Do we make too much of 2012 ?

[Rich]

2012 certainly is the standard by which melting seasons are measured. But should we make such a big deal of it?

I think there is a case for saying that we overdo it in terms of using it as a reference. First 2012 was an example of an extreme weather event of a few months duration. Second, that event was largely cancelled out by an opposing recovery event in the months after the minimum was reached. There was no apparent durable impact from the 2012 anomaly.

By comparing an individual years results with the 2-3 sigma results of 2012, one can get a sense that ice is not progressing despite the fact that the climate fundamentals are continuing to deteriorate.

If we look at the ice extent at Dec 31 (admittedly an arbitrary date), we see that 2016/17/18 are the 3 lowest years and 2015 is 5th. 2012 is no longer in the top 5 at the end of the calendar year.

Perhaps by accident, these values are more aligned with the holistic understanding of increasing vulnerability of the ice and ability to recover.

Certainly, it's natural to follow the ebbs and flows of the seasons as is done routinely here at ASIF.

But soon we will begin comparing the 2019 melt season with the short-lived anomaly of 2012. If 2019, doesn't measure up, what's the takeaway?

Given the risks to society, I think the message associated with sea ice losses should be biased in a manner as to highlight those risks. Comparing to 2012 without highlighting the unsustained nature of the 2012 losses can provide a sense that losses are not progressing. 2016 may be a better benchmark.

[Neven]

Do we make too much of Usain Bolt?

[be cause]

  .. now he's a walking advert for big business  .. perhaps yes ?  b.c.

[bbr2314]

Do we make too much of Imelda Marcos?

[Rich]

Do we make too much of Usain Bolt?

I think Bob Beamon would be a better parallel for 2012.   Broke the LJ record by a whopping 22" in 1968 w/ a 29+ foot jump that stood for > 20 years. Never broke 28' after that.

His freakish feat masked the steady progress that long jumpers like Carl Lewis and Mike Powell we're making until Powell finally broke the record.

Beamon was the freak weather like event.

[Rich]

For people more familiar w/ the metric system, Beamon  raised the world record in the long jump from 8.35m to 8.90m in one shot.

Upon learning of the mark, he broke down and cried.

[be cause]

Do we make too much of Imelda Marcos?

 .. what you do in your own time is up to you !   b.c.

[Phil.]

For people more familiar w/ the metric system, Beamon  raised the world record in the long jump from 8.35m to 8.90m in one shot.

Upon learning of the mark, he broke down and cried.

He certainly did, a friend of mine was his coach.  His thought and that of others such as Lynn Davies was that the record could well have gone higher during that event given the high altitude conditions and the level of competition.  However Bob's breaking it on his first jump by so much completely psyched everyone out (including himself) and the rest of the competition was rather ordinary.  The 20 minute delay in measuring it didn't help (the electronic recording device hadn't been set up to measure that far so they had to use a tape).
A rather good analogy to what happened in 2012 although I don't expect such a long wait in this case.

[Neven]

To continue the Bob Beamon analogy: You have remarkable athletes, and then you have doping that helps the lesser gods achieve records as well. AGW is the doping for melting seasons. We don't know how much doping 2012 received, but it's clear there were many remarkable melting seasons that preceded it, without achieving a similar record. Doping almost certainly played a role. That's the whole point.

I don't think you can either make too much or too little of a record. A record is a record, it's the bar that others will try to reach. At some point, doping becomes so powerful that a minor athlete can also break the records of the remarkable athletes. Again, that's the whole point.

We don't have perfect information on 2012, but it's not like we know nothing either. We know enough to compare many of its aspects, and when the record gets broken, we'll probably be able to say whether more doping was involved. For instance, when less freakish weather events lead to the same results.

Now, to go back to the OP:

I think there is a case for saying that we overdo it in terms of using it as a reference. First 2012 was an example of an extreme weather event of a few months duration. Second, that event was largely cancelled out by an opposing recovery event in the months after the minimum was reached. There was no apparent durable impact from the 2012 anomaly.

An extreme weather event of a few months' duration? I don't think I agree. There was a lot of preconditioning of the sea ice through melt ponds (that we haven't seen since) and there was a huge cyclone towards the end. But in between, there was weather that could be considered average. I mean, that's how I found out how important preconditioning and melting momentum is.

As for 'recovery event': Yes, winter still exists.

In short, we don't make too much of 2012. A record is a record. And it taught us a lot.

[bbr2314]

To continue the Bob Beamon analogy: You have remarkable athletes, and then you have doping that helps the lesser gods achieve records as well. AGW is the doping for melting seasons. We don't know how much doping 2012 received, but it's clear there were many remarkable melting seasons that preceded it, without achieving a similar record. Doping almost certainly played a role. That's the whole point.

I don't think you can either make too much or too little of a record. A record is a record, it's the bar that others will try to reach. At some point, doping becomes so powerful that a minor athlete can also break the records of the remarkable athletes. Again, that's the whole point.

We don't have perfect information on 2012, but it's not like we know nothing either. We know enough to compare many of its aspects, and when the record gets broken, we'll probably be able to say whether more doping was involved. For instance, when less freakish weather events lead to the same results.

Now, to go back to the OP:

I think there is a case for saying that we overdo it in terms of using it as a reference. First 2012 was an example of an extreme weather event of a few months duration. Second, that event was largely cancelled out by an opposing recovery event in the months after the minimum was reached. There was no apparent durable impact from the 2012 anomaly.

An extreme weather event of a few months' duration? I don't think I agree. There was a lot of preconditioning of the sea ice through melt ponds (that we haven't seen since) and there was a huge cyclone towards the end. But in between, there was weather that could be considered average. I mean, that's how I found out how important preconditioning and melting momentum is.

As for 'recovery event': Yes, winter still exists.

In short, we don't make too much of 2012. A record is a record. And it taught us a lot.

I prefer my Imelda Marcos analogy. Who is Usain Bolt but someone who wears shoes? Imelda wore the most shoes. She is 2019's ice season personified! 2012 could be the Comte D'Artois. He wore a lot of shoes too. But Imelda is the queen. And she was elected to Governor of Manila after being exiled! Now that's a comeback. Basically equivalent to a late melt-out of Hudson Bay putting 2019 back in front of 2012, assuming it ever falls behind. 

[Michael Hauber]

Maybe we make too much of Arctic ice.  Look at the global temperature trend, that's what matters.

Otherwise the Arctic ice is an interesting aspect of AGW, and when we beat 2012 an interesting question in its own sake.

[Neven]

Maybe we make too much of Arctic ice.  Look at the global temperature trend, that's what matters.

But do we make too much of 2016, because of ENSO?

No, we just make graphs like this one:



We don't make too much of anything. We just compare, compare, compare, and try to make sense of things.

[Rich]

As for 'recovery event': Yes, winter still exists.

Winter still exists, but is it losing it's oomph?

As of Mar 31, the last 5 years are in the bottom 6 all time. This is suggesting that the earth is just not cooling off like it used to.

The same paradigm exist with SST records. The most common type of record being set now is not the midday high, it's the overnight high as the GHG blanket keeps the.heat from escaping.

The issue is really about messaging. If my mission was to alert the world to the chronic progression and direction of AGW, I would heavily emphasize the relatively consistent weak winter recovery of recent years.

I wouldn't place so much emphasis on an unsustained one time event (2012 melting season), even though I agree there is much to be learned from that event.

[oren]

I have a pet theory that 2012 went bazooka with the help of extra heat from the ocean, which in turn brought about the recovery of 2013 and 2014. This was perhaps the reason for the Bob Beamon record.
2016 did not do so (despite coming within striking distance of the area record, and having a GAC too) and had an early refreeze commencement, which brought about the dismal freezing season of 2016-2017 where the ocean had to vent lots of heat.

[b_lumenkraft]

In your theory, where was this heat coming from, Oren? Do you mean through Atlantification/Pacification?

I thought of the massive refreeze of sea ice in 2016 after the massive melt season to be a function of a lot of fresh (less salty/lower freezing point) water.

Is this contradictory to your theory? Because more heat from the Atlantic/Pacific would have also deluded the fresh water and upper the freezing point again.

I hope this question makes sense. Or am i screwing up the timeline here and the saltwater inflow was way before the ice melted?

[Neven]

I wouldn't place so much emphasis on an unsustained one time event (2012 melting season), even though I agree there is much to be learned from that event.

Who is placing so much emphasis on an unsustained one time event? I know I'm not.

Maybe climate risk deniers are, just like they did with the 'hiatus' due to the 97/98 El Niño. I don't care about that and am not willing to play that game. As long as things aren't returning to pre-2005 levels (and they aren't even moving towards it), the situation is catastrophic and way ahead of schedule. 2012 was just a harbinger of things to come, that won't need the help of short-term freak events.

[oren]

b_l: My (unsubstantiated, unscientific and probably untrue) pet theory has to do with the 2012 GAC sucking the heat out of the depth in the Arctic ocean itself, to such a degree that it went from above normal to much below normal. This gave 2012 a bit of extra oomph, which was essentially borrowed from 2013 and maybe 2014.
It's known that Ekman pumping brings heat from below, but can anyone say what the relevant total heat content was before and after 2012? And whether the 2016 GAC behaved differently?

[Rich]

I wouldn't place so much emphasis on an unsustained one time event (2012 melting season), even though I agree there is much to be learned from that event.

Who is placing so much emphasis on an unsustained one time event? I know I'm not.

Maybe climate risk deniers are, just like they did with the 'hiatus' due to the 97/98 El Niño. I don't care about that and am not willing to play that game. As long as things aren't returning to pre-2005 levels (and they aren't even moving towards it), the situation is catastrophic and way ahead of schedule. 2012 was just a harbinger of things to come, that won't need the help of short-term freak events.

This is a nuanced position. I personally can definitely see that you and almost all of the regs here are firm believers in the threat of AGW and I applaud that.

If we look at the extent and data thread, we are benchmarking 2019 vs 2012. If we look at the current prediction thread, all of the current guesses are about the September minimum.

The psychology of the minimum is powerful. A BOE is a scary prospect. But we may not see a new record minimum for a handful of years, leaving some (not experts like you) with the impression that AGW is not progressing as expected.

I will argue that the minimum is much more a function of weather, whereas the maximum gives a much better indication of what's going on with climate.

My bias is transparent. We live in a world which is under-reacting to the climate threat. My messenging philosophy in such a scenario is to religiously hammer the evidence that things are getting worse as evidenced by the best indicator of climate breakdown (declining maximums) and de-emphasize comparison with extreme weather outcomes such as 2012 which may give a lesser informed reader the impression that things have stalled.

If we live with the assumption that everybody coming to ASIF is relatively expert as you are, then my point is not so relevant. I don't think that's the case.

[Dharma Rupa]

Since we're much too late to do anything about it anyway we are free to pick whatever markers we choose, and 2012 was an interesting year.  What the uneducated think simply doesn't matter.

[Rich]

Since we're much too late to do anything about it anyway we are free to pick whatever markers we choose, and 2012 was an interesting year.  What the uneducated think simply doesn't matter.

Would it be fair to say that you're basically here at ASIF to observe the extinction process?

[bluice]

Rich, there's nothing wrong in people following events that interest them.

The seriousness of climate change has been well communicated for decades now. You cannot blame the members of this great forum for benchmarking a "wrong" year, if people and governments are doing nothing about the whole damn thing.

[Dharma Rupa]

Since we're much too late to do anything about it anyway we are free to pick whatever markers we choose, and 2012 was an interesting year.  What the uneducated think simply doesn't matter.

Would it be fair to say that you're basically here at ASIF to observe the extinction process?

No.  I think technology will beat out the weather and mankind won't even notice when Homo Sapiens goes extinct -- not even the last one.

I do think there will be considerable disruption and that it is 150 years too late to do anything about it.

[El Cid]

I don't think that we make too much of 2012, because 2016 looks much worse. And 2012 looks worse than 2007. Neither 07 nor 12 was a one-time event - it's a trend.
True, 2012 had smaller extent than 2016, but if I look at the Uni-Bremen ice concentration maps, I can see, that we had much less "solid" ice in 16 than 12 (sea ice concentration maps on Sep 1, purple is 100% ice concentration, 16 above, 12 below):

[be cause]

sequence .. 2007 + 5 = 2012 + 4 = 2016 +3 = 2019 .. b.c.

[bbr2314]

sequence .. 2007 + 5 = 2012 + 4 = 2016 +3 = 2019 .. b.c.

So the world ends in 2022-2023? I could actually see that happening.

[Pragma]

Maybe we make too much of Arctic ice.  Look at the global temperature trend, that's what matters.

Otherwise the Arctic ice is an interesting aspect of AGW, and when we beat 2012 an interesting question in its own sake.

I agree that the yearly variances, caused by weather, probably occupy too much of our time. The first time we have a BOE, it will be a statistical event because, well, it was first, but what year it happens is largely a roll of the dice. Our prediction polls about Jaxa and NSIDC minimums are not much more than gambling. It's in our genes, getting the future right can be critical to survival

That said, a BOE, whenever it arrives, is significant in that it signals a weather/climate regime change. I tend to think that the albedo flip will overwhelm the weather "noise", producing a dislocation in the trend line. It may dither a bit for a few years, but the latent heat barrier will soon put us solidly, and permanently, in much warmer arctic conditions, as if it hasn't been bad enough already. It will significantly reduce the temperature differential between the arctic and mid latitudes, causing major disruption. 

So, in short, the arctic ice, and a BOE are both emotional thresholds and true turning points, so the arctic ice does matter.

IMHO, anyway :-)

Cheers

[magnamentis]

Maybe we make too much of Arctic ice.  Look at the global temperature trend, that's what matters.

Otherwise the Arctic ice is an interesting aspect of AGW, and when we beat 2012 an interesting question in its own sake.

ok in that case i recommend to watch global temp-trend very carefully after first BOE or close that.

The year most of the summer ice will be gone we shall see jump in global temps, at least provided there won't be a pinatubo like event that very same year

in short, even in this very forum many are not fully aware what the impact will be once polar ice will be gone and/or heavily reduced. it's our fridge and it's not only about temps, it's about water vapor, wind speeds, storm frequencies, sea-level-raise and a lot more.

hence one certainly can't make too much about sea-ice and 2012 as foreboding in that context.

[petm]

... and a lot more.

I would include ocean circulation patterns (and the feedbacks in store) at the top of these 'more', or even before, to be sure.

[magnamentis]

... and a lot more.

I would include ocean circulation patterns (and the feedbacks in store) at the top of these 'more', or even before, to be sure.

..... and a lot more

i.e. salinity and mixing in fall (storms) that would postpone re-freeze by weeks if not months and make things even worse until water temps in the periphery will stay way above zero all year with all the consequences on weather.

[HapHazard]

I think we make too much of this thread.

[Rich]

Rich, there's nothing wrong in people following events that interest them.

The seriousness of climate change has been well communicated for decades now. You cannot blame the members of this great forum for benchmarking a "wrong" year, if people and governments are doing nothing about the whole damn thing.

I think it is a bit of a stretch to say that I am "blaming" the people of this forum. I am simply lobbying for my interpretation of more enlightened messaging and editorial policy.

The most significant problem I see in modern society is domination by short-term interests. Asset valuations are based upon near term cash flow expectations and financial interests have overtaken our politics. Most of us understand this, so it makes some rational sense for us to look for the same pattern within ourselves. Is ASIF also placing too much emphasis on the short-term?

The signature impact of GHG's is the increased retention of heat.  The reason we have more record high overnight temperatures than daytime temperatures is that the night cycle is dominated by heat retention (GHG's). The day time cycle is dominated by solar radiation. If you want to win the debate, you emphasize the increase in night time temps.

The Arctic winter is a long night increasingly dominated by heat retention. Each of the last 5 years has been among the leaders in terms of poor ice recovery. This is the unequivocal sign of AGW progression.

Coming to the ASIF weather casino is more FUN and interesting and good for traffic. This is by and largely a forum for those interested in weather. We gamble on short-term weather outcomes and the daily blow by blow. It's good to leverage that interest to build a community around.

The energy of the forum is centered in the melting season casino. The climate story is best understood in the freezing season. 2012 was just a great run at the crap table.

[Pragma]

I think we make too much of this thread.

The level of irony in your seemingly vacuous statement is impressive.

[magnamentis]

I think we make too much of this thread.

The level of irony in your seemingly vacuous statement is impressive.

LOL

each time i think it and someone else posts it i have a good time

[HapHazard]

I think we make too much of this thread.

The level of irony in your seemingly vacuous statement is impressive.

Someone had to post that! 

[Sterks]

I think we make too much of this thread.

The level of irony in your seemingly vacuous statement is impressive.

Don’t make too much of it tho

[oren]

The energy of the forum is centered in the melting season casino. The climate story is best understood in the freezing season. 2012 was just a great run at the crap table. 

Rich, you might be happy to know that the level of interest in the freezing season has gone up considerably in the last few years here.

[Rich]

The last freezing season thread had 25 pages. We're at 31 pages less than halfway through the melting season.

Melting season is far sexier. The weather is more varied. The melting season thread SHOULD be longer.

Anyway, my point is made. Weather is more interesting, climate is more important. I am not going to change the character of the free participation of the weather geeks here. I wouldn't want to.

I'm just trying to hoist up the message that the ice is telling the story that the climate situation is getting worse even if we aren't breaking the 2012 record.

The fact that the last 5 years have all been among the poorest in terms of annual maxima is a more important climate story than the 2012 weather story yet it receives a fraction of the attention.

My conclusion is that we do make too much of 2012, but that's not surprising.

[Sterks]

The last freezing season thread had 25 pages. We're at 31 pages less than halfway through the melting season.

Melting season is far sexier. The weather is more varied. The melting season thread SHOULD be longer.

Anyway, my point is made. Weather is more interesting, climate is more important. I am not going to change the character of the free participation of the weather geeks here. I wouldn't want to.

I'm just trying to hoist up the message that the ice is telling the story that the climate situation is getting worse even if we aren't breaking the 2012 record.
K
The fact that the last 5 years have all been among the poorest in terms of annual maxima is a more important climate story than the 2012 weather story yet it receives a fraction of the attention.

My conclusion is that we do make too much of 2012, but that's not surprising.

Let’s cherry pick the correct season, say 15/16 or better 16/17... which had 60 pages.
People are interested when things happen.
And of course going below or near 4 m km2 receives more attention than the low maxima. Are you kidding? Or you just want to be ‘original’ and iconoclastic, so to speak? Attract some attention perhaps with some well articulated boredom?

[Michael Hauber]

But do we make too much of 2016, because of ENSO?

Some people do.  But that's what happens in pretty much any discussion.

No, we just make graphs like this one:

Good graph.

We don't make too much of anything. We just compare, compare, compare, and try to make sense of things.

And a good job.

[Rod]

The last freezing season thread had 25 pages. We're at 31 pages less than halfway through the melting season.

Melting season is far sexier. The weather is more varied. The melting season thread SHOULD be longer.

Anyway, my point is made. Weather is more interesting, climate is more important. I am not going to change the character of the free participation of the weather geeks here. I wouldn't want to.

I'm just trying to hoist up the message that the ice is telling the story that the climate situation is getting worse even if we aren't breaking the 2012 record.

The fact that the last 5 years have all been among the poorest in terms of annual maxima is a more important climate story than the 2012 weather story yet it receives a fraction of the attention.

My conclusion is that we do make too much of 2012, but that's not surprising.

I understand you are an "activist" and you want to get your message across.  You are preaching to the wrong group of people. Your message would be better discussed in the policy threads. 

The people who post in the science threads have been studying the sea ice for many years.  We understand the difference between weather and climate.  We come together in this forum to discuss our observations and try to understand a very complex system. 

Using terms like "bookkeeper" and "weather geeks" to passively aggressively attack people who have been working hard for years to help improve the public knowledge only detracts from your purpose. 

We all agree with you that AGW is a big deal.  You don't need to push your beliefs on the best way to fight that problem on the people in the science threads.  Do that in the section called "The Rest."

[petm]

What we make of 2012 (or anything else): it matters not at all. What we think and do has exactly zero affect on the global future. There is not even an ice floe's chance in hell that Homo sapiens will not burn every ounce of extractable fossil fuel.

Que sera sera.

Edit: Actually there is one small "chance". We might blow ourselves up with nuclear weapons first. Probably not a better alternative though, in most people's estimation. Maybe a rogue comet?

[be cause]

  Rich .. abouit the only news we get out of the Arctic in the winter is that it is cold .. and dark . The melt thread just so happens to run when we can observe .. and discuss our observations . We are largely dicussing the consequences of the freezing season and what is happening to the ice formed during it .
 
  Now IS the time to see how the winter weathers ! .. b.c.  

 ps petm .. I would prescribe medical marijuana

[magnamentis]

What we make of 2012 (or anything else): it matters not at all. What we think and do has exactly zero affect on the global future. There is not even an ice floe's chance in hell that Homo sapiens will not burn every ounce of extractable fossil fuel.

Que sera sera.

Edit: Actually there is one small "chance". We might blow ourselves up with nuclear weapons first. Probably not a better alternative though, in most people's estimation. Maybe a rogue comet?

i get your point due to the last sentence but it's a bit of a short take because:

- there is much more to it than burning fuel when it comes to the global future

- mankind, even a majority will survive that but not so certainly the side effects like the one
. you mentioned in your edit and there are many more of that kind.

and last but not least, i totally disagree which is why i write this in the first place, that it does not matter what we think and do. this is how it happens that nothing was done or at least not much/sufficient of the good things.

only if we learn to think and become conscious of what's going on around us can we as a group (human beings) perform better in the future, hence it can have an impact on the future what we think and it certainly has an impact on the future what we do.

after all, GW is a result of what we do and there are even positive examples of where what we did has mattered and made things better.

a fatalistic approach is not a solution and the only way to lose is to do nothing.

[petm]

ps petm .. I would prescribe medical marijuana

Maybe if we could spike the entire water supply of the US it might make some difference. (Except that THC is almost insoluble in water.) 

[Pragma]

ps petm .. I would prescribe medical marijuana

Maybe if we could spike the entire water supply of the US it might make some difference. (Except that THC is almost insoluble in water.) 

A more plausible scenario would be Canadian forest fires that hit the crops of some of our {ahem} "independent producers" in BC and the smoke goes south. This would likely only affect the west coast, but I would be better than nothing.

PS No prescription required here, just legal age.

[petm]

a fatalistic approach is not a solution and the only way to lose is to do nothing.

I should say: I'm not advocating doing nothing. And for myself, I'm still doing what I can. But I no longer believe that any of it matters. Obviously I could be wrong, and I hope that I am.

[petm]

A more plausible scenario would be Canadian forest fires that hit the crops of some of our {ahem} "independent producers" in BC and the smoke goes south.

Could this be considered a negative feedback? 

[Rich]

It's interesting that people are turning this into a personal issue.

As to the accusations of passive aggression. Is there any sense that the core of the extent and area thread isn't essentially a bookkeeping function? Is there anything wrong with being a weather geek? No.

I think it's great that people are trying to make sense of the infinitely complicated weather system. At the same time, the best forecasting systems in the world struggle to get it right just a few weeks out.

I'm not a genius, but I am making a point about science on a science thread. And that's a very basic and uncomplicated science that anyone can understand.

The signature effect of GHG's is heat trapping. The place we should see that show up is in the season when the heat is trying to escape (winter). And voila, it is!!

While the geniuses go to work on trying to solve the infinitely complexity of weather, the world needs simple unequivocal messages that the average person can connect to. To the extent that the sea ice offers the simple answer, we should emphasize it.

I don't have any major ego issue at stake here. I'm not representing anything other than a grasp of basic science. I'm just trying to translate the story of the ice into something that the average schmuck like myself can understand.

As far as I can tell, no one is disagreeing with the basic ice related science I'm presenting or the need to present the public with easy to grasp messages.



 

[be cause]

A BOE  this year would/will be an easy to grasp message .. b.c.

[Pragma]

A more plausible scenario would be Canadian forest fires that hit the crops of some of our {ahem} "independent producers" in BC and the smoke goes south.

Could this be considered a negative feedback? 

I hope so, heaven knows we need as many as we can find :-)