Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Author Topic: The 2016 melting season  (Read 1553220 times)

werther

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 727
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 11
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The 2016 melting season
« Reply #150 on: March 30, 2016, 10:40:25 PM »
To illustrate the background this winter has produced as a basis for the coming melting season, I’ve calculated the mean temp anomaly for the period 1 October – 25 March based on this CAD drawing:



For the Arctic Ocean the calculation added up to a +4.2 dC anomaly.
That might not sound as spectacular compared to the data that have been circling around the Blog and Forum during the last few months.
But I did this FI at the end of ’13-’14, which produced IIRC  a mean between +1 and +2 (which was pretty awesome in those days).

My friends, +4.2 over such a large area and during six months is terrifying… This contributed a lot to the escalating warming reported by GISTEMP.

I’ll post a comparison to ’13-’14 later.

jdallen

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3024
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 190
  • Likes Given: 172
Re: The 2016 melting season
« Reply #151 on: March 31, 2016, 12:06:36 AM »
To illustrate the background this winter has produced as a basis for the coming melting season, I’ve calculated the mean temp anomaly for the period 1 October – 25 March based on this CAD drawing:



For the Arctic Ocean the calculation added up to a +4.2 dC anomaly.
That might not sound as spectacular compared to the data that have been circling around the Blog and Forum during the last few months.
But I did this FI at the end of ’13-’14, which produced IIRC  a mean between +1 and +2 (which was pretty awesome in those days).

My friends, +4.2 over such a large area and during six months is terrifying… This contributed a lot to the escalating warming reported by GISTEMP.

I’ll post a comparison to ’13-’14 later.
Terrifying indeed. 4.3+ is bad enough, but it is even worse when you look at how that heat was distributed.  The worst anomalies 9C+, are over the the most critical ice.
This space for Rent.

Michael Hauber

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 841
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 46
  • Likes Given: 12
Re: The 2016 melting season
« Reply #152 on: March 31, 2016, 01:31:15 AM »
Terrifying indeed. 4.3+ is bad enough, but it is even worse when you look at how that heat was distributed.  The worst anomalies 9C+, are over the the most critical ice.

I think the opposite.  The ice on the Atlantic side is the least critical, as it tends to be transported out of the Arctic.  We also see very small differences between summer and winter in ice edge in this area.  (unless current conditions cause unprecedented substantial melt on this side of the Arctic)  Warm Atlantic currents melt ice a long way north in this area, and once the warm current is left behind we are in the coldest part of the Arctic and it is very difficult to melt more ice. 

The most critical ice in my opinion is the Laptev and Siberian and Beaufort sectors.  Laptev and Beaufort produces early open water and start the summer albedo feedback process.  All sectors show significant year to year variation in annual minimum, with the Siberian sector being important in my opinion as 2007 and 2012 were the only years in which the thicker tongue of ice that often forms towards Siberia melted out completely.  Laptev and beaufort have seen the least warm temperatures, and some moderate temperatures have extended into Siberian  area, but not nearly as warm as some other regions.  However wind transport has been transporting quite a lot of ice from Beaufort towards Siberia, so I think the Beaufort sector is a bit worse off than the temperature maps suggest, and the Siberian sector better off.  The warmer area towards the core of the Beaufort gyre could be important - although this area is unlikely to completely melt out, it will still probably partially melt out into floes that melt around the edges and so allow the ice edge to retreat faster whenever we are in a compaction regime.
Climate change:  Prepare for the worst, hope for the best, expect the middle.

jdallen

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3024
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 190
  • Likes Given: 172
Re: The 2016 melting season
« Reply #153 on: March 31, 2016, 01:37:44 AM »
Terrifying indeed. 4.3+ is bad enough, but it is even worse when you look at how that heat was distributed.  The worst anomalies 9C+, are over the the most critical ice.

I think the opposite.  The ice on the Atlantic side is the least critical...
<snippage>
I will ruminate on that.  Others please chime in.
This space for Rent.

Adam Ash

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 306
    • View Profile
    • The 100 metre line
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 20
Re: The 2016 melting season
« Reply #154 on: March 31, 2016, 04:29:55 AM »
The heat is hitting the Beaufort.  Does anybody know what the rate of rotation of the Beaufort Gyre is?  Could that hard-hit portion of the Beaufort ice get to Siberia before the next freezing season?

Skier

  • New ice
  • Posts: 11
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The 2016 melting season
« Reply #155 on: March 31, 2016, 07:13:50 AM »
That is insane.




But how do we explain that at day 88, the highest artic sea ice extent of the year was reached at 12.92136 million km2?  To maintain credibility we need to follow the facts and allow them to tell the story.

jdallen

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3024
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 190
  • Likes Given: 172
Re: The 2016 melting season
« Reply #156 on: March 31, 2016, 07:26:03 AM »
That is insane.




But how do we explain that at day 88, the highest artic sea ice extent of the year was reached at 12.92136 million km2?  To maintain credibility we need to follow the facts and allow them to tell the story.
The timing really isn't particularly relevant, Skier, late or early.  +10C is still below freezing, and temperatures will remain cold enough to refreeze leads for weeks to come.

What is relevant and affected by those temperatures is...

* Ice Strength
* Ice thickness/volume
* Net ocean heat content
* Snow cover (on land, which will increase drainage outflow into the Arctic from watersheds, on
                     sea ice, to the extent that it reduced thickening or increases albedo)
* Total sea ice cover at max (which was over 1,000,000 KM2 *lower* than 2012's)

The consensus is, that how these have changed will accelerate the start of the melt season.  How much, is not yet certain.  Those are the facts, and they are telling the story.
This space for Rent.

Skier

  • New ice
  • Posts: 11
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The 2016 melting season
« Reply #157 on: March 31, 2016, 07:31:37 AM »
That is insane.




But how do we explain that at day 88, the highest artic sea ice extent of the year was reached at 12.92136 million km2?  To maintain credibility we need to follow the facts and allow them to tell the story.
The timing really isn't particularly relevant, Skier, late or early.  +10C is still below freezing, and temperatures will remain cold enough to refreeze leads for weeks to come.

What is relevant and affected by those temperatures is...

* Ice Strength
* Ice thickness/volume
* Net ocean heat content
* Snow cover (on land, which will increase drainage outflow into the Arctic from watersheds, on
                     sea ice, to the extent that it reduced thickening or increases albedo)
* Total sea ice cover at max (which was over 1,000,000 KM2 *lower* than 2012's)

The consensus is, that how these have changed will accelerate the start of the melt season.  How much, is not yet certain.  Those are the facts, and they are telling the story.

Fair enough.  But I would not predict 2016 will see record low sea ice.  In fact, I predict it will be fairly average this year.  Time will tell.

jdallen

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3024
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 190
  • Likes Given: 172
Re: The 2016 melting season
« Reply #158 on: March 31, 2016, 07:34:56 AM »
Fair enough.  But I would not predict 2016 will see record low sea ice.  In fact, I predict it will be fairly average this year.  Time will tell.

Rather than just assert, I would suggest you present your evidence and argue your theory.  I'm sure people would be willing to evaluate it, and we all might learn something.
This space for Rent.

Skier

  • New ice
  • Posts: 11
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The 2016 melting season
« Reply #159 on: March 31, 2016, 07:50:06 AM »
Fair enough.  But I would not predict 2016 will see record low sea ice.  In fact, I predict it will be fairly average this year.  Time will tell.

Rather than just assert, I would suggest you present your evidence and argue your theory.  I'm sure people would be willing to evaluate it, and we all might learn something.

Alright.  Looking at the arctic sea ice extent graph you'll notice that notwithstanding the fact that 2016 had the lowest high sea ice extent ever, it is still increasing later in the season than almost any previous year going back to 1979.  So I am looking at the slope which, while not steep is still positive, while almost every previous year had a negative slope by now.  Second, you mention high snow packs leading to high snow melt.  The enormous amount of heat energy required to melt snow will have a net cooling effect on the surrounding air, reducing the tendency of ice to melt this summer.  Late snows from El Nino will continue to increase snow pack leading to increased cooling due to latent heat of fusion of all that snow.

S.Pansa

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 152
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 18
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: The 2016 melting season
« Reply #160 on: March 31, 2016, 07:59:19 AM »
You are talking about this slope here? Upwards indeed. Let's stick wiht the facts, shall we?

High snow packs?

Skier

  • New ice
  • Posts: 11
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The 2016 melting season
« Reply #161 on: March 31, 2016, 08:00:05 AM »
Alright.  Looking at the arctic sea ice extent graph you'll notice that notwithstanding the fact that 2016 had the lowest high sea ice extent ever, it is still increasing later in the season than almost any previous year going back to 1979.  So I am looking at the slope which, while not steep is still positive, while almost every previous year had a negative slope by now.  Second, you mention high snow packs leading to high snow melt.  The enormous amount of heat energy required to melt snow will have a net cooling effect on the surrounding air, reducing the tendency of ice to melt this summer.  Late snows from El Nino will continue to increase snow pack leading to increased cooling due to latent heat of fusion of all that snow.
[/quote]

And furthermore, the aerosols emitted by the recent Alaska volcanic eruption will provide a cooling effect that, while not huge, can depress temperature, leading to a feedback loop of sorts that, together with increased snow melt, will cause a further drop in temperature.  In areas such as the Great Basin when there is no wind to stir up the air, melting snow, coupled with cool air, causes heat inversion, which causes unusually cooler air near the ground surface that can last weeks.  A drop in a few degrees can greatly raise relative humidity, creating greater cloud formation, sun reflection, and temperature drop. 

My point isn't that this must happen.  Only that it can happen and no one can predict it with certainty.  Again, there is no much uncertainty in predicting ice cap coverage that my guess is as good as yours.

Skier

  • New ice
  • Posts: 11
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The 2016 melting season
« Reply #162 on: March 31, 2016, 08:09:30 AM »
You are talking about this slope here? Upwards indeed. Let's stick wiht the facts, shall we?

High snow packs?

I was merely referring JLadden's post about melting snow pushing sea ice out to sea.  If in fact snow pack is low, then the effect he references will be smaller than normal.

Second, your graph showing a downward slope is inconsistent with Cryosphere Today, which shows the 2016 high being reached March 30 and an upward slope.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/arctic.sea.ice.interactive.html

S.Pansa

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 152
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 18
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: The 2016 melting season
« Reply #163 on: March 31, 2016, 08:17:35 AM »
Second, your graph showing a downward slope is inconsistent with Cryosphere Today, which shows the 2016 high being reached March 30 and an upward slope.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/arctic.sea.ice.interactive.html
[/quote]

Not really. The one I showed is sea ice extent from IJIS (JAXA or whatever it is called these days), the one you refere to is Sea Ice Area. And from Wipneus (see here) numbers we know that come thursday and friday - hence today and tomorrow - SIA will trop 124 and 137km^2 respektively. So, all of a sudden, the slope is steep down here as well. My conclusion: The slope doesn't tell us much. La tendenza è mobile. ;D
But whatever. Staying with the facts - as you have told others to do - should apply for all of us, dont' you think?

« Last Edit: March 31, 2016, 08:28:39 AM by S.Pansa »

Skier

  • New ice
  • Posts: 11
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The 2016 melting season
« Reply #164 on: March 31, 2016, 08:33:34 AM »
Second, your graph showing a downward slope is inconsistent with Cryosphere Today, which shows the 2016 high being reached March 30 and an upward slope.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/arctic.sea.ice.interactive.html

Not really. The one I showed is sea ice extent from IJIS (JAXA or whatever it is called these days), the one you refere to is Sea Ice Area. And from Wipneus (see here) numbers we know that come thursday and friday - hence today and tomorrow - SIA will trop 124 and 137km^2 respektively. So, all of a sudden, the slope is steep down here as well. My conclusion: The slope doesn't tell us much. La tendenza è mobile. ;D
But whatever. Staying with the facts - as you have told others to do - should apply for all of us, dont' you think?
[/quote]

According to NOAA's chart, at March 23, prior to last week's sharp increase in total sea ice area, we were right at the 10 year average and now likely exceeds the average.  In addition the amount of 2016 sea ice was only 3% less than the 1980-2010 average for that day and the 10 year max for that day.  We are not talking about a cataclysmic drop in sea ice. 

S.Pansa

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 152
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 18
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: The 2016 melting season
« Reply #165 on: March 31, 2016, 09:04:47 AM »
Second, your graph showing a downward slope is inconsistent with Cryosphere Today, which shows the 2016 high being reached March 30 and an upward slope.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/arctic.sea.ice.interactive.html

Not really. The one I showed is sea ice extent from IJIS (JAXA or whatever it is called these days), the one you refere to is Sea Ice Area. And from Wipneus (see here) numbers we know that come thursday and friday - hence today and tomorrow - SIA will trop 124 and 137km^2 respektively. So, all of a sudden, the slope is steep down here as well. My conclusion: The slope doesn't tell us much. La tendenza è mobile. ;D
But whatever. Staying with the facts - as you have told others to do - should apply for all of us, dont' you think?

According to NOAA's chart, at March 23, prior to last week's sharp increase in total sea ice area, we were right at the 10 year average and now likely exceeds the average.  In addition the amount of 2016 sea ice was only 3% less than the 1980-2010 average for that day and the 10 year max for that day.  We are not talking about a cataclysmic drop in sea ice.
[/quote]

Ah, now you have changed to switching goal-posts and building strawman. Perfect! What a surprise ...
Who has mentioned a cataclysmic drop in sea ice here? And why are we suddenly talking about total Ice Coverage of the Northern Hemisphere and not about Arctic Sea Ice anymore?"

Because the IMS numbers show:
 
Quote
... the entire area of ice covered water bodies over the entire Northern Hemisphere and are calculated in Lambert Azimuthal Equal Area Projection with a WGS84 Datum. The daily total ice extents are calculated from a 3-day running mean to eliminate daily variability and provide a clear trend line.


But as we are changing the subject to our likings and are happily cherry picking now.
Minimum Artic Sea Ice Volume in September 2016 was about 70% below the value of 1979.

PS: But this has gone really off topic now. So back to the 2016 melting season.
« Last Edit: March 31, 2016, 09:13:02 AM by S.Pansa »

Frivolousz21

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1507
  • Live in Belleville, IL..15 miles SE of St. Louis.
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 140
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: The 2016 melting season
« Reply #166 on: March 31, 2016, 09:12:12 AM »
The only sure thing is you are trolling us.

We all know the melt season will be determined by weather.

But no one is posting bs. The ice is clearly vulnerable at modern unprecedented levels.   

Get ready


I got a nickname for all my guns
a Desert Eagle that I call Big Pun
a two shot that I call Tupac
and a dirty pistol that love to crew hop
my TEC 9 Imma call T-Pain
my 3-8 snub Imma call Lil Wayne
machine gun named Missy so loud
it go e-e-e-e-ow e-e-e-e-e-e-blaow

meddoc

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 257
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The 2016 melting season
« Reply #167 on: March 31, 2016, 09:16:30 AM »
I've played a little with NSIDC graphs.
Given that, the winter has been far warmer than that of 2011- 12 and
a simple repeat of the melt season 2012 would take us down to:

jdallen

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3024
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 190
  • Likes Given: 172
Re: The 2016 melting season
« Reply #168 on: March 31, 2016, 09:58:26 AM »
Ok, a while back I did some number crunching and posted it elsewhere.  I worked up numbers for NSIDC SIA and IJIS SIE, comparing annual minimum/maximums since 2003 or so.  (I've not yet crunched things down for SIA all the way back to 1980, but give it some time and it will appear.)

From this I derived what I refer to as "The Weather" - the average annual loss during those years, and steps of -2, -1, +1 and +2 Standard deviations.  This pretty much captures the variation of "weather" on the melt season, establishing within general bounds, how much energy gets transferred during a melt season into the ice, and also establishes confidence intervals pegging where we can generally expect the end of the season state to fall between.  So, here it is:

StepExpected Loss at StepApprox End of Season based on 2016 Max
-2 melt loss82435595656411
-1 melt loss89800714919929
Average Loss97165824183418
+1 SD Loss104530943446906
+2 SD Loss111896062710394
Approx. 2012 Loss115320002368000

Note that the +1SD loss puts us near 2012.  The +2 and same loss as 2012 put us well under 2012's result. An *average* loss puts us in the ball park with 2007, 2011 and 2015.

So, what the weather of the last few years tells us, combined with the El Nino year we are still experiencing, is don't expect anything resembling a recovery in 2016.

In fact, be prepared for a swan dive that blows us past 2012's numbers.

Now, my sample is rather small.  However, the losses, save 2012's for the last 5 years are almost dead-on average - right around 9.7/9.8 Million KM2 lost during the melt season - so I have fairly high confidence we'll hit the "average" numbers.  Considering the weakened state of the ice, the excess heat left over from not just a warm but positively "Hot" winter, the question in my mind is how far above that average the melt is going to run.  As I said, if we line up with 2012 conditions, we enter new and frightening territory.

Late season maximums really don't provide any comfort here.  In fact considering 2012's, they are rather worrying.

[Edit:  Since 2007, no year has had an annual loss of less than 9.56 million KM2 (2014).]
« Last Edit: March 31, 2016, 10:09:21 AM by jdallen »
This space for Rent.

Peter Ellis

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 617
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 35
  • Likes Given: 11
Re: The 2016 melting season
« Reply #169 on: March 31, 2016, 12:06:44 PM »
Arguments over the timing of the winter maximum are just the "plateau hypothesis" in disguise - since a longer flatter winter plateau has a higher chance that random fluctuations will cause an unusually early or late maximum.

The "plateau hypothesis" is itself vacuous because there are two ways to convert a single mid-winter peak into a longer flatter winter plateau.  (a) raise the "shoulders" of the curve - i.e. the ice forms earlier and starts to melt later.  (b) cut off the "head" of the curve - i.e. a failure of ice formation at the coldest part of the year.

We can all handwave about these till the Sun turns into a red giant, at which point we will have a nice flat plateau of zero ice and indeed zero rock.

The bald fact is that after detrending, there is no correlation between the winter maximum and the summer minimum.  Everything beyond that is numerology.

Juan C. García

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1532
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 546
  • Likes Given: 517
Re: The 2016 melting season
« Reply #170 on: March 31, 2016, 01:23:08 PM »
The bald fact is that after detrending, there is no correlation between the winter maximum and the summer minimum.  Everything beyond that is numerology.

I see a correlation between the winter minimum and the summer minimum. The low SIE years in winter had been 2005, 2006, 2007, 2011, 2015 and 2016.
The ASI melt crisis starts clearly in 2005. You can argue that other years -like 2002- were bad, but the tendency to lose ice on an accelerated speed, I believe it started at 2005.
2006 was a bad year and it had the possibility of break 2005 record on september. At the end it didn't happen, but it was bad enough to be noticed by NSIDC:

Quote
The relatively cool and stormy conditions that characterized August (see reports below) may have averted a repeat of the extreme ice losses of 2005.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2006/10/
   

Besides 2012, the worst years have been 2007, 2011 and 2015, all with low winter max.
So the only year that had a huge winter max and a very low summer minimum was 2012. All the other years that had a low winter record, had a significant summer minimum. Edit: So, looking at the years with september minimum, only 2012 had a huge winter max and a very low summer minimum. But all the years that had a low winter max, had a significant summer minimum.

Of course, we will have to wait to see what will happen in 2016, but from my point of view, the start of 2016 is really a bad sign, not to be underestimated.
« Last Edit: March 31, 2016, 02:17:29 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.

ruffed

  • New ice
  • Posts: 8
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 31
Re: The 2016 melting season
« Reply #171 on: March 31, 2016, 01:38:15 PM »
Postulations of disaster I see from all. I have just returned from the Seychelles. Bird Island is in real observable  danger of dissappearing due to rising sea leveles

DavidR

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 731
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 30
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: The 2016 melting season
« Reply #172 on: March 31, 2016, 02:44:10 PM »
Arguments over the timing of the winter maximum are just the "plateau hypothesis" in disguise - since a longer flatter winter plateau has a higher chance that random fluctuations will cause an unusually early or late maximum.

The "plateau hypothesis" is itself vacuous because there are two ways to convert a single mid-winter peak into a longer flatter winter plateau.  (a) raise the "shoulders" of the curve - i.e. the ice forms earlier and starts to melt later.  (b) cut off the "head" of the curve - i.e. a failure of ice formation at the coldest part of the year.

We can all handwave about these till the Sun turns into a red giant, at which point we will have a nice flat plateau of zero ice and indeed zero rock.

The bald fact is that after detrending, there is no correlation between the winter maximum and the summer minimum.  Everything beyond that is numerology.
Without wishing to unnecessarily defend my Plateau Hypothesis, it was based on the observation that since 1998 the duration of the plateau has had an increasingly positive correlation with the loss of area or extent compared to the slightly negative relationship  prior to 1998. This was based on 15 year trend values. The timing of the maximum has nothing to do  with it. 

Scientifically the period of observation is very short and it is not a highly accurate predictive tool  but it may be one thing,  amongst many,  that assists in providing a more accurate estimate of the final extent  and area. Once we are certain that the "plateau" is over for this year  I  will produce some predictions for this year.
Toto, I've a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore

ghoti

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 766
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 12
  • Likes Given: 15
Re: The 2016 melting season
« Reply #173 on: March 31, 2016, 04:08:54 PM »
As I read this thread I found myself thinking "This is the kind of analysis Tamino might do". After a quick search I didn't find a blog entry on it but it doesn't mean he didn't do it.

http://blogs.planet3.org/author/tamino/

I wonder if we could interest him in adding to the discussion.

jdallen

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3024
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 190
  • Likes Given: 172
Re: The 2016 melting season
« Reply #174 on: March 31, 2016, 05:52:50 PM »
Arguments over the timing of the winter maximum are just the "plateau hypothesis" in disguise - since a longer flatter winter plateau has a higher chance that random fluctuations will cause an unusually early or late maximum.

The "plateau hypothesis" is itself vacuous because there are two ways to convert a single mid-winter peak into a longer flatter winter plateau.  (a) raise the "shoulders" of the curve - i.e. the ice forms earlier and starts to melt later.  (b) cut off the "head" of the curve - i.e. a failure of ice formation at the coldest part of the year.

We can all handwave about these till the Sun turns into a red giant, at which point we will have a nice flat plateau of zero ice and indeed zero rock.

The bald fact is that after detrending, there is no correlation between the winter maximum and the summer minimum.  Everything beyond that is numerology.
Without wishing to unnecessarily defend my Plateau Hypothesis, it was based on the observation that since 1998 the duration of the plateau has had an increasingly positive correlation with the loss of area or extent compared to the slightly negative relationship  prior to 1998. This was based on 15 year trend values. The timing of the maximum has nothing to do  with it. 

Scientifically the period of observation is very short and it is not a highly accurate predictive tool  but it may be one thing,  amongst many,  that assists in providing a more accurate estimate of the final extent  and area. Once we are certain that the "plateau" is over for this year  I  will produce some predictions for this year.
I think part of what Peter is objecting to, and what I think I understand, is the "Plateau" is a signal, not a cause, and the causes for actual value reached at maximum or minimum are independent of it.  It's in the same realm as what I just posted about annual average losses; the annual loss from max to minimum and gain back at the end to a new maximum are signals, not causes.

When you examine it, it's also pretty clear to me it has a rather limited data set to draw on.

Causes unfortunately are things we don't really yet have comprehensive data for - things like ocean temperature, ice strength, system heat content and temperature, rates of heat flow, interactions between the atmosphere and ocean on a global scale.  We have a ways to go, and until then are mostly tracking trends in gross metrics while looking through a glass darkly.
This space for Rent.

Neven

  • Administrator
  • First-year ice
  • *****
  • Posts: 7209
    • View Profile
    • Arctic Sea Ice Blog
  • Liked: 732
  • Likes Given: 477
Re: The 2016 melting season
« Reply #175 on: March 31, 2016, 10:43:02 PM »
For the sake of transparency, I'd like to announce that I've banned Skier with the accompanying text:

Quote
Skier, it was fun while it lasted, but I don't think your contributions will be a contribution to interesting discussions in a friendly atmosphere. While I was reading your comments too many flags went up because of references to worn-out climate risk denier mythinformation (global sea ice, vikings, etc). Good luck with finding another forum, or maybe try WUWT.

Best,

Neven
Il faut comparer, comparer, comparer, et cultiver notre jardin

DavidR

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 731
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 30
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: The 2016 melting season
« Reply #176 on: March 31, 2016, 10:46:11 PM »
Arguments over the timing of the winter maximum are just the "plateau hypothesis" in disguise - since a longer flatter winter plateau has a higher chance that random fluctuations will cause an unusually early or late maximum.
Without wishing to unnecessarily defend my Plateau Hypothesis
I think part of what Peter is objecting to, and what I think I understand, is the "Plateau" is a signal not a cause, and the causes for actual value reached at maximum or minimum are independent of it.
I  agree it is only a signal and the only question is whether it is a meaningful signal. As there is a seperate thread for this I will post this years analysis on that over the weekend.
Toto, I've a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore

jdallen

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3024
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 190
  • Likes Given: 172
Re: The 2016 melting season
« Reply #177 on: March 31, 2016, 11:43:46 PM »
According to NOAA's chart, at March 23, prior to last week's sharp increase in total sea ice area, we were right at the 10 year average and now likely exceeds the average.  In addition the amount of 2016 sea ice was only 3% less than the 1980-2010 average for that day and the 10 year max for that day.  We are not talking about a cataclysmic drop in sea ice.

I know he's banned, but just to make sure everyone knows why that chart looked the way it does, and was so much higher than the SIE...

"Total IMS Sea and Lake Ice extent coverage calculations are based on all water bodies that have the majority of the surface covered at 4 KM resolution. Total ice coverages are only calculated from March – September of each year to capture the maximum and minimum values for the season. Values represent the entire area of ice covered water bodies over the entire Northern Hemisphere and are calculated in Lambert Azimuthal Equal Area Projection with a WGS84 Datum. The daily total ice extents are calculated from a 3-day running mean to eliminate daily variability and provide a clear trend line."

In short, bait and switch.

http://www.natice.noaa.gov/ims/ims_ice_extent_explanation.html
This space for Rent.

Michael Hauber

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 841
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 46
  • Likes Given: 12
Re: The 2016 melting season
« Reply #178 on: April 01, 2016, 12:26:03 AM »
Terrifying indeed. 4.3+ is bad enough, but it is even worse when you look at how that heat was distributed.  The worst anomalies 9C+, are over the the most critical ice.

I think the opposite.  The ice on the Atlantic side is the least critical...
<snippage>
I will ruminate on that.  Others please chime in.

I don't think that damage to the ice by the hot spot on the Atlantic side is significant.  But I will add that the hot spot also represents increased winds from the South in this region, which may contribute to more warm Atlantic water entering the Arctic?  I do recall reading somewhere a long time ago that a warmer pulse of water entering the Arctic and then circulating anti clockwise along the Russian side contributed to the low ice in 2007.  But considering my patchy understanding of the THC current, I'm not sure whether an extra wind push would just mean more almost but not quite freezing dense salty water a few hundred meters under the ice, and this water reaching further north before it does its sinking thing or whether there are more significant consequences.
Climate change:  Prepare for the worst, hope for the best, expect the middle.

bbr2314

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1817
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 166
  • Likes Given: 53
Re: The 2016 melting season
« Reply #179 on: April 01, 2016, 12:38:15 AM »
The damage on the Atlantic side has been hugely significant. Here is 2016 vs 2012 and 2015.





& 2007 for good measure


LRC1962

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 431
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: The 2016 melting season
« Reply #180 on: April 01, 2016, 06:28:55 AM »
Terrifying indeed. 4.3+ is bad enough, but it is even worse when you look at how that heat was distributed.  The worst anomalies 9C+, are over the the most critical ice.

I think the opposite.  The ice on the Atlantic side is the least critical...
<snippage>
I will ruminate on that.  Others please chime in.

I don't think that damage to the ice by the hot spot on the Atlantic side is significant. <snippage>.
Looking at these comparisons:






trying to claim there is insignificant ice damage makes me scratch my head. ??? :o
If you look at only ice extent/area/volume numbers, you may be  able to make claims of being able to argue about damage. But, ice quality also depends upon FDD and that is why the ice in 2013-2015 survived the way it did. This year we are in territory so new it is absolutely scarey. On top of that the downturn started in the most important ice thickening time of the season.
unless we get a very cold, non-export melt season, things are not going to be very good for the ice conditions in September. Normally temps do not give great indicators for what will happen to the ice, but in the case of this year to ignore those anomalies would IMO be a very questionable approach.
"All truth passes through three stages: First, it is ridiculed; Second,  it is violently opposed; and Third, it is accepted as self-evident."
       - Arthur Schopenhauer

werther

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 727
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 11
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The 2016 melting season
« Reply #181 on: April 01, 2016, 09:18:04 AM »
Here’s the comparison that I wrote about above.

On the right is the temp anomaly for winter ’12 – ’13. The period is slightly different; 15 Sep – 14 Feb (instead of 1 Oct – 25 Mar for the ’15 – ’16 overview on the left).



The difference in the mean anomaly is less striking than I thought two days ago. In ’13 I calculated +2.5 dC against +4.2 dC now.

Still, the margin this winter has over ’13 is large. The origins of the specifics is also different. During ’12-’13 the large open swath of Arctic Ocean after the record minimum contributed a lot. Less so for last winter. During ’12-’13 Baffin Bay and Labrador Sea had warmer anomalies. It is the only part where last winter was considerably cooler.

Unfortunately, Baffin Bay and Labrador Sea is not the region where the fate of the perennial sea ice will be decided. The regular Barentsz ‘radiator’ was stronger than ever and the crucial stretch of MYI North of the Canadian Archipelago’s channels has experienced  mean +5 dC anomalies.

This means little for the outcome of minimum extent coming September. But it does make a forecast on low PIOMAS volume numbers relevant.

6roucho

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 296
  • Finance geek
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: The 2016 melting season
« Reply #182 on: April 01, 2016, 11:05:28 AM »
For the sake of transparency, I'd like to announce that I've banned Skier with the accompanying text:

Quote
Skier, it was fun while it lasted, but I don't think your contributions will be a contribution to interesting discussions in a friendly atmosphere. While I was reading your comments too many flags went up because of references to worn-out climate risk denier mythinformation (global sea ice, vikings, etc). Good luck with finding another forum, or maybe try WUWT.

Best,

Neven

This is probably the wrong thread, but...

Scepticism is vitally important in science. It's a crucial part the semiformal game we play called the scientific method.

Sadly, that process has gone haywire. The widespread tendency to adopt a default position of disbelief of new science has scientists bridling at any form of public challenge, for fear that it's scepticism of the second kind.

I only hope that we don't start booting out people who want to be difficult for good reasons. It'd be unfortunate to lose the baby with the bathwater.

Even refuting the arguments of 'deniers' has utility in that respect.

PS - Neven was probably right. Skier was displaying a few too many of the badges of mythinformation to be real.

PPS - Of course, scientists taking umbrage at being challenged is also part of the game.
« Last Edit: April 01, 2016, 12:32:47 PM by 6roucho »

oren

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 4536
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 912
  • Likes Given: 1307
Re: The 2016 melting season
« Reply #183 on: April 01, 2016, 11:29:20 AM »
The damage on the Atlantic side has been hugely significant. Here is 2016 vs 2012 and 2015.





& 2007 for good measure



Thanks. The differences are WOW. Will it make a difference come September? I personally think it will. The Atlantic sector is closer to where the action is, compared to Okhotsk or Labrador, and a positive insolation / albedo feedback might make a difference for the ice inside the Arctic Basin (weather-dependent of course).

Laurent

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2536
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 24
Re: The 2016 melting season
« Reply #184 on: April 01, 2016, 12:52:16 PM »
If that hold, you bet it will make a difference. Until recently the Arctic was "protected" by Swalbard now that the Atlantic flow is beyond it, melt will occur full throttle, especially because of the normal Arctic drift movement.

Jim Pettit

  • Global Moderator
  • Nilas ice
  • *****
  • Posts: 1177
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 40
  • Likes Given: 11
Re: The 2016 melting season
« Reply #185 on: April 01, 2016, 01:04:16 PM »
Scepticism is vitally important in science. It's a crucial part the semiformal game we play called the scientific method.

No statement could be any truer. However, there is a world of difference between true scientific skepticism and garden variety denialism. In his/her very short time here, Skier exhibited the latter. In droves: cherry picking, false equivalence, concern trolling, repetition of idiotic denialist talking points ("Greenland was green!"), and so on.

I only hope that we don't start booting out people who want to be difficult for good reasons. It'd be unfortunate to lose the baby with the bathwater.

I've never known Neven to do that; in fact, he's shown a much more patient hand than have I in fora I've managed. So I don't have any reason to suspect he's about to start doing so.

Even refuting the arguments of 'deniers' has utility in that respect.

Well, to a point. Then it becomes like arguing with your three-year-old about why he's not allowed to have candy for dinner.

PPS - Of course, scientists taking umbrage at being challenged is also part of the game.

Perhaps. Though "being challenged" is one thing, and an expected if sometimes uncomfortable part of the scientific method. Having your time wasted by someone who demonstrably has no interest whatsoever in scientific truth, but is instead only here to obfuscate that truth to delay doing something about it, is something else entirely.

Any my own apologies for going off-topic here; I'll say no more.

magnamentis

  • Guest
Re: The 2016 melting season
« Reply #186 on: April 01, 2016, 01:17:34 PM »
@Laurent nice read, attitude and talking about it from time to time is essential and a TOPIC in each forum.

i for my part very much appreciate your input on the matter (FWIW) LOL

Frivolousz21

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1507
  • Live in Belleville, IL..15 miles SE of St. Louis.
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 140
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: The 2016 melting season
« Reply #187 on: April 01, 2016, 01:38:41 PM »
So currently the most vital thing happening in real time is the snow cover over Western Canada and Southern Alaska has been getting pummeled falling between a very anomalous and warm ridge and a vortex which have been driving warm moist air Northward.

modis 3-6-7 from today shows the extensive damage already done to the snow pack. 
Low elecation areas even in the interior have lost snow cover already.  In some cases 30 or more days early. 

Furthermore the pattern doesn't break.  Only relaxes but with strengthening solar insolation and a modeled return to an even warmer similar pattern next week that pushes further N/E.

We could be seeing an unprecedented early snow melt all the way to or near the arctic coastal region underway.


And why not?   The global temperature situation is currently running WAYYYYYY above any modern historical records.


In other words global temps are currently soul crushing the previous record's for this time of year. 
I got a nickname for all my guns
a Desert Eagle that I call Big Pun
a two shot that I call Tupac
and a dirty pistol that love to crew hop
my TEC 9 Imma call T-Pain
my 3-8 snub Imma call Lil Wayne
machine gun named Missy so loud
it go e-e-e-e-ow e-e-e-e-e-e-blaow

Neven

  • Administrator
  • First-year ice
  • *****
  • Posts: 7209
    • View Profile
    • Arctic Sea Ice Blog
  • Liked: 732
  • Likes Given: 477
Re: The 2016 melting season
« Reply #188 on: April 01, 2016, 01:41:07 PM »
LRC1962, where did you find those great graphs? I know Andrew Slater's website, but couldn't find graphs from previous years. Man, those would've been a great addition to the Winter analysis. In fact, I'm going to write an addendum.  :)

The same goes for bbr2314's fantastic comparison maps!
Il faut comparer, comparer, comparer, et cultiver notre jardin

Siffy

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 179
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The 2016 melting season
« Reply #189 on: April 01, 2016, 01:44:30 PM »
LRC1962, where did you find those great graphs? I know Andrew Slater's website, but couldn't find graphs from previous years. Man, those would've been a great addition to the Winter analysis. In fact, I'm going to write an addendum.  :)

The same goes for bbr2314's fantastic comparison maps!

http://cires1.colorado.edu/~aslater/ARCTIC_TAIR/index_80_t2m.html

The window on the left gives links for the previous years.

alternatively use the following url link  http://cires1.colorado.edu/~aslater/ARCTIC_TAIR/IDX/index_t2m_n80_2016.html and change the date in the link.


Neven

  • Administrator
  • First-year ice
  • *****
  • Posts: 7209
    • View Profile
    • Arctic Sea Ice Blog
  • Liked: 732
  • Likes Given: 477
Re: The 2016 melting season
« Reply #190 on: April 01, 2016, 01:47:20 PM »
I must be blind! Because it says '+80N Arctic 2m Air Temperature' above the window with all the years, I assumed that was all they showed (like at DMI) and never scrolled down. Silly me.  ;D
Il faut comparer, comparer, comparer, et cultiver notre jardin

Frivolousz21

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1507
  • Live in Belleville, IL..15 miles SE of St. Louis.
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 140
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: The 2016 melting season
« Reply #191 on: April 01, 2016, 01:48:37 PM »
A city called Mayo in the Yukon reached 14.6C yesterday.  Crushing its previous record of 12C set in 1960.  The records go back to 1923 there.



Some city a but South called Carmacks reached 17.6C beating their record by 6C.



Its April 1st. 
I got a nickname for all my guns
a Desert Eagle that I call Big Pun
a two shot that I call Tupac
and a dirty pistol that love to crew hop
my TEC 9 Imma call T-Pain
my 3-8 snub Imma call Lil Wayne
machine gun named Missy so loud
it go e-e-e-e-ow e-e-e-e-e-e-blaow

Siffy

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 179
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The 2016 melting season
« Reply #192 on: April 01, 2016, 01:50:15 PM »
I must be blind! Because it says '+80N Arctic 2m Air Temperature' above the window with all the years, I assumed that was all they showed (like at DMI) and never scrolled down. Silly me.  ;D

Hah, no worries. I've done exactly the same on something similar in the past. :p

6roucho

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 296
  • Finance geek
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: The 2016 melting season
« Reply #193 on: April 01, 2016, 02:19:27 PM »
I only hope that we don't start booting out people who want to be difficult for good reasons. It'd be unfortunate to lose the baby with the bathwater.

I've never known Neven to do that; in fact, he's shown a much more patient hand than have I in fora I've managed. So I don't have any reason to suspect he's about to start doing so.
I think you misread my post, Jim. I wasn't criticizing Neven. His work here is exemplary. Those were general concerns I have with the world, and the quality of discourse between what has become two armed camps, in a war that science is losing. The melting of skier's piste is inconsequential.[/threadjack]
« Last Edit: April 01, 2016, 05:36:27 PM by 6roucho »

jdallen

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3024
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 190
  • Likes Given: 172
Re: The 2016 melting season
« Reply #194 on: April 01, 2016, 08:10:08 PM »
Great reference shot of the western arctic from the Canadian Weather Service (GOES 11nm IR image)

Be interesting to check back on this later on.
This space for Rent.

Neven

  • Administrator
  • First-year ice
  • *****
  • Posts: 7209
    • View Profile
    • Arctic Sea Ice Blog
  • Liked: 732
  • Likes Given: 477
Re: The 2016 melting season
« Reply #195 on: April 01, 2016, 08:21:33 PM »
So much thin ice in and in front of Amundsen Bay...  :(

If things get as sunny there as they did last year, early in the melting season, the Pacific side is going to get kick(start)ed hard.
Il faut comparer, comparer, comparer, et cultiver notre jardin

NeilT

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1326
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 111
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: The 2016 melting season
« Reply #196 on: April 01, 2016, 10:51:14 PM »
Looking at the discussions going on about ice volume and area and extent, I was reminded of the constant statements from Gavin Schmidt at Realclimate about seasonal variations which are ironed out in the decadal averages and only the decadal averages really show the trend.

So I grabbed the NOAA extent dataset from 1979 to 2014 and carried out that exercise.

Now we don't have the whole of the 2010's so I calculated two sets of figures.  One for the decade on decade to 2008 and one for the first six years of each decade which can be compared to 2009 - 2014.

For the Maximum average the figures come out as this:

1979 - 1988  16.22
1989 - 1998  15.77
1999 - 2008  15.57

for the maximum on the first 6 years, it comes out as

1979 - 1984  16.21
1989 - 1994  15.84
1999 - 2004  15.34
2009 - 2014  15.13

For the Minimum it's somewhat more pronounced

Decadal:

1979 - 1988  6.96
1989 - 1998  6.54
1999 - 2008  5.53

for the Minimum on the first 6 years

1979 - 1984  7.02
1989 - 1994  6.57
1999 - 2004  5.93
2009 - 2014  4.56


So I have a few of questions...

What recovery?  On any decadal figure.

What recovery on the comparable decade on decade for the first 6 years of the decade?

Who wants to bet that the 2010's will finish above the 2000's when we complete the decadal average in 2019???

Who is willing to bet that the decadal average Minimum for the 2020's will be over 4M?

Who is willing to bet that the decadal average Maximum for the 2020's will be over 14M?


I think that half the discussions we have about "recovery" are driven by the very narrow, year on year or even 2-3 year view we take.  If you push it out to the decadal level, any talk of recovery is completely redundant.

Gavin was absolutely right.  If you look at the signature over the decades the message is clear and the impact is crystal clear.

Whilst it doesn't help us determine exactly what this years Minimum will be, now that we know the maximum, or how the melt season will go.  It does help us understand that the heat is having an impact and that even in a cold weather season the ice should be less than it would have been even in the 2000's.... Which is a starting point I guess.





Being right too soon is socially unacceptable.

Robert A. Heinlein

Buddy

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3325
  • Go DUCKS!!
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 40
  • Likes Given: 31
Re: The 2016 melting season
« Reply #197 on: April 01, 2016, 11:26:24 PM »
Quote
What recovery?  On any decadal figure.

There are no recovery's on a decadal basis.  But those who are paid by the fossil fuel industry know that.  And that is why they don't use LONGER TERM trends.

They have lied for 40 years....and many of them aren't EVER going to stop.  It's not as though they have ethics....they don't.  Look at them as the "Bernie Madoff's" or "Lance Armstrong's" of the climate business.

Arctic amplification is going into overdrive now.....and those not wearing swim trunks will be exposed in the coming 1 - 3 years.  To those looking at the science....they already ARE exposed.  But the mainstream will understand they are exposed (and lying) as well.

FOX (RT) News....."The Trump Channel.....where truth and journalism are dead."

jdallen

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3024
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 190
  • Likes Given: 172
Re: The 2016 melting season
« Reply #198 on: April 02, 2016, 02:14:57 AM »
Looking at the discussions going on about ice volume and area and extent, I was reminded of the constant statements from Gavin Schmidt at Realclimate about seasonal variations which are ironed out in the decadal averages and only the decadal averages really show the trend.

<snippage>
For the Minimum it's somewhat more pronounced
<and more snippage>


Good discussion, NeilT.

As to why the changes in max are less pronounced, I think it comes down to that even when forced by amplification, the Arctic in winter is still well below freezing over about the same extent.  Across areas affected by plus 10C anomalies still left temperatures at about -20C. That will still produce meter+ thick ice; just not as strong, nor as thick as it should be.
This space for Rent.

LRC1962

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 431
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: The 2016 melting season
« Reply #199 on: April 02, 2016, 03:24:43 AM »
So currently the most vital thing happening in real time is the snow cover over Western Canada and Southern Alaska has been getting pummeled falling between a very anomalous and warm ridge and a vortex which have been driving warm moist air Northward.
Granted if you take a 30+ yr. average it is anomalous. On the other hand looking at the past few years I think it is getting to the point that the RRR-TTT setup over NA is becoming so regular that we can now change our language to it being normal. The only question is, are the other big weather systems around it strong enough to temporarily dislodge it.
As far as temps in the Yukon and Alaska go, what is even scarier is what that pertains to health of the permafrost. If it goes too long then the permafrost could melt even faster then expected and that could impact even faster changes in the land then models can handle.
"All truth passes through three stages: First, it is ridiculed; Second,  it is violently opposed; and Third, it is accepted as self-evident."
       - Arthur Schopenhauer