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.
Since I am in the telecommunications industry where no one, except the Sultan of Brunei*, has enough money to simultaneously replace everything in the installed telecommunications equipment base, we always have to deal with suboptimal/residual/under-performing equipment that remains in the network. This is referred to by the somewhat denigrating term “legacy” equipment.
I think the companies previously known as the “Mainstream Media” could be referred to in the future as the “Legacy Communications Media.” We could shorthand it to “Lamestream Media.”
Just a comment apropos of nothing.
*The Sultan of Brunei ordered a total replacement of ALL of the existing equipment in their public switched telecommunications network. It was amazing to see load after load of equipment being pulled out of the network facilities, some less than 10 years old, and replaced with brand-new equipment. Since all of the old stuff was taken away in dump trucks we created the term “Dump truck Upgrade” to differentiate the process from the more customary piecemeal upgrade.
Regards to the fellow voyagers on Planet Earth.
John
I know it’s way up there now, but I just wanted to compliment the post by Tyler (05:33:16). Most entertaining parody 😀
OT, but I thought Anthony might get a kick out of this article:
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=1996351
“EDMONTON — Activists from the environmental group Greenpeace say they have seized a giant dump truck and shovel at Shell’s Albian Sands open-pit oilsands mine north of Fort McMurray.
A news release from the group says about 25 protesters from Canada, the U.S. and France entered the mine site at 8 a.m. and blockaded the truck and shovel by chaining together pickup trucks.
Two groups of activists then scaled the machines and chained themselves down while a third unveiled a giant banner reading: “Tar Sands: Climate Crime.”
Flanagan (09:23:13) :
To be really fair, your models have been wildly inaccurate, substantially overestimating the minimum extent for some time.
There’s no way to see a trend in two years of data, so anything else is just conjecture, but to claim that we’re much worse than the models is really a condemnation of the value of those models, not a commentary on climatic conditions.
In the networking world, we refer to that as a “forklift” upgrade. That’s when you come in and remove everything wholesale and replace it. That is most often done when someone decides to change equipment vendors or have an old installed base that gone “end of support” with the vendor.
Ronan wrote:
Roger Knights (08:19:33) :
“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 ….”
Oops–What I should have said was, “It’s above the average in the second chart on this thread, for the years 2002 thru 2009.”
Tyler: very well done. LOL x 2!
To: George E. Smith (10:44:56)
I strongly doubt that the seawater freezing mechanics are quite as simple as you describe. Water becomes more dense as either salinity increases or temperature drops, so I would expect tiny convection currents to immediately set up underneath the ice, effectively transferring the increased salinity downward and bringing heat upward.
When you put a cube in a glass of iced tea, you can see clearer melt-water swirling down from its underside. Granted, the temperature difference in the glass is likely greater, but I would expect the principle to hold.
Jason (11:56:15), ice one inch think or one foot thick still reflects sun light with the same albedo as ice 20 feet thick does it not (or pretty darn close)? That is the main worry is it not, that the Sun light will not be reflected and heat up the water melting more ice? Is one year old ice really significantly different than ten year old ice or 5,000,000 year old ice in this regard? All will reflect sun light! Unless of course the laws of physics have changed since I lived in snow bound Edmonton as a youth. As I recall a one inch blanket of snow on the city was just as reflective as when there was five feet. The same goes for the ice sheets that we used to call roads and skating rinks.
I bet if they just ignore them they will decide to unchain themselves in a few days rather than be frozen to the machinery.
Larry
Frank K. (09:18:21) :
“More of the new “standard” in arctic ice reporting, from the AP and none other than Mark “the arctic is screaming” Serreze:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090911/ap_on_re_eu/eu_germany_arctic_passage
2 German cargo ships pass through ‘Arctic Passage’
By MATT MOORE and SETH BORENSTEIN, Associated Press Writers Matt Moore And Seth Borenstein, Associated Press Writers Fri Sep 11, 2:35 pm ET
FRANKFURT Two German merchant ships have traversed the fabled Northeast Passage after global warming and melting ice opened a route from South Korea along Russia’s Arctic coast to Siberia.
…
“We are seeing an expression of climate change here,” said Mark Serreze, director of the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colo. “The Arctic is warming; we’re losing the sea ice cover. The more frequent opening of that Northeast Passage is part of the process we’re seeing.”
“The Arctic is becoming a blue ocean,” Serreze told The Associated Press.
For the last few years, including this year, navigator Roald Amundsen’s famous Northwest Passage has been navigable. Then in 2007, the more crucial deep water channel called McClure Strait opened up and now the Northeast Passage, Serreze said. The passage “is the traditional choke point,” Serreze said.
…
This year is shaping up to have the third lowest amount of Arctic sea ice on record, just behind the worst year set in 2007 and in 2008. But just because 2009 is slightly up from the past two years, it is not an upward trend or a recovery, Serreze said. It reflects a change in local weather patterns that occurred in August, he said.
“It’s certainly part of the overall decline of sea ice that we’ve been seeing,” Serreze said”.
We have a rat infestation Frank,
You will find rats in the Government, the UN, the World Bank, NASA, NOAA and many other places.
Their plot will kill more people than the bubonic plague and influenza put together and we have to smoke them out whenever we have the chance.
Fortunately we have the science and nature at our side.
RE: “30 years is simply not enough data when we have muti-decadal cycles at work.”
Correct, need at least 60 or 70, ideally 100 years, to really get a good sense.
It is still the third lowest in record.
And we still doesn’t have the THICKNESS data.
Between 1980 and 2008, 80% OF sea ice VOLUME in summer is gone.
In winter, 30-40% of the ice VOLUME is gone.
If the weather conditions were like in 2007, the melting would have been a lot bigger than in that year, because the ice has THINNED a lot in just two years.
*************
commonsense (14:18:29) :
It is still the third lowest in record.
And we still doesn’t have the THICKNESS data.
**************
We also don’t know if there are more bubbles in this year’s ice – it could very well be less dense. There also might be less tritiated/deuterated water – that would make a difference, too! And let’s not forget the mass is also increasing due to the more dense gas, CO2 which we know to be rising in concentration.
” commonsense (14:18:29) :
And we still doesn’t have the THICKNESS data.
Between 1980 and 2008, 80% OF sea ice VOLUME in summer is gone.
In winter, 30-40% of the ice VOLUME is gone.
If the weather conditions were like in 2007, the melting would have been a lot bigger than in that year, because the ice has THINNED a lot in just two years.”
How can you know that the volume has gone if we do not have the thickness data?
How good were the experts in prognosticating?
We have to define a limit that is the same for everyone. I propose to give each group a wiggle room of ONE HALF MILLION square kilometers.
That would mean that nobody had a correct prognosis even in August (they estimated the September mean, not the September minimum). But maybe we will have another dip as in 2005.
… and who says the trend has to be linear?
Models say the projections are linear.
Nature shows periodic trends.
Models —> Epic Fail.
A friend sent me the URL to a blog that shows how inaccurate and deceptive news items in the media are. The story tells the facts of the recent traversing of the Northeast Passage by two freighters. Quite a different story from what we have seen in the MSM!
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2009/09/turd-eaters.html
IanM
“”” commonsense (14:18:29) :
It is still the third lowest in record. “””
Gee that record goes all the way back to 1997 I believe; which I seem to recall, was not at all typical; in fact 1997 was just about the greatest amount of sea ice in all of recorded history; just check from 1997 to 2009, and I doubt you will find a higher sea ice pileup than happened in that disastrous year of 1997; there was so much sea ice, thousands of Walrusses got crushed against the rocks in Alaska, threatening this endangered species with extinction.
In any case I believe the record of 2007 shows that in fact much of that missing sea ice got blown by the great storms of 2007 into the north Pacific, and north Atlantic, where currents took it south to tropical waters where it melted. So it wasn’t really an “Arctic” ice melt was it; and what they call “sea ice” is actually up to 85% open water, so it is no sweat for winds to drive the small chunks of ice all over the place, and out of the arctic basin.
Now given that the earth has been cooling ever since about 1995, and for all of the 21st century at least; that would in the normal scheme of things mean less evaporation and precipitation (and California droughts); so there would be a lot less precipitation of snow up there on that arctic ocean ice; and that would contribute (negatively) to the lack of build up of the ice mass, even if it is of greater extent. And remember that a greater surface ice extent, means less open ocean water to sbaorb sunlight so it would naturally cool more with more surface area; so ocean surface coverage is far more important than volume. The atmosphere over the sea ice, is quite oblivious to the ice thickness and mass; so acreage is where the action is.
George
PS and yes you can check the records of the Alaskan Crabbing Industry out of Dutch Harbor, for the heavy losses of that stormy 2007 summer/fall season.
“”” MikeW (12:53:53) :
To: George E. Smith (10:44:56)
I strongly doubt that the seawater freezing mechanics are quite as simple as you describe. Water becomes more dense as either salinity increases or temperature drops, so I would expect tiny convection currents to immediately set up underneath the ice, effectively transferring the increased salinity downward and bringing heat upward.
When you put a cube in a glass of iced tea, you can see clearer melt-water swirling down from its underside. Granted, the temperature difference in the glass is likely greater, but I would expect the principle to hold. “””
I don’t believe I implied anywhere in my post, that seawater freezing mechanics were that simple; in fact as much as anybody posting on this site, I have constantly affirmed that the reality of this planet is simply far too complex for us to explain; so please don’t infer, something I did not imply.
And your ice cube in iced tea image doesn’t wash. In your example, the water is warmer than the ice, warm enough to melt it and set up the convection you obseve.
In the arctic ocean the sea water is colder than the floating ice, and the principal heat loss is to the atmosphere above, so the heat flow is upwards, and not downwards as in your iced tea picture. Then it is well knbown that the briny interface layer persists, and indeed gets trapped in voids in the ice; and the shrimp (kril just love that briny invironment right at the ice underside.
I don’t doubt that over time the salts are convected out of the interface region as you suggest; they better or else the reaction would come to a screeching halt.
In a physical reaction such as a phase change, it must be possible to bring the reagants to the reaction interface, and also remove the reaction products (effluent) from the interface, or the reaction dynamics will stop. In this case the products of the freezing reaction, are the expelled salts, that must be removed from the interface to let the reaction (freezing) continue (a consequence of Le Chatalier’s Principle).
But don’t get me wrong; I’ll be the first to admit, that my explanation is simpler than reality. As Einstein said; in science theories must be as simple as possible; but no simpler.
I will await your more detailed in depth analysis of the arctic ice freezing process; I can always stand to learn something new.
George
Third lowest in Satellite based record — meaningless in the the grand scheme of things. It is like saying I made less money on Wednesday than any day this week.
The average person who does not watch this sort of thing will assume that 3rd lowest on record is from some time series that goes back 50 -150 years. That phraseology without qualification is a classic example of intentional misrepresentation by omission.
Larry
Addendum.
Fresh water (without salts) however is more dense than ice, at least up to 4 deg C temperature, so putting an ice cube in fresh water or iced tea, will melt some of the ice, forming a boundary layer that is warmer than zero deg C, and is therfore less dense than the warmer water, so it will convect upwards and only when it reaches about 4 deg C will it be denser than the surrounding water, and start to sink, so the water will cool down as it gives up latent heat to the melting ice, till it cools to around +4 and sinks to the bottom, so the water will eventually be at about 4 deg C from top to bottom, and only then will the upper layers start to cool down below 4 deg C,a nd they cool down from teh bottom up, because of the density convection in fresh water.
That process doesn’t happen in salt water, which if greater than 2.47% salinity, has no maximum density before the freezing point; and on average sea water is 3.5% salinity, so it never has a maximum density.
George
we still haven’t seen evidence that climate change would even be considered some kind of normal thing. there is no doubt that industrial pollution affects the weather, but obviously this post proves that no data is consistent one way or the other.
And in the mean time, from the other graph, the temperature in the Arctic is really dropping down… we might get a really early winter boys and girls. At the same time last year it was warmer…
Based on the early onset of climatic autumn in a number of NH locations, an early onset of winter is a distinct possibility.