This week was a true roller coaster ride with Arctic Sea Ice. It is best summed up by looking at the JAXA graph for extent, shown below:
Below, see the area of interest magnified.
I’ve added the 5 million square kilometer line for reference.
The roller coaster ride actually looked for a day like it might cross the 2009 line, but soon turned down again, ending this week at 5,142,813. Here’s the recent JAXA data
08,28,2010,5342656 08,29,2010,5352500 08,30,2010,5348281 08,31,2010,5329375 09,01,2010,5332344 09,02,2010,5304219 09,03,2010,5245625 09,04,2010,5192188 09,05,2010,5142813
Source: http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/plot.csv
JAXA sea ice area has dropped to 2008 levels:
JAXA AMSR-E Sea Ice Area – click to enlarge
Sea ice concentration from JAXA:
While JAXA shows extent now lower than 2009, DMI and NANSEN plots show it to be about even. The differences in observing sensor/platform AMSRE -vs-SSMI and methodologies at agencies are in play.
Above: Danish Meteorological Institute Arctic Sea Ice Extent – 30% or greater. Note that while this graph shows 30% concentration at the cutoff point, it is valuable to compare.
Above: NANSEN Artic ROOS- Sea ice extent 15% or greater – click for larger image
The differences appear to be in the low end of concentration, the 15% to 30% range. It suggests that the brief gains we saw may be wind related, blowing floating ice around, compacting it when winds are strong versus allowing expansion when winds are weak.
Temperature, after holding near freezing, now appears headed sharply downward.
Above: Danish Meteorological Institute – Mean Temperature above 80°N
Some light refreezing may take place before the end of September, which could minimize the ability of wind to sharply change extent like we saw recently.
With all these variables in play, choosing a winner will be as much a game of luck as of skill. Based on what we’ve seen, it seems probable that it will come from the middle of the pack between 2008 and 2009.
From SEARCH:
The estimates from the scientific community range from 4.0 to 5.6 million square kilometers, with 8 of the contributors suggesting a September minimum below 5.0 million square kilometers, 3 contributors suggesting a minimum of 5.0 million square kilometers, and 5 contributors suggesting a September minimum above 5.0 million square kilometers. Two contributors forecast a September minimum below that of 2007 at 4.0 million square kilometers and 3 contributors suggest a return to the long term downward linear trend for September sea ice loss (5.5 to 5.6 million square kilometers). None of the contributors indicate a return to the climatological sea ice extent of 6.7 million square kilometers.
Including all 18 contributions gives a September ice extent minimum of 4.8 +/- 0.77 million square kilometers, with a range of 2.5 to 5.6 million square kilometers.
Individual responses were based on a range of methods: statistical, numerical models, comparison with previous observations and rates of ice loss, or composites of several approaches.
Tom P says:
September 6, 2010 at 7:08 am
Back on August 18 Steve Goddard wrote:
“Ice thickness is an excellent predictor, and my PIPS based calculations are quite accurate. The only forecast I have made is 5.5, and see no reason to change it now.”
Steve’s miscalculations from PIPS, which left out the ice concentration, have turned out not to be so accurate. And he’s subsequently changed his “prediction” to 5.1 m km^2 on his new website. I wonder what changed his mind.
____________________________________________________________
SG took his mulligan sometime between this time (August 24, 2010 at 9:46 am );
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/24/sewa-ice-news-arctic-mid-week-update/#comment-465399
“Remember that NSIDC took a mulligan, changing their forecast in July. They started at 5.5 million.
I haven’t taken my mulligan yet ;^)”
and this (August 30, 2010 at 11:05 pm);
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/29/sea-ice-news-20/#comment-470770
“By the Way: Congrats to Steve – – he submitted a Sea Ice Outlook. 5.1 million Square km — unless he persuades Helen to let him change it in the next 48 hours or so.”
While I posted this comment (August 24, 2010 at 5:19 pm);
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/24/sewa-ice-news-arctic-mid-week-update/#comment-465833
“Chance of 2010 Arctic sea ice extent minima exceeding 5.5E6 < 0.00010% (based off of 8/23/2010 estimate)."
See also (August 24, 2010 at 9:06 am);
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/24/sewa-ice-news-arctic-mid-week-update/#comment-465356
So will 2010 pass 5.1e6 km^2? You betcha! As in asymptotically almost surely (a.a.s.).
JAXA is currently showing 5.14e6 km^2, NSIDC is showing 4.92e6 km^2, and Bremen is showing 5.07e6 km^2 (all three use the 15% concentration cutoff criteria).
Based on JAXA (extent) and NSIDC (area) data sets, it's even money (50% or p = 0,5) that 2010 will pass (be lower than) 4.9e6 km^2.
“I fear the truth is their skepticism is more a personal or political stance, rather than one based in science or reason.”
Ah to be judged by R. Gates the all-knowing judge, who knows what is in the hearts and minds of other posters! LMAO I’m sorry but I find this absurd as I can only imagine others do as well or am I being unreasonable there Mr. Gates?
Jon P says:
September 6, 2010 at 10:52 am
rbateman says:
September 6, 2010 at 9:50 am
Agreed. Just look at that R. Gates post you referred. In it he claims the “recovery” in 2008 was in part from the La Nina, but he makes no such claim about this years decline with the strong and prolonged El Nino. It is never what Gates says, but what he does not says that interests me. Always leaving out logical thoughts that may counter the fault lying with AGW alone. 75% yeah right he has himself 98% convinced of AGW
_______
Jon, I wouldn’t need to use the past winter’s El Nino as a reason for the continuation of a longer-term trend. Why interject unecessary causes? The Arctic Sea ice has actually been declining for many decades, so why would I want to use one year’s El Nino as a reason for a continuation of that decline? I only used the the solar minimum and the La Nina of 2008-2009 as plausible factors in why a dramatic downward spike (i.e. 2007) did not continue spiking downward as severely in 2008-2009.
El Ninos don’t explain the mult-decade long downward trend in Arctic sea ice, so introducing it as a factor in this year’s ice loss seems extraneous.
One final note, I personally feel that the long and deep solar minimum of 2008-2009, with its very low total solar irradicance was far more of a factor in the so-called “recovery” of 2008-2009, and that the La Nina played a much more minor role. When I saw that the solar minimum had been reached last fall and that irradiance was once more increasing toward the solar max in 2013, I speculated right then that we’d see lower sea ice this season than last.
R. Gates says:
September 6, 2010 at 8:48 am
…within the lifetime of most people posting here, we will indeed see an ice free summer Arctic.
You wont have to wait that long – look at the Cryosphere Today 9/4 pic – its ICE FREE NOW! OK – the small blue spot is a little off the actual pole, but your very smart friends at NSIDC wont have any trouble adjusting it to the exact pole. Halleluja! Break out the champagne! (but dont let any CO2 escape!)
R. Gates says:
September 6, 2010 at 11:12 am
OK all, you heard it here. The El Nino had zero affect on the Artic Sea Ice this year and there is no lag with solar minimums.
AGW alarmists blinded by belief and faith, Skeptics blinded by doubtand cynicism, the Scientists cannot predict, the truth is the ice and planet don’t care, the ice will come and go as it pleases, and confound all who dare to say they understand.
It has always been that way for us humans, it is in our nature to believe our actions and beliefs will change the climate, but this is folly.
R. Gates says:
September 6, 2010 at 10:48 am
If you can’t see it in this graph, you simply don’t want to, and perhaps your supposed “skepticsm” is really your political or other bias?
===================================
Gates, I know you confuse easily, so let me try it again.
I specifically asked about the graphs Anthony posted, starting in 2002 to the present.
I said I know it’s only 8-9 years (that should have been a clue for you that I was only talking about the charts Anthony posted)
I also said “serious question” which should have also been a clue to you that you did not need to post a personal attack or accuse anyone of being bias or any of your other tricks.
Where it clearly shows the ice highs and ice lows all over the place, but in spite of that, all coming back together in the middle (the months around May/June and Nov/Dec).
It seems clear to me – from the graphs Anthony posted – that the highs and lows are controlled by weather, and that where you would look for a trend is in the middle, which has not changed one bit.
“If you can’t have a civil discussion, you simply don’t want to, and perhaps your supposed [self snip] is really your political or other bias?”
The still positive AMO – and concomitant continuing above average supply of North Atlantic Drift warm water to the poles – may be responsible for continuing weak polar ice in the face of temperature downturn driven by PDO. AMO lags PDO by a decade or so. It has to be ocean currents since the air temps at the Arctic were unusually cold over the summer.
It looks like Joe Bastardi called it right – in the context of a trend of recovery, this year’s weather and ocean currents gave an uptick in ice loss. But look out for 2011 and 2012 – JB predicts substantial North polar ice gain. Any early predictions here?
Aside from all the point-scoring, its a stale-mate: 2 years increase (2008-9) does not overturn a 30 year (half PDO) trend of ice loss, one year of ice loss (2010) does not mean that turn-around and recovery could not be underway.
It will take till 2020 for it to be clear if (a) a long term trend of ice loss is continuing, due maybe to CO2 increase or (b) if the ice is recovering in line with PDO and other solar / oceanic oscillations.
rbateman says:
September 6, 2010 at 9:50 am
… 75% yeah right he has himself 98% convinced of AGW.
No way. 100% with an evangelical cherry on top. Gatesy, there’s even more hysteresis staring back at you from that graph you linked to than in the limited JAXA data. No need to dig further. To even come close to understanding what’s going on there you’d need probably three centuries of data minimum. And you want us to draw a straight line through the last half, what sort of nonsense is that? LOL! So what happened in 96 then to radically change the cycle game plan for a while – big puff of CO2 was it? Oh look, there’s another shift in 2007. I’m damned glad you don’t do SPC in a machine shop somewhere for a living – imagine the scrap bill!
Jon P says:
September 6, 2010 at 11:07 am
“I fear the truth is their skepticism is more a personal or political stance, rather than one based in science or reason.”
Ah to be judged by R. Gates the all-knowing judge, who knows what is in the hearts and minds of other posters! LMAO I’m sorry but I find this absurd as I can only imagine others do as well or am I being unreasonable there Mr. Gates?
_____
Jon, you’re right, this strays from my generally a-political stance, and is simply based on a general observation I’ve made that seems to find clusters of attitudes in people. For example, one is more likely to be a conservative and be an AGW skeptic, etc. This clustering, which is seen for many issues, does not indicate cause and effect, but simply says what attitudes are likely to be clustered together. But certainly, like in all things, each person is an individual, and no one knows what is in the heart and mind of any single individual, nor would I ever attempt to. My point was, (and the reason that I remain partially skeptical) about AGW is that it is psychologically freeing to not attach completely to some dogma and hence, keep the possibility open that you might be wrong and could actually move closer to the truth. This probably explains why I am neither Republican nor Democrat, remain proudly Independent, never vote along strict party lines, and would in general like to see the end of the “2 party” system which simply has become a matter of who the special interests fill the check out to….and now, let’s get back to the sea ice, shall we?
NeilT
“There has been so much more melt, so much more open sea to absorb the sunlight and so much less ice in areas that should be solid pack ice in 2010 that it is just another step on the way.
I can’t see melt stopping short of the last week in september”
Neil, have you visited the sea ice page under references at the top of this site? This is what it looks like today at about 85N (north pole cam has drifted southeastward)
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/northpole/webphotos/noaa2.jpg
phlogiston says:
September 6, 2010 at 11:30 am
The still positive AMO – and concomitant continuing above average supply of North Atlantic Drift warm water to the poles – may be responsible for continuing weak polar ice in the face of temperature downturn driven by PDO. AMO lags PDO by a decade or so. It has to be ocean currents since the air temps at the Arctic were unusually cold over the summer.
It looks like Joe Bastardi called it right – in the context of a trend of recovery, this year’s weather and ocean currents gave an uptick in ice loss. But look out for 2011 and 2012 – JB predicts substantial North polar ice gain. Any early predictions here?
Aside from all the point-scoring, its a stale-mate: 2 years increase (2008-9) does not overturn a 30 year (half PDO) trend of ice loss, one year of ice loss (2010) does not mean that turn-around and recovery could not be underway.
It will take till 2020 for it to be clear if (a) a long term trend of ice loss is continuing, due maybe to CO2 increase or (b) if the ice is recovering in line with PDO and other solar / oceanic oscillations
______
Sorry, but I see no sign of a “stale-mate” in these graphs:
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Area.png
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.arctic.png
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/sea.ice.anomaly.timeseries.jpg
What I see is a long-term downward trend in Arctic Sea ice, with this year’s ice behavior completely consistent with that long-term trend.
In regards to Joe Bastardi’s predictions for next years ice, I’ve really not look specifically at next year, but if he is calling for a reversal to the long-term downward trend and some kind of “recovery” to the Arctic sea ice, my first reaction is– that seems unlikely. With the solar max ahead of us in 2013, solar irradiance increasing up to that max, and a good chance for another El Nino event before then as well, I would say that all of these factors lean against Joe being correct, but most of all, there is nothing to indicate that there has been any sort of reversal to the longer term decline.
R. Gates says:
September 6, 2010 at 11:53 am
There are other things which will melt down before any ice melts. See:
http://finance.yahoo.com/family-home/article/110581/5-doomsday-scenarios-for-the-us-economy
So, better check your wallet.
Anu says:
September 6, 2010 at 9:16 am
“Remember way back in February 2010….
69.75% of WUWT readers thought that the 2010 Summer Arctic Sea Ice Extent would be greater than in 2009. Anthony Watts and Steven Goddard predicted that “we’d see another 500,000 km2 of Arctic sea ice recovery in 2010″ (since IARC-JAXA minimum was 5,249,844 km2 in 2009, that would have been about 5,750,000 km2 minimum this September)”
Not so bad for a Feb 2010 prediction. Look at the predictions made by those you admire, some as low as 2.5msk and they made these in August 2010!!!
latitude says:
September 6, 2010 at 11:28 am
Gates, I know you confuse easily, so let me try it again…
I specifically asked about the graphs Anthony posted, starting in 2002 to the present.
I said I know it’s only 8-9 years (that should have been a clue for you that I was only talking about the charts Anthony posted)
I also said “serious question” which should have also been a clue to you that you did not need to post a personal attack or accuse anyone of being bias or any of your other tricks…
_____
I use “tricks”? Wow, I guess I should have continued with my 7th grade neighborhood magic show.
But, to get back to the sea ice and your issue. Even in the very short time period of 2002-2010 we see the signal of the longer term decline, but why would we not want to look at the longest set of reliable data that we have? This chart is my road map when it comes to looking at the pulse of the Arctic sea ice:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/sea.ice.anomaly.timeseries.jpg
There is no BS here, no cherry picking, no “renormalization”, and no politics. It simply shows what the ice has done over the past 30+ years. What is shows is this: Arctic sea ice has been in a long-term state of decline for many years, and nothing that has happening the past several years has indicated any sort of reversal to this decline…period. We’ve not had a positive Arctic sea ice anomaly since 2004, despite one of the longest and deepest solar minimums in a century. What else do I need to know? The only better chart to have then this would be one that showed my the actual Arctic sea ice volume over this time period, but we don’t have that data. In the next few years we can start gathering that data and create a new anomaly time series for that as well.
What the longer term trend tells us, as of today, is that the Arctic is headed toward being seasonably ice free during the lifetimes of most people reading this post. It’s that simply. Notice, there is no warning of catastrophe or doom in my statement– just a simple extrapolation of current trends.
Dusty says:
September 6, 2010 at 8:32 am
Try the earthshine project.
Automated Observations of the Earthshine
http://www.hindawi.com/journals/aa/2010/963650.html
“…..The earthshine observations reveal a large decadal variability in the Earth’s reflectance [7], which is yet not fully understood, but which is in line with other satellite and ground-based global radiation data (see [8, 9] and references therein). In order to continue to contribute to a better understanding of the Earth’s radiation budget continuous observations from a global network of robotic telescopes are necessary.”
Inter-annual variations in Earth’s reflectance 1999-2007.
http://bbso.njit.edu/Research/EarthShine/literature/Palle_etal_2008_JGR.pdf
The solar cycle is about a 9 to 11 year decadal cycle too.
R. Gates:
What I see is a long-term downward trend in Arctic Sea ice, with this year’s ice behavior completely consistent with that long-term trend
Satellite measurements began in 1979, that’s almost exactly the year when both north Atlantic and north Pacific SST turned from a downwards trend to an upwards trend. It would be very strange if there hadn’t been any decreasing trend in Arctic sea ice since 1979. It’s quite convenient for the alarmists that we don’t have accurate sea ice measurements for the preceding 60 years, isn’t it?
The only clear thing, that I can see, that went on up there this year was the big snowstorm that buried our Little Pond by the Camera. That was after the Little Pond by the Camera froze over.
Now both Cameras (NOAA Drifting Arctic and Amundsen-Scott Antarctic) show the same bleak scene of pure misery to anyone who dares tread there.
Now, what do you suppose is going to happen to that Anomalously warm water, trapped like a rat, between the Upwelling La Nina to the South and the soon-to-plunge Arctic cold?
a holmes says:
September 6, 2010 at 10:08 am
“Well , all I can say about the melt season is that the small summer melt pool seen in the foreground of the North pole web cam froze solid and dissappeared under fresh snow weeks ago”
This cam has actually drifted to about 85N to the southeastward, so the north pole is well and truly freezing
R. Gates says:
“There is no BS here, no cherry picking…”
…except for cherry-picking only the Arctic, and disregarding the entire Southern Hemisphere because it doesn’t support the wild-eyed scare stories.
“The Arctic seems to be warming up.” [source]
R. Gates says:
September 6, 2010 at 11:53 am
With the solar max ahead of us in 2013
Then that SC24 had better start shaking a leg, because it’s gone statistically nowhere with regard to sunspot area the last year.
http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/TempGr/uSC24vs13_14.GIF
I wouldn’t count on that chicken hatching from an egg lost since Easter.
But if you ask Joe Bastardi, who isn’t here to defend himself, you might get a “calm down and stop jumping to conclusions” response.
Joe will be doing some more Sea-Ice news tomorrow. Do check it out. Joe Cool Meteorologist.
Gary Pearse says:
September 6, 2010 at 12:24 pm
Not fit for man nor beast, that North Pole.
Where’s the Hot Dog Stand, a la the famous Asimov story?
rbateman said:
“Now, what do you suppose is going to happen to that Anomalously warm water, trapped like a rat, between the Upwelling La Nina to the South and the soon-to-plunge Arctic cold?”
______
Funny thing is, that during this current La Nina (and even during a cold cycle of the PDO) we see a large pool of anomalously warm water in the N. Pacific. I am personally very skeptical that the building La Nina will have as big effect on the Arctic sea ice this winter as some would like to think. (ala Joe Bastardi) Also, the growing total solar irradiance will tend to balance out the effects of the La Nina on a global scale. The big story this summer isn’t the growing La Nina, but is the signs of a global acceleration in the hydrological cycle, which is consistent with GCM’s prediction of the effects from continually increasing amounts of CO2.
AJB says:
September 6, 2010 at 11:36 am
….To even come close to understanding what’s going on there you’d need probably three centuries of data minimum…..
______________________________________
Oh you mean data like THIS
I agree, three centuries of data minimum, 30 years just doesn’t cut it when you are looking at variability in the climate as this graph so nicely shows.
R. Gates says:
September 6, 2010 at 12:12 pm
I use “tricks”? Wow, I guess I should have continued with my 7th grade neighborhood magic show.
===============================================
Yes you did and you’re showing what a hypocrite you are.
I tried you ask you a serious question.
No personal attacks from me at all.
You answered me by accusing me of having some political bias, and accused me of having supposed skepticism.
====================================================
R. Gates says:
September 6, 2010 at 10:48 am
If you can’t see it in this graph, you simply don’t want to, and perhaps your supposed “skepticsm” is really your political or other bias?
==========================================================
R. Gates says:
September 6, 2010 at 10:48 am
I would also sincerely suggest that some of those who are 100% skeptical about AGW, soften their position a bit, maybe to being a 75% skeptic, and 25% open to the notion that human activity could be causing the longer term changes we’re seeing in the Arctic. I know most skeptical posters here on WUWT won’t even consider this, as I fear the truth is their skepticism is more a personal or political stance, rather than one based in science or reason.
=======================================================
And you still have danced all around the question I tired to ask you.
One more time,
I’m not talking at all about any charts or graphs you want to post.
I’m only talking about the graphs that Anthony posted on this blog.
====================================================
latitude says:
September 6, 2010 at 11:28 am
Where it clearly shows the ice highs and ice lows all over the place, but in spite of that, all coming back together in the middle (the months around May/June and Nov/Dec).
It seems clear to me – from the graphs Anthony posted – that the highs and lows are controlled by weather, and that where you would look for a trend is in the middle, which has not changed one bit.