This week we continue to see strong gains in Arctic Sea Ice. JAXA’s extent paused briefly, but has resumed a strong upwards climb, now exceeding 2005 for this date.
JAXA AMSR-E Sea Ice Extent -15% or greater – click to enlarge
In other news, NSIDC released an interesting video using Google Earth.
Here’s the NSIDC animation showing the entire satellite Arctic sea ice record.
According to the Google Earth Blog:
==========================================================
They’ve recently updated their files to show data from 2010, and the results are quite stunning:
According to their site, the 2010 low (reached on September 19) was the third lowest on satellite record:
Average ice extent for September 2010 was 4.90 million square kilometers (1.89 million square miles), 2.14 million square kilometers (830,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average, but 600,000 square kilometers (230,00 square miles) above the average for September 2007, the lowest monthly extent in the satellite record. Ice extent was below the 1979 to 2000 average everywhere except in the East Greenland Sea near Svalbard.
The U.S. National Ice Center declared both the Northwest Passage and the Northern Sea Route open for a period during September. Stephen Howell of Environment Canada reported a record early melt-out and low extent in the western Parry Channel region of the Northwest Passage, based on analyses of the Canadian Ice Service. Two sailing expeditions, one Norwegian and one Russian, successfully navigated both passages and are nearing their goal of circumnavigating the Arctic.
You can check it out for yourself using this KMZ file
. Or, if you’d prefer, you can simply watch the video below that shows all of the data in the KMZ.
========================================================
In following the link from The Google Earth blog to the NSIDC page link they cite, I noted the September Average extent graph, which is different than the usual annual minimum extent graphs we see.
And of course, it looks like a “death spiral” to paraphrase Dr. Mark Serreze, but it is only 30 years of data, so who’s to say it isn’t part of a longer cycle? One thing that has always bugged me about NSIDC is that they don’t provide data to go with their plots, and of course none was listed with this one, so I decided to use the large size of that plot to hand digitize the values.
Here’s the manually digitized data I got from that NSIDC September average extent graph. Values are year, and average September extent in million square kilometers:
1979 7.20 1980 7.80 1981 7.25 1982 7.45 1983 7.55 1984 7.20 1985 6.90 1986 7.60 1987 7.50 1988 7.50 1989 7.10 1990 6.25 1991 6.60 1992 7.55 1993 6.50 1994 7.20 1995 6.20 1996 7.90 1997 6.75 1998 6.60 1999 6.25 2000 6.35 2001 6.80 2002 5.95 2003 6.20 2004 6.10 2005 5.60 2006 5.90 2007 4.30 2008 4.70 2009 5.40 2010 4.90
I wondered what JAXA would show for September averages. Fortunately since JAXA provides the daily data here, it was easy to bring it into a spreadsheet and calculate the average. Here’s the values I got from my spreadsheet. Values are year, and average September extent in million square kilometers, rounded to nearest hundredths:
2002 6.11 2003 6.28 2004 6.16 2005 5.70 2006 5.98 2007 4.60 2008 5.08 2009 5.53 2010 5.45
Note that 2002 didn’t have a full month of valid daily data, but it appeared to have enough since JAXA plots September extent on their own graph. I plotted them both, using Dplot, and here’s the output:
Feel free to check my work, the output of the spreadsheet I used to calculate the JAXA averages is here: JAXA_2002-2010_SeptAvg
…as a PDF file of values (WordPress.com won’t let me upload XLS files)
It seems that the differences between NSIDC and JAXA average September extent are getting larger since 2007, and that JAXA is always showing more extent than NSIDC. In September 2010 there’s a whole half million square kilometer difference between the two averages. It’s curious.
Speaking of NSIDC, Dr. Walt Meier has asked to do a guest post here, and I’ve approved a slot for him, so I’m going to hold much of my weekly discussion in deference to him. In the meantime, the WUWT Sea Ice Page has a wide collection of images and graphs from both hemispheres to brief you.
Also, if you have not seen it yet, this book review from WUWT contributor Verity Jones on what the Russian Arctic and Antarctic Research Institute thinks about the Arctic Ice loss (they predict a rebound) is well worth a read.
Update: the JAXA average calcs might be in error, an artifact of how the spreadsheet cells return, unfortunately I won’t be able to check again and replot until late tonight, see upcoming announcement. – Anthony
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I think nearly ALL climate data including ice, run by AGW interests, with few exceptions, is in fact suspect. People are noticing…. especially when real time weather is not changing or becoming cooler and all the scandals with NZ, USA and Russian data, hockey sticks adjustments, etc…. the list is becoming monotonous……. I believe by next year we will start to see a trickle of successful prosecutions.
I wondered what JAXA would show for September averages. Fortunately since JAXA provides the daily data here, it was easy to bring it into a spreadsheet and calculate the average. Here’s the values I got from my spreadsheet. Values are year, and average September extent in million square kilometers, rounded to nearest hundredths:
2002 6.11
2003 6.28
2004 6.16
2005 5.70
2006 5.98
2007 4.60
2008 5.08
2009 5.53
2010 5.45
Maybe I did something wrong, but I get different numbers when computing the September average extent from IJIS daily data (in million square km):
2005 5.53
2006 5.91
2007 4.38
2008 4.83
2009 5.38
2010 5.10
REPLY: I just ran 2010 again independently on another computer in Open Office Calc from scratch and got:
2010 5448828.5
Update: Looking at it again, you may be right, and the AVG function of OpenOffice may have only done the first and last numbers, not the cell range. Unfortunately I won’t be able to test again and correct if needed until late tonight. See the upcoming announcement.
Thanks for double checking the work.
– Anthony
The dire prediction if an Arctic “death spiral” by Dr. Mark Serreze are a joke. Arctic temps are low, sea ice is recovering and the polar bears are doing well – WUWT?
In the mean-time according to the Daily Express here in the Britain ‘SNOW IS ON THE WAY IN -6C FREEZE:-
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/205993/Snow-is-on-the-way-in-6C-freeze-
What ever happened to global warming?
Mike Haseler says:
October 18, 2010 at 1:20 am
AndyW says: “Well done on the two yachts traversing the NW and Northern passages in one year therefore circumnavigating the globe via the Arctic ocean.”
Yes I agree it can’t be an easy trip…
But will you agree the top gear team’s expedition to the “North Pole” to prove the ice was still there and it wasn’t open water was equally marvellous?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_Gear:_Polar_Special
Its strange that we get headline news about rotten ice and how its actually so thin that icebreakers don’t slow down….. Yet the ice was strong enough to support a group of Toyota HiLux trucks. You are right it should be highlighted as much as someone with a catamaran circumnavigating the arctic. It won’t be though as it is not on message. But then Top Gear rarely is.
“Is it possible to create an approximation of the sea ice extent by some other means, from as far back as possible, up to and including the present date? ”
Essentially the answer is no. There is a reasonable amount of historical data for the North Atlantic sector of the Arctic here:
http://acsys.npolar.no/ahica/intro.htm
It shows among other things that there was about as much (or little) ice in the 1930’s as it is now. However the situation for other parts of the Arctic is much worse. Where would you find ice data for e. g. the Laptev sea in 1920? Nobody was there. Or for Severnaya Zemlya in 1910? It hadn’t even been discovered!
I think if someone was willing to put enough money and effort into it, it would probably be possible to produce a reasonably complete record of summer ice extent back to about 1950. It would take a big effort though, and require combing through Russian, Norwegian, Danish, Icelandic, Canadian and US Archives, many of which are still classified.
Its strange that we get headline news about rotten ice and how its actually so thin that icebreakers don’t slow down….. Yet the ice was strong enough to support a group of Toyota HiLux trucks. You are right it should be highlighted as much as someone with a catamaran circumnavigating the arctic. It won’t be though as it is not on message. But then Top Gear rarely is.
Please get your information straight.
The term rotten ice (which is very old) was used by David Barber to describe conditions in the Beaufort Sea. Your heroes from Top Gear never left the Canadian Archipelago where ice is thickest and oldest because of the Beaufort Gyre and because it is relatively protected between the islands of the CA.
Mind you, they drove to the North Pole, not the geographic North Pole though, but the magnetic North Pole of 1996, which was still within the Canadian Archipelago. And they did it in April, when the melting season has hardly begun and ice only melts at the fringes.
It took me 1 minute to figure this out. Wake me up when the heroes of Top Gear decide to drive to the geographic North Pole in the middle of the melting season. Maybe you can sit in the back.
Has anyone
Ian W and Mike Haseler
You guys realize that the “north pole” they drove the trucks to is the magnetic north pole at about 78 degrees north, right.
Not the north pole at 90 degrees North.
I just ran 2010 again independently on another computer in Open Office Calc from scratch and got:
2010 5448828.5
– Anthony
I did the same thing in Open Office Calc but get 5097088.7. Here’s the calculation I do for the original IJIS csv-file (right-click and ‘save as’ to download the file): =SUM(D3015:D3044)/30.
I don’t see how your September average extent can be that high when only the last three days of the month are higher.
Maybe someone else can check?
REPLY: See my update -A
– Anthony
Hi Anthony,
I got
5097088.7 km^2 using Excel.
-Scott
REPLY:Thanks for double checking! Yes, OpenOffice may work differently from what I’m expecting..unfortunately won’t be able to redo until tonight. – Anthony
NSIDC and IJIS September average extent numbers are quite similar. I’ve uploaded a graph here.
Günther Kirschbaum says:
October 18, 2010 at 7:43 am
I just ran 2010 again independently on another computer in Open Office Calc from scratch and got:
2010 5448828.5
– Anthony
I did the same thing in Open Office Calc but get 5097088.7. Here’s the calculation I do for the original IJIS csv-file (right-click and ‘save as’ to download the file): =SUM(D3015:D3044)/30.
I don’t see how your September average extent can be that high when only the last three days of the month are higher.
Maybe someone else can check?
REPLY: See my update -A
_____________________________________________________________
Günther’s means are correct, as is Scott’s.
In my Excel 2010 spreadsheet, I’ve used linear interpolation to fill in the JAXA data gaps.
Here are direct links to the three graphs I mentioned in a previous post;
http://lh6.ggpht.com/_QiMvdrrujF4/TLv-0LSqSZI/AAAAAAAAAEo/DhmMo5UUNvM/
Graph 4: Time series of monthly means for JAXA and NSIDC.
http://lh6.ggpht.com/_QiMvdrrujF4/TLv_DtCQD-I/AAAAAAAAAEs/8kkCyX0Jbro/
Graph 5: Monthly time series of the ratio of JAXA/NSIDC.
http://lh5.ggpht.com/_QiMvdrrujF4/TLv_MyxW_HI/AAAAAAAAAEw/Ir8Cp-iIkzo/
Graph 6: JAXA/NSIDC ratios for the same months combined for all years for overall monthly average (each month shown as it’s numerical order in a year).
The point of this post appears to be that the Japanese Space Agency’s data on sea ice, which dates from 2002 is a little bit different, and shows slightly larger sea ice extent than the US data from NASA.
There is no exploration of the differences which cause the differences in these results. Can anyone explain why these results would be different? Do they use the same raw satellite data or not? What are the differences between the algorithms to determent sea ice extent.
In fact the differences in data do not seem significant at this time, compared to the reduction in September sea ice extent, which appears to be accelerating.
The idea that a longer time period will show a recovery and that the recent 30 year downtrend is part of a cycle seems wishful thinking to me. Using proxy records, the sea ice extent to a period of about 100 years, shows that the recent trend is a significant departure.
http://www.wunderground.com/climate/SeaIce_Fig04.asp
Günther Kirschbaum says:
October 18, 2010 at 7:35 am
—…—…
You are correct about the Top Gear “drive to the north (magnetic) pole” situation. Thank you for pointing out that misconception.
Now, please explain why the average summer time temperature for 80 north latitude from DMI’s daily measured records have been steadily and consistently DECREASING since 1958?
And in fact, the rate that these summertime Arctic temperatures has decreased even faster just as the levels of CO2 have been increasing. (Note that Hansen somehow claims “his” adjusted and 1200 km projected temperatures” across the Arctic have gone up by 4 degrees when everybody’s actual measured temps are going down.)
eadler says:
October 18, 2010 at 9:13 am
The only truly Global Sea Ice phenomenon is the late September 2007 Arctic minimum and late December 2007 Antarctic Maximum. The former was -2.5M km^2 and the latter was +1.65M km^2 for a whopping -0.85M km^2 Global Sea Ice Anomaly. With an Average Sea Ice Area 0f 20M km^2 this represents a 4.25% departure from normal.
4-1/4% is a great interest rate, but a rather sorry excuse for a Death Spiral.
‘The idea that a longer time period will show a recovery and that the recent 30 year downtrend is part of a cycle seems wishful thinking to me. ‘
The idea that there is a straight linear trend without end in a climactic world almost exclusively dominated by cycles is wishful thinking.
The 1 and only exception is the general cooling of Earth over 4.5 Billion years, which will be rudely interrupted by the eventual expansion of the Sun’s atmosphere a few billion years hence.
Billions and billions.
Now, please explain why the average summer time temperature for 80 north latitude from DMI’s daily measured records have been steadily and consistently DECREASING since 1958?
I don’t have to explain because it isn’t correct. Tamino had a post from last year, but unfortunately it’s not available any longer. In it he showed how summer warmed very slowly (because of the ice), in winter the warming was much faster. Once sea ice gets below a certain threshold during the melting season you can expect temperatures to rise on the top of that DMI bell curve.
MikeA says:
October 18, 2010 at 2:59 am
“There are some sea ice graphs going back to 1860 here – http://www.climate4you.com/index.htm got to sea ice and keep scrolling down!”
Actually, one graph goes back to 1769 for Nordic Seas ice extent. Interestingly, the maximum for April 1769 seems less than what it is now (Ice free north of Svalbard). We also get an impression of the very large inter-decadal and centennial variability.
The greatest difference in maximum extent is between the years 1769 and 1866. These extremes are 97 years apart. If there is a ~60 year cycle of natural variability governing Arctic Ice extent, this fits very well with 1.5 cycle, so it seems to give some creedence to that idea. Also we can see the striking difference in extent between the years 1966 and 1995, particularly in the Barents Sea area, suggesting a ~30 year half cycle. There is a striking similarity in extent between the years 1769 and 1995, a time span of ~230 years, i e 4 cycles of ~60 years.
This old fisherman banged the data from the link from Günther Kirschbaum into a pivot table and got: (Now hold breath to see if this works)
Row Labels 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Grand Total
2002 10,544,766 8,961,289 6,255,068 5,917,047 7,933,070 9,881,914 11,890,953 8,788,207
2003 13,532,601 14,362,322 14,705,726 13,656,865 12,182,359 10,905,802 8,848,397 6,770,902 6,126,469 7,543,036 9,918,796 11,894,577 10,912,937
2004 13,201,099 14,069,806 14,122,747 13,104,438 11,744,138 10,717,162 9,011,810 6,704,970 5,958,901 7,685,318 9,836,743 11,820,741 10,663,564
2005 12,819,158 13,528,214 13,830,852 13,187,755 12,049,909 10,438,474 8,321,749 6,195,918 5,530,094 7,203,796 9,696,478 11,528,518 10,352,763
2006 12,650,172 13,438,041 13,512,979 12,981,370 11,659,975 10,303,927 8,086,537 6,376,422 5,913,271 7,383,926 9,236,521 11,316,054 10,229,750
2007 12,903,604 13,698,203 13,717,903 13,035,979 11,941,527 10,498,099 7,665,393 5,301,386 4,380,521 6,002,011 9,252,494 11,460,830 9,962,932
2008 13,062,258 14,117,705 14,352,011 13,492,120 12,123,690 10,599,505 8,394,925 5,956,084 4,837,037 7,210,817 9,861,901 11,659,113 10,460,809
2009 13,122,520 13,998,120 14,217,107 13,587,833 12,327,515 10,668,370 8,263,992 6,149,360 5,382,787 6,830,101 9,390,198 11,492,893 10,431,044
2010 12,877,147 13,769,102 14,278,478 13,835,698 11,995,882 10,030,484 7,904,602 5,968,266 5,097,089 6,341,838 10,317,914
Grand Total 13,021,070 13,876,547 14,092,225 13,360,257 12,003,124 10,520,826 8,378,028 6,184,462 5,442,792 7,163,116 9,621,701 11,634,359 10,325,917
You mean this tiny thing?
double MinRe = -2.0;
double MaxRe = 1.0;
double MinIm = -1.2;
double MaxIm = MinIm+(MaxRe-MinRe)*ImageHeight/ImageWidth;
double Re_factor = (MaxRe-MinRe)/(ImageWidth-1);
double Im_factor = (MaxIm-MinIm)/(ImageHeight-1);
unsigned MaxIterations = 30;
for(unsigned y=0; y<ImageHeight; ++y)
{
double c_im = MaxIm – y*Im_factor;
for(unsigned x=0; x<ImageWidth; ++x)
{
double c_re = MinRe + x*Re_factor;
double Z_re = c_re, Z_im = c_im;
bool isInside = true;
for(unsigned n=0; n 4)
{
isInside = false;
break;
}
Z_im = 2*Z_re*Z_im + c_im;
Z_re = Z_re2 – Z_im2 + c_re;
}
if(isInside) { putpixel(x, y); }
}
}
I understand he’s busy now, but I sincerely hope Anthony Watts will come back to this and explain us how he got the numbers wrong.
Sea ice area, since 1900:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seasonal.extent.1900-2007.jpg
New eye opener- Sea ice extent, 1951 to 2000:
http://www.socc.ca/cms/en/socc/seaIce/pastSeaIce.aspx
rbateman says:
October 18, 2010 at 10:54 am
eadler says:
October 18, 2010 at 9:13 am
“The only truly Global Sea Ice phenomenon is the late September 2007 Arctic minimum and late December 2007 Antarctic Maximum. The former was -2.5M km^2 and the latter was +1.65M km^2 for a whopping -0.85M km^2 Global Sea Ice Anomaly. With an Average Sea Ice Area 0f 20M km^2 this represents a 4.25% departure from normal.
4-1/4% is a great interest rate, but a rather sorry excuse for a Death Spiral.”
It makes no sense to add the sea ice extents forseptember in the Arctic to december in the Antarctic and claim the sum represents some kind of Global Sea ice phenomen.
In the case of both poles, the important ice coverage which determines the climate of the earth occurs in the Summer, when the sun is shining and the absorption of radiation is radically different between ice and water. So the correct extents to add are September in the Arctic and March in the Antarctic.
http://nsidc.org/seaice/characteristics/difference.html
Since the Antarctic ice almost melts entirely in March, the summer ice decline is entirely due to the Arctic sea ice decline.
The winter ice is not a significant factor in the albedo of the earth, because the sun doesn’t shine in the polar regions during the winter.
JAN says:
October 18, 2010 at 11:39 am
MikeA says:
October 18, 2010 at 2:59 am
““There are some sea ice graphs going back to 1860 here – http://www.climate4you.com/index.htm got to sea ice and keep scrolling down!”
Actually, one graph goes back to 1769 for Nordic Seas ice extent. Interestingly, the maximum for April 1769 seems less than what it is now (Ice free north of Svalbard). We also get an impression of the very large inter-decadal and centennial variability.
The greatest difference in maximum extent is between the years 1769 and 1866. These extremes are 97 years apart. If there is a ~60 year cycle of natural variability governing Arctic Ice extent, this fits very well with 1.5 cycle, so it seems to give some creedence to that idea. Also we can see the striking difference in extent between the years 1966 and 1995, particularly in the Barents Sea area, suggesting a ~30 year half cycle. There is a striking similarity in extent between the years 1769 and 1995, a time span of ~230 years, i e 4 cycles of ~60 years.”
Cherry picking 4 isolated years, 1769, 1866, 1966 and 1995 is not a valid way to determine the existence of a 60 year cyclic behavior.
For some reason, the Climate4you website has plotted the April ice extent.
The April maximum in Arctic sea ice extent is not an important climate driver and has varied very little in recent years, compared to the September minimum.
Jan,
I forgot to mention that in addition to the cherry picking of a time frame for the long term data in the neighborhood of Norway, there is also the factor that the variation of the extent line in the figure is shown only in a small region of the Arctic.
The images linked by
Jakers in his post:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/17/sea-ice-news-27/#comment-510703
shows the real big picture – a decline in Arctic sea ice which has accelerated in the past years.
This may not be the thread to post this but I just adored Mandlebrot. I used to type in one of his algorithms before leaving the lab Friday and then let it run all weekend. The results just mesmerized me Monday morning. They reminded me of quaint paisley print fabric. One of my current favorite middle school math teachers has Mandlebrots covering her classroom walls. One would have to be stone cold to not appreciate the beauty of maths.
I adored Carl Roger as well, who died the same day Liberace did (my grandfather was the voice coach for a local boy who become one of Liberace’s musicians). I did a graduate thesis that attempted to meld together Roger’s theory of development within a group, with Soren Keirkegaard’s individualistic existentialism. Vygotsky, who coined the phrase “zone of proximal development” was another one of my heros who died before he could eclipse Piaget. These men just leave me twitterpated!