The 2015 melting season

[Gonzo]

Proposition: broadly speaking, excess heat for melting remains in the water on the Atlantic side but not on the Pacific side

There seems to be excess heat on several sides, especially the Pacific?

[sydb]

This has been a very interesting melt season to me. The big story isn't the end of "the recovery," as I don't expect dead cats to bounce very high or for very long, even if the Daily Mail and the Torygraph do. Although June had a very low area/extent loss, plunging from first to eighth, it did grind up some of the thickest ice in the Beaufort sea as this animation from Sam Carana shows:

http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2015/06/dramatic-sea-ice-decline-in-beaufort-sea-in-june-2015.html

I consider that to be the major event in the Arctic this year.

Now, as pointed out by Gonzo recently on this thread, there is much less thick ice north of Greenland and the CAA, even compared to 2012. So, whether the Arctic's "current account" ends up second or fifth, it's "deposit account" will be very low, due to the massacre of that four metre ice in the Beaufort Sea. With a huge El Nino, and likely heat bleed-off into the Arctic, this loss bodes ill for the 2016 and 2017  melt seasons. "The rebound that never was" can now join "the warming haitus that never was" in the Fantasy Museum of Global Warming Denial. That had better be built well above current sea levels, if it is to survive as a warning to future generations.

[Nick_Naylor]

"The rebound that never was" can now join "the warming haitus that never was" in the Fantasy Museum of Global Warming Denial. That had better be built well above current sea levels, if it is to survive as a warning to future generations.

Nah. Future generations are myths invented by liberals. Like so-called ancient cities, like Atlantis, or Miami or New York. As if sea level had ever been stable enough to build cities on the coasts!

That's why - if there even are future generations,  we'll need both sides of the history debate to be taught in schools.

[stackmaster]

Cracking across the entire base of the ESS Arm spotted today on Modis, I wonder if it's possible for the arm or pack to pivot and open it up.
http://lance-modis.eosdis.nasa.gov/imagery/subsets/?subset=Arctic_r05c04.2015235.terra.250m

[kingbum]

I'm calling for a minimum to be 4.75 or there abouts....my recap on 2015 given that the maximum was the worst ever this melt season was pedestrian at best. I thought in April the bottom might fall out this year but it didn't... So I'm expecting a better refreeze for extent just because all time worse is all time worse for a reason when putting out a forecast you don't assume the worst will always happen. Those expecting the death nail in 2016 I don't think that's going to happen if it didn't happen this year. My prediction with a decent refreeze and low summer melt like this year is 2016 returning to pre 2007 levels...just my current thoughts

KB,
This years looking like it will be pretty average, a couple of hundred thousand square kilometres below the long term trend for the maximum and the minimum. There haven't been too many  people predicting the death nail this year, about as many as predicting an increase above 2007.

I  can't see where your optimism for a recovery next year comes from. Globally  this year and next  year are likely to  be hottest  on record and that  heat  will permeate the Arctic over winter and next summer. 

Given that it is primarily  heat in the air and water that will prevent refreeze and encourage melt, repeating this years about average melt will be an outstanding result for the ice. The idea of a return to  pre 2007  levels for the minimum seem as outlandish as the prediction that  the Arctic would be ice free this summer.   

Maybe I'm just being an optimist but my thinking is that you are seeing the results of this developing El Niño on the ice now on the Pacific side. I think as the El Niño abates its going to take some of that heat energy with it that is there now in the summer of 2016 making it a slower melt year. The combination of this and the switch in the AMO from warm to cold the last couple years is why I think the ice is going to rebound some. I think the change in the North Atlantic was a big reason for a slight recovery in 2013/14 its a cyclical cycle. The PDO and AMO are both expected to be cold at the same time...not to mention RSS data doesn't match up with NOAAs prognostication of hottest year ever...Did you read about the heating sensors having at least a 1.7F bias being discovered at Reagan International Airport in DC? Anyway that's only relevant in the fact I don't really trust NOAAs data. NCEP data says its the 10th warmest July and NOAA says warmest month ever....yeah OK and I'm expected to trust them

[stackmaster]

GFS predicts high winds tomorrow from ESS to Kara, shifting but in effect until Thursday in the Laptev.  Could cause some damage to the ESS arm, but more likely so the remaining ice near Severnaya Zemlya. 

http://pamola.um.maine.edu//DailySummary/frames/GFS-025deg/ARC-LEA/WS10/08.png

[6roucho]

This has been a very interesting melt season to me. The big story isn't the end of "the recovery," as I don't expect dead cats to bounce very high or for very long, even if the Daily Mail and the Torygraph do. Although June had a very low area/extent loss, plunging from first to eighth, it did grind up some of the thickest ice in the Beaufort sea as this animation from Sam Carana shows:

http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2015/06/dramatic-sea-ice-decline-in-beaufort-sea-in-june-2015.html

I consider that to be the major event in the Arctic this year.

Now, as pointed out by Gonzo recently on this thread, there is much less thick ice north of Greenland and the CAA, even compared to 2012. So, whether the Arctic's "current account" ends up second or fifth, it's "deposit account" will be very low, due to the massacre of that four metre ice in the Beaufort Sea. With a huge El Nino, and likely heat bleed-off into the Arctic, this loss bodes ill for the 2016 and 2017  melt seasons. "The rebound that never was" can now join "the warming haitus that never was" in the Fantasy Museum of Global Warming Denial. That had better be built well above current sea levels, if it is to survive as a warning to future generations.

As a finance geek, that kind of talk makes me hot.

[slow wing]

Gonzo, thanks for your reply.

Below is the actual temperature map (rather than anomalies).

The excess heat on the Pacific side is well back from the ice pack with the exception of the corner where the Canadian coast meets the Alaskan coast.

On the Atlantic side there are tongues of warmer water reaching right up to the ice.

There is a smaller amount of excess heat as well showing in the Laptev Sea,but that is a long way back from the ice edge.

And then there is the question of heat already under the ice - for example around the Laptev Bite. We can't see this from the temperature map but holes are starting to appear in the ice around there.

It takes months for ocean currents to carry heat under the interior of the ice pack
(a current speed of 10 cm/s ~ 250 km/month) so the melt from underneath will come from heat gathered over the Summer rather than the smaller amounts of heat showing now outside the ice pack.

[tvansant]

Did you read about the heating sensors having at least a 1.7F bias being discovered at Reagan International Airport in DC? Anyway that's only relevant in the fact I don't really trust NOAAs data. NCEP data says its the 10th warmest July and NOAA says warmest month ever....yeah OK and I'm expected to trust them

One temperature measurement in Arlington, VA is bad and you assert that NOAA the agency cannot be trusted? Read what they say and decide for yourself if they are a reliable and professional reporter of weather and climate data.

http://www.noaa.gov/features/02_monitoring/weather_stations.html

As I understand it, the El Nino is currently assessed as weak, but it is expected to develop in the fall and winter into a quite strong cycle, stronger than recent cycles.

[Jim Pettit]

...I think the ice is going to rebound some.

You've several times called for a rebound to pre-2007 levels. That's not "some"; that would be both huge and--absent global thermonuclear war, a massive asteroid strike, or a supervolcano eruption--nigh onto impossible.

...RSS data doesn't match up with NOAAs prognostication of hottest year ever

RSS? Seriously? That darling of the denialist set?

Did you read about the heating sensors having at least a 1.7F bias being discovered at Reagan International Airport in DC? Anyway that's only relevant in the fact I don't really trust NOAAs data.

Ah, the crux of the matter.

In your first comment here, you wrote:

...let me start by saying I'm not a denier of AGW but...

You've blamed global warming on the sun...

You claimed that Lake Superior began freezing in October of last year despite numerous maps and charts showing you that just isn't so.

You've speculated, without a spec of backup, that you believe the re-freeze will start a month early this year...

You've impugned NOAA...

You've gone full SurfaceStations.org by complaining about the siting of a single thermometer.

Anthony Watts called; I think he misses you.

[Buddy]

You see kingbaum....you've ventured onto a site where people actually use:

1)  Real science
2)  Observation
3)  Facts

This is quite a different environment than you are likely used to.  You see...we "challenge" each other....but we do it with science, facts, and observation.  And we don't always agree on every aspect of climate change, but we agree on the facts as to what direction it is going.

You might consider going back to people or sites where they don't use those things.......Watts, Bastardi, Hannity, O'Reilly...etc.  I think their echo chambers are better suited to you...especially since you NEVER seem to use any facts to rebut things.

Have a great day mate....

[jr47]

Off -topic.

RSS? Seriously? That darling of the denialist set?
[/

http://www.remss.com/

What's wrong with RSS? Just because their temperature anomaly graph shows an obvious sideways direction for a l o n g time ,i guess some people don't like it?

But is it wrong? Is the RSS data wrong? Are the RSS scientists a bunch of deniers? Some people continuously cherrypick NOAA or GISS -because it always shows a higher anomaly than other datasets. Or is a Government agency more trustworthy than a private company?

 Sheeesh!!

[jr47]

  Some of the comments attacking anyone who even slightly diverges from the 'Reality' dictated by whoever, are verging on nasty. not good.

 One commenter who thought that the refreeze might happen earlier than usual 'has his card marked' yet it is fine  for others to state that they think the refreeze will be a few weeks late? Because they want it to? 

 A commenter who dares to mention that the very cold North Atlantic may cause more ice on the Atlantic side is regarded as a denier who should stay with WUWT? 

 Sad.

[TerryM]

Actually Jim explained in great detail why the newby might be happier elsewhere. When your own contributions have approached Jim's level I'm sure your comments will be given equal weight.


Neven's forum has been around for some time now, & we've developed a culture that most of us are very comfortable with. We tend to pride ourselves on our ability to defend our positions from educated challenges. The key word here is educated. Those who simply cut and paste the latest meme from denialist sites often find themselves being dismissed arbitrarily.  If this causes sadness, perhaps happiness is best found elsewhere?
Terry

[OldLeatherneck]

For the record, I completely agree with the comments that Jim Pettit and Buddy and TerryM  have made about kingbaum's numerous statements that lack any credibility.

jr47, you might want to lurk around here a little longer......you might gain some factual knowledge.

Need I say more??

[Gonzo]

Nick_Naylor

Nah. Future generations are myths invented by liberals. Like so-called ancient cities, like Atlantis, or Miami or New York. As if sea level had ever been stable enough to build cities on the coasts!
That's why - if there even are future generations,  we'll need both sides of the history debate to be taught in schools.

What do you mean?

[DavidR]

Off -topic.

RSS? Seriously? That darling of the denialist set?
[/

http://www.remss.com/

What's wrong with RSS? Just because their temperature anomaly graph shows an obvious sideways direction for a l o n g time ,i guess some people don't like it?

But is it wrong? Is the RSS data wrong? Are the RSS scientists a bunch of deniers? Some people continuously cherrypick NOAA or GISS -because it always shows a higher anomaly than other datasets. Or is a Government agency more trustworthy than a private company?

 Sheeesh!!

jr47,
There is nothing wrong with RSS, it  is one of many data sets showing that AGW is proceeding steadily  at  about 0.14 degC per decade.

The problem is with people who claim that it  is the only  'accurate' data set and that we should only take into account the last 17 years of the record because that happens to agree with their preconceived views.

If you go to  woodfortrees.org you can plot many of the data sets against each other and see that RSS, UAH, GISS, HadCrut4 all follow the same pattern of monthly variations and long term increase.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/

So when someone claims that  RSS is in some way superior or different than the other datasets they are arguing their biases not science.  Debating with  people who only  want to  trumpet their ignorance is a boring, unproductive waste of time.

We don't always put all our arguments in every discussion point, but most  people who  discuss the issues present  a consistent pattern of ideas over time. Persistent trolling of denial is really not  appreciated and is mainly  ignored. 

[Gonzo]

slow wing

Below is the actual temperature map (rather than anomalies).
The excess heat on the Pacific side is well back from the ice pack with the exception of the corner where the Canadian coast meets the Alaskan coast. On the Atlantic side there are tongues of warmer water reaching right up to the ice.

Yes, I see what you mean. Although, I agree, as you said, those SST maps can't show much of what is going on under the the ice, and can only get a vague idea of what's going on where there is a lot of debris ice. Therefore, I think they can only be trusted up until the ice extent boundaries, which is where the water is shown as relatively warm. Also, air temps look warm to me, but I'm not sure what temps are needed to do what. However, I am sure a lot of warm water and warm air has, and is, entering the Arctic, and the story is not over yet by any means.

[sydb]

jr47. Jim Pettit's scepticism of RSS is well founded. It has generally lagged other temperature sets, and has, as a consequence, been the cherry pick of the denialists.

The satellites can, in theory, give global coverage of temperature, but the implementation is very tricky. They measure the higher tropospheric temperatures-IIRC, from about 8 km up. Most of the biosphere is below that level. The satellites do not measure temperature directly, but the 60 GHz microwave emissions of molecular oxygen as a proxy for temperature at various levels in the atmosphere. They face a very difficult problem as is well explained by this 2011 article by Glenn Tamblyn on skepticalscience.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Primer-Tropospheric-temperature-measurement-Satellite.html

The complexity that those scientists face makes their task extremely difficult, but they are correct to publish their best-and I have no doubt-completely honest work. Theirs is a legitimate product, which gives very useful information, but it has its limitations as explained in the article above.

What I believe Jim Pettit is objecting to is the picking of this dataset as "proof" that global warming is less serious than it really is, when other datasets like GISSTEMP, JMO, and HADCRUT show a less rosy picture. Despite the deniers constant wailing and gnashing of teeth over urban heat islands and Ronald Reagan Airport, these sets all show a more serious temperature rise. They have been carefully adjusted to remove any known bias such as UHIs or measurement time-of-day. The product will never be perfect, but they are the best that the scientists can produce-as with RSS. 

Erratic weather, lethal heatwaves, rising sea levels, and Arctic ice loss all point to the same conclusion, that we are warming the climate by GHG emissions.

In any dataset with both a trend and a variance that in the short term exceeds that trend, it is always possible to cherry pick points to prove the opposite of the actual trend. Last year's peak to this year's low will always give a negative slope to the line as will any day this year that was colder than the corresponding day last year, even if this year overall is much warmer than last year.  However, as they used to say in New York "that and a quarter will get you a ride on the subway."

[notjonathon]

How about not feeding the troll(s)?

[seaicesailor]

Oki doki. To feed the fish :--)

I picked two maps from Wetterzentrale. The first one is the latest 12Z GFS forecast for as early as early Tuesday, and the latest is the latest 12Z ECMWF forecast for late Thursday. Both models agree on this storm hitting the Chukchi and Beaufort starting Tue thru Thu, similar intensity and location, although GFS predicts a persistence till the end of the week.

First map shows the onset of this storm at Beaufort, and the second shows the storm at its predicted maximum strength (about 985 hpa, with a nice pressure gradient right over the broken ice).
It is not what was predicted before. Yet, taking into account how very weak storms affected the Pacific side on early August, it will be interesting to watch.

...that you are seeing the results of this developing El Niño on the ice now on the Pacific side...

I have a similar feeling. Nothing else.

The excess heat on the Pacific side is well back from the ice pack with the exception of the corner where the Canadian coast meets the Alaskan coast.
On the Atlantic side there are tongues of warmer water reaching right up to the ice....

Slow Wing, my opinion is that clouds during July/August have been trapping heat over the broken Pacific ice (just opposite of what is happening in the CAB and Atlantic side right now).

Cannot speak about ocean currents.

Edit. I am correcting stuff :--)

[seaicesailor]

I must add looking at the maps above, that although not an off-the-book straight-dipole compacting configuration, seems to me me that this week extent should keep going down, just like last few days.

[Tensor]

How about not feeding the troll(s)?

Actually, please feed the trolls, with all the information.  As a loyal lurker, I learn quite a bit when the trolls get rebutted. 

[seaicesailor]

Sorry for over-posting.

On the discussion Pacific vs Atlantic, this map might be relevant.

Well, to be honest, it says theres heat all over the place!

[jdallen]

How about not feeding the troll(s)?

Actually, please feed the trolls, with all the information.  As a loyal lurker, I learn quite a bit when the trolls get rebutted.

Quite so; I found some of the replies quite informative and very useful.  I've just gotten some insight into the differences between how RSS and the other data sets are derived.

[Xyrus]

Off -topic.

RSS? Seriously? That darling of the denialist set?
[/

http://www.remss.com/

What's wrong with RSS?

The raw data? Probably not much. But the raw data doesn't measure temperature. It measures deviations in microwave signals. The temperatures of RSS are derived, meaning they a run through a mathematical algorithm to get temperatures. However:

1. The derived temperatures are for chunks of the atmosphere, not the surface. The "surface" temperature oft mentioned on denier sites is actually the derived temperature for the average lower troposphere (approximately 6-8km).

2. Satellite measurements require very careful adjustment due to a number of factors, including drift, angle, etc. If you're not very careful with how you correct for these factors you can easily introduce sizeable biases.

Just because their temperature anomaly graph shows an obvious sideways direction for a l o n g time ,i guess some people don't like it?

No. Here's the thing. When have multiple data sets and observations all telling you one thing and you have one other that is off (by a good margin), which one do you think might be the problem?

As it turns out, the adjustments Dr. Spencer and crew use for transforming RSS into temperature are biased. You see, instead of calibrating against something sensible (like actual surface observations), they adjust based on using other satellites. The blind leading the blind so to speak. A recent paper on the subject demonstrated that if the satellite data were corrected based on surface observations (which other satellite sets do), then the "obvious sideways direction for a l o n g time" goes away, and the RSS actually ends up in good agreement with all other measurements.

But is it wrong?Is the RSS data wrong?

Their interpretation is incorrect due to an inherently biased correction scheme.

Are the RSS scientists a bunch of deniers?

Dr. Roy Spencer is a well known denier, and heads the RSS. The fact that they continue to use a flawed methodology in spite of a published paper demonstrating that it is flawed speaks volumes.

Some people continuously cherrypick NOAA or GISS -because it always shows a higher anomaly than other datasets.

You must be reading a different forum. Other than the excitement of day to arctic conditions, everyone here understands that long term trends are far more revealing. People who cherry pick get called out.

 

Or is a Government agency more trustworthy than a private company?

Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't realize you were just lost. That happens on the internet. You see this is the Arctic Sea Ice Forum run by Neven. This site is dedicated to science and facts in relation to the Arctic and conditions affecting the Arctic.

You're looking for WUWT, a fact free place where conspiracies run wild. You'll be a lot more at home in that environment.

[slow wing]

Significant refreeze? (And reversible, if so, this early?) Or mostly just day-to-day fluctuations?

Today's U. Bremen update for their concentration map shows less yellow in the ice pack's interior  than was there yesterday.

Even so, the ice edge is still compacting towards the North Pole from the direction of the Laptev Sea and on the Atlantic side. That is most advanced at around 45-60 degrees East where the ice edge is a line at around 7 degrees (~780 km) from the Pole.

Click on the gif to crossfade between yesterday's and today's maps...

[AySz88]

How about not feeding the troll(s)?

Actually, please feed the trolls, with all the information.  As a loyal lurker, I learn quite a bit when the trolls get rebutted.

Quite so; I found some of the replies quite informative and very useful.  I've just gotten some insight into the differences between how RSS and the other data sets are derived.

Just wanted to build on this sentiment. I suggest that some of the content posted here is valuable enough to publish somewhere less transient than this thread (where it gets buried).

Recent events seem to suggest there needs to be some better reference or tutorial or wiki for just the beginning watchers of sea ice (especially if some veterans would rather not be burdened by scrolling through rehashes of content aimed towards newcomers).

[BornFromTheVoid]

The storm is still there on the 06z ECM. Will be interesting to see what effect it has.

[anotheramethyst]

  Some of the comments attacking anyone who even slightly diverges from the 'Reality' dictated by whoever, are verging on nasty. not good.

 One commenter who thought that the refreeze might happen earlier than usual 'has his card marked' yet it is fine  for others to state that they think the refreeze will be a few weeks late? Because they want it to? 

 A commenter who dares to mention that the very cold North Atlantic may cause more ice on the Atlantic side is regarded as a denier who should stay with WUWT? 

 Sad.

clearly u haven't been lurking very long.  that person predicted refreeze would start A MONTH earlier than usual.  try predicting the refreeze will start a month LATE and see what happens.  the same people will start to talk about the arctic night, angle of the sun, heat loss of open water vs. ice, and how many standard deviations outside the norm that is.  the people here try to predict the arctic minimum every year using multiple data sources. i have noticed the biggest problem with newbies is a fundamental lack of experience with variance.  the arctic ice is not going to neatly support anyone's expectations most years simply because its numbers naturally oscillate up and down under the influence of many many complex variables.  the trend or arctic sea ice loss only emerges after looking at data accumulated on a decadal time scale, but once looking at decadal averages, the signsl is indisputable.  but if you don't believe me, PLEASE, study the topics from previous years.  you might learn something. 

[diablobanquisa]

Dr. Roy Spencer is a well known denier, and heads the RSS.

Sure?

[jdallen]

Dr. Roy Spencer is a well known denier, and heads the RSS.

Sure?

He may not be any more, if he was.

http://www.remss.com/about/who-we-are

That said, he *is* the one heading up development of the Uni/Alabama/Huntsville (UAH) data set.

To that topic:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/mar/25/one-satellite-data-set-is-underestimating-global-warming

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-13-00767.1

... it appears someone found some biases in how they adjusted *their* data... downwards.

[Neven]

I'm quoting this comment by new member tvansant because I have just approved it, but there have been other comments in the meantime:

Did you read about the heating sensors having at least a 1.7F bias being discovered at Reagan International Airport in DC? Anyway that's only relevant in the fact I don't really trust NOAAs data. NCEP data says its the 10th warmest July and NOAA says warmest month ever....yeah OK and I'm expected to trust them

One temperature measurement in Arlington, VA is bad and you assert that NOAA the agency cannot be trusted? Read what they say and decide for yourself if they are a reliable and professional reporter of weather and climate data.

http://www.noaa.gov/features/02_monitoring/weather_stations.html

As I understand it, the El Nino is currently assessed as weak, but it is expected to develop in the fall and winter into a quite strong cycle, stronger than recent cycles.

[Jim Hunt]

ESS arm, Laptev bite, Fram...all the ice there grab your boards, long fetch surf is swelling up.

As someone with personal experience of long fetch swells (albeit not in the Arctic!) I'm curious to know why you didn't link to what seems to me to be the obvious place to look to get tentative answers to at least some of your questions?

http://polar.ncep.noaa.gov/waves/viewer.shtml?-multi_1-latest-tp-N_pacific-

Are you suggesting that such a swell has recently had an noticeable effect on sea ice in (or should that be north of?) the East Siberian Sea?

[Neven]

Okay, I've read through the rest of the thread (went to bed early yesterday evening).

Let's re-focus on the melting season. I'd also like to ask our climate risk denying friends to be conscious of what kind of forum they're on, and if they don't like it, they can go to their own echo chamber and refrain from trolling, especially if it's concern trolling (yes, I'm looking at you, jr47). Thanks.

[Neven]

ECMWF forecast is interesting, with more isobars showing up in the Beaufort area. I find it interesting because those winds might pull away the ice blocking M'Clure Strait, and if that happens the Northwest Passage main channel will be completely open yet again:

[Oyvind Johnsen]

Sorry to continue the OT discussion, but - RSS is not headed or run by "skeptics"!

Chief scientist Carl Mears (of RSS) is of the opinion that "surface temperature datasets. (are) more reliable than satellite datasets (they certainly agree with each other better than the various satellite datasets do!). "

http://www.remss.com/blog/recent-slowing-rise-global-temperatures

[Glenn Tamblyn]

Just to clarify a small point, and this is OT for this thread so this is my one and only comment.

As Sydb pointed out I wrote a piece for skepticalscience 4 years ago about satellite temperature measurements.

And I can state categorically that Roy Spencer (and John Christy) are not connected with RSS (Remote Sensing Systems). They are connected with the University of Alabama at Huntsville (UAH) and are one of 3 groups that produce regular analyses of atmospheric temperatures from satellite Microwave Sounding Unit data. RSS and the STAR/NESDIS team at NOAA are the others.

The UAH results were the darling of the deniers a few years back when the UAH data showed the least warming. Now the RSS results are showing the least warming so they are the darling.

Fickle huh?

</end OT>

[stackmaster]

Thanks Jim Hunt for the wave link!

[F.Tnioli]

Last few (four, was it?) days in CT ( http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/arctic.sea.ice.interactive.html ) display a gain of ~180k of area. Something not seen since 2005 by this piece of a melt season, when there was ~190k gain in a few days.

What gives? Is it very thin "skin" probably caused by some snowfall, like what i see on NPEO 2015 webcams? Is it a glitch in CT model? Obviously this is an anomaly, but could it be physical - i.e. real - anomaly? Much curious about what Neven and other most experienced fellows here would say about this, - if they would want to say anything at all, of course...

[Neven]

I've decided I want to say something. 

I think what is happening, is that the melt ponds in the Central Arctic are freezing over now that temperatures are dropping below zero. This effect will show up in the area data, and not in the extent data, as those melt ponds never were counted as open water. Another reason could be that there is little compaction going on, and thus no compensation there.

Second, if you want to know what happens with the CT SIA data two days in advance you need to go to the 2015 sea ice extent and area data topic, where Wipneus pre-calculates the numbers. There you will see yet another uptick of 47K, bringing the series to +224K, which is pretty exceptional.

Still, I think CT SIA will start to go down in a couple of days. How low it will go below the previous dip, depends on the weather, to be more precise winds, to be even more precise compaction.

[weatherdude88]

The storm is still there on the 06z ECM. Will be interesting to see what effect it has.

 
There is a 0z ECMWF and a 12z ECMWF model run. This model is only initialized twice a day unlike its american cousins. The model run you posted above is the 0z ECMWF.

[weatherdude88]

I've decided I want to say something. 

I think what is happening, is that the melt ponds in the Central Arctic are freezing over now that temperatures are dropping below zero. This effect will show up in the area data, and not in the extent data, as those melt ponds never were counted as open water. Another reason could be that there is little compaction going on, and thus no compensation there.

Neven,

Statistically speaking of course, if we have a few more days of this the earliest arctic SIA minimum in the modern era will be likely.

[Neven]

Statistically speaking of course, if we have a few more days of this the earliest arctic SIA minimum in the modern era will be likely.

Anything is possible, but there still is some left on the fringes (Baffin, Hudson, Laptev) that will probably melt out in the next few weeks. Then there's that remnant of the MYI arm in the Beaufort and Chukchi, and there's a heap of compaction potential on the Pacific side of the Arctic. And of course, bottom melting is still a factor.

Either way, the uptick has made it more difficult to threaten 2011 and 2007.

Speaking of which, Wipneus just reports a 20K drop in the topic I linked to in my previous comment.

[BornFromTheVoid]

The storm is still there on the 06z ECM. Will be interesting to see what effect it has.

 
There is a 0z ECMWF and a 12z ECMWF model run. This model is only initialized twice a day unlike its american cousins. The model run you posted above is the 0z ECMWF.

I know it's twice per day, but because it comes out just after 6am here and I'd only been awake a short while I got a bit mixed up!

Anywho, the ensemble mean has the storm too, so I'd say it's almost certain at this stage.

[Neven]

990 hPa isn't all that impressive, but combined with the high over the Central Arctic (reverse Dipole) the winds will cause not only a possible clearance of M'Clure Strait, but also prevent all that loose ice in the Canadian Arctic Archipelago to blow into the NWP like happened in 2010. It's looking likely that the NWP will open up completely.

Imagine Roald Amundsen seeing the NWP main route opening up so many times after 2007 (and the Northern Sea Route practically every year!). And still, so many people think AGW is a hoax and won't have any severe consequences.

But anyway, let's see what happens and if it really opens up all the way.

[epiphyte]

I've decided I want to say something. 

...

I think what is happening, is that the melt ponds in the Central Arctic are freezing over now that temperatures are dropping below zero.

Seeing is believing...

[seaicesailor]

990 hPa isn't all that impressive, but combined with the high over the Central Arctic (reverse Dipole) the winds will cause not only a possible clearance of M'Clure Strait, but also prevent all that loose ice in the Canadian Arctic Archipelago to blow into the NWP like happened in 2010. It's looking likely that the NWP will open up completely.

Imagine Roald Amundsen seeing the NWP main route opening up so many times after 2007 (and the Northern Sea Route practically every year!). And still, so many people think AGW is a hoax and won't have any severe consequences.

But anyway, let's see what happens and if it really opens up all the way.

Shouldn't 990 hPa translate into something lower for the real storm? (just asking, sometimes there seems to be a "smoothing effect" on the ensemble forecast, making highs and lows less extreme).

Anyways, I think the winds could push the Pacific-side loose ice toward the CAB, paradoxically compacting the pack (being a low and so). And it could wreck the Arm remains and enhance bottom melt. Especially if it persists for a few days.

[magnamentis]

How about not feeding the troll(s)?

in theory you may be right, but then i learned that the biased, hence bad arguments of the trolls can easily be used to re-publish facts, hence good arguments, based on facts and observations more than on thinking which itself is based on personal preference and political environment or personal interests, depending. if you like, you can compare this to "Judo" where you can easily exploit the mediocre movement of your counter part to beat him with with his self generated momentum LOL

[diablobanquisa]

I've decided I want to say something. 

...

I think what is happening, is that the melt ponds in the Central Arctic are freezing over now that temperatures are dropping below zero.

Seeing is believing...

And through the eyes of Healy (79ºN)...






Refreeze of melt ponds and leads in the Central Basin.

http://icefloe.net/Aloftcon_Photos/index.php?album=2015

http://www.sailwx.info/shiptrack/shipposition.phtml?call=NEPP