Arctic sea ice melt may have turned the corner this season – with no new record low

This was the news from NSIDC on Sept 5th, 2017:

Average sea ice extent for August 2017 ended up third lowest in the satellite record. Ice loss rates through August were variable, but slower overall than in recent years. Extensive areas of low concentration ice cover (40 to 70 percent) are still present across much of the Eurasian side of the Arctic Ocean.

Arctic sea ice extent for August 2017 averaged 5.51 million square kilometers (2.13 million square miles), the third lowest August in the 1979 to 2017 satellite record. This was 1.77 million square kilometers (683,000 square miles) below the 1981 to 2010 average, and 800,000 square kilometers (309,000 square miles) above the record low August set in 2012.

Ice retreat was most pronounced in the western Beaufort Sea. A large region in the Beaufort Sea and East Siberian Sea has low concentration sea ice (40 to 70 percent). Patches of low concentration sea ice and some open water northeast of the Taymyr Peninsula are also present.

While a record low minimum extent in the Arctic is unlikely this year, the ice edge in the Beaufort Sea is extremely far north. In parts of this region, the ice edge is farther north than at any time since the satellite record began in 1979. This highlights the pronounced regional variability in ice conditions from year to year. A couple of the models that contribute to the Sea Ice Prediction Network Sea Ice Outlooks forecasted significantly less ice in the Beaufort Sea in July this year compared to average conditions.

The graph above shows Arctic sea ice extent as of September 5, 2017, along with daily ice extent data for five previous years. 2017 is shown in blue, 2016 in green, 2015 in orange, 2014 in brown, 2013 in purple, and 2012 in dotted brown. The 1981 to 2010 median is in dark gray. The gray areas around the median line show the interquartile and interdecile ranges of the data. Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center

More here:

Today, here is the graph showing data to Sept 14th, 2017:


According to the data (updated for Sept 15th) they helpfully provide in spreadsheet form, the 5 day average extent (current value being rightmost) for the last 8 9 days is as follows:

4.717, 4.696, 4.668, 4.649′ 4.649, 4.645, 4.636, 4.638, 4.649

The daily average for the last 8 9 days is (current value being rightmost):

4.635, 4.697, 4.641′ 4.628, 4.646, 4.611, 4.651, 4.651, 4.686

Source data from NSIDC: (local copy) Sea_Ice_Index_Daily_Extent_G02135_v2.1.xlsx

Source data from NSIDC: (live link)

It appears as if the melt season has ended, and a turn upwards has begun. Though, variable wind and weather could still force a retreat of ice extent, it certainly seems the daily extent value has started upwards.

Here’s NSIDC’s own graph with 2 standard deviations applied, it looks like 2017 is just on the edge:


Now, let the caterwauling begin anew for the “Arctic sea ice will disappear any year now” meme.

193 thoughts on “Arctic sea ice melt may have turned the corner this season – with no new record low

  1. Anthony:

    the third lowest August in the 1979 to 2017 satellite record.

    with 2012 2015 2016 on that graph all lower than this year that can not be correct. Also 2007 was the same as 2016, though not shown.
    Looks like 5th lowest to me. Many you need to recount and check data. 😉

    • That wasn’t Anthony’s claim, he was simply quoting the NSDIC report. If their maths fails at such a simple level it does rather bring into question their ability when handling more comples calculations.

      • There is less significance the more arts there are. You can average daily measurements, or if desparate, use weekly measurements and pick a weekday of your choice. Whatever. But using many different stats and putting weight on those which are somehow alarming is not scientific.
        The St Patrick’s Day with the least Arctic ice?
        The Halloween with slowest biweekly new ice formation speed since 1979?

    • It’s for august ….. September saw the uptick. It will be 4th lowest for September, and minimum if the ice has indeed turned the corner.

    • August low not September, which will come in 7th or 8th with an outside shot at 9th. Very little melting happened during the last month and there is a lot more thick ice left than at any time in the last few years.

    • Hey Greg … Can you explain this for me and if this is the warmest period ever in history then how did
      a 1000 year old tree exposed by the receding glacier exist? How the hell do trees grow in these areas, surely they need years of no ice ? Judging by the size of the tree’s trunk, I would suggest 20 years old maybe.

  2. A little premature, as some years (like 2010) the decrease in extent resumes after a few days growing. However it is likely to be correct. The trend in end of melt season suggested around September 12 (day 255):
    The trend based on the relationship between Arctic sea ice extent and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation suggests that September sea ice extent will go up, not down, for the next couple of decades.
    We have the new pause to pound the alarmists. Their predictions are going to haunt them.

    • Funny that 1 million square kilometers of ice is considered an “Essentially Ice free” Arctic. You can give 120 square meters (143 square yards or 1290 square feet) of arctic ice to every single person on Earth and still it doesn’t add up 1 million square kilometers of ice.
      Yes, I know that Sea Ice Extent does not mean 100% ice. That is the other problem.

    • It takes at least 20 years before the RCP 6.0 is suggesting faster ice loss. So again, when the alarm is proven false, the goal post has been moved. 20 years is just too much for a prediction.
      I hope the alarm will stop, but I’m at the same time afraid of what these folks will next be afraid of? Their scaredness is an endless resource to industrial alarmism.

      • Hugs, their credibility is tied to the alarmist prediction that the Arctic is melting. The Arctic not melting is poison to their credibility. They react very angrily when told and start to talk about ice volume that nobody measures, but that is only going to make it worse.

      • It is strange that people are taking the earliest estimate loss of sea ice by the models and not the most probable date and stating that they have failed.

      • Strange, but Al Gore did just that, Ron. Whatever the model, once it has been falsified, the goalpost has been moved.
        We can, as Javier says, bring the failed prediction into daylight and will get a reaction, anger, but I doubt it has any significance to the large public which has widely swallowed the AGW Arctic melt even before it has happened.
        There is so much money in CAGW, ‘green’ consumer products, and so much power in keeping people scared. Just look the sheepish prime ministers of almost every single Western country. You can’t give up a tool that can leverage zeitgeist like that.

  3. A few weeks ago it was flagged up that two yachts become first ever vessels to enter Central Arctic Ocean without icebreaker support reaching a latitude of more than 80 degrees north. This was seen as a sign of man-made climate change.
    Back in 1923-
    “In August the Norwegian Department of Commerce sent an expedition to Spitzbergen and Bear
    island under the leadership of Dr.Adolf Hoel, professor of geology in the University of Christiania, the
    object in view being to survey and chart areas productive of coal and other minerals. The expedition sailed
    as far north as 81 deg. 29 min. N. latitude in ice free water. Such a thing, hitherto, would have been deemed impossible”

    • That wasn’t true even in 1923 much less now. Scoresby reached 81 deg 30 min in 1806, Nordenskiöld 81 deg 42 min in 1868, Nares 81 deg 43 min in 1874 and Peary 82 deg 29 min in 1907. All without icebreakers. Scoresby didn’t even have an engine.
      In the seventeenth century, in the middle of the LIA, the Dutch even built a whaling station “Smeerenburg” on Amsterdamöya, 79 deg 45 min north. I think they quite likely sailed rather more than 15 miles out to sea from there on occasion.
      By the way I’ve been in a vessel north of 80 degrees north “without icebreaker support” myself north of Svalbard, and so has thousands of other tourists.

    • Here’s the headline:

      Two yachts become first ever vessels to enter Central Arctic Ocean without icebreaker support
      Polar explorer Pen Hadow warns the international waters at the top of the world are ‘about to be plundered by the few, very much to the detriment of the global community’
      Two yachts have become the first vessels in history to sail into the Central Arctic Ocean without icebreaker support in a fresh sign of how much sea ice has been lost.
      Pen Hadow, a British polar explorer, Erik de Jong, a Dutch sailor, and their crews sailed to within 600 miles of the North Pole, reaching a latitude of more than 80 degrees north.
      Scientists have warned that the Arctic will be almost completely free of sea ice by the late 2030s with the region experiencing greater warming than the global average.
      The average winter temperature in the Arctic island of Svalbard is now about a staggering 10 degrees warmer than just a few decades ago.

    • What’s happened to that ships up there recently trying to pass through the NW Passage? Have any turned back?

      • Franklin was suckered into a usually impassable stretch by a temporary lead, then got stuck off the west coast of King William Island. In 1903, Amundsen’s shallow draft Gjoa was able to get around the eastern coast of KWI, to winter at the site of Gjoahaven on its SE. There, he learned from the Netsilik how to survive the Arctic.
        Neither the Northern nor Southern Route of the NW Passage is open this year, without ice breakers.

  4. No record low, but perhaps a RECORD LOW AMOUNT OF MELTING this year (the maximum value in March was much lower than in previous years whereas the September minimum seems to be comparable)

  5. It’s also curtains for the Greenland Ice sheet NOT.
    “As of late August, model estimates of the remaining snowfall on the Greenland ice sheet showed about 70 billion tons more snow than the 1981-to-2010 average, and roughly 400 billion tons more than the record 2012 loss.”

  6. This year will be ranked around the 5th smallest Arctic Sea Ice Extent and the 6th lowest Arctic Sea Ice Area Since 2007.
    The AMO will enter its 30-yr cool cycle in a little over a year and the PDO has been in its 30-cool cycle since 2005.
    Accordingly, Arctic Ice Extents will likely start increasing by around 100,000 KM^2 per year for the next 20~30 years.
    I can’t wait to hear the excuses CAGW advocates come up with to explain away recovering Arctic Ice Extents, as this was really the last hobby horse they could ride following: no increasing global severe weather trends, no rapid Sea Level Rise, crop yields setting world records, no rapid ocean “acidification”, no significant global warming trend for past 21 years, etc., etc., etc.,….
    The CAGW hypothesis has become a joke…

    • NSIDC has 2017 currently above 2007, 2008, 2011, 2012, 2015, 2016
      Add 2010 if the current level is the minimum for this year.
      It will be fun to watch the Wadhams and other Arctic sea-ice bed-wetters of this world, now the AMO has started to turn downwards
      Will they continue to “predict” zero sea ice (ie < 1 Wadham)
      Or will they get all worried and flustered about increasing sea ice. !!
      Or will they find some other nonsense to fuel their paranoia and income.?

      • They will probably claim that the instruments used to measure sea ice extent are out of wack and need to be re-calibrated to bring then in line with the theory.

      • currently the denizens of the arctic sea ice forums are focusing on the volume models and claiming the ice is thinner than it has ever been. the volume models are the last bastion of the arctic alarmists. in the coming years i can see a few mental breakdowns as a result of increasing arctic sea ice.
        they just could not grasp the huge amounts of energy leaving the planet due to the increased area of arctic ocean with no insulation to prevent that energy loss the last ten years .orders of magnitude more than that provided by the sun for the 8 to 10 weeks period it has any effect in the arctic.

      • “i can see a few mental breakdowns ”
        Most of them are already mentally broken down.
        Otherwise they wouldn’t “believe” that the current anomalously HIGH levels (higher than for some 90-95% of the last 10,000 years), were anything to worry about at all.
        Its as though they have to go into strict historic climate denial, just to get their chicken-little bed-wetting to work for them.

    • In NSDIC data, it will be the eighth lowest year, assuming extent has indeed turned the corner. Of the past ten, only 2009, 2013 and 2014 will be higher.

    • SAMURAI, not sure what you are using to claim
      “The AMO will enter its 30-yr cool cycle in a little over a year”
      It appears to me the AMO went positive around 1995 which given the 30 year cycle puts the next transition to a negative phase around 2025.
      However, we are past the peak and should start the transition between phases in the next 5-6 years. That transition is fairly abrupt as can be seen in the graph.

    • According to NSIDC, ice didn’t stop melting until this week. There was one prior day in which it grew, however.
      26 Aug: 5.020 million sq km
      27 Aug: 4.983
      28 Aug: 4.964
      29 Aug: 4.966 (growth)
      30 Aug: 4.973 (more growth)
      31 Aug: 4.965
      1 Sept: 4.916
      2-9 Sep: (melting)
      10 Sep: 4.649
      11 Sep: 4.649 (no melt)
      12 Sep: 4.645
      13 Sep: 4.636 (probable low)
      14 Sep: 4.638 (growth)
      15 Sep: 4.649 (more growth)

  7. Good too see a potential turnaround. Too early to be so cheerful. Where was everyone in December??
    Nonetheless with Nino3.4 dropping again hopefully 6 months of cooler sea, land temps to come and cooler poles as well.
    One of the few outcomes that will destroy CAGW is a compelling run of lower temps and greater ice extents.
    A warning is to be very careful of ice measurements on both sides as they are subject to sudden whimsy as all who try to predict them have found.
    Factors appear to be a much higher snowfall this year which may have had an increased albedo effect and a final loss of the warmth from the last 2 years El Nino like conditions on global temp.
    As one other commentator has been wont to point out extra melting gives more moisture gives more snow though one can disagree with some of his other points.

    • warming is actually good. It is a crazy byproduct of the AGW religious dogma that has us cheering for more ice and colder temperatures. A little bit colder and we start to lose some crops. Food prices are pushed a little higher. poor people suffer a little more.
      That is the reality of what we seem to be hoping for.

      • The current CAGW crowd is already causing deaths. And i agree with John H. that a cooler world is definitely NOT an improvement.

      • True Rhoda. Maybe we need just a little bit of cooling to put paid to insane global warming policies which are causing millions of deaths. So we will hopefully be net well ahead.

    • Good news that the alarmists are being proven wrong time and time again, but hardly good news that ice extent is increasing, the earth is cooling etc. Bad for humankind.

  8. Congratulations to Ron Clutz for his consistent flying of the flag on Arctic Ice conditions. More people should visit his blog.

  9. IJIS (Jaxa) has also recorded a minimum on September 9, 2017. 6th lowest.
    This is a very informative chart from QauntumOverlord. I would have put a 2017 Dot at 4.472M (right next to 2008) instead of a line but this is a graph no one has seen before and works very well.
    [Image of just “minnnn” correct? We thick it is missing several “iiiu
    ‘s” .mod]

      • I think normal is +/- 3SD but of course, all ‘anomalies’ would fit within that range. Also, I am not convinced that using SD is valid in statistical values, SD should only be used on raw data/population.
        I may be wrong though, a long time since I did statistics, rules may have changed, I understand Climate Science has it own rules, fudge factors, and other precision-based dysfunctional mathematics.

      • Standard deviation (sigma) is a well characterized mathematical construct provided one is in a normal distribution world (mode=median=mean). Normal distribution defined precisely from the binomial theorem and law of large numbers. Unfortunately, much of the world isn’t ‘normal. Fat tails=>logistics or lognormal distributions. Skewness=> Pareto or Gamma distributions. You can calculate sigma from samples of these other distributions, but it loses statistical meaning. One reason stat packs enable so many really bad science papers.
        For the normal distribution, 1 sigma means 2/3 of sample (~67%) falls within. 2 sigma means 95% of sample falls within. And 3 sigma is 99.7% within, near certainty. 6 sigma quality means 3.4 defects per milliion opportunities. I was at Motorola at the time. Sounds crazy, but if there are ten thousand defect opportunities per cell phone manufactured (a not unreasonable number given multiple complex direct chip placements using thousands of tiny solder bumps, each bump and passive placed being an opportunity for a defect), 6 sigma still means you throw away 34 defective phones per 1000 made. In 6 sigma semiconductor processing with billions of transistors per chip, a 65% yield is ‘good’.

        • Ristvan
          We must point out that the sample size for the Arctic sea ice extents is “1”. There are only 37 seasonal sea ice minimum records available for the “average” value (and thus the standard deviation interval) – and only one-half of one cycle of the 60-70 year climate short cycle available in the sea ice satellite record. Are we really sure that statistical requirements valid for a true random distribution of equal weighted data points about a true mean for even relevant when we don’t know what the actual “average” sea ice minimums should be?
          What is the “average” sunlight (solar radiation, direct plus diffuse) at dusk? Don’t you have to determine latitude, cloud levels, atmosphere clarity, day of year, and “what dusk is” for each day of the year first? We have 37 days of the year measured for your “dusk” data. Are you not worried that a linear trend for the spring, fall, summer, and winter will be different?

      • You and I should have been at Motorola at the same time, though I was a lowly FAE (actually a specialized FAE teaching computer and microprocessor architecture to customers designing chips in week long sessions, but that isn’t important). It was a few years after I joined that the 6 Sigma process uncovered that testing 68000 CPUs (and smaller uncomplicated devices- e.g. 68XX with no analog sections) was causing more failures than it was discovering. It was an interesting time, until they tried to apply the 6 Sigma process to our course delivery process- I did so love our management…

      • Climate data are almost never normally distributed since there is usually a considerable amount of autocorrelation.
        And while it is possible to calculate SD for any distribution it cannot be converted to confidence level unless you know the distribution.

      • allow me to ask a different way. had it perfectly hugged the mean for 2 years, seeing how variable it has been over the years, what would have been the statistical likelyhood of that? volatility seems muted in many of these measurements, of late

    • Probono, it is likely because of the autocorrelation as tty hinted. The SD grey zone is just bollocks, of no interest in this case.

  10. Toto, I’m frightened. I must relinquish my hard earned money to produce more ice in the arctic or Algore will come and bite me on the neck.

    • relax. He’s pretty fat and slow ( witted). Put a sign on your door that says “No Money Here” and he won’t come anywhere near you.

  11. The ABC (especially the Science Show with Robyn Williams) is pushing the line that shrinking polar ice means more dark water absorbing heat rather than reflecting it so the result will be a six metre sea-level rise. One ABC interviewee pushed the line that geo-engineering is necessary to restore the ice.

    • Michael Darby

      The ABC (especially the Science Show with Robyn Williams) is pushing the line that shrinking polar ice means more dark water absorbing heat rather than reflecting it so the result will be a six metre sea-level rise.

      That is the long-stated claim. But, at this time of year – for every day from 12 August through 22 April in fact – the open Arctic Ocean loses more energy through increased evaporation losses, increased long-wave radiation losses, increased convection losses, and increased conduction losses than it gains through increased solar energy absorption.
      True. Darker open ocean waters absorb more energy than do ice and snow-covered surfaces. But it is ONLY through those short few weeks of the Arctic summer between 22 April (DOY = 112) and 12 August (DOY = 224) that more solar insolation is available (on clear days) than is lost from the open water!
      EVERY OTHER DAY OF THE YEAR, less sea ice means MORE HEAT LOSS from the open ocean than from an ice-covered sea. If sea ice increases from today’s average total extents, 70% of the year the Arctic Ocean warms up. If yearly Arctic sea ice extent anomalies remain near today’s (2000 – 2017) low levels, the Arctic Ocean will continue to cool off through the long dark winter months more than it heats up in the 112 days of summer insolation.
      It is a natural feedback:
      Less sea ice = more heat loss (over the entire year).
      More heat loss => a cooler Arctic Ocean => Increased sea ice (over the next half cycle).
      Increased sea ice => More heat retained (over the fall, winter, and spring) => a warmer Arctic Ocean
      A warmer Arctic Ocean => More sea ice loss.
      It works in the short term as well: The record low sea ice extents in Sept 2012 were followed by very high sea ice extents the next spring (March-April 2013). These highs were ignored by the CAGW alarmists however. High sea ice extents in late spring (May) are often (not always!) followed by extreme lows in the fall of that year.
      This year’s September sea ice area reports are “normal” for the past ten years. Lower than the all-times high sea ice areas of 1979-1999 of the satellite era. But right in the middle of the 2007 – 2017 sea ice areas. Not getting any lower than the last 10 recent years. Just what you would expect from a 60-70 year cycle.

      • Yes. Periods of large open area in the Arctic ocean represent a heat dumping phase. The result is “The Pause”. This period will be followed by an ice building phase for at least 20 years before Arctic waters warm enough to start the ice destruction phase again. This is an approximately 60 year cycle that affects the whole planet. We are headed for colder times. CO2 is nearly meaningless!

    • Which reflects more sunlight, water or ice, depends entirely on the angle at which the sun light is being applied.
      At the low angles available in the arctic, even in the middle of summer, both water and ice reflect most of the sunlight that hits them.

    • That data is not good and is not backed up by any serious publication or reconstruction. People just pick graphs that support their beliefs and run with them for where the data comes from and its value. There is no way sea ice extent in the Arctic was similar in the mid 70’s and the mid 90’s. Whether warmists or anti-warmists, it is the same, a total disregard for real hard-work scientific evidence, because they are politically motivated. The real skeptics must distrust anything that is not backed by hard evidence. Including some anti-warmists myths like this one spread by Tony Heller.
      The best reconstructions show a modest ice extent growth in the 1950’s-60’s, and decline since the 1970’s to 2007. There is no Arctic sea ice conspiracy, just a profound misunderstanding of sea ice dynamics by most people and most scientists.
      Tony Heller and you should stop using that clearly wrong graph. There’s plenty of bad data in science and that is a good example.

      • Javier,
        The NSIDC has the entire data base for the period:
        NOAA/NMC/CAC Arctic and Antarctic Monthly Sea Ice Extent, 1973-1990
        “2. Overview
        These data were provided to the WDC for Glaciology, Boulder, in 1983 by Chester F. Ropelewski, Chief of the NOAA National Weather Service Climate Analysis Center (CAC) Diagnostics Branch. In 1990, the Diagnostics Branch provided an update through August 1990.
        These data are from operational ice analyses (ice charts) from the Navy-NOAA Joint Ice Center. These were prepared on a weekly basis using satellite imagery and supplementary conventional observations. The ice charts contain estimates of sea ice concentration for the Arctic and Antarctic.”

      • Javier,
        While Arctic sea ice was naturally higher in the 1940s to ’70s than in the 1980s to 2010s (and than the 1910s to ’40s), there is no reason why a freak low year could not have happened in the 1970s.

      • Javier, while I don’t necessarily disagree with you, I haven’t seen any evidence that counters the IPCC graph used by Heller. You provided nothing. If you have something that shows the data used to produce this graph was bad, it would be nice of you share it with the rest of us.

      • Richard M,

        You provided nothing. If you have something that shows the data used to produce this graph was bad, it would be nice of you share it with the rest of us.

        I provide the main reconstructions of Arctic sea ice that have taken into account the information that graph presents and however show a very different result for that time:
        Walsh, J. E., & Chapman, W. L. (2001). 20th-century sea-ice variations from observational data. Annals of Glaciology, 33(1), 444-448.
        Cea Pirón, M. A., & Cano Pasalodos, J. A. (2016). Nueva serie de extensión del hielo marino ártico en septiembre entre 1935 y 2014. Revista de Climatología, 16.
        Walsh, J. E., Fetterer, F., Scott Stewart, J., & Chapman, W. L. (2017). A database for depicting Arctic sea ice variations back to 1850. Geographical Review, 107(1), 89-107.
        Connolly, R., Connolly, M., & Soon, W. (2017). Re-calibration of Arctic sea ice extent datasets using Arctic surface air temperature records. Hydrological Sciences Journal, 62(8), 1317-1340.
        None of them will show anything remotely similar to that figure.

      • Javier,
        Interested in you dissing Tony Heller.
        “Using an incorrect graph just because it supports our beliefs, as Tony Heller does, is not very scientific, is it? ”
        Why is this graph, from the IPCC incorrect?
        Because it contradicts the view you are putting forward or because it is provably incorrect?

        By the way
        Walsh, J. E., Fetterer, F., Scott Stewart, do not appear to have used the satellite records available prior to 1979.
        Why is that?
        Mr Heller’s site does not mince words or views, unfortunately, so it is a little rough at times but that aside if the graph is correct please acknowledge it, if not let it go.

    • Javier: NASA technical reports for the Arctic and Antarctic sea ice studies describe the use of NIMBUS – 5 Passive Radiometer sensor studies, beginning in 1973. The summary report ’30-Year Satellite Record Reveals Contrasting Arctic and Antarctic Decadal Sea Ice Variability’ by Cavalieri et. al., was published in 2003.

      • Read about the reconstructions provided above. They are more recent and have taken into consideration all available data from the past.

      • Javier, look at figure 12 in the last Connolly citation. The area of interest is just to the left of the ‘satellite era’ dotted line, showing lower values than the 1979 peak.

      • Steve, for that graph to be correct you should be able to take 1974-76 value and be able to reach 1991 before finding a lower value, and 1996 before finding a second lower value. That’s not the case in Figure 12 of Connolly et al. 2017.
        What every Arctic sea ice reconstruction says is that the 1970’s had more ice than the 1980’s, and these than the 1990’s, and these than the 2000’s, and these than the 2010’s. There are single years that are significantly above or below the decadal average due to weather, but the picture we have is quite clear and supported by lots of evidence. Using an incorrect graph just because it supports our beliefs, as Tony Heller does, is not very scientific, is it? A positive trend since 2007 is the best we can hope for the 2020’s.

      • Javier, thanks for your reply.
        I have just a few more comments for you, after having read the other comments as well.
        Figure 12 in Connolly is yearly averages, while the NOAA graph is monthly. I would not expect them to match even approximately. The fact the NOAA chart is expressed as monthly anomalies against the chart average, and the Connolly is in absolute measurements, compounds the comparison difficulty.
        Best Regards.

      • Sample Ice grids in digital form using numbers and x’s = 100% cover, showed for example June 1977 no different to June 2000 using satellite coverage.

    • That data is not good and is not backed up by any serious publication or reconstruction. People just pick graphs that support their beliefs and run with them for where the data comes from and its value.

      Well Javier, that Figure, ie., Fig 3.8 comes from the IPCC First Assessment. Whether the IPCC reports can be considered serious publications is moot, but obviously, the IPCC and the lead authors and reviewers thought it to represent the best understanding of Arctic Ice conditions. It seems strange to level criticism at someone for using data/reconstructions that the IPCC reports use which run contrary to the general level of alarmism..
      One of the lead authors on the IPCC First Assessment Report was Vinnikov. He published a paper (in 1980) which contained the following plot:
      This plot was considered to represent the best assessment of Arctic Ice conditions and was picked up and formed part of the US Department of Energy Report of 1985.
      Whilst Arctic Ice is not determined directly by Arctic temperatures, it is worth looking at the HadCrut4 data for the Arctic.:
      You will note from this that generally the Arctic was far warmer in the 1920s/1930s than it is today. For the 24 year period 1922 to 1946, some 12 years (ie., half the time) had a positive anomaly of +4 degC, or more, whereas for the 24 year period 1982 to 2016, only 6 years (ie., just a quarter of the time) had a positive anomaly of +4 degC, or more. It will be noted that the positive anomalies were generally higher in the past and no recent date comes anywhere near the positive + 7degC anomaly of 1936/7
      Obviously, the data is far from satisfactory, but to the extent that it is reliable, there does not appear to be anything particularly untowards about conditions seen today, and similar conditions were seen in the past.

  12. No record low? But …but,,, Mark Serreze in 2007 told us “the arctic is screaming!”, and ” Wallace Broecker of the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory said “The Climate is an angry beast and we’re poking it with sticks.”. Wasn’t the arctic listening??

  13. I was born in 1958, yes, an oldster. The Earth was formed 4.5 BILLION years before I was, we don’t even have ice data back to when I was born, and yet this strange fascination with such a short duration of records.
    Renn and Stimpy: “WHAT does it MEAN???”
    Most likely nothing…

      • I was born in 1942, am now 75, and remember clearly conversations with very lively folks who were born in the 1870s and 1880s. They had very different views from those current now. They participated in car-vs.-horse races, steam-engine rides, sleigh-rides as actual transportation in winter, and the like. They did not feel deprived or backward, and they could do things that a lot of moderns could not do (one that I well remember was a lumberjack, in his 90s still climbing huge trees in the North Woods of WI and MN, and still driving a logging truck at–I think–98 years of age). I am happy with some of today’s advances, but I am also happy to remember–by proxy, in a way–when things were very different, but people were very much the same, living their own lives in their own time with gusto. I think they would have laughed at the panic shown by today’s panicked weather-casters.

      • Yes, JMW, I identify with what you say here. I count it a privilege to have been raised by a mother born in 1912, (and her father born in 1870). The legacy of those earlier generations influenced me more positively than those of more recent times.

      • Agree on that. If your grandparents were born 18xx it gives you perspective since world has changed so fundamentally in between.

  14. The Chinese are showing great interest in using the Northwest passage (NWP) for shipping and are working with the Canadian government. The Canadians are quite willing to cooperate because this means that China acknowledges that the NWP is domestic water. That fact makes the American contention, that the NWP is international water, weaker. Verrrry interesting, but not funny.

    • China has no interest in supporting Canada’s claim to the Northwest Passage, but is willing to trade in diplomacy as it encourages Canada to support China’s claim to the Hainan Strait. Very good of you to ignore that information from the same article you cribbed your information from. Such behavior suits your handle.

  15. The disappearing Arctic ice meme will eventually prove to be one of the simple things undoing CAGW. Others include the pause (with La Nina coming it will emphatically be back), the lack of accelerating SLR, the absence of the modeled tropical troposphere hotspot, survival of the Great Barrier Reef and polar bears, and renewables caused blackouts in Australia and UK. Things like temperature fudging will point to the underlying scientific misconduct.

  16. Well. 1400 miles south of the north pole in the Edmonton area, we’ve had frost for the last two nights. Clearly climate change is on its way as winter approaches, and that’s the only climate change I’m concerned about. Gawd, I hate winter.

    • Regina here, Rob and I hear you. Edmonton winters can be brutal. I think a colder phase is on the way so enjoy what you have for now. Only two frosts by mid-September is actually pretty good. I’ve seen lots in late August in my 60 years.

    • Rob,
      I live just north of you and you may want to check the distance from Edmonton to the geographic North Pole. ( at 90 degrees ). Not the North Pole in Alaska.

      • I did check it. because I wasn’t sure exactly what it was. However, now that you mention it, it does seem to come up a little short. The 1400 miles would be closer to the distance to the arctic circle.

    • parts of the west coast of scotland saw -8 in the early hours of sunday morning. a friend was at a wedding in oban and his bottles of water in the car were frozen this morning. the -8 was another friend driving home from a fishing trip ,recorded in the inverary area. there may well be warming, but it isn’t global.

  17. I like the second diagram best because it actually shows the data for each year entire, not truncated to exclude the data when the Groke is out wandering, and ice is increasing again.

  18. The stirring rod in the Arctic Ocean is the North Magnetic Pole. It is in the beginning process of sliding down the other side toward Siberia. We may begin to see cooler temps.
    Read my theory and study the graphics. I would love or hate your opinions.

  19. A decade ago, we were told that the melting ice in the Arctic was unprecedented and the Arctic would be ice free by 2014 based on the trend in melting ice.
    I have a unique theory on this. Over the last decade, the Arctic has been mild during the Winters vs historical averages, which is causing less ice to accumulate but recently, very chilly during the Summers vs average, which is melting much less ice. The Arctic is like a real world laboratory. In the Summer, the sun shines and warms for 6 months and dominates temperatures. Short wave radiation from the sun is more powerful than the weaker long wave radiation, that the surface of the earth emits and cools it. Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, mostly H2O(but in the Arctic-there isn’t as much H20) so CO2 has more of an effect. C02 increasing, traps some of that weaker long wave radiation all year round but in the Winter, there is no sun to compete or offset the effects. In addition, in the Winter, we have more open waters in the Arctic(vs 20 years ago for instance), which has led to an increase in evaporation and H20, which is adding to the greenhouse effect.
    So the Winters in the Arctic have been dominated by the greenhouse effect of increasing CO2 and increasing H20 and have not been as cold.
    The Summers are dominated by the sun, that shines 24 hours a day, despite increased greenhouse gases(year round) that trap some of the heat because the sun’s warmth(or lack of it) is greater than the warmth held in by greenhouse gases. Arctic Summers have been cool, with less ice melt recently.
    The sun, last century, and until recently had been the most active in a long time. If it was been responsible for some of the global warming of the last 100 years, it would be impossible to separate the sun’s warming from the increasing greenhouse gas warming because they were in the same direction.
    “IF” the sun is now cooling the earth, while increasing CO2 continues to warm the planet, comparing the Arctic in the Summer to the Arctic in the Winter may help us to separate the effects.
    It could be that something like more low clouds during the Arctic Summer is causing a negative feedback from the increasing H2O and of course acting like an atmospheric “blanket” in the Winter.
    Regardless, a trend for recent Summers to be cool and Winters mild is indisputable. The Arctic is a place where the effects of greenhouse gases are the greatest/maximized, as well as the presence of the warming sun(from all day long to none) is amplified. The recent pattern change in this important region is telling us something.

    • If it has been, then only three of the past ten years had higher ice, i.e. 2009, 2013 & 2014. Since 1979, Arctic sea ice has never gone five years without a new record low. Its 2012 low will remain the record indefinitely.

      • “Bob boder
        Ice forming”
        Yes freezing actually releases heat. And yes, though the temperature is above the mean it is still well below freezing. However that does not explain the last several years deviation from the 44 year mean shown because ice starts forming about this time of year, every year!
        I am just noting that despite the obvious changes going on now globally, the pattern in the Arctic appears to be repeating and I am wondering what are the possible explanations for the fact this?

      • actually there is more ice formation and melt. thus lower temperatures in the melt season and higher temperatures during the freezing season.
        that’s just one basic, the other is that the deepest cold spots are traveling from over land towards the pole (the arctic is actually warmer then Siberia or northern Canada due to the ocean surrounding it so weather patterns play also an important role.)
        like this in december 2016 a strong blocking high over Siberia made it there record cold while the same blocking high did create an inflow that followed the gulf stream, making it record warm over the Arctic.

    • The jagged record that exceeds trend temperatures is indicative of an open water, marine temperature environment. There is a great deal of information in this simple graphic. The trend shows lower air temperature due to ice cover insulating the atmosphere from ocean moderation in the past. We see the Arctic cyclicality in this.
      Open water is heat being released and dumped to space. Lots of it! As the ocean cools (as it is now) we have a global pause until much of the excess heat is gone. When the ocean has cooled enough it begins to see greater ice expansion and summer retention. Both of these trends are self enforcing as the extent of ice affects the action of wind and waves on the ice. Once maximum ice cover is established, water temperatures under the ice where it is insulated and protected from wind, start to rise again. But globally, this is a cold phase as the Arctic ocean releases less heat to the atmosphere.
      This is a major temperature regulator for the entire planet and I don’t believe it is recognized at all.

    • RAH

      But it appears that the pattern for Arctic temperatures we have seen for the last several years is staring to repeat. At or below mean during the summer months and over, sometimes well over, the mean for much of the rest of the year.

      Let us assume the “average daily temperatures” (from DMI forecasts for 80 North, or other simliar actual temperature records from 75+ deg North latitude). I’ve got my doubts – The plotted fall-winter-spring temperatures have ALWAYS been higher than “average” the past 35 years, so why should we believe the displayed “average” line is correct?
      Regardless. If the recent Arctic sea ice extents have been consistently all year “below average”, then in fall-winter-spring open ocean waters are losing significant amounts of heat energy (greater evaporated water masses, greater water-to-air heat losses from LW radiation, convection and conduction) than if sea ice is present. Greater heat transfer into the same air masses flowing past mean higher air temperatures, all else being the same.

    • as you say there is more open water than 20 years ago at this time of year . as a result there is more initial freezing, more heat being released.

  20. Sorry folks we have had record forest fire season here in British Columbia. That is all the proof needed to prove run away climate change. We are burning up I tell ya, I only a few years left. Oh wait a local climate scientist with his house in the forest just did some remodeling updates, what the…

    • Yup, sorry. Utterly predictable after the pine beetle killed millions of trees and left them as nothing but an incredibly combustible resource for any lightning hits or careless cigarettes. We are sharing your smoke further East if that is any consolation.

    • I heard that 58 was the record, but may have been surpassed by now. Understandable since there are many many more open roads going into remote locations. More campers probably more scrub as well.

  21. “Now, let the caterwauling begin anew for the “Arctic sea ice will disappear any year now” meme.”
    People should read the ipcc reports which suggest a date out beyond 2040. If you get your science filtered through the press then you really are not getting the science. Moreover criticism of the MSM version of the science is lightweight skepticism.
    Remember when skeptics went after the real science…those were the days..

    • People should also listen to what IPCC officials say when they are being honest.
      “one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy….This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore.”
      IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer

    • Mosh,
      Did IPCC predict that Arctic sea ice extent would grow after 2012, with no new low being made after five years?

      “In a more recent study, there is good agreement between Arctic sea-ice trends and those simulated by control and transient integrations from the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (GFDL) and the Hadley Centre (see Figure 16-6). Although the Hadley Centre climate model underestimates sea-ice extent and thickness, the trends of the two models are similar. Both models predict continued decreases in sea-ice thickness and extent (Vinnikov et al., 1999), so that by 2050, sea-ice extent is reduced to about 80% of area it covered at the mid-20th century.”
      You are aware, are you not, that GFDL’s models fail miserably at predicting a year in advance, let alone forty years?
      Climate is cyclic, not linear, as assumed in the simple-minded extrapolations of “models”.

    • “Out beyond 2040”,huh. How convenient. Meanwhile, back in the real world, there is simply no sign of that happening, and no reason to believe that it will.

    • Mish says…”Moreover criticism of the MSM version of the science is lightweight skepticism.”
      1. There is plenty of skepticism applicable to the IPCC. You know, using activist articles to make CAGW claims. Ignoring hundreds of peer review papers critical of CAGW.
      2. Failure to criticise both the “official” science and the MSM is to ignore the common political agenda infecting both.

    • What real science,Steven? Mann? Hansen? Jones? Fools and liars! The models? It isn’t even a theory. Just a poor and failed hypothesis with a collection of high priests and sycophants standing round begging for alms and crying, “I saw it move!, I’m sure I saw it move!”

    • name the date beyond 2040 and we can have a bet. if we are both dead by the deadline 🙂 our kids/relatives can carry out the money, car, house transfer depending how brave you are when it comes to the stake.

    • Back in 96 my atmosperic Chem instructor said we have 20 years, based on the science at the time. PhD chemist. Probably still there telling the new crop of chemical engineering students the same thing.
      It’s bullshit. I used to buy into this stuff as well. Don’t feel bad.
      It didn’t take me as long to clue in, since I have a background in the hard sciences

    • Yep, don’t underestimate the resourcefullness of OSISAF which is transforming the “operational product” into a “climate data record” showing far less ice. Click the DMI chart (just above) to see the latest chart (15th September) which shows the data fiddling much more profoundly.

      • Yeah DMI hasn’t liked all the attention they’ve gotten the last few years. Especially over at Tony Hellers place.

    • I note a further extension of the downward revision today. At this rate they’ll end up pretending tat the minimum is below 2016’s.

    • Yes and the fat red blob at the end of the DMI current year trace is also unhelpful. I guess they don’t want people to notice short term changes until they’ve had a chance to edit them.
      Et tu, DMI? Then fall, Arctic data.

  22. “Extensive areas of low concentration ice cover (40 to 70 percent) are still present across much of the Eurasian side of the Arctic Ocean.”
    Totally unprdicable………..Unless your a lukewarmer:
    CITATION: M.G. Wyatt, et al., “Role for Eurasian Arctic shelf sea ice in a secularly varying hemispheric climate signal during the 20th century,” (Climate Dynamics, 2013).
    “The stadium wave forecasts that sea ice will recover from its recent minimum, first in the West Eurasian Arctic, followed by recovery in the Siberian Arctic,” Wyatt said. “Hence, the sea ice minimum observed in 2012, followed by an increase of sea ice in 2013, is suggestive of consistency with the timing of evolution of the stadium-wave signal.”

    • Interesting – has anyone else noticed this correct prediction from Marcia Wyatt?
      Predictions which come true are extremely bad etiquette in the climate science community. Marcia should attend the Naomi Oreskes finishing school.

  23. I have laboriously analysed the NORSEX Sea Ice *AREA* which is available as (messy) daily data. I get that 2017 came 7th lowest (not 3rd – looks like NSDIC have been cherry-picking again!)
    Lowest area was: 2012 (2,945,225 sq km)
    2nd lowest area : 2016 (3,312,976 sq km)
    3rd lowest area : 2007 (3,569,654 sq km)
    4th lowest area : 2011 (3,816,815 sq km)
    5th lowest area : 2008 (3,820,534 sq km)
    6th lowest area : 2015 (3,892,008 sq km)
    7th lowest area : 2017 (4,073,056 sq km)
    It is interesting to see how close 2011 was to 2008. I will now do the same with the NORSEX Sea Ice Extent daily data.

    • Also higher than 2010 in NSIDC (from Charctic graph):
      2012: 3.387 million sq km
      2016: 4.139
      2007: 4.155
      2011: 4.344
      2015: 4.433
      2008: 4.586
      2010: 4.615
      2017: 4.636
      2014: 5.036
      2013: 5.054
      2009: 5.119

      • Good point. According to the NORSEX data too, 2017 and 2010 sea ice AREAs are quite close to each other.
        7th lowest area : 2017 (4,073,056 sq km)
        8th lowest area : 2010 (4,120,683 sq km)

      • I feel that 2017 was higher than 2010, but only because of a late season freak storm which piled up the growing ice and made for a very late lower low.

    • I have now analysed the NORSEX Sea Ice EXTENT I find that 2017 came 6th lowest there but is almost a tie with 2011
      Lowest Extent: 2012 (4174968 sq km)
      2nd Lowest Ext: 2016 (4671393 sq km)
      3th Lowest Ext: 2007 (4734297 sq km)
      4th Lowest Ext: 2008 (5126552 sq km)
      5th Lowest Ext: 2015 (5184488 sq km)
      6th Lowest Ext: <> (5255825 sq km)
      7th Lowest Ext: 2011 (5260785 sq km)
      8th Lowest Ext: 2011 (5533058 sq km)

      • QC failure . . .
        Lowest Extent: 2012 (4174968 sq km)
        2nd Lowest Ext: 2016 (4671393 sq km)
        3th Lowest Ext: 2007 (4734297 sq km)
        4th Lowest Ext: 2008 (5126552 sq km)
        5th Lowest Ext: 2015 (5184488 sq km)
        6th Lowest Ext: **2017** (5255825 sq km)
        7th Lowest Ext: 2011 (5260785 sq km)
        8th Lowest Ext: 2010 (5533058 sq km)

  24. The arctic surface temperature does not rise much above freezing during the summer but it also tends to flatten out during winter it does not keep on falling until the sun rises again in summer. I think that the surface heats up in summer and gives kinetic energy to the atmosphere which expands but when the surface cools down in winter the atmosphere contracts and gives this kinetic energy back to the surface which gives us the symmetry shown in the graph, the temperature does not keep falling because there is an atmosphere.

  25. Rather the temps don’t keep falling because there is liquid water near the surface. Water, even if not freshwater, tends keep temps around 273K. Seawater over +30C is rare, but so is seaice under -30C.

    • Aargh probably, not definitely. Some people never learn.
      Even if you are right, fingers crossed you can be wrong.
      I am hoping for a big uptake but it is a hope not a declaration.
      Javier really needs to consider proxies v reality.

Comments are closed.