Sea ice extent update 8: ...go!

I'll be regularly writing updates on the current sea ice extent (SIE) as reported by IJIS (a joint effort of the International Arctic Research Center and the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency) and compare it to the sea ice extents in the period 2006-2009. The JAXA graph is favoured by almost everyone, probably because it looks so nice compared to other graphs (like the one by Arctic ROOS, the University of Bremen and the Danish Meteorological Institute). All the years have a nice colour of their own which makes it easy to eyeball the differences between trends. Most of the betting on minimum SIE is based on the IJIS data. NSIDC has a nice explanation of what sea ice extent is in their FAQ.

June 27th 2010

I'm writing this update now, before today's revision of yesterday's reported melt, because I'll be gone for the day.

The provisional number is 105,468 square km, another century break after the 103,594 square km on the 25th. Until recently this number would have been adjusted downwards by at least 15-30K, but it appears to be that time of the year (after the switching of some parameters to account for melt ponds etc) when revisions get smaller and some time soon might even go the other way. Yesterday for instance we saw a revision of just 3K.

Edit: Another small revision has made yesterday's reported melt the 4th century break of this month (2007 had 5): 100,937 square km.

So 2010 had a reported century break yesterday and today also. The day before the first century break there was a reported number of 85K. Nevertheless, 2006 had the highest reported melt on the first two dates (since the last update) because of two century breaks, and 2007 had its first century break of the coming spectacular series yesterday. But 2010 came in second on all three dates and even extended its lead on all years except 2006.

The current difference between 2010 and the other years is as follows:

• 2006: -363K (59,609)

• 2007: -603K (63,328)

• 2008: -833K (56,474)

• 2009: -840K (55,938)

Between brackets is the average daily melt for June. 2010 currently has an average daily melt of 71,737 square km. Here's the graph:

 

The Arctic ROOS sea ice extent map has lost its interest ever since 2010 overtook all the other years there too, the Daily Arctic Oscillation Index is still slightly negative, the webcams are showing more puddling by the image, so here is something else, a video that Artful Dodger linked to in the last Animation blog post. It's a video of MODIS images of the melt season this far:

Check out noiv's other vids as well. Noiv wants critics to tell him what can be improved.

TIPS - Other interesting blog posts and news articles concerning Arctic ice:

Wayne Davidson has updated the news on his EH2R website, called 'Big Blue hits the world quite wide'. Quote:

The extent anomaly for Arctic sea ice is equal to the anomaly of 2008 at its summer end. Which is 2 months ahead of time in 2010, making 2010 the coming all time most melted Arctic Ocean ice ever.

ClimateProgress has a new Arctic-related post called When things were rotten: Arctic sees record sea ice shrinkage, headed toward record low volume.

There's an article on Before It's News called Worst Retreat of Arctic Sea Ice in Thousands of Years, announcing that a major international study of Arctic sea ice, involving 18 scientists from five countries and to be published in the journal Quaternary Science Reviews, has concluded that the recent, record-setting retreat is the worst in thousands of years.

AP has a story on our beloved alarmist symbol, the Polar bear. Sniff, I love Polar bears. And US senator Lisa Murkowski wants more heavy icebreakers to be more able to respond to Arctic emergencies. Somehow, I don't think she means bringing Polar bears to ice floes and back. Not unless the Polar bears know where the oil is.

Comments

[Gas Glo]

Comparing melt rates for part of June to melt rates for whole of June seems rather odd to me. Wouldn't a graph of how the melt rates are going be better. i.e. like this:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/37346653@N05/4738373888/

Maybe I should align it to IJIS colours.

[Chartsgraphs.wordpress.com]

In watching JAXA 2010, I've noticed that the while the 2010 rate of decrease in extent has been greater than comparable 2007 rates, the 2010/2007 ratio has been dropping and the June 26, 2010 rate is slightly lower than the 6/26/2007 rate.

What does this mean??

There are approximately 75 days until SIE minimum (mid Sept). The July - mid August 2007 decline rate was precipitous. For 2010 to be a record breaker, the 2010 decline rate will need to keep pace with the 2007 rates.

Since the 2010 rates are now similar to 2007 rates, we'll have to continue watching the rates for a while to see 2010 will pan out in comparison to 2007.

I have a daily update at http://chartsgraphs.wordpress.com/arctic-update/

Kelly O'Day

[Neven]

Gas Glo, those graphs look pretty cool, except that I can't make them!

Kelly, I like that Arctic sea ice snapshot table with the average daily melt. Could I use it from now on for my SIE updates?

[Chartsgraphs.wordpress.com]

Neven

Sure - I'd be honored to have you link to my snapshot table.

I've been changing the name each day. To simplify things, I'll start using a constant name in a few days. In the meantime, feel free to copy it to your blog.

Kelly O'Day

[Gneiss]

Sometimes a table speaks as loud as a graph. Mean daily change for June 1-27:

2002 -34875
2003 -51632
2004 -44358
2005 -59473
2006 -58356
2007 -58825
2008 -56586
2009 -54253
2010 -72639

[Chartsgraphs.wordpress.com]

Gneiss

Both graphs and tables have their roles. I think of them as hammers and screw drivers. I need both for my handyman jobs.

Your June-to-date table is accurate and helpful. However, the net decline rate does not tell me if there is a change in the decline rate over the period. Was most of the decline in the beginning, at the end or was it uniform throughout the period.

It also does not tell me where we started the month of June. Where was 2010 in relationship to the other years? Was 2010 higher, lower than 2007?

Here's a combination table and chart that I'm currently using to help me track the Arctic Sea Ice Extent situation

http://processtrends.com/images/RClimate_JAXA_Arctic_SIE_2010_2007_latest.png

I'd like to hear your thoughts on this approach.

Kelly O'Day

[Gneiss]

Nice graphic, Kelly. Usually graphs are my preference too. I'm just struck by how the tables look this morning. In answer to your question about how the mean changes break down *within* Junes,

Year June 1-9 June 10-19 June 20-29
2003 -46233 -48125 -63328
2004 -36076 -44422 -48125
2005 -72865 -41469 -62937
2006 -39306 -57375 -80828
2007 -48646 -52578 -82328
2008 -66771 -42719 -66609
2009 -57621 -43734 -64562
2010 -68646 -64828 -86894

[Chartsgraphs.wordpress.com]

Gneiss

Your table shows that the 2010/2007 decline ratio has been decreasing over June.

1st period: 68646/48646 = 1.41
2nd period: 64828/52578 = 1.23
3rd period: 86894/82328 = 1.06

This tells me that 2010 is shifting from a much greater decline rate in early June to close to 2007 at end of June. If the declining ratio trend drops much below 1, 2010 will be lower than the 2007 minimum level. Only time will tell.

Kelly

[Kevin McKinney]

Mmm, Kelly, I'd put it that the shift is mostly related to the increased late June decline rate for 2007; the rate for 2010 actually increased--just not as much as 2007's did.

[Chartsgraphs.wordpress.com]

Agree. 2007 decrease rate picked up in late June, held during July - August. Notice how 2006 lost out to 2007 in late June, never regained lead.

Questions is whether 2010 will match the 2007 rates. If not, then the current 0.6 million km^2 2010 delta will decrease, depending on differences between 2007 and 2010 decline rates.

It's a foot race, 2010 has lead, however, 2007 has recently picked up some speed over 2010. Can 2007 catch up? It all depends on their relative speeds.

[Kevin McKinney]

Agreed in turn.

"It's a weather thing," as somebody said elsewhere on this blog.

But it sure ain't "recovery."

[Evilreductionist.blogspot.com]

Wow. Today's JAXA decline (although this will no doubt be revised downwards) was around 140,000 square kilometres. Before revision, we are sitting just below 9 million square kilometres; after revision, we be above, I am sure. But it will still be a large drop for the day.

[Neven]

Another century break. If things keep up like this I'll have to start writing updates every 2 days instead of 3.

[Kevin McKinney]

I'm not sure if that revision has come in yet, but as of 8 AM ET, we're still below 9K. (8,982,813, to be exact.)

I'm really itching to see what some of the imagery is like with today's updates.

[www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawn4S99JJRLrNfgA838BLqx0pzoN7lqRBgI]

What was the maximum 2009 Arctic ice area anomaly?
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.arctic.png

[Artful Dodger]

IJIS website June 28 extent was updated at 12:00 EDT: 8,983,125 km^2
The revision is just -312 km^2 for a rate of change of -141,875 km^2/day.
Total Sea Ice extent remains under 9M km^2 for June 28, a record milestone.
It took just 10 days to lose 1 Million sq km of sea ice.

[Kevin McKinney]

A "century break" and a quarter, then. Impressive.

But you could kind of see it coming from the weather forecast for Nunavut/NWT. (Yes, I know there's a lot more than just the Canadian sector, but that's been the--pun intentional, hold your nose if necessary--hotbed of melting lately.)