The 2024 Arctic sea ice minimum extent will almost certainly occur at some point over the next month. The exact date and level will vary from one extent metric to the next. Here’s a comparison of the current JAXA extent with previous minima, courtesy of Zack Labe:
Here too is a more detailed look at 2024 extent compared with the 5 lowest annual minima in the JAXA record:
By way of comparison, here is the equivalent graph for the OSI SAF extent metric, which experienced an up tick yesterday but has now reached a new low for the year:
The Alfred Wegener Institute’s extent metric has flatlined over the last two days:
However AWI Arctic sea ice area is currently falling, which may well presage further significant falls in extent:
The NSIDC web site is currently “experiencing technical difficulties”, but hopefully we’ll be able to take a look at their extent graph in the very near future.
[Update – September 4th]The NSIDC web site is back in action, and their 5 day averaged extent metric is currently still falling quickly:
The ARCUS Sea Ice Prediction Network August report has been published. Note that the predicted numbers are for the September monthly average extent rather than the daily minimum:
For the August Outlook, we received 24 contributions of September pan-Arctic sea-ice extent forecasts…
The August 2024 median forecasted value for pan-Arctic September sea-ice extent is 4.27 million square kilometers with an interquartile range of 4.11 to 4.54 million square kilometers. This is about 200,000 square kilometers lower than the June median and about 250,000 square kilometers lower than the July median, which reflects the faster than average ice loss during July.
The lowest sea-ice extent forecast is 3.71 million square kilometers and the highest sea-ice extent forecast is 5.23 million square kilometers. These extremes are actually higher, particularly on the low end, than the estimates from July.
There’s been the tiniest of upticks in the NSIDC 5 day extent metric. 1 thousand km² to be precise. However, the others are still slowly declining:
NSIDC extent has posted a new low for the year, and JAXA extent is still declining. However there has been a slightly more substantial uptick in the OSI SAF metric:
The current minimum is 4.64 million km² on September 8th.
AWI sea ice area has posted a convincing looking minimum on September 4th, which suggests that the central refreeze is already well under way:
Watch this space!
Thanks Jim! echoughton
Not seeing much decline elsewhere, Jim. JAXA seems stalled at just above 4 million, but of course, it’s usually the lowest of all the various measures. It seems to be sitting right at last years low.
Any idea what’s happening at DMI on extent? They are saying ‘issues’ and don’t seem to have an update since late August.
Overall, looks like another undramatic year for extent, but volume, particularly at DMI, seems to be the story.
There’s been plenty of “drama” from the usual “skeptical” suspects though Taylor! See for example:
https://GreatWhiteCon.info/2024/01/tony-heller-denies-global-warming/
The DMI extent graph is based on the OSI SAF data, and the Norwegian Meteorological Institute’s interactive graph is much more user friendly. See the latest data above.
“- AREA is 1st lowest in the 46 year satellite record which makes global sea ice area lowest for the day for 30 days this year.”
This statement from gerontocrat on the, “Global sea ice area and extent”, thread seems to be untrue when you look at the graph supplied below it…
Weird. I always trusted everything he posted.
*(I know it’s not arctic specific but I like the area stuff so it still points to the idea of area. The artic specific thread gives the information as it being second lowest so no problems with the information according with the graph there.. just wondered why it seemed out in the global area thread.!!)
You’ve confused me SML. This is the last graph from an ASIF post where Gerontocrat made the “1st lowest” claim:
As suggested by that projection, NSIDC global sea ice area is now second lowest.
Pardon if you’ve heard me rant about this before, Jim, but this discussion about which version of a sea ice metric says what is frustrating. JAXA, DMI and NSDIC (to name just three) are a good 10% off from each other on what purports to be the same metric (extent). This descrepancy comes at a time of the most critical sea ice season. Various scientists have varying predictions on when we get down to 1 Wadham, and what that means to the planet, yet they can’t agree on the current state.
If Eratosthenes could measure the earth to within 0.1% accuracy over 2,000 years ago, why can’t today’s scientists at least find a way to agree on how to measure this critical metric. And that’s just one of several we should know and track more precisely.
Why isn’t there an international conference where everybody with a stake in this gets locked in a room until they can agree on a single best methodology so we can agree on the current situation and trends?
And don’t get me started on global temperature…
/end of rant
Thanks for listening
Typo. NSIDC, not NSDIC.
I’m afraid it’s not that simple Taylor. First of all note that there are assorted different types of sensor up in space, and different algorithms for processing the data they acquire.
Then I suggest you read my conversation with Walt Meier:
https://GreatWhiteCon.info/2016/02/dmi-masie-and-the-sea-ice-index-an-interview-with-walt-meier/
The SSMIS sensor on board a few Defense Meteorological Satellite Program satellites is currently used to generate the NSIDC’s sea ice index. However the US has no plans to launch any more of them into space. What do you suppose will happen when the last of them dies?
Another year the arctic isn’t ice free. Al Gore is looking very silly now.
If you insist on introducing political takes on climate…
Not as silly as Donald J. Trump!
N.B. https://GreatWhiteCon.info/2014/09/david-roses-apocalyptic-vision-of-al-gores-nobel-lecture/
That counter to David Rose was not your finest hour, Jim. Gore spoke from a global podium with all the credibility due a Laureate. He quoted, as fact and strong likelihood, some scientists who were dead wrong.
In response, you quibbled about ‘projection’ vs ‘prediction’, a distinction the lay public is unlikely to grasp. Gore’s talk was aimed at that same lay public, specifically to raise alarm, an unjustified alarm, given the ‘projections’ he used.
Scientists, and the scientifically-minded (and you are certainly in that group), have a responsibility to own up to their words if they are wrong. This is particularly true if those words had a deliberate purpose, and even more particularly true if that purpose was political.
I would be fine with Gore if at some point he’d said “well, I guess we got that wrong, but…”. Haven’t heard that from him, and have accordingly lost respect.
Al Gore is a politician Taylor, not a climate scientist. Perhaps he doesn’t understand the difference between a “prediction” and a “projection” either? He used the word “estimated”.
How often have you heard a politician say words along the lines of “sorry, I got that wrong”?