Arctic Sea Ice Discussion 2015: The Melt Season

[4wd]

If there's a storm it can soon bunch new ice up, you often seem to get a second drop.
Time is passing though.

[minus 9]

Well for what its worth,theres still plenty of sea ice up at the pole. Remember lots of top scientists predicted it would be gone by now... Just a thought.

[Methuselah]

Well for what its worth,theres still plenty of sea ice up at the pole. Remember lots of top scientists predicted it would be gone by now... Just a thought.

Indeed. And there're plenty of ersatz-scientists who've been inventing, re-inventing and re-reinventing recoveries?

[knocker]

Well for what its worth,theres still plenty of sea ice up at the pole. Remember lots of top scientists predicted it would be gone by now... Just a thought.

 

Lots of top scientists was actually one, Professor Peter Wadham, who said in 2012 the Arctic would probably ice-free by 2015-16. Just a thought.

[stewfox]

If there's a storm it can soon bunch new ice up, you often seem to get a second drop.

Time is passing though.

 

In need with a reasonable drop yesterday, too close to call whether we have seen the minimum yet (extent)

 

3 or 4 more days and we should know. 

 

Looks like there is now a new default lows for the 2010s 

[BornFromTheVoid]

After 2 large daily losses, the ADS extent has dropped below the 2011 minimum. So this year (according to ADS) has guaranteed at least the 3rd lowest minimum on record.

[BornFromTheVoid]

I think it's safe to call the melt season over now.

 

The weather over the Arctic looks set to continue cooling over the next few days, while winds should spread the ice out, resulting in some potentially large coverage increases.

 

ADS extent increased by over 100k yesterday, so that's unlikely to threaten a new record. So for 2015, ADS extent records the 3rd lowest minimum

 

NSIDC extent has generally increased since setting it's low value last week, and so both the 1 day and 5 day average with be classed as the 4th lowest minima on record.

 

CT has seen steady increases over the last few days, which means it's likely to finish the year classed as the 6th lowest minimum on record. However, it's closely grouped with 4 other years, 2007, 2008, 2010 and 2011, with just 190k needed to drop below all 4.

 

We won't know about the volume until next month.

[Midlands Ice Age]

Lots of top scientists was actually one, Professor Peter Wadham, who said in 2012 the Arctic would probably ice-free by 2015-16. Just a thought.

 

Knocker...

 

This was reported widely by all the media at the time.... eg Guardian, BBC(Main news), Independent, Times, Mail(even!), BBC (Newsnight), Washington Post and widely on the internet media and on here..

 

If everyone thought it was incorrect - then why did not one on the climate scientists appear to dispute the findings at the time?

 

Guilty by association, I am afraid.

 

I am afraid it was widely accepted so that they could boost the impact of the various IPCC reports.

 

This sort of political backing (in order to raise awareness) approach is beginning to backfire.

 

It is a bit late now to retract on it -.  It wasn't good science by the Wadham's team.

 

 

I am afraid Stew is correct - there were also a few others involved and 97% of the gw movement by implication.

 

Also note that if it fails to appear in the next few years, (as 90% of you are forecasting) it will be a body blow for global warming as a major threat.

 

So think hard, before automatically joining the band-wagon.

 

MIA

 

Anyway, It seems as though the re-freeze has started bang on time or even a little bit earlier than most years. (as reported by BFTV above).

 

I would expect a very rapid re-freeze this year as those areas that have disappeared over the last few weeks rapidly ice over. Followed by a lull.

 

The weather in the Arctic will then decide the winter season.

 

Is it not time for the Refreeze thread to open? This thread can remain open to report all the final summaries.

 

MIA

Edited September 16, 2015 by reef
Went to edit as its massively off topic. Left as you've been replied to. Please stay on topic.

[Methuselah]

And all dutifully reported, re-reported and re-re-reported by the right-wing gutter-press?

[Polar Maritime]

 

This was reported widely by all the media at the time.... eg Guardian, BBC(Main news), Independent, Times, Mail(even!), BBC (Newsnight), Washington Post and widely on the internet media and on here..

 

If everyone thought it was incorrect - then why did not one on the climate scientists appear to dispute the findings at the time?

 

Guilty by association, I am afraid.

 

But the media are not Scientist.. And as we all know they like to jump on to scare-mongering headline 'phrases'. As knock points out this was just one Scientist giving his thoughts, Why discount the overall majority? Seems to be the usual 'trick' when needs suit. 

 

 

Dr. Maslowki’s paper and RASM model runs may provide single source confirmation for some of the most pessimistic predictions by Arctic sea ice experts. Dr. Peter Wadhams, a world renown sea ice expert who has spent about 30 years monitoring the state of sea ice aboard British Navy submarines has projected that the Arctic could reach an ice-free state by the end of summer during 2015 or 2016.

Another climate expert, Dr. Carlos Duarte, head of the Ocean Institute at the University of Australia, has projected that the Arctic will reach an ice free state by 2015.

More moderate projections place total sea ice loss during summer at between 2025 and 2040.

http://robertscribbler.com/tag/sea-ice-melt-by-2016/

Edited September 16, 2015 by Polar Maritime

[Interitus]

Knocker...

 

This was reported widely by all the media at the time.... eg Guardian, BBC(Main news), Independent, Times, Mail(even!), BBC (Newsnight), Washington Post and widely on the internet media and on here..

 

If everyone thought it was incorrect - then why did not one on the climate scientists appear to dispute the findings at the time?

 

Guilty by association, I am afraid.

 

I am afraid it was widely accepted so that they could boost the impact of the various IPCC reports.

 

This sort of political backing (in order to raise awareness) approach is beginning to backfire.

 

It is a bit late now to retract on it -.  It wasn't good science by the Wadham's team.

 

 

I am afraid Stew is correct - there were also a few others involved and 97% of the gw movement by implication.

 

Also note that if it fails to appear in the next few years, (as 90% of you are forecasting) it will be a body blow for global warming as a major threat.

 

So think hard, before automatically joining the band-wagon.

 

Lets all sit back and watch what happens - since Mother Nature doesn't take kindly to being told what to do next..

 

 

What? After a much heralded 'recovery', this year has shown that the state of the ice is as bad as it ever was. Northwest and northeast sea routes open and a bank of the oldest thickest ice across the Pacific side decimated without being perfect conditions. That it is not as bad as some predictions is hardly something to shout about.

[BornFromTheVoid]

Knocker...

 

This was reported widely by all the media at the time.... eg Guardian, BBC(Main news), Independent, Times, Mail(even!), BBC (Newsnight), Washington Post and widely on the internet media and on here..

 

If everyone thought it was incorrect - then why did not one on the climate scientists appear to dispute the findings at the time?

 

Guilty by association, I am afraid.

 

I am afraid it was widely accepted so that they could boost the impact of the various IPCC reports.

 

This sort of political backing (in order to raise awareness) approach is beginning to backfire.

 

It is a bit late now to retract on it -.  It wasn't good science by the Wadham's team.

 

 

I am afraid Stew is correct - there were also a few others involved and 97% of the gw movement by implication.

 

Also note that if it fails to appear in the next few years, (as 90% of you are forecasting) it will be a body blow for global warming as a major threat.

 

So think hard, before automatically joining the band-wagon.

 

MIA

 

 

By your reasoning, MIA, the fact that the scientists didn't publicly decry the vast majority of other studies that predicted an ice free state later this century means that they implicitly agreed with that too.

Now, either they can agree with Wadhams and the other predictions at the same time through some sort of weird quantum duality, or perhaps the guilt by association logic you've tried to use is somewhat flawed?

 

Whatever the case, a year or 2 of poor weather for the ice could (IMO) send us into an ice free state (considered less than 1 milion km2). 2012 dropped to 2.2 million, which is pretty close to ice free considering we were averaging about 5 million only 2 decades earlier. What would have happened if we had 2007 or another 2012 type summer in 2013? I think the 1 million mark wouldn't have been far off. 

It's a pretty much just squabbling over the details at this stage though. The year in which the Arctic sea ice finally goes below 1 million km2 will be determined by the weather patterns. The warming climate has already done enough damage.

 

The ice loss difference between the 2012 and a pretty average 1980s minimum is quite startling IMO, and shows how little needs to be lost for thing to go effectively ice free

 

Edited September 16, 2015 by BornFromTheVoid

[stewfox]

 

It's a pretty much just squabbling over the details at this stage though. The year in which the Arctic sea ice finally goes below 1 million km2 will be determined by the weather patterns. The warming climate has already done enough damage.

 

The ice loss difference between the 2012 and a pretty average 1980s minimum is quite startling IMO, and shows how little needs to be lost for thing to go effectively ice free

 

 

 

Unfortunately we just don't know if the 1980s was abnormally high for summer ice as we don't have accurate records before then.

 

Its easy to compare it to 1980s and say its poor, I think in the next 20/30 years we will have a better idea.

 

Lets hope we get some good volume growth outside of the the main basin.

[Midlands Ice Age]

But the media are not Scientist.. And as we all know they like to jump on to scare-mongering headline 'phrases'. As knock points out this was just one Scientist giving his thoughts, Why discount the overall majority? Seems to be the usual 'trick' when needs suit. 

PM..

 

Thanks for this response , possibly a bit more balanced than mine.

 

If someone had come out and said that some scientists believed it would not happen until 2030 - 2040 as your report shows, then it would have been more balanced, but no one informed the gutter press (As Ed calls them), and so the monster has grown. 

 

 

Its no use blaming the gutter press. The media did not make this up. Scientist(s) called it, and many people just jumped on the political bandwaggon in order to make their own theories and desires more urgent.

 

As I say, even now many on here are forecasting the imminent demise of the ice in the next few years.

 

Good for them if it happens.... but should not expect not to get criticised for their motives, if it doesn't....       Just because they are called climate scientists does not mean they are correct or not capable of making errors. We have already seen a handful displaying woeful scientific techniques, (see above -  in the case of Wadhams ( (vis - no error for the statistical calculations was stressed).  The next few years could see even more if the ice survives the El Nino reasonably intact.

 

I am a believer in the theory of CO2 warming, but for some to pretend that the science is fully understood  and is implemented correctly in the models is an act of folly, and almost religious belief. Another 10 years is required (at least) for it to be sorted out.

.

MIA

[Midlands Ice Age]

What? After a much heralded 'recovery', this year has shown that the state of the ice is as bad as it ever was. Northwest and northeast sea routes open and a bank of the oldest thickest ice across the Pacific side decimated without being perfect conditions. That it is not as bad as some predictions is hardly something to shout about.

 

Interitus..

 

I am not aware of anyone on here who called it a RECOVERY (apart from one or two people on the warmists side, who have termed it that ) .

 

I and most other 'deniers'  have called the last 5 years of ice volume growth an interesting new development, which may or may not lead to a recovery.

 

In spite of the reduction of the thick ice in the Pacific side  (which does concern me somewhat) the volume of ice this year does appear to have grown slightly.

 

I believe the conditions were perfect for ice removal in the Pacific (according to GW!)

 

If this is true,  then something different is occuring in the Arctic (since volume had previously reduced in 95% of the years  before that).

 

If this winter season turns out colder again in Siberia (hasn't happened for the last 5 years) then a new situation in the Arctic could well establish itself.

 

I am prepared to wait and see.

 

My take is lets all wait and see what is actually unfolding. No denier claimed this year would see a recovery in extent. I for one have got the actual ice extent almost spot on for the third year on the trot (last year I was 200K out), so I called the reduction in extent correctly after 2 years of increases..  How many of the rest of you warmers can claim this?.

 

My original note on this subject was to disagree with the callers of an absolutely disastrous ice season. It has not been great, but it has not been as bad as many on here made it out to be.

     

MIA 

[knocker]

Oceanographers Find Clues behind Arctic's Fourth-Lowest Sea-Ice Minimum

 

As the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) announced the fourth lowest Arctic sea-ice minimum on record Sept. 15, an oceanographic team aboard the National Science Foundation's R/V Sikuliaq is using unique instruments to explore the undersea secrets of ice-melt in the Beaufort Sea. 

 

Leaders of the ArcticMix voyage funded by the National Science Foundation from Scripps Institution of Oceanography at UC San Diego and University of Washington's Applied Physics Lab said they are surprised by the strength of ocean mixing they have observed in their raw data.  Their findings, while preliminary, may change our understanding of the impact of climate change in the Arctic. â€¨

 

https://scripps.ucsd.edu/news/oceanographers-find-clues-behind-arctics-fourth-lowest-sea-ice-minimum

[Midlands Ice Age]

By your reasoning, MIA, the fact that the scientists didn't publicly decry the vast majority of other studies that predicted an ice free state later this century means that they implicitly agreed with that too.

Now, either they can agree with Wadhams and the other predictions at the same time through some sort of weird quantum duality, or perhaps the guilt by association logic you've tried to use is somewhat flawed?

 

 

 

 

BFTV.. I am not with your logic.. Not one of the warmers called out that Wadhams was wrong. Neither did anyone suggest that other scientists were suggesting it could be well into the future before this occured. You were quite happy to allow the idea to ferment? How does that make you correct (in scientific terms!). It is entirely consistent with the lets not criticize our friends warmists papers (were all in this together!.) That isn't true science, but  a socio-political science.

 

 

 

Whatever the case, a year or 2  of poor weather conditions for the ice (IMO), could send us into an ice free state(considered as less than 1million km squared)  2012 dropped to 2.2 million, which is pretty close to ice free considering we were averaging about 5 million only 2 decades earlier. What would have happened if we had 2007 or another 2012 type summer in 2013? I think the 1 million mark wouldn't have been far off. 

It's a pretty much just squabbling over the details at this stage though. The year in which the Arctic sea ice finally goes below 1 million km2 will be determined by the weather patterns. The warming climate has already done enough damage.

 

 

 

BFTV    -   a lot of ifs and maybe's here for you above . Have you been taking lessons from GW? :D

 

 

 

 

The rest of your post -

 

Also as Stew points out - how do you know that the 1980' s were not at a high point of the ice. This is ample evidence that the Northern sea routes were open in the 19 th and early 20th centuries.  We need to look more long-term than the last 35 years when talking about changes occuring on a scale of several decades. Not simply the last 35 years.

 

 

and one point I entirely agree with to finish -

 

 

It's a pretty much just squabbling over the details at this stage though. The year in which the Arctic sea ice finally goes below 1 million km2 will be determined by the weather patterns. The warming climate has already done enough damage.

 

But do you KNOW its enough to cause the wipeout?  Is it a presumption presented as fact.

 

 

MIA

[BornFromTheVoid]

There's a word for people who consistently deny the existence of evidence that goes against their beliefs...

 

Sea ice in the 80s being a high point? Lets see who's suddenly an expert on proxy data and willing to selectively dismiss proxy records!

 

 

 

As for the use of the word recovery, in this thread alone it's been used by 4wd, Keith and Stew, each multiple times. I wonder just how many more references to recovery would be found by AGW "sceptics" elsewhere on this forum?

 

As far as I can remember, I've always called for the first ice free conditions to occur in the 2020s. And numerous times I've explained to people that the consensus position has never been for ice free conditions early this century, but closer to the middle. 

 

But in the minds of some, only "warmists" used the term "recovery", and "warmists" never disagreed with Wadhams... what can you do when evidence matters nowt!?

[knocker]

The latest from Neven

 

 

The lowest point has been reached on all sea ice area and extent graphs, and so the melting season has ended. I'll have more on the details later this week, but here's a quick preview of one of the most important features of this melting season, and that's the decimation of multi-year ice (MYI) on the Pacific side of the Arctic.

 

Here's a nice video that shows how the melting season developed and ended, based on AMSR2 data. It's made by Felicia Brise of the University of Hamburg, and I've taken the liberty to upload it to YouTube:

 

http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2015/09/minimum-and-myi.html

[Methuselah]

In which case, here's the new refreeze thread: https://forum.netweather.tv/topic/84034-arctic-sea-ice-discussion-2015-2016-the-refreeze/

 

best keep the other one open, in case something unforeseen occurs?

[stewfox]

There's a word for people who consistently deny the existence of evidence that goes against their beliefs...

 

Sea ice in the 80s being a high point? Lets see who's suddenly an expert on proxy data and willing to selectively dismiss proxy records!

 

 

 

As for the use of the word recovery, in this thread alone it's been used by 4wd, Keith and Stew, each multiple times. I wonder just how many more references to recovery would be found by AGW "sceptics" elsewhere on this forum?

 

As far as I can remember, I've always called for the first ice free conditions to occur in the 2020s. And numerous times I've explained to people that the consensus position has never been for ice free conditions early this century, but closer to the middle. 

 

But in the minds of some, only "warmists" used the term "recovery", and "warmists" never disagreed with Wadhams... what can you do when evidence matters nowt!?

 

We don't have sea ice records prior to 1980s so posting summer sea ice charts of over 1,000 years ago is not relevant.

 

There is also some confusion as to what 'recovery' means there are a number of definitions.

 

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/recovery 

 

Some folk think it means going back to 1980's level or any level which they deem to be relevant in the last 1,500 years.

 

We have only just started monitoring sea ice in the last few decades. We could have the next 30 years averaging a 2013-2015 finish , that wouldn't mean artic sea ice is in a 'death spiral'

Edited September 17, 2015 by stewfox

[knocker]

September 16, 2015 | The National Snow and Ice Data Center announced yesterday that sea ice in the Arctic had dwindled to the fourth lowest extent since satellites began capturing images of the area in 1979. All nine of the lowest sea ice extents have occurred in the last nine years, according to the NSIDC.

 

News of another lean year for end-of-summer sea ice has people wondering anew just how long we have left before Arctic Septembers become ice free. 

 

NCAR climate modelers Marika Holland and David Bailey took a crack at answering that question a few years ago, and their results are illustrated in the animation above. Created by Tim Scheitlin of NCAR's Visualization Lab, the video shows that all the ice could disappear in some Septembers as early as mid-century if human-caused climate change continues unabated.

 

 

https://www2.ucar.edu/atmosnews/perspective/17013/shrinking-sea-ice-modeling-arctics-future

[Interitus]

We don't have sea ice records prior to 1980s so posting summer sea ice charts of over 1,000 years ago is not relevant.

 

There is also some confusion as to what 'recovery' means there are a number of definitions.

 

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/recovery 

 

Some folk think it means going back to 1980's level or any level which they deem to be relevant in the last 1,500 years.

 

We have only just started monitoring sea ice in the last few decades. We could have the next 30 years averaging a 2013-2015 finish , that wouldn't mean artic sea ice is in a 'death spiral'

 

Ok....

 

Ice extent continues to slow. Some of the alarmist rhetoric of the last few weeks not born out. Still early days but could this be another good year for recovery ?

 

 

I see another sub 60k drop today, at this rate we will be back to 1980s soon  

 

Seriously if you look at the ice thickness now cf 2012 you can see how much more of the 2m/3m ice there is.

 

Usual spots with 4/5m thickness are similar and of course most of the sub 2m will met out but you left with a much larger core.

 

However whats remaining in Hudson will go fairly soon (3 weeks) but i cant see sub 8m  in the next 2 weeks and given the winter we had that will be remarkable.

 

Still much of the summer to go of course but I'm sure most folk will agree we wont get a 'record this year' unless its for recovery.

 

Well as you're fond of using the term, maybe you could give your definition of 'recovery'?

Bear in mind that you suggested a 5.8m minimum ADS/IJIS extent earlier this year.

[BornFromTheVoid]

PIOMAS has updated, with the 5th lowest minimum on record http://psc.apl.uw.edu/research/projects/arctic-sea-ice-volume-anomaly/

 

The sea ice extent minimum for 2015 was likely reached on Sept 11. Sea ice volume minimum was reached a day later with a total volume of 5670 km3 . This  value is about 1200 km3 below the volume minimum of the 2014 which showed a subtantial rebound in ice volume. The value for 2015 is 300 km3 above the value for 2013 and constitutes a continuation of the long-term declining trend (see fig 1) with shorter term  variability in both directions (e.g. 2012 and 2014).

Edited September 18, 2015 by BornFromTheVoid

[Interitus]

Interitus..

 

I am not aware of anyone on here who called it a RECOVERY (apart from one or two people on the warmists side, who have termed it that ) .

 

I and most other 'deniers'  have called the last 5 years of ice volume growth an interesting new development, which may or may not lead to a recovery.

 

In spite of the reduction of the thick ice in the Pacific side  (which does concern me somewhat) the volume of ice this year does appear to have grown slightly.

 

I believe the conditions were perfect for ice removal in the Pacific (according to GW!)

 

If this is true,  then something different is occuring in the Arctic (since volume had previously reduced in 95% of the years  before that).

 

If this winter season turns out colder again in Siberia (hasn't happened for the last 5 years) then a new situation in the Arctic could well establish itself.

 

I am prepared to wait and see.

 

My take is lets all wait and see what is actually unfolding. No denier claimed this year would see a recovery in extent. I for one have got the actual ice extent almost spot on for the third year on the trot (last year I was 200K out), so I called the reduction in extent correctly after 2 years of increases..  How many of the rest of you warmers can claim this?.

 

My original note on this subject was to disagree with the callers of an absolutely disastrous ice season. It has not been great, but it has not been as bad as many on here made it out to be.

     

MIA 

 

As you can see a couple of posts above, obviously the term recovery has been used, and with reference to how this year might pan out. There appears to be a reluctance to consider this season as poor for the ice, and then it is mitigated as to be expected and not that bad all things considered and it is not significant. There are a couple of inconsistencies in the arguments supporting this view.

 

First it was a poor winter because there was a record low maximum extent - yet volume increased...how can this be?

 

Then, ignoring volume was probably a mistake. Whilst with long term warming a concurrent reduction in maximum and minimum extent would be expected, on an annual basis the maximum is a fairly poor indicator of the minimum. A simple correlation of maximum-minimum IJIS extent data from 2003-2014 (undetrended, small sample size) shows a correlation of 0.19, inclusion of 2015 boosts this to 0.27 - but maximum PIOMAS volume correlates with IJIS minimum about 0.72 with and without 2015.

 

A graph of daily extent correlated with the minimum extent, from the start of the year to the end of August shows that after a moderately correlated baseline winter extent, in the springtime period of maximum extent the correlation is low or even negative - the peripheral ice has little or no bearing on the minimum. The correlation then increases rapidly in the middle of June reaching above 0.7 in early July - possibly in relation to melt pool formation and early melting at higher latitudes.

 

 

With regards to volume, as posted by BFTV, this hasn't increased now and has been below 2014 for a couple of months. But on the one hand, '5 years of volume growth is an interesting new development', yet on the other, how 2015 continues trends since 1979 is insignificant - we don't have a long enough records, wait and see etc.