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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
@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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Dr A Burns,
“November 2, 1922 The Washington Post..”
But this is terrible – it means we are caught in a time loop.
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
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.
Rob (09:52:31) :
Here are a couple of links to ground based stations and other fun readings.
PAG: Arctic Portal
http://portal.inter-map.com/#mapID=26&groupID=1&z=1.0&up=-0.0&left=0.0
Athropolis Arctic
http://www.athropolis.com/temperature/coldreport2.php
or click the orange dots:
http://www.athropolis.com/map.htm
Arctic Theme Park
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/gallery_np_weatherdata.html#drift
IARC
http://www.frontier.iarc.uaf.edu/~igor/research/data/airtemppres.php
“Future Central Arctic Shipping Route”
http://portal.inter-map.com/#mapID=26&groupID=34&z=1.0&up=387.4&left=0.0
You just can’t make this “stuff” up but I don’t think I’m likely to invest in any shipping company that’s counting on this route.
It is almost as if in 2007 there was one central current in the top part of the water that stopped ice formation in the center, but allowed two spurs on either side to form.
Then in 2009 there were two, counter rotating currents in the upper right and left that allow the central portion of ice to shoot up; but eats away at the spurs.
http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w318/DocMartyn/IcedCurrents.jpg
Rob (09:52:31) :
It took a bit of searching but I found the post you may be looking for.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/23/why-joe-bastardi-see-red-a-look-at-sea-ice-and-gistemp-and-starting-choices/#comments
search for:
Willis Eschenbach (03:06:44) :
“Well, I got to wondering just what temperature sensors we do have in the Arctic…”
Global indexing on this site would be amazing 😉
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.
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…
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.
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)
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?
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/ .”
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 😉
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?
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?
Arctic sea ice is rebounding:
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
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.