Arctic Sea Ice : Forum

Cryosphere => Arctic sea ice => Topic started by: Espen on April 18, 2013, 11:56:37 AM

Title: IJIS
Post by: Espen on April 18, 2013, 11:56:37 AM
IJIS is really heading south now April 17, 2013:

13,174,375 km2

Now at 2000s average, but with this attitude go below that within days, easily.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Neven on April 18, 2013, 12:10:16 PM
Thanks for opening this thread, Espen. It will be a useful central repository of everything concerning IJIS numbers.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Neven on April 18, 2013, 12:18:28 PM
So, two big centuries, that probably won't be revised. Has anyone seen where the drop is occurring? Probably Bering and Okhotsk, but I haven't checked.

I wonder when this drop will show up in the CT SIA numbers as well.

It's all foreplay, of course.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on April 18, 2013, 12:18:44 PM
Neven,

That is the nice thing about this new forum! 
I got few more threads on my mind when the time is right! ;)
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Laurent on April 18, 2013, 01:20:54 PM
Yes, certainly Okhotsk :
http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/hycomARC/navo/arcticictn_nowcast_anim30d.gif (http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/hycomARC/navo/arcticictn_nowcast_anim30d.gif)
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Yuha on April 18, 2013, 02:34:10 PM
Yes, certainly Okhotsk :

And southeastern Barents Sea.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: wanderer on April 19, 2013, 12:05:12 PM
IJIS up to 13,283,594 km2 (April 18, 2013)

CT sea ice area now below 13.000 (12.986) (million sq. km)
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.recent.arctic.png (http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.recent.arctic.png)
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Neven on April 19, 2013, 12:43:19 PM
Still very fickle, that IJIS, eh? Just like last year: lots of century breaks, followed by days of increases.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Vergent on April 19, 2013, 09:02:13 PM
(http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/data/201304/AM2SI20130419IC0.png)

IJIS is counting the fog banks off southern Greenland as ice. They have an algorythem problem. Last year they would put out a preliminary # and revise it later. The revisions were sometimes quite large.

V
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Shared Humanity on April 19, 2013, 11:15:07 PM
Still very fickle, that IJIS, eh? Just like last year: lots of century breaks, followed by days of increases.


Maybe fickle but the graph sure shows a steep downward trend despite the recent slight uptick.

http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm (http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm)
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Shared Humanity on April 19, 2013, 11:16:54 PM
If extent is dropping while SIA is holding up, does this mean the pack is spreading out? Is this a result of fracturing and refreeze?
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Artful Dodger on April 20, 2013, 05:22:38 AM
If extent is dropping while SIA is holding up, does this mean the pack is spreading out? Is this a result of fracturing and refreeze?
No. CT SIA lags 1 to 2 days behind IJIS SIE. Read more on the 'blog. It's been discussed to death.  :'(
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: frankendoodle on April 21, 2013, 05:21:48 AM


Maybe fickle but the graph sure shows a steep downward trend despite the recent slight uptick.

http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm (http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm)
[/quote]

There is something to be said for NSIDC displaying the 5 day rolling average on their graph. Much softer curves and easier to rectify.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Shared Humanity on April 21, 2013, 09:26:16 PM


Maybe fickle but the graph sure shows a steep downward trend despite the recent slight uptick.

[url]http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm[/url] ([url]http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm[/url])


There is something to be said for NSIDC displaying the 5 day rolling average on their graph. Much softer curves and easier to rectify.
[/quote]

I agree the graph seems to suggest the possibility of a steep plunge, well past the early melts of previous years. The next couple of weeks should either confirm or assuage my fears.

http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm (http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm)
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Shared Humanity on April 21, 2013, 09:53:31 PM
Yes, certainly Okhotsk :

And southeastern Barents Sea.

Also Bering.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: wanderer on April 27, 2013, 11:03:01 AM
IJIS down to 12,864,844 km2 (April 26, 2013) 
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: deep octopus on April 30, 2013, 04:05:38 AM
JAXA's latest AMSR2 sea ice concentration image for April 29th showing some new polynyas opening up around Kara and Laptev. Will be interesting to see if a significant drop shows in the CT SIA in the next few days. Seems the western Siberian side of the Arctic (especially Barents) has taken a massive blow in the last week.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: dree12 on May 02, 2013, 11:10:33 PM
IJIS now at 12727813 km2 (May 1, could be revised). We're following the 2000's average pretty closely at the moment.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on May 07, 2013, 12:19:34 PM
IJIS at (a century) :12,584,375 km2 (May 6, 2013)  down from 12,699,063 km2
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Neven on May 09, 2013, 11:08:52 AM
IJIS just recorded the biggest May daily drop since 2005, with 177,343 km2 (May 8th). As far as I can tell the biggest drop so far was on May 19th 2008 with 127,188 km2.

Of course, this number might be revised tomorrow, but there weren't any revisions for quite a few days now.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Jim Pettit on May 09, 2013, 02:34:10 PM
IJIS just recorded the biggest May daily drop since 2005, with 177,343 km2 (May 8th). As far as I can tell the biggest drop so far was on May 19th 2008 with 127,188 km2.

Of course, this number might be revised tomorrow, but there weren't any revisions for quite a few days now.

I noticed that. That completes (again assuming no revision) a four-day extent decrease of 357k km2. (Over that same four days, SIA has dropped by just 74k. In fact, SIA just had its greatest one-day increase in nearly a month. But I suspect that area will drop precipitously over the next few days.)
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: dree12 on May 10, 2013, 12:00:04 AM
IJIS just recorded the biggest May daily drop since 2005, with 177,343 km2 (May 8th). As far as I can tell the biggest drop so far was on May 19th 2008 with 127,188 km2.

Of course, this number might be revised tomorrow, but there weren't any revisions for quite a few days now.

I noticed that. That completes (again assuming no revision) a four-day extent decrease of 357k km2. (Over that same four days, SIA has dropped by just 74k. In fact, SIA just had its greatest one-day increase in nearly a month. But I suspect that area will drop precipitously over the next few days.)

We are, however, entering a zone where the differential between years is at its minimum. The above-average melting periods are likely to be followed by below-average melting periods, and vice-versa. How much extent decreases doesn't seem to matter much until June. 2012 is an excellent example of this.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Neven on May 10, 2013, 11:05:10 AM
IJIS just recorded the biggest May daily drop since 2005, with 177,343 km2 (May 8th). As far as I can tell the biggest drop so far was on May 19th 2008 with 127,188 km2.

Of course, this number might be revised tomorrow, but there weren't any revisions for quite a few days now.

Heavily revised upwards, with 65K. So 'just' a 112K melt for the 8th.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on May 13, 2013, 11:03:32 AM
IJIS: Has been growing for the last 2 days: 12,388,281 km2 (May 12, 2013) 
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Jim Pettit on May 13, 2013, 03:12:43 PM
IJIS: Has been growing for the last 2 days: 12,388,281 km2 (May 12, 2013)

It's not unusual for extent to bounce up and down a bit at this time of year, of course, but, still, while the average extent drop for mid-May is about 50k km2 per day, it's notable that it's dropped just 25k over the past four days combined. (FWIW, much the same has happened with SIA; area has decreased by just 80k km2 over the past week, whereas in the previous two weeks before that, it dropped by 1.1 million km2.)

Of course, this is all just a bit of a temporary slowdown that won't make much of a difference in the end; nothing is going to stop the disappearance of all the easy ice well before mid-September.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on May 14, 2013, 10:58:44 AM
IJIS: 12,230,000 km2 (May 13, 2013) down more than a 1½ century from May 12.

Still above 2000s average but below 2012 (118281 km2)
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Wipneus on May 14, 2013, 11:15:22 AM
Sea ice monitor is still stuck on the 10th of May :-(

http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/cgi-bin/seaice-monitor.cgi?lang=e (http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/cgi-bin/seaice-monitor.cgi?lang=e)
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on May 14, 2013, 11:21:13 AM
Sea ice monitor is still stuck on the 10th of May :-(

[url]http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/cgi-bin/seaice-monitor.cgi?lang=e[/url] ([url]http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/cgi-bin/seaice-monitor.cgi?lang=e[/url])


So is Bremen:

http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsr2/ (http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsr2/)
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Artful Dodger on May 15, 2013, 05:17:50 AM
NASA: Three X-class Flares in 24 Hours (http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/sunearth/news/News051213-flare.html)

Third Update: May 14, 9 a.m. EDT

The sun emitted a third significant solar flare in under 24 hours, peaking at 9:11 p.m. EDT on May 13, 2013. This flare is classified as an X3.2 flare. This is the strongest X-class flare of 2013 so far, surpassing in strength the two X-class flares that occurred earlier in the 24-hour period.

The flare was also associated with a coronal mass ejection, or CME. The CME began at 9:30 p.m. EDT and was not Earth-directed. Experimental NASA research models show that the CME left the sun at approximately 1,400 miles per second, which is particularly fast for a CME. The models suggest that it will catch up to the two CMEs associated with the earlier flares. The merged cloud of solar material will pass by the Spitzer spacecraft and may give a glancing blow to the STEREO-B and Epoxi spacecraft. Their mission operators have been notified. If warranted, operators can put spacecraft into safe mode to protect the instruments from solar material.


Even if Earth Observation satellites do not have to go into protected mode, blogperience ;) shows that this is often a period of slower satellite data updates.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Neven on May 15, 2013, 08:24:43 AM
Thanks, Lodger! That makes sense.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on May 15, 2013, 10:58:25 AM
IJIS: 12,104,688 km2 (May 14, 2013) another century, on par with 2000s average but below 2012 (-210.781 km2) and above 2011 (109.844 km2)
.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: OldLeatherneck on May 15, 2013, 07:01:07 PM
(http://i1269.photobucket.com/albums/jj597/OldLeatherNeck/ArcticIceExtent14May2013_zps16ffdfe3.jpg)how

Last year as we were watching the dramatic loss of Arctic Sea Ice, I started plotting the IARC-JAXA data using anywhere from 6 weeks to 3 months for the X-axis.  It helps me get a better grasp of how the ice loss compares to selected previous years.

I'm noticing that this years seems to be a much bumpier ride than the previous years I've plotted.  I'm attributing this to the fact that the ice is thinner and severely fractured, making it more vulnerable to being compacted or disbursed.  Right now, I won't start getting excited about the current state unless it deviates from previoius years by more than 2 weeks.

If anyone else finds this useful, I can post it weekly, monthly or when something really dramatic happens.  I can also change the X-axis to 6-weeks, 2 months or any other requested time period.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on May 15, 2013, 07:06:42 PM
OldLeatherneck;

All data is welcome! I think the 2 most important comparable years is 11 and 12.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Peter Ellis on May 16, 2013, 10:34:26 AM
It's seemed bumpier to me ever since the new satellite went up.  Possibly they're still working out the kinks of the detection algorithm, possibly extent really is that bumpy and the new satellite does a better job of capturing it.  Regardless, until we know why it's that much bumpier than previous years I wouldn't bother looking at daily values at all, I'd take 2- or 3-day averages as a minimum, or stick to the 5-day average data produced by NSIDC.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Wipneus on May 16, 2013, 10:58:25 AM
Sea Ice Monitor is updating again. May 11, 12, 13, and 14 (partly) images are missing.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Wipneus on May 17, 2013, 08:23:41 AM
Announcement: Jaxa delevering standard AMSR2 products, including sea ice concentration:

http://www.jaxa.jp/press/2013/05/20130517_shizuku_e.html (http://www.jaxa.jp/press/2013/05/20130517_shizuku_e.html)
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Peter Ellis on May 17, 2013, 01:02:29 PM
Almost a century break upwards today!  Looking back through the images, it looks like there is a load of "milky swirl" ice in the Bering and off the Labrador coast, and this is variably detected from day to day as clouds pass overhead and obscure (or sometimes reinforce) the signal.  Clearly the greater sensitivity of the new satellite will take some further optimisation of algorithms to deliver stable results.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on May 21, 2013, 11:15:02 AM
IJIS: 11,968,594 km2 (May 20, 2013)  for the first time this season under 12 mil. Pretty late up to "today's standard", I can almost hear someone singing recovery?!
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: wanderer on May 21, 2013, 11:28:16 AM
Temperatures have been very low over the last two weeks. I think rapid melting will start to kick in soon!
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on May 21, 2013, 11:46:20 AM
Yes +temps only came to Kimmirut a few days ago: http://www.kimmirutweather.com/ (http://www.kimmirutweather.com/)
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: ChrisReynolds on May 21, 2013, 06:24:38 PM
NCEP/NCAR surface air temperatures from 8 to 18/5/13: -2 to 3 degC over the Canadian (Western) side of the Arctic. +3 to 4 degC over Barents and Kara. Within +/-1degC of climatology over the rest of the pack.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on May 22, 2013, 11:00:10 AM
IJIS: 11,941,094 km2 (May 21, 2013)  74,219 km2 over 2012 and just above the 2000s average.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: wanderer on May 22, 2013, 11:34:11 AM
Comparing May 21 2012 and May 21 2013 on http://earthdata.nasa.gov/labs/worldview/ (http://earthdata.nasa.gov/labs/worldview/)

it seems that there was much less ice in 2012.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on May 22, 2013, 11:43:51 AM
Wanderer;

Not realy! :
SFJigloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=05&fd=19&fy=2012&sm=05&sd=19&sy=2013
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: wanderer on May 22, 2013, 08:56:34 PM
Espen;
I believe you, but your link isn't working.

Whatever it was, please try to make it work :-)

It just seemed to me that melt North of Europe/Russia and in Beaufort was much more advanced this time last year.

Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Bob Wallace on May 22, 2013, 09:23:44 PM
People might find it interesting to look at the shape of the "final freeze and beginning melt" for this year on those areas that boarder Europe/Asia.

Here's the East Siberian region graph.  2012/13 didn't produce the normal flat-topped curve of past years. 

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.9.html (http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.9.html)


Laptev and Chukchi are also less flat on top than they have been most years in the past.  The Kara was more pointed than usual.  Barents produced a real spike.

I take that as a sign that a lot less thickening occurred.  Maximums were hit and lost quickly.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on May 22, 2013, 10:08:39 PM
Wanderer:

Sorry about that! ???

http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=06&fd=15&fy=2007&sm=06&sd=14&sy=2012 (http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=06&fd=15&fy=2007&sm=06&sd=14&sy=2012)
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on May 24, 2013, 11:13:18 AM
IJIS date comparison:

IJIS: 11,894,688 km2 (May 23, 2013) well above 2012 11,733,906 km2 (+160,782 km2) only 2009  (11,908,906 km2) was a fraction (+ 14,216 km2) higher over the last 10 years.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Neven on May 24, 2013, 11:46:30 AM
Indeed, we're experiencing an extremely slow start to the melting season (will publish the first ASI update tomorrow discussing this). I'm actually surprised that fake skeptics haven't jumped on this yet. Probably afraid to get bitten in the ass again...
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: wanderer on May 24, 2013, 12:19:53 PM
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php (http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php)

Temperatures have been lower, I expect this will change soon.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Bob Wallace on May 24, 2013, 08:09:14 PM
Indeed, we're experiencing an extremely slow start to the melting season....

2013 is bouncing along right with 2012.  2007 showed a lower extent at this point in time but started from a lower level.  Too early to worry....
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: ChrisReynolds on May 24, 2013, 08:19:31 PM
I disagree that we're in a slow start.

The ice edge starts to retreat within the Arctic Ocean from early June, it is only from then that conditions within the Arctic Ocean will start to be apparent in impact upon melting. And it's conditions within the Arctic Ocean that will set the scene for the September minimum.

It is far too early to conclude anything with regards the 2013 minimum in the context of area/extent.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on May 24, 2013, 09:00:04 PM
Chris;

I completely agree with you, but I am just reporting what is going at the moment.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: ChrisReynolds on May 24, 2013, 09:49:44 PM
Understood,  :)

Anyway as I don't really bother with extent I don't know what I'm doing here.  ???
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on May 24, 2013, 10:04:39 PM
Understood,  :)

Anyway as I don't really bother with extent I don't know what I'm doing here.  ???

Me too I am more concerned with volume, but those figs. are more hard to report. :-[
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: jdallen on May 25, 2013, 04:18:19 AM
The extent doesn't make me uncertain about my estimates for the season either.  Neither do I think we are off to a slow start, for a number of reasons, anecdotal right now, but with closer examination, may have some "teeth".

Let's start with the quality of the ice following the February/March/ongoing fracturing event.  My history with this is limited, but my perception is, in human memory, the pack has never been this small, nor this disintegrated.  For quick evidence, lets peek at the Bremen map:

http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsr2/arctic_AMSR2_nic.png (http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsr2/arctic_AMSR2_nic.png)

I've also done cross comparisons daily for the last week with other extent maps.  What I have seen is, a pack that is constantly in motion, and constantly breaking open and closing leads, across the *entire* extent of the arctic.  There's no bastion for MYI.  There is no ice showing consistently as 100% extent anywhere.  In key areas along the East Siberian Arctic and the Beaufort, there are significant areas showing up with between 10-20% open water.  There may not be large numbers of dramatic open leads, but the quality of the ice itself *prevents* that - it's too broken up.

Next, consider anecdotally the Russian North-Pole 40 evacuation.  Here's where it's located:

http://neven1.typepad.com/.a/6a0133f03a1e37970b01901c7e88c8970b-pi (http://neven1.typepad.com/.a/6a0133f03a1e37970b01901c7e88c8970b-pi)

Now consider this shot from Rapidfire (best guess as to approximately where I think NP-40 is):

http://lance-modis.eosdis.nasa.gov/imagery/subsets/?subset=Arctic_r05c03.2013144.terra.367 (http://lance-modis.eosdis.nasa.gov/imagery/subsets/?subset=Arctic_r05c03.2013144.terra.367)

It isn't just fractured, its *granulated*.  Looking at HYCOM, that's in the middle of what should be among the most stable ice in the arctic:
(check 80N,135W - that's the approximate long/lat). 

http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/hycomARC/navo/arcticictnnowcast.gif (http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/hycomARC/navo/arcticictnnowcast.gif)

Frankly, I don't see how you could keep large, open leads clear with all of that small trash being driven around by the wind.

Lastly, here's my kicker: consider the current ice thickness and volume.  I did some quick checking of the numbers at NP-40, the US Army has a buoy co-located with the AARI camp:

http://imb.crrel.usace.army.mil/2012G.htm (http://imb.crrel.usace.army.mil/2012G.htm)

The current readings show thickness of barely 2 meters.  Once again, this is supposed to be part of the most durable part of the pack.

So, in short, I have no hope that we are better off than last year, or current readings offer any solace from the dire conclusions we've been drawing.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: ChrisReynolds on May 25, 2013, 07:48:43 AM
Nightvid Cole,

"...it's granulated..."

2009
http://lance-modis.eosdis.nasa.gov/imagery/subsets/?subset=Arctic_r05c03.2009144.terra.367 (http://lance-modis.eosdis.nasa.gov/imagery/subsets/?subset=Arctic_r05c03.2009144.terra.367)

2010
http://lance-modis.eosdis.nasa.gov/imagery/subsets/?subset=Arctic_r05c03.2010144.terra.367 (http://lance-modis.eosdis.nasa.gov/imagery/subsets/?subset=Arctic_r05c03.2010144.terra.367)

2011
http://lance-modis.eosdis.nasa.gov/imagery/subsets/?subset=Arctic_r05c03.2011144.terra.367 (http://lance-modis.eosdis.nasa.gov/imagery/subsets/?subset=Arctic_r05c03.2011144.terra.367)

2012
http://lance-modis.eosdis.nasa.gov/imagery/subsets/?subset=Arctic_r05c03.2012144.terra.367 (http://lance-modis.eosdis.nasa.gov/imagery/subsets/?subset=Arctic_r05c03.2012144.terra.367)

2013
http://lance-modis.eosdis.nasa.gov/imagery/subsets/?subset=Arctic_r05c03.2013144.terra.367 (http://lance-modis.eosdis.nasa.gov/imagery/subsets/?subset=Arctic_r05c03.2013144.terra.367)

2012 and 2013 seem different from the other years.

There's a patch of low concentration ice in the Chukchi/ES side of the central Arctic Ocean.

2009
http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/imagery/subsets/?subset=Arctic_r05c03.2009144.terra (http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/imagery/subsets/?subset=Arctic_r05c03.2009144.terra)

2010
http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/imagery/subsets/?subset=Arctic_r05c03.2010144.terra (http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/imagery/subsets/?subset=Arctic_r05c03.2010144.terra)

2011
http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/imagery/subsets/?subset=Arctic_r05c03.2011144.terra (http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/imagery/subsets/?subset=Arctic_r05c03.2011144.terra)

2012
http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/imagery/subsets/?subset=Arctic_r05c03.2012144.terra (http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/imagery/subsets/?subset=Arctic_r05c03.2012144.terra)

2013
http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/imagery/subsets/?subset=Arctic_r05c03.2013144.terra (http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/imagery/subsets/?subset=Arctic_r05c03.2013144.terra)

Again 2012 and 2013 seem to be more fractured than the earlier years.

The area off the CAA/Greenland doesn't seem to be as different in the last two years.

Last year we saw very low concentrations in a broad swathe across the periphery of the pack. It seems likely to me that we will see the same this year.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on May 25, 2013, 11:54:48 AM
IJIS date comparison:

11,852,969 km2 (May 24, 2013) dropping only 41,719 km2 from May 23 2013. This figure is the highest measured on this date since 2003. And 180,438 km2 above the 2000s average.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: dree12 on May 25, 2013, 01:27:21 PM
IJIS date comparison:

11,852,969 km2 (May 24, 2013) dropping only 41,719 km2 from May 23 2013. This figure is the highest measured on this date since 2003. And 180,438 km2 above the 2000s average.

Yeah, this melt season is sure taking its time getting started. But then again, so did 2012...
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on May 25, 2013, 02:19:40 PM
With this slow decline it may merge with the 2012 level around June 1. 2012 had a hump at that time, before traveling deep south.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Shared Humanity on May 25, 2013, 03:40:53 PM
With this slow decline it may merge with the 2012 level around June 1. 2012 had a hump at that time, before traveling deep south.

SIE loss seems to be slow but SIA loss has been accelerating. Doesn't SIE loss usually lead SIA?
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: jdallen on May 25, 2013, 11:02:18 PM
I think the conundrum of the appearance of slowed decline in extent may have its root in the change in quality of the ice.

As Chris showed with the successive displays from Modis and Rapidfire, the coherence of the ice itself has declined massively.  There are simply more *pieces* to move around, which by nature permits a smaller area of ice to cover a larger extent.

So, the perception is, that extent is not declining as expected does not imply any decrease in melt off.  I think because the nature of the ice has changed, the extent measurements will loose their efficacy as a useful metric.  I think we need to start following SIA more closely, as that will become the more important measure.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Bob Wallace on May 25, 2013, 11:42:51 PM
But don't we have a measuring problem with area as the melt gets underway?

It's hard to distinguish between open water and melt pools, is it not?
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: ChrisReynolds on May 26, 2013, 07:59:12 AM
Bob,

If you think melt ponds are a problem then stick to extent.

I've recently blogged about the June CT Area crash.
http://dosbat.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/the-ct-area-june-crash.html (http://dosbat.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/the-ct-area-june-crash.html)
It happened in 2007, 2011 and 2012. It seems likely that a large factor is melt ponding being read as open water. But the ice with more melt ponding is more likely to melt out. So this feature is still important, and it's something that would be missed using extent.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on May 26, 2013, 10:58:40 AM
IJIS:

11,822,813 km2 (May 25, 2013)  dropping 30,156 km2 from May 24. This is 193,782 km2 above the 2000s average. But 191,437 km2 less than the 1990s average.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on May 27, 2013, 11:00:02 AM
IJIS:

11,816,563 km2 (May 26, 2013) dropping 6,250 km2. This is 229,579 km2 above the 2000s average. And 164,500 km2 less than the 1990s average.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: jdallen on May 27, 2013, 11:13:36 AM
Considering the differences in the quality of the ice, I'm still not convinced that greater extent will be meaningful, in so far as signifying a "bounce" this year in the melt.

I'm not sure the temperatures have really been that much lower; checking recently, I've been seeing intrusions of warm air (0-5C) over significant regions of both the east siberian arctic and the Beaufort.

I'll may be convinced if/when we reach August, and we still see significantly higher SIA across the arctic than last year.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Jim Pettit on May 27, 2013, 04:45:13 PM
I realize there's been a recent de-emphasis on day-to-day SIA/SIE values, and for good reason. But, still, these stats caught my attention:

IJIS sea ice extent decreased by 911k km2 from 1 May through 26 May. That's the smallest extent drop for that period in at least the past 11 years, and it is, in fact, smaller than the 5/1-5/26 average drop for the decades of the 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s. (The average over the past ten years--2003 to 2102--has been 1.24 million km2, and the 1979-2012 average has been 1.26 million km2.)

(NOTE: I don't normally do this, but I cross-posted this in this thread and also in the ASI Update 1 (http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2013/05/asi-2013-update-1-a-slow-start.html) thread in the main blog. Apologies in advance for any confusion.)
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on May 27, 2013, 05:04:48 PM
Jim;

Yes I also noticed it is a very unusual year.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Bob Wallace on May 27, 2013, 06:29:37 PM
In March of 2012 we had a period of cold weather which saw more ice formation and a delay in melting.

This year we have experienced a period of cold weather in April which has slowed melting.

Don't forget that 2012, with its period of late season cold weather, is the year with the lowest measured extent and volume.  The low amount of MYI and the state of the ice are likely more important than late winter/early spring weather.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: OldLeatherneck on May 27, 2013, 07:51:08 PM
(http://i1269.photobucket.com/albums/jj597/OldLeatherNeck/ArcticIceExtentMay14th2013_zps44659663.jpg)

2013 is only lagging 2007 by about one week and lagging 2011 by ~10 days.  This year seems t have a little more bouncing up and down, possibly due to the extreme fracturing.  It will only take 4-5 days of big melts to get 2013 back in the race.

Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Neven on May 27, 2013, 08:03:13 PM
I realize there's been a recent de-emphasis on day-to-day SIA/SIE values, and for good reason. But, still, these stats caught my attention:

IJIS sea ice extent decreased by 911k km2 from 1 May through 26 May. That's the smallest extent drop for that period in at least the past 11 years, and it is, in fact, smaller than the 5/1-5/26 average drop for the decades of the 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s. (The average over the past ten years--2003 to 2102--has been 1.24 million km2, and the 1979-2012 average has been 1.26 million km2.)

(NOTE: I don't normally do this, but I cross-posted this in this thread and also in the ASI Update 1 ([url]http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2013/05/asi-2013-update-1-a-slow-start.html[/url]) thread in the main blog. Apologies in advance for any confusion.)


Thanks for the details, Jim, and do cross-post in this case. Amazing stats. It really is a slow start. The Arctic surprises me once more, because with all those century breaks a couple of weeks ago I thought we were in for early fireworks.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on May 28, 2013, 11:00:03 AM
IJIS:

11,785,156 km2 (May 27, 2013)
31,427 km2 less than May 26.
237,183 km2 more than the 2000s average.
And 170,489 km2 less than 1990s average.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on May 29, 2013, 11:06:02 AM
11,797,031 km2 (May 28, 2013). And the highest since 2002.
+11,875 km2 more than May 27.
287,234 km2 more than 2000s average.
and 135,344 km2 less than 1990s average.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on May 29, 2013, 02:07:34 PM
We can declare Gulf of Bothnia sea ice free:

http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/imagery/single.cgi?image=crefl1_143.A2013149093000-2013149093500.4km.jpg (http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/imagery/single.cgi?image=crefl1_143.A2013149093000-2013149093500.4km.jpg)
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Bob Wallace on May 29, 2013, 08:33:33 PM
We're just now coming out of a significant cold stretch of weather...

(http://i619.photobucket.com/albums/tt275/Bob_Wall/Dailyarctictemp130529.jpg) (http://s619.photobucket.com/user/Bob_Wall/media/Dailyarctictemp130529.jpg.html)

There's a large storm chewing up the ice.  It's a couple of weeks before the rapid melt season sets in.

Considering the low level of MYI and the general state of the ice I'd put more money on a new melt record than a significantly higher extent at the end of the season.

(We're sitting by Grandpa's death bed taking bets on how many more days he lasts....)
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Artful Dodger on May 30, 2013, 02:53:19 AM
We're just now coming out of a significant cold stretch of weather...
Hi Bob,

Are you able to attach images successfully to your comments? As you know, the live image you've linked to above will soon be updated, and your point will become increasingly hard to follow. By 2014, the current 80N temps won't even be shown on this image.

I'd 'up' a copy for you right now, but I've had a bad run of luck with the procedure recently. Hopefully you will fare better  ::)
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Bob Wallace on May 30, 2013, 03:02:38 AM
Thanks.  It hadn't occurred to me - the auto update thing.

The way I've been able to add in images is to take them first to a photo hosting site (I use Photobucket) and then link to the image in my gallery.

If it's an image off the web I do a Prtscn, copy that into a photo editor, crop away what I don't want, resize and post to Photobucket.  It's a bit of a pain so if someone has a better routine....

ETA: replaced image with a 'frozen' one.  Thanks.



Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on May 30, 2013, 11:07:23 AM
IJIS:

11,801,094 km2 (May 29, 2013)
+ 4,063 km2 May 28,
+ 329,766 km2 more than 2000s average,
and 101,031 km2 less than 1990s average.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Artful Dodger on May 30, 2013, 12:32:04 PM
ETA: replaced image with a 'frozen' one.
Hi Bob,

Thanks! This'll be important years from now in Nuremberg and The Hague.  ;)
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: wanderer on May 30, 2013, 01:55:12 PM
Something is rotten in the state of "ijis extent"!

It might be the sea ice...

I guess it's the calm before the storm!

Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Bob Wallace on May 30, 2013, 06:07:46 PM
The Bremen extent measurement seems to be showing 2013 roughly tied with 2012.

http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de:8084/ssmis/extent_n_running_mean_F17_regular.png (http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de:8084/ssmis/extent_n_running_mean_F17_regular.png)

At this point the horses are just getting into the gates and the jockeys are trying to get them settled down.  It's too early to figure out who will be ahead as we head into the finish line.

I've got modest money on horse number thirteen, Rotten Ice.  If he gets a good start out of the gates then it could be a blow out....
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: deep octopus on May 30, 2013, 10:11:08 PM
NSIDC extent also shows 2013 pinching with 2012.
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png (http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png)

The Charctic (oh ho ho) Interactive Graph from NSIDC also exemplifies the closeness here, when the y-scale is drawn to zero:
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/ (http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/)

It's fair to say that 2012 was falling apart by the second week of June, in spite of a similarly slow May. In 2007, the crash was very extreme in the first week of July, when it lost 1 million km^2 in six days. My guess is we haven't even had the slightest whiff of what is possible this year.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on May 31, 2013, 10:58:16 AM
IJIS:

11,769,844 km2 (May 30, 2013)
31,250 km2 less than May 29

326,141 km2 more than 2000s average
and 94,531 km2 less than 1990s average

Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Shared Humanity on May 31, 2013, 03:37:43 PM
Should we expect some denialist to suggest a SIE minimum is approaching?  :o

http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm (http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm)
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on May 31, 2013, 03:58:27 PM
Yes that curve is heading in the wrong direction this time of the year ???
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: OldLeatherneck on May 31, 2013, 04:07:24 PM
Should we expect some denialist to suggest a SIE minimum is approaching?  :o

[url]http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm[/url] ([url]http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm[/url])


Should the denialists claim that the arctic sea ice is recovering in the middle of the melt season, they will be greatly disappointed when they see the open water in the middle of the CAB within the next week or two.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on June 01, 2013, 11:01:07 AM
IJIS:

11,677,813 km2 (May 31, 2013) down 92,031 km2 from May 30.

And 258.032 km2 more than 2000s average.

But 149,312 km2 less than 1990s average.

Maybe the ice realized it is summer now?
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: icebgone on June 02, 2013, 12:02:33 AM
I'm waiting to declare summer melting in full swing when I see the first triple century melt day.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on June 02, 2013, 10:58:20 AM
IJIS:

11,645,781 km2 (June 1, 2013) down 32,032 km2 from May 31.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: crandles on June 02, 2013, 11:18:37 AM
Any thoughts on this slow decline of extent being due to Ekman pumping?

Is Ekman pumping likely to have greater dispersive effect if the pack is more broken up than usual for the time of year?
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: sofouuk on June 02, 2013, 12:11:57 PM
not sure about the importance of the pumping, but it's intuitive that a thin fragmented pack will tend to splay out more before melting more quickly. We imagined that was happening last spring in April, but if thats the cause of the high extent now (rather than a genuinely slow start to the melt due to lower than average temperatures) it's another bad sign. At least it allows us to predict an anomalously high spring extent for future years, not that the denialists will allow that to discourage them, of course
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on June 02, 2013, 01:32:35 PM
Much of the "delay" in the melt of arctic sea ice may be due to the fact the sea ice is spread out over a larger area because of the high fragmentation , the same happened i 2012, and the real melt started in the second week of June that year.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: SATire on June 02, 2013, 01:38:32 PM
Any thoughts on this slow decline of extent being due to Ekman pumping?

Is Ekman pumping likely to have greater dispersive effect if the pack is more broken up than usual for the time of year?
I don't think so - SIA in a very big circle (2.7 Mio. sq km) in the Basin only droped 40-50k since 20th may due to the storm. So if there is ice diverging out of the Basin it is not very much. I think, the SIA-loss due to the storm is either still to become visible for the satellites or can be neglected at all. We will see that in a week or so.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Bob Wallace on June 02, 2013, 06:43:48 PM
The temperature north of 80 continues to be colder than the 1958 to 2002 average.

http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php (http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php)

The big tell here is going to be the end of May PIOMAS volume.  If volume is down then it's likely that bottom melt has been thinning the ice and setting up rapid June/July melting and extent drops.  If volume is holding then this may not be a record low year.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on June 03, 2013, 10:57:21 AM
IJIS:

11,633,281 km2 (June 2, 2013) down 12,500 km2 from June 1!?
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Siffy on June 03, 2013, 11:17:15 AM
IJIS:

11,633,281 km2 (June 2, 2013) down 12,500 km2 from June 1!?

Is this unexpected?

Are you able to post the data for the last two to three years +- a few days either way to compare typical loss?
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: dree12 on June 03, 2013, 02:09:50 PM
IJIS:

11,633,281 km2 (June 2, 2013) down 12,500 km2 from June 1!?

Is this unexpected?

Are you able to post the data for the last two to three years +- a few days either way to compare typical loss?

Because of daily variation, this is not an unusual event. However, it combines with unusually slow decline recently to further distance the 2013 line from other recent years.

Effectively, this alone is not unusual. However, it is yet another day of slow growth that makes the past few weeks highly unusual.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: OldLeatherneck on June 03, 2013, 02:36:54 PM
Is this unexpected?

Are you able to post the data for the last two to three years +- a few days either way to compare typical loss?


The below table is the IJIS Extent for dates 27 May - 2 Jun for years 2003 - 2013.  I've highlighted as follows:

RED:  Lowest Extent for that Day
GREEN: Highest Extent for that Day
YELLOW: Median Extent for that Day


(http://i1269.photobucket.com/albums/jj597/OldLeatherNeck/ArcticIceExtentMay27-Jun2Table_zpsf109c30e.jpg)

Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Bob Wallace on June 03, 2013, 06:11:44 PM
I'm loosing the point here. 

Are we concerned by the slow melting as shown by IJIS/JAXA or the fact that IJIS/JAXA is showing a melt rate different than NSIDC and Bremen which show 2012 and 2013 almost the same?
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Siffy on June 03, 2013, 06:22:54 PM
Is this unexpected?

Are you able to post the data for the last two to three years +- a few days either way to compare typical loss?


The below table is the IJIS Extent for dates 27 May - 2 Jun for years 2003 - 2013.  I've highlighted as follows:

RED:  Lowest Extent for that Day
GREEN: Highest Extent for that Day
YELLOW: Median Extent for that Day


([url]http://i1269.photobucket.com/albums/jj597/OldLeatherNeck/ArcticIceExtentMay27-Jun2Table_zpsf109c30e.jpg[/url])


Thanks for the reply appreciate the information, it's quite surprising how slow the start to this melt season has been I was kind of expecting a much more rapid onset of melt given just how fractured the ice was during april.

Still it's early days yet and latest weather in the Arctic looks like it's churning the ice even harder so come summer time this could have a very big effect.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Peter Ellis on June 04, 2013, 11:06:21 AM
Century break today.  Looking at the images, looks like Hudson Bay is finally beginning to go, so I doubt this will be revised upwards.  We can expect a minimum of 30k/day from Hudson Bay up through to the end of June.  Unusually for recent years, the Hudson Bay melt is normal for the time of year - in previous years it's been well ahead of schedule.  This is undoubtedly down to the very cold weather and high snowfall that the US/Canada have had.

In general, the low latitude areas (Hudson, Bering, Ohkotsk) are all on a "normal" rather than an accelerated schedule this year.  This is quite possible all that's necessary to explain the slow (read: normal rate) start to the melt season. These areas are however quite irrelevant to the final summer minimum: I don't see any sensible way in which slow melt in Hudson and Okhotsk can protect the CAB ice.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: werther on June 04, 2013, 11:23:21 PM
Exactly, Peter.
The only relevant region now is within the CAB. I'm inclined to foresee that all the FYI over there will go too, even while we're at day 155 and 11511K SIE. Fourteen weeks of 'normal' weather could do it. Not speaking of 2007 dipoles or GAC2012's...
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on June 05, 2013, 10:48:57 AM
IJIS:

11,510,625 km2 (June 3, 2013)  down 122,656 km2 from June 2nd.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on June 05, 2013, 10:58:21 AM
IJIS:

11,392,188 km2 (June 4, 2013) down 118,337 km2 from June 3.

39,219 km2 more than 2012.

120,094 km2 more than 2000s average.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on June 05, 2013, 11:04:08 AM
IJIS:

It looks like it is taking the same "route" as 2012. The next few days will tell more about where we are heading.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: OldLeatherneck on June 05, 2013, 01:22:48 PM
IJIS:

It looks like it is taking the same "route" as 2012. The next few days will tell more about where we are heading.


I've been amazed by the prognosticators who claim we are abound to have a major rebound this year.  2013 is only 40K behind 2012, and if my aging memory serves me correctly, 2012 was a record-setting blowout.

After reading frivolousz21's comment #299 on Short to Medium Term Arctic Sea Ice Conditions Discussion http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,92.250.html#lastPost (http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,92.250.html#lastPost) about the expected high temps on the western coast of Greenland in the next few, we may be in store for some very dramatic ice loss.

[size=8pt
............But look at the Super torch over Canada.  The Hudson is toast. The Canadian Archipelago is going to be totally ravished.

.............Greenland's land ice melt is in the explosion process.  Dipole flow, big sun, Kara melted.  Normal melt season.

.............Oh and again Environment Canada is going to have some epic bust from their forecasts before yesterdays update's.

.............Models show Mid 80s on the Western Greenland coast in two days.  Upper 70s to low 80s tomorrow.

.............the GFS is possibly showing wall to wall super torch on both continents.][/size]
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on June 05, 2013, 05:13:04 PM
IJIS:

And another century today, and the 2013 will be below 2012, for the same date!
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: ritter on June 05, 2013, 05:33:59 PM
IJIS:

And another century today, and the 2013 will be below 2012, for the same date!

That's a pretty quick catch up.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: davidsanger on June 06, 2013, 06:35:27 AM
Interesting that the June 4, 2012 extent was 11,352,969 which was the highest since 2003..... and then came the rest of 2012
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: ChrisReynolds on June 06, 2013, 08:06:59 AM
2012 was a late peak in CT Area. What seemed to happen was that once the ice was hit by high insolation in June July August it responded 'enthusiastically'.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on June 06, 2013, 10:58:22 AM
IJIS:

11,353,125 km2 (June 4, 2013) 156 km2 above 2012 for same date.

I have a feeling something is wrong with the dates?
I dont think they updated June 5 yet?
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Jim Pettit on June 06, 2013, 01:43:02 PM
IJIS:

11,353,125 km2 (June 4, 2013) 156 km2 above 2012 for same date.

I have a feeling something is wrong with the dates?
I dont think they updated June 5 yet?

Correct. They did, however, adjust June 4 downward from 11,392,188 km2 to 11,353,125 km2, just 156 km2 below the same date last year. IOW: a statistical tie.

So this is what a recovery looks like, huh?  ;)
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: kevin_s on June 06, 2013, 03:20:15 PM
Is there anything we can read into the late update for 5 June, taken together with the recent century breaks and the downward adjustment of the 4 June number? I'm picturing IJIS/JAXA folks looking at their data with disbelief, wondering if the gargantuan drop they see for 5 June can be real, wanting to be really careful before they post it publicly....

But then I have an overactive imagination, so...? Stuff can be late for a million mundane reasons, I suppose.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: OldLeatherneck on June 07, 2013, 04:13:22 AM
Reasonable Rebound or Collapse Possibilities for 2013 Mean Extent
 
I've been astounded at the number of high/low estimates for the 2103 minimum extent that seem to be beyond the realm of probabilities.  Although I'm not a statistician, I'd thought I look at the past 10 years of IJIS Extent and what the percentage loss or gain was from one year to the next.  From 2003 to 2012, there were 6 years of ice extent loss and 3 years of gain.  The  two years of most loss were 2007 (25.9%) and 2012 (20.9%).  The two years of most gain were 2008 (10.4%) and 2009 (11.3%).

Based on this limited sample (ten years only), I find it hard to believe that some folks believe that a rebound this year could result in a mean extent of greater than 5 or 6M Km Sq.

The below tables should be self explanatory.  The first is the history of the past ten years and the second table shows how great a percentage of gain/loss is required to achieve a specific final result.  We know the folks at WUWT don't understand science or critical thinking, I just hope the folks on the Forum exhibit some more rational thought processes and reasoning.  Weather will be the  final arbiter this year, as always, yet there must be limits to the magnitude of the changes either way.  Between science and statistics those limits should be definable.

(http://i1269.photobucket.com/albums/jj597/OldLeatherNeck/ArcticIceExtentSeptemberMeanExtentSummary_zpsa61e2ba6.jpg)

(http://i1269.photobucket.com/albums/jj597/OldLeatherNeck/ArcticIceExtentSeptemberminimumprojections_zps4ac9e796.jpg)
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Neven on June 07, 2013, 10:26:01 AM
I agree with OLN.

Is there anything we can read into the late update for 5 June, taken together with the recent century breaks and the downward adjustment of the 4 June number? I'm picturing IJIS/JAXA folks looking at their data with disbelief, wondering if the gargantuan drop they see for 5 June can be real, wanting to be really careful before they post it publicly....

This happens regularly, for all kinds of reasons. This time I don't think it has to do with a gargantuan drop, because I haven't seen in my daily routine of comparing UB SIC maps from one day to the next.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Frivolousz21 on June 07, 2013, 10:55:29 AM

The SW Canadian Archipelago is torching so hard the ice melt is showing up as almost open water.  When it's concentration is still near 100 percent.

Probably throwing off the readings.

(http://i.imgur.com/MxMoznM.png?1)
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on June 07, 2013, 11:01:42 AM
IJIS:

No regular up date today??
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on June 07, 2013, 11:03:23 AM

The SW Canadian Archipelago is torching so hard the ice melt is showing up as almost open water.  When it's concentration is still near 100 percent.

Probably throwing off the readings.

([url]http://i.imgur.com/MxMoznM.png?1[/url])


Probably due to the turquoise color? Indicating the state of the ice just before final break up.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Shared Humanity on June 07, 2013, 04:21:16 PM
OLN.....

I can think of several reasons this is the case.

1.) This site is so awesome that a lot of new and not as informed people are visiting and commenting. I count myself as one of these. I really don't know much and have yet to cast a vote on any of the forecasts for area, extent or volume.

2.) Over the past decade, final SIE has begun to bounce all over the place. If I had to predict SIE for the season, I would predict it to be unpredictable. Your own charts show this.

3.) Given the state of the Arctic, entirely new mechanisms are now impacting ice in ways we have never seen. We simply don't understand what all of these are and how they will impact the ice.

It's kind of like watching a really good horror flick. I'm going to pull up a chair with a bowl of popcorn.  :o
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Frivolousz21 on June 07, 2013, 10:51:35 PM

The SW Canadian Archipelago is torching so hard the ice melt is showing up as almost open water.  When it's concentration is still near 100 percent.

Probably throwing off the readings.

([url]http://i.imgur.com/MxMoznM.png?1[/url])


Probably due to the turquoise color? Indicating the state of the ice just before final break up.


Essentially.  The emissivity of all of the water on top of and in the top layers of the ice is probably wrecking havoc.

It would take very little water on the ice to come back as open water.  Last night the far Western side went below freezing a bit.  Probably refroze the top top layer of the ice like a puddle at night and then it unthaws the next day.

the sensor went from showing blue to white but the ice is still the turquoise color on MODIS. 

So the color to the naked eye eximplify's the melt but the sensor probably wont show up as open water unless the top top layer has standing water sitting on it.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on June 08, 2013, 12:13:17 AM
Here is an example why the ice got the turquoise color, image is from Kimmirut Canada:



 
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: ghoti on June 08, 2013, 12:36:37 AM
I'm amazed the ice there isn't rubble. The tide there has massive amplitude.
Friday 2013-06-07   
Sunrise  2:44 AM EDT, Sunset 10:34 PM EDT
Moonrise  2:45 AM EDT, Moonset  9:09 PM EDT
   Low Tide:   2:17 AM EDT   9.4 feet
  High Tide:   8:24 AM EDT  32.2 feet
   Low Tide:   2:30 PM EDT   9.6 feet
  High Tide:   8:40 PM EDT  33.7 feet

The snow machines and sleds visible in the photo disappear below the roof-line of the building in the foreground at low tide.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on June 08, 2013, 10:57:24 AM
IJIS:

No regular update today?

"In a recent article posted in Nature, an international journal of science, Eicken said the fast-changing sea ice is dangerous because of its unpredictable nature. Where once there was multi-year sea ice that responded in predictable ways, now there is young, first-year ice.

Eicken said the new ice is more difficult to predict not only because it changes quickly but also because current satellite systems are being confused by meltwater. Satellites, he said, are e
ven struggling to track the difference between newly formed ice and open water with waves or foam."
from : http://www.thedutchharborfisherman.com/article/1323changes_in_sea_ice_monitoring_critical_to (http://www.thedutchharborfisherman.com/article/1323changes_in_sea_ice_monitoring_critical_to)
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Wipneus on June 08, 2013, 11:32:54 AM
IJIS:

No regular update today?




Not only Jaxa shows that the Windsat data stream has stopped on June 5:

http://www.ssmi.com/windsat/windsat_data_daily.html?pass=descending (http://www.ssmi.com/windsat/windsat_data_daily.html?pass=descending)
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on June 09, 2013, 10:58:27 AM
IJIS:

As expected no regular update today?
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Wipneus on June 09, 2013, 04:54:13 PM
The reservation about data not calibrated yet in the sea ice monitor is gone! When did that happen?

If so, nothing should be in the way of using ASMR2 data for the extent calculations.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on June 10, 2013, 10:58:42 AM
IJIS:

No regular update today! ???
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: OldLeatherneck on June 10, 2013, 02:39:34 PM
Does anyone have any definitive reason that IJIS has not updated for 5 consecutive days? 

I would think that someone on this Forum would have contacts that could provide this information.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: SATire on June 10, 2013, 04:02:12 PM
As I know the Japanese way to do things, I would guess they are triple and quadruple checking ASMR2 and after everything is fine and some days stood fine, they may follow the road Wipneus suggested above :-)
Maybe CT joined them 2 days ago?
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Artful Dodger on June 11, 2013, 08:17:47 AM
As I know the Japanese way to do things...

Hi SATire,

That would be the International way of doing things (IJIS is a multi-national program based in at the University of Alaska in Fairbanks). The Japanese Space Agency JAXA is NOT the agency issuing IJIS updates..

http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/welcome/access.htm (http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/welcome/access.htm)

JAXA built the AMSR2 sensor and launched the satellite, which is still sending data (see the IJIC SIC charts on the ASI Graphs page).
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Wipneus on June 11, 2013, 08:20:10 AM
Some of the missing Windsat data is being filled in (June 7). If so there is hope for some IJIS update soon.

http://www.ssmi.com/windsat/windsat_data_daily.html?pass=descending  (http://www.ssmi.com/windsat/windsat_data_daily.html?pass=descending)
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on June 11, 2013, 10:57:52 AM
IJIS:

11,246,875 km2 (June 8, 2013
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on June 11, 2013, 10:59:07 AM
IJIS:

11,270,938 km2 (June 9, 2013)

11,059,219 km2 (June 10, 2013) 

382,656 km2 above 2012
and
74,124 km2 above 2000s average.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Peter Ellis on June 11, 2013, 12:00:39 PM
Still a very bouncy trace - I wouldn't trust that double century break at all, even after revision.  I think the Windsat data is sufficiently noisy that day-to-day changes are simply misleading.  Overall we're looking at 450k lost in the last week, after 275k the week before.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Jim Pettit on June 11, 2013, 12:15:24 PM
Now that IJIS/JAXA is back, replete with three days of missing data, I have to agree that the day-to-day numbers seem--to me questionable. That is, in the seven days prior to the dropout (28 May - 04 Jun), IJIS extent dropped by an average of 63,400k km2 per day, with two century breaks in a row right at the end. But then over the next five days (Jun 05 - Jun 09), extent dropped by just 82k in total, a daily average of 16k km2--and that was followed by yesterday's jumbo drop of 212k.

Normally, that wouldn't be a big deal. But an even more suspect thing happened back in the early part of the year that has me wondering. To wit:

Over the two weeks prior to 24 Jan, IJIS extent had grown by an average of about 50k per day. On the 24th, it suddenly decreased by 91k. Data from the 25th is missing. On 26 Jan, data returned, this time showing a massive two-day growth total of 327k--after which it fell back into the routine of growing by a few tens of thousands each day.

Bottom line, and as Peter Ellis just wrote, I'd take the IJIS numbers around a data dropout with a huge grain of salt...
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on June 11, 2013, 12:28:02 PM
I agree the figures look suspicious but overall I think the numbers are pretty much ok, especially when compared to 2012:

http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=06&fd=08&fy=2012&sm=06&sd=08&sy=2013 (http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=06&fd=08&fy=2012&sm=06&sd=08&sy=2013)
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on June 12, 2013, 10:57:33 AM
IJIS:

11,186,250 km2 (June 10, 2013) revised

11,120,313 km2 (June 11, 2013)

545,157 km2 km2 more than 2012
and
177,907 km2 more than 2000s average
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on June 13, 2013, 10:58:36 AM
IJIS:

11,027,813 km2 (June 12, 2013)

558,594 km2 above 2012
and
128,157 km2 above 2000s average
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on June 14, 2013, 11:15:16 AM
IJIS:

10,978,594 km2 (June 13, 2013) 

632,500 km2 above 2012

and

128,219 km2 above 2000s average

and

the highest since 2003?
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on June 15, 2013, 11:02:44 AM
IJIS:

10,969,844 km2 (June 14, 2013) 

744,844 km2 above 2012
and
167,422 km2 above 2000s average
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Neven on June 15, 2013, 11:09:24 AM
A drop of just 8,750 km2, that's insanely low!  :D

I never would've expected the weather to have such an impact in June. Not after last year. But extent is of course not measuring the holes in the ice pack.

I'm going to have to look at CAPIE one of these days...
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: ivica on June 15, 2013, 01:38:13 PM
A bit off-topic:
What are day drop maxes for extent & area meassured ever?
This summer could chalenge them.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Neven on June 15, 2013, 02:21:08 PM
I believe the biggest single day drop for CT SIA was 437K for May 1st. If things keep going this slow, and the weather makes a sudden switch, a 300+K drop should be possible.

As far as IJIS is concerned I only see one double century drop (202K) for July 3rd 2007, a rare occurrence. Might happen this year, but holes don't get registered for SIE.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Jim Pettit on June 15, 2013, 02:49:50 PM
It's very difficult to look at the visible evidence and not expect to see at least handful of massive daily drops in extent (and area, for that matter) sometime over the next eight weeks or so. The ice is simply too thin and too frangible for it to withstand the dual onslaught of insolation and temperature maxima; even the vagaries of the extent and area algorithms won't be able to hold up then, and should come crashing downward.

But, as always, we'll see...
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on June 16, 2013, 10:59:25 AM
IJIS:

10,939,063 km2 (June 15, 2013)

739,063 km2 above 2012

and 192,375 m2 above 2000s average
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on June 17, 2013, 10:58:04 AM
IJIS:

10,914,375 km2
(June 16, 2013)

752,969 km2 above 2012
and
223,656 km2 above 2000s average?
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Neven on June 17, 2013, 01:37:56 PM
With CT SIA recording some very big drops - two almost double centuries in a row - CAPIE has started to shoot down as well...
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on June 17, 2013, 04:42:13 PM
Maybe IJIS cant find the cliff?
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Neven on June 17, 2013, 07:40:53 PM
Couldn't find it last year either, if I remember correctly.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Peter Ellis on June 17, 2013, 10:26:47 PM
Considering that the "cliff" is defined based on CAPIE (i.e. CA area relative to IJIS extent), it's not only not surprising it doesn't show up on IJIS, it's a logical impossibility for it to do so!

Chris Reynolds thinks (and I agree) that the "cliff" is in large part due to melt ponding.  This lowers area but not extent, for two reasons:
(a) melt ponds cause the measured concentration to drop to intermediate levels ~50% that affect area but don't trip the extent threshold of 15%
(b) CA and IJIS use different algorithms to turn microwave brightness into ice concentration measurement.  CA uses the same algorithm year-round, while IJIS tunes its summer algorithm to be less affected by melt ponding.

Thus, it's not surprising that the "cliff" showed up in the last week or so, concurrent with the onset of melt ponding across the Arctic fringes - first in the CA, then in the Laptev/East Siberian Sea, and now in the Chukchi and Beaufort.  Depending how abrupt the onset of melt ponding in the central basin is, there may well be more cliff to come.

More interesting is what was happening back at the start of the month, when there was a mini-cliff (remember: defined as area dropping off relative to extent), at a time when there was <i>not</i> any melt ponding in the Central Arctic - no darkening visible by MODIS, and all mass balance buoys still showing substantial snow.  This it seems to me was the effect of the persistent cyclone in diverging and melting the ice, causing area to go down but not tripping the area threshold.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on June 18, 2013, 10:58:43 AM
IJIS:

10,826,719 km2 (June 17, 2013)  down 87,656 km2 from previous

697,500 km2 above 2012
and
192,094 km2 above 2000s average
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on June 19, 2013, 11:07:57 AM
IJIS:

10,698,750 km2 (June 18, 2013) down 127,969 km2 from previous

634,531 km2 above 2012
and
126,062 km2 above 2000s average
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on June 20, 2013, 10:59:34 AM
IJIS:

10,656,094 km2 (June 19, 2013) down 42,656 km2 from previous.
and
759,531 km2 above 2012
and
145,938 km2 above 2000s average.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on June 21, 2013, 11:00:22 AM
IJIS:

10,632,500 km2 (June 20, 2013) down 29,375 km2 from previous (revised)

838,750 km2 above 2012

177,594 km2 above 2000s average
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on June 21, 2013, 11:03:23 AM
Will 2013 be 1,000,000 km2 above 2012 anytime during this melting season?
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: OldLeatherneck on June 21, 2013, 12:36:39 PM
Espen,

I'm not going to rule out the possibility of 2013 lagging 2012 by 1M because the current state of widespread slush is so easy to disperse.  However within next 2-3 weeks I expect to see some serious plunges off of the cliff.

Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on June 21, 2013, 12:43:52 PM
OldLeatherneck;

I have been looking for that cliff for a while now? ???
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: OldLeatherneck on June 21, 2013, 12:51:43 PM
Patience is a virtue.

Remember we have at least 90 days before we start writing the "Post Game Summary" of the 2013 melt season. 
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Artful Dodger on June 22, 2013, 07:40:14 AM
SIE is not MELT. It is a proxy for what we're actually after, which is the surface heat energy budget of the Arctic.

All of our other measures are proxies in that sense. For example:

CT sea ice area is between 3 to 6 days behind for this date, compared to the last 10 years.

The annual peak in Mauna Loa CO2 (a proxy for the change in seasons in the N. Hemisphere) was about a week behind average.

All peripheral seas surrounding the Arctic ocean melt out every year (at least in the last 10). Ignore them, they are white noise. Only MYI matters.

The Central Arctic Basin (the only area that counts) is either ahead of, or very close to, the record decline of 2012.

Now, tell me again about the bad weather.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: birthmark on June 22, 2013, 01:59:32 PM
SIE is not MELT. It is a proxy for what we're actually after, which is the surface heat energy budget of the Arctic.

All of our other measures are proxies in that sense. For example:

CT sea ice area is between 3 to 6 days behind for this date, compared to the last 10 years.

The annual peak in Mauna Loa CO2 (a proxy for the change in seasons in the N. Hemisphere) was about a week behind average.

All peripheral seas surrounding the Arctic ocean melt out every year (at least in the last 10). Ignore them, they are white noise. Only MYI matters.

The Central Arctic Basin (the only area that counts) is either ahead of, or very close to, the record decline of 2012.

Now, tell me again about the bad weather.
That's the way I see it, too, Lodger. Ignoring those areas where we have high confidence that a  near-total melt-out will occur and concentrating on the CAB paints a very different picture of what's occurring this year. Even if no new record is reached, the set-up for subsequent years looks dismal.

I could be wrong, of course. Sadly, it wouldn't be the first time.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Bob Wallace on June 22, 2013, 07:00:23 PM
All peripheral seas surrounding the Arctic ocean melt out every year (at least in the last 10). Ignore them, they are white noise. Only MYI matters.

The Central Arctic Basin (the only area that counts) is either ahead of, or very close to, the record decline of 2012.

A very good point.  Unless we encounter "a meteor hit" the regions outside the CAB will melt, except for bits of ice left in the Greenland Sea and CAA.  But if they melt much slower than in recent years they could slow melting in the CAB - their ice can replenish CAB melt.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on June 23, 2013, 06:14:03 PM
IJIS:

10,480,781 km2 (June 22, 2013) down 47,757 km2 from previous.

700,312 km2 more than 2012.

159,406 km2 more than 2000s average.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Neven on June 23, 2013, 11:46:53 PM
All peripheral seas surrounding the Arctic ocean melt out every year (at least in the last 10). Ignore them, they are white noise. Only MYI matters.

The Central Arctic Basin (the only area that counts) is either ahead of, or very close to, the record decline of 2012.

A very good point.  Unless we encounter "a meteor hit" the regions outside the CAB will melt, except for bits of ice left in the Greenland Sea and CAA.  But if they melt much slower than in recent years they could slow melting in the CAB - their ice can replenish CAB melt.

Maybe we're still used to the ice pack melting from the outer edges inwards, but last year we saw a large part of the ice pack get detached because of GAC-2012, and this year we see August-2010-like holes in June.

But what is interesting as well, is that the cracking event might be a factor in the very late break-up in the Beaufort Sea.

Lots of counterintuitive stuff for our poor little brains...








Speak fer yourself, Neven!  ;D
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on June 24, 2013, 09:36:27 AM
Neven;

"But what is interesting as well, is that the cracking event might be a factor in the very late break-up in the Beaufort Sea."

I believe it is a major factor, the extend alone is several double digit percentage points higher due to the cracking event.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on June 24, 2013, 10:58:08 AM
IJIS:

10,448,438 km2 (June 23, 2013)  down 32,343 km2 from previous.

740,157 km2 above 2012.

186,907 km2 above 2000s average.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Frivolousz21 on June 24, 2013, 11:33:29 AM
To reach 4.5 mil on Sept 1st.

Jaxa has to lose like 90K or more per day.

wow
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Jim Pettit on June 24, 2013, 01:00:13 PM
To reach 4.5 mil on Sept 1st.

Jaxa has to lose like 90K or more per day.

wow

Hmmm. JAXA extent is at 10,448,438 km2.

To reach 4.5 million, then, it needs to lose 5,948,438 km2.

There are 71 days left until September 1.

That means extent needs to drop by an average of 83,781 km2 per day between now and then.

Over that same stretch of days last year, daily extent loss was 83,851 km2--and that, mind you, was done with much less extent to start with (as so much more was already gone by this date).

Bottom line: 2013 will walk right through 4.5 million, then 4 million, to end up no more than a few hundred thousand square kilometers above last year's record number.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: jdallen on June 24, 2013, 07:02:15 PM
Presumption: 2013 ice in extent is the same/will behave the same as 2012 ice.

It's not. Will it still melt out at the same rate?  Will we have comparable weather?

Too many new variables we don't understand, interacting in entirely new and disturbing ways. I'm reminded of the oscillation of a spinning top, as it drops below the energy threshold necessary to keep it stable. Conversely and perhaps a better metaphor, a mug of water in a microwave, just before it explodes into a boil. It looks mostly the same, it appears to be in a consistent state, right up to the moment of transition.

We shall know better in a few weeks.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on June 25, 2013, 10:58:50 AM
IJIS:

10,391,406 km2
(June 24, 2013)  down 57,032 km2 from previous.

743,750 km2 above 2012.

191,765 km2 above 2000s average.

Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on June 26, 2013, 10:59:57 AM
IJIS:

10,284,844 km2 (June 25, 2013)  down 110,469 km2 from previous (revised)

713,750 km2 above 2012.

153,078 km2 above 2000s average.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on June 27, 2013, 10:59:08 AM
IJIS:

10,161,719 km2 (June 26, 2013) down 123,125 km2

707,500 km2 above 2012

100,516 km2 above 2000s average
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: wanderer on June 27, 2013, 12:10:02 PM
To reach 4.5 mil on Sept 1st.

Jaxa has to lose like 90K or more per day.

wow

Seems like you were heard by the Arctic  ;)
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Frivolousz21 on June 27, 2013, 12:15:39 PM
There are some vulnerable spots.

The Kara/Hudson/Baffin will keep losing fast.

The beaufort, ESS, and Chuchki will start opening up.

But the big question is the Nansen Basin
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: werther on June 27, 2013, 12:18:35 PM
What about the Nansen Basin, Friv?
That looks as one region in the CAB that can hardly get to the September refreeze in a better state than last year.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Frivolousz21 on June 27, 2013, 01:24:46 PM
the Nansen Basin is set up for an epic(historically speaking melt out).

Werther it will or not happen is the question.

But the ice looks horrible almost in the entire Nansen Basin besides just North of Greenland.

Anything from the Pole on a 45 degree angle towards the Fram then East to the Kara and East again towards the N. laptev/ESS/Chukchi is in terrible never before seen in modern times condition.


Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on June 28, 2013, 11:03:39 AM
IJIS:

10,084,688 km2 (June 27, 2013)  down 77,031 km2

688,594 km2 above 2012

80,235 km2 above 2000s average.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: wanderer on June 29, 2013, 10:59:36 AM
The latest value : 9,919,219 km2 (June 28, 2013) 
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on June 29, 2013, 10:59:42 AM
IJIS:

9,919,219 km2 (June 28, 2013) first time below 10 M and down 165,469 km2 from previous.

548,750 km2 above 2012

-19,187 km2 below 2000s average, first time in a long period.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Artful Dodger on June 30, 2013, 08:50:27 AM
Continental heat has arrived over the Arctic ocean.  :-*
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on June 30, 2013, 10:56:23 AM
IJIS:

9,832,188 km2 (June 29, 2013)  down 87,031 km2 from previous

536,563 km2 above 2012

26,015 km2 below 2000s average
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on July 01, 2013, 10:56:18 AM
IJIS:

9,816,406 km2 (June 30, 2013) down 15,782 km2 from previous.

671,718 km2 above 2012 (revised ::))

27,718 km2 above 2000s average
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Frivolousz21 on July 01, 2013, 04:23:23 PM
It's closer to 700k above 2012
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on July 02, 2013, 10:56:18 AM
IJIS:

 9,685,625 km2 (July 1, 2013) down 130,781 km2 from previous

628,594 km2 above 2012

37,719 km 2 below 2000s average
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Frivolousz21 on July 03, 2013, 10:20:41 AM
I am anticipating a couple huge drops on Jaxa coming up.

I know the AMSR2 graphs they use don't mean squat since they use wind-sat.  But it shows some major loses all over.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Neven on July 03, 2013, 10:50:08 AM
I've been seeing some big changes on the UB SIC day-to-day comparisons for the past couple of days, echoed by Wipneus' work with 3.125 resolution data, and so I think 2013 is going to creep closer and closer in the week to come.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on July 03, 2013, 10:56:16 AM
IJIS:

9,466,719 km2 (July 2, 2013) down 218,906 km2 from previous

532,188 km2 above 2012

180,281 km2 below 2000s average.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Neven on July 03, 2013, 11:11:49 AM
Et voilà, a double century (might be revised tomorrow). If it doesn't get revised, it will be the biggest July daily drop in the 2005-2013 period.

2013 dips below 2005 and 2008, after dipping below 2009 yesterday.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Siffy on July 03, 2013, 02:38:45 PM
not going to lie this melt season has left me rather confused.

This might well be due to this being my first real year of actually watching the ice so to speak but wow have the projections been all over the place.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: deep octopus on July 03, 2013, 03:23:26 PM
My strong belief is that Hudson Bay and Kara Sea contributed the most to this double century break. Switching between Bremen's June 30th and July 2nd renderings makes this excruciatingly obvious.

June 30
http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsr2data/asi_daygrid_swath/n6250/2013/jun/asi-AMSR2-n6250-20130630-v5_nic.png (http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsr2data/asi_daygrid_swath/n6250/2013/jun/asi-AMSR2-n6250-20130630-v5_nic.png)

July 2
http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsr2data/asi_daygrid_swath/n6250/2013/jul/asi-AMSR2-n6250-20130702-v5_nic.png (http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsr2data/asi_daygrid_swath/n6250/2013/jul/asi-AMSR2-n6250-20130702-v5_nic.png)
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: sofouuk on July 03, 2013, 04:28:40 PM
not going to lie this melt season has left me rather confused.

This might well be due to this being my first real year of actually watching the ice so to speak but wow have the projections been all over the place.
yeah well. arguably it's worse for those who've been watching for longer, bcz most of what they thought they knew no longer seems to work. how much of the slurry will survive and how much will melt away suddenly is not easy to answer, because we've never seen so much of it like this before
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Neven on July 03, 2013, 06:12:38 PM
yeah well. arguably it's worse for those who've been watching for longer, bcz most of what they thought they knew no longer seems to work.

You can say that again! This is my fourth melting season (and of course, I looked at previous years as well for comparison), but I have no idea where this could be going. The few things I learned during the 2010 and 2011 melting seasons had practically turned obsolete last year.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: OldLeatherneck on July 03, 2013, 06:13:48 PM
(http://i1269.photobucket.com/albums/jj597/OldLeatherNeck/ArcticIceExtentJuly2nd2013_zpsdd5d766d.jpg)

After the big losses in the past 3 days, I thought I would look at how much the extent would have to lose daily to catch up to previous years, by July 31st.  Looking at the above chart, 2013 is only a few days behind 2007, however, it was this week that 2007 had some dramatic losses.

The first table below shows the average daily extent losses from July 3rd to July 31st for years 2007, 2011 and 2012 respectively.  The second table shows how much the average daily extent loss, in 2013, needs to be for the remainder of July to tie the respective years by July 31st.

Considering the current conditions in the arctic and the projected environmental conditions for the next week, I believe that 2013 will make up a great deal of ground during July.  The question still remains, will it be enough for 2013 to stand any chance of breaking the record of 2012?? 

Or do we need another repeat of GAC-2012?

(http://i1269.photobucket.com/albums/jj597/OldLeatherNeck/AvgArcticIceExtentLossJuly3rd2013_zps468cdbbc.jpg)
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on July 03, 2013, 06:55:57 PM
OldLeatherneck;

I am convinced that some odd weather system will show up in the next 4 weeks or so, it will at least it give watts some more excuses, but watching Modis and Bremen I am sure we have seen nothing yet!
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on July 04, 2013, 10:51:43 AM
IJIS:

9,477,344 km2 (July 2, 2013) revised

9,327,188 (July 3, 2013) down 150,156 km2 from previous.

514,688 km2 above 2012

228,547 km2 below 2000s average.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Wipneus on July 04, 2013, 11:14:01 AM
The AMSR2 ice concentration map from Jaxa/IJIS is showing a polynya in the middle of the Beaufort for a couple of days now. It is not visible on the AMSR2 maps of Uni Hamburg and Uni Bremen. The  polynya in Chukchi at least falls in an area of low concentration on those maps.

Image attached.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Artful Dodger on July 04, 2013, 11:36:52 AM
The AMSR2 ice concentration map from Jaxa/IJIS is showing a polynya in the middle of the Beaufort for a couple of days now. It is not visible on the AMSR2 maps of Uni Hamburg and Uni Bremen. The  polynya in Chukchi at least falls in an area of low concentration on those maps.

Oh it's real all right, Wipneus.  8)

The Beaufort Barepatch appears in the SMOS sea ice thickness chart as does the Chukchi Collapse and the Barentsz Bight.  ;D

EDIT: FTP link removed since folder now depopulated.  ???
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on July 04, 2013, 11:45:40 AM
The AMSR2 ice concentration map from Jaxa/IJIS is showing a polynya in the middle of the Beaufort for a couple of days now. It is not visible on the AMSR2 maps of Uni Hamburg and Uni Bremen. The  polynya in Chukchi at least falls in an area of low concentration on those maps.

Image attached.

And here is an image of it:
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on July 05, 2013, 10:56:16 AM
IJIS:

9,255,469 km2 (July 4, 2013) down 71,719 km2 from previous.

523,281 km2 above 2012.

204,312 km2 below 2000s average.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Siffy on July 05, 2013, 11:31:11 AM
Seems like very small drop is that likely to be revised (compared to the last few days) is that likely to be revised?
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: dree12 on July 06, 2013, 01:07:44 AM
Seems like very small drop is that likely to be revised (compared to the last few days) is that likely to be revised?

It's not that small of a drop, and although it may be revised, I don't see anything odd with it.

Indeed, even upticks aren't unusual this time of year.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on July 06, 2013, 10:55:57 AM
IJIS:

9,141,563 km2 (July 5, 2013)  down 113,906 km2

471,875 km2 above 2012.

226,672 km2 below 2000s average.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: wanderer on July 06, 2013, 11:39:46 AM
IJIS:

10,632,500 km2 (June 20, 2013) down 29,375 km2 from previous (revised)

838,750 km2 above 2012

177,594 km2 above 2000s average

So we see what can happen within 15 days and there is still lots of ice that should have melted already, so I expected that we will get closer and closer to 2012 until the end of July
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Gray-Wolf on July 06, 2013, 04:39:16 PM
Correct ( IMHO) Wanderer!

Maybe folk going on PIOMAS and concentration alone ( and not eyeballing the situation on the ground) have been given a slightly skewed image of the Basin?

I worry that both Cryosat2 and Piomas have had difficulties assessing the total volume of areas where we have scant floes and 'Slush Puppy' and have nudged toward the 'Floe' data? From what I've seen of the 'Slush Puppy' as soon as it sees 'open water' it just vanishes???

How much 'Slush Puppy' do we have in C.A.B.?
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Artful Dodger on July 06, 2013, 06:50:36 PM
I worry that <snip> Piomas have had difficulties assessing the total volume of areas where we have scant floes and 'Slush Puppy'

Hi G-W,

WRT PIOMAS, their problem is a simplifying assumption made in the underlying model of the sea ice. PIOMAS uses one set of values for all type of sea ice: salinity, density, melting point. That means FYI and MYI both behave slightly differently than the median values chosen for the model parameters.

I think this is the reason why the Polar Science Center validation effort (http://psc.apl.washington.edu/wordpress/research/projects/arctic-sea-ice-volume-anomaly/validation/) found that:

Note that from the comparison with in situ observations it appears that PIOMAS tends to overestimate thin ice and underestimates thick ice.

Note that FYI is composed of about 10% air bubbles. That causes it's density to be lower. The liquid brine portion of sea water contained within FYI IS dense, but it is NOT sea ice, and should be subtracted from the volume estimate. Again, one set of parameters does not fit all species of sea ice!

I estimate that overall it takes about 10% less energy to melt FYI than PIOMAS modeled sea ice, and perhaps 10% more energy to melt MYI than modeled ice. This causes problems later on as we'll see.

Note that PIOMAS did a terrible job predicting the September 2012 avg SIE in its Late Summer update (http://www.arcus.org/search/seaiceoutlook/2012/august/update) to the SEARCH Project (3.9 +/- 0.32 M km2 (http://www.arcus.org/files/page/documents/19268/zhang_lindsay.pdf)). About 270,000 km2 more ice melted in the event than PIOMAS predicted only 2 weeks earlier, almost all of it in FYI areas, while the MYI persisted.

So here's my take on PIOMAS's shortcoming for prediction: As the ratio of FYI/MYI increases, PIOMAS becomes increasingly inaccurate due to sea ice parameter mismatch.

The obvious fix is to model different types of sea ice, with persistence over time to age the ice.  ::)
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: werther on July 06, 2013, 10:21:14 PM
Thanks for sharing your viwe on how to interprete PIOMAS, Lodger.
Their model is practical, but as with the other traditional ways of data processing, it looks like it doesn't cope very well with the changing character of the Arctic.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on July 07, 2013, 10:56:13 AM
IJIS:

9,033,594 km2 (July 6, 2013) down 107,969 km2 from previous.

451,094 km2 above 2012.

254,453 km2 below 2000s average.

Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Artful Dodger on July 07, 2013, 05:55:57 PM
Thanks for sharing your viwe on how to interprete PIOMAS, Lodger.
Their model is practical, but as with the other traditional ways of data processing, it looks like it doesn't cope very well with the changing character of the Arctic.


There's a bit more corroboration from interim CryoSat2 observations, as reported in the latest NSIDC Sea Ice Report (http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2013/07/a-new-average-for-arctic-sea-ice/), in the section subtitled "An Arctic pre-conditioned for rapid summer ice loss?"

According to Andrew Shepherd at the University of Leeds, preliminary results from the European Space Agency CryoSat satellite suggest that the ice pack was 8% thinner in March 2013 compared to March 2012.


Here's the PIOMAS thickness chart. Note that mid-March average sea ice thickness for both 2012 & 2013 is estimated to be 1.5 m. The new CryoSat2 results suggest that March 2013 average thickness should be closer to 1.38 m  :o

(http://psc.apl.washington.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ice_volume/Bpiomas_plot_daily_heff.2sst.png)
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on July 08, 2013, 10:56:16 AM
IJIS:

8,886,406 km2 (July 7, 2013) down 147,188 km2 from previous.

378,593 km2 above 2012.

326,391 km2 below 2000s average.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Siffy on July 08, 2013, 02:49:50 PM
IJIS:

8,886,406 km2 (July 7, 2013) down 147,188 km2 from previous.

378,593 km2 above 2012.

326,391 km2 below 2000s average.

Forgive my confusion but at this rate of melt out are we not going to overtake 2012 soon?

How many days of this kind of break neck melt until we have over taken 2012?
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on July 08, 2013, 03:00:11 PM
IJIS:

8,886,406 km2 (July 7, 2013) down 147,188 km2 from previous.

378,593 km2 above 2012.

326,391 km2 below 2000s average.

Forgive my confusion but at this rate of melt out are we not going to overtake 2012 soon?

How many days of this kind of break neck melt until we have over taken 2012?

To get at level with 2012 eg. within a week (July 14)  we need an average of 157,143 km2 melt per day!
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: BornFromTheVoid on July 08, 2013, 03:16:23 PM

Forgive my confusion but at this rate of melt out are we not going to overtake 2012 soon?

How many days of this kind of break neck melt until we have over taken 2012?


Over the last 5 days, with IJIS, we've lost extent at a rate of about 118k/day, compared to 2012 which over the same time, declined at about 85k/day. This has reduced the anomaly from 514k down to 376k.
Over the next 5 days in 2012, the melt rate increased in response to warming and a +ve dipole pattern, falling by 121k/day. So maintaining our current rate of loss, we won't gain much on 2012 until after the 12th.
If we maintain the loss rate of the last 5 days for the remainder of the month, we'd pass 2012 on the 21st

(http://i.imgur.com/JXWxRIr.gif)
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on July 09, 2013, 10:56:18 AM
IJIS:

8,746,250 km2 (July 8, 2013)  down 140,146 km2 from previous.

345,312 km2 above 2012.

398,000 km2 below 2000s average.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Neven on July 09, 2013, 11:15:55 AM
7 out of the 8 first days have been century breaks in the IJIS SIE data set. Pretty amazing.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on July 09, 2013, 11:47:27 AM
And 117,422 km2 on average! ;)
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Apocalypse4Real on July 09, 2013, 03:43:37 PM
And this is all before the Beaufort high pressure for the next 10 days....
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Artful Dodger on July 09, 2013, 04:27:20 PM
Big chunks of the Chukchi sea were at ~50% SIC on July 8, 2013:
(early-release AMSR2 L2 data from the 23:00 UTC swath)
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on July 09, 2013, 05:04:21 PM
Dodger;

I expect a "few" movements in the next couple of weeks, but it is better to keep a low profile I guess! ;)
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on July 10, 2013, 10:56:22 AM
IJIS:

8,609,531 km2 (July 9, 2013) down 136,719 km2 from previous.

367,812 km above 2102.

464,688 km2 below 2000s average.

Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Frivolousz21 on July 10, 2013, 11:30:27 AM
And 117,422 km2 on average! ;)


Wouldn't that be higher.  I did today's based off 9 days.  Which comes out to 134,097K.  If I do it from 10 days then it's 120,687K.

Why would  we would be include June 30th into the daily count?  The June 30th number is used as the July starting point as like the ice extent through June 30th.

At the end of the month when you add in July 31st will you divide by 32?

On the other hand you may have used July 1st and subtracted that from July 8th and came up with that number but still divided by 8 instead of 7.  Again why would we do that.  It wouldn't include the ice extent change between June 30th and July 1st. 

Either way at the end of the month you will be dividing by 32 and that can't be right. 



On their website it says:

Sea-ice data is updated at around 9:00(UTC) every day


This would inherently imply the daily total is the end of day total for whatever date it fall's on. 
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Neven on July 10, 2013, 12:25:30 PM
8 out of the first 9 days of July had century breaks reported by IJIS. One or two more and it's a remarkable streak (although there have been much more century breaks reported since the switch to Windsat/AMSR2).

There, I jinxed it.  ;D
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: OldLeatherneck on July 10, 2013, 12:53:39 PM
For the remaining 22 days of July, IJIS Extent needs to drop an average of 101.5K/day to catch 2007 by the 31st of July.

With the forecast for the next 7-10 days, I see the potential for a great deal of melting, compaction and export of ice.  It will be interesting how many of those days exceed 100K losses.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on July 11, 2013, 10:56:18 AM
IJIS:

8,522,813 km2 (July 10, 2013)  down 86,718 km2 from previous.

407,344 km2 above 2012.

482,359 km2 below 2000s average.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Vergent on July 11, 2013, 02:43:18 PM
CT area 6.5221415 Mkm^2.(-135k)

There is a lot of air in the extent balloon.

Two million point zero zero zero to be exactly approximate.

Vergent
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Artful Dodger on July 11, 2013, 09:10:01 PM
Yes, CAPIE is about 75.8% for July 9, 2013.

Look for real fireworks to start when CAPIE crosses below 70%.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Wipneus on July 12, 2013, 08:56:28 AM
Very little Windsat data available. Will there be an IJIS update to day?

http://www.ssmi.com/windsat/windsat_data_daily.html (http://www.ssmi.com/windsat/windsat_data_daily.html)
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on July 12, 2013, 10:56:26 AM
Ijis:

8,415,313 km2 (July 11, 2013)  down 107,500 km2 from previous.

410,157 km2 above 2012.

515,578 km2 below 2000s average.



Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: OldLeatherneck on July 12, 2013, 01:43:51 PM
For the remaining 20 days of July, IJIS Extent needs to drop an average of 102K/day to catch 2007 by the 31st of July.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on July 12, 2013, 02:05:20 PM
For the remaining 20 days of July, IJIS Extent needs to drop an average of 102K/day to catch 2007 by the 31st of July.
And "only" 95,805 km2 / day to catch 2012.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: OldLeatherneck on July 12, 2013, 02:45:38 PM
Looking Ahead to August

For the remaining 20 days of July, IJIS Extent needs to drop an average of 102K/day to catch 2007 by the 31st of July.

And "only" 95,805 km2 / day to catch 2012.


Espen,

The reason I'm looking at how much we need to lose to match 2007 is the fact that 2013 almost needs to be well ahead of 2012 by the end of July.  The 60 day window in the chart below shows that 2013 has gained a great deal of ground in the past 3 weeks, however, in early August last year, GAC-2012 caused havoc for almost a week.  I've made a table of extent losses, for the first 21 days of August, in years 2007, 2011 & 2012.  Even after GAC-2012 left the scene, 2012's daily losses were well above the other record setting years.

The question remains.......will 2013's extent losses in August be in the 60K+ range or the 90K+ range??

(http://i1269.photobucket.com/albums/jj597/OldLeatherNeck/ArcticIceExtentJuly11th2013_zpsfe9a4aec.jpg)

(http://i1269.photobucket.com/albums/jj597/OldLeatherNeck/ArcticIceExtent21daysummary2007-2011-2012_zps57e72c04.jpg)
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on July 12, 2013, 05:05:36 PM
OldLeatherneck;

What is wrong with a GAC-2013 or another kind of weather beast? But I see what you mean!
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on July 13, 2013, 10:57:12 AM
IJIS:

8,343,281 km2 (July 12, 2013) down 108,282 km2 from previous (revised)

441,875 km2 above 2012.

516,703 km2 below 2000s average.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Frivolousz21 on July 13, 2013, 11:17:08 AM
The revision sets up tomorrow for a big drop.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Peter Ellis on July 13, 2013, 11:31:01 AM
Eh?  No, the revision set up <i>today</i> for a big drop, by increasing yesterday's figure.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on July 14, 2013, 10:56:16 AM
IJIS:

8,169,063 km2 (July 13, 2013)  down 174,218 km2 from previous.

325,938 km2 above 2012.

613,672 km2 below 2000s average.

Only 2007- 2010- 2011 and 2012 was lower.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: OldLeatherneck on July 14, 2013, 11:27:43 AM
For the remaining 18 days of July, IJIS Extent needs to drop an average of 99.7K/day to catch 2007 by the 31st of July.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on July 14, 2013, 12:44:05 PM
Studying Modis , Bremen and particularly Bremen, I believe we are heading for some heavy drops all around the board in the next few days. The "Deep Purple" color is almost gone now from Bremen.

http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsr2/arctic_AMSR2_nic.png (http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsr2/arctic_AMSR2_nic.png)
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: OldLeatherneck on July 14, 2013, 12:49:15 PM
Studying Modis , Bremen and particularly Bremen, I believe we are heading for some heavy drops all around the board in the next few days. The "Deep Purple" color is almost gone now from Bremen.

[url]http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsr2/arctic_AMSR2_nic.png[/url] ([url]http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsr2/arctic_AMSR2_nic.png[/url])


Very good chance of going below 2010 during this upcoming few days and significantly closing the gap with 2007, 2011 and 2012.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Artful Dodger on July 14, 2013, 06:58:23 PM
Very good chance of going below 2010 during this upcoming few days and significantly closing the gap with 2007, 2011 and 2012.

Quite right, OLN

Indeed, 2013 is just 3.5 days behind 2012 at the current 10-day rate of SIE loss:

(9327188-8169063)/-325938 (http://www.google.com/search?q=(9327188-8169063)%2F-325938) = -3.55

And, 2012 was a leap year, so make that 2.5 days behind 2012.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Bob Wallace on July 14, 2013, 07:27:24 PM
By the end of July 2012 Kara and Beaufort hit ~zero.  Once a region zeros out it can no longer contribute to the daily melt.


(http://i619.photobucket.com/albums/tt275/Bob_Wall/2013-07-14_104007fullsizecrop.jpg) (http://s619.photobucket.com/user/Bob_Wall/media/2013-07-14_104007fullsizecrop.jpg.html)

At the end of July 2013 both regions will almost certainly have significant ice left to melt and those melts will add to the August 2013 loss totals. 

Only Chukchi looks like it might melt out quicker in 2013 than it did in 2012.  Bering and Okhotsk melted quicker in 2013 than in 2012, but they're ~zeroed out and have no more role to play this year.

Might want to be watching for 2013 to make major gains on 2012 during early August as Kara and Beaufort finish their probable melt.

Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on July 15, 2013, 10:56:18 AM
IJIS:

8,069,063 km2 (July 14, 2013) down 100,000 km2 from previous.

282,657 km2 above 2012.

632,156 km2 below 2000s average.

Only 2007, 2011 and 2012 was lower.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: OldLeatherneck on July 15, 2013, 11:19:28 AM
Espen,

Where did you find today's updated number.  I haven't seen it yet on the graphs page on the ASIB.

Secondly, don't you find it rather odd that the drop was exactly 100,000??
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: wanderer on July 15, 2013, 11:21:33 AM
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm (http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm)

Nothing is too odd this summer ;-)

17 more days of this and we catch 2012 and 2007!
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: OldLeatherneck on July 15, 2013, 11:29:19 AM
[url]http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm[/url] ([url]http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm[/url])

Nothing is too odd this summer ;-)

17 more days of this and we catch 2012 and 2007!


That's the same link as the one on ASIB's Graph page and it has not been updated since the 13th, which showed an extent of 8,169,063.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: wanderer on July 15, 2013, 11:30:00 AM
Refresh the page!
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: OldLeatherneck on July 15, 2013, 11:36:03 AM
Refresh the page!

Thanks!!

If that number is not revised upward, we have just eclipsed 2010 and now are only chasing 2007, 2011 &2012.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on July 15, 2013, 11:39:47 AM
Espen,

Where did you find today's updated number.  I haven't seen it yet on the graphs page on the ASIB.

Secondly, don't you find it rather odd that the drop was exactly 100,000??

100,000 km2 is as odd as any number I guess?
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Phil. on July 15, 2013, 01:50:59 PM
Espen,

Where did you find today's updated number.  I haven't seen it yet on the graphs page on the ASIB.

Secondly, don't you find it rather odd that the drop was exactly 100,000??

100,000 is an integral number of pixels, it would be surprising not to see it occasionally.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: pearscot on July 15, 2013, 05:09:00 PM
I'm very surprised at how quickly 2013 is catching up...

(http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/Sea_Ice_Extent.png)
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Artful Dodger on July 15, 2013, 06:58:34 PM
Secondly, don't you find it rather odd that the drop was exactly 100,000??

Hi OLN,

100,000 km2 SIE is exactly 640 'cells' of 12.5 square km, which is the size used by IJIS:

http://www.google.com/search?q=100000%2F(12.5 (http://www.google.com/search?q=100000%2F(12.5)^2)
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: OldLeatherneck on July 15, 2013, 07:17:47 PM
Secondly, don't you find it rather odd that the drop was exactly 100,000??

Hi OLN,

100,000 km2 SIE is exactly 640 'cells' of 12.5 square km, which is the size used by IJIS:

[url]http://www.google.com/search?q=100000%2F(12.5[/url] ([url]http://www.google.com/search?q=100000%2F(12.5)[/url]^2)


Thanks Lodger,

That's what I appreciate about this forum.......ask a question......receive an answer!
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on July 15, 2013, 08:23:38 PM
I believe we will follow a 100,000 to 200,000 km2 drops the next few days.

Remember "Deep Purple" almost left the Bremen Stage!
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Bob Wallace on July 15, 2013, 08:39:46 PM
Hudson and Baffin are going to hit ~zero soon.  That removes two of the contributors to fast melt.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: pikaia on July 15, 2013, 09:18:54 PM
Hudson and Baffin are going to hit ~zero soon.  That removes two of the contributors to fast melt.
On the other hand, the ice has recently pulled away from the coast on the Pacific side of the Arctic, so it has a much longer edge, giving more potential for edge-melting.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Artful Dodger on July 15, 2013, 09:52:45 PM
Hudson and Baffin are going to hit ~zero soon.  That removes two of the contributors to fast melt.
Hi Bob,

I don't think those two regions will matter much at least WRT the race with 2012 SIE. 2013 is tied for SIE in Hudson Bay, and behind about 50K in Baffin Bay:

https://sites.google.com/site/arctischepinguin/home/amsr2/grf/amsr2-extent-regional.png

Further, the Kara sea is at least 100K behind 2012 on this date, but is on track to melt out completely by about August 1st.

So as other commenters have recognized, I think it comes down to the Beaufort sea, and Central Arctic Basin. The next 8 weeks will be very interesting, the melt rate given conditions should tell us a lot about the real state of the ice.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Bob Wallace on July 15, 2013, 10:33:35 PM
I've been using Wipneus' extent and area regional maps.  It seems clear to me that the 2012/2013 race for the record is all about the CAB, CA and GS.   If things continue as they are going the Beaufort will melt out as it did last year, perhaps a month+ later, but it's on track to hit zero.

Each region undergoes a period of slow melt, then rapid melt, and then perhaps a tapering off as it approaches zero.  As regions melt out that portion of rapidly melting ice is gone from the daily plunge.

As you remove the total amount of ice to be melted it becomes more difficult to maintain the absolute daily melt.

We will continue high daily melt rates if the CAB does what it did in 2012, begin a very rapid plunge about this time of year and continue to plunge for a couple of months.  Watching both area and extent it looks that 2013 might steal a march as it did in a couple of other regions.
--

Very interesting that the Greenland Sea is almost down to 2012's minimum a good month sooner.  This should allow for some significant warming of its water and keep the GS from holding much Fram transported ice until freezing resumes.

Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: OldLeatherneck on July 15, 2013, 10:42:25 PM
In the last 21 days alone, IJIS Extent has dropped almost 2.4 Million Sq Km. Since much of the remaining ice is very vulnerable, I find it inconceivable to lose less than 4.0 Million Sq Km in the next 6-8 weeks. 2007 is fair game and 2012 is threatened.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on July 16, 2013, 10:56:21 AM
IJIS:

7,998,125 km2 (July 15, 2013)  down 70,938 km2 from previous.

280,781 km2 above 2012.

628,719 km2 below 2000s average.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on July 16, 2013, 11:01:15 AM
A small drop according to my estimates :-[
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: werther on July 16, 2013, 11:37:42 AM
Hi Espen,
the number doesn't mean much. Just look at MODIS tile r04c03, CAB North of the CAA. Extended melt ponding, structure loss. Worse than '12. There was a stage then, day 190, same melt ponding. Three days later a small "leprechaun" low began the demolishing work.
I start to get excited...
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on July 16, 2013, 11:52:34 AM
Hi Werther,

Yes I know.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Siffy on July 16, 2013, 12:12:34 PM
IJIS:

7,998,125 km2 (July 15, 2013)  down 70,938 km2 from previous.

280,781 km2 above 2012.

628,719 km2 below 2000s average.

not every day can be century breaks I guess :P
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on July 17, 2013, 10:56:24 AM
IJIS:

7,996,250 km2 (July 16, 2013) down 1,875 km2 from previous. (??????)

398,125 km2 above 2012.

555,250 km2 below 2000s average.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Whit on July 17, 2013, 11:08:05 AM
Crumbling and fragmenting won't affect extent and area immediately, will it? It might even add to area and extent as I see it.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Pmt111500 on July 17, 2013, 11:19:33 AM
Crumbling and fragmenting won't affect extent and area immediately, will it? It might even add to area and extent as I see it.

Yes, someone talked about the microphysics of ice in a bit similar fashion. We ice-affocionados should keep in mind  ice is a solid and has some habits of solids like the expansion/shrinking due the ambient temperature. Add to this the microfractures produced (at least) by surface melt and brine ejection, and air bubbles trapped within the snow turning ice, you get that ice isn't your average metallic solid, which conducts heat fast and evenly and melts pretty fast, but a solid it is and melt it will above 0 in the standard pressure. In fact, melting of ice might be compared to the melting of the ore to get the desired mineral separated, in this case water would be the product. So it's a bit of optimization problem like almost everything if one goes to the atomic level of things.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: werther on July 17, 2013, 01:33:27 PM
It may very well be like Whit suggests.
through a quick check on MODIS r04c05 I saw nothing suggesting that the 'process' is interrupted, like IJIS seems to suggest when one sees it's graph.
Fast ice over there is quickly breaking up (Buor Kaya and Khatanga Gulf).
Such processes may temporarily enhance extent in these regions.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Siffy on July 17, 2013, 04:12:45 PM
IJIS:

7,996,250 km2 (July 16, 2013) down 1,875 km2 from previous. (??????)

398,125 km2 above 2012.

555,250 km2 below 2000s average.

Wow, thats a tiny drop  :o
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: werther on July 17, 2013, 04:46:40 PM
Must be one large, bloody important floe down getting all sensors' attention...
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Whit on July 17, 2013, 05:24:07 PM
It may very well be like Whit suggests.
through a quick check on MODIS r04c05 I saw nothing suggesting that the 'process' is interrupted, like IJIS seems to suggest when one sees it's graph.
Fast ice over there is quickly breaking up (Buor Kaya and Khatanga Gulf).
Such processes may temporarily enhance extent in these regions.
It would nearly be a first according to my wife.

if I try to visualize it I just imagine a glass of water with two ice-cubes and measure area and extent. Then I smash the cubes until they're all nice and frappé-like and measure them again. Thickness has gone down, while area and extent has gone up. Still the ice should be in a more vulnerable state.

The icecubes are smaller this year it seems. It should make them disperse more and cover a larger area, thus keeping the albedo lower. My total lack of training in maths and physics leaves me totally undergunned for tackling this problem. At least, when you know very little, it's easy to learn a lot :)
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on July 18, 2013, 10:56:15 AM
IJIS:

7,867,031 km2 (July 17, 2013)  down 129,219 km2 from previous.

374,531 km2 above 2012.

Still behind 2007, 2011 and 2012.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Lennart van der Linde on July 18, 2013, 12:34:02 PM
In 2012 from today, day 200, until minimum, day 261, we lost 66k/day on average. This year we need about 72k/day on average to catch 2012 by day 261.

In 2012 the next 16 days extent lost about 66k/day on average. This year we need about 89k/day to catch 2012 in those 16 days.

In 2012 extent-loss from day 216-246 was about 88k/day and from day 246-261 about 21 k/day.

Looking at the visible state of the ice, and depending on weather of course, my guess would be that we still have about a 30-40% chance of a new record this year.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Jim Pettit on July 18, 2013, 03:09:58 PM
2012 IJIS SIE dropped an average of roughly 68.5k km2 per day from July 18 through the end of the month. To catch 2012 by the end of then, 2013 needs to drop by 93.4k km2 per day. For the month-to-date, the average daily drop has been about 115k. So, even if the current loss rate slows by 20% from now through 31 July, 2013 SIE will be virtually tied with 2012 come 1 August.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: dree12 on July 18, 2013, 03:12:08 PM
2012 IJIS SIE dropped an average of roughly 68.5k km2 per day from July 18 through the end of the month. To catch 2012 by the end of then, 2013 needs to drop by 93.4k km2 per day. For the month-to-date, the average daily drop has been about 115k. So, even if the current loss rate slows by 20% from now through 31 July, 2013 SIE will be virtually tied with 2012 come 1 August.

If 2013 isn't tied with 2012 by then, I'm personally throwing out any possibility of a new record. 2012 dropped precipitously from beginning of August to its minimum.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Shared Humanity on July 19, 2013, 12:03:10 AM
2012 IJIS SIE dropped an average of roughly 68.5k km2 per day from July 18 through the end of the month. To catch 2012 by the end of then, 2013 needs to drop by 93.4k km2 per day. For the month-to-date, the average daily drop has been about 115k. So, even if the current loss rate slows by 20% from now through 31 July, 2013 SIE will be virtually tied with 2012 come 1 August.

If 2013 isn't tied with 2012 by then, I'm personally throwing out any possibility of a new record. 2012 dropped precipitously from beginning of August to its minimum.

Wasn't that precipitous drop caused by the GAC2012?
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Vergent on July 19, 2013, 01:30:17 AM

Wasn't that precipitous drop caused by the GAC2012?

The storm did help, but the energy that melted the ice came from albedo feedback. The ice on the pacific side broke up and spread out in June. By August, there was enough energy in the water to melt the surrounding ice several times over, much more energy than the storm could transfer.

Much the same thing is happening in the eastern CAB(central Arctic Basin) this year. The top 25-50 meters has warmed up by over 1C above the seawater melting point. See ITP-57.

Vergent
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Bruce Steele on July 19, 2013, 02:25:36 AM
Vergent,  I know I should be over at the " what are the buoy's telling us" page but check out ITP 62 and 64 . The Canada Basin has some recent  surface warming also.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: jdallen on July 19, 2013, 02:45:03 AM
Vergent,  I know I should be over at the " what are the buoy's telling us" page but check out ITP 62 and 64 . The Canada Basin has some recent  surface warming also.

I'd say that looks like close to 2CM/day bottom melt, exclusive of any other heat inputs.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on July 19, 2013, 10:56:12 AM
IJIS:

7,669,531 km2 (July 18, 2013)  down 196,875 km2 from previous (revised).

255,468 km2 above 2012.

Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Siffy on July 19, 2013, 11:28:44 AM
IJIS:

7,669,531 km2 (July 18, 2013)  down 196,875 km2 from previous (revised).

255,468 km2 above 2012.

I was about to say thats better... It kind of isn't though, I must admit I am beginning to find my fascination with the arctic ice and my struggling to find the right word here but desire to see it melt out as it would be exceptional to be rather morbid.

it's like watching a motor sport for the accidents something I would find distasteful ordinarily and yet I find my self doing the equivalent here.

either way, we look to be catching up rather rapidly.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Neven on July 19, 2013, 11:32:56 AM
Wow, that's the third biggest July daily drop in the 2005-2013 period, after having recorded the biggest drop on July 2nd this year.

I wonder what CT SIA is going to do now.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on July 19, 2013, 11:37:41 AM
From what I can see from the Bremen Map, we are still in for some big drops and the reason for that it is the poor quality of the ice.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: OldLeatherneck on July 19, 2013, 01:00:55 PM
For the remaining 12 days of July, IJIS Extent needs to drop an average of 99.6K/day to catch 2007 by the 31st of July.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Siffy on July 19, 2013, 01:35:50 PM
From what I can see from the Bremen Map, we are still in for some big drops and the reason for that it is the poor quality of the ice.

Espen, are you able to format the IJIS melt numbers in a table? It would be nice to have it all the results in one table to compare the numbers more easily instead of going through each post.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Jim Pettit on July 19, 2013, 02:04:23 PM
For the remaining 12 days of July, IJIS Extent needs to drop an average of 99.6K/day to catch 2007 by the 31st of July.

True. But to catch 2012--a better analogy so far as ice condition--the required daily drop is a bit less. IJIS SIE is at 7669531 now; on July 31 last year, it was at 6499219, a difference of 1.17 million km2. There are 13 melt days left this month, for an average daily drop of a bit over 90k.

Anyway: IJIS SIE has fallen by 2.15 million km2 this month, which is I believe the largest July-to-date decrease in the record, and already substantially more than was lost in all of June. (Extent usually, though not always, drops more in July than it does than in June.)
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Vergent on July 19, 2013, 08:14:47 PM
-197k today ???

But before you get excited by that go to the sea ice monitor ans see where the losses are(use today's overlay on yesterday's image).

http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/cgi-bin/seaice-monitor.cgi?lang=e (http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/cgi-bin/seaice-monitor.cgi?lang=e)

The difference is mainly how much of the Aral Sea dry lake bed Jaxa is counting as ice.

Verg
Modify message
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: jdallen on July 19, 2013, 08:22:10 PM
-197k today ???

But before you get excited by that go to the sea ice monitor ans see where the losses are(use today's overlay on yesterday's image).

[url]http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/cgi-bin/seaice-monitor.cgi?lang=e[/url] ([url]http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/cgi-bin/seaice-monitor.cgi?lang=e[/url])

The difference is mainly how much of the Aral Sea dry lake bed Jaxa is counting as ice.

Verg
Modify message


Do y'think maybe we or someone might be wanting to pester them about that?  Or, is it possible they are ignoring 'ice' outside of specific areas?  For them to be factoring in the Aral basin would be hideously stupid.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Peter Ellis on July 19, 2013, 08:53:35 PM
Firstly: I doubt they're factoring in the Aral basin.  Secondly: Vergent, you're a day out with your logic.  The -197k is the change between the 17th and 18th - and if you overlay those you can see nothing much going on in the Aral.  Thirdly and much more importantly than either of the above: the IJIS graph is (I believe) still based on Windsat and not on the AMSR2 data shown in the Sea Ice Monitor.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: OldLeatherneck on July 19, 2013, 09:15:30 PM
For the remaining 12 days of July, IJIS Extent needs to drop an average of 99.6K/day to catch 2007 by the 31st of July.

True. But to catch 2012--a better analogy so far as ice condition--the required daily drop is a bit less. IJIS SIE is at 7669531 now; on July 31 last year, it was at 6499219, a difference of 1.17 million km2. There are 13 melt days left this month, for an average daily drop of a bit over 90k.

Anyway: IJIS SIE has fallen by 2.15 million km2 this month, which is I believe the largest July-to-date decrease in the record, and already substantially more than was lost in all of June. (Extent usually, though not always, drops more in July than it does than in June.)

Jim

The only reason I keep tracking the losses needed to catch 2007 by July 31st is that 2007 had the lowest extent value on that date, still well ahead of 2012.  My thinking is that 2013 needs to be ahead of 2012 by that time, because 2012's losses were aided an abetted by GAC-2012.  It remains to be seen if 2013 will follow the loss profile of 2007/2011 or that of 2012 during the first three weeks of August.  As an example, the average daily losses for those three years are as follows:

2007 - 65,727 Sq Km
2011 - 63,250 Sq Km
2012 - 96,703 Sq Km
[/size]

Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on July 20, 2013, 10:57:11 AM
IJIS:

7,631,719 km2 (July 19, 2013)  down 58,281 km2 from previous (revised).

287,344 km2 above 2012.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on July 21, 2013, 10:56:20 AM
IJIS:

7,604,531 km2 (July 20, 2013)  down 27,188 km2 from previous.

289,500 km2 above 2012.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on July 22, 2013, 10:56:21 AM
IJIS:

7,539,375 km2 (July 21, 2013) down 65,156 km2 from previous.

260,000 km2 above 2012.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Vergent on July 22, 2013, 06:19:28 PM
Thirdly and much more importantly than either of the above: the IJIS graph is (I believe) still based on Windsat and not on the AMSR2 data shown in the Sea Ice Monitor.


I thought I needed to answer the last first(Most importantly).

http://www.jaxa.jp/press/2012/08/20120825_arctic_sea_e.html (http://www.jaxa.jp/press/2012/08/20120825_arctic_sea_e.html)

This JAXA press release clearly states that SHIZUKU(AMSR2) is the source for their data. Fair mistake, they never updated the credit on their graph page.
Firstly: I doubt they're factoring in the Aral basin.

They started displaying AMSR2 images last July 24. They also started having big revisions to their initial postings on the order of 60k to 100k. On the Monitor, the concentration map would show ice on the Aral, but on the ice extent overlay, they showed the Windsat extent(identifiable by its blind spot. They were manually removing the ARAL phantom ice from the extent number so I assume they were using AMSR2 to generat the number. It is interesting that on the above, they erased the phantom ice from their concentration graphic, something they they never bothered to do on the monitor. They stopped doing these manual revisions in late August(I think they tapered them off to avoid a jump), when the validation period ended, and they started using AMSR2 generated overlays on Aug 22, 2012.
Secondly: Vergent, you're a day out with your logic.  The -197k is the change between the 17th and 18th - and if you overlay those you can see nothing much going on in the Aral.


My bad. In more ways than the one you pointed out. It is also wrong to compare one day to the previous. It takes two days to make a 95% complete scan, so doing so is to compare a lot of data to itself. I also linked to an incomplete image, the final image for the 19th, the phantom Aral ice reappeared.

Better if I had used an example that was already final. On 6/18 2013, there was a phantom melt in the Aral, and a corresponding rise in the daily loss from 90k to 130k. on the 19th the phantom ice reappeared, and the daily loss dropped to 37k.

JAXA also reads fog banks as ice on occasion.

We are coming up on the anniversary of the AMSR2 start up. From 7/24 thru 8/22 it will be invalid to compare 2013 to 2012 without subtracting 60k from 2013 corresponding to the Aral phantom ice.

Vergent

Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on July 23, 2013, 10:56:22 AM
IJIS:

7,418,750 km2 (July 22, 2013) down 120,625 km2 from previous.

198,437 km2 above 2012.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on July 23, 2013, 11:01:48 AM
2013 will need an average drop of 95,172 km2 over the next 10 days to be on par with 2012 August 1.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Artful Dodger on July 23, 2013, 11:19:24 AM
2013 IJIS SIE has averaged -109 km2/day during the first 22 days of July. The last 10 days have averaged -92.5 km2/day.

Recall that 2012 was a leap year and has a day in hand in comparison to this year's melt season. 2013 is well on track for a new record low SIE.

I expect a dramatic collapse in the Eastern CAB, in the low concentration regions. Watch the Central Basin.  :o
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on July 23, 2013, 11:23:41 AM
Dodger;

I expext much more the next few weeks, my guts (Bremen) tells me so! :)
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on July 24, 2013, 10:56:21 AM
IJIS:

7,351,719 km2 (July 23, 2013) down 67,031 km2 from previous.

219,844 km2 above 2012.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: ktonine on July 25, 2013, 06:23:49 AM
Recall that 2012 was a leap year and has a day in hand in comparison to this year's melt season.

For the purposes of the melt season, clocks/calendars should be synchronized to the summer solstice (since solar insolation is the main driver).  The solstice in 2012 did fall a day earlier (June 20th), but it was at 6:09 PM.  This year it fell on June 21st and 12:04AM.

So 2012 is really only 6 hours ahead of 2013 - there's only a 6 hour difference in the solstice between any two consecutive years.  It's still more appropriate to compare this date in 2013 with the same date in 2012.  2012 will have 6 hours in hand - but to compare a date in 2013 with a day earlier in 2012 would give 2013 an 18 hour advantage.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Artful Dodger on July 25, 2013, 10:19:36 AM
Hi ktonine,

The timing of the data release from IJIS is based on UTC (coordinated universal time), not sidereal time. So we do loose a day vs. 2012 by just comparing calendar dates.  ;D

Oh BTW, welcome to the forum! Where do you teach school?  ;)
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on July 25, 2013, 10:59:43 AM
IJIS:

7,303,281 km2 (July 24, 2013)  down 70,469 km2 from previous.

277,500 km2 above 2012.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Vergent on July 25, 2013, 04:34:22 PM
IJIS:

7,303,281 km2 (July 24, 2013)  down 70,469 km2 from previous.

277,500 km2 above 2012.


(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/95/Aral_Sea_1989-2008.jpg/240px-Aral_Sea_1989-2008.jpg)

To properly compare 2013 to 2012 JAXA SIE, you have to subtract 60k from 2013. Last year they were manually revising, removing phantom ice during the AMSR2 validation period.

So, I make it 217k above 2012. That is unless you believe the Aral dry sea bed to be sea ice.

Vergent
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on July 25, 2013, 04:42:49 PM
Vergent;

I dont know what to add and what to subtract, because there are so many spots around that may be or may not be calculated, eg. Bremen is today reporting sea ice around Newfoundland ???
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Vergent on July 25, 2013, 05:44:28 PM
Vergent;

I dont know what to add and what to subtract, because there are so many spots around that may be or may not be calculated, eg. Bremen is today reporting sea ice around Newfoundland ???

The historical area for the Aral sea was 68,000 km^2.

The revisions to JAXA SIE last year:

7/24   +59k
7/25   +67k
7/26   +65K
7/27   +69K

If you look at the monitor and see ice on the Aral, subtract 60k from the SIE for that day to compare to 2012.

Vergent
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on July 26, 2013, 10:57:20 AM
IJIS:

7,276,406 km2 (July 25, 2013) down 28,750 km2 from previous (revised)

298,593 km2 above 2012.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on July 27, 2013, 10:56:44 AM
IJIS:

7,254,531 km2
(July 26, 2013) down 21,875 km2 from previous.

368,750 km2 above 2012.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: dree12 on July 27, 2013, 03:57:47 PM
IJIS:

7,254,531 km2
(July 26, 2013) down 21,875 km2 from previous.

368,750 km2 above 2012.
:-\ Every time it seems we're about to catch 2012, a few slow days makes it seem like we'll never do it.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: sofouuk on July 27, 2013, 05:12:37 PM
we're not going to catch 2012. forget it already
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Vergent on July 27, 2013, 05:15:54 PM
IJIS:

7,254,531 km2
(July 26, 2013) down 21,875 km2 from previous.

368,750 km2 above 2012.

:-\ Every time it seems we're about to catch 2012, a few slow days makes it seem like we'll never do it.


(http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/hycomARC/navo/arcticicespddrf/nowcast/icespddrf2013072618_2013072600_035_arcticicespddrf.001.gif)

The cyclone is spreading the ice cap out. Its just pumping more air in the balloon. It's pushing ice on to warmed water in the Beaufort. Where, when concentration drops to 15%, the extent balloon will pop. Will we catch 2012? It depends on the weather and the true thickness of the remaining ice, and the unknown unknowns.

Vergent
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Shared Humanity on July 27, 2013, 06:37:00 PM
IJIS:

7,254,531 km2
(July 26, 2013) down 21,875 km2 from previous.

368,750 km2 above 2012.

:-\ Every time it seems we're about to catch 2012, a few slow days makes it seem like we'll never do it.


([url]http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/hycomARC/navo/arcticicespddrf/nowcast/icespddrf2013072618_2013072600_035_arcticicespddrf.001.gif[/url])

The cyclone is spreading the ice cap out. Its just pumping more air in the balloon. It's pushing ice on to warmed water in the Beaufort. Where, when concentration drops to 15%, the extent balloon will pop. Will we catch 2012? It depends on the weather and the true thickness of the remaining ice, and the unknown unknowns.

Vergent


Also pushing ESS ice into the Chukchi which is even warmer than the Beaufort.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: jdallen on July 27, 2013, 08:04:23 PM
IJIS:

7,254,531 km2
(July 26, 2013) down 21,875 km2 from previous.

368,750 km2 above 2012.
:-\ Every time it seems we're about to catch 2012, a few slow days makes it seem like we'll never do it.

The cyclone is spreading the ice cap out. Its just pumping more air in the balloon. It's pushing ice on to warmed water in the Beaufort. Where, when concentration drops to 15%, the extent balloon will pop. Will we catch 2012? It depends on the weather and the true thickness of the remaining ice, and the unknown unknowns.

Vergent

Also pushing ESS ice into the Chukchi which is even warmer than the Beaufort.

... Which judging from the SST's there, could melt out at 10CM+ a day. Yup. Ballon is getting stretched pretty thin.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on July 28, 2013, 10:57:15 AM
IJIS:

7,237,344 km2 (July 27, 2013) down 22,969 km2  from previous
 (revised)

444,375 km2 above 2012.

Now behind 2007, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Frivolousz21 on July 28, 2013, 11:29:40 PM
Not sure how much will show up on the next update but Jaxas AMSR2 SIC is showing massive compaction of the weak ice.  Probably going to be a couple big drops coming up.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on July 29, 2013, 10:56:28 AM
IJIS:

7,175,938 km2 (July 28, 2013) down 61,406 km2 from previous.

452,657 km2 above 2012.

Still behind 2007, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: dree12 on July 29, 2013, 04:10:30 PM
IJIS:

7,175,938 km2 (July 28, 2013) down 61,406 km2 from previous.

452,657 km2 above 2012.

Still behind 2007, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012.

2012 has a really steep drop in August. Unless 2013 can best that, it will be hard to catch up.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Vergent on July 30, 2013, 05:47:04 AM

2012 has a really steep drop in August. Unless 2013 can best that, it will be hard to catch up.


A common misconception about "extent", is that it is ice. The definition for JAXA is "the area that is covered by 15% ice or more within a pixel". Areas that are only 85% open water are being counted as "extent". The cyclone has been spreading things out. This has not been creating more ice to melt, it has been putting more open water among the ice. This will increase the rate of melting, not decrease it. Ice at low concentrations melts away in days.

(http://i.imgur.com/wqdKBSa.png)

Here is the TOPAZ4 projection for Aug 4.

(http://i.imgur.com/kkFNpjY.jpg)

Here is CT for now. We are probably in for massive losses in the coming days. I like to say the extent balloon is about to pop. Its not so much that the melting rate will suddenly accelerate, it's that large areas will drop below 15%.

Vergent
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: jdallen on July 30, 2013, 08:06:44 AM

2012 has a really steep drop in August. Unless 2013 can best that, it will be hard to catch up.

A common misconception about "extent", is that it is ice. The definition for JAXA is "the area that is covered by 15% ice or more within a pixel". Areas that are only 85% open water are being counted as "extent". The cyclone has been spreading things out. This has not been creating more ice to melt, it has been putting more open water among the ice. This will increase the rate of melting, not decrease it. Ice at low concentrations melts away in days.

Here is CT for now. We are probably in for massive losses in the coming days. I like to say the extent balloon is about to pop. Its not so much that the melting rate will suddenly accelerate, it's that large areas will drop below 15%.

Vergent

That concentration projection on TOPAZ looks positively awful.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on July 30, 2013, 10:57:27 AM
IJIS:

7,117,344 km2 (July 29, 2013) down 69,219 km2 from previous (revised).

467,344 km2 above 2012.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on July 31, 2013, 10:56:24 AM
IJIS:

7,034,688 km2 (July 30, 2013) down 82,656 km2 from previous.

478,594 km2 above 2012.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Lennart van der Linde on July 31, 2013, 11:10:14 AM
Espen,
You mean 479k km2 above 2012, not 311k km2, right?
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on July 31, 2013, 11:20:09 AM
Yes  ;)
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Lennart van der Linde on July 31, 2013, 11:49:37 AM
Ok  :)

The next 3 days 2012 lost 118k, so a bit over 39k/day.
The next 9 days after that 2012 lost 1033k, so about 115k/day.

It now seems very unlikely this year will be able to keep up with 2012. Where would all the energy needed for that come from? Only if the remaining ice now is extremely thin, would there still seem to be a chance of catching up. But that doesn't appear to be the case, so likely by Aug 11 the difference will have grown considerably bigger than 479k.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on August 01, 2013, 10:57:31 AM
IJIS:

6,980,781 km2 (July 31, 2013) down 66,084 km2 from previous (revised).

481,562 km2 above 2012.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Artful Dodger on August 01, 2013, 02:15:16 PM
IJIS:
481,562 km2 above 2012.

IJIS reports a July 2013 loss of -2,835,625 km2
The daily loss rate was -91,472 km2

The July 2012 IJIS loss was -2,645,469 km2
The daily loss rate was -85,338 km2

Overall, IJIS reports 2013 lost -190,156 km2 more SIE than 2012.
The margin continues to close.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Nightvid Cole on August 01, 2013, 07:32:54 PM

2012 has a really steep drop in August. Unless 2013 can best that, it will be hard to catch up.


A common misconception about "extent", is that it is ice. The definition for JAXA is "the area that is covered by 15% ice or more within a pixel". Areas that are only 85% open water are being counted as "extent". The cyclone has been spreading things out. This has not been creating more ice to melt, it has been putting more open water among the ice. This will increase the rate of melting, not decrease it. Ice at low concentrations melts away in days.

([url]http://i.imgur.com/wqdKBSa.png[/url])

Here is the TOPAZ4 projection for Aug 4.

([url]http://i.imgur.com/kkFNpjY.jpg[/url])

Here is CT for now. We are probably in for massive losses in the coming days. I like to say the extent balloon is about to pop. Its not so much that the melting rate will suddenly accelerate, it's that large areas will drop below 15%.

Vergent


Where did you get this TOPAZ4 forecast map, if I may ask?
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Jim Hunt on August 01, 2013, 09:11:22 PM
Where did you get this TOPAZ4 forecast map, if I may ask?


http://myocean.met.no/ARC-MFC/ (http://myocean.met.no/ARC-MFC/) I suspect.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Nightvid Cole on August 01, 2013, 09:54:57 PM
Where did you get this TOPAZ4 forecast map, if I may ask?


[url]http://myocean.met.no/ARC-MFC/[/url] ([url]http://myocean.met.no/ARC-MFC/[/url]) I suspect.


Thanks, I'll add that to my list of pages to keep an eye on until September...
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on August 02, 2013, 10:56:31 AM
IJIS:

6,927,813 km2 (August 1, 2013) down 52,968 km2 form previous.

460,782 km2 above 2012. (Revised Thanks to Lennart  ;))
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on August 02, 2013, 12:40:42 PM
I will be traveling for week, starting tomorrow, Vergent promissed to keep you updated with the IJIS numbers.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Lennart van der Linde on August 02, 2013, 02:18:47 PM
Thanks for the daily updates and have a good trip!

The difference with 2012 seems to be 461k km2 instead of 467k km2.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Vergent on August 03, 2013, 03:52:33 PM
Aug 1, 6.937344 revised -43k

Aug 2, 6.892188              -45k

455k above 2012

V
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Vergent on August 04, 2013, 03:58:55 PM
Aug 3  6,853,750 -39k

534k above 2012

V

Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Vergent on August 05, 2013, 03:24:16 PM
Aug 4, 6,788,281  -65k

574k above 2012

V
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Vergent on August 06, 2013, 01:58:21 PM
Aug 5,  6,692,344  -96k

573k above 2012

V
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Frivolousz21 on August 07, 2013, 12:50:51 PM
Not to do Vergent's job for him.

But Jaxa dropped another -96K. 

Now down to 6,598,281 km2 (August 6, 2013). 

With the bad pattern just starting.

Going to be very very wild.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Vergent on August 07, 2013, 03:54:59 PM
Thanks Friv,

Aug 6,  6,598,281 -96k

667k above 2012

V
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: oslo on August 07, 2013, 04:29:48 PM
It would be nice to have the numbers for 2007 and 2011 for the upcomming week or so – if it's not to much trouble  ???
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: BornFromTheVoid on August 07, 2013, 04:50:29 PM
It would be nice to have the numbers for 2007 and 2011 for the upcomming week or so – if it's not to much trouble  ???

Here's a start.

2011 was at 6,231,719km2 (367k below 2013) to the 6th, and dropped an average of 75.9k/day over the next week

2007 was at 5,815,156km2 (783k below 2013) to the 6th, and dropped an average of 62.3k/day over the next week
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Lennart van der Linde on August 07, 2013, 05:08:13 PM
Have a look here:
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/plot.csv (http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/plot.csv)

2007 - Aug 6: 5,815,156 Aug 13: 5,379,219 = -435,937 = -62k/day on average
2011 - Aug 6: 6,231,719 Aug 13: 5,700,313 = -531,406 = -76k/day on average
2012 - Aug 6: 5,931,094 Aug 13: 5,178,750 = -752,344 = -107/day on average
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: oslo on August 07, 2013, 05:27:22 PM
Thanks for the calc/ref – 2012 seems to be beyond reach – it would be interesting to see if 2013 catches up with 2007 and 2011 in the following week.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: jdallen on August 07, 2013, 10:09:27 PM
Thanks for the calc/ref – 2012 seems to be beyond reach – it would be interesting to see if 2013 catches up with 2007 and 2011 in the following week.

The current storm is the wild card.  We won't know until Saturday just how thoroughly it is going to chew up the pack.  Over on the blog, there's some suggestions that it could loose 3-400K just over the next couple of days. 750K by the 13th isn't that far out of reach.  We'll know by the end of the storm.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Lennart van der Linde on August 08, 2013, 11:19:13 AM
Aug 7: 6,509,219 km2 -89k

749k above 2012
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Vergent on August 08, 2013, 01:49:45 PM
Aug 7: 6,509,219 km2 -89k

749k above 2012

Thanks LVDL
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Lennart van der Linde on August 08, 2013, 02:05:47 PM
You're welcome, Vergent.

I'll be travelling for the next two weeks, so this was just a one time occasion :)

Lennart
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: OldLeatherneck on August 08, 2013, 07:21:11 PM
What's Needed to Surpass Previous Years??

As we all know, without the current storm, 2013 had little or no chance of finishing lower than 2007 let alone break 2012's record.  For the remaining 30-45 days of the melt season we may need another storm and a late ending to the melt season.

Previous years final Extent and end date:

YEAR   Date    Extent
2007   24-Sep   4,254,531
2010   18-Sep   4,813,594
2011   09-Sep   4,526,875
2012   16-Sep   3,489,063

2013 Extent Loss Needed to Match Previous Years:

YEAR   Extent Loss Needed   
2007   2,254,688   
2010   1,695,625   
2011   1,982,344   
2012   3,020,156

Assuming Melt Season Only Lasts Another 30 Days Only, Average Daily Loss Required to Match  Previous Years:

YEAR   Daily Average Loss
2007   75,156
2010   56,521
2011   66,078
2012   100,672

Assuming Melt Season Lasts Another 45 Days, Average Daily Loss Required to Match  Previous Years:

YEAR   Daily Average Loss
2007   50,104
2010   37,681
2011   44,052
2012   67,115

Unless something very unusual happens such a multiple storms and other factors to extend the melt season, I don't see any path to beating 2012's record this years.  However, 2010 and 2011 are well within reach, while 2007 is "iffy" at best.   

Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: OldLeatherneck on August 08, 2013, 08:08:35 PM
This chart show where the extent is today compared to 2007, 2011 & 2012 as well as given the delta between today and the final low value for the previous years.

(http://i1269.photobucket.com/albums/jj597/OldLeatherNeck/ArcticIceExtentAugust7th2013-3rdStorm_zps2583c8a7.jpg)
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Vergent on August 09, 2013, 06:18:29 AM
Sorry,

bed time. Took on the responsibility of updating, but on the west coast of america(GOD save the queen), My bedtime is before it updates. The last few days, people have been picking up the slack and posting in a timely manor. Thank you. I refer you to Phonetic punctuation.

https://www.google.com/search?q=phonetic+punctuation&oq=phonetic+punctuation&aqs=chrome.0.69i57j69i61j0l3j69i62.9823j0&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 (https://www.google.com/search?q=phonetic+punctuation&oq=phonetic+punctuation&aqs=chrome.0.69i57j69i61j0l3j69i62.9823j0&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8)

Vergent Bill
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Ned W on August 09, 2013, 01:55:15 PM
OK, we can all take turns doing this.  Latest IJIS/JAXA SIE is 6,443,438 (-70k). 

858k behind 2012 (which had a -175k loss... hard to keep up with that).


Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Ned W on August 10, 2013, 11:28:45 AM
9 Aug 2013: IJIS/JAXA SIE = 6.379,219 (-64k)

869k behind 2012
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Meirion on August 11, 2013, 01:17:10 PM
IJIS JAXA 6,328,281 km2 (August 10, 2013)  (-51k)

Bottoming at 4,750,000 in third week of September?
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Vergent on August 11, 2013, 02:16:54 PM
Aug 9,   6,385,938(revised) -58k
Aug 10,  6,328,281           -57k

1,067K above 2012

V
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on August 12, 2013, 10:59:31 AM
IJIS:

6,274,844 km2 (August 11, 2013)  down 53,437 km2 from previous.


967,813 km2 above 2012.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on August 13, 2013, 10:56:20 AM
IJIS:

6,235,938 km2 (August 12, 2013) down 38,906 km2 from previous.

974,688 km2 above 2012.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on August 14, 2013, 10:57:20 AM
IJIS:

6,152,500 km2 (August 13, 2013) down 89,531 km2 from previous (revised)

973,750 km2 above 2012.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on August 15, 2013, 10:56:47 AM
IJIS:


6,096,719 km2 (August 14, 2013) down 55,781 km2 from previous.

994,063 km2 above 2012.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on August 16, 2013, 10:56:25 AM
IJIS:

6,011,406 km2 (August 15, 2013) down 85,313 km2 from previous.

970,468 km2 above 2012.

Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on August 17, 2013, 11:09:11 AM
IJIS:

5,867,813 km2 (August 16, 2013)  down 143,593 km2 from previous.

928,125 km2 above 2012.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Tor Bejnar on August 17, 2013, 05:57:41 PM
That is the first IJIS century drop in a while!
At this days rate of gain on 2012, we'll get ahead of 2012 in 22 days! 
But I know cherry picking when I do it! ;D
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on August 18, 2013, 11:05:57 AM
IJIS:

No update out for Sushi!
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Frivolousz21 on August 18, 2013, 11:37:28 AM
Jamstec website shows windsat froze up only after one scan on the 16th. 

I really hope they use amsr2 the rest of the season
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Wipneus on August 18, 2013, 11:38:13 AM
Nothing for Aug 17. Very little data for Aug 16:

(http://suzaku.eorc.jaxa.jp/GCOM_W/JASMES_daily/data/WINDSAT/SIC/201308/16/WND_20130816_SIC_ALL_D_NPS.png)
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Frivolousz21 on August 19, 2013, 10:23:09 AM
wind-sat is still dark.

No update today unless we see AMSR2 come off the bench
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on August 19, 2013, 10:58:44 AM
IJIS:

Houston, we have a problem!

No update today.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Artful Dodger on August 19, 2013, 11:14:12 AM
Hmm, more like "Fairbanks, we have a problem". GCOM-W1 data is still flowing over at JAXA. I will attach a 10km Sea Ice Concentration (SIC) map for Aug 17, 2013 in a moment.

Please stand by...  ::)

EDIT: SIC chart from GW1AM2_20130817_01D_PNMD_L3SGSICHA1100100 data attached. Map specs as follows:
Note: L1B, L1R, AND L2 data are flowing as expected (Brightness temperatures, Orbital swath data, and Map data, respectively, with the expected time lag required for data processing).
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Frivolousz21 on August 19, 2013, 11:23:32 AM
Hmm, more like "Fairbanks, we have a problem". GCOM-W1 data is still flowing over at JAXA. I'll attach a 10km SIC map for Aug 17, 2013 in a moment.

Please stand by...  ::)

that's not the issue.  They still use Wind-sat data for the numerical value.

Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Artful Dodger on August 19, 2013, 12:01:42 PM
Hmm, more like "Fairbanks, we have a problem". GCOM-W1 data is still flowing over at JAXA. I'll attach a 10km SIC map for Aug 17, 2013 in a moment.

Please stand by...  ::)


that's not the issue.  They still use Wind-sat data for the numerical value.

Hi Friv,  ;)

I think Vergent has shown otherwise (http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,230.msg10352/topicseen.html#msg10352). At any rate, Wipneus' data is based on AMSR2 89 MHz data received through DMI, so I hope we will continue receiving those updates.

Of course, you could well be right about IJIS! This event will likely lay that question to rest ;)

I really should continue this over on Wipneus' Home Brew tread, so apologies if I cut over to there to continue...

Have a great week, Friv!  8)
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Vergent on August 19, 2013, 12:22:38 PM
Lodger,

While my argument was valid, it was not sound. Wipneus later proved to me that, contrary to their news release, they were still using windsat for numerical data.

Vergent
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Wipneus on August 19, 2013, 12:29:20 PM
Lodger,

I have explained how we are sure that Windsat is used here (https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,487.msg12539.html#msg12539)

Basically I don't think the announcement of the most accurate extent data is not going without a press release.

I speculate that the improved measurements and the refinements in the algorithm will allow them to lower the 15% cutoff for extent to perhaps 7.5% .
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Frivolousz21 on August 19, 2013, 12:41:43 PM
Does anyone know if windsat has passed away or is just injured?

And if windsat comes back say in 2 days how do they fill the data in?

Considering the odds of open water at 85N+ is so high.  They will have to infill for windsat in that case.

Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Artful Dodger on August 19, 2013, 12:47:48 PM
Wipneus later proved to me that, contrary to their news release, they were still using windsat for numerical data.

I have explained how we are sure that Windsat is used here (https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,487.msg12539.html#msg12539)

Ah, okay that makes good sense. Thanks, fellows!

Still not sure how the WindSat hiccup affected the Home Brew SIE on the 16/17, but data is flowing now so all is well. 8)
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Wipneus on August 19, 2013, 12:54:57 PM
Hmm, did I not mention that data has been fully restored for both 16th and 17th?

Probably just a local problen in Hambug KlimaCampus, fixed quite late because it was weekend.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on August 21, 2013, 10:57:30 AM
IJIS:

Out of order!
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Wipneus on August 22, 2013, 09:07:32 AM
Windsat (ftp://ftp.remss.com/windsat/bmaps_v07/y2013/m08/) is available.
Also JASMES (http://suzaku.eorc.jaxa.jp/GCOM_W/JASMES_daily/data/WINDSAT/SIC/201308/) is updating now.

I expect IJIS will follow soon.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on August 22, 2013, 10:57:54 AM
IJIS:

Nope, still out of order!

Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Wipneus on August 22, 2013, 04:13:01 PM
For those who cannot wait for the IJIS/Jaxa numbers based on the superior AMSR2 measurements, I have calculated etxent (and area) from the L3 data Sea Ice Concentration data.
This data is on a Polar Stereographic grid with nominal cell dimension of 10km. Calculated with the special Bootstrap algorithm (different from NSIDC, differs from Hamburg/Bremen).

I am using for now the Descending data, not sure why it is separate from the Ascending. I fill the pole hole with ice of the same concentration as its rim and only include ice in the 14 well-know regions (no lakes and no Baltic ice in particular).

The data is updated one day later than IJIS and NSIDC, so last day in the graph is August 20.

I have added lines to the extent, area and compactness graphs presented in the "home brew" thread. Hope that it does not get too confusing:

(https://sites.google.com/site/arctischepinguin/home/amsr2/grf/amsr2-extent-all-cmpare.png)

(https://sites.google.com/site/arctischepinguin/home/amsr2/grf/amsr2-area-all-cmpare.png)

(https://sites.google.com/site/arctischepinguin/home/amsr2/grf/amsr2-compact-compare.png)
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Ned W on August 23, 2013, 02:32:00 AM
IJIS/JAXA is back!  Woo hoo.

8/16: 5915000 [-96k] (revised)
8/17: 5891250 [-24k]
8/18: 5887656 [-04k]
8/19: 5808281 [-79k]
8/20: 5748438 [-60k]
8/21: 5706719 [-42k]
 
Currently in 5th place.  1.17M above 2012.  2k below 2010.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Ned W on August 23, 2013, 02:42:01 AM
That is the first IJIS century drop in a while!
At this days rate of gain on 2012, we'll get ahead of 2012 in 22 days! 
But I know cherry picking when I do it! ;D

Unfortunately, during the long blackout, they revoked the century drop.  That was a big revision.

2013 has had no century drops in the past two weeks.  For comparison, 2012 had *5*.  However, this year's lack is not so strange.  Most other years have had 0 or 1 during this same period.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Frivolousz21 on August 23, 2013, 03:15:07 AM
There is no windsat data for the 20th or 21st. 

How can they have numbers?
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Ned W on August 23, 2013, 10:09:05 AM
There is no windsat data for the 20th or 21st. 


Sure there is.

http://www.nrl.navy.mil/WindSat/data/wind/AscendingWindMap.php (http://www.nrl.navy.mil/WindSat/data/wind/AscendingWindMap.php)

http://www.ssmi.com/windsat/windsat_data_daily.html (http://www.ssmi.com/windsat/windsat_data_daily.html)
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Frivolousz21 on August 23, 2013, 10:11:24 AM
When I made the post there wasn't on the Jamstec site.

Now it's updated through the 22nd.

Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on August 23, 2013, 10:56:19 AM
IJIS:

5,660,781 km2 (August 22, 2013) down 45,983 km2 from previous.

1,204,062 km2 above 2012.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on August 25, 2013, 08:06:11 PM
5,619,531 km2 (August 24, 2013)  down 22,344 km2 form previous.

1,410,312 km2 above 2012.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: helorime on August 25, 2013, 09:50:16 PM
There was a 220K drop on this day last year?
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on August 26, 2013, 10:57:09 AM
IJIS:

5,589,531 km2 (August 25, 2013) down 30,000 km2 from previous.

1,451,406 km2 above 2012.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Wipneus on August 27, 2013, 11:05:24 AM
A drop of -89k4, but it is based on few 3 swaths:

Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on August 27, 2013, 11:10:40 AM
IJIS:

5,500,156 km2 (August 26, 2013)  down 89,375 km2 from previous.

1,403,593 km2 above 2012.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Wipneus on August 29, 2013, 09:10:10 AM
Data flow seems to be restored.
http://suzaku.eorc.jaxa.jp/GCOM_W/JASMES_daily/data/WINDSAT/SIC/201308/28/WND_20130828_SIC_ALL_D_NPS.png (http://suzaku.eorc.jaxa.jp/GCOM_W/JASMES_daily/data/WINDSAT/SIC/201308/28/WND_20130828_SIC_ALL_D_NPS.png)
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on August 30, 2013, 10:56:21 AM
IJIS:

5,341,250 km2 (August 28, 2013) 
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on August 30, 2013, 10:57:31 AM
IJIS:

5,379,063 km2 (August 29, 2013)

1,466,563 km2 above 2012
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: nukefix on August 30, 2013, 11:13:41 AM
A drop of -89k4, but it is based on few 3 swaths:

It's interesting to compare that image to the ASCAT-based classification from the same day:

(http://saf.met.no/p/ice/nh/conc/imgs/OSI_HL_SAF_201308261200_pal.jpg)

They seem to be seeing practically the same thing, at least in the Laptev and Kara seas. 

Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on August 31, 2013, 10:56:18 AM
IJIS:

5,333,594 km2 (August 30, 2013)  down 45,469 km2 from previous.

1,456,563 km2 above 2012.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on August 31, 2013, 10:51:53 PM
I think we are very close to a refreeze?
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Vergent on September 01, 2013, 03:01:40 AM
I think we are very close to a refreeze?
Northern_Hemisphere, (1) Beaufort, (2) Chukchi, (3) East_Siberian, (4) Laptev_Sea, (5) Kara_Sea,

2013239, 5659469.35,  812319.24,  405290.37,  674062.95,  281345.58,   82981.58,
2013240, 5559450.10,  798247.95,  405359.82,  644663.26,  258900.12,   79203.78,
2013241, 5504078.49,  796744.23,  404301.07,  619769.70,  247684.24,   82777.30,       
2013242, 5319528.10,  793570.65,  335864.40,  590492.90,  191338.35,   82777.30,

MASIE dropped 185k, 334k in three days. Models suggest the compaction should continue for a week.

Vergent
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Vergent on September 01, 2013, 06:21:41 AM
I'm Melting! - The Wizard of Oz (7/8) Movie CLIP (1939) HD (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aopdD9Cu-So#ws)

Vergent
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on September 01, 2013, 06:42:43 PM
Ijis:

5,311,875 km2 (August 31, 2013) down 25,871 km2 from previous.

1,475,625 km2 above 2012.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on September 02, 2013, 10:56:25 AM
IJIS:

5,294,844 km2 (September 1, 2013) down 17,031 km2 from previous.

1,496,875 km2 above 2012.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on September 03, 2013, 10:58:03 AM
IJIS:

5,240,625 km2 (September 2, 2013)  down 54,219 km2 from previous.

1,485,781 km2 above 2012.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on September 04, 2013, 10:56:15 AM
IJIS:

5,128,750 km2 (September 3, 2013)  down 111,875 km2 from previous.

1,381,875 km2 above 2012.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on September 04, 2013, 10:59:09 AM
An unexpected century ???
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Lennart van der Linde on September 04, 2013, 11:12:11 AM
Wow, what's going on there!?
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: fishmahboi on September 04, 2013, 11:15:05 AM
I guess it's either an error or there must be some strong bottom melting going on.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Wipneus on September 04, 2013, 11:36:03 AM
Wow, what's going on there!?

13 (out of 15 IIRC) swaths missing?
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Lennart van der Linde on September 04, 2013, 01:21:35 PM
But then how do they come up with a total number? So this will probably be revised tomorrow?
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Wipneus on September 04, 2013, 01:44:57 PM
But then how do they come up with a total number?

Fill in the missing values with data from previous days. I don't actually know this, but it is soo obvious.

So this will probably be revised tomorrow?

You never know. Perhaps they were lucky and the dip is real. After all the AMSR2 went down today a good bit as well with a much smaller hiatus in the data.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on September 05, 2013, 10:58:20 AM
IJIS:

No regular update today ???
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Vergent on September 06, 2013, 01:22:13 AM
2013244, 5217289.33, 
2013245, 5133141.57,
2013246, 5186565.14,   
2013247, 5086981.29, 

Masie three day loss -131k.

Vergent
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Frivolousz21 on September 06, 2013, 03:14:56 AM
Jaxa/Windsat has full data for the 3rd and 4th, partial for the 5th.

Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on September 06, 2013, 10:41:32 AM
IJIS:

4,942,239 km2 (September 5, 2013).

Please read following link(major change):

http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/revision_v2.html
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on September 06, 2013, 11:02:46 AM
IJIS:

Still trailing behind 2007, 2008, 2010, 2011 and 2012.

But only 36,666 km2 above 2010. And 1,576,246 km2 above 2012.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Wipneus on September 06, 2013, 11:26:46 AM
Fascinating, for the first time a decent description of "land expanded mask". It is now discontinued :(

Attached my amsr2 3.125 extent graph, collecting more and more spaghetti: now includes Jaxa/IJIS V2.

As can be seen my own Jaxa amsr2 calculation matches that of Jaxa/IJIS very well since the middle of June or so. In winter I calculate less ice, indicating that Jaxa/IJIS includes ice outside the 14 well known regions. For instance the Baltic area and perhaps the Great Lakes.

Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Lennart van der Linde on September 06, 2013, 11:48:25 AM
So in the new version we lost almost 506k over the past two weeks.

This 506k broken down per day:

Aug 23: -15k reaching 5.448.094 km2
Aug 24: -28k
Aug 25: -37k
Aug 26: -43k
Aug 27: -64k
Aug 28: -67k
Aug 29: -81k
Aug 30: -32k
Aug 31: -31k
Sep 1: -15k
Sep 2: -20k
Sep 3: -27k
Sep 4: -32k
Sep 5: -15k reaching 4.942.239 km2
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on September 06, 2013, 11:58:19 AM
IJIS:

And note last years low on September 16 2012 is revised to 3,177,455km2.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Acts5v29 on September 06, 2013, 12:16:04 PM
Good morning,

I'm not sure how the refined calculation method by Jaxa affects things re: the data - the same trends are there and we knew it was bad. We're never going to get zero ice cover in the Arctic - that isn't finely the point - but the fact that the figures are revised downard by some 10% on the former calculated minimum for 2012 might jolt some deniers into a greater level of concern as they see the inevitable consequences grow that much closer.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Lennart van der Linde on September 06, 2013, 01:09:43 PM
Average 1980’s one-day minimum: 7.286.634 km2 (Sep 11)
Average 1990’s one-day minimum: 6.592.674 (Sep 8th)
Average 2000’s one-day minimum: 5.481.450 (Sep 15)

2002: 5.229.571 km2 (Sep 8th)
2003: 5.933.760 (Sep 18)
2004: 5.683.663 (Sep 11)
2005: 5.179.300 (Sep 21)
2006: 5.625.046 (Sep 14)
2007: 4.067.486 (Sep 24)
2008: 4.500.623 (Sep 9)
2009: 5.054.055 (Sep 12)
2010: 4.622.092 (Sep 17)
2011: 4.269.199 (Sep 10)
2012: 3.177.455 (Sep 16)

2013: ? (current extent: 4.942.239 on Sep 5)

So we have 320k to go to beat 2010 (with its minimum on Sep 17).

We had 36k/day average loss over the past two weeks.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Shared Humanity on September 06, 2013, 05:45:45 PM
Good morning,

I'm not sure how the refined calculation method by Jaxa affects things re: the data - the same trends are there and we knew it was bad. We're never going to get zero ice cover in the Arctic - that isn't finely the point - but the fact that the figures are revised downard by some 10% on the former calculated minimum for 2012 might jolt some deniers into a greater level of concern as they see the inevitable consequences grow that much closer.

The most vocal of the deniers will not react this way. They will view the downward revision as further evidence that the scientific community is gaming the numbers in order to frighten the public.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Frivolousz21 on September 07, 2013, 07:28:30 AM
Does anyone know if the phantom ice South of Alaska is counted?


(http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/data/201309/AM2SI20130906IC0.png)
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Wipneus on September 07, 2013, 08:30:09 AM
Does anyone know if the phantom ice South of Alaska is counted?


I don't know! In my calculation from L3 concentration data I don't include it (restricting to the 14 rregions) and get a good match in summer. In winter even if I include all the ice, I don't exactly get all the ice that Jaxa counted (are they still on 15% cutoff I wonder?)
Another matter is the averaging, I suspect the L3 data is averaged and so will the Jaxa/IJIS extent. The image you show is probably not averaged (as its updated live). Such phantom ice is often very variable, and maybe below the 15% in the average process.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on September 07, 2013, 10:27:51 AM
IJIS:

4,923,972 km2 (September 6, 2013) down 18,267 km2 from previous.

Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Lennart van der Linde on September 08, 2013, 01:24:13 PM
4,893,380 km2 (sep 7) -31k
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on September 09, 2013, 08:45:29 AM
IJIS:

4,861,800 km2 (September 8, 2013) down 31,580 km2 from previous.

1,561,005 km2 above 2012.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Acts5v29 on September 09, 2013, 09:57:07 AM
...  the fact that the figures are revised downard by some 10% on the former calculated minimum for 2012 might jolt some deniers into a greater level of concern as they see the inevitable consequences grow that much closer.

The most vocal of the deniers will not react this way. They will view the downward revision as further evidence that the scientific community is gaming the numbers in order to frighten the public.

Undoubtedly. There's a fire in the building and some are comparing the heat from the flames with a high-summer's day.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on September 10, 2013, 10:03:57 AM
IJIS:

4,831,603 km2 (September 9, 2013) down 30,197 km2 from previous.

1,549,521 km2 above 2012.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Lennart van der Linde on September 10, 2013, 11:20:33 AM
Only 210k to go to beat 2010: seems hardly possible anymore, but who knows?
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on September 11, 2013, 08:14:36 AM
IJIS:

4,833,597 km2 (September 10, 2013) up 1,994 km2 from previous.

1,568,932 km2 above 2012.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on September 11, 2013, 08:15:29 AM
Do we have a refreeze?
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: jdallen on September 11, 2013, 09:37:41 AM
Do we have a refreeze?

Maybe? kinda? Temps over most of the basin look too high.  They are low single digits over the main pack, but I suspect there is still too much energy that needs spilling for a durable freeze.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Lennart van der Linde on September 11, 2013, 12:45:07 PM
NSIDC and AMSR-II/Wipneus had small upticks two days ago, but further declines yesterday and today (so far).

So probably no real/lasting refreeze yet. But in the Arctic you never know :)
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Neven on September 11, 2013, 04:04:57 PM
I just posted a blog post on the ASIB: Pinpointing the minimum (http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2013/09/pinpointing-the-minimum.html)

There's a high over the Beaufort Sea alright, but perhaps it is too big, reaching all the way to the Siberian coast. High-pressure systems make for clear skies, and with temperatures dropping, this causes sea water to release its heat so that it can freeze up. If sea water in the Siberian seas freezes up, sea ice extent won't be going any lower. The pressure gradient over the ice pack is also lower, which means less wind to compact the ice pack.

This makes me tend to say that the minimum could be reached by Saturday, September 14th, with the caveat that a big low coming in from the Atlantic might invigorate the pressure gradient, causing more compaction where the weakest part of the ice pack is situated.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Lennart van der Linde on September 11, 2013, 08:20:15 PM
Thanks, Neven, for this clear explanation of the most important processes determining arrival of the minimum.

NSiDC has another uptick today, so we may indeed be at or really close to this year's minimum.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Neven on September 11, 2013, 08:56:27 PM
Yes, the minimum could've been reached today (on IJIS). It all depends on how the ice reacts to that big high.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on September 12, 2013, 08:33:20 AM
IJIS:

4,825,097 km2 (September 11, 2013)  down 8,500 km2 from previous.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Lennart van der Linde on September 12, 2013, 08:49:26 AM
That's an early update!? Is this the new normal?
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Wipneus on September 12, 2013, 09:12:39 AM
That's an early update!? Is this the new normal?

V2 updates almost 6 hours earlier than v1, 3:12 UTC vs 8:55 UTC.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on September 13, 2013, 07:43:55 AM
IJIS:

4,809,288 km2 (September 12, 2013) down 15,809 km2 from previous.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: dmarcus on September 13, 2013, 04:42:59 PM
9/12 extent is now lower than the average minimum extent of the previous decade (2003-12), which was 4.812 MM km2.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on September 14, 2013, 10:12:13 AM
IJIS:

4,820,839 km2 (September 13, 2013)  up 11,551 km2 from previous.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on September 15, 2013, 10:04:32 AM
IJIS:

4,826,157 km2 (September 14, 2013)  up 5,318 km2 from previous.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on September 15, 2013, 10:09:17 AM
It looks like a refreeze now.

And September 12 2013 will be the low at 4,809,288 km2.

But it can easily change with these small changes and numbers.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on September 16, 2013, 08:53:55 AM
IJIS:

4,834,931 km2 (September 15, 2013) up 8,774 km2 from previous.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on September 16, 2013, 03:31:32 PM
I am seeing the opposition is waking up, at least in my backyard, so be prepared! ;)
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: jdallen on September 16, 2013, 07:24:14 PM
I am seeing the opposition is waking up, at least in my backyard, so be prepared! ;)
Sorry Espen. That went over my head.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on September 16, 2013, 08:59:02 PM
I am seeing the opposition is waking up, at least in my backyard, so be prepared! ;)
Sorry Espen. That went over my head.

Now I hear people talking about recovery and +60% sea ice "growth", that is what I meant.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: ChrisReynolds on September 16, 2013, 09:22:06 PM
They've gone nuts to make up for having to keep their stupid heads down in 2011 and 2012.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Jim Hunt on September 16, 2013, 09:38:47 PM
Now I hear people talking about recovery and +60% sea ice "growth", that is what I meant.


I've gone nuts too:

http://GreatWhiteCon.info/blog/ (http://GreatWhiteCon.info/blog/)
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on September 17, 2013, 09:32:03 AM
IJIS:

4,824,927 km2 (September 16, 2013) down 10,004 km2 from previous.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on September 18, 2013, 08:47:23 AM
IJIS

4,832,002 km2(September 17, 2013) up 7,075 km2   from previous.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on September 19, 2013, 08:04:11 AM
IJIS:

4,838,927 km2(September 18, 2013)  up 6,925 km2 from previous.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Wipneus on September 19, 2013, 08:21:30 AM
Last year:

3319816 km2 (September 18, 2012), up 105k9  the first century of the 2012/2103 winter.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Shared Humanity on September 19, 2013, 06:08:53 PM
Last year:

3319816 km2 (September 18, 2012), up 105k9  the first century of the 2012/2103 winter.

That looks interesting. Would there be some value in running this daily comparison for the remainder of 2013? Might it provide some insight into whether the fractured slushy CAB and overall cloudy arctic will slow the freeze? This kind of comparison might be even more valuable when comparing volume.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on September 20, 2013, 09:10:18 AM
IJIS:

4,861,396 km2(September 19, 2013) up 22,469 km2 from previous. 
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Meirion on September 20, 2013, 01:19:11 PM
SHARED HUMANITY
It would be more useful to compare 2013 refreeze with 2009 since you would be starting from roughly the same base. At the moment you would be comparing 2013 slush with 2012 open water and I suspect the slush will freeze faster.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Vergent on September 20, 2013, 07:26:55 PM
2013253, 5015152.09,
 2013254, 4968291.96,
 2013255, 4807515.36,
 2013256, 4781480.47,
 2013257, 4799039.18, 
 2013258, 4794906.75, 
 2013259, 4723139.00,
 2013260, 4677324.53, 
 2013262, 4978652.46,

MASIE just hit bottom at 4.68M. Then bounced +301k!

Vergent
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Lennart van der Linde on September 20, 2013, 08:13:37 PM
Where is day 261?
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Vergent on September 20, 2013, 08:41:14 PM
Where is day 261?

MIA. I guess they are still having problems. So, +301k is a two day number.

Vergent
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on September 21, 2013, 10:40:16 AM
IJJS:

4,923,092 km2(September 20, 2013) up 61,696 km2 from previous.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on September 22, 2013, 10:44:18 AM
IJIS:

4,987,766 km2 (September 21, 2013) up 64,674 km2 frrom previous.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on September 23, 2013, 08:59:18 AM
IJIS:

5,001,261 km2 (September 22, 2013)  up 13,495 km2 from previous.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on September 24, 2013, 08:02:03 AM
IJIS:

5,019,336 km2 (September 23, 2013)  up 18,075 km2 from previous.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on September 25, 2013, 09:06:30 AM
IJIS:

5,086,095 km2(September 24, 2013) up 66,759 km2 from previous.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Jim Hunt on September 26, 2013, 09:39:42 AM
I just got an email from JAXA. Amongst other things it says (http://gcom-w1.jaxa.jp/contents/130925_SMCandSIC_release_e.pdf):

Regarding the AMSR2 (L2, L3 (geophysical parameter)) products released on May 17,
2013, JAXA released the new version of Soil moisture content and Sea ice concentration
products on September 25, 2013.

Some input parameters for SIC algorithm were modified.(The brightness temperature
correction on tie-point making algorithm was modified.) SIC products are not
reprocessed because there is little impact of this update on the accuracy.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on September 26, 2013, 09:50:35 AM
IJIS:

5,143,721 km2(September 25, 2013)  up 57,626 km2 from previous.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on September 27, 2013, 08:30:22 AM
IJIS:

5,183,869 km2(September 26, 2013) up 40,148 km2 from previous.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on September 28, 2013, 10:05:10 AM
IJIS:

5,269,020 km2 (September 27, 2013) up 85,151 km2 from previous.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on September 29, 2013, 11:48:29 AM
IJIS:

5,340,043 km2 (September 28, 2013)  up 71,023 km2 from previous.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on September 30, 2013, 09:26:41 AM
IJIS:

5,412,477 km2 (September 29, 2013)  up 72,434 km2 from previous.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on October 01, 2013, 09:54:55 AM
IJIS:

5,510,856 km2(September 30, 2013) up 98,379 km2 from previous.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on October 01, 2013, 09:57:35 AM
If this trend continues 2013 will soon hit the 2000s average?
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on October 02, 2013, 08:40:34 AM
IJIS:

5,608,684 km2 (October 1, 2013) up 97,828 km2 from pervious.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: lanevn on October 02, 2013, 06:53:57 PM
Looks like we are getting only 'cold' anomalies this year, and no good explanation
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on October 03, 2013, 09:01:11 AM
IJIS:

5,660,303 km2(October 2, 2013)  up 51,619 km2 from previous.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on October 04, 2013, 08:27:22 AM
IJIS:

5,675,521 km2(October 3, 2013)  up 15,218 km2 from previous.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: domen_ on October 04, 2013, 12:22:18 PM
Looks like a very fast growing season this year. Maybe we won't see summer ice-free Arctic before 2020 after all.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: deep octopus on October 04, 2013, 03:24:55 PM
It's only October, and historically the fastest growth month anyway. And it seems that freeze season maxima are poor predictors of the melt season minima, given the experiences of the last several years.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: lanevn on October 05, 2013, 08:04:24 AM
Looks like a very fast growing season this year. Maybe we won't see summer ice-free Arctic before 2020 after all.

If official models correct not many of us will live long enouph to see summer ice-free Arctic in 2080-2100
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: wanderer on October 05, 2013, 09:23:00 AM
Looks like a very fast growing season this year. Maybe we won't see summer ice-free Arctic before 2020 after all.

If official models correct not many of us will live long enouph to see summer ice-free Arctic in 2080-2100

2020s...tops

And the newest "official" models say 2050 (IPCC)
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on October 05, 2013, 10:25:50 AM
IJIS:

5,815,552 km2(October 4, 2013)  up 140,031 km2 from previous.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on October 06, 2013, 10:02:20 AM
IJIS:

5,931,507 km2(October 5, 2013)  up 115,955 km2 from previous.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Tor Bejnar on October 06, 2013, 09:35:35 PM
From following this thread, I understand Oct. 4 and Oct. 5 are the first century growth days this season.  (Is this correct?)  How does this compare with the date of previous years' first ASI century growth?
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on October 07, 2013, 08:08:45 AM
IJIS:

6,016,476 km2(October 6, 2013)  up 84,969 km2 from previous.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on October 08, 2013, 10:06:41 AM
IJIS:

6,162,905 km2(October 7, 2013)  up 146,429 km2 from previous.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Shared Humanity on October 08, 2013, 04:35:17 PM
Extent is expanding rapidly. If this trend keeps up, we may reach the 2000's average extent before the end of October. Are temperatures in the Arctic still unusually low?
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on October 08, 2013, 10:52:05 PM
Extent is expanding rapidly. If this trend keeps up, we may reach the 2000's average extent before the end of October. Are temperatures in the Arctic still unusually low?

have no idea, but I think the sea is probably a bit colder than previous years due to the same weather reasons why it didn't melt as yesteryear.
If the trend continues it will hit the 2000 average line very soon.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on October 09, 2013, 07:58:48 AM
IJIS:

 6,276,942 km2(October 8, 2013)  up 114,037 km2 from previous.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on October 10, 2013, 07:51:02 AM
IJIS:

6,414,201 km2 (October 9, 2013)  up 137,259 km2 from previous.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on October 11, 2013, 08:32:14 AM
IJIS:

6,521,075 km2(October 10, 2013) up 106,874 km2 from previous.

Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on October 12, 2013, 09:49:58 AM
IJIS:

6,665,549 km2(October 11, 2013)  up 144,474 km2 from previous.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on October 13, 2013, 09:45:34 AM
IJIS:

6,796,978 km2(October 12, 2013)  up 131,429 km2 from previous.

300,746 km2 below 2000s average for this date.

Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Shared Humanity on October 13, 2013, 06:36:18 PM
IJIS:

6,796,978 km2(October 12, 2013)  up 131,429 km2 from previous.

300,746 km2 below 2000s average for this date.

Thanks for the "below 2000s average" anomaly. I would have asked that question. It will be interesting to see if it catches up.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on October 14, 2013, 10:21:43 AM
IJIS:

6,886,827 km2(October 13, 2013) up 89,849 km2 from previous.

325,421 km2 below 2000s average for this date.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on October 15, 2013, 08:53:38 AM
IJIS:

7,029,839 km2(October 14, 2013)  up 143,012 km2 from previous.

291,931 km2 below 2000s average for this date.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Shared Humanity on October 15, 2013, 03:10:08 PM
IJIS:

7,029,839 km2(October 14, 2013)  up 143,012 km2 from previous.

291,931 km2 below 2000s average for this date.

Closing the gap.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on October 16, 2013, 07:36:35 AM
IJIS:

7,116,601 km2(October 15, 2013)  up 86,762 km2 from previous.

301,554 km2 below 2000s average for this date.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on October 17, 2013, 08:11:03 AM
IJIS:

7,229,650 km2(October 16, 2013) up 113,049 km2 from previous.

292,775 km2  below 2000s average for this date.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on October 18, 2013, 09:13:15 AM
IJIS:

7,400,486 km2(October 17, 2013) up 170,836 km2 from previous.

228,976 km2 below 2000s average for this date.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on October 19, 2013, 10:36:03 AM
IJIS:

7,524,787 km2(October 18, 2013) up 124,301 km2 from previous.

219,438 km2 below 2000s average for this date.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on October 20, 2013, 11:03:48 AM
IJIS:

7,618,170 km2(October 19, 2013)  up 93,383 km2 from previous.

247,217 km2 below 2000s average for this date.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on October 21, 2013, 08:46:33 AM
IJIS:

7,689,301 km2(October 20, 2013)  up 71,131 km2 from previous.

291,733 km2 below 2000s average for this date.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on October 22, 2013, 09:25:29 AM
IJIS:

7,767,399 km2(October 21, 2013) up 78,098 km2 from previous.

322,946 km2 below 2000s average for this date.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: lanevn on October 22, 2013, 03:36:58 PM
It tease us again. Looks like good data for betting )
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on October 23, 2013, 08:38:21 AM
IJJIS:

7,882,443 km2(October 22, 2013)  up 115,044 km2 from previous.

303,861 km2 below 2000s average for this date.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on October 24, 2013, 08:21:45 AM
IJIS:

7,979,621 km2(October 23, 2013) up 97,178 km2 from previous.

302,263 km2 below 2000s average for this date.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on October 25, 2013, 08:22:56 AM
IJIS:

 8,067,410 km2(October 24, 2013)  up 87,789 km2 from previous.

303,212 km2 below 2000s average for this date.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on October 26, 2013, 08:05:25 AM
IJIS:

8,165,288 km2(October 25, 2013)  up 97,878 km2 from previous.

290,450 km2 below 2000s average for this date.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on October 27, 2013, 09:12:51 AM
IJIS:

8,255,361 km2(October 26, 2013) up 90,073 km2 from previous.

292,517 km2 below 2000s average for this date.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on October 28, 2013, 08:00:35 AM
IJIS:

8,340,047 km2(October 27, 2013) up 84,686 km2 from previous.

302,800 km2 below 2000s average for this date.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: ChrisReynolds on October 28, 2013, 08:05:36 PM
Espen,

You remind me of the Duracell Bunny.  ;)
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on October 28, 2013, 08:14:14 PM
Chris,

No the shop will be seasonal closed from November 1.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: jdallen on October 29, 2013, 07:32:39 AM
Heh.

Even so, I'm fascinated by how steady the variance from average is... right around 300K KM2, for almost 10 days now.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: ChrisReynolds on October 29, 2013, 07:40:12 AM
Chris,

No the shop will be seasonal closed from November 1.

 :'(   ;)
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on October 29, 2013, 08:19:30 AM
Chris,

The reason I continued was that I thought we would hit the 2000s average.

Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on October 29, 2013, 08:22:23 AM
IJIS:

8,414,854 km2(October 28, 2013) up 74,807 km2 from previous.

307,435 km2 below 2000s average for this date.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on October 30, 2013, 08:24:15 AM
IJIS:

8,515,149 km2(October 29, 2013) up 100,295 km2 from previous.

278,972 km2 below 2000s average for this date.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on October 31, 2013, 09:25:36 AM
IJIS:

8,618,357 km2(October 30, 2013) up 103,208 km2 from previous.

255,989 km2 below 2000s average for this date.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on November 01, 2013, 09:57:56 AM
IJIS:

8,729,613 km2(October 31, 2013) up 111,256 km2 from previous.

226,034 km2 below 2000s average for this date.

The daily update will resume in the spring of 2014.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Neven on November 01, 2013, 11:06:47 AM
Just when it's getting exciting!  ;)

Looks like I will now have to update my IJIS spreadsheet to V2.

Thanks, Espen!
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Shared Humanity on November 02, 2013, 06:23:06 PM
Could we possibly blow by the 2000's average sea ice extent on our way to the 1990's average?


http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm (http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm)


And, given the sorry state of the ice, what is driving this rapid increase in extent? I keep hearing Chris say, "It's the weather." Probably right but we will get a host of noise from the deniers that it is the climate.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on November 09, 2013, 10:19:42 AM
IJIS:

8,967,120 km2 (November 8, 2013)   4th lowest on this date

Only 2009, 2011 and 2012 was lower.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: deep octopus on November 09, 2013, 03:07:15 PM
This month has seen a pretty sharp slowdown, suddenly. And that's been true for other extent/area metrics and not just IJIS. As it stands, 2013 is tacking closer to the recent trend-line of the the late 2000s/early 2010s years than the early/mid 2000s years.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Shared Humanity on November 10, 2013, 02:57:07 AM
The recent slowdown in extent growth appears very unusual. Only 2011 shows something similar. Is this compaction?
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: forkyfork on November 10, 2013, 03:48:37 PM
The recent slowdown in extent growth appears very unusual. Only 2011 shows something similar. Is this compaction?

2011 had a strong "fram flush" pattern around this time, just like this year.  interesting
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Shared Humanity on November 17, 2013, 04:04:45 PM
Despite the dramatic increase in the minimum SIE this melt season, the freeze is looking an awful like last three minimum extent years.

http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm (http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm)

This certainly is not due to a strong "fram flush". Doesn't this have to be due, at least in part, to difficulty in refreezing?
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Phil. on November 18, 2013, 03:02:55 PM
Although judging by the N Pole webcam data there is a strong southerly flow through the Fram.  The cam is moving about a degree per week and is now at 78.08ºN, south of Longyearbyen.

Update, it's moved 2º S in the last week.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on November 23, 2013, 05:35:41 PM
IJIS:

10,096,924 km2(November 22, 2013)  just passing the 10 Million mark.

430,208 km 2 above 2012 for this date.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on November 30, 2013, 12:27:25 PM
IJIS:

10,745,557 km2(November 29, 2013).

Only 76,307 km2  below 2000s average for this date.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on December 01, 2013, 12:30:30 PM
IJIS:

10,866,552 km2(November 30, 2013) 

Only 12,115 km2 below 2000s average for this date.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on December 06, 2013, 05:22:36 PM
IJIS:

11,178,473 km2(December 5, 2013)

99,836 km2 below 2000s average.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Bob Wallace on December 09, 2013, 10:29:33 PM
Perhaps a small error?
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: crandles on December 10, 2013, 01:33:01 PM
Perhaps a small error?


Huh?

Maybe the revision has confused matters?
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/revision_v2.html (http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/revision_v2.html)
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on December 22, 2013, 10:51:57 AM
IJIS:

11,827,773 km2 (December 21, 2013)  3rd lowest on this date, only 2012 and 2010 was lower.

Interesting?
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Jim Pettit on December 22, 2013, 07:10:05 PM
So 2011 was higher on this date? 2011, the year immediately preceding the record? Yes, that is interesting...  :)
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Shared Humanity on December 22, 2013, 08:49:08 PM
IJIS:

11,827,773 km2 (December 21, 2013)  3rd lowest on this date, only 2012 and 2010 was lower.

Interesting?

If this portends a weak freeze this season it could be quite interesting. Given Chris's evidence that volume is the best predictor for an approaching melt season, I'm going to follow his posts closely.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: crandles on December 23, 2013, 12:18:39 AM
If this portends a weak freeze this season

Think someone predicted (less than?) a week ago that with Hudson more or less filled and little ice outside Bering strait there would be a period of slow growth. It seemed pretty sensible and I don't think we should read too much into slow growth in last week meaning anything about slow growth for rest of freeze season.

NSIDC extent has also fallen to 3rd lowest and if CT area continues to follow extent as it appears to have been doing we could reach 3rd lowest there as well. 3rd appears to be lowest rank since early in 2013 so certainly interesting enough to note, but I would suggest avoiding reading too much into it such as anticipating rest of freeze season.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: jdallen on December 23, 2013, 05:50:36 AM
If this portends a weak freeze this season

Think someone predicted (less than?) a week ago that with Hudson more or less filled and little ice outside Bering strait there would be a period of slow growth. It seemed pretty sensible and I don't think we should read too much into slow growth in last week meaning anything about slow growth for rest of freeze season.

NSIDC extent has also fallen to 3rd lowest and if CT area continues to follow extent as it appears to have been doing we could reach 3rd lowest there as well. 3rd appears to be lowest rank since early in 2013 so certainly interesting enough to note, but I would suggest avoiding reading too much into it such as anticipating rest of freeze season.

Reasonable, crandles.  I'm more concerned about the high temperatures hindering thickening.  The lack of freeze in the Bering can almost directly be attributed to the heat flow around the persistent high pressure ridge in the north central pacific.  Similarly some of the push back in the Barents is coming from flow following the Gulf Stream.  I'm not surprised that the Hudson and Baffin are proceeding as normal... They are closer to the current "cold pole" in the CAA. 

In short, it's not coverage I'm obsessing on right now, but volume.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on December 27, 2013, 04:51:20 PM
IJIS:

12,144,217 km2 (December 26, 2013) 3rd lowest on this date only trailing 2010 and 2012 by a small margin.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on December 28, 2013, 10:36:09 AM
IJIS:

12,212,347 km2 (December 27, 2013)  still 3rd but only 4,838 km2 behind 2012.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Jim Pettit on December 28, 2013, 03:57:46 PM
IJIS:

12,212,347 km2 (December 27, 2013)  still 3rd but only 4,838 km2 behind 2012.

...and perhaps more importantly, 62,026 km2 ahead of 2011--the year before 2012's records were set.

Some "recovery", uh?  ;)
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: wanderer on December 29, 2013, 10:13:27 AM
IJIS (December 28)   - 2013 is 2nd!

2010:
11,974,160
2ß11:
12,346,533
2012:
12,297,921
2013:
12,287,927
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on December 29, 2013, 10:49:59 AM
IJIS:

12,287,927 km2 (December 28, 2013) just 2nd to 2011 (11,974,160 km2) on this date or 313,767 km2 behind.

And 401,761 km2 below 2000s average.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Wipneus on December 31, 2013, 08:48:17 AM
Before getting too exited about the lower-than-2012 ice cover: the reason lies in the Sea between Iceland and Greenland. Last year an intense wind field appears to have caused a field of false ice clearly seen in the images for a couple of day's.
This should last for two days more, after that the situation can be better evaluated.

Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Neven on December 31, 2013, 12:57:53 PM
And CT SIA has 2013 as second highest in the 2005-2013 period:

(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-NakhJLP2UWs/UsKxDF-Q2uI/AAAAAAAABdY/o3uuV6-f5R0/s869/CTSIA20131228.png)
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on January 01, 2014, 04:54:40 PM
IJIS:

12,341,252 km2 (December 31, 2013)  2nd to 2010 and only 149,815 km2 behind.

And 471,023 km2 below 2000s average.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Jim Pettit on January 07, 2014, 03:30:44 PM
IJIS:

12,545,921 km2 (January 5, 2014)  Lowest ever for the date.

121,344 km2 below 2000s average, and 284,821 km2 below the same date in 2012, the year of the record-setting melt-out.

(But don't worry; I'm sure the "recovery" will start any day now.  :))
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on January 07, 2014, 08:00:41 PM
Thanks Jim,

I am sorry I am incapable of daily reports due to a heavy workload:
But a very interesting low, let see what is happening over the next couple of weeks.
I will be up running again when time is due!!! ;)
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Jim Pettit on January 10, 2014, 01:28:20 PM
IJIS (filling in temporarily for the very busy Espen):

12,637,354 km2 (January 9, 2014)  Second lowest ever for the date. (1st: 2011 / 12,596,125 km2)

157,621 km2 below 2000s average, and 483,075 km2 below the same date in 2012, the year of the record-setting melt-out.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: jdallen on January 10, 2014, 07:48:53 PM
483,075 km2 below the same date in 2012

This is unsettling. 
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: werther on January 11, 2014, 12:35:29 PM
Current extent is worth noting, but it doesn't tell us much...yet.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Jim Pettit on January 11, 2014, 05:28:08 PM
Current extent is worth noting, but it doesn't tell us much...yet.

Agreed. But it does call into question the current denialist meme of some type of Arctic sea ice "recovery"...
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Jim Pettit on January 11, 2014, 07:08:14 PM
I realize sea ice area is falling out of vogue (for obvious reasons). but I thought I'd mention that as of yesterday's century break, Cryosphere Today's has Arctic sea ice area at 11.749 million km2. That's the 3rd smallest on record for the date, but also a whopping 582,590km2 below the same date in recordsetting 2012. (In fact, while I am not in any way implying that it will or could happen, were the remainder of 2014 to exactly follow the 2012 path from now onward, this year's minimum area would wind up at a ghoulish 1.65 million km2.)

At any rate, looks like another interesting and very educational year is in the works...
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Buddy on January 11, 2014, 07:23:03 PM
You mean the Arctic ice sheet is NOT recovering like Joe Bastardi promised?  SHOCKING.... :)

On a less satirical note.....I wonder if the stubbornly warm north Pacific has anything to do with the low level of ice growth since November?  There has been a rather large "warm anomalous area" of SST off the west coast of the US which has been there for 2 - 3 months now and has been INCREASING in its "intensity" over the past month.  And while I am NOT a science geek (I say that lovingly btw).....it likely is playing a part in the extremely dry conditions in the western US (especially California).

Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Jim Pettit on January 11, 2014, 10:11:47 PM
That persistent NE Pacific hot-spot is an interest feature, isn't it? I've been watching it for a while now, waiting for it to fade away, but that doesn't appear to be happening anytime soon...

(http://img850.imageshack.us/img850/5746/txif.png)
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Neven on January 11, 2014, 11:07:58 PM
Tell me if I'm wrong, but isn't that set-up associated with a negative PDO? Funny that a tiny sliver of blue along the US/Canadian coast determines whether it's positive or negative.

CT SIA has reported a century break and has now dipped into 3rd spot.

Something else: Do you guys think we should have a central spot to discuss SIE and SIA, instead of separate threads for CT and IJIS and NSIDC? Something like a 2014 sea ice extent and area data thread?
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on January 11, 2014, 11:16:39 PM
Hi Neven,

I understand your question, but as long the different measurements behave so much different I vote for separate threads? :-\

But when we become sea ice free, it is a different matter? ;) 
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: crandles on January 12, 2014, 04:59:47 PM
I would suggest that easier to compare and contrast makes for more interesting posts.

With separate threads you get posts like

CT area is now down to second lowest.

With one thread you are more likely to get

Area has been in 5th to 9th lowest position for the last couple of months while extent measure have been around 2nd or 3rd lowest. But now area has come down to second lowest for the date. Extent on both NSIDC and Jaxa are 3rd lowest.

OK perhaps I exaggerate the difference a little but it seems like a good idea to try it. We can always revert to 3 threads if it isn't working out.

Whether the differences and changes are significant and whether likely to continue or revert might be difficult to debate until some time later.

Extent has moved up to 3rd Lowest
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: ChrisReynolds on January 12, 2014, 05:59:53 PM
Neven,

Yes it's part of the PDO pattern, negative PDO gives a warm north Pacific. It also gives a cool Atlantic Arctic (reverse of this pattern), NCEP/NCAR (http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/cgi-bin/data/correlation/corr.test1.pl?iregr=2&var=SST&level=Surface&mon1=1&mon2=1&iy%5B1%5D=&iy%5B2%5D=&ilead=0&ilag=0&type=12&timefile=&customtitle=&labelc=Color&labels=Shaded&cint=0.25&lowr=-2&highr=2&scale=200&switch=0&proj=Northern+Hemisphere&xlat1=&xlat2=&xlon1=&xlon2=&custproj=Cylindrical+Equidistant&level1=1000mb&level2=10mb&Submit=Create+Plot), give that link a while to work.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Jim Pettit on January 15, 2014, 01:23:34 PM
IJIS (still filling in from time to time for Espen, who's busy):

12,939.224 km2(January 14, 2014)  up 12,221 km2 from previous.

126,439 km2 below 2010s average for this date.

316,074 km2 below 2012 value for this date.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Jim Pettit on January 20, 2014, 01:55:16 PM
IJIS:

13,218,0102 (January 19, 2014)  up 58,129 km2 from previous.

21,613 km2 above 2010s average for this date.

93,011 km2 above 2012 value for this date.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Steven on January 20, 2014, 07:11:52 PM
21,613 km2 above 2000s average for this date.


I'm not sure how you obtained the 2000s average?  According to this data file (http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/plot_v2.csv), IJIS is now

993,370 km2 below the 1990s average
444,800 km2 below the 2000s average
  27,016 km2 above the 2010-2013 average
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Jim Pettit on January 21, 2014, 09:06:01 PM
21,613 km2 above 2000s average for this date.


I'm not sure how you obtained the 2000s average?  According to this data file ([url]http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/plot_v2.csv[/url]), IJIS is now

993,370 km2 below the 1990s average
444,800 km2 below the 2000s average
  27,016 km2 above the 2010-2013 average


My bad; I have written 2000s average where I meant 2010s average, and so on. I'll go back and change the last few updates. Sorry, Espen.  ;)
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Jim Pettit on January 21, 2014, 09:08:23 PM
IJIS:

13,262,1672 (January 20, 2014)  up 44,157 km2 from previous.

35,615 km2 above 2010s average for this date.

84,882 km2 above 2012 value for this date.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on January 21, 2014, 10:14:51 PM
It is OK Jim,

We are only in the pre-season, thanks by the way. Just came back from some interesting travel.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Steven on January 21, 2014, 10:44:29 PM
My bad; I have written 2000s average where I meant 2010s average, and so on. I'll go back and change the last few updates. Sorry, Espen.  ;)

OK, I used the 2010-2013 average rather than the 2010-2014 average, which is why it didn't match exactly.  Yesterday I thought that perhaps the typo had something to do with the recent IJIS revision...

Anyway, thanks for the updates.  I try not to read too much into it (looking more closely at PIOMAS than at extent or area) but it's interesting nevertheless.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Jim Pettit on January 23, 2014, 01:34:32 PM
Just came back from some interesting travel.

Interesting travel, huh? Care to share?

Anway:

IJIS:

13,360,7902 (January 22, 2014)  up 72,281 km2 from previous.

410,907 km2 below 2000s average for this date.

57,174 km2 above 2010s average for this date.

546 km2 above 2012 value for this date.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on January 23, 2014, 11:13:41 PM
JIM,

It is a bit premature, but very interesting.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Jim Pettit on January 27, 2014, 01:09:57 PM
IJIS:

13,557,7352 (January 26, 2014)  up 23,972 km2 from previous.

346,687 km2 below 2000s average for this date.

75,676 km2 above 2010s average for this date.

121,805 km2 above 2012 value for this date.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Jim Pettit on January 30, 2014, 12:51:35 PM
IJIS:

13,527,2142 (January 29, 2014)  up 15,732 km2 from previous day.

494,065 km2 below 2000s average for this date.

9,225 km2 above 2010s average for this date.

80,855 km2 above 2012 value for this date.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: domen_ on January 30, 2014, 03:14:16 PM
Why is this up? January 26th had higher extent than January 29th?
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: jdallen on January 30, 2014, 10:04:18 PM
Why is this up? January 26th had higher extent than January 29th?

Not sure its that the extent was higher on the 26th; could be the increase between the 26th and 29th this year is just less than it was previously.

It it is not this, the decrease is almost absolutely driven by compaction caused by wind and drift, and has nothing to do with melting.  Even with 20C+ anomalies, it is still far too cold for that.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Wipneus on January 31, 2014, 08:36:13 AM
Apart from the winds, the Jaxa maps show considerable false ice, see attached map.
South tip of Greenland and the North Sea are caused by strong winds. I could be wrong, but the ice near New York is suspect as well.

Sea Ice concentration calculated by Uni Hamburgs amsr2 and from NSIDC don't show this false ice in this period but also show a decrease in extent. So the wind factor looks dominant.

Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Jim Pettit on January 31, 2014, 04:53:56 PM
Why is this up? January 26th had higher extent than January 29th?

Apologies; I haven't been updating the IJIS/JAXA numbers every day, but rather when I've been able to get around to it. When I write "up from previous" or "down from previous", I'm referring to the previous calendar day, not the previous update. FWIW, however, SIE did fall on two consecutive days this week. In fact, because of that double dip, extent has grown by just 9,094 km2 in the past four days, and 147k km2 in the past week. (The month-to-date gain has been 1.147 million km2.)
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Neven on February 01, 2014, 11:24:38 PM
Okay, I've opened that central sea ice extent and area data thread (http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,743.0.html). I'd appreciate if if all the IJIS data stuff gets posted there. I expect it will  become a very interesting and busy thread.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on February 02, 2014, 12:47:04 PM
Neven,

I think it is not such a good decision, since it will be like discussing oranges and apples?
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Neven on February 02, 2014, 08:20:37 PM
Espen, I don't see a problem with discussing apples and oranges in a central fruit thread. Comparing them is another matter.  ;) :)

I just want to try it out. You can continue posting here if you like.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on February 08, 2014, 11:06:09 AM
IJIS:

13,666,843 km2 (February 7, 2014)

2014 is following a very similar pattern to 2011, very interesting! 
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: jdallen on February 08, 2014, 11:24:53 AM
IJIS:

13,666,843 km2 (February 7, 2014)

2014 is following a very similar pattern to 2011, very interesting!

Interesting indeed, as some folks once were debating that 2011 was actually had lower numbers than 2007...

Spring conditions, I think, will be extraordinarily crucial for the coming melt season.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Buddy on February 08, 2014, 03:40:46 PM
I was searching the internet for the "earliest start to melt season" in the Arctic.  Does anyone know the answer to that?  I thought I saw it somewhere on this site at one time.

I assume it was sometime in early to mid March.....but I was curious to know the actual answer.

Thanks...

Buddy
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: OldLeatherneck on February 08, 2014, 03:53:20 PM
Below are the dates at which the extent reached the maximum value for the past 10 years.  That does not necessarily equate to the beginning of the melt season.


March 10, 2004            14701388
   
March 7, 2005           14396094
   
March 10, 2006           14132380
   
February 24, 2007   14209677
   
March 9, 2008           14774776
   
March 2, 2009           14657047
   
March 31, 2010           14688540
   
March 16, 2011           14127729
   
March 7, 2012           14709086
   
March 14, 2013           14523635
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: TerryM on February 08, 2014, 05:16:48 PM
Amazing how far 2007 strays from the pack.
Terry
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: OldLeatherneck on February 08, 2014, 05:58:29 PM
Amazing how far 2007 strays from the pack.
Terry

Although, 2007 stayed on an undulating plateau until about March 11th, after which steady, but slow, declines began.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: crandles on February 08, 2014, 06:31:32 PM
Amazing how far 2007 strays from the pack.
Terry


The peak of a 30 day PIOMAS volume average runs to day 118 in 2007, 121 in 2008, 123 in 2009, 117 in 2010, 121 in 2011, 123 in 2012 and 119 in 2013. 7 days covers the peak in those 7 years.

The middle of that range runs to day 120 which is 30 April, so the average of April works quite well for the peak. Similarly Average of Sept works pretty well for minimum.

While it may not work as well for other data as for PIOMAS, If you use a 30 day average, that will reduce the range by quite a lot but not eliminate the variation.

Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: davidsanger on February 09, 2014, 04:59:16 AM
On Feb 8th the 2014 extent (13,669,885 km2) is now second lowest, just above 2011 (13,636,918 km2)
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: davidsanger on February 09, 2014, 05:18:07 AM
Interesting indeed, as some folks once were debating that 2011 was actually had lower numbers than 2007...

2007 has the lowest extent for 9 of the days of the year (by date)
2011 has the lowest extent for 59 of the days of the year (by date)
2012 has the lowest extent for 129 of the days of the year (by date)
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on February 09, 2014, 10:03:55 AM
IJIS:

13,669,885 km2(February 8, 2014) 

2014 continues a low flight only 2011 was slightly lower on this date ( -32,967 km2).
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: jdallen on February 09, 2014, 01:11:09 PM
IJIS:

13,669,885 km2(February 8, 2014) 

2014 continues a low flight only 2011 was slightly lower on this date ( -32,967 km2).

... which considering, implies a significantly disconcerting melt season, *IFF* we don't get a cool spring like 2013.  If we get something resembling a "normal" melt season (rather than cool like 2013), We may at the least see a return to 2012 values for volume, area & extent, and potentially may see a serious crash past the 2012 number.  Strong melt forces (clear sky, warm inflowes) may presage a very unpleasant summer.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Buddy on February 09, 2014, 01:33:01 PM
If you look at the temperature anomaly map for the Northern Hemisphere for the next 7 days...it still shows a very warm Arctic.  Not AS warm as the last 10 days or so....but STILL very warm.

http://cci-reanalyzer.org/Forecasts/index_gfcst.php (http://cci-reanalyzer.org/Forecasts/index_gfcst.php)

Things are NOT setting up well for the coming year in the Arctic AND on Greenland as well.

Alaska has been VERY WARM (including Barrow on the northernmost coast), Greenland air temps have been very warm (and look to continue so for the next week), and the odds of an El Nino is becoming more likely.

NOT....a good mix.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on February 09, 2014, 05:09:40 PM
Very little solid sea ice is seen in the Bering Sea and Strait.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on February 12, 2014, 06:27:21 AM
IJIS:

13,633,069 km2 (February 11, 2014) 

2014 continues its low altitude flight, the lowest recorded for this date.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on February 13, 2014, 05:52:16 AM
IJIS:

13,606,990 km2 (February 12, 2014)

The 2014 IJIS flight is now stalling and is really showing up with a very different track than previous years already -109,445 km2 below the previous (2011) record for this date. 
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Jim Pettit on February 13, 2014, 01:18:06 PM
IJIS:

13,606,990 km2 (February 12, 2014)

The 2014 IJIS flight is now stalling and is really showing up with a very different track than previous years already -109,445 km2 below the previous (2011) record for this date.

Not to mention 307,000 km2 below the 2012 value for this date...
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: silkman on February 13, 2014, 03:26:01 PM
It would seem to be safe to assume that the observed IJIS/JAXA stall has more than a little to do with this:

http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php (http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php)

Toggle between 2013 and 2014 and you get a clear view of a very different temperature trend.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: jdallen on February 13, 2014, 08:05:32 PM
It would seem to be safe to assume that the observed IJIS/JAXA stall has more than a little to do with this:

[url]http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php[/url] ([url]http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php[/url])

Toggle between 2013 and 2014 and you get a clear view of a very different temperature trend.


Sort of, maybe.  I haven't felt that to be proven *yet*...

I'd actually blame what is happening now more on heat added to the system during the melt seasons in 2012 & 2013.  That, and, if you look regionally where the drop in extent is focused, it is mostly peripheral - in the Bering, Okotsch and Greenland seas - well below 80N.  Add to that, that while high, temperatures at 80N are still well below freezing, the problems created are less likely to be tied to extent, and more to volume and pack strength.  They won't really show up until the melt season.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on February 13, 2014, 08:41:13 PM
And the open area north of Svalbard and around Franz Josef Land is impressive:

Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: jdallen on February 13, 2014, 08:55:19 PM
And the open area north of Svalbard and around Franz Josef Land is impressive:

It's like a pair of open wounds.  If they are still just as open come mid March, the consequences for the melt season actually could be serious.  Several hundred thousand KM2 of open water at high latitude, at the *start* of the melt season! merrily soaking up heat rather than bouncing it back out of the atmosphere, due to reduced albedo.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Apocalypse4Real on February 13, 2014, 08:59:24 PM
Warm air intrusions into the CAB will keep slowing this down, and if the GFS models are correct, it will impact ice in the Hudson Bay as warm air streams north over the Eastern US later next week.

Here is an example of today:



Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on February 13, 2014, 09:24:02 PM
Antarctica must very near a record low at the moment:

http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsr2/antarctic_AMSR2_nic.png (http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsr2/antarctic_AMSR2_nic.png)
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: crandles on February 13, 2014, 10:42:06 PM
Antarctica must very near a record low at the moment:

[url]http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsr2/antarctic_AMSR2_nic.png[/url] ([url]http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsr2/antarctic_AMSR2_nic.png[/url])


Why?
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png (http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png)
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: jdallen on February 13, 2014, 10:44:53 PM
Warm air intrusions into the CAB will keep slowing this down, and if the GFS models are correct, it will impact ice in the Hudson Bay as warm air streams north over the Eastern US later next week.

Here is an example of today:

How reassuring (o.O)

Note the SST anomaly near Svalbard.  It has been around for *months*, and I think may be playing a part here.

polar.ncep.noaa.gov/sst/ophi/color_anomaly_NPS_ophi0.png
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: CraigsIsland on February 13, 2014, 11:14:01 PM
Warm air intrusions into the CAB will keep slowing this down, and if the GFS models are correct, it will impact ice in the Hudson Bay as warm air streams north over the Eastern US later next week.

Here is an example of today:

How reassuring (o.O)

Note the SST anomaly near Svalbard.  It has been around for *months*, and I think may be playing a part here.

polar.ncep.noaa.gov/sst/ophi/color_anomaly_NPS_ophi0.png

Is the cause of warmer water due to more heat in the North Atlantic Drift?
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: jdallen on February 13, 2014, 11:42:20 PM
Warm air intrusions into the CAB will keep slowing this down, and if the GFS models are correct, it will impact ice in the Hudson Bay as warm air streams north over the Eastern US later next week.

Here is an example of today:

How reassuring (o.O)

Note the SST anomaly near Svalbard.  It has been around for *months*, and I think may be playing a part here.

polar.ncep.noaa.gov/sst/ophi/color_anomaly_NPS_ophi0.png

Is the cause of warmer water due to more heat in the North Atlantic Drift?
Probably not. Part of the drift does split off and head into the CAB via that route.  I don't think it is more heat in the drift per se.  It might be caused by a change in circulation.  The Atlantic currents have always had enough heat to cause an anomaly like this. Typically, they just don't show up at the surface, the saltier, heavier Atlantic water tending to flow a hundred meters or more below the surface arctic waters.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: OldLeatherneck on February 14, 2014, 01:42:36 AM
Warm air intrusions into the CAB will keep slowing this down, and if the GFS models are correct, it will impact ice in the Hudson Bay as warm air streams north over the Eastern US later next week.

Here is an example of today:

How reassuring (o.O)
Note the SST anomaly near Svalbard.  It has been around for *months*, and I think may be playing a part here.

polar.ncep.noaa.gov/sst/ophi/color_anomaly_NPS_ophi0.png

And to think that, today, sunlight was only present in Svalbard for just over an hour and by the end of February that will have increased to over 7 hours/day.  Meanwhile, on the other side of the Arctic, the slush in the Bering Sea and the Sea of Okhotsz is already being bathed in 8 hours/day of sunlight.  And then there's the CAB where the DMI temps are currently 15o (C) above normal.  And according to the charts provided by A4R, more warm air will be flowing into the Arctic basin in the next few days.  There don't seem to be many venues for Extent to increase substantially in the very near future.

The "engineer" part of my brain doesn't want to predict what will happen in the next 3-6 weeks, however I can't help myself from playing with some of the number of what has happened in the past 10 years.  I've calculated the Extent gain, from  today's date, until the annual maximum for each of the past 10 years.  Taking those 10 annual gains, I added those values to the current IJIS Extent for February 12th, 2014.

In 3 cases, the 2014 Extent maximum would be less than 13,900 km2.

Another 4 cases, the 2014 Extent maximum would still be the lowest on record.

In 2 cases, the 2014 Extent maximum would be the 4th lowest on record.

In 1 case, the 2014 Extent maximum would be the 5th lowest on record.

FYI, the average daily Extent loss, in the past 10 years, for the last 2 weeks of February is just less that 16K km2/day, however the standard deviation on that would be very, very high!!

Under no circumstance is the Arctic Sea Ice undergoing a "Rebound", much to the chagrin of Watts & Company!!
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on February 14, 2014, 08:50:37 AM
Antarctica must very near a record low at the moment:

[url]http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsr2/antarctic_AMSR2_nic.png[/url] ([url]http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsr2/antarctic_AMSR2_nic.png[/url])


Why?
[url]http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png[/url] ([url]http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png[/url])


I dont remember seeing the Bremen ma like that :-\
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on February 14, 2014, 08:55:15 AM
JIS:

13,630,738 km2 (February 13, 2014) 

Down 145,993 km2 for this date, previous record 2011

Down 313,357 km2 for this date 2012.

If this is around the peak area for this season, it will certainly be an interesting season to follow.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: jdallen on February 14, 2014, 09:00:12 AM
JIS:

13,630,738 km2 (February 13, 2014) 

Down 145,993 km2 for this date, previous record 2011

Down 313,357 km2 for this date 2012.

If this is around the peak area for this season, it will certainly be an interesting season to follow.

Indeed.  However, I won't be excited until/unless it continues this trend (flat or down) for the next 3-4 days.

Then I will probably get VERY excited.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Jim Pettit on February 14, 2014, 01:23:31 PM
I've calculated the Extent gain, from  today's date, until the annual maximum for each of the past 10 years.  Taking those 10 annual gains, I added those values to the current IJIS Extent for February 12th, 2014.

In 3 cases, the 2014 Extent maximum would be less than 13,900 km2.

Another 4 cases, the 2014 Extent maximum would still be the lowest on record.

In 2 cases, the 2014 Extent maximum would be the 4th lowest on record.

In 1 case, the 2014 Extent maximum would be the 5th lowest on record.


FWIW, I made a chart last year that represents those same calculations graphically:

(http://i.imgur.com/eF6HwW4.png)

You can find it here. (http://iwantsomeproof.com/extimg/sie_projections_from_current_date.png)
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Shared Humanity on February 14, 2014, 03:25:29 PM
I've calculated the Extent gain, from  today's date, until the annual maximum for each of the past 10 years.  Taking those 10 annual gains, I added those values to the current IJIS Extent for February 12th, 2014.

In 3 cases, the 2014 Extent maximum would be less than 13,900 km2.

Another 4 cases, the 2014 Extent maximum would still be the lowest on record.

In 2 cases, the 2014 Extent maximum would be the 4th lowest on record.

In 1 case, the 2014 Extent maximum would be the 5th lowest on record.


FWIW, I made a chart last year that represents those same calculations graphically:

([url]http://i.imgur.com/eF6HwW4.png[/url])

You can find it here. ([url]http://iwantsomeproof.com/extimg/sie_projections_from_current_date.png[/url])


Jim Pettit...

I really like this chart. I remember following it last melt season. I know it does not approach the melt season in a statistically rigorous way but I am a visual person. The chart does seem to suggest we should not get overly excited as we approach the melt season.

Not yet anyway.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: deep octopus on February 14, 2014, 03:31:28 PM
Here's NOAA's CFS prediction for March surface temperature anomalies. The Eurasian side of the Arctic is expected to be much above average. This could get things melting quickly on the Atlantic side, and where things stand in the Barents, it doesn't need the help.

(http://origin.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/people/wwang/cfsv2fcst/imagesInd3/arT2mMonInd1.gif)
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Jim Pettit on February 14, 2014, 04:36:18 PM
I really like this chart. I remember following it last melt season. I know it does not approach the melt season in a statistically rigorous way but I am a visual person. The chart does seem to suggest we should not get overly excited as we approach the melt season.

Not yet anyway.

I agree. On both points: it's too early to draw any conclusions as to how the rest of the year will proceed (after witnessing last summer's bizarre 10-day-long pause in melting, I may never make another ice melt forecast again). And the chart is most definitely not "statistically rigorous"; I juts wanted a quick and dirty cross-year reference. I like to think it handles that (not-so-heavy) duty well... ;-)
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Shared Humanity on February 14, 2014, 06:08:32 PM
Here's NOAA's CFS prediction for March surface temperature anomalies. The Eurasian side of the Arctic is expected to be much above average. This could get things melting quickly on the Atlantic side, and where things stand in the Barents, it doesn't need the help.

([url]http://origin.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/people/wwang/cfsv2fcst/imagesInd3/arT2mMonInd1.gif[/url])


Too bad it doesn't show ocean atmosphere temperature anomalies. The small pieces of warm anomaly along the nares strait and northern Alaska suggests this Asian warm anomaly stretches across the CAB.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: OldLeatherneck on February 15, 2014, 12:25:54 AM
I really like this chart. I remember following it last melt season. I know it does not approach the melt season in a statistically rigorous way but I am a visual person. The chart does seem to suggest we should not get overly excited as we approach the melt season.

Not yet anyway.

I agree. On both points: it's too early to draw any conclusions as to how the rest of the year will proceed (after witnessing last summer's bizarre 10-day-long pause in melting, I may never make another ice melt forecast again). And the chart is most definitely not "statistically rigorous"; I juts wanted a quick and dirty cross-year reference. I like to think it handles that (not-so-heavy) duty well... ;-)

Jim,

Thanks for posting your chart.  Your graphic excellence is much appreciated!!

While I was just looking at potential trends for the remainder of the "growth" season, your chart carries the potentials much further.  It will be interesting to see what that chart will look like by the middle of March.  Again, it will be the weather in April and May that will really give us a better forecast of what September might look like.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Siffy on February 15, 2014, 03:04:15 PM
Back for year 2 of my ice watching career :p

I'd like to say thank you to every one providing graphs and moving data from the various different  outlets and collecting them on this forum.

Would I be right in thinking the high temperature anomaly over the Arctic is directly linked to the unusual weather effecting northern America, or is this just a coincidence?

my limited understanding points to it being related to the jetstream oscillations.

One last question, which I think already know the answer to but what chance is there that we've already hit the winter maximum?

My guess is this is all but impossible at this point unless something entirely unknown is going on?
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Jim Pettit on February 15, 2014, 04:17:06 PM
One last question, which I think already know the answer to but what chance is there that we've already hit the winter maximum?

My guess is this is all but impossible at this point unless something entirely unknown is going on?

While it's statistically possible the maximum has been reached, I think the chances of that are so slim as to be virtually non-existent. First, there've been just two years in the record with CT area maxima occurring before Day 50 (both 1992 and 1997 topped out on day 49, or February 18). The mean occurrence over the entire record has been Day 68 (March 11), while over the past ten years that's skewed up to Day 71 (March 12).

For JAXA extent, the earliest maximum over the past ten years took place on Day 55 (February 24) in 2007, while the latest occurred on Day 90 (March 31) in 2010. The mean occurrence over the ten years has been Day 69 (March 10).

With all that in mind, I'm not willing to go any farther out on a limb than to say this: assuming this year's maximums haven't already been reached--an unlikely prospect--we'll see those maximums sometime over the next one to six weeks for area, and two to six weeks for extent, with the most likely occurrence for both in roughly three weeks.

Bu, as always: we'll see...
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Siffy on February 15, 2014, 04:33:23 PM
One last question, which I think already know the answer to but what chance is there that we've already hit the winter maximum?

My guess is this is all but impossible at this point unless something entirely unknown is going on?

While it's statistically possible the maximum has been reached, I think the chances of that are so slim as to be virtually non-existent. First, there've been just two years in the record with CT area maxima occurring before Day 50 (both 1992 and 1997 topped out on day 49, or February 18). The mean occurrence over the entire record has been Day 68 (March 11), while over the past ten years that's skewed up to Day 71 (March 12).

For JAXA extent, the earliest maximum over the past ten years took place on Day 55 (February 24) in 2007, while the latest occurred on Day 90 (March 31) in 2010. The mean occurrence over the ten years has been Day 69 (March 10).

With all that in mind, I'm not willing to go any farther out on a limb than to say this: assuming this year's maximums haven't already been reached--an unlikely prospect--we'll see those maximums sometime over the next one to six weeks for area, and two to six weeks for extent, with the most likely occurrence for both in roughly three weeks.

Bu, as always: we'll see...

Thanks Jim, awesome answer.

:)
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: crandles on February 15, 2014, 07:07:08 PM

While it's statistically possible the maximum has been reached, I think the chances of that are so slim as to be virtually non-existent. First, there've been just two years in the record with CT area maxima occurring before Day 50 (both 1992 and 1997 topped out on day 49, or February 18). The mean occurrence over the entire record has been Day 68 (March 11), while over the past ten years that's skewed up to Day 71 (March 12).


I would add that for CT area we are 100k below peak this year. 1989 reached a high on day 28 of 14.176 and the max was only 14.184 that year. Also 2007 reached 13.263 on day 47 and the max was only 13.317. So if in 3 days time we are still at least 54k below 12.624 as we are now and followed movements of 2007 from then it would happen. 1996 gained less than 100k from days 42 or 43.

Seems to be quite a few years that get close: 1989 2007 1996 1992 1997 but none are really doing it. My estimate is about 2% chance +/- 2%. Later years have later dates but OTOH relatively high ice volume at previous minimum compared to nearby years through to this date might tend to cause earlier minimum dates or it might not.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on February 16, 2014, 10:31:33 AM
IJIS:

13,739,569 km2 (February 15, 2014) 

Moving up a bit over the last couple of days, and still in record territory, will be interesting to see if 2014 crosses the 14 million km2 line, if not that will be a new situation.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Jim Pettit on February 16, 2014, 01:58:59 PM
To expand on what Espen has already stated:

13,739,5692 (February 15, 2014)

Up 38,939 km2 from previous day
Up 69,684 km2 over past seven days (daily average: 9,955 km2)
Up 122,867 km2 for the month-to-date (daily average: 8,191 km2)

691,771 km2 below 2000s average for this date.
257,680 km2 below 2010s average for this date.
289,682 km2 below 2012 value for this date.

Lowest ever for the date (fifth consecutive day, and seventh day this year, in first place)
Eighth consecutive day, and 24th this year, among the lowest three years on record

[W]ill be interesting to see if 2014 crosses the 14 million km2 line, if not that will be a new situation.

Indeed. The lowest maximum over the past ten years was 2011's 1.413 million km2, while the largest max was 2003's 15.066 million. The average has been 14.555 million km2, and we're still 815k km2 below that...
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on February 17, 2014, 04:35:09 AM
IJIS:

13,795,307 km2(February 16, 2014)

Another day of growth.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on February 20, 2014, 06:10:46 AM
IJIS:

13,935,082 km2 (February 19, 2014) a steep climb, and we will probably be crossing the 14 million km2 line soon!
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: jdallen on February 20, 2014, 08:43:50 AM
IJIS:

13,935,082 km2 (February 19, 2014) a steep climb, and we will probably be crossing the 14 million km2 line soon!

*Good*!

Here's hoping the ice thickens up.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Jim Pettit on February 20, 2014, 01:15:54 PM
IJIS:

13,935,082 km2 (February 19, 2014) a steep climb, and we will probably be crossing the 14 million km2 line soon!

Yes, a very steep climb--as I noted in another thread, that's the largest one-day increase in extent--and the first century increase--since November 30. However, 2014 is still nearly 200,000 km2 below 2012 on this date.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: werther on February 20, 2014, 01:58:17 PM
Must be the Bering Sea, freezing up under a cold snap. Won't last long, the snap will soon be over, leaving a thin layer of ice for the next storm.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on February 21, 2014, 06:21:53 AM
IJIS:

14,035,877 km2(February 20, 2014) went trough the 14 million roof, but late?
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Jim Pettit on February 21, 2014, 01:26:20 PM
IJIS:

14,035,877 km2(February 20, 2014) went trough the 14 million roof, but late?

Well, not all that late. Here are the days for previous when the 14 million km2 threshold was first crossed:

2014: 20 February
2013: 09 February
2012: 15 February
2011: 06 March
2010: 14 February
2010s average: 16 February

2009: 05 February
2008: 28 January
2007: 13 February
2006: 08 March
2005: 16 February
2004: 06 February
2003: 17 January
2000s average: 29 January
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Shared Humanity on February 21, 2014, 04:52:20 PM
IJIS:

14,035,877 km2(February 20, 2014) went trough the 14 million roof, but late?

Well, not all that late. Here are the days for previous when the 14 million km2 threshold was first crossed:

2014: 20 February
2013: 09 February
2012: 15 February
2011: 06 March
2010: 14 February
2010s average: 16 February

2009: 05 February
2008: 28 January
2007: 13 February
2006: 08 March
2005: 16 February
2004: 06 February
2003: 17 January
2000s average: 29 January

Certainly consistent with 2010s average but the drop between 2000s and 2010s is dramatic. That this winters freeze falls in line with the 2010s average would support the argument that the freeze seasons are weakening.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: crandles on February 21, 2014, 05:32:14 PM
Certainly consistent with 2010s average but the drop between 2000s and 2010s is dramatic. That this winters freeze falls in line with the 2010s average would support the argument that the freeze seasons are weakening.

Or maybe it just supports what we already know: that the minimums are lower so it takes longer to get up to 14M Km^2 especially as there is a tendency to approach a thermal equilibrium thickness and that thickness appears to be decreasing over time.

So maybe it is more a case of why isn't it last to reach 14M km^2 with natural variability being the likely answer.

I agree that freeze seasons are weakening but if the average date of reaching 14M Km^2 is moving relatively fast, does this imply that the lower minimums are a significant factor? If maximum volume isn't changing much particularly over last 4 minimums does this imply that the strength of the freeze season isn't a particularly significant factor in rapidly changing date of reaching 14M km^2? I may not be thinking straight and they may well both be interlinked effects. So I probably shouldn't rush to judge how much emphasis should be given to each.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: jdallen on February 21, 2014, 07:26:48 PM

Or maybe it just supports what we already know: that the minimums are lower so it takes longer to get up to 14M Km^2 especially as there is a tendency to approach a thermal equilibrium thickness and that thickness appears to be decreasing over time.

So maybe it is more a case of why isn't it last to reach 14M km^2 with natural variability being the likely answer.

I agree that freeze seasons are weakening but if the average date of reaching 14M Km^2 is moving relatively fast, does this imply that the lower minimums are a significant factor? If maximum volume isn't changing much particularly over last 4 minimums does this imply that the strength of the freeze season isn't a particularly significant factor in rapidly changing date of reaching 14M km^2? I may not be thinking straight and they may well both be interlinked effects. So I probably shouldn't rush to judge how much emphasis should be given to each.

Not sure I can agree with your first conclusion.  Contrary-wise, while minimums have gotten smaller,  the net refreeze volume, area and extent have *increased* significantly.  The minimum won't directly affect the rate at which heat gets dumped to support the refreeze, and in fact to some degree is a positive feedback to ice creation.

I'll hypothesize that the date is advancing because the total heat in the system is steadily advancing, and has reached a key threshold relative to freezing. Even with positive feed backs like increased exposure of ocean to atmosphere can't shed the heat fast enough to compensate.

I intuit we might have a long term predictive indicator here.  What kind of curve do we get graphing the date at which extent passes 14000000 KM2 I wonder?
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: crandles on February 21, 2014, 07:48:41 PM

Not sure I can agree with your first conclusion.  Contrary-wise, while minimums have gotten smaller,  the net refreeze volume, area and extent have *increased* significantly.  The minimum won't directly affect the rate at which heat gets dumped to support the refreeze, and in fact to some degree is a positive feedback to ice creation.

I'll hypothesize that the date is advancing because the total heat in the system is steadily advancing, and has reached a key threshold relative to freezing. Even with positive feed backs like increased exposure of ocean to atmosphere can't shed the heat fast enough to compensate.

I intuit we might have a long term predictive indicator here.  What kind of curve do we get graphing the date at which extent passes 14000000 KM2 I wonder?

"the net refreeze volume, area and extent have *increased* significantly" but the maximums are still getting lower. I think the date of maximum may get later as minimums get smaller because the limits of the maximum get smaller and further north so that we have to wait for the sun to get a little higher before the extent/area maximum is reached. This trend will be very small compared to the 18 day a decade trend shown. I suspect the extra water further north will accelerate the melt despite the shortening of the melt season.

I am not really sure we get a 'long term predictive indicator' nor what this predictive indicator indicates.

Suppose we considered dates on which extent went above 10M km^2, would you accept the the minimum might have a lot to do with those dates?

Still if you see use in it, feel free to investigate.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on February 21, 2014, 07:59:31 PM
I find it interesting "almost" sea ice free conditions around Svalbard in February, not surprised if they get a very unusual "spring":
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: OldLeatherneck on February 21, 2014, 09:13:32 PM
I find it interesting "almost" sea ice free conditions around Svalbard in February, not surprised if they get a very unusual "spring":

What is almost as alarming to me is when I see all of that red and yellow, on the UNI Bremen chart, approaching the NP.

Beginning to wonder if this is the year that Neven gets to windsurf at the North Pole!! That might be an interesting poll to conduct.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: CraigsIsland on February 23, 2014, 08:52:25 AM
Week or so doesn't look good at all for temps around selvard. Some 36 degrees Fahrenheit above normal. If there's not much ice cover in that area around spring, I'm concerned that water will heat even more so.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: jdallen on February 23, 2014, 10:18:38 AM
Week or so doesn't look good at all for temps around selvard. Some 36 degrees Fahrenheit above normal. If there's not much ice cover in that area around spring, I'm concerned that water will heat even more so.

There is so much wrong here. 

There will be more local heat available, sooner, by way of direct exchange from ocean.

That'll mean more energy locally for H2O vapor and precipitation, which is not good for the ice.

The lack of peripheral ice will mean the core pack, right up the the pole, will be more vulnerable to the effects of wind, wave and tide.

We haven't gotten to the extra energy picked up because of what amounts to a reversal of the usual albedo.

The Bears on Svalbard are going to be very, very hungry, I expect.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: CraigsIsland on February 24, 2014, 09:22:36 PM
Pretty interesting -and horrifying- if you're someone involved in data collection for the salvard region.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: davidsanger on February 25, 2014, 04:46:25 AM
IJIS:

14,000,104 km2  (February 24, 2014)  3rd lowest

going back down?
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Jim Pettit on February 25, 2014, 02:22:18 PM
IJIS:

14,000,104 km2  (February 24, 2014)  3rd lowest

going back down?

Yes. Three days running now, including the largest single-day drop since late August.

For the record, we're fewer than two weeks from the average maximum in extent (and area, too, for that matter).
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on February 26, 2014, 06:06:14 AM
IJIS:

13,989,356 km2 (February 25, 2014). Dropped below the 14th million mark after a short visit! 
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on March 10, 2014, 04:25:16 AM
IJIS:

14,015,926 km2 (March 9, 2014) the lowest ever recorded on this
date! 

And 645,037 km2 below 2000s average.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: OldLeatherneck on March 11, 2014, 12:21:16 AM
Cross-posted from: "2014 sea ice area and extent data"

(http://i1269.photobucket.com/albums/jj597/OldLeatherNeck/ArcticIceExtentmarch9th2014_zps2a9cd6d3.jpg)

As in previous years, I periodically plot Extent in time periods anywhere from 6 weeks to 3 months to show the currents year's position relative to selected previous years.

It's that time of year when the annual maximum is reached, however, it is far too early to prognosticate what the September minimum will be.  As this chart shows, 2012 was anomalously high during March and we all know what happened that year.

What this chart clearly shows is that "2014 Was Not A RECOVERY!"

It also shows that the true decline in Extent does not begin unitl early April.

I will periodically post a chart linke this from time to time.  Any suggestions as to how to make it more useful are welcome.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on March 13, 2014, 06:12:10 AM
IJIS,


14,233,829 km2(March 12, 2014) second highest measured this season. 
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on March 14, 2014, 06:42:37 AM
IJIS;

14,300,508 km2(March 13, 2014) highest this season!
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on March 15, 2014, 10:29:45 AM
IJIS:

14,305,537 km2(March 14, 2014) another highest this season.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Gray-Wolf on March 15, 2014, 10:52:16 AM
A lot of fragmentation around Barentsz heading into Barentsz open water (Due to recent winds) so some of the recent increase is the breakup , and drift off, of the peripheral pack.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: jdallen on March 15, 2014, 09:49:02 PM
A lot of fragmentation around Barentsz heading into Barentsz open water (Due to recent winds) so some of the recent increase is the breakup , and drift off, of the peripheral pack.
It would surprise me if breakup and dispersal were not the lions share of the increase in extent.  There does seem to be some freeze happening, but not near as much as required to push the extent the way it has risen.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on March 16, 2014, 08:37:14 AM
IJIS;

14,329,192 km2(March 15, 2014) another seasonal high.

Jdallen, yes I agree thats where the "growth" is coming from!
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: ghoti on March 16, 2014, 03:46:23 PM
I think Wipneus posted an animation showing this very clearly on the  Daily SMOS Ice Thickness thread.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on March 17, 2014, 05:13:00 AM
IJIS:

14,388,611 km2(March 16, 2014)  another day with a seasonal high.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on March 18, 2014, 05:18:50 AM
IJIS:

14,419,194 km2 (March 17, 2014)  a new high of the season + 30,583 km2 from the day before.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on March 19, 2014, 05:35:40 AM
IJIS:

14,437,490 km2 (March 18, 2014) a new season high!
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on March 20, 2014, 05:38:33 AM
IJIS:

14,448,299 km2 (March 19, 2014)  a new maximum of the season up 10,809 km2 from previous.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on March 21, 2014, 06:14:18 AM
IJIS:

14,448,416 km2 (March 20, 2014)  another 2014 maximum.
A whopping 117 km2 "growth" from previous date.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on March 22, 2014, 09:17:37 AM
IJIS:

14,408,834 km2(March 21, 2014) dropping 39,5982 km2 from previous date and 2014 maximum so far.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on March 23, 2014, 08:55:28 AM
IJIS:

14,325,446 km2(March 22, 2014)

Down 83,388 km2 from previous date.
 
And 122,970 km2 from 2014 maximum.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on March 24, 2014, 04:43:40 AM
IJIS:

14,156,064 km2 (March 23, 2014)  a massive 169,382 km2 drop from previous date.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: jdallen on March 24, 2014, 07:54:17 AM
IJIS:

14,156,064 km2 (March 23, 2014)  a massive 169,382 km2 drop from previous date.

I'm not surprised, and have been expecting to see this.  Most of the recent increase in extent came in peripheral areas of arctic ice.  Right now, they (and the eastern arctic as well!) are under the blowtorch.  I'll be interested to see where most of the retreat in extent shows up.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: slow wing on March 24, 2014, 08:59:45 AM
Tor, that is a good question and something I have wondered myself. In fact, I have several questions, particularly about the Winter as snow is an excellent insulator...

How much of a role does it play in retarding the growth of ice thickness over the Winter?

What is the year-to-year variation in that?

Is there a trend over the years?

Is it too cold over the Winter for much snow to fall, given that cold air can't carry much moisture?

Can enough snow fall on ice by early in the Winter to essentially block growth from then on in those places?

If snow falls, does it tend to become hard-packed and stay in place as an effective insulator, or does it instead get blown around into localised drifts?


And mainly to repeat Tor's question: how important is snow fall overall, relative to other physical effects, in the amount of ice growth and its variation?



Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: lanevn on March 24, 2014, 09:22:37 AM
Lol, looks like freezing time for  Saint Lawrence again. Looks like this this zone can pretend on latest melt since 1979 ).
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on March 25, 2014, 04:27:58 AM
IJIS:

14,079,938 km2 (March 24, 2014) down 76,126 km2 from previous date.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Frivolousz21 on March 25, 2014, 04:52:06 AM
The Bering has been getting rocked by the dipole anomaly.


We might see the ice plummet there this Spring if we don't see a pattern change.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: jdallen on March 25, 2014, 07:30:31 AM
The Bering has been getting rocked by the dipole anomaly.


We might see the ice plummet there this Spring if we don't see a pattern change.

That actually is kinda what I've been anticipating, Friv, but haven't been talking much about.

I'm expecting a very precipitous drop as the peripheral areas melt out, pulling up slightly when the melt starts being driven more by Hudson & Baffin bay, Kara, ESS, Laptev and Chukchi seas.

The first few weeks I think may be dramatic.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: domen_ on March 25, 2014, 07:22:39 PM
Have we reached this year's maximum?
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: jdallen on March 25, 2014, 07:39:35 PM
Have we reached this year's maximum?

Quite a number of us think so.  The way extent and area numbers seem to be falling off of a cliff supports that.  Unless there is a sharp recovery this week, it is virtually certain, as increasing insolation will make it impossible later.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Jim Pettit on March 25, 2014, 09:43:21 PM
Have we reached this year's maximum?

I believe IJIS/JAXA extent (and CT area, as well) have reached their respective maxima. Especially extent, which has already fallen nearly 370,000 km2 off the maximum set just four days earlier. There's never been a rise anywhere near that large so late in the year, and the forecast says that's not at all likely this year.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: jdallen on March 25, 2014, 10:15:19 PM
Have we reached this year's maximum?

I believe IJIS/JAXA extent (and CT area, as well) have reached their respective maxima. Especially extent, which has already fallen nearly 370,000 km2 off the maximum set just four days earlier. There's never been a rise anywhere near that large so late in the year, and the forecast says that's not at all likely this year.

What I wonder right now is, has there been any time where extent has dropped that fast, this soon? 3 century drops plus change in 4 days is notable, even in summer, much less now.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Jim Pettit on March 25, 2014, 11:32:42 PM
Have we reached this year's maximum?

I believe IJIS/JAXA extent (and CT area, as well) have reached their respective maxima. Especially extent, which has already fallen nearly 370,000 km2 off the maximum set just four days earlier. There's never been a rise anywhere near that large so late in the year, and the forecast says that's not at all likely this year.

What I wonder right now is, has there been any time where extent has dropped that fast, this soon? 3 century drops plus change in 4 days is notable, even in summer, much less now.

That is a big drop for March; in fact, it's the largest four-day decrease in extent I can find in the September - March time period, at least since 2002. But April has seen such events: 368k just last year; 399k in 2012; 359k in 2006, and the big one, 482k in 2004. And once we're in June and July, such decreases are practically common-place. (The single largest four-day drop I can find [in my admittedly hurried search] was 604k in June of 2012.)
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: jdallen on March 26, 2014, 01:28:19 AM
Have we reached this year's maximum?

I believe IJIS/JAXA extent (and CT area, as well) have reached their respective maxima. Especially extent, which has already fallen nearly 370,000 km2 off the maximum set just four days earlier. There's never been a rise anywhere near that large so late in the year, and the forecast says that's not at all likely this year.

What I wonder right now is, has there been any time where extent has dropped that fast, this soon? 3 century drops plus change in 4 days is notable, even in summer, much less now.

That is a big drop for March; in fact, it's the largest four-day decrease in extent I can find in the September - March time period, at least since 2002. But April has seen such events: 368k just last year; 399k in 2012; 359k in 2006, and the big one, 482k in 2004. And once we're in June and July, such decreases are practically common-place. (The single largest four-day drop I can find [in my admittedly hurried search] was 604k in June of 2012.)

Thank you, Jim. It is good to have it on perspective, which I think can be summarized as notable but not exceptional.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on March 26, 2014, 05:05:03 AM
IJIS:

14,044,187 km2(March 25, 2014) down 35,751 km2 from previous date.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on March 27, 2014, 05:09:55 AM
IJIS:

14,049,815 km2(March 26, 2014)  up 5,628 km2 from previous.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on March 28, 2014, 06:15:09 AM
IJIS:

14,014,943 km2(March 27, 2014) down 34,872 km2 from previous.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on March 29, 2014, 10:12:30 AM
IJIS:

13,942,676 km2 (March 28, 2014)  again below 14 million km2 down 72,267 km2 from previous.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on March 30, 2014, 09:52:21 AM
IJIS:

13,855,013 km2(March 29, 2014) down 87,663 km2 from previous.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on March 31, 2014, 05:21:06 AM
IJIS:

13,848,958 km2(March 30, 2014) down 6,055 km2 from previous.

3rd lowest for this date after 2006 and 2007.

And 458,807 km2 below 2000s average.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on April 01, 2014, 05:14:44 AM
IJIS:

13,877,174 km2 (March 31, 2014) up 28,216 km2 from previous.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on April 02, 2014, 06:08:08 AM
IJIS:

13,874,338 km2 (April 1, 2014) down 2,836 km2 from previous.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on April 03, 2014, 05:51:06 AM
IJIS:

13,857,492 km2(April 2, 2014)  down 16,846 km2 from previous.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on April 04, 2014, 06:08:59 AM
IJIS:

13,852,747 km2(April 3, 2014)  down 4,745 km2 from previous.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on April 05, 2014, 09:02:53 AM
IJIS:

13,849,934 km2(April 4, 2014) down 2,813 km2 from previous.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on April 06, 2014, 09:52:15 AM
IJIS:

13,889,732 km2(April 5, 2014) up 34,798 km2 from previous.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on April 07, 2014, 05:14:27 AM
IJIS:

13,870,023 km2(April 6, 2014) down 19,709 km2 from previous.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on April 08, 2014, 05:30:29 AM
IJIS:

13,833,873 km2 (April 7, 2014)  down 36,150 km2 from previous.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on April 09, 2014, 05:50:34 AM
IJIS:

13,784,522 km2(April 8, 2014)   down 49,351 km2 from previous.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on April 10, 2014, 06:06:16 AM
IJIS:

13,733,392 km2(April 9, 2014) down 51,130 km2 from previous.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on April 11, 2014, 06:24:39 AM
IJIS:

13,666,289 km2(April 10, 2014) down 67,103 km2 from previous.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: jdallen on April 11, 2014, 09:06:18 AM
IJIS:

13,666,289 km2(April 10, 2014) down 67,103 km2 from previous.

I'd say... the toboggan has started down the hill....
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: crandles on April 11, 2014, 05:46:58 PM
I'd say... the toboggan has started down the hill....

Does that make it worrying that area is going up, to get a good run at it?
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: jdallen on April 11, 2014, 06:57:31 PM
I'd say... the toboggan has started down the hill....

Does that make it worrying that area is going up, to get a good run at it?

I've been watching the recent rise in CT area with fascination as well.  Not sure what to make of it.  The numbers do seem consistent enough to imply it isn't cloud artificially expanding the pack. The new area *will* be thin - I'd say ice forming in some of the huge leads opening in the Laptev and elsewhere in and adjacent to the CAB, while the peripheral sea ice crashes.

It won't have time to get much past pan ice - a few centimeters.  It will likely break up and disappear as quickly.  If we see some early stacked up century drops in area in May and early June, that would tend to support this.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Stephen on April 12, 2014, 02:15:48 AM
I'd say... the toboggan has started down the hill....

Does that make it worrying that area is going up, to get a good run at it?

I've been watching the recent rise in CT area with fascination as well.  Not sure what to make of it.  ......
....snip....snip...

When talking about the stock market, Keynes once said:
 "The market can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent".

I thought it would be appropriate to paraphrase that with our sea ice predictions and the current reality, but I can't quite get there.

How about "The ice can remain frozen longer than your predictions can remain valid"

Hmmm, doesn't quite work but you get the meaning.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: theoldinsane on April 12, 2014, 09:19:06 AM
Stephen, how about this?

"The Arctic can remain insane longer than you can remain sane."

 :P
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on April 12, 2014, 09:28:42 AM
IJIS:

13,628,682 km2(April 11, 2014)  down 37,607 km2 from previous.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on April 13, 2014, 09:32:42 AM
IJIS:

13,544,538 km2 (April 12, 2014) down 84,144 km2 from previous.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on April 14, 2014, 05:13:59 AM
IJIS:

13,489,773 km2(April 13, 2014) down 54,765 km2 from previous.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on April 15, 2014, 05:42:22 AM
13,475,017 km2(April 14, 2014) down 14,702 km2 from previous.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on April 16, 2014, 06:02:18 AM
IJIS:

13,427,583 km2 (April 15, 2014) down 47,434 km2 from previous.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Lennart van der Linde on April 17, 2014, 07:23:06 AM
Century break: 13,321,362 km2 (April 16, 2014) down 106k from previous
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on April 17, 2014, 07:28:30 AM
IJIS:

13,321,362 km2 (April 16, 2014) down 106,221 km2 from previous.

And still 4th lowest for the date.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on April 18, 2014, 07:01:24 AM
IJIS:

13,255,763 km2 (April 17, 2014) down 65,599 km2 from previous.

3rd lowest for this date.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Frivolousz21 on April 18, 2014, 08:46:46 AM
Yeah and the pattern is freaking horrible
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on April 20, 2014, 06:46:34 AM
IJIS:

13,231,029 km2 (April 18, 2014) down  24,734 km2 from previous.

3rd lowest for this date.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on April 20, 2014, 06:52:19 AM
IJIS:

13,193,343 km2 (April 19, 2014)  down 37,686 km2 from previous.

2nd lowest for this date, only 2004 was lower.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on April 21, 2014, 06:12:13 AM
IJIS:

13,177,428 km2(April 20, 2014) down 15,915 km2 from previous.

2nd lowest for this date, 2004 was lower at 13,024,968 km2.

Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on April 22, 2014, 05:17:32 AM
IJIS:

13,174,019 km2 (April 21, 2014) down 3,409 km2 from previous.

3rd lowest for this date. 2004 and 2007 was lower.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on April 23, 2014, 05:15:53 AM
IJIS:

13,115,859 km2 (April 22, 2014) down 58,160 km2 from previous.

3rd lowest for this date. 2004 and 2007 was lower.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on April 24, 2014, 05:13:57 AM
IJIS:

13,097,680 km2(April 23, 2014) down 18,179 km2 from previous.

3rd lowest for this date. 2004 and 2007 was lower.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on April 25, 2014, 06:08:15 AM
IJIS:

13,068,484 km2 (April 24, 2014) down 29,196 km2 from previous.

3rd lowest for this date. 2004 and 2007 was lower.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on April 26, 2014, 09:28:04 AM
IJIS:

13,036,431 km2(April 25, 2014) down 32,053 km2 from previous.

3rd lowest for this date. 2004 and 2007 was lower.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on April 27, 2014, 07:34:09 AM
IJIS:

12,978,878 km2 (April 26, 2014) down 57,553 km2 from previous.

4th lowest for this date. 2004, 2006 and 2007 was lower.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on April 28, 2014, 05:14:02 AM
IJIS:

12,930,713 km2(April 27, 2014)  down 48,165 km2 from previous.

4th lowest for this date. 2004, 2006 and 2007 was lower.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on April 29, 2014, 05:14:23 AM
IJIS:

12,928,262 km2 (April 28, 2014) down 2,451 km2 from previous.

4th lowest for this date. 2004, 2006 and 2007 was lower.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on April 30, 2014, 05:13:55 AM
IJIS:

12,928,298 km2 (April 29, 2014) up 36 km2 from previous.

4th lowest for this date. 2004, 2006 and 2007 was lower.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Siffy on April 30, 2014, 01:45:44 PM
IJIS:

12,928,298 km2 (April 29, 2014) up 36 km2 from previous.

4th lowest for this date. 2004, 2006 and 2007 was lower.

I find this... confusing? Yes confusing.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: jdallen on April 30, 2014, 06:06:05 PM
IJIS:

12,928,298 km2 (April 29, 2014) up 36 km2 from previous.

4th lowest for this date. 2004, 2006 and 2007 was lower.

I find this... confusing? Yes confusing.

And to throw things sideways even more, CT area is down 21K. 

I'm actually not confused; day to day numbers less than some threshold... 10K? 20K? 50K? ... in either direction are within the range for sampling noise.  Extent also can increase considerably and still imply unfavorable conditions.  So, we have strong wind and ice movement, lots of cloudiness and precipitation - all things which either interfere with measurement or disturb the ice in hard to predict ways.  No confusion here, just curiosity.

We are still transitioning from freeze to melt.  There will be oscillation of the system along that "boundary", much as a top oscillates just before it slows enough to fall over.  There is nothing in the numbers inconsistent with that, vis-a-vis the arctic.  In a way in fact, it provides a metaphor for the larger scale changes we see across climate as a whole.  We are nearing tip over.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on May 01, 2014, 06:05:13 AM
IJIS:

12,893,715 km2 (April 30, 2014) down 34,583 km2 from previous.

6th lowest for this date. 2004, 2006, 2007, 2010 and 2012 was lower.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Yuha on May 01, 2014, 01:26:28 PM
IJIS:

12,893,715 km2 (April 30, 2014) down 34,583 km2 from previous.

6th lowest for this date. 2004, 2006, 2007, 2010 and 2012 was lower.

The last two lower years are 2011 and 2013.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on May 01, 2014, 04:39:41 PM
I apologize for my mistakes.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Yuha on May 02, 2014, 01:00:31 AM
No problem Espen. Your timely updates are much appreciated.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on May 02, 2014, 06:48:19 AM
IJIS:

12,807,168 km2(May 1, 2014)  down 86,547 km2 from previous.

3rd after 2004 (- 117,449 km2) and 2006 (-248,926 km2)
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: ChasingIce on May 02, 2014, 06:53:49 AM
how far back does IJIS go?
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on May 02, 2014, 07:22:43 AM
To my knowledge 2002, not that far but still acceptable?
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: crandles on May 02, 2014, 12:47:09 PM
To my knowledge 2002, not that far but still acceptable?


(Further long-term daily sea-ice extent from 1978 to the present year are available at the JASMES-Climate web site)
http://kuroshio.eorc.jaxa.jp/JASMES/climate/index.html (http://kuroshio.eorc.jaxa.jp/JASMES/climate/index.html)

(http://kuroshio.eorc.jaxa.jp/JASMES/climate/data/graph/JASMES_CLIMATE_SIE_197811_000000_5DAVG_PS_9999_LINE_NHM_200.png)
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on May 03, 2014, 10:00:45 AM
IJIS:

12,744,827 km2 (May 2, 2014) down 62,341 km2 from previous.

3rd lowest. 2004 and 2006 was lower.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on May 04, 2014, 06:29:08 AM
IJIS:

12,668,378 km2 (May 3, 2014) down 76,449 km2 from previous.

3rd lowest. 2004 and 2006 was lower.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on May 05, 2014, 05:15:43 AM
IJIS:

12,642,907 km2(May 4, 2014) down 25,471 km2 from previous.

3rd lowest. 2004 and 2006 was lower.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on May 06, 2014, 05:14:40 AM
IJIS:

12,614,412 km2(May 5, 2014) down 28,495 km2 from previous.

3rd lowest. 2004 and 2006 was lower.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on May 07, 2014, 05:13:32 AM
IJIS:

12,568,170 km2 (May 6, 2014) down 46,242 km2 from previous.

3rd lowest. 2004 and 2006 lower.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on May 08, 2014, 05:14:30 AM
IJIS:

12,524,861 km2(May 7, 2014) down 43,309 km2 from previous.

3rd lowest. 2004 and 2006 lower.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on May 09, 2014, 06:12:46 AM
IJIS:

12,469,546 km2(May 8, 2014) down 55,315 km2 from previous.

3rd lowest. 2004 and 2006 lower.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on May 10, 2014, 07:42:53 AM
IJIS:

12,399,762 km2(May 9, 2014) down 69,784 km2 from previous.

3rd lowest. 2004 and 2006 lower.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on May 11, 2014, 08:00:33 AM
IJIS:

12,309,090 km2 (May 10, 2014) down 90,672 km2 from previous.

3rd lowest. 2004 and 2006 lower.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Buddy on May 11, 2014, 09:38:36 AM
Will be interesting to see if the "June swoon" that happened in June of 2012 during the record low ice extent (when ice extent took a dive lower).....will happen in May of this year.....

Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on May 11, 2014, 11:32:05 AM
It will definitely be interesting to see what path it will follow over the next 2 weeks, I believe that is where we will seperate the wheat from the chaff?
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on May 12, 2014, 05:13:11 AM
IJIS:

12,255,664 km2 (May 11, 2014) down 53,426 km2 from previous.

3rd lowest. 2004 and 2006 lower.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on May 13, 2014, 05:16:35 AM
IJIS:

12,165,189 km2 (May 12, 2014) down down 90,475 km2 from previous.

3rd lowest. 2004 (-53,270 km2) and 2006 (-127,977 km2) lower.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: icefest on May 13, 2014, 07:46:41 AM
Looks like we'll drop below the 12 million mark on the 16th.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Buddy on May 13, 2014, 12:37:11 PM
Next few months will be fascinating from a scientific and "observational" point of view......

Likely record low Arctic ice......likely VERY HEAVY wildfires in Russia.....likely heavy wildfires in the southwest/west US.

Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: icefest on May 13, 2014, 04:39:01 PM
Likely record low Arctic ice......likely VERY HEAVY wildfires in Russia.....likely heavy wildfires in the southwest/west US.
Looks like dark snow 2.0 will have great new findings then.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on May 14, 2014, 05:15:37 AM
IJIS:

12,114,008 km2 (May 13, 2014) down 51,181 km2 from previous.

3rd lowest. 2004 (-48,160 km2) and 2006 (-115,707 km2) lower.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on May 15, 2014, 05:18:17 AM
IJIS:

12,059,926 km2 (May 14, 2014) down 54,082 km2 from previous.

3rd lowest. 2004 (-51,461 km2) and 2006 (-79,905 km2) lower. 

Will need a drop of more than 111,737 km2 today to become lowest.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on May 16, 2014, 07:36:33 AM
IJIS:

12,044,485 km2 (May 15, 2014) down down 15,441 km2 from previous.

3rd lowest. 2004 (-87,679 km2) and 2006 (-96,296 km2) lower.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on May 17, 2014, 07:59:57 AM
IJIS:

12,009,342 km2 (May 16, 2014) down 35,143 km2 from previous.

3rd lowest. 2004 (-93,117 km2) and 2006 (-125,156 km2) lower.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on May 18, 2014, 11:33:40 AM
IJIS:

Update delayed!
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on May 19, 2014, 05:13:28 AM
IJIS:

11,993,689 km2 (May 17, 2014) down 15,663 km2 from previous.

4th lowest 2004, 2006 and 2011 lower.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on May 19, 2014, 05:22:17 AM
IJIS:

11,920,264 km2 (May 18, 2014) down 73,425 km2 from previous.

3rd lowest 2004 (-76,865 km2) and 2006 (-148,659 km2) lower. 
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on May 20, 2014, 05:14:18 AM
IJIS:

11,872,856 km2(May 19, 2014) down 47,408 km2 from previous.

3rd lowest 2004 (-93,113 km2) and 2006 (-130,197 km2) lower.   
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on May 21, 2014, 06:25:54 AM
IJIS:

11,847,718 km2 (May 20, 2014) down 25,138 km2 from previous.

5th lowest 2004 (-132,688 km2) , 2006 (-151,775 km2), 2010 (-22,164 km2) and 2011 (-31,290 km2) lower.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on May 22, 2014, 05:19:57 AM
IJIS:

11,812,691 km2(May 21, 2014) down 35,0257 km2 from previous.

5th lowest 2004 (-155,126 km2) , 2006 (-155,508 km2), 2010 (-61,546 km2) and 2011 (-60,339 km2) lower.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on May 23, 2014, 06:16:09 AM
IJIS:

11,808,796 km2(May 22, 2014) down 3,895 km2 from previous.

5th lowest 2004 (-188,102 km2) , 2006 (-219,310 km2), 2010 (-113,394 km2) and 2011 (-109,443 km2) lower.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on May 24, 2014, 07:37:08 AM
IJIS:

11,771,486 km2(May 23, 2014) down 37,310 km2 from previous.

5th lowest 2004 (-185,599 km2) , 2006 (-226,339 km2), 2010 (-132,269 km2) and 2011 (-141,788 km2) lower.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on May 25, 2014, 07:32:25 AM
IJIS:

11,720,662 km2 (May 24, 2014) down 50,824 km2 from previous.

5th lowest 2004 (-137,653 km2) , 2006 (-215,843 km2), 2010 (-152,299 km2) and 2011 (-165,555 km2) lower.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on May 26, 2014, 05:18:06 AM
IJIS:

11,681,711 km2 (May 25, 2014) down 38,951 km2 from previous.

5th lowest 2004 (-105,663 km2) , 2006 (-227,930 km2), 2010 (-193,481 km2) and 2011 (-218,593 km2) lower.

Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on May 27, 2014, 05:17:21 AM
IJIS:

11,637,576 km2 (May 26, 2014) down 44,135 km2 from previous.

5th lowest 2004 (-41,864 km2) , 2006 (-226,039 km2), 2010 (-206,246 km2) and 2011 (-237,955 km2) lower.

Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on May 28, 2014, 05:17:05 AM
IJIS:

11,596,757 km2 (May 27, 2014) down 40,819 km2 from previous.

4th lowest 2006 (- 232,891 km2), 2010 (-236,557 km2) and 2011 (-254,086 km2) lower.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: helorime on May 29, 2014, 04:24:07 AM
Espen, Was there a refreeze in 2004? Yesterday 2014 was 41,864 behind 2004.  Today we only lost 40,819 km2 yet we are now ahead of 2004?
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on May 29, 2014, 05:35:57 AM
IJIS:

11,548,238 km2 (May 28, 2014) down 48,519 km2 from previous.

4th lowest 2006 (- 217,118 km2), 2010 (-235,101 km2) and 2011 (-222,190 km2) lower.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on May 29, 2014, 05:38:28 AM
Helorime,

Not a refreeze, just a one day variation.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on May 30, 2014, 06:11:09 AM
IJIS:

11,519,123 km2 (May 29, 2014) down 29,115 km2 from previous.

4th lowest 2006 (- 227,497 km2), 2010 (-213,352 km2) and 2011 (-229,924 km2) lower.
 
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on May 31, 2014, 05:24:20 AM
IJIS:

11,470,484 km2 (May 30, 2014) down 48,639 km2 from previous.

4th lowest 2006 (- 210,492 km2), 2010 (-201,661 km2) and 2011 (-231,946 km2) lower. 
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on May 31, 2014, 10:55:09 AM
2014 need to speed up over the next week to keep the momentum?
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on June 01, 2014, 06:45:12 AM
IJIS:

11,385,455 km2 (May 31, 2014) down 85,029 km2 from previous.

4th lowest 2006 (- 157,387 km2), 2010 (-266,323 km2) and 2011 (-219,597 km2) lower. 
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: RunningChristo on June 01, 2014, 08:47:45 AM
Shouting in the Woods helps, Espen! I suggest the lag that have been dominating the downward spiral the last 1-2 weks, will turn rather opposite now as we've entered the month of solstice!
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on June 02, 2014, 05:17:08 AM
IJIS:

11,314,078 km2(June 1, 2014) down 71,377 km2 from previous.

4th lowest 2006 (- 87,060 km2), 2010 (-193,427 km2) and 2011 (-226,946 km2) lower. 

Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on June 03, 2014, 06:34:23 AM
IJIS:

11,261,908 km2(June 2, 2014) down 52,170 km2 from previous.

4th lowest 2006 (- 70,033 km2), 2010 (-154,835 km2) and 2011 (-230,788 km2) lower.   
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on June 03, 2014, 04:47:05 PM
In 3 - 4 days 2014 will face a serious challenge from 2012, interesting too see how 2014 will respond?
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on June 04, 2014, 05:16:55 AM
IJIS:

11,212,268 km2(June 3, 2014) down 49,640 km2 from previous.

4th lowest 2006 (- 71,248 km2), 2010 (-145,742 km2) and 2011 (-221,875 km2) lower.   
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on June 04, 2014, 04:14:52 PM
Too slow for the season!
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Gray-Wolf on June 04, 2014, 05:23:00 PM
only if you look at the figures without realising what they measure? We have plenty of ice about to go from being sen as ice to being seen as open water (from my glimpses via MODIS) ?
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Frivolousz21 on June 04, 2014, 06:02:45 PM
Jaxa has seen almost no ice loss over the Hudson, baffin areas.

Going to be a massive plummet when it finally goes.


Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on June 04, 2014, 06:06:02 PM
I am just trying to push the numbers! ;)
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on June 05, 2014, 05:58:09 AM
IJIS:

11,157,663 km2 (June 4, 2014) down 54,605 km2 from previous.

4th lowest 2006 (- 52,676 km2), 2010 (-150,909 km2) and 2011 (-180,934 km2) lower.   
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on June 06, 2014, 06:17:56 AM
IJIS:

11,077,657 km2 (June 5, 2014) down 80,006 km2 from previous.

4th lowest 2006 (- 11,039 km2), 2010 (-136,714 km2) and 2011 (-139,972 km2) lower.   
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on June 06, 2014, 07:12:57 PM
Next time I believe we will see the first "real" century of the season?
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on June 07, 2014, 05:57:08 AM
IJIS:

11,013,549 km2 (June 6, 2014) down 64,108 km2 from previous.

3rd lowest 2010 (-177,383 km2) and 2011 (-134,528 km2).



Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on June 07, 2014, 03:18:33 PM
The expected century did not show up! :-[
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Frivolousz21 on June 08, 2014, 03:14:12 AM
With the Hudson/Baffin retaining so much ice they will come.
All of that ice is going to melt soon enough.



Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Peter Ellis on June 08, 2014, 03:35:08 AM
Predictions are being noted and will be compared to reality. Your last testable prediction (on June 02) was as follows:

"Expect at least two century drops over the next week."

Tick. Tock.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Frivolousz21 on June 08, 2014, 03:44:58 AM
Predictions are being noted and will be compared to reality. Your last testable prediction (on June 02) was as follows:

"Expect at least two century drops over the next week."

Tick. Tock.
...snip...

I was wrong, who cares.

...snip...

I am a bad ice forecaster.[/size]

...snip, snip, snip...

What is your point? That I am wrong?  I am wrong all the time. 

Actually making a prediction requires risk you know to posses the balls to do so.

Risk takers do all of the failing while people like you sit in the corner waiting to show how wrong they are.

...snip...

-----

edit Neven: I never do this, but I had to snip some parts of this comment. Let's not take things personal, folks, there's room enough for everyone and for lots of things. People want to go out on a limb? Fine. People want to criticize that? Fine too. To paraphrase R.E.M.: Everybody's wrong... sometimes.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on June 08, 2014, 05:32:09 AM
IJIS:

11,012,921 km2 (June 7, 2014) down 628 km2 from previous. (?)

4th lowest 2006 (- 24,566 km2), 2010 (-257,353 km2) and 2011 (-214,407 km2) lower.   
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Frivolousz21 on June 08, 2014, 05:34:49 AM
IJIS:

11,012,921 km2 (June 7, 2014) down 628 km2 from previous. (?)

4th lowest 2006 (- 24,566 km2), 2010 (-257,353 km2) and 2011 (-214,407 km2) lower.

How does 2006 track now?  2014 is surely about to be above 2010-12.  But well below 2007.

I think 2005 dropped fast in June and July for how thick the ice was then.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: icefest on June 08, 2014, 05:39:22 AM
How does 2006 track now?


I usually use this to compare how years will do. It may not be 100% accurate but a small error is not a huge problem here.

(http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/Sea_Ice_Extent_v2_prev_L.png)
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Frivolousz21 on June 08, 2014, 06:22:59 AM
thanks.

We might fall behind 2005 and 2006 the next few days without a bump downward.

We have 3-4 million of easy ice between the Kara, Barents, Baffin, and Hudson that is typically aiding at least half of the daily drops by now.

We have seen the Chuchki, Laptev, and ESS make up most of that so far.

The unprecedented area of open water continues to expand. The Beaufort side is finally opening up.

If the models are right the Beaufort will get warmth the next 4 days then a huge torch hits the Western CAB/CA/and Beaufort with flushing winds parallel to the NA coast.


(http://[url=http://lance-modis.eosdis.nasa.gov/imagery/subsets/?mosaic=Arctic.2014159.aqua.4km.jpg]http://lance-modis.eosdis.nasa.gov/imagery/subsets/?mosaic=Arctic.2014159.aqua.4km.jpg[/url])
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Gray-Wolf on June 08, 2014, 05:49:01 PM
I think folk need to bare in mind that the open water is fringed by rubble ice floes. any relaxation of this rubble field spreads ice over 'open water' grids and blinks them back into 'ice covered' on the 15% or more models for extent?

I think today's JAXA  is highlighting just such an anom with good melt ongoing in periphery areas but light winds no longer pinning the ice rubble to the ice edge. I do not think it would take much of a relax to 'blink in' the whole of the ice edge currently and in doing so switch 'open water' to ice across a wide front.

Of course ice in open water melts faster than ice against ice.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Ned W on June 08, 2014, 07:23:45 PM
11,012,921 km2 (June 7, 2014) down 628 km2 from previous. (?)
Hey, unless I'm mistaken, that's an IJIS/JAXA record for the smallest-ever one-day drop in June.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Bob Wallace on June 08, 2014, 11:25:50 PM
Is 628 km2 an wind-spreads-the-ice event?
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: jdallen on June 09, 2014, 12:06:04 AM
Is 628 km2 an wind-spreads-the-ice event?
Wind spread event, or adjust-for-melt-ponds event, or a combination of the two, seems to me.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on June 09, 2014, 07:00:48 AM
IJIS:

10,994,683 km2 (June 8, 2014) down 18,238 km2 from previous.

6th lowest.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: maltose on June 09, 2014, 07:07:04 AM
These numbers are really head-scratching. I see the open water starting in the Laptev and the Beaufort concentration maps, but IJIS/JAXA barely moves down. Not sure what make of it...
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Gray-Wolf on June 09, 2014, 12:54:34 PM
It'll all come out in the wash! I think it is ice edge 'relaxation' and maybe meltponding getting sorted. we can all see the state of the ice so we know large areas around the pack are on the verge of melting out.

Of course having Deniers make something of it on other sites is a tad irksome........
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Quantum on June 09, 2014, 08:20:17 PM
IJIS:

10,994,683 km2 (June 8, 2014) down 18,238 km2 from previous.

6th lowest.

If I'm not mistaken this puts us in a better position than 2012, 2011, 2010, 2006 and 2004. It was at this point that 2012 'fell off the cliff'. It seems that we have about another week before the losses should really increase on the IJIS. I guess we should be watching the Beaufort and the ESS in particular.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on June 10, 2014, 06:30:03 AM
IJIS:

10,939,861 km2(June 9, 2014) down 54,822 km2 from previous.

6th lowest.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on June 11, 2014, 05:43:43 AM
JIS:

10,875,956 km2(June 10, 2014) down 63,905 km2 from previous.

6th lowest.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on June 12, 2014, 05:39:51 AM
IJIS:

10,818,465 km2(June 11, 2014) down 57,491 km2 from previous.

5th lowest.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on June 13, 2014, 05:19:10 AM
IJIS:

10,785,617 km2(June 12, 2014) down 32,848 km2 from previous.

5th lowest.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on June 14, 2014, 06:02:04 AM
IJIS:

10,731,639 km2 (June 13, 2014) down 53,978 km2 from previous.

5th lowest. 
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on June 15, 2014, 06:50:40 AM
IJIS:

10,644,599 km2(June 14, 2014) down 87,040 km2 from previous.

5th lowest. 
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on June 16, 2014, 06:06:45 AM
IJIS:

10,580,914 km2(June 15, 2014) down 63,685 km2 from previous.

5th lowest. 
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on June 17, 2014, 05:13:48 AM
IJIS:

10,502,934 km2(June 16, 2014) down 77,980 km2 from previous.

5th lowest. 
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on June 18, 2014, 06:06:18 AM
IJIS:

10,450,284 km2(June 17, 2014) down 52,650 km2 from previous.

5th lowest.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Frivolousz21 on June 19, 2014, 05:38:30 AM
Another big drop on Jaxa.

Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on June 19, 2014, 06:10:44 AM
IJIS:

10,374,414 km2(June 18, 2014) down 75,870 km2 from previous. 

6th lowest.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on June 20, 2014, 05:39:51 AM
IJIS:

10,273,741 km2(June 19, 2014) down 100,673 km2 from previous.

First real "melt century".

5th lowest.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on June 21, 2014, 09:13:52 AM
IJIS:

10,179,770 km2(June 20, 2014) down 93,971 km2 from previous.

4th lowest.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on June 22, 2014, 05:14:26 AM
IJIS:

10,073,166 km2(June 21, 2014) down 106,604 km2 from previous.

4th lowest.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on June 23, 2014, 05:14:02 AM
IJIS:

9,962,606 km2(June 22, 2014) down 110,560 km2 from previous.

4th lowest.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on June 24, 2014, 06:25:23 AM
IJIS:

9,835,948 km2(June 23, 2014) down 126,658 km2 from previous.

4th lowest.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: RunningChristo on June 24, 2014, 09:03:31 AM
THIS is the first page I look up in the morning...and WHAT a June Cliff we finally came upon!!
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Buddy on June 24, 2014, 11:29:29 AM
94K......107K......111K......127K.....?.......?........?........?

The ice sheet is showing a little momentum now isn't it...?



Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on June 25, 2014, 05:13:31 AM
IJIS:

9,762,148 km2(June 24, 2014) down 73,800 km2 from previous.

4th lowest.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on June 26, 2014, 05:52:31 AM
IJIS:

9,691,329 km2 (June 25, 2014) down 70,819 km2 from previous.

4th lowest.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on June 27, 2014, 05:35:26 AM
IJIS:

9,628,634 km2(June 26, 2014) down 62,695 km2 from previous.

4th lowest.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on June 28, 2014, 06:28:29 AM
IJIS:

9,507,130 km2 (June 27, 2014) down 121,504 km2 from previous.

4th lowest.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: mmghosh on June 29, 2014, 06:16:47 AM
Is there a visual representation of this year's June cliff anywhere (say, showing the past 2 days dramatic drop)?  The IARC-JAXA curves are not very easy to follow.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on June 29, 2014, 07:11:50 AM
IJIS:

9,358,592 km2(June 28, 2014) down 148,538 km2 from previous.

4th lowest.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on June 29, 2014, 07:12:38 AM
Is there a visual representation of this year's June cliff anywhere (say, showing the past 2 days dramatic drop)?  The IARC-JAXA curves are not very easy to follow.


http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent_v2.htm (http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent_v2.htm)
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Bob Wallace on June 29, 2014, 07:41:17 AM
And zoom in.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on June 30, 2014, 08:56:39 AM
IJIS:

9,185,346 km2(June 29, 2014) down 173,246 km2 from previous.

4th lowest.

Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on July 01, 2014, 05:19:49 AM
IJIS:

9,057,557 km2(June 30, 2014) down 127,789 km2 from previous.

3rd lowest, 2010 (-172,173 km2) and 2012  (-17,646km2) was lower.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on July 02, 2014, 05:58:50 AM
IJIS:

8,936,847 km2(July 1, 2014) down 120,710 km2 from previous.

2nd lowest. 2010 (-115,842 km2) was lower:

Surprised? I am!
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Buddy on July 02, 2014, 06:27:53 AM
No.  Too much heat.  Soot from wildfires have likely had at least a small effect as well (with two more HARD WILDFIRE MONTHS TO GO).

And I DON'T mean.....No, I knew it would happen.  I mean:  No...I'm not surprised, because there is a growing amount of heat inside the earths atmosphere....and I KNOW it will heat one of four things:  atmosphere, water, land, or melt ice.

And we know the direction of the trends:  (1) warmer air and water temps, (2) less ice.

Anyone on this site KNOWS the direction of the ice trend.  The only difference between almost everyone on this site is.......the difference of the speed of the destruction of the ice.

The ice is continuing to come "under duress" over the past years.....so logically it can't be in good shape.  And if we look back over the last 20 years.....we KNOW that "recovery years" DON'T LAST.  And two recovery years in a row.....while it has happened a couple times....is unusual.

It's just a matter of time.  Like watching a car on an icy hill.......waiting for the accident to happen.

By the way.....the one GOOD THING that could come out of a "bad ice summer" this year (ie bad in the sense of record low extent)......is that it would INCREASE THE POSSIBILITY of the gas pipeline NOT being built (personally.....I think Obama has been stalling as long as he can, KNOWING that the signs of global warming are intensifying and more people see them.....another new ice extent low would be just ONE MORE SIGN OF THE INEVITABLE....global warming continuing to increase).

Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: jdallen on July 02, 2014, 08:03:46 AM
IJIS:

8,936,847 km2(July 1, 2014) down 120,710 km2 from previous.

2nd lowest. 2010 (-115,842 km2) was lower:

Surprised? I am!

I recall someone (don't remember exactly who? You Mr. Pettit?) saying something about 2012 losing 700K over the next week (starting a few days ago).  We may be keeping up.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Neven on July 02, 2014, 10:24:22 AM
Surprised? I am!

Yup, 9 century breaks in the last two weeks. Not really surprised though, as there have been clear skies over the Arctic for quite a while now. I'm more surprised at SIA lagging behind so much (still very little melt ponds).

I'll be really surprised if this keeps up when Hudson and Baffin stop delivering. Then again, 2007, 2011, 2012 and 2013 had lots of century breaks in the first two weeks of July, and there's plenty of places left (Beaufort, Laptev/ESS Hole).

ESS Hole, that's a good one.  ;D
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: jdallen on July 02, 2014, 11:10:49 AM
Surprised? I am!

Yup, 9 century breaks in the last two weeks. Not really surprised though, as there have been clear skies over the Arctic for quite a while now. I'm more surprised at SIA lagging behind so much (still very little melt ponds).

I'll be really surprised if this keeps up when Hudson and Baffin stop delivering. Then again, 2007, 2011, 2012 and 2013 had lots of century breaks in the first two weeks of July, and there's plenty of places left (Beaufort, Laptev/ESS Hole).

ESS Hole, that's a good one.  ;D
Judging from my browse of Worldview, the Kara and Beaufort are both in a position to step up to the challenge.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: greatdying2 on July 02, 2014, 03:38:00 PM
...the one GOOD THING that could come out of a "bad ice summer" this year (ie bad in the sense of record low extent)......is that it would INCREASE THE POSSIBILITY of the gas pipeline NOT being built

Although the Enbridge pipeline in BC was just approved: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/northern-gateway-pipeline-approved-with-209-conditions-1.2678285 (http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/northern-gateway-pipeline-approved-with-209-conditions-1.2678285) .
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: TerryM on July 02, 2014, 06:43:55 PM
Lurker
I think that there is a good chance that the Northern Gateway still may not be built.
As well as tar sands sludge the pipeline was supposed to provide LNG to an energy starved China. The situation in Ukraine forced an agreement between Russia and China for the worlds biggest project which will deliver Siberian gas to China at a price that Canadian LNG can not compete with. A week or so after that historic deal was reached another project tapping another Siberian gas field and directed to another area of China was announced.
Australia has already cancelled major export terminals for LNG on the news.
Not sure the money people will ante up when their customer has found a much less expensive alternative.
If the South Stream pipeline is completed, as seems probable, the $5B Nuland invested in destabilizing Ukraine may have to be written off as a bad investment.[size=78%]
Terry[/size]
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: greatdying2 on July 03, 2014, 02:50:33 AM
Hi Terry,

I sure hope you're right (as do probably the vast majority of human beings, though not the vast majority of $).

OTOH, if the Russian option is cheaper, I guess it probably still means much more CO2, regardless of the source...

Actually -- call me a pessimist -- but I don't really think anything will stop us burning carbon until gone or at least far too late to avoid catastrophe. I would LOVE to hear informed, rational arguments to the contrary.

-- d
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Bob Wallace on July 03, 2014, 02:57:56 AM
Here's what is happening in the US.  Look for the rate of change to accelerate....

(http://i619.photobucket.com/albums/tt275/Bob_Wall/Changefrom20002004Baseline.png) (http://s619.photobucket.com/user/Bob_Wall/media/Changefrom20002004Baseline.png.html)
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: greatdying2 on July 03, 2014, 03:08:57 AM
Here's what is happening in the US.  Look for the rate of change to accelerate....
Negative feedback... too late?
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Bob Wallace on July 03, 2014, 03:42:29 AM
Depends on what "too late" means.

It's already (almost certainly) too late for the Arctic sea ice.

As for the planet, in general, the IPCC finds -

“A leaked draft of the report sent to governments in December suggests that in order to keep global temperature increases below 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 F) by the end of the century — the stated goal of international climate talks — emissions need to fall by 40-70 percent by 2050.”

[url]http://www.evwind.es/2014/04/05/what-is-the-future-of-fossil-fuel/44609[/url] ([url]http://www.evwind.es/2014/04/05/what-is-the-future-of-fossil-fuel/44609[/url])


That's 35 years to drop emissions 40% to 70% from 2005 levels.  The US is already down 10% from 2005 in terms of energy related CO2 emissions.  I don't see any significant problems in us hitting 70%, cutting a bit less than 2% per year.  The 40% minimum should be fairly easy - <1% per year.

In about ten years our new cars will be required to average 54.5 MPG.  Right now we're averaging around 25 MPG.  And there will now be MPG requirements for large and small trucks for the first time.  That should result in a roughly 50% drop in CO2 for personal transportation.  And it does not take into account the likelihood of a massive move to EVs.

Airplanes and trains will cut fuel use simply because of economics.  Buses are starting to move to electricity.  New light rail and subway public transportation will be electric.

I expect most of Europe and China to do as well or better.  And I expect most developing countries will mostly move straight to renewable energy and install little fossil fuel generation.

Then consider what we've learned and been able to do in the last 20 years.  We've taken wind from being expensive to cheap and solar from being far too expensive to affordable.  We are pouring huge amounts of effort into new clean energy technology and efficiency.  It's hard to believe that we won't make very significant improvements over the next 20 years, leaving us another 15 to get those technologies in place.

Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on July 03, 2014, 05:16:30 AM
IJIS:

8,866,060 km2(July 2, 2014) down 70,787 km2 from previous.

3rd lowest 2010 (-134,340 km2) and 2012 ( -31,325 km2) was lower.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on July 03, 2014, 06:14:02 PM
Now it is interesting whether 2014 will follow the 2012 path or turn right as 2010 did  (or left depends how you look at it)?
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on July 04, 2014, 05:19:43 AM
IJIS:

8,777,806 km2(July 3, 2014) down 88,254 km2 from previous.

3rd lowest 2010 (-106,353 km2) and 2012 ( -31,871 km2) was lower.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on July 05, 2014, 05:35:10 AM
IJIS:

8,698,978 km2(July 4, 2014) down 78,828 km2 from previous. 

3rd lowest 2010 (-76,537 km2) and 2012 ( -24,821 km2) was lower.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on July 06, 2014, 05:14:46 AM
IJIS:

8,647,194 km2(July 5, 2014) down 51,784 km2 from previous.

4th lowest 2010 (-70,025 km2), 2011 (-51,731 km2) and 2012 (-83,714 km2) was lower.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on July 07, 2014, 06:22:58 AM
IJIS:

8,553,014 km2(July 6, 2014) down 94,180 km2 from previous.

4th lowest 2010 (-26,679 km2), 2011 (-56,460 km2) and 2012 (-130,015 km2) was lower.

 
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on July 08, 2014, 05:16:40 AM
IJIS:

8,443,850 km2(July 7, 2014) down 109,164 km2 from previous.

3rd lowest 2011 (-72,596 km2) and 2012 (-72,786 km2) was lower.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on July 09, 2014, 05:18:48 AM
IJIS:

8,344,111 km2(July 8, 2014) down 99,739 km2 from previous.

3rd lowest 2011 (-114,919 km2) and 2012 (-84,344 km2) was lower.

 
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on July 10, 2014, 05:23:44 AM
8,236,429 km2(July 9, 2014) down 107,682 km2 from previous.

3rd lowest 2011 (-150,195 km2) and 2012 (-126,482 km2) was lower.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Tor Bejnar on July 10, 2014, 01:27:04 PM
Wow (?), a century loss and 2014 still lost 'ground' compared to both years with lower extent. 

This is the season of melt, and century plus losses are the norm.  So, "Wow" should really be reserved for slow weeks or 10-century weeks.  Or maybe for a day's melt  that catches up by a century?
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on July 11, 2014, 05:36:37 AM
IJIS:

8,135,962 km2(July 10, 2014) down 100,467 km2 from previous.

3rd lowest 2011 (-161,086 km2) and 2012 (-159,390 km2) was lower.

Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on July 11, 2014, 05:21:35 PM
I believe *) 2014  have a potential to be in the Top 2 league, when it comes to extend, not a prediction I would have made 2 weeks ago?

*) based on the "unpopular" Bremen map! ;)
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: DavidR on July 11, 2014, 07:10:35 PM
Espen,
According to  my June SIPN submission 2014,  extent doesn't really  start  to  melt  out  until next  week,  but  when it does it will be breathtaking.   Once it reaches 7.7 Mkm^2  it falls through the floor for about three weeks.  Anything  worse than 2nd lowest is almost unachievable.  A record is almost  a 90% chance.
I  may be wrong but  my prediction based on April data has hit most  of my  key markers and only  failed when the real extent has been less than the prediction.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on July 11, 2014, 07:44:42 PM
Espen,
According to  my June SIPN submission 2014,  extent doesn't really  start  to  melt  out  until next  week,  but  when it does it will be breathtaking.   Once it reaches 7.7 Mkm^2  it falls through the floor for about three weeks.  Anything  worse than 2nd lowest is almost unachievable.  A record is almost  a 90% chance.
I  may be wrong but  my prediction based on April data has hit most  of my  key markers and only  failed when the real extent has been less than the prediction.

The word "may" is always good! ;)
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: DavidR on July 12, 2014, 02:03:45 AM
I  MAY be out on a limb here but  I am staying until I  see evidence to  refute my  prediction.  Better to  be wrong than to  claim I  would have been right if I'd only  predicted it earlier.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on July 12, 2014, 06:14:49 AM
IJIS:

8,040,838 km2(July 11, 2014) down 95,124 km2 from previous.

3rd lowest 2011 (-176,795 km2) and 2012 (-175,839 km2) was lower.

Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: greatdying2 on July 12, 2014, 06:25:00 AM
Better to have loved and lost...
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on July 13, 2014, 05:44:04 AM
IJIS:

7,949,704 km2(July 12, 2014) down 91,134 km2 from previous.

3rd lowest 2011 (-256,587 km2) and 2012 (-176,649 km2) was lower.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on July 14, 2014, 05:28:25 AM
IJIS:

7,899,861 km2 (July 13, 2014) down 49,843 km2 from previous.

3rd lowest 2011 (-328,835 km2) and 2012 (-175,831 km2) was lower.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Frivolousz21 on July 14, 2014, 10:29:18 AM
Jaxa and all extent charts are about to fall way behind the lowest years and even 2013 at least into parts of the second half of June.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on July 15, 2014, 05:20:38 AM
IJIS:

7,825,967 km2(July 14, 2014) down 73,894 km2 from previous.

4th lowest 2007, 2011 and 2012 was lower.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: DavidR on July 15, 2014, 10:50:00 AM
Friv,
My original prediction for extent put 2013 ahead of 2014 for the only time this season in the period leading up to 16 July. 
(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/h9fnvQRbkLZR-W_NpYgYgMthzhq9NhYTcTp4zQeylQ=w314-h207-p-no)

You  can see what  happens next.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on July 16, 2014, 06:50:05 AM
IJIS:

7,745,907 km2(July 15, 2014) down 80,060 km2 from previous.

5th lowest 2007, 2011, 2012 and 2013 was lower.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on July 17, 2014, 05:17:41 AM
IJIS:

7,656,338 km2(July 16, 2014) down 89,669 km2 from previous.

5th lowest 2007, 2011, 2012 and 2013 was lower.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on July 18, 2014, 05:50:31 AM
IJIS:

7,577,065 km2(July 17, 2014) down 79,273 km2 from previous.

5th lowest 2007, 2011, 2012 and 2013 was lower.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on July 19, 2014, 06:09:18 AM
IJIS:

7,549,262 km2(July 18, 2014) down 27,803 km2 from previous.

5th lowest 2007, 2011, 2012 and 2013 was lower.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on July 20, 2014, 05:15:12 AM
IJIS:

7,518,544 km2(July 19, 2014) down 30,718 km2 from previous.

5th lowest 2007, 2011, 2012 and 2013 was lower.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on July 21, 2014, 06:50:31 AM
IJIS:

7,489,716 km2 (July 20, 2014) down 28,828 km2 from previous.

5th lowest 2007, 2011, 2012 and 2013 was lower.

Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on July 22, 2014, 05:34:55 AM
IJIS:

7,439,164 km2(July 21, 2014) down down 50,552 km2 from previous.

5th lowest 2007, 2011, 2012 and 2013 was lower.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on July 23, 2014, 05:14:40 AM
IJIS:

7,360,364 km2(July 22, 2014) down 78,800 km2 from previous.

5th lowest 2007, 2011, 2012 and 2013 was lower.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on July 24, 2014, 05:36:02 AM
IJIS:

7,331,934 km2 (July 23, 2014) down 28,430 km2 from previous.

5th lowest 2007, 2011, 2012 and 2013 was lower.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on July 25, 2014, 08:17:27 AM
IJIS:

7,297,610 km2(July 24, 2014) down 34,324 km2 from previous.

6th lowest 2007,2010,2011,2012 and 2013 was lower.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on July 26, 2014, 05:25:08 AM
IJIS:

7,254,225 km2(July 25, 2014) down 43,385 km2 from previous.

7th lowest 2007, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013 was lower.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on July 27, 2014, 05:41:41 AM
IJIS:

7,186,066 km2 (July 26, 2014) down 68,159 km2 from previous.

7th lowest 2007, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013 was lower.

 
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: ChasingIce on July 27, 2014, 09:08:29 AM
when do you think we'll catch up to 2008?
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on July 28, 2014, 03:50:16 PM
IJIS:

7,097,907 km2 (July 27, 2014) down 88,159 km2 from previous.

7th lowest 2007, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013 was lower.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on July 29, 2014, 05:18:19 AM
IJIS:

7,003,772 km2(July 28, 2014) down 94,135 km2 from previous.

7th lowest 2007, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013 was lower.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Buddy on July 29, 2014, 06:08:11 AM
Hmmmmmmm......Last six days (most recent on top).....melt is ramping up.....

94K loss yesterday...
88K loss day before yesterday...
68K loss
43K loss
34K loss
28K loss

 
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on July 30, 2014, 05:36:00 AM
IJIS:

6,893,488 km2(July 29, 2014) down 110,284 km2 from previous.

5thlowest 2007, 2011, 2012 and 2013 was lower.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Buddy on July 30, 2014, 05:40:31 AM
That is seven days in a row of larger losses.  This is getting interesting...... :o

110K loss yesterday...
94K loss day before yesterday...
88K loss day before that...
68K loss
43K loss
34K loss
28K loss
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on July 31, 2014, 05:15:59 AM
IJIS:

6,811,403 km2(July 30, 2014) down 82,085 km2 from previous.

5th lowest 2007, 2011, 2012 and 2013 was lower.

 
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on August 01, 2014, 06:06:36 AM
IJIS:

6,763,129 km2(July 31, 2014) down 48,274 km2 from previous.

5th lowest 2007, 2011, 2012 and 2013 was lower.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: bosbas on August 01, 2014, 05:21:15 PM
Today 6th lowest - also above 2010 (6,745,367)
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on August 02, 2014, 06:42:58 AM
IJIS:

6,732,384 km2(August 1, 2014) down 30,745 km2 from previous.

6thlowest. 
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on August 04, 2014, 05:16:14 AM
IJIS:

6,643,849 km2(August 2, 2014) down 88,535 km2 from previous.

6th lowest. 
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Buddy on August 04, 2014, 05:20:35 AM
The start of a possible 6 week sprint......



Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on August 04, 2014, 05:34:38 AM
IJIS:

6,578,496 km2(August 3, 2014) down 65,353 km2 from previous.

6th lowest. 
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: jdallen on August 04, 2014, 08:32:05 AM
The start of a possible 6 week sprint......
Indeed, considering some of the forecasts.

I think the current weather will put paid on any question of whether we'll pass 2013.  2014 was close, and at this point in time last year, 2013 went into its pause, to the shock of all of us.

I'm doubtful we'll reach 2007 or 2012 still, but this is new spate of weather is very bad news for the ice.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on August 05, 2014, 05:17:41 AM
IJIS::

6,514,459 km2(August 4, 2014) down 64,037 km2 from previous.

6th lowest. 
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on August 06, 2014, 06:17:27 AM
IJIS:

6,476,210 km2(August 5, 2014) down 38,249 km2 from previous.

6th lowest. 

Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on August 07, 2014, 06:19:17 AM
IJIS:

6,435,068 km2(August 6, 2014) down 41,142 km2 from previous.

6th lowest. 
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Quantum on August 08, 2014, 01:16:04 AM
Honestly, I was expecting something more impressive than this given the conditions. Only one marginal century; what's going on?!
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on August 08, 2014, 06:18:45 AM
IJIS:

6,378,621 km2(August 7, 2014) down 56,447 km2 from previous.

7th lowest.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Ned W on August 08, 2014, 05:59:05 PM
This past month is really something.  Over the past month (31 days) extent has dropped by 1.97 million km2.  Every single other year (in the IJIS/JAXA record, 2003-present) dropped by 2 to 3 million km2 during the same period.  2014 has been the slowest, and the only one not to have lost 2 million during this period.

(http://i1202.photobucket.com/albums/bb374/ned_ward/ijis_2014_aug.png)
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on August 09, 2014, 09:39:30 AM
IJIS:

6,325,923 km2(August 8, 2014) down 52,698 km2 from previous.

6th lowest.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on August 10, 2014, 07:02:33 AM
IJIS:

6,259,129 km2(August 9, 2014) down 66,794 km2 from previous.

6th lowest.

Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on August 11, 2014, 05:13:47 AM
IJIS:

6,169,448 km2 (August 10, 2014) down 89,681 km2 from previous.

6th lowest.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on August 12, 2014, 05:14:49 AM
IJIS:

6,107,400 km2(August 11, 2014) down 62,048 km2 from previous.

6th lowest.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on August 13, 2014, 06:18:11 AM
IJIS:

6,048,436 km2 (August 12, 2014) down 58,964 km2 from previous.

6th lowest.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on August 14, 2014, 06:57:56 AM
IJIS:

5,975,745 km2(August 13, 2014) down 72,691 km2 from previous.

7th lowest.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on August 15, 2014, 06:51:50 AM
IJIS:

5,900,156 km2(August 14, 2014) down 75,589 km2 from previous.

6th lowest.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on August 16, 2014, 06:08:57 AM
IJIS:

5,831,776 km2(August 15, 2014) down 68,380 km2 from previous.

7th lowest.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on August 17, 2014, 06:11:07 AM
IJIS:

5,753,168 km2(August 16, 2014) down 78,608 km2 from previous.

7th lowest.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on August 18, 2014, 10:00:12 AM
IJIS:

5,713,158 km2 (August 17, 2014) down 40,010 km2 from previous.

7th lowest.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on August 19, 2014, 05:13:15 AM
IJIS:

5,674,861 km2(August 18, 2014) down 38,297 km2 from previous.

7th lowest.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on August 20, 2014, 05:40:37 AM
IJIS:

5,614,708 km2 (August 19, 2014) down 60,153 km2 from previous.

7th lowest.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on August 21, 2014, 05:49:48 AM
IJIS:

5,551,956 km2(August 20, 2014) down 62,752 km2 from previous.

7th lowest. 
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on August 22, 2014, 05:50:46 AM
IJIS:

5,489,997 km2(August 21, 2014) down 61,959 km2 from previous. 

7th lowest.

Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: greatdying2 on August 23, 2014, 05:21:46 AM
Aug. 21:

Not 6th lowest? Didn't 2014 pass 2010 yesterday? Maybe 2013 is next... today? 2013 only dropped 39776, so 2014 will be lower if it drops 39,776 + 2,127 + 1 = 41,904 . 2008 is also not far away (28,280), but 2011, the next lowest, is very far away (450,026).

#1  2012  4,073,072
#2  2007  4,805,567
#3  2011  5,011,691
#4  2008  5,461,717
#5  2013  5,487,870
#6  2014  5,489,997
#7  2010  5,500,030


Aug 22:
Did pass 2013, but 2010 dropped more, so still 6th.

2012   4010866
2007   4739018
2011   4927050
2008   5393576
2010   5429483
2014   5440376
2013   5448094
2009   5644655

(http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/Sea_Ice_Extent_v2_prev_L.png)
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on August 23, 2014, 08:48:54 AM
IJIS:

5,440,376 km2 (August 22, 2014) down 49,621 km2 from previous.

6th lowest.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: DavidR on August 23, 2014, 11:22:52 AM
Yeah! We moved down one. Or  should that  be Damn! where are the feedback mechanisms protecting the Arctic.  Normally it's nice to  be right, but  it  would be better to be wrong in the Arctic.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on August 24, 2014, 06:34:12 AM
IJIS:

5,392,741 km2(August 23, 2014) down 47,635 km2 from previous.

6th lowest.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on August 25, 2014, 05:14:08 AM
IJIS:

5,338,658 km2(August 24, 2014) down 54,083 km2 from previous.

5th lowest. (corrected)
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: silkman on August 25, 2014, 09:31:20 AM
Espen

I think that should be 5th lowest. Did it not just duck under 2010?
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: koloj on August 25, 2014, 04:24:38 PM
So how certain is it that we will stay under 2013 values from here on out now that we dipped below 2013?  What is the probability that we are under 2013 from here to september 15 when the two years are so close?
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on August 26, 2014, 05:13:44 AM
IJIS:

5,304,377 km2 (August 25, 2014) down 34,281 km2 from previous.

5th lowest. 
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on August 27, 2014, 12:10:49 PM
IJIS:

5,279,124 km2 (August 26, 2014) down 25,253 km2 from previous.

6th lowest.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on August 28, 2014, 06:38:29 AM
IJIS:

5,264,442 km2(August 27, 2014) down 14,682 km2 from previous.

7th lowest.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on August 29, 2014, 06:08:37 AM
IJIS:

5,243,796 km2 (August 28, 2014) down 20,646 km2 from previous.

7th lowest.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: gciriani on August 29, 2014, 08:15:00 PM
Hi Espen, I've been following the picture
 http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/cgi-bin/seaice-monitor.cgi?lang=e (http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/cgi-bin/seaice-monitor.cgi?lang=e)
Since you seem to be THE expert on following IJIS, or at least the one following it the closest, I was wondering if you can help me.

Do you know to what ice concentration the different color shades, from white to light blue, to heavy blue, correspond to? There seem to be about 5, and I'm interested to know which ones are at or above the 15% ice-concentration threshold used for the ice extent calculation.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on August 30, 2014, 07:03:54 AM
IJIS:

5,217,967 km2(August 29, 2014) down 25,829 km2 from previous.

7th lowest.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on August 31, 2014, 06:05:38 AM
IJIS:

5,215,532 km2(August 30, 2014) down 2,435 km2 from previous.

7th lowest.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on September 01, 2014, 06:47:32 AM
IJIS:

5,218,262 km2(August 31, 2014) up 2,730 km2 from previous.

7th lowest.

If this is a refreeze, it is the earliest I can recall?
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Shared Humanity on September 01, 2014, 02:14:19 PM
IJIS:

5,218,262 km2(August 31, 2014) up 2,730 km2 from previous.

7th lowest.

If this is a refreeze, it is the earliest I can recall?

Are we ready to call the minimum?    ;)

Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on September 01, 2014, 04:56:43 PM
IJIS:

5,218,262 km2(August 31, 2014) up 2,730 km2 from previous.

7th lowest.

If this is a refreeze, it is the earliest I can recall?

Are we ready to call the minimum?    ;)



It is doing a "Bastardi". ;) ;D
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on September 02, 2014, 05:13:43 AM
IJIS:

5,213,082 km2(September 1, 2014) down 5,180 km2 from previous.

7th lowest.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on September 03, 2014, 05:40:40 AM
IJIS:

5,200,157 km2(September 2, 2014) down 12,925 km2 from previous.

7th lowest.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on September 04, 2014, 05:14:31 AM
IJIS:

5,179,456 km2 (September 3, 2014) down 20,701 km2 from previous.

7th lowest. 
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on September 05, 2014, 06:16:07 AM
IJIS:

5,142,812 km2(September 4, 2014) down 36,644 km2 from previous.

7th lowest.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on September 06, 2014, 06:01:56 AM
IJIS:

5,092,841 km2(September 5, 2014) down 49,971 km2 from previous.

7th lowest.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on September 07, 2014, 03:58:00 PM
IJIS:

5,050,369 km2(September 6, 2014) down 42,472 km2 from previous.

7th lowest.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on September 09, 2014, 05:13:47 AM
IJIS:

5,035,271 km2(September 7, 2014) down 15,098 km2 from previous.   
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on September 09, 2014, 05:15:26 AM
IJIS:

5,027,268 km2(September 8, 2014) down 8,003 km2 from previous.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on September 10, 2014, 06:30:07 AM
IJIS:

4,991,621 km2(September 9, 2014) down 35,647 km2 from previous.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on September 11, 2014, 06:24:55 AM
IJIS:

5,000,248 km2(September 10, 2014) up 8,627 km2 from previous.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on September 12, 2014, 06:20:17 AM
IJIS:

4,987,733 km2(September 11, 2014) down 12,515 km2 from previous. 
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on September 13, 2014, 08:13:45 AM
IJIS:

4,935,847 km2 (September 12, 2014) down 51,886 km2 from previous
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on September 14, 2014, 05:50:04 AM
IJIS:

4,902,691 km2(September 13, 2014) down 33,156 km2 from previous. 
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on September 16, 2014, 05:17:37 AM
IJIS:

4,904,059 km2(September 14, 2014) up 1,368 km2 from previous.

Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on September 16, 2014, 05:20:56 AM
IJIS:

4,888,765 km2(September 15, 2014) down 15,294 km2 from previous.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on September 17, 2014, 05:13:09 AM
IJIS:

4,886,207 km2(September 16, 2014) down 2,558 km2 from previous.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on September 18, 2014, 06:42:21 AM
IJIS:

4,884,120 km2(September 17, 2014) down 2,087 km2 from previous.

It is also the minimum registered by IJIS in 2014. 
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on September 19, 2014, 11:07:37 AM
IJIS:

4,898,064 km2(September 18, 2014) up 13,944 km2 from previous.

Refreeze?
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on September 20, 2014, 09:24:56 AM
IJIS:

4,927,138 km2(September 19, 2014) up 29,074 km2 from previous.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on September 21, 2014, 08:21:02 AM
IJIS:

4,975,912 km2(September 20, 2014) up 48,774 km2 from previous.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on September 22, 2014, 05:13:36 AM
IJIS:

5,021,767 km2 (September 21, 2014) up 45,855 km2 from previous.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on September 23, 2014, 05:44:33 PM
IJIS:

5,040,091 km2(September 22, 2014) up 18,324 km2 from previous.

This will be the last update for the season.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Bruce Steele on September 23, 2014, 06:42:03 PM
Espen, Thanks for all the work. I hope you enjoyed the Porcini and have a nice jar of dried mushrooms put away for winter.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on September 23, 2014, 06:54:19 PM
Thanks Bruce,

Yes I got several liters of dried and frozen Porcini for the freezing season and a great stock of them for many evenings with 100% Porcini Soup, I really found a Goldmine for these mushrooms in the deep forests of Sweden some of them were up to 40 cm in diameter and 30 cm in height and in a perfect condition.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Neven on September 23, 2014, 08:26:52 PM
Yes, thanks a lot, Espen! My father loves Porcini. He always brings us bags with dried ones from Croatia.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on November 10, 2014, 03:35:56 AM
IJIS:

9,341,751 km2(November 8, 2014) only 137,085 km2 below 2000s average? 
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: JayW on November 10, 2014, 11:07:34 AM
IJIS:

9,341,751 km2(November 8, 2014) only 137,085 km2 below 2000s average?

Drop of 9,068 since yesterday, the next week or even longer will be interesting

Down to 9,332,683 km2
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: viddaloo on November 10, 2014, 06:05:07 PM
The drop seems CH4 related, like the huge drop last year from the 2600 ppb CH4 event. (http://arctic-news.blogspot.no/2013/11/methane-levels-going-through-the-roof.html)

(http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=997.0;attach=11758;image)
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: jdallen on November 10, 2014, 09:16:46 PM
The drop seems CH4 related, like the huge drop last year from the 2600 ppb CH4 event. ([url]http://arctic-news.blogspot.no/2013/11/methane-levels-going-through-the-roof.html[/url])

([url]http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=997.0;attach=11758;image[/url])


I'd not be quite so quick to make that assumption.  Synchronous yes; a casual relationship is much less clear.

I think we can make a much better argument for the short term drop to be related to weather. There are major weather systems - the remains of Nuri in the Bering, an unnamed powerful low in the north Atlantic - that are in play currently.

We could easily be seeing either weather having artificially driven up the coverage area, or knocking it back down by way of direct effect on the pack in peripheral seas.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on December 03, 2014, 05:02:40 PM
IJIS:

10,953,020 km2 (December 2, 2014) only 91,884 km2 below 2000s average?
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on January 10, 2015, 06:53:52 PM
IJIS:

12,585,887 km2 (January 9, 2015) lowest ever recorded for this date.  2012 2nd.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: viddaloo on January 10, 2015, 07:53:25 PM
2011, isn't it?

(https://d22d7v2y1t140g.cloudfront.net/m_13475030_N5fmbCjWyTAn.png)
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on January 10, 2015, 08:32:08 PM
Yes 2011, sorry :-[
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on January 10, 2015, 08:34:48 PM
2015 definitely got a strange start starting at the bottom and leaving 2014 almost at the top?
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: viddaloo on January 10, 2015, 09:38:45 PM
Yes 2011, sorry :-[

I'm combing January type errors out of my scripts and graphs myself, so no sweat!  ;D

The graph above, for instance, was so eager to conquer even more previous years that it said "next target" was 0 km², lol. Basically because "lowest ever" never happened before.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: viddaloo on January 10, 2015, 09:48:53 PM
2015 definitely got a strange start starting at the bottom and leaving 2014 almost at the top?

Sure did, but impossible to say if it will last, or how long, of course. Though there is a trend for slower January *and* February refreezes over the past 3–4 years. Quite logically, as the sea ice collapse spreads around the year, I guess?
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Wipneus on February 15, 2015, 08:02:25 AM
The IJIS/Jaxa website seems to be dismantled.
Affected are the Sea Ice Monitor, the daily extent graphs and of course the data files.
Announcement on the old Sea Ice Monitor page (http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/cgi-bin/seaice-monitor.cgi?lang=e):

NOTICE:

Thank you for visiting our website.

This site will be closed on February 22, and might be unstable from February 15, 2015.

New sea ice monitor website will be coming soon. Stay tuned.

Meanwhile, almost equivalent information can be available at
JAXA:

    [url]http://kuroshio.eorc.jaxa.jp/JASMES/daily/polar/index.html[/url] ([url]http://kuroshio.eorc.jaxa.jp/JASMES/daily/polar/index.html[/url])
    [url]http://kuroshio.eorc.jaxa.jp/JASMES/climate/index.html[/url] ([url]http://kuroshio.eorc.jaxa.jp/JASMES/climate/index.html[/url])

NIPR: National Institute of Polar Research , Japan

    [url]https://ads.nipr.ac.jp/vishop/vishop-monitor.html?N[/url] ([url]https://ads.nipr.ac.jp/vishop/vishop-monitor.html?N[/url])
    [url]https://ads.nipr.ac.jp/vishop/vishop-extent.html?N[/url] ([url]https://ads.nipr.ac.jp/vishop/vishop-extent.html?N[/url])
    [url]https://ads.nipr.ac.jp/vishop/data/graph/Sea_Ice_Extent_N_v2.png[/url] ([url]https://ads.nipr.ac.jp/vishop/data/graph/Sea_Ice_Extent_N_v2.png[/url])
    [url]https://ads.nipr.ac.jp/vishop/data/graph/Sea_Ice_Extent_N_v2_L.png[/url] ([url]https://ads.nipr.ac.jp/vishop/data/graph/Sea_Ice_Extent_N_v2_L.png[/url])



The data file is here:

https://ads.nipr.ac.jp/vishop/data/graph/plot_extent_n_v2.csv (https://ads.nipr.ac.jp/vishop/data/graph/plot_extent_n_v2.csv)

I haven't found the colorful version of the sea ice extent graph, perhaps somebody knows?

http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/Sea_Ice_Extent_prev_v2_L.png (http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/Sea_Ice_Extent_prev_v2_L.png)
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Neven on February 15, 2015, 09:47:32 AM
Thanks for this info, Wip.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: cats on February 15, 2015, 05:43:36 PM
The colorful one Wipneus referred to may be this? https://ads.nipr.ac.jp/vishop/vishop-extent.html?N
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on February 15, 2015, 06:02:45 PM
The colorful one Wipneus referred to may be this? https://ads.nipr.ac.jp/vishop/vishop-extent.html?N

Thats it, thanx ;)
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on February 18, 2015, 06:29:37 AM
IJIS:

13,770,330 km2(February 17, 2015)lowest measured for this date.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Wipneus on February 18, 2015, 06:48:57 AM
The colorful one Wipneus referred to may be this? https://ads.nipr.ac.jp/vishop/vishop-extent.html?N (https://ads.nipr.ac.jp/vishop/vishop-extent.html?N)


No, this is the graph that I like most:

old link... (http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/Sea_Ice_Extent_prev_v2_L.png)

Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: cats on February 18, 2015, 08:41:21 AM
ok - think it must be this one https://ads.nipr.ac.jp/vishop/data/graph/Sea_Ice_Extent_N_prev_v2_L.png
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Wipneus on February 18, 2015, 09:56:32 AM
Thanks, so glad that I don't have to go without... :)   
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on February 19, 2015, 06:20:58 AM
IJIS:

13,774,725 km2(February 18, 2015)another lowest measured for this date.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on February 28, 2015, 10:44:29 AM
IJIS:

13,835,558 km2(February 27, 2015)another lowest measured for this date.

That is 780,000 km2 below the 2000s average.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: viddaloo on February 28, 2015, 11:19:15 AM
2015 also has an impressive 811 thousand km² slower refreeze than 2012 for Jan–Feb, pending, of course, the last day of February. No IJIS year has a lower Jan–Feb refreeze.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on March 01, 2015, 09:21:05 AM
IJIS

13,818,317 km2(February 28, 2015)another record low measured for this date.

That is 820,000 km2 below 2000s average
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: viddaloo on March 01, 2015, 09:50:04 AM
If my scripts didn't just go crazy, this year has a 35% lower refreeze to date than record year 2012.

35%.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on March 01, 2015, 10:11:47 AM
If my scripts didn't just go crazy, this year has a 35% lower refreeze to date than record year 2012.

35%.

And we may not reach the 14 million mark for the first time in recent history!
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on March 02, 2015, 05:45:38 AM
IJIS:

13,827,443 km2(March 1, 2015)another record low measured for this date.

And still 820,000 km2 below 2000s average
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on March 03, 2015, 05:24:00 AM
IJIS:

13,798,149 km2(March 2, 2015)a drop of 29,294 km2 from previous and another record low for the date.

and now 860,000 km2 below 2000s average
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Sleepy on March 03, 2015, 09:20:03 AM
Oh.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on March 04, 2015, 06:10:24 AM
IJIS:

13,738,251 km2(March 3, 2015)down amazing 59,898 km2 from previous and a new lowest record for the date.

and 930,000 km2 below the 2000s average.

We may soon call it a max?
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: viddaloo on March 04, 2015, 06:20:07 AM
Definitely, Espen.

Current Arctic sea ice extent is now an amazing one MILLION square kilometers lower than all–time low year 2012.

(http://d22d7v2y1t140g.cloudfront.net/m_13651175_ldFyuKSrUZ31.png)
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Sleepy on March 04, 2015, 07:02:31 AM
Oh, oh.

There should be an increase in March, but that doesn't really matter considering the whole picture.  :(
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: jdallen on March 04, 2015, 08:13:59 AM
IJIS:

13,738,251 km2(March 3, 2015)down amazing 59,898 km2 from previous and a new lowest record for the date.

and 930,000 km2 below the 2000s average.

We may soon call it a max?

A few more days like this, and I may start thinking my SWAG for the melt season was too conservative. 

We are only half way through the burst of heat predicted to roll across the basin from the Barents.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: DavidR on March 04, 2015, 08:56:42 AM

A few more days like this, and I may start thinking my SWAG for the melt season was too conservative. 

We are only half way through the burst of heat predicted to roll across the basin from the Barents.

There is however a cool spell shown in the Bering Sea at the same time, so there is plenty  of scope there for an increase in extent/area. They  may balance each other out.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Jim Hunt on March 04, 2015, 10:08:32 AM
We are only half way through the burst of heat predicted to roll across the basin from the Barents.


Are you aware that the Arctic view has recently been reinstated at CCI-Reanalyzer?

http://GreatWhiteCon.info/resources/arctic-sea-ice-graphs/#CCITemp (http://GreatWhiteCon.info/resources/arctic-sea-ice-graphs/#CCITemp)

Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Peter Ellis on March 04, 2015, 10:24:08 AM
Current Arctic sea ice extent is now an amazing one MILLION square kilometers lower than all–time low year 2012.
Indeed.  The closest match to today's value is 2006, which had... er... the second highest summer extent in the last decade.

In other words - maximum extent has very very little relationship to the summer minimum.  It's really not a good idea to start prognosticating yet.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: viddaloo on March 04, 2015, 10:36:52 AM
([url]http://d22d7v2y1t140g.cloudfront.net/m_13651100_8XM0SHgN9Q9F.png[/url])


The 2nd lowest year on March 3rd, of course, being 2011, ended up 3rd lowest in September.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: viddaloo on March 04, 2015, 10:43:34 AM
With 4269199 km2 on Sep 10th, 2011 was 2nd lowest at the time, higher only than 2007 at 4065739 km2 on Sep 17th.

After record–low 2012 arrived, 2011 was relegated to 3rd lowest. Which means 2011 kept its lowest position (at the time) from March 3rd to 2nd lowest minimum (at the time) on September 10th.

Edit: If we're looking at 2nd lowest extent maximum, lowest at the time, it's still 2011. And it persisted till September, only beaten by extreme low year 2007.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Peter Ellis on March 04, 2015, 12:09:09 PM
*shrug*  If you think the winter maximum is a good predictor of the course of the melt season, you're welcome to demonstrate the correlation directly - e.g. by showing a strong correlation between (detrended) winter max and (detrended) summer minimum - rather than reading the tealeaves of day-by-day wiggles near the maximum.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Jim Hunt on March 04, 2015, 12:19:33 PM
*shrug*  If you think the winter maximum is a good predictor of the course of the melt season, you're welcome to demonstrate the correlation directly.


What do you make of the 1st year / multi-year metric being discussed elsewhere (http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1149.msg46300.html#msg46300) Peter?
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: viddaloo on March 04, 2015, 12:44:17 PM
Suggestions that 2006 was 2nd lowest on March 3rd or 2nd lowest at maximum seem a bit exaggerated and, well, unbalanced and 'wrong'. They may of course stem from a private metric, but in this case, said metric should be disclosed and its time series revealed, IMO.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Buddy on March 04, 2015, 02:30:56 PM
It is interesting.....that there doesn't appear to be a "direct" correlation between winter maximum, and the following summer minimum.

While CLEARLY.....the Arctic is much more VULNERABLE to a large amount of melting in the summer because of a low maximum.

I think it is only a matter of time before a "low winter maximum" is followed by a SIGNIFICANTLY lower (record shattering) summer minimum.  And I think that time is quickly approaching.

Too much anomalous heat in the oceans....and the basic laws of physics have not been repealed (except on FOX News:).

Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: viddaloo on March 04, 2015, 02:42:18 PM
I don't think anyone's ever suggested there was a 'direct' correlation, but it sure as hell doesn't hurt to have a one million km2 head–start on the champion.

I don't think anyone here would suggest 2015 stood a better chance of beating the minimum record if it was the other way, and today's extent was at 15.7 million.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: jdallen on March 04, 2015, 04:37:47 PM

A few more days like this, and I may start thinking my SWAG for the melt season was too conservative. 

We are only half way through the burst of heat predicted to roll across the basin from the Barents.

There is however a cool spell shown in the Bering Sea at the same time, so there is plenty  of scope there for an increase in extent/area. They  may balance each other out.
I wish it were so, but the cool spell in the Bering will still be much higher in absolute temperature even than that of the region getting "hot". 

The primary problem is one of ice thickening rather than building new.  A week of heat over several million KM2 of key Arctic pack will be crippling.  It won't melt, but neither will it strengthen, which is key.

Ice built in the Bering is nearly useless, as it will melt out with absolute certainty; nothing can save it.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: jdallen on March 04, 2015, 04:46:18 PM
*shrug*  If you think the winter maximum is a good predictor of the course of the melt season, you're welcome to demonstrate the correlation directly - e.g. by showing a strong correlation between (detrended) winter max and (detrended) summer minimum - rather than reading the tealeaves of day-by-day wiggles near the maximum.

I agree, it is far from perfect.  However, I think you also would agree the quality of the pack now, including volume, is demonstrably different than it was in 2006.  All else being equal, I'd agree with you, but we are no longer comparing apples to apples.

So no, we can't use extent by itself.  But, the assembly of factors lining up - increased system enthalpy, ice quality, lower volume, predicted weather, et al - are very compelling.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Sourabh on March 04, 2015, 05:44:01 PM
Espen,

Could you please post the link to IJIS/JAXA sea-ice extent graph? Somehow, old link I bookmarked seems to have stopped working.

Thanks,
Sourabh
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on March 04, 2015, 06:05:45 PM
Espen,

Could you please post the link to IJIS/JAXA sea-ice extent graph? Somehow, old link I bookmarked seems to have stopped working.

Thanks,
Sourabh

Here it is : https://ads.nipr.ac.jp/vishop/vishop-extent.html?N
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: DavidR on March 04, 2015, 10:23:23 PM

A few more days like this, and I may start thinking my SWAG for the melt season was too conservative. 

We are only half way through the burst of heat predicted to roll across the basin from the Barents.


There is however a cool spell shown in the Bering Sea at the same time, so there is plenty  of scope there for an increase in extent/area. They  may balance each other out.

I wish it were so, but the cool spell in the Bering will still be much higher in absolute temperature even than that of the region getting "hot". 

The primary problem is one of ice thickening rather than building new.  A week of heat over several million KM2 of key Arctic pack will be crippling.  It won't melt, but neither will it strengthen, which is key.

Ice built in the Bering is nearly useless, as it will melt out with absolute certainty; nothing can save it.

I couldn't agree more, any rapid extent increase now will rapidly disappear in April. Since 2007; 2010 peaked on 31 March, 200 K km^2 above the next closest year on that date, 2012. By the end of May both were competing for lowest.
Based on this comparison posted on another thread the CAB, already appears to be 20-30cm thinner than last year.   
http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1149.0;attach=14394;image (http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1149.0;attach=14394;image)
With a month of anomalously warm conditions it  will be in even worse shape.

Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on March 05, 2015, 06:10:06 AM
IJIS

13,688,997 km2(March 4, 2015)down another 49,254 km2 from previous and record low for the date.

and 980,000 km2 below 2000s average.

and name Feb. 15 2015 the maximum at 13,942,060 km2.

and the start of remelt Feb. 25 2015.

and for the first time ever the maximum below 14,000,000 km2
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: LRC1962 on March 05, 2015, 09:26:34 AM
Scary to think that the sun hasn't risen yet. Want to guess where some of that "missing pause heat" is now?
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: crandles on March 05, 2015, 05:53:49 PM
*shrug*  If you think the winter maximum is a good predictor of the course of the melt season, you're welcome to demonstrate the correlation directly - e.g. by showing a strong correlation between (detrended) winter max and (detrended) summer minimum - rather than reading the tealeaves of day-by-day wiggles near the maximum.

It is a valid point re reading tealeaves of day by day wiggles, I accept that.

I calculated a correlation for 31 day average peak and 31 day average minimum to be 0.07. So no detrended correlation worth speaking of. But what does this mean?

Does it mean that if 2015 max was particularly low, would you conclude this was completely irrelevant?

I think that would be unwise. The reality is that the maximums show a strong downward trend and the minimums show a strong downward trend. This is unlikely to be co-incidental: the downward trend in the maximums is almost certainly partly responsible for the downward trend in the minimums.

If there is almost certainly a causal relationship, then why isn't it showing up in the detrended correlation?

Detrended numbers are only looking at anomalies not the trend. If the anomalies are fairly random with some autocorrelation which seems likely they can show some persistance for some time periods but for longer than some maximum period the anomalies may tend to revert to the mean.

Looking at
(https://sites.google.com/site/arctischepinguin/home/piomas/grf/piomas-trnd2.png?height=360&width=480)

I think that you can see that the wiggles tend to persist for a couple of months perhaps even as long as 6 months on some occasions.

Thus I suggest it is not unreasonable to conclude that if this year max is low because of the trend this may result in lower minimum but if it is low because it is lower than trend then there is a good chance that the anomaly will persist for a short while but dissipate before the minimum.

We can reasonably assume a very low maximum is mainly an anomaly rather than trend, however even then a large anomaly may persist long enough to get the season off to a fast start and that could be important - certainly I have seen musings to that effect. IOW rather than testing detrended max and min for correlation, testing 1 May and minimum for correlation may be more relevant?

Perhaps also use PIOMAS rather than area might help to find correlation?
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on March 05, 2015, 09:23:20 PM
*shrug*  If you think the winter maximum is a good predictor of the course of the melt season, you're welcome to demonstrate the correlation directly - e.g. by showing a strong correlation between (detrended) winter max and (detrended) summer minimum - rather than reading the tealeaves of day-by-day wiggles near the maximum.

There is a saying: " A good start is half the battle won"? It may be without relevance, though?

Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: viddaloo on March 05, 2015, 10:06:11 PM
I don't think anyone's ever suggested there was a 'direct' correlation, but it sure as hell doesn't hurt to have a one million km2 head–start on the champion.

I don't think anyone here would suggest 2015 stood a better chance of beating the minimum record if it was the other way, and today's extent was at 15.7 million.

Add to that today's official calling of El–Niño 2015 and I can better understand why denial has gotten his coat on again.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: OSweetMrMath on March 06, 2015, 03:56:47 AM
*shrug*  If you think the winter maximum is a good predictor of the course of the melt season, you're welcome to demonstrate the correlation directly - e.g. by showing a strong correlation between (detrended) winter max and (detrended) summer minimum - rather than reading the tealeaves of day-by-day wiggles near the maximum.

I calculated a correlation for 31 day average peak and 31 day average minimum to be 0.07. So no detrended correlation worth speaking of. But what does this mean?

The predictions I've been posting for the past 9 or 10 months have been effectively based on the detrended correlations. My numbers for the correlations in NSIDC extent basically agree with your number above, so the correlation between the maximum and the minimum is too small to be a reliable predictor.

On the other hand, the correlations year over year are relatively large and negative, meaning that because last year's minimum was higher than predicted, this year's minimum should be lower. Lower, in this context, still means above 5 million sq km. (Again, this is the NSIDC extent. The JAXA extent is somewhat different.)

So I'm not predicting record breaking ice loss yet. On the other other hand, the behavior of the ice so far in March is far out of line with my current predictions. I'm planning on writing up a description of my prediction model at the end of April, (after I've had a full year of results) and the big weakness of my model is that it doesn't handle shocks very well. If the behavior so far in March is indicative of a shock, it's possible that this year's minimum will be far below my current prediction.

Update: Looking at PIOMAS volume, there is a relatively strong correlation between March and September. However, the most recent data we have is from January, and at that range the volume is basically uncorrelated. We should get the February data soon. We can judge then whether PIOMAS is following the other measures. If so, it may be reasonable to predict a large volume loss this year.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: epiphyte on March 06, 2015, 05:50:11 AM
*shrug*  If you think the winter maximum is a good predictor of the course of the melt season, you're welcome to demonstrate the correlation directly - e.g. by showing a strong correlation between (detrended) winter max and (detrended) summer minimum - rather than reading the tealeaves of day-by-day wiggles near the maximum.


[... snip...]

We can reasonably assume a very low maximum is mainly an anomaly rather than trend, however even then a large anomaly may persist long enough to get the season off to a fast start and that could be important - certainly I have seen musings to that effect. IOW rather than testing detrended max and min for correlation, testing 1 May and minimum for correlation may be more relevant?

Perhaps also use PIOMAS rather than area might help to find correlation?

Flawed as I believe PIOMAS to be for thin/melting ice, for trends I would have guessed that adding the extra dimension might filter out some of the noise from variations in here-today, gone-tomorrow start/end of season weather conditions. Others have suggested that these effects make area/extent on it's own useless as a predictor of what's going to happen later on in the season - and I'd generally agree.

But eyeballing those PIOMAS monthly trends it seems to me that there's been something very odd going over the past year... either with the model, or with the real world, or both... Viz:

1. The trends for March and May crossed in 2009. Before then, there was consistently more ice in May than in March, since then there has consistently been less ice in May than there was in March - including last year, which was well above the trend for both months.

2. According to PIOMAS there has since 2009 been a consistent 1M km3 volume gain Mar-Apr , and it has always been lost Apr-May, again regardless of trend.

3. Backing up to January , and roughly eyeballing the graph, PIOMAS has never come up with a Jan-Feb volume increase of less than ~2.5 Mkm3, or a Feb-Mar increase less than ~2Mkm3

So if PIOMAS stays true to form, the Feb number will be >= 21M, and under better-than-existing worst case conditions the the March number will be >= 23M and the April number will be >= 24M

In other words, the January number is high enough to guarantee that the April number will be more than a million km3 *higher* than it was in 2014, absent worse than existing worst-case behavior in February and March.

So we just lived through Feb - and to my eyes at least it looked as though it might indeed have have been the worst ever. Assume that PIOMAS cuts it's previous worst-case Feb growth in half (i.e. from ~2.5 to ~1.25m). If it did that the Feb number would be the same as it was last year.

Looking at the actual area today it is essentially the same as it was this time last year - so If PIOMAS does come up with a 50% cut in Feb volume growth over 2014 (which itself was very low),  it might be a plausible number - albeit an unprecedentedly bad February for the arctic -  but only if the avg. thickness is also now the same as this time last year. This seems a stretch given the weak winter and the low thickness estimates. If the ice is actually thinner, then PIOMAS would need essentially zero Feb growth to avoid coming up with an incredible number for Apr/May.

If, OTOH, PIOMAS comes in with the same (already low) Feb & Mar growth that it did in 2014, it can only end with a modeled March-May volume >1m km3 higher than it was last year, which would IMO be astonishing if true, because it would imply faster Feb growth than 2014, on top of thicker ice than 2014, in the presence of higher temperatures than 2014.

So all in all, I'm wondering if this might be the year when PIOMAS last-meter uncertainties finally cause it to part company with directly observable reality.

Interesting times indeed.

Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on March 06, 2015, 06:10:52 AM
IJIS:

13,664,797 km2(March 5, 2015)down 24,200km2 from previous and
 1,000,000 km2 *)
below 2000s average.

*) The same as the combined area of France, UK, Ireland and Denmark!

or a little less than California and Texas combined!

or 1,400 times the size of Singapore!

or for the Catholics: 2,272,727 times the size of the Vatican!
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Sleepy on March 06, 2015, 07:47:15 AM
Now I'm almost in denial...
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: viddaloo on March 06, 2015, 08:23:11 AM
So all in all, I'm wondering if this might be the year when PIOMAS last-meter uncertainties finally cause it to part company with directly observable reality.

I'd say there are signs it already has waved goodbye. The extreme silence mode after Cryosat figures were mumblingly and deceivingly presented (through the anti–science tabloid press), and the fact PIOMAS uses NSIDC that has presently 0.7 million KM2 ghost ice only on their hard–drives despite better alternatives, tells me pretty loud and clear that PIOMAS is no longer about reality, but 'the art of the possible'.

I'm hoping that a better alternative for ice volume will come up during the spring or summer, and JAXA's new ice monitor looks promising in that sense:

(https://ads.nipr.ac.jp/vishop/data/201503/AM2SI20150305D_SIT_NP.png)
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: jdallen on March 06, 2015, 08:54:39 AM
I calculated a correlation for 31 day average peak and 31 day average minimum to be 0.07. So no detrended correlation worth speaking of. But what does this mean?

It means we need to look elsewhere for causes  ;)

<Snippage>
So I'm not predicting record breaking ice loss yet. On the other other hand, the behavior of the ice so far in March is far out of line with my current predictions... the big weakness of my model is that it doesn't handle shocks very well. If the behavior so far in March is indicative of a shock, it's possible that this year's minimum will be far below my current prediction.

<insert wry look>  I do believe the end of February and the start of March qualifies as a "Shock".  It reminds me of when I was programming genetic algorithm models of stock behavior.  Then as now, the behavior is predictable... until it isn't.  I think we're in one of those "Isn't" phases.

Update: Looking at PIOMAS volume, there is a relatively strong correlation between March and September. However, the most recent data we have is from January, and at that range the volume is basically uncorrelated. We should get the February data soon. We can judge then whether PIOMAS is following the other measures. If so, it may be reasonable to predict a large volume loss this year.

I have serious doubts about attempting to find meaningful predictive relationships in extent, area and volume numbers over time.  It really Does strike me as very similar to trying to predict stock price over time based on the movement of price alone (Trust me on this, it doesn't work).

The basic problem is, Ice metrics, like stock price are driven entirely by forces independent of their actual scalar values.  The actual feedback of the metric  is very limited as compared to the other forces involved, and as such, predictive models built on them *will* fail if the underlying forces shift - as some of us believe they have.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Wipneus on March 06, 2015, 11:39:41 AM
I am always quite capable to ignore high levels of nonsense, but this is just too much.

The extreme silence mode after Cryosat figures were mumblingly and deceivingly presented (through the anti–science tabloid press),

This is the first time I heard that a presentation on the American Geophysical Union’s autumn meeting is being described this way.

, and the fact PIOMAS uses NSIDC that has presently 0.7 million KM2 ghost ice only on their hard–drives despite better alternatives, tells me pretty loud and clear that PIOMAS is no longer about reality, but 'the art of the possible'.

No, NSIDC has no "0.7 million KM2 ghost ice". The index is called "EXTENT" not ice. If you are purely interested in ice you MUST use "AREA". The NSIDC area (one calculation is Cryosphere Today's area) is still at fourth place or so and LOWER than other "alternatives".

PIOMAS has no uses for EXTENT, it uses in some ways (assimilates) CONCENTRATION, again if they use this source it is LOWER than from alternatives.

I'm hoping that a better alternative for ice volume will come up during the spring or summer, and JAXA's new ice monitor looks promising in that sense:

Spring yes, Summer no.

This product is an essentially experimental and research product. This product has the effectiveness in the relative dry freezing seasons such as autumn, winter and spring (September – May), but cannot provide the accurate sea ice thickness in melting wet season (June - August) because the sea ice surface is covered by melt ponds.
This product is opened to the public for the usages of research and validation of algorithms. The Arctic Data archive System (ADS) is not liable for any loss or damage resulting from the use of this data.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: viddaloo on March 06, 2015, 12:16:39 PM
I am always quite capable to ignore high levels of nonsense, but this is just too much.

The extreme silence mode after Cryosat figures were mumblingly and deceivingly presented (through the anti–science tabloid press),

This is the first time I heard that a presentation on the American Geophysical Union’s autumn meeting is being described this way.

Wipneus, I'm not suggesting they said nothing during that hour of presentation at the AGU, which I've studied extensively, only that they said nothing about the discrepancy between Cryosat and PIOMAS for autumn and winter 2014. Saying absolutely nothing about a very interesting subject may be considered being in 'extreme silence mode'. That's why I chose those words.

To this day there is no official explanation for the discrepancy, only 'best guesses' from amateurs like us.

I'm still curious about those discrepancies, but at the same time I have a feeling they will never be explained by the people responsible. You're mistaking curiosity for nonsense ....  ;D

PS: In my opinion, the American Geophysical Union meeting is not a tabloid newspaper. I'm primarily talking about Cryosat's findings being presented through tabloid newspapers by bad journalists twice a year. And I also find Cryosat researchers to hold their cards really close to their chest, and they never use the fabulous medium 'World Wide Web' to just disclose their sea ice volume estimates day by day.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: crandles on March 06, 2015, 12:27:52 PM
only that they said nothing about the discrepancy between Cryosat and PIOMAS for autumn and winter 2014. Saying absolutely nothing about a very interesting subject may be considered being in 'extreme silence mode'. That's why I chose those words.

Not saying anything about a subject you find interesting may be disappointing for you. However does it really justify "mumblingly and deceivingly presented"? "Deceivingly" suggests intent to misinform; can you really justify that ?????
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on March 06, 2015, 10:09:12 PM
IJIS:

13,664,797 km2(March 5, 2015)down 24,200km2 from previous and
 1,000,000 km2 *)
below 2000s average.

*) The same as the combined area of France, UK, Ireland and Denmark!

or a little less than California and Texas combined!

or 1,400 times the size of Singapore!

or for the Catholics: 2,272,727 times the size of the Vatican!

Or a little less than half the size of Greenland (2,166,086 km2) just to make it local? ;)
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: OSweetMrMath on March 06, 2015, 11:27:18 PM
<insert wry look>  I do believe the end of February and the start of March qualifies as a "Shock".  It reminds me of when I was programming genetic algorithm models of stock behavior.  Then as now, the behavior is predictable... until it isn't.  I think we're in one of those "Isn't" phases.

Well, in the past, there have been large increases in ice extent during March. The extent for March is almost certainly going to be below my model prediction. But there could be enough of an increase during the rest of the month that April ends up at my predicted level anyway.

I have serious doubts about attempting to find meaningful predictive relationships in extent, area and volume numbers over time.  It really Does strike me as very similar to trying to predict stock price over time based on the movement of price alone (Trust me on this, it doesn't work).

I have models which predict extent and volume based on correlations over time. Its results are probabilistic, not certainties. Similar to your stock price predictions, my sea ice predictions are good until they are not. However, I have found that my model gives me better results than more heuristic methods of ice prediction. My predictions for the February extent have been accurate to within 150 thousand sq km since last May. (Admittedly, my extent predictions over the summer and my volume predictions at all times were less accurate.)

My conclusions are that it is possible to predict sea ice levels (in the short term) based only on the history of the sea ice, as long as you don't read too much certainty into the predictions. In addition, these predictions should serve as a check on claims that on the basis of this week's weather or daily sea ice numbers, this year's ice minimum will be a record breaking low.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: viddaloo on March 07, 2015, 07:09:33 AM
Definitely, Espen.

Current Arctic sea ice extent is now an amazing one MILLION square kilometers lower than all–time low year 2012.

([url]http://d22d7v2y1t140g.cloudfront.net/m_13651175_ldFyuKSrUZ31.png[/url])

Today, for the first time, the diff is greater than a million even in non–rounded detailed numbers.

Edit: Actually, March 6th is the second time, March 4th was the first time.

Has this ever happened before, ie before Wednesday? :D

Let's look at the numbers!

The answer is nope, never happened before. No year has been a million or more km2 lower than the September minimum record holder at the time on any day of the year, in the IJIS time series, after the 2007 record low minimum was set.

2012, of course, came closest to the million:

:
On sep2, challenger 2012 was 966798 lower than 2007.
Until:

:
On mar4, challenger 2015 was 1010720 lower than 2012.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: viddaloo on March 07, 2015, 08:06:51 AM
What this means for the 2015 melt season is of course anyone's guess. Outside, the morning crows are doing their usual song and dance.

But 2012 had its near–million lead on 2007 at the start of September that year.

2015 has its million+ lead on 2012 at the start of March and the entire melt season. It could go anywhere, including a complete meltdown.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on March 07, 2015, 08:10:00 AM
IJIS:

13,660,208 km2(March 6, 2015)down 4,589 km2 from previous and record low for the date.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on March 08, 2015, 08:22:37 AM
IJIS:

13,659,416 km2(March 7, 2015)down 792 km2 from previous and record low for the date.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: jdallen on March 08, 2015, 09:17:22 AM
IJIS:

13,659,416 km2(March 7, 2015)down 792 km2 from previous and record low for the date.

Average daily drop (2002-2014), this date until April 1st, ~9170KM2.

Average daily increase required to pass the previous max this year, ~36000KM2

Average daily increase required to pass the previous low max, ~42116KM2

Average daily increase required to pass 14,000,000 KM2, ~14,158KM2

History is not with us...
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Sleepy on March 08, 2015, 09:26:39 AM
And Papa Bear is coming to chase off the small ones.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: lanevn on March 08, 2015, 06:29:55 PM
And Papa Bear is coming to chase off the small ones.
Can you link this service?
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Laurent on March 08, 2015, 07:25:15 PM
May be that one :
http://pveducation.org/pvcdrom/properties-of-sunlight/calculation-of-solar-insolation (http://pveducation.org/pvcdrom/properties-of-sunlight/calculation-of-solar-insolation)
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on March 09, 2015, 05:24:23 AM
IJIS:

13,649,869 km2(March 8, 2015)down 9,547 km2 from previous and record low for the date.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Sleepy on March 09, 2015, 06:12:45 AM
lanevn, sorry for not linking. Laurent is correct.

So, a short hiatus (in the demise). We're probably entering an ice age!  ;D
A bit more serious; I don't like this.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on March 10, 2015, 05:24:46 AM
IJIS:

13,629,197 km2(March 9, 2015)down 20,672 km2 from previous and record low for the date.

and 1,031,766 km2 below 2000s average.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Pmt111500 on March 10, 2015, 08:42:57 AM
the (now) believable very late max last year prevents me from calling the maximum yet. guessing the extent will go up from the current value because of the early breakup of fringes. consider a large area with 80% coverage experiences a strong stationary low pressure and spreads out to 15% coverage.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on March 11, 2015, 06:18:05 AM
IJIS:

13,623,768 km2(March 10, 2015)down 5,429 km2 from previous and in record low territory.

1,038,139 km2 below 2000s average.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on March 12, 2015, 06:05:49 AM
IJIS:

13,648,280 km2(March 11, 2015)up 24,512 km2 from previous.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: viddaloo on March 13, 2015, 06:06:24 AM
As of today, copying the gain of the biggest remaining March gain year in the IJIS time series will not take us above 13.94 million km² before 2016. This means the Feb 15 'Mad Max' certainly *is* the 2015 maximum.  ;D

(http://d22d7v2y1t140g.cloudfront.net/m_13670034_7WSYuPHDTvzi.png)
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on March 13, 2015, 06:09:34 AM
IJIS:

13,695,914 km2(March 12, 2015)up 47,634 km2 from previous.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on March 14, 2015, 07:49:16 AM
IJIS:

13,686,416 km2(March 13, 2015)down 9,498 km2 from previous.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Sourabh on March 14, 2015, 10:06:19 AM
Yay...

Does it mean we peaked? It is already mid March. I don't think we would have much gain left now.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: viddaloo on March 14, 2015, 10:39:59 AM
You're quite right, Sourabh. Any major gains now will be compensated by melt elsewhere.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: LRC1962 on March 14, 2015, 02:18:06 PM
Ice EXTENT is not a straightforward predictable melt freeze equation. Extent is the out boundary that has 15% or greater proportion of ice according to a grid. Therefore you technically may be having a lot of  melt, but if that ice is spread out thin enough you could have a high extent (forget that point many times myself). Whereas area tries to calculate the exact amount of ice. That is a calculation that has a broad error bound just because it is not easy to calculate.
Point is if a wind comes in at the right/wrong angle hitting a very compact area and spreads it out, the extent in that area could escalate rapidly and depending on temperatures may not melt that fast. Therefore we may get a sudden large increase in extent.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on March 15, 2015, 06:12:34 AM
IJIS:

13,686,287 km2(March 14, 2015)down 129 km2 from previous.

Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on March 16, 2015, 05:21:35 AM
IJIS:

13,724,438 km2(March 15, 2015) up 38,151 km2 from previous.

217,622 km2 below max. February 15 2015.

and

847,381 km2 below 2000s average.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on March 17, 2015, 05:45:57 AM
IJIS:

13,755,789 km2(March 16, 2015)up 31,351 km2 from previous.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Jim Pettit on March 17, 2015, 12:31:35 PM
IJIS:

13,755,789 km2(March 16, 2015)up 31,351 km2 from previous.

2015 is still in first place, but just barely; 2006 is only 21k behind, so another day similar to yesterday will end the current string of consecutive days in first place, which stands at 18.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: viddaloo on March 17, 2015, 01:54:33 PM
Rather unique situation for March.

(http://d22d7v2y1t140g.cloudfront.net/m_13678409_4NMy7EFSz4tu.png)
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: seaicesailor on March 17, 2015, 07:31:45 PM
Thanks for your plot above, viddaloo. These lines: 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014 evolve parallel to x-axis (2015) some maybe slightly grow. This means that the melting seasons of these years (2015 no exception) start somehow later than previously.

It is very probable 2015 extent might have reached its maximum in February 15, but still the extent is now very close to what was then (that is why I say it is no exception).

Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: viddaloo on March 17, 2015, 07:53:36 PM
Thanks, seaicesailor.

I keep forgetting to add 2003 and 2004 when posting publicly, thinking they're ancient history, but as you can see, 2004 is even lower than 2014 on the 16th.

(http://d22d7v2y1t140g.cloudfront.net/m_13678924_mmgvdba75LMA.png)
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on March 18, 2015, 06:07:33 AM
IJIS:

13,720,322 km2(March 17, 2015)down 35,467 km2 from previous.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on March 19, 2015, 05:59:20 AM
IJIS:

13,708,005 km2(March 18, 2015)down 12,317 km2 from previous.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: OldLeatherneck on March 19, 2015, 12:18:16 PM
IJIS:

13,708,005 km2(March 18, 2015)down 12,317 km2 from previous.

Espen,

I think you can put your crow back in the freezer for another year.  It appears that you won't be dining  on "Crow Stew" this year.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: PhilDPortsmouth on March 19, 2015, 04:27:24 PM
Not sure if this is the right place to ask but on the graphs page, wasn't the 3rd down on the left always the IJIS/JAXA (or was it uni bremen). 3rd down in the middle seems not updated....
Anyway which is the "go to graphs" for daily area and extent that people are looking at?
Thanks
Phil
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: folke_kelm on March 19, 2015, 04:40:56 PM
What´s so bad with crow stew? My cat catched a crow some years ago and brought it home and i decided not to throw it away. It was really a very good stew.  ;D
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on March 19, 2015, 04:48:14 PM
IJIS:

13,708,005 km2(March 18, 2015)down 12,317 km2 from previous.

Espen,

I think you can put your crow back in the freezer for another year.  It appears that you won't be dining  on "Crow Stew" this year.

OldLeatherneck

It was not my intention either ;)
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Neven on March 19, 2015, 05:26:47 PM
Not sure if this is the right place to ask but on the graphs page, wasn't the 3rd down on the left always the IJIS/JAXA (or was it uni bremen). 3rd down in the middle seems not updated....
Anyway which is the "go to graphs" for daily area and extent that people are looking at?
Thanks
Phil

Hi Phil,

IJIS - which stands for IARC-JAXA information system, JAXA being the Japanese Aerospace Exploration Agency and IARC the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks - has interrupted the delivery of data and graphs. To be honest, I don't know why this is and whether they'll be back in action.

But here's the thing: there's an alternative graph at ADS, but I can't hot-link to it for the Arctic Sea Ice Graphs page (or ASIG). I've tried, but somehow it doesn't work, and so I've left it open for now. Soon, before the melting season starts, I'm going to update the entire ASIG and see which graphs and maps are still updated, which aren't, and see if there are any replacements out there.

I hope to find an alternative for the IJIS SIE graph somewhere. If anyone knows where I can find one that can be hot-linked on the ASIG, please let me know.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Wipneus on March 19, 2015, 06:25:31 PM
Let me try. These seem to work at least from the forum pages.

Works on a google sites site:

https://sites.google.com/site/arctischepinguin/home/test

These are the links
https://ads.nipr.ac.jp/vishop/data/graph/Sea_Ice_Extent_N_prev_v2_L.png
https://ads.nipr.ac.jp/vishop/data/graph/Sea_Ice_Extent_N_v2_L.png

(https://ads.nipr.ac.jp/vishop/data/graph/Sea_Ice_Extent_N_prev_v2_L.png)

(https://ads.nipr.ac.jp/vishop/data/graph/Sea_Ice_Extent_N_v2_L.png)
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Neven on March 19, 2015, 08:21:57 PM
Let me try. These seem to work at least from the forum pages.

Works on a google sites site:

https://sites.google.com/site/arctischepinguin/home/test

That's strange, Wip, I'm not seeing anything on your test page.

These are the links
https://ads.nipr.ac.jp/vishop/data/graph/Sea_Ice_Extent_N_prev_v2_L.png
https://ads.nipr.ac.jp/vishop/data/graph/Sea_Ice_Extent_N_v2_L.png

I tried these last week, but somehow the Google Sites editor won't accept them. As a Google Sites user you're probably familiar with this:

(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-Snu_NBIyzkI/VQshj2pRibI/AAAAAAAACOE/8mopQAao_OM/w740-h327-no/ads.jpg)

Normally the linked graph shows up straight away and I can click OK. But not with these graphs.

Not working in Firefox or Chrome. Weird, eh?  ???
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Lord M Vader on March 19, 2015, 08:27:52 PM
Neven: I had no problem to see Wipneus graphs... I agree that it's weird! could it have anything to do with pop-ups or so?

Best, LMV
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Tor Bejnar on March 19, 2015, 08:31:47 PM
Worked fine for me using both Firefox and IE.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Neven on March 19, 2015, 09:48:48 PM
Very strange. Is it because I'm still on Windows XP?  :o
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: sunkensheep on March 19, 2015, 11:18:39 PM
I also could not see the images on Wipneus' test page, I found the problem was an ad-blocker.

The string "ads" at start of the domain where the image is hosted (https://ads.nipr.ac.jp/) was causing the image to be blocked.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Neven on March 20, 2015, 12:24:10 AM
Holy Mary, mother of God, my stupidity knows no bounds. Again the Adblocker, just like when I couldn't sea the interface on ADS, just two weeks ago. And then suggesting it has something to do with my OS.  :-\

That's too much, even for my standards.  ;D

Now I was able to put the graph on the ASIG. Thank you for your patience with donkeyboy.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: PhilDPortsmouth on March 20, 2015, 12:50:31 AM
Brilliant, now working, thank you, it's your commitment and hard work that know no bounds!
Best wishes
Phil
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: OldLeatherneck on March 20, 2015, 02:03:24 AM
Holy Mary, mother of God, my stupidity knows no bounds. Again the Adblocker, just like when I couldn't sea the interface on ADS, just two weeks ago. And then suggesting it has something to do with my OS.  :-\

That's too much, even for my standards.  ;D

Now I was able to put the graph on the ASIG. Thank you for your patience with donkeyboy.

Just wait until you've aged another 20 or 30 years.  What were "stupid" mistakes on a monthly, or less often basis, are now occurring on a daily, or more frequent, basis.  It's an exponential process.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: epiphyte on March 20, 2015, 05:49:58 AM
F all' Y'all I on adblock - if you click on the adblock toolbar icon (a white hand on an octagonal red background), then enable advanced options, you can add https://ads.nipr.ac.jp/ to the list of sites from which to "allow all ads", and you'll be able to see the graphs without having to put up with the stuff you installed adblock to be rid of in the first place...
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on March 20, 2015, 06:08:52 AM
IJIS:

13,717,193 km2(March 19, 2015)up 9,188 km2 from previous.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: LRC1962 on March 20, 2015, 08:06:44 AM
F all' Y'all I on adblock - if you click on the adblock toolbar icon (a white hand on an octagonal red background), then enable advanced options, you can add https://ads.nipr.ac.jp/ to the list of sites from which to "allow all ads", and you'll be able to see the graphs without having to put up with the stuff you installed adblock to be rid of in the first place...
Some of you may have added Ghostery which is similar and you may have to do the something for it.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: viddaloo on March 20, 2015, 09:00:03 AM
IJIS:

13,717,193 km2(March 19, 2015)up 9,188 km2 from previous.
I feel almost off topic for being on topic, but hey! I don't think 9000 is going to threaten the Feb Mad Max  ;D
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on March 21, 2015, 05:28:36 AM
IJIS:

13,705,999 km2(March 20, 2015)down 11,194 km2 from previous.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: jdallen on March 21, 2015, 08:22:41 AM
IJIS:

13,717,193 km2(March 19, 2015)up 9,188 km2 from previous.
I feel almost off topic for being on topic, but hey! I don't think 9000 is going to threaten the Feb Mad Max  ;D
In a word... Nope.  I think we're past any possibility the Feb  max will be exceeded.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: viddaloo on March 21, 2015, 10:39:36 AM
This, however, can't, won't and doesn't last:

(http://d22d7v2y1t140g.cloudfront.net/m_13686069_eVeeLYpLfvEX.png)

And it's another 22! We remember the now verified 'rule' of the Arctic, that if a preliminary winter max is not exceeded for 22 days, it is the very max.

I bet no other year was continually lowest for as long as 22 days? 2012, perhaps?

EDIT: Oops. How 'bout Jul 25 — Oct 15 for a stand–alone lowest performance! That's 2012.

Better change that to a Feb–Mar bet and say: I bet no other year was continually lowest for as long as 22 days, in Feb–Mar, before anyone notices.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: viddaloo on March 21, 2015, 12:10:53 PM
And I would be right. Interestingly, by January 2015, no year was continually lowest in March for more than 5 days (2011), and no year continually lowest in February and/or March for more than 10 days (2006).

Seems it's pretty hard to be lowest for a very long time during this season, making this 22–day reign very significant.

EDIT: 2006 actually had a March lead that lasted more than 5 days, but it went into April, so fooled me at first. 2006's lead in March was for 18 days, and the total length of this lead when April is included was 31 days.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: helorime on March 21, 2015, 07:54:28 PM
Viddaloo.  I have to say that I have been looking at your graphs for a long time and I have no idea what they are of.  They have dates on the X axis, ok, I get that.  Color coding by year, I understand that too, and then numbers on the Y axis that are amounts of something.  What is that something?  500k or a million of what?  It cannot be total sea ice concentration, nor area, nor thickness..... it is too big to be change from the previous day, nor deviation from the norm.  What is it?  I am clearly missing something obvious here.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Peter Ellis on March 21, 2015, 08:01:33 PM
I think that particular graph is anomaly relative to 2015 - see the line at zero along the bottom representing 2015 itself.  Not a particularly useful measurement and doesn't tell you anything that raw extent wouldn't, but hey.

Other graphs from viddaloo are more confusing.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: viddaloo on March 21, 2015, 08:09:11 PM
Viddaloo.  I have to say that I have been looking at your graphs for a long time and I have no idea what they are of.  They have dates on the X axis, ok, I get that.  Color coding by year, I understand that too, and then numbers on the Y axis that are amounts of something.  What is that something?  500k or a million of what?  It cannot be total sea ice concentration, nor area, nor thickness..... it is too big to be change from the previous day, nor deviation from the norm.  What is it?  I am clearly missing something obvious here.

Very hard to answer in general terms, helorime. Different plots will have different Y–axis, so hard to tell what you want the answer to be to this question. In general, though, it is always a good advice to read chart headings and other peripheral prose, from which the answer may emerge.

PS: If you feel dazed and confused today, just think of the very first men and women on this planet, glancing up at the stars!  ;D
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: helorime on March 21, 2015, 08:18:53 PM
The title on the graph said "2% of max extent gone, lowest as on February 27th" but all the numbers were + not negative, I am talking about the first graph above these comments.  Not feeling dazed and confused, feeling like the graph is poorly labeled.  I think Pete Ellis's comments make sense.  I had not paid attention to the fact that the X-ais was blue and might be 2015, with the other numbers representing sea ice extent for a particular year with the 2015 value subtracted.  If that is the case then the graph should be titled something like "Sea ice extent difference from 2015 by date"
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: viddaloo on March 21, 2015, 08:30:17 PM
The title on the graph said "2% of max extent gone, lowest as on February 27th"

Great! That's almost the entire first line, helorime. After the comma, you get "but with a Friday
margin of just 68k km² back to 2006."

Do you have to read all of that? Of course not! I assume you live in a somewhat free country and can do what you want. Only if you were curious about what was displayed in the plot, you would naturally proceed to read the entire sentence.

So from 2015 (lowest) to 2006 there is 68k km². The "k" of the Y–axis is the same as the "k" of the chart title. K is short for kilo which means 1000. 68k would then be 68 000. 500k = 500 000 and so forth and so on. Then you are confused about the "m". The "m" stands for million, which is "a thousand thousands".

Get it?
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: helorime on March 21, 2015, 08:39:14 PM
Do you have to read all of that? Of course not! I assume you live in a somewhat free country and can do what you want. Only if you were curious about what was displayed in the plot, you would naturally proceed to read the entire sentence.

I see that you do not understand my comment.  That's ok. Peter Ellis likely has it right.  Your graph appears to be of previous year's sea-ice extent differences from 2015 by calendar date.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: viddaloo on March 21, 2015, 08:49:40 PM
Your graph appears to be of previous year's sea-ice extent differences from 2015 by calendar date.
All of that's already in the chart title, that's why I don't understand why you ask other people about it instead of just reading it. Maybe there is a cultural code here that I just do not get. From a plot developer perspective it makes no difference what is written in the title if people do not read it.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: helorime on March 21, 2015, 09:01:35 PM
Is there a chart title other than this?

2% of max extent gone. Lowest as of February 27th, but with a Friday margin of just 68 km2 back to 2006

That title says nothing about graphing the difference from the 2015 value.  It implies that it should be of % difference from maximum extent, though it clearly isn't.  I am only saying this to be helpful here.  Knowing what the graph is of makes it more interesting and informative.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: viddaloo on March 21, 2015, 09:16:47 PM
helorime, I think those are splendid ideals and looking forward to seeing your plots.

PS: To your question pertaining to the existence of other chart titles than the one featured in the chart, I am sorry that again I will have to disappoint you. There are none in the chart other than the one you can see in the chart. I trust you when you say you are neither dazed nor confused, but now you've made me both dazed and confused. I would say 99% you are making an early April Fool's joke, and that definitely *would* be a cultural thing. In my country we wait till the day is here! ;)
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: seaicesailor on March 21, 2015, 09:37:42 PM
Viddaloo, sometimes you sound as if the forum was yours.
It would be nice if you state what the y-axis is in your plots. It is customary, to say the least
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: viddaloo on March 21, 2015, 09:52:05 PM
Viddaloo, sometimes you sound as if the forum was yours.
It would be nice if you state what the y-axis is in your plots. It is customary, to say the least
The Y–axis is margin to 2015 extent in km², as explained in the chart title:

2% of 2015 max extent gone. Lowest as of February 27th, but with a Friday
margin of just 68k km² back to 2006.

Back to the ice: If 2015 Arctic sea ice extent as measured by IJIS/JAXA can stay below 13774012 km² today and 13774868 tomorrow, 2015 will have been lowest in Arctic sea ice extent as measured by IJIS/JAXA for 24 days at the expense of the low 2006 period in March–April, which will then be reduced to a 22 day period of being lowest in Arctic sea ice extent as measured by IJIS/JAXA. Odds are the only other continually lowest period on this side of Solstice, the 2006 row from Apr 28 to May 25, will also be sliced, making the present record series of Feb–Mar lowest Arctic sea ice extent measurements by IJIS/JAXA the longest in the first half of the year.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: viddaloo on March 21, 2015, 11:03:28 PM
How 'bout that? No other year being continually lowest for more days in a row in the entire first 6 months of the year, and we will know in just 6 1/2 hours. Do you think it's possible? The only thing we need to do is lose extent or at least gain less than 68869 km².

Slicing the late Apr to late May line of 2006 low days will be a walk in the park.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: wili on March 22, 2015, 03:22:21 AM
"Other graphs from viddaloo are more confusing."

I have nothing against vid, but I don't bother trying to understand his graphs. (And I do in fact understand most graphs that I've come across on this and other sites.) If he thinks they are illuminating something to someone...well, they aren't to me, or apparently to many other bright people here. Of course, if someone gets a kick out of posting obscure graphs on relatively obscure site, I guess they're free to do so.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on March 22, 2015, 05:25:29 AM
IJIS:

13,738,377 km2(March 21, 2015)up 32,378 km2 from previous.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Sleepy on March 22, 2015, 08:59:18 AM
I feel that the arguing should be spared for our happy positive green BAU people and the politicians they vote for.

At least for the Swedish deniers (who might read on this obscure(?) forum since they have used Jim Pettit's graphs in the past), I might be useful to clear up one graph a bit just to clarify the big picture.  ;)
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on March 22, 2015, 09:37:49 AM
IJIS:

Unless 2015 drops 5,962 km2 or more tomorrow, 2006 will take over the lowest measured for date.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: viddaloo on March 22, 2015, 10:49:28 AM
IJIS:

Unless 2015 drops 5,962 km2 or more tomorrow, 2006 will take over the lowest measured for date.

I'd say it's definitely doable. It's pretty much down to the Bering Strait, IMO.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Jim Pettit on March 22, 2015, 01:43:22 PM
IJIS:

Unless 2015 drops 5,962 km2 or more tomorrow, 2006 will take over the lowest measured for date.

Indeed. JAXA extent has increase by about 79k km2 over the past two weeks, whereas it decreased by 207k over the two weeks prior to that. Thanks to that growth, it today sits just 204k (1.46%) below February's 2015 max-to-date.

(Having said that, barring some final-week burst of intense ice-making, 2015 has pretty much locked up first place for the March monthly average.)
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Shared Humanity on March 22, 2015, 01:47:18 PM
Is there a chart title other than this?

2% of max extent gone. Lowest as of February 27th, but with a Friday margin of just 68 km2 back to 2006

That title says nothing about graphing the difference from the 2015 value.  It implies that it should be of % difference from maximum extent, though it clearly isn't.  I am only saying this to be helpful here.  Knowing what the graph is of makes it more interesting and informative.

Just thought I would let you know that I find the title of this graph confusing as well. Perhaps viddaloo needs assistance labeling axis on charts.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Shared Humanity on March 22, 2015, 01:50:37 PM
How 'bout that? No other year being continually lowest for more days in a row in the entire first 6 months of the year, and we will know in just 6 1/2 hours. Do you think it's possible?

Even more important, should we care?
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: viddaloo on March 22, 2015, 01:54:32 PM
Indeed. JAXA extent has increase by about 79k km2 over the past two weeks, whereas it decreased by 207k over the two weeks prior to that. Thanks to that growth, it today sits just 204k (1.46%) below February's 2015 max-to-date.

(Having said that, barring some final-week burst of intense ice-making, 2015 has pretty much locked up first place for the March monthly average.)
But not for March net melt! 2015 is only 8th highest to date in March net melt.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Jim Pettit on March 22, 2015, 01:57:39 PM
Indeed. JAXA extent has increase by about 79k km2 over the past two weeks, whereas it decreased by 207k over the two weeks prior to that. Thanks to that growth, it today sits just 204k (1.46%) below February's 2015 max-to-date.

(Having said that, barring some final-week burst of intense ice-making, 2015 has pretty much locked up first place for the March monthly average.)
But not for March net melt! 2015 is only 8th highest to date in March net melt.

True. But extent entered the month already in first place. With that head start, it neither needed to melt as much to stay in first, nor was there as much disappearable ice available.

Crazy year--and it's still only March.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: viddaloo on March 22, 2015, 02:18:46 PM
Yup, and that 23–day lowest is to date one of the most astonishing features of 2015 sea ice, for us happy few who care about that sort of thing.

(http://d22d7v2y1t140g.cloudfront.net/m_13687525_UGyzgDxlDT37.png)
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: viddaloo on March 22, 2015, 03:51:10 PM
I'm happy to say I now join the ranks of Confused Humanity. In my case, I was confused about the end of the year. Some sort of New Year's Eve bug. In any case, 2010 was lowest for 15 days at the end, if you allow January 1st 2011 to be counted as 2010.

(http://d22d7v2y1t140g.cloudfront.net/m_13687856_znA3AqPOlLEx.png)
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Peter Ellis on March 22, 2015, 11:11:44 PM
Is there a chart title other than this?

2% of max extent gone. Lowest as of February 27th, but with a Friday margin of just 68 km2 back to 2006

That title says nothing about graphing the difference from the 2015 value.  {...}

PS: To your question pertaining to the existence of other chart titles than the one featured in the chart, I am sorry that again I will have to disappoint you. There are none in the chart other than the one you can see in the chart.

That's not a title.  A title consists of a few words concisely describing what is being graphed, e.g. "Daily sea ice anomalies relative to 2015 values".

Your graph has no title, however you've taken two sentences that describe the findings (poorly and confusingly) and stuck them in the title field instead of in the main text of the post where they belong.  Rest assured that if you produced such a graph for a class at any university I've taught in, you'd fail.

When called out on this and similar failings, the least you could do is have the grace to learn from what people are saying, rather than being patronising and unpleasant towards them.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: jbatteen on March 23, 2015, 03:17:42 AM
I've been looking for a while but I can't find it.  Is the ignore function implemented on the forum anywhere?  This thread would be a lot more readable without the mysterious graphs.  I can't figure out what they mean either and they contribute nothing to my understanding of the ice.  They take a long time to load on my rural DSL connection too.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: OSweetMrMath on March 23, 2015, 03:51:40 AM
jbatteen,
If you view your Profile, there's an option for "Buddies/Ignore List" under Modify Profile. Not the most obvious place, true.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on March 23, 2015, 05:23:54 AM
IJIS:

13,804,766 km2(March 22, 2015)up 66,389 km2 from previous, 2nd lowest after 2006 (-72,351 km2)
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Lord M Vader on March 23, 2015, 08:18:35 AM
Well, this might be a thriller as the sea ice have about 48 hours more to grow before more unfavorable conditions are taking over and probably slow down any sea ice growth! :-X

What number did IJIS produce for February 15? If my memory is correct we are about 130 000 km2 behind February 15 in extent...

//LMV
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Jim Pettit on March 23, 2015, 11:55:11 AM
Well, this might be a thriller as the sea ice have about 48 hours more to grow before more unfavorable conditions are taking over and probably slow down any sea ice growth! :-X

What number did IJIS produce for February 15? If my memory is correct we are about 130 000 km2 behind February 15 in extent...

//LMV

137,294k km2, to be precise.

That extent rise is the largest one-day increase since 09 February, and the fourth-largest since 16 January. As Espen noted, 2015 is now in 2nd place for the day, ending a consecutive 23-day stretch in first place. IOW, yesterday's increase is kind of a big deal for those of us who remain obsessed with the daily up and down of Arctic sea ice.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Ned W on March 23, 2015, 01:23:50 PM
It'd be kind of nifty if IJIS happened to gain exactly those 137,294k km2 before turning back downward. 

Then 2015 would set not two, but three records:  lowest max, earliest max, and latest max.
 
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: viddaloo on March 23, 2015, 02:51:39 PM
That extent rise is the largest one-day increase since 09 February, and the fourth-largest since 16 January. As Espen noted, 2015 is now in 2nd place for the day, ending a consecutive 23-day stretch in first place. IOW, yesterday's increase is kind of a big deal for those of us who remain obsessed with the daily up and down of Arctic sea ice.

Yesterday's increase can be considered a random deviation from the current trend, can it not? IMO the ocean heat content has proven to us that it's more than capable of serving a 23–day stretch of all–time lows, and the ocean is wearing the trousers here, right? Daily sea ice totals are merely a symptom or consequence.

2011 won last week's melt contest overwhelmingly, first by actually melting ice, which 2015 didn't, and second by melting over 209 thousand square kilometers of it. I'll say now that if this week isn't won equally overwhelmingly by 2015 — when 2011 *gained* 41847 km² — then 2015 will likely finish 4th lowest or higher in September. If we can keep ahead of 2011 losses we may be 3rd or lower.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Siffy on March 23, 2015, 03:23:36 PM
That extent rise is the largest one-day increase since 09 February, and the fourth-largest since 16 January. As Espen noted, 2015 is now in 2nd place for the day, ending a consecutive 23-day stretch in first place. IOW, yesterday's increase is kind of a big deal for those of us who remain obsessed with the daily up and down of Arctic sea ice.

Yesterday's increase can be considered a random deviation from the current trend, can it not? IMO the ocean heat content has proven to us that it's more than capable of serving a 23–day stretch of all–time lows, and the ocean is wearing the trousers here, right? Daily sea ice totals are merely a symptom or consequence.

2011 won last week's melt contest overwhelmingly, first by actually melting ice, which 2015 didn't, and second by melting over 209 thousand square kilometers of it. I'll say now that if this week isn't won equally overwhelmingly by 2015 — when 2011 *gained* 41847 km² — then 2015 will likely finish 4th lowest or higher in September. If we can keep ahead of 2011 losses we may be 3rd or lower.

No weather has always dominated, ocean temperature and air temperature merely set the base line for weather to modify, from a year to year basis weather is what effects the outcome of iceloss/gain.

I don't know how to put this gently but your way of guessing at the end of year melt conditions is nonsensical.

Using your method you will project that 2012 couldn't happen because it's not setting records in the early part of the melt season. You're completely ignoring the actual system in place and just comparing against previous years. This is why you were projecting continued melt lost loss last week and other posters stated that there would be ice gain towards a possible new maximum because they were watching the weather forecasts. You predicted the complete opposite of what happened.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Nightvid Cole on March 23, 2015, 04:33:43 PM
It'd be kind of nifty if IJIS happened to gain exactly those 137,294k km2 before turning back downward. 

Then 2015 would set not two, but three records:  lowest max, earliest max, and latest max.

I highly doubt it, and it looks like this increase is spurious, since it coincides with storm-related "false ice" near Nova Scotia...
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on March 24, 2015, 05:43:43 AM
IJIS:

13,834,885 km2(March 23, 2015)up 30,119 km2 from previous and 2nd lowest for the date.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Jim Pettit on March 24, 2015, 11:42:00 AM
IJIS:

13,834,885 km2(March 23, 2015)up 30,119 km2 from previous and 2nd lowest for the date.

Yep. Just 107k km2 below the 15 February maximum-to-date--and note that extent has increased 129k over the past three days (the largest three-day increase since the second week of February)...
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: themgt on March 24, 2015, 01:18:31 PM
2011 won last week's melt contest overwhelmingly, first by actually melting ice, which 2015 didn't, and second by melting over 209 thousand square kilometers of it. I'll say now that if this week isn't won equally overwhelmingly by 2015 — when 2011 *gained* 41847 km² — then 2015 will likely finish 4th lowest or higher in September. If we can keep ahead of 2011 losses we may be 3rd or lower.

This is becoming like some numerological cargo cult. Please take a step back and try to hear the criticism of many others in this forum that these increasingly arbitrary comparisons and highly specific, unsupportable predictions are unhelpful and distracting to the overall discussion.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: DavidR on March 24, 2015, 01:26:09 PM
IJIS:

13,834,885 km2(March 23, 2015)up 30,119 km2 from previous and 2nd lowest for the date.


Yep. Just 107k km2 below the 15 February maximum-to-date--and note that extent has increased 129k over the past three days (the largest three-day increase since the second week of February)...

I've just noticed that the NSIDC 5 day average shows a strong correlation between the duration of the period when the extent is within 200 K km^2 of the peak and the size of the subsequent melt.

http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1149.msg48538.html#msg48538 (http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1149.msg48538.html#msg48538)

I wonder if the same applies to IJIS/JAXA?
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Ned W on March 24, 2015, 01:57:07 PM
It'd be kind of nifty if IJIS happened to gain exactly those 137,294k km2 before turning back downward. 

Then 2015 would set not two, but three records:  lowest max, earliest max, and latest max.


I highly doubt it, and it looks like this increase is spurious, since it coincides with storm-related "false ice" near Nova Scotia...


What's false about the ice near Nova Scotia?  If you're talking about ice in the Gulf of St Lawrence, and out around the eastern side of Cape Breton, it's quite real.  Here's a MODIS image from a couple of days ago:

(http://i1202.photobucket.com/albums/bb374/ned_ward/modis_novascotia.png) (http://s1202.photobucket.com/user/ned_ward/media/modis_novascotia.png.html)

I also highly doubt that IJIS will exactly tie its February max, but just because the odds of exactly hitting one particular number, to the nearest 1km2, are quite low.

But the increase is not "spurious", it's happened for three days now.  Is it likely to continue?  I dunno, most people here are probably better at interpreting the weather forecast than I am.

In a simplistic statistical sense, 2 of the past 12 years have seen enough increase in ice during the coming week to put us back above the February max.  So ignoring the weather, the odds are about 1 in 6.  Not likely, but not impossible.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Ned W on March 24, 2015, 02:06:36 PM
I've just noticed that the NSIDC 5 day average shows a strong correlation between the duration of the period when the extent is within 200 K km^2 of the peak and the size of the subsequent melt.

[url]http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1149.msg48538.html#msg48538[/url] ([url]http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1149.msg48538.html#msg48538[/url])

I wonder if the same applies to IJIS/JAXA?


What do you mean as a "strong" correlation?  It's based on a small number of points (less than 10) and the r2 value is about 0.4.  Even ignoring the issues that Nightvid Cole pointed out in the other thread, it's not significant even at alpha=0.05.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: viddaloo on March 24, 2015, 02:23:39 PM
At the risk of stepping on some very sore toes when comparing one year to another: 2015 started week 13 with a slightly smaller gain than 2011 and is thus now in the lead for week 13 melt (or lower gains).

(http://d22d7v2y1t140g.cloudfront.net/m_13691230_rRq021nRMSwZ.png)
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: viddaloo on March 24, 2015, 02:52:44 PM
You're completely ignoring the actual system in place and just comparing against previous years.
I don't think I am, so I'd have to say I disagree with you there. In science and elsewhere people often disagree. No big deal.

That said, I do admit I am comparing 2015 to 2011. Didn't know it was a capital crime?

This is why you were projecting continued melt lost loss last week and other posters stated that there would be ice gain towards a possible new maximum because they were watching the weather forecasts. You predicted the complete opposite of what happened.
What's a 'continued melt lost loss'? And where did I project that? I don't think I did, so you may have imagined this.

If my script estimated less gain and more melt based on some stated assumptions, it is obvious that the estimation will be wrong if those assumptions are wrong. If you think an estimate will — or should — always be correct, well, then that's where you should focus your efforts, IMO.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: DavidR on March 24, 2015, 03:00:29 PM
I've just noticed that the NSIDC 5 day average shows a strong correlation between the duration of the period when the extent is within 200 K km^2 of the peak and the size of the subsequent melt.

[url]http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1149.msg48538.html#msg48538[/url] ([url]http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1149.msg48538.html#msg48538[/url])

I wonder if the same applies to IJIS/JAXA?



What do you mean as a "strong" correlation?  It's based on a small number of points (less than 10) and the r2 value is about 0.4.  Even ignoring the issues that Nightvid Cole pointed out in the other thread, it's not significant even at alpha=0.05.


I have to  admit to just eyeballing it,  however its quite clear when  you  plot the points.  My data set only goes back to 2006 so perhaps someone with a longer data set could check it out.
I also checked NSIDC at 300K range rather than 200 and CT Area at 200K and they  all point to a minimum about 1/3 of the way between 2012 and 2007. 

If it  shows for IJIS/Jaxa that would suggest that there may  be something in it.

Given we haven't seen anything else with a good correlation between the max and the min we just have to keep trying.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: seaicesailor on March 24, 2015, 04:37:35 PM
I've just noticed that the NSIDC 5 day average shows a strong correlation between the duration of the period when the extent is within 200 K km^2 of the peak and the size of the subsequent melt.


What do you mean as a "strong" correlation?  It's based on a small number of points (less than 10) and the r2 value is about 0.4.  Even ignoring the issues that Nightvid Cole pointed out in the other thread, it's not significant even at alpha=0.05.

Given we haven't seen anything else with a good correlation between the max and the min we just have to keep trying.

Actually there might be something real behind your (weak) correlation. If in March we have positive arctic oscillation with atlantic-side storms that push ice out toward Fram and Barents, extent will be maintained or even increases. Then if more favorable conditions emerge in April - June, spread ice would be easier to melt. A pretty weak physical explanation but who knows :)
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Nightvid Cole on March 24, 2015, 08:19:47 PM
It'd be kind of nifty if IJIS happened to gain exactly those 137,294k km2 before turning back downward. 

Then 2015 would set not two, but three records:  lowest max, earliest max, and latest max.


I highly doubt it, and it looks like this increase is spurious, since it coincides with storm-related "false ice" near Nova Scotia...


What's false about the ice near Nova Scotia?  If you're talking about ice in the Gulf of St Lawrence, and out around the eastern side of Cape Breton, it's quite real.  Here's a MODIS image from a couple of days ago:

([url]http://i1202.photobucket.com/albums/bb374/ned_ward/modis_novascotia.png[/url]) ([url]http://s1202.photobucket.com/user/ned_ward/media/modis_novascotia.png.html[/url])

I also highly doubt that IJIS will exactly tie its February max, but just because the odds of exactly hitting one particular number, to the nearest 1km2, are quite low.

But the increase is not "spurious", it's happened for three days now.  Is it likely to continue?  I dunno, most people here are probably better at interpreting the weather forecast than I am.

In a simplistic statistical sense, 2 of the past 12 years have seen enough increase in ice during the coming week to put us back above the February max.  So ignoring the weather, the odds are about 1 in 6.  Not likely, but not impossible.


Actually the clouds near the East edge of that image appeared to be picked up by the sensor as ice, not just the actual ice. But now that we have had yet another day of increase I suspect the impact of that may have been fairly small.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Lord M Vader on March 24, 2015, 08:28:07 PM
I think tomorrow will be a very important day! If JAXA doesn't blow the Mad Max we'll be able to call the max definitively as more hostile conditions are underway which will limit ice growth for a couple of days before a more favorable pattern emerge again..

//LMV
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on March 25, 2015, 06:04:58 AM
IJIS:

13,833,407 km2(March 24, 2015)down 1,478 km2 from previous.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on March 26, 2015, 05:55:25 AM
IJIS:

13,854,379 km2(March 25, 2015)up 20,972 km2 from previous, and almost 3rd for the date.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: plg on March 26, 2015, 06:44:37 AM
Interesting. From being the contender for earliest maximum, IJIS now may become the latest maximum: currently only 87681 from the Feb 15 value. Only 2010 peaked later, on March 31. Second latest is/was 2003, on March 21.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Frivolousz21 on March 26, 2015, 09:19:11 AM
The dipole anomaly spreads the ice out.  So don't be surprised if drops stop.

Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: crandles on March 26, 2015, 02:46:43 PM


I have to  admit to just eyeballing it,  however its quite clear when  you  plot the points.  My data set only goes back to 2006 so perhaps someone with a longer data set could check it out.
I also checked NSIDC at 300K range rather than 200 and CT Area at 200K and they  all point to a minimum about 1/3 of the way between 2012 and 2007. 


Using 9 years 2006 to 2014 I get correlation coefficient of 0.718
Using 27 year 1988 to 2014 I get correlation coefficient of -0.02

So it isn't looking good.

Full Duration   Duration   Max-min   Min
76   15   9.148   7.1264
69   19   8.7946   6.9068
76   16   10.1404   6.0364
95   35   9.299   6.3018
92   58   8.3504   7.2088
78   21   9.8024   6.1846
89   36   8.7636   6.9608
94   58   9.331   6.0044
73   21   8.2348   7.191
87   35   9.0062   6.6274
60   10   9.6472   6.3516
99   34   9.8248   5.7574
75   20   9.4604   5.9784
81   24   9.0696   6.6026
79   32   9.9382   5.638
91   32   9.588   6.0072
74   27   9.422   5.7936
76   17   9.6336   5.3186
74   10   8.9086   5.774
76   27   10.6102   4.1544
88   34   10.7106   4.5856
88   24   10.0162   5.1196
96   32   10.6684   4.615
94   39   10.3224   4.3442
95   33   11.9078   3.3866
82   25   10.1126   5.0546
84   12   9.936   5.0284
      
Correlations      
27 years   -0.020099   -0.018116
9 years   0.718128   -0.720108
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: crandles on March 26, 2015, 03:11:56 PM
Correlations with full durations      
27 years   0.2897185737   -0.3143055506
9 years   0.6501882107   -0.5549465041
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Ned W on March 26, 2015, 08:53:44 PM
Interesting. From being the contender for earliest maximum, IJIS now may become the latest maximum: currently only 87681 from the Feb 15 value. Only 2010 peaked later, on March 31. Second latest is/was 2003, on March 21.

I'm still holding out hope for the idea that we'll exactly tie the Feb 15 value, and do it after March 31, thus pulling off a triple record (lowest, earliest, and latest maximum) simultaneously.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: viddaloo on March 26, 2015, 08:59:07 PM
I'm still holding out hope for the idea that we'll exactly tie the Feb 15 value, and do it after March 31, thus pulling off a triple record (lowest, earliest, and latest maximum) simultaneously.

Yup, and equally fun & impossible would be a total disappearance of all Arctic sea ice on April 1st only for the March 31st volume, extent etc to be put back on the 2nd. I won't hold my breath, but the Arctic *is* full of surprises.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: DavidR on March 26, 2015, 09:35:04 PM
Correlations with full durations      
27 years   0.2897185737   -0.3143055506
9 years   0.6501882107   -0.5549465041
Thanks, the hypothesis is not looking so good on those figures.  Still I'll keep an eye on it and see how the year develops. 
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on March 27, 2015, 06:03:14 AM
IJIS:

13,883,904 km2(March 26, 2015)up 29,525 km2 from previus. 3rd lowest for the date.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Ned W on March 27, 2015, 01:10:13 PM
Wow.  This is getting close.   Six more days until 1 April, and we need to gain exactly 58156 km2, or 9693 km2/day.  In the past 16 days we've gained 260136 km2, or an average of 16258 km2/day. 

Or, by linear regression -- the slope of the trend line from 10-26 March is 13490 km2/day.  Projecting the trend forward would have us tie the 15 Feb max sometime between 1 & 2 April.

So in principle this is very do-able.

The dashed red horizontal line is the 15 Feb max.  The black lines are the linear trend from 10-26 March (solid) and extrapolation (dashed).  The red circle is tying the 15 Feb max on 1 April.

(http://i1202.photobucket.com/albums/bb374/ned_ward/ijis_marchtrend.png)

Disclaimer:  I know nothing about the weather forecast.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: iceman on March 27, 2015, 04:31:07 PM
Wow.  This is getting close.   Six more days until 1 April, and we need to gain exactly 58156 km2, or 9693 km2/day.  In the past 16 days we've gained 260136 km2, or an average of 16258 km2/day. 
   ....
Disclaimer:  I know nothing about the weather forecast.

Close enough to be interesting, but remember that the downturn in Barents is about to begin (to be followed soon by Kara), and gains in Bering are about over.  That leaves only an uncertain re-freeze in Baffin/Newfoundland, along with brief blips up in Okhotsk and Greenland seas, to make up the difference in a narrow time window.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: viddaloo on March 27, 2015, 04:50:13 PM
2012 had another century drop yesterday, so is now leading the race with 2 centuries, compared to 2015's 1 and 2007's zero. 2012 also of course leads in total loss during those centuries, with 206918 km2 lost, compared to 2015's 113505.

(http://d22d7v2y1t140g.cloudfront.net/m_13695759_Qp1Ie099QdrM.png)

2015 however still leads in daily extent, although rounded 2007 also has 13.9, with 2012 on a third position with 14.4, after the century drop. Per now, we look set to arrive at a place between 2012 and 2007 in September, based on these stats exclusively.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on March 28, 2015, 08:29:13 AM
IJIS:

13,848,141 km2(March 27, 2015)down 35,763 km2 from previous. 3rd lowest for the date.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: viddaloo on March 28, 2015, 07:54:07 PM
All bow before the 22–day algorithm! It is king.  8)
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on March 29, 2015, 08:01:57 AM
IJIS:

13,775,968 km2(March 28, 2015)down 72,173 km2 from previous and 2nd lowest for the date.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on March 29, 2015, 10:47:51 AM
IJIS:

So the result is: 2015 will be the earliest max. (Feb. 15) and will be the first year not to reach the 14 million mark (13,942,060 km2).
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on March 29, 2015, 11:44:52 AM
Here is the IJIS graph:
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Jim Pettit on March 29, 2015, 02:48:00 PM
IJIS:

So the result is: 2015 will be the earliest max. (Feb. 15) and will be the first year not to reach the 14 million mark (13,942,060 km2).

Agreed. Anyone hesitant to call the IJIS max before today can confidently do so now in light of the two-day, 108k drop.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Nightvid Cole on March 29, 2015, 03:33:22 PM
I'm still a bit curious why the NSIDC max was on Feb 25 despite the IJIS max being on Feb 15. Usually the two agree with each other better than that. What happened this year?
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: crandles on March 29, 2015, 04:43:51 PM
I'm still a bit curious why the NSIDC max was on Feb 25 despite the IJIS max being on Feb 15. Usually the two agree with each other better than that. What happened this year?

NSIDC
Feb 15 14.575
Feb 22 14.595
Feb 25 14.526 (but 5 day average peaks here)

JAXA
Feb 15 13942060
Feb 25 13931097

20k more for later peak on NSIDC
11k more for earlier peak on JAXA

Total swing of 31k doesn't seem that big perhaps well within typical differences that arise? just that this happens to make noticeable date change this year?

Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: ghoti on March 29, 2015, 08:15:41 PM
Now that we are on the melting side of the season I miss the updates to Rob Seke's graphic depicting the days to reach each million km2 milestone. Hasn't been updated since 2012 it seems.

http://s137.photobucket.com/user/Sekerob/media/Climate/ArcticSIEDaysMillionStepMelts.png.html (http://s137.photobucket.com/user/Sekerob/media/Climate/ArcticSIEDaysMillionStepMelts.png.html)

Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: cats on March 29, 2015, 11:01:26 PM
ghoti - found this over on Jim Pettit's climate graph site - https://sites.google.com/site/pettitclimategraphs/sea-ice-area
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: ghoti on March 30, 2015, 04:59:06 AM
Nice thanks! I guess the long term graphs page could be updated to point to that one.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: plg on March 30, 2015, 05:41:59 AM
Note though that the former graph showed extent (NSIDC) and the latter area (Cryosphere).
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on March 30, 2015, 07:22:39 AM
IJIS:

13,724,252 km2(March 29, 2015)down 51,716 km2 from previous and 2nd lowest for the date.

Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Tensor on March 30, 2015, 07:49:45 AM
Espen, thanks for your work getting these numbers out.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: anotheramethyst on March 30, 2015, 09:28:58 AM
cats , ghoti, and jim pettit, thank you for that.  it was also my favorite graph when i first started lurking here (and at that time i had no idea there was a difference between extent and area anyway haha).  i just added that page to my sea ice related bookmarks :)
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on March 31, 2015, 06:23:15 AM
IJIS:

13,695,140 km2(March 30, 2015)down 29,112 km2 from previous.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: viddaloo on March 31, 2015, 09:16:04 AM
Espen, thanks for your work getting these numbers out.

I agree with Tensor and also thank Espen for putting these numbers out. Also, I would be lying if I said I don't envy Espen for actually having people thanking him now and then for his work. I'm absolutely not saying Espen doesn't deserve his praise, just that sometime, some day, one of these years, I hope to acquire a simple thank you, from someone. (Maybe if I pay someone to actually register an account and then come on here to thank me ....)
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: werther on March 31, 2015, 10:55:12 AM
You don't have to pay me, Vid. Your need for attention makes me smile, so thanks. BTW, I like my own words too, no problem. Just be cautious not to scare new readers away with uncomprehensible graphs.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: viddaloo on March 31, 2015, 11:21:05 AM
You don't have to pay me, Vid. Your need for attention makes me smile, so thanks. BTW, I like my own words too, no problem. Just be cautious not to scare new readers away with uncomprehensible graphs.

werther, believe me, I have absolutely no need for attention. I have not made my point very clear. My philosophy is that a hostile or 'icefront' environment may be attractive and creative for certain individuals, but I do not believe that is true for all people. I'm certainly not one of them. For every 100 hostile comments like the one quoted here, I need one friendly comment to be truly happy. I'm sure that's the same for other posters as well, and that I'm not very unique in this way.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: sedziobs on March 31, 2015, 04:50:58 PM
Viddaloo, I have been reading this forum for about two years without posting (just learning), and I feel obligated to share my opinion.  I very much appreciate a few of the things you have brought to the table.  Mostly, I enjoy seeing the annual average ice extent and volume, including pointing out the daily deltas.  That is a fairly original idea that I had not seen elsewhere.  However, I think those graphs can do without the curve-fit extrapolations.  Seeing how short-term extrapolations change on a daily basis doesn't really tell me anything useful.  Also, zooming in so far actually eliminates what I do want to see, which is what the annual average was doing in other years.

As some others have said, I also find your graphs confusing at first, but not too difficult to figure out.  I think part of the issue is that you have a habit of using the title as a place to state your conclusion, rather than simply what data is shown.  I think if you moved your conclusions into a paragraph of text below the graph and labeled your axes with units, your graphs would instantly become more clear.

I don't want to seem like I'm piling on here in my first post, but I have just one more piece of advice.  It seems to me that you like to show a graph that tracks one obscure metric on a daily basis.  Recently it has been daily extent change compared to 2011.  While I'm sure you find that metric very interesting, it might not be to most others (it isn't to me at least).  I don't mind seeing that metric, just not with a new graph almost every day.  Maybe once per week would be better?  Any more than that does start to take away other insights you have.

In summary, I really enjoy everyone's contributions to this forum.  I think it provides the most lively and stimulating climate discussion on the internet.  You add to that without a doubt, Viddaloo, and I thank you for that.  I just wanted to give some advice from a lurker's perspective since it seems you are having some difficulty "fitting in" with the viewpoints and posting styles of others.  You are not alone in this regard (Friv and Michael Hauber have certainly been criticized as well).  Please don't be discouraged, but do listen to what others are saying.  Thanks!
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: seaicesailor on March 31, 2015, 06:07:05 PM
sedziobs, I agree, similar lurker status, however unfair for Friv to be compared with Vid. He has 200 post less than Vid in total, and three melt seasons more in the forum.

Edit: actually Vid, you have more posts than J. Pettit, BFTV, and LMVader together, and getting close to Nevens and Wipneus. You have been posting only for some months. What gives. How can BFTV or JP have 400+ only???? Sorry, but you have hijacked some threads of this forum. It is a distraction such as what a troll would try to achieve.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: sedziobs on March 31, 2015, 06:21:13 PM
sedziobs, I agree, similar lurker status, however unfair for Friv to be compared with Vid. He has 200 post less than Vid in total, and three melt seasons more in the forum.

Indeed, the comparison between Vid and Friv is only that both have had their posting style criticized.  I meant nothing more than that, and I do not intend to compare the merit of individual posters.  I'm simply offering advice for Vid, which he can accept or disregard as he chooses.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: seaicesailor on March 31, 2015, 06:29:23 PM
sedziobs, I agree, similar lurker status, however unfair for Friv to be compared with Vid. He has 200 post less than Vid in total, and three melt seasons more in the forum.

Indeed, the comparison between Vid and Friv is only that both have had their posting style criticized.  I meant nothing more than that, and I do not intend to compare the merit of individual posters.  I'm simply offering advice for Vid, which he can accept or disregard as he chooses.

I think it is beyond advice, see my edit above.
I tried advice days ago.

I dont want to be a policeman, but how to ask for self-moderation and not percieving it for days...
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: seaicesailor on March 31, 2015, 06:41:38 PM
You don't have to pay me, Vid. Your need for attention makes me smile, so thanks. BTW, I like my own words too, no problem. Just be cautious not to scare new readers away with uncomprehensible graphs.

werther, believe me, I have absolutely no need for attention. I have not made my point very clear. My philosophy is that a hostile or 'icefront' environment may be attractive and creative for certain individuals, but I do not believe that is true for all people. I'm certainly not one of them. For every 100 hostile comments like the one quoted here, I need one friendly comment to be truly happy. I'm sure that's the same for other posters as well, and that I'm not very unique in this way.

Werther's "hostile" comment is as good as 100 of others, Ive been reading him for years, he is a great contributor to here and Neven's
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: jbatteen on March 31, 2015, 07:27:01 PM
I don't wanna come down too hard on you viddaloo because your energy and enthusiasm for what you do is apparent, and that's wonderful.  If only everyone in the world could pick something to learn and love that benefits not just themselves but the world around them.  So many people are mindless zombies.  It's 100% obvious to me that your heart is in the right place.

But I would suggest that one's enthusiasm might be better directed at learning and observing as opposed to speculating with great confidence when one is just beginning work in a given field.  Certainty in one's correctness and actual knowledge of a topic are typically negatively correlated.  The more one learns, the more they learn how much they don't actually know.  If one random guy says someone smells like poop, that random guy is probably crazy, but if lots of people say it, one might check their shoe for undiscovered gifts from the dog.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: viddaloo on March 31, 2015, 09:22:21 PM
someone smells like poop, that random guy is probably crazy, but if lots of people say it, one might check their shoe for undiscovered gifts from the dog.

Thanks, jbatteen, that is so nice, and sciency, and I of course apologise for being so spot–on right so early about the JAXA sea ice maximum, that must have hurt a lot of people's feelings, when they were wrong and later had to eat crow and admit I was spot–on when calling it on the 10th.

Being right too soon is indeed socially unacceptable, yet personally I always look to complete newbies and consistently hostile people for advice and guidance in my life, thinking they must either have supreme knowledge as a basis for their extreme vitriol, or otherwise spend their days studying this stuff really hard when they can not afford to write a single word in the forum for years.

I also apologise for being more on–topic and informative than the owner of the forum, whom I've recently been accused of sounding like I am, that must really hurt, too, in a forum that was started in order to keep discussion on–topic.

Yeah, I'm a bad guy for discussing the ice and sharing my plots with people. You are all right, and I am very impressed by your numbers. I'm a numbers guy, after all, and even though your words don't make very much sense, I do fall over backwards by your sheer numbers. Wow. Impressed.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: gideonlow on March 31, 2015, 09:27:00 PM
But I would suggest that one's enthusiasm might be better directed at learning and observing . . . .  Certainty in one's correctness and actual knowledge of a topic are typically negatively correlated.  The more one learns, the more they learn how much they don't actually know. 

These are great words of wisdom. 
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Neven on March 31, 2015, 11:07:42 PM
Thanks, jbatteen, that is so nice, and sciency, and I of course apologise for being so spot–on right so early about the JAXA sea ice maximum, that must have hurt a lot of people's feelings, when they were wrong and later had to eat crow and admit I was spot–on when calling it on the 10th.

Our feelings weren't hurt, vid! We just needed some time to come together and express our admiration for you.

Here we are, all 700+ members of the ASIF:

(http://thechronicleherald.ca/sites/default/files/imagecache/ch_article_main_image/articles/10_prayer.jpg)

Being right too soon is indeed socially unacceptable, yet personally I always look to complete newbies and consistently hostile people for advice and guidance in my life,


No, you don't.  ;D
 
I also apologise for being more on–topic and informative than the owner of the forum, whom I've recently been accused of sounding like I am, that must really hurt, too, in a forum that was started in order to keep discussion on–topic.


It did hurt alright. But on the bright side: I don't have an inferiority complex, because I'm not afraid of being stupid! Helps keep the arrogance and sarcasm in check too. 8)
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Tensor on March 31, 2015, 11:15:44 PM
The more one learns, the more they learn how much they don't actually know. 

Which is why, after following Neven for several years and and reading all the fascinating information here in the forums, I keep my mouth shut.  :)
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: jbatteen on March 31, 2015, 11:19:28 PM
someone smells like poop, that random guy is probably crazy, but if lots of people say it, one might check their shoe for undiscovered gifts from the dog.


Thanks, jbatteen, that is so nice, and sciency,


Did you read the rest of my post?  I made my best effort to offer my criticism as constructively as possible.  The common American figure of speech is "If one person says you smell like shit, he might be crazy, but if lots of people say it, it's time to check your shoe."  I rephrased it to be as gentle as I could and to make the meaning more clear to someone who might not have heard the phrase before.

And, it is actually pretty scientific.  The more independent observers witness the same thing, the more likely that that thing is a real phenomenon worth investigating.

and I of course apologise for being so spot–on right so early about the JAXA sea ice maximum, that must have hurt a lot of people's feelings, when they were wrong and later had to eat crow and admit I was spot–on when calling it on the 10th.


You got lucky.  It was a 50/50 shot and the chips fell in your favor.  You haven't been here long enough to see all of the crow feasted upon by others making similar early calls.

Being right too soon is indeed socially unacceptable, yet personally I always look to complete newbies and consistently hostile people for advice and guidance in my life, thinking they must either have supreme knowledge as a basis for their extreme vitriol, or otherwise spend their days studying this stuff really hard when they can not afford to write a single word in the forum for years.


Maybe those of us with low post counts don't post much because we're here more to learn and observe rather than to seek social acceptance and validation, and don't want to clutter the board with posts that contribute little worthwhile information.  People have been trying to nudge you gently in that direction for some time and it hasn't worked, so at some point we have to drop the subtle hints and tell it like it is.  Frankly I'm upset at myself for cluttering this thread even more with posts unrelated to the ice, but I've done so in an attempt to bring the discussion as a whole back to the topic at hand and make the experience better for everyone.  I've been reading the blog for 4 or 5 years now and been lurking in the forums since their creation.  I could have been posting vigorously since then, but to what end?  Better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt.

I also apologise for being more on–topic and informative than the owner of the forum, whom I've recently been accused of sounding like I am, that must really hurt, too, in a forum that was started in order to keep discussion on–topic.


Are you claiming to be more on-topic and informative than Neven?  Most of Neven's posts have been verifiable observations of the past and present, rather than unsubstantiated speculation about the future.  Just because a post is about the ice doesn't make it on-topic.  You should be grateful to Neven for providing us the opportunity to learn and collaborate worldwide, rather than ragging on him.  If you don't like how he runs the board, I'd encourage you to go start your own.

Yeah, I'm a bad guy for discussing the ice and sharing my plots with people. You are all right, and I am very impressed by your numbers. I'm a numbers guy, after all, and even though your words don't make very much sense, I do fall over backwards by your sheer numbers. Wow. Impressed.


Quantity != quality.  I could make 1000 posts to try to get my post count up towards yours but that would accomplish nothing worthwhile.  You're not a bad guy for discussing the ice and sharing your plots, but one could make a convincing argument that you're a bad guy for continuing to post plots with the same mistakes over and over again after repeated attempts by other posters to get you to improve.  Titles on a graph need to describe the data contained within, not state the conclusion drawn from the data.  This isn't something we magically came up with.  These are generally accepted standard practices for labelling graphs in the scientific community.

: [url]http://www.ehow.com/way_5195234_proper-way-label-graph.html[/url]
Place a title on the graph, which is important because it summarizes what the graph is showing. The title is usually placed in the center, either above or below the graph. The title of the graph should be in terms of what the x and y axes represent. The proper form is "y-axis variable vs. x-axis variable." For example, if you were comparing the the amount of fertilizer to how much a plant grew, the amount of fertilizer would be the independent, or x-axis variable and the growth would be the dependent, or y-axis variable. Therefore, your title would be "Amount of Fertilizer vs. Plant Growth."
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Sleepy on April 01, 2015, 06:24:11 AM
Thought I landed in the wrong thread. Espen, are you still here? :)
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on April 01, 2015, 06:34:33 AM
IJIS:

13,665,311 km2(March 31, 2015)down 29,829 km2 from previous.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: jplotinus on April 01, 2015, 01:31:04 PM
Thought I landed in the wrong thread. Espen, are you still here? :)

Me too, sleepy. However, the diversion may have served the purpose of confirming the forum is a tolerant place to discuss and present exquisite data and information on a crucial indicator of planetary [ill]-health.

It's all good :)
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: OldLeatherneck on April 01, 2015, 07:38:26 PM
Near-Term Arctic Ice Loss Projections (Commonly Known as Wild Ass Guesses)

(http://i1269.photobucket.com/albums/jj597/OldLeatherNeck/Arctic%20sea%20ice%20extent%2031%20March%202015_zpsihrskxwm.jpg)

The chart above is a model that I have developed, using only the statistical data from 2003 to 2014, with the months from March 1st to September 15th broken into 15 or 16 day periods.  I'm plotting 5 projected scenarios from the current date.  The two extreme high/low projections use the record high and low losses for each period respectively.  The remaining three projections use average loss plus 10%, average loss and average loss minus 10%.  The tables below show the data I am using for the entire month of April and the first half of May.

In no case am I trying to make any absolute predictions as to what will happen in the near future, only what kind of performance relative to previous years historical performance is required to keep 2015's Extent within the range of the previous record years of 2007, 2011 and 2012. Neither am I using any current weather predictions, nor am I factoring in the current state if the ice in any of the Arctic regions.  I'll let people far smarter and more experienced than I am factor those elements into any predictions of the near-term future of the Arctic ice.  I’m so glad Frivolous is back commenting again with his enlightening Arctic weather forecasts.  As far as my aging grey matter is concerned, meteorological charts are nothing more than colorful Rorschach Tests.

At best, my model is a "GUESStimator" rather than a scientific predictor.  All though I will stick my neck out so far as to say that I believe that 2015 will still be below 2007,2011 and 2012 on May 15th.  However, without some well above average losses in the next 6-7 weeks, 2015 may not have enough of a lead over 2012 to be able to end up with a new record low extent in September.

April 1-15     
 AVG Loss       526,335   
 MAX Loss    1,080,605        2004
 MIN Loss        278,712        2006

April 16-30     
 AVG Loss      631,407   
 MAX Loss      891,819         2012
 MIN Loss      389,601          2007

May 1-15     
 AVG Loss     752,250 
 MAX Loss   1,124,280         2010
 MIN Loss     523,321          2013
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: jdallen on April 01, 2015, 08:19:23 PM
Not sure how you see that, OL.  Seems to me that even 10% below average losses keep 2015 ahead of 2012.

I think the key juncture will be in mid May.  I think if we get good feedbacks and cool weather, the year will end up close to or just above 2011.

Average, we will pass 2007 and threaten the 2012 record.

If El Niño makes itself felt, and we get a positive AO consistently, the melt should blow well past 2012. I posted my own guesstimates about that a while back.  Nothing's jumped out at me suggesting I should change my assumptions, but it's still way early:

http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1149.msg46531.html#msg46531 (http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1149.msg46531.html#msg46531)
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: themgt on April 01, 2015, 08:41:56 PM
Thanks for the chart/commentary, OL - I'd be curious to see what that looks like if you re-ran the numbers for 2007->2014 only.

BTW slightly off-topic, but (as a computer programmer) I've been thinking this forum ought to have a GitHub organization where people can post source code/documents about how to generate these various homebrew analyses/graphs/etc - would you guys be interested in open sourcing the code?
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: OldLeatherneck on April 01, 2015, 08:44:02 PM
Not sure how you see that, OL.  Seems to me that even 10% below average losses keep 2015 ahead of 2012.

I think the key juncture will be in mid May.  I think if we get good feedbacks and cool weather, the year will end up close to or just above 2011.

Average, we will pass 2007 and threaten the 2012 record.

If El Niño makes itself felt, and we get a positive AO consistently, the melt should blow well past 2012. I posted my own guesstimates about that a while back.  Nothing's jumped out at me suggesting I should change my assumptions, but it's still way early:

[url]http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1149.msg46531.html#msg46531[/url] ([url]http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1149.msg46531.html#msg46531[/url])


jdallen,

I agree that even 10% below average losses for the next 6-7 weeks will keep 2015 below 2012.  My concern is that 2012 had three semi-monthly record losses (June 1-15, August 1-15 and August 16-31), as well as well above average losses in all but one  of the remaining  semi-monthly periods.

For 2012 to have a reasonable chance of surpassing 2012, it needs to establish and maintain a substantial lead before solar insolation reaches it's maximum
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on April 02, 2015, 08:20:43 AM
IJIS:

13,647,655 km2(April 1, 2015)down 17,656 km2 from previous, 2nd lowest for date 2006 lower at 13,610,775 km2 (-36,880 km2).
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: viddaloo on April 02, 2015, 08:43:43 PM
IJIS:

13,647,655 km2(April 1, 2015)down 17,656 km2 from previous, 2nd lowest for date 2006 lower at 13,610,775 km2 (-36,880 km2).

And drop of only 16,899 km² needed on April 2nd to be lower than 2006 and all else. All previous drops this week have been bigger.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on April 04, 2015, 11:04:47 AM
IJIS:

Sorry for the interruption, wi-fi problems in Hamburg, Germany.

13,610,885 km2(April 2, 2015)down 36,770 km2 from previous, and lowest (again) for the date.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on April 04, 2015, 11:06:03 AM
And IJIS is having a break from April 3 :(
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: viddaloo on April 04, 2015, 02:23:17 PM
And IJIS is having a break from April 3 :(

Holiday on Ice?  ;D
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Ned W on April 07, 2015, 04:22:13 PM
There seems to be a new version of the IJIS csv file now, with revised numbers.  IJIS so far this month:

1 Apr:  13638921 down 19219 from previous
2 Apr:  13595387 down 43534 from previous
3 Apr:  13544795 down 50592 from previous
4 Apr:  13504260 down 40535 from previous
5 Apr:  13492824 down 11436 from previous
6 Apr:  13445888 down 46936 from previous

Max extent for 2015 is 13942060, so the most recent extent is down 496172 from the max.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on April 07, 2015, 04:24:32 PM
IJIS:

13,445,888 km2(April 6, 2015)the lowest measured for this date.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Lord M Vader on April 07, 2015, 07:08:53 PM
Espen & Co: where do I find the new data from IJIS?

//LMV
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on April 07, 2015, 07:12:33 PM
Espen & Co: where do I find the new data from IJIS?

//LMV

Here you are: https://ads.nipr.ac.jp/vishop/vishop-extent.html?N
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Lord M Vader on April 07, 2015, 07:31:09 PM
Thx Espen! :)

Did some fun calculating with the IJIS numbers.. From April 6 to April 30 the melting during the years 2003-2014 have been in the range of 0,72-1,27 million km2. The lowest values are  roughly from 2009 (-0,72), 2005 (-0,73) and 2007 (-0,78) while the highest are from 2003-2004 with -1,25 and -1,27 million km2.

These numbers indicates that the SIE number at April 30 most likely will be the lowest on record for the date. Only if we end up with a very slow melting like 2009 and 2005 we won't have the lowest SIE on record for April 30.

//LMV
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: viddaloo on April 07, 2015, 09:54:21 PM
2014/15 with 9.06 m km² saw the lowest refreeze since the 2006/7 freeze season, and also the 2nd biggest failure to keep up with same–year summer melt (after 2010/11).

Notice also in particular how closely refreeze follows same–year melt (and not the opposite):

(http://d22d7v2y1t140g.cloudfront.net/m_13714072_J3fGVtFPdsHE.png)

2014 also had the lowest summer extent melt since 2006, but thanks to the subsequent bad freeze, we're lower than ever at the winter maximum in February. If we were to beat 2012 summer melt with half a million and barely break the chart, autumn minimum extent would be at 1.94 m km².

Other remarkable tidbits: Freeze has only twice been significantly higher than preceding melt; in 2007/8 and 2011/12. If we get a record 12 m km² melt this year, will refreeze be able to almost follow, as it did in 2012/13? I highly doubt it, following this winter. I'm also almost positive it won't be higher, but the Arctic is full of surprises.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on April 08, 2015, 06:10:10 AM
IJIS:

13,409,765 km2(April 7, 2015)down 36,123 km2 from previous and lowest measured for the date.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on April 09, 2015, 06:12:48 AM
IJIS:

13,387,030 km2(April 8, 2015)down 22,735 km2 from previous.
 2nd lowest for the date (2006 -27,236 km2)
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on April 10, 2015, 06:23:22 AM
IJIS:

13,415,661 km2(April 9, 2015)up 28,631 km2 from previous and 2nd lowest for the date.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: viddaloo on April 10, 2015, 03:40:25 PM
Late maximum, Neven?  ;D
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Siffy on April 10, 2015, 04:08:30 PM
Late maximum, Neven?  ;D

 >:( Really Vid?
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: viddaloo on April 10, 2015, 04:35:03 PM
I was talking to Neven, Siffy. Really talking to Neven, if you will. I should add that there's no reason for even other people to go online to ask me if I'm really talking to Neven, because I am, and I already told Siffy that I really am doing that. This means I really am doing that even if other people ask me the same question. I'm sure most of you understand this, but there are a few people everywhere who really demand you take a fresh look at information and knowledge about our world. I choose to view them as challenges, not problems :)
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Siffy on April 10, 2015, 05:21:45 PM
 ::)

I see your attempts at being obtuse know literally no bounds. Your chiding of Neven in your previous post is rather obviously what I was getting at.

Mind you I shouldn't be surprised you responded as you did.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: viddaloo on April 10, 2015, 05:38:52 PM
You don't have to be THAT angry everytime someone makes a joke. It sounds like you want to level all of Norway with a rain of nuclear bombs just to get at me for writing that tiny little joke. That's overkill, Siffy. Grab a beer :)
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Neven on April 10, 2015, 05:59:32 PM
Late maximum, Neven?  ;D

I never said it would happen, I said it was possible. I'm not sure if you noticed, but all it would've taken was 59K km2 for the second peak to be higher than the first peak. Did you know all this when you valiantly called the max?  ;D
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: viddaloo on April 10, 2015, 06:44:53 PM
Espen was 5 days ahead of me and thus 5 days more valiant, Neven  ;)

I felt slow & conservative then, but to be sure (statistically), I had to wait 22 days. No winter max has ever come after the previous preliminary max was not beaten for 22 days (or more than 22, I can't remember exactly).

With the 'long plateaus' being highlighted as a new trend and something we must expect more of in the near future, however, the 22–day rule-of-thumb is likely to become invalid, and changed into an n–day rule–of–thumb, which takes the usefulness out of such a rule with the same.

Who needs a rule that says 'it can't take more than 22 days except when it does take more'? Again: Bad Arctic.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: viddaloo on April 10, 2015, 06:58:43 PM
Just for the record: This is 2015's first little uptick after we left the Plateau. All the other years in the Plateau Plot have either had the uptick already or will have it from Thursday to Friday (today).

(http://guymcpherson.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3195.0;attach=343;image)
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Peter Ellis on April 10, 2015, 09:34:58 PM
Can someone remind me how to ignore people on this site?  PM to avoid mucking up the thread.  Thanks.

Edit:  You go to "Profile", and then under "My Profile" there's an option to edit your Buddy and Ignore lists.  This should hopefully be the direct link.

http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php?action=profile;area=lists;sa=ignore;u=68 (http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php?action=profile;area=lists;sa=ignore;u=68)
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on April 10, 2015, 09:59:55 PM
Please!!!
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Shared Humanity on April 11, 2015, 01:39:13 AM
Can someone remind me how to ignore people on this site?  PM to avoid mucking up the thread.  Thanks.

Edit:  You go to "Profile", and then under "My Profile" there's an option to edit your Buddy and Ignore lists.  This should hopefully be the direct link.

[url]http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php?action=profile;area=lists;sa=ignore;u=68[/url] ([url]http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php?action=profile;area=lists;sa=ignore;u=68[/url])


Thank you.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: seaicesailor on April 11, 2015, 02:19:27 AM
Ok being a newbie and so risking to sound paternalist or patronizing but Vid moderate contributer lately (thanks man) so I get a bit of a rash now when sistematically a negative response appears. The comment to Neven was harmless. Why not chilling out in general? Then  mucking up will not happen. Just saying
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on April 11, 2015, 09:27:11 AM
IJIS:

13,432,330 km2(April 10, 2015)up 16,669 km2 from previous and 2nd lowest for the date.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on April 12, 2015, 09:27:46 AM
IJIS:

13,446,594 km2(April 11, 2015)up 14,264 km2 from previous and 3rd lowest, 2006 and 2007 was lower for date.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: DavidR on April 12, 2015, 11:37:00 AM
Woow ! It's a rebound! The world is not coming to  an end!
Or I've had a few drinks and pretending to  be a denier ;D
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Gray-Wolf on April 12, 2015, 06:08:54 PM
Woow ! It's a rebound! The world is not coming to  an end!
Or I've had a few drinks and pretending to  be a denier ;D

I too find a couple of good Malts and I can also ignore things  even if they happen to be right under my nose....... and that if I screw my eyes up tight  any graph can be made to support anything I want it to!.........

I do recall a chappie showing a ball bouncing off down hill as a way to better envisage Arctic 'rebound'?
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: viddaloo on April 12, 2015, 06:22:20 PM
David, the correlation between alcohol consumption and climate change denial is statistically insignificant. What you have 'revealed' is just noise (and booze).
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on April 13, 2015, 05:23:23 AM
IJIS:

13,443,962 km2(April 12, 2015)down 2,632 km2 4th lowest for for the date 2004, 2006 and 2007 was lower.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Nick_Naylor on April 13, 2015, 02:57:11 PM
David, the correlation between alcohol consumption and climate change denial is statistically insignificant.

True, but the correlation between right-wing Kool Aid consumption and climate change denial is practically perfect :o
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: DungeonMaster on April 14, 2015, 12:40:05 AM
David, the correlation between alcohol consumption and climate change denial is statistically insignificant.


True, but the correlation between right-wing Kool Aid consumption and climate change denial is practically perfect :o


Kool-aid theory was treated by Professor Inferno as soon as 2012: http://denialdepot.blogspot.com/2012/10/a-new-theory-of-climate.html (http://denialdepot.blogspot.com/2012/10/a-new-theory-of-climate.html)

We miss you, Professor.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on April 14, 2015, 05:42:50 AM
IJIS:

13,443,635 km2(April 13, 2015)down 327 km2 from previous 4th lowest for for the date 2004, 2006 and 2007 was lower.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on April 15, 2015, 06:02:30 AM
IJIS:

13,402,324 km2(April 14, 2015)down 41,311 km2 from previous  4th lowest for for the date 2004, 2006 and 2007 was lower.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: jdallen on April 15, 2015, 06:10:53 AM
IJIS:

13,402,324 km2(April 14, 2015)down 41,311 km2 from previous  4th lowest for for the date 2004, 2006 and 2007 was lower.
Intuition sez... watch for significant up-coming losses in the Hudson, Greenland, Barents and Kara seas.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on April 16, 2015, 06:10:23 AM
IJIS:

13,355,159 km2(April 15, 2015)down 47,165 km2 from previous 4th lowest for for the date 2004, 2006 and 2007 was lower.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on April 17, 2015, 06:14:24 AM
IJIS:

13,362,077 km2(April 16, 2015)up 6,918 km2 from previous 5th lowest for for the date 2004, 2006, 2007 and 2014 was lower.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on April 18, 2015, 05:26:04 AM
IJIS:

13,363,066 km2(April 17, 2015)up 989 km2 from previous 5th lowest for for the date 2004, 2006, 2007 and 2014 was lower.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Jim Pettit on April 18, 2015, 01:49:13 PM
IJIS:

13,363,066 km2(April 17, 2015)up 989 km2 from previous 5th lowest for for the date 2004, 2006, 2007 and 2014 was lower.
SIE has dropped all of 24k over the past 9 days, a period which on average (2010-2015) sees a loss of about 280k km2. However, 2015 is still >250k below the 2010-15 average. And keep in mind that the current calendar decade has tended to see greater extent in the 3rd and 4th weeks of April than was experienced in the 2000-2009 decade; the current decade's average extent doesn't differentiate itself much from the previous decade until May is well and truly underway.

Now, how much longer this "bench" will last is anyone's guess...
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on April 19, 2015, 09:14:10 AM
IJIS:

13,343,616 km2(April 18, 2015)down 19,450 km2 from previous 5th lowest for for the date 2004, 2006, 2007 and 2014 was lower.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: DavidR on April 19, 2015, 09:55:45 AM
IJIS:

13,363,066 km2(April 17, 2015)up 989 km2 from previous 5th lowest for for the date 2004, 2006, 2007 and 2014 was lower.
SIE has dropped all of 24k over the past 9 days, a period which on average (2010-2015) sees a loss of about 280k km2. However, 2015 is still >250k below the 2010-15 average. And keep in mind that the current calendar decade has tended to see greater extent in the 3rd and 4th weeks of April than was experienced in the 2000-2009 decade; the current decade's average extent doesn't differentiate itself much from the previous decade until May is well and truly underway.

Now, how much longer this "bench" will last is anyone's guess...

According to Wipneus ( http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,382.msg50237.html#msg50237 (http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,382.msg50237.html#msg50237)) there has been a late increase in area and extent in the North Pacific masking continued drops in the main arctic basin.  Neven posted,  (http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1149.msg50444.html#msg50444 (http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1149.msg50444.html#msg50444)) suggesting a wave of warmer air is moving into the North Pacific in the next week so the rise in that  area should be reversed and I  expect the decline will become fairly  rapid within a week.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: jdallen on April 19, 2015, 11:07:16 AM
IJIS:

<snippage>

Now, how much longer this "bench" will last is anyone's guess...

According to Wipneus ( [url]http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,382.msg50237.html#msg50237[/url] ([url]http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,382.msg50237.html#msg50237[/url])) there has been a late increase in area and extent in the North Pacific masking continued drops in the main arctic basin.  Neven posted,  ([url]http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1149.msg50444.html#msg50444[/url] ([url]http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1149.msg50444.html#msg50444[/url])) suggesting a wave of warmer air is moving into the North Pacific in the next week so the rise in that  area should be reversed and I  expect the decline will become fairly  rapid within a week.


It had to get cold because two weeks ago I thought (and said as much) that I thought it would be improbable for the Bering ice to last much more than another 10 days.  It had to embarrass me first before succumbing. ;)
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: crandles on April 19, 2015, 11:23:29 AM
I thought it would be improbable for the Bering ice to last much more than another 10 days.  It had to embarrass me first before succumbing. ;)

I have thought that in a previous year. I think Chukchi ice keeps flowing out to keep the Bering ice level up.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on April 20, 2015, 05:26:56 AM
IJIS:

13,325,420 km2(April 19, 2015)down 18,196 km2 from previous 5th lowest for for the date 2004, 2006, 2007 and 2014 was lower.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on April 21, 2015, 06:05:24 AM
IJIS:

13,292,956 km2(April 20, 2015)down 32,464 km2 from previous 5th lowest for for the date 2004, 2006, 2007 and 2014 was lower.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on April 22, 2015, 06:22:26 AM
IJIS:

13,311,231 km2(April 21, 2015)up 18,275 km2  from previous 5th lowest for for the date 2004, 2006, 2007 and 2014 was lower.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on April 23, 2015, 05:48:52 AM
IJIS:

13,302,595 km2(April 22, 2015)down 8,836 km2  from previous 6th lowest for for the date 2004, 2006, 2007,2009 and 2014 was lower.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on April 24, 2015, 06:15:01 AM
IJIS:

13,212,400 km2(April 23, 2015)down 90,195 km2 from previous 5th lowest  for for the date 2004, 2006, 2007 and 2014 was lower.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: andy_t_roo on April 24, 2015, 12:40:57 PM
(April 23, 2015)down 90,195 km2

do you know what the earliest century break has been?
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Jim Pettit on April 24, 2015, 02:19:26 PM
(April 23, 2015)down 90,195 km2

do you know what the earliest century break has been?
There've been a number of earlier ones. There were March century breaks in 2003, 2004, 2009, 2012, and 2014; 2004 experienced four in a five-day stretch in early April. Even last year saw one on April 16. IOW, they're unusual, but by no means unheard of...
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: seaicesailor on April 24, 2015, 03:19:26 PM
2015 had one by late Feb if I remember Vid's calendar-like figures well.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: DavidR on April 24, 2015, 04:35:27 PM
(April 23, 2015)down 90,195 km2

do you know what the earliest century break has been?
There've been a number of earlier ones. There were March century breaks in 2003, 2004, 2009, 2012, and 2014; 2004 experienced four in a five-day stretch in early April. Even last year saw one on April 16. IOW, they're unusual, but by no means unheard of...
In the NSIDC record there has been 5 century  breaks  this year  28 th Mar, 24 Mar, 17 Mar, 5 Mar, 17th Feb.  I  suggest this is due to the mobility of fractured ice rather than any  real melt.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: jdallen on April 24, 2015, 05:19:44 PM
(April 23, 2015)down 90,195 km2

do you know what the earliest century break has been?
There've been a number of earlier ones. There were March century breaks in 2003, 2004, 2009, 2012, and 2014; 2004 experienced four in a five-day stretch in early April. Even last year saw one on April 16. IOW, they're unusual, but by no means unheard of...
In the NSIDC record there has been 5 century  breaks  this year  28 th Mar, 24 Mar, 17 Mar, 5 Mar, 17th Feb.  I  suggest this is due to the mobility of fractured ice rather than any  real melt.

Concur.  The heat to produce actual melt hasn't been there, Even with the incredible persistent positive temperature anomalies. 

I think the impact of that heat won't be seen until mid summer.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Lennart van der Linde on April 25, 2015, 08:28:59 AM
century break today: 13,110,194 km2(April 24, 2015), down 102k
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: plg on April 25, 2015, 09:55:35 AM
Some irrelevant statistics regarding downward century breaks:

There has been in total 836 single century breaks in the NSIDC records, 56 double century breaks, 3 triple century breaks (2007-07-01, 2009-07-01, 2013-07-01) and one quadruple (400.48 on 2005-07-21).

Per month data:
Jan12
Feb23
Mar43
Apr83
May80
Jun157
Jul312
Aug163
Sep13
Oct0
Nov4
Dec6

So, as pointed out they are mildly unusual, but not rare. Assuming an even distribution there would be on average slightly less than one in February, a little over one in March and almost two in April. However, the distribution over the years is far from even, but there is not an obvious trend either:

 1987 │    16
 1988 │    35
 1989 │    28
 1990 │    42
 1991 │    29
 1992 │    28
 1993 │    39
 1994 │    31
 1995 │    28
 1996 │    25
 1997 │    38
 1998 │    24
 1999 │    41
 2000 │    35
 2001 │    24
 2002 │    34
 2003 │    35
 2004 │    31
 2005 │    26
 2006 │    33
 2007 │    42
 2008 │    42
 2009 │    38
 2010 │    27
 2011 │    42
 2012 │    49
 2013 │    29
 2015 │     5
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: plg on April 25, 2015, 10:01:35 AM
I should add that before July 1987 the NSIDC data is only recorded every two days making day by day comparison impossible, so the statistics in my post only covers from 1987 to present.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on April 25, 2015, 10:31:52 AM
IJIS:

13,110,194 km2(April 24, 2015)down 102,206 km2 from previous, first real Century of the season.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Jim Pettit on April 25, 2015, 01:46:09 PM
Today is a slightly interesting anniversary of sorts: yesterday's reading of 13,110,194 km2 marks the 100th consecutive day that JAXA extent has started with the number 13. That is, since the number climbed out of the 12s on January 15, it has stayed between 13,000,000 and 13,999,999 (with an average of 13,599,071, a median of 13,659,812, and a standard deviation of 228,485).

How's that for a plateau?

I haven't looked back to see how unusual it is for any of the ice metrics to stay in such a relatively narrow range for such an extended period, though I suspect such a thing probably falls into the "unusual but not rare" category.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Buddy on April 25, 2015, 02:14:24 PM
Jim:  Nice post.  Yes....this has been a very nice plateau indeed.

In financial markets...plateau's are "resting periods"....and then they break (either up or down).  In financial markets....just as in nature....it is the underlying FUNDAMENTALS that cause the subsequent "break".

The underlying fundamentals of the Arctic ice sheet....are poor indeed.  And the coming break over the coming months...is likely to be significant.  NOT, because the technicals say so....but because of the deteriorating fundamentals:

1)  Thinner ice
2)  Crappier ice
3)  Darker ice
4)  Warming waters all around the Arctic
5)  etc...etc...etc..

Warm anomaly's have been present in the Arctic....and of note is a "three fingered prong" that has been jutting out from the northern shore of Russia into the central Arctic.  With warming waters now "attacking" the ice from three sides (Bering Strait, Svalbard, and Russian coast)....it should prove to be an interesting ice melt season.


Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: pikaia on April 25, 2015, 03:31:57 PM
3 triple century breaks (2007-07-01, 2009-07-01, 2013-07-01) and one quadruple (400.48 on 2005-07-21).
I think those three triple century breaks, all on July 1, are an artefact. I seem to remember something about a change to the method of dealing with melt ponds that is applied on that date. Dunno about the quadruple century though.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on April 26, 2015, 06:21:55 AM
IJIS:

12,998,194 km2(April 25, 2015)down 112,000 km2 from previous and 3rd lowest.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: DavidR on April 26, 2015, 07:41:25 AM
Today is a slightly interesting anniversary of sorts: yesterday's reading of 13,110,194 km2 marks the 100th consecutive day that JAXA extent has started with the number 13. That is, since the number climbed out of the 12s on January 15, it has stayed between 13,000,000 and 13,999,999 (with an average of 13,599,071, a median of 13,659,812, and a standard deviation of 228,485).

How's that for a plateau?

I haven't looked back to see how unusual it is for any of the ice metrics to stay in such a relatively narrow range for such an extended period, though I suspect such a thing probably falls into the "unusual but not rare" category.
100 and OUT!! Sounds like a score worthy of a cricketer.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: plg on April 26, 2015, 08:18:28 AM
3 triple century breaks (2007-07-01, 2009-07-01, 2013-07-01) and one quadruple (400.48 on 2005-07-21).
I think those three triple century breaks, all on July 1, are an artifact. I seem to remember something about a change to the method of dealing with melt ponds that is applied on that date. Dunno about the quadruple century though.

Yes, it is quite possibly and artifact. Although it is fun to follow the day to day changes and get excited by "century breaks" (in itself an artifact of using the SI system and the fact that we have ten fingers...), it is really only meaningful to look at least at 3 or 5 day averages.

But still, the daily excitement is enjoyable.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Lord M Vader on April 26, 2015, 09:46:42 AM
Some things of interest:

1) how many double century breaks have there been in a row in April by history?

2) The streak of 100 days of a plateau is no longer due to the double century break :)

3) The sea ice in Beaufort Sea is very fragile an if current weather conditions continue there there is a possibility of another century break...

4) The lowest SIE per April 30 (IJIS-number) is: 12,66 Million km2. By April 25 we are at 12,998 Million km2

//LMV
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Neven on April 26, 2015, 10:22:27 AM
100 and OUT!! Sounds like a score worthy of a cricketer.

A large-scale century break.  ;D
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on April 26, 2015, 12:03:14 PM
IJIS April 25 2015:
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: plg on April 26, 2015, 03:30:39 PM
Some things of interest:

1) how many double century breaks have there been in a row in April by history?

...

//LMV

I checked the NSIDC data (the IJIS only goes back to 2002 from what I can see). Interestingly, there are 709 instances where the two day drop has been > 200k (but both days are not necessarily > 100k).

For April there are 48 instances, with consecutive dates in red:


    date    │  extent  │ extent-2 │  drop   
────────────┼──────────┼──────────┼─────────
 1981-04-03 │ 15.18818 │ 15.40125 │ 0.21307
 1982-04-08 │ 15.55487 │ 15.80664 │ 0.25177
 1983-04-13 │ 15.26057 │ 15.51001 │ 0.24944
 1983-04-19 │ 14.82370 │ 15.04285 │ 0.21915
 1984-04-29 │ 14.33897 │ 14.56120 │ 0.22223
 1985-04-02 │ 15.52746 │ 15.73408 │ 0.20662
 1988-04-24 │ 14.59335 │ 14.87773 │ 0.28438
 1988-04-25 │ 14.58083 │ 14.78621 │ 0.20538
 1989-04-02 │ 14.96302 │ 15.21003 │ 0.24701
 1989-04-14 │ 14.29771 │ 14.55815 │ 0.26044
 1989-04-19 │ 13.96938 │ 14.19021 │ 0.22083
 1990-04-09 │ 14.99265 │ 15.34256 │ 0.34991
 1990-04-10 │ 14.85093 │ 15.21384 │ 0.36291
 1990-04-17 │ 14.35502 │ 14.57726 │ 0.22224
 1990-04-18 │ 14.26717 │ 14.51632 │ 0.24915
 1990-04-28 │ 13.80480 │ 14.00734 │ 0.20254
 1991-04-11 │ 14.95285 │ 15.15567 │ 0.20282
 1992-04-25 │ 14.28646 │ 14.49561 │ 0.20915
 1993-04-23 │ 14.75003 │ 14.97856 │ 0.22853
 1993-04-27 │ 14.45348 │ 14.69815 │ 0.24467
 1993-04-28 │ 14.35153 │ 14.66419 │ 0.31266
 1994-04-30 │ 14.24272 │ 14.46199 │ 0.21927
 1995-04-02 │ 15.07057 │ 15.32148 │ 0.25091
 1995-04-05 │ 14.86086 │ 15.06438 │ 0.20352
 1996-04-02 │ 14.66615 │ 14.94301 │ 0.27686
 1996-04-03 │ 14.58657 │ 14.78949 │ 0.20292
 1996-04-30 │ 13.58667 │ 13.83761 │ 0.25094
 1997-04-09 │ 14.87216 │ 15.11729 │ 0.24513
 1997-04-10 │ 14.74525 │ 15.03213 │ 0.28688
 1998-04-11 │ 14.97054 │ 15.22575 │ 0.25521
 1999-04-20 │ 14.72174 │ 15.02483 │ 0.30309
 1999-04-21 │ 14.67977 │ 14.89755 │ 0.21778
 2000-04-08 │ 14.74762 │ 14.96203 │ 0.21441
 2000-04-12 │ 14.50846 │ 14.80252 │ 0.29406
 2000-04-17 │ 14.24058 │ 14.44884 │ 0.20826
 2003-04-02 │ 15.03588 │ 15.32751 │ 0.29163
 2003-04-03 │ 14.97488 │ 15.19574 │ 0.22086
 2003-04-18 │ 14.28842 │ 14.51150 │ 0.22308
 2004-04-11 │ 14.08183 │ 14.36928 │ 0.28745
 2004-04-12 │ 13.93136 │ 14.29346 │ 0.36210
 2004-04-13 │ 13.85714 │ 14.08183 │ 0.22469
 2006-04-28 │ 13.34867 │ 13.58795 │ 0.23928
 2008-04-16 │ 14.23034 │ 14.43917 │ 0.20883
 2011-04-04 │ 14.30802 │ 14.51392 │ 0.20590
 2012-04-27 │ 14.12592 │ 14.32657 │ 0.20065
 2012-04-29 │ 13.89670 │ 14.12592 │ 0.22922
 2012-04-30 │ 13.76016 │ 14.04714 │ 0.28698
 2015-04-24 │ 13.73900 │ 14.00300 │ 0.26400


So, for April there has been six 2-day sequences, and 1 3-day sequence.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: plg on April 26, 2015, 03:43:53 PM
I checked the IJIS data as well, which goes back to mid 2002, and there are far lesser 2 day drops over 200k, possibly because there are holes in the data:

    date    │  extent  │ extent-2 │  drop 
────────────┼──────────┼──────────┼────────
 2004-04-10 │ 13689205 │ 13900370 │ 211165
 2004-04-11 │ 13559823 │ 13843717 │ 283894
 2004-04-12 │ 13432157 │ 13689205 │ 257048
 2008-04-17 │ 13631785 │ 13838156 │ 206371
 2012-04-26 │ 13436906 │ 13666921 │ 230015
 2012-04-27 │ 13336421 │ 13560700 │ 224279
 2013-04-15 │ 13644681 │ 13850285 │ 205604
 2013-04-25 │ 13122691 │ 13355209 │ 232518
 2013-04-26 │ 13041164 │ 13255463 │ 214299
 2015-04-25 │ 12998194 │ 13212400 │ 214206



While preparing this I realized I made a blunder with the coloring: all lines in this an the previous post are two day drops > 200k, the colored lines represent consecutive 2-day drops.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: crandles on April 26, 2015, 05:07:50 PM
468k in 4 days in 2004 makes 304k in last 3 days look paltry  :P
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Phil. on April 26, 2015, 06:20:32 PM
But this year's event started about 700,000 lower.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: solartim27 on April 26, 2015, 10:10:56 PM
468k in 4 days in 2004 makes 304k in last 3 days look paltry  :P

Average them for the number of days and it really doesn't.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on April 27, 2015, 05:24:35 AM
IJIS:

12,911,507 km2(April 26, 2015 down 86,687 km2 from previous. 2nd lowest for the date 2007 was lower.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on April 28, 2015, 05:24:21 AM
IJIS:

12,861,198 km2(April 27, 2015)down 50,309 km2 from previous. 2nd lowest for the date 2007 was lower at 12,854,447 km2 (-6,751 km2)
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on April 29, 2015, 05:39:10 AM
IJIS:

12,815,770 km2(April 28, 2015)down 45,428 km2 from previous. 2nd lowest for the date 2006 was lower at 12,782,805 km2 (-32,965 km2)
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Tor Bejnar on April 29, 2015, 01:49:27 PM
Still in 2nd place, but a different 'horse' pulled ahead.

It's funny to consider ice melting (compacting, etc.) like a race, cause we know how all the 'runners' did except for one.
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Buddy on April 29, 2015, 02:26:47 PM
.....and that fact that we are betting on which "horse" does the worst.

My money is on the 2015 horse.  Warm anomaly's are appearing in several places in and around the Arctic for sea surface temperature.  Even the southern Canadian Archipelago is showing the beginnings of a warm SST anomaly.

This is NOT setting up to be a good year for the 2015 horse.  He will likely only have 1 leg to stand on by September of 2016 (MYI along the northern Canadian Archipelago).....and may be dead by 2020.

 
Title: Re: IJIS/JAXA
Post by: Espen on April 30, 2015, 05:50:34 AM
IJIS;

12,730,329 km2(April 29, 2015)down 85,441 km2 from previous and lowest measured for this date 2006 2nd at 12,730,348 km2 (+19 km2)
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Espen on May 01, 2015, 06:07:53 AM
IJIS:

12,707,016 km2(April 30, 2015)down 23,313 km2 from previous 2nd lowest measured for this date 2006 lowest at 12,661,451 km2 (-45,565 km2)
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Espen on May 02, 2015, 10:13:31 AM
IJIS:

12,664,582 km2(May 1, 2015 down 42,434 km2 from previous 2nd lowest measured for this date 2006 lowest at 12,558,242 km2 (-106,340 km2)
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Espen on May 03, 2015, 05:43:27 AM
IJIS:

12,634,896 km2(May 2, 2015)down 29,686 km2 from previous. 2nd lowest for the date behind 2006 at 12,444,466 km2.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Espen on May 04, 2015, 05:24:24 AM
IJIS:

12,629,396 km2(May 3, 2015)down 5,500 km2 from previous. 3rd lowest for date 2004 and 2006 was lower.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Espen on May 05, 2015, 05:41:10 AM
IJIS:

12,588,998 km2(May 4, 2015)down 40,398 km2 from previous. 3rd lowest for the date 2004 and 2006 lower.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Espen on May 06, 2015, 06:00:38 AM
IJIS:

12,523,337 km2(May 5, 2015) down 65,661 km2  from previous. 3rd lowest for the date 2004 and 2006 lower.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Espen on May 07, 2015, 06:08:15 AM
IJIS:

12,425,110 km2(May 6, 2015)down 98,227 km2 from previous. 3rd lowest for the date 2004 and 2006 lower.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: plg on May 07, 2015, 06:32:48 AM
A pointless milestone: we are now under the 1/1 value, i.e. now the lowest value for this year.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Espen on May 08, 2015, 05:59:40 AM
IJIS:

12,390,148 km2(May 7, 2015) down 34,962 km2 from previous. 3rd lowest for the date 2004 and 2006 lower.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Espen on May 09, 2015, 08:16:00 AM
IJIS:

12,288,569 km2(May 8, 2015)down 101,579 km2 from previous. 3rd lowest for the date 2004 and 2006 lower.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Espen on May 09, 2015, 12:55:47 PM
IJIS:
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Espen on May 10, 2015, 05:26:40 AM
IJIS:

12,206,146 km2(May 9, 2015)down 82,423 km2 from previous. 2nd lowest for the date 2006 was lower at 12,119,386 km2 (-86,760 km2).
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Espen on May 10, 2015, 05:31:03 AM
Interesting move the next few days will tell more about this season:
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Sleepy on May 10, 2015, 05:50:02 AM
Yes.
Sorry for this, but after a comment I had yesterday only a 2M km² drop within a few days would be interesting to some...
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Neven on May 10, 2015, 07:43:19 AM
Yes.
Sorry for this, but after a comment I had yesterday only a 2M km² drop within a few days would be interesting to some...

Hmmm, yes. I think that could be potentially interesting, Sleepy. Yawn...  ;) ;D
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Sleepy on May 10, 2015, 07:54:06 AM
The comment I referred to wasn't from here, but from a denier. That does make me yawn...
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Neven on May 10, 2015, 08:12:06 AM
The comment I referred to wasn't from here, but from a denier. That does make me yawn...

Believe me, a denier wouldn't even be interested in a 2 million m2 drop within a few days. His lawn still looks the same. Slightly less green perhaps, but it's still grass.

But the great majority will be interested in Arctic sea ice loss, as soon as they understand that it could influence their daily lives.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Sleepy on May 10, 2015, 08:21:37 AM
Agreed.
But maybe 2M km²? ;)

I'm still trying to figure out how to make them understand. We have had a few cooler days here in Scandinavia (cooler=normal for the season) and that's "proof" for global cooling.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Espen on May 11, 2015, 05:25:23 AM
IJIS:

12,112,816 km2(May 10, 2015) down 93,330 km2 from previous. 2nd lowest 2006 was lower at 12,084,869 km2 (-27,947 km2)
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Espen on May 11, 2015, 05:28:13 AM
IJIS:

Seems 2015 is goíng her own way?
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Sleepy on May 11, 2015, 06:10:05 AM
That actually follows my highly professional graph above. Hmm...  8) ;D
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Tor Bejnar on May 11, 2015, 02:28:52 PM
You must be prophetic, Sleepy! 
Do you have a lottery number we should play? ;D
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Sleepy on May 11, 2015, 08:11:38 PM
Sorry Tor, I don't. I was just so tired and weary that I couldn't draw anything else than that drop.  ;)
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Tor Bejnar on May 12, 2015, 02:44:03 AM
Sleepy is either humble or keeping those lottery numbers to himself.  ;)
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Sleepy on May 12, 2015, 04:50:54 AM
Hmm, I'm not humble, because I'm not egoistic. Neither is Disneys character. http://disney.wikia.com/wiki/Sleepy (http://disney.wikia.com/wiki/Sleepy)  :)

Espen and ADS are still asleep. Let's see what that red line does today.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Espen on May 12, 2015, 05:25:25 AM
IJIS:

12,056,719 km2(May 11, 2015)down 56,097 km2 from previous lowest measured for the date
2006 2nd at 12,059,347 km2 (+ 2,628 km2).
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Espen on May 12, 2015, 05:28:31 AM
IJIS:

Thís position could be short lived or long standing depending on what happens the next few days:
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: plg on May 12, 2015, 06:47:19 AM
Agreed.
But maybe 2M km²? ;)

I'm still trying to figure out how to make them understand. We have had a few cooler days here in Scandinavia (cooler=normal for the season) and that's "proof" for global cooling.

That is funny, considering the trend the last 10 years: http://www.smhi.se/klimatdata/meteorologi/kartor/monYrTable.php?par=tmpYrAvv&month=13 (http://www.smhi.se/klimatdata/meteorologi/kartor/monYrTable.php?par=tmpYrAvv&month=13)

Monthly and daily data is at http://www.smhi.se/klimatdata/meteorologi/temperatur (http://www.smhi.se/klimatdata/meteorologi/temperatur)

The site is in Swedish, but Google translate is your friend...
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Sleepy on May 12, 2015, 06:54:46 AM
plg, I live in Sweden. ;)
Look at the first four days in May.
http://www.smhi.se/klimatdata/meteorologi/kartor/dailyTable.php?par=tmpAvvDay&yr=2015&mon=5 (http://www.smhi.se/klimatdata/meteorologi/kartor/dailyTable.php?par=tmpAvvDay&yr=2015&mon=5)
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Espen on May 13, 2015, 05:24:02 AM
IJIS:

11,983,392 km2(May 12, 2015)down 73,327 km2 from previous and lowest measured for the date.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Espen on May 13, 2015, 05:27:22 AM
IJIS:

We will probably see 2015 being lowest measured for the date for some time now:

Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: plg on May 13, 2015, 07:29:40 AM
plg, I live in Sweden. ;)
Look at the first four days in May.
[url]http://www.smhi.se/klimatdata/meteorologi/kartor/dailyTable.php?par=tmpAvvDay&yr=2015&mon=5[/url] ([url]http://www.smhi.se/klimatdata/meteorologi/kartor/dailyTable.php?par=tmpAvvDay&yr=2015&mon=5[/url])

True, it has been chilly. I just alluded to the conflation of weather and climate, looking at the records for the last 10 years it is clear that warming dominates, with occasional colder than normal weather.

I just reacted to your reference to the tired "AGW  is over because it is cold outside..." meme.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Lord M Vader on May 13, 2015, 07:42:45 AM
May 12 is the earliest day we have dipped below 12 Mn km2.

Earliest day below 11 Mn km2 is June 3 which occurred in 2011.

The years 2010-2014 have seen a melt rate of 0,8-1,2 Mn km2 from this date to May 31.

the years from 2003-2009 saw a melt rate of 0,6-1,15 Mn km2 from this date to May 31.

I agree with Espen that we'll probably see 2015 be the lowest for a while now.

//LMV
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Sleepy on May 13, 2015, 08:09:19 AM
plg, I live in Sweden. ;)
Look at the first four days in May.
[url]http://www.smhi.se/klimatdata/meteorologi/kartor/dailyTable.php?par=tmpAvvDay&yr=2015&mon=5[/url] ([url]http://www.smhi.se/klimatdata/meteorologi/kartor/dailyTable.php?par=tmpAvvDay&yr=2015&mon=5[/url])

True, it has been chilly. I just alluded to the conflation of weather and climate, looking at the records for the last 10 years it is clear that warming dominates, with occasional colder than normal weather.

I just reacted to your reference to the tired "AGW  is over because it is cold outside..." meme.


It is dangerously tiresome, but that's what deniers are pushing here, so it's impossible to ignore as a lot of people actually buys that crap. I won't link to such nonsense but they recently published a graph depicting a dead earth at 180ppm.  ::)
We have had record temperatures this winter in Sweden and the long term trend is the same as everywhere else.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: plg on May 13, 2015, 08:31:46 AM
Compelling graph. But... it's cold outside now...  ::)
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Espen on May 14, 2015, 06:44:10 AM
IJIS:

11,931,057 km2(May 13, 2015)down 52,335 km2 from previous and lowest measured for the date.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Espen on May 14, 2015, 12:43:53 PM
IJIS:

Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Jim Pettit on May 15, 2015, 01:24:05 PM
No extent number this morning; just a redirect to IJIS's twitter feed. The most recent tweets:

ADSは大規模メンテナンスを行うため5月15日12:00から5月20日12:00までサービスを停止させます。メンテナンス状況についてTwitterでアナウンスいたします。

(ADS will stop the service from May 15 12:00 order to carry out large-scale maintenance to 12:00 May 20 . For maintenance situation will announce on Twitter.)

...followed by:

本日12:00よりADSのサービスは停止させております。大規模メンテナンスを実行中です。

(ADS of service from 12:00 today , we have to stop . We are running a large-scale maintenance .)

So if I'm reading this correctly: no extent numbers until next week.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: lanevn on May 15, 2015, 01:48:54 PM
Maybe they don't like to show record lows )
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Vergent on May 15, 2015, 03:41:28 PM
ジム、更新のために感謝します。雪氷圏とASIGダウン今日はゴーストタウンのようなものです。それは私は少し退屈になります。私はforeward更新されます来週楽しみにしています。

Verg
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Espen on May 15, 2015, 04:06:33 PM
Maybe they don't like to show record lows )

My guess is it will stay lowest at least another week from now.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Jim Pettit on May 18, 2015, 01:01:11 PM
FWIW, ADS_NIPR says we'll have extent numbers back on Wednesday:

(http://i.imgur.com/grvhJaD.png)
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Espen on May 19, 2015, 05:54:45 AM
IJIS:

11,675,662 km2(May 18, 2015)down 255,395 km2 from May 13 2015 and lowest measured for the date.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Tensor on May 19, 2015, 06:07:47 AM
Yay, you're back.    :)
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Lord M Vader on May 19, 2015, 08:00:22 AM
Since Espens last update for May 12 the daily changes have been as follows:

May 12: 11983392 km2
May 13: 11931057 km2 (down 52 335 km2)
May 14: 11891356 km2 (down 39 701 km2)
May 15: 11867281 km2 (down 24 705 km2)
May 16: 11806520 km2 (down 60 761 km2)
May 17: 11751564 km2 (down 54 956 km2)
May 18: 11675662 km2 (down 75 902 km2)


Seems like the warm temps in Alaska and Canada will continue for another week... In addition, the GFS 00z run hints of possibly warmer weather on the Siberian side of the Arctic basin in about 6-7 days from now..

Best, LMV
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Siffy on May 19, 2015, 10:35:33 AM
IJIS:

11,675,662 km2(May 18, 2015)down 255,395 km2 from May 13 2015 and lowest measured for the date.

Hey Espen, I was wondering if its possible in future graphs to add some kind of dotted vertical lines to mark each day increment? It would help to make the graphs a little clearer and contrast the different years better.

You also have my gratitude for updating this thread daily as you do when the Jaxa figures become available. Thank you for your efforts. :)
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Espen on May 19, 2015, 04:54:39 PM
Siffy,


I cant do much about, because I do not produce the graphs :(
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Espen on May 20, 2015, 05:53:13 AM
IJIS:

11,611,102 km2(May 19, 2015)down 64,560 km2 from previous and lowest measured.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Espen on May 21, 2015, 05:39:21 AM
IJIS:

11,513,530 km2(May 20, 2015)down 97,572 km2 from previous and lowest measured.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Espen on May 21, 2015, 05:41:35 AM
IJIS:

I dont see 2015 will see any real competition until mid June?
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Espen on May 22, 2015, 06:02:33 AM
IJIS:

11,440,794 km2(May 21, 2015) down 72,736 km2 from previous and record low.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Buddy on May 22, 2015, 06:17:00 AM
Looks like the "June plunge" is starting early this year....which is no surprise.

Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: DavidR on May 22, 2015, 04:00:50 PM
IJIS:

11,440,794 km2(May 21, 2015) down 72,736 km2 from previous and record low.
IJIS is down 40% more than NSIDC (1,220K km^2 vs 870K km^2). Given that  these measures are both supposedly  measuring the same thing this seems like a big discrepancy over 20 days. Particularly that NSIDC is almost always greater than IJIS.

Is there a known reason for the variation?
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Wipneus on May 22, 2015, 04:13:53 PM

IJIS is down 40% more than NSIDC (1,220K km^2 vs 870K km^2). Given that  these measures are both supposedly  measuring the same thing this seems like a big discrepancy over 20 days. Particularly that NSIDC is almost always greater than IJIS.

Is there a known reason for the variation?

IJIS has been discontinued, the data presented in this thread comes from ADS-NIPR.

Main reason for NSIDC  values being larger, is the courser grid (25x25km instead of 10x10km) and the superior resolution of the AMSR2 instrument compared to SSMIS.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: pikaia on May 22, 2015, 04:39:07 PM
Don't they use different thresholds for the concentration? I have seen figures of 15% and 30%.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Wipneus on May 22, 2015, 06:05:49 PM
Don't they use different thresholds for the concentration? I have seen figures of 15% and 30%.

They both use 15%. There are other differences than grid cell size: different sattellite/sensors, different microwave channels, different algorithms, slightly different ideas about the land/ocean.
The grid cell size and the resolution of the sensors are the most important here.

As an example look at this post (https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,382.msg51416.html#msg51416), where I compare the NSIDC map with a high resolution AMSR2 based map. In the latter lots of open water cause extent to lower, while the extent from NSIDC is still at 100%.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: DavidR on May 23, 2015, 01:14:33 AM
Don't they use different thresholds for the concentration? I have seen figures of 15% and 30%.

They both use 15%. There are other differences than grid cell size: different sattellite/sensors, different microwave channels, different algorithms, slightly different ideas about the land/ocean.
The grid cell size and the resolution of the sensors are the most important here.

As an example look at this post (https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,382.msg51416.html#msg51416), where I compare the NSIDC map with a high resolution AMSR2 based map. In the latter lots of open water cause extent to lower, while the extent from NSIDC is still at 100%.

So the difference would be influenced by the length of the ice/water boundary, as well as the open patches within the ice, and would increase dramatically as the ice breaks away from the shore as it is in the Hudson and Beaufort at the moment.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Espen on May 23, 2015, 08:02:12 AM
IJIS:

11,373,423 km2(May 22, 2015)down 67,371 km2 from previous and record low.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: jdallen on May 23, 2015, 08:15:25 AM
IJIS:

11,373,423 km2(May 22, 2015)down 67,371 km2 from previous and record low.
...It's not slowing down...
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Buddy on May 23, 2015, 12:15:29 PM
I expect it to stay below the 2012 low....and I think the likelihood of that happening is HIGH.  The only question in my mind now....is by how much the record low is broken in September.  Is it just going to be broken....or is it going to get absolutely crushed this year?

Remember....the melting season is now LENGHTENING at both ends (beginning and end).  The melting season started in mid February this year.  Will it end later as well?

Also....

A) So what has happened to Joe Bastardi's "Arctic ice will be recovering to 1970 levels" that he made in 2010?

B)  The "snowball" that Senator James Inhofe was holding in his hand when he was addressing the US Congress earlier this year....is now melting in his hand.  I hope the good folks of Oklahoma will hold him accountable for being on the wrong side of history.

Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: LRC1962 on May 23, 2015, 05:16:10 PM
Buddy: I recall a few years back when drought and high heat were first hitting the midwestern US, a replier ina forum declared there could not possibly be a drought as he had all the proof he needed outside his front door as he had had plenty of rain all summer. Looking at a drought map pinpointed his location almost to the block as that was the only spot in almost the entire midwest that had been getting rain. point being. some see only what they want to see and too many want the easy way out by agreeing and not find out for themselves.
Next winter Inhofe will have another snowball to show and JB will still believe in recovery because af the incredible rebound of ice the Arctic has produced after Sept/Oct minimum.
As for this year, systems could change and the melt could flatten out, on the other hand we could be witnessing a worst ever minimum.
DMI is still showing well below average temps, but all the other indicators sure do not hold much hope for a melt that will end above norm ether 2013 or 2014 levels.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Buddy on May 24, 2015, 12:50:55 AM
No doubt....there are some people who certainly "believe what they want to believe" (or what they WISHED would be real).  I would suggest that Joe Bastardi and James Inhofe are NOT in that camp.

In fact....I believe that BOTH of them are "paid" to say what they are saying (INDIRECTLY of course).  In the case of James Inhofe....his campaign donations come from fossil fuel companies....and he is EITHER outright lying OR ignoring every piece of evidence in front of his face.  In the case of Joe Bastardi....his "company" was at least PARTIALLY bankrolled by "client fees" and other money from fossil fuel companies.

In the case of Joe Bastardi.....you can actually FOLLOW HIS LIES in the press.  He makes it EMBARASSINGLY easy to follow his lies.

We (humans).....especially  in Democratic countries......tend to be WAY TOO SOFT on those that lie for a living.  Whether it is Lance Armstrong, bankers at the largest investment banks, lobbyists, CEO's who lied during the housing bubble, etc.

Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Espen on May 24, 2015, 06:30:03 AM
IJIS:

11,316,447 km2(May 23, 2015)down 56,976 km2 from previous and record low.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Espen on May 24, 2015, 06:44:40 AM


We (humans).....especially  in Democratic countries......tend to be WAY TOO SOFT on those that lie for a living.  Whether it is Lance Armstrong, bankers at the largest investment banks, lobbyists, CEO's who lied during the housing bubble, etc.

It is due to the fact that the better a person is packing a lie in voluminous words that most other people dont comprehend, the better he is paid, and that is how our system works.
But on the other hand.
Scientists use these words a lot too (for stupid reasons), without getting paid, thought of the day?
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Siffy on May 24, 2015, 10:17:42 AM
Looks like we have a high likelihood of dropping below 11m ^2 KM before June.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Espen on May 24, 2015, 10:29:06 AM
Looks like we have a high likelihood of dropping below 11m ^2 KM before June.

That is very likely since it takes an average of only +/- 45,200 km2 a day.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Buddy on May 25, 2015, 12:06:33 AM
It is due to the fact that the better a person is packing a lie in voluminous words that most other people dont comprehend, the better he is paid, and that is how our system works.

But the people who DO KNOW (you, I, most others on this site, almost all scientists, a growing number of many others) HAVE TO SPEAK UP LOUDLY......AND DIRECTLY.

We are "moving along" the LOGARITHMIC TRAIL we are on....and the changes that will be happening will come along more quickly as time passes.

Bullies......whether they are bullies in school, bullies in corporate life, or bullies regarding climate change have to be dealt with DIRECTLY....OPENLY....AND IN NO UNCERTAIN TERMS.

As Albert Einstein said:  "The world will not be destroyed by those who do evil, but by those who watch them without doing anything."

The world stood around as the tobacco companies continued to lie for decades.  Now...some of the very same people are doing the same thing with climate change.

The lies will continue until an overwhelming number of people stand up and expose them.

 
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: LRC1962 on May 25, 2015, 01:27:01 AM
Big lie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_lie)
Usage in Hitler's psychological profile[edit]
The phrase was also used in a report prepared during the war by the United States Office of Strategic Services in describing Hitler's psychological profile:[5][6]

His primary rules were: never allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault or wrong; never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never leave room for alternatives; never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong; people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it.[7]

Although this does work up to a degree once the masses decide to turn on you there is very little place to hide as the whole society tends to make your world very difficult to live in. Do not know what applies to your area, but where I live if you are a smoker: no ads allowed, stores that sell them cannot reveal their product in public display, must smoke no closer then 9 metres from closest public doorway, cannot smoke in enclosed areas where people work or congregate in  .... and every year the laws get tougher. As a non smoker and allergic to it I applaud the moves, point being 40 years ago this was all unthinkable. The Big lie has been found as a Big lie and BIG tobacco is not what it was 40 years ago. The same will hold true for Big oil and CO2. Question will be will it be soon enough to avoid some of the worse tipping points to come. Unfortunately too late to save the Arctic sea ice as could be seen in the next few years, but deadly heat, worldwide famine etc. maybe.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Espen on May 25, 2015, 05:23:25 AM
IJIS:

11,275,662 km2(May 24, 2015)down 40,785 km2 from previous.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Espen on May 26, 2015, 05:22:06 AM
IJIS:

11,227,542 km2(May 25, 2015)down 48,120 km2 from previous.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Espen on May 27, 2015, 05:44:16 AM
IJIS:

11,182,043 km2[/sup](May 26, 2015)down 45,499 km2 from previous.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: ktonine on May 27, 2015, 05:52:54 PM
Lowest ever for this date?  I present for your amusement via Twitter:

Joe Bastardi retweeted
Steve Goddard @SteveSGoddard  ·  4h 4 hours ago
Two decades of unprecedented melting has left Arctic sea ice almost identical to 20 years ago

https://twitter.com/bigjoebastardi

Haters gotta hate and deniers gotta deny :)
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Jim Hunt on May 27, 2015, 06:19:46 PM
Lowest ever for this date?  I present for your amusement via Twitter:

Joe Bastardi retweeted
Steve Goddard @SteveSGoddard  ·  4h 4 hours ago
Two decades of unprecedented melting has left Arctic sea ice almost identical to 20 years ago


I got my retaliation in early:

http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2015/05/arctic-sea-ice-fails-to-track-2005-06/ (http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2015/05/arctic-sea-ice-fails-to-track-2005-06/)

Expect more from "Snow White" shortly!

https://twitter.com/GreatWhiteCon/status/603597391703502848 (https://twitter.com/GreatWhiteCon/status/603597391703502848)

P.S. This really should be on the Great White Con thread (http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,578.0.html), but:

Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Tor Bejnar on May 27, 2015, 06:26:18 PM
Joe Bastardi retweeted
Steve Goddard @SteveSGoddard  ·  4h 4 hours ago
Two decades of unprecedented melting has left Arctic sea ice almost identical to 20 years ago

Yup, a 2015 ice crystal (grown from Arctic seawater) will look almost identical to a 1995 ice crystal (grown from Arctic seawater).   ;D
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Espen on May 28, 2015, 05:46:13 AM
IJIS:

11,124,380 km2(May 27, 2015)down 58,162 km2 from previous.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: crandles on May 28, 2015, 12:43:33 PM
IJIS:

11,124,380 km2(May 27, 2015)down 58,162 km2 from previous.

Lowest on record before June in any year.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Espen on May 29, 2015, 05:40:56 AM
IJIS:

11,065,959 km2(May 28, 2015)down 58,421 km2 from previous.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Gray-Wolf on May 29, 2015, 10:40:23 AM
So if we keep trundling along as we are it will be around June 20th before the other years catch up?

Somehow I think we will be seeing larger losses than current by then?
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: jdallen on May 29, 2015, 06:16:26 PM
So if we keep trundling along as we are it will be around June 20th before the other years catch up?

Somehow I think we will be seeing larger losses than current by then?
All else being equal, it seems probable we will remain at about the same separation below previous years.  Day over day 2015 appears to be melting at the same rate or slightly higher than previous years.

Conditions may change of course, but I'm not seeing anything Yet to suggest a break in slope in 2015's progress.

Continued massive inputs of heat and moisture from lower latitudes could prompt a June/July "swan dive" to greater rate of decline.  However, if restraining feedbacks kick in (like 2013/14 evaporation from open water in the pack, forming fog and low clouds), the gap could close, as the increased thicker ice (as compared to other post 2012 years) exerts its influence over the numbers.

Either way, similar to both 2013 and 2014, I think we will see massive fragmentation of the pack into millions of larger and smaller separate floes, rather than contiguous extents of ice.  It will be much more vulnerable than pre-2012 or pre-2007, and its survival will depend greatly on favorable weather.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: plinius on May 29, 2015, 08:16:37 PM
I am not sure why the ice should be thicker than in 2014?! Apart from the questionable PIOMAS offset, I know of no real indication for this...
One factor slowing us down might be though that some of the anomaly is in the Hudson, which will drop out, once it is fully ice free, hence slowing the decline.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: seaicesailor on May 29, 2015, 08:31:31 PM
I am not sure why the ice should be thicker than in 2014?! Apart from the questionable PIOMAS offset, I know of no real indication for this...
One factor slowing us down might be though that some of the anomaly is in the Hudson, which will drop out, once it is fully ice free, hence slowing the decline.

Not long ago a comparison between Cryosat, PIOMAS and new AMSR2 based data was done by Wipneus and while differences exist, all agreed in the main trend. All real indications that there was more ice in Apr 2015 than in Apr 2014.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: plinius on May 29, 2015, 11:04:31 PM
To link Wipneus' graph:

http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8.0;attach=15665;image (http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8.0;attach=15665;image)

I can only see for last fall/winter that the cryosat points were slightly lower and that PIOMAS is far higher, in particular in relation to Cryosat.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: seaicesailor on May 30, 2015, 12:20:26 AM
To link Wipneus' graph:

[url]http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8.0;attach=15665;image[/url] ([url]http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8.0;attach=15665;image[/url])

I can only see for last fall/winter that the cryosat points were slightly lower and that PIOMAS is far higher, in particular in relation to Cryosat.


Hadnt noticed that. Thank you. I had paid more attention to the minima,  the three models (noise apart) following similar trend.
Eager to see what will come in June.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Espen on May 30, 2015, 08:18:21 AM
IJIS:

10,997,659 km2(May 29, 2015) down 68,300 km2 from previous.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: seaicesailor on May 30, 2015, 10:09:03 AM
Uncharted territory by big margin
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Espen on May 30, 2015, 10:24:44 AM
Uncharted territory by big margin

Yes. + 570.000 km2 ahead of both 2007 and 2012 for the date.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Espen on May 31, 2015, 07:45:46 AM
IJIS:

10,938,100 km2(May 30, 2015)down 59,559 km2 from previous.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Espen on June 01, 2015, 05:23:01 AM
IJIS:

10,878,571 km2(May 31, 2015)down 59,529 km2 from previous.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: jdallen on June 01, 2015, 08:36:44 AM
IJIS:

10,878,571 km2(May 31, 2015)down 59,529 km2 from previous.
Hunch:

IJIS continues dropping 50-70K KM2/day until it falls into line with the losses seen in 2012.

Things continue from there until we reach 2012 extent levels at the end of season.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Buddy on June 01, 2015, 12:49:18 PM
If you look at the following graph, there are two things that "appear" to be happening over time if you look at the THIRD GRAPHIC on the following page:

http://climatechangegraphs.blogspot.com/2012/08/arctic-sea-ice-volume-extent-charts_30.html (http://climatechangegraphs.blogspot.com/2012/08/arctic-sea-ice-volume-extent-charts_30.html)

1)  The winter maximum is "flattening out" year over year....decade over decade.  The winter max is losing ground....but it is losing ground at a SLOWER rate than the summer minimum.

2)  The summer minimum is "dropping off the table"....or "plunging"....especially in 2011 and 2012.

If you think about it.....those things "should" be happening.  The ice is going to "freeze up" in the winter...but there will continue to be less and less MYI.  So while it will certainly be cold enough to freeze up....there will be less and less MYI to build on.

On the other end.....the summer minimum's should be plunging.  There is less and less MYI, so once it gets warm enough in the summer....the ice is going to go quickly.

Right now...the interesting part to watch is being played out in the Beaufort and just northeast of the Beaufort....where a good "chunk" of the MYI is.

The "noose is tightening" with each passing year as warmer waters push their way into the "interior" of the Arctic.

I except a record year low this year is likely.....but the overall thrust over several years time is clear to see.  The "plunge years" are here.....and they are here to stay.  The plunge will happen at an earlier date with each passing year.



Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Espen on June 02, 2015, 05:44:15 AM
IJIS:

10,845,785 km2(June 1, 2015)down 32,786 km2 from previous.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Bob Wallace on June 02, 2015, 07:16:20 AM
The winter maximum is "flattening out" year over year

Has someone done that math?  Something like the number of days that extent was within 5% of the annual high.  Done?  Graphed?
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: DavidR on June 02, 2015, 07:36:19 AM
The winter maximum is "flattening out" year over year


Has someone done that math?  Something like the number of days that extent was within 5% of the annual high.  Done?  Graphed?

Bob See the plateau hypothesis thread for discussion re flattening out.:
http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1211.0.html (http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1211.0.html)

Based on a 200K km^2 drop from the maximum the plateau has varied from 12 - 50 days over thr past 10 years with both 2006 & 2014 being < 15 days.  So I  don't see that the winter max is flattening out  as a general principle.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Buddy on June 02, 2015, 12:49:20 PM
So I  don't see that the winter max is flattening out  as a general principle.

What I was trying to convey (but didn't state clearly at all).....is that the "winter max" is dropping at a lower rate than the "summer min" is dropping.

The summer/fall minimum is further away from the mean over the last 10 years than the winter max is from its mean.

So while I "see" the winter max "flattening out" (what I meant in hindsight....of course the "hill" is flattening out...it has to as it approaches zero over the next 1,000 years or more)....but I was struck by the "plunge" in several years of the summer/fall minimum, vs the more "mild" drop in the winter max over the past 10 years.  Visually...the plunge is obvious.....maybe the "why" the plunge vs the more mild drop in maximum?

The interesting and thought provoking thing for me (especially as a non-scientist....but a numbers guy CPA....and someone who loves to OBSERVE).....is the WHY of it.

By the way....thanks for the cross link....and the input.  As a NON-SCIENTIST.....and an observer of "things".....what YOU FOLKS (Neven and primary contributors) is so important from a POLICY standpoint (now if we can just get the policy people to look at the science!).



Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: DavidR on June 02, 2015, 02:06:22 PM
So I  don't see that the winter max is flattening out  as a general principle.

What I was trying to convey (but didn't state clearly at all).....is that the "winter max" is dropping at a lower rate than the "summer min" is dropping.

The interesting and thought provoking thing for me (especially as a non-scientist....but a numbers guy CPA....and someone who loves to OBSERVE).....is the WHY of it.

One thing to consider is the location of the sea ice boundary in winter compared to in summer.  There are very few areas where the winter maximum can realistically reduce at the moment, Bering,  Okhotsz, North Atlantic, St Lawrence / Newfoundland.  Most of the larger boundaries are landlocked.  Most of the winter boundaries are actually  getting shorter as the ice retreats into the Arctic. 

So there is, for a few years yet, a situation where the winter ice reduces very slowly . At  some point the arctic ice will not always reach the outer seas and the ice exteny will start to reduce much faster. But by then the Arctic will be ice free for some part of the summer and that  will probably  be a bigger factor in the winter maximum decline.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: seaicesailor on June 02, 2015, 02:55:22 PM
So I  don't see that the winter max is flattening out  as a general principle.

What I was trying to convey (but didn't state clearly at all).....is that the "winter max" is dropping at a lower rate than the "summer min" is dropping.

The interesting and thought provoking thing for me (especially as a non-scientist....but a numbers guy CPA....and someone who loves to OBSERVE).....is the WHY of it.


One thing to consider is the location of the sea ice boundary in winter compared to in summer.  There are very few areas where the winter maximum can realistically reduce at the moment, Bering,  Okhotsz, North Atlantic, St Lawrence / Newfoundland.  Most of the larger boundaries are landlocked.  Most of the winter boundaries are actually  getting shorter as the ice retreats into the Arctic. 

So there is, for a few years yet, a situation where the winter ice reduces very slowly . At  some point the arctic ice will not always reach the outer seas and the ice exteny will start to reduce much faster. But by then the Arctic will be ice free for some part of the summer and that  will probably  be a bigger factor in the winter maximum decline.

That makes a lot of sense. The word "landlocked" is very important in this context.

Somebody once suggested what would happen with the Arctic should the CAA islands be slightly displaced and some channels windened. Increased export for instance.

Perhaps one of the reasons why Arctic was ice-free during winter in Pliocene had to do with slightly different geography, permitting the ice not to be as land-locked as right now. Three million years is a good period of time for appreciable tectonic displacements.

Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Buddy on June 02, 2015, 03:18:45 PM
That makes a lot of sense. The word "landlocked" is very important in this context.


Yes...it is interesting to watch the SST anomaly's in the Arctic.  I have a graphic of June 24th from 2014 posted vs a graphic of today's SST posted....and its interesting to note the differences (second and third graphics posted on the following page):

http://climatechangegraphs.blogspot.com/2013/02/sea-surface-temperature-anomaly.html (http://climatechangegraphs.blogspot.com/2013/02/sea-surface-temperature-anomaly.html)

Those warm SST's are trying to "push" into the inner circle earlier and earlier.  A couple things "stick out" to me this year on the warm side:  (1)  the waters off almost the entire Russian coastline are warming compared to last June....and the current graph is more than 3 weeks earlier than the June 24th, 2014 graphic, and (2) the area around Svalbard (both sides) is has made more "progress" this year.

Greenland (especially waters off of western Greenland as well as all of southern Greenland) is the "cool anomaly" this year (SST wise).

 
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Nightvid Cole on June 02, 2015, 03:45:03 PM
So I  don't see that the winter max is flattening out  as a general principle.

What I was trying to convey (but didn't state clearly at all).....is that the "winter max" is dropping at a lower rate than the "summer min" is dropping.

The summer/fall minimum is further away from the mean over the last 10 years than the winter max is from its mean.

So while I "see" the winter max "flattening out" (what I meant in hindsight....of course the "hill" is flattening out...it has to as it approaches zero over the next 1,000 years or more)....but I was struck by the "plunge" in several years of the summer/fall minimum, vs the more "mild" drop in the winter max over the past 10 years.  Visually...the plunge is obvious.....maybe the "why" the plunge vs the more mild drop in maximum?

The interesting and thought provoking thing for me (especially as a non-scientist....but a numbers guy CPA....and someone who loves to OBSERVE).....is the WHY of it.

By the way....thanks for the cross link....and the input.  As a NON-SCIENTIST.....and an observer of "things".....what YOU FOLKS (Neven and primary contributors) is so important from a POLICY standpoint (now if we can just get the policy people to look at the science!).

I think it has a lot to do with snow and melt pond albedo effects, which are much larger in summer than in winter due to the much larger available solar radiation.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: crandles on June 02, 2015, 04:22:51 PM
So I  don't see that the winter max is flattening out  as a general principle.

What I was trying to convey (but didn't state clearly at all).....is that the "winter max" is dropping at a lower rate than the "summer min" is dropping.

The summer/fall minimum is further away from the mean over the last 10 years than the winter max is from its mean.

So while I "see" the winter max "flattening out" (what I meant in hindsight....of course the "hill" is flattening out...it has to as it approaches zero over the next 1,000 years or more)....but I was struck by the "plunge" in several years of the summer/fall minimum, vs the more "mild" drop in the winter max over the past 10 years.  Visually...the plunge is obvious.....maybe the "why" the plunge vs the more mild drop in maximum?

The interesting and thought provoking thing for me (especially as a non-scientist....but a numbers guy CPA....and someone who loves to OBSERVE).....is the WHY of it.

By the way....thanks for the cross link....and the input.  As a NON-SCIENTIST.....and an observer of "things".....what YOU FOLKS (Neven and primary contributors) is so important from a POLICY standpoint (now if we can just get the policy people to look at the science!).

I think it has a lot to do with snow and melt pond albedo effects, which are much larger in summer than in winter due to the much larger available solar radiation.

I agree it is to do with albedo effects but not so much the snow and melt pond albedo but more the albedo of open water and thinner ice:

If you start a season with less ice volume, then the ice is thinner and melt of a fixed quantity of ice will almost certainly create more open water faster. This lowers the albedo in several ways: thinner ice has lower albedo as well as open water having lower albedo.

Snow and melt ponds also affect albedo and maybe there is more flatter FYI and less MYI compared to past years so there could well be more albedo lowering from this. However this is complicated: Thinner ice is weaker and so there can be more ridging so melt pond area could decline as we get weaker thinner ice in future. So some of this cannot be relied upon to continue into future.

Thus the more relevant albedo lowering is that from the thinner ice and higher open water formation efficiency because we can be fairly sure this will continue into future, causing further albedo lowering.

Obviously lower albedo means more energy captured so more melting in the melt season. This means the minimum declines faster than the maximum.

(I also doubt we can rely on the maximum declining as fast as it has in the recent past, but that is different matter.)
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: James Lovejoy on June 02, 2015, 06:29:13 PM
Perhaps one of the reasons why Arctic was ice-free during winter in Pliocene had to do with slightly different geography, permitting the ice not to be as land-locked as right now. Three million years is a good period of time for appreciable tectonic displacements.

The sea level during the pliocene is estimated at 10 to 40 meters higher.

That alone should cause a slightly different geography.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: folke_kelm on June 02, 2015, 09:17:02 PM
The Bering strait was NOT open before late Miocene early Pliocene 7,3 -4,4 million years before present. So the circumstances with OPEN Bering Strait have been less favorable for freezing than before.
During he complete Pleistocene (ice age) The bering Strait was potentially open for ocean currents, dry in glacials because of low sea level (it does not matter, it was frozen anyway) and completely open for ocean currents throughout interglacials.
Ice free conditions can not be attributed to an open Bering Strait during Pleistocene, it froze over with open Bering Strait, it was unfrozen with closed Bering Strait before.
Nevertheless an open Bering Strait provides a pathway for warm water into the arctic ocean and i t will play an important role for water exchange, more important when sea level is rising because the waters of the Bering Strait are very shallow.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Espen on June 03, 2015, 05:41:22 AM
IJIS:

10,800,117 km2(June 2, 2015)down 45,668 km2 from previous.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Espen on June 04, 2015, 05:46:04 AM
IJIS:

10,753,060 km2(June 3, 2015)down 47,057 km2 from previous.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Espen on June 05, 2015, 11:37:33 AM
IJIS:

10,688,968 km2(June 4, 2015)down 64,092 km2 from previous.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: folke_kelm on June 05, 2015, 11:58:45 AM
espen, you are late today. Usually your extent report is the first i open at breakfast time while drinking coffee. :-)
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Yuha on June 05, 2015, 12:01:29 PM
The first big plunge of 2012 started on this date. Over 9 days from June 4 to June 13 the average loss was more than 125k km2 per day. 2015 is currently 664k below 2012 but needs to lose more than 51761 km2/day on average over the next 9 days to stay below 2012.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Jim Pettit on June 05, 2015, 01:34:55 PM
The first big plunge of 2012 started on this date. Over 9 days from June 4 to June 13 the average loss was more than 125k km2 per day. 2015 is currently 664k below 2012 but needs to lose more than 51761 km2/day on average over the next 9 days to stay below 2012.
Indeed. And while I realize this isn't the SIA thread, I'd also point out that today is the beginning of a two-week span in 2012 when area dropped by about 2 million km2, a remarkable average daily decrease of 142k. 2015 is currently running neck and neck with 2012; I suspect 2012 will be several hundred thousand km2 ahead 14 days from now...
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Buddy on June 05, 2015, 01:58:32 PM
    The first big plunge of 2012 started on this date. Over 9 days from June 4 to June 13 the average loss was more than 125k km2 per day. 2015 is currently 664k below 2012 but needs to lose more than 51761 km2/day on average over the next 9 days to stay below 2012.

Indeed. And while I realize this isn't the SIA thread, I'd also point out that today is the beginning of a two-week span in 2012 when area dropped by about 2 million km2, a remarkable average daily decrease of 142k. 2015 is currently running neck and neck with 2012; I suspect 2012 will be several hundred thousand km2 ahead 14 days from now...


And that speaks to what is an obvious point....if the temps in the central Arctic stay above average...and indeed stay above freezing.....then ice melt can proceed QUICKLY.  Which is why I believe we have just "started" the "plunge sequence" over the past 5 years or so.  From here on out....we should EXPECT plunges in June....and indeed, over time....those plunges will come earlier and earlier in the year as the central Arctic warms up above freezing (earlier and earlier....and if you look at the DMI chart below, we are almost there).
(http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/meanTarchive/meanT_2015.png)
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: SekeRob on June 05, 2015, 04:02:57 PM
Would be nice if the DMI chart had a second lead line in it at the [an arbitrary] meltpoint of seawater... -1.85Celcius, about 271.3K.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Espen on June 06, 2015, 09:01:31 AM
The ads.nipr.ac.jp site down at the moment. :-[
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Jim Hunt on June 06, 2015, 11:43:26 AM
if you look at the DMI chart below, we are almost there


Nick Stokes has just made a much more flexible "DMI clone" available over at Moyhu, based on NCEP/NCAR data:

http://moyhu.blogspot.co.uk/2015/05/daily-arctic-temperatures.html (http://moyhu.blogspot.co.uk/2015/05/daily-arctic-temperatures.html)

It currently only has data for 2015. Here's one I prepared earlier:

Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Wipneus on June 06, 2015, 12:10:10 PM
The ads.nipr.ac.jp site down at the moment. :-[

We could have expected that, from the twitter page:

ADS_NIPR ‏@ADS_NIPR 29 mei

施設点検のため、以下の日程で停止します。 System stops during following hours due to inspection of the electric facilities. 2015/06/05 16:00 - 06/08 11:00(JST)
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Espen on June 08, 2015, 05:24:16 AM
IJIS:

10,588,884 km2(June 7, 2015)down 100,084 km2 since June 4th.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Lord M Vader on June 08, 2015, 06:31:15 PM
If current trend keep go on we'll see 2015 no longer be the lowest on record in about a week or so...

However, if the current GFS 06z run do hold for the next three days I think it's fair to say that Hudson Bay and Kara Sea will see some real damage of the ice there due to warm air intrusion there. Baffin/Newfoundland Bay should also see an ice loss in the periphery there.

The real interesting thing is what will happen to the "heat blob" in Central Siberia when/if it reaches Kara and Laptev Sea.. The 850 hPa temps are somewhere in the range of 10-15 degrees! THAT my freinds should mean a lot of warm melt water to the Arctic. Of course, the temps might be low if there will be an inversion forming there with a lot of fog which is quite usual as warm air enters cold waters.

In "fantasyland" at +168 hours at GFS 06z run the North Pole will see temps at 850 hPa being at 0-6oC...

Let's see what the next couple of forecast runs says!!

Best, LV
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Espen on June 09, 2015, 05:39:40 AM
IJIS:

10,590,546 km2(June 8, 2015)plus 1,662 km2 from previous.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Vergent on June 09, 2015, 07:10:01 AM
Espen,

THe GAC15#1 is spreading out the ice, pumping air into the coming extent balloon.

Verg
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Espen on June 10, 2015, 05:22:21 AM
IJIS:

10,588,218 km2(June 9, 2015)down 2,328 km2 from previous.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: epiphyte on June 10, 2015, 06:15:00 AM
Espen,

THe GAC15#1 is spreading out the ice, pumping air into the coming extent balloon.

Verg

Balloon is right. Calls to mind "The Charge of the Light Brigade." ...Into the valley of death, etc.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Espen on June 11, 2015, 05:26:47 AM
IJIS:

10,542,295 km2(June 10, 2015)down 45,923 km2 from previous and lowest measured for the date.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Espen on June 11, 2015, 05:28:52 AM
IJIS:

I dont see 2015 will see any real competition until mid June?

That was close ;) ;)
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Sleepy on June 11, 2015, 05:44:59 AM
But no cigar. What about this sign?  :)
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Neven on June 11, 2015, 09:26:21 AM
But no cigar. What about this sign?  :)

Thanks for the image. Might use it.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Espen on June 12, 2015, 05:59:16 AM
IJIS:

10,505,832 km2(June 11, 2015) down 36,463 km2 from previous and 2nd lowest for the date 2012 was lower.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Sleepy on June 12, 2015, 06:12:43 AM
Here you go. ;)
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: sedziobs on June 12, 2015, 04:55:57 PM
The difference in the Greenland Sea that Wipneus pointed out due to the coarser resolution of JAXA vs UH is still there, plus a similar gap is now seen in Hudson Bay.  There is also such a gap in Baffin that has been sustained since March.  An eyeball estimate says that these gaps combined amount to around 200k.  At least the Hudson and Baffin gaps should close as the melt season progresses, so I would consider them to be "artificial" increases in the JAXA data, and also contributing to the current "pause" in losses.  Though take that with a grain of salt, as my opinion is certainly not an expert one.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Lord M Vader on June 13, 2015, 07:20:52 AM
IJIS: 10,457,859 km2, down 47,973 km2. 3rd lowest for the date. 2012 and 2011 were both lower! If no real substantial melt will happen the next few days, 2010 will also be lower than 2015.

Time to add a new term to "June cliff"? "June stall" perhaps? Or "summer stall"? :P

//LMV
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Espen on June 13, 2015, 07:55:07 AM
IJIS:

10,457,859 km2(June 12, 2015)down 47,973 km2 from previous and 3rd lowest for the date 2011 and 2012 was lower.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Espen on June 14, 2015, 06:51:29 AM
IJIS:

10,402,787 km2(June 13, 2015)down 55,072 km2 from previous and 3rd lowest for the date 2011 and 2012 was lower.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Espen on June 15, 2015, 05:24:36 AM
IJIS:

10,337,251 km2(June 14, 2015)down 65,536 km2 from previous and 3rd lowest for the date 2011 and 2012 was lower.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Espen on June 16, 2015, 05:27:05 AM
IJIS:

10,283,797 km2(June 15, 2015)down 53,454 km2 from previous and 3rd lowest measured for the date.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Sleepy on June 17, 2015, 04:36:32 AM
Lookalikes, aren't they pretty?
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Espen on June 17, 2015, 05:52:05 AM
IJIS:

10,207,482 km2(June 16, 2015)down 76,315 km2 3rd lowest for the date.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Espen on June 18, 2015, 05:29:15 AM
IJIS:

10,137,855 km2(June 17, 2015)down 69,627 km2 4th lowest measured for the date 2010, 2011 and 2012 was lower.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Espen on June 19, 2015, 06:09:00 AM
IJIS:

10,110,833 km2(June 18, 2015)down 27,022 km2 from previous and 4th lowest measured.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: SekeRob on June 19, 2015, 09:55:47 AM
It's visually really too close to call who's 3rd or 4th, the tracking of the green year [can't make out from legend which is which], is amazing. Not that I think it's not homo sapiens sapiens causing this on full lemming track, but I'd rather have it freeze over so Shell can't go in to lower the drillbit. It's rather stark that now the arctic ocean acidification is rapidly threatening the biosphere too.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Tor Bejnar on June 19, 2015, 04:20:34 PM
Are you the same SekeRob who produced charts such as this (http://s137.photobucket.com/user/Sekerob/media/Climate/ArcticSIEDaysMillionStepMelts.png.html) and this (http://s137.photobucket.com/user/Sekerob/media/Climate/Arctic_SIA_Days_Million_Decline_Steps.png.html) and this (http://s137.photobucket.com/user/Sekerob/media/Climate/MASIEArcticDaily.png.html)? I've been missing their updates. :'(
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: DavidR on June 20, 2015, 02:29:11 AM
Are you the same SekeRob who produced charts such as this ([url]http://s137.photobucket.com/user/Sekerob/media/Climate/ArcticSIEDaysMillionStepMelts.png.html[/url]) and this ([url]http://s137.photobucket.com/user/Sekerob/media/Climate/Arctic_SIA_Days_Million_Decline_Steps.png.html[/url]) and this ([url]http://s137.photobucket.com/user/Sekerob/media/Climate/MASIEArcticDaily.png.html[/url])? I've been missing their updates. :'(

You  can see at least  one of these graphs updated here:
https://sites.google.com/site/pettitclimategraphs/sea-ice-area#asiammdpdsb
It  also  provides a description of the source bu I'm not sure whether its the source of the graph or the data.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Tor Bejnar on June 20, 2015, 04:16:23 AM
Thanks,
Jim Pettit's presentation is/was for sea ice area and Seke Rob's is/was for sea ice extent. Alas, neither is up-to-date.   :'( :'(
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Espen on June 20, 2015, 09:43:09 AM
IJIS:

10,096,666 km2(June 19, 2015)down 41,189 km2 from previous  and 4th lowest measured.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Jim Pettit on June 20, 2015, 03:13:16 PM
Thanks,
Jim Pettit's presentation is/was for sea ice area and Seke Rob's is/was for sea ice extent. Alas, neither is up-to-date.   :'( :'(

Unfortunately, time-intensive personal matters intruded. But I'm working on all of my ice stuff as we speak.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: TerryM on June 20, 2015, 10:19:36 PM
Seke & Jim


I for one miss both of your charts. A plethora of information in a single graph!


Terry
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Vergent on June 21, 2015, 07:04:17 AM
Jim,

Your visualizations rival the best our tax dollars are achieving. Please, please, update them. If money is the problem, go Crowdfunding. I will pay.

Verg
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Espen on June 21, 2015, 09:13:39 AM
IJIS:

10,086,965 km2(June 20, 2015)down 9,701 km2 from previous and 4th lowest measured.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Espen on June 21, 2015, 09:14:35 AM
Houston we have a problem ;)
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: seaicesailor on June 21, 2015, 09:25:53 AM
At this pace it will hit from record high to record low compactness. Among other things.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: epiphyte on June 21, 2015, 08:41:46 PM
I think that these cycles between compact/diffuse ice at the edges are increasing the melt rate by encouraging the mixing of warm water & ice toward the edge of the pack. especially in the Fram + Barents Sea. Right now, for example, the amorphous band (where there are no discernable floes) is expanding to the south, increasing the extent. tomorrow or the next day, that ice will have melted.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Espen on June 22, 2015, 05:24:21 AM
IJIS:

10,031,674 km2(June 21, 2015)down 55,291 km2  from previous and 4th lowest measured.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: anotheramethyst on June 22, 2015, 08:53:56 AM
Thanks,
Jim Pettit's presentation is/was for sea ice area and Seke Rob's is/was for sea ice extent. Alas, neither is up-to-date.   :'( :'(

Unfortunately, time-intensive personal matters intruded. But I'm working on all of my ice stuff as we speak.


when i just started checking the sea ice in 2013 i started with neven's blog and gradually moved to the graphs page when i had learned enough... now i know enough to read the forum, but i still don't understand a lot.  i just wanted to thank you because your graphs are still among my favorites.  i know that must take a lot of time to make them.  u helped make another ice junkie :)
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: woodstea on June 22, 2015, 04:39:53 PM
when i just started checking the sea ice in 2013 i started with neven's blog and gradually moved to the graphs page when i had learned enough... now i know enough to read the forum, but i still don't understand a lot.  i just wanted to thank you because your graphs are still among my favorites.  i know that must take a lot of time to make them.  u helped make another ice junkie :)

Similar story for me. That "days spent below" graph is my favorite, one of the best visualizations I've seen for showing the story of ice decline over the last few decades.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Espen on June 23, 2015, 05:29:10 AM
IJIS:

9,991,615 km2(June 22, 2015)down 40,059 km2 from previous and5th lowest measured, 2010 - 2011 - 2012 and 2014 was lower.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Jim Pettit on June 23, 2015, 02:20:37 PM
To date, this June has seen one the lowest total decreases on the record, as shown in this graphic:

(http://i.imgur.com/iDZmNSx.png)

As it stands, more than twice as much ice had been lost by this date in June of 2012 than has been lost so far this month.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Tor Bejnar on June 23, 2015, 02:26:23 PM
We were looking for the "June cliff", but we got a "June stable shelf"
(My forecasting abilities being what they are [that is, aren't], watch out last-week-of-June!)
:D
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Espen on June 24, 2015, 05:43:13 AM
IJIS:

9,964,884 km2(June 23, 2015)down 26,731 km2 from previous and 5th lowest.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: epiphyte on June 24, 2015, 08:22:52 AM
To date, this June has seen one the lowest total decreases on the record, as shown in this graphic:

([url]http://i.imgur.com/iDZmNSx.png[/url])

As it stands, more than twice as much ice had been lost by this date in June of 2012 than has been lost so far this month.


Twice as much extent, sure.

Twice as much ice? (i.e. actual volume). Doubtful, I'd say...

... and there's not very much left to lose. So it's not about how much has been lost, as how much there is to go.

I have said on this forum many times over the past three years that If the ice is uniform in thickness, most of the extent will go all at once. From what I've seen so far, this year is still a candidate for the big crash.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: DavidR on June 24, 2015, 12:09:39 PM
To date, this June has seen one the lowest total decreases on the record, as shown in this graphic:

{ snip}

As it stands, more than twice as much ice had been lost by this date in June of 2012 than has been lost so far this month.

Twice as much extent, sure.

Twice as much ice? (i.e. actual volume). Doubtful, I'd say...

... and there's not very much left to lose. So it's not about how much has been lost, as how much there is to go.

I have said on this forum many times over the past three years that If the ice is uniform in thickness, most of the extent will go all at once. From what I've seen so far, this year is still a candidate for the big crash.

There is no doubt  that  because of the low maximum there has been much less thin ice this year.

Measured by  extent this year has had about 25% less of thin ice compared to 2012 and about  15% less than 2010 and 2012. In the range 0.6 - 1.1 mtr thick, according to Chris Reynolds PIOMAS April distribution, 2015 had only 1.25 M km^2 compared to about 1.96 in 2010 and 2012.  This is the ice that usually melts out in early June and indeed it has all now gone.

Even allowing for this 2015, has been slow over the past three weeks and it will be interesting to see if it starts to move again soon. 
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Nightvid Cole on June 24, 2015, 04:15:05 PM
To date, this June has seen one the lowest total decreases on the record, as shown in this graphic:

{ snip}

As it stands, more than twice as much ice had been lost by this date in June of 2012 than has been lost so far this month.


Twice as much extent, sure.

Twice as much ice? (i.e. actual volume). Doubtful, I'd say...

... and there's not very much left to lose. So it's not about how much has been lost, as how much there is to go.

I have said on this forum many times over the past three years that If the ice is uniform in thickness, most of the extent will go all at once. From what I've seen so far, this year is still a candidate for the big crash.


There is no doubt  that  because of the low maximum there has been much less thin ice this year.

Measured by  extent this year has had about 25% less of thin ice compared to 2012 and about  15% less than 2010 and 2012. In the range 0.6 - 1.1 mtr thick, according to Chris Reynolds PIOMAS April distribution, 2015 had only 1.25 M km^2 compared to about 1.96 in 2010 and 2012.  This is the ice that usually melts out in early June and indeed it has all now gone.

Even allowing for this 2015, has been slow over the past three weeks and it will be interesting to see if it starts to move again soon.


I don't expect large drops on IJIS extent until next month, because at this time of year the big determining factors are Hudson Bay and Baffin Bay, which appear to not be in an extremely advanced state of disintegration like they were at this time in other years with large drops in late June. Compare this year to 2007, 2010, and 2011, especially in Hudson Bay:

(http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsr2data/asi_daygrid_swath/n6250/2015/jun/asi-AMSR2-n6250-20150623-v5_nic.png)

(http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsredata/asi_daygrid_swath/l1a/n6250/2007/jun/asi-n6250-20070623-v5_nic.png)

(http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsredata/asi_daygrid_swath/l1a/n6250/2010/jun/asi-n6250-20100623-v5_nic.png)

(http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsredata/asi_daygrid_swath/l1a/n6250/2011/jun/asi-n6250-20110623-v5_nic.png)





Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: seaicesailor on June 24, 2015, 04:35:37 PM
Looking at those maps, this year ice front and melt looks so much to 2011.
True the stall of some peripheral areas. July, weather abiding, is going to being big melt.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: jdallen on June 24, 2015, 06:54:03 PM
To date, this June has seen one the lowest total decreases on the record, as shown in this graphic:

{ snip}

As it stands, more than twice as much ice had been lost by this date in June of 2012 than has been lost so far this month.

Twice as much extent, sure.

Twice as much ice? (i.e. actual volume). Doubtful, I'd say...

... and there's not very much left to lose. So it's not about how much has been lost, as how much there is to go.

I have said on this forum many times over the past three years that If the ice is uniform in thickness, most of the extent will go all at once. From what I've seen so far, this year is still a candidate for the big crash.

There is no doubt  that  because of the low maximum there has been much less thin ice this year.

Measured by  extent this year has had about 25% less of thin ice compared to 2012 and about  15% less than 2010 and 2012. In the range 0.6 - 1.1 mtr thick, according to Chris Reynolds PIOMAS April distribution, 2015 had only 1.25 M km^2 compared to about 1.96 in 2010 and 2012.  This is the ice that usually melts out in early June and indeed it has all now gone.

Even allowing for this 2015, has been slow over the past three weeks and it will be interesting to see if it starts to move again soon.
Jumping on David and others bandwagon - low max is part of the cause here, as a LOT of ice did not form in peripheral regions that contribute heavily to June melt.

Considering the higher 2015 Hudson, Baffin and Kara extent vis-a-vis some years, we are a lot closer to 2007, 2011 and 2012 than numbers otherwise might suggest.

Further, there is ice in some areas - specifically the ESS and Laptev - which at the end of the refreeze due to  winter export was left thin and weak.  If you look at the Siberian coast thread, this exactly the ice getting clobbered right NOW in a big way.  The disintegration of that extent, en masse will contribute significantly to Julys numbers and likely catch 2015 up with the lowest three years.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Espen on June 25, 2015, 06:19:47 AM
IJIS:

9,916,806 km2(June 24, 2015) down 74,809 km2 from previous and 6th lowest measured.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Jim Pettit on June 25, 2015, 01:37:32 PM
Definitely no June extent cliff this year (at least not yet, and time is running out). Between 01 May and 24 May this year, extent decreased by 1,431k km2; by comparison, just 962k has been lost between 01 June and 24 June.

Here's an update of the chart I posted several days ago; I think it nicely illustrates the issue:

(http://i.imgur.com/Mi8JJiC.png)

Having said that: i believe July will see significant drops in both extent and area--perhaps the largest July decreases on record.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Espen on June 26, 2015, 06:21:36 AM
IJIS:

9,883,311 km2(June 25, 2015)down 33,495 km2 from previous and 6th lowest measured.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Espen on June 27, 2015, 09:05:06 AM
IJIS:

9,817,719 km2(June 26, 2015)down 65,592 km2 from previous.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Espen on June 28, 2015, 05:24:30 AM
IJIS:


9,731,983 km2
(June 27, 2015)down 85,736 km2 from previous.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Espen on June 29, 2015, 05:22:23 AM
IJIS:

9,627,576 km2(June 28, 2015)down 104,407 km2 from previous.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Espen on June 30, 2015, 06:06:39 AM
IJIS:

9,542,138 km2(June 29, 2015)down 85,438 km2 from previous.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Espen on July 01, 2015, 05:29:55 AM
IJIS:

9,482,316 km2(June 30, 2015)down 59,822 km2 from previous, and 7th lowest.

Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Jim Pettit on July 01, 2015, 01:16:02 PM
For the month of June, extent experienced one of its smallest decreases on record. SIE dropped by just 1.4 million km2 for the month, which is nearly a million square kilometers less than it fell in either 2010 (2.31) or last year (2.33), and more than a million less than was lost in 2012 (2.44). In fact, the month just past marks the first time on record that May saw a much greater extent decrease than did June.

(http://i.imgur.com/xdFq0gL.png)

On a related note: SIE is currently 7th lowest for the date. That makes this only the third day this year--and the first since mid-February--that extent has been so far out of first place. And it should be noted that extent's 53-day stretch in the top 3 ended just two weeks ago.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Espen on July 02, 2015, 05:42:18 AM
IJIS:

9,431,704 km2(July 1, 2015)down 50,612 km2 from previous.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Espen on July 03, 2015, 05:26:45 AM
IJIS:

9,387,654 km2(July 2, 2015)down 44,050 km2 from previous.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Nightvid Cole on July 03, 2015, 01:35:29 PM
IJIS:

9,387,654 km2(July 2, 2015)down 44,050 km2 from previous.

...and 8th lowest.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Jim Pettit on July 03, 2015, 03:01:48 PM
IJIS:

9,387,654 km2(July 2, 2015)down 44,050 km2 from previous.

The month  is only two days old, and already the July 2015 decrease has been one of the smallest on record. Over the previous ten years, the average 01-JUL - 02 JUL SIE loss has been 195k km2; this year it's been a trifling 95k.

As Nightvid noted, SIE is now 8th lowest. That's the first time this year it's been that far removed from first place. And after spending a good part of the year several hundred thousand square kilometers lower than 2012--including a few days with a lead of greater than one million square kilometers--2015 is for the first time this year more than half-a-million km2 behind 2015.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Shared Humanity on July 03, 2015, 04:27:17 PM
2015 is for the first time this year more than half-a-million km2 behind 2015.

Which is quite amazing if you think about  it.  ;)
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Espen on July 04, 2015, 08:14:42 AM
IJIS:

9,341,259 km2(July 3, 2015)down 46,395 km2 from previous.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Espen on July 05, 2015, 06:46:57 AM
IJIS:

9,284,536 km2(July 4, 2015)down 56,723 km2 from previous.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: seaicesailor on July 05, 2015, 01:17:23 PM
IJIS:

9,284,536 km2(July 4, 2015)down 56,723 km2 from previous.

Far from the madding crowd, this number keeps happily going toward the 2000's average.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Espen on July 06, 2015, 05:30:14 AM
IJIS:

9,209,077 km2(July 5, 2015)down 75,459 km2 from previous.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Vergent on July 06, 2015, 05:53:03 AM
IJIS:

9,284,536 km2(July 4, 2015)down 56,723 km2 from previous.

Far from the madding crowd, this number keeps happily going toward the 2000's average.

Are you sure?

Verg
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: seaicesailor on July 06, 2015, 06:21:03 AM
IJIS:

9,284,536 km2(July 4, 2015)down 56,723 km2 from previous.

Far from the madding crowd, this number keeps happily going toward the 2000's average.

Are you sure?

Verg

No. I was being humoristic,  large drops to come (some day ... 8) )
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Espen on July 07, 2015, 06:57:48 AM
IJIS:

9,096,337 km2(July 6, 2015)down 112,740 km2 from previous.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Espen on July 08, 2015, 05:42:52 AM
IJIS:

8,932,745 km2(July 7, 2015)down 163,592 km2 from previous.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Espen on July 09, 2015, 05:41:44 AM
IJIS:

8,833,004 km2(July 8, 2015)down 99,741 km2 from previous.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Espen on July 10, 2015, 05:59:59 AM
IJIS:

 8,750,785 km2(July 9, 2015)down 82,219 km2 from previous.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Espen on July 11, 2015, 08:37:05 AM
IJIS:

8,660,819 km2(July 10, 2015)down 89,966 km2 from previous.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Neven on July 11, 2015, 09:55:38 AM
IJIS SIE decrease has picked up, but not as much as I thought it would.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Wipneus on July 11, 2015, 10:29:24 AM
IJIS SIE decrease has picked up, but not as much as I thought it would.

I won't bother you with a +53k uptick in the ESS, in the end it is just a bump in the road.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Jim Pettit on July 11, 2015, 03:01:35 PM
IJIS SIE decrease has picked up, but not as much as I thought it would.

Indeed. In fact, extent continues to lag further and further behind many previous years including 2012 and 2014, with the lag growing larger with each passing day. The current extent is 684k higher than that measured in 2012 on the same day; that's the largest gap so far this year between the two seasons, and that's all the more surprising given that just a few short months ago, 2014 had more than a million km2 less ice than did 2012.

One telling statistic: for the last ten years, here are the number of extent century drops recorded over the two-week period just passed:

2006: 4
2007: 9
2008: 0
2009: 6
2010: 2
2011: 7
2012: 8
2013: 13
2014: 8
2015: 3

Obviously century breaks aren't the most accurate statistic around--but the lack of them this summer certainly fills in parts of the overall picture.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Nightvid Cole on July 11, 2015, 03:35:54 PM
IJIS SIE decrease has picked up, but not as much as I thought it would.

Indeed. In fact, extent continues to lag further and further behind many previous years including 2012 and 2014, with the lag growing larger with each passing day. The current extent is 684k higher than that measured in 2012 on the same day; that's the largest gap so far this year between the two seasons, and that's all the more surprising given that just a few short months ago, 2014 had more than a million km2 less ice than did 2012.

One telling statistic: for the last ten years, here are the number of extent century drops recorded over the two-week period just passed:

2006: 4
2007: 9
2008: 0
2009: 6
2010: 2
2011: 7
2012: 8
2013: 13
2014: 8
2015: 3

Obviously century breaks aren't the most accurate statistic around--but the lack of them this summer certainly fills in parts of the overall picture.

Given the amount of ice yet to melt in Hudson and Baffin Bay, and the large regions of low-concentration ice in Chukchi and Beaufort Seas which is unusual for this early in the season, I predict:

1. At some point this month, IJIS extent will experience a dramatic acceleration in its decrease, with many century breaks;

2. By July 31st, IJIS extent should be within the lowest 3; and I would not be surprised if it is the all-time low for July 31st.

Furthermore, I would not be even slightly surprised if the *average* daily decrease between 7/10 and 7/31 is in excess of 100k km^2...
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Buddy on July 11, 2015, 03:52:47 PM
I don't think it gets much clearer than this:

(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-I9CPVRjN1Yc/VaBwKsnIdgI/AAAAAAAAQ0E/udemIWBStFg/s1600/July-14-2012-2015-5.png)

Two problems:

1)  There is MORE THIN ICE NOW than in 2012
2)  There is FAR LESS THICK ICE NOW than in 2012

There is more "extent" NOW than in 2012.....but that extent IS IN BAD SHAPE....
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Neven on July 11, 2015, 04:22:18 PM
1. At some point this month, IJIS extent will experience a dramatic acceleration in its decrease, with many century breaks;

Only if a serious Beaufort Gyre kicks up and persists. Or if the heat continues to pound the ice for another few weeks. But I think that would translate in SIE numbers no sooner than August.

2. By July 31st, IJIS extent should be within the lowest 3; and I would not be surprised if it is the all-time low for July 31st.

That'd be really cool to watch, but I don't think it's going to happen. Unless there's some freak weather hitting the weakened ice...

I don't think it gets much clearer than this:

This can't be correct. It would've shown up in the SIE and SIA numbers.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: wanderer on July 11, 2015, 04:26:58 PM
Extent was lower 2012, no doubt.
But isn't area now lower, when you exclude Hudson, Baffin and Kara?
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Bob Wallace on July 11, 2015, 04:58:27 PM
Couldn't a case be made for SIE SIA statistics which drop the Hudson and Baffin Bays? 

A set of statistics which report the condition of the "big bowl"....
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: OldLeatherneck on July 11, 2015, 05:41:45 PM
For 2015 SIE to catch up to 2012 by July 31st would require average daily drops of 122K, for 21 straight days.

For 2015 SIE to catch up to 2012 by August 31st would require average daily drops of 122K, for 52 straight days.

Unless we start seeing a number of multi-century drops in the next few weeks, it's going to be hard to set anew record this year.  We may need a "Super GAC-12" in late August to stir up and flush out a massive amount of rubble.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Buddy on July 11, 2015, 06:05:40 PM
(http://i619.photobucket.com/albums/tt275/Bob_Wall/2012%202015.jpg)

I wouldn't be surprised in the least if 2015 caught up to 2012.

In 2012.....the central part of Canada (north to south) was VERY WARM.  This was the year that the US set all kinds of crazy records in March of 2012 (the LOW for one day for Marquette, Michigan was higher than the OLD RECORD HIGH).

A couple things stick out for me in looking at the above maps:

1)  The concentration levels of 2015 are lower than 2012
2)  The Beaufort, Hudson Bay, and areas around Greenland are the areas where 2012 was way ahead of 2015.
3)  The  Chukchi sea is the one area where 2015 is way ahead of 2012.  And that MAY prove to be critical...as it allows more warm Pacific waters to melt away the ice in the Beaufort and the CAB on that side of the Arctic.

Again....won't be surprised EITHER WAY....it is only a waiting game....and the game is winding down to the last few minutes (years) before the Arctic ice is gone at the end of melt season.  This year.....highly doubtful.  2016....possibly (again...I think MOST of the ice will be gone next year)....2017....2018?

I do know that the ice is SUSEPTIBLE to "going" WITHIN the next few years....and I suspect most of it will be gone (except for a smattering here and there) by NEXT September.



Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Bob Wallace on July 11, 2015, 06:18:55 PM

Unless we start seeing a number of multi-century drops in the next few weeks, it's going to be hard to set anew record this year.  We may need a "Super GAC-12" in late August to stir up and flush out a massive amount of rubble.

I'm in no way predicting a larger melt in 2015 than what happened in 2012, but it seems like we need to pay a lot of attention to thickness and concentration.  A very large but thin and broken area of ice could disappear very quickly.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Espen on July 11, 2015, 06:24:01 PM

Unless we start seeing a number of multi-century drops in the next few weeks, it's going to be hard to set anew record this year.  We may need a "Super GAC-12" in late August to stir up and flush out a massive amount of rubble.

I'm in no way predicting a larger melt in 2015 than what happened in 2012, but it seems like we need to pay a lot of attention to thickness and concentration.  A very large but thin and broken area of ice could disappear very quickly.

I would not be surprised to see some surprises later in July / August.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: seaicesailor on July 11, 2015, 06:54:03 PM
I don't think it gets much clearer than this:

([url]http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-I9CPVRjN1Yc/VaBwKsnIdgI/AAAAAAAAQ0E/udemIWBStFg/s1600/July-14-2012-2015-5.png[/url])

Two problems:

1)  There is MORE THIN ICE NOW than in 2012
2)  There is FAR LESS THICK ICE NOW than in 2012

There is more "extent" NOW than in 2012.....but that extent IS IN BAD SHAPE....


I believe these are different models after all. They did some upgrade to the ARC model in 2013 (see version number at the top of the unedited pics).

In any case, the current HYCOM models (GLB included) are predicting exaggerated losses of concentration and extent these days. Nick_Naylor counted pixels a week ago or so, and the prediction was like 2 million plus extent decrease in one week including a -700K in a single day. It could not be.

BTW why comparing July 7 2012 against July 10, 2015 ? There days may make a big difference now in July.

Edit: I mean, in your other post with Uni Bremen maps
 
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Wipneus on July 11, 2015, 06:56:01 PM
large regions of low-concentration ice in Chukchi and Beaufort Seas which is unusual for this early in the season
The concentration levels of 2015 are lower than 2012


Using Jaxa L3 sea ice concentration:

           Diff 2015-2012 (in 103km2)
           Extent       Area
CAB         +41.3      +26.4
Beau       +186.6     +195.4
Chuk       -180.8     -163.0
ESS         -29.0      -68.3   
Laptev     +118.2     +135.9
          ------------------
Tot Basin  +135.3     +126.4


Of that lower concentration is little to be seen, actually it's higher in Beaufort and Chukchi.
The difference are relatively small though. I think it may stay undecided for some time and the the real test is whether 2015 can keep declining into August when 2012 made the difference.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Bob Wallace on July 11, 2015, 07:47:32 PM
The difference are relatively small though.

A percentage difference would be helpful to understand the relative difference.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: seaicesailor on July 11, 2015, 07:58:54 PM
The difference are relatively small though.

A percentage difference would be helpful to understand the relative difference.

It's a two-day difference out of 50 days left. Like 2 seconds of advantage in the last round lap (~50 sec) of a 1500 m race. Only that we already know 2012 did not slow down very much from now till September.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: oren on July 11, 2015, 08:27:51 PM
I think the main advantage of 2012 is that big cyclone in August. If this year keeps its relatively low export, or just normal export, I personally doubt it will catch 2012 all the way to the bottom, though it  might very possibly catch 2007 and 2011.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Bob Wallace on July 11, 2015, 09:31:26 PM
The difference are relatively small though.

A percentage difference would be helpful to understand the relative difference.

It's a two-day difference out of 50 days left. Like 2 seconds of advantage in the last round lap (~50 sec) of a 1500 m race. Only that we already know 2012 did not slow down very much from now till September.

So about a 4% difference now.  (Obviously we don't know what happens next....)
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Nightvid Cole on July 12, 2015, 12:10:58 AM

Unless we start seeing a number of multi-century drops in the next few weeks, it's going to be hard to set anew record this year.  We may need a "Super GAC-12" in late August to stir up and flush out a massive amount of rubble.

I'm in no way predicting a larger melt in 2015 than what happened in 2012, but it seems like we need to pay a lot of attention to thickness and concentration.  A very large but thin and broken area of ice could disappear very quickly.

I would not be surprised to see some surprises later in July / August.

If you wouldn't be surprised to see it, then is it really a surprise?   :D
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: werther on July 12, 2015, 10:38:45 AM
Morning all... where's Espen?
Bad night perhaps?
Let's do the wake-up call: nice century-break: -112936.
Think it's ESS contributing now. Although just a slight zone along the coast, an ice-free NE passage is getting closer.
In the CAA, cracking is on the way too. McClure Strait, entrance of Prince of Wales Strait, Barrow Strait near Cornwallis.
BTW the 'Laptev Bite' made some progress too.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Espen on July 12, 2015, 10:40:53 AM
IJIS:

8,547,883 km2(July 11, 2015)down 112,936 km2 from previous.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Espen on July 12, 2015, 10:41:44 AM
Morning all... where's Espen?
Bad night perhaps?
Let's do the wake-up call: nice century-break: -112936.
Think it's ESS contributing now. Although just a slight zone along the coast, an ice-free NE passage is getting closer.
In the CAA, cracking is on the way too. McClure Strait, entrance of Prince of Wales Strait, Barrow Strait near Cornwallis.
BTW the 'Laptev Bite' made some progress too.

Just a lengthy party ;)
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Steven on July 12, 2015, 02:11:17 PM
Extent was lower 2012, no doubt.
But isn't area now lower, when you exclude Hudson, Baffin and Kara?


The graph below shows Arctic sea ice area from 1 to 31 July for the last 10 years, with Hudson Bay, Baffin Bay and Kara Sea excluded.

The choice of the excluded regions is somewhat arbitrary.  Anyway, 2015 is currently 3rd lowest in this graph, behind 2012 and 2007.

For the calculation I used the regional sea ice area data (based on NSIDC sea ice concentration data) on this webpage (https://sites.google.com/site/arctischepinguin/home/sea-ice-extent-area/data) by Wipneus.


(http://i.imgur.com/Q4QRqHn.png)
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Jim Hunt on July 12, 2015, 03:47:34 PM
The graph below shows Arctic sea ice area from 1 to 31 July for the last 10 years, with Hudson Bay, Baffin Bay and Kara Sea excluded.


Thanks Steven. You beat me to it!

I was going to either include the Kara Sea or exclude the Barents Sea as well, if you can see the implied question?

P.S. I've just discovered that Wipneus beat me to it as well!

http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,382.msg56478.html#msg56478 (http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,382.msg56478.html#msg56478)

Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Steven on July 12, 2015, 05:52:30 PM
I was going to either include the Kara Sea or exclude the Barents Sea as well, if you can see the implied question?

I used the regions that wanderer suggested.  Actually I prefer to include both the Barents Sea and the Northern part of Kara Sea, because both of them are directly adjacent to the Arctic Basin.  (The sea ice in the Southern Kara Sea, east of Novaya Zemlya, is somewhat detached from the rest of the pack.)  But there seem to be no separate data for the Northern Kara vs. Southern Kara Sea.
 
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Espen on July 13, 2015, 05:42:54 AM
IJIS:

8,461,055 km2(July 12, 2015)down 86,828 km2 from previous.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Jim Pettit on July 13, 2015, 01:24:18 PM
Extent continues to s-l-o-w-l-y decrease. It's currently in 8th place,  behind 2011--by 769k km2--2012, 2014, 2007, 2013, 2010, and 2006. In fact, while 2015 isn't performing quite as badly as June--which saw the smallest drop for that month since the 1990s--July to-date nevertheless lags behind five of the past six seasons, with the gap growing every day (for instance, 2013 fell 52% more for the month-to-date than has 2015).

I raised my vote for minimum a few weeks ago; I find myself increasingly wishing I could do so again... :)
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: seaicesailor on July 13, 2015, 02:08:34 PM
Extent continues to s-l-o-w-l-y decrease. It's currently in 8th place,  behind 2011--by 769k km2--2012, 2014, 2007, 2013, 2010, and 2006. In fact, while 2015 isn't performing quite as badly as June--which saw the smallest drop for that month since the 1990s--July to-date nevertheless lags behind five of the past six seasons, with the gap growing every day (for instance, 2013 fell 52% more for the month-to-date than has 2015).

I raised my vote for minimum a few weeks ago; I find myself increasingly wishing I could do so again... :)

This new product shows a different picture

https://sites.google.com/site/arctischepinguin/home/amsr2/grf/basin-extent-multiprod.png

Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Espen on July 14, 2015, 05:48:39 AM
IJIS:

8,335,581 km2(July 13, 2015)down 125,474 km2 from previous.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: epiphyte on July 14, 2015, 07:52:34 AM
Extent continues to s-l-o-w-l-y decrease. It's currently in 8th place,  behind 2011--by 769k km2--2012, 2014, 2007, 2013, 2010, and 2006. In fact, while 2015 isn't performing quite as badly as June--which saw the smallest drop for that month since the 1990s--July to-date nevertheless lags behind five of the past six seasons, with the gap growing every day (for instance, 2013 fell 52% more for the month-to-date than has 2015).

I raised my vote for minimum a few weeks ago; I find myself increasingly wishing I could do so again... :)

That's intriguing... I just lowered mine!

..So which of us is the hare, and which the tortoise?

Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: DavidR on July 14, 2015, 10:17:01 AM
Extent continues to s-l-o-w-l-y decrease. It's currently in 8th place,  behind 2011--by 769k km2--2012, 2014, 2007, 2013, 2010, and 2006. In fact, while 2015 isn't performing quite as badly as June--which saw the smallest drop for that month since the 1990s--July to-date nevertheless lags behind five of the past six seasons, with the gap growing every day (for instance, 2013 fell 52% more for the month-to-date than has 2015).

I raised my vote for minimum a few weeks ago; I find myself increasingly wishing I could do so again... :)

That's intriguing... I just lowered mine!

..So which of us is the hare, and which the tortoise?
Perhaps you both ended up in the same spot!  Its hard to ignore the fact that  there is about 750K km^2 of ice in Hudson and Baffin bays that  isn't normally there and which has never failed to melt  out in August,  so the artificially  high extent  at the moment  will  disappear as thse areas catch up with themselves.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: oren on July 14, 2015, 10:55:01 AM
I'm starting to wonder if Baffin or Hudson might surprise us... they're being really stubborn.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: seaicesailor on July 14, 2015, 11:35:12 AM
I'm starting to wonder if Baffin or Hudson might surprise us... they're being really stubborn.

I don't think so, Oren, all that ice will be gone sometime August, see the rates of extent decrease.
That HYCOM prediction of Hudson ice vanishing in just one week ...

Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Espen on July 15, 2015, 05:43:16 AM
IJIS:

8,255,586 km2(July 14, 2015)down 79,995 km2 from previous.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Espen on July 16, 2015, 06:07:27 AM
IJIS:

8,209,972 km2(July 15, 2015)down 45,614 km2 from previous.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Espen on July 17, 2015, 05:40:41 AM
IJIS:

8,054,919 km2(July 16, 2015)down 155,053 km2 from previous.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: oren on July 17, 2015, 09:09:06 AM
Impressive.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: greatdying2 on July 17, 2015, 09:13:40 AM
IJIS:

8,054,919 km2(July 16, 2015)down 155,053 km2 from previous.

Some wild daily fluctuations, but strangely every pair of days for the last 6 days has summed to ~200k.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Jim Pettit on July 17, 2015, 01:02:27 PM
Interesting (Maybe) SIE Fact Of The Day: July extent loss has now exceeded that for the entire month of June. Doing so by the 16th is something that has seldom if ever happened before. Over the past ten years, month-to-date decreases through July 16 have averaged 74% of losses for the entire month of June. That's not, of course, because this month has been gangbusters; in fact, losses for the month-to-date are running below the ten-year average. Rather, it's because June's extent decrease was so small--by far the smallest in the past ten years.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Buddy on July 17, 2015, 01:09:09 PM
What is the saying...."there are lies, damned lies, and statistics." ;D

Next month certainly could be interesting....

Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: AbruptSLR on July 17, 2015, 06:50:57 PM
Interesting (Maybe) SIE Fact Of The Day: July extent loss has now exceeded that for the entire month of June. Doing so by the 16th is something that has seldom if ever happened before. Over the past ten years, month-to-date decreases through July 16 have averaged 74% of losses for the entire month of June. That's not, of course, because this month has been gangbusters; in fact, losses for the month-to-date are running below the ten-year average. Rather, it's because June's extent decrease was so small--by far the smallest in the past ten years.

Although it is only my personal opinion: during strong El Nino years generally the western Arctic loses sea ice (as occurred before June), while the eastern Arctic loses less sea ice (witness the current sea ice in Hudson Bay and Baffin Bay); however, now that ice loss in Hudson & Baffin are now accelerating the rate of sea ice loss is temporarily accelerating, which may bring us to one of the top 3 to 4 lowest Arctic sea ice extents by early August.  Whether the sea ice extent continues decreasing faster than average during August, or not, to me seems to depend a lot on the strength of cyclonic activity (or not) in the Arctic during this key month.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: seaicesailor on July 18, 2015, 08:13:44 AM

Down 134K today
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Espen on July 18, 2015, 09:39:33 AM
IJIS:

7,920,694 km2(July 17, 2015)diown 134,225 km2 from previous.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Tensor on July 18, 2015, 04:02:21 PM
I'd ask if we can say cliff, but I'll wait a few more days.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: AbruptSLR on July 18, 2015, 07:09:29 PM
Interesting (Maybe) SIE Fact Of The Day: July extent loss has now exceeded that for the entire month of June. Doing so by the 16th is something that has seldom if ever happened before. Over the past ten years, month-to-date decreases through July 16 have averaged 74% of losses for the entire month of June. That's not, of course, because this month has been gangbusters; in fact, losses for the month-to-date are running below the ten-year average. Rather, it's because June's extent decrease was so small--by far the smallest in the past ten years.

Although it is only my personal opinion: during strong El Nino years generally the western Arctic loses sea ice (as occurred before June), while the eastern Arctic loses less sea ice (witness the current sea ice in Hudson Bay and Baffin Bay); however, now that ice loss in Hudson & Baffin are now accelerating the rate of sea ice loss is temporarily accelerating, which may bring us to one of the top 3 to 4 lowest Arctic sea ice extents by early August.  Whether the sea ice extent continues decreasing faster than average during August, or not, to me seems to depend a lot on the strength of cyclonic activity (or not) in the Arctic during this key month.

As indicated in the attached image most of the recent drop in ASIE is occurring in Hudson Bay, Baffin Bay and the East Siberian Sea areas (that are relatively easy targets); while the real question come August is what will happen in the Central Arctic Basin and Beaufort Sea area.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Buddy on July 18, 2015, 09:40:30 PM
June was just the early "feel out" round of the fight where the other fighter was "softened up".  July and August will be the "knock out" rounds.... 8)

Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: greatdying2 on July 19, 2015, 03:16:04 AM
As has been pointed out previously in other threads, perhaps more relevant than overall numbers are these new Arctic Basin-specific graphs from Wipneus (thanks!!), which exclude Hudson, Baffin, etc. They show that area and extent for '12 - '15 are in a virtual dead heat as of this week, but diverge by the end of June.

Actually area, which appears (not surprisingly) to lead extent, has just begun to diverge, especially for IJIS, with '15 tracking '12. So, I guess the next two weeks may be rather interesting, especially given the weather forecasts...

(https://sites.google.com/site/arctischepinguin/home/amsr2/grf/basin-extent-multiprod.png)
https://sites.google.com/site/arctischepinguin/home/amsr2/grf/basin-extent-multiprod.png

(https://sites.google.com/site/arctischepinguin/home/amsr2/grf/basin-area-multiprod.png)
https://sites.google.com/site/arctischepinguin/home/amsr2/grf/basin-area-multiprod.png
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Espen on July 19, 2015, 05:22:34 AM
IJIS:

 7,767,001 km2(July 18, 2015)down 153,693 km2 from previous.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Andir on July 19, 2015, 08:19:34 AM
Hi Espen,
The graph is the One from yesterday?
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Espen on July 20, 2015, 05:41:14 AM
IJIS:

7,661,816 km2(July 19, 2015)down 105,185 km2 from previous.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Espen on July 21, 2015, 05:22:25 AM
IJIS:

7,522,508 km2(July 20, 2015)down 139,308 km2 from previous.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Tensor on July 21, 2015, 06:44:55 AM
Epsen, I see the file was updated, but is the graph updated?   The 2015 line looks to be in the same place for the 20th.  My apologies if it's my eyesight that is off.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Espen on July 22, 2015, 06:43:43 AM
IJIS:

7,415,444 km2(July 21, 2015)down 107,064 km2 from previous.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Nightvid Cole on July 22, 2015, 03:40:34 PM
IJIS:

7,415,444 km2(July 21, 2015)down 107,064 km2 from previous.

...and 5th lowest for the date.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Espen on July 23, 2015, 06:13:27 AM
IJIS:

7,301,892 km2(July 22, 2015)down 113,552 km2 from previous.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Deeenngee on July 23, 2015, 11:54:40 PM
Espen

For your consideration: a graph (attached) that adds an average for the 2010s, the range for the 2010s, and removes all the individual years apart from 2015. Visually I like this approach as you see the current year in the context of all the recent years, i.e. the shaded range for the 2010s. I know some like to see all the recent years plotted in order to compare with current year, but this method gives a bit more of an overview.

Anyway, this type could complement your daily charts, perhaps as a weekly update. 

(I haven't worked out how to insert the image within this text, so it's attached)
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Espen on July 24, 2015, 07:15:49 AM
IJIS:

7,201,855 km2(July 23, 2015)down 100.037 km2 from previous.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Tensor on July 24, 2015, 07:56:42 AM
Eight straight days of loses over 100,000 km2 and a total loss of just over a million km2 in those eight days.  OK, cliff.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Jim Pettit on July 24, 2015, 02:10:53 PM
Eight straight days of loses over 100,000 km2 and a total loss of just over a million km2 in those eight days.  OK, cliff.
Well, as close as 2015 has come to a cliff, yes. Keep in mind that consecutive century breaks aren't all that uncommon, though this year's string is the latest one on record that's comprised of eight or more days. By way of comparison, 2013 put together an 11-day string of centuries, followed by a seven day string; in fact, 2013 saw a 21-day stretch containing 19 centuries. 2011 saw an 8-day string in early July; and 2012 had two 7-day strings, one in early June and the other in early August (that last courtesy of the GAC).

Over the past ten years, 2007, 2009, 2011, and 2013 saw greater extent loss in July. And, thanks to June's bizarrely low numbers, the decrease for the MJJ period-to-date is the smallest it's been since 2008, as seen in the graph below:

(http://i.imgur.com/XRJa7Lp.png)
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Nightvid Cole on July 24, 2015, 03:25:20 PM
IJIS:

7,201,855 km2(July 23, 2015)down 100.037 km2 from previous.

Have you converted from American to European now, using a period instead of a comma for daily decrease number? Dual citizenship?  ;)
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Tensor on July 24, 2015, 04:09:59 PM
I know Jim.  I jokingly made a comment a week ago, after two century drops, that I'd wait for a few days before calling it a cliff.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Espen on July 25, 2015, 08:18:14 AM
IJIS:

7,117,077 km2(July 24, 2015)down 84,778 km2 from previous.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Tensor on July 25, 2015, 04:38:39 PM
Of course, I mention eight straight days of century breaks, and we don't get one. My bad.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Neven on July 25, 2015, 04:57:54 PM
Of course, I mention eight straight days of century breaks, and we don't get on. My bad.

Someone's got to do it.  ;D
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Espen on July 26, 2015, 05:25:22 AM
IJIS:

7,001,792 km2(July 25, 2015)down 115,285 km2 from previous.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Espen on July 27, 2015, 05:24:10 AM
IJIS:

6,918,879 km2(July 26, 2015)down 82,913 km2 from previous and 4th lowest.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: dmarcus on July 27, 2015, 07:52:35 AM
If IJIS extent drops by an average of 82K per day for the next 8 days, it will pass 2011 and move to 3rd. Or 81K/day for the next 9 days.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Espen on July 28, 2015, 05:44:39 AM
IJIS:

6,843,550 km2(July 27, 2015)down 75,329 km2 from previous.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Shared Humanity on July 28, 2015, 02:44:26 PM
4th lowest while ending the season 2nd or 3rd lowest is still within the realm of possibility.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: dmarcus on July 28, 2015, 10:39:32 PM
Mean date of minimum in 2007-14 was September 14th, 49 days from now. To finish 3rd requires an average drop of 53K/day; to finish 2nd requires 57K/day. To a first approximation, daily extent decreases shrink linearly from now until they reach zero in mid-September. So to average 53K/day would require current daily decreases around 106K, with each successive day about 2K less. A bit of a stretch? But certainly possible.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Espen on July 29, 2015, 05:58:36 AM
IJIS:

6,793,870 km2(July 28, 2015)down 49,680 km2 from previous and 5th lowest.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Ned W on July 29, 2015, 01:11:04 PM
Mean date of minimum in 2007-14 was September 14th, 49 days from now. To finish 3rd requires an average drop of 53K/day; to finish 2nd requires 57K/day. To a first approximation, daily extent decreases shrink linearly from now until they reach zero in mid-September. So to average 53K/day would require current daily decreases around 106K, with each successive day about 2K less. A bit of a stretch? But certainly possible.
The way I would do this is to look at each year's decrease from 28 July to the minimum, model a distribution, and figure out what the probabilities are that this year's future drop to the minimum will be large enough to put it in 1st place, 2nd place, etc.

Here's a first cut at that.  Column A is the predicted outcome for 2015, Column B is the probability:

1st place: < 1%
2nd: 18%
3rd: 16%
4th: 21%
5th: 11%
6th: 14%
7th: 4%
8th: 7%
9th or worse: 7%

Same thing, but with cumulative values:

1st place: <1%
2nd or better: 19%
3rd or better: 34%
4th or better: 56%
5th or better: 67%
6th or better: 81%
7th or better: 85%
8th or better: 93%
9th or worse: 7%

So there is an equal chance (1 in 3) that 2015 will end up in the top 3 or that it will not make it into the top 5.

The single most likely outcome is that 2015 will end up in 4th place ... with a daily minimum of 4441320 km2.

[Edited to add: this is all based on the statistics from 2007-2014, for consistency with dmarcus's comment]
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Espen on July 30, 2015, 07:33:29 AM
IJIS:

6,730,052 km2(July 29, 2015)down 63,818 km2 from previous.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Espen on July 31, 2015, 07:04:04 AM
IJIS:

6,641,466 km2(July 30, 2015)down 88,586 km2 from previous.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: dmarcus on July 31, 2015, 08:33:45 PM
And back to 4th lowest, after 2 days at 5th.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Espen on August 01, 2015, 09:13:55 AM
IJIS:

6,563,862 km2(July 31, 2015)down 77,604 km2 from previous.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: kingbum on August 01, 2015, 11:21:47 AM
Seems to me a 70k daily drop on average through August is reasonable...any centuries will happen in the first two weeks....looking like 4.5m minimum to me...not surprising given El Niño and the hot tub that is the Pacific we are giving back some from 2013/14...AMO is switching to its cold phase though that will preserve some ice
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Espen on August 02, 2015, 10:03:01 AM
IJIS:

6,468,143 km2(August 1, 2015)down 95,719 km2 from previous.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Jim Pettit on August 02, 2015, 02:15:56 PM
July's extent loss was 209% of June's, something pretty much unheard of in the satellite record. Average ratio over the past ten seasons is 142%, with a low of 93% (2010) and a high of 179% (2004). Not that that really means much; this year's July/June loss ratio is only so lopsided because June's loss was one of the very lowest on record. In fact, total extent loss last month was smaller than those recorded in 2007, 2009, 2012, and 2013. IOW, it was right around the median.

For the MJJA period-to-date, 2015 loss trails 2013, 2011, 2009, 2007, 2010, and 2012.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: oren on August 02, 2015, 02:20:08 PM
I think 2015 acted strangely mainly because of its low max extent. At some point 2015 was more than 1 million km2 below 2012, so in order to revert to the mean there "had" to be some slow months.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: greatdying2 on August 02, 2015, 04:21:20 PM
I've said it before and I guess I'll say it again: Hudson and Baffin melted late this year. It doesn't mean much in the grand scheme of things (except perhaps regarding the CAA), but it makes various high-level statistics not comparable to other recent years...
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Bob Wallace on August 02, 2015, 11:26:05 PM
I've said it before and I guess I'll say it again: Hudson and Baffin melted late this year. It doesn't mean much in the grand scheme of things (except perhaps regarding the CAA), but it makes various high-level statistics not comparable to other recent years...

Agreed.  I'm feeling more comfortable using Wipnus's 'big bowl' graphs to track what is happening in the main arena. 

As of right now 2015 is neck and neck with 2012 in terms of extent.

https://sites.google.com/site/arctischepinguin/home/amsr2/grf/basin-extent-multiprod.png

And in terms of area.

https://sites.google.com/site/arctischepinguin/home/amsr2/grf/basin-area-multiprod.png


The Hudson and Baffin are distorting right now.  The early melt in the Pacific suburbs distorted the early season melt.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: kingbum on August 03, 2015, 02:54:08 AM
The Hudson and Baffin are colder than normal that's obvious and I just think given normal temperatures they are going to refreeze earlier than normal preventing massive drops come late August. MYI in the Beaufort will prevent huge drop offs there and the Canadian Archipelago is relatively normal so unless things change and I will know more after the PIOMAS update I'm expecting a slow down really soon. I think century drops from this point are done for the season it looks like the cold is beginning to return.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Espen on August 03, 2015, 05:45:00 AM
IJIS:

6,398,006 km2(August 2, 2015)down 70,137 km2 from previous.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Espen on August 04, 2015, 05:42:38 AM
IJIS:

6,280,798 km2(August 3, 2015)down 117,208 km2 from previous
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: stackmaster on August 04, 2015, 05:57:29 AM
More of those coming soon if my Chrystal ball is tuned up.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Espen on August 05, 2015, 05:59:20 AM
IJIS:

6,221,434 km2(August 4, 2015)down 59,364 km2 from previous.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Espen on August 06, 2015, 05:49:50 AM
IJIS:

6,198,968 km2(August 5, 2015)down 22,466 km2 from previous.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Ned W on August 06, 2015, 02:48:36 PM
OK.  Since my last update, 8 days ago, the odds of a 3rd, 4th, or 5th place finish have all increased slightly, while the odds of a higher or lower finish have decreased.

There's a 1-in-6 chance IJIS will finish better than 3rd, and a 1-in-4 chance it will do worse than 5th place.

Most likely outcome is that 2015 will end up in 4th place, behind 2012, 2007, and 2011.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Siffy on August 06, 2015, 02:50:59 PM
OK.  Since my last update, 8 days ago, the odds of a 3rd, 4th, or 5th place finish have all increased slightly, while the odds of a higher or lower finish have decreased.

There's a 1-in-6 chance IJIS will finish better than 3rd, and a 1-in-4 chance it will do worse than 5th place.

Most likely outcome is that 2015 will end up in 4th place, behind 2012, 2007, and 2011.


(http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsr2/arctic_AMSR2_nic.png)

There is more than a million square km worth of low concentration ice around the beaufort sea and the ESS waiting to pop.

I'd surprised at anything other than a 2nd place finish.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: plinius on August 06, 2015, 05:02:19 PM
It is not clear if those fail or not. This is not the 2012 situation with  a dissolved region of thin ice, but a situation with highly dispersed, thick multiyear floes. Suppose we cannot pull more than simple gut feeling in the conjecture that those regions will melt out, as there are no experience values. It is also not clear (apart from that one buoy showing some accelerated melt), how much heat is in the water under that ice.
Situation on the European side is more clear - there you have a large warm water front pushing into the central arctic, similar to what happened in Chuckchi earlier this year.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Espen on August 07, 2015, 06:11:25 AM
IJIS:

6,152,802 km2(August 6, 2015)down 46,166 km2 from previous.

Corrected
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Lennart van der Linde on August 07, 2015, 07:44:03 AM
down 68,632 km2 from previous.

That should be "down 46k from previous", it seems?
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Sleepy on August 07, 2015, 07:55:23 AM
Yes, correct. It's nice to see that Espen is human though. ;)
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: budmantis on August 07, 2015, 04:07:21 PM
Perhaps he's not having an "ice" day! ;)
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Espen on August 07, 2015, 07:57:12 PM
I am having a "ice" day, but the way way I read the Bremen map, we are in for a some interesting weeks ;).

http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsr2/arctic_AMSR2_nic.png (http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsr2/arctic_AMSR2_nic.png)
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: slow wing on August 08, 2015, 12:55:02 AM
Espen, the correct English is:
"an ice"
and also:
"a nice".

So you can have a nice day and can also have an ice day.

https://www.englishclub.com/pronunciation/a-an.htm (https://www.englishclub.com/pronunciation/a-an.htm)
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: budmantis on August 08, 2015, 01:28:56 AM
It is important to use proper english grammar if you want to have an "ice" day!  8)

Espen: The Uni Bremen map shows the arctic ice being decimated, yet the the melt seems to have slowed down.

Bud
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: JKDMaineUSA on August 08, 2015, 04:28:58 AM
I believe you missed Espen's "play on words", ice being substituted for nice. Therefore, his grammar usage is allowed.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Espen on August 08, 2015, 09:20:24 AM
IJIS:

6,085,662 km2(August 7, 2015)down 67,140 km2 from previous.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: colding on August 08, 2015, 10:58:51 AM
I believe you missed Espen's "play on words", ice being substituted for nice. Therefore, his grammar usage is allowed.

That's exactly the point. Moving the 'n' back and forth: "an ice" => "a nice". It isn't as good a word play without the 'n' and the correct usage of 'an'.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Anne on August 08, 2015, 11:56:16 AM
 Is your name 'colding', with an S?
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: colding on August 08, 2015, 01:49:10 PM
Is your name 'colding', with an S?

Nope, no 'S'. 'Colding' is my surname.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: notjonathon on August 08, 2015, 05:01:45 PM
Mr. (s)colding--

I don't think you got Anne's point.

We're not the grammar police.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Espen on August 08, 2015, 05:30:57 PM
And since "have a ice day" is a nonsense sentence, there is no rule!! ;)
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: AySz88 on August 08, 2015, 08:38:04 PM
Though I also think "...an ice..." is the better pun, it seems like Espen by now has already decided which version he wants to use. (Is the provocation of this whole conversation part of the idea of it?) ;)

We're not the grammar police.

Didn't you hear? You get points! (https://xkcd.com/386/)

(But to be serious: On certain commenting systems, you are literally rewarded points ("upvotes" or "likes") for pedantic oneupmanship and pointing out such things. So perhaps a culture clash shouldn't really be put down quite that harshly.)
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Neven on August 08, 2015, 09:24:41 PM
Okay, enough boring stuff, back to IJIS.

Have a ice day!  ;D
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: plg on August 08, 2015, 09:54:27 PM
Though I also think "...an ice..." is the better pun, it seems like Espen by now has already decided which version he wants to use. (Is the provocation of this whole conversation part of the idea of it?) ;)

We're not the grammar police.

Didn't you hear? You get points! (https://xkcd.com/386/)

(But to be serious: On certain commenting systems, you are literally rewarded points ("upvotes" or "likes") for pedantic oneupmanship and pointing out such things. So perhaps a culture clash shouldn't really be put down quite that harshly.)

Muphry's law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muphry%27s_law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muphry%27s_law)

(Couldn't resist).
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: seaicesailor on August 09, 2015, 09:13:03 AM
Today down 90k. First day below 6M
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Espen on August 09, 2015, 10:06:47 AM
IJIS:

5,996,398 km2(August 8, 2015)down 89,264 km2 from previous.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Espen on August 10, 2015, 05:23:11 AM
IJIS:

 5,903,228 km2(August 9, 2015)down 93,170 km2 from previous.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Espen on August 11, 2015, 05:42:59 AM
IJIS:

5,804,214 km2(August 10, 2015)down 99,014 km2 from previous.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: jdallen on August 11, 2015, 06:18:13 AM
IJIS:

5,804,214 km2(August 10, 2015)down 99,014 km2 from previous.
Dropping like a stone... 350,000KM2 in 4 days...
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: slow wing on August 11, 2015, 06:19:06 AM
What happens if the Beaufort Arm detaches completely? Is there a discontinuous plunge in extent or can the algorithm handle that change in the ice pack topology?
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: oren on August 11, 2015, 06:51:08 AM
What happens if the Beaufort Arm detaches completely? Is there a discontinuous plunge in extent or can the algorithm handle that change in the ice pack topology?

All the algorithms afaik count grid boxes/pixels, and do not look for a contiguous ice pack, so it should have no discontinuous effect.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: seaicesailor on August 11, 2015, 08:39:28 AM
IJIS:

5,804,214 km2(August 10, 2015)down 99,014 km2 from previous.
Dropping like a stone... 350,000KM2 in 4 days...

The significant slowdown has begun.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: slow wing on August 11, 2015, 10:03:39 AM
Thanks Oren.

  I'm surprised the extent remains so high. Look at the U. Bremen concentration map. The area inside the '80 degrees North circle' is only 3.9 million square km and that includes some land mass (Greenland and Ellesmere Island, if I am remembering the second name correctly) as well as parts on the Atlantic side without ice.

  So let's play the mind game for a moment of excluding all the ice on the Pacific side of the Arctic Basin South of 80 degrees N. To my eye, the sea ice cover apart from that is probably less than the 80 degree circle area.

  So I presume IJIS must be counting a lot of extent on the Pacific side and South of 80 degrees N.
What the U. Bremen map shows as the hole is seen in the EOSDIS satellite pictures to actually be a mush from broken up floes, and the same is true for some of the other regions showing as water in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas.

  With continuing winds forecast in that region, I  would expect that part of the extent to continue to fall away quickly.

   So based on the above I predict the IJIS extent to continue to drop fast to somewhere around 4 million square km, as happened in 2012, and in the process presumably blowing down to second place on the IJIS extent graph, below the 2007 and 2011 lines.


(http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsr2data/asi_daygrid_swath/n6250/2015/aug/asi-AMSR2-n6250-20150810-v5_nic.png)









Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: OldLeatherneck on August 11, 2015, 02:38:29 PM
                                            ------<SNIP>--------

   So based on the above I predict the IJIS extent to continue to drop fast to somewhere around 4 million square km, as happened in 2012, and in the process presumably blowing down to second place on the IJIS extent graph, below the 2007 and 2011 lines.

                                              ------<SNIP>--------
slow wing,

I agree that your prediction may be correct.  If we have many more near-century drops within  the next 5-10 days, I can easily see a high probability of going below 2011 and reasonable chance of going below 2007.  For all practical purposes 2012 will retain the record low for SIE.  A good science fiction writer would have trouble creating a scenario that would allow 2015 to set a new record low.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Tensor on August 11, 2015, 05:02:50 PM
...Snip

...For all practical purposes 2012 will retain the record low for SIE.  A good science fiction writer would have trouble creating a scenario that would allow 2015 to set a new record low.

I happen to agree with you on the record low, but I may give writing that scenario a try, as I'm a bad science fiction writer.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Espen on August 12, 2015, 05:51:01 AM
IJIS:

August 11 2015 delayed.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Lord M Vader on August 12, 2015, 07:28:51 AM
IJIS: 5,722,632 km2 (August 11). Down 81,582 km2 since previous.

//LMV

Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Deeenngee on August 12, 2015, 11:09:53 AM
Here's an update of my despaghettified graph - more like a double bass drawn by Salvador Dali.

For the 2010s average, I've included 2010,2011,2012,2013 & 2014. Does anyone know if that's the same convention that JAXA use, given that people often disagree about the year in which a decade starts?

Anyway, on this basis the average daily drop in week 1 of August this year (68,314), was very similar to the  August week 1 average daily drop in 2010-2014 (69,355). The August week 2 average daily drop in the 2010-2014 is 77,080.
 
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Espen on August 12, 2015, 11:42:25 AM
IJIS:

5,722,632 km2(August 11, 2015)down 81,582 km2 from previous.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: OldLeatherneck on August 12, 2015, 07:15:21 PM
...Snip

...For all practical purposes 2012 will retain the record low for SIE.  A good science fiction writer would have trouble creating a scenario that would allow 2015 to set a new record low.

I happen to agree with you on the record low, but I may give writing that scenario a try, as I'm a bad science fiction writer.

To give everyone an idea how improbable, akin to science fiction scenarios, it is for 2015 to end up below 2012, this is what it would take:

1. If, and it is a big IF, in the 19 days left in August, 2012 would lose 100K/day.  That then must be followed by an additional 650K of losses in September.  This would result in the following:

2012   3,177,455
2015   3,172,632


Ain't going to happen folks!!


Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Lord M Vader on August 12, 2015, 09:55:43 PM
During the years 2002-2014 there have been a rather high similarity in the SIE loss according to IJIS data from August 11 to SIE minimum from 2007-2014:

2002: down 1,1 Mn km2
2003: down 0,9 Mn km2
2004: down 1,25 Mn km2
2005: down 1,1 Mn km2
2006: down 0,8 Mn km2
2007: down 1,25 Mn km2
2008: down 1,5 Mn km2
2009: down 1,2 Mn km2
2010: down 1,4 Mn km2
2011: down 1,4 Mn km2
2012: down 1,7 Mn km2
2013: down 1,2 Mn km2
2014: down 1,2 Mn km2


If we are limiting ourselves to the years 2007-2014 we should most likely see an additional 1,2 Mn km2 in sea ice extent numbers. Maybe 1,4-1,5 Mn km2 if weather conditions are favorable. That said, IJIS SIE number for August 11 was 5,722,632 km2. Thus I think it's fair to say that the SIE minimum for 2015 will end up somewhere around 4,2-4,5 Mn km2. This would equal to a third, fourth or fifth place. With this mathematics we realize that it would require a record melt to beat 2007 at second place. Even 2011 at third place could be tricky as it would require a loss of 1,5 Mn km2.

2012? Well, a loss of 2,6 Mn km2 is more or less just utopia. But hey, there might be a "Big MAC" coming in the end of ECMWF 12z forecast run for today at August 12.... What kind of damage would such one do to the ice?

Sincerely, LMV
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Espen on August 13, 2015, 06:19:49 AM
IJIS:

5,662,981 km2(August 12, 2015)down 59,651 km2 from previous.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Ned W on August 13, 2015, 01:48:30 PM
Using the same process as I've posted previously in this thread...

Expected IJIS Sept. daily minimum = 4.36 x 10^6 km2
95% CI for daily minimum: 4.0 to 4.7

Probability of 1st place ~ 0%
2nd or better 6%
3rd or better 33%
4th or better 78%
5th or better 92%
Worse than 5th place < 1%

By far the most likely outcome is that 2015 will end up behind 2012, 2007, and 2011, but ahead of all other years.   This is basically the same as 2 weeks ago, but with higher certainty.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Jim Pettit on August 13, 2015, 06:57:16 PM
Using the same process as I've posted previously in this thread...

Expected IJIS Sept. daily minimum = 4.36 x 10^6 km2
95% CI for daily minimum: 4.0 to 4.7

Probability of 1st place ~ 0%
2nd or better 6%
3rd or better 33%
4th or better 78%
5th or better 92%
Worse than 5th place < 1%

By far the most likely outcome is that 2015 will end up behind 2012, 2007, and 2011, but ahead of all other years.   This is basically the same as 2 weeks ago, but with higher certainty.

If IJIS/NIPR SIA extent were to follow the behavioral average of the previous ten seasons (2005 - 2014), the minimum would end up at 4.44 x 10^6 km2, and it would occur on 15 September. (Were 2015 to mimic 2012's behavior from here on, the minimum would be 4.05M, while a copy of 2006's behavior would leave 2015 at 4.92M.) So, yes, 4.36M km2 sounds like a good number. Just 1.3 million km2 to go...
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Espen on August 14, 2015, 05:53:24 AM
IJIS:

5,618,256 km2(August 13, 2015)down 44,725 km2 from previous.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Icebird on August 14, 2015, 07:58:23 AM
IJIS:

5,618,256 km2(August 13, 2015)down 44,725 km2 from previous.



this can't be correct. watch the ice close on world view. a lot of ice is melting out in extremely high tempo and  fabsolutely in a big area of beaufort sea.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Tensor on August 14, 2015, 08:20:15 AM
IJIS:

5,618,256 km2(August 13, 2015)down 44,725 km2 from previous.

this can't be correct. watch the ice close on world view. a lot of ice is melting out in extremely high tempo and  fabsolutely in a big area of beaufort sea.

Unless you have some actual numbers to go with those pictures on world view, yes it is correct. 
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Sleepy on August 14, 2015, 08:34:02 AM
Looking through the eyes of GCOM-W1 shows no huge difference between Aug12 to Aug13.
Click to animate.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Nick_Naylor on August 14, 2015, 12:45:41 PM
. . . a lot of ice is melting out in extremely high tempo and fabsolutely in a big area of beaufort sea.

is "fabsolutely" a new word (like "fantabulous"), a Freudian slip, or just a typo?
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: plg on August 14, 2015, 03:56:40 PM
. . . a lot of ice is melting out in extremely high tempo and fabsolutely in a big area of beaufort sea.

is "fabsolutely" a new word (like "fantabulous"), a Freudian slip, or just a typo?

Probably a Freudian typo,
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Espen on August 15, 2015, 08:24:24 AM
IJIS:

5,576,982 km2August 14, 2015)down 41,274 km2 from previous.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Espen on August 16, 2015, 08:34:32 AM
IJIS:

5,522,805 km2(August 15, 2015)down 54,177 km2 from previous.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Espen on August 17, 2015, 05:44:40 AM
IJIS:

5,470,644 km2(August 16, 2015)down 52,161 km2 from previous.

Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Espen on August 18, 2015, 05:41:41 AM
IJIS:

5,419,847 km2(August 17, 2015)down 50,797 km2 from previous.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Espen on August 19, 2015, 05:42:19 AM
IJIS:

5,328,130 km2(August 18, 2015)down 91,717 km2 from previous.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Espen on August 20, 2015, 05:49:45 AM
IJIS:

5,248,075 km2(August 19, 2015)down 80,055 km2 from previous.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Espen on August 21, 2015, 05:56:55 AM
IJIS:

5,199,264 km2(August 20, 2015)down 48,811 km2 from previous.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Ned W on August 21, 2015, 09:15:39 PM
Another week, and the projected Sept. daily minimum is almost unchanged, at 4.38 million km2.  The 95% confidence interval continues to narrow, though; it's now 4.1 to 4.6.

Chance of 1st or 2nd place finish: < 1%
3rd place (ahead of 2011): 20%
4th place (behind 2011, ahead of 2008): 62%
5th place (behind 2008): 14%
6th or worse place: < 4%

So IJIS continues on track for a 4th place finish.  Not a lot of exciting action here, the projection remains basically the same every week.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Espen on August 21, 2015, 09:24:48 PM
Another week, and the projected Sept. daily minimum is almost unchanged, at 4.38 million km2.  The 95% confidence interval continues to narrow, though; it's now 4.1 to 4.6.

Chance of 1st or 2nd place finish: < 1%
3rd place (ahead of 2011): 20%
4th place (behind 2011, ahead of 2008): 62%
5th place (behind 2008): 14%
6th or worse place: < 4%

So IJIS continues on track for a 4th place finish.  Not a lot of exciting action here, the projection remains basically the same every week.

But something may surprise you?
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Ned W on August 21, 2015, 09:33:28 PM
I would have been surprised if the result was surprising...
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: dmarcus on August 22, 2015, 07:01:40 AM
Another week, and the projected Sept. daily minimum is almost unchanged, at 4.38 million km2.  The 95% confidence interval continues to narrow, though; it's now 4.1 to 4.6.

Chance of 1st or 2nd place finish: < 1%
3rd place (ahead of 2011): 20%
4th place (behind 2011, ahead of 2008): 62%
5th place (behind 2008): 14%
6th or worse place: < 4%

So IJIS continues on track for a 4th place finish.  Not a lot of exciting action here, the projection remains basically the same every week.

Well, the chance of a 10th or worse place is now zero. Today's IJIS extent is below every year earlier than 2007, so even if no more melt were to occur, 2015 would finish 9th. And while 2015 extent is currently higher than every year from 2007-14, it will move below 2009 into 8th place in a couple of days at the current melt rate.

It's now guaranteed that the 9 lowest extent years on record will be the most recent 9 years, 2007-15.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Espen on August 22, 2015, 09:13:58 AM
IJIS:

5,137,974 km2(August 21, 2015)down 61,290 km2 from previous.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: BornFromTheVoid on August 22, 2015, 11:02:29 AM
That's 2015 below every pre-2007 minimum and just 84k off the 2009 minimum
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Jim Pettit on August 22, 2015, 01:41:09 PM
Interesting stat of the day: extent loss for the month-to-date (1.43M km2) has already exceeded that lost during the entire month of June (1.40M). Of course, that has less to do with this month's losses being amazing--they're not so far above the ten-year average of 1.35M--and much more to do with June's tepid loss, which was far below the 10-year average of 2.05M.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: kingbum on August 23, 2015, 02:25:23 AM
My thought of 4.75-5.0 was predicated on a slightly early refreeze....Its probably ending in the 4.5-4.75 range though. Even so in April I would of thought it would be lower than that given the lowest maximum of all time. Given that parameter this feels pedestrian at best if you are rooting for choas.  I don't reasonably expect the refreeze to be as bad as last year for extent it was after all the worst all time and the downward trend in ice is linear not exponential. Given this unlike most on here I'm expecting a 2016 rebound to above pre-2007 levels. Things can't stay on an all time catastrophic pace or their wouldn't be any such things as averages. This is a slow kill of the ice plenty of variability
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: ktonine on August 23, 2015, 03:17:04 AM
... I'm expecting a 2016 rebound to above pre-2007 levels. Things can't stay on an all time catastrophic pace or their wouldn't be any such things as averages.

kingbum - a rebound to pre-2007 levels is unlikely to be seen by anyone alive today.  The net sum of ice creation/melt is determined by the energy budget plus/minus weather variability. The net energy is increasing.  I know of no scenario where it suddenly starts decreasing in the immediate future (this century). 

I can remember not just pre-2007, but pre-1970, when the SS Manhattan made her round-trip voyage through the northwest passage. She routinely broke ice up to 14 feet thick for extended periods and smashed ice ridges up to 40 feet.  Even at that she still got stuck in McClure Strait - had to back out with the assistance of an icebreaker and venture round the other side of Banks Island.

That arctic of the 1970s is gone. No regression to the mean or law of averages is ever going to bring it back.   I very much suspect the arctic of pre-2007 is also gone.  The law of averages works when the system is basically the same.  It doesn't apply with ever-increasing forcings and net-feedbacks all moving in the same direction.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: Espen on August 23, 2015, 08:19:53 AM
IJIS:

5,066,776 km2(August 22, 2015)down 71,198 km2 from previous.
Title: Re: IJIS
Post by: DavidR on August 23, 2015, 09:49:52 AM
IJIS:

5,066,776 km2(August 22, 2015)down 71,198 km2 from previous.
The IJIS extent has been in continuous decline since the beginning of August with an average loss of 67K per day, and more than 64 K per day in the last week.  NSIDC has been up and down like a YoYo with changes of -200K to  + 50K.  however after three weeks the difference is less than 50K between the two.

With&nb