Arctic Sea Ice Discussion 2015: The Melt Season

[stewfox]

Ah, now! You were all about how volume was the most important thing at the start of the melt season and late winter extent didn't matter

 

I never suggested volume didn't matter of course it does, i just said last winter was 'poor' not very poor for overall ice conditions

 

We can see from 2012 that extra extent in its self is of little use as it will soon melt out.

 

https://ads.nipr.ac.jp/vishop/vishop-extent.html?N

 

Volume increases have been interesting in recent years re that the majority has come form the central basin despite temps up in the high basin being consistently above average over the winter season for over a decade. 

 

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

 

We can see the core is in very good shape and much of the remaining ice remains 2 to 3 meters thick over a much wider area then we have seen in recent years

 

What I would like to see better volume this winter in others seas that surround the high arctic.

 

That extra volume could delay melt out by one/two weeks and put us back to early 2000's next year.

 

You could argue the summer ice has done remarkably well given the starting conditions, where all the seas prone to melt out had volumes below average at the start of the summer season.

Edited August 23, 2015 by stewfox

[BornFromTheVoid]

I never suggested volume didn't matter of course it does, i just said last winter was 'poor' not very poor for overall ice conditions

 

We can see from 2012 that extra extent in its self is of little use as it will soon melt out.

 

https://ads.nipr.ac.jp/vishop/vishop-extent.html?N

 

Volume increases have been interesting in recent years re that the majority has come form the central basin despite temps up in the high basin being consistently above average over the winter season for over a decade. 

 

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

 

We can see the core is in very good shape and much of the remaining ice remains 2 to 3 meters thick over a much wider area then we have seen in recent years

 

What I would like to see better volume this winter in others seas that surround the high arctic.

 

That extra volume could delay melt out by one/two weeks and put us back to early 2000's next year.

 

You could argue the summer ice has done remarkably well given the starting conditions, where all the seas prone to melt out had volumes below average at the start of the summer season.

 

But at the start of the season, you were claiming that it was volume that mattered and not the extent in March. Now you're trying to say that the losses this summer are related to the lack of extent March due to a poor winter, yet last winter was 1C colder, north of 75N, than the average of the last 10 years.

 

We've only had 1 warm month this summer and little pre-conditioning for melt in May or June. In fact, the May to June average temperature north of 75N was the coldest since 2001 and equal to the 90s average.

 

 

So we've started with a higher volume than most of the last few years after a winter that was also colder than most of the recent ones. The "sceptics" here were claiming that things looked good because of the volume and the lack of extent at the end of March wasn't important.

 

We then went and had once of the coldest starts to the melt season since the 90s, yet one warm months has taken us back into the bottom 5 for area, extent and volume.

 

stewfox claims: "You could argue the summer ice has done remarkably well given the starting conditions, where all the seas prone to melt out had volumes below average at the start of the summer season".

 

We had higher volume and colder conditions at the start of the melt season yet the ice is in a poor state now. Given the starting conditions, we've done remarkably poorly, not remarkably well!

[Midlands Ice Age]

But at the start of the season, you were claiming that it was volume that mattered and not the extent in March. Now you're trying to say that the losses this summer are related to the lack of extent March due to a poor winter, yet last winter was 1C colder, north of 75N, than the average of the last 10 years.

 

We've only had 1 warm month this summer and little pre-conditioning for melt in May or June. In fact, the May to June average temperature north of 75N was the coldest since 2001 and equal to the 90s average.

 

 

So we've started with a higher volume than most of the last few years after a winter that was also colder than most of the recent ones. The "sceptics" here were claiming that things looked good because of the volume and the lack of extent at the end of March wasn't important.

 

We then went and had once of the coldest starts to the melt season since the 90s, yet one warm months has taken us back into the bottom 5 for area, extent and volume.

 

stewfox claims: "You could argue the summer ice has done remarkably well given the starting conditions, where all the seas prone to melt out had volumes below average at the start of the summer season".

 

We had higher volume and colder conditions at the start of the melt season yet the ice is in a poor state now. Given the starting conditions, we've done remarkably poorly, not remarkably well!

 

BFTV

 

Surely it was recognised by everyone that with hardly any significant sea ice over the Barents straits and much  of the Siberian side at the end of the winter season, that we would lose a lot of ice very early  (extent). This surely was expected to melt.

 

In fact I was surprised it hung on for so long! (probably due to the early cold temps you allude too). To say that we have done remarkably poorly considering the start conditions I do disagree with. To me it looks very much what was expected.

 

Volume is still good on the remaining ice. We will see where it ends up.

 

If we have a cold winter over on the eastern sectors it could  well mark a change in the ice characteristic melt patterns? Maybe?.

 

Stewfox's graph does show an increased trend over the last 5 years, whilst not ignoring what has happened in the last 30 years, it COULD be a change in trend.  Surely a glass half full is a warrented response.

 

No one should ignore it!! Not even GW.

 

Time will tell.

 

MIA

[4wd]

Recent volume trend seems to be continuing.

Not down.

http://psc.apl.uw.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ice_volume/SPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrentV2.1.png

If one totally ignores the long-term trend (it's so obvious, it beggars belief) one can see about 50 individual 'recoveries' along that line...It's amazing what fantasies a spot of myopia can induce!

In your rush to confirm the netweather ant-sceptic stance, you seem to have become unable to read?

I would have thought 'recent trend' seems clear enough to not mean long-term trend.

[Methuselah]

In your rush to confirm the netweather ant-sceptic stance, you seem to have become unable to read?

I would have thought 'recent trend' seems clear enough to not mean long-term trend.

It seems to me as if you 'sceptics' are merely crying 'wolf': every year, there's a recovery (or an extension of a 17-year hiatus) in either volume or extent, whichever is the greater?. But, tell you what; if there's still an upward trend (in both extent and volume) after, say, another 15 years, I'll be the first to acknowledge it.

[stewfox]

But at the start of the season, you were claiming that it was volume that mattered and not the extent in March. Now you're trying to say that the losses this summer are related to the lack of extent March due to a poor winter, yet last winter was 1C colder, north of 75N, than the average of the last 10 years.

 

We've only had 1 warm month this summer and little pre-conditioning for melt in May or June. In fact, the May to June average temperature north of 75N was the coldest since 2001 and equal to the 90s average.

 

 

So we've started with a higher volume than most of the last few years after a winter that was also colder than most of the recent ones. The "sceptics" here were claiming that things looked good because of the volume and the lack of extent at the end of March wasn't important.

 

We then went and had once of the coldest starts to the melt season since the 90s, yet one warm months has taken us back into the bottom 5 for area, extent and volume.

 

stewfox claims: "You could argue the summer ice has done remarkably well given the starting conditions, where all the seas prone to melt out had volumes below average at the start of the summer season".

 

We had higher volume and colder conditions at the start of the melt season yet the ice is in a poor state now. Given the starting conditions, we've done remarkably poorly, not remarkably well!

 

Ok

 

I said extent has not a lot of bearing as I posted 2012 graph where extend was considerably higher at the start of the melt season cf this year and we know where  that went.

 

As you know the DMi figures are above 80N , where we see year after year temps 5c to 10c above the long term average for the first 100 days of the year.

 

We know this hasn't impacted on volume there  (average from -35 to 25c) but we do know all that cold air has flooded south but we appear now to have  a more resilient basin of ice in the high arctic (80N) (thickness wise). 

 

You also know most of the ice melting well into the end of the season goes on below 75N and as we haven't seen any volume increases in the Chukchi, Beaufort East Siberian seas etc last winter cf to the long term average, the melt out has not been that surprising.

 

If we see any recovery in volume in those areas and 'conditions' similar to this year next year we would probably bee 500k to 750k higher then we are at present with the melt out to the east on the attached graph on far right being held back 

Edited August 23, 2015 by stewfox

[BornFromTheVoid]

BFTV

 

Surely it was recognised by everyone that with hardly any significant sea ice over the Barents straits and much  of the Siberian side at the end of the winter season, that we would lose a lot of ice very early  (extent). This surely was expected to melt.

 

In fact I was surprised it hung on for so long! (probably due to the early cold temps you allude too). To say that we have done remarkably poorly considering the start conditions I do disagree with. To me it looks very much what was expected.

 

Volume is still good on the remaining ice. We will see where it ends up.

 

If we have a cold winter over on the eastern sectors it could  well mark a change in the ice characteristic melt patterns? Maybe?.

 

Stewfox's graph does show an increased trend over the last 5 years, whilst not ignoring what has happened in the last 30 years, it COULD be a change in trend.  Surely a glass half full is a warrented response.

 

No one should ignore it!! Not even GW.

 

Time will tell.

 

MIA

 

Barents strait? Do you mean Bering strait or Barents sea? As for the Siberian coast, it was all completely frozen, as it is every winter.

 

We had one of the coldest starts to the melt season in the last decade and started from one of the highest volume levels in the last decade. We're now back in the bottom 5. That's a poor return from the early season conditions.

 

 

The issue is that several, such as Stew, were saying the low extent in March didn't matter because the volume was up on the last 2 years. Now they're acting like the current low volume and coverage was expected because the extent was low and conditions were poor during the winter. I've shown that conditions early in the melt season and during the winter were better than most recent years.

It's the same every year though. Like the August storm in 2012, we had some AGW "sceptics" claiming it was nothing unusual at the time, then afterward claimed it was the unprecedented August storm that caused the record minimum! Or how about a statistically insignificant trend representing a pause in one situation and a significant increase in another situation. Chopping and changing opinions, cherry picking, making things up - it all makes it difficult to take certain people seriously.

Edited August 23, 2015 by BornFromTheVoid

[Paul]

In your rush to confirm the netweather ant-sceptic stance, you seem to have become unable to read?

I would have thought 'recent trend' seems clear enough to not mean long-term trend.

 

It's not an anti-sceptic stance, it's an anti-refusing to see what's right in front of your face stance. As ever, the numbers in the graph you're posting don't lie. The fact you choose to concentrate on this apparent 'trend' across a few years and entirely ignore the one over 30 years which is very clearly and obviously the thing which is jumping out of that data, is the issue. You have a belief, you're choosing to ignore the facts in front of you to provide supposed evidence of that belief, that's not science and has no place in a scientific debate around what is essentially a scientific subject. 

 

If you want to be objective, then acknowledge the things which go against your belief - ie the fact the graph you've posted shows only one real trend. The brief change/blip recently is just that, it may be the start of a trend, it may not but don't pretend the most important and relevant thing on that chart is that blip. 

 

As Pete says, if that blip continues then it starts to be relevant, but surely you can see/accept that you're about 5 years too early, at least, to be arguing that point. 

 

I don't see it's too much to ask to ask everyone in the debate to remove their pre-conceptions of what they want to see, open their minds a bit, be objective and actually discuss the evidence, all of it - not just the bits and pieces they want to pull out to support one view or another?

Edited August 23, 2015 by Paul

[stewfox]

It seems to me as if you 'sceptics' are merely crying 'wolf': every year, there's a recovery (or an extension of a 17-year hiatus) in either volume or extent, whichever is the greater?. But, tell you what; if there's still an upward trend (in both extent and volume) after, say, another 15 years, I'll be the first to acknowledge it.

 

You don't see to post any supporting data in your posts which I thought was part of the new guidelines ??.At least BFTV does, although we may disagree on the 'interpretation' of that data.If we end up the 4th or 5th 'worst' in 30 years I don't see that as a 'disaster' . 

 

Volume hasn't dropped much  in the last 10 years that's from PIOMAS.Where is your data coming fom showing its much worse the it is. Nobody knows what the volume was in 1930s/1940s i bet it was less then the 1980s.

 

The folk talking about a ice free arctic , there is nothing at present to support that.I don't need to see 15 years of increasing volume and extent to prove anything apart from to say its at a 1980s level which may have been abnormally high anyway (cf last 500 years)

 

I think most skeptics don't see a ice free arctic in the next 20/30 yrs (1 million km or less) and at present there is nothing data wise to show that's going to happen.

 

Everyone can see its worse then the 80s and 90s but that doesn't mean there is a continuous terminal decline.

Edited August 23, 2015 by stewfox

[Methuselah]

You don't see to post any supporting data in your posts which I thought was part of the new guidelines ??.At least BFTV does, although we may disagree on the 'interpretation' of that data.If we end up the 4th or 5th 'worst' in 30 years I don't see that as a 'disaster' . 

 

Volume hasn't dropped much  in the last 10 years that's from PIOMAS.Where is your data coming fom showing its much worse the it is. Nobody knows what the volume was in 1930s/1940s i bet it was less then the 1980s.

 

The folk talking about a ice free arctic , there is nothing at present to support that.I don't need to see 15 years of increasing volume and extent to prove anything. 

 

I think most skeptics don't see a ice free arctic in the next 20/30 yrs (1 million km or less) and at present there is nothing data wise to show that's going to happen.

 

Everyone can see its worse then the 80s and 90s but that doesn't mean there is a continuous terminal decline.

Well, no; as Paul pointed-out above, 4 has himself posted the relevant data. I merely choose not to deliberately misinterpret it...

[BornFromTheVoid]

Stew, PIOMAS has dropped in the last 10 years.

 

Annual anomaly with anomaly to date for 2015

 

[BornFromTheVoid]

ADS extent now below the 2009 minimum and just 108k off the 2014, and 183k off the 2013 minima. Should be below both by the weekend.

[Geordiesnow]

I think one of the reasons for the decline happening the way it did could be down to local factors and some early warmth in some parts. Beaufort had early warmth during the latter part of May which caused open water too appear here and Bering/Chuckchi had that hot spell during June(record breaking I believe) and coupled with unfavorable wind direction, then it caused the ice to melt here and for the SST's to rapidly rise. From what I seen, most of the cold was over the poles and the Atlantic side of the basin whilst the Pacific side was just getting battered by warmth at times.

 

I have to say, it shows how poor the ice was in Laptev when after a very slow start, the retreat did start to become rapid here and although its happening a bit more at the moment, there has not been many set ups over Laptev which has warmth coming in from the Russian landmass. 

 

I believe a record low was very much on the cards but a cooler August and more favorable conditions has more than likely saved us from a record low, just imagine if we had set ups which occured in August 2014 this year... I would say a record low would probably occur because that month was very warm and unfortunately the Arctic lost quite a bit of thick ice during that month. 

[Midlands Ice Age]

Stew, PIOMAS has dropped in the last 10 years.

 

Annual anomaly with anomaly to date for 2015

 

 

Re the volume discussions...

 

10 years ago - you are correct.

9 years ago - we are higher today.

 

8 - 6 years ago. Some small increases in volume (at same time as a rapid decrease in extent), so probably related.

7- 5 years ago -  big declines

Last 3 years - show increases back to where we were in 2007.

 

So statistically a varying trend.

 

Lets see what happens in the next couple of years (as suggested on here by some) - seems to be the only way to come to any valid conclusions. 

 

MIA

Edited August 24, 2015 by Midlands Ice Age

[Midlands Ice Age]

I think one of the reasons for the decline happening the way it did could be down to local factors and some early warmth in some parts. Beaufort had early warmth during the latter part of May which caused open water too appear here and Bering/Chuckchi had that hot spell during June(record breaking I believe) and coupled with unfavorable wind direction, then it caused the ice to melt here and for the SST's to rapidly rise. From what I seen, most of the cold was over the poles and the Atlantic side of the basin whilst the Pacific side was just getting battered by warmth at times.

 

I have to say, it shows how poor the ice was in Laptev when after a very slow start, the retreat did start to become rapid here and although its happening a bit more at the moment, there has not been many set ups over Laptev which has warmth coming in from the Russian landmass. 

 

I believe a record low was very much on the cards but a cooler August and more favorable conditions has more than likely saved us from a record low, just imagine if we had set ups which occured in August 2014 this year... I would say a record low would probably occur because that month was very warm and unfortunately the Arctic lost quite a bit of thick ice during that month. 

 

Geordie,

 

Assume this is about area.

 

Your summary, I agree with, and is a more detailed version of my post above.

 

Interesting that you say from the position at the start of the melt season, and if we had a August 2014 like event,  you have been expecting record lows.

 

I can understand why, as I myself thought that we would end up with lower values compared to the last 2 years, but  I still do not understand how this years melt can be described as an exceptional event.  To me the real worry was the  small extent at the end of last winter over in the east.

 

I still think that this years winter season is now the pivotal season for the future of the Arctic ice. Another poor winter season for extent in and around Siberia would be a bad sign for the future of the Arctic.

 

MIA

[knocker]

Re the volume discussions...

 

10 years ago - you are correct.

9 years ago - we are higher today.

 

8 - 6 years ago. Some small increases in volume (at same time as a rapid decrease in extent), so probably related.

7- 5 years ago -  big declines

Last 3 years - show increases back to where we were in 2007.

 

So statistically a varying trend.

 

Lets see what happens in the next couple of years (as suggested on here by some) - seems to be the only way to come to any valid conclusions. 

 

MIA

 

This is getting ridiculous. How many varying 'trends' can you get in ten years that are statistically significant?

 

 

I still think that this years winter season is now the pivotal season for the future of the Arctic ice.

 

I don't understand why this coming year is pivotal. Any specific reason for this?

Edited August 24, 2015 by knocker

[Midlands Ice Age]

This is getting ridiculous. How many varying 'trends' can you get in ten years that are statistically significant?

 

 

I don't understand why this coming year is pivotal. Any specific reason for this?

 

Knocker ..

 

It was not intended to show any trend. Just observe the facts.

 

A varying trend is statistically a non-existent trend. Why is that ridiculous!!!

 

(It happens frequently in statistics  - and Its also been happening to the stock market for the last 15 years!) .

 

Over the previous 20 years there is no doubt that the Arctic sea ice had reduced. The last 10 years are inconclusive as per above (volume remember).

 

 

As to your question .....

 

I think we have come to a new situation...  with very much reduced 'Siberian/Pacific' sea ice compred to what we have seen in the last 30 years of actual measurements.

 

We have seen the Arctic ice  over Canada reduce over the 30 year period,  Though it has increased this year.

 

My position is that the new eastern Arctic sector major sea ice reductions could have major consequences for the future of the whole Arctic!

 

If the ice in this area cannot  'rebuild' quickly then you have your wishes, and I will admit I am wrong.

 

It does seem to be connected to the 'abnormal' warmth over the Asian continent in general over the last few years.

 

Simple really!   

 

Do you think it  Is  an incorrect or biased viewpoint?

 

I see it as a possible watershed moment for the Arctic.

 

MIA

[knocker]

I think that's enough of this except desist from assuming what my wishes are and then you will not be categorically mistaken again in the future.

[BornFromTheVoid]

NSIDC extent (using the 5 day mean) is now below all pre 2007 minima and is 189k away from the 2009 minimum.

 

Meanwhile, the 1 day extent is within 200k of the 2009, 2013 and 2014 minima.

[knocker]

September Sea Ice Outlook: August Report

http://www.arcus.org/sipn/sea-ice-outlook/2015/august

[BornFromTheVoid]

There a great website where climate scientists analyse and annotate popular media climate articles and publish the results online, including a rating of the scientific accuracy.

 

Here's link to one of the terrible Christopher Booker sea ice pieces, reviewed by experts such Julienne Stroeve of the NSIDC

 

http://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/the-telegraph-christopher-booker-arctic-ice-has-made-fools-of-warmists/

[BornFromTheVoid]

ADS extent now just 38k off the 2014 minimum, while losing extent at an average of 65k/day over the last 5 days. If we maintain this loss rate, we'll be below the 2013, 2010 and 2009 minima within 5 days

[stewfox]

ADS extent now just 38k off the 2014 minimum, while losing extent at an average of 65k/day over the last 5 days. If we maintain this loss rate, we'll be below the 2013, 2010 and 2009 minima within 5 days

 

Not looking good.

 

We cant really discount 2007 and 2011 just yet, given the downward trend is very similar at present. Its either going to be 2nd or 3rd or 4th lowest I fear.

[BornFromTheVoid]

With a drop of 71k, ADS extent has dipped below the 2014 minimum now and is just 42k off the 2013 minimum. The next minimum after that is 2010, just 229k away.

[BornFromTheVoid]

Wow, a drop of 137k on the ADS extent yesterday! That takes us into 3rd lowest for the date, below the 2013 minimum and just 91k off the 2010 and 213k off the 2008 minima.