Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Author Topic: The 2016 melting season  (Read 2274226 times)

icy voyeur

  • New ice
  • Posts: 63
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The 2016 melting season
« Reply #2900 on: July 05, 2016, 09:59:25 PM »
...wishfull saying that "extent doesn't matter", which seems to pop up ...

Sorry for asking, but is this meant in jest/ i.e. as a satire, or seriously?

I read it as quite serious, and I agree. I've been reading "predictions" of the sky falling and an ice-free arctic this year that consistently fail to match the data. People have been fairly patient but it gets old and is counter-productive.

magnamentis

  • Guest
Re: The 2016 melting season
« Reply #2901 on: July 05, 2016, 10:54:57 PM »
....... that consistently fail to match the data.

interesting statement after approximately 150 days of record lows  :o

question is, who is patient here while i agree and have stated various times that exaggerations tend to
harm credibility, so the examples you were using are correct, there won't be an ice free arctic i bet, but then
any statements that pretend that we're not constantly at and or very close to all kinds of record lows are indeed annoying IMO and each time the melt curve shows a little hook ( like are today due to refreeze of meltponds above 80N ) it start again, just to find out 20 days later that we are still at or very close to all kind of record lows.

that people who don't forget every other day that we are at or close to a record low state that is totally conform with the data and saying that the data say otherwise is plain wrong. correct would be "today's area data if it contionues like that" which it won't i could almost swear that in 2 week we shall still be at or close record lows
and there will be someone else who tries to say otherwise after one or two days of the curve flattening.

i hope this was nicely said because inside a feel pi...d off a bit and have to keep myself in check to not share the fate of others who lost their temper.

bbr2314

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1817
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 158
  • Likes Given: 53
Re: The 2016 melting season
« Reply #2902 on: July 05, 2016, 10:56:25 PM »
....... that consistently fail to match the data.

interesting statement after approximately 150 days of record lows  :o

question is, who is patient here while i agree and have stated various times that exaggerations tend to
harm credibility, so the examples you were using are correct, there won't be an ice free arctic i bet, but then
any statements that pretend that we're not constantly at and or very close to all kinds of record lows are indeed annoying IMO and each time the melt curve shows a little hook ( like are today due to refreeze of meltponds above 80N ) it start again, just to find out 20 days later that we are still at or very close to all kind of record lows.

that people who don't forget every other day that we are at or close to a record low state that is totally conform with the data and saying that the data say otherwise is plain wrong. correct would be "today's area data if it contionues like that" which it won't i could almost swear that in 2 week we shall still be at or close record lows
and there will be someone else who tries to say otherwise after one or two days of the curve flattening.

i hope this was nicely said because inside a feel pi...d off a bit and have to keep myself in check to not share the fate of others who lost their temper.
+100 to this post... I almost wonder if some people here are being paid by Murdoch et al? the denial is insane

icy voyeur

  • New ice
  • Posts: 63
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The 2016 melting season
« Reply #2903 on: July 05, 2016, 11:19:16 PM »
....... that consistently fail to match the data.

interesting statement after approximately 150 days of record lows  :o
 ...
i hope this was nicely said because inside a feel pi...d off a bit and have to keep myself in check to not share the fate of others who lost their temper.

It was politely said but made a mistake, IMO. The people who disagree with the extreme claims of immanent doom are not claiming that everything is fine in the arctic, far far from it. Yes, it's been a record year, but, rather than accelerating out of control, it's slowed down. The fear was that early melt would produce an amplification, more heat absorbed, even more melt, like compounding interest. But weather still matters and we've caught a reprieve --- for this season, at least so far. And that's good, unless you're rooting for some "I told you so" shock, or think such a shock is required to spurn required changes.
But the point I'm trying to make is, the most extreme predictions aren't coming true, yet those who have made them remain unapologetic and seemingly oblivious to the 'boy who cried wolf' effect of extreme predictions that don't come true. The actual data is extreme enough, there's no need to make wild predictions that get far ahead of the data. Because then people remember the failed predictions of complete collapse instead of a record low year, and that's a very bad result.

Tigertown

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1678
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 24
  • Likes Given: 20
Re: The 2016 melting season
« Reply #2904 on: July 05, 2016, 11:24:58 PM »
The heatwave is on. Reports of record temps. coming in from places like Victoria Island, Canada and Northern Siberia. Here are the 2 meter temps. for today.

"....and the appointed time came for God to bring to ruin those ruining the earth." Revelation 11:18.

JayW

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 607
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 226
  • Likes Given: 292
Re: The 2016 melting season
« Reply #2905 on: July 06, 2016, 12:41:02 AM »
~80 hour loop, Barrow, Alaska in the lower left corner

http://feeder.gina.alaska.edu/search?utf8=✓&search%5Bsensors%5D%5B3%5D=1&search%5Bfeeds%5D%5B5%5D=1&search%5Bstart%5D=&search%5Bend%5D=&commit=Search
"To defy the laws of tradition, is a crusade only of the brave" - Les Claypool

CraigsIsland

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 206
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 25
Re: The 2016 melting season
« Reply #2906 on: July 06, 2016, 12:45:11 AM »
....... that consistently fail to match the data.

interesting statement after approximately 150 days of record lows  :o
 ...
i hope this was nicely said because inside a feel pi...d off a bit and have to keep myself in check to not share the fate of others who lost their temper.

It was politely said but made a mistake, IMO. The people who disagree with the extreme claims of immanent doom are not claiming that everything is fine in the arctic, far far from it. Yes, it's been a record year, but, rather than accelerating out of control, it's slowed down. The fear was that early melt would produce an amplification, more heat absorbed, even more melt, like compounding interest. But weather still matters and we've caught a reprieve --- for this season, at least so far. And that's good, unless you're rooting for some "I told you so" shock, or think such a shock is required to spurn required changes.
But the point I'm trying to make is, the most extreme predictions aren't coming true, yet those who have made them remain unapologetic and seemingly oblivious to the 'boy who cried wolf' effect of extreme predictions that don't come true. The actual data is extreme enough, there's no need to make wild predictions that get far ahead of the data. Because then people remember the failed predictions of complete collapse instead of a record low year, and that's a very bad result.

who's making the predictions? amateur scientists that do/don't publish studies? There's a big difference between the armchair wishcasters (e.g. like the hurricane watchers on wunderground) and the commentators on here. Writing is on the wall for a long-term impact. Of course, there's no need for "wild" predictions, but this is - again- not a true scientific consensus that the sky is falling. take every prediction with a grain of salt, scientific or not.

people who recall the bad predictions may not be actually trying to make a better argument for their position - it's usually an attack on character and it's not needed here. In other words, don't feed the trolls. Don't worry about the extreme predictions/annoying doomsday scenarios that might be pushed by some posters here. Reality is, we really don't know the complete picture of the future and we can only rely on our data and scientific principles to help policy makers and societies adjust.
 

Tigertown

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1678
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 24
  • Likes Given: 20
Re: The 2016 melting season
« Reply #2907 on: July 06, 2016, 01:24:19 AM »
If they were able i would imagine that the over 200 people killed in floods in Pakistan and China this week, and the sixty some thousand that lost their homes and 1.5 million that were evacuated, would think its about time somebody pulled the handle on the alarm. I won't go any further on this thread about whats happening elsewhere with floods and freak storms; don't want to be off topic. Although, many scientists and weather people feel that what is happening with Arctic amplification is the cause of it all. It's interesting to look for a blue ocean event, but if you are the one drowning or loosing everything, you don't really need it as a benchmark.
"....and the appointed time came for God to bring to ruin those ruining the earth." Revelation 11:18.

Shared Humanity

  • Guest
Re: The 2016 melting season
« Reply #2908 on: July 06, 2016, 02:15:24 AM »
The 2016 Melting Season, please.

Paladiea

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 106
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 13
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: The 2016 melting season
« Reply #2909 on: July 06, 2016, 02:24:15 AM »
I would disagree that this season has slowed down, if anything it has kept pace with 2012 and then some, and looking at the weather for the next week, it's hard to see where this slowdown is materializing.

Yes June wasn't perfect for ice melt, but there is no such thing as a perfect melt season.
The most enjoyable way to think about heat transfer through radiation is to picture a Star Wars laser battle, where every atom and molecule is constantly firing at every other atom and molecule.

A-Team

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2977
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 944
  • Likes Given: 35
Re: The 2016 melting season
« Reply #2910 on: July 06, 2016, 02:36:23 AM »
Quote
I've been reading "predictions" of the sky falling and an ice-free arctic this year that consistently fail to match the data. it gets old and is counter-productive.
I'm inclined to agree. I'm fed up too with people hijacking the forum.

Although here we are, first week of July, and no one from the scientific community is in a position to offer any assurances that the sky won't have fallen down by September, given unfavorable yet unremarkable weather. That's the crux of it, hoping on a roll of the dice isn't planetary risk management.

There are a lot of wild posts in this particular forum that get way ahead of any observational data or reliable forecasts, with major daily misunderstandings about how clouds and atmosphere affect certain satellite model products (despite weekly efforts at correction, see TorB at #2870 or myriad posts by wipneus on the need for rolling averaging out of clouds).

A recurrent theme here is (adolescent male) posters who know nothing about published cryosphere science and see no reason to even consider it, as they can just wing it. Seriously guys, are you smarter than Isaac standing-on-shoulders-of-giants Newton? The US tried know-nothing in the 1840's and it didn't work.

What takes in many of our oracles is that both satellite channels and institutional releases made from them are misleadingly labelled as what they claimed/hoped could be measured with their sensor device or daily product at the time of grant application but later found could not actually measure that well because of rapidly varying interference of clouds and atmospheric layers between the sensors and the surface which has unresolvable radiometric ambiguities of its own. (Did you expect them to pooh-pooh their own research proposal?)

Another part of the problem is we're missing a lot of what needs to be measured but cannot be measured, what we call rottenness of the ice here or in a paper like Barber 2009 (doi:10.1029/2009GL041434) and earlier. If that terminology seems a little fuzzy, the actual engineering side of ice is reviewed here:

A review of the engineering properties of sea ice
Cold Regions Science and Technology February 2010
DOI: 10.1016/j.coldregions.2009.10.003
G Timco and WF Weeks (278 and 100 previous publications resp.*)

*compare this to your own achievements which of course are vastly more impressive though you have always had more pressing things to do than diddle around writing them up or bother making the case for a what-should-be-self-evident blog prediction.

In terms of those knocking science, keep in mind that the Ph.D (that you don't have) in an applicable science or engineering discipline would just be the barest minimum. It is only with 10-20 years of additional experience that you could even hope to do significant research.

Yet we have people with zero track records whatsoever posting away here like they were shoo-ins for the next Nobel Prize.

These papers that people here blow off are very different from impulsive social media posts. They are a whole lot of work, then team-written and re-written, overseen by veteran scientists, sometimes with several centuries of cumulative learning experience represented between the authors and peer-reviewers.

Should we lower the bar here? Drop the discourse to the lowest common denominator? That's not an option for Arctic sea ice as nature has not lowered the bar. Everything having to do with climate is complex. That's just the way it is. We have to rise to meet the challenge, not ask that everything be dumbed down.

I find posts like JayW's #2905 above useful because he went to some work to assemble a time series that the rest of us then don't need to replicate separately. The source is linked, and unlike many posts, it could be rapidly replicated or extended. And best of all, it is light on interpretation, letting the data speak for itself.

The daily volume is too large for anyone to do everything -- that's the whole point of this community forum but if everyone chips in a bit of time and a bit of value, we actually can keep up with developments. We're not going to get much ahead of them though.
« Last Edit: July 06, 2016, 03:29:32 AM by A-Team »

Michael Hauber

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1114
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 168
  • Likes Given: 16
Re: The 2016 melting season
« Reply #2911 on: July 06, 2016, 03:06:44 AM »

that people who don't forget every other day that we are at or close to a record low state that is totally conform with the data and saying that the data say otherwise is plain wrong. correct would be "today's area data if it contionues like that" which it won't i could almost swear that in 2 week we shall still be at or close record lows
and there will be someone else who tries to say otherwise after one or two days of the curve flattening.

i hope this was nicely said because inside a feel pi...d off a bit and have to keep myself in check to not share the fate of others who lost their temper.

I am still confident that we will fall well short of 2012, and judging by the poll threads many of the long term contributors on this forum feel the same.  I don't think anyone has specifically made predictions on when the gap between 16 and 12 should become evident.  From history I would expect this difference to become evident some time in July.  Past pretenders such as 2006, 2010 and 2014 were all at record low on July 1, and all stalled to be well of record pace by the end of July. 

August can still make a difference in some cases with 2008 moving from well behind 2007 to get briefly within striking distance, and 2012 surging from a neck and neck race with 2007 to a big margin at the end.
Climate change:  Prepare for the worst, hope for the best, expect the middle.

Adam Ash

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 311
    • View Profile
    • The 100 metre line
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 23
Re: The 2016 melting season
« Reply #2912 on: July 06, 2016, 03:31:33 AM »
Indeed it it sometimes difficult to look at the forest rather than the trees.  Considering the big picture is key to our understanding and to our equanimity. 

And the Big Picture is pretty simple, I think: -  The Arctic is going down the gurgler.

http://iwantsomeproof.com/3d/siv-ds-weekly-3d.asp

bbr2314

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1817
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 158
  • Likes Given: 53
Re: The 2016 melting season
« Reply #2913 on: July 06, 2016, 03:49:01 AM »
Quote
I've been reading "predictions" of the sky falling and an ice-free arctic this year that consistently fail to match the data. it gets old and is counter-productive.
I'm inclined to agree. I'm fed up too with people hijacking the forum.

Although here we are, first week of July, and no one from the scientific community is in a position to offer any assurances that the sky won't have fallen down by September, given unfavorable yet unremarkable weather. That's the crux of it, hoping on a roll of the dice isn't planetary risk management.

There are a lot of wild posts in this particular forum that get way ahead of any observational data or reliable forecasts, with major daily misunderstandings about how clouds and atmosphere affect certain satellite model products (despite weekly efforts at correction, see TorB at #2870 or myriad posts by wipneus on the need for rolling averaging out of clouds).

A recurrent theme here is (adolescent male) posters who know nothing about published cryosphere science and see no reason to even consider it, as they can just wing it. Seriously guys, are you smarter than Isaac standing-on-shoulders-of-giants Newton? The US tried know-nothing in the 1840's and it didn't work.

What takes in many of our oracles is that both satellite channels and institutional releases made from them are misleadingly labelled as what they claimed/hoped could be measured with their sensor device or daily product at the time of grant application but later found could not actually measure that well because of rapidly varying interference of clouds and atmospheric layers between the sensors and the surface which has unresolvable radiometric ambiguities of its own. (Did you expect them to pooh-pooh their own research proposal?)

Another part of the problem is we're missing a lot of what needs to be measured but cannot be measured, what we call rottenness of the ice here or in a paper like Barber 2009 (doi:10.1029/2009GL041434) and earlier. If that terminology seems a little fuzzy, the actual engineering side of ice is reviewed here:

A review of the engineering properties of sea ice
Cold Regions Science and Technology February 2010
DOI: 10.1016/j.coldregions.2009.10.003
G Timco and WF Weeks (278 and 100 previous publications resp.*)

*compare this to your own achievements which of course are vastly more impressive though you have always had more pressing things to do than diddle around writing them up or bother making the case for a what-should-be-self-evident blog prediction.

In terms of those knocking science, keep in mind that the Ph.D (that you don't have) in an applicable science or engineering discipline would just be the barest minimum. It is only with 10-20 years of additional experience that you could even hope to do significant research.

Yet we have people with zero track records whatsoever posting away here like they were shoo-ins for the next Nobel Prize.

These papers that people here blow off are very different from impulsive social media posts. They are a whole lot of work, then team-written and re-written, overseen by veteran scientists, sometimes with several centuries of cumulative learning experience represented between the authors and peer-reviewers.

Should we lower the bar here? Drop the discourse to the lowest common denominator? That's not an option for Arctic sea ice as nature has not lowered the bar. Everything having to do with climate is complex. That's just the way it is. We have to rise to meet the challenge, not ask that everything be dumbed down.

I find posts like JayW's #2905 above useful because he went to some work to assemble a time series that the rest of us then don't need to replicate separately. The source is linked, and unlike many posts, it could be rapidly replicated or extended. And best of all, it is light on interpretation, letting the data speak for itself.

The daily volume is too large for anyone to do everything -- that's the whole point of this community forum but if everyone chips in a bit of time and a bit of value, we actually can keep up with developments. We're not going to get much ahead of them though.

If your argument was sound you would have some graphical proof/evidence instead of rambling paragraphs that mean nothing.

JAXA shows extent at its lowest ever so obviously the weather has not been 'unremarkable'. IDK what you are smoking but it must be lovely. :)

pccp82

  • New ice
  • Posts: 24
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 12
Re: The 2016 melting season
« Reply #2914 on: July 06, 2016, 04:10:10 AM »

A recurrent theme here is (adolescent male) posters who know nothing about published cryosphere science and see no reason to even consider it, as they can just wing it. Seriously guys, are you smarter than Isaac standing-on-shoulders-of-giants Newton? The US tried know-nothing in the 1840's and it didn't work.


I'd like to chime in here if I may at the risk of running afoul of venturing off topic.

I have been lurking Dr Masters blog since about 2005. I mention that, because this is how i discovered this space in 2012 from a comment on Dr Masters blog mentioning some writing Neven had done about the Feb Kara Sea conditions. I have been keeping up reading this wonderful blog since.  I studied Geography in undergrad, and although I do not do anything scientific for my profession, I enjoy keeping up with weather and climate science as a hobby.

Nevens space is sometimes mentioned on Jeff Masters comment section/blog posts and also on blogs such as Robert Scribblers. Dr Masters has an active blog in terms of comments, and Robert Scribbler's blog has a definitive purpose which is persuasive writing and not necessarily scientific writing. Consequently, I suspect posters are taking those contexts and maybe other places that I'm not aware of and applying it here.

After 2012 I admit that I overestimated that seasons impact, and it was humbling to admit that you never know until you know. Fortunately I had the good sense to realize my best contribution here would just be to listen and to think about the different opinions and evaluate them internally. Some of the persuasive writing that's out there perhaps needs to really emphasize just how fast forecasts can change and should not be 'leading the witness' so much. But I suppose that's not very realistic to expect that out of people who write with an agenda.

Perhaps some people have gotten excited, and want to believe they are about to observe something very important in their lifetime, and consequently have convinced themselves of its truth rather than accept that changes take time and can be erratic.

But this is a chronic problem websites with comments have, is that they almost always deteriorate in quality the more exposure the websites get.

I really appreciate everyone's input over the years.

I would like to help contribute my Yeoman time if there's anyway I can. Pm me, no need to clog this wonderful space.

edit: and then i read BBR2314's reply. is there an ignore feature?

Tigertown

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1678
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 24
  • Likes Given: 20
Re: The 2016 melting season
« Reply #2915 on: July 06, 2016, 04:14:51 AM »
Looking at the winds, which are shown at 10m. I don't know how much of that would blow across the ice at approx. sea level, but with the warm air around, I would think this would have a blow drier type effect. I know without any wind the air temps. would have negligible impact compared to bottom melt and insolation.
"....and the appointed time came for God to bring to ruin those ruining the earth." Revelation 11:18.

Okono

  • New ice
  • Posts: 81
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 436
Re: The 2016 melting season
« Reply #2916 on: July 06, 2016, 04:40:59 AM »
Hi, I'm a 34 year old male high school drop-out who obviously spends too much time in the gym.

I also chaired the standards committee for the most successful standard in my discipline, now used globally by every large technology company you could name, most governments, and many militaries.  Ideas incorporated into the specification came from people with backgrounds in music and math.  A former chair of the IETF, a man of exquisite brilliance, has but a high school diploma.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Baker_%28IETF_chair%29

It takes a lot to get me off-topic, but I have rarely seen comments as vituperative, elitist, and personal as the ones made above.  Meritocracies do work, with few exceptions, and Neven has been assertive in assisting with those.

Achieving the collegial or collaborative atmosphere that lends itself to aggregated creation and discovery requires open dialogues, open minds, and selective skimming.

You can attack someone's ideas and science ruthlessly and pants them intellectually.  You can attack someone's person and pants yourself.

bbr2314

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1817
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 158
  • Likes Given: 53
Re: The 2016 melting season
« Reply #2917 on: July 06, 2016, 05:00:15 AM »
Let's talk about how near-50F waters (that are rapidly warming) N/adjacent to Svalbard are 'unremarkable' lol


frankendoodle

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 110
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The 2016 melting season
« Reply #2918 on: July 06, 2016, 05:03:59 AM »
Quote
I've been reading "predictions" of the sky falling and an ice-free arctic this year that consistently fail to match the data. it gets old and is counter-productive.
I'm inclined to agree. I'm fed up too with people hijacking the forum.

That is why I stopped adding my 2 cents to the melting season conversations back in 2013. Opinions in matters like this do not amount to much.  In the end we are enthusiasts with limited data and not researchers. But that doesn't stop us from tail gating the melt season from North America and Europe am I right folks?! GO CAB!!

bbr2314

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1817
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 158
  • Likes Given: 53
Re: The 2016 melting season
« Reply #2919 on: July 06, 2016, 05:08:32 AM »
Big chunk of what was formerly solid ice in the Beaufort joined the gyre today

Darvince

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 318
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 31
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: The 2016 melting season
« Reply #2920 on: July 06, 2016, 05:17:00 AM »
Looking at the winds, which are shown at 10m. I don't know how much of that would blow across the ice at approx. sea level, but with the warm air around, I would think this would have a blow drier type effect. I know without any wind the air temps. would have negligible impact compared to bottom melt and insolation.

Winds over the sea ice at the surface level and at 10 meters should have little or no difference because of the flat nature of sea ice, even flatter than the ocean in the case of high winds. Friction from sea ice is low, or moderate at best in the case of thick MYI broken floes.

bbr2314

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1817
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 158
  • Likes Given: 53
Re: The 2016 melting season
« Reply #2921 on: July 06, 2016, 05:28:32 AM »
'unremarkable' century+ drop on IJIS today keeping 2016 in the lead, earliest to go sub 8.5M KM2 despite fact both Hudson and Baffin are in a much better state than any previous yr

^ is additional octane for a huuuuge decline this month

Tigertown

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1678
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 24
  • Likes Given: 20
Re: The 2016 melting season
« Reply #2922 on: July 06, 2016, 05:36:41 AM »
Big chunk of what was formerly solid ice in the Beaufort joined the gyre today

Thanks for the heads up on that. I backed it up a couple days and looks like there was no sign until the 3rd when it starting cracking and then it progressed fast. I think we are going to be seeing a lot more of that in the next couple weeks. After that, it will be more obvious where we are headed.



P.S. Thanx Darvince. That is a good point.
« Last Edit: July 06, 2016, 05:42:14 AM by Tigertown »
"....and the appointed time came for God to bring to ruin those ruining the earth." Revelation 11:18.

bbr2314

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1817
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 158
  • Likes Given: 53
Re: The 2016 melting season
« Reply #2923 on: July 06, 2016, 05:54:23 AM »
Big chunk of what was formerly solid ice in the Beaufort joined the gyre today

Thanks for the heads up on that. I backed it up a couple days and looks like there was no sign until the 3rd when it starting cracking and then it progressed fast. I think we are going to be seeing a lot more of that in the next couple weeks. After that, it will be more obvious where we are headed.



P.S. Thanx Darvince. That is a good point.
If the sea ice models are to be believed, it looks like the sudden break by that ice is going to have a significant ripple effect (combined with wx), and the rest of the CAB is going to detach completely from the CAA/Greenland over the next few days. Whether it stays detached remains to be seen, but it also looks like the 'donut hole' is going to begin shrinking as well, perhaps due to the ice connecting the solid pack near Siberia to Alaska breaking apart as well. That means both extent and area may soon begin a Wile-E-Coyote style drop that is completely unprecedented.


Paladiea

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 106
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 13
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: The 2016 melting season
« Reply #2924 on: July 06, 2016, 06:33:17 AM »
There have been several papers written on the fact that ice can look perfectly fine right before an incredible breakup event. Antarctica has shown several examples of this with some of its ice shelves.

Perhaps we should also be taking that into account when discussing what we think the ice will do.
The most enjoyable way to think about heat transfer through radiation is to picture a Star Wars laser battle, where every atom and molecule is constantly firing at every other atom and molecule.

bbr2314

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1817
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 158
  • Likes Given: 53
Re: The 2016 melting season
« Reply #2925 on: July 06, 2016, 06:40:53 AM »
D8-9 GFS now showing 95F near Alaskan/Canadian coast...!!!


Tigertown

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1678
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 24
  • Likes Given: 20
Re: The 2016 melting season
« Reply #2926 on: July 06, 2016, 06:49:43 AM »
I keep saying that at the very least, I believe a goodly majority of the pack will be broken up into relatively small "chunks" by the season's end. With the head of steam we are building up now with the century plus drops, I would not be surprised if we break the  SIE record too. I agree, the more open water, the more wiggle room, and rougher seas definitely call for a chain reaction or ripple effect. My thing is though, that I think it a turning point just to simply see everything broken up across the entire Arctic, regardless of how much finally melts. I know not of that ever happening in my lifetime.
"....and the appointed time came for God to bring to ruin those ruining the earth." Revelation 11:18.

Tigertown

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1678
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 24
  • Likes Given: 20
Re: The 2016 melting season
« Reply #2927 on: July 06, 2016, 06:54:13 AM »
D8-9 GFS now showing 95F near Alaskan/Canadian coast...!!!


Yeah, that is showing the hottest right over the Mackenzie Delta too.
"....and the appointed time came for God to bring to ruin those ruining the earth." Revelation 11:18.

jdallen

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3410
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 650
  • Likes Given: 244
Re: The 2016 melting season
« Reply #2928 on: July 06, 2016, 08:12:20 AM »
<snippage>
JAXA shows extent at its lowest ever so obviously the weather has not been 'unremarkable'. IDK what you are smoking but it must be lovely. :)
bbr2314 - and in this you epitomize what A-Team and others are irritated by.

The weather *was* unremarkable in June, and is *still* unremarkable, even slightly below average both in terms of insolation available for melt and surface temperatures.

You are taking an unrelated metric - SIE - and presuming it has a direct relationship with current weather.  Your logic is *way* off base; current weather, even the last two months weather, is not the reason why SIE is so low right now.  Recent weather is why it isn't *lower* and why the current pack isn't wall-to-wall melt ponds.

Changes in weather could change things very quickly over the next 6-8 weeks, but absent a 3-sigma event like 2012, it's very unlikely to change *that* much.  Because of starting conditions, we could with average weather and melt still easily end up in the top 5 melt years, even 2nd or third. The *starting* state of the ice and previous weather put us in a position for that, not current conditions.  The logic you miss-apply and metrics you miss-interpret highlight the lack of depth to your understanding.

You have an active mind, and genuine intent, but I urge you really, to consider absorbing and digesting what's presented more, questioning appropriately, and exclaiming less.  I find you far too dismissive of people who have not just years, but decades of scientific experience following and analyzing climate. I've been following these forums for years myself and actively observing the Arctic for some time beyond that, and have been humbled steadily by the fact there is so much I don't know.  I recommend you draw from my experience there and avoid making the same mistakes.

To all:  Sorry for being off topic.
This space for Rent.

Tigertown

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1678
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 24
  • Likes Given: 20
Re: The 2016 melting season
« Reply #2929 on: July 06, 2016, 08:24:22 AM »
Things have already changed!
"....and the appointed time came for God to bring to ruin those ruining the earth." Revelation 11:18.

Darvince

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 318
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 31
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: The 2016 melting season
« Reply #2930 on: July 06, 2016, 08:34:21 AM »
D8-9 GFS now showing 95F near Alaskan/Canadian coast...!!!
Btw bbr2314 and anyone else who uses tropicaltidbits to monitor the Arctic: Levi (the owner) would be willing to add the Arctic Ocean as a map if it has enough demand, so I would recommend emailing him about it.

Rob Dekker

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2386
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 120
  • Likes Given: 119
Re: The 2016 melting season
« Reply #2931 on: July 06, 2016, 08:59:07 AM »
150cm/month seems reasonable to me...
And more re-reading, Rob's own estimate is 8 cm/day 240 per month. Which may be the case for the more isolated (though huge) floes as the Big Block.

Big Block is as large as a small country.
It creates its own micro-climate, specifically below the ice.
On top of that, as pointed out by A-team, Big Block did not move around much over the past month.
So it is much less exposed to bottom-melt than the smaller, broken up, pieces of MYI floating in the Beaufort, even while the FYI and other rubble melts out very quickly in the Beaufort right now.

As I stated before, Big Block will be the last to go in the Beaufort, simply because of its size. It may take another month, but it will go.

The much more important issue is the sheer amount of heat that the Beaufort is absorbing this year, for much longer than other years. Even the lower-bound 200 W/m^2 heat absorption that CERES models project over open water in June, suggests 15 Gton of bottom-melt in the Beaufort, which is a whopping 450 Gton/month. That has got to leave a dent somewhere.
This is our planet. This is our time.
Let's not waste either.

bbr2314

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1817
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 158
  • Likes Given: 53
Re: The 2016 melting season
« Reply #2932 on: July 06, 2016, 09:04:45 AM »
<snippage>
JAXA shows extent at its lowest ever so obviously the weather has not been 'unremarkable'. IDK what you are smoking but it must be lovely. :)
bbr2314 - and in this you epitomize what A-Team and others are irritated by.

The weather *was* unremarkable in June, and is *still* unremarkable, even slightly below average both in terms of insolation available for melt and surface temperatures.

You are taking an unrelated metric - SIE - and presuming it has a direct relationship with current weather.  Your logic is *way* off base; current weather, even the last two months weather, is not the reason why SIE is so low right now.  Recent weather is why it isn't *lower* and why the current pack isn't wall-to-wall melt ponds.

Changes in weather could change things very quickly over the next 6-8 weeks, but absent a 3-sigma event like 2012, it's very unlikely to change *that* much.  Because of starting conditions, we could with average weather and melt still easily end up in the top 5 melt years, even 2nd or third. The *starting* state of the ice and previous weather put us in a position for that, not current conditions.  The logic you miss-apply and metrics you miss-interpret highlight the lack of depth to your understanding.

You have an active mind, and genuine intent, but I urge you really, to consider absorbing and digesting what's presented more, questioning appropriately, and exclaiming less.  I find you far too dismissive of people who have not just years, but decades of scientific experience following and analyzing climate. I've been following these forums for years myself and actively observing the Arctic for some time beyond that, and have been humbled steadily by the fact there is so much I don't know.  I recommend you draw from my experience there and avoid making the same mistakes.

To all:  Sorry for being off topic.

I highly object to your statements. We had a LP in the Arctic break the pack in half and enter the 970s in June. Is that really unremarkable?

It would be one thing if it was still cold in the surrounding land, but it sucked in air that is running 20-30-40F above normal and the results are obvious for all to see.

Additionally, it is not wise to use melt ponds as a metric for severity of melt when you have a pack of broken floes. Sure, there may be some ponding in the CAA/CAB, but most of the pack is now spread thin enough where leads are opening ahead of ice getting a chance to accumulate ponding of any sort.

Speaking of lows in the 970s, as if the current bout weren't enough, tonight's 00z EURO shows the low lingering N of Siberia then deepening once more into the 970s by D7.


abbottisgone

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 297
  • "...I'm a rock'n'roll star,...... YES I ARE!!!!!!"
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The 2016 melting season
« Reply #2933 on: July 06, 2016, 09:05:14 AM »
Things have already changed!
Specifically, what do you mean?

(Governments are listening!!)
..
But I left school and grew my hair
They didn't understand
They wanted me to be respected as
A doctor or a lawyer man
But I had other plans..........

jdallen

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3410
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 650
  • Likes Given: 244
Re: The 2016 melting season
« Reply #2934 on: July 06, 2016, 09:08:57 AM »
<snippage>
It would be one thing if it was still cold in the surrounding land, but it sucked in air that is running 20-30-40F above normal and the results are obvious for all to see.
<more snippage for brevity>
I will leave it for someone with better technical acumen to respond.
This space for Rent.

Paladiea

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 106
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 13
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: The 2016 melting season
« Reply #2935 on: July 06, 2016, 09:14:16 AM »
The thing with abrupt change is that scientific experience doesn't really translate into predicting future events.

It's kind of like a mass extinction, a species with millions of years of evolutionary "experience" can suddenly find itself caught off guard and just like that be wiped off the face of the planet.

No one (reasonable) will deny we are in a period of rapid and unprecedented change, so perhaps putting so much weight in studies when the system was not in crisis mode might not yield the accuracy we might expect.

Just a thought. Back to lurking. ;)

[edit] My own personal opinion is that if someone can justify what they're saying with metrics and a viable mechanism, then they should be allowed to contribute regardless of how 'green' or exuberant they are.
« Last Edit: July 06, 2016, 09:20:31 AM by Paladiea »
The most enjoyable way to think about heat transfer through radiation is to picture a Star Wars laser battle, where every atom and molecule is constantly firing at every other atom and molecule.

Peter Ellis

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 619
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 33
  • Likes Given: 14
Re: The 2016 melting season
« Reply #2936 on: July 06, 2016, 09:44:38 AM »
I highly object to your statements. We had a LP in the Arctic break the pack in half and enter the 970s in June. Is that really unremarkable?
The Arctic pack has not broken in half. It is not a contiguous sheet even in the depths of winter, leads are continuously forming and re-freezing. In the Spring/Summer, the leads do not refreeze immediately, and so you see open leads and some drop in concentration even in the heart of the pack.  This year does not seem particularly atypical - and indeed there were much lower concentrations nearer the pole in 2013, which was a big "recovery" year.


S.Pansa

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 175
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 45
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: The 2016 melting season
« Reply #2937 on: July 06, 2016, 09:58:56 AM »
The thing with abrupt change is that scientific experience doesn't really translate into predicting future events.


[edit] My own personal opinion is that if someone can justify what they're saying with metrics and a viable mechanism, then they should be allowed to contribute regardless of how 'green' or exuberant they are.
And that is exactley what's missing in bbr2314s comments and in his projections of an ice free artic come this september. There is simple too much ice left for that (see latest volume numbers) & too little momentum.

Unfortunatley he is clogging up the threat with his drug expertise (everyone who doesn't agree with him seems to be on drugs according to him :o) so that it has became increasingly difficult to find the useful posts. 

Neven

  • Administrator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 9470
    • View Profile
    • Arctic Sea Ice Blog
  • Liked: 1333
  • Likes Given: 617
Re: The 2016 melting season
« Reply #2938 on: July 06, 2016, 10:02:43 AM »
Tony Montana here.

I'll just say this: I'm counting on people to apologize for the remarks about Murdoch-sponsored denial and smoking the good stuff when September comes around and the record hasn't been broken (let alone an ice-free Arctic), there hasn't been any cleavage, donuts or detachments from Greenland and the CAA.

Live and learn, live and let live, let love rule.

-----

So, the forecast is coming about, with a nice, little cyclone to kick things off and disperse the ice pack some more. This is the kind of weather I'm talking about if 2016 is to end up in the top 3.

Current ECMWF forecast:



Preferably you'd want that high pressure centred more over the CAA/Beaufort/CAB instead of the North Atlantic for optimal compaction and transport, but like I said, compaction is perhaps preserving the ice somewhat by huddling it together, and instead of ice being pushed out to its demise through Fram Strait, the heat and insolation is coming for a visit.

Just like last year, the heat and insolation over Beaufort is going to be devastating for the multi-year ice there. Even if this year doesn't break records, it's really, really bad for the ice, keeping the Arctic poised for more misery in years to come.
The enemy is within
Don't confuse me with him

E. Smith

slow wing

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 823
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 155
  • Likes Given: 546
Re: The 2016 melting season
« Reply #2939 on: July 06, 2016, 10:07:48 AM »
D8-9 GFS now showing 95F near Alaskan/Canadian coast...!!!
Btw bbr2314 and anyone else who uses tropicaltidbits to monitor the Arctic: Levi (the owner) would be willing to add the Arctic Ocean as a map if it has enough demand, so I would recommend emailing him about it.
Done!
Emailed levicowan@tropicaltidbits.com
http://www.tropicaltidbits.com/about/
Thanks for the heads up. It's a fantastic site and I'm sure an Arctic map would be a welcome addition for many here.

bbr2314

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1817
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 158
  • Likes Given: 53
Re: The 2016 melting season
« Reply #2940 on: July 06, 2016, 10:20:21 AM »
Tony Montana here.

I'll just say this: I'm counting on people to apologize for the remarks about Murdoch-sponsored denial and smoking the good stuff when September comes around and the record hasn't been broken (let alone an ice-free Arctic), there hasn't been any cleavage, donuts or detachments from Greenland and the CAA.

Live and learn, live and let live, let love rule.

-----

So, the forecast is coming about, with a nice, little cyclone to kick things off and disperse the ice pack some more. This is the kind of weather I'm talking about if 2016 is to end up in the top 3.

Current ECMWF forecast:



Preferably you'd want that high pressure centred more over the CAA/Beaufort/CAB instead of the North Atlantic for optimal compaction and transport, but like I said, compaction is perhaps preserving the ice somewhat by huddling it together, and instead of ice being pushed out to its demise through Fram Strait, the heat and insolation is coming for a visit.

Just like last year, the heat and insolation over Beaufort is going to be devastating for the multi-year ice there. Even if this year doesn't break records, it's really, really bad for the ice, keeping the Arctic poised for more misery in years to come.

Great post Neven, and if ice ends September above 1M KM2 in area, I will apologize. In meantime, we scorch!

I would add that my intention is not to offend but I am simultaneously glad to see some people riled up as at least you guys are posting more and the reasoning behind objections is interesting reading material. :)

Lord M Vader

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1406
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 60
  • Likes Given: 39
Re: The 2016 melting season
« Reply #2941 on: July 06, 2016, 10:21:21 AM »
Something I noticed in the latest forecast run from ECMWF is the indication of another big switch in the weather late in the run. High pressure over Beaufort and Low pressure over Sibiria might make a huge turn with high pressure over Siberia and low pressure over Baffin and Beaufort by D9-10.

Interesting to see if another switch in the weather will come or if this is just model weaknesses.

Rob Dekker

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2386
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 120
  • Likes Given: 119
Re: The 2016 melting season
« Reply #2942 on: July 06, 2016, 10:41:45 AM »
bbr, the chances of getting below 1 M km^2 are virtually nil.
With the simple but effective model using ice 'area', 'concentration' and 'land snow cover' as variables, we can make very decent projections of September's ice extent based on June data :
http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2013/07/problematic-predictions-2.html

Based on this model, the most likely outcome for 2016 is 4.0 - 4.1 M km^2. With the May data projection at 3.8 M km^2, that means the June stall had an effect.

The most important part is that the standard deviation of this projection method is 340 k km^2.
That means that your 1 M km^2 is some 8.8 sigma's off, which means you are almost certainly owe us an apology.

But at the same time you may be right about the Arctic splitting in half.

Due to the persistent lows causing ice to disperse over the Arctic in June, and the continued ice export from the CAB into the melting pot called the Beaufort, the CAB ice from the Beaufort to the Laptev is in such bad shape (low concentration) that Dr. Slater's model projects about 70% probability that a large chunck of the Pacific side half of the CAB will be cut-off from the rest by the end of August :



We have seen such a 'cut-off' of a big part of the ice in the Arctic ocean in August before : 2012 to be exact. And we all know what happened then can happen again.
This is our planet. This is our time.
Let's not waste either.

Neven

  • Administrator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 9470
    • View Profile
    • Arctic Sea Ice Blog
  • Liked: 1333
  • Likes Given: 617
Re: The 2016 melting season
« Reply #2943 on: July 06, 2016, 11:37:28 AM »
Rob, there's something I don't understand. Snow cover has been lowest for several weeks now, according to multisensor IMS, but Rutgers monthly anomaly (which is based on that data as far as I know) doesn't have June 2016 lowest on record. Is it because Rutgers resolution is so coarse? That still wouldn't make sense.
The enemy is within
Don't confuse me with him

E. Smith

BornFromTheVoid

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1339
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 679
  • Likes Given: 299
Re: The 2016 melting season
« Reply #2944 on: July 06, 2016, 11:52:51 AM »
Rob, there's something I don't understand. Snow cover has been lowest for several weeks now, according to multisensor IMS, but Rutgers monthly anomaly (which is based on that data as far as I know) doesn't have June 2016 lowest on record. Is it because Rutgers resolution is so coarse? That still wouldn't make sense.

Is there numerical data for the IMS graphs? Without really looking into it, it might just be related to the impression given by the thickness of the 2015/2016 line. If it was as thick as the other lines, it would be easier to tell if it was actually lowest on record.
I recently joined the twitter thing, where I post more analysis, pics and animations: @Icy_Samuel

JayW

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 607
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 226
  • Likes Given: 292
Re: The 2016 melting season
« Reply #2945 on: July 06, 2016, 12:04:43 PM »


Winds over the sea ice at the surface level and at 10 meters should have little or no difference because of the flat nature of sea ice, even flatter than the ocean in the case of high winds. Friction from sea ice is low, or moderate at best in the case of thick MYI broken floes.

I won't speculate too much, but just look at obuoy #14.  I'm not sure of the size of the floe it's on, but it's speed seems to match the winds quite well. 

Just my own observations from watching animations, I agree the larger the floe, the more delayed and muted its response to the wind.  Smaller floes appear to accelerate quicker, and move faster.  But that's over the areas that are mostly "rubble".  The pack ice doesn't seem do this as it's "bonded" together.   I guess what I'm saying is that the surface winds affect the different kinds ice differently, and that strength and persistence also matter.


I'm assuming the wind speed is taken at roughly 2 meters.

First attachment is wind speed.

Second is bouy speed.

http://obuoy.datatransport.org/monitor#buoy14/gps
"To defy the laws of tradition, is a crusade only of the brave" - Les Claypool

BornFromTheVoid

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1339
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 679
  • Likes Given: 299
Re: The 2016 melting season
« Reply #2946 on: July 06, 2016, 12:16:31 PM »
After a quick check, another difference could be that Rutgers snow cover may be based on the IMSdata, where as that other snow cover graph is based on the AMSand IMS data, the AMS being a purely autmated mapping system.

This graph here shows the recent differenes between the 2 systems.

I recently joined the twitter thing, where I post more analysis, pics and animations: @Icy_Samuel

Neven

  • Administrator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 9470
    • View Profile
    • Arctic Sea Ice Blog
  • Liked: 1333
  • Likes Given: 617
Re: The 2016 melting season
« Reply #2947 on: July 06, 2016, 12:26:44 PM »
Thanks, BFTV, that probably explains it. Should've remembered that graph as I've seen it before. Now to find out why there's such a discrepancy between AMS and IMS, and which one is more accurate (probably the latter, as that has operational analysts involved).
The enemy is within
Don't confuse me with him

E. Smith

seaicesailor

  • Guest
Re: The 2016 melting season
« Reply #2948 on: July 06, 2016, 12:58:11 PM »
150cm/month seems reasonable to me...
And more re-reading, Rob's own estimate is 8 cm/day 240 per month. Which may be the case for the more isolated (though huge) floes as the Big Block.

Big Block is as large as a small country.
It creates its own micro-climate, specifically below the ice.
On top of that, as pointed out by A-team, Big Block did not move around much over the past month.
So it is much less exposed to bottom-melt than the smaller, broken up, pieces of MYI floating in the Beaufort, even while the FYI and other rubble melts out very quickly in the Beaufort right now.

As I stated before, Big Block will be the last to go in the Beaufort, simply because of its size. It may take another month, but it will go.

The much more important issue is the sheer amount of heat that the Beaufort is absorbing this year, for much longer than other years. Even the lower-bound 200 W/m^2 heat absorption that CERES models project over open water in June, suggests 15 Gton of bottom-melt in the Beaufort, which is a whopping 450 Gton/month. That has got to leave a dent somewhere.

Hi Rob!
I would think the same about the micro-climate under the big floes if it wasn't because of the strong turbulent motion of the open water surrounding it.

Secondly, the block has not moved because it is (or was) very thick and its inertia causes to acquire its terminal speed in a time twice or three times longer than other floes with twice or three time less thickness. F = m*a. In April/May this floe acquired high speed because the winds and currents were sustained for days. But now that winds are currents are more erratic, the block just does not move.

PS. Also, the average wind friction per unit area is smaller in a bigger floe (but not so much as could be thought given the difference of size): Overall friction coefficient in a flat plate parallel to a turbulent flow goes as:
CF ~ 0.06 / (Re_x)^0.2
The Reynolds number is Re_x = wind velocity free current W x characteristic length of floe L / kinematic viscosity of air N. This is for a rectangular plate but assume similar friction dependency with typical diameter or length of the floe.
- For a floe with L = 1 Km, Re_x = 4*10^8, CF ~ 0.001
- For a floe with L = 10 Km, Re_x = 4*10^9, CF ~ 0.0007
- For a floe with L = 100 Km, Re_x = 4*10^10, CF ~ 0.0004

Multiply that by (1/2 * density air * wind speed ^2 * floe surface) to get the total pull.
So the average wind pull per unit area in the Big Block is 1/2 of that of a 1 Km size floe. Similar applies for the water drag under the floe (kinematic viscosity being 10 times smaller, but floe relative speed to ocean being 10 times smaller or more than wind velocity); the terminal condition varies, but not much, the reason why a storm separates thick ice with big floes similarly to thinner ice with smaller floes. Coriolis force is stronger for the thicker floe too.

Conclusion: the fact that the floe does not move does not imply much difference of bottom melting w.r.t. smaller floes given the agitation of Beaufort sea.

PPS. Pulling out undergraduate physics stuff; I admit climate science is way "over my head". professional experience in climate science is a requirement for this forum? ???
« Last Edit: July 06, 2016, 03:04:36 PM by seaicesailor »

slow wing

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 823
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 155
  • Likes Given: 546
Re: The 2016 melting season
« Reply #2949 on: July 06, 2016, 01:10:09 PM »


Winds over the sea ice at the surface level and at 10 meters should have little or no difference because of the flat nature of sea ice, even flatter than the ocean in the case of high winds. Friction from sea ice is low, or moderate at best in the case of thick MYI broken floes.

I won't speculate too much, but just look at obuoy #14.  I'm not sure of the size of the floe it's on, but it's speed seems to match the winds quite well. 

Just my own observations from watching animations, I agree the larger the floe, the more delayed and muted its response to the wind.  Smaller floes appear to accelerate quicker, and move faster.  But that's over the areas that are mostly "rubble".  The pack ice doesn't seem do this as it's "bonded" together.   I guess what I'm saying is that the surface winds affect the different kinds ice differently, and that strength and persistence also matter.


I'm assuming the wind speed is taken at roughly 2 meters.

First attachment is wind speed.

Second is bouy speed.

http://obuoy.datatransport.org/monitor#buoy14/gps
Thanks, that's interesting.

Just eyeballing it, yes, that seems like a fairly good linear relationship.

Are the units for the ice speed actually mm/s?

If so then, very roughly from comparing the maximum values, a 10 m/s wind ~ 0.7 m/s ice speed. That is, if the units are correct then the ice speed is around 7 percent of the wind speed.
(That is not obviously unreasonable to me.)