Arctic sea ice wintertime extent sees a record low

Arctic sea ice was at a record low wintertime maximum extent for the second straight year. At 5.607 million square miles, it is the lowest maximum extent in the satellite record, and 431,000 square miles below the 1981 to 2010 average maximum extent. CREDIT Credits: NASA Goddard's Scientific Visualization Studio/C. Starr
Arctic sea ice was at a record low wintertime maximum extent for the second straight year. At 5.607 million square miles, it is the lowest maximum extent in the satellite record, and 431,000 square miles below the 1981 to 2010 average maximum extent. CREDIT Credits: NASA Goddard’s Scientific Visualization Studio/C. Starr

Arctic sea ice appears to have reached a record low wintertime maximum extent for the second year in a row, according to scientists at the NASA-supported National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) and NASA.

Every year, the cap of frozen seawater floating on top of the Arctic Ocean and its neighboring seas melts during the spring and summer and grows back in the fall and winter months, reaching its maximum yearly extent between February and April. On March 24, Arctic sea ice extent peaked at 5.607 million square miles (14.52 million square kilometers), a new record low winter maximum extent in the satellite record that started in 1979. It is slightly smaller than the previous record low maximum extent of 5.612 million square miles (14.54 million square kilometers) that occurred last year. The 13 smallest maximum extents on the satellite record have happened in the last 13 years.

The new record low follows record high temperatures in December, January and February around the globe and in the Arctic. The atmospheric warmth probably contributed to this lowest maximum extent, with air temperatures up to 10 degrees Fahrenheit above average at the edges of the ice pack where sea ice is thin, said Walt Meier, a sea ice scientist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland.

The wind patterns in the Arctic during January and February were also unfavorable to ice growth because they brought warm air from the south and prevented expansion of the ice cover. But ultimately, what will likely play a bigger role in the future trend of Arctic maximum extents is warming ocean waters, Meier said.

“It is likely that we’re going to keep seeing smaller wintertime maximums in the future because in addition to a warmer atmosphere, the ocean has also warmed up. That warmer ocean will not let the ice edge expand as far south as it used to,” Meier said. “Although the maximum reach of the sea ice can vary a lot each year depending on winter weather conditions, we’re seeing a significant downward trend, and that’s ultimately related to the warming atmosphere and oceans.” Since 1979, that trend has led to a loss of 620,000 square miles of winter sea ice cover, an area more than twice the size of Texas.

This year’s record low sea ice maximum extent will not necessarily result in a subsequent record low summertime minimum extent, Meier said. Summer weather conditions have a larger impact than the extent of the winter maximum in the outcome of each year’s melt season; warm temperatures and summer storms make the ice melt fast, while if a summer is cool, the melt slows down.

Arctic sea ice plays an important role in maintaining Earth’s temperature–its bright white surface reflects solar energy that the ocean would otherwise absorb. But this effect is more relevant in the summer, when the sun is high in the sky in the Arctic, than in the winter, when the sun doesn’t rise for months within the Arctic Circle. In the winter, the impact of missing sea ice is mostly felt in the atmosphere, said Jennifer Francis, a climate scientist at Rutgers University in New Brunswick, New Jersey.

“In places where sea ice has been lost, those areas of open water will put more heat into the atmosphere because the air is much colder than unfrozen sea water,” Francis said. “As winter sea ice disappears, areas of unusually warm air temperatures in the Arctic will expand. These are also areas of increased evaporation, and the resulting water vapor will contribute to increased cloudiness, which in winter, further warms the surface.”

###

Source: NASA Goddard

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

161 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
eliza
March 29, 2016 5:56 am
MattN
March 29, 2016 5:57 am

As we recovered from the 2007 record low, I was told ad nauseum by alarmist it meant nothing because volume was decreasing.
So, how is volume doing?

kim
Reply to  MattN
March 29, 2016 7:18 am

::grin::
====

Knutsen
Reply to  MattN
March 29, 2016 3:03 pm

Yeah. 10 stable years. Worth celebrating. Not easy to predict the future, but we after all still recovering from the last Iceage.

Frank Newton
March 29, 2016 6:04 am

I agree.

Frank

March 29, 2016 6:06 am

“The wind patterns in the Arctic during January and February were also unfavorable to ice growth because they brought warm air from the south and prevented expansion of the ice cover. But ultimately, what will likely play a bigger role in the future trend of Arctic maximum extents is warming ocean waters, Meier said.”
In the future …, not now?
Now operating something different?
https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/: “However, it was especially low in the Barents Sea. Below average winter ice conditions in the Kara and Barents seas have been a persistent feature in the last several years, while the Bering Sea has overall seen slightly positive [?!] trends towards more sea ice during winter.”
“… in the Kara and Barents …”
Opel et al., 2013. (http://www.clim-past.net/9/2379/2013/cp-9-2379-2013.pdf):
“Understanding recent Arctic climate change requires detailed information on past changes, in particular on a regional scale.”
“…the last 1100 yr provides new perspectives on past climate fluctuations in the Barents and Kara seas region…”
“… proxies reveal major temperature changes over the last millennium, including the absolute minimum around 1800 and the unprecedented warming to a double-peak maximum in the early 20th century.
“… is evidence of several abrupt warming and cooling events, such as in the 15th and 16th centuries…” “These abrupt changes are assumed to be related to sea-ice cover variability in the Barents and Kara seas region, which might be caused by shifts in atmospheric circulation patterns […]. Our results indicate a significant impact of internal climate variability […] on Arctic climate change in the last millennium.” (…)

BBould
March 29, 2016 6:13 am

This article is premature. According to the Cryosphere and DMI 3/28/16 was the highest.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/arctic.sea.ice.interactive.html
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php
And the growth may not be over.

Hugs
Reply to  BBould
March 29, 2016 6:41 am

And the growth may not be over.

True, but I would not count on that. The maximum will be record small, and better starting to ingest that.
What were the reasons? Just CO2 warming Arctic and pushing it over the melting point? Or rather nice warm sea current keeping Scandinavia mild?

SAMURAI
March 29, 2016 6:17 am

The Bering Sea side of Arctic Ice Extents are already at average levels, partially because the PDO entered it’s 30-yr cool cycle form 2008.
As the Pacific Ocean continues to cool over the next 15~20 years, Berring Sea Ice Extents will continue to increase
The Atlantic AMO 30-yr warm cycle will soon end, switching to its 30-yr cool cycle from around 2022.
Arctic Ice Extents are sinusoidal and follow AMO 30-yr warm/cool cycles very closely. Once the AMO enters its 30-yr cool cycle, the alarmists will have to find another hobbyhorse to flog…
BTW, why no mention of Antarctic land and sea ice increases hitting new records over the past 10 years?
Why, indeed…

James at 48
Reply to  SAMURAI
March 29, 2016 11:34 am

Pretty much. Similar comments.

Bindidon
Reply to  SAMURAI
March 30, 2016 7:35 am

As far as AMO is concerned: you might be right, if the plot’s recent data really points in that direction:comment image
But the Bering sea ice exrent growing actually? Do you have real, actual data?
When I look at both satellite and land/sea surface data published by Roy Spencer a few weeks ago, I have some little doubt, even if the ocans’ temps below their surface may well differ quite a bit from the top 🙂
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH-LT-vs-CFSv2-Tsfc-Feb-2016-2.jpg
But Antarctica is cooling, that’s good news.

Tom Halla
March 29, 2016 7:00 am

Another time where the discussion after the post is as good as the original post. Richard Verney made a very good point that not all the available data was being used.

dave
March 29, 2016 7:24 am

El Nino.

Steve Fraser
March 29, 2016 7:26 am

And, while remembering that open Arctic water releases heat, it is also a more efficient sink for CO2 than when covered by ice…

marcus
Reply to  Steve Fraser
March 29, 2016 7:34 am

..Great point, but CO2 still has nothing to do with Arctic sea ice …

marcus
March 29, 2016 7:32 am

Why don’t we run a trend line from the peak of the last Ice Age ? That ought to put things in perspective !

John Good
March 29, 2016 8:25 am

What is the margin of error plus/minus of these figures? A 1.4% reduction in such a vast area seems far to accurate a measurement to be feasible. The same with ‘point one of a degree or less’ in temperatures. Where are all these super thermometers and measuring instruments sited throughout the world ? Or am I just an ignorant 82 year old who is in despair at the current ‘back to the stoneage greenmafia bullshit’ . I for one do not want to go back to my childhood especially if I have to rely on a bloody windmill to keep me warm and cook my food.

March 29, 2016 8:47 am

Irrelevant.
September is what matters. Winter – not so much.
This is what the warmunists always say when winter ice has been high.
It’s true.

Chuck
March 29, 2016 8:58 am

Why is it always assumed that less ice is a bad thing? I think less ice is a good thing. I’d rather live in a slightly warmer world than in a slightly cooler world.
Even if arctic ice disappeared completely why would that be a bad thing? The world might be a different place but life wouldn’t disappear. The world has been a lot different place in the distant past and life did just fine.
The people who are most afraid of any change in the environment are the same people who want to control and impose drastic economic changes on the rest of us.

Doonman
Reply to  Chuck
March 29, 2016 12:44 pm

Because polar bears drown. There is no other reason to become alarmed.

Reply to  Doonman
March 29, 2016 6:18 pm

Polar bears are the champion swimmers among terrestrial mammals, able to swim for days on end over hundreds of miles of open ocean.
The idea they will drown is laughably ignorant, and completely unsupported by a single smidgen of actual data or observation.
On top of that, bears in general are incredibly adaptable survivors…if they somehow have a hard time with the easiest food source they know of, they will switch to another and do just fine.
Besides for all of that, they apparently do most of their eating in the Spring months, when ice is always widespread.

dp
March 29, 2016 9:29 am

Would it not be a sign of insanity to suggest sea ice in a record El Niño year is abnormally low? Perhaps it is exactly what it should be given the contextual reality of the environment this year. Another point – the decline of sea ice appears to be slower than at any recent year at this point in the cycle. Lastly, there is no significant trend in Arctic sea ice cover for nearly a decade. Are these people looking models and not data?

Reply to  dp
March 29, 2016 7:13 pm

They are looking at their bank accounts, not their science books.

irregular
March 29, 2016 10:02 am

Hey, wait a minute. Since how long ago? Lowest on RECORD starting when? Wasn’t some world power or another sailing submarines through there on the surface in about 1962? The AGW/CCC crowd must think climate was invented the moment they starting looking at it. The way children do.

marcus
Reply to  irregular
March 29, 2016 10:19 am

..The CAGW crowd are the real ” Climate Change ” DEE Niers !! They think climate does not change !

mwhite
March 29, 2016 10:54 am
Saul from Montreal
Reply to  mwhite
March 30, 2016 11:32 am

You may not have posted the right graph….that one doesn’t quite make sense….at least not in my humble opinion.

Reply to  mwhite
March 30, 2016 3:14 pm

PIOMASS has been repeatedly discredited here. Do a search and you’ll see.
Picking just the Arctic is classic cherry-picking. It’s a form of confirmation bias that the eco-lemmings like to use. But the only worthwhile metric is global ice cover. And as we see, it is well within historical parameters. Nothing unusual is happening.
And in 1926 the North Pole was open water. That was well before the recent rise in (harmless, beneficial) CO2.
Less than 2 years ago Antarctic ice was at an all time high. It is still above average.
That is why the wild-eyed eco-alarmists are running around in circles and clucking about the Arctic. If they discussed the Antarctic, which holds 10X more ice than the Arctic, people would laugh at their ice alarmism.
So they ignore the Antarctic. It’s just deviousness, folks. They can’t start being honest at this late stage of the game. How would they explain their newfound honesty to their pals, who they’ve been teaching their dangerous AGW nonsense to?
There is absolutely nothing happening that is either alarming, or unprecedented. Scare stories are all they’ve got. That may bring in the grant loot — but it’s at the cost of any integrity they ever posessed.

Editor
March 29, 2016 11:11 am

Excellent news. Suggests that the modern warm period may not come to a sudden end now that the sun has gone quiet, and our slightly thicker blanket of greenhouse gasses may be enough to flatten out the turning point. A wise humanity would be trying to thicken that blanket rather than thin it. Luckily our actions do not always conform to our often stupid intents.

Steve Fraser
March 29, 2016 11:16 am

Anybody got a source for long wave IR radiation data from the Arctic?

Reply to  Steve Fraser
March 30, 2016 3:21 pm

Steve Frasier,
http://www.climate4you.com has OLR data.

March 29, 2016 11:22 am

Last year the media touted ” Arctic Ocean hit its yearly peak on Feb. 25, the maximum area was a record low.”
As of today according to Cryosphere today’s may, Arctic ice is still growing and yet to hit its peak.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/arctic.sea.ice.interactive.html

RACookPE1978
Editor
Reply to  jim Steele
March 29, 2016 12:10 pm

Jim Steele
Good find:
Day Cryosphere
Sea Ice Area
41 12.6849
57 12.8431
74 12.8850
87 12.8993
Yes, we are clearly near the peak Arctic sea ice area, but there no no sign we have reached it yet.

NevenA
Reply to  RACookPE1978
March 29, 2016 12:34 pm

Cryosphere Today SIA has peaked at 12.921 million km2 (not reported yet), which is around 223K below the 2011 record lowest maximum. It is also the second latest maximum on record, after 2012. This peak is followed by a 125K drop, and I’m not seeing anything in the forecast that will get CT SIA back up that high, at this time of year.

Reply to  RACookPE1978
March 30, 2016 9:49 am

CT dropped another 137 sq km today to 12.66, so further gain beyond the previous max seems unlikely.

elfletcho
March 29, 2016 11:29 am

Spring equinox was March 20th. Can they really call the 24th winter time still? What jerks.
[No, that is the correct term for a maximum Arctic sea ice extent. .mod]

James at 48
March 29, 2016 11:32 am

Nuances … so …. the high longitudes are in pretty good shape. The low longitudes are not. In the low longitudes open water may actually reach the pole. Meanwhile straddling the date line and for quite a way on both sides of it, good and solid through summer with a fairly normal minimum condition. Overall that will yield a very low total and everything that will attend that.,

March 29, 2016 11:44 am

Sooooo…. 15% sea-ice area is statistically indistinguishable from 2011 and 2007 measurements. Not even having to remove my shoes for this calculation, I see that it is therefore essentially unchanged, except for statistical variability, during the last 9 years.
Yawn.

Reply to  wallensworth
March 29, 2016 7:17 pm

10 years.
Just sayin’.

NZ Willy
March 29, 2016 11:57 am

The recent so-called record warm temperatures are mostly driven by the warmer Arctic winter temperatures. But DMI (the chief source of that Arctic temperature data) has changed their data processing numerous time — since 2010 they are using what they call the “T1279 model system”. DMI states:
“In the plot, the red curve is based on the average 2 m temperatures north of 80
degree North, from the twice daily ECWMF analyses. These are gradually becoming
better and more detailed, as the NWP model system at ECMWF is improved with
time. That is why the name shift with time (e.g. from T799 to T1279 in year
2010).
The green curve is based on ERA40 data for the period 1958 to 2002. ERA40 data
are in fact analyses, made in the same way as above, but done as a hind-cast,
using a fixed version of the NWP model, and spending time on carefully
validating and eventually correct or remove all observations found to be in
error, before the data assimilation. These, so-called “re-analysis”, data
represent our best estimate of the properties of the atmosphere for the period
they cover.”
It would be worthwhile to audit their evolving techniques for artifacts.

mogamboguru
March 29, 2016 12:51 pm

Having followed the Sea Ice Page for over four years on a nearly daily base now, I have noticed one feature in the NCEP-graph http://polar.ncep.noaa.gov/sst/ophi/color_anomaly_NPS_ophi0.png this winter, whitch I haven’t seen anytime before: To the west, as well as to the southeast of Spitzbergen/Svalbart two blotches of very warm water have appeared early this winter, which are 8 (!) degrees Centigrate or more warmer than normal.
This is exactly the region where a mayor recess of sea ice was noticed over the same period this winter.
I believe that, for one reason or the other, very warm water either by redirected, upwelling residues of the North Atlantic Current or by hydrothermal vents (or both) has been, and still is warming up the sea surface there so much that sea ice simply cannot form – which has NOTHING to do with “Global Warming” whatsoever, but rather, with a change in ocean current-patterns, or with the forming of new geological vents (or the first being caused by the latter).
Over the winter I have tried to post this observation under “Tips & Notes” several times already, to make it public. But the “Tips & Notes”-page is so crammed with earlier postings, that It simply wouldn’t load.
Nevermind.

Bindidon
Reply to  mogamboguru
March 30, 2016 5:20 am

Is increased melting at a level of say 500 Gt/y able to affect the thermohaline circulation in that region?
NOAA oceanographs have published a paper over 15 years ago about that (and compared the situation with a period in the Younger Dryas where similar conditions led to an abrupt climate change down to very low temperatures in the northern Atlantic region).

Verified by MonsterInsights