Yesterday I looked at JAXA data and ventured that:
“Arctic sea ice melt appears to have turned the corner for 2009”
The Sept 15th JAXA Arctic Sea Ice extent graph was published this evening about 8PM PST (and updated overnight which is the image now shown) and shows an increase in sea ice for the second day in a row. It seems clear that Arctic sea ice is now on the rise.
The Sept 14th value was: 5,276,563 km2
You can see this minimum and upturn clearly in the zoomed graph below.
I expect this JAXA value will increase again in about 4 hours once JAXA finishes QC and final data analysis. I’ll post an update when it happens (assuming it is not too late). (UPDATED 7:45AM PDT) 9/16)
Here’s the table of data:
| 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 |
| 9 | 15 | 2009 | 5301094 |
Barring an about face by Nature, the 2009 Arctic Sea Ice minimum occurred on Sept 13th with 5,249,844 km2
UPDATE: WUWT reader Bruce Richardson made a nice zoomed comparison graph, which he offered in comments, that I have added to this article.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The Sept 16th JAXA initial data has been posted, with a drop to 5,264,375 km2
When the adjusted data comes out in a few hours, it will likely show a slight loss from yesterday.
Some oscillation isn’t abnormal. I’ll update with that new data.
– Anthony
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm
The latest value : 5,264,375 km2 (September 16, 2009)
Here’s the table of data: (posted earlier)
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
9 15 2009 5301094
Whereas NSIDC, two days later is definitely showing an uptick.
Kindest Regards
The sea ice extent may have slightly dropped because the Gore Legion has glared the graph for hours?
savethesharks (19:57:50)
I’ve saved a few but but the gist of it all is set out in my series of articles at climaterealists.com
My purpose on the blogs is to see what refinements and revisions might be necessary as a result of the comments of others.
So far my basic climate description is holding up well and continues to be consistent with real world developments.
Anyway, if I’ve got it right or provided useful new insights then plenty of others will be trawling for and reproducing my comments in due course.
If not then there’s no point saving it all anyway.
Thanks for your support.
Philip_B (16:53:51) :
It’s no leg pull. A freshwater fish would have to be uncased in ice before it froze because the water would freeze before the fish. While ocean fish in subzero waters can be supercooled with their body fluids below their freezing point. Which means if the fish swallowed a single ice crystal, it would be at risk of instantly freezing solid. Like a scene out of sci-fi movie.
You live and learn :o)
As for ice forming from the top. It does, but this as much to do with the physical properties of ice and water as it does the fact oceans lose heat from the surface.
Indeed and I had meant to put a line into my original posting to that effect but forgot – tis remarkable stuff this H20. Without this physical property (in comparison to many other molecules) we’d be a bit stuffed I reckon.
Apologies for the pedantry. Your main point is entirely correct. Ice is an effective insulator.
No apologies needed – I may have called you a pedant if you’d corrected me on my original spelling of “creek” though ;o)
Cheers
Mark.
http://www.nbi.ku.dk/english/news/the_least_sea_ice/
Unprecedented low twentieth century winter sea ice extent in the Western Nordic Seas since A.D. 1200
Abstract We reconstructed decadal to centennial variability of maximum sea ice extent in the Western Nordic Seas for A.D. 1200–1997 using a combination of a regional tree-ring chronology from the timberline area in Fennoscandia and δ18O from the Lomonosovfonna ice core in Svalbard. The reconstruction successfully explained 59% of the variance in sea ice extent based on the calibration period 1864–1997. The significance of the reconstruction statistics (reduction of error, coefficient of efficiency) is computed for the first time against a realistic noise background. The twentieth century sustained the lowest sea ice extent values since A.D. 1200: low sea ice extent also occurred before (mid-seventeenth and mid-eighteenth centuries, early fifteenth and late thirteenth centuries), but these periods were in no case as persistent as in the twentieth century. Largest sea ice extent values occurred from the seventeenth to the nineteenth centuries, during the Little Ice Age (LIA), with relatively smaller sea ice-covered area during the sixteenth century. Moderate sea ice extent occurred during thirteenth–fifteenth centuries. Reconstructed sea ice extent variability is dominated by decadal oscillations, frequently associated with decadal components of the North Atlantic Oscillation/Arctic Oscillation (NAO/AO), and multi-decadal lower frequency oscillations operating at ~50–120 year. Sea ice extent and NAO showed a non-stationary relationship during the observational period. The present low sea ice extent is unique over the last 800 years, and results from a decline started in late-nineteenth century after the LIA.
Philip_B (16:53:51) :
As for ice forming from the top. It does, but this as much to do with the physical properties of ice and water as it does the fact oceans lose heat from the surface.
If water didn’t reach its minimum density at 4C, the Arctic Ocean would be frozen solid, and oceans would freeze from the bottom up. Even the tropical oceans would be solid ice below the thermocline.
Apologies for the pedantry. Your main point is entirely correct. Ice is an effective insulator.
Seawater has a maximum density at the freezing point which is why ice floats, the maximum(sic) density at 4ºC is for freshwater only. In both cases ice has a lower density than liquid water,
The issue with JAXA is their melt-pool algorithm. When they insert it and when they take it out. Just look at June 1 to know that they still have no good handle on it. For all my observations, barely any were there to see on the polar web cam at any time during 2009.
Updated for 9/16:
5,291,094 km2
10.000 square km down for 16 sept. Still a change for a lower minimum.
BTW, I give that exact 10,000 km square final drop from the day before major credence… 5,291,094 reported for September 16.
Somewhere around here I mentioned that a colleague who lived in those waters and watched the ice come and go explained that when the freeze starrts, that large areas of ice can appear rapidly and disappear just as rapidly over a period of a few days, until the air gets cold enough for the new ice to persist.
I’ts still a done deal as far as I am concerned , and I will read the final minimum figure out of curiosity when they have one.
And we still get that nonsense about the ice at present being x% below the 1979-2000 average. Well duh! it has to spend some time below average, or else you have the figure for the average wrong.
This is finally ‘breaking news’ on the BBC –
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8261953.stm
but with the usual warmist spin of course, and they put the figure at 5.1 million km2.
“Andrew P (12:27:26) :
Thisis finally ‘breaking news’ on the BBC – http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8261953.stm
but with the usual warmist spin of course, and they put the figure at 5.1 million km2″ ,
Hmmm… the last paragraph reads:
“Also, as noted last year, a much greater proportion of the cover consists of young, thin ice formed in a single winter that is much more prone to re-melting than the older, thicker ice that dominated in years gone by. ”
Well I just just looking at the images comparing 9/16/08 to 9/16/09 on The Cryosphere Today and to this layman there is a whole lot more dark purple:
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=09&fd=16&fy=2008&sm=09&sd=16&sy=2009
And right on cue comes the spin. Arctic sea ice at third lowest level
Just the one comment so far, with mine in moderation. These people are hopeless!
Live Science is too putting the same spin on it…
http://www.livescience.com/environment/090917-artic-ice.html
Just a shame how these stories are put with complete biase and with no regard for the actual facts…
How the hell can you say that the trend is STILL going down…after two successive years of recovery…Must be nice to not care about facts?!
The Fall Arctopause. Quite pleasing to see the year-over-year gain continuing.
Sorry, I used a translator.
Beware the propaganda! When it comes to third lesser extent, is to forget that in reality 2009 is equal to 2005, because the difference between the two is almost 1%. What is the margin of error of JAXA? And at least 2009 do not exceed 1,000,000 kilometers in 2007? And these fixes daily than 10,000 km and 35,000 km accurate consecutive days? And try distraction for SST record? Do not fall for that
Now SEpt 20.
And AMSRE sea ice extent is EQUAL to what it was in 2005. And 2009’s minimum (about Sept 16 apparently) is within 1% of it’s minimum in 2005 6-7 days later – and gaining rapidly, with Arctic temperatures now 10 degrees below freezing. (Also below average for this date! And below average for the date through the whole year actually.)
Gee. I wonder if they will notice that. Or will continue to pretend that (four years later), there has been no change in sea ice extents.
/sarchasm = the gaping whole between a liberal and reality.