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.
Master of Space and Thyme says:
August 15, 2013 at 10:40 am
To the contrary: I have shown – and you just confirmed that conclusion – that you have submitted NOTHING BUT talking points.
We have in this thread several times tried to get you to declare what you fear will be the result of reduced Arctic Sea Ice. You have, after many invitations and having has many hours to do the calculations on your own, NEVER said that reduced arctic sea is a potential or a real “problem.” Therefore, we must conclude that you have, in fact, come to this conclusion yourelf.
Congratulations.
Further, since you apparently have also presented no evidence (or memorized talking points) that the recently reduced Arctic Sea Ice is a problem in somebody’s else’s mind, then I congratulate you on being trained in properly the scientific methods of reviewing facts and calculating results independently. (As opposed, for example, to simply repeating memorized short but distracting factoids.)
Therefore I can declare that “Master of Thyme concludes specifically and directly after much discussion with reasonable and well-knowing professionals and skeptics on WUWT that the recent decline in Arctic Sea Ice is not a problem and can be ignored in all future climate discussions.
Further, Master of Thyme agrees that the recent greatly increasing Antarctic sea ice area IS a future problem of great importance to the climate debate since it proves that CO2 does NOT influence sea ice states, and that an increase in Antarctic sea ice extents may potentially very dangerous future cooling of the planet.”
Record heat wave bakes Canada’s North
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/story/2013/08/13/north-weather-heat.html
“Temperatures 10 degrees above normal across Yukon, Nunavut and Northwest Territories
Historically high heat over the past week has led to broken temperature records in all three northern territories but residents aren’t complaining.
Temperatures across Canada’s three territories have been about ten degrees above normal this week.
In some communities, like Kugluktuk, Nunavut, it’s been even more remarkable: yesterday, it set temperature records for the sixth consecutive day on Tuesday, hitting 29 degrees Celsius.
Typically, in Kugluktuk, it’s about 13 degrees this time of year, according to Environment Canada. Local teacher Barbara Olson and her family found a unique way to deal with the scorching temperatures: they’ve been snorkeling — in the Arctic Ocean.”
It’s interesting that I have been the only one at WUWT who has mentioned the Arctic heat wave.
There also been no mention of the recent eat wave in Siberia that resulted in wildfires over an area of exceeding ! million square kilometers.
@RACookPE1978
Since when has commenting on weather and posting links to current ice conditions been considered “talking points”?
In the facts based version of reality, that accusation is laughable.
My comments are all on topic and I am beginning to get the impression that what peeves you and a handful of other WUWT regulars is t that the facts from reality don’t agree with you own personal version of reality.
Brian says:
“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.”
For the record, I have commented in the past that I think an ice-free Arctic would be a net benefit, saving fuel by providing for shorter transits. Also, icebreakers require a lot of fuel. That’s why many of them are nuclear powered.
The climate is never static. It naturally fluctuates. The Arctic has been ice free in the past, and it will be ice free again. An ice free Arctic is part of the planet’s natural climate variability. Given the choice between global cooling and global warming, I think global warming is preferable. Warming would provide millions of hectares of new arable farmland in places like Siberia, Alaska, and Mongolia; it would provide more precipitation for farmland from increased humidity, and of course, the Arctic would have less ice. Win-win.
===================================
MS&T says:
“So you don’t have an issue with a fraudulent graph by Mörner…”
You, sir, are an assertion-prone regurgitator of stupid talking points. The graph in question is right out in the open for everyone to see, therefore, it can hardly be called “fraudulent”; fraud indicates deception, but nothing is being hidden. Your comment is simply another one of your easily debunked talking points. You do not indicate what if anything you believe is fraudulent, and even if your no-account opinion was worth considering, who should we believe? You? Or the internationally esteemed Dr Mörner? Because one of you is wrong.
I note that you also continue to dodge the question of your mythical CV. Prove me wrong: if you have a relevant CV, post it. Otherwise, Dr Mörner wins by default, because your anonymous opinion means nothing by comparison.
And your pathetic attempts to paint me into a corner as supporting the Sandy Hook shooting, and being a “birther”, and “racial flaming”, etc., are your own lame attempts to move the goal posts with irrelevant talking points, since you have decisively lost the science debate. Note that all your unrelated ad hominem attacks have nothing to do with the questions you are dodging. So I ask you once again: do you have any testable scientific evidence quantifying your belief in catastrophic AGW? Or are you simply trolling from your mom’s basement?
Master of Space and Thyme:
Please withdraw your unfounded smear of Professor Nils-Axel Mörner.
Niklas (which is what he likes to be called by his friends but not others) is a better man and a better scientist than you could dream of becoming. He has published his excellent work in 500+ peer reviewed publications.
His work concerns sea level – not Arctic ice – so there was and is no reason for you to have mentioned him or that work in this thread. But you introduced irrelevance solely to denigrate him and to falsely accuse him of misconduct. An apology for your conduct is warranted.
Richard
@dbstealey
The topic of this thread is not global warming, let’s keep our conversation to what you find factually wrong about my comments.
You are well know at real science blogs, I seriously doubt that you have the testicular fortitude to debate honestly, so all you are going to do is keep spinning over and over until I grow tired.
@richardscourtney
He tilted the axis of a graph by 30 degrees and then claimed that there was no incline, you can’t deny that fact. Who am I supposed to believe, you or my lying eyes?
How can you be so out of touch with reality?
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/
Ice behavior is following the 2005 track closely. Temp traces are also similar.
Master of Space and Thyme says:
August 15, 2013 at 11:17 am
Whenever and each and every time that they ARE talking points.
You have presented NO new evidence past the original and years-old conclusion of this site that Arctic sea ice has recently declined in area
We have disputed no facts that have been presented, so you can stop adding new talking points. (DB has presented evidence that your PIOMAS distraction may be incorrect, and uses misleading graphics to present a extrapolated and propagandist forecast, but nobody has disagreed with the “facts” that Arctic sea ice has recently declined in area.) Rather, you systematically and repeatedly and deliberately REFUSE to discuss the evidence or contribute anything that furthers the conversation.
Master of Thyme, by again failing to present any evidence to the contrary and after had the private time to research and refute any and all of the evidence that has been presented in public, repeats his previous assertion that “There is no present nor future problem with the recent Arctic sea ice decline, and further, Master of Thyme has examined all the evidence presented above and – having presented no statement to the contrary despite many other requests here and on other threads- concludes that the CAGW theories of CO2 affecting Arctic sea ice extents are wrong.”
dbstealey says:
August 15, 2013 at 11:20 am
“The climate is never static. It naturally fluctuates. The Arctic has been ice free in the past, and it will be ice free again.”
While this is certainly true, it hasn’t happened in recorded history. So it will likely have many unforeseen consequences, both positive and negative. It’s obvious you think warminsts are nuts, but that doesn’t negate the possible negative outcomes. And though the climate does naturally fluctuate, humand can cause additional alterations on top of the naturally occurring ones. The difference is difficult to distinguish. Unfortunately, most people seem to fall into two camps: change is either all natural or all anthropogenic. I think it would be better if we stopped all of the rhetoric against the opposing extreme viewpoints and acknowledged all possibilities. The observations and science are interesting enough without the rhetoric.
@RACookPE1978
Show me a single talking point. I am beginning to get the feeling that you consider anything outside your personally generated version of reality a talking point. Is the link
to the heat wave in the Canadian Arctic a talking point?
How about this link to the current Siberian wildfires, heat wave and floods, is that a talking point?
http://robertscribbler.wordpress.com/2013/08/14/a-song-of-flood-and-fire-one-million-square-kilometers-of-burning-siberia-doused-by-immense-deluge/
I think everyone is upset because I posted facts that show that there are very large area of the Arctic that have been anomalously hot recently and they are resentful that it doesn’t conform to their personal beliefs. That certainly indicates a lack of genuine skepticism and open mindedness.
Brian says:
August 15, 2013 at 10:52 am (replying to an earlier, and still open, question)
“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?”
Thank you for your contributions above.
Antarctic first: True, the Antarctic continent surrounds the south pole, and that continental land mass is (98% +) always covered by a permanent ice cap/snow cap that always reflects sunlight. But this permanent land ice mass is surrounded itself by the “permanent” ice shelves, and those ice shelves and the ice-covered land mass are THEN surrounded by the “Antarctic Sea Ice at minimum extents” each year.
Thus, even at times of minimum Antarctic sea ice extents, the MINIMUM total reflecting area around the south pole is NOT the continent land area, but the continent (14,000 Kkm2) PLUS the permanent ice shelves (1,500 Kkm2) PLUS the Antarctic sea ice at minimum (2013 this minimum sea ice area was 2,000 Kkm2, 2012’s minimum was 2,000 Kkm2, 2011 was down at 1,750 Kkm2 minimum.) So not only is the MINIMUM “ice area” is what is growing in the Antarctic; but the day-to-day TOTAL ice cap of the Antarctic is also what is growing; and the MAXIMUM Antarctic total ice cap is what is growing past all previous records. Since, as you correctly point out above – when measuring the effect of a constantly changing influence, one must always consider not only the changing influence, but also the effect of any CHANGE (anomaly) from that ever-changing influence – we must evaluate the potential effect of the daily/monthly/yearly anomaly of the antarctic sea ice. After all, the continental area has not changed recently, and the area of the permanent ice shelves has been controversial, but has not changed very much either.
Now, today, look at the total area of reflective ice around the south pole:
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_bm_extent_hires.png
The “growing edge” of that Antarctic TOTAL ice area is what is reflecting “extra” sunlight from the planet not previously lost to space as in past years, and, worse, the “edge” of that TOTAL area is quickly working itself past 60 degrees south latitude even closer to the equator. This is equivalent to an ice area up north lower than the south coast of Alaska, cutting across the middle of Canada, through the lower tip of Greenland, and all the way through half of Europe and Russia/Siberia!
From mid-August through late October, the energy reflected from “new” or “extra” Antarctic sea ice at 60 latitude is many, many times larger than the energy “potentially” absorbed from the same area of ice lost at 81, 83, or 85 north latitude.
Brian,
When did “recorded history” begin? This is recorded history. It is the geological record of Arctic ice cover.
What you are arguing is the Precautionary Principle: “what if” there are problems? And “possible negative outcomes” could apply to anything in future. But none of those things are science. They are all “what if” scenarios — with the “what ifs” completely undefined.
If we based our decisions on the PP, we would never get anywhere. I have given concrete examples of the net benefits of less or no Arctic ice. Saying, “But what if…” is not a credible response.
Also, I don’t think ‘all warmists are nuts’ [MS&T excluded]. 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. But in Climatism, the fact that there are no facts does not seem to matter at all. The alarm must still be sounded!
=========================
MS&T says:
“I think everyone is upset because I posted facts that show that there are very large area of the Arctic that have been anomalously hot recently…”
Well, I’m not upset. My response is: “So what?”
There are always anomalies. So what?
Master of Thyme, by again failing to present any evidence to the contrary and after he had the private time to research and refute any and all of the evidence that has been presented in public, repeats his previous assertion that “There is no present nor future problem with the recent Arctic sea ice decline, and further, Master of Thyme has examined all the evidence presented above and – having presented no statement to the contrary despite many other requests here and on other threads- concludes that the CAGW theories of CO2 affecting Arctic sea ice extents are wrong.”
RACookPE agrees with Thyme that certain areas of the Canadian Arctic land areas have increased in temperature in recent days – as they always do each summer! – and agrees with Master of Thyme that this temporary temperature on the Arctic shores far from the edge of the current Arctic sea ice is not a problem and has nothing to do with the future heating of the Arctic region.
Master of Space and Thyme:
I am outraged by your despicable post at August 15, 2013 at 11:30 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/14/the-early-chill-in-the-arctic-continues/#comment-1391050
In total it says concerning Professor Nils-Axel Mörner
NO! He did not! APOLOGISE.
You have provided no reference, link or evidence concerning your despicable smear because it is merely another talking point you have gleaned from some climate porn blog. And I think you – not your eyes – are lying because I don’t think you have seen the graph.
I have seen it and I am familiar with this matter.
Niklas corrected GRACE data for global isostatic adjustment. The correction to the uncorrected data revealed a truth that warmunists found inconvenient so they did – as you have done – their usual practice of ‘attacking the messenger’ with smears.
The correction – and graph you clearly have not seen – is Figure 8 of this paper
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/sea_level_not_rising.pdf
Now grovel, admit you were wrong, and APOLOGISE.
Richard
Master of Space and Thyme says: August 15, 2013 at 11:49 am
Weather ≠ Climate
@dbstealey
“Well, I’m not upset. My response is: “So what?”
There are always anomalies. So what?”
Just like you have no issue with tilting a graph by thirty degrees and then claiming it shows no rise in sea level, you see nothing wrong with a headline that states,”The early chill in the Arctic continues”, during a time period when a majority of the arctic was experiencing anomalously high temperatures.
Keep digging, your disingenuousness and lack of true skepticism is being displayed for all to see.
I told you before, I am a genuine skeptic and have my membership in JREF to prove it.
“NO! He did not! APOLOGISE.”
Did you not click the link to the tilted graph?
You are not being intellectually honest, I have posted nothing that warrants an apology. If anyone deserves an apology, it is me, because you are dishonest with your accusation.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/polar-meltdown/
Master of Space and Thyme I invite you to go the above link to read accounts from the 1800’s of the warming of the Arctic and the loss of sea ice. Also you will find if you peruse Mr. Goddard’s site a graph showing the satellite ice readings, from the early 1970’s not 1979 as normally shown, that show Arctic sea ice was very low in the early ’70’s.
As stated by many we know the Arctic sea ice has declined from the high, but have the oscillations over long periods really changed that much?
@Steve Keohane
Weather ≠ Climate
I am getting the feeling that nobody here has actually bothered to read my comments. Nowhere have I claimed the heat wave in the Arctic was as sign of global warming. I have never ever made even a single comment here in support of global warming.
Steve, maybe you comment should have been addressed the individual who posted this thread, because a lot of posters here seem to be conflating cold temperatures in a small area of the far north as being proof that there is no global warming.
I posted links showing that despite it being a couple degrees colder than normal at the pole. the warm temperature anomalies in the rest of the Arctic dwarf the small negative anomaly north of 80
Master of Space and Thyme:
re your post at August 15, 2013 at 12:19 pm
You ask
I POSTED THE LINK NOT YOU.
Here it is again
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/sea_level_not_rising.pdf
And you have the gall to say to me
YOU ARE BEING COMPLETELY DISHONEST.
You now owe me an apology in addition to the apology you owe Niklas.
I appreciate that you lack the intellectual capability to read the text of the paper but you should be capable of reading the titles of Figures 8 and 9.
You really are a piece of work. Having had nothing of substance to say, and having been pummeled for swamping the thread with drivel, you ignore a helpful suggestion that you withdraw and reflect, then you start posting untrue smears, and you refuse to apologise when called on them.
Have you no shame?
Richard
MS&T says:
“I am a genuine skeptic…”
heh
Like all your comments, that one is complete nonsense.
Also, the graph you are fixated on was tilted to make a point. Obviously, that point went flying right over your head. And Richard Courtney is right: you brought up a sea level authority in an Arctic ice thread. That shows you have no credible on-point arguments to make.
Since you’re also fixated on anomalies, here are a couple of charts that debunk your belief that there is a problem with Arctic ice. The fact is that global ice cover is about where it has been ever since the satellite record began.
So whether you like it or not [you won’t], we’re going to be referring to the Antarctic in some future posts to give readers a balanced view, because your belief system is anything but balanced.
@mkelly
I respectfully decline the invitation to that fake science blog. The anonymous blogger who posts under the name Goddard is wrong about that assertion regarding satellite measurements in the early 70’s. The earlier satellites did not do the same type of measurements, the instruments dealt with different wavelengths. I forget the details and that racist conspiracy nut is hardly worth the effort of doing a google search. As far as anecdotal evidence of past Arctic warming, those silly clippings from magazines are famous, poor Steve been laughed at on genuine science blogs for years.
Master of Space and Thyme says:
August 15, 2013 at 12:13 pm (replying to)
@dbstealey
“Well, I’m not upset. My response is: “So what?”
There are always anomalies. So what?”
Master of Thyme, being a genuine skeptic and having a membership in the JREF to prove it, declares that, having reviewed the evidence and all current trends of sea ice growth in the Antarctic, has come to the conclusion using the Precautionary Principle, that the 34 year growth in Antarctic sea ice is only continuing to accelerate and is now increasing at a confirmed rate of 1,250 Kkm2 in only 25 months, and anticipates the complete blockage of the Straits of Magellan and Cape Horn by sea ice in 15 years.
@dbstealey
I brought up a sea level authority in order to illustrate a real manipulation of a graph’s axis, try and keep up little feller. I could just imagine if this blog was to debate individuals from a real science blog, it would be a disaster of epic proportions. Of course it will never happen, there is no way this motley crew would have the courage to debate in an open forum.
[Reply: This is the most open internet science forum you will ever get. But please read the Policy page: those “starting flame wars may find their posts deleted.” Thread-jacking also violates site policy. Your comments are thread-jacking, and you are flaming everyone you disagree with. First warning. — mod.]