Danish Meteorological Institute Records Lowest Arctic Temperatures In 9 Years!

Looking at the temperature chart of the Danish Meteorological Institute, we see that the Arctic above 80°N has turned quite frosty. The polar bears are probably the only ones enjoying it.

DMI

Chart above shows the years 2004, 2010, and 2013. Source: http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php.

Checking the charts from the years before, we see that today’s Arctic temperature is a hair lower than the low of 2010 (it’s very close), and is thus the lowest since 2004. At Twitter a couple a days ago I think it was Ryan Maue who said that the Arctic was in for a cold snap, and so it’s possible temperatures above 80°N may even drop further before this ends.

Will be interesting to watch in the days ahead. I wonder if they’ll blame it on warming.

 

25 thoughts on “Danish Meteorological Institute Records Lowest Arctic Temperatures In 9 Years!”

  1. Hi. I’ve just looked at the small print on the source document. I’m not a scientist, but I think it says that the graph cannot be used for the purpose you are using it for. What have I got wrong?

  2. And some international and national media are bannering the “alarming ice loss” in the Arctic and Greenland. They usually take a photo of a drifting iceberg and make a long discussion out of it. But they will never show a graph of current vs. past and average temperatures of the Arctic, Antarctica, other parts of the planet.

  3. “But they will never show a graph of current vs. past and average temperatures of the Arctic, Antarctica, other parts of the planet.”

    Nonoy: Maybe you have a chart of Arctic or Antarctic you would like to share with everyone that compares temperatures from 1980’s up through 2013. Would love to see them….

    My guess…..and this is only a guess, because I haven’t looked for one yet…..is that they would show COOLER TEMPERATURES from 30 years ago compared to now. ESPECIALLY in the Artic and West Antarctic. Just a guess….because when ice melts, its usually from warmer temperatures.

    1. 30 years ago we had a minimum in the PDO and AMO, i.e. cold phase of natural cycles. I also notice you mention only “West Antarctica”.

      1. “….I also notice you mention only “West Antarctica”.”

        ABSOLUTELY. You see, it’s very simple for me: I simply look for facts, and let the facts lead me to my conclusions. NOT the other way around (ie some people stake out a position….and then LOOK for facts that support that position).

        So when I said West Antarctica…..I said so because I KNOW that facts support the position that West Antarctica is warming (there is more air temperature verification on West Antarctica than across the mountains in East Antarctica), AND most of my “research” (ie research into what REAL researchers have done) has been focused on West Antarctica (it is more at risk than East Antarctica).

        East Antarctica has come under closer scrutiny the last year or two….but it has not been researched as much as the West Antarctic. The “low hanging fruit” of climate change (how nature….with the helpful hand of man’s CO2 emissions) seems clearly to be in this order:

        1) Arctic ice sheet is most at risk (only an ice sheet sitting on water)
        2) Greenland ice sheet (not as much at risk because it is on land and some of it is at high altitudes). Once the Arctic goes (and it is certainly going fast), then Greenland is much more at risk. Witness the melting of last year on Greenland.
        3) West Antarctic (more at risk because of the large Ross ice shelf and Ronne ice shelfs are actually sitting on seabed and exposed to a warming ocean…as opposed to East Antarctic which is almost entirely on land).
        4) East Antarctic

        That seems to be the “pecking order” of how they are being “picked off”. Note that I did not include the melting glaciers in this….only the large “single bodys” of ice/snow which of course are also being melted away.

          1. Yes….those darn scientists. Always changing the numbers as more research is done! Imagine that:). Why don’t they just stay with the numbers they get when they did the very first research project?

            Ed, after the melting that is going to take place on Greenland this year (actually its already off to a very early start), even the US Republicans will be wanting to send more “Marxist scientists” to Antarctica to do research.

            Greenland is going to be the “headline grabber” this year. Antarctica will have its turn, but first more of the Arctic ice sheet needs to melt so the ocean can absorb even more heat, and help Greenland to melt.

            I would really love for it to be otherwise, but I’m afraid that is how it is rolling out.

      1. So when I look at the years from 2000 – 2013 I see that temperatures in the Arctic were WARMER than the average (the DMI uses the average of 1958 – 2002). I don’t think there were ANY YEARS where the average temperature for the YEAR….was higher than the 1958 – 2002 average.

        And that is exactly what I would expect to see in light of the Arctic ice sheet melting over the last 30+ years.

        Now….are there ANY YEARS where the average temp for the year is COLDER than the average? I would certainly expect to see some….and I expect there are. Climate changes….like the stock market….do not go in a straight line.

        Looking at the temperatures in 2013…..you can see that the Jan and early Feb tempratures were much WARMER than average…..and over the last 2 weeks we have dropped to much COLDER than average. Which is GOOD by the way….I don’t “root” for the Arctic to melt, quite the opposite.

        The DMI chart proves my point: The Arctic (like the rest of the world) has been WARMING over the last many decades.

    2. Dear Joe, why you should not be alarmists (or the one-degree-Celsius rule).

      1. Divide the earth in 12 latitude regions of 15 degrees width.

      2. Estimate with a good procedure for each region a time series of annual surface means in Celsius.

      3. Compute with pair-wise deletion of missing data the covariance matrix of the 12 time series.

      4. By definition total variance equals true variance plus error variance. Since the global mean must be the mean of all regional means, the true variance of the global mean equals the mean covariance of the regional series.

      5. In a most extreme scenario true global means increase linearly with time. In that case it can be proven that the maximum amount of warming equals the square root of twelve times the true variance.

      6. I have found for the GHCN data base (since 1701) a true variance of 0.08281818. Checking whether true variance may be time dependent, I took temperatures since 1956 only. The estimate equalled 0.08121212.

      7. Verify that in any epoch since 1701 the true global mean cannot increase linearly more than one degree Celsius. Because the trend is far from linear in sufficient large epochs, the increment must be far below that value. We live in a time in which the true global mean cannot increase more than one degree Celsius (according to Mother Earth, severely tortured by her WMO).

  4. New “pretty picture” of the Arctic ice sheet since 1979 showing where ice volume was in each month of each year:

    http://haveland.com/share/arctic-death-spiral-1979-201301.png

    NOT….a pretty picture. Just think, over the next decade or two we’ll get more pretty pictures like this, but of Antarctica instead. Oh boy, I can hardley wait:)

    By the way, did you see the post on Antony Watts site about “Arctic Ice Gain Sets New Record” (article date was Feb 12 in WUWT). Here’s the article:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/12/sea-ice-news-volume-4-1-arctic-ice-gain-sets-a-new-record/

    Of course, Antony (I like the New York accent:) failed to mention that the Arctic will CONTINUE TO SET NEW RECORDS of ice “refreeze” until it runs out of “summer ice”. His chart is of the “ice growth” from summer minimum to winter maximum. Apparently nobody told Antony that it is still VERY COLD in the Arctic during winter, and will be for many, many decades to come. The only “problem”, is that there is less and less “multi-year ice”. Within several years from now, there will ONLY be a “single years ice” that refreezes each winter.

    It’s MINUS 20 (-20 F) right now in Barrow, so its my guess that the Arctic ice sheet will have NO PROBLEM in growing back each winter. Although, in 5 or 6 years from now, it may be growing back from ZERO ICE each year, and that is the “plateau” of ice growth.

    1. JC,
      There will never again be zero ice in the Arctic Ocean in this interglacial. It certainly won’t happen in the next hundred years! It may have happened 5000 years ago during the Holocene Climate Optimum, because there is driftwood on the north shore of Greenland, but not since then, and not in the future of this cycle. It has been generally cooling for thousands of years.

      Also, I have noticed that your ravings on historical temperatures only include the last 40 years or so. Many temperature recording stations didn’t exist 40 years ago, so of course these new stations set records. If you look at stations that have records going back 80 or 90 years, their high temperature records were set in the 1930’s.

      Temperature records are data, not the results of “research”. There is no excuse for changing them.

  5. http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0442(2004)017%3C4045:TETWIT%3E2.0.CO;2
    and
    this explains it all.
    http://www.lanl.gov/source/orgs/ees/ees14/pdfs/09Chlylek.pdf
    look at figure 3 on page 4. arctic temps and AMO are in perfect sync for 100 yrs. likely when AMO turns negative within 10 years, we are going to get a cold arctic, just like we did in the early 20th century
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/03/16/you-ask-i-provide-november-2nd-1922-arctic-ocean-getting-warm-seals-vanish-and-icebergs-melt/
    THIS has been going on for so long, when are we going to stop believing “these people”
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/20/historic-variation-in-arctic-ice/

  6. Wow, Mr. Smith! You’ve identified a 30 or 40 yer trend in arctic ice. That trend is heading down. So, like every good scientist, you conclude that that trend will continue down to 0!! You’ve also identified a 30 or 40 year trend in “global temps”, whatever those are. They are going up, so in 90 years we will be living in a climate conducive only to the smelting of lead. Brilliant. Why do I keep trying to look for those pesky cycles that seen to permeate most natural events? How silly of me to look for cycles. You’ve proven that all trends continue down to 0 or up to infinity. Much easier. Thanks for sharing your wisdom

  7. to show you how much anyone knows about this. look at the 10 year definitely positive trend in Bering Sea ice. Who would have thought this would happen?
    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.2.html

    last years .95 sq km of Bering Sea ice was about about 70% higher than the .55 sq km aver from 1979 through 1988.

    here is another very interesting chart. Go to
    http://www.climate4you.com/
    choose Snow Cover, scroll down to Greenland snow cover. what you will see is that Greenland summer minimum snow cover has dramatically increased since it began to be measured in 1967. What’s Up With That?
    They say Greenland is melting, yet if you read the book about the recovery of a WWII plane, it was buried under something like 200 feet of ice, more remarkable, the people doing the digging left a tractor out on the ice in the early 90’s and when they came back 2 yrs later it was buried under something like 15 feet of nice ice.

Comments are closed.