The 2016 melting season

[jai mitchell]

As things can always get worse, I'd go for:

2007: 9
2008: 5
2009: 4
2010: 6
2011: 7
2012: 8
2013: 2
2014: 4
2015: 6

I really don't get any of this at all.  The only thing that matters is PIOMAS sea ice volume difference from max to min for the year.  In that case then 2011 was the worse (I think) and 2014 was the best (I am sure)  Now I know you all are saying well, what about ice export? 

yes, prevalent wind patterns really matter as well.  But really, do they matter that much?  what if the export ratio is simply correlated to the larger pressure/temp scale that you are working with already?  It seems that similar circulation patterns (as well as inflows from rivers) are all working from the same notes wrt larger pattern shifts.

in the last 7 days there has been (roughly) 20,000 km^2 sea ice either melting out at or passing through the Fram.

[jai mitchell]

From August of last year

http://www.the-cryosphere-discuss.net/9/4205/2015/tcd-9-4205-2015-print.pdf

Fram Strait spring ice export and
September Arctic sea ice
M. H. Halvorsen1
, L. H. Smedsrud1,2,3
, R. Zhang4
, and K. Kloster5

The Arctic Basin exports ∼ 10 % of the sea ice area southwards annually through Fram
Strait. A larger than normal export decreases the remaining mean thickness and ice
area. A new updated timeseries from 1979–2013 of Fram Strait sea ice area export
shows an overall increase until today, and that more than 1 million km2
5 has been exported
annually in recent years. The new timeseries has been constructed from high
resolution radar satellite imagery of sea ice drift across 79◦ N from 2004–2013, regressed
on the observed cross-strait surface pressure difference, and shows an increasing
trend of 7 % per decade. The trend is caused by higher southward ice drift
10 speeds due to stronger southward geostrophic winds, largely explained by increasing
surface pressure on Greenland. Spring and summer area export increases more
(∼ 14 % per decade) than in autumn and winter, and these export anomalies have
a large influence on the following September mean ice extent.

[Neven]

I really don't get any of this at all.  The only thing that matters is PIOMAS sea ice volume difference from max to min for the year.  In that case then 2011 was the worse (I think) and 2014 was the best (I am sure)  Now I know you all are saying well, what about ice export?

I agree with you that volume/thickness is the most important metric long-term. As it is, people look at extent/area when discussing the minimum, because that's what we can see when taking the satellite view.

The grades I gave are for the combination of temp and SLP. You could even subtract 1 from all the years except 2007. Of course, thickness/volume determines the final outcome. But weather is still important.

As for PIOMAS (modelled) max-min, 2010 and 2012 saw the largest total volume loss (19.693 and 19.692 respectively, 2011 had the lowest max), followed by 2015 (18.718 km3). 2014 indeed had the lowest loss, 2006 was lower still.

[magnamentis]

Ok done with the Bering Strait, I hope.

you certainly allow that i keep an eye on the matter :-)

- i made 2 main statements, muddy rough roads within few days and snow mostly gone on those hills to the left.
. here are images from the last 3 days and i think that even if "a few days" can be laid out as 3, 4 or some more .  . days, BS is more off than my guess i'm sure. i'll be back in 2 or 3 days when the road will be snowfree mud,
. as to the hills, i mentioned some sunshine needed, perhaps it goes even without but at least i believe in my
. own boring BS that 1 or 2 days of sunshine with all those brown spots will do the job like in illulisat on the last
. pic where one week ago there was as similar or even more snow cover.

since this about discussing outcomes and there is a lot of prediction throughout many posts here, i still don't understand which part of my post triggered that "interesting" reply? i think not that many people really care and think about how to turn things around, hence i believe we should encourage and support each other and not bash.

sorry for the bore but for me it's exiting LOL

p1 = kimmirut 2 days ago
p2 = kimmirut yesterday
p3 = kimmirut today ( has been removed and replaced with a better image one post later )
p4 = Ilulissat webcam

one can watch the videos here: https://www.lookr.com/lookout/1198520951-Kimmirut#action-play-month

[magnamentis]

a better pic for today, the other one did not illustrate the situation too well 

[seaicesailor]

Ok done with the Bering Strait, I hope.

you certainly allow that i keep an eye on the matter [...]

I hope I didn't ruffle anyone's feathers with my answers because they were completely friendly and well intentioned, if not I am sorry.
As for my prediction, yes I was off evidently.

@ A-team how can HYCOM catch such small river discharge? Just wondering.

[cesium62]

So , post 2007 how many 'good' summers has the Arctic basin seen. Now I'm using 'good' in the way I would for my part of the UK and do not mean "good for holding onto as much ice as possible" good.

I'd consider 5 to be average, and rate them:

2007: 10
2008: 7
2009: 4
2010: 7
2011: 8
2012: 9
2013: 2
2014: 4
2015: 6

Chris Reynolds showed that the pattern from 2007 to 2012 was unusual for the time period since 1980, so it is reasonable to score most of these years as above average melt years. 

The question is why did we get this pattern?  Was it some natural variation that is now over, or perhaps may reoccur in 2 or 5 or 50 years time?  Or is it somehow triggered by AGW, and the lack of this pattern since 2013 is a natural variation.  Which may now be over as the current pattern looks a bit like the 2007-2012 pattern.

The current run of above average temperatures shown in Andrew Slater's page is quite remarkable in its persistence.  I cannot find anything like it going back into recent years.  And consider that a good part of December was below average, and Oct to Nov was only a little above average and in my opinion would count as being 'cool' when compared to recent years.

If  2007  was a 10 we are going to have to change the scale this year.  Based on esrl-noaa data 2007 rated between 11 - 18th on the Air and SST temperatures for the Arctic and for 80N+ from January to March.  It  was however closer to the second place year, on all four measures, than 2016 the current record holder. Thats why we are seeing the melt season off to a flying start and with an El Nino in the air nothing is likely to hold the temperature back. 

In the summer 2007 rated third behind 2012 and 2011, with  2015 and 2010 rounding up the top 5. In the May 2007 like 2015 failed to make it to the 20 warmest. 

So we can go a whole lot higher than a 10.

The original poster asked about Balmy Summers in the Arctic Basin.  But the question you raise as to which metric one should look at to judge a Balmy summer is interesting.  Slater (I presume) writes:
"
925hPa temperature was chosen as it is less influenced by the melting surface in the summer months than 2m temperature (and should be more influenced by data assimilation). Thus 925hPa Tair is more illustrative of heat in the Arctic that might impact sea ice; for example, compare the years 1996 and 2007 using the both 925hPa Tair and the +80N 2m Temperature. (Note that radiation is still the biggest player with respect to ice melt forced by the atmosphere.)
"
I wonder if NOAA has a [summer] radiation metric?

So I think calling 2007 a "10" on the narrow question of Summer throughout the Arctic Basin is not unreasonable.

For the more on-topic question of how 2016 is shaping up...  Yeah the CAB looks in poor shape and the broader Arctic ocean is looking toasty.

Do you have a link to the SST graphs?  I'm not seeing those on Slater's site.

[magnamentis]

I hope I didn't ruffle anyone's feathers with my answers because they were completely friendly and well intentioned, if not I am sorry.

ok, peace, perhaps it's a simple language barrier, in my region BS is close to AH, if i misunderstood that, mea culpa.

[cesium62]

I really don't get any of this at all.  The only thing that matters is PIOMAS sea ice volume difference from max to min for the year.  In that case then 2011 was the worse (I think) and 2014 was the best (I am sure)  Now I know you all are saying well, what about ice export?

I agree with you that volume/thickness is the most important metric long-term. As it is, people look at extent/area when discussing the minimum, because that's what we can see when taking the satellite view.

The grades I gave are for the combination of temp and SLP. You could even subtract 1 from all the years except 2007. Of course, thickness/volume determines the final outcome. But weather is still important.

As for PIOMAS (modelled) max-min, 2010 and 2012 saw the largest total volume loss (19.693 and 19.692 respectively, 2011 had the lowest max), followed by 2015 (18.718 km3). 2014 indeed had the lowest loss, 2006 was lower still.

Looking at the weather provides additional context.  On the one hand, we can see that "balmy" years occur every three or four years and 2015 wasn't all that "balmy".  Also, 2007 was "balmy" but didn't have as much affect on volume as 2012 simply because the ice was thicker back then.  Thicker ice is harder to push south, harder to export through the Fram, etc. 

"balmy" weather is frequent, and as the years pass, "balmy" weather has a greater effect on the ice.  2007 had a much greater effect than 1999.  2012 had a much greater effect than 2007.   2015 had an effect on the ice even though it wasn't all that balmy.

Maybe not this year, maybe not next, but we will soon get another "2007" which will devastate a much weaker ice pack.

[6roucho]

The balmy winter seems to have had a greater effect than a balmy summer might, by establishing the conditions for both snow melt and the current grinding dynamic. Do we have an equivalent top list for warm winters? 2016 would undoubtedly dominate it.

[Lord M Vader]

Here you go, from NSIDC summarizing of melt season 2015, courtesy National Snow and Ice Data Center. http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/1999/10/airtemp.png

[jdallen]

a better pic for today, the other one did not illustrate the situation too well 

Land-side albedo dropping like a stone, and I think what looks like melt ponding started on the far side of the channel.

[jdallen]

Here you go, from NSIDC summarizing of melt season 2015, courtesy National Snow and Ice Data Center. http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/1999/10/airtemp.png

Great find, LMV!

There seems some consistency across 2007, 11 & 12  in as much as they tend to be clustered in the top third of the graph.

[oren]

a better pic for today, the other one did not illustrate the situation too well 

The change over two days is impressive.

[Siffy]

 



Is that melt ponding visible on the far left of the image?

[magnamentis]

i'm not that privy with the exact terms but i've seen them and it looks like what i'd call "wet snow" spots in laymen's terms.

This is probably where "ponds" would eventually result from. They're dark spots but definitely not looking like liquid water yet.

Since it's getting slightly cooler and the weather is and has been a bit on the cloudy side i think that the most impressive parts of the current development as far as speed is concerned comes to an end, except if we were in for bright and sunny day at temps above freezing.

BTW the reason why that pics caught my attention is that it was one of the later places to melt out last summer, i think it was in august only.

anyways, beside all the records and all the stuff what is the most impressive thing this year is that it's so persistent, no big ups and downs, no huge areas with exceptions on the other end of the scale, the heat
starts ruling more or less across the board. the only relative small exception would be ESS which IMO will melt out anyways, hence no real refuge for the ice, exactly like hudson bay last year, way too late but couldn't keep it.

[A-Team]

The first animation shows that the wind power dropping by 2/3 at the indicated spot over the next 4 days to 02 May 16 and the center of rotation becoming increasingly misaligned with that of the ice gyre. If so, this will bring a reduction of fracturing and a slowing of rotation of the ice.

The second animation looks at the feasibility of co-registration of WorldView satellite images with a favorable choice of nullschool projection, S for 'stereographic'. This is a rare case where this works out without a round-trip to gdal. The frames show wind power, the ice as seen from Aqua (an earlier April date), side-by-side, and a transparency overlay.

This product, daily for the last month, would serve the gateway to physical understanding of Beaufort Gyre response to wind forcing. The most intense day in April was on the 14th, 3d image, with counter-rotating cells.

It turns out that the weird wind power palette in nullschool can be made into a quantitative grayscale by partitioning into the L.a.b color space; this allows wind power statistics over a region to be animated over a contoured map and the first moment arm about the center to be determined from pixel coord differences, 4th image.

[bbr2314]

It should be noted that Hudson Bay's yearly melt out should not necessarily be taken for granted. Last year saw a decent-sized chunk of ice persist into September before partially disintegrating, and the ensuing quick reformation in Foxe Basin and northern Hudson Bay was pretty much unprecedented in the recent satellite record as to timing (earliness, that is).

I think this is partially due to the newly-permanent polar low over Foxe Basin vicinity, but is aided by Greenland & surrounding islands' meltwater, which floods through from the N.

One of the implicit observations of Hansen's work (IMO) is that there could actually be glaciation of places like Quebec/Scotland if the anomalies he posted are realized. Realistically they would result in year-round winter-ish weather, which we already seem to be experiencing in these regions.

In any case, while the Hudson Bay pack will be subject to occasional 0C+ weather over next 10 days, it looks to largely remain below freezing with ample opportunities for snowfall. If recent years are any guide it will persist healthily into late June/early July before declining in August. But with the polar low increasingly stuck over Foxe Basin, perhaps this could be the first year where a more substantial amount makes it through the summer.

While it may be summer soon down here, it is still snowing heavily up across much of Canada with Quebec at the heart of the +depth anomalies.

The next question to ask is: does this exacerbate Beaufort warming even more? If HB/Foxe Basin serves as an "albedo anchor" for our cold vortex, do warmer temps in Beaufort and the ensuing albedo feedback from open waters up N translate into cold lows centered on multi-yr ice and snow at lower latitudes?

[DrTskoul]

Is that melt ponding visible on the far left of the image?

Yes

[DavidR]

Do you have a link to the SST graphs?  I'm not seeing those on Slater's site.

You can get the monthly data from here:

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/cgi-bin/data/timeseries/timeseries1.pl

There are lots of metrics to chose from and the ones I  am using are SST and Air Temperature at the surface.  You  can also choose Air Temp at 925mb as Slater does. Its the only site I am aware of that  gives monthly comparisons on a wide range of factors within few days of the end of the month.

It  shows 2007 as the hottest summer in AT and third hottest  in SST up until that time.
2012 and 2011 now ahead in AT. Most of this decade (ex 2104) has been hotter for SST's.

[Jim Hunt]

Rox was asking about the location of the main gauging station on the Mackenzie River. It is located at the confluence with the Tsiigèhnjik or Arctic Red River about 10 km upstream of the current delta  The main spike in flow occurs early in May as can be seen on the links to data and break-up video provided by Jim H above.

The Liard River is visibly turning liquid, and hence the Mackenzie flow way upstream at Fort Simpson is starting to build:

http://wateroffice.ec.gc.ca/report/report_e.html?mode=Graph&type=realTime&stn=10GC001&dataType=Real-Time&startDate=2016-04-01&endDate=2016-04-28&prm1=46&y1Max=&y1Min=&prm2=47&y2Max=&y2Min=

[magnamentis]

It should be noted that Hudson Bay's yearly melt out should not necessarily be taken for granted.

i have to agree, matter of factly there were indeed residues. BTW this kind of topic as to definitions of ice-free
we shall face once the CAB will be "ice-free" some will declare it ice free and others will point to the residues.

i tend to agree with your point of view because free is free and not "somehow" free LOL

hence my post was a bit exagerated to make a point, same can indeed happen to ESS where there can be fast-ice residues in the bays and fjords (sorry if there are no fjords haha... ) but i think it's obvious what i want to say.

thanks for pulling in the reigns for me a bit, horses went through a bit as it seems.

[jdallen]

WorldView appears to be broken, via someone trying to "Improve" it.

Anyone on the forum have any contacts with the group that runs that page?

[seaicesailor]

Been searching around, google "HYCOM river"; apparently the model already includes historical mean discharge rates of +1000 rivers around the world by default, but it allows the user enter monthly data and possibly, if available, daily data (for instance U.S. rivers). This inflow is modeled, into the ocean boundary, at the river mouth location, and can be simulated as very heavy rain too. Since the Mackenzie river has very small but non-zero discharge rate, both in historical and current data (and even for winter), hence the tiny fresh water signal shown at the mouth location. Whether this is accurate or even relevant, I know not. Surely in less than a month it will be.

[6roucho]

It should be noted that Hudson Bay's yearly melt out should not necessarily be taken for granted.

i have to agree, matter of factly there were indeed residues. BTW this kind of topic as to definitions of ice-free
we shall face once the CAB will be "ice-free" some will declare it ice free and others will point to the residues.

i tend to agree with your point of view because free is free and not "somehow" free LOL

hence my post was a bit exagerated to make a point, same can indeed happen to ESS where there can be fast-ice residues in the bays and fjords (sorry if there are no fjords haha... ) but i think it's obvious what i want to say.

thanks for pulling in the reigns for me a bit, horses went through a bit as it seems.

The usual definition of an ice-free Arctic is < 1m sq km of ice. Hopefully it won't be completely devoid of ice, even in summer, for quite some time yet, since that would signify a drastically changed climate.

[Frivolousz21]

2007 had an epic Ridge/dipole almost all summer.


Purely insane and insane low level temps in June.

A repeat of that would be crazy.

Ice free to the pole for sure.

Wet dream

[Frivolousz21]

May of 2011 had an epic warm intrusion from the 15th on.

[Michael Hauber]

The record for poorest freezing season (freezing day anomalies by Slater) used to be held by 2006.  This was then broken in 2013.  Both poor melt years.  Smashing this record in 2016 would seem no guarantee of a good melt season.  We've had 4 months of very warm conditions with almost no let up.  Presumably this will change and sometime between now and September we'll see a period of cool cloudy conditions that will slow things down.  If we don't we'd be looking at weather as extreme as 2007 but with a higher baseline of global warming.  And with a significantly weaker ice pack - there was a lot of 5+ year ice prior to 2007.  Squash the pack up against Greenland a good bit further, and blow all the way through the tongue of ice that in 2007 extended along the Atlantic towards Laptvev/Kara border.  Basically almost ice free.

[F.Tnioli]

...
I agree with you that volume/thickness is the most important metric long-term. As it is, people look at extent/area when discussing the minimum, because that's what we can see when taking the satellite view.
...

While this is certainly so, there is another and more important reason to look at area (specifically) when discussing both minimum and amounts during summertime: that is, however thin (within reason - 0.1mm doesn't count! ), if ice is present, then it changes/introduces/prevents important prysical processes between the ocean and the athmosphere, such as evaporation, sunlight absorbtion/reflection, mixing gases into and out of surface layer (including possibility for methane to freely go out of shallow waters into the athmosphere before being much consumed in the ocean by microorganisms and inorganic chemistry, if present in significant amounts, - which affects local greenhouse effect), plant and marine life (which by itself can have significant push on local climate, circa Gaia theory), near-surface temperature profile, etc etc.

IMHO.

[Lord M Vader]

According to DMI, the sea ice volume is now just slightly below 2012 for the date of April 28. Check out: http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icethickness/images/FullSize_CICE_combine_thick_SM_EN_20160428.png

Latest operational ECMWF 00z run hints that the big Arctic high pressure system will start to break down sometime next week and open up for more cloudy and perhaps cyclonic weather. The run may be an outlier but I haven't seen the ensemble yet. Interesting to see if the upcoming runs will keep this scenario or not. Might be this years "Saved by the bell" for the Arctic basin, or not. We'll see!

Best, LMV

[F.Tnioli]

...
The usual definition of an ice-free Arctic is < 1m sq km of ice. Hopefully it won't be completely devoid of ice, even in summer, for quite some time yet, since that would signify a drastically changed climate.

It will be completely devoid of ice (during late summer, and later more of a summer), - most likely, few years after it first gets under 1M km2 minimum. But not to worry! That is, the climate change will be drastic in either case, you see. Because <1M km2 minimum does not appear out of thin air in a single night; no. To get it, you need the Arctic to have massively less than normal ice volume and area (and extent as well) for most (more like, all) of a summer. Which by itself alters climate drastically, since "massively less than normal area" tends to happen in a specific way: namely, "further from pole" parts of the Arctic sea ice cap - disappear first. Sadly, those are exactly places which get high (over 30° above horizon at noon) Sun for quite a while during summer time, producing that exactly "drastic" effect on climate because of so much changed albedo (no reflective ice on the surface = dark and wavy water surface, so massively lower albedo). Lots of evaporation going on for much of a summer where normally was very little, - tends to wreak havoc on "normal" climate, switching it to a completely new state.

And then if to talk about slightly further perspective, there are those huge methane clathrate deposits near melting point, sitting within shallow Arctic shelves, until recently protected by exactly those "near 80° latitude and to the south of it" summer ice fields, ones which disappear before our eyes these days during summer time. With all the mighty feedbacks associated due to methane being so potent greenhouse gas, that sort of methane release will drastically change climate world-wide, not just Arctic, given enough time - for more details see, for example, rather famous Shakhova et al, in particular their point about expected effects of 50Gt methane release (which is just very small fraction of the total amount locked even in ESAS alone). Estimates vary, of course, for when it'll become practical (and possibly, terminal) issue for "business as usual", however i didn't hear any serious scientist denying the "eventual" global methane release event if the Arctic goes largely ice-free summers (happened before during at least one of previous Great Extinctions, lots of specialists are quite sure was the primary cause of it).

I'd love not to talk about effects of Arctic sea ice melt long-term, but then, if noone ever does, our kind (i mean - humans) will definitely be screwed much more than otherwise possible. Plus, i think it's good to put all the technical details and amazing data presented in this topic into some little "why exactly we some of us are here?" perspective, sometimes. Right?

[Jim Hunt]

Here is the record of the past 24 hours weather from Inuvik, on the eastern channel of the Mackenzie Delta:

https://weather.gc.ca/past_conditions/index_e.html?station=yev

High: 7.2 °C

Here is today's weather forecast for Tuktoyaktuk, on the shore of the eastern Beaufort Sea:

https://weather.gc.ca/city/pages/nt-20_metric_e.html

High: 4.0 °C

[Jim Hunt]

The east coast of Svalbard, including the Austfonna glacier. The first image from the recently launched Sentinel 1B satellite:

http://GreatWhiteCon.info/resources/arctic-regional-graphs/svalbard-sea-ice-graphs/#Images

[F.Tnioli]

Here you go, from NSIDC summarizing of melt season 2015, courtesy National Snow and Ice Data Center. http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/1999/10/airtemp.png

Was it sarcasm? If so, disregard the following... /blush

Ain't summarizing no melt season, this thing, in any significant part to talk of. It's about air temperatures, and this is why it does not relate any ice melt season to any other melt season any reliably, except it would - somewhat, - for any melt seasons which have very close or same sea ice extent and area for every week (at least; or better every day) of the whole season. But we don't have any such seasons on record, do we.

Why? Because as most people here know very well, amount and speed of melt of Arctic sea ice depends on several major variables, air temperatures being only one of them; not even the main of them. Years of talk about winds, pressure, water currents, salinity, albedo, waviness/storms, temperature profiles, thickness, "quality" of ice and other things, - everyone who have been here for any long can tell: extremely very different melt seasons can be while air temperature would remain very much the same. Especially when those melt seasons have massively different ice cover at any given date.

Which those graphs themselves clearly confirm: we know early 80s' melt seasons were different from 2010s' seasons in the "less and slower melt" way generally, yet we see many of them 80s' and 2010s' melt seasons happened with rather similar air temperatures. Take for example '79 and '14; the latter was "colder air" for all 4 months presented except August, and so what - 2014 melt season had less melt than '79? Gee. It hadn't. Checked CT interactive just to be sure - yep, 2014 melt season had significantly larger area lost during it, and over way shorter time frame. So those graphs defeats their own "purpose" (of being any indication of "a melt season") with their own data. Funny.

And then look at '13! Cold (relatively to most other years on these graphs) air for all 4 months presented for '13. Should be way slower melt than most other years, then? Way slower than most 80's? It just doesn't work that way, there is no correlation to speak of...

And i believe, if we take a glass with some ice cubes, have it at room temperature, and put a lid on it, - the air under the lid will be remain nearly 0°C both when ice cubes start to melt, and when ice cubes are nearly gone. Courtesy of specific heat of melt, - as long as there is small yet significant amount of solid ice at the surface, incoming heat (which goes in from the room through the glass' walls) is spent to melt the ice 1st, not to warm up air and surface water.

P.S. I suspect they think something like "oh look, August 2015 had real cool air in Arctic, that's why the melt in August was damn slow". Wrong. It was damn slow melt because of whole complex of causes, and cold air temperatures IMHO was more a consequence than a cause, whole process considered... Air temperature is not proper thing to be any indicator here, as demonstrated just above with '79 vs '14 and '13 example.

[Gray-Wolf]

In other climate forums I frequent you can guarantee that some die hard Denier will pop up the DMI 80N graph to show just what a 'cold ' summer the Arctic has seen ( avoiding all other measures of the summer there) as they know that the temps over the ice will always hover around Zero whilst ice remains. Some day not to far off we will see significant ice loss throughout the 80N ice and that red line will do what it does over the rest of the year and spike well above the 'average'. Oh! how I am ready for that time!!! ( LOL)

[werther]

Next few days could be interesting over the Beaufort region. Several of us have pointed at the forecast melt temps. On top of that, the jet stream produces a large loop reaching over the Beaufort and Banks Island:



On its’ track, a small Low detaches from the Aleutian giant depression and enters the high Arctic. Thus forcing an end to the month long Beaufort Gyre-high.  Around 4 May it might even produce a day long windforce Bft 7 from the S-SE over Amundsen Gulf and further up NW.

Look for clearance and enlargement of the polynia and a very early melt/opening on the Mackenzie Delta.

[Adam Ash]

I wonder, from my position of great ignorance of such things, whether the changes in temperature and cyclonic activity in the polar regions are the precursors of the intense energy=gradient driven storms Hansen et al refer to in their recent paper.

Someone here a while back mentioned that a '2012 Event' is not an upper bound, but merely a sample of what is to come.

Similarly are not the RRR and the general push of warm air towards the North Pole a small sample of Hanson's storms?  And, considering the 50-tonne boulders those storms kicked up in the Caribbean 'last time around', this years storms and circulation are not an upper bound either - they just fluffing the feathers of the very worried canary in the coal mine.

[Carex]

Been searching around, google "HYCOM river"; apparently the model already includes historical mean discharge rates of +1000 rivers around the world by default, but it allows the user enter monthly data and possibly, if available, daily data (for instance U.S. rivers). This inflow is modeled, into the ocean boundary, at the river mouth location, and can be simulated as very heavy rain too. Since the Mackenzie river has very small but non-zero discharge rate, both in historical and current data (and even for winter), hence the tiny fresh water signal shown at the mouth location. Whether this is accurate or even relevant, I know not. Surely in less than a month it will be.

Rivers Ob and Yenis now have long reaches of open water that should soon be reaching the Kara.  The Lena is open just below L. Baikal but has a long cold slide to the delta.  The Mackenzie is still tight from Lake Athabaska north but should begin to open this coming week if the forecast is at all accurate.  The Red River of the North is also still solid and running through a snow covered landscape.

[A-Team]

Next few days could be interesting over the Beaufort region.

Here are the wave heights along the Alaskan coast off the Mackenzie River delta and at a second site where they reach maximal height, according to WaveWatch III  +NCEP + NWS as visualized at nullschool for the 25 April to 03 May time frame. On the 27th of April the largest waves reached 1.96 m at 06:00 UTC which is not at all conducive to ice formation or persistence.

The weather will be making a definite change in pattern by May 4th. The Beaufort Gyre will experience fairly strong winds pushing it latitudinally to the west over the next six days, rather than torquing it in the Banks Island/Mackenzie delta area.

[Buddy]

If you go to the following link....and look at the SECOND SET of graphs....you'll see a graphic of the Arctic in 1980 and 2012.

Look at the "fat tail" that hangs over in the Beaufort Sea.  I think that fat tail could be history this year.  As well.....some portion of ice on the CAB side (the "north pole side) of the ice hugging the Canadian Archipelago will get chewed away.

You can also see that the McKenzie River Delta along the northern Canadian coast...a few hundred miles EAST of the Alaska/Canada border (on the map....it is where the coast turns from going towards the southeast...and turns up to the northeast).  Conditions of the MacKenzie will help chew away that fat tail of ice from 2012.

http://climatechangegraphs.blogspot.com/2012/08/arctic-sea-ice-volume-extent-charts_30.html

You can also see....by looking at the FIRST SET of graphs of early April ice in 2012, 2015, and 2016....that the ice is much thinner now.....and is "set up" to go, should the right conditions prevail.

While 2 million 2k sounds "crazy" and "undoable"....it is "possible" (not LIKELY...not PROBABLE.....but DOABLE).

If you take out that "fat tail" hanging out in the Beaufort....and take a good chunk of the northernmost shore of the ice that is in the CAB (north pole) side......you've taken away 40% of the ice that was there at the END of the 2012 season (and that was 3.14 million 2k).  40% off of 3.14 mill takes you down to 2 million 2k.  Again...not LIKELY....but doable (10% - 15% chance).

Also....if you look further down the page in the SAME LINK...to the 14th GRAPHIC....you'll find the "DMI TEMPS ABOVE 80 LATITUDE".  In 2012....the DMI had crossed BELOW the "normal average" temperature line (green line) from day 115 through about day 140.  This year...we're STILL ABOVE that "normal line" (warmer) and we're past day 120.  So conditions are warmer now than they were in 2012.

All in all....my eyes will be on the Beaufort and the CAB...   

[Buddy]

Possible/likely impacts of significant Arctic melt...as well as possible significant Greenland melt this year:

1)  Political impacts on the US elections.  A significant melt WILL likely impact the US elections this summer and fall.  The nominating conventions are July 18-21 for Republicans...and the week AFTER for Democrats.  The election itself....is in early November.  So any "significant events" in the Arctic and Greenland this summer WILL have an impact on AT LEAST the elections....if not the nominating conventions.

2)  Equity markets:  This is an interesting one.  It will be interesting to see how this summer plays out from a "physics" point of view....and how Wall Street views that.  Solar stocks after "bottoming out" in mid 2012....had a nice run up until about April of 2015.  Since then they have "pulled back" on lower volume over the last year, and I suspect they will continue to "base and repair" until they start their NEXT RISE sometime this late spring or summer.  I suspect that HARD COMMODITES (ie lithium, copper, iron ore, etc) already "bottomed" this winter in January and February....and have a "nice life" ahead of them as the world SLOWLY comes to grips that we will have to build out a LOT OF INFRASTURE to change energy systems.  It will also become apparent in coming years (next 3 years) that we may have a LOT of infrastructure building to do in the not too distant future because of rising tides.  It takes a LONG TIME to move a city.....

[crandles]

It will also become apparent in coming years (next 3 years) that we may have a LOT of infrastructure building to do in the not too distant future because of rising tides.  It takes a LONG TIME to move a city.....

How much sea level rise do you expect in next 3 years to cause such a reaction?

If really high above 20mm then perhaps society may realise? 7mm for just one year and it would be dismissed as probably exceptional due to El Nino or something like that. Even 20mm over 3 years might still be viewed that way. Even if this could get society reacting, is it likely to be this much so soon?

If high 12-19mm, do you really expect significant reaction?

If normal 6mm-11mm, well it is normal so will society carry on with thinking maybe 1m from 2000 to 2100?

[Buddy]

How much sea level rise do you expect in next 3 years to cause such a reaction?

It's NOT the amount of sea level rise in the next 3 years (that is VERY MINIMAL).....its the REALIZATION that in FUTURE DECADES WE HAVE NO CHOICE.  THAT...is what the markets will understand.  And they will "get" just how much it will take.

Building a new energy infrastructure DOES NOT HAPPEN OVERNIGHT.  Markets will understand that.  And energy infrastructure will be the FIRST thing that the markets will impact.  The "hope" will be, of course, that we can build enough energy infrastructure QUICKLY ENOUGH OVER THE NEXT 2 DECADES OR SO....that we don't HAVE TO MOVE CITIES.  I don't know if that can....or can not be done now.  We'll get a better idea over the coming 10 years.  But there is still a MASSIVE AMOUNT of building JUST TO CHANGE THE ENERGY INFRASTURE.  MASSIVE.

[Neven]

Buddy, there's an entire Category to make your texts on-topic. Cheers.

[Buddy]

My bad....apologies to all.  Neven....maybe you can move those comments.

[Neven]

No problem, I do it too sometimes. Looking at how things are progressing right now, it's only natural to look ahead at what it may potentially mean for all kinds of things.

[Andreas T]

The southward movement at the Fram strait has slowed over the last couple of days, which fits the Hycom prediction. Hycom http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/hycomARC/navo/arc_list_arcticicespddrf.htmlfurther predicts slowdown of movement in the whole arctic. Is that just an older weather prediction?
dates shown are 29.4. and 2.5.

[plinius]

It may not be apparent from the area graph, but there is obviously some refreezing taking place in the Beaufort Sea:

http://GreatWhiteCon.info/resources/arctic-sea-ice-images/winter-2015-16-images/#Beaufort

An intriguing optical illusion too, to my ageing eyes at least!

Actually, those white lines are very intruiging. Checked the past days, and it seems like typically one (or sometimes none) line is added per day - stronger re-freeze at night creating some coastal features to the ice floes?

[magnamentis]

It may not be apparent from the area graph, but there is obviously some refreezing taking place in the Beaufort Sea:

http://GreatWhiteCon.info/resources/arctic-sea-ice-images/winter-2015-16-images/#Beaufort

An intriguing optical illusion too, to my ageing eyes at least!

Actually, those white lines are very intruiging. Checked the past days, and it seems like typically one (or sometimes none) line is added per day - stronger re-freeze at night creating some coastal features to the ice floes?

@Jim Hunt are you sure? night temps in the areas with open water were around -4/-5C and even though my knowledge is limited that would not be cold enough for proper re-freezing. i was reading it takes to be around -10C for freezing. ready to learn otherwise though

[Andreas T]

Obuoy14 is not near the area discussed but the pattern may apply. Obuoy13 http://obuoy.datatransport.org/monitor#buoy13/weather also has that cycle even without the diurnal temperature variation. Could the presence of open water even  strengthen the cycle.
There is a clear 24 hour oscillation in wind speed. Since the ice forms at first in loose platelets its movement may well be the cause of these daily "growth rings".
Temperatures at Barrow are higher than between these still cold ice floes and I have doubts that the -10 deg which are often quoted are really such an absolute limit.