The National Snow and Ice Data Center reports:
During the first half of August, Arctic ice extent declined more slowly than during the same period in 2007 and 2008. The slower decline is primarily due to a recent atmospheric circulation pattern, which transported ice toward the Siberian coast and discouraged export of ice out of the Arctic Ocean. It is now unlikely that 2009 will see a record low extent, but the minimum summer ice extent will still be much lower than the 1979 to 2000 average.
“The graph [click to enlarge] shows daily sea ice extent as of August 17, 2009. The solid light blue line indicates 2009; the solid dark blue line shows 2008; the dashed green line shows 2007; and the solid gray line indicates average extent from 1979 to 2000. The gray area around the average line shows the two standard deviation range of the data.”
Since the 2009 arctic extent AREA seem to be close to 2008 levels, which set the record for minimum ice VOLUME, it is too soon to say whether 2009 will set a volume record (see “Will we see record low Arctic ice VOLUME this year?“).
It remains as clear as ever that the Arctic ice isn’t going to recover, and we are headed for ice free summers in the foreseeable future:
- North Pole poised to be largely ice-free by 2020: “It’s like the Arctic is covered with an egg shell and the egg shell is now just cracking completely”
- New NSIDC director Serreze explains the “death spiral” of Arctic ice
- NSIDC: Arctic melt passes the point of no return, “We hate to say we told you so, but we did”
- The International Polar Year: “Arctic sea ice will probably not recover
- Permafrost loss linked to Arctic sea ice loss
Previous in TP Climate Progress
Quite frankly, thank goodness…I’ll take any no record year we can get from the arctic.
NSIDC state that “On August 17, Arctic sea ice extent was 6.26 million square kilometers (2.42 million square miles). This is 960,000 square kilometers (370,000 square miles) more ice than for the same day in 2007″
This is an area twice the size of France. Isn’t this recovery?
[JR: No. That is 2D thinking. We live in a 3D world. Try reading the links. The key to recovery would be volume -- not area.]
Joe,
If you hear of any studies that discuss the role increased clouds and/or types of clouds may have in the two “tablings” of the ice extent decline this year, please post them. This probably won’t happen until after the end of the melt season and then if that season goes on a bit longer and/or the melt data graphs suggest a different pattern at the end of the season. As noted, there are lots of variables, and what is explained certainly makes sense, but it seems to me that more is going on . . . i.e. the climate in the Arctic polar region is changing and models for understanding it will need to adjust. Anyway, at 300 mb things look to have been quite different this year.
Neil:
The ice has come back to some extent because the last two years were colder than 2007. But it’s just barely creeped back from the record lows of 2007 and it’s still way below the average. The point about volume that Joe keeps making is that this thin first-year ice is the relatively easy to melt. So the next really hot year we get (probably next year), most of that new ice will melt along with some of the older ice and we will see a new record low. The ice will continue to expand and contract from year to year, following global temperature fluctuations, just as it always has. But the maximum extents will be lower, and the minimum extents will be way lower, until at some point the minimum extent reaches zero.
I had an argument on this blog with Joe over 2 years ago bofore the 2008 minimum where I think I put forth the argument that we would likely not exceed the 2007 record minimum for another 5 years.
Climate doesn’t move in a monotonically linear pattern, and after records are set it is typically years before they are broken again. In the meantime when you start making claims that start approaching predictions that every year will be a new record, you almost always get those predictions wrong. We need to have a bit of a steadier hand here.
Even though we still haven’t exceeded 2007s record minimum low in ice cover, though, it does appear that 2008 and 2009 are setting a pattern for what the new ‘normal’ ice cover is (likely to be the 2nd and 3rd lowest ice cover on record), and that before long we will have a new record set that beats 2007 — but “before long” might take 5-10 years.
Same thing is going to happen with the temperature record. The 1998 records are going to be beaten across the board soon, but then the new records will likely hold for many years.
I’m also betting against 2009 being a new minimum in either volume or coverage. That doesn’t mean I’m betting against AGW, I’m just betting against a straight monotonically linear progression of the trend.
Two dimensional thinking is far more appropriate than three dimensional, as the albedo effect is only dependent upon ice cover not volume.
I think it makes climate scientists look petty to focus on ice extent when it reaches a minimum as in 2007 but to then shift focus to ice volume (which was never even mentioned previously and which is not that relavant to climate) when ice extent increases year over year.