A grand experiment is being conducted in the Arctic this year that may not only falsify a prediction made in 2007, but may also further distance a connection between Arctic air temperature and sea ice decline.
You may have noticed the countdown widget at the top of the right sidebar. I’ve been waiting for this event all summer, and now that we are just over a month away from the Autumnal Equinox at September 22, at 20:44 UTC., (4:44PM EDT) signifying the end of summer in the Northern Hemisphere, this seemed like a good time to start the countdown. If there is still significant ice (1 million square kilometers or more as defined by Zwally, see below) in place then, we can consider that this claim by Maslowski in 2007 to be falsified:
Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7139797.stm
What is most interesting though, is that Arctic temperatures seem to be in early decline, ahead of schedule by about 30 days compared to last year’s record melt:
Figure 1A: Overlay of temperature plots for 2012 and 2013 from the Danish Meteorological Institute.
Note that in Figure 1A, for 2013 the temperature has fallen below that which is needed to freeze seawater (approximately -1.8°C according to Peter Wadhams) at 271°K (-2.15°C). It is also approximmately 30 days ahead of the date that the temperature fell to the same value last year, and so far, the current situation with early colder temperature seems to be unique in the DMI temperature record back to 1958. However, it is worth noting that DMI has a caveat not to take the actual temperatures too literally.
…since the model is gridded in a regular 0.5 degree grid, the mean temperature values are strongly biased towards the temperature in the most northern part of the Arctic! Therefore, do NOT use this measure as an actual physical mean temperature of the arctic. The ‘plus 80 North mean temperature’graphs can be used for comparing one year to an other.
As if on cue for that caveat, shortly after I prepared figure 1A, DMI updated their plot to show a bit of a rebound:
Figure 1B DMI plot for today.
But there are other indications, for example this plot from NOAA ESRL, showing air temperatures well below freezing in the region:
Figure 2: Surface air temperatures in C Source: NOAA ESRL – Click the pic to view at sourceAnd, extent this year is ahead of extent for this time last year and within the standard deviation range (grey shading):
Figure 3: Danish Meteorological Institute (DMI) – Centre for Ocean and Ice – Click the pic to view at sourceAfter a new record low in Arctic sea ice extent in 2012, the phrase “Nature abhors a vaccum” comes to mind as indicators suggest this melt season may end earlier than usual. The earliest that a turn in Arctic melt season was recorded in the satellite record was on September 2nd, 1987. With 14 days to go, will we see an earlier turn?
If we do, it might suggest (as many believe) that sea ice melt is directly tied to air temperature and the effects of increased CO2 on air temperature via the polar amplification we are often told about where the Arctic is the fastest warming place in the world.
Figure 4: The map above shows global temperature anomalies for 2000 to 2009. It does not depict absolute temperature, but rather how much warmer or colder a region is compared to the norm for that region from 1951 to 1980. Global temperatures from 2000–2009 were on average about 0.6°C higher than they were from 1951–1980. The Arctic, however, was about 2°C warmer. Based on GISS surface temperature analysis data including ship and buoy data from the Hadley Centre.
Image Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_amplification
If the melt continues, and turns around the normal time, which is usually +/- 5 days of the Autumnal Equinox on September 22nd, then we can assume other forcings are dominant this year, such as ocean currents and cycles like the AMO, winds, and ocean temperature below the sea ice. There’s also the unanswered question of the effects of black carbon soot.
If in spite of the early drop in temperatures, the Arctic sea ice extent ice drops below 1 million square kilometers, as NASA’s Jay Zwally famously predicted (with an assist from AP’s Seth Borenstein): “…the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012″ then most certainly all bets are off.
But if we see an early turn, it will falsify Maslowski’s and Zwally’s forecasts. Also, if the melt marches on despite the colder temperatures, it will force a reconsideration of what is really driving Arctic melt patterns.
Interestingly, the final ARCUS sea ice forecast has been published on August 16th,and the ranges of predictions are quite broad, spanning 2.2 million square kilometers from the most optimistic NOAA’s Msadek et al. at 5.8 msq/km to the perennially gloomy “Neven” whose Artic Sea Ice blog poll predicts 3.6 msq/km.
See http://www.arcus.org/search/seaiceoutlook/2013/august
They write:
The Sea Ice Outlook organizers decided, with input from contributors and readers, to skip an August report this year in favor of a more thorough post-season report.
However, we provided this webpage to post and share individual contributors¹ August outlooks; the individual outlooks are below.
Since ARCUS didn’t plot them, I’ve plotted all the participant forecasts below.
Figure 5: plot of September Arctic Sea Ice Extent Mean forecasts submitted to ARCUS in August 2013.
Interestingly, I discovered that Robert Grumbine has participated in two forecasts (Wu and Wang) as a co-author, each with a different prediction, so that seems rather odd to me.
WUWT’s value is based on a weighted calculation of the top five vote getters in our poll here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/11/sea-ice-news-volume-4-3-2013-sea-ice-forecast-contest/
The most popular value picked by WUWT readers was 5.0 msq/km 8.9% (94 votes), though it wasn’t a runaway vote, hence I opted for a weighted average of the top 5 vote getters.
Most importantly, none of the ARCUS forecasts participants suggested an ice-free Arctic, which is bad news for Maslowski’s prediction.
No matter what happens, we live in interesting times.
As always the WUWT Sea Ice reference page has interesting plots of data at a glance: http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/sea-ice-page/
UPDATE: Commenter “jimbo” adds in comments –
Here is a compilation of ice-free Arctic Ocean / North Pole predictions / projections from scientists for the past, present and future.
Xinhua News Agency – 1 March 2008
“If Norway’s average temperature this year equals that in 2007, the ice cap in the Arctic will all melt away, which is highly possible judging from current conditions,” Orheim said.
[Dr. Olav Orheim – Norwegian International Polar Year Secretariat]
__________________
Canada.com – 16 November 2007
“According to these models, there will be no sea ice left in the summer in the Arctic Ocean somewhere between 2010 and 2015.
“And it’s probably going to happen even faster than that,” said Fortier,””
[Professor Louis Fortier – Université Laval, Director ArcticNet]
__________________
National Geographic – 12 December 2007
“NASA climate scientist Jay Zwally said: “At this rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012, much faster than previous predictions.” ”
[Dr. Jay Zwally – NASA]
__________________
BBC – 12 December 2007
“Our projection of 2013 for the removal of ice in summer is not accounting for the last two minima, in 2005 and 2007,”…….”So given that fact, you can argue that may be our projection of 2013 is already too conservative.”
[Professor Wieslaw Maslowski]
__________________
Independent – 27 June 2008
Exclusive: Scientists warn that there may be no ice at North Pole this summer
“…..It is quite likely that the North Pole will be exposed this summer – it’s not happened before,” Professor Wadhams said.”
[Professor Peter Wadhams – Cambridge University]
__________________
Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences
Vol. 40: 625-654 – May 2012
The Future of Arctic Sea Ice
“…..one can project that at this rate it would take only 9 more years or until 2016 ± 3 years to reach a nearly ice-free Arctic Ocean in summer. Regardless of high uncertainty associated with such an estimate, it does provide a lower bound of the time range for projections of seasonal sea ice cover…..”
[Professor Wieslaw Maslowski]
__________________
Yale Environment360 – 30 August 2012
“If this rate of melting [in 2012] is sustained in 2013, we are staring down the barrel and looking at a summer Arctic which is potentially free of sea ice within this decade,”
[Dr. Mark Drinkwater]
__________________
Guardian – 17 September 2012
“This collapse, I predicted would occur in 2015-16 at which time the summer Arctic (August to September) would become ice-free. The final collapse towards that state is now happening and will probably be complete by those dates“.
[Professor Peter Wadhams – Cambridge University]
__________________
Sierra Club – March 23, 2013
“For the record—I do not think that any sea ice will survive this summer. An event unprecedented in human history is today, this very moment, transpiring in the Arctic Ocean….”
[Paul Beckwith – PhD student paleoclimatology and climatology – part-time professor]
__________________
Financial Times Magazine – 2 August 2013
“It could even be this year or next year but not later than 2015 there won’t be any ice in the Arctic in the summer,”
[Professor Peter Wadhams – Cambridge University]
__________________
Thanks barry. So, what would that researcher say is implied by the failure of DMI temps to get even to the constrained average? That’s the main reason I raised the issue.
What I’m getting at is that if temps taken at somewhat higher altitudes in the summer average, just as an example, 10 deg C but the DMI surface temps are constrained by the presence of the ice, and now the DMI temps can’t even make the average during most of the summer, could that imply a much larger discrepancy between this year’s actual higher-altitude temps and those of past years?
Put another way, could the drop this year be far larger than the one to three deg C implied by looking just at the DMI chart?
This is hard to put clearly, so I’ll also try this example also: Say the average annual temps 100 feet above the Arctic range from +6 deg C to +15 deg C. That is, 1987 might have averaged +6 deg C, and 1988 might have averaged +15 deg C, etc. In all years, no matter the average 100 feet above the surface, DMI surface temps (constrained by the presence of ice) reach a max of about 2 deg C. (275 deg K). In my example, this happens whether the higher altitude average temp is 6 or 15 deg C. The ice constrains the DMI temp to about 275 deg K.
But this year they never reached the normal average. Does this imply that we never got even into the normal 6-15 deg C range at all? See what I mean? (Remember, I’m making up the numbers here, just to illustrate the concept.) So, again, is the drop this year at the somewhat higher altitudes far larger than just the 2-3 degrees implied by the DMI chart?
Current Arctic sea ice extent for 2013 has crossed over 2008 & is gaining on the 2009 line. A minimum Arctic sea ice extent higher than 2009 this year means the highest low since 2006, & also possibly higher than 2005:
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/sotc/sea_ice.html
Unfortunately we don’t have data for that altitude so far North. Satellite lower troposphere data has a ‘hole’ North of 82N. But there’s no reason to expect temperatures at higher altitudes to effect surface temperatures near the ice (the other way around, I would expect). it is the ice that is responsible for the near-0 temps. The slight differences year to year that give warmer or cooler temps than zero would more likely to be a result of winds transporting heat (or cool) to the far North Arctic.
NSIDC has posted recently that lower Arctic temps usually accompany a low pressure system which has been observed for the past two months over the North Pole. there has also been a fe storms that have brought cloudiness to the North Pole. The sun isn’t getting much reach this year.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2013/08/
Neven’s sea ice blog is full of weather data and the like for the Arctic. The latest post covers recdent weather conditions.
http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2013/08/asi-2013-update-7-cold-and-cloudy.html
The Pompous Git and Gail Combs,
Thanks both for your interesting comments. It’s true that the Antarctic has been misbehaving. Very often of late the planet has not been doing what was expected of it.
Where is that runaway global warming, anyway?
“barry says:
August 20, 2013 at 9:25 am
Unfortunately we don’t have data for that altitude so far North. ”
What I’m saying is that I think the DMI chart for this year implies that if we did have such temperature data, it would show significantly lower temps for this year’s summer months than in nearly all previous years. It seems to me that the chart tells us that, assuming that there isn’t a glitch in the model or the instruments this year. It says nothing of the magnitude of the difference; only that it’s likely to be significantly greater (at higher altitudes) than the 1-2 degree drop below normal temps on the DMI chart at sea surface.
Barry:
Do you have a globe on your desk? It will prevent much future confusion about Antarctic and arctic sea ice areas and extents. The globe will also show you information that may prevent you from making such a mistake as to compare areas of Antarctic sea ice with Arctic ice, and with the even worse error of trying to compare “percentage of Antarctic sea (a gain)” vs (percentage of total Arctic sea ice (an admitted loss).
You fear the loss of Arctic sea ice in the summer – I don’t know why, but you (and in general, your attitude and Dr Chilo-Mann-Sereze-Hansen-Briffa-etc-etc-etc) are repeated endlessly in their political presentations to the public. But, this year, I will agree that Arctic sea ice loss is the only remaining scare-factor left in the CAGW arsenal. All other predictions, statements, and extrapolations have been shooting duds (droughts, floods, sea rise, sea acidification, tornadoes, hurricanes, air temperatures, ocean temperatures, etc), only Arctic sea ice loss continues to decline on an year-to-year basis.
We have said this before, but it must be repeated: The Arctic sea ice is bounded by land, and covers the north pole down to a latitude which corresponds to the area of the sea ice, given an earth radius of 6371 km. The minimum Arctic sea ice area was down to 3,500,000 km2 in 2012. The Antarctic Sea Ice SURROUNDS the Antarctic continent and the Antarctic ice shelves. It’s maximum is 19,000,000 km2, surrounding an ice shelve total of 1,5000 Kkm2 and a ice-covered land area of 14,000 Kkm2.
So let us take your “most extreme” case; your most frightening case to a CAGW theist: What if we lose 50% of the Arctic Sea Ice in 2012. In other words, let us pretend we lost 1,000,000 km2 of sea ice in mid-September, 2012 by suddenly dropping from 2,000,000 km2 to 1,000,000 km2 of sea ice. You pick the scenario – it doesn’t matter. That 1,000 Kkm2 of sea ice was gone last year, and you are tasked to find out how extra solar energy is going to be absorbed by the exposed Arctic Ocean. Hansen, Mann, Sereze, Briffa all fear this arctic death spiral, so, to them, it must be a real threat.
But it is worse than you think: Later, to show how wrong you are, we will expand 1,000,000 of Antarctic sea ice, and see how frightening THAT really is. But that actual occurrence, that real fearful calculation of real sea ice expansion, will be later. Let’s see just how trivial a “pretend” loss of 50% of last year’s Arctic sea ice actually might be.
At 1,000,000 sq km’s, (1,000 Kkm2 for convenience) this is essentially everything between 85 north latitude and the Pole. (My real calc’s all to the appropriate number of decimal places, but that detail is not appropriate for a short lesson.) In mid-September at the equinox, when sea ice actually will be at this “pretend” emergency minimum, when sea ice has the ONLY chance of the year to be “zero” – and ONLY if ALL of this sea ice were to melt out for some reason, the sun never rises more than 5 degrees above the horizon. Between 85 north latitude and the pole, the sun is less than 4 degrees above the horizon for 20 hours of the day, and is below the horizon for 12 hours of the day. The weighted average of this 1,000 Kkm2 of sea ice is 87.3 north latitude. At the equinox in September, the projected area of this 1,000,000 km2 of sea ice is only 44 square kilometers. That’s it. That’s all: 44 sq km of sea ice is available to the sun’s rays on the equinox.
Now, earlier in the year, the sun IS higher in the sky. Earlier in the year, the polar sun IS shining for 24 hours of the day. But NEITHER happens where the Arctic sea ice “edge” is earlier in the year. When the polar sun is high in the sky, when the polar sun can be exposed to sea ice 24 hours of the day, the Arctic sea ice “edge” is way south off of the coast of Alaska, between the Bering Straits, Chukchi Sea, Iceland, and Siberia at 70 north latitude!
2,000,000 km2 of Arctic sea ice corresponds to a cap between 83 north latitude and the pole. The sun in mid-September is now – at most, at noon, for one hour – 7 degrees above the horizon. At 2:00 pm, at 83 north latitude, when the temperature is at its highest for the day, the sun is only 6.48 degrees above the horizon, straining to get through an air mass of 8.3 (on a rare clear day). The total projected area into the sun’s rays of the 1,000,000 km2 of sea ice between 83 north latitude and 85 north latitude is …. (wait for it!) …. 122 sq km.
3,000 Kkm2 of Arctic sea ice corresponds to a cap between 81 north latitude. At noon in mid-September, the sun is now rising higher – It is up to 9 degrees above the horizon. But your nightmare scenario has already melted that area – we are looking at the difference in energy absorbed when the sea ice drops from 2,000 Kkm2 to 1,000 Kkm2, right?
So, we have suddenly “lost” 1,000,000 sq km of Arctic Sea Ice one night, but have only exposed 122 square kilometers of “new” ocean surface to the sun’s rays. And this assumes one of those rare clear days in September in the Arctic! (6 out of 7 days in July, August, and September it will be cloudy, and most of this “potential” solar energy is reflected by high and low clouds.)
But it is worse than that.
Barry: Let’s continue from the above, since WordPress has a size limit on messages.
…
Remember that 8.269 “air mass” I so casually mentioned the sun’s rays need to penetrate to get down to the Arctic Ocean surface so they can be absorbed and heat the Arctic Ocean to start that “death spiral” you so greatly fear?
“Conventional” climatology defines “air mass” as the ratio of an ideal atmosphere that the sun’s rays must penetrate to get down to a surface at a given latitude, compared to what those rays must penetrate at the equator. So, at 83 north latitude, your your nominal 1362 watt6s/meter^2 solar flux (hence just “watts”) at the top of the atmosphere must go through 8.269 atmospheres to reach those 122 sq kilometers of newly exposed Arctic sea surface.
(To spare you some minor worries, you and I will not need to correct that top-of-atmosphere “solar constant” for the usual “day-of-year” correction of 3.3 percent. Both the spring and fall equinoxes fall very close to the “zero” points of the correction factor, so we will be able to simply use the “annual” value. Don’t try this when you look at the polar north at mid-summer! Then – in mid-June, the “solar constant” is 3.3 percent lower, nor at the mid-winter months in the Antarctic “summer” when the solar constant is 3.3 percent higher than your simplified September value. )
Equations vary slightly depending on who you read, but measured values of radiation received in the Arctic show that
Energy Absorbed (on a flat surface) = Global Radiation (hitting that surface) x (1 – surface albedo)
Global Radiation (hitting a flat surface = Direct Radiation + Diffuse Radiation
Direct Radiation (on a flat surface) = (Radiation TOA) x (0.85 (exp (air mass)) x (cos (latitude))
Diffuse Radiation = a % (varies by solar elevation angle and atmosphere turbidity) x Direct Radiation
So, figuring out how much direct radiation might be received on a flat surface at a given latitude after it penetrates those 8.3 Arctic atmospheres seems to be the key to your problem. (Remember, I already know it (the loss of Arctic Sea Ice) is not my problem, so it must be a CAGW problem since the CAGW Team are incessantly and increasingly worried about it, right?) Fortunately, we have already identified much of that messy cos(latitude) factor: that was how we figured out that only 122 sq km’s are exposed to the sun’s rays on a clear day out of 1,000,000 km’s of former sea ice.
Well, to end the suspense,
1362 watts/m^2 x 0.85 exp(8.269) x (cos 83) = 1362 x 0.26 x 0.121 = 355 watts/m^2 available direct solar energy x 0.121 = 43.6 watts/m^2. At those 43.6 watts arrive at only 6.48 degrees solar elevation angle.
You will see a LOT of disagreement in the various papers about how much diffuse solar energy may be present in addition to this 355 watts direct energy. Please let me know exactly what ratio of diffuse to direct energy you want to use, and we will go look at what happens to that diffuse energy. Please don’t forget it, but you need to tell me who you believe is most correct.
Now, this 43.6 watts/m^2 used to hit the Arctic sea ice yesterday – and was reflected!, but today – in your imaged problem – it will hit the newly exposed Arctic Ocean – and will be absorbed by “dark ocean waters”. So, identifying the difference in albedo between (bright) sea ice and (dark) open ocean seems to be the next step in your education (er, problem-solving process), right?
Well, Ward Connelley’s Wikipedia, Al Gore – and most CAGW publicity kits! – claim “sea ice reflects 90% of the sun’s rays”, and “the ocean absorbs 90% of the sun’s rays.” (Most often, you will see people use 0.06 albedo for ocean water, which is almost right, but ONLY for diffuse radiation. For direct radiation at high solar elevation angles (or low solar zenith angles – a value often seen) 0.045 is actually more accurate at 70-90 degrees elevation angle )
For the Arctic in September for direct radiation? Not even close by a factor of 10! Those claims are even further from the measured numbers in the Arctic when the sun is less than 10 degrees above the horizon in mid-September. Now, I have not personally been sitting in the Arctic measuring albedos of the summer sea ice, nor have I been on those ocean platforms and exposed Arctic sea ice leads when other researchers actually have spent months measuring albedos of open ocean seas – with waves, wind, and atmospheric turbidities all included! – so I will simply use their published, available on-line, neatly peer-reviewed existing measurements.
At 3 knots wind speed, at 6 degrees solar elevation angle, Pegau and Paulson (2001) report an open ocean albedo of right at 0.38. Jin (2004, cited 71 times) reporting the measurements taken from the COVE platform, measured open ocean albedos as well, but they only went down to 10 degrees solar elevation. (Extrapolating to 6.5 degrees, their graphs predict only a 0.28 albedo for the open ocean at modest wind speeds.) Davies (1969) measuring energy reflected from Lake Ontario waves at low angles, reports higher albedos though at 6.5 solar elevation angle and clear skies: 0.55 at 10 degrees, 0.52 at 8 degrees, 0.44 at 9 degrees, 0.52 at 4 degrees. Payne (1972, cited by more than 471 times by the CAGW community) measured open ocean albedos from a Chesapeake Bay platform, plots measured clear sky albedos at 0.43 at 7 degrees, 0.38 at 9 degrees, and predicts 0.53 albedo at 4 degrees. (Clearly, there is some scatter at low angles!)
Let’s use 0.38 open ocean albedo measured under clear skies with waves factored at 3-4 m/s wind speed at a solar elevation angle of 6.5 degrees, unless you can show otherwise with some other measurements.
Hmmmn. Of those 43.6 watts/m^2 that hit those 78 sq km’s of newly exposed Arctic open ocean waters, only 27 watts/m^2 will be absorbed into the water. The rest, 16.5 watts, will be reflected off of the water surface and return to the open skies.
But your much-feared imaged Arctic sea ice death spiral is even worse than that.
We have shown that 27 “extra” watts seem to be absorbed into the afternoon in all of those sq km’s of newly-exposed ocean water at 14:00 in the afternoon of your “disaster”, right? This, after we “lost” 1,000,000 sq km’s of Arctic sea ice the night before, right?
But, surely you must recall, those 1,000,000 sq km’s of sea ice were also exposed to the sun’s direct radiation yesterday. So, we must subtract whatever energy was absorbed into the (non-melted) sea ice yesterday from those “newly absorbed” 27 watts (into the ocean) added today, right?
Well, one day (24 hours earlier in the solar year) will change the sun’s exposure at 2:00 in the afternoon, but I will be nice, and assume that one day’s difference won’t change the air mass and solar elevation angle at 2:00 o’clock very much. (Remind me not to do this on my “real” hour-by-hour energy change calculations, please.)
So, what is the average measured albedo of melting sea ice in late summer in the high Arctic? Well, the most recent data are from Judith Curry’s measurements for the SHEBA project in 1998, and the most complete are what the University of Washington Applied Physics Laboratory translated from 41 years of data measured at 31 Russian ice stations drifting through the high Arctic between 1950 through 1991. Let’s go with the Russians’ 41 years of measured Arctic sea ice albedo for August-September, which – by the way – agrees with Curry anyway. If the sea ice is present, but before it melts completely, the “dirty” sea ice albedo in August-September is 0.71.
So, yesterday, when those 43.5 watts/m^2 hit the sea ice, 12.6 watts/m^2 were absorbed by the sea ice surface, and 30 watts/m^2 were reflected. The difference in absorbed energy when you melt sea ice at 83 north?
27 – 12.6, or 14.4 watts/m^2.
Sounds like a big difference, right? But wait – it’s even worse than you think!
See, those 14.4 watts/m^2 get absorbed by the Arctic Ocean -this is true! – but that is not the only change that takes place when you remove 1,000,000 sq km’s of sea ice.
See, it IS even worse than you think!
Remember those 1,000,000 sq km’s of sea ice that suddenly disappeared in your original problem statement?
Well, they are still exposed – all 1,000,000 sq km’s.
And every one of those newly exposed kilometers ARE now losing EXTRA heat to the Arctic environment by evaporation (about 113 watts/m^2) and by increased convection into the Arctic wind (open water is better than solid sea ice), and by increased long wave radiation into the 24 hours of Arctic “sky” (the open water at 2-4 degrees C (radiating at 275^4 K) loses more energy in that pesky T^4 Stefan-Boltzman equation than does the upper sea ice surface at -14 C (radiating into the same sky, but losing heat at 259^4 K). The emissivities of open water and of sea ice are just about the same.
Oops. 50% of the Arctic Sea Ice disappeared overnight.
And the Arctic is losing more energy than it did before.
Bill Illis says:
August 18, 2013 at 4:48 pm
Ellesmere Island, Northern Greenland already covered in snow. Orange is ice or snow in this false color image. No ice export through the Nares Strait between Greenland and Ellesmere for the second year in a row. Today’s image.
Afraid not Bill, check out recent MODIS images, it’s clear that there is export through the Nares Strait.
Phil. says:
August 20, 2013 at 2:29 pm
Phil: Thank you for your earlier correction to a previous calculation: You are right: I had mis-used “incidence angle” as being synonymous with “elevation angle”. More properly, since optical physics has chosen to describe that as the angle between a surface perpendicular to the reflecting surface, not the reflecting surface itself. In mechanical design, the opposite is inferred: a glancing blow or force is often described by its incidence angle (up from the surface or point of impact).
The latest uptick in DMI temperature from prematurely subzero temps, could be a latent heat release from an onset of freezing.
To believe the thickness map, thickness in a number of areas doubled overnight. I seriously doubt that. I no longer trust the thickness map. It probably never got as low as claimed.
Unless somebody wants to go all the way from Ellesmere Island south to Victoria Island, the Northwest Passage is already closed up this year though all of the most direct “shortcut” straits ….
On the other hand, if current trends continue, the passage around Cape Horn or through the Straits of Magellan will be blocked by Antarctic Sea Ice within 9 years. 8<)
RACookPE1978,
You’re projecting. I haven’t discussed albedo, I do not “fear” Arctic sea ice loss. All I’ve done is report data and statistics for sea ice extent. Nothing else. (Could you quote me where I’ve displayed “attitude”?)
I don’t have an emotional attitude about the future of global warming. I only care about facts.
Arctic sea ice is declining in all months. Albedo changes will have an effect throughout the polar summer. There are many complex factors, including potential increased cloudiness off-setting albedo changes from ice loss. The impact may indeed be small. I’d be more inclined to research and discuss if the conversation was neutral, with no assumptions about the participants. Too much extraneous data.
James at 48 says:
August 20, 2013 at 5:10 pm
It (the thickness) “might” have done that: The winds and ice drift directions are from the pole right towards the “thick” areas, where the winds have trapped the ice against the north coast of the many Canadian offshore islands. Blocked from going south through the narrow straits between the islands, the wind could have piled up ice offshore.
barry says:
August 20, 2013 at 6:13 pm
I may be projecting, but remember, I am addressing many people’s attitude, fears, and concerns as I “talk” with them as well as you in this forum. Which tone do you want me to match when we discuss your “facts” and (most likely) your errors and assumptions and approximations and simplifications? If you prefer, we could agree to “talk past” each other … But I don’t recommend it. 8<)
Simplification is not warranted. Worse, simplification, any more simplification than that I have already used above, is dead wrong and leads only to wrong "answers".
You must address "albedo", just like solar radiation, on an hour-by-hour basis, at each specific latitude where the sea ice is or is not present. The albedo of sea ice and open ocean (under different sky conditions and different wind conditions) ARE NOT a constants over any period of time, nor over any given day-of-year because of the change in solar elevation angle every hour of every day.
The decline in Arctic sea ice does occur in all months: I am pointing out the increased cooling that is calculated if you assume 50% of the Arctic sea ice is lost from its lowest point. after all, when else will it matter? At what time of year and at what latitude do you wish to assume how many sq km's of sea ice are replaced by open ocean?
Why are you ignoring the much more important increased ice area around the Antarctic continent? Your "facts" show that increase is much more important than ANY equal decrease in the Arctic. But only if you know all of the facts, and don't ignore embarrassing ones that contradict your prejudged conclusions.
Any to attempt to "average:" the 14,000,000 Arctic into a single "simple" condition is not my error, but yours. Further, it is only by such gross simplifications that the propaganda of catastrophic Arctic sea ice loss can be successful.
RACookPE1978 says:
August 20, 2013 at 6:12 pm
The LIA lingered into the late 19th century in the SH.
In “The Little Ice Age” Brian Fagan states that during the 1870s “Antarctic ice extended much farther north than in Captain Cook’s time a century earlier…Sailing ships traversing the Roaring Forties from Australia to Cape Horn regularly sighted enormous tabular icebergs, with some seen as far north as the mouth of the River Plate, just 35 degrees South latitude.”
Shhhhh. Don’t encourage them! Stay! Sit! Lie down! Rollover! Bad berg! Bad!
I want them there south icebergs to stay stuck right where they is now!
RACookPE1978,
I’ve been discussing Antarctic and global sea ice, as well as Arctic.
(for example – here, here and here)
I don’t think this is self-evident. The rate of change (both hemispheres) is different for each month, and the greatest changes do not occur during the solstice months (June/December). Antarcitc sea ice lies at lower latitudes than Arctic, in general, where there is more sunlight for longer during the year. OTOH, sea ice decline has been greater in the Arctic than Antarctic increase for the period each pole receives sunlight. A full assessment would incoroporate these factors, and changes in cloudinesss, considering high and low-level clouds would also need to be included. I haven’t done much research on this.
don’t actually exist. But it seems you have some prejudged conclusions about what I think. I’ve only spoken about what I know (extent/area data and trends), and assume nothing about global albedo changes from changing global sea ice.
Something I wonder about is the argument that exposed ocean waters means more heat escapes from the sea, providing a negative feedback to warming (in the Arctic, so the argument goes). If this is true, then I wonder if increased sea ice in the Antarctic has the opposite efect.
Data on extent and area is simple. If you have cites for studies on relative albedo changes, I would be interested. I’ve just started trawling google scholar myself.
Some years the ice flushes right out through Fram Strait, but this is not one of those years. The “North Pole Camera” has now crossed 84 degrees north latitude four times.
http://sunriseswansong.wordpress.com/2013/08/16/the-big-chill-sea-ice-version/
(Four times, if you include them bringing the buoy up there in April.)
RE: RACookPE1978 says: August 20, 2013 at 6:14 pm
=============================================
I was referring to the Eastern part of the basin, over by Russia.
So in addition to some Eastern Basin thicknesses appearing to double over night, there is now this. A few days ago, some of the US satellite extent maps suddenly depicted a huge hole off the coast of Russia, up north of Moscow. Literally overnight, that supposed 0% concentration area went to 40%. Really? Call me a skeptic.
James at 48,
DMI has a 30 day loop here: http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/satellite/index.uk.php (Click loop)
It is interesting because it looks like the ice is starting to increase but that does not show on the graph: http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/
And since albedo was a subject of conversation this shows the change in Greenland Albedo for 2000 vs 2012
http://nsidc.org/greenland-today/files/2000/06/Figure6-350×327.png
From here: http://nsidc.org/greenland-today/
The caption reads:
Gail, I clicked on ’30 days ago’ to get the longest loop, and it shows the sea ice declining over the month. I didn’t see much evidence of increase in the last few days, but it’s hard to tell with the sea ice ‘tongues’ in the narrower channels inland. I think it will turn out that August melt rate was about average. September minimum is probably going to end up being the 6th or 7th lowest on the record, and will probably make the long-term trend less steep for the first time in nearly a decade.