Sea Ice News #24

After a false start that fooled even the experts, it appears that sea ice has turned the corner, for real this time. NSIDC issued an update this week:

Update: 21 September 2010

Although ice extent appeared to reach a minimum on September 10, rising afterwards for three straight days, it has subsequently declined even further. NSIDC scientists are closely monitoring the ice extent and will provide another update on the data, as conditions develop.

Our season-end announcement in October will provide the final numbers for the minimum extent, as well as the monthly data for September, which scientists use for establishing long-term trends.

This is confirmed by the other sources:

What is of renewed interest though is what is going on in Antarctica:

While the Antarctic Ice never dipped below normal, the dip itself illustrates what I alluded to in Sea Ice News #22:

While the vagaries of wind and weather can still produce an about-face…

And just like the dip in the Arctic, the dip in the Antarctic is weather related, and is now rebounding with a change in weather.The sea ice on the edge of the Antarctic continent can be affected by winds and weather patterns in the same way as Arctic ice.

Speaking of weather, according to DMI the temperature in the Arctic continues to plummet:

Though, we may see some temperature rebound after the first or second week of October, as the Arctic Oscillation ensemble forecast calls for the AO to go positive then:

More on the impact of the AO in this graphic here (PDF)

And as we see in this CT comparison, the ice is refreezing rather quickly in the month of September:

Click to enlarge. Notice how the areas of lower concentration have disappeared.

Later this week, I’ll do a recap on who forecasted what and how the final tally looked.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
okie333

Positive AO should cause the Arctic temps to go even further down. We live in interesting times (ESPECIALLY if October and early November have a positive AO followed by a hyper-negative AO for the winter)

crosspatch

Well, I was way off. I was expecting something closer to 2005/2006

rbateman

The strangest thing about the flag for the false refreezing start, is that I watched the ice grow on the Google daily satellite images. I assume there are conditions in reading the Sea Ice signature through clouds that are most difficult, raising the degree of uncertainty.

John F. Hultquist

“What is of renewed interest though is what is going on in Antarctica:”
That’s a great line!
That 2010 blue curve seems to have lost its sense of direction since mid-August.

John from CA

The Cryosphere Today
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/
please see the 30-day animation
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/CT/animate.arctic.color.0.html
====
Maybe NSIDC lost their slush (data below 30% extent) and its giving them false readings overall? Their own charts don’t reflect any decline or am I missing something?

Scott

rbateman says:
September 26, 2010 at 10:54 am

The strangest thing about the flag for the false refreezing start, is that I watched the ice grow on the Google daily satellite images. I assume there are conditions in reading the Sea Ice signature through clouds that are most difficult, raising the degree of uncertainty.

The refreezing flag wasn’t false. People thought the extent minimum was Sept 10. It wasn’t, but the area minimum was Sept 9. However, the low-density ice around the perimeter was easily compacted, causing a late extent minimum after the refreeze. This also may factor in with the very rapid increase in extent post-minimum. According to JAXA, we’re at 389062 km^2 above the minimum already. The only year that had its Sept 25 value be that much above the minimum was 2002, which had its minimum Sept 9, 9 days before 2010’s minimum. We’re currently 7 days post-minimum extent, and the only year to gain extent this quickly after the minimum was 2007 (417813 km^2 in 7 days).
-Scott

R. de Haan

Arctic Sea ice Growth: 1000 Manhattans per day
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/09/26/1000-manhattans-per-day/

rbateman

John from CA says:
September 26, 2010 at 11:02 am
You mean, they had a second malfunction? No… you don’t say. How embarasking.
You can watch the process of slush forming which turns to ice in a day or two on the satellite images, but you see nothing on the satellite maps.

rbateman

Scott says:
September 26, 2010 at 11:19 am
Oh, that is not what happened on the satellite images. The re-freeze began after the 10th of September.
Computer problems have nothing to do with what went on in the Arctic, which was misrepresented.
No 2007 sequence was observed.
The satellite maps are derived from the satellite images.
The ‘trick’ here is getting head-faked with the maps, when the images are what the maps are generated from.
Sorry, but there was no melt of any significance after the 10th. There was the opposite.
Nope, no correlation whatsoever with 2007. Not one bit.

Scott

I’m a bit surprised to not see the rapid re-freeze mentioned in the article. As I said above, extent is 389062 km^2 above the minimum right now, which is the 2nd highest differential in the JAXA record. At this point, in total 15% extent we’re much closer to 2009 (under by 237032 km^2) than to 2008 (above by 328906 km^2).
Area improvement from the minimum to Sept 25 is also the 2nd-highest since JAXA started, with 2004 beating 2010. However, 2000 blows away 2010 in that regard, as do many years before 2000, so maybe I’m making an issue out of a non-issue.
-Scott
REPLY: I did mention the refreeze. see the comparison images -Anthony

CRS, Dr.P.H.

…looks mighty chilly up in Pt. Barrow, Alaska!
http://seaice.alaska.edu/gi/observatories/barrow_webcam
I wonder if the satellites misjudge the sea ice extent as it pertains to shoreline? This is some of the more important ice for recovery, I believe. Not to mention its importance for polar bears, walruses etc.
From the “Field Log”:
Melt, 30 May–20 June 2010: Chris Petrich
Kerry Claffey started the summer season with daily snow and albedo measurements.
Fun on June 5, a polar bear tampers with snow depth sounders and radiometers. Hat-trick! This is the fifth season we deployed the Mass Balance Probe, and the third season in a row it got damaged by a bear (2008, 2009, 2010).
The year prior to that (2007), an Arctic fox chewed through some cables the day after we froze-in instruments.
—-
I guess someone forgot to send those critters the memo!

Gary Pearse

If you look at the minimum extent (the little down ripple in JAXA) for 2007, it is Sep 25th and it lies about three quarters of a million sq km below the rising 2010. How are they going to compare these two years?

John from CA

To be fair rbateman,
The event they were talking about (Sept. 10) in relation to the point they issued the story (Sept. 21) and given the 1 day lag to display NSIDC information does appear to align to the bottom based on their criteria. They just issued the statement and then ice went dramatically up from there.
Maybe we should encourage them to issue more statements ; )

rbateman

John from CA says:
September 26, 2010 at 12:25 pm
We should encourage them to revist the time period in question: Sept 11 – 21st.
After that glitch in the satellite data, why assume nothing else went wrong?

Stephan

My guess is that time for real the AGW for 2010-2011 is over because the NH ice which they are so fond of will return to normal or above for the next 30 years watch that space!

Dinostratus

A jumpy year for the trough of the Sea Ice curve. I still think that 5,301,000sqkm was a good prediction.
Does anyone know why this year was so jumpy?

fishnski

Add almost another 102,000 km2 for the last 24 hours…ck out the graph heading straight up!..There was never any doubt in my mind…I’ve been consistent about that.
The all important snow cover in my mind is way above ave also..
http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_daily.php?ui_year=2010&ui_day=268&ui_set=2
It was nice to see the Doom & gloomers have a little excitement for awhile there..we can share some love can’t we?..but the ball is now back in our court you muddas!

John from CA

rbateman says:
September 26, 2010 at 12:36 pm
John from CA says:
September 26, 2010 at 12:25 pm
We should encourage them to revist the time period in question: Sept 11 – 21st.
After that glitch in the satellite data, why assume nothing else went wrong?
===
Good point and maybe they’d like to put their criteria in context to other approaches like UI to explain the situation in a level headed scientific way.
If you step through the 30 day UI animation and look at the fringe 30% ice (blues) you’ll see the lower concentrations diminish as the central Arctic grows in concentration. So, it shouldn’t be difficult for NSIDC to attribute the changes in terms of winds etc.
After following the Sea Ice story for only a year or so, there really isn’t any excuse to spin sea ice extent. They know they started or hoped to start the satellite observations in 1979 at the bottom of this cycle.
2009-2010 was the top of the typical 60 year cycle so the next several years will be very interesting as long as Global Alarmism does shift to Global Cooling. In my opinion based on the Ice Cores, CO2 lags temperature rise and fall but runs with increased temperature. CO2 ppm should begin to fall in the net few years and lag the rise in temperature in 2039-2040.

EFS_Junior

rbateman says:
September 26, 2010 at 12:36 pm
John from CA says:
September 26, 2010 at 12:25 pm
We should encourage them to revist the time period in question: Sept 11 – 21st.
After that glitch in the satellite data, why assume nothing else went wrong?
_____________________________________________________________
What glitch?
The three gliches from Arctic Roos for the 2010 season, which are quite obvious in all three cases, and represents “unfiltered data” meaning that no one else bothered showing unfiltered data that has occasional glitches, as these are all too obvious, and would NEVER be included in a 2-day or 5-day average, or would show up as gaps in the data sets, as is abundantly clear just by looking at the 2002-1010 JAXA dataset.
http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/ice-area-and-extent-in-arctic

rbateman

Just to keep things in perspective, the Arctic 80N temp in context of the variance since 1979:
http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/TempGr/meanT_2010vs58-09.jpg

rbateman

EFS_Junior says:
September 26, 2010 at 1:10 pm
It would be par for the couse, after the glitch, while a lot of time was spent correcting the glitched data, not enough attention was being paid to the running process of everyday data.
The call is to re-examine what happened AFTER the glitch, not that the glitch continued.
Is there a problem with reconciling the map compilations with the actual satellite images? I say there is.
You are assuming that all problems show up as missing data.

fishnski

CRS, Dr.P.H. says:
September 26, 2010 at 12:02 pm
…looks mighty chilly up in Pt. Barrow, Alaska!
The first snow (defined as snow that will not melt until next spring) generally falls during the first week of October, when temperatures cease to rise above freezing during the day. October is usually the month with the heaviest snowfall, with at least a trace of snow virtually every day and an average total accumulation of about 7 in (18 cm).[10] Snow can also fall in the summer.
Snow has come a little early this year…When does this GW thang kick in?

Dinostratus says:
September 26, 2010 at 1:03 pm
A jumpy year for the trough of the Sea Ice curve. I still think that 5,301,000sqkm was a good prediction.
Does anyone know why this year was so jumpy?
_____________Reply; My guess would be the change in ionization in the tropical air mass reaching the arctic as a direct result of the two concurrent [melting during the flush of air into the arctic] episodes of hurricane production, with Earl, and Igor bringing in massive amounts of warm moisture laden air mass with more positive ion content.
Ice is a bipolar crystal and needs a couple spare electrons to form in super cooled atmospheric conditions, or to stay frozen in sea ice or glaciers. Glacial surging has been shown to occur simultaneously with incursions of more positively ionized air masses, and I would assume that it is part of the formation process of rotten sea ice, that allows the hardness of the crystal structure to loosen.
With Earl’s out wash that swept up the East side of Greenland I watched the ice cover of the area along the Russian coast melt as the satellite photos showed the air mass cross the area then head back South across Western Canada. Both times there was whiteout snow conditions on the floating North pole camera, but more of it for Earl than Igor.
The ratio of Antarctic to Arctic ice may be due to the polarity of the solar wind due to the solar system declinational positions of the outer planets relative to the ecliptic plane as we pass them heliocentrically, giving rise to the long term oscillations as the planetary declinations go above and below the ecliptic plane.
The polar ice trends may have this extra terrestrial drive to their patterns of increase and decrease, with annual drives due to the 13 month period of heliocentric conjunctions with Jupiter and Saturn interactions, more work needs to be done looking for resultant patterns due to the compounding of the many separate periods.
So as a test maybe next year we will see these same dips in ice area occur a month later? Were they seen a month later last year?

Were they seen a month later earlier last year?

EFS_Junior

rbateman says:
September 26, 2010 at 1:49 pm
EFS_Junior says:
September 26, 2010 at 1:10 pm
It would be par for the couse, after the glitch, while a lot of time was spent correcting the glitched data, not enough attention was being paid to the running process of everyday data.
The call is to re-examine what happened AFTER the glitch, not that the glitch continued.
Is there a problem with reconciling the map compilations with the actual satellite images? I say there is.
You are assuming that all problems show up as missing data.
_____________________________________________________________
Again, what glitch?
I don’t see 18 glitches, and I don’t see one glitch, I see 3 glitched in “unfiltered data” from one website, Arctic Roos.
Be specific with links to appropriate websites as mentioned below (i. e. JAXA, Bremen, NSIDC, Arctic Roos, DMI, and UIUC).
There are three for 2010 shown at Arctic Roos, are you suggesting that all three glitches from 2010 be reexamined, otherwise you are showing a clear bias in only selecting one glitch, very subjective IMHO.
As per official reporting from the six main sea ice extent/area reporting sites, JAXA, Bremen, NSIDC, Arctic Roos, DMI, and UIUC.
I need to see an official link from any of the above six groups that discusses in some detail the glitch(es), and any proported aftereffects you think may have occured, or have assumed did occur.
At this point it is 100% pure subjective conjecture on your part.
Oh, and when you look at satallite imagery, that is subjective and it is definitely not objective by any means, getting raw data with good signal-to-noise ratios, removal of data spikes, etceteras, post-processing, and quality control gives one something called objective data collection and reporting.
I suggest you email Arctic Roos directly yourself to clear up any confusion you may have at your end.
Adios.

TomRude

Unprecedented!

Olaf Koenders

I’m waiting for revelations of “Hansen” adjustments to these charts as well..

Scott

rbateman says:
September 26, 2010 at 11:44 am

Scott says:
September 26, 2010 at 11:19 am
Oh, that is not what happened on the satellite images. The re-freeze began after the 10th of September.

Did you even read the text of my comment? I said that area started increasing at that time…aka refreeze. However, extent dropped later on due to compaction and/or melting at the edges.

Computer problems have nothing to do with what went on in the Arctic, which was misrepresented.

Multiple databases showed extent to drop after the 10th, so I don’t know what computer problems you’re referring to.

Sorry, but there was no melt of any significance after the 10th. There was the opposite.

There was a bit of melt at some of the edges, but it was far overshadowed by refreezing of the core. Thus, area increased like I said. The decrease in extent had little to do with the melting.

Nope, no correlation whatsoever with 2007. Not one bit.

For extent, R^2 for JAXA extent (2010 vs other years):
2008 = 0.765
2003 = 0.641
2007 = 0.575
2006 = 0.504
(the rest are all below 0.5)
So it looks like there is some correlation to 2007’s extent after all.
Area correlations in September are particularly interesting. To date, 2010 is correlating with 2009 at R^2 = 0.622, with the several years immediately before that being lower. Going way back, 1983 shows the best correlation at a robust R^2 = 0.818. I wonder if that will hold throughout the rest of the month. If so, we can expect an area of 3528061 km^2 for Sept 30. I’m guessing we’ll see a much higher number than that (we could see that number posted for today even), so I expect this correlation to degrade a bit in these last few days of Sept.
-Scott

rbateman

EFS_Junior says:
September 26, 2010 at 2:20 pm
Again, what glitch?

Nice circular reason to not look.
Are you telling me you weren’t looking?
I say discrepancy after the fact, you say what glitch.
I say images, you say maps.
You still haven’t come to grips with the difference between the two.
One is the actual view from above the Earth, the latter is a pretty picture.

fishnski

My guess would be the change in ionization in the tropical air mass reaching the arctic as a direct result of the two concurrent [melting during the flush of air into the arctic] episodes of hurricane production, with Earl, and Igor bringing in massive amounts of warm moisture laden air mass with more positive ion content.
Ice is a bipolar crystal and needs a couple spare electrons to form in super cooled atmospheric conditions, or to stay frozen in sea ice or glaciers. Glacial surging has been shown to occur simultaneously with incursions of more positively ionized air masses, and I would assume that it is part of the formation process of rotten sea ice, that allows the hardness of the crystal structure to loosen.
With Earl’s out wash that swept up the East side of Greenland I watched the ice cover of the area along the Russian coast melt as the satellite photos showed the air mass cross the area then head back South across Western Canada. Both times there was whiteout snow conditions on the floating North pole camera, but more of it for Earl than Igor.
The ratio of Antarctic to Arctic ice may be due to the polarity of the solar wind due to the solar system declinational positions of the outer planets relative to the ecliptic plane as we pass them heliocentrically, giving rise to the long term oscillations as the planetary declinations go above and below the ecliptic plane.
The polar ice trends may have this extra terrestrial drive to their patterns of increase and decrease, with annual drives due to the 13 month period of heliocentric conjunctions with Jupiter and Saturn interactions, more work needs to be done looking for resultant patterns due to the compounding of the many separate periods.
So as a test maybe next year we will see these same dips in ice area occur a month later? Were they seen a month later last year?
You took the words right out of my mouth Mr. Holle…I need a Beer…

rbateman

At this point it is 100% pure subjective conjecture on your part.
All Sea Ice Extents and Areas are subjective processes which can go very wrong without someone keeping an eye on the results as compared to the images they are taken from.
Part of the deal is keeping an eye on things, that’s what we do in here.
We don’t accept spoon feeding, we look for ourselves, and we ask questions.

EFS_Junior

rbateman says:
September 26, 2010 at 2:57 pm
At this point it is 100% pure subjective conjecture on your part.
All Sea Ice Extents and Areas are subjective processes which can go very wrong without someone keeping an eye on the results as compared to the images they are taken from.
Part of the deal is keeping an eye on things, that’s what we do in here.
We don’t accept spoon feeding, we look for ourselves, and we ask questions.
_____________________________________________________________
You can lead a horse to water …
At least I know I’m not the horse in this merry-go-round.
At least get a clue on “subjective” versus “objective” where your own eyes are incapable of making “objective” measurements, and there is DAQ (data acquisition) for making “objective” measurements.
If you have issues with the data contact the seven organizations directly firsthand YOURSELF, since you would appear to be one of those people from THE AUDIT TEAM.

Henry chance

Joe Romm had declared victory. Must have been premature. How many boats made the NW passage this year?

Gneiss

rbatemen writes,
“We don’t accept spoon feeding, we look for ourselves, and we ask questions.”
Nothing could be less apt as a description of this site. Any post attacking climate scientists wins immediate praise from many posters who ask no questions so long as it fits their preconceptions.
A few voices might come in later, expressing actual skepticism, but most often these are not from the self-professed “skeptics.” They might point out that the radical new claims about Venus involve a misapplication of the ideal gas law, or those calculations for the volume of a pyramid contain an elementary mistake, or you can’t interpret a regression line fit to a sine wave like that, or those two Hansen graphs really involve two different datasets, or that “temperature anomalies” mean something different than “temperature,” or the paper was written only about one proxy from one core in the Chukchi Sea, or what Schmidt et al. wrote about unreliable tree rings was relevant and true … and so on.
And when such actually skeptical posts are actually made here, many regulars attack the writers for asking asking questions.

Nightvid Cole

The passive microwave-derived sea ice “maps” are not “images” only because microwaves are not light….Darnit why are we BLIND to so much of the electromagnetic spectrum?

EFS_Junior

Gneiss says:
September 26, 2010 at 4:41 pm
rbatemen writes,
“We don’t accept spoon feeding, we look for ourselves, and we ask questions.”
Nothing could be less apt as a description of this site. Any post attacking climate scientists wins immediate praise from many posters who ask no questions so long as it fits their preconceptions.
_____________________________________________________________
Exactly!
A de facto pattern emerges. especially at the start of the first few dozen replies to a poster article.
The Yes People all line up and throw off their best one liners.
I get the distince impression that The Yes People are truly blinded by real science as opposed to WUWT science.
Go figure.

u.k.(us)

Gneiss says:
September 26, 2010 at 4:41 pm
“And when such actually skeptical posts are actually made here, many regulars attack the writers for asking asking questions.”
=====================
Freedom reigns!
Sorry.

savethesharks

“Though, we may see some temperature rebound in the first and second week of October, as the Arctic Oscillation ensemble forecast calls for the AO to go positive then”…
================================
I thought that in a positive AO during fall and winter, it is typically very cold in the Arctic.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA

savethesharks

EFS_Junior says:
September 26, 2010 at 5:14 pm
I get the distince impression that The Yes People are truly blinded by real science as opposed to WUWT science.
=====================================
Ahhh…. by “real science” do you mean the CAGW orthodoxy?
Or by “real science” do you mean “Real Climate”?
Talk about Yes Men.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA

savethesharks

Gneiss says:
September 26, 2010 at 4:41 pm
“Nothing could be less apt as a description of this site.”
==============================
Then go find a site that suits your needs, Gneiss.
The worlds a big place….and if you don’t like it here, then leave.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA

Gneiss

savethesharks writes,
“Ahhh…. by “real science” do you mean the CAGW orthodoxy?”
I’m going to take a guess here that by “real science,” EFS meant not the “CAGW orthodoxy” bogeyman but rather, science done by actual scientists in their area of expertise, written up and published in journals after review by other actual scientists who also are experts in that area.
“Or by “real science” do you mean “Real Climate”?”
All of the writers for Realclimate are real scientists, aren’t they?
“Talk about Yes Men.”
Yes! I have noticed they predominate here. Frequently angry, adding their own accusations and invective against whoever the WUWT writer has invited them to jeer at. Often, it seems that even the original writer has not read what he’s attacking, and the Yes Men feel no need to, they jeer on cue.

wayne

EFS_Junior says: “At least I know I’m not the horse in this merry-go-round.”
But Junior, you are the horse. Be objective for once. (sorry, two-liner there)

rbateman

EFS_Junior says:
September 26, 2010 at 3:42 pm
What AUDIT team are you talking about?
I get the distinct impression that a nerve has been hit.

Douglas DC

Galileo-“But sirs, the Earth orbits the sun I have proof!”
Vatican Scientists-“It is clear all who believe the
Ptolemaic Universe, that quite obviously,the Earth is the
center of all things, and that the sun and stars are fixed to
their individual spheres!”
“That is clearly the scientific consensus!! ”
“Heretic!”
Sound familiar?

savethesharks

Gneiss says:
September 26, 2010 at 6:15 pm
============================
They are getting desperate….

rbateman

The computer output is sacrosanct, it is beyond questioning. The Concensus is the Law. No, not really.
There is a a human interactive program called Galaxy Zoo. It came into being because the computer program is not able to make judgement calls in picking out important structure in distant galaxies. Sloan Digital Sky Survey initiated Galaxy Zoo to get thousands of amatuer astronomers to contribute to classifying millions of distant galaxies that the computer program balked on. They found it to be a smashing success, and I recommend it to anyone.
You see, a computer program is only as good as the instructions given to it. When it comes to the edges of resolution, the human eye is much better because it is attached to a brain.
I also encourage folks to watch the Sea Ice Images. No, not the pretty colored ones, the ones that are direct off the satellites.
Great stuff.

savethesharks

Sorry, my last post was not clear.
The “they” I was referring to were the individuals who deliberately try to hijack this thread hurling insults.
As I said before, if this is not the site for you, then move along to another one that is.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA

savethesharks

One question I had about the original post above:
The Arctic Oscillation is forecast to go positive in the coming weeks. Shouldn’t this signify colder temperatures for the pole region, and not a rebound?
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
REPLY: Yeah, that was poorly worded, fixed. Thanks -A

Baa Humbug

If as we suspect it’s the warm currents that cause the ice to melt, then it makes sense that these warmer waters SHOULD freeze faster due to the Mpemba effect.
i.e. The faster the ice melts (due to warmer than usual waters), the faster it should rebound once the air T’s drop below freezing.

phlogiston

Gneiss says:
September 26, 2010 at 6:15 pm
savethesharks writes,
“Ahhh…. by “real science” do you mean the CAGW orthodoxy?”
I’m going to take a guess here that by “real science,” EFS meant not the “CAGW orthodoxy” bogeyman but rather, science done by actual scientists in their area of expertise, written up and published in journals after review by other actual scientists who also are experts in that area.
Do you have any idea how archaically snobbish you sound? As I enter the third decade of a scientific career I dont feel in the slightest shocked and awed by mention of peer reviewed publication. We all know full well – as the ClimateGate emails have revealed for all time – the sordid reality of chums rubber-stamping eachothers “scientific” offerings and lynching and silencing dissenters, outsiders and others whose bottoms dont smell right. The principal “expertise” you will find in the corridors of government funded climate temples is expertise in byzantine mafiosa-politicing and media posturing.
Peer-reviewed CAGW sermons from godfather-reviewed tracts such as Nature will continue to get the contempt they deserve from this site.