Arctic Ice 2009

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

record keeping25 06 2009 By Joseph D’Aleo, AMS Fellow, CCM

The average arctic temperature is still not above (take your pick) 32°F 0°C 273.15°K–this the latest date in fifty years of record keeping that this has happened. Usually it is beginning to level off now and if it does so, it will stay near freezing on average in the arctic leading to still less melting than last summer which saw a 9% increase in arctic ice than in 2007. H/T to FredM and MarcM

Data from DMI (Danish Meteorological Institute)

See larger image here. Compare with DMI charts in other years here.

[NOTE: as a second source to Joe’s article I’ve added this weather station data from the “North Pole Cam” operated by NOAA. Link is here: http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/gallery_np.html

Thank you, very interesting report too on Carinth's arctic thread too.

BFTP

[Devonian]

Apparently the average Arctic temperature has not yet managed to rise above 0c, this is so far the latest date in 50, yes 50 years for this to happen.

Other than that nothing really to report unless you count bleating on and on about what you think might or might not happen.

I don't see how it helps to use words like 'bleating on'

Tell us the fact and the evidence, quit with the insults - it just distracts from what you've got to say.

[tundra]

I don't see how it helps to use words like 'bleating on'

Tell us the fact and the evidence, quit with the insults - it just distracts from what you've got to say.

Filling up a thread with the same old same old over and over again rather than saying it once and then waiting for the results to varify your theory is in my book bleating on and on and on........

[Iceberg]

When we've quite finished bleating.

The graph has already been mugged by WUWT already, Maybe where Tundra got it from.

The source above shows that this year in almost identical to last year and very similar to 2007 as well.

So from that we can judge that it's rather meaningless. BTW it is not the latest date for 50 years that it has happened and even it were what exactly would that prove ?.

It's rather obvious what Steve is trying to do as he's been doing it on WUWT for the last 6 months.

[Chris Knight]

Go and have a look at the webcam (above). There are still snowdrifts, and no evidence of melt yet, despite being past the solstice!

[Devonian]

Go and have a look at the webcam (above). There are still snowdrifts, and no evidence of melt yet, despite being past the solstice!

Would you be a certain Chris Knight

Anyway, it's worth going through some of the years in the link that graph comes with on WUWT. For example if you look at 2007 what did for the ice wasn't June but the late summer and autumn being pretty consistently warm.

[jethro]

Would you be a certain Chris Knight

I don't think Chris is certain about anything.

[Devonian]

I don't think Chris is certain about anything.

It's a WUWT reference he'll understand.

[Chris Knight]

Would you be a certain Chris Knight

Anyway, it's worth going through some of the years in the link that graph comes with on WUWT. For example if you look at 2007 what did for the ice wasn't June but the late summer and autumn being pretty consistently warm.

Yes, I am, but I posted lots of stuff here above going back to the early noughties. What did for the ice is not the warmth - the bobbing about zero degrees C (in any arctic summer) are due to the fact that the temperature of ice and water coexisting give a surface temperature of ... about the freezing point of water!

[jethro]

It's a WUWT reference he'll understand.

So did I

Note to self, must stop being so flippant...

[Chris Knight]

I don't think Chris is certain about anything.

Quite correct!

[Gray-Wolf]

TBH Chris the right hand side seems to show snow on the lens (individual grains with space in between) the drift on the left (part of the drift that blacked out the camera?) is a little droopy and , if you go back a couple of days the snow looks 'slushy' (as we are all accustomed to seeing in the UK ).

Anyhoo, the snow cover is not the thing is it? it is the ice cover and were the snow to come into contact with water it would melt in seconds (again, as we all know from living here).

[Chris Knight]

TBH Chris the right hand side seems to show snow on the lens (individual grains with space in between) the drift on the left (part of the drift that blacked out the camera?) is a little droopy and , if you go back a couple of days the snow looks 'slushy' (as we are all accustomed to seeing in the UK :lol: ).

Anyhoo, the snow cover is not the thing is it? it is the ice cover and were the snow to come into contact with water it would melt in seconds (again, as we all know from living here).

The temperature has yet to climb above -1degC, according to the sensors at the site, but the drifts may be showing some signs of melting due to the summer sun, as you point out GW. The temperature last year at this time, was a degree or so above zero, and melt pools were already apparent, as the following snapshot shows.

The 2009 melt seems to be slower and later than 2008 was.

[tundra]

When we've quite finished bleating.

The graph has already been mugged by WUWT already, Maybe where Tundra got it from.

The source above shows that this year in almost identical to last year and very similar to 2007 as well.

So from that we can judge that it's rather meaningless. BTW it is not the latest date for 50 years that it has happened and even it were what exactly would that prove ?.

It's rather obvious what Steve is trying to do as he's been doing it on WUWT for the last 6 months.

I do not know what the heck you are looking at then.

Ignore it if you wish.

[songster]

The temperature has yet to climb above -1degC, according to the sensors at the site, but the drifts may be showing some signs of melting due to the summer sun, as you point out GW. The temperature last year at this time, was a degree or so above zero, and melt pools were already apparent, as the following snapshot shows.

<snip image>

The 2009 melt seems to be slower and later than 2008 was.

Interesting. What's the location of the buoy like this year relative to last?

[Chris Knight]

Interesting. What's the location of the buoy like this year relative to last?

Currently, Lat 87.428 Lon -0.848, last year, at the same date and hour, Lat 86.303 Lon -2.292, Songster, so just a degree or so difference.

[J10]

This is the latest set of figures on the Arctic Sea ice.

On the IJIS figures , the rate of ice loss is rising over the past week to around 70,000sqkm per day. We are still above the 2003-09 average by around 45,000sqkm (and by inference 535,000 below the 1978-2009 average).

On the IJIS figures we are the third highest of the series, below 2003 and 2004, but above all years since that, we are now around 40,000 above the figures in 2008, and 145,000 above the 2007 figures.

Arctic_Ice_Summer_2009.xls

Time for the latest update.

On the IJIS figures , the rate of ice loss has fallen back to just over 60,000sqkm per day over the past week. We are still above the 2003-09 average by around 95,000sqkm (and by inference 485,000 below the 1978-2009 average).

On the IJIS figures we are the third highest of the series, below 2003 and 2004, but above all years since that, we are now around 60,000 above the figures in 2008, and 270,000 above the 2007 figures.

So in summary the figures continue to track slightly above last years figures, but as 2007 reaches the time it fall away sharply, the current trend is for 2009 to have a lot more sea ice than 2007 at this stage.

[Solar Cycles]

Time for the latest update.

On the IJIS figures , the rate of ice loss has fallen back to just over 60,000sqkm per day over the past week. We are still above the 2003-09 average by around 95,000sqkm (and by inference 485,000 below the 1978-2009 average).

On the IJIS figures we are the third highest of the series, below 2003 and 2004, but above all years since that, we are now around 60,000 above the figures in 2008, and 270,000 above the 2007 figures.

So in summary the figures continue to track slightly above last years figures, but as 2007 reaches the time it fall away sharply, the current trend is for 2009 to have a lot more sea ice than 2007 at this stage.

As ever, informative and unbiased. Thank you for the continuing updates!

[Iceberg]

Thanks for the figures.

Going from those figures we are currently running approx 1 or 2 days behind 2008 and 4 days behind 2007.

I am not sure how that could be construed as meaning alot more ice this year ?. IF that trend continued we would have only slightly more ice than 2008.

We are pretty much on trend for 2003-9 and 2008 give or take a day of ice melt with slightly more ice than in 2007 at this point.

The key will be how the Arctic responds to the July/Aug summer melt in it's current state..

[MR EXTREMES]

arctic seems to be holding up well,

and it would seem the arctics destruction is still oncoarse in some peoples eyes.

i for one am intrested to see if the ice holds up after all some pretty intresting volcanic eruptions have happened this year with possibility of more to come amonst other things.

although reading thease posts on here i do wonder if people post negitively just to get a responce a few weeks ago i myself would have responded but now i feel i will watch and wait.

but my opion is its unlikely to reach 2007 record melt again this year,

as for the future well who knows one thing i do think is with the minimum going on and volcanic activity showing its hand its only a mater of time before the arctic will make a dramatic come back.

it also seems la nina done its bit for the recovery wether el nino destroys all this is another wait and see moment.

if the ice holds up through a el nino event then i think it could be good news,

and i stand by what i think about the totally ice free arctic within 10 to 15 years,

over the top not likely story once again,

why because nobody knows what the climate will do next.

all this is based on what if temps rise to the extreme of the ipcc predictions,

the seasonal forecasts have shown how unpredictable the climate is so id rather wait and see.

and i also feel the 2007 could well have happened before interms of the arctics lifetime and considering how long arctic ice data has been logged.

Edited June 28, 2009 by badboy657

[tundra]

Judging by the web cam pictures that Chris Knight posted, unlike last year the snow in the high Arctic has not started to melt yet let alone the ice.

This could soon change though if the next 10 days modeled by the GFS is anywhere close to varifying.

[Thundery wintry showers]

Yes, tempratures over the pole have been mostly below average recently- the spell of high pressure over the pole that I was concerned about turned out to be just a temporary thing, and this has been good for ice retention.

The problem lies over the next 10 days as a >20C 850hPa plume (which I saw moving into northern Asia some time ago, and has stuck around for a while) is set to move right across the pole. A close inspection shows that it arrives at the pole as a southerly and that air then spreads into our half of the hemisphere via a northerly- a very long drag of air indeed! We end up with 5-10C 850hPa air over the pole as a result, contrasting with the current values of around -5C.

It is questionable whether such a plume will come off with the intensity that GFS shows or stick around for long, but something to keep an eye on.

[doctormog]

Yes, tempratures over the pole have been mostly below average recently- the spell of high pressure over the pole that I was concerned about turned out to be just a temporary thing, and this has been good for ice retention.

The problem lies over the next 10 days as a >20C 850hPa plume (which I saw moving into northern Asia some time ago, and has stuck around for a while) is set to move right across the pole. A close inspection shows that it arrives at the pole as a southerly and that air then spreads into our half of the hemisphere via a northerly- a very long drag of air indeed! We end up with 5-10C 850hPa air over the pole as a result, contrasting with the current values of around -5C.

It is questionable whether such a plume will come off with the intensity that GFS shows or stick around for long, but something to keep an eye on.

Doesn't everything arrive at the N Pole as a southerly?

[J10]

Thanks for the figures.

Going from those figures we are currently running approx 1 or 2 days behind 2008 and 4 days behind 2007.

I am not sure how that could be construed as meaning alot more ice this year ?. IF that trend continued we would have only slightly more ice than 2008.

We are pretty much on trend for 2003-9 and 2008 give or take a day of ice melt with slightly more ice than in 2007 at this point.

The key will be how the Arctic responds to the July/Aug summer melt in it's current state..

My exact comments are and I quote "So in summary the figures continue to track slightly above last years figures, but as 2007 reaches the time it fall away sharply, the current trend is for 2009 to have a lot more sea ice than 2007 at this stage. "

We are currently 269,063sqkm2 above the figures in 2007, which is starting to looks significant particularly when you look at the 2007 figures which started to fall off a cliff face at this point. The 2009 figure is currently trending in line with 2008, and if this continues to do so, 2009 ice should be well over 500,000km above 2007, over the next 2 weeks.

But to be fair, considering the levels of 2007 in July, anything else but this would be disastrous in terms off sea ice retention.

Over my next 2 updates, I will check to see if I am correct, if not, I will highlight this and make the point that 2009 is looking very bad.

[J10]

Yes, tempratures over the pole have been mostly below average recently- the spell of high pressure over the pole that I was concerned about turned out to be just a temporary thing, and this has been good for ice retention.

The problem lies over the next 10 days as a >20C 850hPa plume (which I saw moving into northern Asia some time ago, and has stuck around for a while) is set to move right across the pole. A close inspection shows that it arrives at the pole as a southerly and that air then spreads into our half of the hemisphere via a northerly- a very long drag of air indeed! We end up with 5-10C 850hPa air over the pole as a result, contrasting with the current values of around -5C.

It is questionable whether such a plume will come off with the intensity that GFS shows or stick around for long, but something to keep an eye on.

I agree that the Central Arctic is looking quite good for ice retention and better than last year, however the Russia side is looking weaker, so we may have a situation where ice retention is up this year, but with an the ice over the Arctic becoming an island.