No 'tipping point' for Arctic sea ice

[stellarfun]

The AMO

The PDO

Just from eyeballing -- so the chronology is certainly approximate -- here are the phases of the AMO and PDO for the past 110 years or so.

AMO

1903-1925 negative

1926-1963 positive

1964-1983 negative

1994- positive

PDO

1900-1932 sawtooth, weakly positive

1933-1943 positive

1944-1976 negative

1977-1997 positive

1998- sawtooth?,weakly negative

The AMO would seem to have a 60 year cycle, 40 positive years and 20 negative years. I've seen reference to a 70 year cycle, but that may include 19th Century data.

As for a lagged coupling, that is not borne out 1900-1944.

Finally, a negative PDO and a positive AMO would seem to be bad news for Arctic Ice.

[Clifford]

Lots of terminology.

The Positive PDO appears to be an El Niño with the classic hot arrow in the Pacific at the equator, west of the South/Central America.

The Negative PDO appears to be a La Niña with the cold arrow in the Pacific at the equator west of South/Central America.

I think the ocean flow is monotonous North through the Bering Strait (but can't confirm that).

The red in the map above is depth, not temperature, or water source.

The Fram strait is deep enough and wide enough to have northern current in the east and southern current in the west. The Bering strait, on the other hand is narrow and shallow enough that the current probably can only go one direction which I think is always Northern.

So..

The key in the Pacific is the Bering Sea temperature.

With the El Niño (Positive PDO), there is often a cool spot around the 40^th parallel. But, the Bering Sea temperature is somewhat independent of that, and can be either hot or cold. There is usually warming along the northern part of the west coast of North America, and this can extend north into the Bering Sea.

BTW:

Who at NOAA ever came up with the idea that using ORANGE for sea ice was at all appropriate?

So... ignore the orange sea ice

Anyway, this shows a positive PDO (El Niño), and a lot of heat around the Bering sea. Although, the Bering Sea may also show up as cool.

Here is a negative PDO (La Niña).

Likewise, a warm patch around the 40^th parallel.

There is often a cool area around the Northern part of the West Coast of North America, which can extend into the Bering Sea, and thus cooling in the Bering Sea.

I think the "hot spot" just north of the Bering Strait is showing warm because of the lack of sea ice. However, it may also be an indication of the overall Arctic Sea conditions... but it seems common on these maps to show hot around the borders of the sea ice in places that are often covered in ice.

In April, 1998, NOAA started coloring Ice white, rather than Orange.

There are many examples with Flipped Bering Sea temperatures.

Warm during La Niña, and cold during El Niño.

Was the orange ice in the old images (1996 to 1998) a political statement by NOAA?

I suppose it could be an artifact of the satellite temperature measurements... but still... orange ice?

Here are the current conditions.

La Niña (Negative PDO) based on equatorial conditions.

Cool along the Pacific Coast of North America.

Warm along the 40^th parallel.

Somewhat neutral conditions in the Bering Sea.

I don't think the NOAA maps account for essentially Zero Degree changes.

There is a small warm patch near Ecuador. That may be a sign of an eminent end to the La Niña, or it could break up and return to La Niña conditions.

Australia and the South Pacific can be hammered with heat and rain during the La Niña due to the warm patch at the -40^th parallel.

[stellarfun]

I didn't create the PDO charts.

http://jisao.washing...o_warm_cool.tif

This is PDO plus ENSO

Anomaly profile for April 14-21 2008

And while checking for volume flows in the Fram Strait, I found a reference to this.

http://www.scienceda...10127141659.htm

The Arctic is responding more rapidly to global warming than most other areas on our planet. Northward-flowing Atlantic Water is the major means of heat advection toward the Arctic and strongly affects the sea ice distribution. Records of its natural variability are critical for the understanding of feedback mechanisms and the future of the Arctic climate system, but continuous historical records reach back only ~150 years. Here, we present a multidecadal-scale record of ocean temperature variations during the past 2000 years, derived from marine sediments off Western Svalbard (79°N). We find that early–21st-century temperatures of Atlantic Water entering the Arctic Ocean are unprecedented over the past 2000 years and are presumably linked to the Arctic amplification of global warming.

http://www.sciencema...nt/331/6016/450

[Clifford]

I didn't create the PDO charts.

This is PDO plus ENSO

And while checking for volume flows in the Fram Strait, I found a reference to this.

http://www.scienceda...10127141659.htm

http://www.sciencema...nt/331/6016/450

Thanks for the clarification of PDO vs El Niño/La Niña.

Although it does appear to have some overlap.

I've been looking at the NOAA sea maps.

There is a LOT OF RED in the North Atlantic.

Particularly in the summer.

Although, there is a pretty persistent "blue spot" halfway between Iceland and Svalbard.

Here is another Science Daily article discussing an increase of Arctic Temperatures that they are blaming on the loss of ice.

http://www.scienceda...71212201236.htm

I suppose the question is whether the increased Arctic temperature was caused by the loss of ice.

Or the increased temperature caused the loss of ice. (OR BOTH)

I.E.

Is the warm water from Atlantic Currents (or elsewhere), and warming the ice from beneath, or is the loss of ice allowing the sun to warm the ocean from above?

I don't have the 2007 ice extent/concentration maps downloaded yet.

But, for most years the "collapse" of the ice shelf seems to occur in late August, early September as the Arctic sunlight would already be waning.

The JAXA report does indicate an earlier loss of ice in 2007.

http://www.ijis.iarc...ce_Extent_L.png

So I'm blaming the ice shelf collapse on the warm ocean, rather than the warm ocean on the sea ice collapse.

And... it is still unclear where the balance is for the radiation of the "extra" heat back out of the oceans during the fall re-freezing.

[skierinvermont]

Anyway, the seasonal shift may lead to a benefit from the loss of sea ice.

More reflection of sunlight when the sun is highest overhead

More radiation of heat/energy when the sun is not overhead.

What you are discussing is a negative feedback IE a stabilizing effect. You actually have to lose the ice to radiate the ocean heat. You don't gain ice by losing ice by definition. You lose less ice. Unfortunately, as the earth warms we will still lose the ice gradually.

Your post is also misleading.. the Jaxa charts are not the best way to go about what you are trying to do because they only go back to 2003. The largest losses have been in September, but there have been major declines in all months. This means a major drop in albedo during the arctic summer.

December

March:

June:

September:

[Clifford]

Sea ice extent has always varied.

Are we lower than what we had 50 years ago...

Probably a little.

However, there are indications that we hit below 6 million km² several times over the last century. Your slopes are always much more extreme when you chart from maximum to minimum, rather than from minimum to minimum.

http://www.rusnature.info/reg/08_3.htm

[BethesdaWX]

The AMO

The PDO

Just from eyeballing -- so the chronology is certainly approximate -- here are the phases of the AMO and PDO for the past 110 years or so.

AMO

1903-1925 negative

1926-1963 positive

1964-1983 negative

1994- positive

PDO

1900-1932 sawtooth, weakly positive

1933-1943 positive

1944-1976 negative

1977-1997 positive

1998- sawtooth?,weakly negative

The AMO would seem to have a 60 year cycle, 40 positive years and 20 negative years. I've seen reference to a 70 year cycle, but that may include 19th Century data.

As for a lagged coupling, that is not borne out 1900-1944.

Finally, a negative PDO and a positive AMO would seem to be bad news for Arctic Ice.

1) Do you know what a Base state is? The PDO base state changed in 2007. The difference you see after 1998 was brought on by a 3 year La Nina, however, the Natural Base state of the PDO was positive through 2006 when compared to MEI/SOI/ONI.

2) The exact length of PDO/AMO cycles are never exactly the same, but it is generally understood that each Phase lasts around 30 years

3) Data from 1900??? Do you think we could measure the PDO with accuracy back from 1900-1944? AMO is somewhat different with more landmass/stations/proxies available in the North Atlantic and the Islands in the AMO regions...but the PDO is another story completely in that regard.

Yes, -PDO/+AMO has always been a terrible setup for Arctic Ice due to their affects on wind patterns (contradicting cycles), wild temp swings, etc. 10 years into the -PDO cycle, things usually begin to improve, but the AMO is what does all the heavy lifting in the arctic. Things will slowly improve over the next 10yrs, before Arctic Ice comes Roaring back after 2020. I'm very confident in this.

[skierinvermont]

Sea ice extent has always varied.

Are we lower than what we had 50 years ago...

Probably a little.

However, there are indications that we hit below 6 million km² several times over the last century. Your slopes are always much more extreme when you chart from maximum to minimum, rather than from minimum to minimum.

http://www.rusnature.info/reg/08_3.htm

Again, your post is misleading, the first chart is ice area for the arctic as a whole 1925-1980 in late August near the minimum. The second shows the decline for only the Russian side 1980-present.

The decline in the minimum since 1980 for the arctic as a whole has been around 2.5 million sq km, which means if we extend the first chart to the present we would have dropped from the mean value of around 6.4 million, below the previous minimum of 5.7 million, to the 2007 minimum of 4.5 million and last year's 5.0 million.

It's also worth noting that the first chart comes from a study published in 1981 which is probably outdated at this point. Even ignoring that the drop of 2.5 million sq km since 1980 puts us over 1 million sq km below the 1950s minimum.

[BethesdaWX]

Again, your post is misleading, the first chart is ice area for the arctic as a whole 1925-1980 in late August near the minimum. The second shows the decline for only the Russian side 1980-present..

Where does it say that?

They say:

Fig. 8.4 (a) Sea ice extent in the Arctic ocean in late August. After Zakharov (1981).

(b ) Time series of sea ice extent anomalies, 1979-95 for the Barents, Kara, Laptev, East Siberian, and Chukchi Seas. After Maslanik et al. (1996

Either way, There has been more Ice loss on the Russian side, I believe. It would help your cause you not post what you just did.

[skierinvermont]

Where does it say that?

They say:

Fig. 8.4 (a) Sea ice extent in the Arctic ocean in late August. After Zakharov (1981).

(b ) Time series of sea ice extent anomalies, 1979-95 for the Barents, Kara, Laptev, East Siberian, and Chukchi Seas. After Maslanik et al. (1996

Either way, There has been more Ice loss on the Russian side, I believe. It would help your cause you not post what you just did.

Yes the first chart he posted was for the arctic as a whole 1920-1980. The second chart was for the Russian side 1980-1995. So it's not apples to apples and it is not up to date.

The second chart makes the recent losses appear smaller than they are because it only looks at the Russian side and terminates in 1995 not 2010. His second chart shows losses of only 1 million sq km, but the losses for the arctic as a whole have been about 2.5 million sq km. \

So one needs to "combine" his first chart 1920-1980 with a 2.5 million sq km loss from 1980 present. This puts us considerably outside the range of historical variability.

So even using this old reconstruction 1920-1980 combined with modern satellite decline of 2.5 million sq km, the 2007 minimum was over 1 million sq km below the previous record.

Now I'm still not sure why you would pull a 1981 study out of your hat when there are a half dozen more recent studies that show even more ice existed historically. At least give us a hypothetical reason we should take the 1981 study over these half dozen other studies...

[Clifford]

It's also worth noting that the first chart comes from a study published in 1981 which is probably outdated at this point. Even ignoring that the drop of 2.5 million sq km since 1980 puts us over 1 million sq km below the 1950s minimum.

2007, 2008, and 2010 are likely below the 1950's minimum.

2005 and 2009 are likely near the 1950's minimum.

2002, 2003, 2004, 2006 are likely above the 1950's minimum.

PIOMAS has not been updated since December 2010.

You don't like the daily PIPS updates which seem to indicate more ice in 2011 than 2010.

There is an "Ice Sat" that is supposed to be able to measure "freeboard" wherever there is floating ice, and estimate the actual ice volume. But, the data doesn't seem to have been analysed recently. And since it depends on the ice/water interface, it is likely most accurate in the summer than the winter.

At the minimum

2007 < 2008 < 2010 < 2009.

And, 2010 was tied with the greatest sea ice extent since 2004 last spring in March/April.

2011 is still low in a few places outside of the central arctic region. At this point we will have to wait and see how the accumulation of ice progresses for the next month or so, and then how it endures the rest of the year.

I suppose one can always wait for the next season, but this year doesn't seem to be following the same trends as previous years.

And...

BTW:

If you have better data for past cycles of ice melt/recovery as occurred in the 40's and 50's, then please post them.

A while ago I found a couple of studies about the Russian side (where most of the melting occurs).

[BethesdaWX]

Yes the first chart he posted was for the arctic as a whole 1920-1980. The second chart was for the Russian side 1980-1995. So it's not apples to apples and it is not up to date.

The second chart makes the recent losses appear smaller than they are because it only looks at the Russian side and terminates in 1995 not 2010. His second chart shows losses of only 1 million sq km, but the losses for the arctic as a whole have been about 2.5 million sq km. \

So one needs to "combine" his first chart 1920-1980 with a 2.5 million sq km loss from 1980 present. This puts us considerably outside the range of historical variability.

A few issues.

I'm going to pick this apart.

1) The Russian Territories have seen more Warming than anyone else during the timeframe of interest. Adding the entire arctic would lower the Deviation, not strengthen it.

2) The data was not measured the same way back then, obviously. Data before 1979 is completely unrelated to the data we use today. If we were to use data from today back in the 1940's, it'd be another story completely

3) We know temperatures in the 1940's for the Arctic were very similar to those of today. Why would temperature data be identical, but sea ice extent levels not be?

Arctic Temps

Stations away from potential UHI impacts....AMO correlation.

Proxies show.............. We're quite cold

[skierinvermont]

A few issues.

I'm going to pick this apart.

1) The Russian Territories have seen more Warming than anyone else during the timeframe of interest. Adding the entire arctic would lower the Deviation, not strengthen it.

2) The data was not measured the same way back then, obviously. Data before 1979 is completely unrelated to the data we use today. If we were to use data from today back in the 1940's, it'd be another story completely

3) We know temperatures in the 1940's for the Arctic were very similar to those of today. Why would temperature data be identical, but sea ice extent levels not be?

Arctic Temps

Stations away from potential UHI impacts....AMO correlation.

Proxies show.............. We're quite cold

1) The deviations are additive not an average. If the deviation for the russian side is 1 million sk km from 1980-1995, this must be added to the deviation for the rest of the arctic and extended from 1995 to 2010. The arctic as a whole has declined 2.5 million sk km since 1980. This is undisputed fact. So if we are going to attempt to combine his first chart of 1920-1980 we need to combine it with an arcticc wide drop of 2.5 million sq km since 1980. There might be some data inconsistencies though so I would prefer a single reconstruction instead of combining two.

2) Arctic temperature is warmer than it was in the 1940s. The data you have presented is an unweighted average of 7 arctic stations. There are 46+ GHCN stations above 65N.

[BethesdaWX]

1) The deviations are additive not an average. If the deviation for the russian side is 1 million sk km, this must be added to the deviation for the rest of the arctic. The arctic as a whole has declined 2.5 million sk km since 1980. This is undisputed fact.

2) Arctic temperature is warmer than it was in the 1940s. The data you have presented is an unweighted average of 7 arctic stations. There are 46+ GHCN stations above 65N.

1) The two datasets cannot be compared, they are actually unrelated in terms of collection and coverage. Don't even try.

2) The 1st graph is arctic in General, the following graphs are Isolated stations away from potential UHI. UHI is the cause for the excess spike in the late 20th/21st centuries. FYI, the 7 stations I posted yesterday are NOT the only stations reflected in the data.

3) The 3rd graph is the Holocene proxy showing that THE ARCTIC IS COLDER THAN THE HOLOCENE AVERAGE

[skierinvermont]

1) The two datasets cannot be compared, they are actually unrelated in terms of collection and coverage. Don't even try.

2) The 1st graph is arctic in General, the following graphs are Isolated stations away from potential UHI. UHI is the cause for the excess spike in the late 20th/21st centuries.

3) The 3rd graph is the Holocene proxy showing that THE ARCTIC IS COLDER THAN THE HOLOCENE AVERAGE

I agree with #1. Instead of combining two different reconstructions pre and post 1980, we should just look at studies that show 1920-present. And there are a half dozen+ studies which do this and they show that our current level is clearly unprecedented.

2) The first graph only goes to 2000 not 2010. I believe that is HadCRUT and so it also only goes to about 75N. The second graph is only an average of 7 stations. There are 46 GHCN stations north of 65N, all in isolated areas. It's cherry picking and it's not enough data.

3) That graph doesn't have fine enough resolution to show the last 30 years. 30 years is invisible on a graph of the last 10,000. What a complete joke you are.. trying to use a proxy reconstruction of the last 10,000 years to show that current temps are colder. You can't even see the last 30 years on the graph, and even if you could, proxies are usually not intended to be used for such short periods. What a complete joke. Sort of sad you are this desperate.

[BethesdaWX]

I agree with #1. Instead of combining two different reconstructions pre and post 1980, we should just look at studies that show 1920-present. And there are a half dozen+ studies which do this and they show that our current level is clearly unprecedented.

2) The first graph only goes to 2000 not 2010. I believe that is HadCRUT and so it also only goes to about 75N. The second graph is only an average of 7 stations. There are 46 GHCN stations north of 65N, all in isolated areas. It's cherry picking and it's not enough data.

3) That graph doesn't have fine enough resolution to show the last 30 years. 30 years is invisible on a graph of the last 10,000. What a complete joke you are.. trying to use a proxy reconstruction of the last 10,000 years to show that current temps are colder. You can't even see the last 30 years on the graph, and even if you could, proxies are usually not intended to be used for such short periods. What a complete joke. Sort of sad you are this desperate.

1) We only have valid data for 30yrs though. The MWP clearly had alot less Ice then the CWP....our current extent is NOT unprecedented by any means. MWP was the strongest over the Arctic.

2) There are more than 7 stations in that study, I will give you the link if you want. The Stations picked are ALL the Isolated stations away from UHI.

3) Dude, its a PROXY. No matter the fine details, todays temperatures are below the Holocene avg in the Arctic. Volstok Ice Core Data shows the same for the Globe. Are you going to claim Vostok BS and praise the debunked hockeystick? Your argument is trash.

You need to learn a few things.

[skierinvermont]

1) We only have valid data for 30yrs though. The MWP clearly had alot less Ice then the CWP....our current extent is NOT unprecedented by any means. MWP was the strongest over the Arctic.

2) There are more than 7 stations in that study, I will give you the link if you want. The Stations picked are ALL the Isolated stations away from UHI.

3) Dude, its a PROXY. No matter the fine details, todays temperatures are below the Holocene avg in the Arctic. Volstok Ice Core Data shows the same for the Globe. Are you going to claim Vostok BS and praise the debunked hockeystick? Your argument is trash.

You need to learn a few things.

3) Vostok ice cores tell us today's global temperature? Gee that's a new one.

2) Link pls.

1) Contradiction. First you say we only have valid data for 30 years. Then you say emphatically that the MWP clearly had a lot less ice. We do have some data from ship reports prior to 1980 that have been used to create reconstructions.

[BethesdaWX]

3) Vostok ice cores tell us today's global temperature? Gee that's a new one.

2) Link pls.

1) Contradiction. First you say we only have valid data for 30 years. Then you say emphatically that the MWP clearly had a lot less ice. We do have some data from ship reports prior to 1980 that have been used to create reconstructions.

ehhhh

1) We only have Valid SATELLITE Data over the past 30yrs...you should know that, come on now! No contradiction here.

MWP had alot less ice in the arctic, todays ice melt is nowhere near unprecedented. If you're cumming yourself over todays low ice, I'd love to see you during the MWP

2) As you wish. http://beforeitsnews...ing_trends.html

read the page thoroughly!

North Pole March 1959....Gee!

Volstok Ice Core tells us Global Temperature in the past, and how we can compare ours to that. There is a small lag of course, but it gives the basic idea.

[skierinvermont]

2007, 2008, and 2010 are likely below the 1950's minimum.

2005 and 2009 are likely near the 1950's minimum.

2002, 2003, 2004, 2006 are likely above the 1950's minimum.

PIOMAS has not been updated since December 2010.

You don't like the daily PIPS updates which seem to indicate more ice in 2011 than 2010.

There is an "Ice Sat" that is supposed to be able to measure "freeboard" wherever there is floating ice, and estimate the actual ice volume. But, the data doesn't seem to have been analysed recently. And since it depends on the ice/water interface, it is likely most accurate in the summer than the winter.

At the minimum

2007 < 2008 < 2010 < 2009.

And, 2010 was tied with the greatest sea ice extent since 2004 last spring in March/April.

2011 is still low in a few places outside of the central arctic region. At this point we will have to wait and see how the accumulation of ice progresses for the next month or so, and then how it endures the rest of the year.

I suppose one can always wait for the next season, but this year doesn't seem to be following the same trends as previous years.

And...

BTW:

If you have better data for past cycles of ice melt/recovery as occurred in the 40's and 50's, then please post them.

A while ago I found a couple of studies about the Russian side (where most of the melting occurs).

No you are combining the two sources improperly. Your first chart (1925-1980) overlaps with the first two years of the satellite record which began in 1979. The methodologies are different, for one thing one reads areas while JAXA and NSIDC are usually reported as extent not area - obviously extent #s are larger than area #s. But we can probably combine the relative changes with some accuracy. From 1979/1980 the satellite era shows a drop of 2.5 million sq km. Even 2005 and 2009 are more than 1.5 million sq km below the 1979/1980 values. By comparison the LOWEST values on the 1925-1980 reconstruction you posted is in the 50s and is a mere .8 million sq km below the 1979/1980 values (averaged). Thus both 2005 and 2009 were far below the mid 1950s values. The last year which was comparable to the record low during the 1950s was probably 2001. Every year except 2001 since 1995 has been below the record low value from the 1950s.

So to be very clear you are combining the two data sources incorrectly. The last two years of your 1925-1980 reconstruction overlaps with the first two years of the satellite record. Since the start of the satellite record we have declined by 2.5 million sq km which is FAR FAR below the historical variation shown in your reconstruction.

As Bethesda and I both said though, it's probably best not to combine the two sources ourselves though since they are different. But if one did combine them you would find that every year 2002-2010 has been below the record low from the 1950s. And nearly every years since 1995.

So what I would recommend is looking at a more recent reconstruction that extends to the present. I've posted these before but here it is again:

I'd start here

http://nsidc.org/sotc/sea_ice.html

There's also that Russian study you posted that I am aware of. That shows that every year since at least 2002 has been unprecedented if I recall correctly.

I will post more later.

[stellarfun]

Bethesda, I see we again have the picture of the Skate at North Pole in open water in March.

You dismissed that photo after I explained it was March 1959, and the circumstances -- i.e., why there was open water at the Pole on that occasion. But the March 1959 date didn't fit the AMO phase, so it was dismissed.

Nobody, except you, predicates that there would be naturally-occurring open water at the North Pole in March of any year!!!

(BTW, if you knew something about launching Polaris missiles in the Arctic, you might perceive why there might be a patch of open water while all around is frozen solid.)

[BethesdaWX]

Bethesda, I see we again have the picture of the Skate at North Pole in open water in March.

You dismissed that photo after I explained it was March 1959, and the circumstances -- i.e., why there was open water at the Pole on that occasion. But the March 1959 date didn't fit the AMO phase, so it was dismissed.

Nobody, except you, predicates that there would be naturally-occurring open water at the North Pole in March of any year!!!

(BTW, if you knew something about launching Polaris missiles in the Arctic, you might perceive why there might be a patch of open water while all around is frozen solid.)

huh? I never dismissed it, I said that the late 1950's had significantly more Ice than the 30's & 40's.

[stellarfun]

Bethesda: Warmer temp data don't mean that either eh? How about submarines surfacing at the north pole, in March...with only patches of ice? Ships going further north than we ever could this decade?

stellarfun:The nuclear submarine Skate did surface at the North Pole in March 1959, and a photograph reveals a bit of open water near the surfaced sub. However, the photograph of such was taken by someone standing on ice, and the open water was most likely created by the submarine surfacing, and then maneuvering using its propellers to create open water. The sub needed open water because of a special ceremony it conducted, scattering cremated ashes on an explorer into the water at the Pole.

Bethesda: 2) Uhhh, the late 1950's had alot of ice...wrong time period bro

stellarfun: The only submarine photos with open water at the Pole in March are those of the Skate in 1959. Before you cite a 'fact' you ought to do some research first.

Bethesda: North Pole March 1959....Gee!

So I take it you believe open water naturally occurs at the North Pole during March of any year (AMO positive or negative phase, doesn't matter).

[BethesdaWX]

So I take it you believe open water naturally occurs at the North Pole during March of any year (AMO positive or negative phase, doesn't matter).

scew

Again, I was referring to the time period of smallest Ice extent, which was the 1940's, the picture I referenced to show the lower ice near 1960 was nothing compared to the 1940's.

1) You know that ice in water features the majority of the Ice Below the surface, right?

2) Patches of open water are certainly possible, +AMO years significantly affect the Arctic

.

kk?

[BethesdaWX]

No you are combining the two sources improperly. Your first chart (1925-1980) overlaps with the first two years of the satellite record which began in 1979. The methodologies are different, for one thing one reads areas while JAXA and NSIDC are usually reported as extent not area - obviously extent #s are larger than area #s. But we can probably combine the relative changes with some accuracy. From 1979/1980 the satellite era shows a drop of 2.5 million sq km. Even 2005 and 2009 are more than 1.5 million sq km below the 1979/1980 values. By comparison the LOWEST values on the 1925-1980 reconstruction you posted is in the 50s and is a mere .8 million sq km below the 1979/1980 values (averaged). Thus both 2005 and 2009 were far below the mid 1950s values. The last year which was comparable to the record low during the 1950s was probably 2001. Every year except 2001 since 1995 has been below the record low value from the 1950s.

So to be very clear you are combining the two data sources incorrectly. The last two years of your 1925-1980 reconstruction overlaps with the first two years of the satellite record. Since the start of the satellite record we have declined by 2.5 million sq km which is FAR FAR below the historical variation shown in your reconstruction.

As Bethesda and I both said though, it's probably best not to combine the two sources ourselves though since they are different. But if one did combine them you would find that every year 2002-2010 has been below the record low from the 1950s. And nearly every years since 1995.

So what I would recommend is looking at a more recent reconstruction that extends to the present. I've posted these before but here it is again:

I'd start here

http://nsidc.org/sotc/sea_ice.html

There's also that Russian study you posted that I am aware of. That shows that every year since at least 2002 has been unprecedented if I recall correctly.

I will post more later.

Look, I see your point, and I agree with your message that 2 different datasources cannot be compared.

But I'd prefer you didn't use the word "unprecedented" when discussing arctic ice, unless you add "In the satellite era" after it.

Also NSIDC takes Pre Satellite Ice measurements/non satellite data before 1979 and mixes the Satellite era Ice data at 1979......you CANNOT do that. Huge red flag there.

It is well known that the Arctic was in a cooling trend from the late 1940's through the 1970's. UAH has the arctic cooling continuing from 1979-1993. When the AMO went warm in 1994, what happened to the arctic temps?

[stellarfun]

scew

Again, I was referring to the time period of smallest Ice extent, which was the 1940's, the picture I referenced to show the lower ice near 1960 was nothing compared to the 1940's.

1) You know that ice in water features the majority of the Ice Below the surface, right?

2) Patches of open water are certainly possible, +AMO years significantly affect the Arctic

.

kk?

So as I understand it, you are saying that the ice extent in 1959 was greater than it was in the 1940s, and the proof of that is a submarine found open water at the North Pole in March. And if there was open water at the North Pole in March 1959, there was even more open water at the North Pole during the 1940s.

And yes, I understand the principles of buoyancy, but that has noting to do with this discussion.

You seem to understand little of how sea ice forms in the Arctic; i.e., you must first chill the entire water column down to about 100-150 meters (to about the halocline) to the freezing point before ice will form on the surface. The halocline protects the upper part of the water column from the warmer, deeper waters in the Arctic. If the halocline was not there, you couldn't form ice.

(When a sub surfaces, it is pushing warmer subsurface waters up through the halocline barrier and disrupting that part of the water column near the surface.)

Similarly for surface ice to melt, the entire water column above the halocline must warm to above the freezing point.

Thus, for open water to exist at the Pole in the winter would require a major disruption of the water column above the halocline, indeed it would be so disruptive that there would be so little ice formed that probably the entire Arctic would have been ice free during the summers of the 1940s during the warm AMO. Perhaps you believe that to be the case.

.

[BethesdaWX]

So as I understand it, you are saying that the ice extent in 1959 was greater than it was in the 1940s, and the proof of that is a submarine found open water at the North Pole in March. And if there was open water at the North Pole in March 1959, there was even more open water at the North Pole during the 1940s.

And yes, I understand the principles of buoyancy, but that has noting to do with this discussion.

You seem to understand little of how sea ice forms in the Arctic; i.e., you must first chill the entire water column down to about 100-150 meters (to about the halocline) to the freezing point before ice will form on the surface. The halocline protects the upper part of the water column from the warmer, deeper waters in the Arctic. If the halocline was not there, you couldn't form ice.

(When a sub surfaces, it is pushing warmer subsurface waters up through the halocline barrier and disrupting that part of the water column near the surface.)

Similarly for surface ice to melt, the entire water column above the halocline must warm to above the freezing point.

Thus, for open water to exist at the Pole in the winter would require a major disruption of the water column above the halocline, indeed it would be so disruptive that there would be so little ice formed that probably the entire Arctic would have been ice free during the summers of the 1940s during the warm AMO. Perhaps you believe that to be the case.

.

I'm not sure where you come up these assumptions on my thinking, because it is completely wrong. I'm not sure if you're either drunk, or you are trying your best to diss me.

I'm talking about the depth/thickness of Sea Ice, not how it is formed, or if there is 1 open patch of water in the arctic during the winter. Submarines, especially in those days.......Thick sea ice would prevent a sub from safely surfacing, as Ice near the North Pole is several meters thick in March.

You can clearly see the ice was below normal in that region, in the picture, at that time. I'm not saying the Sub didn't push ice away from it when it surfaced, thats not the point.

[stellarfun]

I'm not sure where you come up these assumptions on my thinking, because it is completely wrong. I'm not sure if you're either drunk, or you are trying your best to diss me.

I'm talking about the depth/thickness of Sea Ice, not how it is formed, or if there is 1 open patch of water in the arctic during the winter. Submarines, especially in those days.......Thick sea ice would prevent a sub from safely surfacing, as Ice near the North Pole is several meters thick in March.

You can clearly see the ice was below normal in that region, in the picture, at that time. I'm not saying the Sub didn't push ice away from it when it surfaced, thats not the point.

Submarines that operate in the Arctic can surface through ice that is up to three meters thick. They have been strengthened to do that. Subs seek out thinner spots in the ice, where the ice is fractured, to surface.

You can't have it both ways: claim in one post that there is open water at the North Pole in March, and in this post claim that the ice is several meters thick there in March. And use the see-there-is-no-ice-at-the-Pole-in-March claim to support your assertion that the Arctic had a lot less ice in the past, especially during the +AMO in the 1940s.

[BethesdaWX]

Submarines that operate in the Arctic can surface through ice that is up to three meters thick. They have been strengthened to do that. Subs seek out thinner spots in the ice, where the ice is fractured, to surface.

You can't have it both ways: claim in one post that there is open water at the North Pole in March, and in this post claim that the ice is several meters thick there in March. And use the see-there-is-no-ice-at-the-Pole-in-March claim to support your assertion that the Arctic had a lot less ice in the past, especially during the +AMO in the 1940s.

I suggest you read this thoroughly

http://wattsupwithth...8-not-so-thick/

“the Skate found open water both in the summer and following winter. We surfaced near the North Pole in the winter through thin ice less than 2 feet thick. The ice moves from Alaska to Iceland and the wind and tides causes open water as the ice breaks up. The Ice at the polar ice cap is an average of 6-8 feet thick, but with the wind and tides the ice will crack and open into large polynyas (areas of open water), these areas will refreeze over with thin ice. We had sonar equipment that would find these open or thin areas to come up through, thus limiting any damage to the submarine. The ice would also close in and cover these areas crushing together making large ice ridges both above and below the water. We came up through a very large opening in 1958 that was 1/2 mile long and 200 yards wide. The wind came up and closed the opening within 2 hours. On both trips we were able to find open water. We were not able to surface through ice thicker than 3 feet."

Then in spring 1987...

[skierinvermont]

Seems to confirm what stellarfun was saying about it being frozen in winter and them coming up through some thinner areas in the ice. It's a little unclear though.

[skierinvermont]

Also NSIDC takes Pre Satellite Ice measurements/non satellite data before 1979 and mixes the Satellite era Ice data at 1979......you CANNOT do that. Huge red flag there.

Sure you can if you know what you're doing. Just like you can combine the instrumental temperature 1900-present with the proxy data prior to 1900. You just have to know what you're doing and how to properly calculate the error bars based on how imprecise the proxy is for year-year fluctuations. That's why the error bars pre-1900 are much larger than post-1900 in temperature reconstructions. You can do it, you just have to be careful.