Sea Ice – June 2009

June 2009 monthly sea ice data is now out for NH and SH. (Continuing prior sea ice post here.)

The global sea ice anomaly in June 2009 remained positive. Over the 1979-2009 period, there is zero trend in global sea ice anomaly, with a SH increasing trend offsetting a NH decreasing trend. June 2009 NH anomaly was not remarkable.

Daily sea ice anomaly through July 9, 2009 are running at about the median of the past 7 years, about half a million sq km behind 2006-2007 but slightly ahead of 2008.

349 Comments

  1. Geo
    Posted Jul 10, 2009 at 9:43 AM | Permalink

    I wasn’t thrilled to see the 2009 Arctic ice line dip below the 2008 line, but it isn’t significant nor for a significantly long period yet either. And it is still above 2006 at this point, and a 2006-like seasonal minimum would be very happy indeed.

    • AndyW35
      Posted Jul 10, 2009 at 3:27 PM | Permalink

      Re: Geo (#1),

      ” And it is still above 2006 at this point, and a 2006-like seasonal minimum would be very happy indeed.”

      I fear that wish is closer to Ken’s lasers blowing the satellite out of orbit and me sleeping with Megan Fox over the weekend than what will actually happen.

      Sadly, I quite like Ms Fox.

      Regards

      Desperate of the UK.

      • Geo
        Posted Jul 10, 2009 at 9:58 PM | Permalink

        Re: AndyW35 (#18),

        No question that’s rosy scenario, but sometimes those actually happen. I’m on the record saying I’ll be happy to take in the general neighborhood of 2005 for minimum, comfortably above 2008 min. If we don’t get at least that, it’s time to reconsider what we think we know about what is causing recent trends in Arctic ice.

        • AndyW35
          Posted Jul 11, 2009 at 12:38 AM | Permalink

          Re: Geo (#35),

          You could be right, I’m going for a bit above 2008, but I think it is more likely to be a bit below 2008 than nearer to 2005.

          Regards

          Andy

  2. S.E.Hendriksen
    Posted Jul 10, 2009 at 9:49 AM | Permalink

    See it from the bright side…the melting Icebergs and Sea ice are responsible for 30 % og the carbon sink in the Arctic sea…no melting no sink.

    Kind regards

  3. BRIAN M FLYNN
    Posted Jul 10, 2009 at 10:32 AM | Permalink

    S.E. Hendrickson
    See, “New NASA Satellite Survey Reveals Dramatic Arctic Sea Ice
    Thinning” at

    http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2009-107.

    Does the “bright side” extend to thinning as well, given “warming” albedo cautions?

  4. Mike Lorrey
    Posted Jul 10, 2009 at 10:38 AM | Permalink

    Funny how NASA isnt covering 2009 data…. wouldn’t want to contradict Bonny Prince Charlie and his Catlin cohorts.

  5. George Tobin
    Posted Jul 10, 2009 at 10:40 AM | Permalink

    It is noteworthy that the ice anomalies do not seem to track with global surface temperatures. Are there separate polar versions of ENSO/ADO/PDO etc such that the poles have their own rhythms? Is there even a hint of a pattern?

    • Geo
      Posted Jul 10, 2009 at 11:23 AM | Permalink

      Re: George Tobin (#5),

      If we get another result in the 2007-2008 range this year for the Sept. lows, then that might be an interesting example showing the relative importance of sea temp vs air temp in the Arctic summer thaw. But for now, I’m still holding out for something in the neigbhorhood of 2005 instead for the seasonal lows, perhaps slightly south (due to “second year ice”), but comfortably above 2008.

  6. BRIAN M FLYNN
    Posted Jul 10, 2009 at 11:05 AM | Permalink

    Mike Lorrey:
    I do have trouble reading the NASA report, especially the graph at:

    http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/365869main_earth2-20090707-full.jpg.

    Does “between winters of 2004 and 2008″ mean that the 2008 winter may also not be included? Are the observations as of each mid September (when Arctic ice extent is at minimum)?

    • Posted Jul 10, 2009 at 11:28 AM | Permalink

      Re: BRIAN M FLYNN (#6),

      The graphs are of winter ice, i.e. at ~maximum extent and clearly winter 2008 is included.
      There was also significant outflow through the Fram this spring since the 2008 image.

    • MAK
      Posted Jul 10, 2009 at 10:49 PM | Permalink

      Re: BRIAN M FLYNN (#6),
      The last measurement is from March 2008 in that study.

      The ice thickness data is an estimate based on laser reflections and the estimated correlation between ice age and the thickness.

      They estimate that first year ice has low thickness regardless of where it is. This correlation data is from older studies.

      All those pretty ice thickness pictures are thus in fact the ice reflection pictures.

      • BRIAN M FLYNN
        Posted Jul 11, 2009 at 11:43 AM | Permalink

        Re: MAK (#36),
        Re: Phil. (#8),

        MAK, perhaps you meant “March, 2009″ as your comment differs from that of Phil (i.e., “winter, 2008 is included). If not, then NASA apparently failed to include the Arctic ice rebound during the winter of 2008-2009. If so, then NASA’s report appears to conflict with Goddard’s hopeful report, “New Milepost For Arctic Sea Ice Extent”, on April 17, 2009 published at WUWT. My difficulty with reading the NASA report on thinning in either case remains.

        • Posted Jul 11, 2009 at 1:53 PM | Permalink

          Re: BRIAN M FLYNN (#54),

          Winter 2008 is explicitly included, the next question is what do they mean by winter? I usually take it to mean Dec/Jan/Feb whereas some use Jan/Feb/Mar, looking carefully at the data I suspect that they used the latter definition. However regarding the “Arctic ice rebound” there wasn’t really one to miss:

          “A record was set in the reduction of Arctic perennial ice extent in winter 2008, while the winter total sea ice extent has been stable compared to the average over the decade of the QS data record (1999-2009). By 1 March 2008, the extent of perennial sea ice was reduced by one million km2 compared to that at the same time in 2007, which continued the precipitous declining trend observed in this decade. Beyond the QS satellite data time-series, the perennial sea ice pattern change was deduced by using the buoy-based estimates computed with 50 years of data from drifting buoys and measurement camps to track sea ice movement around the Arctic Ocean. The combination of the satellite and surface data records confirms that the reduction of winter perennial ice extent broke the record in 2008 compared to data over the last half century. In the 2007-2008 ice season, perennial ice extent reduced by 1.2×10^6 km2 between 10/1/2007 and 5/1/2008. Updated observations from QS data showed that perennial ice extent was 0.5×10^6 km2 larger on 10/1/2008 compared to the same date in 2007 due to more plentiful survival of sea ice after summer 2008. Nevertheless, between 10/1/2008 and 5/1/2009, the reduction of sea ice extent was 50% more rapid than the reduction rate in the same period between 2007 and 2008. On 5/1/2009, perennial ice extent has reduced to 2.1×10^6 km2, which is a virtual tie to 2.2×10^6 km2 of perennial ice extent on 5/1/2008 given the uncertainty of ±0.2×10^6 km2 in QS measurements. “

          Arcus

        • D. Patterson
          Posted Jul 11, 2009 at 3:37 PM | Permalink

          Re: Phil. (#55),

          Sorry Phil, but the Arctic ice did rebound. You should try flying at high altitude over the Arctic and use the Mark I eyebaall instrument to make comparisons with the alleged reports of satellite obtained sea ice extent. When you see a paper which uses the relatively short time frame/s of the satellite records and omits the effects of wind and current pushing the ice pack into the Fram Strait, you should be on notice something is likely to be amiss in the report. What do you suppose should be examined for validity and verification in that paper?

        • Posted Jul 11, 2009 at 11:37 PM | Permalink

          Re: D. Patterson (#57),

          Sorry Phil, but the Arctic ice did rebound. You should try flying at high altitude over the Arctic and use the Mark I eyebaall instrument to make comparisons with the alleged reports of satellite obtained sea ice extent.

          Done that a lot recently?

          When you see a paper which uses the relatively short time frame/s of the satellite records and omits the effects of wind and current pushing the ice pack into the Fram Strait, you should be on notice something is likely to be amiss in the report. What do you suppose should be examined for validity and verification in that paper?

          Of course the paper I quoted was talking about exactly that so I’m not sure what your point is.
          For example: “New QS observations in 2009 suggest a split between two main perennial ice packs
          (Figure 1), the TDS perennial ice pack and the north Greenland perennial ice pack, extending
          from the NP to Fram Strait, which may impact the rate of ice export in 2009 and, consequently,
          the overall state of Arctic sea ice in the coming summer season.”

        • D. Patterson
          Posted Jul 12, 2009 at 8:10 AM | Permalink

          Re: Phil. (#58),

          Done that a lot recently?

          No, it hasn’t been recently, but past experience provided a healthy respect for the limitations of the satellite and aerial instrumentation. It’s interesting that you didn’t disclose the inherent gross resolution and inaccuracies of QuikScat (QS) measurable in kilometers or more with a pixel covering about 12.5 kilometers. The use of “algorithms” to “adjust” the data to “detect” the ice edge leaves a prudent scientist with a multitude of questions about the assumptions accompanying the purported accuracy of the data, valid or not. With thousands of people flying over the Arctic each day, you would think it might dawn on someone responsible for the experiment/s and/or those responsible for critiquing the experiments to utilize some direct observations as needed to correctly evaluate the ability to detect the ice edge and determine a valid sea ice extent without making the community guess as to whether or not all of these algorithims and adjustments are producing erroneous results and overconfident estimates of accuracy.

          Of course the paper I quoted was talking about exactly that so I’m not sure what your point is.
          For example: “New QS observations in 2009 suggest a split between two main perennial ice packs[....]

          Yes, you did miss the point. In time frames far more relevant than the momentary era of satellites or the presence of human civilization, the Arctic has typically been ice free to the benefit of life in general. Consequently, the details of how components of the multi-year ice of the Arctic ice pack do and do not continue in existence on a timescale of mere years or longer appears to be a likely denial of the natural variability we know occurred in the past and do not yet have verifiable evidence of being influenced by humans justifying alarmist assumptions about the meanings of observations and observational techniques. When you jump to a conclusion “there was no rebound to miss” without even acknowledging the obvious limitations of a system of instrumentation using pixels covering 12.5 kilometers and results inferred by assumptions, the stated claims take on more of the appearance of alarmist rhetoric clothed in scientific half truths. Rather than treat the QS results as an occasion for alarm about the climate and the human influence upon it, if any, you might want to doublecheck the claims about ice edge calculations using direct observations, and you may want to consider how the ice is going to melt when we already have some deciduous tees in the boreal forests from Maine to Washington changing to Fall colors in July.

          Indeed, the past few years have seen the Spring flowers blossoming weeks later than in 1998, and the Fall season plants are beginning their development and blossoming weeks earlier as well. The Skagit Valley Tulip Festival found it necessary to extend the festival to a month in length, when the fields failed to blossom at the normal time. This year, even the extra month was insufficient for the fields to blossom on time for the festival. Farmers in Illinois were about a month late in planting, and they are already seeing signs among the plants and animals of a Fall season weeks earlier than usual. In other words, there is widespread evidence of a reduced Summer season for the past few years. Those people who are too young to remember beyond the past 30 to 40 years are seeing these changes to colder weather and climate as novel. Those of us who have been around longer than that and have good memories of the weather and climate are remarking how conditions are merely returning to what we experienced in our early lives. Likewise with the instrumental observations of the sea ice, jumping to unvalidated conclusions about the all too brief instrumental records appears to lack the required context and relevance with respect to the environment under observation.

        • AndyW35
          Posted Jul 12, 2009 at 8:57 AM | Permalink

          Re: D. Patterson (#63),

          “With thousands of people flying over the Arctic each day,”

          We can turn this argument back on itself, if the satellite figures are not right then wouldn’t they be called into question by all these observers? Indeed, when the NSIDC instrument went wrong it was spotted and pointed out to them by web watchers sitting in their own armchairs. So I feel quite conifident the satellite figures can be trusted.

          Now whether the Arctic ice did rebound is an interesting question. It rebounded on previous years but not on the 1979-2000 average, it was still lower. Indeed, does extent in winter actually say that much, most people say it does not, thickness and age matters most then.

          As for winds, it was the high AO in the 1990’s that massively reduced the level of thick multiyear ice which allowed the extraordinary year of 2007 to take maximum advantage of.

          My guess of a big loss yesterday due to high pressure regions and increased temps fell on rocky ground. Pah, I will have to go back to “lag” to dig me out of this.
          Regards

          Andy

        • D. Patterson
          Posted Jul 12, 2009 at 6:51 PM | Permalink

          Re: AndyW35 (#64),

          We can turn this argument back on itself, if the satellite figures are not right then wouldn’t they be called into question by all these observers?

          The answer is no, not yet. I’m calling attention to the opportunity to do so now. Prior to Anthony Watts organizing the sufacestations project, innumerable people pased by surfacestation observation sites every day without stopping to take notice of or reporting of siting issues. Now, we have volunteers taking notice of the sites and reporting them with direct photographic evidence. Likewise, we are not likely to see many photographs of the Arctic taken from FL310-FL390 by people aboard commercial, military, and scientific flights, until they see a need and an inviting Website to do so. Perhaps science will benefit by a volunteer effort to confirm or deny the accuracy of the instrumentation using direct observations of the sea ice edge when available.

          Now whether the Arctic ice did rebound is an interesting question. It rebounded on previous years but not on the 1979-2000 average, it was still lower. [....]

          Nonetheless, it did rebound in comparison to the immediate year/s.

        • Posted Jul 12, 2009 at 7:27 PM | Permalink

          Re: D. Patterson (#66),

          On the contrary we have excellent high resolution images daily which show excellent agreement with the JAXA ice concentration data.

          For example today over the Fram strait:
          MODIS image

          which shows excellent agreement with today’s JAXA image:
          Fram Strait

          Re: D. Patterson (#63),

          past experience provided a healthy respect for the limitations of the satellite and aerial instrumentation. It’s interesting that you didn’t disclose the inherent gross resolution and inaccuracies of QuikScat (QS) measurable in kilometers or more with a pixel covering about 12.5 kilometers. The use of “algorithms” to “adjust” the data to “detect” the ice edge leaves a prudent scientist with a multitude of questions about the assumptions accompanying the purported accuracy of the data, valid or not

          Regarding the resolution, it wasn’t relevant to the discussion. A prudent scientist would have read the papers on the subject where these questions are discussed, have you done so?

          Yes, you did miss the point. In time frames far more relevant than the momentary era of satellites or the presence of human civilization, the Arctic has typically been ice free to the benefit of life in general.

          Actually I didn’t but you here are just indulging in ‘bait & switch’ and trying to obfuscate by introducing a new topic, the point I was addressing was:

          When you see a paper which uses the relatively short time frame/s of the satellite records and omits the effects of wind and current pushing the ice pack into the Fram Strait, you should be on notice something is likely to be amiss in the report.

          To which I responded by showing quotes from the paper which addressed exactly that point so you changed the subject!

  7. Denny
    Posted Jul 10, 2009 at 11:29 AM | Permalink

    This was posted in the Popular Science Magazine today! They say otherwise!

    http://www.popsci.com/node/36550/?cmpid=PSCenews070909

    If it comes from the “Times”, can you trust it?

    • Geo
      Posted Jul 10, 2009 at 11:50 AM | Permalink

      Re: Denny (#9),

      Well, duh, congrats to NASA for proving that 2007 was a record low in the satellite age and the “first year ice” phenomenon does exist. Only took an extra year to do it. Tho I thought last summer’s melt in August and September proved that pretty thoroughly.

      But hey, this ICESAT thing looks pretty promising! With that capability, why aren’t we getting daily comparisons of Arctic ice volume (it appears to have launched in early 2003) to go along with ice extant?

      • Denny
        Posted Jul 10, 2009 at 6:17 PM | Permalink

        Re: Geo (#11), Hey there Geo, I’m on your side! I posted this in the pretense that it shows relationship on how you pick the SPAND to what you relate to on graphs. Also on who posts the article!

      • Posted Jul 10, 2009 at 6:33 PM | Permalink

        Re: Geo (#11),

        But hey, this ICESAT thing looks pretty promising! With that capability, why aren’t we getting daily comparisons of Arctic ice volume (it appears to have launched in early 2003) to go along with ice extant?

        They use different frequencies to measure the surface of the snow and the surface of the ice to calculate the freeboard. Usually that works better during the winter when there are no wet surfaces which will interact with the microwaves differently. There’s also a product which does a cross correlation of two signals to measure drift, that also is only done in the winter for the same reason.
        Re: Denny (#9),

        This was posted in the Popular Science Magazine today! They say otherwise!

        Otherwise compared to what?

        • Denny
          Posted Jul 10, 2009 at 8:49 PM | Permalink

          Re: Phil. (#27), Hi Phil, that’s a question you need to ask the editor of Popular Science. I referred to this article in comparison of what’s posted here. Isn’t it amazing how they view this!

        • Geo
          Posted Jul 10, 2009 at 9:55 PM | Permalink

          Re: Phil. (#27),

          Thanks for the explanation. I still think this year’s minimum is going to tell us some stuff –one way or the other– that will be significant new information to have going forward. That’s exciting.

  8. Demesure
    Posted Jul 10, 2009 at 11:43 AM | Permalink

    Compared to Steve’s graph, there is no bump up in the NH sea ice anomaly, which is much lower according to Cryosphere Today : http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.anom.jpg
    Where is the problem ????

    • James Smyth
      Posted Jul 10, 2009 at 1:56 PM | Permalink

      Re: Demesure (#10), it looks like their NH data differs by a linear (down-ward slopping) trend. The high-frequency component looks identical.

      (“looks identical”, hahaha)

    • Steve McIntyre
      Posted Jul 10, 2009 at 6:13 PM | Permalink

      Re: Demesure (#10),

      I took a look and I think that are two differences in the plots.

      I used all monthly information in calculating the anomaly – they used 1979-2000 as a reference period. The impact of this reference period is to move NH down (and to move SH up.) Relative to my graphs, its simply offsetting changes in hemispheric trend lines.

      The other difference is that their plot is going down further at the end. My surmise on this is that they have included July 2009 preliminary data. July 2009 is similar to July 2008 so far and it’s not unreasonable to project that the July 2009 anomaly will look like this.

      It seems a little unusual to include preliminary July 2009 data already and I don’t know whether they’ve done this in the past. Do they discuss this in the linked website?

      • Posted Jul 10, 2009 at 6:44 PM | Permalink

        Re: Steve McIntyre (#25),

        Bear in mind that CT plots sea ice area not extent. It might not be monthly either, possibly more frequent.

      • Demesure
        Posted Jul 11, 2009 at 10:37 AM | Permalink

        Re: Steve McIntyre (#25),
        The jump of about 1.5 Mkm2 around 1987 for NH in your graphic is not in the the Cryosphere Today’s graphic. What happens in 1987 is a too huge shift to be attributable to differences between area & extent. For SH, there is no such discrepancy.

        • Steve McIntyre
          Posted Jul 11, 2009 at 11:02 AM | Permalink

          Re: Demesure (#51),

          I;ve placed the code for extracting this data online at CA/scripts/seaice.

          If you can figure out what it’s scraping incorrectly – if it is, I’d be much obliged.

          It might be due to a changed size of the “hole” with satellites pre and post 1987.

  9. BarryW
    Posted Jul 10, 2009 at 11:54 AM | Permalink

    And the JAXA extent for the week. Right now it’s been tracking close to 2005 for about the last two weeks and slightly below the 2003/8 average

     
    year           extent       weekly change
    2003          9.42594            -0.47000
    2004          9.59641            -0.46422
    2005          8.84781            -0.70891
    2006          8.45672            -0.70234
    2007          8.36906            -0.75781
    2008          9.04547            -0.59953
    2009          8.85984            -0.76047

    • ken roberts
      Posted Jul 10, 2009 at 2:21 PM | Permalink

      Re: BarryW (#12),

      From what I recently read this is the last data we will get; two of the three on-board lasers have failed and the remaining one is failing.

      • BarryW
        Posted Jul 10, 2009 at 2:43 PM | Permalink

        Re: ken roberts (#15),

        Is it AMSR-E that’s failing? That’s the one that JAXA is using.

      • AndyW35
        Posted Jul 10, 2009 at 3:22 PM | Permalink

        Re: ken roberts (#15),

        Ken, not sure why lasers have anything to do with anything here but I can assure you those will not be the last values Barry ever quotes from that satellite.

        Keep up the good work Barry, looking forward to your data tomorrow !

        Regards

        Andy

  10. Tom B.
    Posted Jul 10, 2009 at 11:56 AM | Permalink

    Looks like cryosphere is ignoring the Southern Hemisphere. Guess they aren’t really talking about ‘worldwide’ climate, just the Northern Hemisphere….

  11. Posted Jul 10, 2009 at 3:29 PM | Permalink

    I have made a SSMI Arctic ice chart, which looks different especially in the early period:

    Ice data from ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/

  12. Posted Jul 10, 2009 at 3:29 PM | Permalink

    George Tobin #5 asks whether the poles have their own cycles.

    The Arctic seems to have its own cycle, the Arctic Oscillation. See for example:

    “ScienceDaily (Dec. 29, 2004) — Extreme changes in the Arctic Oscillation in the early 1990s — and not warmer temperatures of recent years — are largely responsible for declines in how much sea ice covers the Arctic Ocean … (etc.)”

    The Antarctic has not warmed appreciably since the 1930s, except for the Antarctic Peninsula, which juts so far out from the continent that it can contact warming currents.

  13. Posted Jul 10, 2009 at 3:35 PM | Permalink

    Correction to my post #20: I said the Antarctic had not warmed appreciably since the 1930s. This was an error, the correct statement should have been: the Antarctic has not warmed appreciably since the 1970s. Copious apologies for this slip.

  14. Posted Jul 10, 2009 at 4:04 PM | Permalink

    Why do they call it a “sea ice anomaly”? It looks like it’s just part of a Natural Cycle so why would that be anomalous?

    Why do climate scientists use the word “anomaly” would be the more general question. Is it only an anomaly when they don’t understand it? If they don’t understand it then how can they make the claims that they do?

    Someone attempting to learn the expansive field of climate science and it’s related fields.

    Steve: As used, the term is the difference from the average over a reference period. Nothing untoward about the concept as long as you keep in mind the defined usage.

  15. Posted Jul 10, 2009 at 4:31 PM | Permalink

    The graphs seem to indicate that the SH is growing while the NH is shrinking a bit. If this is the case does it mean that the water is migrating to the SH Ice Cap? If so, how exactly? Is this part of a Natural Cycle with the two ice caps pulsing back and forth with one being the dominant “ice sink” uptaking ice while the other looses ice and going the other way after N years where N is a large number? Hmmm….

  16. Arn Riewe
    Posted Jul 10, 2009 at 5:23 PM | Permalink

    pwl:
    July 10th, 2009 at 4:04 pm

    “Why do they call it a “sea ice anomaly”? It looks like it’s just part of a Natural Cycle so why would that be anomalous?

    Someone attempting to learn the expansive field of climate science and it’s related fields.”

    Anomalies are just convenient ways to compare data to longer term averages. As a self confessed “newbie” to the topic, here’s one place to get some background on polar information. The info is primarily relative to the northern hemisphere but is easy to read and understand and is a good starting point.

    http://www.john-daly.com/polar/arctic.htm

  17. JP
    Posted Jul 10, 2009 at 7:52 PM | Permalink

    Looking at the Canadian Ice Service (http://ice-glaces.ec.gc.ca/),
    I came across this graph for ice cover of the Canadian Western Arctic:

    How often does ice grow in July?

    • Posted Jul 10, 2009 at 9:09 PM | Permalink

      Re: JP (#29),

      It’s the wind!

      Re: Denny (#30),

      I’m still not clear what it is you’re comparing?

    • AndyW35
      Posted Jul 11, 2009 at 12:44 AM | Permalink

      Re: JP (#29),

      “How often does ice grow in July?”

      Don’t know. Does that graph show it’s growing though? It says normalised so it is the current value compared to the median, so actually the difference to the average is reducing, not that the ice is growing.

      People have been saying it is cold up in that sector, this graph tends to confirm this.

      Regards

      Andy

  18. Posted Jul 10, 2009 at 9:24 PM | Permalink

    Steve, Did you create these plots from gridded data? Was your threshold 15%?

    I need to look at it more but low thresholds may be interesting.

    • Steve McIntyre
      Posted Jul 10, 2009 at 9:31 PM | Permalink

      Re: Jeff Id (#32),

      These are plots of the monthly data scraped from NSIDC. The scripts are described in the prior post linked above and are in CA/scripts/seaice.

      I don’t know how the monthly statistics tie into the binary data.

      #28. Phil, I plotted extent because that’s what we get from JAXA daily. But I haven’t reconciled the JAXA numbers to NSIDC numbers nor have I seen such a reconciliation anywhere else.

  19. Hal
    Posted Jul 11, 2009 at 1:21 AM | Permalink

    Rahmstorf weighs on SH vs NH sea ice:

    I just learned something new. An explanation why the total sea ice area is meaningless, but that only the “rapid loss” in the northern hemisphere matters. Interesting reasoning.

    FROM
    Warnung aus Kopenhagen
    von Stefan Rahmstorf, 19. Juni 2009, 15:00

    A question along that line was asked on Dr. Stefan Rahmstorf (the teutonic voice on RC, of special smoothing fame exposed on CA)) own german blog (Klima lounge).

    http://www.wissenslogs.de/wblogs/blog/klimalounge/debatte/2009-06-19/warnung-aus-kopenhagen/page/4#comments

    Question:
    I would like to respectfully ask you, to interpret the following representation. It relates to the sea ice extent globally and Southern Hemisphere (SH) and the Northern Hemisphere(NH) views. We recognize no 30 year global trend, a decrease in the NH and an increase in ice surface around the Antarctic. In sum, nothing has changed except that we see a greater 2008 Global sea ice area than any time in the last 30 years. How does this fit in to the “accelerated” climate change, which is advancing even faster than thought?

    [Answer: To form the sum of the Arctic and Antarctica is not very useful, because (1) these are always dominated by the winter hemisphere, and (2) at both poles are affected by very different geographical conditions and other mechanisms. (At the North Pole ocean is surrounded by land, at the South Pole vice versa.) The strong disappearance of summer ice in the Arctic with the record minima of 2007 and 2008, to which the synthesis report relates to is caused by the strong warming in the Arctic region , while the ice expansion in Antarctica's winter reacts heavily to the wind field which (not enclosed by land) blows the ice apart. Stefan Rahmstorf]

    • AndyW35
      Posted Jul 11, 2009 at 7:27 AM | Permalink

      Re: Hal (#39),

      Hal, you haven’t learnt anything here apart from how to ask a very bad question wound up in their own preconceptions from the person who asked it on that blog. They said :-

      “We recognize no 30 year global trend, a decrease in the NH and an increase in ice surface around the Antarctic. In sum, nothing has changed except that we see a greater 2008 Global sea ice area than any time in the last 30 years. How does this fit in to the “accelerated” climate change, which is advancing even faster than thought?”

      So they recognise no trend, nothing has changed. Then they say greatest ice extent in 30 years which is completely contradictory. They are even wrong in that, looking at this graph

      area

      which not only shows that many years with more glabal ice area than the present in the last 30 years and indeed the last few years show a decline. I wouldn’t even have bothered answering and am surprised that the answer is being more criticised than the poor question here. That question was a load of tripe.

      Regards

      Andy

  20. Posted Jul 11, 2009 at 2:01 AM | Permalink

    Strong warming in Arctic region? Even NASA thinks otherwise

    http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/quikscat-20071001.html

  21. VG
    Posted Jul 11, 2009 at 2:08 AM | Permalink

    Eye balling I reckon its going to follow the black line ie 2006

    place your bets LOL

  22. Pierre Gosselin
    Posted Jul 11, 2009 at 3:33 AM | Permalink

    Hal,
    Then again, in Rahmstorf’s world, declining global temps are always attributed to “natural variations”. But when they increase it’s due to AGW.
    Rahmstorf shows clear bias when it comes to selecting explanations. In the end, like in any religion, there can only be one conclusion. Twist and bend the science to fit the desired conclusion, rather than change your conclusion to fit the science.
    Let’s not lose focus on what this Copenhagen pow-wow is about

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5664069/Polar-bear-expert-barred-by-global-warmists.html

    If they tell us heavy objects fall faster than light ones, then by golly don’t say anything that says they don’t.

  23. Pierre Gosselin
    Posted Jul 11, 2009 at 4:07 AM | Permalink

    I just read “Warnung aus Kopenhagen”, and wish to add to Hal’s comments:
    Rahmstorf makes all the following faith-based claims:
    1. Global temps are rising.
    2. Sea ice is melting.
    3. Climate is changing more dramatically than expected.
    4. Societies will not be able to cope with a +2°C rise over the next 100 years.
    5. Ocean heat content and sea levels are rising faster than expected.
    6. It will be practically impossible to reverse the caused
    warming over the next (at least) 1000 years.
    7. But wait! – if we act dramatically and profoundly now, it is still possible to avert the (catastrophic) 2°C global temp rise.

    Now, what does that old Wendy’s slogan “Where’s the beef!” keep popping up?
    Indeed we see very little science to support the claims he makes. To the contrary, there are many trends and data that show the opposite is happening. So what we have in my view is more Rahmstorf science by authority, all brought to you by a “‘star alliance'” of research universities, and all presented in a Synthesis Report that is “the most important update from climate research since the IPCC-Report of 2007.”

  24. Pierre Gosselin
    Posted Jul 11, 2009 at 4:15 AM | Permalink

    VG,
    I think it depends heavily on what Arctic temps will do in August – September.

    http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php

    My WAG is that we’ll end up slightly above 2008 – making 2009 the third lowest Acrtic sea ice extent since records have been kept!

  25. Flanagan
    Posted Jul 11, 2009 at 8:41 AM | Permalink

    Hi there. Daily extents and differences. Yesterday’s melt was -91719 finally.

    7/10/2009 8771250 -88594
    7/9/2008 8988125 -57344
    7/10/2007 8233906 -135157
    7/10/2006 8359688 -97031
    7/10/2005 8768750 -79063
    7/9/2004 9534063 -62343
    7/10/2003 9362500 -63438
    7/10/2002 9382344 -72344

    2009 had a quite strong day (3d hoghest melting rate for the day) but still no as impressive as 2006 or 2007. Now racing along 2005, and slightly leaving 2008 behind.

  26. Neven
    Posted Jul 11, 2009 at 8:45 AM | Permalink

    What I find remarkable concerning global sea ice is that it is implied by skeptics that it doesn’t matter that the NH is decreasing because the SH is increasing. So if all the Arctic sea ice would disappear in the summer it would not matter as long as there would be an increase of the same amount of sea ice in the Antarctic? Is it really that simple? What, if any, would the consequences be?

    • Jordan
      Posted Jul 11, 2009 at 11:21 AM | Permalink

      Re: Neven (#48),

      So if all the Arctic sea ice would disappear in the summer it would not matter as long as there would be an increase of the same amount of sea ice in the Antarctic?

      At first glance the answer would be no because there would be no net heat gain. Afterall the AGW hypothesis is concerned with accumulation of thermal energy, not temperature as such.

      However the weather/climate machine dissipate heat to space – an unexpected and significant event .. like large scale shift of ice from the NH to SH .. would lead to valid questions about how the machine is operating.

    • Chris Schoneveld
      Posted Jul 12, 2009 at 2:32 AM | Permalink

      Re: Neven (#48),
      There is nothing intrinsically beneficial to having arctic ice. So even if it disappears entirely during the summer and the loss if compensated by sea ice gain in the SH (hence no effect on global sea level) this would not be alarming. As a matter of fact there are many advantages of an ice free arctic (oil/gas exploration and energy-saving shorter sea routes)

      • Neven
        Posted Jul 12, 2009 at 3:17 AM | Permalink

        Re: Chris Schoneveld (#60),
        But would there be any climatic effects? And if so, how serious could they become? I mean, the Arctic is pretty big, so if all ice would disappear in summer one would think this has an effect on winds and ocean currents (let alone the albedo thing).

        • Chris Schoneveld
          Posted Jul 12, 2009 at 10:09 AM | Permalink

          Re: Neven (#61): “But would there be any climatic effects?”

          I couldn’t tell you. I am just arguing from a more philosophical vantage point. If the summer ice disappears it is already due to an existing climate change and if there are further add-on effects, well, who is to say they are for the better or for the worse. But I expect mankind and nature to adapt to any change and do not consider the present climate as the most desirable per se.

  27. AndyW35
    Posted Jul 11, 2009 at 8:55 AM | Permalink

    Looking at temps today on the Russian side they were quite high, as were W Greenland so it will be interesting to see the loss on JAXA tomorrow.

    Regards

    Andy

  28. bubbagyro
    Posted Jul 11, 2009 at 10:08 AM | Permalink

    snip – please don’t discuss policy or values

  29. Michael Hauber
    Posted Jul 11, 2009 at 3:04 PM | Permalink

    So if all the Arctic sea ice would disappear in the summer it would not matter as long as there would be an increase of the same amount of sea ice in the Antarctic?

    Depends also on what happens in the rest of the crysophere. Northern hemisphere has a lot of seasonal snow, and Southern Hemisphere has none. So if seasonal snow declines in line with the sea ice, this situation would mean an overal reduction in the area of snow or ice cover on the planet, and a warming through the albedo effect. I’ve seen trends showing that NH snow has also declined by a lot. Hard to find up to date info but I suspect it has rebounded some the last couple years in line with the increase in winter sea ice.

    Also if Arctic sea ice disappears and Antarctic grows same amount, what happens to the ice sheets. With no Arctic ice it would be more likely Greenland melts, giving us several meters sea level rise. An increase in sea ice around Antarctica may not mean a large increase in the ice sheet down there. As the last few decades the temperature trends have been in different directions for different parts of Antarctica, sea ice in some areas has increased, and in others – in particular near the western peninsula the sea ice has decreased (but not enough to offset increases in other areas. This corresponds to ice sheet melting in Antarctica – hence headlines from time to time about Antarctica melting faster than expected. It is, but presumably due to regional variations, and certainly not due to Antarctica warming faster than expected.

  30. Geo
    Posted Jul 12, 2009 at 12:17 AM | Permalink

    One of the things that’s not clear to me, is if the wind/current explanations for instance, for 2007, are really a independant cause or instead, say a “positive reinforcement” once arctic sea ice extent and thickness fall below certain levels in given regions. I know the AGWers love their positive reinforcements, but that doesn’t necessarily mean they can’t exist.

  31. Michael Jennings
    Posted Jul 12, 2009 at 7:23 AM | Permalink

    Preliminary figures show a rather meh melt day yesterday of around 58000 After adjustment it may fall below 50000 but we shall see.

  32. Flanagan
    Posted Jul 13, 2009 at 12:54 AM | Permalink

    Hi there. 2009 had two calm days, with a melting of -57344 and then -51250. Here are the numbers for yesterday

    7,12,2009 8662656 -51250
    7,11,2008 8866719 -51250
    7,12,2007 8015156 -110000
    7,12,2006 8280313 -33281
    7,12,2005 8647031 -50469
    7,11,2004 9393750 -64375
    7,12,2003 9234375 -67813
    7,12,2002 9139844 -122500

    Surprisingly, many years had a slowdown around this date, except for 2007 which again seems to be a very special year. 2009 still following 2005, but with less ice thickness it could ressemble more 2008.

  33. Jared
    Posted Jul 13, 2009 at 1:25 AM | Permalink

    Melt has really slowed down the past couple days, as the rapid melting in Hudson Bay and the East Siberian Sea has slowed.

  34. Michael Jennings
    Posted Jul 13, 2009 at 5:46 AM | Permalink

    What are the odds that 2008 and 2009 would have the same exact melt total for the day (of course that is prior to adjustment).

  35. Michael Jennings
    Posted Jul 13, 2009 at 8:17 PM | Permalink

    Melt after adjustment for 07/12 is a surprisingly low figure of only 27000. Have to think this is an error that will be adjusted again or a misprint. To have a melt in mid July of that amount is very unusual.

  36. Flanagan
    Posted Jul 14, 2009 at 1:13 AM | Permalink

    Here come the figures for yesterday. Michael, indeed this value is very low (-26562). This is why I will also give the smoothed 1-week melting rate in addition (maybe it makes more sense).

    7/13/2009 8608906 -78438 -72901.86
    7/12/2008 8780000 -86719 -65178.57
    7/13/2007 7881250 -133906 -104263.43
    7/13/2006 8205000 -75313 -67366.14
    7/13/2005 8597969 -49062 -73125
    7/12/2004 9321094 -72656 -56942
    7/13/2003 9129531 -104844 -68459.86
    7/13/2002 9091406 -48438 -82879.57

    2009 had an average day (4th melt rate) and week (3d melt rate). I think however we’ll have to wait till the beginning of August to draw some conclusion: this is when 2008 separated from the others.

    http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm

    I would also like to have your opinion on the sea ice North of Greenland.

    Of course, one year is not the other, but I don not remember seeing such low concentrations in this zone at this time of the year. When the Eastern Greenland sea ice disintegrated this spring, I thought that it might give more mobility to the older ice located North-East of Greenland and induce dislocations. Does anybody have satellite images of the place to see if there is some?

    • Posted Jul 14, 2009 at 6:34 AM | Permalink

      Re: Flanagan (#73),

      How about this from the 12th, if you look at the higher res images from the same day you can see lots of fractures.
      MODIS

      You can see very clearly that the Nares Strait ice bridge is very near breaking up and sending a lot of ice down the strait (which has been clear for longer than usual this year).
      Nares Strait

  37. TruthB4Popularity
    Posted Jul 14, 2009 at 8:18 AM | Permalink

    I added up all the NHem regional area totals and anomalies from the cryosphere site
    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/ yesterday. While their 365 day Total Nth hem sea Ice chart says a smidgen more ice than last year, the total of all the regions that should make this up:

    Actually reads a tot nth hem seaice extent a whopping 0.75 million square km below 08!!!! Even lower than 07!!!!!

    And this is AREA! Volume is CRASHING! and the nw and ne passages are looking darn close to navigable 2 mths earlier than last year! And the multiyear remnant stuck to the top of greenland every year previous has broken up and dispersed!

    I am not surprized that NASA has flooded the web with 1000’s of pages of outofdate 18mth old report that is burying the current record melt season. And making Cryosphere cover it up too in the Total Ice Extent charts. Wouldn’t want the economy spooked would we.

    • Posted Jul 14, 2009 at 11:06 AM | Permalink

      Re: TruthB4Popularity (#75),

      Some surface melt has appeared around the ‘North Pole’ webcam over the last few days.
      Webcam

      • hengav
        Posted Jul 15, 2009 at 4:14 PM | Permalink

        Re: Phil. (#76),
        You didn’t say “snow” so in wasn’t exactly what you said. In a previous discussion we looked at conditions under which the thick Canadian Artic ice could travel poleward. I suggested that the Beaufort Gyre would have to stop or weaken for that to occur. The fact that some ice is moving south now through the Nares, is only a natural expression of the Gyre working normally.

        There are some great clear day images on Modis for yesterday. The narrow pass between Banks and Victoria Island is breaking up, however the rest is showing no signs of melt yet. A new forcast from the weaterh service is out is out tomorrow.

    • DeWitt Payne
      Posted Jul 14, 2009 at 3:31 PM | Permalink

      Re: TruthB4Popularity (#75),

      Actually reads a tot nth hem seaice extent a whopping 0.75 million square km below 08!!!! Even lower than 07!!!!!

      Unfortunately, I didn’t start archiving the CT digital data until the near the end of July last year so I don’t have the actual numbers, but the numbers I do have do not show that current area is below 2007 at the same time of the year. The best area numbers (IMO) I have are from Uni-Hamburg (I’d give you the link to the actual data, but their server appears to be down at the moment) and only go through 6/30, but on that day (=6/29/2008) ice area was:

      6/30/2007 7.37562 Mm2
      6/29/2008 7.89949
      6/30/2009 7.96255

      Based on the July data from CT, 2009 has probably dropped below 2008, but only by a little and is still well above 2007. The CT anomaly for today is -1.309 Mm2, which by eyeball is close to where it was at this time last year. I’m not sure how you calculated your numbers, but I’m pretty sure you’ve made an error somewhere.

      I’ve discovered recently that CT area decreases at a faster rate than Uni-Hamburg (or NSIDC for that matter) from late June to mid-August so transforming UH area to CT significantly overestimates the CT area. The same thing applies to estimates of concentration in previous years.

      • Shawn Whelan
        Posted Jul 14, 2009 at 10:02 PM | Permalink

        Re: DeWitt Payne (#82),

        With the late warming in the Arctic and what I expect to be an early cooling this will be nothing like 2007.

        I expect a short melt season and that will result in an increase in the ice minimum. We will know shortly.

        • DeWitt Payne
          Posted Jul 14, 2009 at 10:51 PM | Permalink

          Re: Shawn Whelan (#85),

          Air is not the only heat source for melting ice. It may not even be the most important source. The AMO index for June 2009 was significantly positive, which indicates increased flow of warm water into the Arctic from the Atlantic.

          Re: hengav (#86),

          Submarines do not require open water to surface. They can break through a meter or so of ice. The recent Stargate movie (Stargate:Continuum, IIRC) had footage of a submarine surfacing through about that much ice. The Blu-ray disk (and maybe DVD also) has a short with more detail on the filming of that particular scene.

  38. Mike
    Posted Jul 14, 2009 at 12:10 PM | Permalink

    TruthB4Popularity,

    There is no conspiracy going on between NASA and CT. Look at the last part of the graph: http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.365.jpg

    That’s right, there has been virtually NO change in area during the past few days. If they really wanted to cover it up, they would just put the usual rate of decline for this time of the year so that it would be less suspicious. Adding up all the regional areas won’t always give an accurate picture because of rounding.

    Do you really think the NW and NE passages will both be navigable 2 months earlier than last year? If you’re trying to cross that region, you’ll be lucky if the NE passage or any route of the NW passage opens before mid-August.

  39. Shawn Whelan
    Posted Jul 14, 2009 at 1:26 PM | Permalink

    TruthB4Popularity (#75),

    Look here and you will see the NW Passage is chock full of ice and is plugged up with old ice at the Eastern end. Ths sailboats will be lucky to get through this year without some real good luck.
    (or they follow an ice breaker)

  40. Mike
    Posted Jul 14, 2009 at 2:28 PM | Permalink

    Phil,

    You’re (now) right. Seems that they updated that graph after I posted that message and before you looked at that graph. I could have sworn that there was a straight horizontal line that covered about a week, but that was apparently a fluke that they fixed. Unfortunately, I don’t have a screenshot of that earlier image.

  41. AndyW35
    Posted Jul 14, 2009 at 2:48 PM | Permalink

    I think 2009 will gain on 2008 until Aug and then 2008 will pull back, however I think now that 2009 will be lower than 2008 in extent whereas before I thought it would be higher. Depends on the weather though ;)

    The NW passage will be open this year for sailboats, at least by the southern route.

    Regards

    Andy

    • hengav
      Posted Jul 14, 2009 at 9:38 PM | Permalink

      Re: AndyW35 (#81),

      C’mon. There is no way the southern route will be open this year. There is no evidence, no relation to past recorded anomalies to suggest this is the case. There is no rapid change to the ice concentration in the Western Arctic. In fact it rebounded wrt. to 1971-2000 mean levels last week

      http://ice-glaces.ec.gc.ca/prods/CVCSWCTWA/20090706180000_CVCSWCTWA_0004456736.pdf

      The passage is filled with both thick first year ice and perennial ice. You are mistaken.

      Phil.
      The image in #74 has been about the same as it has looked for the past month, look back through the archives. It shows recent evidence of ice wanting to be pushed south through the passage, confirming that the Beaufort gyre is working normally, no detachment towards the north would be likely under these conditions.

      Also the webcam image from the north pole shows surface snow melt not ice melt.

      • Shawn Whelan
        Posted Jul 14, 2009 at 9:57 PM | Permalink

        Re: hengav (#83),
        The problem with the NW Passage opening is that the temps have been below normal and the Eastern end is full of old ice.

        Amundsen wouldn’t have gotten anywhere near Gjao Haven.

        More ice this year than in 1903. Curious how this global warming works after a hundred years plus.

        • hengav
          Posted Jul 14, 2009 at 10:07 PM | Permalink

          Re: Shawn Whelan (#84),

          Yet we have pre-satellite record evidence that the passage has been open, that the North Pole has been visited by submarines, THAT IS HAS BEEN WARMER in the arctic than it is now.

          I am still trying to scrape monthly data for Arctic weather stations to back up 1998 claims that the Canadian Arctic was warmer then than normal. From what I have found so far, there was a roughly 2 degree shift in mean temp, that May and June were much warmer than normal, but didn’t achieve any record maximums.

        • Shawn Whelan
          Posted Jul 15, 2009 at 6:26 AM | Permalink

          Re: hengav (#86),
          There is a record of Canadian Arctic temps at the “National Climate Data and Information Archive”
          Link here

          http://www.climate.weatheroffice.ec.gc.ca/climateData/menu_e.html?timeframe=1&Prov=NU&StationID=99999&Year=2009&Month=7&Day=14

          And have a look at this site and the pictures of the ice free Passage in the 30’s.

          http://www.kitikmeotheritage.ca/Angulalk/hudsons/hudsons.htm

          Re: DeWitt Payne (#88),

          There are so many factors that cause the ice levels in the Arctic to change. It is really little understood at this point in time.
          The Canadian North had a cold long Winter, there will be less heat moved into the NW Passsage from the rivers and the melt is late to start. This will be very interesting.

      • Posted Jul 14, 2009 at 10:13 PM | Permalink

        Re: hengav (#83),

        Phil.
        The image in #74 has been about the same as it has looked for the past month, look back through the archives. It shows recent evidence of ice wanting to be pushed south through the passage, confirming that the Beaufort gyre is working normally, no detachment towards the north would be likely under these conditions.

        I don’t see anything in that image that addresses the Beaufort gyre, as I posted it shows indications of the breakup of the ice bridge which will likely lead to ice flowing south through the Nares Strait.

        Also the webcam image from the north pole shows surface snow melt not ice melt.

        Exactly, as I said “surface melt”.

        • Posted Jul 14, 2009 at 10:52 PM | Permalink

          Re: Phil. (#87),

          Today’s image shows that the bridge has in fact broken and ice has started to flow into the Nares Strait.
          Bridge broken

  42. Flanagan
    Posted Jul 15, 2009 at 1:14 AM | Permalink

    So, what happened to our good old friend The Arctic recently? Actually, the last two days were quite strong. Final figures for yesterday are: extent – 8600156, melt – 87188. Here are today’s numbers (remember last column is the 7-day averaged daily meting rate)

    7/14/2009 8472188 -127968 -79375
    7/13/2008 8698438 -81562 -68080.29
    7/14/2007 7785000 -96250 -106406.29
    7/14/2006 8140313 -64687 -69352.57
    7/14/2005 8547188 -50781 -65290.14
    7/13/2004 9226094 -95000 -63683
    7/14/2003 8988125 -141406 -81272.29
    7/14/2002 9020781 -70625 -79888.43

    Well, well well! 2009 finally managed to melt more rapidly than 2007… But it’s not enough to be the best: 2003 was even faster. It might also be a correction wrt the small figures of the previous days. Nevertheless, 2009 is now below 2005 and is getting closer to 2006. Distance with 2008 is also increasing.

  43. Michael Jennings
    Posted Jul 15, 2009 at 4:04 AM | Permalink

    These numbers are more what we should expect in mid July rather than the beginning part of the weeks numbers. I believe yesterday (pre adj.) will be the highest single melt day so far this season will it not?

  44. An Inquirer
    Posted Jul 15, 2009 at 6:05 AM | Permalink

    To hengav:
    I think it is imprudent for you to declare unequivocally that the Northwest Passage will not be open this year (at least not the southern route). To begin, I will declare that I do not believe that high levels of Arctic ice melt in recent years are driven by increased levels of CO2. Rather, the responsible phenomena are wind conditions, lack of cloud cover, ocean currents, and Asian soot emissions. (Some would add underwater volcanic activity, but I am not convinced of that.) The latter phenomenon has continued to increased, and there is no guarantee that the first three will not return to 2007 levels. Likewise, the current Texas heat wave is apparently caused by southwest winds (deserts) and the lack of southeast winds (ocean). One would not expect these conditions to last for two weeks for the Lone Star state, but they are! And the abnormal conditions could happen again in the Arctic. Meanwhile, it is hard to blame CO2 for these conditions, especially given the snowfalls in Europe, snow in Iraq, freezing deaths in Peru, record cold Down Under, record lows in northern U.S., . . . .

    • AndyW35
      Posted Jul 15, 2009 at 9:46 AM | Permalink

      Re: An Inquirer (#93),

      “I think it is imprudent for you to declare unequivocally that the Northwest Passage will not be open this year (at least not the southern route). ”

      It’s not often that someone says, which such certainty, I am mistaken as hengav did when referring to an event that has not happened yet. We shall see ! :) It is not that warm yet, but is forecast to warm up for the end of the week, and still a long way to go yet, 1.5 months +.

      Regards

      Andy

  45. Shawn Whelan
    Posted Jul 15, 2009 at 6:42 AM | Permalink

    The one thing that is ignored is how long will the melt season be?

    A short melt season and an early freeze changes everything.

  46. Michael Jennings
    Posted Jul 15, 2009 at 8:20 AM | Permalink

    There has been a trend seeing a decrease in Arctic ice for several years now but the cause is highly debatable and may never be fully known. The coresponding increase in Antarctic ice has offset the increase in the north to an equal amount for the most part. What does this tell us? Not a heck of a lot except that the ice, weather, Climate, and other factors are variable and not subject to the neat little box people sometimes try to shove them into. Our knowledge has increased greatly over the past 50 years about our world and how it works but we still have an infinitely long way to go to be able to claim any degree of effectiveness in prediciting future Climatic events caused by us or any of the myriad of variables we have yet to discover.

  47. Mike Davis
    Posted Jul 15, 2009 at 9:23 AM | Permalink

    Michael Jennings:
    It also give us a good example of the reality that climate is regional not global.

  48. AndyW35
    Posted Jul 15, 2009 at 11:50 AM | Permalink

    Nares breakup in relation to Phil’s post earlier on this.

    Nares

    Regards

    Andy

    • hengav
      Posted Jul 15, 2009 at 1:38 PM | Permalink

      Re: AndyW35 (#101),

      excelent animation! Reference site, or did you make it yourself?
      Note that the ice north of it isn’t budging.

      • AndyW
        Posted Jul 15, 2009 at 11:13 PM | Permalink

        Re: hengav (#100),

        I’m not that good ! It’s from the front page of the Canadian ice service web site, I spotted it when I was looking at it after your comments on all the old ice in that region and thought about what you and Phil were talking about.

        It is really good isn’t it, very impressive.

        Regards

        Andy

        • Posted Jul 16, 2009 at 8:16 AM | Permalink

          Re: AndyW (#102),

          I the last 24 hrs the ice has advanced about 60 miles down the Nares strait and some gaps opening up to the north.

        • AndyW
          Posted Jul 16, 2009 at 11:30 PM | Permalink

          Re: Phil. (#106),

          Will the fan shaped ‘hole” exist for a while do you think or be quickly filled in do you think? You can see this on the Bremen AMSR-E map currently as yellow.

          Meanwhile the low pressure over the Kara sea and high pressure over the Beaufort persists. This is the same weather pattern in 2007.

          Also looks like the NW passage is going to be warmer this weekend. ;)

          Regards

          Andy

        • Posted Jul 17, 2009 at 9:19 AM | Permalink

          Re: AndyW (#107),

          Will the fan shaped ‘hole” exist for a while do you think or be quickly filled in do you think? You can see this on the Bremen AMSR-E map currently as yellow.

          Probably will open up then close as the surrounding ice breaks up again, depending how thick it is. Currently the flow towards the Fram is fairly brisk, the NP-36 has been heading that way at over 10km/day for the last day or so.

        • AndyW35
          Posted Jul 17, 2009 at 9:52 AM | Permalink

          Re: Phil. (#110),

          It seems quite warm up there today so maybe it will not fill up that quick and be the new route north for intrepid kayaker’s !

          Flanagan, I like your figures but you could save some time and drop the daily as they don’t mean much, I’d just do it for weekly and from 1st July than daily and monthly. Weekly is interesting and from 1st July gives us the “summer” melt from when things really get going, but I don’t think daily and monthly say much as a running comparison.

          Don’t want to seem to un-appreciative though, I like looking at your figures.

          Regards

          Andy

        • Posted Jul 17, 2009 at 10:37 AM | Permalink

          Re: AndyW35 (#111),

          Yeah, 11ºC at Alert yesterday over 6ºC already today.

  49. Flanagan
    Posted Jul 16, 2009 at 12:40 AM | Permalink

    Hi. Finally, yesterday melt figure was -121718. Today things appear quite calm

    7/15/2009 8390000 -88438 -80223.29
    7/14/2008 8602656 -95782 -70201
    7/15/2007 7690313 -94687 -109241
    7/15/2006 8104531 -35782 -64866.14
    7/15/2005 8488594 -58594 -59553.57
    7/14/2004 9157500 -68594 -71138.43
    7/15/2003 8953281 -34844 -76696.43
    7/15/2002 8917344 -103437 -83549.14

    with 2009 having only the 4th fastest daily melting rate. On a weekly basis, it it 3d. Since July 1, the average was -90739.59 /day, while in 2008 it was -76779.76/day. Actually, 2009 has the second fastest July melting thus far, just after 2007.

  50. TruthB4Popularity
    Posted Jul 16, 2009 at 12:57 AM | Permalink

    Myu faith in the data that we publically have access to is being challenged ongoingly.
    After my last post 2 days ago I looked at the tot nth hem charts for the last year on cryosphere and it was graphed at ~0.5 million square km below last year. 10 hours later it was replotted and slightly above 2008 same date. The Totals of the regional graphs are still looking like area is solidly below last year and causing me turmoil when I compare them with the published totals for nth hem on cryo.
    I can’t help but recall the cases last year where the charts were suddenly changed to indicate far less summer melt than a few hours before, and these posted alongside previous day examples with the graph curve obviously shifted vertically without solid explanations.
    We have the disturbing example causing us all frustration of argobouy temp data charting temps above real in the 80’s-90’s, and then below real in 2000-2006, broadly utillised as claimed proof that the planet is cooling even years after it was analysed and devalidated.
    A much shallower attempt is the jumping on cold local weather events as claim of non-existence of global warming. The Arctic and Antarctic have had alarming examples of jetstream dumping of hot air that would usually descend on temporate lattitudes consistantly this last year. Giving average temps in the polar circles more often than not 12+C above normal. And displacing polar air into the temporate zones, where the narrow of perspective experience and misconstrue it.

  51. Flanagan
    Posted Jul 17, 2009 at 12:50 AM | Permalink

    Hi there. The usual stuff (date – extent – daily rate – 7-days and 30-days averages)

    7/16/2009 8336719 -61562 -74732.14 -91367.57
    7/15/2008 8506250 -96406 -77031.29 -77383.92
    7/16/2007 7592500 -97813 -110937.57 -115312.5
    7/16/2006 8079844 -24687 -53839.29 -82267.86
    7/16/2005 8401094 -87500 -63817 -76184.52
    7/15/2004 9073438 -84062 -74709.71 -57409.21
    7/16/2003 8858281 -95000 -81093.86 -70982.15
    7/16/2002 8832969 -84375 -88817 /

    2002 had some days without data, so no 30-days average. 2009 is obviously calming down rightnow, its weekly average melting rate being lower than 2008. Still has a quite large monthly rate and getting closer to 2006. Should soon be the second lowest after 2007 (but for how long?).

    • DeWitt Payne
      Posted Jul 17, 2009 at 9:15 AM | Permalink

      Re: Flanagan (#108),

      Your thirty day average for 2009 looks very high to me. I calculate a thirty day average loss/day of 77625 km2/day for the last thirty days ((10671719-8342969)/30)).

      It’s possible we’ve seen the minimum in the rate of change of extent on 7/7/2009 at -87546 km2/day (EWMA smoothed, alpha 0.1). That would put it tied for second earliest in the JAXA extent data with 2006. I’d need pretty good odds to put money on it though. The latest date for minimum rate was 8/10/2004 with 8/7/2008 a close second.

  52. DeWitt Payne
    Posted Jul 17, 2009 at 10:55 AM | Permalink

    I keep a seasonal average in my spreadsheet. It may look a little different because I use calendar date for the season, that is every year starts on July 1 for the summer average. I also interpolate (linear) missing data. For today:
    JAXA
    summer ytd
    2002 9471259.938
    2003 9440263.688
    2004 9542324.313
    2005 8957929.938
    2006 8564004.188
    2007 8382959.063
    2008 9017636.875
    2009 8960888.875

    The linear trend slope is currently -113783 km2/year. If 2009 stays below 2008, that slope will get worse as the season progresses. The full summer slope through 2008 is -191886 km2/year. The September average is even worse with a slope of -238951 km2/year. Projecting the linear trend, an ice free September should happen in 2028. I’m not putting money on that either.

  53. Mike
    Posted Jul 17, 2009 at 4:43 PM | Permalink

    Phil,

    Alert hit 17 degrees C today:

    http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/CYLT/2009/7/17/DailyHistory.html?req_city=NA&req_state=NA&req_statename=NA

    Tiksi in northern Siberia has hit 66 degrees already, and temperatures are expected to climb into the 70s later today. But unlike August last year, temperatures are forecast to go back to normal after two or three days.

  54. Mike
    Posted Jul 18, 2009 at 12:17 AM | Permalink

    Today was an average day, so 2009 remains in third place. We’re still ahead of 2005, losing ground on 2007, and gaining a bit on 2006.

    Date Extent Rate

    7/17/09 8265469 -77500
    7/16/08 8423438 -82812
    7/17/07 7498594 -93906
    7/17/06 8013750 -66094
    7/17/05 8311250 -89844
    7/16/04 9029375 -44063
    7/17/03 8782031 -76250
    7/17/02 8756250 -76719

    I’ll let Flanagan update the weekly and monthly rates for ice loss.

  55. Flanagan
    Posted Jul 18, 2009 at 5:19 AM | Permalink

    Here are the numbers. I will go on reporting all the stuff, my spreadsheet automatically does it anyway. Remark: the last time, I gave the 2-weeks average instead of 30-days average. Now corrected

    7/17/2009 8265469 -77500 -72254.42857 -80208.3333
    7/16/2008 8423438 -82812 -80669.57 -72984.3666
    7/17/2007 7498594 -93906 -105044.57 -100796.8667
    7/17/2006 8013750 -66094 -49419.71 -75723.96667
    7/17/2005 8311250 -89844 -65357.14 -70593.76667
    7/16/2004 9029375 -44063 -72098.29 -57432.3
    7/17/2003 8782031 -76250 -82924.14 -70218.76667
    7/17/2002 8756250 -76719 -89442 /

    2009 is slowing down, but remains the 2nd most rapid monthly melting rate. 2008 and 2009 tend to come together, it seems. However, the looks of the sea ice concentration seems to indicate there might be an acceleration in view for 2009

    large parts over Canada and Siberia seem to have weakened – maybe related to large positive temperature anomalies in Siberia?

    I’m still very confused about that sort of long fracture line that seems to emerge from North of Ellesmere Island to North of Greenland. Is it usual or is it just the logarithmic color scale that plays tricks with my brain?

  56. John M
    Posted Jul 18, 2009 at 5:28 AM | Permalink

    116 (Phil) & 117 (Gerald)

    I see what Gerald means by the wind.

    July 17

    15:00 4 deg C 11 mph NNW
    16:00 5 deg C 13 mph NNW
    17:00 17 deg C 28 mph S
    18:00 17 deg C 32 mph SSW
    19:00 16 deg C 45 mph SSW
    20:00 16 deg C 49 mph SSW
    21:00 14 deg C 13 mph W
    22:00 4 deg C 18 mph NNW

  57. Neven
    Posted Jul 18, 2009 at 8:13 AM | Permalink

    SEARCH has just released the July Report for the September Sea Ice Outlook:

    http://www.arcus.org/search/seaiceoutlook/2009_outlook/full_report_july.php

    “Most estimates for September sea ice extent are in a narrow range of 4.4 to 5.2 million square kilometers, as were last month’s (based on May data). However, two new responses come in at 4.0 and 4.2 million square kilometers, which would represent a new record minimum. As the submitted uncertainty standard deviations are about 0.4 million square kilometers, most of the Outlook estimates overlap”

    • Shawn Whelan
      Posted Jul 18, 2009 at 8:40 PM | Permalink

      Re: Neven (#121),
      What I think the scientist are missing is the early freeze that is going to happen this year.

      The track record of the scientist is not very good.

      • Neven
        Posted Jul 19, 2009 at 2:43 AM | Permalink

        Re: Shawn Whelan (#122), You might have said already, but why is there going to be an early freeze?I can’t blame the scientists for having a lousy track record (if this is the case) because the Arctic sea ice is very quirky and there is still much to be known. I just stand in awe when I see the melt numbers of 2007. But the decreasing trend is there and the phenomenon was ‘predicted’, so that makes it very interesting on the level of AGW theory and on the PR war that is fought over Global Warming.

  58. AndyW35
    Posted Jul 19, 2009 at 3:52 AM | Permalink

    The scientists certainly have a lower average than our straw poll we did earlier. I originally said 4.7 to 4.8 and now I think it will be less than this, less than 2008, but I still doubt 2007 will be beaten as that was an unusual year and although the ice is probably on average better suited to melting, the weather up there doesn’t seem to out of the ordinary yet. I’m no scientist though and mainly base thoughts on the very unscientific “how it looks and feels” :).

    Neven I think Shawn mentioned earlier his thoughts on an early freeze were connected to how it bounced last year and also the earth is cooler this year, or cooling more, so the rebound should be bigger an earlier. If I have misunderstood I am sure Shawn will clarify.

    I think the freeze will depend on the weather. How’s that for a cop-out!

    Regards

    Andy

    • Shawn Whelan
      Posted Jul 19, 2009 at 9:11 AM | Permalink

      Re: AndyW35 (#124),
      I think the freeze will depend on the weather. How’s that for a cop-out!

      Of course your correct.
      I live across from Detroit and we are having some real freakish cold this Summer. It is like October weather. Gonna really reduce the corn crop in the midwest.

      Re: Neven (#123),

      But the decreasing trend is there

      There is no decreasing trend, The ice increased in 2008 and I expect it to increase again this year. The Earth has started to cool.

  59. Roy
    Posted Jul 19, 2009 at 11:03 AM | Permalink

    Shawn, I live in Mid-Michigan and everyone is starting to call this the Summer that almost isnt!

  60. Flanagan
    Posted Jul 19, 2009 at 11:11 AM | Permalink

    The usual stuff

    7/18/2009 8158594 -110469 -79330,28571 -81484,36667
    7/17/2008 8337969 -85469 -82857,14 -73484,36667
    7/18/2007 7427188 -71406 -99709,71 -100776,0333
    7/18/2006 7942188 -71562 -53058 -76208,33333
    7/18/2005 8205313 -105937 -70312,43 -71895,83333
    7/17/2004 8970156 -59219 -69709,86 -57166,66667
    7/18/2003 8707969 -74062 -84888,43 -70062,5
    7/18/2002 8671094 -85156 -84464,29

    Well, this time 2009 had the most rapid melt, beating even 2007. Still 3d extent, but getting (much) closer to 2006. Note that I will be on vacation for 2 weeks now, so somebody else will have to do this :0)

    See you soon

  61. Neven
    Posted Jul 19, 2009 at 12:32 PM | Permalink

    Thanks for the updates, Flanagan. Have a nice holiday!

  62. Mike
    Posted Jul 19, 2009 at 11:04 PM | Permalink

    Since Flanagan is on vacation, I’ll take over for today.

    Date Extent Rate

    7/19/09 8066250 -92344 (early estimate, may change tomorrow morning)
    7/18/08 8254844 -83125
    7/19/07 7363281 -63907
    7/19/06 7875000 -67188
    7/19/05 8102188 -103125
    7/18/04 8871563 -98593
    7/19/03 8622188 -85781
    7/19/02 8581719 -89375

    We had an above-average melt rate today, but it was only good enough for third place. It’s going to be interesting to see whether we can stay ahead of 2005, though. That year had three big 100K+ days coming up, and the forecast for the next three days don’t show any unusually warm areas in the Arctic. However, there are no cold spots either, so the melt should stay near average.

  63. DeWitt Payne
    Posted Jul 20, 2009 at 10:04 AM | Permalink

    Arctic sea ice concentration (CT area/JAXA extent) is already lower than it was ten days later in 2008 and we still have nearly a month before it’s expected to reach its minimum. Concentration is dropping rapidly because area is currently dropping much faster than extent. Considering that we still have almost two months to minimum extent and area, it’s likely that extent will catch up to area rather than the other way around. It will take very favorable weather to prevent a minimum extent and area lower than 2008 and an area lower than 2007 is becoming more likely.

    The CT 1979-2000 average rate has passed its minimum so at least until 2009 reaches minimum rate, the area anomaly will continue to increase in magnitude. It’s currently in 2007 territory now.

    date concentration
    7/25/2008 69.5%
    7/15/2009 66.9%

    • Steve McIntyre
      Posted Jul 20, 2009 at 10:52 AM | Permalink

      Re: DeWitt Payne (#130),

      Dewitt, could you remind me on the URL that provides digital CT area?

  64. Roy
    Posted Jul 20, 2009 at 10:28 AM | Permalink

    With the recent `rapid’ melting it will be surprising for the minimum extent to stay above 2007. No matter what the cause of the melt it will be difficult to argue with the AGW’ers

  65. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Jul 20, 2009 at 10:49 AM | Permalink

    JAXA:
    month day year ice date julian mm dd diff
    49 7 19 2002 8.581719 2002-07-19 11887 200207 200 -0.089375
    414 7 19 2003 8.622188 2003-07-19 12252 200307 200 -0.085781
    779 7 18 2004 8.871563 2004-07-18 12617 200407 200 -0.098593
    1145 7 19 2005 8.102188 2005-07-19 12983 200507 200 -0.103125
    1510 7 19 2006 7.875000 2006-07-19 13348 200607 200 -0.067188
    1875 7 19 2007 7.363281 2007-07-19 13713 200707 200 -0.063907
    2240 7 18 2008 8.254844 2008-07-18 14078 200807 200 -0.083125
    2606 7 19 2009 8.064219 2009-07-19 14444 200907 200 -0.094375

  66. Michael Hauber
    Posted Jul 20, 2009 at 3:29 PM | Permalink

    Visually the Arctic melt seems a little ahead of 2008, and a fair bit behind 2007. Its interesting about concentration as measured by CT areas/JAXA extent is so low, I’ve thought that visual comparisons of JAXA charts from 2009 to 08 and 07 show a slightly more solid looking Arctic area.

    As I mentioned earlier I also have a theory that a cool PDO is accelerating summer melt by increasing the wind flow from Pacific to Atlantic side. Currently patterns seem to be reversing, with higher pressure setting up further towards Europe, which I suspect may relate to a transition into an El nino ENSO state. My guess based on this would be that the melt will slow down, but still be pushed along at a fair rate due to the warmth already in the ocean and the thin ice, but that the winter freeze will be much slower than the last two years as the cool air stays in the Arctic and is not pushed down the east American coast as much as last two years.

    Another speculation; 2008 had a late season burst, and on current trends if 2009 repeats this late season burst it will be in with a serious shot at 07. When the burst started in August, NSIDC’s first updated blamed it on an unusual series of low pressure storms near Siberia. Later analysis blamed it on the thin ice. Perhaps the early August storms had a temporary effect with wind and currents acellerating the melt through mixing, at the cost of cooling of the ocean for little longer term effect, and that most of the rapid decline was due to the thinner ice, and we will see a repeat of this rapid decline and a new record.

    Or something else might happen.

  67. DeWitt Payne
    Posted Jul 20, 2009 at 5:46 PM | Permalink

    Glad to. However, you only get one day at a time. There is no archive that I’ve been able to find. I’ve been collecting the data myself for almost a year now. I’d offer to share but I’m not at all certain about copyright issues. Maybe if enough people ask him nicely, William Chapman would put up the archive on the site somewhere eventually. He has to have it to make all the pretty graphs. From the main page you can access these graphs from the iTouch/iPhone link. Here are the direct links:

    Arctic

    Antarctic

    Global

    Global is the sum of the current Antarctic area and the previous day’s Arctic area. As far as I can tell, the Arctic data is five days behind the current date. That’s from wiggle matching JAXA and Uni-Hamburg data with CT data. You’ll also see rounding errors in the last digit occasionally, that is, the sum of the average and anomaly is not always exactly equal to the current data.

    I’ve also noticed recently that CT Arctic area does not track other Arctic area measures like NSIDC and Uni-Hamburg for June and July. There is a significant dip in the rate curve for CT data. There is nothing similar for the Antarctic data so maybe it’s hole related. Once I finish collecting the full year average curve, maybe I can adjust my transfer functions to account for this.

  68. Posted Jul 21, 2009 at 12:06 AM | Permalink

    I’d offer to share but I’m not at all certain about copyright issues.

    In the US, as far as I know, lists of facts are not copyrightable, like a telephone listing. The presentation is copyrightable (the particulars of the layoyut) but the facts themselves are not. A listing of temperature stations or temp data or any collected data, really, would be a list of facts, at least that’s the way it seems to me.

  69. Michael Jennings
    Posted Jul 21, 2009 at 6:43 AM | Permalink

    I expected a larger melt than what we got for yesterday (non-adjusted around 85k)considering the warm temps there recently (relatively speaking of course). There is a little lag time between higher temps and subsequent melting so it might take a few days to show up. I would expect to see some 100k+ days soon.

  70. Neven
    Posted Jul 21, 2009 at 7:31 AM | Permalink

    It’s a dirty job but someone’s got to do it:

    7/19/09 7978594 -85625 (will be adjusted later today)
    7/18/08 8168125 -86719
    7/19/07 7271094 -92187
    7/19/06 7800156 -74844
    7/19/05 7990938 -111250

    2005 is still going strong and will probably regain 3rd place with two more 100+K melting days left, maybe even overtake 2006 whose daily melt rate has started levelling off a while ago. 2007 is in a league of its own.

    This is Neven reporting live from Kalaallit Nunaat on the slowest and coldest horse race in the world: the 2009 Grand National Melt, with the horses heading into the last corner before the final stretch.

    • Posted Jul 21, 2009 at 9:20 AM | Permalink

      Re: Neven (#138),

      7/19/09 7968906 -95313 (adjusted value)
      7/18/08 8168125 -86719
      7/19/07 7271094 -92187
      7/19/06 7800156 -74844
      7/19/05 7990938 -111250

  71. James P
    Posted Jul 21, 2009 at 2:58 PM | Permalink

    Any guesses as to when the Northeast Passage opens this year? I’ll go for August 11th.

    • Posted Jul 21, 2009 at 5:56 PM | Permalink

      Re: James P (#140),

      I would think that the Artichesky region would be the last bottleneck.

  72. Mike
    Posted Jul 21, 2009 at 10:44 PM | Permalink

    This is Mike reporting on the preliminary results from today’s race.

    7/21/09 7848750 -120156
    7/20/08 8077188 -90937
    7/21/07 7167656 -103438
    7/21/06 7745781 -54375
    7/21/05 7856250 -134688
    7/20/04 8697500 -51250
    7/21/03 8423281 -106094
    7/21/02 8435469 -79219

    2009 puts on a huge surge today, holding off ’05 and closing in on the tiring ’06. The horses have split up now, with ’07 in the lead by several lengths, ’05, ’06, and ’09 closely bunched up behind, and ’08 a little further back. Bringing up the rear is ’03, ’02, and a struggling ’04.

    Can 2009 break away from the pack and take second place? We’ll see in the next few days, so stay tuned. Back to you, Neven and Phil.

  73. AndyW
    Posted Jul 21, 2009 at 11:05 PM | Permalink

    Looking at 2007 in July I think that horse had 5 legs. If you take the number of days of 100K+ melts 2007 had 10, same as 2005, but the values for those 100K+ were a lot larger, hit 200K for one day. 2008 was slow out of the stalls with only 4 days over 100. 2009 has already got 7, I think it can do another 3 before the end of the month. There is an awful lot of yellow up there now Bremen wise.

    The NW passage will be warm this weekend, check out Arctic Bay

    http://www.weatheroffice.gc.ca/city/pages/nu-10_metric_e.html

    Regards
    Andy

  74. LionelB
    Posted Jul 22, 2009 at 6:19 AM | Permalink

    Ah ! Racing humour again, in this “bets and debates” thread …
    Since Arctic summer melt will be of interest for at least a few more years, may I suggest naming this thread : “Summers of no sure end …er…” ? (from Battle of Britain pilot Richard Townshend’s biography : Summer of no surrender)
    Lionel

  75. DeWitt Payne
    Posted Jul 22, 2009 at 8:30 AM | Permalink

    Here’s the running average from July 1 to 21. Missing data have been filled in by linear interpolation.

    year km2

    2002 9261875.19
    2003 9243288.714
    2004 9362730.762
    2005 8752038.952
    2006 8400044.857
    2007 8135959.905
    2008 8814769.524
    2009 8746934.714

    OLS trend: -116422 km2/year

    Area and concentration are still closer to estimated 2007 levels than 2008. I won’t have a really good handle on that until Uni-Hamburg posts their July 2009 data in about three weeks.

  76. Posted Jul 22, 2009 at 10:25 AM | Permalink

    Updated values, little change:
    7/21/09 7850625 -118281
    7/20/08 8077188 -90937
    7/21/07 7167656 -103438
    7/21/06 7745781 -54375
    7/21/05 7856250 -134688
    7/20/04 8697500 -51250
    7/21/03 8423281 -106094
    7/21/02 8435469 -79219

  77. AndyW35
    Posted Jul 22, 2009 at 1:46 PM | Permalink

    Hmmm, sometimes the Bremen AMSRE goes a bit Alice in Wonderland, check out

    looking glass

    The area to the north of Franz Joseph Land and Severnaya Zemlya is very “eat me” to reduce in size.

    I don’t believe it to be honest.

    Regards

    Andy

    • DeWitt Payne
      Posted Jul 22, 2009 at 2:02 PM | Permalink

      Re: AndyW35 (#147),

      When a pulse of warm water comes in from the Atlantic, ice in that area can melt pretty fast. OTOH maybe clouds affected the data recovery earlier. We’ll see if it goes back to solid tomorrow or gets worse.

      • AndyW35
        Posted Jul 22, 2009 at 2:12 PM | Permalink

        Re: DeWitt Payne (#148),

        Agree DeWitt, the semi circle around FJLand was definitely not there yesterday and it seems very well defined. The area to the NW of SZ seems more likely clouds or other. Will be interesting to see the picture tomorrow.

        Regards

        Andy

  78. AndyW35
    Posted Jul 22, 2009 at 3:01 PM | Permalink

    Latest NW passage ice concentrations from the jolly Canadians.

    NWPass

    Regards

    Andy

  79. DeWitt Payne
    Posted Jul 22, 2009 at 10:00 PM | Permalink

    It looks like extent is finally starting to catch up with area.

    7/22/2009 7686619 -164006

    The smoothed rate is now only slightly less negative than 7/22/2007. Based on the recent images, expect things to get worse before they get better. In fact, this looks a lot like 2007 only about 3 weeks late. It’s also about two weeks earlier than 2008.

    Even Arctic-ROOS isn’t looking so good anymore (VG, where are you?). Area is in the process of crossing the 2008 curve and extent isn’t far behind. I’d have to have odds now to take a bet that 2009 area won’t go below 2007. It doesn’t look like favorable weather materialized this year.

  80. crosspatch
    Posted Jul 22, 2009 at 10:47 PM | Permalink

    “It doesn’t look like favorable weather materialized this year.”

    Been watching the daily photos here and notice there has not been a sunny day for weeks. That camera has been under overcast nearly all summer. I have also noticed that this summer in Alaska has been warmer than average and much warmer than last year. Same with parts of Greenland. Nuuk, for example, has been rather warm the past couple of weeks. They had quite a bit of rain a week or so ago where the “pole” buoy camera is resulting in the ponding you see in the picture.

  81. Mike
    Posted Jul 23, 2009 at 12:16 AM | Permalink

    Here’s the comparison with previous years:

    7/21/08 7989844 -87344
    7/22/07 7066406 -101250
    7/22/06 7688281 -57500
    7/22/05 7747656 -108594
    7/21/04 8652188 -45312
    7/22/03 8344219 -79062
    7/22/02 8345469 -90000

    ’09 furiously charges today and is almost even with ’06. But is it too late for it to catch the lightning-fast ’07? Most of the forecasters on the track agree, saying that 2009 will have to take a breather by this weekend. On the other hand, there are a significant amount of spectators who feel differently. “It ain’t over till it’s over”, they say. “The race is too unpredictable, and recent horses have shown some incredibly strange performances. Knowing this, I wouldn’t place any bets on the final finishing order.”

    That’s all for tonight, folks, for those of you in the Americas. Get a good night’s rest, because there is still over a month left in the race.

  82. VG
    Posted Jul 23, 2009 at 4:44 AM | Permalink

    and another reality check
    Well its now snowing in Ezeiza airport Buenos aires – [snip- pointless editorializing]
    http://www.perfil.com/contenidos/2009/07/22/noticia_0033.html spanish

  83. VG
    Posted Jul 23, 2009 at 5:06 AM | Permalink

    Hi De witt Payne don’t worry I’m definitely here
    Reality check (unless already posted)

    and another reality check AGAIN (because it snowed in 2008 in BA) totally abnormal unless you are going to say now that AGW = getting colder LOL
    Well its now snowing in Ezeiza airport Buenos aires AGAIN JUly 2009 (it snowed in 2008 also highly abnormal) so much for AGW
    http://www.perfil.com/contenidos/2009/07/22/noticia_0033.html spanish
    My bet is NH ice is going 2005 way

    http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php

    with your mates AMSR even more obvious:

    However I don’t think we will have a clue until the first week of August (i think you will agree with that) I still think its wind and water flows. Anyway I enjoy my interchanges with you as you seems to have a good knowledge of what you are saying. BTW I would be the first to believe in AGW if it was credible as a Scientist and statistitian unfortunately I cannot based on the data that I am seeing (my dad was a pretty big boy in the meteorological area:
    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v135/n3417/abs/135654a0.html I think Svensmark would be using some of this info
    BTW I made a completely wrong assumption that JUly temps would be negative (AMSU) rfer to Lucia’s balckboard, there has been a huge jump [snip- pointless editorializing]
    Cheers
    BTW as a scientist could be wrong on all counts and proud of it.

  84. MichaelJennings
    Posted Jul 23, 2009 at 5:38 AM | Permalink

    This is the melt rate I expected when I posted on the 21st that there is a lag time between warm temps and the melt rate and that appears to be the case as the past two days have both been well over 100,000 days. I do look for it to slow down to a more moderate figure by the weekend based on wind changes. 2009 will not come close to or above 2008 but will not go below 2007 IMO.

  85. TruthB4Popularity
    Posted Jul 23, 2009 at 6:08 AM | Permalink

    OH VG! lols and lols! Snowing at Buenos aires airport so there cannot be any GW! and if there was then it proves its not us humies that dun it aye mate! ;-).
    You poor sod with your little 100km wide pimple of -6 degrC anomaly that I see doing that on this chart. http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/map/images/rnl/sfctmpmer_07a.rnl.html
    Must be a gust of the cold air that should be on the patagonian Ice sheet thats 6 degr above what it should be. What about the over 12C anomalies that have been all over antarctica for months. We’ve had several polar lows go by 2000km sth of NZ this week. down to 940mb and below. copping 100mph winds from the pole we have been in NZ from those systems 2000km away. Antarcticas getting our heat in exchange. Extreme weather is what Catastrophic global heating is all about.

    What about those 12C SSTs filling up Baffin bay? and the 18C SSTs on the Alaskan Arctic coast! Yes that IS nth of bering strait.

    http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/satellite/index.uk.php

    Those NW and NE passages are clearing fast.

    • Shawn Whelan
      Posted Jul 23, 2009 at 7:15 AM | Permalink

      Re: TruthB4Popularity (#157),

      Those NW and NE passages are clearing fast.

      Well if the satellite images are correct the NE Passage may be clearing. However that is nothing unusual. It cleared many times before.

      The NW Passage certainly doesn’t look like it is clearing fast.

  86. Neven
    Posted Jul 23, 2009 at 8:19 AM | Permalink

    Well, it’s official: 2009 has taken over 2nd spot from 2006 with today’s downward adjustment putting it about 6K square km in front:

    7/22/09 7682188 -166562
    7/21/08 7989844 -87344
    7/22/07 7066406 -101250
    7/22/06 7688281 -57500
    7/22/05 7747656 -108594
    7/21/04 8652188 -45312
    7/22/03 8344219 -79062
    7/22/02 8345469 -90000

    I think yesterday’s melt was the record for this year, yes?

    Anyway, 2009 will probably increase its lead on 2005 and 2006 the coming days, seeing as the melt of these two years slows down substantially with hardly any 100+K days coming up. 2007 is still going strong, though.

    This race is far from over, it can still go either way with 2009 which already quite some surprising twists and turns in the last months.

  87. Neven
    Posted Jul 23, 2009 at 8:48 AM | Permalink

    That should read: “which already had quite some surprising twists and turns in the last months.”

  88. TruthB4Popularity
    Posted Jul 23, 2009 at 3:56 PM | Permalink

    The NW Passage certainly doesn’t look like it is clearing fast.

    If you look at the last few days on these charts you will see what I am talking about. Note that the Canadian archipelago Ice area figures are at ~75% of this time last year, a figure not reached in 2008 until nearly a month later. Also the high pressure system forming on the nth pole now, and the remnants of the one thats been on greenland for the last week are creating easterlies that are blowing the very warm water in baffin bay straight down lancaster sound into the last lump of rapidly thinning ice in the viscount melville sound.
    The NthEast passage is arguably Navigable now, with broad channels of no more than 20% ice coverage in the last few tight spots.

    The solid high pressure system now establishing on the nth pole will drop warm air, and clear skys will accelerate the algae growth (the biggest melt mechanism when Ice<6ft thick) in the underside of the seaice, so I’m not expecting any slowdown in melt rates in the next week.

  89. Shawn Whelan
    Posted Jul 23, 2009 at 4:19 PM | Permalink

    The Canadian Ice Service shows much more ice than JAXA. I think the JAXA satellite is in need of adjustment.

    http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/cgi-bin/seaice-monitor.cgi?lang=e&mode=img&size=L&date=set&y=2009&m=07&d=22

    The CIS shows the Canadian Arctic to have a large increase in ice.

    • DeWitt Payne
      Posted Jul 23, 2009 at 5:05 PM | Permalink

      Re: Shawn Whelan (#162),

      The date on the CIS graphic may be July 20, but there hasn’t been that much ice in Hudson Bay for nearly two weeks now. As far as the increase in ice on the Canadian side of the Arctic, that’s correct. The big losses have been on the Russian side this year.

      • Shawn Whelan
        Posted Jul 23, 2009 at 6:05 PM | Permalink

        Re: DeWitt Payne (#163),

        The date on the CIS graphic may be July 20, but there hasn’t been that much ice in Hudson Bay for nearly two weeks now.

        What do you base that on?

        • DeWitt Payne
          Posted Jul 23, 2009 at 7:10 PM | Permalink

          Re: Shawn Whelan (#165),

          Let’s see.

          There’s this. Note that this graph is approximately five days behind.

          Then there’s 7/8/2009 and 7/20/2009. The 7/8/09 image from Uni-Bremen looks much more like your CIS July 20 image than the 7/20/09 Uni-Bremen image.

        • Shawn Whelan
          Posted Jul 23, 2009 at 8:35 PM | Permalink

          Re: DeWitt Payne (#166),
          It looks like Uni-Bremen is only picking up the high ice concentrations at 90% or above in Hudson Bay. (likely all over and the same at JAXA)

          Why do you think the University of Illinois is more accurate than the CIS? CIS actually has people and Icebreakers in the area, the sea ice maps are used for navigation which requires accuracy.

        • Posted Jul 24, 2009 at 7:08 AM | Permalink

          Re: Shawn Whelan (#167),

          It looks like Uni-Bremen is only picking up the high ice concentrations at 90% or above in Hudson Bay. (likely all over and the same at JAXA)
          Why do you think the University of Illinois is more accurate than the CIS? CIS actually has people and Icebreakers in the area, the sea ice maps are used for navigation which requires accuracy.

          The CIS maps are generated from radar, MODIS images agree with JAXA, here’s one from a couple of days ago:

          http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/realtime/single.php?2009203/crefl2_143.A2009203184500-2009203185000.1km.jpg

  90. DeWitt Payne
    Posted Jul 23, 2009 at 5:20 PM | Permalink

    The individual anomaly charts for ice area (CT is five days behind the current date):

    Russian side of the Arctic

    East Siberian Sea -100,000 km2 from last year at this time

    Laptev Sea -300,000 km2 from 2008

    Kara Sea -100,000 km2 from 2008

    On the Canadian side:

    Beaufort Sea +200,000 km2 from 2008

    The Canadian Archipelago is almost 100,000 km2 below 2008 at this time so a Northwest Passage opening seems quite likely.

  91. INGSOC
    Posted Jul 23, 2009 at 8:46 PM | Permalink

    Define “Not much ice…”

    • Posted Jul 23, 2009 at 9:59 PM | Permalink

      Re: INGSOC (#168),

      Why?

    • DeWitt Payne
      Posted Jul 23, 2009 at 11:06 PM | Permalink

      Re: INGSOC (#168),

      Here’s one even better from 7/19/2004. NSIDC extent for Hudson Bay on 7/19/2004 was 610679 km2 or about half the maximum extent of 1233344 km2. On 7/20/2005 the extent was 212755 km2. The ice level in Hudson Bay at this time of year varies all over the map from very little to over half frozen over. The maximum extent for DOY 201-203 for the years from 1979-2006 was 951303 km2 on 7/19/1992 and the minimum was 114293 km2 on 7/22/2006. The linear trend is negative, -7700 km2/year which isn’t very large compared to the range of the data.

      Comparing a low resolution false color image with a high resolution image by eye isn’t very reliable and in this case doesn’t mean much. It also doesn’t really matter whether the satellite measurements are accurate. What we’re interested in is precision so that year to year comparisons mean something and that we’re comparing apples to apples.

      • Shawn Whelan
        Posted Jul 24, 2009 at 7:27 AM | Permalink

        Re: DeWitt Payne (#171),

        What we’re interested in is precision so that year to year comparisons mean something and that we’re comparing apples to apples.

        I am not so convinced we are.

        Something to watchover the melt.
        Just how innacurate is the science? This is starting to look as innacurate as Hansen’s temperatures.

        • AndyW35
          Posted Jul 24, 2009 at 9:26 AM | Permalink

          Re: Shawn Whelan (#175),

          Bit of a double edged sword here though Shawn because you say one set of results lack precision whereas another based on

          “CIS actually has people and Icebreakers in the area, the sea ice maps are used for navigation which requires accuracy.”

          is precise. But actually it is not based on that, unsurprising considering the vast expanse of area, it’s done by radar as Phil says. So it may be that CIS is inaccurate and should be compared to Hansen? Do they actually need accuracy? It’s not as if it is a major shipping channel so maybe they can “get away” with it. Just because their charts look more accurate doesn’t mean they are.

          As proof Bremen’s AMSRE charts are pretty good they have mapped the Nares break up very well with a fan shaped yellow triangle appearing where before there was none.

          I think it’s the CIS who are probably more Hanson like at the moment, though they are favouring more ice so obviously cannot be painted as such ;)

          Regards

          Andy

        • Shawn Whelan
          Posted Jul 24, 2009 at 9:47 AM | Permalink

          Re: AndyW35 (#177),

          It’s not as if it is a major shipping channel so maybe they can “get away” with it. Just because their charts look more accurate doesn’t mean they are.

          Hudson Bay into Churchill is a major shipping channel.
          They send a lot of wheat out of there in their Summer.

          They need accurate info on the ice to bring the freighters in and out.

          They can’t just make it up.

        • AndyW35
          Posted Jul 24, 2009 at 3:02 PM | Permalink

          Re: Shawn Whelan (#179),

          Or else maybe they just use a pair of binoculars and their own ships radar with gives them realtime info ?

          Regards

          Andy

        • Shawn Whelan
          Posted Jul 24, 2009 at 9:06 PM | Permalink

          Re: AndyW35 (#181),

          Or else maybe they just use a pair of binoculars and their own ships radar with gives them realtime info ?

          Very true that the boats in the ice know the level better than the satellite.

      • INGSOC
        Posted Jul 24, 2009 at 6:04 PM | Permalink

        Re: DeWitt Payne (#171),

        Thanks. Point taken. So, the CIS is not accurate enough… Go figger! (At least in terms of detail needed here [see "apples to apples"]) Having served for two years as a deckhand off the west coast of Vancouver Island more years ago than I care to admit, I was/am very happy that all weather service to mariners is “conservative”!

        I can’t help but notice that the Northern Pacific jet stream seems to be having a tremendous effect on the ice this year. Just another of the myriad variables… Davis Straight must be full of bergs. Fascinating!

        Excelsior!

  92. AndyW
    Posted Jul 23, 2009 at 11:05 PM | Permalink

    As mentioned above the winds are easterly or SE at the moment in the NW passage area. In fact this weekend looks pretty warm so it might be best to revisit when the CIS maps update next which I think is about the 27th? On Bremen it looks like it is thinning quite considerably in the last day or so.

    Provisional update from JAXA shows another 100k+ loss so even though 2008 had a couple of good days 2009 has had bigger. Like DeWitt mentioned above all the action is going on at the Russian side and there is a lot more ocean there to “appear”. 2009 now has 9 100k+ days in July with still a week to go.

    Regards

    Andy

  93. Michael Hauber
    Posted Jul 23, 2009 at 11:34 PM | Permalink

    Temps seem to be rising a fair bit above average in the NW passage in the coming week. I think the NW passage melt will speed up in the next week or so, although the warmest temps are in the east where it has already melted. On the flip side the rest of the Arctic seems cooler than last week and so overall there will probably be a slower ice melt through the coming week.

  94. TruthB4Popularity
    Posted Jul 24, 2009 at 4:55 AM | Permalink

    I’ve been reviewing the 2007 autopsy on CryoT, what weather systems, temp anoms happened with that. No elevated temps until sept/oct, but the high squatting on the pole as its just done now, was seemingly there from june till oct. So we might see our horse stop trotting and start to gallop from now. Interesting that if you look at the longatudes from 100east to 130west, 64% of the full compass:
    Melt is more advanced than it got to until September.
    We should remember that the 2007 hoss had 3.2 million sqkm of multiyear ice at the start of summer, and 2.4m at the end. So lost most all of its 1yr ice.
    Since we started with 2.5Msqkm of MY this year. And thinner MY on average too…
    If that high keeps sitting there and the hoss opens both its NW and NE nostrils early… We could get a circle of warm salty low lattitude water Cabaling with the cold meltwater around the whole perimeter of remaining icepack. And sucking all the meltwater down as it forms. Could be the sort of thing to pop the gulf stream into that superfast circulation mode they’ve found evidence for. Bye bye permafrost and 1500ppm co2 quicksmart if that goesdown. If not this year then soon.
    Check out the 90day surface air temp anoms:

    • DeWitt Payne
      Posted Jul 24, 2009 at 9:33 AM | Permalink

      Re: TruthB4Popularity (#173),

      Please use links rather than images. Loading images uses a lot of bandwidth and CPU time. It’s not important on short threads, but these ice threads have been known to get rather long.

      Re: Shawn Whelan (#175),

      JAXA, Uni-Bremen and CT use technology very similar to that used for satellite atmospheric temperature retrieval, microwave brightness temperature. It’s simpler, though, as there’s no broad pressure weighting function because you’re looking only at sea level. Clouds are a problem, but they’re not there all the time. If you don’t believe the satellite ice concentration data, then you should put even less faith in the data from UAH and RSS. But since their data confirms your prejudices, I doubt you’ll see the problem.

      CIS has good reason to be conservative about ice concentration and location. They don’t want anyone to rip the bottom out of their hull by running into ice they thought wasn’t there.

      • Shawn Whelan
        Posted Jul 24, 2009 at 9:51 AM | Permalink

        Re: DeWitt Payne (#178),

        snip
        There will be physically boats in the Passages this Summer It will be interesting to see what they report.

  95. Neven
    Posted Jul 24, 2009 at 8:37 AM | Permalink

    Inaccurate or not, here are today’s numbers:

    7/23/09 7560469 -121719
    7/22/08 7883125 -110781
    7/23/07 6972031 -94375
    7/23/06 7625000 -63281
    7/23/05 7688906 -58750

    2007 has passed the 7 million square km mark, but 2009 has had six days in a row with a larger melt than 2007. The difference is still a big 600K square km and 2007 had a big melt on today’s date. Can 2009 follow and break even further loose from ’05, ’06 and ’08? We’ll hear all about it after the following 20-hour break.

  96. AndyW35
    Posted Jul 24, 2009 at 4:09 PM | Permalink

    Dear me, Bremen has not updated and the north pole webcam has got stuck again ! I am data starving .. what can I do?

    At times like this I miss dear old Steve Goddard. After some partial pressure was applied he seems to have sublimated into thin air :( Come back Steve!

    What to do till the next update, might have to talk to my wife as a last resort…

    Regards

    Andy

  97. AndyW35
    Posted Jul 25, 2009 at 12:47 AM | Permalink

    Well all have to agree to disagree I guess :)

    Another 100k+ day, so 10 already this month. Average for the last 7 days is 120k+ ! When will the next “slow” day be?

    Regards

    Andy

  98. Neven
    Posted Jul 25, 2009 at 1:20 AM | Permalink

    It looks like 2009 had another 100+K melt, for the 10th time this month, 4th day in a row:

    7/24/09 7431563 -128906
    7/23/08 7772344 -110781
    7/24/07 6858125 -113906
    7/24/06 7597969 -27031
    7/24/05 7612969 -75937

  99. Michael Jennings
    Posted Jul 25, 2009 at 5:38 AM | Permalink

    Another pre-adjustment 100,000+ day yesterday of 129,000. Look for it to start to slow down this weekend unless the winds pick up and push more ice into warmer waters again.

  100. DeWitt Payne
    Posted Jul 25, 2009 at 9:48 AM | Permalink

    Cryosphere Today Arctic area is 5.306 Mm2. That’s lower than it was in 2008 five days later (5.337 Mm2). The current smoothed rate is -0.1 Mm2/day. The 2007 record low is still within reach. Average ice concentration has been decreasing less rapidly recently, but it still looks a lot more like 2007 than 2008.

    • hengav
      Posted Jul 25, 2009 at 5:50 PM | Permalink

      Re: DeWitt Payne (#188),
      Bunk. 2007 is different. We have a lot more perrenial ice this year.
      The Canadian Arctic is behaving within the normal historical range.
      There is still no open passage seaway as we head into August.
      Temperatures are at near normal levels. I am not part of the mutual
      Admiration Melt group, and time alone will tell.
      Cheers
      Brad

      • DeWitt Payne
        Posted Jul 25, 2009 at 8:26 PM | Permalink

        Re: hengav (#189),

        The ice concentration (area/extent), as opposed to area or extent alone, is in fact in 2007 territory. Extent and area are still above 2007, but low concentration at this time of year implies further rapid loss of extent. The smoothed rate of change of extent is currently well below the lowest level of 2008. The recent sharp drop in rate looks very much like 2007 only about three weeks late. Ice area in the Canadian Archipelago, while it may be in the historical range is still below where it was at this time last year by almost 100,000 km2. As in 2007, the big losses are on the Russian and European side of the Arctic Basin. Things could change for the better, but it doesn’t look promising right now.

        It’s been about a month since I last posted an area/extent/concentration comparison. Here’s the latest data:

        date area extent %concentration EWMA extent rate
        7/20/2009 5.306 7.969 65.80 -0.085
        7/19/2008 5.955 8.168 74.71 -0.079
        7/20/2007 4.995 7.271 68.69 -0.095
        7/20/2006 6.031 7.800 77.32 -0.067

        Areas for 2006-2008 are estimated from Uni-Hamburg data, which means they are probably too high by about 0.2 Mm2. That would drop the concentrations some. 2007 would be 65.9% keeping 2009 still in the ballpark.

        2009 extent has since dropped below 2006 and the extent rate has dropped to -0.102 Mm2/day compared to the lowest rate for 2008 of -0.091 Mm2.

        Minimums based on 2002-2008 additional loss from this date are extent 4.98 Mm2 and area 3.19 Mm2. I would put low odds on either actually being that high. Minimums for 2008 were 4.708 (JAXA) and 3.004 Mm2 (CT).

        • hengav
          Posted Jul 25, 2009 at 11:51 PM | Permalink

          Re: DeWitt Payne (#190),
          100,000 km2 is a dubious number at best considering melt versus drifting ice.
          Look at the images, lots of drift, not much melt.
          Your model, and the European/Russian extents are sound, but the Canadian arctic isn’t adding, should not be considered.
          What will be interesting is to play the melt seasons’ video of the past 13 or so years once 2009 is in the books. They all look different to me so far, and to get below 2007, the Canuk ice would have to take a hit.

        • DeWitt Payne
          Posted Jul 26, 2009 at 10:25 AM | Permalink

          Re: hengav (#193),

          Looking at the false color images for 7/24/2008 and 7/25/2009 I can see where a route through the Northwest could still open up this year. That plug at the western end doesn’t look like it will last too much longer. But a complete passage is still far from a sure thing. CT area actually went up today so the concentration did too. I don’t expect that to continue.

        • BarryW
          Posted Jul 26, 2009 at 7:48 PM | Permalink

          Re: DeWitt Payne (#196),

          Dewitt (or anyone else who is interested). You asked Steve for an R script to process the Bremen data. He replied that some one else ought to try since he didn’t really have time. Well, I took up the challenge.

          If you download this link you’ll get a file that has a set of functions to download and process the Bremen data (it’s set for the 6250 meter files and the arctic, but you can change it). If you’re interested I’d like to know if I got the processing of extent and area correct or if you find any bugs or think of any enhancements. I haven’t had a lot of time to work on it lately and it’s not the easiest format to work with (the hdf4 is an old format and there isn’t a plugin for R to process it, so I did it by brute force). If you’ve got any questions let me know.

          (FYI the last couple of days bremen jumps all over the place).

        • DeWitt Payne
          Posted Jul 27, 2009 at 12:10 AM | Permalink

          Re: BarryW (#197),

          Thanks.

          I’m playing with it now. It’s taking forever to download the data though. I’m going to compare the numbers for June with the archive on the Uni-Hamburg Sea ice page.

        • BarryW
          Posted Jul 27, 2009 at 7:48 AM | Permalink

          Re: DeWitt Payne (#198),

          The earlier data was in compressed format (gzip) but the latest files are uncompressed and are over 8 meg each. Don’t know why they stopped compressing it because they get about an eight to one compression ratio.

        • DeWitt Payne
          Posted Jul 27, 2009 at 10:36 AM | Permalink

          Re: BarryW (#202),

          Unless I did something wrong, the results from your script are off by nearly a factor of four. The factor isn’t constant and the data for June 29 is off by a factor greater than 5. I suspect it’s the conversion from concentration to extent and area. I don’t think you can use a constant area grid. It’s some sort of projection and each individual grid doesn’t have the same area on the actual globe. You might be able to lift that part from Steve McIntyre’s NSIDC script.

          Here’s some of my results compared to the results archived at Uni-Bremen:

          date area extent areacalc extentcalc

          6/1/2009 10.0064 10.6764 2.603193 2.850742
          6/2/2009 9.97593 10.5808 2.649513 2.882578
          6/3/2009 9.95546 10.5116 2.691383 2.910898
          6/4/2009 9.87545 10.4513 2.593953 2.799453
          6/5/2009 9.8172 10.4191 2.560667 2.789453

        • DeWitt Payne
          Posted Jul 27, 2009 at 11:06 AM | Permalink

          Re: DeWitt Payne (#204),

          The factor of four could be explained if the data set is 25 km resolution rather than 6.25 km. If it’s 25 km, the data array will have dimensions of about 400 x 300. If it’s 6.25, the dimensions of the array are (obviously) abut 4x larger. I’m not sure how to check the actual data.

        • BarryW
          Posted Jul 27, 2009 at 2:55 PM | Permalink

          Re: DeWitt Payne (#204),

          I don’t think the data is affected by the lat long grid for calculation since each pixel should be the same size in meters. Now if you tried to display it there would be distortions.

          Which is which in your table? Are area and extent columns their values or the ones my script calculates?

          the bremen directory I downloaded was
          “http://iup.physik.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsredata/asi_daygrid_swath/l1a/n6250″
          and the file names should look like
          “asi-n6250-20090601-v5.hdf”
          the file sizes should be 8.3 meg each

          this is what I got when I ran it:

          Date            my area         my extent    Bremen area    Bremen extent
          2009-06-01  10.467305   11.397031     10.0064         10.6764
          2009-06-02  10.442565   11.346055      9.97593        10.5808
          2009-06-03  10.414762   11.232109      9.95546        10.5116
          2009-06-04  10.319410   11.159570      9.87545        10.4513
          2009-06-05  10.275638   11.134063      9.81720        10.4191

          Different but not by a factor of 4
          The Bremen data was from “area_ASI-AMSR-E_v5.5i_Arc.txt” and”extent_ASI-AMSR-E_v5.5i_Arc.txt”

          There appears to be something wrong since I’m not getting the same answer, but I didn’t have the Hamburg files when I was doing the coding.

        • BarryW
          Posted Jul 27, 2009 at 3:03 PM | Permalink

          Re: BarryW (#208),

          I said Bremen in the table heading, I meant Hamburg

        • DeWitt Payne
          Posted Jul 27, 2009 at 4:33 PM | Permalink

          Re: BarryW (#208),

          So I am doing something wrong. That wouldn’t be surprising since I’m such a newbie at R. The second set of numbers, areacalc and extentcalc are what I got when I ran the script. All I did to the script was to change savepath and resultpath to an existing directory. I downloaded the data for June 2009 (download.bremen(savepath, 2009, “jun”). That gave me 30 8.31 MB files with what appeared to be the correct file names (asi-n6250-20090601-v5.hdf) Then I ran process.bremen like so:

          > process.bremen(savepath, 2009, “jun”)
          date dayofyear year month day area extent
          1 2009-06-01 152 2009 06 01 2.603193 2.850742
          2 2009-06-02 153 2009 06 02 2.649513 2.882578

          My guess is that something didn’t translate correctly from your script to the copy on the web page to my copy. I copied and pasted to Notepad. That seemed to work for Steve M’s NSIDC data script. I’ll try linking directly from R.

        • BarryW
          Posted Jul 27, 2009 at 5:47 PM | Permalink

          Re: DeWitt Payne (#210),

          It’s new for me too. This was the first real program I’ve written in R where I didn’t cut and paste from someone else’s code. Plus the hdf4 format is flexible but not simple.

          I don’t see anything wrong with what you did. The fact that you got output but not what I expected is strange. I would have assumed that if the script had been corrupted some how that it wouldn’t have even run.

          Instead of copying off of the webpage could you right click on the link and just save it? I assume you’re using windows and explorer or firefox for a browser? I wrote it on a Mac but I don’t see where that should be a problem. In firefox the command is “Save Link As” . I won’t have my windows machine available till Wednesday so I can’t check it to see if there is some difference between the Mac and Windows versions of R. The script assumes the data is “big endian” but I can’t imagine that you would have even gotten output if Windows was outputting “little endian”

        • DeWitt Payne
          Posted Jul 27, 2009 at 5:55 PM | Permalink

          Re: DeWitt Payne (#210),

          I downloaded the 6/1/2009 file directly and get the same answer as you do. So for some reason, likely something I’m doing, it isn’t downloading the correct files. The url for the directory in the script looks ok. I copied and pasted it into Firefox and got the right page. I’ll dig around some more and see if I can figure out the problem. I couldn’t tell in the script, what are you doing about the hole.

        • BarryW
          Posted Jul 27, 2009 at 6:08 PM | Permalink

          Re: DeWitt Payne (#212),

          The code doesn’t deal with the hole (forgot about that). Which brings up a question as to why my numbers are larger than Hamburg’s. I would think they would be smaller if the hole was marked as na or some such. I’m only looking at numbers that represent fractions from 0->1 or numbers from 0->100 depending on which format they were using in that file, so any coding for the hole that is outside that range would be ignored. Haven’t tried to plot it out to see what the file does with the hole yet either.

        • DeWitt Payne
          Posted Jul 27, 2009 at 7:02 PM | Permalink

          Re: BarryW (#213),

          It’s either downloading the wrong files or corrupting the files somehow in the download process. The files I downloaded myself are 8,516 KB while the files the script downloaded are 8,517 KB. I have a sneaking feeling that extra 1 KB is significant.

        • BarryW
          Posted Jul 27, 2009 at 9:32 PM | Permalink

          Re: DeWitt Payne (#214),

          I just checked the files the script downloaded and they say 8,719 bytes on a Mac and the same when I download through Safari.

          You might try changing the line of code in the download program:

          download.file(asi.urls[i],asi.loc[i], quiet = T) to
          download.file(asi.urls[i],asi.loc[i], quiet = F)

          this should printout something like the following:

          trying URL ‘http://iup.physik.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsredata/asi_daygrid_swath/l1a/n6250/2009/jun/asi-n6250-20090601-v5.hdf’
          Content type ‘application/x-hdf’ length 8719396 bytes (8.3 Mb)
          opened URL
          ==================================================
          downloaded 8.3 Mb

          Remember it won’t overwrite the file you have to delete the old one for it to download it again.

      • AndyW35
        Posted Jul 25, 2009 at 10:45 PM | Permalink

        Re: hengav (#189),

        “There is still no open passage seaway as we head into August”

        Which is to be expected, neither was there in 2007 either! Still another 5 weeks to go though and there is a good chance your earlier claims on the matter will be wrong. If so you will have to be a member of the Eat Humble Pie group. :p :)

        Regards

        Andy

        • hengav
          Posted Jul 25, 2009 at 11:59 PM | Permalink

          Re: AndyW35 (#191),
          If so, and in an ode to your ESL minions, I shal eat humble pie ongoingly.

  101. AndyW35
    Posted Jul 25, 2009 at 10:47 PM | Permalink

    Oh, another 100+ day, so that is 11 for the month.

    Regards

    Andy

  102. Neven
    Posted Jul 26, 2009 at 2:39 AM | Permalink

    2009 keeps plunging for the time being with its 5th 100K+ day in a row (11th for the month of July, like AndyW35 said) and its 4th consecutive highest daily melt rate.

    7/25/09 7314219 -115000
    7/24/08 7679219 -93125
    7/25/07 6781250 -76875
    7/25/06 7549844 -48125
    7/25/05 7559063 -53906

    2009 has outpaced 2007 for 8 days in a row now, reducing the difference between the two years from 770K to 533K. How long can 2009 keep this pace up?

  103. Neven
    Posted Jul 27, 2009 at 2:47 AM | Permalink

    Yesterday’s question (‘how long can 2009 keep this pace up’) has been answered today: 2009’s 100K+ run has finally come to a stop.

    7/26/09 7244375 -71250
    7/25/08 7607969 -71250
    7/26/07 6688594 -92656
    7/26/06 7469844 -80000
    7/26/05 7497344 -61719

  104. VG
    Posted Jul 27, 2009 at 3:55 AM | Permalink

    Admittedly yes the melt has been great over the past week, but the minimum direction seems to be going the 2005 or even 2006 way, in my books. BTW if the melt has started to stop now re Neven #199 we might be looking at completely normal ice from now on (2009-2010 etc..) Could be wrong though we should all wait and see.

    http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php

    • Michael Jennings
      Posted Jul 27, 2009 at 7:33 AM | Permalink

      Re: VG (#200),
      I think yesterday was just a pause and not a permanent end to the big daily totals just yet and I agree we should wait and see.

  105. DeWitt Payne
    Posted Jul 27, 2009 at 9:31 AM | Permalink

    Arctic ice area continues to show little change. Looking at the local maps on Cryosphere Today shows that Arctic Basin area has been increasing, which is currently making up for the loss in area around the periphery. Concentration has increased significantly over the last few days. However it’s still way below 2005. If area continues on its present path, concentration will increase more because the extent has a couple more days of steep drops.

    Back to playing with R.

  106. crosspatch
    Posted Jul 27, 2009 at 1:22 PM | Permalink

    Judging from the NOAA camera on the “pole” cam buoy, it looks like the melt ponds are starting to freeze over but frost on the camera lens makes it a little hard to tell for certain. Still cloudy, though. I haven’t seen a sunny day on that cam for weeks.

    • DeWitt Payne
      Posted Jul 27, 2009 at 2:15 PM | Permalink

      Re: crosspatch (#206),

      If you want more ice, cloudy is good. In 2007, IIRC, cloud cover was below average for most of the summer. Given the low sun angle, even relatively thin clouds will have a high optical density.

  107. DeWitt Payne
    Posted Jul 27, 2009 at 11:08 PM | Permalink

    I stitched together 14 high res images of the Northwest Passage for 7/27/2009. I think it will be a little better resolution than the image you can link to from the main Uni-Bremen page, but maybe not. Here it is anyway. I still see some weak spots that might allow a Southern route to open if the weather allows.

    Re: BarryW (#215),

    I deleted the 27 bad files and am trying again. The download dialogue says the same file size as yours.

    No luck. Windows Explorer says the final file size is 8,720,892 bytes so 1,496 bytes are being added somewhere somehow.

  108. crosspatch
    Posted Jul 28, 2009 at 12:08 AM | Permalink

    I wouldn’t trust Windows Explorer counts, it might be including the http headers in addition to the data itself. If you do a detailed directory listing of the file does it show the same size that Explorer reports?

  109. crosspatch
    Posted Jul 28, 2009 at 2:01 AM | Permalink

    It is a microsoft bug. Here is what I did:

    Downloaded the file via IE then looked at the file using a Microsoft directory listing. It shows the file as being 8516KB.

    Then I downloaded the file using cygwin wget. It showed the file being 8719396 bytes.
    THEN using cygwin I changed directories to where I had downloaded by MSIE and listed the file and got 8719396 bytes.

    So … MSIE downloaded the file. Microsoft Vista reports a file size of 8516KB. Listing the same file using ls on cygwin shows a file size of 8719396 bytes. So I would say to ignore the difference in file sizes reported as that seems to be some sort of OS bug.

    I further did a “diff” on the two files and got no difference even though the file size is reported differently depending on if I use a microsoft directory listing or ls under cygwin.

    If I do a dos command of dir -l it reports the same file size as ls does.

    In short, I don’t believe the difference in reported size is the problem.

    • Nick Stokes
      Posted Jul 28, 2009 at 3:29 AM | Permalink

      Re: crosspatch (#218), This may not be Microsoft. A KB is often 1024 bytes. Although then 8719396 bytes would be 8515 KB. The difference may be the 1496 bytes DeWitt mentioned.

      • Mark T
        Posted Jul 28, 2009 at 9:56 AM | Permalink

        Re: Nick Stokes (#219),

        This may not be Microsoft.

        Actually, it likely is due to MS. MS file systems (NTFS, FAT) are allocated in blocks – 1024 bytes is not atypical – so file sizes will always be rounded UP to the next block increment (a single kB for 1024 byte blocks) since that’s the amount of space actually occupied on the disk. If the disparity was 1000 vs 1024 bytes per kB, the file would actually have read back 8719 or 8720 kB, not 8516 kB.

        Mark

    • DeWitt Payne
      Posted Jul 28, 2009 at 9:56 AM | Permalink

      Re: crosspatch (#218),

      If I right click on the file and select properties, it tells the actual size of the file as well as the size of the file on the disk. The file I downloaded using IE has a true size of 8719396 bytes. The file I downloaded using R is 8720892 bytes, 1496 bytes larger. I guess I need to try download.file outside the script if I can figure out how to make it work.

      • Mark T
        Posted Jul 28, 2009 at 10:00 AM | Permalink

        Re: DeWitt Payne (#221),

        The file I downloaded using IE has a true size of 8719396 bytes. The file I downloaded using R is 8720892 bytes, 1496 bytes larger.

        That’s strange, actually, since the DLed length is not a multiple of some power of two, which would give you an indication that it was downloading the whole space occupied by the file. That seems to indicate something is going on with the R downloader, IMO.

        Mark

        • DeWitt Payne
          Posted Jul 28, 2009 at 10:30 AM | Permalink

          Re: Mark T (#224),

          I think I fixed it. I changed the mode in download.file from the default “w” to “wb” or write binary. R does that automatically for compressed files like .zip and .gz, but wasn’t smart enough to figure out that .hdf files are binary too. One problem down. Now to figure out how to convert the gridded concentration data to area and extent correctly, or at least to do it the same way as Uni-Bremen. I’m betting that they will post their July data before I get there.

        • BarryW
          Posted Jul 28, 2009 at 11:35 AM | Permalink

          Re: DeWitt Payne (#225),

          Seems to be a slight difference between the Windows and Mac implementations. I changed it in the script and uploaded it.

        • DeWitt Payne
          Posted Jul 28, 2009 at 2:58 PM | Permalink

          Re: BarryW (#227),

          Area also has a 15% lower cutoff. I tried to add that (changed 0 to 15 and 0.15 for ddsum in process.file.bremen) and it made no difference in the calculated area. I’m thinking it isn’t working for either extent or area and that’s why it’s coming out a little high. It should actually be low since we aren’t correcting for variable pixel area yet.

        • DeWitt Payne
          Posted Jul 28, 2009 at 4:49 PM | Permalink

          Re: DeWitt Payne (#228),

          Never mind. There’s so pixels with less than 15% area that it doesn’t make a difference whether you include them or not. It does make a difference if you set the level to 50 or 75%, but much less than I would have thought.

        • BarryW
          Posted Jul 28, 2009 at 5:50 PM | Permalink

          Re: DeWitt Payne (#228),

          Still don’t think we need to correct for a variable pixel area. If the data was a GeoTiff i’d agree but they define the grid as 6250 meter resolution. It wouldn’t look right on a map but for area calculations I think it’s correct to assume an actual square. The hole bothers me much more. The other thing that I’m not sure of is if the calculation is picking up some bad data values that I’m not winnowing out properly.

        • DeWitt Payne
          Posted Jul 28, 2009 at 6:34 PM | Permalink

          Re: BarryW (#231),

          I’d like to look at the data, but I can’t seem to figure out how. The processes all run, but either everything evaporates or I’m just not looking in the right place. There is an .hdf file the gives latitude and longitude for the pixels in the directory somewhere. It would be nice to make even a simple gray scale image to see what’s going on. For missing data in one file, I think we need to either use data from the previous day or interpolate between the day before and the day after. Something like the Excel average function that ignores missing data when calculating the average. That way you get a number even if it’s missing in two of the three days.

        • BarryW
          Posted Jul 28, 2009 at 8:02 PM | Permalink

          Re: DeWitt Payne (#232),

          I think we need to either use data from the previous day or interpolate between the day before and the day after. Something like the Excel average function that ignores missing data when calculating the average. That way you get a number even if it’s missing in two of the three days.

          That would at least get rid of some of the obvious dropped data.

          I don’t know if this would help any for viewing: hdfviewer

          I’ll see if I can come up with something to visualize the data. I won’t have access to the machine I normally work on so it might take awhile.

  110. Neven
    Posted Jul 28, 2009 at 4:57 AM | Permalink

    2009 had another relatively slow day, with 2005 creeping into third place and 2006 seemingly having given up and heading for the stalls.

    7/27/09 7173438 -70937
    7/26/08 7525000 -82969
    7/27/07 6594844 -93750
    7/27/06 7401250 -68594
    7/27/05 7386094 -111250

    2005 has a few good days coming up. Can it continue nibbling away at 2009’s 213K lead in the coming days? And what about 2008 when it starts putting on its final sprint in August?

    • DeWitt Payne
      Posted Jul 28, 2009 at 9:59 AM | Permalink

      Re: Neven (#220),

      2007 has some slow days coming up so the real question is whether 2009 will gain ground on 2007 in the next two weeks or lose ground to 2008, which started to seriously diverge from average in early August.

  111. Mark T
    Posted Jul 28, 2009 at 11:26 AM | Permalink

    Still an odd size delta, but kudos for rectifying the issue nonetheless.

    Mark

  112. DeWitt Payne
    Posted Jul 28, 2009 at 4:49 PM | Permalink

    that would be … so few pixels…

  113. Michael Jennings
    Posted Jul 29, 2009 at 5:45 AM | Permalink

    2009 has a rather slow day with a melt of (pre adjustment) of 68,000. I know 2008 has some slow days for the next few so the gap between the two will most likely stay stable.

  114. TruthB4Popularity
    Posted Jul 29, 2009 at 6:04 AM | Permalink

    Blimey!
    Now theres no ice in the arctic at all!

  115. Shawn Whelan
    Posted Jul 29, 2009 at 8:29 AM | Permalink

    Canadian Ice Service, a federal agency that uses observations from radar satellites that can see through clouds, along with reports from monitors in aircraft and on ships, to produce detailed reports.

    http://www.isprs.org/commission2/proceedings02/paper/064_143.pdf

  116. AndyW35
    Posted Jul 29, 2009 at 2:37 PM | Permalink

    Now we meet the crux, is 2009 going to turn the corner right and join 2005,2006 or is it going to try and keep up with late starter 2008 which had a very impressive August burst.

    I’m now tending towards it being greater than 2008 again. I am Mr Indecisive this year.

    Regards

    Andy

  117. DeWitt Payne
    Posted Jul 29, 2009 at 6:42 PM | Permalink

    There’s some good news for a change on the Arctic ice front. Arctic ice area is no longer dropping at 2007 rates. In fact, it’s almost exactly equal to the area on the same date last year. As a result of this, average ice concentration has increased and, because extent is lower than 2008, is slightly better than 2008 at this same time. If we can get through the first week in August without a repeat of last year’s debacle, things would actually be looking up. Recent minimum (smoothed) area and extent rates were set on 7/15/2009 for area at -0.128 Mm2/day and on 7/25/2008 for JAXA extent at -0.103 Mm2/day. It’s now late enough in the season that it’s a reasonable bet that those will be the minimums for the year. But, it being weather related, almost anything could still happen.

    I have been informed by Bill Chapman that Cryosphere Today is in the process of changing the averages they use to calculate anomalies from 1979-2000 to 1979-2008. This could happen any day. During CT’s recent server problems where the iPod touch/iPhone pages weren’t updated for about two weeks at a time on more than one occasion, they seem to have skipped forward a couple of days so they are now only 3 days behind instead of five. I discovered this when the Arctic average came up the same as last year two days earlier than I expected. Needless to say this caused me considerable grief as I had to compare plots of my data with the plots on the CT web site to figure out where to add the days and how much else I needed to adjust. I ended up adding one day in early April and the other in June and the area and anomaly plots overlay fairly well now.

  118. VG
    Posted Jul 29, 2009 at 6:43 PM | Permalink

    realitas, veritas

  119. Michael Jennings
    Posted Jul 30, 2009 at 6:10 AM | Permalink

    Another moderate melt day in the Arctic with (pre adjusted) figure of 7,035,313 km2 for a roughly 66,000 day melt. Will be interesting indeed Dewitt to see if the bottom drops out in Aug. like 2008 did in the first week. I am not feeling too confident in my 4.588 prediction at seasons end.

    • DeWitt Payne
      Posted Jul 30, 2009 at 10:02 AM | Permalink

      Re: Michael Jennings (#240),

      If it continues from here like 2007, you’re going to be way low. If it follows 2008 from here, you might be high. As Dennis pointed out, though, the Arctic Basin is looking a lot better than it did last year. There’s still a lot of low concentration ice on the Russian side.

      Well, the Northwest Passage I thought might open is looking pretty solid now. However there’s another area that’s starting to look a little weak. It might be clouds affecting the reading, but the Resolute image from Uni-Bremen shows another possible route has potential.

      Re: BarryW (#233),

      Hdfviewer does let you see a gray scale image, or you can invent your own color scale. If you already have a Java VM on your computer, the download without Java is a lot smaller. It looks like the hole is NaN so it isn’t counted in either extent or area. I’m still thinking that the discrepancy is caused by the pixel area not being exactly (6.25 km)^2. Now that I can, I’m going to look at the tables of pixel area for 6.25 km resolution and see what they look like.

      • Posted Jul 30, 2009 at 2:13 PM | Permalink

        Re: DeWitt Payne (#243),

        Well, the Northwest Passage I thought might open is looking pretty solid now. However there’s another area that’s starting to look a little weak. It might be clouds affecting the reading, but the Resolute image from Uni-Bremen shows another possible route has potential.

        The Berrimilla didn’t leave CB last year until 11th Aug and the opening through the passage didn’t open up until 13th so there’s plenty of time yet, especially with the hot weather in the vicinity:
        e.g. http://www.weatheroffice.gc.ca/city/pages/nu-24_metric_e.html

        • DeWitt Payne
          Posted Jul 30, 2009 at 2:28 PM | Permalink

          Re: Phil. (#247),

          A high of 13 C, toasty. Rain now and sun later in the week are not good for ice. OTOH, rain now means clouds and I’m not sure how well the algorithm deals with clouds. Some of the dark shadows in the Resolute visible color scale image look a lot like bands of clouds. We should get a better idea from the scans when the weather clears in a few days.

  120. Posted Jul 30, 2009 at 8:32 AM | Permalink

    Has anyone else noticed that the main arctic basin is far above where it was last year in terms of area?

    • Posted Jul 30, 2009 at 9:54 AM | Permalink

      Re: Dennis Wingo (#241),

      ‘Far’ is something of an exaggeration, however not surprisingly it isn’t as low as it was last year mainly because last year there was the exceptional breakup of the Beaufort icepack which extended into the central Arctic region. This has been made up for this year by the additional melt on the Asian side. The continuing loss of multiyear ice via the Fram, Nares Strait and Beaufort is cause for concern, after a slight detour the NP 36 has resumed its apparently inexorable journey towards the Fram at ~8km/day, hard to see it not be abandoned by mid Sept, likewise the N-pole weather station is about 1º ahead and looks like the ice is getting very thin.

  121. Neven
    Posted Jul 30, 2009 at 11:32 AM | Permalink

    Realitas, veritas, voluntas. Here are the final numbers for today:

    7/29/09 7036563 -65156
    7/28/08 7390781 -85157
    7/29/07 6479375 -48594
    7/29/06 7267656 -72344
    7/29/05 7212656 -94375

  122. DeWitt Payne
    Posted Jul 30, 2009 at 11:42 AM | Permalink

    BarryW,

    Ok. I found a file, psn06area_v5.dat, that lists the individual pixel areas as 32 bit binary (4 byte) integers in an array with the same dimensions as the HDF data files. Dividing the integer by 1000 gives the pixel area in km2. The pixel areas are definitely not all 39.0625 km2. I read out the first 500 and they start at about 25 km2 and gradually increase. So we need to use this data for the area rather than (6.25 km)^2.

    • Posted Jul 30, 2009 at 11:53 AM | Permalink

      Re: DeWitt Payne (#245),

      Which data are you working on now? I might be able to help with this because I’ve done a ton of reading on the various NSIDC datasets.

  123. DeWitt Payne
    Posted Jul 30, 2009 at 2:23 PM | Permalink

    The data are the asi-n6250 HDF files from Uni-Bremen. Right now I’m working on June, 2009 for comparison with Spreen and Kaleshke’s results posted on their Uni-Hamburg site. The R script BarryW wrote that I sent you will download the HDF files. To get the June, 2009 files enter download.bremen(savepath, 2009, “jun”. Warning, the download is slow, 18 KB/sec, and the files are 8 MB. You also need to modify the savepath (and resultspath) setting to put the files where you want them on your computer. The processing function is process.bremen(savepath, 2009, “jun”). That processes the whole month and overwrites any previous calculation. However, if you look at the script for processing, a constant pixel area is used. That needs to be replaced with the polar stereographic pixel area array psn06area_v2.dat with the characteristics in my #245 above. The hole is also being ignored at present and so is missing data. The missing data will definitely need to be fixed eventually, but I’d like to get to the point where I can get the correct results for good data first.

    • BarryW
      Posted Jul 31, 2009 at 11:41 AM | Permalink

      Re: DeWitt Payne (#248),

      I’m surprised that the hdf file isn’t uniform pixel area, good sleuthing. The land mask was one issue that was in the back of my mind, but, like the pixel area, I thought that that couldn’t be the reason for the difference.

      I’m stuck without access to the data right now so I can only kibitz.

  124. hengav
    Posted Jul 30, 2009 at 10:28 PM | Permalink

    Great image of the NWP frozen shut… ongoingly.

    Cheers

  125. Shawn Whelan
    Posted Jul 30, 2009 at 11:01 PM | Permalink

    Average July temps for Gjoa Haven.

    Temps high low average
    2008 13.2 4.9 9.06
    2009 11.1 3.4 7.2

    2009 is much cooler. Cooler like this all throught the NW Passage.

    Gjoa Haven 2008

    http://www.climate.weatheroffice.ec.gc.ca/climateData/dailydata_e.html?timeframe=2&Prov=NU&StationID=41943&Year=2008&Month=7&Day=29

    Gjoa Haven 2009

    http://www.climate.weatheroffice.ec.gc.ca/climateData/dailydata_e.html

  126. Jared
    Posted Jul 30, 2009 at 11:30 PM | Permalink

    2009 should be a lot closer to 2005 after today…

  127. VG
    Posted Jul 31, 2009 at 2:17 AM | Permalink

    Jared: I agree I think it will go 2005 way BTW have a look a this

    http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php

    click on EVERY YEAR SINCE 1959 (up to 2009) if you can detect ANY warming or ANY TREND please tell me. It seems that even NATURE (Journal) and APS are re-considering their AGW stance (see WUWT, NATURE letters and American Physical Society letters) less they lose the plot and its too late…

    • An Inquirer
      Posted Jul 31, 2009 at 9:33 AM | Permalink

      Re: VG (#253),
      VG,I have been looking at the dmi.dk graph for several weeks. One thing that strikes me is how variable the annual temperatures are in the winter, but how small the range is in mid-summer. Every year, the temperature hugs the average in mid-summer; even in extreme years like 1998 the red and green lines diverge little in July. I wonder . . . is that a function of the Kelvin scale? It does remind me an oft-repeated comment that global warming in the last 50 years seems to be a night-time phenomenon!

      • Posted Jul 31, 2009 at 9:54 AM | Permalink

        Re: An Inquirer (#258),

        Put ice in your drink and the temperature will stay fairly constant until all the ice has gone, put it in a freezer and it can go as cold as you like.

  128. Neven
    Posted Jul 31, 2009 at 4:35 AM | Permalink

    VG, be fair. You do not think it will go 2005 way, you WANT it to go 2005 way. I recognize you. You’re sitting opposite of me in the wishful thinking department. ;-)

  129. Michael Jennings
    Posted Jul 31, 2009 at 5:37 AM | Permalink

    A really s-l-o-w day of melt with today’s (pre-adjusted) figure being 6,999,531 km2 for a melt of only around 36,000. I still think we will have some big days ahead but the divergence with 2007 is growing greatly by the day and 2008 is in 2009 sights

  130. Shawn Whelan
    Posted Jul 31, 2009 at 8:13 AM | Permalink

    Average July temps for Gjoa Haven 2007 were almost 3 degrees higher than this year. And then August and September 2007 were unusually warm. I don’t expect that will happen this year.

    Temps high low average
    2007 14.7 5.5 10.1
    2009 11.1 3.4 7.2

    http://www.climate.weatheroffice.ec.gc.ca/climateData/dailydata_e.html

  131. DeWitt Payne
    Posted Jul 31, 2009 at 8:56 AM | Permalink

    And into each life a little rain must fall. Cryosphere Today Arctic area dropped 0.194 Mm2. This is the same order of magnitude but a couple of days sooner than the beginning of the precipitous drop in area in 2008. It looks like about half the drop happened in the East Siberian Sea. There’s a lot more ice in that area that looks like vulnerable.

    I’ve made some progress on the R front. I can now calculate area and extent using the true pixel area. Unfortunately, it has made the bias worse. I guess I’ll have to look at masking off the coastal area with an overlay. I’m also re-experiencing the wonderful pain in the ass of learning a new computer language, unforgiving syntax, incomprehensible reference manuals and all.

    • Nick Stokes
      Posted Jul 31, 2009 at 3:00 PM | Permalink

      Re: DeWitt Payne (#257), I’ve been learning R too. I like it (I used to use S many years ago, and I’m a fan of the underlying APL). I’ve found this intro helpful.

  132. Neven
    Posted Jul 31, 2009 at 12:44 PM | Permalink

    2009 is taking that last corner far too wide, offering 2005 and 2008 a chance to close in before the final stretch. They’re behind 118K (from a max of 252K just a few days ago) and 319K respectively.

    7/30/09 7005469 -31094
    7/29/08 7324219 -66562
    7/30/07 6428125 -51250
    7/30/06 7198594 -69062
    7/30/05 7123750 -88906

  133. DeWitt Payne
    Posted Jul 31, 2009 at 11:21 PM | Permalink

    There will probably be a small change in the extent for July 31, but it won’t affect the the running average enough to amount to anything so here’s the July 1-31 average for 2002-2009. The negative trend continues and is a little worse than the last time I posted.

    summer ytd
    2002 8830996
    2003 8848397
    2004 9011810
    2005 8321749
    2006 8086537
    2007 7665393
    2008 8394925
    2009 8264078

    OLS trend: -125,122 km2/day.

  134. Shawn Whelan
    Posted Aug 1, 2009 at 6:41 AM | Permalink

    CIS still shows lots of ice in Hudson Bay. This is good news since the polar bears are saved and bad news since Churchill is still blocked in with ice.

    The government built a huge grain terminal in Churchill in the belief that there would be no ice as a result of AGW. I don’t know where to find info if the freighters are actually making their way into Churchill.

    • DeWitt Payne
      Posted Aug 1, 2009 at 9:15 AM | Permalink

      Re: Shawn Whelan (#265),

      CIS and the satellite ice images use different map projections so a visual comparison of the images may lead to the incorrect conclusion that they’re showing different things. Uni-Bremen and Cryosphere Today images also show ice around Churchill. But the total area of ice in Hudson Bay compared to the maximum is still 100,000 km2 below the normal range for this time of year. It’s just all clustered in the southern part. I’d also be surprised if the wheat is anywhere close to being harvested so whether freighters can get to Churchill right now is something of a moot point.

      • Posted Aug 1, 2009 at 9:25 AM | Permalink

        Re: DeWitt Payne (#268),

        Last year the first exports of wheat out of Churchill were on 8th Aug if I recall correctly, as you say Churchill is usually open before there is product to export.

      • Shawn Whelan
        Posted Aug 1, 2009 at 1:41 PM | Permalink

        Re: DeWitt Payne (#268),

        They grow some of the grain over the Winter. We already harvested the Winter wheat around here. Anyhow they will have grain leftover from last year.

        Bremen is showing ice in Lake Superior and off the coast of PEI.
        The CIS doesn’t indicate any ice in Lake Superior or off the coast of PEI. Who do you suppose is correct?

  135. Michael Jennings
    Posted Aug 1, 2009 at 6:58 AM | Permalink

    Another rather non-descript day with a new ice figure of 6,958,125 km2 for a melt of approx. 47,000.

    • Posted Aug 1, 2009 at 8:53 AM | Permalink

      Re: Michael Jennings (#266),

      Corrected figure ended up at -50,000 for the day (6,955,469)

      Re: DeWitt Payne (#264),

      DeWitt, just a quick request, how about avoiding such subjective terms as ‘worse’, ‘better’ etc. in favor of less ambiguous terms?

      E.g. ‘The negative trend continues and has become stronger since the last time I posted.’

  136. TruthsMinionOngoingly
    Posted Aug 1, 2009 at 9:26 AM | Permalink

    I’ve been experiencing nefarious urges to tweak my handle. (dr evil laugh)

    Facinating stuff unfolding on the DMI SST/ SSTANOM charts. Looks like the “wide line around the current bend” might be more the horse stopping to empty its bladder over the rail and sneak in a quick and spicey blood transfusion for the finish sprint. Broad bands of 2-4C water right over the pole from alaska to the kara sea, nothing below 2c under the seaice . The mixmaster of 2 low and 3 high pressure systems in the arctic ocean for a few days seems to have vented a lot of meltwater and moved in the hot sauce to replace it. CT regional charts are showing some big plummets today. Eg/ 100000 sqkm drop in 24hr in east siberian sea. Beaufort, and Arctic basin taking decent falls now too.
    The nth end of hudson bay is all 8-14C water so I guess any freighters are not long to wait. Sarah Palin is now available to help cull excess polar bears.
    Wish that pole webcam would give us something less than 4days old. Evilly craving a view of toppled windmill.

    Artist formally known as TruthB4Popularity

  137. Shawn Whelan
    Posted Aug 1, 2009 at 9:00 PM | Permalink

    Ice pockets choking Northern Passage: officials

    http://www.windsorstar.com/technology/pockets+choking+Northern+Passage+officials/1853191/story.html

  138. Michael Jennings
    Posted Aug 2, 2009 at 5:59 AM | Permalink

    Another meh day melt of 45,000 for a new ice figure of 6,910,156 km2 (pre adjustment). I will be glad to have Flanagan back doing this because he does a much better and more complete job than I do reporting the numbers.

  139. DeWitt Payne
    Posted Aug 2, 2009 at 11:19 AM | Permalink

    To illustrate, I’ve put 7/31/2008 next to 8/1/2009 and drawn a route on the 8/1/2008 image that was almost ice free then. Look at the same route this year. There’s a good chance it won’t open at all and certainly not enough to risk passage in a small boat.

    • Posted Aug 2, 2009 at 12:13 PM | Permalink

      Re: DeWitt Payne (#277),

      The images are a bit misleading, it opened up for Berrimilla on 13th Aug so I think there’s plenty of time for it to open up yet. Sneaking along the lead a la Amundsen should get them past the patch of ice to the west.

  140. Shawn Whelan
    Posted Aug 2, 2009 at 12:07 PM | Permalink

    The Passage is full of ice.

    There is more than one sailboat in Tuk waiting for the ice to clear.

    http://www.aroundtheamericas.org/

    • DeWitt Payne
      Posted Aug 2, 2009 at 12:58 PM | Permalink

      Re: Shawn Whelan (#278),

      Everything that’s green on those images are not equal. You have to look at the letter code key to see the ice concentrations in the different areas. In your first image, K and L are 20%, F is 60% and C is 90% concentration, if I’m reading the code correctly. So if you the C patch degrades, one could probably thread one’s way through. Note that every graph uses a different code and I haven’t the faintest idea what the numbers in the bottom of the cartouche mean. At a guess, if you translated the letter code into the NIC false color format it probably wouldn’t look all that different from the satellite images.

      • Shawn Whelan
        Posted Aug 2, 2009 at 3:05 PM | Permalink

        Re: DeWitt Payne (#280),

        The big chunk in the middle is 9+ out of 10.

        I think the only way that is goes away is a strong East wind. Likely a West wind piled the ice up there.

        Many years the ice is mostly at maximum melt by the middle of August and after that there is little more reduction. That is what was very strange about 2007 was the length of the melt and the reduction in old ice.

  141. MrPete
    Posted Aug 2, 2009 at 1:38 PM | Permalink

    As a complete novice on this stuff…I was staring at the sea ice graph and noticed something interesting.

    Is the following of any potential significance, or is it just randomness?

    Date of minimum ice: 2005 and 2007 were quite late (late september), while 2008 was very early.

    Date of first serious melt-slowdown “knee” when ice stopped decreasing precipitously (avg daily melt rate decreased a LOT, maybe 30000/day less melt):
    – 2003, early August
    – 2004,5,6, late August
    – 2007,8 never really happened

    And now we have 2009: if we’re now seeing a “knee” at an almost record early date, and IF the minimum ice date is again early… could it be that we will see an unusually high minimum ice level?

    Or…is this all hogwash?

    • crosspatch
      Posted Aug 2, 2009 at 2:16 PM | Permalink

      Re: MrPete (#281),

      “Or…is this all hogwash”

      Too early to tell, really. We will just have to wait and see what it does. “Predicting” is fun but in the end it is what it is. Also people tend to call changes in ice concentrations as “melt” when that is only a part of what is going on. A storm can break up and scatter ice. Large areas of ponding melt water can be misleading, too. If you get a rather widespread rainstorm that leaves considerable ponding, it can cause problems in trying to determine exactly what is ice and what is not. In years like last year where you see the ice increase very rapidly you might be seeing an instance of ponds freezing over rapidly changing what people might consider to be refreezing of the ice cap when it is simply the ponds freezing over on top of ice that never really melted anyway. Some of the ponds are melt, but many are rain water. There was an obvious rain event in early July at the “pole” cam site (which hasn’t updated since July 29) that left some ponding. In the last couple of updates from the cam, it appeared to me that those ponds were starting to freeze over.

      On one hand you hear researchers saying the ice is thinner but on the other hand real world actual reports are saying that ice has been thicker than seen recently or expected. I have a hunch (pure speculation) that much of the recent reduction in ice has been due to misinterpretation of melt/rain surface ponds as open water and that is the reason we have been seeing such rapid “refreeze” rates. 2007 and 2008 both saw “record low” ice amounts rebound to about the average of the past 5 years within 60 days of reaching minimum. Maybe “improvements” in measurement technology makes it more difficult to tell open water from surface lakes.

      • DeWitt Payne
        Posted Aug 2, 2009 at 2:37 PM | Permalink

        Re: crosspatch (#282),

        Minimum concentration has been much lower than average the last two years. Whether it’s surface water on top of ice or actual scattered chunks of ice with open water between, it’s going to freeze faster when it gets cold than completely open water. I think. Maybe.

    • DeWitt Payne
      Posted Aug 2, 2009 at 2:33 PM | Permalink

      Re: MrPete (#281),

      If you go back to one of last year’s ice threads, bender made the comment that predicting sea ice behavior was an exercise in futility. I didn’t entirely agree at the time. I’m in complete sympathy now. It’s climate modelling writ only slightly smaller. There are just too many things we can’t know. It’s like the stock market, after the fact, there will be lots of people with explanations of why, but reliably predicting in advance which of the many influences will dominate doesn’t happen. We could still see record lows in either area or extent or either of them could be significantly greater than 2008. I would say it’s a fairly safe bet that minimum extent will be lower than 2003. I won’t go beyond that.

    • Shawn Whelan
      Posted Aug 2, 2009 at 3:16 PM | Permalink

      Re: MrPete (#281),
      Your right that the melt continued well into September in 2007 and 2008 and stopped much earlier in previous years. We shall soon see if that will reoccur this year.

      July is the coldest month in the Arctic and soon you will see a decided drop in temps if it doesn’t follow the 2007 model.

      Alert was down to zero Celcius last night, although that can change in a flas. The prediction is for below average temps in the NW Passage by the end of the week.

      Not much time left.

      • crosspatch
        Posted Aug 2, 2009 at 4:03 PM | Permalink

        Re: Shawn Whelan (#286),

        “The prediction is for below average temps in the NW Passage by the end of the week. ”

        Surface air temps aren’t going to make much difference at this point. If the temp gets below -3C you might see a little surface skim ice but most of the ice is being melted from below by the water, not by the air. What is going to make the difference at this stage is wind direction and strength. A storm could break up a lot of ice and scatter it quite a distance.

  142. Shawn Whelan
    Posted Aug 2, 2009 at 3:23 PM | Permalink

    Uni-Bremen showing the Southern Route of the NW Passage.

  143. crosspatch
    Posted Aug 2, 2009 at 4:27 PM | Permalink

    Try this experiment: Take a block of ice and throw it into your bathtub full of water. Time how long it takes to melt. Take a second block and crush it, toss that in a bathtub of water of the same temperature and see how long that takes to melt. It isn’t the air temperature that makes the difference, it is how much the ice is broken up by weather than makes the most difference. Which would you want to take a ship through … the crushed ice or the solid block?

    If you reduced the air temperature in the bathroom by 20 degrees, it wouldn’t change the melting time of the ice much. The water temp is the major factor.

    • DeWitt Payne
      Posted Aug 2, 2009 at 5:44 PM | Permalink

      Re: crosspatch (#289),

      Sunlight will make a difference too. If you have low concentration ice, there’s plenty of water around to absorb energy from the sun. Unbroken ice, in the absence of soot, reflects most of the energy. Melt pools on top of the ice can absorb the near IR portion of sunlight. Heat transfer by conduction and convection from air is pretty slow. But if it’s warm enough to melt the surface layer and sunny, well…

    • Shawn Whelan
      Posted Aug 2, 2009 at 6:13 PM | Permalink

      Re: crosspatch (#289),
      So if it was -10 C in you bathroom how fast do you think the ice will melt?

      True enough at this point only a storm or big wind or an icebreaker is going to open up the NW Passage, unless they have an extended warm period.

      Henry Larsen said the wind was what broke the ice and released the boat. He determined this after many years observation while living in the NW Passage.

      • crosspatch
        Posted Aug 2, 2009 at 8:42 PM | Permalink

        Re: Shawn Whelan (#291),

        “So if it was -10 C in you bathroom how fast do you think the ice will melt?”

        Not much slower than it would with the temp at +10C if the water is the same temperature.

        A little skim ice on the surface is not enough to stop shipping. What stops shipping is ice that is much thicker. That isn’t going to happen with a few days of -10C temperatures. Nor will a few days of +10C make much difference with thicker ice. The ice is being melted by the water, not by the air. The ice begins to thin long before the air temperature even reaches the freezing point. Say you have a temp of -60C at the surface. That might be cold enough to maintain a freezing temperature through 10 meters of ice. Now say it warms to -30C. Now you might be able to maintain a freezing temperature to a lesser depth and the ice begins to melt from the bottom up. If you were able to hold it to -5C for long enough, you might have ice on the surface but it wouldn’t be very thick. A storm could come along and tear up a lot of it and blow it around.

        A few degrees of air temperature isn’t going to matter much at this time of year. Water temperature is key as is sunlight as DeWitt Payne mentioned. Sunlight penetrates into the ice and refraction from water droplets and ice crystals can make it very intense at various points. You can get melt pockets inside the ice. That is one of mechanisms that works the salt out of the ice over a sunny summer.

        If you have cloudy summer with little wind and few storms, you will maintain the ice cover. If you have a stormy summer and have a lot of sunny days and strong winds, it would probably be possible to wipe out the entire ice cover with cooler overall temperatures than in the cloudy, calm summer. The ice doesn’t melt from the air temperature. It melts from the water temperature with help from the wind breaking up the sheets into smaller chunks and scattering the ice.

        So … anyone have today’s race results?

        • Shawn Whelan
          Posted Aug 3, 2009 at 6:42 AM | Permalink

          Re: crosspatch (#293),
          This isn’t the Carribean.
          The SST’s are very cool.
          And yes there are many factors are involved and I guarantee you that the temperature is one of them. Otherwise we wouldn’t have all that ice form in the Winter after the Arctic temps cool.

          The Arctic Sea Surface Temps.

        • Posted Aug 3, 2009 at 7:40 AM | Permalink

          Re: Shawn Whelan (#298),

          Arctic SST looks rather warm here:
          SST

        • Robert
          Posted Aug 3, 2009 at 9:57 AM | Permalink

          Re: Phil. (#299),
          I think the impact of Arctic SST relates to the baseline. It might still be higher than the baseline but not sufficiently high to, of itself, trigger a record melt. It needs help from favorable winds.

  144. TruthsMinionOngoingly
    Posted Aug 2, 2009 at 8:35 PM | Permalink

    2007 and 2008 both saw “record low” ice amounts rebound to about the average of the past 5 years within 60 days of reaching minimum.

    you sure about that crosspatch? My recollection is of amazement at how in 2007 the anomaly was more than 3million sq km below average on CT charts 2 mths after minimum ice. As we are seeing increasing gulfstream flow into the arctic basin, I’d expect extended melt seasons and delayed onset of freezing. Of course open water loses heat a lot better than ice laced water once the sun goes down. So freeze rates can be rapid once it gets dim and freezeup underway. Those headlines about record refreeze rates are rather misleading. Beware the intent or media naivity with those.
    The increase in temp and salinity of the top 200m of the arctic ocean is noticable on buoy data, studies etc also. These both promoting melt and extending meltseason.

  145. DeWitt Payne
    Posted Aug 2, 2009 at 9:39 PM | Permalink

    2009 made up a large chunk on 2008, ~50,000km2.

    date extent(km2) difference EWMA smoothed rate
    8/2/2002 7370821 -81367 -84555
    8/2/2003 7531250 -85781 -75735
    8/1/2004 7859688 -62812 -72417
    8/2/2005 6910156 -42813 -84661
    8/2/2006 7038750 -55156 -61966
    8/2/2007 6217500 -106563 -81175
    8/1/2008 7100938 -102656 -79288
    8/2/2009 6862969 -47812 -75243

    2008 is going to lose extent at about 100,000 km2/day for the next week or so. Take that for what you will. Jeff Id at The Air Vent has an interesting post about ice movement.

    • Posted Aug 2, 2009 at 10:05 PM | Permalink

      Re: DeWitt Payne (#294),

      The data for NP36 can be found here:
      NP-36
      I asked the Georg Heygster at UC Bremen to put it up on their site after NP-35 (which they’d had on their site because of a German participant) and he very graciously agreed to do so.

  146. VG
    Posted Aug 2, 2009 at 11:43 PM | Permalink

    Oh-OH looks like my mental forcing the graph to 2005 is working.. at last, hahaha

    http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php

    so much for magic….

  147. Michael Jennings
    Posted Aug 3, 2009 at 5:46 AM | Permalink

    I am very surprised, quite frankly, how slow the melt has become especially in light of previous years at this time. I still think we will have some large melt days left and am puzzled why we are falling behind most prior years rate. Perhaps it is saving up for a massive melt week or maybe the figures will be adjusted at some point to correct for an error that is not obvious at this time. As the saying goes though, it is not over until the fat lady sings (no offense to any fat ladies);-)

  148. VG
    Posted Aug 3, 2009 at 8:18 AM | Permalink

    It seems to be the wind that matters most… even NASA admits it now.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/08/03/update-on-arctic-sea-ice-melt-ice-pockets-choking-northern-passage/

  149. Neven
    Posted Aug 3, 2009 at 9:13 AM | Permalink

    Difference between 2005 and 2009 is now a mere 37K and 2008 is catching up fast too. The difference with 2009 is 228K (from 374K less than a week ago), with some heavy melting coming up.

    The only unsurprising thing about the Arctic sea ice in 2009 seems to be that it’s full of surprises. I was waiting for the WUWT article, as they always do when things take a turn their way. I just hope for their sake 2009 doesn’t decide to make another flip (not that it matters to them, as they won’t report it when it happens). :-)

  150. Rob Spooner
    Posted Aug 3, 2009 at 11:06 AM | Permalink

    I watch http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm because it has multi-year data in a form I can put into a spreadsheet and mess with. Among other things, I track a rolling seven-days-of-melt. 2009 had been melting much more than average, and is now melting less. The last two years had anomalously late and strong melts, but ordinarily the melt rate starts to lose momentum as August proceeds. I suspect that 2009 will be more a typical year and the minimum extent will be higher than 2008 by a significant amount.

  151. Michael Jennings
    Posted Aug 3, 2009 at 12:08 PM | Permalink

    Adjusted figure for 08/02 is 6,873,438 km2 which give the date a paltry ~ 37,000 melt day

  152. Posted Aug 3, 2009 at 4:00 PM | Permalink

    It’s not surprising that the melt rates have markedly slowed over the last week. All basins that are only seasonally covered in ice (e.g. Hudson Bay) have melted out and for the most part thicker (survivable) first year ice and multi-year ice is all that remain, confined in the Arctic basin.

    One item of concern is the large scale changes coming this week in the global planetary wave pattern, which have been relatively stable for a little over 2 months now. In the Arctic, a pattern favorable for transporting ice from the Arctic basin into the Greenland Sea should take hold next week in sharp contrast to what has been the pattern for most of the summer.

  153. DeWitt Payne
    Posted Aug 3, 2009 at 9:55 PM | Permalink

    Yet another slow day and a big gain on 2008, in fact a gain on every year except 2005:

    8/3/2003 7458594 -72656 -76739
    8/2/2004 7755313 -104375 -71457
    8/3/2005 6866719 -43437 -80476
    8/3/2006 6967188 -71562 -61285
    8/3/2007 6109844 -107656 -83823
    8/2/2008 6996094 -104844 -81844
    8/3/2009 6823750 -49688 -71745

    One day closer to the minimum.

  154. Staffan Lindstroem
    Posted Aug 3, 2009 at 11:24 PM | Permalink

    #307 Tom Woods, zero confidence in EC icecharts and some other sources about Hudson Bay…??? Remember that as late as 2004 there
    was still some ice 2nd week of September …[record!!]there.

    • DeWitt Payne
      Posted Aug 4, 2009 at 9:22 AM | Permalink

      Re: Staffan Lindstroem (#309),

      Cryosphere Today and Uni-Bremen images both show ice remaining in Hudson Bay. There’s not much, but what’s there is high concentration.

      Re: Michael Jennings (#310),

      JAXA extent and Cryosphere Today area remain below 2008 levels. The sharp drop in area observed in 2008 will probably allow 2009 to almost catch up to 2008 for area tomorrow. 2009 area could exceed 2008 only if the loss rate continues to remain close to the average for this time of year. Extent needs a few more days of below average loss to catch 2008.

  155. Michael Jennings
    Posted Aug 4, 2009 at 5:54 AM | Permalink

    Hmmm, I am starting to wonder whether 2009 will end up higher than 2008 in the end. Still think it will be less but am not as certain as I was.

  156. VG
    Posted Aug 4, 2009 at 9:28 AM | Permalink

    melt = 2012< 2011<2010<2009<2008<2007 etc back to average 2016. Then might go other way? magical predictions

  157. Posted Aug 4, 2009 at 10:48 AM | Permalink

    I’ve done a video of the Arctic sea ice centroid which people might find interesting. The point was to see if weather patterns could be detected by the position of the ice sheet.

    http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/08/04/arctic-ice-weather-patterns/

  158. Staffan Lindstroem
    Posted Aug 4, 2009 at 5:05 PM | Permalink

    #314 …Jeff Id…and after the ice…”Arctic Monkeys”…We know
    who they are!?…The lesson of low arctic ice levels for some weeks
    is that not much happens with global climate, instead of ice in the
    Arctic we get clouds further south…One of the reasons of intensive
    heatwaves in S and central Europe the last 7-8 years could be that
    Sahara is greening in its southern parts, moving heat northwards Some of this heat warms the N Atlantic etc…But in the somewhat longer run smaller deserts will cool the planet somewhat or?

    • An Inquirer
      Posted Aug 4, 2009 at 9:37 PM | Permalink

      Re: Staffan Lindstroem (#315),
      I am sorry, Stefan, I am not following you. Yes, I understand that the Sahara is getting smaller, but why would “greening in [Sahara] southern parts[move]heat northwards?”

  159. DeWitt Payne
    Posted Aug 4, 2009 at 9:54 PM | Permalink

    Another day closer to the minimum:

    date extent(km2) difference EWMA rate(km2/day)
    8/4/2002 7208087 -81367 -83949
    8/4/2003 7350313 -108281 -76331
    8/3/2004 7693750 -61563 -74749
    8/4/2005 6776719 -90000 -76772
    8/4/2006 6879375 -87813 -62313
    8/4/2007 6001250 -108594 -86300
    8/3/2008 6909063 -87031 -82363
    8/4/2009 6772188 -53750 -69749

  160. Staffan Lindstroem
    Posted Aug 5, 2009 at 3:50 AM | Permalink

    #316 An Inquirer … Try Google “highest temperatures just before
    monsoon”…BTW my first name is Staffan as in “STAFFordshire, NOT
    Stefan as in the
    the once popular village “STEFANrahmsdorf” LOL…(sorry, trouble in
    the keyboard…)

    • An Inquirer
      Posted Aug 5, 2009 at 9:22 AM | Permalink

      Re: Staffan Lindstroem (#318), Sorry, Staffan. I did the google as requested and confirmed that there is a lot about monsoons that I do not know, but I did not see an answer to the question of why the greening in southern Sahara cause heat waves in Europe and higher Northern Atlantic temperatures.

  161. Flanagan
    Posted Aug 5, 2009 at 1:54 PM | Permalink

    Hi there! Back from vacation! Looks like Arctic also had some holidays… Very slow melting these days.

    But things seem to accelerate again. There is a lot of low-concentration areas in Beaufort/East Siberian seas and winds are changing close to Greenland. The next two weeks will be primordial.

  162. Shawn Whelan
    Posted Aug 5, 2009 at 9:30 PM | Permalink

    Will the melt continue into September like in 2007 and 2008 or is the end of the melt in August this year?

    Looks like the minimum will be in the August and we won’t see the extended melt of the last two years.

  163. Flanagan
    Posted Aug 6, 2009 at 12:35 AM | Permalink

    Here are today’s figures. The usual stuff (with preliminary figures). We have the date, extent and then the daily, weekly and monthly meting rates.

    8/5/2009 6688750 -81719 -49687.57 -81015.63
    8/4/2008 6841563 -67500 -78459.71 -79822.9
    8/5/2007 5890469 -110781 -84129.43 -90687.5
    8/5/2006 6795000 -84375 -67522.29 -62718.77
    8/5/2005 6678438 -98281 -76316.86 -81046.87
    8/4/2004 7620938 -72812 -73013.29 -69958.33
    8/5/2003 7280156 -70157 -80513.43 -77619.8

    The “battle” with 2005 continues, 2009 being third extent again after having been second for a while. Today was an average day in terms of melting, but seems to confirm 2009 is accelerating again after a long pause. 2009 even had the slowest weekly melting rate of the last 6 years!

    Shawn: in the last 6 years (at least) the minimum was in September, so I’m not sure there’s a good probability the ice will bottom in August. By the way, the extent is now already below the 79-2000 average minimum. So we can already say it’s another year below average. We only need to see how far it will go!

    • BarryW
      Posted Aug 6, 2009 at 7:26 AM | Permalink

      Re: Flanagan (#322),

      So we can already say it’s another year below average. We only need to see how far it will go!

      In three days 2008 ties with 2005 and then falls below it, while right now 2008 is on the average. In two weeks 2005 will be about on the average, so I don’t think you can make any inferences from what’s going on right now. Two weeks ago it looked like 2009 was taking a nose dive after tracking 2005 for some time, now it’s back to the 2005 numbers.

  164. Michael Jennings
    Posted Aug 6, 2009 at 6:27 AM | Permalink

    I would not be at all surprised if the next 3-4 days melt is at or over the 100,000 per day mark.

    • Steve McIntyre
      Posted Aug 6, 2009 at 9:53 PM | Permalink

      Re: Michael Jennings (#323),

      A slow day. Tomorrow is a very big 2008 day and it looks like 2008 will pass 2009 tomorrow.

      month day year ice date julian mm dd diff
      67 8 6 2002 7.045351 2002-08-06 11905 200208 218 -0.08136717
      432 8 6 2003 7.221250 2003-08-06 12270 200308 218 -0.05890600
      797 8 5 2004 7.513125 2004-08-05 12635 200408 218 -0.10781300
      1163 8 6 2005 6.610469 2005-08-06 13001 200508 218 -0.06796900
      1528 8 6 2006 6.742500 2006-08-06 13366 200608 218 -0.05250000
      1893 8 6 2007 5.815156 2007-08-06 13731 200708 218 -0.07531300
      2258 8 5 2008 6.724844 2008-08-05 14096 200808 218 -0.11671900
      2624 8 6 2009 6.645000 2009-08-06 14462 200908 218 -0.04578100

      • Michael Jennings
        Posted Aug 7, 2009 at 5:54 AM | Permalink

        Re: Steve McIntyre (#332),
        Steve, I bet you won’t call me to pick the lottery numbers for you!(not if you expect to win that is) :) My predictions have been uniformly bad on this thread.

    • Jared
      Posted Aug 6, 2009 at 10:42 PM | Permalink

      Re: Michael Jennings (#323),

      One swing, and one big miss.

  165. Flanagan
    Posted Aug 6, 2009 at 7:45 AM | Permalink

    Barry: the average September sea ice minimum is about 6.7 million km2. What I meant to say is that 2009 is already lower than the average sea ice minimum!

    • Shawn Whelan
      Posted Aug 6, 2009 at 9:57 AM | Permalink

      Re: Flanagan (#325),
      Are you including the Ice Ages in that average?

    • BarryW
      Posted Aug 6, 2009 at 3:35 PM | Permalink

      Re: Flanagan (#325),

      Which average? My data from JAXA says the minimum for 2003-8 is about 5.4 or thereabouts. Even 2003 is only slightly over 6 at the minimum. 2005 was almost right on the average minimum.

      • Neven
        Posted Aug 7, 2009 at 12:01 AM | Permalink

        Re: BarryW (#330),
        Oh, I always use 2007 as an average. So far every year has been way above the average. :-D

  166. Shawn Whelan
    Posted Aug 6, 2009 at 9:37 AM | Permalink

    Flanagan;

    Well if you look at most years by mid August the melt largely stops.
    The days are rapidly shortening and the Arctic will soon start to cool since the warmest part of Summer is ending.

    Freaky cold in Sachs Harbour.
    One of the sailboats that is up in the Arctic was headed for Sachs Harbour to prove AGW and highlight it.

    http://www.weatheroffice.gc.ca/city/pages/nt-19_metric_e.html

    http://www.openpassageexpedition.com/

  167. Shawn Whelan
    Posted Aug 6, 2009 at 10:53 AM | Permalink

    Compare Uni-Bremen data to CIS.
    Obviously Uni-Bremen is very innacurate.

    So Churchill is still blocked in by ice and Uni-Bremen has shown it ice free for weeks. The satellite is very innacurate.
    Yesterdays 30 day Canadian ice forcast says:

    http://ice-glaces.ec.gc.ca/prods/FECN15G/20090805000000_FECN15G_0004503882.pdf

    Since ice still lingers near Churchill, neither of the following events has occurred yet: an open water route across Northern Hudson Bay and the open water route into Churchill; both these events were forecast to occur during the last 10 days of July, but have been affected by the delayed breakup in southwestern Hudson Bay.

    • Posted Aug 6, 2009 at 6:21 PM | Permalink

      Re: Shawn Whelan (#328),

      Yesterdays 30 day Canadian ice forcast says:

      http://ice-glaces.ec.gc.ca/prods/FECN15G/20090805000000_FECN15G_0004503882.pdf

      Since ice still lingers near Churchill, neither of the following events has occurred yet: an open water route across Northern Hudson Bay and the open water route into Churchill; both these events were forecast to occur during the last 10 days of July, but have been affected by the delayed breakup in southwestern Hudson Bay.

      This is crap frankly, whoever wrote it should be fired: how the hell does the delayed breakup in the SW Hudson affect the open water route across N Hudson Bay? Note that their own charts show a clear route across the N Hudson Bay! More later.

  168. Posted Aug 6, 2009 at 12:46 PM | Permalink

    Based on this chart, 2009 has already surpassed 2008, keeping rather bold tendency – http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php

  169. crosspatch
    Posted Aug 6, 2009 at 11:52 PM | Permalink

    Port of Churchill is still not open to shipping regardless of whose ice forecast is correct. Last information I can find is that it is scheduled to open next week.

  170. vg
    Posted Aug 7, 2009 at 2:21 AM | Permalink

    there seems to be a sharp decline in melt = 2005

    http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php

  171. Manfred
    Posted Aug 7, 2009 at 3:20 AM | Permalink

    Neven: 12:01 am
    “Oh, I always use 2007 as an average. So far every year has been way above the average”

    I would agree that this is the most important reference,

    because of the little amount of multiyear ice leftover after 2007
    and the presumed postive arctic feedbacks.

    The 1979-2000 average excludes the recent history, though, according to NASA and a source from Hadley, this episode was dominated mainly by natural factors, wind and ocean currents. This reasoning is also supported by temperature data that now shows the 7th year in a row with below average temperatures in the melt season.

    http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php

  172. Flanagan
    Posted Aug 7, 2009 at 4:21 AM | Permalink

    Barry: it’s the 79-2000 average of course. If you compare only with the last 6 years, which were more or less all new records, of course things are not very impressive.

    • Shawn Whelan
      Posted Aug 7, 2009 at 5:47 AM | Permalink

      Re: Flanagan (#338),
      It seems quite dishonest to pick a relatively cold spell like 79-2000 and use that as the average for the entire history of the Earth. The Earth has been more commonly covered by huge sheets of ice in recent Earth history. We should enjoy this interglacial spell.

  173. Carlo
    Posted Aug 7, 2009 at 8:19 AM | Permalink

    AUGUST 5, 2009

    Fiona arrived Resolute on 4 Aug, position 74 41N, 94 53W.
    The ice in the south part of the NW Passage is still very thick and the local experts are not sure if, or when, it might break up.
    We will wait here for a week or so for developments.
    Russ is signing off in early Sept, of couse I am not yet sure where, depends on the Passage opening or not.
    But I will need a replacement crew. Anyone interested in details please contact Eric via email.

    http://www.yachtfiona.com/fnn.htm

  174. Carlo
    Posted Aug 7, 2009 at 8:25 AM | Permalink

    Northwest Passage 2009 Race
    By
    Blake August
    Northwest Passage Dreamer

    http://trawlercrawler.net/viewtopic.php?f=33&t=103

  175. Shawn Whelan
    Posted Aug 7, 2009 at 12:17 PM | Permalink

    All those boats believed that the Arctic had turned into the Carribean. They will be very lucky to make it through this year, and that just ruins an AGW propoganda vacation. More ice in the Passage in 2009 than in 1819. Some global warming.

    Likely not a peep about this in the MSM.

  176. Neven
    Posted Aug 7, 2009 at 12:40 PM | Permalink

    Shawn, don’t be so paranoid. Many of the people on those boats could be there for the kick. I know plenty of people in the sailing world who’d just love to go on an adventure and try to sail the NW passage, especially given the fact it was open in 2008 and 2009.

    And the MSM is propaganda crap, whether AGW is true or not.

    • Shawn Whelan
      Posted Aug 7, 2009 at 2:24 PM | Permalink

      Re: Neven (#344),
      The Passage has been open many times in history. snip The first ship went to Cambridge Bay in the early 1850’s. Doesn’t look like these boats will make it that far after a 150 plus years of AGW.

      The goal of this carbon-neutral voyage through the Northwest
      Passage is to use written word, video and photos to tell the story of how climate change is affecting Arctic communities

      http://www.openpassageexpedition.com/

      http://www.aroundtheamericas.org/portal/Education

      How come nobody is kayaking to the North Pole this year?

      Steve: PLEASE stop this sort of angry language.

      • Posted Aug 7, 2009 at 4:30 PM | Permalink

        Re: Shawn Whelan (#346),

        Bear in mind that Shawn has a rather different definition of ‘many’ and ‘open’ wrt the NW Passage than most people.

        The Passage has been open many times in history. The propoganda spewed by these sailors and the MSM tries to twists things as if this the first time in history a boat could sail through the passage. The first ship went to Cambridge Bay in the early 1850’s. Doesn’t look like these boats will make it that far after a 150 plus years of AGW.

        I should think they’ll both make Cambridge Bay in a couple of weeks and Gjoa Havn too, then they just need a bit of luck going north.

  177. Neven
    Posted Aug 7, 2009 at 12:49 PM | Permalink

    Sorry, I meant 2007 and 2008. :-)

  178. Earle Williams
    Posted Aug 7, 2009 at 2:28 PM | Permalink

    Shawn et al,

    Steve has created a new Sea Ice page. You may wish to continue your discussions there…

    Sea Ice – August 2009

  179. romanm
    Posted Aug 7, 2009 at 4:40 PM | Permalink

    Earle’s idea is a good one. Please continue these discussions at the Sea Ice – August 2009 thread.

  180. AndyW35
    Posted Jul 15, 2009 at 9:49 AM | Permalink

    Re: 2009 Nursing Board Exam Result (#96),

    Roughly April to September you could say.

    Regards

    Andy

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,329 other followers

%d bloggers like this: