Low sea-ice cover in the Arctic

Second-lowest September minimum since observations began

Alfred Wegener Institute, Helmholtz Centre for Polar and Marine Research

Map of the Arctic sea ice extent on September 11, 2019. Credit Graphic: meereisportal.de

Map of the Arctic sea ice extent on September 11, 2019. Credit Graphic: meereisportal.de

The sea-ice extent in the Arctic is nearing its annual minimum at the end of the melt season in September. Only circa 3.9 million square kilometres of the Arctic Ocean are covered by sea ice any more, according to researchers from the Alfred Wegener Institute and the University of Bremen. This is only the second time that the annual minimum has dropped below four million square kilometres since satellite measurements began in 1979.

Until mid-August, it looked as though a notable record would be reached: the area of the Arctic Ocean covered by ice (defined as the area with a sea-ice concentration of more than 15 percent) from late March to early August was the smallest measured by satellites since 1979. “Our satellite data show that between March and April 2019, there was an unusually large decrease in the ice extent, from which the Arctic sea ice was unable to recover,” explain Professor Christian Haas, a geophysicist and head of the Sea Ice section at the Alfred Wegener Institute, Helmholtz Centre for Polar and Marine Research (AWI) and Dr Gunnar Spreen from the University of Bremen’s Institute for Environmental Physics. Since the second half of August, however, the seasonal reduction has slowed down, overlaid by short-term fluctuations. The lowest value so far for 2019 was 3.82 million square kilometres, observed on 3 September. This means that this year, the September average could be below 4 million square kilometres for only the second time.

But in the coming weeks, the ice could retreat further: even though in early fall air temperatures in the Arctic have now fallen below freezing, the heat stored in the water can continue to melt the underside of the ice for a few more weeks. However, if it becomes extremely cold in the Arctic in the days ahead, the ice cover can already increase again. In October, the scientists will analyse the data for the whole of September, and will then be able to make a final assessment of the sea-ice minimum in 2019. It appears unlikely that this year we will see a new absolute record, below the sea-ice extent of 3.4 million square kilometres observed in 2012. “Record or not, this year confirms the continued long-term reduction of Arctic sea ice as a result of climate change, making it ever more likely that in a few decades the Arctic will be ice free in summer. This will mean drastic changes in the Arctic, with consequences for the climate and ecosystems, as well as for people, including us in Europe,” says Christian Haas.

Scientists at the Alfred Wegener Institute and the Institute for Environmental Physics at the University of Bremen are together analysing the complete satellite data on the ice concentration, extent, and thickness, as well as atmospheric measurements. The website https://www.meereisportal.de/en/ , for example, publishes daily updated ice maps and provides detailed summaries of the sea-ice developments. Ice extent estimates from other institutions (e.g. NSIDC or OSI-SAF) can provide slightly different results. Currently, for 2019 they predict the third-lowest ice extent. “These slight differences are due to the higher resolution of our data and the slightly different methods used to calculate the ice concentration. They show the uncertainties that even the most modern satellite observations can have. Data from the MOSAiC expedition will help to reduce these uncertainties,” explains Dr Gunnar Spreen from the University of Bremen’s Institute for Environmental Physics.

The researchers are currently particularly interested in the northern Laptev Sea: on 20 September, the research icebreaker Polarstern will set sail from Tromsø, in Norway, for the start of the MOSAiC expedition. In the northern Laptev Sea they will search for a suitable ice floe to moor the Polarstern to, in order to drift, icebound, through the Central Arctic for an entire year. “We’re following the ice situation very closely and have developed a series of new data products to offer the best-possible, detailed insights into the current conditions,” reports Christian Haas. “In the Laptev Sea, the ice situation is similar to previous years with an Arctic-wide low ice extent. This means that it will be relatively easy for us to reach our research area, at a latitude of 85 degrees north. But being so close to the ice edge will make it difficult to find a suitable ice floe that is large enough and thick enough to set up our ice camp. Our computer models show that the ice south of 88 degrees north is less than 80 centimetres thick, which is less than the 1.2 metres we’d ideally like to have to safely set up our measuring stations. We may have to travel farther north than planned to find the right conditions,” expects Christian Haas, who will lead the second leg of the MOSAiC expedition from mid-December.

###

Joint Press Release: Alfred Wegener Institute and University of Bremen

From EurekAlert

Advertisements

383 thoughts on “Low sea-ice cover in the Arctic

        • I aint talking trend(year to year), just that the bottom is reached. It might vary 100KM² in the coming week, but you could pretty much call it. My biggest point was that on my source the extend is 300KM² more extend. So that must be a different way of calcutaling things.

          Also if we do talk trend then it is all a matter of interpetation. If you start high then trend down and then hit a plateau are you then still trending down? Any year with no change would still add to the down trend.

        • “Record or not, this year confirms the continued long-term reduction of Arctic sea ice as a result of climate change, making it ever more likely that in a few decades the Arctic will be ice free in summer.

          Firstly it’s unclear where they are getting these figures from. NSIDC 15% extent is still clearly above 4 million km^2 and it’s far from clear it will even reach less than that figure.
          https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/
          Norwegian estimate for extent also above 4.
          https://web.nersc.no/WebData/arctic-roos.org/observation/DailyArcticIceAreaExtent.txt

          Maybe they are confusing with sea ice area. An easy error for anyone who does not know anything about sea ice to make !!

          In fact it looks like this year will be indistinguishable from 2007 – over a DECADE AGO – when Al Gore and IPCC started all the shouting and wailing about the imminent disappearance of Arctic sea ice.

          Pretending that essentially flat lining for 12 years “confirms the continued long-term reduction ” is simply a lie. If you do nothing more than fit one straight line to the whole record, it is negative but that does not mean there is a continued reduction. It means there was a reduction which is NOT continuing.

          Why do they mention sea ice minimum a week or two before it happens? As Nick says that seems a bit odd.

          Oh, wait, isn’t there some climate meeting coming in NY. Maybe they just could not wait happened to get this misleading statement out until the event ACTUALLY since they would miss the chance to flood the media with fake climate news before the meeting.

          • Greta Thunberg is reportedly able to melt millions of square kilometers of sea ice, simply by means of those 40.000 ppm emerging from her lungs at a climate rally.

          • No, she just needs to give the Arctic ocean one of her famous, frosty stares and it would instantly freeze over. Sadly she does not care enough about polar bears to do that, she would rather see them suffer and become extinct so that she can give us all another of her “my patience is running out, I’m really cross now” looks from her climate pulpit.

          • The record starts in the late 70s. I’m not surprised that there has been a downward trend since then as in the 70s we were apparently headed for an imminent ice age.

            It is a pity that the observations don’t go back to the 1920s or 30s, then you might get some more interesting data to look at.

            Linear interpolation of cyclical phenomina also looks to be a problem. They have data for something like -sin(x), been 0 and pi/2.

          • There are sea ice records going back well over 100 years.
            Here are a few graphs that combined go back to before 1925.
            There is nothing in the least bit unusual about the amounts of sea ice in the Arctic this past year, ten years, twenty years…
            The only thing unusual is seeing so many people who purport to be educated and knowledgeable acting like such ignorant jackasses.

            See here:
            https://twitter.com/NickMcGinley1/status/1173374067468066816?s=20

          • Seems to me that using 15% ice cover as a threshold between “ice” and “no ice” gives them plenty of opportunity for getting the results they want (in this case, they want the ice cover to be low, you can tell by the tone of the article).

            E.g. by choosing smaller cell sizes. A hypothetical example: imagine a 100 km² cell containing 15 km² of ice floe, that’s 15%, so the 100 km² is “ice covered”. But then visualize if they used a 50 km² cell size to look at the same 100 km² with its 15 km² of ice, and the western 50 km² had 8 km² of ice, that’s 50 km² with 16% ice, so it’s “ice covered”, and the eastern 50 km² had 7 km² of ice floe,so that’s 50 km² with 14% of ice, so it’s “no ice”. So without having to falsify the data, they’ve just turned 100 km² of “ice cover” into 50 km² of “ice cover” and 50 km² of “open water”.

            Perhaps the”higher resolution of our data” is being used creatively to generate yet another “worse than we thought. Isn’t science wonderful!

            Also you no doubt noticed “Our computer models show that the ice south of 88 degrees north is less than 80 centimetres thick“. Model results taking the place of observational data; this article is in the very best tradition of climate science!

          • There are sea ice records going back well over 100 years.
            “Here are a few graphs that combined go back to before 1925.
            There is nothing in the least bit unusual about the amounts of sea ice in the Arctic this past year, ten years, twenty years…
            The only thing unusual is seeing so many people who purport to be educated and knowledgeable acting like such ignorant jackasses.

            See here:
            https://twitter.com/NickMcGinley1/status/1173374067468066816?s=20

            I can only see one graph at your link Nick. It shows that even at its lowest (about 1945-55), at 6 million sqkm it was still 50% higher than today.

          • You have to scroll through my tweets before and after that one.
            Note the legend on the graph: Those are YEARLY average values.
            They are not monthly.
            What is the yearly average value recently, Lloydo?
            If the coverage is 14 msk for most of the year and falls for a few months in Summer to 4-6 msk, what is the annual average?
            Do you know how to read and interpret graphs and data?

          • Just a few days ago, Loydo couldn’t differentiate between count and area. Now he can’t differentiate between annual and monthly…and possibly daily.

          • Just noticed one detail NSIDC graph says ” sea ice extent at least 15%” , Wegener say “>15%”

            So if Wegener measure to nearest % , “>15%” means ” at least 16%” . However, this does not explain the notable differences in 2007 and 2018 between the two datasets. IMO someone has moved the goal posts to mask the recovery since 2012 OMG minimum.

            BTW CPOM ice volume shows sustained recovery in minimum since 2012.
            https://climategrog.files.wordpress.com/2019/05/cpom_arctic_ice_vol_mths_2019-1.png

            I see another dip forming and expect minimum to be 16th/17th this year.

          • I’ve wondered if they use different pixel values for the 15% threshold. 37/250 = 14.8%, or 15% rounded; 38/250 = 15.2%, or 15% rounded. The difference is 0.4%. So potentially they can decrease ice extent by 0.4% while still using a 15% threshold. The appearance, of course, is that ice extent has gone down, whereas in reality they just moved the goal post.

    • Nope, the minimum is past, this all BS, if you look at the surface temp records it’s clear the ice did not melt as much as stated these are all models not actual measure, no worse then the fourth lowest extent and the ice thickness is up again this year

        • Yah and NRL sea surface temperature makes it clear that ice extent is much higher than any of these models say. You look at it an explain.

        • @Nick

          recent days have all shown melting.

          Starting 8.8th – ending 9.14th

          2
          -131
          -165
          19
          -50
          -97
          4
          -49
          -21
          -33
          -79
          -26
          -28
          -12
          -94
          23
          17
          11
          -25
          29
          -21
          -15
          -58
          -73
          -97
          -21
          -112
          -48
          46
          49
          -9
          -16
          34
          -27
          -35
          0
          -71
          -38

          • @Nick

            So does that look like we have shifted from negative to positive?

            It contradicts your comment: “recent days have all shown melting.”
            Not mor, not less.

          • “It contradicts your comment”
            For detecting a minimum, recent means the last few days. In your case, the last five days have melting, except for one zero, which may well just be a day without an update. For Jaxa, which I linked, all five days have melting.

        • At this time of year it is unlikely to be surface melting Nick, more likely to be compaction and dispersion as a result of wind direction.

        • From many of the replies to this thread, I can base the sea ice extent on the number of crows flying over my house, seasonally adjusted of course, then homogenise this figure with the number of galahs sitting on the fence.

          Standards are so wonderful because there are so many to choose from.

          Being able to pick and choose which ‘data’ source to use can give credence to anyone’s argument but does not make it correct. This applies to all arguments and why we should not take any single proclamation as the truth but look behind the curtain.

      • The thing about sea ice extent is that it reveals nothing about ice quantity or quality, and sometimes even ice existence. All that it really indicates is there is ice of some indeterminate area, volume and thickness in a certain grid location that emits a microwave signal above a certain threshold (15% of measurement range). New ice up to a certain point isn’t even detectable.

      • These are NOT models: they are from direct satellite observations. And what is more you can see they are accurate by looking at satellite pics online.

        • When I go to the sea ice page all I find are graphs that make this year look a lot like 2012. ie. I’m more inclined to agree with Griff and Nick than I usually am. 🙂

        • Isn’t it great to see the Arctic get some ice after having none for several thousand years as it recovers from the Holocene onset?

        • Sea ice extent is not a direct measurement. The raw passive microwave signal data have to be conditioned with proprietary algorithms and numerous assumptions about weather and surface conditions. That’s why sea ice extent can vary amongst the various agencies.

        • Oh yeah?
          “Our computer models show that the ice south of 88 degrees north is less than 80 centimetres thick, which is less than the 1.2 metres we’d ideally like to have to safely set up our measuring stations.”
          Take a hike, or learn to read.

          • “This means that it will be relatively easy for us to reach our research area, at a latitude of 85 degrees north. But being so close to the ice edge will make it difficult to find a suitable ice floe that is large enough and thick enough to set up our ice camp. Our computer models show that the ice south of 88 degrees north is less than 80 centimetres thick, which is less than the 1.2 metres we’d ideally like to have to safely set up our measuring stations.”

            At least it will be thick enough for their icebreaker to go through. Once it starts freezing it will get to 1.2 metres in a few days. Once it does it will not be an artificially created ice flo anymore, it will be part of a thick extensive ice plain


        • Sunsettommy September 15, 2019 at 7:56 am
          What should I be worried about……..?

          B I N G O

          Or in other words, so what?

        • Griff, do you really believe you can measure accurately from satellite pictures without knowing the angle or other processing operations on the pictures, and judge what is 15% ice and what is not……….. you are talking rubbish again. All measurements are essentially models that make assumptions about coastlines and what is/isn’t ice.

          • You may know this, but since it keeps being repeated… This is what I learned from reading about it; different agencies may use different methods. I think I read this on NSIDC.

            Sea ice extent is not 15% coverage, i.e., it is not area. They really should use sea ice area, but don’t because using passive microwaves they can’t distinguish melt pools on top of ice from open water. So instead of using area in winter and extent in summer, they use extent year round. That’s unfortunate for accuracy.

            Extent is minimum 15% of microwave signal range per grid area, quantified by pixel value in satellite “photos”. In other words, every grid cell photo pixel value (8-bit grey scale; 0-255) with a value between 38-250 (15%-100%) is considered to have ice present. That’s it. So that means a grid area could be 100% covered with crappy ice that emits a 15% signal, or a grid area could be whatever-percent covered with thicker ice that emits a 15% signal.

          • Icisil

            For clarity I think you have to state the wavelength at which this assessment is made. If it is 15% it must be in a visible range.

          • It’s microwave, non-visible. The technology digitizes microwave signal strength (0-250) for each grid cell. Any grid cell value below 38 (15% of 250) is considered to be open water; 38-250 (15-100%) is considered to be ice.

      • “Second-lowest September minimum since observations began”

        Except, if one clicks on the years between 2012 and 2019 to add them back into the NSIDC graph, 2019 is not lower than 2016. Or one could access a chart developed by the Arctic-roos.org:
        https://web.nersc.no/WebData/arctic-roos.org/observation/ssmi_ice_ext.png

        As Bob Boder points out, the actual data is collected by passive satellite microwave sensors. Satellite sensors require many satellite passes to complete a picture. Daily sea ice estimates are courtesy models/assumptions; using datasets provided by that allegedly trustworthy agency NSIDC.

    • Last winter appears to be cooler than recent winters. link As well, there was a report that ships were encountering thicker than normal ice (but I’m darned if I can find the link). The arctic ice is cranky and almost anything could happen in the next few weeks. On the other hand, the trend does look a lot like 2012.

    • The other interesting thing is the minimum appears to be coming earlier in the month again, like it did prior to 2007. May or may not be an indication of a cycle change, only time will tell. What is pretty clear, like every other doomsday warming, the arctic sea ice death spiral was just another scam.

    • Maybe so Nick, but surely that doesn’t negate the AWI’s point that, using their metric at least, 2019 will post the “Second-lowest September minimum since observations began”?

      Or are you seriously suggesting that going lower than 2012 is still possible?

        • It is Wegner Institute which is making pre-emptive claims and apparently getting their numbers wrong as well. Why are you trying to think that Nick is criticising WUWT, rather than those making the silly statements?

          I can tell you why they are trying to talk about the min before it even happens it is to get their fake “continued decline” comments in in time for NY meeting. More PR pretending to be science.

          • AWI are not “making pre-emptive claims”, unless you are seriously suggesting that going lower than 2012 is still possible!

            They are not “getting their numbers wrong” either. They are not using NSIDC or JAXA numbers, that’s all.

          • They are discussing sea ice minimum before it has happened. That is pre-emptive. The reason for it is political PR , not science, like I said.

        • Good morning Gerald (UTC),

          The AWI weren’t very specific. However assuming that they are referring to passive microwave satellite data:

          SSMR: 1978
          SSM/I: 1987
          AMSR-E: 2002
          SSMIS: 2005
          AMSR2: 2012

          Pre the NSIDC’s very own Sea Ice Index there’s also EMSR: 1975

    • The point is, now is the time when a minimum should be occurring – but! this year the ice could still be melting further. On top of the second lowest extent, that shows exactly how bad the state of the ice is…

    • Nick just wants to complain because well, he’s Nick.

      The typical date range for the sea ice minimum in the Arctic is Sept 18th to 22nd.

      So, it is a good time to be talking about the minimum. WUWT usually notes and reports the minimum before official agencies do, that will likely be the case again this year.

      • Don’t assume ill will unnecessarily. WUWT was simply reporting Wegener Institute’s pre-emptive statements. If anything I would think his criticism applies to them, it was their timing and their announcement.

        What is more relevant is why they should chose to try to talk about minimum now instead of wait a week or 10 days to have something concrete to report instead of speculative commentary.

        The reason is almost certainly the NY climate meeting and the MSM conspiracy to saturate news with climate coverage in the week preceding this event.

      • Gerald – The past 5 years show a steep decline. (I too can cherry)

        The long term trend is very much down.

        • No, not really. The last 12 years (2007 through 2019) are all right about at the same level. 1/3 of the entire satellite record makes somewhat an exaggerated linear extrapolation not really really very important, doesn’t it?

          The cycle seems to be about 72-74 years – with a peak at 82-84, and is now at its low point of 2007-2012. And each year that remains near the 2010-2018 average makes your exaggerated linear trend more useless.

        • Which would be 276C above absolute zero.

          Given how dry the air is above the arctic, it’s fairly easy for that heat to escape to space.

      • This graph has the extent over 5 msk:
        http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover_30y.uk.php

        The numbers are essentially the same over all of the recent years.
        We are one or two unusually cold Arctic Winters away from a sharply increasing trend.
        Just as a couple of years of globally lower temps and we will be below the 1980-2010 average.
        The only place anything dramatic is happening is in the pronouncements of shrill alarmists and the world of doctored data and graphs.

        • Whaat? Are you looking at the graph in your own link?
          Let me get this straight: IF we have as few as one “unusually cold Arctic Winter” that will refute the data and the graphs. Kool aid anyone?

          • Yes, that is right.
            Historically, it is evident that a huge amount of ice can form and persist in a single year.
            No Kool Aid required to know this, just an ability to look at historical data and understand what you are looking at.
            Warmistas are incredibly unable to see what is in front of their eyes, if it conflicts with their world view.
            Trends can and have change very quickly.
            During the 1970s, around the time of the peak, there were huge swings in ice amount.
            We saw a muted version of that phenomenon in 2013 when ice amount snapped back sharply.
            Look what occurred between 1960 and 1963-64.
            Lowest level of that 50+ year period to very close to the highest level of the century.
            In the mid 1970s were some low ice years, but 1979 was a huge spike upwards in ice amount, and it persisted for many years of warming temps.
            I suspect you were not alive in the 1970s, or at least not old enough to be aware are anything.
            I was.
            Why do you suppose there was an effort to launch satellites in the late 1970s and keep an eye on temperatures and ice?
            It was not due to warming.
            It was due to concerns about cooling and an impenetrable Arctic.
            The Soviets were way ahead in icebreaker technology, and the cold war was red hot.

          • Okay, I see what you mean. Between last night and this morning they updated that graph and the last dot went below the 5msk line. It was above it, with a “?”.
            It is even now just below the 5msk line.
            It was late last night, and perhaps I was holding my mouse over the August tab and not realized.
            Not sure, but it is clear it is no where near 4.

            Personally, I do not care how much ice melts.
            My view on perpetually frozen lifeless wastelands is clear: Less of them is better.
            Anyone wishing for an even more frigidly frozen polar wasteland is insane, IMO.

      • Best reply so far. They are getting their panties in a knot over something that’s been going on for millennia.

    • The point isn’t to be accurate. The point is to be able to get “second lowest” into a press release and headlines. Therefore, if data goes otherway it won’t be reported and John Q Public only hears second lowest. You are mistaking these people for scientists.

    • Nick, No mention of the expedition from Russia a week or so ago which was taken by surpise when it encoutered 3 or more metres of solid packed ice all the way from Svalbard to the North Pole. The big, new nuke powered breaker had to back up many times to break through and the planned trip took an extra two days. The ice in the Arctic basin is actually 100% extent! This means the ice is actually growing strongly. Spread this hard packed mass out to 15% and redo the assessment.

    • “…So it’s a bit early to be writing about a minimum…”

      It wasn’t. You didn’t get your wish.

    • What Al Gore really said:

      Last September 21, as the Northern Hemisphere tilted away from the sun, scientists reported with unprecedented distress that the North Polar ice cap is “falling off a cliff.” One study estimated that it could be completely gone during summer in less than 22 years. Another new study, to be presented by U.S. Navy researchers later this week, warns it could happen in as little as 7 years.

      https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/peace/2007/gore/26118-al-gore-nobel-lecture-2007/

      • Masolwski, Wadhams, Zwally, Serezze, Barber and others made similar statements. Perhaps the Arctic can’t hear them because it’s screaming.

        What would satellites have shown for 1910, 1920 or during the LIA?

        • “What would satellites have shown for 1910, 1920 or during the LIA?”

          Good question! It would look something like the first link below. As you can see, the arctic sea ice has been lower in the recent past (the 1930’s). Starting the chart from 1979, when satellites first started making these measurements, is, as can be seen, very misleading as to the trend.

          https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Screen2-Shot-2017-02-14-at-6.17.49-AM.gif

          And the reason why more ice melted in the arctic in the 1930’s is because it was warmer in the arctic in the 1930’s than it is today. Nothing unprecedented is happening today in the arctic with the temperatures or the ice melting.

          https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Arctic-Temperatures-1920-2017-HadCRUT4.jpg

          • Is there anything that cores could do to resolve the ice extent? You know that magnetic dust that you can collect in your storm gutters from meteorites? Maybe if there are extended periods of ice coverage of on-island pools, it would build up, and only be released and sink to the bottom of pools when the ice covering those pools melted. By comparing strata of pools at various latitudes, maybe you would get some insight?

          • These 20th century graphs also plainly depict how rapidly a trend can and often does change, as also how drastically year to year variations within a secular trend can be.
            Also obvious that what happened in 2012 is not unusual, that there is no death spiral in the ice under current climate conditions.
            Every year it gets dark up there for 6 months, and all the water freezes over.
            Enormous amounts of ice can form or melt in a small interval of time, and a low value one year does not mean the ice is going away, nor does a high value mean it cannot melt back to below average in a year or two. We have seen how the ice can be blow out of the Arctic basin and melt in warmer water further south. One huge storm can bust up a lot of ice.

            How many people on this comment thread think it would be a good thing to have year-round 80-100 foot thick ice covering the entire basin, as some reports from the LIA assert?

      • That was only ONE comment.

        Gore made similar statement several other times in subsequent years. Often he referenced Dr. Wieslav Maslowski as his source, ignoring that fact that these results were far more aggressive than those of other scientists.

        Worst of all, Dr. Maslowski himself said he did not know where Gore was getting substantiation for those claims out of his work.

        Fail.

      • James Hansen was more confident, in 2008 he said the Arctic “will” be ice free in summer in 5 to 10 years.

      • “…scientists reported with unprecedented distress…” Yeah right, Gore has of course made a study of scientific distress through the ages and reached this stunning conclusion. And to think that such BS was uttered in my home town, in MY City Hall!

  1. As of 9-14-2019 JAXA data shows it still above 4 million

    9 8 4163470
    9 9 4170163
    9 10 4149896
    9 11 4110564
    9 12 4087341
    9 13 4053800
    9 14 4025718

    • Yes. In NSIDC data this year is still above 2016 and 2007, as well as 2012. Thus fourth lowest is still possible. Just depends upon how long the melt lasts.

      But in any case, won’t come close to 2012, despite increase in Russian ice breaking activity.

  2. So this article is using the now common alarmist tactic of the pre-announced record, to flood the media with fake news – even though it is obvious that there is near zero chance it will actually be a record low 15% extent. And NSIDC and DMI are both above the suggested level (and given the sizable discrepancy between those 2 sources too – who would believe any of them!)

      • It’s not still melting. Stop spreading that bullshit.

        This is like that “greenland all melted at once!” lie your lot were throwing around a while back.

        • Griff there is no such thing, except in alarmist speak, as a “Record Second Lowest”
          Second places at a track meet doesn’t set any records. Sorry

      • No, it isn’t.

        The minimum was lower in 2016 and 2007. To be second it needs to be lower than 4.155 in NSDIC observations.

      • You left out “since 1979”, Mr Panic. In 1979 I had already been on this Earth 28 years, but those don’t count. My Father had been on this Earth for 57 years, but those don’t count. It was 203 years before that the Founding Fathers declared independence, but those years don’t count. It was 1979 years since the start of the current calendar, but those years don’t count. It was over 12,000 years ago that the post Younger Dryas warming started, but none of those years count. So not so much a record.

      • Griff; what on earth does it matter if the sea ice is still melting or not? Is it only important in order to score some silly debating point? What if, by some Goreatric Miracle, the minimum would stop at 1,5 mill. km2, and stay there for a few days, before starting the freeeze again? How much would that alter global temperature?

      • Griff, no it isn’t according to multiple sources, and it isn’t going to change significantly now – the volume has already increased – so any change in extent is just wind pushing it around, and as you know the ice decline stopped 15 years ago, all years are so close it makes no difference, to suggest otherwise is dishonest, but we know you have no problem suggesting otherwise.

        There is absolutely no correlation between Arctic ice and CO2, the Arctic is no warmer than c.1940, the peak of the last major cycle, as you full well know.

        There is also no credible (accurate enough to compare) record of extent outside of the satellite era – despite ludicrous attempts to claim otherwise. But we do know with near certainty that the Arctic has had considerably less/no ice for thousands of years at a time in at least 2 distinct periods in the last 11k years.

        Your alarmism is bogus.

      • It’s not melting, and it’s not the second lowest.
        griff is eager to believe any lie that supports what he is paid to believe.

  3. This is only the second time that the annual minimum has dropped below four million square kilometres since satellite measurements began in 1979.

    I count three, 2007,2012,2016 – the day the statement was published.

    • Thanks tty , exactly what I’ve been trying to point out for the last few years. The death spiral dead , run away melting has stopped running away. The naive +ve feedback hypothesis is disproven.

    • For your information the northern searoute has been open every year since 1933.

      And yes, the southern, shallow, northwest passage is open this year – unlike last year.

      • Odd maybe. I monitored the progress of ms The World and another cruise ship as they passed through the NW passage a week ago. There is an ice breaker (Terry Fox) stationed up there that makes regular runs through the route. I don’t know if that’s to keep the passage clear, or simply to monitor the situation.

        • “I don’t know if that’s to keep the passage clear, or simply to monitor the situation.”

          Quite possibly because basically nobody lives in the Canadian Arctic. If a cruise ship has an engine room fire or hits a reef or gets trapped in wind blown ice, without that icebreaker, they’re going to have to depend on the resources of Cambridge Bay — population less than 1800 — for help. And they don’t really have all that much time for help to be mobilized. It’s not like the sailing season in the Northwest Passages is all that long. Neither is ever likely to be very long. But an icebreaker conceptually can extend it considerably.

          • ” It’s not like the sailing season in the Northwest Passages is all that long.”

            I think it’s over. There’s not a single ship in the area except Terry Fox. ms The World has moved on to the Kamchatka Krai peninsula in Russia.

          • The icebreaker is probably mostly around to ensure that supply shipments get through to the settlements up there. Last year several supply ships got stuck and they had to fly in a lot of supplies which was very expensive.

            And the southern route – which is the only one that is open – will never amount to much, it is to narrow, too crooked and too shallow (20 feet). The northern, deep one, through the McClure strait, requires stronger icebreakers, probably nuclear. It has only ever been passed by non-icebreakers in four seasons: 1944, 2010, 2012 and 2014.

      • Oh no… SHIPS are slow and take TIME. Important press and media people demand JET travel.
        SURRRE, it goes against the whole narrative, but IMPORTANT people delivering the IMPORTANT message about imminent climate calamity (media people- including news anchors, magazine writers, talk-show hosts; Hollywood spokespeople, social media “influencers,” and TV stars; “Important Voices of Authority” from academia (but only the ‘correct’ schools); and of course, POLITICAL authorities) who can explain why it is NECESSARY to suspend your cautious, investigative nature, and FULLY trust these vaunted cultural icons as they parrot off talking points about the liberties and lucre you must sacrifice to the new international religion…
        But FEAR NOT!! Simply sign over your civil liberties, your disposable income, and your right to direct your own life— and in exchange, the all-wise climate SCIENTISTS will inform you regularly as they travel the world to SHOW you how their “CO2-scrubbing” technology is steadily, little by little, FIXING the problem! Oh, but don’t think of cutting off funding just yet– oh, not at all! It’ll take YEARS and YEARS of “scrubbing” to make any real progress!!

        I can predict how the Leftists & Marxist-Communists would spin the narrative, because it is THEY who are dim, stupid, and as predictable as Tax Day.
        The one-size-fits-all “magic solution” prescribed by government will be said to be working, and that the outlook is very positive, but it will take a long, long time to fix all the “damage” done by the proletariat (certainly can’t have the revenue stream dry up before all the government aristocracy are impossibly rich, now CAN we?!).
        And the world will descend into totalitarian serfdom under an all-powerful aristocracy.
        The time it would then take for the under-class to revolt and murder the ruling class depends only on how ruthless and cruel the latter is, and how angry the oppressed become over time.
        For ME, that would be 30 seconds. For the upcoming generation, I fear they could be happy for generations, as long as they could play “Call of Duty” 24/7, and not have to leave the house.

  4. “Record or not, this year confirms the continued long-term reduction of Arctic sea ice as a result of climate change, making it ever more likely that in a few decades the Arctic will be ice free in summer. ”

    staying the same for past 7 years….is not a long term reduction

  5. These Leftist “scientists” are such liars.

    2019’s Arctic Ice Extent will be the FOURTH lowest, and about 900,000 KM^2 larger than the 2012 record low.

    Why must Leftist always lie about the facts?

    A rhetorical question, BTW…

  6. The arctic sea icecover was likely similar to 2019 during the last Franklin expedition in 1845, when the ships maneuvered around up to 77 °N in the Wellington channel. How can that be during times when LIA (Little Ice Age) has just ended. The claims about lowest sea ice coverage is less relevant if the time span is only 40 years, wait some more 40 years and we‘ll observe there is cyclic event due atlantic currents and cycles (AMO, …).

  7. Less ice in a cold climate with cloud cover will:
    Warm the earth?
    or
    Cool the earth?

    Underlying water will be exposed to wind and cool temperatures so I guess a lid on the heating pot is good to preserve the heat.

  8. Whatever difference Arctic ice makes to the habitability of the earth, deuterium/CO2 lead/lag in ice-cores indicates that CO2 has no significant effect on its extent so we can continue to make our lives better using hydrocarbon fuels.

    • The Holocene Optimum was 6000 years ago, followed by long term cooling which abruptly reversed about 2 centuries ago with the Industrial Revolution and the reliance on fossil fuels. We have emitted 1.5 trillion tonnes of CO2 which, using carbon isotope analysis, can directly attributed to human activities. We now have CO2 levels not recorded to 3-5 million years.

      Instead of continuing to cool, we are warming.

      • The long-term trend is still cooling. HCO ended about 5000 years ago. Since then, the secular cooling trend has been interrupted at about millennial intervals by countertrend warming cycles. The Egyptian 4 Ka and Minoan 3 Ka Warm Periods were about equally balmy, with the Bronze Age Collapse Cool Period in between. The Greek Dark Ages CP was followed by the Roman 2 Ka WP, which was cooler than the Minoan. The Dark Ages CP preceded the Medieval 1Ka WP, which was cooler than the Roman. The Little Ice Age CP preceded the Modern WP, which is still cooler than the Medieval.

        So the T downtrend is intact. The massive East Antarctic Ice Sheet quit retreating after the Minoan WP.

        • Is the Egyptian Warming Period recognized widely?

          I’ve been familiar with the Minoan Warming Period for a while (at -3000 years ago), and the Roman Warming Period (at -2000 years ago -which makes a nice contrast between the Medieval Warming Period at -1000 years ago) and the Modern Warming Period (2000 AD), but yours is the first referencing the Egyptian Warming Period.

      • Do you really believe Earth’s climate prior to the appearance of humans was so well behaved that an interglacial period was always characterized by continuous warming to a maximum, and then continuous cooling until the onset of the next glacial period?

        Also, since the Earth is around 4.3 BILLION years old, why did you cherry pick the last 3-5 million years (i.e., the last 0.1% of climate history) . . . could it be that you did not want to address those past periods of Earth’s climate that had atmospheric CO2 levels 3-10 times the current level of 410 ppm . . . levels that Earth survived and recovered from quite naturally without panicked, ill-considered actions from puny humans?

        Life flourished during the Cambrian period, despite atmospheric CO2 about 10 times higher than today and whatever “greenhouse effect” those CO2 levels MIGHT have created.

      • The cooling ended about 100 years prior to the dumping of huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere.
        Regardless, we are still 3 to 5C below the level of the Holocene optimum during which time life on earth flourished.
        Tell me again why a small increase in temperature is a bad thing?

  9. a simple plot of arctic sea ice with data from https://ads.nipr.ac.jp/vishop/#/extent

    no models just their data
    https://ads.nipr.ac.jp/vishop/#/extent

    Sea ice is 2nd lowest extent
    Rate of change per day of extent is still showing a loss (2012 which was lowest was at this date showing zero change per day).
    loss rate is changing rapidly to gain and sea ice may possibly reach zero from Sept 15th onward

    All plots of extent on selected days show a rate of loss conforming to the start line approximation.

    Because vast areas of ocean will be near freezing one can expect a large positive rate of change (similar to 2012) to occur this month.

    https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-X9B-LR6GOEw/XX5LEdt8RRI/AAAAAAAAChs/k_UavpBOCrkn3dT4T5JHv5LbU_QeKZUrgCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/seaice%2B19-09-14.png

  10. From mid-August through the end of the year, more heat is lost from the newly-exposed open Arctic ocean each day than than is gained from the ever-shorter Arctic daylight hours. Dr Curry (SHEBA, August 12 1998) reported melt water ponds froze over each night beginning August 12.

    But the year starts over again in January, and from January through mid-April, more heat is lost from the exposed Arctic Ocean each day than is gained from the sunlight. For 8 months of the year, less sea ice means more heat is lost.

    2019 is a low year, but the only two years in the last 20 when Arctic Sea Ice was higher than the 1980-2010 average in March or April were 2007 and 2010. And, in both of those years – when “excess sea ice” in Mar-April was present to insulate the Arctic Ocean from heat loss to space, 2010 set a new record low sea ice extents in the summer, and 2007 set an all-time record low sea ice extents at its September minimum.

    2019 is certainly a low year, but compared to the most recent years, it is near the middle of the pack (with 6 higher, 3 lower for early September), slightly below the recent average for August-September.

    • Indeed, and by evaporation and conduction to the air. The simplistic assumption that open sea will be a +ve f/b because of minimal insolation at glazing incidence is willfully simplistic but fits the catastrophic mindset so they look no further.

      The DATA of the last 12 years solidly refutes the idea of a dominant positive f/b : tipping point : death spiral of what ever other silly names they can invent.

      The death spiral is dead

      • Correct…insolation up there is low to near zero for most of the year, and water has a high albedo at a low angle of incidence anyhow.
        But the main thing is…in Winter it is very cold and very dark and the entire basin freezes over, except to the extent that winds can clear ice from one area or another for a time.
        In fact, wind piling up ice into piles at the same time as it is extremely cold for months on end is almost surely how the huge increases in ice we have seen in the past can occur.
        Wind clears an area of ice, it refreezes, wind pushes the new ice onto the pack, lather rinse and repeat for a whole Winter.

    • James Hansen said it was a tipping point and the Arctic was behaving just like predicted. Of course he said that it would be ice free in summer by now. He’s clearly wrong on both points.

    • Arctic seaice lost startet about more than 150 years.

      WWF reconstructs climate change in the Arctic

      Düsseldorf (rpo). The Arctic ice has been on the retreat for at least 150 years. This is the result of a new study by the WWF and the Norwegian Polar Institute (NPI).

      The researchers consulted the records of long deceased polar explorers and discoverers and reconstructed the extent of Arctic ice in different epochs on the basis of these sources. The slow but steady melting of the ice can be seen on 6,000 maps.

      So far, the observation of climate change was mainly based on satellite images. To reconstruct the climatic conditions in the past, scientists used computer modelling or so-called ice core drilling.

      For the first time, the WWF study systematically evaluates the climate observations of earlier epochs. The researchers analysed logbooks of seafarers and whalers, among other things. For more than 500 years, the captains have been recording weather conditions and special events, such as the appearance of whales or icebergs, in these logbooks.
      […]
      As the oldest document, the records of Sir Hugh Willoughby were included in the investigation. The English captain set sail from London in 1553 with an attempt to find a northeast route to China. It remained with the attempt. His ship got stuck in the ice near Murmansk and most of the crew perished. However, his logbook was found. There is information about the weather conditions in the region of almost 500 years ago.

      Translated with http://www.DeepL.com/Translator

      german source

  11. In my experience nature is adept at exploiting every single opportunity it is presented with. Surely reduced ice cover has bee a boon to sea life. Perhaps some aspiring young degree seeker can check. The lesson taught mankind? Adapt.

    • “Surely reduced ice cover has bee a boon to sea life. Perhaps some aspiring young degree seeker can check.”

      Degree seekers learn early that ‘problems’ get attention, and good news is ignored (unfunded). You can’t get a good grade or hope for a career talking about the good things climate change is producing.

    • Surely reduced ice cover has bee a boon to sea life.

      Not in the Bering sea apparently. The algae growth on the ice is a major source of nutrition there and the lack of sea ice there in the last two winters has had an impact on the sea life.

      • Maybe so but the Bering Sea is a teeny tiny part of the world and 2 years is less than a blink of the eye in terms of ecological niche exploitation. I’m sure Mother Nature is feeling no sense of panic regardless. On balance over time less ice = more life. It’s just common sense, is it not?

        • In the high Arctic seaice algae contributes over 50% of primary production, towards the edge of the ice sheet it’s lower at ~25%. The ice algae form before pelagic phytoplankton which requires warmer temperatures and more light. It’s not clear that less ice will lead to more life.

  12. Global sea ice has never recovered…from the malfunctioning and replacement of the DMSP F17 satellite.

  13. “Only circa 3.9 million square kilometres of the Arctic Ocean are covered by sea ice any more”

    And? Why should we worry about these little blips?

  14. “Record or not, this year confirms the continued long-term reduction of Arctic sea ice as a result of the “Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation” ” – Fixed it for them.

    • I searched for the AMO in the comments, because that is the elephant in the room that the article is ignoring, and I wanted to see if anyone else mentioned it. You beat me to it, TRM!

      Arctic sea ice extent has been changing every year for as long as any records exist, including the anecdotal ones. CO2 has been increasing significantly since the 1940s. If Arctic sea ice extent is only a function of the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, than the ice extent would have started decreasing in the 1940s, but the decrease started 30 years later. Obviously there are other things at play. Some of the other things might be man-made, like soot from polluted air, but there are natural factors as well, that are not accounted for in the CO2 narrative above.

      The narrative is setting itself up to fail when it ignores the natural variables, just like it did when it claimed that the record heat of 1999 was the result of increasing CO2. The global warming pause that followed was really embarrassing, and required another super El Nino to rescue it (sort of).

  15. Liars, liars! 2016 minimum was 4.165 million km2 and 2007 was 4.155. The absolute minimum in 2012 was below 3.4 million km2

    The lowest value so far this year was yesterday at 4.251 million km2 which makes it fourth lowest year, 86,000 km2 above 2016, and 96,000 km2 above 2007.

    We don’t know yet what the September average will be, but pretty sure it will be above 2012 and 2007.

    http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/
    You can zoom the chart all you want.

    The real truth is that, despite all the doom predictions, Arctic summer sea ice has not decreased in 12 years, as I said it would happen a few years ago. Meanwhile CO2 has increased by >25 ppm. Alarmist predictions were absolutely ridiculous, as usual. They have no clue how the climate changes.

    See for example Tamino that showed his absolute lack of knowledge about sea ice criticizing an article of mine in 2016:
    https://tamino.wordpress.com/2016/10/18/extreme-cherry-ice/
    Are you eating crow Tamino? Three more years without a decline. Do you need more?

    • I very much doubt that Tamino is “eating crow” at this juncture Javier, and AWI are not “liars”.

      Once again, they are not quoting NSIDC data, or JAXA, or even Arctic ROOS.

      They are quoting the Bremen AMSR2 numbers.

          • Tamino wouldn’t know what a climatic shift is even if it hit him in the head. Yet the climate is full of them given the periodical nature of oceanic oscillations, like the 1976 Pacific climate shift. His simplistic analysis is unable to predict anything, that’s why he gets everything wrong.
            There was a fundamental shift in the Arctic in the 2006-2007 season as the data clearly shows.
            http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2017/10/100517_1140_arcticicena5.png
            https://andymaypetrophysicist.files.wordpress.com/2019/04/figure-3.png

            The fact remains. No Arctic summer sea ice extent decrease since 2007. 12 years and counting. There is an unexpected and unrecognized pause in Arctic sea ice melting.

          • It looks as though displaying images in comments here is out of the question?

            “Seasonal sea ice melt” based on extent numbers? Plus a polynomial fit! Surely you jest?

          • So you think. Facts are stubborn. No summer Arctic sea ice decrease in 12 years. It should be 13 next year. Somebody should tell Greta. For most of her life Arctic sea ice has not melted and polar bears have been happy eating seal pups.

          • Jim, multiyear ice is up sharply from those other years when extent was near where it is now.
            At various times we were told by so called experts that in the end the ice would all vanish rapidly away, as loss of ice would inevitably accelerate.
            This was obviously false.
            At other times these same experts claimed that what really mattered was multiyear ice, and once IT was gone, there would never be any new thick multiyear ice.
            This as well was proven to be false.
            As we saw during the 1970s, a few very cold years could cause an amount of ice formation that would take decades to melt away.
            There has been an increasing trend in multiyear ice going back to 2008.
            The past two Winters have seen the entire Arctic covered with multiyear ice.
            If history is any guide, the recent sharp rise in alarmist inanity will be answered by the actual Earth with the exact opposite of what is being predicted by “experts”.

            https://realclimatescience.com/2019/01/expansion-of-thick-arctic-sea-ice-since-2008/

          • Mornin’ Nicholas,

            Oh no it isn’t!

            You quote Steve/Tony at me? I’ve have just proved unequivocally (to my own satisfaction at least!) that he has no idea what he’s talking about when it comes to Arctic sea ice. Please see:

            https://realclimatescience.com/2019/04/northwest-passage-closed-for-business/#comment-249956

            As luck would have it I have also recently produced this video, which assuming you believe the NSIDC sea ice age data reinforces the point that multi-year ice in the Arctic is currently as lower than it’s ever been (since satellite records began):

            https://youtu.be/1Paq5Us1EPE

          • I am pretty sure they told us a bunch of years ago that all the thick multi year ice was gone and it was never coming back.
            So how can it just now be lower than ever, logically speaking?
            Only if there is a blizzard of BS flying around, that is how.
            There is ample evidence of a ~60 year cycle.
            The ice did not all melt suddenly away as we were warned it might.

            But in any case…why is more ice better?
            It is pretty clear that polar bears do fine no matter what ice is up to.
            Stop hunting them and numbers explode.

          • “It looks as though displaying images in comments here is out of the question?”

            Images used to show up as pictures when you posted a link. That no longer happens now. There has never been an explanation for why the change.

            WUWT at one point a couple of years ago, installed new comment software, that allowed for pictures to post and had “like” buttons and highlighted new posts with each new visit you made (which really makes sense when you have comments that run over 850), but then for some reason, the website crashed, presumably because of the new comment software, so the new software was removed and the comment software was reverted back to the primitive method we have now.

            What’s strange about the current situation is that pictures could be posted *before* the new software update, and during the use of the new software, but when the new software was removed, somehow the posting of pictures never worked again.

            Do I have that about right, Mods? 🙂

            Would sure love an explanation as to why we have to put up with clunky software when much better versions are out there. What is the roadblock to good comment software?

            If we want WUWT to speak to the world about the issue of human-caused Climate Change, then we should make the website as user-friendly as possible.

          • I have been working Jim.
            I will watch your video after dinner, and comment on it.
            As for Tony Heller and agreeing or not agreeing with other things he has to say, I am not sure what bearing this has on the DMI maps he featured in that blog post I linked to.
            It has an animation which flashes back and forth from the January 2008 sea ice thickness and volume map and chart, to the January 2019 one.
            It looks fairly clear to me there is an increase over that time.
            The only objection I could see is that the red area, the thickest ice, is perhaps somewhat diminished, but it is also more patchy so it is hard to say by eyeballing it.
            But the increase in lesser thickness ice is dramatic from 2008 to 2019.
            I have never learned how to make animations from a series of maps, but if someone who is able to do so was to go to the DMI site, and download ice volume/thickness maps from every year in that time frame, we could all get a good look at how the ice has evolved over the past 12 years.
            One other point I have not seen anyone make is that there are several sources for sea ice data out there, and they all seem to disagree with each other somewhat. The difference from the lowest to the highest is pretty large.
            But none show error bars on the maps they present. Given a wide variance from one estimate to another, I would be inclined to think that small differences from year to year that are smaller than the variance from one group’s estimates to another, should be taken as statistically equivalent. Whether ice is slightly more of less in any particular year over the past 12 is less significant to me than the fact that most “experts” were asserting back then that there would be a positive feedback effect from albedo, and the ice loss would accelerate as a matter of certainty, and the last bits would disappear very quickly.
            We are not seeing that.
            I look at charts all day long, and evaluate trends using stochastics and other statistical methods to predict trend reversals.
            There is not obvious reason why such disparate sorts of data should me amenable to the same sort of pattern analysis, and yet it seems that this is often the case.
            In short…the past 10-12 years look to me like a bottoming pattern, why if true means a trend reversal can be expected.
            Adding to that the fact that for about a hundred years the sea ice up there appears to follow a cyclic pattern, not a linear one.
            I expect that to continue to be the case.
            The global warming crowd believes it is a one way trend, same as with global temps.
            Time will tell.

          • As for who “they” are, of which I speak…I will take it for granted that you are genuinely not sure who I am referring to. It is a long list, from the media alarmists to the Peter Wadham’s of the climate science community. Mark Serreze, among others, and various people who are not sea ice experts but self appointed “climate experts”.
            I would not be surprised if there was an article here in the archives with a list of predictions that have failed to materialize.
            More after chores and dinner.

          • OK, I looked at your video…I did not realize it was just a short montage.
            Several things…it is a short time segment of only, what, four years?
            And it is from another source.
            Anyone can pick a short time period and show a different trend from some other period.
            The period around 2007 was significant because it was when the ice had a big melt off and the klaxon horns of alarm really became a cacophony. Various experts assured the world that the ice was gonna all be gone in a few years, although so many people said so many things that it is hard to nail anyone down…because the predictions were very inconsistent.
            But the loudest voices were the most dire and certain of what was going to happen.
            None of them predicted that 12 years hence the ice would be about the same. Far from it.
            But it is about the same, and this is after several el niños and what have supposedly been year after year the warmest in history.
            Still about the same.
            There is still multiyear ice, and in a week or two all the ice remaining now becomes multi year ice as the season rolls over.
            No sun spots, la niña forming, TSI at a very low value, optical clarity of the stratosphere very high, several decades since a major volcanic eruption sent a lot of SO2 into the stratosphere…
            Stay tuned.
            This movie is not over yet.
            In the meantime…what harm has come from low sea ice for the past 12+ years?

          • Good morning Nicholas (UTC),

            I’ve been sleeping, and it seems I have a lot to catch up on!

            Addressing your initial point, Tony Heller is a cherry picker par excellence. Since you link to an article of his I assume you approve of his methods, or possibly are merely unacquainted with them?

            Why do you suppose Tony chose to display DMI thickness maps in that article? I suggest you look at the sea ice age animation I suggested once again, and also take a look at this longer term if less up to date one from NASA:

            https://youtu.be/xlPVUB8svuI

            Do you still agree with Tony’s “analysis”?

          • I have a completely different perspective on the work that Tony Heller has done.
            In my view, he has been one of the standout leaders in highlighting the bad science that has been foisted off onto the public, at exposing the extent and degree of adjustments to various data sets, and in general refuting alarmism.
            He no doubt rubs many people the wrong way, but I see this as a consequence of his pointed refutations of people with big egos and weak or no justification for the things they predict or assert.
            He uses official data sources and archives, press releases and historical accounts and interviews from a vast trove of digitized newspapers and periodicals, and does so very effectively to back up his assertions.
            He is not just spouting off opinions given with no evidence.
            He refutes specific things said by specific people with regard to specific predictions and assertions.
            Using specific information to counter things said by other people is not what I would call cherry picking.
            How else can one refute assertions, except by giving specific examples?
            If someone makes a broad assertion that is untrue, one only need find specific information that refutes the assertion in order to prove it to be false.
            Print journalists routinely make unfounded assertions blared in large above the fold headlines, based on out of date information, an isolated occurrence at some specific time many years ago, etc.
            Greenland is an excellent example: After some years of above average melting there, many news outlets continued to blare that Greenland was melting down, while providing faulty, out of date, or outright false information.
            The average person is in no position to be able to check on such reportage.
            The average person remembers countless alarmist predictions, but can think of zero instances of the same people or sources admitting they were wrong, or follow up article in the MSM checking up on those predictions and letting everyone know when they were not born out by subsequent observation.
            The press provides blatantly one sided coverage of anything that touches on global warming or climate change.
            They do not even allow skeptical opinions or scientists with other views to appear in their pages of on their air…ever. This is stated policy for many of them. And they adhere to it assiduously.
            BTW I did look at your animation…I commented that it was a short period of time and was itself chosen to show a recent high point in ice coverage and end here in the end of Summer melt season. When the post I linked to was made, it was January, and it was compared directly to the same day of the year, ten years ago, when the assertions and predictions he was refuting were made! So those people who said those things back then were wrong. Is that not good news? If it was gonna be a disaster when it was predicted, and up to now has not come to pass, why are not people relieved, rather than making fresh assertions of dire doom while implying they were right all along. they had been correct all along?
            How can it always be “Worse than we thought”, and yet never happen, and then continue to be worse than they thought? Clearly it is not what they thought would happen.
            Little has changed in 12 long years, and yet few layperson would know it from press accounts.
            Certain types of people get mad when they are contradicted, and lash out angrily. Particularly if they are egotistical blowhards who have a history of being incorrect.
            These are the people and entities he is addressing.

            One of his recurring subjects is the problematic adjustments to historical data sets.
            The people making these adjustments would have us believe every alteration is perfectly justified, well documented, easily understood and 100% proper to correct faulty data.
            But then how to explain this one simple graph, linked to below?
            No one has refuted this graph or proved it to be false or faulty.
            And I think we can be pretty sure that they would have done so, if the graph itself was incorrect or made up, or a mere opinion.
            The adjustments, when combined, forma perfectly straight line when plotted vs CO2, proving with an R-squared of 0.99 that the adjustments are in fact algorithmically derived to force the historical time series of temperature to match the CO2 concentration in the air.
            The graphs of surface temperature bear no resemblance to what was universally accepted to represent measured data in past decades. The implications are grave and outrageous.
            When official records can be altered by people with a vested interest, and done so in a way which in every case confirms their own hypothesis which is otherwise poorly supported, what becomes of science?
            It becomes, by definition, a propaganda tool by people whose primary concern is not truth, but pushing a highly politicized point of view.

            https://twitter.com/NickMcGinley1/status/1150523905293148160?s=20

            https://twitter.com/NickMcGinley1/status/1150523905293148160?s=20

          • Evenin’ Nick,

            You have spent an inordinate number of paragraphs avoiding answering my question. Answer me this:

            Why do you suppose Steve/Tony chose to show his faithful follows the DMI thickness map instead of the US Navy’s?

            https://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/GLBhycomcice1-12/navo/arcticictn/nowcast/ictn2019012012_2019012100_930_arcticictn.001.gif

            The Navy seem to have neglected to update their certificates. You can click through any error messages in safety. Unless of course, like Tony, you don’t trust the Navy for some reason?

          • I think I did answer your questions. There were at least three in this comment:
            “Since you link to an article of his I assume you approve of his methods, or possibly are merely unacquainted with them?”
            Which I addressed with pretty much my entire last comment.
            And this one:
            “Why do you suppose Tony chose to display DMI thickness maps in that article?”
            My guess is because they have a excellent website with many sorts of very good maps, good meaning they are detailed and have high resolution and are clearly identifiable what is being presented.
            I have a question: How can you assert anyone who does not use the same source of data as you does not know what they are talking about, or are being dishonest. If that is true, someone could as easily say the same for another source.
            Me, I have seen the people from NASA and the Navy many times, like in front of congress or at protests.
            They have people at those places who are activists, and/or would have a lot of egg on their face when their predictions are not true.
            What is wrong with DMI?
            The maps are clearer. Everything is clearly labelled. They have all sorts of different ways of presenting, all easily searched. And as far as I know they are more interested in the actual situation and not political posturing.
            Why DMI?
            How should I know?

            Someone using the ice mapping agency from one country rather than another is not a strong point or evidence that anything is amiss, necessarily.
            And the site is archived very well.
            And they are people who are very familiar with what is going on up there.
            And they have, as far as I can tell, no one on the payroll who has made a career of sticking their neck out with specific predictions.

            I started out making a very specific point about a particular time period, but now the questions have nothing to do with that.
            The time period in question is significant for the reason already stated…lots of people made very loud and specific predictions of which they expressed what can only be called doubtless certainty, and they were wrong.

            And you asked:
            “Do you still agree with Tony’s “analysis”?”

            I am pretty sure I answered this.
            If you want to say one particular other data source says different, so he is wrong, then we could go on forever.
            There appears to be general agreement that 2019 is not a new low, and last Winter had a lot of ice and a late beginning to the melt season.
            I am really not sure what you are saying that is different.
            And then you seem to be getting a little snippy about not answering your question, but you have asked several and each time it is somewhat different.
            Why DMI and not the Navy?
            I had to click on about five messages telling me not to open that page before it opened. That might be a good enough reason for some.
            Some people no doubt would need to change settings to open those pages at all.

            Again, what is wrong with DMI?
            The source of data was not germane to the point I made that stated this conversation, but I am happy to change the subject.
            But are we going to decide if there was an increase in thick ice from 2008-2019, January view?
            Lets look at extent and area too, and lets look at as many sources as we can dig up, if there is reason to be skeptical of one source or metric.
            They do all tell a slightly different story.

            On another subject, I do not usually do this, especially since the last time I did the other guy disappeared after commenting here regularly for years…but I will go out on a limb and speculate that there will be, between now and the next solar max, increasing ice by every metric, and all of the values will be above that long term average line.
            I would even bet on it.

        • You have a point Michael, although AMSR2 did capture the 2012 minimum.

          Take the 2007 numbers with a pinch of salt, but I assume they used Aqua’s AMSR-E in that case. NSIDC have of course used a variety of different satellites for their data over the years.

          • As you say Michael,

            See also my recent comment upthread. I further assume that if AWI/Bremen want to look back beyond 2002 they use SSM/I, plus SSMIS to fill in the little gap.

      • There seems to be some confusion between the NSIDC daily Sea Ice Index numbers and the 5 day average displayed in their Charctic graph?

        At the risk of repeating myself, neither number corresponds to the AMSR2 derived AWI/Bremen extent referred to in the OP.

  16. OMG! The sea ice is gone! What will we do?!? We’re going to run out of ice! The animals will have no ice to eat! Those that were standing on the ice will fall in & drown!

    /extreme sarc

    • Few if any animals rely on high summer Arctic sea ice for survival. The odd seal might haul out for a rest or to sun itself. Polar bears might wander around on it, but they don’t eat much in summer and would find more food on land.

      Hungry polie sows emerging from their winter dena with cubs do rely on ringed seal pups in snow lairs on land fast ice in early spring to break their long fast.

  17. “…making it ever more likely that in a few decades the Arctic will be ice free in summer. This will mean drastic changes in the Arctic, with consequences for the climate and ecosystems, as well as for people, including us in Europe,” says Christian Haas.
    Yeah, keep pounding that “ice free in summer” drum. Getting old, doncha think? And the Alarmist tagline about the “consequences” for climate, ecosystems, people, blah, blah, blah, that’s rich.
    Science. Ever heard of it?

  18. > “Record or not, this year confirms the continued long-term reduction of Arctic sea ice as a result of climate change…”

    Does not follow. Lots of things affect sea ice cover. Wind. Seasons. Ice breaking. Currents. To be able to tease out “climate change” from everything else with a dataset barely 40 years long is arrogance and hubris.

    • It’s not hubris, it politically motivated deception. That is why the announced this week to hit the media PR campaign, and not next week when they have some science to report.

  19. In 1975 AMO started turning into the warm phase, in 1997 AMO passed the 0 index (smothed data)
    So it’s time now to change into cooling mode, will see what will happen with seaice.

  20. News Flash!!! Arctic Sea Ice melts MOSTLY FROM BELOW. The melting is due to warm Pacific Ocean Waters entering the Arctic. What is warming the Oceans is melting the Arctic Ice, not the Atmosphere. CO2 and LWIR between 13 and 18 Micron won’t warm water. Visible radiation warms the Oceans. Clearer skies is why the Arctic Ice is melting, not CO2.

    The water temp on the Pacific Side where the water enters is higher than the Atlantic side where it exists. That difference in temperature is the energy lost do melting ice. The atmospheric temperatures are mostly sub-zero. Ice doesn’t melt in sub-zero temperatures.

    Guess what? Cloud cover has been decreasing.
    https://www.climate4you.com/images/CloudCoverTotalObservationsSince1983.gif

  21. Nit picking over sea ice extent year to year as if it is a valid indicator of climate is just silly and for some on both sides of the climate change argument it seems to approach being a psychosis. One they wish to project on everyone. Year after year after year we see the same crap. An itch that no matter how much they scratch it never goes away that I suspect is just as irritating to rational people interested in climate and weather as their dog having fleas.

    Year after year we have been subjected to memes of climate doom based on sea ice extent and projections by “scientists”. And year after year our lives go on with nobody but the relatively miniscule number of people that work or live in the Arctic being able to point to how sea ice extent being up or down relative to puny timescale means has effected their lives in any meaningful way.

    The hype and obsession changes no ones minds. “Climate Change” remains at or very near the bottom of the list of concerns for everyday people getting on with their lives, Yet year after year we see the same cast worrying the same old tired Artic sea ice bone. It’s enough to make this truck driver pray for the
    AMO to hurry up and go negative.

    • +100. I also see it as some kind of psychosis (Ice Derangement Syndrome?) since there are no obvious effects other than there is less ice in the summer (which recovers just months later). In fact, photosynthetic biologic productivity increases.

  22. It’s now been established beyond a reasonable doubt that Arctic sea ice varies a lot. The amount it varies is not important unless the variation is down which is climate related. Any variations up are purely weather related.
    What is more interesting is that it’s been well over 30 years since the normal deviation has been calculated. Presumably, the known variation is now too high for “climate science” purposes and is unsuitable for scary graphs.

  23. Extent, Area.

    I wish they would not confuse these two very different things, each has a different definition and measuring algorithm.

  24. As some have noted, Arctic winds during the melt season can push the ice around. Changing the apparent surface extent rather quickly.
    One summer I worked on a property north of Yellowknife. In May our bush plane with skis landed on the ice on the lake. Maybe two feet thick, then the heat and sun turned to to very thick “candle ice” as they called it. Rotten and porous it was “bendy” to walk on. Then one day the wind came up and in very little time most of it was gone. Some pushed up on shore.
    A practical indicator of Arctic temps seems to be the snow cover extent.
    https://www.ccin.ca/home/sites/default/files/snow/snow_tracker/nh_sce.png
    For this melt season the cover has been well above the high-side of the mean band.
    The third consecutive season.
    Last October the DMI reported that 2018 was unusual as was the average albedo through the summer.
    The report noted much the same for the 2017 summer.

  25. With the Arctic sea extent low this year, the odds are on that with this coming winter the NH snow extent will be high. lf 2007 and 2012 is any guide.

  26. The satellite era mainly began about 1979, although there are satellites readings from a few earlier satellites, which is only about 40 years of record keeping, yet this is what the alarmists want to base all their calculation on.

    The late 1970’s were the time of the coldest temperatures since the early 20th century, and were a time when many climate scientists were warning that the Earth might be entering into another Ice Age because the temperatures had been declining for decades with no end in sight (at least to the alarmists).

    So the alarmists start with a record that starts in 1979, in the coldest period in decades and then wants us all to panic because after it warmed up in recent years, some arctic ice melted.

    More arctic ice melting occurred during the 1930’s, but the alarmists don’t include this period in their calculations. The reason they don’t is because if they did, then people would see that we are not experiencing anything unprecedented weather-wise because this has all happened in the recent past, which means CO2 is not distorting Earth’s weather systems. The alarmists don’t want you to see that picture.

    Just remember whenever discussing this subject to be sure to point out that arctic sea ice records started long before 1979, and the older records do not justify getting hysterical over current-day arctic sea ice melting.

    • Tom Abbott
      “So the alarmists start with a record that starts in 1979, in the coldest period in decades and then wants us all to panic because after it warmed up in recent years, some arctic ice melted.”
      Tom, with all due respect the point you are making is complete bunkem. I’ve never seem a graph showing 1979 as cooler than any year around it…. If you are going to make stuff up at least make it hard to find evidence you are telling porkies/Trumpies.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#/media/File:Global_Temperature_Anomaly.svg

      • Simon wrote: “Tom, with all due respect the point you are making is complete bunkem.

        That doesn’t sound very respectful. Oh, I see, you put “due” in there. So that’s just a backhanded slap under the appearance of civility.

        Simon wrote: ” I’ve never seem a graph showing 1979 as cooler than any year around it….

        I can understand that, Simon, since you don’t consider any chart except the bogus Hockey Stick chart as legitimate. Yes, your Hockey Stick chart doesn’t show the magnitude of the cold period of the 1970s. This was necessary in order for the Climategate Chalatans to erase the 1930’s warm period. They cooled the past which made the subsequent years look warmer including the 1970’s. But it’s all just a Big Lie meant to fool people, Simon.

        Simon wrote: ” If you are going to make stuff up at least make it hard to find evidence you are telling porkies/Trumpies.”

        Well, I don’t expect a fair judgement out of you, but I’m fine with allowing others to make up their own minds about who is telling porkies and who isn’t.

        So here’s some evidence that the 1970’s were a very cold period in history. Recall that climate scientists were warning of a new Ice Age back then. Thanks for this opportunity to straighten you out, Simon.

        Now, here a chart of the arctic. See that cold period in the late 1970’s on the chart?

        https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Arctic-Temperatures-1920-2017-HadCRUT4.jpg

        Here’s a chart of the AMO. See that cold period in the late 1970’s? See the simliar cold period in the 1910’s? See the warm peaks in the 1930’s?

        https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.files.wordpress.com/2019/09/tsgcos.corr_.81.159.104.45.247.15.34.31.png

        And here’s the Hansen 1999 US surface temperature chart. See the cold period in the late 1970’s? See the cold period in the 1910’s? See the warm peaks in the 1930’s?

        https://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2007/02/uhcnh2.gif

        There are three charts that show the 1970’s cold period. Are you going to continue to call this data “porkies”?

        And just for the fun of it, here’s the bogus, bastardized Hockey Stick chart Simon hangs his hat on:

        https://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2018/12/Reference-Figure-1.png

        Now, looking at this chart, it is understandable that Simon doesn’t see any cold spike in the 1970’s because the Data Manipulators changed the surface temperature chart from looking like the Hansen 1999 chart to the “hotter and hotter” Hockey Stick chart. In the process they not only erased the hot period of the 1930’s, they also erased the cold period of the 1970’s, even though it is common knowledge among climate scientists that the 1970’s was a very cold period in our history. It’s instructive of something that this little picadillo of the Hockey Stick chart is never mentioned.

        Here’s a comparison of Hansen 1999, the *true* temperatue profile of the Earth (just as warm in the 1930’s as today), with the bogus, bastardized Hockey Stick chart:

        http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/

        All unmodified regional temperature charts from around the world and in both hemispheres, resemble the temperature profile of the Hansen 1999 chart. NONE of the unmodified regional charts resemble the “hotter and hotter” temperature profile of the bogus Hockey Stick chart.

        Simon, if you are basing your understanding on the Hockey Stick chart, you are making a big mistake. The facts are out there if you care to see them.

        • Tom
          It is so laughable that you accuse main stream scientists of producing bogus graphs then you put up a bunch of graphs that wouldn’t be out of place in a comedy sketch. I can see why you think the 70’s were cool if you believe the tripe in that data. It’s amazing what the internet will allow you to find if you look hard enough. Yawn….

          • I didn’t figure you would be impressed, Simon. You already have your mind made up.

            You know, if I were afraid for my grandchildren’s future because of possible harm by CO2, I would be looking to see if maybe the doomsters were not wrong about their claims and perhaps they missed some crucial point that would negate the coming disaster. I wouldn’t buy into their scaremongering right off the bat, I would have to have some evidence of what they say.

            One little piece of evidence would change a skeptic to a believer, Simon. Got any? No, you don’t. You could prove me wrong but you won’t because you can’t, because there is no evidence. The same thing happens every time a skeptic asks for evidence: Silence from the alarmists. That ought to tell everybody something about the state of climate science when the scaremongers can’t even produce one shed of evidence showing human-caused climate change. They are reduced to seeing CAGW in every weather system and thunderstorm.

            I don’t see that you or your grandchildren have anything to worry about, Simon. I’m sorry my reassurances won’t make any difference to you, as I assume you will continue to worry.

            It’s really a shame what the Data Manipulating Conspirators of Climategate and beyond have done to people. I don’t think their behavior will get them past the Pearly Gates. They might get away with it here on Earth. Maybe.

          • Simon, how old are you?
            The 1970s being cool is a fact, massaged out of existence by the climate mafia.
            If you are unable to believe that, it only proves you are very gullible and probably very young.
            Every single graph and interview and photograph and historical account says the same thing prior the advent of global warming alarmism.
            Many of us grew up in those days, and were in college studying this stuff long before anyone dreamed up global warming alarmism.
            Me for one.
            Tom Carl of NOAA, in a 1989 interview:
            https://twitter.com/NickMcGinley1/status/1160940811699347456?s=20

            Changes to NASA GISS global average surface temperature graphs between 2000 and 2019. From 2017 to 2019 they altered the trend data by over 0.5°C!

            https://twitter.com/NickMcGinley1/status/1152807348555137024?s=20

            By 2000 though, the graphs had already been altered so much that they bear no relationship with the data that was actually measured at the time by the people reading the thermometers.
            Here are graphs from NCAR in 1974, NASA GISS in 1981, the IPCC in 1995, and one of the Greenland ice core data for the past 10,000 years:
            https://twitter.com/NickMcGinley1/status/1150655100509143040?s=20

            Here is a memo from James Hansen of NASA GISS in 1999 lamenting that the US was not showing any warming for over 100 years. By then the global time series had already been massaged into shape by “climate scientists”, but actually changing US data took a lot more gumption. But they eventually learned how to bury the last honest bone in their bodies within a few years. Nowadays, they adjust the hell out of even recent data to ensure every year is a new hottest year evah.
            https://twitter.com/NickMcGinley1/status/1150655100509143040?s=20

            Here are graphs of the long term temp trend in Iceland’s capital, an excerpt from a article about global cooling that was in National Geographic in 1976, and a graph of the satellite time series of global temp since 1979 showing that the Earth is less that 0.4°C warmer than the perhaps the coldest year in the past century:
            https://twitter.com/NickMcGinley1/status/1148787183039524864?s=20

            Anyone who decides to go check on the whole story for themselves finds out the same thing.
            I will leave it to you to decide if you feel like learning anything, or if you like to be lied to by people you thought you could trust.

        • “I will leave it to you to decide if you feel like learning anything, or if you like to be lied to by people you thought you could trust.”
          Nicholas… Those graphs of yours are not good enough to go on the back of a cornflakes packet. Sorry my boy but it is not me who is being lied to. All adjustments done by the mainstream data centres are fully explained and justified. If you don’t like them, write a paper explaining why. Many have tried and all failed. The GWPF tried a few years ago and never got past first base. A crackpot team in New Zealand (The Climate Science Coalition) took NIWA to court and were laughed out of town. Actually they were ordered to pay costs but ran for the hills costing the NZ tax payer 80 grand. Many spout here about the corruption of the data, but no one can prove it beyond a few crayon quality graphs.

          • You have drunk too deeply of the KoolAid my friend.
            It appears you are beyond hope of being informed and educated.
            You dismiss information that conflicts with your prior assumptions out of hand and with no justification.
            Every scrap of information that has been shown to you is from official sources.
            None is opinion.
            Many are from the same organizations you find credible, but then you cast scorn and derision on the mere suggestion that there is more to this story that your gullible mindset has locked into place inside your apparent cement like noggin.
            Your mind is locked up tight, and no contrary facts will be permitted to intrude upon your smug and self assured worldview.
            The fact is you have been duped, hook line and sinker, and are walking around completely certain of the veracity of a blizzard of lies.
            Good luck wit’ dat.

  27. When it comes to freezing the vessel ‘Polarstern’ into the polar Ice in the Laptev Sea, this is a chilling and interesting experiment. This location is chosen because there should only be one-year old ice there. Thus, there is little danger of getting aggressive ‘skru’is’, or compressive ice ridges. Let’s hope they have chosen the right location, and that they have a bon voyage.

  28. ” 3.9 million square kilometres” So, the Arctic is still frozen, and going to freeze even more in the coming months, leading to thawing in the months after that, then to freezing in the months after that, meaning the only problem is the spewing of politically motivated crap. Got it.

  29. Why all this attention paid to the “lowest extent of the year”? That’s like only looking at the hottest day in each year and determining a “climate” trend from that data. Take a look at the July 21 and December 21 data at NSIDC.ORG. Charctic. The lines essentially cover each other up indicating that from 2007-2019 ice extent has been essentially unchanged (ignore a couple “flyer years” that are clearly weather not climate related).

  30. If there is so little ice, how did the ship (or ships) that got trapped and required rescue find enough ice to get trapped in? The quotes about the paucity of ice make it sound as though it’s hard to find, with no power to entrap mighty exploratory vessels.

    When and where can one sign up for cruises along the north Canada coast? Or north Russia?

    • You might also have mentioned that last year every single cruise ship trying the Northwest Passage had to turn back or cancelled without even trying.

      The Northeast passage is always open in September and has been at least since 1933. Very spotty data before that year.

    • When and where can one sign up for cruises along the north Canada coast? Or north Russia?
      Try Hapag-Lloyd their MS Bremen completed a trip through the NW Passage and continued on through the Northern sea route (Nome to Bergen) along the Russian coast.

    • The fun thing about that tour is that they tried to retrace the route of Ahlmanns expedition with Quest in 1931.

      But they failed, despite 80+ years of “global warming” and despite doing it more than a month later than Ahlmann, at the time of minimum ice cover.

      • tty,

        And what do you suppose that proves?

        You seem to have a better grasp of sea ice behaviour than most on here. You do realise that “pack ice” moves?

      • This was a bad ice year around Svalbard, 1931 was a good year, so it proves that 88 years of supposedly catastrophic decline in sea ice is still considerably less than the ordinary between-year variation.

        And certainly all sea-ice (except fast ice and grounded icebergs) moves with the wind and currents. Which actually makes it more dangerous for shipping. And yes, I do have some experience of sea-ice, from the Arctic, the Antarctic, the Baltic and the Sea of Okhotsk.

  31. Decadal Sea Ice Coverage in the Antarctic is remarkably stable:
    1980’s Average 18.55 million km2
    1990’s Average 18.47 million km2
    2000’s Average 18.67 million km2
    2010’s Average 18.57 million km2

    Source: https://ads.nipr.ac.jp/vishop/#/extent
    (Click on the red line, 2019. Go to mid september and the above numbers will show up in the right upper corner)

    All ‘polar warming’ is on the North Pole. The sea surface temperatures on the Northern Hemisphere are above average: https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/

    Present Northern Hemisphere SST Anomaly +0.6C, Southern Hemisphere SST anomaly – 0.1C
    Source SST anomaly: https://climatereanalyzer.org/wx/DailySummary/#sstanom

    It seems ‘Global Warming’ has its preference for Hemisphere.

    • Wim,
      Good point. The NH Arctic is short-term climate variability and the Antarctic is the longer-term climate change indicator. IPCC and social media publize only near-term Arctic variability. Regulators and key governing agencies need to distinguish between the two. And scientists need to help provide timeframe range differences. My first blush is that Arctic climate variability is hundreds of years and the Antarctic signal is thousands of years.

      • Renee,
        The Antarctic Ice Sheet measures 14 million square kilometers and is centered at the South Pole. The extensive ice sheet creates her own climate, characterized by a huge High Pressure area that causes a constant very cold downward air flow.

        The Arctic Ocean however is in fact an extension of the Atlantic Ocean, most time of the year fully covered with sea ice, putting a ‘lid’ on that part of the ocean. That ‘lid’ prevents water vapor and heat to escape from the warmer water below the ice cover. Fluctuations in warmer surrounding water and fluctuations in warmer sub(!)surface Arctic water cause changes in the yearly ice cover, resulting in warmer and more humid atmospheric conditions over the Arctic. Those warmer and more humid conditions enable more low pressure areas that attract additional warm air flows from the south, enhancing the original warming impulse originating from the behavior of the oceans. The reverse (cooling) also happens but because of the slow reaction of the Arctic (measured in decades) the time scale surpasses the satellite era.

        The atmosphere above the Arctic is susceptible to changes in the vertical and horizontal flows in the northern oceans. The huge stable ice sheet of the Antarctic however dictates the main atmospheric flow, reflected in the stability on decadal and century scales of sea ice cover of the Antarctic and in the relative stability of the Southern Hemisphere.

  32. It is amazing how much interest the amount of ice that there is in the Arctic creates. No one lives there on the ice and it makes no difference to the habitability of the earth. Warm water melts ice not CO2 levels and so people will continue to ease their lives using hydrocarbon fuels.

  33. Frankly, so what? As the maximum is staying relatively stable, all a greater minimum means is that more water will freeze over during Winter and thereby cool the planet more. You radiate twice as much energy into space to freeze 8 million square kilometres of ocean than to freeze 4.

  34. Since the normal year on year variation of sea ice extent can easily exceed 1M km2, worrying about a variation in the order of 10,000s or even 100,000s of km2 is basically just an advanced form or wiggle watching.

  35. The decade 1996-2007 shows a decrease of 3 millions square km2 Arctic ice in September and corresponds to AMO cycle positive phase, while 2007-2019 is quite stable above 4 millions square km2 (except 2012). Next , we ‘ll find negative phase of AMO cycle after 2026 and we can expect increase of ice cover.
    Seeing is believing .

  36. And of course bio-data shows that the current extent of Arctic sea ice is well above what it has been for all but about the last 500 years.

    The recovery from the extreme high levels of the LIA and the similar high of the latter part of the 1970’s , seems to have levelled out, with Arctic sea ice extent still very much more what it has been for most of the Holocene.

    I wonder how long these “well above normal” levels of Arctic sea ice will last.

    Lower levels would be highly beneficial for all those living up there.

    Unfortunately, I suspect that with the AMO slowly starting to turn downwards, we will see an increase in sea ice over the next several years.

  37. According to

    ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/north/daily/data/

    it doesn’t seem that in their data set, 2019 will stay above 2012 anyway, and probably above 2007 as well.

    Here are the anomalies wrt the mean of 1981-2010 for the three years, computed out of Colorado’s climatology:

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tuUYTPR2UbaIOgmV-XfDewnS8UpyBaK-/view

    But please keep in mind that Bremen’s is a quite different one, as explained by Jim Hunt upthread many times.

    Rgds
    J.-P. D.

  38. We live in the Holocene era, the current inter glacial warm period. It’s about 10,000 years old. Temperatures during this period have been cozy warm compared to that which existed 20,000 years ago at the height of the last glacial maximum. Sea ice area is determined from satellite photos which have only been available for the last 40 years. 40 years out of 10,000 is only 0.4%. How can they claim the 2nd worst of those 40 years is cause for alarm when they have no idea what happened over the previous 99.6% of the time? What was the ice area 1000 years ago during the Medieval warm period or 2000 years ago during the Roman warm period or thousands of years before that during earlier warm periods? They don’t have a clue but want us to believe this low ice area is evidence of impending doom. And it is not even the lowest ice area during the satellite era. 2012 was worse.

    • Well, 7 years after 2012 and without the ‘great arctic cyclone’ which contributed to 2012 ice loss, we see a second lowest extent in the sea ice… after a similar low just 3 years ago

      …and the volume, thickness and average age are also worse than in previous years…

      And since 30 years is widely considered to show a climate trend, it is clear that a decrease is a real climate event.

      Now we have very good records going back into the late 1800s and we can clearly see the current low is worse than anything in the last 150 years, very definitely worse than the 1930s low.

      Tell me: how is this not a climate change related event? you have to account for a change beyond natural variability and known natural cycles and long term underlying climate trends… you simply don’t do that. We can certainly show reasons for other known lows in the arctic ice – but none stacks up to account for current conditions and trends, except human caused climate change

      • But climate change isn’t human caused. Calculate the magnitude. We aren’t by far able to generate such swings.

      • “…worse than the 1930s low…”

        For one thing, words like “worse” or “better” are value judgements.
        It is utterly unscientific and shows your inherent bias.
        Which is fine, almost everyone here is biased.
        But you need to be able to separate your opinion of what is bad and what is good from the analysis of the numbers.
        The graph from the 20th century shows a solid line representing an annual mean, and a darker line showing a 5 year running average of this.
        We have seen nothing anywhere close to an annual mean like what occurred over most of the 20th century from ~1925 to ~1975.
        You are comparing a annual average to a Summer low monthly value and concluding that there is less ice now!
        When was the last time anyone sailed a wooden boat through the northwest passage with few if any modern accoutrements? Because that was done over 100 years ago.
        If all of that ice up there melted every Summer, nothing bad would result from that.
        It would be hugely beneficial, as are all warm periods and more clement climatic conditions all through history.
        IOW…objectively speaking, it is almost certainly more true that less ice is better…more ice is WORSE!
        If you disagree, provide some rationale.
        There has never been anything but assertions that warming is bad, frozen wastelands are good, or anything at all like that.
        People and life prosper in warmth and perish is subzero cold.

      • Besides for everything else, Griff…you seem to be acknowledging that the 1930 had a large reduction in ice amount compared to prior and subsequent decades in the 20th century.
        So…what caused all that ice to melt?
        It was long before CO2 was high enough to make much of any difference.
        And the amount obviously increased for several decades while CO2 was rising rapidly.
        Now with CO2 higher than ever and increasing faster than ever, we have had little change for 12 years or so and it if we have a quiet Sun period and reversal of AMO, we could see a secular trend reversal very soon.
        So I want everyone who thinks melting ice is bad to say if they also think that if ice amounts increase over the next ten years…will that be a good thing?
        I ask because I never see any warmistas take it as good news, when dire prognostications prove to be false.
        If melting ice is a crisis, then is not stable ice a good thing, and growing ice a miracle and our salvation from doomageddon?

      • “Now we have very good records going back into the late 1800s”

        Typical griff hogwash.

        For example for the Northeast Passage we have data for exactly one (1) year in the “late 1800s”, 1878, and partial data (as far as the Laptev Sea) for one more year, 1893.

        For the Severnaya Zemlya area we have zero data, since it wasn’t even discovered until 1914.

        For Franz Josephs land we have partial data for 1873-74 and some years in the 1890’s

        Northeastern Greenland – much the same, partial data from 1823, 1869-70 and 1899.

        For the Sverdrup Archipelago we have absolutely nothing before 1898. It wasn’t even known to exist. For the southern part of the Parry archipelago we do have a fair amount of data for a few years around 1850 thanks to the several expeditions searching for the lost Franklin expedition. Otherwise data for northern Canada are extrenely sparse until well after WW2. Remember that Air Force Island, 1,700 km2, wasn’t even discovered until 1948.

        “very good records”?

        Incidentally a study of the data from those expeditions searching for Franklin has concluded that climate and ice conditions then were much the same as now:

        https://seagrant.uaf.edu/nosb/2005/resources/arctic-explorers.pdf

    • ” How can they claim the 2nd worst of those 40 years is cause for alarm when they have no idea what happened over the previous 99.6% of the time?”

      I would submit that those getting exercised over arctic sea ice amounts should study the arctic in the 1930’s where there was even less arctic sea ice than there is now. Arguing over where the current year is ranked in the period from 1979 to present is ignoring the fact that it melted more in the 1930’s, and that means nothing unprecedented is happening in the arctic today.

      The alarmists are looking for “unprecedented”. So they turn a blind eye to the past because that’s the only way they can find “unprecedented” in the present

      Here’s a cobbled-together graph of the arctic back to the 1920’s. Do you see anything to get alarmed about today? The arctic has a long way to go today to match the sea ice loss of the 1930’s.

      https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Screen2-Shot-2017-02-14-at-6.17.49-AM.gif.

  39. It looks like decreasing Arctic sea ice trend anomalies are leveling off since 2005 or so as Javier has indicated. Around 2008, the summer melt lows and winter growth highs have become increasingly larger. The high variability usually suggests a change is in the air.
    https://imgur.com/a/3zDQ75Y

    • I’m forced to agree with Griff on this one Renee.

      How do you justify your assertions?

      If you believe the graph you linked to does that please explain your reasoning in words of one syllable or fewer, since I am a bear of very little brain.

    • Renee

      “It looks like decreasing Arctic sea ice trend anomalies are leveling off since 2005 or so”

      I disagree with you as did griff and Jim Hunt.

      The graph you show is perfectly comparable with what everybody can download from colorado.edu, and process using some spreadsheet stuff:

      https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wNtfQi_Td2sKSqCamsvz-iUtuIYSlwMr/view

      Even when looking at the Arctic sea ice area data (100 % pack ice, red), there is no flat trend to see, let alone would the extent data (blue) show what only eye-balling can suggest. To look at running means, averaging the high deviations, is better.

      And the computed trends (in Mkm² / decade) make it even a lot clearer.

      Extent for 1979-2919: -0.55 ± 0.02, for 2007-2019 (Javier’s 12/13 years): -0.45 ± 0.11
      Area for 1979-2919: -0.23 ± 0.02, for 2007-2019: -0.33 ± 0.12

      *
      Average of both for 1979-2919: -0.39 ± 0.02, for 2007-2019: -0.39 ± 0.12

      Maybe you overlooked that Javier actually meant summer ice levels since 2007; that indeed is theoretically correct, but… nicely cherry-picked.

      • OK, thanks for the statistics. What is intriguing in the Arctic sea ice plots are the extreme deviations from 2007-2019 versus the years 1997-2007. Surely different processes are being invoked or amplified. I would be interested in your explanation.

        • Renee (in your comment below): “Surely different processes are being invoked or amplified”

          WR: Different processes and processes that are different in their effect over time. Interesting is the inflow of warm(er) Atlantic subsurface water, flowing under the Arctic ice cover. What happens is visible here: https://climatechangetshirts.org/2017/12/01/atlantification-of-the-trans-siberian-polar-sea/ and is described in the paper by Polyakov et al.: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/356/6335/285.abstract

          That warmer subsurface water makes her trip around the North Pole and diminishes the quantity of sea ice above the warmer than normal subsurface waters. The whole ‘trip around’ takes some 10 – 15 years. At least in the nineties and in the 2000’s huge warm inflows into the Arctic are observed, causing a lower ice cover and an extra melt of sea ice during summer. The extra sea ice melt causes atmospheric changes that enhance the warming effect.

          The atmospheric changes (more pole ward air and ocean water transport) temporarily (if measured over decades) enhance the warming (and later: cooling) processes over the Arctic. All against the background of a slowly warming Earth since the Little Ice Age.

          It is interesting to look at the behavior of sea surface temperatures, indicative for some movements in the oceans. They reflect the chaotic behavior of the oceans. Following the temperature line in this interactive graphic https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/sst/ the peaks and lows do not show the same change in SST patterns. Which means that oceanic behavior has an important chaotic element, resulting in chaotically changing atmospheric patterns that in their turn (by changing wind directions and wind speed and by changing evaporation, rainfall and salinity) change the behavior of the oceans. Very complex.

        • Thinner ice and much less multiyear ice tend to give more mobility and fracturing and therefore more variability due to dispersion etc.

  40. Sea Ice Extent is an absurd metric:

    1) It values 100% concentration the same as 15% concentration. 100% is 6.67 times 15%, so there is at least a 667% difference in the energy transfer between those 2 concentrations. Yet they are valued the same. Of course, the difference is even greater if ice thickness is factored in.
    2) 14% concentration is only 7% less in energy transfer compared to 15%, yet the ocean at 14% concentration (and below) is ignored.

    Why is this considered valid science?

    This image provides an intuitive look at why SIE is absurd: https://imgur.com/bxHeA6w

    Ice volume is a more valuable metric because it shows the real transfer of energy, however, this is modeled, not measured. We get different results from DMI, NSIDC, PSC/UW, etc. So we don’t really know what is going on.

    DMI used to provide a daily update in a text file here (but the file is gone): http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icethickness/txt/IceVol.txt

    Does anyone know where the data can be found now – or did DMI remove public access?

    Here is a graph from May 3, 2019 – which was the last time I updated it.

    https://imgur.com/qKs88pJ

    It looked like the volume was reasonably stable since 2007 based upon that data.

    • William Ward

      1. “Sea Ice Extent is an absurd metric…”

      Maybe! But nobody tells you to solely look at ice extent data, when there is area (aka pack ice) data available as well. It is up to your appreciation to have a closer look at the difference between the two.

      Arctic sea ice extent and area, Jan 1979 – Aug 2019
      https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wNtfQi_Td2sKSqCamsvz-iUtuIYSlwMr/view

      Antarctic sea ice extent and area, Jan 1979 – Aug 2019
      https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ouk-L0BbRNz3ydiYZYiZaLqnZ0U2ql5_/view

      As you can see, floating ice and pack ice are much nearer in the Antarctic region than in the Arctic. NH and SH have few in common.

      2. “… (but the file is gone)”

      Yeah. And DMI’s data recently showed less ice volume loss than that computed by PIOMAS:

      https://drive.google.com/file/d/1oGMi6eNTJ1LNVHPyJuqL0o8ejwiZAQcv/view

      I sent a mail to their Promice group to obtain ASCII data out of the GRACE NetCDF files, and asked for DMI’s ice volume file, but… no answer.

      Rgds
      J.-P. D.

      • J.-P.D (Bindidon) – thanks for the reply.

        Yes, I agree – and I do look at all of the metrics (extent, concentration, thickness, volume), mostly from DMI and NSIDC. The data from these 2 organizations don’t always agree.

        I suppose, if there ever was a good scientific reason to try to capture the “extent,” it was for the concern about albedo. However, it has become the primary (“go-to”) metric for Climate Alarmists and the media. The common narrative is that all of the ice is disappearing and sea-ice-extent is cited in support of that. It only tells part of the story – and I argue it doesn’t tell a very accurate story. 3.9Mkm^2 of extent at 30% concentration has an amount of ice equal to 7.8Mkm^2 of extent at 15% concentration if thickness is ignored.

        From an energy perspective, ice volume tells us the most, as it tells us how much heat is moving from the oceans to the atmosphere. (Making ice warms the atmosphere.) I’m aware of 3 sources of sea ice volume data: DMI, NSIDC and PSC/UW (PIOMAS). My graph from DMI data ( https://imgur.com/qKs88pJ ) shows a very different picture from PIOMAS. DMI shows a relatively stable volume since 2007. PIOMAS shows it going down. The chart you supply confirms that and allows us to easily compare side-by-side. Thanks for sharing it! As I understand it, ice volume is a modeled product – and builds upon estimates of concentration and extent. So (as is typical of Cli-Sci) we take bad data from estimates or instruments that are not capable of delivering the accuracy claimed – and feed it into models that are not verified to work. So I don’t think we have a picture accurate enough to be ranking sea ice by year.

        Cli-Sci has a strange and perverse obsession with assuming how the natural world is supposed to behave. It assumes that the way sea ice forms is supposed to be stable – the same “extent”, thickness, age and volume – year after year. Any and all changes are of course a sign of looming human-caused disaster. If it grows, we are putting too many aerosols in the air. If it shrinks, we are putting too much CO2 in the air. There is very little in the natural world that is constant – yet Cli-Sci operates as if it should be.

        If we think about how ice forms, it requires a significant amount of energy to be extracted from the water and transferred to the atmosphere. The sea ice coverage is an extremely thin shell – from millimeters of ice crystals to at most ~10 feet near the north pole. A very small amount of water is actually involved in this process, relative to the total mass of ocean water in the area of concern. All it takes is faster moving currents or more churning of sea water and that ice formation is disrupted. The same amount of energy may be taken from the water – but it may come from a larger set of water molecules – so fewer molecules transition to ice. Each molecule that transitions from the liquid to the solid state must give up the full energy required by the latent heat of fusion. Similarly, if currents that are slightly warmer are present, then the energy transfer goes to changing temperature more than changing state. It is quite possible – and likely – that the movement of heat from the oceans to the atmosphere is far more constant than visible ice shows. Cli-Sci operates as if it has certainty on something that is very uncertain.

        WW

        Ps – Thanks for the links!

        • WW

          Thanks in turn for your thoughtful reply. I don’t know the expression in English, but Germans name that ‘über den Tellerrand hinweg schauen’.

          “The chart you supply confirms that and allows us to easily compare side-by-side.”

          This one will even do a better job, as you had presented absolute data from DMI:
          https://drive.google.com/file/d/19e7mQLZwM-XAGUdDxpzpb9GZen0Vfw07/view

          What looks to me a bit strange and disturbing is the recent situation in Antarctica. This harsh drop beginning in 2016 is amazing, to say the least. As usual, the absolute plots show much less dramatic, but.

          https://drive.google.com/file/d/1S3gqYa5X2YLYCJrABkLf8TIGFxrGvVuJ/view

          • But just prior to losing a bunch of ice, Antarctica had the highest amount in the satellite record.
            And current levels do not look very different from 1986 or 1979.
            The biggest problem I see is, very little is being done to understand what is happening in any objective way. Everything is tied in to climate change caused by CO2.
            Which obviously cannot explain the pattern we see in Antarctic sea ice over the past several decades.
            Science works poorly when conclusions are arrived at first, and data and hypothesizing is winnowed to comport with that preconception.
            Nobody ever learned anything by making up their mind before asking any questions.
            On another topic,
            I have not seen one in a while, but the last time I did, the graph of total global ice was amazingly consistent over time…more so than either pole alone, IIRC.

          • J.-P.D. (Bindidon) – thanks for the German lesson! Are you in Germany? For years I used to visit Hamburg on business – and liked it very much.

            Thanks for the über den Tellerrand hinweg schauen showing DMI and PIOMAS modeled Arctic sea ice volumes. It is interesting that they both show increasing ice volume over the past 4-7 years. If that is correct, and the decreasing extent is correct, it just shows that the ice is more concentrated in a smaller area – not that we are heading towards being “ice-free.” How is the hysteria justified in light of the data available?

            I have an interesting 5-minute video to share that touches upon Arctic and Antarctic sea ice, before the “satellite era”. The video, titled “Nimbus: Recovering the Past,” discusses the Nimbus Satellites, launched in 1964.

            https://youtu.be/bvGIE1y3cXA

            In addition to other things, these satellites took daily pictures of sea ice through the 1960s and 1970s. The satellites transmitted the information back to ground stations and film was printed to record the images. This data was forgotten until recently. Reels of this film (over 250k images) were found, digitized, and analyzed by NSIDC. In the 1960s, there was more Arctic sea ice, but there were large holes in the ice. The holes were unexpected and we still can’t explain them. In 1964, the Antarctic sea ice extent was the largest ever recorded – more than we had seen in the satellite era up to 2014 (when the video was made). Two years later in 1966, we observed the smallest sea ice extent ever recorded. The earliest maximum sea ice extent was recorded in 1969. So, in the 1960’s we observed a lot of dynamic behavior.

            We also have ship captain’s logbooks that go back to the 1800s with lots of information about changing arctic sea ice conditions. The data may not be of numerical scientific value – but we certainly get empirical evidence that conditions in the Arctic have been changing for a long time and are cyclical.

            Regarding your last chart, I wonder if your fitting algorithm exaggerates the curve over the past 3 years due to the end data. The recent pattern doesn’t appear to deviate much from the previous few decades. If you cut and pasted a few years of data from an upward pattern – as hypothetical future data, I would expect the curve to smooth out. What do you think?

            WW

          • Nick,

            I agree with you about shoehorning all explanations into CO2 causality.

            Your point about total global ice is interesting. It would make sense that heat may flow more to one pole or the other based upon a lot of cyclical factors – but the total heat is the same. It is just where we see it manifest.

          • WW

            Have you looked into the early declassified reconnaissance satellite imagery from the 1960’s and 1970’s? For example the first satellite image ever, from August 8 1960, shows that the sea off Mys Shmidta in Chukotka was then completely ice-free.
            Admittedly the data is very spotty and largely from the summer, but the early (1962-64) mapping missions with KH5 Argon cameras covered very large areas. I remember looking at a single strip image that showed the ice distribution all around Svalbard and Franz Josephs land in great detail.

          • WW

            Those “large holes” (=polynyas) are interesting, because it seems that they may once have occurred in the Arctic as well. They are frequently mentioned in early russian polar literature, e g Uspensky treats them extensively in “Life in high latitudes”.

            However there is little trace of them in the recent satellite record.

          • Bindidon,
            Interesting graph, I had not seen that exact one before.
            I did find a link to a article from here a few years ago by Willis Eschenbach.
            The graphs are a little out of data, but there are several separate ways of projecting and visualizing the data, including a detrended one that is very interesting.
            I am not a huge fan of anomaly graphs, for a couple of reasons.
            While they do exaggerate variations and so make them more readily apparent, I think the way our visual cortex works and processes visual information, such exaggerations may not be letting us quickly understand what we are looking at in a realistic perspective.
            A few tenths of degrees of GAST variation can be made to appear the world is falling off a cliff, or about to melt into the Sun.
            Colored maps can make a small variation in temperature be perceived as a planet which is burnt to a crispy crunch, when in fact most of the globe is much colder than people find comfortable.
            (Case in point…the Pacific Blob…makes water that is so cold it would kill an average person in a few minutes, appear red hot)
            Anywho…here is the article with this charts.
            Maybe someone knows of an updated version of these presentations.

            https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/04/06/the-awful-terrible-horrible-global-sea-ice-crisis/

          • tty,

            Thanks for the comments about polynyas. After you mentioned it, I remembered reading about them some time ago, but didn’t really retain the info. I found this NSIDC article on them: https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/seaice/characteristics/polynyas.html

            In the video about the Nimbus satellite images, the holes they are talking about are in the Arctic Ocean. For some reason, they didn’t refer to them as polynyas. It is interesting that they were occurring in the 1960s when it was colder – but are not occurring in the Arctic now.

            This link reports on a recent study of a polynya in Antarctica spotted in September 2017. The conclusion was that a cyclone led to the formation.

            https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/04/190424102234.htm

            I have not seen the early declassified reconnaissance satellite imagery you mentioned. Do you have a good link to learn more?

      • Thanks for the PolarPortal lead Phil. I had come across that in a Google search, but didn’t actually take the time to learn what it was about until seeing your comment. As Bindidon said – that site doesn’t appear to have raw data available. DMI didn’t have a link to their data from their website – but if you found the directory, the data was available. Perhaps we just have to find where the files are hiding now.

        • William Ward

          “As Bindidon said – that site doesn’t appear to have raw data available.”

          I never said that. I said I saw only NetCDF files, no ASCII stuff.

          The data in a NetCDF data base can be raw raw raw. But it costs you lots of time to extract what you really need out of it, because of the resolution, which can go below 1°.

          • I didn’t mean to misrepresent what you said Bindidon. You mentioned PROMICE, but I thought the site being discussed was Polar Portal. I was looking for the daily Arctic Sea Ice Extent model output (text format). Isn’t PROMICE about the Greenland Ice Sheet (not Arctic Sea Ice)? What am I missing? Thanks.

          • William Ward

            You’re right. You missed nothing!

            The PROMICE links were the only interesting ones, and they indeed have to do with Greenland, especially with the evaluation of GRACE’s gravimetry data, which, though Greenland being an ice sheet on land and no sea ice, shows ‘grosso modo’ the same behavior as the Arctic.

  41. I would like to point out an interesting consequence of the now universal 15 % cutoff for ice.

    It was introduced in 1979, and the odd thing is that before that 10% had been equally universally used. Ten percent intervals is the basis of the international Ball scale still used for ice reporting (0 Ball = less that 10%, 1 Ball=10-19 %), and 10% ice is the limit for sailing ships penetrating ice areas according to Scoresby and contemporaries (who should know), and this is therefore the limit obtained from old logbooks and similar sources.

    The beauty of this is that ice areas before and after 1979 can therefore never be properly compared, and that there was therefore a good excuse for ditching the early satellite data for 1973-78 (which featured in the first IPCC report, but then disappeared without trace). And of course ice maps before 1979 will always show larger areas (10 % cutoff) than maps of similar ice areas after 1978 (15 % cutoff).

    Neat, isn’t it?

    • tty

      Thanks for the valuable info, I didn’t know about this indeed very unlucky decision, but… you are in fact talking about sea ice extent.

      Thus if extent data leaves you unsatisfied, you still might look at sea ice area (100% pack ice), and compare the two.

      Does historical (pre-1979) pack ice data exist?

      • “Does historical (pre-1979) pack ice data exist?”

        Not much. It might be possible to get some out of early Nimbus (weather), Corona and Argon (recce) satellite data back to the early 60’s. Very little older data. Ships for obvious reason never penetrated dense ice in the sailing era and very rarely later. There are data from a few sledging expeditions, a very few ships drifting in the ice, a fair number of “single spot” data from wintering parties and ships, and that is about all.

    • Was any good reason given for changing to 15%? That would seem to be a major change which skews all the previous data. Not something a reasonable person would do lightly, I presume.

  42. Arctic Sea ice has been monitored via satellite prior to 1979. It has been charted in the 1990 IPCC report where the extent was much lower. Cherry picking.

          • First weather satellites were launched in 1960 or 1961, if what I was reading the other day is accurate.
            I do not know what sort of coverage they had.
            Aah, here we go:
            “As early as 1946, the idea of cameras in orbit to observe the weather was being developed. This was due to sparse data observation coverage and the expense of using cloud cameras on rockets. By 1958, the early prototypes for TIROS and Vanguard (developed by the Army Signal Corps) were created.[3] The first weather satellite, Vanguard 2, was launched on February 17, 1959.[4] It was designed to measure cloud cover and resistance, but a poor axis of rotation and its elliptical orbit kept it from collecting a notable amount of useful data. The Explorer VI and VII satellites also contained weather-related experiments.[3]
            The first weather satellite to be considered a success was TIROS-1, launched by NASA on April 1, 1960.[5] TIROS operated for 78 days and proved to be much more successful than Vanguard 2. TIROS paved the way for the Nimbus program, whose technology and findings are the heritage of most of the Earth-observing satellites NASA and NOAA have launched since then. Beginning with the Nimbus 3 satellite in 1969, temperature information through the tropospheric column began to be retrieved by satellites from the eastern Atlantic and most of the Pacific Ocean, which led to significant improvements to weather forecasts.[6]
            The ESSA and NOAA polar orbiting satellites followed suit from the late 1960s onward. Geostationary satellites followed, beginning with the ATS and SMS series in the late 1960s and early 1970s, then continuing with the GOES series from the 1970s onward. Polar orbiting satellites such as QuikScat and TRMM began to relay wind information near the ocean’s surface starting in the late 1970s, with microwave imagery which resembled radar displays, which significantly improved the diagnoses of tropical cyclone strength, intensification, and location during the 2000s and 2010s”

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_satellite

            I think we were keeping a close eye on the Soviets as soon as possible. I wonder if the imagery collected by those has been declassified and might be useful?

          • “I think we were keeping a close eye on the Soviets as soon as possible. I wonder if the imagery collected by those has been declassified and might be useful?”

            It has. The KH4 Corona, KH5 Argon, KH6 Lanyard and the KH8 and KH9 low resolution imagery is declassified. The oldest relevant imagery is from 18 August 1960.

            It is of course very spotty, and is only useful for times and areas with daylight and clear weather.

            The oldest available weather satellite imagery is from 1964.

            The weather satellite imagery has been digitized, the recce satellite imagery has not, as far as I know.

  43. Javier

    I’m not very happy to have had to ‘accuse’ you in a reply to commenter Renee, of cherry-picking! But I couldn’t write different.

    You wrote upthread in a reply to commenter Jim Hunt:

    Facts are stubborn. No summer Arctic sea ice decrease in 12 years. It should be 13 next year.

    Correct!

    The linear estimates of extent and area in the Arctic for the September months in 2007-2018 are as follows (in Mkm²/decade):
    – extent: 0.10 ± 0.41
    – area: 0.09 ± 0.36

    { Let us silently agree to overlook the fact that the 2 sigma are four times the trends, what makes the latter pretty good insignificant 🙂 }

    Thus, when looking at the summer month with the lowest sea ice levels each year, we see that the average trend is even positive, for both extent and area.

    But… let us do the same for the month with the highest sea ice level each year.

    The linear estimates of extent and area in the Arctic for the March months in 2007-2018 are as follows:
    – extent: -0.64 ± 0.25
    – area: -0.63 ± 0.31

    This would be the cherry-picking complementary to yours: the March trends are way below the all month average for 2007-2018 (-0.45 ± 0.11) for sea ice extent, and nearly half of that for sea ice area (-0.33 ± 0.12).

    We could do a similar job by taking more months than simply March and September, btw having a better winter >< summer comparison; but I don't think this would change much.

    Rgds
    J.-P. D.

  44. Question is not “is extent shrinking” over time.

    Question is, is it shrinking faster than would be expected from purely natural drivers?

    If the rate of retreat appears natural, it is a good thing, right? Northwest passage and all that. There are some big up sides to less ice.

    If the rate or retreat is faster than natural, then, we have something different.

    I don’t see anything that says this rate of retreat cannot be totally, or at least nearly totally, natural.

    Thus, interesting, but, not worrying.

  45. I think we can all agree that the June 2010 forecast (and insults) from this Joe Romm piece have not verified.

    https://thinkprogress.org/arctic-death-spiral-naval-postgrad-schools-maslowski-projects-ice-free-fall-by-2016-3-yrs-8451a607c916/

    Careful if you follow the link – stuff there eats up a huge amount of CPU resources.

    Arctic death spiral: Naval Postgrad School’s Maslowski “projects ice-free* fall by 2016 (+/- 3 yrs)”
    But in the land of make-believe, Watts and Goddard say: “Arctic ice extent and thickness nearly identical to what it was 10 years ago.”

    One of the country’s leading experts on the Arctic projects it will be essentially ice-free (in the fall) decades ahead of the projections of the climate models used in the 2007 IPCC report. And that has quite dire implications and consequences for the likely future rate of climate change compared to those models.

    The following chart is from Wieslaw Maslowski of the Naval Postgraduate School in a presentation at the March State of the Arctic Meeting (click to enlarge):

    *This projection is based on a combined model and data trendline focusing on ice volume. By “ice-free,” Maslowski tells me he means more than an 80% drop from the 1979–2000 summer volume baseline of ~200,00 km^3. Some sea ice above Greenland and Eastern Canada may survive into the 2020s (as the inset in his figure shows), but the Arctic as it has been for apparently a million years will be gone.

    In a wondrous land of make-believe, called WattsUpWithThat, two people scour the world for out-of-date databases that they can misinterpret and mislead their readers with. I had noted back on May 24 that As Arctic sea ice shrinks faster than 2007, NSIDC director Serreze says, “I think it’s quite possible” we could “break another record this year” — while Watts and Goddard seem in denial: “We are still about six weeks away from anything interesting happening in the Arctic.”

  46. Two New Papers: Rapid Deceleration Of Greenland Ice-Sheet Melt Since 2013
    https://climatechangedispatch.com/greenland-rapid-deceleration-ice-melt/

    Greenland’s ice sheet mass losses have significantly decelerated since 2013 – a reversal from the rapid retreat from the 1990s to 2012 driven by cloud forcing and the NAO (Ruan et al., 2019).

    The post-2013 “relatively stable” ice sheet even gained mass during 2017-’18 (Andersen et al., 2019).

    Decelerated Greenland Ice Sheet Melt Driven by Positive Summer North Atlantic Oscillation (Ruan et al., 2019)….

    While WUWT is still on top for traffic and honest reporting of science, take note that one of CAGW’s and Michael “I lied about being awarded the Nobel Prize” Mann’s cheerleader supporters and “authenticators” Lefty ThinkProgress website closes, lays off staff.
    https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/09/lefty_thinkprogress_website_closes_lays_off_staff.html

    September 7, 2019
    Lefty ThinkProgress website closes, lays off staff
    By Thomas Lifson
    One of the purported leaders of left-wing online journalism closed its doors yesterday, laying off its unionized staff. Sam Stein reports for the Daily Beast:

    ThinkProgress, the influential news site that rose to prominence in the shadow of the Bush administration and helped define progressivism during the Obama years, is shutting down.

    The outlet, which served as an editorially independent (does that mean void of any requirement to maintain any editorial standards?) project of the Democratic Party think tank Center for American Progress (CAP), will stop current operations on Friday and be converted into a site where CAP scholars can post.

      • Yup. This year’s minimum did just pip out 2007 and 2016 for second lowest. But it’s still way above the 2012 low. Might drop below 4 M sq mi in NSDIC data, but even so yet far from the record.

        IOW, practically no difference between summer minimum in 2007 and 2019.

        • The low years of 2007, 2012 and 2016 were followed by higher years. We’ll see if that happens again in 2020 and 2021. The highest years since 2007 occurred in 2009, 2013 and 2014.

  47. “This will mean drastic changes in the Arctic, with consequences for the climate and ecosystems, as well as for people, including us in Europe,” it’s statements like that that ruin these guys credibility. Just flat out alarmism to scare people. What if an ice free arctic was a good thing? Would any of them ever mention that? Has anyone ever entertained that idea?

    • I for one am absolutely certain that frozen wastelands are not necessary for human survival, and are in fact…frozen wastelands that are all but stripped bare of life and flat out deadly.

Comments are closed.