We haven’t spent much time looking at Arctic Sea Ice this year, partly because I’ve rather lost interest in it as any sort of climatic indicator. This year’s melt seems similar to 2011 according to the comparison graph provided by Japan’s National Institute of Polar Research.
Source: https://ads.nipr.ac.jp/vishop/vishop-extent.html?N
The DMI graph also seems to indicate that melt has turned the corner, but shows the 2015 data higher than 2011 unlike the graph above:
Source: http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/icecover/icecover_current_new.png
Arctic air temperature from 80°N is well below the freezing point of seawater now:
Source: http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
Of course, since sea ice is highly prone to the vagaries of wind and weather, it could still take a turn downward in the next few days before starting back up again.
One of the things that I have come to notice about Arctic sea ice is that it appears to have reached a new plateau or regime, note how since 2007 the data seems to oscillate about the -1 million square kilometer line:
![seaice.anomaly.arctic[1]](https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/seaice-anomaly-arctic1.png?quality=75)
Source: http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.arctic.png
My personal opinion is that this new quasi-stable regime is related to increased surface soot and changes in the AMO (Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation). Since the mid-1990s we have been in a warm phase, Now the AMO is now turning sharply negative, and next year might be quite different than the past eight.
Source: Dr. Philip Klotzbach on Twitter who writes:
12-month running avg AMO continues to drop. August ’15 value (-0.9 SD) lowest since ’94. Cold NAtl persists.
Only time will tell if this change in the AMO will change the future of Arctic sea ice.
Note: [added] You can view more graphs on the WUWT Sea Ice Page: http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/sea-ice-page/
The title was corrected shortly after publication to remove a repeated word (have) and fix a spelling error.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Hate to burst your bubble folks but arctic sea ice extent is trending downward at the same rate it has been for the past two decades. All indications are we are still in the midst of a long-term decline.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2015/09/monthly_ice_08_NH.png
Luke:
If the arctic sea ice extent is a triangle wave of period of about 70 years then you would get the “long term” trend noted above taken over a period of 32 years.
“long term” isn’t long enough until you’ve satisfied Nyquist – you need two periods. Since the various ocean oscillations have periods on the order of 60-70 years, and the evidence prior to 1979 is that 1979 was a maximum, and there’s anecdotal evidence that ice extents oscillate between the Arctic and Antarctic, you can’t rule out the possibility that we’re just seeing one portion of an oscillation.
In summary a valid Null Hypothesis is that the downtrend in Arctic Ice Extent is just a subsample of larger period. We need to wait until 2099 to invalidate this Null Hypothesis.
I realize it’s tough to wait that long. Humans have different lifespans than natural cycles. Them’s the breaks.
Peter
“Hate to burst your bubble folks but arctic sea ice extent is trending downward at the same rate it has been for the past two decades. All indications are we are still in the midst of a long-term decline.”
All indications are we are at the end of long-term decline would be more appropriate.
1) Solar activity in a slumber.
2) AMO increasingly negative.
3) NH snow cover significantly increasing over recent years.
4) Recovery of Arctic sea ice and volume during recent years.
5) Cooling global temperatures (the current strong El Nino may have a very slight short term delay affect)
6) Reached the end of the cycle that mirrored the period between the 1930’s and 1970’s.
The linked graph doesn’t tell us the whole picture because it is only one month. (August) Not even the month when the minimum occurs each year. (September) We know there has been a decline since the late 1970’s, but there are many signs this is about to change and it has nothing to do with CO2.
The 1950’s had similar ice anomalies compared with the 2010’s.
The early to mid 1960’s had lower ice anomalies compared with 2010’s.
The late 1960’s to early 1970’s had higher ice anomalies compared with 2010’s.
The years 1974 and 1975 were little different from anomalies compared with 2010’s.
The 1950’s until the 1970’s showed an increase in Arctic sea ice and currently levels now are no lower that at times during these decades. The lowest Arctic sea ice recorded since the 1950’s was in 1961 and that year had over 5.5 M km2 below the ice extent during 1979.
Peter Sable,
To expand further Luke should read the following on the previous Arctic Warm Period of the 1920s and 30s.
Peter Sable said: “In summary a valid Null Hypothesis is that the downtrend in Arctic Ice Extent is just a subsample of larger period. We need to wait until 2099 to invalidate this Null Hypothesis.”
So why is a period of only 18 years of relatively flat RSS data sufficient to disprove AGW?
Because we are talking about Arctic Ice Extent here…
Peter
Peter,
So let’s review what you are saying. The Arctic ice levels are affected by long term natural trends whose cycles are greater than the 35 years of Arctic sea ice data that is available, therefore we can’t draw any conclusions about the significance of the current decline.
Global temperatures apparently are not affected by any natural phenomena with long cycles (or at least cycles are greater than 18 years). Even though the Arctic, which you say has long cycles, is part of the planet. Even though the AMO is 20-40 years in length. Even though the PDO is 20-30 years. All of which are longer than the 18 year pause that is trumped here as proof that AGW is insignificant.
Is that what you are saying?
To me AGW is real. The question for me is how much of the warming since the mid-1970s is due to man’s greenhouse gases?
Your question could be directed at the proponents of global warming is MOSTLY man’s fault. Read on.
Chris wrote:
Not sure where you are getting that.
AMO 60-75 years:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v367/n6465/abs/367723a0.html
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2008JD010036/abstract
PDO 50-70 years:
http://research.jisao.washington.edu/pdo/
There’s also beat frequencies to consider between the two as they are probably out of phase (which is why you need 2 periods… you can get away with a little over one period if you are absolutely sure there’s only a single source of oscillation through some mechanistic explanation…which you can’t in this case).
Perhaps you were confused by the half-period numbers? These “events” last half of the period. Or, approximately the length of the commonly published Arctic Ice Extent. The unpublished “proxy” data Mr Goddard is finding shows that there is likely an oscillation, or at least we don’t know what the true average extent should be.
Yes, but when it comes to globally averaged temperatures, the Arctic is a blip because the it’s surface area is so small. Keep in mind the globally average temperatures include huge surface area of the tropics. In fact you can see ENSO signals in all the temperature data sets I’ve looked at so far. But you can barely see them (hovering at just above 95% confidence level), Which means that arctic ice extent changes would likely not be visible in all that noise.
Also, I didn’t say “Arctic Ice Extent has long cycles”. That’s a Boolean Logic interpretation. Science is (at least) tri-state, either “yes”, “no” or “unproven”. I said it’s unproven that the Arctic Ice Extend doesn’t have cycles, and there’s enough data to suggest that “Has Cycles” is a valid Null Hypothesis against the idea that the Arctic Ice is in permanent decline as shown by the 1979 present. A possibly subtle but very important distinction.
Peter
Ooops, I missed one. “Not even Wrong” is a valid designation as well… and the proper designation for much of CAGW hysteria.
Let me amend that to Science has these basic things to say about any particular hypothesis: “proven yes, proven no, unproven, unprovable”…
Peter
Peter,
My point is that you say that the downward Arctic trend cannot be confirmed yet due to long term cyclical factors such as AMO. Yet somehow it IS ok to say that the warming trend claimed for AGW is not happening due to the relatively flat RSS data. Why doesn’t the same caveat you stated about the Arctic apply to global temperature, which is also affected by long term cyclical factors such as AMO, PDO, etc?
Well, some may think it’s okay to say that. I don’t think so. For me this is in the category of “interesting, but unproven”.
I think it’s valid to say that the RSS zero trend for 18 years invalidates the climate models, by the climate model’s own criteria. I think that’s the strongest statement made by Mr Monckton and it’s a valid statement.
I note the climate models do a poor job of showing AMO and PDO…
Peter
Matt G
“The linked graph doesn’t tell us the whole picture because it is only one month. (August) Not even the month when the minimum occurs each year. (September)”
I used August because it was the latest data. All of the months show a similar decline but since you asked about September, here is it. Nothing you suggested in you reply really addressed the point that I was making. All evidence suggests that we are witnessing a long-term decline in arctic sea ice which is unprecedented in the past 1450 years (url below). I see nothing that suggests it is turning around.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v479/n7374/full/nature10581.html
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2014/10/monthly_ice_NH_09.png
Jimbo,
It appears that there was a slight decline in arctic sea ice extent in the 1920s and and in the 1940-50s but nothing like we have witnessed over the last two decades.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v479/n7374/full/nature10581.html
Luke,
How do the authors explain Antarctic sea ice growth, if man-made GHG has caused Arctic sea ice decline?
Their reconstruction is contradicted by actual observations of Arctic sea ice in the 20th century, as during the pronounced decline from c. 1920 to 1945, followed by general gain into the late ’70s, with some exceptional years. Naturally there is less ice now than was normal during the Little Ice Age, c. AD 1400 to 1850, but lMO there are good proxy data showing less sea ice than now during the Medieval Warm Period, c. AD 900 to 1400. They’re outside of the study period, which includes part of the Dark Ages Cold Period, but sea ice extent was less during the Roman and Minoan Warm Periods and the Holocene Climate Optimum, too.
The fact is that present sea ice extent occurred as recently as 1975, so how can it be unprecedented in 1450 years?
At least the authors recognize large uncertainties in their reconstruction.
Chris
September 11, 2015 at 9:41 pm
The 18 year temperature plateau matters because it was preceded by only about 20 years of warming, which followed around 32 years of cooling, despite CO2 rising at roughly the same rate since 1945. Indeed, to the extent that the rate of rise has accelerated, this has happened during the plateau.
These facts show the hypothesis of man-made global warming to be false and the GIGO climate models to be worse than worthless, except to demonstrate that their assumptions are faulty at best.
Matt G said:
“4) Recovery of Arctic sea ice and volume during recent years.”
How do you draw that conclusion? Here’s extent: http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/ (Figure 2). 2015 is tracking well below 2013 and 2014, and on track to be below 2011. Here is volume: http://psc.apl.uw.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ice_volume/BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrentV2.1_CY.png
2015 is well below 2014, and will likely be at the level of 2013 or slightly lower.
“The 1950’s until the 1970’s showed an increase in Arctic sea ice and currently levels now are no lower that at times during these decades. The lowest Arctic sea ice recorded since the 1950’s was in 1961 and that year had over 5.5 M km2 below the ice extent during 1979.”
What data do you have to support that statement? It’s not what the NSIDC data shows: http://nsidc.org/icelights/2011/01/31/arctic-sea-ice-before-satellites/
Luke, If I’m not mistaken, your rock-solid trend takes us to ice-free by ~2100. Looks like you should agree that Wadhams was/is quite bonkers.
The now trend is flat, ie the past several years.
No, 2015 will finish well below both 2013 and 2014. The gap will be something between 500,000 and 1M km2. That is not a flat trend.
Nope, volume is up, third through fifth year ice is up, thickness is up.
David A said:”Nope, volume is up, third through fifth year ice is up, thickness is up.:
Nope. http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
Wrong link on volume, the correct one is here: http://psc.apl.uw.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ice_volume/BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrentV2.1_CY.png
2015 volume is clearly below 2014, by roughly 1.5 M KM3. It will end up similar to that of 2013. And in any case, the figures are well below the average from 1979-2014.
Chris does not seem to like the early 20th Century Arctic Warm Period….I wonder why? Why did things recover after the 1940s? Recover = Arctic colder. 1979 celebrated extent.
Jimbo said:” Chris does not seem to like the early 20th Century Arctic Warm Period….I wonder why? Why did things recover after the 1940s? Recover = Arctic colder. 1979 celebrated extent.”
If you have data on the early 20th Century I’d be happy to look at it. As far as recovery after the 1940s, um, no. Here is data from NSIDC – there is a slight increase in the late 1960s, but basically a steady decline thereafter. http://nsidc.org/icelights/2011/01/31/arctic-sea-ice-before-satellites/
Chris,
Can you supply me with information as to why there was an Arctic warm period in the 1920s and 1930s?
Chris,
The link you provided me from the NSIDC has a graphic that STARTS at 1953. That does not tell me what sea ice extent was from 1920 to 1945.
http://nsidc.org/icelights/2011/01/31/arctic-sea-ice-before-satellites/
http://nsidc.org/icelights/files/2010/11/mean_anomaly_1953-2010.png
Chris
Here is a graph from the IPCC’s First Assessment Report 1990. See the early 1970s and 1979.
http://kaltesonne.de/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/nord2.gif
You can approximate part of a sine function with a straight line to within 99%.
Steve from Rockwood
Key words: “Approximate” and “part of” …
very approximate, and only for a very small part of that sine wave.
So, if the Arctic sea ice has a 66 to 96 year oscillation cycle – like the very well known PDO or AMO cycles, both of which follow the shorter 66 – 70 year cycles, how many “straight lines” has our data of Arctic sea ice demonstrated since we first had data in 1979-80? We are not yet through the first half-wave!
Luke, you chart shows a difference of 2 million km2 between 1979 and the present…
1979 was a record high year……a record 2 million km2
It’s not a decline…it’s a return to normal
1979 was not a record high year: http://nsidc.org/icelights/2011/01/31/arctic-sea-ice-before-satellites/
I never really liked arctic sea ice anyway.
Good riddance, I say!!!
Luke-
ice extent was known pre- 1979-
go figure why they take it from a high in 1979!
The standardized satellite record started in 1979- hence the time period. Bu your right, ice extent was estimated using other methods prior to 1979 and I see no evidence that 1979 was at a high, in fact it had been fluctuating around an extent of around 10 million square kilometers until 1970 and then started declining dramatically and I see no evidence it is turning around.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v479/n7374/full/nature10581.html
Sea ice was observed by satellites in the 1960s and 1970s. Before that it was observed by aircraft and ships. Present Arctic sea ice extent is not unprecedented.
And 1979 was indeed a record high sea ice extent year. There may have been greater extent early in the 20th century but not in the approximately 60 prior years.
sturgishooper said:”And 1979 was indeed a record high sea ice extent year. There may have been greater extent early in the 20th century but not in the approximately 60 prior years.”
What data do you have showing 1979 as higher than any point in the 60 years prior? That is not what the NSIDC shows: http://nsidc.org/icelights/2011/01/31/arctic-sea-ice-before-satellites/
A satellite called NIMBUS observed the Arctic sea ice in the 1960s.
I should add it also observed Antarctica too.
https://nsidc.org/data/nimbus
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/10/141020-first-space-pictures-earth-satellite-photos/
Nimbus satellite with huge Arctic holes
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/04/1960s-satellite-imagery-of-polar-ice-discovers-enormous-holes-in-the-sea-ice/
Chris,
Please don’t assign any credibility to USHCN “data”:
http://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/ScreenHunter_10009-Jul.-27-12.16.gif
DBStealey, you post a GIF without any supporting documentation or explanation????? Sorry, that doesn’t cut it in scientific discussions.
Luke,
we did not have the technology like today of satellites. Yet the scientific literature is clear – there was a ”
huge warming of the Arctic” during the 1920s and 1930s. Sea ice recovered after that huge warming of the Arctic. Climate change is always with us.
Jimbo,
Show me some data, anecdotes don’t cut it.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v479/n7374/full/nature10581.html
http://photos.mongabay.com/11/1124seaice_full.jpg
I see Luke ‘reconstructed’. Show me the observations of the past.
Luke,
Pre-satellite era extents are not as easy to determine than you think. Below is someone who wrote to the NSIDC and got a reply. Please read it.
Reconstructions don’t cut it.
Jimbo
Sorry but a blog post by Judith Curry doesn’t cut it. Provide some peer-reviewed scientific papers that find problems with Kinnard’s reconstruction and we can have a conversation.
Luke,
The post was not from Judith Curry but from Tony Brown. This indicates to me that you most probably did not read it. Secondly, read the referenced peer-reviewed papers’ abstracts and data sources.
Since you insist on peer review I have to wonder why I should take anything the IPCC seriously. They reference NON-peer reviewed literature in ALL of their reports. Take a chill pill.
IPCC non-peer reviewed notes on pages
Here is Dr. James Hansen.
Chris & Luke:
When your response is that a link “doesn’t cut it”, what you’re saying is you have no answer. If you did, you would have posted it instead of making that lame comment.
.
I was quite caught of guard by the turning point this year. There’s been no exaggerated, falsified data by Suzanne Goldberg at the Guardian so far. Not a whisper. In fact today they are preferring to talk about a paper predicting that Antarctic ice will be mostly gone several MILLENNIA from now.
Now that’s what I call extrapolation !!
We have barely got around to measuring _approximately_ what polar ice volumes are and they are extrapolating millennia into the future. The paper is, of course, from the damn potty Potsdam Institute.
So no claims of ice free summers form Whacky Wadhams, and “don’t look up, look down” from the Guardian. No mention of how we must focus on saving polar bears and the Arctic in the ‘last hope for the world’ conference in Paris. This tells me we probably should be looking closer at Arctic sea ice.
Since the whole idea of an Arctic ‘tipping point’ has (thankfully) fallen apart since 2007 the alarmists seem to have gone off talking about it Odd that, you’d think they would be pleased. They seemed so concerned about it at one time.
https://climategrog.wordpress.com/2013/09/16/on-identifying-inter-decadal-variation-in-nh-sea-ice/
Thanks. Confirming my reply to Luke on the flattish “now” trend, despite the cyclone-driven lows in 2007 and 2012.
This study has some good graphs showing historical Arctic air temperature and sea ice extent, putting the decline since 1979 in context of prior natural fluctuations:
https://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/mahajan_amoc_arctic.pdf
The authors attribute changes in the Atlantic-connected Arctic to the AMOC, and note that usually the greater sea ice loss occurs on the Pacific side, less influenced by the AMOC.
From the study you posted: “A strengthening AMOC could have contributed to the observed decline in the
Arctic Sea-ice in the Winter, but not in the summer based on GFDL CM2.1 results. ”
So the study is saying that Arctic summer ice is NOT impacted by the AMOC.
I see no justified reason why a MODEL thinks that the AMOC has no impact in summer.
The AMOC has been blamed on causing huge differences in temperatures and ice age conditions, yet apparently has no impact in summer. Sorry that is a load of nonsense because if it had no impact, sea ice during summer would not have declined over the past few decades. Ice ages would not be able to occur via any changing in the AMOC. DMI shows the atmosphere above the Arctic ice for the region 80N+ is not warm enough to melt the ice even during middle of summer. It requires warmth from the ocean to melt it from below and if the AMOC can’t do it then what does?
“AMOC seems to have little impact on Pacific sector of the Arctic in GFDL
CM2.1, where the observed decline is the strongest in the summer.”
Fair enough as the current from AMOC directly affects the Atlantic side, so a bit obvious. Although more ice on the Atlantic side will prevent warmer waters reaches the Pacific side. The Arctic is affected far more by the Atlantic side than the Pacific side in any scenario during past history.
a degree of correlation to the solar wind flux energy
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SW-Ice.gif
“It will without doubt have come to your Lordship’s knowledge that a considerable change of climate, inexplicable at present to us, must have taken place in the Circumpolar Regions, by which the severity of the cold that has for centuries past enclosed the seas in the high northern latitudes in an impenetrable barrier of ice has been during the last two years, greatly abated.
(This) affords ample proof that new sources of warmth have been opened and give us leave to hope that the Arctic Seas may at this time be more accessible than they have been for centuries past, and that discoveries may now be made in them not only interesting to the advancement of science but also to the future intercourse of mankind and the commerce of distant nations.”
President of the Royal Society, London, to the Admiralty, 20th November, 1817 Minutes of Council, Volume 8. pp.149-153, Royal Society, London.
20th November, 1817.
Those new to this might like to look at John L. Daly’s site:
http://www.john-daly.com/polar/arctic.htm
Also, here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/26/ice-at-the-north-pole-in-1958-not-so-thick/
Don’t forget that JAXA redefined how they measred arctic sea ice just before the annual minimum a couple of years ago, rendering their data useless for inter-annual comparisons. You should remove any graphs of data based on JAXA sources that show annual comparisions: they are unscientific and misleading.
Should we apply the same theory to the UAH MSU temperatures?
That’s very different to just having to recalculate orbital changes. What makes me laugh is people in favor of surface data still like the Arctic ice using SATELLITE data. Shows nothing other than they only don’t like the satellite data for temperatures because they don’t like the results. Political agenda related that has nothing to do with science. Why is the satellite good enough for Arctic ice extent, but not temperature? The fact it is because it can deliver such good results with Arctic ice trends shows it’s much better product than if tried to do the same thing with surface sea ice Arctic observations.
The UAH changes to their satellite product was far more than changing orbits, the whole methodology was changed, the computer program was completely rewritten, the contribution from different altitude ranges was changed.
The different between the two measurements is that the satellite ice extent makes a measurement of signals originating from the surface so is measuring the same parameter. In the case of the satellite temperature measurements they are of a distributed temperature over 12km of atmosphere not of the surface!
“The different between the two measurements is that the satellite ice extent makes a measurement of signals originating from the surface so is measuring the same parameter. In the case of the satellite temperature measurements they are of a distributed temperature over 12km of atmosphere not of the surface.”
The sea ice data still has some of the satellite errors to correct that are needed for temperature. They both measure the same parameter and there are no inconsistencies when the errors are corrected. These errors are not difficult to correct mentioned in the link below, unlike the surface data record would be. There is a big difference to calibrating everything the same to having thousands of points varying differently in many ways and sometimes not even using them and changing them whenever they feel like it. (surface data) It is much easier to correct the error with satellite then it could ever be with surface data. I’m not sure how the surface data could ever be corrected with so many unaccounted changes. Satellite temperature measurements are from very near the surface right up to well above the troposphere. Different channels are used to distinguish between different bands.
The satellites are always measuring the same parameter just much more accurately, cover greater coverage of the planet like it does for sea ice. It doesn’t matter that is not measuring the direct surface when the idea is you want to measure the energy changes of the planet. To complete this goal the satellite method is by far the better technique. Surface is better for humans to know how warm and cool it will be in weather forecasts, but for climate satellite it is by far the best to use.
They measure the atmosphere very near the surface up to 0.1 hPa. It is very clear the reason you and others don’t like them is because it is not recording want you want them to show. If the surface were recording cooling and satellite warming, there would be many alarmists that would change their view. In fact it was only a few months ago the surface was showing cooling, until the intended change to them.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/01/how-the-uah-global-temperatures-are-produced/
The quality in the data is compared to a CRN 1 weather station.
“John Christy has spent a lot of time comparing our datasets to radiosonde (weather balloon) datasets, and finds very good long-term agreement.”
If you listen closely, you can hear the arctic screaming.
Apparently, it can’t take any more of the alarmist nonsense.
I know how it feels.
Re NZWillie’s comments on data manipulation.
The Antarctic graph for the third year in a row (Southern Heisphere Sea Ice Extent with Anomaly) has numerous small black spots scattered around the coast but also through the ice mix.
These are obviously areas that count as having no ice reducing the extent.
They may be examples of computer melt ponds as he suggests,
Or someone is just pencilling them out to reduce the extent.
Happening every year and very unscientific.
On the Arctic there was a ring of disappearing ice which broke up but one remnant has remained above Greenland.
Hope is high that this will seed a super fast recovery in the next 2 weeks as there may be a lot of thinner ice just ready to rejoin.
Fingers crossed.
Well all the pretty graphs and we’ll reasoned arguments aft and to, what of the cry to arms, the Arctic is now ice free? When IPCC? When will the Arctic be ice free? Surely, the increased co2 and all of that retained heat will completely melt the Arctic. The sea level rise will be devasting. When, oh when? By the end of the century? Why so long when the science is settled? I need to see the science so that I can be reassured you aren’t making this stuff by the seat of your pants.
I recall an article about this time last year making the same call. Then the ice started melting again and the low didn’t occur for another 5 or 6 weeks.
Let’s wait at least a week or two before getting excited. A few days of uptick is meaningless.
Make that one or two weeks. Not 5 or 6 weeks. Don’t know what I was thinking there.
I’ve tried to view the graph at https://ads.nipr.ac.jp/vishop/vishop-extent.html?N, but it doesn’t display properly. I’ve tried IE11 and chrome and got the same result with both. Does that link work?
(The corresponding graphs on the sea ice reference page aren’t rendering for me either.)
I found that I can view the graphs from within an InPrivate IE11 session. An Incognito chrome session doesn’t work. Anyone else experience this?
Have there been any successful Northwest Passage voyages this summer?
[None that have been publicized. .mod]
At least nine yachts have completed the passage this summer, even the northern route is open at present. Wind was apparently the biggest issue this summer rather than ice, there was a particularly nasty storm off Barrow a couple of weeks ago that eroded the beach. I guess such crossings aren’t publicized any more because it’s become routine?
One that just completed the E-W transit is attempting to sail back the opposite way, now sailing through Parry Channel, Andros.
Let’s hope. The polar bears will thank us for the food-trash thrown overboard. They particularly like Coke bottles.
Do you have a link for that info? I don’t think any got through last year (or was it the year before)?
I think the route along northern Russia is open more often.
Ice conditions still severe in the NW Passage despite supposed melting:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/09/10/why-the-northwest-passage-probably-wont-be-ready-for-shipping-any-time-soon/
What looks clear to a satellite appears differently on the surface.
Condition at end of August not all that great. Amundsen of course managed to traverse the NW Passage in 1903-06:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=86589
Not too many today want to leave their vessels in the ice, however. Yet some have gotten stuck in recent years.
J. Philip Peterson September 12, 2015 at 4:45 pm
Do you have a link for that info? I don’t think any got through last year (or was it the year before)?
At least ten got through last year:
How many vessels completed a west to east 2014 Northwest Passage? 3 vessels.
1) S/V ALTAN GIRL (CA) Route 6 East – 36 feet/25 hp – Erkan Gursoy solo passage.
2) S/V LADY DANA (POL) – Route 6 East, 14.3m, Ryszard Wojnowski – wintered over at Vancouver Canada – Completed a two-year Arctic East Circumnavigation on 20140927 in Sopot Poland
3) M/V TRITON (MH=Marshall Islands) – Route 6 East, 163ft, Captain Paul Johns.
How many vessels completed an east to west 2014 Northwest Passage? 7 vessels.
1) S/V DRINA (Australian) Route 6 West – Michael Thurston
2) S/V NOVARA (GBR) Route 6 West – 19.65m, Stephen Brown
3) S/V ARCTIC TERN UK (GBR) Route 6 West – 43 ft, Les and Ali Parsons – wintered over in Lewisporte NFLD
4) S/V GITANA (USA) Route 6 West – 44ft, Mike Johnson – wintered over in Cambridge Bay NU
5) M/V LATITUDE (KY=Cayman Islands) Route 6 West – 173 foot, Captain Sean Meagher
6) M/V NUNAVIK (MH=Marshall Islands) Route 2 West – 188.8m, Captain Randy Rose
7) M/V SILVER EXPLORER(Ex-Prince Albert II)(BS=Bahamas) Route 5 West – 108.11m/2x2250kW/Ice Class DNV 1A – Captain Alexander Golubev
In addition MV Nunavik carried nickel ore cargo from Deception Bay through the NW Passage to China last september. (19 September left Baffin Island – 1 October entered Bering Strait).
http://www.fednav.com/en/voyage-nunavik
sturgishooper September 12, 2015 at 5:05 pm
Ice conditions still severe in the NW Passage despite supposed melting:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/09/10/why-the-northwest-passage-probably-wont-be-ready-for-shipping-any-time-soon/
What looks clear to a satellite appears differently on the surface.
Particularly if you pretend that photos taken in October 2006 are current!
Here’s a shot from Beechy Island a few days ago.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-oJs9xZtC1bQ/VfZaeeC343I/AAAAAAAAy_8/IKtgWVFM_AE/s1600/20150913_Beechey_Island-5.jpg
Interesting observation you make, Anthony, with this comment:
“…One of the things that I have come to notice about Arctic sea ice is that it appears to have reached a new plateau or regime, note how since 2007 the data seems to oscillate about the -1 million square kilometer line.”
I checked your graph for the 1979 to 2008 baseline and there really does seem to be some sort of change or reorganization taking place. I have determined that the Arctic warming itself is not caused by any imaginary greenhouse effect but is due to a rearrangement of pcean current flow patterns of the North Atlantic Ocean at the turn of the twentieth century. I had a paper out on that and gave you a chance to post it but you turned me down with an incredibly ignorant non-scientific argument. The title of my paper was “Arctic warming is not greenhouse warming.” You must object to to this, I thought, and dropped the subject. I had planned to shorten it because I doubted that you would accept a six thousand word document but we never got to the technical part. But be that as it may be, the result is that all comments about Arctic temperature changes you have published completely ignore Arctic history. Let me outline it. For most of the last 2000 years Arctic history was boring – nothing happened except for slow, linear cooling for almost 2000 years. The most likely cause of this was a steady, orbitally-driven reduction of summer insolation. This came to an end at the turn of the twentieth century when the Arctic temperature suddenly turned up and assumed a hockey stick stance. Kaufman, whose data I used, did not have sufficient resolution to show what happened at that point but fortunately NOAA had published a high-res Arctic temperature graph for the twentieth century. Their graph showed that during the twentieth century Arctic warming went through three phases, with abrupt transitions between them. The first phase was a strong warming from the beginning of the century until about 1940. At that point an abrupt cooling set in that lasted for the next thirty years. In 1970 another abrupt change took place and the warming that had been interrupted now resumed again. None of the comments on Arctic cooling that have been published by you give anybody an inkling that this is what was going on just prior to the start of their observations. Their comments all start after 1970 when the major changes had already happened. As far as the cause of warming goes, it is quite impossible for any greenhouse warming to do it. First, there was no increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide that laws of physics require to start a greenhouse warming from scratch. Second, the abrupt changes in the rate of warming/cooling documented by NOAA also rule out the greenhouse effect. The only thing left that is not contradicted by physics is a change in the flow pattern of North Atlantic currents that began to carry large amounts of warm Gulf Stream water into the Arctic Ocean. Satellite photos I was able to obtain do show a large amount of warm water entering the Arctic Ocean in a broad front between Iceland and Norway. If I were to estimate the extent of ice melt they cause from these photos I would guess that they are responsible for one quarter to one third of the ice melt in the Eastern Arctic Ocean. Another aspect of Arctic warming is the abrupt changes that took place in 1940 and 1970. They cannot be explained by any kind of greenhouse effect but they are easily understood as a temporary resumption of the former pattern of ocean currents. Since we don’t know what started it a repeat of this is not out of the question. Your observation of a change in the pattern of ice melt fits in here easily as just one more change in the Arctic ice story. And don’t forget that the Arctic is now the only part of the world that is still warming because it does not depend on the greenhouse effect. The rest of the world is experiencing a a ‘pause’/’hiatus’ that makes global temperature stand still.
It looks like wind and not melt is the big player again, this year regarding area. From what I read the multi-year ice is on the rise regardless of the area of coverage. Might be worth reviewing the data from the orbiting gravitometers to understand what the ice mass delta might be. Area isn’t that helpful.
The ice mass is still low and not recovering…
http://neven1.typepad.com/.a/6a0133f03a1e37970b01bb086e5178970d-pi
the trend is still down:
http://neven1.typepad.com/.a/6a0133f03a1e37970b01b8d153ede6970c-pi
The extent for 2015 is lower than both 2013 and 2014, which were billed as a recovery
Multi year ice has basically just vanished away in 2015 – if you look at this chart from August
ftp://ccar.colorado.edu/pub/tschudi/iceage/gifs/age2015_32.gif
and then the current state, you see all the 5yr plus ice melted.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/NEWIMAGES/arctic.seaice.color.000.png
Then the ice thickness isn’t good – the last of the really thick stuff came unstuck from the coast and there’s not much of it…
Really with 2015 no better than 2011 and the ice in a worse state, 2016 isn’t looking good ?
and with 3 of the top 4 record lows in the last 5 years, why should it…
Egriff,
Thanx for the photoshopped pic. You didn’t think that was an actual photo, did you?
The “Vanishing Arctic Ice” scare is a zombie that keeps coming back:
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/ice-free-arctic-forecasts
Polar ice fluctuates. It’s cyclic, see?
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/09/09/arctic-has-gained-hundreds-of-miles-of-ice-the-last-three-years
The government bureaucrats who fabricate their factoids are fibbing for job security, they are not practicing honest science. If they were being honest, they wouldn’t cherry-pick the high point in Arctic ice cover:
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/09/10/starting-graphs-in-1979-world-class-fraud
Looking at a data-based chart instead of your photoshop shows that 2015 is about average for the past decade, and the two prior years were above average:
http://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/ScreenHunter_3036-Sep.-11-09.15.gif
You can see in the links above that the endless alarmist predictions of disappearing Arctic ice have all been flat wrong. No exceptions; the alarmist crowd has been 100% wrong in all their scary predictions. That makes me think that the reason the ‘Arctic ice’ alarm keeps coming back is because the ‘dangerous man-made global warming’ scare has become a new religion. It is certainly not supported by any empirical, testable measurements, because there are no measurements of AGW.
So, what would it take for you to accept that the global warming and Arctic ice alarms have been debunked? Anything? Or can nothing ever convince you? Please tell us what it would take for you to throw in the towel on that nonsense.
Or is ‘dangerous AGW’ your new religion? If so, then I can understand that your faith overcomes all doubt.
This sums it up below, you like the alarmists are putting a line to a sine-wave and continuing ahead for scary claims that are rubbish.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/–pAcyHk9Mcg/VdzO4SEtHBI/AAAAAAAAAZw/EvF2J1bt5T0/s1600/straightlineproj.jpg
“The extent for 2015 is lower than both 2013 and 2014, which were billed as a recovery”
Stong El Nino is going to have some influence don’t you think with it warming the lower atmosphere a little?
“and with 3 of the top 4 record lows in the last 5 years, why should it…”
There are not record lows, the peak in 1979 was cherry picked as a starting point and 1961 had lower ice extent than any of them by far. The early 1960’s had ice extent lower than most of the recent years. 1975 had ice extent 2 M km2 lower than 1979 which is around the level today.
NattG
Presumably you have some evidence that ice extent in the early 1960s was “around the level today”?
Egriff, do you agree with Dr. James Hansen when he wrote the following? If not why not?
Meh. Just wait 6 months & all will be well (if you like a frigid, pretty much lifeless & uninhabitable, continent-size icecap).
And Antarctic sea ice seems to be back near the average this year. Any idea why such a rapid change over last year’s conditions?
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_stddev_timeseries_thumb.png
Yes, Barry, there is a reason why one year is different from another year: Polar ice is cyclic. It fluctuates from year to year.
Right now Antarctic sea ice is at its 1981 – 2010 average. Try to figure out how you can make that into an alarming factoid.
It had to do with surface wind patterns in the Southern Hemisphere that carried focused streams of warm moist air to two points on the Antarctic coast line. These flows held in place for weeks, with the result being large sea ice loss in those two areas of the sea ice shelf. The same pattern has shifted to new areas around the continent, and you can see that the melt as shown on NSIDC is concentrated in the areas that are impacted by southward flowing warmer moist surface air….http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/orthographic=-206.02,-79.15,302
Anthony, irrespective of whether arctic ice is indicative of climate change, it’s still an interesting topic, and one which the AGW community continues to use as a drum to beat. I hope you continue to cover it and that you will maintain your sea ice page.
The Arctic ROOS website seems to have a problem. For the link http://arctic-roos.org/observations/ice-area-and-extent-in-arctic, the title reads “Daily Updated Time series of Arctic sea ice area and extent derived from SSMI data provided by NERSC. (NB! Error in data after Aug 5)”. Does anyone know what their problem is?
I noticed that as well. The updates stopped for a while after Aug 5th and when they were finally updated the charts showed a bizarre steep drop for a few days followed by an almost vertical drop for the next day. Then the updates stopped again. Then two or three days ago the site was completely updated but the charts were back to Aug 5th again. Very strange?
Luke,
“All evidence suggests that we are witnessing a long-term decline in arctic sea ice which is unprecedented in the past 1450 years (url below). I see nothing that suggests it is turning around.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v479/n7374/full/nature10581.html”
The nature link is wrong in the first place because it ignores observation data that we have before 1979. The king of cherry pickers choose the highest extent in the data to begin with. The September chart you linked to does show a decline from 1979 and this is not the issue.
“Arctic sea ice extent is now more than two million square kilometres less than it was in the late twentieth century” from nature link.
Did you know 1975 ice extent levels were ~2 M km2 lower than 1979, which is the highest peak in the September graph and the point nature is referring too. The 1975 sea ice extent levels were only a bit lower than normal going back to the 1950’s. I find it rather funny that you choose ignore real data and prefer to choose a reconstruction from Nature.
Fair enough if you think the list on my previous post doesn’t suggest it’s turning around. Why isn’t it turning around and what science observations support it?
Please read this below from observational data that has been ignored from the charts you linked.
The 1950’s had similar ice anomalies compared with the 2010’s.
The early to mid 1960’s had lower ice anomalies compared with 2010’s.
The late 1960’s to early 1970’s had higher ice anomalies compared with 2010’s.
The years 1974 and 1975 were little different from anomalies compared with 2010’s.
The 1950’s until the 1970’s showed an increase in Arctic sea ice and currently levels now are no lower that at times during these decades. The lowest Arctic sea ice recorded since the 1950’s was in 1961 and that year had over 5 M km2 below the ice extent during 1979.
Some of the original Arctic ice observation journals before 1979 that the alarmists decided to ignore are here.
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0485%281979%29009%3C0580%3AAAOASI%3E2.0.CO%3B2
No it didn’t. Where did you get this nonsense from?
And what do you think your link shows?
“The 1950’s until the 1970’s showed an increase in Arctic sea ice and currently levels now are no lower that at times during these decades. The lowest Arctic sea ice recorded since the 1950’s was in 1961 and that year had over 5 M km2 below the ice extent during 1979.”
This was the result from linking several papers together. The 1970’s early satellite observations matched the trend in ground sea ice observations in the link during the 1970’s. The year 1975 had 2 M km2 less sea ice then during 1979 based on other paper published by the NOAA for the northern hemisphere. The journal has been used for constructing high sea ice extent periods during the late 1960’s and early 1970’s, but ignored for the earlier periods.
With 1975 2 M km2 less than 1979 it is reasonable to say that using the sea ice observation in the link below that sea ice extent was likely lot lower during the early 1960’s. 1975 was the minimum ice extent since the early 1960’s.
The link shows Arctic temperatures above 60N cooling between 1950’s and 1970’s with increasing sea ice extent. The 1950’s and early 1960’s had lower ice extent than the late 1960’s and 1970’s.
Which papers?
The paper you linked to shows nothing which supports your claim.
The sea ice extent in 1975 was not “2 Mkm2 less than 1979”. You have not . provided any evidence that it was. The one paper you linked to does not support what you say.
Matt G said: “The 1950’s until the 1970’s showed an increase in Arctic sea ice and currently levels now are no lower that at times during these decades. The lowest Arctic sea ice recorded since the 1950’s was in 1961 and that year had over 5 M km2 below the ice extent during 1979.”
Here is data from NSIDC for the period from 1953-2010: http://nsidc.org/icelights/2011/01/31/arctic-sea-ice-before-satellites/
There is a slight increase from the 60s to the early 70s, and then a decline. 1979 is not the peak, it is below the prior years – so that date is not cherry picked, contrary to what has been said on this thread. 1961 is a bit lower than the 50s and later 60s, but all ice data since 1980 is well below that of 1961. Current levels are not the same as the 50s to 70s, today’s numbers are far lower.
Chris September 13, 2015 at 9:41 am
“There is a slight increase from the 60s to the early 70s, and then a decline. 1979 is not the peak, it is below the prior years – so that date is not cherry picked, contrary to what has been said on this thread. 1961 is a bit lower than the 50s and later 60s, but all ice data since 1980 is well below that of 1961. Current levels are not the same as the 50s to 70s, today’s numbers are far lower.”
That view is based on one paper, Polyak, L, et. al. 2010. I am showing an alternative view based on one observation paper that the later one ignored. Both show different views on how Arctic ice extent was between the 1950’s and 1970’s. The paper I linked was all observation based (proper science) whereas Polyak.L, et. al. 2010 was mainly a reconstruction before satellite data. Why was it ignored when better data was available at the time?
Concentrating only on what’s in this paper.
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0485%281979%29009%3C0580%3AAAOASI%3E2.0.CO%3B2
“Fig. 6 shows the time series (24-month running mean) of the area averaged surface temperature for the polar cap north of 60N. The plot was constructed by adding data for the years 1976 and 1977 to the temperature set described by Walsh (1977). The slope of the linear regression line fitted to the temperature series is negative, implying a net temperature decrease over the past 25 years;”
“A comparison of figs. 5b and 6 reveals some corresponding features. Above-normal temperatures during 1959-62 were followed by a rather pronounced cooling to a 1965 minimum. The increase in ice extent during the cool period is apparent in Fig. 5b. A return to the 25-year mean by the mid-1970’s is seen in both the temperature and ice plots.”
Fig 5a/b & Fig 6.
Arctic temperatures above 60N are shown cooling between 1950’s and 1970’s with increasing sea ice extent. The 1950’s and early 1960’s had lower ice extent than the late 1960’s and 1970’s. The years 1974/1975 had higher sea ice extent then a few years in the early 1960’s.
“Current levels are not the same as the 50s to 70s, today’s numbers are far lower.”
The sea ice extent used in the IPCC report disagrees and shows almost 2 M km2 lower than 1979. The alternative observation paper shows that the levels during the 1960’s were even lower. Today numbers are around 2 M km2 lower than 1979 similar to 1975 shown below.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2014/10/monthly_ice_NH_09.png
http://i772.photobucket.com/albums/yy8/SciMattG/ipcc_1_extent_anomalies_fig_7-2ab_zpsuyoii8cf.png
Therefore which paper is most likely to be correct for the 1950’s to 1970’s period when there was a temperature decrease over the past 25 years. Do you really expect to find decreasing sea ice extent during a cooling period using reconstruction or do you expect it to increase like is does in this observational paper?
This paper only goes up to 1977 can’t compare Polyak, L, et. al. 2010 with this one after then, without other methods comparing different techniques.
Just noticed a post I have missed and you wondered which one I support more than the other. Well I always support observations over reconstructed data and the clincher for me are the temperature decrease over the past 25 years with it.
http://nsidc.org/icelights/2011/01/31/arctic-sea-ice-before-satellites/
It does make the anomalies from 2007 and 2012 seem unreachable now, but I have failed to see any observational data that agree with the pre satellite data in that link from the 1955-77 observational paper. There is especially a huge disagreement between the linked graph and the June 1977 plot.
Comparing June 2000 satellite data with June 1977 plot.
]http://i772.photobucket.com/albums/yy8/SciMattG/SeaIceExtentJune2000vJune1977_zpsitcm5d58.png
The June 1977 plot actually has LESS sea ice extent keeping same standards. (taking only 2+ and the 15%+ to represent sea ice in a grid/area)
Clearer link to the June 1977 plot.
]http://i772.photobucket.com/albums/yy8/SciMattG/June%201977%20grid_zps5vhggui4.png
So what, the June 2000 ice is hardly much different so it doesn’t matter with just one month?
WRONG.
The graph from the top link shows a difference of around 2M km2 sea ice extent between June 2000 and June 1977 compared with the June 1977 plot. There ignorance has been exposed and I am deeply disappointed to find such a huge disagreement.
John Finn September 13, 2015 at 8:32 am
Matt G -“With 1975 2 M km2 less than 1979 it is reasonable to say that using the sea ice observation in the link below that sea ice extent was likely lot lower during the early 1960’s. 1975 was the minimum ice extent since the early 1960
John Finn -“The sea ice extent in 1975 was not “2 Mkm2 less than 1979”. You have not . provided any evidence that it was. The one paper you linked to does not support what you say.”
The sea ice extent was nearly 2 M km2 less than 1979 see the IPCC report. I agree the one linked paper only shows that despite the low extent during 1974/75 it was still higher than a few years in the early 1960’s. The year 1975 was the minimum ice extent since the early 1960’s only based from 1955-77. I wasn’t comparing that to any later date, only that paper for the last sentence.
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_full_report.pdf
page 224
Therefore nearly 2M km2 less than 1979 is close to the recent sea ice extents levels now and the paper with observations shows lower sea ice extent even earlier.
You are comparing apples and pears. Basically you are using the range of the ‘noise’ to make your comparison. If you apply the same methodology with recent years the difference is nearer 4 million km2.
The 12 month moving average shows that there was the range of ice extent variation during the 1970s remained in a range of about 500,000 km2 throughout the 1970s. but extent has fallen significantly since then.
John Finn September 13, 2015 at 4:16 pm
“You are comparing apples and pears”
I agree comparing ground observations to satellite are like comparing apples and pears, but didn’t stop others and little different to any reconstructions before satellite. In fact it was better because it was a proper scientific project over decades observing sea ice extent with local temperatures.
“Basically you are using the range of the ‘noise’ to make your comparison.”
Not really being ground observations because if satellite had been there it would still have observed the same noise on a larger scale. The standard deviation from these are not that different from the satellites from 1979 until now. It’s only like measuring surface temperature on the ground with reduced stations using grids. It is reasonable to believe the trend would be the same as satellite with an agreement in trends, when overlapping during the early to mid-1970’s . This also answers the moving average during the 1970’s, as the standard deviation more important than the actual values.
“If you apply the same methodology with recent years the difference is nearer 4 million km2.”
Not true, the variation is much less and no more than 2M km2 on NSIDC from 1979 to now.
http://www.climate4you.com/images/NSIDC%20GlobalArcticAntarctic%20SeaIceArea.gif
The northern hemisphere ice anomaly is currently -1.573 M km2, roughly 2.573 M km2 lower than 1979. It has been lower, but also were some years in the 1960’s.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.arctic.png
“The increase in ice extent during the cool period is apparent in Fig. 5b. A return to the 25-year mean by the mid-1970’s is seen in both the temperature and ice plots.”
Note – the authors mention the mid 1970’s were around the mean for sea ice extent over the 25 year period.
No. See this
http://nsidc.org/icelights/2011/01/31/arctic-sea-ice-before-satellites/
Look at the plot. The 1953-77 bit agrees with Steve Goddard’s plot from the IPCC 1990 report, i..e the range of anomalies might be 2M km2 but the 12 month mean is only about . Goddard has taken the plot out of context (as usual). The link above shows the full record.in CONTEXT.
Look at the extent plot in your last post. between 1979 and 1990 it’s fairly flat. Now look at Goddard’s link. Again 1979 to 1990 is flat. The mean extent for 1975 is only about 200,000 km2 below the mean.
http://nsidc.org/icelights/2011/01/31/arctic-sea-ice-before-satellites/
It does make the anomalies from 2007 and 2012 seem unreachable now, but I have failed to see any observational data that agree with the pre satellite data in that link from the 1955-77 observational paper. There is especially a huge disagreement between the linked graph and the June 1977 plot.
Comparing June 2000 satellite data with June 1977 plot.
http://i772.photobucket.com/albums/yy8/SciMattG/SeaIceExtentJune2000vJune1977_zpsitcm5d58.png
The June 1977 plot actually has LESS sea ice extent keeping same standards. (taking only 2+ and the 15%+ to represent sea ice in a grid/area)
Clearer link to the June 1977 plot.
http://i772.photobucket.com/albums/yy8/SciMattG/June%201977%20grid_zps5vhggui4.png
So what, the June 2000 ice is hardly much different so it doesn’t matter with just one month?
WRONG.
The graph from the top link shows a difference of around 2M km2 sea ice extent between June 2000 and June 1977 compared with the June 1977 plot. There ignorance has been exposed and I am deeply disappointed to find such a huge disagreement.
Sorry – please remove the same duplicate post just above (attached it to wrong reply)
“… note how since 2007 the data seems to oscillate about the -1 million square kilometer line:”
But also note that the Sept minimum continued declining right up to 2012. And that the rebound to maximum extent in March is stronger following a lower minimum in the previous Sept, and less strong following a higher minimum, i.e a negative feedback, presumably due to reduced sea ice extent allowing greater sea surface cooling.
Despite the heated debate (no pun intended), all that will settle the debate is to wait and see.
PS nobody knows for sure what the Arctic extent ACTUALLY WAS in the 1920 and 1930s. What we do know is that there was a “……huge warming of the Arctic that started in the early 1920s and lasted for almost two decades is one of the most spectacular climate events of the twentieth century…….”
Satellites were just a thing of the future.
We also know that during the 20s Wrangel Island was usually inaccessible: in 1921 an attempt to claim Wrangel by settling on it failed because of the inability to reach the island for two years through the pack ice. The lone survivor was rescued in August 1923. In 1926 the Soviet Union landed a party on the island but following that landing the island was surrounded by continuous heavy ice and couldn’t be resupplied. In 1929 an icebreaker was dispatched to the island to rescue that party, despite heavy ice and only making a few hundred meters a day the party was rescued in September 1929.
Here’s a satellite shot from August 2008, a bit different than the 20s:
http://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/9000/9043/wrangelis_amo_2008231.jpg
And the current uni-bremen sea ice map, not much ice there today:
http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsr2/NorthWestPassage_AMSR2_visual.png
The melt of the 1920s started on the Atlantic side of the Arctic Ocean.
Ice was variable during the 1920s off Siberia, coming down from the high levels of the ‘teens. For instance, ice-free water aided the 1926 landing of Soviet settlers.
In the 1930s and ’40s, conditions around Wrangel were generally similar to now. It was used as a POW camp during the war. Admittedly, most of the inmates died, but that was true at all camps.
From Wiki:
In 1932, a Soviet expedition led by Professor Otto Yulievich Schmidt was the first to sail all the way from Arkhangelsk to the Bering Strait in the same summer without wintering en route. After a couple more trial runs, in 1933 and 1934, the Northern Sea Route was officially defined and open and commercial exploitation began in 1935. The next year, part of the Baltic Fleet made the passage to the Pacific where armed conflict with Japan was looming.
A special governing body Glavsevmorput (Chief Directorate of the Northern Sea Route) was set up in 1932, and Otto Schmidt became its first director. It supervised navigation and built Arctic ports.
During the early part of World War II, the Soviets allowed the German auxiliary cruiser Komet to use the Northern Sea Route in the summer of 1940 to evade the British Royal Navy and break out into the Pacific Ocean. After the start of the Soviet-German War, the Soviets transferred several destroyers from the Pacific Fleet to the Northern Fleet via the Arctic. The Soviets also used the Northern Sea Route to transfer materials from the Soviet Far East to European Russia, and the Germans launched Operation Wunderland to interdict this traffic.
Phil,
The Atlantic side.
See 1920s to 1940s Arctic Warm Period. All the peer reviewed abstracts are there as well as from the IPCC.
1932: First navigation of the Northeast Passage without wintering
http://www.climate4you.com/ClimateAndHistory.htm
I’m afraid that NIPR’s latest value, for September 13th, is now 4268045, new minimum for the year and lower than 2011’s by a smidgen. WUWT has counted its chickens before they have hatched.
BTW what has happened to the good ol’ ice guessing/forecasting competitions in which WUWT used to participate and do rather well?
Rich.
Tell that to the ice-free forecasters. You are pointing to the weather – whether up or down. The data you quote is sometimes subject to change! Chickens count and all that.
Did you carry out a cherry pick there? Here are some more graphs. Pick more cherries!
http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/sea-ice-page/
Jimbo, I don’t think it’s fair to call it a cherry-pick when I used exactly the same source as Anthony Watts did at the head of this posting, but 4 days later. I generally find your comments more astute than that.
Rich.
Interesting. For several days if not weeks the US Navy has depicted a “necklace” of sea ice hanging just off the the Alaskan Arctic Coast. Some others neglect to show that. Somehow I’m inclined the believe the Navy’s data over the others.