From NSIDC Sea Ice News:
Cold snap causes late-season growth spurt
Arctic sea ice reached its maximum extent for the year on March 31 at 15.25 million square kilometers (5.89 million square miles). This was the latest date for the maximum Arctic sea ice extent since the start of the satellite record in 1979.
Early in March, Arctic sea ice appeared to reach a maximum extent. However, after a short decline, the ice continued to grow. By the end of March, total extent approached 1979 to 2000 average levels for this time of year. The late-season growth was driven mainly by cold weather and winds from the north over the Bering and Barents Seas. Meanwhile, temperatures over the central Arctic Ocean remained above normal and the winter ice cover remained young and thin compared to earlier years.
Figure 1. Arctic sea ice extent for March 2010 was 15.10 million square kilometers (5.83 million square miles). The magenta line shows the 1979 to 2000 median extent for that month. The black cross indicates the geographic North Pole. Sea Ice Index data. About the data.
—Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center
Overview of conditions
Arctic sea ice extent averaged for March 2010 was 15.10 million square kilometers (5.83 million square miles). This was 650,000 square kilometers (250,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average for March, but 670,000 square kilometers (260,000 square miles) above the record low for the month, which occurred in March 2006.
Ice extent was above normal in the Bering Sea and Baltic Sea, but remained below normal over much of the Atlantic sector of the Arctic, including the Baffin Bay, and the Canadian Maritime Provinces seaboard. Extent in other regions was near average.
Figure 2. The graph above shows daily sea ice extent as of April 4, 2010. The solid light blue line indicates 2010; green shows 2007; dark blue indicates 1999, the year with the previous latest maximum extent, which occurred on March 29, 1999; and solid gray indicates average extent from 1979 to 2000. The gray area around the average line shows the two standard deviation range of the data. Sea Ice Index data.
—Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center
Conditions in context
Sea ice reached its maximum extent for the year on March 31, the latest maximum date in the satellite record. The previous latest date was on March 29, 1999. The maximum extent was 15.25 million square kilometers (5.89 million square miles). This was 670,000 square kilometers (260,000 square miles) above the record low maximum extent, which occurred in 2006.
Sea ice extent seemed to reach a maximum during the early part of the month, but after a brief decline, ice extent increased slowly and steadily through the end of the month. By the end of the month, extent had approached the 1979 to 2000 average. During March 2010, ice extent grew at an average of 13,200 square kilometers (5100 square miles) per day. Usually there is a net loss of ice through the month.
Figure 3. Monthly March ice extent for 1979 to 2010 shows a decline of 2.6% per decade.
—Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center
March 2010 compared to past yearsThe average ice extent for March 2010 was 670,000 square kilometers (260,000 square miles) higher than the record low for March, observed in 2006. The linear rate of decline for March over the 1978 to 2010 period is 2.6% per decade.
Figure 4. The map of sea level pressure (in millibars) for March 2010 shows high pressure over the central Arctic (areas in yellow and orange) and areas of low pressure over the Bering and Barents seas (areas in blue and purple). The low pressure systems over the Bering and Barents seas have helped to push the ice edge southward.
—Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center courtesy NOAA/ESRL Physical Sciences Division
Late-season growth spurt
The maximum Arctic sea ice extent may occur as early as mid-February to as late as the last week of March. As sea ice extent approaches the seasonal maximum, extent can vary quite a bit from day to day because the thin, new ice at the edge of the pack is sensitive to local wind and temperature patterns. This March, low atmospheric pressure systems persisted over the Gulf of Alaska and north of Scandinavia. These pressure patterns led to unusually cold conditions and persistent northerly winds in the Bering and Barents Seas, which pushed the ice edge southward in these two regions.
Figure 5. This map of air temperature anomalies for March 2010, at the 925 millibar level (roughly 1,000 meters or 3,000 feet above the surface), shows warmer than usual temperatures over most of the Arctic Ocean, but colder than usual temperatures in the Bering and Barents seas, where sea ice extent is above normal. Areas in orange and red correspond to positive (warm) anomalies. Areas in blue and purple correspond to negative (cool) anomalies.
—Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center courtesy NOAA/ESRL Physical Sciences Division
Meanwhile, elsewhere in the Arctic
This winter’s strong negative mode of the Arctic Oscillation was moderated through the month of March. Average air temperatures for the month nevertheless remained above average over the Arctic Ocean region. Overall for the winter, temperatures over most of the Arctic were above average, while northern Europe and Siberia were colder than usual.
Figure 6. These images show the change in ice age from fall 2009 to spring 2010. The negative Arctic Oscillation this winter slowed the export of older ice out of the Arctic. As a result, the percentage of ice older than two years was greater at the end of March 2010 than over the past few years.
—Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center courtesy J. Maslanik and C. Fowler, CU Boulder
Ice age and thickness
The late date of the maximum extent, though of special interest this year, is unlikely to have an impact on summer ice extent. The ice that formed late in the season is thin, and will melt quickly when temperatures rise.
Scientists often use ice age data as a way to infer ice thickness—one of the most important factors influencing end-of-summer ice extent. Although the Arctic has much less thick, multiyear ice than it did during the 1980s and 1990s, this winter has seen some replenishment: the Arctic lost less ice the past two summers compared to 2007, and the strong negative Arctic Oscillation this winter prevented as much ice from moving out of the Arctic. The larger amount of multiyear ice could help more ice to survive the summer melt season. However, this replenishment consists primarily of younger, two- to three-year-old multiyear ice; the oldest, and thickest multiyear ice has continued to decline. Although thickness plays an important role in ice melt, summer ice conditions will also depend strongly on weather patterns through the melt season.
At the moment there are no Arctic-wide satellite measurements of ice thickness, because of the end of the NASA Ice, Cloud, and Land Elevation Satellite (ICESat) mission last October. NASA has mounted an airborne sensor campaign called IceBridge to fill this observational gap.
More Information
For more information, including animations and satellite images, visit the NASA Arctic 2010 Sea Ice Maximum Web page.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Having watched the Arctic Ice over the last few years along with many others on this website ,The Arctic ice area and extent remains as unpredictable as ever.I hope that the minimum ice extent is much larger this year ,it would have been last year if the early pattern had continued throughout the summer.I am sure that co2 is not causing the world to warm therefore I am ignoring the “major Parties” in the coming election in the UK and voting for UKIP, when will the UKIP be included in the opinion polls.
Norm Milliard (07:58:32),
You are right about old ice vs new ice. You’re right about the rest of it, too.
Still melting slower than 2003:
03,25,2003,14800781 – 03,25,2010,14282344 – -518437
03,26,2003,14771094 – 03,26,2010,14264688 – -506406
03,27,2003,14755781 – 03,27,2010,14256719 – -499062
03,28,2003,14718594 – 03,28,2010,14299219 – -419375
03,29,2003,14647031 – 03,29,2010,14363438 – -283593
03,30,2003,14533906 – 03,30,2010,14405781 – -128125
03,31,2003,14428281 – 03,31,2010,14407344 – -20937
04,01,2003,14409219 – 04,01,2010,14395000 – -14219
04,02,2003,14335781 – 04,02,2010,14379531 – 43750
04,03,2003,14250469 – 04,03,2010,14328438 – 77969
04,04,2003,14172813 – 04,04,2010,14264219 – 91406
04,05,2003,14129375 – 04,05,2010,14228281 – 98906
04,06,2003,14098750 – 04,06,2010,14207969 – 109219
Phil. (07:28:06) said:
I seem to remember that happening before … not much has changed, eh.
Ice melting keep as a permanent GWR´s propaganda issue:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100407/ap_on_re_us/us_disappearing_glaciers_5
Though:
“Evaporation is accelerated if a wind is blowing, to take the vapor away from the inmediate neighborhood of the snow crystals and to prevent the vapor from condensing on the crystals”
Pauling, Linus, “General Chemistry”
Alexander Feht (10:36:44) :
Those who call Mr. Pawełczyk “Mr. Unpronounceable” should think again. His name is very pronounceable and simple to those who know the rules of the Polish language.
There may be some forehead-doinks when they realize they’ve seen the Anglicized version — Polachek.
Disappearance of high altitude glaciers, where temperatures are always BELOW ZERO, happends during COLD TIMES, when there is no or little water in the atmosphere to keep the balance of NORMAL ice sublimation.
Global warmers have their reasoning INVERTED about the water cycle.
R. Gates (06:53:10) :
“….I stand by my prediction of a 4.5 million sq. km. minimum sea ice extent for Sept. 2010 (as measured by IJIS/JAXA).”
I commend you for at least having the guts to make a prediction that can be confirmed or falsified within your lifetime / working life. By the way what would you say if we see further recovery, ie a greater sea ice extent than September, 2009?
R. Gates (06:53:10) : “NSIDC’s … point about the warm conditions over the central arctic is also exactly right, and there is a large area of ice in this region that will show rapid melt when the full thrust of the melt season hits.”
To melt ice, such heat must be applied, that after the ice has melted if you apply that same amount of heat again, the water will be 2/3 of the way to boiling. The point is that NSIDC’s sub-freezing “warm conditions” are totally irrelevant to future melting speed.
@ur momisugly R. de Haan
Please read the update at the end of the “adjustment” article you refer to
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/04/was_the_arctic_ice_cap_adjuste.html
It shows that there hasn’t been any inappropriate modification of the ice data.
Phil. (07:28:06) said:
Probably right! Here is one sub surfacing wherever it liked including the North Pole!!!
“Skate (SSN-578), surfaced at the North Pole, 17 March 1959.”
http://www.navsource.org/archives/08/tn/0857806.gif
from http://www.navsource.org/archives/08/08578.htm
http://www.icue.com/portal/site/iCue/flatview/?cuecard=41751
See this fascinating study about Arctic sea ice conditions just 6,000 to 7,000 years ago.
http://www.ngu.no/en-gb/Aktuelt/2008/Less-ice-in-the-Arctic-Ocean-6000-7000-years-ago/
Grumpy old man said
” How Artic ice expands and retreats is no doubt connected to global climate but over a period of just a few years, it is more pertinent to look at winds and currents. ”
How do wind and currents explain the general reduction over the last 30 years?
http://www.zen141854.zen.co.uk/arctic.jpg
Andy
R. de Haan (01:46:09) :
thanks for the timely reminder.
NZ Willy (11:57:35) :
R. Gates (06:53:10) : “NSIDC’s … point about the warm conditions over the central arctic is also exactly right, and there is a large area of ice in this region that will show rapid melt when the full thrust of the melt season hits.”
To melt ice, such heat must be applied, that after the ice has melted if you apply that same amount of heat again, the water will be 2/3 of the way to boiling. The point is that NSIDC’s sub-freezing “warm conditions” are totally irrelevant to future melting speed.
Actually they’re not, the temperature at the ice surface determines the thickness of the ice.
http://nsidc.org/seaice/processes/thermodynamic_growth.html
AndyW (12:23:18) :
Grumpy old man said
” How Artic ice expands and retreats is no doubt connected to global climate but over a period of just a few years, it is more pertinent to look at winds and currents. ”
How do wind and currents explain the general reduction over the last 30 years?
http://www.zen141854.zen.co.uk/arctic.jpg
Andy”
If they (wind and currents) were the only variables then 30 years of data would not present us even the smallest of clues as to their interactive possibilities, or the tiniest corner of their chaotic palette of chance outcomes.
AndyW (12:23:18) :
“How do wind and currents explain the general reduction over the last 30 years?”
This video which accompanies the Rigor and Wallace 2004 paper I linked above {updated to 2007] may help to explain it
http://iabp.apl.washington.edu/animations/Rigor&Wallace2004_AgeOfIce1979to2007.mpg
Here is the commentary that the authors provide
The red dots shows the current location of buoys used to estimate the age of sea ice. The areas of older, thicker ice are shown in white, while younger, thinner sea ice is shown as darker shades of blue.
This animation of the age of sea ice shows:
1.) A large Beaufort Gyre which covers most of the Arctic Ocean during the 1980s, and a transpolar drift stream shifted towards the Eurasian Arctic. Older, thicker sea ice (white ice) covers about 80% of the Arctic Ocean up to 1988. The date is shown in the upper left corner.
2.) With the step to high-AO conditions in 1989, the Beaufort Gyre shrinks and is confined to the corner between Alaska and Canada. The Transpolar Drift Stream now sweeps across most of the Arctic Ocean, carrying most of the older, thicker sea ice out of the Arctic Ocean through Fram Strait (lower right). By 1990, only about 30% of the Arctic Ocean is covered by older thicker sea ice.
3.) During the high-AO years that follow (1991 and on), this younger thinner sea ice is shown to recirculated back to the Alaskan coast where extensive open water has been observed during summer.
The age of sea ice drifting towards the coast explains over 50% of the variance in summer sea ice extent (compared to less than 15% of the variance explained by the seasonal redistribution of sea ice, and advection of heat by summer winds).
The frame jumps are fairly large [2-3 months] so you may want to click through the 87-93 time period frame by frame to really appreciate what they describe.
@Larus (03:46:29) :
@Przemysław Pawełczyk
If you want to establish whether or not a given area is warming over time (which is an important element of the AGW debate) what better way to do it than present current temperatures as deviations from long-term mean (anomalies)?
E.g. +10 deg from the long-term mean +6 deg is not the same as +10 deg over -12 deg mean.
Meanwhile many posts here torments my eyes with red/darkred sheets only and not showing the base or the mean to which I should relate the anomalies.
Examples:
1) Why Joe Bastardi sees red: A look at Sea Ice and GISTEMP and starting choices
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/23/why-joe-bastardi-see-red-a-look-at-sea-ice-and-gistemp-and-starting-choices/
2) GISScapades
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/25/gisscapades/
If you are a WUWT frequent reader you probably know how many times keyboard keys were pressed during discussions “how the AGW activist win public support scarring people with from-the-hell colors painting their maps”.
I even allowed myself to joke one time in comments to 1) post about the red colors :
Przemysław Pawełczyk (05:12:20) :
🙂 No, it isn’t. 😉 You (we) should show “normal people” such graphs:
http://www.wetterzentrale.de/pics/Rnhemsnow.html
With all ICE in RED. 😉 The more RED the more ICE. 😉
I have been looking frequently to daily Asia temp maps in the last few month. Nearly all the Asiatic regions was painted in magenta color (~ -35 C deg).
Seeing anomaly maps I know that +10 C deg (BIG RED) anomaly means -25 C deg in reality.
To be exact, this year the Western part of Asia was plotted darkblue on anomaly maps and with orange on the Eastern parts. It doesn’t mean the permafrost was/is now thawing in the Siberian regions closer to Alaska. But how can I be sure?
I know that permafrost didn’t yield CH4 but if you are not a professional and you do not have your brain trained to see the unseen, you left computer screen after reading such article with somewhat dizzy state and ambiguous impressions. I know also that, as polls show, many more people do not believe in AGW theory but are they convinced in 100%? I doubt it.
A lot of people comes here to make their minds against AGW stance. A pinch of popular science relish would do them the right thing – convinced them with their eyes. That’s a psychology matter. That’s why I jested with PsyOps (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psyop) remark in my former comment.
And last but not least.
Przemysław Pawełczyk should be pronounced Pshemislav Paveltchik. 🙂 It’s rather simple, isn’t it? 🙂
Best regards to all
Przemysław Pawełczyk
If you check out this plot
http://img682.imageshack.us/img682/3148/deltaseaiceaveragearea.png
which is the linear fit for each day of the year over the AMSRE 2002 to present data.
it shows that the area has been increasing for days up to end of april and then takes a rapid dive to its minimum.
I would expect the same this year – the are will be high (higher than normal) until the begnning of may it will then dive to the minimum (unknown).
NZ Willy (11:57:35) : “NSIDC’s sub-freezing “warm conditions” are totally irrelevant to future melting speed.”
Phil. (12:33:59) : “Actually they’re not, the temperature at the ice surface determines the thickness of the ice. http://nsidc.org/seaice/processes/thermodynamic_growth.html”
Your cite is for ice growth, the issue here is ice melt.
Looking at this: http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php
You would say the extent trend is flat, and not declining yet! I know we would EXPECT it to be declining now, but is it yet? 🙂 This is great fun to watch.
By the way, something has happened to Arctic ROOS. http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/ice-area-and-extent-in-arctic
They are still showing 3/30.
European satellite to watch ice for climate change!
http://www.boston.com/news/science/articles/2010/04/07/european_satellite_to_watch_ice_for_climate_change/
link from AP JOURNO IN WONDERLAND: http://www.heliogenic.net/2010/04/07/ap-journo-in-wonderland/
What I find curious is that late winter maximum extent is relatively stable year to year (essentially the Arctic Ocean, Hudson Bay, Sea of Okhotsk, Gulf of Bothnia) but the late summer minimum varies much more.
By contrast the late winter DMI polar temperature varies a lot but the late summer temperature is also relatively stable (presumably close to a melting point).
I would assume when there is not a natural constraint then wind and similar effects have much more impact.
Wasn’t it so cold in 1978 they said we were headed for an ice age? Seems unfair to compare (plot) anything from such a cold start? Regardless, it appears things are getting back to normal, (if normal ever left considering the Northwest passage was already open in 1903-1906 when Roald Amundsen sailed it or that the Northeast passage has been open to shipping and commerce since 1934, both long before man-made CO2 contributed to any supposed trend of arctic sea ice melt).
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/07/the-surprising-real-story-about-this-years-northeast-passage-transit/
Norm Milliard (07:58:32) : “In terms of global warming, it seems the primary concern is ref(l)ectivity of the ice and I can’t believe that light knows the difference between old ice and new ice or between thick ice and thin ice.”
Some weathered ice does show a reduction in albedo, but it’s not directly related to age. Zenith angle is more important than ice or water surface condition.
Well, that was nice – the early Spring ice almost reached the recent “average” extent line. Brings back memories.
Now, off to the Summer melt:
http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20091005_Figure3.png
Will it be right around the longterm melting trendline ?
http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20091005_Figure2.png
Somewhere between 2007 and 2009 ?
Or is the Death Spiral speeding up the trendline, with another plunge even worse than 2007 in store ? Hard to say – the ice is thinner than this time 2007, the ocean slightly warmer, the global temperature slightly warmer, the sun (with sunspots picking up) slightly brighter – given the right winds and cloudless days, these underlying trends could combine for a massive ice loss.
But it might not be till 2013, or 2015. You can’t rush the slow train wreck of climate change.