Last week on September 11th I was the first to call the Arctic Sea Ice minimum.
It seems both NSIDC and NASA Goddard agree with my initial claim.
Dr. Peter Wadhams had famously claimed that Arctic Sea Ice would be completely gone this year, even Gavin said it was ridiculous:
Clearly he’s been proven wrong.
From NSIDC:
Arctic sea ice cover appears to have reached its minimum extent on September 11, 2015. Sea ice extent on that day was measured at 4.41 million square kilometers (1.70 million square miles). It was the fourth lowest extent recorded since satellites began measuring sea ice in 1979.
Please note that the Arctic sea ice extent number is preliminary—changing winds could still push the ice extent lower. NSIDC will issue a formal announcement at the beginning of October with full analysis of the possible causes behind this year’s ice conditions, particularly interesting aspects of the melt season, the set up going into the winter growth season ahead, and graphics comparing this year to the long-term record.
Source: http://nsidc.org/news/newsroom/2015-arctic-sea-ice-minimum
From NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center
According to a NASA analysis of satellite data, the 2015 Arctic sea ice minimum extent is the fourth lowest on record since observations from space began.
Credits: NASA/Goddard Scientific Visualization Studio
The analysis by NASA and the NASA-supported National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) at the University of Colorado at Boulder showed the annual minimum extent was 1.70 million square miles (4.41 million square kilometers) on Sept. 11. This year’s minimum is 699,000 square miles (1.81 million square kilometers) lower than the 1981-2010 average.
Arctic sea ice cover, made of frozen seawater that floats on top of the ocean, helps regulate the planet’s temperature by reflecting solar energy back to space. The sea ice cap grows and shrinks cyclically with the seasons. Its minimum summertime extent, which occurs at the end of the melt season, has been decreasing since the late 1970s in response to warming temperatures.
In some recent years, low sea-ice minimum extent has been at least in part exacerbated by meteorological factors, but that was not the case this year.
“This year is the fourth lowest, and yet we haven’t seen any major weather event or persistent weather pattern in the Arctic this summer that helped push the extent lower as often happens,” said Walt Meier, a sea ice scientist with NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland. “It was a bit warmer in some areas than last year, but it was cooler in other places, too.”
In contrast, the lowest year on record, 2012, saw a powerful August cyclone that fractured the ice cover, accelerating its decline.
The sea ice decline has accelerated since 1996. The 10 lowest minimum extents in the satellite record have occurred in the last 11 years. The 2014 minimum was 1.94 million square miles (5.03 million square kilometers), the seventh lowest on record. Although the 2015 minimum appears to have been reached, there is a chance that changing winds or late-season melt could reduce the Arctic extent even further in the next few days.
“The ice cover becomes less and less resilient, and it doesn’t take as much to melt it as it used to,” Meier said. “The sea ice cap, which used to be a solid sheet of ice, now is fragmented into smaller floes that are more exposed to warm ocean waters. In the past, Arctic sea ice was like a fortress. The ocean could only attack it from the sides. Now it’s like the invaders have tunneled in from underneath and the ice pack melts from within.”
Some analyses have hinted the Arctic’s multiyear sea ice, the oldest and thickest ice that survives the summer melt season, appeared to have recuperated partially after the 2012 record low. But according to Joey Comiso, a sea ice scientist at Goddard, the recovery flattened last winter and will likely reverse after this melt season.
“The thicker ice will likely continue to decline,” Comiso said. “There might be some recoveries during some years, especially when the winter is unusually cold, but it is expected to go down again because the surface temperature in the region continues to increase.”
This year, the Arctic sea ice cover experienced relatively slow rates of melt in June, which is the month the Arctic receives the most solar energy. However, the rate of ice loss picked up during July, when the sun is still strong. Faster than normal ice loss rates continued through August, a transition month when ice loss typically begins to slow. A big “hole” appeared in August in the ice pack in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas, north of Alaska, when thinner seasonal ice surrounded by thicker, older ice melted. The huge opening allowed for the ocean to absorb more solar energy, accelerating the melt.
It’s unclear whether this year’s strong El Niño event, which is a naturally occurring phenomenon that typically occurs every two to seven years where the surface water of the eastern equatorial Pacific Ocean warms, has had any impact on the Arctic sea ice minimum extent.
“Historically, the Arctic had a thicker, more rigid sea ice that covered more of the Arctic basin, so it was difficult to tell whether El Niño had any effect on it,” said Richard Cullather, a climate modeler at Goddard. “Although we haven’t been able to detect a strong El Niño impact on Arctic sea ice yet, now that the ice is thinner and more mobile, we should begin to see a larger response to atmospheric events from lower latitudes.”
In comparison, research has found a strong link between El Niño and the behavior of the sea ice cover around Antarctica. El Niño causes higher sea level pressure, warmer air temperature and warmer sea surface temperature in west Antarctica that affect sea ice distribution. This could explain why this year the growth of the Antarctic sea ice cover, which currently is headed toward its yearly maximum extent and was at much higher than normal levels throughout much of the first half of 2015, dipped below normal levels in mid-August.
Starting next week, NASA’s Operation IceBridge, an airborne survey of polar ice, will be carrying science flights over sea ice in the Arctic, to help validate satellite readings and provide insight into the impact of the summer melt season on land and sea ice.
###
Note: shortly after publication this story was edited to fix a text formatting error and to include a URL for NSIDC’s story
Apparently Walham’s crystal ball was not made of ice. (Or maybe it was? Tough call.)
http://ice-glaces.ec.gc.ca/prods/WIS56SD/20150914180000_WIS56SD_0008474173.pdf
But, but, but, ……….
When atmospheric CO2 was ‘low’:
“Ice at the North Pole in 1958 and 1959 – not so thick”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/26/ice-at-the-north-pole-in-1958-not-so-thick/
None of the pictures in that link were taken ‘at the North Pole’ in 1958 or 1959. Here’s what it actually looked like on March 17 1959 when the Skate actually surfaced at the N Pole.
http://library.osu.edu/projects/under-the-north-pole/images/wilkins35_5_4.jpg
My grandmother had an old saying from
Slovakia: “Never trust a prophet that eats bread”.
I appreciate all of the solid science in the post and particularly in the parade of comments here. It is very informative and educational. Thank you all. But, please, try to keep this all in perspective. The Earth is at least 4.5 billion years old. We know very little about the climate on the planet for the first 4.1 billion years, but we have good science that indicates dramatic swings in climate on a more or less regular basis for the past 400,000. To attribute any importance to the comparative ice measurements since satellite observations of the ice were first calculated in 1979 is a making a mountain out of molehill.
John, Perspective can be a very useful thing. Geology and Cosmology make for some fun with their 4.5 and 13.7 billion year time spans. But such spans don’t strike me as having much to do with humans and any questions about our climate.
Just for starters, for most of the history of the universe, the earth did not exist. (About 2/3rds)
For most of the history of the earth, there were no multicellular organisms. (Only the last 1.7 billion years of the 4.5)
For most of the history of multicelled organisms, there were no animals (0.7 of the 1.7)
Even when there have been animals, there usually haven’t been mammals (only 0.25 billion years of the 0.7 that there have been animals).
Net: mammalian life is only 0.25 of 4.5 billion years of the planet’s history, 5.6%, and even less of the history of the universe. As far as climate goes, the climates mammals have ever adapted to represent a very small fraction of the climates of earth history. But we’re humans, not just any mammal. Dropping down to millions of years now:
Primates, our order, have only been around for about 60 million years (i.e., after the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary, or, at most, very slightly before it. Less than 25% of the span that mammals have been around.
Our family, homonidae, have only been around for about 20 million years. Less than 10% of the time there have been mammals, only 33% the span of primates. And, perhaps significant for pondering climate change, the entire time our family has existed, there has been a major ice cap on Antarctica. Our family has never experienced a non-ice age earth (from the long view of ice age). Even though ice-free is the most common status.
Genus Homo (us) is about 2.8 million years old. If they can get solid dates on the recent Homo naledi, this might be pushed back a few tenths. Still, only about 15% of the span our family has existed has there been our genus. Climatically, this is also about the same span has having significant ice in the northern hemisphere (Greenland glaciated about this time).
Then come to our species. Anthropologists are arguing, of course, but a fair number seems to be 0.2 million years. Our species has been around for less than 10% the history of our genus. In that span we’ve mostly experienced glacials (only about 25 ky have been interglacial) with sea levels 100 meters or more lower than current.
Against the big picture of the history of the earth, our species 0.004 % is pretty tiny. Even smaller percentage than the fraction of the atmosphere which is CO2. Yet most humans seem to care about this tiny fraction.
So, drop to mere thousands of years. Out of the 200 kyears of our species:
Farming is only the past 12 kyears (all of it being during the current interglacial)
Living in cities is only about 6 kyears old (give or take some singular examples)
Human population has been over 1 billion for only 0.2 kyears (0.1% of our species history)
We passed 5 billion only around 0.030 kyears ago (quite a few readers here were on the planet for that event).
The long view leads to … well, depends on the viewer. Clearly life on earth (3.8 of the 4.5 billion years) has and will continue to exist despite or because of the changes currently in process. But the circumstances of most of earth history would put large fractions of the world’s population below sea level (geologically speaking, we’re low for now), and unable to farm (life on land is only 0.4 billion years of the 4.5 billion year planetary history).
And yet, John Coleman is right and Peter Wadhams is, and was, wrong.
In other words: “I told you so”.
but you did..
Wind. Polar sea ice levels are determined by ocean temperatures and wind. I suspect that Antarctic winds have become more zonal lately while an August storm once again reduced the Arctic sea ice.
Is there any chance of Agenda 21 putting World domination on hold till we actually know what’s on?
I have never understood why, given the weather pattern change prone nature of the Arctic, any ice melt changes would immediately be ascribed to CO2. My God, every Northern Hemispheric major weather pattern oscillation, be it atmospheric, oceanic or both in a teleconnected dance, reaches into the Arctic.
But the climate criminals of the CAGW gang attribute all weather phenomena, whether in the tropics, temperate zone or polar regions, to the One Great Control Knob, ie the magic laughable gas CO2.
“But the climate criminals of the CAGW gang attribute all weather phenomena, whether in the tropics, temperate zone or polar regions, to the One Great Control Knob, ie the magic laughable gas CO2.”
No, that’s not true: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/04/09/warm-blob-in-pacific-ocean-not-caused-by-climate-change-affects-u-s-weather/
Chris,
Glad you admit that CO2 isn’t the control knob of the climate. Maybe there’s hope for you yet.
DB Stealey,
That is not what I said. Why do you make intentional misstatements like that? Do you think they actually fool anyone? I refuted Lady G’s point that climate researchers attribute all weather phenomenon to AGW. You then take the massive, unfounded leap of logic to say that means I say that CO2 causes none of these weather events.
Chris says:
…I say that CO2 causes none of these weather events.
Help us out here, Chris: what, exactly do you believe?
My position all along has been that rising CO2 is a non-problem. There is no evidence of any global damage, or harm, due to the added CO2. Therefore, it follows that we think CO2 is “harmless”. (We already know that CO2 doesn’t cause weather. Why even mention that nonsense?)
No global “harm”; then the most reasonable assumption is “harmless”.
But if you believe that CO2 is causing global damage, or global harm, you need to post verifiable, testable evidence showing that is happening. I’ve seen no one else ever show that, but if that’s what you believe, post measurements of the global harm being caused by the rise in CO2 from 3 parts in 10,000, to 4 parts in 10,000 — over the past century and a half..
@Lewis P: Another warmista. 2 sigma is normal, within natural variability. Anything to do with weather has huge natural variability. Study the long term to learn a bit. We have centuries of northern Admiralty. Check what is happening to the dominant portal for northern waters, the North Atlantic temperatures. Understand that they are starting a regular cyclic cooldown of c.32yrs, after a similar warmup period. Consider what this might mean for those profiting from pushing fry-mageddon.
True. And the Antarctic has been more than 2 std deviations above its previous average for almost all of the past three years. The arctic sea ice has not been decreasing the past 8 years, but has been oscillating at -1.0 Mkn^2 the entire time. There is no specific evidence its anomaly is getting any smaller (nor any larger), while the Antarctic sea ice “excess” anomaly in 2014 was larger than Greenlands’s entire ice cap.
Bucky sez:
2-sigma below the average five years in a row is not “natural variability”
And there we see the total “evidence” the alarmist cult has: a baseless assertion, unsupported by any geological measurements — because we don’t have precise measurements.
But we know the Arctic was very likely ice-free some 6,000 years ago. That alone debunks the assertion that the current small fluctuation at one of the Poles is anything other than natural variability.
DB Stealey said:
“But we know the Arctic was very likely ice-free some 6,000 years ago. That alone debunks the assertion that the current small fluctuation at one of the Poles is anything other than natural variability.”
It debunks nothing. All fires 10,000 years ago were naturally caused (by lightning). Does that mean that all fires today are naturally caused? Of course not.
It is when the so called average was nothing more than the high point of the 60 year PDO cycle.
The fact that it is still below the arbitrary average does not disguise the fact that for the last 3 years running, the amount of ice has been increasing.
Chis, until you can prove that whatever caused the arctic to go ice free 6000 years ago is not in operation today, then you have proven nothing.
lewis , the north sea summer surface temperatures peaked 6 c cooler than last summer . i now expect your head to explode.
@Chris…how can you be so certain that some careless or crazed caveman never set fire to the woods or brush land accidentally or on purpose. Now that I think on that, I thought that I had read that setting fire to brush land was one way for early hunters to drive game into traps. So your analogy is nothing but a figment of your thoughts.
Mark said: :Chis, until you can prove that whatever caused the arctic to go ice free 6000 years ago is not in operation today, then you have proven nothing.”
No, the is incorrect. Stealey made the statement that the fact that the Artcic was ice free 6,000 years ago disproved AGW. I gave an example of how that could not be true. I agree that the cause (until studied) could be either natural or man made, but you cannot eliminate man made using his logic.
Chris said that I stated …the fact that the Artcic was ice free 6,000 years ago disproved AGW.
Actually, I wrote:
What’s being observed now has happened repeatedly, and to a much greater degree before there were any human CO2 emissions outside of people exhaling and lighting campfires.
Chris knows nothing of the climate Null Hypothesis, which has never been falsified. Since no measurable changes have been observed due to the rise in human CO2 emissions, the Null Hypothesis says that we must accept that for all practical purposes, human CO2 emissions have no effect.
The alarmist cult claims that emissions will cause accelerating global warming. They were wrong. The Null Hypothesis remains unfalsified, which in turn means the alternate hypothesis is falsified.
Chris doesn’t understand this because he can’t understand the Null Hypothesis. But he Believes, which is enough for him.
And CO2 only affects the Arctic. The Antarctic is immune:
http://www.climate4you.com/images/NSIDC%20GlobalArcticAntarctic%20SeaIceArea.gif
Microwave generation.
Just sayin………
Why don’t we all pipe down and wait another 15 to 20 years to see what has happened in the meantime.
Have you posted that on realclimate.org? Let us know how you go.
realclimate is a propaganda blog run by a guy who claims he won the Nobel Prize.
Propaganda blog? A guess any blog that concludes that AGW is real is a propaganda blog to DB Stealey.
Chris,
Why should anyone take you seriously?
I’ve said consistently that I think AGW exists. I’ve never said anything else. So you are just spouting nonsense.
FYI: the host of WUWT accepts that AGW exists, and this is certainly not a propaganda blog like realclimate. So your ‘guess’ is flat wrong.
I see that Chris is still determined to defend the indefensible.
I guess it’s all he’s got left.
the fact that chris is even here tells me the doubts are creeping in.saw signs of this on another forum this past year. once the uncertainty monster gets even a tiny nod the game is over for the believer involved. I predict he will be an ardent “denier” within 24 months 😉
DB Stealey,
You’ve said it exists but is so small it is indistinguishable from natural causes, too small to be measured in nature. There is a huge difference between that and the position that AGW is having a measurable impact on climate.
bit chilly,
There are no doubts creeping in.
Mark W, what is “the indefensible’?
Chris says:
DB Stealey,
You’ve said it [AGW] exists but is so small it is indistinguishable from natural causes, too small to be measured in nature. There is a huge difference between that and the position that AGW is having a measurable impact on climate.
Well… DUH.
Because your eco-belief seems to be that AGW is having a measurable impact on climate. Show us.
Post a few empirical, testable measurements quantifying the fraction of man-made global warming (MMGW), out of total global warming from all causes, including causes like the planet’s recovery from the LIA, from the AMO, from solar changes, etc., etc. What fraction of global warming is caused by human CO2 emissions?
No opinions, please. No conjectures. No ‘what-ifs’. Only verifiable measurements quantifying the fraction of MMGW. That’s the number we want. And it has to be testable.
If you don’t understand ‘testable’, read up on Popper. And if you actually do find any measurements accurately quantifying MMGW, and which everyone can agree on and replicate, you will certainly be on the short list for a real Nobel Prize… instead of being an anonymous commenter with a baseless opinion.
OK, I have an ice-related question. Apologies if it’s stupid, but it’s really been bugging me!
When I look at the SST anomaly graphs on the Sea Ice reference page, there’s a raging set of reds around the remaining Arctic ice pack – indicating temperatures between 2 and 4C above the long-term average. Which is probably what you would expect if you’re measuring the temperature of what is now water as opposed to the ice that USED to be there when the extent was greater.
Now, setting aside the possible REASON for there being water rather than Ice there, NASA, GISS, Met Office etc. ALL repeat the mantra that “temperatures are rising faster at the poles than anywhere else” and produce their nasty looking anomaly maps with the planet topped in red.
The question, then: Is what they are reporting as a significant temperature anomaly in the Arctic simply a result of including the SSTs for the region that are measuring the temperature of water rather than ice? If so, what impact is that having on the global measurement / anomaly? And is it something, like land use changes, UHI, etc, than needs to be factored into “homogenisation”?
i believe these are artifacts of the methodology used to “measure” sea surface temps. sea of cortez still showing warm anomalies when it is actually cooler than expected for the time of year as evidenced by species of bait fish currently present,and the scottish east coast of the north sea was showing the same up until two updates ago of the noaa global sea surface temperature anomaly map despite summer temps peaking 6cbelow those of last year,around 2 c lower than the long term average.
i posted this observation in a few places and it appeared to get “noticed” as the north sea area in question is now displaying the correct cool anomaly colour coding, though still for too small an area. it must be crap to be one of these scientists using fancy extrapolation algorithms when a cretin like me can make them look dumb purely by speaking to a number of friends that spend more time at sea every year than the combined total of the wrlds marine biologists actually noting important things like real time water temps.
most people that post in this blog know plenty more about science than i ever will,but there is no one that will be telling me anything about water temps in the north east atlantic, no matter how many letters they have after their name, no one.
Thanks for interesting piece, seems opinions are divided on the fate of Arctic ice cap … I recently did an opinion post over what another “science” site was saying about GW – http://doncharisma.org/2015/09/10/wtf-artic-ice-cap-is-growing-not-shrinking-don-charismas-opinion/ , most interestingly a lot of people seem to be sceptical that there’s actually a problem and whether it’s a man made issue or not … also fair comment was made that the Earth has been around for millions of years and goes through phases of cooler and hotter, which last far far longer than records since 1970 …
If I’m posting about GW again, I’ll be sure to see what’s current here, thanks for the site and the hard work you’ve put in here 🙂
Cheers
Don Charisma
the paris effect ?