After all of the news about a minimum record ice extent last month, this is interesting. As we know when water loses its ice cover, it allows a lot of heat to radiate into space as LWIR. many predictied that as a result of the extra open ocean surface, we see a very fast refreeze in the Arctic. It appears they were right. In fact, this is the fastest monthly scale refreeze rate in the NSIDC satellite record going back to 1979.
Here’s JAXA data plotted to show what has happened:
From the blog sunshine hours, here’s an analysis using NSIDC data:
=============================================================
Today is day 291 in the Arctic. The minimum in 2012 was on day 260 – 31 days ago.
If you calculate the percentage of ice gained (the refreeze) 31 days after minimum, then 2012 is the fastest refreeze ever!
Arctic Sea Ice Extent has increased by 43.8% since the minimum was reached.
Extents are in millions of sq km.
(And note I am using NSIDC data here and their algorithm is making the refreeze appear slow compared to NORSEX)
| Year | Minimum_Extent | Extent Day | Extent_Change | Extent_Change_Pct |
| 1979 | 6.89236 | 295 | 2.55691 | 27.1 |
| 1980 | 7.52476 | 280 | 0.95144 | 11.2 |
| 1981 | 6.88784 | 284 | 1.71672 | 20 |
| 1982 | 7.15423 | 287 | 2.41499 | 25.2 |
| 1983 | 7.19145 | 282 | 1.70096 | 19.1 |
| 1984 | 6.39916 | 291 | 2.08442 | 24.6 |
| 1985 | 6.4799 | 281 | 1.50769 | 18.9 |
| 1986 | 7.12351 | 280 | 1.8491 | 20.6 |
| 1987 | 6.89159 | 276 | 1.37713 | 16.7 |
| 1988 | 7.04905 | 286 | 1.76783 | 20.1 |
| 1989 | 6.88931 | 296 | 2.70935 | 28.2 |
| 1990 | 6.0191 | 295 | 3.46791 | 36.6 |
| 1991 | 6.26027 | 290 | 2.69726 | 30.1 |
| 1992 | 7.16324 | 282 | 1.67903 | 19 |
| 1993 | 6.15699 | 280 | 1.85199 | 23.1 |
| 1994 | 6.92645 | 279 | 1.1014 | 13.7 |
| 1995 | 5.98945 | 283 | 0.5189 | 8 |
| 1996 | 7.15283 | 285 | 1.77882 | 19.9 |
| 1997 | 6.61353 | 277 | 0.65032 | 9 |
| 1998 | 6.29922 | 291 | 2.35169 | 27.2 |
| 1999 | 5.68009 | 286 | 2.68723 | 32.1 |
| 2000 | 5.9442 | 286 | 2.32372 | 28.1 |
| 2001 | 6.56774 | 293 | 1.95252 | 22.9 |
| 2002 | 5.62456 | 287 | 2.41992 | 30.1 |
| 2003 | 5.97198 | 291 | 2.10126 | 26 |
| 2004 | 5.77608 | 294 | 2.37329 | 29.1 |
| 2005 | 5.31832 | 296 | 3.09221 | 36.8 |
| 2006 | 5.74877 | 288 | 1.72446 | 23.1 |
| 2007 | 4.1607 | 288 | 1.39556 | 25.1 |
| 2008 | 4.55469 | 293 | 3.33615 | 42.3 |
| 2009 | 5.05488 | 286 | 1.45951 | 22.4 |
| 2010 | 4.59918 | 293 | 2.88065 | 38.5 |
| 2011 | 4.30207 | 282 | 1.35023 | 23.9 |
| 2012 | 3.36855 | 291 | 2.62409 | 43.8 |
Source: sunshine hours
===========================================================
Here’s the NORSEX plot and NSIDC plot compared:
See all the data on the WUWT Sea Ice Reference Page
In other news. I’ve been in touch with Bill Chapman at UUIC/Crysophere Today to point out this bug:
It turns out to be an accidental issue, and he says:
“I was using the script to generate a plot for a publication that wanted a U.S.-centric view and it looks like I forgot to put things back to the way they were originally.
I’ll have it fixed by tomorrows update.”
Stuff happens, no worries.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Dave;
That uniform circle is the latitudes too high for the satellites to scan. No worries.
Just a “visual” observation: it seems that the Arctic ice is swinging more to the extremes, and perhaps we should expect a high level of cover this winter. Sort of “feedback overshoot” at both ends.
Ric Werme says:
October 18, 2012 at 5:43 pm
If you calculate the percentage of ice gained (the refreeze) 31 days after minimum, then 2012 is the fastest refreeze ever!
I call Bogus! How do you write what Click & Clack say? “Bo-whoo-whoo-gus?”
If even more arctic ice had melted, each new sq km of ice would be an even greater precentage!
And if all the ice had melted, the regrowth would be infinitely greater.
Typo – predictied -> predicted.
==============================
==========================
Take it easy Ric, it is not personal,
welcome the unwashed masses, they might learn enough to turn the tide.
[Reply: precentage –> percentage — mod ☺]
Hogwash. The Arctic is melting. I read it online just days ago, in an article authored by a doctor, thus he must be a smart person. It must be true. Or something.
“As Arctic Melts, Business As Usual” Written by Will Hickey, YaleGlobal, Friday, 12 October 2012
http://asiasentinel.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4893&Itemid=189
Gentlemen,
Thank you for the responses thus far on the Yale article, and might I request that someone (smarter than I) directly reply from this forum to theirs with a very detailed and measured response showing the gaps in their perspective on the issue. Thinking there may also be deficiencies in their time averaging (only 1978-present) and smoothing of the data that skew the longer term view…so to speak.
I just wanted you to be aware of what was recently put out there,and Zeke Hausfather’s statements deserve a response.
Thank you,
Tesla
The actual data makes it hard to conclude that those wanting to point to the Antarctic as a counterpoint to what is happening in the Arctic may simply be trying to change the subject from the recent unprecedented global sea ice declines.”
And those who point to the global average, are simply trying to change the subject from ‘why is sea ice going in opposite directions in each half of the world?’, and hide the fact that the cause cannot be a global effect.
At its nadir the ice was lacking in area however it was massively piled up against the poleward end of Greenland and nearby archipeleggo islands. It may have actually been pinned by the wind and very unstable in terms of potential energy. The combination of a sort of slow avalanche from that pile up and refreezing is now giving us something to behold.
I must say I believe I hit this season pretty good. Frankly I thought the ice would be fast growing and early. This will drive the Warmist crazy. Of course they will claim it follows the models. It does no such thing. But it does seem to follow weather patterns long observed by military and Alaskan meteorologist.
Let’s not forget the anomaly that provided a huge ice loss over a short time happen in the first place. Let alone the decade long weather pattern that year over year blew ice to warmer water.
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/08/a-closer-look-at-ice-impacts-of-a-rare-arctic-summer-storm/
Tim Folkerts says:
October 18, 2012 at 6:00 pm
David A. Evans says: “This is no surprise. The energy loss with the open water will only lead to cooling.>>
If that were the case, then wouldn’t we expect that the ocean and air temperatures should be below normal by now from all that cooling?
>>>>>>>>>
I’d think not. It is the ocean that is cooling more than normal. It must give up that heat through both conduction and radiance. As a consequence, I’d expect air temps to be higher.
Natural oceanic oscillations cause heat to build in equatorial belt. Warmed oceanic pools eventually wind their way to the Arctic. Arctic cover gets melted off from this influx of warmed water and extra heat escapes to space at the pole. Slowly the system returns to a cooled state with less warming at the equatorial belt and year round Arctic ice cover begins to build up to baseline again. It’s the swing towards the other side of this pendulum that is nasty!
davidmhoffer says:
“I’d think not. It is the ocean that is cooling more than normal. It must give up that heat through both conduction and radiance. As a consequence, I’d expect air temps to be higher.”
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/meanTarchive/meanT_2012.png
This graph shows your point. You can see the ocean heat escapinging into the atmospherer from day 230-260 (approx) then the dive back down to normal temps. It will be interesting to see how low the temp drops over the northern winter. If it drops to below 245K, i think we will see a very large arctic ice area at the beginning of 2013.
[Laugh] It’s all in the ‘Al Gore’ rhythm method perfected by Mann .. Ah the Thumb Print of Mann.
Is the NRL map on the sea ice page a five-day forecast? It seems to show more ice on the Siberian coast, and especially around Wrangal Island, than the Cryosphere map does.
http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/hycomARC/navo/arcticicennowcast.gif
Predict this will be last low Arctic anomaly in our lifetime. From now on the chill will set in as the low solar effect starts to kick in over the next 1000 years LOL
meanwhile, in Canberra, Australia, home to our Federal Parliament:
19 Oct: Canberra Times: Bob Douglas: Carbon age must end or we will
(Bob Douglas is a retired epidemiologist, a director of Australia21 and chair of SEE-Change ACT)
During a Canberra symposium last week on ”The Future of Homo Sapiens” in a 12-hour day of presentations and panel discussions, 15 leading Australian experts from climate science, public health, theology, philosophy, politics and economics expressed their dismay at the seriousness of the human predicament.
They bemoaned the continuing effectiveness of entrenched interests to maintain a culture of denial and inaction about the seriousness of the developing climate emergency…
For now, the climate-change denial industry remains in the ascendancy…
The good news is that many Australians are now acting and that the 50,000 strong Australian Youth Climate Coalition is working strategically with politicians on a number of fronts to awaken the dreamers to the reality that the threat is here and now.
The Manning Clark conference heard from former Liberal (Conservative) leader John Hewson, who is leading an international ratings agency that is monitoring the extent to which trillions of dollars of investment and superannuation funds are being used to prop up fossil fuels rather than promote renewable technologies. This is a brilliant strategy to force investors to a reality check on how their funds are being used…
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/opinion/carbon-age-must-end-or-we-will-20121018-27tqz.html
The commenter “Phil” and I have had some interesting discussions (to me at least), during prior sea-ice posts, about what became of the ice that existed before that big summer storm.
A third commenter brought up an interesting topic, involving how different salt water is from fresh water.
Fresh water freezes at 32 degrees F, but fresh water close to freezing actually is less dense than slightly warmer water. IE: water of 32.5 floats on water at 33, which floats on top of water at 33.5, which floats on top of water at 34. Because the coldest water actually stays at the surface, it freezes quickly.
Salt water behaves differently. It doesn’t freeze until it gets down to around 28 degrees F, and also cold salt water simply sinks. The coldest water does not stay at the surface.
This made me wonder how the surface can ever freeze. In theory, at least, the water would need to get to 28 degrees from top to bottom, before surface cold water didn’t sink, replaced by rising, warm water from below.
My actual experience, from a time I lived and worked on the coast of Maine, is that when the air gets bitterly cold the sea-water gets a sort of oily look, just before it freezes. I wonder if the air gets so very cold it freezes the very topmost molecules of water, which then float in suspension with the liquid water, and don’t sink even as the coldest water does. Eventually these suspended molecules form a skim of slush, which is the beginning of the ice-cover. I’ve witnessed this.
In any case, it is dynamically harder to freeze salt water than it is to freeze fresh water. The fact the sea refroze so quickly this year suggests it remained very cold, after the summer storm, even if actual ice was sparse.
I like to witness the stae of polar ice via the “North Pole Camera.”
Norwegan tapayers might not be too pleased, but American taxpayers saved a bit of money when the North Pole Camera drifted down to Fram Strait, but, before the ice broke up and the camera sunk to the bottom, the RS Lance retrieved it, or parts of it.
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/northpole/RVLance_Buoy_recovery_2012.html
There is a neat time-lapse film of the RS Lance plowing about the arctic during the summer:
http://www.npolar.no/en/about-us/lance/
“I was using the script to generate a plot for a publication that wanted a U.S.-centric view and it looks like I forgot to put things back to the way they were originally.”
Oh dear, Why do I feel so nervous here?
I fear we are facing some hard times, and budgets in Europe and America will have to be slashed. Sadly, this may mean some of my favorite luxuries, such as the North Pole Camera, may vanish for a while.
While I am in favor of slashing the budgets of some areas of “climate science,” which includes fellows who care more about political theory than science, my experience has been that a lot of the scientists who gather the actual data from the arctic are actual scientists. What’s more, when you contact them you don’t need to take them to court to get data, or emply the FOI Act. They are more than eager to tell you what they know and share data they have on hand. I urge people to be polite, and contact the various agencies. I was pleasantly surprised, as a Skeptic who has grown thick-skinned and who has become used to curses and abuse.
One fellow responded with an eye-witness description of what he saw, while flying over the arctic ocean last summer. Considering I can’t afford to fly up there and see for myself, the response I recieved was one of the rare occations where I felt I was getting a lot of bang for my buck, in terms of tax dollars.
I fear we too often leap to the conclusion that anyone with a government job is automatically a mooch and slouch. However they are not all bad.
Perhaps some have stressed the lack of ice in the arctic as a way to get funding. I can hardly blame them, and I think we will miss them, if we need to slash funding to a degree where we get very little news from up north.
One comeback would be to say that the average daily ice cover this year is greater than 2007’s and other low years:
PS: I suggest that a new figure be added to the sea ice reference page that gives the average daily arctic ice cover going back to 1979.
To demonstrate how you can get a good response, if you are a polite Skeptic, I’d like to share a response I got from NSIDC when I, as a nobody, emailed them with a bunch of questions.
Background: A situation had developed where a drilling rig was threatened by an area of ice, and closed down operations. It was in an area of the Arctic Ocean maps showed as “ice free.” I could get no reply from Royal Dutch Shell, as they seemed a bit gun shy, due to the fact Greenpeace was out to destroy them. Greenpeace was of the opinion there was no ice, as maps showed the area was ice free, and the “evil oil company” was making the story up. I got curious, and sent emails to various places, who replied and also suggested I contact NSIDC. So I did, and received the following polite response: (My questions, and scientist’s replies.)
————————————————————–
Hi Caleb,
One of NSIDC’s scientists answered your questions below.
Have a great weekend!
Cheers,
Shannon
——————————————————
From NSIDC scientist:
Did a 12 by 30 mile area of ice actually exist, where Royal Dutch Shell said it did?
Yes. I wouldn’t see any reason to mistrust them. Also, in operational ice charts, which track even small isolated floes of ice, the region had been marked as having sparse ice cover.
If it existed, could such ice actually be 82 feet thick, in one spot?
Yes. It’s unusual, but not impossible. The region where that ice came from may have been near Wrangel Island. Sea Ice tends to get pushed up against the northeastern part of the island and it can pile up, or ridge. As winds blow the ice toward the shore, the ice keeps piling up.
When winds reverse, that ice can break away from shore and start drifting in the ocean. These “ridges” can be quite thick – usually
~30-40 feet thick, but 80 feet is possible. I doubt the whole floe was 82 feet thick, but a portion of it was.
When an area is reported to be “less than 15%” ice-covered, can it have masses of ice this large in it?
It’s possible. The floe was 12 x 30 miles, which is ~20 x 50 km. While the grid cells of our output sea ice data are 25 km x 25 km, the actual resolution (“footprint’) of some of the input data is as low as 45 x 70 km. So the floe would make up only ~30% of that “footprint” if it was wholly within one footprint. If it is shared between more than one footprint, then it could easily be near or below the 15% threshold within each sensor footprint. Another factor is that during melt, our concentration estimates tends to be biased low. Usually this doesn’t affect the extent (>15%) much, but when there are isolated small floes present, they can potentially be missed.
Is there someplace I could learn more about such localized areas of ice?
Yes, operational ice charts, produced in that region by the U.S. National Ice Center and the Canadian Ice Service, are more focused on mapping specific areas of ice.
They are not consistent over time, so they’re not suitable for tracking trends, but they are better if one is in a vessel in the Arctic Ocean.
If possible, can you direct me to maps and/or satellite pictures that track such localized areas?
Here is a page from the National Ice Center:
http://www.natice.noaa.gov/products/products_on_demand.html
The yellow “marginal ice zone” areas are <80% ice, but often much less than 80%, often 10-30%. These areas may not be seen by our passive microwave data.
To best track these small areas, one would use synthetic aperture radar (SAR). This has a high resolution (on the order of 10s of meters) and can "see" through clouds.
The Canadian Ice Service doesn't really track ice in the Chukchi, but their website might be of interest as well:
http://ice-glaces.ec.gc.ca/
How would Royal Dutch Shell identify this ice-area? Do they do it independently? Do they ask you (or other agencies) for help?
They do it largely independently. They may look at the operational charts, but they likely purchase their own satellite data as well and they do their own analyses of the data. They also probably fly helicopter or aircraft reconnaissance flights, and probably also have a ground radar on the platform to detect ice.
————————————————————————
Recieving this polite reply made me feel a lot better about the future of "climate science." Not everyone is as rude as Mike Mann.
Maybee one factor adding to summer melt was ash from a couple of Islandic volcanoes?
Of course the freeze rate is higher after the record minimum. Our models clearly
predictedare predictingwill predict that this would happen. It’s just another natural consequence of AGW. Clearly when the arctic gets colder the Earth as a whole warms up.This is like october 2008 where the ice broke up late in almost the same place as this year,the open water has had no chance to gain heat from the sun I would hypothesise The rapid refreeze in the area broken up by the storm is evidence that the new arctic minimum was as a result of the storm in my opinion.