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
Bill Tuttle says:
May 2, 2012 at 10:32 am
“The convoys were trying for speed — hugging the edge of the ice rather than making a direct run would not only have prolonged their agony, but simplified the U-boats’ search for them. Most aerial attacks on the Murmansk convoys were by He-111s, Bf-110s, and FW-200s (based at Stavanger), which had the range to pick up the convoys a day after they passed Iceland and follow them to Tromso, where they’d get picked up by the Ju-87s and get hit all the way to Murmansk.”
Incorrect on several counts. The convoys did try to keep as far away from the Norwegian coast as possible and did quite often “hug the ice”. In December 1943 the germans were quite surprised when convoy JW55B passed by only about 350 nautical miles from the Finnmark coast and used the opportunity for a surface attack by battle-cruiser Scharnhorst and 5 destroyers. However in this case the convoy was deliberately used to “bait” the Scharnhorst,
The Fw 200 (more often from Trondheim/Vaernaes than Stavanger/Sola by the way) were not much used in the Arctic where the shadowing was usually done by BV 138’s from Tromsö/Skatöyra. Ju 87’s were essentially useless in this environment (they were short-range, daytime, fair-weather aircraft) and the attacks were normally carried out by Ju 88’s or He 111’s. Finding and shadowing the convoys in foul weather and winter darkness was quite difficult both for aircraft and submarines and many convoys were never even spotted. Note that after the PQ17 disaster in June 1942 convoys only sailed in winter until JW59 in August 1944.
Incidentally it even happened that North Atlantic convoys were re-routed so far north to avoid U-boat concentration that they encountered ice off Greenland.
As a matter of fact I remember seeing maps (both german and allied) showing the position of the ice edge during various convoy battles, particularily during the Bismarck breakout (May 1941), PQ17 (June 1942) and JW55 (December 1943). More certainly exist in the archives:
Roy
Thanks very much for your links which I have put in my archives. It amply illustrates my point you were replying to, that there is a great deal of inforation out there but first it has to be found, next it has to be read, then it has to be sifted for relevance THEN it has to be put into context in an article. There are not enough hours in the day nor money to fill those hours for those sceptics not on the Big oil payroll, which as far as I can tell is ALL of us.
If you come across anything similar do let me know, Thanks
tonyb
steve fox said t me
Steve Fox says:
May 2, 2012 at 12:33 pm
“Tonyb,
thanks very much, just spent 2 hours watching old Pathe news clips. You did that deliberately didn’t you”
Yes, I have the concession rights on the popcorn!. THey are a fascinating insight into a recently lost world aren’t they?
tonyb
tty says:
May 2, 2012 at 11:14 pm
Bill Tuttle says:
May 2, 2012 at 10:32 am
“The convoys were trying for speed — hugging the edge of the ice rather than making a direct run would not only have prolonged their agony, but simplified the U-boats’ search for them. Most aerial attacks on the Murmansk convoys were by He-111s, Bf-110s, and FW-200s (based at Stavanger), which had the range to pick up the convoys a day after they passed Iceland and follow them to Tromso, where they’d get picked up by the Ju-87s and get hit all the way to Murmansk.”
Incorrect on several counts. The convoys did try to keep as far away from the Norwegian coast as possible and did quite often “hug the ice”.
The early convoys did, by all accounts. “On 21 May [1942] our convoy [PQ-16] of 36 merchant ships, PQ16, set off for Russia [from Hvalfjord, Iceland] with an initial escort of a minesweeper and four armed trawlers. We sailed between Iceland and Greenland and continued in a north-easterly direction, keeping as far away from Norway as the Arctic ice would allow.”[*] During 1943, when convoys were more heavily-escorted, convoy commanders sometimes opted for speed — it seems to have depended on what weather conditions were like, because a low overcast or storms would keep the Luftwaffe grounded.
The Fw 200 (more often from Trondheim/Vaernaes than Stavanger/Sola by the way) were not much used in the Arctic where the shadowing was usually done by BV 138′s from Tromsö/Skatöyra.
From the same account of PQ-16’s trip: “Early on the 25th, we were joined by four heavy cruisers and eight destroyers, so we now had protection against U-boats, aircraft and enemy battleships. The cruisers stationed themselves within the columns of the convoy.
“Soon we were spotted by a Focke-Wulf or FW Condor. From then on we always had one of these spotters circling the convoy out of gun range, day and night — only there was no night, just 24 hours of daylight.” The convoy and its shadow were well into the Arctic by this time.
Ju 87′s were essentially useless in this environment (they were short-range, daytime, fair-weather aircraft) and the attacks were normally carried out by Ju 88′s or He 111′s. Finding and shadowing the convoys in foul weather and winter darkness was quite difficult both for aircraft and submarines and many convoys were never even spotted. Note that after the PQ17 disaster in June 1942 convoys only sailed in winter until JW59 in August 1944.
I/St.G 5 flew Ju-87Rs, which were purpose-built for anti-shipping. They carried two external drop tanks, which gave them a useful range of over 700NM. Ju-87Rs and Ju-88s tag-teamed PQ-16: “Early on the 29th, there was another air attack, which was beaten off without loss. Late in the evening the convoy split up, six ships going to Archangel, which had just become free of ice, and the rest, including our ship, heading for the Kola Inlet.
“Shortly after the parting of the ways, we were attacked by JU 88s, some going for the Archangel section and the rest attacking us. Both attacks were beaten off without loss.
“About noon on the following day, just as we were lining up to enter the Kola Inlet, we suffered the final bombing raid, this time by JU 87s, the dreaded Stuka dive bombers.”
In 1942, I/StG 5 was deployed to Finnmark specifically to attack the Murmansk convoys. On 7 July 1942, they lost an R-4, serial number 6209, in an attack on the docks at Murmansk, probably shot down by a Lend-Lease Hurricane.
http://www.luftwaffe.no/SIG/Losses/tap422.html
As a matter of fact I remember seeing maps (both german and allied) showing the position of the ice edge during various convoy battles, particularily during the Bismarck breakout (May 1941), PQ17 (June 1942) and JW55 (December 1943). More certainly exist in the archives:
If you saw them in a hard-cover publication, my guess is that they’d be in the Admiralty archives — finding them would fill in a lot of blanks from the war years.
*the full PQ-16 narrative is at
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ww2peopleswar/stories/15/a2223415.shtml
“Here be Dragons”
Accurate sea Ice maps of the whole Arctic from the start of the 20th century, from DMI !!
From the link to scanned sea ice map (1935):
“The red curves indicate the obseved limit between open sea and ice”
The rest is presumably guesswork??
Hey Frank. Any reply from DMI on the methods for collecting the data back then, the source of the data, the reliability of the maps? I assume you’ve checked it all through? Can we see a copy of thier reply??
Village Idiot.
There are several issues im trying to resolve with them. I dont see the problem in showing this summary to people without making a PHD to begin with.
If you believe that for ex the stunningly similar patterns 1938 vs 2000 north of siberia is random and thus useless, thats your decision. If you believe that the still smaller ice area 1921-1938 is a freak error, be my guest.
Folks, I played around with the web address and found the source of all of the maps. The link at the end of this article is just for one image.
http://brunnur.vedur.is/pub/trausti/Iskort/Jpg/
Amazing stuff!!
With all the obvious caveats, this does fit in with the opening of the Russian Northern Sea Route along the Siberian coast in the 1930s.
J Solters says:
May 2, 2012 at 5:53 pm
Phil.’s response to my question about comparing DMI type studies of Arctic sea ice with the ’30 year record’ referenced by S. Stroeve is that they’ve done so. I reviewed his cite and it contains no such analysis other than a cryptic statement that data before 1953 should not be relied upon.
Didn’t you see this:
“These data are a compilation of data from several sources integrated
into a single gridded product by John Walsh and Bill Chapman,
University of Illinois. The source of data for each grid cell is
included within a separate file. These sources of data have changed
over the years from observationally derived charts to satellite
data. Gaps within observed data are filled with climatology or other
numberically derived data.”
Or this:
” During October, 1996, updates were made to the Walsh sea ice database.
The database previously contained data through December, 1990. Updates to
this dataset are, and will continue to be made using ice concentrations
obtained via the SSMI sources using the NASA Team algorithm. Ice
conditions derived from these sources are flagged as “8” in the
aricesrc.dat dataset description file.
In order to maintain a consistent data source for the last part of the
period, all data from October, 1978 through August, 1995 are from the
SMMR/ SSMI sources. This means that data from previous versions of this
data set were replaced by SMMR and SSM/I data from Oct. 1978 – Dec. 1990.
It appears that the SMMR and SSM/I data contains significant differences
poleward of the ice edge for most months. Ice concentrations are
generally lower in the central Arctic for the these data than for
other data sources. Ice extents appear to be consistent across datasets,
ice areas derived from pre-1978 data may be significantly higher than
those calculated from the satellite period. The figure contained in
icearea.ps provided with this data illustrates the rather abrupt jump in
total northern hemisphere ice area around October 1978. The figure
contained in icextnt.ps, ice extents calculated assuming 100% coverage
everywhere ice was observed, illustrates that the extent data is more
consistant between data sources.”
His response appears misleading at best.(100 ft thick ice?)
That was not in response to your post.
There is not one word of content addressed to any actual comparison of historical DMI data with more recent satellite data. Perhaps J. Stroeve could answer the question herself since she raised the issue of “ice community awareness’ of the DMI type observations. Given their awareness, has any ice community group specifically reviewed the DMI type historical ice data and compared results with the 30 yr recent record in any studies to date? That’s a simple yes or no. If yes, can we please have cites.
Perhaps you should read the one you’ve already been given! They explicitly stated that they incorporated the DMI data in their database along with the satellite data from the more recent years.
So much for ‘not one word’:
“Ice concentrations are generally lower in the central Arctic for the these data (satellite) than for other data sources (charts like DMI). Ice extents appear to be consistent across datasets, ice areas derived from pre-1978 data may be significantly higher than those calculated from the satellite period.”
Italics are my comments.
Frank Lansner says:
May 2, 2012 at 2:30 am
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.
The results for the 20’s are consistent with the historical accounts of the difficulties associated with supplying various expeditions to Wrangel Island, also earlier with Amundsen being trapped in ice in early September 05 after his expedition cleared the NW passage, and having to over-winter for another year. There were plenty of fishing boats operating in that area then Amundsen’s book reports the contacts with them.
Any chance of getting one or two of the charts scanned at high enough resolution to be able to read the annotations?
By the way these maps were actually scanned and put online by the Icelandic Meteorological Office. (Vedhurstofa Islands). Just click your way up from the maps and You end up on their home page:
http://www.vedur.is/
If anyone is interested in other old sea-ice data the entire declassified satellite imagery for 1960-80 is easily searchable and can be browsed (at low resolution) here:
http://earthexplorer.usgs.gov/
And here is an example. An image that shows the ice distribution around the entire Spitzbergen archipelago beautifully:
http://earthexplorer.usgs.gov/browse/DIT/9034A/008M/C/DS09034A008MC022.jpg
It was taken on May 16, 1962, almost exactly 50 years ago.
“Any chance of getting one or two of the charts scanned at high enough resolution to be able to read the annotations?”
Just go to the site where they are. They are very high resolution (big files). And the annotation is quite good and clearly indicates areas of uncertainty, contra some of the commentators here:
http://brunnur.vedur.is/pub/trausti/Iskort/Pdf/
http://brunnur.vedur.is/pub/trausti/Iskort/Jpg/
tonyb said:
Thanks very much for your links which I have put in my archives. It amply illustrates my point you were replying to, that there is a great deal of information out there …
I am glad it was of interest. If I do come across anything similar I will let you know.
Roy
Good job Frank. Present what you’ve got and let the chips fall wherever.
Reply to Phil. I repeat: the study you reference contains no specific comparative analysis of 1900 to 1960 pre-satellite DMI Arctic ice area measurements and the abrupt significant fluctuations, including very low ice measurements recorded there, with the current 30 year period identified by J Stroeve. Absolutely nothing you’ve repeated in your latest comment, and others, addresses that specific comparison in any meaningful way. Your response addresses satellite updates which are not remotely similar to the issue I’m addressing. After examining these exchanges, I’m convinced you have no intention of addressing directly the very narrow question of analytical comparison of these two time-periods. At this point, I’ve tenatively concluded that no such specific analytic comparison has been made between DMI data for 1900 /1960, and the recent record for the last 30 years in an effort to reconcile ice fluctuations between these periods.
To clear up some confusion some of you may be having, John Walsh, Bill Chapman and Florence Fetterer (at NSIDC) are busy working on a data-recovery project to add several new sources of data into their earlier version of the historic dataset. Perhaps some don’t realize that the digitization process is time-consuming, and then you have to try to get everything on the same grid, as well as try to decode the different ways that ice was recorded in these historical data sets so that you can develop a consistent data set. They don’t anticipate having any updates to the historical data set until the beginning of 2013. In the meantime you can go here: http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/SEAICE/ for the earlier version of this data set that spans 1870 to present.
Also note that these are the data sources in the current version of the dataset, which shows that DMI was already one of the sources.
The data sources for the ice concentrations vary spatially and temporally. There are eight basic data sources for the ice concentrations:
1. Danish Meteorlogical Institute
2. Japan Meteorological Agency
3. Naval Oceanographic Office (NAVOCEANO)
4. Kelly ice extent grids (based upon Danish Ice Charts)
5. Walsh and Johnson/Navy-NOAA Joint Ice Center
6. Navy-NOAA Joint Ice Center Climatology
7. Temporal extension of Kelly data (see note below)
8. Nimbus-7 SMMR Arctic Sea Ice Concentrations or
DMSP SSM/I Sea Ice Concentrations using the NASA Team Algorithm
Julienne says:
May 3, 2012 at 4:45 pm
Also note that these are the data sources in the current version of the dataset, which shows that DMI was already one of the sources.
Julienne, I’ve already told him that and linked him to the CT page which discusses the database, for some reason he appears unable to accept that. The references to the papers are there too!
Very strange that they did not use the norwegian ACSYS data from Norsk Polarinstitutt which are the most comprehensive for the North Atlantic. And no Russian data at all, apparently.
tty says:
May 3, 2012 at 11:18 pm
Very strange that they did not use the norwegian ACSYS data from Norsk Polarinstitutt which are the most comprehensive for the North Atlantic. And no Russian data at all, apparently.
*Accurate* Soviet topographic maps were considered state secrets — that extended to aeronautical charts in the Arctic showing sea ice extent, too, although the maritime charts would have been accurate. I know Russian helicopter pilots who flew oil exploration support and settlement resupply in the ’80s and ’90s, and one of the things they always mentioned was that the maps they were given had distorted coastlines and river courses — each one had a small notebook containing headings and flight times between towns, rigs, and refueling points.
Where did Lansner get the bizarre notion that data from early 1900s shows the state “before human CO2 outlet”? The Industrial Revolution began in the late 1700s, and massive commercial collieries and other energy resource extraction enterprises sprung up in the Americas, in Europe and elsewhere in that time frame to fuel it. As an example, the collieries in the Lackawanna Valley of Pennsylvania alone were producing nearly 100 million tons of coal a year by the end of the 1800s – all of which was going to fuel voracious industrial consumption all throughout the 1800s. Mr. Lansner should be deeply embarrassed with this apparent lack of understanding of global industrial history.
Mr “Joe F11”
Let me rephrase so also you get the point:
“before human CO2 outlet”
Should be
“before human CO2 outlet exploded”
or
“When CO2 level were still well below Hansens safe level on 350 ppm”
Since I honestly cannot imagine you did not really understand this yourself, I get the impression that you are retorical here. And how can that be?
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/graphics/global.total.gif
Perhaps Mr. Lansner is not familiar with classic works of Dickens and others, describing a sooty, smoke-spewing Industrial London of the 1800s and the “Killer Fogs” from industrial emissions that struck repeatedly, in some instances killing hundreds, even thousands. If you want to point to a date of exploding human CO2 output, you have to go back to at least the 1850s, which is when we began pumping billions of tons of additional CO2 into the atmosphere. Many of the coal-fired power plants that people are concerned about being shut down date back to the 1930s and 1940s, and are now held together with bailing twine and duct tape, well beyond their intended service life. Governments didn’t even begin to regulate emissions until the 1950s (1956, in the case of the UK). Yet you seem to want to ignore history and start in the mid-1900s, rather than acknowledge that there were significant emissions well prior.
“Joe F11”
– Before 1938 CO2 levels were less than 310 ppm in Siple Vostok data – far below Hansens 350 ppm for dangerous CO2 warming.
Even Phil Jones believes that warming before 1940 is mainly naturally driven.
– DMI have documented a strong dive in Arctic ice area before 1938 when CO2 was not supposed to be an important driver of warming.
If strong dives in Arctic ice occured before 1938, then the recent strong dive in Arctic ice itself appears less dependent of human activities.
Honestly, im sure you are perfectly aware of this simple point, but you choose to try some retoric none the less.
Again, it’s about a growing trend of CO2 emissions over time from 1850 on. Even the ORNL graph that you yourself presented earlier in this thread reflects this growing trend of human CO2 contribution having a far longer tail than you want to admit. And as such, human CO2 increases the likelihood of declining sea ice not just in 1938, but overall. 1938 becomes particularly evident when combined with other factors, such as the many known heat waves of the 1930s, and timing of the solar cycle – which for example contributed to the Dust Bowl. But heat waves and solar cycles only tell a fraction of the story. There are many contributors to climate, both additive and subtractive, both natural and manmade, climate is complex. Yet this forum always rushes to trot out one natural source after another, with its’ own partial contribution, and no matter how spurious, while steadfastly denying any of the many human contributors, and trying to obfuscate with red herrings. Given the reality is that it is a combination of many things, it represents intellectual dishonesty to steadfastly only cling to one part of the equation and deny all else.