The 2016 melting season

[Andreas T]

The linked paper is talking about the globe as a whole, there have been discussions here which have at least attempted to address the issues relevant in the arctic. The main feature is change of shortwave albedo by ice turning into water. Longwave emission is not very different for water and ice.

Paladiea, why do you think that one area of open water is absorbing sunlight without loosing too much IR when another needs clouds to avoid the losses?

Science works well if it is applied consistently and coherently. That is what makes it complex and hard to get your head around. Any idea can be "explained" by taking bits of science and making it sound more plausible, this whole forum is a good illustration of this. The problem is that all these sciency looking ideas are indistinguishable so it is left to personal preference which idea is taken as better or worse.

[Paladiea]

Paladiea, why do you think that one area of open water is absorbing sunlight without loosing too much IR when another needs clouds to avoid the losses?

The loss would be the same, the difference is that the sunlight more than compensates for the loss via radiation to the atmosphere.

If there is a large enough patch of open water, it could conceivably heat above the melting point of ice, and that heat could be dispersed through to cloudy areas, where while there is no sunlight to replace lost heat, it would be better able to retain heat that was already there or transported in.

[edit] Also note that open water in cloudy areas means that a lot more longwave radiation would be bouncing around because ice having a higher albedo, tends to reflect shortwave radiation outright.

As an aside, I'm not making stuff up to justify preconceived ideas, I do have experience in studying how heat behaves at the thermodynamic level, so I'm running though thought experiments. I'm not saying I'm right and you must believe me, I'm just trying to visualize to myself (and the forum) how the heat might behave.

[seaicesailor]

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.

Surely there has been real melting going on for days; how fast it is, the coming days will tell, but based on what happened past weeks I think this was done mechanically mostly.

[Neven]

Paladiea, I don't think there's enough time for the heat to move around and melt the ice much further from the place where the heat was built up. As soon as air temps go down in September and October (no more solar radiation) the heat gets released and open water freezes. More interesting is what all the build-up of heat (for instance in the Kara and Barentsz Seas, massive build-up as we speak) does to atmospheric patterns.

---

The ECMWF forecast for another bout of cyclonic dominance keeps coming closer, so we can assume it will come about:

.

The last two panels - for coming Friday and Saturday - are interesting because they show a high-pressure area of 1030 hPa covering a large part of the Siberian side of the Arctic (where ice is thickest). But again, little compaction or Fram Strait export.

So, I wouldn't be surprised if 2016 starts following the 2010/2014 path on the JAXA SIE graph:



But this doesn't necessarily mean things are going well for the ice. SST anomaly is still very high and these regional bouts of sunny weather should leave a mark that may become visible somewhere in August.

[JayW]

Anybody have a better AVHRR resource than the Canadian meteorological service? http://weather.gc.ca/satellite/satellite_anim_e.html?sat=hrpt&area=dfo&type=nir   It images the area north of 85° every 100 minutes or so.  I would be forever grateful. 

Here's a 48 hour loop.

Edit: sorry bout that, attached a bad gif.  Greenland is in the lower right corner.

[Michael Hauber]

The next storm could tear up the Beaufort quite badly.  The Beaufort has been getting some reasonable heat and sunshine recently to get some surface melt going, and put some extra heat into all the bits of ocean in between.  Now it looks like the storm will bomb with a warm air injection from the Beaufort side.  So a fair bit of wind, presumably some waves, and comparatively warm air should do some real damage.  The storm circles around a bit, the air mass cools down under the clouds and a return bout could see some further quite strong winds under a cooler air mass hit the Beaufort a couple days later.

The latest EC then puts a pretty toasty high pressure system on the Siberian side, to really test out all the dispersed ice in that part of the Arctic, but this is out towards day 10 and a bit of a switch from other recent runs which have looked much cooler, so we will have to see if that holds.

[Paladiea]

Paladiea, I don't think there's enough time for the heat to move around and melt the ice much further from the place where the heat was built up. As soon as air temps go down in September and October (no more solar radiation) the heat gets released and open water freezes.

Yes, it would be improbable that the heat would be transported throughout the Arctic solely by ocean currents, and absolutely, all this melt heat is coming from the sun, once you remove the input, the heat leaves the system and the ice returns.

One of the more interesting ways I've encountered to describe weather is to call storms giant heat engines. And I know that people in this forum don't consider air temperatures much of a factor in ice melt, but storms are a fast way to transfer heat throughout the CAB, and do act  mechanically and in a thermodynamic fashion to destroy ice in summer.

Perhaps more open water = more storms = more open water? I've seen other commentators propose this mechanism.

[georged]

Paladiea, I don't think there's enough time for the heat to move around and melt the ice much further from the place where the heat was built up. As soon as air temps go down in September and October (no more solar radiation) the heat gets released and open water freezes. More interesting is what all the build-up of heat (for instance in the Kara and Barentsz Seas, massive build-up as we speak) does to atmospheric patterns.

---

The ECMWF forecast for another bout of cyclonic dominance keeps coming closer, so we can assume it will come about:

.

The last two panels - for coming Friday and Saturday - are interesting because they show a high-pressure area of 1030 hPa covering a large part of the Siberian side of the Arctic (where ice is thickest). But again, little compaction or Fram Strait export.

So, I wouldn't be surprised if 2016 starts following the 2010/2014 path on the JAXA SIE graph:



But this doesn't necessarily mean things are going well for the ice. SST anomaly is still very high and these regional bouts of sunny weather should leave a mark that may become visible somewhere in August.

Another newbie question: Fram export is usually very important, but there's not much of it right now. How important is any Kara and Barentsz export in 2016, given the large area of open water and anomalous temperatures in those areas?

[Neven]

Another newbie question: Fram export is usually very important, but there's not much of it right now. How important is any Kara and Barentsz export in 2016, given the large area of open water and anomalous temperatures in those areas?

That depends on how much (sustained) export there is towards these regions. Any sustained export towards very warm regions, is important. But the word 'sustained' is key here. Traditionally the only place where there is sustained export, is Fram Strait (and perhaps the strait next to it, between Svalbard and Franz Josef Land, which basically is export to Barentsz).

[bbr2314]

I would suggest that the upcoming setup on the EURO is equally as bad as the traditional dipole. The "cold" 850s will mostly be positioned over open water (as will the LP) and as it shifts to the Beaufort vicinity that is going to push at least a decent proportion of Big Block's friends over waters nearly reaching 50F. The continual motion is what's most important and this should do another big number on some of the thickest ice remaining in the Arctic.

Combined with generally horrific conditions in the rest of the Basin, that should make for a steep volume declines. The question is how much longer Laptev/ESS hold out. Satellites show large areas now falling well below 1M in thickness and reaching concentrations of 70% or less. It won't take much more time (maybe two weeks tops) before wide areas start giving out completely and I think that will make for many days in a short spurt with 200-300K+ drops. For clarity's sake, I'll guess we have at least four 200K+ drops in the period from 7/20-30.

More forebodingly, the 00z EURO shows the wave train from the Pacific entering the Arctic. That amount of energy, heat, and moisture is very substantial, and if the setup evolves like this it will be a complete blowtorch in the direct path.

[Jim Hunt]

A preliminary view of the North Pole and surrounds from Terra today:

http://GreatWhiteCon.info/resources/arctic-sea-ice-images/summer-2016-images/#NorthPole

[bbr2314]

Truly horrific. There are now open floes spanning straight from Atlantic to Pacific/Beaufort.

[Tigertown]

A study at the University of Leuven in Belgium determined that clouds are doing more to melt the surface of Greenland's ice sheet than to prevent such. Why? They concluded that it's because of white surface of the ice. Why would the same not apply to sea ice? Now surely, where the ice has already melted and left mostly open water, the clouds would hinder insolation. However, what about when they cover a nice undisturbed area of white, high albedo ice? From what I have read lately, they no longer believe the clouds to be such a protection. Of course, NASA themselves are still learning when it comes to clouds. They have concluded that not all clouds are the same in regard to whether they effectively heat or cool a surface below them. When they do heat the surface its not by much; one of us humans would much prefer to be in the shade of a cloud and be just a little warmer than say maybe that of a tree, if we had to choose that or to be in the open sunlight. The ice however, as long as it absorbs enough energy starts to melt.
Also, as of late, researchers have learned that just as the climate changes clouds, clouds can change the climate, a feedback thing.
Not trying to say this is going to melt every crystal of ice in the Arctic by September, but it may have a greater impact than previously thought.

[Quantum]

A study at the University of Leuven in Belgium determined that clouds are doing more to melt the surface of Greenland's ice sheet than to prevent such. Why? They concluded that it's because of white surface of the ice. Why would the same not apply to sea ice? Now surely, where the ice has already melted and left mostly open water, the clouds would hinder insolation. However, what about when they cover a nice undisturbed area of white, high albedo ice? From what I have read lately, they no longer believe the clouds to be such a protection. Of course, NASA themselves are still learning when it comes to clouds. They have concluded that not all clouds are the same in regard to whether they effectively heat or cool a surface below them. When they do heat the surface its not by much; one of us humans would much prefer to be in the shade of a cloud and be just a little warmer than say maybe that of a tree. The ice however, as long as it absorbs enough energy starts to melt.
Also, as of late, researchers have learned that just as the climate changes clouds, clouds can change the climate, a feedback thing.
Not trying to say this is going to melt every crystal of ice in the Arctic by September, but it may have a greater impact than previously thought.

It is consistent with some of the stuff said weeks back about melt onset. I really think as a general rule we simply need to reduce the amount of time that clouds are, for the most part, good for ice retention. So late June to late July; cloudy conditions are probably good for retention but are poor at all other times of year. That being said, low pressure (which brings clouds) is good for other reasons such as low temperatures and snowfall.

I do want to echo the sentiments of a few people above when they say it is a bit much when people say that every weather condition be it low pressure, high pressure, + dipole, - dipole is 'devastating' to the ice. Although that may be partially true in an absolute sense, its really not all that useful when considering how the meteorology is going to affect the minimum beyond any climatological predictions; clearly some weather types is better for retention than others (though saying exactly what may be a challenge). 

[weatherdude88]

A study at the University of Leuven in Belgium determined that clouds are doing more to melt the surface of Greenland's ice sheet than to prevent such. Why? They concluded that it's because of white surface of the ice. Why would the same not apply to sea ice? Now surely, where the ice has already melted and left mostly open water, the clouds would hinder insolation. However, what about when they cover a nice undisturbed area of white, high albedo ice? From what I have read lately, they no longer believe the clouds to be such a protection. Of course, NASA themselves are still learning when it comes to clouds. They have concluded that not all clouds are the same in regard to whether they effectively heat or cool a surface below them. When they do heat the surface its not by much; one of us humans would much prefer to be in the shade of a cloud and be just a little warmer than say maybe that of a tree, if we had to choose that or to be in the open sunlight. The ice however, as long as it absorbs enough energy starts to melt.
Also, as of late, researchers have learned that just as the climate changes clouds, clouds can change the climate, a feedback thing.
Not trying to say this is going to melt every crystal of ice in the Arctic by September, but it may have a greater impact than previously thought.

Using an advanced snow model, we find that this warming enhances GrIS meltwater runoff in response to reduced refreezing rates at night, when cloud warming is highest compared with clear skies.

http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2016/160112/ncomms10266/full/ncomms10266.html

The arctic has near 24 hours of sunlight during the summer months. It is common sense that cloud cover at night retains more heat at the surface VS. clear night time skies. The net effect for a cloudy day with 12 hours of sunlight and 12 hours of night time is cooling. This paper says nothing new.

[dnem]

Is bbr2314 Friv in disguise?

[seaicesailor]

Not a chance

[Tigertown]

NASA and the IPCC are  saying there is much left to learn about the effects of different kinds of clouds and that some appear to have more of a net melting effect on ice than previously thought. It is not just a simple clear cut matter that you can sum up in a couple sentences. I am not an expert, but that is what people smarter than me are saying. They say they are learning new things everyday in this regard.

[Neven]

Yes, but we know that during June and July clear skies will melt more ice than cloudy skies. The main message can be summed up in a couple of sentences. Read Quantum's comment again.

[Jim Hunt]

There are now open floes spanning straight from Atlantic to Pacific/Beaufort.

The section between the Pole and the Beaufort Sea doesn't look too horrifying at the moment?

[magnamentis]

Another newbie question: Fram export is usually very important, but there's not much of it right now. How important is any Kara and Barentsz export in 2016, given the large area of open water and anomalous temperatures in those areas?

a very important reason why there is so little fram export is certainly due to the fact that there is not much around that could be exported. if we assume that the ice on the pacific side is not due for fram export, at least not today and tomorrow, and then looking at the almost EMPTY atlantic side and further seeing any ice heading south on the atlantic side getting destroyed almost instantly once reaching north of svalbard and then despite this huge melt ongoing since winter so to says SSTs are way above average. so what can't reach a place can't be exported, it melts before reaching fram and i think this factor is not enough mentioned here.

[TerryM]

Nares Strait is accepting new applicants for a thrilling ride to the south. With no pesky Ice Islands blocking the way, the journey should be swift. No experience required, but preferential treatment given to all those thick blocks that don't want to continue on the clockwise gyre grind.
Terry

[bbr2314]

There are now open floes spanning straight from Atlantic to Pacific/Beaufort.

The section between the Pole and the Beaufort Sea doesn't look too horrifying at the moment?

You screen-grabbed one of the only areas that hasn't cratered.

I created the below by merging GLB's thickness + concentration maps and blending, for the date 7/17. Subtracting the purple is roughly what I'd expect with an additional month of melting (so what we should see by about 8/15). And then we have another month of melt left after that...

I think while the ultimate distribution of losses may be slightly different over the next month, this is a good proxy of the area that will decline (pretty much anything under 1M in areas with >80% concentration).

What's very worrying to me on the Atlantic side is that there is a narrow band of rather thick ice that is almost ready to enter FRAM. Once that goes the warm waters have a clear path through (what will by that time be) relatively thin 1-2M ice, with almost the entire CAB exposed.

[ghoti]

Why would the ice have to go through the Fram to melt?  The entire ice edge in the 0 - 90E long. quadrant is up against extremely warm water. Any ice movement south for ice along 25% of the polar circumference leads to almost instant melt. I'd suggest Fram export under current conditions has become rather less than relevant.

[magnamentis]

Why would the ice have to go through the Fram to melt?  The entire ice edge in the 0 - 90E long. quadrant is up against extremely warm water. Any ice movement south for ice along 25% of the polar circumference leads to almost instant melt. I'd suggest Fram export under current conditions has become rather less than relevant.

thanks for backing my above thought, "nothing" cannot be exported :-)

[plinius]

Nares Strait is accepting new applicants for a thrilling ride to the south. With no pesky Ice Islands blocking the way, the journey should be swift. No experience required, but preferential treatment given to all those thick blocks that don't want to continue on the clockwise gyre grind.
Terry

could still be a couple of days. Mark the two strong blocks that entered a bottleneck at the same time and now block Nares together with the melange from Petermann. They have a non-zero chance of forming a temporary arch.
https://worldview.earthdata.nasa.gov/?p=arctic&l=VIIRS_SNPP_CorrectedReflectance_TrueColor(hidden),MODIS_Aqua_CorrectedReflectance_TrueColor(hidden),MODIS_Terra_CorrectedReflectance_TrueColor,Reference_Labels(hidden),Reference_Features(hidden),Coastlines&t=2016-07-10&v=-382705.7336089597,-942691.4672179195,-214257.7336089597,-858851.4672179195

[Jim Hunt]

You screen-grabbed one of the only areas that hasn't cratered.

I screen grabbed a fairly cloud free area on the line "straight from Atlantic to Pacific/Beaufort" via the North Pole.

In case it isn't already apparent, I heartily recommend taking the output from ACNFS/GLB with a large pinch of salt

[Shared Humanity]

Why would the ice have to go through the Fram to melt?  The entire ice edge in the 0 - 90E long. quadrant is up against extremely warm water. Any ice movement south for ice along 25% of the polar circumference leads to almost instant melt. I'd suggest Fram export under current conditions has become rather less than relevant.

The water on the Atlantic side at the ice edge is anomalously warm and this makes export through the Fram more relevant, not less.

[Michael Hauber]

On clouds etc, the Arctic has repeatedly shown a clear correlation between low pressure/cloudy weather being good for ice.  2010 and 2011 both had record setting early season melts under sunny skies.  And stalled big time within days of conditions changing to cloudy/low pressure.  Other examples as well.

I do find it interesting that I've heard a few times now about how its not sunny but cloudy or windy conditions that melt the most snow from people who have direct experience with local snow melt.  I do not doubt this, and the question is why?

I think its a case of scale.  The Arctic is big enough that when high moisture winds hit the edge they will condense all their moisture out reasonably quickly.  Perhaps more ice melts on the edge under cloudy/windy conditions than sunny.  But the wind loses its melting power for the rest.  In contrast sunny conditions might not be as fast as the wind at the edge of the Arctic, but cause melt over a much larger area.

[Paladiea]

Yes, but we know that during June and July clear skies will melt more ice than cloudy skies.

Totally agree. I wonder if that difference is narrowing as the dynamics change. I think that's an important question.

[Tor Bejnar]

...
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.

A couple off weeks ago I predicted that June ice volume loss would not be seriously diminished by the mediocre weather the Arctic experienced in June because I believed the pre-conditioning from latest-December through May would carry the day.  According to PIOMAS, June volume loss was diminished, compared to recent year's.  Therefore, I'm inclined to lean towards thinking that current conditions and half-month trends (momentum) are more significant than 'what happened a month ago.'

On a more local level, preconditioning can be shown to be significant.  In the Beaufort Sea, for example, the April-May winds cleared a great deal of ice out of that sea, giving lots of time for solar heating.  This has opened the opportunity for some thick floes from just north of the CAA to disperse in the Beaufort where they have a good change of melting out over the next 6 weeks.  In another year (IIRC) when the Beaufort started May with full ice coverage, thick floes rotating into the Beaufort Sea (1) stuck together more and (2) formed a protective barrier for CAB ice in the area.

[Nick_Naylor]

It's always good to take a visual check on the ice. The following two images are from Worldview over the July 8-10 2012 and July 7-9 2016 intervals. In each interval, I layered the 3 dates with blending mode set to 'darken'. The idea is to get clouds out of the way as much as possible. It does leave some odd artifacts from cloud shadows, but seems to work OK.

I don't see how you could say 2016 is in significantly better shape than the same time in 2012 - at least without assuming that the thickness is higher right now. I don't know how confidently we can assert that it is.

[magnamentis]

Why would the ice have to go through the Fram to melt?  The entire ice edge in the 0 - 90E long. quadrant is up against extremely warm water. Any ice movement south for ice along 25% of the polar circumference leads to almost instant melt. I'd suggest Fram export under current conditions has become rather less than relevant.

The water on the Atlantic side at the ice edge is anomalously warm and this makes export through the Fram more relevant, not less.

this does not make any sense and if you post this you should perhaps mention (refer to) the various posts that have been made as to why i and others think that there is simply not much ice to be exported because it's melting before reaching fram straight and then very carefully and founded on knowledge explain why you think that those are wrong.

i mean some people here put quite some effort into explaining why they believe what they believe and just answering with a simple no does not pay any due respect to those efforts and at the same time makes it impossible for those who perhaps fell for a false assumption to learn something. i'm ready to learn but can't see how a simple no without reason would make my and the conclusions of others obsolete.

in short please elaborate and try to make your reply related to the reasons we posted why we believe that among other reasons there is little export right now. i'm aware of the wind and current thingy which is why i say
among others.

looking forward to read a substantial explanation.

[JayW]

I guess not all clouds are the same, nor the weather "set-up" as a whole.  Looking at the arctic weather, I attached a wider view of the AVHRR animation I posted earlier.  It ends at about 6z July 10. 

It appears to me, that the melting areas are where the clouds are, and the clear skies are the areas shown as not melting on the ADS-NIPR melting image (second attachment).  But that's my humble opinion.   

Edit: I rotated the image to better line up

Hope I didn't draw too many conclusions from this.
https://ads.nipr.ac.jp/vishop/vishop-monitor.html?N

[Nick_Naylor]

With all the focus on weather, we do need to remember that climate is advancing on us, gradually removing the necessity for extreme weather in order to achieve extreme ice loss.

I'm sure we've all seen the IJIS chart, with average trajectories for the 1980's, 1990's etc.
Those decadal averages are moving steadily downward, and we have probably reached the point where we can expect to see 2015/2007-like ice conditions given merely 'average' weather.
I mocked up the chart with a hypothetical '2010's average'. Given that we are more than halfway through the 2010's, shouldn't we expect this sort of trajectory on average?

[Paladiea]

Looking at the weather animation that Jay W posted, all I can think of is the massive amount of warmth that is being imported by those winds steadily streaming in.

[seaicesailor]

It's always good to take a visual check on the ice. The following two images are from Worldview over the July 8-10 2012 and July 7-9 2016 intervals. In each interval, I layered the 3 dates with blending mode set to 'darken'. The idea is to get clouds out of the way as much as possible. It does leave some odd artifacts from cloud shadows, but seems to work OK.

I don't see how you could say 2016 is in significantly better shape than the same time in 2012 - at least without assuming that the thickness is higher right now. I don't know how confidently we can assert that it is.

This is really cool.
Just a malicious question: which of the two took you more work to remove clouds? Or, which of the two shows less clouds in the end result?

[seaicesailor]

You screen-grabbed one of the only areas that hasn't cratered.

I screen grabbed a fairly cloud free area on the line "straight from Atlantic to Pacific/Beaufort" via the North Pole.

In case it isn't already apparent, I heartily recommend taking the output from ACNFS/GLB with a large pinch of salt

In fact I am starting to suspect the GLB has gone nuts again

[seaicesailor]

I guess not all clouds are the same, nor the weather "set-up" as a whole.  Looking at the arctic weather, I attached a wider view of the AVHRR animation I posted earlier.  It ends at about 6z July 10. 

It appears to me, that the melting areas are where the clouds are, and the clear skies are the areas shown as not melting on the ADS-NIPR melting image (second attachment).  But that's my humble opinion.   

Edit: I rotated the image to better line up

Hope I didn't draw too many conclusions from this.
https://ads.nipr.ac.jp/vishop/vishop-monitor.html?N

Wow Jay those animations are AMAZING.
the cloudy stream was pulled by the dipole from the Pacific wasnt it?

[pearscot]

I know the weather has been far from idea in terms of maximum melt, but gosh darn if the pack did not just look like a pile of rubble.  Currently it's 58 in Barrow, AK with clear blue skies. That's a lot of heat being dumped into those waters, even if there is no immediate ice.  How are you guys feeling about the main pack being a pile of rubble?  I do not think we will come close to breaking 2012...but like the last two years have shown, or at least in my opinion, that even if it isn't near a record year, the cascading effects linger.  There is very little multi year ice, what does exist is much less then there was and overall the system just looks unhealthy. I will be interested to see how this year turns out, but considering we still have until mid-September for melt, I think this year is going to really affect the coming years in terms of overall sea ice 'strength.'

[Nick_Naylor]

It's always good to take a visual check on the ice. The following two images are from Worldview over the July 8-10 2012 and July 7-9 2016 intervals. In each interval, I layered the 3 dates with blending mode set to 'darken'. The idea is to get clouds out of the way as much as possible. It does leave some odd artifacts from cloud shadows, but seems to work OK.

I don't see how you could say 2016 is in significantly better shape than the same time in 2012 - at least without assuming that the thickness is higher right now. I don't know how confidently we can assert that it is.

This is really cool.
Just a malicious question: which of the two took you more work to remove clouds? Or, which of the two shows less clouds in the end result?

Neither one took any real work to remove the clouds. That's the beauty of using 'darken' blending mode - the clouds on one layer are brighter than the underlying ice on the other layer(s), so the darkest/cloud-free of the 3 layers shows up in the final image. A little crude, but reasonably effective.

[Tigertown]

There are now open floes spanning straight from Atlantic to Pacific/Beaufort.

The section between the Pole and the Beaufort Sea doesn't look too horrifying at the moment?

You screen-grabbed one of the only areas that hasn't cratered.

I created the below by merging GLB's thickness + concentration maps and blending, for the date 7/17. Subtracting the purple is roughly what I'd expect with an additional month of melting (so what we should see by about 8/15). And then we have another month of melt left after that...

I think while the ultimate distribution of losses may be slightly different over the next month, this is a good proxy of the area that will decline (pretty much anything under 1M in areas with >80% concentration).

What's very worrying to me on the Atlantic side is that there is a narrow band of rather thick ice that is almost ready to enter FRAM. Once that goes the warm waters have a clear path through (what will by that time be) relatively thin 1-2M ice, with almost the entire CAB exposed.

In between the pole and the Beaufort is one of the areas I suspect will go the fastest.
zoom,zoom,zoom

[Jim Hunt]

How are you guys feeling about the main pack being a pile of rubble?

Does this look like "a pile of rubble" to you?

http://go.nasa.gov/29Ic7xi

The Beaufort I'll give you, but "the main pack"?

[pearscot]

How are you guys feeling about the main pack being a pile of rubble?

Does this look like "a pile of rubble" to you?

http://go.nasa.gov/29Ic7xi

The Beaufort I'll give you, but "the main pack"?

Very good point. Actually I was messing around with a lot of the bands on Worldview (and having done some remote sensing back in the day) and you're right, there is a decent chunk in the center that looks 'good.' I'll put good in quotes because by that I mean it basically looks how it *should* look.  Anyways, from your understanding, how are you feeling about the periphery zones where a lot of it is rubble? With the cloud cover do you feel like a lot of that can still melt out by the end of the season? It's funny, and with so many subjects, the more I learn and know the more I learn that I know nothing, but I will be very interesting in seeing the final 1.5-2 months of melt.

One thing that I do notice that seems to appear different from 2012 is the heat of the water surrounding the pack, particularly on the Atlantic side.

[Tigertown]

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.

Firsthand experience.

Also, Tom Wagner said,"Clouds play varying roles in the Arctic.In some ways they block sunlight from getting down and maybe help preserve the ice a bit. But in other ways they can hold the heat near the Earth's surface." Tom Wagner is the head of NASA's Cryosphere Program. He made this statement in regard to the ARISE Program and studying the effect of clouds specifically in the Arctic.
Also, just from general knowledge and no longer referring to NASA's studies; whereas lower lying clouds tend more toward trapping heat, higher altitude clouds are less effective at blocking the sun's rays from reaching the surface below.
Again,not saying the clouds melt more than the open sunlight, but that they are not the preserver they are made out to be.

[plinius]

As we discussed the different motions of the floes in Beaufort a couple of days ago - here we have a frontal collision of three big ones:
https://worldview.earthdata.nasa.gov/?p=arctic&l=VIIRS_SNPP_CorrectedReflectance_TrueColor(hidden),MODIS_Aqua_CorrectedReflectance_TrueColor(hidden),MODIS_Terra_CorrectedReflectance_TrueColor,Reference_Labels(hidden),Reference_Features(hidden),Coastlines&t=2016-07-08&v=-2216131.1881544143,-128751.8162994294,-1879235.1881544143,38928.183700570604


As bit further east - some nicely visible draining of the melt lakes on the fast ice - I suppose this will break up in a couple of days, just like the neighbouring Parry Channel is already doing:
https://worldview.earthdata.nasa.gov/?p=arctic&l=VIIRS_SNPP_CorrectedReflectance_TrueColor(hidden),MODIS_Aqua_CorrectedReflectance_TrueColor(hidden),MODIS_Terra_CorrectedReflectance_TrueColor,Reference_Labels(hidden),Reference_Features(hidden),Coastlines&t=2016-07-10&v=-1536586.4301333302,-482844.45828839135,-1368138.4301333302,-399004.45828839135

[jai mitchell]

How are you guys feeling about the main pack being a pile of rubble?

Does this look like "a pile of rubble" to you?

The Beaufort I'll give you, but "the main pack"?

When I zoom in on the picture that you linked I get this:

Other than clouds, I see no unbroken ice.

[Tigertown]

Dalton (in movie Road House),"It's gonna get worse before it gets better."

[Juan C. García]

How are you guys feeling about the main pack being a pile of rubble?

Does this look like "a pile of rubble" to you?

The Beaufort I'll give you, but "the main pack"?

When I zoom in on the picture that you linked I get this:

Other than clouds, I see no unbroken ice.

I agree with Jim Hunt. Arctic Sea Ice looks bad!

Worldview

[Tigertown]

I think Slater sees it too.[Diver Down]