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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
We still do not have enough data about ice cover for any rational idea as to what is ‘normal’ ice cover. 31 years are not enough. In fact we may never establish what is called ‘normal’. This would not surprise me in the least.
Nightvid Cole says:
September 26, 2010 at 4:46 pm
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?
————————-
so, which would you say is better? considering at microwave frequencies the shape etc of the crystal the snow/ice consists of determines exactly how much is absorbed, and thus how much is measured & calculated by the algorithm.
All a bit quiet without R Gates throwing in his “luke warmer” grenades. Perhaps he has smelt the coffee?
“After a false start that fooled even the experts, it appears that sea ice has turned the corner, for real this time.”..
Fooling the experts? When ‘experts’ are fooled, do they not learn something from the experience? How were the experts fooled? What did the learn?
The ex-Hurricanes seem to have formed a Club, lining the Canada/Greenland South Shore of the Arctic Ocean.
?? Afraid to get their toes in the Water ??
Ships still report melting in the West – – water still Hot – – but it is being overwhelmed. Will that continue ? I expected melting into October. And the AO reverse MIGHT do that… But Long-Range Forecasts at WetterCentrale say they’ll combine into a BIG LOW covering the Central Arctic – – like lasted all of July. So I think that was it.
Last minimums recorded were probably both Topaz Reference extents, which only turned up on the 23rd.
Compared to Previous Years, 2010s 16 indexes said:
LOWEST = 1 Volume (3900 km3 to 4850=2007, 6000=2008, 5800=2009).
Second = 1 Area, 1 Extent
Third = 2 Area, 6 Extent
This is a clear Progression: Volume to Area to Extent: this implies 2010 had Record Least Ice Quantity – – the unusual Wind pattern spread it out more . PS: 5 indexes cannot be rated as had no record for 2008 (TOPAZ, NANSEN). Hamburg updated only to the 17th (bi-monthly), I’ll whip up a final total at latest when that updates again.
Next Year ? as this La Nina (cold) is SO strong, I’d expect a proportional increase in volume = twice or more 2008s gain. Is 2010 destined to be the new 60/65-year Cycle’s Minimum ? ? Hmmm .
PSS: Re: Scott’s reference to 1983 gaining like 2010 …
– – 1983 produced the PEAK of submarine-measured Thickness.
Since we’ve passed the minimum it looks like most of the people interested in discussing numbers have left, but I’ll give it a go anyway.
Another large gain in extent today, now 325468 km^2 above 2008 on Sept 26, while 210000 below 2009. If these high rates of gain continue, I suspect we’ll be within 100000 km^2 of 2009 on Sept 30 and will surpass it in the first week of Oct (heck, I’ll lay down an ambitious guess of passing it on Oct 3). I initially thought 2010 had a chance to have an average Sept extent closer to 2009 than 2008, but it looks like it’ll fall a bit short now.
The rapid rate of extent increase is evident in the “predicted minimum” using current extent. It’s kind of silly to use this after the minimum, but it’s a great basic tool for comparing the regrowth to other years. For a value of 5270781 km^2 on Sept 26, using 2002-2009 numbers to back-predict the minimum extent yields a value of 5071097 km^2, which is 257503 km^2 higher than the actual minimum. So wow, we’ve seen a rapid regrowth.
-Scott
phlogiston says:
September 27, 2010 at 12:40 am
Peer-reviewed CAGW sermons from godfather-reviewed tracts such as Nature will continue to get the contempt they deserve from this site.
================================
Well said!
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
“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 which, I was watching the PIPS2 ice displacement this week (http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/pips2/idis.html) and saw that wind was dispersing the ice edge in the western arctic the whole time, so not a surprise that extent is growing fast. Didn’t anyone else notice?
Scott says:
September 27, 2010 at 8:35 am
So wow, we’ve seen a rapid regrowth.
==============================
And no doubt due in part to the average to below-average temperatures for the summer above 80N and now into the fall, right? Eyeballing the readings 2007, 2008 and 2009 this time, they were much above normal.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Richard Holle says:
September 26, 2010 at 1:03 pm
Does anyone know why this year was so jumpy?
_____________
I didn’t watchEarl but I did watch Igor. For what its worth this is my take. The hurricane lifted tones of air into the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere. As it moved north the the stratosphere lowers which pushed the cold air to the surface. A couple days before Igor entered Baffin Bay the surface temperatures in Alert was -20, and temperatures at Nord and Greenland Summet were also very cold.
When Igor arrived there was a hugh temperature gradient (approx 30C) between the ice sheet and Baffin Island. Coupled with what was left of the hurricane if created gale force winds. I saw one reading of 55 knots. This stired up the water and brings cold water up to the surface. The mixing of the cold air and moist air brought some snow to the area.
But that is not all that has happened there. On the weekend a CME arrived and sent the Geomagnetic readings from Churchill north into overdrive. It has caused the stratosphere to warm and more cold air forced down. This has formed a series of lows across the north and there has been snow from the Yukon to Greenland and is forcast to continue this week. Even if the snow melts it still cools the land and water. The ice should have a good week.
CRS, Dr.P.H. says:
September 26, 2010 at 12:02 pm
…looks mighty chilly up in Pt. Barrow, Alaska!
http://seaice.alaska.edu/gi/observatories/barrow_webcam
A bit above average all month…
http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/PABR/2010/9/27/MonthlyHistory.html#calendar
jakers says:
September 27, 2010 at 11:12 am
I don’t watch the PIPS 2.0 stuff, though I do see the general ice movement from CTs maps. The phenomenon you’re mentioning likely did help cause a rapid increase in extent, but as I mentioned earlier, the increase in area after reaching the minimum is also the 2nd highest in the last 10 years, so there has definitely been a good chunk of refreezing in addition to dispersal increases.
-Scott
phlogiston says:
September 27, 2010 at 12:40 am
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.
_____________________________________________________________
Well, in about two years I’ll be entering my 5th decade of a research career in hydrodynamics, but let’s just say we should dispense with the “appeals to authority” fallicies, shall we?
The rest of your comment is utter gibberish.
That is all.
Ah, too bad it’s over for the year. Not much to draw me here for quite a while then.
phlogiston says:
September 27, 2010 at 12:40 am
As I enter the third decade of a scientific career I dont (sic) feel…
Gee, I feel sorry for ya if you feel that way about your chosen field. Please, find another line of work, as I can’t imagine you being effective any longer!!!
EFS_Junior says:
September 27, 2010 at 4:34 pm
Well, in about two years I’ll be entering my 5th decade of a research career in hydrodynamics, but let’s just say we should dispense with the “appeals to authority” fallicies, shall we?
======================
Appeals to authority?
That’s not an appeal to authority fallacy. He’s just talking about his experience.
And if it IS a fallacy [it is not], then aren’t you engaging in the same one?
Potcallingkettleblackimus Maximus.
-Chris
JK says:
Gee, I feel sorry for ya if you feel that way about your chosen field. Please, find another line of work, as I can’t imagine you being effective any longer!!
=================================
That is a total non sequitur fallacy. DOES NOT FOLLOW, dude!
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Preliminary JAXA number up for Sept 27….5322188 km^2. Preliminary gain of 51407 km^2. Lately, pretty much all of the revised numbers have shown an increase over the preliminary numbers. Sept 26’s number increased by about 40000 km^2, so I wouldn’t be surprised to see this one get up there to another massive gain in the 70-90k range.
If this really is due to dispersion, shouldn’t it be slowing or need to a single-day loss pretty soon? Unless area stops increasing so rapidly, I’m going to assume it’s due to real refreezing.
-Scott
savethesharks says:
September 27, 2010 at 7:59 pm
EFS_Junior says:
September 27, 2010 at 4:34 pm
Well, in about two years I’ll be entering my 5th decade of a research career in hydrodynamics, but let’s just say we should dispense with the “appeals to authority” fallicies, shall we?
======================
Appeals to authority?
That’s not an appeal to authority fallacy. He’s just talking about his experience.
And if it IS a fallacy [it is not], then aren’t you engaging in the same one?
Potcallingkettleblackimus Maximus.
-Chris
_____________________________________________________________
At least TRY to read through, and understand, a comment in it’s entirety?
He mentioned experience (a logical fallacy via argument from authority).
I made the same argument (ditto).
I also stated “let’s just say we should dispense with the “appeals to authority” fallicies (sic fallacies), shall we?”
Why make the original comment to begin with, if it has no bearing whatsoever on the discussion at hand?
If it is a valid point (and I don’t agree that it does), than my much greater experience with peer review (of that I have no doubt) is relevant with respect to the peer review process. However, the subsequent an hominem gibberish by the original poster still stands, it is/was utter gibberish.
Why is it utter jibberish? Simple answer is that peer review is the best game in town, always has been, always will be. Blogs, bloggers, and blogging notwithanding.
Henry chance says:
September 26, 2010 at 3:49 pm
Joe Romm had declared victory. Must have been premature. How many boats made the NW passage this year?
_________________________________
18, up from 9 last year, including 2 that circumnavigated both passages.
Andy
EFS_Junior says:
September 27, 2010 at 9:21 pm
========================
The sheer arrogance and apparent desperation, is noted.
Keep talking….
[Note to self: If he is such a scientist of note, then maybe, being that, he would drop all this nonsense and get back to his research. Hmmm. Interesting.]
-Chris
EFS_Junior says:
September 27, 2010 at 9:21 pm
However, the subsequent an hominem gibberish by the original poster still stands, it is/was utter gibberish. Why is it utter jibberish? Simple answer is that peer review is the best game in town, always has been, always will be.
========================
Peer review is the “best game in town.”??
Perhaps in an ideal world, yes.
But the current world that represents FAR from ideal. As a matter of fact….current “peer review” is the exact opposite of which it was intended.
It was not intended to become another Inquisition.
After all, this is science, not religion, right?
What are you trying to protect? What is your agenda for being so vitriolic here?
-Chris
Scott says:
September 27, 2010 at 8:38 pm
If this really is due to dispersion, shouldn’t it be slowing or need to a single-day loss pretty soon? Unless area stops increasing so rapidly, I’m going to assume it’s due to real refreezing.
-Scott
============================
Scott, To what do you attribute the rapid refreezing, if indeed that is the case?
Seems the avg. temp now at about 13.5 F above 80 N might have something to do with it, but I would like to hear a technician’s interpretation [yours] of what’s going on.
-Chris
JK says:
September 27, 2010 at 7:31 pm
Gee, I feel sorry for ya if you feel that way about your chosen field. Please, find another line of work, as I can’t imagine you being effective any longer!!!
OK my comment was a tad OTT. But its not surprising to find that you have no imagination. I’m working in commercial research in a fast growing technology company, doing OK thanks. What I’ve found is that you get rewarded for performance in the commercial sector while in academia it is 50% politics. In general, the raison d’etre of academic research is to create problems while that of commercial research is to solve them.
savethesharks says:
September 27, 2010 at 10:26 pm
Hi Chris,
Well clearly it takes cold weather to freeze the Arctic. However, I have no expertise and only follow the numbers themselves. That’s why I was posting here…hoping someone else could give me some insight (such as it being colder this year than in previous years or something). I’m also interested in hearing what people have to say on what the effect will be.
Presumably, a few days or weeks of freeze will result in thicker ice that might withstand next year’s melt season better (2008 also had a rapid refreeze, and 2009 showed massive gains…the largest in the JAXA extent record and the third-largest in the CT area record of over 30 years). The 2009 refreeze was much slower, and despite starting more than 542000 km^2 ahead of 2008, 2009 was passed by 2008 in extent on Oct 7. 2009 area was passed on Oct 6 despite a head start of over 420000 km^2. Note that 2008 never looked back and was ahead of 2009 by about 1 million km^2 by the end of Oct. 2009 didn’t get ahead again until 2010 (March 7) in the late “bump up”…at this point, all new ice was extremely thin and provided little buffering to melt/loss (thus the record high loss rates in May/June). Oddly, extent showed similar behavior when looking at Oct/Nov, but 2009 had re-passed 2008 by Dec 17.
In summary, 2008 had a rapid refreeze and the next year showed a large gain. 2009 had a slower refreeze and 2010 showed a large loss. I know this is anecdotal, but I’ll go back and look at the whole record to see how this trend holds up. Physically, a mechanism would be that the driving force for new ice is cold weather (and from a heat transfer perspective is proportional to T_melt-T_air).
Hmm, I’m glad you asked the question now, as this observation has given me something new to look into when trying to predict next year’s ice behavior. A big deal is made about multi-year ice, but if a rapid refreeze can add a significant extra thickness to the new ice (and presumably add thickness to older ice too), that may also be important.
-Scott
Scott, Thanks for that thorough reply. Very interesting.
-Chris