Arctic Sea Ice Extent, Area, and Volume

[Stormchaserchuck1]

I'd be surprised if we were at record low levels, the warm season so far has been very +NAO/+AO

[lookingnorth]

Maybe Charctic is incorrect, but this is what that source shows: https://imgur.com/sSjMIiT.

[bluewave]

Early split picture showing up in the data. It was a warmer than average May across the Arctic. But not as warm as 2020 was which lead to all the preconditioning that year. June was the coolest in the Arctic over the last decade. Yet the extent is currently in 1st place for lowest in early July. But the area is only 8th lowest.

Area and melt pond fraction are more important this time of year than extent in trying to guess a September low. Unfortunately, the May melt pond data still hasn’t been released. This is what the statistical model uses to forecast a June September low.

If I had to take an early guess, the higher area now than extent could mean that the extent will fall behind the steep 2012 drop which happened back in early August 2012. So it’s possible that the 2012 record low will hold for another year. 

But I want to see the May melt pond fraction first before making a final call. I will update this if the ARCUS SPIN site gets around to posting the model forecasts for September. They have been delayed in their update. 

[roardog]

We really need an almost perfect setup to beat that 2012 record. The cool June and continued strong +AO and cool isn't going to cut it regardless of the May melt pond data IMO.

[ORH_wxman]

On 7/4/2025 at 1:09 PM, roardog said:

We really need an almost perfect setup to beat that 2012 record. The cool June and continued strong +AO and cool isn't going to cut it regardless of the May melt pond data IMO.

I’ve been super busy this summer so forgot to issue a forecast but I’ll run the numbers later this week retroactive to July 1st to see what it would’ve been but just glancing at it, we wouldn’t have predicted a new record low min. 
 

Right now, area is running 8th lowest. Forecast looks pretty favorable for good melt in the coming week so a top 5 melt season is still on the table. We’d need to set a new record for loss from this date though to finish lower than 2012. 

[Typhoon Tip]

Is this right from the university of Maine?

looks like we’re presently a tick below 2012

[chubbs]

8 hours ago, Typhoon Tip said:

Is this right from the university of Maine?

looks like we’re presently a tick below 2012

Looks good. 2012 pulled away for good in early August, when a unusually strong storm broke up the weakened ice pack and promoted mixing of warmer water from below.

[bluewave]

On 7/4/2025 at 12:46 PM, bluewave said:

Early split picture showing up in the data. It was a warmer than average May across the Arctic. But not as warm as 2020 was which lead to all the preconditioning that year. June was the coolest in the Arctic over the last decade. Yet the extent is currently in 1st place for lowest in early July. But the area is only 8th lowest.

Area and melt pond fraction are more important this time of year than extent in trying to guess a September low. Unfortunately, the May melt pond data still hasn’t been released. This is what the statistical model uses to forecast a June September low.

If I had to take an early guess, the higher area now than extent could mean that the extent will fall behind the steep 2012 drop which happened back in early August 2012. So it’s possible that the 2012 record low will hold for another year. 

But I want to see the May melt pond fraction first before making a final call. I will update this if the ARCUS SPIN site gets around to posting the model forecasts for September. They have been delayed in their update. 

Right on cue the pace of Arctic sea ice loss has slowed behind the 2012 record drop experienced in early August 2012. That was at the end of an historic Arctic Dipole pattern from 2007-2012 leading to all the records over that 6 year period.

This season so far has continued the much weaker Arctic Dipole pattern since 2013. So this changed summer Arctic circulation pattern since then has resulted in no sea ice trend since those steep declines.

But the Arctic has seen increasing warmth over this period. So even with these more favorable conditions for Arctic sea ice retention, the sea ice thickness and extent has not returned to the pre 2007 state. 

Most Septembers finish between 4-5 million sq km over this period well below the major Arctic shift in 2007.

I mentioned the melt pond data from early in the season which is one of the early indicators to look at. But this was the first year it hasn’t been published online. It probably would have shown something near the middle of the pack based on the lack of strong warmth this May. This was the opposite of the strong preconditioning in 2012 and 2020.

2012 was a perfect storm of a strong Arctic Dipole pattern following significant May preconditioning and the record Arctic cyclone in early August. These three features have not occurred in tandem since then.

Special thanks to Gerontocrat from preparing the current extent which is in 7th place and 593K higher than 2012 as of August 9th.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2024GL114546

 

 

 

[Typhoon Tip]

We’ll see… The AO is going negative over the next week. 

[ORH_wxman]

On 7/20/2025 at 12:04 PM, ORH_wxman said:

I’ve been super busy this summer so forgot to issue a forecast but I’ll run the numbers later this week retroactive to July 1st to see what it would’ve been but just glancing at it, we wouldn’t have predicted a new record low min. 
 

Right now, area is running 8th lowest. Forecast looks pretty favorable for good melt in the coming week so a top 5 melt season is still on the table. We’d need to set a new record for loss from this date though to finish lower than 2012. 

 

Here's what the prediction on July 1st would have been using this year's data: 

 

 

The sea ice area was at 6.868 million sq km on July 1st which if you take the melt from that point forward of every year since 1979 would give us a final minimum average of 3.0 million sq km. However, whereas the trend for post-July 1st area loss was pretty flat until about 2013-2014, it has since developed into a statistically significant trend, so in recent years, I've used post-2007 numbers to make the forecast. Using post-2007 melt after July 1st would produce an average sea ice area minimum of 2.8 million sq km. 

 

We'll see where it ends, but the forecast would've been 2.8 million sqkm (prob around 2.6-3.0 with error bars). For reference, the top 3 lowest are 2.22 million sq km (2012), 2.46 million sq km (2016), and 2.47 million sq km (2024). 

Area is currently 3.26 million sq km....this late in the season, a top 3 is unreachable. I don't think I'd change the final prediction from what it would have been...maybe shade it toward the higher end of the 2.6-3.0 range. 

 

 

 

[tacoman25]

19 hours ago, ORH_wxman said:

 

Here's what the prediction on July 1st would have been using this year's data: 

 

 

The sea ice area was at 6.868 million sq km on July 1st which if you take the melt from that point forward of every year since 1979 would give us a final minimum average of 3.0 million sq km. However, whereas the trend for post-July 1st area loss was pretty flat until about 2013-2014, it has since developed into a statistically significant trend, so in recent years, I've used post-2007 numbers to make the forecast. Using post-2007 melt after July 1st would produce an average sea ice area minimum of 2.8 million sq km. 

 

We'll see where it ends, but the forecast would've been 2.8 million sqkm (prob around 2.6-3.0 with error bars). For reference, the top 3 lowest are 2.22 million sq km (2012), 2.46 million sq km (2016), and 2.47 million sq km (2024). 

Area is currently 3.26 million sq km....this late in the season, a top 3 is unreachable. I don't think I'd change the final prediction from what it would have been...maybe shade it toward the higher end of the 2.6-3.0 range. 

 

What are the top 3 highest since 2007?

[bluewave]

Looks like another season ending in the 4-5 sq million range for September average extent. Years like 2012 and 2020 dropping under 4million sq km have been the exception. So have years finishing over 5 million sq km like 2009, 2013, and 2014.

So a very stable September minimum regime since the record declines back in the strong 2007-2012 dipole era. This reversal of the dipole has prevented us from exceeding the 2012 minimum so far.

So we can say with confidence that 2007 lead to a regime shift in the sea ice. Extent and thickness have not been able to recover to the much higher pre-2007 ice. Even with multiple summer seasons with very favorable lower pressure circulation patterns for sea ice retention. The annual warmth in the Arctic has just been too strong to allow any type of recovery. 

 

2024…..4.38

2023…..4.37

2022….4.87

2021……4.92

2020……3.92…2nd lowest

2019……4.32

2018…...4.71

2017……4.87

2016……4.72

2015…..4.63

2014…..5.28

2013…..5.35

2012…..3.60….lowest

2011……4.61

2010…..4.90

2009….5.36

2008….4.67

2007…..4.28

 

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2024GL114546

A regime shift is an abrupt, substantial, and persistent change in the state of a system. We show that a regime shift in the September Arctic sea-ice extent (SIE) occurred in 2007. Before 2007, September SIE was declining approximately linearly. In September 2007, SIE had its largest year-to-year drop in the entire 46-year satellite record (1979–2024). Since 2007, September SIE has fluctuated but exhibits no long-term trend. The regime shift in 2007 was caused by significant export and melt of older and thicker sea ice over the previous 2–3 years, as documented in other studies. We test alternatives to the traditional linear model of declining September SIE, and discuss possible explanations for the lack of a trend since 2007.

Current Jaxa extent 

[chubbs]

28 minutes ago, bluewave said:

Looks like another season ending in the 4-5 sq million range for September average extent. Years like 2012 and 2020 dropping under 4million sq km have been the exception. So have years finishing over 5 million sq km like 2009, 2013, and 2014.

So a very stable September minimum regime since the record declines back in the strong 2007-2012 dipole era. This reversal of the dipole has prevented us from exceeding the 2012 minimum so far.

So we can say with confidence that 2007 lead to a regime shift in the sea ice. Extent and thickness have not been able to recover to the much higher pre-2007 ice. Even with multiple summer seasons with very favorable lower pressure circulation patterns for sea ice retention. The annual warmth in the Arctic has just been too strong to allow any type of recovery. 

 

2024…..4.38

2023…..4.37

2022….4.87

2021……4.92

2020……3.92…2nd lowest

2019……4.32

2018…...4.71

2017……4.87

2016……4.72

2015…..4.63

2014…..5.28

2013…..5.35

2012…..3.60….lowest

2011……4.61

2010…..4.90

2009….5.36

2008….4.67

2007…..4.28

 

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2024GL114546

A regime shift is an abrupt, substantial, and persistent change in the state of a system. We show that a regime shift in the September Arctic sea-ice extent (SIE) occurred in 2007. Before 2007, September SIE was declining approximately linearly. In September 2007, SIE had its largest year-to-year drop in the entire 46-year satellite record (1979–2024). Since 2007, September SIE has fluctuated but exhibits no long-term trend. The regime shift in 2007 was caused by significant export and melt of older and thicker sea ice over the previous 2–3 years, as documented in other studies. We test alternatives to the traditional linear model of declining September SIE, and discuss possible explanations for the lack of a trend since 2007.

Current Jaxa extent 

After several decades of rapid warming, arctic warming ground to a halt in the past 10-15 years. while warming in the NHemi mid-latitudes sped up. Consistent with recent trends in arctic sea ice and our recent winters.

[tacoman25]

2 hours ago, bluewave said:

Looks like another season ending in the 4-5 sq million range for September average extent. Years like 2012 and 2020 dropping under 4million sq km have been the exception. So have years finishing over 5 million sq km like 2009, 2013, and 2014.

So a very stable September minimum regime since the record declines back in the strong 2007-2012 dipole era. This reversal of the dipole has prevented us from exceeding the 2012 minimum so far.

So we can say with confidence that 2007 lead to a regime shift in the sea ice. Extent and thickness have not been able to recover to the much higher pre-2007 ice. Even with multiple summer seasons with very favorable lower pressure circulation patterns for sea ice retention. The annual warmth in the Arctic has just been too strong to allow any type of recovery. 

 

2024…..4.38

2023…..4.37

2022….4.87

2021……4.92

2020……3.92…2nd lowest

2019……4.32

2018…...4.71

2017……4.87

2016……4.72

2015…..4.63

2014…..5.28

2013…..5.35

2012…..3.60….lowest

2011……4.61

2010…..4.90

2009….5.36

2008….4.67

2007…..4.28

 

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2024GL114546

A regime shift is an abrupt, substantial, and persistent change in the state of a system. We show that a regime shift in the September Arctic sea-ice extent (SIE) occurred in 2007. Before 2007, September SIE was declining approximately linearly. In September 2007, SIE had its largest year-to-year drop in the entire 46-year satellite record (1979–2024). Since 2007, September SIE has fluctuated but exhibits no long-term trend. The regime shift in 2007 was caused by significant export and melt of older and thicker sea ice over the previous 2–3 years, as documented in other studies. We test alternatives to the traditional linear model of declining September SIE, and discuss possible explanations for the lack of a trend since 2007.

Current Jaxa extent 

b

There are certainly different ways to look at this. Back in 2012, there was a lot of talk of a tipping point having been reached in the Arctic, and some thought we'd be seeing virtually ice-free summers by now.

[FPizz]

1 hour ago, tacoman25 said:

There are certainly different ways to look at this. Back in 2012, there was a lot of talk of a tipping point having been reached in the Arctic, and some thought we'd be seeing virtually ice-free summers by now.

Plenty of articles about that.  But, maybe it is just a holding pattern for now, and then there will be another dip lower (or higher haha).

[bluewave]

1 hour ago, tacoman25 said:

There are certainly different ways to look at this. Back in 2012, there was a lot of talk of a tipping point having been reached in the Arctic, and some thought we'd be seeing virtually ice-free summers by now.

2007 was a much greater regime shift when looking at the bigger picture.

The NSIDC didn’t forecast an imminent technically ice free summer below 1 million sq km at that time. But there were a few individuals in the Arctic community who did.

If the record Arctic dipole pattern of 2007-2012 had continued into the 2020s, then the 2012 record would have been surpassed by now. Perhaps even producing a season in the 1 to 2 million sq km range approaching technically ice free.

But the dipole reversal since 2013 featuring much lower summer pressures over the CAB has prevented the 2012 record from being challenged. 2020 came the closest but the relaxation of the dipole in August and lack of record Arctic cyclone preventing it from surpassing 2012.

The last decade has featured a summer record mid-latitude ridging pattern across the Northern Hemisphere leading to the record heatwaves not on land and sea. It has featured lower pressures near the pole preventing a new record low.

It’s interesting that a study released back in 2014 showed this new pattern developing before it emerged. They speculated at the time that it could lead to a remnant of summer Arctic sea ice remaining pretty far into the future if lower pressures continued over the Arctic during the summers going forward. 

 

 

 

[tacoman25]

1 hour ago, bluewave said:

2007 was a much greater regime shift when looking at the bigger picture.

The NSIDC didn’t forecast an imminent technically ice free summer below 1 million sq km at that time. But there were a few individuals in the Arctic community who did.

 

Correct. Here are a couple of the predictions from prominent experts during that period. One predicting in 2007 an ice-free Arctic by 2012, and the other in 2012 predicting an ice-free Arctic by 2016. Just goes to show that there are important factors not fully understood in this science, then or now.

https://www.tampabay.com/archive/2007/12/12/scientist-arctic-ocean-could-be-ice-free-by-2012/

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/sep/17/arctic-collapse-sea-ice#

 

[GaWx]

 From Dr. Viterito (via JB), the person who thinks that warmer oceans (and thus GW) has been caused mainly by undersea volcanic activity: I’m putting this out for discussion purposes, not to take sides with him:

Arctic Ice Comment from Dr V

..And now we have yet another research nugget that needs to be explored further. This recent article by Matt Vespa points to the fact that Arctic sea ice has not declined since around 2005.

 

So, the Climate Change Narrative Just Took a Broadside. Want to Guess What It Was Over?

 

A deeper dive into the data from Climate Reanalyzer paints a slightly different picture. Specifically, it pinpoints the year when the decline stopped as 2007. Here is their chart:

 

 

Climate Reanalyzer, University of Maine

As a correlate, the Mid-Ocean Spreading Zone Seismic Activity (MOSZSA) matches up VERY well. Here is that chart:

 

Clearly, the "trough" in Arctic sea ice extent began the same year (2007) MOSZSA plateaued i.e., 2007!!! 

 

Too many things correlate strongly with MOSZSA: global temperatures, global sea surface temperatures, Arctic sea ice, the AMO Index, oceanic heat content, Western Pacific thermocline depths, Kuroshio intensification, and other responsive geophysical phenomena. 

 

More to follow...

[roardog]

2 hours ago, FPizz said:

Plenty of articles about that.  But, maybe it is just a holding pattern for now, and then there will be another dip lower (or higher haha).

I still think that all of the extra water vapor/moisture around the globe(compared to a few decades ago)helps keep the summers cloudier and cooler there while keeping the other seasons warmer. Every year when October rolls around these days, the temp anomaly maps go from light blue to dark red. It just can’t cool down as fast as it used to with so much more moisture in the air. Having more open water than decades ago probably just adds to the moisture. 

[gallopinggertie]

6 hours ago, GaWx said:

 From Dr. Viterito (via JB), the person who thinks that warmer oceans (and thus GW) has been caused mainly by undersea volcanic activity: I’m putting this out for discussion purposes, not to take sides with him:

Arctic Ice Comment from Dr V

..And now we have yet another research nugget that needs to be explored further. This recent article by Matt Vespa points to the fact that Arctic sea ice has not declined since around 2005.

 

So, the Climate Change Narrative Just Took a Broadside. Want to Guess What It Was Over?

 

A deeper dive into the data from Climate Reanalyzer paints a slightly different picture. Specifically, it pinpoints the year when the decline stopped as 2007. Here is their chart:

 

 

Climate Reanalyzer, University of Maine

As a correlate, the Mid-Ocean Spreading Zone Seismic Activity (MOSZSA) matches up VERY well. Here is that chart:

 

Clearly, the "trough" in Arctic sea ice extent began the same year (2007) MOSZSA plateaued i.e., 2007!!! 

 

Too many things correlate strongly with MOSZSA: global temperatures, global sea surface temperatures, Arctic sea ice, the AMO Index, oceanic heat content, Western Pacific thermocline depths, Kuroshio intensification, and other responsive geophysical phenomena. 

 

More to follow...

The current rate of global warming is pretty much unprecedented in the geological record. Wouldn’t the current amount of undersea volcanic activity then also have to be unprecedented to be the main driver of the warming?

But it isn’t, is it? The Earth has gone through periods of volcanic activity way more intense than anything that’s currently taking place. 

The rate of CO2 increase on the other hand is also pretty unprecedented…just like the speed of this warming. Hmm. Really makes ya think, doesn’t it?

[LibertyBell]

11 hours ago, roardog said:

I still think that all of the extra water vapor/moisture around the globe(compared to a few decades ago)helps keep the summers cloudier and cooler there while keeping the other seasons warmer. Every year when October rolls around these days, the temp anomaly maps go from light blue to dark red. It just can’t cool down as fast as it used to with so much more moisture in the air. Having more open water than decades ago probably just adds to the moisture. 

all that excess water vapor is nasty, we could really put it to use by converting it to drinking water, there are devices already available that can do this

 

[bdgwx]

On 8/22/2025 at 12:11 PM, GaWx said:

From Dr. Viterito (via JB)

He was the editor-in-chief for the now defunct predatory journal Environment Pollution & Climate Change owned by OMICS.  OMICS, subsidiaries, and personnel were investigated for academic fraud in 2016 and were found to have run as many 700 predatory journals and deceived numerous article authors. A judge ordered the India based company to pay $50 million in damages. Viterito defended his involvement with the predatory journal he ran.

And his "scientific" positions defy credulity. He allowed an article that stated that the greenhouse effect cannot be real because the atmosphere does not have a roof like a real greenhouse. Even the most predatory of predatory journals would usually reject that kind nonsense. So this must have been a whole new level of ineptitude. 

If Viterito isn't a climate troll then he is doing everything he possibly can to convince everyone that he is. Why? I have no idea.

[GaWx]

22 hours ago, gallopinggertie said:

The current rate of global warming is pretty much unprecedented in the geological record. Wouldn’t the current amount of undersea volcanic activity then also have to be unprecedented to be the main driver of the warming?

But it isn’t, is it? The Earth has gone through periods of volcanic activity way more intense than anything that’s currently taking place. 

The rate of CO2 increase on the other hand is also pretty unprecedented…just like the speed of this warming. Hmm. Really makes ya think, doesn’t it?

 

3 hours ago, bdgwx said:

He was the editor-in-chief for the now defunct predatory journal Environment Pollution & Climate Change owned by OMICS.  OMICS, subsidiaries, and personnel were investigated for academic fraud in 2016 and were found to have run as many 700 predatory journals and deceived numerous article authors. A judge ordered the India based company to pay $50 million in damages. Viterito defended his involvement with the predatory journal he ran.

And his "scientific" positions defy credulity. He allowed an article that stated that the greenhouse effect cannot be real because the atmosphere does not have a roof like a real greenhouse. Even the most predatory of predatory journals would usually reject that kind nonsense. So this must have been a whole new level of ineptitude. 

If Viterito isn't a climate troll then he is doing everything he possibly can to convince everyone that he is. Why? I have no idea.

 Thanks for your replies!

 I’m all for open discussion of alternative ideas and that’s why I posted this and others from him. If the alternative idea appears to be plausible, it would probably be supported to an extent. OTOH, if not, it  would likely be refuted.

 Also, I feel it’s important for others to be aware of what’s being spread to so many people (Weather Bell subs in this case) whether plausible or not. Thus, I expect to continue posting Dr. V stuff.

 In this case, Dr. V’s idea has been refuted several times here. That helps others like myself to be more knowledgeable about the doubtfulness of the plausibility of his idea. Not only that, I learned thanks to bdgwx about OMICS and its fraud.

 Today, JB posted this as a followup:

 I'm now going to incorporate this into my (forever) paper which is now in its second draft. The finished product will then be submitted to The International Journal of Environmental Sciences and Natural Resources, a peer-reviewed journal that has accepted other papers I've written in the past (in fact, they solicit me on a regular basis for contributions). That paper will then get passed on to Tom Nelson, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin, and my Congressional Representative, Mike Haridopolis. That will hopefully get the geothermal hypothesis onto a higher plane.

 The bolded adds even more to my doubts about Dr. V. Why? I hate to bring politics into this, but Zeldin and Haridopolis are far righties, which imho has been the source of a lot of misinfo of all kinds, including CC. I’m saying that as a moderate independent as I’m not a liberal or a Democrat. Also, Thomas Nelson is the producer of “Climate The Movie: The Cold Truth”, which tries to minimize the significance of AGW.

@donsutherland1

[donsutherland1]

29 minutes ago, GaWx said:

 

 Thanks for your replies!

 I’m all for open discussion of alternative ideas and that’s why I posted this and others from him. If the alternative idea appears to be plausible, it would probably be supported to an extent. OTOH, if not, it  would likely be refuted.

 Also, I feel it’s important for others to be aware of what’s being spread to so many people (Weather Bell subs in this case) whether plausible or not. Thus, I expect to continue posting Dr. V stuff.

 In this case, Dr. V’s idea has been refuted several times here. That helps others like myself to be more knowledgeable about the doubtfulness of the plausibility of his idea. Not only that, I learned thanks to bdgwx about OMICS and its fraud.

 Today, JB posted this as a followup:

 I'm now going to incorporate this into my (forever) paper which is now in its second draft. The finished product will then be submitted to The International Journal of Environmental Sciences and Natural Resources, a peer-reviewed journal that has accepted other papers I've written in the past (in fact, they solicit me on a regular basis for contributions). That paper will then get passed on to Tom Nelson, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin, and my Congressional Representative, Mike Haridopolis. That will hopefully get the geothermal hypothesis onto a higher plane.

 The bolded adds even more to my doubts about Dr. V. Why? I hate to bring politics into this, but Zeldin and Haridopolis are far righties, which imho has been the source of a lot of misinfo of all kinds, including CC. I’m saying that as a moderate independent as I’m not a liberal or a Democrat. Also, Thomas Nelson is the producer of “Climate The Movie: The Cold Truth”, which tries to minimize the significance of AGW.

@donsutherland1

Their goal, and that of other social media influencers, has nothing to do with honest discussion. It's solely about obfuscation. That's why they can only succeed in political circles, not scientific ones.

Indeed, many of these influencers are viewed dismally in scientific circles. Their efforts are shoddy, filled with errors, and miss even basic points. I sometimes bring up some of them here, so that people are aware of what's going on.

One example, not posted here, but on X:

The basic error here that Martz (a social media influencer who is active in denying anthropogenic climate change and its impacts) makes is that he does not understand that probability measures the chance of an event occurring/not occurring. It does not directly measure model accuracy. Thus, he essentially endorses a post that asserts that a 5% probability of an event's occurrence means that he models were "wrong 95% of the time."

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of what statistics measure and what they do not measure. Indeed, that fundamental error guides this inability to comprehend attribution science and its merit in explaining in statistical terms how much more likely and/or more intense an event was in the contemporary warmer climate.

Unfortunately, many who are exposed to such content do not have the backgrounds or understanding to recognize that they are being misled.