I’m more interested in the debate for next season taking in consideration the actual sea ice trend then defending points of view favour or against GW.

There is a lack os couverage in the atlantic side, but dispite of that is very interesting that tongue between Greenland and Iceland

 

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

 

I don't think there is any need to defend or attack - the facts (extent and trends) speak for themselves.

Yes, that tongue of ice looks interesting.  I checked on Cryosphere Today and it shows there as an area of very low concentration or no ice at all (between 0 and 20% cover).

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/NEWIMAGES/arctic.seaice.color.000.png

Incidentally, we saw another large increase yesterday: now 8,403,594 sq km.  That still puts 2010 as second lowest since 2002.

Hi,

just adding some comparing data is not a scintific thing to do but opens the debate, because they are cooler then same date as 2008, specially the Western side.

August
http://www.smhi.se/oceanografi/istjanst/produkter/arkiv/sstchart/sstchart_20100826.pdf

http://www.smhi.se/oceanografi/istjanst/produkter/arkiv/sstchart/sstchart_20080825.pdf

September

http://www.smhi.se/oceanografi/istjanst/produkter/arkiv/sstchart/sstchart_20080925.pdf

http://www.smhi.se/oceanografi/istjanst/produkter/arkiv/sstchart/sstchart_20100927.pdf

October
http://www.smhi.se/oceanografi/istjanst/produkter/arkiv/sstchart/sstchart_20101025.pdf

http://www.smhi.se/oceanografi/istjanst/produkter/arkiv/sstchart/sstchart_20081027.pdf

November
http://www.smhi.se/oceanografi/istjanst/produkter/arkiv/sstchart/sstchart_20101101.pdf

http://www.smhi.se/oceanografi/istjanst/produkter/arkiv/sstchart/sstchart_20081103.pdf

It's a shame we don't see the depths as well? I'm not happy with the Data our Cetacean pals have been giving around the Baffin area, kinda confirms what we all feared (continued temp rises above and beyond IPCC W.C.S. with mixing out of the halocline as well).

I'm sure the Arctic ocean transits we sat and watched by the Healy this summer will provide a similar picture within the basin itself.

Lest we treat the ocean surface temps the same way some of us treat 'ice extent' eh?

The ice extent growth continued yesterday, albeit slightly slower after the recent spurt.

Yesterday's value was 8,672,500, putting it very close to 2007 (8,672,813) and fractionally above last year (8,667,656).

As a reminder the 1979-2000 average for early November is 10.5m

Wake me up in March. 

Wake me up in March. 

Is that a promise? 

I'm just tracking how the growth is proceeding. Nothing untoward so far, other than the starting point.

I think the ice thickness is deeper and larger, because has more Ice >1 year that could help to make a more solide concentracion when compared to 2005, the ice was thiner. the NE of canada is below average.

http://polar.ncep.noaa.gov/seaice/analysis/nh/nh.20101107.gif

http://polar.ncep.noaa.gov/seaice/analysis/nh/nh.20051107.gif

Looking at the longer-term trend, this site shows the ice loss between the period 1958-1976 and the 1990s:

http://imb.crrel.usace.army.mil/thickcli.htm

The rate of loss varies quite widely, but is very clearly all losses.

I think we also need to get a handle on the 'modern' 12month ice loss through both Fram and Nares (and Bering if the wind/temps are favourable to it).

The Fram losses are of our most 'valuable' ice (the oldest in the basin) and are replaced by F.Y. ice. Not a good swap!

I think the ice thickness is deeper and larger, because has more Ice >1 year that could help to make a more solide concentracion when compared to 2005, the ice was thiner. the NE of canada is below average.

http://polar.ncep.noaa.gov/seaice/analysis/nh/nh.20101107.gif

http://polar.ncep.noaa.gov/seaice/analysis/nh/nh.20051107.gif

Yes, quite a lot of this year's imagery seems to indicate a thicker ice pack compared with recent years.

Is there a rule that GW has to include the word "Fram" in every post?

 

Is there a rule that GW has to include the word "Fram" in every post?

That's almost deframatory.....

Well that was Strait to the point.......

(and for good measure....

http://www.woksat.info/etcsk08/sk08-1236-i-sv.html

note the milky swirls as the old ice melts out, also note the lozenge patterns we see around Nares surfacing here....I wonder where (and when) this ice came from???)

 http://www.woksat.info/etcsk08/sk08-1416-a-apt-w.html

Any chance that you could make that image a little smaller as it is a bit big and is messing up the Framing on my page?

Edit: That was quick LOL

Quick update - yesterday's value was 8,987,031 sq km.

That puts us at the second lowest after 2009 (by 100k) and about 2m sq km below the 1979-2000 norm for this stage in the re-freeze.

We are still tracking towards the bottom end of the 21st century range of values.

Quick update - yesterday's value was 8,987,031 sq km.

That puts us at the second lowest after 2009 (by 100k) and about 2m sq km below the 1979-2000 norm for this stage in the re-freeze.

We are still tracking towards the bottom end of the 21st century range of values.

Really....2 million sq km, looks like half of that to me......

Cryosphere Today - this date compared with 2007 - click to enlarge (thanks to Ric Werme)

Quick update - yesterday's value was 8,987,031 sq km.

That puts us at the second lowest after 2009 (by 100k) and about 2m sq km below the 1979-2000 norm for this stage in the re-freeze.

We are still tracking towards the bottom end of the 21st century range of values.

Really....2 million sq km, looks like half of that to me......

 

Pay attention Robert....

That would be because:

1. I was quoting sea ice EXTENT and you are quoting sea ice AREA


2. I quoted the 1979-2000 mean - you are referencing the Cryosphere site which has moved to the 1979-2008 mean.  Because so much ice has been lost since 2000 the mean has dropped

Apart from that....

Within the Arctic basin, ice extent is up on last year.

It is down in Baffin Bay, but looking at these temperatures, I would expect some quick recovery here.

What do others think?

http://www.uni-koeln.de/math-nat-fak/geomet/meteo/winfos/synNNWWarctis.gif

Within the Arctic basin, ice extent is up on last year.

It is down in Baffin Bay, but looking at these temperatures, I would expect some quick recovery here.

What do others think?

http://www.uni-koeln.de/math-nat-fak/geomet/meteo/winfos/synNNWWarctis.gif

 

Let's hope so. We're only around 5% (450k) sq km below the 2002-2009 norm for mid-November so it wouldn't be impossible to recover to something near to the 'new normal'. 

I will put a lot of money on there being no chance at all of getting back to the norms of the last quarter of the 20th century in the near future or at all.

Within the Arctic basin, ice extent is up on last year.

Indeed, looking quite good to me.