The 2015 melting season

[Tommy]

: Tommy  Today at 04:27:16 PM
I also think it is a dramatic indicator of huge Arctic summer-ice shrink over the next 2-3 years.

Why?  What's your reasoning/model?
-- cesium62

1. The newly named gap, as I demonstrated in the post, using ice thickness maps, and recording June->end of July for 2015, and early July->end of August for 3 other years, that people can see in those GIF animations I posted on the previous page, if they missed it -- is bigger and longer at end of July, than it ever gets, even by end of August in other years, and will likely get bigger. (the model for thickness is posted at the bottom on that post. But, other models may have a different width and length to the gap, but show a very similar dramatic change compared to other years. And  in satellite photos, this year the gap is much wider, and much longer than seen from 2012-14. Below is the rest of my reasoning/model ).

2. Arctic melt seasons are longer every year.
http://news.discovery.com/earth/global-warming/arctic-sea-ice-melt-season-getting-longer-140215.htm

3. The ice is already thinner than ever before.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/arctic-sea-ice-is-getting-thinner-faster/

4. We will have the biggest, or close to biggest Albedo reduction on record, due to the fires in N. America.

5. The first 6 months of this year are the hottest month by month on record globally (the other months will likely follow suit), and although there will be a lag time, it will cause a further lengthening and/or warming in the latter part of this melt season. The poles warm faster than the rest of the planet, because they absorb the heat from the rest of the planet. over the year.

6. The Pacific Blob has helped increase melt, by pushing in on the surface (despite what deeper currents might do, which are weaker than in the past anyway, due to less differential between 3 oceans than there used to be - Pacific, Arctic, and Atlantic.)

7. Increased heat absorption in surface of Arctic ocean, due to less ice than normal ( I think the 'extent' models are optical illusions, because they take into account a lot broken up ice and try to average that, and that ice will melt faster due to all these other factors I am mentioning.)

8. Water from one of the biggest Greenland melts on record, stays on surface because it is fresh water (less dense) warms quickly, seeps in to that part of the Arctic.

9. Ocean surface temperatures (those 3 oceans) already warmer than in the past.

10. Future years will start from all these factors above, including more methane release from permafrost and Arctic sea bed, being even worse.

None of these may be significant enough in themselves, but, taken together, this year may be unprecedented. Next year at latest.

I don’t need to do any detailed math, it is obvious now, from the evidence on the ground (or ice … or water )

I would say, to destroy this model I just made, 5 out of the first 9 points would have to be proven wrong, because any 5 of those is bad enough.

But I’m just a wee newbie.

I HOPE I am wrong !
We need to slow down this melt by at least 15 years to give governments time to wake up and actually do something about it.

We are in a world-wide emergency. The collective action needed to mitigate and manage the changes, makes landing a man on the moon, or the collective acton in WW II, look like child’s play.

I hope I am wrong about this melt pattern.

I don't like to alarm people, I still think there is hope, if the governments wake up in time. They are not doing enough at all.

Tommy.

[plinius]

My modest decrease comment was regarding air temperature rather than sea temperature, and that over the pack, rather than outside of it.

Ah, ok, then we misunderstood each other.

[Greenbelt]

Intense long-lived storm in the Hudson Bay should mix out any remaining ice there, and could eventually bring warm southerly winds and rain to the Baffin Bay areas with ice remaining.

[Andreas T]

Somebody (last year IIRC) came on here and got grief for suggesting that late in the season what favours melt is cloud. They were right, as I said at the time.

This is supported by the plots provided by Andreas. By August insolation (SWDN) is only about 120W/m^2, while LW is still near its summer peak at around 320W/m^2. Andreas, are those figures for clear sky or mixed conditions? (I suspect mixed, cloudy and clear, given the size of the LW flux)

......

Sorry Chris I should have put a link with the copied graphs. http://faculty.atmos.und.edu/dong/papers/10.1007_s00382-013-1920-8.pdf
from the text

The CERES EBAF monthly mean surface fluxes are calculated by the modified Fu-Liou code with the inputs of the CERES retrieved cloud properties and daily surface albedo. The CERES derived TOA fluxes are used as constraints during the calculation.
The surface EBAF fluxes have been compared with surface observations (For more details, visit NASA CERES Science Team meetings athttp://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/scienceteam-meetings2.php?date=2013-05). Although the CERES
surface EBAF fluxes are not perfect, they compare well with surface observations, and can be used to evaluate the MERRA reanalyzed fluxes over the Arctic.

I.e. shown are monthly averages based on observed weather during those months. SW up (from surface) includes albedo of the surface although it isn't clear to me where information on ice cover is derived from.
My original comment on the 18th July also had a link to your comment Re: The 2014 Melting Season
« Reply #1256 on: June 14, 2014, 08:11:51 PM     which had graphs comparing cloudy and clear sky net radiation

[Tommy]

Just a dog-gone minute here ! ?

Is that "Tommy's Gap" opening up (on yesterday's satellite) on the northeast tip of Greenland ?
As I follow the gap west in the top GIF, it cracks out to sea a bit, but I hope what looks like a continuation is just the edge of a cloud. Looks like it. But it is definitely opening up at the top of Greenland, more than before.
That part of Greenland cannot be seen today, but...

In the second video I zoom in on the image for today (July 29), on northeastern Canada, and it is there as well, more than before.

I can't get these to work, so I am posting them in separate posts below.

Tommy

http://satwagraphics.com/testing/tommys_gap_at_greenland_small.gif

http://satwagraphics.com/testing/tommys_gap_at_west-greenland_small.gif

[Tommy]

http://satwagraphics.com/testing/tommys_gap_at_greenland_small.gif

[Tommy]

http://satwagraphics.com/testing/tommys_gap_at_west-greenland_small.gif

[seaicesailor]

Tommy, that crack is amazing.
Did you notice also the very long, very faint, dark mark made of polynia that goes from Laptev toward the North Pole. Sorry I cannot post pic, part of it is in r04c04 tile of MODIS. This was spotted by ASIB commenter Wayne.

Aside, what will be next days of Beaufort!

[ChrisReynolds]

Quantum, SIS,

Some WAGs...

Stratus, low cloud base - not so thick it makes it real dark underneath, but does enhance the greenhouse effect by backradiation.

Fog, my experience of this at mid lattitudes does not suggest it would be good for ice melt. But that may count for nothing in the Arctic. So I don't really know.

Storms frontal systems: Rain is a very good way of getting heat to ice... on Greenland. But when the ice is floating on water at sea level, might not be such a good source of heat, the ice is already at freezing, the rain probably won't be much above. Waves mix vertically and laterally getting heat into the zone behind the ice edge.

A high would tend to keep air inside the Arctic, lows would tend to draw air in off adjacent land masses, which are still warm. Earlier in the season cloudiness might offest this effect by reducing surface incident insolation, the CERES data presented by Andreas suggests this is less important in August.

So I agree Quantum, what's needed for melt is probably lows from outside the Arctic, to which I would add the sort of weak low/neutral tendency that gives rise to low cloud base stratus.

Looking at my papers I couldn't find anything really pertinent to the August issue. But it is worth restating Screen 2011:

Screen et al. (2011) investigated the relationship between sea-ice extent at the end of the Arctic summer, and cyclone activity in the preceding spring and summer. They found that
fewer cyclones over the central Arctic Ocean in May, June, and July favour a low sea-ice extent at the end of the melt season. They argue that fewer storms are associated with above-average sea-level pressure, strengthened anticyclonic winds, intensification of the transpolar drift stream, and reduced cloud cover, which all favor ice melt.

And that neat summary is from this paper:
http://www.the-cryosphere.net/8/303/2014/tc-8-303-2014.pdf

Which I stumbled upon while looking for a copy of Screen 2011. I've not read it but from their conclusions:

In summer, the cyclone-induced reduction of sea-ice concentration is largest and the open water areas remain open, decreasing the area average surface albedo and increasing the solar absorption. This summertime impact is expected to be especially large in areas with thinner ice as, for example, on the Siberian side and in areas with smaller ice floes as, for example, in the marginal ice areas of the Arctic Ocean. Strong summer storms in those areas can lead to increased exceptional reduction of the sea-ice concentration, because they can separate and disperse large ice fields from the main Arctic ice cover. The strong summer cyclone between 4 and 8 August 2012 is believed to be one reason for the following record ice extent minimum in September 2012 (Simmonds and Rudeva, 2012). Based on model simulations, Zhang et al. (2013) hint at another impact of the strong 2012 August storm. They found an exceptionally strong bottom melt of the sea ice resulting from the cyclone-induced enhanced upward mixing of water from the near sub-surface ocean maximum temperature layer.

Also this is interesting...

Haapala et al. (2005) and Kriegsmann (2011) demonstrated that the cyclone impact is
not symmetrical on the left and right side with regard to the propagation direction. On the right side, the cyclone presses the ice towards the not yet impacted ice cover, and away from it on the left side.

I've knocked up this graphic, which I've been pondering for when July's data is in...



You could swap June 2012 and July 2015 so far (sorry messed up the scale on that), and like wise July 2012 and June 2015, and still get the same result! So clear skies before and after the solstice will do. Although 2012 had it good with an early start and large export through Fram (and thinner ice across the ocean).

What do you think we need in August for a stall? I think we need clear skies. And to get to or below 2007? I think we'd need positive AO/NAO and clouds over the Arctic, with big storms from outside the Arctic?

I do however agree with Neven, 2012 is not going to be beaten this year, too much MYI exported  over winter into Beaufort.

PS, as of last night's data, Chukchi had stalled.

[ChrisReynolds]

Andreas,

Thanks, so it is mixed skies, would be interesting to see the range around those averages, I'll have a look at the paper tomorrow.

[seaicesailor]

... too much MYI exported  over winter into Beaufort...

Chris,  follow this nice post by commenter Kris over the ASIB

http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2015/07/2015-sipn-sea-ice-outlook-july-report.html?cid=6a0133f03a1e37970b01b8d13fc66f970c#comment-6a0133f03a1e37970b01b8d13fc66f970c

Gives you a feeling of what may be happening over Beaufort for the next few days. Persistent (which is key) cyclone. Divergent drift, winds, waves, some weak upwelling but also mixing with warm  coast waters, downwelling, sun radiation, the whole package.

Now I am leaning toward the side Beaufort MYI is doomed.

Chukchi stalled indeed, something going on in the East coast though.

[seaicesailor]

And, Tommy gap is going to increase generously according to CICE drift for next two days

Sorry for overposting. Exciting moment

[Sigmetnow]

New NASA article: Dirty snow leads to earlier spring melt.

Scientists link earlier melting of snow to dark aerosols

The study looked at three types of light-absorbing aerosols – dust, black carbon and organic carbon. Black carbon and organic carbon are produced from the burning of fossil fuels, like coal and oil, as well as biofuels and biomass, such as forests.

With their snow darkening effect added to NASA’s GEOS-5 climate model, scientists analyzed results from 2002 to 2011, and compared them to model runs done without the aerosols on snow. They found that the aerosols indeed played a role in absorbing more of the sun’s energy. Over broad places in the Northern Hemisphere, the darkened snow caused some surface temperatures to be up to 10 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than it would be if the snow were pristine. As a result, warmer, snow-darkened areas had less snow in spring than they would have had under pristine snow conditions.

http://climate.nasa.gov/news/2314/

Edit: I see the study is from June.  Apologies if this is a re-post.

[Quantum]

Andreas,

Thanks, so it is mixed skies, would be interesting to see the range around those averages, I'll have a look at the paper tomorrow.

Thing is, HP in the arctic doesn't necessarily give clear skies. In fact HP combined with a warm airmass is a very 'dirty' affair, and actually tends to fill the area up with fog. The LP by contrast will fill the arctic with cold snowy air which after the centre has moved on will give way to clear, fogless, cold skies. Upper troughs in the arctic seem to really cool down ridges. If we look at the area around Severnaya Zemlya which is going to be dominated by a ridge for the foreseeable future and look at the 850hpa theta E values (GFS):

31st July: 31C
4th August: 10C
5th August:20C

Before the LP we had fairly mild conditions, the LP then caused a dramatic change in the airmass reducing theta to only 10C, but crucially even after the LP moved on and the cold flow was cut off, the thetas did not rise back to their initial with the initial rapid warming slowing to a snails pace some 10C colder than original. The change in quality of the airmass will also probably clear the fog, this is far from simple.


For those that haven't heard of theta E, its full name is the equipotential temperature and it is the temperature one arrives at when condensing all the available moisture and releasing the latent heat directly into the air. Theta E not only considers, therefore, the temperature but also the humidity. Lower values represent colder, drier air which can only be a good thing.

Given all this, and the input from Chris and seaicesaloir, I'm still unsure whether this LP is friendly though I must say I am leaning in that direction. It is true that LPs tend to suck air from the lower latitudes, but this is a bigger issue when the LP came from the lower latitudes in the first place or when the LP is not centrally based. In this case (yet) neither of those criteria are satisfied so I am struggling to see any major melt coming out of this LP.
 

 

 

[oren]

: Tommy  Today at 04:27:16 PM
I also think it is a dramatic indicator of huge Arctic summer-ice shrink over the next 2-3 years.

Why?  What's your reasoning/model?
-- cesium62

1. The newly named gap, as I demonstrated in the post, using ice thickness maps, and recording June->end of July for 2015, and early July->end of August for 3 other years, that people can see in those GIF animations I posted on the previous page, if they missed it -- is bigger and longer at end of July, than it ever gets, even by end of August in other years, and will likely get bigger. (the model for thickness is posted at the bottom on that post. But, other models may have a different width and length to the gap, but show a very similar dramatic change compared to other years. And  in satellite photos, this year the gap is much wider, and much longer than seen from 2012-14. Below is the rest of my reasoning/model ).

2. Arctic melt seasons are longer every year.
http://news.discovery.com/earth/global-warming/arctic-sea-ice-melt-season-getting-longer-140215.htm

3. The ice is already thinner than ever before.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/arctic-sea-ice-is-getting-thinner-faster/

4. We will have the biggest, or close to biggest Albedo reduction on record, due to the fires in N. America.

5. The first 6 months of this year are the hottest month by month on record globally (the other months will likely follow suit), and although there will be a lag time, it will cause a further lengthening and/or warming in the latter part of this melt season. The poles warm faster than the rest of the planet, because they absorb the heat from the rest of the planet. over the year.

6. The Pacific Blob has helped increase melt, by pushing in on the surface (despite what deeper currents might do, which are weaker than in the past anyway, due to less differential between 3 oceans than there used to be - Pacific, Arctic, and Atlantic.)

7. Increased heat absorption in surface of Arctic ocean, due to less ice than normal ( I think the 'extent' models are optical illusions, because they take into account a lot broken up ice and try to average that, and that ice will melt faster due to all these other factors I am mentioning.)

8. Water from one of the biggest Greenland melts on record, stays on surface because it is fresh water (less dense) warms quickly, seeps in to that part of the Arctic.

9. Ocean surface temperatures (those 3 oceans) already warmer than in the past.

10. Future years will start from all these factors above, including more methane release from permafrost and Arctic sea bed, being even worse.

None of these may be significant enough in themselves, but, taken together, this year may be unprecedented. Next year at latest.

I don’t need to do any detailed math, it is obvious now, from the evidence on the ground (or ice … or water )

I would say, to destroy this model I just made, 5 out of the first 9 points would have to be proven wrong, because any 5 of those is bad enough.

But I’m just a wee newbie.

I HOPE I am wrong !
We need to slow down this melt by at least 15 years to give governments time to wake up and actually do something about it.

We are in a world-wide emergency. The collective action needed to mitigate and manage the changes, makes landing a man on the moon, or the collective acton in WW II, look like child’s play.

I hope I am wrong about this melt pattern.

I don't like to alarm people, I still think there is hope, if the governments wake up in time. They are not doing enough at all.

Tommy.

Tommy, your logic escapes me. You talk of the "gap", an interesting feature, which should lead to 2-3 bad years for the arctic sea ice. When asked why, you give a bunch of loose generic arguments which are not related at all to that gap. Instead of going one by one over your arguments and finding the holes in them, I'd rather suggest a mechanism that you could provide as an explanation of your claim.
The MYI is thickest along the north coast of the CAA. Typically that thick ice is safe and secure there even on bad years for the ice, as your GIFs nicely show. This year that ice moved quite away from the coast, very away and very early compared to all previous years, thus exposing it to risk. If this ice were to drift en masse further away to the Beaufort sea, the arctic might lose its last big solid anchor next year, giving rise to further deterioration of the pack. The very fact that the gap exists, shows that the "anchor" is already not anchored very well.

[Rubikscube]

With so much of the remaining ice detached from the main pack, not just in Hudson and Baffin, but also in Laptev, in addition to lots of low concentration areas on the Pacific side and the ESS ice tongue looking unusually vulnerable, the stage should be set for a massive August melt this season. However, it looks like the weather won't be colluding to make a proper August cliff materialize. A weak arctic cyclone is already working its way into the CAB, and although cyclone plus low concentration ice have resulted in flash melting and area/extent drops in the past (2011 and 2012 most notably), it doesn't look like this one will have the power to do real damage with its wind and wave action. Cooler temps and a wind pattern that doesn't favour compaction seems to be what this cyclone dominated pattern will bring during the coming week, but I will put quite some uncertainty range on my predictions this time, it may be I'm underestimating the destructive abilities even a WAC (only about 1000 hPa in minimum pressure) can have on a weakened pack.

All in all I concur with Chris that it may be time to write 2012 of the block, but with the underlying conditions and continued heat on CAA, an epic 10-14 day stall simmilar to those from 2013 and 2014 also seems to be out of the question.

[Tommy]

Tommy, your logic escapes me.
-- oren

That's correct.

When asked why, you give a bunch of loose generic arguments which are not related at all to that gap.
-- oren

In the UK, you 'indicate' when turning in a car. The indication is not the turning of the car. It is just an indication. He asked me why I thought it was an indicator of the bigger action ... future melt. Wether that's what he meant, is not for me to say, I just answered his question, which referred to my sentence about the gap being an indicator of something bigger ... future melt.

Instead of going one by one over your arguments and finding the holes in them
-- oren

I understand. Not easy I know

I'd rather suggest a mechanism that you could provide as an explanation of your claim.
The MYI is thickest along the north coast of the CAA. Typically that thick ice is safe and secure there even on bad years for the ice, as your GIFs nicely show. This year that ice moved quite away from the coast, very away and very early compared to all previous years, thus exposing it to risk. If this ice were to drift en masse further away to the Beaufort sea, the arctic might lose its last big solid anchor next year, giving rise to further deterioration of the pack. The very fact that the gap exists, shows that the "anchor" is already not anchored very well.
--oren

Which is what I (and others, maybe you), have said in previous posts. Seems obvious, I didn't bother mentioning any of that.

The gap (christened today, as you know), is a gap that did not exist anywhere near that big before, and that decreases Albedo, warming ocean, increasing gap, decreasing albedo, warming ocean, on and on for weeks to come. 

I said it was an indicator of huge changes in coming years, not the sole cause.
It is wider and longer than it has ever been. Period and Full-Stop. It will get bigger. All those other 9 factors I mentioned as one whole, will make it worse. 

It's called "Tommy's Gap"

Tommy.

[seaicesailor]

Andreas,

Thanks, so it is mixed skies, would be interesting to see the range around those averages, I'll have a look at the paper tomorrow.

Thing is, HP in the arctic doesn't necessarily give clear skies. In fact HP combined with a warm airmass is a very 'dirty' affair, and actually tends to fill the area up with fog. The LP by contrast will fill the arctic with cold snowy air which after the centre has moved on will give way to clear, fogless, cold skies. Upper troughs in the arctic seem to really cool down ridges. If we look at the area around Severnaya Zemlya which is going to be dominated by a ridge for the foreseeable future and look at the 850hpa theta E values (GFS):

31st July: 31C
4th August: 10C
5th August:20C

Before the LP we had fairly mild conditions, the LP then caused a dramatic change in the airmass reducing theta to only 10C, but crucially even after the LP moved on and the cold flow was cut off, the thetas did not rise back to their initial with the initial rapid warming slowing to a snails pace some 10C colder than original. The change in quality of the airmass will also probably clear the fog, this is far from simple.


For those that haven't heard of theta E, its full name is the equipotential temperature and it is the temperature one arrives at when condensing all the available moisture and releasing the latent heat directly into the air. Theta E not only considers, therefore, the temperature but also the humidity. Lower values represent colder, drier air which can only be a good thing.

Given all this, and the input from Chris and seaicesaloir, I'm still unsure whether this LP is friendly though I must say I am leaning in that direction. It is true that LPs tend to suck air from the lower latitudes, but this is a bigger issue when the LP came from the lower latitudes in the first place or when the LP is not centrally based. In this case (yet) neither of those criteria are satisfied so I am struggling to see any major melt coming out of this LP.

About The weak persistent low, I acknowledge, you clearly have more expertise on these matters. Still I am worried about the slow spreading effect that this low may bring to Beaufort now that it is so broken. It may push floes toward the coast and open up ocean between them. Also to some areas of CAB and Chukchi. It is weak but seems it will last for a good while. And it brings some mechanical effects. Anyway, we will see. I am a newbie, I must say.

The other thing is the fog. In June-July it blocks sun, and it accompanies thermal inversion which shields ice from above warmth  (as in 2014). But in August, isnt it more important to reradiate heat from already warmed ocean/ice surface? Just asking. I always believed fog causes somehow greenhouse effect, but I may be plainly wrong. Thx

[Tommy]

seaicesailor
Did you notice also the very long, very faint, dark mark made of polynia that goes from Laptev toward the North Pole.

I think I can see it, I can't tell if it's a crack or thickening due to pressure?

[cesium62]

: Tommy  Today at 04:27:16 PM
I also think it is a dramatic indicator of huge Arctic summer-ice shrink over the next 2-3 years.

Why?  What's your reasoning/model?
-- cesium62

...

4. We will have the biggest, or close to biggest Albedo reduction on record, due to the fires in N. America.

...

8. Water from one of the biggest Greenland melts on record, stays on surface because it is fresh water (less dense) warms quickly, seeps in to that part of the Arctic.

...

I see...  it's an indicator of future conditions because it's a result of current conditions that have been changing...

Do we have peer reviewed evidence for 4 and 8?  [Because I don't want to be a Republican, I like to have peer reviewed evidence for things that I'd like to believe on faith.]

[epiphyte]

It's called "Tommy's Gap"

Tommy.

Can I borrow it?  If not I'll scream and scream and scream until I make myself sick 

[Tommy]

cesium62
Do we have peer reviewed evidence for 4 and 8?  [Because I don't want to be a Republican, I like to have peer reviewed evidence for things that I'd like to believe on faith.]

...

4. We will have the biggest, or close to biggest Albedo reduction on record, due to the fires in N. America.

I don't think you can have peer-reviewed studies on something that is still unfolding, but it is common knowledge that we have one of the biggest fire seasons this year, and as I am sure you know, smoke particles landing on ice, weaken the albedo effect of ice (so it absorbs heat.)  But maybe you mean something else?
...

8. Water from one of the biggest Greenland melts on record, stays on surface because it is fresh water (less dense) warms quickly, seeps in to that part of the Arctic.

Again, I am not sure what you need to know? That fresh water is less dense than salt water?

[Tommy]

It's called "Tommy's Gap"
-- Tommy

Tommy.
Can I borrow it?  If not I'll scream and scream and scream until I make myself sick 
epiphyte

You can have it.
As long as I can go kayaking on it next summer.
Tommy.

[cesium62]

cesium62
Do we have peer reviewed evidence for 4 and 8?  [Because I don't want to be a Republican, I like to have peer reviewed evidence for things that I'd like to believe on faith.]

...

4. We will have the biggest, or close to biggest Albedo reduction on record, due to the fires in N. America.

I don't think you can have peer-reviewed studies on something that is still unfolding, but it is common knowledge that we have one of the biggest fire seasons this year, and as I am sure you know, smoke particles landing on ice, weaken the albedo effect of ice (so it absorbs heat.)  But maybe you mean something else?
...

8. Water from one of the biggest Greenland melts on record, stays on surface because it is fresh water (less dense) warms quickly, seeps in to that part of the Arctic.

Again, I am not sure what you need to know? That fresh water is less dense than salt water?

So, fresh water and salt water can't mix?  So the Arctic ocean is all fresh water?  How many meters of fresh water lie on top of the salt water in the Arctic ocean?  Currents can't carry fresh water away from the coast?

Fresh water freezes more quickly and melts later.  That would increase the length of the freezing system and be a negative feedback.

Are the smoke particles making their way to the north pole?  Are they staying on top of the ice or are they being flushed out by some process?  Are they a significant source of increased albedo when sitting under a melt pond?

Should we abandon peer review as a plank of science and just go with what everyone knows?

For someone who was complaining about the arrogance of scientists who are sure they know everything you seem awfully sure of what you know to be true.

[Tommy]

Are the smoke particles making their way to the north pole?
-- cesium62

I said the Arctic, not the North Pole. The North Pole is a tiny spot in the Eastern Arctic. I don't know if the smoke reached that tiny spot.
http://robertscribbler.com/2015/07/13/wildfire-smoke-over-north-pole-web-cam-shows-melt-ponds-beneath-dark-haze/

Also:
"BB burning not only directly releases greenhouse gas emissions, often from carbon pools that have been stored for centuries, but also these emissions can be transported long distances [18-22] and strongly feedback to the atmosphere and climate systems, the extent to which is currently being realized. Significant quantities of BB emissions were recently and unexpectedly discovered in the Arctic spring during a field campaign designed to investigate Arctic haze, and these BB emissions, specifically black carbon, have implications for the sensitive early-season ice, snow and cloud albedo feedbacks in Arctic"
http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/conference/ei20/session7/asoja.pdf

Are they staying on top of the ice or are they being flushed out by some process?
-- cesium62 

Do dark particles melt snow and ice?
http://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo2180.epdf?referrer_access_token=GntY8wyhry92LOLYb65ArdRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0M9PGwIyKjSmktz08GZvRoPeVTEjKfMKXWRWpogNrpZG_BiBcmn1apzF8Nwqa3De99-IWVHJlLZH1gE1k7OPDRaiHiT8YBhDMZWuzIAiqrEeEvrqjZNg8bJhivgNT4Oh3HgSThqmiHhVGkDumJgjwIku4kwnwZ1lpFxKf2zKOi1j1L250y2QrirwFkZD6FxDdomxNrYNnuC3ukIxXuuScCv&tracking_referrer=www.theguardian.com

See photo below.
Taken this year in the Beaufort.

Cesium62
So, fresh water and salt water can't mix?  So the Arctic ocean is all fresh water?  How many meters of fresh water lie on top of the salt water in the Arctic ocean?  Currents can't carry fresh water away from the Fresh water freezes more quickly and melts later.  That would increase the length of the freezing system and be a negative feedback.

Perhaps.
But if you think Greenland water is too cold (which the longer it sits on land, the warmer it will be)
"Measurements of the amount of available iron in meltwater from the Greenland ice sheet shows that extensive melting of the ice sheet might add an amount of iron to the Atlantic Ocean equivalent to that added by airborne dust."
http://www.whoi.edu/news-release/Iron_Glaciers

And since Greenland is warming, more  and more water will be warmed before it gets to the ocean (like any river or pond):
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=4067

The jury is still out on this one though.

Fresh water freezes more quickly and melts later.  That would increase the length of the freezing system.
-- cesium62

Freezes only temporarily, or very late in the season, and only at the very surface. It is not significant. Fresh water ABOVE freezing temps. will melt sea ice, especially if the sea ice has alien particulate matter in it.

Should we abandon peer review as a plank of science and just go with what everyone knows?
-- cesium62

No, you should go find some peer-reviewed science that refutes what almost every climate-change scientist says, and is common knowledge to every schoolkid today. It's like asking for studies on wether the Earth is round or not. Ridiculous.

What you will need to prove, to counter the overwhelming body of scientists are:
1. Soot does not reduce albedo.
2. Smoke from wildfires does not float over the Arctic ( I don't know about the North Pole, I never mentioned that. The North pole is a tiny fraction of the Arctic. )

For someone who was complaining about the arrogance of scientists who are sure they know everything you seem awfully sure of what you know to be true.

One does not need to provide peer-reviewed journals to support the over-whelming consensus among climate scientists. That's just silly.

Here below, are peer-reviewed evidence that artists are smarter than scientists I  can find dozens of others.

But, first:
You don't even need peer-reviewed evidence.
It is self-evident:
How many artists worked hard to promote nuclear power? (Chernobyl, Fukushima)
Answer: None.
How many scientists worked hard to promote nuclear power?
Answer: Millions.
How many artists protested against unbridled pollution from polluting technologies over the decades?
Answer: Hundreds of millions.
How many scientists protested against unbridled pollution from polluting technologies over the decades?
Answer: a few hundred.
Who started the Green Party in the 1960s, which started the green movement?
Answer: Artist: Joseph Beuys.
Who is using peer-reviewed science to back up his claims?
Answer: Me, the artist.
Who is not using peer-reviewed science to back up his claims?
Answer: You, the scientist.

Also, I can show you hundreds of paintings at the dawn of the industrial revolution and since, that were direct statements about the direction man was going, and direct critiques about industrial pollution of the environment and the populace.

But let's cut to the chase:
1, Art Makes You Smart: http://educationnext.org/the-educational-value-of-field-trips/

2. Aragón I., et al -- "Van Gogh painted perfect turbulence" http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060703/full/news060703-17.html

3. "Artists' Brains Have More 'Grey Matter' Than The Rest Of Us, Study Finds"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/22/artist-brains_n_5187216.html

I am astounded that anyone here does not know that:
1. Smoke from North America often blows over parts of the Arctic.
2. Smoke particles weaken albedo on ice.
3. Ice melts when dark.

Do you live in Florida or something?
Have you even seen ice before?

All your posts are just attempts to 'catch me out', as if one little phrase from you can refute my 10 points above. I can't be bothered.

Go ahead find the peer-reviewed journals that refute what most climate-change scientists consider fact.

Don't worry if you don't understand this post. It's not just you. Like most people, you have less gray matter than artists, and are less well developed by nurture in critical thinking, broad comprehension, and empathy, and so just take it from me  ... I am right, you are wrong.
I'm off to bed.

[stackmaster]

Tommy's gap is getting a stuffing of myi fresh from the Canadian Archipelago, massive cracking west of Ellsmere over the last couple days threatens to open passages straight through north to south.

Tommy-as a noob to posting here and a blue collar guy-i build elevators for a living-it seems to me that you might be missing a couple things about fresh water in the arctic. 

What I see is the melting sea ice and snow from greenland creates fresher, lighter water.  I agree with you there.

However, there is a difference between that and river water and that difference is temperature.  River water melts ice because it's warm, not because it's fresh.

Cold fresh water from greenland and melting ice tends to sit on top of the warmer denser saltier water and interesting things happen-one of them is that it is easily frozen come winter because it is fresh.  The other is that it prevents the warmer saltier water below from contacting the ice.  Perhaps this is a mechanism that slows rapid melt-all that fresh cold water from large quantities of recently melted ice!

Perhaps somebody who is more studied than myself, a guy who works hard and gets dirty and sees the beauty of changing seasons in the sea ice and needs something larger than myself to wonder about can chime in.

[jdallen]

Tommy's gap is getting a stuffing of myi fresh from the Canadian Archipelago, massive cracking west of Ellsmere over the last couple days threatens to open passages straight through north to south.

Tommy-as a noob to posting here and a blue collar guy-i build elevators for a living-it seems to me that you might be missing a couple things about fresh water in the arctic. 

What I see is the melting sea ice and snow from greenland creates fresher, lighter water.  I agree with you there.

However, there is a difference between that and river water and that difference is temperature.  River water melts ice because it's warm, not because it's fresh.

Cold fresh water from greenland and melting ice tends to sit on top of the warmer denser saltier water and interesting things happen-one of them is that it is easily frozen come winter because it is fresh.  The other is that it prevents the warmer saltier water below from contacting the ice.  Perhaps this is a mechanism that slows rapid melt-all that fresh cold water from large quantities of recently melted ice!

Perhaps somebody who is more studied than myself, a guy who works hard and gets dirty and sees the beauty of changing seasons in the sea ice and needs something larger than myself to wonder about can chime in.

"Fresh" is a relative statement rather than absolute.  Consider:

http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/hycomARC/navo/arcticsssnowcast.gif

Water where there has been melt is still quite salty.  Consider also haloclines (ITP 70 provided as an example)

http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=125517

Lower salt content does aid in the refreeze, as that increases the freezing temperature by a few tenths of a degree.

I fear the aid given by fresh water is very limited; it can still remain liquid well below the melting point of the ice itself - which if MYI, will be very fresh indeed, and contain only trace amounts of salt.  I will add, the act of *diluting* sea water is endothermic, much in the way creating brine worked to cool old-fashioned hand driven ice cream makers.  The relative energy taken up is small relative to that required for the phase change but may be part of what helps maintain the haloclines and reduce vertical mixing (aside from gravity).

The heat already in the water is what will continue to do the heavy lifting; north of 80, the contribution from insolation will start to drop rapidly in about a week.  Moisture and heat from further south will help some, but mostly by way of capping heat in the water rather than letting it escape into the upper atmosphere. 

If anything, the open pack and small moderately vigorous storms portend to me more transport of heat from depth, and mixing at the surface.  In the Beaufort and Chukchi where ice is being blown back over water heated to as much as 10C, that will wreak havoc (as has already been tracked...) with the still surviving MYI.

I agree reaching 2012 is becoming very remote - I'd put it at less than 1% now - but the probability reaching 2011 or even 2007 is still very high - I'd put it still at better than 50%.  The predicted weather and heat already present is in large part what I base my thinking on.

[Lord M Vader]

First, I concur with those who say that 2012 is out of bound.

BUT, and yes, there is a BIG but this year as we now have two interesting jokers in the game:

1) WAC which is currently doing its best to destroy the fragmented ice in Beaufort Sea.

and

2) HP dome over Barents, Kara and Laptev Sea. Sunny skies over the thinnest ice in the Arctic basin. According to the DMI thickness graph the majority of the ice there is thin, 0,25-1,5 m. The question is how big impact this HP will have on the ice there? The sun is still strong enough to make a huge damage. Of course, the melting rate will decrease quickly now as the sun is losing its impacts every day now and on. Another factor to take in account for is the very warm water south of Svaalbard and Frans Josefs land but as northeasterly winds will dominate they should not have any big impact.

DMI graph: http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icethickness/images/FullSize_CICE_combine_thick_SM_EN_20150729.png

All in all, 2012 is out of bound but with the right conditions 2007 and/or 2011 may be passed. It would then require a sea ice loss in August for more than a 2 Mn km². Only 2012 managed to do that from what I can see (according to IJIS). The most realistic is that we'll see a loss of roughly 1,5-1,7 Mn km² and another 0,2-0,5 Mn loss in September. That would bring us down to about 4,8 Mn km². While this is not lower than 2011 and 2007, the set up for melt season 2016 is more important as the MYI have been severly damaged this year.

Best, LMV

[Neven]

I've just posted the latest 2015 ASI update on the ASIB, echoing a lot of the great discussion going on here.

[Nick_Naylor]

In spite of the 'hiatus' in area/extent losses the last few days, DMI continues to show impressive volume loss rates.

[Peter Ellis]

Cold fresh water from greenland and melting ice tends to sit on top of the warmer denser saltier water and interesting things happen-one of them is that it is easily frozen come winter because it is fresh.  The other is that it prevents the warmer saltier water below from contacting the ice.  Perhaps this is a mechanism that slows rapid melt-all that fresh cold water from large quantities of recently melted ice!

Exactly so - this is believed to be one reason why Antarctic sea ice has been increasing in recent years.  Increased fresh runoff water from melting of the ice cap itself has paradoxically been protecting and increasing the surrounding sea ice  fringe.

[12Patrick]

Look at the wind pattern where the 5mtr. ice is on the 2nd and 3rd... It is an offshore wind pattern pushing the ice further offshore with lots of upwelling of warmer water below between the ice and land... This will only melt the ice much faster... http://earth.nullschool.net/#2015/08/03/1500Z/wind/isobaric/250hPa/overlay=mean_sea_level_pressure/orthographic=-90.00,90.00,450

[Tommy]

Nick_Naylor
In spite of the 'hiatus' in area/extent losses the last few days, DMI continues to show impressive volume loss rates.

Yes. Extent is not worth looking at. I think the the only thing worth looking at are volume and ice thickness. Once ALL the ice is gone (god forbid) , there could quite possibly be a very wide area of thin ice appear from time to time in early Spring, early winter, and I suppose it could theoretically cover a very wide area. Fox News will jump on on that news (in between their oxycontin hits) and shout that there is no global warming!

[12Patrick]

Much worse than last year at this time for the Arctic Basin , Chukchi Sea , East Siberian Sea and the  Kara Sea ,  .. , , , .

[Nick_Naylor]

Extent is not worth looking at. I think the the only thing worth looking at are volume and ice thickness.

One problem with thickness and volume data is that good near-real-time data just isn't available.
We don't have a lot of confidence in the DMI modeled data, and we'll soon have similar data from PIOMAS, which may show a very different picture. With imperfect data, we need to consider all the data sources and attempt to reconcile them if we want to avoid emulating Fox.

Another thing to keep in mind is that extent and area do matter quite a lot, since those metrics more directly reflect the ice pack's ability to perform its historic role in regulating the arctic's temperature, halocline, and weather regimes at a point in time.

You could think of the volume as one of the 'vital signs' of the pack's ability to maintain it's extent and area.

[Tommy]

stackmaster
..as a noob to posting here and a blue collar guy-i build elevators for a living-it seems to me that you might be missing a couple things about fresh water in the arctic. 
What I see is the melting sea ice and snow from greenland creates fresher, lighter water.  I agree with you there.
However, there is a difference between that and river water and that difference is temperature.  River water melts ice because it's warm, not because it's fresh.

I think the jury is still out on this one. I doubt anyone can say with certainty.
And I agree, I was one of the first people I ever heard say that the extra ice area recently seen in Antarctica (that many conservatives were parading as proof there was no global warming ) that, in fact, it is evidence OF of global warming. The ice likely melts off the Antarctic and spreads out across the surface, and in a cold snap will freeze quickly, because fresh water freezes at a higher temperature than salt water (but fresh water on the surface, when the weather is ABOVE freezing, melts ice, especially if there is alien particulate matter in the ice.)

However, in the case of Greenland, it could be different from the Antarctic.
Mad scientists want to seed the ocean with iron (and the sky with chemicals). Iron could increase algae blooms, create a huge carbon sink, since they absorb CO2, die, and take it to the bottom of the ocean -- is the theory:
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/algae-accelerate-arctic-warming-18929

However, algae also is implicated in more heat in the oceans:
"“More heat is trapped in the upper layers of the ocean, where it can be easily released back into the atmosphere,” Park said...
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/algae-accelerate-arctic-warming-18929

And to wrap those points together... iron is one of the major particulate deposits in Greenland ice. Ok, it may not float to the Arctic ice pack, but it could warm the waters all around the ice-pack:
"Measurements of the amount of available iron in meltwater from the Greenland ice sheet shows that extensive melting of the ice sheet might add an amount of iron to the Atlantic Ocean equivalent to that added by airborne dust."
http://www.whoi.edu/news-release/Iron_Glaciers

[plinius]

One problem with thickness and volume data is that good near-real-time data just isn't available.
We don't have a lot of confidence in the DMI modeled data, and we'll soon have similar data from PIOMAS, which may show a very different picture. With imperfect data, we need to consider all the data sources and attempt to reconcile them if we want to avoid emulating Fox.
Another thing to keep in mind is that extent and area do matter quite a lot, since those metrics more directly reflect the ice pack's ability to perform its historic role in regulating the arctic's temperature, halocline, and weather regimes at a point in time.
You could think of the volume as one of the 'vital signs' of the pack's ability to maintain it's extent and area.

Well, I would claim that the issue with missing verification is partly due to one central piece of statistics not being published: Models like PIOMAS will produce residuals in the predicted ice coverage on the rim that vitally depend on the model's thickness calculation. These residuals are quite straight-forwardly measured and verified with the usual satellite measurements. Yet, they are not shown anywhere.

[Tommy]

Nick_Naylor
One problem with thickness and volume data is that good near-real-time data just isn't available.
We don't have a lot of confidence in the DMI modeled data, and we'll soon have similar data from PIOMAS, which may show a very different picture. With imperfect data, we need to consider all the data sources and attempt to reconcile them if we want to avoid emulating Fox.

Very true. But the majority of recent studies on all things climate-change, have shown a 'worse-than-predicted-scenario' (that may not even show up in initial daily/monthly measuring, but will show up in more in-depth research 6 months from now). Therefore, if one took all the studies on different aspects of climate-change in the last 10 years say, and did a content analysis, I predict that one over-riding theme would be that scientists consistently are shocked that the negative effects of climate change are happening faster than they previously predicted. My fear is that such a study would produce an exponential line. That is, it would show that the understanding of the seriousness of problems, gets exponentially worse over time. (I don't want to be depressing about climate, but studies show artists do have more gray matter, better critical-thinking, broader comprehension, so we see things before they happen )
Such a content-analysis will, I fear, produce proof that climate-science periodically demonstrated most things are worse than was previously predicted.
So, based on this scenario, unfortunately, the lower levels being stated are likely closer to reality.
Therefore, I have to conclude, based on good logic, sound reasoning, and objective observation, that there is a high statistical chance that volume and thickness are worse than being predicted right now.

Another thing to keep in mind is that extent and area do matter quite a lot, since those metrics more directly reflect the ice pack's ability to perform its historic role in regulating the arctic's temperature, halocline, and weather regimes at a point in time.

I understand. But one thing people in this discussion have failed to understand about alot of what I have said (eg. Pacific Blob warming surface Arctic), is that those previous conditions upon which the models are based ... have changed. Even since 2012. For example, the differential between Pacific, Arctic, and Antarctic, has probably lessened since then, based on the data, thus ocean currents will have changed, probably weakened. Ice thickness has probably lessened in the last few years (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/mar/05/arctic-sea-ice-is-getting-thinner-faster-than-expected)
And, taking all this into account, where water circulation has weakened, there is a 90% chance that the halocine, etc. have weakened over  time.

I seriously hope I am wrong about all of this, and the other posts I made.
It is very depressing for an artist, because studies show that we have more empathy.
And it is very depressing for me.

[SMN444]

Maybe someone else has already posted this and I missed it but it appears that Obouy #9 is floating free.

[Andreas T]

There's the What the Buoys are telling thread which is good for keeping recent developments in one place and easy to find

[seaicesailor]

Tommy
It is very depressing for an artist, because studies show that we have more empathy.
And it is very depressing for me.

WTF!
You are cluttering this thread, with idiotic comments like this

[Tommy]

seaicesailor
Tommy
It is very depressing for an artist, because studies show that we have more empathy.
And it is very depressing for me.

WTF!
You are cluttering this thread, with idiotic comments like this

Wow, a science denier.
Go back and read my posts, all with references to studies. Stop denying science. OBVIOUSLY that was just tiny part of that post, and you are just using it to try to create a straw-man argument.
Posting every post, of which 90% of each post is about the Arctic, is not "cluttering".

The fact is that I HAVE to explain things to you lot, in detail, because scientists have poor comprehension overall as shown in published studies (see above), and worse, wannabee sceintists tend to nit-pick on one little thing to try to discredit a whole post or a person ... which you just did, instead of dealing with the over-whelming Arctic-related content of the post.
Quite frankly it is disgusting, and you should apologize for trying to nit-pick to try to discredit everything else I said --- which have studies attached to them, unlike you.
You can't handle the facts I posted, that's WHY you just said what you did, you want to skirt around it all, and make yourself look intelligent. It's not working for you.
Now, go back and read all my posts, and try to deal with facts, not your anger and emotions.
Thanks
Tommy

[Tommy]

Addendum.
I have to post this because some scientists and many wannabee scientists are very incapable of reason, and simply attack, trying to use straw-man arguments.
So, for that reason, I am forced to say more than the average person.You force me into that. Do not delete any of my posts please, They are based in reason. This is the only one not about the Arctic, but I was forced into this. Please do not delete it.
If anyone thinks I am anti-science because I think many scientists can't see the big picture in life, due to limited education (linear thinking), I am a WAY WAY bigger defender of science than most of you are.
Here is me, sticking it to Mike Huckabee, (a very powerful, influential anti-science fundamentalist christian in America, and climate-change denying cheer-leader ) -- SMACK. Right in the face, when he was  Presidential candidate in 2010. (If you are American, you know who Mike Huckabee is)
At about 41 minutes 45 seconds (you can just click on the gray-red bar to that part), you can hear me nail Mike Huckabee like he has never been whacked before. It is like a huge smackdown of his anti-science agenda, that he has never experienced before, and he is noticeably shaken by it. And then he just lies in his answer, as more recent statements have shown.
I am one of the BIGGEST defender of science here:
http://onpoint.wbur.org/2010/08/11/politics-punditry-with-mike-huckabee

That program goes out nationally in the USA, and has a HUGE audience.
Let me know when any of you have defended science, and defended climate-science as I did in that clip, in front of a massive national audience.

I encourage people to read my posts more carefully. If you don't have time, ignore them, but don't just claim I am clutterling the thread, when 90% of what I say in those posts have to do with PUBLISHED SCIENCE ABOUT THE ARCTIC, in response to people's comments about the Arctic, or questions.... if you took the time to read them, instead of taking tiny aspects out of context, and re-posting them.

Tommy

[plinius]

Tommy, how old are you?

[Tommy]

53.
You?

[seaicesailor]

What the hell is going on?

[Tommy]

PS. There is a very strong chance that I will be kayaking on the Beaufort next July, and taking video of the ice, and try to get to some of that "Tommy's Gap", so stay tuned.
Tommy

[weatherdude88]

<lots of snipping by Neven>

Let's get back to logic and most importantly back on topic.

<I'm letting the only useful remark stand. Because the other 7 of your 8 comments so far have been relatively mild, I won't ban you, weatherdude88, but I don't want any more climate risk denial on this forum, okay? Thanks, N.>

[Tommy]

The IPCC lowered the range of climate sensitivity from 2 -4.5 C down to 1.5-4.5 C in their last assessment. Over 95 percent of climate models have overestimated the warming trend since 1979. It has become increasingly clear that the climate is less sensitive then originally projected.
-- weatherdude88

Oh good. Thanks.
That's reassuring.
Tommy.

[plinius]

I think, weatherdude, you should stop bullshitting around about things that you do not understand. Climate models (CMIP5) with updated forcings (yes, unheard of, but somehow people failed to predict volcanic eruptions...) are fully in line with the observations (and do _NOT_ overpredict temperature rise), and they do have ECS between 2.1 and 4.5K.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2012GL051607/full

Apart from that:
Combining this paper:
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v7/n9/abs/ngeo2228.html

with this one:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL064888/abstract

I suppose that one can call your unfunded blunder about low climate sensitivity in the 1.5 region pretty optimistic, given that the transient response is already above 1.8K.
Maybe some divine intervention lowers the climate sensitivity below the transient response?