We have news from the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC). They say: The melt is over. And we’ve added 9.4% ice coverage from this time last year. Though it appears NSIDC is attempting to downplay this in their web page announcement today, one can safely say that despite irrational predictions seen earlier this year, we didn’t reach an “ice free north pole” nor a new record low for sea ice extent.
Here is the current sea ice extent graph from NSIDC as of today, notice the upturn, which has been adding ice now for 5 days:
Here is what they have to say about it:
The Arctic sea ice cover appears to have reached its minimum extent for the year, the second-lowest extent recorded since the dawn of the satellite era. While above the record minimum set on September 16, 2007, this year further reinforces the strong negative trend in summertime ice extent observed over the past thirty years. With the minimum behind us, we will continue to analyze ice conditions as we head into the crucial period of the ice growth season during the months to come.
Despite overall cooler summer temperatures, the 2008 minimum extent is only 390,000 square kilometers (150,000 square miles), or 9.4%, more than the record-setting 2007 minimum. The 2008 minimum extent is 15.0% less than the next-lowest minimum extent set in 2005 and 33.1% less than the average minimum extent from 1979 to 2000.
Overlay of 2007 and 2008 at September minimum
The spatial pattern of the 2008 minimum extent was different than that of 2007. This year did not have the substantial ice loss in the central Arctic, north of the Chukchi and East Siberian Seas. However, 2008 showed greater loss in the Beaufort, Laptev, and Greenland Seas.
Unlike last year, this year saw the opening of the Northern Sea Route, the passage through the Arctic Ocean along the coast of Siberia. However, while the shallow Amundsen’s Northwest Passage opened in both years, the deeper Parry’s Channel of the Northwest Passage did not quite open in 2008.
A word of caution on calling the minimum
Determining with certainty when the minimum has occurred is difficult until the melt season has decisively ended. For example, in 2005, the time series began to level out in early September, prompting speculation that we had reached the minimum. However, the sea ice contracted later in the season, again reducing sea ice extent and causing a further drop in the absolute minimum.
We mention this now because the natural variability of the climate system has frequently been known to trick human efforts at forecasting the future. It is still possible that ice extent could fall again, slightly, because of either further melting or a contraction in the area of the pack due to the motion of the ice. However, we have now seen five days of gains in extent. Because of the variability of sea ice at this time of year, the National Snow and Ice Data Center determines the minimum using a five-day running mean value.
Ongoing analysis continues
We will continue to post analysis of sea ice conditions throughout the year, with frequency determined by sea ice conditions. Near-real-time images at upper right will continue to be updated every day.
In addition, NSIDC will issue a formal press release at the beginning of October with full analysis of the possible causes behind this year’s low ice conditions, particularly interesting aspects of the melt season, the set-up going into the important winter growth season ahead, and graphics comparing this year to the long-term record. At that time, we will also know what the monthly average September sea ice extent was in 2008—the measure scientists most often rely on for accurate analysis and comparison over the long-term.
It will be interesting to see what they offer in the October press release. Plus we’ll be watching how much ice we add this winter, and what next year’s melt season will look like. Hopefully we won’t have a new crop of idiots like Lewis Gordon Pugh trying to reach the “ice free north pole” next year.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.


As expected…..
BTW, this is ice extent. How did ice area do?
REPLY: May I kindly suggest you research this yourself and report back, I’m a bit overwhelmed at the moment. – Anthony
Well, yea, but this is young ice and tends to stick closely with its family, what about next year when as an adolecent it rebells – then ur gonna have problems!
So why does the Jet Propulsion Laboratory site still highlight ‘historic sea ice changes’ and recent major melting that are clearing arctic ice routes on its home page???
BTW isn’t it spelt Arctic not artic?
“…natural variability of the climate system has frequently been known to trick human efforts at forecasting the future.”
Shouldn’t that be the lead? That’s big news!
MikeEE
How do you like the title of the article?
Arctic sea ice settles at second-lowest, underscores ACCELERATING DECLINE
Maybe it’s just me but somehow an increase does not seem like it should be called an “accelerating decline”.
http://www.nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
Once again I will beat the tired old drum of why the use of 1979-2000 averages. Why not 1986 – 2007 averages? It’s still 21 years. Better yet why not use 1979-2007 averages? I think we all know because it will lower the amount of difference each year from the average, and of course we can’t have that.
I wish the stock market was doing as well……………
(NSODC).
(NSIDC)?
Sorry Anthony……pet peeve.
(I’m one of those weirdos.)
And NASA’s “headlining” press release panders to the fearmongers even further: “ARCTIC SEA ICE REACHES LOWEST COVERAGE FOR 2008” (see http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NasaNews/2008/2008091627534.html ).
Jack Koenig, Editor
The Mysterious Climate Project
http://www.climateclinic.com
I bet $6 there’s another increase in 09.
The earth will keep changing whether we want it to or not.
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2008/09/17/the-changing-earth/
I especially like “second lowest on record”.
Maybe its the greater than, less than thing that they don’t get?
I agree completely with Mike Bryant. A decelerating decline and very likely an acceleration into early and higher ice levels as NH moves into winter. I prefer the non politically tainted web site:
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm
from Japan.
Why such biased language is deemed necessary from NSDIC is a mystery.
Obviously this post is unrelated to this and other threads, but is interesting, especially as no one has posted pictures of this USHCN site.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/16/science/earth/16moho.html
Please correct to NSIDC
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/16/science/earth/16moho.html
This is great news. As 2007 resulted in the loss of most of the “mature” (several seasons old) ice, the 2008 ice would melt much easier. Had conditions in 2008 been anywhere near conditions in 2007, we might have seen a total melt. The 2008 melt season began with thinner, newer ice than 2007 did. New ice has a high salt content and melts easier and is less dense. Each summer that ice is exposed to sunlight causes the brine to work out of it causing its melting point to rise so it takes more heat to melt it. So that 2008 finished ahead of 2007 with a more “fragile” ice pack is significant.
The real test is going to be 2009. 2009 will start with a much larger base of second year ice than 2008 did.
Hooray for the baby ice!
MattN (18:12:45) :
BTW, this is ice extent. How did ice area do?
REPLY: May I kindly suggest you research this yourself and report back, I’m a bit overwhelmed at the moment. – Anthony
If I’m reading the graphs correctly at Cryosphere Today, the Arctic ice area is virtually indistinguishable from this time last year (maybe slightly more), and the Antarctic ice area is over a million km2 less. The overall anomaly is still pretty scary.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/
The problem with this comparison is that we have not yet reached the date of the 2007 minimum, which occurred late in September.
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent.png
The 9% number will likely be significantly larger by then.
I would caution against any forcast. We witness AWG people making dire predictions…lets not do the irrational same.
Still, there’s a damn lot of snow still left on the mountain behind my house and theres been ice under the lawn sprinkler for weeks now.
Northeastern great basin.
Here is a number NSIDC isn’t advertising – the average daily extent for January 1- September 16 from AMSR data for each of the last four years.
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/plot.csv
2005 – 10,914,719
2006 – 10,689,056
2007 – 10,647,319
2008 – 11,074,703
Matt N,
here’s a graph from Cryosphere Today entitled:
Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Area
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.area.jpg
Lack of oxygen at high altitudes.
This was just reported as undeniable evidence of Global warming on the CBC in Canada this AM, so the environmental media feed is still operating.
Here is a number NSIDC isn’t advertising – the average daily extent for January 1- September 16 from AMSR data for each of the last four years.
2005 – 10,914,719
2006 – 10,689,056
2007 – 10,647,319
2008 – 11,074,703