View Article & Comments

The pictures above do not show sea ice; it shows sea surface temperature. Here's the actual sea ice concentration from that website:
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icedrift_anim/index.uk.php
This shows the same loss in ice as everybody else. The ice continued to melt all month; it might not be at its minimum still. It will take at least a few more weeks to tell.

The pictures above are from this page (same website):
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/satellite/index.uk.php
It clearly says "sea surface temperature". There is a key on the bottom that has colors corresponding to different temperatures. What looks like ice is sea surface temps below -1.7C. I know this because I emailed the DMI/COI and Jacob L. Hoyer there told me this:

"Hi Robert,
I admit it can be difficult to see, but actually the light gray color is in the colorbar, in the triangle to the far left.
This means that all temperatures (including sea ice) below -1.7 are marked light gray.
Hope this helped.
Best wishes,
Jacob"

Joe Bastardi has been claiming all week that there has been a big recovery in the ice (and that the "warmingistas" have been ignoring it), but he is basing this claim on a map for sea surface temps, not ice. I am sure you don't want to continue the same mistake here.

Hi Robert

Thanks for that info, I took the view that what Joe had put forward from the 26th August to now was relative, and that whatever it was on display on the 26th August, was showing an increase of whatever it was going on.

The problem with the display from the 26th August was that the area had suffered from strong winds, so the icepack had spread rather then melted.

What Joe has latched onto, is the icepack comming together again or bonding over a bigger area.

I will see what the area looks like on the 21st September and each 21st of the month therafter

"The problem with the display from the 26th August was that the area had suffered from strong winds, so the icepack had spread rather then melted."

But that's not what happened. The pack continued to melt. It didn't spread out.


"What Joe has latched onto, is the icepack comming together again or bonding over a bigger area."

No, he just posted the wrong picture. What he though was sea ice was surface temps below -1.7C. It was the wrong map. The actual map for sea ice shows less ice today than on August 26th.

August 26th:
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icedrift_anim/index.uk.php

Today:
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icedrift_anim/index.uk.php

Mr. Bastardi claimed there was a big recovery in sea ice based on a map of sea surface temperature. Does it not bother you to continue his error?

Hi Robert

I took the view in August that the Massive cyclone that blew over central Arctic ocean had also disturbed the icepack so it broke up, and that because of it's thickness had melted a lot faster then it would have done. Thats not to say there were no warmer then average waters also in the same area.

What we have now is a faster growth of a "new" icepack over a bigger area.

I'm not saying the ice did not melt and whatever it is you think I'm trying to deny.

Just give it a couple of more weeks and we can both be objective in what is going on.

I know the data shows how poor this years ice depletion has been, but that is not to say there is no other reason then AGW being the cause of it. There WAS a major storm in that location and as I have said it may account for some if not all of the poor result we have seen so far

Comment edited by Co2sceptic (forum) on Thursday September 13, 2012 at 11:55 AM EDT

"What we have now is a faster growth of a "new" icepack over a bigger area."

No, we defintely do not. There is no new icepack. The melt hasn't ended yet. The picture you have posted above is not sea ice, it's sea surface temperature. Why is that so hard to comprehend? You have yet to demonstrate *any* sea ice growth this month.

Comment edited by Robert Murphy (Twitter) on Thursday September 13, 2012 at 12:12 PM EDT

Robert

I have answered the comment as follows:

Thanks for that info, I took the view that what Joe had put forward from the 26th August to now was relative, and that whatever it was on display on the 26th August, was showing an increase of whatever it was going on.

BTW are you a meteorologist or a specialist on this topic, in fact just let us know who you are so we can chat to someone we know

"I have answered the comment as follows:

Thanks for that info, I took the view that what Joe had put forward from the 26th August to now was relative, and that whatever it was on display on the 26th August, was showing an increase of whatever it was going on."

And that didn't answer any of the points I made. What do you make of Mr. Bastardi using a map of sea surface temperature and claiming it is sea ice extent? How can Mr. Bastardi make a point about sea ice when he isn't posting a map of sea ice? What evidence do you have that there "is a faster growth of a "new" icepack over a bigger area"? What evidence do you have that there is *any* new icepack this month? Have you even looked at the links I provided?

Here's the DMI/COI page that Mr. Bastardi used to get his pictures above:
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/satellite/index.uk.php

The parameter chosen is "sea surface temperature". There is no depiction of sea ice on that graph.

Here is the map that does show sea ice from that website:
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icedrift_anim/index.uk.php

That shows sea ice concentration.

No, I'm not a meteorogist, but I can read English and it is not disputable that the picture you have above does not say anything about the Arctic sea ice extent/area.

Woah - considering there has been so much publicity about the Arctic ice melt you would think that he would realise that he must have misinterpreted the image. So he's either a bit dim or he's deliberately trying to deceive. Or maybe both?

I agree with Elim about being misleading but I don't think it's Joe B who is picking one chart and running with it (much as I like him he does hyperbole cold - this could be wrestling background as he's like Jerry Lawler at times in his commentary).

The SST anomalies charts DO have light grey and it is quite distinguishable from the white areas. This is not the same as the SST chart which Joe B highlighted and is very clear in the key (bottom of his pics) which shows a temp range of 0-34C. The SST anomalies key (anomalies being the key word here) show a range from -4C to +4C and which has a grey area in the key. Now try as I might I can't find any grey on the SST chart key but I did notice how the white area on Joe's chart for Aug 26 looks remarkably like the NASA image:

http://i1158.photobucket.com/albums/p603/CraigM350/17c9f501.jpg

Comment edited by Craig M (Twitter) on Thursday September 13, 2012 at 7:50 PM EDT

The problem is the fact that the map that Bastardi is posting is clearly marked as "sea surface temperature". When you go to the DMI/COI website you have to physically choose what parameter you are displaying. He can't have innocently chosen sea surface temps instead of sea ice. The only question is why he thinks that nobody would check his prevarication, especially since no other sea ice product remotely resembles his fantasy "recovery".

Co2's postulation regarding the storm breaking ice and it regathering seems a fair assumption. There are several other factors which JusttheFacts covered quite well over on the WUWT thread - including the SST anomalies near rivers which could industry could be adding to. I find myself agreeing with Elim's comments before - too few years of sat era data to draw conclusions from that data set. But without a doubt the reason the storm impacted so hard was the ice was thinner than it has been since we sent up electronic boxes to check it out. The ice may still be there but not in significantly detectable amounts.

I also checked all the charts earlier in the week (poss. end of last week) and a majority (4/7) were showing an uptick (some were slight). Today all 7 show either a drop back or no change. All are below the 26 Aug level.

What gets me is why we are so heavily relying on sat data - surely someone must have visited and has an (dispassionate) account of the ice state? (i.e. is it slush or not?).

There has been a very large wave shift in the Arctic Basin anomaly which seems to be around the time of solar min.

I did a simple overlay of sunspot numbers using them as a rough proxy for solar activity and compared to the chart for the Arctic Basin...

http://i1158.photobucket.com/albums/p603/CraigM350/99674d5f.jpg

It's far from perfect and I hope to source some data to run a proper check. Interesting anyway.

"Co2's postulation regarding the storm breaking ice and it regathering seems a fair assumption."

There is no evidence at all that the ice has "regathered". The evidence is that it has continued to melt.

"All are below the 26 Aug level."

Much below it, too. Joe Bastardi claims otherwise. He says it's a lot above that level. That's the point of the this thread. What say you? Are they wrong?

"I did a simple overlay of sunspot numbers using them as a rough proxy for solar activity and compared to the chart for the Arctic Basin..."

Looking at your graph, there seems to be no relationship between sunpsot number and ice area. Did you have a point bring that up?

Robert did I upset you by catching you out trolling? Are you too ideologically dense to read and understand what amplitude is? Of course it won't follow SSN it's called a proxy for how the sun is behaving. Next thing you'll be mentioning TSI. You came on here spouting off about Joe B when you had the wrong chart yourself so your email meant nothing.

I will now stop troll feeding

Craig, in the real world when scientific issues are being discussed, there is often (healthy) disagreement. We don't however call people 'trolls' because they hold a contrary view.
Just to add - I'm not sure what you're trying to show with that chart.

Guys.

In case you have not seen it, Joe has replied with my version of events

The Truth Behind the Shrinking Arctic Ice Cap