The 2016 melting season

[Jim Hunt]

Thank you to jim hunt

My pleasure. Did you note the different version numbers, and the fact that the Navy haven't reprocessed their old snapshots?

Expt_04.0
02 February 2015
NAVGEM 1.2 atmospheric forcing
Includes assimilation of blended high resolution AMSR2/IMS ice concentration.

Comparing apples with oranges is fraught with difficulties, especially in the Arctic.

[seaicesailor]

1) Big Block did not move around much, which means that the currents and winds were erratic. This means that whatever water flowed below Big Block flowed out quickly again. So it is unclear how far that heat travelled under the ice, and thus there may be large areas underneath Big Block that received no heat at all. Which means that during 'erratic' winds and currents, big floes would receive less bottom heat per unit of area than smaller floes.

2) Even if there was a consistent current underneath the entire Big Block area, it is doubtful that the bottom-melt is uniform. Imagine a floe in a current : There is warm water flowing in from one side, which causes bottom-melt, which cools the water, which flows out on the other side.
Now, as the water flows under the ice, it looses heat (to bottom-melt) so the further it travels under the ice the less bottom-melt it will cause. I don't know how large a floe has to be for this effect (of deminishing bottom-melt) to seriously show up, but the mixed layer is only 20 meters or so, which is puny compared to the 100,000+ meters that water would need to travel underneath Big Block.
The top-layer of water is loosing heat when it travels underneath the ice, and for an ice "field" like Big Block, that effect will reduce bottom melt.

So, based on these two effects, I still claim that Big Block suffered much less bottom-melt than the smaller floes around it, and thus will be "the last floe standing" in the Beaufort.

But it WILL go in the end.

Thank you Rob. I think you are right and I should have said "average bottom melting in the big block is not much smaller". I just wanted to make a distinction to a situation in which all the water under the floe is still and seemingly no mixing and no heat transfer is occurring. But yes, just as kinematic momentum transfer diminishes with distance (skin friction reduction being the result) does heat transfer and more when the heat source is finite. In the center of the block there should be much less bottom melt even in these stirred waters

It is a very interesting problem... at least for me. I understand your reasoning that once the water reaches a constant temperature, all (or most of) the solar energy has to go to bottom melting if there are a lot of floes around. If the water is far from the ice (as in the coast) it continues getting warmer and obviously there is much more heat transfer to the atmosphere. When the winds come from the continent, this open water warmth will end up heating the pack again, just as the continental warmth, no matter if July, August or September.

[Richard Rathbone]

What Sam Carana is doing, is WUWT-level stuff, abusing some glitch or inconsistency in a graph or map, and presenting it as a representation of reality. I've read a story about this guy who was mentally unstable and then pushed over the alarmist edge by 'Sam Carana'. That's one of the reasons I'm always caveating and trying to keep some conservatism embedded in my perspective.

There is no chance that this model is representing reality. We'd have more lines of evidence. What 'Sam Carana' is doing, is irresponsible. He's just gambling on a credibility boost.

edit: And anyway, are those images in the comparison from the exact same model, run at the exact same parameters? Or is one from that GLB model thing, and the other one from HYCOM/CICE (I don't know, I'm not keeping a tab on these things, as I only occasionally look at the NRL ACNFS stuff)?

They are indeed different models run with different parameters, but the key thing is that a garbage time forecast for 2016 is being compared against data for 2012. (which is indeed WUWT level stuff but its also standard practice in this folder to use the garbage time output from the Navy model).

If its a comparison of this year's data against another year's data, it might have merit, but comparing this year's garbage time forecast with a past year's data is completely without merit and should be ignored.

[plinius]

I agree with Neven here.  We have to be careful at this time, not so much that we are not continuing to see unprecedented activity and transformation of the entire globe's climate, and should continue to display our observations, but rather because we are seeing a jump in globally averaged warming that is far beyond that expected for the El Nino event of last Winter and, combined with these several recent studies:

Please substantiate your claims with backed-up data. I cannot see any sign that the globally averaged warming "is far beyond that expected for El Nino". To the contrary, comparing with the 98/99 spike, we are quite exactly within the model predictions - we had a couple of rather cold years, now have have one that is a bit on the upper rim. That's called natural variability... So, what is unexpected there? Or are you just fearmongering around to feel greater?

It will likely take some time for this to sink in and a collective response will be formented, in that time however, I would expect to see quite a bit of structural inertia within the scientific community to push back against this objective reality (for at least a year or so).

The "scientific community" does not push back against reality, but mostly against people talking out of their rear - and that both on the side of deniers and fearmongers and catastrophe voyeurists to which you seem to have fallen victim.

[Archimid]

I'm going to have make a sad display of ignorance, but given the risks and uncertainties presented by this issue I feel that I must.

 

we had a couple of rather cold years, now have have one that is a bit on the upper rim. That's called natural variability.

 With all due respect, I think that at the very least that is a VERY misleading statement, particularly so in a post about scientific integrity.

The last year was the hottest year on record. The one before it too. This year started setting records way beyond the last two years but it fizzled out at about the same time as El Niño fizzled out.  What you call "a couple of rather cold years" is not a proper assessment. During those cold years the world didn't cool, it warmed slower, even when the Sun was in a downward cycle and there were many more La Niñas than El Niños.


This year record  low is a cause for great concern, specially when all the "scientific"  sea ice models predict that there should be no ice free conditions for several more decades. From what I have gathered, IPCC threats assessments were based on the projection that the Arctic woud have ice until 2050. After 2007 and 2012 adjustments were made, but the new models painted 2007 and 2012 as outliers and not part of a trend. Recovery of the Arctic was expected.  Instead what we have is weakening. Forgive me if I can't trust the scientific validity of the models.

For all I know there is something very wrong with the models. Now you give me some models  that paint this season as a an expected occurrence and I'll start trusting that there will be ice in September. In the mean time I have no choice but to assume the worst. 

[Crocodile23]

I agree with Neven here.  We have to be careful at this time, not so much that we are not continuing to see unprecedented activity and transformation of the entire globe's climate, and should continue to display our observations, but rather because we are seeing a jump in globally averaged warming that is far beyond that expected for the El Nino event of last Winter and, combined with these several recent studies:

Please substantiate your claims with backed-up data. I cannot see any sign that the globally averaged warming "is far beyond that expected for El Nino". To the contrary, comparing with the 98/99 spike, we are quite exactly within the model predictions - we had a couple of rather cold years, now have have one that is a bit on the upper rim.

Rather cold years? A BIT on the upper rim?

This is classic behavior of trying to cover things(the warming) up.
I wonder for what cold years we had, you are talking about?
I thought the denialism at least for global warming(and not the anthropogenic cause of climate change) was history but i guess it's not.

Here are some NASA GISS data.
All the previous years were hot. I don't understand your notion of "cold" years anyway.



And by all means he is right when he is talking about unprecedented high temperatures, that can't be blamed to the strong El Nino. We had stong El Nino's before. We never had >+2.0 temperatures for 2 monthes in a row and >+1.5 for 4 months in a row. That's completely shocking what had happened this year.




And per month for land and ocean temperature anomalies:

That's called natural variability...

Does such a HUGE deviation from the mean, an unprecedented deviation from the average actually, can be called natural variability?
I don't get it.

[Paladiea]

It should be noted that :

a) 2016 has a 99% chance of being the hottest year on record. A probability that was calculated in April.

b) El Niño dissipated in May, and yet that month was still the warmest May on the instrumental record.

c) El Niño 2016 was not as strong as in 1998.

El Niño only contributes about 0.2C of warming to the global average. That right now is being swamped by the warmth in the Arctic and elsewhere. The fact that El Niño is over shouldn't give anyone cause to think that global temperatures will stop their upward acceleration.

Here's what NOAA had to say about May.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201605

This is highly off topic though so this is the only post I'm doing on this.

[Paladiea]

On topic, JAXA reports that there was a 90k drop yesterday which puts 2016 about 20k km² ahead of 2012.

[plinius]

What a rubbish you are talking. Perhaps employ your brain instead of your stomach when talking science? We have a global warming trend, ENSO is sitting on top. When you correct for these effects, the last three years or so were a bit on the cool side (and we know why, see WACCy and antarctic effects).

Good analysis here:
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2016/01/29/correcting-for-more-than-just-el-nino/

Let's pick a plot:


With some necessary use of mental ressources instead of "feelings" you will easily state that we just got back to the general warming trend. If you are now talking about "catastrophic", "sudden", "unprecedented" warming, you are not an inch better than those "sceptic"/denier fools who babbled about their imagined hiatus. Even worse - by doing so you just open the door for the next denier attack, when we have the next La Nina event. Why is it so difficult to just settle with the zero hypothesis (which has the best consistency with the scientific data), that our climate models are good, that the development is within the range of predictions and that we are facing still unabated warming - neither featuring weird hiatus, nor sudden, "catastrophic" warm temperature excursions?

@Palidiea: nobody here argued against a consistent warming trend. Also note that El Nino does not only contribute 0.2 K to the temperature short term. In the winter/spring months this is far more. And indeed off-topic, I am just sick with people crying about their imagined catastrophes and by that taint any reasonable discussion of the facts.

[plinius]

A P.S. @crocodile: Only a complete fool would mix in winter+spring temperatures with annual data in an El Nino year as you did in your plot. You are distorting facts.

[Archimid]

just got back to the general warming trend.

Wow. Just a quick fact, with every new record temperature, there is the possibility of tipping points being reached. The world in this record low arctic faces is different from the world .1 degree ago.  When we consider Arctic Amplification, then the situation is even more primed for tipping points.

 I would have engaged you in more debate but your argument has devolved into adhominem. Almost as if there was a truth that you didn't want to accept.  I'm done replying unless you back your assertions that there is no reason to worry. 

[plinius]

just got back to the general warming trend.

Wow. Just a quick fact, with every new record temperature, there is the possibility of tipping points being reached. The world in this record low arctic faces is different from the world .1 degree ago.  When we consider Arctic Amplification, then the situation is even more primed for tipping points.

 I would have engaged you in more debate but your argument has devolved into adhominem. Almost as if there was a truth that you didn't want to accept.  I'm done replying unless you back your assertions that there is no reason to worry.

Again you disqualify yourself as a decent discussion partner, distorting facts and arguments. Nowhere have I written that "there is no reason to worry". That you are talking rubbish, is a necessary (though a bit blatant) corollary from that, and not an ad hominem, don't you think so?
Apart from that - there is a thread on global temperatures, and I strongly suggest to carry that topic there if you wish to go on.

[magnamentis]

    

[Tigertown]

I seem to have opened old wounds about model differences for ice thickness. Sorry, was not my intention. Getting one that is accurate seems to have been a challenge that I am just learning about. I found a statement from last year from seaicesailor to the effect that ARC seems to over estimate thickness, while GLB under estimates it. So, the reality lies in between. As far as CICE goes I just about have to agree to not even refer to it again. I am open to be adjusted on my view if wrong, but it seems as if this is an old issue with some of you that you really do not want to keep re-hashing. I understand as this is not a school and will try to research for myself.

[plinius]

I think that Neven's issue (which I fully share) is that some alarmist abused a model that is not constructed for volume estimates, and distorted facts by comparing different models with known systematic biases pretending it's the same and using said difference to misconstruct some dramatic ice loss that just isn't there. Nobody dislikes hycom, but that specific piece of data abuse contains just two big nonos that lead to allergic reactions.

[effbeh]

Wow. Just a quick fact, with every new record temperature, there is the possibility of tipping points being reached. The world in this record low arctic faces is different from the world .1 degree ago.  When we consider Arctic Amplification, then the situation is even more primed for tipping points.

It is even more unsettling that there won't be an alarm bell or a red light whenever we reach a tipping point.  We may well have crossed some without even noticing.  There's so much built-in delay that as soon as we realize that something starts to behave differently - possibly more on a gut feeling level first than based on hard scientific data - it might already be too late.

[6roucho]

I can't help but feel that at least some of the sudden antagonism on here is trolling. This is the last place in the world to find denier sentiment or systematic mis-estimation of trends.

[Nick_Naylor]

The temperature seems to be getting to some of us. We need to remember that any year that starts with a bang like 2016 did will bring a lot of new participants to the forum, with predictable  cultural challenges.

The newcomers will bring their own perspectives, and many will be used to constantly whacking down denier moles and having to explain that climate change is not a hoax, so they can be forgiven for expecting to find that behavior here as well.

Eventually newcomers will realize that none of the old-timers here are deniers of consensus science. If they talk about "cool years" or show lack of surprise at record temperatures, it's just that they look at this stuff against a backdrop of climate-change-driven rising temperatures and an eventual ice-free Arctic.

My Trumpist solution: Build a wall that keeps newcomers out. They are liars, cheats and alarmists. Some, I assume, are good people 

[Paladiea]

If I may offer my perspective as a long-time lurker and relative newbie to participating...

I love the information on here, and I enjoy all the perspectives that different people bring. That being said, from my perspective there are some commentators that seem either overly conservative in their views (without adequate basis) and some who seem so afraid of antagonizing potential deniers outside the forum that they rein in their estimates.

That may or may not be the case, but I imagine a new poster who may run across those commentators might cause tension. I'm not blaming anyone. Everyone has the right to their own opinions, but just what I've observed thus far.

And yes, I am used to debating full on deniers, but I am aware that Neven keeps this forum refreshingly denier free.

[Lord M Vader]

Hi people, there is a thread for Global Surface Air Temperatures in the subject Consequences". 

Back to topics, ECMWF foresees that the high pressure set up over North America and low pressure over Sibiria will be replaced with the opposite conditions in about a week or so. The main question is what the impacts will be for the ice given such s switch?

[Paladiea]

Back to topics, ECMWF foresees that the high pressure set up over North America and low pressure over Sibiria will be replaced with the opposite conditions in about a week or so. The main question is what the impacts will be for the ice given such s switch?

I imagine it would be like what happens in a washing machine when it switches direction. Bad for dirt, or in this case ice.

[edit] To be more specific, it breaks up patterns that may form that could have had a protective effect on the ice and randomizes everything.

[seaicesailor]

I seem to have opened old wounds about model differences for ice thickness. Sorry, was not my intention. Getting one that is accurate seems to have been a challenge that I am just learning about. I found a statement from last year from seaicesailor to the effect that ARC seems to over estimate thickness, while GLB under estimates it. So, the reality lies in between. As far as CICE goes I just about have to agree to not even refer to it again. I am open to be adjusted on my view if wrong, but it seems as if this is an old issue with some of you that you really do not want to keep re-hashing. I understand as this is not a school and will try to research for myself.

Wow cool that you found out that amidst the overwhelming amount of stuff I post around!
Can you point the link to it? It'd be great.
GLB+CICE against PIOMAS shows less thickness in several places especially within CAB... instead of more; and, the model was supposedly more advanced, ergo people tended to have more confidence on it than on ACFNS. However the ice model went so nuts last year ... I wouldn't trust it either.

Edit.
LOL I was curious and I found it
http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1149.msg54150.html#msg54150
This is when the GLB went nuts. Somebody touched the wrong line of code (kidding) and it started to predict the Arctic gone in a couple of weeks (not kidding).
It made even super rigorous people as Chris Reynolds consider the possibility of a real crash.
Don't trust the thickness of these models. Ice drift yes, short-term ice boundary displacement yes; and HYCOM tool for ocean (away from ice) is used by many researchers.

[seaicesailor]

Back to topics, ECMWF foresees that the high pressure set up over North America and low pressure over Sibiria will be replaced with the opposite conditions in about a week or so. The main question is what the impacts will be for the ice given such s switch?

I imagine it would be like what happens in a washing machine when it switches direction. Bad for dirt, or in this case ice.

Who knows, if it makes air blow from Greenland, maybe the ice stays put.

[Paladiea]

Possibly, but most of North America is trending way above average temperature-wise. Winds coming from the continent wouldn't be very good news for the ice.

[Tigertown]

I hear you loud and clear on that one seaicesailor, but how long before the next greenhorn comes along and gets all dramatic when they see one of these models?

[Tensor]

I hear you loud and clear on that one seaicesailor, but how long before the next greenhorn comes along and gets all dramatic when they see one of these models?

Sometime later this year possibly, but more likely next year.  I've been here four years, and have seen them come and go. I've been here mostly as a lurker, simply because the long term people here know way more than I do.  But even I can seen the cherry picked data, and the incompatible comparisons.  Personally, I see this year as a run up to a crash next year.

[Tigertown]

There is little doubt about that. One thing all models seem to agree on,there is less and less thick MYI as time goes on, and even if it goes away slow and steady and freezes back thinner, its only a matter of time.

[magnamentis]

true that, from a weather perspective i would compare that to the eye of a hurricane passing overhead and all that survived the first assault from one side, will collapse like cardhouses once the gale resumes in full force from the other side.

[magnamentis]

There is little doubt about that. One thing all models seem to agree on,there is less and less thick MYI as time goes on, and even if it goes away slow and steady and freezes back thinner, its only a matter of time.

exactly and which is the only what counts, all the rest is background noise without much benefit or contributing to the outcome. once could say to deal with too many details once what matters is obvious is a form of inefficiency.

this inefficiency btw is what our politicians are doing until it's too late and to throw the rudder to the other side it will be once more the average citizen who pays, not only with money BTW.

[seaicesailor]

Don't trust the thickness of these models. Ice drift yes...

Said so, the wreakage it is predicting past the storm is monumental

[Tigertown]

The only thing interesting is that a couple of the models agree on the amount of "wreckage" that will take place, but it will be simple enough to wait and see on that.

[Tealight]

This is insane for early July... truly unprecedented. 2013 had the gaps into the CAB but it still had an intact Beaufort. As Tealight has shown in his thread re: albedo, 2016's cumulative energy uptake anomaly is now greater than any other year's, having surpassed 2012. Given the rough correlation between the year's anomaly and final sea ice #s (both 2007 and 2011 are at about the same spot below 2012 -- probs not a coincidence), it would seem we already have sufficient momentum to overtake 2012's #s. And we still have at least two months of melt to go....!

Don't read too much into the cumulative graph for this melting season. Most of 2016 accumulated energy is in the marginal ice zone and not the central pack. For the central pack the June-July time is most important and there 2012 is still ahead.

The high accumulated energy is more relevant for the freezing season and a thin/small winter ice cover for 2017.

[JayW]

First attachment is a wide view of July 2-7, approximately 120 hours.

Second attachment shows the "big block".   I'm finding the  "amorphous periphery" of the Beaufort gyre interesting. 

http://feeder.gina.alaska.edu/search?utf8=✓&search%5Bsensors%5D%5B3%5D=1&search%5Bfeeds%5D%5B5%5D=1&search%5Bstart%5D=&search%5Bend%5D=&commit=Search

[Tigertown]

Coming Soon; Chain Reaction
This covers July 2-6
Careful to click only once

[Tigertown]

One more a little closer to shore and right off Banks Island
About July 2-6

[Rob Dekker]

It is a very interesting problem... at least for me. I understand your reasoning that once the water reaches a constant temperature, all (or most of) the solar energy has to go to bottom melting if there are a lot of floes around. If the water is far from the ice (as in the coast) it continues getting warmer and obviously there is much more heat transfer to the atmosphere. When the winds come from the continent, this open water warmth will end up heating the pack again, just as the continental warmth, no matter if July, August or September.

Thanks seaicesailor. Yes, there are many interesting problems when talking about Arctic sea ice melt, but if 200 W/m^2 gets absorbed by the water, then that heat goes either to warming the water or to melting ice. There are not that many other options.

The 450 Gton (km^3) of bottom-melt per month that this (albedo) effect caused in the Beaufort this June is quite a bit of ice, but it may get lost in the noise (5800 km^3 melted out in in and around the Arctic in June overall according to PIOMAS). So the bottom-melt effect in the Beaufort that I noted is still relatively 'small' in the bigger picture of the Arctic melting season.

But it is not insignificant either.

[Tigertown]

It almost looks like the Beaufort is pulling ice toward the open waters near shore. It maybe just the Gyre doing it, but it looks like giant stress fractures. I don't know;what do you all think?
You probably cannot tell by looking, but this is a very wide shot, about 400 km across.

[Rob Dekker]

Tigertown, Jay posted a June 7-29 animation of the Beaufort Gyre a week or so ago :



This shows quite clearly that the Beaufort gyre has been spinning all through June, despite lows over the area. And yes, it has been pulling a lot of ice out of the CAB, which causes cracks and leads and lower ice concentration in the CAB, which are vulnerable areas now that temps are rising.

[Adam Ash]

And close to the North Pole the ice is a real mess today.

[iceman]

   ....
The newcomers will bring their own perspectives, and many will be used to constantly whacking down denier moles and having to explain that climate change is not a hoax, so they can be forgiven for expecting to find that behavior here as well.
   ....

Thanks for bringing more light than heat.  Ad hominem attacks might be egregious behavior on this forum, but they're pretty much the norm elsewhere.  For anyone who might have to engage in the cut and thrust of the denier wars, it doesn't hurt to have our skin thickened a bit.

[misanthroptimist]

What a rubbish you are talking. Perhaps employ your brain instead of your stomach when talking science? We have a global warming trend, ENSO is sitting on top. When you correct for these effects, the last three years or so were a bit on the cool side (and we know why, see WACCy and antarctic effects).

Good analysis here:
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2016/01/29/correcting-for-more-than-just-el-nino/

Let's pick a plot:

While you make some good points, the above graph is a bit misleading, imo. Here is the description of what that graph depicts (from your link): " The result of correcting for three factors instead of just one, and of a more sophisticated el Niño correction, is a much steadier warming for about the last forty years. We can see this more clearly by plotting just the corrected data (black lines are a piecewise-linear fit by change-point analysis)"

That graph corrects for more than just El-Nino using standards chosen by that blogger. Further, it uses "a piecewise-linear fit by change-point analysis." I see nothing wrong with that, however, it is a different method than that familiar to most people, probably including the other party in your discussion.

Most people are looking at the more standard graphs, like this one for HADCRUT4 1980-present (by way of SkS):


Looking at that graph, imo, justifies the claims made by others of rapid warming recently and a lack of "cold years". It should also be noted that NOAA, GISTEMP, and BEST data sets all show nearly identical warming for the time period.

[Tigertown]

Tigertown, Jay posted a June 7-29 animation of the Beaufort Gyre a week or so ago :


This shows quite clearly that the Beaufort gyre has been spinning all through June, despite lows over the area. And yes, it has been pulling a lot of ice out of the CAB, which causes cracks and leads and lower ice concentration in the CAB, which are vulnerable areas now that temps are rising.

I indeed saw that, and appreciate what he does to keep this forum interesting. The area to the far left of the still that I posted is about roughly the area he zoomed in on for the purpose of what he was demonstrating about the effects of the Gyre. This one is a much wider shot as I was trying to show how far out the "pulling" effect is now reaching toward the pole. This is about 400km across and the fractures go out even more.

[seaicesailor]

Vast extents of ice along the ESS coast and south of the New Siberian Islands are just vanishing. The Uni Bremen server is not working today, just curious what will show tomorrow!

[Tigertown]

I had no idea this area had opened up so much. The clouds had been blocking a good view for so long. I guess they trapped more light from the sun than they blocked.
This still doesn't really do it justice for how much open water is showing. You got to see it on the site to really zoom in and get a good view.

[plinius]

While you make some good points, the above graph is a bit misleading, imo.

I cannot see where I could have possibly have mislead somebody by linking the necessary article and writing that this is ENSO-corrected. Also it is a simple counting of peas to argue lengths about which (anyway unphysical) linear fit one personally prefers. The plot showed in short, what you can have here with a lengthy version:


Source: Gavin Schmidt in https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/aug/10/2015-global-temperatures-right-in-line-with-climate-model-predictions
(who by the way did a pretty much identical plot to the one I linked first). Note also that 2016 will be somewhere around 0.7 in this plot, i.e. DEEP within the predicted model range.

Do I also have to point out the cool period in the past few years here?

Apart from that - I recommend GISS data over HadCrut - better plots, better algorithm. Here:
http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/Temperature/T_moreFigs/


You can easily see that 2015/16 has its running 12 month mean just <= 0.4K over the 97/98, which is in line with the expected warming rate. Nothing outstanding, just looks impressive because of the pseudo-hiatus before. And someone who has always derided people babbling about their imaginary hiatus like you and me (and righteously so) can now not take that imaginary "catastrophic, sudden warming acceleration" seriously. With that we would trespass in exactly the same way as deniers did previously.
If this does not convince you, then please think about what you will be going to tell your favourite denier in 5 years, when they tell you that the global temperature trend is turning negative.

And getting back to the sea ice - we have seen exactly this kind of communication disaster in past years. Over-emphasis of record low years without stressing that there is a very bad trend (and in that case indeed worse than predicted by models, which is simply not true for temperatures...) is the truly important thing. Crying alarm on a specific record has repeatedly opened the door for crooks at What'swrongwithus and the dailymail, and others to just come back 1/2 years later and announce the great increase of sea ice area. So, apart from being un-scientiific, by not relying on proper statistics and comparisons we have repeatedly gotten ourselves into an uphill battle, where lobbyists have successfully imprinted the impression of "it goes up and down, it's just good years vs. bad years" into the public mind.
Or in short: Be aware that while spinning catastrophe scenarios is inherently fun, every public uttering of unscientific "we die tomorrow cries" lends more false credibility to agents of doubt - forcing you instead of the true overwhelming evidence onto a near 50-50 battle with equal opponents.

[seaicesailor]

There we go, the www is up now
For much better quality Wipneus did an animation yesterday. But I think there is a big change wrt yesterday and expect more tomorrow.
I find this opening much more important than the one in the CAB (however the holes in the CAB indirectly have meant more ice toward the periphery as people have shown happening in the Beaufort sea during June)

[seaicesailor]

Although this area is predicted cold, there is such a difference with 2013 ... the forecast show no end of warmth in the American/Pacific side and the Atlantic side is basically a sauna:

http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,382.msg82544.html#msg82544

[jai mitchell]

http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/Temperature/T_moreFigs/



And getting back to the sea ice - we have seen exactly this kind of communication disaster in past years. Over-emphasis of record low years without stressing that there is a very bad trend (and in that case indeed worse than predicted by models, which is simply not true for temperatures...) is the truly important thing.

Indeed Arctic temperature is the key.  It is the arctic temperature that drove temperatures above the El Nino expected warming during the winter months.  It was this abnormally warm arctic winter that lead to a severely weakened CAB structure this year and (to my memory, others may correct it if I am wrong) what is currently an unprecedented ice pack fracturing this season.

http://img.memecdn.com/charlie-brown-doesnt-say-quot-aaugh-quot-these-days_fb_1210742.jpg

That means February 2016 was the first month in history that global average temperatures passed the 1.5 degree Celsius mark. Also, since last month’s warmth was concentrated in the Northern Hemisphere (2.76 degrees Celsius warmer than the 1951-1980 baseline) and the Arctic (5.36 degrees Celsius warmer than the 1951-1980 baseline), these regions of our planet were also record warm, likely the warmest they’ve been for at least thousands of years

one should not have over-reliance on models to provide comfort regarding expected warming, when those models are only now considering the projection of Aerosol emission reductions on sea ice extent and temperatures.   

This most recent study only predicted a 0,3C temperature rise in the Arctic due to aerosol reductions, however the most recent arctic warmth indicates these values are severely understated.  http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016EF000361/full

Bringing this back to current melt season (and in hopes that any and all further discussion of temperatures, models and alarmist/conservatism be relegated to the appropriate forums)  It is clear that Sea Ice Extent is not likely to reach a new record low but PIOMAS likely will, that the changing arctic environment is actually changing the value of the historical metrics, that they are no longer telling us what they used to tell us as the very basic nature of the ice melt progression is changing (ice condition, ice mobility etc. . .).

If the PIOMAS volume drop in this current melt season dose completely eradicate the 'sea ice recovery' years of 2013 and 2014, in this one melt season, what does that forebode for future years?  How much do we rely on a Gompertz projection of future PIOMAS volume declines in future years to provide us comfort?  Is Sea Ice Extent now a valuable metric for determining the health of the arctic ice pack for the September minimum?

Is this season's melt the new 'normal' where a thin and weakened ice pact will (in the future) completely shatter and begin to operate as a slush instead of a cap in the summer months?

[Nick_Naylor]

Is Sea Ice Extent now a valuable metric for determining the health of the arctic ice pack for the September minimum?

It will always be one useful measure of health - it represents the exposed surface held to approximately 0C (if the grid isn't big enough to allow open water to warm appreciably where extent exists). Think of that as point-in-time functioning of the ice pack.

It will never substitute for other vital signs like albedo and volume though . . .

[Neven]

SST anomaly compared to last year: