Global sea ice area and extent data

[Pmt111500]

I thought I would step back and have a look at global annual averages over the last few years using JAXA data as relief from the microscope of daily changes.

I think the graph below is OK. Note the dips around 2007 and 2012 (Arctic Sea Ice major losses) and the 2015 high - Antarctic record highs. The overall trend is, obviously - down.

Not so obviously, when you cut the plot about somewhere 2015 and was, "obviously", up.
Unsettled I'd say, which is the same as no freaking idea.

Yeah, I remember cussing at that graph (and thus to reality) in 2014, but it prevented me from taking a rampage at deniers on select sites. I'm glad that the casual observer of sciency stuff no longer can throw this at the less casual observer. Not good of course, but some engineering types won't response to a graph of greenland melt until this had been explained to their satisfaction. You try to explain fluid mechanics to a classical mechanical engineer.

If you try that, one possible way might be comparing the sea ice destruction to a shell of a car which is almost rusted through. Ok, the mechanism in this case is chemical degradation as opposed to thermal rotting of the ice but the end result is the same, one day the car still resembles a shell of a car, and after the next storm you have a pile of rust, similarly a rain storm over ice might destroy the whole area of ice it rains onto.

[gerontocrat]

JAXA GLOBAL EXTENT DATA AS 29 JAN

Extent is  15,784,434 km2, just 197k km2 above the 2017 recird low

On average about 17  days, just 0.47 million km2 and 5% of extent loss to go. Extent minimum date in the past has ranged from 8 days to to 25 days from Jan 29. Note that days to go do not seem to correspond to min and max extent loss from now. So who knows the final result, though a record low is still on the cards.

In the last three days daily extent loss has nearly stalled - slower Antarctic extent loss, higher Arctic extent gain.

[magnamentis]

I thought I would step back and have a look at global annual averages over the last few years using JAXA data as relief from the microscope of daily changes.

I think the graph below is OK. Note the dips around 2007 and 2012 (Arctic Sea Ice major losses) and the 2015 high - Antarctic record highs. The overall trend is, obviously - down.

Not so obviously, when you cut the plot about somewhere 2015 and was, "obviously", up.
Unsettled I'd say, which is the same as no freaking idea.

please put into account the time spans we should have in mind here;

what we are observing now withing let's say (arbitrary) 100 years has taken place before over
thousands and at times millions of years so just cutting out a few years that suit a point is not a valid approach to deny the trend which is DOWN of course and obvious as well.

it's really like politics, even though most people are aware what happens and what's to do, the moment one guy comes to the point someone with a basically similar point of view would try to deny that. must be some kind of reflex, based on........ (not saying it)

[gerontocrat]

JAXA DATA - Extent as 2 Feb is  15,917,505 km2
Extent gain in the last three days due to Arctic sea ice gain continuing to accelerate.  Average loss of 0.35 million in  these last two weeks (or as little as 4 days or as many as 21 days) would produce a near equal result to 2017 (a record low) .

[gerontocrat]

JAXA GLOBAL SEA ICE EXTENT as at at 4 February 15,846,535 still about 56 k above the minimum so far this year on the 30th January, and 137k above the

However, in the last two days extent has begun to drop, due to less gain in the Arctic, where the current drama unfolding will be impacting extent (though it could temporarily increase extent as ice is spread out).

If extent loss in the average last 10 days, 3%, 0.3 million km2 occurs, the minimum would be just 40,000 km2 less than the 2017 record low. 2nd lowest has already happened.

[Ktb]

On mobile right now so I won't bother linking images but according to NSIDC and Wipneus: significant drops in both area and extent yesterday, appears to have been lead by decent drops in the arctic. Both now below 2017.

[RikW]

yeah, Area and extent lowest since start of measurements:

https://sites.google.com/site/arctischepinguin/home/sea-ice-extent-area/grf/nsidc_global_area_byyear_b.png

https://sites.google.com/site/arctischepinguin/home/sea-ice-extent-area/grf/nsidc_global_extent_byyear_b.png

For area it's the first time since august/september last year

[Thomas Barlow]

If I was to cite ArctischePinguin elswhere (because global sea-ice is at record low again today), how should I cite him? I don't know his background, so far I just said "a blogger known for his skill with this, and verified by other data experts"

[Pmt111500]

"Wipneus@asiforum graphing&calcuöating from direct satellite data"?
There's very little preventing people w/ skill doing the exactly same.

[Thomas Barlow]

"Wipneus@asiforum graphing&calcuöating from direct satellite data"?
There's very little preventing people w/ skill doing the exactly same.

Thanks !

[harpy]

Why is it that the lowest extent is during January and the highest during the summer months on the above graph?

[josh-j]

Why is it that the lowest extent is during January and the highest during the summer months on the above graph?

That graph is for global sea ice, so includes both Arctic and Antarctic sea ice. So the low period is during the antarctic summer. 

[oren]

Why is it that the lowest extent is during January and the highest during the summer months on the above graph?

That graph is for global sea ice, so includes both Arctic and Antarctic sea ice. So the low period is during the antarctic summer. 

And the Antarctic, for several reasons, has much higher seasonal variability than the Arctic, therefore the global graph's min and max follow the Antarctic graph.

[gerontocrat]

JAXA Arctic + Antarctic Extent as at 7 Feb 2018 15,619,229 km2

The last two days have seen a 97k ( Feb) and 102 k (7Feb) km2 extent loss, due to extent losses in both the Arctic (the cyclone) and the Antarctic (" a bit of a puzzle"  NSIDC Jan 18 Arctic Sea Ice News.

With just 7 days, 0.23 million km2, 2.5% of average extent loss to go, a new record low is now very much on. However, previous years say that the season could be finished already or up to 16 days to go. Nevertheless another paltry 31k km2 extent loss would equal 2017's record low, and on 7 Feb was 87k km2 below the 2017 extent on that date.

[Lord M Vader]

The daily global sea ice extent for February 7 is now 16,055 Mn km² according to NSDIC numbers. Is this the lowest global sea ice extent ever or is 2017 still in charge?

[gerontocrat]

The daily global sea ice extent for February 7 is now 16,055 Mn km² according to NSDIC numbers. Is this the lowest global sea ice extent ever or is 2017 still in charge?

NSIDC says 2018 is 134k < 2017, and 80K < the 2017 minimum
JAXA says 2018 is 87k < 2017, and 32 K > the 2017 minimum (with 7 days to go).

But that, methinks, is not in charge due to extreme volatility at this time of transition.

[Ktb]

Record low NSIDC, who's got the champagne? Gotta celebrate even though it is similar to those depressing movies where a kid throws a birthday party and nobody shows up.
So...yay?

[gerontocrat]

Record low NSIDC, who's got the champagne? Gotta celebrate even though it is similar to those depressing movies where a kid throws a birthday party and nobody shows up everybody throws up
So...yay?

Ok, so after last year's total humiliation over the JAXA poll for Arctic maximum, I suppose there is some sort of satisfaction in being in the right ball park on something.

[Thomas Barlow]

The daily global sea ice extent for February 7 is now 16,055 Mn km² according to NSDIC numbers. Is this the lowest global sea ice extent ever or is 2017 still in charge?

Looks like it is the lowest global sea-ice extent on record.
(thanks for graph, Wipneus)
https://14adebb0-a-62cb3a1a-s-sites.googlegroups.com/site/arctischepinguin/home/sea-ice-extent-area/grf/nsidc_global_extent_byyear_b.png?attachauth=ANoY7crdcunJV8CYQX88KM7F2XEyb-Sl00hFVW9aFdA1CbyMImk3CCcm1oksnGAW7bX2asq04Ed1JXwRLIWANxFPmq2oDzT3PKmO_pr-JEAWxu5LwdMv9mugH-Mse6KsknROvHqo-DfohUTkM_BIAB6mrMtaaR0DjG32DH8aJsf7KYXZNgUJuvgnD761ewmQZD92PJlAml7pHKjQ4gKxy1SN5oMGNKgZ5tF7X4Q47oW06P4wvqG0eToy5AyApNT_E5PzgB6Eby2wAmTFvxqQSEu4tPcyxast4c9X-_Ah-RS9kKYsBEvqBeY%3D&attredirects=0

[gerontocrat]

JAXA Arctic + Antarctic Extent as at 8 Feb 2018  15,596,102 km2

A modest 26 k km2 extent loss, due to small extent losses in both the Arctic and the Antarctic

With just 6 days, 0.20 million km2, 2.2% of average extent loss to go, there is just 8k km2 loss to go for a new record low.  NSIDC data says it already is a new record.

[BenB]

Given the huge year-to-year variability, it's pretty striking that the two most recent years are in a statistical dead heat for the lowest on record (and have been dominating the daily record lows for extended periods). You might even be tempted to think that something is happening to our climate and to the cryosphere...

[charles_oil]

Luckily the EPA may think that's great ..... wonder who will take credit ?


https://edition.cnn.com/2018/02/08/politics/scott-pruitt-climate-change/index.html


Sorry - should probably be in Trump assaults section !

[PSJ]

Marking the new NSIDC global extent low, this graph is what really knocks me off my feet. Are we in new quasi-equilibrium of -3 standard deviations? How long will we be here for?


Source
https://sites.google.com/site/arctischepinguin/home/global-sea-ice

[gerontocrat]

Marking the new NSIDC global extent low, this graph is what really knocks me off my feet. Are we in new quasi-equilibrium of -3 standard deviations? How long will we be here for?

The table below (JAXA DATA) shows how 2016 and 2017 are completely outliers compared with the previous years. One outlier may be just a one-off - but two. But I guess 3 years is needed to start making a series.

[Buddy]

Marking the new NSIDC global extent low, this graph is what really knocks me off my feet. Are we in new quasi-equilibrium of -3 standard deviations? How long will we be here for?

The table below (JAXA DATA) shows how 2016 and 2017 are completely outliers compared with the previous years. One outlier may be just a one-off - but two. But I guess 3 years is needed to start making a series.

I'm afraid "old MO" (momentum) is awfully difficult to stop or even slow down now that we are this far along.  Next 10 years surely will be more "gobsmacking" than the last 10.

Although....I see that Scottie Pruitt thinks that global warming may be a good thing.  He spent 15 years lying about global warming happening.....but now that he can't spin that lie any longer...he is off to his next lie.  Too bad Scottie isn't very good at math and physics.  Wonder what the folks in Boston, NY City, Miami, Shanghai, Seattle, and billions of people on coasts around the world are going to think of Scottie's new take on things?   

[gerontocrat]

NSIDC daily global extent UP 62K, Arctic +3k, Antarctic 59K.

But, tomorrow is another day.

[Thomas Barlow]

NSIDC daily global extent UP 62K, Arctic +3k, Antarctic 59K.

But, tomorrow is another day.

Looks like both Arctic and Antarctic are both at lowest extent for Feb. 8th
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/

[DavidR]

NSIDC daily global extent UP 62K, Arctic +3k, Antarctic 59K.

But, tomorrow is another day.

A slight correction to the above figures is needed!
Arctic +59K, Antarctic +3k.
The Antarctic is currently 244K above the record low

The Antarctic is just  55K above the 2nd lowest in the record 1997 @ 2.264.

The smallest decline to minimum from this date is 175K and the average  is 374K.

Three quarters of the declines from this date will lead to a new record low minimum while 60% would lead to a below 2 M figure.  In the Arctic three quarters of the increases from today to the max would also lead to a record low maximum.

[gerontocrat]

Thanks DavidR for the correction (Nurse! Where are you?).

As JAXA is on holiday today, I though why not another look back at history. The graphs below are from the NSIDC spreadsheet. They are looking back, each measurement being the average of the previous 365 daily extents.

If nothing else, the graph does show that there is only one direction for Arctic Sea Ice - down. Of note also is the way Antarctic Sea ice rose and fell over the last 6 years to an extent not seen before.

The last point is that despite record low or nearly record low extents currently in both Arctic and Antarctic extents, the average is going up at the moment.

Sea ice going down - yes, ice apocalypse - not yet.

[Alexander555]

Thanks DavidR for the correction (Nurse! Where are you?).

As JAXA is on holiday today, I though why not another look back at history. The graphs below are from the NSIDC spreadsheet. They are looking back, each measurement being the average of the previous 365 daily extents.

If nothing else, the graph does show that there is only one direction for Arctic Sea Ice - down. Of note also is the way Antarctic Sea ice rose and fell over the last 6 years to an extent not seen before.

The last point is that despite record low or nearly record low extents currently in both Arctic and Antarctic extents, the average is going up at the moment.

Sea ice going down - yes, ice apocalypse - not yet.

What is your opinion about the solar cycle. If i understand it well , than we are now at the coldest point. If it has an impact at all. But they are talking about the little ice age in Europe at a moment there were no sun spots. If you look at the result of ice volumes from the last six years, and we are going into a periode with warmer conditions. If my interpretation is good. Than it sounds like we are going to lose some more ice in the future.

https://eos.org/research-spotlights/model-of-solar-cycles-impact-on-climate-gets-upgrade

[gerontocrat]

Not a clue, Alexander 555.

Looking at the (I have to say, classy) image, the 2007 big Arctic ice melt happened nearly at the bottom of the sunspot cycle, while in 2012 it was near the top. So no correlation there.

And then you have nothing from the article to tell us on likely variable effects in high latitudes, mid-latitudes and the tropics. Without a scientist to tell me, I have not and will not have a clue.

Meanwhile, things like aerosols (will India and China reduce coal and their industries) and permafrost, (will the Eastern Siberian Arctic Shelf start burping methane big-time in the near future) are but two more of many variables that could overwhelm the gradual downwards trend in sea ice.

People like me can only watch, wonder, and inform and educate the wider world when possible (for me, since about 1990).

[Sleepy]

If my interpretation is good. Than it sounds like we are going to lose some more ice in the future.

We will loose more ice, but not because of the sun.
http://spot.colorado.edu/~koppg/TSI/#TSI_data_record
http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/glob-warm.html

A couple of years back there were discussions about a new little ice age spurred by deniers. But we have effctively disarmed ice ages for many thousands of years to come. Unless something truly drastic happens.

[Alexander555]

And do you know if there is a correlation between these sunspots and the temperature on earth ? I'm not a denier. Even without all the carbon pollution i think the earth will warm. By cutting all these forest on the equator we transform them into an oven. So if you take everything together, fossil fuel warming, the ovens on the equator, and maybe some extra from the sun. But i haven't read much about that sun cycle. That's why i ask, i was just wondering.

[Alexander555]

I have seen the link now, they are talking about a small difference. That means it can add a little.

[Gray-Wolf]

We do have a link between northern blocking and low solar ( our winter of 09/10 in the UK arrests to that! ) so does this 'blocking' run into spring?
We are just having a major SSW and , in the UK at least, folk are wondering if this will lead to northern blocking and so put the UK under easterlies and cold out of Siberia? Us running down into low solar might help with the process?
This High pressure would produce a good start to the melt season allowing a sunny start to the season?
07' was in the period of losing sun spot numbers and 2010's volume loss was at minimum. 2012 was as the sun spot numbers were slowly increasing so still within the 'solar min'
So I wonder if the high pressure's associated with low solar bring a good melt momentum to a melt season and so allow low number finishes even if July/Aug are cloudy/cool/stormy?

[gerontocrat]

Meanwhile, back to the present.

NSIDC DATA as at Feb 9th

Extent down 106k to 16.011 million km2, 124k below the 2017 record low.

Arctic exactly reversed the previous day gain of 57k,
Antarctic dropped by 49k, at 2.270 million km2, now 195k to go to match the 2017 record low.

[Sleepy]

I have seen the link now, they are talking about a small difference. That means it can add a little.

First, I never called you a denier, just tried to keep it short because this is OT here.

From the second link I posted and the top link:
Solar Influences on Climate
http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/Solar%20Influences%20on%20Climate-2009RG000282.pdf
Section 6.4 Climate Change

A value of 0.24 W m⁻² solar radiative forcing difference from Maunder Minimum to the present is currently considered to be more appropriate.

Remember, the current cycle (24) is not as low as during the Maunder minimum, not even Dalton, it's similar to those around 1900. As of December 2017 the strength and trend of the southern polar field hints at a cycle 25 with a magnitude slightly stronger than that of cycle 24.

[FishOutofWater]

The effect of a prolonged solar minimum would be modest - tenths of a degree C. It could affect weather patterns, however, as ocean heat would be redistributed in response to the slightly shifted regional radiation balance.

There was a regional "little ice age" that primarily affected Europe. It was mainly caused by northern hemisphere volcanoes. The Maunder minimum in sunspots had an modest impact. Southern hemisphere temperatures dropped slightly.

A deep and long solar minimum would cause a modest drop in forcing that would be significantly less than the increase in forcing caused by increasing levels of GHGs.

I'm writing this from memory based on reading many research papers and discussions.

[DavidR]

And do you know if there is a correlation between these sunspots and the temperature on earth ? I'm not a denier. Even without all the carbon pollution i think the earth will warm. By cutting all these forest on the equator we transform them into an oven. So if you take everything together, fossil fuel warming, the ovens on the equator, and maybe some extra from the sun. But i haven't read much about that sun cycle. That's why i ask, i was just wondering.

The correlation between the solar cycle and temperatures on earth is well established.  At the top of a solar cycle temperatures on earth are roughly  0.3 degrees hotter than at the bottom, The same range holds for ENSO.  However both of these are overlaid on a rising background temperature of 0.15 degrees per decade  The consequence is that  we see periods of rapid increase followed by  longer periods of slow decline that do not return temperatures to their previous levels.

With the current cycle being quite small the impact on temperature are lessened and rise will be more consistent. If we get a maunder minimum as predicted by some, there will be no period of temporary cooling and temperatures will rise with fewer fluctuations over the next  few decades.

[Alexander555]

I have seen the link now, they are talking about a small difference. That means it can add a little.

First, I never called you a denier, just tried to keep it short because this is OT here.

From the second link I posted and the top link:
Solar Influences on Climate
http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/Solar%20Influences%20on%20Climate-2009RG000282.pdf
Section 6.4 Climate Change

A value of 0.24 W m⁻² solar radiative forcing difference from Maunder Minimum to the present is currently considered to be more appropriate.

Remember, the current cycle (24) is not as low as during the Maunder minimum, not even Dalton, it's similar to those around 1900. As of December 2017 the strength and trend of the southern polar field hints at a cycle 25 with a magnitude slightly stronger than that of cycle 24.

Thanks for the link, i'm going to read it this evening. For the moment i'm only at page six, and i have a few things to do. But it looks interesting. But when i look at the pics i can imagine there is a little correlation. And probably it would be more clear if we could filter the other effects out. If you look at the points where there are few sun spots, just after 87 there is a little uptick in extent. In 97 it looks like there was only a moment with zero spots, and extent stayed flat for almost 4 years. In 2008-2010 it was a much longer periode with only very few spots. And in the years after extent went up like 1,5 million square kilometers. And what do you mean with a magnitude slightly stronger ? More sun spots, or a longer time without spots ?

[Neven]

On-topic, please. Take it elsewhere, or open a separate thread.

[Thomas Barlow]

Meanwhile, back to the present.

NSIDC DATA as at Feb 9th

Extent down 106k to 16.011 million km2, 124k below the 2017 record low.

Arctic exactly reversed the previous day gain of 57k,
Antarctic dropped by 49k, at 2.270 million km2, now 195k to go to match the 2017 record low.

Did global sea ice reach the lowest extent ever recorded on the day Elon Musk put more than 500,000 kgs of CO2 into the atmosphere to launch a 2,000kg payload into space?
The irony is mind-blowing.

[harpy]

Meanwhile, back to the present.

NSIDC DATA as at Feb 9th

Extent down 106k to 16.011 million km2, 124k below the 2017 record low.

Arctic exactly reversed the previous day gain of 57k,
Antarctic dropped by 49k, at 2.270 million km2, now 195k to go to match the 2017 record low.

Wow, that's incredible. 

What is the current global average temperature above the pre-industrial baseline right now (Mid February 2018)??

[gerontocrat]

Meanwhile, back to the present.

NSIDC DATA as at Feb 9th

Extent down 106k to 16.011 million km2, 124k below the 2017 record low.

Arctic exactly reversed the previous day gain of 57k,
Antarctic dropped by 49k, at 2.270 million km2, now 195k to go to match the 2017 record low.

Wow, that's incredible. 

What is the current global average temperature above the pre-industrial baseline right now (Mid February 2018)??

daily data not available. A shade over 1 degree celsius, about 1.8 degrees fahrenheit, but currently increasing at about 0.13 degrees per decade (i.e. faster). The Arctic is warming faster - no data but Alaska just had its warmest December on record, with a statewide average temperature anomaly of 15.7 degrees Fahrenheit above average for the month.

Meanwhile, NSIDC revised its daily extents for the Antarctic down a bit. Global extent now at 16.066 million km2, still going down and still a record low.

With luck JAXA will return tomorrow.

[harpy]

Where do you find that information on global average temperature exactly?

I've seen 1.5C above baseline, 1C is a bit low.

[gerontocrat]

Where do you find that information on global average temperature exactly?

I've seen 1.5C above baseline, 1C is a bit low.

Google.

[harpy]

Where do you find that information on global average temperature exactly?

I've seen 1.5C above baseline, 1C is a bit low.

Google.

Google is not a reliable source.  No wonder you think we're only at 1C above baseline.

[harpy]

For example look at this graph from NASA of all places:

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

This is 100% crap because they're skewing the entire graph and reporting a false final figure based on a baseline that is not accurate.  The temperature data is fine, but it's shifted down nearly .5C to represent a screwed up baseline (What the F NASA?).    Baseline is 1750-1850, not 1950-1980+ anything.  This is 100% political - only a mentally challenged scientist would use a false baseline like this and present the data to the public.

They're obviously not mentally challenged at NASA, so this is almost certainly political.

If you look on the graph you can clearly see that it's skewed down, and temperatures are currently hovering around 1.5C, not 1C.

[Tetra]

For example look at this absolute garbage graph:

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

This is 100% crap.  First of all, they're using a screwed up baseline.  Baseline is 1750-1850, not 1900+ anything.

If you look on the graph you can clearly see that it's skewed down, and temperatures are currently hovering around 1.5C, not 1C.

There's a reason why measuring is kept at 1900+. The little ice age. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

Temps were already naturally down, so measuring from them would be anomalous.

1900+ is when large industrial kicks in anyway. And all the IPCC reports and such, when they say 1C use this time period.

And we don't have reliable data for pre 1900. 1951 was when proper documentation by NASA started.

The 1951-1980 is a good thirty year scientific baseline because a) the 1980s were way warmer on a 0.2c+ Per decade trend, and b) it gives us a good average to measure from.

You're comparing apples and oranges. Your 1.5C is a very, non scientific anomalous claim. Please back it up with an actual source by a documented scientist arguing against the NASA claim.

They are literally going with their own data.

If we were at that measurement, current warming would be 1/2x worse.

[binntho]

Where do you find that information on global average temperature exactly?

I've seen 1.5C above baseline, 1C is a bit low.

Google.

Google is not a reliable source.  No wonder you think we're only at 1C above baseline.

I'm not sure why you think there should be a particular "baseline" - but palaeotemperatures are typically shown against baseline 1950-1980 or "1970". HadCRUT which has the longest contiguous temperature record, since 1850, uses 1960-1990 as baseline. But if recalculated against a 1850-1880 baseline shows approximately 1 degree warming.

Global temperature estimates for the holocene show the lowest temperatures appr. 300-500 years ago, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age#/media/File:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png , but mid 19th century was pretty cool as well. the period 1850-1880 apparently slightly colder than 1750-1850 from eyeballing the graph.

All in all a 1 degree warming over the last 150 years or so, although I have seen on occasion the number 1,5 mentioned.

This graph from Wikipedia is probably based on NASA GISS (although it doesn't say), if you were to pick 1900-1930 as a baseline (slightly colder than 1850-1880) you might get around 1,2 degrees warming.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#/media/File:Global_Temperature_Anomaly.svg