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.
Anthony is right about the reference. What we have in space is a dynamic ether ,not a vacuum, full of virtual and real particles and cosmic rays, quantum processes winking in and out of reality in fractions of nanoseconds. Nature abhors a vacuum but it sure loves the dynamic ether of space or there wouldn’t be so much of it!
@DavidG I found it humorous how this post got so many people wound up, if not for the “vacuum” quote, for the fact that the doomers can’t stand to see anything that shows sea ice rebounding in any way. I get the distinct impression they are all rooting for the ice to disappear for the sole reason of being able to scream “See we were right!”. They’d be dismayed if this all turns out to be a cyclic ocean currents event, or soot driven, rather than one driven by CO2.
It’s all entertainment, especially Tamino and his holier than thou machinations. – Anthony
Folks that are wailing and gnashing teeth here might like this story I just posted: http://wp.me/p7y4l-kHA
barry says:
February 13, 2013 at 7:36 am
If you look at climate4you and the ocean page and the arctic ocean regions (east Greenland sea, west Svalbaard sea, Barents sea) there is no evidence of arctic ocean warming. In fact since 2006 there has been cooling.
UAH trend for Arctic ocean temps from 2006 to December 2012 is 0.43C per decade. At almost half a degree C, how can that possibly be construed as cooling?
The point of my argument was that warm water from recent el Ninos is still washing into the Arctic. OK a climate4you figure suggested slight recent Arctic cooling. But if instead there is slight warming, as indicated by Bob Tisdale:
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/13-arctic.png
then this only strengthens my argument. I’ll re-iterate is – warm water flowing into a cooling Arctic gives a big increase in summer-winter oscillation amplitude, clearly shown in this figure.
If you’re interested in ocean temperatures here’s an Jan 2013 update from Bob Tisdale:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2013/02/11/january-2013-sea-surface-temperature-sst-anomaly-update/
Most ocean basins including the Pacific, which according to AGW skeptics is bigger than the Arctic ocean, have cooled since 2006.
@AnthonyWatts
People aren’t wound up because of the Arctic sea ice rebound, but because they/we read your post as if you were saying that the rebound was evidence against AGW. (This is certainly how some of your commenters will interpret the rebound, at least).
As the ice rebound is obviously not evidence against AGW, you’d look pretty stupid under that interpretation of your post. Do you expect people not to get wound up when you post something that might be interpreted as massively stupid?
@Windchaser,
As is typical of the alarmist crowd, you have it exactly backward: declining Arctic ice is not evidence of AGW. In fact, there are no empirical measurements of AGW, which is simply a conjecture.
To use your own words, you look pretty stupid if you are interpreting declining Arctic ice as being caused by AGW. There is simply no scientific evidence supporting that nutty belief.
RACookPE1978,
If exposed-ocean cooling has a significant impact, why aren’t we seeing cooling of the sea surface in the Arctic? The skin temperature of the Arctic ocean (satellites measure the radiance of the ocean skin, as opposed to vertical kilometers of atmospheric radiance over land) has warmed significantly over the period sea ice has declined most rapidly. This indicates a stronger influence from albedo loss – or some other factor. Whatever the factor is, loss of heat from exposed sea surface as sea ice has declined is completely overwhelmed by it.
phlogiston,
Yes, it seemed that you were saying two different things – that the Arctic ocean surface had been cooling since 2006, yet “the warm water left over from the period of mid 1970′s – 2005 dominated by el Nino events, wil continue to wash toward the poles for some years, so Arctic ice extent might continue to drop for a few years.”
I see no evidence for ENSO influencing sea surface temps on the Arctic ocean. The pacific has the narrowest corridor to the Arctic of all the oceans. But more significantly, ENSO is an oscillating system of ~3-year phases. There is no reason to think it is a driver of multi-decadal temperatures. And the Pacific Ocean itself has warmed much less that the Arctic Ocean over the last 3 decades, so something else is providing the extra heat up there.
But if you are correct, that simply reinforces my original point in a different way. The hypothesised effect of radiation loss from ocean exposed by sea ice decline is too insignificant to overcome heat gain from other sources.
RACookPE1978,
The Arctic has warmed more rapidly than the whole globe over at least the last 3 decades. I can’t say that this resoundingly demonstrates Arctic amplification, but in simple terms it is a strong piece of evidence.
The amplification effect is meant to become evident in long-term temperature changes (multi-decadal climate phenomenon). You appear to be asking if it can be shown in weather data (days).
barry,
You are conflating a regional climate with the global climate. And there is no “amplification effect”. If there were, then the Antarctic would be affected, too. But as we see, it isn’t.
You’re probably thinking of Gareth Renowden at Hot Topic:
Fosters Open Mind has some comments about this here at WUWT that Lubos Motl makes hilarious fun about. Try to comment but Open Mind seem pretty closed.
D.B Stealy,
The amplification effect is purported to be extra heat gain mainly from lowered albedo sea ice loss and declining ice and snow cover on land. As the Antarctic ice sheet surface area and sea ice extent has changed very little over the satellite period (slight increase in sea ice), we should expect no extra warming there. Indeed, according to UAH, temps have dropped ever so slightly for the satellite period, even as sea ice has slightly increased. This is nominal evidence for the amplification effect (in reverse), but the changes are way too small to attribute the postulated phenomenon there.
In simple terms, the Arctic has warmed much faster than the globe over the satellite period. Arctic sea ice cover has declined significantly over the same period. These facts lend support to the notion of Arctic amplification.
@D.B. Stealey,
Regardless of whether the decline is evidence for AGW, it’s pretty clear that the rebound is not evidence against AGW. That’s all I’m saying, and it’s this position that people are giving Watts grief for. I’m unclear on whether this is actually Watts position or not.
But since you brought it up, as Arctic ice decline is predicted by AGW, the observed decline most certainly is evidence for AGW. In the same way, you might say that finding a motive for a murder suspect is evidence that he’s the murderer. It doesn’t rule out other causes (other suspects), but it’s a piece of evidence.
Any time a hypothesis passes a test that would have falsified or weakened it, you can call that evidence for the hypothesis.
So, it’s perfectly reasonable to say that the sea ice decline is caused by AGW + other factors. AFAIK, the relative contributions of different factors are still rather uncertain, as they’re hard to accurately model or measure. We’ll know more as the measurements and models improve.
Windchaser says:
“…Arctic ice decline is predicted by AGW…”
Not really. Polar ice decline was the prediction. You cannot cherry-pick half a prediction, and then claim the prediction was accurate.
Same argument covers barry’s polar amplification prediction. There are two poles; only one has any [putative] ‘amplification’. A half-right prediction fails, because it is also half-wrong.
D.B. Stealey says:
February 13, 2013 at 5:58 pm (replying to)
Windchaser says:
“…Arctic ice decline is predicted by AGW…”
Well, actually, both ends of his “arctic amplification” theory are wrong: In the Arctic, losing more sea ice at 76-80 north (even if you assume 2 degrees warmer air temperatures 1200 km south of the ice might cause ice loss while summertime air temperatures at 80 north where the actual ice actually is present remain steady!) in August and September will cause greater cooling of the Arctic Ocean.
On the other hand, in the Antarctic, gaining more sea ice at latitudes 63, 62, or 60 south will cause more reflection of the sun’s heat and cause …. more cooling.
And, as Gail pointed out far above, such counter cycles of increasing heat loss at opposite poles are likely the specific trigger of the next ice age.
Not really. Polar ice decline was the prediction. You cannot cherry-pick half a prediction, and then claim the prediction was accurate.
Link? Everything I’d heard predicted Arctic melt much faster than Antarctic melt, mostly because of the difference in ocean currents and where the ice sits (land vs. water).
Here’s an interview with Judith Curry, basically saying the same thing:
http://blog.chron.com/sciguy/2010/08/judith-curry-on-antarctic-sea-ice-climategate-and-skeptics/
Sea ice can melt from both above and below, either heating from the ocean below or the atmosphere above. In the case of the Arctic most of the melting is driven from the warmer atmosphere above. In the Antarctic most of the melting has been driven from the ocean below. …
At some point does this result in a net loss of ice rather than gains?
What happens in the 21st century projections is that the global warming signal begins to dominate. We still have the freshening of the upper ocean, but the upper ocean is getting warmer because of a warmer atmosphere. And the precipitation starts to fall more as rain than snow. Rain falling on ice speeds the melting from above.
Could you provide a citation to support your claim that the models predicted Antarctic melting by now?
Uh, the interviewer’s question is in bold, in case that wasn’t clear. Judith’s comments are the italics.
PS for the admins: a “preview comment” feature would be wonderfully useful.
Polar ice decline is what we’re seeing.
MacDonald is wrong again.
But thanx for playing.
That’s only sea ice, your terms of reference were “polar ice” and, as I understand it, “You cannot cherry-pick half a prediction, and then claim the prediction was accurate.“
MacDonald, you make it too easy: Arctic ice is both sea ice and Polar ice.
But thanx for playing.
Not all polar ice is sea ice, by excluding the ice shelves you are cherry picking; the very thing you would upbraid others for.
MacDonald is clearly fixated on me and feels a compulsion to nitpick every comment I make, but he is getting too boring doing it over and over again. Kevin needs to run along back to RealClimate, or to whatever thinly-trafficked blog he hangs out at, head-nodding with a handful of like-minded climate alarmists without a clue.
Every time I put MacDonald in his place, which is obviously simple as anyone can see, he responds like a puppy biting at my ankles. Sad to be such a fixated nobody — but I guess someone has to fill that niche. It’s a perfect role for MacDonald, no? He’s very good at it.
You can’t justify your cherry pick, hence this tragic ad hom. Accept it, both the Arctic and Antarctic regions are in negative ice mass balance.
The are two points in the year where the ice cover is changing much, much less than it is occuring during the rest of the year. http://i46.tinypic.com/2ezgzk5.png
These points appear to show the ‘natural’ balence that underlies current Arctic conditions are more complex than just looking for Max or Min or the delta between them.
barry says:
February 13, 2013 at 4:04 pm
phlogiston,
The point of my argument was that warm water from recent el Ninos is still washing into the Arctic.
Yes, it seemed that you were saying two different things – that the Arctic ocean surface had been cooling since 2006, yet “the warm water left over from the period of mid 1970′s – 2005 dominated by el Nino events, wil continue to wash toward the poles for some years, so Arctic ice extent might continue to drop for a few years.”
I see no evidence for ENSO influencing sea surface temps on the Arctic ocean. The pacific has the narrowest corridor to the Arctic of all the oceans. But more significantly, ENSO is an oscillating system of ~3-year phases. There is no reason to think it is a driver of multi-decadal temperatures. And the Pacific Ocean itself has warmed much less that the Arctic Ocean over the last 3 decades, so something else is providing the extra heat up there.
But if you are correct, that simply reinforces my original point in a different way. The hypothesised effect of radiation loss from ocean exposed by sea ice decline is too insignificant to overcome heat gain from other sources.
Maybe putting it in terms of just ENSO is too restrictive. The bigger picture is that the whole earth atmosphere-ocean system is a heat engine moving heat from equator to poles.
If – for the sake of argument – we accept a model of multidecadal oscillation, alternating 30-40 year periods of warming and cooling global climate, then during warming periods, more heat will be moved polewards. The largest and slowest component of this will be ocean currents. Thus when the phase changes from warming to cooling, there will be an inertia of warm water still moving polewards from the warming years.
For the Arctic, indeed the more significant component of this will be the Gulf stream, not ENSO (the Gulf stream could in fact be a consequence of what some describe as an “Atlantic ENSO”). How long does it take equatorial Gulf stream water to reach the Barents – probably a few years. Arctic ice might thus lag global climate trends / oscillations by a similar interval.