Are we seeing an Arctic change? Three out of the four most recent years show increase in ice volume not seen since 2003.
Guest essay by Frank Lansner
DMI publishes daily their Arctic ice volume data in the form of graphs. From these it is possible to retrieve the data and plot them as you like.
So, first I plotted all years available, 2003 – 2016 for the period May 16 to Aug 8 to show the melt season. Not all dates in the period was used, but enough to get the overall picture.
The first that caught my interest was obviously how 2016 was “performing” in comparison with the other years 2003 – 2015. The winter winds Nov 2015 – Feb 2016 were quite harsh to the ice as it was generally blown towards the Atlantic via East Greenland. This may explain the very low levels of ice volume May 2016. Whatever the reason for this low level of ice volume May 2016, it appears that 2016 during summer melt did not melt as fast as most other years.
Then I noticed 2014. This year started out much better than 2016 with more ice, but it was remarkable that 2014 and 2016 both show this “pattern” of reduced ice melt in the summer period.
Thus, in order to study this a little closer, I redrew the graph: Below is now plotted the ice anomaly as estimated from DMI graphs.
It becomes clear, that 2016 and 2014 and to some degree also 2013 show remarkably more gain in ice volume anomaly that all other years. After July 16 I these data, most years seem to stick somewhat to the new level of ice volume anomaly.
Just to illustrate more clearly I set ice volume anomaly curves to zero for May 16.
2014 and 2016 gained around 2500 km3 of extra ice volume anomaly May 16 July 16, and 2013 accumulated around 1500 km3.
These are large numbers and illustrates that the summers in the Arctic indeed can change the game – not only to melt the ice away fast, but certainly also to lift the volume of sea ice volume anomaly to a new level fast.
Thus, 3 out of the 4 most recent years ranks number show increase in ice volume as not seen since 2003. Is this a sign of a real game changer for climate? If this tendency continues into La Nina times and continued low Solar Cycle activity years, the massive rebound of Arctic sea ice may be much closer than most would expect at this point.
What is also truly remarkable is that the year 2014 actually for Aug 8 had just as large a volume of ice as 2003 and 2006. This certainly shows that we are not in a situation of “point of no return”. It seems we can return to pre-2007 ice volume levels any year.
Link to DMI sea ice thickness / volume site:
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icethickness/thk.php
Phil, as mentioned 3-4 times in this debate, DMI have no data on the Canada/Alaska side og the Arctic Ocean and thus:
-> you can ONLY make a comparison of the DMI 1938 vs. Chryosphere 1984 on the Russian side!
Which is why I back NSIDC over you because you have so little data to compare whereas they use data from other sources for the regions you miss. Also your map clips off the DMI data from the Greenland coast so the large amount of ice opposite Iceland is omitted by you.
Phil could you link to the NSIDC data/maps that show more ice in 1938 than 1984?
Here you go:
https://nsidc.org/data/g10010
Phil, I really try to give you the benefit of the doubt and give you a chance to prove your point.
I asked you for the original maps that are basis for your argumentation that 1938 had more ice than 1984 even though original maps DMI 1938 / Cryosphere 1984 obviously show otherwise in MOST of the areas where you can compare.
You then DONT give me links to any specific maps, you give me a link to the general grid product for NSIDC, is this a joke?
How come you dont show me original documentation for all the areas you claim had more ice in 1938 than 1984 ?
You really dont have any original maps to show to support your claim, but pretend you do? So your argument is:
“I just trust NSIDC without any documentation, you skeptics should so so too, and stop checking things out” ?
AT LEAST you should be honest about it if you dont have any specific maps supporting your Alaska, Bering And Canada Claims.
If one then proceed from your link, these are the databases that NSIDC is supposed to be based on:
Arctic Sea Ice Charts from Danish Meteorological Institute, 1893 – 1956
Arctic Sea Ice Concentration and Extent from Danish Meteorological Institute Sea Ice Charts, 1901-1956
Arctic and Southern Ocean Sea Ice Concentrations
The Dehn Collection of Arctic Sea Ice Charts, 1953-1986
National Ice Center Arctic Sea Ice Charts and Climatologies in Gridded Format
Sea Ice Charts of the Russian Arctic in Gridded Format, 1933-2006
NOAA/NSIDC Climate Data Record of Passive Microwave Sea Ice Concentration, Version 2
Phil, DMI overall show more ice in 1984 than 1938 if you are objective. And this is mainly based on Russia data, correct. So :
-> what do NSIDC have from 1938 not DMI/Russia that the National Ice Center gridded Sea Ice Charts can be based on?
i see potentially this link only:
Arctic and Southern Ocean Sea Ice Concentrations
Is this the source of maps that finally support your claims that there are more ice in 1938 than 1984 in the Bering Strait, Alaska and Canadian Arctic. Or do you in fact have nothing to support this claim?
Show me the maps with more ice in 1938 than 1984 in Bergin, Alaska and Canada or else, dont claim you know something relevant.
LansnerFrank August 16, 2016 at 12:58 pm
Phil, I really try to give you the benefit of the doubt and give you a chance to prove your point.
I asked you for the original maps that are basis for your argumentation that 1938 had more ice than 1984 even though original maps DMI 1938 / Cryosphere 1984 obviously show otherwise in MOST of the areas where you can compare.
You then DONT give me links to any specific maps, you give me a link to the general grid product for NSIDC, is this a joke?
You asked for data so I linked to it.
You made the claim that “the odds that this NSIDC “analysis” is correct, that there were more ice in 1938 than in 1984?”
were
“0.0000001 % ?”
I said that I felt the NSIDC analysis was more likely to be correct since it combined data from a variety of sources, not just DMI maps. You confirmed this by repetitively pointing out that “you can ONLY make a comparison of the DMI 1938 vs. Chryosphere 1984 on the Russian side!”
How come you dont show me original documentation for all the areas you claim had more ice in 1938 than 1984 ?
You really dont have any original maps to show to support your claim, but pretend you do? So your argument is:
“I just trust NSIDC without any documentation, you skeptics should so so too, and stop checking things out” ?
Your own documentation shows areas where 1938 sea ice exceeds that from 1984 but you ignore it, or in one case actually clip it from your map (large body of ice adjacent to Iceland).
The NSIDC analysis is described in:
Walsh, J. E., Fetterer, F., Stewart, J. S. and Chapman, W. L. (2016) A database for depicting Arctic sea ice variations back to 1850. Geographical Review, doi:10.1111/j.1931-0846.2016.12195.x
and the data is available in the link I gave.
Phil,
fine , you gave a link to show original documentation that there is more ice 1938 than in 1984, sad you cant take the time to show the specific documentation from your own link. Too busy? Next year maybe?
As long as you dont bring any specific documentation we can look at, we can evaluate the 1938 vs 1984 only on my documentation, its that simple.
http://hidethedecline.eu/media/ArcticGame/phil.jpg
Here i have approx shown where 1938 has more ice than 1984 (red) and where 1938 has less ice than 1984 (blue).
From this we can see:
* Somewhat more blue than red ares *
That is, more ice in 1984 than 1938.
On top of this!
Cryosphere show NOTHING less that 30%, which is not the case for DMI. DMI show simply where ice has been spotted at all, so perhaps down to just maybe 1 – 5 %.
Thus , (1984) Cryosphere – in comparison with (1938) DMI – generally UNDERestimates the ice area along the whole ice line. Thus the extra ice in 1984 in comparison with 1938 is underestimated.
And..
Almost ALL “red” areas , where DMI show more ice than Cryosphere has OOO signature, for “OPEN ICE”.
This can be from 1% , so in all these areas we dont know if cryosphere in fact also have 5-10-25 % ice.
I will remind all that areas with just white on DMI maps has no data, incl Canada, Alaska, Bering etc.
So in short:
— > The maps show somewhat more ice in 1938 than 1984, and on top of this, the areas of more ice in 1938 than 1984 are too large because cryosphere 1984 dont show areas with concentration 1 – 29 %.
– * –
Then a little thing, the spot in NE Greenland that is without ice in Cryosphere 1984 illustration:
This area is not at all without ice in the NASA Earth Science 14 sep 1984 illustration, nor is most of East Greenland coast. i dont know if this points to an error in 1984, but its just meant as a little note here:
http://hidethedecline.eu/media/ArcticGame/Earth.jpg
LansnerFrank August 19, 2016 at 10:50 am
Phil,
fine , you gave a link to show original documentation that there is more ice 1938 than in 1984, sad you cant take the time to show the specific documentation from your own link. Too busy? Next year maybe?
I gave you the link to the paper and to the data file, isn’t that enough?
As long as you dont bring any specific documentation we can look at, we can evaluate the 1938 vs 1984 only on my documentation, its that simple.
Except as both you and I have pointed out your documentation only covers less than half the ice edge!
Here i have approx shown where 1938 has more ice than 1984 (red) and where 1938 has less ice than 1984 (blue).
From this we can see:
* Somewhat more blue than red ares *
That is, more ice in 1984 than 1938.
For those parts for which you have data, when NSIDC did their analysis they were using more sources which allowed them better coverage.
Cryosphere show NOTHING less that 30%, which is not the case for DMI. DMI show simply where ice has been spotted at all, so perhaps down to just maybe 1 – 5 %.
Thus , (1984) Cryosphere – in comparison with (1938) DMI – generally UNDERestimates the ice area along the whole ice line. Thus the extra ice in 1984 in comparison with 1938 is underestimated.
And..
Almost ALL “red” areas , where DMI show more ice than Cryosphere has OOO signature, for “OPEN ICE”.
This can be from 1% , so in all these areas we dont know if cryosphere in fact also have 5-10-25 % ice.
No the ‘Open Ice’ in the DMI charts represents 40-60% ice coverage, the ‘Tight Ice’ represents 70-90%, ‘Young Ice & Brash’ is 10-30%.
Phil writes:
“I gave you the link to the paper and to the data file, isn’t that enough?”
No.
If you still cant come up with the exact original documents/Maps from 1938/39 supposed to be somewhere behind your link confirming your claim that there were more ice in1938 than 1984, for example near Canada, Alaska and Bering as you claim, you cannot expect to be taken serious.
I cannot find your % vals in the original DMI document “Isforholdende i de Arktiske have”, please document these as well.
Summa: In the areas where we can make comparison of 1938 vs. 1984, still 1938 appear to have less ice than 1984.
If you or anyone else have specific original documents from1938/39 showing something else you are still wellcome to share this with us.
In addition , Phil, if both you and I cant find any specific original documentation in the NSIDC data-foundation that actually show more ice in 1938 than for example Cryosphere show for 1984, then this is important.
Because:
If there is no such documentation to be found in your NSIDC-link, then there is no foundation for NSIDC to claim that there is more ice in 1938 than 1984. Then there is something wrong with the NSIDC representation of sea ice area through time. And this give basis for yet another writing maybe here at WUWT.
And thank you for helping making this NSIDC issue visible.
You are still welcome to show what documentation you think support your claim of more ice in 1938 than 1984.
Phil,
an important side note, you write
“the ‘Open Ice’ in the DMI charts represents 40-60% ice coverage, the ‘Tight Ice’ represents 70-90%, ‘Young Ice & Brash’ is 10-30%.”
Its plain wrong.
The signature with text “YOUNG ice & brash” refers to YOUNG ice creations only , NEW ice .
If you doubt me, then go through ALL DMI´s August ice graphics and you will see that this signature for YOUNG (new) ice, you cannot find in their August graphics, simply because no new ice forms there (or very rarely do so).
So your %-values are wrong. For “not-young” ice (as we have in August) there is no signature with less concentration than “open ice”. So it starts from just visible ice, a few %, to maybe 50-60%. Thus, when Cryosphere do not show less than 30%, then Cryosphere are not showing the “Open ice” 1 – 29% .
You can also see, that in DMI from 1952, the very same signature earlier labelled as “YOUNG ice&brash”, is now only labelled as “Young Ice”.
IF you claim otherwise, DO DOCUMENT IT THIS TIME !
Look at the data today and yoou see that Frank’s graphs have no relevance at all.
Like this “StevenGoddard” who lost his bet in August 2012. Did he ever pay?
MFKBoulder
“Look at the data today and yoou see that Frank’s graphs have no relevance at all.”
I show that the mechanisms during summer melt has changed dramatically.
(What happens in other periods – f.example now after a massive Arctic August storm – is also interesting. But is a little besides the point).
Before 2013 , in average each summer we lost around 500 km3 ice anomaly since 2003.
2013-2016 show summer accumulation in anomaly of around 2000 km3 per year.
A truly dramatic change in summer melt is not interesting for people that don’t understand science.