« Blogal Warming | Main | 2010 vs 2007: Uni Bremen Comparison »


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

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:


Maybe I should align it to IJIS colours.


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


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?



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


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



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


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

Kelly O'Day


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



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.


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.


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."


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.


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.


What was the maximum 2009 Arctic ice area anomaly?

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.)

The comments to this entry are closed.