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.
@richardscourtney
Why was it tilted?
From Master of Their Domain (of Space and Thyme) on August 15, 2013 at 1:10 pm:
But now you refuse to post them. “There were dozens of pink elephants in that field. I can’t show you any photos of them, but trust me, they were there!”
Oh please, links to them get posted here often enough. They’re good for a laugh. But by refusing to post them, citing fear of getting banned, you conveniently deny us the opportunity to debunk them direct or search for where they’re debunked elsewhere. “I can’t show you the photos, they’ll kick me out of here, but trust me, those photos are proof!”
Don’t you realize you’re looking silly for being a LYING SQUIRMING WEASEL?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/08/according-to-this-dmi-temperature-plot-the-arctic-has-dropped-below-freezing-about-two-weeks-early/
Here you tried to claim “anonymously hot” weather around the coast, which would be temperature readings at settlements which have UHI-type problems. I wanted satellite data. You tried to foist off an anomaly map, which is apparently a favored tactic of yours. Which could only show it was “anonymously hot” relative to the averaged 1901-2000 period, which is meaningless.
I didn’t deny the heat wave, I asked for proper data. You never provided it. You weaseled around, squirmed around. And now you lie. BTW, crosspatch explained how those temperatures weren’t unusual.
UHI-type effects. Too-high temperature readings from vehicles idling too near to the thermometer is a known occurrence. In polar regions, where you can get lost in blinding snow just feet from your door, the thermometers tend to be close to the housing and can be affected by heat from the buildings.
And now you LIE YOUR IGNORANT WORTHLESS ASS OFF AGAIN by saying I claimed that high was BECAUSE of the airport. I clearly said:
Correlation, not the causation you’re trying to attribute to me YOU VIRULENT PESTILENCE-OOZING LYING PUSTULE.
My reputation is promulgated by my enemies, the tales freely disseminated. In time they shall repent their disbelief and bow before my greatness. I am legend.
” think not. Ever since XXXX XXXXXXXXX destroyed his opponents in a series of debates, no one in the alarmist crowd will debate him any more.”
That is not true and I can prove it, but unfortunately it will result in my being banned and the comment being removed.
How does kadaka’s post make it through moderation, with all-caps bolded insults? It is very difficult to sift through all the emotional rhetoric and find worthwhile discussions on this site sometimes.
[Reply: WUWT does not censor comments if at all possible. The commenter in question documented his claim that he was being accused of untruthfulness. — mod.]
MS&T says:
“That is not true and I can prove it”
So prove it. But no game-playing: legitimate scientists or public figures only. No off-the-wall wackos with a vendetta. Lord Monckton’s opponents are scientists like Mann, Schmidt, Jones, etc. I wouldn’t debate Mickey Mouse, and I don’t think Lord Monckton would, either. Mickey, you see, is too far below the Lord.
So, ‘prove it’.
Master of Space and Thyme:
You ask me at August 15, 2013 at 3:35 pm
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/14/the-early-chill-in-the-arctic-continues/#comment-1391411
I and others have repeatedly told you in this thread. Indeed, kadaka (KD Knoebel) at August 15, 2013 at 12:53 pm
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/14/the-early-chill-in-the-arctic-continues/#comment-1391186
gave you a link to a WUWT discussion of the matter.
READ HIS POST.
I have provided a link so you can jump to it with a click of your mouse.
He gives you an explanation and a quotation from Morner’s text before concluding his explanation to you saying
But I recognise why you cannot understand that. Your posts demonstrate that you don’t know what honesty is.
Richard
Brian says:
August 15, 2013 at 3:18 pm
A careful and considerate- though cautious! – reply , thank you.
My calculations do extend through the entire year, though my day-by-day calc’s for net Arctic and net Antarctic Ocean heat exchange results are concentrated in the melting season for the Arctic.
Arctic Sea Ice loss is the ONLY “evidence” now available for the Master’s CAGW dogma: everything else and all other data the past 16 years refutes their claims of catastrophic results of their assumed continued “global” warming. Thus, the CAGW community and governments are desperate to maintain their propaganda about Arctic Ice loss.
So, the necessary and essential question to ask is: what is the current result of any loss of Arctic Sea Ice loss? As I asked above, deliberately quoting our Secretary of State: “What difference does it make?”
To answer this question, you need to determine where the Arctic Sea Ice is now (current world) and at what time of year is it at that position (that latitude?)
If there is a change (an anomaly) from the today’s world, where does that change from the normal Arctic (and Antarctic!) sea ice occur, and when does it occur?
At that position of the change in Arctic Sea Ice that you are interested in, what is the actual solar radiation possible at that latitude, and, over a full 24 hour day, what is the ACTUAL clear-day and cloudy day potential solar radiation at the top of the sea ice surface?
Of this potential radiation at this latitude, on the top of the Arctic Ocean, or Arctic Sea Ice, how much of that potential solar radiation is direct radiation, and how much is diffuse radiation?
Of the potential direct radiation, and potential diffuse solar radiation, at this latitude at this time of day on this day-of-year, how much will be absorbed by the open ocean waters, and how much will be reflected from the sea ice? Albedo of sea ice and of open ocean water are NOT a constant (despite what Connelly’s oft-edited Wikipedia says) but changes over the day-of-year, with solar elevation angle, and with wind speed. These changes have been investigated, and they refute completely the conventional wisdom of the Master’s government policy dictators denying climate change in their Un-inquissitive Inquisition.
What is the air temperature over the Arctic Ocean on the hour-of-day on this day-of-year, what is the sky temperature, wind speed, and humidity
Net: Solar insolation gains into exposed open ocean IS greater than net losses in June and much of July for Arctic OCean latitudes between 72 latitude and the Pole. Once past those few weeks, losses from open water are greater than the little gain that is calculated (and actually measured!) and through the rest of the year (about 9-1/2 months), open Arctic ocean’s lose heat when compared to ice-covered Arctic waters.
Does “early” melted ice in the Hudson’s Bay change temperature of the water by insolation? Absolutely! But, does it matter? Hudson Bay loses ALL of its ice every year anyway. There is no net loss of of Arctic sea ice, and no “death spiral” due to its melting. It has already melted each year, and will probably continue to melt every year. South of 82-83 north latitude, all Arctic ice melts anyway by mid-September. There can be no Arctic death spiral from ice that regularly melts each year. ONLY can a “death spiral” continue or be feared if it results in more Arctic ice melting.
The opposite is true in the Antarctic: At the much lower latitudes of the Antarctic sea ice edge between 71 south and 61 south latitudes, the solar elevation angles are much higher every day of the year, and the reflection of “new” sea ice DOES MATTER to planet cooling changes. But at 83, 84, or 85 degrees north when this ice might actually melt in the future?
Nope. The loss of Arctic Ice increases cooling.
@dbstealey
In the WUWT post, there were bracketed interjections within the debate narrative. I assumed those were Anthony’s thoughts, but I could be wrong.
I could be wrong about Monckton’s or climate debates in general as well. I certainly don’t form my opinion based on them.
Brian:
re your post at August 15, 2013 at 3:44 pm.
I thought the post by kadaka (KD Knoebel) at August 15, 2013 at 3:38 pm was quite restrained under the circumstances.
Just saying.
Richard
Brian says:
“…there were bracketed interjections within the debate narrative. I assumed those were Anthony’s thoughts, but I could be wrong.”
I could be wrong, too. But IIRC, those were SPPI commentary.
@db
Would a respected Science journalist who challenged XXXX XXXXXXXX to a debate which he promptly ran away from out of when he found out he wasn’t dealing with a light weight count?
The clever journalist know of his opponents propensity to do a gish gallop, so when he offered to debate he chose a multi day online format so he could research and debunk any claims that were suspect. That is how a real skeptic would debate. To make a long story short, your man ran away from the debate and anyone who mentions that specific debate or even the name of the opponent gets sent down the memory hole at WUWT.
Master of Space and Thyme:
Why not post your apology for your smear of Morner instead of hiding behind more lies about other things?
Your post at August 15, 2013 at 4:05 pm
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/14/the-early-chill-in-the-arctic-continues/#comment-1391439
only consists of more lies.
They do not make a good screen.
Richard
@kadaka
My goodness, why can’t you accept the fact that it was hot along the Arctic coast? Do you believe the CBC was faking the story too?
MS&T,
Is your so-called “journalist” on the regular payroll of a ‘Science’ publication? I mean, is he/she paid weekly for doing a job as a journalist? If so, I can’t speak for Lord Monckton [whose name you amusingly appear to choke on], but speaking for myself, I would love to see more debates. Keep in mind that protocol requires mutual agreement on the Moderator, the venue, the audience participation, etc. One-sided ultimatums are a non-starter.
Of course, if whomever you have in mind has been personally obnoxious, or gone on one-sided attacks like that professor [I can’t recall the name — but it can’t be him, because he won’t debate either], then if I was LORD MONCKTON, I would let my attacker cool his heels for the next decade or two. Maybe three.
But if you can get the odious, name-calling Michael Mann, or the cartoonist Kevin Trenberth to debate, that would surely be a coup! A feather in your anonymous cap! A real accomplishment.
But don’t hold your breath…
richardscourtney
No lies, just the facts from reality without the heavy hands of the censors at the blog
Master of Space and Thyme:
Your apology is still awaited.
Take time out from posting rubbish and do something important.
Apologise for your untrue smear of Morner.
Richard
@db
He has worked for NPR and the CBC as an Asian correspondent and was worked in the print media for a couple decades. I believe he has a degree in physics, as well as journalism.
I have to X out your friends name because otherwise my comments go into moderation.
MS&T,
“…without the heavy hands of the censors…”
You wish. Nobody censors you here, even though they probably should for your repeated policy violations. Recall that you repeatedly labeled Anthony a “liar”. Is deleting that comment ‘censorship’?
No, it is not. As Anthony has said many times, this is his home on the internet. You do not have the right to barge in and call him a liar, just because he has a different point of view. That is entirely a reflection on your lack of character. It is not ‘censorship’.
Master of Space and Thyme:
I remind you that you have still not apologised for your untrue smear of Morner.
I am at a loss to understand how this could have slipped your mind. But you have been reminded now.
Richard
@richardscourtney
I will do better than that. I will spend a day researching and documenting his bad science. I already have done a google search and have 11 good leads so far.
MS&T,
I wonder why you feel it is necessary to carry the water of someone else? You are being an apologist for a secret person. How strange is that… unless you are him?
I have zero say regarding who Lord Monckton debates. The more proper question is this: why are Mann, Jones, and all the rest of those grant gobblers so afraid to defend their point of view?
Cowards all.
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/detect/detection-images/ice-seaice-extent-sep2005.png
Here is the average ice extent in September, 2005. Extent came in at 5.6. Note that the NW passage was open.
Master of Space and Thyme:
re your post at August 15, 2013 at 4:22 pm
Before your “research” to find more untrue smears of Morner, you need to make your apology for your existing untrue smear of him that you have posted in this thread.
Apologise now. You can play with your friends on smear blogs AFTER you have done what is now required.
Richard
@DB
I was told by Anthony the very first time I visited this blog that no mention of either the cancelled debate or even the man’s name was allowed at this blog. My comments were removed, but being a real skeptik and well aware of the censorship here, I took screen shots. The owner of this blog then went on to claim that the issue was settled between the two men. It wasn’t, because the retired journalist posted a video refuting that claim
Good to see Mr McKinney or wipneus, or whichever denizen of Arctic Sea Ice BLog has wandered over here as MST. When I raised concerns about the reliability of PIOMAS over there, there was utter panic and denial and a banning of all further comment on its inaccuracies. Thank you dbstealey for your information on this subject.
The more comments that occur the more the message is true and hurting so I hope MST keeps posting as it shows you are winning the arguement