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.
“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!).”
No! The white are areas are “State of Ice Unknown”. In fact, some of the white patches (especially between Baffin Island and Greenland) are specifically labeled “Probably Open Water”!
The data is the red patches. They have pretty good data north of Scandinavia. They often have data around Greenland. There are smatterings of data along Siberia and Alaska and Canada. They simply did not have the resources or ability to look at the whole Arctic.
You CANNOT look at the white and assume it is ice!
Matthew W says:
May 2, 2012 at 5:07 am
> WOW !
> The “Dead Sea Scrolls” of arctic ice .
We’ll be in trouble when the Dead Sea freezes over. 🙂
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.
”
Yes, and im very ambivalent here.
Im proud – as a Dane – that the DMI made these world class maps indicating that Danes were in front with these things to some degree.
But then it turns out that the same DMI must have known about these maps but never said a word?
Why have not DMI at any point said: “We have data showing that recent ice decline is not that unique as you might think” ? Why the silence?
I don’t think that this study has been mentioned, also from DMI
Abstract
The extent of ice in the North Atlantic varies in time with time scales stretching to centennial, and
the cause of these variations is discussed. We consider the Koch ice index which describes the
amount of ice sighted from Iceland, in the period 1150 to 1983 AD. This measure of ice extent is a
non-linear and curtailed measure of the amount of ice in the Greenland Sea, but gives an overall
view of the amounts of ice there through more than 800 years. The length of the series allows insight
into the natural variability of ice extent and this understanding can be used to evaluate modern-day
variations. Thus we find that the recently reported retreat of the ice in the Greenland Sea may be
related to the termination of the so-called Little Ice Age in the early twentieth century. We also look
at the approximately 80 year variability of the Koch index and compare it to the similar periodicity
found in the solar cycle length, which is a measure of solar activity. A close correlation (R=0.67) of
high significance (0.5 % probability of a chance occurrence) is found between the two patterns,
suggesting a link from solar activity to the Arctic Ocean climate.
http://www.dmi.dk/dmi/sr05-02.pdf
This graph might also interest. http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0485%281979%29009%3C0580%3AAAOASI%3E2.0.CO%3B2
anon2nz says:
May 2, 2012 at 3:29 am
”
There are also partial maps on the Brunnur site for the 1890s
”
This is true, and they tell a story of extremely large winter ice areas where the ice extends from Greenland and covers half of Iceland!
Impressing!
These images also tells us what we might expect to see in the future. They tell how fast things can change.
michael hart says:
May 2, 2012 at 4:29 am
”
One question: Is the authenticity of these rediscovered maps effectively complete? Being a sceptic, I have to ask.
”
Im also a stamp collector (big time) and im used to see whats fake and whats real.
Making such perfect old looking huge maps today would be a job beyond belief.
And if fakes: I found these because I read in old DMI writings that these existed. So if they are fake, then DMI are part of it. I dont find that to be logical.
Fakes? No way. If they had have been fakes it would have been the warmists who faked them – let’s face it;there’s a bit of previous there – and there would have been loads of ice.
Hi Mick J,
Heres where I originally found information that there existed this “Nautical” yearbook,
From DMI, see page 30 in the middle:
http://www.dmi.dk/dmi/tr11-07.pdf
Then i started to search for this “Nautisk Årbog” and there it was, put on the net by a “brunnur”.
K.R. Frank
This may be of interest to collectors:
http://www.abebooks.co.uk/servlet/SearchResults?kn=Nautisk+Meteorologisk+Aarbog&sts=t&x=51&y=13
Mick J
This is a joke!
You can even buy it on Amazon, the one from 1935…
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Nautisk-meteorologisk-%C3%A5rbog-Nautical-meteorological-annual-etc/dp/B000X72AT4
Frank said;
“But then it turns out that the same DMI must have known about these maps but never said a word?
Why have not DMI at any point said: “We have data showing that recent ice decline is not that unique as you might think” ? Why the silence?”
In truth I think it is likely they forgot about the stuff. Nothing is ‘real’ these days unless it is digital or famous. I spent several days at the Met office archives recently amd there is a wealth of material there that seems to be little used by the climate researchers upstairs. I was subseqiently sent the Worlds first detailed weather diary dating to the 1340’s. Ths was famous in the 1930’s but was then forgotten.
In short there is a mass of evidence out there concerning the ever changing climate, which is languishing in a variety of places and whils some of it-such as ships diaries-become fashionable, there is much that will never see the light of day.
It comes down to lack of funding for sceptics-for example each article of mine takes hundreds of hours to put togerther. If someone would fund us half a dozen of us for two years we could produce a vast repository of information that would counter the far better fiunded warmists. Its not going to happen though, the EU specifically forbids funding for projects that are not intended to prove climate change.
tonyb
repeat after me ‘ they don’t give perfect coverage so there not worth anything ‘
Tonyb
I will chose to think that you are correct, for some reason DMI staff simply did not think of this old material. Im a patriot!
And you are correct: ” Nothing is ‘real’ these days unless it is digital or famous”
K,R. Frank
I note the quote: “In September 1901 we are not far from having open NW passage and in September 1907 we do have an open NW Passage.”
Here are some relevant extracts that fit nicely, although Silas Bent is obviously before this map series:
THERMAL PATHS TO THE POLE, THE CURRENTS OF THE OCEAN, BY SILAS BENT, SAINT LOUIS: 1872.
Just as the work was completed upon these currents in the North Pacific, in 1855, the news was received in the United States that Dr.Hane had discovered an open sea near the Pole, and people began to ask how that could be possible, when it was well known that a belt or region of ice several hundred miles in width must lie to the south of that sea, and which was never dissolved.
==========================================
THE NORTH WEST PASSAGE BEING THE RECORD OF A VOYAGE OF EXPLORATION OF THE SHIP “GJOA” 1903 – 1907 BY ROALD AMUNDSEN
“We encountered no ice with the exception of a few narrow strips of old sound ice, carried by the wash. Of large Polar ice we saw absolutely nothing. Between the ice and the land, on either side, there were large and perfectly clear channels, through which we passed easily and unimpeded.
The entire accumulation of ice was not very extensive. We were soon out again in open water. Outside the promontories, some pieces of ice had accumulated; otherwise the sea was free from ice. The water to the south was open, the impenetrable wall of ice was not there.
At 5.30 P.M. we met a quantity of ice off Cape Maguire,a fairly broad strip of loose ice. Beyond this we could see clear water.
Captain Knowles reports the season the most open he has ever known. He entered the Arctic on the day we left Sari Francisco, May 22, and thinks the straits were open even earlier than that.
============================================
Anomalies and Trends of Sea-Ice Extent and Atmospheric Circulation in the Nordic Seas during the Period 1864–1998 Issn: 1520-0442 Journal: Journal of Climate. Volume: 14 255-267 Authors: Vinje, Torgny:
“It is not until the warming of the Arctic, 1905–30, that the NAO winter index shows repeated positive values over a number of sequential years, corresponding to repeated northward fluxes of warmer air over the Nordic Seas during the winter. An analog repetition of southward fluxes of colder air during wintertime occurs during the cooling period in the 1960s. Concurrently, the temperature in the ocean surface layers was lower than normal during the warming event and higher than normal during the cooling event.”
=========================================
Taurisano, A., Boggild, C.E. and Karlsen, H.G. 2004. A century of climate variability and climate gradients from coast to ice sheet in West Greenland. Geografiska Annaler 86A: 217-224.
“the temperature data “show that a warming trend occurred in the Nuuk fjord during the first 50 years of the 1900s, followed by a cooling over the second part of the century, when the average annual temperatures decreased by approximately 1.5°C.” Coincident with this cooling trend there was also what they describe as “a remarkable increase in the number of snowfall days (+59 days).”
========================================
Climate variation in the European Arctic during the last 100 years Hanssen-Bauer, Inger, Norwegian Meteorological Institute, Co-Author Førland, Eirik J. (CliC International Project Office (CIPO) 21 June 2004)
“Analyses of climate series from the European Arctic show major inter-annual and inter-decadal variability, but no statistically significant long-term trend in annual mean temperature during the 20th century in this region. The temperature was generally increasing up to the 1930s, decreasing from the 1930s to the 1960s, and increasing from the 1960s to 2000. The temperature level in the 1990s was still lower than it was during the 1930s. In large parts of the European Arctic, annual precipitation has increased substantially during the last century.”
Nothing new under the sun…..
My full support to the comment by tonyb ( May 2, 2012 at 1:21 am). This finding is great, and demonstrates that there has been information available allowing a much more in-depth research since long.
Indeed it is a pity that:
____“Sadly we don’t have the Arctic warm years 1940-45, but just the colder years 1946-56.”.
Actually there has been a drop in air temperature between 1939 and about 1945 (north of 70°N), and after a brief increase until 1950 a long decline until the 1970s happened, which is well illustrated by NASA-Giss for Isfjord Radio (Spitsbergen) http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=634010050010&data_set=14&num_neighbors=1
Timing and extent may help to solve the question, which role did the two World Wars played in the climatic trends of the Arctic during the last century, which is discussed in Chapter G and Chapter I, here: http://www.seaclimate.com/_ToC/_ToC.html
It is also a matter of recorded history that the Vikings in Greenland in the MWP (working their farms under the permafrost according to the warmists) had to pay taxes to the Catholic Church to support various crusades, the Vatican maintains the receipts to this day.
Strangely, records like this which can’t be contorted by Michael ‘piltdown’ Mann and his PCA rack are not popular with climatologists.
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.
==========
The evidence in the old charts has not been shown, not because no one knows about them, but rather because they don’t support the theory of CAGW.
If you are asked by your boss to write a report that supports CAGW, you sure as shooting are not going to drag out old charts that argue against CAGW. You are going to keep your mouth shut about them, or start looking for a new career.
Old charts exist in archives all over the world. They are not used in climate science because they don’t support the notion that the warming from 1980-2000 is unique, caused by humans, and will have catastrophic results.
The old charts show that there has been a gradual warming, with a cyclical component, since the LIA. That climate changes, that observed sea level rise over this period has been minor, and for the most part the 300 years of warming has been beneficial.
What climate science has done is to look at a very small section of the cyclical component of the warming, and extend a straight line projection from this, because it supports what they are trying to show. That we need to de-industrialize to save the world.
In reality, the movement to de-industrialize is a movement of industrial processes from developed countries to un-developed countries to take advantage of lower labor rates and lower infrastructure costs, paid for by the consumers in the developed countries.
The movement however does not reduce CO2. It results in a net increase in CO2, because the infrastructure in the un-developed countries is cheaper because it lacks the pollution regulations enforced as a cost of doing business in the developed countries.
In other words, it has the opposite effect of what was intended.
Frank Lansner!
So who are you! I’d like to know more about this find and how you came across them and why.
That data is provoking to say it modestly and I want to understand it more. Have you contacted the cryosphere people with this yet?
Fantastic.
For those interested, here are sources of sea ice data that I’m aware of:
•Multi-channel satellite passive microwave fields from NSIDC, 1979-present
•North American Ice Center digital data (grids from U.S. National Ice Center, 1972-1978; Canadian Ice Service, 1958-1979)
•U.S. Naval Oceanographic Office (1953-1971)
•Dehn charts, NOAA Alaska Ice Desk charts for Alaska (1953-1979)
•Japanese Meteorological Agency Sea of Okhotsk ice charts, 1960s onward
•AARI gridded data, 1930-1970s [1990s]
•Danish Meteorological Institute yearbooks, 1870s-1960s
•ACSYS sea ice databank (North Atlantic ice edges, 1750-1966
•National Research Council of Canada (B. Hill), Newfoundland ice extent, 1810-2000+
•Alaskan ship reports (whaling and others) K. Wood and Bockstoce/Mahoney/Eicken, 1850-early 1900s
FYI, John Walsh has been working to bring all these data sources together into one monthly data set of ice extent. As you can imagine it’s not an easy task. Even trying to reconcile ice charts is difficult as the US began reporting ice concentrations in eights rather than tenths, and then returned to tenths reporting in 1980. Canada retained the tenths format throughout their ice chart reporting. And then there’s the different nature in how groups drew ice features, and different use of ice analysis code or notations.
Wops,
In this presentation from NSIDC/NOAA Page 3, the DMI graphic from June 1924 is present!
And yet they write
” – but sea ice is essentially climatology (flat, no variability) prior to 1950s “
Link provided by anon2nz , thank you.
So fully awware of these maps, someone within NOAA is still claiming that ice trends before 1950 were essientially flat ..
Can one still dig up some kind of excuse?
I should also add that John Walsh et al. will be producing a final product that is a hierarchy of versions ranging from the most conservative depiction of E/U to the least conservative/greatest potential value added (A/I):
E/U: Extent (ice/no ice, 30% threshold), Uninterpolated
A/U: Area (concentrations), Uninterpolated
E/I: Extent (ice/no ice, 30% threshold), Interpolated
A/I: Area (concentrations), Interpolated
Paul and others, the sea ice community is well-aware of these DMI charts, and other earlier sources of sea ice information.
Frank I think you are missing the point, the data are essentially climatology in the Had1SST data set. That’s because they didn’t include some of these earlier sea ice charts when they produced the Had1SST.
Hence the reason for updating that data set.
tjfolkerts says:
May 2, 2012 at 6:14 am
” There are smatterings of data along Siberia and Alaska and Canada. They simply did not have the resources or ability to look at the whole Arctic. You CANNOT look at the white and assume it is ice ”
I agree, in fact many illustrations are likely to show larger white areas than the actual ice extend.
Thus the 1935-38 years might very well resemble 2009-2010, but… i would have to have hard arguments to go into that.
In mane maps they do seem to place this “white area” in a pattern that looks like classic ice areas, and that goes for the Baffin sea too. And the white areas in some years seems to be supported by data from previous years. But you are correct, they also state something else, its a little confusing, but buttom line: if anything, the maps seems to overestimate ice areas.
Obviously ice is a lousy proxy for temperature…
ArndB says:
“Actually there has been a drop in air temperature between 1939 and about 1945 ”
This is true, but stil relatively warm years not too far apart might amplify the open water effect even though temperatures have peaked?