Nothing definitive, but interesting. The area plot above is from NANSEN. The extent plot also shows a turn:
DMI also shows it…
Danish Meteorological Institute (DMI) – Centre for Ocean and Ice – Click the pic to view at sourceBut JAXA does not….suggesting a difference in sensors/processes.
Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) – International Arctic Research Center (IARC) – Click the pic to view at sourceOf course NSIDC has a 5 day average, so we won’t see a change for awhile. Time will tell if this is just a blip or a turn from the new record low for the satellite data set.
More at the WUWT Sea Ice reference page
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
dvunkannon says:
“But this has all happened before, right Smokely?”
Now you might be starting to understand. The current Arctic ice levels have occurred repeatedly in the past. There is ample evidence of that fact, which I have regularly posted.
You, on the other hand, have no scientific evidence showing that the current Arctic conditions are unprecedented. None. You have no such evidence. So even though my voluminous eyewitness accounts are pre-satellite observations, they easily trump your evidence-free beliefs.
It’s official. IMS has broken its all-time record minimum.
http://www.natice.noaa.gov/ims/images/sea_ice_only.jpg
Not easy to access MASIE long-term data, but at 3.7 million sq km today, that’s smashes the record for every sea ice extent minimum in the satellite era.
http://nsidc.org/data/masie/index.html
Because the coverage is so low, and refreeze tends to bring the ice back to near-average coverage (but less thickness), we will likely see the largest refreeze area yet.
barry says:
“It’s official. IMS has broken its all-time record minimum.”
Don’t be silly. The satellite record only goes back to 1979. “All time” goes back at least a little bit farther than that, no?
And there is more than a little Arctic ice. The Arctic is far from being ice-free. And even if it were ice-free… so what? It’s happened before, and it will happen again. Human activity has nothing to do with it. That is only an evidence-free belief that religious climate alarmists have.
I didn’t think it required an “inquiring scientific mind“, one even briefly acquainted with geometry would’ve done; an ice cube 10cm wide by 10cm long by 10cm deep has a smaller area, but a greater volume and mass than and ice cube 11cm wide by 11cm long by 8cm deep. Further, I was discussing the Antarctic continent, Smokey‘s replies referenced the Antarctic oceans; he was discussing a different metric (which is why I described it as a cherry pick and why Smokey, realising he was arguing a straw man, ran away). I thought these things were too obvious to comment on, I’m sorry if I over estimated your intelligence.
@David Ball – I’ll make a third request that you read the Funder paper I linked to. It describes field work and modeling to support the claim of substantially ice-free conditions in the Arctic 8,500 – 6,000 years BP. That claim got the paper very favorable comments here on WUWT last summer. It is true that the paper doesn’t support an ice-free Arctic for the last 3,000 years or so, but evidence is evidence. It isn’t a case of no evidence either way.
@Smokey – You write:
What, the submarine pic? Goddard’s clipping file? Let’s repeat ourselves – where is the evidence of an ice-free Northeast Passage? Submarine pic? Nope. Clippings? Nope. How long is this natural cycle? Cause? Evidence? Error bars? Hey, look at the ice in Antarctica is not an answer.
REPLY: Wasn’t a thesis, just a question. But we know we aren’t allowed to ask questions, so enjoy your moment rooting for less ice. – Anthony
—————————————————————————————————————-
And thats just what the oh-so-concerned-about-the-Arctic warmists are doing. They are overjoyed about this. The only thing that would make them happier right now is if hundreds of dead polar bears started washing up on shore.
Richard Carlson,
Right you are. And as always, neither dvunkannon nor MacDonald has any scientific evidence showing that the current Arctic situation is unprecedented. They operate based strictly on their belief. The observations I posted are not satellite pics, but they are scientific evidence — something true believers do not possess. For them, their evidence-free belief is sufficient. That is why they can never be scientific skeptics — the only honest kind of scientists.
From Kevin MacDonald on September 7, 2012 at 6:29 pm:
Heh. Greater volume, yes, but not necessarily greater mass. This is anecdotal so you’ll write it off as meaningless, to your peril.
This story was told several years ago online. Party was coming up, think it was the Christmas one. Some guy and other techs made the ice, using high-pressure cryonics equipment. The ice was so dense it sank to the bottom of the drinks. And they were getting the non-tech people wondering what the cubes were made of since they were sinking instead of floating… Party reported as ending with the most people still sober ever, people were avoiding consuming their own drinks for some reason.
For the scientific basis of how this could be true and how all water ice is not the same, Wikipedia has a good write-up that hopefully you can follow.
Smokey is a regular, thus it’s very likely he already knew about that paper showing it’s uncertain whether Antarctica is gaining or losing land ice.
But Antarctic sea ice has a positive trend, as he was pointing out, indicating conditions at the south end of the planet are favorable for ice growth.
So if precipitation onto Antarctic land is sufficient, as it certainly appears to be, it looks more probable that the volume of Antarctic land ice is increasing than it does otherwise.
Maybe he was hoping you were smart enough to figure that out.
Speaking about overestimating intelligence…
Regards your comment on September 7, 2012 at 6:34 pm, I already suggested getting CA Assistant to get the Preview to avoid making stupid HTML mistakes, like you just made there. You don’t have to reject everything a skeptic says just because a skeptic said it. It’s not like rejecting everything a heretic or godless heathen says to stay true to your religion.
Or is it?
Last three days of MASIE daily extent;
3,863,517.58
3,773,682.77
3,686,199.43
Still losing 80,000 to 90,000 sq kms a day this late in the season, not much less than the rate through August and no monster storm – although there is a fairly intense low over the Arctic just now.
Kadaka, Well I learned something, referring to Wikipedia and 15 phases of solid H2O.
But as you said ‘anecdotal’. Outside of lab situations, no temp that low or pressure that high I know of. Then again I might learn something else.
dvunkannon says:
September 7, 2012 at 6:52 pm
“@David Ball – I’ll make a third request that you read the Funder paper I linked to. It describes field work and modeling to support the claim of substantially ice-free conditions in the Arctic 8,500 – 6,000 years BP. That claim got the paper very favorable comments here on WUWT last summer. It is true that the paper doesn’t support an ice-free Arctic for the last 3,000 years or so, but evidence is evidence. It isn’t a case of no evidence either way.”
This is not in the time period Folkerts requested thought, is it?
dvunkannon says:
September 7, 2012 at 6:52 pm
“to support the claim of substantially ice-free conditions in the Arctic 8,500 – 6,000 years BP.”
You realize this supports Smokey’s and my assertion and shoots yours in the foot.
Now that proxies and modeling (sic) are allowed (they weren’t before) this changes what I can bring to the table. I can still work within the changing parameters (goal posts) of the alarmists weak( flaccid?) arguments. Big waste of time arguing with these tap dancers, but I bet a lot of people reading this read learned something.
In reply to some people saying that the recent record-breaker is entirely a result of weather, I find it hard to agree when the lowest record-breaking minimums are grouped at one end of the data period.
The lowest September extent/area in million sq kms (NSIDC) are;
2012 ….. ? | ?
2007 ….. 4.30 | 2.78
2011 ….. 4.61 | 2.89
2008 ….. 4.73 | 2.99
2010 ….. 4.93 | 3.07
2009 ….. 5.39 | 3.47
Every September after 2006 is lower than 2006.
That’s 34 data points, if you include 2012.
Can a maths whiz figure out what the odds are of this weather bingo? If there are 34 integers, what are the chances that the first 6 randomly picked will be comprised of the numbers 1 to 6?
An extra “read” in the last sentence. In the middle of my first cup of “joe”. You can leave it mods if you wish, as no one is perfect. Part of being human. I like humans.
dvunkannon says:
September 7, 2012 at 6:52 pm
I have been following WUWT? closely for many years now. Can you not figure out that I have read that paper? Have you read the comments? Some highly educated people ( I am not one of them, as I have NO formal education) posted on that thread. If you read the comments you will find that if there are any flaws in that paper, even though favourable, will be exposed. That is why WUWT? is sooooo much better than echo chambers like RealPrimate or SkepticalnonScience where I am NOT allowed to post. Try on a tin-foil hat, you may enjoy it. The science and humour are so much better here.
“to support the claim of substantially ice-free conditions in the Arctic 8,500 – 6,000 years BP.”
Is this also the time period in which the Egyptian culture (among others) flourished?
It’s been previously linked, but reposting ’cause it’s an excellent history of past Arctic-scaremongering. Apparently the alarmism never ends…
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/polar-meltdown/
So tell me.. What will you guys be saying the day (likely 2015) when the ice melts out completely? Oh wait… I know… “it’s all happened before”
Meanwhile, the UK looks to be setting up to have more cold wet summers thanks to the New Normal.
Smokey says: ‘The Antarctic holds more than ten times the volume of ice than the Arctic. Since Antarctic ice volume is growing, the cause of the [entirely natural] Arctic decline cannot be due to GHG emissions.”
How many times do I have to call you on this???
Yes the Antarctic holds ten times the ice … IF YOU COUNT LAND-BASED ICE.
And yes, Antarctic ice is declining (slightly) … IF YOU ONLY LOOK AT SEA ICE.
You continue to repeat this claim, when, clearly you are comparing apple and oranges.
I’d be happy if you said “The Antarctic holds A BIT MORE SEA ice volume of ice than the Arctic.” I’d be happy if you said “The Antarctic holds more than ten times the volume of ice than the Arctic (WHEN LAND ICE IS INCLUDED). Since Antarctic ice volume is
growingdeclining (WHEN LAND ICE IS INCLUDED) …”Heck, I’d even accept “reports about Antarctic ice volumes are inconclusive” since some report included error bars for some periods of time that include the possibility of increasing overall ice volume.
But it is pure “bait and switch” to talk about 10 times the LAND ice and then present data about growing SEA ice.
Smokey says “It’s happened before … ”
I don’t put much stock in a report that also claims that “rocky island were seen by his party at the pole”. It seems they were having a hard time knowing what they were seeing. Or do you believe that part of the article too?
In any case, the article says they were flying over the pole in a dirigible. It is well-known now that SURFACE melt water is often present near the poles. It is pretty clear that this is what they were seeing, not true open water.
tjfolkerts,
The point isn’t the Antarctic at all. The central point in the entire debate is that there is no scientific evidence showing that CO2 has anything to do with the entirely natural decline in Arctic ice. History shows that it happens routinely.
That lack of scientific evidence makes a mockery of all the stupid arm-waving over a completely natural event. The alarmist crowd is franticly trying to make a connection between the natural ebb and flow of Arctic ice, and human CO2 emissions — without any evidence. It’s not even a conjecture, it’s nonsense.
The alarmist clique is like a guy sitting in a dark bedroom, absolutely convinced that there is a black cat under the bed. He has no evidence, but he does have an absolutely certain belief in the cat under the bed. He thinks he can even hear it breathing. But when he turns on the light… there is no cat. And there never was.
Chris Alemany,
Fourteen days until Arctic sea ice practically disappears.☺
From Chris Alemany on September 8, 2012 at 10:17 am:
Chris, I’ve seen your Facebook page, you seem like a nice guy, worried about your family, concerned about the environment. You also seem recently exposed to ice alarmism.
Standard alarmist fluff piece with many pretty pictures.
You do not seem aware of the main goal of modern politics, convincing you Something Bad Will Happen If We Are Not In Charge.
You also do not seem aware of how scientists get funding. It’s hard to get funds to research how nothing bad is happening. They’re easier to get if you convince others Something Bad Is Happening And Something Worse Can Happen If You Don’t Give Us Money To Find Out How Bad It Really Is.
Thus both camps have a vested interest in scaring you, making you worry about the future of your family and you.
Thus both have a vested interest in working together to accomplish that goal, as frequently revealed and discussed here on WUWT.
So forget the science for a moment, calm yourself, and ask yourself some basic questions:
What do they gain by frightening me?
What do I gain by letting them frighten me?
How do I help my family by being frightened?
Hopefully then you’ll understand a common climate skeptic viewpoint:
Prove to me that my family and I will benefit by my allowing you to frighten me.