Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Author Topic: IJIS  (Read 2151753 times)

Espen

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3296
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 206
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: IJIS
« Reply #3750 on: January 20, 2017, 05:33:12 AM »
IJIS:

12,768,815 km2(January 19, 2017)up 122,398 km2 from previous and lowest measured for the date.
Have a ice day!

jdallen

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3248
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 525
  • Likes Given: 206
Re: IJIS
« Reply #3751 on: January 20, 2017, 05:35:25 AM »
Dispersion in progress...

I wonder what area is doing?
This space for Rent.

gregcharles

  • New ice
  • Posts: 95
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 11
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: IJIS
« Reply #3752 on: January 20, 2017, 06:19:37 AM »
tomorrow's graphs will show loss for area and at least a stall for extent.

So, uh, not to be a jerk about it, but what happened?

Tigertown

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1676
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 20
  • Likes Given: 17
Re: IJIS
« Reply #3753 on: January 20, 2017, 06:23:04 AM »
Be patient.

Edit: Hint; There are 3 and 4 meter waves in the Bering sea as I type this. The temperature of the surface waters is on the rise.
« Last Edit: January 20, 2017, 07:32:18 AM by Tigertown »
"....and the appointed time came for God to bring to ruin those ruining the earth." Revelation 11:18.

oren

  • Moderator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6312
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2319
  • Likes Given: 1964
Re: IJIS
« Reply #3754 on: January 20, 2017, 07:45:59 AM »
tomorrow's graphs will show loss for area and at least a stall for extent.
So, uh, not to be a jerk about it, but what happened?
It means that even a one-day prediction about the ice has a lot of uncertainty.

Cato

  • New ice
  • Posts: 62
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: IJIS
« Reply #3755 on: January 20, 2017, 08:03:21 AM »
I see discussions about waves and dispersion.. anybody looking at the temperatures by the way? It's extremely cold in the Beaufort and Bering and it will be extremely cold over the CAB in the next few days. I expect piomas will be veeyextremely interesting in the next release. Sometimes things are much easier than we want to believe. When it's cold ice is formed, and viceversa... ;)

Tigertown

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1676
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 20
  • Likes Given: 17
Re: IJIS
« Reply #3756 on: January 20, 2017, 08:17:14 AM »
The air temperature is not as important as the water temperature under the ice and all this commotion and waves keep bringing up more warmth. The forecast for the foreseeable future show storm after storm going into the Arctic. These don't even have to be as strong anymore to cause further trouble, as everything is loosened up now, allowing more mobility.

Edit: Oh, yeah. I just posted in the other thread, there is a terrible storm coming in the Pacific close to the Bering Sea in a couple days, and it will produce at it's peak, waves over 14 meters or 45 feet. Goodbye to any ice near that.
« Last Edit: January 20, 2017, 08:23:12 AM by Tigertown »
"....and the appointed time came for God to bring to ruin those ruining the earth." Revelation 11:18.

kiwichick16

  • New ice
  • Posts: 53
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: IJIS
« Reply #3757 on: January 20, 2017, 08:33:51 AM »
@  tt....thanks for all your good work.....it is much appreciated by us lesser mortals!!

re Bering Sea Storm.....is there precedent for storms at this time of year......or are we seeing something new ?

timbucks

  • New ice
  • Posts: 3
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: IJIS
« Reply #3758 on: January 20, 2017, 11:21:47 AM »
tomorrow's graphs will show loss for area and at least a stall for extent.

So, uh, not to be a jerk about it, but what happened?

Just remember that a 1km2 block of ice of 100% coverage has an area of 1km2 and an extent of 1km2 but it can then lose 10% of that area and split up and become an area of 900,000m2 and a maximum extent of 6km2

Does the data that produces extent allow recalculation at different levels of ice cover - and if so what does a 25% coverage (or 50% coverage) give for an extent.

pauldry600

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 231
    • View Profile
    • weathergossip
  • Liked: 24
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: IJIS
« Reply #3759 on: January 20, 2017, 11:31:05 AM »
At this rate we may see ice rise slowly and then fall dramatically as all thin ice succumbs to those waves and sunup starts.

Scary times

Sterks

  • Guest
Re: IJIS
« Reply #3760 on: January 20, 2017, 12:11:15 PM »
I see discussions about waves and dispersion.. anybody looking at the temperatures by the way? It's extremely cold in the Beaufort and Bering and it will be extremely cold over the CAB in the next few days. I expect piomas will be veeyextremely interesting in the next release. Sometimes things are much easier than we want to believe. When it's cold ice is formed, and viceversa... ;)

That's true, and storms bring both a warm front and a cold front associated, see snow maps recently placed in the freezing season thread. Ocean temperatures have to be affected by very low temperatures sustained for many days.
The falling snow and the cold will promote the formation of ice
But we must ask ourselves what kind of ice and what kind of integrity it has

At this rate we may see ice rise slowly and then fall dramatically as all thin ice succumbs to those waves and sunup starts.

Scary times

Above 70N, the Sun radiation is not relevant until April because, for solid parcels, albedo is very high and sunlight near horizontal, and for liquid parcels, while the air temperatures are very low, any open water element will be near -2 degC and convect and emit much more than what you get from the Sun. I think the discussion was previously resolved in this forum.
Let's not mention the Sun until April (except maybe the related to Baltic Sea and the American lakes)
« Last Edit: January 20, 2017, 12:19:48 PM by Sterks »

Cato

  • New ice
  • Posts: 62
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: IJIS
« Reply #3761 on: January 20, 2017, 12:21:43 PM »
Barrow -37C, Mekoriuk and Savoonga -22. Not surprisingly ice is freezing in bering. Compared to one year ago, beufort is much colder and this is important with a view to melting in summertime. One year ago el nino was strong, now enso is neutral and temperatures are falling globally as a result. It is quite normal the arctic is getting cooler as well, with a lag compared to land. This of course does not challenge the long term trend, which is quite clear. But I would not be surprised if there was a temporary recovery in ice extension and volume, from now on and for the next one-to-two years.

DoomInTheUK

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 221
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: IJIS
« Reply #3762 on: January 20, 2017, 12:52:14 PM »
Cato - I will be very surprised to see any form of rebound. This ice pack is nothing like those of old, and we're seeing a much stormier winter than usual.
If you want proper ice, with good thickness, you'll need it to be calm and cold for quite a while. Those conditions seem to be a long way off.

I was hoping for a fairly quite January/February to allow some thickening but time seems to be running out this winter.

Metamemesis

  • New ice
  • Posts: 38
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: IJIS
« Reply #3763 on: January 20, 2017, 12:59:14 PM »
Defintion of Recovery: 'A return to a normal state of health, mind, or strength.'

Cato, may I suggest a more appropriate word than "recovery"? I don't for one moment think that you expect the ice extent or volume to return to the long term state, but that is what the word 'recovery' means. If you are to express such optimism, I would suggest you use the word "remission", which means "a temporary diminution of the severity of disease or pain".

Even the most optimistic among us would only ever consider future extent/volume which is not amongst the lowest 5 years as a remission from the inevitable Arctic death spiral.

Paddy

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 701
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 64
  • Likes Given: 77
Re: IJIS
« Reply #3764 on: January 20, 2017, 12:59:43 PM »
But I would not be surprised if there was a temporary recovery in ice extension and volume, from now on and for the next one-to-two years.

I'd be surprised if any volume recovery (or, indeed, remission) started while these storms are going on, but if they settle down in a couple of weeks or so, it may yet start then.

magnamentis

  • Guest
Re: IJIS
« Reply #3765 on: January 20, 2017, 01:47:44 PM »
tomorrow's graphs will show loss for area and at least a stall for extent.

So, uh, not to be a jerk about it, but what happened?

has to be analyzed but the drop is still visible in the other graph, hence either they take an average of 2 days like other graphs are an average over 5 days?

i'd have to find out or perhaps someone knows? question is if this graph is representing yesterday daily value or an average of some kind.

further there remains the possibility that different resolutions and algorithms come to different results. in that case (should this be the explanation) i tend towards Uni-Hamburg since they have the much better resolution and their stuff in general is much more accurate IMO.

however, since this is the IJIS thread that would be irrelevant, obviously that graph seems to be up hence some kind of apology is due for the boldness of my assumption :-)

BTW, nothing wrong to ask a valid question, even good because if helps to find explanations and/or to reconsider ideas and opinions. keep going :-)
« Last Edit: January 20, 2017, 01:54:27 PM by magnamentis »

DrTskoul

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1454
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 211
  • Likes Given: 60
Re: IJIS
« Reply #3766 on: January 20, 2017, 02:57:34 PM »
tomorrow's graphs will show loss for area and at least a stall for extent.

So, uh, not to be a jerk about it, but what happened?

In science and technology the discovery phase welcomes mistakes and hypothesis proven wrong!

We try to discover how the new Arctic behaves, how to recognize patterns and use them for prediction. When predictions are wrong or not timed right, we learn sth new.

You are not a jerk. You just need to appreciate discovery...

magnamentis

  • Guest
Re: IJIS
« Reply #3767 on: January 20, 2017, 03:28:30 PM »
tomorrow's graphs will show loss for area and at least a stall for extent.

So, uh, not to be a jerk about it, but what happened?

In science and technology the discovery phase welcomes mistakes and hypothesis proven wrong!

We try to discover how the new Arctic behaves, how to recognize patterns and use them for prediction. When predictions are wrong or not timed right, we learn sth new.

You are not a jerk. You just need to appreciate discovery...

let me quote my post above yours to begin with :-)
Quote
BTW, nothing wrong to ask a valid question, even good because if helps to find explanations and/or to reconsider ideas and opinions. keep going :-)

further it's still no clear what the reason for the discrepancy is. uni-hamburg still shows a drop / stall in area and extent yesterday while other graphs show a rather large increase in extent.

why i say this is that we can't yet talk about a recovery and as i stated above, in case of doubt, uni-hamburg works have show to be more accurate over time, probably last but not least because they use a much higher resulution which you can see in the index of the graphs i posted yesterday, sth like 3.xxx against 12.xxx resulution while as also stated above, i'm not saying that this is the or the only reason. i've been reading somewhere that IJIS graphs are a 2 days average but i'm also not sure about that. until now i/we got no replies as to the possible reason of the discrepancy except one guy who posted a few posts back.

i'd be very interested to KNOW how this is possibel so to make it a recovery indeed, not just an exchange of ideas and theories :-)

however and which is why i began my post like i did, i fully agree with your statement as to appreciation of discovery, just that we don't have one yet :-)

theoldinsane

  • New ice
  • Posts: 66
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: IJIS
« Reply #3768 on: January 20, 2017, 04:24:30 PM »
Defintion of Recovery: 'A return to a normal state of health, mind, or strength.'

Cato, may I suggest a more appropriate word than "recovery"? I don't for one moment think that you expect the ice extent or volume to return to the long term state, but that is what the word 'recovery' means. If you are to express such optimism, I would suggest you use the word "remission", which means "a temporary diminution of the severity of disease or pain".

Even the most optimistic among us would only ever consider future extent/volume which is not amongst the lowest 5 years as a remission from the inevitable Arctic death spiral.

The stock market term Dead Cat Bounce is appropriate here IMHO.

A dead cat bounce is a temporary recovery from a prolonged decline or a bear market that is followed by the continuation of the downtrend. The name "dead cat bounce" is based on the notion that even a dead cat will bounce if it falls far enough and fast enough.

Read more: Dead Cat Bounce Definition | Investopedia http://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/deadcatbounce.asp#ixzz4WJdn5O57
Follow us: Investopedia on Facebook


http://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/deadcatbounce.asp
 

magnamentis

  • Guest
Re: IJIS
« Reply #3769 on: January 20, 2017, 04:40:36 PM »
Barrow -37C, Mekoriuk and Savoonga -22. Not surprisingly ice is freezing in bering. Compared to one year ago, beufort is much colder and this is important with a view to melting in summertime. One year ago el nino was strong, now enso is neutral and temperatures are falling globally as a result. It is quite normal the arctic is getting cooler as well, with a lag compared to land. This of course does not challenge the long term trend, which is quite clear. But I would not be surprised if there was a temporary recovery in ice extension and volume, from now on and for the next one-to-two years.

IMO it's not a valid approach to take one day or week of the year and compare it to the same day/week of the last or any other year. this way everyone can find a period in each year when it was:

- colder
- wetter
- stormier
- hotter
- etc.

than last or in any other year of choice and use that fact to imply a state that suits his/her needs
and/or opinion, a typical way how the group works that would not join this forum, just to avoid that word starting with "d" LOL

each time the ice cover makes and increase, be it for a day only or a bit longer, each time we find an area that is colder than last year, we have to deal with comments that imply a "recovery" of any kind, even though at the same time it's warmer or ice-free in other parts and by much larger areas, this while the "Bering" is still frozen much below average BTW.

further we are so much below anything in ice cover and volume as well as above anything in temps, that even if that pattern would persist for a while longer, say 2-3 weeks, we would still have broken 90% of all negative records during the last 13-14 months.

this means that there is really not much sense to jump on every slight increase in ice-cover and/or slight decrease in temps, probably just to be first in case that it will really happen as implied.

thank good the number of such attempts has been largely reduced during the last 12 months since almost anyone has understood by now that things are going havoc.

beside the already mentioned meaning of "recovery" that's about it IMO.

Tigertown

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1676
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 20
  • Likes Given: 17
Re: IJIS
« Reply #3770 on: January 20, 2017, 04:40:59 PM »
re Bering Sea Storm.....is there precedent for storms at this time of year......or are we seeing something new ?

I have been asking that myself. I have been told that the area in the N. Atlantic, where it is constantly stormy of late, has been a trouble spot in the past. I don't know about the Pacific, and the area tends to change more for it anyway. I tend to believe at the very least, these are becoming more frequent and stronger for this time of year than they have been historically, but I am not an expert on the matter. I am speaking of course about storms just outside of the Arctic.


Espen, you feel free to speak up if we are clogging up your thread. I think it is all related and hope you don't mind, but we don't know unless you tell us.
"....and the appointed time came for God to bring to ruin those ruining the earth." Revelation 11:18.

magnamentis

  • Guest
Re: IJIS
« Reply #3771 on: January 20, 2017, 05:09:31 PM »
trying to shed a bit more light on the matter as long as no-one with more insight comes to help:

below images show that in case of area all 3 data providers are more or less in agreement, at least as much as they all show a decline in area for yesterday.

blue = NSIDC
green = JAXA
red = Uni-Hamburg

so far not much to add, there was a decline in area as per yesterday while it's noteworthy that
uni-hamburg is one day ahead, means they show data for one more recent day while the other two only show one day less than UH.

as it had to be expected from the discrepancy discussed here, the graph as well shows the discrepancy between JAXA and Uni-Hamburg. While UH shows a decline in extent as per yesterday, JAXA on which IJIS is probably based, shows a straight upward curve. that implies to a certain amount that the reason for the discrepancy indeed lays in either the algorithm or in the difference of resulution.

black = Uni-Hamburg @ 3.125km resolution
purple = JAXA @ 10km resolution = 3x lower resolution (could be the source of the discrepancy)
blue = NSIDC @ 25km resolution = 8x lower resolution (could be the source of the discrepancy)

as to the algorithms i know nothing, perhaps one of the professional "ice-men" can shed more light
« Last Edit: January 20, 2017, 05:40:17 PM by magnamentis »

Bill Fothergill

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 278
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: IJIS
« Reply #3772 on: January 20, 2017, 05:30:17 PM »
...
Just remember that a 1km2 block of ice of 100% coverage has an area of 1km2 and an extent of 1km2 but it can then lose 10% of that area and split up and become an area of 900,000m2 and a maximum extent of 6km2

Does the data that produces extent allow recalculation at different levels of ice cover - and if so what does a 25% coverage (or 50% coverage) give for an extent.

Your thought experiment involving a loss of 10% from a grid cell followed by dispersion leading to 6 grid cells ending up with 15% is fine - as far as it goes. There is however a second order effect depending whether the dispersal direction is pole-ward or equator-ward. Here is a brief snippet from an email I've just received from the NSIDC...

"1. The 'true' resolution of the SSMI passive microwave data is a nominal 25km. The latitude of true scale is at 70 deg N on the polar stereographic projection, such that a cell centered there will actually be 625 sq km. The expansion / contraction of cells due to convergent longitudes at the pole does change the area. Where this monthly calculation is being calculated near the ice edge in the freezup months does have a larger area, which can lead to additional discrepancy between daily and monthly values"

Consequently, if the drift direction was pole-ward, one could theoretically lose slightly more than 10% from the original grid, yet still manage to end up with 6 grid cells registering as ice-covered in terms of extent. Likewise, if the drift direction was towards the equator, the loss would need to be slightly less than 10%.

The use of 15% as the threshold is not entirely an arbitrary decision, although it would most certainly be possible to use a different concentration value. Again quoting the NSIDC...

"2. 15% concentration is useful for some marine navigation. However, the contour was originally developed since this threshold provided the best agreement between passive microwave remote sensing on space-paced platforms and aerial overflight work in early studies (e.g. Cavalieri et al. 1991: Aircraft active and passive microwave validation of sea ice concentration from the Defense Meteorological Satellite Program Special Sensor Microwave Imager. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 96, 21989 – 22008, doi: 10.1029/91JC02335.)"

jdallen

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3248
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 525
  • Likes Given: 206
Re: IJIS
« Reply #3773 on: January 20, 2017, 05:49:06 PM »
Barrow -37C, Mekoriuk and Savoonga -22. Not surprisingly ice is freezing in bering. Compared to one year ago, beufort is much colder and this is important with a view to melting in summertime. One year ago el nino was strong, now enso is neutral and temperatures are falling globally as a result. It is quite normal the arctic is getting cooler as well, with a lag compared to land. This of course does not challenge the long term trend, which is quite clear. But I would not be surprised if there was a temporary recovery in ice extension and volume, from now on and for the next one-to-two years.
"Surprise" should be considered in context with "Probability".

I'm afraid the weather while momentarily colder works against your logic as well, if we consider the seasonal trend in temperature anomalies for the region.

Those Bering regional temperatures will need to stay down or lower, for quite some time before the deficit in FDD's gets caught up.

(Seasonal loop added from NOAA's site below)
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/map/clim/sst.anom.anim.year.html
This space for Rent.

oren

  • Moderator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6312
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2319
  • Likes Given: 1964
Re: IJIS
« Reply #3774 on: January 20, 2017, 05:55:17 PM »
Magnamentis, I should add that it's not so important focusing on the short-term numbers of extent and area. The algorithms and resolutions are different but are mostly correlated in their direction over periods of time. The uncertainty level is high over one day.  Wait a few days, the Pacific side will grow, the Atlantic side will shrink, and then we will see the total results.

Wipneus

  • Citizen scientist
  • Young ice
  • Posts: 4110
    • View Profile
    • Arctische Pinguin
  • Liked: 821
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: IJIS
« Reply #3775 on: January 20, 2017, 05:57:14 PM »
trying to shed a bit more light on the matter as long as no-one with more insight comes to help:

below images show that in case of area all 3 data providers are more or less in agreement, at least as much as they all show a decline in area for yesterday.

blue = NSIDC
green = JAXA
red = Uni-Hamburg


Let me try to clarify.

The JAXA data in these graphs is normally (no data stalls)  one day behind that from Uni Hamburg. The NSIDC data gets updated some 6-8 hours after that of Uni Hamburg, I update that accordingly but since it is still a manual process not always promptly.

The data discussed in this thread, formally known as IJIS, is an average of this day (same as Uni H.) and the previous day, so hard to compare.

About today's change, all I can say that in Uni Hamburg data Okhotsk did a big increase, while the drops are around Kara. Here are the details (1000 km2):
Extent:
   Central Arctic Basin       East Siberian Sea              Laptev Sea
                    6.2                    -0.2                    -9.4
               Kara Sea             Barents Sea           Greenland Sea
                  -33.1                    -6.2                    15.9
Baffin/Newfoundland Bay            St. Lawrence              Hudson Bay
                    5.5                     5.0                    -1.1
   Canadian Archipelago            Beaufort Sea             Chukchi Sea
                    0.4                     0.0                     0.5
             Bering Sea          Sea of Okhotsk            Total Extent
                   18.3                    68.5                    70.3

Area:
   Central Arctic Basin       East Siberian Sea              Laptev Sea
                   -2.6                    -1.3                   -16.3
               Kara Sea             Barents Sea           Greenland Sea
                  -46.5                    -6.1                     8.0
Baffin/Newfoundland Bay            St. Lawrence              Hudson Bay
                   -1.0                     3.9                     3.7
   Canadian Archipelago            Beaufort Sea             Chukchi Sea
                    1.3                     0.5                     1.6
             Bering Sea          Sea of Okhotsk              Total Area
                   20.7                    43.3                     9.3


Tor Bejnar

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3651
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 636
  • Likes Given: 409
Re: IJIS
« Reply #3776 on: January 20, 2017, 08:28:39 PM »
I recall that during the 2012 GAC (Great Arctic Cyclone), ice area (and extent) dropped significantly, and that after the GAC subsided there was a partial 'rebound'.  This was attributed (again, recollection) to satellite sensors not identifying ice very well when the seas were very rough.

Therefore, I would not put a great deal of effort watching the day-by-day changes right now.
Arctic ice is healthy for children and other living things.

magnamentis

  • Guest
Re: IJIS
« Reply #3777 on: January 20, 2017, 08:34:00 PM »
Magnamentis, I should add that it's not so important focusing on the short-term numbers of extent and area. The algorithms and resolutions are different but are mostly correlated in their direction over periods of time. The uncertainty level is high over one day.  Wait a few days, the Pacific side will grow, the Atlantic side will shrink, and then we will see the total results.

you are totally right. as it happens if you go back and see why i posted in the first place and in reply to what, it was exactly because someone thought and posted about some kind of recovery just because the curve went up a tick or two steeper than for quite some time, hence my original reply had exactly the same in mind like the post i quoted here. i'm totally against, and mentioned it explicitely a few posts back, that each time the curve moves up or down for a day or two a bit out of the ordinary, that we gonna have those slightly heated debates whether the long term trend is now over or not.

in short, i fully agree and it was the purpose of my posting the first graph, thanks for sharing your thoughts and expressing them with other words that perhaps are easier to understand than my at times complicated and not-native-english explanations LOL

cheers and have a nice weekend all

Cato

  • New ice
  • Posts: 62
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: IJIS
« Reply #3778 on: January 20, 2017, 10:45:26 PM »
I didn't mean to sound revolutionary mentioning that sea gets frozen with temperatures of -25C. I understand, though, that anything which goes against the narrative of the "death spiral" and so on and so forth is seen as a threat. I can't see any threat in mentioning that ice is forming in bering because it's cold, however revolutionary this concept might sound.

Regarding the use of the word "recovery", well, free to choose anything sounding more adherent to the narrative of the dying and hopeless patient, I'm OK with it, honestly. Especially considering I'm not a mother tongue English speaker...

For the rest, I watch the thickness maps from dmi and I see much more ice than one year ago in CAB, CAA, part of Beaufort and ESS. And less ice in Hudson, Chuckchi and Barents. I watch the maps and I see low temperatures and favourable synoptic configurations for the arctic ice in the next 7-10 days, and I feel more optimistic for a recovery... sorry... for a dead-cat-bounce than I was one year ago. And if the Nino has been a hot topic for the last two years, I cannot understand why it should sound so heretic to expect a decrease of temperatures over the arctic now the enso is neutral again.

Neven

  • Administrator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 7756
    • View Profile
    • Arctic Sea Ice Blog
  • Liked: 1133
  • Likes Given: 521
Re: IJIS
« Reply #3779 on: January 20, 2017, 10:56:26 PM »
Cato, so far there has been no correlation between ENSO and Arctic sea ice variability. But maybe, if the recent rapid rise in global temperatures (caused by ENSO, with greenhouse gas forcing providing the increasing push) also caused air and sea surface temps in the Arctic to go up faster than they already do due to Arctic Amplification, then perhaps the loss will slow down a bit again now that ENSO is going neutral or La Niña, or whatever. I don't think it will reverse, or completely stall, but you never know. And, following the same logic, when the next El Niño comes along...

As for JAXA showing a large uptick: Maybe, just maybe, that huge storm is pushing the ice edge out towards the Atlantic?
Il faut comparer, comparer, comparer, et cultiver notre jardin

Lord M Vader

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1330
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 46
  • Likes Given: 29
Re: IJIS
« Reply #3780 on: January 20, 2017, 11:11:09 PM »
NEVEN: according to the latest fcsts from NOAA and BOM, a new El Niño might evolve later this year. NOAA gave it about 35-40% chance to do so by fall. What haven't been discussed much is that when PDO flipped positive by 1976 not less than FOUR El Niños were followed with the 1982-1983 being the final one. Not even after that big El Niño did a strong La Niña develope but it tokk another year until a Niña came around. While the negative phase of PDO were much longer until the flip in 1970's compared to the latest one, the amount of heat that had been piled up in the Western Pacific might have been less compared to the amount during the latest negative PDO phase.

If we are going to see a series of back to back Niños, then we might reach the tipping point without no return very soon. And the new regime in US is not increasing the odds. The word "climate change" has already been removed from White Houses site.

Ice Shieldz

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 249
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 59
  • Likes Given: 57
Re: IJIS
« Reply #3781 on: January 21, 2017, 01:56:24 AM »
NOAA’s Emily Becker: “A three-year series of El Niño/La Niña/El Niño has only happened once since 1950, in 1963/1964/1965. This doesn’t make it impossible that El Niño could develop, but it means that we aren’t counting on it.”

Because of global warming, sea surface temperatures in equatorial nino regions are increasing, so NOAA adjusts the base period for ONI (it's Nino Index) every five years. In 2016, the base period was shifted forward 5 years to 1986-2015. This is explained on the NOAA website: http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ONI_change.shtml

This recent shift of the base period 5 years forward has raised the bar for us to attain our next el nino. However, NOAA's approach of base period averaging works most effectively when the warming trend is linear in nature. Given so many climatic feedbacks at play, I don't think the trend is linear - as supported by the recent jump in global warming and atmospheric moisture content that took practically everyone off-guard.

Let's not forget about those zetajoules of heat that's been building in the deep pacific ocean, and in the areas of the ocean adjacent to nino regions. That heat forms a much warmer bowl for nino to build in. Also the PDO seems to have solidly flipped to positive, and thereby adding to any non-linearity in the 30-year nino sst background warming signal.

So i'm gonna bet against the house (NOAA’s Emily Becker) and go with a weak El Nino, which compared to a la nina, notably increases the latent heat and water vapor available to make its way into the arctic.  In the past, with a stronger polar jet, etc, that extra heat and vapor wouldn't be much of a problem, but currently mainstream climate science "the house rules" seem to be changing faster than the house can keep up with.  ???
« Last Edit: January 21, 2017, 02:08:17 AM by Ice Shieldz »

JD

  • New ice
  • Posts: 10
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: IJIS
« Reply #3782 on: January 21, 2017, 07:46:12 AM »


Slightly off topic for IJIS, from WebHubbleTelescope on his Context Earth blog http://contextearth.com/2016/11/21/presentation-at-agu-2016-on-december-12/, his deterministic model of ENSO suggests that we will be neutral till 2018 and have a La-Nina in 2019.

Quote
These are all based on the known Earth wobble and lunar tidal periods and really confirms that ENSO is a nearly pure deterministic stationary process driven by known geophysical forcings. And like the tidal models that this ENSO model emulates, the longer the period to extract from and the more lunar periods that are included, the better the fit becomes.

Lord M Vader

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1330
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 46
  • Likes Given: 29
Re: IJIS
« Reply #3783 on: January 21, 2017, 09:04:07 AM »
Guys, we are now down to SECOND lowest behind 2006... Espen will update as soon as he is awake :P

Espen

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3296
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 206
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: IJIS
« Reply #3784 on: January 21, 2017, 09:15:10 AM »
IJIS:

12,868,867 km2(January 20, 2017)up 100,052 km2 from previous and 2nd lowest measured for the date.
Have a ice day!

jdallen

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3248
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 525
  • Likes Given: 206
Re: IJIS
« Reply #3785 on: January 21, 2017, 09:16:03 AM »
I didn't mean to sound revolutionary mentioning that sea gets frozen with temperatures of -25C. I understand, though, that anything which goes against the narrative of the "death spiral" and so on and so forth is seen as a threat.
<snippage>
Cato, with respect, please don't insult us by suggesting we are unable to assimilate information which runs counter to our current "paradigm".  Most of us in fact would be ecstatic to discover we were wrong.

The criticisms of what you were suggesting were built around good data and science, not confirmation bias, and the challenge to *you*, is to present better evidence than you have so far. You have presented nothing compelling.

IJIS is going up again - in part because the cold is finally won the wrestling match over the Bering, and for another, the furious storms we are getting are dispersing what is a fragile, thin pack.  However, that's far from conclusive evidence to support a recovery.

I've referenced the lost opportunity of the Arctic over this melt season so far to dump heat - as suggested by the FDD deficit we've seen.  We've also presented fairly compelling evidence as to why this is quite disastrous to the quality and volume of the pack.

You want credibility?  You want us to take your suggestions of a recovery more seriously?  You need to address challenges like the ones I reference, and others, with better data.  So far, I haven't seen it.
This space for Rent.

Pmt111500

  • Guest
Re: IJIS
« Reply #3786 on: January 21, 2017, 09:58:39 AM »
So much clutter about the nonexistent 'recovery' I nearly missed the daily IJIS report by Espen. Scattered ice by the storm makes a show in the numbers of extent. Area numbers would be nice to see, but I understand that too accurate numbers would be scorned by the fucktards who cannot round them up correctly themselves (read tea party people (formelrly republicans)).

Meirion

  • New ice
  • Posts: 59
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: IJIS
« Reply #3787 on: January 21, 2017, 12:51:06 PM »
Is it just grumpy me that values an IJIS thread where you don't have to wade through 33 postings between Espen's excellent daily graphs to see what's going on with daily sea ice area? I'm sure all the contributions about "fucktards" etc are in themselves extremely thoughtful and valuable but can you put them in another thread. I want Espen's thread back.



magnamentis

  • Guest
Re: IJIS
« Reply #3788 on: January 21, 2017, 01:13:38 PM »
Is it just grumpy me that values an IJIS thread where you don't have to wade through 33 postings between Espen's excellent daily graphs to see what's going on with daily sea ice area? I'm sure all the contributions about "fucktards" etc are in themselves extremely thoughtful and valuable but can you put them in another thread. I want Espen's thread back.

i strongly disagree, the moment we have to think and ponder over for an appropriate thread each time we want to make a spontaneous statement, i'd call this "over-regulation" it would start with many not posting at all which ultimately would make this a boring and spiritless place.

yes, it's an opinion but history shows that looking for perfection means mostly a reduction in (live) quality. if you only come here to see the graphs, that's ok, but it's easy to fast scroll down till one can see the next graph and stop there for good.

like so often, best practice lays in the middle, except if the edges are factual which in this case they are not. it's totally prone to personal preference and variety of personalities. i for one even left my home country because of the syndrom of overregulation where everyone is a wannabe teacher and a policeman which i don't even mind if everyone were competent. i talk about switzerland JFYI.

EDIT: to discuss about what could be the short and mid-term development of the freezing is totally On Topic IMO
« Last Edit: January 21, 2017, 01:21:30 PM by magnamentis »

CognitiveBias

  • New ice
  • Posts: 90
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: IJIS
« Reply #3789 on: January 21, 2017, 02:05:00 PM »
I, for one, was having similar thoughts to Cato regarding persistent cold over the Pacific side of the Arctic.  A strengthening in half the Arctic could lead to some sort of recovery.  After all,  this is the area that historically produces MYI, and we would need to see a resurrection of the gyre, churning ice in the area year round. 

Using the FDD chart as a guide, it seems that the old norm this time of year was -25 to -30 C.  I don't know how much that varies regionally, but for the last 10 days or so that area has been 'normal' cold.  There have also been quite a few days in the last 60 that have been less than normal wrt freezing.  So behind, but catching up, perhaps.

I come here mostly for the awesome posts of a few superstar contributors.  I stay mostly quiet, having little to offer and working to assimilate what is provided. I did want to jump in and offer support to Cato. People on this site do have a biased... it is a self-selected group of AGW 'enthusiasts'.  You discredit yourself when you object to strongly to a different point of view. 

Buddy

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3379
  • Go DUCKS!!
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 49
  • Likes Given: 34
Re: IJIS
« Reply #3790 on: January 21, 2017, 03:09:38 PM »
Quote
I didn't mean to sound revolutionary mentioning that sea gets frozen with temperatures of -25C. I understand, though, that anything which goes against the narrative of the "death spiral" and so on and so forth is seen as a threat. I can't see any threat in mentioning that ice is forming in bering because it's cold, however revolutionary this concept might sound.

Regarding the use of the word "recovery", well, free to choose anything sounding more adherent to the narrative of the dying and hopeless patient, I'm OK with it, honestly. Especially considering I'm not a mother tongue English speaker...

Cato:

Couple things I would like to note:

1)  I don't mind your term recovery at all.  We have "recovery's" EVERY YEAR in the Arctic.  Of course you need to DEFINE what your "recovery" is.  Is it a SHORT TERM RECOVERY of the ice lost this year.....a "recovery" that lasts several weeks?  Is it a "recovery" of the ice lost over the last 5 years?  Is it a "recovery" of ice lost over the last 37 years?

So....what do you mean by "recovery"?  Your cousins Heartland and FOX ALWAYS talk about recovery's.  Only trouble is.....those "recovery's" ALWAYS end up being short lived.  I wonder why that is?

2)  I also don't mind you questioning people on this site.  Questions are good things.  If people use FACTS AND SCIENCE....they can actually lead to ANSWERS.  And answers based on facts and science are a VERY GOOD THING INDEED.....wouldn't you agree?


I look forward to your definition of recovery....and will especially look forward to tying in your answer to facts..

Cheers..... ;)




FOX (RT) News....."The Trump Channel.....where truth and journalism are dead."

Jim Pettit

  • Global Moderator
  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1175
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 40
  • Likes Given: 11
Re: IJIS
« Reply #3791 on: January 21, 2017, 03:16:47 PM »
To those gesticulating wildly about a "recovery", allow me to present the following pair of extent anomaly graphs, the upper for IJIS and the lower for NSIDC.





Note that 2012 YTD extent was considerably higher than 2017's--yet 2012 set low minimum records across the board. The takeaway: there is no--and will continue to be no--"recovery". There will be temporary rebounds, yes; the nature of polar ice near the annual maximum is to bounce along the ceiling like a child's balloon, a little up, a little down. Nevertheless, IJSI SIE has been among the lowest three years on record the past 106 consecutive days, and in the lowest two the past 96 consecutive days, of which 90 were record lowest. Hard to make a valid claim of "recovery" while that's going on, isn't it?

Tigertown

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1676
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 20
  • Likes Given: 17
Re: IJIS
« Reply #3792 on: January 21, 2017, 04:22:58 PM »
As for JAXA showing a large uptick: Maybe, just maybe, that huge storm is pushing the ice edge out towards the Atlantic?
It did. And pushed it out to the Bering Sea also.
"....and the appointed time came for God to bring to ruin those ruining the earth." Revelation 11:18.

Neven

  • Administrator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 7756
    • View Profile
    • Arctic Sea Ice Blog
  • Liked: 1133
  • Likes Given: 521
Re: IJIS
« Reply #3793 on: January 21, 2017, 04:31:35 PM »
I'm going to ask everyone to stay on-topic now. Only JAXA-related stuff.

And no concern trolling anywhere.
Il faut comparer, comparer, comparer, et cultiver notre jardin

Shared Humanity

  • Guest
Re: IJIS
« Reply #3794 on: January 21, 2017, 07:38:34 PM »
Is it just grumpy me that values an IJIS thread where you don't have to wade through 33 postings between Espen's excellent daily graphs to see what's going on with daily sea ice area? I'm sure all the contributions about "fucktards" etc are in themselves extremely thoughtful and valuable but can you put them in another thread. I want Espen's thread back.

Thank you.

Cato

  • New ice
  • Posts: 62
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: IJIS
« Reply #3795 on: January 21, 2017, 11:15:25 PM »
If only someone made the effort of reading my previous posts before raising discussions about the meaning of the word "recovery", so many words would have not been spent uselessly. "This of course does not challenge the long term trend, which is quite clear. But I would not be surprised if there was a temporary recovery in ice extension and volume, from now on and for the next one-to-two years." I thought this sentence was clear enough. Recovery to me means, for example, passing from the last position to the second-last. Is that clear enough now? It's honestly tiring sometimes, and disappointing being forced to add a disclaimer to any discussion like "I don't mean to say that ice won't disappear, or the like". And references to tea parties and Fox news then... For an Italian like me :)... it sounds just like complete and unwillingly funny nonsense.

I'll take Neven's request to close this senseless argument and focus on more sensible issues. I have the greatest respect for his work, his professionalism and intellectual honesty as I've been following his blog for the several years, and I beg your pardon if my post led someway to this senseless off-topic discussion. It was not my intention.

Regarding the recent JAXA extension increase, I maintain my opinion that with such low temperatures in Bering area, freezing is just what one should expect. There's -25C in Savoonga and -27C in Mekoryuk as we speak. Dispersion IMHO is in most cases associated with cold air advections and therefore it's a difficult and probably useless exercise to try separating the two issues which generally tend to act concurrently. For example, the LP currently forming in the Pacific will activate strong, and cold winds from Alaska to Russia, thus leading to extension increase for both advection of colder air, and dispersion of the existing ice offshore Alaska.

The same has happened recently for Barents, where cold air from the CAB has moved to Svalbard and Kara Sea. Again, combination of two concurring factors: colder air moving southwards and dispersion. The same typically applies to Hudson as well, associated with cold westerlies moving from Manitoba or Nunavut to the Atlantic. There is therefore not much point in justifying the current extension increase with "dispersion" only. Dispersion and advection of cold air just tend to act concurrently in most cases.

Neven

  • Administrator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 7756
    • View Profile
    • Arctic Sea Ice Blog
  • Liked: 1133
  • Likes Given: 521
Re: IJIS
« Reply #3796 on: January 21, 2017, 11:20:32 PM »
Everyone has had his say. Further comments that are not related to JAXA specifically (numbers, graphs):

The 2016/2017 freezing season
Il faut comparer, comparer, comparer, et cultiver notre jardin

Espen

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3296
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 206
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: IJIS
« Reply #3797 on: January 22, 2017, 09:54:22 AM »
IJIS:

12,974,030 km2(January 21, 2017)up 105,163 km2 from previous and 2nd lowest measured for the date.
Have a ice day!

Jim Pettit

  • Global Moderator
  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1175
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 40
  • Likes Given: 11
Re: IJIS
« Reply #3798 on: January 22, 2017, 02:43:12 PM »
The five-day increase of 477k km[sup2[/sup] is the biggest such increase recorded in the second half of January since 2008, which saw 519k. But even with that increase, 2017 is still well below all other years on record so far as average daily extent:



But as others have stated, there's not a lot of cause for cheer, as the increases seem to be primarily occurring in fringe areas, areas that will melt out both first and rapidly once the sun starts shining.

Bill Fothergill

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 278
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: IJIS
« Reply #3799 on: January 22, 2017, 05:47:08 PM »
For those who prefer their data presented in a continuous format, as opposed to a discrete format, here is an alternative version of Jim's chilling graphic...