The April 1st National Snow and Ice Data Center Arctic Sea Ice Extent plot continues its unusual upwards trend and is almost intersecting the “normal” line. Given the slope of the current trend it seems highly likely it will intersect the normal line with the April 2nd plot.
Other sea ice metrics such as JAXA, using a different satellite platform (AQUA) and the AMSR-E sensor agree.
It is an odd sort of a divergence, this growth of Arctic Sea ice well past the normal start of “melt”.
As first mentioned in a WUWT story two days ago, Dr. Walt Meier of NSIDC says:
“It’s a good question about the last time we’ve been above average. It was May 2001.”
It may be winds pushing ice further southwards in the Bering Sea, it may be fresh ice. It may be a combination. While this event isn’t by itself an about-face of the longer downward trend we’ve seen, it does seem to suggest that predictions assuming a linear (or even spiral) demise aren’t holding up.
We live in interesting times.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Right after arctic roos posted this, they went off line: click
Henry@ur momisugly Dave Springer
So what you are saying is that more spots means more solar magnetic field coming from the sun, eventually translating in less cloudformation and more heat on the floor. I got that, I just did not remember anymore which way it was with those spots. thanks.
But do you know what a normal average is for these spots- and if yes, perhaps we could also start a line somehwere with zero and then we can see if things are going up or down? Or is it actually possible to measure the solar magnetic field and put this in one of those zero lines?? going back to as far as we have measurements.
I wonder if you are familiar with the predicted alignment where the sun comes right in line with the middle (center) of the Milky way. The exact alignment is predicted for 2012. I gather that if we are already more or less aligned with the centre and I suppose that there are not too many stars there, so a lot less GCR will come to earth? What do you think?
sorry Willis,
I should have been more specific in the questions.
– (0°C) or 273.15K is the freezing point of water (which you are showing with the Blue horizontal line) so based on this data, the (air) temperature difference in winter is unlikely to have much effect on sea ice because its occurring well the freezing point?
– the end unit 360 doesn’t align with beginning unit 0-1; shouldn’t it since this red line is a 15 year average normalized onto a 360 day (unit) year?
Willis Eschenbach (12:23:18) :
Thank you Willis, that is very illustrative of what I was saying.
“What does all of this mean? Well … um … er …”
I think that Phil. indirectly has offered a plausible explanation to why the days 120 to 260 show so little variance and no anomaly compared to 1958-2002 average. If I understand Phils reasoning correctly, he is implying that when the surface air temps exceed the melting point, the ice starts to melt from above, and any added heat in the air from either CO2 re-radiation or otherwise, will go into the phase change process of melting ice, thereby reducing variability and limiting further rise of air temps. In the absence of a warm ocean nearby, the summer max temps in the Arctic above 80N therefore will not rise much above the melting point of ice until most all ice has melted.
Phil. (08:06:36) :
OK Phil., we will see if and when that happens then, if at all in our lifetime.
As I mentioned in another thread, I imagine that you have some kind of professional expertise on the subject of arctic ice. So, in your professional opinion, when will we see a new summer minimum record low, and what is your prediction for 2010 summer minimum, and why?
Anu (10:48:24) :
“p.s. Svalbard sounds beautiful. I haven’t been to the Arctic, or ever seen the Northern Lights, but it’s on my To Do list :-)”
Let me know when you are coming over, and I will treat you to a CO2 saturated Arctic Ice Beer.
But this year, levels continued to grow in the second half of March. Dr Mark Serreze, of the NSlDC, said parts of the Arctic were going through an unusually cold spring – but that other areas were warmer than normal.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1263207/Increase-Arctic-ice-confounds-doomsayers.html#ixzz0k4hOc9rR
Why?
Why are said parts of the Arctic going through and unusually cold spring smack dab in the middle of a predicted CAGW Ice-free Arctic by 2013?
Just because they said it is so is not a reason.
If the weather patterns are blowing cold air down on top of the southern lat. of the N. Hem., why isn’t the Arctic melting instead of growing?
If the winds have stopped in the Arctic, then the Arctic should be melting rapidly in CAGW balminess, and the USA/Europe/Asia should be sweltering in unprecedented April heat.
No make sense.
Heat transport to the Arctic escapes to space in weakened Terrestrial Magnetic Field, though incomplete, makes more sense than Serreze’s non-explanation.
Look, lets get this straight. The Arctic refusing to comply with accepted climate change models is just not acceptable in todays scientific community. Can I suggest that if this nonsense continues we send ice breakers into the Arctic spraying hot water on all sides until the ice sees sense and resorts to it’s predicted behaviours. We must ensure that climate change models are not embarrassed by such thoughtless behaviours by the environment.
yours etc.
Angry of LLangoed.
Smokey (13:26:15) :
“Right after arctic roos posted this, they went off line: click”
Possibly their server went down due to too many hits. Anyway, it’s Easter holidays over here now, so nobody is working this weekend. More likely than not, they will be down until after the holidays.
Happy holidays to all!
BREAKING NEWS North Pole could be ice free this summer
Norwegian climate scientists are now virtually certain that the ice in the Arctic is lost. During the summer the North Pole will be ice free. Warmer ocean leads to melting far faster than scientists previously believed. Now action is required.
http://translate.google.co.uk/translate?hl=en&sl=no&u=http://www.dagsavisen.no/innenriks/article348948.ece
(2007)
I know it’s a “Sky is Falling” type rag but I love the comments on this article.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1263207/Increase-Arctic-ice-confounds-doomsayers.html
The fellow who said “Massacre” was spot on.
Alan S (15:54:12) :
‘Scientists warn’. Serreze give some areas colder, some areas warmer in a zero-sum game excuse for a reason.
It’s colder in your house because your stove is being used.
There is no evidence right now for a warmer than normal or colder than normal according to the DMI 80N temp. It’s right where it should be. And that does not explain what’s going on up there.
It certainly does not give any creedence to Mr. Serreze’s explanation.
…magma does not come from a magma chamber but is received directly from the mantle of the earth. Olgeir says this rather rare. It is very interesting if it is true.
http://translate.google.com/translate?js=y&u=http://www.ruv.is/frett/gosstrokar-um-hundrad-metra-hair&sl=is&tl=en
News about the volcanic eruptions in Iceland is being regularly updated here:
http://translate.google.com/translate?
js=y&u=http://www.ruv.is/flokkar/hamfarir/eldgos-fimmvorduhalsi&sl=is&tl=en
R Gates, your reference to a deep solar minimum causing ice recovery belies a weakness in your theory. Mathematically, your solar theory cannot explain ice behavior of the past two years nor this little March blip (too little solar ice-melting potential variation at the pole combined with too much ice retention).
The past two years of weather pattern variation and Arctic current data has shown a decided change in the parameters that lead to ice flush in the Arctic basin which has prevented what we know as the June through August Flush. These parameters have also explained ice compaction and ice thickness. The Sun has nothing to do with it.
Please explain the retention of ice based on the most significant factors: weather and current pattern variation (pressure gradients, wind patterns, and oceanic Arctic current SST).
If you want to argue that these Arctic parameters have temporarily overwhelmed the increasing global warming threat, fine. But at least show some understanding of weather interacting with the Arctic system.
NSDIC seems to be desperately hanging on to February
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
It is claiming the Feb graph is March 02 … as well as showing the March graph on the same page.
Dr A Burns (17:36:07) : NSDIC seems to be desperately hanging on to February.
They are entitled to their Easter holiday, the same as everyone else. I’m sure they will update sometime next week, and it will be interesting to see what they say.
NZ Willy (18:13:00) :
Dr A Burns (17:36:07) : NSDIC seems to be desperately hanging on to February.
They are entitled to their Easter holiday, the same as everyone else. I’m sure they will update sometime next week, and it will be interesting to see what they say.
On their normal schedule, the first week of the month, insinuations here to the contrary not withstanding.
I don’t see surface winds being in the direction that would say that extent data is an artificial construct (IE wind patterns spreading out ice extent southward). It seems to me that ice is still being pushed towards the pole, so ice extent as it is currently being reported, is quite significant in my opinion and is outside the past 30 year mean. It appears to me that sea ice is still being frozen as new ice, and is not old ice being pushed South. The uptick is significant in my opinion, barring a computer glitch.
addendum. To clarify, sea ice extent growth at this time of year seems outside of the usual 30 year mean for growth for this time of year.
Environmentalism is a heavily politicized field, dominated by “believers” with an extremist mentality who are willing to play dirty. The field has badly over-reached and cried wolf in the past.
Pamela Gray (19:55:46) :
I don’t see surface winds being in the direction that would say that extent data is an artificial construct (IE wind patterns spreading out ice extent southward). It seems to me that ice is still being pushed towards the pole,
Although what you suggest is exactly what is not happening, the drift is strongly out of the Fram and past Svalbard where the extent is growing. Here’s the last 6 days’ drift, for example.
http://i302.photobucket.com/albums/nn107/Sprintstar400/20100325-20100331.jpg
It appears to me that sea ice is still being frozen as new ice, and is not old ice being pushed South. The uptick is significant in my opinion, barring a computer glitch.
Also the MODIS images in that area show fragmented thicker ice not freshly frozen, new thin ice.
http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/realtime/single.php?2010091/crefl1_143.A2010091125500-2010091130000.500m.jpg
Phil: Although what you suggest is exactly what is not happening, the drift is strongly out of the Fram and past Svalbard where the extent is growing. Here’s the last 6 days’ drift, for example.
http://i302.photobucket.com/albums/nn107/Sprintstar400/20100325-20100331.jpg
Although what you suggest looks nice and convenient in the pic, it does not explain that the biggest upticks in sea ice have not been in the Greenland Sea or Davis Straight. In fact, the areas in those seas have declined in the last week or so overall. The big upticks have occurred in the Barents Sea and Okhotsk Seas (and even Bering)…which have nothing to do with the flushing ice of ice out the Fram Straight. Maybe you could make a weak case of the expansion of the Barents Sea being thinned out in its ice extent, but your argument certainly has nothing to do with the decent uptick in the Okhotsk Sea or Bering Sea.
I’m sure you’ll have a clever or snarky response to this, but the fact is that those winds you posted are almost totally irrelevant to the uptick in sea ice.
Willis Eschenbach (12:23:18) :
Ref: JAN (02:29:08)
Ref: Anu (10:48:24)
True, but consider that this data set (1958 – 2010) shows absolutely NO temperature increase (in summer) for the Arctic in the past fifty years of supposed global warming.
(But GISS (Hansen) claims in his data to find more than 4 degrees of Arctic temperature increase in this period. One or the other claim is demonstrably false. 1/2 degree? Might be explicable. 1 degree difference? Maybe. But for Hansen to claim that much Arctic warming when this set shows none is vivd proof of how wrong his extrapolations are using his 1200 mile circles from the nearest thermometer.)
So, if there is zero warming across the summer peak temperatures – the only period of the year warmer than zero C as pointed out above – then the Arctic ice is NOT melting due to higher temperatures elsewhere around the globe.
Third: There is tremendously more variation in the temperatures in winter, spring, and fall than in the three summer months.
Willis: I strongly recommend you split the DMI “year” into thirds: Compare the different variations in temperature for the three periods: The first four months and third four months will show a much, much larger standard deviation than the middle four months; but that much larger deviation will not contribute to ice melt nor middle of the year ice extent graphs.
Since the summer four months have not warmed in fifty years, something (other than “global warming) has caused the reduction in ice extent.
John from CA said:
“R. Gates (09:39:49) :
Don’t we shave 10,000,000 off every year and if it only melts to 4,500,000, isn’t that a positive trend based on the last 3 seasons?”
————–
Using the IJIS data, if the arctic sea ice minimum hits 4.5 million sq. km in Sept., (as I think it will), then that would be a downward trend from the 2008-2009 minimums, and heading back toward the modern record summer low set in 2007. Some posters on this site (i.e. Steve Goddard et. al., are stating they think the mimimum will be 6 million sq. km. or greater, and that would be higher than the 2008-2009 minimum.
John from CA (13:25:06)
My read of the situation is that arctic ice melt is much more dependent on the temperature of the sea water under it than the air above it.
Yes, it should, and I had noticed that. It’s one of the problems I have with climate model results. They seem to run the numbers and accept them without really looking at them. For example, go to the source here and click on 1999. Note that the year ends with a temperature (red line) just above 245K.
Now click on 2000 and see where it starts the next day … at about 262K, a difference of about 17K … what’s up with that? Gotta love computers and computer drivers, you can see why I greatly prefer observations to model results, even “reanalysis” models which should theoretically be very close to observations.
That’s one of the reasons I wanted to check the general trend with the UAH MSU data. I’ll keep looking and report back if I find anything.
Good questions, science at work,
w.