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.
I felt foolish at times the past summer, because I so often found myself checking the sun for spots, and the polar seas for ice. I did it when suffering insomnia, but it seemed to qualify me for a “get a life” comment. However reading all the comments at this site has fueled my skepticism in three ways.
1.) The idea of “new ice melting faster” seems more like a proposed-theory than an established-fact.
2.) There seems to be a problem involving “melt-water pools” being mistaken as “open water.”
3.) Certain charts, which show how much ice existed before we had satellites peeking down at the poles, involve guess-work which may not be correct; IE: If there was partial ice near the Canadian shores, (where melting was assumed to be swiftest,) they assumed there must be thicker ice toward the poles.
Over the past summer the web has allowed me to watch a couple of boats struggling through the Northwest Passage, and fighting patches of floating ice all the way, even as satellite data showed open water further out. I suggest the same situation may have existed in the 1930’s, or in 1905, or on other dates, but there was no way for the observers back then to know. The historical record is basically guess-work.
It has been fascinating to research the history of people who poked about the poles. I have learned a lot about submarines, Cold-War bomber patrols, whalers, Eskimos, Vikings, and explorers. It causes a problem when the sun comes up and I no longer have the excuse of insomnia. I should start working, but remain glued to the computer.
My impression is that historical charts, which shows the pre-satellite ice-area to be nearly twice as great as it is now, may not be entirely reliable.
Mike Bryant (18:48:52) :
“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”.”
You do like your short term trends don’t you! Don’t forget that this year was actually the largest melt recorded as the maximum ice extent in March 2008 was, as you have mentioned above, was quite a lot more than in 2007. http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm
Also note that we are not quite finished in the seasons melt, there is probably another week or so left.
NOAA:
“The combined global average land and ocean surface temperature for summer 2008 was the ninth warmest since records began in 1880, and this August was the tenth warmest, according to an analysis by NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, ”
NSIDC:
“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.”
So could NSDIC and NOAA make up their minds? Is it an unusually cold or warm summer?
It looks like there is some kind of agenda hiddien behind those statement, both want to blame it on AGW.
It seems like NOAA want to make a point that we have had very high temperatures (between the lines: AGW is causing it) and NSDIC want to make a point that the reason why the ice didnt shrink more is because it was a colder summer. (Betweem the lines: Natural cooling saved the ice from decreasing more)
Is that all it takes, a few tenth of a degree C to make the ice grow in Arctic?
My interpretation of that statement is(very simplified I guess but still…) that if global temperatures stay around 0C anomaly based on UAH/RSS the summer ice will grow in Arctic.
If it is colder than normal it is natural cooling and if the temperature rises it is AGW. What happened to the natural warming? Did it cease to exist? Can natural cooling exist without natural warming.
[…] Watts Up With That? Wednesday, Sept 17, 2008 […]
The True Believers(tm) at Climateaudit are already pointing out that that 2008 was the most ice area melt in the satellite area.
When you can’t win, just change the rules….
This from Science Daily – a lot of spin in preparation for the next Kyoto round:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080915162428.htm
(as promised in an earlier ice thread, I am researching oral history accounts of older ice extent fluctuations)
Jerker Andersson (02:51:54) :
“So could NSDIC and NOAA make up their minds? Is it an unusually cold or warm summer?”
What is not in agreement between the two statements? In the long term it is a warmer than average summer, in the short term it is colder than last year.
“If it is colder than normal it is natural cooling and if the temperature rises it is AGW. What happened to the natural warming? Did it cease to exist? Can natural cooling exist without natural warming.”
Typical disinformation, it has never ‘ceased to exist’ and has always known to be a part of natural climate. The whole AGW argument is that these natural cycles alone do not account for the rapid rise in temperatures in recent history.
related:
The Atlantic Film Festival in Halifax, Nova Scotia screened the feature-length documentary “Passage” this past Sunday, Sep 14-08. Film maker John Walker created a masterpiece on the Fanklin expedition of 1845, evoking and mixing unique techniques in a fascinating account.
Here is a detailed review:
http://www.thechronicleherald.ca/ArtsLife/1078869.html
The question why Victorian England was racing to find the Northwest Passage at that specific time was not relevant to the arguments on clashes of societies and cultures. Could it be that there were more and more accounts of melting ice because of the end of the Little Ice Age? Bringing the conquest of the Northern route within reach of the Queen’s Admiralty?
The role of the Inuit – emphasized through modern day statesman Tagak Curley – is central to the movie. We stand to learn much more on Arctic regions by combining native lore and oral history with satellite data…
Lets be fair here, the claims of new ice melting faster were completely valid based on how they measure it. The NSIDC would have been right if the conditions had been identical to 2007 melt season. Well since we all here know that climate conditions change year to year, that did not happen.
What we saw was in the range of predictions they published earlier in the year, and I actually think they hit the predicted melt. While some researchers with a AGW taint were metaphorically out there with hair dryers hoping for a dramatic event to lead into the UNFCCC 2009 meeting, it just did not happen.
My real problem with the spin on temperatures and ice is simple, when you look at a curve the points are equally allocated on both sides, so saying things like 10 of the last 12 were the warmest or second lowest in this case is ridiculous because I would not expect anything else.
Recorded here for posterity.. This year will see an even greater increase than last year in sea ice in the arctic during the freeze and we will have the third lowest ice extent in the Summer of ’09. So not quite back up to 2005 levels.
Peter Martin (23:49:15) :
It would be courteous to the the guys at NSIDC to reference their website when making a quote from it.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
This is the 9.4% figure in its full context:
“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.”
Is there any particular reason why you cherry picked the 9.4% figure but omitted the others?
The 9.4% increase can stand on its own. Had Anthony noted that “the 2008 minimum extent is
onlya remarkable 390,000 square kilometers more than the record-setting 2007 minimum” you would not know if that was good, bad or even if it was an increase or a decrease.Given the dire forecasts back in June, I wonder why the NSIDC used the word “only.” It almost sounds as though they expected a much bigger rebound but there was more melting than expected. Of course, that’s not what they wrote all summer long.
I’d rather devote my energy to web pages with a strong science component, but it would be interesting to create a page of climate propaganda and misleading statements. It could have several NSIDC statements this year.
I agree with Tom in Florida’s idea .Why cherry pick your years unless you want to get a particular reading.One thing i’m wanting to know is how thick is this ice in the artic and when they talk about thin ice are they saying the ice is an inch thick or 5 in. or 10in. ???? I know it’s all in the wording.
McGrats (18:58:24) :
I don’t have much trouble with the article or the headline. Headlines are often a little vague (“Dewey Wins” was not), and the first sentence of the article confirms that the subject is the entire year. It’s no worse than similar headlines you might see like “Hurricane season peaks this week.” or “This morning coldest of the season.”
You might squabble with the second sentence, but a linear regression over the last 30 years may indeed show “this season further reinforces the strong negative trend in summer sea ice extent observed during the past 30 years.”
are you people serious? It was only the second largest recorded melt in since recording began so it’s no cause of concern? are none of you capable of looking at a graph and seeing a trend line? How does it feel to go through life being functionally illiterate when it comes to math and science?
Under global warming, it’s supposed to be shrinking, and not growing.
BTW,
HOW’S THAT KAYAKING KOOK DOING ANYWAY?
Any news about him?
REPLY: see http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/09/09/polar-defense-project-deletes-the-tough-questions/
In my view sea ice extent is not a leading climatic indicator – rather it is a lagging indicator. With the present cooling, I expect sea ice extent to increase in the years ahead.
deepslope–this may be of interest to you. The HBC has a huge amount of info stored at Winnepeg, Manitoba.
The Southern route of the NW Passage was travelled every year by the HBC(Hudson Bay Company) in the 30’s.
Gjoa Haven(1930) and Cambridge Bay(1929) pictures showing low ice level. A lot more info in that link.
http://www.kitikmeotheritage.ca/Angulalk/hudsons/hudsons.htm
This little boat the Aklavik also made it through the NW Passage in 1937.
http://iain-cameron.blogspot.com/2007/07/test.html
Nascopie and Aklavik meet from East and West in 1937
The Nascopie commonly travelled through the passage in the 30’s.
http://iain-cameron.blogspot.com/2007/07/aberdonians-arctic-feat.html
In 1944 Larsen took the St. Roch from Halifax to Vancouver in 86 days through the Parry Channel route.
http://www.ucalgary.ca/arcticexpedition/larsenexpeditions
The Arctic travelled the Parry channel route twice and could have travelled right out of the ice free McClure strait. This from 1908 to 1911.
http://www.ucalgary.ca/arcticexpedition/icebreakers/cgs-arctic
W.E. Parry travelled the length of the Parry Channel route and back in the early 1800’s and McClure sailed right into the McClure strait from the East around 1850.
Then there is Amundsen and a lot more evidence.
This evidence is ignored by science, and it shows the conditions in the Arctic in the thirties were similar to today. And then in the late 40’s the Arctic froze up and the HBC shut some of their posts due to the increased ice.
What is called science has become an embarassment. One need only look at the NISDC report when there is a 10% drop in ice and they play it like there was an increase. Not science but politics.
The ice level in the 1920’s, 30’s and early 40’s was at a similar low level. The St. Roch went easily through the Northern route of the NW passage which is closed this year and that was in 1944. The HBC had many other boats freely navigating the southern route of the NW Passage.
Gjoa Haven(1930) and Cambridge Bay(1929) pictures showing low ice level. A lot more info in that link.
http://www.kitikmeotheritage.ca/Angulalk/hudsons/hudsons.htm
This little boat the Aklavik also made it through the NW Passage in 1937.
http://iain-cameron.blogspot.com/2007/07/test.html
Nascopie and Aklavik meet from East and West in 1937
The Nascopie commonly travelled through the passage in the 30’s.
http://iain-cameron.blogspot.com/2007/07/aberdonians-arctic-feat.html
This evidence is ignored by science, and it shows the conditions in the Arctic in the thirties were similar to today. And then in the late 40’s the Arctic froze up and the HBC shut some of their posts due to the increased ice.
What is called science has become an embarassment.
Shawn Whelan,
Windsor, Ont
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,801448,00.html?promoid=googlep
JP Rourke wrote: “,,,And, even assuming the minimum so far this year stands, year-to-year variability really does not make a trend in just one year… if you think so, and that a 9% rebound from 2007 to 2008 will indicate continued rebound to 2009, what would you have said in 2006? That year ALSO saw about a 10% rebound from the record low in 2005…”
That may be all well and good, but talking points are talking points and you shouldn’t ignore them or the [snip] will walk all over you!
Jack Koenig, Editor
The Mysterious Climate Project
http://www.climateclinic.com
If this 10% increase per year trend continues, it will only be 10 years before there is no melt at all in the Arctic in the summer.
In fact, according to the 10% increase per year model constructed by BIDC, the ice pack could reach the equator within 50 years.
Ric Werme wrote: “I don’t have much trouble with the article or the headline. Headlines are often a little vague (”Dewey Wins” was not), and the first sentence of the article confirms that the subject is the entire year.”
It’s not that the content in incorrect, it’s the way the headline is presented. Word manipulation is an art and when they say “ARCTIC SEA ICE REACHES LOWEST COVERAGE FOR 2008,″ the implication is that another low was reached. In politics, it’s referred to as “Headlining.” And since so few people get past the headline it means everything.
Jack Koenig, Editor
The Mysterious Climate Project
http://www.climateclinic.com
SOG said: “are you people serious? It was only the second largest recorded melt in since recording began so it’s no cause of concern? are none of you capable of looking at a graph and seeing a trend line? How does it feel to go through life being functionally illiterate when it comes to math and science?”
My Reply: First, it does no good to insult people on this blog. Second, pay attention to your own words – “since recording began.” And how long has that been, pray tell? Oh, about 30 years. A breathtakingly short time for most any natural trend. And a trend does not mean an inevitable continuation towards imminent catastrophe. If the trend were in the opposite direction, would you be calling us functional illiterates for not panicking about the death of the world in the Great Freeze? And if you had been reading this blog with any great regularity, particularly in comments, you would see that from the anecdotal evidence alone of cooler-than-normal weather we are quite aware of “trends.” The problem with people who put their hopes and fears in trend lines is that they think they know enough about the so-called trends to forecast the future upon which they make present decisions. In some cases we do, but in this case we only have a scant 30 years of measurements to go on, far too little to base good judgements upon. And if you were really paying attention, you would have seen Anthony’s post about 1922’s Arctic voyage and how the melting was “worse” then than it is now, yet the world somehow survived.
Lighten up and show a little more courtesy, please.
Also to be considered (by anyone not functionally illiterate in science) is that 1979 was right at the nadir of the post WWII cooling period, and temperatures hit a high point from 1998/2001 (including both El Nino and La Nina) and have been near-flat ever since. Thus is is not much of a headline that last year’s melt was “the second largest in recorded history”.
Especially considering that the greatest was last year, and the winter ice recovery was massive (thus leading to a lot of 1st-year ice, which tends to melt faster).
The bottom line is that temperatures were cooler, there was less wind at work, and therefore there was an “Ice-min” gain of 9.4% over last year when many if not most had predicted a new record.
If ice continues to recover, no doubt we shall experience the 3rd or 4th “greatest melt” next year. This will, no doubt, be construed as “further evidence of the continuing degeneration of Arctic ice”.
When sea ice melts it cools things off. Most of the cooling is done by the sea water beneath it, not the air above. When the sun goes down, open water and first year ice radiate more thermal energy than multi-year ice does. Multi-year ice contributes more to global warming than first year/open sea water does. Multi-year ice is about 3 meters thick while the Arctic sea water is hundreds of times thicker.
I have just come across a book, ‘Northwest Passage: The Quest for an Arctic Route to the East’, text by Edward Struzik, photography by Mike Beedell, published in 1991by Blandford.
It was delivered today and when I open the first page I read the following:-
“In 1983, the owners of the cruise ship Linbad Explorer offered a luxury voyage through the Northwest Passage in Canada’s Arctic Archipelago…….the New York based company…..advertised the voyage as one that “would or would not make it.” …..and the following summer…..the vessel completed the 4790-mile (7712-km) journey from St. John’s, Newfoundland, to Point Barrow, Alaska, in just twenty three days.”
Remember this was at a time when the planet was coming out of a cooler period that had begun in the 1940s!
You do like your short term trends don’t you. Don’t forget that we have exploration evidence of at least as little ice in the 1920s, 30s, and 40s. And let us not forget times in the past which were at least as warm as now (MWP, RWP) for which we have no polar data. Of course, you believe in the bogus hockey schtick, so I don’t expect to change your mind, not with your blinders on.