2018 Melting Season - Predictions and Speculation

[jdallen]

Created to winnow down the 2018 Melting Season topic proper.

[jdallen]

Now, to seed the discussion;

I predict that the Bering will get smashed this month and will be close to melted out by the 1st week of April, with unpleasant consequences for the Chukchi.

I predict large swaths of the Barents which are currently reported as extent will vanish by by mid-April because of a combination of storms, thin ice, transported Atlantic heat and rising insolation.

I predict over-all, higher continental snow coverage will not mitigate melting, and that thinner than previous season's snow cover on the pack proper will permit earlier formation of melt ponds than we have seen in the last 3-4 years.

[Edit:  I predict the "hole" north of Svalbard will not increase in size, but will persist as a killing ground for ice forced into it.]

Wildcard:  The weather.  I'm not sure what the long term circulation will do insofar as importing moisture and by extension clouds - which will increase albedo and give the ice a break.

[Dharma Rupa]

Created to winnow down the 2018 Melting Season topic proper.

I'm a bit confused here.  What is there to the Melting Season other than predictions and speculation?

The actual measurements of the Arctic are woefully lacking.

[Iceismylife]

I predict an impressive melt season.  So how do we get the most melt?  High pressure over Greenland? GAC or two or three? Mid July?  Do we need a GAC now to brake up the ice?  Or put it off for a bit?

[Neven]

I'll leave this open for a while, but if I feel that it's becoming too much like the melting season thread, I will close it.

I predict an impressive melt season.  So how do we get the most melt?  High pressure over Greenland? GAC or two or three? Mid July?  Do we need a GAC now to brake up the ice?  Or put it off for a bit?

I'd say clouds in the centre, right now, with open skies along the periphery. The clouds cause a bit of melt in the snow layers, making it more prone to melting later on. Once the Sun gets higher up, high pressure over the CAB during May and June to create an early melt onset, followed by heavy melt ponding. After that some low pressure and storms, to create leads and dispersion. Some more high pressure to put the heat back on. And then in the first half of August a GAC. After that open skies again.

That's the recipe for a first ice-free Arctic, I think. The big wild card is ocean heat flux.

[jdallen]

I'll leave this open for a while, but if I feel that it's becoming too much like the melting season thread, ...

I'm fine with that Neven. I thought I'd try this to split off some of the discussion that was rubbing people's fur the wrong way in the melt season thread proper, in an effort to keep it more technical.  If it doesn't work, we kill this one.

[Iceismylife]

And if you can move comments here that detract from there then that would make things better.

[bbr2314]

And if you can move comments here that detract from there then that would make things better.

Yes, I have no idea where to post, thanks Neven

[gerontocrat]

I predict an impressive melt season.  So how do we get the most melt?  High pressure over Greenland? GAC or two or three? Mid July?  Do we need a GAC now to brake up the ice?  Or put it off for a bit?

"I know nothing !" (BBC Fawlty Towers)

But, DMI-More-Than-80 back from its visit to Dante's 4th Circle of Ice and looking to be normally abnormal again for a few days at least.

And my attention is drawn to above zero degrees celsius at various places in the periphery over the next few days e.g. above zero degrees today in Bering and southern Chukchi.

Ok. A prediction - There will be melt in the remainder of March.

[FishOutofWater]

The next 6 months will be a fascinating test of models. The sudden stratospheric warming / polar vortex split has had a stunning effect on NH weather since mid-February. In 2013 when there was a powerful SSW in mid-January there was a very cold spring in the US and Europe followed by a very stormy May and June in the Arctic that led to a strong recovery in sea ice.

This year's SSW which came more than a month later than the SSW in 2013 should not have the same effects because of the timing, but, as everyone living in the U.S and Europe has noticed the weather this March has been different - very cold and very stormy. It's going to be very interesting to watch the atmospheric dynamics and its effect on sea ice this spring.

[Feeltheburn]

The next 6 months will be a fascinating test of models.

This year's SSW which came more than a month later than the SSW in 2013 should not have the same effects because of the timing, but, as everyone living in the U.S and Europe has noticed the weather this March has been different - very cold and very stormy. It's going to be very interesting to watch the atmospheric dynamics and its effect on sea ice this spring.

I'm beginning to see that predicting arctic ice extent is much like predicting the next roll of the dice based on the previous rolls--previous rolls don't affect subsequent rolls even though there is statistical probability that certain rolls will occur more often than others. I have concluded there is too much unpredictability and the models are not very accurate to form a certain prediction. But if I had to predict, based on the current low temperature in the arctic compared to last couple of years, coupled with extremely high amounts of snowpack, I'd say we are in for a ho hum melting season that will underwhelm those who are primed to see a record drop this year.

[Lord M Vader]

I predict a sea ice minimum around 4,3-4,5 Mn km². This is due to the "overall" somewhat thicker ice compared to 2012 and 2016-2017 but with a little more favorable weather for melting. Especially, the Laptev sea looks to be in rather "healthy" shape compared to the last couple of years and might act as a barrier to severe melting.

[Sleepy]

Weather wise I'll gamble on something like 2007, different than the last years low pressure dominated melting seasons. ~10M off until September and then closer to the record from 2012.



Also adding Fig5 from Kodera 2015.

[gerontocrat]

Just to add the observation (not prediction) that if extent loss is at the average of the last 10 years, minimum would be 3,934,012 million km2 on September 12th 2018 ( at 16.07 hrs GMT)....

.....and that the reality will be different.

[FishOutofWater]

There are similarities in the SST anomaly patterns in late March for 2007 and 2017 but there is, of course, never a perfect match.

http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2007/anomnight.3.24.2007.gif


The CFS forecast pressure gradient anomalies for May June July are not very impressive except for the northward displacement of the Pacific high towards the Aleutians. All in all the forecast is pretty average except for the above normal temperatures especially noticeable along the shores of the East Siberian Sea. I'm not particularly impressed by the ice thickness on the Siberian side. The RGB imagery at JAXA shows a convergence zone where ice has been thickened by compression, but the rest of it looks like it's letting a lot of heat escape. I don't think we should expect thick Siberian sea ice to save us in September but there's no indication yet in the CFS forecast model of anything other than a near average to slightly above average set up for sea ice melting this summer. We'll see.

[Stephan]

I expect a "speedier than average" melt begin from April through mid June, mainly due to the southern parts of the Arctic incl. Okhotsk, Bering Sea, Davis Strait and Hudson Bay. In summer the melting will be slower than in 2016, maybe comparable to 2017, due to somewhat thicker ice in many parts above 80°N. Therefore I forecast a 4.5 +/-0.3 Mio. km² minimum in September 2018 which is then above the long-term exponential trend line ... and therefore the "blue Arctic event" will be another year later than once predicted [P. Beckwith].

[bluesky]

Lord M Vader Today at 08:01:40 AM
"I predict a sea ice minimum around 4,3-4,5 Mn km2. ..."

Should we use sea ice extent or sea ice area? Petty et al have just confirmed that 2016 higher than expected minimum sea ice extent was due to low compactness. They also think that going forward sea ice area would be a better metric than sea ice extent (but is sea ice area metric enough reliable ?)

http://nora.nerc.ac.uk/id/eprint/519372/1/Petty.pdf

"Abstract. The Arctic sea ice cover of 2016 was highly noteworthy, as it featured record low monthly sea ice extents at the start of the year but a summer (September) extent that was higher than expected by most seasonal forecasts. Here we explore the 2016 Arctic sea ice state in terms of its monthly sea ice cover, placing this in the context of the sea ice conditions observed since 2000. We demonstrate the sensitivity of monthly Arctic sea ice extent and area estimates, in terms of their magnitude and annual rankings, to the ice concentration input data (using two widely used datasets) and to the averaging methodology used to convert concentration to extent (daily or monthly extent calculations). We use estimates of sea ice area over sea ice extent to analyse the relative “compactness” of the Arctic sea ice cover, highlighting anomalously low compactness in the summer of 2016 which contributed to the higher than-expected September ice extent. Two cyclones that entered the Arctic Ocean during August appear to have driven this low-concentration/compactness ice cover but were not sufficient to cause more widespread melt-out and a new record-low September ice extent. We use concentration budgets to explore the regions and processes (thermodynamics/dynamics) contributing to the monthly 2016 extent/area estimates highlighting, among other things, rapide intensification across the central eastern Arctic through September. Two different products show significant early melt on
set across the Arctic Ocean in 2016, including record-early melt onset in the North Atlantic sector of the Arctic. Our resultsalsoshowrecord-late2016freeze-upinthecentralArctic, North Atlantic and the Alaskan Arctic sector in particular, associated with strong sea surface temperature anomalies that appeared shortly after the 2016 minimum (October onwards). We explore the implications of this low summer ice compactness for seasonal forecasting, suggesting that sea ice area could be a more reliable metric to forecast in this more seasonal, “New Arctic”, sea ice regime."

[Dharma Rupa]

...They also think that going forward sea ice area would be a better metric than sea ice extent (but is sea ice area metric enough reliable ?)

The real problem with Area rather than Extent is that the well-measured timeline on Area is so much shorter.  Area might be a better measure of collapse than extent, but you have less evidence upon which to prove it.

[uniquorn]

Now, to seed the discussion;
[Edit:  I predict the "hole" north of Svalbard will not increase in size, but will persist as a killing ground for ice forced into it.]

I think the killing ground may be temporarily overwhelmed.

[Gray-Wolf]

Moving my speculations of a link between low ice finishes in summer and low solar.

I am unaware of any study into 'cloudiness' over the high Arctic and high solar.

I am unaware of any studies into HP dominance ( clear skies) over low solar.

I am aware of the UK MetO research into Northern blocking in the Atlantic over low solar during the winter months.

My speculations are tied to the low ice years over last low solar and the weathers that brought us those low finishes.

My musing is the transfer north, with the seasons, of the HP predominance over the start of melt season ( and later into melt season?).

When we look at things like the ITCZ or the subtropical/polar jet we see a move north as the sun tracks over the equator and on to the tropic.

The HP systems that we have over the winter months during low solar ( scandinavia/Greenland highs) do not just 'stop' when we move into spring but do they , along with other hemispheric markers, migrate to the north as summer approaches?

We know the importance of melt ponding over the first part of melt season so any leaning toward clear skies over the start of melt season would surely be important to know about?

I do hear the 'Arctic has changed' talk and accept that the injection of humidity, ongoing, into the basin must lead to increased cloudiness but I am also sure that High Pressure can still exist there ( and limit cloudiness) If there are a number of years over the solar cycle that lean toward more Highs in the basin then it'd probably be wise to note it?

This is the first time we have been in low solar since the end of the last period ( 2013?) and over the last low solar we saw some notable loss years.

This was either down to pure coincidence of the phase of ice loss we were at and random combinations of weather types falling poorly or there may be a link to higher ice loss years over a set natural cycle ( sunspot cycle of around 11 years) and the impact on the low ice levels we had arrived at by the last low solar '. The lack of volume meant increased open water which was highly visible ( unlike the cycle before which also had a 'perfect melt storm' but did not see the ice pull back due to higher ice volume at that time?).

We will have a chance , over the next 4 years, to see if we have more highs over the basin or even if we see another 'perfect melt storm'.

[El Cid]

Thank you for your answer

[Let It Go]

I expect a rapid decline in sea ice in the Bering Sea. Which causes an early melt in the Chukchi Sea, weeks ahead of the current record in this region. Causing everybody here on this site to hype about a Blue Ocean September. However in summer i expect some sort of negative feedback to kick in, just like in the last view years. Which will result in the September minimum extent record not to be broken.

[Dharma Rupa]

I expect a rapid decline in sea ice in the Bering Sea. Which causes an early melt in the Chukchi Sea, weeks ahead of the current record in this region. Causing everybody here on this site to hype about a Blue Ocean September. However in summer i expect some sort of negative feedback to kick in, just like in the last view years. Which will result in the September minimum extent record not to be broken.

Actually, since I think the final melt-out will be due to water, not air, I'd agree with everything except your final prediction; where I will reserve judgment.  Not really sure I'd call a cloudy summer a negative feedback, but I do expect there to be one.  I just don't know when the bulk of the Arctic Ocean will overturn and melt all the ice.

[Neven]

Causing everybody here on this site to hype about a Blue Ocean September.

Right. Like 'everybody' here does every year. 

[Paddy]

I'll speculate that the 2018 extent minimum will likely be one of the 8 lowest minimums in history. Where it will sit among them, I have no idea.

[wallen]

I'll be the goose (Idiot, whatever)that sticks his neck out. I think 2018 melt season will go seriously close to 2012 and possibly lower. I also think there is a good chance that the North Pole may be considered as  an open water sector at some time during this melt season.

May I be very, very wrong

[Nightvid Cole]

It looks to me like the PIOMAS ice volume is likely to join the pre-2017 years, since we have had such a "cold snap" this month (really just a return to near average!). Thus, I expect the volume and extent minima to be similar to 2011 this year, unless weather surprises come this spring or summer, which is quite possible...

[jdallen]

I'll be the goose (Idiot, whatever)that sticks his neck out. I think 2018 melt season will go seriously close to 2012 and possibly lower. I also think there is a good chance that the North Pole may be considered as  an open water sector at some time during this melt season.

May I be very, very wrong

Since 2012, the only thing standing between the Arctic and a catastrophic melt out has been the weather.

Germane to Let it Be's comment from earlier, its not so much that we believe the Arctic will melt out, as much as it is we are certain it could melt out.

That "could" is a very, very big thing.  Before 2012, it really wasn't possible. Now, each year is a dice roll.  Melt out wins on box cars and snake eyes.

[Daniel B.]

I'll be the goose (Idiot, whatever)that sticks his neck out. I think 2018 melt season will go seriously close to 2012 and possibly lower. I also think there is a good chance that the North Pole may be considered as  an open water sector at some time during this melt season.

May I be very, very wrong

Since 2012, the only thing standing between the Arctic and a catastrophic melt out has been the weather.

Germane to Let it Be's comment from earlier, its not so much that we believe the Arctic will melt out, as much as it is we are certain it could melt out.

That "could" is a very, very big thing.  Before 2012, it really wasn't possible. Now, each year is a dice roll.  Melt out wins on box cars and snake eyes.

You are probably right.  It could, if conditions are right, but the odds are against it.  The previous post predicting that it will fall in the bottom 8, is playing the odds as the past 11 years has only witness three times where extent was above 5 million sq. km.  But that is probably the smart money, as where it falls within that group will be determined by many variables, most of which cannot be accurately determined in a given season.

[binntho]

Although I find it somewhat hard to read GreyWolf's postings (all those questionmarks?) it set me wondering - one of the supposed causal chains between solar (and space) radiation is its effect on cloud cover. It's difficult to find any long-term research that measures cloud cover, although I seem to remember ship-based observations going back to the fifties showing increased cloud cover over time, which is not au fait with my understanding of what the supposed effects of decreased radiation are supposed to be.

But back to my ruminations viz-a-viz GreyWolf: With geniuses like A-Team in our midst I wondered if it would be possible to quantify cloud cover as seen from satellites over the years, i.e. simple percentages per month or something like that. It's not my place to make any such demands, but it would be interesting ...

[magnamentis]

It looks to me like the PIOMAS ice volume is likely to join the pre-2017 years, since we have had such a "cold snap" this month (really just a return to near average!). Thus, I expect the volume and extent minima to be similar to 2011 this year, unless weather surprises come this spring or summer, which is quite possible...

due to much less thick ice and millions of km2 less area/extent i simply and always will doubt any numbers that suggest we're close to average, after all the bigger part of 3 dimensions here are area/extent and that is very low, permanently around the lowest and most of the time lowest this year till now.

so how could it be that if the ice is thinner and less in area/extent that we could even get somewhere in the vicinity of average?

i even doubt piomas numbers as a whole even though i won't dispute their usefulness, i simply believe that their algorithm got outdated with recent year's developments. i.e. what if there is 1m snow o 1m ice, that's 100% increase of the real thing while when there was 1m of snow on 5m of ice it's just a 20% off thingy. etc. etc.

[gerontocrat]

My starting point is that after the 8th lowest minimum extent in 2017, winter freezing was so low as to result in a near as dammit record low extent in March 2018,and a 2nd lowest PIOMAS volume.  Sea ice in the peripheral seas looks ready to disappear, and albedo warming potential is therefore high at the moment.

Then, looking at the melt that happened from now to minimum over the last 10 years, 5 would result in an extent minimum above 4 million km2, and 5 below 4 million km2.

In 2017 melt from now was a measly 9 million, giving a minimum in 2018 of 4.6 million, while in 2016 the melt was 9.8 million, giving a 2018 minimum of 3.6 million km2.

I discount much of the extreme 11.5 million melt in 2012, as extent on 25 March in 2012 was 0.9 million km2 greater than it is today, and I understand this was largely due to vast amounts of ice shoved into the N. Atlantic causing a very high extent maximum followed by a late very strong melt (in addition to perfect melting conditions late in the melting season)

Global Ocean Heat dropped in 2016 (El Nino) and came back strongly to a record high by December 2017 (ENSO neutral and La Nina). La Nina continues, and is expected to continue until very late in the melting season, so I am expecting Global Ocean heat to rise strongly at least until the end of the melting season. Eventually (but when) some of that additional heat must reach the Arctic? Already in the N. Pacific?

So, even if there is a cool and cloudy Arctic Summer, it seems to me the balance of probabilities is for enhanced melting compared with 2017 due to ocean heat. I plump for less than 4 million, and a record (extremely?) low maximum in March 2019, but will go no further than that. Hostage to fortune again.

[FishOutofWater]

A connection has not been made to the Arctic clouds in this paper, but it is interesting:
https://phys.org/news/2016-08-solar-impact-earth-cloud.html

[binntho]

A connection has not been made to the Arctic clouds in this paper, but it is interesting:
https://phys.org/news/2016-08-solar-impact-earth-cloud.html

Yes, well, that paper is a favorite amongst deniers who want to blame the sun for all the recent warming (and have been predicting cooling for the last 20 years based on solar activity).

Space radiation in general (including from the sun) helps generate clouds, pretty self-evident and apparently supported by research. But the effect is very small, and the increase, as well as changes, in cloud cover over the last half century or so seem to be caused by increased temperature. Whatever the cause, it's clear that the current global warming has, for the last 50 years at least, not be caused by any decrease in cloud cover.

But in another context, some members here seem to think that cloudiness over the Arctic is somehow linked to solar activity, and as we have seen, cloudiness over the arctic seems to have changed, and during summer increased cloudiness seems to retard melting while during winter it may add insulation.

So my idea was, given that the satellite products that are deciphered and presented by A-Team so brilliantly, are quite often "cleaned" of clouds. But are there any efforts to do the opposite - extract a "cloud cover percentage" over time, one that could perhaps eventually be used to support or discard the solar-cloud cover theory?

[oren]

A connection has not been made to the Arctic clouds in this paper, but it is interesting:
https://phys.org/news/2016-08-solar-impact-earth-cloud.html

Yes, well, that paper is a favorite amongst deniers who want to blame the sun for all the recent warming (and have been predicting cooling for the last 20 years based on solar activity).

Space radiation in general (including from the sun) helps generate clouds, pretty self-evident and apparently supported by research. But the effect is very small, and the increase, as well as changes, in cloud cover over the last half century or so seem to be caused by increased temperature. Whatever the cause, it's clear that the current global warming has, for the last 50 years at least, not be caused by any decrease in cloud cover.

But in another context, some members here seem to think that cloudiness over the Arctic is somehow linked to solar activity, and as we have seen, cloudiness over the arctic seems to have changed, and during summer increased cloudiness seems to retard melting while during winter it may add insulation.

So my idea was, given that the satellite products that are deciphered and presented by A-Team so brilliantly, are quite often "cleaned" of clouds. But are there any efforts to do the opposite - extract a "cloud cover percentage" over time, one that could perhaps eventually be used to support or discard the solar-cloud cover theory?

As far as I understand, the specific claim/speculation is that low solar leads to high pressure over the arctic somehow. High pressure is already known to bring clear skies.

[binntho]

A connection has not been made to the Arctic clouds in this paper, but it is interesting:
https://phys.org/news/2016-08-solar-impact-earth-cloud.html

...
Space radiation in general (including from the sun) helps generate clouds, pretty self-evident and apparently supported by research. But the effect is very small, and the increase, as well as changes, in cloud cover over the last half century or so seem to be caused by increased temperature. Whatever the cause, it's clear that the current global warming has, for the last 50 years at least, not be caused by any decrease in cloud cover.

But in another context, some members here seem to think that cloudiness over the Arctic is somehow linked to solar activity, and as we have seen, cloudiness over the arctic seems to have changed, and during summer increased cloudiness seems to retard melting while during winter it may add insulation.
...

As far as I understand, the specific claim/speculation is that low solar leads to high pressure over the arctic somehow. High pressure is already known to bring clear skies.

So what would be the causal chain here? How is solar activity supposed to control atmospheric pressure in this context, i.e. how can low solar activity cause high pressure? Without a causal chain or statistical correlation the claim seems pure speculation.

[Sleepy]

AFAIK, noone exactly knows how GCR's affect the cloud cover.
Particularly over the poles, it's not unusual with high pressure at the surface and low pressure higher up, with clouds.

And Cirrus clouds adds to warming.

Global cooling is coming (or not):

[binntho]

The Svensmark hypothesis is that charged articles from space (or from the sun) seed cloud formation. It's been shown to work in the lab, and satellite data seems to confirm some correlation between cloud cover and space radiation.

Based on variation in solar radiation it should then be possible to predict cloud formation, and more clouds should on average cause less heating.

But the possible correlation is very small and "cloud cover" means very different things depending what type of cloud and how high it is. Time and location is also important, clouds at night have a different effect from clouds during the day, and clouds over the tropics have different effects from clouds over the arctic. This is apparently a hugely complicated subject of intense research, possible changes in cloud cover apparently remains by far the biggest unknown in climate predictions.

As far as I'm aware, current cloud cover is considered having a slight net cooling effect, and as cloud cover seems to have increased since the fifties, this is seen as a slight negative feedback.

Claims of an imminent cooling based on solar radiation and irradiation have been common since the turn of the century. Over the last 40 years or so solar irradiation has declined, cloud cover has increased but at the same time temperature has risen rapidly.

A common response to this has been that the oceans contain a huge amount of stored energy, and it's their release of this energy that is keeping the temperatures high in spite of solar effects. When pointed out that in that case the oceans should be cooling down (and not heating rapidly) the response has been somewhat confused.

[Alexander555]

Chukchi looks pretty bad.

And how thick would the ice be at that big crack in the East Seberian sea ?

[Iceismylife]

high pressure over Greenland.

[FishOutofWater]

A solar cycle connection has been observed in east Pacific ocean stratus clouds. apparently related to the U.V. spectrum, but again, like the cosmic ray connection to cloud formation the effect is much smaller than the effect of ocean warming on clouds. Unfortunately, warming is reducing stratus clouds that may cause cooling and is increasing clouds at higher levels, reflecting and radiating heat back towards the surface while radiating out to space at cold cloud top temperatures. Cirrus clouds add to warming.

If only the deniers were right about this, but, no, we will get very little help from the decline in solar activity and we're getting the wrong kinds of clouds as the climate warms.

[Neven]

And at some point solar activity will increase again.

[Sleepy]

This is all shaky but some solar physicists do speculate that already the next solar cycle might be stronger that this one:
https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,2250.msg141798.html#msg141798

The prediction of cycle 24 (the current) that I'm aware of (please add or correct if some of you out there know more) that has been correct, is made by following the development of the solar polar field strength, throughout a solar sunspot cycle. It can then (if correct) be used to predict the magnitude of the next cycle and the peak of the current cycle. That's why I keep one eye open to see if their prediction of cycle 25 will be correct and somewhat higher than cycle 24.

Links at the link, hopefully I'll live through the next solar cycle. 

But all in all, it doesn't really matter much what the sun does compared to what we continue to put out in the atmosphere. Stupid us.

[RikW]

that's not totally true, if it decides it's EOL, than we have a problem

[DoomInTheUK]

I think we'll see a very mobile pack - where it goes will be up to the weather, but I expect to see large swings in both area and extent as it breaks up and get pushed all over the place.

We'll probably get another Laptev Bight, how big is anyone's guess (anyone but mine - I have no idea).

I'll have a better idea in about 5 months.

[Shared Humanity]

I predict I will be visiting this blog throughout the melt season.

[crandles]

I predict that while there will be points of interest, stoat will continue to think it is uninteresting.

[Daniel B.]

I will concur that this minimum this year will reside in the bottom, but closer to 8th than 1st, due largely to cooler ocean temperatures recently.

<edit Neven: No links to climate risk denial websites, svp.>

[gerontocrat]

Will DMI-MoreThan80 stay above the green line beyond day 125, or will it do a 2017?
If it does a 2017 I think a slow melt may be coming.

[Dharma Rupa]

Will DMI-MoreThan80 stay above the green line beyond day 125, or will it do a 2017?
If it does a 2017 I think a slow melt may be coming.

Interesting question.  I will note that it has been fairly sunny so far...but I have to agree that the DMI 80N is the easiest prognosticator to follow.  (I really need an easy to follow FDD.)