The 2015/2016 freezing season

[Vergent]

Anybody knows what happened in Winter 2011-2012 in terms of snow? Are there records of that?

2011-2012:



2012-2013:



2013-2014:



2014-2015:



today with the scale:



http://marine.copernicus.eu/web/69-interactive-catalogue.php?option=com_csw&view=details&product_id=ARCTIC_ANALYSIS_FORECAST_PHYS_002_001_a

click on "view product"

Verg

[slow wing]

Thanks Verg!

[Gonzo]

As the satellite for MODIS slowly goes out of range are there no satellites taking images for the Arctic?

[Jim Hunt]

As the satellite for MODIS slowly goes out of range are there no satellites taking images for the Arctic?

Even as the visible light fades over the far North, "infra-red" & "microwaves" still work. See for example:

http://GreatWhiteCon.info/resources/arctic-sea-ice-graphs/#ASCAT

for an overview and

http://www.polarview.aq/arctic

for closeups.

[Peter Ellis]

As the satellite for MODIS slowly goes out of range are there no satellites taking images for the Arctic?

The satellite isn't going out of range.  It's dark at the Pole this time of year.  There won't be any more visible light pictures at the Pole for another 6 months.  There's still data at other wavelengths, which is why we still get ice concentration and area data even though the Sun's gone down at the Pole.

[jplotinus]

It's not yet dark at the North Pole. Still sun all day for 2 more days.

http://www.athropolis.com/sun-fr.htm

[Tor Bejnar]

Then how come the Healy was using lights to see at 80º N a few hours ago?

[seaicesailor]

Then how come the Healy was using lights to see at 80º N a few hours ago?

At 80N there has been day and night already for weeks, but at the North Pole the Sun is right now set at  the horizon for the whole day.

That doesn't mean visible light pictures are still valid at the North Pole, crepuscular light is too dim, very long shadows are cast from ridges, clouds, whatever.

It is a nice 24h sunset today at the North Pole, weather abiding.

[seaicesailor]

You can flip through monthly anomaly charts here.

Thanks Neven and Verg

[Peter Ellis]

It's not yet dark at the North Pole. Still sun all day for 2 more days.

http://www.athropolis.com/sun-fr.htm

I said dark, not night.  Right before sunset, it's still pretty dark :-p

[Jim Hunt]

More audio and video from the Arctic Mix team aboard the University of Alaska's research vessel Sikuliaq:

http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1385.msg63827.html#msg63827

We're trying to understand mixing in a very important part of the world. I mean the ice is melting, and people aren't able to model very accurately why it is.

[Gonzo]

Jim Hunt

Even as the visible light fades over the far North, "infra-red" & "microwaves" still work. See for example:
http://GreatWhiteCon.info/resources/arctic-sea-ice-graphs/#ASCAT
for an overview and
http://www.polarview.aq/arctic
for closeups.

Thanks for info. by the way. I am exploring them. I am probably looking at the wrong ones, so still can't see these methods being able to distinguish from cloud very well, since when I look at an area with MODIS, it looks very different (less ice), but it is great to be able to see in the dark !

[Gonzo]

Laptev Sea seems to have increased ice a lot.
(or it could just be the wind blowing it out there.)
Sept. 15 on top.
Sept. 25 at bottom.

[seaicesailor]

Neven and others comment over his blog on the absence of DMI 80N temperature peaks at this time of the year. Most recent seasons indeed showed these departures above the historical mean during the initial refreezing: there is much more open ocean than it used to, and it has to refreeze; the released heat keeps air temperatures anchored to approx. -2C over peripheral seas. Then, weather systems carry this air over the North Pole from time to time, generating these peaks of temperature above 80N.

Curiously the single recent year that did not show huge spikes until Winter December was 2011, only small ones. Coincidence again?

[magnamentis]

Neven and others comment over his blog on the absence of DMI 80N temperature peaks at this time of the year. Most recent seasons indeed showed these departures above the historical mean during the initial refreezing: there is much more open ocean than it used to, and it has to refreeze; the released heat keeps air temperatures anchored to approx. -2C over peripheral seas. Then, weather systems carry this air over the North Pole from time to time, generating these peaks of temperature above 80N.

Curiously the single recent year that did not show huge spikes until Winter December was 2011, only small ones. Coincidence again?

which could be translated as that the energy remains south where it's first of all needed to prevent early freezing where it's more avoidable and/or ending the freezing season earlier due to available energy from the previous season that was not wasted ( cooled down ) over the pole region.

[jdallen]

Neven and others comment over his blog on the absence of DMI 80N temperature peaks at this time of the year. Most recent seasons indeed showed these departures above the historical mean during the initial refreezing: there is much more open ocean than it used to, and it has to refreeze; the released heat keeps air temperatures anchored to approx. -2C over peripheral seas. Then, weather systems carry this air over the North Pole from time to time, generating these peaks of temperature above 80N.

Curiously the single recent year that did not show huge spikes until Winter December was 2011, only small ones. Coincidence again?

which could be translated as that the energy remains south where it's first of all needed to prevent early freezing where it's more avoidable and/or ending the freezing season earlier due to available energy from the previous season that was not wasted ( cooled down ) over the pole region.

*So* tricky, this, but you have your finger on the pulse of it without necessarily realizing it.

First question to ask, is where is the heat coming from?  If the source is local - namely from the ocean itself - the spike is a good thing, as it reflects energy leaving to permit ice formation.

If the source is caused by inflow of warmer moister air - not so good - and this is what we saw during the winter  of 2014/15.  The "cyclone cannons" in the Pacific and Atlantic repeatedly fired huge masses of extremely warm moist air north, prompting the cold breakouts across North America, and consistently kept temperatures astonishingly high.  The imported heat replaced that normally radiated out of the oceans and significantly reduced both ice formation and thickening.

So, no spikes is not particularly good or bad news. Where the heat is going(or not) may be.

[Neven]

And here is our first spike:

[meddoc]

Sole arctic amplification and/ or methane swirled up in the Laptev by the strong winds...

[Gonzo]

Those spikes could be winds churning up warmer (saltier) water from below, or more cloud covered days and less cloud covered, or just that now the differential between upper and lower waters, as seen in the recent research below,  perhaps is amplified in Spring and Fall. The warmer water is exploding up to the surface in volatile manner, the more open water there is and less thick the ice is, and the warmer the oceans.
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-34324439?SThisFB#_=_

Alternatively, there is some warm water, diving under the cooler surface (Greenland meltwaters) of the N. Atlantic just now, rushing through because it has a different salinity and temp. that just doesn't mix easily with the fresh Greenland meltwater that is expanding out over the surface of the N. Atlantic, and this Gulf Stream water, in an accelerating current, is reaching the Arctic bringing warmer waters on the Atlantic side. If warm currents can dive under a blockage of cool surface waters, the same could be true of ice, and it could be forcing through under the ice (from Pacific too)  causing more churning of the ocean, therefore volatile SSTs.

[slow wing]

Based on the Nullschool display:
http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/overlay=temp/orthographic=-35.44,93.43,1444
the temperature spike appears to have come from a low pressure system pulling air from warmer climes to over the North Pole - see screen capture below.

Am I remembering correctly that the temperature graphic displayed is not properly weighted for area? That, rather than giving the average temperature within 10 degrees of the Pole, it instead has a 1/r weighting, where r is a radius within each of the annular bins that are summed to give the overall average?

If true, this means that temperatures right near the pole will get a much higher weighting than those closer to the 10 degrees outer limit.

It's not strictly a mistake but in my opinion is less useful than a straight area average over the 10 degrees radius circle centred on the Pole.

[jdallen]

<snippage>
the temperature spike appears to have come from a low pressure system pulling air from warmer climes to over the North Pole - see screen capture below.

Am I remembering correctly that the temperature graphic displayed is not properly weighted for area? That, rather than giving the average temperature within 10 degrees of the Pole, it instead has a 1/r weighting, where r is a radius within each of the annular bins that are summed to give the overall average?

If true, this means that temperatures right near the pole will get a much higher weighting than those closer to the 10 degrees outer limit.

It's not strictly a mistake but in my opinion is less useful than a straight area average over the 10 degrees radius circle centred on the Pole.

I'd tend to agree with your assessment.  It may bode the repeat of last year's pattern with fall storms pulling heat north of 80, and across the basin generally, impeding the refreeze.

[ChrisReynolds]

Thanks Slow Wing, I didn't know about the weighting.

[Peter Ellis]

Strictly speaking it's not weighted - and that's what causes the issue!

The DMI temperature product uses a half-degree grid centred on the Pole, and the graphed "average" value simply averages all grid points north of 80 deg.  The grid points nearer the Pole are much closer together and so this area is oversampled relative to the rest.

The explanation is linked directly off the DMI page next to the graph itself.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/documentation/arctic_mean_temp_data_explanation_newest.pdf

[Blizzard_of_Oz]

Strictly speaking it's not weighted - and that's what causes the issue!

The DMI temperature product uses a half-degree grid centred on the Pole, and the graphed "average" value simply averages all grid points north of 80 deg.... 

FYI : +80N Area Weighted (though from a different model)
http://cires1.colorado.edu/~aslater/ARCTIC_TAIR/index_80_t2m.html

Also go to: http://cires1.colorado.edu/~aslater/ARCTIC_TAIR/
and click on "About these pages"
The 925hPa time series is for the whole Arctic Ocean, which I find a bit more indicative of the big picture.

Lastly, for those that followed the melt season SIPN predictions in the past couple of years:
http://cires1.colorado.edu/~aslater/SEAICE/perform.html
(which is a bit gratuitous on my part, but ...)

[crandles]

Like the graphs.

Also well done - impressively accurate predictions.

[kingbum]

Does anybody know about the current extent of the winter ozone hole in the Arctic? While traditionally this has been much smaller than in the Antarctic (part of the reason Antarctic has had more ice and been much colder in my eyes) I think the heat escape through the Arctic weakness/hole in ozone is a factor in Arctic cooling and refreeze.

[ktonine]

The reason Antarctica has much colder temperatures is because it's land as compared to the arctic which is mainly over ocean.  The ocean is a large heat reservoir and has far greater heat capacity than land. 

Ozone has little effect on temperatures.  The main threat from a lack of ozone is excessive UV reaching the surface where it would be harmful to humans, animals, and plants.

[seaicesailor]

IJIS:

5,754,297 km²（October 8, 2015）up 147,018 km² from previous.

I am fascinated by how fast extent is rocketing up, as compared to 2007, 2011 and 2012.  I'm as yet at a complete loss to understand how it's happening, and what it implies about the heat exchange that is taking place.

My suspicion is that the ozone levels are low allowing heat to be lost through a hole or weakness but I don't have any hard numbers to back that up yet

I might be completely wrong but I suspect the explanation is much simpler. In the laptev and the beaufort there was some ice rubble left from the melt season. This rubble was multi-year but had such a low concentration even on the AMSR2 it was not visible (before being covered by new ice). However if you have a look at the MASIE archive charts you can see the ice remants in both the beaufort and the laptev here:

ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02186/latest/4km/

Compare the speed of refreeze in the laptev with the east siberian. Both show new ice towards the coast, but the laptev refreeze dominates completely. Also notice how there is still open water well into the bay in the laptev which is counter-intuitive. However no ice survived in that bay. Any remaining ice rubble no matter how small (and it was small) will guarantee the temperature of the surrounding water is at freezing point, so the process should be much quicker than expected. If ice rubble survives in the Hudson we may see a similar process later (although it looks unlikely)

Makes all sense. Ice pack growth has been explosive in the Pacific side.

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

Selected "Ice concentration" and made an animation of the past 30 days (unfortunately I can't link to that).

I honestly thought it was going to be a tough area to refreeze given the SSTs in September, but didn't know the effect of ice rubble, even if it was there. But indeed the SST anomalies in the Beaufort region fell and have remained close to zero for the last 15 days or so, from the DMI maps:

http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/satellite/index.uk.php

The question now what comes after all this extent has very quickly re-frozen.

[jdallen]

IJIS:

5,754,297 km²（October 8, 2015）up 147,018 km² from previous.

I am fascinated by how fast extent is rocketing up, as compared to 2007, 2011 and 2012.  I'm as yet at a complete loss to understand how it's happening, and what it implies about the heat exchange that is taking place.

My suspicion is that the ozone levels are low allowing heat to be lost through a hole or weakness but I don't have any hard numbers to back that up yet

I might be completely wrong but I suspect the explanation is much simpler. In the laptev and the beaufort there was some ice rubble left from the melt season. This rubble was multi-year but had such a low concentration even on the AMSR2 it was not visible (before being covered by new ice). However if you have a look at the MASIE archive charts you can see the ice remants in both the beaufort and the laptev here:

ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02186/latest/4km/

Compare the speed of refreeze in the laptev with the east siberian. Both show new ice towards the coast, but the laptev refreeze dominates completely. Also notice how there is still open water well into the bay in the laptev which is counter-intuitive. However no ice survived in that bay. Any remaining ice rubble no matter how small (and it was small) will guarantee the temperature of the surrounding water is at freezing point, so the process should be much quicker than expected. If ice rubble survives in the Hudson we may see a similar process later (although it looks unlikely)

Makes all sense. Ice pack growth has been explosive in the Pacific side.

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

Selected "Ice concentration" and made an animation of the past 30 days (unfortunately I can't link to that).

I honestly thought it was going to be a tough area to refreeze given the SSTs in September, but didn't know the effect of ice rubble, even if it was there. But indeed the SST anomalies in the Beaufort region fell and have remained close to zero for the last 15 days or so, from the DMI maps:

http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/satellite/index.uk.php

The question now what comes after all this extent has very quickly re-frozen.

Unfortunately a quick refreeze really isn't what we want.  We need that surface to remain open so it can spill heat, lots of it.  It will take more than the paltry 3-4 weeks we've had dump that effectively.  Ice coverage will put a lid on two, almost 3 months worth of accumulated insolation.  That may translate into thinner winter ice and low peak SIA/SIE.

[seaicesailor]

@JD Allen

*So* tricky, this, but you have your finger on the pulse of it without necessarily realizing it.

First question to ask, is where is the heat coming from?  If the source is local - namely from the ocean itself - the spike is a good thing, as it reflects energy leaving to permit ice formation.

If the source is caused by inflow of warmer moister air - not so good

Will be put to test. Something not expected too. The current North Pole temperature spike, which will stay and intensify during the week, is due to entrainment of warmer air from the Atlantic rather than air from the refreezing Arctic areas. So in a few days all around the whole arctic ocean temps will be way way above average

[jdallen]

@JD Allen

*So* tricky, this, but you have your finger on the pulse of it without necessarily realizing it.

First question to ask, is where is the heat coming from?  If the source is local - namely from the ocean itself - the spike is a good thing, as it reflects energy leaving to permit ice formation.

If the source is caused by inflow of warmer moister air - not so good

Will be put to test. Something not expected too. The current North Pole temperature spike, which will stay and intensify during the week, is due to entrainment of warmer air from the Atlantic rather than air from the refreezing Arctic areas. So in a few days all around the whole arctic ocean temps will be way way above average

... Scenario #2, Not so good.

[jdallen]

There was some discussion on Neven's latest post on the blog about the ACE index - Accumulated Cyclone Energy - being the lowest in years.

I'm wondering what this implies about changes in circulation.

Low ACE implies that somehow, less energy is/will be transferred between lower and higher latitudes.

One take away (which was suggested) is that this implies lower levels of exchange between the tropics and arctic latitudes, by way of which, could cause (short term, most likely) levels of cooling in the high mid-latitudes sufficient it could lead to an increase in both land and ocean ice.

If what I posited about low ACE above is correct, then that is a possible outcome.

BUT, I'm not sure the low ACE actually reflects that.  IN fact, I'm not sure *what* ACE may actually be representing these days.

In a regime that existed previously - with high levels of ice coverage and lower arctic temperatures - I'd tend to agree that a low ACE could represent a problem.  But I think the overall state change in the Arctic - temperatures consistently 5-15C above the average baseline - may be what is artificially lowering the index.   In this situation I think we could still be seeing significant movement of heat into the Arctic - as evidenced by seaicesailor's last post - even with reduced cyclonic activity.

Or, perhaps the nature of circulation is changing so dramatically that ACE has ceased to be a meaningful measurement, or perhaps is now reflective of something completely different.

It doesn't *yet* seem to suggest less heat transfer into the Arctic.

[Kethern]

There was some discussion on Neven's latest post on the blog about the ACE index - Accumulated Cyclone Energy - being the lowest in years.

I'm wondering what this implies about changes in circulation.

Low ACE implies that somehow, less energy is/will be transferred between lower and higher latitudes.

One take away (which was suggested) is that this implies lower levels of exchange between the tropics and arctic latitudes, by way of which, could cause (short term, most likely) levels of cooling in the high mid-latitudes sufficient it could lead to an increase in both land and ocean ice.

If what I posited about low ACE above is correct, then that is a possible outcome.

BUT, I'm not sure the low ACE actually reflects that.  IN fact, I'm not sure *what* ACE may actually be representing these days.

In a regime that existed previously - with high levels of ice coverage and lower arctic temperatures - I'd tend to agree that a low ACE could represent a problem.  But I think the overall state change in the Arctic - temperatures consistently 5-15C above the average baseline - may be what is artificially lowering the index.   In this situation I think we could still be seeing significant movement of heat into the Arctic - as evidenced by seaicesailor's last post - even with reduced cyclonic activity.

Or, perhaps the nature of circulation is changing so dramatically that ACE has ceased to be a meaningful measurement, or perhaps is now reflective of something completely different.

It doesn't *yet* seem to suggest less heat transfer into the Arctic.

I will have to see if I can get this to post on the blog (past efforts have been less then successful) but I think that the problem is not a low ACE but a bad data set at Weather Underground.

If you check the individual tabs, while the Atlantic and East Pacific go up to 2015, the West Pacific, Indian Ocean and Southern Hemisphere stop in 2011.  Assuming the global number is the sum of all then the last three years are going to be reported as artificially low.

Meanwhile at WeatherBell Models http://models.weatherbell.com/tropical.php they are showing this year with a total ACE of 771 which is 138% of the 1981-2010 baseline.

Given the number of strong storms in the Western Pacific this year I find that to be much more believable.

[kingbum]

There was some discussion on Neven's latest post on the blog about the ACE index - Accumulated Cyclone Energy - being the lowest in years.

I'm wondering what this implies about changes in circulation.

Low ACE implies that somehow, less energy is/will be transferred between lower and higher latitudes.

One take away (which was suggested) is that this implies lower levels of exchange between the tropics and arctic latitudes, by way of which, could cause (short term, most likely) levels of cooling in the high mid-latitudes sufficient it could lead to an increase in both land and ocean ice.

If what I posited about low ACE above is correct, then that is a possible outcome.

BUT, I'm not sure the low ACE actually reflects that.  IN fact, I'm not sure *what* ACE may actually be representing these days.

In a regime that existed previously - with high levels of ice coverage and lower arctic temperatures - I'd tend to agree that a low ACE could represent a problem.  But I think the overall state change in the Arctic - temperatures consistently 5-15C above the average baseline - may be what is artificially lowering the index.   In this situation I think we could still be seeing significant movement of heat into the Arctic - as evidenced by seaicesailor's last post - even with reduced cyclonic activity.

Or, perhaps the nature of circulation is changing so dramatically that ACE has ceased to be a meaningful measurement, or perhaps is now reflective of something completely different.

It doesn't *yet* seem to suggest less heat transfer into the Arctic.

I will have to see if I can get this to post on the blog (past efforts have been less then successful) but I think that the problem is not a low ACE but a bad data set at Weather Underground.

If you check the individual tabs, while the Atlantic and East Pacific go up to 2015, the West Pacific, Indian Ocean and Southern Hemisphere stop in 2011.  Assuming the global number is the sum of all then the last three years are going to be reported as artificially low.

Meanwhile at WeatherBell Models http://models.weatherbell.com/tropical.php they are showing this year with a total ACE of 771 which is 138% of the 1981-2010 baseline.

Given the number of strong storms in the Western Pacific this year I find that to be much more believable.

Kethern got to it before I had a chance too....there is a high ACE build up in the Atlantic but wind shear from the Eastern Pacific inhibited a lot of development in the tropical season...However that energy build up doesn't just go away and if what weatherbell is reporting is accurate then that means North Atlantic blizzards starting on the Northeast US coast travelling up to Greenland will be a major problem for Atlantic ice formation this winter

[jdallen]

From the IJIS thread, as an example:

http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,230.msg64859.html#msg64859

I'm actually finding the rate of refreeze kind of troubling.  I'm rather concerned the ice is going to drop a lid on top of the heat picked up last summer over a very wide area, creating a much different dynamic than say, the same extent numbers would have had pre-2007.

I welcome the ice, but I wish it would give the ocean more time to dump heat into the atmosphere - a nice anti-cyclone stirring up heat from depth would be good, tossing it off into the night so it won't haunt us next spring...

Judging from the moisture being swept in and the high temperature anomalies, it doesn't look like that's going to happen.

[Shared Humanity]

I'm actually finding the rate of refreeze kind of troubling.  I'm rather concerned the ice is going to drop a lid on top of the heat picked up last summer over a very wide area, creating a much different dynamic than say, the same extent numbers would have had pre-2007.

With the exception of the Kara and Barents Seas, SIA for all other areas of the Arctic have essentially caught up with the freeze which occurred in 2014 freeze season. The Laptev has actually raced ahead and is now approximately 100K higher than 2014 at this point.

I am not so sure that this means anything. Isn't heat still released through thin ice?

[ChrisReynolds]

I am not so sure that this means anything. Isn't heat still released through thin ice?

I calculate that across the Siberian quarter of the Arctic Ocean there has been a 37% increase in heat flux through the ice and I think this is probably warming the lower atmosphere.
http://dosbat.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/winter-warming-and-sea-ice-thinning.html

[jdallen]

I am not so sure that this means anything. Isn't heat still released through thin ice?

I calculate that across the Siberian quarter of the Arctic Ocean there has been a 37% increase in heat flux through the ice and I think this is probably warming the lower atmosphere.
http://dosbat.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/winter-warming-and-sea-ice-thinning.html

Wow... sounds like the giant is trying to get out of the grass hut.  Speaks strongly to  the net increase in available heat.

Referencing my earlier comment, while the outgoing heat has increased massively, I'm now wondering how much additional is being retained; that's where my concern about ice comes in.  The sooner it appears, the sooner we have a buffer which will slow down heat exchange.  Black Body radiation will still carry off a lot, but we lose direct transfer to atmosphere via convection and evaporation which I suspect are much more efficient.  Add the insulative value of the ice as it thickens, and that translates into a big boost in year-over-year retained heat.

[seaicesailor]

I am not so sure that this means anything. Isn't heat still released through thin ice?

I calculate that across the Siberian quarter of the Arctic Ocean there has been a 37% increase in heat flux through the ice and I think this is probably warming the lower atmosphere.
http://dosbat.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/winter-warming-and-sea-ice-thinning.html

Wow... sounds like the giant is trying to get out of the grass hut.  Speaks strongly to  the net increase in available heat.

Referencing my earlier comment, while the outgoing heat has increased massively, I'm now wondering how much additional is being retained; that's where my concern about ice comes in.  The sooner it appears, the sooner we have a buffer which will slow down heat exchange.  Black Body radiation will still carry off a lot, but we lose direct transfer to atmosphere via convection and evaporation which I suspect are much more efficient.  Add the insulative value of the ice as it thickens, and that translates into a big boost in year-over-year retained heat.

I subscribe to that. It all depends on weather, as always, but the prospects of a large extension of thin ice enabling early botton melt, while the heat of the post-mega Nino lingers around and may precondition early too,  are def bad for ice.

[kingbum]

Didn't they also recently found an underwater volcanic chain in the Arctic with the recent mapping of the Arctic sea floor? I read that somewhere just I'm not recalling the source

[jdallen]

Didn't they also recently found an underwater volcanic chain in the Arctic with the recent mapping of the Arctic sea floor? I read that somewhere just I'm not recalling the source

Not that I'm aware of.

That said, the inputs of a volcanic chain to what's happening currently would amount about to a match thrown into a bonfire.  Based on the scale of energy exchange that takes place on an annual basis in the Arctic, even multiple large volcanic eruptions would not produce any noticeable impact on the ice.  You'd have to get to Tambura scale or larger events - VEI 7 and higher - before the input of energy would have significant effect.

[DavidR]

I subscribe to that. It all depends on weather, as always, but the prospects of a large extension of thin ice enabling early botton melt, while the heat of the post-mega Nino lingers around and may precondition early too,  are def bad for ice.

Not sure what  you are implying about the El Nino, SeaIceSailor but  its only  just  getting started and the heat will be moving into the Arctic for the next two years.  In comparison to the 1997/98 El Nino we are only at October 97.  This is when the heat starts to burn.

The next 12 months will  be much hotter than the last 12 months, which are already the hottest 12 months on record by a good margin. The next two years will be very bad for the ice with new record lows a virtual certainty by the end of 2017

[ra3000]

I don't share this apocalyptic vision of the future. While I think Okhotsk and Bering seas will me influenced by El Niño and therefore, will probably see lower / much lower extents than average I believe that Hudson Bay / Baffin / Greenland /St.Lawrence, which are on the whole seeing slightly lower sea / air temperatures than average, will refreeze earlier.
I think it's too early to talk about 2016 melting season when we've just started the refreezing one.

[DavidR]

I don't share this apocalyptic vision of the future. While I think Okhotsk and Bering seas will me influenced by El Niño and therefore, will probably see lower / much lower extents than average I believe that Hudson Bay / Baffin / Greenland /St.Lawrence, which are on the whole seeing slightly lower sea / air temperatures than average, will refreeze earlier.
I think it's too early to talk about 2016 melting season when we've just started the refreezing one.

There's nothing apocalyptic about this prediction. The last  two big El Ninos were in 1983 and 1998.  In the year  following both of those, that  is 1984 and 1999, there was record low Arctic Sea Ice extent according to  NSIDC by several 100K km^2.  This year(the start of the El Nino)  is already set to raise the global temperature record by about 0.1 degC.  Next year, the year that we will label El Nino 2016, will almost certainly increase that  record by at least another 0.1 degC.
That warmth will flow from the tropics to the poles resulting in massive ice loss. The only question as far as I can see is whether the next record occurs in 2016 or 2017.

[James Lovejoy]

Didn't they also recently found an underwater volcanic chain in the Arctic with the recent mapping of the Arctic sea floor? I read that somewhere just I'm not recalling the source

Even if true, a 'newly discovered' volcano wouldn't make one bit of difference.  A volcano doesn't suddenly put more heat out just because we learn about it.

[ChrisReynolds]

I am not so sure that this means anything. Isn't heat still released through thin ice?

I calculate that across the Siberian quarter of the Arctic Ocean there has been a 37% increase in heat flux through the ice and I think this is probably warming the lower atmosphere.
http://dosbat.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/winter-warming-and-sea-ice-thinning.html

Wow... sounds like the giant is trying to get out of the grass hut.  Speaks strongly to  the net increase in available heat.

Referencing my earlier comment, while the outgoing heat has increased massively, I'm now wondering how much additional is being retained; that's where my concern about ice comes in.  The sooner it appears, the sooner we have a buffer which will slow down heat exchange.  Black Body radiation will still carry off a lot, but we lose direct transfer to atmosphere via convection and evaporation which I suspect are much more efficient.  Add the insulative value of the ice as it thickens, and that translates into a big boost in year-over-year retained heat.

I subscribe to that. It all depends on weather, as always, but the prospects of a large extension of thin ice enabling early botton melt, while the heat of the post-mega Nino lingers around and may precondition early too,  are def bad for ice.

For what it is worth, I accept the Tietsche Effect, where by a lot of heat gained in the summer is vented over autumn/winter. But, I really find it hard to believe that all of the heat gained in summer is lost to the atmosphere.

There's a graph of August SSTs here:
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/sea_surface_temperature.html

In April, strictly speaking the surface under the ice would be near -1.8degC, perhaps a better indicator would be heat content of the top 50m (for example), such heat content for April would give an indication of how much heat was being retained.

PIOMAS has gridded ocean temperatures for the ocean model levels. Levels 1 to 5 give the top 50 metres.

[seaicesailor]

I don't share this apocalyptic vision of the future. While I think Okhotsk and Bering seas will me influenced by El Niño and therefore, will probably see lower / much lower extents than average I believe that Hudson Bay / Baffin / Greenland /St.Lawrence, which are on the whole seeing slightly lower sea / air temperatures than average, will refreeze earlier.
I think it's too early to talk about 2016 melting season when we've just started the refreezing one.

Yeah I personally tend to get too hyped with what I read about Nino this year (since 2014 actually). The extra heat as David says may be felt later of what I imply but seems that based on previous occasions this will be a bad step down the ladder 2016 or 2017.

[jdallen]

I am not so sure that this means anything. Isn't heat still released through thin ice?

I calculate that across the Siberian quarter of the Arctic Ocean there has been a 37% increase in heat flux through the ice and I think this is probably warming the lower atmosphere.
http://dosbat.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/winter-warming-and-sea-ice-thinning.html

Wow... sounds like the giant is trying to get out of the grass hut.  Speaks strongly to  the net increase in available heat.

Referencing my earlier comment, while the outgoing heat has increased massively, I'm now wondering how much additional is being retained; that's where my concern about ice comes in.  The sooner it appears, the sooner we have a buffer which will slow down heat exchange.  Black Body radiation will still carry off a lot, but we lose direct transfer to atmosphere via convection and evaporation which I suspect are much more efficient.  Add the insulative value of the ice as it thickens, and that translates into a big boost in year-over-year retained heat.

I subscribe to that. It all depends on weather, as always, but the prospects of a large extension of thin ice enabling early botton melt, while the heat of the post-mega Nino lingers around and may precondition early too,  are def bad for ice.

For what it is worth, I accept the Tietsche Effect, where by a lot of heat gained in the summer is vented over autumn/winter. But, I really find it hard to believe that all of the heat gained in summer is lost to the atmosphere.

There's a graph of August SSTs here:
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/sea_surface_temperature.html

In April, strictly speaking the surface under the ice would be near -1.8degC, perhaps a better indicator would be heat content of the top 50m (for example), such heat content for April would give an indication of how much heat was being retained.

PIOMAS has gridded ocean temperatures for the ocean model levels. Levels 1 to 5 give the top 50 metres.

I'm in the same corner with you Chris; heat can only move through the atmosphere and ice just so fast.  For it to move faster, the air temps would have to be noticeably higher, and I'm still not sure that given weather and increased moisture it would exit fast enough to avoid a lot of residual being left behind.

That said, I am positively agog at how fast the refreeze has been progressing.  As posted elsewhere, I'm at a complete loss to understand where the heat went.

[ChrisReynolds]

Well, I seriously haven't downloaded any data since my last ice releated blog post, and I don't intend to until our works Xmas shutdown...

So I can't help you there. 

[jdallen]

Well, I seriously haven't downloaded any data since my last ice releated blog post, and I don't intend to until our works Xmas shutdown...

So I can't help you there. 

I shall just learn to go without, and entertain myself browsing our resource sites and reading papers.  Perhaps something will illuminate me, but don't hold your breath(s).