From NSIDC: A rapid freeze-up
Arctic sea ice extent increased rapidly through October, as is typical this time of year. Large areas of open water were still present in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas at the end of the month. The open water contributed to unusually warm conditions along the coast of Siberia and in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas.
Figure 1. Arctic sea ice extent for October 2011 was 7.10 million square kilometers (2.74 million square miles). The magenta line shows the 1979 to 2000 median extent for that month. The black cross indicates the geographic North Pole. Sea Ice Index data. —Credit: National Snow and Ice Data CenterHigh-resolution image
Overview of conditions
Average ice extent for October 2011 was 7.10 million square kilometers (2.74 million square miles), 2.19 million square kilometers (846,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average. This was 330,000 square kilometers (127,000 square miles) above the average for October 2007, the lowest extent in the satellite record for that month. By the end of October, ice extent remained below the 1979 to 2000 average in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas and in the Barents and Kara seas. Extent was near average in the East Greenland Sea. New ice growth has closed both the Northwest Passage and the Northern Sea Route.
Figure 2. The graph above shows daily Arctic sea ice extent as of October 31, 2011, along with the lowest ice extents in the preceding decades, 1984 and 1999. 2011 is shown in light blue. 2007, the year with the record low minimum, is dashed green. Purple indicates 1999 and light green shows 1984. The gray area around the average line shows the two standard deviation range of the data. Sea Ice Index data. —Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center
Conditions in context
Arctic sea ice extent increased rapidly through October. Ice extent during October 2011 increased at an average rate of 114,900 square kilometers (44,360 square miles) per day, about 40% faster than the average growth rate for October 1979 to 2000. On October 30, Arctic sea ice extent was 8.41 million square kilometers (3.25 million square miles), 226,000 square kilometers (87,300 square miles) more than the ice extent on October 30, 2007, the lowest extent on that date in the satellite record.
During the month of October, the freeze-up that begins in September kicks into high gear. The rate of freeze-up depends on several factors including the atmospheric conditions and the amount of heat in the ocean that was accumulated during the summer. However, each decade, the October extent has started from a lower and lower point, with the record low extent during the 1980s (1984) substantially higher than the record low extent during the 1990s (1999), which in turn is substantially higher than the record low extent during the 2000s (2007).
Figure 3. Monthly October ice extent for 1979 to 2011 shows a decline of 6.6% per decade.
—Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center
October 2011 compared to past years
Ice extent for October 2011 was the second lowest in the satellite record for the month, behind 2007. The linear rate of decline for October over the satellite record is now -61,700 square kilometers (-23,800 square miles) per year, or -6.6% per decade relative to the 1979 to 2000 average.
Figure 4. This map of air temperature anomalies at the 925 hPa level (approximately 3000 feet) for October 2011 shows unusually high temperatures over most of the Arctic Ocean (yellow shading) and unusually low temperatures over the eastern Canadian Arctic Archipelago and Greenland (blue shading).
—Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center
Atmospheric conditions
In recent years, low sea ice extent in the summer has been linked to unusually warm temperatures at the surface of the Arctic Ocean in the fall. This pattern appeared yet again this fall.
Air temperatures over most of the Arctic Ocean for October 2011 ranged from 1 to 4 degrees Celsius (1.8 to 7.2 degrees Fahrenheit) above average, measured at the 925 millibar level, about 1,000 meters or 3,000 feet above the surface. However, over the eastern Canadian Arctic and Greenland, temperatures were as much as 3 degrees Celsius (5.4 degrees Fahrenheit) below average.
These temperature anomalies in part reflect a pattern of above-average sea level pressure centered over the northern Beaufort Sea, and lower than average sea level pressure extending across northern Eurasia. This pattern is linked to persistence of the positive phase of the Arctic Oscillation through most of the month. These pressure and temperature anomalies tend to bring in heat from the south, warming the Eurasian coast, but they also lead to cold northerly winds over the eastern Canadian Arctic Archipelago. However, along the Siberian coast and in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas, warmer temperatures came primarily from the remaining areas of open water in the region, as heat escaped from the water. These effects are more strongly apparent in the surface air temperatures: average October temperatures in the region were 5 to 8 degrees Celsius (9.0 to 14.4 degrees Fahrenheit) above average.
Figure 5. The top panel of this figure shows the number of open water days for the approximate 75 kilometer (46.6 mi) coastal zone along the Beaufort Sea (data for each year and linear trend). The bottom panel shows the average annual coastal erosion rate for three periods, 1979-1999, 2000-2007 and 2008-2009.
—Credit: NSIDC courtesy Irina Overeem, CU Boulder
High-resolution image
Sea ice loss and coastal erosion
Declining sea ice in the Arctic has led to increasing erosion rates along the coast of the Beaufort Sea over the past fifty years, according to a new study led by Irina Overeem of the University of Colorado Institute for Arctic and Alpine Research (INSTAAR). Their study used a wave model driven by sea ice position and wind data.As the period of open water on the coast of the Beaufort Sea has increased, so has the mean annual erosion rate, the study showed. From 1979 to 1999, the average erosion rate was 8.5 meters (27.9 feet) per year. The average rate over the period 2000 to 2007 was 13.6 meters (44.6 feet) per year, while the rate for the last two years of the record, 2008 to 2009, was 14.4 meters (47.2 feet) per year.
With a longer open water season, ocean water warms more and waves eat away at the coastline. The sediments comprising the coastal bluffs are locked together by permafrost—hard frozen ground with a concrete-like consistency. As the waves lap at the permafrost, they also help to thaw it, making the ground much more vulnerable to erosion.
Further Reading
Overeem, I., R.S. Anderson, C.W. Wobus, G.D. Clow, F.E. Urban, and N. Matell. 2011: Sea ice loss enhances wave action at the Arctic coast. Geophysical Research Letters, 38, L17503, doi:10.1029/2011GL048681.
Serreze, M.C., and R.G. Barry. 2011: Processes and impacts of Arctic Amplification: A research synthesis. Global and Planetary Change, 77,85-96.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“Exxon won and paid 15% of the company on the assumption that the Arctic is becoming ice free.”
Lazy Teenager….. I’m going to indulge you in your choice of nom de guerre and provide you with a little bit of information. Here…..
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904199404576540350519892620.html
read the article.
Get back to us when you discover any mention of the Arctic becoming ice free. Take time to understand the profitability of exploration and excploitation of a much in demand resource such as petroleum – even in very cold [ icy ] conditions. You might want to ask your parents to help you with some concepts such as research, evidence based decisions, and the trustability of agenda poltics.
More open water releasing heat and moisture into the atmosphere leading to rapid refreeze. I wonder how come there’s more open water? Hmmmm…..
Hey Izen! GPA’s are not static. 1979 to 2000 average is cherry picking. Period.
For Gawd’s sake people, the only thing constant about this planet is change. The climate is cyclical, it goes through warming and cooling stages. Does mankind affect it? Of course but it’s the extent that is arguable. Are we all going to die? Yep, guaranteed. Is the planet going to burn up? Yep, that’s pretty much guaranteed too – when Sol reaches it’s end of days. Right now we are in an interglacial period and there will be WARMING and we will see ice melt and guess what? Mankind is adding to the effect by such a miniscule amount it just doesn’t matter. All you Al Gore acolytes need to take a basic science class and try to wrap your brains around the facts.
The Article says:
“This map of air temperature anomalies at the 925 hPa level (approximately 3000 feet) for October 2011 shows unusually high temperatures over most of the Arctic Ocean (yellow shading) and unusually low temperatures over the eastern Canadian Arctic Archipelago and Greenland (blue shading)…..”
Where the heck did they get the temperature measurements from? As I recall the global avg temp do not actually use temps in the Arctic but smear lower latitude measurements into the area.
Are these REAL temperatures are model generated temperatures???
GISS Swiss Cheese: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/26/giss-swiss-cheese/
GISS Deletes Arctic And Southern Ocean Sea Surface Temperature Data: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/31/giss-deletes-arctic-and-southern-ocean-sea-surface-temperature-data/
DMI: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/28/giss-arctic-vs-dmi-arctic-differences-in-method/
Obviously, the warming is worse than we thought. Imagine how little ice we would have if it wasn’t so damned warm! Curse you, carbon dioxide!
So basically, what the alarmist “run-for-your-lives-the-ice-is-melting” head guy is saying is that weather pattern variations appear to be driving the ice melt patterns. And this has to do with global warming how? He must be up late at night, his head pounding with that question, trying to come up with the “global warming is the key” report without it being laughable.
H.R. writes,
“I’m not seeing “death spiral” here. 127,000 square miles added in a month is nothing to sneeze at.”
You’re confusing changing seasons with climate change. Ice area is growing rapidly right now because it’s winter up there, and at the end of the near-record summer melt, there was a lot of open water to freeze. The NSIDC graph compares Octobers with Octobers instead of today with yesterday, and the climate change stands out strongly there. This October had the second-lowest measured average, and is well below the trend of linear decline.
Gator writes,
“Thanks for the reply LT, but an ‘average’ utilizes the data from all years, unless you are picking cherries.”
If you look at any climatology data, including hundreds of examples on this site, you’ll see that they almost always use a baseline comparison period, and not the “data from all years.” For example, see Roy Spencer’s post about October mean temperatures just a few days ago.
“What would happen to the average if we were to include all years?”
Then the anomalies would all change with every new data point. Think about it, would that make sense?
J Bowers, did you not read the entire article? It clearly says what is likely to be the cause of open water. Read it again. What has yet to be done by IPCC, BCDD, and EFGG is to mechanize a relationship between well known weather pattern variations (those that occur frequently and those that occur less frequently) with a CO2 driver strong enough to overcome natural drivers and sustain an unusual pattern.
I cannot take alarmism seriously until that mechansim can be shown and well-reasoned to be the culprit.
Pamela Gray writes,
“So basically, what the alarmist “run-for-your-lives-the-ice-is-melting” head guy is saying is that weather pattern variations appear to be driving the ice melt patterns. And this has to do with global warming how?”
Weather and climate. Weather drives the short-term variations, as NSIDC carefully describes. Climate drives the 32-year decline, which they show in their graph. Or, in their own words,
“During the month of October, the freeze-up that begins in September kicks into high gear. The rate of freeze-up depends on several factors including the atmospheric conditions and the amount of heat in the ocean that was accumulated during the summer. However, each decade, the October extent has started from a lower and lower point, with the record low extent during the 1980s (1984) substantially higher than the record low extent during the 1990s (1999),which in turn is substantially higher than the record low extent during the 2000s (2007).”
Did Exxon or BP release data on the ice refreezing? Did I miss that announcement, or are you just being an ass again?
Gneiss … the baseline period from 1979-2000 represents only 21 years of data. Do you feel that this is statistically representative of the population mean?
LazyTeenager says:”Exxon won and paid 15% of the company on the assumption that the Arctic is becoming ice free.”
Arctic offshore exploration is primarily conducted in the winter. Ice Islands are formed by pumping seawater on top of the ice and allowing it to freeze, until the ice is so thick that it sits on the bottom.
Does that sound like Exxon is betting on global warming?
Do your homework LazyTeenager
30 day animation — lets see if Hudson Bay freezes on schedule this year. Its been running about 2 weeks behind which appears to be what all the hubbub is about. Comparing Octobers seems misleading.
http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/hycomARC/navo/arcticice_nowcast_anim30d.gif
Jon, a climatology baseline is not meant to represent a “population mean.” It is meant to give a numerical level for comparison. Scientists usually are careful to explain what their baseline is, and other scientists can read and understand that. Confusion sometimes arises when non-scientists see graphs or numbers, and think the use of a baseline must somehow be tricky. It’s not.
Ideally, you’d want to choose as baseline an earlier period when the trend was reasonably flat. We don’t have such a period beyond a few years in the ice record, but 1979-2000 comes closer to this ideal than, say, 1979-2010 would. The most dramatic feature of sea ice time series has been their steeper than linear decline after about 2000. That decline would have exactly the same steepness no matter what baseline you chose.
Hey Gneiss! I was a climatology major for a time, geology is my background, so I am more than familiar with the ways data have been displayed. But that does not make it right.
Batting averages, grade point averages, temperature averages, etc… are judging current performance against all known relevant data. This is how an honest assessment is made. However, if you want people to believe that a certain period is ‘normal’ or ‘average’, you just start speaking in those terms and pretty soon it is established ‘fact’. Orwell warned of this.
gator69, I have a hard time seeing how this statement,
“Hey Gneiss! I was a climatology major for a time”
fits with this one,
“Batting averages, grade point averages, temperature averages, etc… are judging current performance against all known relevant data. This is how an honest assessment is made.”
Have you really looked at climatology data? Have you tried applying your idea that anomalies should be calculated from “all known relevant data” to real time series that are constantly changing?
In any event the decline graphed above is real, and does depend in any way whatsoever on choice of baseline. Using a more recent (lower-ice) baseline won’t do anything to hide the decline.
[snip – stop using this blog to promote your pet theories – Anthony]
“fits with this one,”
Hey Gneiss! Yes we see you have issues deprogramming.
If you want a ‘baseline’, then have one. It sounds more like someone needs a BSline. But if you really want an ‘average’, and we are observing changes in sea ice, then we need to include all years. Anything else is stupid, dishonest, or both.
Gneiss … we know very little about historical fluctuations in Arctic ice cover … what I am trying to say is that the baseline does not really tell us anything … other than there has been a decrease in ice cover over the short term. We know nothing with respect to the real “mean” and associated variance.
dp says ice is “famous for when it is”
This is something that’s always bothered me. The impression is always given that ice is missing but as dp correctly notes, regions with missing ice at this time of year are a function of it forming a few days later than the mean. For example, the Laptev sea ice this year formed late but could only be considered missing or in decline if you stop time (since it is now totally iced over).
Calling ice in decline when it is still forming strikes me as just a little bit dishonest. Untill the maximum extent is reached, the worst you can really say is that ice is late.
I guess telling everyone that ice is a few days late doesn’t have the same scare as ice is declining or missing.
I am in the group that doesn’t agree with the 1979-2000 average as a baseline…
Every AGW promoter site/post/research states that you must have at least 30 years worth of data to show a climatic “trend” or shift. We now have 30 years worth of satellite ice data (1979-2009), why is this not now the baseline by which future years are measured?
21 years of data makes no sense what so ever as a “baseline”…
There is far too much sea ice in the Arctic (7.1 million km2). This is a constant reminder, that we are still embedded, within the current ICE AGE. Why do some people think that an ice age is a good thing (Izen?). Ice ages are a curse for the planet.
I once thought, that I might witness, the end of the current ice age, with the removal of summer sea ice from the Arctic. Now, I see that it was just a warmist pipe-dream. Oh Well, I did get to see the first man walk on the moon! GK
Gneiss:
“Weather and climate. Weather drives the short-term variations, as NSIDC carefully describes. Climate drives the 32-year decline, which they show in their graph.”
Climate drives nothing. It is a historical compendium of weather data to determine trends over time.