UPDATE: 3/5 8:30PM PST There’s a hilarious backstory on the sockpuppetry that went on yesterday from the founder of The Arctic Institute – read my comment on it here
It is that time again where attention turns to Arctic Sea Ice because it is approaching maximum extent. There’s really only two periods each year that garner intense interest, and that is the times of maximum and minimum extent. We are fast approaching maximum.
First, let’s start off with a tiff that has developed between Cleveland’s NewsNet5 meteorologist Mark Johnson and an outfit I’ve never heard of called the “Arctic Institute” which called him out a couple of days ago over his report “Ice, ice, baby: Arctic sea ice on the rebound“. They opined on his report:
Only two problems, when I queried him, Johnson stated he was referencing NORSEX SSM/I from the WUWT Sea Ice page, not NSIDC. And, since the Arctic Institute apparently doesn’t know how NSIDC graphs work, they’ve pwned themselves in the process of making their put-down counter claims. Have a look:
The NSIDC 3/3/12 chart looks well within ±2STD and pretty close to the ±1STD boundary to me. Source: http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png
NORSEX SSM/I extent for 3/4/12 is in fact within ±1STD:
Source: http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/observation_images/ssmi1_ice_ext.png
Mark Johnson was right. You’d think an outfit that bills themselves as…
The Arctic Institute seeks to establish itself as an authoritative, interdisciplinary, and independent source for information and in-depth analysis about the developments in the High North. The Institute was founded in 2011 and currently aims to bring together scholars and researchers to build a growing stock of knowledge and expertise on the Arctic region. In contrast to existing platforms for Arctic affairs, The Arctic Institute is not affiliated with or sponsored by any of the Arctic states.
…would know that NSDIC graphs are on a five day average (and thus don’t reflect recent updates right away), and that daily graphs such as the NORSEX SSMI showed that there had been a dramatic surge in the last couple of days. I guess we know now that “authoritative” is just really their own self serving world view, and not based in actual evidence.
By itself, this peak doesn’t mean all that much. We saw a similar jump near the max in 2009 and 2010, and in 2010 the extent hugged the normal center line for several weeks. In the end though, most people are interested in the minimum in September, and since that event is so dependent on the short term vagaries of wind and weather, having a normal extent at maximum doesn’t guarantee a higher or even normal minimum in September.
One other thing I noted about the Arctic Institute is that they really didn’t show the current extent mapped out, so here it is:
I note that folks like the Arctic Institute just don’t like showing picture of reality, especially at maximum, since their entire existence is predicated on the Serreze “arctic death spiral” mentality and picture like this tend to make people wonder why there’s still ice in the Arctic when they have been told repeatedly it is disappearing at “unprecedented rates”.
So as to prevent the on cue wailing and gnashing of teeth from folks of that ilk, here is their favored presentation:
It sure would be nice if University of Illinois could learn to time stamp their images like I finally convinced NSIDC to do. That would be the scientific thing to do.
The offset right now is minus 726,000 square kilometers, an area slightly bigger than the state of Texas (695,621 sqkm). Most of that missing ice extent is in the Barentz and Greenland seas, as noted in this image from NSIDC I have annotated below:
Source: http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_bm_extent.png
And according the the Naval Research Lab, the extent loss in those areas appears to be entirely the result of wind patterns compacting the ice northward. There are strong northward drift vectors in the Barentz:
Source: http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/hycomARC/navo/arcticicespddrfnowcast.gif
And the air temperature in the Arctic is well below freezing, so air temperature induced melt is likely not a factor…
…but wind driven warmer sea water incursions into the Barentz sea from more southern latitudes seems to be happening in that area and may be contributing to some edge melt:
In other news.
The Antarctic continues along happy as a clam, above normal, with a positive 30+ year trend.
I await the usual condemnations from the excitable folks that are terrified that the world will lose the ice caps soon.
UPDATE: Now the Arctic Institute has added a caveat:
*** [edit: Even the latest available ice extent chart from the NSIDC released on March 3, 2012, one day after Mr. Johnson’s article was published, shows ice extent well outside the one standard deviation area.]
I wonder what they will say tomorrow when NSIDC updates again?
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
It seems too terribly easy to set up these “institutes”. If these experts so readily stubbles on their own expertise and instead of correction to create a good name of integrity instead are fast on their kness digging like crazy to widen and deepen their own dung hole.
It’s like their’s a website out there with a one-click solution to your own institute. :p
I’ve been watching the open water north of Finland and western Russia all winter. That area froze up early in the season and then opened up in December, an unusual patten given that it’s well above the arctic circle and thus was in constant night. In other words, it could not be blamed on warm air.
I was guessing that it opened up due to a strong or wandering Gulf stream, but now you tell me that it’s wind patterns. Interesting.
Edim says:
March 4, 2012 at 11:27 am
Was the Denmark Strait ever completely frozen
———————————————
Yes:
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Has_the_Denmark_strait_ever_frozen_completely
I found the book by Brian Fagan to be a really good, albeit sobering read.
Anthony your article was thorough and precise like usual, with third party references so I can form my own opinions. Malte, on the other hand, has studied poly sci and Euro studies and has zero to four years post grad experience, so is more in tune with the consensus. Who to believe?
DJ says:
“The 1922 satellites were no doubt crude, but apparently functional.”
As a matter of fact, eye witness reports showed more open water at the North Pole in the past than now. It’s just natural variability due to ocean currents. CO2 has nothing to do with it.
“I await the usual condemnations from the excitable folks that are
terrifiedthrilled that the world will lose the ice caps soon.”FIFY
🙂
I don’t think we need to look much further than the top three names on the Arctic Institute website (publicly available data)
Malte Humpert
Founder and Executive Director
M.A. European Studies (2011), Georgetown University
B.A. Political Science (2007), California State University Northridge.
Kathrin Keil
Research Associate – Arctic Security, Cooperation, and Institutions
M.S. European Affairs (2009), Lunds Universitet, Sweden
B.A. International Relations (2007), Technical University Dresden, Germany.
ndreas Østhagen
Research Associate – Norway/EU Arctic Policy
MSc. Politics and Government in the European Union: The International Relations of Europe (2010), London School of Economics (LSE)
B.A. Political Economy (2009), Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU)
Political Science! European Studies! International Relations! Politics and Government in the EU!
Yup! These are real heavy weights in the Geophysical science sphere. Look out for a lot more fact free BS from this source. Rocket Scientists they are not!
(add extra commas ,…, -‘s and parenthesis to your taste)
(mods: this may have posted already as my internet threw a wobbly.. Apologies if I am creating work.)
[Periods and parenthesis found. Additional comma’s, however, are still needed. Robt]
So to summarise :
A 1m km^2 gain in sea ice extent over a 3-week period in February is completely and utterly meaningless, while a 1m km^2 loss in sea ice extent over a 3-week period in September means the world is coming to end.
The NORSEX graph is interesting as it shows that 2007 ice extent was lower all year round compared to the other years shown. You can’t just have a quick summer melt to be ice free, you need to keep the ice back in the previous winter as well. 2012 is looking a lot like 2009-2010. Ice-free in 2013? It will be interesting to hear Suzuki explain why it wasn’t. Look forward to the “minimum” poll.
@Pamela Gray says: March 4, 2012 at 11:03 am
“As we all get older we no longer give our age in months. And as we get much older we manage to remember what decade we are in because the years don’t matter. But we appear intolerant of descrepancies smaller than a gnat’s ass in climate science.”
If you don’t get grumpy as you get older, you aren’t paying attention…
@philincalifornia says: March 4, 2012 at 11:50 am
“I found the book by Brian Fagan to be a really good, albeit sobering read.”
The Little Ice Age is excellent, and a … chilling… warning that a colder world is not a hospitable place. Though I wouldn’t object top watching the EcoFanatics shivering…
Green Sand says:
March 4, 2012 at 11:39 am
Barrow Sea Ice Mass Balance Site 2012
The latest measurements available are of Day 61 – Mar 04, 2012, 10:00 AM AKST:
Air temperature:
-33 °C, -27 °F
Ice thickness:
1.38 m, 4 ft 6″
Last year it was Day 91 before the ice thickness was 1.38m.
___________________________________________________________________________
According to the 2011 data, ice thickness was 1.13m on day 61, and reached a maximum of 1.56m on day 145.
Well worth keeping an eye on……
Typo,
“There’s really only two periods”
Question. Why is the 1979-2000 (twenty hundred) average better than any other average? Is it a matter of “It’s all we have so we call it good”?
This study by Ribeiro et al suggests :-
Presently, the Baffin Bay southern sea-ice boundary extends from Disko Island to the southwest, towards Canada. This would imply that prior to AD 1250 this boundary was more northerly and gradually moved towards the vicinity of the core site until after AD 1500 (Little Ice Age), when it was positioned south of the core site.
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2012/01/21/little-ice-age-coldest-period-in-the-last-7000-years-in-greenland/
Been watching this little uptick. I am hoping it hits the average line so I can blast the guardian environment section and anywhere else with this news. I am also smart enough to know that mother nature will decide what happens.
The sheer intelligence of all these warmist fools. So clever they have fooled themselves. They really think PR and bullying can change mother nature, total tools. I’ll keep on checking the artic ice pages.
Not that I’m one for making arguments from authority, but the Artic Institute doesn’t seem to have any scientists on its staff: (unless you consider poli-sci science)
http://www.thearcticinstitute.org/p/staff.html
They do have a couple historians that should make the connections that inescapably conclude CAGW skepticism is not only warranted but absolutely necessary.
1. Historical evidence of worldwide LIA, MWP.
2. Actions by the CAGW crowd that parallel historical fanatics.
3. Historically claims of “scientific consensus” to a conclusion have been consistently made for supporting a conclusion with insufficient data for the conclusion stand on the evidence alone.
FWIW: SNIP on VB absolutely proper. (I unfortunately read it before snippage.)
Very pretty staff in the institute. They do seem to have the most important thing, a UN liason. Gotta get them salaries paid somehow.
You have to be quite wary of CT, Im pretty sure they fiddle with the borders of each ice section to get the desired result. They also love to delay as much as possible showing any big rebound. Also be on guard for the Downward “adjustments” at times like these. DMI is pretty thruthful methinks
BTW ice max is usually totally unrelated to ice min, however this time it may due to solar ewtc may be kicking in slowly but surely my bet is for a very much increased ice minimum (More ice)
Is there any ‘mileage’ in the fact that to the West of Svalbard where the ice seems to have an objection to forming, there is a divergent plate boundary with the possibility of thermal vents? The Gulf Stream, I believe, has an effect. (I notice Wiki refers to it as The ‘Golf’ Stream; is that to do with it warming the West coast of Scotland?)
Latitude says:
March 4, 2012 at 10:29 am
Measuring sometime around June and Dec, makes the most sense…
Trying to get a measurement at the extremes, when the most unstable, is silly
Going to politely disagree with you there. While the sea maximum and sea ice minimum occur over a long period of time (as do “most” climatic/geologic sinusoidal/cosine wave type periodic functions!) the minimum or maximum is readily apparent. It is also a visual number, and for better or worse, we are stuck with it.
Sea measurements at the mid-point are going to vary significantly from year to year. Using a single arbitrary date would be valid perhaps, but only if you determined which date was a valid “average”. If you would insist on date-based trends, then you should use fall equinox (sea maximum Antarctic/southern hemisphere + sea ice minimum Arctic/north hemisphere) December solstice (near mid-point both hemispheres), spring equinox (Arctic maximum, Antarctic minimum) , and summer solstice (near Antarctic mid-point rising, near arctic midpoint falling). But you need to go back to ALL of the available ice histories and also determine “what” number you are averaging. What “smoothing” you will use. Why you made your choices.
Call me a warmista, but, I believe the Earth will burn! But that will occur in the end times when Jesus returns. So until then I look for severe cold to envelop the world!
Something very narcissistic about their mission statement;
“The Arctic Institute seeks to establish itself as an authoritative, interdisciplinary, and independent source for information”
Sounds like they are not doing any actual work, just want to establish itself as a big shot.
This “Institute” is just a web site put together with a couple of students and some others with low level degrees in “Political Science”, “European Studies”, “International Relations” etc. A web site, not much more. No science involved so I would not get too excited about their silliness.