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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“Recent history”. That’s like waking up one morning and seeing that it’s raining, and deciding there’s an emergency because it wasn’t raining yesterday. Recent history is too short a time to determine anything about global climate. Not to mention that the so-called “recent warming” is coming from seriously flawed measuring stations, and mysteriously adjusted data. The satellite record shows no dramatic rise since the record started, which is still an incredibly short time on which to base a trend.
You need to make me confident in the data before I’ll believe the sky is falling.
Isn’t this the same group that predicted the ice would be 30% less than last year, due to the fact there was so much new ice ? Instead, the ice this year is 10% greater than last year. So, They are only off by 40%.
What’s really interesting about the Franklin Expedition is one of the main reasons it failed. Lead used in the cans of their canned food caused dementia, which is why they dragged a piano across the ice and tundra after their ships were abandoned.
Why am I suspicious that all the AGW proponents are focusing on arctic sea ice mainly because recent global temperatures aren’t fulfilling their expectations. When global temperature’s tick upward, as they inevitably will, they will change their focus. And they will also forget their arguments that short-term changes aren’t statistically significant.
I’m sure it was just luck. I saw on CNN back in June there was a 50% chance of the entire cap melting this year. I mean the guy had a computer and a pony- tail, how could one doubt it?
Jeff Alberts (8:22:35)
“What’s really interesting about the Franklin Expedition is one of the main reasons it failed. Lead used in the cans of their canned food caused dementia, which is why they dragged a piano across the ice and tundra after their ships were abandoned.”
Some believe that but it is in dispute. Personally I believe it is more likely the food was not properly canned and they were poisened. They quit eating the canned food and eventualy resorted to cannibalism even though there was large quantities of the canned food left.
It is worth noting that it was very common not to long ago to supply drinking water to the cities via lead pipes and much of this pipework is still in use. And until very recently the solder used in the pipes contained a large amount of lead.
It seems as if the study of the science of global climatology started in 1979 and we find these idiotic vacuous pronouncements of historic records that ignore contrary historic anecdotal data. I guess if we have a historic 2008/2009 cold winter it will be based on the period beginning in 1979. To predict future catastrophic effects base on such a short timeline, questionable models, and data is ridiculous and belongs in a Science Comic book or Hollywood films and not being bandied about by so called reputable scientists and robotic reporting by the tabloid news media. An AGW comic book might become a best seller.
For the alarmists who can’t believe we do not see the the TREND toward a hot house world.
Consider that this TREND is measured since the satellite era, about 1979. This is less than 30 years. 30 years that covers ONE POSITIVE PDO cycle. This does NOT cover a matching NEGATIVE PDO cycle. It only covers THREE solar cycles. Based on sunspot data we have “SEEN” virtually nothing of the possible variations in the Sun with modern instrumentation.
Am I to panic over every single observation that is new and doesn’t fit short term theories and observations???
@Doug
As I sit here at the computer, with my pony tail…….
OK…they PAY me to have a pony tail…so you really do have a point!
@Bobby Lane
I was sitting here with my frustration meter maxed out, trying to mentally edit a rational reply to SOG…when you posted your calm, reasonable answer…thank you!
Unfortunately, going to lunch didn’t over come my frustration entirely…so, SOG, whoever you are, you must be new here. Everyone else, please forgive me a moment to vent.
1. This site is not just about AGW. It is about whatever Anthony finds interesting. That varies widely. He has never generated [as far as I know] an artical on roller derby….but if someone, somewhere, generates a paper coralating global temperatures or glacial retreat to the league roller derby scores…well, stranger things have happened.
2.The folks here are some of the most interesting on the net. A great many have more that 30 years of experience in science, engineering and other challanging ways of passing time…several are top experts in their chosen fields…if you listen with an open mind, this is a place to learn a great deal that is hard to come by, anywhere else.
3. Folks come here to share information…if you are trying to score points by putting anyone down, you will probably be more comfortable, somewhere else. Personal attacks are not acceptable conduct. Occationally, someone slips up..but the best of us promptly appoligize [hint]. Attacking data is not a personal attack.
Now that that is over….
I keep finding myself, staring at the screen and wondering: “How the hell did I ever get into THIS situation?”
More CO2 is good for plants. That is a fact. More CO2 helps the forest and the crops. Fact. The vast majority of plants and animals, humans included, do better when this planet warms up by a few degrees. Fact. The less ice around the north pole, the better it is for world wide shipping and the more access we have to valuable resources. Fact.
SO, I find myself sitting here, hoping CO2 will level off or decrease, hoping that we will see a world wide drop in temperatures and hoping the entire Arctic Sea freezes over. Either old age has finally fried my brain, or the crack pots have finally pushed me over the edge….
Or, does anyone else get those moments…..
[sigh]
cdl
But Mark… the Antarctic is less than last year but wasn’t last year a “all time” high in the antarctic? And doesn’t a loss of 1million square km barely bring that back into the normal range?
no but how many people do? Lots.
[…] to the NSIDC (national snow and ice data center) the melt season for arctic ice is over, and we have 9% more than last year. Must be the cooling that is now claimed to be caused by global warming __________________ […]
Why the difference between NSIDC (SSMI) and IARC/JAXA (AMSR-E) data is bigger each year?
Sea ice extent minima:
NSIDC (SSMI) AMSR-E
2008: 4.520.000 km2 4.707.813 km2
2007: 4.140.000 km2 4.254.531 km2
2006: 5.758.000 km2 5.781.719 km2
From 20.000 km2 of difference in 2006 to 200.000 km2 in 2008…
Since the Cyosphere Today area series are derived from SSMI, I think the divergence is not between area (as in 2007) and extent (10% more than in 2007). The problem is that we could have a divergence SSMI/AMSR-E.
Any comments?
McGrats (06:51:15) :
I’m sure it could be better, e.g. “ARCTIC SEA ICE REACHES LOWEST COVERAGE FOR 2008 ON TIME.” What would you have written?
Given that the author started with the NSIDC press release “Arctic sea ice settles at second-lowest, underscores accelerating decline,” I think he did pretty well at resisting headlining. Your ire would be better directed at the NSIDC.
Apart from the “extent” I am more interested why the blue-line stalled and went down precipitously at the end of July. There is a clear peak on the line. Up to the point the slope of the line was “levelling” a little then drop down. If it continued it would go “above” the gray line of avarge line. Alas it made a deep dive. And thru nearly all the August days it suggested to go below of the dashed line of 2007.
At the end of August the blue line was once again “corrected by nature” and pushed up to rob us of a new record meltdown. Any clues to any events making the two corrections?
Regards
Mary Hinge (02:44:45) :
“Also note that we are not quite finished in the seasons melt, there is probably another week or so left.”
[snip] Have an open mind and look at the evidence. Enough has been given to you over the past few days for you to realise that there is logically something wrong with the AGW hypothesis.
[REPLY – Let’s keep it civil, folks. ~ Evan]
The Canadian Ice Service is reporting considerable amounts of first year ice still remaining with-in the Canadian Archipelago and new ice already forming in the far reaches. See: http://ice-glaces.ec.gc.ca/prods/WIS55SD/20080908180000_WIS55SD_0003962872.pdf
150,000 square miles more is a chunk of ice the size of Montana.
That’s not a small piece of real estate . . .
[I had to de-spam that one. You used the magic words: “real estate” ~ Evan]
Craig D. Lattig (09:56:16)
“SO, I find myself sitting here, hoping CO2 will level off or decrease, hoping that we will see a world wide drop in temperatures and hoping the entire Arctic Sea freezes over. Either old age has finally fried my brain, or the crack pots have finally pushed me over the edge….”
You’re not alone my friend.
Przemysław Pawełczyk (P2O2):
There was an unusual heat wave in northeastern Siberia in August. The unusual melt in August was essentially all in that area.
So here we sit, watching ice melt and getting all bent out of shape over it.
Hmmm . . .
(Almost as interesting as watching ice freeze.)
Sorry Evan. I’ve got to stop reading Mary’s posts – bad for my blood pressure.
Mary Hinge: “The whole AGW argument is that these natural cycles alone do not account for the rapid rise in temperatures in recent history.”
The magnitude of the natural cycles is not known. The natural temperature rise is estimated as the proportion of the observed temperature rise which cannot be explained by the AGW theory, and is generally assumed to be around 50% of the observed rise.
But this doesn’t make sense as, if the temperature then falls back to its previous level over much the same period of time, (which it’s often been observed as doing) the magnitude of that natural temperature drop must be about three times the magnitude of the natural rise over the previous period. If the natural rise and fall were of the same magnitude then the observed temperature would stay level rather than falling.
evanjones (12:06:56) :
So here we sit, watching ice melt and getting all bent out of shape over it.
Hmmm . . .
(Almost as interesting as watching ice freeze.)
…and if we get bored, we can all go count sun spots…..
cdl
The retained heat flow into the Arctic this year was about half of 2007 all things being equal.