The 2015 melting season

[Nightvid Cole]

July Blog post - How Low Can It Go...
http://dosbat.blogspot.co.uk/2015/08/july-status-how-low-can-it-go.html

I last used that title in mid August 2012, the only year PIOMAS has released data mid month!

Blink comparison. 31 July 2012 and 2015. Red line is 15 September 2007 ice edge.

You mean 15 September 2012 ice edge?

[seaicesailor]

Hi everyone, still novice at this whole thing but I'd appreciate any criticism of my posts.
I've tried to insert an image from the ICON/DWD model for 24 hours from now (annotated)



There are two features of interest, there is a cold core low spinning over the arctic. Again, my view on this is that it isn't going to significantly harm the ice. The airmass is very cold underneath it, precipitation is solid and although there is an argument that clear skies are preferable (though I'm still not sure how cloud type comes into this) clear spells in this LP have to be preferable to near constant fog under a dirty high. Wind and waves would also be fairly low. There is an occluded front which I have labelled on the map, but since this low originated over the arctic the airmass difference bounded by the front is almost trivial so we are talking light snow. Also there is going to, surprisingly, be some accumulation (up to 5cm!) from this feature which can only be beneficial.

The 2nd feature is a 2ndry system that originated outside the arctic, the cold front labeled defines a very sharp boundary between very cold dry air and very warm moist air. Consequently this feature will give heavy snow on the arctic facing side and heavy rain in its warm sector. Wind and waves will accompany this LP aswell although the shot of warm air will not affect any still frozen sea ice (though will raise the SSTs).

Thankfully (contrary to previous forecasts) the 2ndry feature is not projected to move northward or develop significantly.

You seem to know your stuff and talk about weather systems in a completely different perspective than usual here. So from myself, a real beginner in meteo, keep it on.

[seaicesailor]

Hi everyone, still novice at this whole thing but I'd appreciate any criticism of my posts.
I've tried to insert an image from the ICON/DWD model for 24 hours from now (annotated)

Nonetheless I have a "but".
The cold, weak low has lasted now for a few days, and cold temperatures, light snow and all, see below image. Diverging drift has made a mess out of Beaufort, part of Chukchi, and if you see right part of the image, it even has left some dents well into CAB. Oh, and "The Gap".
How it will continue?

Image AMSR2 max resolution today, from Wipneus server, thank you (if not OK that I use it , pls let me know here or PM)

[seaicesailor]

PS. Divergence predicted for today (take it qualitatively, this model is not working well lately but drift usually gives right hint).

[Quantum]

Hi everyone, still novice at this whole thing but I'd appreciate any criticism of my posts.
I've tried to insert an image from the ICON/DWD model for 24 hours from now (annotated)

Nonetheless I have a "but".
The cold, weak low has lasted now for a few days, and cold temperatures, light snow and all, see below image. Diverging drift has made a mess out of Beaufort, part of Chukchi, and if you see right part of the image, it even has left some dents well into CAB. Oh, and "The Gap".
How it will continue?

Image AMSR2 max resolution today, from Wipneus server, thank you (if not OK that I use it , pls let me know here or PM)

The divergence certainty isn't good, however is there really enough energy in that part of the world to significantly melt. The wind direction is favorable and is not blowing air from the warm surrounding water, I can't help thinking that as bad as things are now, a significant change in pattern will be worse for us. 

[6roucho]

Guys, I find the unadorned use of "bad" and "good" as descriptors of melt conditions to be quite confusing, especially since they're used oppositely by different people.

[Quantum]

Guys, I find the unadorned use of "bad" and "good" as descriptors of melt conditions to be quite confusing, especially since they're used oppositely by different people.

Apologies. I am a (rational) optimist. I hope people use 'good' to mean ice retention. If you don't then it might imply you have spent to long arguing with climate change deniers!

[seaicesailor]

The divergence certainty isn't good, however is there really enough energy in that part of the world to significantly melt. The wind direction is favorable and is not blowing air from the warm surrounding water, I can't help thinking that as bad as things are now, a significant change in pattern will be worse for us. 

Certainly, there is more energy for melting closer to the Alaskan coast and toward the South in general. For the time being.
I could observe during the past days big floes going "poof" as they approached Alaska.

I take the opportunity to attach drift predictions for tomorrow as well. The day after tomorrow, the drift intensity peters out.

[ChrisReynolds]

Guys, I find the unadorned use of "bad" and "good" as descriptors of melt conditions to be quite confusing, especially since they're used oppositely by different people.

For me 'good' (conditions for ice melt) are conditions leading to more ice loss. As the sort of person who finds thunderstorms exciting, I find this the most exciting spectacle on the planet.

The ice is going. If people get depressed and worried by ice loss then they need to find something else to do because the decades to come will only bring reason for sorrow. Indulging in the negative is not good for mental well being. If sea ice loss depresses people they should leave the issue, come back to it once a year to check up, and do something afterwards to regain equilibrium; like waching 'Babe'. 

[ChrisReynolds]

Nightvid, yes, thanks, corrected.

[Quantum]

Guys, I find the unadorned use of "bad" and "good" as descriptors of melt conditions to be quite confusing, especially since they're used oppositely by different people.

For me 'good' (conditions for ice melt) are conditions leading to more ice loss. As the sort of person who finds thunderstorms exciting, I find this the most exciting spectacle on the planet.

The ice is going. If people get depressed and worried by ice loss then they need to find something else to do because the decades to come will only bring reason for sorrow. Indulging in the negative is not good for mental well being. If sea ice loss depresses people they should leave the issue, come back to it once a year to check up, and do something afterwards to regain equilibrium; like waching 'Babe'. 

I'm really not sure it helps our cause though. The Anthony Watts of this world will just be able to come back at us with you want the ice to melt. I don't want to give the muppets that would call us 'alarmists' any credibility whatsoever. And we all know that an ice free arctic would be pretty devastating for the planet, so this is something worth getting depressed about!

[BornFromTheVoid]

I've noticed that a few of the 06z GFS ensembles, and now the 12z operational, develop a small storm around the ESS in about 4 days. Now this doesn't look like being anything like GAC2012, but it could certainly churn up any weak ice it happens to cross over.

Some examples

[kingbum]

I think that since the Hudson and Baffin took so long to melt out this year I believe they will refreeze rather quickly around September 1st. SSTs there are below normal and this will hold up the minimum. You will have a tale of two Arctic so to speak, the raging inferno that is the Pacific with El Niño and the switching AMO from a warm phase to a cold one in the Atlantic. The Greenland Sea, Baffin Bay, and Hudson Bay areas have been running cold this year.

[Neven]

I'm really not sure it helps our cause though. The Anthony Watts of this world will just be able to come back at us with you want the ice to melt. I don't want to give the muppets that would call us 'alarmists' any credibility whatsoever. And we all know that an ice free arctic would be pretty devastating for the planet, so this is something worth getting depressed about!

There's no 'our cause'. There is nothing we can do to alert people to the fact that Arctic sea ice loss is risky business. Only further Arctic sea ice loss could possibly do that.

As for the Anthony Wattses of the world. One shouldn't worry too much about coming back at you. If they set their mind to it, they'll always find it. They make shit up, that's their business.

It's quite simply really. There are various ways of looking at Arctic sea ice loss: The science of it, the implications for AGW PR, and the spectacle. Chris Reynolds takes the latter perspective most of the time. And I agree that's the best way of looking at it.

[12Patrick]

I think that since the Hudson and Baffin took so long to melt out this year I believe they will refreeze rather quickly around September 1st. SSTs there are below normal and this will hold up the minimum. You will have a tale of two Arctic so to speak, the raging inferno that is the Pacific with El Niño and the switching AMO from a warm phase to a cold one in the Atlantic. The Greenland Sea, Baffin Bay, and Hudson Bay areas have been running cold this year.

One good hurricane remnant going up there will take care of that...

[seaicesailor]

July Blog post - How Low Can It Go...
http://dosbat.blogspot.co.uk/2015/08/july-status-how-low-can-it-go.html

I last used that title in mid August 2012, the only year PIOMAS has released data mid month!

Blink comparison. 31 July 2012 and 2015. Red line is 15 September 2012 ice edge.

Nice post from your blog.

As can be seen in the blink comparison, GAC destroyed the huge mass of ESS/CAB of ice. I wonder if a combination of PACs or SACs (S for small) could hurt a lot too (maybe not as much)

The Eurasian side in general seems more compact now than a few days ago, doesn't it
 

[greatdying2]

According to this NSIDC chart, we've now passed both 2013 & 2014.

[BornFromTheVoid]

According to my numbers (which may be a little different due to the leap year), here's the difference to the last 9 years.

2006: -0.5096
2007: +0.3082
2008: -0.4386
2009: -0.0942
2010: +0.0392
2011: +0.2644
2012: +0.523
2013: -0.0522
2014: -0.1596

[ChrisReynolds]

SeaIceSailor,

Well Zhang finds that the ESS ice mass in 2012 would have gone anyway, I don't disagree with that. I think the storm just hastened it's demise.

Anyway, watch the gap between 2015 and 2012 between 4 and 9 August...

NSIDC Extent.

4 August 2012 5.990
9 August 2012 5.088

A drop of 0.902 in 5 days, 0.555 above the 1981 to 2010 average.

[ChrisReynolds]

Neven, Quantum,

Watts and the denialists are irrelevant fools.

I am enjoying the summer, because in the winter I put on layers and do press ups to deal with the cold rather than turning on the heat... I use the central heating when the temperature inside gets below about 12degC. I walk, cycle, use the bus; it takes me two hours to get to my parents, by car it would be 40 minutes in more comfort. I sold my car shortly after ditching my scepticism about AGW in 2007 (not related to sea ice, it was because a 2007 paper ruled out the sun as the driver). I cook almost exclusively using a microwave oven... etc etc.

The majority are hell bent on business as usual and ignoring/denying the evidence, I have done what I can. My biggest fossil fuel footprint is my job (in engineering), I can't avoid that and don't buy the 'back to the stone age' type arguments. But basically, everyone else I know is flying and driving, and having kids, etc etc...

So, having done what I can I step back, take a wider view. Civilisations rise and fall, mass extinctions come and go, such is the way of life. As Slartibartfast once wisely said: "...the only thing to do is to say, "Hang the sense of it," and keep yourself busy."

Anyway, back to the sea ice... This is a really great season! 

[epiphyte]

Popping my head up in the middle of a two week vacation & looking at ChrisReynolds' blink comparison vs. 2012, it seems to me that north of 80 deg N there's more low concentration ice & open water now than there was in 2012, and to the south of  80 deg N the remaining ice is concentrated at more southerly latitudes than it was in 2012, where it may be subject to melting conditions for longer.

This is the kind of thing which makes me wonder if we still might be headed into record territory. As usual I'm not saying that we are - just that (a month further on since the last time I said so), so far this season I think we have yet to see anything which would preclude it...

OTOH if (as quantum also suggested might happen) there is significant snowfall in the immediate future, I'd guess that might prevent some areas from melting out long enough for the temps to drop into safer territory...

OTOOH, I'd guess that at some point the presence of light snow cover might actually make things worse, if the SST is high enough.

So as usual when things are on a knife-edge, it's no more than guessing to say which way it will fall.

[Nick_Naylor]

It's quite simply really. There are various ways of looking at Arctic sea ice loss: The science of it, the implications for AGW PR, and the spectacle. Chris Reynolds takes the latter perspective most of the time. And I agree that's the best way of looking at it.

It's OK to view sea ice loss as a spectacle to enjoy, but there is no "best" way to look at it, unless you're simply saying that actively participating in this forum will be most enjoyable if you approach it that way.

Clearly nothing can be done about climate change if everyone just sits back and eats popcorn as societies go up in flames - we need people to become concerned, educate themselves, spread the word, and do the hard work of democracy. Everyone should decide for themselves what their contribution will be - if any, and respect people with different ideas.

Participating in this forum can also benefit folks by helping them better understand a facet of one of the most consequential developments to ever confront humanity - one that will be driving enormous changes over the next few decades whether we rise to the occasion or not. Even taking in the big picture though, it's not possible to know whether big sea ice losses this year would be a good thing or not. To some degree, it would be mean that things are happening faster than we expected (probably bad), but it would also make it easier to recognize this fact in a crucial year politically . . .

Getting back to the original question, I try to say "good for melting" or "bad for melting" rather than let the reader guess my perspective, and I appreciate it when others do the same.

[Neven]

Getting back to the original question, I try to say "good for melting" or "bad for melting" rather than let the reader guess my perspective, and I appreciate it when others do the same.

Yes, that's what I also have been doing ever since people complained about it over on the blog.

FWIW, I look at Arctic sea ice loss to keep me alert and not succumb to my day-to-day denial mechanisms, I blog and do this forum to spread awareness of the issue (and hope against hope it will make a difference), but, like Chris, I try to enjoy watching this amazing, planetary spectacle as much as I can to keep me going. It's hard to do something for a long time if it isn't fun.

And I find the science interesting also, but more because I'm amazed at what people can come up with. It can be a very creative thing, artistic almost. Unfortunately, my brains don't do science very well. My interest fades when I don't get something.

All of this is off-topic, I know. But remember, I'm Tony Montana. 

[Bob Wallace]

We've got Chris using "good" for ice melt and JD using "bad" for ice melt.  Both are very valuable community members who happen to have different opinions about the preferred speed of Arctic sea ice melts.

Perhaps we should simply avoid the value judgements of good/bad and be more descriptive about what we are observing/predicting. 

[Bob Wallace]

Popping my head up in the middle of a two week vacation & looking at ChrisReynolds' blink comparison vs. 2012, it seems to me that north of 80 deg N there's more low concentration ice & open water now than there was in 2012, and to the south of  80 deg N the remaining ice is concentrated at more southerly latitudes than it was in 2012, where it may be subject to melting conditions for longer.

This is the kind of thing which makes me wonder if we still might be headed into record territory.

I'd say that we are one good strong storm away from a new record. 

There's no way to predict if a good strong storm will or will not materialize over the next few weeks.  It's just watch and wonder from here on out.

("Wonder" has more than one meaning.)

[12Patrick]

Yesterday 4.413 today 4.284 down 1.29K square km in one day.  . 

[Michael J]

Guys, I find the unadorned use of "bad" and "good" as descriptors of melt conditions to be quite confusing, especially since they're used oppositely by different people.

Apologies. I am a (rational) optimist. I hope people use 'good' to mean ice retention. If you don't then it might imply you have spent to long arguing with climate change deniers!

However, another low ice year may jolt Governments into doing more

[Villabolo]

Guys, I find the unadorned use of "bad" and "good" as descriptors of melt conditions to be quite confusing, especially since they're used oppositely by different people.

For me 'good' (conditions for ice melt) are conditions leading to more ice loss. As the sort of person who finds thunderstorms exciting, I find this the most exciting spectacle on the planet.

The ice is going. If people get depressed and worried by ice loss then they need to find something else to do because the decades to come will only bring reason for sorrow. Indulging in the negative is not good for mental well being. If sea ice loss depresses people they should leave the issue, come back to it once a year to check up, and do something afterwards to regain equilibrium; like waching 'Babe'. 

I'm really not sure it helps our cause though. The Anthony Watts of this world will just be able to come back at us with you want the ice to melt. I don't want to give the muppets that would call us 'alarmists' any credibility whatsoever. And we all know that an ice free arctic would be pretty devastating for the planet, so this is something worth getting depressed about!

May I suggest using a more neutral term such as "higher melt" and "lower melt"? In any case we are living in interesting times.

[seaicesailor]

Guys, I find the unadorned use of "bad" and "good" as descriptors of melt conditions to be quite confusing, especially since they're used oppositely by different people.

For me 'good' (conditions for ice melt) are conditions leading to more ice loss. As the sort of person who finds thunderstorms exciting, I find this the most exciting spectacle on the planet.

The ice is going. If people get depressed and worried by ice loss then they need to find something else to do because the decades to come will only bring reason for sorrow. Indulging in the negative is not good for mental well being. If sea ice loss depresses people they should leave the issue, come back to it once a year to check up, and do something afterwards to regain equilibrium; like waching 'Babe'. 

I'm really not sure it helps our cause though. The Anthony Watts of this world will just be able to come back at us with you want the ice to melt. I don't want to give the muppets that would call us 'alarmists' any credibility whatsoever. And we all know that an ice free arctic would be pretty devastating for the planet, so this is something worth getting depressed about!

May I suggest using a more neutral term such as "higher melt" and "lower melt"? In any case we are living in interesting times.

Villabolo and others, I have been lurking and commenting in this forum now for three years and seen this controversy as much as the divergence /pumping thing.

There is no solution other than knowing the contributors.

JD and others will always say "Good" meaning good for the ice.
Chris Reynolds and others will always say "Good" meaning bad for the ice.

Get used to it and know the guys/gals, then there is no problem (except for some of us that mix it up sometimes)

[kingbum]

I think that since the Hudson and Baffin took so long to melt out this year I believe they will refreeze rather quickly around September 1st. SSTs there are below normal and this will hold up the minimum. You will have a tale of two Arctic so to speak, the raging inferno that is the Pacific with El Niño and the switching AMO from a warm phase to a cold one in the Atlantic. The Greenland Sea, Baffin Bay, and Hudson Bay areas have been running cold this year.

One good hurricane remnant going up there will take care of that...

That's the thing I'm not sure if you are going to get that hurricane before September...way too much dust and dry air is coming off the African coast and historically the Atlantic hurricane season has been slow during a El Niño. The Atlantic  tends to have higher barometric pressure so less of an opportunity this year. It's next year when some of that heat transfers from the Pacific to the Atlantic that has a crazy amount of hurricanes effecting the Canadian maritime....1998 being particularly bad

[12Patrick]

Guys, I find the unadorned use of "bad" and "good" as descriptors of melt conditions to be quite confusing, especially since they're used oppositely by different people.

For me 'good' (conditions for ice melt) are conditions leading to more ice loss. As the sort of person who finds thunderstorms exciting, I find this the most exciting spectacle on the planet.

The ice is going. If people get depressed and worried by ice loss then they need to find something else to do because the decades to come will only bring reason for sorrow. Indulging in the negative is not good for mental well being. If sea ice loss depresses people they should leave the issue, come back to it once a year to check up, and do something afterwards to regain equilibrium; like waching 'Babe'. 

I'm really not sure it helps our cause though. The Anthony Watts of this world will just be able to come back at us with you want the ice to melt. I don't want to give the muppets that would call us 'alarmists' any credibility whatsoever. And we all know that an ice free arctic would be pretty devastating for the planet, so this is something worth getting depressed about!

May I suggest using a more neutral term such as "higher melt" and "lower melt"? In any case we are living in interesting times.

Villabolo and others, I have been lurking and commenting in this forum now for three years and seen this controversy as much as the divergence /pumping thing.

There is no solution other than knowing the contributors.

JD and others will always say "Good" meaning good for the ice.
Chris Reynolds and others will always say "Good" meaning bad for the ice.

Get used to it and know the guys/gals, then there is no problem (except for some of us that mix it up sometimes)

I have the solution under policy and solutions 10th one down...

[LRC1962]

OT: There seems to be more resent discussion around what is said and how it is said.
Most languages around the world have very strict rules regarding language structure especially between verbs and nouns. English on the other hand is very much governed by context.
Major impacts on context include but are not limited to:
Mother language if English is a second language and also regional base of the English that is learned. The two together can not be divorced from each other.
Region the English you learned and use comes from. English from the regions of London, England, Glasgow, Scotland, Dallas, Texas and Toronto Canada all have there unique styles and definitions of English. This does not mean one is superior then the other, it is just reality that one must live with.
Educational background. A great weather day for a weather reporter is going to be different, then a storm chaser, then a farmer, then a blue collar outside worker, then a white collar worker, then an airplane pilot, then a sea captain ......
Make up of the individual.
Friv is famous on this board. He comes across as a man of passion and action. Therefore he loves wild weather, great fluctuations of ice numbers. Quiet times in the Arctic means Friv generally is quiet. Does that mean he really truly believes the ice should go from the Arctic? Doubt it. He just loves the action.
 Point being Keep your criticisms of language use to a minimum unless you cross the line of derogatory personal terms, coarseness, or the usage makes what you are saying impossible to understand. English is a very rich language that every turn of phrase can have multiple interpretations all of which are very legitimate. This then means it is the reader and/or listener who has the responsibility to understand what is being said and not the writer.
Edit: If this should have its own post in a different topic I will move, or you can. It just has started to really bother me the amount of time spent on what words should and should not be said. Sometimes getting down to very personal attacks.

[Bob Wallace]

Many of us have scientific training backgrounds.  We're taught to avoid ambiguous word usage.  Science puts a lot of effort into creating tight meanings for important terms. 

I don't think it unreasonable to tighten up our posting word usage a bit, especially if it is confusing some readers.  And I have to admit that I'll be reading along and have to scroll up to remind myself if good means good or good means bad....

[notjonathon]

Chris's chart shows a virtual tie with 2012, pixel count notwithstanding. It's clear that the long slow march to summer ice oblivion continues.
By the way (this from a "newbie" who is really an oldie, both in age and in time spent on this blog--I have been a reader probably since Neven's first post ever), the meta discussion is fascinating, at least when the posters keep it brief.

[slow wing]

Another fairly dramatic update in the U. Bremen daily sea ice concentration maps. As has been common this season, much of the action is in the peripheral seas in front of Alaska and Siberia.

Gaping holes are appearing in the Chukchi as the ice is pushed Southwards towards the Bering Strait. Surely that's going to cause a significant drop in the CT area numbers!

  Looking on http://cci-reanalyzer.org/Forecasts/ the low pressure system located between the North Pole and the Alaskan Coast is whipping up 10+ m/s winds. That is likely causing some damage to the ice concentration there.

Indeed, all of the ice in the Arctic Basin that is South of 80 degrees North - which is predominantly on the Pacific side and in the aforementioned peripheral seas - is looking vulnerable now.

The strong melt continues!


Click on gif to flash back to yesterday's map as well...

[LRC1962]

Many of us have scientific training backgrounds.  We're taught to avoid ambiguous word usage.  Science puts a lot of effort into creating tight meanings for important terms. 

Can not find the exact quote , but do remember senior climatologist for Environment Canada, Dave Phillips, (who I would not think you would deny is a scientist), said about what is good weather. "It all depends on who you are and what kind of weather you are looking for. A man getting to work at rush hour would not think a snow storm as good, but a farmer who needs a thick blanket of snow for his spring looks at it as perfect weather. A water resource person looks a fall down pour after a hot dry summer as good weather to replenish his aquifers, a farmer trying to get in his harvest would curse it."
 Descriptive verbs may not be scientific, but to get a message across are essential. The problem is there can be no right descriptive word under any given situation, because everyone sees thing from a different perspective for a good many valid reasons and to demand that everyone sees things only from your particular view point then denies any valid contribution others may have that sees things from a totally different side of the same coin.
The lexicon of an astrophysicist and a botanist may have the same words appear and similar definitions, but I know for a fact they are not talking about the same thing.

[Bob Wallace]

I fear we're getting off the topic of the 2015 melting season once more, so I'll try to be brief.  Within a single site, within a single thread it makes sense to me for all to a single meaning for important words, and not polar opposite meanings. 

[stackmaster]

A persistent dispersing cyclone and vast areas of open water within the pack to the west, last bits of solid ice in the northern CAA breaking up, ice edge retreating north of Svalbard and lots of thin ice north of the Laptev.  ESS "arm" atrophying.  Nares open. Chukchi, Labrador, Hudson, Baffin, ESS, Kara, Barents with little or no ice left.  Good or bad it's an amazing thing to see.   This is an epic season.

[6roucho]

Guys, I find the unadorned use of "bad" and "good" as descriptors of melt conditions to be quite confusing, especially since they're used oppositely by different people.

Apologies. I am a (rational) optimist. I hope people use 'good' to mean ice retention. If you don't then it might imply you have spent to long arguing with climate change deniers!

I was asking for a clarification about definitions, not expressing an opinion either way. You said that you'd appreciate any criticism of your posts. Defining terms is the foundation of any scientific discussion. I simply didn't know what your posts meant.

[cesium62]

I think that since the Hudson and Baffin took so long to melt out this year I believe they will refreeze rather quickly around September 1st. SSTs there are below normal and this will hold up the minimum. You will have a tale of two Arctic so to speak, the raging inferno that is the Pacific with El Niño and the switching AMO from a warm phase to a cold one in the Atlantic. The Greenland Sea, Baffin Bay, and Hudson Bay areas have been running cold this year.

If the Hudson Bay refreezes on or about 1 Sep, that will be spectacularly exciting.  Two months or more before it typically refreezes.

There are still 14 hours of sunlight per day around there on 1 Sep.  https://weatherspark.com/averages/28442/9/Churchill-Manitoba-Canada

[John]

My take on the good/bad issue: I recognize all the points above.  However I suggest that this year and the next melting is good in both senses because of the upcoming American elections. If the ice rebounds temporarily, then the Republicans can set the agenda for the next few years. If the ice crashes, the Republicans will have to acknowledge it. I think renewables are also at a tipping point in American consciousness to be accepted into the mainstream, even if as a minor theme.

I personally think that the less radical republicans actually believe GW but can't say so. So if the ice crashes, it may be a win for American policy either way. Once the programs are in place (naive hope, eh) I would call ice melt bad, as i am a go-down-fighting-even-if-no-one-else-cares type of person.

[Gray-Wolf]

One good hurricane remnant going up there will take care of that...
[/quote]

That's the thing I'm not sure if you are going to get that hurricane before September...way too much dust and dry air is coming off the African coast and historically the Atlantic hurricane season has been slow during a El Niño.
[/quote]

There is another way into the basin for 'cane remnants and the Pacific is not having any such problems in producing storms? Currently we have one aiming at Hawaii so where does it go later?

Storms running up through Bering and into Beaufort would be rather messy? With open water and high winds what would happen to the central pack esp. as it already looks so vulnerable ?

[greatdying2]

Waters approaching 10C are reaching north of Svalbard. Several other areas looking quite toasty too, including Baffin Bay.

[notjonathon]

Grey Wolf--

We've had a dozen Pacific typhoons so far this year. Sometimes these storms wander all the way to the Arctic, bearing fairly warm moisture with them. If one should happen to arrive at the same time an Arctic storm is brewing, we could see some action.

[Jim Pettit]

Apologies for the off-thread comment, but, as a few others have said, it's best to simply use unambiguous, objective, and clear language in cases where confusion may arise. With that in mind, use phrases such as, "temperatures will cause ice to disappear," or "conditions are perfect for a large increase in extent," or "next week's storm should lead to large decreases on the Atlantic side," or "area growth will be huge with the massive high setting up". It really doesn't take any longer to employ such wording than it does to lazily fall back on "good" or "bad". I realize this is only an internet forum, and that our writings here aren't for posterity. But anyone wishing to clearly communicate should do their best to be, you know, clear.

[Nightvid Cole]

Wipneus compactness is at all time record low for UH:

https://14adebb0-a-62cb3a1a-s-sites.googlegroups.com/site/arctischepinguin/home/amsr2/grf/amsr2-compact-compare.png?attachauth=ANoY7cqgFNfFd3_c9eLfSrXbuH4R32Pr27m9IDv-d_zd3Sx7LdXXovRCGRl3c5cZAMExezkfT0RvePt1W6ITsBMO0YTVRowXk_0y38qF6wz58ZyXRhTVSEXstYG9LMFW49nWBv-0AbvBXPmNZVmK_7HLDDMZC1jyqGJYQsClcMUslXvLspOJEQL5J4v9uLRDZnyD7dookL1Dx-Rs9J3ztdkhPjpwSam4ect3kNRopF4PHNc-kOQnXwE7ghWy4JXFeMNbxDBlF-Wi&attredirects=0

[cesium62]

My take on the good/bad issue: I recognize all the points above.  However I suggest that this year and the next melting is good in both senses because of the upcoming American elections. If the ice rebounds temporarily, then the Republicans can set the agenda for the next few years. If the ice crashes, the Republicans will have to acknowledge it. I think renewables are also at a tipping point in American consciousness to be accepted into the mainstream, even if as a minor theme.

I personally think that the less radical republicans actually believe GW but can't say so. So if the ice crashes, it may be a win for American policy either way. Once the programs are in place (naive hope, eh) I would call ice melt bad, as i am a go-down-fighting-even-if-no-one-else-cares type of person.

You are quite the pessimist:  http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/23/hillary-clinton-presidential-election-poll

(This is on topic due to the amount of hot air the election will create?)

[Gray-Wolf]

I'm really not sure it helps our cause though. The Anthony Watts of this world will just be able to come back at us with you want the ice to melt. I don't want to give the muppets that would call us 'alarmists' any credibility whatsoever. And we all know that an ice free arctic would be pretty devastating for the planet, so this is something worth getting depressed about!

You've just been " four-ed" or S.C. -ed too much Q'......... it's so much nicer here...............

EDIT: Not to mention Bill Illis.........

[weatherdude88]

Wipneus compactness is at all time record low for UH:

https://14adebb0-a-62cb3a1a-s-sites.googlegroups.com/site/arctischepinguin/home/amsr2/grf/amsr2-compact-compare.png?attachauth=ANoY7cqgFNfFd3_c9eLfSrXbuH4R32Pr27m9IDv-d_zd3Sx7LdXXovRCGRl3c5cZAMExezkfT0RvePt1W6ITsBMO0YTVRowXk_0y38qF6wz58ZyXRhTVSEXstYG9LMFW49nWBv-0AbvBXPmNZVmK_7HLDDMZC1jyqGJYQsClcMUslXvLspOJEQL5J4v9uLRDZnyD7dookL1Dx-Rs9J3ztdkhPjpwSam4ect3kNRopF4PHNc-kOQnXwE7ghWy4JXFeMNbxDBlF-Wi&attredirects=0

Your link clearly shows 2015 ahead of 2012.

[weatherdude88]

Waters approaching 10C are reaching north of Svalbard. Several other areas looking quite toasty too, including Baffin Bay.

Not all maps are created equal. The range of colors make that map impossible to interpret the SST's. A reality check shows SST's much cooler then your "10C".