UPDATE: 8AM PST 9/13/10 JAXA has updated with their final Sept 12th data, up for the second straight day there’s been a gain:
The latest value : The latest value : 5,005,000 km2 (September 12, 2010 final data)
While the vagaries of wind and weather can still produce an about-face, indications are that the 2010 Arctic sea ice melt season may have turned the corner, earlier than last year.
In the JAXA data, there was a gain of 33,593 km2 in a single day on 9/11/10 and another gain of 18, 594 km2 on 09/12/10 (final data):
09,08,2010,4989375 09,09,2010,4972656 09,10,2010,4952813 09,11,2010,4986406 09,12,2010,5005000
Last year, when I correctly called the turn, it was September 14th:
Arctic sea ice melt appears to have turned the corner for 2009
I wrote:
That is a gain of almost 26,719 km2 from the Sept 13th value of 5, 249, 844 km2 which may very well turn out to be the minimum extent for 2009.
And it is not just the JAXA plot that indicates a turn the corner bump for 2010. The DMI 30% extent graph is showing a very sharp uptick.
Here is the relevant area zoomed and annotated:
ADDENDUM: Last year’s DMI graph about this time had similarly abrupt uptick:
Temperatures at 80°N and above are now dropping quickly, after some delay:
The annotations are mine, the current temperature is approximately -5.5° C. I say approximately, as DMI doesn’t make the data available here, only the graphical output, so I’ve had to draw a line and estimate based on the coarse scale they provide. Seawater freezes at a temperature of -1.9° C (source here) but varies with salinity. Call it -2° C, but clearly now air temperatures are cold enough above 80°N to expect some refreezing.
The NSIDC Arctic extent plot shows the beginning of a flattening, but since their smoothing algorithm adds a reporting delay, we won’t see the turn (if it holds) until about two days from now.
NSIDC Arctic Sea Ice Extent – 15% or greater – click to enlarge
If it is indeed the turn, then Arctic Sea Ice minimum for 2010 will end up at 4,952,813 km2
I may make a follow up post and have a look at all the forecast players mid to late week if the turn is confirmed. Of course my forecast has been proven incorrect already, but then, so have others.
Polar weather forecasts suggest colder weather ahead, and historically, the timing is right for a turn.
One such indicator is the Arctic Oscillation, shown below:
Source, NOAA Climate Prediction Center:
http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/ao.sprd2.gif
The forecast shows a deepening AO in the next few days, which traditionally means colder temperatures and a refreeze.
So, we’ll watch and wait, and I’ll update if the turn is confirmed.
km^2. Not too bad…I’m still placing a 70% confidence on already having hit the minimum. This time of year seems to have revised extents be higher than preliminary extents, so I wouldn’t be surprised if the final number is above 4990000 km^2.
I’ll be interested to see the area numbers after yesterday’s gain of nearly 50000 km^2, I’m guessing extent losses will be almost entirely due to compaction instead of melt, meaning it won’t matter much in terms of long-term condition of the ice.
-Scott
I don’t even look at the DMI above 80 north anymore because I can get the air temp pic 1 to 2 days faster with the resources I have been able to gather.
Even when I posted that I thought there would be a small increase in ice extent the other day I could see a rise in temps up there..(the pam Gray effect of the arctic exhaling)….There was a little compacting going on but there was a little melt of the flash freeze new stuff also I think. The temps up there as of this morn seem to be cooling again so I don’t feel that we will see too much more loss…Maybe that is more of a hope than a belief but thats my answer & i’m sticking with it!
Scott says: September 14, 2010 at 9:43 pm
This seems as good a chocolate pipe wrench as any:
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icedrift_anim/index.uk.php (switch to concentration and pan back and forth a day or two). See how that island at 180 degrees detached itself yesterday. Looks like that will now melt but refreeze is taking place elsewhere. That lobe at 17oE could still take a hammering though; I’m guessing it’s jutting out into slightly warmer currents. There’s also a slight uptick in DMI >80N temps.
Confirmed JAXA 15% extent for Sept 14th: 4998594
7-day: http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/6055/7day20100914.png
Dropped the 15-day, a bit pointless now.
JAXA lost yesterday ended up being pretty small in the scheme of things. CT showed another area gain (small…~3200 km^2) as well as a third straight day of extent gain.
Looking at the 30-day animation at CT (http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/) makes it clear that the “core” of the Arctic ice has been strengthening for some time now, but the edges seem to be in this delicate balance right now that might easily be disrupted with some “bad” weather someplace. I’ll increase my confidence of having reached the minimum to 72.5%…the threat of weather (acting like 2005) is still too much to raise it more.
-Scott
My bad Andy. My mind said “Northerly direction means the wind was going North”. I should have said Southerly direction, which means (weirdly) just the opposite, that the wind was heading North. I have a rather literal way of thinking on my feet. A decided weakness. I have to keep telling myself that wind direction is stated not which way it is blowing, but which way it is coming FROM. Probably another typical set of vernacular references thought up by men ;>).
Say Andy, I just thought of something. Does this mean that if I say to you, “Head in a Northerly direction, you should turn South?” And men think women don’t understand directions.
Pamela Gray said:-
September 15, 2010 at 9:00 am
I should have said Southerly direction, which means (weirdly) just the opposite, that the wind was heading North.
_________________________________________
No, a southerly direction would mean the wind is heading south and so therefore is a northerly. I’m surprised you don’t know that a wind is described where it is coming from, not where it is going to, considering you claim to look at all the charts every day and therefore boasted how, day by day, the ice will react ( which you have never bothered to show, perhaps we now know why ..)
So a northerly blows from the north, the wind goes south, and in the Arctic it is likely to increase extent due to freezing and spreading. A southerly blows from the south, the wind goes north and in the Arctic it is likely to decrease extent due to compaction and melt on situe.
Andy
Here we go…preliminary JAXA number would be a new 2010 minimum – 4941094 km^2. This is part of the reason I wasn’t super-confident we’d reached the minimum yet…one day of large loss could ruin it. I’m guessing the number will be revised upward…11719 km^2 or more will keep it from the minimum, and that’s a reasonable adjustment. It’ll be a real nail-biter.
Funny it’s coming so close to going below this year’s minimum on the very day the professionals announce that the minimum was already reached.
Honestly, I think the final Sept 15 number will edge out slightly above the existing Sept 10 minimum, but we may be so close to it that another day of loss will make it go under.
-Scott
So Andy, my original phrase was correct according to your tutelage. When I said “more northerly wind direction” in my original post, it was meant by me to describe winds blowing towards the North. Which they did. While there were times that surface winds through Fram Strait reversed and blew South turning it into a fast conveyor belt (the wind was in a Southerly DIRECTION at that time), it was, compared to other years, relatively slow overall wind wise and more often than not blowing towards the North.
Are you disputing that? Do you think the wind direction was primarily Southerly and as a result, Fram Strait was a speedy conveyor belt this summer?
So we can end this little chat over tea, from now on, if anyone reads a post of mine and I say, “the wind was blowing in a Northerly direction”, I mean exactly that, it was blowing towards the North. If you want me to use a different phrase, kiss my grits.
Scott says:
September 15, 2010 at 8:35 pm
Here we go…preliminary JAXA number would be a new 2010 minimum – 4941094 km^2. This is part of the reason I wasn’t super-confident we’d reached the minimum yet…one day of large loss could ruin it. I’m guessing the number will be revised upward…11719 km^2 or more will keep it from the minimum, and that’s a reasonable adjustment. It’ll be a real nail-biter.
Funny it’s coming so close to going below this year’s minimum on the very day the professionals announce that the minimum was already reached.
Honestly, I think the final Sept 15 number will edge out slightly above the existing Sept 10 minimum, but we may be so close to it that another day of loss will make it go under.
-Scott
_____________________________________________________________
I was going to write off 2010, certainly in terms of sea area minimum, and just as certain that the extent minima had passed us by.
But looking at the PIPS vector field for ice displacements;
http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/pips2/archive/mag/2010/mag_2010091300.gif
http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/pips2/archive/mag/2010/mag_2010091400.gif
http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/pips2/archive/mag/2010/mag_2010091500.gif
Suggests that that lobe still sticking out may be compacted into the main body to a certain degree.
So maybe there is a little extra room for some minor compaction within the next few days.
Touche to you Scott!..I would have folded under the presure but you did your homework & hung tough….I was kinda shocked when I saw the updated extent map before they posted the new figures & even now the temps over on the side that is melting/compacting are generally still mild.
Along with the mild temps I checked out a SST F-cast a couple of days ago that showed very little drop in temps for the week….SOOoooo hopefully when these abnormaly warm temps over AK & ice melt area clear out we can see a good spike in extent.
Updated Sept 15 number still hasn’t posted, but I really do think it will come in slightly above the Sept 10 apparent minimum. The thing is, even if it does the ice will be so close to the Sept 10 value (presumably…who knows maybe we’ll see the revised number be 40k higher or something) that any more extent loss could make the difference. Regardless if it goes under or not, I see it as luck in calling it right, and what I’d really like to see is it stay slightly above the Sept 10 value so that (a) people’s overconfidence in already reaching the minimum is shown to have been a bit hazardous and my higher skepticism more warranted, but (b) that I still end up being “right” having a confidence >50% in having reached the minimum (I always want to be “right” 🙂
Note that area went through the roof today with CT showing an area increase of 68943 km^2 (though the inherent noise in area might mean this isn’t that important). If area does scream up in the last half of Sept, maybe we can see the avg area in Sept hit halfway between 2007 and 2009 though. CT also showed an extent increase of 9662 km^2. That’s six days in a row of extent increase there.
-Scott
Phil. says:
September 14, 2010 at 5:19 am
You don’t appear to get it, I’m not allowed to dish it out because of the biased moderation whereas you are allowed to call me a fool without even a snip.[what bias? . . mod]
If I were to call someone a fool it would be snipped or I would be given a time out. If one of the sceptical group here calls me a fool it’s not even snipped. I complained about someone on here using an insulting remark with an asterisk to avoid filters (about someone else not me) and it was eventually removed. The poster was very indignant and called me a ‘tattletail’ and thought because he was a supporter of the surface project he should be able to abuse those who weren’t.
There is a similar editorial bias, just look at this post, there’s a prominent update announcing the further increase which followed a similar one the previous day, what happened to the updates when it went down the next day? We even have a new minimum today apparently!
Recently there were a couple of contentious threads initiated by Stevegoddard that were terminated by Anthony, in one case he said that the post was poorly researched and wrong (the source of the argument), but no Update appeared at the top of the page.
Anthony Watts says:
September 1, 2010 at 8:07 am
Thanks to all for a spirited debate. GISS is not without it’s problems, but at least this one has been put to bed. Mr. Goddard made a mistake, and should have investigated complaints earlier.
You have to read through to the 325th post to find confirmation that the original post was wrong!
[Reply: Compare that voluntary correction with alarmist blogs like RealClimate, which not only never admit their numerous errors, but censor out all uncomfortable comments. ~dbs, mod.]
Goodness Phil.
I stand corrected by myself. When a wind is easterly, it blows from the east towards the west (I have used such a term several times referring to the Easterlies to talk about the trade winds that blow from the East to the West around the equator). However, when the wind is eastward, it blows from the west towards the east.
The suffix is what determines the direction. “Ly” means from and “ward” means towards.
So in my original comment, I should have said, “the wind was blowing in a NORTHWARD direction.
So Andy, you should have said, “a southWARD direction would mean the wind is heading south and so therefore is a northerly”. According to what I have learned from you and from my own investigation, you cannot have used the word southerly in your sentence. I guess we were both wrong and must remember to suffer the little suffixes.
Phil
I do appreciate your comments here, but I know of no other big blog that admits it got it wrong, whether it was as a headline or as the termination of an article.
RC as do the Guardian routinely censor, abuse or fail to admit they could ever be wrong. So WUWT may not be perfect but its an awful lot better than many of its competitors in owning up to mistakes.
I have suggested before that you write an article- I think you said you have no time-I am sure we would all read it with interest , why not give it a go? You might find the process enlightening
tonyb
Looks like my most recent post got it wrong…today is a new minimum by a few thousand square kilometers. Revised JAXA number is 4948438 km^2, beating out the Sept 10 value by 4375 km^2. I’ve seen JAXA post a second revision before, but that’s a longshot.
-Scott
Pamela Gray says:
September 16, 2010 at 8:45 am
I stand corrected by myself. When a wind is easterly, it blows from the east towards the west (I have used such a term several times referring to the Easterlies to talk about the trade winds that blow from the East to the West around the equator). However, when the wind is eastward, it blows from the west towards the east.
The suffix is what determines the direction. “Ly” means from and “ward” means towards.
So in my original comment, I should have said, “the wind was blowing in a NORTHWARD direction.
So Andy, you should have said, “a southWARD direction would mean the wind is heading south and so therefore is a northerly”. According to what I have learned from you and from my own investigation, you cannot have used the word southerly in your sentence. I guess we were both wrong and must remember to suffer the little suffixes.
Yes it can be very confusing when the conventions aren’t followed, particularly one as ingrained as this one. Presumably it originated from sailors many years ago and might not seem particularly logical but we’re stuck with it!
It’s much more complicated when we’re talking about the Arctic, a South wind on one side of the pole becomes a North wind on the other side! So a southerly wind blows the seaice towards the pole but on the otherside it’s a northerly pushing ice out of the Fram!
tonyb says:
September 16, 2010 at 8:56 am
Phil
I do appreciate your comments here, but I know of no other big blog that admits it got it wrong, whether it was as a headline or as the termination of an article.
RC as do the Guardian routinely censor, abuse or fail to admit they could ever be wrong. So WUWT may not be perfect but its an awful lot better than many of its competitors in owning up to mistakes.
Well I’m not posting there so I’m not interested in what they do, were I to do so and was called a fool I’d complain there too. The Mod asked me “What bias…” so I told him.
I have suggested before that you write an article- I think you said you have no time-I am sure we would all read it with interest , why not give it a go? You might find the process enlightening
Term has just started so time will be at a premium (my course enrollment just went up by 50%)! My recollection is that Anthony’s conditions weren’t acceptable, unlike Stevengoddard I would be required to use my full name and affiliation. If that is no longer the case I’d consider it, but not right now.
Hi Phil
“Well I’m not posting there so I’m not interested in what they do, were I to do so and was called a fool I’d complain there too. The Mod asked me “What bias…” so I told him.”
Come on admit it-you like us here really. Glad to hear your course is going well. Presumably you’ll get a 50% wage increase. 🙂
As for that article, it would be interesting to hear your perspective. I can’t comment on the full name and affiliation aspect, other than you must have good reason not to be outed. Hope Anthony might reconsider.
I use my full name AND this acronym-nothing sinister just that my real name is extremely common.
tonyb
Confirmed JAXA 15% extent for Sept 15th: 4948438. New low.
15-day: http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/8535/15day20100915.png
7-day: http://img836.imageshack.us/img836/1626/7day20100915.png
Hopefully I’ve cut and paste them correctly this time 🙁
In reverse chronological order, here are my past weekly (p = 0.5 or 50% or even money chance of occurrence) Monday estimates (JAXA 2003-2010 inclusive) for Arctic sea ice extent (date, extent (km^2), standard deviation (km^2)), updated to include last Monday (9/13) and today (9/15);
9/15/2010,4.923E6,0.026E6 (today’s estimate)
9/13/2010,4.960E6,0.032E6
9/6/2010,4.869E6,0.054E6
8/30/2010,4.916E6,0.091E6
8/23/2010,4.898E6,0.152E6
8/16/2010,4.835E6.0.215E6
8/9/2010,4.812E6,0.267E6
8/2/2010,4.681E6,0.332E6
7/26/2010,4.587E6.0.360E6
7/19/2010,4.493E6,0.418E6
7/12/2010,4.271E6,0.476E6
7/5/2010,3.973E6,0.534E6
6/21/2010,3.886E6,0.646E6
6/28/2010,4.048E6,0.711E6
6/14/2010,4.057E6,0.716E6 (Time zero ~ midpoint of melt season or ~ three months before expected minimum)
Quite consistent over the past six weeks or so, so much so, that the average (8/9 to 9/13 or six weeks) is 4.882E6 km^2 (1.35% below the current minimum).
Date of minima is the same for all estimates 9/19/2010 (the same as it ever was).
From my amaturist prospect I’m seeing the Real climb starting mon/tue of next week..Are we having fun yet??
& amaturish Writing skills…thats my PROSPECTIVE….