UPDATES: New NSIDC data and a press release from them added below.
While some folks (Joe Romm in particular) are touting the recent University of Bremen press release suggesting a new record low has been met, declaring record minimum Arctic extent was reached on Sept 8 at 4.24 million km2, (See http://iup.physik.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsr/minimum2011-en.pdf) five other sources of sea ice data, NSIDC and JAXA, DMI, Cryosphere Today, and NANSEN don’t agree with that new record claim (at least not yet). While still far from certain, as weather, wind, and ocean currents could still force a turn downwards, the NSIDC graph suggests we may have turned the corner this year.
[UPDATE: This extent graph above (dated 9/12) was updated by NSIDC since posting this story ~ 6AM this morning, and it shows further deviation from 2007, compare to the NSIDC graph of 9/11 below.]
Below, I’ve added a vertical line to show the turning point for the 1979-2000 average (in red) and how it compares to the current NSIDC data.
The JAXA graph, which uses a different satellite sensor (AMSRE vs SSMI) also suggests that we didn’t yet reach a new record low and that we may have turned the corner.
For extent, only the University of Bremen (shown below) shows this year to be lower, and has no turn. It uses the same SSMI sensor as NANSEN and NSIDC, it uses the same AMSRE sensor as JAXA, which doesn’t show a record low, so the difference must be in processing of the data:
The wording from their press release hardly seems scientific and more than a bit over the top:
Alerting message from the Arctic: The extent the the Arctic sea ice has reached on Sep. 8 with 4.240 million km2 a new historic minimum (Figure 1). Physicists of the University of Bremen now confirm the apprehension existing since July 2011 that the ice melt in the Arctic could further proceed and even exceed the previous historic minimum of 2007. It seems to be clear that this is a further consequence of the man-made global warming with global consequences. Directly, the livehood of small animals, algae, fishes and mammals like polar bears and seals is more and more reduced.
The answer to why such language might be used, perhaps prematurely in the face of other datasets which presently disagree, may be found in the proximity of the upcoming Climate Reality Project (aka the Gore-a-thon) on September 14-15. Al needs something to hold up as an example of gloom, since sea ice didn’t repeat the 2007 low in 2008, 2009, or 2010, and the Antarctic has not been cooperative with the melt meme at all, remaining boringly “normal” and even above normal last year.
We’ll know the answer when we see if this Bremen missive is included in Al’s upcoming presentation.
As for whether or not Arctic sea ice extent turned the corner this year, note below that in the prime ice areas, surface air temperature is well below freezing. So. it is up to the wind and ocean currents and other vagaries of weather to determine if we have in fact bottomed out, or if there’s still some loss to come.
If it has turned the corner, it will be about a full week earlier than usual. There could still be another downward blip, as happened in 2010 and in 2007, so I’m not ready to call a turn for certain yet, but it does look encouraging.
Stay updated with all of the latest plots and maps at the WUWT Sea Ice Reference page. Readers may also be interested in the WUWT forecast submission to ARCUS and the notes with it.
==================================
UPDATE2: NSIDC has posted an update in their Sea Ice News section, which I’m reposting below in entirety for WUWT readers:
Overview of conditions
On September 10, Arctic sea ice extent was 4.34 million square kilometers (1.68 million square miles). This was 110,000 square kilometers (42,500 square miles) above the 2007 value on the same date. The record minimum Arctic sea ice extent, recorded in 2007, was 4.17* million square kilometers (1.61 million square miles).
The rate of decline has flattened considerably the last few days: Arctic sea ice is likely near its minimum value for the year. However, weather patterns could still push the ice extent lower. NSIDC scientists will make an announcement when ice extent has stopped declining and has expanded for several days in a row, indicating that the Arctic sea ice has reached its lowest extent for the year and has begun freezing over. During the first week of October, after data are processed and analyzed for the month of September, NSIDC scientists will issue a more detailed analysis of this year’s melt season and the state of the sea ice.
NSIDC’s sea ice data come from the Special Sensor Microwave Imager/Sounder (SSMIS) sensor on the Defense Meteorological Satellite Program (DMSP) F17 satellite. This data record, using the NASA Team algorithm developed by scientists at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, is the longest time series of sea ice extent data, extending back to 1979.
Other sea ice data are available from other data providers, using different satellite sensors and sea ice algorithms. For example, data from the University of Bremen indicate that sea ice extent from their algorithm fell below the 2007 minimum. They employ an algorithm that uses high resolution information from the JAXA AMSR-E sensor on the NASA Aqua satellite. This resolution allows small ice and open water features to be detected that are not observed by other products. This year the ice cover is more dispersed than 2007 with many of these small open water areas within the ice pack. While the University of Bremen and other data may show slightly different numbers, all of the data agree that Arctic sea ice is continuing its long-term decline.
For more information about the Arctic sea ice minimum, see the NSIDC Icelights article, Heading Towards the Summer Minimum Ice Extent.
*Near-real-time data initially recorded the 2007 record low as 4.13 million square kilometers 1.59 million square miles). The final data, reprocessed by NASA Goddard Space Flight Center using slightly different processing and quality control procedures, record the number as 4.17 million square kilometers (1.61 million square miles). NSIDC reports daily extent as a 5-day average. For more about the data, see the FAQ, Do your data undergo quality control?
They are ecstatic about this summers melt and the breakoff of a glacier in Greenland at Realclimate. (gives them more ammunition to use) The only thing that would make them happier is if ALL the ice in the Arctic melted. They would be dancing in the streets if that happened. Good grief.
SteveE says:
September 14, 2011 at 4:34 am
———
The global sea ice area anomaly has been largly negative since 2001… I think that’s what you would have been directed too when you tried to “chreey pick” a few years of high antartic sea ice.
And sometimes it has been positive. While you can’t cherry pick a measurement to prove a theory, you certainly can to disprove a theory. One measurement of something moving faster than the speed of light would disprove relativity.
Of course religions cannot be disproved. Whatever facts appear are always ‘consistent’ with the dogma.
Richard says:
They are ecstatic about this summers melt and the breakoff of a glacier in Greenland at Realclimate. (gives them more ammunition to use) The only thing that would make them happier is if ALL the ice in the Arctic melted. They would be dancing in the streets if that happened. Good grief.
If all the ice in the Arctic melted, that would mean more arable land further north and longer growing seasons, right? In which case, I’d celebrate, too. =)
philincalifornia says:
September 13, 2011 at 6:54 pm
R. Gates says:
September 13, 2011 at 6:24 pm
Natural variation isn’t a factor in climate change. You must be thinking of weather.
=================================================================
Forget Arctic ice, we definitely have a new low in R. Gates’ pseudo-profound pronouncements.
_____
Define what “natural variation” means in terms of the climate and then we can have an intelligent conversation about it. Specific forcings and related feedbacks alter the climate on short-term and long-term scales. If by “natural variation” you mean randomness, why study climate if those variations are random? Figuring out what specific combinations of forcings are causing the overall climate at any given time is the science of studying the climate.
Eric (skeptic) says:
September 13, 2011 at 6:39 pm
R. Gates: “putting CO2 and other greenhouse gas levels exactly where they need to be to forestall the next glacial period…”
You really think the sun is that predictable? What about GCR? Are you keeping track of the solar system’s position in the Milky Way
______
Over the last several million years, it appears the Milankovitch cycles with related feedbacks can explain the overall pulse of the climate. If these other factors are there, they are small ripples riding on a much larger astronomically driven signal.
@Phil Sept 13 3.58pm
Phil replies:
Well in fact it took 3 years, June 1903 to August 1906! Also it was built to withstand ice and relied on a motor rather than sail.
The Candian patrol vessel St Roch made the passage in 1942 and 1944
http://hnsa.org/ships/stroch.htm
The first journey by the St Roch took 28 months, from 1940-42.
The second journey by the St Roch via the more Northerly route of the NW Passage took 86 days.
So what.
Both expeditions inconveniently suggest that in the early 1900s and in the 1940s the Arctic sea ice was at a low point from which it recovered, before satellite observations began in the 70s
Some nice piccies from a 2009 post showing the N Pole under different conditions.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/26/ice-at-the-north-pole-in-1958-not-so-thick/
Unfortunately for R Gates and his AGW colleagues the NSIDC N/S ice extent series are moving further away for any record minimum so much predicted sometime in the future because of our emissions of CO2
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png Arctic is moving further away from the minimum to date and http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_timeseries.png Antarctic extent is moving away up from the 1979-2000 average.
Fortunately they can now claim that these up/down movements are all predicted by AGW and is a further sign that the theory is validated. I would still say that no predictions are possible at this time but the next five years will show if Santer needs to extend his 17 years to say 20 or maybe more to still be on message that the globe is warming because of AGW. If I recal correctly, Gavin Smith was talking about 15 years without warming to undermine AGW. It will go the same way as the prediction that the Arctic would be ice free in 2014. It then went out and out and is now 2100 or so or sometime in the future.
R. Gates says:
September 14, 2011 at 7:00 am
Define what “natural variation” means in terms of the climate and then we can have an intelligent conversation about it. Specific forcings and related feedbacks alter the climate on short-term and long-term scales. If by “natural variation” you mean randomness, why study climate if those variations are random? Figuring out what specific combinations of forcings are causing the overall climate at any given time is the science of studying the climate.
====================================
Even if you were to translate that from gobbledygook to English, I doubt that I’d be inclined to waste my time.
NeilT says:
September 14, 2011 at 12:41 am
Other misnomers on here.
Amundsen navigated the shallow inshore NW passage from *1903 to 1906*. He had to overwinter twice during the attempt when his ship was caught in solid ice as he was jumping form lead to lead in *summer*
============================================
Uhmm, Neil, you need to do a bit more research before you start taking people to task about “misnomers”. Amundsen’s wintering was intentional. Part of the purpose of the expedition was to prove that the magnetic north pole does indeed move.(Amundsen’s pet posit.) That’s why Amundsen wintered at King William Island.
Why do you people believe the ice should remain static? Can you tell me how the rye harvest went in Greenland this year?
Yeah, H.R. is right. It even happened to Dr. Mann. And who’d of thunk that could be?
>> R. Gates says:
September 14, 2011 at 7:00 am
Define what “natural variation” means in terms of the climate and then we can have an intelligent conversation about it. <<
Natural variation is anything not caused by humans. I thought that was obvious in the context of cAGW.
>> R. Gates says:
September 14, 2011 at 7:05 am
Over the last several million years, it appears the Milankovitch cycles with related feedbacks can explain the overall pulse of the climate. If these other factors are there, they are small ripples riding on a much larger astronomically driven signal. <<
Are you saying that the Roman Warm Period and the Medieval Climate Optimum were 'small ripples'? What does that make the current warming, a 'tiny ripple'?
James Sexton says:
September 14, 2011 at 8:42 am
NeilT says:
September 14, 2011 at 12:41 am
Other misnomers on here.
Amundsen navigated the shallow inshore NW passage from *1903 to 1906*. He had to overwinter twice during the attempt when his ship was caught in solid ice as he was jumping form lead to lead in *summer*
============================================
Uhmm, Neil, you need to do a bit more research before you start taking people to task about “misnomers”. Amundsen’s wintering was intentional. Part of the purpose of the expedition was to prove that the magnetic north pole does indeed move.(Amundsen’s pet posit.) That’s why Amundsen wintered at King William Island.
As should you, Amundsen stopped at Gjoahavn, because the winter weather closed in, the next summer he couldn’t have left there by ship. Likewise the next year after clearing the passage he again was stopped by the ice, so he sledded to a telegraph station to send the announcement then returned to the Gjoa to continue the journey. Over the last four years unreinforced yachts have been able to sail through in a single season without encountering the difficulties that Amundsen did. To suggest any equivalency between the state of the seaice now and at the same time of year in 1903-06 is nonsense.
R.Gates writes: “The ice core records would disagree with you Willis. The periods of greatest glacial growth were during cold periods on earth, that had lower humidity and colder summers.”
LOL how lower humidity can creat more precipitation into ice? You truly are clueless about processes!
R.Gates writes: “The ice core records would disagree with you Willis. The periods of greatest glacial growth were during cold periods on earth, that had lower humidity and colder summers.”
And since the great scientists of our era are telling us that Global warming brings cold winters as witnessed in the past two years, I would surmise that in fact it is during warm periods that glacial growth is at its strongest. Sarc/off
Because melting sea ice is the third horseman of the ‘pocolypse!
Actually, melting sea ice has little affect on sea levels. Melting glacial ice should have an impact. And as everyone knows it’s melting (How do we know? Because CO2 is rising) it’s obviously worse than we thought.
The primary cause? Unnatural variation.
R. Gates says:
September 13, 2011 at 12:07 pm
Gosh, you mean glaciers grow when it is cold? Who could possibly have guessed that?
R. Gates, what I have stated above is called a “truism”. The truism is that glaciers increase growth either by increased accretion or decreased loss … duh.
As such, the ice core records do not, and cannot, disagree with me.They show exactly what I said. I’ll go over it real slow.
Either … increased gain or … decreased loss … can affect … glacier growth.
w.
PS – on another matter I agree with you, which is that saying climate changes are due to “natural variations” explains nothing. It just gives a name to something, without explaining why it is happening. And as you point out, if it’s all just random, why study it?
For me, the claim of “natural variations” is just a measure of our lack of understanding of the climate. It is like saying “which people get a particular disease is just natural variation.” It explains nothing, it just names something. However, it avoids the underlying question … what natural variation caused some people to get ill and not others?
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/plot.csv now has 4 days of increase, and the latest is +47K. At 63K above the minimum I don’t think it will double dip enough to cause a new minimum, so September 9th looks like it.
09,04,2011,4655156
09,05,2011,4617188
09,06,2011,4587969
09,07,2011,4561719
09,08,2011,4545000
09,09,2011,4526875
09,10,2011,4527813
09,11,2011,4537188
09,12,2011,4542656
09,13,2011,4589844
Rich.
roger says:
September 13, 2011 at 2:04 pm
DEATH SPIRAL.
That was the the description the warmists gave in 2007. That was the nonsense we were fed and which poor Prince Charles ill advisedly regurgitated at the time, predicting an ice free arctic next summer.
This is the nonsense still being spouted by R.Gates in this very thread.
There is no spiral and there is no death. Period.
Get over it. The projection was totally wrong, and Chuck needs to chose his friends much more carefully if he wishes to be king in the future.
_____
Assuming you live another 20 years, I strongly suspect you’ll see how wrong your words were.
Willis Eschenbach:
Your analysis is not flawed from a logical and mathematical perspective, and as usual, I respect your sharp intellect, but it simply doesn’t match up with what the ice cores tell us. Colder periods…specifcally when summers are colder, are the periods when glaciers grow. Warmer periods see higher snowfall events due to greater water vapor levels, but it doesn’t survive (on average) the warmer summer months.
R. Gates says:
September 13, 2011 at 4:52 pm
“The last time we had this much CO2 in the atmosphere, (i.e. the mid-Pliocene) we had ice-free Arctic ocean summers.”
And your reason for having that much CO2 in the atmosphere then is what?
Perhaps it is that the Pliocene epoch followed the warmer Miocene epoch?
But what caused the changes from warmer to colder? “Global circulation patterns changed as Antarctica became isolated and the circum-polar ocean circulation became established. This reduced significantly the mixing or warmer tropical water and cold polar water, and permitted the buildup of the Antarctic polar cap. Likewise, the African-Arabian plate joined to Asia, closing the seaway which had previously separated Africa from Asia…”
And further about the Pliocene ” the Panamanian land-bridge between North and South America appeared during the Pliocene, allowing migrations of plants and animals into new habitats. Of even greater impact was the accumulation of ice at the poles, which would lead to the extinction of most species living there, as well as the advance of glaciers and ice ages of the Late Pliocene and the following Pleistocene. ”
So it was ocean circulations that were different then, but you already knew that. You just didn’t happen to mention it.
I will add your quote from above to the Gatesism list.
For new readers a Gatesism is a statement by R. Gates that standing alone is most likely true. However, he uses these statements without regard to magnitude, relevance or context and creates straw man arguments with hopes of hijacking threads.
Time to cloak him for this thread.
This topic seems like a real sensitive one for warmers. I wonder why?
The edge is now advancing in many areas. You can see many small lobes of growth. It’s clearly visible even on the seriously understated NSIDC image.
R Gates says:
“Colder periods…specifcally when summers are colder, are the periods when glaciers grow.”
So? Glaciers grow during warm periods, too. Glacier advance and retreat is a function of precipitation at higher altitudes, among other factors. CO2 is not one of those factors. Otherwise the planet’s advancing glaciers wouldn’t exist, since CO2 is well mixed throughout the atmosphere.
Most glaciers on the planet are receding, and have been since the LIA. And there were times toward the beginning of the Holocene when the planet was essentially glacier-free, and the North Pole was ice-free year round. So there is much more ice now than in the past… when CO2 levels remained steady at 300 ppmv or less.
If CO2 has any effect on glacier growth or loss, it is so insignificant that it can be entirely disregarded for all practical purposes. Other factors, such as the planet’s emergence from the LIA are the real reasons for glacier retreat. Not that the Believers in the CO2 demon will ever admit it, because their religion requires a demon, and that demon has been designated: “carbon”.
R. Gates says:
September 14, 2011 at 12:47 pm
The last time I checked the conventional estimate for the number of glaciers on the planet was 100,000. Of that number a little over 1000 have been subject to any kind of human monitoring. Of that number a relatively small subset have ever had a mass balance survey performed on them and of that subset and even smaller subset (you wouldn’t have to take off your second shoe to count them) have had more than one. For the other 98,000+ not much in the way of real data about their status exists. Of the glaciers that have been monitored the majority have indeed receded but some are little changed and a not insignificant number have actually expanded. Given the dismal state of human knowledge about the matter sweeping generalities about what is happening to “glaciers” globally are hardly justified and amount to idle speculation.
I would also point out that in most locales glaciers are hardly benign influences for human inhabitants. At best in some areas their melt waters provide a significant source of fresh water but, in the almost infinitesimal probability that proposed reductions in human CO2 emissions could affect the climate enough to cause a reversal of glacial decline, that one glacial positive would likely be diminished.