Global sea ice extent record minimum

As discussed in the comment section of the Global sea ice area minimum record blog post, data provided by the NSIDC shows that the Global sea ice extent record has been broken as well:

Over on The Great White Con Jim Hunt has published this graph showing the long-term trend, still down it seems:

The old minimum record was reached in 2006 and stood at 16.766 million km2. As of today NSIDC Global SIE stands at 16.707 million km2. That's a 59K difference, and given the forecasts for the Arctic, Global SIE could go even lower.

So, that's it for the two daily Global sea ice data products (Cryosphere Today Global SIA, NSIDC Arctic SIE + Antarctic SIE). If there are any other out there, let me know. The record is probably being broken there too, if it isn't already. And also let me know if a climate risk denier outlet reports this.

Comments

[NeilT]

" And also let me know if a climate risk denier outlet reports this."

Yeah right, I noticed Watts has an article stating that "Local Climate Models" are the next big thing in predictions....

I noticed that the CT interactive line dropped off the bottom again...

This has to reflect in PIOMAS sometime right? I wondering how low it will finish the season.

Some bit's I don't get. Barrow is COLD right now, -24C or so above the ice, yet there is this huge area of open water just offshore and it's not freezing up much. Also the shelf ice is simply not growing much. It's stuck around 0.5m and is growing incredibly slowly for the above ice air temp.

I'm betting these are not the only records going to fall come spring and early summer.

[Neven]

This has to reflect in PIOMAS sometime right?

Well, Neil, PIOMAS reported the lowest January increase in the 2006-2016 period.

[Jim Hunt]

Well I have posed the obvious question Neven:

http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2016/02/global-sea-ice-extent-at-lowest-ever-level/#WUWT

I'll let you know what answer, if any, I receive. For the moment at least, the mods@WUWT are running around like the proverbial blue-arsed flies "moderating" the dates of the odd comment or two on Anthony's not so humble organ of disinformation.

[Jim Hunt]

Shock News! I popped back to WUWT to discover that my comment has now been published:

https://archive.is/MSUGp#selection-22233.0-22247.31

The somewhat cursory comment from one of said mods is as follows:

[instead of just being your typical taunter (it’s what you do) why not provide the links to the exact graphs you are so worried about? Too hard or do you just want people to take you at face value? -mod]

which suggestion I have of course gladly complied with.

[Jim Hunt]

P.S. The WUWT mods must be working overtime at the moment since I now have an answer, from one of them rather than one or more of Messrs. Monckton, Soon and Legates:

https://archive.is/s5Lot#selection-22297.0-22311.29

However it seems said mod is unable to distinguish area from extent:

[3 or more links sends any comment to spam, as spammers tend to load up links. but this is your plot, not NSIDC’s …where is the official plot from NSIDC? Since you have an agenda, your plots may or may not be accurate -mod]

[UPDATE: here’s Cryosphere today’s official plot while we have a single area point that is lower than the rest, the global anomaly isn’t anywhere near the lowest.

Mr. Hunt just seems to be engaging in his usual cherrypicking to garner attention and derail this thread with his off-topic comments, probably best to simply ignore him -mod]

For details of further comments that seem to have temporarily escaped the mods eagle eyes see also:

http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,578.msg70274.html#msg70274

[AbbottisGone]

Going back over some old comments at skeptical science:

Are the April and September trends for the Arctic particularly sought indicators for a reason?

Do the April and September indicators act as a preferred confirmation tool of some kind in the eyes of those that know, perhaps?

[Jim Hunt]

The Norse Gods move in mysterious ways, and evidently have a well developed sense of humour:

http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2016/02/global-sea-ice-extent-at-lowest-ever-level/#2016-02-19-0830

[Jim Hunt]

AiG - Do you have a link to the SkS comments you refer to?

Sea ice area is a (very) rough proxy for Arctic Ocean albedo during the long days of summer. Is that what you're after?

https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/seaice/processes/albedo.html

[P-maker]

Came across the motion picture: “Snow White and the Huntsman” this evening.

Somehow the plot reminded me of this thread: Jim, the Huntsman occasionally stops by to entertain us about his fight with the evil bastards on the other side. Sometimes, he is being helped by the dwarfs here. In one scene, the evil stepmother is even covered in black greasy oil. I like the kind of symbolism, but I find it hard to digest all the super natural gimmicks and I find it increasingly difficult to follow the various plots all the way in the film and at WUWT...

What actually happened during the shooting of this movie also has bearings on the sequel: “The Huntsman: Winter’s War” due to be released 22 April this year. In the trailer seen here: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2381991/ you will notice a young girl riding a polar bear. It turned out that the director of the first movie was having an affair with Snow White. Hence, both the Director and the actress Kristine something was left out in the cold for the follow-up. Shit happens as they say in the trenches.

The fact is that Jim Hunt, our Huntsman at the GWPF, is right now fighting a heroic fight with Benny Pisser over at the other site. I wish him all the best, but also remain concerned about his ability to separate facts from fiction, if he is watching this kind of film every night.

PS Already now I have to warn you that next Friday, our national broadcasting comapny has announced that they will show the film : “A-Team”. This is starting to look like a conspiracy…

[Jim Hunt]

It's simple enough P-maker.

The evil black greasy oil covered bastards at WUWT deliberately confuse their innocent viewers by keeping the Huntsman's comments in purgatory until it suits them to magically make them public. Then they smile sweetly and pretend said comments were there the whole time, whilst others were never there in the first place.

Capiche?

[AbbottisGone]

Jim, I wasn't really referring to a specific statistic just trying to read between the lines and ask if April and September were go-to months for any particular reason?

[Jim Hunt]

AiG,

Well from my own perspective in April you start to get a feel for Northern Hemisphere snow cover, and hence albedo, in advance of the sea ice melting season. Maximum volume generally occurs in April also:

http://GreatWhiteCon.info/resources/arctic-sea-ice-graphs/#PIOMAS

Then comes the melting season itself starting in June, with the headline number of minimum area/extent (in recent history at least!) occurring in September.

However that may have no relevance whatsoever to the views of the SkS author you mentioned!

[Jim Hunt]

In case you're wondering why Neven is a bit quiet in here, it's because the evil black greasy oil covered bastards at NALOPKT have confined the Huntsman in an inescapable dungeon.

Neven, magically protected by his Fairy Godmother, is however valiantly continuing the fight to keep the snow white, in single combat with the forces of darkness:

http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2016/02/gross-deception-about-dmis-missing-graph/#Neven

[AbbottisGone]

Cheers.

It's a good think I like graphs...

[AbbottisGone]

Jim,
Curiously your second graph says that, "Far extrapolations into the future offer very little guidance." This is because a complex system could never behave geometrically, yes?!!?

The exponential trends graph is interesting in that: IT SHOWS YOU EXACTLY WHAT YOU DON'T WANT TO SEE!

Back to my first paragraph of thought for a second. I think I remember Skeptical Science teaching me that climate was not chaotic as opposed to weather being chaotic. I'm obviously confused about the difference between 'chaotic' and 'complex' but I still venture to say:

The reason the exponential trends graph is interesting is because it's exactly what we don't want to see: and that is exactly why we need it!

Cool ...

[John Christensen]

Hi Jim,

You need to evolve from the 'evil black greasy oil covered bastards' notion, as it is an illusion.

As mentioned on a different thread the vast majority of major oil companies are significant contributors to the CFR, (US) Council on Foreign Relations, as you see here:
http://www.cfr.org/about/corporate/roster.html
And the CFR is run by Rockefeller (Standard Oil).
The CFR is a strong proponent of the UN, the IPCC, energy regulation, cap trade, etc., as you see here:

http://www.cfr.org/climate-change/five-things-watch-paris-climate-summit/p37293

Because, in the end, it is about money and power, and the major energy companies are moving just as quickly, as the global consumer opinion is.

So the question is; how quickly is the consumer opinion moving?

I am assuming that all contributors to this blog are using computers or network connected mobile devices.

Computers and mobile devices are full of plastic (Comes from 'evil black greasy oil') and metals sourced from around the world including: aluminum, antimony, arsenic, barium, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, copper, gallium, gold, iron, lead, manganese, mercury, palladium, platinum, selenium, silver, and zinc. Eight of these metals are considered hazardous as well..
Evil black greasy oil is used in the extraction, modification and transport of all of these materials to enable you to make this blog entry.

So tell me: Last time you bought a computer or mobile device, was your first priority the sourcing and materials in your device, or the price and functionality of the device?

If it was the first, then you are safe and can blame everyone else.

The rest of us, who either bought a device from a price/functionality perspective, or got company issued devices without protesting about how these were sourced and produces are all evil black greasy oil covered bastards..

Are you safe?

[John Christensen]

In the meantime, it seems like the Arctic is making a last desperate attempt at improving the ice cover situation:

DMI today has the second uptick on extent and is now the highest so far in 2016 and near or on par with the max extent of 2015:

http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php

This is probably due to weather improvements:
- The low in Northern Scandinavia pulls cold air in a westerly direction across Kara and Barents
- The low in Alaska and the weaker high in Siberia causes southerly air flow in Bering:

http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/weather/arcticweather.uk.php

[Jim Hunt]

John,

It seems that you have comprehensively misunderstood Ms. White and I? We were merely extending P-Maker's allegory to it's surreally logical conclusion.

The "evil black greasy oil covered bastards at NALOPKT" refers to those who censor fair comment on their "skeptical" blogs, such as (in this particular instance) Paul Homewood and Anthony Watts. I can assure you that is no "fairy story"!

Judy Curry on the other hand wouldn't dream of acting so despicably :)

http://archive.is/qIIem#selection-6587.0-6597.5

[John Christensen]

Got it, NP.

However, my point was also that we are all in deep and a way out is not easily designed.

[Jim Hunt]

AiG,

Actually that undeniably cool graph is the work of "Wipneus". There was much debate not so long ago about whether linear, exponential or Gompertz fits had the best basis in physical reality. E.g. see this article from Larry Hamilton:

http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2011/04/trends-in-arctic-sea-ice-extent.html

[Jim Hunt]

Quite so John,

By way of another example of the "greasy" activities of one of the "oil covered bastards" in question, despite repeated reminders Mr. Watts has still not seen fit to publish a comment of mine over on WUWT to the effect that:

"Renewable Energy is the Work of Generations of Engineers"

[John Christensen]

Regarding the extrapolation of ice area or extent graphs, it seems necessary to consider each of the main factors contributing to Arctic ice melt (Not in a prioritized order):

1. Direct radiation energy, which for our purpose is constant for each year and influenced solely by the rotation of the earth around the sun. This is the main factor from an energy perspective.
2. Indirect radiation, which is increasing due to increased CO2
3. Ocean heat energy, which is increasing due to increase in air temperatures and increased indirect radiation
4. Heat energy brought to the Arctic from lower latitudes via storms

For the fourth factor it seems we have had a winter similar to 2006, with many strong storms arriving in the central Arctic region, releasing lots of heat energy, which reduces ice formation and often causes southerly winds on the Atlantic side of the Arctic.

The last four years (2012-2015) have all seen very low occurrence, strength and duration of tropical hurricanes and typhones, as seen here: http://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/accumulated_cyclone_energy.asp?basin=gl
The relative lack of tropical storm activity must have caused a considerable lack of ocean/atmosphere heat energy exchange, considering how much energy is released in a hurricane (http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/D7.html):

"An average hurricane produces 1.5 cm/day (0.6 inches/day) of rain inside a circle of radius 665 km (360 n.mi) (Gray 1981). (More rain falls in the inner portion of hurricane around the eyewall, less in the outer rainbands.) Converting this to a volume of rain gives 2.1 x 1016 cm3/day. A cubic cm of rain weighs 1 gm. Using the latent heat of condensation, this amount of rain produced gives

5.2 x 1019 Joules/day or
6.0 x 1014 Watts.

This is equivalent to 200 times the world-wide electrical generating capacity."

It has been difficult to find research on either the lack of tropical storm activity and whether the reduced tropical storm activity has caused a reduction in the ocean/atmosphere energy exchange in the tropical latitudes, but it seems logical to assume that tropical latitude oceans as a consequence of reduced tropical storm activity have retained more heat energy, which then is brought to temperate climate zones and eventually arctic climate zones via increased storm activity and increased water temperature brought from the tropics.

[John Christensen]

Sorry, missed the conclusion:

The question is therefore whether the reduction in tropical storm activity is a result of AGW, in which case it would be a positive feedback, or if the reduction in tropical storm activity is caused by other weather phenomena and when it is increased again, it would cause an improvement in tropical ocean/atmosphere heat exchange resulting in somewhat lowered heat energy transport to temperate and arctic climate zones.

[Jim Hunt]

However in 2016 Hurricane Alex formed in January and then headed directly for Greenland!

http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2016/01/more-heat-heading-for-north-pole/

[John Christensen]

Hi Jim,

Sorry, I may be missing your point.

Are you confirming my point, namely that the tropical waters did not cool enough in 2015 due to lack of tropical storms in this and preceding years, which would allow a minor freak hurricane like this one to develop in January?

[P-maker]

John,

According to Wikipedia, you seem to have missed this point;

“The 2015 Pacific hurricane season was the second most active Pacific hurricane season on record. It produced a record 31 tropical depressions that developed, of which 26 became named storms, just shy of the record 27 set in 1992. A record-tying 16 became hurricanes, and a record 11 storms became major hurricanes throughout the season. The year featured record-high activity in the Central Pacific—the portion of the Eastern Pacific defined between the International Dateline and 140°W—with fifteen tropical cyclones forming in or entering the basin.[1] Moreover, the season was the second most active season in terms of Accumulated Cyclone Energy, with a total of 284 ACE units.”

I suggest you get your facts sorted out before you start messing around with statements like: “The last four years (2012-2015) have all seen very low occurrence, strength and duration of tropical hurricanes and typhones,” If you had been trying to survive last year’s devastating cyclones in e.g. the Philippines or Taiwan, you may have phrased your wrong assumption differently.

You may have a point in the Atlantic, that the absence of major Tropical cyclones in this basin may have contributed to the pile-up of hot waters off the US east coast, which may have laid the foundation for a handful of major heat incursions into the Arctic this winter.

[Jim Hunt]

John,

Not theorising about the causes, I simply wished to point out that:

1) Everything about Alex was unusual, &

2) Alex, Frank et al. all carried their warm, wet payload inside the Arctic Circle, not forgetting all the hurricane force storms in the North Pacific.

[John Christensen]

P-maker,

you are positively hilarious, but either not very well versed in tropical storms or deliberately cherry-picking when saying:

"I suggest you get your facts sorted out before you start messing around with statements"

My facts:
- I linked to Weather Underground, which is a very reliable source for tropical storms and ACE information, and according to Weather Underground 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015 had the lowest ACE on record, globally, which was my point.

Linked again for your benefit:
https://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/accumulated_cyclone_energy.asp?basin=gl

You picked the Pacific Hurricane number, which indeed was extremely high in 2015, but as you should know the tropical cyclones are only named 'hurricanes' in the north east quadrant of the Pacific and therefore does not include the southern or (north) western Pacific.

And yes, el nino conditions typically result in higher than usual number of Pacific Hurricanes, as you will see from the Weather Underground ACE history.

What do you say?

[P-maker]

John,

Again, referring you to Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accumulated_cyclone_energy

I picked the following ACE numbers for 2015 in each of the basins you mention (source in bracket):

Atlantic 62 (National Hurricane Center)
East Pacific 282 (?)
West Pacific 290 (JMA)

The West Pacific # was the highest observed, the East Pacific was the second highest observed and the Atlantic number came in as the 33rd highest observed.

I will remind you, that this thread is about the Global sea ice extent record minimum, so I suggest you take this debate somewhere else, unless it is of direct relevance for the record minimum.

[AbbottisGone]

Thanks for link Jim!

[John Christensen]

P-maker,

I have not been using Wikipedia for ACE data, as the information is not global and the ACE graphics often only cover a few years.
For West Pacific, as example, 2015 ACE was the highest observed, but that is just because the graph covers 2009-2015..
From Weather Underground you see at least 7 years with higher ACE for West Pacific.

However, I am sorry for having missed that Weather Underground apparently starting 2012 in the Global graph only includes the Atlantic and East Pacific and no longer other oceans, so my statement about 2012-2015 being low on ACE globally is incorrect, and I cannot find a site that tracks this globally.

The reason I mentioned the ACE, as you also acknowledged for the Atlantic, is that a year with low tropical storm activity should lead to reduced ocean/atmosphere energy exchange and therefore that sub-tropical waters could stay warmer into the fall and winter season, causing more severe storms to develop and reach the Arctic region.

And that is the relevance for the ice extent.

[P-maker]

Thank you!

P

[crandles]

2016.1453 .. 14.2208595 might be the minimum with Arctic just having increased 138k and typical Antarctic minimum just a couple of days away. It seems global area usually increases from now on.