Arctic Ice Discussion (the Refreeze 2012-2013)

[quest4peace]

I think it's definitely possible, just unlikely. My best guess would be that we catch some of the previous years around mid-November.

On the record IJIS record, only 6 years since '79 averaged over 100k/day from now until months end. Only 2 of those we over 140k/day (2007 and 1995) and none have been over 150k/day, so it kinda gives you an idea of how exceptional the growth rate would need to be to catch 2007!

Odds seem quite low for October at least it seems, maybe november will give some cheer Any idea how the thickness is getting on?.

Edited October 14, 2012 by quest4peace

[4wd]

If you look at the DMi graph for example the lines tend to converge at Spring and Autumn.

http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php

The Autumn convergence is quite marked and co-incides with a noticeable 'shoulder' in the graph.

This is when the Arctic Basin is more or less full of ice up to the coast of Siberia and Alaska; increase in area then gets more difficult as the area available at high latitude suddenly drops away.

http://nsidc.org/arcticmet/images/arctic_map.gif

[quest4peace]

If you look at the DMi graph for example the lines tend to converge at Spring and Autumn.

http://ocean.dmi.dk/...icecover.uk.php

The Autumn convergence is quite marked and co-incides with a noticeable 'shoulder' in the graph.

This is when the Arctic Basin is more or less full of ice up to the coast of Siberia and Alaska; increase in area then gets more difficult as the area available at high latitude suddenly drops away.

http://nsidc.org/arc.../arctic_map.gif

When is the time during refreeze, when the ice enters it's best chance of increasing it's thickness? and what can scupper this depth development? I know underlying heat in the ocean seems to be one of the main things people talk about, but is this the only factor? Interesting how 2011 was one of the highest extents at winters end on the graph then to see how far it fell from that position to a new record min in sept It really does seem the final "extent" of any year doesn't guarantee a higher minimum extent in sept.

Edited October 14, 2012 by quest4peace

[BornFromTheVoid]

One of the reasons I'd expect the max this year to remain reasonably high is the colder water from the -ve PDO around the Bering strait. Another high extent winter/spring in the Bering sea I'd say, helping to keep things looking respectable by March.

No idea on thickness yet. The PIOMAS model only updates every few weeks, will keep an eye out though.

[quest4peace]

One of the reasons I'd expect the max this year to remain reasonably high is the colder water from the -ve PDO around the Bering strait. Another high extent winter/spring in the Bering sea I'd say, helping to keep things looking respectable by March.

No idea on thickness yet. The PIOMAS model only updates every few weeks, will keep an eye out though.

So the end extent could end up as high as 2011 again pity the thickness couldn't surge while we have more surface ice Will be interesting to hear how thickness is affected come march/april 2013, need to get those sst's down or there might be another shock next year. That's a while away yet, and i' feel like i'm wishing my own life away at the mo, don't know about you guys .

Edited October 14, 2012 by quest4peace

[stewfox]

Just 221k behind 2007 now on the IJIS data set. The average gain from now until the end of the month in 2007 was 148k/day (nearly 2.7 million in the next 18 days!), so we want to be averaging over 160k/day to catch it.

Why do the attached charts already show us passed 2007 ? What are they measuring ?

http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/ice-area-and-extent-in-arctic

[BornFromTheVoid]

Why do the attached charts already show us passed 2007 ? What are they measuring ?

http://arctic-roos.o...xtent-in-arctic

I'm not familiar with the filtering method they use, or the processing of the raw satellite data, so can't really say why they're so different.

Songster seems well read on this stuff so perhaps he knows?

[songster]

No idea. However, clicking through on their website to get the image for sea ice concentration shows me this:

http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/Arctic-ice-concentration-maps-from-SSMI-and-AMSRE

There's a large amount of spurious signal at ~20% concentration near the top centre of the map, around the Russia/Japan border. That's not real ice. Same goes for all the pixels around Newfoundland. If those are getting counted, it would explain why this source is showing a higher signal than the other sources. As to why there's this false signal, I guess it's possible that their particular algorithm gets confused under some weather conditions. It certainly seems to give much noisier results than others - just look at their 2008 trace.

[BornFromTheVoid]

You're probably right. Those false ice readings aren't showing up on the NSIDC concentration charts here http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/

The roos data has a lot of extra ice in the CA too

[BornFromTheVoid]

A jump of 152k today on the IJIS extent. This takes us to within 177k of 2007.

For the next 3 weeks in 2007 (on the IJIS data), only 4 sub 100k growth days were recorded, with 5 days greater than 200k. The next 4 days were the lowest in the 3 weeks though, averaging a little under 100k, so if we're going to pass 2007 at any point this month, it will likely be in the next 4 days, if we manage at least 145k/day.

[Gavin Hannah]

Only 8K off your avg of 160K that you thought was required to catch 07. Not bad. If we can catch 07 by next weekend that would be a result.

Edited October 15, 2012 by IBringTheHammer

[quest4peace]

Further to BFTV's post, the ice is near touching 2007's line now, and it doesn't look like slowing much Unless sod's law kicks in

The latest value : 5,265,781 km² (October 14, 2012)

Only 8K off your avg of 160K that you thought was required to catch 07. Not bad. If we can catch 07 by next weekend that would be a result.

The upward climb of that line is much healthier, long may it continue. BFTV, didn't you say gains of that magnitude, are few and far between over the past years daily extents? and could we be seeing another above average period of increase occurring

Edited October 15, 2012 by quest4peace

[Gavin Hannah]

Once we catch 07', the next target is 2000 Avg.

[quest4peace]

Once we catch 07', the next target is 2000 Avg.

2007 can feel 2012's breath on it at the mo it's so close I notice though that 2007 rose a bit quicker from this point after a slight lull. I would take 2008's line as the next to aim for i think, as i don't want to get my hopes up I still wonder how much damage those ice breakers have done trying to get to the pole though?

Edited October 15, 2012 by quest4peace

[cheeky_monkey]

Once we catch 07', the next target is 2000 Avg.

this will happen towards the mid end of Dec..if this years freeze is below that average come March..then expect a new record low next year...me thinks

[BornFromTheVoid]

Just when things are beginning to look up eh!

Instead of catching 2007, on Cryosphere Today we slowed down enough to set a new anomaly record, of 2.706 million km2 for the 13th of October, beating the previous record set in October of 2007. This has also put us back more than 200k below 2007.

On to the NSIDC, and some good news!

The extent here increased by a massive 226k yesterday, up to 5,335,170km2, which also takes the 5 day mean above 5 million. This brings us to 2.8 million below average, (less than 1 million off the 79-11 average annual minimum), and now just 73k off the 2007 extent. A similar extent increase tomorrow would have us pretty much equal with 2007.

[Gavin Hannah]

226K, That is huuuuge!

[Methuselah]

All we need now is a summer that doesn't melt it all away again...

[BornFromTheVoid]

226K, That is huuuuge!

It's an impressive gain, but when compared to the largest one day October gains of the last 10 years, it's actually a little on the low side.

2012 = 226k

2011 = 282k

2010 = 220k

2009 = 257k

2008 = 227k

2007 = 250k

2006 = 282k

2005 = 304k

2004 = 183k

2003 = 215k

Average of last 10 years = 257k

Hopefully we'll beat that in the coming days!

[Gavin Hannah]

It's an impressive gain, but when compared to the largest one day October gains of the last 10 years, it's actually a little on the low side.

2012 = 226k

2011 = 282k

2010 = 220k

2009 = 257k

2008 = 227k

2007 = 250k

2006 = 282k

2005 = 304k

2004 = 183k

2003 = 215k

Average of last 10 years = 257k

Hopefully we'll beat that in the coming days!

Lol, always ready to put it back into perspective haha! Good job there is still 2 weeks of October to go.

[Geordiesnow]

It does make me laugh(although not in a horrible way) that we seem to be rejoicing at the fact we are close to the 2007 extent line, lets bear in mind that we are the lowest extent on record, the ice is thinning and things do sadly look rather bleak for the Arctic.

The models are hinting fairly strongly at a strong NAO developing which will send tropical warmth into the Arctic but spreading the Arctic air over Northern latitudes, so I think if this does develop, ice extent could really start to slow down but snow cover could be quite widespread and who knows, maybe some cold Autumn temperatures records could be broken? If so, its most certainly turning out to be an very interesting Autumn season and a fairly unusual one.

That said, parts of the Atlantic side of the Arctic has been quite warm it seems and things don't look like they are going to improve much to cool the SST's down in the Barents Sea so ice extent could be way below average on the Atlantic side of the Arctic.

[quest4peace]

Just when things are beginning to look up eh!

Instead of catching 2007, on Cryosphere Today we slowed down enough to set a new anomaly record, of 2.706 million km2 for the 13th of October, beating the previous record set in October of 2007. This has also put us back more than 200k below 2007.

On to the NSIDC, and some good news!

The extent here increased by a massive 226k yesterday, up to 5,335,170km2, which also takes the 5 day mean above 5 million. This brings us to 2.8 million below average, (less than 1 million off the 79-11 average annual minimum), and now just 73k off the 2007 extent. A similar extent increase tomorrow would have us pretty much equal with 2007.

This is simply me asking so please bare with me but...With most others reporting good increases, is cryosphere today unreliable? or is it simply the fact that it being 2 days behind, there is going to be a discrepancy, of what the more up to date results are reporting anyway? so the anomaly on there isn't a true indication, especially if you can add two hundred to 3 thousand in gains to it's figure, for the days it hasn't caught up to? if that makes sense

Edited October 15, 2012 by quest4peace

[BornFromTheVoid]

With most others reporting good increases, is cryosphere today that reliable? it just seems to be quite a lot behind disregarding the fact it's data is 2 days old anyway

As well as being a little behind, Cryosphere Today measures sea ice area, which is always lower than extent.

If you're not familiar with the difference between extent and area, it's explained quite well here http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/faq/#area_extent

[quest4peace]

As well as being a little behind, Cryosphere Today measures sea ice area, which is always lower than extent.

If you're not familiar with the difference between extent and area, it's explained quite well here http://nsidc.org/arc...aq/#area_extent

Got to be honest I didn't realize i was reading Cryosphere today so wrongly, i wondered why the extent graphic wasn't having any affect on the line graph for the better? i will have a read through that link thank you. I see now that they are two different things, and the anomaly graph is "area" and not indicating extent anomaly

From the link provided by BFTV

I quite like this explanation for anybody else who is like me on this subject

Frequently Asked Questions on Arctic sea ice

Area and extent are different measures and give scientists slightly different information. Some organizations, including Cryosphere Today, report ice area; NSIDC primarily reports ice extent. Extent is always a larger number than area, and there are pros and cons associated with each method.

A simplified way to think of extent versus area is to imagine a slice of swiss cheese. Extent would be a measure of the edges of the slice of cheese and all of the space inside it. Area would be the measure of where there is cheese only, not including the holes. That is why if you compare extent and area in the same time period, extent is always bigger. A more precise explanation of extent versus area gets more complicated.

Nice shot from the Amsr2 satellite ice concentration and extent graphic today the area in siberia north of the Kamchatka Peninsula has a link of sorts to the main body now

http://www.ijis.iarc...ice-monitor.cgi

Edited October 15, 2012 by quest4peace

[BornFromTheVoid]

Another massive gain in extent today for IJIS, this time a jump of 237k! Leaving us just 50k behind 2007.

That's 133k/day average over the last week.