Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Author Topic: IJIS  (Read 2660001 times)

Espen

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3707
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 420
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: IJIS
« Reply #3150 on: September 15, 2016, 05:25:14 AM »
IJIS:

4,268,838 km2(September 14, 2016)up 28,984 km2 from previous.
Have a ice day!

Sleepy

  • Guest
Re: IJIS
« Reply #3151 on: September 15, 2016, 06:29:13 AM »
On the whole, extent is probably the most important metrics we have regarding sea ice. Regarding Antarctica, I rarely comment in threads there on this forum but I do read, here's one comment that came to mind about the 'resurrected' Nimbus missons from the 60's:
http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,904.msg36905.html#msg36905
The link to the article has changed, it's now here:
http://cires.colorado.edu/news/nimbus-data-rescue
Quote
In the Arctic, sea ice extent was larger in the 1960s than it is these days, on average. “It was colder, so we expected that,” Gallaher said. What the researchers didn’t expect were “enormous holes” in the sea ice, currently under investigation. “We can’t explain them yet,” Gallaher said.

“And the Antarctic blew us away,” he said. In 1964, sea ice extent in the Antarctic was the largest ever recorded, according to Nimbus image analysis. Two years later, there was a record low for sea ice in the Antarctic, and in 1969 Nimbus imagery, sea ice appears to have reached its maximum extent earliest on record.
The low extent maximum in Antarctica right now will be exceeded, unfortunately.

Ned W

  • Guest
Re: IJIS
« Reply #3152 on: September 15, 2016, 04:10:10 PM »
So 2016 sets a new record for earliest minimum, beating 2002 by one day.  Except that 2016 is a leap year, while 2002 wasn't, so the difference is actually a smaller fraction of a day.

This seems like an unusually fast increase following minimum, but 2005, 2010, 2012, and 2015 all had faster rebounds after their minima. 

I used the data from each previous year's re-freeze period to project what 2016's September monthly average extent might look like.  To do this, I aligned each previous year's record by shifting it in time (to begin where we are now, 7 days past the minimum) and in extent (so the increase for the rest of the month starts at the extent that 2016 is at now).

It seems inevitable that 2016 will come in above 2007 for monthly extent -- this would happen even if there was no further increase for the entire rest of the month, which is obviously unlikely.

If 2016 follows the pattern of any previous year except 2005 or 2010, it will end up in 3rd place -- above 2012 and 2007, but below all other years.  If it follows the pattern of 2005 or 2010, then 2016 will end up in 5th place, above 2012, 2007, 2011, and 2015. 

Based on the 14 projections, the expected monthly mean will be 4.41 (95% CI 4.26-4.56).

So it seems likely that 2016 goes down in the record books as 2nd lowest daily extent, 3rd lowest monthly mean extent; but 4th or 5th lowest monthly mean would not be too surprising.  Coming in 6th place for monthly mean (i.e., above 2008) would be 3 sigma above the expected value. 



Assuming that 2016 ends up on the average of those 14 projections (i.e., 4.41), here is how that compares to the trend of previous years.  2016 would be close to the existing trendline, but slightly above it (error bars show the 95% CI for the projection):


Espen

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3707
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 420
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: IJIS
« Reply #3153 on: September 16, 2016, 05:23:59 AM »
IJIS:

4,253,202 km2(September 15, 2016)down 15,636 km2 from previous.
Have a ice day!

Shared Humanity

  • Guest
Re: IJIS
« Reply #3154 on: September 16, 2016, 02:48:06 PM »
Great analysis Ned W.

Juan C. García

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3359
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1279
  • Likes Given: 1127
Re: IJIS
« Reply #3155 on: September 17, 2016, 06:41:51 AM »
Going down: 4.27M km2 (Sep 14) --> 4.25 (Sep 15) --> 4.23 (Sep 16)
Interesting!!  ;)
Which is the best answer to Sep-2012 ASI lost (compared to 1979-2000)?
50% [NSIDC Extent] or
73% [PIOMAS Volume]

Volume is harder to measure than extent, but 3-dimensional space is real, 2D's hide ~50% thickness gone.
-> IPCC/NSIDC trends [based on extent] underestimate the real speed of ASI lost.

Espen

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3707
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 420
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: IJIS
« Reply #3156 on: September 17, 2016, 09:45:27 AM »
IJIS:

 4,233,309 km2(September 16, 2016)down 19,893 km2 from previous.
Have a ice day!

Espen

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3707
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 420
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: IJIS
« Reply #3157 on: September 18, 2016, 09:48:03 AM »
IJIS:

4,293,931 km2(September 17, 2016)up 60,622 km2 from previous.
Have a ice day!

Espen

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3707
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 420
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: IJIS
« Reply #3158 on: September 19, 2016, 05:22:46 AM »
IJIS:

4,371,993 km2(September 18, 2016)up 88,002 km2 from previous.
Have a ice day!

Espen

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3707
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 420
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: IJIS
« Reply #3159 on: September 20, 2016, 05:23:18 AM »
IJIS:

4,418,777 km2(September 19, 2016)up 46,784 km2 from previous.
Have a ice day!

Shared Humanity

  • Guest
Re: IJIS
« Reply #3160 on: September 20, 2016, 03:13:32 PM »
Rapid freeze continues. As steep of a climb as any of the years on this graph.

Sleepy

  • Guest
Re: IJIS
« Reply #3161 on: September 21, 2016, 04:30:42 AM »
Yes, signs were there two weeks ago. Wrangel arm is growing back, might be close to zero today though.

Espen

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3707
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 420
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: IJIS
« Reply #3162 on: September 21, 2016, 05:22:59 AM »
IJIS:

4,458,111 km2(September 20, 2016)up 39,334 km2 from previous.
Have a ice day!

Espen

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3707
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 420
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: IJIS
« Reply #3163 on: September 22, 2016, 05:42:08 AM »
IJIS:

4,520,039 km2(September 21, 2016)up 61,928 km2 from previous.
Have a ice day!

Sleepy

  • Guest
Re: IJIS
« Reply #3164 on: September 22, 2016, 06:09:27 AM »
To state the obvious, we passed 2011 with that.

Espen

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3707
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 420
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: IJIS
« Reply #3165 on: September 23, 2016, 05:22:54 AM »
IJIS:

 4,611,635 km2
(September 22, 2016)up 91,596 km2 from previous.
Have a ice day!

Espen

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3707
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 420
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: IJIS
« Reply #3166 on: September 24, 2016, 08:21:04 AM »
IJIS:

4,707,188 km2(September 23, 2016)up 95,553 km2 from previous.
Have a ice day!

BornFromTheVoid

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1339
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 679
  • Likes Given: 299
Re: IJIS
« Reply #3167 on: September 24, 2016, 11:00:23 AM »
That takes us up to 6th lowest, and 1.23 million km2 above 2012.

The increase from August 31st up to September 23rd of 465k is the largest on record (since 2002) by 199k. It is already the 4th largest increase for the month as a whole and requires just another 197k to be the largest monthly increase.
I recently joined the twitter thing, where I post more analysis, pics and animations: @Icy_Samuel

DrTskoul

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1455
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 210
  • Likes Given: 60
Re: IJIS
« Reply #3168 on: September 25, 2016, 04:14:08 AM »
That takes us up to 6th lowest, and 1.23 million km2 above 2012.

The increase from August 31st up to September 23rd of 465k is the largest on record (since 2002) by 199k. It is already the 4th largest increase for the month as a whole and requires just another 197k to be the largest monthly increase.

That is not good. Too much heat getting trapped in the ocean.

BornFromTheVoid

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1339
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 679
  • Likes Given: 299
Re: IJIS
« Reply #3169 on: September 25, 2016, 09:36:36 AM »
I recently joined the twitter thing, where I post more analysis, pics and animations: @Icy_Samuel

Espen

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3707
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 420
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: IJIS
« Reply #3170 on: September 25, 2016, 11:46:27 AM »
IJIS:

4,800,736 km2(September 24, 2016)up 93,548 km2 from previous.
Have a ice day!

Espen

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3707
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 420
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: IJIS
« Reply #3171 on: September 26, 2016, 05:33:01 AM »
IJIS:

4,840,390 km2(September 25, 2016)up 39,654 km2 from previous.
Have a ice day!

Feeltheburn

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 214
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 12
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: IJIS
« Reply #3172 on: September 26, 2016, 06:37:48 AM »

That takes us up to 6th lowest, and 1.23 million km2 above 2012.

The increase from August 31st up to September 23rd of 465k is the largest on record (since 2002) by 199k. It is already the 4th largest increase for the month as a whole and requires just another 197k to be the largest monthly increase.

That is not good. Too much heat getting trapped in the ocean.

Really?

https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/icelights/2012/09/stored-heat-causing-arctic-sea-ice-freeze-later-each-year
« Last Edit: September 26, 2016, 06:43:25 AM by Feeltheburn »
Feel The Burn!

Feeltheburn

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 214
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 12
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: IJIS
« Reply #3173 on: September 26, 2016, 06:56:32 AM »
Going down: 4.27M km2 (Sep 14) --> 4.25 (Sep 15) --> 4.23 (Sep 16)
Interesting!!  ;)

Pardon my asking, but your post almost appears as if you were happy that ice extent went down.  Why would that be a good thing?
Feel The Burn!

James Lovejoy

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 160
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 10
Re: IJIS
« Reply #3174 on: September 26, 2016, 07:34:33 AM »
Quote
Really?

https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/icelights/2012/09/stored-heat-causing-arctic-sea-ice-freeze-later-each-year

The actual headline is 
Quote
Is stored heat causing Arctic sea ice to freeze later each year?

Remember Betteridge's law of headlines.

Tigertown

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1678
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 24
  • Likes Given: 20
Re: IJIS
« Reply #3175 on: September 26, 2016, 07:46:44 AM »
Going down: 4.27M km2 (Sep 14) --> 4.25 (Sep 15) --> 4.23 (Sep 16)
Interesting!!  ;)

Pardon my asking, but your post almost appears as if you were happy that ice extent went down.  Why would that be a good thing?

I think what he meant was based on what many felt for a few days there. We thought everyone was jumping the gun in thinking the melt season was over. As each day goes by, the reality settles more and more upon us, as the numbers go up. And to be honest, we do sometimes forget that there are things more important than our entertainment. Speaking only from my own experience, of course.
"....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: IJIS
« Reply #3176 on: September 26, 2016, 09:01:08 AM »



That is not good. Too much heat getting trapped in the ocean.

Really?

https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/icelights/2012/09/stored-heat-causing-arctic-sea-ice-freeze-later-each-year
Yes. Later annual freezing dates do not preclude concern over rapid recovery of ice over areas that picked up an unexpected but healthy dose of heat.  The Arctic system is not monolithic. Don't oversimplify.
This space for Rent.

Juan C. García

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3359
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1279
  • Likes Given: 1127
Re: IJIS
« Reply #3177 on: September 26, 2016, 03:47:20 PM »
Going down: 4.27M km2 (Sep 14) --> 4.25 (Sep 15) --> 4.23 (Sep 16)
Interesting!!  ;)

Pardon my asking, but your post almost appears as if you were happy that ice extent went down.  Why would that be a good thing?

I do not wish to have an ice free Arctic on summer, if that's the impression that I made. But the true is that I was wishing to have a 2016 September monthly average below 2007, as we had a 2016 daily low minimum below 2007.

2016 was a terrible year. But it seems a lot of thin ice, at the end of September, will hide the terrible ASI year that 2016 was. I want to explain to the common people (that don't have good knowledge of the Arctic), how bad 2016 was. It seems that it will be simpler if we have a 2016 September monthly average low, as well.

With the freezing that we are having at the end of September, NSIDC 2016 September average could be third, fourth or even fifth low minimum of record. Common people will only see the monthly figure and think that the Arctic Sea Ice is ok. That is not good! We need to know better than that and react!

Edit: IJIS September 25, 2016: Sixth low on record.
« Last Edit: September 26, 2016, 05:23:48 PM by Juan C. García »
Which is the best answer to Sep-2012 ASI lost (compared to 1979-2000)?
50% [NSIDC Extent] or
73% [PIOMAS Volume]

Volume is harder to measure than extent, but 3-dimensional space is real, 2D's hide ~50% thickness gone.
-> IPCC/NSIDC trends [based on extent] underestimate the real speed of ASI lost.

Espen

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3707
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 420
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: IJIS
« Reply #3178 on: September 27, 2016, 05:23:06 AM »
IJIS:

4,919,652 km2(September 26, 2016)up 79,262 km2 from previous.
Have a ice day!

BornFromTheVoid

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1339
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 679
  • Likes Given: 299
Re: IJIS
« Reply #3179 on: September 27, 2016, 07:39:17 AM »
With 4 days of growth to go, we've already secured the largest minimum to end of September extent growth on record.



We've also secured the largest increase in extent from Aug 31 to the end of September
I recently joined the twitter thing, where I post more analysis, pics and animations: @Icy_Samuel

Feeltheburn

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 214
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 12
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: IJIS
« Reply #3180 on: September 28, 2016, 02:54:23 AM »
With 4 days of growth to go, we've already secured the largest minimum to end of September extent growth on record.



We've also secured the largest increase in extent from Aug 31 to the end of September

Thanks BFTV. I guess that is good news (unless it isn't for the reasons expressed regarding trapped heat). Nevertheless, although I'm young and naïve vis-à-vis this site, and in response to several posts that described the artic ice as not really ice but a giant slush, and a specific post that posited that highly-dispersed ice might very well lead to catastrophic late season melting, I expressed the view that if the highly dispersed ice managed to hold on, it should lead to faster refreezing for essentially the same reasons that were given for why it would hasten melting - higher water-ice interface area. In my simplistic way of thinking I asked myself wouldn't the highly dispersed ice create ideal conditions for fast refreeze if increased interface promoted melting? Perhaps I was/am wrong, and the cause is completely other. Still, it gives me more than cold comfort now because any time I mentioned my prognostication of the possibility of accelerated refreeze I was routinely shot down.
Feel The Burn!

Espen

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3707
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 420
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: IJIS
« Reply #3181 on: September 28, 2016, 05:22:50 AM »
IJIS:

5,011,447 km2(September 27, 2016)up 91,795 km2 from previous.
Have a ice day!

BornFromTheVoid

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1339
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 679
  • Likes Given: 299
Re: IJIS
« Reply #3182 on: September 28, 2016, 03:01:08 PM »
I recently joined the twitter thing, where I post more analysis, pics and animations: @Icy_Samuel

seaicesailor

  • Guest
Re: IJIS
« Reply #3183 on: September 28, 2016, 04:08:48 PM »
With 4 days of growth to go, we've already secured the largest minimum to end of September extent growth on record.



We've also secured the largest increase in extent from Aug 31 to the end of September

Thanks BFTV. I guess that is good news (unless it isn't for the reasons expressed regarding trapped heat). Nevertheless, although I'm young and naïve vis-à-vis this site, and in response to several posts that described the artic ice as not really ice but a giant slush, and a specific post that posited that highly-dispersed ice might very well lead to catastrophic late season melting, I expressed the view that if the highly dispersed ice managed to hold on, it should lead to faster refreezing for essentially the same reasons that were given for why it would hasten melting - higher water-ice interface area. In my simplistic way of thinking I asked myself wouldn't the highly dispersed ice create ideal conditions for fast refreeze if increased interface promoted melting? Perhaps I was/am wrong, and the cause is completely other. Still, it gives me more than cold comfort now because any time I mentioned my prognostication of the possibility of accelerated refreeze I was routinely shot down.
Not buying your "seeding" explanations as much as I am not a believer in any heat trapping due to fast refreezing.
Unless there is a pulse of water from the Pacific coincidental with the refreezing of Beaufort and Chukchi seas.

Acts5v29

  • New ice
  • Posts: 44
    • View Profile
    • worshipJehovah.org - not associated with any religion
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: IJIS
« Reply #3184 on: September 28, 2016, 08:52:26 PM »


In my simplistic way of thinking I asked myself wouldn't the highly dispersed ice create ideal conditions for fast refreeze if increased interface promoted melting? Perhaps I was/am wrong, and the cause is completely other. Still, it gives me more than cold comfort now because any time I mentioned my prognostication of the possibility of accelerated refreeze I was routinely shot down.

In my simplistic way too :)

I wonder if all the turbulence - egg-whisk style - has brought lower-level (older, earlier) ice to the surface from the multi-year chunks, that would give a greater surface area for a rapid re-freeze, but at the expense of the multi-year ice which was there at the beginning of the season.

That would mean a larger area of single-year ice - basically frozen slush - at the expense of the multi-year.  The difficulty is that it is like spending the capital rather than the interest - while the rapid refreeze looks great and raises hopes, the following year will not have that thicker multi-year ice to form an emergency shred/rapid refreeze at the end of the season.

Espen

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3707
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 420
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: IJIS
« Reply #3185 on: September 29, 2016, 06:13:09 AM »
IJIS:

5,030,140 km2(September 28, 2016)up 18,693 km2 from previous.
Have a ice day!

Peter Ellis

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 619
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 33
  • Likes Given: 14
Re: IJIS
« Reply #3186 on: September 29, 2016, 10:12:44 AM »
I wonder if all the turbulence - egg-whisk style - has brought lower-level (older, earlier) ice to the surface from the multi-year chunks

You'll have to spell this out in more detail, because it seems incoherent to me. As far as I understand it, you seem to be suggesting that a multi-year ice floe is like a layer cake, with old ice at the bottom and new ice at the top, and that the storm might flip over the floes and bring the old ice to the surface.

This isn't how it works.  Yes, you get layering in glaciers and ice caps that are many hundreds or even thousands of metres thick, but not really on the scale of sea ice.  When sea ice grows, it grows both from the bottom (by congelation onto the underside) and from the top (by snow accumulation, melt and refreeze). As it ages during melt seasons, channels form and drain through the ice, homogenising its contents. So you don't have a floe with a "young side" and an "old side", so to speak.


That would mean a larger area of single-year ice - basically frozen slush - at the expense of the multi-year.

Again, you need to spell out what you mean here.  Overturning a floe so it's the other way up won't change it's surface area.

abbottisgone

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 297
  • "...I'm a rock'n'roll star,...... YES I ARE!!!!!!"
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: IJIS
« Reply #3187 on: September 29, 2016, 10:21:10 AM »
I wonder if all the turbulence - egg-whisk style - has brought lower-level (older, earlier) ice to the surface from the multi-year chunks

You'll have to spell this out in more detail, because it seems incoherent to me. As far as I understand it, you seem to be suggesting that a multi-year ice floe is like a layer cake, with old ice at the bottom and new ice at the top, and that the storm might flip over the floes and bring the old ice to the surface.

This isn't how it works.  Yes, you get layering in glaciers and ice caps that are many hundreds or even thousands of metres thick, but not really on the scale of sea ice.  When sea ice grows, it grows both from the bottom (by congelation onto the underside) and from the top (by snow accumulation, melt and refreeze). As it ages during melt seasons, channels form and drain through the ice, homogenising its contents. So you don't have a floe with a "young side" and an "old side", so to speak.


..

 Ok, that was interesting: but you would still have some fairly assymetrical pieces of sea ice wouldn't you?
..
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..........

Feeltheburn

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 214
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 12
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: IJIS
« Reply #3188 on: September 29, 2016, 05:00:56 PM »
Not buying your "seeding" explanations as much as I am not a believer in any heat trapping due to fast refreezing.
Unless there is a pulse of water from the Pacific coincidental with the refreezing of Beaufort and Chukchi seas.

I'm not sure I buy "my" ice seeding argument either. Rather I think my revised point was increased surface area interface between existing ice and cold water capable of becoming ice.  Just like such interface melts ice floes around the edges during melt season, it should have a parallel reverse effect when conditions are right for freezing. Notice the Wrangel arm is growing from within itself rather than ice popping up out of nowhere in Beaufort's open water.

I agree with you that I don't see how ice "traps heat," especially the idea that heat is trapped "deep in the ocean".  Heat rises to the surface because warmer water is less dense and cold water sinks because it's more dense.  Therefore, water at the top that refreezes into ice should already be the warmest water starting from the surface and going straight down to the bottom.  Any "heat" under the ice should rise and accumulate under the ice and cause localized melting, which then cools it to around the freezing point of salt water.
Feel The Burn!

solartim27

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 599
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 42
  • Likes Given: 75
Re: IJIS
« Reply #3189 on: September 29, 2016, 05:20:38 PM »
Heat rises to the surface because warmer water is less dense and cold water sinks because it's more dense.  Therefore, water at the top that refreezes into ice should already be the warmest water starting from the surface and going straight down to the bottom.  Any "heat" under the ice should rise and accumulate under the ice and cause localized melting, which then cools it to around the freezing point of salt water.
By that logic the ocean would freeze solid.  It's a bit more complicated than that.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00880572
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_Ocean(good image of layers here)

I think the concern with the early ice is that it decreases the mixing, thus trapping the heat in the lower layer. (Just noticed this wasn't the freezing season thread, this should be over there)
« Last Edit: September 29, 2016, 05:41:25 PM by solartim27 »
FNORD

oren

  • Moderator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 9805
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 3584
  • Likes Given: 3922
Re: IJIS
« Reply #3190 on: September 29, 2016, 06:12:01 PM »
Not buying your "seeding" explanations as much as I am not a believer in any heat trapping due to fast refreezing.
Unless there is a pulse of water from the Pacific coincidental with the refreezing of Beaufort and Chukchi seas.

I'm not sure I buy "my" ice seeding argument either. Rather I think my revised point was increased surface area interface between existing ice and cold water capable of becoming ice.  Just like such interface melts ice floes around the edges during melt season, it should have a parallel reverse effect when conditions are right for freezing. Notice the Wrangel arm is growing from within itself rather than ice popping up out of nowhere in Beaufort's open water.

I agree with you that I don't see how ice "traps heat," especially the idea that heat is trapped "deep in the ocean".  Heat rises to the surface because warmer water is less dense and cold water sinks because it's more dense.  Therefore, water at the top that refreezes into ice should already be the warmest water starting from the surface and going straight down to the bottom.  Any "heat" under the ice should rise and accumulate under the ice and cause localized melting, which then cools it to around the freezing point of salt water.
FTB, again you draw simplistic analogies without providing scientific basis. I don't see why it necessarily Should have a parallel reverse effect. A mechanism should be proposed. I know little about the subject, so I try to learn here from many experts. From the little I know, mixing of water and ice generally reduces the amount of ice. Therefore it is not a symmetric situation, and larger ice-water interface should result in more melting. On the other hand, areas where ice melted recently or near ice are probably colder and fresher than areas farther from ice. Therefore, such areas will generally tend to freeze sooner. The result is somewhat similar to what you described, but the mechanism is different, and the symmetry is imagined.

As to the density of water, I have learned on this forum that cold salty water is indeed more dense and sinks. However, cold fresh water near 0o is less dense and actually floats, unless mixed by some process or over time.

(Hopefully, I got the explanations right. I'll be happy for corrections)

Acts5v29

  • New ice
  • Posts: 44
    • View Profile
    • worshipJehovah.org - not associated with any religion
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: IJIS
« Reply #3191 on: September 30, 2016, 04:07:07 PM »
I wonder if all the turbulence - egg-whisk style - has brought lower-level (older, earlier) ice to the surface from the multi-year chunks

You'll have to spell this out in more detail, because it seems incoherent to me. As far as I understand it, you seem to be suggesting that a multi-year ice floe is like a layer cake, with old ice at the bottom and new ice at the top, and that the storm might flip over the floes and bring the old ice to the surface.

You're so right - I meant to refer to thicker ice, not multi-year.

Phil.

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 540
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 76
  • Likes Given: 11
Re: IJIS
« Reply #3192 on: September 30, 2016, 08:53:43 PM »
Not buying your "seeding" explanations as much as I am not a believer in any heat trapping due to fast refreezing.
Unless there is a pulse of water from the Pacific coincidental with the refreezing of Beaufort and Chukchi seas.

I'm not sure I buy "my" ice seeding argument either. Rather I think my revised point was increased surface area interface between existing ice and cold water capable of becoming ice.  Just like such interface melts ice floes around the edges during melt season, it should have a parallel reverse effect when conditions are right for freezing. Notice the Wrangel arm is growing from within itself rather than ice popping up out of nowhere in Beaufort's open water.

I agree with you that I don't see how ice "traps heat," especially the idea that heat is trapped "deep in the ocean".  Heat rises to the surface because warmer water is less dense and cold water sinks because it's more dense.  Therefore, water at the top that refreezes into ice should already be the warmest water starting from the surface and going straight down to the bottom.  Any "heat" under the ice should rise and accumulate under the ice and cause localized melting, which then cools it to around the freezing point of salt water.

You're thinking of freshwater, the density depends on both temperature and salinity and there is a 'halocline' where temperature is a maximum.  If the ice is absent for a protracted period it's likely that storms etc. could mix the surface waters and give a different behavior.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halocline#/media/File:Arctic_sea_temperature_salinity_plot.svg

RoxTheGeologist

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 625
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 188
  • Likes Given: 149
Re: IJIS
« Reply #3193 on: October 01, 2016, 11:18:18 PM »


I have linked this before; It gives a really good description of sea water density at different temperatures and salinity.

http://linkingweatherandclimate.com/ocean/waterdensity.php

Feeltheburn

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 214
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 12
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: IJIS
« Reply #3194 on: October 03, 2016, 04:12:15 AM »


I have linked this before; It gives a really good description of sea water density at different temperatures and salinity.

http://linkingweatherandclimate.com/ocean/waterdensity.php

Thanks. Very helpful.
Feel The Burn!

Feeltheburn

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 214
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 12
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: IJIS
« Reply #3195 on: October 03, 2016, 04:17:06 AM »
FTB, again you draw simplistic analogies without providing scientific basis. I don't see why it necessarily Should have a parallel reverse effect. A mechanism should be proposed. I know little about the subject, so I try to learn here from many experts. From the little I know, mixing of water and ice generally reduces the amount of ice. Therefore it is not a symmetric situation, and larger ice-water interface should result in more melting. On the other hand, areas where ice melted recently or near ice are probably colder and fresher than areas farther from ice. Therefore, such areas will generally tend to freeze sooner. The result is somewhat similar to what you described, but the mechanism is different, and the symmetry is imagined.

As to the density of water, I have learned on this forum that cold salty water is indeed more dense and sinks. However, cold fresh water near 0o is less dense and actually floats, unless mixed by some process or over time.

(Hopefully, I got the explanations right. I'll be happy for corrections)

Of course I make simplistic assumptions and observations. I'm a simpleton but hopefully can learn something from the experts. http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/Smileys/default/cheesy.gif
Feel The Burn!

Tigertown

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1678
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 24
  • Likes Given: 20
Re: IJIS
« Reply #3196 on: October 03, 2016, 05:53:01 AM »
Stating the obvious;looks like our Japanese friends are having problems, and haven't updated since 9-28....  Now they are about to get hit longways by Typhoon Chaba, so it may hinder them even more yet. Meanwhile NSIDC numbers are creeping up to where JAXA(IJIS) left off.
"....and the appointed time came for God to bring to ruin those ruining the earth." Revelation 11:18.

Sleepy

  • Guest
Re: IJIS
« Reply #3197 on: October 03, 2016, 06:19:13 AM »
It's now when the real 'fun' starts, the journey towards next year.

Shared Humanity

  • Guest
Re: IJIS
« Reply #3198 on: October 03, 2016, 03:16:04 PM »
I hope more people hang around this freeze season. It got real quiet last year and the freeze season was fascinating.

DoomInTheUK

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 221
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: IJIS
« Reply #3199 on: October 03, 2016, 06:32:17 PM »
I hope more people hang around this freeze season. It got real quiet last year and the freeze season was fascinating.

Don't worry, there's loads of us lurkers here in summer and winter . The trouble is there's often not much more to add to the comments posted without just clogging up the thread with arbitrary 'yes I agree' kind of comments.  This forum is a shiny example of how good a forum can be and I for one don't want to pollute it with my inane drivel (too late).

There's always something going on in the Arctic that's worth looking at, that's what makes it compulsive viewing.