2019 vs 2012

[Neven]

We're entering what will be a highly educative event. I've just ended the latest PIOMAS update on the ASIB with this:

The only question on my mind right now, is: Can 2019 beat 2012? No, wait, I know it can. Allow me to rephrase. The only question on my mind right now, is: Will 2019 beat 2012?

2012 and 2019 are very similar in their respective horrible states, but there are differences. This thread is about those differences. For more general talk about 2019 conditions and weather forecasts, use the 2019 melting season thread. For off-topic banter, theories and discussions about wider implications use the meaningless chatter thread (please, use it).

This thread is about 2012 vs 2019, and what I would like to see most of all, are graphs, maps and satellite images that highlight the differences. And so I'll kick off with the following:

1) PIOMAS June sea ice volume
2) PIJAMAS average sea ice thickness
3) NSIDC compactness
4) JAXA melt extent ratio

[pearscot]

I decided to go back and check out the sea surface anomalies since Alaska has seen record breaking heat this year and to be honest I'm amazed at 2012 - I thought this year was warm, but looking at these two years side by is certainly enlightening (to me at least).

[Neven]

SAT anomalies July 1-6:

[Neven]

I decided to go back and check out the sea surface anomalies since Alaska has seen record breaking heat this year and to be honest I'm amazed at 2012 - I thought this year was warm, but looking at these two years side by is certainly enlightening (to me at least).

This offers a better perspective from the top of the world, instead of Mercator projection:

[Rich]

Atmospheric CO2 levels are currently ~ 15 ppm higher than 2012.

This is most relevant toward the latter portion of melting season when heat escape becomes a bigger factor.

[Tunnelforce9]

Greenland's melt is cooling the ocean maybe that explains the huge difference in sst anomaly

http://climato.be/cms/index.php?climato=the-2019-melt-season-over-greenland-as-simulated-by-marv3-9

[prokaryotes]

Atmospheric CO2 levels are currently ~ 15 ppm higher than 2012.

This is most relevant toward the latter portion of melting season when heat escape becomes a bigger factor.

What about the winds up there, is it very stormy?

[petm]

In addition to a strong setup (thin ice and heat accumulation, which both 2012 had and 2019 has), I think cyclones are needed. 2012 had several significant ones in July and then of course the big one in early August. A few days after each of them, the damage was obvious. So far, 2019 has had only a few, mostly in the Beaufort (which is suffering accordingly). But the waters are warm and the air humid, so it seems likely we should see some soon. Waiting...

[Rod]

July 8 is very clear in Worldview for both 2012 and 2019 on the pacific side.  These are the comparisons that continue to strike me as the most important currently if we are talking about “extent” as our endpoint.

If the Beaufort becomes a killing zone as most believe it will, it looks like 2019 will definitely beat 2012 on this side of the arctic.

The current situation around Wrangel Island is incredible.

[Juan C. García]

By looking at ADS (JAXA) 2011 and 2012 trajectories, I think that 2019 will compete with 2011 to be the lowest on record until July 23^rd, but 2012 will be the 3^rd or 4^th lowest until the 23^rd.

[ArcticMelt2]

https://twitter.com/kevpluck

[Rod]

AM2.  That is Kevin Pluck’s map.  We have already discussed it in the melting season thread and established it has errors.

I contacted him on Twitter, and he posted on the forum a few days ago and explained his data set. 

He used a dataset that can not be reliably used for climatological purposes.  That is why the Hudson area is wrong.

There are several posts discussing this in the melting season thread.

To be clear, I think Kevin Puck is a really smart guy who makes great images!  However, this one is just not completely accurate.

[ArcticMelt2]

AM2.  That is Kevin Pluck’s map.  We have already discussed it in the melting season thread and established it has errors.

I contacted him on Twitter, and he posted on the forum a few days ago and explained his data set. 

He used a dataset that can not be reliably used for climatological purposes.  That is why the Hudson area is wrong.

There are several posts discussing this in the melting season thread.

How big are these mistakes? A simple comparison of images shows that the map is generally correct.

[Rod]

The main errors were in the Hudson.  I think everything else is pretty much correct.

[ArcticMelt2]

The main errors were in the Hudson.

I agree. In 2012, there was no ice there.

https://sites.google.com/site/arcticseaicegraphs/concentration-maps/sic0707

So it’s still worse than it seemed to me before.

[Rod]

You also need to give people credit when you copy their work off of Twitter.  You keep copying Rick Thoman’s graphs without properly giving him credit.   He watches these forums.  You need to provide his name when you post his work so that people know where it came from.

[ArcticMelt2]

You also need to give people credit when you copy their work off of Twitter.  You keep copying Rick Thoman’s graphs without properly giving him credit.   He watches these forums.  You need to provide his name when you post his work so that people know where it came from.

The authorship of the image indicated on her. But I added a link to his twitter.

[oren]

Making a probable summation, Beaufort + ESS + CAA should be around 250 km³ by the minimum (compared to 50km³ for 2012), and Greenland Sea another 250 km³. Adding the CAB should get the total to less than 4400 km³, with the lower limit not well defined.

Overall, I expect 2019 to pass 2016 (4400 km³) and 2011 (4300 km³) and reach 2nd place in volume. I'd be quite surprised if it manages to break 2012's 3670 km³ record.

I've posted regional charts and the above heuristic conclusion on the PIOMAS thread.

[BenB]

To add a bit of context to the Piomas comparisons from 30 June, here is a comparison of the ice edge at 30 June and 7 July (latest available) this year. Apart from the retreat in the Chukchi, what is striking is how much has been lost from the areas where the big positive anomalies were in the Barents and edge of the Kara:

[BenB]

And another comparison. This time the latest data from this year is compared with 3 weeks forward in time in 2012 (July 7 vs July 28). It looks like there's a lot of ice that needs to melt, but I think 2019 will be ahead on the 28th, at least in the areas that matter to the final extent. This year, a huge swathe of ice south of 75N between the New Siberian Islands and the eastern edge of Chukchi is vulnerable. Not all of it will melt out, but a lot will. Sea by sea:

Kara/Barents: 2019 is far behind, but these areas are melting rapidly. 2012 will stay ahead at 28 July, but not by very much.
Laptev: The areas by the Lena delta and between the Laptev bite and Severnaya Zemlya will again melt out completely. The Laptev bite will extend further into the CAB. 2019 a bit ahead, if you include the Laptev sector of the CAB.
ESS: The area south-east of the New Siberian Islands will melt out fully, as will most of the eastward extension of the Laptev bite. In addition, there will be significant melt along the Siberian coast. 2019 well ahead.
Chukchi: 2019 is already ahead and will extend its lead. 2019 far ahead.
Beaufort: there's some thicker ice here, so I think the two years will be similar.
CAA: 2012 had earlier momentum, so I think it will be significantly ahead.
Baffin: not really relevant to the final extent, but I think 2019 will also melt out fully by 28 July. Equal.
Hudson: again not relevant, but 2019 may not melt out fully by 28 July. 2012 possibly a bit ahead.

Even if I'm right and 2019 is ahead on 28 July, 2012 has the GAC to come, so for me the final outcome is still very uncertain. 2019 could end up significantly ahead or behind 2012. The latest forecasts suggest cooler weather is coming...

[gmrocher]

Hi,
I am a weekly follower of this blog for the past years, but never got to comment anything. The work here is too good! I just finished my PhD in stream biogeochemistry and CO2 evasion in arctic rivers, so this is a bit tangential for me but I am familiar with the scientific method of course.

I have been following the the ice front in the CCA and Greenland, and something that is evolving worryingly fast is a large crack that seems to appear now already over greenland. This part is much more developed than 2012 by the same dates.

(I attached an image, not sure is visible in the post yet)

[Neven]

Thanks for all those comparisons, especially the satellite images. That comparison of the Pacific side is just... wow.

Not very relevant, but still, here's a comparison of the DMI 80N SAT graphs:

[oren]

Welcome, gmrocher.
This crack is more the effect of winds and ice mobility than of melting. But it's still worrisome nevertheless.

[b_lumenkraft]

Welcome, gmrocher.
This crack is more the effect of winds and ice mobility than of melting. But it's still worrisome nevertheless.

But isn't the increased ice mobility due to thinner ice and therefore due to melting? Melting that occurred in recent seasons rather than this season i mean.

And to you Gmrocher, hello and welcome to the forum!

[oren]

You are correct. I mean it's not in situ melting near the coast of the CAA and Greenland that has finished off the 3m thick floes found there, but rather melting elsewhere that has enables this ice to move away.

[Paddy]

I'd put the chances of this year ending up lower than 2012 at a fair bit less than 50%, given that the loss from this point on in 2012 (5.08million sq km) was the highest loss over that period in the past ten years and quite a bit more than the average of 4.11m sq km. There's a definite possibility, but so much depends on the weather, and 2012's July/August melting conditions were pretty exceptional.

[b_lumenkraft]

Right, Oren! 🖖🏽

[Glen Koehler]

From NSIDC archive of daily Arctic sea ice concentration images

ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/north/daily/images/2012/07_Jul/N_20120708_conc_v3.0.png
vs.
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/north/daily/images/2019/07_Jul/N_20190708_conc_v3.0.png

FWIW - Some amateur opinions for consideration and feedback:
1) to my eye July 8 2019 ASI concentration looks more vulnerable than same date 2012.  The few areas where 2019 has more ice are doomed by Sept. anyway.

2) I don't think the extent and area metrics we use to compare between years fully reflect the degraded ice condition in 2019.  Volume has a better chance of reflecting actual situation, but of course it has its own issues.

3) There is still a lot of melt season weather left to go, and as reported in the forum, late July-August 2012 weather was conducive to melt.  While June 2019 was blistering, it remains to be seen what remainder of 2019 melt weather will be like, but it will be hard for 2019 to match late-season 2012.  So that's gives an edge to 2012 in terms of the Sept. minimum extent/area/volume.

4)  And 2012 had the Great Arctic Cyclone. I have to assume that an event of that impact is unlikely in 2019.  But 2019 may bring its own events -- perhaps a couple of less intense events will have cumulatively equal impact as the 2012 GAC.  A return of an Arctic dipole hinted at in the 10-12 day forecast yesterday is an example of hits 2019 could yet deliver to the weakened ice fortress.
   
 5) Of greatest importance -- 2019 includes 7 additional years of a) continued decline of anchoring multi-year sea ice, b) what appears to be qualitative functional changes in ocean heat incursion, c) increased ice pack mobility, d) polar vortex weakening, e) higher atmospheric CO2e, and f) higher global SAT -- by about 0.3C increase between 2012 to 2019.  That's a huge amount of extra energy in the surface layer of the climate system (not even counting the energy buried in the ocean, some of which could affect Arctic sea ice melting this year).  There is a lot of additional heat embedded in the Arctic and surrounding system in 2019 vs. 2012.
   
   6)  Because of #5, I think we really can't know how close to the cliff we are.  But we can be sure that we are getting closer to that cliff every subsequent year of not only persistent elevated GHG level, and not just year-on-year additions, but increases in the rate of increase of GHG loading. 
 
   7) So... 2019 vs. 2012?  A toss up for Sept minimum only because 2012 was such a blow out.  But on the current trajectory it's just a question of when, not if, cumulative progression will push the system below 2012 and make every year below 2012. 

  It's natural to focus on  landmarks like Sept. minimum extent/area/volume, but in case you missed it, see the 365-day running average extent the industrious and appreciated gerontocrat posted at https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,2533.msg211770.html#msg211770.  And the even more dramatic 365-day running average volume posted at https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,119.msg211798.html#msg211798.
     More than the ASI status on a single September day, those trends show the larger story of what we are doing to a critical part of our climate system. 

     The world needs the people informed by this forum to spread the news of this existential threat to family, friends, neighbors, colleagues, and politicians.  Please talk about it, that is the essential first step.       

[Neven]

For those interested in anecdotal evidence of what happened in 2012 around this time, I can highly recommend my own writings (someone has to do it) on the ASIB at the time: ASI 2012 Update 6: piggy bank

[magnamentis]

....The world needs the people informed by this forum to spread the news of this existential threat to family, friends, neighbors, colleagues, and politicians.  Please talk about it, that is the essential first step.     

a superb resume, thanks.

from time to time some of the main ingredients to the soup have to be resumed the way you just did to bring structure into the discussion that is often driven by tiny standalone day to day events.

that's worth one of my sparse likes LOL

[Neven]

In anticipation of tomorrow's data, 2019 is leading 2012 by 157K for JAXA SIE, and 2012 had a 133K drop reported for the 10th. 2012 had another century break reported the day after, but this was followed by four slower days (two of which were 49 and 47K), so if 2019 can keep up the pace for a while longer, it may build up something of a buffer. FWIW.

Below is the build-up so far this month:

[Bruce Steele]

gmrocher, Welcome to the forum . Maybe you could help us on the" Carbon Cycle "page on occasion ?
I try to educate myself on biogeochemistry but without the sounding board that academia provides it is hard to know when I have gone off the tracks. 

[D-Penguin]

....
     The world needs the people informed by this forum to spread the news of this existential threat to family, friends, neighbors, colleagues, and politicians.  Please talk about it, that is the essential first step.     

I really enjoy reading Glen's postings that are always so well constructed and presented.

In particular, the above concluding paragraph is so important. I wish that some multi-media outlet would 'adopt', say, the Extent, Area and Volume Thread and pay Neven a handsome 'royalty payment' for the privileged of being associated and connected to such an informative source of information.

If only scientists were also well schooled in marketing...!

If OT I apologize, will remove and look for a more appropriate thread.

[Neven]

In anticipation of tomorrow's data, 2019 is leading 2012 by 157K for JAXA SIE, and 2012 had a 133K drop reported for the 10th.

A drop of 113K was reported for the 10th, 20K less than 2012, and so the difference is now 137K. For the 11th 2012 had a 111K century break.

[gmrocher]

gmrocher, Welcome to the forum . Maybe you could help us on the" Carbon Cycle "page on occasion ?
I try to educate myself on biogeochemistry but without the sounding board that academia provides it is hard to know when I have gone off the tracks.

Yes of course! I'm no expert but it is my topic yes. I wasn't aware of these other pages of the forum, so much info here

[pleun]

     The world needs the people informed by this forum to spread the news of this existential threat to family, friends, neighbors, colleagues, and politicians.  Please talk about it, that is the essential first step.   
 

absotively true, but everytime I bring this up, I see eyes rolling up. People just don't want to hear about catastrophe unless it's on their doorstep...

[Glen Koehler]

absotively true, but everytime I bring this up, I see eyes rolling up. People just don't want to hear about catastrophe unless it's on their doorstep...

Agreed, but it still needs to be said.  And I bet your bringing it up makes a difference to those people (like kids who don't seem like they listen  then 10 years later they remind of something you said that shows they really were hearing you all along).  https://thinkprogress.org/the-most-important-thing-you-can-do-right-now-to-fight-climate-change-according-to-science/

The AIDS campaigners pegged it - Silence is death.  Politicians have told me they'd do more on climate crisis but they just don't hear about it from constituents.  I think the tide is changing on that in U.S.   With 2020 election ramping up, climate is getting some respect for the first time.  Still only 14 minutes in first 4 hours of Dem candidate debates.  But that 14 minutes is more than TOTAL discussion of climate during all of the 2016 debates. 

Social change studies show that things don't change, and don't change, and don't change, until... seemingly in a flash, for no obvious reason, they do change very quickly.  But that slow incremental process from 1 to 2 to 3% etc. was what made it possible.  Gay marriage in the U.S. is a striking example.

Studies also show that only 10% of population needs to adopt an idea before it catches like wildfire.   While much more than 10% are already aware and concerned about climate, we need to get over the 10% hump of population ready to take on the large scale systemic change needed -- that WWII type mobilization often cited as the model for what needs to happen.  So yes, 95% may act like they aren't listening, but having it in conversation over and over is the way we get to that 10% threshold IMHO.  We gotta try. 

[Oscillidous]

Studies also show that only 10% of population needs to adopt an idea before it catches like wildfire.   While much more than 10% are already aware and concerned about climate, we need to get over the 10% hump of population ready to and take on the large scale systemic change needed ... 95% may act like they aren't listening, but having it in conversation over and over is the way we get to that 10% threshold IMHO.  We gotta try. 

Agreed. I would argue that the biggest issue is that while many know about climate change, they aren't familiar with the rate of change that is occurring. They are under the impression that in 2050 it will be messy, some even believe we don't have to worry until 2100.

My uneducated analysis of this year vs 2012 is that while the amount of ice loss is pretty similar, the overall quality of ice was much better and more resilient to bad conditions in 2012. This year, it looks like the entire pack is slushy and mobile (obviously some pieces being larger than others).

I have a hard time envisioning this season resulting in any substantial rebound of the ice, another big difference from 2012. I think next year's melt season will start earlier and I imagine refreeze will start later this year. The biggest difference with this year vs 2012 is we lost similar amounts of ice without a GAC. Keep in mind though, this is coming from someone who still can't identify a dipole on a geopot chart :x

[Stephan]

[...]
     The world needs the people informed by this forum to spread the news of this existential threat to family, friends, neighbors, colleagues, and politicians.  Please talk about it, that is the essential first step.     

I use a whiteboard in the hallway in my office building and the first thing I do every morning before I open my office I write down the actual JAXA arctic + antartic extent difference compared to the 2000s average, together with a short list of #1, #2, #3 and #40 and #41 years with the biggest difference to that average. Most of the colleagues look at the numbers, and climate change is one of the main topics in of the discussions during coffee breaks [I have to confess there are some deniers among them].

[Neven]

A drop of 113K was reported for the 10th, 20K less than 2012, and so the difference is now 137K. For the 11th 2012 had a 111K century break.

A drop of 'only' 67K was reported for the 11th, 44K less than 2012, and so the difference is now 93K. For the 12th, 2012 had a 93K drop.

[Neven]

A drop of 'only' 54K was reported for the 12th, 39K less than 2012, and so the difference is now 54K. For the 13th, 2012 had a 49K drop.

And here's SAT and SLP this month so far:

[Neven]

On the NSIDC front, 2019 is still leading 2012 by 46K for extent and 2012 is leading by 9K for area.

2012 is 0.5% lower than 2019 for compactness:

[JayW]

Pacific side comparison, July 12.
Chick to run

[Comradez]

I did an in-depth video analysis of 2012 vs. 2019 with regards to a portion of the Central Arctic Basin around 80N and 150W that borders on the Beaufort and Chukchi.


I think 2019 actually looks worse than 2012 in this important region.  Even without a Great Arctic Cyclone, 2019 may challenge 2012 everywhere outside of the CAA, where 2012 will probably have an edge.

[Neven]

Very nice, Comradez! This is exactly the kind of stuff I was hoping to see when opening this thread. I've written a quick blog post on the ASIB, linking to your video, called Comparing.

[Glen Koehler]

[gerontocrat]

If 2019 remaining area loss is average, NSIDC minimum area will come in at or a bit less than 200,000 more than 2012.

2019 extent minimum, given average remaining loss, will be at at least 800,000 km2  more than 2012.

The reason for this difference is that in 2012 the ice was more concentrated. You see the same in 2016. So maybe the main difference between 2012 and today is the ice is so much more dispersed. Extent as a measure becomes increasingly misleading as dispersion increases?

[jai mitchell]

We will know if 2019 will approach 2012 levels in about 3 weeks.  I doubt it as the unusual rapid decline in surface ice cover around the first week of August has not been repeated since. 

Until the early august rate of cover loss decrease is broken, we won't cross 2012 for some time yet.

[Killian]

Per a response to someone somewhere on these fora re short periods of melt having a large impact on ice minimums, anyone have a clear idea why there was such massive loss of ice from Aug 2nd to Aug 9, 2012?

Extent was 6.03M km sq on the 2nd and fell to 5.04M km sq by the 9th for a loss of 990k km sq in 7 days, averaging 141.4k km sq/day. The weeks before and after that drop were decidedly normal:

7/26 ~ 8/2 = 6.51 - 6.03 = 480 / 7 = 68.57k km sq/day
8/9 ~ 8/16: 5.04 - 4.47 = 570 / 7 = 81.4k km sq/day.

These two weeks averaged 75k km sq  or 525k km sq on average vs 990k km sq, almost double.

2012 had another big loss earlier in the season from 6/06~6/13 falling from 11.17M km sq to 10.22M km sq, or 950k km sq, an average of 135k km sq/day. The average of these two weeks is 970k km sq or 445k km sq more per week than more typical weeks for excess loss of 990k km sq.

2016 had remarkably consistent trend line averaging 74km sq from 6/14 to 9/03 with no week-long periods of accelerated losses.  Even the early season was fairly similar to the late season melt. From 4/17~6/3, 47  days, the melt was from 13.13M km sq to 10.35M km sq or 59.15k km sq/day for only a 15k km sq/day difference.

2007's pattern was completely different, though it also had no huge short-term drops. It did, however, start the season with a consistent slope averaging -109k km sq over 34 days from 6/24 (10.13M km sq) to 7/28 (6.41M km sq) before slowing over the summer.

That 990k km sq excess loss exceeds the difference between the 2012 minimum and the 2016 minimum and equals the difference between 2012 and 2007. That is, less those two extraordinary weeks, 2012 is tied for second lowest in the record, not first.

Seems to me identifying the anomalous conditions during those two weeks might provide significant insight into interpreting ASI overall, and particularly for predicting minimums given certain scenarios.

I don't have the familiarity with the data sets to suss this out, but the pattern really jumped out from the charts. Anybody want to give it a shot?

[binntho]

If 2019 remaining area loss is average, NSIDC minimum area will come in at or a bit less than 200,000 more than 2012.

2019 extent minimum, given average remaining loss, will be at at least 800,000 km2  more than 2012.

The reason for this difference is that in 2012 the ice was more concentrated. You see the same in 2016. So maybe the main difference between 2012 and today is the ice is so much more dispersed. Extent as a measure becomes increasingly misleading as dispersion increases?

I must admit that these area numbers are quite an eye opener. I've been wondering what it was about 2012 that made it loose so very much more ice than the other years, turns out that it didn't.

Extent is indeed beginning to look a bit misleading, being so sensitive to winds and weather causing dispersion or compaction, but the steady loss of area will, i guess, eventually show up in loss of extent.