After last year's corny title (Bering in mind) I naturally had to continue the tradition. But this year the pun is quite appropriate, as it seems that the Bering Sea is indeed bearing the load of anomalous ice cover that offers a counterweight to what's happening on the Atlantic side of the Arctic, and thus keeps total sea ice extent and area figures in balance. If it weren't for this chances of a new winter maximum ice cover would be very great indeed.
On the Cryosphere Today sea ice area map for the Bering Sea region figure we can see how anomalously high sea ice over is at the moment (red line):
The NASA Blue Marble on the NSIDC Sea Ice Index confirms:
The NSIDC also had this to say about the Bering Sea in the latest monthly summary:
Arctic sea ice extent in the Bering Sea was the second highest in the satellite record for the month of January. Ice extent in the Bering Sea was 562,000 square kilometers (217,000 square miles), which is 104,600 square kilometers (40,400 square miles) above the 1979 to 2000 average. The record high ice extent for the month occurred in January 2000, at 629,000 square kilometers (242,900 square miles).The above-average sea ice extent in the Bering Sea stemmed from a weather pattern that brought cold air from the Arctic into the Bering Sea, driving sea ice southwards. The weather pattern, which has persisted since November, features unusually low surface pressure south and east of the Alaskan coast, which leads to winds from the north or northeast that blow into the Bering Sea region. This weather pattern also brought moist air from the Pacific Ocean to the southern Alaska coast, helping to explain record snowfalls in towns such as Cordova, Alaska, which received over 15 feet of snow between early November and mid-January.
Just like last week I have downloaded Uni Bremen sea ice concentration maps from years of the recent new Arctic regime (2004-now), and cropped them, so they can be compared to the current situation (click for a larger version):
The ice pack is clearly bulging outwards when compared to previous years. Especially in record year 2007 the Bering Sea was slow to freeze, probably having to do with a rather large inflow of warm water from the North Pacific.
I don't think the ice cover will grow much more in this region. A low-pressure system in the right spot (to the southwest of Bering Strait), pushing in warmer air from the northeast Pacific, could even bring down the number a bit. I'm not seeing that low in the weather forecasts right now though. Insolation will soon start to play a role too, as this ice is at the most southern edge of the pack (same latitude as Hudson Bay).
CT SIA updated pretty late today, and I see there was yet another nice-sized drop (34,626 km2), which had the effect of taking back a good chunk of Friday's increase. In the past 28 days--four full weeks--less than 20,000 km2 of ice has been added, an amount less than 2% of what was added over the same span last year. That's a pretty amazing statistic in my book.
2011 saw an additional 462K km2 after this date, while 2011 saw an additional 591K. That 2011 number would obviously keep 2012 under the 13 million mark, while the 2007 number would still mean a record low max.
It's gonna be fun to watch...
Posted by: Jim Pettit | February 13, 2012 at 02:21
Jim Pettit wrote:
I assume that the first 2011 here was meant to be 2010?Jim Pettit wrote:
Agreed.Posted by: Timothy Chase | February 13, 2012 at 02:31
My bad. That second paragraph was supposed read as follows:
Thanks for pointing it out...
Posted by: Jim Pettit | February 13, 2012 at 04:28
In the past 28 days--four full weeks--less than 20,000 km2 of ice has been added
Wow, I hadn't even realized this. Thanks, Jim.
The weather forecast doesn't look like record inducing material to me right now, but I'll have another look tomorrow.
Posted by: Neven | February 13, 2012 at 05:17
What I find interesting is the rate of change of the NH anomaly on CT. It is moving consistently and rapidly downward. I think the Bering Sea will just add to this trend when it melts.
Posted by: Mike | February 13, 2012 at 09:51
>"2011 saw an additional 462K km2 after this date, while 2007 saw an additional 591K. That 2011 number would obviously keep 2012 under the 13 million mark, while the 2007 number would still mean a record low max."
Following patterns of last 10 years, I make it that 4 out of 10 keep max below 13m km^2 while 7 out of 10 get a record below 13.14 m km^2.
But weather is key. When I wrote max pool article on 31 Jan, I expected sideways movement to continue for a while but now the weather is/has changed. Warm water may continue to hold off area increases in Barents/Kara for a little while longer but the weather looks set to cool them down. Is there then time for much area increase? If there is, it will be only very thin that will melt quickly.
>"I think the Bering Sea will just add to this trend when it melts."
More Insolation is being reflected than usual in the southerly locations like Baffin/Newfoundland and Bering where there is some insolation and if it has been cold, will the ice be thick and slow to melt out?
If the water beneath has been giving a higher heat flux up to the surface than usual then the ice could be thin and catch up to normal as you suggest. But do we have any reason to believe this?
Posted by: crandles | February 13, 2012 at 10:41
CT north dropped another 14k on 2/11, now 259k below 2011 on this date.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v224/Chiloe/Climate/sea_ice_N_this_date.png
Posted by: L. Hamilton | February 13, 2012 at 13:54
Yes, looks like Chris Biscan has his 13.5 million km2 anomaly (a bit more even). And I was wrong suggesting yesterday's drop was the last one. But this was surely it?
Posted by: Neven | February 13, 2012 at 14:07
Yikes Neven!
a 13.5 million km2 anomaly would only leave 0.3 million km2 of sea ice in the Arctic!
Global anomaly is also falling fast, with the annual maximum fast approaching.
Posted by: idunno | February 13, 2012 at 14:29
Did I say a bit more? I meant a bit less, of course. About 12.15 million km2 less. ;-)
Yes, the Antarctic has dropped from +0.35 to +0.26 anomaly. That helps too. But I don't think we'll see a new global SIA record minimum.
Posted by: Neven | February 13, 2012 at 15:45
With regards to that last remark: I based myself on the global SIA graph on the graphs page, but see now that it's not up-to-date (should be about 300K lower).
2012 right now is 14.84 million km2.
2006: 14.39
2011: 14.41
2007: 14.63
2005: 14.73
Posted by: Neven | February 13, 2012 at 16:22
Hi Neven,
Did I say "annual maximum"? I meant "minimum".
Also the Polish set of graphs, which include the Arctic SIA seem to have stopped updating.
Global SIA has fallen below the 20th Century record minimum.
Posted by: idunno | February 13, 2012 at 16:47
Global SIA as of 2/10/2012:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v224/Chiloe/Climate/sea_ice_CTglobal_min_to_date.png
Posted by: L. Hamilton | February 13, 2012 at 17:03
Thanks, Larry. I've squeezed it in on the daily graphs page.
Posted by: Neven | February 13, 2012 at 17:11
2002 saw a loss in global sea ice area from data for day 0.1123 of 0.31, 2006 a drop of 0.3 and 2009 a drop of 0.26. Those are the three largest drops in last 10 years but none of them is large enough for a record low minimum.
Posted by: crandles | February 13, 2012 at 18:35
A third place is max for this min, I think.
Posted by: Neven | February 13, 2012 at 18:36