NOTE: This post has several images, including two animations. Those on slower connections, please be patient while they load.
This week, I suppose the best word to describe the status of Arctic sea ice would be “uncertainty”. I alluded to this uncertainty (due to weather) in Sea Ice News 22 saying:
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.
By all indications it certainly looked like we reached a minimum, the extent data went up for three days straight and NSIDC officially called the minimum on 9/15:
The Arctic sea ice cover appears to have reached its minimum extent for the year. It was the third-lowest extent recorded since satellites began measuring minimum sea ice extent in 1979. This year’s minimum extent fell below the 2009 minimum extent and above the minimum extents in 2008 and 2007.
Then defying even the experts, it started back down again.
The only thing that has gone down and stayed down this past week is Arctic temperature above 80°N as seen in this DMI plot:
Source: http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
The good news is that Arctic Ice extent has not gone below the 2008 value yet, and seems to be making a slight turn up again:
Here’s a zoomed view:
Here’s the most recent JAXA data, including the preliminary Sept 19th data, which will be updated again at 8AM PST Sept 20th.
Source: http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm
09,01,2010,5332344
09,02,2010,5304219
09,03,2010,5245625
09,04,2010,5192188
09,05,2010,5136094
09,06,2010,5093281
09,07,2010,5027188
09,08,2010,4989375
09,09,2010,4972656
09,10,2010,4952813
09,11,2010,4986406
09,12,2010,5005000
09,13,2010,5008750
09,14,2010,4998594
09,15,2010,4948438
09,16,2010,4890938
09,17,2010,4842031
09,18,2010,4813594
09, 19,2010, 4822500
Source: http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/plot.csv
The US Navy Ice Thickness forecast plot shows that we still have a lot of 2 and 3 meter thick ice, but that it is mainly concentrated near Northern Canada and Greenland:
Source: http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/pips2/archive/
What I find most interesting though is the wind driven sea ice displacement plots. For example this one from the NAVY PIPS output:
The strongest vectors of the wind driven displacement are where the NAVY PIPS thickness plot show the greatest areas of thickness, Northern Canada near Ellesmere Island and Northern Greenland.
An overlay of the thickness and wind driven displacement vectors shows where the ice is being pushed to. The longest vectors show the greatest displacement in the direction of the arrow:
While the graphic overlay I made is not a perfect match, it is very close.
Since in the first temperature graphic from DMI, it is clear that average temperatures at 80°N and above are well below the freezing point of saltwater/seawater, which is approximately 271.15 kelvin (-2°C) See the line I’ve added below in magenta.
And that the majority of the remaining arctic ice is at 80°N or above in latitude, as seen in the PIPS map above and backed up by this map from UUIC/Cryosphere Today:
It suggests that like in 2007, wind is a more significant factor in sea ice depletion than from melting, especially this past week where the DMI temperature drop shows well below freezing point of sea ice temperature at 80°N and above.
WUWT regulars may recall I reported on this NASA JPL study that suggests winds may play a key role in pushing Arctic sea ice into lower latitudes where it melts. The author suggests winds may be the dominant factor in the 2007 record low ice extent:
Nghiem said the rapid decline in winter perennial ice the past two years was caused by unusual winds. “Unusual atmospheric conditions set up wind patterns that compressed the sea ice, loaded it into the Transpolar Drift Stream and then sped its flow out of the Arctic,” he said. When that sea ice reached lower latitudes, it rapidly melted in the warmer waters.
Interestingly we can now watch this actually happen thanks to an animation of AMSER-E satellite 89Ghz sounder images. Koji Shimada of JAMSTEC (Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology ). See the animation below (note- size is 7.1 MB, this may take awhile to fully load):
If you want more detail, a full sized Video animation is available here as a flash video or here as an AVI file (highest quality 7.3 MB) A hat tip to WUWT commenter Bill and to Thomas Homer-Dixon for this video.
What is interesting about this video is that you can watch sea ice being flushed out of the Arctic sea and pushed along Greenland’s east coast, where it then finds its way into warmer waters and melts. Also note how in the lower right, in the Beaufort sea, older multiyear ice gets fractured and broken up as winds and currents stress it.
While indeed we can watch some of the Arctic sea “melt in place” during this animation in the fall of 2007, we can also see that winds and currents are a significant contributor to breaking up the sea ice and transporting it to warmer latitudes.
I’m hoping JAXA will produce a similar video for the 2010 melt season.
UPDATE: Ron de Haan reports in comments this finding below. He says “sea ice has grown”. It sure looks like thickness has increased, doesn’t it?
He notes this from Pierre Gosselin’s No Tricks Zone. Pierre writes:
But now take a look at the following chart that compares September 1 ice to September 18 ice. Which would you prefer to be standing on?
These charts are taken from: http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/cgi-bin/seaice-monitor.cgi
Which ice looks thicker?
Don’t sweat the ice area statistics. The thickness is much greater today, and we could even say the volume is likely more. Arctic temperatures above 80°N have been colder this summer and September. The ice area will rebound quickly, of course. I projected a 5.75 million sq km min. for 2011 a couple weeks back. I’m sticking to it.
BONUS:
Finally, WUWT readers may recall that earlier in the week, I caught NOAA saying that 2010 was the “second lowest extent on record” when it wasn’t, and with the help of Dr. Walt Meier of NSIDC got them to correct that blunder.
The screencap of the NOAA Environmental Visualization Laboratory also had another apparent error on it. Note the ice depicted withing the red “Average Extent 1979-2009” line below.
A number of WUWT readers pointed out that the presentation was biased and it appears that the ice edge was based on a 90% or greater extent, and not the 15% everyone else in the sea ice business uses. I fired off another letter to Walt Meier on the issue, but I never heard anything concrete back from him on the issue. But, it appears the message got through one way or another.
Now have a look at that web page today:
Notice anything different? Here’s the blink comparator of the before and after sea ice extent visualization image. NOTE: You may have to click on it if not blinking in your browser.
Looks like somebody at NOAA had to fess up to the fact that what they were presenting earlier in the week was grossly biased in the way it presented Arctic sea ice extent, making it look like there was far less ice than there actually is.
Again I ask, why is it us bloggers and members of the public are the ones that have to keep pointing these things out? Maybe we should be the ones getting compensated for our time.
To the credit of the NOAA Vizualation Lab, they fixed the problems we pointed out to them, and reasonably quickly. My thanks to Dr. Walt Meier of NSIDC for his help. Compare the response this week to that of Dr. Mike Mann with his still inverted Tiljander proxies and stations with messed up latitude and longitude that are still in his supplemental data years later, after numerous people have pointed it out.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Are you standing in for R Gates?
If only I could! R. Gates is a saint, and I hope from now on you will all bring some more attention and respect to the table when he’s talking.
Are you fervently hoping an ‘ice-free’ Arctic will ‘prove’ AGW?
If that stops the AGW-is-a-hoax-disinformation, so we can finally all together start discussing what we can do to start transitioning to a healthier and more sustainable society, yes, I do. I also fervently hope no one here has a problem a priori with a more sustainable society.
No – bring it on!
OK, I’ll bring it on. 🙂
Remember the PIOMAS vs PIPS controversy that was raised by ex-guest author Steven Goddard some time back? As it turns out the Sea Ice Outlook June prediction made by Jinlun Zhang – from the Polar Science Center of the University of Washington – that was based on the PIOMAS model turned out to be pretty accurate.
Zhang/PIOMAS: 4.7 million square km, later revised to 4.8 million square km.
Goddard/PIPS: 5.5 million square km (Goddard actually agreed with Anthony Watts that minimum extent would recover to 5.75 million square km, but never mind), later revised to 5.1 million square km.
Well, the volume graph from the PIOMAS model has just been updated:
It’s 3500 km3 below the already rapidly decreasing trend line. Hopefully CryoSat-2 will prove the model wrong, or I don’t think we won’t be seeing any meaningful recovery in the Arctic for a while to come. Just like this year, but then worse.
Correction: Hopefully CryoSat-2 will prove the model wrong, or I don’t think we will be seeing any meaningful recovery in the Arctic for a while to come.
Joe Bastardi: Monday Morning Sea Ice Report Sep 20, 2010; 10:31 AM EDT.
jakers says:
“Way to be a stalker Smokey. Can’t handle the heat?”
jakers me boi, what color is the sky in your world? Does asking a straightforward, 3-word question turn someone into a ‘stalker’ on your planet?
Say Hi to Kal-Al for us.☺
Gunther: thanx for Piomas update = 4000 cubic km
2009 was 5800 …. BUT my figures indicate the “rebound” La Nina in 2007 added 1200 & this VERY powerful rebound aought to add near DOUBLE that.
… So despite forecasting a Low extent this year, I expect a BIG Gain … just not enough to put us out of the every-60-year- “Thin Ice Period”. ICESAT’s 6000 km3 reading put 2007’s drop at over 5000 km3 from the previous years’ November Ice. Therefore it is a Race, similar to after the COOLING began in 1947 but we got periodic drops = PIOMAS’s minimum XX Century Ice in 1954, until:
>> One of 2 events Ends the “thin Ice Period”:
(1) an El Nino like 2007’s melts over 5000 km3 & it is All Gone.
… (not a Modoki = late Clouds, not too strong, either = too many)
(2) an El Nino + Volcano (Hot Moist Air, Cooled by Sulfur = Snow)
– – Once the Ice is thick enoough, the Cooling pattern can take over, without the Ice melt = dark-ocean = Sun is absorbed, pattern (called Ice-albedo feedback)
Obviously I prefer #2, since I forecast 99% U.S. Deaths from #1 !
… IF several Dominos fell (I gave it 15%) including IF the Clouds stayed away – – which they did not – – in fact stayed for 82 days — over double 2007’s Low-melt period, apparently because the El Nino was 1.8/1.1 times as strong & lasted 33% longer, thus making 2.4/1.1 times the clouds – – & pushing the Cloudy Period Start almost into July – – the worst possible time — or maybe the best (I prefer being ALIVE to being RIGHT). Since a Normal Pattern just resumed Next time I have the Rule to Forecast the Cloud pattern
…. so IF I tell you to run: move to Brazil or die !
(maybe: Abrupt Climate Changes that “should” happen are still 50-50 according to the Abrupt Climate Change Task Force which, after all, was formed to dismiss the possibility and was not happy to find they were. Here: basically if the Arctic has NO ICE + SUN, it will become hotter than further South & the Currents reverse = Worse than that Disaster Movie).
Anthony Watts: Walt Meir was NOT silent – – you need to get on the Sea Ice Outlook Mailing List.
Walt Mieir was Very upset about the METOP satellite feed NOAA used for the PICTURE ABOVE. The whole thing is “experimental”, according to NOAA – – and that is the KINDEST word he had to say about it. To get an analogy: Pips has a display of the “raw” Concentration DATA that they wildly enhance the contrast on.
http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/pips2/archive/retrievepic.html?filetype=Concentration&year=2010&month=9&day=19
“We’ve been in touch with them about this during the past week. Where they show no ice there is some reduced concentrations, but it is still at least 50% in the PM fields” – – the METOP Map cutoff is 25%. To put it charitably, Walt says they have the wrong contrast setting.
You may have seen my Compendiums of 13-to-15 Indexes.
Apparently, one reason Climate Scientists print few DATA lists is they fear the inevitable disaggreements between Numbers will excite Belief they are all LIARS. Actually he seemed surprised & pleased my Conclusion was that they all had a definitive Order – – like runners in their Lanes — and they STAYED in the Lanes (everyone has their own set of rules for interpretting the Satellite Data which is from measuring radiation coming UP at it, presumably reflected but not always – – thus the rules) … You are wrong to say, for instance, that PIPS is a model and others are not – – they all are, though PIPS Thickness is a 2-step process & so the problems are “squared” – – concentration maps give a percent of Ice, say, 50% ice in September, and then Pips applies a FIXED thickness as per the rulebook of 1987 – – which is why there is no trend ! PIOMAS is in fact the “improved” Pips, with actual measured Thickness (from ships & shore weathermen) in effect “calibrating” the rule for a year with thicker or thinner Ice. But is basically = PIPS, far from Shore or ships & PIOMAS broke its record of nearly Perfectly matching ICESAT when in 2007 the Center melted. Please note PIOMAS recorded 1300 more than ICESAT. If their Model favored Global Warming, they’d have recorded LESS than ICESAT’s “real” Volume. A recent set of Plane Flights presumably mean this last number – – or more likely the next – – may be Accurate even for the Center. So the Next Number may be VERY different.
–>> Congratulations on the Pips Displacement PLUS thickness Map.
The Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation is reasonably closely correlated with the Arctic sea ice extent going back over 100 years. (There are several papers on this). There was a big switch in the Arctic sea ice about 1995 and this correlates with a large upswing in the AMO that year.
In the middle of August this year, the AMO reached what it is probably its record level (going back 150 years). It has since declined by 0.26C (quite a bit) over the past 4 weeks. The AMO sometimes spikes about 8 months after the peak of an El Nino and it seems to have done this year.
I believe this contributed to the decline in sea ice starting about late May when the AMO started its rapid increase.
Here is where I believe the AMO is going over the next 6 months – down again driven by tropical storms releasing the heat and through the seconary effects of the current La Nina.
http://img841.imageshack.us/img841/4632/weeklyamosept15.png
And sometimes related to it, the ENSO over the next six months – a La Nina which which rival the record lowest levels around December this year. Very cold winter and spring coming in northern North America and the Arctic going by the historic climate correlations.
http://img826.imageshack.us/img826/7448/weeklyensotempssept15.png
Maybe the NSIDC shouldn’t have corrected anything. All Sea Ice Extents are receding (as well as Sea Ice Areas) globally since Sept 15th.
Strange, though, as I can see a lot more sea ice in Google images of the Arctic than just 1 week ago.
Like the Sea Ice is increasing the real world, but the data input to the graphs is being choked down.
Now, what sort of extra-terrestrial event would do that to the satellites?
Preliminary JAXA 15% Extent for 20th = 4,855,156, a gain of 13,593 on yesterday. Now 41,562 in hand, looking good!
Bill Illis says:
September 20, 2010 at 6:28 pm
The Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation is reasonably closely correlated with the Arctic sea ice extent going back over 100 years.
===================================
Right on.
And it is simply astounding that the Chicken Littles the “Ice is Melting” crowd never want to talk about the broad-reaching effects of the AMO.
Listening to the balmy breezes strike the windchimes as Igor’s swells move in less than 200 meters away from the edge of a continent, I am reminded of this this early late September “summer” morning, of a very warm, WARM Atlantic.
Must be global warming.
Nah it’s just Nature.
And you can take your ice-melt hand-wringing to the bank on that one.
NOTE: All of you hand-wringing, fear-mongering, OMG the ice is melting the ice is melting paranoids out there:
Come back with an study that covers the lifespan of a human, rather than one that cover’s the lifespan of a rat (i.e. 2002) and we’ll talk.
There is simply NO emergency here.
The Arctic is just doing what it has done for scores and hundreds and thousands and millions of years.
Sheesh.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
rbateman
I find it hard to believe what is going on in the arctic at the moment.It would not be the first time that the satellites were wrong
don penman says:
September 20, 2010 at 9:28 pm
Thank you for that. I hoped I was not the only one checking the output vs the actual images.
Must be global warming.
Nah it’s just Nature.
What makes you so certain AGW has nothing to do with it?
And it is simply astounding that the Chicken Littles the “Ice is Melting” crowd never want to talk about the broad-reaching effects of the AMO.
What makes you so certain that polar scientists have never taken this factor into account?
The Arctic is just doing what it has done for scores and hundreds and thousands and millions of years.
If it is normal for the Arctic to change so fast, it must have happened many times before, and thus there should be a lot more clues. But it most probably isn’t normal.
Günther Kirschbaum says:
September 20, 2010 at 10:16 pm
What makes you so certain AGW has nothing to do with it?
========================
Ah…thanks for clarifying. I just quipped “global warming.” I meant “catastrophic anthropogenic global warming.”
The globe has warmed…as it has done for many eons before our ancestors were swinging from trees.
Two separate arguments here [and you never hear this]:
Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Pollution vs. CAGW.
The former, plausible. The latter, complete foolishness.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
What makes you so certain that polar scientists have never taken this factor into account?
==============================
Ummm….who said I was talking about “polar scientists” many of whom I hold in high regard [OK Mark Serreze is not one of them….but Meier is].
I was talking about the chicken little death spiral scaremongers.
To use the term “polar scientists” is your term, not mine.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Günther Kirschbaum says:
September 20, 2010 at 10:16 pm
If it is normal for the Arctic to change so fast, it must have happened many times before, and thus there should be a lot more clues. But it most probably isn’t normal.
=========================
Who said it was “normal”?
I didn’t.
And for the record, “what is normal??
All of climate and weather history is jagged spikes of “abnormality”.
I went running this morning in a set of hills on the coastal plain where no hills should be.
It is not “normal” for some ancient sea boundary of sand dunes to become forested hills 5,000 years later, but they did.
There is no normal.
We have just been lucky as a species to not be hit by a major asteroid, buried by a supervolcano, or even destroyed by our own inventions, in our short 200,000 year day in the sun on this ancient Earth.
We have risen in our evolution from being tree-swinging brutes, to skyscraper-building geniuses, in such a short time.
Suffice it to say it is because of the generally tranquil state of Mother Earth during that time.
That may not be the case in the future.
But the “normal” that you speak about….when you look against the means of time itself, is FAR from normal.
We have just been lucky.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Günther Kirschbaum says
“If it is normal for the Arctic to change so fast, it must have happened many times before, and thus there should be a lot more clues. But it most probably isn’t normal.’
It is perfectly normal Gunter. I wrote about the melting episiode that happened betwen 1820 -1870 here;
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/20/historic-variation-in-arctic-ice/
I am currently preparing Part 2 which covers the well documented (but apparently forgotten) episode betwen 1920-1940. Part three will cover the numerous other periods of melt of which the Vikings 1000 years ago and the Ipiatuk 2000 years ago are the most famous.
tonyb
AJB says:
September 20, 2010 at 9:10 pm
Preliminary JAXA 15% Extent for 20th = 4,855,156, a gain of 13,593 on yesterday.
Meanwhile sitting here at 322 am eastern time My JAXA site is still stuck on the 19th..How do you get your updates faster?
Also there was a link posted earlier by “steve from rockwood” to an article about the Ice flush which stated at one point that back in 07 the Usual Ice Damming/Jamming of the Nares Strait did not happen which alowed the ice to flow out freely. That clarified my thinking & earlier post I made on the the effects of thin ice on ice Jamming.
tonyb says:
September 21, 2010 at 12:16 am
Günther Kirschbaum says
“If it is normal for the Arctic to change so fast, it must have happened many times before, and thus there should be a lot more clues. But it most probably isn’t normal.’
It is perfectly normal Gunter. I wrote about the melting episiode that happened betwen 1820 -1870 here;
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/20/historic-variation-in-arctic-ice/
I am currently preparing Part 2 which covers the well documented (but apparently forgotten) episode betwen 1920-1940. Part three will cover the numerous other periods of melt of which the Vikings 1000 years ago and the Ipiatuk 2000 years ago are the most famous.
tonyb
_____________________________________________________________
I guess history books are of some dubious value to other historians.
My god, 2010 looks like having the 29th highest minimum of Arctic ice… ever on record!
Of course “ever on record” has a slightly different meaning to “ever”. But let’s not quibble over mere words when the earth seems set to freeze over.
I did a recount. 2010 is only the thirtieth highest ice minimum ever on record.
Still pretty scary though. I mean, that’s EVER on record.
UXBRIDGE, Canada, Sep 20, 2010 (IPS) – The carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels have melted the Arctic sea ice to its lowest volume since before the rise of human civilisation, dangerously upsetting the energy balance of the entire planet, climate scientists are reporting.
“The Arctic sea ice has reached its four lowest summer extents (area covered) in the last four years,” said Mark Serreze, director of the National Snow and Ice Data Center in the U.S. city of Boulder, Colorado.
The volume – extent and thickness – of ice left in the Arctic likely reached the lowest ever level this month, Serreze told IPS.
“I stand by my previous statements that the Arctic summer sea ice cover is in a death spiral. It’s not going to recover,” he said.
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=52896
================
Serreze is at it again.
don penman says:
September 20, 2010 at 9:28 pm
rbateman
I find it hard to believe what is going on in the arctic at the moment.It would not be the first time that the satellites were wrong
Really, if those satellites are right it should have been possible to sail the Northeast passage and the Northwest Passage this summer. Guess what 2 yachts are on the verge of completing sailing through both in the same summer, both having passed through the normally treacherous Bellot strait within the last couple of days.
Where has RGates gone?
Bill Illis,
Thanks again for your comments.
“The volume – extent and thickness – of ice left in the Arctic likely reached the lowest ever level this month, Serreze told IPS. ”
He meant to say lowest satellite-recorded level. But when you’re talking to the MSM, you have to eliminate all that complicated stuff and talk from the gut. So thirty-two years become thirty-two million years, more or less. Same ballpark. It’s about reaching hearts and minds.
There’s certainly been a radical change in the Arctic since 1922. Back then, there wasn’t an activist yachtsman in sight when the ice thinned out. Lousy, superficial flapper-era!