By Steve Goddard
August 16, 2010 offered a great opportunity to put all the Arctic data together in a coherent picture. DMI showed a large drop in extent.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php
You can see the drop between August 15 and August 16 clearly in red in the modified NSIDC map below.
So what happened? Did 300,000 km2 of ice suddenly melt?
Not exactly. There were very strong winds pushing the ice in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas towards the pole on August 15. This compacted the ice, reducing extent while increasing the average thickness.
You can see the August 15 movement of ice in Beaufort Sea in the satellite blink map below. Note how the ice edge is tightening up and compacting.
Will this continue? Probably not. The weather forecast calls for a return to colder and calmer weather in a couple of days. Look for the DMI graph to flatten out by the weekend.
[snip – not 24 hours yet]
The Antarctic area anomaly has taken a noes dive on Cryosphere, I wonder if the large hurricane strength southern ocean storm in the India Ocean had anything to do with that? If the southern ocean winds are getting stronger then I would imagine that will put some sort of limitation on ice extent at some point. Just a layman’s thoughts though.
From the Modis imagery the McLure straights is navigable at the moment, there is ice but you can work your way through it.
Andy
Julienne
The Ozone Hole is an August-December phenomenon. How does it account for high levels of ice the rest of the year?
Julienne Stroeve says:
August 21, 2010 at 7:38 am
Thus, if rising concentrations of GHGs increase global mean temperature (which I know is something many of you doubt), the models predict this will lead to continued decline in Arctic sea ice.
I don’t know who the others are. But I like to look at the data. You may not have seen these videos with Roy Spencer on negative feedback. H2O dominates not CO2. After decades of focus one would think that if positive feedback from co2 will cause the warming the models show there have proof. But it still isn’t there. The hypothesis’ that the models used in global warming don’t have proof. So we must conclude they are wrong. I’ll stick with the data, not the models:
Part 1
Part 2
Virveli says:
August 21, 2010 at 1:54 am
There’s a good chance now the crew will be the first people to have circumnavigated the Arctic in one season.
The route shows they didn’t stay in the Arctic.
Steven Goddard,
Is the little step up in DMi today from winds pushing ice out or from freeze in the below freezing temperature above 80N?
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/icecover/icecover_2010.png
Maybe I spoke prematurely when I said 2005 is out in DMi.
Steve, ozone depletion has been shown to strengthen the polar vortex and lead to an decrease in atmospheric pressure over the Amundsen Sea, thereby strengthening the winds on the Ross Ice Shelf, where the largest positive trends in Antarctic sea ice extent are found. Notice the largest increase in Antarctic sea ice extent has been observed in Autumn which fits with the ozone depletion theory and stronger cyclonic flow.
Changes in ocean circulation may also in part be responsible. Normally convection in the Southern Ocean results in mixing of warm water with the surface which is one of the reasons why Antarctic sea ice is mostly first-year ice and thinner than in the Arctic. Recent field observations suggest significant freshening of the Antarctic Ocean, and since freshwater is less dense, this acts to prevent mixing with the saltier water below and the ocean becomes more stratified and the heat flowing upward is reduced.
Amino, I’m not sure I follow your logic. If models have predicted warming and decline of Arctic sea ice cover (along with many other predictions), and now the observational data is showing the same trends as the models have been predicting for years, how are they automatically wrong? Yes, some variables, in particular cloud and precipitation have not always been successfully forecasted, but many other variables have been. And while the models may not always be able to reproduce the magnitude of the trends, qualitatively they are in the same direction.
Of course we always have to look at the data, since that will give us the true signal. And this is the work I do…look at the data and try to convert the raw satellite measurement into the most accurate geophysical measurement possible. It is the data that has slowly convinced me over the last decade that human activities are affecting our climate, not the climate models. And I do not consider myself an alarmist because I think human activities play a role. Like I’ve said before, the climate system is complex and feedbacks may continually kick in to alter climate impacts from rising concentrations of GHGs (both in the positive and negative directions). We really don’t fully know or understand the outcome of more carbon in the Earth’s atmosphere. We’re conducting a “blind” experiment.
And it doesn’t matter so much to me if you believe that our activities can affect our climate. There are so many reasons to move away from our dependence on fossil fuels (especially foreign dependence from countries that are not friendly to ours). Who doesn’t want clean energy and energy independence? Who doesn’t want to preserve our environment and keep wilderness areas pristine?
Julienne,
Peak Antarctic ice anomalies have been March-July
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.recent.antarctic.png
The Ozone Hole is August-December.
Julienne,
There is more oil in Alaska than in the Middle East (estimates). The foreign oil argument isn’t fair. Drilling for oil in Alaska is the quick and easy solution to that argument. If there were no domestic oil resources then the alternative energy over the foreign dependence for oil argument would have a case.
In a perfect world I would want to keep a pristine state in the world. At the same time, I don’t think fossil fuels are contaminating as much of wilderness areas as some assert.
The truth is, I would rather see lower energy costs for the poor, and even more for the elderly on fixed incomes. They are the most vulnerable to being hurt by the alternative energy push. I will chose to show mercy to them over not using fossil fuels every time.
Mankind has always found ways to reduce pollution. I am for a small tax on gas, say 0.25%, that would be exclusively used to study ways of making emissions from fossil fuels cleaner, and I don’t mean co2, but other components of the emissions that do show evidence of real harm. 0.25% of all gasoline purchased is a lot of money. It would result in a lot of study and good results.
Julienne Stroeve says:
August 21, 2010 at 12:00 pm
Amino, I’m not sure I follow your logic.
I am saying this: Everything happening in climate since 1988 shows nothing unusual is happening. So any and all worries over manmade global warming are useless. That’s all.
There are UHI and land use issues. And those are manmade. You’re not automatically a skeptic, or a believer, to observe those. But climate in the world overall has not changed from what it has always done.
There is some value in modelling over the short term. And I think you and I may have different time periods in mind when we are talking about climate models. Model projections of 20 to 100 years are just foolishness. And you didn’t need a computer model to know a warming trend in the earth began in 1976/77 and ended in 1999. PDO could explain that. If there are forecasts made from using PDO, AMO, and the sun, those I will listen to. There are patterns in those that are somewhat understood, though not exactly. I am not aware of any computer models that use those 3 factors primarily. I’m sure they exist. If you know of any I’m interested in learning about them.
stevengoddard said:
August 21, 2010 at 12:10 pm
Julienne,
Peak Antarctic ice anomalies have been March-July
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.recent.antarctic.png
The Ozone Hole is August-December.
________________________
I think this is down to lag Steve, the ozone hole in those months means an increase in Southern Ocean winds after this time period which means colder air flowing outwards after December so making the ice extent larger in that period. If you wish email essor John Turner at BAS and he will fill the gaps in your understanding.
Andy
Amino, I respectfully disagree that the warming has stopped as you imply. You need to look at the long-term trend and naturally there are going to be bumps and wiggles along that trend. The year 1998 was unusually warm and has been used to falsely claim that the last decade has seen little change or cooling. I think we both agree cherry picking dates is not correct and the last decade remains the warmest during the observational record.
BTW…climate models include the climate indices and relationships between the these indices such as the AMO and other variables, such as ice cover, have been examined using model output.
I have spent the last few days in Aspen listening to experts in policy and renewables and economics talk about the climate change issue and it has been interesting getting so many different perspectives from those directly working with these issues. One thing I think interesting is that many don’t have a problem paying a little more for their cell phones or iphones or cable televsion, but $1 more a month in utility bills is seen as a terrible thing. I’ve learned a lot about the myths in the costs of renewables being here.
As for drilling in Alaska, do you realize that 90% of the oil and gas estimated by the USGS to be present in the Arctic are on the Russian side of the Arctic? I have no idea where you got the number that there is more oil in Alaska than in the Middle East, but I have never seen that number in all the talks I’ve been to regarding the estimates of oil reserves in the Arctic. But I did learn today that we get 40% of our oil from the Middle East and we import a total of 68% (whereas during the Nixon era it was around 30%). Interesting that every President since the 1970s has promised to get us off foreign oil but none have ever done it. T Boone Pickens advocates moving to Natural Gas as a solution and has proposed the Pickens plan. Others here are for renewables and some even for Nuclear. But none of the experts here advocate drilling in Alaska.
Julienne Stroeve says:
August 21, 2010 at 3:40 pm
Amino, I respectfully disagree that the warming has stopped as you imply. You need to look at the long-term trend
It was warmer on earth 1000 years ago than now. Trend is cooling.
http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/Historic%20Temperatures.jpg
Julienne
The amount in Alaska is really not important. Whatever is there let’s use it. Presidents also talk about alternative energy too not just getting off foreign oil. But alternatives just aren’t ready now. Coal. oil, natural gas, etc, they work now.
$1 more a month in utility bills is seen as a terrible thing.
The elderly on fixed incomes don’t spend money on cel phones. Their lives would be better with lower energy costs, not higher, even $1 higher. President Obama wants energy costs to skyrocket, not go up $1. I want energy costs to go down, not only to help the elderly, but to help get America out of this recession. Whatever the amount of ‘fossil’ fuels in Alaska let’s go get it and use it. that will help lower dependence on Middle East oil.
There’s also plenty of coal in West Virginia, Ohio, etc. Let’s get it out of the ground and use it. Alternatives are not feasible now. Some day alternatives will be wonderful. But not not today.
Julienne Stroeve says:
August 21, 2010 at 3:40 pm
The year 1998 was unusually warm
It was only 1/10ths of a degree warmer. It was an El Nino spike. They’ve always happened. They are a natural part of the earth. Using the word ‘unusual’ paints the picture of global warming alarm. It was warmer on earth 1000 years ago and I’m sure El Nino spikes happened then that were higher than 1998 and not just by 1/10ths of a degree higher but whole degrees higher.
Does that sound implausible?
Warmer 1000 years ago worldwide
http://joannenova.com.au/2009/12/fraudulent-hockey-sticks-and-hidden-data/
We’ve gotten of the topic of Arctic ice. Hope the moderators are minding.
The average drop in extent over the past 4 days on JAXA data has been around 29,000 sq km per day. If this rate maintains we draw even with 2009 towards the end of the week. 2005 might take a little longer but if 2009 is beaten we’ll certainly be very close to beating 2005.
Still waiting for that massive late season loss that Phil and R Gates were forecasting. Times running out boys.
The lead over 2008 is now 100,000 sq km. Given that 2008 had the heaviest loss out of any of the JAXA years from this point forward we’d have to seem something well out of the ordinary from here on it for this years minimum to be below 2008.
The preliminary 08/21 numbers are up for JAXA…another day of sub-30000 km^2 loss. Since 08/17 we’ve lost ~29600 km^2/day, which is the second lowest in the JAXA record (after 2003), ahead of 3rd place 2005 by nearly 5000 km^2/day and ahead of the next highest year (2007) by a nice ~17000 km^2/day.
The real question is whether this slowdown is due to divergence or a true reduction in loss (i.e. slowed melting or even some refreezing). The slight upticks in DMI’s 30% extent and JAXA’s area plots hint that it’s a true reduction. If it’s a true reduction, then this year can make up a lot of ground in the next few days. It’s still a long ways behind 2009…~185000 km^2, but 2009 lost a lot of extent over the next 3 days, and if we continue to average ~29600 km^2/day over the next three days, that deficit will be cut to less than 50000 km^2. And as some of the discussions above with some of the AGW-believing posters point out, that sort of deficit can be made up in a single day (though they were talking about it in the other direction ;-).
In all honesty, I don’t expect the low losses to continue at this rate, I think we’ll still see several days of considerable loss (I’ll call that at >45000 km^2 in a day)…but I hope I’m wrong because I’d like to see this year flirting with 2009.
In terms of finishing near 2008 (as several of the aforementioned posters were claiming), that’s looking even less likely now. Even if the losses pick back up, 2008 averages losses of 77687 km^2/day over the next five days. 2010 lost a touch over that on 08/17, but the last day before that in which it lost that much or more was 08/02, so it’s hard to see it not furthering its lead over 2008 during this time…and I’d be surprised if it doesn’t lead 2008 in 5 days by as much as 2009 leads 2010 now (~185000 km^2).
We’re really getting down to the wire now. To have a shot at getting above 2009 will likely require low losses the next 3 days, because after that 2009 never even reached 50000 km^2 of loss in a single day. The other option is to encounter a minimum in the first couple days of September, making it the earliest in the JAXA record (and I would argue that BOTH of these requirements would be needed to stay above Steve’s predicted 5.5e6 km^2).
-Scott
Steve’s 5.5 million sq km min is looking very unlikely IMHO. But I think the min above 5.0 million sq km is also liking quite likely. I’m thinking a min in the 2009 range is probably about where we will end up though I would hedge a touch lower. I thought when it flattened a bit earlier we might stay above that, but I don’t that that is the case currently.
….looks to me like the Northwest Passage has finally opened up!
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_daily_extent_hires.png
Man the Viking longboats and Chinese junks!!
RE: Spector: (August 18, 2010 at 8:23 pm) “My special AMSR-E Arctic region sea ice anomaly plot, using the NSIDC average melt-freeze shape with the AMSR-E data record average value, shows this year’s ice just reaching the zero anomaly point…”
And now it has stopped slipping sideways and has risen to about +150,000 sq km as read from my custom anomaly chart. It was as low as about -800,000 sq km around the first of July. At this rate of climb, it will intersect the 2009 curve around the end of the month.
The normal AMSR-E sea ice extent chart has a range from 2 to 16 million sq km, but my special anomaly plot, with a Fourier series representation of the 30-year average annual NSIDC melt-freeze shape subtracted from the data, only needs a -2.1 to 2.1 million sq km range.
CRS, Dr.P.H.
It’s not clear in Cryosphere Today if it’s open.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/NEWIMAGES/arctic.seaice.color.000.png
Scott says:
August 21, 2010 at 10:07 pm
……..
“We’re really getting down to the wire now. To have a shot at getting above 2009 will likely require low losses the next 3 days, because after that 2009 never even reached 50000 km^2 of loss in a single day. The other option is to encounter a minimum in the first couple days of September, making it the earliest in the JAXA record (and I would argue that BOTH of these requirements would be needed to stay above Steve’s predicted 5.5e6 km^2).”
I think thats a damn good summation Scott. Its going to be tough to hit Steves’s target of 5.5 million with only 210,000 sq km left to play with. Although, to be fair you’d have to give him +/- 100,000 which gives a little more wiggle room.
Hard to see this being possible without an early September mininum and losses lower than 25,000 sq km per day for the remainder of the month. Mind you we are now getting into territory where gains on any given day are a possibility. This is what balances out the odd 40-50k days to give your 25k averages at this time of year.
Cryosphere Today now shows several locations have now started gaining area.
The 2 targets of interest now are 2009 at 5.25 million sq km and 2005 at 5.31 million sq km. I think both are well within reach. If we beat 2005 then 2010 becomes the second highest extent in the past 6 years. That would be quite impressive in the “hottest year on record” when there is so much “rotten ice”.