NSIDC: 'two very strong storms' failed to make a repeat of 2012 record low Arctic sea ice extent

Despite a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth by Dr. Peter Wadhams, there’s still no joy in mudville for Arctic sea ice doomsters.From NSIDC: Arctic sea ice nears its minimum extent for the year

Throughout August, Arctic sea ice extent continued to track two or more standard deviations below the long-term average. The month saw two very strong storms enter the central Arctic Ocean from along the Siberian coast. In the Antarctic, ice extent remained near average.

Figure 1. Arctic sea ice extent for August 2016 was 5.60 million square kilometers (2.16 million square miles). The magenta line shows the 1981 to 2010 median extent for that month. The black cross indicates the geographic North Pole. Sea Ice Index data. About the data Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center
Figure 1. Arctic sea ice extent for August 2016 was 5.60 million square kilometers (2.16 million square miles). The magenta line shows the 1981 to 2010 median extent for that month. The black cross indicates the geographic North Pole. Sea Ice Index data. About the data Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center

Average sea ice extent for August 2016 was 5.60 million square kilometers (2.16 million square miles), the fourth lowest August extent in the satellite record. This is 1.03 million square kilometers below the 1981 to 2010 average for the month and 890,000 square kilometers (344,000 square miles) above the record low for August set in 2012. As of September 5, sea ice extent remains below average everywhere except for a small area within the Laptev Sea. Ice extent is especially low in the Beaufort Sea and in the East Siberian Sea. With about two weeks of seasonal melt yet to go, it is unlikely that a new record low will be reached. However, since August 26, total sea ice extent is already lower than at the same time in 2007 and is currently tracking as the second lowest daily extent on record. In addition, during the first five days of September the ice cover has retreated an additional 288,000 square kilometers (111,000 square miles) as the tongue of sea ice in the Chukchi Sea has started to disintegrate.

The average ice loss rate through August was 75,000 square kilometers per day (29,000 square miles), compared to the long-term 1981 to 2010 average of 57,300 square kilometers per day (22,100 square miles per day), and a rate of 89,500 square kilometers per day for 2012 (34,500 square miles per day). Total ice extent loss in August was 2.34 million square kilometers (904,000 square miles).

Figure 2a. The graph above shows Arctic sea ice extent as of September 5, 2016, along with daily ice extent data for four previous years. 2016 is shown in blue, 2015 in green, 2014 in orange, 2013 in brown, and 2012 in purple. The 1981 to 2010 average is in dark gray. The gray area around the average line shows the two standard deviation range of the data. Sea Ice Index data. Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center
Figure 2a. The graph above shows Arctic sea ice extent as of September 5, 2016, along with daily ice extent data for four previous years. 2016 is shown in blue, 2015 in green, 2014 in orange, 2013 in brown, and 2012 in purple. The 1981 to 2010 average is in dark gray. The gray area around the average line shows the two standard deviation range of the data. Sea Ice Index data. Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center

Air temperatures at the 925 hPa level were 1 to 3 degrees Celsius (2 to 5 degrees Fahrenheit) below average for a large area stretching from the northern Kara Sea, through the Laptev Sea, and into north-central Eurasia. Temperatures elsewhere over the Arctic Ocean were near average. Reflecting the generally stormy pattern through the month, sea level pressures were well below average (as much as 10 hPa) over the central and eastern Arctic Ocean. Two very strong cyclones entered the central Arctic Ocean in August from along the Siberian coast, bringing strong winds. On August 16, the central pressure of the first cyclone dropped to 968 hPa, nearly rivaling the storm in early August 2012 that attained a minimum central pressure of 966 hPa. On 22 August, the second storm started moving to the central Arctic Ocean along a similar track, and on August 23, attained a central pressure of 970 hPa.

Past studies have shown that stormy summers tend to end up with more sea ice at the end of the melt season than summers with high pressure over the central Arctic Ocean, primarily because stormy summers are both fairly cool and the wind pattern tends to spread the ice out. However, the impact of strong individual storms may be different—the 2012 event appears to have temporarily boosted ice loss by breaking up the ice cover, with the wave action tending to mix warmer waters from below to hasten melt. It may also be that, as the ice cover thins, its response to storms is changing.

It indeed appears that the August 2016 storms helped to break up the ice and spread it out, contributing to the development of several large embayments and polynyas. Some of this ice divergence likely led to fragmented ice being transported into warmer ocean waters, hastening melt. Whether warmer waters from below were mixed upwards to hasten melt remains to be determined, but as discussed below, these storms were associated with very high wave heights.

Full report here

0 0 votes
Article Rating
162 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Ron Clutz
September 9, 2016 3:17 pm

Yes, MASIE confirms that Arctic ice has been surprisingly resilient this year.
https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2016/09/06/arctic-ice-surprises/

seaice1
Reply to  Ron Clutz
September 9, 2016 3:39 pm

I find this statement astonishing
“Most likely the September average will be lower than last year, an event lasting perhaps 2-3 weeks before refreezing brings it back over last year’s minimum. Only someone pushing an agenda would claim such a short phenomenon contained within a single month of the year shows the climate is changing.”
The ice will of course grow beyond the minimum in a few weeks. It would be astonishing if this did not happen. Are you saying that because the ice will grow back in few weeks the minimum has no significance?
It is not single year that is the basis of the claims. It that year on year on year the trend is down. This year looks like it will be the second lowest in the satellite record.
A hypothetical comparison. Say winter minimum temperatures had been trending downward for 30 years with a few ups and downs. This year looks to be the second coldest on record. You say that spring is coming and the temperatures will soon be warmer than last years minimum. Only someone pushing an agenda would claim that such a short phenomenon contained within a single month of the year shows the climate is changing.
It is obvious that the minimum will be a phenomenon of short duration. It nevertheless is a significant indicator of trends.
Only someone pushing an agenda would claim that because spring is warmer than winter then minimum winter temperatures cannot be an indication that the climate is changing.
(Please note, this is my analogy – I am not making any claim about actual temperatures. To make it clear, only someone pushing an agenda would claim that because sea ice extent is greater in autumn than in summer that the minimum extent cannot be an indication of changing climate.)

Gabro
Reply to  seaice1
September 9, 2016 3:43 pm

The trend since 2012 has been up.

Ron Clutz
Reply to  seaice1
September 9, 2016 4:13 pm

seaice, you obviously haven’t read my post on why 1 month of the year can be misleading.
https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2015/10/04/ice-house-of-mirrors/

Gabro
Reply to  seaice1
September 9, 2016 4:30 pm

Three-year averages, million sq. km.:
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2015/09/2015_arctic-minimum/
2007-09: 4.62
2010-12: 4.11
2013-15: 4.83
Recovery underway. Not sure that’s a good thing, but it’s happening.

seaice1
Reply to  seaice1
September 9, 2016 4:51 pm

Well Ron, an amusing picture of a Norwegian with a big chopper, but apart for that not too informative. Yes, data from different times of the year are different, that does not in any way say anything about whether the minimum is a significant indicator.
By way of an analogy, imagine a reservoir. Every winter it fills up. Every summer it dries up to some extent. We could plot winter levels, which would be a flat line and would tell us little. Or we could plot summer minimum levels, which would vary significantly and would tell us a good deal. If we wanted to know how climate was changing, the summer levels would be very much more informative than winter levels.
So merely stating that some measures other than minimum extent do not vary as much does not negate the significance of the summer minimum.

seaice1
Reply to  seaice1
September 9, 2016 4:59 pm

Gabro – I am delighted that you mention 3 year averages, as this is exactly what the bet I proposed to dbstealey and anyone else was based on. I say the average minimum extent for 2016, 17 and 18 will be less than the average minimum extent for 2013, 14 and 15. If you think the ice is recovering you should jump at this opportunity.
However, to make it even more appealing, I offered odds of 3 to 1 in your favour!
From my analysis of previous years this gives me a slight positive expected return. However, if you think the ice is recovering you should think this is a slam dunk for positive return.
Let me know if you want to take up this opportunity.

Reply to  seaice1
September 9, 2016 5:16 pm

@ Gabro. In fact (off the top of my head), there has been no downward trend in either sea ice extent, nor thickness, since 2007. Going on a decade now.

Doug
Reply to  seaice1
September 9, 2016 5:25 pm

So merely stating that some measures other than minimum extent do not vary as much does not negate the significance of the summer minimum.

What, precisely, is the significance of the summer minimum? Other than to promote “is not, is too” blog comments, of course.

Gabro
Reply to  seaice1
September 9, 2016 5:32 pm

seaice1
September 9, 2016 at 4:59 pm
As I said, I think that 2016-18 will be icier than 2010-12, but dunno about than 2013-15. My guess is that this year and the next two will average somewhere between 2007-09 and 2013-15, ie 4.6 to 4.8 million square kilometers, but more than the 4.1 M sq km in 2010-12.
I won’t bet that 2016-18 will be higher than the three years just past, which it appears is what you wanted to bet Mr. Stealey, since I don’t think that they will be. But that doesn’t mean that Arctic sea ice isn’t recovering from its lows.
In any case, I don’t trust the National Snow and Ice Data Center to tell the truth.

Gabro
Reply to  seaice1
September 9, 2016 5:41 pm

garyh845
September 9, 2016 at 5:16 pm
Dunno about thickness, but as my averages show, the past three years were higher than both the three years before that (the low in the satellite record) and the three years before that, ie 2007-12. The average for those six years is 4.37 M sq km, while the average for the three years just past is 4.83. Thus, even should the current three years average as low as 3.91, which it almost certainly won’t, the trend will still be up, when comparing the most recent six years with the prior equal time period.
Might want to check my arithmetic or algebra.

Menicholas
Reply to  seaice1
September 9, 2016 10:15 pm

I will take that bet.
But, as has been pointed out, the people keeping the records and the data cannot be trusted to be impartial observers ands reporters of what is occurring.
So how to ensure in three years time we know what has actually occurred?

seaice1
Reply to  seaice1
September 10, 2016 7:03 am

Menicholas. we would need to use one data set or another, agreed before hand. I would prefer NSIDC. What is your preference?

Menicholas
Reply to  seaice1
September 10, 2016 7:57 am

Give me a break. Those people are committed warmistas, as are many if not most of the organizations whose job it is to track and report on such things regarding all aspects of our planet.
That is precisely the problem we discuss here, and on many other fine sites, every single day!
I agree in principle and take the bet, but I have zero confidence in the reporting agencies.
We see all sorts of chicanery on a regular and ongoing basis…from words that do not match the graphs published, and especially do not match the satellite imagery when we can find it, to pronouncements of lowest ice evah that look very much like published maps from the 1970s.
Unlike you, Sea Ice is not my first or even my middle name, so I will have to do some checking around to find out if maybe one of the agencies is more or less reliable that the rest, or if any are actually trustworthy.

Menicholas
Reply to  seaice1
September 10, 2016 8:16 am

I propose that we use actual photographic evidence and examine and discuss them right here.
We can find photos on clear days near the same calendar date and how us a good look see and see what we can see.
If the ice is not noticeably and definitely larger in area, or thicker (although determining that is problematic, so we might just have to stick with extent) but the same area, I will concede to having lost the bet.

Menicholas
Reply to  seaice1
September 10, 2016 8:18 am

Sorry, “how us a good look see” should be “have us a good look-see”.
mods?

Latitude
Reply to  seaice1
September 10, 2016 9:33 am

If we wanted to know how climate was changing, the summer levels would be very much more informative than winter levels.
====
absolute total bullcrap….
You would look at the median…not the extremes

Reply to  seaice1
September 10, 2016 10:04 am

Re: seaice1s phony wager. In response, I offered seaice1 much better odds, but he insists that his three year wiggle is more important.
I prefer longer time frames; usually the longer the better.
Agree w/Menicholas, too. Visual evidence is an empirical observation, and as such it is reliable. Certainly photographic proof is more reliable than the records custodians, who have shown themselves to be untrustworthy.

Menicholas
Reply to  seaice1
September 10, 2016 10:35 pm

DB,
I agree that longer time frames are better for determining the overall trend, or lack thereof.
We can all see the large year to year variations in the graphs, with back to back years sometimes showing a large countertrend move.
I am willing to make this bet though, and back it up with cold hard cash.
I suggest we ask our host to hold the money…I will put up in $100 increments, you do the same, A.W. holds the funds and judges the winner.
One more point though…I think ice will increase, Seaice thinks it will decrease, so if no trend is evident, who wins?
We could call it a draw at that point, even though I think three more years of no trend rather disproves the warmista argument more that the skeptical one.
We could let it ride at that point, for three more years. Or we could have a sudden death overtime extension of the three years.
What say you, SeaIce?

Menicholas
Reply to  seaice1
September 10, 2016 10:37 pm

Sorry, the wager portion of that last comment was directed to Sea Ice, not DB.
And lets not forget the 3:1 odds.

Menicholas
Reply to  seaice1
September 11, 2016 11:13 pm

*crickets*
Methinks SeaIce does not want to make a bet after all, not if it is to be judged based on real evidence… not unless it is to be adjudicated by some liars who make up data and talking points to suit a preordained agenda.
Pity…I really want to make this bet.

Bindidon
Reply to  Ron Clutz
September 10, 2016 3:55 pm

Gabro on September 9, 2016 at 4:30 pm
Three-year averages, million sq. km.:
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2015/09/2015_arctic-minimum/
2007-09: 4.62
2010-12: 4.11
2013-15: 4.83
Recovery underway. Not sure that’s a good thing, but it’s happening.

Didn’t you see that you publish here an info of 2015?
What about presenting us ‘up to date’ info, e.g.:
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2016/09/arctic-sea-ice-nears-its-minimum-extent-for-the-year/
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2016/09/asina_N_stddev_timeseries-350×280.png
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2016/09/monthly_ice_08_NH-350×270.png

Menicholas
September 9, 2016 3:41 pm

It is much thicker than it has been in most of the recent years.
NEWSFLASH: Thick ice melts slower than thinner ice!

Mickey Reno
Reply to  Menicholas
September 9, 2016 6:16 pm

And it’s probably thicker precisely because the big summer Arctic cyclone of 2012 that caused the record low minimum that year also pushed a lot of sea ice into a smaller area, piling it up, which then froze and consolidated during the following winter, making for more thick multi-year ice. This years’ storms may be making more thick multi-year ice, too.

PA
Reply to  Menicholas
September 9, 2016 9:15 pm

http://psc.apl.uw.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ice_volume/SPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrentV2.1.png
PIOMAS shows that the volume is about 4.6 km3.
It seems likely that 2010, 2011, and 2012 will have lower minimum volumes.
The minimum volume will low but it will be far from the “lowest evah”.

Hugs
Reply to  PA
September 10, 2016 12:20 am

The minimum volume will low but it will be far from the “lowest evah”.

I have to admit what I see in this picture is fairly steady decline over the chosen period, with minor extra deviation downwards between 2010 and 2012.
So I’d not say “far from”, but pretty near to. Saying it is “far from” is like the famous “just a flesh wound”. I do think linear trend is an artificial trend line – there is no reason to believe there is something linear in here. Warmists believe, of course, that the linear trend is understating the future melt. I have no way to prove them wrong, so I’ll just wait. I’ll probably live to see how good the trendline was.

PA
Reply to  PA
September 11, 2016 7:11 am


I have to admit what I see in this picture is fairly steady decline over the chosen period, with minor extra deviation downwards between 2010 and 2012.
The sea ice has been increasing since 2007 if you throw out some Icelandic volcanoes incidents.
This winter will be interesting. If it weren’t for the “blob” reemerging we might have had record ice regrowth.

aaron
Reply to  PA
September 12, 2016 11:03 am

I don’t think it is implausible that the blog might fuel ice growth during the winter. My pet hypothesis is that during part of the PDO – phase there is an increase in the likelihood of extreme ice mass growth years. Maybe there’s 10-15 years where we see a couple large ice growth events followed by gradual decline creating a saw-tooth pattern that we simply don’t have enough data to see yet.
I suspect that there might be something similar (but much smaller) in CO2 that icecores miss.

PA
Reply to  PA
September 12, 2016 2:18 pm

aaron September 12, 2016 at 11:03 am
I don’t think it is implausible that the blog might fuel ice growth during the winter.

I think it is impossible (not just implausible) that the blog might fuel ice growth during the winter. In my opinion the claim a blog can fuel ice growth is absurd. We will have to agree to disagree.

Griff
Reply to  Menicholas
September 10, 2016 2:04 am

It isn’t much thicker at all – and what’s more its is more broken up than before.

AndyG55
Reply to  Griff
September 10, 2016 4:10 am

“and what’s more its is more broken up than before.”
That means it will refreeze quicker. 🙂

Menicholas
Reply to  Griff
September 10, 2016 7:52 am

“It isn’t much thicker at all ”
Define much.
So it is not much thicker, and yet two separate storms and the hottest year evah failed to melt it to below previous coverage levels, even though for years and years all the so-called experts warned us that the trend would inevitably accelerate into a death spiral as the ice diminished?
And how, Griff, do you ‘splain that?

bit chilly
Reply to  Griff
September 10, 2016 1:00 pm

griff, at current temperatures all those smaller pieces of ice are increasing massively in volume every time a wave hits them. more open water, more waves. it would appear nsidc have not entertained the possibility that there has been less ice melt due to the water being cooler this year.
looking at what happened in 2013 ,next summer should be more interesting.

Gabro
September 9, 2016 3:42 pm

Looks as if the NW Passage is still closed. But Crystal Cruise liner Serenity apparently found a way through. Dunno if its icebreaker escort helped or not.
https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016-crystal-serenity-northwest-passage-cruise/

nc
Reply to  Gabro
September 9, 2016 4:20 pm

According to the article, “In 2013, the Nordic Orion was the first bulk cargo carrier to transit the Passage, hauling a load of coal.” Now one just can not make stuff like that up, hauling coal.
How come the Manhattan back in 69 is ignored though it did fail on a second try?
Coal and oil, the first commercial large scale experiments to sail the passage, so funny.

Gabro
Reply to  nc
September 9, 2016 4:34 pm

Ya got me!
Lack of research by an advocate “reporter”?

NW sage
Reply to  nc
September 9, 2016 6:24 pm

Is the Manhattan (in ’69) a bulk carrier in the same class as the Nordic Orion? That may explain the apparent confusion. In other words there may be a ‘record’ for each class of ship. Everyone likes to make news by setting a record!

Gabro
Reply to  nc
September 9, 2016 6:35 pm
Oldseadog
Reply to  Gabro
September 10, 2016 2:10 am

According to the link Crystal Serenity reached somewhere “roughly 120 miles from the top of the earth”.
88 degrees North? I don’t think so.

Stewart Pid
Reply to  Gabro
September 10, 2016 2:10 am

Gabro the southern passage is & was open … Polarocean is making a run for it now before things freeze up. http://polarocean.co.uk/ships-logs/
http://www.crystalcruises.com/cruises/cruise-guidebook/our-ships/crystal-serenity/live-views
Look at both ships “tracker” for their position and route.

Gabro
Reply to  Stewart Pid
September 10, 2016 2:06 pm

Thanks.
Detail on the polar view map wasn’t fine enough, I guess.

Steve T
Reply to  Stewart Pid
September 11, 2016 1:31 am

Don’t forget it is not valid to compare transits of the arctic routes with previous times when ships had to find “the open route” without modern navigational aids and ice information from satellites etc. It is much easier to get through nowadays, ice or no (t much) ice.
SteveT

September 9, 2016 4:21 pm

In both JAXA and NSIDC, Arctic sea ice extent is now below 2007, and second only to 2012 in the record.

Gabro
Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 9, 2016 4:39 pm

Pretty good for enduring not just one cyclone, as in 2007, but two.
This and the next two years are likely still to average above the 2010-12 interval, if lower than 2013-15. The natural climate fluctuation pendulum is swing back.
There is no evidence that man-made CO2 has anything to do with the cyclic waxing and waning of Arctic sea ice.

Gabro
Reply to  Gabro
September 9, 2016 4:45 pm

Swinging. Sorry.

AndyG55
Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 10, 2016 4:12 am

SO WHAT !!!!!
It is a piddling small period of real data.
And its FAR more than Wadhams predicted..
And it is FAR more than the zero summer sea ice of most of the first 3/4 of the Holocene.
ie.. IT IS MEANINGLESS !!

Menicholas
Reply to  AndyG55
September 10, 2016 8:09 am

But do not forget Andy, that it has been revealed that in the strange vernacular of the Peter Wadham’s of the world, the zero in “zero sea ice” does not mean precisely what most people think of when they see that round 0-like thingy. In fact several large states and even entire countries could fit into the area that he apparently considers to be nothing.
Maybe he just needs to enlarge his definition of zero some more, and then he can declare himself right and the Arctic to be ice-free.

toncul
September 9, 2016 4:38 pm

Are you trying to tell us that arctic sea ice is not decreasing ?

Gabro
Reply to  toncul
September 9, 2016 4:43 pm

It is lower now than in 1979, which was one of the highest, if not the highest, sea ice years of the past century.
But it has been as low as now before in those same hundred years, without benefit of an extra CO2 molecule (four rather than three) per 10,000 dry air molecules.
For most of the Holocene, minimum Arctic sea ice extent was lower than now, again without a fourth molecule of beneficial plant food in the air. Same goes for previous interglacials.

toncul
Reply to  Gabro
September 10, 2016 5:39 am

We are not at holocene, do you know that?

Gabro
Reply to  Gabro
September 10, 2016 2:08 pm

Toncul,
Are you really unaware that we are still in the Holocene, which is the past 11,700 years or so?
Were you thinking of the Holocene Climatic Optimum?

Gabro
Reply to  toncul
September 9, 2016 5:49 pm

To summarize my easily falsifiable prediction: the bottom is in. Maybe, as with the stock market, nature needs to make a double bottom before turning up. Perhaps this year and the next two will mark such bottom before trend reversal. But IMO, unlike true stock market double bottoms, the second one will be higher rather than lower.
A freak WX event could of course take out the 2012 low. But in multi-year averages, I’m predicting that Arctic sea ice will now grow again, as it did from the late ’40s to ’70s, with of course large annual variability.
The Antarctic of course has long since made a hash of the Warmunistas’ forecasts. And its sea ice is what counts in terms of albedo, since it reaches to much lower latitudes.

Menicholas
Reply to  Gabro
September 9, 2016 10:07 pm

The idea that low sea ice extent will lower albedo and so any decrease will cause an ever greater decrease in subsequent years seems to have been proven false.
But sixty year cycles do not fit in well with the CAGW meme, or with the 24 hour news cycle.
And just what the heck is so great about sea ice anyway?
There is nothing about a somewhat less frozen Arctic wasteland that keeps me up nights gnashing my teeth and feeling sorry for myself, that’s for sure.

MarkY
September 9, 2016 4:49 pm

Eating popcorn, cold beverage near….

MarkY
September 9, 2016 4:50 pm

Eating popcorn, enjoying the show…

Mark from the Midwest
Reply to  MarkY
September 9, 2016 7:20 pm

Eating bacon and Ritz, with a small amount of cream cheese. Everything is better with bacon … just a practice run for the Holy War tomorrow. (for those of you who are NCAA agnostics the Holy War is UUtah vs BYU).

SMC
Reply to  Mark from the Midwest
September 10, 2016 4:42 pm

GO BYU!!!

Gabro
Reply to  Mark from the Midwest
September 10, 2016 5:11 pm

Neither the Gentiles nor the Saints are ranked in the Top 25.
My alma mater, Stanford, however, is ranked #7 or 5, depending, right ahead of Washington and far ahead of Oregon in the Pac-12 North Division. None of Utah’s fellow South Division cellar dwellers is ranked.

jorgekafkazar
September 9, 2016 4:51 pm

Arctic sea ice extent is influenced by many variables besides temperatures. including thickness, humidity, snowfall, clouds, particulates, water temperatures, subsea volcanic action, and wind patterns. It is constrained geographically on the upside, as well, so it’s a very imperfect measure of global warming.

RAH
Reply to  jorgekafkazar
September 9, 2016 5:44 pm

You forgot the variables of salinity and ice breaker activities. And IMO it is more than an “imperfect” measure it is a false one IMO. For example
http://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/graph-6.gif
It seems ludicrous that people pay so much attention to it as an indicator of climate over such a short term as the satellite record during a time when we have the ability to accurately measure and monitor temperatures.
I also believe the word “recovery” when used in reference to sea ice is a big mistake. Recovery from WHAT and to WHAT? 1979 levels when the AMO was bottomed out? You gotta be kidding me! That is science? I think not!

Griff
Reply to  RAH
September 10, 2016 2:05 am

Ice breakers and sub sea volcanoes are NOT significant influences on arctic sea ice.
Global warming is.

Matt Bergin
Reply to  RAH
September 10, 2016 4:26 am

As per usual Griff you are wrong. But of course you usually are. It is a normal cycle. 30 years from now the ice level will be high again. All you have to do is look back in history and anyone can see the 60 year cycle unless they are being deliberately obtuse and lie.

Menicholas
Reply to  RAH
September 10, 2016 8:12 am

If it was global, why is the Antarctic not behaving similarly, Griff my lad?

RAH
Reply to  RAH
September 10, 2016 10:23 am

Griff September 10, 2016 at 2:05 am
Ice breakers and sub sea volcanoes are NOT significant influences on arctic sea ice.
Global warming is.
Yes, cutting 100′ wide swaths through ice sheets couldn’t possibly make them more susceptible to wind and wave action resulting in increased break up and dispersion and thus lower local extent. [sarc]

MarkW
Reply to  RAH
September 10, 2016 4:02 pm

Of course they pay attention to it. In all of the world, it’s the only one they can make look like it supports their position.

September 9, 2016 4:57 pm

Polar amplification. Antarctica, failed. Arctic, dunno. There is qualitative evidence for a quasi cyclic ~60-70 year cycle. Larsen did the NWP in just 88 days in 1944 (first ever one season transit); itnis open again now. Climate is defined as weather envelope change over 30 years. But of there is a natural 60ish year weather cycle, the climate definition is wrong by 2x.

climanrecon
Reply to  ristvan
September 10, 2016 12:22 am

Also worth noting that the early explorers, in particular Amundsen (1903-06), took several years to transit ON PURPOSE, because they were more interested in locating the magnetic pole, rather than in AGW publicity stunts.

EthicallyCivil
September 9, 2016 5:44 pm

Implicit in the statement is “we admit that the actual minimum is a weather phenomenon, not a climate one”

Walter Sobchak
September 9, 2016 5:50 pm

O/T The font in this post was very strange much smaller than usual, and gray instead of black.

Gabro
Reply to  Walter Sobchak
September 9, 2016 5:52 pm

I assumed that was because of its being copied from the original.
But what the font do I know?

commieBob
September 9, 2016 6:45 pm

It looks like the Crystal Serenity got through. Its route took it through passages that look like solid ice on the map above. link

TheLastDemocrat
September 9, 2016 7:18 pm

Sure, cheer amongst yourselves that there is all kinds of ice up there.
You all will not be cheering once I paddle my kayak straight up to the North Pole later this month. The REAL North Pole. –Once I can get my kayak out of layaway at Dick’s – there is some kind of dispute over the use of an AmEx gift card they don’t seem happy to accept…

Steve Fraser
Reply to  TheLastDemocrat
September 9, 2016 7:56 pm

Think Zodiac…

Javert Chip
Reply to  TheLastDemocrat
September 9, 2016 9:03 pm

Think helicopter…

Menicholas
Reply to  TheLastDemocrat
September 10, 2016 8:39 am

I will celebrate. seriously…it would be great if all that ice was gone for all or even part of every year.
Think of the new fishing grounds that would open up, the money and time saved on commerce, the travel and sightseeing opportunities.
It would be fantastic for human interests, and the beasties as well.
I would bet on it…in fact am completely willing to bet on it.
But I do not think it will happen.
Sad to say.

dp
September 9, 2016 9:03 pm

The article discusses sea ice loss and loss rates. I assume what is meant is sea ice area loss but this can be accomplished by melt, dispersal, and compaction – the latter two being whims of the wind. The concern should be limited to only the melt, and I use “concern” generously because nobody has yet identified the threat of an ice-free arctic. In face nobody can say with any degree of certainty that an ice-free arctic should be feared. It’s happened before and will happen again. Anything else would be very unnatural.

September 9, 2016 11:10 pm

If the Gulf Stream and AMOC are declining then it is only a matter of time before Arctic ice starts to recover. Things change slowly in the ocean.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/09/06/new-data-shows-10-year-decline-in-the-atlantic-conveyer/

September 10, 2016 12:12 am

Some more aspects of the saison very near at it’s end:
The over all extent loss ( 1st. of April to 9th of September) of all the saisons since 2003 as documented in JAXA:
http://www.dh7fb.de/noaice/saisloss.gif
The average ( thick black line) and the +-2 sigma lines (thiner) are included. The figure shows a jump in 2007, the melting increased after this year by about 1 Mio km².
One also can calculate the loss/day of the saison:
http://www.dh7fb.de/noaice/lopday.gif
2012 is a outlier, it complies as the only season the 2-sigma criterion. There is no trend in the last decade when looking at the “melting power”! The foccusing on the melting season as one can see in some discussions also from NSIDC is not very helpful for the understanding of the Arctic Sea ice or as the NSUDC- guys write in their own paper ( https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/354885/Arctic/wz/10.1002%402016JD025161.pdf ) :
“We also stress that a focus on the summer season, widely adopted in prior studies, is inadequate”.

Reply to  frankclimate
September 10, 2016 1:08 am

There’s also thickness and volume to think about. This September’s minimum will dip below 2007 but the thickness and concentration are significantly more now, than in 2007:
http://wermenh.com/wuwt/cryo_compare.jpg

Griff
Reply to  ptolemy2
September 10, 2016 2:01 am

Why are you showing that? That’s in March!
The important part of the sea ice cycle is the minimum – and what that shows (by the way Cryosphere today has not updated this season due to satellite problems)
Look at this – the up to date concentration and extent right now as we approach 2016 minimum…
The ice is more broken up than ever and it is at second lowest extent and second lowest volume…
It is lower than 2007!
http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsr2/

Menicholas
Reply to  ptolemy2
September 10, 2016 8:44 am

Important for what?
Careful…you are close to revealing yourself as someone who, like me, thinks it would be a good and wonderful thing if the ice were to melt away and that useless wasteland becomes at least traversable, and hopefully much more than a simple route, but an actual destination, for commerce and travel.

Reply to  ptolemy2
September 10, 2016 1:42 pm

OK its march – I kind of assumed it was up to date and should have checked.
But wasn’t the warmist reich in uproar about record low ice this winter and spring?
So the figure is still a refutation of warmist reich agitprop.

Toneb
September 10, 2016 1:06 am

Some thoughts recorded as I scan down the thread:
“Only someone pushing an agenda would claim that because spring is warmer than winter then minimum winter temperatures cannot be an indication that the climate is changing.”
Exactly.
“In any case, I don’t trust the National Snow and Ice Data Center to tell the truth.”
If all else fails!
“NEWSFLASH: Thick ice melts slower than thinner ice!”
No, it melts just as quickly – except that if it’s thicker it’ll take longer. Melt-pond formation in the Spring seems to be the key.
“Pretty good for enduring not just one cyclone, as in 2007, but two.”
This supposes that an “Arctic cyclone” is unusual and that the effects of them are NOT reflected in the extent record.
“People seem to have this thought that all this storminess is unusual,” said Mark Serreze, an Arctic climatologist and center director at NSIDC. “Well it’s not. It simply isn’t. Summer is the time for cyclones.” Arctic summers are not calm. In fact, the months of August and September see a maximum amount of cyclonic activity. Not every summer is very stormy, but overall, the Arctic is the Arctic for a reason. How much did the Great Arctic Cyclone of 2012 contribute to ice loss? Less than 5 percent, according to a study led by Jinlun Zhang and published in Geophysical Research Letters. The scientists point out that 2012’s record loss was 18 percent greater than the previous low, set in 2007, meaning the record low was going to get there with or without the big one. ”
http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/icelights/2013/08/are-arctic-cyclones-chewing-sea-ice
“There is no evidence that man-made CO2 has anything to do with the cyclic waxing and waning of Arctic sea ice.”
Except that it is not waxing/waning cyclicly in the longer-term is it?
http://www.carbonbrief.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/ArcticSeaIce_September.png
“Are you trying to tell us that arctic sea ice is not decreasing ?”
Of course they are! This is WUWT.
“There is no trend in the last decade when looking at the “melting power”!”
Except that “melting power” is NOT what an AGW warming planet is about.
Nice and convenient to dismiss the *Freezing power*.
Which is (is it not) a measure of the coldness of the Arctic winter.
Which is (in the macro) a manifestation of what we see over global land ….. higher night minima.
That is the mark of AGW, and not “melting power.

Reply to  Toneb
September 10, 2016 1:19 am

Toneb
Do you call 1979 onwards “long term”?
What happened to Arctic sea ice before then?
Can your curve be extrapolated backwards to a snowball earth in the year 1700?
How convenient that the sea ice instrumental record began at what could have been a oscillatory maximum in 1979. (I won’t say cyclical since natural chaotic climate fluctuations don’t have regular frequency.)
Also convenient that the instrumental temperature record began at the coldest point in the entire Holocene, 100-200 uears ago.
Clearly cherries are still in season!

Reply to  Toneb
September 10, 2016 1:36 am

“Melting power” ( i.e. Ice albedo feedback) is not a mark of AGW? Interesting! It’s the winter arctic warming? The Sea Ice Extent of Jan…March has only a weak correlation during in the last decade (R²=0.25 after removing the outlier 2012) to the september extent. And no: I don’t say that the Arctic Sea Ice is not decreasing. Please come back with physics!

Toneb
Reply to  frankclimate
September 10, 2016 6:15 am

“Please come back with physics!”
Ok:
And common sense……
Would you not hink that end of winter ice volume is a better indicator of Arctic coldness?
As once an extent is reach that is close to an average (restricted by wind regimes – namely that blowing via a +NAO into the E Siberian seas….. the cold will make the ice THICKER.
So here is a graph for that my friend….
http://greatwhitecon.info/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/piomas-min-2015.jpg

Reply to  frankclimate
September 10, 2016 1:38 pm

So your answer to my question is yes – this curve can be extrapolated back to snowball earth in 1700.

Frederik Michiels
Reply to  Toneb
September 10, 2016 1:36 am

i thought higher night minima are the result of UHI.
one thought you didn’t record: 6000 years ago the arctic was ice free, in the eemian interglacial the arctic was ice free, the interglacial before the arctic was ice free, (in summer)…
conclusion: A summer ice free arctic is not unusual, during the holocene optimum it was rather the norm then unprecedented.

tony mcleod
Reply to  Frederik Michiels
September 10, 2016 5:47 am

It’s been pretty rare for 6000 years!

ralfellis
Reply to  Toneb
September 10, 2016 4:04 am

Toneb.
I think you need to take your graph back to the (dustbowl) 1930s, when there was much less sea ice than in the cold (new ice-age) 1970s. Please let me know when you have assembled data for a complete 60-year AMO-PDO cycle (plus a half-cycle just to be sure).
R

Javier
Reply to  ralfellis
September 10, 2016 5:00 am
Menicholas
Reply to  Toneb
September 10, 2016 8:49 am

““NEWSFLASH: Thick ice melts slower than thinner ice!”
No, it melts just as quickly – except that if it’s thicker it’ll take longer. Melt-pond formation in the Spring seems to be the key.”
My original statement was in regard to ice melting away, so some interpretation was needed to understand the point, but I see that you simply wish to pick a nit and find something incorrect about the obvious.
So be it.
Let’s look at it your way:
If at end of Winter there is a five foot thick block of ice and a ten foot thick block of ice, if they are both at 32 degrees then any heat added will melt a certain volume of the ice.
But at the end of Winter, it may well be the case that the thicker ice is far colder in the center, and maybe even all the way through, and so more heat will be needed to get the block of ice up to the melting temperature.
First year physics.
Maybe you skipped that class?

Menicholas
Reply to  Menicholas
September 10, 2016 8:53 am

Also, since it almost surely melts AWAY more quickly when it is broken up into chunks, each of which then is in contact with water around the entire circumference, and hence has more melting surface area, and since it is almost surely the case than thinner ice breaks up into chunks with a larger surface are than thinner ice, it is doubly for sure that thicker ice will resist being melted away more quickly.
All of which would seem to prove you are not looking at the situation very logically or honestly or precisely.

Menicholas
Reply to  Menicholas
September 10, 2016 9:00 am

Sorry, I seem to have mangled my point in that last comment. Thicker ice almost surely resists being broken up into chunks more so tan thinner ice.
In other words, a thin sheet of ice will be broken up more readily, and thinner ice has a higher surface to volume ratio than thicker ice, whether it is broken up or not. And since it will break up more readily, thus further increasing the surface to volume ratio, and since ice melts from the surface by absorbing heat from the surrounding air and water (yes and by absorbing solar energy directly), thinner ice will disappear more quickly…even if given a equal volume of thick ice and thin ice to begin with.

Reply to  Toneb
September 12, 2016 5:50 pm

Toneb says:
That is the mark of AGW…
Baseless assertion. What would you do without them?
If you disagree, produce a verified measurement quantifying AGW.
You will be the first.

Toneb
September 10, 2016 1:24 am

“Do you call 1979 onwards “long term”?”
Yes.
“Clearly cherries are still in season!”
Year round on here my friend.

Menicholas
Reply to  Toneb
September 10, 2016 8:55 am

Yes, you and your warmistas compadres are a persistent lot, I will give you all that.

Reply to  Menicholas
September 11, 2016 5:35 pm

They have to be. They’ve got nothing else.

Orrin Porter Rockwell
Reply to  Toneb
September 10, 2016 11:07 pm

You also admitted you think the world is warmer with a frigid atmosphere than without one.
So there’s that.
“Toneb
September 10, 2016 at 1:24 am
“Do you call 1979 onwards “long term”?”
Yes.”
Here’s a hint: 1979 isn’t long term. Records of people sailing through the Northwest Passage, are long term; and surfacing submarines at the North Pole are medium term.
1979 Satellite records are the SHORTEST term record we have.
You’re just lost every time you say something about – pretty much anything.
The atmosphere can’t warm the planet. No light warmed rock, immersed into any frigid bath of light blocking fluids, ever got warmer because of it.
No matter how many criminals in your fraudulent religion of fake mathematics and physics are busted telling you otherwise, and no matter how many times you grind away at science with your ignorant ”AGW” pseudo-science mantra, there’s a simple test for your religion:
is there any instance in all physics,
in which a light warmed object
can be immersed into frigid fluids
doped with light blocking refractive media
and surface energy density climb?
No. Each time any light warmed object is immersed into frigid fluids, it’s temperature drops.
Each time more light blocking refractory media are added to said frigid, fluid bath, surface energy density drops.
Your religion is for people who browse websites for information on Bigfoot migration.
It founded the ”my pseudo-science is above being checked through experiment” movement.

Koop in VA
Reply to  Orrin Porter Rockwell
September 14, 2016 8:16 am

“The atmosphere can’t warm the planet”
Thank you, truly, thank you! I needed the good belly laugh!

Chris Hanley
September 10, 2016 1:35 am

It’s a mystery to me why some want to argue the point with alarmists about Arctic sea ice extent.
If the climate continues to warm gently as it has for three centuries the Arctic sea ice will gradually recede and if the warming continues for long enough it’s likely the Arctic will become ice-free for some part of peak summer as it presumably has before — so what?.
Arguing with alarmists is like an army battling on the enemy’s chosen territory and pretty dopey.

Griff
Reply to  Chris Hanley
September 10, 2016 2:03 am

Except the arctic sea ice is rapidly receding, not gradually receding…
It is lower, again, than 2007 and the ice is in a far worse state…
And you know the affect on the Earth’s climate from ice free summers is not a ‘so what’

Reply to  Griff
September 10, 2016 8:25 am

Still people like you,Griff ignore the number of published papers showing evidence of periodic times of NO summer in the Arctic earlier in the Holocene.
While CO2 levels were around the 260-28- ppm at the time.
Pay more attention to the AMO cycle,which is shown to have a significant effect on the Arctic ice.

rw
Reply to  Griff
September 11, 2016 11:41 am

Giff,
You should have been on the Northabout when they were trying to get through the Laptev sea. Why was all that “receding” ice getting in their way?

Griff
September 10, 2016 2:08 am

Look, I have to say it – you people are deluding yourselves…
Take one more look at this and tell me the ice is recovering, thicker, not declining…
http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsr2/comment image
Why hasn’t it recovered in a decade to pre-2007 levels?
A second lowest record on extent, with large areas even near the pole at 50% ice no problem?

Stewart Pid
Reply to  Griff
September 10, 2016 2:36 am

Grif at times you are a clueless. Several big storms broke up the sea ice and so yes the extent is low. However it isn’t down to your GLO-BULL warming since as you can see on the DMI graph it wasn’t warm in the arctic this past summer and was actually slightly below the average. And now the temp is right on average and wintery in the arctic.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php

AndyG55
Reply to  Stewart Pid
September 10, 2016 4:14 am

“Grif at times you are a clueless”
Wrong… Griff is ALWAYS clueless. !!

Menicholas
Reply to  Griff
September 10, 2016 9:10 am

Griff, what is it about open water, in the midst of what has been for many years a frozen wasteland, that is a “problem” for you?
Seriously, an honest question…I really want to know what is so troubling to you about such a thing?
It is demonstrated that clearing away that ice allows ship traffic in what had been in years past an impassable region.
Many other benefits will surely accrue to having a vast new place to explore and fish and search for things people need.
So what would be bad about it, if it even ever occurs, which I personally doubt…there is every indication historically that this is the low leg of a sinusoidal fluctuation…please do tell?

ren
September 10, 2016 2:15 am
rw
Reply to  ren
September 11, 2016 11:43 am

And, strangely, it’s never been above average when the sun was out, this year or any year before.

Oldseadog
September 10, 2016 2:22 am

Griff,
As Chris says above, what is the problem with there being less ice in the Arctic? Homo Sapiens has always done better in the warmth than in the cold, and I can find no evidence, so far, that more CO2 is bad for us, supposing that CO2 is having any great effect on the climate anyway.

See - owe to Rich
September 10, 2016 3:30 am

JAXA data at https://ads.nipr.ac.jp/vishop/#/extent show two days of increases by 7000 sq.km. from the 7th to 9th of September. It is possible that minimum, at 4.017M sq.km, has been achieved on the 7th, slightly earlier than average (which I’ve seen quoted as being the 11th). Or it oculd go down again…
2016 definitely looks like the 2nd lowest on record, but only by a whisker from 2007.
I wouldn’t bet on a recovery in 2017, because I believe the warmth from the 2015/16 El Nino will make its way northward. So I’m looking to 2018 for an increase.
Rich.

Javier
Reply to  See - owe to Rich
September 10, 2016 5:14 am

“2016 definitely looks like the 2nd lowest on record, but only by a whisker from 2007.”
Not according to DMI data:
http://osisaf.met.no/quicklooks/sie_graphs/nh/en/osisaf_nh_iceextent_daily_2016.png
So I would say that after 10 years there has been no significant melting in the Arctic. In this 10 years however Greenpeace has collected millions with their “Save the Arctic” campaign and can even claim success. Moah monies!

rw
Reply to  Javier
September 11, 2016 11:45 am

People are also forgetting that DMI deleted the page with the 30% curve when it was showing a much greater extent than in previous years. That’s one way of keeping the data in line with the Narrative.

Javier
September 10, 2016 4:43 am

The issue is that for the last 10 years there has been no trend in September Arctic sea ice extent. Exactly since Al Gore proclaimed its demise.
http://i1039.photobucket.com/albums/a475/Knownuthing/osisaf_nh_iceextent_seasonal2_zpsyk3pbipl.png
With a multidecadal trend of -12%/decade, 10 year trendless periods are expected, and some are seen in the record, however trendless periods of >10 years should be pretty rare and none is seen. So things are going to get interesting over the next 5 years, since El Niño record global temperatures in 2015 and 2016 have had little impact on Arctic sea ice, and North Atlantic Ocean temperatures are still dropping.
http://www.climate4you.com/images/NODC%20NorthAtlanticOceanicHeatContent0-700mSince1979%20With37monthRunningAverage.gif
So the real bet here is that for the next 5 years Arctic sea ice extent is going to continue trendless making life miserable for Arctic sea ice doomers. A pause in Arctic sea ice is just what alarmists now need to convince more people that the thermaggedon is around the corner. Repent, the end is nigh.

Toneb
Reply to  Javier
September 10, 2016 6:22 am

“there has been no trend in September Arctic sea ice extent. ”
How very “Monckton”.
Extend that back just a couple of years, and?
But there has been a trend for end of winter maximum volume. (see above)
A better indicator of the effect of GHE.

Toneb
Reply to  Toneb
September 10, 2016 6:24 am
Richard M
Reply to  Toneb
September 10, 2016 7:32 am

AGW cultists are denying reality as usual. The Arctic sea ice is following the AMO cycle. Yes, it is now low as the AMO cycle predicts. However, the AMO cycle also predicted a flat bottom which is exactly what we have seen over the past decade. This was not predicted by AGW pseudo-science. We all remember the claims of a death spiral.
I you think low ice in the Arctic can only be caused AGW then you are completely delusional. The loss was primarily due to storms which also brought in clouds. The clouds reduced absorption of solar energy.
BTW, I believe we will see a definite recovery over the next 3 years. El Nino always drives up the AMO index somewhat. That is now over. In addition, there has been a large loss of energy from the Arctic Ocean with the low sea ice extent this past year. It was the primary driver of the warm Arctic temperatures which is why we had a slightly higher global temperature than 1998 during the winter. That should lead to a quick recovery this fall and winter as that energy is lost to space.

Reply to  Toneb
September 10, 2016 8:20 am

Toneb,quotes Javier in a misleading way:
“there has been no trend in September Arctic sea ice extent. ”
Here is what Javier actually said:
“The issue is that for the last 10 years there has been no trend in September Arctic sea ice extent.”
You didn’t properly address his statement,which he backs his case with a chart.
How very mannian of you,Toneb.

Menicholas
Reply to  Toneb
September 10, 2016 9:17 am

Yes, SunsetTommy, slicing and dicing comments to ignore parts while arguing against sentence fragments is a favorite trick of those who have no real argument to make, and are thus reduced to transparently obvious distortions in order to try to save some face. Or something…I do not know.
Personally I never tried to argue without a point to make. It would seem to rely on those reading to not be very bright or astute, neither of which is the case here.
So why bother, one might wonder?

Javier
Reply to  Toneb
September 10, 2016 9:18 am

“But there has been a trend for end of winter maximum volume. (see above)
A better indicator of the effect of GHE.”

Already feeling the pain, Toneb?
Taking refuge in the March Arctic maximum sea ice extent that has a much lower trend (-2.8%/decade) is a sign of defeatism.

Javier
Reply to  Toneb
September 10, 2016 1:14 pm

PIOMAS volume says exactly the same. 10 years without a trend. This was once more totally unexpected as all the predictions were for an accelerated reduction. Nature has a way of telling you that you don’t understand, Toneb, but you are not paying attention.

bit chilly
Reply to  Toneb
September 10, 2016 1:28 pm

i hope everyone notes that javier is using what is at least an attempt at measuring (extent) and toneb, true to alarmist persuasion is using piomas modeled volume .
i have no idea how accurate the piomas modeled volume is, but it is very telling it is a favoured metric of some arctic alarmists. credit where it is due, even the arctic sea ice forum ,who lead arctic alarmism , warn of the dangers of placing too much faith in the various arctic ice models. a position borne out of a few years with large amounts of egg on their face no doubt.

Toneb
Reply to  Toneb
September 10, 2016 1:46 pm

“You didn’t properly address his statement,which he backs his case with a chart.”
Yes I did …. I said that if you “Extend that back just a couple of years, and?”
Meaning that it is to short a period to be meaningful because by extending it back just a little the declining trend appears (the same trend) that extends back 38 years.
“Already feeling the pain, Toneb?”
No.
And you?
“Taking refuge in the March Arctic maximum sea ice extent that has a much lower trend (-2.8%/decade) is a sign of defeatism.”
No, only down the rabbit-hole is it my friend.
Just “taking refuge” in the fact that peolpe here deny the obvious that there is a trend in both ice maxima at the start of spring and minima at the end of summer.
The trend is there from the start of the satellite record.
And like the trend in the temp record WITH weather interrupting the general trend.
SO on the one hand for people to argue that 38 years is not long enough to be sure there is a long-term decline set in AND ON THE OTHER to point out that the last 10 years there is no trend in minma, is, shall we say …. inconsistent.

Javier
Reply to  Toneb
September 10, 2016 3:27 pm

Toneb,
The trend from 1979 to 2007 is obvious, but that doesn’t say that the trend is going to continue and how. That is your assumption and it is based on extrapolation, not knowledge.
Scientific knowledge indicates that Arctic sea ice responds more to water temperatures than air temperatures, and is therefore linked to AMO. Alarmists tend to ignore scientific knowledge because it does not support their alarmism.
A signal of persistent Atlantic multidecadal variability in Arctic sea ice
M.W. Miles et al. 2014. Geophys. Res. Lett., 41, 463–469.
http://folk.uib.no/ngftf/CV/PDF_Furevik/miles_et_al_grl_2014.pdf
“We establish a signal of pervasive and persistent multidecadal (~60–90 year) fluctuations… Covariability between sea ice and Atlantic multidecadal variability as represented by the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) index is evident during the instrumental record. This observational evidence supports recent modeling studies that have suggested that Arctic sea ice is intrinsically linked to Atlantic multidecadal variability.
Given the demonstrated covariability between sea ice and the AMO, it follows that a change to a negative AMO phase in the coming decade(s) could —to some degree— temporarily ameliorate the strongly negative recent sea-ice trends.”

The 10-year trendless Arctic sea ice coincides with 10 years of stable AMO.
I know all of this is above you as you seem to be able only to extrapolate, but trust me, Arctic sea ice isn’t going anywhere during the next decades, and will not disappear on our watch. Astute observers can see that the change in trend that you mock has a physical explanation and is therefore very likely to be both real and last for several more decades.

Orrin Porter Rockwell
Reply to  Toneb
September 10, 2016 11:16 pm

We also have the mathematics in place to check your claim of there being a GHE. Calculation of the temperature of the planetary atmosphere doesn’t refer to any GHE.
There’s an international Standard. It’s named the Standard Atmosphere and it is calculated, very accurately, without any reference to any GHE of any kind, at any time.
You’re defending fake science that simple knowledge of existence of international regulatory standards for gas and pressure defeats instantly.
”GHE.” LoL. If there were such thing, the Standard Atmosphere would have to include it in solving gas computations in gas and atmospheric chemistry.
You’re here bawling about a fake, non-existent entity. That entity shares it’s nature with the credibility of people who believe there could be some temperature altering GHE.
“‘Toneb
September 10, 2016 at 6:22 am
“there has been no trend in September Arctic sea ice extent. ”
How very “Monckton”.
Extend that back just a couple of years, and?
But there has been a trend for end of winter maximum volume. (see above)
A better indicator of the effect of GHE.””

Toneb
Reply to  Toneb
September 11, 2016 11:52 am

“Astute observers can see that the change in trend that you mock has a physical explanation and is therefore very likely to be both real and last for several more decades.”
It is not that I mock your “change of trend”
It is that I don’t agree that there has been a change of trend discernible at all.
Denizens on here you both “mock” long-term records as being too short to be meaningful (so long as they are going the warm way you don’t like) and also (holding two mutually incompatible ideas in a head at the same time) also say ( like here) that 10 years is long enough when the (supposed) trend is going the way you want.
I entirely expect you not “get” that. AMO correlation or not.
Sorry, 10 years is in no way long enough to discern a trend (and you say “trendless” anyway) in any direction indicators of climate are going over the longer term (30 years+).
That it matches a period of stable AMO or not.
BTW: I DO agree with the paper linked, that the AMO and natural variability in the N Atlantic (NAO) has a bearing on Arctic ice …. it is just that I am of the opinion (as are most others) that the GHE signal has overwhelmed that signal. But yes, it does modulate the overall warming/melt trend induced by AGW.
We see that in the surface temp record – a general GHE trend, modulated by natural variability (chiefly the PDO/ENSO cycles)
Just another thing: I see that the proxies used here going back to 1200 are OK?
But others relating to surface temps are not?

Javier
Reply to  Toneb
September 11, 2016 4:55 pm

Toneb,
You seem to be raising strawman arguments, as you attribute me things that I have not said.
Going from a clear trend to a trendless period is a clear change, whether you like it or not. The only question is if the change is significant or not, and the answer to that is that it depends. If you have predicted the demise of the Arctic sea ice in the 2010s, 2020s, or 2030s, like Peter Wadhams, Wieslaw Maslowski, Jay Zwally, or Mark Serreze, then it is terribly significant for your prediction, isn’t it? 10 trendless years is a killer for an Arctic death spiral.
“it is just that I am of the opinion (as are most others) that the GHE signal has overwhelmed that signal.”
That is not what the data suggests. If just by stabilizing the AMO has caused Arctic sea ice to become trendless, then your opinion of overwhelminess is wrong.
If you like to promote catastrophism about Arctic sea ice you are advised to look for a new interest. A few more years without trend and you will be making a laughing stock.
“Just another thing: I see that the proxies used here going back to 1200 are OK?”
I use all kind of proxies some going back 10,000 years and others even much farther. The only questions are the reliability and representativity of the proxy.

tony mcleod
September 10, 2016 6:02 am

Ugh, some of you guys are in for a nasty surprise. Others will just be unable to see past there ideology and will continue to ask what’s the big deal about ice disappearing – that’s a good thing isn’t it?
Very nasty surprise.
Talk about chess and pigeons.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  tony mcleod
September 10, 2016 8:25 am

Let me guess. Climageddon is coming. It’s just around the corner. Any day now. Then we’ll be sorry.
Only in your wildest dreams. But climate fantasies are fun, right?

Menicholas
Reply to  tony mcleod
September 10, 2016 9:23 am

Yes, Tony.
Yes, and all we need to do is ignore thousands of years of human and Earth history, during which time warmer and less frigidly deadly has always been beneficial for people and for plants and for crops and for life in general.
Ignore all that and listen to panic mongers who have no good points to make, are wrong about everything they predict, scream incessantly about things which never happen, and bad effects to come which never materialize, and jump on the bandwagon with a bunch of money grubbing dopes who want to cause irreparable harm to our infrastructures, our economy, our way of live, and to our very health and survival.
Why, Tony, why should we do all of that?
Because you tut tut and shake your head and warn us we will be sorry?
Why do you hate the poor of the world, who just want a better life?
Why do you hate people and want to harm their prospects for a long and comfortable life?
Why?

beng135
September 10, 2016 6:43 am

The “loss” of sea-ice is particularly ephemeral. Wait a few more months, and it’s BAAAACK.
Worrying about it is a waste of time.

Bruce Cobb
September 10, 2016 6:48 am

Warmunists just love yakking about sea ice because it’s a convenient distraction from the fact that temperatures aren’t doing what their Warmist ideology tells them they should. Their “sea ice is disappearing” mantra is meant to alarm the low-information, high-emotion sheeple who are only too happy to Believe.

bit chilly
Reply to  Menicholas
September 10, 2016 1:30 pm

brilliant menicholas . the perfect comparison to highlight the level of fruitloopery involved in arctic alarmism.

Reply to  Menicholas
September 10, 2016 1:34 pm

The top two show idyllic and utopian pre-industrial climate.
The bottom two show an apocalypse of CO2 climate devastation.

SMC
Reply to  Menicholas
September 10, 2016 4:51 pm

I’ll take the “apocalypse of CO2 climate devastation”… thanks.

Gabro
Reply to  Menicholas
September 10, 2016 5:13 pm

I like penguins. They taste like fish.

Chris
Reply to  Menicholas
September 10, 2016 11:06 pm

Except that the nice sandy beach in your picture will be covered in water, which makes it a less appealing place to photograph and hang out. Oh, and you are ignoring the impact on temperatures in places that are already hot (but will get hotter) as well as the impact on droughts and rainfall intensity in other places.

Reply to  Menicholas
September 11, 2016 7:19 am

Chris
“Nul pwann!”
Beach will just reform wherever the shoreline is.
Hot places will get no hotter from CO2. Warm climate will just extend further poleward.
In the mesozoic when dinosaurs lived, global temerature was ~ 10C hotter than now, but the tropics were no warmer than at present. But there were forests almost up to the poles.
In fact it is cold glacial maximum climate that is dry and arid – as the ice cores show, at every glacial maximum the air is full of dust from aridity. (CO2 starvation and plant die-offs might actually contribute to this!)
In fact CO2 enrichment of the atmosphere is already greening marginal deserts so today’s hot dry regions may well get wetter, cooler and more habitable with increased CO2.
This is the future apocalypse that the world’s politicians are fighting against.

Menicholas
Reply to  Menicholas
September 11, 2016 7:58 am

Check the tide gauges Chris. Actual sea level rise has been steady for at least the past 150 years, with no indication or hint of any acceleration.
Sea ice does not effect sea level one way or the other, but in Antarctica, more water is expected to be added to the ice sheet as humidity levels increase.
Sea level has been rising at less than a foot per century.
Do you think your Prius is going to change that?

michael hart
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
September 10, 2016 5:58 pm

Menicholas, I think the global warmers are projecting something a bit more like this:
http://15858-presscdn-0-65.pagely.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Lead.jpg

Menicholas
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
September 11, 2016 8:06 am

As usual, warmista makes fact-free comment laced with intonations of doom and gloom, implying any changes that may occur will necessarily be bad, adaptations will not be possible, while stating that it is realists who are ignoring stuff.
I wish this ilk would stop trying to get the whole world onboard with their Chicken Little hand wringing and tooth gnashing.
Or at the very least, quit scaring our children with prophesies of doom.
You should all be very deeply ashamed of the way you conduct yourselves.

September 10, 2016 1:45 pm

https://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/sea-ice-page/
The ice extent look close to minimum already. Especially on Nansen

stevekeohane
Reply to  ptolemy2
September 10, 2016 2:23 pm

Both extent and area seem to have turned upward on the Nansen charts. It will be fun to watch, especially if the corner has already been turned.

See - owe to Rich
Reply to  ptolemy2
September 11, 2016 1:02 am

Yep, 10 hours before ptolemy2 I wrote “JAXA data at https://ads.nipr.ac.jp/vishop/#/extent show two days of increases by 7000 sq.km. from the 7th to 9th of September. It is possible that minimum, at 4.017M sq.km, has been achieved on the 7th, slightly earlier than average (which I’ve seen quoted as being the 11th).”
And today, JAXA records a 45000 sq. km increase for the 10th, which will take some reversing. I’m calling it.
Richard.

Amber
September 10, 2016 8:05 pm

When the stats don’t favour the global warming hysteria media response …. silence .
I don’t deny global warming I cheer it on .
Menicholas your pictures are why over 99% of the population chose a warmer world .
More plants , trees , room for fish … what’ s not to like ? Even less fossil fuel use if that’s your cup of tea .
Despite the fact climate science is a moving target of moving variables at least it’s warming for now .
What caused the last ice age ? A lack of CO2 ? Those pesky natural variables were a non issue ?
Newspapers are going extinct because the people running them forget why they existed . It wasn’t to be pump and dump salesmen for massive frauds . The internet isn’t afraid to ask all the W questions .
I have to book my next global warming destination vacation . Thanks Menicholas for the reminder .
Sad the Arctic isn’t ice free as predicted by the unaccountable global warming fear mongers .
We can hope .

Amber
September 10, 2016 11:38 pm

What caused the last ice ages ? A lack of CO2 ?

stevekeohane
Reply to  Amber
September 11, 2016 6:03 am

We live in an Ice Age, but are now experiencing an inter-glacial period in the Ice Age. The funny thing is, is that every time CO2 goes to its highest level in an inter-glacial, we get glaciers. How warming is that? The answer may be Milankovitch Cycles and/or something else, we don’t really know.

Reply to  Amber
September 11, 2016 7:43 am

Amber
Continental drift changes ocean circulation patterns and this is by far the strongest and most important driver of climate change to warmer or colder. See the paper below. Things that cause cold and ice ages are tearing apart (rifting) of continents or pushing up of large continent plateaus to higher elevation.
http://www.brynmawr.edu/geology/documents/Eyles2008Palaeo.pdf
Also, tectonic turnover exposes magma to form new rock and when this happens a lot of CO2 is eaten up by rocks (silicate weathering). This is traditionally considered to cause cooling but in fact probably instead causes the aridity that accompanies deep glaciation by limiting plant growth by CO2 starvation.
Due to very long term silicate weathering, it is CO2 starvation that will ultimately make all life on earth go extinct. Not solar expansion-heating:
http://www.biogeosciences.net/3/85/2006/bg-3-85-2006.pdf

Gabro
Reply to  ptolemy2
September 11, 2016 12:38 pm

Complex multicellular life existed before the Cambrian, as the Ediacaran Biota. Whether it contributed significantly to the biogeologic processes the 2006 paper discusses, I can’t say. The big stories from the Cambrian are a general increase in size (although the strange, frond-like Ediacaran forms reached two meters in length), evolution of advanced sensors and the spread of biomineralization. The development of hard body parts owed both to changes in ocean chemistry and to predation, thanks to such sensory improvements as vision.
Based upon molecular “clocks”, multicellular animals and fungi arose from 750 Ma to 1.0 Ga. Based upon “rocks”, the oldest evidence now available are tiny fossil sponges from over 600 Ma. Plants of course didn’t arise until the early Phanerozoic (Cambrian to Silurian Periods). Before then, cyanobacteria remained the primary producers.
But the authors are probably right that we’re about half way through the history of multicellularity on earth, unless future terrestrials find a way to engineer the solar system to enhance their survival. Or leave it for other star systems.

Gabro
Reply to  ptolemy2
September 11, 2016 12:55 pm

My reply hasn’t showed up yet, but in hopes that it will, I’ll add that before green plants, there were also photosynthesizing protists, ie unicellular eukaryotes, as well as cyanobacteria, which of course are prokaryotes. As chloroplasts, cyanobacteria became endosymbionts within some eukaryotes, just as other bacteria are the origin of our mitochondria.

Gabro
Reply to  ptolemy2
September 11, 2016 4:28 pm

OK, looks as if my reply is lost in the ether of cyberspace. It pointed out that multicellular organisms didn’t suddenly appear in the Cambrian, as per the 2006 paper.

Menicholas
Reply to  Amber
September 11, 2016 8:12 am

Amber, one thing you must understand ahead of everything else is that CO2 is not the temperature knob of the atmosphere.
This is the big lie that is being pushed and the number one thing that must be understood in order to being to understand the big picture.
Once you free your mind of that idea, you are open to learning about the various factors that do cause the weather and the climate we have, past and present.

Gabro
Reply to  Amber
September 11, 2016 12:17 pm

Amber,
Lower CO2 is an effect of ice ages, not a cause.
When it’s colder, oceans hold more CO2, so it comes out of the air and goes into seawater.
Ice ages in the past have occurred under atmospheric CO2 levels more than ten times higher than now. The fairly brief but intense Ordovician Ice Age happened with CO2 between 4000 and 5000 ppm, v our present 400 ppm.
Antarctic glaciation began about 34 million years ago, when deep oceanic channels opened between that continent and South America and Australia. CO2 then fluctuated around 900 to 1700 ppm.
The climatic effect of CO2 is minimal beyond the absolute minimum required for most plant life, around 150 ppm. During ice ages, it almost gets this dangerously low.

Don Keiller
September 11, 2016 11:54 am

Dear Professor Wadhams.
Another of your annual predictions fails. Miserably.
What was it you said- 1 million km2?
Well it looks like it has bottomed out at 4 million km2. You are only out
by a factor of 4.
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/north/daily/data/NH_seaice_extent_nrt_v2.csv
I’m still on for a £1,000 bet next year on sea-ice not going below 1 million
km2. Hey, what the heck- let’s make it £2000.
In other words “put up or shut up”.
Regards and best,
Dr D Keiller.

September 12, 2016 8:39 am

The arctic was ice-free for thousands of years straight during the Holocene Optimum.
And we had nothing to do with it. Natural variation.
So this is no big whoop.
Next?

Reply to  wallensworth
September 12, 2016 8:39 am

(Ice free in summer, of course).

MattN
September 12, 2016 10:44 am

Sure looks like to day it has reached minimum.

James at 48
September 12, 2016 3:47 pm

In any case, I’m betting on inflection being reached prior to the Equinox. I predict inflection to occur on 14-SEP.

%d bloggers like this: