Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Author Topic: The 2014 Melting Season  (Read 1413336 times)

Lord M Vader

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1310
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 37
  • Likes Given: 24
Re: The 2014 Melting Season
« Reply #3350 on: August 28, 2014, 10:12:04 PM »
Wow, no comment yet about our first sign of a polynya for this season in Barents Sea!!  :o

Look here:

What will this mean for the rest of autumn? Will this one grow bigger or refreeze quickly?

//LMV

DavidR

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 732
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 32
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: The 2014 Melting Season
« Reply #3351 on: August 29, 2014, 04:44:36 AM »
The red plots show the amount of volume loss needed to get the 2007 to 2013 average seasonal melt rates to take volume to zero from April volume. This is far and above anything that has been seen in the Arctic from 1978 to 2014, 36 years.

The problem with these red lines is that the starting point is constantly changing. The April PIOMAS volume is declining on average by 270 km^3 each year, while the annual melt is increasing by  about  60 km^3 per year.  Annual fluctuations around these figures can be as much as 1000 Km ^3. 



So even since 2010 the starting point according to  trend has dropped by over 1000 km^3 and the amount of melt has increased by around 240 km^3.
If we decline at the trend rate, by 2024 the trend for the starting point will be around 20,000 km^3 and the trend loss will be  around 18,200 per year.
We have been below trend for all of the last 10 years suggesting the first zero ice period will occur before that. 
With annual variations of !000 km^3 in both  measurements, any short period of warm years before that is likely to cause a totally wipeout.  And as I pointed out  on another thread these are occurring about  every  five years.
Toto, I've a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore

ChrisReynolds

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1714
    • View Profile
    • Dosbat
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The 2014 Melting Season
« Reply #3352 on: August 29, 2014, 07:40:51 AM »
David R,

Quote
Since 2000 April average area for the Arctic ocean has been around 9.65M km^2 - i.e. this is the nominal area of ice covered ocean at the volume peak. Assume a nominal 2m equilibrium thickness for the FYI, also assume that thinner ice at the Atlantic edge is to some degree offset by the thicker ice in the Central Arctic. 2m * 9.65M km^2 => 0.002km * 9650km^2 = 19.3k km^3. So an April peak volume of around 19.3k km^3 is the nominal volume associated with an Arctic Sea ice nominal thickness of around 2m.
From here: http://dosbat.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/the-slow-transition.html


April sea ice volume within the Arctic Ocean, including CAA and Greenland Sea.



i.e. From 2011 onwards (after the 2010 volume loss event) Arctic Ocean sea ice volume has levelled at 19.3k km^3, what would be expected for an Arctic Ocean dominated by first year ice. By using all the PIOMAS domain you are missing the crucial detail that is relevant to the question of whether the Arctic Ocean (where the minimum is set) will become ice free in September. The starting point is going to decline, but it will decline at a much slower rate in future.

I stayed out of this discussion because my hunch was it would be a boring exercise of repeating myself - it has become so, so if you don't mind I'll leave it there.

DavidR

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 732
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 32
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: The 2014 Melting Season
« Reply #3353 on: August 29, 2014, 10:55:48 AM »
Chris,
I  can't agree with you because you  appear to  be ignoring the temperature differential in the recent years. Using the 64N+ value from GISS, 2009 had a 121+ anomaly 2010  was 198+. We see a massive decline in April volume 1500km^3.  2011 was slightly  warmer than 2010, 206+ anomaly,  and we see  a slight positive change in volume.  2012 was only  181+ anomaly, cooler than 2011 and the result was another slight increase in volume.  2013 had an anomaly  of 125+, a full half degree cooler cooler than 2012, however the volume at the start of 2014, declined to a record low. 

Over the past 35 years volume has generally dropped by a large amount (> 1000 km^2) in a single year followed by  a few years at  about the same volume. This is nothing different than what we are seeing now.  The area of the arctic ocean is completely  irrelevant to the rate of decline.  The ocean and the air across the Arctic are warming and that is the driver for lower volumes.
Toto, I've a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore

nukefix

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 469
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 12
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: The 2014 Melting Season
« Reply #3354 on: August 29, 2014, 11:54:12 AM »


Off-topic: That kind of graph is misrepresenting the data, see the work of Edward Tufte on representing data graphically.
« Last Edit: August 29, 2014, 03:13:13 PM by nukefix »

plinius

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 403
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The 2014 Melting Season
« Reply #3355 on: August 29, 2014, 03:03:02 PM »
@DavidR: I do not think that your argument is in any way applicable to Chris' argumentation. He relies on new physics (i.e. negative ice-formation feedback) coming in, so you can not use past trends to argue for their continuation.

Despite this fact I cannot fully agree with Chris' argument either: his own graph shows that even a minor increase in melt rates would quickly send us to zero - in quite a number of months we have already surpassed this limit, though of course mean and median values are still below it. I think this discussion is so far not optimal. Why not take another point of view - take out the multi-year ice from consideration and see if without multi-year ice the arctic would become ice-free. If it does not, we are still in a stable regime. If it does, we are unstable. Also I do think that 2012 taught us, how easily we can approach an ice-free state with positive feedbacks. 2012 had an early opening of vast portions of the ocean and the accumulated heat was responsible for the final melt-out. Make that a bit stronger and we are ice-free in the end. Question is: How large can this scatter be, and how much memory does the intermediate ocean layer preserve over subsequent years. Opinions?

SATire

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 509
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: The 2014 Melting Season
« Reply #3356 on: August 29, 2014, 05:11:28 PM »
plinius, I would like to agree with both you and Chris. If the weather in May-August would be as cloud-free as in earlier years, the albedo-feedback-exponential-thing could get us to the ice-free state anytime - this feedback is a strong thing.

However - the last year and this year it looks different: The weather is different - perhaps somehow related to climate change due to AGW ;-). And it was so much different that new multi-year ice can build up. Because of that it is looking likely, that even after a seasonal ice-free year we could get back to some multi-year ice in later years. Some models shown in this thread sugests that for several more decades.   

To add some experiences with complex dynamic systems I would guess, that this is the most likely (because so normal) behaviour: If a system is heated (by green house gases) it tends to cool more efficiently. Firstly by radiating more heat into space - which can be done most efficiently by "arctic amplification": More heat transfer to the arctic and larger temperatures in the arctic night make an efficient cooling mechanism. So in winter the earth cools more efficiently than in the years before AGW.

Secondly it looks like the albedo-feedback in summer could be slowed down by a counter-effect (every radical effect heading with increasing speed towards zero will find an counter-effect in nature like friction and such): Instead of the ice the more frequent summer-clouds could be such a counter-effect in summer. I know this is only guessing and quite vague... it is more a feeling.

ChrisReynolds

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1714
    • View Profile
    • Dosbat
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The 2014 Melting Season
« Reply #3357 on: August 29, 2014, 07:05:52 PM »
Off-topic: That kind of graph is misrepresenting the data, see the work of Edward Tufte on representing data graphically.
No it isn't. You've got the numbers, the formatting of the Excel spreadsheet cells isn't meant to be a formal graph, just an aid to the eye.

themgt

  • New ice
  • Posts: 15
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The 2014 Melting Season
« Reply #3358 on: August 29, 2014, 07:13:11 PM »


i.e. From 2011 onwards (after the 2010 volume loss event) Arctic Ocean sea ice volume has levelled at 19.3k km^3, what would be expected for an Arctic Ocean dominated by first year ice.

This data look a lot less definitive than you're making it sound. We were at 24.9 in 1982 and up to 25.6 12 years later in '94. We were at 24.1 in '96, and 24.0 in 2001. Still 23.7 in 2003. You seem to be suggesting this current pause is somehow unique or permanent, but what evidence is there to suggest that is the case?

ChrisReynolds

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1714
    • View Profile
    • Dosbat
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The 2014 Melting Season
« Reply #3359 on: August 29, 2014, 07:56:26 PM »
Chris,
I  can't agree with you because you  appear to  be ignoring the temperature differential in the recent years. Using the 64N+ value from GISS, 2009 had a 121+ anomaly 2010  was 198+. We see a massive decline in April volume 1500km^3.  2011 was slightly  warmer than 2010, 206+ anomaly,  and we see  a slight positive change in volume.  2012 was only  181+ anomaly, cooler than 2011 and the result was another slight increase in volume.  2013 had an anomaly  of 125+, a full half degree cooler cooler than 2012, however the volume at the start of 2014, declined to a record low. 

Over the past 35 years volume has generally dropped by a large amount (> 1000 km^2) in a single year followed by  a few years at  about the same volume. This is nothing different than what we are seeing now.  The area of the arctic ocean is completely  irrelevant to the rate of decline.  The ocean and the air across the Arctic are warming and that is the driver for lower volumes.

Where 2m thick is the ballpark figure for thickness of first year ice in April:

2m X April Area ~ April volume for 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014.
 
And this is nothing but a coincidence?

OK, we'll see.

Bruce

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 132
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The 2014 Melting Season
« Reply #3360 on: August 29, 2014, 09:48:20 PM »
I'm sorry but saying the models "only work as long as the future looks like the past" is a total misconception. The models are physical models based on physics worked out theoretically and underpinned, in some cases 'tuned by', obervational work. They do not depend on the past as a guide, they use physics. [...]
This is a dramatic overstatement of the truth. The models have numerous parameters, most of which are only approximately known. Look at the error bars on total climate sensitivity -- they're enormous. The models are tuned over many runs to make them consistent with both science and history.

I'm not suggesting that the models are junk or that they should be thrown out with the bathwater. The GCMs are quite good, and have accurately predicted a number of important features of climate change. But the idea that they are boxes of pure applied physics is not remotely true. Like all models, they are approximations of reality. And where approximations are made, uncertainty creeps in. No new physics or magic is required. Simply not properly accounting for changes in parameters or relationships is enough to send one's model wildly astray. In a rapidly changing system, it is very difficult to remain on track as you model into the future. Much harder, in point of fact, than fitting a curve to some data.

TeaPotty

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 219
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 37
  • Likes Given: 71
Re: The 2014 Melting Season
« Reply #3361 on: August 29, 2014, 11:42:34 PM »
I agree Bruce. Calling a computer program an accurate model of physics is just silly. At best, software is no more than a simulation, and at worst crude imitations. The rules of this simulation must be derived from and tested with past observations.

In the case of the Arctic, our simulations have failed horribly at reproducing the current reality there. As such, they are just as (if not more) likely to be wrong in the future. We continue to discover more and more alarming mechanisms, most of which are likely way way way beyond our current understanding of the Earth System. We don't even discuss Earth's balance, rather Science is only funded and publicly discussed as long as it can help us further profit from our self-destruction. Just open satellite images and compare it to the models and sea-ice calculations - look how primitive our data is, much of it wrong even to the naked eye.

So much of the anti-alarmist arguments sound exactly like pre-2008, before our realization that we are charging head-first into an extinction event. To me, they starting to sound an awful lot like Bible-thumpers, afraid to face the truth or say anything which would brand them an "alarmist". Even here, the animosity at "alarmists" is palpable.

Don't worry folks, Arctic won't melt before 2080, right?
I will probably continue to laugh at this past the lifetime of many of the so-called scientists who argued this till just recently. So much ego, all just to avoid social labels, and retain their cult identity as "moderates". I am sure our grandkids will understand, if they will be among the survivors.
« Last Edit: August 30, 2014, 12:13:36 AM by TeaPotty »

viddaloo

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1302
  • Hardanger Sometimes
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The 2014 Melting Season
« Reply #3362 on: August 30, 2014, 12:15:53 AM »
Don't worry folks, Arctic won't melt before 2080, right?
I will probably continue to laugh at this past the lifetime of many of the so-called scientists who argued this till just recently.

I agree IPCC is looking more and more like a bad joke. But when you say till just recently, does that mean IPCC changed their way too late predictions in this year's report? I haven't finished reading it because I was so appalled by a couple of its bold statements and denials.

Edit: These two paragraphs from the latest so–called 'scientific' IPCC report are hilarious, yet tragic:
« Last Edit: August 30, 2014, 02:42:48 AM by viddaloo »
[]

SATire

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 509
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: The 2014 Melting Season
« Reply #3363 on: August 30, 2014, 12:16:50 AM »
The models are tuned over many runs to make them consistent with both science and history.
[...]
Much harder, in point of fact, than fitting a curve to some data.
Bruce, I nearly totally agree with you. But keep in mind that "tuning parameters in a model to make it consistent with history" and "fitting a curve to some data" is in every aspect the same thing...

That is reverse physics. Instead of testing the model (which should be a mathematical simplified describtion of some aspects of the nature) and rejecting a model if not fitting to observations you may tune the parameters every year again. There is no real value or deeper understanding of the world gained by doing the latter - that is only usefull for politics or convincing poeple for a very short time (and maybe that ugly standard model, which you could also fit to an elephant...).

TeaPotty

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 219
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 37
  • Likes Given: 71
Re: The 2014 Melting Season
« Reply #3364 on: August 30, 2014, 12:58:13 AM »
I agree IPCC is looking more and more like a bad joke. But when you say till just recently, does that mean IPCC changed their way too late predictions in this year's report? I haven't finished reading it because I was so appalled by a couple of its bold statements and denials.

Afaik, most scientists have stopped claiming the Arctic won't be ice free till ~2080. Not that I see them rushing to admit their mistakes, as it isn't profitable in our capitalist society. Even just a year ago discussing the methane threat would get u categorized with chemtrail believers, with Scientists as well known as Gavin Schmidt leading the pack in their deafening denial. Or look at how Scientists rush to praise Obama, as if he has not been awful on Climate Change and the environment. This is what is considered intelligent discussion in academic circles today.

As for IPCC, I am continually surprised at how so many intelligent scientists can release a document filled with so much stupidity, and allow themselves to be such political pawns. The last IPCC report is and will be used as a greenwashing tool, just as the previous reports were. Even the 2C estimates are projected to show a 50% chance of avoiding it, as if a 50% chance is some grand achievement.

I don't see any real leadership on Climate Change, just more excuses to delay. Anyone who thinks their is some sort of recovery in progress, or is desperately looking for excuses to justify theoretical negative-feedbacks, is just another denier in my book. This forum used to be about looking for our blind spots, but it seems the suspiciously recent influx of new users have their own agenda.
« Last Edit: August 30, 2014, 01:03:56 AM by TeaPotty »

cesium62

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 286
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: The 2014 Melting Season
« Reply #3365 on: August 30, 2014, 09:50:39 AM »
PS: See this thread for a dedicated discussion of this graph & thought.

Another Google Graph. Shows May & June increasingly important for the total melt, overtaking August & July, respectively.

*Edit* Interpretation: While we see other months also increasing due to the overall increase in meltout, ie because of the melting effect of a warmer ocean, May and June increase way faster and in an accelerating manner. This may be due to the known feedback mechanisms that are most prevalent when the Sun is strongest/longest lasting (albedo, meltponds, methane heat trapping).

What are your explanations for this difference in the 2 pre–solstice months?

I'd expect albedo effects to be most strong in July and August when there is more open water available.  Increases in May and June volume melted ... seems like it might be a function of the amount of ice available to melt and the location of that ice.  May gets to melt the southern-most ice and a sliver of northern ice.  June gets to melt ice fairly far south and a bit of northern ice.  July is mostly restricted to melting ice north of 70-degrees, and August even more has it's work cut out for it.

plg

  • New ice
  • Posts: 76
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The 2014 Melting Season
« Reply #3366 on: August 30, 2014, 10:35:15 AM »
As we are nearing the September minimum, I amused myself with creating a crude analysis of how much loss is needed attain first, second, third, etc place for 2014.

Some explanation:
  • doy = day of year (julian day)
  • diff = 2014 minimum minus minimum for respective year
  • togo = doy - average doy for minimum
  • pd = "per day": diff/togo

There are two suffixes of togo and pd: "a" is number of days to average minimum date based on all data (except 2014), while "r" is number of days to average minimum date of the years with lower rank than 2014.

If this is of interest I will post updates (perhaps with better formatting), and also welcome suggestions for better column labels.

NH:

 rank │ year │   ext   │ month │ day │ doy │   diff   │ togo_a │   pd_a    │ togo_r │   pd_r   
──────┼──────┼─────────┼───────┼─────┼─────┼──────────┼────────┼───────────┼────────┼───────────
    1 │ 2012 │ 3.36973 │     9 │  16 │ 260 │ -2.18173 │   15.9 │ -137339.1 │   18.5 │ -117931.4
    2 │ 2007 │ 4.16070 │     9 │  14 │ 257 │ -1.39076 │   15.9 │  -87547.8 │   18.5 │  -75176.2
    3 │ 2011 │ 4.33028 │     9 │   8 │ 251 │ -1.22118 │   15.9 │  -76872.8 │   18.5 │  -66009.7
    4 │ 2008 │ 4.55469 │     9 │  18 │ 262 │ -0.99677 │   15.9 │  -62746.3 │   18.5 │  -53879.5
    5 │ 2010 │ 4.59918 │     9 │  19 │ 262 │ -0.95228 │   15.9 │  -59945.7 │   18.5 │  -51474.6
    6 │ 2009 │ 5.05488 │     9 │  12 │ 255 │ -0.49658 │   15.9 │  -31259.5 │   18.5 │  -26842.2
    7 │ 2013 │ 5.07709 │     9 │  13 │ 256 │ -0.47437 │   15.9 │  -29861.4 │   18.5 │  -25641.6
    8 │ 2005 │ 5.31832 │     9 │  22 │ 265 │ -0.23314 │   15.9 │  -14676.1 │   18.5 │  -12602.2
    9 │ 2014 │ 5.55146 │     8 │  28 │ 240 │  0.00000 │   15.9 │       0.0 │   18.5 │       0.0


IJIS:

 rank │ year │   ext   │ month │ day │ doy │   diff   │ togo_a │   pd_a    │ togo_r │   pd_r   
──────┼──────┼─────────┼───────┼─────┼─────┼──────────┼────────┼───────────┼────────┼───────────
    1 │ 2012 │ 3177455 │     9 │  16 │ 260 │ -2040512 │   16.0 │ -127532.0 │   16.5 │ -123667.4
    2 │ 2007 │ 4065739 │     9 │  17 │ 260 │ -1152228 │   16.0 │  -72014.3 │   16.5 │  -69832.0
    3 │ 2011 │ 4269199 │     9 │  10 │ 253 │  -948768 │   16.0 │  -59298.0 │   16.5 │  -57501.1
    4 │ 2008 │ 4500623 │     9 │   9 │ 253 │  -717344 │   16.0 │  -44834.0 │   16.5 │  -43475.4
    5 │ 2010 │ 4622092 │     9 │  17 │ 260 │  -595875 │   16.0 │  -37242.2 │   16.5 │  -36113.6
    6 │ 2013 │ 4809288 │     9 │  12 │ 255 │  -408679 │   16.0 │  -25542.4 │   16.5 │  -24768.4
    7 │ 2009 │ 5054055 │     9 │  12 │ 255 │  -163912 │   16.0 │  -10244.5 │   16.5 │   -9934.1
    8 │ 2005 │ 5179300 │     9 │  21 │ 264 │   -38667 │   16.0 │   -2416.7 │   16.5 │   -2343.5
    9 │ 2014 │ 5217967 │     8 │  29 │ 241 │        0 │   16.0 │       0.0 │   16.5 │       0.0


CRYO:

 rank │ year │   area    │ month │ day │ doy │    diff    │ togo_a │   pd_a    │ togo_r │   pd_r   
──────┼──────┼───────────┼───────┼─────┼─────┼────────────┼────────┼───────────┼────────┼───────────
    1 │ 2012 │ 2.2340095 │     9 │  13 │ 257 │ -1.7108364 │   17.0 │ -100468.6 │   15.3 │ -111923.9
    2 │ 2011 │ 2.9047396 │     9 │  11 │ 254 │ -1.0401063 │   17.0 │  -61080.1 │   15.3 │  -68044.3
    3 │ 2007 │ 2.9194391 │     9 │   8 │ 251 │ -1.0254068 │   17.0 │  -60216.8 │   15.3 │  -67082.7
    4 │ 2008 │ 3.0035558 │     9 │   8 │ 252 │ -0.9412901 │   17.0 │  -55277.1 │   15.3 │  -61579.7
    5 │ 2010 │ 3.0721295 │     9 │   9 │ 252 │ -0.8727164 │   17.0 │  -51250.1 │   15.3 │  -57093.6
    6 │ 2009 │ 3.4245975 │     9 │  10 │ 253 │ -0.5202484 │   17.0 │  -30551.5 │   15.3 │  -34034.9
    7 │ 2013 │ 3.5543971 │     9 │  11 │ 254 │ -0.3904488 │   17.0 │  -22929.0 │   15.3 │  -25543.4
    8 │ 2014 │ 3.9448459 │     8 │  26 │ 238 │  0.0000000 │   17.0 │       0.0 │   15.3 │       0.0


On average there is a little over two weeks left till minimum.

As can be seen a daily melt of ~100k for the rest of the season is needed to match 2012, which clearly is out of the question. However, climbing one or two positions is much more likely.
If you are not paranoid you just do not have enough information yet.

ChrisReynolds

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1714
    • View Profile
    • Dosbat
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The 2014 Melting Season
« Reply #3367 on: August 30, 2014, 10:45:51 AM »
I'm sorry but saying the models "only work as long as the future looks like the past" is a total misconception. The models are physical models based on physics worked out theoretically and underpinned, in some cases 'tuned by', obervational work. They do not depend on the past as a guide, they use physics. [...]
This is a dramatic overstatement of the truth. The models have numerous parameters, most of which are only approximately known. Look at the error bars on total climate sensitivity -- they're enormous. The models are tuned over many runs to make them consistent with both science and history.

I'm not suggesting that the models are junk or that they should be thrown out with the bathwater. The GCMs are quite good, and have accurately predicted a number of important features of climate change. But the idea that they are boxes of pure applied physics is not remotely true. Like all models, they are approximations of reality. And where approximations are made, uncertainty creeps in. No new physics or magic is required. Simply not properly accounting for changes in parameters or relationships is enough to send one's model wildly astray. In a rapidly changing system, it is very difficult to remain on track as you model into the future. Much harder, in point of fact, than fitting a curve to some data.

Groan.

cesium62

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 286
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: The 2014 Melting Season
« Reply #3368 on: August 30, 2014, 11:10:42 AM »
The models are tuned over many runs to make them consistent with both science and history.
[...]
Much harder, in point of fact, than fitting a curve to some data.
Bruce, I nearly totally agree with you. But keep in mind that "tuning parameters in a model to make it consistent with history" and "fitting a curve to some data" is in every aspect the same thing...

That is reverse physics. Instead of testing the model (which should be a mathematical simplified describtion of some aspects of the nature) and rejecting a model if not fitting to observations you may tune the parameters every year again. There is no real value or deeper understanding of the world gained by doing the latter - that is only usefull for politics or convincing poeple for a very short time (and maybe that ugly standard model, which you could also fit to an elephant...).

The model informs the shape of the curve that you use.  F = m1*m2/d^2 is a model.  You still want to go out and measure m1, m2, and d for a particular application of the model.

plg

  • New ice
  • Posts: 76
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The 2014 Melting Season
« Reply #3369 on: August 30, 2014, 11:30:04 AM »
New attempt with better(?) formatting. (I am struggling with how to format a table in this forum).

Please advise if this is an inappropriate thread and point me in the right direction.

NH:

rank
year
extent
month
day
doy
diff
togo_a
pd_a
togo_r
pd_r
1
2012
3.36973
9
16
260
-2.18173
16.4
-133032.3
18.9
-115697.8
2
2007
4.16070
9
14
257
-1.39076
16.4
-84802.4
18.9
-73752.4
3
2011
4.33028
9
8
251
-1.22118
16.4
-74462.2
18.9
-64759.5
4
2008
4.55469
9
18
262
-0.99677
16.4
-60778.7
18.9
-52859.0
5
2010
4.59918
9
19
262
-0.95228
16.4
-58065.9
18.9
-50499.7
6
2009
5.05488
9
12
255
-0.49658
16.4
-30279.3
18.9
-26333.8
7
2005
5.31832
9
22
265
-0.23314
16.4
-14215.9
18.9
-12363.5
8
2014
5.55146
8
28
240
0.00000
16.4
0.0
18.9
0.0


IJIS:

rank
year
extent
month
day
doy
diff
togo_a
pd_a
togo_r
pd_r
1
2012
3177455
9
16
260
-2040512
16.0
-127532.0
16.5
-123667.4
2
2007
4065739
9
17
260
-1152228
16.0
-72014.3
16.5
-69832.0
3
2011
4269199
9
10
253
-948768
16.0
-59298.0
16.5
-57501.1
4
2008
4500623
9
9
253
-717344
16.0
-44834.0
16.5
-43475.4
5
2010
4622092
9
17
260
-595875
16.0
-37242.2
16.5
-36113.6
6
2013
4809288
9
12
255
-408679
16.0
-25542.4
16.5
-24768.4
7
2009
5054055
9
12
255
-163912
16.0
-10244.5
16.5
-9934.1
8
2005
5179300
9
21
264
-38667
16.0
-2416.7
16.5
-2343.5
9
2014
5217967
8
29
241
0
16.0
0.0
16.5
0.0


CRYO

rank
year
area
month
day
doy
diff
togo_a
pd_a
togo_r
pd_r
1
2012
2.2340095
9
13
257
-1.7108364
17.0
-100468.6
15.3
-111923.9
2
2011
2.9047396
9
11
254
-1.0401063
17.0
-61080.1
15.3
-68044.3
3
2007
2.9194391
9
8
251
-1.0254068
17.0
-60216.8
15.3
-67082.7
4
2008
3.0035558
9
8
252
-0.9412901
17.0
-55277.1
15.3
-61579.7
5
2010
3.0721295
9
9
252
-0.8727164
17.0
-51250.1
15.3
-57093.6
6
2009
3.4245975
9
10
253
-0.5202484
17.0
-30551.5
15.3
-34034.9
7
2013
3.5543971
9
11
254
-0.3904488
17.0
-22929.0
15.3
-25543.4
8
2014
3.9448459
8
26
238
0E-7
17.0
0.0
15.3
0.0

If you are not paranoid you just do not have enough information yet.

Jim Hunt

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 4647
  • Stay Home, Save Lives
    • View Profile
    • The Arctic sea ice Great White Con
  • Liked: 515
  • Likes Given: 42
Re: The 2014 Melting Season
« Reply #3370 on: August 30, 2014, 01:02:32 PM »
As for IPCC, I am continually surprised at how so many intelligent scientists can release a document filled with so much stupidity, and allow themselves to be such political pawns.

We're rapidly drifting off the topic here. However, here's an article from Skeptical Science reporting on some recent discussions of mine with some intelligent scientists:

http://skepticalscience.com/transformational-climate-science-exeter-university.html

Feel free to click through and read the rest of the series, or pop over and take another look at:

http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,865
Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one - Albert Einstein

Shared Humanity

  • Guest
Re: The 2014 Melting Season
« Reply #3371 on: August 30, 2014, 02:57:47 PM »
I'm sorry but saying the models "only work as long as the future looks like the past" is a total misconception. The models are physical models based on physics worked out theoretically and underpinned, in some cases 'tuned by', obervational work. They do not depend on the past as a guide, they use physics. [...]
This is a dramatic overstatement of the truth. The models have numerous parameters, most of which are only approximately known. Look at the error bars on total climate sensitivity -- they're enormous. The models are tuned over many runs to make them consistent with both science and history.

I'm not suggesting that the models are junk or that they should be thrown out with the bathwater. The GCMs are quite good, and have accurately predicted a number of important features of climate change. But the idea that they are boxes of pure applied physics is not remotely true. Like all models, they are approximations of reality. And where approximations are made, uncertainty creeps in. No new physics or magic is required. Simply not properly accounting for changes in parameters or relationships is enough to send one's model wildly astray. In a rapidly changing system, it is very difficult to remain on track as you model into the future. Much harder, in point of fact, than fitting a curve to some data.

Groan.

Stopped visiting thread a couple of days ago as the title is misleading. Can't seem to stay on topic.

"All models are wrong but some models are useful."

Now, can we talk about the melt season?

Shared Humanity

  • Guest
Re: The 2014 Melting Season
« Reply #3372 on: August 30, 2014, 02:59:59 PM »
For example....what is going on with SIE? Given the dispersed state of the ice, why are we not seeing drops due to compaction?

SATire

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 509
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: The 2014 Melting Season
« Reply #3373 on: August 30, 2014, 03:02:54 PM »
The models are tuned over many runs to make them consistent with both science and history.
[...]
Much harder, in point of fact, than fitting a curve to some data.
Bruce, I nearly totally agree with you. But keep in mind that "tuning parameters in a model to make it consistent with history" and "fitting a curve to some data" is in every aspect the same thing...

The model informs the shape of the curve that you use.  F = m1*m2/d^2 is a model.  You still want to go out and measure m1, m2, and d for a particular application of the model.
cesium62, thank you for this hint, that I should explain the problem a bit more also for "non-math-poeple". You are totally right, that for testing a model you go usually out and measure the parameters involved. However in most cases this is just not possible: E.g. you can not go out and measure "climate sensitivity of CO2". This is a very common problem and the methode is, to measure more data values than you have parameters to get an overdetermined system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overdetermined_system ) and then "tune the parameters" by "fitting" them to the data. This is done by simple curve fitting and also in the complex numerical models with the same methodes (e.g. "least squares" or such). However - now you have used the data to fit the parameters instead of testing, if the model is applicable to describe that aspect of nature you are looking at. After fitting that model might by applicable to the historical data but a lot of statistics is necessary to be able to reject the model. By no means you can proove a model to be "the right model": The simple reason is, that an infinite number of other functions/possible models can be fitted also to that data similarily.

A comment: I had the feeling, this could be off-topic in this thread of the melting season. But there are 2 reason to post it here: 1) Since quite a few poeple post about predictions here this might be the right place. 2) The observations in this melting season differ from what I thought in April. So this is the time and the place to sit back and think about what we did and how and why.

The result of fitting parameters to observation is always a "best guess" - best only in respect to the the model used and the data available. So the model may be wrong. The "error" in the data may be large - both statistic errors ("wheather noise") and systematical errors (changes of climate, systematical choice of places and methodes to measure the data). It is quite clear, that most predictions are not good. I am even not sure, if more ice in the arctic is a good or a bad thing for our future: More ice results in less cooling of the planet via radiation from northern hemisphere - so such mechanism (more summer ice than expected) could enhance the problem of global warming at places where we live in the long run...

Conclusion: Our models are getting better. But better is still far away from good...
« Last Edit: August 30, 2014, 03:09:53 PM by SATire »

iceman

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 285
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 19
Re: The 2014 Melting Season
« Reply #3374 on: August 30, 2014, 03:42:06 PM »
... The lesson of the recent past is to expect a lot of variability in Arctic sea ice behavior as it continues a general decline, so as a general matter I don't think any sort of curve-fitting has much value ....
Same problem as I have with my wardrobe: nothing fits as well as it used to.

ChrisReynolds

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1714
    • View Profile
    • Dosbat
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The 2014 Melting Season
« Reply #3375 on: August 30, 2014, 05:16:36 PM »
For example....what is going on with SIE? Given the dispersed state of the ice, why are we not seeing drops due to compaction?

All figures for the Arctic Ocean.

Looking at compactness, for most years compactness doesn't change much from 28 August to 15 September. The standard deviation of the difference in compactness between those two dates (1979 to 2013) is 0.03, while average compactness on 15 Sept is 0.75, with a standard deviation of 0.039. Pretty reliable behaviour arguing against expecting a significant increase in compactness.

For comparison average compactness in mid March is 0.94.

In terms of compactness, current compactness for the Arctic Ocean is 0.700, the post 2007 average is 0.673, i.e. we're within 1 standard deviation (for 1979 to 2013) of the post 2007 average compactness.

Compactness has fallen in the last ten days or so (I'd not seen the last ten days of sea ice data until last night!). Now we're 0.25 down from 2013 (a large difference) in the East Siberian Sea. Most of this drop has happened since 17 August. I've not done the full maths, but it seems to me that it is a drop in the ESS that account for most of the recent drop in compactness. Central, CAA, Beaufort still has compactness near the 1980 to 1999 average, and significantly above most post 2007 years. Kara is below average compactness and low for the post 2007 period, while Barents is above average and the highest post 2007 compctness.

The tiny amount of ice in Chukchi, and Laptev, means they aren't significant.

***

Laptev is now sharing lowest extent with 2012 and 2011, only 2012 beats 2014 in that region.

Is this year the first year with a convincing ice edge within the 80th parallel?

CraigsIsland

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 200
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: The 2014 Melting Season
« Reply #3376 on: August 30, 2014, 06:02:53 PM »
... The lesson of the recent past is to expect a lot of variability in Arctic sea ice behavior as it continues a general decline, so as a general matter I don't think any sort of curve-fitting has much value ....
Same problem as I have with my wardrobe: nothing fits as well as it used to.

 ;D.  I've been having the same problem recently. It gets expensive trying to replace things that don't fit

ktonine

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 363
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The 2014 Melting Season
« Reply #3377 on: August 30, 2014, 06:31:18 PM »
I agree Bruce. Calling a computer program an accurate model of physics is just silly. At best, software is no more than a simulation, and at worst crude imitations. The rules of this simulation must be derived from and tested with past observations.

Oh, Jesus.

TP, a computer model is nothing but a set of mathematical equations.  Its accuracy simply depends on the accuracy of the equations.  We could do them all by hand and it would no longer be a computer model.  We simply use the computer for ease and speed.

Computer models are used to build most of the everyday devices we use, from brake parts to airplanes.

BTW, when observations have conflicted with computer models it is often the models that are correct and the observations that are flawed.  It's not a one-way street, each informs the other.

Bruce

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 132
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The 2014 Melting Season
« Reply #3378 on: August 30, 2014, 06:38:58 PM »
Don't worry folks, Arctic won't melt before 2080, right?
I will probably continue to laugh at this past the lifetime of many of the so-called scientists who argued this till just recently. So much ego, all just to avoid social labels, and retain their cult identity as "moderates". I am sure our grandkids will understand, if they will be among the survivors.

I'm not willing to go remotely this far in condemning scientists. Scientists work and communicate in an environment where language has very specific meaning, and that language does not necessarily translate well to the general public. Think about words like "error," "significance," "confidence," etc. These words mean totally different things to the public, and scientists are only slowly learning to better communicate their findings under the microscope of intense public scrutiny and massive politically-motivated criticism. In addition, scientists are by training conservative in their assertions. They typically go through in internal and external peer review process with every publication and are careful to assert only what they can back up with their research. Again, the public, accustomed to politicians and pundits who constantly shoot for the hip and are never held accountable for anything they say, don't really understand that.

If scientists are guilty of anything, it's not adapting to the public scrutiny sooner and better. And even that is forgivable since most of them didn't want it in the first place.

Bruce

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 132
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The 2014 Melting Season
« Reply #3379 on: August 30, 2014, 07:15:26 PM »
The model informs the shape of the curve that you use.  F = m1*m2/d^2 is a model.  You still want to go out and measure m1, m2, and d for a particular application of the model.

That formula is the direct result of a theory. It is not a model. A moel would be to approximate the force and make it constant when distance is very small, to avoid too large errors near the d=0 singularity. That is THE model that can be used in computer simulations. The actual formula cannot be used for many calculations due to its singularity.
It's an approximation of reality. The problem with it isn't that it's singular at d=0, it's that it assumes the objects' mass is all concentrated in points at their centers. Which is fine if d is large relative to the objects radii, but not otherwise.

This is a good example of one way models can go astray. If you were modeling the mutual orbit of a pair of objects using the above equation (with a "G" added), you could do quite well for many situations (like, say, the Earth-Sun system), but would depart increasingly from the data as the objects got closer together (for example, the Earth-Moon system, where tidal forces play a significant role).*

The GCMs, which are far, far more complex than this simple orbital model, have many more ways to go wrong. It's an incredible testament to science and scientists that they do as well as they do.


*Yes, to get the orbits really right you'd need to include the other planets. This is just an example.

jonthed

  • New ice
  • Posts: 69
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The 2014 Melting Season
« Reply #3380 on: August 31, 2014, 02:45:50 AM »
Love that graph viddaloo.

As for explanations for may and June ranking up their share of the melt, I think it simply comes down to them having first shot at the low hanging fruit, and there being even more even lower fruit in recent years.

As we come out of winter the air and sea temps will be rising quicker now, the ice is mostly thinner FYI, and due to the spherical nature of the earth, there's more ice to melt at the lower latitudes. It seems to me simply that may and June now have enough energy to be melting out this easy ice by themselves. Even though the midwinter ice extent max is still similar, there may be much less volume in this easy ice than before, and the extra-polar heat built up in the ocean and atmosphere is just waiting to flood back in.

To sum up,
More heat in the global system,
Lower latitude ice now easier to melt due to being almost entirely first year ice with less volume than previously.

One final thought is that the ability of the climate system to transfer heat to the polar regions as winter ends has quickened with the changes we've seen to the jet stream. As we come out of winter and the jet stream weakens and meanders again, more heat will be transferred poleward than before.

I also want to point out, cos I've rarely seen it mentioned, that due to the spherical nature of the earth the higher latitudes have less area/volume and so any heat transferred that way is concentrated into a smaller space. This to me seems to be the most obvious reason for Arctic amplification: as the heat builds, and redistributes, it physically has to become more concentrated in the higher latitudes. (Picture a large isosceles triangle shaped sheet of metal. Hold the base and put the point in a fire. The base edge you're holding won't get hot that quickly. Now turn it around. That's our climate. The equator is the fire, the point is the pole.

http://i.stack.imgur.com/hVBEb.gif

viddaloo

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1302
  • Hardanger Sometimes
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The 2014 Melting Season
« Reply #3381 on: August 31, 2014, 04:58:15 AM »
Back to the 2014 Melting Season: Here's Bremen for the past week with value invert to highlight changes in the high concentration ice pack.
[]

viddaloo

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1302
  • Hardanger Sometimes
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The 2014 Melting Season
« Reply #3382 on: August 31, 2014, 01:30:32 PM »
Looks like 8th during the day, volumewise. 2008 is midway in its heroic final dash, going all the way from 10,019 km³ on August 8th to 7,701 km³ on September 1st, before ending up at a Summer minimum of 7,072 km³ on September 19th. (The latest Summer minimum in the PIOMAS volume data set was September 26th, in 1995.)
[]

Jim Hunt

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 4647
  • Stay Home, Save Lives
    • View Profile
    • The Arctic sea ice Great White Con
  • Liked: 515
  • Likes Given: 42
Re: The 2014 Melting Season
« Reply #3383 on: August 31, 2014, 03:03:59 PM »
It's good to see things back on topic in here! According to Wipneus this morning:

Quote
Extent and area totals are now both below 2013

Meanwhile according to David Rose in this morning's Mail on Sunday:

Quote
The Arctic ice cap has expanded for the second year in succession

We couldn't let such a hasty assertion in the MSM go unchallenged!

http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2014/08/has-the-arctic-ice-cap-expanded-for-the-second-year-in-succession/
Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one - Albert Einstein

Xyrus

  • New ice
  • Posts: 23
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The 2014 Melting Season
« Reply #3384 on: August 31, 2014, 03:22:39 PM »
...
This is a dramatic overstatement of the truth. The models have numerous parameters, most of which are only approximately known. Look at the error bars on total climate sensitivity -- they're enormous. The models are tuned over many runs to make them consistent with both science and history.

You are grossly exaggerating and have little to no direct experience with GCM's based on your statements. GCM's are PHYSICAL SIMULATIONS. You make it sound like it's all a bunch of random parameters fed to some simple equation, which is very very far from the truth. GCM's are typically comprised of a million+ lines of code of the densest physical equations you'll ever come across.

SOME things are parameterized because they have to be, not because they are not known. Our technology is limited. We can't run full scale GCM's at 1 meter resolution, so some shortcuts are needed.

Tuning is done to IMPROVE model output, not to CREATE model output. A plain untuned vanilla GCM will get you a good answer if you feed it good data. A tuned GCM will get you an even better answer if you feed it good data.

The IPCC has a good summary on GCMs, how they work, error analysis etc. But in short, a good portion of the errors happen well before the climate models are ever run. We don't have perfect information, either today or 200 years ago. That uncertainty by itself guarantees a respectable error margin even before the first equation is run. The rest of the errors come from the physics itself. Again, we don't have the technology to run a perfect simulation, even if we did have perfect information to give the models. So like every single other model out there, from chemistry to aerodynamics, there are errors.

The error margins on climate models aren't huge when considered against the backdrop of what it is that's trying to be modeled.

I'm not suggesting that the models are junk or that they should be thrown out with the bathwater. The GCMs are quite good, and have accurately predicted a number of important features of climate change. But the idea that they are boxes of pure applied physics is not remotely true. Like all models, they are approximations of reality. And where approximations are made, uncertainty creeps in. No new physics or magic is required. Simply not properly accounting for changes in parameters or relationships is enough to send one's model wildly astray. In a rapidly changing system, it is very difficult to remain on track as you model into the future. Much harder, in point of fact, than fitting a curve to some data.

And again, I suggest you seriously read up on GCM's. They ARE big boxes of applied physics. Yes, they are approximations. Every model is. But those approximations are driven by physics, not some arbitrary relationships between parameters. In fact, parameter relationships have been discovered by examining the model output and some scientist somewhere saying "Well now that's interesting."

GCMs are not a bunch of Excel calculations making graphs. The GEOS 5 model, for example, is 2 million+ lines of code of some of the most convoluted physics you'll ever see.

viddaloo

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1302
  • Hardanger Sometimes
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The 2014 Melting Season
« Reply #3385 on: August 31, 2014, 04:18:14 PM »
GCMs are not a bunch of Excel calculations making graphs. The GEOS 5 model, for example, is 2 million+ lines of code of some of the most convoluted physics you'll ever see.

Might be fun for us 'Numb3rs' geeks to compete in making the best 1–digit line of code replacement for the GEOS 5, lol. (Half joking, but there's still room for the great 'E=mc²' eureka moments, I believe, even in climate science.)
[]

Jim Hunt

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 4647
  • Stay Home, Save Lives
    • View Profile
    • The Arctic sea ice Great White Con
  • Liked: 515
  • Likes Given: 42
Re: The 2014 Melting Season
« Reply #3386 on: August 31, 2014, 06:38:30 PM »
Things are drifting off topic again. Why not take a look at "Models and Math" et seq?

If you want to actually experiment with a medium complexity model take a look at this too:

"The University of Hamburg's 'Planet Simulator'"
Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one - Albert Einstein

TeaPotty

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 219
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 37
  • Likes Given: 71
Re: The 2014 Melting Season
« Reply #3387 on: August 31, 2014, 06:52:54 PM »

You are grossly exaggerating and have little to no direct experience with GCM's based on your statements. GCM's are PHYSICAL SIMULATIONS. You make it sound like it's all a bunch of random parameters fed to some simple equation, which is very very far from the truth. GCM's are typically comprised of a million+ lines of code of the densest physical equations you'll ever come across.

SOME things are parameterized because they have to be, not because they are not known. Our technology is limited. We can't run full scale GCM's at 1 meter resolution, so some shortcuts are needed.

Tuning is done to IMPROVE model output, not to CREATE model output. A plain untuned vanilla GCM will get you a good answer if you feed it good data. A tuned GCM will get you an even better answer if you feed it good data.

The IPCC has a good summary on GCMs, how they work, error analysis etc. But in short, a good portion of the errors happen well before the climate models are ever run. We don't have perfect information, either today or 200 years ago. That uncertainty by itself guarantees a respectable error margin even before the first equation is run. The rest of the errors come from the physics itself. Again, we don't have the technology to run a perfect simulation, even if we did have perfect information to give the models. So like every single other model out there, from chemistry to aerodynamics, there are errors.

The error margins on climate models aren't huge when considered against the backdrop of what it is that's trying to be modeled.

....

And again, I suggest you seriously read up on GCM's. They ARE big boxes of applied physics. Yes, they are approximations. Every model is. But those approximations are driven by physics, not some arbitrary relationships between parameters. In fact, parameter relationships have been discovered by examining the model output and some scientist somewhere saying "Well now that's interesting."

GCMs are not a bunch of Excel calculations making graphs. The GEOS 5 model, for example, is 2 million+ lines of code of some of the most convoluted physics you'll ever see.

Failed argument, yet again missing the point. All simulations are reproductions of observed behavior. In the case of Climate Change, we don't really have those observations, do we? I am a senior programmer of 10+ years experience, so I know what I am talking about.

Funny how we don't hear the same arguments about weather models, because they fail all the time.  So far, Climate models have a worse track record by far, increasingly erring on the conservative side. Remember, just a few years ago those same models predicted 2C warming at most by 2100, with Arctic ice-free summers only by 2080. Those same models said West Antarctica is nowhere near threat of collapse. Those same models are now being used to justify our continued ecocide.

If anything, the models have proven just how little we understand or are considerate of Earth as a closed system, and the ramifications of upsetting its balance.

Jim Hunt

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 4647
  • Stay Home, Save Lives
    • View Profile
    • The Arctic sea ice Great White Con
  • Liked: 515
  • Likes Given: 42
Re: The 2014 Melting Season
« Reply #3388 on: August 31, 2014, 07:02:01 PM »
Yet again missing the point.

Sigh.

I started this thread (slightly prematurely!) when a variety of metrics where at all time lows for the date. That is no longer the case, and I guess it's slightly early for a post mortem on 2014. However out of my recent battles with the forces of darkness has emerged this garishly coloured comparison between August 25th 2014 and 2013. Green = 2014 but not 2013. Red is vice versa.

It seems to be starting one in the face that there is more unmelted ice on the Atlantic side of the Arctic this year, and less on the Pacific side. Why do you suppose that is?
Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one - Albert Einstein

wili

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3070
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 515
  • Likes Given: 355
Re: The 2014 Melting Season
« Reply #3389 on: August 31, 2014, 08:24:37 PM »
Jim, could you post here what your intended response to the Rose piece you linked is. I have people on other blogs asking about that piece, and I can shoot some holes in it, but it would be nice to have the benefit of your more masterful take-down of it to draw on and cite. Thanks.
"A force de chercher de bonnes raisons, on en trouve; on les dit; et après on y tient, non pas tant parce qu'elles sont bonnes que pour ne pas se démentir." Choderlos de Laclos "You struggle to come up with some valid reasons, then cling to them, not because they're good, but just to not back down."

wili

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3070
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 515
  • Likes Given: 355
Re: The 2014 Melting Season
« Reply #3390 on: August 31, 2014, 09:23:14 PM »
The remains of Cristobal are heading north over Iceland and seem to be heading toward the Fram. Any chance that this will be a late-season game changer in that part of the ice pack?

http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/orthographic=-72.64,60.55,279
"A force de chercher de bonnes raisons, on en trouve; on les dit; et après on y tient, non pas tant parce qu'elles sont bonnes que pour ne pas se démentir." Choderlos de Laclos "You struggle to come up with some valid reasons, then cling to them, not because they're good, but just to not back down."

Lord M Vader

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1310
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 37
  • Likes Given: 24
Re: The 2014 Melting Season
« Reply #3391 on: August 31, 2014, 09:23:59 PM »
A BIG joker may have entered the Atlantic side of the sea ice. It seems that Longyearbyen at Svalbard got about 1 inch of precipitation by friday while the temperature there was in the range of 35-43F. How high these temperatures were at the northeastern side of the island would be very interesting to know as such a huge amount of precipitation coming as rain there should have done some real big damage to the ice even if this isn't yet visible on the sea ice maps! The winds were also from south or southwest.

The ice northeast of Svalbard have shown some signs of a developing polynya. Sooner or later i'm sure we'll see some more ral and exciting signs even if we now are entering September!

Laurent

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2537
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 34
Re: The 2014 Melting Season
« Reply #3392 on: August 31, 2014, 09:41:00 PM »
To my point of view, it does mean the ice is more mobile than ever, it did follow the transsiberian drift (from Bering to Fram) but with the main exit through the chanel between Spitzberg and Franz joseph instead. That's because the Atlantic try to get access this way (sooner or later). If we remove all the ice that is 200 km north of Spizberg and Franz Joseph we should not be far from 2012 surface speaking...

jai mitchell

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2076
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 114
  • Likes Given: 24
Re: The 2014 Melting Season
« Reply #3393 on: August 31, 2014, 10:18:34 PM »

What are your explanations for this difference in the 2 pre–solstice months?

Eurasian Spring snow cover anomaly
Haiku of Past Futures
My "burning embers"
are not tri-color bar graphs
+3C today

Jim Hunt

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 4647
  • Stay Home, Save Lives
    • View Profile
    • The Arctic sea ice Great White Con
  • Liked: 515
  • Likes Given: 42
Re: The 2014 Melting Season
« Reply #3394 on: August 31, 2014, 10:42:06 PM »
Jim, could you post here what your intended response to the Rose piece you linked is.

Sorry if I seem less than helpful Wili, but I'd like to keep most of my public powder dry until after I've received a substantive response from the Mail's managing editor, amongst some other people who don't work on a Sunday. However you don't need to be a brain surgeon or a rocket scientist to realise that, as Neven recently put it, for much of the 2014 melting season things have been basically "neck and neck" with 2013. Even the Mail's very own extent graph shows that!

In the meantime I find it satisfyingly amusing that "Dr. Goddards" patent pending methodology reveals lots of holes in the "unbroken ice sheet" that reportedly existed this time last year!
Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one - Albert Einstein

NeilT

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1825
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 175
  • Likes Given: 11
Re: The 2014 Melting Season
« Reply #3395 on: September 01, 2014, 12:30:10 AM »
Jim I didn't see your post on models and math before I posted mine on GCM data and code.

Mine deals specifically with the GCM's in question and has the links to the code and data used for IPCC.

If anyone is interested.  I won't go on about it here.
Being right too soon is socially unacceptable.

Robert A. Heinlein

Michael Hauber

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 896
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 74
  • Likes Given: 14
Re: The 2014 Melting Season
« Reply #3396 on: September 01, 2014, 05:17:42 AM »
Actually a comparison to 2012 shows that there is far more extra ice this year on the Pacific side than on the Atlantic side.  However when compared to 2010 and 2011 there is a similar or less amount of ice for most of the Pacific and Russian sectors of the Arctic, and more ice in the Atlantic sector.

This extra area of ice in the Atlantic would seem to be ice that is almost certain to be melted some time between now and early summer 2015, unless we have an unusual wind pattern to blow it back into the Arctic between now and then.  If winds continue as they are now transporting ice from the Arctic out through the Barents sea much of this ice will melt in Autumn and winter as it is shoved further into the Atlantic, while at the same time the ice edge would expand south, perhaps to well above average - I estimate from comparing ice maps that the ice ege in this region is currently the 2nd or 3rd furthest south for all years going back to 1980.  I'm also wondering if the fact that there is so much ice in this area means there is less warm water entering the Arctic from the Atlantic which may put the 2015 melting season significantly on the back foot.
Climate change:  Prepare for the worst, hope for the best, expect the middle.

viddaloo

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1302
  • Hardanger Sometimes
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The 2014 Melting Season
« Reply #3397 on: September 01, 2014, 05:24:38 AM »
Bremen tonight. Amazing how persistent the 'South of Africa' has been these couple of weeks. Will it ever melt?
[]

jdallen

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3182
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 394
  • Likes Given: 199
Re: The 2014 Melting Season
« Reply #3398 on: September 01, 2014, 05:43:58 AM »
Bremen tonight. Amazing how persistent the 'South of Africa' has been these couple of weeks. Will it ever melt?
I'm less amazed at that ice's persistence than am that we have open water which is not a hole or polynya north if 85 degrees.
This space for Rent.

MyrosT

  • New ice
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The 2014 Melting Season
« Reply #3399 on: September 01, 2014, 07:06:02 AM »
Longtime lurker (years) but first post. Why start now? I don't know. I will say that I'm likely to be seldom seen but am here daily. I suspect there are many out there like me in this regard. Keep that in mind when you post. You are constantly educating or otherwise. I have significant education in the life sciences but none in climate science and little time; thus, I feel like I have little to offer in the course of discussion. But I want to thank Neven and the team for an incredible site. Wonderful job, thank you!

Though I know that there is a specific topic for the NW passage, I thought it was worth saying here that the passage is now open. I apologize if this has already been announced. I was starting to doubt that this would happen this year.