[softy54534]

Now, why did that not work? I used the "insert image" button and all.

[HedgeYourBets]

Now, why did that not work? I used the "insert image" button and all.

You didn't use the full url

[Raj_Copi_Jin]

Cheers, morrie.

[Slonopotam845]

And now NSIDC have called it.

← Previous Article
Arctic sea ice extent breaks 2007 record low
August 27, 2012

Arctic sea ice appears to have broken the 2007 record daily extent and is now the lowest in the satellite era. With two to three more weeks left in the melt season, sea ice continues to track below 2007 daily extents.

Please note that this is not an announcement of the sea ice minimum extent for 2012. NSIDC will release numbers for the 2012 daily minimum extent when it occurs. A full analysis of the melt season will be published in early October, once monthly data are available for September.

Arctic sea ice extent fell to 4.10 million square kilometers (1.58 million square miles) on August 26, 2012. This was 70,000 square kilometers (27,000 square miles) below the September 18, 2007 daily extent of 4.17 million square kilometers (1.61 million square miles).

Including this year, the six lowest ice extents in the satellite record have occurred in the last six years (2007 to 2012).

[radikal]

For some masochistic impulse I know not wherefore I decided to check Watt's commentary on this issue: quibbling about data sets used and "look, Antarctica". A bit sad really.

[brraverishhh]

>>
For some masochistic impulse I know not wherefore I decided to check Watt's commentary on this issue: quibbling about data sets used and "look, Antarctica". A bit sad really.

[Big A]

"someone said the Arctic might be ice-free by 2012"

Dunno who it was who said that. The decline in Arctic ice has progressed much more rapidly than the IPCC anticipated.

[Big A]

Prior to 2010, there was probably no time since the 12th century in which circumnavigation of the north pole was possible.

So, can we expect another Renaissance, do you think?

[Drugmachine]

So, can we expect another Renaissance, do you think?

That's my prediction. How can you be creative when you're shivering cold? Murmansk will be the new Florence.

[9mm_fan]

Thing is, the ice continues to melt at an amazing rate for this kind of year, around 70000 sq km per day. A typical rate for 26 Aug is 40000 sq km per day. So this could be quite an outlier of a year: maybe as low as 3.5 million sq km or so? The average minimum for the reference period (1979-2000) is 6.7 million sq km.

[Lillie_Steins]

http://www.sacbee.com/2012/08/27/476...onference.html
GREENBELT, Md., Aug. 27, 2012 -- /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The extent of the sea ice covering the Arctic Ocean has shrunk. According to scientists from NASA and the NASA-supported National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) in Boulder, Colo., the amount is the smallest size ever observed in the three decades since consistent satellite observations of the polar cap began.



NASA and NSIDC scientists will host a media teleconference at 3 p.m. EDT, today, to discuss this new record low for summertime Arctic sea ice cover.

The extent of Arctic sea ice on Aug. 26, as measured by the Special Sensor Microwave/Imager on the U.S. Defense Meteorological Satellite Program spacecraft and analyzed by NASA and NSIDC scientists, was 1.58 million square miles (410 million square kilometers), or 27,000 square miles (70,000 square kilometers) below the Sept. 18, 2007, daily extent of 1.61 million square miles (4.17 million square kilometers).

[HedgeYourBets]

Thing is, the ice continues to melt at an amazing rate for this kind of year, around 70000 sq km per day. A typical rate for 26 Aug is 40000 sq km per day. So this could be quite an outlier of a year Which is why quibbling over the precise data set used for comparisons three weeks out from the end of the melt seasons seems a little pathetic.

[NeroASERCH]

Which is why quibbling over the precise data set used for comparisons three weeks out from the end of the melt seasons seems a little pathetic.

C'mon, be fair. You don't expect an UCCDA to admit that there is anything unusual or in the least concerning about these events do you?

[MannoFr]

It's of course more than reasonable to make the general point that record-breaking per se is not a great indicator of fundamental change. But an instance like this where the record is likely to be smashed, and it's a clear continuation of a decades-long trend do tend to suggest that there might just be something in the theory that the north polar region is getting warmer.

[Paul Bunyan]

It's of course more than reasonable to make the general point that record-breaking per se is not a great indicator of fundamental change. But an instance like this where the record is likely to be smashed, and it's a clear continuation of a decades-long trend do tend to suggest that there might just be something in the theory that the north polar region is getting warmer.

Probably the fact that the six lowest annual minima during the satellite era occurred during the last six years is more telling than the fact that 2012's minimum was the lowest of the whole set. As NSIDC mention, this has _not_ been a very warm year in the Arctic, not as warm as 2007. The fact that we will see a low minimum this year is partly a reflection of the fact that a lot of the hard thick ice has already been melted off in previous years, and even though we had quite a high maximum of sea ice coverage in the most recent Northern winter, it was thin and easy to melt. The "multiyear ice" is in a steady decline.


Although whatsupmyarse is correct that the MASIE data probably give a better idea of the exact area of ice coverage on a particular day, NSIDC's normal ice area charts enable consistent trend comparisons going back to the early 1970s. MASIE's record only goes back five years. On the other hand the MASIE product seems certain to also give a record low value soon.

His point about Al Gore's "Arctic sea ice cover is at an all-time daily record low - an important alarm bell" tweet seems reasonable, though I assume some allowance is made for brevity in tweets. It is of course not the all-time daily record low in Arctic sea ice cover.

[NeroASERCH]

http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2012/...m-1938-43.html

Worth a read I think ...

[S.T.D.]

http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2012/...m-1938-43.html

Worth a read I think ...

ROFL, look at those two maps. So similar.

My grandfather left me a set of old National Geographic maps when I was a kid, mostly from the 1940s and 1950s. The maps of the Arctic had a couple of curves marked: "maximum ice extent" and "minimum ice extent".

The minimum ice extent on those maps covered the northern part of Svalbard, pretty much all of the Canadian archipelago north of the Arctic circle. I'll see if my brother still has those and get him to scan them. In the olden days there really did used to be a block of sea ice that never melted and dominated the Arctic even in summer.

Give it up, guys.

[radikal]

Observer, please check out these charts and absorb the information. The low-ice years of the early part of this century were HIGHER in ice than the 1979-2000 reference period that NSIDC uses as a benchmark ... and the 1979-2000 benchmark average minimum is about TWICE as high as this year's minimum is going to end up.

http://brunnur.vedur.is/pub/trausti/Iskort/Pdf/

[Lt_Apple]

.
... and the 1979-2000 benchmark average minimum is about TWICE as high as this year's minimum is going to end up.
---------------------------------------

Yes it's good to see all that fresh water entering the system and reducing by part the pollution dumped in it.

That with the slightly warmer conditions should be a bonanza for fish stocks.

Except where they have been depleted beyond return...

[brraverishhh]

Unfortunately, AMSR-E blew a gasket some months back. AMSR-2 has been launched but they are still ironing out problems and calibrating, so U Bremen is not producing the high resolution maps they usually do.
Still, I like their images because they give ice coverage density in colour.