Arctic Sea ice data collected by DMI 1893-1961
Guest post by Frank Lansner
I came across a number of maps showing Arctic ice extend from 1893 to 1961 collected by DMI in “Nautisk Meteorologisk Aarbog”. Each year DMI have collected information on sea ice extend so that normally each of the months April, May, June, July and August ice extend was published.
There is much more to be said about these, but this is my summary for now.
Fig 1. 1901-1910 Arctic sea ice data collected by DMI. Click to enlarge!
Sadly, just for a few years we also have March or September available, and thus we normally can’t read the Arctic ice minimum (medio September) from these maps. The August trends will have the main focus in this writing.
First of all I would like to thank “Brunnur” in Iceland for making these maps available on the net beautifully scanned. This is a gold mine and I’m sure you know this, Brunnur.
Fig 2. August 1902.
The August data in the beginning of the century normally resembles December ice area for recent years. Year after year in the period 1901-1920 we see pretty much same picture. The sea east of the Russian island Novaja Zemlja is often frozen over even in August, and there is still sea ice between Baffin Island and Greenland.
Fig 3. 1911-1920. Click to enlarge!
Fig 4. August, 1916. The December-like August ice area continues to be observed year after year, and in 1916 most of the ocean between Baffin Island and Greenland is ice filled (- even in August!).
Fig 5. 1921-30
Fig 6.
Finally in 1923 something new happens: The ice east of Svalbard and east of Novaja Zemlja is on retreat.
Fig 7.
In 1930, the retreat has gone even further: Svalbard Is ice free, and ice free waters have been observed far east of Novaja Zemlja. In addition, the Baffin bay is now almost ice free. Puzzling is, that the ice extends on the pacific side of the Arctic remains rather constant in all these years.
Fig 8.
In 1932 we see in August open ice almost all along the Russian shore. So even though we do not see the September ice minimum here, we almost have an open NE passage.
Fig 9.
After a rather icy 1934, then 1935 again in August shows an almost open NE passage and in 1935 open waters are observed not that far from the North pole.
Fig 10.
In 1937, more open waters are observed in the Pacific and East Siberian areas.
Fig 11.
1938: Unprecedented areas of open waters.
(And again, this is not the ice minimum but just the August ice area)
Fig 12. 1931-1946
Already the year after, 1939, the ice extend resembles the pre 1923 extend.
We see that a decline in Arctic ice area from around 1921 ends possibly in 1938.
Fig 13. 1947-1956
Sadly we don’t have the Arctic warm years 1940-45, but just the colder years 1946-56.
Fig 14.
In 1952, The August sea ice area once again appears like the 1900-1920 extend. If Arctic ice areas reflects temperature well, then years around 1946-54 should be as cold as before 1923. It appears that the ice cover from 1938 to 1946 has recovered quickly.
Fig 15.
Here is an August–September comparison for 1901. For most of the Siberian shores in September we see open waters as far back as 1901.
Fig 16.
Some warm Arctic years in the 1930´ies from DMI compared to recent Cryosphere Today August graphics.
It seems that ice area for 1935 and 1996 were roughly similar (and it seems that ice area for 1938 and 2000 were roughly similar etc.):
Fig 17.
However, Cryosphere Today do not show 1935 ice area similar to 1996. Instead Cryosphere has added roughly 1,9 mio km2 to the ice area 1935 compared to 1996 (- The size of Greenland is 2,1 mio km2… ).
Fig 18a. We can also illustrate the missing Cryosphere ice decline after 1921 in another way.
The Cryosphere Arctic ice area data actually suggests a little more ice in 1937 than 1921 – but as shown above DMI, suggests a strong decline after 1921.
Fig 18b – and here the ice decline 1921-38 in four stages.
Fig 19. Also in another context it appears that the ice area data on Cryosphere has added area to older data:
If we compare the Cryosphere annual sea ice extend with the IPCC SAR 1996 data, we can see that the dive in 1996 data before 1979 is not represented in Cryosphere data. The divergence is perhaps 0,9 mio km2 over just the period 1973-1979.
Fig. 20, NW Passage in DMI data.
In September 1901 we are not far from having open NW passage and in September 1907 we do have an open NW Passage. We don’t have September images later thse to have an open NW passage.
What have we learned according to DMI´s international compilation of sea ice data?
– That sea ice data has declined strongly even in the recent past before human CO2 outlet.
– That Sea ice from a level not far from the 2006 level has recovered very fast 1938-1946.
– That the Sea ice decline documented year after year in DMI maps after 1921 apparently is not shown in Cryosphere data for some reason.
We do not have the WW2 data, but the maps of 1957-61 ice areas EXIST!
These are the years where we had a strong Solar max and photos of US Navy submarine on a slushy North pole.
If ANYONE have these maps, I would be grateful to see them!
Further, this series of maps as I understand it was also published by DMI for the years 1962-72 in a series called “Oceanografiske Observationer”. Do anyone have these?
Link to Brunnurs scans of DMI maps:
http://brunnur.vedur.is/pub/trausti/Iskort/Jpg/1935/1935_08.jpg
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
CCIS says:
May 2, 2012 at 1:38 am
//////////////////////////////////////
The point you make about volume and the speed of ice melt is well accepted and this is why there was no prospect that the Himalayan Glaciers could melt in 30 years; heck given the altitude, the prevailing temperatures, these glaciers could not fully melt in 1000 years and any scientist would immediately be struck about the poor quality of the science in the IPCC report in relation to the claim that they could melt within a period of about 30 years. This point alone shows that the report is not subject to scientific scrutiny because if it was, that claim would never have gone into print.
However, the remainder of your comments is pure speculation. What was the volume of ice in 1850 and where is the source of the data? What was the volume of ice in 1851 and where is the source of the data? The same apples for each and every year to present.
The fact is that we do not have data or knowledge on the volume of Artic ice on a historically basis going back to pre-industrial times. We have all but no idea as to the volume of ice say in the 1920s,1930s 1940s, 1950s etc and therefore we do not know how present volumes compare with earlier periods and in particular to periods prior to the significant increase in manmade emissions of CO2.
This recent find of maps dealing with the area extent is extremely useful in opening a window into the past and to see whether conditions today appear to be out of the ordinary or not. This find warrants a most thorough review and detailed presentation of what it reveals.
orson2 says:
”
May 2, 2012 at 2:10 am
Frank notes the unchanging ice in the maps around the Bering Strait. My conjecture is that DMI observation around Scandanavia (into Russian shelf waters) and Greenland areas (into Canadian shelf waters) is quite good. But the furthest extent away, (ie, the Bering Strait) where (I presume) Nordic vessels seldom travelled, is likely deficient because of poor observations.
”
I agree 100%. I think some of these bering strait results and even West-Canadian early illustrations are not that well covered. They show almost “max” extend all the time, so if anything is wrong, they show too much ice over there.
K.R. Frank
@Steinar Midtskogen
On the subject of thermometers,I recently made a collection ot data from those thermometeres that are most in direct contact with the sea ice around the Arctic. This way one would get an indication of the ice-extend from thermometers, and these results are in compliance with the above DMI maps:
“Estimating Arctic sea ice area 1920-78 using temperature stations” :
http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/posts/estimating-arctic-sea-ice-area-1920-1978-using-temperature-stations-234.php
K.R. Frank
CCIS says:
May 2, 2012 at 1:38 am
Frank as well as fellow commenters,
There is a concept called volume.
>>>>>>
Why yes there is. Now, if we are talking sea ice, is the volume of the ice significant as a measure of warming and cooling. Consider that:
1. For ice to form in sea water, the entire water column must first cool to the freezing point. This is opposite to what happens in fresh water where the water below the ice is warmer than freezing. Salt changes both the freezing point and the maximum density of water such that when some of it does freeze, it expels salt into the water below, and that water becomes more dense, sincking to the bottom and forcing warmer water up. This process must continue until ALL the water from surface to bottom is at the freezing point. Only then can the ice thicken.
2. As a consequence of the abovem changes in sea ice extent are representative of changes in the volume of water from surface to bottom. For water at the freezing point, ice thickening represents no change in temperature per se, but a change energy level due to transition from liquid state to solid (and vice versa).
3. Compared to the amount of energy required to warm or cool the entire water column by just a degree or two, the energy change due to state change of water to ice is miniscule. Before anyone starts harping about the fact that heat of transition for ice/water is relatively large, keep in mind the point that CCIS made about volume. The volume of water makes even very thick sea ice look like a sliver on top of the ocean. It is the volume of water and the energy required to change itz temperature that is significant.
The logical conclusion CCIS, is that changes in ice thickness are not as signicant as you are trying to suggest.
CCIS says:
May 2, 2012 at 1:38 am
…the volume of the permanent ice is declining over time.
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/335040/title/Science_%2B_the_Public__Really_bad_year_for_Arctic_sea_ice
The volume must obviously increase over time, too — it’s cyclical.
To say that it’s *not* cyclical, you have to posit that the ice couldn’t possibly have been thin enough for submarines to pop up at the Pole during the ’60s to give their crews bragging rights.
CCIS:
Congratulations on your post May 2, 2012 at 1:38 am.
It is an excellent ad hoc excuse for why the data does not conform to what you expected. Of course, your excuse is pure conjecture which has no supporting evidence of any kind.
However, it is normal practice for ‘climate science’ to offer conjectures as ad hoc excuses which “explain” why empirical data must be suspect when it does not conform to what ‘climate science’ expects. So, your post is in accord with the practice of ‘climate science’.
Indeed, your post is an example of ‘climate science’ at its best. Well done!
And I hope you will forgive those of us who conduct science when we do not reject the evidence provided by the discovered maps but, instead, we
(a) assess the reliability, accuracy and precision of the information provided by the maps
and
(b) consider the indications, the limitations and the implications of that information.
Richard
“And CCIS, when we see photos of US navy submarine surfacing near the north pole around 1960, does that really suggest extremely thick ice back then?”
Or more likely surfaced at Ice Station Alpha. Closer to Barrow, Alaska, than the North Pole.
… and there is another concept called empirical data.
Now we have 2 sets of data proving that sea ice declined from 1900 to the 30’s and then it recovered in the 50’s. These maps and Amundsen’s polar circumnavigation.
Can you prove that ice volume in the Arctic has been declining since 1900 with no recovery whatsoever? No, you cannot.
Can you prove that the surface temperature of the ocean in the Arctic has been warming since 1900? No, you cannot.
The ice volume hypothesis is not valid if you cannot back it up with data. Real data, no computer modeled data.
Stop hiding the decline, and the subsequent recovery.
So assuming the same cycle is at play today, we could well be literally within a couple of years now of a’ sharp’ recovery in Arctic sea ice (sometime around 2015 by way of a rough guess). It should be fun to watch them explain the increase in ice on C02 increasing.
I’ll add that Chryosphere Today need to respond to this data and explain themselves.
Thanks, Frank.
A search on Brunnur turned up this pdf which lists a variety of sources going back to the 1750s.
http://nsidc.org/noaa/iicwg/presentations/IICWG_2011/Fetterer_Back_to_1870_Plans_for_a_Gridded_Sea_Ice_Product.pdf
There are also partial maps on the Brunnur site for the 1890s
richard verney says:
May 2, 2012 at 2:26 am …
I agree with what you wrote and would only add, that how come Alarmists feel that the lack of comparable ice thickness data means that they feel that it is somehow scientifically OK to ASSUME that the ice was thicker back then, without ANY empirical evidence whatsoever to back up that assumption?
An excellent post. I just love old maps, they tell you so much in pretty pictures, nice & simple just ow I like them! Well done.
Scottish Sceptic says:
May 2, 2012 at 12:43 am
Given the massive scale of funding for the alarmists, it is very difficult to explain how they were not aware of this.
Easy, peasy, they just ignore it because it doesn’t fit the mantra. Or they would say something like, “they didn’t have the right equipment to measure accurately enough” etc, despite historical evidence that many map makers throughout history were indeed very accurate considering the technology available at the time!
@ur momisugly richardbriscoe
From my knowledge of WW2 history, the arctic convoys to supply Russia were amongst the most dangerous of all, with ships facing the extreme elements of cold, ice formation by the hour, mountainous seas, severe frost bite, as well as raiding U-Boats, & air attacks from long-range bombers based in Norway! Gun crews having to chip the ice off their gun & warming it up & making sure the lubricants hadn’t frozen, before loading & firing, everything taking twice as long to do due to the extreme cold. I suspect the Royal Navy was a little preoccupied with other things at the time, like survival! 😉
I’d like to put it into context with Dr. Spencer’s recent article:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/03/could-arctic-sea-ice-decline-be-caused-by-the-arctic-oscillation/
Note that the graph doesn’t show temperatures, rather Arctic Oscillation index which is related to jet stream characteristics rather than temperature. However its value change between 1936 and 1946 which coincides with reglaciation ends up in values only slightly higher than today’s.
“What have we learned according to DMI´s international compilation of sea ice data?
– That sea ice data has declined strongly even in the recent past before human CO2 outlet.
– That Sea ice from a level not far from the 2006 level has recovered very fast 1938-1946.
– That the Sea ice decline documented year after year in DMI maps after 1921 apparently is not shown in Chryosphere data for some reason.”
Additional data like this is a good find indeed, especially the maps which have not been *adjusted* like the Cryosphere graphs.
Based on http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/ArcticIce/Images/arctic_temp_trends_rt.gif temperatures in the Arctic were as high in part of the 1930s as in the late 20th century. Such as the warming over the 1920s in the graph matches “the Sea ice decline documented year after year in DMI maps after 1921.” Both support each other in context.
Of course, local temperature is not the sole influence on ice, like any variation in wind or current patterns on how much is blown away matters too, but there certainly appears a lot of relationship.
C’est vraiment magnifique….. Wunderbar!
Many thanks Brunnur and Frank. [Minor criticism: In the commentary on WUWT it is not always obvious to me which diagram is being referred to.]
One question: Is the authenticity of these rediscovered maps effectively complete? Being a sceptic, I have to ask.
“It’s understandable that the work of the DMI would be disrupted by WWII and Nazi occupation, but from 1941 onwards Britain was sending supply convoys around the top of occupied Norway to the Russian ports of Murmansk and Archangel. Surely the military would have been carefully monitoring and recording the sea ice extent in this area at least ?”
The Arctic Convoys were opposed crossings, people’s minds were concentrated on spotting U-Boats and the Luftwaffe. The ships were sailing zig-zag patterns at constantly varying speeds. Not the ideal environment for scientific measurement.
WOW !
The “Dead Sea Scrolls” of arctic ice .
Someone please download all the maps and archive them before the Warmists get their hands on them and begin “adjusting”the data.
Russian data: http://www.aari.nw.ru/gdsidb/gdsidb_2.html
and in book descibed in http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/16/arctic-ice-rebound%C2%A0predicted/
The post is just too confusing for the general public. Since all data are digital now, this sort of thing will never happen again. It is just too much for the ordinary mind to bear, especially after that other confusing picture of people with umbrellas waiting for the bus with the proper information stating, “We are in drought”. Perhaps these maps were measuring the wrong kind of ice in supposedly ice-free areas. Or perhaps they were just the wrong kind of maps to begin with. Indeed, let’s just ignore them. Nothing to see here.
CCIS says:
May 2, 2012 at 1:38 am
There is also the concept of albedo – shallow snow and deep snow reflect about the same amount of sunlight. In the spring, shallow snow should melt sooner, so while it may have some predictive value, snow remains the more important indicator of high albedo.
Please be very careful about Janet Raloff’s blog at Science News. I frequently post the other side of the story there. While she’s somewhat gracious about it (especially after I referred to a story about copper and fructose I remembered from about 1990), She’s active in The Society of Environmental Journalists, which was staunchly supportive of attempts to warn the public about CAGW. They may have moderated a bit over the last few years, but their stand and list of resources is still badly tilted, see http://www.sej.org/initiatives/climate-change/overview .
In the article you cite, the theme is that last year was worse than what the NSIDC said. I don’t see any reference there to the ocean surface warming. There is:
Perhaps you can contact some of the scientists mentioned in that article and ask them for comments on the current ice extent (and depth, but emphasize the albedo) of Arctic ice. Do ask them why the thin ice is hanging in so well this year. And ask about the ice around Svaalbard (sp), I’d like to know what gives with those conflicting observations.
BTW, while it isn’t Raloff’s, and it’s really more reporting than editorializing, we seem to have missed the April 23–24 event at the University of Wisconsin titled “Science Writing in the Age of Denial.” http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/340239/title/On_the_Scene__Science_denial_in_the_21st_century . While it covered more than climate issues, both Naomi Oreskes and the 97% of climate scientists reference were there. Overall, it sounds like a very biased meeting.