Download High Resolution Version of Figure 1.
Thank you to all contributors of the July Sea Ice outlook. We received 16 responses for the Pan-Arctic report (Figure 1), with estimates in the range of 4.0 to 5.5 million square kilometers for the September arctic mean sea ice extent. The median value was 4.6 million square kilometers; the quartile values were 4.3 and 4.7 million square kilometers, a rather narrow range given the intrinsic uncertainty of the estimates on the order of 0.5 million square kilometers. It is important to note for context that all 2011 estimates are well below the 1979–2007 September climatological mean of 6.7 million square kilometers.
There continues to be a consensus for continuation of an anomalously low sea ice extent similar to the values for 2008-2010 and below all previous values before 2007. The data show a continuing low value of sea ice extent at the beginning of the summer season and an appearance of a weather pattern (the Arctic Dipole) that tends to favor summer sea ice loss, in contrast to weak and variable summer winds of previous decades. Ocean changes may also be involved. According to the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC), arctic sea ice extent for June 2011 was the second lowest in the satellite data record since 1979. These new factors over the last several years seem to be holding the September sea ice extent at persistent low values below 5.0 million square kilometers.
The Regional Outlook can help shed light on the uncertainties associated with the estimates in the Pan-Arctic Outlook by providing more detail at the regional scale. We received 7 regional outlooks. With the exception of the Greenland Sea, all regions are expected to exhibit below-average ice extent throughout the remainder of the season.
This month’s Outlook reports also include a more detailed discussion of sea ice thickness information provided from field measurements and model results. This year, several airborne campaigns have collected ice thickness or surface topography data in the North American Arctic. Such surveys can help inform predictions of summer and fall ice conditions.
There continues to be a consensus for continued anomalously low sea ice extent similar to the values for 2008-2010 and below all previous values before 2007. If the observed 2011 sea ice extent is in the range of 2008-2010 values, similar to the 2011 Outlook projections, it would point towards the absence of “tipping point” behavior after the record minimum of 2007, but would not indicate a return to the previous state observed prior to 2007. The data from 2011 shows a continuing low value of sea ice extent at the beginning of the summer season and an appearance of the Arctic Dipole weather pattern with southerly winds that tends to favor summer sea ice loss, in contrast to weak and variable summer winds of previous decades. Ocean changes may also be involved. These new factors over the last several years seem to be holding the September sea ice extent at persistent low values below 5.0 million square kilometers.
JUNE 2011 ICE AND ATMOSPHERIC CONDITIONS
The ice extent through May and June was at or below previous record sea ice extents from 2007 and 2010, and converges towards both values at the beginning of July (Figure 2). According to the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC), arctic sea ice extent for June 2011 was the second lowest in the satellite data record since 1979. Sea ice extent was lower than normal in much of the Arctic, and the Kara Sea region had particularly low ice extent. Ice has also started to break up off the coast of Alaska in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas. These early open water areas absorb the sun’s energy, which will help to further ice melt through the summer.
Normally (i.e., before 2007) light winds prevail during summer in the Arctic. However, throughout the summer of 2007, the persistence of the Arctic Dipole Anomaly (AD) sea level pressure pattern, with high pressure on the North American side and low pressure on the Siberian side, contributed substantially to the record low ice extent in September 2007. In June 2011, similar to June 2010, the AD was present in early summer (Figure 3), but in 2011 the pattern is shifted toward the Siberian coast. This is consistent with developing early sea ice losses along the Siberian coast and the Kara Sea.
ICE THICKNESS IN THE NORTH AMERICAN AND GREENLAND ARCTIC
The importance of the ice thickness field in controlling summer ice evolution has been well established, including by contributions to the Sea Ice Outlook in past years from ensemble simulations with coupled ice ocean models (Kauker et al., Zhang et al.). This year, several airborne campaigns, including the German-Canadian-US collaborative effort PAMARCMIP (see Figure 4), the NASA IceBridge flights, and others have collected ice thickness or surface topography data in the North American Arctic. Figure 4 shows a comparison between this data and model output by Kauker et al. used in their September ice extent prediction. It is noteworthy that the model over-predicts ice thickness along the North American and Greenland shelf margin. It is not clear whether this difference is also connected to the comparatively high prediction for September ice extent by Kauker et al.’s group; the October retrospective analysis will provide more insight into that question. However, it does appear that the band of thick ice north of the Canadian Archipelago and Greenland has further thinned (see also Figure 5). At the same time, the ice in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas is seeing less multiyear ice drifting in from the Canadian Arctic, with more first-year ice prevalent in 2011 than in past years. As discussed in the Regional Outlook, this has implications for the summer ice season in the region. Overall, while we are lacking ice thickness data over the central Arctic (though with Cryosat in orbit this will change soon: http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEMAAW0T1PG_index_0.html), there is some indication that the regions of the thickest ice may have seen further thinning. However, at present it is unclear whether any of this will manifest itself in milder ice conditions this year, since the ice with thicknesses well above 2 m (where the biggest changes have occurred) will not melt out completely.
2011 NORTHERN SEA ROUTE THROUGH SIBERIAN ARCTIC OPENED FOR ICEBREAKER-ESCORTED SHIPPING
On the 30 June the 2011 Northern Sea Route (NSR) “opened” for icebreaker-escorted sea transit along the northern shore of Russia. The nuclear powered icebreaker NS Yamal, with shark’s teeth painted on her bows, left Murmansk to rendezvous with the oil tanker MV Perseverance and escort her along the NSR to her China destination. This year the arctic sea ice is melting so rapidly that the NSR is opening earlier than ever. Updated from: http://articles.maritimepropulsion.com/article/2011-Northern-Sea-Route-n….
CHANGES IN OCEAN HEAT TRANSPORT ON THE ATLANTIC SIDE?
The temperatures of North Atlantic Ocean water flowing north into the Arctic Ocean—the warmest water in at least 2,000 years—are likely related to the amplification of global warming in the Arctic. The Fram Strait water temperatures today are about 2.5 degrees F warmer than during the Medieval Warm Period. http://dirwww.colorado.edu/news/r/9059018f4606597f20dc4965fa9c9104.html
KEY STATEMENTS FROM INDIVIDUAL OUTLOOKS
Key statements from the individual Outlook contributions are below, summarized here by author, organization of first author, Outlook value, standard deviation/error estimate (if provided), method, and abstracted statement. The statements are ordered from highest to lowest outlook values. The full individual contributions are available in the “Pan-Arctic Individual PDFs” section at the bottom of this webpage, and provide more detail.
Kauker et al. (Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research); 5.5 ± 0.5; Model
For the present outlook the coupled ice-ocean model NAOSIM has been forced with atmospheric surface data from January 1948 to June 22, 2011. This atmospheric forcing has been taken from the NCEP/NCAR reanalysis (Kalnay et al., 1996). We used atmospheric data from the years 1991 to 2010 for the ensemble prediction. The model experiments all start from the same initial conditions on May 22, 2011. We thus obtain 20 different realizations of sea ice development in summer 2011. We use this ensemble to derive probabilities of ice extent minimum values in September 2011.
WattsUpWithThat.com (Public Contribution-Poll); 5.1; Heuristic
Website devoted to climate and weather polled its readers for the best estimate of 2011 sea ice extent minimum by choosing bracketed values from a web poll (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/26/july-arcus-forecast-poll-what-will…). 15.38% chose 5.0 to 5.1 million km2, with second greatest vote of 11.17% choosing 5.4 to 5.5 million sq km2.
Morison and Untersteiner (Polar Science Center, APL-UW); 4.8; Heuristic
The ice extent was below the extent at the same time in 2007 but is now even with 2007. As we argued in June, if loss rates don’t become anomalously large in the next couple of months, the ice extent should be a little greater than the extent in 2007.
Stroeve et al. (National Snow and Ice Data Center); 4.7; Statistical
This estimate uses the same approach as last year: survival of ice of different ages based on ice age fields provided by Chuck Fowler and Jim Maslanik (Univ. Colorado, Boulder). However, this year we are using a revised ice age product, one based on a 15% sea ice concentration threshold rather than the earlier version, which used a threshold of 40% [see Maslanik et al., in review for more details]. The use of a 15% threshold on sea ice concentration captures greater detail within the marginal ice zone, matches NSIDC’s threshold used for mapping overall sea ice extent and should therefore provide a better estimate of the September 2011 ice extent.
Meier et al. (National Snow and Ice Data Center); 4.7 ± 0.6; Statistical
This statistical method uses previous years’ daily extent change rates from July 1 through September 30 to calculate projected daily extents starting from June 30. The September daily extents are averaged to calculate the monthly extent. Rates from recent years are more likely to occur because of the change in ice cover. Thus, the official project is based on the rates for 2002-2010.
Beitsch et al. (University of Hamburg); 4.7 ± 0.5; Statistical
The estimate is based on AMSR-E sea ice concentration data derived using the ARTIST sea ice (ASI) algorithm (Spreen et al., 2008; Kaleschke et al., 2001). To obtain an estimate, the ice area from a central Arctic subregion is regressed with the previous years and their September mean extents. Daily updates can be found here: http://icdc.zmaw.de/cryosphere.html?&L=1
Note (7/13): During the past few days, the estimate dropped to a value of 4.1 +- 0.2 Mio km.
Canadian Ice Service; 4.7 ± 0.2; Heuristic
Since Arctic multi-year ice (MYI) did not experience free passage through Nares Strait throughout the winter of 2011 as it did in 2007 and 2010, a normal concentration of MYI currently exists in the Lincoln Sea area and north of Ellesmere Island at the beginning of July 2011. This factor may be just enough to prevent record-breaking minimum ice concentrations and extents in the Arctic Ocean in 2011.
Blanchard-Wrigglesworth et al. (University of Washington); 4.6 ± 0.5; Model
Our forecast uses a state-of-the-art General Circulation Model (GCM) initialized with average May 2011 sea ice area and volume anomalies obtained from the Pan-arctic Ice-Ocean Modeling and Assimilation System (PIOMAS). The GCM used is the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)’s Community Climate System Model version 4 (CCSM4) [1] at 1_ resolution in all components.
Lukovich et al. (Centre for Earth Observation Science, U. of Manitoba); 4.6; Heuristic-Dynamics
Spatial patterns in difference maps for springtime stratospheric relative vorticity and winds in 2011 relative to 2007 highlight a westward shift in anticyclonic/cyclonic circulation and significant differences over the Beaufort Sea and Canadian Archipelago, with implications for stratosphere-surface coupling and thus surface winds in this region. A combined lack of coherence in ice drift fields and reduced ice concentrations in April 2011 relative to April 2007 suggest that springtime ice dynamical contributions to fall sea ice extent may be associated with sea ice deformation and ridging within an increasingly mobile and fractured ice cover.
Hamilton (University of New Hampshire); 4.4 ± 0.9; Statistical
This is a naive, purely statistical model. It predicts September mean extent simply from a Gompertz curve representing the trend over previous years. Estimation data are the NSIDC monthly mean extent reports from September 1979 through September 2010.
Randles; 4.4; Statistical
A Gompertz fit of the NSIDC September extent figures is used as a starting point. Multiple linear regression is then used to predict the residual from the Gompertz fit. Two predictors have been used which are:
a) The residual of the end of June Cryosphere Today area numbers at the end of June from a Gompertz fit of those end of June area numbers.
b) The residual of the end of June PIOMAS volume numbers at the end of June from a Gompertz fit of those end of June volume numbers.
Arbetter et al. (National Ice Center) 4.3; Statistical
In the July update, using sea ice conditions from the end of May (June used end of April) as well as air temperatures and sea level pressures, the timing of the minimum is moved forward two weeks, although the value remains the same as before. This is because the update predicts slightly lower ice extent through July and August, which does not decelerate until the second week of September, rather than the first as in the June Outlook. The minimum forecast value may be constrained by observations. That is, since the projection is based on the previous 10 years’ observations, the value can be no higher than the highest ice amount and no lower than the lowest ice amount in the past 10 years. The forecasts so far are robust in predicting close to near-record minimums. It must also be noted that the Outlook does not project conditions in the Canadian Archipelago; it has not been determined how much lower the ice extent is because of this. Since the July Outlook also suggests a delayed refreezing of the ice compared to June, the possibility exists that a record low could be seen. In 2010, the July Outlook was the lowest projected value and too low compared to the actual value. A thorough re-examination of ARIFS over the past 10 years could better characterize error in the model.
Zhang (Applied Physics Lab, University of Washington); 4.3 ± 0.5; Model
This is based on numerical ensemble predictions starting on 7/1/2011 using the Pan-arctic Ice-Ocean Modeling and Assimilation System (PIOMAS). The ensemble consists of seven members each of which uses a unique set of NCEP/NCAR atmospheric forcing fields from recent years, representing recent climate.
Folkerts 4.2± 0.2; Statistical
Various single and multiple regression results with r2 > 0.6 suggest that the September extent will be close to, or perhaps below, the minimum value set in 2007. Analyses based on extent, area, and volume.
Lindsay and Zhang; 4.1 ± 0.4; Statistical
This is quite a bit lower than the prediction from last month.
Peterson et al. (UK Met Office); 4.0 ± 1.2; Model
This projection is an experimental prediction from the UK Met Office seasonal forecast system, GloSea4 (Arribas et al., 2011). GloSea4 is an ensemble prediction system using the HadGEM3 coupled climate model (Hewitt et al., 2011). A more complete description of the GloSea4 system can be found in the June report and accompanying references (http://www.arcus.org/files/search/sea-ice-outlook/2011/06/pdf/panarctic/…)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Its those high pressure readings in the Arctic that are giving northern Europe such cr** weather recently. They are forcing the low-pressure systems and all their warm and wet weather down over northern Europe (they normally run north of Scotland this time of year).
I presume this will transport less heat energy into northern latitudes, but I don’t know how significant this is for Arctic temperatures.
.
lol, somehow, in the midst of this death spiral most are predicting more than 2007….. 4 years ago. Can you have a death spiral that doesn’t spiral? Maybe a death hiccup would be more apt.
OHC in the Arctic and North Atlantic have been plummeting in recent years. Some say OHC in the Arctic is not reliable, but even the Catlin group acknowledge the region has cooled, although they claim it may be a signal of accelerating ice melt; pure speculation.
Greenland looks to be anomalously cold this summer, and at least one major glacier has been advancing rapidly this summer; seems counter intuitive to the consensus meme.
The AMO may be at or near its peak, and if natural cycles have not been overridden by AGW as some “experts” claim they have, then we should be seeing it entering its cold phase in the next few years and the “death spiral” go into hibernation for the next few decades.
The AO has been largely negative the past 5-6 weeks and looks to be trending back into positive territory which could have an effect on end of season melting in the coming months. The sun will soon be exiting its greatest influence, depending on cloud cover of course.
The Arctic region is changing, but I don’t think in the direction AGW proponents have been predicting. As climate models are heavily relied upon, and have been shown to be way off the mark on several key elements of the climate system, why would anyone place any faith in scientists using them?
From my perspective, as far as total heat content, 2011 is lower than 2007 and dropping, not increasing, quite the opposite of what we’ve been told is occurring; accelerating. Further, as 2007 Arctic ice extent was highly affected by wind and ocean currents resulting in the lowest satellite era ice extent, has anyone looked at 2011 for these conditions?
What about soot, the ubiquitous ‘Asian brown cloud’ ? Increasing? Decreasing?
How much does an icebreaker ship breaking up ice contribute to the ultimate decline of sea ice over the summer? it would seem that if a large contribution to the summer decline in sea ice is ice floes drifting out of the Arctic basin, then breaking up ice artificially would have at least impact on the summer icepack.
If the UK Met Office is predicting 4.1, then it the minimum MUST end up MUCH higher. Perhaps 5 isn’t too unrealistic?
The NE passage has been navigable more often than the NW. Probably due to deeper water on the NE side plus a greater ability of warmer water from the Pacific to be blown into that area to reinforce the normal currents. Much depends on winds not climate change.
As we close onto the time of least ice cover I still guess at 5.5Msq km. But I dare say I will be wrong. Can we also look at thickness as this, to my mind, is far more important than extent. Thick ice will last into next year which is a point that us WattsUpWithThat followers remember but the alarmists seem to forget.
“There continues to be a consensus for continuation of an anomalously low sea ice extent similar to the values for 2008-2010 and below all previous values before 2007.”
How can they say it is “anomalously low sea ice extent”.When the data only goes back to 1979?
Wow, everybody sees sea ice well below the average. Does that mean any good?
IJIS is looking quite ugly right now. We’re a little below 2007 for the date, and there’s clear daylight between 2010 and 2011, and not in 2011’s favor. If we squeak in above 2007, it is still likely that 2010-like minimum has gone by the boards, and 2008 may as well here in another week at this rate.
So much for Global Cooling.
Brian,
The Arctic is a region, it is not the globe. And if CO2 was the cause, the Antarctic would be declining like the Arctic. What is being observed is natural variability.
The sea ice reference page makes interesting viewing just now. Arctic sea ice is at its lowest level for the time of year in the satellite record. The global sea ice anomaly (Arctic + Antarctic) is very close to its lowest value in the satellite record too. And the “floating north pole” webcam appears to be literally floating now.
When are we finally going to lose the ‘1979-2000’ average BS? It is 2011 for Pete’s sake. Can’t we get a ‘1979-2010’ average? Cherries anyone?
sunsettommy says:
July 14, 2011 at 7:31 am
“How can they say it is “anomalously low sea ice extent”.When the data only goes back to 1979?”
Well said. In playing this “Arctic sea ice” game, we are playing the Warmista’s game. The deck is stacked against science and I find it remarkable that so few can see this. No one can predict the behavior of Arctic sea ice. They cannot predict it because no one has a set of physical hypotheses which can be used to explain that behavior. All that we can do is extrapolate (not predict) from past graphs. From that scientifically correct perspective, the behavior of Arctic sea ice is a big yawn.
Al Gore fetishizes Arctic sea ice. That should be a great warning to all scientists. If the world’s greatest snake oil salesman says that the Arctic is the key then you know that it is not.
One problem in all this is the consistent misuse of the word ‘anomaly’. An anomaly is a putative fact that Resists All Explanation From Existing Theory. Because no one has ever had a theory that can be used to explain and predict Arctic sea ice behavior, there cannot be anomalous behavior in Arctic sea ice.
If we are going to discuss changes in Arctic Ice as part of a global phenomenon, ie. “global warming”, then it makes no sense to ignore Antarctic ice as part of the discussion. My understanding that total polar ice, north and south combined, has been exceptionally stable for decades. If so then a “global” cause for the current low ice cover in the north must be understood as a regional phenomenon.
KW
The temperatures of North Atlantic Ocean water flowing north into the Arctic Ocean—the warmest water in at least 2,000 years—are likely related to the amplification of global warming in the Arctic. The Fram Strait water temperatures today are about 2.5 degrees F warmer than during the Medieval Warm Period. http://dirwww.colorado.edu/news/r/9059018f4606597f20dc4965fa9c9104.html
Really? The Norsemen settled Iceland and Greenland, raising cattle around their villages. They lived as Christian Danes and did not rely on local fish or seals (except the poorest of them, and then mostly seals). The climate of the MWP was obviously FAR warmer than it is now. So how do the warmists maintain that today is warmer than the MWP? GISTemp shows the same thing globally. Isn’t there a disconnect here? Or did the Danes breed cold cows and frigid-loving hay?
Smokey,
Did you miss the part where the article states that water temps in the Atlantic are 2.5 above the Med warm period and that it’s lkely caused by Global Warming?
It seems that you missed that part.
This article is bad news for the anti global warming arguements.
Thay are clearly confirming that the causes of increased ice loss are warmer water running under the ice and warmer air advecting across the ice.
I see the warmer water as a residual effect of the late 20th century high level of solar activity and strong frequent El Nino events.
The warmer air flow is a result of the now weaker solar activity enhancing the negative AO giving more meridional jets.
So for a short while at least we have ice loss from the results of past warming patterns in the oceans and from the results of current cooling patterns in the atmosphere.
In due course the AMO will cool off to reduce warmth from that source and the cooling mid latitudes will in due course reduce the warmth of the air flowing into the Arctic.
We need to await the two process to come into line with each in a more negative (cooling) pattern before the ice will recover substantially. I guess 3 to 4 years from now.
Since 1979???
That’s not even one half of the PDO cycle?
Call me again when we’ve finished at least one whole PDO cycle. Then, maybe, just maybe, we will be able to say something meaningfull about ice in the arctic.
In a recent interview, Lindzen points out that the growth or shrinkage of Ice Age sheets depends on polar summer insolation changes; I’d like to suggest a PSI acronym for it. Anyhoo, anyone know what the state of orbital play is with that? It determines, of course, whether and how much “cover” is left over from one year to the next, or alternatively how much shrinkage has to be made up.
Brian, to be clear, a 2.5 degree difference from an arbitrary mean cannot be caused by the anthropogenic portion of CO2’s lw infrared radiation adding additional heat to the ocean surface. Not enough heat energy in the anthropogenic portion of lw infrared to heat up an ocean, and not enough total lw infrared heat to do it either.
The likely source of the heat? The heat must have a weather pattern variation link to it allowing solar shortwave to get to the Atlantic ocean surface and heat up that surface (calmer waters, few reflecting clouds, etc). Further, the additional heat may have migrated there from another place as opposed to in-place heating.
The article uses a correlation (the global land temperature has gone up, and since it is modeled that anthropogenic CO2 has gone up, AGW is to blame, and therefore a rise in SST must also be due to AGW) without a plausible, proofed mechanism.
Back the train up!… The Fram Strait water temperatures today are about 2.5 degrees F warmer than during the Medieval Warm Period. This is nonsense. There was no way to measure the temperature during the MWP. I refuse to believe that paleo temperatures derived from sea sediments in the area have anything like the stated resolution.
Brian says:
July 14, 2011 at 8:41 am
“Did you miss the part where the article states that water temps in the Atlantic are 2.5 above the Med warm period and that it’s lkely caused by Global Warming?It seems that you missed that part.”
I read an article from the University of Colorado which I found here:
file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/WileyParsons/My%20Documents/7-14%20Warming%20North%20Atlantic%20water%20tied%20to%20heating%20Arctic,%20according%20to%20new%20study%20%20%20News%20Center%20%20%20University%20of%20Colorado%20at%20Boulder.htm
According to that article:
“Since continuous meteorological and oceanographic data for the Fram Strait reach back only 150 years, the team drilled ocean sediment cores dating back 2,000 years to determine past water temperatures. The researchers used microscopic, shelled protozoan organisms called foraminifera — which prefer specific water temperatures at depths of roughly 150 to 650 feet — as tiny thermometers.
In addition, the team used a second, independent method that involved analyzing the chemical composition of the foraminifera shells to reconstruct past water temperatures in the Fram Strait, said Marchitto.”
So, what good is this proxy? I believe that it is the same proxy that Mann and team just used in the Carolinas to produce fantastic results on sea level changes. In addition, you must keep in mind that Mann and Team believe that there was no Medieval Warm Period; so, if this group is using Mann’s numbers then the temperature estimate that they give is vastly too high. There is not enough of science presented here to make sense of these claims.
However, the main point remains that our only trustworthy measure of Arctic ice extends just to 1979. There is no serious science behind our existing study of Arctic sea ice.
Arctic sea ice is one of those “duh” issues. Yes, it has been warmer and there is less ice. What a strange coincidence. Any relationship to CO2 is pure conjecture. Is there an effect? Maybe, maybe not. It will take many more years to determine if one believes in the scientific method.
Another inconvenient data point for (us) skeptics is that the world-wide Ice total April peak significantly lower than all other years except for 2002 and 2007 on this plot.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg
(note, it looks lower than it really is because we have only encountered the spring peak and have yet to experinece the Nov (higher) peak.
If we believe the Earth is entering a cooling phase, who predicted this in advance?