This fits right in to what I’ve been blogging about for two years. the 2007 record minimum ice extent was wind driven not melt driven. A significant portion of the ice did not melt in place. It was pushed south by the wind where it melted.
Here’s where the wind is a factor in pushing past the ice arches:
NASA Sees Arctic Ocean Circulation Do an About-Face
Arctic Sea ice loss – “it’s the wind” says NASA
Here’s where ice arches help: Update on Arctic sea ice melt – “Ice pockets choking Northern Passage”
Watch how ice flows in the Arctic: Arctic Sea Ice Time Lapse from 1978 to 2009 using NSIDC data
Today’s Press Release From JPL:
Missing ‘Ice Arches’ Contributed to 2007 Arctic Ice Loss

Animation: View animation (GIF 52 Mb) | View animation (GIF 13 Mb)
PASADENA, Calif. – In 2007, the Arctic lost a massive amount of thick, multiyear sea ice, contributing to that year’s record-low extent of Arctic sea ice. A new NASA-led study has found that the record loss that year was due in part to the absence of “ice arches,” naturally-forming, curved ice structures that span the openings between two land points. These arches block sea ice from being pushed by winds or currents through narrow passages and out of the Arctic basin.
Beginning each fall, sea ice spreads across the surface of the Arctic Ocean until it becomes confined by surrounding continents. Only a few passages — including the Fram Strait and Nares Strait — allow sea ice to escape.
“There are a couple of ways to lose Arctic ice: when it flows out and when it melts,” said lead study researcher Ron Kwok of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif. “We are trying to quantify how much we’re losing by outflow versus melt.”
Kwok and colleagues found that ice arches were missing in 2007 from the Nares Strait, a relatively narrow 30- to 40-kilometer-wide (19- to 25-mile-wide) passage west of Greenland. Without the arches, ice exited freely from the Arctic. The Fram Strait, east of Greenland, is about 400 kilometers (249 miles) wide and is the passage through which most sea ice usually exits the Arctic.
Despite Nares’ narrow width, the team reports that in 2007, ice loss through Nares equaled more than 10 percent of the amount emptied on average each year through the wider Fram Strait.
“Until recently, we didn’t think the small straits were important for ice loss,” Kwok said. The findings were published this month in Geophysical Research Letters.
“One of our most important goals is developing predictive models of Arctic sea ice cover,” said Tom Wagner, cryosphere program manager at NASA Headquarters in Washington. “Such models are important not only to understanding changes in the Arctic, but also changes in global and North American climate. Figuring out how ice is lost through the Fram and Nares straits is critical to developing those models.”
To find out more about the ice motion in Nares Strait, the scientists examined a 13-year record of high-resolution radar images from the Canadian RADARSAT and European Envisat satellites. They found that 2007 was a unique year – the only one on record when arches failed to form, allowing ice to flow unobstructed through winter and spring.
The arches usually form at southern and northern points within Nares Strait when big blocks of sea ice try to flow through the strait’s restricted confines, become stuck and are compressed by other ice. This grinds the flow of sea ice to a halt.
“We don’t completely understand the conditions conducive to the formation of these arches,” Kwok said. “We do know that they are temperature-dependent because they only form in winter. So there’s concern that if climate warms, the arches could stop forming.”
To quantify the impact of ice arches on Arctic Ocean ice cover, the team tracked ice motion evident in the 13-year span of satellite radar images. They calculated the area of ice passing through an imaginary line, or “gate,” at the entrance to Nares Strait. Then they incorporated ice thickness data from NASA’s ICESat to estimate the volume lost through Nares.
They found that in 2007, Nares Strait drained the Arctic Ocean of 88,060 square kilometers (34,000 square miles) of sea ice, or a volume of 60 cubic miles. The amount was more than twice the average amount lost through Nares each year between 1997 and 2009.
The ice lost through Nares Strait was some of the thickest and oldest in the Arctic Ocean.
“If indeed these arches are less likely to form in the future, we have to account for the annual ice loss through this narrow passage. Potentially, this could lead to an even more rapid decline in the summer ice extent of the Arctic Ocean,” Kwok said.
For more information about NASA and agency programs, visit: http://www.nasa.gov .
========================
h/t to Dr. Leif Svalgaard
The Arctic is remarkably quiesced this year, with the deeply negative AO.
http://iabp.apl.washington.edu/maps_daily_track-map.html
And as a result, the concentration of ice is extremely high.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/NEWIMAGES/arctic.seaice.color.000.png
I thought this was known by late spring/early summer 2007, before the hysteria even got into full swing. Ugh. Well, better late than never.
Not to blame him as he is one who DID look, but…untested assumptions.
Strait, not straight. 🙂
“If indeed these arches are less likely to form in the future, we have to account for the annual ice loss through this narrow passage. Potentially, this could lead to an even more rapid decline in the summer ice extent of the Arctic Ocean,” Kwok said.
Sorry, can’t resist: OMG it’s worse than we thought!
Paging Dr. Mark Serreze, STAT.
==================
Finally, now there is a specific mechanism identified, and another direct refutation to the AGW assertion that ice is melting at an unusual rate due to warming.
I don’t suppose this will be announced and discussed on RC?
I wonder what the impact on SST in the north Atlantic would be attributable to 30 cubic miles of ice melting as it drifts south (difference between normal ice loss and 2007 ice loss)?
Larry
If I take a whole tray of ice cubes out of my refrigerator and place them in a bucket of water, 2 things happen:
1.) The refrigerator has to work harder to replace the ice
2.) the bucket of water gets much colder as the ice melts.
Now, what do you suppose is the effect of all that ice going south to cool off those oceanic waters?
What?
Caltech’s JPL discovered that the wind must be considered too?
In another few decades JPL may even discover that changes in Earth’s climate are influenced by the Sun’s variability!
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA PI for Apollo
if a few arches are that important for the arctic ice, increased ice braker traffic may play a significant role as well, which is in large part caused by the explosion of he number of activists travelling to the far north.
Some time ago, someone on WUWT put together and posted a time lapse of the whole Arctic from Oct 07 thru March 08, and the “leak” around the west side of Greenland was very apparent. I don’t have the date, but I downloaded the whole 7 Meg .avi file of AMSR-E 89Ghz images.
All tht ice moved into the north Atlantic and created a pool of cooler water in 2009 that possibly gave the Brits a cool summer.
This gives us a better idea of why the wind pushed a record amount of ice out to see — given that wind is not a new phenomenon:
“To find out more about the ice motion in Nares Strait, the scientists examined a 13-year record of high-resolution radar images from the Canadian RADARSAT and European Envisat satellites. They found that 2007 was a unique year – the only one on record when arches failed to form, allowing ice to flow unobstructed through winter and spring.”
No arches = lots of ice lost to wind. Why were there no arches?
“We don’t completely understand the conditions conducive to the formation of these arches,” Kwok said. “We do know that they are temperature-dependent because they only form in winter. So there’s concern that if climate warms, the arches could stop forming.”
One more time: “We do know that they are temperature-dependent because they only form in winter.”
There may be some other reason why the arches failed to form, but at first blush, this seems to imply that global warming set the stage for the wind to do its damage.
The very first thing I read about the 2007 low extent was that it was wind driven. However, that seemed to disappear for a long time. I wonder why ….
If indeed……
If of course it is not so or only seldom there will be nothing tor report.
Kindest Regards
This flow wouldn’t seem to have contributed much to the summer minimum. The animation seems to commence near the minimum and extend through the winter refreeze. It’s a bit surprising since, as I recall, the rebound after the big low was substantial, apparently despite this additional outflow
I love how, on the one hand, they admit how much they don’t know…….
“Until recently, we didn’t think the small straits were important for ice loss,” Kwok said.
But of course there needs to be a “scare” quote.
“Potentially, this could lead to an even more rapid decline in the summer ice extent of the Arctic Ocean,” Kwok said.
“If indeed these arches are less likely to form in the future, we have to account for the annual ice loss through this narrow passage. Potentially, this could lead to an even more rapid decline in the summer ice extent of the Arctic Ocean,”
Tipping point?
Sounds like they are trying to spin it.
Hmmmm, 34000 square miles of ice drained out of one strait… that’s not a small number. Begs the question, how much more ice than usual is draining from all straits due to winds? If added back in how would that affect the extent totals? They probably know but aren’t saying.
If the decline in extent is mostly caused by winds and not melt, then it’s not a concern. Increased winds could also bring in warmer air, causing a bit more melt… also not a concern. Kind of sounds like a change in the Arctic Oscillation… (shhh, don’t tell NASA, its a secret.)
It’s the wind…and then the spin:
“We do know that they are temperature-dependent because they only form in winter. So there’s concern that if climate warms, the arches could stop forming.”
But is it warmth (so no arches) and above normal wind or just warmth and normal winds? Alas, I found no clear statement that its above normal winds that done it.
Heck, right here on wuwt,we learned that the ice was flushed out by the wind in2007. We saw a beautful movie of it made with nsidc’s own data while they were waxing strongly about a melting arctic and the extinction of ice caps in a few short yrs. Did jpl credit our poster for this discovery?
Robert (17:40:07) :
There may be some other reason why the arches failed to form, but at first blush, this seems to imply that global warming set the stage for the wind to do its damage.
Watch the goal posts move before your eyes.
Isn’t it entertaining to see how warmists will grasp at any straw. I think it’s great psychological insight especially since these arches must not have melted in the same manner for the last two years. It really is hard for some people to admit that AGW has huge flaws and massive uncertainty.
Robert (17:40:07) :
Well then Robert, why did it do an about face the following two years? Aren’t we just sizzling hotter and hotter each year? GISS says so!
Robert, the globe is cooling. Arctic Ice seems to be making a comeback. Honest. Check it out.
======================================
This newer report does not seem to have considered whether the conclusions of the earlier report on the circulation change might have something to do with the arch formation.