Land snow cover effect on sea ice

[crandles]

April Rutgers graph:



Is it a co-incidence that lowest of last few years are 2007, 2010 and 2012 are the same years as have seen large melt outs?

Is the high value for 2013 therefore good news?

[Vergent]

crandles,

The extra albedo can not be bad. Every photon that gets reflected helps. But the yearly increase in GHG marches on.



The correlation is not perfect. 1981 was a huge loss year as was 1995. 2008 was a "recovery" year. The average insolation is still down in April. May/June/July would be more important for the energy budget.

Vergent

[Neven]

April Rutgers graph:



Is it a co-incidence that lowest of last few years are 2007, 2010 and 2012 are the same years as have seen large melt outs?

Is the high value for 2013 therefore good news?

It'd be better if we'd see the same for May and June, as that's when insolation really goes boom.

But still very interesting. Could there be a battle going on between ghg's and the ocean-snow effect negative feedback?

[crandles]

But still very interesting. Could there be a battle going on between ghg's and the ocean-snow effect negative feedback?

Not sure 'battle' is the right term: In Feb it is very one sided favouring ocean snow effect giving more snow cover. By May it is a walk over for GHG causing lower snow cover.

Maybe there is a battle over when GHG gain dominance but I would suggest GHG are easily winning the battle, making the date earlier despite larger winter snow depths. This year just being an odd random variation exception?

It'd be better if we'd see the same for May and June, as that's when insolation really goes boom.

There is perhaps still a hint of it in May. By June, insolation is high but is the albedo effect then dominated by sea ice area and absorption of heat near the ice?

But I agree that the correlation doesn't seem to work going further back so probably just co-incidence.

[ChrisReynolds]

I've previously looked at Eurasian snow cover and warming in a region of Eurasia for May.
http://dosbat.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/eurasian-snow-cover-and-atmospheric.html

In April the low anomalies of snow cover are substantially distanced from the sea ice. So some form of teleconnection rather than direct warming would be needed, IMO.

With regards 2007, 2010 and 2012.

There's no supportive relationship apparent between April snow cover anomalies and the Early Summer Arctic Dipole anomaly.
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8170/7986372120_ba92926556_o.jpg
Although any relationship may be on a regional scale.

2010 was a volume crash, not area, in April 2010 there was more volume of sea ice from thicker ice than in 2012, the loss of thicker ice over the summer was from melt of an unusually thick ice in the Siberian/Alaskan seas. Can't see a role for snow or warming off Siberia here.

2011 was a record in CT area and some extent measures, and can generally be considered a tie with 2007. 2008 and 2009 were thermodynamic rebounds from 2007. So why not count 2011 as a large melt-out year?

At present I think it's likely just coincidence.

[Ice Cool Kim]

The whole "albedo" argument is largely misunderstood.

In fact is swings both ways. What is not reflected is absorbed: R=1-a

However, specific (wavelength dependant) absorptivity is the same as specific emissivity. 

So less ice means more emissivity (and evaporation).  Also, emissivity works 24h a day 365 days a year, not just when the sun shines. Same thing for evaporation.

Now "specific" is a key work here and a much larger proportion of incoming is UV, here the albedo argument applies as it is usually understood. During daylight hours

There is also the question of the angle of incidence. Glazing incident radiation is reflected from a liquid surface, as determined by Fresnel equations. So higher polar latitudes and lower polar latitudes for most of the year. reflect off open water.

So the simplistic idea that less ice is a huge +ve feedback is too simplistic.

Just how all this sums up is a lot more complicated than ice area. Cloudiness and wind will make a big difference on open water. 

And this is where AO may become a key player.

[Ice Cool Kim]

If albedo was a net +ve feedback things would tend to slam one way or the other. As crandles has pointed out there is a tendancy for each year to alternate.

This suggests the insulation effect of snow is causing a significant -ve feedback, contributing to an annual alternation.

Both area and extent seem to usually go in opposite directions each year:

My guess from this pattern is that this year will see a longer melting period of about 0.495 on this method of calculation.

[Ice Cool Kim]

Now there is not a perfect 2 year cycle here and the literature only talks about a 1 year anti-correlation rather than a 2 yr cycle.

However, a look at frequency spectrum may explain the lack of regularity and the occassional skip from a regular cyclic pattern.

The strong triplet centred on 2 years corresponds to a 2 year oscillation amplitude modulated by a 12.85 oscillation.

Just those three peaks account for large amount of the observed variation in ice area ( a lot else is being ignored so this is does not provide a full match).

So if crandles is correct and there is a natural tenancy to flip from one year to the next because of snow,  we need to look for the origin of an external oscillation of about 12.8 years that is modulating this behaviour.

That triplet is too symmetrically placed to be coincidental "noise".

The centre frequency I measured as 2.06 years and the symmetry of the side bands was within 0.03% IIRC.

[Ice Cool Kim]

It is interesting to note that this interference "beats" pattern also explains the reduced amplitude of the annual variation between 1997 and 2007, that is evident in the straight ice area data plot.

The annual anomaly in that range was about half that of the earlier and later periods

[Peter Ellis]

There is also the question of the angle of incidence. Glazing incident radiation is reflected from a liquid surface, as determined by Fresnel equations. So higher polar latitudes and lower polar latitudes for most of the year. reflect off open water.

This is a common denialist trope and is largely drivel, because (a) water is not flat but rippled, and (b) haze and light cloud scatters light and means that the ocean surface is illuminated from all directions, not just by direct illumination.  Even quite low wind speeds and small amounts of haze vastly reduce the reflective effect of a low angle of incidence.

http://cove.larc.nasa.gov/papers/jingrl04.pdf  <-- Figures 1-3 for real measured data showing that even at only just off horizontal, albedo of open water is between 0.2 and 0.3 depending on wind speed.

[Ice Cool Kim]

I'll ignore the insulting language. 

The effect of ripple on the effective angle of incidence is a fair point but does not negate the evaporation and emission arguments I presented.

Yes, haze and light cloud do scatter: in all directions, not just downwards. I know that my solar panel does benefit from indirect illumination under such conditions but it no way makes up for what it loses in direct insolation. 


Yes albedo of 0.3 is still relatively low but since the vertical albedo is 0.03 in the same experiment that still represents an order of magnitude of difference.

Rather than dismissing your comment as 'drivel' , I would just point out that it is not as convincing as you seen to think (assuming you did).

[ChrisReynolds]

You'll often see the albedo of open ocean quoted at around 0.2 to 0.3 and the difference between ice and ocean of the order of 0.6 to 0.8.

I've never read of ocean albedos as low as 0.03 as the sun is never directly above in the Arctic - by definition.

[Ice Cool Kim]

Are those figures for  UV or IR Chris. There's quite a difference.

I did read something on this recently in relation to CICE etc but I don't have all the numbers memorised.

Since most of solar energy is in the UV/visible that is what matters for the question of angle of incidence.

The question of angle is fairly unimportant for the increased emission of IR 24/7/365 which is all basically away from the surface.

24/7/7365 evaporation is further increased with wind factor has been shown to reduce the effective albedo of the water, so it compensates that factor to a degree that I do not have any quantitative figure for.

There is also the question of water in melting pools which are reckoned to be a significant factor in June/july.  These are less agitated the angle of incidence it probably more important .


Not surprisingly this is quite a complex subject and just looking at one aspect of albedo that affects part of the year and ignoring all the other factors is simplistic and misleading.

If the simple +ve feedback was the only factor there would a clear run away melting. The post 2007 recovery would not have been possible in the presence of a dominant +ve feedback. It would have triggered a collapse , not a rebound.

[Neven]

I agree that there are several factors at play, but we're still waiting for the rebound (volume).

[Ice Cool Kim]

I'm still waiting for some usable data on (rather than model output) before spending any time scratching my head about how it is behaving.

I don't doubt it's taken a dive over the last 20 years but the only real measurements that give proper coverage are very recent. The only processed results I have seen is the UCL 14 dots over 2 years.

Area is what is relevant when trying to understand feedbacks and we have good area data so that is what I'll work with.


Crandles original plot bears a fair resemblance to AO and he makes a good  point about the correlation with the degree of melting.

The high land snow it shows this year is quite a jump so it will be interesting to see whether this is reflected in ice area this year.

Already the Nenana River break-up is the latest since 1964, the current longest in a 98 year history. At this point it's still frozen.

http://www.nenanaakiceclassic.com/

[Neven]

Already the Nenana River break-up is the latest since 1964, the current longest in a 98 year history. At this point it's still frozen.

http://www.nenanaakiceclassic.com/

But the Nuninuni River already broke up on New Year's Day... 

Thanks for spreading the WUWT meme.

[Neven]

For everyone's information: I've removed some comments and banned Ice Cool Kim. We had been in contact about this before, and I thoroughly explained why I don't have time for concern trolling and mathturbation. It's nice for Ice Cool Kim that he had some time on his hands for commenting and showing us all how alarmist we are, but I don't have time for it and I like to keep our echo chamber the way it is.

[Bob Wallace]

Echoing facts are music to my ears....

[crandles]

A good decision to keep the signal to noise ratio high as far as I am concerned.

[ChrisReynolds]

A good decision to keep the signal to noise ratio high as far as I am concerned.

Seconded.

I think the debates continue to show we're not just echoing, there's a reasonable range of disagreement, without the mathturbation and within the available evidence.

[ggelsrinc]

April Rutgers graph:



Is it a co-incidence that lowest of last few years are 2007, 2010 and 2012 are the same years as have seen large melt outs?

Is the high value for 2013 therefore good news?

I don't put much stock in drawing conclusions from one month of NH snow cover data. Your thread did get me to think about some of the limitations of our data. What we need is some kind of NH snow cover index that takes location and weather conditions into consideration. While a snow covered tundra is very much like sea ice, a snow covered forested area has a very different albedo and the snow doesn't cover the trees for long. Similarly, the albedo difference of snow cover isn't very important in an area that normally is cloud covered, just like albedo differences in sea ice aren't important when there is no sunlight to be reflected.

Has anyone come up with a system to compare NH snow cover monthly averages while incorporating other albedo factors such as location and weather, consider fog?

I've been using the recent records of June NH snow cover to combat Denialista claims of no warming. I think my position that recent anomalies of six million square kilometers are enough to cause a major meltdown is reasonable. That June snow cover area loss is like losing three GIS or three remaining arctic sea ice minimums. Compared to sea ice, snow cover is rather boring, but I think it's been a mistake to neglect it's contribution to warming when the data is showing a clear trend of significant snow cover loss in June and the sun is most intense to make albedo changes. What I see is the magnitude of NH snow cover loss during the summer is enough by itself to remove the remaining sea ice and it only needs time for circulation to remove the buildup of multiyear arctic sea ice. By my understanding, the arctic sea ice is doomed and GIS is next. The evidence last year of a 97% melt tells me the jet stream puts warmer air north just like it puts northern air south. Just how extreme events can come from the arctic, similar jet stream patterns could stall and send warmer air northward. It becomes a probability game, because the weather could send warm air from areas not covered by snow to the CAA and flush out that remaining multiyear sea ice. I'm not saying the snow cover is that important, but a stalled jet stream sending weather patterns that removes multiyear sea ice from CAA, could do the arctic sea ice in in a season.

[Neven]

Has anyone come up with a system to compare NH snow cover monthly averages while incorporating other albedo factors such as location and weather, consider fog?

I was thinking that maybe there's something like a division into separate regions, like we have for sea ice for instance (Cryosphere Today regional sea ice area)? It'd be interesting to see a regional breakdown for the last 30 years.

[John Batteen]

Thanks, Neven.  Many (most?) of his posts left me scratching my head, but I'm still learning about climate science and I just wasn't sure.  However, as a chemist, after the pH semantics argument I decided I couldn't take anything he says seriously.

You can make numbers say anything you want if you try hard enough.



Sorry if this post is off-topic, not sure where else to put it.  Feel free to move/delete.

[Bob Wallace]

You need a data point for peak Somali pirates which occurred after your graph terminates.

That will demonstrate to the deniers that reducing the number of pirates is not what is causing the planet to warm.  They'll have to look for some other unlikely reason in their attempt to ignore the obvious.

 

[Vergent]

John,

Could you redo your graph factoring in the North Korean pirates?

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/terrorism-security/2013/0520/North-Korean-pirates-seize-Chinese-hostages-demand-a-ransom

Vergent

[Shared Humanity]

John,

I believe your chart underestimates the impact of the loss of the last remaining pirates on temperature increases. Your graph suggests, erroneously, a linear relationship. From 1860 to 1880, a loss of 25,000 pirates resulted in an increase of slightly less than .5C. From 1880 to 1920, a loss of 5,000 pirates contributed an additional .5C increase. From 1920 to 1940, a loss of 10,000 pirates contributed to an additional .5C. I believe there is a problem with the data collected during this period. With 2 world wars and the great depression, our pirate data collection efforts clearly suffered. From 1940 to 1980, a loss of 4600 pirates contributed approximately a .5C increase. However, from 1980 to 2000, a loss of a mere 383 pirates caused an additional .5C increase. With the advent of satellite pirate tracking in 1982, this data is far more reliable than data captured prior to the launch of the EPT (Earth Pirate Tracking) satellite grid.

One possible explanation of this non-linear relationship is that there is some form of pirate forcing that we do not yet understand. Additional study is needed. Alternatively, there may be a lag between pirate loss and temperature increase which would mean we have already built into the system additional warming.

It is enough to cause me to commission the construction of a frigate and set sail from New Orleans. Aaarrrrrgggghhh!

[Vergent]

Has anyone made the connection between UFO sightings and the demise of the Somali pirates with the subsequent global warming?

[John_The_Elder]

Perhaps we are looking at the pirate issue in reverse. Pehaps the "cold blooded" pirates were unable to evolve with the rise in temperature, hence their nunbers decrease. If the Somali pirates have somehow evolved to "warm hearted" members of the same family, we should soon see a sudden increase in the number of pirates.

[Shared Humanity]

Perhaps we are looking at the pirate issue in reverse. Pehaps the "cold blooded" pirates were unable to evolve with the rise in temperature, hence their nunbers decrease. If the Somali pirates have somehow evolved to "warm hearted" members of the same family, we should soon see a sudden increase in the number of pirates.

Thinking well out of the box, I see. 

[Bob Wallace]

UFO sighting hockey stick.  Must be faked data.

[Anne]

I'm sorry to sound a sceptical note here, but I don't think data about pirates and UFOs can be properly understood without a distribution map. Also, the charts fail to record the UFO sighting by Ezekiel in ~592BCE, or the Arctic piracy in 2009

[TerryM]

The connection between Pirates and Global Warming has been well established by The Church of the FSM. An interesting fact is that in late September, just as Arctic Sea Ice is making it's annual rebound, International Talk Like a Pirate Day celebrations are taking place around the globe.


May you be Touched by His Noodly Appendages


Ramen
Terry

[dlen]

uuahahahahaaaa thanks, that was good chuckle. Seems the expulsion of this all too cool guy has accelerated the thread by some Newtonian momentum law into a completely unexpected orbit...

[dlen]

Now concerning the relation between snow cover and sea ice anomalies: I don't think that there is a relation via the 

absorption->heating->melting of the other 

road. If, it will be more indirect like 

absorption->heating->influence of the weather system->modulation of insolation and heat transport by the weather system

and so if at all, only detectable by thorough statistics.

Both regions are of course affected by the same general warming trend, but as they are spacially separated considerably, the same change in the weather system may have a very different outcome on each.
Think e.g., that the Greenland High causes warm air to flow to the ice, but cold air over northern Eurasia.

[Frivolousz21]

Like all weather phenomenon that disrupt the energy balance.  Snow Cover being gone can end up with lots of extra heat over the ice.

right now Siberia is way below normal and a launching pad for an arctic torch under the right weather pattern.

[TerryM]

With increased winter snow cover and increased spring melt it seems as though riparian erosion is going increase through the north. I wonder if this has been separated from coastal erosion in any studies.


Terry

[Shared Humanity]

With increased winter snow cover and increased spring melt it seems as though riparian erosion is going increase through the north. I wonder if this has been separated from coastal erosion in any studies.


Terry

As with thermokarsts, wouldn't this be another process that would accelerate the destruction of fragile permafrost soils?

[ghoti]

Perhaps this is a better place to discuss the impact of snow cover on the Arctic sea ice.

I haven't been able to find articles that relate March snow depth departures in the Himalayas and Ontario and Quebec  on Arctic sea melt. None of these areas are adjacent to the Arctic basin and March is much too early to see impacts on melt which begins in June.

Am I missing something?

[gerontocrat]

Perhaps this is a better place to discuss the impact of snow cover on the Arctic sea ice.

I haven't been able to find articles that relate March snow depth departures in the Himalayas and Ontario and Quebec  on Arctic sea melt. None of these areas are adjacent to the Arctic basin and March is much too early to see impacts on melt which begins in June.

Am I missing something?

Hudson Bay. Ontario and Quebec increased snow could delay melt. When order is restored to my technology I hope to have a look at it, if I can find some regional snow cover data which is a problem.

[be cause]

I agree it would be good to make a home for this wandering topic . Would suggest changing title to 'Land snow cover and it's effect on sea ice' so that all possible contributions have a home here ?
 Overshot my scrolling and had a little reminder of Friv just up the page

cheers b.c.

[ghoti]

Hudson Bay. Ontario and Quebec increased snow could delay melt. When order is restored to my technology I hope to have a look at it, if I can find some regional snow cover data which is a problem.

Doesn't look like Hudson Bay has ever not melted out in the current era regardless of March land snow depth.

[be cause]

I for one would probably read every post on the topic .. I live among drumlins and have had more snow this winter than the last ten put together .. so fear not bbr 2314 that your thoughts will go unacknowledged or unchallenged . I for one feel unable to join in the debate when it appears in other threads as I annoy folk enough already .. I bet it remains a live topic .. b.c.

edit .. pps   it appears the post I was responding to has been deleted ..

[Pmt111500]

Ah, this thread with the pirates...

Could we make another thread on snow amounts and the river outflows to Arctic ocean? I have no doubt the data is hard to come by. What could be interesting is how much of the moisture making up the snows come from tropics and temperate regions as opposed to Arctic. Glacial inception has probably some threads in the glaciers-section of the forum. Oops. It doesn't. Someone might write up the general ideas of glaciers and maybe glacial s too, to a sticky in there.

[SimonF92]

This paper suggests a "protective" effect of increased Arctic river outflow on Arctic sea ice, through reducing inflow of warmer ocean currents into the CAB. If we extrapolate that increased snow volume will lead to increased meltwater flow, high spring snow volume could be beneficial to sea ice.

"Overall there is a small decrease in the total exchange between the Arctic Ocean and the surrounding seas with increased runoff, contrary to expectations from estuarine circulation theory."

They do acknowledge significant limitations in their multivariate model however, which I always like to see.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2015JC011156

[gerontocrat]

This paper suggests a "protective" effect of increased Arctic river outflow on Arctic sea ice, through reducing inflow of warmer ocean currents into the CAB. If we extrapolate that increased snow volume will lead to increased meltwater flow, high spring snow volume could be beneficial to sea ice.

"Overall there is a small decrease in the total exchange between the Arctic Ocean and the surrounding seas with increased runoff, contrary to expectations from estuarine circulation theory."

They do acknowledge significant limitations in their multivariate model however, which I always like to see.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2015JC011156

And on the other hand, this from Niall Dollard
https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,2299.msg150407.html#msg150407

Leaving aside the effect of snow melt and the AMOC for the moment, discharge from the mighty Mackenzie river has been shown to have significant effect on melting the sea ice in the Beaufort Sea.

Snows melt, but as the flood proceeds it can often be held back by sea ice barriers. A snippet from this article (https://climate.nasa.gov/news/1046/warm-rivers-play-role-in-arctic-sea-ice-melt/ ) describes what can happen:

“When the Mackenzie River’s water is held back behind the sea ice barrier, it accumulates and gets warmer later in the summer,” said Nghiem. “So when it breaks through the barrier, it’s like a strong surge, unleashing warmer waters into the Arctic Ocean that are very effective at melting sea ice. Without this ice barrier, the warm river waters would trickle out little by little, and there would be more time for the heat to dissipate to the atmosphere and to the cooler, deeper ocean.”

The team estimated the heating power carried by the discharge of the 72 rivers in North America, Europe and Asia that flow into the Arctic Ocean. Based on published research of their average annual river discharge, and assuming an average summer river water temperature of around 41 degrees Fahrenheit (5 degrees Celsius), they calculated that the rivers are carrying as much heat into the Arctic Ocean each year as all of the electric energy used by the state of California in 50 years at today’s consumption rate.

So it seems a lot depends on how quickly/slowly the meltwaters are transferred into the Arctic. If the discharge from the melt is a slow process, it will have time to heat up and encourage Arctic ice melt. It will be another thing to watch this year during May and June, if we see the high SSTs emerging from the Mackenzie delta.

Given the high snowfall in N.America this last winter, and that GFS (that bbr says is rubbish)  has it still pretty cold in the Canadian Barrens for some time to come, May June could be very interesting

[bbr2314]

This paper suggests a "protective" effect of increased Arctic river outflow on Arctic sea ice, through reducing inflow of warmer ocean currents into the CAB. If we extrapolate that increased snow volume will lead to increased meltwater flow, high spring snow volume could be beneficial to sea ice.

"Overall there is a small decrease in the total exchange between the Arctic Ocean and the surrounding seas with increased runoff, contrary to expectations from estuarine circulation theory."

They do acknowledge significant limitations in their multivariate model however, which I always like to see.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2015JC011156

And on the other hand, this from Niall Dollard
https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,2299.msg150407.html#msg150407

Leaving aside the effect of snow melt and the AMOC for the moment, discharge from the mighty Mackenzie river has been shown to have significant effect on melting the sea ice in the Beaufort Sea.

Snows melt, but as the flood proceeds it can often be held back by sea ice barriers. A snippet from this article (https://climate.nasa.gov/news/1046/warm-rivers-play-role-in-arctic-sea-ice-melt/ ) describes what can happen:

“When the Mackenzie River’s water is held back behind the sea ice barrier, it accumulates and gets warmer later in the summer,” said Nghiem. “So when it breaks through the barrier, it’s like a strong surge, unleashing warmer waters into the Arctic Ocean that are very effective at melting sea ice. Without this ice barrier, the warm river waters would trickle out little by little, and there would be more time for the heat to dissipate to the atmosphere and to the cooler, deeper ocean.”

The team estimated the heating power carried by the discharge of the 72 rivers in North America, Europe and Asia that flow into the Arctic Ocean. Based on published research of their average annual river discharge, and assuming an average summer river water temperature of around 41 degrees Fahrenheit (5 degrees Celsius), they calculated that the rivers are carrying as much heat into the Arctic Ocean each year as all of the electric energy used by the state of California in 50 years at today’s consumption rate.

So it seems a lot depends on how quickly/slowly the meltwaters are transferred into the Arctic. If the discharge from the melt is a slow process, it will have time to heat up and encourage Arctic ice melt. It will be another thing to watch this year during May and June, if we see the high SSTs emerging from the Mackenzie delta.

Given the high snowfall in N.America this last winter, and that GFS (that bbr says is rubbish)  has it still pretty cold in the Canadian Barrens for some time to come, May June could be very interesting

That is a lot of freakin SWE

[SimonF92]

gerontocrat

thanks for the interesting read

bbr2314

I clocked you a long time ago as someone who acts as a voice of reason, when I think most users of this forum over- exaggerate how "bad" the high Arctic is- take the polls for example, the estimates for Sept Minima are consistently biased toward doom and gloom.

I like reading your posts and generally lean toward agreeing with you.

But I really think that SWE in North East USA and South East Canada is completely irrelevant. Most of that snow will be gone in a few weeks, drained into the Hudson Basin and out towards Newfoundland

[gerontocrat]

gerontocrat

thanks for the interesting read

Hullo SimonF92

Did a post this morning on Northern Hemisphere Snow Cover -
https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,103.msg150817.html#new

[Alexander555]

gerontocrat

thanks for the interesting read

bbr2314

I clocked you a long time ago as someone who acts as a voice of reason, when I think most users of this forum over- exaggerate how "bad" the high Arctic is- take the polls for example, the estimates for Sept Minima are consistently biased toward doom and gloom.

I like reading your posts and generally lean toward agreeing with you.

But I really think that SWE in North East USA and South East Canada is completely irrelevant. Most of that snow will be gone in a few weeks, drained into the Hudson Basin and out towards Newfoundland

Biased toward doom and gloom !!!!! September minima droped from almost 17 000 km3 to 4500 km3 today. Reality is that many people try to let it look like nothing happened. But we will see at how many places they can handle some extra heat. I don't think it's looking very good for the deniers.

[Daniel B.]

gerontocrat

thanks for the interesting read

bbr2314

I clocked you a long time ago as someone who acts as a voice of reason, when I think most users of this forum over- exaggerate how "bad" the high Arctic is- take the polls for example, the estimates for Sept Minima are consistently biased toward doom and gloom.

I like reading your posts and generally lean toward agreeing with you.

But I really think that SWE in North East USA and South East Canada is completely irrelevant. Most of that snow will be gone in a few weeks, drained into the Hudson Basin and out towards Newfoundland

Biased toward doom and gloom !!!!! September minima droped from almost 17 000 km3 to 4500 km3 today. Reality is that many people try to let it look like nothing happened. But we will see at how many places they can handle some extra heat. I don't think it's looking very good for the deniers.

I believe the bias just means they lean more heavily towards earlier ice loss and climate catastrophe.  Each year, the minima predictions congregate around a new low, with many predicting an ice-free state within a decade (some going so far as to predict ice-free year round).  The consequences of an ice-free Arctic are highly speculative.  Consequently, predictions are all over the board.  His posts are closer to what most scientists are saying.