IJIS

[Espen]

IJIS:

13,237,712 km²（April 8, 2016）

[Mark Tough]

And the lowest on record again - seems to be a pattern. At least this Satellite Sensor seems to be behaving 

This is all with a very cold Hudson Bay for a month plus - you'd normally expect some movement there by now (well post 2007) so more scope for that Red line to fall.

Thanks for keeping posting Espen - it's much appreciated and a good thread to dip into.

 

[Espen]

IJIS:

13,151,679 km²（April 9, 2016）

[Tensor]

I'm going to go way out on a ice bridge here, 2016: Earliest year to 13 million km².

[Buddy]

You need to think bigger:  What if it got below 12 million by April 30?

[jdallen]

You need to think bigger:  What if it got below 12 million by April 30?

I expect below 12 million by April 30th is almost certain.

[Espen]

IJIS:

13,106,111 km²（April 10, 2016）

[DavidR]

You need to think bigger:  What if it got below 12 million by April 30?

I expect below 12 million by April 30th is almost certain.

Anything  below 12.5 by April 30th is highly unlikely. The only areas likely to melt significantly before then are Okhotsk and Bering There is only about 1M km^2 in those areas and they are unlikely to totally melt out. None of the other areas are likely to see significant losses before May.

The whole Arctic ocean may be primed for major losses after May but they are unlikely  to start occurring before May. 

[Buddy]

Anything  below 12.5 by April 30th is highly unlikely.

And for the most part....I agree.  The physical conditions (ie the physics) have to be there to get the ice that low so soon.  Pixie dust won't make it happen.

BUT...we are heading further into uncharted territory with each passing year.  I EXPECT the unexpected to happen from time to time (whether it is in the Arctic, Antarctic, or Greenland).  And while the unexpected doesn't mean it WILL HAPPEN....as we go forward we have a greater and greater chance of the "unexpected" happening.

Twelve....would be a REAL stretch....but STILL POSSIBLE (10% chance or less)....but 12.5 I would give a fairly good chance of happening (50% - 60%).  The "climate" (warming over years and decades) has been doing its job...now its up to weather (storms, wind, ocean currents, temp).



 

[Jim Pettit]

You need to think bigger:  What if it got below 12 million by April 30?

I expect below 12 million by April 30th is almost certain.

Anything  below 12.5 by April 30th is highly unlikely. The only areas likely to melt significantly before then are Okhotsk and Bering There is only about 1M km^2 in those areas and they are unlikely to totally melt out. None of the other areas are likely to see significant losses before May.

The whole Arctic ocean may be primed for major losses after May but they are unlikely  to start occurring before May.

Well, to be sure, the rest of April would have to see record small daily losses to finish above 12.5 million; every April for the past decade saw enough decrease from the 11th through the 30th that, if repeated this year, would result in a finish for the month of about 12.3 million. But you are correct that a sub-12 million reading is pretty unlikely.

[seaicesailor]

You need to think bigger:  What if it got below 12 million by April 30?

I expect below 12 million by April 30th is almost certain.

Anything  below 12.5 by April 30th is highly unlikely. The only areas likely to melt significantly before then are Okhotsk and Bering There is only about 1M km^2 in those areas and they are unlikely to totally melt out. None of the other areas are likely to see significant losses before May.

The whole Arctic ocean may be primed for major losses after May but they are unlikely  to start occurring before May.

Well, to be sure, the rest of April would have to see record small daily losses to finish above 12.5 million; every April for the past decade saw enough decrease from the 11th through the 30th that, if repeated this year, would result in a finish for the month of about 12.3 million. But you are correct that a sub-12 million reading is pretty unlikely.

End of April represents this "bottleneck" where the dispersion of extents over the years is smallest. Forgive that I attach the NDSIC extent plot instead of IJIS but it is more illustrative. Outer seas already lost a lot of ice as David says, and main Arctic melting does not get momentum until May. I would expect relatively slow decrease until then. For IJIS, a value around 12.5 Mkm2 by the end of April is to be expected. But who knows, we have Beaufort already opening big gaps, the North Atlantic side that may recede again, and maybe another surprise. Uncharted indeed.

[magnamentis]

i think that end of april is around the 120th day not around the 150th, that circled area is a month later IMO, standing to be corrected, did my best to verify but who knows :-)

[DavidR]

You need to think bigger:  What if it got below 12 million by April 30?

I expect below 12 million by April 30th is almost certain.

Anything  below 12.5 by April 30th is highly unlikely. The only areas likely to melt significantly before then are Okhotsk and Bering There is only about 1M km^2 in those areas and they are unlikely to totally melt out. None of the other areas are likely to see significant losses before May.

The whole Arctic ocean may be primed for major losses after May but they are unlikely  to start occurring before May.

Well, to be sure, the rest of April would have to see record small daily losses to finish above 12.5 million; every April for the past decade saw enough decrease from the 11th through the 30th that, if repeated this year, would result in a finish for the month of about 12.3 million. But you are correct that a sub-12 million reading is pretty unlikely.

The bottleneck is the end of May when the std deviation for extent distribution is at its lowest.

Although it would require record low daily losses to stay above 12.5 there  is a clear pattern where the lower the starting value in April the smaller the decline. Of the years that started April above 14M only 2011 had a decline that  would take us to  below 12.3 and it started at 13.96.

Most of the remaining  ice that  is not in the Pacific is nearly  landlocked or so far north that it will take a while for warming to  reach here.  We are not talking about free floating ice like that around the Antarctic where the heat can just  keep  moving towards the land. In the Arctic the movement of warmer water is constrained by the land barriers so the decline is not smooth.

[Jim Pettit]

You need to think bigger:  What if it got below 12 million by April 30?

I expect below 12 million by April 30th is almost certain.

Anything  below 12.5 by April 30th is highly unlikely. The only areas likely to melt significantly before then are Okhotsk and Bering There is only about 1M km^2 in those areas and they are unlikely to totally melt out. None of the other areas are likely to see significant losses before May.

The whole Arctic ocean may be primed for major losses after May but they are unlikely  to start occurring before May.

Well, to be sure, the rest of April would have to see record small daily losses to finish above 12.5 million; every April for the past decade saw enough decrease from the 11th through the 30th that, if repeated this year, would result in a finish for the month of about 12.3 million. But you are correct that a sub-12 million reading is pretty unlikely.

The bottleneck is the end of May when the std deviation for extent distribution is at its lowest.

Although it would require record low daily losses to stay above 12.5 there  is a clear pattern where the lower the starting value in April the smaller the decline. Of the years that started April above 14M only 2011 had a decline that  would take us to  below 12.3 and it started at 13.96.

Most of the remaining  ice that  is not in the Pacific is nearly  landlocked or so far north that it will take a while for warming to  reach here.  We are not talking about free floating ice like that around the Antarctic where the heat can just  keep  moving towards the land. In the Arctic the movement of warmer water is constrained by the land barriers so the decline is not smooth.

You're referring to NSIDC, correct? So far as IJIS, of the years that began April above 14 million--'08, '09, '10, '11, and '12--all but 2009 had declines that would leave 2016 above 12.3 at the end of the month. On the other hand, of the years that began April below 14 million--'06, '07, 13, '14, and '15--only a repeat of 2013 would result in a sub-12.3 April finish. However, a repeat of any year in the past decade would result in a sub-12.5 finish, which is the original point to which I was responding.

At any rate--and again--this is going to be an interesting melt season...

[Tor Bejnar]

i think that end of april is around the 120th day not around the 150th, that circled area is a month later IMO, standing to be corrected, did my best to verify but who knows :-)

Reminds me of the "good old days" when March 1st was the first day of the year, or was it March 25th (and "Sept"ember was the 7th month, etc.)? Or was the first day of the year September 1st or December 25th?  (I get confused    I guess I'll just rely on the 15 month calendar they gave me at work.)

[seaicesailor]

i think that end of april is around the 120th day not around the 150th, that circled area is a month later IMO, standing to be corrected, did my best to verify but who knows :-)

Oops thanks : - )
Well, give or take one month . . .  : - P the "bottleneck" is still there, which to me is almost synonym of no correlation between max and min

[magnamentis]

sure you point is still valid and fully understood and agreed upon :-) 

[crandles]

Reminds me of the "good old days" when March 1st was the first day of the year, or was it March 25th (and "Sept"ember was the 7th month, etc.)? Or was the first day of the year September 1st or December 25th?  (I get confused    I guess I'll just rely on the 15 month calendar they gave me at work.)

Bring back Sextilis!   

[DavidR]

You're referring to NSIDC, correct? So far as IJIS, of the years that began April above 14 million--'08, '09, '10, '11, and '12--all but 2009 had declines that would leave 2016 above 12.3 at the end of the month. On the other hand, of the years that began April below 14 million--'06, '07, 13, '14, and '15--only a repeat of 2013 would result in a sub-12.3 April finish. However, a repeat of any year in the past decade would result in a sub-12.5 finish, which is the original point to which I was responding.

At any rate--and again--this is going to be an interesting melt season...

My analysis was  based on IJIS going back to 2003. My  point was that we should not be surprised, if the decline for the rest of April is relatively low. The geography of the Arctic dictates a small low rate of decline for the next month or so because the open water ice edges become relatively short.

[Espen]

IJIS:

13,118,881 km²（April 11, 2016）

[jdallen]

You need to think bigger:  What if it got below 12 million by April 30?

I expect below 12 million by April 30th is almost certain.

Anything  below 12.5 by April 30th is highly unlikely. The only areas likely to melt significantly before then are Okhotsk and Bering There is only about 1M km^2 in those areas and they are unlikely to totally melt out. None of the other areas are likely to see significant losses before May.

The whole Arctic ocean may be primed for major losses after May but they are unlikely  to start occurring before May.

Whoops. Was reading the wrong line.  Was thinking 12.5, not 12.  I do think 12.5 is quite likely.

[Espen]

IJIS:

13,168,647 km²（April 12, 2016）

[Espen]

IJIS:

13,179,840 km²（April 13, 2016）

[Espen]

IJIS:

13,157,670 km²（April 14, 2016）

[Espen]

IJIS:

13,134,117 km²（April 15, 2016）

[Espen]

IJIS:

13,132,955 km²（April 16, 2016）lowest measured for the date.

[Frivolousz21]

The dipole anomaly is holding things up.

[Espen]

IJIS:

13,059,136 km²（April 17, 2016）

[Espen]

IJIS:

 12,996,593 km²（April 18, 2016）

[mmghosh]

Is this the earliest drop below 13m?

[DavidR]

Yes by three days.

[Espen]

IJIS:

12,928,117 km²（April 19, 2016）

[jdallen]

IJIS:

12,928,117 km²（April 19, 2016）

Everyone else as speechless and terrified about this as I am?

[Tensor]

IJIS:

12,928,117 km²（April 19, 2016）

Everyone else as speechless and terrified about this as I am?

Can it average a drop of 85k a day?  Getting below 12 million before the end of April would really really be terrifying. 

[jdallen]

IJIS:

12,928,117 km²（April 19, 2016）

Everyone else as speechless and terrified about this as I am?

Can it average a drop of 85k a day?  Getting below 12 million before the end of April would really really be terrifying.

12?!  12.5 is quite bad enough.  12 million before May 1 would be indescribable.

[epiphyte]

12?!  12.5 is quite bad enough.  12 million before May 1 would be indescribable.

This would seem quite apposite:

[DavidR]

IJIS:

12,928,117 km²（April 19, 2016）

Everyone else as speechless and terrified about this as I am?

Can it average a drop of 85k a day?  Getting below 12 million before the end of April would really really be terrifying.

12?!  12.5 is quite bad enough.  12 million before May 1 would be indescribable.

12.3 - 12.4 M by May 1st looks pretty realistic at this stage. Its 150-250K below the previous record and requires 45 -50 K per day drop which is only slightly above average.  Climate Reanalyser is showing plenty of warmth in all the boundary areas over the next week and going into the last week so a solid melt should be expected.

[Jim Pettit]

It's very interesting--if not alarming--to note that today's extent reading is again more than a million square kilometers lower than that measured on the same day in 2012. Of course, same-day readings don't necessarily imply anything; should the rest of the melt season proceed exactly as all other years save 2012, no 2016 record low minimum would be set. However, following the tracks of five other years would yield a sub-4 million minimum, a feat that's only been accomplished once--and following 2012 would leave 2016 with just 2.1 million km2 of ice:

[Gray-Wolf]

Hi Jim!

We are told that 'when the end comes' it will happen very fast i.e. if we end up in mid Aug with sub 3 million how close are we sailing to the point that the ice is so degraded and dispersed that the warmed ocean just takes the lot?

Should Fram continue to take the old ice from the Atlantic side of the basin into May then we will see low totals over this side of things. If folk are also worrying about Beaufort so early on maybe we had better keep a close eye on things as we move toward melt season proper?

[Buddy]

We are told that 'when the end comes' it will happen very fast i.e. if we end up in mid Aug with sub 3 million how close are we sailing to the point that the ice is so degraded and dispersed that the warmed ocean just takes the lot?

That is the real "shit hits the fan" moment.  And even this year or the next couple of years....even though the whole ice sheet is VERY UNLIKELY to "melt out"....it will still melt to the point of "oh hell....it really IS going to melt out soon isn't it."

I think THIS SUMMER could be the "beginning of the end".  The first "oh s***" moment was 2007.  The next one was 2012......and I believe 2016 will the next one.  The one after THIS will be "game over" (I think it will be GONE GONE....in 5 years).

Too much warm water.....too many feedback effects in and around the Arctic.

The Arctic ice melt really will be the tipping point for a push on many things related to global warming:  (1) insurance rates in flood areas (2) development in flood areas (3) public policy to move the time framework for quickening the pace of transition to renewable energy (4) continued movement in the change of our diets, (5) and just a growing realization that we have two choices:  (a) living a life on a sustainable planet, or (b) living a life on an UNSUSTAINABLE planet.

[crandles]

We are told that 'when the end comes' it will happen very fast

Is it just Maslowski that has indicated this or are there other sources?

If just Maslowski (perhaps with other Arctic Methane Emergency Group members), is that a source you really think is reliable?

[Gray-Wolf]

We are told that 'when the end comes' it will happen very fast

Is it just Maslowski that has indicated this or are there other sources?

If just Maslowski (perhaps with other Arctic Methane Emergency Group members), is that a source you really think is reliable?

I probably came across the statement from his release in 07'? but it still makes sense to me if the Arctic has a large population of FY ice of similar thickness? Whatever the ice to sustain longest even be it 4 th or 5th year ice it will surely 'degrade' at a similar rate and so end its melt in a similar time frame?

Then we have to look at the scenario of just how much water has been under sun and for how long? As the ice nears this critical point we must see ever greater warming of the sst's over an ever greater area making bottom melt the final killer?

 We've all seen areas 'blink out' at the end of the season when large areas of similar degraded ice reach the end and just melt within a 2 day period?

And 'of course' there will be thick fragments that survive the year but that is the 'near ice free' bit of it all!  

[Lennart van der Linde]

It's very interesting--if not alarming--to note that today's extent reading is again more than a million square kilometers lower than that measured on the same day in 2012

How does today's volume compare to 2012 this time of year?

[Jim Hunt]

How does today's volume compare to 2012 this time of year?

Lower, at the end of March at least. Assorted visualisations at:

More Of The Usual Hype About Arctic Sea Ice

Here's one of them:

 

[Jim Pettit]

It's very interesting--if not alarming--to note that today's extent reading is again more than a million square kilometers lower than that measured on the same day in 2012

How does today's volume compare to 2012 this time of year?

As Jim Hunt said, 2016 was running lower than 2012 at the end of March; 2016 volume came in at 22,337 km3 on March 31, while 2012 was at 22,913 km3. (March 31, 2015, SIV was at 24,066 km3.)

[Espen]

IJIS:

12,877,955 km²（April 20, 2016）

[epiphyte]

We are told that 'when the end comes' it will happen very fast

Is it just Maslowski that has indicated this or are there other sources?

If just Maslowski (perhaps with other Arctic Methane Emergency Group members), is that a source you really think is reliable?

I think Peter Wadhams would count himself among that number.

(Me too - but I'm about as reliable as a DDT-laced eggshell being sat-on by an insomniac bald eagle...

...or perhaps the integrity of a < 2m skin of ice sandwiched between 1-4km of warm(er) seawater and an extraordinarily energetic atmosphere...)

[Meirion]

Climate Reanalyser forecast suggests losses in Kara, Chukchi, Beaufort, Bering, Okhotsk and Hudson Bay over next week

[Phil.]

We are told that 'when the end comes' it will happen very fast

Is it just Maslowski that has indicated this or are there other sources?

If just Maslowski (perhaps with other Arctic Methane Emergency Group members), is that a source you really think is reliable?

You appear to be confusing Maslowski with Wadhams.  Maslowski has a research professorship in the Dept of Oceanography at the Naval Postgraduate School and probably has access to data which is not publicly available.

[crandles]

You appear to be confusing Maslowski with Wadhams.  Maslowski has a research professorship in the Dept of Oceanography at the Naval Postgraduate School and probably has access to data which is not publicly available.

Sorry for confusion. I wasn't sure whether quote was Maslowski or Wadhams or someone else or multiple sources.

Now found this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7139797.stm
dated Dec 2007

Professor Wadhams said the Arctic was now being set up for further ice loss in the coming years.
"The implication is that this is not a cycle, not just a fluctuation. The loss this year will precondition the ice for the same thing to happen again next year, only worse.
"There will be even more opening up, even more absorption and even more melting.
"In the end, it will just melt away quite suddenly. It might not be as early as 2013 but it will be soon, much earlier than 2040."

Of course, other people could have said this or something similar.