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.
Eric says:
November 7, 2011 at 9:50 am
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”…
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It is quite dishonest to use the 21 year base line since the AOO is a five to seven year oscillation.
http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2011/EGU2011-7850.pdf
Also it catches a decade of low North Atlantic temps and the lower half of the temp rise of the next cycle.
North Atlantic Sea Surface Temps: http://i53.tinypic.com/2v1ukg5.jpg
This means the “Baseline” represents “Lopsided data” and is not a “Baseline” at all.
How about we start over with a 1930 to 1960 baseline???? That is 30 years.
“How about we start over with a 1930 to 1960 baseline???? That is 30 years.”
How about no ice being our base line. 😉
Gneiss says “Ideally, you’d want to choose as baseline an earlier period when the trend was reasonably flat”
This is totally unscientific!
“This is totally unscientific!”
Welcome to neo-climatology.
I’m curious, why was the full post not shown, i.e. the part that discussed the recent GRL paper on coastal erosion? The plot is shown but not the accompanying text. It’s a very interesting paper and I encourage anyone with access to GRL to read it.
btw Gator69 and Gail, if we had a consistent data record that went that far back, we would be using a longer baseline. There have been many discussions at NSIDC about changing the baseline, and I think it’s time to change it to 1979-2010 since we now have another decade of observations. The worry has always been comments such as what happens on this blog, that we are deceitfully changing baselines to make an alarmist view point. No matter what we do, someone will say we are manipulating data/results/etc.
Hey Julienne! I would aplaud an update to the ‘average’. It would be a meaningful gesture to those of us who still have a love and deep respect for science, as it is meant to be practiced.
I do not have as large an issue with interpretations of ice levels as I do with the alarmism that is normally attached. Ice melts, big deal.
We are nearing the end of the interglacial. Look at the sea ice behavior versus persistent cold air dome over Greenland and NE Canada.
When the AMSR-E satellite instruments shut down in early October, that shut down the IARC-JAXA sea-ice extent data. Is there an alternate daily ice-extent data source online? When I say “data”, I mean a text file with daily data. not a pretty little picture.
Now, now people – we all know that our CAGW friends would NEVER use an “anomalous” weather event to drive their agenda…NO WAY. They are in it for the
moneyscience.Special reminder to CAGW-warmist friends here at WUWT:
In honor of Thanksgiving, please go cold turkey and DO NOT USE ANY PETROLEUM PRODUCTS or ENERGY DERIVED FROM PETROLEUM OR COAL! NONE. ZERO. Thanks.
The idea behind using an “anomaly” vs absolute amounts is to analyze something which changes with a regular pattern (such as temperature) and thus to provide a seasonally adjusted number. However, an “anomaly” is an artificial statistical construct that can only be based on comparison to some other number – such as the mean from a longer time-frame.
The issue with ice extent is that we are showing absolute amounts on a graph and comparing years directly so there really is no need to include a mean for this, except to make some point or other about a long-term trend. Therefore, you pick your mean to best illustrate your point and whichever mean you use will be justified only by the point you are trying to make. Call it cherry-picking or whatever you like, but it is basically just chartmanship and has no bearing on the actual data. For NSIDC to stick with showing the 1979-2001 mean as a line on their graph is as justifiable as picking any other time period to calculate the mean, there is just no point in using a mean for this figure as one is not needed to present the information
If you were going to actually plot anomalies in ice extent, then you have to have a baseline period to compare against. Not sure I have seen it plotted like that anywhere, but the calculation of extent is fraught with so many measurement issues in the first place that it would appear to be even less useful than the ‘global mean temperature’ statistic that gets us all so hot under the collar.
Gail, you might want to read up on reanalysis data sets. There are several products out there and they vary, particularly for variables that are not directly observed. But they work on the same basic framework: they assimilate any available data (satellite, station, radiosondes, buoy, etc.) into a numerical model to map atmospheric variables on a global grid. Reanalysis products are used extensively in climate research and services, including monitoring current climate conditions, comparing with those of the past, and preparing climate predictions. Information derived from reanalyses is also being used increasingly in commercial and business applications in sectors such as energy, agriculture, water resources, and insurance.
“There seems to be a mistake in Figure 1 (NSIDC/Oct. sea ice extend). According to it, Gulf of Finland is frozen. It certainly isn’t and it does not usually freeze completely until, say, late January. In some mild winters it does not freeze completely at all.”
From the NSIDC Website:
Please note that our daily sea ice images, derived from microwave measurements, may show spurious pixels in areas where sea ice may not be present. These artifacts are generally caused by coastline effects, or less commonly by severe weather. Scientists use masks to minimize the number of “noise” pixels, based on long-term extent patterns. Noise is largely eliminated in the process of generating monthly averages, our standard measurement for analyzing interannual trends.
http://www.intellicast.com/Global/Temperature/Current.aspx?region=rusia
http://www.natice.noaa.gov/pub/ims/ims_gif/DATA/cursnow_asiaeurope.gif
It looks cold to me . I don’t know why the Arctic roos extent has not updated for the last week?
Gneiss says:
November 7, 2011 at 7:08 am
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. […]”
===================================================
?????????? Seasons? Climate?
I’m just looking at the whole graph… and I don’t see Mark Serreze’s “death spiral” since 2007.
And 127,000 square miles of ice in a month? In SI units, that’s about 5,530 Manhattans or 15.83 Wales’. Nothing to sneeze at, eh? (I apologize for not using SI units in my original post.)
Very interesting about the frequency of the 5-7 shift in winds, and the choice of a baseline that may make for a reference line that is either low, high or correct.
If the frequency averages 6 years, then 5 x 6 = 30 years so 1970-2000 would be a better choice.
Using 6 x 3.5 = 21 years is 3.5 cycles which pretty much guarantees that the reference line is wrong, or rather, misrepresentative. In fact the additon of a decidedly unrepresentative 1/2 a cycle should raise eyebrows when the wave pattern is well recognised.
Good measurements from 1982-2004 would be a better reference period because a) it starts mid cycle so it has a representative commencement point and b) it is 6 x 3 = 18 years which is 3 typical full cycles. An alternative would be 1982-2011 or 1976-2004 which are 4 full cycles but the pre ’79 data might not be up to par.
Anthony, where were you in September? When are you going to admit that your reader poll submitted to the Arcus forecast was a pathetic display of ignorance or wishful thinking, at best.
You go ahead and block Günther. Go ahead and block me.
The prolific amount of disinformation you’ve spread over past years has had its effect. You will be judged for it. Get yourself a good team of lawyers and a private island.
I’m a peaceful and forgiving person but many people of my generation won’t be as kind once they realize what people like you have done.
Go ahead and block any person who has ever come close to opening your eyes to the reality of human-caused, catastrophic, climate change.
Keep denying. You are digging your own grave.
REPLY: Seriously? Digging my own grave? Typical alarmist claptrap from a person who not only wears blinders, but advertises how good they are to everyone else.
Here’s the facts:
1) I used to be proponent, just like you, but then in fact my eyes were opened.
2) I submitted ARCUS forecasts all summer, including one for September. Of course you are incapable of recognizing or referencing those, I’ll provide them for you here for your enlightenment:
Final 2011 sea ice outlook submitted to ARCUS
August WUWT Arctic sea ice outlook submitted to ARCUS
Sea Ice News – July ARCUS forecast published
Sea Ice News – June ARCUS forecast from readers submitted
So explain how doing all of these is “denial”, try very hard, because quite frankly your claim is nothing more than bogus ranting.
3) Note that back in May, I said when we first started doing forecasts that “My choice for my own personal vote was 4.9 to 5.0 million square kilometers.”
4) Note that others who submitted forecasts, HAD HIGHER VALUES THAN WUWT and higher than my own personal forecast in May of 4.9,
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/18/the-arcus-june-arctic-sea-ice-outlook/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/14/sea-ice-news-july-arcus-forecast-published/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/17/arcus-sea-ice-august-forecast-online/
But I’m the crazy one, yeah, that’s it.
Go FUD yourself. – Anthony
NORSEX indicates that Arctic sea ice extent is now just about identical to 2009 and 2010:
http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/observation_images/ssmi1_ice_ext.png
DMI shows it a bit behind 2010, but a whisker ahead of 2009:
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php
Gniess..
How about we use the running average from 1700 through 2000?? oh yeah we cannot but I believe if we could we would find that your term of “near record summer melt” would not apply and the alarmism would be put in the deep freeze
BDH
I looked at all the Daily Mean Temperatures in the Arctic 1958 – 2011. The amount of open water stablizes the temperatures during the summer months. Interesting the 2007 summer temperature appears to be lower than average. However; every summer is barely above freezing. My point is there are other factors that play into how much ice “coverage” there is.
Polar air circulation moves the ice. The huge changes in the temperatures during non-summer months are an indication of how much the winds are changing. Also, ice breakers help the wind to pile up ice that otherwise would remain a continuous sheet. Wind velocities play a big part in how far and fast the ice will travel. The thickness of the ice is another variable. Then there is the PDO. What impact does that have on polar ice formation, polar wind patterns, clouds, etc.???
I view these daily—I have no idea why??
I guess to see if they’ve moved—but if they have, then so will I have and wouldn’t be here??
The McMurdo station in Antarctica
http://www.usap.gov/videoclipsandmaps/mcmWebCam.cfm
Palmer station in Antarctica
http://www.usap.gov/videoclipsandmaps/palWebCam.cfm
LazyTeenager says:
November 7, 2011 at 4:26 am
Wayne says
Knew they would get something like that in there somewhere. Why is it always at the bottom? And, anyone have some confirmation of this from some sane locals up north? Sorry, but I so distrust any such information from any such government science site anymore. My trust is gone.
———
Maybe you’ll trust Exxon or BP then. They have been doing deals with the Russians to gain access to the Arctic.
Exxon won and paid 15% of the company on the assumption that the Arctic is becoming ice free.
So who do I believe? You skeptic guys or BP and Exxon? Such a hard question to answer.
Whatever made you believe that the oil companies are skeptics? Are you starting to believe your own rhetoric?
Not exactly central to the issue, but of interest (to me anyway) nonetheless:
How were air temperatures obtained at 3000ft over Greenland, when for the vast majority of the island this would be under at least a mile of ice? It might not be difficult to convert ‘measured’ surface air temp to 3000ft temp through lapse rate, but do they make it explicit how/whether this is done for land areas greater than 3000ft altitude?
To be slightly OT again, Anthony, was anything published regarding the final September ice extent forecast poll? I don’t know if I’ve managed to go through everything, but I can’t find anything in the ARCUS site archive.
Back on track; well, it’s all a bit of a game at the moment isn’t it? Our records are too short to draw any conclusions about long-term trends or what can be considered to be ‘normal’. In this light, sticking to a 21-year baseline is bizarre, seemingly done purely on the premise that including 2001-2009 (or making the baseline 1981-2010) won’t reflect a climatological ‘norm’ because recent years have been contaminated by AGW (analogous to GISS’ outdated baseline in published monthly/annual anomalies. Why not go for 1891-1920, or 1921-1950?). This is nonsense, because it can’t possibly be known or even confidently surmised, as the period of remotely-reliable data is just too short.
Was the extent lower in the 20s or 30s? How about other decades inbetween? We don’t know. Anecdotes suggest that it’s certainly possible, so why the reluctance to use a typical climatological 30-year baseline when it is available? It’s self-reinforcing rubbish, and can only be done as a method to accentuate an apparent ‘deficiency’ of ice.
Mark Serreze, tell us in 30 years or so when we’ve at least got an AMO cycle in the bank, and then we can consider even the possibility of something out of the ordinary happening.
BDH writes,
“How about we use the running average from 1700 through 2000?? oh yeah we cannot but I believe if we could we would find that your term of “near record summer melt” would not apply and the alarmism would be put in the deep freeze.”
1. The term “running average” does not mean what you think it does.
2. If we did know and use the actual average from 1700 to 2000 as our baseline, that would not change the steepness of the recent trend in the slightest. You could use your birthday as a baseline, the slope will still be the same.
3. The “we would find…” statement is just making up data to suit your beliefs, isn’t it? There have been a number of recent studies of past ice conditions. I know of no evidence in any of them for sea ice coverage in the past 300 years being lower than it’s been in the past 5. Their actual data, incomplete though it is, supports an opposite conclusion.
4. I’m not alarmed or alarmist, there you’re just name-calling.
Remember that you are talking about sea ice extent — how many sq. miles of the Arctic are covered by ice. The data presented shows that the loss is significant as measured September to September.
Ice is also measured in age. There has been a dramatic decline in ice age with very little ice more than three years old.
Ice is also measured in thickness. The thickness of Arctic ice has also dramatically declined. This too provides data that, as many ice researchers have stated, that Arctic ice is in a death spiral.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2011/080311.html
I glad that you are smarter than all of the honorable scientist that have devoted their life to studying the Arctic.
What threat does science pose to your political views?
Already relclimate in their latest fairytale suggests very seriously that 75% of global warming occured since 1980… so Figure 5 from NSIDC is now suggesting that really the key shoreline erosion occurred since 2000…
I cannot wait when they’ll tell us that global warming happens from june to december in the northern hemisphere and from january to june in the southern one due to the lack of wealth transfer between wealthy northern nations and their southern poorer neighbors…