barrel1234

Arctic temps at 80 degree north are once again below average..... i didnt expect to see that at this time of year with SST anomalies being so high in the area. http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/meanTarchive/meanT_2013.png edit- typo

Personally it wouldn't bother me one bit if sea ice in the arctic was to become ice-free during the arctic summer- It would just be a case of business and nature dealing with whatever happens- Its probably only had a seasonal pack many times throughout the earths history. The whole AGW thing facinates me, and along with it I find sea ice extent and trends extremely interesting. What I'm trying to say is that I feel i am pretty neutral as regards to what I want to happen in the arctic, but for me I think that Arctic Ice certainly is not doomed and that some people massively underestimate natural forcings.

Could some of the moisture be linked to contrails from a massive increase in air travel over the last 50 years

The cold arctic would have been due to a combination of reduced solar activity, weather patterns and the PDO being in a negative phase- When the AMO gets started and turns negative too then you will see some pretty cold times in the Arctic regions. I can't understand why a relatively minor meteor event could be put before more obvious and hugely more powerful natural drivers. Of course that being said more major meteor/volcanic events will for sure have an impact.

I had a quick flick back through the years and while not a comprehensive check by any means it does appear to be easier to find more periods of below average sst's around the Antarctic than above average. Although as I said its just a quick random check and not done scientifically but it seems to stand out to me as having cooler than average sst's over the years from 1997 Here is a slightly cherry picked one from 2003 when almost all the globes sst is above average except from the area around the Antarctic. There are plenty more like this to cherry pick from....... and there seems rather less to cherry pick from if looking to find warm sst anomalies. http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2003/anomnight.9.19.2003.gif I'm aware that different companies that monitor sst can and do come up with different anomalies.... I have always used NOAA simply because its the one I started randomly looking at a number of years ago just for browsing interest so its just more familiar to me. to me.

I have been keeping an eye on sst anomalies for quite some time and recently there hasnt been much in the way of warm water around the Antarctic ice. In fact at the moment it seems to be surrounded by water cooler than average http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2013/anomnight.9.19.2013.gif

Although I acknowledge that the basin is not doing very well (if your an iceophile) I do think that the ice that we have retained this year is in the right place to have a chance of resisting a melt out next year too. the Atlantic side is more likely to be exported south and lost so IMO its best to have the multi year ice more central or over the other side- that way at least its more likely to have to be melted rather than just being exported out. This is why I see this year as being much better in regards to ice retention than 2007 or more obviously 2012

There is always much talk about positive feedbacks in the arctic. As Aboynamedsue touched upon, higer than average sst in the arctic combined with the v cold air of the winter due to start pushing in within the next few months could hugely increase precipitation over the whole arctic region compared to average snowfall. Surely this potentially could act as a big negative feedback? Also what are the melt rates/ tolerability of highly compacted snow/freshwater ice compared to frozen sea water during a melt season?

The basin has been largely without southerly winds so far this melt, however looks like there could be some milder air heading into the basin in the next couple of weeks from the look of the gfs charts. But who knows if this year will mark a step-up from the losses in recent years... we still have to get this melt season out of the way yet and with the fragile state of the pack I dont think we are out of the woods yet regarding ice retention, although it would have to be something pretty catastrophic to get us down to 2012 levels.

There is approximately 33 days to go before before the average minimum....... this is ceratainly going to be interesting...... can the fragile pack hold up and avoid a big nosedive...... I shall be watching with great interest.

With the fragile state of the pack my opinion of why extent hasn't dropped as much as some were predicting is firstly due to low export of ice through Fram, it has been like this for quite a time so positive effects (or less negative effect if you want to see it that way) for those who want to see the ice levels doing well. The second reason why I believe that we are not down at 2012 levels is one that should be quite obvious ..... Temps above 80 degrees north have been below average for quite some time now (approx 100 days) quite surprising considering the very much higher than average sea surface temperatures surrounding the pack, possibly this is just caused my generally much cloudier conditions than what you would see on average during an arctic summer. . It would be interesting to do a study to see if there is a link between amount of sunshine and export of ice through Fram..... maybe the two could be linked through dominant weather patterns? Just a thought. I don't dispute that average global temps have risen in the last 30 years but we still do not know how the arctic could react to a few years of generally favorable conditions for ice growth.

There doesnt seem to be much export out of Fram these days and ice in the Fram straight seems to be extremely low, maybe a little glimmer of good news for icephiles?

Well yes it is, but I'm assuming that better averages can be formed from the data if its not done on a very local scale. That just makes sense to me.

Personally I only trust enso temperature data. Thermometer data for comparison purposes really can be skewed by land uses in the area surrounding the weather station. I wonder how many long standing weather stations have had a change in the surrounding area. However good idea to start a thread on this topic.

Thats just ridiculous, It assumes that all warming has been caused by CO2 and it ignores every other variable.