« IJIS is back! | Main | Beaufort break-up »


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


Despite a double century break for day 141, masie is 335k higher than 2011 for day 141. Major regional differences are:

Beaufort -28k (big polyna mentioned)
Chukchi +58k (high Bering ice means little change in 2012 yet)
Laptev +34k
Kara -65k
Barents -315k
Greenland +85k (possibly measure of Fram export?)
Hudson +78k
Bering +413k
Othotsk +76k

How much further behind will Chukchi get before Bering catches up to normal?

We have been expecting albedo feedback to increase Kara and Barents ice deficiency but weather seems to have taken against this idea with winds only briefly staying in directions that would help melt the ice. Bering also seems to be staying cool.

Chris Biscan


Thole in the Beaufort is huge for this time of year. I can't believe how fast the water opened up here. Conditions stay warm the next week with favorable chances for sun and warm southerly winds.

It's really going to go fast if this keeps up.

IJIS has altered its graph and instead of some of the most recent years is now showing averages for the 80's, 90's and 2000's. This is of course fine, but ...

I prefer the old-style graph @:


Well, what do you know? I hadn't even noticed that.


Last year looked just as bad or even worse in the Beaufort Sea. Also notice how some of the ice in McClure Strait and the Amundsen Gulf had already broken up by then.

Still, this year doesn't look much better, despite the fact that the ice should (?) be thicker in the Beaufort/CAA region.

Seke Rob

Presume that crandles is drawing year on year comparisons with MASIE data, just modded my chart and inserted 2 white bars that will print at latest date of data available, and at date, 365 days "before" present, [autoslides as more data gets added]. This will allow easy eyeballing the 16 region comparisons... e.g. Baffin now is evidently same as last year [51k less now in fact for same "date"], though it went way up this winter. Telling on the ice floating there [and the regional weather maybe].

For ease of finding the charts, created a few shortcuts. Long as one remembers these addresses are hosted through the bit.ly service, the only other bits to memorize or jot down are:

MASIEA becoming http://bit.ly/MASIEA (MASIE ALL Regions)
IJISMD decoming http://bit.ly/IJISMD (The JAXA Million Days Extend stepped chart)

(The shorts with JAXA in them were all taken by someone before me, but seem to go nowhere... 404 errors. Pity that bit.ly does not put these back in the pool, when not used for longer, or failing. Same as with tinyurl.com, lost forever)

-- Rob

P.S. MASIE is running at a 7 day avg of -91.6K per day and JAXA at -80.7K.


I've put the Step-graphs on the daily graphs and long-term graphs page. Very nice additions (the area graph already was on the long-term graphs page). And the MASIE graph is on the regional graphs page.


I seem to remember seeing something like this before, but can't find a current one so I've been playing around with graphs of my own and have made a 3D graph showing similar info to Seke Rob's JAXA step-graph, but only since 2003 and only for first 180 odd days of the year: Sea ice Extent 3D graph


Same graph from a different perspective and another graph showing the whole year.


Thank you for the 3-D graphs, Heraclitus.

However, something doesn't quite feel right about them. I'm going to try to analyze the first graph (http://i1167.photobucket.com/albums/q622/OPatrick1/IJISseaiceextentgraph.jpg ), in detail and see if I can explain it....

But first, a quick question for everyone. Does the light seems to be coming from over your left shoulder, your right shoulder, or somewhere else?

My first observation was that it looks as though the front "skirt" were horizontally level, wiggling forward and backward. However, based on the way it is colored, it must be vertically straight and dip up and down.

This illusion seems related to the fact that my brain keeps insisting that the light is coming from the left, even though, intellectually, I realize that it must be lit from the right.

I think that that problem is caused by the stripes in the shading, which feel intuitively like they ought to be in horizontal layers (like sedimentary rock), but which must actually be vertical.

It seems a trivial problem, but it makes the graph much less compelling/meaningful to me. Does anyone one else have this problem? And does your graphics package have enough control to make the stripes go horizontally instead of vertically?


I just looked over the second one in detail and thought about it some more.

1. I see why the stripes are vertical, it's because the data is chronological. That might be hard to avoid.....

2. This angle looks much better, but is still hard to visualize correctly. And the other angle seems like it would be the better choice theoretically, as none of the details are hidden by other years.

3. Could you try connecting each end-point with a black line straight down to the floor. Maybe the fact that those lines are different lengths would help....

4. Looking at the year-long graph, I see that you colored the "2012" wall. That looks pretty good and might also help.

5. I can tell that you've already tried lots of stuff in order to produce what you have. Please don't take any of this as criticism. I'm just trying to make it even better....


Hi Bfraser - constructive criticism is more than welcome, and I agree they are not easy to visualise. Thinking of the colours as showing horizontal planes helps, I don't think there's any way of superimposing these planes though.

The full-year graph works better I think when rotated.



In particular, the vertical grain on the "front" wall makes everything clear.


... and an even stripier version!

(OK, enough now....)

Chris Biscan


Exactly and last year was a huge ice melt year. One the worst on record driven big time by the GHG forcing Amplification.

This year is a bit different but pretty much the same overall background scheme.

The big difference is that this year the Ice Pack is in far worse shape because the Atlantic side has been decimated.

It's a huge rouse, the ice is pathetic. And by Mid-June we will see it fall to pieces even if the pattern tries, it won't, the ice is to weak from the +AO, Dipole Anomaly winter that crushed the MYI.

List of current or near current In Situ Sea Ice Thickness Measurements:

Initial Conditions

Snow Depth: 47 cm
Ice Thickness at Thermistors: 167 cm

(This one is in the Canadian Arpechelago where MYI was pushed all winter into this region. The past depths of ice here wa 7-10 meters in winter and upwards of 100 meters along the shore where ice is smashed together.

Their Reading:

Initial Conditions

Snow Depth: 10 cm
Ice Thickness at Thermistors: 206 cm

Yeah not good.


That one is down the road from the one above it.

Current Buoy Data:
Iridium ID: 218490

Lat: 76.922 deg
Lon: -104.199 deg

Air Temp: -5.70 C
Air Pres: 1017.77 mb

Snow Depth: 10 cm
Ice Thickness: 215 cm


A thicker reading near the pole in MYI:

Current Buoy Data:
Iridium ID: 711490

Lat: 88.175 deg
Lon: 0.442 deg

Air Temp: -5.25 C
Air Pres: 1017.91 mb

Snow Depth: 36 cm
Ice Thickness: 282 cm

Still pathetic.

Another one down the road at the North Pole on MYI but far thinner. So it varies so much. Even in the thicker MYI.

Current Buoy Data:
Iridium ID: 308720

Lat: 88.173 deg
Lon: 0.388 deg

Air Temp: -6.00 C
Air Pres: 1017.81 mb

Snow Depth: 31 cm
Ice Thickness: 130 cm

Updated: 05/22/2012


That site has a bunch as well.

Chris Biscan

The pattern is still dipole a big SLP forms in the Kara day 4.

This torches the ESAS with winds out of the south and SE>

The Beaufort torches with southerly winds, this is pretty bad pattern for the ice.

The coldest air is over areas that melt out regardless, the North Atlantic torches, the Beaufort torches, with Alaska and NW Canada torching.

The ESAS is torches and ice is pushed towards the torching Atlantic side.

the Beaufort hole will get huge like this.


I hadn't seen that the CRREL website had been updated. Very nice how they now have all the buoy info on one page. Thanks, Chris.

Do those ITP buoys have thickness data?

Hans Verbeek


Seasurface-temperature in the North Pacific is below normal.
Is that a good sign or a bad sign?


Could be because there is still ice there? But to be sure you'd have to compare to previous years.


I don't know. 2009 and 2010 don't look particularly warm either. I'm a bit too tired to check the daily composites page.


Neven wrote:

I'm a bit too tired to check the daily composites page.

Do have my sympathy.

Fact is, despite the long cold and harsh winter in the Bering region the Bering Strait is already open now and in the Chuckchi Sea even a part till around Kotzebue. Which isn't a good sign at all.

So you have it right by linking the "lower as normal temperatures" to the vast chunks of remaining floes.

Other than that, I would like to advise against the idea to compare everything against everything on every second of the day. Drives one's mad.

Let's better wait a bit till 31 May - 1 Juin, as there will be a lot the talk about then I guess.


Which would make me madder than a rabid fox!!


Several items:

Heraclitus, I really like your May 22 1848 graphic. It adds a new perspective to viewing Jaxa data.

Second, while looking at changing onshore temps and future impact on albedo and sea ice melt, I glanced at the Rutgers snow/ice anomaly view. East Siberia is showing a major anamolous drop in coverage compared to the average for this date: See:


Finally, a new tool I have been using to review current and future global weather, that provides graphics and data for key locations is Weatherspark.com.

The site I have selected is Tiksi Airport, Sakha (Yakutiya), Russian Federation. If you check the forecast, it shows that after a brief dip below freezing on Friday, the daytime temps heat up into the 50's and a forecast high of 60F on 1 June.

Another advantage of this site is that it depicts global land surface snow and ice melt.

See: http://weatherspark.com/#!dashboard;ws=33779


Beaufort ice break-up video from MODIS Terra satellite for days 90 to 143 : r05c05


Awesome stuff, Dr Tskoul. I've used that video for a short blog post on the Beaufort break-up.


IJIS SIE had another century break. Will probably dip below 2007 and 2008 in the week to come.

Kevin McKinney

Second the motion of approval for Heraclitus' 3-D graphs! My favorite is the second-last version:



ECMWF weather forecast doesn't look good. Warm winds towards southern Kara could finish off large area of ice there. By Monday there could be strong winds pushing MYI out through Fram Strait.


Indeed, crandles. If that low really develops like that (starting in three days) and stays put for a couple of days, we should see some sort of effect.

Kevin McKinney

I'm rooting for a good low minimum this season; it's a big US election year...

Charles Longway

Kevin - regarding the timing of the USA election and a new minimum with bubbling Methane like last year. Climate could take center stage in the last few weeks before the election. If this happens, it could finally give the next president and congress a mandate to take climate change seriously.


neven & crandles,

are you guys going to enter the "sweep stakes" this year with a estimate of the minimum?


Steven, I think I'm going to put up a monthly poll in the right hand bar for the IJIS daily minimum (more fun when the time comes), but I think crandles will enter a SIO forecast. And Larry Hamilton too. Maybe some others as well this year.

Chris Biscan

Huge Dipole Anomaly coming.


just a snap shot.

If the 00z GFS is right, the Beaufort hole will explode in size along the coast the next few days reaching the Bering Straight.

Chris Biscan

If we have the same weather as 2007, this year will be around 2.3-2.5 mil km2 in area and 3.2 to 3.5 mil km2 in extent.

The ice is in terrible shape.

That kind of pattern would flush the arctic so fast.


Something particular at the Washington pole cam:

Apparently on snap 4 the lens had been covered by drizzle

From snap 5 till snap 7 the water seems to have been frozen a tiny little bit.
And on snap 8 the water already has evaporated ...

Snap 6

Peter Ellis


It's been a steady -7 to -8 degrees there, so I doubt it's drizzle. Remember that the camera is heated to prevent condensation on the electronic elements and lens. I imagine that picture shows very fine snow particles melting on the camera itself.


Peter wrote:

Remember that the camera is heated to prevent condensation on the electronic elements and lens

Is it? I wonder, it must be a hell of a heating then to render snow to fluid at - 7 C at the lens surface...

No, IMHO even at - 7 °C air temperature but in plain sunlight on any surface the temperature raises far above 0 °C. And that's why some buoys now report temperatures even till +12 °C at some point (still IMHO).

Also, do have a look at the ice surface with it's grany structure, a clear sign of ongoing sublimation. And if your screen had been properly calibrated, you might even see the light reddish glow due to the sublimation of H²O followed by an almost immediately desublimation.

Chris Biscan


I think we should all send in our thoughts.

Peter Ellis

Kris: Not to be offensive, but what on Earth are you talking about? There is no "grainy structure" of sublimation at the ice surface. There is, however, an obvious covering of light powdery snow, which would be impossible if there had been drizzle.

Light reddish glow? FFS, have you ever looked out of the window in winter?


IJIS SIE: 2012 has dived under 2008. In 5th place now (of 8), close to 2007. CT SIA: 2012 is in 4th spot.


IJIS SIE: yesterday -203k, 11.484k not far to 2010 and 2011 (5th place of 11: 2005, 2003, 2010, 2011, 2012).
Under 11M : old record 03/06 (2006, 2010, 2011), and 2012, before 01/06?!?


Sorry, (5th place of 11: 2006, 2004, 2010, 2011, 2012).

Seke Rob

Slowly progressing to revive last years set of charts, here the JAXA YTD SIE Mean... it's still early to see anything, by the Extent metric only. The [How short can you make them] Linear Reg. dotted trend line, and current reference line [pinkish] are next to on top of each other... flat... but that is normal at this time of the year, saying nothing about how swiss cheesy the situation is [would not skate on it]


Question for the followers of fashion: This being a leap year, is it usance to drop the Feb 29th? CT and JAXA have captured this day. The distortion is minimal, but could create a falsehood 28th to 1st change in the records.


28th 14018594
29th 13883438
01st 14080469


28th 13.2307777
29th 13.3105965
31st 13.4600391

-- Rob

Seke Rob

... and the Anomaly chart, base line 2003-2011... almost a whole decade. But for 2 years 8 are well within 1 Std.Dev. The eyeballers will 'see' though so much wished for 'recovery' ... why they continue to love this collator of SIE data ;>)


I'm btw intrigued by the discussions of substantial speedup in the last 50 years of the Thermohaline. Is the more forceful inflow from the Atlantic a partial explanation of the Barentsz low, and the Bering high SIE?

-- Rob

Peter Ellis

IJIS SIE: 2012 has dived under 2008.
IJIS SIE: yesterday -203k

It would be really nice if we can collectively stop doing this. As has been pointed out already, ever since the move to the older satellite, the latest daily value has been meaningless. Every single day, it shows at least a double century break, followed by a huge upward correction the next day.

This is almost certainly because the orbital parameter (plus other factors like swath width) mean that you simply don't get full coverage within a 24 hour period.

If we're going to jump up and down over the (false) double century break every single morning, this is going to be a very long summer...


Peter you are right for the "double century» (I have noted the correction of number every day) but the important is not the number of the day, bat the tendency on many days (and this not change a lot after corrections) and the tendency is very bad at the moment

Seke Rob

Corr. of course to the above 3 day set for CT/Atmos, Should have read:


28th 13.2307777
29th 13.3105965
01st 13.4600391

Are these 29th of Febs ignored?

-- Rob


I forgot to say that when I said that 2012 overtook 2008: that's without the double century figure that will be revised upwards considerably. I'm not even looking at the pre-revised number.

Of course, the same goes for the ASI updates, as noted in the post:

I have left off the last data point, because it goes very low every day (around 200K), but is revised just as much upwards the next day.


Seke Rob: yes, those leap year dates are a pain in the...

In my IJIS and CT spreadsheets I like to look at monthly averages so February has that extra day in 2008 and 2012, and other years have a blank on that day. I have another file where I look at day of year, and there I put the extra day at the end of the year, so that for instance day 101 in 2007 can be compared to day 101 in 2008/2012.

But for the PICT and CAPIE graphs I'm actually one day off when compared to non-leap years, that's to say, the dates correspond, but not day of year. May 1st is May 1st, but day 121 is actually day 122 in 2008 and 2012.

Ah well, it's never perfect.

BTW, you should bundle your graphs like the Daily Graphs page, or like Wipneus and Al Rodger did. It's incredibly easy on Google Sites.


Hi all,

SEARCH is searching:



From the maps and graphs, it seems that most of the lag for this year comes from the slow melt of Hudson Bay. Any heatwaves on the horizon in that area?

Tor Bejnar

How much of the weak or lacking ice in the Arctic's Eastern Hemisphere is due to oil flowing into the sea in recent years? Desmogblog.com - May 24 - has a video of an oily Siberian river.

Eli Rabett

Not telling you folk how to suck ice, but until about June 15 the various sea ice area charts are misleading because there is still ice in Hudson's Bay, the Bering Sea and south of Svalbard and Novaya Zemlya. We know that that is going to go. True, it can impede flow out of the central basin, but. . .

What would be useful is a chart of the open water inside 81/82 degrees north latitude but cutting across the Greenland Scalbard and Novaya Zemlya. IEHO the increase from about May 1 to June 15 would tell you a lot about the state of the melt. Outside this it is simply a side show wrt minimum sea ice in Sept.


Eli makes a good point.
Jeff Id tried to make a similar point by looking at the ice loss above 72N ( as I recall) That is,every year all the ice below 72N always melts out, so he looked at melt above 72N. kinda interesting it cause a brief kerfuffle but its interesting to look at


Daniel Bailey

Hmmph. Yet more dissembling from Mosher. Condon's follies Mosher refers to were quite properly taken apart by Tamino in a 3-part series:
How Fake Skeptics Fool Themselves
How Fake Skeptics Fool Themselves, Part 2
How Fake Skeptics Fool Themselves, part 3.

Why is it that fake-skeptics like Mosher refer to outright distortion, dissembling and fabrication on their part as "a brief kerfuffle"?

Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain...

Daniel Bailey

Ah, well. Might as well include the Coup de grâce of the series:
How Fake Skeptics Fool Themselves, Part Infinity: Sea Ice Version

Not about Condon or Mosher, but still entertaining nonetheless.


I might be wrong, but what Eli proposes has very little to do with what Jeff Id did. I have read Id's posts on sea ice several times, but I didn't and don't really understand what he was getting at. It lacked detail and on the whole seemed to show a lack of understanding of Arctic sea ice (just number crunching and a lot of arbitrary parameters). For instance, why go with 72N, or 75N, or 80N? Why not have a look at regions? Why such a sweeping definition of 'annual ice'?

And even if it all did make sense, I didn't see the relevance of his conclusions whatsoever, unless it was to provide Watts with an assist for the slightly dishonest: 'Look, global sea ice, nothing's going on'. Which is what Jeff Id seems to think, if I base myself on this short discussion I had with him prior to the 72N number crunching.

But maybe I'm not getting it (definitely not to be ruled out).

In the end what Eli is getting at, I think, is the discussion that is promoted (rightly so) by William Crump: what about the Arctic Basin? That's where we should look come September.

I agree with that statement, but we can look at other things in the meantime, like the regions adjacent to the AB.

Seke Rob

Global Sea Ice ... nothing going on?


That red line is about to cross the 2011 tracer, ATM 135K difference. Can't remember seeing a year that had this early a semi flat on this parameter.

Eli would maybe like to 'eyeball' http://bit.ly/MASIEA . Hudson region is melting, same as last year. Noted [from the CT daily image series] that the HB freezup was also very late similar to some other key years [ENSO relation?]... that's said to allow a lot more stored heat to escape from the bay, so is the late thaw typical with that?

-- Rob


"In the end what Eli is getting at, I think, is the discussion that is promoted (rightly so) by William Crump: what about the Arctic Basin? That's where we should look come September."

I've never claimed that William's idea was without merit, only that he was approaching it wrongly (oh, and his tone, but that's as may be). So once again, here is the problem with this concept.

The problem with defining an area like this is that it is not physically meaningful. The ocean and the atmosphere don't care about a line drawn by humans, and with a constantly changing reference point such an arbitrary boundary is doubly meaningless.

Why pick the Arctic Basin as "where we should look in September"? The answer can only come from the incorrect idea that the surrounding regions are essentially ice free in September (and "always" have been) so are irrelevant to the oveall picture. But that is wrong, on multiple levels.

The surrounding areas might be virtually ice free now, but historically weren't. CT average minimum area 1979-2008 was 1.25 M km^2 for these seas. And that includes some pretty bad seasons, so the real historical average is probably higher. last year, they got down to about 300K. To put that into context, the average melt in the Basin over the same period is 0.75 M km^2.

If you are trying to find a trend from the Basin, and simply ignore the larger changes in the surrounding seas, you will simply be wrong.

To see the problem, consider: if this approach is valid, it should be equally valid to choose an equally arbitrary area within the Basin, and look at the trends there. Suppose we choose an area of ~1 M km^2 bounded by Ellesmere, Greenland and the Pole. Roughly speaking, that area has been 1 M km^2 at maximum and minimum for as long as we've been measuring.

Now, most here agree that more-or-less ice free conditions will occur at minimum at some point in the future, regardless of whether we think that will be 2015 or 2115. If that's the case, then that 1 M km^2 area will go on showing no trend until right at the end when it will suddenly disappear quite quickly. How? That trend is holding steady, and will go on doing so. And then suddenly...wtf? Will we see some external change a few years before collapse? No - the problem is that by measuring such a small area, you are missing what is really happening in the big picture.

Now that's a fair old reductio ad adsurdem, but the point holds - if you're just going to ignore the changes in that 1.25 M km^2 that used to exist outside the basin at minimum, you are not going to see the real trend. And in fact this is what we see when we look just at the Arctic Basin - no trend at all for 25 years and then 2006 - suddenly an extra 1 M km^2 lost. wtf? Did we miss something? Well, yes - we missed ~10 years of steadily increasing melt in those surrounding areas that reduced their aggregate area by nearly 1 M km^2. Earlier in the series, lows in one sea were matched by highs in another. From the late 1990's we started to see a consistent decline, and by around 2005, they got to the point where they were all pretty much empty at the same time. Only then did we see a jump in the melt in the Arctic Basin. But it wasn't really a "jump", it was just a continuation of a trend across the Arctic as a whole.

So can you draw the line somewhere else? Well, it may be possible, but the weather driven variability is such that I think it would be very difficult to pick a specific area that accurately demarks the "never ice free". And in any case we have no proper baseline - that area has changed over the whole duration of accurate measurements, and will go on doing so, so its probably impossible.

The only real solution is to look at ALL the ice. The adjacent areas aren't something to watch "in the meantime", they are an integral part of the puzzle. Ignore them and you will be wrong. I'm not certain about much to do with ice, but I am certain about that.

Yeah, I know...tl;dr

michael sweet

The web cam data from the north pole showed 1C today.

87.829°N 0.070°E 1.0°C 984.7mb 199° 10.0m/s

Eli Rabett

Jeff Id was claiming that measuring ice south of 72N provided an estimate of first year ice. For a lot of reasons that is nonsense, however, there is a fairly straightforward, although not perfect way of estimating first year ice, which clearly shows a step change in 2007.


I totally agree with you, FrankD. I didn't make myself clear enough. Even though the Arctic Basin is what it all boils down to in the end, it also depends on what happens in the adjacent regions (happening as we speak), and so we have to look at that as well, which we are.


BTW, I always check DMI for SLP maps, but it's stuck at May 26th. How is it going with that low pressure system?


By Tiski, Uni Bremen has a green patch and CT has red both indicating around 60% concentration ice. On Modis, the ice looks blue in that region. I suggest it is 100% concentration ice but thin enough to see rocks versus sand underneath.

Is this part of the reason for the double century - i.e. this part of the drop isn't real?


That region was part of last year's New Siberian Islands animation. The fast ice started to break up for real around day 172, 25 days from today. I'm wondering if it will go earlier this year.

Peter Ellis

Blue ice on Modis generally indicates melt ponding if I understand correctly.


Some interesting changes in oscillation, both the AO and NAO are forecasted to flip to strong negative in the next few days.

The change reflects the predicted flow of warmer air into the Arctic. To see a sample of the forecasted temperature changes see the temps for Liverpool Bay, NT Canada, where highs are expected to reach the 60's F by June 7, with minimal freezing temps:


On the Siberian side, see the temps for Tiksi, where they have been above freezing since 25 May, and do not go below freezing through 7 June:


For today, a number of Greenland weather stations have temps ranging from the 50's-72 F.

I suggest we will see a drop below 11 million Km2 by 5 June, and below 10 million Km2 by 15 June if the predicted negative oscillation pattern holds.


Can anyone tell me what the white parallel stripes are in the NEW area?

I had assumed they were snow drifts, but they appear to be present on open water. I believe they are at 90 degrees to what the wind direction was when they first appeared yesterday on Modis.


Espen Olsen

Record temperatures in Narsarsua Western Greenland today 24,2 C or 1,8 C more than the previous record from May 31st 1991.

Peter Ellis

Twemoran: It's cloud formations.

White in this wavelength = cloud.


Thanks Peter - no excuse for not remembering the non-true color function.


L. Hamilton

Espen, thanks for the note on Narsarsuaq, not far from Erik the Red's homestead. On the NOAA hemisphere map that area (extreme S Greenland) looks no more than +5C, it's a good reminder the big maps are averaging over the icesheet, not just down by the fjord.


Matthew Opitz

Ice in Hudson Bay is about to get murdered.

Daytime highs one week from now, according to GFS:

Nighttime lows one week from now, according to GFS:

Usually Hudson Bay does not melt out until ~July 20 at earliest. I cannot see how the ice there will be able to hold up that long if such conditions referenced above hold steady (which it seems they will for the foreseeable future...the long range GFS is even nastier, scorching the Hudson Bay coast with highs in the 80s F).


Matthew O. wrote:

Usually Hudson Bay does not melt out until ~July 20 at earliest

Make that: "On average Hudson Bay does not ..." ecc...

Already in 2010 and 2011 Hudson Bay melted out much earlier as average. And the entire surface froze solid only in January (2011) and end of December (2011).

Mind, this is utterly important as, if it would continue like that, it would trigger a climate change even till the Great Lakes, especially Lake Erie - milder winters, less of precipitation, hotter summers and more periods of drought.

To compare with, around Lake Baikal there is a 30 km strip where Spring begins 3 weeks later, due to the ice field that covers the lake in Winter.

And remember, To compare Lake Baikal to the Hudson Bay is to compare a mini freezer to a huge industrial hangar deepfreeze.

Well, as I told already earlier, those longing for something spectacular should keep an eye on the Hudson Bay. :-)


I myself wrote:

January (2011) and end of December (2011).

Make that:

January (2010) and end of December (2011).


By Jove!

16 °C end of May already at Tiksi!

And on top of that, it's raining now at Barrow. So it looks very much like the break-up is imminent there already.


Blue ice on Modis generally indicates melt ponding if I understand correctly.

But it really is very blue today, isn't it? I know there's a small difference in brightness between this year's satellite images and last year's, but the difference in the region between Tiksi and the New Siberian Islands is very pronounced.

2012 vs 2011 vs 2010



As noted by Kris, Tiksi is at 16C now, but has been above 0C since 25 May. The heatwave at TIksi ends 4 June, then the temps fluctuate above and below freezing.


The blue on Modis may be ponding, but if the melt continues, we should get open water soon.

On the Canadian side, Keats Point, NT has been above freezing since 24 May, and is anticpated to stay above freezing through 8 June.



>"Blue ice on Modis generally indicates melt ponding if I understand correctly."

I am no expert it may be.

However, I see what I assume to be river channels through a horse shape of rocks. (Not sure when that would have occured because if water level was lower to do that then I would expect it to be colder and frozen over.)

Anyway, would we see this so clearly if the blue was melt ponds? The water might be still enough but wouldn't water refract light blurring and/or disjointing where the channels appear to be? Maybe such effects are indistinuishable from twists in the channels? That seems unlikely to me, but I could easily be wrong.

Is it possible that blue light is reflected better from (thin?) ice while red and green are more likely to penetrate through ice and/or be absorbed? Perhaps a damp surface that cannot do much by way of refraction might assist/enhance such an effect?

L. Hamilton

CT area 5/27 is second-lowest (after 2011) recorded for that date. Average daily drop in May, -75k, is slightly faster than 2011 and ties with 2010.

DMI has not updated since 5/25; I'll post a summary when they do.


Rather off-topic, but there is an interesting little piece in Nature that has some of the usual suspects all aflutter...


1930's aerial pix of glaciers have surfaced which have allowed researchers to estimate glacial dynamics from much earlier than the usual span od data. Not too surprisingly, since the 1930's saw pronounced warming, glaciers were in retreat at the time.

One to think about - in the '30's it was land terminating glaciers that were retreating fastest. In the last decade it has been marine terminating glaciers receding the most.

Naturally, in some circles the 1930's warming is seen to prove that something ... unremarkable ... something ... alarmists ... something ... something ... waffle ... rant ...


>"In the last decade it has been marine terminating glaciers receding the most."

Requires steady warming over long period due to heat capacity of water.

Conversely, short sharp warming affects land termnating glaciers. Now if these are not retreating as fast now as in 1930s' does this indicate warmth in 1930's was paticularly sharp and perhaps warmer then than now? I doubt it, steady warming has probably put the glaciers in a state of retreat such that not much effect is now seen for record temperatures now compared to record temperatures then.

Sounds as if it should fit in pretty well with theory AFAICS.

Michael Fliss

The region between the New Siberian Islands and the Lena River Delta using the band 3,6,7 combination and pixel size 250m appears to be the same sort of ice that can be seen, for example, off the northeast coast of Greenland, including the wispy tendrils of ice. This is the time of the year when the Lena River thaws and the water is high and brown with sediment.




L. Hamilton

One further note on Narsarsuaq (off topic but interesting to me because I was there once): an exceptionally clear view of this South Greenland area from MODIS today. The air strip at Narsarsuaq (one of just two in Greenland that can land commercial jets) is on the outwash plain from a land-terminating glacier at the head of the deepest un-snowy fjord in this MODIS image. Bergs from a local glacier are in the fjord that's just "above" Narsarsuaq. Remnants of sea ice swirl off the coast.



Crandles wrote:

put the glaciers in a state of retreat such that not much effect is now seen

Of course.

And not to be forgotten, since 1930 quite a bit "land terminating" glaciers around the World just have disappeared. Meaning the are in a zero receiding stage. Elementary. Thus the "alarmist" in 1930 had a point, they really had a point.

And other than that, the surviving "land terminating" glaciers still are receiding at an impressive avarage pace. On average. Wich means some years almost nothing, other years large chunks of 200 m and more (such as in 2003).

Suffice to look into the Swiss Alps overvieuw to be convinced.

Unless you are a denialist of course. :-)


Michael Fliss wrote:

This is the time of the year when the Lena River thaws

As it is in "normal" circumstances.

However, and as it has been reported here by Apocalyps, this year the Lena ice already melted in the second half of April, with as a consequence large floodings at it's borders.

So the Lena waters must already stream into the Arctic from early May on. Underneath the icefield to be precise.


It was 17C or 63F in Tiksi on the Laptev Sea today - and sunny.

Michael Fliss


Yes, I suggested that the Lena River was flowing after looking at the MODIS images. I did read Apocalypse's comment from April 23 and your comment to it. However, the article cited was dated May 15, 2007. Do you have any references for the 2012 season?



I am not sure what happened with the previous link. Here is a link to an April 25, 2012 Yakutia paper report on the ice clearing and flooding:


Also, a May 30, 2012 article mentioning that flooding is expected to peak in Yakutsk on June 7-8.


Finally, a Youtube video from May 16 of the Lena River ice runs in Pokrovsk, Central Yakutia, Sakha Republic (Yakutia.



One more brief account gives insight into the level of flooding in some areas:

1,000 people evacuated due to flood in Russia's Far East (Yakutia)


Michael Fliss

Thanks, Apocalypse. Very cool. Neven had a great post on the Lena last year in April (A Warm River Runs Through It). I became familiar with Yakutsk when I became interested in a motorcycle trip on the Road of Bones, the M56 Kolyma Highway from Yakutsk to Magadan, in homage to those whose lives, literally, became a part of the road.

Account Deleted

In Tiksi +19.2 - official record in May exceeded 3 degrees (+16.1 May 31, 1954) !


"For instance, why go with 72N"

It's not that hard to understand. The idea was this. Every year ice below 72N melts out.

So, if you want to look for the effect that added warming has on ice loss, you look at ice above 72N.

Although I dont necessarily agree with the approach, I didn't think it was crazy. plus, the data and code was open, so its not like people would go blind by looking at data in a different way. Its not like puppies would die if somebody merely asked the question "whats the realtionship between warming and ice loss above 72N?" turns out you find a stronger relationship by looking at it that way. interesting. But in general I didnt stop believing that doubling C02 is a bad idea merely by looking at somebody trying something different. I didnt suddenly unknow that GHGs cause warming because somebody looked at data differently. No science got undone by the mere calculation of a number. Since it was well described and documented I could actually see what was done and didnt have to guess. Go figure. curiousity might kill cats, but I didnt figure it would frighten grown men


And it still isn't the end.

At present a staggering 21 °C at Tiksi .

A temperature you could expect only in "the heat of the Summer" there, last week of Juin till the second week of July.




isn't updated anymore.

Does anyone know more about it?


Although I dont necessarily agree with the approach, I didn't think it was crazy.

I'm not saying it was crazy, but to me it looked very arbitrary, and more or less useless. Maybe it doesn't look useless to someone who keeps claiming that Arctic sea ice loss isn't a big deal because Global sea ice is not declining as fast, a statement which shows a certain preconception.


Blog post for the blue ice between the New Siberian Islands and the Lena Delta is up: Kind of blue

Please, discuss there. :-)


Does anyone know more about it?

Kris, I've sent a mail to DMI.


Another big drop in CT SIA: 165K. It will pass the 10 million mark tomorrow and will probably take the lead in the next couple of days (3rd spot now).


...and is over 1M anomaly.

The comments to this entry are closed.