I missed doing a Sea Ice News last week due to being a bit discombobulated with family health issues which have now thankfully been resolved, so I’ll pick up here with a new report.
The news this week is that Arctic sea ice formation has slowed:
As you can see above, after making a very fast recovery during most of October, it is now pacing the 2007 rate. This isn’t terribly unusual, as you can see a “choke point” beginning in early November where the rates of formation start to converge. Right now the JAXA daily data report is passing the 8 million square kilometer mark a value of:
10,31,2010,8038906
Earlier this week, there was some concern that there may be a sensor issue of some sort, particularly when comparing and I asked NSIDC’s Dr. Walt Meier about it, see:
NSIDC -vs- Cryosphere Today – a visual discrepancy
Compare this NSIDC Arctic Sea Ice extent chart…
…with this from Cryosphere Today:
It certainly appears that there is more ice in 2010 than 2007 on the Cryosphere Today page. Dr. Meier seems to think that the 2007 map from CT is missing some ice, as NSIDC’s comparison between the dates doesn’t appear off as much as the CT images. Walt’s point is:
There is more ice in the central Arctic this year, but less in the Beaufort Sea, Canadian Archipelago, and Baffin Bay. These areas roughly balance each other out.
Reader Lee Kington provides this blink comparator version of NSIDC’s images:
In other news, Antarctic ice continues to be significantly above normal:
Antarctic Graphs: 
For more maps and graphs, see the WUWT Sea Ice Page
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Comparing the slowing seen recently on the JAXA graph to the DMI 30% graph, it is suggestive of compaction due to wind or currents. It looks like wind and/or currents eased yesterday as the rate increased on 10/30 and the initial JAXA value for 10/31 suggests this change is continuing.
Looks like Santa’s safe for another year …
Arctic air temperatures seem to be normal.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
Must be warmer sea water coming in. Whats changed?
Not to go a little off topic,
[snip]
[Reply] Take it to tips and notes please. RT-mod
Looking at the blink comparer, I can see why extent values are similar for 2007 and 2010, but clearly the 2010 area is still higher by quite a bit at CT, 14.7% on the most recent number (10/29/10). Data from:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/timeseries.anom.1979-2008
The question is, does any of this mean anything for next year’s performance?
-Scott
Could you add the annual means, one horizontal line for each year (or a separate “Annual Mean” vs “Year” x-y plot)?
The annual mean plot could be extended backwards to give an indication of context?
“Dr. Meier seems to think that the 2007 map from CT is missing some ice, as NSIDC’s comparison between the dates doesn’t appear off as much as the CT images. ”
That’s very interesting. It says that 2007 was not anywhere near as bad as it was made out to be. That’s not exaclty an assurance of certainty.
Anyone care to comment on the recent report that states “Greenland climate in 2010 is marked by record-setting high air temperatures, ice loss by melting, and marine-terminating glacier area loss.”
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/greenland.html
Ref – Louise says:
November 1, 2010 at 4:52 am
When Greenland melts Europe freezes!
I could have sworn I saw a sensor issue the day I first saw the dip in the NSDIC sea ice chart. I wish I had taken a screen shot of it now, but there was a big chunk of gray on the picture of the sea ice that day too. I’ve been expecting a correction in the chart but none has ever occured. Now you’re just buying what Walt’s trying to seel you, why?
“Greenland climate in 2010 is marked by record-setting high air temperatures, ice loss by melting, and marine-terminating glacier area loss. Summer seasonal average (June-August) air temperatures around Greenland were 0.6 to 2.4°C above the 1971-2000 baseline and were highest in the west. ”
Thats good insn’t it? The warming since the Little Ice Age is almost getting back to where the Viking farms are no longer covered by ice. Maybe farming will be viable again in 50 years. One can only hope!
I’d also welcome any comments or responses to the article that Louise linked to.
Sorry that should read: “sell you”
Little more on that gray chunk: It looked like a pie wedge and it was near Greenland. I can’t remember how far into the Arctic the tip of the wedge went, but I felt it was enough of a chunk that it would cause that major dip that no other chart showed. And it looked like the sensor error they had this summer.
Pascvaks – you say that when Greenland melts, Europe freezes.
My part of Europe didn’t freeze and is currently experiencing unusually warm autumn
ED_B – WUWT seems to support all sorts of conflicting views such as:
It’s not warming (but Greenland seems to be)
It’s actually cooling (but we don’t trust the temperature record)
Warming is a good thing (your view)
If it is warming, it’s natural variation
CO2 is a good thing – it’s plant food and we should all drive lots more to help feed the starving
Not all of these can be true – I’d like to know what the site host actually believes with respect to whether the planet is warming or not (regardless of cause) and whether that will have a positive or negative impact on our western society as it currently exists.
No comment. But see these:
and
and
and
and
Persistent multi-decadal Greenland temperature fluctuation through the last millennium – Kobashi et al. (2010)
Seems like the eastern Canadian Arctic is experiencing above average air temperatures again this autumn.
Louise says: November 1, 2010 at 6:45 am
Not all of these can be true – I’d like to know what the site host actually believes with respect to whether the planet is warming or not (regardless of cause) and whether that will have a positive or negative impact on our western society as it currently exists.
I’ll second that.
With a clearer understanding of the site’s perspective on such issues, a lot of redundant discussion could be eliminated. I’d love to see an FAQ for such topics, so that posters could be referred to a standardized response to common issues.
On the other hand, the site does bill itself as “commentary on puzzling things in life, nature, science, weather, climate change, technology and recent news”. The focus is on commentary – not on resolution. WUWT does a great job of presenting several thought-provoking commentaries every day, but it might be beyond the scope of WUWT (or its readers) to try to actually reach any conclusions or to come to any consensus on these puzzles.
From the blog entry:
“It certainly appears that there is more ice in 2010 than 2007 on the Cryosphere Today page.”
That could partly be due to the fact that the image of 2010 is significantly larger than in 2007. A quick estimate from measuring images on the screen shows that 2010 is about 5% bigger in diameter and hence about 10% bigger in area.
If the two areas are indeed similar, but the 2010 image is 10% larger in area, that would be a major factor in the 2010 area looking larger!
re Karen says:
As I read it he (Walt) wasn’t selling anything. He pointed out that since th CS images are looking at a 2D representation of a sphere, the pixels farther from the pole have lager area’s because of the projection of curvature onto the view plane. 2007 had more ice near the periphery so a visual comparison isn’t going to be accurate. You need to look at the numbers.
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y197/meemoe_uk/cryoOct2010blue.jpg
cryo ice data 1979 to 2010
Is everyone now agreed that the cryo ice data is rigged by AGWers from 2007 onwards?
White on the chart is 2007-10
blue is 1979-2006
Tim Folkerts says:
November 1, 2010 at 9:45 am
As already said, the ice area difference is real. Why use pics when you can used numbers? Using the latest data from:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/timeseries.anom.1979-2008
it’s apparent that 2010’s Arctic sea ice area is 14.7% higher than 2007’s according to the most recent numbers.
-Scott
Tim Folkerts says:
November 1, 2010 at 9:45 am
From the blog entry:
“It certainly appears that there is more ice in 2010 than 2007 on the Cryosphere Today page.”
That could partly be due to the fact that the image of 2010 is significantly larger than in 2007. A quick estimate from measuring images on the screen shows that 2010 is about 5% bigger in diameter and hence about 10% bigger in area.
If the two areas are indeed similar, but the 2010 image is 10% larger in area, that would be a major factor in the 2010 area looking larger!
They aren’t really different sizes. The image on the right appears to be bigger because more of the globe is included. If you measure the size of Greenland in each image, they are identical. Also, if you look at the “rim” of each globe, you will that the image on the left shows less area than the one on the right.
PLAYING WITH NUMBERS: GUESSES OF ARCTIC ICE EXTENT THROUGH JANUARY 31
We are entering the relatively uneventful period of arctic ice extent of November and December, during which accurate guesses appear possible based on the JAXA data for 2002 through 2010. The JAXA data show that the average November and December increases are roughly the same at 1.9 million km2 , with January showing a reduced average increase of 1.1 million km2. The variation in annual extent diminishes at this time of year, particularly in December, resulting in a “choke point” since the arctic ice extent is influenced as much by geography as it is by conditions.
The data for November 30 and change from October 31 is shown below:
30-Nov
Extent Change
2002 11,044,688 2,244,844
2003 10,639,688 1,910,313 10-28 data
2004 10,814,375 2,079,219
2005 10,556,406 1,676,406
2006 9,740,938 1,040,938
2007 10,252,500 2,249,219
2008 10,714,375 1,822,031
2009 10,398,281 2,086,718
Avg. 10,520,156 1,888,711
The October 31, 2010 extent was 8,038,906 km2. While the first 15 days of October averaged almost 100,000 km2 increases per day, this slowed for the last half of October to under 70,000 km2 per day. The current state is comparable to the October 31, 2007 ice extent of 8,003,281 km2.
Based on the numbers in the JAXA data set, November 30 should be in the 10.1 to 10.3 million km2 range given the low level of 8.0 million km2 for October 31 and the average increase for last 3 years of 2.1 million km2. The largest November increase in the 8 year period of the data was 2.25 million in 2007. While November of 2008 reached 10.7 million km2, the highest value since 2004, the 2008 November number was “helped” by the high October 31 values of 8.9 million km2, therefore it is unlikely that November of 2010 will reach the 2008 level.
December 31 should be in 12.2 to 12.4 million km2 range since all 2004 through 2009 values fall in this range. The values for 2002 and 2003 were approximately 12.7 million km2. Both of these years were helped by high values at November 30 of 11.0 and 10.6 million km2 respectively.
31-Dec
Extent Change
2002 12,720,625 1,675,937
2003 12,655,938 2,016,250
2004 12,265,000 1,450,625
2005 12,282,188 1,725,782
2006 12,290,000 2,549,062
2007 12,369,688 2,117,188
2008 12,230,156 1,515,781
2009 12,255,469 1,857,188
Avg. 12,383,633 1,863,477
January 31 should be in the 13.1 to 13.7 million km2 range as all values since 2004 fall in this range. The wide range of possible numbers for January diminishes the value this guess. The value for 2003 was 14.0 million km2; however, it was “helped” by the high December 31 2002 figure of 12.7 million km2, the highest December amount for this period.
31-Jan
Extent Change
2003 14,022,188 1,301,563
2004 13,503,438 847,500
2005 13,250,938 985,938
2006 13,053,281 771,093
2007 13,442,031 1,152,031
2008 13,685,156 1,315,468
2009 13,670,625 1,440,469
2010 13,313,125 1,057,656
Avg. 13,492,598 1,108,965
Predicting ice extent 3 months in advance is not very accurate and further guesses of the arctic ice extent after January is not prudent or meaningful as the range of values is too large.
For the antarctic, the value at October 31 was .371 million km2 above the average, which represents approximately a 2% difference from the 1979 to 2000 average average ice extent. This difference is a significantly smaller than the percentage difference experienced in the arctic. The University of Bremmen chart does not appear to show much annual variability from the average for the next month. Based on the chart, the November 30 antarctic ice extent should be closer to the average than the anomaly for October 31.
Louise says:
November 1, 2010 at 4:52 am
I consider such reports to be prepared by honest people trying to present good data. On the other hand you can disregard any of the “record-setting statements with a “So what?” shrug.
There are several ways to consider the issues. One, is that the area has been warmer before (remember the Greenland settlements?) and Earth did not tip to irretrievable toast. Two, Greenland became colder (LIA ?) and has rebounded from that and is still doing so. Thus, the trajectory of the LIA rebound could have several looks: upward line with dozens of ups and downs but cumulatively up; or the line could look like an upward wave. Three, Greenland and surrounding areas could be responding to the volcanic eruptions during the past year. Four, the several hurricanes in the Atlantic could have added to the warmth in the northern part of that ocean and the result could be warming around and of Greenland. And there are several other possibilities.
One of the events mentioned in the article was the breakaway of the ice-island from Petermann Glacier. Is that something to be feared, an omen of bad times ahead, or just something that happens as the weight of the glacial ice causes downslope movement into the sea? What happens when a brittle ice sheet floats on a surging sea? There have been times in the past when more icebergs than now floated into the north Atlantic Ocean.
Bottom line: The reports and numbers in this and similar articles are interesting and establish useful data sets but without context and explanatory mechanisms they do not suggest any dire threat to the planet.
Final note: The “Anecdotal Data” presented at the end is the sort of thing often mentioned on WUWT as “weather and not climate” and hardly qualifies as “Data.” I can tell you about all the green tomatoes grown in my neighborhood this season and the thick coats on the horses. We are laying in firewood — expecting a cold and snowy winter. Send lots of money and I will report back next May.
John F. Hultquist says:
November 1, 2010 at 10:28 am
” … I can tell you about all the green tomatoes grown in my neighborhood this season and the thick coats on the horses. We are laying in firewood — expecting a cold and snowy winter. Send lots of money and I will report back next May. ”
+1
John Nicklin says: November 1, 2010 at 10:05 am
They aren’t really different sizes. The image on the right appears to be bigger because more of the globe is included.
> If you measure the size of Greenland in each image, they are identical.
When I zoomed in close, and measured Greenland “from tip to tip”, I got a slightly bigger size in 2010.
>Also, if you look at the “rim” of each globe, you will that the image on the left
>shows less area than the one on the right.
I can see a few pixels past the Mediterranean Sea on both. I can see the same tiny bit of Florida on both. I can see the same strip of sea beyond Japan on both. From all I can see, the same part of the earth is included in both.
And by looking at the starry background and the legend, it is easy to see the disk for 2010 is larger.
Also, the caption for the original image states “Historic snow cover data not displayed on these images. Sea ice concentrations less than 30% are not displayed in these images. Snow cover data is displayed only for most recent dates.” But the graph shows the 15% extent. So they are plotting different data
And as has been pointed out, the images are not equal-area projections.
So between these three factors –
* the images are not equal-area projections
* the images are different sizes
* the images plot different data
it is not at all surprising to me that the graph and the images might seem to tell a slightly different story.