Arctic Sea Ice Discussion 2015: The Melt Season

[BornFromTheVoid]

We only have 35 years of proper data to compare with

 

Wether we have dropped to a more 'normal' low we don't know.

 

I  don't give much credence to shipping records of 1770s which came from one location as 'evidence' of what the arctic was like back then or inconsistent proxi data on the land

 

If we compare like for like we are about 10/15% of the short term 30 year average and I'm referring to extend.This could all be part of natural variation.

 

Clearly we need another 30 years to see where we are but nothing to be alarmed about particularly when last years winter re freeze was disappointing.

 

36 years of data with a similar level of accuracy, and about another hundred years with pretty good accuracy.

 

 

Then, we have good proxy records going back nearly 1,500 years.

 

 

Do you not give credence to proxy data in any scientific discipline, or is this just for climate science?

 

There is no evidence to suggest that the recent loss of sea ice coverage is entirely natural. At best, I've seen claims that a maximum of 30% could be explained by the AMO, but that's rather tenuous.

 

The only way you could think it's all natural is to dismiss out the evidence that shows otherwise, and go with your gut. Surely we've evolved beyond that line of thinking?

[stewfox]

deleted

Edited August 7, 2015 by stewfox

[stewfox]

36 years of data with a similar level of accuracy, and about another hundred years with pretty good accuracy.

 

Then, we have good proxy records going back nearly 1,500 years.

 

 

Do you not give credence to proxy data in any scientific discipline, or is this just for climate science?

 

There is no evidence to suggest that the recent loss of sea ice coverage is entirely natural. At best, I've seen claims that a maximum of 30% could be explained by the AMO, but that's rather tenuous.

 

The only way you could think it's all natural is to dismiss out the evidence that shows otherwise, and go with your gut. Surely we've evolved beyond that line of thinking?

 

 

What we need is more years of comparable data to compare.

 

Proxy data is good for rough guidelines but not for 20/30% variations in summer sea ice

 

We don't say that's the warmest summer in 10000 years nor should we say 2012 was the lowest ice extent in 7500 yrs.

 

If new guidelines state we need to rely on reliable data then there is no harm comparing year on year and im not sure who said 'entirely natural' ?

 

To suggest man doesn't have a influence on climate is daft its the amount that causes the circular debates.

Edited August 7, 2015 by stewfox

[BornFromTheVoid]

What we need is more years of comparable data to compare.

 

Proxy data is good for rough guidelines but not for 20/30% variations in summer sea ice

 

We don't say that's the warmest summer in 10000 years nor should we say 2012 was the lowest ice extent in 7500 yrs.

 

If new guidelines state we need to rely on reliable data then there is no harm comparing year on year and im not sure who said 'entirely natural' ?

 

To suggest man doesn't have a influence on climate is daft its the amount that causes the circular debates.

 

I can see it though, we change to a seasonally ice free Arctic in 20 years, and the AGW "sceptics" claim that we could have had seasonal ice coverage in the 19th century so there's nothing to worry about, despite their being no evidence in their favour and plenty against. 

 

The vast majority of scientists seem to think proxy data is good enough, and believe that ice loss the last few decades is our doing. What are they doing wrong?

 

Yes, we can say that the recent warming has likely resulted in the warmest global climate in thousands of years, in a similar way we can say that recent ice coverage is likely the lowest for about 8,000 years, during the Holocene climate optimum. That's why we use proxy data and develop these records. Of course, there is uncertainty involved (like everything in science), but we can still come to conclusions based on the weight of evidence. It's certainly better than coming to conclusions based eliminating evidence you don't like and going with your gut.

 

Hmmm... "This could all be part of natural variation" sounds an awful lot like you suggesting that it's all part of natural variation. Surely you can understand how that statement might cause some confusion?

[stewfox]

I can see it though, we change to a seasonally ice free Arctic in 20 years, and the AGW "sceptics" claim that we could have had seasonal ice coverage in the 19th century so there's nothing to worry about, despite their being no evidence in their favour and plenty against. 

 

 

 

I think if we have a ice free arctic  (under 1 million km2) in 20 years the 'skeptics' will be treated the same way as we treat those that believe the Earth is still flat.

 

Anyway we are seeing a slow down in melt rate as you would expect 

Edited August 7, 2015 by stewfox

[BornFromTheVoid]

With a month or so of melting still remaining, 2015 CT area has passed the minima of every year before 2007.

 

We're now just ~470k off the 2014 minimum, and 400k of the 2013 minimum

 

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/arctic.sea.ice.interactive.html

[reef]

With a month or so of melting still remaining, 2015 CT area has passed the minima of every year before 2007.

 

We're now just ~470k off the 2014 minimum, and 400k of the 2013 minimum

 

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/arctic.sea.ice.interactive.html

 

We only need to lose around 1 million sq km over the next month or so to be in second place behind 2012. It looks likely too at the moment.

 

There seems to be quite a vigorous low pressure forecast for the Alaskan side of the high Arctic in the latter half of the week, which could pulverise some of the more fragile ice there:

 

http://www.wetterzentrale.de/pics/Rhavn1681.gif

 

There's some warmish air on its southern flank aswell so it'll be interesting how that affects things.

[Gray-Wolf]

Hi Reef! is that not the remnants of the 'cane that just passed Hawaii? If so it may well have a lot of warmth in its core that could spell trouble for any 'warm fronts' forming and raining on ice? Then what of wind speeds? could the interface twixt warm and cold lead to intensification ( is that how cyclogenisis occurs or is that only cold air /warm oceans?).

 

Folk need to remember what end of the season this is? We should now be resorting to the buoys to see 'how melt is doing'?

 

With all the 'easy ice' now gone we are left with the bigger floes and it is the rate of 'bottom melt' that the July momentum, instilled that will take ( or not) the day?

 

My concern is the ice from the past two years? How decayed had this become before refreeze occurred?

 

I do not think we have anyone out there who thinks that the floes surviving 13' and 14' did so without damage? The holes that were melted into such ice will now be free of their FY infill so any ocean warmth will have a large surface area to penetrate deep within the floe from?

 

I've seen some huge daily losses of individual floe thickness and this always begs the question " how many days of melt are left?" With 6cm per day not uncommon at present you only have to look at ice 1.5m thick or less on the CT plot to see what is at stake???

 

If any of that ice is 'rotten ice' then what kind of melt rate would we be best to expect if solid floes can lose 6cm /day???

[Singularity]

I've been keeping a nervous eye on the Central Pacific cyclone activity, as it raises the odds of a 'polar explorer' taking place, compared with when you have the usual relatively low activity (when viewed against W. Pacific activity).

 

 

I feel like we could do with some tech for detecting 'rotten ice' as Gray-Wolf likes to call it. Sounds like ice which is full of weaknesses and holes?

[Gray-Wolf]

Hi S' ! 

 

it was prof barbers eperience of the 'rotten ice' that had me piqued. I'd been battling ( so I recall?) with 4 W.D. over whether or not 08' or 09' where the 'recovery he was after calling? I'd concerned myself with the 'extent/area, come late season, when so many of the paleocryistic floes were in full disintegration at that time ( 2010 took care of the last of it in that years record volume plummet) To me the 'room' that melt provided was what the old floes then collapsed into ( upping extent/area) so diminishing the very pack 4 was applauding?

 

When Barber documented this ( and we all started looking at Healey's " aloft cam" late season) we ( those who choose to accept the evidence of their own eyes that is) could see exactly the type of ice he was on about and "Yes", it would be grand to have tech that could see, whilst still filled with FY ice infil, the floes that were affected by 'Rot'?

[Paul]

A set of posts have been removed as the initial post was lifted from a source which isn't allowable under the new guidelines. 

 

 

What won't be considered as suitable are:

 

Discussions around items published in random/non-scientific (often single-agenda driven) blogs, youtube videos and the like. 

https://forum.netweather.tv/topic/83699-new-climate-change-science-based-discussions/

 

Please note that discussion around this isn't going to work in this thread, so please bring it back to the topic in hand now. 

 

Thanks.

[BornFromTheVoid]

Here's where we stand with previous minima based on the NSIDC 5 day average.

 

 

As of the latest update, for August 8th, we've dropped below 16 of the previous 36 minima and we're within 100k of another 2. If things keep going as they are, this time next week we should have dropped below 23 previous minima.

[Singularity]

Hi S' ! 

 

it was prof barbers eperience of the 'rotten ice' that had me piqued. I'd been battling ( so I recall?) with 4 W.D. over whether or not 08' or 09' where the 'recovery he was after calling? I'd concerned myself with the 'extent/area, come late season, when so many of the paleocryistic floes were in full disintegration at that time ( 2010 took care of the last of it in that years record volume plummet) To me the 'room' that melt provided was what the old floes then collapsed into ( upping extent/area) so diminishing the very pack 4 was applauding?

 

When Barber documented this ( and we all started looking at Healey's " aloft cam" late season) we ( those who choose to accept the evidence of their own eyes that is) could see exactly the type of ice he was on about and "Yes", it would be grand to have tech that could see, whilst still filled with FY ice infil, the floes that were affected by 'Rot'?

 

Hi there GW

 

Having read your post, I think I get the gist of it - floes of multi-year ice, which became full of holes in the bad melt seasons but which have since filled with first-year ice?

 

I'm not as familiar with the subject-specific terminology so forgive me if I'm wide of the mark 

[stewfox]

 

The vast majority of scientists seem to think proxy data is good enough, and believe that ice loss the last few decades is our doing. What are they doing wrong?

 

Unfortunately not convincing us or the governments or the general media but that's another debate. 

 

Its interesting Hudson Bay ice has held out longer this year with Baffin Bay which has some what offset a 2012 scenario.. Wasn't there some early melt in the North East of Hudson at the start of the season ?

 

I don't how these figures would look compare to 1980s

Edited August 9, 2015 by stewfox

[reef]

Another 120,000 sq km loss on Cryosphere taking us down to 3.83 million sq km. Another week anywhere near that rate and we'll be looking at the second lowest by the latter half of the month. 

[BornFromTheVoid]

Another 120,000 sq km loss on Cryosphere taking us down to 3.83 million sq km. Another week anywhere near that rate and we'll be looking at the second lowest by the latter half of the month. 

 

Just ~280k off 2013.

 

According to Wipneus on the sea ice forum (he uses the concentration data to create his own area and extent records, his is usually 2-3 days ahead of CT), we should see another big drop tomorrow (~65k) before seeing things slow down the following 2 days. However, due to the sensor issues during the last week, there could be a lot of revisions to the extent and area data being released at the moment.

[Geordiesnow]

Another 120,000 sq km loss on Cryosphere taking us down to 3.83 million sq km. Another week anywhere near that rate and we'll be looking at the second lowest by the latter half of the month. 

 

Just less than 300 increase on today's update, I think its very likely we will be below 2013/14 in both extent and area but will we be nearer 2010 or 2007/11 in terms of area and extent. 

 

I got to admit, I am relieved the weather conditions this August are the complete opposite to last August, if we had an August 2014 set up, then I would say the ice will likely to be very close to the lowest on record so a cool August could at least make the extent figures look better than what they could of been. 

[BornFromTheVoid]

Just less than 300 increase on today's update, I think its very likely we will be below 2013/14 in both extent and area but will we be nearer 2010 or 2007/11 in terms of area and extent. 

 

I got to admit, I am relieved the weather conditions this August are the complete opposite to last August, if we had an August 2014 set up, then I would say the ice will likely to be very close to the lowest on record so a cool August could at least make the extent figures look better than what they could of been. 

 

ADS extent dropped 99k yesterday, much of the loss coming from the disintegrating Beaufort coverage. We're now just 79k off 3rd lowest, 2011.

 

EDIT: Animation of the last 2 days. Note the big losses in Beaufort.

 

Edited August 11, 2015 by BornFromTheVoid

[knocker]

The latest from Neven

 

A wetter and warmer Arctic

 

Later this week I'll be posting more analysis of the current, very interesting melting season, but here's something that popped up in my mail box via Google Alerts.

 

It's an article from Alaska Dispatch News on a scientific paper by Linette Boisvert from the University of Maryland and the NSIDC's Julienne Stroeve, based on AIRS (Atmospheric Infrared Sounder) satellite data for the 2003-2013 period, which reveal that the Arctic has become warmer and wetter, lengthening the melting season. I had

 

a short chat with Dr. Boisvert during a poster presentation at this year's EGU General Assembly. This is one of the few papers analyzing AIRS data in relation to changes in the Arctic.

 

Here's the article:

 

http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2015/08/a-wetter-and-warmer-arctic.html

[BornFromTheVoid]

NSIDC daily extent has dropped 348k in the last 2 days, a massive drop for mid August and nearly 3 times the 81-10 average.

 

This has taken the 5 day mean extent below the minima of 19 previous years, and now within 1 million km2 of all but 7 previous minima.

[stewfox]

The latest from Neven

 

A wetter and warmer Arctic

 

http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2015/08/a-wetter-and-warmer-arctic.html

 

Interesting

 

Are there actual precipitation figures across the Arctic available for the last 30 years

 

We could see another quick build up of snow  in Russia this October.

 

Its been over 10 years now we have had any meaningful -ve temp anomalies over the high artic Jan - March which must effect volume growth

 

http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php

Edited August 12, 2015 by stewfox

[BornFromTheVoid]

CT area now just 120k off the 2013 minimum, and the central Arctic and Beaufort are already below the minimum values of 2013 and 2014. These were the regions where the thick ice from the "recovery" resided.

Also worth keeping in mind that we still have about 150k worth of ice left to melt in Hudson and Baffin.

Edited August 13, 2015 by BornFromTheVoid

[Geordiesnow]

CT area now just 120k off the 2013 minimum, and the central Arctic and Beaufort are already below the minimum values of 2013 and 2014. These were the regions where the thick ice from the "recovery" resided.

Also worth keeping in mind that we still have about 150k worth of ice left to melt in Hudson and Baffin.

 

Starting to think looking at the shape of the ice when you discount the loose bits over Beaufort, it looks quite similar to 2012 and obviously now SST's tend to overrule the weather conditions, could we see 2015 have a rapid fall like 2012 did?

 

I dread to think what an August 2014 set up would of done to this thin ice pack! 

[Singularity]

The model output for the NH isn't looking so good for ice retention from about a week's time, with the cloudy, snowy conditions clearing out in favour of increasingly strong areas of high pressure.

 

Not that the favourable conditions have been very successful anyway... the sea is clearly king this August.

[Geordiesnow]

The model output for the NH isn't looking so good for ice retention from about a week's time, with the cloudy, snowy conditions clearing out in favour of increasingly strong areas of high pressure.

 

Not that the favourable conditions have been very successful anyway... the sea is clearly king this August.

 

Although at this time of year, high pressure(Aslong as its a 'cold' high) may not be the worse thing as more heat escapes into the atmosphere under clear skies thus temperatures could actually be lower than under a low pressure cell. 

 

The high is forecast to be a cold one, however there is a bit of 'warmth' heading into Laptev which could eat a bit of the ice there and then there is the strong Southerly coming up from the Atlantic also which may reduce ice extent in Barants somewhat. 

 

Some computer models have hinted a rapidly deepening low pressure system to form which on paper could do even more damage to the thin ice cover although that is right into the medium range.