« Looking for winter weirdness 2 | Main | Bilateral freezing »


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Account Deleted

How long do you think the anomaly will stay bellow 2 million ?


How does late open water affect heat loss in the Arctic Ocean? Isn't it really a negative feedback?

Dave Leaton

2012 CT SIA, by my count, now has 139 daily minimum records. 2007 is now tied with 2011 for second place, with 67 each. 2006 = 44, 2010 = 26, 2009 = 15, 2004 = 5, and 2008 = 2.

Average daily anomaly for the year is -1.36198. For 2007, it ended at -1.284005. 2011 = -1.253222.


Thanks, Dave. Some more interesting stats.

Anunturi, it might slip under 2 million once or twice in the next two weeks, but it will then stay above it until July-September 2013.

Mdoliner43, it is a negative feedback, but apparently not strong enough to halt the decline (also has something to do with inversion, but I forgot the details).


NSIDC monthly data
2006 10 Goddard N 8.33 5.74
2007 10 Goddard N 6.77 4.21
2008 10 Goddard N 8.42 5.45
2009 10 Goddard N 7.52 4.92
2010 10 Goddard N 7.71 5.19
2011 10 NRTSI-G N 7.10 4.59
2012 10 NRTSI-G N 7.00 4.21

Equal lowest area; Second lowest extent. (+/- measurement errors)

A Facebook User

Is it just me, or is there one more record to be broken? Looks to me like we have a real possibility at lowest Global Max?


Does anyone have an explanation for the consistent big dip in area anomaly in October. Since this is a consistent anomaly, it most reflect a consistent change in something, a change that, one would think, has to do with global warming. And since it is consistent it can't be about random weather changes.


Mdoliner, Upper ocean storing more insolation heat (as a result of lower ice cover) meaning that this has to be given up before freezing starts. So delayed ice regrowth in October.


Hi all,

I think AFU is right.

This graph:


...looks very likely to peak at the lowest point ever this year.

Is it just me, or is there one more record to be broken? Looks to me like we have a real possibility at lowest Global Max?

Indeed, I had forgotten about that one. There's a good graph on the ASI Graphs page.

Fairfax Climate Watch

As far as open ocean giving up heat in the winter, there was a study in the last few years that modeled a summer-only open water condition versus a total year-round open water condition in the Arctic Ocean. The results: both conditions caused a net input of energy per year into the arctic.

A scenario of summers without ice and winters with ice had a much larger net annual input than a year-round open water scenario.

One are of uncertainty is the water and air circulation patterns that transport heat between the northern and middle latitudes.

But, in short, it appears that open water in the winter does release a substantial amount of heat out of the ocean water, but not enough energy makes it out to space that the input during the summer is actually surpassed.

Fairfax Climate Watch

The open waters along the N.American side look quite large. I don't see any record of that same level of open water in the past CT records.

If that part of the ocean is open at this time of year, would the resulting temperature gradient induce faster currents in the Arctic waters as a whole or in part? If so, what are the dimensions of these currents?


Open water allows better absorption of high frequency radiation in the summer and better emission of infra-red low frequencyfradiation in winter. So the two processes are quite different. I wonder what depth of the water is heated in summer as compared to the depth cooled in winter. If the winter water near the surface can cool sufficiently to freeze without too much transfer of heat from deeper water, then a skin of ice could limit further cooling.

Fairfax Climate Watch

Also related to heat transfer is this interesting study. It deals with freshwater lakes, but the focus is on flow rates under ice and across polynyas.

Aaron Lewis

Visible light penetrates tens of meters into seawater, and is absorbed to become heat. Infrared is not well transmitted through water, so infrared radiation from sea water is a surface event - allowing a thin skin of ice to form over warmer water.

See for example ; http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/09/why-greenhouse-gases-heat-the-ocean/

However other heat transfer mechanisms often predominate, making sea ice formation interesting. See for example Seasonal-to-Decadal Predictions of Arctic Sea Ice: Challenges and Strategies pre-pub available at National Academies Press online


Just an assumption on my part but relatively dry air blowing over open water should cause a huge amount of cooling by evaporation. Changes of state - ice to water or water to vapor - move heat around very efficiently.

We'd still have subduction working over an ice covered surface, but with high winds that seem to be clinging to open water areas the heat loss of the water has to be huge.



Sublimation not subduction of course - I miss the edit feature.



Terry, you are correct. I have seen ice form on freshwater ponds with temperatures as warm as 2C under very dry windy conditions. What is also surprising is how fast ice melts at 0.5C under high humidity conditions.

Kevin McKinney

Aaron, thanks for a great link. It's always interesting, I think, to read about the in situ observational experiments done. There are many, many more of them than most of us have ever heard about, and they are a standing rebuke to those propagating the meme that AGW is a purely theoretical construct of climate modelers with an ax to grind.

Piotr Djaków

Value 7.00 mln km^2 is obviously wrong. Look on the daily numbers and plots. From daily NSIDC data - 5.8 mln km^2.

Protege Cuajimalpa

Thank you, Piotr Djaków, for your comment.
It is true that the NSIDC makes public their daily data. It can be found in the Sea Ice Index Data, file NH_seaice_extent_nrt.csv, on the following page:


I’m not sure if this data has already the 5-day average that NSIDC uses in their graph. But let’s assume that it is incorporated. In April 2012, NSIDC change its method of calculating the values from a 5-day centered average to a 5-day trailing average. That is explained in the following page:


The 5-day trailing average could be better because the value does not change after it is made public that day, while the 5-day center average has to be corroborated two days later, when the true values are known. But the 5-day trailing average has the disadvantage of not representing the true value for that day. That is, to find October 1 value, they use the range form September 27 to October 1. Knowing that the values are increasing day by day, the Sept. 27 to Sept. 30 values will always be less than the October 1 value, so the daily October values are underestimated. This tendency is easily corrected. The value of October 3 trailing average uses the values of Sept. 29 to Oct. 3. This value is exactly the same that would be the 5-day center value at Oct 1. So to correct the underestimation of a 5-day trailing value, it’s enough to calculate the October average from 0ctober 3 to November 2, that is 6.09 million km2.
The NSIDC can make some corrections to their monthly average, and they surely did it. But it seems that some make a mistake and change a 6 million km2 to a 7 million km2.
The true is that we should have a new October record, that it is ~ 770,000 km2 under the 2007 value.

Piotr Djaków

Problem solved:

"Unfortunately, you cannot take the daily numbers from ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/north/daily/data/NH_seaice_extent_nrt.csv and divide by 31 to get the monthly average extent. . It is confusing, but I will try to explain. First let me set up a data scenario for you in 4 hypothetical 25km grid cells for 3 days. Listed below is the concentration of sea ice in each grid cell. For extent calculations, if a data cell has less than 15% sea ice, it is considered "no-ice" and is not included*: If it has more than 15% it is considered "ice"

Day 1 10% 25% 40% 50% total extent would be 25sq km x 3 = 75sq km
Day 2 5% 17% 20% 60% total extent would be 25sq km x 3 = 75sq km
Day 3 35% 20% 30% 50% total extent would be 25sq km x 4 = 100sq km.

This is what you are seeing in the near-real time data file for daily values. If we took the average of those numbers the average extent would be 83sq km.

For the monthly average extent we are actually looking at the average for each cell over the period, then adding that up to reach the total average extent (TAE). If the average for a cell for the month passes the 15% threshold, it will be included (our "month" in this example is 3 days.)
Day 1 10% 25% 40% 50% total extent would be 25sq km x 3 = 75sq km
Day 2 5% 17% 20% 60% total extent would be 25sq km x 3 = 75sq km
Day 3 35% 20% 30% 50% total extent would be 25sq km x 4 = 100sq km.
TAE 17% 21% 30% 57% total average extent would be 25sq km X 4 = 100sq km

You can see CELL A with two days of low concentration, gets a bump into the averaging with it's last day of much higher concentration (10% + 5% + 35% /3 = 17%)

Therefore what you are seeing is just like the difference between 100sq km and 83 sq km. This same principle would apply for the 1979-2000 values.

Please note that we also do archive the values for area (being the grid cell size x % covered summed.) There are reasons why extent is reported in our blog. If you want me to explain that, just let me know. You may have already had your fill of information!"


Piotr: There are reasons why extent is reported in our blog. If you want me to explain that, just let me know. You may have already had your fill of information!"

Never, I would love to hear that explanation.

Protege Cuajimalpa

I also like to hear that explanation. Even that I understand your argument, but I don't understand why it didn't happened the same in 2007. From my point of view, there is still less ice in 2012 than in 2007, so the monthly average should reflect this fact.

Protege Cuajimalpa

I asked NSIDC about the October average and they gave the same answer that Piotr Djaków gave us. I don’t like this procedure. I find misleading that a monthly average with the daily values of October bring a result of 5.8 to 6.1 million km2 (depending of the 5-day daily average), but with this procedure NSIDC obtains an average of 7 million km2. I also don’t like the concept of sea ice extent (15% or more ice always means 100% ice), I prefer sea ice area and specially sea ice volume.
But anyway, I don’t believe that NSIDC will change their November Analysis.

Here is the NSIDC answer and my question (and I thank NSIDC for their answer):

Your request (#17037) has been deemed solved.
Kara, Nov 07 14:18 (MST):
Hi Juan,

Thank you for contacting NSIDC. The numbers are correct. The end of the month had quite an uptick. Also, the graph shows daily plotted extent calculations (greater than 15% concentration), whereas for the average monthly extent, an average has to be calculated for each grid cell in the satellite data. This can result in the inclusion of grid cells in monthly averages which are exluded in daily calculations.
I hope this helps clear it up a bit.


NSIDC User Services
University of Colorado
Boulder, CO 80309-0449, USA
Phone: +1 303-492-6199
Fax: +1 303-492-2468
Email: [email protected]
WWW URL: http://nsidc.org

National Snow and Ice Data Center * Distributed Active Archive Center
Juan Garcia, Nov 06 10:33 (MST):

From my point of view, your November Analysis underestimates the 2012 October average. Looking at your daily Arctic Sea Ice Graph, I find difficult to believe that the 2012 October average is 7 million km2. Visually, it looks more than 6 million km2.
That would mean that there is a new NSIDC October record, that it is around 770,000
km2 under the 2007 value.

Best regards,

Juan C. García

Protege Cuajimalpa

Piotr Djaków:

Thank you also for your clear explanation. I didn’t understand the NSIDC answer when I read it the first time. Now I can understand that the brief period in which 2012 was above 2007 could make a difference. As I say, I don’t like this procedure, but I find worthless to revise 2007 and 2012 grid by grid, so from my personal point of view, this subject is over.
Bringing the other subject, anyone knows why the DMI graph change so much? Even that they made a brief explanation, I also find difficult to believe that the 2012 minimum Sea Ice Extent changed so much (from ~2.5 to ~3.9 million km2).


Best regards,

Juan C. Garcia


Not (yet) in the ASI news side bar, although artic sea ice is mentioned:

Some background is given on paleo-climatic research in the arctic, notably a reconstruction of the last 1800 year summer temperatures in Svalbard, that was published earlier this year.

The climate reconstruction of Svalbard undercuts skeptics who deny evidence that we are scorching the planet with the release of high concentrations of heat-trapping greenhouse gases. Since 1987, summers on Svalbard have been 2 degrees to 2.5 degrees Celsius hotter than they were there during warmest parts of the MWP. (...) The researchers also demonstrated that the period of most extensive glacier advance on Svalbard in the last 10,000 years (during another anomalous period the 18th and 19th centuries called “Little Ice Age”) was not characterized by very cold summers; rather, increased wintertime snowfall was responsible for the glacier advances.


Kara anomaly now at a record -0.5 M. The only larger anomaly reported was an uncorrected sensor glitch in 2006.

Other areas on the Atlantic side have not yet built up large -ve anomalies, but Barents, Hudson Bay and Baffin (in that order) are beginning to do so.

Protege Cuajimalpa

I have been thinking about the method used to calculate the NSIDC monthly average and the impacts that could have in the future, so let’s image the following scenario:
We are at Sep. 1st, 2019. The NSIDC shows an Arctic sea ice extent (SIE) of one million km2, concentrated basically at the Arctic Basin. The ice extend is decreasing and by September 10th, the sea ice is almost gone. So, we have Arctic free of ice for the first time in several thousand years. By September 20th, some ice starts to build up around the continental coasts. By the end of the month, one million km2 has freeze.
On October, everybody is surprised that the NSIDC has announced a September SIE monthly average of 1.18 million km2. There was not a day with more than one million km2 at September. So, what will be the reason for this monthly average? The answer will be the method used to calculate the NISDC monthly average.
The normal NSIDC satellite grid at the arctic is 35km.* 35km. = 1,225 km2. The 15% of that is 183.75 km2. So basically, if a normal grid has a monthly average of 184 km2 or more, it accounts as 1,225 km2 for that month.

There are several ways in which a grid can qualify as a 100% SIE. By example, a grid at the Arctic Basin:

Day(%)- % - Sea Ice (km2)- Daily graph (km2)
Sep 1 - 100% - 1,225 - 1,225
Sep 2 - 100% - 1,225 - 1,225
Sep 3 - 85% - 1,041 - 1,225
Sep 4 - 65% - 796 - 1,225
Sep 5 - 50% - 613 - 1,225
Sep 6 - 30% - 368 - 1,225
Sep 7 - 14% - 172 - 0
Sep 8 - 10% - 123 - 0
Sep 9 - 8% - 98 - 0
Sep 10 - 3% - 37 - 0

Total: 5,696 km2
Average (divided by 30): 189.9 km2
It adds to monthly average: 1,225 km2

The NSIDC affirms that the ice at the beginning of September at the Arctic Basin accounts for 720,000 km2 and the freeze at continental coasts accounts for the rest, so there is a monthly average of 1.18 million km2 for September 2019.
Let’s have another example. A 325 km2 ice floe is moving from one grid to another on a sea free of ice (except for that floe). It stays 6 days in one grid, 15 days in second one and 9 days in a third one. At the end, it has made that 3 grids count as with 100% ice, so it accounts for 1,225 km2 * 3 = 3,675 km2. That looks incredible, but it counts for more than 10 times his size.
So, if someone is looking for the negative feedbacks that will make the Gompertz curve, the NSIDC method for calculating the monthly average seems that will be one important negative feedback. Rather artificial, but as I understand the method, it will work that way.



wonderful exposure!, but why wait until 2019. What if this happens next year? Will the NSIDC be able to accommodate such rapid changes in their peculiar way of doing the maths?

Aaron Lewis

It seems, that in some organizations, not being “alarmist” in the short term has a higher imperative than being truthful or correct in the long run.

Just as a clock that has stopped tells the correct time twice a day, the the NSIDC procedure will once again be appropriate when we have an year-round sea ice free Arctic.

Protege Cuajimalpa

Hi, P-maker:
Thank you for your comment.

What if this happens next year?
I will say: What if this happened on October 2012? From my point of view, it is statistically wrong to have a 2012 monthly average above the 2007 October value.


Crandles and Larry Hamilton may be interested to see that the SEARCH contributions are discussed in this forthcoming NRC publication:


Seasonal-to-Decadal Predictions of Arctic Sea Ice: Challenges and Strategies.

(Caveat: it's 60+ pages of not saying very much.)


Evening guys,

Dip in to support Protégé/Juan Garcia. I gave the NSIDC graph a short ‘eyeball’ and returned to ‘my business as usual’ on weirdness (meaning it has little relevance to me).

Have to say, I have high esteem for the professional credibility of the NSIDC staff. I always read their reports and try to correlate them to sharpen my own opinions. But, the scientific method isn’t very useful in these circumstances of rapid change (any objections?).

Pjotr, thanks for that new and unusual anomaly map. As long as the ‘Kara Bulge’ is active and the Polar vortex doesn’t grow to it’s climo dimensions, we’re going to see temp anomalies in these parts.


Werther, Neven and others, I ran across a new report (that you might be already aware of) that was just published by the Committee on the Future of Arctic Sea Ice Research in Support of Seasonal-to-Decadal Predictions; Polar Research Board; Division on Earth and Life Studies; and the National Research Council.

The report is titled, "Seasonal-to-Decadal Predictions of Arctic Sea Ice:
Challenges and Strategies" and is free online at:



Looks like I should have the thread first! idunno beat me to it!

L. Hamilton

idunno: "Crandles and Larry Hamilton may be interested to see that the SEARCH contributions are discussed in this forthcoming NRC publication"

With smarter colleagues, I'm part of a team that just wrote a proposal for science networking on sea ice prediction. Some of the ideas involve enhancements to the SEARCH Sea Ice Outlook, including more detailed meta-analysis of its results.

One of my own ideas has been to more formally test how well crowd-sourced predictions representing the collective wisdom of this sea ice blog compare with predictions from the statistical and physical models comprising most of the SEARCH submissions. So if our team happens to get a green light, you'll read more about it right here.

L. Hamilton

I don't follow arctic ice measures closely at this time of year, but noticed this morning that CT, DMI and IJIS stubbornly remain below historical low points for their current dates. For instance, here's DMI:




In the end though, it is not just about how long into the winter the anomaly is going to go and how much heat it gives up.

My take is that there is a more important factor than this very indicative graph above. It is the sheer duration of the anomaly from beginning to end. Noting the green, red and amber lines.

From GW

After all hitting a record for 1 day is a record. Being at record anomaly for 1 month is a warming disaster in terms of energy absorbed.

This higher anomaly is going to come earlier and for longer. It is another clear indication of the way things are changing.

Ghoti Of Lod

Am I jumping the gun or is the CT global sea ice graph showing the lowest annual maximum ever?


Both, Ghoti of Lod. It is currently lower than the 2011 record, but it could still go higher.

Sounds very interesting, Larry.


Wow. Has anyone noted the cyclone forming north of Greenland. It looks like it will take another whack at clearing out multi-year ice. It appears to be pateauing like in 2006, though at much lower levels.





Also, note the new November anomaly forming.




This chart is making me nervous....... probably because I don't know enough.


While we are in the period where SIE should be growing at its most rapid pace,it seems to be slowing down. Do we know which areas of the Arctic are contributing to this/


In fact the slow down looks like a 2 week trend. Could we be heading for the first significant crash in winter SIE?

Glenn Tamblyn


Take a look at the animation of the refreeze at CT here http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/CT/animate.arctic.color.0.html

Refreeze looks like it was relatively fast in the Laptev & East Siberian sea's. But the Beaufort and Chukchi are much slower.Oncethe L % ES reached their land boundary the slower rate of freezing in the B & C seems to have slowed the rate.

I don't think maximum SIE is likely to drop much for quite some time - that depends on the East Greenland Sea and maybe the Bering.

For Max SIE to really start to drop we wouldneed to see ice not reaching the land barriers around the Arctic. By then we will be looking at seriously less Arctic ice and ice free for many months.

Has anyone heard why PIOMAS hasn't put up their figures for October yet? The shape of that curve will be the really interesting one.

Protege Cuajimalpa

Thank you for your comments (Aaron Lewis, Werther, P-Maker). I agree with Werther in that we should “have high esteem for the professional credibility of the NSIDC staff”. They have made great work and they have been the Arctic sea ice (ASI) reference for several years. By example, I want to highlight the following article:


In page 2, they made a graph that has been used for five years to express the necessity of revising the ASI models. It is very interesting that this article was made public one semester before the ASI had that incredible drop at August 2007. Also, after the 2007 sea ice melt, the NSIDC said that we could have an Arctic free of ice at 2030. Surely, that was relevant five years ago.
Unfortunately, we are finding that the concept of sea ice extent is not working properly. So, it is important to concentrate at least in sea ice area. Furthermore, the PIOMAS sea ice volume should be a big concern, even if thickness is hard to measure. If we think in volume, we could have the collapse by 2016. So now we have to express that SIE will not work well as the Arctic sea ice collapse.
I have been thinking in Werther’s comment “Dip in to support Protégé/Juan Garcia” and what I want to do is to write an article here. I know that this blog is important on the global warming community, so I will consider an honor if Neven accepts to publish my article.

Best regards,

Juan C. Garcia


"So, Kara Sea again...
Posted by: Piotr Djaków | November 09, 2012 at 22:07"

Yes, the island Wiese is possible the most amazing place on Earth.

With 60 years of observations on the island were record warm the following months:

December 2011 (excess of 1.9 degrees record in 1966)
January 2012 (excess of 1.9 degrees record in 2006)
February 2012 (excess of 2.4 degrees record in 1956)
March 2012 (excess of 3.5 degrees record in 2011)
July 2012 (excess of 0.8 degrees record in 1961)
August 2012 (excess of 0.5 degrees record in 2008)
September 2012 (excess of 1.4 degrees record in 2008)
October 2012 (repetition record in 2009)

And in November 2012 is also a very high probability of a new monthly record! Overall in the last 12 months, 8-9 months were record warm!



In this area of the Kara Sea's 1981-2010 annual average anomaly than 7 degrees!


ALI80 wrote:

the island Wiese is possible the most amazing place on Earth.

Thank you. Most interesting. But not only "interesting" but fascinating and very worrying "nello stesso tempo".

In my opinion not the records are making the worrying part but the deviations from the average values:

April: +10,8 °C
May: +15,8 °C
Juin: +16,8 °C
July: +16,9 °C
August: +16,6 °C
September:+17,1 °C
Oktober: +15,1 °C

No wonder the Kara- and Barentz seas are refusing to refreeze!

By the way, not everyone of us is an expert in geografy.

So you better should tell us were exactly we can find Vize island.

Vize island resides almost in the center of the triangle Franz-Josef-Land, Nova Zembla and Severnaya Zemlya.


I wrongly interpreted, it's not about monthly deviations but about the november 2012 deviations.

Thus correction:

4 november: +10,8 °C
5 november: +15,8 °C
6 november: +16,8 °C
7 november: +16,9 °C
8 november: +16,6 °C
9 november: +17,1 °C
10 november: +15,1 °C

The conclusion remains the same of course, no wonder the Kara- andBarentz seas are refusing to refreeze.


Kris, another amazing grafik.


The average annual temperature on the island of visa for the period (November-October). The period November 2011 - October 2012 warmer than the previous record by 4 degrees!


I know that this blog is important on the global warming community, so I will consider an honor if Neven accepts to publish my article.

Any time, Juan. Just send me an e-mail.



Look at the images from Vadso "city" and
Vadso port.

The snow cover completely washed away by rain!.

Vadso in Norway, province of Finnmark, situated most Eastern nearby the White Sea.


Anyone know why the October PIOMAS data isn't out yet?


The sea ice concentration and thickness have been updated for Nov 5 and Nov 10.


A couple of impacts on sea ice cover are the ongoing SLP's that continue to form and push into CAB, or the Kara and Barents Seas.

For example, there is a 979 mb low near the NP now, and another that will move north along the west coast of Greenland over the next several days, that seesm on track to impact the cold air moving into the Canadian Arctic, and bringing warmer air into the CAB from the Kara Sea.

If the development of deep SLP lows continues over the North Pacific and Bering seas, it would seem to impair sea ice development in the region.

See: http://polarmet.osu.edu/nwp/animation.php?model=arctic_wrf&run=00&var=plot001


ALI80 wrote

In this area of the Kara Sea's 1981-2010 annual average anomaly than 7 degrees!

On CT Kara Sea ice began forming on 10/20. It peaked on 11/6 and has been shrinking since. Is this unusual?


Kris wrote:

The conclusion remains the same of course, no wonder the Kara- andBarentz seas are refusing to refreeze.

Kara Sea is not merely refusing to refreeze but the shore ice that had been forming since 10/20 has been shrinking since 11/6. Are the temperature anolmalies driving this?

What are the SST anomalies in the Kara Sea?


Hi A4R, Djprice,

On 11 March last spring I called the Barentsz and Kara Seas to have essentially become Atlantic. Not Arctic. IMHO there is no reason at present to retreat from that statement.

On the SST’s over there. NCEP, OSDPD and NOAA offer different products, probably through different algorithms used in the data processing. I refer to the OSDPD images I ‘cadded’ end of September 2011. When the map for that time 2012 is compared, it is clear the mean SST anomaly was even larger than last year.
That has continued. OSDPD still shows anomalies varying from +1,5 dC north of Ostrov Vize to >+4dC just SE of Mys (cape) Zhelaniya, northern Novaya Zemlya.

NCEP, A4r, is for some reason on the conservative side.

OTOH, it just came to me that the high 500 Mb level over the Sea of Ochotsk may be indicative of heat loss over there. Last year, ice had already formed near protected bays. MODIS today showed some, but not even 10% in comparison. It will be interesting to follow SIE over there too.


Djprice537 stated:

It peaked on 11/6 and has been shrinking since.

Yes it has shrinked.

And Djprice537 then asked:

Is this unusual?

It's not only "unusual", it's something never seen before.

The Kara Sea ice began to develop in the OB + Jenesei estuaria. Which lead me to the conclusion the fresh water coming from these rivers triggered to the new developed ice field.

Ob and Jenissei, both must be frozen solid by now, so we can presume almost no fresh water is pouring anymore into the Kara sea.

And apparently the water streaming in and coming from the Gulf Stream is still warm enough to have that icefield melted.

Fascinating it is. And as I told already, terryfying "nello stesso tempo".


"In this area of the Kara Sea's 1981-2010 annual average anomaly than 7 degrees!"

In addition. Probably this is the largest local annual temperature anomaly in the world.

The previous record:
"Основные погодно-климатические особенности 2010-го года в северном полушарии.

Впервые на полушарии аномалии среднегодовой температуры воздуха достигли +5º и более. Это произошло на северо-востоке Канады в районе полуострова Лабрадор и острова Баффинова Земля."

"Basic weather and climatic features of 2010 in the Northern Hemisphere.

For the first time in the hemisphere mean annual air temperature anomalies reached +5 º or more. This occurred in the north-east of Canada in Labrador and Baffin Island."


Well...What do you say....
Have we ever seen a SIA anomaly drop day 317 sized -146K?
Half of it was actual reduction (probably compaction of thin ice).


Oh, I guess on anomaly that should be 'increase'...


Yes, indeed. A drop of 77K. Not unprecedented, though. According to my spreadsheet 2006 had a drop of 98K (preceded by a 2K drop) on November 26th. Last year there was a 86K drop on November 8th, and in 2010 there were drops of respectively 73K and 48K on November 22nd and 23rd. December even has century breaks in 2007 and 2010 (twice).

But this could be significant for global SIA max.


Just had a look, CT Global SIA has dropped to 20.508 million km2 (from yesterday's 20.641 million km2). Last year's record low maximum of 20.902 million km2 was reached two days earlier than this year.

Could it be in the bag?


Could it be in the bag?

I'd say so, Neven. The Antarctic area curve is assymetric, with the major part of the melt occuring in a very short space of time, while growth through Autumn and Winter is slower. Antarctica is now hitting the steepest part of the curve, with daily (negative) changes averaging perhaps as much as 40 K per day more than the Arctic's positive change.

While that 20.641 might still get beaten for the annual max (I don't think it will), I'd say 2012 beating the previous low of 20.902 is locked in.


Thanks, Frank. I'll wait for one or two days more and then announce the final Record Domino of 2012.

Jim Pettit

Yesterday's CT SIA decrease is definitely not unprecedented; as noted by Neven, it's happened before, and as recently as last year. We are now past the time of fastest historical area growth, so it's expected that the rate of increase will slow down, and on some days actually reverse.

The current SIA is about 700,000 km2 (or about 9%) lower than it was on this date last year, and more than 750,000 km2 lower than it was on this date in 2007.

FWIW, 2012 has seen 31 days with century growth in area. By comparison, both 2007 and 2011 ended the year with 49 total. (2011 saw 18 more such days after today, and 2007 saw 24.) It'll be interesting to see where we end up this year...


On the latest SIA decrease, I understand that this is not unprecedented on the general Arctic scene. I checked the data you mentioned, Neven, and saw 8 November 2012 was ‘The Bering Storm’. The 2010 data also were Chukchi decreases. The 2006 November decrease was around the Kara Strait, while the Barentsz-Kara-Basin region had 1 million km2 more extent than now.
To precise my bitter extase yesterday, the anomaly in that region is now unprecedented for the date in the satellite era.
November over there features between 1 and 1,5 million km2 less ice than the mean climo.


I believe we have just seen the largest ever single day drop in Global CT SIA, -561k km2:

2012.9069 -0.3898046 20.2006760 20.5904808
2012.9095 -0.8500094 19.6394539 20.4894638

It was a combination of -377k drop in the south and -185k drop in the north (in November!). Even separately those numbers would be quite exceptional though possibly not unprecedented.

The previous record is -523k from January 2008. There is also -1.2M in December 1987 but that is an obvious typo, sensor glitch or other error.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment