From NSIDC: A rapid freeze-up
Arctic sea ice extent increased rapidly through October, as is typical this time of year. Large areas of open water were still present in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas at the end of the month. The open water contributed to unusually warm conditions along the coast of Siberia and in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas.
Figure 1. Arctic sea ice extent for October 2011 was 7.10 million square kilometers (2.74 million square miles). The magenta line shows the 1979 to 2000 median extent for that month. The black cross indicates the geographic North Pole. Sea Ice Index data. —Credit: National Snow and Ice Data CenterHigh-resolution image
Overview of conditions
Average ice extent for October 2011 was 7.10 million square kilometers (2.74 million square miles), 2.19 million square kilometers (846,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average. This was 330,000 square kilometers (127,000 square miles) above the average for October 2007, the lowest extent in the satellite record for that month. By the end of October, ice extent remained below the 1979 to 2000 average in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas and in the Barents and Kara seas. Extent was near average in the East Greenland Sea. New ice growth has closed both the Northwest Passage and the Northern Sea Route.
Figure 2. The graph above shows daily Arctic sea ice extent as of October 31, 2011, along with the lowest ice extents in the preceding decades, 1984 and 1999. 2011 is shown in light blue. 2007, the year with the record low minimum, is dashed green. Purple indicates 1999 and light green shows 1984. The gray area around the average line shows the two standard deviation range of the data. Sea Ice Index data. —Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center
Conditions in context
Arctic sea ice extent increased rapidly through October. Ice extent during October 2011 increased at an average rate of 114,900 square kilometers (44,360 square miles) per day, about 40% faster than the average growth rate for October 1979 to 2000. On October 30, Arctic sea ice extent was 8.41 million square kilometers (3.25 million square miles), 226,000 square kilometers (87,300 square miles) more than the ice extent on October 30, 2007, the lowest extent on that date in the satellite record.
During the month of October, the freeze-up that begins in September kicks into high gear. The rate of freeze-up depends on several factors including the atmospheric conditions and the amount of heat in the ocean that was accumulated during the summer. However, each decade, the October extent has started from a lower and lower point, with the record low extent during the 1980s (1984) substantially higher than the record low extent during the 1990s (1999), which in turn is substantially higher than the record low extent during the 2000s (2007).
Figure 3. Monthly October ice extent for 1979 to 2011 shows a decline of 6.6% per decade.
—Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center
October 2011 compared to past years
Ice extent for October 2011 was the second lowest in the satellite record for the month, behind 2007. The linear rate of decline for October over the satellite record is now -61,700 square kilometers (-23,800 square miles) per year, or -6.6% per decade relative to the 1979 to 2000 average.
Figure 4. This map of air temperature anomalies at the 925 hPa level (approximately 3000 feet) for October 2011 shows unusually high temperatures over most of the Arctic Ocean (yellow shading) and unusually low temperatures over the eastern Canadian Arctic Archipelago and Greenland (blue shading).
—Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center
Atmospheric conditions
In recent years, low sea ice extent in the summer has been linked to unusually warm temperatures at the surface of the Arctic Ocean in the fall. This pattern appeared yet again this fall.
Air temperatures over most of the Arctic Ocean for October 2011 ranged from 1 to 4 degrees Celsius (1.8 to 7.2 degrees Fahrenheit) above average, measured at the 925 millibar level, about 1,000 meters or 3,000 feet above the surface. However, over the eastern Canadian Arctic and Greenland, temperatures were as much as 3 degrees Celsius (5.4 degrees Fahrenheit) below average.
These temperature anomalies in part reflect a pattern of above-average sea level pressure centered over the northern Beaufort Sea, and lower than average sea level pressure extending across northern Eurasia. This pattern is linked to persistence of the positive phase of the Arctic Oscillation through most of the month. These pressure and temperature anomalies tend to bring in heat from the south, warming the Eurasian coast, but they also lead to cold northerly winds over the eastern Canadian Arctic Archipelago. However, along the Siberian coast and in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas, warmer temperatures came primarily from the remaining areas of open water in the region, as heat escaped from the water. These effects are more strongly apparent in the surface air temperatures: average October temperatures in the region were 5 to 8 degrees Celsius (9.0 to 14.4 degrees Fahrenheit) above average.
Figure 5. The top panel of this figure shows the number of open water days for the approximate 75 kilometer (46.6 mi) coastal zone along the Beaufort Sea (data for each year and linear trend). The bottom panel shows the average annual coastal erosion rate for three periods, 1979-1999, 2000-2007 and 2008-2009.
—Credit: NSIDC courtesy Irina Overeem, CU Boulder
High-resolution image
Sea ice loss and coastal erosion
Declining sea ice in the Arctic has led to increasing erosion rates along the coast of the Beaufort Sea over the past fifty years, according to a new study led by Irina Overeem of the University of Colorado Institute for Arctic and Alpine Research (INSTAAR). Their study used a wave model driven by sea ice position and wind data.As the period of open water on the coast of the Beaufort Sea has increased, so has the mean annual erosion rate, the study showed. From 1979 to 1999, the average erosion rate was 8.5 meters (27.9 feet) per year. The average rate over the period 2000 to 2007 was 13.6 meters (44.6 feet) per year, while the rate for the last two years of the record, 2008 to 2009, was 14.4 meters (47.2 feet) per year.
With a longer open water season, ocean water warms more and waves eat away at the coastline. The sediments comprising the coastal bluffs are locked together by permafrost—hard frozen ground with a concrete-like consistency. As the waves lap at the permafrost, they also help to thaw it, making the ground much more vulnerable to erosion.
Further Reading
Overeem, I., R.S. Anderson, C.W. Wobus, G.D. Clow, F.E. Urban, and N. Matell. 2011: Sea ice loss enhances wave action at the Arctic coast. Geophysical Research Letters, 38, L17503, doi:10.1029/2011GL048681.
Serreze, M.C., and R.G. Barry. 2011: Processes and impacts of Arctic Amplification: A research synthesis. Global and Planetary Change, 77,85-96.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The ice extent at this time of year is most famous not for what it is but for when it is. We’re within days of every other data point. I don’t see what the worry is. The rate of change, regardless of the when, is rather constant year after year. What I see is the start/stop of the seasons is variable. So? Why the hell wouldn’t it be variable?
Additionally the absolute area of the ice extent after sea currents, wind, and climate get finished with it changes continually. Why wouldn’t it? What is missing is a trend that is walking off the charts. It just isn’t there. The recorded history is short. We don’t know what the situation will be or should be. We don’t understand it. What we do know with laser accuracy is that what the current extent is is exactly what the current context demands it be. And damn if the extent isn’t what it is as a result. Somebody post a note when you really understand the changing complexity of the context.
This annual variability and drift is what I consider to be the bracket limits of what the current climate allows (climate being the framework within which weather happens). You can take this to the bank – it will be different next year and while anyone can guess what it will be, none of you knows what it will be. If you do, place a bet equal to or in excess of your next 12 paychecks. Anyone think Team BEST is up to it?
Of course ice growth was faster than normal, there was more water available to freeze because of the high melt in August and September.
Did anyone send Al Gore a link to this? #justaskin
All of Beaufort Sea’s coasts eroding away at 47 feet per year? Don’t you see the bright red bars NSIDC has supplied? Enjoying being warm tonight in your home, huh? Well it’s all your damn fault that our world is washing away!!! ☺
Knew they would get something like that in there somewhere. Why is it always at the bottom? And, anyone have some confirmation of this from some sane locals up north? Sorry, but I so distrust any such information from any such government science site anymore. My trust is gone.
That chart in Figure 2 doesn’t show data through Oct 31, more like Oct 15th. The rapid increase isn’t really shown.
Nice to see the ice growing quickly this winter. It sure looks like it’s going to be a cold one if November is any indication. We’ve been setting records down here in San Diego this weekend including lowest high temp today.
The chart in Figure 2 is date Oct 18th.
Are they hiding the incline? 😀
There seems to be a mistake in Figure 1 (NSIDC/Oct. sea ice extend). According to it, Gulf of Finland is frozen. It certainly isn’t and it does not usually freeze completely until, say, late January. In some mild winters it does not freeze completely at all.
Of course there was a relatively rapid refreeze. If you have a record low at the end of the melting season there is much more sea surface to refreeze.
No mention of global sea ice area about to hit the lowest max on record?
REPLY: Gosh Günther (or should I say “Neven”?), you really are a pathetic whiner aren’t you? I post the NSIDC report, and you blame me (rather than them) for not posting an obscure graph that I’ve never seen and few people have heard of and actually hasn’t reached the peak yet. If there’s news when it does reach the peak, I’m sure both NSIDC and I would mention it.
Of course previously, you were whining that I didn’t post something from NSIDC:
Now you are whining that I did post NSIDC, but didn’t include something they didn’t. LOL!
This is a new low for you Gunther, and quite frankly I’m tired of your constant barrage of attacks. I’m still waiting for an apology for your last baseless accusation, where you accused me of leaking somebody’s personal info when in fact they posted it themselves as part of a movie promotion. Since I’m not likely to ever get an apology due to your overbearing, condescending, and hateful nature, and because your contributions here are nothing but off topic snark, I’m giving you the honor of permanent troll-bin status. Be as upset as you wish. – Anthony
A big summer melt and resultant big “re-freeze” act like a radiator releasing more heat out to space. The latent heat released during the phase change from liquid to solid at these late times of year goes where…straight out to space.
The loss of ice at the North Pole is a worrying sign, my understanding of an ice age is a 160 metre drop in sea levels and an ice free summer at the pole. The cold and ice move into the north of America and the southern part of south America , Africa and Australia.
Ice loss it would seem is a colding problem and not a warming one. It would seem people colonized the Arctic regions and walked to the American continent in ice ages. The last thing this world needs is cold, it is bloody cold enough already. Double CO2 and add 4C to the temperate zones we would have paradise.
I wonder if the warmer conditions in Siberia have contributed to larger than average snowfall in Asia.
This could be a positive feedback loop so that less ice causes more snow (due to increased evaporation) and this then causes lower latitudes of asia to get snow they normally wouldn’t, thus reflecting incoming sunlight 😮
Why are we still using a 1979 to 2000 ‘average’? This is absurdly stupid.
I’m not seeing “death spiral” here. 127,000 square miles added in a month is nothing to sneeze at.
Both the winter maximum and summer minimum are falling, but the summer melt minimum is falling faster than the winter maximum for Arctic sea ice.
Therefore it is inevitable that the autum re-freeze will be faster than in the past because the absolute difference between winter and summer extents is increasing.
Gator on November 7, 2011 at 2:53 am said:
Why are we still using a 1979 to 2000 ‘average’? This is absurdly stupid.
———
Because a fixed baseline is need for comparison purposes. If you change the averaging period the baseline changes and you don’t want that if you want an honest comparison,
Or maybe you do if you want to deceive people into believing no change is happening when it actually is.
Wayne says
Knew they would get something like that in there somewhere. Why is it always at the bottom? And, anyone have some confirmation of this from some sane locals up north? Sorry, but I so distrust any such information from any such government science site anymore. My trust is gone.
———
Maybe you’ll trust Exxon or BP then. They have been doing deals with the Russians to gain access to the Arctic.
Exxon won and paid 15% of the company on the assumption that the Arctic is becoming ice free.
So who do I believe? You skeptic guys or BP and Exxon? Such a hard question to answer.
What I am noticing is the large amount of snow already on the ground compared to 2007. I look at the sea ice page daily and snow started early and covers a lot more ground than 2007. That is a lot of reflected sunlight and heat.
LazyTeenager says:
November 7, 2011 at 4:26 am
Wait, I thought they were paying us to be sceptical and deny things so they could make a profit. Now you suddenly want to believe everything they say? What’s up with that?
“Because a fixed baseline is need for comparison purposes. If you change the averaging period the baseline changes and you don’t want that if you want an honest comparison,
Or maybe you do if you want to deceive people into believing no change is happening when it actually is,”
Thanks for the reply LT, but an ‘average’ utilizes the data from all years, unless you are picking cherries. What would happen to the average if we were to include all years? The curent data would look very avergae. And the alarmists will not have that.
One thing to take into consideration when looking at sea ice extent is the limits imposed by the coastline. If the prevailing wind blows the ice that has formed out into open water, the sea ice extent will increase. The same temperatures and amount of ice, but with an onshore wind, and the extent will not increase. This is why I suggested in tips a while back that a graphic showing wind strength and direction in the Arctic could be a useful addition to the sea ice ref page.
LT says…
“Exxon won and paid 15% of the company on the assumption that the Arctic is becoming ice free.”
No, it’s like what Wille Sutton said when asked why he robs banks, “Because that’s where the money is”.
Massive amounts of oil are found in the Arctic, and that’s why they want to drill there. It’s where the money is. Noone in their right mind believes the Arctic is about to be ice free.
Take a logic class, or three.
Ah, the NSIDC’s decade’s long fascination with the “Arctic Death Spiral” of ice-loss positive feedbacks.
Now, just how is that supposed to happen? Their assumed “physics” doesn’t match the world’s actual geography up there.
Check this out this guy is in once a month with this garbage.
]
http://pressrepublican.com/0205_columns/x867534717/Arctic-Climate-changing-fast
Were the October temperatures unusually low in the Eastern Canadian Arctic? The average temperature in Pond Inlet for October 2011 was -9.0°c … the October average for that location from 1979 to present is -11.0°c (S.D.3.1). Pond Inlet is located at the northern end of Baffin Island (72° 41′ 22″N 77° 58′ 08″W).
ref: http://www.climate.weatheroffice.gc.ca/climateData/dailydata_e.html?Prov=NU&StationID=47488&timeframe=2&Month=10&Year=2011&cmdB1=Go&Day=6
@- Gator says: November 7, 2011 at 5:16 am
“Thanks for the reply LT, but an ‘average’ utilizes the data from all years, unless you are picking cherries. What would happen to the average if we were to include all years? The curent data would look very avergae. And the alarmists will not have that.”
If you changed the average every year by including that year within it then the ‘average’ would fall as the ice extent dwindles and as a comparison it might look less dramatic, but it would no longer be a comparison with a fixed value but with a moving parameter which fell with the value you are wanting to compare. Not ideal even if less ‘alarmist’.
However whatever ‘tricks’ you play with averages it would NOT make the percentage decrease per year of ice extent in ALL months change, and that IS alarming.