Arctic sea ice update - will this year's melt break last year's record?

Question

There was a lot of fuss made about a few scientists' predictions that the north pole could potentially be ice-free as early as the end of this summer. For a while it appeared that the melt would fall well short of last year's record, and certain people made a big deal about that.

Looking at the daily artic sea ice extent data, it's looking like the predictions may have been justified. Normally by August the melt has begun to slow, but because so much of the arctic ice this year is new, thin ice (because so much melted last year), the sea ice melt has not yet begun to slow down this year.

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png

Not that this data proves or disproves global warming - either way the long-term trend is dramatically downward

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/n_plot.html

But considering the updated data, do you think the arctic sea ice melt this year will break last year's record?

Answer 1

Didn't Dr. Jello do the same thing when the Artic froze so quickly last winter? Being the Anti-Jello is not good either, Dana.  

Answer 2

Really , the data i have seen shows a great comeback for sea ice . Near same levels as when we started satellite measurements .

http://nsidc.org/cgi-bin/bist/bist.pl?an...

The june comparisons are almost identical(28yrs) . Your point ?

http://nsidc.org/cgi-bin/bist/bist.pl?an...

Answer 3

No.

NASA Marshall Space Flight Center data shows 2008 ice nearly identical to 2002, 2005 and 2006.

Maps of Arctic ice extent are readily available from several sources, including the University of Illinois, which keeps a daily archive for the last 30 years. A comparison of these maps (derived from NSIDC data) below shows that Arctic ice extent was 10 per cent greater on August 22, 2008 than it was on the August 23, 2007. (2008 is a leap year, so the dates are offset by one.)

http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test...

JPL doubts that Arctic Sea Ice changes are due to ‘Global Warming’

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?re...

“Our study confirms many changes seen in upper Arctic Ocean circulation in the 1990s were mostly decadal in nature, rather than trends caused by global warming," said Morison.

"While some 1990s climate trends, such as declines in Arctic sea ice extent, have continued, these results suggest at least for the 'wet' part of the Arctic -- the Arctic Ocean -- circulation reverted to conditions like those prevalent before the 1990s," he added.

The Arctic Oscillation was fairly stable until about 1970, but then varied on more or less decadal time scales, with signs of an underlying upward trend, until the late 1990s, when it again stabilized. During its strong counterclockwise phase in the 1990s, the Arctic environment changed markedly, with the upper Arctic Ocean undergoing major changes that persisted into this century. Many scientists viewed the changes as evidence of an ongoing climate shift, raising concerns about the effects of global warming on the Arctic.

Morison said data gathered by Grace and the bottom pressure gauges since publication of the paper earlier this year highlight how short-lived the ocean circulation changes can be. The newer data indicate the bottom pressure has increased back toward its 2002 level.

"The winter of 2006-2007 was another high Arctic Oscillation year and summer sea ice extent reached a new minimum," he said. "It is too early to say, but it looks as though the Arctic Ocean is ready to start swinging back to the counterclockwise circulation pattern of the 1990s again."

Answer 4

To early to tell, most NAC is taken during periods of dormancy. The timing is off by 6 months.There's also the usual NAO effects during a PDO. I am curious about a linear parabola though, is this new math?

Answer 5

probably, dude the worlds ending get use to it.

Answer 6

DANA------------

No one on the planet says global warming doesn't exist. The debate is humanity must blame somthing on it.

For the last time..........GLOBAL WARMING HAS OCCURED ABOUT EVERY 10,000 YEARS.  BEFORE HUMANS WALKED THE PLANET, GLOBAL WARMING STILL OCCURED.  WHEN MAN IS GONE, GLOBAL WARMING WILL STILL OCCUR.  

Who with a brain is not getting this?

Answer 7

Next year the ice melt will be higher than the average of the downward trend line. And when that happens, I GUARANTEE you that the skpetics will see that as a sign that GW has stopped (or whatever BS they say), despite the fact that it has always fluctuated above and below the trend line in its downward trend. These people are intentionally naive. They need to be physically punished in my opinion, not for being skeptical but for knowingly lying to people.

Answer 8

Who cares?  it will freeze back up in winter.

Answer 9

I will BET ---  NO.

Very few weeks left before it starts freezing up again. It's already in the upper 30s at night in Galena, Alaska--

http://www.wunderground.com/US/AK/Galena...

and below freezing at night in other parts of Alaska--

Answer 10

Maybe, maybe not.  As you know, a single year doesn't make or break any climate science theory.  But what's interesting is that after the notably cold winter and significant new ice accumulation (which several uninformed doubters around here claimed was "proof" global warming was over), we are this close to a new record low extent year.  

It's obvious that we will break the 2007 record (global warming isn't going away no matter how many ignorant posts on yahoo by doubters), but it may be a few years from now.

Answer 11

I think it will get close.

Answer 12

Who cares if it breaks records.  I know I have provided this link before but you have either chosen to ignore it or don't believe it.  Either way it is factual.  Standing around and watching ice melt or freeze and trying to figure out a way to blame American prosperity borders on insanity.  Here  is that link again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Post-...

In case the point isn't obvious to those that don't understand science or can't think in long term, the sea levels represent approximate ice levels.  When the sea level is high, ice is low and vice versa.  You may notice a rising trend in the sea levels for the last few thousand years.  I think it is pretty silly to assume you live in a magical time where suddenly those rising sea levels are no longer natural but must be our fault.  Before preaching science, learn a little about it first.  

Answer 13

Here is an interesting link that can be used to compare Arctic sea ice by way of thermal satellite imaging by varying dates.  I don't know if this year will break a record, but it appears as though a lot more melting has to happen before it does...... at least visually.

http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test...

Answer 14

The idea that you (and your queery climate friends) can put the complexity of the earth's climate in a computer model and predict the future with certainty is funny to me.  Weatherman can barely get the rain right and you think you can predict the weather 10 years from now?  Now that's funny.

Answer 15

One of the signs of climate change is that you can no longer infer future behavior with reasonable accuracy from historical observations.  The fact that the ice melt no longer follows that parabolic trajectory in August fits nicely into that assessment.  Whether or not the ice melt exceeds the areal extent from 2007 is somewhat secondary to the fact that the time rate of change of the coverage is different.  

The planet is retaining more longwave radiation.  That energy gets redistributed and the mechanisms that redistribute the heat are affected by the fact there is now more of it.  That ice is melting later in the year, or that there is less ice (in terms of total volume) should surprise no one.  

Skeptics can argue that it is all natural variation, and that somehow, sea level rise is correlated with ice melt.  However, there is a perfectly sound scientific theory for why ice cover is changing and sea level is rising that has nothing to do with natural variability.  Assuming that everything is natural variability, when the theory predicts we should be seeing these same effects, goes beyond skepticism into denial.  Denial of the seriousness of a threat is good since it allows one to have hope in survival situations.  In this case though, it is counterproductive since it precludes the ability to have a rational debate on what, if anything, might be done to solve the problem.