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.
EW3 says:
August 15, 2013 at 2:01 pm
There are a couple of subtle but very troubling things in your short summary about this coming fall’s weather that you missed. Well, Master of Thyme also missed them as well, but I’ll not speak for him on these issues since you brought them up. 8<)
1. Additional open area (increased Arctic sea loss over "normal", or a larger "negative" Arctic sea ice anomaly) greatly increases the amount of evaporation from the Arctic. This increases heat loss from the water, but it adds those extra billions of tons of water vapor to the atmosphere. In mid-summer, it will condense elsewhere and fall from the skies as increased rain, fog, and dew. Not too much snow obviously. With the increased CO2 as fertilizer, this means a darker arctic land area, and more absorbed solar energy in the short summer months south of the Arctic Ocean itself. But in the early fall and winter, the increased evaporation means increased snowfall (and thus increased long-term ice and snow!) around the Arctic on the land between 70 north and 65 north. If any of that increased snow fall or ice does not melt over the shortened! summer months of the melt season, then the increased albedo down at 65 and 70north latitude WILL reflect more sunlight into space and further cool the planet. Curry has written about this, it is a sobering topic.
2. Open Arctic ocean waters radiate more heat into space: The top of sea ice very quickly assumes the Arctic air temperature, but the top cm or so of open ocean water is mixed with 2 degree water (or 4-6 degree C, depending on area of the Arctic and latitude) water from below the , and so stays at the nominal water temperature. Right? Thus,the top of a sea-ice-covered surface will rapidly approach the air temperature: +10 C, 0 C, -4 degree C, or -15 degree C)
OK. Assume that the "sky" temperature stays the same regardless of whether open ocean or sea ice is present. (This is a little bit of a stretch, but is close to the real world. Over long time, the T sky does vary somewhat depending on surface conditions.) SO, open water radiates long wave infrared energy to space based on the Stefan-Boltzman Law and the 4th power of the radiating surface. An open ocean water surface and sea ice surface have almost the same emissivity to long wave IR radiation, so the open water (being hotter than the sea ice surface) will radiate much more energy to the sky than the sea ice surface will.
3. Convection losses: The warmer open ocean water will exchange much more energy with the colder Arctic air by convection than will a sea-ice -covered surface. (As above, the sea-ice-covered surface rapidly assumes the temperature of the moving air; and the large thick mass of sea ice "insulates" rather effectively the ocean water under the sea ice from the cold Arctic air above the sea ice. )
So, each of the other parts of the thermodynamics of the Arctic Ocean (sensible heat loss, latent heat loss, and long wave radiated heat loss) ALL INCREASE when "additional" Arctic Sea Ice is lost.
When the Arctic Sea Ice anomaly increases at time of minimum sea ice in September, the planet cools further.
But don’t tell Master of Thyme: His silence indicates he already knows this, has fully and already agreed to these calculations, and will add them to his already-agreed-upon talking points.
Master of Space and Thyme
Am I correct in thinking that the JREF to which you have referred in a couple of your posts is the James Randi Educational Foundation? I have to ask as a) I’d never heard of it and b) Google throws up a couple of alternatives when JREF is typed in. Mind you, I am making the assumption that you are not a member of ” a private, not-for-profit organization dedicated to fostering the entrepreneurial spirit in Howard County, Maryland” or indeed “JapanReference” which seem to be the principal alternatives.
Whichever it is, may I thank you for pointing me towards JREF. Having spent sometime reading their website, I can honestly say that I haven’t had such a good laugh in years.
I was thrilled to read, for example, that “distinguished climate scientist Michael E. Mann” will be joining something called “The Amazing Meeting” where he will undoubtedly be enlarging on his contention that “many of those who simply deny that climate change exists, we don’t call them skeptics, because that’s not skepticism. That’s just denial or contrarianism. Now, skepticism is a good thing in science, but it means looking at all sides of an issue.”
I could scarcely contain myself when I read that someone named Steven Novella links “global warming deniers” with “mental illness deniers”, “evolution deniers”, “holocaust deniers”, “HIV deniers” and “germ theory/vaccine deniers” (whatever they are).
You may well write me off as a poor, deluded Englishman with such a serious lack of judgement that I regularly travel to the S.F. Bay area in the forlorn hope of being able to watch the Raiders actually win a game – that is your right ( and, bearing in mind the amount of money I’ve spent on this past-time over the years, you might have a point). On the other hand, anyone who admits to being a member of an organisation which regards Michael Mann as anything other than a charlatan is probably more deluded than I am.
Of course, if I’m wrong, and you are in fact engaged in fostering the entrepreneurial spirit in Howard County, Maryland, I humbly apologise and wish you well in your endeavours.
Either way, please don’t let yourself be put off by what you may regard as negative comments by some on this site. I, for one, will be looking out for more posts from you, as they are giving me such enjoyment.
@RACookPE1978
“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?”
I never agreed to it causing “further cooling of the planet” Once again you are making about claims about something I did not write, that is not being honest.
The recent warming extended far into the north and included the CAA, ESS and a large area of the Beaufort Sea.
I posted this map of temp anomalies on the first thread the proclaimed the sudden cold spell in the Arctic
http://img809.imageshack.us/img809/2263/3jnh.jpg
Besides that map I posted links almost daily for both 2 meter and 850hPa temp anomalies, but nobody seems to have noticed. They all cried it was talking points, as if the current weather could possibly be talking points. Anyway, you’re wrong when you claim that the hot temperatures did not extend all the way to the Arctic Ocean, the CBC link corroborates the claim I have been making for the last week regarding this Arctic heatwave.
@dbstealey
The debate result: “That this House would put economic growth before combating climate change” by 135 votes to 110. Not the same as a debate over alarmism in itself. To claim so is a false dichotomy.
Also, he didn’t debate any scientists from whatI can tell. Just a few policy people.
Oh, but you have agreed to it! Didn’t your 56 talking points already include it?
Or did I miss your calculation someplace which clearly shows some sort of warming from increased Arctic sea ice loss in September?
Mr Green Genes says:
August 15, 2013 at 2:30 pm
Please do not worry about the Master of Thyme’s membership in JREF: ALL of the Secretaries (DOE, DOD, Dept of Interior, Dept of State, NASA, NOAA, and EPA and everybody else) has denied all knowledge of his talking points, and further, the entire administration has denied all scientific debate about any all all forms of CAGW. Galileo is being imprisoned by the Inquisition (er, the Master’s government) as we speak!
@RACookPE1978
Name a single talking point, just one example for the genuine skeptics that may happen to read this thread. You can’t name any because I have been very careful not to make any comment that was based on anything other than current weather and ice conditions.
And as far as warming from increased Arctic sea ice loss, that is another straw-man. I never made any such claim. Show me where I made the claim.
@RACook
You listed all of the negative feedbacks of Arctic ice melt but not the larger positive feedback of increased insolation. Also, the thin, rapidly growing young ice will diminish the effects of each of your three negative feedbacks as the winter months advance. If in the future the multi-year ice pack melts out, the duration of insolation to open water will increase, while thin winter ice may remain and hinder outward radiation and evaporation.
Master of Space and Thyme says:
August 15, 2013 at 1:49 pm
@Brian
Are the inmates here at Bedlam usually this wound up and detached from reality?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Just exasperated at the parasites who want to suck us dry while the clueless keep telling us it is ‘For our Own Good’ After fifteen years and more of continual political bupkis despite the constant barrage of facts from science proving the politicians and their buddies are lying through their teeth you get a bit short tempered.
Q: How do you tell if a politician is lying?
A: If his mouth moves, and especially if what he is telling you moves money from YOUR wallet to the wallet of his buddies.
“Green Energy” companies funded with tax payer dollars are going bankrupt at an alarming rate So far, [thats] 34 companies. Be interesting to see the bank balances of the principles before and after would it not? Reminds me of Maurice Strong and the killing he made on Molten Metal Technologies thanks to his good friend Al Gore hyping the company on the First Earth Day. The people he scammed sued and Congress investigated….
Green Energy fluctuates so indoctrination is absolutely necessary to carry out the government’s plans to get the Smart Grid installed and accepted and to get people to volunteer to buy or retrofit their appliances so the power companies can shut them down at will.
The Financiers of course are jumping for joy because a whole new industry has been manufactured out of thin air. ( Broken Window Fallacy anyone?)
Yet the blinder than blind can not see this is a money making scam.
Hi Brian:
1. If you are asking me to post more Monckton debates, I will be happy to do so. Just ask. And note that I was only responding to the debate comment, not to one specific kind of debate
2. Note that many folks ‘debating’ here are not scientists, either
3. If you can suggest a way to get Michael Mann, or Kevin Trenbert, or Briffa, or Jones, or Schmidt, or any other climate scientist on the alarmist side to debate, I’m all ears.
But the fact is they won’t debate. They refuse. They hide out, and they will not even respond with any reasoning. They debate using proxies like our spice master here, and Algore.
Only skeptical scientists will debate. Lindzen, Christy, etc. But you cannot have a debate with only one side present.
In real science, debate is expected. It is healthy. It brings about an increase in knowledge. So maybe you can explain why only one side of the question refuses to either debate, or to provide their data, methods, methodologies, etc.
I know the answer to those questions. But I’d like to get your views.
Brian says:
August 15, 2013 at 2:35 pm
Ah, but even Master of Thyme agrees with me that politicians do NOT decide on matters of life and death and taxes and energy policies and funding for scientific research and future scientific salaries and environmental policies and regulations based on scientific facts, but on what the their selected few policy makers PERCEIVE is the truth about scientific facts and studies!
Thus, in the political world, perception and impressions and images and propaganda and talking points ARE the truth. Convince the politicians, and it doesn’t matter what the public thinks or what the scientific facts are – as proven by the Master’s governments in the UK, US, California, NY, etc.
To go back to Master’s government condemning Galileo to his dogmatic and stubbornly non-inquisitive Inquisition, it does not matter whether the earth revolves or not: The Master’s government has declared as a matter of policy that their version of the globe is the center of the universe, and all of the universe revolves around the Arctic Ocean’s ice reduction!
[snip] you know the real story regarding debates and Chris M, don’t be so disingenuous. I am not allowed to post the truth because I was told it would result in being banned from this blog
Brian:
re your post at August 15, 2013 at 2:35 pm
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/14/the-early-chill-in-the-arctic-continues/#comment-1391330
that says
I was not at that debate but I spoke at an earlier debate where I, Morner and Monkton spoke to oppose the motion that “This House Believes Global Warming is a Global Crisis” at St Andrews Uni.
Clearly, that earlier debate was about “alarmism in itself”. And we defeated the motion but only by 3 votes.
In that earlier debate the proponents of the motion were “a few policy people” because the organisers failed to obtain any alarmist scientists who were willing to debate. If they refused then it seems likely that they would also have refused at the later debate.
This supports the contention of dbstealey that “Now they hide out”.
Richard
The Arctic temperature is continuing its downward trend: http://www.phrases.org.uk/bulletin_board/24/messages/1097.html
@dbstealey
I would love to see a debate. I think both sides would be forced to consider viewpoints they never have before. And I don’t believe it would be an obvious victory for either side. Are you aware of a debate of Monckton and scientists? I’m not sure I care about any others. An unbiased account is preferred. The post you referenced does not qualify due to (I assume) Anthony’s interjections.
I’m not sure if I think scientists should debate though. Debate skills do not equate to scientific skills. Also, I have to think there are instances where an alarmist won a debate (perhaps even against your mighty Monckton) and you are not aware of it. If that happened, do you think it would be mentioned at WUWT? It would be nice to have a neutral blog for open discussion. I can’t really find one though. As such, your questions are moot, which is why you already know the answer to them.
Brian says:
August 15, 2013 at 2:49 pm
Ah, but I was specific about the time of year:
1A. Show me by date, by latitude, and by time-of-day (and the logic of choosing each of these) your calculations, and your method for determining this “larger positive feedback” of increased insolation.
1B. At what day-of-year at which latitude does your calculation of heat gain (by increased solar insolation into the Arctic ocean) get smaller than the heat loss (by all types) from the Arctic ocean?
2. There is no “thin, rapidly growing young ice” between mid-August (when this effect of cooling the planet by Arctic sea ice loss overwhelms increased insolation) and the point in late September when Arctic sea ice reaches a minimum.
Gail Combs says:
August 15, 2013 at 3:01 pm
Gail! You are not repeating the Master’s peer-approved and agreed-upon-in-thread talking points! (Well, technically, you must always assert in this thread the disclaimer that whatever he doesn’t respond to, he must have already independently researched – as a Secretary-disavowed registered skeptical member of JREF – and therefore agrees with completely. )
You are a lovely and talented individual with much to contribute in this thread. Please do not introduce new talking points without assuring that the Master has agreed with them first.
@RACook
That’s true about policy, but I’m just not interested in discussing politics. So I have no quarrel with you good sir.
Master of Space and Thyme:
At August 15, 2013 at 2:47 pm
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/14/the-early-chill-in-the-arctic-continues/#comment-1391349
you assert
Say what!?
Having refused to apologise for your untrue, unjustifiable and off-topic smear of Morner you now claim you did not do it!
Congratulations. Your assertion has proved I was wrong to have thought I could not have a lower opinion of you.
Richard
@richardscourtney
I made no smear. Are you claiming the graph was not tilted to hide the increase in sea level?
@RACook
1A. No thanks. This is a blog comment section. I will discuss, not calculate.
1B. I have no idea. I never claimed to.
2. True, but there is from October through March, when outgoing radiation is greatest.
And specifying the time of year for only your feedback descriptions but not for your prediction of an overall cooling planet is quite misleading, yes? Why did you not include the feedbacks for the rest of the year?
@richardscourtney
The mention of the graph was in response to DB’s assertion of what constituted a fraudulent graph. I showed him that example to illustrate what was really a manipulation of a graphs axis to counter his petty claim regarding the PIOMAS graph’s starting point.
Brian says:
“I would love to see a debate.”
Good for you. But I don’t understand this: “The post you referenced does not qualify due to (I assume) Anthony’s interjections.” Anthony has not gotten involved as far as I know.
You say: “I’m not sure if I think scientists should debate though. Debate skills do not equate to scientific skills.”
I can’t agree. Because there are NO well known alarmist scientists who are willing to debate [not sure about everyone in the world].
If a scientist is incapable of defending his hypothesis, ideas, reasearch, data, methodologies, etc., in a debate, then maybe he/she is overpaid, and should find another line of work. Do you think Richard Feynman would have run away from a debate?
No, they will not debate for one reason: they cannot defend their catastrophic AGW hypothesis, and they don’t want the whole world to see them fail.
Finally, you’re right that I probably don’t know about every debate. But if there were debates won by alarmist scientists, I have a feeling that skeptics would constantly be hit over the head with the results.
“Master of Space and Thyme”
I ask you in all seriousness:
Do you have a job? I mean, a productive job where you work for a paycheck?
Or is your job to make nonsense comments on blogs, composed of endless talking points?
[Because] that is exactly what it looks like. Anyone who makes more than five dozen comments on one thread, constantly arguing with everyone else, asking endless questions but never answering any questions, is either living off the sweat of someone else’s brow, or is paid to run interference, or has mental problems.
So which is it?
Master of Space and Thyme:
re your post at August 15, 2013 at 3:16 pm
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/14/the-early-chill-in-the-arctic-continues/#comment-1391386
Firstly, you lied when you said
Morner’s work was about neither. You introduced it to make an untrue smear,
Secondly, you ask
YES, YOU IDIOT!
The graph was tilted to show what it would look like without the unjustifiable alterations.
IT WAS NOT TILTED TO “HIDE” ANYTHING: IT WAS TILTED TO SHOW SOMETHING.
Your claim is a blatant and deliberate smear. It is a blatant lie
Read the paper or – that being beyond your capabilities – see Figures 8 and 9.
I dislike untrue smears of me. I am enraged by untrue smears of friends.
Richard