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.
Ahhh, I can just hear Connie Francis singing “Where the buoys are”…..
Master of Space and Thyme says:
@dbstealey
It appears you haven’t heard about this paper which validated PIOMAS.
The paper says “estimates” not “validates” , put your glasses on and try reading again.
Results for PIOMAS suggest…. we generate estimates ….compare these data with current estimates from PIOMAS and earlier (2003–8) estimates …..
Nowhere do they claim to have “validated” PIOMAS output so you are just making that up yourself.
Last CyroSat-2 graph that I saw had just 14 points over two years for total volume that was not even enough to establish the annual variation. The “estimates” from the earlier period were even more uncertain and were just ballpark guesses.
We are years away from even being able to test how close PIOMAS is to reality, since we cannot measure that particular “reality”. It’s output is not validated and does not represent “reality”.
Total ice volume will be interesting as a polar calorimeter but what matters much more for all the feedbacks and interactions with the rest of climate is what we can reasonably measure now. Area and extent.
That is what I used in my graph.
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=123&action=edit&message=1
RACookPE1978 says:
August 14, 2013 at 1:00 pm
“The average Arctic minimum sea ice area is 2,000,000 sq km.
That is an area corresponding to the area between 85 north latitude and the Pole.”
Average for what, one day last summer? The satellite era average is 6,000,000 sq km. Your previous statement “ALL of the Arctic ice between today’s limits and 85 north SHOULD be expected to melt EVERY year” refers to extent anyway, and the average minimum extent is closer to 7,000,000 sq km. Either way, not once has the arctic ocean been close ice free everywhere outside of 85 north latitude.
Philip Bradley says:
August 14, 2013 at 12:58 pm
I expect the usual silence from climatologists, the complicit media, etc on this inconvenient truth.
————————————————————————————————————————
Give them some time to create their most reasonable story. I can picture them rereading Orwell,s ‘1984’ to get in the proper mood.
@Jim Stevens
There seems to be a seasonal shift this year in southern Canada. We are currently experiencing mid-September temperatures and have been for several weeks. This reminds me of the summer of 1959 when a person needed to wear a jacket to go outside in mid-August. We survived then and we will survive now. I have been reading predictions made this year for my region in the Farmers Almanac – it seems spot on – and the Alamanac uses in large part, projections based upon solar activity.
+++++++++++++
I was wondering which Almanac you are getting because a couple of years ago the regular Farmer’s Almanac switched from their long term method to ‘computer modeling’ and introduced as their main forecaster a guy who strongly supported the idea that CO2 was the driving factor in temperature and GCM’s based on that idea. The predictions that year were useless. I stopped buying the book and haven’t picked up one since assuming they were a lost cause.
The old formula is secret of course but does include the position of Jupiter (barycenteric things) and solar data and something else they would not reveal. They are (or were) able to predict major snowstorms 11 months in advance including ‘snowmaggedon’ and its sequel. Pretty impressive. Is their capacity back?
M of S&T,
You couldn’t possibly have read the keyword search I provided for Piomass, between the time I posted it, and when you started arguing about it.
That means your mind is made up, and any new information is unwanted.
FYI, the Piomass charts are naked alarmism, specifically designed to instill fear in people who don’t know any better. Read the info I helpfully provided, and you will see.
But most of us here do know better, and we know that all the arm-waving over the current natural Arctic ice fluctuation is the result of the very last failed prediction of the alarmist cult. All the other alarmist predictions have been debunked, and the Arctic ice scare is now swirling down the bowl.
@Greg Goodman
You almost but not quite completely got it wrong.
“Using NEW DATA from the European Space Agency CryoSat-2 (CS-2) mission, validated with IN SITU DATA, we generate estimates of ice volume”
They used actual data from satellites and data from sensors to generate their estimates. They didn’t use models like PIOMAS. Since their summer and fall estimates were slightly higher than PIOMAS, you can no longer claim that PIOMAS is over estimating ice volume.
RACookPE1978 says:
“The average Arctic minimum sea ice area is 2,000,000 sq km.
If you filter out wiggles of weather and the pseudo periodic oscillations of about 14d that can push the minimum either up or down dependant on their timing relative to the equinox there’s been nothing like 2M sq km in any year.
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=439
http://piments.com/svg/arctic_ice_annual_smoothed.svg
Cherry-picking one day out of 365 and trying to make a media story is par for the course in MSM, it has nothing to do with science though.
The SVG is interactive by clicking on the year numbers in the legend. You’ll find that 2013 looks like it’s going to be close to 2008 or 2009, so far. The years I picked out for the png format graph.
@dbstealey
I am card carrying member of JREF, and like all true skeptics, I assumed that you were using that keyword as a smokescreen. I did the search and lo and behold, the top results were for here and Goddard’s fake science blog.
Regardless, as someone who has been studying ice dynamics for years, I was already familiar with the paper validating PIOMAS.
Nice try, I will give you an E for effort. It is a lot tougher to fool a true skeptic than it is to fool the average reader at WUWT.
dbstealey says:
August 14, 2013 at 1:45 pm
“That means your mind is made up, and any new information is unwanted.”
Ha! I guess that means you have read just as many articles that are supportive of PIOMAS with an open mind? Confirmation bias goes both ways.
Master of Space and Thyme:
re your comment at August 14, 2013 at 1:55 pm.
You omitted the /sarc when you implied you are a “true skeptic”.
I enjoyed the joke but your omission may have caused some others to miss it.
Richard
Master of Space and Thyme says: “Since their summer and fall estimates were slightly higher than PIOMAS, you can no longer claim that PIOMAS is over estimating ice volume.”
Which of course I never did claim. Nice straw man attempt.
You almost distracted me enough that I forgot the main point of my comment that you failed to reply to: Nowhere do they claim to have “validated” PIOMAS output so you are just making that up yourself.
Nice try, Waster of Space and Thyme,
@Greg Goodman
How did the paper not validate PIOMAS?
It confirmed that their model was a very close approximation of the volume that was achieved by using actual data.
Master of Space and Thyme says:
August 14, 2013 at 2:32 pm
It confirmed that their model was a very close approximation of the volume that was achieved by using actual data.
If I correctly remember they had to re-adjust relative recently their model as the real data was diverging from the model “The long term trend is reduced to about -2.8 103 km3/decade from -3.6 km3 103/decade in the last version”
That was a significant correction of about 33% of the actual modelled trend.
As the model still exagerates, the trend that shows straight down, will be really funny to watch how they continue to adjust and correct.
They have now one of the classical options: start changing the past to make it fitting to the current situation or admid the model is wrong and correct.
@Larry Plume
I googled the quote and it comes back to a comment you made here earlier this year.
Do you have a reputable source for what you claim?
Here’s the Cryosat-2 results.
I could not find a still and don’t intend to spend all night looking but the graph is shown in the video.
http://www.katgiles.co.uk/blog/2013/02/ice-volume-from-cryosat-2-seymours-paper/
As I recalled 14 dots over two years. but not even enough to define the min and max of any year.
If the best CS2 can do in seven dots spanning six months per year we can’t even see the min and max. Envisat did not measure thickness so estimations on that end are ever cruder.
Nothing can be validated until we have enough data to tell whether it’s correct. And we’re a long way off yet.
Greg Goodman says:
“Waster of Space and Thyme…”
Ouch!
…But deserved, for someone who arbitrarily refers to the writer at another site as a “fake science blog”. Ad hominems like that are the lifeblood of the alarmist religion. They take the place of facts and evidence.
Who designated you as the arbiter of what is real, or fake? And it cuts both ways, doesn’t it? You preposterously label yourself a skeptic — yet you reject out of hand whatever doesn’t fit your belief system. As I commented above, you could not possibly have read the keyword search I provided for Piomass, between the time I posted it and when you started arguing about it. That’s because your mind is already made up. Note that a real scientific skeptic’s mind is never completely made up. We are always open to new facts and information.
It is obvious that Piomass goes out of its way to create alarming-looking charts and graphs. I’ve linked to ample evidence of that fact. It is also a fact that there is no scientific evidence showing that the Arctic is going through anything except entirely natural variability. Arctic ice decline has happened before, repeatedly, and to a much greater degree — and during times when CO2 was much lower.
The consternation on the alarmist side comes from the fact that none of their many doom & gloom forecasts and predictions have come to pass. Not one of them. Eventually, they all get debunked.
Feel free to continue arguing with everyone, but unless/until you can post testable, verifiable empirical evidence showing that human emissions are the cause of rising global temperatures, all you are doing is hand-waving. But that’s not good enough here at the internet’s “Best Science & Technology” site. And as we have seen, there are no such facts and evidence available. Alarmism is all opinion-based conjecture.
Carry on with your assertions…
@Larry Plume
Those dots appear to be during the winter and confirm what Laxon et al found in their paper, PIOMAS overestimates winter volume. But for some unknown reason the video doesn’t compare CroSat and PIOMAS during melt season, where Laxon et all found PIOMAS slightly underestimating volume.
There you go again. Click here and read quotes from climate scientists who say there is a temperature standstill, hiatus if you like.
Master of Space and Thyme says:
August 14, 2013 at 3:21 pm
Do you have a reputable source for what you claim?
I was looking here:
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/wordpress/research/projects/arctic-sea-ice-volume-anomaly/
“This time series of ice volume is generated with an updated version of PIOMAS (June-15,2011). This updated version improves on prior versions by assimilating sea surface temperatures (SST) for ice-free areas and by using a different parameterization for the strength of the ice. Comparisons of PIOMAS estimates with ice thickness observations show reduced errors over the prior version. The long term trend is reduced to about -2.8 103 km3/decade from -3.6 km3 103/decade in the last version.”
Most of the inter-annual variation in arctic ice area can be modelled by the internal 2 year oscillation being modulated by a 12.8 year forcing extracted by spectral analysis.
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=216
It matches almost perfectly the “catastrophic” melting of 2007 as well as the reduced variability of the 1997-2007 melting period.
The match from 1990 – 2000 is particularly good.
There are longer periods too , notably 5.42 years. None of this is captured by PIOMAS.
You got soot in your eyes. That’s a tip. Last year it was a terrible storm. By the way the ice was going away in the 1920s and 1930s, it came back though and it will come back again despite the terrible soot. Just be patient.
You may have missed this study reported from yesterday.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/13/in-the-arctic-nearby-soot-may-be-a-larger-forcing-than-co2/
You may have missed this study published 2003 by Dr. James Hansen then of NASA.
http://www.pnas.org/content/101/2/423.short
@dbstealey
[OK, enough. ~mod.]
Where have I ever made a single claim regarding global warming? Get your facts straight, everything I have ever posted on this blog has been in regards to weather and current ice conditions…..things that are factual.
Isn’t Goddard the blogger who claimed it snowed dry ice at the South Pole? I seem to remember individuals on real science blogs laughing about that and the claim that Venus wasn’t hot because of greenhouse gases, but rather because of atmospheric pressure. I was under the impression that those and a few other weird posts are why he’s no longer is a contributor at this blog.
Master of Space and Thyme
I have been looking for reasons as to the cause of this event which began in the Arctic in the 1920s and lasted for 2 decades. Do you have any ideas? Thanks in advance.
@Larry Plume
Uncertainty in Modeled Arctic Sea Ice Volume
Axel Schweiger, Ron Lindsay, Jinlun Zhang, Mike Steele, Harry Stern,and Ron Kwok
“PIOMAS ice thickness estimates agree well with ICESat ice thickness retrievals (<0.1 m mean difference) for the area for which submarine data are available, while difference outside this area are larger. PIOMAS spatial thickness patterns agree well with ICESat thickness estimates with pattern correlations of above 0.8. PIOMAS appears to overestimate thin ice thickness and underestimate thick ice, yielding a SMALLER DOWNWARD TREND than apparent in reconstructions from observations"
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011JC007084/abstract