Temperature above 80 degrees north drops below freezing early, and continues to drop.
Many people have been watching the remarkable early drop in air temperature at the DMI plot here:
![meanT_2013[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/meant_20131.png?quality=75)
This drop looks to be about two weeks early. As this next analysis of sea surface temperature shows, much of the area is below freezing. Of course in seawater, ice doesn’t form until temperatures get below 28.4°F (-2°C), so it is close, but not quite there yet. [Note: due to lower salinity in the Arctic seawater freezes at -1.8C according to this essay at NOAA by Peter Wadhams]
National Centers for Environmental Prediction (NCEP) Marine Modeling and Analysis Branch (MMAB) – Click the pic to view at sourceThe DMI sea ice plot looks to be slowing significantly, but has not made a turn yet.
![icecover_current_new[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/icecover_current_new11.png?quality=75)
The JAXA plot isn’t quite so different from previous years, but does show some slowing:
- Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) – International Arctic Research Center (IARC) – Click the pic to view at source
With this slowdown becoming evident, and temperature dropping early, the possibility exists that a turn in ice melt may start earlier than usual. If it does, we might see a turn begin in about two to three weeks if there’s any linkage between 80N temperature and sea ice extent. Typically, we see a turn in Arctic sea ice melt around September 15th to the 25th.
Of interest is this plot done by the blog “sunshine hours” which shows the difference between Arctic sea ice in 2012 and 2013.
He writes:
The difference is quite dramatic if you graph the anomaly % from the 30 year mean.
Until day 175 or so, the anomaly was only around -5% or so (note that the anomaly actually went positive for a few days in 2012).
While 2013 was later, both started drifting down. 2013 has stabilized at -15%. At this time last year 2012 was -30%.
Click image to enlarge.
Check out all of the data at the WUWT Sea Ice reference page
UPDATE:
Some commenters have noticed a large drop in today’s most recent plot.
First, regarding this graph:
![icecover_current[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/icecover_current1.png?quality=75)
That’s the old DMI plot, which DMI says we should now use this one on this page:
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php
They write:
The plot above replaces an earlier sea ice extent plot, that was based on data with the coastal zones masked out. This coastal mask implied that the previous sea ice extent estimates were underestimated. The new plot displays absolute sea ice extent estimates. The old plot can still be viewed here for a while.
And, that could be either an instrument failure or a processing failure. We’ve seen spikes like that before. It might also be real data, we won’t know until the next update.
I tend to favor loss of data, as reader “DJ” points out in comments, see this image:
![satcon.arc.d-00[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/satcon-arc-d-001.png?quality=75)
But yes, this post was edited last night at about 11PM PDT, and DMI updated the graph a few hours later.
Ah, dear Master of Their Domain of Space and Thyme, I think the boys have just been playing with you, seeing if you’ll bite. They’re great Master baiters.
The Nils-Axel Mörner “tilted graph” is old news, covered many times here on WUWT, whenever someone brings it up like it’s a brand new smear. There’s a good comment here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/04/skeptical-science-gets-it-all-wrong-yet-again/#comment-1164567
This is the link to the paper in question:
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles_2011/Winter-2010/Morner.pdf
The “tilted graph” is Figure 10, which is captioned:
Got that? The sea level rise was all in the adjustments, the “tilted graph” showed the raw data, which showed no rise. Professor Mörner explains thusly in the text:
Got that, again? The corrections made for the reported sea level rise. As you can read in the text, the corrections are spurious. The “tilted graph” is what the data really say. Professor Mörner wasn’t being dishonest, he was restoring honesty.
Feel free to keep commenting, as long as the management can put up it. But given all of his defenders here, bringing up Professor Mörner’s “tilted graph” again shows you want to mass debate.
@RACookPE1978
I generally agree with everything in your last response to me.
@dbstealey
“recorded history” consists of the written record, which provides more reliable evidence for the effects of climate on humans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recorded_history
The “geologic record” only allows educated guesses as to how humans were impacted.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_record
The precautionary principle is a political idea. I’m not interested in talking politics. I am simply making conjectures, which are very much a part of science, and thus my responses are indeed credible.
“I try to keep an open mind. But I have yet to see even one verifiable scientific fact proving that human activity has any effect on global temperature. In all other areas of science, that would be enough to sink the AGW conjecture.”
Lack of physical proof does not falsify a conjecture. The fact that you think so says something about your “open mind”.
@kadaka
There are several more examples of Nils-Axel Mörner manipulating data and graphs, there were links to literally dozens of examples on real science blogs a couple week ago. I am not here to start a flame war, that seems to be your intention. I am sure I would be banned if I posted just the links that were at Tamino’s and Rabbet Run.
By the way, don’t you realize you now appear silly for denying the heat wave in the Arctic. First you claimed UHI effects from vehicles left running in the cold, then later you claimed it was because of holiday weekend plane traffic at a tiny hamlet of 14 hundred people. BTW, your unusual theory for the hot spell was noticed on some other blogs…lol
Master!
I disagree with your above optimism about the time it will take completely block the Straits of Magellan and the Cape Horn with Antarctic Sea Ice.
True, true, recent Antarctic Sea Ice area has been increasing at an ever-increasing rate. Further, as you fear, that increasing Antarctic Sea Ice will eventually block Cape Horn.
But, at what rate? Should you not use the most extreme increase in Antarctic Sea Ice, and not merely the most recent 25 months since the Antarctic sea ice anomaly went positive? Should you not extrapolate from the 2011 low point anomaly through the most recent high in 2013 of +1,250 Kkm2, and then conclude that Cape Horn will be blocked by sea ice in only 85 months? (8.8 years?)
As always, Mr Master, your continued quiet acceptance of your Arctic Sea Ice fears and lack of any evidence to the contrary as you continue posting of CAGW talking points about already-agreed-upon Arctic temperature records merely confirms the complete acceptance of these stated positions and calculations. Should you be caught or found in agreement with any CAGW beliefs or dogmas, the Secretary will disavow any membership in the JREF.
Master of Space and Thyme:
At August 15, 2013 at 12:50 pm you continue with your untrue smears saying
Rubbish!
Niklas did NOT do as you suggest as can be seen by anyone who reads the paper which I have repeatedly linked.
This “motley crew” includes Monkton, Morner (whom you have falsely smeared) and me each of [whom] has provided guest articles on WUWT. We each welcome open debate from which warmunists run and hide; for example, we spoke against the motion “This House Believes Global Warming is a Global Crisis” at the St Andrews University Debating Society. And we defeated the motion (easy really, because all available evidence refutes it).
But climate porn blogs censor comments they don’t like so it is not possible to provide scientific information on them.
Now, why have you not yet provided your apology?
Richard
[Snip. Labeling our host as “blatantly dishonest” is strike two. You need to take some time off and cool down. — mod.]
[Snip. Also stop labeling other posters as being “dishonest” simply because you disagree with them. — mod.]
Oh, I’m so sorry.
Since you have refused to provide any calculations or contributions to this thread, or others here at WUWT, and, since you have consistently and deliberately refused to answer any questions from any other person with anything but distracting talking points already accepted over the years by tens of thousands of readers at this site, I figured you would not mind if I wrote your half of the conversation about why you do agree that Antarctic Sea is expanding at a dangerous rate, and that Arctic sea ice is not a problem in the future.
@richardscourtney
“This “motley crew” includes Monkton, Morner (whom you have falsely smeared) and me We each welcome open debate from which warmunists run and hide”
I seriously doubt that you and lord M could summon the testicular fortitude to take on real scientists. There is a past incident regarding a debate that cannot be mentioned at this venue, that proves your assertion is far from the truth,
@RACookPE1978
You’re spinning so fast, I’m surprised your head hasn’t fallen off. I have been asking for an example of the alleged talking points and nobody can specifically name one. It is obvious that you and the truth are not acquainted.
Master of Space and Thyme says:
August 15, 2013 at 1:20 pm
See! You do agree with me that you have presented nothing but already-agreed upon talking points.
But, enough about your much-repeated talking points. Since you have presented no evidence to the contrary, you must also agree with me that you desperately fear something about the recent loss of Arctic Sea Ice, and – since you have refused to offer any comments to the contrary – you must also agree with me that the future Antarctic sea expansion will prove to be a dire threat to the planet.
You and I do apparently disagree about what time frame the Straits of Magellan will be closed to shipping traffic by Antarctic sea ice. That’s fine, when do you think they will be closed, and what trends do you base your calculations on?
@RACookPE1978
I am getting annoyed by the constant lies regarding talking points, it is getting old.
Isn’t there a single blogger here that is capable of having an honest debate without resorting to lies?
RACookPE1978 says:
August 15, 2013 at 1:37 pm
You are using the argument from silence fallacy.
@RACookPE1978
“You and I do apparently disagree about what time frame the Straits of Magellan will be closed to shipping traffic by Antarctic sea ice.”
More lies, I have never mentioned anything about that topic and beside that, it isn’t the subject of this thread.
Master of Space and Thyme:
re your post at August 15, 2013 at 1:30 pm
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/14/the-early-chill-in-the-arctic-continues/#comment-1391240
So now I am not a “real scientist”?
Strange that I was not sacked over my 4 decades of employment as a research scientist. And it is funny how I was deluded into thinking my research conducted as the Senior Material Scientist of a national industry was real science.
You say I lack the “testicular fortitude” to take-on “real scientists”? Well, you clearly don’t know how real science is done.
Perhaps you were thinking about Monckton and me taking on climastrologists? If so, then they are the ones who lack the “testicular fortitude”, not us.
It seems you are having a temper tantrum. Never mind, it is natural for 3 year olds.
Richard
@Brian
Are the inmates here at Bedlam usually this wound up and detached from reality?
Well, now that you have agreed (by your continued silence after 54 examples of talking points (er, replies in this thread), you obviously must have either done the calculations yourself that prove continued Arctic sea ice loss in mid-September cools the planet or have accepted as fact the calculations done by others) that recent Arctic sea ice is not a threat, I challenge your lack of talking points about Antarctic sea ice gain, and so – of necessity – must continue writing your half of the on-going conversation.
I do however, strongly recommend you not merely and silently and blindly accept calculations done by others – the proper response to any certified member of the JREF is, not to blindly accept abd endlessly repeat talking points (er, statements or studies) written by others, but to challenge such talking points based on your own research!
@Master
I’m on the side of reasonable conversation, which you clearly are not. Please stop pushing the rhetoric.
Just a reminder about arguing with fools…..
@richardscourtney
Perhaps you were thinking about Monckton and me taking on climastrologists? If so, then they are the ones who lack the “testicular fortitude”, not us.
You may need the drop mention of Lord M when talking about debates at this blog. Mr Watts may not appreciate it because of what transpired in the past. Hush, Hush, I am not allowed to talk about it, so maybe you better drop it for Anthony’s sake.
But, Master, I digress from your already-agreed-upon and much-repeated but distracting talking points.
If the middle and edge of the Arctic sea ice through the summer is at 80 north latitude, what difference does the mild warming 1200 kilometers away in central and middle of the Canadian tundra and forests have to do with the Arctic Sea ice retreat – which you have already agreed to will further cool the planet?
Oh – by the way, just what IS that pesky 55 year trend of cooling at 80 north latitude by the DMI actually measuring? Isn’t 80 north up around where the sea ice actually meets the Arctic Ocean waters?
Your continued silence indicates you agree with all statements and conclusions in the above.
EW3:
Sincere thanks for your reminder at August 15, 2013 at 1:53 pm.
However, engaging with the Master of Void and Cabbage keeps him here and avoids his disrupting other threads.
Richard
The biggest concern with the early chill in the Arctic may be the shortened growing season in the northern latitudes.
The DMI above 80 degree latitude average temp just dropped like a stone again. Looks like we may have one of the coldest Arctic summers on record. It also appears that the cold is working it’s way south. Looks like Alert NU, Canada will be below freezing for a long time to come. Also
further south Eureka, NU Canada is colder then normal.
This winter could be a doozie in the northern hemisphere.
@EW3
What about the record Heatwave that the Canadian north just experienced?
“Record heat wave bakes Canada’s North”
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/story/2013/08/13/north-weather-heat.html
MS&T says:
“You may need the drop mention of Lord M when talking about debates at this blog.”
I think not. Ever since Lord Monckton destroyed his opponents in a series of debates, no one in the alarmist crowd will debate him any more. Monckton has won every debate he engaged in, so now the only “debates” are the kind you are engaging in here, where you can be an anyonymous troll. No one on your side has the courage to debate Lord Monckton in an open, moderated debate, where both sides select the moderator and venue by mutual agreement. Your side got their heads handed to them in every debate. Now they hide out.
One example of Lord Monckton debating is here. I have several more examples if you like, just ask, and I will post them.
So now all “debates” over climate alarmism have devolved into your endless talking points and pathetic insults [eg: “little feller”; I’m 6’2″, 195#. What are you? And what is your mythical CV? You have no relevant education, do you? The fact that you won’t answer our questionstells us all we need to know about your lack of expertise].
If you can convince tamina, or anyone else, to man-up and debate Lord Monckton, I am all for it. Let’s put it on YouTube, where the whole world can see that your crowd is devoid of scientific arguments, and instead relies on talking points.
What do you think? Are you up for that? Even if you are, your people certainly are not: they have been tucking tail and running from any real debates for years now. Michael Mann comes to mind…