It appears Arctic sea ice has bottomed out and is now on the growth rebound. The NANSEN Arctic ROOS website shows that in terms of area, sea ice appears to have turned the corner as of Sept 13th data. While that is just one data point, it turned the corner about this time last year, and the year before.
More data and graphs from NANSEN Arctic ROOS are available here.
Many WUWT readers have been watching JAXA’s sea ice extent graph closely, so have I. Typically JAXA updates the graph twice a day; once around the start of their business day (in Japan), and then a second update that contains the corrected data (after going through processing and QC) a few hours later. Tonight (9/14) about 11:30PM PST JAXA updated their Sept 14th AMSRE data with this new number:
5,269,531 km2
UPDATE: JAXA updated the number again and it now stands at 5,276,563 km2
That is a gain of almost 20,000 26,719 km2 from the Sept 13th value of 5, 249, 844 km2 which may very well turn out to be the minimum extent for 2009. Here is the Sept 14th chart and the data from JAXA:
Source: IARC-JAXA Sea Ice page
Here is the tabular Arctic Sea Ice Extent data for September 2009 with the minimum highlighted in blue. A CSV data file for Excel is available here.
| 9 | 1 | 2009 | 5423750 |
| 9 | 2 | 2009 | 5398281 |
| 9 | 3 | 2009 | 5379844 |
| 9 | 4 | 2009 | 5387969 |
| 9 | 5 | 2009 | 5363438 |
| 9 | 6 | 2009 | 5345156 |
| 9 | 7 | 2009 | 5328906 |
| 9 | 8 | 2009 | 5330469 |
| 9 | 9 | 2009 | 5315938 |
| 9 | 10 | 2009 | 5295313 |
| 9 | 11 | 2009 | 5278594 |
| 9 | 12 | 2009 | 5259375 |
| 9 | 13 | 2009 | 5249844 |
| 9 | 14 | 2009 | 5276563 |
For 2008 the value reached minimum on September 9th, rebounded slightly, shrank again, and then turned the corner and started rebound again on September 17th.
| 9 | 1 | 2008 | 4957656 |
| 9 | 2 | 2008 | 4924219 |
| 9 | 3 | 2008 | 4927031 |
| 9 | 4 | 2008 | 4868906 |
| 9 | 5 | 2008 | 4825625 |
| 9 | 6 | 2008 | 4808281 |
| 9 | 7 | 2008 | 4739844 |
| 9 | 8 | 2008 | 4715469 |
| 9 | 9 | 2008 | 4707813 |
| 9 | 10 | 2008 | 4729688 |
| 9 | 11 | 2008 | 4751563 |
| 9 | 12 | 2008 | 4745156 |
| 9 | 13 | 2008 | 4742344 |
| 9 | 14 | 2008 | 4747188 |
| 9 | 15 | 2008 | 4731875 |
| 9 | 16 | 2008 | 4726250 |
| 9 | 17 | 2008 | 4718594 |
| 9 | 18 | 2008 | 4736406 |
| 9 | 19 | 2008 | 4745000 |
| 9 | 20 | 2008 | 4752500 |
Of course it is entirely possible nature has other plans, but the appearance of a change in direction is there and the time is about right historically. If this holds it will put 2009 542,031 km2 above 2008’s Sept 9th low extent, making it the third lowest extent in the AMSRE data set and the second year of increasing ice extent since the historic low in 2007 of 4,267,656 km2
The signs are right, and Nature will let us know in the next few days if we have indeed turned the corner and will be headed upwards.
UPDATE: Commenter Dave points out that the DMI extent graph, shown below, does a better job of illustrating the uptick.
and look at the antarctic status as well……cold !!!
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_timeseries.png
Mainstream Media? I have come to think of them as “The clowns and monkeys of the Mainstream Media circus.” Just useful as entertainment now, and poor entertainment at that.
I know everyone will be angry at me, but it IS indeed much worse than predicted
http://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/2009/stroeve.png
Moreover, the extent is about 300 000 km2 below the linear projection of the decrease based on measurements since 79. So, believe it or not, it will actually make the trend even MORE negative than it was last year. A system where the derivative continuously decreases can be qualified as “accelerating”.
REPLY: To be fair, at what point will that reverse if we keep having rebounds like the last two years? – A
We are lucky bastards until now not to have to experienced the onset of another Tambora or Laki Eruption:
http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Laki_%28volcano%29
Just lucky bastards.
Hotrod,
Click over and check out the arctic temperatures during last year’s re-freeze. In fact it looks like the air temperatures in the autumn of 2008 had quite a number of peaks that were “warmer” than average (though well below freezing.)
Hotrod,
Click over and check out the arctic temperatures during last year’s re-freeze. In fact it looks like the air temperatures in the autumn of 2008 had quite a number of peaks that were “warmer” than average (though well below freezing.)
This did not seem to slow down last year’s re-freeze at all. WUWT?
If this year’s arctic temperatures continue colder than last year’s, I wonder if the re-freeze will be faster.
It would be interesting to read a well-written article describing all the factors that go into the speed-of-re-freeze.
Ron de Haan (08:30:39) :
Don’t get your hopes up too much, Ron.
That “Prominence” is the old 1024 region that re-started Sept 9th, and rotated off Sept. 11
see here:
http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/COMP_A_latest.jpg
It could get snuffed before it shows up on the SOHO.
I would have a current CEIT image for today, but there is a 3-day delay (at least) in the release of EUVI 171 and 284 images from STEREO.
I have contacted Joe Gurman at NASA about it, and am awaiting a reply.
I enjoy watching the ice, but I often wonder…if the ice cap disappears in the summer, so what? What cataclysmic event will happen? Science shows on discover channel clearly show the arctic was ice free for millions of years at a time dozens of times through the planets history (of course the disclaimer that this time it is because of man is always added).
The only downside I can see from an ice free arctic is that huge quantities of energy get sucked out of the ocean and lost to space, accelerating global cooling.
What’s not to like about a warmer planet??
Increased taxation and stupid regulation
Ther’ll be a new graph to look at soon
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8255605.stm
‘Ice explorer’ ready for launch’
From the JAXA graph it almost looks like the 2009 bottom is very close to 2005, but the finer plot with the uptick shows 2005 still quite a bit above 2009.
As to Flanagan’s comment on the possibility of a rapid refreeze; my recollection is that in 2008 when the refreeze started, it grew back at around 58,000 squ km per day for some 10 day’ss traight; maybe that was 2007 after the disastrous minimum and maybe it was 58,000 squ mi/day.
But more to the point, I would expect the refreeze to proceed rapidly, seems par for the course to me.
Take a look at the high arctic temperature plot; which is now in free fall and maybe at about -7 C right now.
So consider the ocean water temperature dropping below zero, but not freezing, since the freezing point of normal sea water of about 3.5% salinity, is around -2.5C. Once freezing does start at around -2.5 C, the segregation coefficient forces the salts out of the forming ice, into the boundary layer between the solid and the liquid, forming a briny soup, which can also become entrapped in voids in the ice which is essentially fresh water ice.
The increased salinity of this boundary layer of brine, forces the freezing point even lower, so the freezing process is inhibited by the increasing salinity, which keeps moving the temperature target. But as we see, the local temperature is now dropping quite rapidly so the atmosphere over the (fresh) ice is now much colder than ice, and the now frozen ice, can also start to drop in temperature, losing heat to the atmosphere.
Eventually the temperature gradient between the plummeting air temperature, and the slower falling freezing point of the briny boundary layer has increased significantly and the water temperature has fallen to where even the salinity of the brine can no longer delay freezing. At that point freezing can progress with a much steeper temperature gradient to suck the heat out of the ocean water.
I would conjecture that if there existed in the same area, a large fresh water lake, the freezing would start at a higher air temperature, and the temperature gradient between the air and the freezing lake water, would never reach the level it does with salt water.
So the delay of the freezing caused by the salinity drop in freezing point, results in a bigger driving temperature gradient over sea water; so once the freezing dows get underway, it is almost regenerative, and proceeds rapidly.
Given how low the temperatures can go in that area, I would expect the temperature gradient to ultimately reach the same value over fresh and salt water.
Well like I say, it is a conjecture; but I believe that the rapid refreeze is quite normal for the arctic ocean.
George
Juraj V. (02:21:42) :
AMO index for August is out, being 0.205. Looks like it is going down now, possibly going neutral/negative around winter time like it did last winter. European folks, get your snow blowers ready.
I’ve got enough firewood and candles and recently invested just under £6,500 ($10,000US) in a Land Rover. Forward planning!
Roger Knights (08:19:33) :
“sure, it’s higher than the last two years, but only four years ago ice extent this low would have been–and, well, was–startlingly low.”
FWIW, the 2009 maximum extent in March/April was well above average. (The maximum isn’t as reliable as the minimum–but it’s not nothing, either.)
Wait, it was? http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20090330_Figure2.png This doesn’t look very above average to me, although since I’m not too familiar with sea ice maxima, and whether or not they’ve been decreasing over time along with minima, I’ve no clue whether or not that’s significant. I really need to look into that…
Sandy (07:54:24) :
“Have our standards moved so far, so quickly, that what was an unprecedented meltdown in 2005 is now somehow good news? ”
Very much so, since it is rock solid proof that ‘runaway melting’ of the arctic was and is childish tosh.
The healthy recovery represents a strong indicator that the concept of a ‘trend’ in climatology is intrinsically flawed and that any apparent ‘trends’ are simply part of a larger cycle/drunkards walk.
I’m at a risk of misunderstanding you, I think. The “recovery” this year, in area at least, is still far below the average minimum sea ice extent–and isn’t really distinguishable from any other “recoveries” in the past that ended up being nothing more than brief blips in a continued downward slope. I can’t see any reason why this “recovery” will end up being any different, or why it means that the downward slope in sea ice extent that’s been going on for the past three thirty years is about to cease. That’s my interpretation. What mistake am I making?
@ur momisugly Ronan (10:55:55) :
I think, Ronan, that you may be at risk of misunderstanding everything and the mistake that you might be making is that you seem to have no idea that arctic ice may be making a serious recovery as we go into an extended period of cooling. I believe that we should wait and see…..
All the best
Michael
Ecotretas (01:12:56) :
How much Manhattan islands is 531,250 km2 ?
Start spreading the news!
8830
Ronan (07:38:58) :
It is not realy fair to compair extents with several years ago. The real indicator is the delta from the previous year. Even if the climat got colder by 1.5C (twice the aleged warming), the arctic sea ice extent would not spontaniously become a record high. It would likely start to get larger and larger each year until is was a record, but not spontaniously in one year.
The point of this article is to show that the increase year over year for the last two years is very large (largest ever?). Even this does not prove cooling. Just
In 2007, when the record was set for minimal extent, the “melt” was cause by wind pushing ice out of the Arctic into the Atlantic. Most (or possible all) of the increased loss (“melt”) was not due to increased melting. Similarly, the increases of the last two summers may or may not be related to increased cold. But it does help refute the Warmies “OMFG The arctic is melting; we are all going to die” rants.
MartinGAtkins,
8830? Geez! Wasn’t there a comparison between Wilkins and Manhattan some months ago? How much times is this 2009 ice buildup compared to Wilkins? Easy 500/14=35 times
Ecotretas
By clicking on the ‘DMI polar temperature tab’ then loading each year then clicking the back arrow on the browser you get a kind of blink comparator/moving image for temperature changes going back years, very interesting to look at how they vary over the years.
The 2009 chart seems to be compressed more than the other years though.
The cyclic nature of polar temperatures shows clearly and you have to wonder at the fuss and alarm when the actual evidence shows little sign of any supposed tipping point.
Flanagan, if the model runs did not predict the actual observations, wouldn’t that tell you that the models are wrong? And if the models are wrong, wouldn’t you be looking at the inputs to see why? So what do you think could be the “why”? What is missing or miscalculated in the models?
Mr. Green Jeans
I thought the Polar Bears had already all drowned. I saw the Al Gore video and all the ice they tried to climb up onto all breaks in half.
Thanks
William
Anthony, it is cheering to see that so many readers corrected your initial phrasing of the 2008 minimum. It reflects how many of your readers pay attention to the numbers rather than blindly accepting the chatter. There are too many readers elsewhere who don’t question what is written… or who aren’t allowed to have their questions published.
Come on people! Don’t count your ice cubes before they freeze! There could still be negative days between now and the end of the season. 2005 and 2007 both had downticks over the next two weeks. 2005’s min was on the 22nd and 2007 on the 24th. We’re near the bottom but maybe not yet. It does look like it’s below the linear trend but above 2008 and all of the projections.
So I post on a snowmobile web site everyday. I have this MMGW argument everday with this group of guys. So now they have once again moved the goal posts on me. Now they are saying the ICE isn’t as think as it used to be. It’s so frustrating!!!
Flanagan,
Good point (i.e., it was clear and truthful) regarding linear trends (though I don’t agree with the assumption). For example, if 2010 min extent is at the 20 yr average, the linear trend will still be negative. I won’t repeat the arguments made on multiple occasions here regarding the application of linear trends to non-linear systems. But, clear presentation of truthful data regardless of assumption should be applauded.
Flanagan, trend the maximums or annual means and see what it looks like.