From the Nature abhors a vacuum department comes this note from RealScience showing that Arctic sea ice has made a stunning rebound since the record low recorded in the late summer of 2012.
With a few weeks of growth still to occur, the Arctic has blown away the previous record for ice gain this winter. This is only the third winter in history when more than 10 million km² of new ice has formed.
Source data: arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/timeseries.anom.1979-2008
Of course, this is only a record for the satellite era data back to about 1980, and just like the much ballyhooed record low of 2012, we have no hard data to tell us if this has happened before or not.
Here’s the current Cryosphere Today plot, note the steep rebound right after the summer minimum, something also noted in Sea Ice News Volume 3 Number 14 – Arctic refreeze fastest ever:
![seaice.recent.arctic[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/seaice-recent-arctic1.png?quality=75)
Source: Cryosphere Today – Arctic Climate Research at the University of IllinoisThe Arctic ocean is well filled with ice right now:
![cryo_latest[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/cryo_latest1.jpg?quality=83)
Source: Cryosphere Today – Arctic Climate Research at the University of Illinois
In other news, the Antarctic seems to be continuing on its slow and steady rise, and is now approaching 450 days of uninterrupted above normal ice area according to this data: arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/timeseries.south.anom.1979-2008…which shows the last time the Antarctic sea ice was below normal was 2011.8932 or 11/22/2011.
![seaice.recent.antarctic[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/seaice-recent-antarctic1.png?quality=75)
This continued growth of ice in the Arctic Antarctic make the arguments for ice mass loss in Antarctica rather hard to believe, something also backed up by ICESAT data.
As always, you can see all the sea ice data at the WUWT Sea Ice Reference Page.
Phobos says:
February 12, 2013 at 11:31 am
“Please; this is merely an attempt to be clever with statistics. If we keep seeing record gains since the summer minimum, why do we keep seeing lower minimums and lower yearly averages?”
Probably because the melting is caused by sooty ice. The ice melts, the soot sinks into the ocean then the fresh freeze starts off relatively clean. The more the ice lost in the summer the more sea area left to refreeze.
@ur momisugly Mosher
1. check volume.
2. check sat views of the condition of this ice.
3. go figure, lots of open water, lots of H20 given up to the atmosphere to fall in the NH in as snow in massive quantities.
4. faster ice buildup, but thinner and weaker than in the past.
Ahh but ice takes a lot of energy just to melt. So it seems logical that lots of new ice would slow old ice melt. And then there is all that NH snow with high albedo AND high night time long wave emission for even more cooling. Looks down hill for temps to me.
Sad thing is the recovery record can’t get topped once all ice has gone in a future September.
Looks to me like the Arctic -0.694 million sq/km anomaly and the Antarctic +0.676 million sq/km anomaly cancel each other out and the world sea ice coverage anomaly is almost right at 0 (normal). Do Warmists take into consideration the amount of solar energy that the extra Antarctic ice is reflecting?
Naturally the ice gain is great considering the low starting point. Consider this: if aliens removed all Arctic ice in September, then the resultant “gain” to February would be record-setting for sure. But don’t get me wrong, I think yearly ice will trend upwards, and at the moment the “cold attack” on Svalbard is interesting as the ice closes up to the north of there.
Phobos says:
@RACookPE1978 — if you think losing arctic summer ice cools the artic, show the proof. rss and UAH both show a warming arctic LT.
You ask for proof but then ignore it when I show you some. Maybe looking at rate of change to see how fast things are changing and in what direction was a too complicated for you.
Take another look. (Hint : below zero means ice loss ; above zero means ice gain).
http://oi49.tinypic.com/xudsy.jpg
Now see the relation to warmer Altantic:
http://oi46.tinypic.com/r7uets.jpg
When N. Atl warmed there was accelerating ice loss. Reason for rightful concern.
At the end of 30 warming half of 60 y cycle N. Atl is warmer. But note, Arctic ice has stabalised.
No, I did not say recovered, I said stabalised, The melting has returned to it’s early oscillatory pattern about zero. No longer in accelerated melting.
Reason for joy to anyone pretending to be concerned about the fact it was melting before.
Oddly, those who pretend to be concerned about the melting now seem to refuse to accept the fact it has stopped rather than rejoicing an dheaving a sigh of relief.
What I don’t like about many of the sea ice charts is that they do not show the full range of events, only a mean for one time period or another and statistical measures of variance. The plots were you see all the years plotted together — though difficult to follow (especially by people who never did well with math, science &/or graphing — is how different each year can be from the several preceding and subsequent years.
Because it shows the complexity and wide variability, I believe this is a much better chart: http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent_L.png
I don’t about Nature Boy and what he hates,but this
Boy hates a vacuum.In fact my Wife wears out three
every year. A few years back my Wife and her sister
went on a trip to TX and CA to visit their brothers.
When they were gone about four days my daughter called
to ask about her mother. I said it has been nice here,
no vacuum for five days! Then I said, think of your poor
mother,no vacuum for five days! I’ll bet when she checks
into a motel, she runs to the house cleaning dept. and
pays them to let her vacuum the halls. ]; )
Alfred
Oh, I forgot the point you asked about, Phobos , [the] proof.
Seeing that the rate of change has returned to oscillate around zero, despite the warmer seas, shows that the fact that you asked for proof of: means that something is acting as a negative feedback.
Unless you have a better idea , I’d guess that it may be the open water allowing evaporation and emitting IR out into to space. Neither of which happens to any significant degree from ice and snow.
Marcos says:
February 12, 2013 at 1:57 pm
Not true: You are comparing – not apples to oranges – but reindeer to walruses.
The Antarctic sea ice (today’s values) is occurring in the Antarctic summer, at the latitude where solar exposure is 18 to 24 hours per day, at very high solar incidence levels (and thus at very low atmosphere reduction) , near the time of year of the MAXIMUM solar radiation exposure at top of atmosphere (just under 1415 watts/meter sq).
On the other hand, the Arctic sea ice “under” area is occurring at areas where solar exposure – if it exists at all – is less than 5 degrees over the horizon (even at noon) and for periods of the year when solar exposure is between zero and 2 hours per day!
Thus, there is “no” solar gain into the Arctic ocean, but a maximum of the sun’s (potentially absorbed) solar radiation that is being reflected back into space.
result?
A substantial NET cooling of the world, even if both sea ice extent areas were even, and even if the net sea ice showed “zero” losses or gains.
Hint: Ask some CAGW theist what the actual solar incident angles are for today’s sea ice at 10:00 am, 12:00, and 2:00 pm are at the edge of both sea ice areas. Ask what the air mass is for those six times.
“But it is thin ice!” It would be nice to compare the ice thickness image with this time last (saith the lazy man).
My take on RACookPE1978’s argument with which I agree is thus.
If reduced arctic sea ice at the minimum results in increased heat uptake by the arctic ocean AND that heat energy stays in the Arctic, THEN the the freezing of the Arctic is an indicator that the heat energy has all been dissipated by various NEGATIVE feedback mechanisms.
Anthony,
After a post like this, do you still want us to take your scepticism serioulsy?
Mjk
So many complaining. Jeesh!
Thanks Anthony for the post, this may be important news in the longer run.
This should also show a near-time record loss of heat to space up north. Don’t forget all that above normal heat-of-fusion that has already left, or is in the process of leaving this planet, as that much ice re-froze. Some notice that the ice sheet shows a degree or two above the mean but that is what ejects that released heat-of-fusion outward. We should see it’s effect later. Cooler summers ahead? Interesting times.
Wow, imagine how big the bounce back will be when we have no Arctic sea ice in summer.
Steven Mosher states, “go figure, lots of open water, lots of H20 given up to the atmosphere to fall in the NH in as snow in massive quantities.”
If you are referring to lots of open equatorial water whose attendant moisture laden air travels poleward, I agree with you, but it appears we are talking about different areas. Not certain. Your point is puzzling.
Reblogged this on ksrm92 and commented:
and I thought global warming was consuming us!
As my little ol granma used to say, they don’t make satellites like they used to. 🙂
It is amazing how homeostasis kicks in. The ‘Larmists have to latch onto arctic sea ice as their “evidence” that the earth is continuing to warm, even though that ship has sailed, and even though, much to their consternation, they’ve never been able to find a human fingerprint on what was only a moderate, and wholly benign warming.
Phobos ,
I’m not sure what the following means for albedo but let’s wait and see.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/ArcticReflector/
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/ArcticReflector/arctic_reflector4.php
Also take a look at the effects of soot in the Arctic from Dr. James Hansen of NASA
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ha08900n.html
Also look at storm ‘wreaked havoc on the Arctic sea ice cover’ according to NASA.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/24/nasa-on-arctic-sea-ice-record-low-storm-wreaked-havoc-on-the-arctic-sea-ice-cover/
Also take a look at – Arctic little warming since 1979
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2012/09/21/arctic-lower-tropospheric-temperature-trends-since-1979/
Also take a look at the historic Arctic ice variations
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/06/16/historic-variation-in-arctic-ice-tony-b/
Phobos,
How sure are you that the minimum Arctic sea ice extent is caused by air temperature?
A chart of gains since the summer minimum? What kind of chart is that? One designed to sell a story a bit more impressive than it really is? Lets not fall into the AGW chartaganda trap. We shouldn’t be impressed by a record gain after a records loss.
Ice levels are about normal for this time of year, relative to the last decade. Ice levels are lower than the 1990’s and lower than the 1980’s. And the 80’s had more ice than the 90’s. Exactly what we might expect with temps declining until 78 and increasing till 98 and holding flat since.
What I have noticed about WUWT, compared to say Real Climate, is that Real Climate’s moderators and Gavin respond a lot more that here on WUWT. It seems to me that WUWT mostly leaves commenters to deal with Warmists. I may be wrong, just my perception.
I have had comments snipped at Real Climate in the past and I told Gavin that he should leave my comments in and let his commenters deal with me. He never did. Just a thought.
[Yes, that is the policy: Mod’s do not, as a rule, offer comments (neither amplifications nor corrections) on specific statements. Mod]
Phobos says:
February 12, 2013 at 11:31 am
Please; this is merely an attempt to be clever with statistics. If we keep seeing record gains since the summer minimum, why do we keep seeing lower minimums and lower yearly averages?
Priceless, Phobos is an apt name. The point is these, “records” are meaningless either way and this “record” shows exactly that !
Its utter hubris, the satellite “record” only goes back to 1980 !
You may recall history when Roald Armundsum sailed the ice free Nth West passage in, I think 1903 or thereabouts and the Canadian Navy also did so in two summers in WWII.
So methinks that you are not acknowledging that the earth is not in some bizarre climatic “steady state” and so are alarmed by any divergence from a world of abstract averages, then scream alarm and implying weather events are homocentric in origin.
Like the basis of AGW alarmism, it’s as rational as the ancients, seeking and seeing portent and human origin in any uncommon natural event.
The biggest factor in the summer extent appears to be the spring/early summer winds. Last year they consistently blew ice towards the warm, open north Atlantic. That meant the extent would be low. So far this winter the winds have been more circumpolar. That is good for retaining ice however it’s still to early to be important. Watch the winds starting around the mid march. That will be key to this years minimum.
The other key factor is the AMO. It will a few years before it goes negative again. Don’t look for a complete recovery until that happens.
A faster refreeze is an indicator of declining sea ice minimums. It complements that trend.
The sun sets on the polar summer at the same time each year bringing on below-freezing conditions for the reforming of sea ice until March. If sea ice minimums continue to get smaller over the years, there will be a greater area of open water to freeze over. The refreeze may start a little bit later if the Arctic is warming, but that won’t be enough to prevent ice reformation, and as temps drop rapidly after the sun sets on Arctic summer, the rate of refreeze will increase roughly in proportion to the greater area of open water that can be refrozen. Record-breaking recovery will be most likely in the 6 months following record-breaking minimums. This is expected, not anomalous.
“This continued growth of ice in the Arctic make the arguments for ice mass loss in Antarctica rather hard to believe”
What does the reformation of Arctic sea ice this year have to do with Antarctic land ice mass balance over a number of years? Different hemispheres, different local dynamics, different periods for each case. What is being implied?