Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Author Topic: The 2016 melting season  (Read 1680276 times)

bbr2314

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1817
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 163
  • Likes Given: 53
Re: The 2016 melting season
« Reply #2650 on: June 28, 2016, 07:41:35 AM »
Kara is getting ready to roast, Beaufort/Pac side almost there as well, and the surge of warmth into Svalbard & beyond is looking very potent. July will bring a cliff like we have never seen before, I think.

The key here isn't just the temps below the ice -- if you have wide regions of 10C+ water immediately surrounding the pack, you have much more energy for major cyclones.

I think the implication of extreme warmth in Svalbard area/Kara is that the potential for FRAM/ATL-export-inducing cyclones is heightened while their intensity will also be stronger than previous years. It isn't just what's happening to the ice, but the conditions around it.



It should also be noted that it appears wildfire season is now beginning across *all* of northern Russia as today MODIS shows an enormous amount of smoke belching out of Siberia directly towards the peripheral seas.


Neven

  • Administrator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 7751
    • View Profile
    • Arctic Sea Ice Blog
  • Liked: 1128
  • Likes Given: 512
Re: The 2016 melting season
« Reply #2651 on: June 28, 2016, 08:12:24 AM »
I have been reading for several months about the "blowtorch" that is going to melt all the arctic ice.  Sorry, I forgot his name, but the guy with the Michael Jackson picture used that word a lot.  Can someone tell me what the graph means and how sub-freezing temps will melt all the ice?

A strawman won't get you many answers.  ;)
Il faut comparer, comparer, comparer, et cultiver notre jardin

iwantatr8

  • New ice
  • Posts: 70
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 19
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: The 2016 melting season
« Reply #2652 on: June 28, 2016, 08:21:29 AM »
I don't know if this has shown up elsewhere, but NSIDC has a new prototype product for sea ice concentration:

https://nsidc.org/data/docs/noaa/g10005-masam2/

A quick forum search suggests not, so thanks for finding it!
latest image from a couple of days ago here:
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/pub/DATASETS/NOAA/G10005/BrowseData/2016/masam2-20160625.png

One to add to the daily ASI graphs perhaps.


Lord M Vader

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1330
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 46
  • Likes Given: 29
Re: The 2016 melting season
« Reply #2653 on: June 28, 2016, 08:29:14 AM »
By tomorrow 2016 will most likely no longer be the lowest on record per IJIS numbers. Todays value of 9,15 Mn km2 means that we need a century break to be ahead of 2010. By June 2010 the value was 9,02 Mn km2 meaningthat we need to see a drop of 130K to remain in first place. Only Hudson Bay seems to have a chance to contribute to such a big drop today.

All in all, with the cyclonic weather to continue for the next 10 days we can more or less be confident that neither 2012 or 2007 will be beaten. Slaters forecast calls for a SIE ~5,52 Mn km2 by the middle of August. That value seems to be more or less the same as 2015 had by the same time. And we should not forget that July 2015 was the second warmest July behind 2007.

I can almost for sure guarantee that there won't be another as warm July this year!

The main question for now and onward IMO is what will happe inthe ESS; will we see a "bridge" of open water from Beaufort to Laptevwith ice remaining in the ESS? Or will all that ice be gone by September 15?

About the "blowtorch", I think you are referring to Frivolouz.

Best, LMV

Andreas T

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1143
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: The 2016 melting season
« Reply #2654 on: June 28, 2016, 09:24:31 AM »
I have been reading for several months about the "blowtorch" that is going to melt all the arctic ice.  Sorry, I forgot his name, but the guy with the Michael Jackson picture used that word a lot.  Can someone tell me what the graph means and how sub-freezing temps will melt all the ice?

Thanks in advance!  I am just trying to understand the data.
Can we have a guide to not posting 925mb temps? Surface temps have been running much warmer, as has been posted *numerous* times in the past few pages.
I prefer to look at data I don't understand with the purpose of finding out what I don't understand!
How about a guide to what 925mb temps mean? I am not a meteorologist so anyone with in depth knowledge in that area (thermodynamics of the atmosphere) correct me if I am wrong.
In a standard atmosphere 925mb is the air pressure 760m above sea level. If air is warmed at the ground and then rises it is colder at that height because it expands and cools from 1013mbar. In the arctic ocean where the sea ice keeps temperatures of the surface around 0 deg C temperatures are often higher at 925mbar than at the surface. This is because air from elsewhere (where land surfaces warm the air) which moves north is less dense than the cold surface air and therefore "floats" above it. If winds create enough turbulence mixing of that air down to the surface will warm the surface and cool the air. This is why surface air temperatures (at 2 meters off the ground) are never far from 0 deg. The 925mbar temps show more strongly when warm air comes into the arctic. The low average shows that despite the inflows which have occurred for short periods the overall effect has not been as strong as in other years.
What temperatures do not show strongly is the heating which goes into water from sunlight. Water is warmed through absorption over a large depth / volume of water so temperatures rise slowly.
When the spreading of the ice shown in bbr's posts opens water (which is cold) absorption is increased but surface temperatures don't rise, possibly fall.

bbr2314

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1817
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 163
  • Likes Given: 53
Re: The 2016 melting season
« Reply #2655 on: June 28, 2016, 09:49:09 AM »
I have been reading for several months about the "blowtorch" that is going to melt all the arctic ice.  Sorry, I forgot his name, but the guy with the Michael Jackson picture used that word a lot.  Can someone tell me what the graph means and how sub-freezing temps will melt all the ice?

Thanks in advance!  I am just trying to understand the data.
Can we have a guide to not posting 925mb temps? Surface temps have been running much warmer, as has been posted *numerous* times in the past few pages.
I prefer to look at data I don't understand with the purpose of finding out what I don't understand!
How about a guide to what 925mb temps mean? I am not a meteorologist so anyone with in depth knowledge in that area (thermodynamics of the atmosphere) correct me if I am wrong.
In a standard atmosphere 925mb is the air pressure 760m above sea level. If air is warmed at the ground and then rises it is colder at that height because it expands and cools from 1013mbar. In the arctic ocean where the sea ice keeps temperatures of the surface around 0 deg C temperatures are often higher at 925mbar than at the surface. This is because air from elsewhere (where land surfaces warm the air) which moves north is less dense than the cold surface air and therefore "floats" above it. If winds create enough turbulence mixing of that air down to the surface will warm the surface and cool the air. This is why surface air temperatures (at 2 meters off the ground) are never far from 0 deg. The 925mbar temps show more strongly when warm air comes into the arctic. The low average shows that despite the inflows which have occurred for short periods the overall effect has not been as strong as in other years.
What temperatures do not show strongly is the heating which goes into water from sunlight. Water is warmed through absorption over a large depth / volume of water so temperatures rise slowly.
When the spreading of the ice shown in bbr's posts opens water (which is cold) absorption is increased but surface temperatures don't rise, possibly fall.


This is why the graphs are much more useful in winter vs summer.

The amount of open water is absolutely crucial to the melt season, and is much more important than heat at 925mb.

This is why the gaps opening in the heart of the CAB are going to be a major driver for melt as we push forward. Besides the peripheral seas now getting blowtorched/cyclone'd to death, we now have water in the heart of the Arctic absorbing significant amounts of sunlight, numbers that will only increase as ice keeps melting.

The key difference between 2012 and 2016, IMO, is the Beaufort and the surrounding ice. In 2012, we saw open water, but there was much thicker ice in the vicinity. Some of the thickest ice remaining this year -- which is much thinner than what we had in 2012 -- is either already over or being shunted towards waters that have absorbed an unprecedented amount of energy.

The 00z EURO shows an absolute blowtorch over the CAA beginning by the middle of the period, and the other models also show a significant low pressure system starting on the Russian side ~48hrs and winding up towards the CAA thereafter, maintaining decent strength.

It seems to not be coincidental that these lows are following the (increasingly) open waters which is perhaps another reason why the soon-to-be gaping chasm between the ESS ice and the CAB ice is expanding.

While the long term implications of ^ are dire, the short-term impact of the cyclonic activity and lack of snowpack over Siberia should see the remaining coastal ice abutting Russia disintegrate within the next 200 hours or so, at least that's what DMI shows.

Michael Hauber

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 900
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 78
  • Likes Given: 14
Re: The 2016 melting season
« Reply #2656 on: June 28, 2016, 09:50:03 AM »

How about a guide to what 925mb temps mean? I am not a meteorologist so anyone with in depth knowledge in that area (thermodynamics of the atmosphere) correct me if I am wrong.
In a standard atmosphere 925mb is the air pressure 760m above sea level. If air is warmed at the ground and then rises it is colder at that height because it expands and cools from 1013mbar. In the arctic ocean where the sea ice keeps temperatures of the surface around 0 deg C temperatures are often higher at 925mbar than at the surface. This is because air from elsewhere (where land surfaces warm the air) which moves north is less dense than the cold surface air and therefore "floats" above it. If winds create enough turbulence mixing of that air down to the surface will warm the surface and cool the air. This is why surface air temperatures (at 2 meters off the ground) are never far from 0 deg. The 925mbar temps show more strongly when warm air comes into the arctic. The low average shows that despite the inflows which have occurred for short periods the overall effect has not been as strong as in other years.
What temperatures do not show strongly is the heating which goes into water from sunlight. Water is warmed through absorption over a large depth / volume of water so temperatures rise slowly.
When the spreading of the ice shown in bbr's posts opens water (which is cold) absorption is increased but surface temperatures don't rise, possibly fall.

I would add that adiabatic heating means that air at 925hp will be around 4 to 5 degrees warmer when it mixes down to the surface.  In a high pressure system air from  higher in the atmosphere sinks to the surface causing substantial heating which will raise the 925hp temp.  At the same time the sinking air clears out the clouds allowing a combination of sunshine and warm sinking air to melt ice.  High pressure, high 925hp, high solar radiation and high surface melting often coincide. 
Climate change:  Prepare for the worst, hope for the best, expect the middle.

Rob Dekker

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2386
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 118
  • Likes Given: 119
Re: The 2016 melting season
« Reply #2657 on: June 28, 2016, 10:08:37 AM »
Slaters forecast calls for a SIE ~5,52 Mn km2 by the middle of August. That value seems to be more or less the same as 2015 had by the same time.

Actually 2015 was at 5.84 halfway (15th of) August.
This is our planet. This is our time.
Let's not waste either.

JayW

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 603
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 220
  • Likes Given: 264
Re: The 2016 melting season
« Reply #2658 on: June 28, 2016, 10:43:24 AM »
I have been reading for several months about the "blowtorch" that is going to melt all the arctic ice.  Sorry, I forgot his name, but the guy with the Michael Jackson picture used that word a lot.  Can someone tell me what the graph means and how sub-freezing temps will melt all the ice?

Thanks in advance!  I am just trying to understand the data.
Can we have a guide to not posting 925mb temps? Surface temps have been running much warmer, as has been posted *numerous* times in the past few pages.

Clearly a troll, should be ignored.
"To defy the laws of tradition, is a crusade only of the brave" - Les Claypool

oren

  • Moderator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6210
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2257
  • Likes Given: 1896
Re: The 2016 melting season
« Reply #2659 on: June 28, 2016, 10:57:35 AM »
I have been reading for several months about the "blowtorch" that is going to melt all the arctic ice.  Sorry, I forgot his name, but the guy with the Michael Jackson picture used that word a lot.  Can someone tell me what the graph means and how sub-freezing temps will melt all the ice?

Thanks in advance!  I am just trying to understand the data.

Actually, Friv hasn't posted in a while about blowtorches (or anything else for that matter).
And the sub-freezing temps you refer to are at a height of 2000 ft. (925mb).
Please filter your posts more carefully for facts.

Where is Friv anyway? Without his comments this season is a bore  :-[

Adam Ash

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 309
    • View Profile
    • The 100 metre line
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 22
Re: The 2016 melting season
« Reply #2660 on: June 28, 2016, 11:05:45 AM »
Hi Oren!  A lot of us are feeling our way here and we may say things which may not be quite kosher a-la 'experts'.  Would you mind cutting such folk a bit of slack and being a little mellower in your hits.  Plz?  Ta! :)

magnamentis

  • Guest
Re: The 2016 melting season
« Reply #2661 on: June 28, 2016, 11:05:53 AM »

above 80N is the part of the arctic which almost all is about when we are talking about final results of the melting season because that's where most of the remaining ice in september will be, so the above 80N conditions are most important to the final outcome of a melting season while the rest is more or less prone to seasonal variability.

Most of the ice inside 80N never melts out, and so has nothing to do with year to year variability.  Much of the difference between one year and the next is driven by how much ice outside 80N remains.

If it is only the ice within 80N that matters, then how would you compare the state of the ice this year with that in 2013?  There is only a small area of weakened ice within the 80N circle this year towards ESS with most of the rest of the weak area from Beaufort to Laptev outside this circle.  In contrast during 2013 the weakened area cut a large swathe almost through the center of the 80N circle.

sorry but you don't get the point IMO, the moment we're talking new records or no new records we talk CAB above 80N, the rest is more or less routine already with a few out riggers to varying sides depending on the weather and the currents of a specific season.

it's really interesting how things get disconnected and laid out in any favourable manner to allow for justification of once views. most of the discussion for weeks was whether this year will beat or be close to 2012 and to achieve a lower minimum it matters how much ice will melt >80N. i can't see what's to deny there. the second discussion, even though not that strong, is about if and when the arctic becomes ice free or almost so. again we have to look at CAB and above 80N to achieve an (almost) ice free arctic.

the past is the past, we are now talking THIS year and/or the future. if your car brakes down you won't say "but yesterday it was working flawlessly" at least i hope so. ;)

EDIT: those images are not good to illustrate whether the ice is weakened or not. they show percentages only while the 4 and 5 meter ice is almost gone, this is what i mean with weakened. not a percentage of an abstract value but the real amount of ice in place as compared to "once upon a time" not seasonal weakening, really weak. thin, smaller and smaller floes, mobile like never before, transport as usual only is that low because most of the ice has been and is melting (vanishing) before it reaches the common export pathways. sure there is no fram export if the ice doesn't reach the fram straight anymore LOL

generally it appears that some people here reach deniers level to underline their points which is a bit of a shame.
and interestingly all this ongoing "it can't happen" discussions we have during a many months lead agains any other year before while the reminder of the ice was warmer, thinner and more fragmented from day one.
"shake head"
« Last Edit: June 28, 2016, 11:15:10 AM by magnamentis »

Tigertown

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1676
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 20
  • Likes Given: 17
Re: The 2016 melting season
« Reply #2662 on: June 28, 2016, 11:10:05 AM »
A couple visual reminders.
« Last Edit: June 28, 2016, 11:36:14 AM by Tigertown »
"....and the appointed time came for God to bring to ruin those ruining the earth." Revelation 11:18.

oren

  • Moderator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6210
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2257
  • Likes Given: 1896
Re: The 2016 melting season
« Reply #2663 on: June 28, 2016, 11:35:11 AM »
Hi Oren!  A lot of us are feeling our way here and we may say things which may not be quite kosher a-la 'experts'.  Would you mind cutting such folk a bit of slack and being a little mellower in your hits.  Plz?  Ta! :)

Hi Adam, apologies, not meaning to hit anyone, it's just that some very specific newbies post all over the place without bothering to check facts, or considering if their posts are relevant (aig  ::) ), while most of them are trying to learn and are very welcome. I am a newbie myself and basically don't know anything. I even had to look up what 925mb means in terms of height.
When I was a new newbie, I was scared of posting and double-checked everything I could before hitting the button. Those that clearly don't do it, I try to give a gentle reminder when I've had enough.

seaicesailor

  • Guest
Re: The 2016 melting season
« Reply #2664 on: June 28, 2016, 12:07:23 PM »
Wow been looking at the weather page of ASIG and Beaufort is done, big guy and all
Context? Where is the discussion?
Yes sorry, I've been posting from the phone all the time these past days. To bottom melt (which may be spectacular due to heat and mixing in open water) add now surface melting and compaction, the aggregated rate of melting should do the thick MYI. It is in worse state than last year.
So the context is: I am reaching out a bit, but the prospects altogether are pretty bad

seaicesailor

  • Guest
Re: The 2016 melting season
« Reply #2665 on: June 28, 2016, 12:30:38 PM »
Oren,
Weather people interested in Arctic post regularly here:
http://www.americanwx.com/bb/index.php/topic/156-arctic-sea-ice-extent-area-and-volume/page-539#entry4158660

This melting season so far, that thread has not been as fun, pretty muted.


oren

  • Moderator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6210
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2257
  • Likes Given: 1896
Re: The 2016 melting season
« Reply #2666 on: June 28, 2016, 12:43:48 PM »
Oren,
Weather people interested in Arctic post regularly here:
http://www.americanwx.com/bb/index.php/topic/156-arctic-sea-ice-extent-area-and-volume/page-539#entry4158660

This melting season so far, that thread has not been as fun, pretty muted.

Thanks

slow wing

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 819
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 156
  • Likes Given: 496
Re: The 2016 melting season
« Reply #2667 on: June 28, 2016, 01:47:14 PM »
With much of the ice already mobile, I suspect the winds generated from any major pressure systems will already be conducive to further bottom melt, both immediately from motion and later due to mixing and to polyna generated.

GFS is showing plenty of weather in the Arctic Basin over the coming week.
http://cci-reanalyzer.org/Forecasts/#ARC-LEA

About a week out, the prediction is for what afaik people here refer to as a a variant of a 'reverse dipole' configuration: a low pressure region between Svalbard and Greenland with a high pressure system on the Russian side of it. That will tend to give winds into the Arctic Basin from the Atlantic side. (Although there is also high pressure over Greenland, so it could also blow ice out the Fram Strait into the Atlantic Ocean.)

The high pressure is still moderate, with a maximum at ~1020 hPa, but the low pressure is predicted to be building to below 980 hPa.

If it happens, I suspect it will be unhealthy for the ice.
« Last Edit: June 28, 2016, 01:52:19 PM by slow wing »

JayW

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 603
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 220
  • Likes Given: 264
Re: The 2016 melting season
« Reply #2668 on: June 28, 2016, 01:51:56 PM »
And the EURO shows the complete opposite.  Weather is hard to forecast.  :)  but I agree, any strong winds could have a definite impact. Especially if they become persistent.

http://mp1.met.psu.edu/~fxg1/CMCNA_0z
"To defy the laws of tradition, is a crusade only of the brave" - Les Claypool

slow wing

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 819
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 156
  • Likes Given: 496
Re: The 2016 melting season
« Reply #2669 on: June 28, 2016, 01:55:17 PM »
Heh! Yes, predictions a week out are uncertain.

The Climate Reanalyser is giving me the GFS forecast, nicely displayed. What is the best link for browsing the EURO forecast?

JayW

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 603
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 220
  • Likes Given: 264
Re: The 2016 melting season
« Reply #2670 on: June 28, 2016, 02:05:19 PM »
I like tropical tidbits for a quick look, and to easily toggle between model runs.

http://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/models/

For ECMWF stuff, I like the ECMWF site.  :)  Especially the ensembles with spread, as it shows how "confident" the model is.

Attached is an example of the ECMWF ensembles, hour 168, 500mb geopotential height, the left is the "mean" of the 51 runs, and the right is the "control".  The control is a single model run, run at the highest resolution, similar to the operational ECMWF.

http://www.ecmwf.int/en/forecasts/charts/catalogue?f[0]=im_field_chart_type%3A481&f[1]=im_field_chart_type_2%3A607

"To defy the laws of tradition, is a crusade only of the brave" - Les Claypool

Richard Rathbone

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 797
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 131
  • Likes Given: 11
Re: The 2016 melting season
« Reply #2671 on: June 28, 2016, 02:16:20 PM »
I don't know if this has shown up elsewhere, but NSIDC has a new prototype product for sea ice concentration:

https://nsidc.org/data/docs/noaa/g10005-masam2/

That page is an interesting read with further references in it to follow up on for anyone interested in the sorts of errors that occur in extent and area products.

This product treats anything where ice is observed visually (40% concentration on visual inspection being the cut off) as being ice, and gives it the microwave derived concentration, or 70%, whichever is higher. (i.e if visual sees 50%, microwave sees 60%, this product calls it 70%)

It is also used as the data source for the US Navy models to assimilate, and was specifically designed for that purpose.

iceman

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 285
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 19
Re: The 2016 melting season
« Reply #2672 on: June 28, 2016, 02:52:00 PM »
   ....
I can almost for sure guarantee that there won't be another as warm July this year!
   ....

Why not?  Granted that the odds are against it, with the month getting off to a cool start in the central basin.  But the earth is warmer overall this year, and a lot of that excess heat is piled up outside the Bering gates.  Low snow cover on coastal land adds further to the heat budget.  If pressure systems align to pull that heat into the Arctic, a top-3 July 2016 is certainly within range.

slow wing

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 819
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 156
  • Likes Given: 496
Re: The 2016 melting season
« Reply #2673 on: June 28, 2016, 02:53:41 PM »
Thanks for the helpful weather model links, JayW. That Tropical Tidbits link is a useful one for a quick look!

http://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/models/?model=ecmwf&region=nhem&pkg=z500_mslp&runtime=2016062800&fh=96&xpos=0&ypos=155
« Last Edit: June 28, 2016, 02:59:07 PM by slow wing »

weatherdude88

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 154
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 12
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The 2016 melting season
« Reply #2674 on: June 28, 2016, 04:02:28 PM »

Can we have a guide to not posting 925mb temps? Surface temps have been running much warmer, as has been posted *numerous* times in the past few pages.

Surface Temps are currently anomalously cold at latitudes 80 degrees and north.





Additionally ice volume is now ahead of 2012 and 2015.



I am expecting PIOMAS to reflect this during the next update since they closely correlate.

weatherdude88

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 154
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 12
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The 2016 melting season
« Reply #2675 on: June 28, 2016, 05:42:55 PM »

How about a guide to what 925mb temps mean? I am not a meteorologist so anyone with in depth knowledge in that area (thermodynamics of the atmosphere) correct me if I am wrong.
In a standard atmosphere 925mb is the air pressure 760m above sea level. If air is warmed at the ground and then rises it is colder at that height because it expands and cools from 1013mbar. In the arctic ocean where the sea ice keeps temperatures of the surface around 0 deg C temperatures are often higher at 925mbar than at the surface. This is because air from elsewhere (where land surfaces warm the air) which moves north is less dense than the cold surface air and therefore "floats" above it. If winds create enough turbulence mixing of that air down to the surface will warm the surface and cool the air. This is why surface air temperatures (at 2 meters off the ground) are never far from 0 deg. The 925mbar temps show more strongly when warm air comes into the arctic. The low average shows that despite the inflows which have occurred for short periods the overall effect has not been as strong as in other years.
What temperatures do not show strongly is the heating which goes into water from sunlight. Water is warmed through absorption over a large depth / volume of water so temperatures rise slowly.
When the spreading of the ice shown in bbr's posts opens water (which is cold) absorption is increased but surface temperatures don't rise, possibly fall.

I would add that adiabatic heating means that air at 925hp will be around 4 to 5 degrees warmer when it mixes down to the surface. In a high pressure system air from  higher in the atmosphere sinks to the surface causing substantial heating which will raise the 925hp temp.  At the same time the sinking air clears out the clouds allowing a combination of sunshine and warm sinking air to melt ice.  High pressure, high 925hp, high solar radiation and high surface melting often coincide.

You have to specify the time of year. For example: during the winter months the 925 MB temperatures on average are warmer then the surface. (Temperature Inversion) This is directly due to a lack of sunlight (thermal energy) to heat the layers of the atmosphere. There is a continuous loss of heat from the surface. The thermal energy from the sun trumps the properties of the air that rise or lower with different atmospheric conditions. When the sunlight returns across the arctic the temperature inversion returns to the standard profile we see at lower latitudes year round. The high heat capacity of liquid and frozen water at the surface keeps the surface near freezing during the summer months. You also have to specify the conditions. Over land in general there is a 7.4616 C temperature difference between 925 MB and the surface when there is sunny weather. When there is water falling through the column the temperature difference on average is 4.5797 C on average. Keep in mind sunny weather heats the water at surface as well as the air molecules in the atmospheric layers above. Cold 925 MB temperatures are an indication of cloudy weather. Less thermal energy in the lowers layer of the atmosphere and surface are significantly favorable for less ice melt.

bbr2314

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1817
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 163
  • Likes Given: 53
Re: The 2016 melting season
« Reply #2676 on: June 28, 2016, 06:26:45 PM »

Can we have a guide to not posting 925mb temps? Surface temps have been running much warmer, as has been posted *numerous* times in the past few pages.

Surface Temps are currently anomalously cold at latitudes 80 degrees and north.





Additionally ice volume is now ahead of 2012 and 2015.



I am expecting PIOMAS to reflect this during the next update since they closely correlate.

I said surface temps are running warmer than 925 *not* running above normal though it is irrelevant since it is only a half-degree difference.

I also suspect DMI's volume graph is missing the gaps in concentration across much of the Central Arctic as it looks very different from HYCOM/others.

seaicesailor

  • Guest
Re: The 2016 melting season
« Reply #2677 on: June 28, 2016, 07:15:44 PM »
With cyclonic weather LMV refers to, yet for the rest of the week plenty of warmth into the Pacific side. It is only a few days but it can solidify the famous belated momentum. Canada extremely hot too.
Then this boring low in seven days. Should we trust the 5-10 day forecasts? We will see.

Further speculation, I agree PIOMAS July may fall behind 2010-12.

Richard Rathbone

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 797
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 131
  • Likes Given: 11
Re: The 2016 melting season
« Reply #2678 on: June 28, 2016, 07:22:23 PM »

I also suspect DMI's volume graph is missing the gaps in concentration across much of the Central Arctic as it looks very different from HYCOM/others.

The DMI's model is HYCOM.

magnamentis

  • Guest
Re: The 2016 melting season
« Reply #2679 on: June 28, 2016, 07:36:52 PM »
i was quite sure that we're in for another nice "poof" surprise after the cam will be back and regret that i was reluctant to predict that as it happened in kimmirut 1 month ahead of time, here we go.

just missing the first parasols at the beach LOL, would make a nice windsurf spot now [JK]

EDIT: as to DMI's volume/thickness graphs, as long as they repeatingly show 4-5 meter ice where is indeed open waters i won't even look at them anymore and just scroll down to charts and graphs that provide value. they are exactly the kind of contradictory input that in parts are responsible for some heated debates, depending
on who's been using which sources for quite some time over the last few years.

weatherdude88

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 154
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 12
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The 2016 melting season
« Reply #2680 on: June 28, 2016, 07:58:41 PM »
I said surface temps are running warmer than 925 *not* running above normal though it is irrelevant since it is only a half-degree difference.

Please define "warmer than 925"? At first glance 2M temperatures are currently in the same or at a lower percentile than 925 MB.





"irrelevant" Considering at the surface arctic ocean water freezes at -1.8 C, freshwater at 0 C, and taking into account the proximity to and the high heat capacity of water, I would conclude it to be relevant. Just because the temperature anomaly range at 925 MB is greater, does not make the "half-degree difference" at the surface irrelevant.



 

« Last Edit: June 28, 2016, 08:11:01 PM by weatherdude88 »

EthanOConnor

  • New ice
  • Posts: 10
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The 2016 melting season
« Reply #2681 on: June 28, 2016, 08:56:32 PM »

I also suspect DMI's volume graph is missing the gaps in concentration across much of the Central Arctic as it looks very different from HYCOM/others.

The DMI's model is HYCOM.

I'm sure what was meant was ACNFS. It's true that DMI uses a hycom/cice model like the US Navy, but among other differences the forcings are from ECMWF instead of NAVGEM, the DMI resolution is significantly lower, and the DMI doesn't have access to NCODA for 3D ocean state assimilation.

I know I typically mean ACNFS when I say HYCOM, and I should probably be more careful about that...

All of that said, however, I'm unaware of a volume product from ACNFS. Pixel counting the thickness & concentration maps to derive one has been on my radar for a bit.

jdallen

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3234
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 499
  • Likes Given: 204
Re: The 2016 melting season
« Reply #2682 on: June 28, 2016, 09:14:32 PM »
I said surface temps are running warmer than 925 *not* running above normal though it is irrelevant since it is only a half-degree difference.

<Snippage>

... " Considering at the surface arctic ocean water freezes at -1.8 C, freshwater at 0 C, and taking into account the proximity to and the high heat capacity of water, I would conclude it to be relevant. Just because the temperature anomaly range at 925 MB is greater, does not make the "half-degree difference" at the surface irrelevant.

A number of things occur to me.

First, Feeltheburn, I recommend going through some of the threads we have and review various discussions about melt rates, insolation, rates of heat transfer, and The Kind.  Digest that before indulging in Dunning-Kruger-esqe questions patently designed to irritate people.  You have Neven's attention.  In your case, that isn't necessarily a good thing if you want to continue contributing to the forums.

Second (back to the data) - I'm far less impressed by departures more than 1SD from average in summer as I am in winter.  We're talking about less than 2C at this time of year, vs 20C in winter.  The effect on heat transfer is far different.

Further, slightly reduced temperatures in summer are actually still indicative of heat gain rather than heat loss.  The ocean is a powerful moderator, and sea surface temperatures over most of 80N are still between -1.5 and -1.8C, which means heat will be pulled out of the atmosphere to bring it down to close to that range.  It will actually (because of evaporation) do that more rather than less readily than complete ice coverage will, when we have significant expanses (upwards of 10-20%) of open water in the form of leads.  In short, open water can equal temperatures dropped down to close to that of the water, and be kept there, even with considerable sunshine.

So, 80N temperatures being 2SD's (about 2C) below normal don't really provide me with any sense of relief, and do not necessarily indicate the ice is going to be better off at the end of the season.
This space for Rent.

BornFromTheVoid

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1187
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 467
  • Likes Given: 143
Re: The 2016 melting season
« Reply #2683 on: June 28, 2016, 09:14:52 PM »
Daily NSIDC extent is now below 2010.
With 2012, 2011 and 2007 dropping at rates of 110k, 114k, 129k/day respectively over the next 20 days, we could find ourselves well behind if the melt rate doesn't pick up substantially.
I recently joined the twitter thing, where I post more analysis, pics and animations: @Icy_Samuel

bbr2314

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1817
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 163
  • Likes Given: 53
Re: The 2016 melting season
« Reply #2684 on: June 28, 2016, 10:06:19 PM »
Extent is irrelevant. The chasm is growing quickly and the storms over the next week will transfer more heat into the pack. This is a KO shot.



I will go out on a limb and say upwards of 20% of 80N will be open water come 8/1, and the rest will die by the end of September. Truly catastrophic failure we are witnessing.

magnamentis

  • Guest
Re: The 2016 melting season
« Reply #2685 on: June 28, 2016, 10:34:07 PM »
Extent is irrelevant. The chasm is growing quickly and the storms over the next week will transfer more heat into the pack. This is a KO shot.



I will go out on a limb and say upwards of 20% of 80N will be open water come 8/1, and the rest will die by the end of September. Truly catastrophic failure we are witnessing.

after a few weeks of reading your stuff let me put it like that, two things:

a) i agree with your reasoning (arguments) to explain why you expect to happen what you predict

b) i don't agree with the "doomsday" scenarios, it will be lowest or second lowest depending on weather IMO

may i put to your attention as i did before ( and got bashed for it LOL ) that exaggeration is undermining
credibility. what i'm saying is that even though i believe that your arguments are correct to predict something
extraordinary (which it already is through facts like percentage in the lead this year) while the exaggerated
prediction takes credibility (seriousness) from those correct arguments somewhat.

so why am i posting this, not to argue with you but to protect the arguments and reason which i believe is true and see jeopardized by what i described above and which in the wake will always cause counter reactions and
all together it will not help our common case.

BornFromTheVoid

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1187
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 467
  • Likes Given: 143
Re: The 2016 melting season
« Reply #2686 on: June 28, 2016, 10:40:42 PM »
Extent is irrelevant. The chasm is growing quickly and the storms over the next week will transfer more heat into the pack. This is a KO shot.


I will go out on a limb and say upwards of 20% of 80N will be open water come 8/1, and the rest will die by the end of September. Truly catastrophic failure we are witnessing.

What storms? Nothing in the forecast looks particularly bad. A few small depressions (as is normal), +ve upper air anomalies in some areas, -ve anomalies in others, a little warmer than normal overall.

You've been calling for a catastrophic, 2012-like, loss of ice since at least the end of May. Instead the opposite has occurred. We've lost our massive lead and could drop out of the bottom 3 by most measures within the next 10 days.

The ice is in a very poor state, but there isn't anything to suggest a catastrophic ice loss is imminent in the near term.
I recently joined the twitter thing, where I post more analysis, pics and animations: @Icy_Samuel

icy voyeur

  • New ice
  • Posts: 63
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The 2016 melting season
« Reply #2687 on: June 28, 2016, 10:42:46 PM »
Extent is irrelevant.

\rant on
Irrelevant to what? You keep making these grand pronouncement with self-asserted sweeping authority, but you consistently fail to provide context.
Irrelevant to what? You seem to have some personal narrative in mind and only care about cherry-picked data that supports it. Perhaps you should start your own blog where you can keep the focus on your particular interests, whatever they are, seemingly telling your story of catastrophe. By all means, provide a perspective but could you tone down the Lordly Edicts? Because perhaps, just perhaps, not everyone here has your same narrow interests.
\rant off

dnem

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 585
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 256
  • Likes Given: 179
Re: The 2016 melting season
« Reply #2688 on: June 28, 2016, 11:07:06 PM »
I think you've made your point bbr2314.  If the pack cleaves in two and the bottom falls out of the numbers you can stand up and take your bow.  But until then, not sure what repeating your predictions every day accomplishes.

Michael Hauber

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 900
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 78
  • Likes Given: 14
Re: The 2016 melting season
« Reply #2689 on: June 29, 2016, 12:24:58 AM »
sorry but you don't get the point IMO, the moment we're talking new records or no new records we talk CAB above 80N, the rest is more or less routine already with a few out riggers to varying sides depending on the weather and the currents of a specific season.

it's really interesting how things get disconnected and laid out in any favourable manner to allow for justification of once views. most of the discussion for weeks was whether this year will beat or be close to 2012 and to achieve a lower minimum it matters how much ice will melt >80N. i can't see what's to deny there. the second discussion, even though not that strong, is about if and when the arctic becomes ice free or almost so. again we have to look at CAB and above 80N to achieve an (almost) ice free arctic.

Quite a few people here think that there is a good chance we will fall significantly short of 2012.  In that case the amount of ice left outside of 80N is very relevant.  If we are going to end up closer to a year such as 2015 there will be substantial ice left outside the 80N circle.

Even if we were guaranteed to melt everything outside of 80N this year, I think temps outside 80N are still very relavent.  One very important factor in how far ice melts past 80N is how early in the season the melting boundary reaches 80N.  Once faster the ice outside 80N melts, the more energy is going to be available to be carried by wind into the 80N region.  In all years, including 2012 the melting boundary at the end of July was largely outside of 80N.  The correlation between ice boundary at end of July and ice boundary at minimum is reasonably obvious.
Climate change:  Prepare for the worst, hope for the best, expect the middle.

Michael Hauber

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 900
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 78
  • Likes Given: 14
Re: The 2016 melting season
« Reply #2690 on: June 29, 2016, 12:31:15 AM »

Further, slightly reduced temperatures in summer are actually still indicative of heat gain rather than heat loss.  The ocean is a powerful moderator, and sea surface temperatures over most of 80N are still between -1.5 and -1.8C, which means heat will be pulled out of the atmosphere to bring it down to close to that range.  It will actually (because of evaporation) do that more rather than less readily than complete ice coverage will, when we have significant expanses (upwards of 10-20%) of open water in the form of leads.  In short, open water can equal temperatures dropped down to close to that of the water, and be kept there, even with considerable sunshine.

So, 80N temperatures being 2SD's (about 2C) below normal don't really provide me with any sense of relief, and do not necessarily indicate the ice is going to be better off at the end of the season.

Ice is a more powerful moderator of temperatures than ocean.  We see that temperatures over ice are permanently held to very close to 0 degrees no matter how much heat and sunshine.  Any area with no ice the ocean temperatures always rise to several degrees above 0.  Open water in between ice is held to 0 not because of evaporation, but because of the nearby melting ice.  Cold temperatures really do mean less heat.
Climate change:  Prepare for the worst, hope for the best, expect the middle.

JayW

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 603
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 220
  • Likes Given: 264
Re: The 2016 melting season
« Reply #2691 on: June 29, 2016, 12:37:17 AM »
Looks like there is probably some snow falling north of Barrow.  First attachment, circled in red.
http://feeder.gina.alaska.edu

But the storm is also bringing up some warm air as well. 
Second attachment is current temps on the Beaufort shores. The should be some ridging in the area to follow, so hopefully we get a look at where the rain/snow line was.

http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/map/?&zoom=5&scroll_zoom=true&center=64.68971331643753,-158.90625&basemap=OpenStreetMap&boundaries=true,false&hazard=true&hazard_type=winter&hazard_opacity=60&obs=true&obs_type=weather&elements=temp,wind,gust&obs_popup=true&obs_density=1&radar=true&radar_min=20&radar_loop=false&radar_opacity=70
"To defy the laws of tradition, is a crusade only of the brave" - Les Claypool

seaicesailor

  • Guest
Re: The 2016 melting season
« Reply #2692 on: June 29, 2016, 01:16:54 AM »
Sometimes I feel we are kind of splitting hairs, if that is the right expression, when discussing differences with recent seasons, but especially 2012. So if one compares 2015 final extent to 2012... frankly the difference is not that radical. Ask somebody not following the melting seasons to see this pic and will say 'wow 2015 was as bad wasn't it?'.
 
« Last Edit: June 29, 2016, 01:30:21 AM by seaicesailor »

A-Team

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2664
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 557
  • Likes Given: 30
Re: The 2016 melting season
« Reply #2693 on: June 29, 2016, 01:23:22 AM »
Quote
pronouncements
I'm equally baffled by other comments above. If folks are not looking at incoming satellite data, what are they using -- an undescribed private model that works off a dodgy long-term weather prediction? If just ideology + hunches, this might not be the appropriate forum.

Back at the Beaufort, floe blueing is progressing but contrary to statements above, not one floe has been identified that changes one measurable iota in size as of 28 Jun 16. Without any physical data on current floe thickness, internal temperature profile or under-ice conditions, how are folks able to determine time-to-melt? They aren't.

To compare the Beaufort on same dates in 2012-2016, please consider 5 clicks of the mouse at Worldview prior to posting.

To compute volume by pixel color counting ratios, recall NSIDC products including MASIE are in polar stereographic which is conformal, not equal area. You would have to weight each successive latitudinal ring separately yet rectangular image pixels don't sit comfortably there. The error is then very unevenly distributed making year-on-year (or even day to day) comparisons problematic. You would have to go back to netCDF raw data because the resolution provided does not support map re-projection.

The new MASAM2 product noticed in #2642 and #2671 is extremely interesting. We should probably start a separate forum for it and add it to the daily graph section as there is published evidence it improves the ACNFS product line.

It is a blend of AMSR2 10 km with multi-source expert-annotated MASIE 4 km. The data back to 2012 is bundled into monthly .nc file sets but offered more conveniently as a very satisfactory daily.png of 2100 x 2550 pixels at 4 km ground resolution.

The Arctic Ocean requires 785 x 815 pixels; the image needs a 45º CW rotation (aka Greenland down) to overlay a WorldView. For animations we would like to get it down below 700 without resizing.

Astonishingly, the palette colors correspond exactly to map colors, there being compression blunders and processing disconnects in 99% of cryosphere maps we see.

The test is to apply a stringent color picker to a palette square and re-color the ice pink (or whatever). After picking through the entire palette, the entire map should be colored pink with no ice left over. If you counted pixels as you went, you get a first approximation of sea ice concentration areas in each bin (but see above).

However as you can see from the image below, there is one shade of blue left-over, ie they mistakenly left off one of the ice concentration classes, the one for 65% to non-zero below. (Note also the second palette block is a peculiar size.)

https://nsidc.org/data/docs/noaa/g10005-masam2/ product  description
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/pub/DATASETS/NOAA/G10005/ data archive 10 May 16 to 28 Jun 16

Improving Arctic sea ice edge forecasts by assimilating high horizontal resolution sea ice concentration data into the US Navy's ice forecast systems.
PGE Posey  et al  Cryosphere 9: 1735-1745  doi:10.5194/tc-9-1735-2015.
http://www.the-cryosphere.net/9/1735/2015/tc-9-1735-2015.html free full, 3 on-topic cites
« Last Edit: June 29, 2016, 06:59:10 AM by A-Team »

JayW

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 603
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 220
  • Likes Given: 264
Re: The 2016 melting season
« Reply #2694 on: June 29, 2016, 01:49:51 AM »
As a follow up to my previous post, it appears that we may be able to see the area that received snowfall.  This image is~ 99 , minutes after the previous one I posted.

What I believe to be fresh snowfall is circled in green, purple is where I think it's snowing, and I drew what I thought would be the positions of the fronts.

With so much warm air riding up over the cold air to office the snow, I'd expect this to be a heavy wet consistency, falling close to the freezing point .  Which made me wonder is any of this ice saline enough to melt snow that falls just below freezing (0°C)?  Or is the top layer basically always fresh from the snow?  Sorry for the stupid question.

VIIRS imagery courtesy of the university of Alaska at fairbanks.

Second image is the same, but unaltered.  :)
« Last Edit: June 29, 2016, 03:44:56 AM by JayW »
"To defy the laws of tradition, is a crusade only of the brave" - Les Claypool

jdallen

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3234
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 499
  • Likes Given: 204
Re: The 2016 melting season
« Reply #2695 on: June 29, 2016, 02:13:53 AM »

Further, slightly reduced temperatures in summer are actually still indicative of heat gain rather than heat loss.  The ocean is a powerful moderator, and sea surface temperatures over most of 80N are still between -1.5 and -1.8C, which means heat will be pulled out of the atmosphere to bring it down to close to that range.  It will actually (because of evaporation) do that more rather than less readily than complete ice coverage will, when we have significant expanses (upwards of 10-20%) of open water in the form of leads.  In short, open water can equal temperatures dropped down to close to that of the water, and be kept there, even with considerable sunshine.

So, 80N temperatures being 2SD's (about 2C) below normal don't really provide me with any sense of relief, and do not necessarily indicate the ice is going to be better off at the end of the season.

Ice is a more powerful moderator of temperatures than ocean.  We see that temperatures over ice are permanently held to very close to 0 degrees no matter how much heat and sunshine.  Any area with no ice the ocean temperatures always rise to several degrees above 0.  Open water in between ice is held to 0 not because of evaporation, but because of the nearby melting ice.  Cold temperatures really do mean less heat.

OK, let me be clear.  I'm not suggesting there isn't less heat without direct insolation.  I'm pointing out that the net heat flow is still *into* the water, not out of it, and the lower temperatures are reflective of that.

I disagree with with your assertion Ice is a more powerful moderator.  It is exactly the same moderator, when it is melting, at 0C

(Sidebar:  Salty ice not withstanding, the ice north of 80 has dumped most of that salt in brine, and so has closer to a 0C melting point)

We're not at 0C, we're below it. The ocean is still the biggest heat sink, cooler at about -1.8C, and over all best protector of the ice.  In fact the evaporation is more efficient than transferring heat, and is the source of a large fraction of the moisture giving us our helpful negative feedback - the fog and clouds we're seeing.

I wish we had some useful year over year relative humidity records.
This space for Rent.

A-Team

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2664
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 557
  • Likes Given: 30
Re: The 2016 melting season
« Reply #2696 on: June 29, 2016, 03:26:10 AM »
Quote
#2694 As a follow up to my previous post
Maybe delete the first image as it didn't work and reload a fixed version of it? Or reduce both to 700 width since no purpose is served here by giant pixel dimensions.

Also good to indicate the image channel used which seems to be bands M11-I2-I1 of Suomi NPP / VIIRS (rather than the red-tinted bands M3-I3-M11 product). Note both bands are well represented with WorldView wedges so good to make clear what is gained at U Alaska site.

If you can track down the wavelength ranges that M11, I2, and I1 represent and the ground resolution of each, that would be central to your interpretation. I am finding even basic information on the VIIRS sensors really scanty.

What you need to do here is look at lots and lots of M11-I2-I1 images for other partially cloudy days for which there is no suggestion of snow or any precip and convince us that very similar blues don't appear on those days. In science this is called 'doing the controls'.

Your post seems to have gone well beyond any capability ever previously claimed for this instrument, extraordinary notions require extraordinary evidence and all that. You should definitely alert the Suomo team of your results if a case can be made for them.


 

JayW

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 603
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 220
  • Likes Given: 264
Re: The 2016 melting season
« Reply #2697 on: June 29, 2016, 03:55:23 AM »
A-Team,

Greatly appreciate all your suggestions, and will try to be more diligent.  I use the UoAF site because it works for me as I have few resources and time, and I can make myself quick gifs using the 6-7 images per day, mainly to watch the weather. 

To be honest, I thought it was snowing because of the shape of the storm.  It looks very much like a winter snowstorm that I enjoy tracking, with the deformation zone being the area I circled in purple.  I just noticed the arc of lighter blue in the path of the storm. 

I know I can't prove it's snow, but I'd bet on it.   :)

"To defy the laws of tradition, is a crusade only of the brave" - Les Claypool

Michael Hauber

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 900
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 78
  • Likes Given: 14
Re: The 2016 melting season
« Reply #2698 on: June 29, 2016, 04:47:56 AM »

OK, let me be clear.  I'm not suggesting there isn't less heat without direct insolation.  I'm pointing out that the net heat flow is still *into* the water, not out of it, and the lower temperatures are reflective of that.
  I agree the net heat flow is into the water.  But in general higher flow of heat into the water will result in higher temperatures of the water, and not lower.

I disagree with with your assertion Ice is a more powerful moderator.  It is exactly the same moderator, when it is melting, at 0C

If heat flows into ice, it melts and stays at 0 until the ice is gone.  If heat flows into water the water temperature increases (more pedantically if the rate of flow into water increases then temp increases towards a higher equilibrium).  Also while water does evaporate, ice both melts and evaporates. 

It is possible that water at -1.8 mixed with ice at 0 would result in lower temperatures than only ice at 0.  However this would have nothing to do with higher or lower rates of heat flow into the water (and/or ice).  Considering that currently the 925hp temp is also lower than normal, and that the weather is dominated by low pressure patterns that usually cause cooler and cloudier conditions, it seems obvious that the Arctic really is cooler than normal.

A final point on surface temperatures is that it has long been a denier talking point that summer surface temperatures are currently about the same as they were in the 80s.  This is because ice is a powerful moderating influence.  In contrast the 925hp temperatures show that most recent summers are hotter than normal.
Climate change:  Prepare for the worst, hope for the best, expect the middle.

jdallen

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3234
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 499
  • Likes Given: 204
Re: The 2016 melting season
« Reply #2699 on: June 29, 2016, 06:42:34 AM »
A final point on surface temperatures is that it has long been a denier talking point that summer surface temperatures are currently about the same as they were in the 80s. 

Don't you DARE suggest I'm a denier.  Take that back.  Now.
This space for Rent.