Arctic Ice 2009

[Methuselah]

Ice core data is not an accurate assessment of past temperatures. And running computer models backwards, with flawed data, will only give you flawed results!

So, IYO, what is accurate?

[weather eater]

Ice core data is not an accurate assessment of past temperatures. And running computer models backwards, with flawed data, will only give you flawed results!

Well that scuppers most of what we know about natural cycles as well if we can't correlate with ice cores and the like, then everything we know about past climate must be suspect.

Edited September 5, 2009 by weather eater

[J10]

Midweek update, it is true that we have yet to see a daily rise, but the trend is still for small falls at the moment, of around 30,000sqkm per day.

The current ice extent is 5,423,750 around 111,000 below 2003-09 average, we are 225,000 below 2005, but 465,000 above 2008 and 810,000 above 2007.

Between 2005 and 2008 seems increasingly likely, can we stay above 5,000,000sq km?

Latest update spreadsheet attached, after this was missed off for Sunday. :o

Figures only available up to 3rd sept and this shows a 18,437 drop to 5,379,844sqkm.

Still on course to finish between 2003 and 2008, probably around 5.15m to 5.20m

[Solar Cycles]

So, IYO, what is accurate?

Besides having a tardis, not much Pete. Ice cores only give you a rough estimate of past temperatures. So one can only estimate!

[stewfox]

Figures only available up to 3rd sept and this shows a 18,437 drop to 5,379,844sqkm.

Still on course to finish between 2003 and 2008, probably around 5.15m to 5.20m

Surprised now its the 6th , there is still no update.

A wild rounded guess I would put it at 5,216,584sqkm by 14th Sept then a slow increase.

[Methuselah]

Besides having a tardis, not much Pete. Ice cores only give you a rough estimate of past temperatures. So one can only estimate!

I was going to mention a Tardis in my original reply, SC...

[Nick L]

Is this the first rise?

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

It's minute, and it's dropped again since, but it looks like the first rise to me.

[SteveB]

Is this the first rise?

http://www.ijis.iarc...aice_extent.htm

It's minute, and it's dropped again since, but it looks like the first rise to me.

It looks at the very least levelling out. Hopefully we can get any early & steep increase.

[osmposm]

Is this the first rise?

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

It's minute, and it's dropped again since, but it looks like the first rise to me.

You're quite right, Nick. If you scroll down that page and click on 'Data Download' you can see the actual figures. Between 3rd-4th Sept there was a small, temporary increase of just over 8,000 sq km.

I'd guess that the delay in showing the figures (and graph) after the 3rd September related to this unexpected (and brief) reversal while the general pattern is still downwards - they would have been checking everything before releasing it. You can see why from the daily changes in the last week:

Aug 30 - Aug 31: Decrease -40,468 sq km

Aug 31 - Sep 01: Decrease -23,438 sq km

Sep 01 - Sep 02: Decrease -25,469 sq km

Sep 02 - Sep 03: Decrease -18,437 sq km

Sep 03 - Sep 04: Increase +8,125 sq km

Sep 04 - Sep 05: Decrease -24,531 sq km

Sep 05 - Sep 06: Decrease -14,375 sq km

Current figure (to the 6th) is given as 5,349,063 sq km

I don't know enough about the way they measure and calculate the figures to judge, but that rise does look just a tad anomalous.

The NSIDC graph is not showing it yet, but it looks like they may have stopped at the 3rd, too, to investigate further: http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png

Edited September 7, 2009 by osmposm

[Nick L]

You're quite right, Nick. If you scroll down that page and click on 'Data Download' you can see the actual figures. Between 3rd-4th Sept there was a small, temporary increase of just over 8,000 sq km.

I'd guess that the delay in showing the figures (and graph) after the 3rd September related to this unexpected (and brief) reversal while the general pattern is still downwards - they would have been checking everything before releasing it. You can see why from the daily changes in the last week:

Aug 30 - Aug 31: Decrease -40,468 sq km

Aug 31 - Sep 01: Decrease -23,438 sq km

Sep 01 - Sep 02: Decrease -25,469 sq km

Sep 02 - Sep 03: Decrease -18,437 sq km

Sep 03 - Sep 04: Increase +8,125 sq km

Sep 04 - Sep 05: Decrease -24,531 sq km

Sep 05 - Sep 06: Decrease -14,375 sq km

I don't know enough about the way they measure and calculate the figures to judge, but it does look just a tad anomalous.

So there is! Never actually noticed that!

[Mr Maunder]

I'd guess that the delay in showing the figures (and graph) after the 3rd September related to this unexpected (and brief) reversal while the general pattern is still downwards - they would have been checking everything before releasing it.

I'm lead to believe it was nothing other than routine "weekend" system maintenance which resulted in many items being unavailable or not updated.

At this time of year it is quite normal for numbers to up one day and down the next.

IJIS check their numbers rigorously every day. A "provisional" number is released first and then a "confirmed" number is released later - I think about 16.00 UK time. There can be noticeable differences between the two.

MM

[J10]

I'm lead to believe it was nothing other than routine "weekend" system maintenance which resulted in many items being unavailable or not updated.

At this time of year it is quite normal for numbers to up one day and down the next.

IJIS check their numbers rigorously every day. A "provisional" number is released first and then a "confirmed" number is released later - I think about 16.00 UK time. There can be noticeable differences between the two.

MM

Indeed quite often I have released figures, only for them to change later

What is surprising me at the moment, is the consistent level of the falls, around the 20,000 mostly with the odd 40,000 over the past week.

On top of the 2005 figure above other figures of note are 5,312,656 (the 2003-08 average), 5,254,531 which would be 1m above 2007 and 5,207,813 which would be 500k above last year.

Given the rate of loss ranges from 95k (2004) to 363k (2007) with an average loss of 235k From 2nd Sept to minimum ice extent, then a figure of 5.15-5.20m is most likely but hopefully the ice will remain above the markers laid out.

Next update on Sunday, hopefully the first rise will happen before then.

Although 5.15m to 5.20m is the most likely, hopefully we can keep above one or two of the figures above.

[Thundery wintry showers]

GFS outputs consistently show a spread of the cold pooling at high latitudes around midweek next week, spreading nicely into the Eurasian/Siberian sector, so I am hopeful that the ice extent decline may stall, or even reverse, over the coming week.

As always very good stats provided free of bias which is good to see.

[Gray-Wolf]

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/index.html

Aug's review is out and it would appear that we have now dropped below the 05' min putting this years min at the third lowest ever recorded.They also note that during Aug the pack was spread out by the winds up there and so made the 'loss rate' appear to slow down (remember ice cover of 15% or more is recorded) so we may have been spared an even lower final figure due to the 'weather' up there.

Another thing to include in our 'mulling over' was the high ice max at the start of the melt season. It may well be that the total area of ice lost this year was higher than the total area of ice lost in the 08' season (which was a record in itself).

I'm sure some will like to paint this as a 'continued recovery' but I would remind those folk that 07' was an anomalous year for ace loss (as the Nino' year of 98' was for global temps) and so tends to skew our interpretation of things in the short term.

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/index.html

Aug's review is out and it would appear that we have now dropped below the 05' min putting this years min at the third lowest ever recorded.They also note that during Aug the pack was spread out by the winds up there and so made the 'loss rate' appear to slow down (remember ice cover of 15% or more is recorded) so we may have been spared an even lower final figure due to the 'weather' up there.

Another thing to include in our 'mulling over' was the high ice max at the start of the melt season. It may well be that the total area of ice lost this year was higher than the total area of ice lost in the 08' season (which was a record in itself).

I'm sure some will like to paint this as a 'continued recovery' but I would remind those folk that 07' was an anomalous year for ace loss (as the Nino' year of 98' was for global temps) and so tends to skew our interpretation of things in the short term.

Keep thinking the worst GW, fact is its above 08/07 and 05 continued to bottom so it may rise above that figure this month. The outlook is cold up there and why oh why are you trying to spin out more ice loss. Remember, this is first year ice so it should have melted more rapidly according to you....it didn't. :lol:

BFTP

[MR EXTREMES]

totally BFTP IT HOLDING STEADY AND THIS IS GREAT NEWS INFACT EXCELLENT NEWS.:lol:

[weather eater]

Keep thinking the worst GW, fact is its above 08/07 and 05 continued to bottom so it may rise above that figure this month. The outlook is cold up there and why oh why are you trying to spin out more ice loss. Remember, this is first year ice so it should have melted more rapidly according to you....it didn't. :lol:

BFTP

And keep thinking the best BFTP, the truth most likely sits somewhere in between.

[pottyprof]

OK peeps.. Lets keep to the facts about Arctic Ice.

This isn't a mud slinging competition.

Looks like we may have a bit of good news with the onset of colder temperatures being early but as has been pointed out, it isn't midwinter and many things may tip the other way..

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

And keep thinking the best BFTP, the truth most likely sits somewhere in between.

No just not the worst. This year is better...why? Ice was thinner, more first year ice yet more ice survived. I agree 'middle of the road'

BFTP

[Gowon]

Yes, fact is, so far the ice level is above 07 and 08, the folks on here wishing to see it drop below this are a bit perverse in my opinion.

[Rainy]

I posted this link to a lecture on another NW "Polar ice" thread. In my opinion it's worth watching.

Apologies if's already been seen and discussed.

The satellite images and photography are superb. And lots to think about.

[J10]

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/index.html

Aug's review is out and it would appear that we have now dropped below the 05' min putting this years min at the third lowest ever recorded.They also note that during Aug the pack was spread out by the winds up there and so made the 'loss rate' appear to slow down (remember ice cover of 15% or more is recorded) so we may have been spared an even lower final figure due to the 'weather' up there.

Another thing to include in our 'mulling over' was the high ice max at the start of the melt season. It may well be that the total area of ice lost this year was higher than the total area of ice lost in the 08' season (which was a record in itself).

I'm sure some will like to paint this as a 'continued recovery' but I would remind those folk that 07' was an anomalous year for ace loss (as the Nino' year of 98' was for global temps) and so tends to skew our interpretation of things in the short term.

The IJIS figures remain above 2005, and although the figures are not likely to remain above 2005, until they do drop below 2005, your point does not stand.

At the moment the ice extent (IJIS figures) is 5,330,469 after a slight rise today and the final extent is likely to be around 5.2m. This is likely to be just under 1m above 2007 which is a notable recovery from admittedly a very low point.

http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20090908_Figure4.png this is an interesting diagram and shows the regional ice loss across the Arctic over August.

[weather eater]

Yes, fact is, so far the ice level is above 07 and 08, the folks on here wishing to see it drop below this are a bit perverse in my opinion.

I'm not sure anyone does, thinking something will, is not the same as wishing it would.

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

I'm not sure anyone does, thinking something will, is not the same as wishing it would.

The only ting that suggested a possible below 07 ice extent was that 07 and 08 were very low. However, if one looked at the global pattern and if one looked at the arctic weather and if one looked at natural cycles then there was no way in hell that 07 was going to be beaten. So thinking it will and wishing it will are the same in my book...and only pro AGW folk thought it would too.

BFTP

[laserguy]

So thinking it will and wishing it will are the same in my book...and only pro AGW folk thought it would too.

BFTP

That's right. Regardless of what some AGW adherants claim to the contrary,they are waiting for any 'evidence' which they could construe as backing up their beliefs/theories/whatever. Ah well,there's always next year... not.