It is now 35% higher than 2007 and back to 2009/2005 levels.
I’ve mentioned similar stuff over at WUWT and gotten really no substantial comments on it. There was a half-hearted mention by “jakers” that the rapid extent increase was due to dispersion, but that doesn’t explain the almost-as-fast increase in area, which can really only be explained by freezing. Thus, I’ve made an ambitious prediction that JAXA 15% extent will pass 2009 on October 3rd. I haven’t looked at CT area as much, but it will likely pass 2009 a bit after extent, and I think October 5th is reasonable estimate.
The thing that gets me is the DMI 30% extent performance this year. Except for the mid-Sept dip, it’s followed 2009 very, very closely. However, both area and 15% extent have diverged from 2009 much more. I assumed the 30% performance should fall somewhere between the two, so it’s been a confounding block for me. I really wish I had access to those number though (not a graph)…it’d be one more tool to work with. 🙂
It’s only a rapid ice gain because of the late dip, if you remove that wind caused anomaly then it’s not so impressive.
This is the second time the people who want the summer minimum to be high have jumped onto the refreeze once the summer minimum has been low, it’s like grasping at something to make you feel a little bit better.
I agree with what you say pretty often Andy, but not this time.
The area minimum was unaffected by the “late dip” and occurred on Sept 9. Yet the increase in area from the minimum is the 2nd largest in the last 10 years, behind 2004 by about 44000 km^2. If we gain the same area today as yesterday, we’ll pull into a virtual tie with 2004 for tops in the last 10 years. Plenty of years prior to 2001 showed larger area gains immediately after their minima, but I would very much welcome behavior similar to those years.
With regards to the area dip and how to count it, it either needs to be counted in every conversation or not – no picking and choosing. If you wish to consider 2010 as having a JAXA minimum of 4952813 km^2 on Sept 10, that’s fine by me. I, however, will consider the minimum to be 4813594 km^2 on Sept 18. Oddly enough, if you go by the first method and use the single-day minimum values, you’ll come to the same conclusion as if you use the second method and go by the September monthly average, which some people prefer. Both ways put 2010 slightly below halfway between 2008 & 2009.
So I think one can either use the Sept 10 and say the rebound has been weaker than it is but this year’s minimum wasn’t as low, or you can use the true minimum from Sept 18 and say the rebound has been strong but the minimum was quite a bit lower. One can’t pick and choose their talking points and methods on a whim.
Maybe Andy’s approach isn’t so bad after all. Even using Sept 10 as the starting point, extent gains make it #3 in the JAXA record (behind 2002 and 2004). It’s 40% higher than 4th place, 2008, even starting 1 day after 2008 and then having a additional week+ of loss.
Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:
You are commenting using your WordPress.com account.
( Log Out /
You are commenting using your Google account.
( Log Out /
You are commenting using your Twitter account.
( Log Out /
You are commenting using your Facebook account.
( Log Out /
Connecting to %s
Notify me of new comments via email.
Notify me of new posts via email.
Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.
Join 1,972 other followers
Sign me up!