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?
4LL yOuR H3P K4t2 r 83lon9 to u2!
I never understood why it’s a bad thing for less ice during the summer. During the summer, it means that there is warmer temperatures from the equator on out. It doesn’t mean that the north pole isn’t frozen over. What’s the problem? Habitable regions are even more habitable. Why is this bad? Also, aside from 2007, the sea ice extents seems to be following a stable pattern.
RACookPE1978 says:
March 4, 2012 at 1:15 pm
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.
Thanks, I wanted to about to ask the newbie question of how Sun and Moon tides affected these, but read to the end first..
[http://www.moonconnection.com/tides.phtml]
Gary D. says:
March 4, 2012 at 12:50 pm
“Very pretty staff in the institute. They do seem to have the most important thing, a UN liason. Gotta get them salaries paid somehow.”
Swedes invented the welfare state. Prices are astronomic and the meals you get in restaurants are tiny. Side-effect are pretty girls.
Pwns? Is that a mis-type for owns? Why can’t all these people write proper English anymore?
“n fw yrs t wll b mpssbl t rd nthng t ll.!”
“The Arctic Institute seeks to establish itself as an authoritative…”
Well, that’s yer problem right there.
It’s a webism. And yes it was taken from a typo of “owned” several years ago. It stuck and grew.
EW-3 says [March 4, 2012 at 1:18 pm]:
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.
=====================================================================
Most certainly they are truly “independent” of any “information.”
DJ says: “…The 1922 satellites were no doubt crude, but apparently functional.”
Not bad for steam-powered spacecraft.
As much as I love the sea ice page, I have come to realize the sea ice numbers have little meaning. The wind and currents can vary the numbers by over one hundred thousand square km. per day. The sites that produce the numbers ignore anything under 15% and they don’t count anything over 100%. (the wind can pile ice from one area, causing a reduction in area while maintaining the same amount of ice. When the wind/current reverses that piling of ice can unpile causing and increase in sea ice area/extent while there being little actual increase in sea ice.
To base global warming on decreasing sea ice numbers is not logical but it won’t stop me watching the numbers. I love the ice flow vectors and velocities. Thanks Anthony and crew. Kent
Myself, I’ll consider Arctic ice charts to have some sort of meaning when they stop using a “baseline” (ie. 1979-2000) and start including the last decade in the “average”.
Otherwise the entire thing is simply an exercise in manipulating opinions… completely free of context and Science.
The Arctic Institute has, I think, changed in some way just recently. I maintain a favorite to it because of their Arctic Journal with copies online all the way back to 1949, many with papers by some of the early Arctic researchers after WWII. I originally found it by Steve Mcintyre’s use of some of their papers years ago. It’s a great resource. But the website is different now, so there must have been very recent changes.
Folks — that weather man’s original article is full of factual inaccuracies.
Look at the link at the top of the article, the dotted line in the chart is the monthly average for the last 30+ years, 2012 is clearly below the average as is every year since 1997, it doesn’t support whats being said in the article. It does show that 2012 is trending up, but well within the ranges of the past few years.
Here are some additional Norsex charts (same website that the author quotes), see the second thru third charts, clearly showing downward trend, year on year and into 2012 for arctic ice cover;
http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/total-icearea-from-1978-2007
I’m thinkin’ the “Arctic Institute” is related to the “Human Fund”, if you get my westerly drift. 😉
A ps to my last post; I would suggest a paper called “Ice,Open Water, and Winter Climate in the Eastern Arctic of North America: parts I & II” from about 1949. Anyone truly interested in how we have found out about presatellite Arctic ice really needs to read these papers. It was by F. Kenneth Hare and Margaret Montgomery. I checked and the Arctic journal page is still there, just a little harder to find.
Steam powered satellites – Check
Jesus references – check
New Ice Age – Check
But what about the drowning polar bears? None mentioned the polar bears. Oops sorry have to wait for June for that don’t I?
Re: Andrew30 and the comment to Dave Suzuki about the Northwest Passage …
I live in Vancouver where you can go down to the local Maritime museum and view a quaint little wooden ship (St. Roch) that used to ply the Arctic.
Back in the ’40s before we had Dave Suzuki and his Foundation paying DeSmog to rant, the Mounties used the St. Roch to get around up there in the North and were able to navigate the NorthWest passage TWICE between 1942 and 1944 and mind you, I have seen this ship and she is no icebreaker.
Have a look yourself at
http://hnsa.org/ships/stroch.htm
The Arctic Institute – An impressive collection of fresh turnips. Think they know what a solar cycle is? Suggestion – Add a polar bear picture to your website home page it will increase your traffic.
Anthony,
Both you and the ‘institute’ should bow to The Broadcaster Who Understands All Things:
“Various computer simulations have generated a range of dates by which the Arctic might be completely ice-free in summer and autumn, ranging from 2016 to about 2060. A few years ago, one projection even showed 2013 was possible, though this now appears unlikely.” – R. Black, BBC, Feb 27th.
So the warmists have all this completely under control. Sometime between 4 years and 48 years to Thermogeddon. Black seems to have given up on Suzuki’s claim of 2013. Dunno why…
PS: Most of us this side of the pond don’t know much about this Suzuki character. Have you heard of David Attenborough over in the USA? Beware the final program in his series on the Poles – beautiful scenery turns to ugly propoganda.
@”Mike the convict” This Jesus freak loves polar bears! I just don’t want them in my backyard! LOL.
I haven’t received an answer yet from the Arctic Institute to this question: “So, when will the arctic be ice free? 1948, 1970, 2000, 2008, 2010 or 2011?”
a reader says, March 4, 2012 at 3:08 pm
Are you sure this is the same Arctic Institute? There seem to be various sites with similar names. Odd that this one gives no details of its whereabouts or funding and obscures its domain registration.
Jeff Alberts says:
March 4, 2012 at 12:41 pm
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”?
A year or so ago I explained that they would be reluctant to calculate a new average because the lower data over the last few years would pull the average down, and thus make the current numbers look better. Each year that goes by without a new average calculation reinforces this idea. However, it is customary with “normals” in weather-related reporting to end the period with a zero-year (2010). As we now have that end point, they should at least drop the first two years (1979, 1980). So don’t expect a new average until early in 2021!
Karl, read the article. It is not filled with inaccuracies. It is filled with information that some folks don’t want to acknowledge. There is a difference.
why is the weatherman lying about the USS Skate? It did not surface at the North pole in 1958. it couldn’t because ice was too thick for them to break through!