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.
Joe F11,
Do you ever wonder why CO2 was @393 ppmv two years ago, and now it’s @392? Same world economic situation, same coal burning, etc.
And of course the last desperate hope of the alarmist crowd — Arctic ice cover — is rapidly increasing. Global polar ice is above its long term average now. The fact is that the real world is falsifying all of the alarmist crowd’s doomsday predictions. Climate skeptics have been proven right, and climate alarmists have been debunked.
Sorry about that. But when you’re wrong, you’re wrong.
Joe F11,
I should add that more CO2 is entirely beneficial to the biosphere. There is zero downside at current or projected levels. It’s all good. More CO2 is better.
Further, more CO2 is completely harmless. No one has been able to point to any verifiable global harm due to the increase in CO2.
No harm = “harmless”. QED
And despite your eco-handwaving about smog, etc., note that people are living much longer and healthier lives now, despite the large increase in CO2, and in coal-fired power plants, and nukes, and natural gas plants, and all of the beneficial aspects of modern industrial society that seem to scare you.
If you want to live like people did before the industrial revolution, it is entirely possible. But you won’t like it.
Joe F11
You write:
“Again, it’s about a growing trend of CO2 emissions over time from 1850 on.”
In the period 1900-1920 before the DMI-documented Arctic melting, Co2 was around 300 ppm,
In the period of Arctic ice melting 1921-1938 it was around 310 ppm.
Honestly, not many insists that this change 300 ppm to 310 ppm is responsible of the heating 1920-40 compared to the colder 1900-1920.
Thus its quite normal to consider the pre 1940 events as mostly natural, again, even Phil Jones does so.
-So im supposed to consider CO2 as important heat driver before 1938 even when alarmists often doesnt?
If what happened around year 1850 (where CO2 concentrations were even more constant according to vostok/Siple) was so important why did we not see any sudden warming around 1850 globally?
Would you expect Ice retreat around 1850 then, Joe F11 ?
Smokey,
I saw the word “desperately”..
Yup, what the DMI also show is:
1 Ice can recover very fast
2 in the pre 1923 data, ice areas were really large compared to now. December conditions in August.
So, this focus on Arctic ice as an important parameter for global temperatures can actually be crucial for the pro-IPCC team.
Any year things can take a turn aproximately as they did 1938-1939.
Any year the death of AGW can be the result of the massive focus on Arctic ice.
Then “desperate” seem like the correct word.
Smokey, it’s not “all the same”. There has been a significant reduction in emissions from coal-fired plants in the US over the last decade (yet US energy supply has continued to increase). China and other parts of the emerging world have been diversifying in energy generation technologies like hydro, wind and solar, particularly as Chinese industries dependent solely on coal have seen blackouts due to insufficient fossil fuel supply.
I would turn the “desperate” question around, and ask YOU why YOU are so desperate to “debunk” man’s impact on the Earth?
CO2 may be “good for the biosphere” but melting ice and resultant coastal flooding, by whatever source, is currently not good for man. There are already international geopolitical issues arising from coastal populations being displaced around the Pacific. Continued dependence on energy resources that are dwindling, and which place dependence on hostile foreign nations is not good for nations. Monopolistic dominance of certain energy technology to the detriment of others is not good economically. Resistance to innovation and more efficient technology is not good economically. Independently of any “AGW” or “CO2” arguments, why are you so desperately fighting so hard to cling to antiquated energy sources which will only get more and more scarce and expensive?
Joe,
– do you want our children to learn in schools what is not true?
– do you want people to be so scared over consequences of claimed CO2 heating even if it is not true?
– do you ant the Western world to be “responsible” for all kinds of weather related disasters all over the world if it is not true?
– do you want us to have a “climate dept” even if the science is not supporting this at all?
– do you want the world to be prepaired for warming even if we are in fact facing cooling with much greater risks for us all?
I dont.
One day you will see that “the bad guys” were “the good guys”.
K.R. Frank
Joe F11 says:
May 5, 2012 at 6:54 am
Smokey, it’s not “all the same”. There has been a significant reduction in emissions from coal-fired plants in the US over the last decade (yet US energy supply has continued to increase).
Your talking points are out of date — China surged into the lead in the CO2 emissions race.in 2006.
http://www.pbl.nl/en/dossiers/Climatechange/moreinfo/Chinanowno1inCO2emissionsUSAinsecondposition
China and other parts of the emerging world have been diversifying in energy generation technologies like hydro, wind and solar, particularly as Chinese industries dependent solely on coal have seen blackouts due to insufficient fossil fuel supply.
China has been having blackouts because they’ve been building coal-fired plants faster than coal can be delivered — an average of two new ones each week since 2007.
http://www.netl.doe.gov/coal/refshelf/ncp.pdf
Seriously, you need to update your talking points.
For Mr. Lansner, the problem is that it has not been shown to be “not true”. Yes, one can point to solar variability and other factors, but there is no model in existence that accounts for everything, conclusively ruling out human factors. Can you for example explain exactly why ice advanced in the Bering Sea in 1924, 1928 and 1930 without then also negating your other arguments? The only thing that has been shown is that climate is complex, with a multitude of contributors. Nothing has shown conclusively that man has no or insignificant impact. We know we have impacted our atmosphere with CFCs, damaging the ozone layer, we know that human emissions caused acid rain damage, we know that human-generated particulates and other emissions can trigger human respiratory disease – many examples of global impact – so why would anyone in their right mind be so arrogantly and dismissively certain and steadfast that we could not possibly be having other impacts?
For Mr. Tuttle, if you are tracking China, then surely you would also know that China, despite their dependence on fossil fuels, has been making a massive investment in solar and other technologies, and now leads the world in production of solar panels, producing nearly half the world’s supply – they also have tripled installed solar plants in just the period 2010 to 2011 and are adding far more solar capacity than the US is. China is on track to surpass the United States in solar energy output in the next few years. It seems the Chinese do not at all consider solar to be the “phony boondoggle” that others seem to want to insist it is.
Joe F11 says:
May 5, 2012 at 10:36 am
“For Mr. Lansner, the problem is that it has not been shown to be “not true”. Yes, one can point to solar variability and other factors, but there is no model in existence that accounts for everything, conclusively ruling out human factors. Can you for example explain exactly why ice advanced in the Bering Sea in 1924, 1928 and 1930 without then also negating your other arguments? The only thing that has been shown is that climate is complex, with a multitude of contributors. Nothing has shown conclusively that man has no or insignificant impact.”
JoeF11 what are you talking about? We are all well aware of humans impact on environment. What we want is science and correct information. No bias no tricks no indulgences and no climate church.
You spew a lot of nonsense about climate and china and solar and so on.
Try to stay on topic, the thread was historical ice coverage and it was shown that “official statistics” is missing important information and is wrong. We want to have it put right to have the correct science done based on it.
If one has wrong historical data then models – will model the wrong story – so the work to put it right has a great value for all, alarmist or skeptic.
If you want to discuss china solar, go to a solar energy thread don’t mix it here, you disturb constructive discussion. If you want to discuss ozone go to ozone thread or open thread on week-end.
If you just want to spew non-sense be warned that moderators will have to moderate you, that’s what they are doing to keep the conversation on topic and efficient.
Lars P, thankyou for comment, very well said indeed.
Here are a large number of Greenland temperature stations taken from Nordklim and GHCN v2 raw.
http://hidethedecline.eu/media/ARUTI/Europe/GreenlandIceland/fig8.jpg
(Taken from RUTI Greenland and Iceland:
http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/ruti/europe/greenland-iceland-and-svalbard.php )
The Greenland temperatures seems to match the above trends in sea ice as illustrated by DMI in generations. So.. “Why the fuzz?”
While the thesis that Scandinavian ice maps from early in the 20th century are not accurate for the Bering area because they had little data from there is a possible cause, though speculative, there were boating people in Alaska and nearby areas then. People on the B.C. coast for example, (US attempted to chase them away from the Pribilof Islands in 1886, Russia sold AK to the US circa 1867) and probably fishers from Japan.
As for Arctic ice data points, note that the small wooden boat St. Roch somehow transited the NW passage back in 1944 and WUWT had a map in a thread about “Warming Island”. (Alarmists thought they had found a previously ice-covered island, someone found it on a map in an old book.)
Some of you are saying things that don’t make sense. Is there always thick ice at the north pole? I doubt it, in part because wind and currents blow ice around. (And didn’t someone detail the time of submarine visits, just a few weeks ago? Some of you – like “J Bowers” are being irresponsible. But we often see herein the power of the Internet to counter erroneous claims.
Yes, ice ridges are common in the Arctic ocean, have been accused of fouling up submarine measurements due comparison of average-reading vs peak-reading sensors. Can’t understand what “Caleb” is harassing Wayne Delbeke for given that Delbeke says “it has piled up from wind action”. It only takes in the order of magnitude of 10 feet of ice to support a 727 airplane, done frequently in the 1970s. But ice ridges (upward) would be a problem. I once flew over the NW Arctic with a bunch of geologist/geophysicists from TX, they were excited to see the ice ridges (and rock outcrops on the low dry islands).
Frank;
Wonderful compilation, well presented. Thank you. A beautiful demonstration of the variances that occur naturally! Actually, bring on the NE and NW Passage(s)! They’d be wonderfully useful.
____________
Oh, a wee English hint: “August ice extend” is “August ice extent” (see Fig 19 title, e.g.) Extend = verb, “extent” = noun.
[SNIP: Sorry, but we really do require valid e-mail addresses. A less derogatory screen name would not be amiss either. -REP]