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.
If this is correct then it is good news AND it doesn’t mean we should turn away from conserving energy or living more economically. That personal trend should continue.
I’m left with the simple understanding.
The recent predictions, (sorry “projections”) of an ice free North Pole were WRONG.
The situation is a lot more complicated than merely Man made CO2 emissions,
these incidentally do not correlate at all well, if at all, with ice “amounts”….
For example,
New or multi year ice.
Volcanic activity.
Ocean current phases / regimes.
Wind patterns.
Solar activity.
etc, etc, etc..
The list of natural factors is quite exhausting…..
How does the WWF report this and not get taken to task?
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24365156-11949,00.html
Regards
Michael
Michael (01:54:07) :
“How does the WWF report this and not get taken to task?”
So you deny that this summers melt has not been the largest melt recorded? If you don’t deny this what’s your problem?
Warning: Please remember what Anthony mentioned to you about playing nice in the sand box just two days ago in this post. – Anne
Mark Nodine (19:51:03) :
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg
Certainly a dramatic drop, this SH summer will prove very interesting.
“Warning: Please remember what Anthony mentioned to you about playing nice in the sand box just two days ago in this post. – Anne”
Sorry Anne, just asking what I thought was a reasonable question. The article is about the highest recorded ice melt recorded in the Arctic, denying this fact makes his statement valid to him, accepting the fact means his ‘taken to task’ context is totally wrong and an attempt to mislead.
If you can explain why a warning is merited, fine, I will take it on board.
Reply: 1) Your tone in your wording was highly confrontational, boarding on insulting and quite unnecessary. I have observed that this is a near continuous problem with your comments while most others only make the occasional gaff. 2) Two wrongs don’t make a right. If you observe a trend in the behavior of a fellow participant on this blog that is less than acceptable and which the moderators seem to have missed, feel free to post a comment to us. We will take the necessary steps to correct the problem. In the mean time, don’t let every challenge to your opinions/comments be taken as a personal insult. Treat people as you wish them to treat you. – Anne
@Bobby Lane
Thank you for the extensive summery of the mess we are in. The frustration comes from knowing that, if what would be best for the world happens, then those invested in AGW take us right over a cliff economically. As India and China are not even close to being that crazy, a new world order is highly probable. In short, we lose.
Unfortunately, I am very much aware of the stands of both presidential candidates…I believe I mentioned to Pamala that I am an independant…and I have spent several months swearing I would vote for neither one of them. Whatever they did to screw things up even worse, I refused to be held responcible. Beyond that…well, this is not a political blog, so let’s concentrate on seeing if we can get the environmental part of our mess sorted out. If the politicians don’t make too much of a mess of the economy [and, ghad knows they are trying], maybe our grandkids will have a better world to grow up in…
Now, back to watching ice melt…..
cdl
Anne,
Can I just give the meaning of ‘Taking to Task’:
take someone to task
to criticize someone angrily for something that they have done.
My point was that the WWF (who are actually very close to my heart and one of my chosen charities) was being heavily criticised by Michael for responding to the facts as they are. The only thing I can find that you might deem ‘insulting’ is the word ‘deny’. I can understand why you might be so sensitive to the Noun form ‘Denier’ with the historical connetations, however to deem that using the word as a verb is insulting is perhaps a little extreme. However if that is what you mean then I shall not use deny, let alone denier.
If I am wrong in this assessment then let me know, otherwise I will take it as is.
Reply: But you are not the WWF and therefore the comment ‘taken to task’ was not directed at you and negates any justification on your part for your confrontational attitude. If the WWF wants to rebut that comment officially, they are as welcome here as anyone else. FYI, my understanding is that ‘taken to task’ implies to censure severely or angrily someone’s actions when they have done something perceived to be wrong (ie. Sally was taken to task for fighting in the schoolyard during recess by her teacher). – Anne
Mary Hinge (03:40:25) :
Oh, largest in area, I thought you were talking about volume. Well, a lot of people were pointing to the thin first year ice expecting it to melt quickly, and apparently some of it did, but it still left more ice extent than a year ago.
I haven’t gone looking for the numbers, but if we went from lowest extent on record last year to sufficiently great extent in the spring to have the biggest melt area this year and still be ahead, then – let me start a new sentence.
Last winter’s ice formation must have been much greater than average. Given that we have more potential freezing area than average (but about 9% less than last fall) and that cold weather seems assured, I’d expect another good winter for freezing. All that thin one year ice will still let a lot of heat out, so that may set up the Arctic for good ice preservation next year.
Seems to me that the next 30 years of cold PDO will freeze a lot of water. There won’t be 9.4% growth in each of those years, nor may there be record cover, but we ought to get back to near-average conditions pretty quickly.
OMG, we’re all gonna die from global cooling!!!!
New study says that 100 largest cities could offset all CO2 increases by changing roofs and roads to white.
http://www.physorg.com/news140875649.html
I am impressed with level of science and explanation in this blog. It is definitely heartening to know that more ice is forming when the media is giving the opposite story. That said, the whole thing is obviously very vulnerable and needs a lot of urgent action to maintain/improve the situation.
Melting ice and rising sea levels have caused many problems, especially for many small islands where people have nowhere to go. They are therefore petitioning the UN Security Council to take serious action on Climate Change. Can I ask you take a minute to check this out and maybe support it:
http://blog.advancedsilversolution.com/2008/09/18/rising-sea-levels-action-needed-now/
Thank you
Ric Werme (09:59:32) :
“Oh, largest in area, I thought you were talking about volume.”
Where did you get that from, I said ‘Melt’ which can be either volume or area. However the area melt from maxima to minima was the greatest recorded.
“Last winter’s ice formation must have been much greater than average.”
It was less than average but the most since 2003
Seems to me that the next 30 years of cold PDO will freeze a lot of water.
Maybe, but considering the La Nina and the -PDO were there last winter there was no great freeze so your forecast doesn’t look very sound.
@charliedw
Most of those small islands are sinking, actually. Either they are at the edge of a subducting oceanic plate and the entire island is slowly sinking it the sea or they have pumped out all the fresh ground water and the island’s surface is subsiding.
This is all pretty well documented and I am surprised you have not come across it before.
Hmm, another great idea!
I haven’t found any English references to this story. Extract from an article that appeared in a Dutch newspaper today:
“The Dutch researcher Rolf Schuttenhelm suggests a plan to protect the North Pole by building a 300 kilometer long dam in the Bering Sea.”
This dam would connect mainland Siberia to Alaska, via St. Lawrence Island. It would stop warm currents and it would allow more sweet water from Yukon river to flow around the pole.
http://www.telegraaf.nl/buitenland/1957422/__Noordpool_indammen_helpt_tegen_smelten__.html
Amazing…
I’d say “increased 9.4%” is about as misleading a spin as you could put on this data, given the very large interannual variation year to year measurments have.
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2008/09/sea_ice_reaches_minimum_extent.php
(Please take special note of the last graphic at that page)
It is also worth bearing in mind that extent is only half the picture.
Warning to Polar Bears: Do not swim to Iceland. This poor guy probably wouldn’t have survived global warming/climate change. The distance the Polar Bear swam shows his desperation, The bear could not wait until the end of the Arctic Sea Ice Melt Season.
Polar bear shot dead after 200-mile swim: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/jun/05/animalwelfare.animalbehaviour
A polar bear that swam more than 200 miles in near-freezing waters to reach Iceland was shot on arrival in case it posed a threat to humans.
The bear, thought to be the first to reach the country in at least 15 years, was killed after local police claimed it was a danger to humans, triggering an outcry from animal lovers. Police claimed it was not possible to sedate the bear.
Michael (01:54:07) :
How does the WWF report this and not get taken to task?
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24365156-11949,00.html
Taken to task for what, it’s accurate?
I have noticed a curiosity. When cooling happens and it is brought up, the AGW folks want to downplay it because it is a gradual decrease in upward rate, a flattening, or downslope. Yet the gradual increase in temps that occurred over the last half of this century does not have to measure up to the same request.
It takes a while to thaw a turkey. It takes a while to freeze it. So it goes with our planet and its atmosphere. Whatever is affecting its temperature, it will likely respond with slow upward and downward behavior. If a slow rise in temp is significant, so is a slow fall.
The ice recovery this past winter was huge. A record setter since satellite records began. The melt that occurred this summer in the Arctic was a record setter from that high maximum to the current minimum. However, this melt left more ice than last year’s melt at this time.
I think either camp can legitimately lay claim to this event. It can belong to both camps without either side needing to resort to nose thumbing. There are soft signs that an ice recovery might have begun. And there are soft signs that summers are still hot enough to melt ice. I think we can share this highway.
Pamela Gray (18:58:29) :
The ice recovery this past winter was huge. A record setter since satellite records began.
It didn’t even make it back to the ’79-2000 average, not much of a record setter.
The melt that occurred this summer in the Arctic was a record setter from that high maximum to the current minimum. However, this melt left more ice than last year’s melt at this time.
A couple of percent, not significantly more, given the way it’s spread out this year then it will be more vulnerable next year.
I think either camp can legitimately lay claim to this event. It can belong to both camps without either side needing to resort to nose thumbing. There are soft signs that an ice recovery might have begun.
Really, what are they?
Mary Hinge (15:54:39) :
a) give it 30 years. The last PDO flip had both a step up in temperature and then a gradual warming. So I figure a step down and gradual cooling makes sense.
b) Are you denying that last winter featured a major freeze? I took the May and September data at ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135, plopped them in a spreadsheet and came up with melt for 2007 and 2008 of 8.61 and 8.65 M*mi^2. The next greatest was 7.62 in 1999.
The new extent through freezing between Sep 2007 and May 2008 was 8.89. The next greatest was 7.27 in 1990. Therefore I conclude that the freeze last winter was not just a great freeze, but the greatest on record. All 31 years worth, so no big deal.
Relax, the next few years will be too interesting on many fronts to get completely wrapped up in just one. Especially one where I don’t see a crisis.
Phil. (19:35:18) :
My spreadsheet says the average freeze was 6.68 M mi^2 and that the 07/08 freeze was 8.89. What is your data? (Caveat – my data comes from May and Sep data, I don’t know where values for Annual max and min are. Pointer welcome.)
9.4% isn’t “a couple” in my book. What is your data?
I see one sign – the NSIDC reports that minimum was reached. Given how much they were rooting for a record minimum, I’m surprised they declared it.
Clearly we are looking at very different data. After the 11PM news I might try to post my table, I have something I want to try to format it okay.
9% is really quite a lot. At least if they are trying to argue that global warming is causing the melting ice. If the global temperature dropped by 9% in one year that would be dramatic cooling.
Once again I bring your attention to the very same graph you use to harald the huge melt. Look at the extent of ice recovery from minimum to maximum this past winter and compare that to any other winter season. It was COLD last winter and for a very long time. Thus the rather large amount of ice that formed. There have been other years where the extent ended further up the graph scale, but the ice freeze didn’t have as far to go from minimum either. The only way that much ice could have reformed is that at least for last winter, whatever forcings were active, they allowed the Arctic to be colder than in recent years.
If you want to talk about the significance of the current huge melt and hypothesize about why it occurred, and I agree that it did occur, I get to talk about the huge recovery this past winter on the same graph and hypothesize about why it occurred. I noticed that the length of the rise was greater than all the others on the graph. Did you notice that? Of course it may just be an odd cold year. But if, and I do mean “if”, this winter is just as bitter cold as last year, and then the next summer season is just as hot as it was this summer, there will be slightly more ice left at the end of the next melt season, just like this time there was more ice left than in 2007. If the ice recovers again, I hypothesize that the recovery to average will be slow, just like the trend of loss of ice from year to year was slow. If my version happens, I will be thinking about possible reasons for it, just as you would if it continues to warm and melt.
Scientific observation isn’t about who is right. It is about describing what one sees and then developing open-minded hypotheses about the event. That is all I have done. I don’t know yet if my view will be the correct one. Scientific conversation should never jump to early conclusions about right and wrong. Out of respect for opposing hypotheses and in the interest of science, I believe both sides should continue the conversation with open minds. So if your mind is open here is what I could say: Last winter’s long freeze could be an early sign of recovery. It could also be a sign of just a pause along the road to continued warming and an ice free Arctic. I will not begrudge you if you lean towards the ice-free Arctic version.
Okay, if this formats well (and even if it doesn’t) this is the NSIDC ice extent for its full record. First column is the year, then extent in May and then September. Then extent change during melting that summer (May to Sep) and freezing (Sept to May).
Year May Sep Melt Freeze
1979 14.06 7.2 6.86 6.84
1980 14.04 7.85 6.19 6.05
1981 13.9 7.25 6.65 6.92
1982 14.17 7.45 6.72 6.09
1983 13.54 7.52 6.02 6.16
1984 13.68 7.17 6.51 7.06
1985 14.23 6.93 7.3 6.59
1986 13.52 7.54 5.98 6.27
1987 13.81 7.48 6.33 6.21
1988 13.69 7.49 6.2 5.49
1989 12.98 7.04 5.94 6.26
1990 13.3 6.24 7.06 7.27
1991 13.51 6.55 6.96 6.7
1992 13.25 7.55 5.7 5.99
1993 13.54 6.5 7.04 7.23
1994 13.73 7.18 6.55 5.86
1995 13.04 6.13 6.91 6.93
1996 13.06 7.88 5.18 5.44
1997 13.32 6.74 6.58 7.06
1998 13.8 6.56 7.24 7.3
1999 13.86 6.24 7.62 6.94
2000 13.18 6.32 6.86 7.4
2001 13.72 6.75 6.97 6.37
2002 13.12 5.96 7.16 7.04
2003 13 6.15 6.85 6.43
2004 12.58 6.05 6.53 6.94
2005 12.99 5.57 7.42 7.05
2006 12.62 5.89 6.73 7
2007 12.89 4.28 8.61 8.89
2008 13.17 4.52 8.65
The table is formatted with <code> commands and with spaces replaced with %amp;nbsp;. (And will this sentence format right?)