The news last week was the quick turnaround, this year it is the speed of ice growth.
JAXA extent shows sharp growth, exceeding the 2009 rate, and almost as fast as 2005:
JAXA AMSR-E Sea Ice Extent -15% or greater – click to enlarge
In the last week, over a half million (505,938) square kilometers of Arctic Sea Ice has been added, one of the fastest gains in the satellite record.
On October 6th 2010 JAXA sea-ice extent has now broken through the 6M km2 line with 6,015,156 km2
10,04,2010,5892656 10,05,2010,6001406 10,06,2010,6035625 10,07,2010,6095781 10,08,2010,6205781 10,09,2010,6316563 10,10,2010,6398594
The DMI 30% extent chart could very well exceed the 2006 line in the next day or two, it has already exceeded the 2005 line.
And, compared the 2007 year, the refreeze is looking strong at CT:
Note though that Cryosphere today’s image has not updated since 10/07/10. Hopefully it will be back online tomorrow. There’s been some sensor issues seen at the NANSEN sea ice page the last few days, and since CT also uses the same data, that may be the issue.
UPDATE: Reader “AJB” offers this plot:
At Antarctica, after a weather induced dip, ice is rebounding and above normal, as well as ahead of this time last year. We have bipolar growth this week.
NSIDC Antarctic Sea Ice Extent – 15% or greater – click to enlarge
Is it just me or does the 2007 line seem to be a steeper gradient? either way it is recovering quick which is brilliant the more data to show that it is earth business as usual the better.
Jolly good show! This winter it will take the Catlin Expedition even longer not to reach the North Pole.
But…… IIRC, a Great Prophet foreboded in 2008 that the Arctic ice would disappear altogether in 2013.
“We have bipolar growth this week.”
You two?
Query,
What would the star patterns in our night sky look like if we didn’t have that space time continume thing to worry about? I mean, what would it look like if we were only 1/4 light year away. Those stars up there would look in a very different position than they appear to our naked eye. There should be a mathamaticial simulation to show us what their current position is, from a closer view, as opposed to the way we actually see them many many light years away, on a nightly basis.
Why does the autumn dip have a greater curvature than the spring peak?
Does this mean it is worse than…. oh, never mind.
I am beginning to hope that those Polish forecasts are wrong but ice re-freeze seems to be accelerating, or is that just me? Seems that a cold winter is on the cards.
Oh dear, how inconvenient.
Is it just me or does the 2007 line seem to be a steeper gradient?
It’s not just you, but it is an effect of the way people look at graphs. You are looking at the slope to the side and noting that it is steeper. But that is for a later time period.
You need to be comparing the slope directly below for the slope at the same time of year.
The slope for 2008 is a bit steeper, for the same period, but that is largely because the rebound was so strong from the bottom. From minimum to this time the increase is about the same.
You blokes are so naive. Can’t you see that it’s rotten ice and doesn’t count?
How many Manhattans??
Looking at what’s happening in Antarctic ice I think God has a sense of humor.
Mr Gates? Mr Gates?
The 2010 line in DMi has gone up higher. It’s on top of 2006 now.
http://img838.imageshack.us/img838/2730/icecover2010crop.jpg
—-
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/icecover/icecover_2010.png
tokyoboy:
He even held up 5 fingers to the listening dinosaur to make sure it understood.
Does looking at the ice maximum in March and April, or the ice minimum in Sept. and Oct. provide us the most useful info about long term sea ice trends? While I can see those two times have the largest variation, look at the tight bands of sea ice in June and January. Every year the ice seems to find its way back to almost the same amount of sea ice, even though its distributed differently every year. I wonder if the amount of ice in June is any less important than the ice in Oct.?
Also, someone who’s good with the numbers. Is there a correlation between the extreme ice min or max and the speed of the increase/decrease of the ice that follows it?
Ice growth (and therefore thickness) is related to time at a temperature below freezing. Instead of looking at only the area or extent of the ice, I suggest that comparing the time domain for the growth side of the curve is more useful.
This year the ice has reach the 6 Mkm^2 level several days sooner than the level was reached in 2008 or 2009. It is a couple weeks sooner than the 2007 rate. That indicates that this new ice will have more time to grow thicker than the prior years.
If you look at the growth in 2009 that way, it was several days to a week later than 2008 through October and November, indicating less time (thinner) for first year ice growth. Hence, a precurser to the this year’s min below 2008.
2008 was consistently weeks ahead of 2007, thus thicker first year ice and an increase over the 2007 min.
The flat curve for 2006 through November was an indication of stalled ice growth and contributed to the lower summertime min in 07, although the wind and weather made it
This type of comparison does not consider the ice movements, but, for me, it seems to puts the growth curve in context better than the area or extent levels alone.
That is good news, maybe carbon was not the best thing for the global warming crowd to hang their hat on, or maybe it was all just a snow job from the beginning. They seem to be hanging on to it but when the ship is sinking, best to let go.
Gain rate slowed a little over the past week. Now similar to 2004.
Chart: http://img221.imageshack.us/img221/6281/13day20101008.png
@ur momisugly Mooloo [1:58 am]
“… an effect of the way people look at graphs…”
It’s not every Monday that you get whacked with an epiphany like that. I hadn’t even thought of it until you mentioned it.
Thanks.
The iceman cometh!
from today’s NSIDC front page:
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/index.html
“Arctic sea ice reflects sunlight, keeping the polar regions cool and moderating global climate. According to scientific measurements, Arctic sea ice has declined dramatically over at least the past thirty years, with the most extreme decline seen in the summer melt season.”
Since water vapor is the primary arbiter of solar irradiance and global temperature, I think we should start a hydrogen budget and start a trading scheme for hydrogen credits. What is your hydrogen footprint?
Also, scientists should start a way to sequester hydrogen to keep it out of the atmosphere. We could freeze water and store it deep into the earth’s mantle where it cannot get out. I think we should do a Request for Proposals for giant freezing machines. Then the EPA can declare dihydrogen oxide a pollutant, even more dangerous than CO2 since it is a more powerful GHG, and set California automobile standards appropriately. We could design cars to work on wind power, similar to ice sailing sleds, or solar powered cars to replace the hydrogen polluters.
Regarding the first chart (and its previous sort):
Say you took a dozen colored threads and braided them into a rope and then laid it on the floor and pushed it into the shape (roughly) of a sine-wave. Next take a photo of this thing on the floor, project it onto a wall and ask a group of 33 learned scientists to explain the character of the blue line versus the red line versus the orange line.
50 minutes later what would we know?