2019 Arctic Sea Ice Minimum Tied for Second Lowest on Record

From NASA Global Climate Change

2019 Arctic Sea Ice Minimum Tied for Second Lowest on Record

Arctic sea ice likely reached its 2019 minimum extent on Sept. 18. At 1.60 million square miles (4.15 million square kilometers), this year's summertime extent is effectively tied for the second in the satellite record, according to NASA and the National Snow and Ice Data Center. Credit: NASA/Trent Schindler
Arctic sea ice likely reached its 2019 minimum extent on Sept. 18. At 1.60 million square miles (4.15 million square kilometers), this year’s summertime extent is effectively tied for the second in the satellite record, according to NASA and the National Snow and Ice Data Center. Credit: NASA/Trent Schindler

By Maria-José Viñas,
NASA’s Earth Science News Team

The extent of Arctic sea ice at the end of this summer was effectively tied with 2007 and 2016 for second lowest since modern record keeping began in the late 1970s. An analysis of satellite data by NASA and the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) at the University of Colorado Boulder shows that the 2019 minimum extent, which was likely reached on Sept. 18, measured 1.60 million square miles (4.15 million square kilometers).

Arctic sea ice likely reached its 2019 minimum extent on Sept. 18. At 1.60 million square miles (4.15 million square kilometers), this year’s summertime extent is effectively tied for the second in the satellite record, according to NASA and the National Snow and Ice Data Center. Credit: NASA/Trent Schindler. This video can be downloaded at NASA’s Scientific Visualization Studio.

The Arctic sea ice cap is an expanse of frozen seawater floating on top of the Arctic Ocean and neighboring seas. Every year, it expands and thickens during the fall and winter and grows smaller and thinner during the spring and summer. But in the past decades, increasing temperatures have caused marked decreases in the Arctic sea ice extents in all seasons, with particularly rapid reductions in the minimum end-of-summer ice extent.

Changes in Arctic sea ice cover have wide-ranging impacts. The sea ice affects local ecosystems, regional and global weather patterns, and the circulation of the oceans.

“This year’s minimum sea ice extent shows that there is no sign that the sea ice cover is rebounding,” said Claire Parkinson, a climate change senior scientist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland. “The long-term trend for Arctic sea ice extent has been definitively downward. But in recent years, the extent is low enough that weather conditions can either make that particular year’s extent into a new record low or keep it within the group of the lowest.”

An opening in the sea ice cover north of Greenland is partially filled in by much smaller sea ice rubble and floes.
An opening in the sea ice cover north of Greenland is partially filled in by much smaller sea ice rubble and floes, as seen during an Operation IceBridge flight on Sept. 9, 2019. Credit: NASA/Linette Boisvert

The melt season started with a very low sea ice extent, followed by a very rapid ice loss in July that slowed down considerably after mid-August. Microwave instruments onboard United States Department of Defense’s meteorological satellites monitored the changes from space.

“This was an interesting melt season,” said Walt Meier, a sea ice researcher at NSIDC. “At the beginning of August we were at record low ice levels for that time of the year, so a new minimum record low could have been in the offering.

”But unlike 2012, the year with the lowest ice extent on record, which experienced a powerful August cyclone that smashed the ice cover and accelerated its decline, the 2019 melt season didn’t see any extreme weather events. Although it was a warm summer in the Arctic, with average temperatures 7 to 9 degrees Fahrenheit (4 to 5 degrees Celsius) above what is normal for the central Arctic, events such as this year’s severe Arctic wildfire season or European heat wave ended up not having much impact on the sea ice melt.

“By the time the Siberian fires kicked into high gear in late July, the Sun was already getting low in the Arctic, so the effect of the soot from the fires darkening the sea ice surface wasn’t that large,” Meier said. “As for the European heat wave, it definitely affected land ice loss in Greenland and also caused a spike in melt along Greenland’s east coast, but that’s an area where sea ice is being transported down the coast and melting fairly quickly anyway.”

0 0 votes
Article Rating
153 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Jeff Alberts
September 27, 2019 10:42 pm

“2019 Arctic Sea Ice Minimum Tied for Second Lowest on Record”

And I’m STILL having trouble caring.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
September 27, 2019 11:57 pm

2007 to 2019 with no change in summer ice extent. And I should panic? Where has all this increased CO2 gone in the meantime?

Reply to  Dave Fair
September 28, 2019 1:28 am

Twelve years apart. I wonder if that relates to anything external?
Can’t be sunspots as the last minimum was 2009.
https://climate4you.com/Sun.htm#Recent%20sunspot%20activity
Maybe Arctic sea-ice minima drive sunspots instead?
( I’ll get my coat).

Greg
Reply to  Leo Smith
September 28, 2019 5:38 am

Indeed, the snippet of climate record we have from the satellite era would be roughly consistent with a circa 60y cycle lagging about 5y behind AMO. As would historic reports of more open waters in the earlier part of 20th c.

We are only entering the second bump of this pattern now so we may have to put up with more wailing for another ten years or so before we start screaming about the coming “ice age” again. Not looking forward to winters like the late 50s early 60s when I’m getting old and feeble.

Greg Goodman
Reply to  Philip Mulholland
September 28, 2019 2:39 am

The interval is not interesting unless you have several similar one.

What is amazing is that after 12 years of no overall change, they try to claim that this is a “continuation of the downward trend”. 12y of no change is formal, observational proof that there is NO overall positive feedback, runaway warming etc. the death spiral is dead.

What is even worse is they are still pumping the naive ” less ice more melting” argument with their mickey mouse infographics. At 1:29 in the video we see them trying to explain this with solar rays striking the water at about 10 degree from vertical rather than 10 degrees from the horizontal. Have any of these fools ever even been to the Arctic about which they consider themselves expert?

Reply to  Greg Goodman
September 28, 2019 3:48 am

“At 1:29 in the video we see them trying to explain this with solar rays striking the water at about 10 degree from vertical rather than 10 degrees from the horizontal”

Greg,
Good catch, and thanks for watching the video so I don’t have to.

One of my pass-times is watching for the stupidity of film makers when they try and portray the natural world. Amongst my favourites are the BBC with a graphic of the moon shadow approaching the coast of Queensland Australia from the east when discussing a total eclipse. Well the sun does rise in the east doesn’t it?
Another one is the common use of sun shots over the ocean made to run backwards so the sun either rises and climbs to the left. (Poldark, Cornwall). Or for good measure, a shot in which the sun descends to the left (Vera , North Sea, that was you). They obviously take great care to avoid having seabirds flying backwards in the shot, far easier than getting up before dawn and filming the real thing, or much worse recognising that in Northumberland the sun never sets over the sea!
Then there was the classic from the Last Kingdom. The Vikings and the Saxons were due to meet on the first Wodensday after New Moon. The screen setting shot had a view of the moon on the horizon lit on the left side. Yes a waning moon straight after New Moon, really?

Fake reality created to match fake narratives, they are very good at it.

Reply to  Greg Goodman
September 28, 2019 4:25 am

It is “inconvenient” that their data varies from the Danish Meteorological Institute data, which shows the “extent” as third lowest, with both 2007 and 2012 lower, and shows that north of 80 degrees latitude temperatures were at or below normal. The simple fact of the matter is that the “death spiral” theory has failed to prove itself true. In terms of cause-and-effect, we have not seen the cause have the effect the hypothesis suggested we should be seeing by now.

Despite the fact the theory has crashed and burned, I noticed Mark Serreze, who once described the arctic as “screaming”, was flattered with yet another award last summer. One can have little doubt Mark has done a good job of attracting grants and awards and funds to his school from the Swamp. But that has almost nothing to do with Truth.

https://sunriseswansong.wordpress.com/2019/09/20/arctic-sea-ice-a-denier-pride-parade/

MarkW
Reply to  Greg Goodman
September 28, 2019 10:35 am

Is there any place in the world where there is both sea ice and has the sun’s rays coming in at 10 degrees from the vertical?

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Greg Goodman
September 28, 2019 11:47 pm

Note that according to DMI, the ice volume has already increased by over 1 million square kilometers barely a week after the low around 5 msk was reached.
Personally, I do not trust the numbers from NASA one tiny bit.
I am 100% sure they would tweak their algorithms to make it seem like there is less ice than there actually is.
The fact that none of these numbers includes any range of uncertainty, even though different organizations show large differences in the amounts and extent of ice, means that all of these numbers have to be taken as very rough approximations.
Hence any claims of “lowest ever” are just the latest example of unjustifiable confidence in the measurement resolution.
A lot of ice can form very quickly, and at this point I would bet money that ice will begin increasing year over year and be above the average by the next solar maximum.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Greg Goodman
September 28, 2019 11:48 pm
Greg
Reply to  Philip Mulholland
September 28, 2019 3:19 am

2007 and 2019 are 12years apart but 2012, the actual lowest on record in right in the middle , so that pretty much blows that idea out of the water.

CPOM ice volume extracted from Cryosat2 data ( the only actual measurement of ice volume we have ) shows a steady increase in the minimum since record started in 2011.

https://climategrog.wordpress.com/cpom_arctic_ice_vol_mths_2019-2/

Somehow NASA get away with reporting no change in 12y as “continued decline”.

Newminster
Reply to  Greg
September 28, 2019 4:57 am

And I’m waiting for someone to tell me for definite what the “normal” temperature of “the Arctic” is. Hand-waving is not scientific!

ATheoK
Reply to  Greg
September 28, 2019 5:05 am

“Greg September 28, 2019 at 3:19 am

Somehow NASA get away with reporting no change in 12y as “continued decline”

N.B. NASA’s whole Arctic propaganda hypes the sea ice low.
Nothing was mentioned about the entire year’s sea ice growth and size over the entire year.

“This year’s minimum sea ice extent shows that there is no sign that the sea ice cover is rebounding,” said Claire Parkinson, a climate change senior scientist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland. “The long-term trend for Arctic sea ice extent has been definitively downward. But in recent years, the extent is low enough that weather conditions can either make that particular year’s extent into a new record low or keep it within the group of the lowest.”

Why are NASA and NSIDC hyping and pushing a declining Arctic sea ice storyline?
Government agencies should not be supporting such falsehoods.

Meier even admits the prior Arctic sea ice low was caused by weather, not climate. And he makes it rather clear that the alleged ice experts were praying for more Arctic storms.

Greg
Reply to  Greg
September 28, 2019 5:59 am

shows that there is no sign that the sea ice cover is rebounding,” said Claire Parkinson

I think the technical term for that is lying by omission. There has been a short term recovery since 2012 min. and a 65% yearly increase in 2013, they forgot to tell everyone about after the fuss they made in 2012. But that weather, not climate.

However, no net change in over a decade is certainly noteworthy change from the alleged “runaway melting ” between 1997 and 2007 the media have bombarded us with. If a decade of melting is a climate crisis, a decade of not melting is salvation.

Trying to hide this fact by saying there is no rebound is deliberate misdirection.

Still harping on about supposed “feedback loop” of albedo changes when 12y of data is inconsistent with that being a major determining factor is deliberate misdirection.

Greg
Reply to  Greg
September 28, 2019 6:12 am

Video soundtrack:

“2019 continues the downward trend of the extent”

One year cannot reverse a 40y trend in any direction but it is the most recent in a run of 7 years which have continually reduced the overall downward trend. Since the record started at the high point you’d need to totally regain all that melted ice volume before they would even admit the longer term trend is zero.

We have over 40 years of daily ice data. To reduce all that to one scalar quantity is not informative. Pretending the “trend” is the most important thing we need to know is deliberate misdirection.

Why don’t they tell use the good news that there has been no net loss in the last 12 years? Oh, that may affect their funding and make it look less urgent that we destroy our way of like.

Matt G
Reply to  Philip Mulholland
September 28, 2019 5:48 am

Can’t be sunspots as the last minimum was 2009.

The minimum when it occurs in such context is irrelevant because it depends on generally low solar activity.

Why it can be low solar activity?

Low solar activity occurs years before the minimum in 2009 just like it had until 2019.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/sidc-ssn/from:2004

During low solar activity the Walker circulation being generally weak promotes El Nino’s that provide more energy in the lower atmosphere that eventually moves from the Tropics towards the Arctic ocean and polar region. This will help lower Arctic sea ice than increase it and seasonal weather causes it to vary on a yearly basis.

Reply to  Matt G
September 29, 2019 2:05 am

“Why it can be low solar activity?”

Matt G,
My observation was clearly a tease, hence “I’ll get my coat”.
The issue is coincidence or correlation?
For correlation to be true the initiating cause must precede any subsequent event.
My purpose was to establish the correct event sequence that permits correlation to be true.
You’re response of the Walker Circulation brings science to the table.
Thanks to that suggestion we now have a useful mechanism to investigate.

KcTaz
Reply to  Philip Mulholland
September 28, 2019 12:04 pm

Greenland Ice Sheet surface mass budget far, far higher than average
http://bit.ly/2IlXKlo
December 28, 2018

The best information we have about Greenland comes from a study in the journal Nature, estimating Greenland’s ice losses between 1900 – 2010. Using current ice volume estimates from USGS, we calculate the ice mass in 2010 was between 99.5% – 99.8% of what it was in 1900. Ice melt from Greenland in the 111 years contributed 0.6 – 1.3 inches to SLR. It would take over 1,300 years of melting to yield 12 inches of SLR from Greenland if we ignore natural variability and the cyclical nature of ice volume and assume the melt rate continues uninterrupted.
The average annual inland temperature in Antarctica is -57 °C and most coastal stations average -5 °C to -15 °C. The much talked about Western Antarctica averages several degrees below 0 °C. Southern Greenland does experience summer temperatures above 0 °C and seasonal melting. Northern Greenland stays below 0 °C even in the summer months, and the average annual inland temperatures are -20 °C to -30 °C. The temperatures in Greenland and Antarctica are not warm enough to support significant rapid ice melt….

Rob
Reply to  Dave Fair
September 28, 2019 7:48 am

Looking desperately for another pause now the surface temperature invocation at the start of his century has disappeared? The ice decline trend is down and volume is at its lowest (more reliable and accurate metric). This would happen in any warming scenario doesn’t need the human-induced one only.

charles nelson
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
September 28, 2019 12:34 am

It migrated to Greenland which gained ice mass.

TheFinalNail
Reply to  charles nelson
September 28, 2019 2:06 am

charles nelson

It migrated to Greenland which gained ice mass.

Do you have a citation for that claim please? According to NSIDC, in the 2019 melt season Greenland has lost over 250 billion tons of ice from melt runoff alone. That figure doesn’t include ice lost from the outflow of glaciers: http://nsidc.org/greenland-today/

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  TheFinalNail
September 28, 2019 7:35 am

“According to NSIDC, in the 2019 melt season Greenland has lost over 250 billion tons of ice from melt runoff alone.”

Which isn’t even a drop in a swimming pool.

KcTaz
Reply to  TheFinalNail
September 28, 2019 11:43 am

FINAL NAIL,

Context is everything.

Cold Water Currently Slowing Fastest Greenland Glacier MARCH 25, 2019

https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=7356#.XVn_BIFjSx8.twitter

Greenland has about 3,000,000,000,000,000 tons of ice. About 0.000007% of Greenland’s ice has melted this year.

You’re only fooling people addicted to your picked cherries. Wild extrapolation panic is a bad habit. You should cut back.
(link: https://twitter.com/stevesgoddard/status/1157311464664752135?s=21)
twitter.com/stevesgoddard/…

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/08/12/greenlands-record-temperature-denied-the-data-was-wrong/
August 12, 2019
Greenland’s ‘Record Temperature’ denied – the data was wrong
August 12, 2019
From the “But, but, wait! Our algorithms can adjust for that!” department comes this tale of alarmist woe. Greenland’s all-time record temperature wasn’t a record at all, and it never got above freezing there.
http://bit.ly/33zJtsI

KCtaz
Reply to  TheFinalNail
September 28, 2019 11:48 am

TheFinal Nail,
Re Greenland,
Numerous Studies Confirm Geothermal Heat Melting Greenland Ice Sheet
Published on July 26, 2019
http://bit.ly/2Ooy9ft

If CO2 were a person, they sue you for slander.

Bindidon
Reply to  KCtaz
September 28, 2019 12:43 pm

KCtaz

“Numerous Studies Confirm Geothermal Heat Melting Greenland Ice Sheet”

You present a typical ‘Principia-(Un?)Scientific’ stuff.
You have to first read all what they refer to, before publishing the link to their ‘info’.

Just an example:

In the central part of the island, the team estimated geothermal heat flux values around 60 to 70 milliwatts per meter squared, or up to 50 percent higher than the heat escaping parts of the island not affected by the plume. This is a tiny amount; a 100-watt light bulb, by comparison, generates three orders of magnitude – or 1,000 times – more heat.

Still, said Martos and her co-authors, the heat they found can melt ice at the base of the Greenland Ice Sheet. It does not, however, contribute to the accelerated melting of Greenland’s glaciers. Because the geothermal heat declines over such huge periods of time — tens of millions of years – there has likely been no change in heat flux since the ice fully formed on Greenland about 3 million years ago.

I didn’t look at the the two other links.
Why?

Iggie
Reply to  KCtaz
September 28, 2019 1:45 pm

http://polarportal.dk/en/greenland/surface-conditions/

Up and down, up and down. Around normal, I’d say.

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  TheFinalNail
September 28, 2019 12:52 pm

250 cu km in 5m cu km is a rounding error and cannot be considered significant. I do not believe they can measure the ice volume to a precision of one part in twenty thousand.

KcTaz
Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
September 29, 2019 1:39 am

Bindidon,

The principia article is a report on other studies and links are provided. I’m not sure what your problem is with Principia but your criticism is invalid, certainly in relation to this article.
From the article;
“Yet another major research study, five if you’re counting, has concluded that accelerated melting at the base of Greenland’s glacial ice sheet is from anomalously high geothermal heat.
[High heat flow, according to the combined areas of the four previous studies (NASA, Aarhus University, University of Kansas, University of Maryland), is present beneath 50% of the world’s second-largest ice sheet as shown in Figure 2 (cross-hatched red).”
You chose to look at one, the NASA study. You should have looked at the others before opining.
This discovery and science is in its infancy. NASA has a well-known bias towards AGW. It is foolish to only look at their one study.
From the Principia article;
The  University of Maryland study concludes;
We assume that the basal melt rate is constant over the interval considered. We do not include the possibility that some of the heating is a more recent phenomenon. If the melt was initiated only a few hundred years ago, the initial age-depth relation would have reflected a more rapid thinning rate based on the Dansgaard-Johnsen model. It would be this age-depth relation that would be the start- ing point for the slower thinning under a Nye-with-melt regime. This would result in a best-fit solution that would under-predict the actual melt rate.
Within these limits, we have identified rapid and extensive basal melting in Green- land that has a direct effect on ice flow. The source of the high heat flow is not well constrained, but limited geophysical evidence suggests the presence of a caldera structure…

Hugs
Reply to  charles nelson
September 28, 2019 2:15 am

Joke yes, but Greenland did not really gain mass. What is interesting though, is that googling greenland total mass balance 2019 will not give you the number on top.

Chaswarnertoo
September 27, 2019 11:04 pm

So expect to see record freezing as all the artic ocean’s heat has now been lost to space. Those undersea volcanoes must have been firing up again.

joe
September 27, 2019 11:09 pm

Two million years ago there was a beaver pond on Ellesmere Island.

https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/ellesmere-island-pliocene-fossils

I wonder what the Arctic I’ve was like then?

Perhaps the next global climate change gathering could take place on Ellesmere instead of Glasgow? The delegates could ponder beavers that far north (must have been warmer) and ponder that life still exists on this planet.

Delegates please take Greta with you. But she can travel by dog sled.

davidmhoffer
Reply to  joe
September 27, 2019 11:30 pm

Delegates please take Greta with you.

Its really just a party. Much gets said, nothing gets done, and sometimes the host country runs out of hookers. Who would want to take Gloomy Greta to that?

Reply to  joe
September 27, 2019 11:40 pm

Eureka, Nunavut, CA
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Eureka,+NU,+Canada/@79.9896928,-85.944483

Eureka is a small research base on Fosheim Peninsula, Ellesmere Island, Qikiqtaaluk Region, in the Canadian territory of Nunavut. It is located on the north side of Slidre Fiord, which enters Eureka Sound farther west. It is the third-northernmost permanent research community in the world.

September 27, 2019 11:19 pm

In other words, the Alarmists were deeply disappointed. They were without a doubt rooting for a new minimum. A strong El Nino in 2016, then a mild El Nino this summer, all their hopes were up.
Yet with the final disappearance of El Nino in August it means it’s all “up” from here.
The window for the Arctic Sea Ice scam is now closed. The Climate Hustlers will have to wait another 25-30 years now.

Can you see my crocodile tears??

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
September 28, 2019 7:45 am

They were without a doubt rooting for a new minimum. A strong El Nino in 2016, then a mild El Nino this summer,

Yup, and that strong El Nino in 2016 was what caused a record increase (of the yearly average increase) of +3.76 ppm in atmospheric CO2 ….. that resulted in the mid-May (5) YTD high of 407.72 ppm.
NOAA’s MLH source ftp://aftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/products/trends/co2/co2_mm_mlo.txt

Note: a strong El Nino will cause the “average yearly increase in CO2” to increase, …. whereas a strong La Nina will cause the “average yearly increase in CO2” to decrease.

William Astley
Reply to  Samuel C Cogar
September 28, 2019 9:07 am

What is interesting is there is something physical, all over the planet, that leads the El Nino events.

There is an observed 200% increase in mid-ocean earthquake frequency (entire world) that leads the El Nino event by two years.

The start of the increase in the mid-ocean earthquake 1994-1995 correlates with a planetary reduction in cloud cover. Prior to this change there was 99% correlation between GCR and planetary cloud changes.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  William Astley
September 28, 2019 2:24 pm

[Astley], you neglected to explain your belief that La Ninas are caused by a 198% increase in mid-ocean asteroid and meteorite strikes that have also been destroying off-shore oil platforms and wind turbines.

And worse yet, I hear that that influx of asteroid and meteorite strikes have been killing millions of migrating birds trying to get to their nesting grounds, leaving the ocean water covered in feathers.

[?? .mod]

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  William Astley
September 28, 2019 2:58 pm

William Astley, …… here ya go, …..lets see if you can explain these CO2 numbers, to wit:

Maximum to Minimum yearly CO2 ppm data – 1979 to May 2019
Source: NOAA’s Mauna Loa Monthly Mean CO2 data base
@ ftp://aftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/products/trends/co2/co2_mm_mlo.txt

CO2 “Max” ppm – mid-May (5) … CO2 “Min” ppm – end of Sept (9)

year mth “Max” _ yearly increase ____ mth “Min” ppm
1979 _ 6 _ 339.20 …. + …… __________ 9 … 333.93
1980 _ 5 _ 341.47 …. +2.27 _________ 10 … 336.05
1981 _ 5 _ 343.01 …. +1.54 __________ 9 … 336.92
1982 _ 5 _ 344.67 …. +1.66 __________ 9 … 338.32
1983 _ 5 _ 345.96 …. +1.29 _________ 9 … 340.17
1984 _ 5 _ 347.55 …. +1.59 __________ 9 … 341.35
1985 _ 5 _ 348.92 …. +1.37 _________ 10 … 343.08
1986 _ 5 _ 350.53 …. +1.61 _________ 10 … 344.47
1987 _ 5 _ 352.14 …. +1.61 __________ 9 … 346.52
1988 _ 5 _ 354.18 …. +2.04 __________ 9 … 349.03
1989 _ 5 _ 355.89 …. +1.71 La Nina __ 9 … 350.02
1990 _ 5 _ 357.29 …. +1.40 __________ 9 … 351.28
1991 _ 5 _ 359.09 …. +1.80 __________ 9 … 352.30
1992 _ 5 _ 359.55 …. +0.46 Pinatubo _ 9 … 352.93
1993 _ 5 _ 360.19 …. +0.64 __________ 9 … 354.10
1994 _ 5 _ 361.68 …. +1.49 __________ 9 … 355.63
1995 _ 5 _ 363.77 …. +2.09 _________ 10 … 357.97
1996 _ 5 _ 365.16 …. +1.39 _________ 10 … 359.54
1997 _ 5 _ 366.69 …. +1.53 __________ 9 … 360.31
1998 _ 5 _ 369.49 …. +2.80 El Niño __ 9 … 364.01
1999 _ 4 _ 370.96 …. +1.47 La Nina ___ 9 … 364.94
2000 _ 4 _ 371.82 …. +0.86 La Nina ___ 9 … 366.91
2001 _ 5 _ 373.82 …. +2.00 __________ 9 … 368.16
2002 _ 5 _ 375.65 …. +1.83 _________ 10 … 370.51
2003 _ 5 _ 378.50 …. +2.85 _________ 10 … 373.10
2004 _ 5 _ 380.63 …. +2.13 __________ 9 … 374.11
2005 _ 5 _ 382.47 …. +1.84 __________ 9 … 376.66
2006 _ 5 _ 384.98 …. +2.51 __________ 9 … 378.92
2007 _ 5 _ 386.58 …. +1.60 __________ 9 … 380.90
2008 _ 5 _ 388.50 …. +1.92 La Nina _ 10 … 382.99
2009 _ 5 _ 390.19 …. +1.65 _________ 10 … 384.39
2010 _ 5 _ 393.04 …. +2.85 El Niño __ 9 … 386.83
2011 _ 5 _ 394.21 …. +1.17 La Nina _ 10 … 388.96
2012 _ 5 _ 396.78 …. +2.58 _________ 10 … 391.01
2013 _ 5 _ 399.76 …. +2.98 __________ 9 … 393.51
2014 _ 5 _ 401.88 …. +2.12 __________ 9 … 395.35
2015 _ 5 _ 403.94 …. +2.06 __________ 9 … 397.63
2016 _ 5 _ 407.70 …. +3.76 El Niño __ 9 … 401.03
2017 _ 5 _ 409.65 …. +1.95 __________ 9 … 403.38
2018 _ 5 _ 411.24 …. +1.59 __________9 … 405.51
2019 _ 5 _ 414.66 …. +3.42 __________9 … 408.50

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  William Astley
September 29, 2019 6:24 am

And ps, …… most learned intelligent people are simply amazed and flabbergasted that the avid proponents of CAGW (CO2 causing anthropogenic global warming) actually infer/profess belief that the above noted bi-yearly (seasonal) “steady and consistent” changes in CO2 ppm is directly the result of green biomass seasonal changes in the Northern Hemisphere …… as well as the seemingly random quantity changes in the annual increases in atmospheric CO2.

Me thinks one surely has to be looking through “rose colored glasses” to see what they think they are claiming they see.

Jeff
Reply to  Samuel C Cogar
September 28, 2019 12:20 pm

Any evidence CO2 causes any measurable warming? Or cooling from lack there of? Thanks.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Jeff
September 29, 2019 4:35 am

Bout the only time CO2 causes any measurable warming is when it is pressurized and changes from a gas to a liquid, …….. and conversely, it produces cooling when it changes from a liquid to a gas.

Chris
September 27, 2019 11:19 pm

No mention of the North Atlantic Oscillation and the current phase it’s in and it’s impacts on ice extent.

griff
Reply to  Chris
September 28, 2019 10:00 am

That’s right: because it isn’t the AO causing this, is it?

J Mac
September 27, 2019 11:42 pm

Meh. More catastrophic linear thinking in a naturally cyclical world.
Regardless, I’m cool with a little warming, as compared to deepening cold.

Editor
September 27, 2019 11:43 pm

Since satellite records began in 1979?

One of the top hits of that year was ‘Hot stuff’ by Donna Summer.’ Who knew that the eerily named Summer had access to early climate models and predicted the shape of things to come in the arctic.? If that doesn’t convince sceptics, nothing will.

Or perhaps sceptics might remember that song and the other top hit YMCA by the Village people and say it seems like only yesterday, and in the terms of the age of the Holocene that the last 40 years is merely the blink of an eye and proves little

Arachanski
Reply to  tonyb
September 28, 2019 12:43 am

There were Nimbus satellites before 1979. Of course, ice extent was higher back in the 1960s than in in 1979, so they wouldn’t want to mention it.

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

steve case
Reply to  tonyb
September 28, 2019 1:53 am

Here’s a short graphica history of sea ice extent via the five IPCC Assessment reports:
comment image
Looks to me like an original upward trend was adjusted until a downward trend was produced.

griff
Reply to  tonyb
September 28, 2019 10:02 am

Well in fact there are excellent collated records from all sources back to 1860.

and this is lower that the 30s/40s and lower than any other year in that record apart from 2012.

and it didn’t even have a ‘great storm’ like 2012

HotScot
Reply to  griff
September 29, 2019 1:41 am

griff

They had satellites back in 1860?

Well I never.

JEHILL
September 27, 2019 11:45 pm

It’s the 2nd lowest that we’ve been able to measure with any confidence. I am having a hard time getting my feathers ruffled over this news.

To my mind when the continents were in different positions there was no sea ice.

Besides the melting ice is either taking energy out of the atmosphere and/or the oceans are moving energy from the tropics or some equilibrium depending on a myriad of I/O vectors.

MarkW
Reply to  JEHILL
September 28, 2019 10:41 am

The extra energy that enters the water from sunlight is very minimal given the low angle of the sun, even during summer.
On the other hand, given the extremely low humidity of arctic air, losing the ice means losing the insulating layer which means that heat from the oceans has a short path to space.

Sunny
September 27, 2019 11:47 pm

So everything is normal? Ice melts, and refreezes? Why is the record only back to 2007?

Sunny
September 27, 2019 11:52 pm

Can anybody explain this please, I saw it posted on a forum, and it was posted to scare everybody….
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/feb/10/plummeting-insect-numbers-threaten-collapse-of-nature

Susan
Reply to  Sunny
September 28, 2019 1:48 am

I seem to remember that some senior entomologists subsequently criticised this study heavily, not least for it’s alarmist tone. I can’t cite it but an online search might find it.

TonyL
Reply to  Sunny
September 28, 2019 1:59 am

The “Sixth Mass Extinction” is all you need to see. It is the latest scare from the enviro crowd. It consists of part frantic and frenetic cherry picking of data, and part outright fabrications. Maybe some time WUWT will run a couple of main posts on the subject and some biologists will weigh in.

On a somewhat related note concerning insect species extinction:
The background:
Biologists use the well known classification system we all learned.
Kingdom-Phylum-Class-Order-Family-Genus-Species.
There has always been a tug-of-war between the “Lumpers” and the “Dividers”. The “lumpers” tend to group closely related populations to keep the classification system clean and useful. The “dividers” want to create as many species as they can. Possibly because you get naming rights of a new species and, of course, discovery bragging rights. For example, a “divider” might look at two breeds of the common dog such as the Chihuahua and the Border Collie, and declare they are separate species. They would go on endlessly about “genetic differences” (well duh!) and different geographical ranges. The Chihuahua in Mexico and Central America, the Border Collie in Scotland and Ireland. Then they will solemnly intone that if they are not really separate species now, they will be because the populations are separated from each other.
All in all this was just intramural debate in the Biology community, and nobody really cared.

Now We Weaponize It:
We have a common tropical spider. It lives on a dozen or more islands in the Caribbean from the Virgin Islands in the north, down the island chain through Guadeloupe, St. Lucia, St Vincent, Grenada, and beyond. Quite a nice range, actually.
Weaponize!
Declare that each population on each island is unique. Insist that each separate population is isolated from all the others. Therefor each population is a separate species!
What have you done?
You have taken one common species, and turned it into a dozen or more species. Better, all the new species have extremely limited range. Each of the dozen species is endemic to one island only. They are Threatened, they are Endangered. They must be Protected. If you can get an “Endangered Species” ruling, you can turn that island’s environmental protection laws against it. Then you can shut down any and all economic development you do not like. You can also stop any current ongoing activities you do not like. Farming, perhaps.
Best of all, you get a dozen different chances on a dozen different islands.

Bonus Points:
You have created a dozen new Endangered Species as grist for all the activist groups out there. Especially, this is a dozen more species to tally up for “The Sixth Mass Extinction”. So this brings right back to our starting point. This is just one of the games that people play, that we need to be aware of.

michael hart
Reply to  TonyL
September 28, 2019 5:24 am

“The “Sixth Mass Extinction” is all you need to see. It is the latest scare from the enviro crowd. It consists of part frantic and frenetic cherry picking of data, and part outright fabrications. Maybe some time WUWT will run a couple of main posts on the subject and some biologists will weigh in.”

Willis Eschenbach gave an excellent talk about this in 2015. Available on YouTube:

Rob
Reply to  michael hart
September 28, 2019 7:58 am

A masseuse is now an expert scientist? Since when? Try science: We, hômô sapiens sapiens, are conducting the largest mass extinction since the K-T boundary event that led to the extinction of the Dinosauria. This doesn’t even consider the human-made effects of climate change and terrestrial terraforming (expanding human population, pollution, and strip-mining) that is making this world unlivable – soon for us as well. (DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.1400253).

Rob
Reply to  TonyL
September 28, 2019 7:55 am

It is not about natural extinction. This is human-made extinction. We are usurping the entirety of the planet’s resources at an accelerating rate. We are destroying habitats to which the native flora and fauna cannot possibly ‘evolve’ quickly enough to adapt. And we are extracting flora and fauna for food or as pests to the point of making the near-eradication of the plains buffalo seem like ‘killing off a few’ (millions of buffalo were hunted simply for their fur and hides in the 1800s). We, hômô sapiens sapiens, are conducting the largest mass extinction since the K-T boundary event that led to the extinction of the Dinosauria. This doesn’t even consider the human-made affects of climate change and terrestrial terraforming (expanding human population, pollution, and strip-mining) that is making this world unlivable – soon for us as well. (DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.1400253). Too many people. We need policies that promote birth control and offer free or low cost vasectomies and tubal ligation – possibly should even consider financial incentives.

B d Clark
Reply to  Rob
September 29, 2019 7:20 am

Yet you cant show any climate change can you rob,for 40 years we have been told we are all going to die because of CAGW,nothing has happened, except people like you yet again pushing the time line further into the future,another 12 years is it rob till we all die, what after that rob another 12 years! It’s not climate change rob its global warming the IPCC mandate has not changed,there failed models are all based on temperature,changing the narrative does not change the fact that a little rise in atmospheric c02 shows no warming theres no correlation and causation to a warmer planet,there is simply no linear rise in earths temps,the nature of earths temps are cyclical,since the last significant le Nino 2016 we have seen a drop in world temps,even that is cyclical in nature,with a downward trend since 2016,your religion is based on models and predictions that have never come true ,even with the manipulation of the raw data,to prove a prediction into the future for 40 years,nothing has been observed, that’s why rob you cant show anything observerd only a religious belief in a prediction, another religious blind spot you demonstrate is totally ignoring the observed data that’s shown on this site, that’s called ignorance and arrogance. Your doom and gloom religion fails in the most simplistic scrutiny and shows in rigourous scrutiny a pack of lies and manipulation of climate data.

icisil
Reply to  Sunny
September 28, 2019 5:08 am

“The total mass of insects is falling by a precipitous 2.5% a year, according to the best data available, suggesting they could vanish within a century.”

What an idiotic statement. Anyone who has worked outside much knows that there are two things that will never disappear – insects and weed seeds.

brians356
Reply to  icisil
September 28, 2019 5:51 am

There was a study in a forest plot recently. The plot was only a few acres, surrounded on three sides by farms that used pesticides. The insect population declined. What a surprise. They extrapolated that to signs of a global mass extinction.

John Q Public
Reply to  icisil
September 28, 2019 11:16 am

Maybe it’s all the windmills.

KcTaz
Reply to  John Q Public
September 28, 2019 12:41 pm

You may well be correct, John.

German study on the tonnes of insects killed by wind turbines. October 2018.
https://docs.wind-watch.org/Interference-of-Flying-Insects-and-Wind-Parks.pdf …
German study, wind farms in Germany alone kill 1500 tons yearly, of insects, disrupting food chain,

brians356
Reply to  Sunny
September 28, 2019 5:43 am

Uh, Paul Ehrlich is quoted in that article. Sooo …

KcTaz
Reply to  Sunny
September 28, 2019 12:24 pm

Sunny, it’s The Guardian. They are a propaganda arm of the AGW/CC crowd. They even admit it on every web page. Just scroll to the bottom of any article.
That said, the study may have a point about insects but not for the reasons they give.

German study on the tonnes of insects killed by wind turbines. October 2018.
https://docs.wind-watch.org/Interference-of-Flying-Insects-and-Wind-Parks.pdf …

German study, wind farms in Germany alone kill 1500 tons yearly, of insects, disrupting food chain…
Of course, the “Greens” would rather see insects disappear than admit wind farms are the Prime Suspects.

nobodysknowledge
September 28, 2019 12:04 am

I saw some fishermen from Greenland saying that this was the best year ever. There was less ice in the ocean, it was warmer, and it was more fish. They were really glad.

Dave Fair
Reply to  nobodysknowledge
September 28, 2019 12:11 am

Please wake me up when someone notices a change in the climate over the last 100 years.

frankclimate
September 28, 2019 12:11 am

Walt Meier talks about the weather in the melting saison. IMO this is not the best way to understand the dynamics of the decreasing arctic sea ice. With the dataset of JAXA I calculated the extentloss over the available years 2003-2019. This gives this figure:
comment image
In the last 7 years the loss from the 1st of April to the mid september is fairly constant. When making a forecast in April about the minimum extent it ‘s easy: Subtract 9.1 +-0.15 Mio km² from the extent on the 1st of April and you are well in the ballpark. IMO it’s not likely that the weather in the melting saison was so similiar in the years 2013… 2019! The bump between 2007 and 2012 could be the influence of the AMO+ switching. It follows that the arctic sea decreasing sea ice is more an issue of the winter, not the weather in the melting saison.

Chaamjamal
September 28, 2019 12:18 am

September Arctic sea ice extent second lowest.

AGW did that?

https://tambonthongchai.com/2019/09/28/sea-ice-extent-area-1979-2018/

Rod Evans
Reply to  Chaamjamal
September 28, 2019 1:17 am

Do you have the sea ice extend data from 1945 to 1979 to show us?
Might be educational to see how the current period compares….?

Knutsen
Reply to  Rod Evans
September 28, 2019 2:06 am

You can go to the links in Tony Heller’s page on Arctic ice. https://realclimatescience.com/arctic-sea-ice-unchanged-from-60-years-ago/

Rod Evans
Reply to  Knutsen
September 28, 2019 2:21 am

Thanks Knutsen, I already do that. I was wondering if Chaamjamal ever looked back before the cherry picked 1979 start date so favoured by the global alarmists?

cerescokid
Reply to  Knutsen
September 28, 2019 3:48 am

Knutsen

I especially like this graph from Department of Energy

comment image

Well correlated with global temperatures. If I didn’t know better I would say Arctic Sea Ice drips with natural variability. Let’s see. Pre 1950, no effect of CO2 and yet it still dropped like a rock.

Thanks.

KcTaz
Reply to  cerescokid
September 28, 2019 12:31 pm

If this is correct, the amount of ice lost and gained each year in the Arctic is staggering.

What I Learned about Climate Change: The Science is not Settled
http://bit.ly/2XOt146

Arctic sea ice grows and shrinks by an area almost the size of the continental United States every six months. As the planet gently warms, the overall trend for slightly less ice each year continues; all the animals who live there have been dealing with this kind of fluctuation for millions of years. International fishing and seal hunting quotas have more to do with polar bear numbers than temperature does.

KcTaz
Reply to  Chaamjamal
September 28, 2019 12:46 pm

From Chaamjamal’s link;

In light of the above, the claim by the WMO of horrific and alarming impacts of AGW on Arctic and Antarctic sea ice extent are not found to have any basis in the data. An additional consideration is the language and peculiarity of the evidence of AGW impact that appear to indicate a circular reasoning effort to find some kind of peculiarity in the data so that an AGW impact can be claimed. A summary of the WMO statement about sea ice is reproduced below.

Lasse
September 28, 2019 12:51 am

Today Polarstern is on its way in the Arctic. At 2,3 knots speed in water shown as ice free on the map.
Something is wrong.
Either the map or the reality?
https://follow.mosaic-expedition.org/

It is easy to cheet when no one sees!
But there is a map seeing ice in this area-it is Russian!
And they has no political reason to show something that could harm their oil industry.

Rod Evans
Reply to  Lasse
September 28, 2019 1:25 am

From the live cam showing the rendezvous with the ice breakers we can clearly see what an ice free ocean looks like. It is a place where ice is so evident and real it is heaping up into large accumulations.
I guess the trick here is to define what ice free actually means.

icisil
Reply to  Lasse
September 28, 2019 5:25 am

Even with sea ice extent, ice-free doesn’t mean no ice. An ice-free area on a sea ice extent map could be 100% covered with ice that emits a microwave signal which falls below 15% of measurement range due to the quality of ice. For instance, new ice up to a certain point cannot be distinguished from open water. Measurement range is signal strengths between open water (0%) and known good ice (100%).

steven Fraser
Reply to  icisil
September 28, 2019 10:30 am

Also, the way the area is gridded for analysis has an effect,on the result.

icisil
Reply to  Lasse
September 28, 2019 6:34 am

Do you have a link to that Russian map?

Lasse
Reply to  icisil
September 29, 2019 4:26 am

http://www.aari.ru/odata/_d0015.php?lang=1&mod=0
Updates once a week (Tuesday)

Rod Evans
September 28, 2019 1:05 am

In 2007 the sea ice reached a low point then that low was lowered in 2012. Here we are in 2019 and it has achieved the same extent as sea ice did in 2007. Is this supposed to show us we have a crisis?
No.
What this is telling us is, basically in the time scale of 12 years AOC, and Greta and Prince Charles and David Attenborough and Bernie et Al…. along with all the other Mann-ipulators of data are wrong. In the year 2019 the climate/weather has revealed it is exactly the same as it was twelve years ago.
The only significant difference I can find is, the Polar Bears have lost their star billing as poster child for climate change victim, I think they got too fat, and numerous. Even Al has stopped declaring a Polar Bear crisis.
Who knows in twelve years time Al might even have stopped declaring a climate crisis as the snow drifts at his Malibu mansion become too deep to plow. (AE)

Greg
Reply to  Rod Evans
September 28, 2019 3:01 am

Yes, it has gone rather quiet on the polar bear front in the last few years. Possibly to due to Dr Susan Crockford pointing out the true level of polar bear populations.

B d Clark
September 28, 2019 1:06 am
SMS
September 28, 2019 1:24 am

What are the other organizations saying the ice extent is? Where is the number from DMI?

I don’t believe the NW passage is open to large shipping, so anyone saying that there has been a minimum reached has not read the record of ship traffic in the 1940’s, the records of Amundsen or the efforts of the British in the 1840’s to find a shipping lane.

icisil
Reply to  SMS
September 28, 2019 5:38 am

Several large cruise ships passed through a couple of weeks ago. MS The World was one of them.

SMS
Reply to  icisil
September 28, 2019 12:47 pm

I found your comment interesting so decided to follow up. I was only able to find this link; https://www.iceagenow.info/did-the-world-give-up-on-the-northwest-passage/ It suggests that the World could not make it through. But I was unable to confirm. There is a reference to using an icebreaker to free several ships trying to make the passage. In looking at where the World is now would suggest that it made it through. But then it could have also taken the Northeast passage. Just can’t confirm.

icisil
Reply to  SMS
September 28, 2019 4:12 pm

That’s the link that led me to search out a cruise ship mapper, where you can track cruise ships in real time. I watched it pass through the NW passage and then travel on to Russia. There was another cruise ship near it. There was an ice breaker in the area, but I don’t know if it had to open up the passage or was just doing patrol.

SMS
Reply to  icisil
September 28, 2019 9:24 pm

How were you able to follow it? They turned off their AIS.

icisil
Reply to  icisil
September 29, 2019 6:14 am

They’re near S Korea now

https://www.cruisemapper.com/?imo=9219331#

SMS
Reply to  icisil
September 29, 2019 6:55 pm

I know, I was able to see there location now as well. But you couldn’t not have followed them through the NW Passage as they turned off their locator while entering.

icisil
Reply to  icisil
September 30, 2019 1:03 am

I didn’t watch it entering. I watched it and another ship as they were in Coronation Gulf and passed through Dolphin and Union Strait into Amundsen Gulf.

Joey
Reply to  icisil
September 28, 2019 11:51 pm

The SS Manhattan (an oil tanker fitted with an icebreaker bow) crossed the NorthWest Passage in August 1969

Reply to  icisil
September 29, 2019 5:15 am

The cruise ship MS Bremen passed through the NW Passage a couple of weeks ago and encountered very little ice. They had a livestream video, upon arrival in Nome they embarked on a traverse of the Northern sea route to Norway which they recently completed (no video available for that one).

Geo Rubik
September 28, 2019 1:30 am

When I was a kid in the 60s the teachers taught me the poles’ ice was cyclic. More in the north less in the south and vise-versa. Is this true? It seems to be, regarding current ice conditions. I’m guessing we don’t have enough knowledge to know the truth. We speculate with grandeur to make us sound credible but we don’t have enough yearly data to be sure. We can’t go back more than a couple of hundred years with real measurements anywhere on the globe. Every 5 years or so the narrative changes. I’m just a novice who enjoys this blog.

AngryScotonFraggleRock
September 28, 2019 1:46 am

I’m only a pilot but didn’t I read somewhere that surface ice melt can cover the sea ice and be interpreted as open water by the satellite sensors – a bit like UHI in reverse? If so can the GISS scientists extrapolate the results or do they tell porky-pies to suit the narrative?

icisil
Reply to  AngryScotonFraggleRock
September 28, 2019 5:48 am

That’s why they use sea ice extent instead of sea ice area (which would be more accurate). Sea ice area is the actual area per sensor grid cell that is covered with ice. However, since melt pools on top of ice can’t be distinguished from open water, ice area can’t be computed accurately in summer; so they use ice extent year-round. IMO they should use extent in summer and area for the rest of the year.

Javier
September 28, 2019 1:53 am

From 2008 sea-ice experts expected a rapid decline in summer Arctic sea-ice driven by reducing albedo. They filled newspapers and magazines with dire predictions of a rapid end for summer ice:

2007 Prof. Wieslaw Maslowski from Dept. Oceanography of the US Navy predicted an ice-free Arctic Ocean in summer by 2013, and said the prediction was conservative.
The BBC. December 12, 2007

2007 NASA climate scientist Jay Zwally predicted that the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012.
National Geographic. December 12, 2007

2008 University of Manitoba Prof. David Barber predicted an ice-free North Pole for the first time in history in 2008.
National Geographic. June 20, 2008

2010 Mark Serreze, director of the NSIDC predicts summer ice free Arctic by 2030.
The Telegraph. September 16, 2010

2012 Prof. Peter Wadhams, head of the polar ocean physics group at the University of Cambridge (UK), predicted a collapse of the Arctic ice sheet by 2015-2016.
The Guardian. September 17, 2012

Instead what we got was a 12 year pause in summer Arctic sea-ice extent that nobody would have dared to predict. It is clear that they don’t understand what is going on.

Greg
Reply to  Javier
September 28, 2019 2:54 am

thanks for that resume of the ignorance Javier. What is amazing is that sea ice min. is exactly the same as it was when they started all the screaming and wailing and announced it as “the canary in the coalmine”. 12 years later the canary is still canary yellow and merrily squawking.

They somehow still manage to spin this “continuing decline”. Flat is now down. No net change, is catastrophic melting.

this can’t not be called anything but lies and propaganda at this stage. There is no factual basis for these claims.

Michael Jankowski
Reply to  Javier
September 28, 2019 9:40 am

More recently – less than 2 weeks ago – we had this gem implying the overall record could still fall.

Nick Stokes

September 15, 2019 at 6:08 am

So it’s a bit early to be writing about a minimum.

MarkW
Reply to  Javier
September 28, 2019 10:48 am

Another factor is that the older the ice is, the dirtier it gets, which also lowers albedo.

Coeur de Lion
September 28, 2019 2:09 am

Tcha no one took my annual £100 bet that we’ d not go below four Wadhams yet again. Despite the summer melt. Where have the alarmists gone?

Rod Evans
Reply to  Coeur de Lion
September 28, 2019 2:31 am

They are helping Al shovel snow from his mountain retreat in the Sierras, this early snow can be such a pain, especially for those who predicted we would not have any falling at all in our children’s lifetime. My children are now grown up and they have not seen any difference in snow fall other than it seems to be coming sooner and is heavier than it used to. When they were children and when Al made his predictions back in 2009 skiing was considered a short term possibility only. Ski resorts are now operating longer seasons than ever and having to close temporarily at times, because of too much snow!!
How wrong can someone be, yet he still gets airtime?

Reply to  Coeur de Lion
September 28, 2019 5:21 am

Good job no-one took you up on that since the JAXA minimum was 3.96, close run thing with NSIDC too, minimum 4.1

taxed
September 28, 2019 2:10 am

Because there has been such a low Arctic sea extent this September. I am forecasting that there will be a large snow extent in the NH in the coming winter. As in recent years there seems to be a link between the two.

MarkW
Reply to  taxed
September 28, 2019 10:51 am

Less ice in the arctic during the fall, early winter means more snow in northern Canada and Russia.

Wim Röst
September 28, 2019 2:17 am

Nathan Kurz in the NASA video: “there is variation from year to year, but it really is just eh … a downward trend”.

At that moment the NASA video shows a graphic with 2016 (!) being the last year that is well visible. By cutting off the graphic the full basis of the complete curve up to 2019 is not shown.

NASA data from 2007 to 2019 show the following:
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/arctic-sea-ice/
Arctic ice extent:
2007 4.2 million sq. km
2008 4.7 million sq. km
2009 5.3 million sq. km
2010 4.9 million sq. km
2011 4.5 million sq. km
2012 3.4 million sq. km
2013 5.2 million sq. km
2014 5.3 million sq. km
2015 4.6 million sq. km
2016 4.3 million sq. km
2017 4.8 million sq. km
2018 4.6 million sq. km
2019 4.15 million sq. km (https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2913/2019-arctic-sea-ice-minimum-tied-for-second-lowest-on-record/)

The lower part of the curve gives a variation from about 4 to 5.5 million square kilometers, depending on variations in weather. Sea ice extent is rather stable with an exceptional 2012 when the 2012 weather pattern did send a massive ice flow south ward into warmer Atlantic waters, resulting in an extremely low summer ice extent.

Unless there is a new wave of warm subsurface Atlantic water entering the Arctic (see for the effects on the ice extent of such a huge inflow during the nineties and 2000’s : Polyakov 2017), Arctic ice may be supposed to recover in the coming years. The warm subsurface water slowly melted the Arctic ice but is also slowly losing its energy (warmth) during the round trip in the Arctic. The Atlantic subsurface inflow follows a pattern from Norway to Siberia and continuing to Alaska, flowing back to Greenland. Time frame of the round trip: 10-20 years.

All happens against the background of an Earth that is recovering (warming) from the Little Ice Age. That slow warming is sometimes faster (30’s and 40’s, 80’s and 90’s of the last century) and sometimes stagnating or just slowing down (50’s, 60’s, 70’s and 2000’s, 2010’s).

David
September 28, 2019 2:48 am

Back here in the (increasingly paranoid) UK, we have just launched our new Polar explorer ship – which, by overwhelming popular vote, was to be named ‘Boaty McBoatface’….
However, the powers-that-be ignored that (the Establishment is very good at ignoring popular opinion) and christened it Sir David Attenborough…
Can’t help thinking, though, that it will always be Boaty McBoatface to us plebs….

Chaamjamal
September 28, 2019 3:27 am

Yes sir i did and maybe we will write something on it but there is actually plenty to say on the 1979+ consistent set of satellite data with measurement method and uncertainty being important factors. Extent is measured with different definitions historically.

commieBob
September 28, 2019 4:50 am

Although it was a warm summer in the Arctic, with average temperatures 7 to 9 degrees Fahrenheit (4 to 5 degrees Celsius) above what is normal for the central Arctic …

Actually, the overall summer temperature north of 80 is very consistent. It sticks very close to the long term average. link So, was it really a warm summer in the Arctic? Well, the Arctic is everything above 66° 33’N so most of its area is below 80. On the other hand, that’s also where most of the land is.

Sara
September 28, 2019 4:51 am

The volume of sea ice in the Arctic oscillates on a recurring basis. The control freaks are panicking in public to try to get everyone else to panic and fork over cash.

I did not realize that this decade was going to have the “Panic along with me!” thingy as its meme. I have been enlightened. My only response is: thanks for the input, but I have a lot of THINGS to do, STUFF to take care of, BIRD AND PLANT PHOTOS to catalog, a HOUSE to keep clean, FURNACE FILTERS to install for winter, COOKIES to make, BIRD FOOD to buy.

I’m swamped! Maybe some other time, if you’re still around….. Oh, look!!! Geese migrating south for the winter!!!!! Gotta run!!!!

Sara
Reply to  Sara
September 28, 2019 7:50 am

I just want to add that when checking the Doppler radar map to see if any more rain is coming my way, I saw that Montana is getting heavy snowfall, and Wyoming is getting the south end of that. There is also some snow falling in Washington state. There is a snow depth of 1 to 12 inches in Wyoming and Montana, depending on where you look, and some of that snow is also coating the western side of the Rockies in Washington.

So much for global warming. It will make the ski bums very happy to know that they’ll have early powder available.

Tom Johnson
September 28, 2019 5:19 am

“The extent of Arctic sea ice at the end of this summer was effectively tied with 2007 and 2016 for second lowest since modern record keeping began in the late 1970s. “

This means that it was also “effectively” tied for fourth lowest. One could easily conclude that ice cover has been GAINING since its low in 2012.

Steve45
Reply to  Tom Johnson
September 28, 2019 5:37 am

and the winner for the most stupid comment of today goes to…

John Tillman
Reply to  Tom Johnson
September 28, 2019 12:53 pm

It is gaining since 2012, and the trend since 2007 is flat. Not having made a new, lower low in seven years means that at worst Arctic sea ice is trending sideways.

The lowest years–2007, 2012 and 2016–have typically been followed by higher, especially 2009, 2013 and 2014, but also 2008, 2017 and 2018. However relatively low 2011 and 2015 were followed by lower years.

Bindidon
Reply to  Tom Johnson
September 29, 2019 12:07 pm

Tom Johnson

“One could easily conclude that ice cover has been GAINING since its low in 2012.”

Oh yes, so terribly much. Yearly Arctic sea ice extent averages since then:

2012 10.42
2013 10.92
2014 10.81
2015 10.59
2016 10.16
2017 10.40
2018 10.35

Amazing.

Gamecock
September 28, 2019 5:56 am

‘2019 Arctic Sea Ice Minimum Tied for Second Lowest on Record’

If you hadn’t told me, I wouldn’t have known it. Am I better off for knowing it? Perhaps Man’s newfound ways to monitor Arctic ice are a mistake.

rbabcock
September 28, 2019 6:00 am

In the meantime, the Antarctic ice cover is spot on at the 1973-2018 average. I would be more worried about this pole losing ice than the one in the north. In fact the Southern Hemisphere’s oceans are cooling, which precedes atmospheric temperatures.

Sooner than later, we are going to see global temps drop. There is also a theory that the Solar Minimum causes more volcanoes to go off. If I lived above 40N (I don’t), I would seriously be concerned about the next couple of decades. You can fudge the numbers only so long, but you can’t hide the visuals when whole areas of populated Earth are freezing.

DMI Antarctic Ice Extent: comment image

Plymouth Weather Ocean Temp Anomolies:
comment image

CDAS Ocean Temp Anomolies:
comment image

Bindidon
Reply to  rbabcock
September 28, 2019 3:57 pm

rbabcock

“In fact the Southern Hemisphere’s oceans are cooling…”

Sure? Can you show us some data? Neither surface nor lower troposphere data do show that, little variations here and there excepted.

Here is a graph comparing HadSST3 SH with UAH6.0 LT SH Ocean:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Td1KJP8ldInK59ZY49EgSGYtyNP3KIac/view

Both have the same linear estimate for 1979-2019: +0.09 °C / decade.
{ Your tidbits chart shows daily anomalies, and not a trend grid. }

Source
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadsst3/data/HadSST.3.1.1.0/diagnostics/HadSST.3.1.1.0_monthly_sh_ts.txt
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt

Rgds
J.-P. D.

John Tillman
Reply to  Bindidon
September 28, 2019 8:03 pm
Bindidon
Reply to  John Tillman
September 29, 2019 9:14 am

John Tillman

“Dunno how you missed it. Maybe not looking?”

I prefer to look at existing data:
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadsst3/data/HadSST.3.1.1.0/ascii/HadSST.3.1.1.0.median.zip
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/south/monthly/data/

1. Austral circumpolar SST and lower troposphere above it

Trend 1979-2019 for HadSST3 5° grid 60S-90$ (land-mask): -0.09 °C / decade.
Trend 1979-2019 for UAH6.0 LT 60S-82.5S: -0.03 °C / decade.

2. Trend 1979-2019 for Antarctic sea ice extent and area: both +0.08 Mkm² / decade.

Feel free to compare all that with the corresponding Arctic data. You might wonder a bit.

John Tillman
Reply to  rbabcock
September 28, 2019 8:02 pm

The effect on planetary albedo is far greater in the Antarctic than Arctic, since, unconstrained by land, SH sea ice extends much farther toward the equator. Angle of incidence, hence reflection is thus greater at these lower latitudes.

Bindidon
Reply to  John Tillman
September 29, 2019 9:17 am

John Tillman

“… SH sea ice extends much farther toward the equator.”

Maybe, but on average over the entire satellite period (1979-2019), it is surprisingly only a tiny bit greater than NH sea ice extent, and its sea ice area (aka 100 % pack ice) is even smaller.

Here are graphs showing the monthly absolute extent and area values for Arctic:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ujf0SauOikmZFDUz8BMlbVkLt40Uwn7_/view

and Antarctic:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1nqdBeRby-yXLeJIvxUfsIqxg-lC61dnK/view

Some numbers quickly will confirm our eye-balling.

Average extent / area for the period 1979-2019, in Mkm²:
– Arctic: 11.46 / 9.32
– Antarctic: 11.56 / 8.77

cerescokid
September 28, 2019 6:39 am

Chylek et al 2009 shows a correlation of Arctic Temperatures with the AMO

comment image

Photios
September 28, 2019 7:08 am

If it’s only the second lowest, it can’t be worse than we saw – never mind thought. Perhaps it’s a sign that things are getting better?

Nick Schroeder
September 28, 2019 8:05 am

From the JAXA graph on Climate4you looks like it’s tied with 2007 and 2016. 2012 is less than all three.

And at 4E6 km^2 that’s still a lot, equaling 780 Delaware’s an NBS standard unit often cited for calving Antarctic ice bergs.

Rob
September 28, 2019 8:27 am

charles the moderator

Correct you ice cap description as by geological and glaciological definitions an ice cap is on land at the peak or centers of ice sheets. Sea ice is measured in extent and volume. Volume is more important and at its lowest two with no old ice. You write about extent only which is not telling the truth about data observations and measurements.

Bruce Cobb
September 28, 2019 9:00 am

12 years ago, Mark Serreze declared that “the arctic is screaming”. I wonder what it’s doing now? Perhaps little Miss Thunderpants knows.

September 28, 2019 9:17 am

Hmmm, three near identical ice extents in a 12 year period? This screams normal to me. Greater extents may be the signature of a colder future.

griff
Reply to  Rick
September 28, 2019 9:59 am

Only if you ignore the 38 other extents in the satellite record…

griff
September 28, 2019 9:58 am

Well in fact it WAS the second lowest on record if you take the JAXA/ViSHOP extent.

NSIDC is a 5 day averaged figure.

So, no recovery in the arctic sea ice… and if you look at the volume, thickness and age of the ice, all those figures are at near lowest or record low levels.

Now, if this is NOT a sign of warming, perhaps somebody would care to explain to me why it is this low?

Editor
Reply to  griff
September 29, 2019 7:07 am

Griff, you have yet to explain why little to no summer ice is a concern, all you do is babble about low sea ice a lot, as it was soooo important, when it has become evident that it doesn’t matter much.

You were repeatedly shown at other websites that your caterwauling about it for the last two years is silly, when you ignored numerous published papers showing lower to no summer ice cover that now in the early part of the Holocene had happened with NO visible climate disasters indicated.

When will you ever look at the big picture?

icisil
Reply to  griff
September 29, 2019 10:28 am

If sea ice extent was solely determined by temperature, you might have a point. However, wind can affect sea ice extent as much as temperature can. Have you quantified all of that data yet to determine what effect wind had?

AZeeman
September 28, 2019 9:59 am

Why is there never any mention of the Antarctic other than some isolated parts with unusual melting? It’s bad enough that the Arctic refuses to melt and is not even as low as it was in the past, but the Antarctic hit new record highs during the same time.
Where’s the “global” in global warming?
I was promised a northwest passage and I want it now!

Dave Salt
September 28, 2019 10:44 am

However, this data source shows 2012 and 2016 were also lower than 2019 in both extent and area…
https://arctic-roos.org/observations/ice-area-and-extent-in-arctic
…while this one also shows 2015 and 2016 had an equal or lower minimum volume…
http://polarportal.dk/en/sea-ice-and-icebergs/sea-ice-thickness-and-volume/
…though I guess they don’t have the same ‘scientific’ impact as NASA data.

Gary Pearse
September 28, 2019 11:03 am

The Russian icebreaker ‘cruise to the N Pole’ ($120,000 a ticket)~ 3 weeks ago encountered 3m thick packed ice from Svalbard all the way to the pole. The trip with one of the world’s most powerful (nuke) icebreakers took an extra two days because the ship was forced to back up many times to take a run at the ice. Normally one years ice is about a meter thick. All, were very surprised.

Clearly, the ice was piled up and extent was thereby greatly reduced. Bremen gives estimated thicknesses of 50 cm to a metre as do other data groups.

Chicago’s coldest winter since 1872, despite UHI came down from an Arctic Basin that was -50C+ (mid -30sC in the Midwest). The 3m of ice in the Arctic basin will be added to this winter.

Bindidon
Reply to  Gary Pearse
September 28, 2019 2:44 pm

Gary Pearse

“Chicago’s coldest winter since 1872…”

Which winter do you mean? 2018/19? Do you have data supporting your somewhat scary claim?

*
Here is the list of the 20 coldest days found within the GHCN daily data set for all available weather stations in Chicago (all values in °C):

USW00004808 IL CHICAGO AURORA MUNI AP 2009 1 16 -36.0
USW00004808 IL CHICAGO AURORA MUNI AP 2019 1 31 -35.5
USC00111497 IL CHICAGO BOTANIC GARDEN 1982 1 10 -32.8
USW00004808 IL CHICAGO AURORA MUNI AP 1999 1 5 -32.8
USW00094846 IL CHICAGO OHARE INTL AP 1985 1 20 -32.8
USW00004808 IL CHICAGO AURORA MUNI AP 2019 1 30 -32.7
USC00111497 IL CHICAGO BOTANIC GARDEN 1985 1 20 -32.2
USW00094846 IL CHICAGO OHARE INTL AP 1982 1 10 -32.2
USC00111497 IL CHICAGO BOTANIC GARDEN 1982 1 11 -31.7
USC00111577 IL CHICAGO MIDWAY AP 3SW 1985 1 20 -31.7
USW00094846 IL CHICAGO OHARE INTL AP 1982 1 16 -31.7
USW00094846 IL CHICAGO OHARE INTL AP 1983 12 24 -31.7
USW00004808 IL CHICAGO AURORA MUNI AP 2019 1 27 -31.6
USW00014892 IL CHICAGO UNIV 1985 1 20 -31.1
USW00004808 IL CHICAGO AURORA MUNI AP 2009 1 15 -31.0
USW00004808 IL CHICAGO AURORA MUNI AP 2019 1 26 -31.0
USC00111497 IL CHICAGO BOTANIC GARDEN 2019 1 31 -30.6
USW00094846 IL CHICAGO OHARE INTL AP 1982 1 17 -30.6
USW00094846 IL CHICAGO OHARE INTL AP 1985 1 19 -30.6

Yes yes! There are indeed 2019 days at the top of the list. But a few very cold days in a month can’t change the monthly average of all stations in a town as dramatically as you pretend.

Here is the top 20 of the descending sort of all months for the Chicago average (absolute values):

1977 1 -11.45
1963 1 -10.42
1979 1 -10.32

1982 1 -9.97
1936 2 -9.76
2014 1 -9.21
2015 2 -9.12
1940 1 -9.03
2009 1 -8.73
1929 1 -8.65
1983 12 -8.65
2000 12 -8.51
1963 12 -8.40
1985 1 -8.25
2014 2 -8.25
1978 1 -8.24
1994 1 -8.22
1979 2 -8.05
1970 1 -8.01
1948 1 -7.77

2019 (and 2018) appear at position 48 (of 1123) and below.

2019 1 -5.69
2018 1 -4.09
2019 2 -3.32
2018 2 -1.93

What you do not seem to have noticed is that Northeast CONUS (and Southeast Canada) experience for the second year in sequence a polar vortex! That is something we really should care about.

And did you notice that when computing out of that absolute data the anomalies wrt the mean of 1981-2010, the ‘coldest’ months (i.e. those with the lowest anomalies) for 2018/19 aren’t January or February for one of these years, but… April 2018, followed by November 2018?

2018 4 -4.53
2018 11 -3.37
2019 3 -1.96
2019 1 -1.21

Rgds
J.-P. D.

Gunga Din
September 28, 2019 12:08 pm

Didn’t submarines surface at the North Pole in the ’60’s?
But that was before the “CAGW” hype so I guess those events don’t count.

Bindidon
Reply to  Gunga Din
September 28, 2019 4:23 pm

Gunga Din

“Didn’t submarines surface at the North Pole in the ’60’s?”

comment image

“But that was before the “CAGW” hype so I guess those events don’t count.”

CAGW or not, it was warm in the Arctic in earlier times. No doubt about that!

Reply to  Bindidon
September 29, 2019 5:48 am

That wasn’t the Skate at the N Pole in 1959, this is:
https://tinyurl.com/y6rge7cj
Note that they weren’t in open water and had to break through the ice, as the captain reported:
“Finally, about 4:30, our sail crunched into the ice where we wanted it…..
The ice was heavier here than we had broken through before, but we were breaking it….
We were on the edge of a narrow , winding lead that disappeared into the hazy distance. Both sides of the lead were piled with the heaviest and ruggedest hummocks I had yet seen in the Arctic”
(Calvert had reported 15′ hummocks before so at least 15′ high.)

Bindidon
Reply to  Phil.
September 29, 2019 11:20 am

Phil.

Thanks.

Reply to  Bindidon
September 30, 2019 6:48 pm

You’re welcome, that photo is often claimed to be Skate at the N Pole but was actually one of their other Arctic surfacings. The first polar surfacing was in winter prior to sunrise as described by Calvert.

Reply to  Phil.
September 30, 2019 8:51 pm

“The first polar surfacing was in winter prior to sunrise as described by Calvert”

Duh, so no photo of a submarine in the daylight! I hate the way that scientific data ruins a good climate story. 🙂

Reply to  Bindidon
October 1, 2019 12:30 pm

Yeah they had a lot of problems taking photos at all, everything kept freezing up!

Bindidon
September 28, 2019 1:55 pm

From colorado.edu: Arctic sea ice extent (daily data):

(a) absolute data
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/north/daily/data/N_seaice_extent_daily_v3.0.csv
(b) climatology 1981-2010
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/north/daily/data/N_seaice_extent_climatology_1981-2010_v3.0.csv

1. Chart with absolute data for the mean of 1981-2010, and some years (2007, 2012, 2017, 2018, 2019):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1n5qRk-C6w0OdmX05XK8Twhh8VK0l-bTS/view

2. Daily anomalies using the same absolute data and the climatology wrt mean of 1981-2010:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1nFPvfKESL9WvxtFhDFgZIEXOP0xcGz_V/view

Here you can observe more easily than on the absolute daily chart that
– 2019 has left 2012 and crossed 2007;
but also that
– though 2012 was the year with the lowest sea ice extent (and in area and volume as well), it had a higher extent level at winter’s end than all the following years, and bypassed even the 1981-2010 mean for short a time.

If we build the yearly averages for the period Jan 1 till Sep 27 in the years shown here, we obtain this (in Mkm²):

2012: 10.98
2007: 10.98
2017: 10.83
2018: 10.81
2019: 10.68

Nothing to scare about! But this detail is not uninteresting.

Bindidon
Reply to  Bindidon
September 28, 2019 1:59 pm

Addendum

The yearly average for the period Jan 1 till Sep 27 for the mean of 1981-2010: 12.02 Mkm²

Fanakapan
September 28, 2019 4:59 pm

Greta’s childhood stolen on the basis of just over 40 years of records.

Sounds like something that would come out of the south end of a north facing horse 🙂

erikthered
September 28, 2019 5:22 pm

Open water in the arctic will lead to heavy “lake effect” snows and increasing albedo.

Dennis G Sandberg
September 28, 2019 9:26 pm

The author claims, “…in the past decades, increasing temperatures have caused marked decreases in the Arctic sea ice extents in all seasons….”
I’ve commented on this before, why all the attention to the “lowest extent”, the annual low point is a weather, not climate, related value. If an attempt to identify a “global warming trend” is intended looking at the low point in ice extent is like looking at only the highest annual temperature to “prove” global warming. A more accurate indicator of what is happening in the Arctic is looking at the ice extent on June 21sr. The NSIDC lines on the Chararctic graph for the past 10+ years essentially overlap each other. What is happeninging in the Arctic climate? Nothing. No change. Same oh same oh.

beng135
September 29, 2019 7:19 am

How ’bout the following headline instead?

Arctic demonstrates record resistance (less ice) against oncoming glacial cycle.

Johann Wundersamer
October 9, 2019 8:27 pm

Since ~500 years of scientific research, they’re unable to measure ice thickness.

But suddenly they promise remedy;

Anyway they seriously can’t offer the ice thickness records about the previous 5 centuries, can they.

https://www.google.com/search?q=their+satellites+can%27t+measure+ice+thickness&oq=their+satellites+can%27t+measure+ice+thickness+&aqs=chrome..69i57.31609j0j9&client=ms-android-huawei&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8&authuser=1

Johann Wundersamer
October 9, 2019 8:28 pm

Since ~500 years of scientific research, they’re unable to measure ice thickness.

But suddenly they promise remedy;

Anyway they seriously can’t offer the ice thickness records about the previous 5 centuries, can they.

https://www.google.com/search?q=their+satellites+can%27t+measure+ice+thickness&oq=their+satellites+can%27t+measure+ice+thickness+&aqs=chrome.

%d bloggers like this: