10/14/2008 7,064,219 square kilometers
10/14/2007 5,487,656 square kilometers
A difference of: 1,576,563 square kilometers, now in fairness, 2008 was a leap year, so to avoid that criticism, the value of 6,857,188 square kilometers can be used which is the 10/13/08 value, for a difference of 1,369,532 sq km. Still not too shabby at 24.9 %. The one day gain between 10/13/08 and 10/14/08 of 3.8% is also quite impressive.
You can download the source data in an Excel file at the IARC-JAXA website, which plots satellite derived sea-ice extent:
Watch the red line as it progresses. So far we are back to above 2005 levels, and 28.7% (or 24.9% depending on how you want to look at it) ahead of last year at this time. That’s quite a jump, basically a 3x gain, since the minimum of 9% over 2007 set on September 16th. Read about that here.
Go nature!
There is no mention of this on the National Snow and Ice Data Center sea ice news webpage, which has been trumpeting every loss and low for the past two years…not a peep. You’d think this would be big news. Perhaps the embarrassment of not having an ice free north pole in 2008, which was sparked by press comments made by Dr. Mark Serreze there and speculation on their own website, has made them unresponsive in this case.
From May 5th, 2008:
“Taken together, an assessment of the available evidence, detailed below, points to another extreme September sea ice minimum. Could the North Pole be ice free this melt season? Given that this region is currently covered with first-year ice, that seems quite possible. “
See the original story here: http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2008/050508.html
What I like about the IARC-JAXA website is that they simply report the data, they don’t try to interpret it, editorialize it, or make press releases on it. They just present the data. Here is their top-down pole view:
Click for a larger image.
h/t to Tom Nelson
Sponsored IT training links:
We offer 100% successes guarantee for real exam using expert 220-702 notes, 642-902 video demos and 70-642 practice exam.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I think the headline is misleading. In 2007, there was a large increase in sea ice extent in November; a similar thing happened this year, but in October. Both of these effects seem to be transients, for which I have seen no credible explanation. Let us wait until the winter solstice in the Northern Hemisphere before we compare 2008 with 2007. Unlike the warmaholics, we skeptics should stick strictly to science; no PR spin.
Flanagan
Its true that the curves might join in november, but still this early freezing is interesting, and still the ice produced earlier might very well end up thicker in the end, and thus, even thogh curves should join, the ice will be stronger for next years melt season.
John FInn:
For the Dansih site http://www.klimadebat.dk i made this grafic to show exactly the effect of Pinatubo:
http://www.klimadebat.dk/forum/attachments/elnino34.jpg
I know its not exactly what you want, but close.
“We were probably just helped in part this year by the strong and prolonged La Nina.
…If we get a strong El Nino, I should not be surprised if we see the 2007 minimum record broken, and by quite a margin, too.”
In other words, the NATURAL ups and downs of the ENSO are an important factor in determining events in the Arctic. But if we are, as the consensus seems to hold, in the negative phase of the PDO, then the next few decades ought to see more frequent and stronger Ninas and less frequent and weaker Ninos.
‘I am Nina, hear me roar!’
RW: “yes, if you extended the period over which the mean is define to include a lot of years in which ice extent has been falling rapidly, the mean would be lower. That doesn’t tell us very much about anything though.”
So what does restricting the mean to only years when ice extent was greater tell us? Not very much of anything either. What then was the the point of your post where you brought up the “fact” that this year was still 25 percent less than the perioid 1979 -2000?
I’m sure you’ve seen the chart that the “movement formally known as GW” is using to explain how hotter has made us cooler… I’ve seen it on at least 3 GW based websites to explain the current cool down … (no pun intended)
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/ctl/thc.html
But I find it interesting that a little research in to the origin of this chart, which was posted in 2005, they attributed the heating in this model to the sun, now on quite a few websites this very graph is being used to prove GW theories even though they tell us the sun has no effect.. strange world we live in.
I am beginning to wonder … Has Climate Change (formerly global warming) again changed its spots and started skulking around as energy independence? Please don’t get me wrong.. I’m all for US natural resources to be harvested, and new cleaner energy solutions but I am getting a bit worried when I hear our presidential candidates spouting global warming (no one sent them the memo on the name change) and energy independence in the same sentence. They are two completely different things .. or are they???
I may be paranoid, but we really need to step up the watch or we will be carbon credit central in 10 years. Afterall we need another scam now that the housing has crashed. I honestly hope our elected officials know that the support being seen right now for getting us unhooked from the mainline of oil from the middle east is different than saving the planet from the demon Co2.
RW: …the increase in extent so far is close to the average since measurements began.
I doubt that. Are you saying you have done an analysis, and have determined what the average increase is for one month after minimum? If so, what is it, and please show your work.
Last summer I heard the satellite was having trouble telling the difference between open-water and ice-covered-with-melt water. Has anyone heard any follow-up about this problem?
If this problem does exist, it might explain the lowness of last summer’s ice extent, and also the rapidity of the refreezing.
NASA’s CFS model is now predicting a slight La Nina over the winter. (Not that you can trust a model.) This sort of double-dip La Nina resembles the situation in the 1950’s, when the AMO was in a similar state.
If Bob Tisdale is correct about the one year delay between La Nina’s and arctic cooling, then a slight La Nina this winter would mean we could expect another year of arctic cooling, before any El Nino induced warming set in.
In the decade of the 1950’s there was only two El Ninos, and one was quite weak. If you subscribe to the idea of cycles, (rather than tipping-points,) then the prospect of a lot of melting seems a bit dim.
Actually this is a bit of a drag to me, for I was sort of hoping the soil in Greenland would soften, and archaeologists could learn more about the Greenland Vikings, and also the MWP.
Tougher climate target unveiled
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7673748.stm
The British government raises its target to cut carbon emissions to 80% by 2050 from 1990 levels.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/oct/15/greenpolitics-energy
Britain to become third world nation. I think events will overtake them.
Comparing the IARC-JAXA data with NOAA
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135
it seems that NOAA calculates ~ 0.5e6 km2 less area than IARC-JAXA when area is below ~7e6 km2.
I suspect NOAA has a problem with their algorithm – the distribution of their area data reveals an apparent gap from 7..8 km2.
Just noticed that the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change(UNFCCC) will be holding talks from 1st to 12th of December this year in Poland. There will be further talks in Copenhagan during December 2009.
http://unfccc.int/files/press/news_room/press_releases_and_advisories/application/pdf/opening_press_release_accra.pdf
So they’re going to have talks on getting voters to reduce their energy requirements during what could well be a rather cold winter. I wonder how much coverage this will get.
‘We can look at the same trends and draw the same conclusions the other way.’
It’s not a ‘trend’, of course, it’s a ‘fluctuation.’
This is not a distinction without a difference, however. Consider, for example, the gyrations of the SOI
http://www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/SeasonalClimateOutlook/SouthernOscillationIndex/30DaySOIValues/
“Daily values are presented for research purposes only. 30 day (or larger) average SOI values are the key indices for forecast purposes.” In other words, the fever chart of daily readings is not very significant, but the 30- and 90-day running means are. Note also that the 30-day trend has been down while the 90 day has been up.
Persistently high positive numbers on the two long-term trends correlate with La Nina conditons, high negatives with El Nino’s.
The question is–or, at least my question is– what time span is suitable to what purpose? For mid-range forecasters, it is sometimes not the longer-term trend that is of immediate significance but the suddeness of a fall or a rise over, say, a week to ten days. For example, a sudden fall and recovery of the SOI often telecommunicates to a 500 mb trough in the Eastern U.S. a week to ten days later.
The same question of a suitable time span for a specific purpose surely arises when the spans in question are more ample. Also, agenda can come into play. The Arctic has certainly warmed over the past 50 years, but what has been the trend over the past 80? If your agenda is the make a case for CO2-driven warming, then the 50-year span is for you.
The satellite record dates back to 1979, so we can talk about trends over the past 30 years. But virtually all of this period falls within the regime of a positive PDO. Surely it will be interesting (to you young’ uns who will make it through) to see what, when the PDO flips again to positive, the 60-year or so trend is, over a full cycling of the PDO.
So, back to polar bear land. Last winter, the ice, it would seem, made a dramatic recovery and this year’s freeze-up is really going gangbusters. A trend? Over two years? Hardly. An insignificant blip in a long-term trend? Possibly. Or possibly the beginning of a reversal. Only time will tell.
And on that paragon of a novel thought, I shall sign off.
With Arctic snow and ice rebounding so quickly, I wonder if the weather forecasting computer models are cooling the Arctic sufficiently.
If not, the next cold air outbreak could include some surprises.
John Finn – take a look at Lucia’s The Blackboard – Anthony has a link set up. Look in her September postings – she did some temperature analysis with the effect of volcanos.
Paul Clark,
I tried the same plot for the southern hemisphere and it shows negative correlation.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/nsidc-seaice-s/mean:12/normalise/scale:-1/plot/wti/mean:12/normalise
This came to my attention today, thought you might like it:
http://www.tfheaven.free-online.co.uk/modernparents.jpg
RW: Sorry, I didn’t know I had to point out that there were additional El Nino events after the “El Nino of the Century” in 1997/98. The 97/98 El Nino initiated the step change. The subsequent El Nino events (2002/03, 2004/05, 2006/07, with no La Ninas in between) kept it there. Also, La Nina events do not have the reverse effects on all global locations.
> Nick O. (13:27:29) :
> We were probably just helped in part this year by the strong and
> prolonged La Nina.
[…deletia…]
> If we get a strong El Nino, I should not be surprised if we see the
> 2007 minimum record broken, and by quite a margin, too.
But we’re in a PDO cold phase, and we won’t get many El Nino’s, let alone strong ones, for the next couple of decades. See the ENSO MEI index at http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/people/klaus.wolter/MEI/table.html
I parsed it with a script and imported into a spreadsheet. The data begins in 1950. During the PDO cold phase of 1947..1976, La Nina predominated, resulting in overall cooling. The Jan 1950..May 1976 average MEI was -0.343
During the PDO warm phase of 1976..1998, El Nino predominated, resulting in overall warming. The Jun 1976..Jul 1998 average MEI was 0.554
We’re back in the PDO cold phase as of 1998. El Nino predominates, resulting in overall cooling. The average MEI Aug 1998..Sep 2008 has been -0.056, and it’ll get worse before it gets better.
[…] !UPDATE! Another great piece by Anthony at Watts Up With That? […]
Looks to me like the “canary” better get a fur coat.
Max
What I find interesting is that SSTs are still rather warm in many parts of the artic circle. I do believe it was the increases in SSTs due to AGW that would provide the melting mechanism for the ice flows (Due mainly to the expected amplification of the tropical Hadley Cell). The biggest difference between the Artic and Antartic is that the Artic is land-free. There isn’t enough insolation in and of itself to melt the ice flows; therefore, it is up to warmer waters and favorable wind flow to melt the ice. The melting would primairily be from below.
There was an item in the news several years ago that reported on oceanographers tracking a large group of rubber ducks. These ducks were on a Chinese cargo ship that sank somewhere in the Central Pacific. The ocean currents drove the ducks northward into the Artic and then southward into the North Atlantic. Eventually most of them washed ashore somewhere along the Cornish coast of the UK. It took the ducks about 1 year to make the trip, and more importantly it verified the presence of a rather strong current that transported warm tropical waters into the polar regions. IMHO, the artic ice melt we’ve seen for several years is probably the result of a longterm, but still undefined planetary teleconnection.
The joining of the curves in November has to do with the basin being frozen up completely from Greenland around the pole to Novaya Zemlya. with the growth areas being the two areas where the Pacific meets the Arctic ( Bering Straight) and the Atlantic meets the Arctic ( North Sea) – where the freezing has to fight against the warmer currents from the larger Oceans.
To achieve a greater freeze rate, the water from the larger oceans must be colder when it arrives in the ice creation zones. This goes back to the need to cool the subtropical oceans first.
Here is last year in November.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/ARCHIVE/20071115.jpg
And 2000 in November.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/ARCHIVE/20011115.png
And if you look at 1983 – which was the last real cold winter – you can see that the Bering Straight and much of Hudson Bay is frozen up by Nov 15 – which is not matched in most other years.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/ARCHIVE/19831115.png
Tom in Florida – no matter what period you use to derive the mean, the long term trend in ice extent is downward, and no aspect of the evolution of ice coverage this year has contradicted that.
Bruce Cobb – yes, that is what I am saying. I got the daily ice area data from NSIDC, and for each year in the record I just subtracted the ice area on September 15 from that on October 15. If the minimum extent was reached earlier than September 15, this would give a lower number than the actual first month recovery, but it’s a reasonable start. The values are:
1972 1.60
1973 1.94
1974 1.92
1975 1.72
1976 2.23
1977 1.80
1978 2.73
1979 1.50
1980 1.62
1981 1.96
1982 2.36
1983 2.05
1984 1.32
1985 2.02
1986 2.18
1987 1.79
1988 1.97
1989 1.75
1990 2.28
1991 2.48
1992 2.04
1993 2.70
1994 1.61
1995 1.62
1996 1.70
1997 1.55
1998 1.82
1999 2.73
2000 2.39
2001 1.54
2002 2.46
2003 1.57
2004 1.81
2005 1.47
2006 1.65
2007 1.34
The mean of those numbers is 1.92.
Sorry that this is OT but David Holland, author of BIAS AND CONCEALMENT IN THE IPCC PROCESS: THE “HOCKEY-STICK” AFFAIR AND ITS IMPLICATIONS, which is a well argued and referenced indictment of Mannian climate reconstructions, has posted a very interesting comment at Harmless Sky here. Those of you who also read Climate Audit will be familiar with the subject matter which concerns the reluctancee of at least one IPCC review editor to reveal how he carried out his duties.
Arctic Recovery? What Arctic Recovery???