How does having 0c or 5C temps at 1500M matter that much at the surface where there should be a stout surface inversion preventing mixing ?
The entire basin is forecasted to be its 0C+ the entire period with anomalous high pressure and height fields.
Does having 5C 850mb temps have an effects on solar insolation versus 0C 850MB temps?
If all else is equal surface ice albedo, full sun, same surface pressure and heights.
But one scenario has cooler low to mid level temps?
Why is the warmer mid levels solution so much worse for the ice?
To say the current euro forecast is not that bad?
I have to be missing something. This is about melting a sheet of ice not warming the lower troposphere.
I have seen 1.5C buoy temps With sunny skies and 0c. I have seen 1.5C buoy temps and with 10C+ 850mb temps.
Why would warmer temps aloft melt more ice?
First question, why the 850hPa temperatures? Take a look at any of the NSIDC analysis, they do not use surface temperatures over the Arctic. Using surface temperatures over areas with melting snow and ice has some serious limitations, so the surface temperatures get held back by the melting point of the ice and snow. This is clearly seen on the DMI graph for 80N.
Now, the NSIDC use 925hPa temperatures in their analysis, but seen as forecasted 925hPa temperatures anomalies for the Arctic are hard to find, I use the next closest common pressure level, 850hPa. The temperature here ties in well with surface conditions (not perfectly) and in my opinion, is better than using surface temperatures. The data is readily available as both absolute and anomaly values on the meteociel website.
Does that explain the use of 850hPa temperatures well enough?
As for why I said the euro forecast isn't that bad... I hope that makes sense in light of the explanation I just gave.
The GFS and Euro oscillate thru ridge cycles.
It will be cloudier at times I suppose. But it's not going to stop any melting.
I think this is bad weather. Others don't.
I asked earlier why it matters if mid level temps are 10C or 0C and how much it effects melting or why H5 heights(like 4500 meters up) matter versus lesser heights when surface pressure is high?
I didn't get a response.
I asked a pro met friend he said relatively no difference to what happens at the surface unless it's really cloudy. Like cyclone of 2013 cloudy.
I get tired of defending my position because then it makes me look more and more agenda and bias driven.
I call this bad because surface melting never stops.
Guess we will see.
If you care to look back at conditions in previous years, you'd see that the patterns, winds, temperature anomalies this summer have been quite normal, not "brutal", "terrible", "mother of God"-esque "torches".
Every year we get spells of high pressure, every year we get warm and cold air pulses, every year we get variable weather conditions at different points! What could justify calls of "brutal" would be persistent, anomalous conditions, such as a strong Arctic dipole, a very powerful storm over a weak and fragmented pack, massive temperatures anomalies (+10-20C), and other such things, not ordinary mid summer weather.
Last winter, for example, was highly anomalous. A large high pressure sat just south of Alaska and another over the Barents sea area. Both consistently fed large amounts of mild, mid-latitude air over the Arctic, contributing to one of the warmest winters on record.
Just because temperatures near the surface are around 0C in mid summer isn't anything dramatic, in fact, it is completely normal!
Look Friv, nobody is attacking you or making you defend yourself. In fact, while I disagree with your sensationalist style, my posts from earlier were just my point of view and made no reference whatsoever to yours. You are the one that felt the need to jump in and demand an explanation for someone else having a different viewpoint.