It is still quite cold in the Arctic, with below normal air temperatures and sea surface temperatures surrounding the ice pack between around 2-4°C. Much of that has to do with meltwater. I’ve added this image to our new WUWT Sea Ice Page tonight.
Source: http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/satellite/index.uk.php
But looking at another product from the Danish Meteorological Institute (DMI) there’s an indication of even colder temperatures, now hitting the freezing line in the middle of the Arctic summer.
While this most certainly could be a temporary blip, it seems the temperature in the arctic above 80°N as calculated by DMI has steadily declined and hit 0°C a bit early (just past midway) in the Arctic melt season.
See the graph below:
Source: http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
Here’s the 3x magnified view of the top of the graph:
Much of the melt season so far has been below the green “normal climate” line. While it is just another data point (i.e. weather) , it is a curious and interesting development worth watching. The past few days melt has been accelerating, a bit, but with a dropping Arctic core temperature it would seem to suggest perhaps this is limited to some traditional melt zones for this time of year, such as near the Chukchi sea.
Look for more in WUWT Sea Ice News #15 this weekend.
h/t to WUWT reader phlogiston
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Its interesting to see both how both alarmists and sceptics have been led into a blind alley of sorts, I watch with fascination the graphs every day but they mean little on their own other than short term variation based on short term weather patterns. Our esteeemed resident alarmist R Gates for example was himself trapped by a short term heavy melt at the start of the melt season and extrapolated from that a record low minimum stating confidently that it would be “one heck of a melt season”.
On both sides the lure of predicting the minimum is very appealing not least to myself but isnt it strange that both sides focus has become narrowed onto this tiny time frame as though it was the superbowl final?
We know the MSM will provide cover for the alarmist cause should the coming minimum be higher than usual and provide a platform for a mass of hysterical scare stories should the minimum be lower so either we get a media silence or a media frenzy. FWIW & IMHO we will not fully know which way the cookies are crumbling untill the 2011/12 maximums at least.
What we do know is that when an ice age comes it comes fast and furious within a couple of years so stock up on essentials now just in case eh?
I too am fascinated with weather events. I also statistically understand that every data point that makes up a climatological trend came from weather events. Every single one of them.
Zero degrees isn’t all that magic. I am willing to bet that most of the melt happens from the bottom up. The air temperature can be considerably below zero and the ice will still melt because the water beneath it is above freezing.
I used to be part of a crew that camped on the ice starting when the sun came up and left when the ice got too thin to land the DC-3 that would take us out. IIRC (it was nearly forty years ago), we were always gone by the end of May. A bright sunny day with a temperature of -15 deg. F was considered warm! Since the air was well below freezing, there were no puddles but the ice was thinning nevertheless. (We were measuring it carefully because it mattered a lot.)
Why did we camp on the ice? All supply was by air and we had flights every couple of days because our helicopters used a lot of fuel. There was never a place on land that was flat enough to make an airstrip. It was always possible to find a suitably flat strip of ice.
I can’t remember the exact numbers but we would start with an ice thickness of 3X where X was the minimum thickness to land a DC-3 or Twin Otter. Once or twice we had to lie to get the plane to come because the ice was thinner than X. The bottom line is that most of the ice melt is invisible from the surface.
REPLY: Uh junior, this post was about the temperature plot, not extent. In fact the article doesn’t even contain the word “extent”. You are arguing extent. That’s fine if the post was about extent. The green DMI climate normal line goes above zero, stays above zero, then goes below zero. Above zero = melt, and lots of people scream about “melt” when in fact much of the melt is caused by wind patterns pushing ice out of the Arctic, where it does melt.
Argue semantics and misdirections all you want, but that’s what I was referring to. Yes, you can define melt season via extent also. I’m really not interested in what you think I should have said, when the post is clearly about temperature, not extent. – Anthony
____________________________________________________________
You do realize that your spurious “temperature” definition is based on MODEL data? Not actual 100% in situ observational data.
Note also that this MODEL data has not yet passes the zero mark, the red line is still above the zero line, ever so slightly;
Do you see red BELOW blue? I don’t. So you’re jumping the gun as it were.
You are the one who initiated the misdirection by your spurious “just past halfway” statement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Centre_for_Medium-Range_Weather_Forecasts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECMWF_re-analysis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ERA-40
REPLY: Junior, I know, yes that’s why it says ERA40 and T1279 in the legend. Short term models and model output, I use them every day for weather forecasting. So, do you have a point? I think not. I also realize that when you couldn’t win the extent semantics argument, you shifted it to something else. Also note that on the left hand side of the 3x magnified graph, when the red crosses the blue line, it goes behind it, not on top of it. So, your zero line argument is FAIL.
Instead of playing these games, wouldn’t it simply just be more direct to say: “I don’t like you or anything here at WUWT”? Then you’d be honest about it. I pointed out something interesting. Get over it or get off. Not interested in anonymous troll bait. – Anthony
REPLY: Junior, I know, yes that’s why it says ERA40 in the legend. I also realize that when you couldn’t win the argument, you shifted it to something else. Also note that on the left hand side of the 3x magnified graph, when the red crosses the blue line, it goes behind it, not on top of it. So, your zero line argument is FAIL.
Instead of playing these games, wouldn’t it simply just be more direct to say: “I don’t like you or anything here at WUWT”? Then you’d be honest about it. I pointed out something interesting. Get over it or get off. Not interested in anonymous troll bait. – Anthony
____________________________________________________________
No, you are wrong, the red line does not cross the blue line, even at infinite magnification.
Heck look at 2009, where the red linw is below the blue line for the first ~3rd, what’s up with that?
Also look at 2003-2010 inclusive, denote a trend? It’s almost all below the green line, which is not so for almost the entire rest of this model’s time series. This suggests an inverse correlation between Arctic sea ice extent minima and temperature above 80N.
80N occupies just 3.87E6 km^2, yet almost all the melt season occurs BELOW 80N.
I could go on, but why bother, the ad hominem appears to be the SOP at WUWT.
REPLY:
“No, you are wrong, the red line does not cross the blue line, even at infinite magnification.”
You didn’t look at the previous point closely. Junior, your argument about the red and blue line is still FAIL
You can’t see the red line under the blue on the left, what make you think you can see it on the right?
And we aren’t talking about 2009 in this post, we are talking about 2010, July 19. Why do you keep shifting your losing arguments? – Anthony
Remove the word “inverse” from “inverse correlation” should be “direct correlation” (positive slope), temperature above 80N goes down, Arctic sea ice extent also goes down.
“….Antarctic sea ice coverage indicates a cooling of ocean temperatures and a reversal in the climate trend.”
This is the really the interesting story at the moment. The NOAA are talking about a reversal in the climate trend!!
So they are reiterating the much criticised Joe Bastardi and contradicting James Hansen. Note climate trend not weather.
Everyone’s focused on a few hundred km of ice at the North Pole when it can easily change a million or two from year to year, and last year there was a warm El Nino, well let’s focus on the real story and see what happens in November, because according to NOAA (hardly a skeptical organisation) that’s when the fun “might” begin, i.e. a climate trend reversal.
Personally I hope they’re wrong, because the warming over the last 30 years has done nothing but good!! lets face it.
vukcevic says:
July 19, 2010 at 11:07 pm
Arctic is still science enigma .
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC1.htm
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Arctic-factor.htm
Regarding the second URL, what does CET denote and why does the data stop at 2006?
I’m just curious how this supposed “premature chill” corresponds with this map, showing above average SST’s for much of the Arctic:
http://polar.ncep.noaa.gov/sst/ophi/color_anomaly_NPS_ophi0.png
And it’s been this way for quite some time.
Also, looking at this charts would also seem to show warmer anomalous temps in and around much of the Arctic:
http://iridl.ldeo.columbia.edu/maproom/.Global/.Ocean_Temp/Weekly_Anomaly.html
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/satellite/index.uk.php
Right at the ice edges where the ice is melting and turning to water of course you’re going to get colder water, but further out, around Greenland Sea, in the Beaufort Sea, in the Barants Sea you see plenty of warm water where the ice melted weeks ago.
Sorry, don’t see any “premature cooling” going on here.
REPLY: So, your argument then is that the DMI temperature plot is wrong? Note it is 80N and greater. Not the Greenland, Beaufort, or Barents Sea.
Phil. says:
July 20, 2010 at 7:33 am
And yet Spencer’s AQUA channel 05 data is showing the hottest day in its record (since 02) and it’s hotter than his record value for the day (78-98). So that should mean it’s the hottest day in the satellite record if you believe Spencer’s inter satellite ‘adjustments’.
Weren’t you the bugger dissing me for following DMI on Sea Ice #3? Yet here you come with the UAH when all along you’ve been hyping GISSTEMP. What a hypocrite. Pick your source and live or die.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php on the Danish site it looks like their temperature model had dips to the blue line (0 C) during the melt season in at least 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007 (almost), and 2009 (I only looked back to 1998). Really, it bounces all over, so I don’t see anything unusual at all this year.
richcar 1225 says:
July 20, 2010 at 8:55 am
“NOAA seems to sense the onset of global cooling:
http://www.glgroup.com/News/NOAA-Global-Temperature-Data-Reveals-Both-Warming-and-Cooling-Trends-49535.html
”
I don’t think that NOAA has written this; rather a guy analysing the NOAA data. It doesn’t matter in the end, but i don’t think NOAA is prepared yet to announce a cooling trend publically. They will only be allowed to do that after the congress elections when it will not matter anymore, one way or the other.
Just for Icarus as he/she/it mentioned that recent temperatures are unprecedented;
http://wallstreetpit.com/20710-climategate-goes-back-to-1980
Since pure water, compared to sea water, is the first to freeze and the last to thaw, it that not exactly one major ways thick multi-year clear ice with very low salt content is accumulated? The rain in the arctic has recently been reported and it accumulates in the melt ponds and freezes near 0ºC instead of -3ºC or -4ºC. That is just a logical observation but I don’t know if that actually occurs to any great extent.
Agile Aspect says: July 20, 2010 at 10:30 am
vukcevic says: July 19, 2010 at 11:07 pm
Arctic is still science enigma .
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC1.htm
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Arctic-factor.htm
Regarding the second URL, what does CET denote and why does the data stop at 2006?
If I did work correctly data should stop at 2006, up to June and 2005 for the rest. Temperatures and AMO are charted as 10 year moving average, e.g. temperature for 2005 is ( 2001+2002+ …. +2010)/10.
MS Excel can plot directly moving averages, but it gives an inaccurate reading since moves whole plot to the right by half of the selected period.
No one’s told the Telegraph about the Arctic! http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7899939/World-on-course-for-hottest-year-since-1880.html
Moderator said:
“REPLY: So, your argument then is that the DMI temperature plot is wrong? Note it is 80N and greater. Not the Greenland, Beaufort, or Barents Sea.”
___________
Actually, that’s not what I’m saying at all, and in fact, when you switch over to the “anomalies” on the DMI parameter, it doesn’t show premature cooling, but actually more warm anomalies, just as the other links I posted showed. From all these charts, including the DMI (anomalies), there is no premature cooling going on in the Arctic, so I’m not sure why you would post that, and if you’re point is to show how there is colder water near the edge of ice where the ice is melting…well, calling that “premature chill” doesn’t seem to be a very scientific way of looking at it
REPLY:It’s an interesting note, with a question mark, nothing more. And yet you don’t complain when heat waves are pointed out as evidence of AGW. Shall we not ever discuss anything of interest then because it may offend? ~mod]
Agile Aspect says: July 20, 2010 at 10:30 am
Regarding the second URL, what does CET denote and why does the data stop at 2006?
Sorry I missed the first point:
CET – Central England Temperatures
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcet/data/download.html
I notice on the arctic sea-ice anomaly plot that there is a large, short-lived positive spike that shows up in the NSIDC data around 1996. I wonder if this was a real cold-summer melt-failure event or if this might be an error of one in the most or next-most significant digit column.
Temperatures are cold near the pole, and warm near the East Siberian Sea.
There isn’t any conflict, except for people who assume that the whole Arctic can be defined by one data point (i.e. GISS.)
stevengoddard says:
July 20, 2010 at 11:41 am
Temperatures are cold near the pole, and warm near the East Siberian Sea.
There isn’t any conflict, except for people who assume that the whole Arctic can be defined by one data point (i.e. GISS.)
_____________
Taking a look at the DMI anomaly map shows more anomalous warmth in the region then cold– the pretty red colors tell you that. Yes, there is colder water near the melting ice edges (as there always is), but no “premature chill” going on.
There appear to be several “lagoons” in the ice sheet. The largest being East of Greenland. Franz Josef Land and Novaya Zemlya appear to have quite profound effect on how the ice near them melts.
Interestingly whilst a roughly circular set of islets can be seen on other maps to the West Severnaya Zemlya the same does not appear to be the case East of Novosibirskiye Ostrova. There dosn’t appear to be any land between Vilkitskogo Island and the mainland.
Maybe things correspond better with a lower sea level, possibly submerged “islands” melt the ice better than ones which go through it…
Steven,
Why don’t you state that R. Gates last name is “Gates” so we can all watch R. Gates argue with you about it. 🙂
R. Gates, is it the case that the data source has used the same methods to draw its graphs since way back when? Are they recording temps around the edges of the ice only or are they using other methods such as buoy’s? If so, then I would have to say that the source is reporting a true difference in temperature, since ice melts every year and according to your argument, should make the edges cold every year. However it appears that there have been times when the edge temps have been warmer and times when it has been colder. So the ice has melted like this in times past in the record. Therefore the current temp is not much different, nor is it unprecedented, nor is it very anomalous, or indicative of a warming trend.
The fact that temps are colder right now seems normal to me and would not tell me much about an AGW trend. It might tell me something about current conditions. And as you would agree, current conditions cannot inform us much about AGW or cooling.
REPLY:
“No, you are wrong, the red line does not cross the blue line, even at infinite magnification.”
You didn’t look at the previous point closely. Junior, your argument about the red and blue line is still FAIL
_____________________________________________________________
No, you are still wrong.
As you used the word “cross” as in + meaning that you would have to see red on both sides of the blue line.
That is not the case, the red line has not crossed the blue line.
At best it could be called a union.
To repeat is not a cross as in + it is a union at best, even then, we still can’t decern if July 19th is the last visable red pixel or the first red pixel under a blue pixel.
REPLY: Gosh Junior, you are stubborn. The point is that you can’t tell if the red line is under the blue line right now. So if it has crossed on the right side, at present, nobody can tell until it steps down 1 pixel. The same would be true on the left side, as I pointed out. Your fluffed up argument is moot anyway, since I never used the word “cross” in the original article. This is what I actually said in the article, emphasis mine:
I only used the word “cross” in a comment to describe the left hand side of the graph, when the temp in fact crossed the 273.15K line early in the season, to show you that you can’t see the red line crossing under the blue. You are the one insisting I said “crossed” on the right side, you are the one putting words in my mouth, and you are the one who is clearly in the wrong on this issue that you morphed from your original complaint about melt season > extent > pixel crossings. Still FAIL on your part, but entertaining FAIL. What next, argue about colors? Heh. – Anthony