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.
Ooops! I forgot the bolding.
Lesson learned : A variable with a lot of natural variability is a doblededged sword, use against your oponenents with caution and accept it will eventually cut both ways.
Any chance we will ever get arctic ice volume data, extent and cover feel so distribution dependent?
Michael Hammer
I accept that ice probably has high emissivity but the same may not be the case for snow.
See
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF00120992?LI=true
Snow has actually a higher emissivity than ice (around 0.97) as this paper shows.
Problem when one talks about emissivity is that it depends on the wavelength. The paper quoted studies the interval 8-13 µm where you have only about 1 third of the total radiation.
It is rare to find a study which gives a curve (instead of a single value) of emissivities function of wavelength.
However even if IR emissivity does vary with wavelength, it never varies dramatically for solids or liquids because they are not gazes.
So it is safe to say that that water under all its non gazeous forms at 0°C and for all wavelengths has an IR emissivity which is approximately 1.
Ice being lowest and the difference to water is about 6W/m² radiation less.
Snow being nearer to ice than to water.
@ur momisugly TomVonk, October 19, 2012 at 2:07 am
Possibly more important than the emissivity difference is the ability of open water to transport heat to the surface in order to radiate it. With ice cover, the energy has to rely on the lwo thermal conductivity of ice to transport it those last few metres. With open water it can get there by conduction, convection and turbulent mixing.
Ice is (obviously, or it would be water!) also constrained to be radiating at or below its freezing point, whereas open water is (obviously – or it would be ice!) constrained to be radiating above its freezing point. Combine those factors and open water almost certainly radiates far more than ice cover under the same conditions.
Perhaps someone could do the sums for us?
Gary Lance says:
October 19, 2012 at 3:23 am
“Anyone who has made an honest effort to study arctic sea ice knows it’s toast”
Gary, Trends in sea Ice go up and down, it’s the nature of Ice. If you think 30 years of data is all that’s needed to understand what the Arctic sea ice is doing in the long term then your not fit to be discussing it in a sensible manner, splash some cold water on your face and come back when your not so childishly hysterical.
I think the cyclone that broke the sea ice up has dispersed the ice in smaller chunks not seen by satellite and consequently seeding the Arctic ocean making it quicker and easier for ice to grow when temperatures began dropping again.
@MikeB “Can anyone explain to me why open water should radiate more than ice ?”
Ice insulates because it is solid: heat has to be conducted upwards to the surface before it is radiated away. Open water is liquid, so heat is transported to the surface by means of convection.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convection
Paradoxically, because of the insulation air temperature will be lower above an ice surface (as compared to open water), while the heat below the surface does not escape that fast.
MikeB says:
October 19, 2012 at 2:40 am
” As we know when water loses its ice cover, it allows a lot of heat to radiate into space as LWIR”
Can anyone explain to me why open water should radiate more than ice ?
Because of differences in salinity, the upper level of water in the Arctic can be cooler than deeper water. When there is continuous ice cover these levels are less likely to mix. Without the ice cover, the fetch and therefore the height of waves increases, leading to greater mixing of the layers and a warming of the surface layer. Warmer water radiates energy to space much more than cooler water leading to an overall reduction in the energy held by the ocean.
@Gary Young Lance
No games here Gary,just facts,fact is the oceans are losing heat and losing it fast and the heat system of the planet might not be topped back up to same levels for a few years.In the mean time the Arctic ice will make its slow recovery back.Add in the solar minimum, and cooler oceans what do yoyu think will happen to the earth global temps over coming decades!!?thephrase global warming will no longer be used, it will be all climate change as those with an agenda will continue to push it.
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.
IIRC as it freezes, it does so by separating out fresh water (which freezes) while leaving behind more concentrated salt water (which sinks through the new ice, leaving tiny pores, to rejoin the sea. This process of differential accretion/distillation of freshwater ice proceeds to produce freshwater sea ice.
The same sort of precipitation/distillation functions for water-alcohol mixes (and probably other stuff as well). The freezing point of alcohol is well below that of water. When a water-alcohol mix starts to freeze — think beer in the freezer — it does so by first nucleating tiny flecks of low-alcohol ice (which then grow) creating a slush where the ice is progressively higher in alcohol content and the remaining liquid is “distilled” into a higher alcohol concentration. The process (which I’ve oversimplified) is described here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_freezing
rgb
What you guys need to understand is that it’s worse than we thought. It’s worse than the climate models predicted and it’s because of man’s extra co2.
November, 1922
Monthly Weather Review
” As we know when water loses its ice cover, it allows a lot of heat to radiate into space as LWIR”
Heat transfer from the ice free ocean to the atmosphere is primarily by evaporation. The global average near surface atmosphere is 1.7 C cooler than the ocean surface, and presumably this represents the equilibrium where ocean heat gain from solar irradiance equals heat lost to the atmosphere, leaving ocean temperatures constant.
What’s different about the Arctic is post the autumn equinox (now). is when atmospheric temperatures get very much colder, and we must be seeing large scale heat loss from ice free areas.
In comparison, Antarctic sea ice is 500 to 800 kilometers closer to the equator – Antarctic sea ice has reached almost the same latitude as London this year. This matters because the closer the ice gets to the equator the greater the increased albedo (cooling) effect.
So, we have large scale heat loss from open Arctic Ocean and large scale heat loss from Antarctic sea ice albedo.
MikeB:
At October 19, 2012 at 2:40 am you ask
I will give it a try.
Heat is transferred towards the poles by ocean currents. The tropics are a net absorber of radiation and the polar regions are net emitters of radiation.
Therefore, the Arctic ocean radiates energy which it obtains from warmer regions. But ice acts as an insulator over the surface of the ocean: heat energy in the water has to conduct through the ice if it is to radiate from the surface. And ice is a very good insulator.
Remove the ice and the insulation is removed so heat radiates from the Arctic Ocean more rapidly and, therefore, the rate of cooling of the ocean increases.
I hope that is clear.
Richard
Haaaa haa ha
“AGW Arctic Sea Ice Propaganda in 4 Easy Steps”
http://sunshinehours.wordpress.com/2012/10/17/agw-arctic-sea-ice-propganda-in-4-easy-steps/
The reason that the water radiates more heat away than ice even when they have the same emissivity is due to the heat transfer from the bulk ocean. In the case of seawater the surface radiates and therefore cools, the density increases and so it sinks to be replaced by warmer water from below. So the temperature of the water remains fairly constant until ice forms. In the case of ice when the surface cools heat flows from the underlying water via conduction which is much less efficient, therefore the ice surface cools rapidly. The radiation depends on T^4 so the radiation from the surface decreases. The water can’t go below -2 whereas the ice can easily drop below -20.
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? In fact, the temperatures are continuing to run above average.
The temperatures will remain higher than normal in a fast refreeze due to the latent heat of fusion being radiated away. Once the surface is frozen then the temperatures should start following the average curve of the DMI graphic..
How does a change of 2.62409 from 3.36855 equal a 43.8% difference? I get about a 78% increase. All of the percentages computed by sunshinehours1 are wrong. Of course it still is irrelevant, as someone pointed out above if the ice had completely melted this summer any recovery would constitute an infinite increase. And what is so special about day 31 after the minimum?
What has reformed is very thin first year ice. The volume is still at record lows:
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ice_volume/BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrentV2_CY.png
Thermostat.
“Hee hee. The high rate of change is just a simple mathematical consequence of the very extreme depth of the fall in ice extent in the first place. ”
And your point is, Lazy Teenager?
Since big melting slide ended in 2007 the oscillatory mode has re-established
http://i49.tinypic.com/xudsy.png
We are entering the positive (faster freezing) part of that cycle. There will be some noticeable recovery over the next couple of years.
WARMISTA WARNING: this plot was generated by looking at ALL available data not just the September minimum, so may be misleading.
I predict it will touch the 30 average first week in December.
Gary Lance says
Don’t you think that arctic sea ice is toast and it’s just a matter of a short time before the arctic is ice free?
Henry @ur momisugly Gary, Richard C.
No. That is not going to happen.
looking at the right graph (NOT A MODEL)
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
we are on a curve. It will take at least another 4 years before we have bottomed out.
Roughly speaking, comparing weather, you could count back about 88 year which brings us to about 1924. (2012-88)
Now, read this newspaper report from November 1922 (almost 1923). Do take the effort to read the original newspaper clip….
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/03/16/you-ask-i-provide-november-2nd-1922-arctic-ocean-getting-warm-seals-vanish-and-icebergs-melt/
Sounds familiar?
Stop worrying about the carbon. Start getting prepared for the cold.
As others pointed out earlier, a lot of the ice wasn’t melted, but instead turned to slush, which the satellites can’t pick up well. It makes sense that the slush would re-freeze very quickly.
What I’ve always found interesting about the Arctic Sea Ice Extent graphic is how little variation there is at max compared to the wide variation at minimum.
Mike.
Gary Lance says: Anyone who has made an honest effort to study arctic sea ice knows it’s toast, so what’s with the games?
Which clearly you haven’t.
Enjoy your toast.
The fast melt of the Arctic sea ice was a major story on the BBC by their so-called Environment Correspondent, David Shukman.
Oddly, there is no matching feature about the fast re-freeze…
BBC..? Biased Broadcasting Corporation….