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.
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
August 14, 2013 at 10:17 pm
PIOMAS has a built-in inherent flaw
That is interesting, I was wondering why PIOMAS only publishes results on a monthly level. Perhaps that is why. They use the real time data but cannot rely on it on a daily update and rather need to take a smoothed average for the month.
Just because it says you cant use it for a trend or time series doesn’t mean it cannot be used appropriatly as a monthly averaged value as an additional input to improve sea ice estimations. That is why it is why they put that sattelite up there! Just for that purpose!
jai mitchell says:
August 14, 2013 at 11:09 pm says:
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
August 14, 2013 at 10:17 pm
dbstealey says:
August 14, 2013 at 9:18 pm
Bill Illis says:
All: PIOMAS has a built-in inherent flaw … And other concerns about PIOMAS.
To quote our esteemed “smartest woman in the world” – the former Secretary of State while testifying (er, lying) in front of Congress “What difference does it make?”
PIOMASS tries to estimate the total mass of remaining Arctic sea ice. It may – and probably does not – do that job very accurately. It certainly does it very slowly, and what “data” (er, estimates, or guesses as critics would prefer) it does create from its programming can’t be verified against actual sea ice masses across any part of the Arctic.
So what? DO we not all agree that Arctic sea ice area, sea ice extents, and almost certainly sea ice mass from year to year recently have gone down? Do we really need to argue about whether any given program “thinks” an area that has melted was 1.5 meters thick, or 2.0 or 3.0?
That area melted. “It’s gone, Jim.” /Star Trek doctor.
That area will be back next year as re-frozen sea ice.
And the difference between an ice-covered Arctic ocean at minimum sea ice extents, and an open ocean at minimum sea ice extents is? A cooler planet.
Note that Antarctic sea ice IS EXPANDING by millions of square kilometers … and that area of ice-covered water DOES reflect significant solar radiation from its ever-expanding sea ice edge at 61 south!
Result of an expanding Antarctic sea ice area? A cooler planet.
From jai mitchell on August 14, 2013 at 11:09 pm:
I really want to say you can’t possibly believe what you just wrote, but you have repeatedly indicated you really could believe such.
If they need a monthly averaged value, then NSIDC makes nice vetted monthly averaged values. There is no need to use the unsuitable near-real time product.
And that satellite is not up there to make nice monthly averages. It collects daily info. The second line from NSIDC I had quoted says what that product is for:
I emphasized the part your allegedly brain didn’t absorb before.
Master of Space and Thyme says:
August 14, 2013 at 4:12 pm
So again, my post above stands, I posted the referrence to it.
The correction is almost the whole uncertainty range, and as said watching calmly waiting to see next corrections soon to come.
The problem you alarmists have is that you think nature behaves linear (and that CO2 is the main driver of climate).
RACookPE1978 says:
August 14, 2013 at 11:28 pm
And the difference between an ice-covered Arctic ocean at minimum sea ice extents, and an open ocean at minimum sea ice extents is? A cooler planet.
Note that Antarctic sea ice IS EXPANDING by millions of square kilometers … and that area of ice-covered water DOES reflect significant solar radiation from its ever-expanding sea ice edge at 61 south!
Result of an expanding Antarctic sea ice area? A cooler planet.
Exactly.
Bill Illis says:
August 14, 2013 at 9:13 pm
Cryosat2 is not going to work for its primary mission.
The raw data changes so much from orbit to orbit (tides, waves, variable air pressure, pressure ridges etc.) that it can’t really resolve the ice thickness as it was intended to do. It takes more than a year of computer crunching time to come up with the data and even then, they had to throw half of it out…
The following paper (free) by Seymour W. Laxon et. al. illustrates the difficulties involved in making a meaningful estimate of Arctic sea ice volume and shows the large diversions from the PIOMASS volume estimates…
CryoSat-2 estimates of Arctic sea ice thickness and volume – 28 FEB 2013
http://www.personal.soton.ac.uk/pgc1g08/grl50193.pdf
kadaka,
Thanks for your comments. The biggest problem I have personally with PIOMAS is the alarming chart they have fabricated. As I regularly point out, just as someone can lie with statistics, they can construct deceptive charts.
This alarming PIOMAS chart is a good example. They use it all the time. Notice how PIOMAS adjusts the axes to show a very scary decline. That directly conflicts with the other charts showing current Arctic ice recovery.
@dbstealey
What is wrong with the chart you linked and why are you so alarmed?
I am still waiting for you to supply fact based evidence to back up your claim that I have been posting “talking points” about sea ice.
The more I read your past comments, the more it confirms my suspicion that you are nothing more a angry contrarian and not a genuine skeptic.
Master of Space and Thyme:
For some time I was obtaining great amusement from following your exchanges with dbstealey and others especially with regard to Piomas.
I admit that part of my amusement was that I am always amused by watching an alarmist get a well-deserved drubbing. However, another part of my amusement was my admiration for the stoicism and fortitude you were displaying while getting such a trouncing.
Unfortunately, the most recent posts from dbstealey and you, suggest that you are now reaching the stage when the ref. needs to ‘stop the fight’.
dbstealey wrote at August 15, 2013 at 5:12 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/14/the-early-chill-in-the-arctic-continues/#comment-1390695
saying
You have responded at August 15, 2013 at 7:03 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/14/the-early-chill-in-the-arctic-continues/#comment-1390755
saying
Please consider your reply that I quote here.
Your reply asks for information that the message you are commenting provides; i.e. the chart is “wrong” because “how PIOMAS adjusts the axes to show a very scary decline” and “That directly conflicts with the other charts showing current Arctic ice recovery”.
Your reply suggests you either have difficulties with reading comprehension or you are dissembling by making a false suggestion; i.e. you suggest dbstealey is “alarmed” when he said the Piomas chart is “fabricated” to be “alarming” by use of an adjusted axis.
Your reply says you still await dbstealey justifying his observation that you are making “talking points” when he first made that assertion at August 14, 2013 at 6:34 pm
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/14/the-early-chill-in-the-arctic-continues/#comment-1390365
where he suggested you had obtained the “talking points” from “Tamina”. But you have not refuted that suggestion in any of your subsequent posts, so it is hard to understand why you are awaiting anything.
And your reply concludes with ad hom..
Master of Space and Thyme, I would like to continue obtaining the amusement I have obtained from your exchanges. But your post that I quote and comment here suggests you are on the point of getting a KO. So, I suggest that you withdraw, get some help from your ‘seconds’, and return to the fray when you have recovered. Otherwise, I and others will lose the amusement we have been getting from your exchanges.
Richard
@richardscourtney
DBstealy is wrong when he says the axis on the graph has been manipulated, he is not being honest when he makes that claim.
He also claimed that I have been posting “talking points” about ice, but has not been able to show any examples.
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan
@richardscourtney
I have never ever posted anything from Tamino’s blog. That is another straw-man DB created to muddy the water.
Master of Space and Thyme:
Thankyou for your post addressed to me at August 15, 2013 at 8:18 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/14/the-early-chill-in-the-arctic-continues/#comment-1390800
which refutes the suggestion of dbstealey that you were making “talking points” obtained from Tamino’s blog (assuming Tamina and Tamino are one and the same and that “copying” is the same as restating).
Please consider my suggestion that you ‘take a short breather’. I am sure I am not alone in wanting to observe more of your exchanges on WUWT. Yes, you have had a pounding, and, yes, it is starting to show. But WUWT needs ‘dissenting voices’ such as yours.
Richard
@richardscourtney
I would like you or DB to post a single talking point I made regarding ice. Everything I have posted here was based on factual data backed up with links to the source.
Master of Space and Thyme:
I write to say I have read your post addressed to me at August 15, 2013 at 8:36 am.
[My] posts addressed to you offered sincere advise. Your post I am answering adds to my reason for offering that advise. I have acknowledged your post and you make take this acknowledgement as covering any future posts you address to me.
Richard
If you want to see a chart that had its axis manipulated, here is an example of one poorly done by Professor Nils-Axel Mörner. The offending graph is figure 5.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldeconaf/12/12we18.htm
I believe he is the individual being referred to in this post.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/31/the-marshall-islands-and-their-sea-level-changes/
I found the WUWT post speculating on dry ice snow in Antarctica by the anonymous blogger who posts under the name Steven Goddard.
“How cold is it in Antarctica? According to Weather Underground, Vostok, Antarctica is forecast to reach -113F on Friday. That is four degrees below the freezing point of CO2 and would cause dry (CO2) ice to freeze directly out of the air.”
By Steven Goddard
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/09/co2-condensation-in-antarctica-at-113f/
It was followed followed by another post where Anthony Watts refuted “Steven Goddard’s” weird hypothesis.
“We all learned something, we had a little fun, some online yelling occurred, and some egos were bruised. Overall though it was worthwhile that this myth of “CO2 snow at Vostok station” was finally put to rest.”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/13/results-lab-experiment-regarding-co2-snow-in-antarctica-at-113%C2%B0f-80-5%C2%B0c-not-possible/
Master of Space and Thyme says:
August 15, 2013 at 8:36 am
Thyme: Every paragraph you have written has been a “talking point” from the CAGW community: You have offered absolutely nothing “new” except introducing PIOMAS as “evidence” of a loss of Arctic sea ice” … Which, as i pointed out above, adds nothing, since ALL data from EVERY source indicates a recent Arctic sea ice decline! I would, in fact, be surprised if PIOMAS did NOT indicate a decline in Arctic sea ice.
By the way, what is your position, your sponsor’s position actually, on the +1,000,000 extra sq km’s of Antarctic sea ice? What is the effect of that GAIN in sea ice on the net heat transfer of this planet?
Regardless, please show me, by calculation and not talking point, exactly WHY you so greatly fear Arctic sea ice loss in mid-August and September. We do not disagree on the loss of Arctic sea ice, I just want to know WHAT you so greatly fear because of that Arctic sea ice loss?
Remember, September – at time of minimum sea ice extents. At say, 2:00 in the afternoon on September 21; and 12 hours later – at 02:00 in the morning.
@RACookPE1978
Please name a single talking point regarding ice, there are none. I understand how things work at WUWT, so I have limited all my comments to posting about past or current climate and ice events, backed up with actual data, along with sources.
Nowhere have I speculated about climate change, global warming or future ice conditions.
Just because DB has made assertions, they shouldn’t be given credence when he is unwilling to provide factual evidence.
Meanwhile, back in the facts based reality, it appears various models are predicting the fourth Arctic cyclone of the melt season to form next Wednesday.. That should continue the cold weather north of 80 degrees. It will be interesting to watch the models as we get closer to see if this storm will bring record shattering hot weather to the Canadian Arctic like the storm that ended yesterday.
ECMWF
http://www.meteociel.fr/modeles/ecmwf/runs/2013081500/ECH1-192.GIF?15-12
GEM
http://www.meteociel.fr/modeles/ecmwf.php?ech=72&mode=1&map=1&type=0&archive=0
MODIS aqua caught another peek through the clouds that shows even larger “lakes” north of 80 degrees when compared to images taken before the last storm. The largest area of open water in this pic below measures several hundred square km in area.
http://tinyurl.com/mdta3ha
At the pole, MODIS terra shows what appears to be increasingly larger areas of open water. The cloud cover makes the image less clear, so the true extent of open water is unknown. It will certainly be interesting to catch a view of the pole when the cloud cover lifts, but unfortunately that may not be any time soon.
http://tinyurl.com/kyzwpmz
Master of Space and Thyme says:
August 15, 2013 at 9:54 am
?????
Perhaps you won’t/don’t/can’t understand: Do you not understand we DO agree that there has been a recent Arctic sea ice decline?
A “talking point” is a short, memorized statement used by politicians and their propaganda agents to address a complex issue in short, one to three easily-memorized or written sentences (or, rarely, paragraphs) that serve to further the talker’s position. Most often talking points are actually BASED (somewhat) on (limited) facts, but NEVER all of the facts or mitigating circumstances or full truth of the subject at hand. Further, the person dissembling “talking points”, rather than having an actual conversation or teaching event, simply either repeats his/her memorized/copied talking point, or – if failed to conclude the argument or silence the enemy speaker – immediately changes the subject to the next memorized talking point.
This occurs BECAUSE the speaker/writer does NOT know enough about the subject at hand to do anything but repeat simple copied/memorized talking points.
Your writings have done nothing to either add to that (previously derived here) conclusion that Arctic sea ice is declining now nor have they done to anything that contradicts that (previously derived here) conclusion that Arctic sea ice has declined, nor do they do anything to extend or extrapolate to a future condition with respect to that (previously derived here) conclusion that Arctic sea ice may continue to decline in future years.
Your multiply repeated comments in this thread do NOT add anything to the discussion, nor do they further that conversation/teaching event – which is EXACTLY what you stated above. Your comments do, in fact, solely distract from that previously derived conclusion: Anthony, several YEARS ago, specifically developed his “Sea Ice Page” BECAUSE of the data that showed Arctic Sea Ice was in decline, and that Antarctic sea was changing. (At the time, it was not evident that Antarctic sea was going to grow as rapidly as it has recently. I congratulate Anthony for seeing that potential Antarctic sea ice increase, and for being able to track that increase as it continues into today’s climate/weather.)
Let me try again: We do NOT need “evidence” that Arctic sea ice has recently declined.
Rather, we need a “contribution” – quantifying from you with “scientific” numbers – what the potential effects of this recent decline in Arctic sea will be.
1) Tell us specifically (by calculations and numbers) WHAT YOU FEAR from a continued decline in Arctic sea ice?
2) Tell us WHY you do NOT fear that same problem (whatever that problem is or may become) from an increase in Antarctic sea ice?
RACookPE1978 says:
August 14, 2013 at 10:20 pm
” 2) NORSEX has (last year) a minimum sea ice area of 3,000,000 km sq. If today’s – this week’s “average anamoly” of -1,000,000 continues – which is not expected, but certainly could happen, do you agree then that a minium “sea ice area” of 2,000,000 could happen?”
I don’t think you understand what the word anomaly means. It is not the same as one year change. The average anomaly of -1,000,000 is the difference from the satellite era average, not the 2012 area. This week’s anomaly is actually considerably above 2012, so no, I do not think a sea ice area of 2,000,000 could happen this year. Even if it could, that is way different than your statement I have been refuting: “ALL of the Arctic ice between today’s limits and 85 north SHOULD be expected to melt EVERY year.” This statement is completely false, and I’m not sure why you continue to defend it.
I think the effects of decreased ice remain to be seen, but that it is interesting to watch. I’m not sure if the ice will rebound, remain low for decades, or vanish altogether. I don’t think anyone knows for sure. I think it’s absurd how many warmists think an ice free arctic is a certainty, but I also think it’s absurd how many people on this site think it’s an impossibility.
MS&T says:
I have never ever posted anything from Tamino’s blog. That is another straw-man DB created to muddy the water.
Not really. Upthread you stated that you were going to tamino’s blog to ask them for information, so my assumption was rational. But if you were just inventing a fake response, you can’t blame me for taking you at your word.
Next:
If you want to see a chart that had its axis manipulated…
Thank you for making my point. Prof Mörner’s graph properly begins at a zero baseline. Had the PIOMAS chart started at zero, the apparent decline shown would have been much less pronounced. But I commend you on taking the time to at least scan Dr Mörner paper. You can learn a lot from him. Next:
I believe he is the individual being referred to in this post.
Yes, Prof Mörner is an internationally recognized sea level/ocean expert. I understand that drives you crazy, but you are the one who has demanded a peer reviewed authority. Do a search for Prof Morner’s CV. And BTW… what is your CV? Do you have one? Since I’m in my question-asking mode, are you ever going to try and answer the question I’ve been asking you, or do you intend to permanently dodge it? The reason I ask it is because it is central to the entire AGW debate. There is either testable, measurable empirical evidence for AGW, or there isn’t. Do you believe there is such evidence? Or not?
Also, today is a weekday. Yesterday was also a workday, but it seems you are posting here 24/7. Do you have an employer? [This has been asked before by someone else. I ask out of curiosity.]
Next, you comment on an anonymous blogger who posts under the name Steven Goddard. Since you make that assertion, who is this Steven Goddard? Give us his real name, please, otherwise as Richard Courtney points out, you rely on ad hominem arguments.
Next, your linked article says:
So there you have it. That is how science is done. Note that RealClimate, tamino, Skeptical Science, and other alarmist blogs do not allow wide ranging discussion with input from both sides in order to resolve questions like this. Instead, they censor, delete, and alter comments, and only allow those that support their narrative. That is not science, that is propaganda.
In this case, the question was resolved through much discussion and a follow-up post. You seem very unhappy that a science question was settled this way. But that is how science is supposed to be done. No one is right 100% of the time [and in fact, the predictions of the alarmist crowd appear to be wrong 100% of the time]. Attacking someone because they left partial pressure out of the equation is petty, and worse, unscientific. But if that kind of attack is all you’ve got, I guess that’s what you have to use — since admitting that the catastrophic AGW conjecture is wrong would be entirely out of the question for everyone on the climate alarmist bandwagon.
But as always, thanx for playing.
@RACookPE1978
So like all the others, you can’t find a single talking point I’ve made.
Why am I not surprised?
@dbstealey:
So you don’t have an issue with a fraudulent graph by Mörner that was tilted by 30 degrees to hide the incline. but you are concerned by a graph that has an axis that doesn’t start at zero. That is hilarious.
I am, still waiting for the talking points you alleged I posted.
I did a little google search for your buddy who posts under the name Steven Goddard. It appears that he is really into conspiracy theories. Did you know that he is a birther and also believes that the shooting at Sandy Hook may have been a government conspiracy. There also appears to be quite a bit of racial flaming going on at his alleged science blog. My advice to you is not to be seen as one of his supporters.
@RACookPE1978
“1) Tell us specifically (by calculations and numbers) WHAT YOU FEAR from a continued decline in Arctic sea ice?
2) Tell us WHY you do NOT fear that same problem (whatever that problem is or may become) from an increase in Antarctic sea ice?”
I would like to answer
1) I don’t necessarily fear, but I am interested to watch how the three cell atmospheric circulation pattern evolves. A much warmer polar cell might give way to a 1 or 2-cell system, which would lead to falling dry air over the US and Europe (45 deg latitude), making them more arid. It’s not likely, but an interesting possibility.
2) Increase in winter sea ice has a smaller effect on albedo than decresed summer ice, since there is much less insolation in winter. Also, since the south polar region is land, the albedo wouldn’t be expected to change much regardless of what sea ice is doing.