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.
rbateman says:
September 6, 2010 at 12:33 pm
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
_____
The solar minimum occurred in 2009 and Total solar irradicance and sunspot numbers have gone up since that time period. We may not have a gang-buster solar max event in 2013, but the slight increase in TSI in that time period, in addition to some little extra kick we may get from an El Nino, will only add to the forcing we have from the 40% increase in CO2 that we have seen since the 1700’s.
Just kind of fun…a pic from the Ice Breaker Healy, right now heading across warmer than average water in the Beaufort Sea toward Pt. Barrow. Air temp is about 40 degrees under high pressure, and lots of sunshine,:
http://mgds.ldeo.columbia.edu/healy/reports/aloftcon/2010/20100906-1801.jpeg
R Gates, various
At least you have to appreciate that when you have a good, thoughtful comment here, you hit the highlights chart in the sidebar despite your leanings. That must tell you that you are wrong about the notion of a monolithic, entrenched, right-wing idea about skeptics. And remember, skepticism isn’t a bad word, except in climate science. Galileo and other good company numbered among skeptics of their day (of course they spelled it backwards in the old days of consensus science – heretics). Also, a comment by Anu should help identify the position of skeptics better (the significance didn’t dawn on Anu):
“Anu says:
September 6, 2010 at 9:16 am
Remember way back in February 2010, when AGW skeptics were still optimistic that the two year “recovery” from the record 2007 Arctic sea ice summer melt would continue ?
Prediction: Arctic Ice Will Continue to Recover This Summer
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/09/prediction-arctic-ice-will-continue-to-recover-this-summer/
69.75% of WUWT readers thought that the 2010 Summer Arctic Sea Ice Extent would be greater than in 2009. ”
Gee over 30% disagreed even though at the time it seemed like a safe bet to me.
Clearly robust recovery of the Arctic ice this year.
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.
_____
The “middle” is not the best place to see the anomaly. Everything will pass through the middle in the normal yearly fluctuations, but over time, GCM’s say that we’ll see a seasonally ice free Arctic, meaning of course, that we want to look for lower summer extent and area over time.
NeilT: Re – September 6, 2010 at 7:03 am
The praise of an idiot doesn’t mean that much, but ‘WOW’ – a breath of the fresh air of reality here in this strange little isolated, parallel community of Confusionism, where the ‘The Recovery’ of Arctic sea ice continues relentlessly, and Man has no influence on the planet!! (The enormity of what’s going on up there just hasn’t registered.)
There’s an interesting section on the effects of less summer ice and unusual goings on here:
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/climate-assessment-2009-lo-rez.pdf
Page 107. 5. Arctic. For example:
“The heat accumulated in the surface and near-surface layers of the ocean during the summer is then released back to the atmosphere in the following autumn, impacting
temperatures in the lower troposphere. The coupling between the atmosphere, ocean, and sea ice has also impacted the overall characteristics of the Arctic sea ice cover, which is now dominated by relatively thin seasonal ice. The effects of the retreating sea ice also influence the temperature and vegetation of adjacent lands. Temporal analyses generally show that, within a specific region, periods of lower sea
ice concentration are correlated with warmer land surface temperatures and an increase in the amount of live green vegetation in the summer.”
rbateman says:
September 6, 2010 at 9:59 am
Anu says:
September 6, 2010 at 9:16 am
Whatever melted the ice this year, it was clearly not air-temperature induced from a warming world.
I have posted my proof of that.
Warming worlds that are 71% ocean also have warming oceans. Did your “proof” deal with that ?
R. Gates says:
September 6, 2010 at 1:25 pm
The “middle” is not the best place to see the anomaly. Everything will pass through the middle in the normal yearly fluctuations, but over time, GCM’s say that we’ll see a seasonally ice free Arctic, meaning of course, that we want to look for lower summer extent and area over time.
===============================================
Thank you, I was beginning to think I had made a mistake by trying to engage your brain and get your opinion….
It make sense that weather would have the most effect – anomaly – on the extremes.
That’s just common sense.
If you are not looking for weather, it makes sense to me that you would only be able to see the trend in the middle.
No matter how extreme the weather has effected the high and low anomaly at the extremes, every year, at exactly the same time, the levels are almost exactly the same, at exactly the same months. May to June, and Dec to Jan.
If the ice was not staying the same, that exactly same time period (May and Dec) is exactly where you would see the trend. But there is no trend there at all.
No matter how high it’s been, no matter how low it’s been, it always came back to that exact same level twice a year.
Village Idiot,
From the NY Times, 1969:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/nyt_arctic_77442757.pdf
From the late, great John Daly:
http://www.john-daly.com/polar/arctic.htm
And:
http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2006/fireandice/fireandice.asp
This has all happened before repeatedly. Nothing out of the ordinary is occurring, as any idiot can see in the links above.
If CO2 was the cause of melting ice, Antarctica would also be melting. It’s not.
Why does natural, regional climate variability frighten you so much?
I started to reply to the comments on here. I met sarcasm with sarcasm, blind dogma with knowledge and evidence.
After 6 pages and 1,975 words becoming increasingly more sarcastic with each comment, I stopped and thought; “What the hell am I doing”.
So in short.
Those of you who are insulted at being called unfeeling, uncaring people who don’t care about the misery and deaths of millions by their attitude:
Suck it up or change your viewpoint. The predictions are clear, the costs have been weighed, we are on the high curve, not the low curve.
For those who want to ridicule me with some smart inane comments. The evidence is clear the only way it is not clear is through dogma, blind faith or hard of thinking. I’m sure you all know best which slot you fit into.
As an aside all seven of my computers are running on grids which are local to Nuclear power stations. What are yours connected to????
I don’t watch NatGeo and I don’t go around frequenting liberal leftie occasions. I’m a right wing capitalist/realist who is ex army and thinks if you have Nuclear weapons SOGOTP rather than waving them around like surrogate penis’
I shall now go away and see if I have any chance of getting some green energy ideas into the real world. I don’t have much hope as the industrialists who are Ecstatic at the readership of this site don’t want them. They’re too cheap and they don’t have enough profit for the Multinationals because Governments won’t let them make that much money out of them.
Sweet delusions…..
Reply: NeilT I would like to apologize for the treatment you received. I have sent an email to all moderators using your treatment on this thread as an example on how we should be doing better. ~ ctm
R. Gates says:
September 6, 2010 at 1:25 pm
“Everything will pass through the middle in the normal yearly fluctuations,”
=========================================================
No it won’t. Not at the exact same time every year, twice a year. Won’t do it.
If the trend was down, then it would cross the “middle” a little sooner each May, and later each Dec, each time. Not at the exact same time, every year, for the past 8-9 years.
The middle is where you would look for a trend not effected by weather.
R. Gates says:
September 6, 2010 at 12:42 pm
The solar minimum occurred in 2009 and Total solar irradicance and sunspot numbers have gone up since that time period. We may not have a gang-buster solar max event in 2013, but the slight increase in TSI in that time period, in addition to some little extra kick we may get from an El Nino, will only add to the forcing we have from the 40% increase in CO2 that we have seen since the 1700′s.
========================================
Every sentence in this paragraph has half-truths and is full of assumptions.
Come to think of it, that is characteristic of most of your posts, R.
Would love to see you in a live debate with some the real scientists and experts on here [of which you are definitely not one].
There you would not have the luxury of a time delay of sitting behind a computer screen to craft your next round of sophistry.
Nothing like a live debate to weed out the talkers who are way out of their league.
Every time you open your mouth, R, you spin sentences so full of fallacies and circular reasoning, it has become almost entertaining.
But, along with that, it is tragic, because it is quite obvious you are either incapable of adjusting your views when confronted with the truth, or you refuse to.
Either way…its like you live in a protective bubble where all you can hear, is hearing yourself talk.
And repeat the same mantras over and over. Doesn’t matter how uninformed they are.
I chuckle as I see you trying to take on Bateman on solar subjects. Don’t try that one, bud. You will get shredded.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Seems to me, if memory serves, it was a “simple extrapolation of current trends” back in the 70’s that gave us- “Scientific face, meet custard pie”… as the frightening ice age scenario failed to develop. Also if memory serves, many of the same folks who tried to persuade us with “current trends” then are now asking for seconds on dessert.
“”” NeilT says:
September 6, 2010 at 1:48 am
Mike, you are completely missing the point.
As usual.
Yes the sea ice will return every winter even after there is none in summer. However the impact of a summer absorbing sunlight instead of reflecting it, on the warming of this planet, will return many millions of us to dust much, much sooner than would normally be the case.
Or do you just not care about the other 6Billion 999 million 999thousand and 999 people in the world? “””
What’s your evidence (not a computer model) that a summer ice free arctic will be the doom of millions of people; or even billions as you intimate.
Most people would believe that cold will kill more people than warmth; by choking of world food supplies. There’s plenty of good land available for agriculture if the growing season just got a bit longer; much more than might be lost with a wetter warmer climate.
Gary Pearse says:
September 6, 2010 at 12:11 pm
Not so bad for a Feb 2010 prediction.
Yes, a prediction of 5,750,000 sq km is not too bad (for example, it is much better than predicting a return to the 1979 to 2000 September average of about 7 million sq km – that era is fast receding), but it is still on the wrong side of the recovery line: the 2009 value.
If 2010 summer minimum had been greater than that of 2009, that would have been hailed as the third year (2008,2009,2010) of “recovery” since the unusually low summer of 2007, and would have been touted as a death blow to the Arctic Sea Ice Death Spiral.
Now, the Death Spiral is still on – 2010 sea ice is at 5,136,094 km2 and still falling.
The September sea ice minimum is declining faster than a linear trendline:
http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/pred2010.jpg
Look at the predictions made by those you admire, some as low as 2.5msk and they made these in August 2010!!!
You realize that two of those “admired scientists” making SEARCH predictions are just WUWT commenters with no cryology credentials, right ?
Charles Wilson is the one making the 2.5 million sq km prediction in August.
Here’s an example comment at WUWT:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/23/sea-ice-news-10/#comment-415942
And stevengoddard (remember him ?) bailed on his longstanding 5.5 million sq km prediction when it became obvious in late August that the Arctic sea ice was, in fact, going to drop below 2009, something he denied at WUWT until he submitted his prediction to SEARCH for 5.1 million sq km:
http://www.arcus.org/search/seaiceoutlook/2010/august
Here’s all the SEARCH predictions:
http://www.arcus.org/files/search/sea-ice-outlook/2010/09/images/summary/siofig1.jpg
Almost everybody predicted that 2010 would be below 2009, ending the “recovery”.
R Gates..Its in the upper thirties(hit 40 once) at around 71 north but over on the other side it is in the upper 20’s & snow..even on the Healy side on even lower latitudes its in the upper 20’s & snow over in the Canadian Arctic Islands..I think you knew that when you posted your facts….
Gary Pearse says:
September 6, 2010 at 1:08 pm
Also, a comment by Anu should help identify the position of skeptics better (the significance didn’t dawn on Anu):
“Anu says:
September 6, 2010 at 9:16 am
Remember way back in February 2010, when AGW skeptics were still optimistic that the two year “recovery” from the record 2007 Arctic sea ice summer melt would continue ?
Prediction: Arctic Ice Will Continue to Recover This Summer
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/09/prediction-arctic-ice-will-continue-to-recover-this-summer/
69.75% of WUWT readers thought that the 2010 Summer Arctic Sea Ice Extent would be greater than in 2009. ”
Gee over 30% disagreed even though at the time it seemed like a safe bet to me.
First, you didn’t read the poll results – there was also 6.81% that voted “it will be near normal” (which is the 1979 to 2000 average) – this is much greater than 2009.
(there was also a “the North Pole will be ‘ice free’ in 2010” – which is much less than “less than 2007”).
So, 76.56% of WUWT readers voted for the “recovery”, some a huge recovery.
Second, it’s a good bet that those who voted “it will be less than 2007” [7.21%] or “the North Pole will be ‘ice Free’ in 2010” [3.64%] are not what are euphemistically called “skeptics”.
Perhaps 23.44% of WUWT readers are not skeptics. Not everybody who silently reads the interesting articles and (some) interesting Comments enjoys
arguing with skepticscommenting here. And clearly, not all Commenters are skeptics here.Third, how many pro-science readers thought it would come in between 2007 and 2008, and so had nowhere to vote ? Maybe the non-skeptic reader percentage is bigger than suspected…
NeilT says:
September 6, 2010 at 1:43 pm
=================================
Neil, no slams from me.
Before I believe in any of the doom and gloom predicitons,
someone will have to convince me that a longer growing season,
milder winters, longer season for animals to raise their families, etc
….is a bad thing
Anu says:
September 6, 2010 at 2:06 pm
My points were a Feb 2010 prediction of 57skm is not so bad given how far off some were in August 2010 also, I thought you might have noted a subtler point that 69.7% thinking greater than 2009 meant that 30.25% thought less than 2009- hey in this business these predictions were better than those who are paid to make such predictions. Re your descending ice extent at steeper than linear trends, tomorrow or the next day the line will bend up again – this is September. A lot of the trouble with the thinking on both sides of the debate (but more on the AGW side) is this simplistic notion of linear trends in a cyclic world. Watch the curve level off and curve up again as it even did in 2007 around this time. Also, recovery is not a week-long thing it, like the stockmarket, temperature graphs, and virtually any natural trend is a zig zag. Dont get too encouraged by a few 100k skm one way or the other. There were submarines cavorting at the North Pole in the 1950s and it was reported to the Royal Society in 1817 that navigation through the arctic was now possible because of warming ocean waters. Biologists were worrying about th plight of seals in the melting arctic in th 1930s…..
Espen says:
September 6, 2010 at 12:20 pm
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?
Actually, satellite measurements began in 1972:
http://iup.physik.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsr/ice_ext_n.png
Nothing in the 1972 to 1979 data showed an “increasing trend in Arctic sea ice” for that “crucial” pre-1979 period. Perhaps you can find some scientific papers that show differently.
Too bad the Russians didn’t launch Sputnik in 1947 – maybe we’d have satellite data from 1962 now.
Anu says:
September 6, 2010 at 1:29 pm
There is no need to the drag the world’s oceans into the Arctic when the Air Temp above 80N is proof aplenty.
It fell, and it fell during the ‘melt season’.
So much for an overheated atmosphere due to Global Warming.
Besides, the La Nina forming in the Pacific is mighty strong and quite cool, having shoved and crammed the remaining warm water up North, where winter will gladly pounce all over it.
But then, we are talking ocean anomalies, not absolute empirical data.
Empirical Rules.
80N DMI is empirical data.
rbateman says: September 6, 2010 at 9:50 am
What global warming in the Arctic this year? Did I miss something?
http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/TempGr/meanT_2010vs58-09.jpg
See that white space under the very middle of the ‘melt season’ range?
That is where the temp in the Arctic fell back to freezing and left the 49 year range.
For most of the ‘summer melt’, the temp above 80 North was at the lower end of that 49 year range of temp.
Whatever melted the ice this year, it was clearly not air-temperature induced from a warming world.
Robert, have you (or anyone else) plotted degree-days (above freezing) vs year, for the length of that 80N record?
If not, where did you get the data. I’d like to plot the DD myself.
I clicked thru the DMI graphs year by year and there didn’t seem to be any obvious downward trend.
Anu,
Why are you presenting August SEARCH predictions as a comparison with WUWT predictions from February? What about some other February predictions? What were these groups predicting then?
Also, while diverting, I think the comments on this thread have been a bit too acerbic at times. I, for one, appreciate some differences of opinion, such as those provided by R. Gates. (On the other hand, from a limited observational viewpoint I would call the increase in minimum extent in 2008 and 2009 a “recovery”, i.e. the value went up. [I find it strange when this simple fact is seemingly glossed over.] I’m also impressed by the satellite photos from Cryosphere Today from the same dates in 2007 and 2010; again by the most straightforward (visual) criterion, it looks like a recovery to me.)
[no attacks on other commenters ~ ctm]
Anu says:
September 6, 2010 at 2:06 pm
Now, the Death Spiral is still on – 2010 sea ice is at 5,136,094 km2 and still falling.
So what if the 2010 Arctic sea ice is at 5,136,094 km2 ? The Arctic is not going to be ice-free this year.
The Death Spiral was a transitory trend backed by fire & brimstone proclamations that didn’t happen, and it was never Global.
This isn’t a Hollywood Sci-Fi flick where the script is a foregone conclusion.