warming according to all models, and so it should be the “canary in the coal mine.” But other evidence comes from warming oceans, cooling stratosphere, glacial melting, accelerated hydrological cycle, etc.
If the Danes are right ..
http://www.spacecenter.dk/research/sun-climate/Scientific%20work%20and%20publications/resolveuid/86c49eb9229b3a7478e8d12407643bed
.. then as the planet continues to cool, brace yourselves for a new onslaught from the pro-AGWers using the Antarctic instead of the Arctic.
“The cosmic-ray and cloud-forcing hypothesis
therefore predicts that temperature changes in
Antarctica should be opposite in sign to changes
in temperature in the rest of the world. This is
exactly what is observed, in a well-known phenomenon
that some geophysicists have called the
polar see-saw, but for which “the Antarctic climate
anomaly” seems a better name (Svensmark
2007). To account for evidence spanning many
thousands of years from drilling sites in Antarctica
and Greenland, which show many episodes
of climate change going in opposite directions,
ad hoc hypotheses on offer involve major reorganization
of ocean currents. While they might
be possible explanations for low-resolution climate
records, with error-bars of centuries, they
cannot begin to explain the rapid operation of
the Antarctic climate anomaly from decade to
decade as seen in the 20th century (figure 6).
Cloud forcing is by far the most economical
explanation of the anomaly on all timescales.
Indeed, absence of the anomaly would have
been a decisive argument against cloud forcing
– which introduces a much-needed element of
refutability into climate science.”
[my emphasis]
Anthony:
“I wish CT offered comparisons without the snow cover added…”
Perhaps, the general snow cover of the northern hemisphere has a cooling albedo influence upon the later peaking of Arctic ice extent. Better to continue to show snow cover?
As Anthony points out there is something of a see-saw between North and South. To put things in persepctive I’ve plotted the total Arctic and Antarctic sea-ice and the northern hemisphere snow cover (there’s is relatively little snow cover in the southern hemisphere.) This shows a very slow declining trend in area since 1979. For the graph see:
http://www.climatedata.info/Impacts/Impacts/snow_assets/Global%20snow%20and%20ice.gif
and for the explanatory text se:
http://www.climatedata.info/Impacts/Impacts/snow.html
I take a daily trip to IARC-JAXA to watch Arctic ice grow/decline. Was enjoying the approach of Spring, seeing open spaces that had been solid white. Then I could not get the site. When it favored my computer again, the open spaces were mostly filled in. Now I know — it is slush that is spreading out into open water creating the appearance — only the appearance — of more Winter.
Smokey, thanks for setting the record straight over and over (and over) again. Always great graphs.
I agree with crosspatch concerning the 15% vs. 30%. I would much rather see the 30% graphs. They seem a more accurate depiction to me.
Over two THOUSAND hits on WUWT while I was reading this thread!
Mr. Watts, very well done indeed! It is a result which is most well deserved.
Here’s another chart showing arctic sea ice. Note how it shows we’ve passed the peak:
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm
But also, look at 2003, and the extra “blip” late in the season. I trust this data less than the previous links I posted because it has a shorter history, though in general it is fine. it does measure sea ice extent a bit differently.
Earliest ice-out ever recorded (since 1851) on Lake Winipesaukee, New Hampshire:
http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Lake+Winnipesaukee+ice-out+is+earliest+on+record&articleId=2242ab22-323d-4c3e-8753-8f8549617a30
Ice-out was declared yesterday (the 24th) afternoon, four days ahead of the previous record of March 28th, in 1921.
The lake iced in fine, and on schedule, and was black, and sturdy enough to support the usual winter activities. However, the winter storms went south in February, with a big mostly-rain with high winds event in mid-Feb., doing a number on the protective snow cover. The sun was then able to work freely on the ice. March was warmer than usual, with still no further snow, and had another rain event, as well as more high winds.
The Warmists will no doubt try to blame this on global warming.
“Doc_Navy (12:54:35) :
OT but interesting…
There is an interesting (almost real-time) discussion over at:
http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2010/03/01/global-average-temperature-increase-giss-hadcru-and-ncdc-compared/#comments
”
Ah well the CO2 believers won’t have anything of that statistical analysis, they just don’t wanna see that there can’t be a simple causality between CO2 LEVEL and temperature LEVEL…. repeating again and again that statistics is unphysical… really i didn’t find it that fruitful. And the repetitive comments by Eli Rabbett (he really pastes exactly the same text again and again as if he were a spam bot) really go on your nerves.
The sea ice comes and goes and sometimes it goes far, carried and melted by warm currents to oblivion. And as the sea ice comes and goes and comes again, cyclically and historically going back 100 years, a great many frightened folks tear their hair out, ignoring historic observations, proclaiming that if the trends continue, precious fragile Gaia will die screaming with a C02 knife in her heaving bosom…
Empirical evidence cannot sway a Green/religious viewpoint because Green people have their minds closed to alternative viewpoints that come from, of course, Mother Earth hating skeptics. I first noted the existence of this religious fervor when I pointed out to a “believer” that millions of acres of land where I grew up had certain so-called “endangered” species that were no more “endangered” than, say, pine trees or grass. The “believer” I spoke with wasn’t interested in the obvious falseness of an “endangered” species that was in vast abundance around him and, in fact, in all of eastern Oregon, Washington and Idaho – he DEFENDED the scientists’ position with this chestnut: “They are the experts – they’ve figured these things out and you are foolish to question them.” He may as well have called them, ‘the anointed ones” and called me a heretic.
R. Gates still ducks the question about the multi year ice… Where is the 100y old, 50 y old, 20y old ice?
Natural variability. Sadly not strong enough, or in the right direction, to knock the eejits off their hobby horses.
We are in for a rough ride. The world is going to warm up for a couple of years before it cools down appreciably. The re-invigorated screeching of the hysterical clerics will be painful to listen to. Almost as painful as watching smug return to their physogs.
Sorry to break this news. It is written in the stars(read planets). I wish I could place a sarcasm off sign here but I have seen the forecast and have no reason to disbelieve that which has provided proof sufficient for this sceptic to be amazed.
We should be thankful that Earth based “forcings” are mostly of opposite sign to extra-terrestrial influences right now (for the next 3-4 years) as the signals would be very strong without this offset.
@DirkH
“Is there some sort of extra North/South Hemisphere two-way heat channel that is evening things out?”
Hollow Earth theory with openings at the poles would fit the bill. There are issues with this theory, though – the holes haven’t been observed….”
Ah, but they wouldn’t be, would they? They would be under the ice. The only people who would find out about them would be nuclear submarine crews, who, as we all know, are sworn to secrecy……
Antonio San said:
“Where is the 100y old, 50 y old, 20y old ice?”
Answer: There is no arctic sea ice that old (or if there somehow is, it is such as small amount as to be too to measure…
And, what exactly is the “old multi-year ice” argument? More multi-year ice built up this past year because less melted last summer (relative to the extreme melt of 2007)
BTW: For a bit of trivia: Multi-year (older ice) has been the source of drinking water for arctic expeditions because of its lower brine levels.
R. Gates (12:03:49) :
I would agree the probability is low, and leave the trends to themselves.
It is much better to assign a probability to a trend changing course than to try to project them, and even then things can go any which way they want to.
Iceland, however, I would give a greater than even probability of popping off the bigger volcano, as low solar activity corresponds to increased volcanic activity for the last 210 years.
I am not the least bit impressed with CO2 driving anything but Soda Pop sales and plant growth.
He he….what’s the saying, even a blind squirrel finds a nut from time to time. I figured you were aware of it, but thanks anyways