After all of the news about a minimum record ice extent last month, this is interesting. As we know when water loses its ice cover, it allows a lot of heat to radiate into space as LWIR. many predictied that as a result of the extra open ocean surface, we see a very fast refreeze in the Arctic. It appears they were right. In fact, this is the fastest monthly scale refreeze rate in the NSIDC satellite record going back to 1979.
Here’s JAXA data plotted to show what has happened:
From the blog sunshine hours, here’s an analysis using NSIDC data:
=============================================================
Today is day 291 in the Arctic. The minimum in 2012 was on day 260 – 31 days ago.
If you calculate the percentage of ice gained (the refreeze) 31 days after minimum, then 2012 is the fastest refreeze ever!
Arctic Sea Ice Extent has increased by 43.8% since the minimum was reached.
Extents are in millions of sq km.
(And note I am using NSIDC data here and their algorithm is making the refreeze appear slow compared to NORSEX)
| Year | Minimum_Extent | Extent Day | Extent_Change | Extent_Change_Pct |
| 1979 | 6.89236 | 295 | 2.55691 | 27.1 |
| 1980 | 7.52476 | 280 | 0.95144 | 11.2 |
| 1981 | 6.88784 | 284 | 1.71672 | 20 |
| 1982 | 7.15423 | 287 | 2.41499 | 25.2 |
| 1983 | 7.19145 | 282 | 1.70096 | 19.1 |
| 1984 | 6.39916 | 291 | 2.08442 | 24.6 |
| 1985 | 6.4799 | 281 | 1.50769 | 18.9 |
| 1986 | 7.12351 | 280 | 1.8491 | 20.6 |
| 1987 | 6.89159 | 276 | 1.37713 | 16.7 |
| 1988 | 7.04905 | 286 | 1.76783 | 20.1 |
| 1989 | 6.88931 | 296 | 2.70935 | 28.2 |
| 1990 | 6.0191 | 295 | 3.46791 | 36.6 |
| 1991 | 6.26027 | 290 | 2.69726 | 30.1 |
| 1992 | 7.16324 | 282 | 1.67903 | 19 |
| 1993 | 6.15699 | 280 | 1.85199 | 23.1 |
| 1994 | 6.92645 | 279 | 1.1014 | 13.7 |
| 1995 | 5.98945 | 283 | 0.5189 | 8 |
| 1996 | 7.15283 | 285 | 1.77882 | 19.9 |
| 1997 | 6.61353 | 277 | 0.65032 | 9 |
| 1998 | 6.29922 | 291 | 2.35169 | 27.2 |
| 1999 | 5.68009 | 286 | 2.68723 | 32.1 |
| 2000 | 5.9442 | 286 | 2.32372 | 28.1 |
| 2001 | 6.56774 | 293 | 1.95252 | 22.9 |
| 2002 | 5.62456 | 287 | 2.41992 | 30.1 |
| 2003 | 5.97198 | 291 | 2.10126 | 26 |
| 2004 | 5.77608 | 294 | 2.37329 | 29.1 |
| 2005 | 5.31832 | 296 | 3.09221 | 36.8 |
| 2006 | 5.74877 | 288 | 1.72446 | 23.1 |
| 2007 | 4.1607 | 288 | 1.39556 | 25.1 |
| 2008 | 4.55469 | 293 | 3.33615 | 42.3 |
| 2009 | 5.05488 | 286 | 1.45951 | 22.4 |
| 2010 | 4.59918 | 293 | 2.88065 | 38.5 |
| 2011 | 4.30207 | 282 | 1.35023 | 23.9 |
| 2012 | 3.36855 | 291 | 2.62409 | 43.8 |
Source: sunshine hours
===========================================================
Here’s the NORSEX plot and NSIDC plot compared:
See all the data on the WUWT Sea Ice Reference Page
In other news. I’ve been in touch with Bill Chapman at UUIC/Crysophere Today to point out this bug:
It turns out to be an accidental issue, and he says:
“I was using the script to generate a plot for a publication that wanted a U.S.-centric view and it looks like I forgot to put things back to the way they were originally.
I’ll have it fixed by tomorrows update.”
Stuff happens, no worries.
“Like Gary Lance, you avoid the fact that the IPCC’s prediction was for both hemispheres to lose ice.”
They have. Sea ice is only a small part of Antarctica.
“But by all means, continue moving the goal posts.”
This thread is a perfect example of moving the goalposts, using a made up irrelevant statistic and pretending it means something.
Gary Lance says:
October 19, 2012 at 11:35 am
“People who deny climate change are in their last few years just like that arctic sea ice. Neither have a future.”
Odd how some people who have no respect for others or other opinions resort to name calling or mean spirited condescending remarks. As a matter of consideration even appear to threaten. Hurray for you. I read somewhere that there are people who are pathologically narcissistic, they tend to be controlling, blaming, self-absorbed, intolerant of others’ views, unaware of others’ needs and of the effects of their behavior on others, and insistent that others see them as they wish to be seen. I am sure your comment is not a reflection of such behavior is it Mr. Lance?
Post the IPCC prediction that the antarctic would lose sea ice! The best data we have is both Antarctica and Greenland are losing mass. Antarctica actually has two ice sheets and the WAIS is losing mass. We’ve lost ice shelves there that have been there for around ten thousand years. Have you ever looked at the satellite history of antarctic sea ice? There is a little bit of multi-year sea ice in the gyres of the Weddell and Ross Seas and there used to be areas near the shore that kept some sea ice, but all those areas show a history of being flush out when the weather is right. Remember Shackleton’s crew being left with the ship and the sea ice taking them all the way to Elephant Island? That was quite a journey for that sea ice. The antarctic sea ice minimum is not showing a trend of being larger and warming will permit more snow fall in a desert too cold to snow.
highflight56433,
The central fact that Murphy and Lance refuse to admit is that there is nothing unprecedented happening. Natural variability explains 100% of all observations. The rise in harmless, beneficial CO2 is not causing any measurable global warming. The entire ‘carbon’ scare is being debunked by the ultimate Authority: planet earth.
Gary Lance:
At October 19, 2012 at 11:35 am you say
I suggest that you provide this “evidence” to the IPCC as a matter of urgency because they have failed to find any such “evidence” despite seeking it for decades and they would like to put it in the AR5.
Oh, and could you copy it to us, please, because we would like to see it to.
Richard
P.Solar says
…the real physics and about curve fitting and about how and why you construct a model to fit to data.
Don’t be so derisive of others.
Henry says
Which part of where I said:
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
is NOT A MODEL
did you not get?
If you try to put the original data into any kind of other fit (like a binominal with r2=0.998),
the predicted cooling only becomes worse…….
see here where the original data comes from
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/04/23/global-cooling-is-here/
Rob, this is where I part ways with your definition: That’s why we call some “warm” deserts and others “cold” deserts. Antarctica doesn’t have the same climate as the Sahara even if both are “deserts”.
Climate of the Sahara is desert, and the climate of the Sahara is desert. One is cold, the other is warm, both have a desert climate. The west North American climate is driven the the prevailing wind. The portion from approximately California and north is Pacific marine climate where by it draws generally from the Pacific. South of California the air is dry from passing westward across Mexico and further south becoming sub-tropical. Those are climates.
If the Siberian tundra changes to sub-tropical, then that is climate change. As for now, is has not changed anymore than has Greece, which is Mediterranean climate. It appears by your definition of climate, that any given location the summer is one climate while the winter is another climate.
Gary says: “We don’t know where the excessive weather will strike, but we know it will strike and become the new norm.”
Right , we “know” because gore made a film and won a Peace Prize.
Gary says: “People who deny climate change are in their last few years just like that arctic sea ice. Neither have a future.”
Those who are currently in denial are the catastrophic warmists like yourself. I posted several graphs all drawn from official data sources on air temps, Arctic ice , sea temps all showing things are not shaping what we thought they were in the 1990s.
You have not even commented on that , yet continue your diatribe of misinformed assertions about climate. The evidence is presented and you close your eyes to it rather than heave a huge sigh of relief that the future is not a horrible as you had thought.
Being in denial is the psychological refusal to accept bad news despite the evidence. Paradoxically, for you, the bad news is that it’s not that bad.
“Climate of the Sahara is desert, and the climate of the Sahara is desert.”
That’s only a partial definition of their climate. If you drop the temperature component, which you already admitted was a part of climate, you have given only partial information. Clearly the climate of the Sahara and Antarctica is not the same.
“The central fact that Murphy and Lance refuse to admit is that there is nothing unprecedented happening. Natural variability explains 100% of all observations.”
Argument by assertion is no argument at all. “Natural variability” explains nothing; you might as well say invisible pink leprechauns explain 100% of all observations.
Rob says: “…Antarctica doesn’t have the same climate as the Sahara even if both are “deserts”.
Actually, they just don’t have the same weather, one is warm dry weather, and the other is cold dry weather. By defining a desert climate, the weather is dry (cold or warm). The climate is desert.
D. Boehm says: “The entire ‘carbon’ scare is being debunked by the ultimate Authority: planet earth.”
Unfortunately there are more sheep than watch dogs and some wolves are more ravenous. For some odd reason Jones Town comes to mind. “Now then, everyone drink some Kool-Aid.”
Rob Murphy,
Obviously you know nothing of the null hypothesis.
[snip. Referring to others as deniers violates site Policy. — mod.]
“Actually, they just don’t have the same weather, one is warm dry weather, and the other is cold dry weather.”
No, they have different climates. By your definition, you could just as easily say their climates are hot and cold, and one is dry hot weather the other is dry cold weather; that precipitation is just “weather” and temperature is what matters. They both are part of the definition of a region’s climate.
“By defining a desert climate, the weather is dry (cold or warm). The climate is desert.”
Climate isn’t just how much precipitation falls.
This attempt to decouple temperature from climate is silly. This is basic geography.
“Rob Murphy,
Obviously you know nothing of the null hypothesis.”
Sure I do. It doesn’t mean “natural variability explains everything”. Just saying “natural variability explains everything” actually explains nothing. It’s a cheap hand-wave.
P. Solar
I’ve never seen Al Gore’s film, but I’ve been on enough political sites to know the Gore argument is weak. Scientists don’t listen to politicians.
I know the facts about climate data and I’m not interested in your pseudo-science games. I didn’t even open the wrapper, because I’ve seen it all before. Skeptics don’t cherry pick data and denialists with an agenda do.
richardscourtney
A scientist should know the difference between warming and surface temperature. Since when is a planet a surface? Since when have we had the ability to measure the surface of our planet?
A scientist knows it takes heat to melt ice and a lot more heat than to raise temperature.
Rob Murphy says:
October 19, 2012 at 12:46 pm
“you might as well say invisible pink leprechauns explain 100% of all observations.”
———————————————————————————————————-
And the difference between your claim about carbon dioxide and invisible pink leprechauns is what exactly?
“Fastest refreeze EVER” seems diificult to claim as truth in the title – “fastest refreeze in the recent instrumental record” or something to that effect seems more truthful and fact based. Otherwise one commits the same sin as exaggerating alarmists.
How old is the planet we live on? How long has man/woman been studying climate change/ artic ice loss/ antartic ice loss/ global weather patterns etc? Common sense tells me to at least wait a while, a long while!
Rob Murphy says:
October 19, 2012 at 10:48 am
“….The Arctic minimum is far more important than the Antarctic maximum….”
There is considerably more sea-ice in the south. 19 million square kilometers versus 14 million kilometers. The antarctic ice extends towards the equator to a degree that would put sea ice around Scotland, if the north did the same. Also Antarctica is far bigger than Greenland, and reflects far more sunlight. And it isn’t important?
Rob Murphy,
The climate null hypothesis has never been falsified. Natural variability is sufficient to fully explain the current climate. There is no need to invoke an extraneous variable like CO2.
I’m sorry I can’t be there in person to observe the sea refreezing; but I will make the following prediction; valid during the time that sea water is freezing to form floating sea ice.
As the sea water gives up its 80 calories per gram, of latent heat during the phase change, the Temperature will NOT increase above the ambient water Temperature near the ice growth interface.
The release of latent heat does not raise the Temperature above the phase change Temperature.
In other words, if the release of the latent heat causes the Temperature to rise above that of the phase change, the phase change process CEASES.
And if I could float up to the atmospheric zones where moist air falls to the dew point temperature, and clouds form; the Temperature will not rise above the temperature of the moist air that has risen to that altitude. The phase change does not take place, until the latent heat has been removed from the water vapor, by transferring it to a cooler material; the higher colder air; that being the direction that the second law allows a net transfer of heat; sans any work being done. If that air were to increase in Temperature the phase change would cease.
Gary Lance says:
October 19, 2012 at 1:10 pm
>>
P. Solar
I’ve never seen Al Gore’s film, but I’ve been on enough political sites to know the Gore argument is weak. Scientists don’t listen to politicians.
I know the facts about climate data and I’m not interested in your pseudo-science games. I didn’t even open the wrapper, because I’ve seen it all before. Skeptics don’t cherry pick data and denialists with an agenda do.
>>
Well, if your earlier post and not commenting on actual data that I present wasn’t enough, you underlined my point nicely.
Without giving it any consideration or “opening the wrapper” you know it’s “pseudo-science” and know that you’ve seen it all before.
You state that whatever evidence is presented, you will dismiss it out of hand and refuse to consider it if you think it may challenge what you “know”.
That is about as clear an admission of being in denial as I can imagine.
You are a self confessed DENIER.
Still, they say the first stage to curing this sort of condition is to accept that you are doing it. Since you have no problem acknowledging that you refuse to look at the evidence I’d say your half way there already. Good look.
Gary Lance:
At October 19, 2012 at 1:19 pm you say and ask me
Warming consists of an increase in temperature.
Heating consists of adding heat.
Heating can occur without warming because the heat can create a phase change (e.g. melting or evapouration).
Every scientists knows this and I note that you say you don’t.
Global warming refers to the surface temperature of the Earth.
Global warming does not refer to the bulk of the planet. The bulk of the planet is molten.
I wonder why you make so many posts here when you do not know this.
We have been measuring the surface of our planet for millenia. If you want to know when we acquired the ability to measure the surface temperature of our planet then the International Geophysical Year (IGY) decided it was 30 years before its date in 1958.
Are there any other elementary questions you want answered to remove more of your great ignorance of the subject on which you choose to pontificate?
Richard