A New Sea Ice Thread

Prior post here. Next post here

Sea ice threads always seem to be popular. For people interested in handling data themselves, I’ve updated my utility functions for reading sea ice data here. It contains methods for accessing JAXA, monthly NOAA and NSIDC binary. (The latter works but I haven’t verified the turnkey version. Jeff Id has some related tools.)

Here’s a plot for sea ice through May 2009 for the two hemisphere and global using the script below. As you can see, through May 2009, there is virtually no overall trend with an upward trend in SH sea ice offsetting a downward trend in NH sea ice. The MAy 2009 GLB anomaly is relatively elevated, arising from a highish SH anomaly, while even the NH anomaly was (perhaps surprisingly) more or less at the long-term.

source(“http://data.climateaudit.org/scripts/seaice/functions.seaice.txt”)
seaice=get.seaice.monthly() #downloads NOAA monthly
plot.seaice(seaice,case=”extent”,plot_type=”threepanel”)


Figure 1. Sea Ice Extent Anomaly to May 2009

To retrieve and plot daily JAXA data is also easy, yielding the graphic below. I’ll improve the coloring on this some time.)

daily=get.jaxa()
plot.jaxa(daily)


Figure 2. Daily JAXA data

192 Comments

  1. Posted Jun 18, 2009 at 6:13 PM | Permalink

    The “mirror anamolies” between NH and SH seem conspicuous but my understanding it that they are a coincidence and nobody has ever suggested a causal relationship between the two – right?

    Now optimistic that reversion to the mean will win my 50 Euro Sea Ice Bet that 2009 will stay above the 2007 arctic sea ice extent minimum of 4.01 million sq kms

    • BarryW
      Posted Jun 18, 2009 at 7:00 PM | Permalink

      Re: Joe Hunkins (#1),

      I think the real issue will be whether 2009 extent will be above or below 2008. Right now it’s running just above average the 2003-2008 for JAXA.

      Steve there is an R-forge site out there which is similar in philosophy to Source Forge. Basically hosting open source code projects. If there is enough interest would you be willing to provide some of your code for a set of packages such as for sea ice and some of your other projects? And anyone else who might have some code they would be willing to provide (Jeff? Ryan?).

    • Gary Strand
      Posted Jun 18, 2009 at 9:05 PM | Permalink

      Re: Joe Hunkins (#1),

      Now optimistic that reversion to the mean will win my 50 Euro Sea Ice Bet that 2009 will stay above the 2007 arctic sea ice extent minimum of 4.01 million sq kms

      That’s not a very difficult prediction to make. What would you guess for the Sep minimum? I’m betting ice cream on 4.33 million km^2.

      • Posted Jun 18, 2009 at 10:09 PM | Permalink

        Re: Gary Strand (#8),

        I’m betting that if we weren’t watching it so intently, we wouldn’t even know there was a difference.

        • Gary Strand
          Posted Jun 18, 2009 at 11:31 PM | Permalink

          Re: Jeff Alberts (#16),

          I’m betting that if we weren’t watching it so intently, we wouldn’t even know there was a difference.

          Asking the Canadian and Russian governments about their strategic plans for the Arctic would reveal quite quickly that the state of the Arctic sea ice isn’t just of interest to scientists.

    • Geoff Sherrington
      Posted Jun 20, 2009 at 6:05 AM | Permalink

      Re: Joe Hunkins (#1),

      From Fig 1 of the header, I’ve flipped the graph for one hemisphere and superimposed. I’ve put blue bars along the X-axis where the corrspondence does not look so good. Do you think there’s much of a mirror at work?

      • Geoff Sherrington
        Posted Jun 20, 2009 at 8:23 PM | Permalink

        Re: Geoff Sherrington (#36), Third try at image. There is one backslash that needs deletion before it works.

  2. VG
    Posted Jun 18, 2009 at 6:16 PM | Permalink

    Arctic Ice here (under AGW “theory” should be melting more every year.. its not)
    NANSEN ICE here a bit clearer
    http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/ice-area-and-extent-in-arctic
    Danish Met Institute here
    http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php

    • Gary Strand
      Posted Jun 18, 2009 at 8:44 PM | Permalink

      Re: VG (#2),

      Arctic Ice here (under AGW “theory” should be melting more every year.. its not)

      Can you show me where AGW predicts a monotonic decrease in Arctic sea ice?

      • Andrew
        Posted Jun 18, 2009 at 9:42 PM | Permalink

        Re: Gary Strand (#7), Indeed, models are – -snip- all over the place:
        Steve- please stop irrelevant editorializing

        • Gary Strand
          Posted Jun 19, 2009 at 8:28 AM | Permalink

          Re: Andrew (#11),

          Indeed, models are uselessly all over the place:

          Somewhat misleading plot, but tangential to my comment.

        • Andrew
          Posted Jun 19, 2009 at 9:01 AM | Permalink

          Re: Gary Strand (#24), Putting aside that Steve already got a little peeved at me for inserting my opinion of “uselessness” (Sorry, I really should have let the data speak for itself) but why is the graph “misleading”? Do you have a better, less “misleading” graph to show how I am “misleading” people? I have no intention to “mislead” anyone, so if there is a problem with the graph you really should know that I am, honest to goodness, totally ignorant of it. Enlighten me.

  3. Craig Loehle
    Posted Jun 18, 2009 at 6:23 PM | Permalink

    snip – no cosmic rays please

  4. David L. Hagen
    Posted Jun 18, 2009 at 8:41 PM | Permalink

    Numerous graphs show the current trend as lower than an average of 1979-2000. e.g., see Sea Ice Speed Bump: WUWT?

    Yet if 2007 and other recent years were lower than that average, then the overall average should be lower and the current year results be closer to that overall average.

    For R experts, suggest
    1) providing a routine to show the average trend of all data through the year e.g., 1979-2009.
    2) Then show the relative deviation.

    3) Note the need to adjust the raw data for the spring melt:

    When the melt season kicks in the surface water changes the contrast between ice and water. To more accurately measure the area/extent, you should adjust coefficients to account for this.

  5. Andrew
    Posted Jun 18, 2009 at 9:18 PM | Permalink

    What’s weird is that except for Antarctic, none look like CT’s graphs:
    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.anom.jpg
    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg
    Their global is definitely not flat (the decrease in Arctic is greater than the increase in Antarctic) and recent data in the Arctic are most certainly not at the long term average. What gives?

    • DeWitt Payne
      Posted Jun 20, 2009 at 12:44 AM | Permalink

      Re: Andrew (#8),

      CT’s graphs are area while the graphs above are extent. Area, at the minimum at least, has dropped faster than extent. CT uses a 1979 to 2000 average to calculate anomalies and according to the R script, the graphs above use an average of all the data which would be somewhat lower than the 1979-2000 average for the NH and higher for the SH so the anomalies would be centered differently.

  6. hengav
    Posted Jun 18, 2009 at 9:37 PM | Permalink

    Here’s a very nice image from yesterday from the arctic. Clear and cool.

    http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/realtime/single.php?2009168/crefl2_143.A2009168200000-2009168200500.2km.jpg

    You can see the annual “break-up” that occurs. I say that because it doesn’t look like the “melt” that is apparent in the Hudson’s bay seen here.

    http://www.weatheroffice.gc.ca/data/satellite/hrpt_hsb_nir_100.jpg

  7. Posted Jun 18, 2009 at 10:06 PM | Permalink

    snip – I ask people repeatedly to not try to debate all of AGW in one sentence bites

  8. Posted Jun 18, 2009 at 10:08 PM | Permalink

    Arctic ice melt can’t raise sea levels, and the Antarctic is increasing, not decreasing.

    snip

    • DeWitt Payne
      Posted Jun 19, 2009 at 8:36 AM | Permalink

      Re: Jeff Alberts (#15),

      So you don’t consider Greenland as being in the Arctic? According to GRACE measurements reported by Cazenave, et. al. 2009, Greenland has lost 136 +/- 18 gigatons of ice per year from 2003-2008 and Antarctica has lost 198 +/-22 gigatons/year over the same period resulting in about 1mm/year of the total 2.5 mm/year rise in sea level over the same period. Other land based ice contributed an additional 1.1 mm/year and thermal expansion made up the rest.

      • Posted Jun 19, 2009 at 10:03 AM | Permalink

        Re: DeWitt Payne (#25),

        Most of it is, but not all, just like the most warming part of the Antarctic peninsula not being in the Antarctic.

        2003-2008 is so small a time frame to be practically meaningless. What’s the long term trend, for say the last 10k years?

        I’m also not convinced we have the ability to measure “sea level” rise to millimeters, or even 10ths of millimeters.

        snip -

        Steve: please stop editorialising. And I wish that you hadn’t introduced a sea level debate that is irrelevant to the issues here.

  9. AndyW35
    Posted Jun 18, 2009 at 10:41 PM | Permalink

    The British Antarctic Survey released a piece recently on why the winter freeze in the Antartic is happening faster than in the old days.

    http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/press/press_releases/press_release.php?id=838
    The geography helps the net plus effect as well.

    I’m going for a minima in the Arctic of just above 2008 , 4.9×10^6 .

    Regards

    Andy

  10. EdBhoy
    Posted Jun 19, 2009 at 3:08 AM | Permalink

    snip – editorializing

  11. Gary Strand
    Posted Jun 19, 2009 at 9:14 AM | Permalink

    It’s somewhat misleading because it’s showing Sep sea ice minimum only, the scenario isn’t specified, and while it’s fun to show spaghetti, perhaps the multimodel average and spread would be more informative.

    All that said, it’s not evidence for the previous assertion that AGW mandates that sea ice monotonically decrease.

    • Andrew
      Posted Jun 19, 2009 at 9:48 PM | Permalink

      Re: Gary Strand (#22), Since the er, off topic stuff got a whole string of posts deleted, including my attempt to make it clear that the graph was meant to support your claim, not refute it, I thought I’d say again, I was not trying to contradict you at all-quite the opposite. Cheers.

      • Gary Strand
        Posted Jun 19, 2009 at 9:56 PM | Permalink

        Re: Andrew (#32), yes, I now realize that, and thanks.

  12. AndyW35
    Posted Jun 19, 2009 at 4:13 PM | Permalink

    It’s nice to have a new thread, thanks Steve, though we always get the chaff effect at the start of course, people talking about something that is better placed elsewhere (hint). They tend to disperse along with the ice of course over time ….
    :D

    Regards

    Andy

  13. INGSOC
    Posted Jun 19, 2009 at 6:43 PM | Permalink

    Thanks for the code. I have become infinity more boring, thanks to having taught myself to use R!

    Cheers 8-)

  14. BarryW
    Posted Jun 19, 2009 at 7:26 PM | Permalink

    And now back to the ice:

    JAXA extent for the week

     
    year           extent       weekly change
    2003         10.80984            -0.38016
    2004         10.68516            -0.32875
    2005         10.36219            -0.30156
    2006         10.22844            -0.39453
    2007         10.45047            -0.37828
    2008         10.54250            -0.28516
    2009         10.60313            -0.35516

  15. markinaustin
    Posted Jun 19, 2009 at 8:41 PM | Permalink

    getting interesting….hard to guess what will happen

  16. Posted Jun 19, 2009 at 9:25 PM | Permalink

    Gary asked: What would you guess for the Sep minimum? I’m betting ice cream on 4.33 million km^2.

    Gary that sounds good to me though I remain confused about the relationship of the *current anamoly* to the *expected anamoly* on other dates. Does that number tend to stay constant even as the extent swings wildly?

    • Gary Strand
      Posted Jun 19, 2009 at 9:42 PM | Permalink

      Re: Joe Hunkins (#30), I’m not quite sure what you mean. Usually, if the extent is anomalously low before melt season gets strongly underway, then one can expect the Sep minimum to be anomalously low. However, sea ice is strongly impacted by weather conditions – temps, winds, and so on. For example, as shown in this “figure, the ice was near climatology in late April and early May, but more recently has dropped to +/-2σ of the 79-00 mean.

      Basically, sea ice is a “fragile” thing and often reacts strongly to transient weather conditions.

  17. Paul
    Posted Jun 20, 2009 at 3:34 AM | Permalink

    Just looking for help here. On considering the definitions of Ice Extent and Ice Area, it seems IMO the latter should be a better proxy for ice volume, and hence a better reflection of temperature effects. I would expect ice EXTENT to be a strong function of local weather, including currents and wind, which could vary significantly from year to year. Theoretically one could see a decrease in ice extent while the ice volume is actually increasing or vice versa. That would seem to suggest that variability in Extent, and hence normalised amplitudes of anomalies, should be greater than that for Area. This appears to be reflected in the data although I have not attempted to quantify this. And yet, there appears to be a strong focus on Extent in the climate debate, rather than there being a clear priority given to the Area data. Am I missing something important here?

  18. Geoff Sherrington
    Posted Jun 20, 2009 at 6:07 AM | Permalink
  19. Shawn Whelan
    Posted Jun 20, 2009 at 9:59 AM | Permalink

    Of concern for the western Arctic region for this summer, is the unusual amount of old ice described earlier in Franklin Strait and M’Clintock Channel. This will most certainly prevent the clearing of the Northwest Passage for a fourth consecutive year and affect transit through the Victoria Strait region during late August and early September period.

    http://ice-glaces.ec.gc.ca/prods/ARCTIC001/20090603000000_ARCTIC001_0004399792.pdf

  20. DeWitt Payne
    Posted Jun 20, 2009 at 11:56 AM | Permalink

    Question for someone who reads R better than I: How are the global anomalies calculated? Are the anomalies for the NH and SH summed or are the extents summed and anomalies calculated from the total? Would it make a difference?

    • Gary Strand
      Posted Jun 20, 2009 at 5:14 PM | Permalink

      Re: DeWitt Payne (#41), you should calculate means and then anomalies separately for the two hemispheres.

  21. thefordprefect
    Posted Jun 20, 2009 at 12:26 PM | Permalink

    For a bit of fun 3years amsre side by side from May to 19th June
    avi file

  22. DeWitt Payne
    Posted Jun 21, 2009 at 9:21 AM | Permalink

    It looks like the column names in the seaice data table have extent and area have been reversed. Area must always be less than extent. When I write.table, the numbers in the columns labeled area for NH and SH are larger than for the corresponding columns labeled extent.

  23. DeWitt Payne
    Posted Jun 21, 2009 at 9:35 AM | Permalink

    In the NSIDC section there are a couple of references to files on disk where the slashes all appear to be backwards in the path: “d:/climate/data/seaice/nsidc” ,e.g. I have very little experience with R, so I don’t know if you can get away with that and I haven’t tried that part of the script to see.

  24. markinaustin
    Posted Jun 22, 2009 at 4:45 AM | Permalink

    ok…so i had the notion that the solar 24 sunspots would primarily be in the “northern” hemisphere of the sun….i guess i was wrong about that? there is a new couple of spots down low…

  25. Posted Jun 22, 2009 at 1:56 PM | Permalink

    Thanks Gary, though I guess my question simplified is this and, frankly, I should look this up myself and I will:

    Historically does the arctic ice extent anamoly at the beginning of melt season tend to be within 20% of of the anamoly at the end of the melt season?

  26. DeWitt Payne
    Posted Jun 23, 2009 at 8:56 AM | Permalink

    The average loss of extent to minimum for JAXA data 2002-2008 from this date is 4780000 km2 +/-2370000. That would mean based on today’s extent a minimum extent for 2009 of 5520000 km2 with a +/- 3 stdev range of 3120000 to 7920000 km2. Average minimum extent(2002-2008) is 5360000 km2 and median extent 5780000 km2. These are just numbers and not a prediction. Trying to correct the overall uncertainty for autocorrelation, uncertainty in the standard deviation caused by the small number of degrees of freedom or prediction interval is pointless, IMO.

    • DeWitt Payne
      Posted Jun 24, 2009 at 9:41 AM | Permalink

      Re: DeWitt Payne (#49),

      I screwed up my spreadsheet. If I’d been paying any attention, I would have realized that the projected extent minimum for 2009 could not be very different from the average. Corrected numbers for 6/23/2009: 5.35 +/-1.84 Mm2. 2008 stayed close to the average until early August. 2009 has been losing extent faster than average lately, but the last two days are about normal for this time of year.

  27. AndyW35
    Posted Jun 23, 2009 at 12:49 PM | Permalink

    Thanks Dewitt for the last post, I think those values are way too high for minima. There’s been nothing standard about the last 2 years so even a recovery will mean less than the average for the whole JAXA time plot.

    Gary Strand:
    June 19th, 2009 at 9:42 pm said

    “Usually, if the extent is anomalously low before melt season gets strongly underway, then one can expect the Sep minimum to be anomalously low”

    but then said

    ” However, sea ice is strongly impacted by weather conditions – temps, winds, and so on.(snip) Basically, sea ice is a “fragile” thing and often reacts strongly to transient weather conditions”

    Make you mind up, plant you flag in the sand, don’t cover all bases. Which is it?

    Which way are you betting for this year? This year was quite a good year for max extent over winter.

    Regards

    Andy

  28. Gary Strand
    Posted Jun 23, 2009 at 7:28 PM | Permalink

    I’m betting ice cream on 4.33*10^6 km^2 for the September minimum.

    PS – The two comments of mine aren’t contradictory, much as you would like them to be.

  29. AndyW
    Posted Jun 24, 2009 at 12:18 AM | Permalink

    I don’t want them to be contradictory, they just seemed to be, probably the error of the reader.

    I guess from your minima extent prediction that you think this will be an unusual year, where the weather conditions you mention make it lower than the expected value as suggested by the relatively large value for ice extent in March 2009.

    Could be. I’m going for 4.7-4.8 or so I think now. I wouldn’t bet icecream on it though, I have little confidence factor for this year :D

    Regards

    Andy

  30. Gary Strand
    Posted Jun 24, 2009 at 6:39 AM | Permalink

    The deadline for entries was a few weeks ago, so I didn’t have a choice but to go out on a limb. I’m up against some folks whose specialty is sea ice, so we’ll see.

  31. MikeP
    Posted Jun 24, 2009 at 6:45 AM | Permalink

    So far 2009 has tracked reasonably well with 2008, except that 2009 has less baby ice. Thus, if all else were equal (temporary weather conditions don’t interfere), I’d think that the minimum extent would be noticeably greater than 2008. So, with complete trepidation, I’ll jump in with a guess of 5.1 million sq. km.

  32. Michael Jennings
    Posted Jun 24, 2009 at 8:37 AM | Permalink

    I am going with 4.588

  33. AndyW35
    Posted Jun 24, 2009 at 11:59 AM | Permalink

    Nice selection of estimates there, including DeWitt’s corrected. I wonder if Shawn, Chris, BarryW and Phil will join the party? I know Phil doesn’t normally have a bash ( big chicken :p ) but maybe we can tempt him out this time…..

    Regards

    Andy

    • BarryW
      Posted Jun 24, 2009 at 2:58 PM | Permalink

      Re: AndyW35 (#57),

      Ok, my take is that it’s going to look like 2005 but below it (a real WAG no S involved) which means it’s going to fall between 2008 and the average. I’ll split the difference and go with 5.0. So I’m guessing it will come in third lowest. 2008 didn’t start it’s downward slide until about 2 months from now so we’ve got a ways to go before we see how this plays out. I’m hoping that the yearling ice has been taking it’s vitamins and working out and is going to protect its’ baby ice relatives.

    • Posted Jun 24, 2009 at 9:08 PM | Permalink

      Re: AndyW35 (#57),

      Nice selection of estimates there, including DeWitt’s corrected. I wonder if Shawn, Chris, BarryW and Phil will join the party? I know Phil doesn’t normally have a bash ( big chicken :p ) but maybe we can tempt him out this time…..

      I have no problem with a well defined competition with suitable incentives (I won brownies in Lucia’s comp. last summer). What’re the terms, JAXA min extent or Sept. monthly ave?

  34. Mike
    Posted Jun 24, 2009 at 1:47 PM | Permalink

    I’m going with 4.42. It’ll be lower than last year but higher than 2007.

  35. Roy
    Posted Jun 24, 2009 at 7:55 PM | Permalink

    I just wanted to drop a note to everyone and say that I have been reading this thread for quite a while and really enjoy all the input.

  36. Posted Jun 24, 2009 at 10:00 PM | Permalink

    In April I made the following statement in the 2009 Sea Ice thread:

    That’s why there’s four ‘seasons’ when you talk about the variability of the Arctic ice cover: Nov.-Jan refreeze without much variability, late April-July thaw without much variability, Jan-April a lot of variability which depends on the fringes and extra-Arctic ocean ice, July-Nov variability due to what happens to multiyear ice. My main point is that there isn’t much connection between the periods of variability, what happens in the summer isn’t dependent on whether the Bering ice starts to melt next week or last. On July 1st the extent (AMSR) will be ~9.5-10 Mm^2 then the end run will start which will depend on things like how much multiyear ice left via the Fram since last fall etc.

    Subsequent discussion with DeWitt extended the lower band to ~9.2 Mm^2, so far looks good?

  37. AndyW
    Posted Jun 25, 2009 at 12:29 AM | Permalink

    Minima extent Phil as based on the Jaxa spredsheet. I had forgotten about your Lucia competition. I must be mixing you up with someone else. Feel free to make your guess.

    Is it me or has the SST around Alaska got colder again?

    Regards
    Andy

    • Posted Jun 28, 2009 at 3:58 PM | Permalink

      Re: AndyW (#63),

      Minima extent Phil as based on the Jaxa spredsheet. I had forgotten about your Lucia competition. I must be mixing you up with someone else. Feel free to make your guess.

      4.50±0.25 Mm^3

      Is it me or has the SST around Alaska got colder again?

      Not according to AMSR-E:

  38. Shawn Whelan
    Posted Jun 25, 2009 at 7:42 AM | Permalink

    This years minimum ice level will be higher than last years.
    That is my prediction.

    Arctic temperature is still not above 0°C – the latest date in fifty years of record keeping

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/25/arctic-temperature-is-still-not-above-0%c2%b0c-the-latest-date-in-fifty-years-of-record-keeping%e2%80%a6%e2%80%9d/#comment-149013

    And still below freezing in Alert at the top of the Canadian Arctic.
    http://www.climate.weatheroffice.ec.gc.ca/climateData/dailydata_e.html?timeframe=2&Prov=CA&StationID=42463&Year=2009&Month=6&Day=24

    • Gary Strand
      Posted Jun 25, 2009 at 8:33 AM | Permalink

      Re: Shawn Whelan (#64),

      This years minimum ice level will be higher than last years.
      That is my prediction.

      Really going out on a limb there.

      • Shawn Whelan
        Posted Jun 25, 2009 at 10:33 AM | Permalink

        Re: Gary Strand (#65),
        I expect this will be the second year in a row that I am correct and the consensus of science is wrong.

        I also got that whole stock market crash thing correct when the consensus of economists was wrong.

        I am really quite sure that the consensus lemming thing is not proof of anything.

      • David Cauthen
        Posted Jun 25, 2009 at 12:04 PM | Permalink

        Re: Gary Strand (#65),

        It’s what we skeptics do.

  39. AndyW35
    Posted Jun 25, 2009 at 1:24 PM | Permalink

    Gary’s right Shawn, we are looking for a value, not an infinite number of values ;)

    I’ll pick one for you then, 11.4×10^6 Km-2. Feel free if you want to make any adjustments to this :D

    Regards

    Andy

  40. Gary Strand
    Posted Jun 25, 2009 at 1:53 PM | Permalink

    I can’t tell if Shawn is being serious or sarcastic.

  41. markinaustin
    Posted Jun 25, 2009 at 4:01 PM | Permalink

    i just hope shawn is right

  42. Shawn Whelan
    Posted Jun 25, 2009 at 7:57 PM | Permalink

    Shawn has a one hundred percent correct rate.

  43. Gary Strand
    Posted Jun 25, 2009 at 10:29 PM | Permalink

    You ought to go to Vegas, Shawn. You’ve got the magic touch.

  44. AndyW
    Posted Jun 25, 2009 at 11:56 PM | Permalink

    Take me with you as well please!

    Some bog days coming up in July for 2008, currently 2009 is lagging about 35k behind.

    Regards

    Andy

  45. Maikdev
    Posted Jun 26, 2009 at 10:34 AM | Permalink

    [url=http://www.arcus.org/search/seaiceoutlook/2009_outlook/report_june.php]The June Report for the September 2009 Sea Ice Outlook is now available.[/url]

  46. Maikdev
    Posted Jun 26, 2009 at 10:35 AM | Permalink

    The June Report for the september 2009 sea ice outlook is now available

  47. BarryW
    Posted Jun 26, 2009 at 7:44 PM | Permalink

    Here’s JAXA extent for today: 2009 is only .00547 behind 2008.

     
    year           extent       weekly change
    2003         10.36234            -0.44750
    2004         10.29734            -0.38781
    2005          9.91391            -0.44828
    2006          9.65484            -0.57359
    2007          9.93266            -0.51781
    2008         10.11203            -0.43047
    2009         10.10656            -0.49656

  48. AndyW35
    Posted Jun 28, 2009 at 1:16 AM | Permalink

    I see the experts have gone for a tighter range than us with it being rather lower in general.

    Regards

    Andy

  49. Ared
    Posted Jun 28, 2009 at 12:38 PM | Permalink

    I see the experts also refer to the Caitlin Expedition for a source of information about sea ice thickness and age. That does not bode well, if you ask me. They also claim ‘a general agreement between Outlook projections and observations in the 2008 effort,’ despite missing the target by a half million square kilometers, which is very similar to the given margin of error in the 2009 May effort. They do give some more info in the lessons learned section, though.

  50. Shawn Whelan
    Posted Jun 28, 2009 at 8:39 PM | Permalink

    Looks like the sea temperatures are still quite cold.

    http://www.weatheroffice.gc.ca/data/analysis/351_100.gif

  51. BarryW
    Posted Jun 28, 2009 at 9:15 PM | Permalink

    2009 is now slightly ahead of 2008 at 10.024688 to 2008′s 9.992344 and running ahead of the JAXA average and is in 3rd place. We’re just before the time when 2007 started to really drop.

  52. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Jun 28, 2009 at 10:17 PM | Permalink

    Here’s my JAXA for julian day 179.

    month day year ice date julian mm dd diff
    28 6 28 2002 10.282406 2002-06-28 11866 200206 179 -0.079500
    393 6 28 2003 10.198281 2003-06-28 12231 200306 179 -0.061563
    758 6 27 2004 10.155156 2004-06-27 12596 200406 179 -0.024375
    1124 6 28 2005 9.704688 2005-06-28 12962 200506 179 -0.056406
    1489 6 28 2006 9.435625 2006-06-28 13327 200606 179 -0.091094
    1854 6 28 2007 9.664844 2007-06-28 13692 200706 179 -0.078906
    2219 6 27 2008 9.949844 2008-06-27 14057 200806 179 -0.042500
    2585 6 28 2009 9.956250 2009-06-28 14423 200906 179 -0.068438

    Script:

    source(“http://data.climateaudit.org/scripts/seaice/functions.seaice.txt”)
    daily=get.jaxa()
    daily[daily$dd==daily$dd[nrow(daily)],]
    plot.jaxa(daily)

    • DeWitt Payne
      Posted Jun 29, 2009 at 12:00 AM | Permalink

      Re: Steve McIntyre (#83),

      Would you possibly modify your NSIDC scripts to access the AMSR-E data from Uni-Bremen in their Arctic and Antarctic archives? Spreen and Kaleschke only update their compilation of extent and area data monthly.

      • Steve McIntyre
        Posted Jun 29, 2009 at 8:33 PM | Permalink

        Re: DeWitt Payne (#84),

        I could write a script to scrape this, but they always take time. Surely I’m not the only person capable of doing this sort of thing. Maybe someone else would contribute a script -as the data set looks interesting.

      • BarryW
        Posted Jul 2, 2009 at 7:04 PM | Permalink

        Re: DeWitt Payne (#84),

        DeWitt, you were looking for code to process the Uni-Bremen data. What are you looking for specifically: the gridded data or did you want to process that into total extent/area numbers only? I looked at the files and they have a hdf format (which is HDF4 no longer the current version (HDF5) and there doesn’t seem to be any R interface), a geotiff, png and a pdf which are images. The HDF format is not a simplistic flat file but I have been able to read the data descriptor information in R. I was trying to decide how flexible a accessor program would need to be to get to the data you’re looking for.

        • DeWitt Payne
          Posted Jul 2, 2009 at 7:40 PM | Permalink

          Re: BarryW (#112),

          Area and extent are all I need. Geotiff files are images, but apparently there is a way to convert the image data to area and extent. There was something about non-standard ellipses which is where I gave up.

          I was looking around and there is an R package that can access HDF data files, but you have to install HDF first, which didn’t look trivial to me. The instructions all assume that you are compiling the source code with Visual Studio (ideally the free version VS Express would work), but the compiled binaries are available. It just wasn’t clear at all to me how you went about making the various files available. Then there are the compression libraries, ZLIB and SZIP. Then you have to configure the R package installer so it knows where everything is. Too much for a newbie.

          HDF4 binaries and/or source code may still be available. I did see something about leaving them up because it was just too much trouble for a long running project to switch file formats in mid-stream as it were.

        • BarryW
          Posted Jul 2, 2009 at 8:05 PM | Permalink

          Re: DeWitt Payne (#115),

          The only package I could find was one for HDF5 which doesn’t support 4. There is an interface library for JAVA to HDF (the HDFviewer uses it). I looked at trying use the rJava package but I’m only having partial luck with that. One thing I found was that their format isn’t even consistent, some of the files go from 0-1 and some are percentages 0-100%.

        • DeWitt Payne
          Posted Jul 2, 2009 at 8:53 PM | Permalink

          Re: BarryW (#116),

          There are two sets of files for each month. I’m not sure why.

          The hdf group has a utility for converting hdf4 to hdf5 but it has to be compiled from the source code for a windows box and it’s not at all clear that it’s compatible with the current version (2008) of Visual Studio Express.

    • Michael Jennings
      Posted Jun 29, 2009 at 1:42 PM | Permalink

      Re: Steve McIntyre (#83),
      Steve, I see 06/28 ice extent on JAXA as 9.964844, did they adjust it overnight or are you using a different source for your figure?

      • DeWitt Payne
        Posted Jun 29, 2009 at 1:59 PM | Permalink

        Re: Michael Jennings (#86),

        JAXA posts an initial number for the day at about 11 PM EDT. The final number for the day is posted at 10 AM EDT the next day. So looking at the time stamp on the post, only the initial number for 6/28 was available at that time. At this time of year, the final number is larger than the initial number.

        • Michael Jennings
          Posted Jun 29, 2009 at 7:32 PM | Permalink

          Re: DeWitt Payne (#87),
          Thanks Dewitt, I kind of thought something like that because you rarely will catch Steve in a mistake. :-)

    • Bruce
      Posted Jun 29, 2009 at 11:31 PM | Permalink

      Re: Steve McIntyre (#83), Here’s my JAXA for julian day 179
      I understand the logic behind the use of julian days. In March and April of the year following a leap year, it seems necessary. However, assuming the ice is responding to things like the orbit of the earth around the sun, tilt of the earth’s axis and so forth, would it not make sense, at some point in the year, to recentre the analysis on the summer solstice, or perhaps given the timing of the ice extent minimum on the fall equinox? The summer solstice in 2009 came just 5hrs 46min later than was the case for 2008 (not 24 hours later) and similarly the fall equinox will come on the same date in September at 21:18 instead of 15:44 ( a lag of about 5.5 hours). Hope I don’t sound like a wiseacre.

      Steve: Feel free to develop a script implementing this suggestion. As long as sea ice is reported on a daily basis, the present comparison seems adequate for present purposes.

  53. VG
    Posted Jun 29, 2009 at 3:49 AM | Permalink

    DMI showing current ice going 2005 way…
    http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php

  54. VG
    Posted Jun 29, 2009 at 6:19 PM | Permalink

    From CT my Bet: We will never see anymore comparisons at Cryosphere Today (because it simply does not suit ice/AGW. It’s not melting even close to recent rates, see NANSEN/DMI). Proof = quoted below from CT
    “February 25, 2009 – The SSMI images for many days in 2009 were bad enough that we removed them from this comparison display (see note below and the NSIDC website). There is enough interest in these side-by-side comparison images that we will try to replace them with corresponding images from the AMSR-E sensor in the coming weeks.
    February 17, 2009 – The SSMI sensor seems to be acting up and dropping data swaths from time to time in recent days. Missing swaths will appear on these images as missing data in the southern latitudes. If this persists for more than a few weeks, we will start to fill in these missing data swaths with the ice concentration from the previous day or switch over to the higher resolution AMSR-E sensor. Note – these missing swaths do not affect the timeseries or any other plots on the Cryosphere Today as they are comprised of moving composites of at least three days.”

    Today 30th June nothing has changed at CT…..

  55. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Jun 29, 2009 at 8:27 PM | Permalink

    HEre’s the output from the same script run at 10.30 EDT June 29.

    month day year ice date julian mm dd diff
    28 6 28 2002 10.282406 2002-06-28 11866 200206 179 -0.079500
    393 6 28 2003 10.198281 2003-06-28 12231 200306 179 -0.061563
    758 6 27 2004 10.155156 2004-06-27 12596 200406 179 -0.024375
    1124 6 28 2005 9.704688 2005-06-28 12962 200506 179 -0.056406
    1489 6 28 2006 9.435625 2006-06-28 13327 200606 179 -0.091094
    1854 6 28 2007 9.664844 2007-06-28 13692 200706 179 -0.078906
    2219 6 27 2008 9.949844 2008-06-27 14057 200806 179 -0.042500
    2585 6 28 2009 9.964844 2009-06-28 14423 200906 179 -0.059844

  56. Posted Jun 30, 2009 at 9:17 AM | Permalink

    I just built a movie from the NSIDC full ice data record for the Antarctic.

    http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/06/30/antarctic-sea-ice-complete-video/

    The seasonal variance is amazing.

  57. Posted Jul 1, 2009 at 7:19 PM | Permalink

    Here is a great paper that a poster over at WUWT found.

    http://www.ocean-sci.net/5/193/2009/os-5-193-2009.pdf

    Looks like the sea level rise of the past decade is going to have to be revised downward, considerably.

    • DeWitt Payne
      Posted Jul 1, 2009 at 8:12 PM | Permalink

      Re: Dennis Wingo (#94),

      What it does is increase confidence that the ARGO data is correct and OHC has not increased significantly the last few years. It also puts an upper limit on how fast land based ice is melting, i.e. not very.

      Speaking of ice melting, the Arctic ice concentration, as measured by the ratio of Cryosphere Today area to JAXA extent, is tracking 2008. For anyone expecting a significant recovery of minimum area, this is not encouraging. OTOH, the Spring average JAXA extent (April, May, June) is higher than any year since 2003. The linear trend line for Spring extent from 2003 to 2009 actually has a positive slope. The trend of the year-to-date average Arctic extent for 2003 to 2009 is still negative though. The Antarctic area rate is slowing faster than usual so the global area anomaly is in negative territory.

  58. AndyW
    Posted Jul 1, 2009 at 11:04 PM | Permalink

    Comparing the geographical melting this year up to now it has shifted from the Canadian side to the Russian side, compared to last year, and more closely matches 2007 than 2008. 2007 had a lot less ice in the Chukchi sea region though.

    Regards

    Andy

  59. Flanagan
    Posted Jul 2, 2009 at 12:21 AM | Permalink

    For those who are interested in recent trends (from JAXA): date – extent – daily change

    7-1-2009 9707813 -103593
    6-30-2008 9722656 -60782
    7-1-2007 9288906 -143282
    7-1-2006 9238594 -75469
    7-1-2005 9615469 -25469
    6-30-2004 10092969 -9687
    7-1-2003 9967031 -80782
    7-1-2002 10043906 (no extent the day before)

    2009 is now the 4th lowest (5th highest) of this series, but is melting quite fast (comparable to 2007 actually). Does anyone know how to plot the daily melting rate as a function of time? I remember I saw such graphs here last year.

    • DeWitt Payne
      Posted Jul 2, 2009 at 12:53 AM | Permalink

      Re: Flanagan (#97),

      It’s nowhere near as fast as 2007, yet anyway. Exponentially smoothed rates (alpha=0.1) plotted here.

  60. Michael Hauber
    Posted Jul 2, 2009 at 12:36 AM | Permalink

    Kind of curious to look at Modis shots of the ice and see it cracking up into pieces that must be 10s or even 100s of km accross, but are presumably only a metre or two thick. A scaled down model would be a plate of ice a metre across, but only a hundredth of a millimitre thick.

  61. Flanagan
    Posted Jul 2, 2009 at 3:32 AM | Permalink

    Then the next 50 days or so are going to be crucial, no? Do you expect the volcano-induced sulfates to cool the Arctic and slow down the melting?

  62. Michael Jennings
    Posted Jul 2, 2009 at 7:45 AM | Permalink

    For those who are interested in recent trends (from JAXA): date – extent – daily change

    7-1-2009 9707813 -103593
    6-30-2008 9722656 -60782
    7-1-2007 9288906 -143282
    7-1-2006 9238594 -75469
    7-1-2005 9615469 -25469
    6-30-2004 10092969 -9687
    7-1-2003 9967031 -80782
    7-1-2002 10043906 (no extent the day before)

    2009 is now the 4th lowest (5th highest) of this series, but is melting quite fast (comparable to 2007 actually). Does anyone know how to plot the daily melting rate as a function of time? I remember I saw such graphs here last year.

    Uh actually no Flanagan. Look at the numbers again (I know you hate when they don’t conform to your preconceived notions) in your own post and see that 2009 is closer in melt raw numbers to both 2003 and 2006 than to 2007. I would hope I don’t have to show you how to subtract.

  63. Flanagan
    Posted Jul 2, 2009 at 10:08 AM | Permalink

    M. Jennings,

    you’re obviously accusing me of lying about thise numbers, aren’t you? And what do you know exactly of my “preconceived notions”? For these dates, 2009 has the second highest daily melting rate, so my claim that it is “melting quite fast” does not look, in my opinion, to present any bias.

    Moreover it is comparable to 2007 at least because only 2007 and 2009 have 100k+ melt rates. And “comparable” doesn’t mean “the closest” – or only in your preconceived opinion of my alleged preconceived notions, if you see what I mean.

    • BarryW
      Posted Jul 2, 2009 at 11:50 AM | Permalink

      Re: Flanagan (#102),

      I wouldn’t accuse you of lying but picking one day is cherry-picking. Taking any one day doesn’t tell you anything because the variance of the daily change is too large. For example, four days ago 2009′s extent change was smaller than all of the other years. Right now the extent for 2009 is tracking almost right on top of 2008 and is above the average, but, as you can see from the chart 2007, is taking a nose dive though. So the rate is comparable to 2008 if that means anything.

    • Gerald Machnee
      Posted Jul 2, 2009 at 12:16 PM | Permalink

      Re: Flanagan (#102),

      Moreover it is comparable to 2007 at least because only 2007 and 2009 have 100k+ melt rates.

      I have no preconceived notions, but 2009 is comparable to 2003 and 2006 because the difference is less than 30,000.

  64. VG
    Posted Jul 2, 2009 at 11:41 AM | Permalink

    Flanagan some real bad news for you here: Still below zero and backed up by buoys data as well (see WUWT)
    http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php

  65. Michael Jennings
    Posted Jul 2, 2009 at 12:12 PM | Permalink

    If you want to play semantics with your words and figures then, it melts quite fast every year at this time so what you are implied is simply not accurate.I didn’t accuse you nor imply that you were lying, merely you were incorrect in your math assumptions in your original post I quoted. You clearly implied that 2009 was more comparable to 2007 than other years (since you cited it) which is inaccurate if you look at the raw numbers like I said. Anyone here who doesn’t know your stance on this is clearly not paying attention because you make it quite clear with your eagerness to spin any news which dares to question the AGW point of view. Hope you have a good 4th

  66. Michael Jennings
    Posted Jul 2, 2009 at 12:24 PM | Permalink

    OOPS, don’t look now Flanagan but the final figures for 7/1/2009 are now posted and the new number makes your post even more inaccurate because it is now an extent of 9,722,813 km2. That puts in well under 100K in the melt rate and is no longer “comparable” to 2007 in being over the magical 100K number. Keep looking for a corelation in some way and I am sure you will find it! I do agree with BarryW that a one day or even one week melt numbers are pretty insignificant when taken in the total context of the melt season (or freezing season for that matter).

  67. AndyW35
    Posted Jul 2, 2009 at 12:34 PM | Permalink

    BarryW is correct here and Gerald, Michael and Flanagan are wrong in bringing this argument to the conversation. How can anybody say one day’s results makes anything comparable to anything? You guys just want to pick an AGW fight :D

    I think my viewpoint, of where it is melting, rather than one days values is far more valid, in this case it is more comparable to 2007. Does this mean that 2009 will match 2007 in loss of extent, no it does not. It might suggest and cause a ripple of interest but nothing more.

    I wouldn’t wipe my bottom on one days data unless it was a record high. By the way 2008 has a couple of big days coming up however there are quite a few high pressure area’s in that region now which will help melt.

    Regards

    Andy

    • Posted Jul 2, 2009 at 3:05 PM | Permalink

      Re: AndyW35 (#108),

      I agree with that basic position although as Flanagan did specifically refer to the rate Michael’s critique was wrong.
      My prediction in April was:

      On July 1st the extent (AMSR) will be ~9.5-10 Mm^2 then the end run will start which will depend on things like how much multiyear ice left via the Fram since last fall etc.

      looked like I was on the money.
      Given the melt pattern being similar to 2007 and the reduction in multiyear ice I wouldn’t be surprised to see another strong melt.

      • DeWitt Payne
        Posted Jul 2, 2009 at 5:43 PM | Permalink

        Re: Phil. (#109),

        Given the melt pattern being similar to 2007 and the reduction in multiyear ice I wouldn’t be surprised to see another strong melt.

        I have to agree. The ice concentration is tracking 2007 and 2008 at this point. Compared to the 1979-2000 average or even 2006, the concentration is three weeks ahead of schedule. See this plot. There is still too little multi-year ice or the ice is too thin or some combination. Add unfavorable weather and things could get really ugly.

        Notes on the derivation of the plot: Arctic ice area from 7/2008 is from a personal compilation of the daily current and 1979-2000 average Arctic ice area posted at Cryosphere Today. Area previous to 7/2008 is from Arctic ice area archived by Spreen and Kaleschke at Uni-Hamburg that has been adjusted to agree with Cryosphere Today area from 7/2008 on. Recent Arctic ice extent is from data archived by IARC-JAXA. 1979-2000 average extent was compiled from NSIDC Arctic ice extent data (1978-2006) that was adjusted so that adjusted 2002 to 2006 NSIDC extent agreed with JAXA extent. Concentration is, of course, area/extent. The noise in the average resulting in what looks like two lines is caused by data prior to mid-1987 being only every other day with some years being even and some odd. Eventually I’ll probably do a moving average or something to get rid of the noise.

        • Steve McIntyre
          Posted Jul 2, 2009 at 6:49 PM | Permalink

          Re: DeWitt Payne (#110),

          Compared to… even 2006, the concentration is three weeks ahead of schedule

          DeWitt, I don’t see how you get to this statement if the JAXA data is a guide. IT looks well behind 2006 at this stage, dead even with 2008, but a bit behind 2003 and 2005.

          month day year ice date julian mm dd diff
          31 7 1 2002 10.043906 2002-07-01 11869 200207 182 -0.079500
          396 7 1 2003 9.967031 2003-07-01 12234 200307 182 -0.080782
          761 6 30 2004 10.092969 2004-06-30 12599 200406 182 -0.009687
          1127 7 1 2005 9.615469 2005-07-01 12965 200507 182 -0.025469
          1492 7 1 2006 9.238594 2006-07-01 13330 200607 182 -0.075469
          1857 7 1 2007 9.288906 2007-07-01 13695 200707 182 -0.143282
          2222 6 30 2008 9.722656 2008-06-30 14060 200806 182 -0.060782
          2588 7 1 2009 9.722813 2009-07-01 14426 200907 182 -0.088593

        • BarryW
          Posted Jul 2, 2009 at 7:20 PM | Permalink

          Re: Steve McIntyre (#111),

          but a bit behind 2003 and 2005.

          Did you mean 2003 and 4? 2005 present extent is below 2009 but above 2006/7.

          2005 is a bit ahead of 2009 and 2006 and 2007 are close together but 2006′s loss rate is going to slow considerably in about a week and it’s going to come back toward the average.
          Re: BarryW (#104),

        • DeWitt Payne
          Posted Jul 2, 2009 at 7:27 PM | Permalink

          Re: Steve McIntyre (#111),

          It’s the concentration that’s behind, not the extent. The area is dropping faster than the extent. 2006 had lower extent but the same area as 2009. Specifically:
          date area(Mm2) extent %concentration

          6/27/06 7.888 9.527 82.80
          6/27/07 7.549 9.744 77.47
          6/26/08 7.973 9.992 79.79
          6/27/09 7.887 10.025 78.67

          6/27/09 is the latest area data I have from Cryosphere Today, since I’m far from being able to calculate extent and area from the HDF or tiff files at Uni-Bremen. So even though the extent is higher in 2009 than the same day in 2008 and much higher than 2006, the area is about the same as 2006 and only slightly lower than 2008 so the concentration is lower in 2009 than in 2006 and 2008. Low concentration means more ocean that is only partially covered and thus more likely to melt.

  68. Flanagan
    Posted Jul 2, 2009 at 11:50 PM | Permalink

    Here are the numbers for today, for those who care

    7/2/2009 9605000 -117813
    7/1/2008 9645000 -77656
    7/2/2007 9126875 -162031
    7/2/2006 9159063 -79531
    7/2/2005 9556719 -58750
    7/1/2004 10060625 -32344
    7/2/2003 9895938 -71093
    7/2/2002 10007813 -36093

    It might well be preliminary results only. But again 2009 had a bad day and (while it could be corrected) has a 100k+ daily melt again, like in 2007. I won’t make any further comment, because some people seem to think I’m trying to draw conclusions about it (which I didn’t of course). Just raw numbers, folks.

    • Michael Jennings
      Posted Jul 3, 2009 at 7:18 AM | Permalink

      Re: Flanagan (#118), Yes, those numbers appear to be increasing the melt rate for 2009 largely being caused by A. strong southerly winds causing (likely) temporary spiking of some areas in the Arctic region B. amount of new ice subject to faster melt rates. The next 45 days will pretty much tell the tale of where we will end up the melt season and I feel reasonably confident in my 4.588 prediction at seasons end

  69. BarryW
    Posted Jul 3, 2009 at 8:32 AM | Permalink

    JAXA extent for today

     
    year           extent       weekly change
    2003          9.89594            -0.46641
    2004         10.06062            -0.23672
    2005          9.55672            -0.35719
    2006          9.15906            -0.49578
    2007          9.12688            -0.80578
    2008          9.64500            -0.46703
    2009          9.62031            -0.48625

  70. Posted Jul 3, 2009 at 2:54 PM | Permalink
  71. Shawn Whelan
    Posted Jul 3, 2009 at 4:44 PM | Permalink

    I still expect the ice level to be higher than last year.

    This is when 2007 broke downward and I don’t expect the same this year.
    We shall soon see.

    • BarryW
      Posted Jul 3, 2009 at 5:06 PM | Permalink

      Re: Shawn Whelan (#122),

      2008 didn’t break until about August. If 2009 breaks before then I’d expect it to fall between 2007-8 if it holds on til after that I’m expecting it to come in third.

  72. Shawn Whelan
    Posted Jul 3, 2009 at 5:18 PM | Permalink

    It’s been cold and with the Earth’s cooling trend I expect an early fall a short melt season and an early freeze.

    The NW Passage is plugged up with old ice. Them sailboat guys might not get through this year.

  73. Carlo
    Posted Jul 4, 2009 at 1:35 PM | Permalink

    These guys?
    With Explorer, the expedition is expected to reach the Bering Strait by mid-September, when we have sailed through the Northeast Passage, an exploit achieved by Nordenskiöld 130 years earlier onboard the sailing vessel Vega.

    http://www.skinnarmo.com/expedition2009/english.htm

  74. AndyW35
    Posted Jul 4, 2009 at 6:19 PM | Permalink

    I tend to disagree with Shawn. The NE passage is a dead cert and I think the NW might even be open by the direct route rather than deflecting to the south ;)

    We shall see though. Spatially wise, 2009 is looking more and more like 2007 rather than 2008, but with a lot more ice at this point.

    2009 is now hitting the 100 000 mark per day as the main melt start, here we go finally !! Wahoo ….

    Regards

    Andy

  75. markinaustin
    Posted Jul 4, 2009 at 10:25 PM | Permalink

    it is difficult to figure andy out…..is he one of those guys who believes in Global Warming and says he is sad about the ice melting, but then it is all too obvious when it melts that he is very excited about it? even more excited about being “right” than he is sad about the supposed misery and suffering it will cause the poor of the earth?

    serious question….not trying to attack, just trying to get a read Andy!

    • AndyW35
      Posted Jul 5, 2009 at 2:52 AM | Permalink

      Re: markinaustin (#127),

      Man made global warming? I guess so in general but I’m not sure how accurate the values are or the outcome. I’m more concerned about reduced biodiversity and population amount to be honest. I don’t really spend too much time arguing about it to be honest, one of the reasons is I am not that expert on it I don’t mind admitting.

      In regards to the Arctic I just like watching the numbers and patterns and guessing what the final values will be. In general I think the scientists are fine and my mischievous side would like to see something unusual to happen so it has to be explained or challenge preconceived ideas. I’m not really wishing for a low or high value this year, my wish is to see NW and NE passages open again so a circumnavigation is possible again.

      Regards

      Andy

  76. DeWitt Payne
    Posted Jul 4, 2009 at 11:01 PM | Permalink

    I’m beginning to think that all this breaking thing in 2007 and 2008 is an artifact of the JAXA algorithm. Spreen and Kaleschke’s data at the Uni-Bremen site show no such dramatic change in rate for either 2007 or 2008. With any luck, they’ll be posting the June 2009 data soon and I’ll have a better read. Meanwhile, the ratio of CT area to JAXA extent (average concentration) continues to decline and is now below the 2007 level for this date.

  77. VG
    Posted Jul 5, 2009 at 12:15 AM | Permalink

    Reality Check once again…
    http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/ice-area-and-extent-in-arctic
    http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php

    • DeWitt Payne
      Posted Jul 5, 2009 at 7:41 PM | Permalink

      Re: VG (#129),

      One last time,can you not see that your second link does not agree with your first, or with anyone else for that matter? DMI has extent below 2008 while NANSEN has extent well above 2008. DMI also agrees with JAXA in that respect, NANSEN doesn’t.

  78. Flanagan
    Posted Jul 5, 2009 at 4:10 AM | Permalink

    The usual daily stuff

    07,04,2009,9359688 -147656
    07,03,2008,9434688 -123906
    07,04,2007,8794063 -130937
    07,04,2006,8965313 -120625
    07,04,2005,9399063 -103750
    07,03,2004,9942500 -65156
    07,04,2003,9762969 -72500
    07,04,2002,9890781 -94063

    While still far away from 2007 and 2006, 2009 is now the 3rd lowest extent in the available data and had a quite rough time yesterday, with the highest melting figure for this day.

  79. Michael Jennings
    Posted Jul 5, 2009 at 9:41 AM | Permalink

    What is fascinating is how the uptick in melt seems to start uniformly around this date and you can see it clearly in the weekly totals Flanagan has been posting. We are now definitely in the peak period of when the largest melts start to occur virtually every year as it has gone over 100,000 for 50% of the reporting years (and another year very close to exceeding that amount) .

  80. Flanagan
    Posted Jul 6, 2009 at 12:14 AM | Permalink

    hi there,

    the final figure for yesterday was 9358594, melt: -148750. Here comes the daily stuff:

    7/5/2009 9206875 -151719
    7/4/2008 9309531 -125157
    7/5/2007 8704219 -89844
    7/5/2006 8774219 -191094
    7/5/2005 9237344 -161719
    7/4/2004 9829531 -112969
    7/5/2003 9672656 -90313
    7/5/2002 9757344 -133437

    2009 had an average day for the season. Still lower than 2005, but loosing ground (so to speak).

  81. AndyW35
    Posted Jul 6, 2009 at 10:09 AM | Permalink

    2009 has had 4 100k days on the trot and the only other year to have that on Jaxa at this time was 2007, 2007 was putting up some very big figures though. Whether it can keep up 100+ is another story. As mentioned above, all this ice that is melting will go anyway so it’s no great shakes, apart from a numerical / statistical interest.

    Regards

    Andy

    • DeWitt Payne
      Posted Jul 6, 2009 at 10:36 AM | Permalink

      Re: AndyW35 (#135),

      all this ice that is melting will go anyway so it’s no great shakes,

      Not necessarily. The latest concentration images show a lot of lower concentration ice in the Arctic Basin, particularly along the 135E longitude. If the weather and ocean circulation is even a little unfavorable then we could still see area below 2007.

      • hengav
        Posted Jul 6, 2009 at 8:40 PM | Permalink

        Re: DeWitt Payne (#136),

        Please cite your references at a more detailed level. Your assertion, from the Canadian perspective, is ambiguous. Let’s fix our observation at July 2, 2009 and look at how 2009 fairs against all other years since 1971 in the Western Arctic.

        You will note that the single lowest concentration for this date is 1998. I speculate this would be a signature of the record global temperature UAH anomaly associated with the El Nino at that time. From Anthony Watts.

        The 1998 UAH anomaly was over 0.7 Celcius. Today it is zero. In 1998 the Western Arctic was roughly 29% below the 1971 to 2000 median for July 2nd. In 2009 it is only 9% below.

        As far as the Northwest passage is concerned. Forget about it. Here’s the ice concentrations:

        http://ice-glaces.ec.gc.ca/prods/WIS56CT/20090629180000_WIS56CT_0004445224.gif

        Note also from this image (to June 29th) that the past week had been roughly 3 degrees Celcius below normal.

        Mike Bryant: I think you would have to see temperature anomalies significantly higher – for whatever reason – than the observed 1998 level before you would ever see the ice all go away. For now you can rest easy. It isn’t going to happen. Cheers

        • Shawn Whelan
          Posted Jul 6, 2009 at 10:12 PM | Permalink

          Re: hengav (#139),
          The AGW gang always declares victory early.

          We will see what happens.

        • AndyW
          Posted Jul 6, 2009 at 11:36 PM | Permalink

          Re: hengav (#139),

          You can’t just take temperature as a guide though, otherwise 1998 would have the lowest extent record and in fact for the whole arctic for that year the minima was unremarkable. The problem is that you have just selected one area, north of Canada as an overall indicator. You say 2009 is only 9% lower than the median but where was 2007? It was higher. So there is no correlation to the amount of overall ice come the minimain the arctic basin ( either extent or area) from the data you have picked I feel.

          You could be right about the NW passage from this information, but you can’t even be certain about that either.

          Regards

          Andy

        • DeWitt Payne
          Posted Jul 6, 2009 at 11:50 PM | Permalink

          Re: hengav (#139),

          Please cite your references at a more detailed level.

          Did you bother to click on the link in my post and see the pretty picture of the entire Arctic Ocean (rather than just the Canadian Archipelago in your graph) from the University of Bremen?

          These threads tend to get long and posting images rather than links makes the load times excessive unless you have a fast computer and a fast connection. The Russian side of the Arctic Basin is where it looks like big losses are coming just like 2007. I wouldn’t be so sure about the Northwest Passage either. Look at 7/6/2007 and 7/6/2009 and then compare with 9/24/2007. I’m not saying it will happen, but you certainly can’t rule it out at this point.

        • DeWitt Payne
          Posted Jul 7, 2009 at 12:18 AM | Permalink

          Re: hengav (#139),

          And what does the global temperature anomaly have to do with Arctic Sea ice anyway? The UAH NoPol anomaly is far more appropriate. For example, here’s a comparison of the smoothed NoPol anomaly and the smoothed AMO index. Note that while the temperature has dropped some, it’s still a long way from where it was in 1995. I still think that Arctic sea ice will recover, possibly to 1995 to 2000 levels if the AMO index stays negative or near zero, but it won’t happen overnight or in just one year. It took about 15 years to get to this point it will take at least as many to recover.

          If you think that makes me an AGWer declaring victory, then you haven’t been reading my posts very long.

        • hengav
          Posted Jul 7, 2009 at 8:15 AM | Permalink

          Re: DeWitt Payne (#143),

          You are right, I won’t past up images anymore. Thanks.

          The Bremen image is nice, but it makes you think that all ice is the same, and I know you know it is not.

          I also know that perception of the pole acting as a unit is what you are referring to in your comparison, yet the comparison makes my point specifically: North America and the Arctic are locally influenced by El Nino. To what extent is a good question, but 1998 was a record heat wave in our arctic due to El Nino, and it’s effects are reflected in the ice record. I am sure that the fact that that signal was not felt other places in the arctic makes my case that you need to look at a confluence of all factors before making an assertion that we are going to be lower than 2007 for example.

        • DeWitt Payne
          Posted Jul 7, 2009 at 10:47 AM | Permalink

          Re: hengav (#148),

          Uni-Bremen also has false color images that emphasize the concentration difference. The archive of Arctic data is here. False color images have nic in the file name. For example: 7/6/2009 false color is http://iup.physik.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsredata/asi_daygrid_swath/l1a/n6250/2009/jul/asi-n6250-20090706-v5_nic.png

        • hengav
          Posted Jul 7, 2009 at 12:02 PM | Permalink

          Re: DeWitt Payne (#149),

          Thanks, the link isn’t working for me right now. I will try later.

          AndyW(141): Would you concede that my point on the temperature signal for 1998 in the Western Arctic is valid? In 2007 the largest loss of summer Artic ice was almost exclusively in the East Siberian Sea.
          http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=08&fd=19&fy=2007&sm=09&sd=01&sy=1985

          It was a regional not a “global” phenomenon. Perhaps you could do some digging into the weather patterns in 2007 for that sea. Check the SST, check air temp, check winds. If it becomes apparent that 2007 and 2009 look simmilar, then I would concede that 2009 could bottom out near the 2008 level. But, my bet is that the stockpile of old and fast ice in the Canadian north won’t melt as much this year.

        • Posted Jul 7, 2009 at 12:18 PM | Permalink

          Re: hengav (#154),

          But, my bet is that the stockpile of old and fast ice in the Canadian north won’t melt as much this year.

          The problem is that that stockpile isn’t what it once was and has been receding over the last several years. It’s being disbursed at each end, out the Fram and particularly starting last year significant breakup in the Beaufort sea which I expect to continue this year.

        • hengav
          Posted Jul 7, 2009 at 12:41 PM | Permalink

          Re: Phil. (#156),

          That’s an interesting general comment, I do concede that the “Fram” never froze up this year. But the Beafort? According to Cryosphere records our 2008/09 Arctic Basin stockpile was at or above the 1979 to 2000 mean.
          http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.1.html

          To confess, I don’t have the details as to how much “multi-year” ice there is today relative to the recent past, but I don’t know how relevant that would be. Ice cracks, drifts, melts, refreezes.

          It would take a whole bunch of anomalous conditions to break up this year’s stockpile. Do you know of any?

        • Posted Jul 7, 2009 at 12:57 PM | Permalink

          Re: hengav (#157),
          You referred to the “the stockpile of old and fast ice in the Canadian north”. That has indeed been decreasing in recent years, this year there was slightly less multiyear ice than the same time last year. Most of the Arctic Basin ice you link to is in fact one and two year ice;

          http://www.arcus.org/search/seaiceoutlook/2009_outlook/june_report/downloads/pdf/panarctic/Appendix1_Nghiem_etal_JuneReport_MayData.pdf

          Regarding “anomalous conditions” one such would be the area of multiyear ice separate from the Canadian coastal pack which is directly in the line of the transpolar drift.

        • hengav
          Posted Jul 7, 2009 at 1:26 PM | Permalink

          Re: Phil. (#159),

          Thanks for the reference. The second page graphic is great. The paper though, is total opportunist cherry picking: ” By March 1 2008, the extent of perennial sea ice was reduced by one million km squared compared to that of the same time in 2007.” Well duh. The majority of the Canadian ice pack is under the influence of the Beaufort Gyre which keeps the multi-er-perennial ice stuck against the arctic islands. The transpolar drift basically whizzes past “above” this sheet. You are right though, if the Gyre was to get stuck and the sheet “pushed off” from the mainland into the drift, we could have a problem. I will even bet you it has happened before, but won’t happen this year.

          Cheers
          Brad

        • AndyW35
          Posted Jul 7, 2009 at 4:43 PM | Permalink

          Re: hengav (#154),

          “AndyW(141): Would you concede that my point on the temperature signal for 1998 in the Western Arctic is valid?”

          No, because you do not provide SST’s, wind, cloud cover, thickness, age data. You can’t ask me to do that and then not provide same data requested yourself. You don’t know why it is was less that year apart from it matches the spike on another graph. However the total does not match that spike, so perhaps it is just coincidence? Can you show it is not?

          You said

          “My point exactly: You cannot look at the polar region as a whole”

          No, that is completely wrong, you do have to take into account the arctic as a whole, as you cherry picking the Canadian region only in 1998 shows.

          Regards

          Andy

        • hengav
          Posted Jul 7, 2009 at 7:43 PM | Permalink

          Re: AndyW35 (#165),

          When I have some time I will dig up the historical trends for Northern Canada. I can tell you that living through it, it was warmer. It got the whole Canadian AGW ball rolling, the whole “what’s going to happen to the polar bear?” type of questioning that still goes on now, 10 years later.

          I will say it again more politely. In my opinion, it is incorrect to treat an area the size of Canada or Russia as a single entity, simply because of it’s geographical position. Different parts of the arctic react more or less to different effects. In my opinion, the warming trend associated with strong El Nino years shows up as a North American phenomenon only.

          I am not cherry picking, I am merely pointing out that a strong natural variable recorded in the satellite record had a noticeable effect. This variable is not present today, decreasing the likelihood of a record melt in 2009.

          Cheers
          Brad

        • AndyW35
          Posted Jul 7, 2009 at 11:42 AM | Permalink

          Re: hengav (#148),

          ” I am sure that the fact that that signal was not felt other places in the arctic makes my case that you need to look at a confluence of all factors before making an assertion that we are going to be lower than 2007 for example”.

          He didn’t assert, he said could. Anyhow, looking at the charts on Cryosphere and the one I put in the last thread,

          chart

          I think your 1998 link is completely unfounded and needs a rethink when considering the whole of the Arctic than just one region. As I mentioned before 2007 shows nothing remarkable in the chart of Canadian values you put up, but it was a remarkable year. 2009 is showing locationally wise a similar pattern, so I think it is rash to discount it so early.

          Regards

          Andy

        • hengav
          Posted Jul 7, 2009 at 12:14 PM | Permalink

          Re: AndyW35 (#151),

          My point exactly: You cannot look at the polar region as a whole. It is the sum of parts, influenced by different and sometimes opposing forces.

          Go Baby Ice Go!

        • hengav
          Posted Jul 7, 2009 at 12:57 PM | Permalink

          Re: AndyW35 (#151),

          Unfounded? Here is July 2 1997 to July 2 1998. Can you spot the differences? Beaufort Sea? Hudsons Bay? Labrador Coast?

          http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=07&fd=02&fy=1997&sm=07&sd=02&sy=1998

  82. hengav
    Posted Jul 6, 2009 at 6:49 PM | Permalink

    http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/realtime/single.php?2009187/crefl1_143.A2009187182500-2009187183000.500m.jpg

    Old ice hanging on in the Canadian Arctic.

  83. Mike Bryant
    Posted Jul 6, 2009 at 6:55 PM | Permalink

    An honest question from a plumber:
    If every sliver of ice in the arctic melts this summer, will it guarantee that global warming will be catastrophic, or could the melting in some way ameliorate or diminish catastrophic outcomes of warming? This an honest question, please no ad homs only honest thoughtful responses…
    Thanks,
    Mike

    • Earle Williams
      Posted Jul 7, 2009 at 11:42 AM | Permalink

      Re: Mike Bryant (#138),

      The arctic ice issue has indeed been taken up as a banner for the AGW catastrophe crowd. I don’t personally see a well-established link between Arctic ice and CO2-driven global warming, but that doesn’t stop alarmists from pointing to every crack in the ice as proof of the coming apocalypse.

      The climate models don’t predict (er, PROJECT) temperature very accurately; they do a worse job of projecting Arctic ice. Given that the observed temperatures don’t show the necessary positive feedback, we’re really left with just the observation that Arctic ice is receding which correlates only nominally with global temperature. Is it due to CO2 induced warming, or maybe industrial aeresols, or just plain natural variability, all of the above, or something else that we have overlooked?

      We do know that the polar bear and pinnipeds use the Arctic ice at various times of the year. Has the decline of summer extent over the satellite era impacted those populations? (*Cue Dr. McCoy: Dammit Jim! I’m a geophysicist, not a veternarian!) I don’t know the answer to that question, and it seems to me that the bilogists don’t know either. Polar bears appear to be holding up rather nicely in spite of the worst projections.

      I have little faith in the sciency reports that came out a couple years ago during the debate on listing the polar bear under the ESA. They relied on IPCC assumptions and gave current data short shrift. So what will be the real impacts to polar bears and pinnipeds of a major decline in Arctic ice? We don’t know. We speculate, and the more extreme speculations make it into press releases and ultimately policy documents. But we really don’t have the observations required to make anything other than a WAG. The Arctic is a brutal place and it is very expensive to conduct research there. It will continue to be so, even if temperatures rise and summer ice recedes. So plan on the error bars being wildly huge for any Arctic data analysis.

  84. Flanagan
    Posted Jul 7, 2009 at 12:44 AM | Permalink

    The final figure for sea ice loss yesterday is -144219, which doesn’t change much in fact. For today, we have

    7/6/2009 9128906 -85469
    7/5/2008 9236250 -73281
    7/6/2007 8611094 -93125
    7/6/2006 8676563 -97656
    7/6/2005 9109844 -127500
    7/5/2004 9719688 -109843
    7/6/2003 9608750 -63906
    7/6/2002 9671563 -85781

    2009 had a pretty slow day, but anyway more melting than 2008. 2005 takes its revenge and goes number 3 again.

    BTW, is there even someone interested in these kinds of post? I don’t want to bother anybody.

    • Michael Jennings
      Posted Jul 7, 2009 at 5:41 AM | Permalink

      Re: Flanagan (#144),
      By all means, please continue as it saves me from having to look it up! ;-)

  85. ed_finnerty
    Posted Jul 7, 2009 at 5:47 AM | Permalink

    Flanagan

    please continue – I look forward to them

  86. Flanagan
    Posted Jul 7, 2009 at 6:48 AM | Permalink

    OK guys, just wanted to make sure. You lazy b……s :0)

  87. Earle Williams
    Posted Jul 7, 2009 at 11:49 AM | Permalink

    Dammit Jim! I’m an opinionated SOB, not a spell-checker!

    *veterinarian
    *aerosols
    *biologists

    Sigh, feels like a Monday. :-)

  88. VG
    Posted Jul 7, 2009 at 12:55 PM | Permalink

    The NH ice melt this year is going to be less than last years and so on. BTW the SH ice has been ABOVE anomaly for at least 2 YEARS now. Therefore if AGW exists (which it doesn’t) it ain’t even global (no.. the temp story doesn’t work either) Steig et al., completely debunked nearly everywhere.. Nature should withdraw this paper. I have published 23 papers in refereed journals. I would not even consider submitting anything to NATURE anymore!

    • Posted Jul 7, 2009 at 1:13 PM | Permalink

      Re: VG (#158),

      The NH ice melt this year is going to be less than last years and so on. BTW the SH ice has been ABOVE anomaly for at least 2 YEARS now.

      Reference to the CT data shows that this hasn’t even been true for the last year never mind two. Careful reading of the graph shows that what has happened for the last two years is a faster than usual regrowth for about 6 weeks followed by normal growth, the min and max both being ~normal.

      Therefore if AGW exists (which it doesn’t) it ain’t even global (no.. the temp story doesn’t work either) Steig et al., completely debunked nearly everywhere.. Nature should withdraw this paper. I have published 23 papers in refereed journals. I would not even consider submitting anything to NATURE anymore!

      Well I’ve published over 80 and I’d have no problem in publishing in Nature.

      • DeWitt Payne
        Posted Jul 7, 2009 at 3:24 PM | Permalink

        Re: Phil. (#161),

        Out of curiosity I scaled the NSIDC Antarctic extent data to Uni-Hamburg so I could calculate a 1979-2000 daily average. Not surprisingly, the maximum and minimum extent for the 1979-2000 extent were lower than the 2003-2008 average. However, even using that average to calculate an anomaly from the Uni-Hamburg data, the extent anomaly is still negative for most of the month of September, 2008. So neither the extent nor area anomalies have been positive for two years.

  89. Michael Hauber
    Posted Jul 7, 2009 at 3:39 PM | Permalink

    I suspect the melt acceleration may be linked to the cool phase PDO. One of the factors in this increased melt has been an increase in the transpolar drift, with stronger winds pushing across the Arctic from the Bering Straight to the Atlantic pushing ice out into the Atlantic to melt.

    In 2007 it has almost been like a switch has been thrown, since then we’ve seen much less ice in summer and more ice in winter. Probably a little early to say whether this is a definite pattern, or just a set of coincidences, but I think it fits well with the cool PDO phase, which started around late 2007 or early 2008.

    A cool PDO causes cold temperatures in the far north pacific. Sea ice in the Bering Sea was more than 20% above the 30 year average according to Cryosphere today this past winter, and the ice pattern in 07/08 winter was similar as well if you compare archive ice maps.

    A cool PDO phase also causes generally higher pressure in the North East Pacific. This will tend to promote southerlies over the West Pacific, and northerlies in America, and seems likely to me to assist the transpolar drift across the Arctic. In winter this means that the Sea of Okhotsk (NE of Japan) is receiving warmer southerlies – last winter CT shows this area as more than 20% below the 30 year average. On the American side this tendancy is pushing cold northerlies into areas around NE America. CT shows that the ice areas for Baffin, Newfoundland, Hudson Bay and St Lawrence Gulf areas were all around the 30 year average last winter.

    Meanwhile in the Arctic basin the whole thing is frozen solid during winter. Increased transpolar drift bringing warmer air from Russia and North East Pacific has no effect on ice area, but maybe helping to push the ice a little faster across the Arctic and out into the Atlantic, maybe leaving it a little thinner. But with sparse thickness measurements this is probably only a guess that can’t be confirmed/refuted?

    So in Winter the cool PDO tends towards increased ice area/extent in areas outside the Arctic basin, but has zero tendancy to reduce the extent/area in the Arctic.

    But in Summer we have a different situation. The North Pacific and North Atlantic areas where cool PDO acts to increase ice are ice free anyway. Whereas the ice melt boundary has entered the Arctic Basin and the increased transpolar drift can suddenly have an impact. The southerly winds on the Russian side are bringing significant heat into the Arctic Basin, and the ice being partially melted is much more easily pushed around by the wind.

    The other factor mentioned in explanations of the extreme melt in 2007, and which seems to be again present this year is a tendancy for high pressure north of Canada. Whether this can be connected to cool PDO or not I don’t know, as the map of PDO impacts at http://jisao.washington.edu/pdo/ doesn’t show what happens in the Arctic.

    And why didn’t the last phase of cool PDO cause dramatic summer ice melt? Perhaps because we had much less AGW impact back then and the melt front spent much longer part of the year outside the Arctic Basin where cool PDO increases ice area, and much less time inside the Arctic Basin where cool PDO decreases ice area.

  90. Shawn Whelan
    Posted Jul 7, 2009 at 8:24 PM | Permalink

    It’s been cold in the Canadian Arctic and remains so.

    With the old ice blocking the NW Passage it could be real interesting for the sailboats attempting to go through.

    This variable is not present today, decreasing the likelihood of a record melt in 2009.

    Much colder in the Arctic in 2009 than 2007. So very unlikely to see a record melt. There isn’t much time before the early freeze that is going to occur this year in the Arctic.

    • Posted Jul 7, 2009 at 8:51 PM | Permalink

      Re: Shawn Whelan (#167),

      With the old ice blocking the NW Passage it could be real interesting for the sailboats attempting to go through.

      At best ‘partially blocked’.

      http://ice-glaces.ec.gc.ca/prods/WIS56SD/20090629180000_WIS56SD_0004445228.gif

      By the way here’s this month’s update to the source of your ‘old ice’:
      Forecast ice conditions for July 16th to July 31st.

      During the second half of July, the mean temperatures will remain
      near normal over most regions except above normal along the Bering
      Strait and Alaska coastal regions. The ice will melt at a moderate pace
      and fracture throughout the southern route of the Northwest Passage from
      western Barrow Strait through Peel Sound, across Victoria Strait, Queen
      Maud and Coronation Gulfs. An open water route will develop between
      Mackenzie Bay and Cape Bathurst. Further west, the open drift or less
      route along the Alaskan Coast between Prudhoe Bay and Barter Island will
      develop and this will be 3 weeks sooner than previously forecast. Within
      the Beaufort Sea ice pack, ice concentrations will slowly decrease from
      very close pack to close pack conditions while open drift to very open
      drift concentrations will prevail along the outer edge.”

      • hengav
        Posted Jul 7, 2009 at 10:18 PM | Permalink

        Re: Phil. (#168),

        Aww c’mon Phil. Did you read my post at 139? Here’s the exact same link showing the exact same image you “chose” above ‘cept it doesn’t help your point. For anyone else click on the link he has posted above. Then click this:

        http://ice-glaces.ec.gc.ca/prods/WIS56CT/20090629180000_WIS56CT_0004445224.gif

        There is a veritable log jam at the 2 potential exits into the Beaufort.

        • Posted Jul 8, 2009 at 6:46 AM | Permalink

          Re: hengav (#169),

          Aww c’mon Phil. Did you read my post at 139? Here’s the exact same link showing the exact same image you “chose” above ‘cept it doesn’t help your point. For anyone else click on the link he has posted above. Then click this:
          http://ice-glaces.ec.gc.ca/prods/WIS56CT/20090629180000_WIS56CT_0004445224.gif
          There is a veritable log jam at the 2 potential exits into the Beaufort.

          Except it isn’t the “exact same image” is it, in fact the one I cited shows the age of the ice in response to Shawn’s comment about ‘old ice’.
          Comparable data from 2007 show that it was much more blocked with ‘old ice’ then, ‘old ice’ is shown as brown.
          http://ice-glaces.ec.gc.ca/www_archive//AOI_10/Charts/sc_a10_20070709_WIS56SD.gif

        • Shawn Whelan
          Posted Jul 8, 2009 at 7:31 AM | Permalink

          Re: Phil. (#173),
          Comparable data from 2007 show that it was much more blocked with ‘old ice’ then, ‘old ice’ is shown as brown.

          There is much more old ice in the passage this year than in 2007.

          Like Hengav says both the exits of the Southern Route are blocked. Only time will tell. The CIS is not exactly legendary in correctly predicting this.

        • Posted Jul 8, 2009 at 7:46 AM | Permalink

          Re: Shawn Whelan (#174),

          Like Hengav says both the exits of the Southern Route are blocked.

          Hengav was referring to the Northern route.

        • hengav
          Posted Jul 8, 2009 at 9:55 AM | Permalink

          Re: Phil. (#175),
          It’s Brad.
          Hengav is my old handle that lets me post. I tried with my real name and got spam blocked.

          I get confused by what route is which too. Both entrances to the Beaufort are jammed.

          Cheers
          Brad Culver P.Geoph

      • hengav
        Posted Jul 7, 2009 at 11:20 PM | Permalink

        Re: Phil. (#168),

        July 7th 2009 Modis Terra image for the mouth of the Beaufort.
        http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/realtime/single.php?2009188/crefl1_143.A2009188205000-2009188205500.250m.jpg
        Compare that to the 29 June link above. Nothing much has changed.
        The water off Resolute and Peel sound has been open for a long time. There is some very thick fast ice between there and Aulavik National Park on Banks Island, at the mouth of the Beaufort. Where the ice jam is. Forecast is snow/rain and around zero for the next week.

        By the way here’s this month’s update to the source of your ‘old ice’:
        “Forecast ice conditions for July 16th to July 31st.

        It looks optimistic to me. And it’s perennial now.

        Cheers
        Brad

  91. VG
    Posted Jul 8, 2009 at 12:33 AM | Permalink

    Another junk journal apart (from Nature) that I don’t read anymore is the “New Scientist” re Sea levels this week see Rahmsdorf right on this blog…what a joke! Nature used to be a top Journal though… USED TO BE.

  92. Flanagan
    Posted Jul 8, 2009 at 1:30 AM | Permalink

    Hi! The final melt figure for yesterday is -95156. Here are the values for today:

    7/7/2009 9018594 -100625
    7/6/2008 9175000 -61250
    7/7/2007 8529844 -81250
    7/7/2006 8625781 -50782
    7/7/2005 9004219 -105625
    7/6/2004 9671875 -47813
    7/7/2003 9557031 -51719
    7/7/2002 9580000 -91563

    That’s a big day! Another 100k+ loss… which places it second largest melt for this date. Only 2005 did better. Maybe 2009 will also show some slowing down in mid-July just like 2005 did?

    • AndyW35
      Posted Jul 8, 2009 at 12:18 PM | Permalink

      Re: Flanagan (#172),

      As things start to get interesting from the start of July why not do a running total from the 1st rather than daily for all years? I think you will find the results up to now interesting and it will give a better picture of the summer melt than the daily ones.

      Regards

      Andy

  93. Shawn Whelan
    Posted Jul 8, 2009 at 11:20 AM | Permalink

    This shows Larsen’s route throught the Southern and Northern Routes of the NW Passage in the early 40′s.

    http://www.ucalgary.ca/arcticexpedition/larsenexpeditions

    Hengav was referring to the Northern route.

    I didn’t even consider the possibility of a sailboat going through the Northern Route this year. Not a chance.

    They will be lucky to get through the Southern Route which is plugged up with old ice.

  94. AndyW35
    Posted Jul 8, 2009 at 12:03 PM | Permalink

    Well it is definitely melting more on the Russian side at the moment with far more open water it has to be said. Still 2 months to go though.There isn’t that much open water comparitively in the NW Passage region so you could have very low extent and it still blocked off, if you see what I mean.

    Regards

    Andy

  95. Flanagan
    Posted Jul 9, 2009 at 1:36 AM | Permalink

    Ok guys, so here is the difference between july 8 and july 1 (or july 7 and june 30 for leap years)

    year extent daily difference 1-week difference
    —————————————————
    2009 8944531 -74063 -778282
    2008 9094063 -80937 -628593
    2007 8455000 -74844 -833906
    2006 8558594 -67187 -680000
    2005 8905469 -98750 -710000
    2004 9655469 -16406 -437500
    2003 9490156 -66875 -476875
    2002 9502188 -77812 -541718

    So: a moderate day for 2009, but the second fastest weekly melting rate after 2007!

  96. Shawn Whelan
    Posted Jul 9, 2009 at 7:12 AM | Permalink

    Don’t get your hopes up.
    This melting will turn on a dime.

    More minimum ice in 2009 than 2008.

    • jc-at-play
      Posted Jul 9, 2009 at 9:52 AM | Permalink

      Re: Shawn Whelan (#181),

      Your haiku needs some repair. Something like this, perhaps?

      Don’t get your hopes up.
      This melting will turn around.
      More ice in ’09.

      [Inspiration provided by Lucia.]

      • Shawn Whelan
        Posted Jul 9, 2009 at 9:55 PM | Permalink

        Re: jc-at-play (#183),
        I didn’t even know I was a haiku’ist.

        Early freeze in ’08
        Late spring in ’09 and early freeze
        Short melt, more ice

  97. Michael Jennings
    Posted Jul 9, 2009 at 7:29 AM | Permalink

    Thanks for doing that Flanagan. With the late adjustments that always occur (usually upward in extent)the numbers change can sometimes be significant.

  98. AndyW35
    Posted Jul 9, 2009 at 12:34 PM | Permalink

    Nice Haiku Shawn and JC !

    Thanks for doing the running total Flannigan, I thought it might be interesting :) Will it keep up the pace or be like 2006?

    Regards

    Andy

  99. Neven
    Posted Jul 9, 2009 at 2:34 PM | Permalink

    Thanks from me too, Flanagan. I’ve been following the slowest horse race in the world for a few years now and your daily updates are very welcome as I can’t produce them myself.

  100. Posted Jul 9, 2009 at 2:38 PM | Permalink

    I’ve linked to a couple of cool ASMR-E videos at my blog.

    http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/07/09/fantastic-high-resolution-video-of-sea-ice/

    It’s high resolution so you can really see the ice crack and flow.

  101. Flanagan
    Posted Jul 10, 2009 at 12:45 AM | Permalink

    Thank you all – but be aware that I’ll be away from July 20 till July 28 – holidays, buddies!
    For today, simple daily figures should do it – But I think it’s great to put weekly or montlhy changes when possible. Final numbers for yesterday:

    year extent daily difference 1-week difference
    ———— ————— —— ——————
    2009 8951563 -67031 -771250
    2008 9094063 -80937 -628593
    2007 8455000 -74844 -833906
    2006 8558594 -67187 -680000
    2005 8905469 -98750 -710000
    2004 9655469 -16406 -437500
    2003 9490156 -66875 -476875
    2002 9502188 -77812 -541718

    So similar conclusions. Sorry to always post prelim. numbers, but I don’t live in the US… So for today

    07/09/2009 8852031 -99532
    07/08/2008 9045469 -48594
    07/09/2007 8369063 -85937
    07/09/2006 8456719 -101875
    07/09/2005 8847813 -57656
    07/08/2004 9596406 -59063
    07/09/2003 9425938 -64218
    07/9/2002 9454688 -47500

    2009 still fighting for the third place, seems to have second largest rate for the day. Shawn: you should take care with such simple reasonings. In 2008, the “frozen” season was quite ong also.

    • Shawn Whelan
      Posted Jul 10, 2009 at 7:35 AM | Permalink

      Re: Flanagan (#188),
      Shawn: you should take care with such simple reasonings. In 2008, the “frozen” season was quite ong also.

      Nothing simple about my ideas.
      The Earth is cooling and the Arctic is going to have more ice.

      Come to think about it it is simple.

      So was the economic meltdown. You could see it coming from a mile away and very few of the economist saw it. The consensus was very wrong and the few that correctly predicted the original economic crash are predicting another. And they will be right again. Meanwhile the consensus of economists are predicting a recovery this year. And they will be wrong.

      How come a simple guy like me can figure this out and most of the worlds scientists can’t?

  102. thefordprefect
    Posted Jul 10, 2009 at 6:02 AM | Permalink

    Tried posting this 2 times so far – spam bot killed it!
    the animations are much higher definition and the h.d.t.v definition file well worth viewing
    http://polynya.gsfc.nasa.gov/seaice_amsr.html

    Mike

  103. thefordprefect
    Posted Jul 10, 2009 at 6:05 AM | Permalink

    And this one for antarctic:

  104. thefordprefect
    Posted Jul 10, 2009 at 6:08 AM | Permalink

    Ok just typing in the HTTP: stuff and the blog says I’m trying to modify the header.
    and using the LINK button did not work!
    One more try

    Antarctic

  105. AndyW
    Posted Jul 10, 2009 at 8:17 AM | Permalink

    I have to say I sometimes think like that and it gets more so the more beer I have ! :).

    The High pressure regions are staying put over the East Siberian and Beaufort seas so I expect quite a bit of melting on the Russian side and some on the other onwards. Where 2009 lags 2007 is in the ChuckieEgg sea.

    Regards

    Andy

  106. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Jul 10, 2009 at 8:23 AM | Permalink

    Next post here

  107. BarryW
    Posted Jun 19, 2009 at 7:22 AM | Permalink

    Re: Willis Eschenbach (#12),

    Anyone know why there hasn’t been an update of the data since January of this year? Is this normal? Do they update once a year or something?

  108. BarryW
    Posted Jun 19, 2009 at 8:25 AM | Permalink

    Re: Geoff Sherrington (#22),

    Geeze, that is an interesting question.

    I found this which implies that they’re using GPS which is relative to the WGS 84 datum.

  109. Curt
    Posted Jun 19, 2009 at 11:27 AM | Permalink

    Re: Geoff Sherrington (#22),

    About a year ago, I asked myself the same question, so I did some back-of-the-envelope calculations. I don’t have access to those calculations now, but what I remember is this:

    I took the high end of IPCC calculations of a 5C global average rise in atmospheric temperatures and assumed constant relative humidity. The extra water vapor in the atmosphere would depress sea levels a few millimeters, probably insignificant compared to other effects of a 5C global change. Of course, I don’t think these calcs should be treated as anything more than order-of-magnitude estimations, and the assumptions are probably very questionable.

2 Trackbacks

  1. [...] am This is an open discussion thread, of the kind that work so well at other sites (e.g., “A New Sea Ice Thread” at Climate [...]

  2. By Dagens länkar | The Climate Scam on Jun 20, 2009 at 8:38 AM

    [...] A New Sea Ice Thread- Steve McIntyre bjuder in till diskussion om havsis. [...]

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,114 other followers

%d bloggers like this: