Peter Wadhams was wrong – Arctic sea ice still there, no record low this year

Last week on September 11th I was the first to call the Arctic Sea Ice minimum.

2015-DMI-icecover_current_new
Arctic sea ice extent with September 9th data from my post on September 11th, 2015

It seems both NSIDC and NASA Goddard agree with my initial claim.

Dr. Peter Wadhams had famously claimed that Arctic Sea Ice would be completely gone this year, even Gavin said it was ridiculous:

gavin_wadham_tweetClearly he’s been proven wrong.

From NSIDC:

Arctic sea ice cover appears to have reached its minimum extent on September 11, 2015. Sea ice extent on that day was measured at 4.41 million square kilometers (1.70 million square miles). It was the fourth lowest extent recorded since satellites began measuring sea ice in 1979. 

Please note that the Arctic sea ice extent number is preliminary—changing winds could still push the ice extent lower. NSIDC will issue a formal announcement at the beginning of October with full analysis of the possible causes behind this year’s ice conditions, particularly interesting aspects of the melt season, the set up going into the winter growth season ahead, and graphics comparing this year to the long-term record.

Source: http://nsidc.org/news/newsroom/2015-arctic-sea-ice-minimum


From NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center

According to a NASA analysis of satellite data, the 2015 Arctic sea ice minimum extent is the fourth lowest on record since observations from space began.

The 2015 Arctic sea ice summertime minimum is 699,000 square miles below the 1981-2010 average, shown here as a gold line. Credits: NASA/Goddard Scientific Visualization Studio
The 2015 Arctic sea ice summertime minimum is 699,000 square miles below the 1981-2010 average, shown here as a gold line.
Credits: NASA/Goddard Scientific Visualization Studio

The analysis by NASA and the NASA-supported National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) at the University of Colorado at Boulder showed the annual minimum extent was 1.70 million square miles (4.41 million square kilometers) on Sept. 11. This year’s minimum is 699,000 square miles (1.81 million square kilometers) lower than the 1981-2010 average.

Arctic sea ice cover, made of frozen seawater that floats on top of the ocean, helps regulate the planet’s temperature by reflecting solar energy back to space. The sea ice cap grows and shrinks cyclically with the seasons. Its minimum summertime extent, which occurs at the end of the melt season, has been decreasing since the late 1970s in response to warming temperatures.

In some recent years, low sea-ice minimum extent has been at least in part exacerbated by meteorological factors, but that was not the case this year.

“This year is the fourth lowest, and yet we haven’t seen any major weather event or persistent weather pattern in the Arctic this summer that helped push the extent lower as often happens,” said Walt Meier, a sea ice scientist with NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland. “It was a bit warmer in some areas than last year, but it was cooler in other places, too.”

In contrast, the lowest year on record, 2012, saw a powerful August cyclone that fractured the ice cover, accelerating its decline.

The sea ice decline has accelerated since 1996. The 10 lowest minimum extents in the satellite record have occurred in the last 11 years. The 2014 minimum was 1.94 million square miles (5.03 million square kilometers), the seventh lowest on record. Although the 2015 minimum appears to have been reached, there is a chance that changing winds or late-season melt could reduce the Arctic extent even further in the next few days.

“The ice cover becomes less and less resilient, and it doesn’t take as much to melt it as it used to,” Meier said. “The sea ice cap, which used to be a solid sheet of ice, now is fragmented into smaller floes that are more exposed to warm ocean waters. In the past, Arctic sea ice was like a fortress. The ocean could only attack it from the sides. Now it’s like the invaders have tunneled in from underneath and the ice pack melts from within.”

Some analyses have hinted the Arctic’s multiyear sea ice, the oldest and thickest ice that survives the summer melt season, appeared to have recuperated partially after the 2012 record low. But according to Joey Comiso, a sea ice scientist at Goddard, the recovery flattened last winter and will likely reverse after this melt season.

“The thicker ice will likely continue to decline,” Comiso said. “There might be some recoveries during some years, especially when the winter is unusually cold, but it is expected to go down again because the surface temperature in the region continues to increase.”

This year, the Arctic sea ice cover experienced relatively slow rates of melt in June, which is the month the Arctic receives the most solar energy. However, the rate of ice loss picked up during July, when the sun is still strong. Faster than normal ice loss rates continued through August, a transition month when ice loss typically begins to slow. A big “hole” appeared in August in the ice pack in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas, north of Alaska, when thinner seasonal ice surrounded by thicker, older ice melted. The huge opening allowed for the ocean to absorb more solar energy, accelerating the melt.

It’s unclear whether this year’s strong El Niño event, which is a naturally occurring phenomenon that typically occurs every two to seven years where the surface water of the eastern equatorial Pacific Ocean warms, has had any impact on the Arctic sea ice minimum extent.

“Historically, the Arctic had a thicker, more rigid sea ice that covered more of the Arctic basin, so it was difficult to tell whether El Niño had any effect on it,” said Richard Cullather, a climate modeler at Goddard. “Although we haven’t been able to detect a strong El Niño impact on Arctic sea ice yet, now that the ice is thinner and more mobile, we should begin to see a larger response to atmospheric events from lower latitudes.”

In comparison, research has found a strong link between El Niño and the behavior of the sea ice cover around Antarctica. El Niño causes higher sea level pressure, warmer air temperature and warmer sea surface temperature in west Antarctica that affect sea ice distribution. This could explain why this year the growth of the Antarctic sea ice cover, which currently is headed toward its yearly maximum extent and was at much higher than normal levels throughout much of the first half of 2015, dipped below normal levels in mid-August.

Starting next week, NASA’s Operation IceBridge, an airborne survey of polar ice, will be carrying science flights over sea ice in the Arctic, to help validate satellite readings and provide insight into the impact of the summer melt season on land and sea ice.

###

Note: shortly after publication this story was edited to fix a text formatting error and to include a URL for NSIDC’s story

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

263 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Phillip Bratby
September 16, 2015 10:49 am

In the real world, ie outside of the ivory tower, people like Wadhams and Ehrlich would be looking for a job.

Paul
September 16, 2015 10:56 am

“The sea ice cap … now is fragmented into smaller floes …”
It seems to me that increasing activity from ice-breakers (both government and NGO) is inevitably going to increase fragmentation of the ice pack, creating the aforementioned smaller floes.
Are those that are studying the impacts on the ice pack via polar expedition inadvertently creating more evidence that justifies further research funding?

Billy Liar
Reply to  Paul
September 16, 2015 3:18 pm

The reason that the Arctic ice is increasing is that insufficient numbers of icebreakers have been steaming around the Arctic smashing up the ice. The Russians go up to the pole with a bunch of tourists every year but the 2008 recession kind of cramped the style of the numerous other icebreaker owning nations driving around the Arctic smashing up the ice into meltable chunks.

Billy Liar
Reply to  Billy Liar
September 16, 2015 3:53 pm

I should have known; the German icebreaker Polarstern is in there breaking up the ice around the pole right now.
http://iup.physik.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsr2/Polarstern_AMSR2_visual.png

Billy Liar
Reply to  Billy Liar
September 16, 2015 4:18 pm

USCGC Healy is up there mashing the ice too. It’s been north of 75°N in the Beaufort Sea since August 20th and is now at 85°N having been to nearly 88°N a few days ago.
http://www.sailwx.info/shiptrack/shipposition.phtml?call=NEPP

Editor
September 16, 2015 11:06 am

Question: Am I dong something wrong or is NSIDC doing something wrong? I download and plot their data, updating almost daily. I get 2007, 2008, 2011, and 2012 lower than 2015. This should make 2015 the 5th lowest, not the 4th lowest. Can someone else check? Here are the numbers I have from their site.

Year		minimum	rank(low)
2006	5640540.95		10
2007	3986945.93		2
2008	4223400.12		3
2009	4871392.35		8
2010	4716943.6		7
2011	4302977.96		4
2012	3368882.08		1
2013	4677324.53		6
2014	5066134.38		9
2015	4500650.19		5
Reply to  Walter Dnes
September 16, 2015 12:30 pm

Walter,
I download the data daily too, and plot them here. I get the file here. I read that NSIDC extent had 4341000 km2 on 8 Sep, 2015, and 4574000 on 12 Sep 2008.

Editor
Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 16, 2015 2:29 pm

You’re getting data from…
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/north/daily/data/NH_seaice_extent_nrt.csv
I’m getting data from…
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02186/masie_extent_sqkm.csv
The corresponding descriptions are at http://nsidc.org/data/docs/noaa/g02135_seaice_index/ and http://nsidc.org/data/docs/noaa/g02186_masie/
I wonder which one is authoritative. I forget where I got the link to the one I use. Actually, there’s a slew of options at ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/

Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 16, 2015 5:33 pm

As I understand, MASIE is basically a reconstruction using multiple sources, and is good for local detail. The NSIDC Sea Ice Index, which I think they are using here, is a satellite view, good for consistency. They say:
“The Sea Ice Index provides a quick look at Arctic- and Antarctic-wide changes in sea ice. It is a source for consistent, up-to-date sea ice extent and concentration images and data values from November 1978 to the present.”
In both this SIE and in IJIS JAXA, 2011 and 2015 were a near tie for third. 2015 was third in JAXA, fourth in NSIDC.

RACookPE1978
Editor
September 16, 2015 11:21 am

Two observations from a novice. In the last few months the Antarctic sea ice graphs moved from being well above average to being around average. At the same time the Arctic sea ice graphs have moved from being inside the grey 2SD area to being well below.
Can anybody assist me to understand what’s happening?

Yes, we (Anthony and I) have been tracking that since the spring equinox. And, no, there has been NO consistent explanation nor notice of either trend in the mainstream press, nor their CAGW self-called “climate” press releases. I’ve got a story in editing about these discrepancies – your comment is a good impetus for finishing it this evening for review.

NZ Willy
Reply to  RACookPE1978
September 16, 2015 12:33 pm

Well, my viewpoint is already well expressed so no need to repeat it. I await your article with interest.

goldminor
Reply to  RACookPE1978
September 16, 2015 6:42 pm

The Antarctic sea ice loss is being driven by changes in surface winds. Note the big hole slightly to the west side of the Ross Sea area. Take a look at the current daily picture from the Sea Ice Index. Then take a look at earth:nullschool and note how that same spot is being hit by warm southerly flowing surface winds. Last month a similar size melt occurred a short distance east of the Ross Sea. That was also driven by warm southerly surface winds, as was a second melt hole halfway around the continent from the Ross Sea. This caused the below average sea ice trend. The sea ice gain back to the average line was as these two melt areas regained sea ice after the focus of the winds shifted westward. Both areas gained sea ice back to the average trend line. As the winds shifted westward, then the sea ice in new areas pushed back well below the average trend line, while at the same time much of the sea ice extent still remains average to above average.

NZ Willy
Reply to  RACookPE1978
September 16, 2015 9:14 pm

goldminer: What rubbish! Winds have not melted/compacted 2 million sq km of ice. Tell your fairy story elsewhere.

Reply to  RACookPE1978
September 17, 2015 4:57 am

goldminor is correct. I’ll add the other factor: ocean currents.
Ice also melts from below (sublimation causes much of the disappearance on the surface), so between wind and currents, ice changes from year to year.
The alarmist crowd is trying to sell the discredited idea that Arctic ice (but not Antarctic) is declining because of AGW. That is nothing more than another of their baseless assertions.
Even NASA shows that the Antarctic has been cooling (blue area):
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com//archives/Antarctica%20NASA%20copy%20.jpg
The WAIS is warmer because of geological heat sources — not because of CO2.
Really, the last desperate attempt to convince rational folks of their catastrophic AGW fantasy is “Arctic ice”. It’s amusing to think they really beieve that nonsense. We are observing nature in action; nothing more.
If Arctic ice disappeared like the endless predictions said it would, it would be a net benefit to humanity. But it’s not disappearing. There are millions upon millions of square kilometers even in the warmest time of the year. But desperate people tend to make up unbelievable fantasies, rather than just accepting reality: there is nothing either unusual or unprecedented happening. What’s being observed now has happened repeatedly, and to a much greater degree before there were any human CO2 emissions outside of people exhaling and lighting campfires.
The whole “ice” scare looks like it was invented in a clown college.

goldminor
Reply to  RACookPE1978
September 17, 2015 10:59 am

@dbstealey…thanks for the support, but I did overstate my position by saying further up in the comments that “…the sole reason for the sea ice loss was…”. I should have said “…a main reason for the sea ice loss was due to wind flow..”.
@NZ Willy…I noticed the drop in southern sea ice in early August. At the time it occurred to me that I should be able to see what ever it was that was driving the sea ice loss. Viewing the wind patterns at earth:nullschool supplied the answer. Here is a comment which I made on the 23rd of last month ….https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2015/08/20/arctic-water-extent-great-leap-ahead/
I made that comment after watching the sea ice changes over a 3 week period, from early August on. When I made that comment I also noted that the winds had shifted away from the heavy ice loss areas, and that those areas would likely spring back to the average trend line as a result. That is exactly what happened starting on the very next day as the sea ice anomaly stopped it,s downward trend and showed an upward gain in sea ice within 24 hours of the shift in the wind pattern. In the following weeks afterwards, the area regained most of what had been lost. Either that was just a coincidence, or my thoughts were in fact correct. For another example of this process take a look at the big hole to the east side of the Ross Sea that is currently shown on the Sea Ice Index. Then take a look at the wind pattern striking that area. That pattern has held in place for around 2 weeks now. Let us see what happens to that large below average melt area when that wind pattern fades away….http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/orthographic=-77.48,-83.12,497

Reply to  RACookPE1978
September 17, 2015 11:06 am

goldminor says:
I should have said “…a main reason…
We all do things like that occasionally. I just happened to recall some pretty thorough discussions on that issue a year or two ago, and added my 2¢.

NZ Willy
Reply to  RACookPE1978
September 18, 2015 12:29 am

dbstealey may say that “goldminor is correct”, but that does not make him correct. Consider the enthalpy required to melt out 2m km2 of sea ice — your winds are puny zephyrs by comparison. And where were those winds in previous years? And why aren’t we NZers getting much colder southerlies than in previous years? You have no case. I have previously stated why Antarctic ice is seen to be in decline this year, and my case is far stronger than yours. NZW

Reply to  RACookPE1978
September 18, 2015 10:22 am

NZWilly says:
your winds are puny zephyrs by comparison.
Wake up, Willy. You are replying to my post where I said that ocean currents are part of the reason for ice melt. By re-framing my comment, you misrepresented it.
You should do as I do, and paste the verbatim quote you’re arguing with. That would save you this kind of embarassment.

goldminor
Reply to  RACookPE1978
September 18, 2015 12:58 pm

@NZ Willy…another point, you twice mention the problem of surface winds melting 2 mil sq km of sea ice. I do not see where that thought applies to what has happened over the last several months. The sea ice has continued to make slight gains through the entire period. The only difference from the previous 2 high sea ice years is that from late July through August conditions prevented the sea ice from reaching the high extent of past seasons.
The current daily Sea Ice Index shows the very large hole in one area of the ice shield, approximately at 70S 155E. If you were to look back 3 to 4 weeks ago, then you would have seen a very large hole in the ice shield sitting about 1500 miles to the east of where the current melt has occurred. That same melt spot has now been at the average trend line for weeks. One was situated at 65S 53E. The other was situated at 69S 170E. At the time that those two large melt areas were open, the rest of the ice shield was at average or above in extent. The drop from +2 SD to slightly below the average trend line happened primarily in only those two spots. Since then both of those two areas filled back in. I understand that this is only conjecture on my part as to what exactly caused the change in sea ice conditions in those 2 locations, but I am correctly describing what I observed. I see that a somewhat similar surface wind pattern has returned to impact the east side of the Ross Sea since yesterday at 69S 170E. If there is any validity to what I am suggesting, then in the following week a new hole should open in the ice shield at that location, although the wind pattern should be colder as it is starting from a position that is 15 degrees closer to the Antarctic than the original wind flow back in July/August.

NZ Willy
Reply to  RACookPE1978
September 18, 2015 2:11 pm

In terms of ocean currents, I think it’s restrained the Antarctic sea ice growth in the Drake Passage because the currents are strong there. This year is the first recent one in which the sea ice has bulged in that direction, so the resultant cut-back has been significant. I look forward to the upcoming stories of travail of scientists trying to get to their Antarctic peninsula bases in the Southern summer.
But I give no credence to goldminor’s point which was that the Antarctic’s sea ice cutback of the past 2 months was due to winds. No embarrassment here, dbstealey, check your own logic where you say “goldminor is correct. I’ll add the other factor: ocean currents” — but goldminor’s point was exclusively “The Antarctic sea ice loss is being driven by changes in surface winds”, which is the only point to which I was responding.

goldminor
Reply to  RACookPE1978
September 20, 2015 1:36 pm

NZ Willy…note that in the 2 days since I made my last comment that a new hole in the sea ice extent is opening at 69S 170E. This could be coincidental. Also the hole to the west of there is still growing a bit as the winds are still in place there, although they are weaker now than they were originally.

goldminor
Reply to  RACookPE1978
September 23, 2015 12:10 pm

A further note 3 days after my last comment. The sea ice at 69S 170E continued to steadily erode as the warm moist surface winds continued to push through that area. The area west of there around 72S 149E also continued to open a bit further. Looking at the areas today, it can be seen that the surface winds have now shifted away from the coast and are moving due east. Let’s see how the open areas respond now that the wind has broken off it,s attack.
The area around 65S 111E has also been a wind influenced spot for around several weeks. Although that wind is a mix of warmer latitude wind and cold polar wind. That may explain why the below average sea ice area has not opened more extensively as happened back in early August

James at 48
September 16, 2015 11:30 am

So, whose images are correct … NASA’s or the US Navy’s?

Eliza
September 16, 2015 11:34 am

So Tony Heller aka Steven Goddard was right all along to be insisting on this. It seems WUWT is now emulating it more and more as people and lukewarmers realize how they have been continuously had by the establishment meteorologists/scientist/journals ect. BTW… in any case the lowest ice was in 1974 well below anything recent. A bit of advice READ and LOOK at SG site for actual factual real data and information from way way back LOL

Jimbo
Reply to  Eliza
September 16, 2015 12:19 pm

Eliza, I am a sceptic to the core but I don’t understand everything you say.
Please elaborate on

“So Tony Heller aka Steven Goddard was right all along to be insisting on this.”

What?

“in any case the lowest ice was in 1974 well below anything recent.”

I thought 2012 was lower.
http://kaltesonne.de/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/nord2.gif

NZ Willy
Reply to  Jimbo
September 16, 2015 12:37 pm

The zero point on that graph is higher than the ones of today. Apples and oranges.

Jimbo
Reply to  Jimbo
September 16, 2015 1:02 pm

NZ Willy, show me the oranges.

NZ Willy
Reply to  Jimbo
September 16, 2015 1:31 pm

The zero point of the vertical axis of the graph above is simply the average of the data on that graph. The zero point of today’s graphs is usually “average of 1980-2010” or some such, but is labelled in each case. Check your groceries.

Ockham
Reply to  Jimbo
September 16, 2015 1:32 pm

Jimbo,
The oranges ……comment image

NZ Willy
Reply to  Jimbo
September 16, 2015 1:53 pm

Ockham: even that graph sets the left side about 0.8m km2 too low — raise it up by that much.

NZ Willy
Reply to  Jimbo
September 16, 2015 2:08 pm

Upon comparing maxima & minima on Ockham’s graph compared with the graph above, I’ll amend that to 0.5m km2 that the left side of Ockham’s graph should be raised up by.

richard
Reply to  Jimbo
September 16, 2015 2:11 pm

With the north west passage and the North sea routes used in the 1930s- Spitzpergen seas open all year in the 1920s, Russian arctic sea lanes open for 8 months in the 1950s- a great shame we have no maps that we can compare to today, The DMi maps from back then are pretty useless and based on estimations with huge areas guessed at.

Jimbo
Reply to  Jimbo
September 16, 2015 3:12 pm

The graph was in response to Eliza. That is what I guessed she had in mind.

Reply to  Jimbo
September 17, 2015 12:41 pm

richard September 16, 2015 at 2:11 pm
With the north west passage and the North sea routes used in the 1930s- Spitzpergen seas open all year in the 1920s, Russian arctic sea lanes open for 8 months in the 1950s- a great shame we have no maps that we can compare to today, The DMi maps from back then are pretty useless and based on estimations with huge areas guessed at.

The NW Passage was not open in the 30’s.

Alba
September 16, 2015 11:45 am

Has this one already been included in the list of things that are supposed to have been caused by climate change?
http://www.leftfutures.org/2013/09/why-climate-change-helped-trigger-the-syrian-civil-war/

Reply to  Gary Pearse
September 16, 2015 12:43 pm

Its clear that in the northern hemisphere black carbon or soot (from Chinese and other industries) is driving down sea ice coverage. Where as, in the southern hemisphere sea ice for the most part is may above the average the last 5 years. Mainly because of the absence of highly polluting industries in the southern hemisphere. If CO2 were a factor we would see the 5 year 2 standard deviations you mentioned at the south pole too.

MarkW
Reply to  Gary Pearse
September 16, 2015 2:43 pm

Lewis, are you honestly trying to claim that it’s not a turnaround until it returns to average?
I suppose Obama’s economy hasn’t turned around since we are still way below the highs seen before the crash?

Lady Gaiagaia
Reply to  Gary Pearse
September 16, 2015 7:22 pm

Lewis,
Looks as if it was in the average zone quite recently to me.
What makes you imagine that Arctic sea ice extent bears any connection whatsoever with CO2?
Among the many valid reasons for it to be lower now are more icebreakers, more soot from China and India, clearer skies generally in the NH thanks to pollution control by developed nations, natural oceanic circulation fluctuations, and a host of other factors beside of which one more molecule of CO2 per 10,000 dry air molecules is not a pimple on the posterior.

Reply to  Gary Pearse
September 16, 2015 7:25 pm

But MarkW,
It’s TWO STANDARD DEVIATIONS!!
Aren’t you alarmed? Especially when he yelled it at you.
Of course, 2 sd is an arbitrary convention. It’s not a physical standard, like the triple point of water.
Furthermore, while Arctic ice has naturally fluctuated below its long term average, the other end of the planet — the polar area the alarmist crowd ignores — is above its long term average:
http://www.climate4you.com/images/NSIDC%20GlobalArcticAntarctic%20SeaIceArea.gif
And as we see, global ice is right at its long-term, 36-year average. So…
EVERYBODY PANIC!!
…not.

Reply to  Gary Pearse
September 16, 2015 7:42 pm

Buckingham misrepresents again, writing:
He says: “2 sd is an arbitrary convention. It’s not a physical standard”
By conveniently deleting the comparison with a physical standard, Bucky re-frames it to mean something different. I wrote:
…2 sd is an arbitrary convention. It’s not a physical standard, like the triple point of water.
I’ve not found many in the climate alarmist crowd who value honesty.

Reply to  Gary Pearse
September 16, 2015 7:46 pm

Buckyboi sez:
Look at the lower right hand drop off at 2015
Your chart isn’t quite up to date. This has the latest data:
http://www.climate4you.com/images/NSIDC%20GlobalArcticAntarctic%20SeaIceArea.gif
Note that global ice is right on its 36-year average trend line.
Excuse me for not panicking.
Also, Antarctic ice is rising, as we see. The Antarctic contains ten times the ice volume of the Arctic.
Go ahead and panic over the Arctic. It’s amusing.

Reply to  Gary Pearse
September 16, 2015 8:28 pm

Bucky, you are as far out of your depth here as Simon is:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/09/16/peter-wadhams-was-wrong-arctic-sea-ice-still-there-no-record-low-this-year/#comment-2028999
Bucky admits:
…did ya know that pi ( π ) is not a “physical standard” either?
Hey, maybe now Bucky is beginning to understand! …But then, he tries to conflate particle physics with the “Arctic ice” scare. Very lame, and desperate. “Arctic ice” is a false alarm, and claiming that a few years out of the 10,000+ year Holocene means anything is nothing more than pseudo-science cherry-picking.

MarkW
Reply to  Gary Pearse
September 17, 2015 10:55 am

It’s 13 years before the average that was taken at the high point of ice accumulation over the last 60 years.

September 16, 2015 11:58 am

So long as Siberia and Alaska keeps on developing the Arctic sea ice extent will be lower than it was when there was no heating there.
All that waste heated water has to flow somewhere – where do you think the rivers flow up there?

MarkW
Reply to  MCourtney
September 16, 2015 2:50 pm

Do you have any data that shows that towns in Alaska and Siberia are dumping their excess heat into rivers?
Do you have any data that shows that towns in Alaska and Siberia have any excess heat to be dumping in the first place?
BTW: What about the Canadian tundra? Do they not small villages up there as well?

Reply to  MarkW
September 16, 2015 3:44 pm

Do you have any data that shows that towns in Alaska and Siberia are dumping their excess heat into rivers?

1) See the definition of heat pollution.

Do you have any data that shows that towns in Alaska and Siberia have any excess heat to be dumping in the first place?

2) Never bothered to look; it’s self-evident.
The towns in Alaska and Siberia must have excess heat to be dumped. It’s cold up there – they must heat their homes and their showers and their washing water.

What about the Canadian tundra? Do they not small villages up there as well?

3) Yes, I agree. Canada has an influence as well. And that influence is to melt the Arctic sea ice.

Gloria Swansong
Reply to  MarkW
September 16, 2015 3:57 pm

The four largest communities above the Arctic Circle are situated in Russia and Norway; Murmansk (population 307,257), Norilsk (175,365), Tromsø (71,590) and Vorkuta (70,548).
Barrow, AK has only about 4373, but oil operations on the North Slope could have contributed to warmer water since the 1970s, too. Nome’s population is 3788. Iqaluit, Canada has grown rapidly now that it’s a capital, but still has only around 6699 people.
The Siberian coast and Alaska is the side of the Arctic Ocean that shows the most melt-back.

MarkW
Reply to  MarkW
September 17, 2015 11:02 am

MCourtney, that’s what you get for assuming rather than finding out for yourself.
You assume that there is heat pollution. You haven’t proven that there is any, or that it is going into the rivers, or that it is bigger now than it was 20 or 30 years ago.
You know what they say about making assumptions, and you have done so big time.

John Mason
Reply to  MCourtney
September 20, 2015 11:02 am

And you think Wadhams comes up with spectacular claims? I think he is an outlier, but I think you are too. Both as bad as each other, it could be said.

September 16, 2015 12:02 pm

Forest Gardener re recent ice extents
The Arctic melt was tracking last year until a major storm took out ~500k km2 in one week. In addition for much of the summer there was negative AO (Arctic Oscillation) with the high ridge causing the blob, but also resulting in less cloud, more insolation and ice melting.
https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2015/09/14/arctic-ice-growing-sept-14/

Logoswrench
September 16, 2015 12:11 pm

Climate Justice Warriors are never wrong. Remember whenever contradicted by reality just assert that the idea is still valid but you just needed to go over the top get people to “meet in the middle.” That way all the alarmist psychotic behavior is then justified. Or you meant well. Meaning well seems to replace doing well.

Reply to  Logoswrench
September 17, 2015 5:18 am

Logoswrench,
+97%!

Curious George
September 16, 2015 12:14 pm

“According to these models, there will be no sea ice left in the summer in the Arctic Ocean somewhere between 2010 and 2015.” Are all climate models created by the same people?

MarkW
Reply to  Curious George
September 16, 2015 2:51 pm

Not all the same people, but they clearly all attend the same parties.

Matt G
September 16, 2015 12:17 pm

Seems as you like computer models so much.
“However, we find that both the AMO and AMOC indices are significantly correlated with SIE in all the models considered.”
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/7/3/034011/meta;jsessionid=FF3D6DFA1F2E2DC541372F5EE06E485C.c1
“The regionally and temporally resolved spectral analysis of six Arctic annual ice core δ18O time series points towards a considerable natural spatial and temporal variability of the Greenland climate and one of its driving forces the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO). The most dominant observed quasi-periodicity is that of ∼20 years followed by a longer multidecadal band between 45 and 65 years. The observed intermittency of these modes over the last 4000 years supports the view that these are internal ocean-atmosphere modes, with little or no external forcing. The Little Ice Age was dominated by a ∼20 year AMO cycle with no other decadal or multidecadal variability above the noise level. During the preceding Medieval Warm Period the 20 year cycle was replaced by a longer scale cycle centered near a period of 43 years and an additional ∼11.5 year periodicity.”
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2012GL051241/full
“When land-ice is allowed to melt, the global surface temperature is
0.44 K (10%) lower at 4CO2, which represents a noticeable
uncertainty on climate sensitivity. This is attributed to a
28% larger reduction of the AMOC in this simulation.”
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2006GL025765/pdf
The answer is very high.

KTM
September 16, 2015 12:17 pm

Why do they end the average at 2010? Why not compare 2015 against the 1981-2014 or 1985-2014 average instead of 1981-2010?

Robert Grumbine
Reply to  KTM
September 23, 2015 9:52 am

The conventional thing to do for forming climate ‘normals’, for over a century, is to average 30 years of data, ending in the most recent 0 year of a decade (2010, 2000, 1990, … etc.).
To violate that convention, present reasons why it should be. And why in the particular way that you prefer and not some other way.

September 16, 2015 12:18 pm

The Arctic Sea Ice Volume Anomaly measurements have been recovering since 2012.
See Gary Pierce’s PIOMAS graphic.

JimS
September 16, 2015 12:20 pm

What I don’t understand is what all that ice is still doing in the Arctic in the first place. Didn’t Bill McKibben in 2013 state, “We have already melted the Arctic.” There simply can not be any more ice in the Arctic. So, case closed and stop the quibbling, ok?

TheLastDemocrat
Reply to  JimS
September 16, 2015 12:48 pm

On Democracy Now, Sep 10 2015, just a few days ago, McFibben talking about the Arctic sea ice said “the water has melted.”
http://www.democracynow.org/2015/9/10/victory_for_peoples_uprising_bill_mckibben#
“But he’s [Obama] unable so far to break with the habit of giving the oil industry what it wants. And what it wanted this time was one of the stupidest things on Earth. I mean, look at Shell Oil up in the Arctic.
“It watched, as scientists said would happen, as the Arctic melted from the increasing temperature on this planet.
“Instead of looking at that and saying, ‘Huh, maybe we should become an energy company and start putting up solar panels,’ Shell looked at that and said, ‘The water has melted. That will make it easier to drill.’ If there is a more irresponsible company on Earth, I don’t know what it is. And it’s a shame to see Barack Obama helping in that process.”

Gary Pearse
September 16, 2015 12:23 pm

I commented several months ago on the methane threat poppycock from melting of ice on land in the Arctic region. The average depth to overburden throughout Northern Canada is only 3 to 5 metres, below which is solid rock – totally free of methane. As an exploration geologist having managed drilling and mapping programs for mining exploration for many years and as a geological survey geologist mapping northern geology, it has been my experience but there also have been some studies of this. Moreover, the active layer from 1 to 3 metres thaws every year and would have released its methane or we may have only about a metre or two where any methane remains locked.
Jockey’s like Wadhams and others don’t know how to study and sample these situations so they make stuff up. They come to the idea while agonizing on the failing warming models. They employ a priori reasoning – the kind a smart teenager uses to argue with his parents because he lacks the empirical knowledge to do otherwise. Here is an overburden map of central Northwest Territories Canada: Scroll to the last page for a map. You’ll see that more than 75% of it is </=2m. Now if you remove ~3m (for this latitude) of annual thaw layer, over 85% of the terrain could have no stored methane. The thick hummocky till and eskers are pretty much devoid of organic matter anyway – largely gravel, sand and inert clay. There is no place to hide enough methane to matter.
http://dmec.ca/ex07-dvd/E07/pdfs/97.pdf

Gary Pearse
September 16, 2015 12:30 pm

Another thing about the “low” on September 11th, it will be interesting to see where it is by the 22nd. It may be above all the others and have a head start on the season, essentially what it would have if it had simply bottomed at that level on the 22nd. They tend to refreeze on a steep trend shortly after the bottom.

NZ Willy
Reply to  Gary Pearse
September 16, 2015 12:39 pm

What will be interesting will be to see the re-emergence of the Beaufort “arm” of ice which has disappeared from most ice maps, but is still there in a lower concentration.

Bryan
Reply to  NZ Willy
September 16, 2015 1:38 pm

Yes, it disappeared quickly. Looking at NSDIC map today, it looks like it is coming back.

bit chilly
Reply to  NZ Willy
September 17, 2015 3:25 pm

and the hudson bay ice that was invisible to the low resolution (relatively) satellite that nsidc get their data from. nsidc output from a resolution of 25 square km,dmi 100 m.

September 16, 2015 12:43 pm

A few thoughts occur.
1) The “accelerated warming” they claim is happening in the Arctic is an artifact of their homogenization algorithms, not based on actual measurement.
2) When arctic water is exposed in summer, it does allow more insolation, but when summer ends and less sunlight hits the Arctic, that open ocean will allow more cooling, more LWR leaving the atmosphere, because it’s not insulated by ice and the “greenhouse effect” is minimal at the poles where the troposphere thins. They don’t seem to acknowledge this phenomenon.
3) They seem surprised that the ice is being melted from below, even though warm deep currents due to the effects of the AMO push past the rim of the Arctic Basin, allowing inflow of warmer water, which melt the sea ice from below.
Why do they continue to ignore factors which explain what we’re seeing? Because they don’t fit with CAGW theory? Because the climate conference in Paris is coming? Because they’re anti-industry “environmental” extremists fashioned in the mold of James Hansen?
Yes, Gavin rightly ridiculed Wadham – it seems Wadham is more than a half-bubble off plumb – but Gavin’s crew and NSIDC are also a brick shy …

Reply to  jstalewski
September 16, 2015 4:16 pm

Sorry – typo – “Wadhams” with a final S… no offense meant 😉

September 16, 2015 12:45 pm

Speaking of Arctic Ice I like this bit from the Sept.2 post at http://www.polarbearscience.com : “Two out of seven polar bears with collars in the Southern Beaufort Sea either spent the month of August on ice that satellites couldn’t see – or they spent the entire month swimming around the Beaufort. Which seems most likely?”

MarkW
Reply to  chilemike
September 16, 2015 2:54 pm

Maybe they got a lift from one of the scientists studying polar bears?

Robert Ballard
September 16, 2015 12:46 pm

Wow…..2011, 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015 all TWO STANDARD DEVIATIONS below the “average”
With only 10 data points………? Don’t get too excited.

Robert Ballard
Reply to  Robert Ballard
September 16, 2015 3:21 pm

Please disregard the above …lost track of the thread.

September 16, 2015 12:47 pm

Arctic winter sea ice, and consequently the summer extent has a lot to do with the rainfall thousands of miles away, in the Altai mountains on the Siberia-Mongolian borders, feeding Ob, Yenisey and Lena rivers, with the total fresh water discharge into the Arctic Ocean averaging about 50,000 m3/s .

MarkW
Reply to  vukcevic
September 16, 2015 2:55 pm

Open waters in the Arctic sea would also result in increased snow fall for the early part of the winter, until the oceans fully re-freeze.

MarkW
Reply to  MarkW
September 16, 2015 2:56 pm

Thicker snow packs would take longer to melt in the following spring resulting in more sunlight reflected during each spring.

tty
September 16, 2015 1:21 pm

“The sea ice cap, which used to be a solid sheet of ice, now is fragmented into smaller floes that are more exposed to warm ocean waters.”
If that was ever true it must have been long before any explorers reached the Arctic. Read Nansen’s or Peary’s descriptions of the sea-ice they walked (and occasionally kayaked) across 120 years ago. It was anything but a “solid sheet”. If it had been, the North Pole would have been reached much earlier.

James at 48
Reply to  tty
September 16, 2015 4:36 pm

Ice tectonics in action.

September 16, 2015 2:18 pm

In both cases, storms. Same as Arctic summer 2012.

AP
September 16, 2015 3:06 pm

Buckingham’s comment shows a lack of understanding of statistics and the geological timescales in which these systems operate. Over a few thousand years, there would probably be numerous consecutive periods of lower than average sea ice. Also, you treat the mean and standard deviations as absolutes. They are not. If we had 50 years of data taken during the minoan warm, would the mean and standard deviations be the same as they are using the current dataset?

RACookPE1978
Editor
Reply to  AP
September 16, 2015 4:14 pm

AP

If we had 50 years of data taken during the minoan warm, would the mean and standard deviations be the same as they are using the current dataset?

And, regretably, we don’t even have a single half-cycle of data for the present Warming Period. We know too little to talk about trends, other than the obvios: Conventional CAGW climate “wisdom” about any mythical “Arctic death spiral” is falsified. The actual satellite trend is broadly:
High spring Arctic sea ice levels usually mean lower-than-normal fall Arctic sea ice minimums.
Low spring sea ice levels usually mean higher-than-normal fall sea ice extents at minimum.
A low fall sea ice at minimum is usually followed by a high spring sea ice at maximum.
Arctic sea ice anomalies have oscillated in the past by an area equal to the size of Greenland in just one season, and they will continue to do that in the future.