We are currently treated to another expose of the Climate Scare Machine doing its job. Perhaps you’ve seen these eyeball-grabbing headlines in the last week.

Freak storm in North Atlantic to lash UK, may push temperatures over 50 degrees above normal at North Pole @Washington Post

Arctic ‘heatwave’ hits the North Pole: Storm Frank causes temperatures to soar by 60°F taking the icy region close to melting point @Daily Mail

Arctic ‘heat wave’ sets new record low for sea ice @The Weather Network

These rumor mills start with a factoid, in this case an unusual weather event. Then some know-nothing “journalists” look for quotes from scientists who should know better, but want to grab attention with a sound-bite. Then the editors are off to the races making up headlines to raise circulations and advertising rates.

So, there was a storm called Frank, and it did push warm, moist air toward the North Pole.  From NSIDC (here)

The event was linked to the combination of a very strong low pressure system near Iceland and a somewhat less intense low pressure system located near the North Pole. . . This created a strong, deep inflow of warm, moist air into the Arctic Ocean’s high latitudes. The low near Iceland strengthened rapidly in the last days of December, reaching a minimum pressure of 935 millibars, equivalent to a hurricane. While the event was remarkable and may account for the slow ice growth during the first few days of January 2016, it was short lived and is unlikely to have any long-term effects on the sea ice cover.

And yes, there was a pause in the rate of ice growth in December.

Here is MASIE data for the last 16 days (Dec. 21 through Jan. 5) compared to averages for the last decade. You can see the pause, and then the acceleration of ice growth in 2016, moving almost 400k km2 above average.

Conclusion:

Do not trust mass media for unbiased reporting of climate news.

And they are pulling the same trick, hoping to melt the Greenland ice sheet by blowing hot air over it.  What you need to know:  Greenland is Melting! Really?

About MASIE produced by NIC (from NSIDC)

The NSIDC Sea Ice Index ice extent is widely used, but the edge position can be off by 10s or in some cases 100s of kilometers. NIC produces a better ice edge product, but it does not reach the same audience as the Sea Ice Index.

In June 2014, we decided to make the MASIE product available back to 2006. This was done in response to user requests, and because the IMS product output, upon which MASIE is based, appeared to be reasonably consistent.

Footnote:

Maybe if all that hot air could be captured, it could be useful, like this:

But wait!  That hot air appears to be rising, rather descending to melt the ice. Hmmm.

Update January 3, below.

This year end report shows there is no reason to worry about Arctic ice melting. Against the odds, 2015 recovered from:
The blob melted Bering Sea a month early; it’s now well ahead of 2014.
An August storm pushed extent down for 28 days; it now nearly matches 2014.

MASIE measurements show that 2007 ice extent was lower than any year since. It is now confirmed that 2015 average annual extent exceeds 2007 by about 400,000 km2. That difference arises from comparing 2007 annual average of 10.414 M km2 with 2015 average through day 365 of 10.808. That makes 2015 virtually tied with 2009 for fourth place in the last ten years.

Summary:

Arctic ice declined in the decade prior to 2007, but has not declined since.

Alarmists chafe at the words “growing” and “recovery”, and I use them poetically to counter “death spiral” terminology. What we have seen in the last decade is a plateau in Arctic ice extent, analogous to the plateau in surface temperatures. The rise since 2007 is slight and not statistically important, just as the loss of ice from 1979 to 1994 in the NOAA dataset was too slight to count as a decline.

Note:   Something unusual happened in the MASIE record.  After increasing ice extent steadily at a rate of 87k km2 per day after Dec. 10, MASIE stopped showing growth and declined a bit after Dec. 23.  Ice extent was lost in Kara, Barents and Greenland Seas.  That allowed NOAA extent to catch up and reduce its deficit.  Previously, NOAA showed ~400k km2 less than MASIE, that difference being typical historically.  For the year NOAA shows about 200k km2 less than MASIE, both at year end and for the annual average.

MASIE Comparison 2014 and 2015 Day 365

The small overall difference between 2014 and 2015 at this point matches the deficit in Barents Sea. The major basins have recovered: Central Arctic,  BCE (Beaufort, Chukchi, East Siberian), Canadian Archipelago.  Bering Sea is freezing well ahead of last year, as is Baffin Bay, offsetting deficits elsewhere except for Barents.

Technical Note:  Changes in Ocean Water Structure drive changes in Arctic Ice Extent, and air temperature varies as a result, not the cause.

https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2015/12/23/arctic-sea-ice-self-oscillating-system/

Melt ponds refreezing in the Arctic.

Update January 3, 2015

Neven is the first to attack this post in comments below, followed by a post at his own blog in which he says:

“misleading and embarrassing statements”
“older gentleman”
“mind set in concrete”
“taken apart by Tamino”
“data misrepresentation”

And on cue Tamino’s (Foster’s) attack dogs are coming here.  Now I responded to all of Neven’s and Foster’s bogus objections in Sept. (here). Since they either did not read or did not understand, I will repeat the salient points again.

Warmists fail to see that having two different tracking methods for a climate phenomenon is a good thing.  With temperatures they favor the land surface record and abhor the satellite temps.  With Sea Ice they like the satellite reports and abhor the navigational observations.  JAXA, DMI, NORSEX and NOAA (or NSIDC) are all using data from passive microwave sensors on satellites to estimate ice extents.  Some  differences arise from differing algorithms at each center.

Naval authorities have for centuries prepared ice charts for the safety of ships operating in the Arctic.  There are Russian, Danish, Norwegian, and Canadian charts, in addition to MASIE, the US version.  These estimates rely on multiple sources of data, including the NASA reports.  Charts are made with no climate ax to grind, only to get accurate locations and extents of Arctic ice each day.

MASIE is not the only dataset to show this lull in Arctic ice decline. It is also obvious in Foster’s final graph.  I showed how the same pattern appears in the NOAA (technically NOAA@NSIDC) dataset (here).  Those who object that a decade is too short to claim a recovery were quick to claim a decline (even a “death spiral”) based on a decade-long loss of ice ending in 2007.

Some were upset that I used the MASIE data, despite NSIDC cautions against it.  For the record, the NSIDC Background cites as support a study by Partington et al (2003).  Reading that study, one finds that the authors preferred the MASIE data and said this:
“This analysis has been based on ice chart data rather than the more commonly analyzed passive microwave derived ice concentrations. Differences between the NIC ice chart sea ice record and the passive microwave sea ice record are highly significant despite the fact that the NIC charts are semi-dependent on the passive microwave data, and it is worth noting these differences. . .In summer, the difference between the two sources of data rises to a maximum of 23% peaking in early August, equivalent to ice coverage the size of Greenland.” (my bold)  For clarity: the ice chart data show higher extents than passive microwave data.

http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1058&context=usdeptcommercepub

In any case, NSIDC’s last word was this:  “In June 2014, we decided to make the MASIE product available back to 2006. This was done in response to user requests, and because the IMS product output, upon which MASIE is based, appeared to be reasonably consistent.”  And thus, the data appeared this September.

Every winter day across the Northern Hemisphere millions of cross-country skiers rely on the settled science of snowflakes. The practical application involves the use of wax in order to “stride and glide” across the snow.

How does it work? You glide on the tips and tails of the skis, so you put on those spots a very hard wax, like paraffin, that makes little friction with the snow. When you put your foot down in order to stride forward, you need on the ski under your boot a more sticky wax that will grip the snow for traction.

The art and science of waxing means choosing the right wax for the existing snow conditions. Snow crystals have sharper points when cold and dry, and are more rounded when warm and damp. When snow is fresh, cold and dry, a harder wax will do the job. Snow that is older, warmer or damp, requires a softer, sticker wax for traction.

If you put on too soft a wax, you get a big clump of snow attached to your ski bottom, and you would do better with snowshoes. Norwegians have gotten quite expert at this and win a lot of Olympic medals racing cross-country, along with other Scandinavians and Russians.

Here in Quebec last century Cree natives were amazed to see a Norwegian flashing through the woods over the snow, and they gave him a nickname. Until recently you could still buy his waxes branded with his legendary name: “Jackrabbit Johannsen.” (In 1982, at the age of 107, Herman Smith-Johannsen (1875-1987) was inducted into the Canadian Sports Hall of Fame.)

Of course, when the snow gets deep and stays very cold as it does in the Arctic, it compacts into solid ice, part of the ebb and flow of Arctic Sea Ice extent. When the ice cover retreats, the air becomes moist from evaporation, snow falls and the ice grows. When extensive ice restricts open water, the dry air produces too little snow to replace ice melted by the sun, and the cycle begins again.

The science is described more fully in Arctic Sea Ice: Self-Oscillating System

Three weeks ago I reported that after 2007 Arctic ice extent was no longer declining, and that 2015 will add another year to that stabilization. With only half a month until year end, the recent MASIE measurements are showing the expected surplus of ice.

MASIE measurements show that 2007 ice extent was lower than any year since. It is now confirmed that 2015 average annual extent will exceed 2007 by at least 300,000 km2. That difference arises from comparing 2007 annual average of 10.414 M km2 with 2015 running average through day 349 of 10.717. In the 16 days remaining in 2015, we can expect the annual average to rise to about 10.774, or 360,000 km2 higher than 2007.

At this point in the annual cycle, it is possible to project the annual average for the calendar year. The daily average presently is well above the running average for the year, so the year-end average will be increasing each day to the end of December. In the last decade, a typical year added about 60k km2 to the annual average in the last 16 days.

Disclaimer: Alarmists chafe at the words “growing” and “recovery”, and I use them poetically to counter “death spiral” terminology. What we have seen in the last decade is a plateau in Arctic ice extent, analogous to the plateau in surface temperatures. The rise since 2007 is slight and not statistically important, just as the loss of ice from 1979 to 1994 in the NOAA dataset was too slight to count as a decline.

Summary:

Arctic ice declined in the decade prior to 2007, but has not declined since.

MASIE Comparison 2014 and 2015 Day 349

There is little difference between 2014 and 2015 at this point. The major basins have recovered: Central Arctic, BCE (Beaufort, Chuchi, East Siberian), Canadian Archipelago.  Bering Sea is freezing ahead of last year.  Barents, Kara and Okhotsk are behind while Greenland and Baffin are ahead.  The major difference is Hudson Bay.

Update Nov. 23

I will be resuming the ice watch in mid-December to report how observations compared to the projection below. As of Nov.22, MASIE reports 10.845 while NOAA shows 10.042.

MASIE measurements show that 2007 ice extent was lower than any year since. It is now confirmed that 2015 average annual extent will exceed 2007 by at least 230,000 km2. That difference arises from comparing 2007 annual average of 10.414 M km2 with 2015 running average through day 322 of 10.644. In the 43 days remaining in 2015, we can expect the annual average to rise to about 10.774, or 360,000 km2 higher than 2007.

At this point in the annual cycle, it is possible to project the annual average for the calendar year. The daily average presently is matching the running average for the year, so the year-end average will be increasing each day to the end of December. In the last decade, a typical year added 130k km2 to the annual average in the last 43 days.

Disclaimer: Alarmists will chafe at the word “recovery” above, and I am using it poetically to counter “death spiral” terminology. What we have seen in the last decade is a plateau in Arctic ice extent, analogous to the plateau in surface temperatures. The rise since 2007 is slight and not statistically important, just as the loss of ice from 1979 to 1994 in the NOAA dataset was too slight to count as a decline.

Summary:

Arctic ice declined in the decade prior to 2007, but has not declined since.

MASIE Comparison 2014 and 2015 Day 322

As before, the measurements show that Barents and Kara Seas are the main difference between this year and last.  At this point, those lesser extents are more than offset by gains elsewhere, especially in Baffin and Hudson Bays as well as BCE.

Footnote: NOAA was reporting ice extents comparable to MASIE during September and October (~100k km2 less). In November NOAA is showing a less robust recovery, ~400k km2 less for the month so far, and ~ 500k km2 less in recent daily reports.

Meltponds and leads in the Arctic ice cap show evidence of refreezing

Day 315, November 11, 2015 produced several milestones for Arctic ice recovery.  2015 extent virtually caught up to 2014 for that same day. For the first time since July 1, ice extent is again 10M km2. MASIE shows 10.1M compared to NOAA at 9.7M.  This is the home stretch since annual averages in the last decade range between 10 to 11 M km2.

2015 has gained steadily averaging a daily rate of 107k km2.  As a result, this year and last are virtually tied at this point.

The BCE region (Beaufort, Chukchi, East Siberian) is now 103% of 2014 at this date, with Beaufort completely frozen and East Siberian nearly so. Most seas exceed 2014 at this date. The largest remaining differences are Barents and Kara, which melted early and have not yet recovered. CAA has recovered after the August 2015 storm and now matches last year, through the Central Arctic still lags behind.  Those shortfalls are offset by much greater ice extents in Baffin and Hudson Bays.

From MASIE

The comparison with 2014 informs us whether this year will “bend the trend” of recovering ice extent since 2007, and by how much.  The pace of refreezing this year is impressive and the end result remains to be seen.  It seems unlikely that the previous two years annual averages can be overtaken this late in the calendar.

Summary

My guess: 2015 Average Annual extent will finish as the 3rd highest in the last 10 years, ahead of the years before 2013.

Still a Bronze Medal is not bad for a year that started with a lower March maximum, had the Pacific Blob melt out Bering Sea a month early, saw a negative AO most of the summer ensuring higher insolation and melting, and finally underwent a strong storm late August when ice edges were most fragile.

It looks likely that 2015 annual average ice extent will be lower than 2014, and some will claim this proves global warming is alive and well. But analysis of the details tells a different story.

Firstly, there were many factors working against Arctic ice this year:

• Lower March maximum;
• Warm Blob in the Pacific melting out both Okhotsk and Bering Sea earlier than usual;
• Negative AO most of the summer, ensuring higher insolation and melting;
• Strong storm in August when ice edges are most fragile.

Hidden in the measurements is perhaps the most important factor affecting Arctic ice extent year over year: Variability in Barents Sea ice due to ingress of warm water from the North Atlantic.

Source: http://www.ocean-climate-law.com/13/Arch/5.html

Back in April 2015, Dr. Arnd Bernaerts pointed out that this year’s ice was lagging mainly because of Barents and Okhotsk melting out early. (Here). And he also implicated various offshore marine operations: shipping, fishing, oil extraction, etc.

Presently Arctic ice is recovering as it always does this time of year, and again Barents is notably the difference between this year and others. But a recent analysis (here) shows that it is actually the Barents Sea winter extent that is predictive of the whole Arctic ice cover.

The aim of this study is to understand and assess the predictability of the annual mean, and, in particular, the winter Barents Sea ice cover (Figure 1). We develop a prognostic framework from first principles and, based on direct observations and a 60 year simulation, assess the role of the Atlantic inflow as a main source of Barents Sea ice predictability 1–2 years in advance. Moreover, the influence and predictive potential of meridional winds on the interannual sea ice variability are investigated. (My bold)

Figure 1.
(a) Satellite-derived (National Snow and Ice Data Center, NSIDC) mean sea ice concentration between 1980 and 2015. The ice edge (15% ice concentration) is indicated for 1980 (white line) and 2015 (black line). We confine the Barents Sea by the red line. The mooring array across the Barents Sea Opening (BSO, yellow line) is indicated by yellow circles. (b) Time series of interannual sea ice area. Annual (July–June, blue) sea ice variability is dominated by changes in winter (December–April, black) sea ice area. During winter variations in the anomalous Arctic Ocean (interior basins and surrounding shelf seas) sea ice area (green) mainly reflect the Barents Sea ice variability; the correlation between the winter sea ice area in the Barents Sea and the Arctic Ocean is 0.96, and the standard deviations are 131·103 km2 and 191·103 km2, respectively. Observed annual mean heat transport (red) shifted to the ice cover by 2 years is also shown (note reversed axis). (My bold)

Summary

Sorry to sound like a broken record, but the point is again confirmed: Oceans make the climate around the world, and in the Arctic as well. When Arctic ice varies, it is not due to fossil fuel emissions, and the proposed treaty in Paris will do nothing about it.

Footnote:

The authors of the study above project a lower ice extent in Barents Sea and Arctic Ocean in 2016.  But presently there is a cold Blob in the North Atlantic which could change that result if it persists and signals the onset of a colder phase in that ocean.