UPDATE: Regular Sea Ice News now posted here:
Sea Ice News #25 – NSIDC says 2010 3rd lowest for Arctic sea ice
=======================================
Normally I have a Sea Ice News feature on Sundays.
I’m holding it a day, because I’m waiting for NSIDC to make an announcement, and I want to include it. Arctic Sea Ice is making a quick turnaround, the DMI 30% graph shows we are now at 2005 levels for 30% extent.
While waiting for NSIDC in the meantime, have a look at this interesting animation showing the quick turnaround in ice extent in September…
Steve Goddard writes:
Blink comparator showing ice growth over the past week. More than 5,000 Manhattans of new ice have formed – one new Manhattan of ice every two minutes.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/CT/animate.arctic.color.0.html
Also while waiting, don’t forget to check status at the WUWT Sea Ice Page.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I’ve got to say this before R. Gates does:
“Notice the decrease in the ice extent on Greenland’s east coast.”
😉
NSIDC is trying to get its story right and blame global warming.
Ice growth at this rate forecasts a cold winter, perhaps.
Is there a strong wind blowing from Scandinavia towards the Bering Straights?
I wonder if it would be more meaningful to compare the annual average of something like August+September+October? That would average out short term wind and weather effects, and might give a bet tern year to year comparison than the minimum.
I guess this means the NW passage is now closed…alas I wonder if its the last time it will be open for a few years…
O/T: Here in Denmark we’ve just had the coldest September since 2001.
:
Just so that I can get my calculations right, how many “Manhattans”” are there in a “Wales”? ( Here in the UK large areas are spoken of as “the size of Wales”)
It is still only marginally above 2007 and 2008.
What is the 30-yr trend?
Gareth Phillips Oct 4 2:04 am:
Yes it’s strange that – “An area the size of Wales has been flooded” – “Rainforest the size of Wales is cut down every year…” But why, oh why, is it never actually Wales?
Let me guess what NSIDC is going to announce:
Walt Meier got after them to look over thier data, and they found a mixup after the Sept 10th glitch, after which they discovered that the Sea Ice never fell off after the 10th. The extent graphs should look like the NORSEX graphs.
What I saw on the Band 367 images was the Sea Ice growing from the 11th on, and it never looked back.
I’ll pinch myself first.
Ok, I’m still here.
Tap, tap, tap. Waiting is for the birds.
Gareth Phillips says:
October 4, 2010 at 2:04 am
Just so that I can get my calculations right, how many “Manhattans”” are there in a “Wales”? ( Here in the UK large areas are spoken of as “the size of Wales”)
As a Devonian I must protest at this predjudice. Why not measure things in “the size of Devon” Perhaps we could get a whole new international measuremeet system going? “It was estimated the area was about the size of two Wales’ & 4/5th of Devon!” ;-))
I am investing in woollen undergarmnets this autumn, I have a feeling I am going to need them!
This increase was completely unpresidented. But I understand it was quite prime ministered.
Gareth: Don’t you just love SI units. Area = Manhattan or Wales. Volume: How many double-decker buses are there in an olympic swimming pool?
Lionsden,
I was kind of having the same thought as the minimum extent of sea ice for any given year can be due to a freak occurrence, whereas a the average sea ice extent for the summer months would say more about the summer period in general terms.
But maybe some picked the yearly minimum extent to tell a certain story.
Rgds. Troels
Here in Britain we shivered through the coldest August for 17 years, without much sun, despite forecasts that it would be a far better summer than last year.
September was also very cold, but not seen the ‘official’ numbers yet.
I’m not looking forward to the coming winter, and I’ve stocked up on logs, fuel oils and food in case we get snowed in for a long period again. Global warming – I wish!!!
Although it’s fun looking at the daily changes, and nice to see a surge like that, what really matters is the long-term trend. Unfortunately the graph is only for the last 30 years, but it will have to do. A similar graph for the last hundred years would probably tell a completely different story.
Over recent decades the ice extent did fall somewhat, and the rate of fall actually accelerated, hence the dreaded ‘death spiral’. But around 2007 it seemed to hit the floor and it’s been bouncing on the floor ever since.
I bought and sold shares for about ten years, so I’ve looked at lots of graphs like this. Often shares fall at an accelerating rate as investors panic and the panic feeds on itself, but they then hit a natural bottom and may well bounce up and down on the bottom for a while. Occasionally the shares may start another slide and that’s when you really need to stay calm and not panic-sell. In most cases the shares turn around and start to move north at quite a rate. The real loser are the ones who panic-sold. I know, because I was one of them more than once! You end up selling when they’re low and buying them back when they’re high.
If the 30 year graph were a graph of a share price then, provided you’re buying shares for the long term, this is a great buying opportunity. Most likely the only direction those shares can move is north. But you will need to be patient.
Chris
OT.
Prof . Robert Edwards wins Nobel medicine prize for his work on IVF, had to wait 25 years, while Gore&Co had instant recognition for their efforts. A bit of hypocrisy somewhere?
Gareth Phillips says:
October 4, 2010 at 2:04 am
“Just so that I can get my calculations right, how many “Manhattans”” are there in a “Wales”? ( Here in the UK large areas are spoken of as “the size of Wales”)”
Wales’s are measurements of disasters. Manhattans are the measurement of natural events. See;
http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=climate-change-ice-chunk-the-size-o-2008-09-04
There are 353 Manhattans to 1 Wales although for estimation purposes, a simple OMG! generally suffices.
I am mystified by the insistence on comparing new data to a 30-year past term. What would be wrong with comparing the new data to the entire recorded history? It seems to me that any trend you try to set for new data will depend entirely upon which 30-year period you compare it to. If you compare it to a cool 30 years, your new data may make the trend look quite warm; on the other hand, if you compare it to a warm 30 years, your new data may show a cooling trend. This seems to me like ready-made cherry-picking. Obviously, for sea-ice extent, the past data are limited to times when satellite photos have been available.
Gareth Phillips says:
October 4, 2010 at 2:04 am
Ok, to accommodate all comers, here is the breakdown for some fun.
1 Manhattan = 60sq km (+/-) = 0.00288 Wales = 48038.43 Olympic swimming pools = 5.6391E-08 Atlantic oceans and 13605442.176 king sized beds. How many matchboxes, laptops or moons I’ll pass. lol
OMG! 5000 Manhattans is nearly 10 Belgiums and more than half a France!
Our current warm spell started about 30 years ago, right? If I’m a climate change missionary and I want to score myself a geek-spat point, I’m picking “30 year trend” for pretty much everything.
And didn’t they used to use “Texas” for size comparisons? As a Texan that always did me proud. As in, “Good ol’ Al Gore, he’s got an ego the size of…” or “Them ClimApologists, you couldn’t fit their heads into a basket the size of…”
In reply to Gareth Phillips, October 4, 2010 at 2:04 am:
Manhattan*: 59 square km (23 square miles)
Wales**: 20779 square km (8010 square miles)
* Wiki claims as their source the US Census Bureau although the references do not seem to link to the information. I can see no reason to doubt the figure.
** http://eulis.eu/service/countries-profile/england-and-wales/
(Other sources give trivially different figures)
Thus, there are 350 Manhattans in a Wales.
Is it just my layman ignorance, or does that graph show that nature continues to surprise no matter what “trends” appear in the little squiggly lines?
Mike Jowsey says:
October 4, 2010 at 2:16 am
It is still only marginally above 2007 and 2008.
What is the 30-yr trend?
========================
Better yet, what’s the 100 year trend?