Visualizing Changes In The Arctic Summer Minimum Since The 2007 Low

After writing my earlier piece showing changes in the Arctic maximum since 2007, Willis requested the same image for the minimum.  NSIDC does not archive extent images, but fortunately UIUC does archive sea ice concentration images.  Below is the equivalent image for September 15, 2007/2009.  Yellow represents areas of 30% concentration ice common to both images. Green represents 2009 ice that was not present in 2007.  Red represents 2007 ice that was not present in 2009.

Note the disappearance of the Northwest Passage.

DMI measures extent as areas of greater than 30% concentration, so the graph below is a good representation of the ~33% gain in summer ice seen between 2007 and 2009.

http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/icecover/icecover_2010.png

Advertisements

74 thoughts on “Visualizing Changes In The Arctic Summer Minimum Since The 2007 Low

  1. 33% Sea Ice is a lot. They had to escort the 2 German Freighters through with 2 Russian nuclear-powered Ice Breakers in that <33% Northeast Passage.

  2. Personally, I would like to visualize some Sunny *Dry* Warmth. I want my Global Warming, and I want it now.
    The continuous cold rain blowing in off the Pacific continues. It feels like the highth of winter still… that is highs in the 40’s – 50’s, lows in the mid 30’s, rain almost every day. We are in our 5th month of El Nino Rains. Depending on who’s rain gauge you believe, we have had 3-6 ft of rain since Christmas 2009.

  3. Just for an update: According the IJIS/Jaxa, the Arctic sea ice is now below where it was in 2003 on this date, April 11, and we’ve dropped over 450,000 sq. km since the peak on March 31.

  4. I’d like to see some sunshine too, Jack. NW Calif. is water-logged and it has been raining heavy since last night. El Nino was supposed to be over.
    The high country is buried in deep snow, and not a single storm has come in all season above 6,000′, so it’s all sitting up there ready for a flash flood.
    But we dare not let the rains stop, or the Drought Mongers will be all over us with massive surcharges and special fees.

  5. rbateman (19:26:13) :
    33% Sea Ice is a lot. They had to escort the 2 German Freighters through with 2 Russian nuclear-powered Ice Breakers in that <33% Northeast Passage.

    But a yacht sailed through in the opposite direction without an icebreaker.

  6. It is deceptive to compare the images of September 2009 only with 2007. Go back in time and compare each earlier September 15 with 2009 at
    http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh
    Although 2007 has the minimum area and 2008 is similar to 2009, all years before 2007 had more ice on September 15 than 2009. The difference gets larger as you go further back in time. The trend is clear. Arctic ice area at the summer minimum is decreasing over time.

  7. R. Gates (20:13:25) :
    So we’ve dropped over 450,000 km2 since Mar 31st.
    Is there anything special about that?
    Let’s look:
    03,31,2010,14407344
    04,11,2010,13947813
    —————–
    459531 has been lost compared to
    03,31,2003,14428281
    04,11,2003,13950938
    —————–
    477343 lost in the same time period in 2003
    Hmm…. looks like we’ve lost sea ice at a slower rate than 2003.
    Do your JAXA figures agree?

  8. Nice work Willis and Anthony posting both – much appreciated! Lets get it all out on the table : )

  9. R. Gates (20:13:25)…
    …is already getting frantic about natural change:
    “…we’ve dropped over 450,000 sq. km since the peak on March 31.”
    Yikes!
    But no one else is panicking, because we read the article, and it had this graph: click.
    The peak was around April 1, and naturally northern sea ice begins to decline around then. Cherry-picking the peak – and then arm-waving over the normal and natural decline – is the same illogical, emotional tactic alarmists always use. It works on the pseudo-science blog realclimate, but not here. Why? Because we know better.
    And before the obligatory chart showing a decline in Arctic ice is posted [while ignoring Antarctic ice], here’s a side-by-side comparison of the anomalies going back thirty years: click
    The climate is well within its normal and natural long term parameters, including sea ice extent, so now the alarmist contingent has resorted to using future predictions instead of reality to support their arguments.
    There is absolutely nothing abnormal occurring here. Nothing. Unless the ice extent goes below its extent during the MWP, or above the extent during the LIA, it’s only natural climate variability.
    Jeff T (20:32:32),
    Speaking of “deceptive,” you say:
    “…all years before 2007 had more ice on September 15 than 2009.”
    All years? Really? Are you talking global ice? Or are you cherry-picking only the Arctic?
    Eyeballing the Arctic summer ice during June 2007, 2008 and 2009, it looks like there is about the same amount of ice in 2009 as in the preceding two years: click
    If you want to be honest about the claims of declining ice cover, then you must also include the Antarctic: click
    Because the debate is about global, not regional, warming/cooling.

  10. R. Gates (20:13:25) :
    Just for an update: According the IJIS/Jaxa, the Arctic sea ice is now below where it was in 2003 on this date, April 11, and we’ve dropped over 450,000 sq. km since the peak on March 31.
    ==============
    I gotta give it to you, “R. Gates”, you’re hard to pin down.
    Always keeping us sceptics honest.
    We’ll win in the end!!

  11. Jeff T (20:32:32) :
    No, it’s not deceptive at all. The comparison is to show how much has been gained back since the minimum. What you are trying to do is to predict the future using a trend line. Suckers buy stocks late in the cycle based on sunny trends put forth by people who make money off the trades. Dot com. S&L. Housing. Only the savvy few who recognize the change in trend early are able to come out on top.
    Trends change. Sheep walk out on the end of trends and fall off. The wise know better.

  12. rbateman,
    I hear ya, I noticed Shasta Dam was refilling very nicely, when I made my last run to Sacto from the Oregon Coast. Its under 20 feet from crest as of last update. Have you seen any official guesses on what the snow pack holds currently?
    Jack

  13. Jeff T,
    Save your breath…they’d rather look at the only what’s happened since 2007. It’s their “convenient truth”…

  14. rbateman
    ‘Trends that can’t continue, won’t.’ Herbert Stein’s Law
    Global cooling is the future.

  15. Jack:
    Last I heard the Sierra snowpack was well over 100% of water content, and that was April 1st.

  16. el gordo (21:40:09) :
    The 4 billion year history of climate variation on Earth would bear that out.
    Unfortunately, you can’t outlaw Sea Ice or sell Ice Credits.

  17. Jack “In Oregon” Barnes (21:28:21)
    Have you seen any official guesses on what the snow pack holds currently?
    I stopped trusting those measurements five years
    ago in California.
    Drought means crisis—Crisis means money—Money
    plus crisis equals agenda.

  18. u.k.(us) said (21:03:16) :
    “I gotta give it to you, “R. Gates”, you’re hard to pin down.
    Always keeping us sceptics honest.
    We’ll win in the end!!”
    ——–
    This mentioning of the day by day blow of sea ice extent is meant as a poke at the absurdity of doing so…I hope everyone gets that! Once more, the longest term trend of reliable data is the best…i.e. five years is better than two, ten years is better than five, thirty is better than ten, and a hundred is better than thirty. March’s little “bump” upward is no more signficant than the fact that sea ice ice now below where it was in 2003 on this date, etc.
    Here’s what I really care about in terms of sea ice– will we hit a new summer low by 2015? If we don’t, my own belief in the accuracy of AGW fall in an inverse proportion to the growth of summer arctic sea ice. But having said that, I believe we will see a new summer low by 2015, and probably as early as next summer. This summer I’m projecting a 4.5 million sq. km. summer minimum as measured and reported by IJIS/Jaxa. (just so we’re clear where the numbers I’ll use are coming from). My basis is simple:
    1) Though we’ve had some growth in multi-year ice, it has not been a huge increase, and it is not exceptionally thick.
    2) Much of the March “bump” upward is new ice between 4 and 12 inches thick. It will melt fast and really is meaningless.
    3) We’ve had unseasonably warm temps over Greenland and N. Canada (i.e. Hudson Bay), and parts the central arctic. Most of these areas are already showing signs of below average ice, and yes Virginia, warmth really does melt ice…not just wind and currents carrying it away.
    So while Steve Goddard et. al believe that the summer 2010 minimum will be above 2009 and in the 6 million sq. km. area, I think they overestimate how much the mulit-year ice will hold up under what will be a projected warm summer in the arctic…

  19. Granted, recovering sea ice (and/or a change in trend) in the arctic is an interesting thorn in the side of the AGW beast, but to what degree does arctic ice serve as an indicator for warming or cooling? It seems to me that there have been some interesting points made about the speed of the currents under the ice, and that water’s temperature–that those factors drive ice formation much more than the mere air temperature anyway. Anyone have comments on that?

  20. R. Gates – here’s an update to your update – arctic ice extent is lower than it was on this date (april 11) in 2003 but higher than it was on this date in 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009 ! thanks for making the increase obvious.

  21. @Smokey,
    The trend is less clear if you include Antarctic ice, but it’s still there.
    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg
    Check that chart and I think you’ll find that the sum of Arctic and Antarctic ice area on each September 15 prior to 2007 was larger than on that date in 2009.
    @rbateman,
    There are year-to-year fluctuations. You think we are late in the cycle and I think we’re early. If you are confident that years after 2009 will have greater ice area in the Arctic than 2009, would you like to make a wager about whether the average Arctic ice area for September 15th 2010-2012 exceeds the area for September 15th, 2009? If so, ask Anthony to send me your e-mail address and we’ll see whether we can write an enforceable contract.

  22. It’s all been within the range of normal variability. I know because I’ve been checking it out for myself.
    I also know that global warming predictions about Arctic Ice I not panning out. I think that’s what this post is about. Al Gore said Arctic Ice could be all gone in 5 years. He said that more than a year ago.
    Predictions: you have to be careful if you’re going to make them. Here’s a few that failed:
    “Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible.”
    ~~Lord Kelvin, President, Royal Society, 1895
    “Space travel is bunk.”
    ~~Sir Harold Spencer Jones, Astronomer Royal of Britain, 1957, two weeks before the launch of Sputnik
    “All attempts at artificial aviation are not only dangerous to life but doomed to failure from an engineering standpoint.”
    ~~editor of ‘The Times’ of London, 1905
    “Computers in the future may weigh no more than 1.5 tons.”
    ~~Popular Mechanics, forecasting the relentless march of science, 1949
    “640K ought to be enough for anybody.”
    ~~Bill Gates, 1981

  23. Isn’t using IJIS/Jaxa vs UIUC deceptive? IJIS/Jaxa measures sea ice extent to 15% and UIUC stops at a 30% concentration. Someone mentioned earlier that the 15% concentration shouldn’t be considered because it represents ice that’s breaking away from the polar cap due to wind and the measurements are questionable.
    So the Arctic may have lost “450,000 sq. km since the peak on March 31” but a substantial majority of the loss should never have been counted in the first place?
    Its also worth noting that minimum extent measurements have a greater degree of error due to the open waters.

  24. Phil. (20:31:23) :
    But a yacht sailed through in the opposite direction without an icebreaker.
    Which automatically means global warming is happening.

  25. R. Gates (20:13:25) :
    Just for an update: According the IJIS/Jaxa, the Arctic sea ice is now below where it was in 2003 on this date, April 11, and we’ve dropped over 450,000 sq. km since the peak on March 31.
    It’s exactly at the same level.
    Interestingly, 2008 was also very close to the current level, but if you look at the danish chart, which uses a 30% concentration threshold, current levels are quite a bit above 2008 levels.

  26. Jeff T., R. Gates:
    Have you compared the 2009 image with the 1904 image?
    “Even after the claim of an Open Sea was disproved, the Passage retained its romantic allure, and when in 1905 the Norwegian explorer Roald Amundsen completed the first successful voyage through the Passage, the news electrified the world.” http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Northwest_Passage
    Or, “Sought by explorers for centuries as a possible trade route, it was first navigated by Roald Amundsen in 1903–1906.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_passage
    Hmmm. 1903-1906. 2003-2006. Is there a 100-year cycle here?
    What about all those newspaper articles in the 1920’s and 1930’s reporting the arctic ice melting at an unprecedented rate?
    How absurd to base cap-and-trade and AGW hysteria on only a very short time span of evidence, excluding Michael Mann’s fraudulent hockey stick.

  27. Steve, those are some real informational overlays.
    Thanks for all of the the effort and fantastic insight!

  28. Gates, why do you even try? Reality is the models are wrong. Get it? CO2 AGW is wrong! It does not matter about 2003 etc having more or less ice.It does matter that the Spring melt is on time. The Warmists’ models are wrong. The physics is wrong. The chemistry is wrong. The economics are wrong. It is simply wrong.

  29. “Phil. (20:31:23) :
    rbateman (19:26:13) :
    33% Sea Ice is a lot. They had to escort the 2 German Freighters through with 2 Russian nuclear-powered Ice Breakers in that <33% Northeast Passage.
    But a yacht sailed through in the opposite direction without an icebreaker.”
    Who, what, when, & how? I'm not being sceptical, just curious! The last one I'd heard try it was a Brit a couple of years back, who wanted to demonstrate how little ice there was, got stuck & needed rescuing from the two Polar Bears that were left up there! I would have thought the warmists would have had a field day publicising this one?

  30. TomTurner in SF (23:04:09) :
    “…Hmmm. 1903-1906. 2003-2006. Is there a 100-year cycle here?”
    You could be right, 100y(ish)
    1410-1500 cold – Low Solar Activity(LSA?)-(Sporer minimum)
    1510-1600 warm – High Solar Activity(HSA?)
    1610-1700 cold – (LSA) (Maunder minimum)
    1710-1800 warm – (HSA)
    1810-1900 cold – (LSA) (Dalton minimum)
    1910-2000 warm – (HSA)
    2010-2100 (cold???) – (LSA???)

  31. Jack “In Oregon” Barnes (20:04:29) : Personally, I would like to visualize some Sunny *Dry* Warmth. I want my Global Warming, and I want it now.
    The continuous cold rain blowing in off the Pacific continues. It feels like the highth of winter still… that is highs in the 40’s – 50’s, lows in the mid 30’s, rain almost every day. We are in our 5th month of El Nino Rains. Depending on who’s rain gauge you believe, we have had 3-6 ft of rain since Christmas 2009.

    It’s not getting any warmer down here, so up there you ought to be getting whacked:
    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/04/11/winter-storm-warning-in-california-in-april/
    TWC was saying about 2 feet of snow to dropped in the upper Sierra Nevada and about 2 inches of rain expected near Anthony… and with a ‘slope’ of about 2 inch per mile up there, that 2 inches can take a while to drain away… (about 35 foot elevation and about 210 miles to the ocean from where I grew up “near” there…)
    Further, the place has loads of “Adobe Clay” soil. Great for growing rice as the flood irrigation water does not drain away into the soil. Not so good when the rains come.
    I’m tired of cold and wet. I demand that Al Gore deliver on the Global Warming that was promised. If we don’t start warming Real Soon Now, I think California ought to file a class action suit against the IPCC for breach of contract… the PROMISED it was going to be warm…

  32. Why does the NSIDC only show 2 standard deviations around the 1979-2000 average? It’s common practice to show 3 standard deviations of a normal distribution, to represent where 99.7% of the data should fall.
    Only having data since 1979 is one thing that makes the standard deviation large.

  33. Jeff T
    “If you want to be honest about the claims of declining ice cover, then you must also include the Antarctic: click
    Because the debate is about global, not regional, warming/cooling”
    I’m sorry, I don’t get your point. The graph you linked to seems to be showing an upward trend in Antarctic ice extent.

  34. “The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consulafft, at Bergen, Norway.
    Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone.
    Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm.
    Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared.
    Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds. Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice melt the sea will rise and make most coastal cities uninhabitable. ”
    November 2, 1922 The Washington Post..

  35. Jeff T (22:08:45) :
    If you wish to discuss probabilities on a statistic drowning in noise, fine.
    If you are looking to gamble, then I would suggest Carbon Credits are right for you.
    There are already too many in positions who are willing to bet the future of the Earth on no more information than the cosmological argument had 100 years ago.

  36. Vincent (04:11:58),
    I provided that chart, not JT. It shows the Antarctic ice cover is increasing.
    There has been a slight decline in global ice extent for several years, which is well within the bounds of natural variability. Thus the null hypothesis remains intact, and the CO2=CAGW hypothesis fails because the ice loss is only in the Arctic, not both at the Arctic and the Antarctic. The effect is local, not global.
    That being the case, people whose egos are invested in the belief that a rise in CO2 will cause runaway global warming are currently concentrating only on the Arctic, because the natural ebb and flow of ice cover shows the Arctic currently losing ice.
    Climate alarmists don’t mention the Antarctic, because it makes clear that the Arctic ice loss is regional, not global: click
    Dr A Burns (04:41:31) shows why the media has always alarmed people who have a predilection toward frightening themselves: it sells papers.
    It’s always best to be skeptical of claims that what is occurring is anything but natural and normal climate variability, since there is no verifiable evidence to the contrary.
    And there was never a skeptic who stood on street corners in 1922 with sandwich-board signs reading: “Repent! The End Is Nigh!” They were all alarmists.
    Today, their true believer philosophical descendants post the same alarming stories on the internet.

  37. E.M.Smith (01:55:11) :
    Oh drat. Wouldn’t you know it, I’m in that purple stuff west of Redding.
    If it isn’t pouring rain, it’s socked in with Transylvania Alps Fog.
    Even a rare sunny day isn’t safe from biting winds. Oak trees are all late.

  38. Alan the Brit (01:27:49) :
    “Phil. (20:31:23) :
    rbateman (19:26:13) :
    33% Sea Ice is a lot. They had to escort the 2 German Freighters through with 2 Russian nuclear-powered Ice Breakers in that <33% Northeast Passage.
    But a yacht sailed through in the opposite direction without an icebreaker.”
    Who, what, when, & how? I'm not being sceptical, just curious! The last one I'd heard try it was a Brit a couple of years back, who wanted to demonstrate how little ice there was, got stuck & needed rescuing from the two Polar Bears that were left up there! I would have thought the warmists would have had a field day publicising this one?

    These guys for one:
    http://www.skinnarmo.com/
    Click on the tab ‘Nordost Passagen’ and Union Flag then ‘blog’ for english version. They were commemorating Nordenskiöld’s journey of 130 years before.
    Another boat, the RXII, also sailed it, their plan was a total circumnavigation but after reaching the Bering Straits they were ‘escorted’ by the Russian coastguard to deal with paperwork issues, so had to cancel the NW Passage leg.
    http://seilmagasinet.no/id/33192.0

  39. @rbateman (05:10:04) :
    Carbon credits do seem like a gamble; but I don’t view my proposal as gambling, just easy money. I thought you considered yourself one of the “savvy few” you mentioned at (21:08:21) . Unfortunately for me, you don’t really believe what you posted.

  40. John from CA (22:35:16) :
    Isn’t using IJIS/Jaxa vs UIUC deceptive? IJIS/Jaxa measures sea ice extent to 15% and UIUC stops at a 30% concentration. Someone mentioned earlier that the 15% concentration shouldn’t be considered because it represents ice that’s breaking away from the polar cap due to wind and the measurements are questionable.
    So the Arctic may have lost “450,000 sq. km since the peak on March 31″ but a substantial majority of the loss should never have been counted in the first place?
    Its also worth noting that minimum extent measurements have a greater degree of error due to the open waters.

    A valid, but problematic, point. Since historically, a point of reference is made on the 15% figures, shifting to reference the 30% figures – probably a more realistic point in this context – could cause confusion or misinformation.
    Moving the goal posts, as it were. Kind of like lowering test core pass level to increase the number of people who pass, and using the passing score as a measure of intelligence (which, quite obviously, isn’t even that. It’s simply a measure of education).
    When you put 1/2 hour of cognitive thought into it, it isn’t too confusing. However, these arguments will be placed in front of the general public and, unfortunately, government officials whose cognitive attention span is based on the length of your average Twitter message.

  41. Jeff T (06:44:26),
    If I make up and offer my own wager parameters, and you don’t take the bet, does that mean you don’t believe what you posted?

  42. RE: Jeff T (20:32:32) : “It is deceptive to compare the images of September 2009 only with 2007.”
    While it is probably still a little too early to say that the ice-reduction trend observed since 1978 has been reversed, I believe the current ice increase is the largest event of this type observed over the whole period. I also believe that the winter ice extent recovery is most significant because it is a measure of how little our ‘greenhouse blanket’ stops the escape of heat from the Earth in the clear air of the arctic night.

  43. Smokey,
    “I provided that chart, not JT. It shows the Antarctic ice cover is increasing.”
    Sorry, I see my mistake – I saw JT in bold and thought it was a JT post.

  44. Dr A Burns,
    “November 2, 1922 The Washington Post..”
    But this is terrible – it means we are caught in a time loop.

  45. Can someone please point me to a site that shows how many and where the REAL thermometers are that are RECORDING the Artic temperatures (that we continually hear are rising) I am sceptical that the Artic is warming but would like very much to have good data to understand how such claims are made. Thanks

  46. OceanTwo (07:57:12) :
    LOL, “…and, unfortunately, government officials whose cognitive attention span is based on the length of your average Twitter message.”
    Point well taken, the term “deceptive” implies intent where there clearly wasn’t any. “Could cause confusion” is a much better way to present the issues.
    The archive of images on the UIUC Cryosphere Today site display extent at the top of the front page in terms of 30% values in relation to the 30 year mean. This presumably accounts for the difference in total sea ice when compared to data from NSIDC. Yet, the legend in the UIUC images supply color relationships extending to zero and the caption below the comparisons (example: http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh) state, “Sea ice concentrations less than 30% are not displayed in these images.” The logic may be that ice free oceans need a color value but it gets more confusing when viewing images on the front page which include other color values 0-29%.
    Its even more confusing when dialogue in the blogs state gloom and doom using one set of data and the other data set shows a near correlation to the 30 year mean.
    When the Arctic air temperature anomalies are tossed into the dialogue, a closer look reveals that they are occurring at temperatures below the freezing point of sea water and can have little or no impact on the formation of sea ice which requires a sea column of water to dip below -1.8 C.
    I doubt anyone is attempting to imply that the air temperature anomalies in the Arctic are having a meaningful impact on Arctic currents or sea ice but it is confusing as to why they are even meaningful.
    The confusion is further complicated by the lack of definitions on the various sites. What they actually mean by Sea Ice Area, Extent, and Concentration may also differ.
    To be fair, we don’t expect a lot from government officials related to hard Science but they do count on accurate and understandable information.

  47. Docmartyn (15:37:53) :
    Buried in one of the articles here is a great map of the odd Arctic currents. When I saw the model, it reminded me of a radiator. Haven’t found it yet but I’ll keep trying.

  48. TomTurner in SF said (23:04:09) :
    Jeff T., R. Gates:
    Have you compared the 2009 image with the 1904 image?
    ———
    Wow, I’d love to see that 1904 satellite image– that would be AMAZING!
    Seriously though, a daily blow by blow of the arctic sea ice is pretty meaningless. The bigger questions related to arctic sea ice are these:
    1) Will the increase in the summer low that we saw in 2008 and 2009 continue, or will the upward trend in the low continue on the downward trend it had been in prior to those 2 years?
    2) How much did the deep solar minimum and the extremely negative AO index (as associated wind patterns) affect the arctic sea ice?
    3) Will the multi-year ice hold up to a warmer than average summer in the arctic. Many AGW skeptics like to believe that heat doesn’t matter in the arctic–that it’s all wind and currents, and so are projecting a continued upward trend in the summer minimum. Others (myself included) look at the mass of the arctic sea ice and the relatively thin multi-year ice and see it vulnerable to rapid melting– especially with the warmth we had in the arctic this winter as the negative AO pushed so much of the cold further south (i.e. snow in Florida etc.)
    I’ll really start to take an interest in the arctic sea ice in about July, as the full force of the summer melt season hits high gear– then we’ll see if heat matters, or if it is indeed all wind and currents…

  49. The AO is still neutral to negative and the wind is not setting up the shoot out of the Arctic along Fram Straight. Yes the ice drips out of there but there is not roller coaster ride at the moment heading towards the Atlantic. The Arctic will continue to horde ice.

  50. Pamela Gray (17:10:13) :
    The AO is still neutral to negative and the wind is not setting up the shoot out of the Arctic along Fram Straight. Yes the ice drips out of there but there is not roller coaster ride at the moment heading towards the Atlantic. The Arctic will continue to horde ice.

    On your fantasy planet again Pamela! As pointed out numerous times on Earth the transpolar drift has been pushing ice out the Fram and also into the Barents Sea for about a month, hence the increase in extent. There has been a reversal of that flow for the last few days (and guess what the extent has gone down). The result is that the ice in that area is thoroughly fragmented:
    http://i302.photobucket.com/albums/nn107/Sprintstar400/Framstrait.jpg
    This is a detail (MODIS) of the Fram from yesterday (notice which way the wind is blowing)

  51. R. Gates (20:13:25) :
    Just for an update: According the IJIS/Jaxa, the Arctic sea ice is now below where it was in 2003 on this date, April 11, and we’ve dropped over 450,000 sq. km since the peak on March 31.
    —-
    Just for an update: According to IJIS/Jaxa, the Arctic sea ice now is 25,000+ sq. km. above where it was in 2003 on this date, April 12, and as it dropped 50% more in one day in 2003 than this year, what exactly was the point of your post, above, yesterday?

  52. Docmartyn (15:37:53) :
    Pamela Gray (17:10:13) :
    Docmartyn – here’s a link related to your observation.
    Pamela Gray – the link also supports what you’re saying about the AO.
    NASA Sees Arctic Ocean Circulation Do an About-Face
    http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2007-131
    November 13, 2007
    PASADENA, Calif. – A team of NASA and university scientists has detected an ongoing reversal in Arctic Ocean circulation triggered by atmospheric circulation changes that vary on decade-long time scales. The results suggest not all the large changes seen in Arctic climate in recent years are a result of long-term trends associated with global warming.”
    “The very precise deep-sea gauges were developed with help from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; the satellite is NASA’s Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (Grace). The team of scientists found a 10-millibar decrease in water pressure at the bottom of the ocean at the North Pole between 2002 and 2006, equal to removing the weight of 10 centimeters (four inches) of water from the ocean. The distribution and size of the decrease suggest that Arctic Ocean circulation changed from the counterclockwise pattern it exhibited in the 1990s to the clockwise pattern that was dominant prior to 1990.” 


    “Reporting in Geophysical Research Letters, the authors attribute the reversal to a weakened Arctic Oscillation, a major atmospheric circulation pattern in the northern hemisphere. The weakening reduced the salinity of the upper ocean near the North Pole, decreasing its weight and changing its circulation.”
    

”Our study confirms many changes seen in upper Arctic Ocean circulation in the 1990s were mostly decadal in nature, rather than trends caused by global warming,” said Morison.”
    “Satellite altimeters, such as NASA’s Jason, are ideal for studying ocean circulation but can’t be used at Earth’s poles due to ice cover,” said study co-author Ron Kwok of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif. “Our results show Grace can be a powerful tool for tracking changes in the distribution of mass in the Arctic Ocean, as well as its circulation.”
    ” 

Grace is a partnership between NASA and the German Aerospace Center (DLR). The University of Texas Center for Space Research, Austin, has overall mission responsibility. JPL developed the twin satellites. DLR provided the launch, and GeoForschungsZentrum Potsdam, Germany, operates Grace. For more on Grace: http://www.csr.utexas.edu/grace/ .”

  53. NASA’s and DLR’s research final adds a physical factor to the sea ice extent minimum but what caused the “10-millibar decrease in water pressure at the bottom of the ocean at the North Pole between 2002 and 2006”?
    And, please don’t say it was CO2 😉

  54. John from CA (09:24:23) :
    NASA’s and DLR’s research final adds a physical factor to the sea ice extent minimum but what caused the “10-millibar decrease in water pressure at the bottom of the ocean at the North Pole between 2002 and 2006″?

    About 3″ of water?

  55. 3″ to 4″ decrease in Sea Ice support plus or minus tides – it appears to explain the increased fracturing that was occurring at the time. Bit like sawing a branch off under your feet?

  56. Smokey (08:32:20) :
    I agree but that’s a clip of Antarctica. : )
    I was interested in finding Physical factors that could explain the 2007 minimum. CO2 clearly isn’t the factor but something was. Note the odd jagged edge of the polar cap in 2003 and 2006.
    2003
    (3-4″ decrease in Arctic sea surface, decreased surface salinity, and a circulation anomaly)
    http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=09&fd=15&fy=1990&sm=09&sd=15&sy=2003
    2006
    (circulation anomaly subsides?)
    http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=09&fd=15&fy=1990&sm=09&sd=15&sy=2006
    2007
    (3-4″ rise in Arctic sea surface, greater surface salinity, and circulation resumes)
    http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=09&fd=15&fy=1990&sm=09&sd=15&sy=2007

  57. sorry, just realized I made a foolish mistake, “equal to removing the weight of 10 centimeters (four inches) of water from the (Arctic] ocean” is decreased pressure which implies expansion.

Comments are closed.