The 2016 melting season

[ktonine]

SST anomaly compared to last year:

The area north of the East Siberian Islands does not make much sense -- either this year or last year.

[magnamentis]

SST anomaly compared to last year:

The area north of the East Siberian Islands does not make much sense -- either this year or last year.

i think it makes sense. where is open water it's cooler this year while where is/was ice there is no sea surface temp, hence is white hence only open water is colored and that's what the anomalies are/were

[Tigertown]

There is a larger spot of relatively warm water that reaches from shore all the way past the islands, whether it comes from the Lena Delta or simply insolation or both. Most likely it is showing up on the anomaly map because it is not really much of an anomaly closer to shore but is recently reaching out further, so that the water that is newly warmed only shows up. Guessing.
Here is the actual SST

[seaicesailor]

SST anomaly compared to last year:

The area north of the East Siberian Islands does not make much sense -- either this year or last year.

Why not? Laptev sea has been colder than normal since winter. Even the extent is partly beyond the NSIDC 30-year median extent.

[ktonine]

SST anomaly compared to last year:

The area north of the East Siberian Islands does not make much sense -- either this year or last year.

i think it makes sense. where is open water it's cooler this year while where is/was ice there is no sea surface temp, hence is white hence only open water is colored and that's what the anomalies are/were

Last year looks the same as this year.  Same open water. 



Second, These are supposed to be *anomalies* -- not actual temperatures.  I find it highly doubtful this is a degree below average.  If that's the way they're calculating it, then it's obviously misleading -- since years with higher melt (i.e., open water) appear cooler than years with less or later melt. 

[oren]

SST anomaly compared to last year:

The Atlantic side is amazing.

[magnamentis]

you may doubt, nevertheless that's how it is and then last years open water is not in the same spot, last year it was from the middle of the island to the east and this year from the middle of the island to the west.

there is no point in this, you're wrong and you doubt for no good reason without the slightest argument
to back your doubt. it's open water this year where was ice last year and this year the open water is 1C cooler.

further if you read my previous post i explicitly mentioned "anomaly" hence no point to make it sound like
we're not aware of the difference. i propose to stop this because it's pointless, at least i for my part will not
take part in any further back and forth arguments, keep your doubts if you like but you will not receive much
confirmation.

[seaicesailor]

When I look at that 2015 concentration map I think how healthy the ice looks compared to 2016. May the gods the old and the new not want a July as warm as last year.

[Tigertown]

Last year looks the same as this year.  Same open water. 


Second, These are supposed to be *anomalies* -- not actual temperatures.  I find it highly doubtful this is a degree below average.  If that's the way they're calculating it, then it's obviously misleading -- since years with higher melt (i.e., open water) appear cooler than years with less or later melt.

I understand that the area in question is roughly 2C⁰ warmer than it would normally be expected to be. On the Climate Reanalyzer SST that I posted above(not the anomaly map below) the Blue shades are warmer than white. No? 
It is really hard to tell sometimes with the subtle color shade differences these charts use,
but here's one that should make it obvious.

[JimboOmega]

I'veI told my partner no matter how much the ice melts, it will always be cold in San Francisco (see attached picture).

Though I'm wondering - temps at barrow are greatly exceeding the forecast for today.  And winds are from the east - slightly over the sea, which, as of recently, had ice on it.  Is the east-of-barrow Beaufort Sea really that warm? Is that much excess heat, if it's accumulated there and around the edges of the pack, really going to mess up the freezing season this year?

[Tigertown]

 I think I have posted enough pics for the day, but I really encourage anyone who has not already to zoom in and take a good look on Worldview or whatever you prefer. I am not trying to be an alarmist or even make a prediction about numbers regarding final SIE for the season, but I wholeheartedly believe that we are about to see the pack disintegrate(spelled it right on the third try) into smaller chunks or floes, independently floating pieces of ice. Although being a greenhorn as I have openly admitted, I can't find any historical evidence that this has ever happened in our lifetime. So I will be watching closely over the next couple weeks. Sorry bbr, but I don't  think we can say its going to cleave; just too many little pieces for that.

[FishOutofWater]

Blue shades are more cool than normal. White shades are near normal. Red shades are warmer than normal. That map of "anomalies" does not show absolute temperature.

[Tigertown]

Blue shades are more cool than normal. White shades are near normal. Red shades are warmer than normal. That map of "anomalies" does not show absolute temperature.

What the original discussion was about was concerning whether the spot of water outside the Siberian Islands was warmer or cooler than normal on the anomaly comparison that Neven posted on the bottom of page 61.On the map I posted in reply#3052 the color chart is different as it is not an anomaly map but an actual SST map.

[Michael Hauber]

Now  vs 2012 shows a similar area of broken up ice from Beaufort to Laptev.  Zoom is the same, but the projection is not the same in worldview, so I've done my best to get a comparable view.  The weak stretch for 2012 fits in the view a bit better than for this year, which lies from lower left to top right which pushes the ends out of view.  One thing that stands out is the very clear view in 2012 with steely blue showing heavy surface melt over all this weak area.  In contrast the view this year is significantly blocked by cloud, although what does show between the clouds looks to be now showing strong surface melt.  Channel 3-6-7 for both years now shows a rich deep red whereever clouds do not obstruct the view.

Comparing to 2013 shows what looks like a more serious weakness in the ice, although over a smaller portion of the overall ice pack.  While this area of broken ice is exposed to the sun the surface melting does not look nearly as strong, and a switch to channel 3-6-7 shows a moderate orange-red rather than a rich red which suggests much weaker surface melt.

925 hp temps have jumped up, but are nowhere near the extreme values of last year.  Forecasts seem to show that temps won't get too much higher and low pressure may start to dominate again later in the forecast period.  Still too far out to be sure, but if we head back into cooler conditions after a short period of moderate heat, then I doubt that will cut it and this year would seem to be headed towards mediocrity.  The one factor that may make a difference is that we now have achieved a combination of seriously broken ice and strong surface melt at the same time, which as far as I can tell has only previously happened in 2012.  Perhaps this will be enough for strong melt momentum even if conditions turn cooler again, which may take us past every other year except 2012.  Or perhaps the forecast will change and we'll get a more serious heatwave similar to last year.

[bbr2314]

Now  vs 2012 shows a similar area of broken up ice from Beaufort to Laptev.  Zoom is the same, but the projection is not the same in worldview, so I've done my best to get a comparable view.  The weak stretch for 2012 fits in the view a bit better than for this year, which lies from lower left to top right which pushes the ends out of view.  One thing that stands out is the very clear view in 2012 with steely blue showing heavy surface melt over all this weak area.  In contrast the view this year is significantly blocked by cloud, although what does show between the clouds looks to be now showing strong surface melt.  Channel 3-6-7 for both years now shows a rich deep red whereever clouds do not obstruct the view.

Comparing to 2013 shows what looks like a more serious weakness in the ice, although over a smaller portion of the overall ice pack.  While this area of broken ice is exposed to the sun the surface melting does not look nearly as strong, and a switch to channel 3-6-7 shows a moderate orange-red rather than a rich red which suggests much weaker surface melt.

925 hp temps have jumped up, but are nowhere near the extreme values of last year.  Forecasts seem to show that temps won't get too much higher and low pressure may start to dominate again later in the forecast period.  Still too far out to be sure, but if we head back into cooler conditions after a short period of moderate heat, then I doubt that will cut it and this year would seem to be headed towards mediocrity.  The one factor that may make a difference is that we now have achieved a combination of seriously broken ice and strong surface melt at the same time, which as far as I can tell has only previously happened in 2012.  Perhaps this will be enough for strong melt momentum even if conditions turn cooler again, which may take us past every other year except 2012.  Or perhaps the forecast will change and we'll get a more serious heatwave similar to last year.

Yet again another post from you presenting the current year like it hasn't persistently led the pack. It only fell behind 2012 in IJIS today and, IMO, is likely to retake the lead very shortly.

2012 does not compare in any way to the completely shattered pack across most of the CAB.

RE: Tigertown -- I was wrong on a total cleavage, but what the models showed has happened. The structural integrity of the CAB pack has failed almost completely and the dividing line previously shown as a relatively modest area of reduced concentration has swallowed about 50% of the remaining ice in short order.

We now seem to have gloms of relatively stable ice up in the vicinity of Wrangel, as well as NE of Svalbard, and then the main area with some integrity is north of the CAA. Everything in between has turned to mush.

[Tigertown]

 I agree about the mush or slush or whatever you want to call it but think it may take a little time for it to settle in with everyone on what's happening; this year is just proceeding so differently.

[Michael Hauber]

Yet again another post from you presenting the current year like it hasn't persistently led the pack. It only fell behind 2012 in IJIS today and, IMO, is likely to retake the lead very shortly.

1st week of June I was saying that weather was turning and we would struggle to keep up with 2012.  In contrast you stated that area was about to crash.  At the time ADS sea ice was nearly 1 million ahead of 2012.  Things so far seem to be going much more like what I said than what you said.

The FRAM movement will result in a prolonged stall (as we had discussed previously and as I had mentioned would happen before the histrionics re: stall started).

Now HYCOM shows the next stage; after all the movement towards both the ATL and the PAC, there will be massive cracking developing right through the heart of the Arctic. So while extent may have temporarily stalled, this will yield to a major crash in area starting shortly. The pack is literally being ripped in half right now.

[Rob Dekker]

1st week of June I was saying that weather was turning and we would struggle to keep up with 2012.  In contrast you stated that area was about to crash. 

Michael, I don't want to interfere too much in your business, but when you make statements like that can you please refer to the post where you were saying "that weather was turning and we would struggle to keep up with 2012" and refer to the post where bbr states "that area was about to crash". Because in the quote you give above (from june 7) bbr was talking about a "stall".

[edit] I see that bbr talks about a crash in area "shortly", but since 2016 IS dropping in both extent and area rapidly, and IS just about keeping up with 2012, aren't you two essentially saying the same thing ?

[Lord M Vader]

Most models continues to foresee a return to cyclonic dominance. However, the Atlantic side might see more sunnier weather and should a decent hit as it is so thin there. Unless the air is too warm to carry rain to the ice we will soon see 2016 diverge from 2012 a lot.

[Michael Hauber]

Michael, I don't want to interfere too much in your business, but when you make statements like that can you please refer to the post where you were saying "that weather was turning and we would struggle to keep up with 2012" and refer to the post where bbr states "that area was about to crash". Because in the quote you give above (from june 7) bbr was talking about a "stall".

[edit] I see that bbr talks about a crash in area "shortly", but since 2016 IS dropping in both extent and area rapidly, and IS just about keeping up with 2012, aren't you two essentially saying the same thing ?

GFS and EC do both tend to crush ESS and Chukchi.  But considering this is the first week of June I don't think that's enough to keep up with 2012.  In that year surface melt spread throughout nearly the entire Arctic in the first week.  The warm sector is maybe one quarter of the Arctic, and the other 3/4 of the Arctic seem to be influenced by low pressure troughing and cool conditions.  It is this low pressure troughing which is bringing significant warm air up on the eastern side.  A previous run of EC had moved the low pressure far enough to the side for a serious basin wide dipole late in the run, but most other runs look much milder.

Combined with what we've already seen its turning into quite an early season assault on the ESS, which is usually a bastion later in the season which doesn't start yielding open water until July, and the only years the ESS totally melted out were in 2007 and 2012.

On bbr's prediction of a crash, the last post from Wipneus on homebrew area before he made this prediction had 2016 500k ahead of 2012.  Current stat is 160k ahead of 2012.  Considering bbr has been talking up the chances of an ice free arctic this year, I would think predictions of a crash are intended to mean increasing the lead over 2012, and not merely 'just about keeping up'.

[6roucho]

This is completely off-topic, and posted purely for entertainment, but this image of ventrical flow in the brain of a mouse has an uncanny resemblance to the Arctic.

[Neven]

My first thought (before reading the text) was: hey, that's the Siberian side of the Arctic. 

[BornFromTheVoid]

To be fair, quite a few people, not just bbr, have been predicting a crash or collapse since the end of May, and throughout the entire time that the melt rate has slowed down and we've moved up from lowest on record.
Anyone can look back through this thread to see these posts, but here are a few.

We should open June with a catastrophic drop a la June 2012, except two+ weeks ahead... very frightening.

So while extent may have temporarily stalled, this will yield to a major crash in area starting shortly. The pack is literally being ripped in half right now.

I believe an area crash is now imminent....
...This has led to the beginnings of a split in the pack

Extent and area are both about to start crashing.

Any attempts to claim otherwise have often been dismissed, no matter what supporting evidence has been provided.

Even in conditions entirely unfavourable to melting, only catastrophe can be seen by some:

If there's low pressure, however weak - it's gonna rip the pack up and increase Fram transport
If it's predominantly cold - the warmth elsewhere will promote storms that will rip up the pack and increase Fram transport

At times it feels like reading Sam Carana's blog posts in here, with everything suggesting imminent crashes and total melt out no matter what the actual conditions are.

Saying all that, I do think we'll see an increase in the extent melt this week, average of recent years, maybe a little above. This is the first time since May that conditions have been favourable for above average melt rates, even though we have seen much worse July weather many times in the last decade.

[Neven]

At times it feels like reading Sam Carana's blog posts in here, with everything suggesting imminent crashes and total melt out no matter what the actual conditions are.

It's understandable. The Arctic is impressive to watch, and combined with the trends in the past decade(s), it's only logical to expect the worse, even if the real catastrophe is taking place in the longer term.

Saying all that, I do think we'll see an increase in the extent melt this week, average of recent years, maybe a little above. This is the first time since May that conditions have been favourable for above average melt rates, even though we have seen much worse July weather many times in the last decade.

Yes, this year still has a piggy bank of sorts in Hudson and Baffin, and large parts of the periphery will be subject to a lot of solar radiation and high temps. Still, there won't be much compaction and transport through Fram, which are usually good for big losses. The decrease will probably be, like you say, around average, but could drop below average if low pressure takes over the CAB again.

[BornFromTheVoid]

It's understandable. The Arctic is impressive to watch, and combined with the trends in the past decade(s), it's only logical to expect the worse, even if the real catastrophe is taking place in the longer term.

I agree with expecting the worst in the long term, or even on a seasonal level, but when looking at weeks ahead, the weather is still by far the dominant driver of relative melt rates. As we saw during June, all the melt, pre-conditioning of the winter and predictions of imminent collapse didn't matter when the weather turned slightly cool and low pressure took hold.

It's getting harder and harder to find the reasonable analysis and posts here because so much is taken up with members predicting massive losses no matter what the weather is showing. It even makes posting in this thread somewhat off-putting because if you're not jumping on the hype-train, the response can be quite negative at time.

Yes, this year still has a piggy bank of sorts in Hudson and Baffin, and large parts of the periphery will be subject to a lot of solar radiation and high temps. Still, there won't be much compaction and transport through Fram, which are usually good for big losses. The decrease will probably be, like you say, around average, but could drop below average if low pressure takes over the CAB again.

Yeah, whatever happens, Husdon and Baffin melt will help things along. I think the winds are generally flowing from the Pacific side to the Atlantic side over the next 5 days at least,  so while they're are not perfect for export into Fram, I think compaction of the ice in the ESS, Beaufort and around Chukchi seems likely.







After 5 days, while the trend is for low pressure to become more dominant again, it doesn't look nearly as cool as the June low pressure, so the potential for substantial melt rates may still be there, but that's a bit far off at this stage.

[iceman]

SST anomaly compared to last year:

More or less stationary lows near northwestern Russia have been contributing to pooling of warmer waters in southern Kara and Barents.  Heat advection from that region into the rest of the Arctic is probably lower than normal, the opposite of what appeared to be happening during May.  So my prediction of above-average melt rates in Laptev will be wrong for a while longer.

[Tigertown]

Is this a shadow or dare I say "cleavage" on the wrong side of the Pole.
I kind of think now, I want it to be just a shadow. It looks hideous.

[slow wing]

The recent (moderate) wind damage off Greenland (outlined in white) in the attachment
 seems to correspond fairly closely to the known band of lower ice thickness from the May PIOMAS thickness data as plotted by Wipneus:


(Unfortunately, the orientation of the two plots is different. You have to mentally rotate one of them.)

[slow wing]

Having said that, I can't see evidence for any such damage on the 2016-07-08 WorldView, which gives a fairly clear view of that region.

Is the remaining cloud still hiding it? I'm a bit surprised not to see anything.

[magnamentis]

i try to provide the shortest possible resume as to the discussions about how this season compares to 2012:

a) key point 1: the lower the numbers are, the more impossible it will be to keep a head start of any kind
.   to make this clear, once the minimum is below 1 million km2 it's impossible to keep a 1 million km2 heastart.
.   in other words, the loss of the 1 million advance, mostly due to the very high start in 2012 can'b persist by
.   any logic, at least not without additional extreme events.

b) as I stated earlier to chime in on who said what: i said that any exaggeration undermines credibility and what
.   the realists among us are facing now, is that those who turn their face after wind each day, depending what
.   happened yesterday, which is useless IMO, now use exactly those exaggeration to "proof" the realists wrong.

and this is exactly what happens in the bigger context, all the deniers ( the real ones ) would be out of ammunition for a long time already had not some of those who see what's coming always tried to make their
point with exaggerations and early doomsday arguments.

thing is that we should not try to proof our point, just carefully and well backed provide our views and relatively
soon sit put for a while until time has come to provide more evidence. it does not matter whether we are lowest today or not, or have been lowest (in one of many criteria) yesterday. we are getting lower and lower, thinner and thinner and worse and worse structural integrity and are braking a big number of other records. this is what
counts and any trial to predict tomorrow comes with i huge risk (error quota) which will provide ammunition (argumetns) for those who don't want to see or can't judge from data.

EDIT: not as short as i wanted but too little is as bad as too much

[Neven]

Is this a shadow or dare I say "cleavage" on the wrong side of the Pole.
I kind of think now, I want it to be just a shadow. It looks hideous.

You can relax, as it is in fact a shadow. 

[seaicesailor]

Indeed the absence of winds from the continent into Laptev and surrounding areas will prevent a major warming and edge retreating in the enormous area being left bare of ice by the storms. But keep an eye as last year, this is not a hole lost in the middle of the CAB.

I wanted to make a comment off-topic for once. I agree with Neven that some juvenile attitudes are understandable given the long-term trend and at the same time the reasonable expectation of a crash in the short term. So people that started apocalyptic may be moderating views as we re-learn how important weather is, once again.
Along this line I would like to ask BFTV and others please keep bringing those very elaborate interesting views about weather and other material, and to not give a fart about agressive responses.
I also would like to ask for patience with some of us that post just about every small detail that crosses our minds; and thus not consider us just "background noise". The big problems are there but this thread is about Melting Season and I would expect it to be noisy anyway. If people want something exclusively academic, or more political, or whatever, there are other threads, or the blogs where one has to be more moderate by necessity.
I personally feel ok with this thread, have been a bit sarcastic with some too dismissive comments because of people not having Ph. D. or of not having planted sensors in the ice themselves to measure bottom melt, but that is about it.
A bit of feather ruffling is not so bad.

[icy voyeur]

... It even makes posting in this thread somewhat off-putting because if you're not jumping on the hype-train, the response can be quite negative at time. ...

I, and I readily presume others, recognize your contributions as among the most valuable to the forum, in raw content as well as reasoned, disciplined commentary. Please don't be put off.

[TerryM]

I stumbled onto Neven's site in early 2011 and was soon devoting most of my waking hours to the sea ice topic. I hoped that with all the time I'd devoted, that records would be set & jumped at every indication that lead toward that conclusion.
I don't blame the newcomers for their enthusiasm, but would caution them to temper their exuberance, possibly by reading back a year or two on the forum.
Until June this appeared to me to have the possibility of being a huge breakout year, now, not so much.
Have Funn
Terry

[Pi26]

Melting season 2012 ended 16th September at 3 million km2 extend (JAXA). If we define +/- 1 Million km2 as hype, then currently nearly the majority already hype by that amount upwards. Because we are currently nearby on par with 2012 extend values the positive extend hype is 4 million km2 for melting season end as the negative hype is at 2 million km2.
There are 70 days to go - so, please allow my downward hype of 14000 km2 more average melt of "difficult" ice per remaining day against 2012, because i think this 2016 "difficult ice" melts at least as much easier.

[Archimid]

I think this is my third melting season browsing this forums. The level of debate and search for truth in this forums is admirable by internet standards. Frankly I don't  like posting because I'm afarid I'll break it's great climate.

That said the subject of the melting season  it's a extremely high risk situation.

Risk= Threat x Vulnerability x Cost

Threat

What is the probability that Arctic Sea Ice dissappears by September?  The true number is unknown. It could be 0. In which case the total risk will be 0. In that case there is no risk. Move along. There is nothing to see here.

The scientific evidence indicates that it will likely happen by 2050.  However, in those same models the arctic should be recovering  (and it still can), but it is not. It is record low.  Is it really that hard to assume that the probability  that it happens this summer is greater than 0?

 I think is greater than 0. I think in May it could have been 2 digits high, but it is now probably down to single digits or hopefully maybe even down to decimals.

Vulnerability and Cost

  If the arctic fully melts, what happens? Well scientist, all agree that potentially new shipping routes open up in the Arctic. That much is clear from every interview  about this topic I have ever seen. (I think they are all wrong about that btw). But they also agree, in the IPCC, that it would happen by 2050. So if it happens now, whatever bad things they estimated for 50 years from now, multiply it by a substantial amount. If such thing happen, I think that number is so large it might as well be infinite but how large it actually is certainly debatable.

If you feel like I'm  wrong about that please give me your reasons but keep in mind that my defense will be based on the sheer unprecedentedness of this event and the coincidence of the rise of human civilization with the relative stability of the global temperatures during the holocene.


Risk

In this case
Risk = a small (hopefully) but non zero number × an unimaginably large number.

That is not good. That is a very high risk situation, even if it is a low probability event.

I think that while yes, predicting the apocalypse sucks for your credibility, understating the risks is much more dangerous, specially since much more warming is expected.

[Nick_Naylor]

For July 16th, Hycom ARC projects that necklines will continue to plunge. If we get this revealing glimpse of the steaming Arctic, what will the resulting heat do to the remaining ice??

[seaicesailor]

The ESS bite has grown about 30 k km2 in extent according to Wipneus, it is the real deal that the storm has left. Can it make it for the absent Laptev bite later on, it could but depends on the weather.

[seaicesailor]

For July 16th, Hycom ARC projects that necklines will continue to plunge. If we get this revealing glimpse of the steaming Arctic, what will the resulting heat do to the remaining ice??

If it is not sunny and sun already waning, I honestly cant see how heat can be absorbed to really boost melting. And as is stormy the surface never gets as Beaufort right now. CAB holes will be getting either compacted, or helping edge retreat later on, to some point. Then the rest will refreeze.

Edit: also, the ACFNS relies on the GFS iirc which is predicting another big storm. But it is really uncertain, as the ECWMF was predicting very differently, for instance. Others correct this if wrong
I correct myself, the Euro now concurs on a sizeable storm and as soon as July 14th.

[Tigertown]

You're too earlyyyyyy... 

Regarding the refreezing part.

[meddoc]

Pretty much amazed by some comments:
1)Arctic Ice influence on climate is albedo
- what about latent heat effect/ jetstream/ polar vortex behaviour?
2)Momentum for melt is low- well, I guess someone slept through about 11 months- & especially winter 2015/16 "re-freeze" & ocean heat carried up along the atlantic side; not to mention depth- to- surface heat transport which Wadhams has described to be have found recently (2015 August interview- utube)
3)disappearing Arctic Sea Ice is well bound together with Arctic (even NH) snow/ ice cover- what are its implications for plate tectonics/ isostatic rebound?

Looking ie. at albedo alone and SIE I guess is pretty much short- sighted from so- called geologists/ scientists...

[Nick_Naylor]

For July 16th, Hycom ARC projects that necklines will continue to plunge. If we get this revealing glimpse of the steaming Arctic, what will the resulting heat do to the remaining ice??

If it is not sunny and sun already waning, I honestly cant see how heat can be absorbed to really boost melting . . .

I wasn't being literal - I guess you didn't click on the image

[seaicesailor]

For July 16th, Hycom ARC projects that necklines will continue to plunge. If we get this revealing glimpse of the steaming Arctic, what will the resulting heat do to the remaining ice??

If it is not sunny and sun already waning, I honestly cant see how heat can be absorbed to really boost melting . . .

I wasn't being literal - I guess you didn't click on the image

Ha!!

[Michael Hauber]

2)Momentum for melt is low- well, I guess someone slept through about 11 months- & especially winter 2015/16 "re-freeze" & ocean heat carried up along the atlantic side; not to mention depth- to- surface heat transport which Wadhams has described to be have found recently (2015 August interview- utube)

Momentum is about what is happening now, not what happened many months ago.  While there is scope for arguing about how much momentum counts for, and how much pre-conditioning counts for, it is not reasonable to ignore issues of momentum altogether just because we experienced record warmth several months ago.  With record low ice at the end of the freezing season and below average melt momentum (or at least below average 925hp temps, and below average extent losses) in recent weeks this season will be an interesting natural experiment to help us understand the relative importance of these aspects. 

[Tigertown]

    I remember old movies and tv shows where Russian officers who displeased their superior were threatened with the outcome of being sent to Siberia for punishment because of the severe cold. Although that was  applying to the heart of winter and its now summer, its not the same place, at the time anyway.

      Studies have shown that the water in the Lena River closely follow the air temperatures over the land, so I suppose the little spot of warm water near the shore will be growing.

[Tigertown]

There has been a lot of discussion lately about the clouds blocking sunlight and protecting the ice:
I'd say yeah about like getting a chicken hawk to guard your chickens.
Here is an area that's been cloudy almost everyday for a couple weeks. I am not by any means the weather expert,so you all can decide if a storm did this or cloud trapped heat, which is supposed be one of Greenland's biggest problems now.

[Paladiea]

I notice a lot of people aren't counting synergistic effects the different variables have on the ice when it is in this state.

The most common one is sunlight and open water, open water absorbs solar radiation and heats, which causes more open water.

But open water also releases longwave IR to the atmosphere. In this case, cloudier weather would be more beneficial overall since the massive amount of heat escaping would be partially reflected back.

Now consider that there are also sunny parts of that Arctic going on at the same time, heat absorbed by the water in those areas could be transported to the cloudy areas via currents, and then trapped by the clouds.

Tl;dr: Open water is bad regardless of the weather.

[weatherdude88]

I notice a lot of people aren't counting synergistic effects the different variables have on the ice when it is in this state.

The most common one is sunlight and open water, open water absorbs solar radiation and heats, which causes more open water.

But open water also releases longwave IR to the atmosphere. In this case, cloudier weather would be more beneficial overall since the massive amount of heat escaping would be partially reflected back.

Now consider that there are also sunny parts of that Arctic going on at the same time, heat absorbed by the water in those areas could be transported to the cloudy areas via currents, and then trapped by the clouds.

Tl;dr: Open water is bad regardless of the weather.

The net cloud effect is 21 W m-2 cooling on average. Cloudy conditions favor less ice melt given they reflect more radiation into space than they reradiate back down through the atmosphere to the surface.

http://www.met.reading.ac.uk/~sgs02rpa/PAPERS/Allan11MA.pdf

[binntho]

Being from a cold country where snow melt happens every spring, and the glaciers melt rapidly during summer, the emphasis, on this forum, on albedo and different opinions on sunny vs. cloudy weather has always seem a bit strange to me.

In spring many areas in my country are covered in snow and ice (snow that has melted and frozen again, sometimes to a thickness of a few feet). Sunny weather has some impact on melting, but by far the most efficient melting weather is windy and cloudy with high humidity - with rain being an optional extra.

During high summer by far the biggest melting events on the glaciers take place in strong sunlight. But this is mostly due to the fact that most of the glaciers contain large amounts of volcanic ash from repeated eruptions over the centuries, black small granules that soak up sunlight and dive-melt through the ice.

I can't help thinking  that typical sea ice in the Arctic is more like our spring snow/ice cover - it will melt faster when battered by low-pressure cyclones than when the sun shines - other things being equal. Obviously, temperatures must be above freezing in these cyclones, but looking at Nullschool for the next few days shows a typical "spring-melt cyclone" covering large areas of the Arctic.

[Paladiea]

The net cloud effect is 21 W m-2 cooling on average. Cloudy conditions favor less ice melt given they reflect more radiation into space than they reradiate back down through the atmosphere to the surface.

My point wasn't about shortwave radiation being blocked by clouds, my point was to highlight that clouds reflect longwave radiation back to the ocean, longwave radiation that would not otherwise be present if open water wasn't there.