This year’s Arctic sea ice minimum is just a few days away, but it isn’t going to be a new record low, in fact, it’s likely to come in within 2 standard deviations
By Harry Wilkinson
Arctic sea ice is proving remarkably reluctant to enter its appointed ‘death throes’, despite the usual suspects having already planned the funeral. Climate Change Anxiety Disorder, it turns out, is yet to impose its angst on the actual climate, no matter how hard the BBC tries to make it.
The latest observations show that Arctic sea ice is on course to have a greater minimum extent than in 2015 and 2016, and is running higher than levels seen a decade ago. Back then, the BBC reported that Arctic summers may be ice-free by 2013, although this estimate was described as being ‘too conservative’.
That prediction was spectacularly wrong, and contrary to warnings of an ‘Arctic death spiral’, sea ice extent has been remarkably stable in the last decade. No one can say what exactly will happen next; if this humbling affair teaches anything it should be precisely that.
The climate has misbehaved in other ways too. The Greenland Ice Sheet has been gaining mass at a record rate for the second year running, and Antarctic sea ice extent is perfectly normal relative to the 1981-2010 average. These facts get little coverage because they don’t sound alarming at all, and for most reporters that means they’re not news. These ‘inconvenient truths’ are nonetheless a helpful reminder that climate change coverage should be taken with a healthy dose of scepticism. There is a long way to go before we can make accurate predictions about how the climate will behave, if indeed we ever can.
Climate science has to be more deeply grounded in real-world observations rather than models that are inevitably riddled with flawed human assumptions.
“Climate science has to be more deeply grounded in real-world observations rather than models that are inevitably riddled with flawed human assumptions.” If only we could get more scientists, politicians and reporters to realize this turth.
Isn’t there a volumetric estimate of Arctic sea ice, as well as an areal measurement?
Yes, DMI publishes numbers and graphs of Arctic sea Ice volume on a daily basis.
i track it, and do some stats occasionally. What would you like to know?
NSIDC’s Charctic Interactive Sea Ice Graph differs from that cited in the story.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/
It shows 2018 still outside the +/-2 SD range.
But it does show that this year is liable to beat last year’s extent, and all other of the past 12 years except for 2009, 2013 and 2014. The three record low years, ie 2007, 2012 and 2016, all suffered at least one Arctic cyclone in August. Without its second cyclone, 2016 extent would have been higher. Of the six in-between years, 2018 is likely to be the iciest.
The inconvenient truth is that Arctic sea ice summer minimum extent has been growing since 2012.
No, you are wrong.
Yes, back in January, 2018 was slightly below the -2 std dev curve for the 1980-2010 average. But that claim is NOT TRUE the rest of the year, and – today (1/3 through Sept, the spring maximum, all of the summer months, etc – the NSIDC sea ice extents is well within +/- 2 std deviation band. Even the band for the past 38 years!
For the past 12 years – the years that really count since we are above the minimum period of the 55-60 cycle – 2018 is above 7 of the past 11 daily sea ice extents values. So 2018 is not even at the low end of recent years!
Why is Mr. Tillman wrong ??? Look at the Charctic interactive sea ice graph ! It does NOT match the graph shown at the head of this article. That’s all that he and i are asserting.
RA,
I’m not wrong. Please look at the Chartctic graph to see for yourself, before making such a false claim. You’ll see that I’m right, based upon how it presents the data.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/
Dueling graphs. NOAA speak with forked tongue.
Using data from satellites CANNOT demonstrate a 55-60 year cycle because…..
.
.
(drum roll)
…
There isn’t enough satellite data to discern a cycle of that length, since we haven’t been flying sea ice observing birds for 60 years (Sputnik was launched in 1957)
Mermelstein,
But we don’t need satellite data. We have ice maps and historical accounts.
The Northern Sea Route was open in the 1930s and ’40s, then as now, but closed in between, which is why the USSR built nuclear powered ice breakers. For instance.
We also know how low ice was earlier in the Holocene from every available paleo proxy, such as bowhead whale skeletons and subfossils.
Remy Mermelstein
Not true. Well, not completely true.
There is not enough measurement data to confirm that the Arctic Sea Ice Extents follows a 55-60 year cycle. That would require 2 cycles to show that cyclic behavior exists. It would require 5-6 complete cycles to BEGIN confirming the length of the average cycle, the probable average cycle amplitude, and to BEGIN the discussion of whether the cycle itself follows a changing longer-period cycle. Sunspots, for example, follow a definitive 11 year average cycle, and we’ve confirmed that by observation since the early 1600’s. But we are only now beginning to argue about whether those cycles themselves are periodic in amplitude and length!
There IS enough data to imply (indicate) that the Arctic Sea Ice extents follows a 55-60 year cycle.
There is absolutely enough data to show that the idea of a static, fixed “30 year ‘climate average’ of Arctic Sea Ice” is wrong.
There is absolutely enough data to show that the idea of a constant decline in Arctic sea ice extents since 1978 extending towards 0.0 is wrong.
We are at Wegner’s point in 1920 with respect to continental drift.
The data suggest the continents touched in the past, that they are separate now, and so they must have moved in the past. There is no data showing the continents are moving in the present (yet), and yet there is NO contrary data to show they do not move at all, and many separate data points across many disciples to prove they were touching for hundreds of millions of years prior to separation. There is no data and no theory to show how they moved in the past, nor how (why) they may be moving in the present.
But the mere fact that there is no theory to explain the movement does not mean that the continents are not moving! The mere fact that the textbooks do not allow for continental drift and that the classrooms do not teach continental drift does not stop earthquakes, volcanoes, sea floor rifting, and tectonic movement one bit!
Couple snowstorms in the high-northern lands last couple days.
http://www.natice.noaa.gov/pub/ims/ims_gif/DATA/cursnow_alaska.gif
Yeah, right…..this doesn’t get reported because it’s “not News”
“Goes against their narrative” is more accurate
Hi Harry, see this chart
http://www.climate4you.com/images/ArgoCircumArcticSince200401%2055N-65N.gif
available here
http://www.climate4you.com/ under oceans
The deep arctic waters have been slowly cooling since approx 2007. Over time it is getting easier for sea ice to build in winter over open water. More latent heat exchange of sea ice formation is escaping into the atmosphere and more cold deep water is being produced. This will lead to the slow accumulation of pack ice over the next 30 years.
What I don’t understand: shouldn’t the alarmists be happy about a warming Arctic? After all the Arctic is cooling the planet by radiating twice as much energy as it receives. A warmer Arctic radiates even more energy and is thus cooling the planet even better. I’m very concerned now with so much ice left…
SOW.
Save Our Winters.
I laughed when i saw some air-head Barbie waving that.
Thats how messed up the Maoist Marxists have them.
2018 extent is two standard deviations below the 1981-2010 average. If the sea ice extent over that 30 year period is stable (no increasing or decreasing trend) and approximately Gaussian, then this year is 44% below the mean. Yikes, that’s quite dramatic! But all the plots from 2010 and later are all below that 2SD range.
so it seems that 2018 continues a trend, and a very rapid one at that (a guess, since we don’t have reliable data from before 1981). Note that this seems consistent with the Russians starting a “Northwest passage” business for shipping from China to Europe (saves 33% of the time and cost).
Am I missing something in your post? You seem to imply that “there is nothing to see here”, but the trend of a dramatic decrease in Arctic sea ice is continuing.
chris
Yes. You ARE “missing something here.” The Arctic sea ice extents trend is NOT decreasing” – much less “decreasing dramatically”!
For the past 11 We have only 38 years of accurate sea ice measurements.
5 years – 1978-1985 – they were steady, but oscillating around a maximum point.
20 years, 1986-2006, they decreased. Just like a sine wave, they decreased.
5 years, 2006-2011, they were steady but oscillating slightly around a minimum point.
7 years, 2011-2018, they have been steady, beginning to increase again. 2018 > 2017, 2016, 2015, 2012, 2011, 2008.
What possible evidence is there anywhere that Arctic sea ice levels are decreasing dramatically?
Yes, you are missing something. That would be the ability to see what is right in front of you. So far this season the sea ice is the highest of the last 4 years. I think that is showing the effect that the last major El Nino has on sea ice in the Arctic. Either way it is clear to see that there is no “…trend of a dramatic decrease in Arctic sea ice is continuing….”.
https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/
Several posts point to the paucity of long-term data (which is implied to contradict the 30 year trend) and others point to very short-term (4 year) “trend” (which is implied to hold for all n, to borrow an induction proof conclusion :-)). The short-term thinkers imply that 2018 line – which is 2 standard deviations below the 30-year mean – is somehow evidence of reestablishment of the century ago levels.
I dunno. You guys took Statistics out of different books than did I. 🙂
FWIW, my academic history: BS, Math. MS, Math. MS, Industrial and Systems Engineering. PhD, Engineering and Public Policy.
chris
Chris, your doctorate [in] public Policy must include “re-writing the record” by claiming to find a “30 year trend” (of a straight line decline) in a 38 year record. Then by claiming a only a 4-year trend in an 11 year record across the minimum point of a cycle between 2007 and 2018 (11 years of that 38-year long record is almost 1/3 of the entire period!).
As stated before, the most recent 1/3 of all arctic sea ice minimums show a period of increasing sea ice minimums, just as the 8 years of the arctic sea ice extents between 1978 and 1986 show the high point of that 55-60 year cycle. Your much-hyped “more than 2 std dev’s below the 30 year record” is meaningless if the 30-year record is based on the averages that no longer apply.
Chris,
Arctic sea ice, as with so much else, is cyclical. The Northeast Passage (Northern Sea Route, which is what you meant) was open in the 1930s and ’40s, playing a role in WWII.
The declining trend ended dramatically in 2012. For it to continue, there would have to be a new record low. The trend since 2007 is flat, and up since 2012.
This year and the prior five years average higher minimum extent than the previous six years, ie 2007-12.
The NW Passage was closed again this year. The trend of growing ice is not our friend.
the Northwest Passage is from Greenland to Alaska, no? The route the Russians are now charging for is from [Bering] Straight to Sweden.
Also, according to https://geology.com/articles/northwest-passage.shtml, Henry Larsen made but one trip through the NW Passage in 1944 and it was not sufficiently open for commercial traffic.
The Internet could be wrong, but I’m too lazy to go to a real library to check your claim. I think I’ll just agree to disagree and watch what happens over the next few years. In the meantime, you might want to contact Mersk and COSTCO and tell them they wasted their money building those ice-qualified ships. 🙂
cheers
Who cares that the last 7 or 8 years, the ice has been increasing?
Prior to that it had been decreasing for 30 years. So let’s focus on that and ignore all more recent data.
Of course the 30 years before that, the ice was increasing, but lets ignore that and concentrate on the 30 years where the ice was decreasing.
The sea ice minimum has been growing for six years, and was flat for the six years before that.
If it were a security or commodity, it made a triple bottom, with 2012 the lowest and 2016 higher than 2007 (despite two August cyclones in 2016). That’s a classic triple bottom in market technical analysis.
[Should the mods short cycle, hold, sell futures, or buy everything visible, invisible, and indivisible? .mod]
Arctic sea ice has not hit “average” since Apr 2012, and the past six minimums have all been more than 2 standard deviations below average. In fact, the last time the minimum was less than 2 standard deviations below the average was 2006
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/
Do you understand what 2 standard deviations means Tillman?
Sea ice levels are so low, that the small variations are interpreted as “growing” when you look at short time intervals.
Another way to put it is that 10 successive years with minimums below 2 standard deviations is not very probable.
Remy Mermelstein
So, what does it say for the validity of an “accepted 30 year average” and a “+2 std deviation band” that has NEVER been exceeded in 38 years of daily measurements? Not “38 measurements” but “38 years of daily measurements”? (More exactly, 38 years of the 90 days around the yearly minimum.)
I think you misinterpreted Remy’s statement. 10 years below 2 SD is such a low-probability observation if the 30-year distribution is stable or skewed to the higher (increasing) side. What this means is that a Gaussian or skewed distribution is vanishingly improbable (way lower than p=0.001, I don’t bother to compute such tiny probabilities :-)).
What Remy is saying is that the _data_ is consistent with the hypothesis of (rapid) sea-ice extent decline. Statisticians can compute the number of above-mean years (not just not-decreasing!) required to reestablish a plausible hypothesis of non-decreasing Arctic sea ice extent. If you do the calculation it would be more than 30 years (future) above-average observations.
Sorry to be pedantic; I just think these discussions should be based on data and Mathematically-sound predictive analysis. :-}
cheers
You are back to the “We want the Arctic Sea Ice to have a constant, 30-year average” argument because “Climate is defined as a 30-year average because we said climate is defined as a 30 year average.”
The real world appears to disagree with your classroom. There are no facts, no measurements that show Arctic sea ice is continuing to decline past its 2007-2012 minimum points. Over a 38 year record of “facts” there is, however, one simplistic straight line begun 7 years before a maximum point in 1982-1983 ending 8 years after a minimum point in 2012. As intended, this 42 year straight-line extrapolation does continue infinitely towards 0.0
If the Arctic sea ice extents follows a 55-60 year cycle between maximums and minimums, this natural cycle follows the usual over-compensated feedback found in nature: “Excessive heat loss” before, during, and after the peak of each hot half of the maximum sea ice area of arctic sea ice cycle leads PAST the theoretical “equilibrium” point between incoming and outgoing radiation, followed by a period of “too little cooling” (excessive heat gain) before, during, and after the minimum sea ice area part of the cycle.
I know. There have not been ten years with minima that low, let alone consecutive years.
According to NSIDC, 2007 and 2008 were. Also 2010, 2011 and 2012. Then 2015, 2016 and 2017. One NOAA graph has this year in the 2 SD range, but another doesn’t. We’ll see where it ends up.
The last time the minimum was above the 30 year average was Sept 18th 2001
Mermelstein,
With Arctic sea ice in the down leg of its natural cycle, one should expect the third decade of the half cycle to be lower than the other two.
The salient point is that, just as predicted by climate skeptics, Arctic sea ice is now waxing, after having naturally waned since the PDO shift of 1977. Same as has happened since at least the end of LIA.
And in any case, as noted, we can have confidence that CO2 has nothing to do with Arctic sea ice decline, since during the same decades, Antarctic sea ice grew.
“the down leg of its natural cycle”
..
What natural cycle are you talking about?
The well-known and supported Arctic sea ice cycle. It’s around 30 years up and 30 years down, like so many other natural climatic cycles.
“What natural cycle are you talking about?”
At least he know’s that he’s ignorant.
That’s better than your average warmista.
Mark,
I’ll grant you that.
Decent of Remy to admit to not knowing anything about climatology, oceanography, meteorology, Arctic archaeology or paleontology.
Remy Mermelstein
Oh my gosh no! No! No! March was hotter than February, and it was hotter than January, and it was hotter than December, and now April AND May are BOTH hotter than Dec, AND Jan AND Feb AND March! And May is hotter than April AND March and Feb AND Jan AND Dec …. And by November we will be melting the streets and boiling the ocean!
RACook, a tall scotch on the rocks will solve your melting street problem
Mermelstein,
Yes. Please see response below.
I observed factually that the six years after 2012 have been higher than the six years before.
It’s no surprise that in nine of the 12 past years, minimum extent has remained below the 2 SD range at the bottom of an over 30-year natural cycle. When the baseline is moved in 2020, it’ll probably be in the 2 SD range.
Why do you suppose that Antarctic sea ice has been above the 2 SD range for so much of this century?
Looking at six years doesn’t make a “trend”…..however, if you compare the same six years against the 30 year average, you see where we stand.
Tillman, you also forget that 2012 was the lowest record year for Arctic sea ice, so using it as a comparison point is a serious cherry pick. Same thing as comparing the six years after the 1998 El Nino, and claiming the earth was cooling.
It was the lowest in the satellite era.
Written logs indicate that it has been lower in the past.
Interesting, using the lowest level in 2012 for comparison is a cherry pick.
But using the highest level in 1979 for comparison isn’t.
Well, the high points were 1982-1983, not 1978 (start of the sea ice measurements) or 1979 (first full year of sea ice measurements).
Beware of how you use 1987-1988! The NSIDC is missing data between 18 Dec 87 to 14 Dec 88. (Blanks in the record.)
Any “averages” or “yearly total” for the whole year must correct for those missing days, or must exclude the two years completely. For example, since the arctic sea ice extents changes during that period, simple yearly averages should be compare only 15 Jan – 15 Dec of every year.
Also, the “blank” unscanned area around the north pole varies as the satellite viewing windows, satellite sensors, and algorthims have been updated since 1978. This problem is more important when you use the satellite “area” records for the Arctic because the “extents” measurements assume the unscanned sectors are filled with at least 15% sea ice – just like the rest of the region.
Mermelstein,
Of course I didn’t forget. That’s why I started it there. That’s the trough of the cycle, so of course it starts a new half cycle.
Starting in 1979 is a cherry pick. What about the low ice of the interwar years? The higher ice of the postwar years until the late ’70s?
It makes at least as much sense to start a trend at a record low, ie the trough of a cycle, than at or near the peak of a cycle, as was the case with 1979. The late ’70s were either the high of the 20th century for Arctic sea ice, or close to it, in a virtual tie with the first decade or two of the century.
ROTFLMFAO @ur momisugly Tillman: “Starting in 1979 is a cherry pick. ”
..
You obviously don’t know when satellites started mapping sea ice.
Can’t tell what the extents were in the “postwar years” because….
..
(drum roll)
..
..
They didn’t have satellites then.
Are you trying to splice satellite data on to the end of a graph made with shipboard obs?
Not splicing. Just comparing. And not just shipboard obs. Also aerial photography. And the evidence from archaeology and paleontology, etc.
Do you seriously believe that in studying climate, only the past 40 years counts?
I do know. And it is warmunistas who don’t like to look at satellite data from before the dedicated satellite era.
Ice fluctuated widely, with 1973 about the same as now, but generally satellite observations from the 1960s and ’70s show higher ice, with the peak right before 1979.
So Remy, you admit that you have no idea whether prior to 1979 sea ice levels were higher, lower, or the same.
Yet you want to declare, with absolutely no evidence, that the last 30 years is definitive.
Mermelstein,
It’s not just six years of gain. It’s also 12 years of flat.
Thus the decline has been arrested for the past 12 of the 40 years in the dedicated satellite record.
I guess you still don’t understand what 2 standard deviations means. All 12 of the “flat” years were still significantly below the average.
..
Take a refresher course in Statistics 101
Remy Mermelstein
As stated earlier, “if” and ONLY “if” you assume that the 1980-2010 “30 year flat average” is a valid average to base the +/- 2 std dev FROM. Bad average = Useless std dev band. 2018 is well within the most recent ten year band, above most of the values in the most recent 12 years.
So. if 1/3 of the available data (12 years of the available 38) supports a given band, and the oldest data proves only an invalid theory of “constant sea ice until CO2 began warming the Arctic” … which is the correct theory?
Got proof it’s not “valid?”
Mermelstein,
I suggest you do the same.
Forty years out of 11,400 in the Holocene aren’t statistically significant, especially when during a natural warm cycle in a long-term, secular cooling trend of 3000 to 5000 years.
The vast majority of summers in the Holocene have been less icy than now. Ditto previous interglacials.
Arctic sea ice since the late ’70s has behaved much as it did during the late 1910s to ’40s.
You don’t have data for sea ice for the past 11,360 years.
…
“The vast majority of summers in the Holocene have been less icy than now.” …..based on what kind of data?
You keep repeating that mantra as if you think you have proven something.
As usual MarkW adds nothing to the conversation.
Which is almost 1/3 of the magical post satellite era.
30 years doesn’t make a trend either, not in a world with major 60 and 100 year cycles.
30 years defines “climate.” There’s no evidence of 60/100 year cycles. Wait a minute, ….there might be a 60 year cycle in tree rings no?
No. Simplified self-called “scientists” claim 30 years defines “climate”.
That is no more true than what they claim it is: No more than a spring temperature on March 22 at the equinox defines the yearly average temperature at the yearly average radiation insolation at the yearly average latitude at the yearly average daily maximum/minimum temperature.
It’s merely a lecture hall simplification – between ice ages.
RACook, 30 years of data does in fact define a climate parameter.
..
Please tell us what you define it as.
No. As stated, 30 years is what YOU have chosen (the self-called climatologist community) as a convenient period. You started at a maximum, followed the average area down to a minimum, we now see that cycle beginning to go back uptowards its next maximum. Just like the PDO, AMO, ENSO, tides, MWP, RWP, MWP, and MWP, and the ice ages.
The real period in the real world are endless feedback cycles of varying periods and amplitudes; the Arctic Sea Ice looks like it follows a 55-60 year cycle. We don’t know more than that yet.
Attempt number 2: “Please tell us what you define it as.”
There is not enough satellite data to determine a 55-60 year cycle. What data are you basing your conjecture on?
Remy Mermelstein
Is that very fact not evidence AGAINST the very popular “Arctic Death Spiral Theory”?
Let me rephrase your claim: The last time the Arctic Sea Extents were “above average” was in late spring 2012, just after maximum, just as the spring sunlight was beginning its yearly peak in May-June. A period IMEDIATELY followed by the lowest ever sea ice extents in August-September!
Thus, Sereze’s theory that “More sea reflects more sunlight and thus cools the Arctic Ocean” is falsified by real-world example. Highest sea ice extents in a sunlet period in more than 25 years (of our 38 year record!) – There can be no better “experiment” … and the theory fails absolutely! Not only did Arctic sea NOT remain high, it did NOT even remain average. Instead, it set a record LOW sea ice extent immediately afterwords!
And in fact, if you look at the entire 38 year Arctic sea ice record, you see the same pattern happen many times: The simplistic Arctic Death Spiral is – to be blunt – dead wrong.
Instead, less arctic sea ice over the entire year means MORE heat lost to the infinite cold of outer space by increased evaporation losses, increased convection losses, increased LW radiation losses, and increased conduction losses from the newly exposed arctic ocean than is gained over the short 5 month summer period of continuous arctic daylight.
“Is that very fact not evidence AGAINST the very popular “Arctic Death Spiral Theory”
…
Nope
“less arctic sea ice over the entire year means MORE heat lost” ..
.
TRUE…
..
but
…
All that means is that the source of the heat energy is increasing year over year. (not enough heat loss to balance heat gain)
No, it doesn’t mean that the source of heat is necessarily increasing.
There’s a lag effect. Heat accumulated under more solar insolation of the tropics takes a while to work its way through the oceanic and atmospheric circulation oscillations.
Actually, melting ice does mean there’s more heat.
there is only one meaningful source of energy for earth and that is the sun. i think a certain dr. svalgaard would take issue with your claim it’s output is increasing.
if you are so sure the arctic ice is about to melt out how much would you like to bet on it ?
Sea ice is less than it was in 1979, when it reached the highest levels in the last several hundred years.
And from that single fact, you want people to start panicking?
Pretty pathetic, but then again, it’s the best you’ve got.
MarkW there haven’t been satellites in the last several hundred years, so you’re full of bovine excrement.
Mermelstein,
We have centuries of sea ice edge observations from various times of the year.
Good, could you point me or give me a link to the centuries worth of data on the Antarctica sea ice?
I don’t know of a single link. There are so many data, so widely distributed.
You have to study the topic. But Denmark has a lot of maps for the 20th century,plus other documentary sources. There’s the famous newspaper report of declining Arctic ice in 1922, for instance.
Amundsen was able to succeed in 1903 where Franklin had failed in 1845 partly due to less ice. Also shallower draft and not getting snookered into a lead which closed behind him. Ice in the NW Passage was less in 1903 than now. Ice was less or about the same in the NE Passage during WWII as now.
Before that, we have the observations of North Atlantic and North Pacific whalers and other seafarers. Little Ice Age appears to have peaked in the late 18th century, rather than the Maunder Minimum.
Lots of material. We even know that Arctic sea ice extent has been lower than now for most of the Holocene from good paleoclimatic data, archaeological and paleontological.
Summer sea ice extent was lower for most if not all of 4000 years, 6000 to 10,000 years ago, and at intervals since then, during the warm periods toastier than now.
Arctic Ocean perennial sea ice breakdown during the Early Holocene Insolation Maximum
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379113004162
And please never forget the prodigious Antarctic sea ice growth from 1979 to 2014 in the dedicated satellite record.
LOL @ur momisugly Tillman doesn’t know the difference between Arctic and Antarctic.
.
.
2nd try: “the centuries worth of data on the Antarctica sea ice?”
Sorry.
I know the difference. Just didn’t read correctly this late and with poor vision and small script.
But, yes, we do have centuries of Antarctic data, from at least the early 19th century. The continent was officially discovered in 1820, but its ice edge had been encountered since the 1500s.
Yes the edge of ice may have been encountered that early, but we have no clue on sea ice extent for the entire Antarctic area until satellites began mapping it.
Once again, Remy declares that only data that agrees with him is data.
There were satellites in existence long before 1979. They didn’t take continuous pictures the way they do now, but photos do exist and they can be compared to current conditions.
We also have logs, observations and proxy records.
There is a lot more data than your mind is willing to accept.
careful markw, you will get yourself on the shortlist for wadhams replacement with talk like that 🙂
“The Greenland Ice Sheet has been gaining mass at a record rate for the second year running, and Antarctic sea ice extent is perfectly normal relative to the 1981-2010 average. These facts get little coverage because…”
They are not facts.
https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1759.0;attach=108033;image
What RyanS doesn’t tell you is that even if accurate, this represents about 0.001% of Greenland’s ice mass. At this rate it will take over 10,000 years for all the ice to melt.
Another thing that RyanS isn’t telling you is that most of that trend consists of adjustments for isostatic rebound. Absent that adjustment, Greenland is gaining mass.
What RyanS is assuming is that this trend, even if real, will continue forever, since in his “mind” CO2 is the only thing that impacts temperatures.
The Greenland ice sheet weighs about 2.9 x10^15 US tons. At recent GRACE melting rates it would require only about 1,000 years or less for it to melt.
Adjustments for isostatic rebound is applied to all situations where it is applicable, including compilations of tidal gauge sea rise and satellite sea rise measurement.
Do you not believe in isostatic adjustments? GPS data of many land features demonstrate it in action.
Are you now going to “read my assumptions” as you do Ryan’s?
Donb,
The Holocene Climatic Optimum was warmer in the Arctic than today. By a lot. Maybe 10 K. And it lasted ~4000 years, briefly interrupted by the 8.2 K cold snap. Yet the Greenland Ice Sheet didn’t melt.
The Eemian Interglacial lasted about 5000 years longer than the Holocene has to date, and was even warmer than the HCO, with hippos swimming in the Thames at London and raised beaches around the world. Yet the GIS didn’t melt. Its Southern Dome lost maybe some 25% more ice than it has to date in the Holocene.
Maps from the early 20th century show the average winter and summer limits of the ice edge. Those observations were at least as good where taken as satellites, which rely on areas with 15% ice cover. Satellites also used to have trouble discriminating melt water ponds atop ice from open seawater.
So, no worries.
donb
Well, no we do NOT know the isostatic rebound – or compression! – underneath Greenland’s icecap.
We do know absolutely that planes “floating” in Greenland’s central icecap have been submerged in hundreds of feet of ice in only a 60 years. Those planes did not “submerge” through the ice due to metal pressure; vintage planes with no structural damage will float on water for days. on ice, the wheels will be pressed down, but not the wings, tails, stabilizers and fuselage.
We have only two depth measurements to rock in Greenland: Both on the mountain tops exposed on both sides of the many thousand kilometers across the icecap. You are trying to pretend that, because we do have ground-rock measurements elsewhere, we know where the rock is going (up or down) under the Greenland icecap. It is like claiming, “I have measured the Appalachians in TN and the Rocky Mountains in Colorado and can tell you that the bottom of the Mississippi River is going down 3 cm per year faster than the delta surface is rising.”
I believe that isostatic rebound takes place.
Which is not the same thing as saying that I believe that 100% of the adjustment being done for Greenland is justified.
You really shouldn’t be so quick to jump to conclusions, it makes it look like your mind is closed to those who disagree with you.
How about writing a sentence without RyanS in it.
How about RyanS stop emitting CO2, forthwith, and forever. You know, for the polar bears.
That was in response to this obsessiveness.
MarkW
What RyanS doesn’t tell you is that even if accurate, this represents about 0.001% of Greenland’s ice mass. At this rate it will take over 10,000 years for all the ice to melt.
Another thing that RyanS isn’t telling you is that most of that trend consists of adjustments for isostatic rebound. Absent that adjustment, Greenland is gaining mass.
What RyanS is assuming is that this trend, even if real, will continue forever, since in his “mind” CO2 is the only thing that impacts temperatures.
I guess that means you admit that you can’t refute anything I wrote. If the only thing you have to complain about is the use of your name when addressing points that you made.
So you couldn’t actually compute the modern average extent and you claim that somehow you have facts to present? Were you convinced the antarctic was in record territory in 2012-2014, or was that just “weather?”
That chart does not cover the time period in question.
Ice emits longwave Infrared radiation between 6 and 18 microns, with a peak of 10.5 microns. If longwave Infrared radiation between 13 and 18 microns could melt ice, ice would melt itself. The existence of ice pretty much proves the CAGW Theory to be a complete joke, and CO2 certainly isn’t causing sea ice or glaciers to melt.
Quantum Physics 101; Why CO2 Can’t be Melting the Glaciers and Sea Ice
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/09/10/quantum-physics-101-why-co2-cant-be-melting-the-glaciers-and-sea-ice/
I don’t know of anybody who has ever claimed that it is the radiation from CO2 that is causing the ice to melt.
“Grounded in real world observations”? How can fantasy be grounded in “real world observations”?
Really wish Griff and Tony McLoed would show up and claim the ice is melting faster than evah!
“The Greenland Ice Sheet has been gaining mass at a record rate for the second year running”
GRACE data (the most accurate) show that the Greenland ice sheet has lost several trillion tons of ice over the past two years.
Only after adjustments.
several trillion tonnes ? i call bs on that. where did it go ?
“Antarctic sea ice extent is perfectly normal relative to the 1981-2010 average.”
As of 9th September Antarctic sea ice extent is the second lowest on record for this time of year, the lowest since 1986.
It only just dropped below the 2 SD range. Fluctuating like that is usual this time of year. There were two freak WX events in the super El Nino year of 2016 which caused a rare decrease in Antarctic sea ice, from which it is recovering.
How do you explain the fact that Antarctic sea ice grew from 1979 to 2014, if you imagine that CO2 has some effect on sea ice?
“Fluctuating like that is usual”.
Not even wrong. Its now the lowest on record and plunging back toard the 6 and 8σ territory of Nov 2016.
Ryan,
Sorry, but as usual, you’re wrong. Antarctic sea ice yesterday wasn’t the lowest in the dedicated satellite record. But even if it were, it wouldn’t mean anything.
On that date in 1986, NSIDC says it was quite a bit lower.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/
You’re mixing up you poles again.
2 SD range is a serious abnormality.
“Fluctuating like that is usual this time of year.”
I don’t think there’s much difference between summer and winter, but if you prefer we could look at last summer, where 2018 set the second lowest minimum, a record set in 2017.
“There were two freak WX events in the super El Nino year of 2016 which caused a rare decrease in Antarctic sea ice, from which it is recovering.”
But 2016 was already well down on the previous two years, and it’s difficult to see how a couple of freak events could wipe out all the ice gains of the previous decades, and not recover for a couple more years. There’s no obvious sign to me that the Antarctic is recovering.
“How do you explain the fact that Antarctic sea ice grew from 1979 to 2014, if you imagine that CO2 has some effect on sea ice?”
I don’t have any explanation, and I’m not trying to suggest that the last few years represent a pause in Antarctic sea ice growth. I just found the claim that Antarctic sea ice extent was “perfectly normal” was odd, when we have been seeing record lows over the last couple of years. Especially when in the same sentence it’s claimed that Greenland has gained a record amount over the last two years. By the same 2 SD argument the last two years have been “perfectly normal” in Greenland.
Just in June 2014, the Antarctic sea ice extents were so far above average for that date, that the anomaly alone was larger than the entire area of Greenland. 2012, 2013, 2015 were nearly that large. If the loss of “one Greenland” in only three years (2017 – 2014) does not affect the global average surface temperature by any more than 0.19 one year later (and that trendline is going down the more Antarctic sea ice declines!), then there is no Arctic Death Spiral. Nor Antarctic Death Spiral of warm water melting the ice which causes more exposed ocean which causes more heat to be absorbed which causes more ice melt….
The experiment has been done
Arctic Sea Ice Extents closely follow PDO/AMO/NAO 30-year warm/cool cycles.
The PDO entered its 30-year cool cycle around 2007, and since then, 8 out of the past 11 Arctic Minimums have been higher than 2007.
Once the AMO and NAO oceans enter their respective 30-year cool cycles from the early 2020’s, Arctic Sea Ice Extents will gradually increase and eventually approach levels observed at the end of the last PDO/AMO/NAO 30-year cool cycles in the last 1970’s.
Within 5 years, the increase of Arctic Sea Ice Extents will be impossible for Leftist CAGW fanatics to explain.
SAMURAI, I have a simpler explanation (Occam’s razor)
1) Earth is getting warmer: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/plot/uah6/trend
.
2) Warmer Earth results in less Arctic sea ice
Empirical evidence and physics has an even simpler explanation.
1) Climate is sinusoidal with numerous natural: solar, Milancovitch, atmospheric and ocean cycles all interacting with eachother to control earth’s climate.
2) CAGW is a completely disconfirmed absurd hypothesis.
The new CACA: Climate Angst Change Anxiety
Not being a mathematician I’ve only just this minute learned that <=2 sigma means no statistical significance. Crikey that means that sea is sometimes more and sometimes less – no wonder everyone is worried to death.