Neven still hasn't got around to opening this thread, but "Snow White" has (prematurely?) called the 2019 maximum over on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/GreatWhiteCon/status/1101471926390870016
Here's the "JAXA" version. Discuss!
I find it very difficult that in March we can have a new maximum in JAXA (excluding NSIDC).
The only place I can see actually changing that I'd the Barents, but there the ice is fighting the highest imported heat in our history.I agree. On the other hand, the heat that is coming from the Pacific is impressive (Anomaly of +5.1 °C on the Arctic).
The only place I can see actually changing that I'd the Barents, but there the ice is fighting the highest imported heat in our history.
perhaps we should have a 'betwixt and between' thread for those who anticipate a twin peak season ?Not needed I think. Jim's graph pretty much demonstrates the Barents can't make up the shortfall on its own, and the rest of the rest of the Arctic won't be much help.
b.c,
This is an incredible image posted by Zack Labe on Twitter today.
Jim's graph pretty much demonstrates the Barents can't make up the shortfall on its own, and the rest of the rest of the Arctic won't be much help.
That is what happened in 2018 resulting in a secondary max. This year one difference is that the PAC appears saltier. Also, there was a thick arm of MYI attached to the entire northern Alaskan seaboard in March 2018. This year, that arm of MYI is well out into the Beaufort, several hundred KM from shore in most spots, and open water is already appearing along the AK shoreline. For now it is refreezing for the most part, but soon, the Beaufort could also open very quickly (unlike 2018).Jim's graph pretty much demonstrates the Barents can't make up the shortfall on its own, and the rest of the rest of the Arctic won't be much help.
Although it's perhaps not entirely beyond the bounds of possibility that the Bering area could "flash freeze" as quickly as it has "flash melted", to provide a short lived skin of sea ice substantial enough to be detectable by AMSR2?
Now where's that melt season thread ! Oops sorry Neven !
:D
I'll open it myself if tomorrow if JAXA reports yet another drop.
JAXA has reported another drop, albeit a small one, so this one can stay open. :)
It is worth noting that as the Bering melts out, the Great Lakes are actually still icing. [...]
I read something recently that was looking at the flooding of the strat , over the U.S.A., with water vapour from ever taller storms and have to wonder if we can rapidly alter the levels of heat trapping water in the arctic strat impeding the loss of heat from the polar night?
Is a warmed world providing a rapid path to an equable climate?
[...]
I think what we have been witnessing in terms of Rossby wavebreak patterns transporting water vapor poleward (especially over Alaska) is a leading indicator of the 3-cell regime breaking down entirely.
An animation of AMSR2 concentration revealing the recent spread of open water across the southern Chukchi Sea:I got curious. This is actually pretty definitive. The Bering (And Chukchi) ice is in worse shape this year than it was in 2018 at the same time. Unambiguous in the images.
<snippage>
Can someone explain this?
Can someone explain this?
My ageing eyes are undoubtedly no longer in their prime. Maybe that explains why I cannot see what you are looking at!
Can you elucidate please?
There is this pronounced feature where ice is melting in the middle of the Laptev Sea.
JAXA has reported another drop, albeit a small one, so this one can stay open. :)
JAXA has reported another drop, albeit a small one, so this one can stay open. :)
It looks as though I squeezed past the ASIF proprietor's "melt" filter just in time?
The question, as always: Will this open water refreeze again, once the winds turn? I think probably yes.Then the next question, how thick will it be able to get?
uniquorn what are those coordinates?
uniquorn what are those coordinates?
Here you go: https://go.nasa.gov/2IQLLgN
Juan and gerontocrat (my two favorite ice monitors) are telling us the extent is creeping back up.
I don’t wanna fuss and fight
sick of the arguing and all the lies
To tell you the truth you got me thinking twice
thought I got it right
High resolution AMSR2 area and extent both declined today.That's too big mechanical energy for the very young ice of those locations to resist.
Long distance swells are already reaching the Bering Sea, with much more to come.
I've been squinting closely at the 500mb height charts, in forecast and hindsight. Forecast indicates the polar cell seems to pull back into a compact configuration but immediately develop 5, 6, or 7 waves in the next week
I totally agree.
Not everything is atmospheric temperature
The wave energy will break all into pieces and mix ocean upper layers nicely.
Not everything is atmospheric temperature
After Mar 7 increase JAXA extent only 101k below current max on 22 Feb.
However,After Mar 7 increase JAXA extent only 101k below current max on 22 Feb.
However the high res area shows another significant decline:
However the high res area shows another significant decline:
I think the answer is that GC is referring to daily numbers, while on the NSIDC website they use a 5-day trailing average.I use NSIDC 5 day trailing average for extent and area stuff by individual seas 'cos that's what NSIDC provide.
The 14.735 figure is from the NSIDC daily extent file, which does not go down to individual seas.
I am sure it is the daily extent number at three decimal places of a million km2- i.e. 10,000 km2.QuoteThe 14.735 figure is from the NSIDC daily extent file, which does not go down to individual seas.
So which one will be the "official" number they release when they announce the max?
https://nsidc.org/sites/nsidc.org/files/files/data/noaa/g02135/Sea-Ice-Analysis-Spreadsheets-Overview.pdfQuoteUncertainty in daily passive microwave estimates of Arctic-wide extent due to noise in the data and sensitivity to brightness temperatures is on the order of 30,000-50,000 sq km or 0.03-0.05 million sq km (personal communication, Walt Meier 05 Oct. 2016). Day-to-day differences on the order of 0.001 million sq km, as shown in these spreadsheets, are unimportant and are included only to serve as tie-breakers when ranking is done and to make it easier for users to do their own calculations without finding differences with our conclusions due to rounding errors.[/size]
UH AMSR2 extent going in opposite direction to JAXA and NSIDC for the last few days.
This is the most important paper on this week’s list
March 2-9.The Chukchi has grown back.
The Chukchi has grown back.
A comparison of HYCOM (apples to apples, otherwise not as useful)
The Chukchi has grown back.
Not unexpectedly, but these are nervous times for those of us who called a February maximum!
More at: http://greatwhitecon.info/2019/03/the-2019-maximum-arctic-sea-ice-extent/#Mar-10
Daily NSIDC Extent up by 38k to 14.740 million KM2, 5k greater than what was the current 2019 maximum of 14.735 million km2 on the 23 Feb.
JAXA/VISHOP seems to be down this morning (UTC)?
The high res UH AMSR2 concentration data is already available for March 10th, so that's not the issue.
Jaxa is still down this afternoon (UTC), but here's the latest from the NSIDC:Does one use NSIDC daily extent or 5 day trailing average extent?
Does one use NSIDC daily extent or 5 day trailing average extent?
Does one use NSIDC daily extent or 5 day trailing average extent?
The NSIDC use the averaged value in their official announcements. See for example:
http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2018/03/the-2018-maximum-arctic-sea-ice-extent/
| date NSIDC Daily extent NSIDC 5 day extent 22/02/19 14.698 14.646 23/02/19 14.735 14.688 24/02/19 14.682 14.705 25/02/19 14.587 14.686 26/02/19 14.548 14.65 27/02/19 14.585 14.627 28/02/19 14.561 14.592 01/03/19 14.533 14.563 02/03/19 14.556 14.556 03/03/19 14.617 14.57 04/03/19 14.611 14.576 05/03/19 14.612 14.586 06/03/19 14.61 14.601 07/03/19 14.684 14.627 08/03/19 14.702 14.644 09/03/19 14.743 14.67 10/03/19 14.742 14.696 |
Unusually low temps in the stratosphere at the North Pole persist.
But what is the significance thereof ?
Not often you see the center of stratospheric polar vortex located ≥ 88°N at all levels from 150 hPa to 1 hPa (in 3-day forecast). Exceptionally strong and symmetric vortex for the time of the year!
https://cryospherecomputing.tk/
Does anybody have problems accessing the website or seeing any of the images?
It is wonderful, and I'm bookmarking it!Same here.
Does anybody have problems accessing the website or seeing any of the images?
Extent continues ever upwards
Another modest extent decline today:
This thread should be made sticky instead of the freezing season thread.
And that is my final call.
This thread should be made sticky instead of the freezing season thread.
And that is my final call.
Does anyone have a graph that compares the overall average Arctic winter temperatures year to year?
Does anyone have a graph that compares the overall average Arctic winter temperatures year to year?
This thread should be made sticky instead of the freezing season thread.
And that is my final call.
One more JAXA SIE drop tomorrow, and I'll make it happen. :)
This will all melt soon, of course. 2019's #s are currently inflated by absurd southerly ice extent in the St. Lawrence and Okhotsk.
I didn't mean the entirety of these areas, just the lone Newfoundland tendril in its southerly extent down to below 45N, which is pretty crazy! Although it is very limited in scope, it is still wayyyyy south of normal (and will likely melt out very soon).This will all melt soon, of course. 2019's #s are currently inflated by absurd southerly ice extent in the St. Lawrence and Okhotsk.
High this year, but by no means unprecedented:
And it happenedThis thread should be made sticky instead of the freezing season thread.
And that is my final call.
One more JAXA SIE drop tomorrow, and I'll make it happen. :)
It seems to me that as the Bering and the Atlantic freezes later and later this allows us to have frequent warm intrusions (even up to the North Pole - as we remember from the past years). These intrusions "push" the cold air out of the Arctic and this leads to more ice in the Okhotsk and colder/icy weather in Quebec. So it seems that what we observe in the Okhotsk/St.Lawrence area is the obvious (in hindsight of course :) consequence of Arctic warming.
And if anything, a trend up over the last few years.This will all melt soon, of course. 2019's #s are currently inflated by absurd southerly ice extent in the St. Lawrence and Okhotsk.
High this year, but by no means unprecedented:
The ice front off Newfoundland has made remarkable progress south. It is hardly consistent but I believe these tendrils may be the furthest south in the satellite record by a wide margin.Pretty close to 2014 and 2015 on amsr2 so far. I'll let you confirm with worldview(geographic maybe?) :)
I am talking about the lone tendril that has drifted down to below 45N. The overall extent in the region is similar to previous years but there is now a southerly tendril that is well into the NATL shipping lanes.The ice front off Newfoundland has made remarkable progress south. It is hardly consistent but I believe these tendrils may be the furthest south in the satellite record by a wide margin.Pretty close to 2014 and 2015 on amsr2 so far. I'll let you confirm with worldview(geographic maybe?) :)
amsr2, newfoundland, mar2013-2019
The Canuck ice maps are more illustrative
Exactly, the ice is two degrees south of 2015's phenomenal extent. ;)The Canuck ice maps are more illustrative
Like this one you mean?
Exactly, the ice is two degrees south of 2015's phenomenal extent. ;)
I didn't say it wasn't? My point wasn't on overall extent it was the ridiculous tendril that has made it to 44N. You are picking an absurd fight here for no reason.Exactly, the ice is two degrees south of 2015's phenomenal extent. ;)
It was much more substantial in 2015 though!
Thank you both. Agreed, the tendrils are further south, maybe 200km. SST must be cooler or surface salinity fresher there. Perhaps as a result of all the MYI in the CAA last season?I think there may have been some misbehavior from the Beaufort Gyre last summer which may have contributed to this. The SST gradient south of Newfoundland and Nova Scotia is substantially further S this year than in 2015 (and any other recent year).
edit: Concentration is a lot lower this year though.
I didn't want to be alarmist and mention the Beaufort Gyre ;)Alas! Go here and compare dates. Feel free to upload the screengrabs. :)
bbr your image links are broken for me.
You are picking an absurd fight here for no reason.
OK :)You are picking an absurd fight here for no reason.
I'm not picking any sort of a fight.
I am however implying that the 2019 melting season is likely to progress more rapidly in this vicinity than in 2015.
Both the Labrador current and the Gulf Stream are amped up this year. The lowest sea surface heights are in the Labrador sea, and SSH levels are higher pretty much everywhere else in the N Atlantic than they were just a few years back.
The images below tell part of the SSH story, but day to day comparisons of SSH may be affected by air pressure differences and differences in winds that may push SSH levels up along shorelines. However, it appears that the Beaufort gyre has lost fresh water volume and that deep convection is pretty strong in the Labrador sea this winter. That's consistent with intensification of the Gulf Stream and the Labrador current and with this winter's weather.
<snippage>hmmm. It must be significantly larger than normal to let thin ice travel 200km further south.
Stronger than normal NW winds in the Labrador sea this late winter is a continuation of a pattern we saw late last winter and spring when there was a strong atmospheric vortex around Greenland. This pattern causes larger than normal amounts of fresh water flow out of the CAA into the Labrador sea.
ECMWF forecasting 980hPa in the same area with 4m waves in the Fram Strait, 5m in the Barentsz
Update on ascat, jan21-mar19.Many thanks for these ASCAT updates.
Polarview, north of SZ, mar19. The older ice clearly discernible form the younger.
973hPa over the persistent low concentration area north of Svalbard forecast by GFS for the day after tomorrow. http://tinyurl.com/y3p7bx7s
ECMWF forecasting 980hPa in the same area with 4m waves in the Fram Strait, 5m in the Barentsz http://tinyurl.com/yxs3gmue
After flatlining for a while Arctic sea ice area has fallen off the proverbial cliff over the last few days:Ha ha ha.
After flatlining for a while Arctic sea ice area has fallen off the proverbial cliff over the last few days:Ha ha ha.
You are not kidding.
This can't be right !?
http://tinyurl.com/y3qxmuwx
This is almost exactly what we don't want. 972hPa over the Barentsz and warm winds from the Pacific side. An extra push for all the older ice towards the Atlantic.
Nullschool gfs temp forecast mar22 for mar24
There's been something of a "rebound" in the Bering Sea:Yeah - seriously contributed to recent extent increases - but no doubt is barely thicker than slash.
http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2019/03/facts-about-the-arctic-in-march-2019/#Mar-23
Temp anomalies may assist in the melt.There's been something of a "rebound" in the Bering Sea:Yeah - seriously contributed to recent extent increases - but no doubt is barely thicker than slash.
http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2019/03/facts-about-the-arctic-in-march-2019/#Mar-23
Another week and a half and I'll be surprised if it doesn't vanish along with a bunch of similar extent that formed in the Chukchi.
Thanks for that animation. It looks like Fram export has been really active for a while now. Anyway, when I recall correctly from one of Wipneus' latest posting, Fram export is normal compared to long term averages. Is that correct?That's correct, but in the last couple of years it's always been below normal.
Thanks for that animation. It looks like Fram export has been really active for a while now. Anyway, when I recall correctly from one of Wipneus' latest posting, Fram export is normal compared to long term averages. Is that correct?Unfortunately, what happens before ice reaches the Fram isn't measured yet, but if your point is that this is a normal year, I would suggest that what we may be seeing is the beginning of a relatively rapid flushing of older ice that may leave us with a significantly larger proportion of first year ice next season.
The main pack has been pulling away from the Alaskan coast west of Point Barrow
Thanks for that animation. It looks like Fram export has been really active for a while now. Anyway, when I recall correctly from one of Wipneus' latest posting, Fram export is normal compared to long term averages. Is that correct?
March 17-24.
Thanks for that animation. It looks like Fram export has been really active for a while now. Anyway, when I recall correctly from one of Wipneus' latest posting, Fram export is normal compared to long term averages. Is that correct?Thanks for this Stephan. The Fram export chart had been bothering me for some time as it didn't appear to correlate with what I've been seeing. Overnight I realised it is because it is a volume chart. As the exported ice gets thinner a larger area has to be exported to make up the volume.
why do you keep the images so cropped (small cut-out) at this time of the year it most of the action is in regions that are not in your images
why do you keep the images so cropped (small cut-out) at this time of the year it most of the action is in regions that are not in your images and since the melt onset, beside the final stage of the melting season are the most interesting ones, i suggest to post a images that cover a larger area, since i look at the orginal each day i know it's there.I'm interesting in this area. Other seas melt almost completely every year. Without active melting/freezing season here I decided post less often. Will post more frequently when action begins.
why do you keep the images so cropped (small cut-out) at this time of the year it most of the action is in regions that are not in your images and since the melt onset, beside the final stage of the melting season are the most interesting ones, i suggest to post a images that cover a larger area, since i look at the orginal each day i know it's there.I'm interesting in this area. Other seas melt almost completely every year. Without active melting/freezing season here I decided post less often. Will post more frequently when action begins.
For experiment, I made gif with full area.
L3 products - two new 12-hourly 5km gridded products are being introduced:
* OSI-203-a, based on the Metop-B AVHRR L2 SST/IST product (OSI-205-a)
* OSI-203-b, based on the SNPP VIIRS L2 SST/IST product (OSI-205-b)
The two L3 products will replace the current multi-sensor product (OSI-203),
which will be discontinued on 10 September 2019. Users are therefore
encouraged to start using the OSI-203-a and OSI-203-b products instead of
OSI-203.
All the new products are in GHRSST compliant netCDF4 format and cover the
High Latitudes seas and ice areas north of 50N. The existing OSI-205-a is
poleward of 50N and 50S. The products are available on FTP and EUMETCast.
More details about the products are available here:
http://www.osi-saf.org/?q=content/sst-products
Another > 100k drop in high res AMSR2 extent:
On the other side of things, the Barents doesn't look a whole lot healthier. <sn>Both ecmwf and gfs forecasting below 960hPa storms in the barentsz on saturday, though, in extent terms, it might just suck more older ice out of the CAB
High resolution AMSR2 extent has plunged 425 thousand square kilometres over the last four days:Considering peripheral ice quality, a loss of another half million over the next 7-10 days before it slows would be unsurprising.
http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2019/03/facts-about-the-arctic-in-march-2019/#comment-274372
How rare is it to see a full 10 day GFS run on the Reanalyzer predicting 2M anomalies in the arctic above 6 deg C (ok, a couple of drops to 5.9) and as high as 7.6? I don't recall seeing as anomalous a forecast as the current one. Or do I just not recall?
How rare is it to see a full 10 day GFS run on the Reanalyzer predicting 2M anomalies in the arctic above 6 deg C (ok, a couple of drops to 5.9) and as high as 7.6? I don't recall seeing as anomalous a forecast as the current one. Or do I just not recall?
How rare is it to see a full 10 day GFS run on the Reanalyzer predicting 2M anomalies in the arctic above 6 deg C (ok, a couple of drops to 5.9) and as high as 7.6? I don't recall seeing as anomalous a forecast as the current one. Or do I just not recall?
November 2016.
Maybe February 2018.
The decline continues, albeit at a rather reduced rate. JAXA is now flirting with 3rd place:2016 is now 79K km2 above 2019, but it will be the new lowest leader in a couple of days. So 2019 could be 3rd lowest tomorrow, but I think that it will be 4th lowest the day after.
[ADS NIPR VISHOP (JAXA)] Arctic Sea Ice Extent.With the century drop, 2019 can be the lowest on record tomorrow!
March 29th, 2019:
13,588,813 km2, a century drop of -113,286 km2.
2019 is 3th lowest on record.
(2012 highlighted)
...and the ice in Kara Sea also does not look very healthy (see Aluminium's animation above)
2019 will be the lowest if it drops 28K km2 tomorrow
...and the ice in Kara Sea also does not look very healthy (see Aluminium's animation above)
Neither does Laptev sea. :(
The decline continues, albeit at a rather reduced rate. JAXA is now flirting with 3rd place:2016 is now 79K km2 above 2019, but it will be the new lowest leader in a couple of days. So 2019 could be 3rd lowest tomorrow, but I think that it will be 4th lowest the day after.
Attached, Bering sea ASI volume from 2000 to latest release.
I have a vague recollection of someone (a year or two ago) comparing early ice melt with season-complete ice melt and found no correlation. Can someone with data run a comparison and enlighten us?
(It's the 'only' hope we have of my 2013 projection of ice freedom in 2019 not coming to pass.)
There was no correlation with either the minimum or total season ice loss.
I think we all have to accept that 'today' ,early season, is very different to 1980's ,early season?
Look at the amounts of 'peripheral ice' that there was to be got rid of prior to central basin melt back in the 80's? You would see big number losses as the easy ice went, early doors, now we have very little 'peripheral ice' in Bering/Barentsz/Kara so rely on St Lawrence/Hudson and the strip down the east coast of Greenland for all of our early melt?
These days if we saw big number melt in the first weeks of melt season I'd say it was a big portent for the evolution of the season if only for the space it provided for ice to fracture into lessening floe size and allowing waters to warm early?
I think we all have to accept that 'today' ,early season, is very different to 1980's ,early season?
Look at the amounts of 'peripheral ice' that there was to be got rid of prior to central basin melt back in the 80's? You would see big number losses as the easy ice went, early doors, now we have very little 'peripheral ice' in Bering/Barentsz/Kara so rely on St Lawrence/Hudson and the strip down the east coast of Greenland for all of our early melt?
These days if we saw big number melt in the first weeks of melt season I'd say it was a big portent for the evolution of the season if only for the space it provided for ice to fracture into lessening floe size and allowing waters to warm early?
In other words it may be more useful to consider percent loss of total?
All in all, it appears to mostly weather related.
Hi KK,All in all, it appears to mostly weather related.
Did I blink and miss your link(s)?
You may need to do a little math of your own though, but you should come to the same conclusions.
You may need to do a little math of your own though, but you should come to the same conclusions.
Strangely enough I've done a bit of maths (as we call the subject here in the once Great Britain), and a fair bit of programming too.
Perhaps you wouldn't mind enlightening me further concerning how you came to your particular conclusions? Methodology as well as raw data would be helpful, for example.
Conditions in the Laptev and Kara are not exceptional for the date. The key regions right now remain the Bering, Chukchi and Barents....and the ice in Kara Sea also does not look very healthy (see Aluminium's animation above)
Neither does Laptev sea. :(
I have a vague recollection of someone (a year or two ago) comparing early ice melt with season-complete ice melt and found no correlation. Can someone with data run a comparison and enlighten us?There were some comments about this on NSIDC Analysis.
(It's the 'only' hope we have of my 2013 projection of ice freedom in 2019 not coming to pass.)
If we have melting conditions on June-August, 2019 will be terrible.
2019 is going to make me eat my nails, with the -165,712 km2 drop that we have today and the heat that we still have on the Arctic.
I have plotted at the recent melt compared to the annual maximum, minimum, previous season ice growth, and change in ice maximum from the previous season.
No correlation exists in any of the comparisons. Early season melt is no indication of what is to come later in the season.
I have plotted at the recent melt compared to the annual maximum, minimum, previous season ice growth, and change in ice maximum from the previous season.
Great! Where can I see those plots?
Just did a quick correlation of max and min extent. I get 0.79 correlation coefficient. But then again statistics are not needed because both max and minimum are part of the same system were each one depends on the other. Correlation is expected and not very useful.
Its you that needs to be coming up with the plots that do disprove it, not KK with the plots that don't.
I, for one, will be keeping a very close eye on the Kara and Laptev as I am developing a persistent concern about the Atlantification of the Arctic.Recent area loss in the Kara and Laptev looks like more than the March wobbles up and down.
Its you that needs to be coming up with the plots that do disprove it, not KK with the plots that don't.
KK hasn't come up with any plots at all yet, that I have seen at least. Or even a "scientific" statement of his or her hypothesis. Perhaps you could elucidate for me?
If you could elucidate me on how to post my own plots, I would be grateful. I have the insert image icon, but am unable to copy and paste my graphs. Still, it was not that difficult to plot the NSIDC data.
Despite high temps it's very hard to make a sustained drop in Kara and Laptev before mid-May, and in Chukchi before mid-April, as the ice is quite thick and any wind change closes the gaps in the ice. But Okhotsk, Bering and Barents are vulnerable enough.Careful, or Mother Nature might see your post and decide that this is the year to start bringing Kara/Laptev melt earlier. ;)
Question, why isn't the DMI showing that much of an anomaly when there is a huge anomaly going on right now?The DMI chart is for 80N+ only, and gives equal weight to each degree rather than all area above 80N, so it will represent mostly the conditions right around the pole, which is the only area of the Arctic below average right now. Based on model forecasts out to day-5 it should rise substantially in two or three days, as the cold heads over towards the Beaufort and the heat all around takes its place.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
If you could elucidate me on how to post my own plots, I would be grateful. I have the insert image icon, but am unable to copy and paste my graphs. Still, it was not that difficult to plot the NSIDC data.
I think that is because DMI covers temps North of 80 and N80 is where the only cold anomalies are in the Arctic right now and where there are the least hot anomalies.
Insert image is for images on the web that have hyperlinks. If you mean your own graph on your computer, paste them into Paint, save them (best is width <700 pixels), and then attach them with your post (in attachments and other options, below the text box. Up to 4 files per post).If you could elucidate me on how to post my own plots, I would be grateful. I have the insert image icon, but am unable to copy and paste my graphs. Still, it was not that difficult to plot the NSIDC data.
Screenshot?
Command + Shift + 4 then select area on Mac.
For Windows, there are apps for that (google "Snipping Tool").
You may need to do a little math of your own though, but you should come to the same conclusions.
Strangely enough I've done a bit of maths (as we call the subject here in the once Great Britain), and a fair bit of programming too.
Perhaps you wouldn't mind enlightening me further concerning how you came to your particular conclusions? Methodology as well as raw data would be helpful, for example.
The raw data is in the previous link. I have plotted at the recent melt compared to the annual maximum, minimum, previous season ice growth, and change in ice maximum from the previous season. No correlation exists in any of the comparisons. Early season melt is no indication of what is to come later in the season.
Please refer to my posting last year
I, for one, will be keeping a very close eye on the Kara and Laptev as I am developing a persistent concern about the Atlantification of the Arctic.Recent area loss in the Kara and Laptev looks like more than the March wobbles up and down.
Over the next 3 days it looks like there will be an extra strong pulse of warmth from the south in the region.
The weather is going to shift to deep lows in the Labrador sea over the next week. That's going to increase ice export and fresh water out of the Labrador sea and increase deep water formation where the cold air blasts off of eastern Canada onto the shelf edge. The coming weather will speed up ice loss in the Labrador and Greenland seas.amsr2-uhh, baffin/labrador mar1-31
I made the Graph Extension for SIE Minimum as of 2019.03.30 extended by 2012 Melting Pattern.It's very difficult to replicate the 2012 loss without the high SIE it started with, especially in the Bering.
This would take us at about 2 M km2. Could be even worse than that Curve, given recent Cliffs.
PS: Needs to be viewed in Full Size to see 2019 orange curve at 2019.03.30.
Valid.I made the Graph Extension for SIE Minimum as of 2019.03.30 extended by 2012 Melting Pattern.e
This would take us at about 2 M km2. Could be even worse than that Curve, given recent Cliffs.
PS: Needs to be viewed in Full Size to see 2019 orange curve at 2019.03.30.
It's very difficult to replicate the 2012 loss without the high SIE it started with, especially in the Bering.
Not saying it couldn't happen but the extrapolation ia not entirely valid.
Drawing any seasonal conclusion from early season ice loss seems foolish.On the other hand, completely ignoring early season losses on the grounds of low correlation may not be so wise, especially when said early losses take the ice into record territory. It does not necessarily mean the melting season will be exceptional, but it does increase the risk.
Drawing any seasonal conclusion from early season ice loss seems foolish.On the other hand, completely ignoring early season losses on the grounds of low correlation may not be so wise, especially when said early losses take the ice into record territory. It does not necessarily mean the melting season will be exceptional, but it does increase the risk.
Early melt has so far not been indicative of the magnitude of the losses during the melting season, however an exceptionally bad melting season is made worse by a bad start. I much rather start the season with the highest extent and volume possible.
Sea surface height maps are affected by differences in air pressure but there's consistent evidence that the volume of fresh water in the Beaufort high's fresh water dome has declined while salt water has flowed into the Siberian side of the Arctic, increasing the salinity of the Atlantic layer and the intrusion of salty water at 30m to 300m along the Siberian shelf edge.That drop in albedo concerns me as well. Where you have open water you don't need melt ponds.
We haven't merely been having warm weather in the Arctic. Winds have favored the influx of Atlantic and Pacific waters and the outflow of ice and fresh water through the Fram and Nares straits.
This is an extraordinarily bad start to the melting season. Maybe the weather will give the ice a break come June and July, but so far the models are predicting a stronger than normal peak melt season. Let's hope that they are wrong, but based on the present SST and atmospheric circulation patterns, the model forecasts appear to make good sense to me. Early warmth and albedo loss will tend to continue into the summer months because albedo loss is like a negative snowball for Arctic heat.
Trying to short-term predict a complex chaotic system like the Arctic is a mugs game.
Is that super long crack along the Russian border weird?Nope.
Is that super long crack along the Russian border weird?Nope.
It generally follows the transition from near-shore "fast" ice to ice over deeper waters, that is more subject to wind and current.
Drawing any seasonal conclusion from early season ice loss seems foolish.On the other hand, completely ignoring early season losses on the grounds of low correlation may not be so wise, especially when said early losses take the ice into record territory. It does not necessarily mean the melting season will be exceptional, but it does increase the risk.
That is true. On the other hand, it may just mean ice that would melt regardless has melted earlier than expected. Baring any exceptional summer weather (a la 2012), this may just even out in the coming months (like 2002). We shall see.
Drawing any seasonal conclusion from early season ice loss seems foolish.On the other hand, completely ignoring early season losses on the grounds of low correlation may not be so wise, especially when said early losses take the ice into record territory. It does not necessarily mean the melting season will be exceptional, but it does increase the risk.
That is true. On the other hand, it may just mean ice that would melt regardless has melted earlier than expected. Baring any exceptional summer weather (a la 2012), this may just even out in the coming months (like 2002). We shall see.
I think you're missing something important in your analysis, and that is the fact that ice isn't 2 dimensional, but 3.
Ice volume is also very important in how resistant it is to melt, and correlating extent and area to melt isn't going to hold on for much longer if it held up at all.
Winds have favored the influx of Atlantic and Pacific waters and the outflow of ice and fresh water through the Fram and Nares straits <snips>I'm not sure if it's wind or ssh driven but all three of the northernmost whoi ITP buoys are moving north east against the annual ice drift. http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=163456
The ice in the Kara sea looks very thin and is likely to melt out very early this year.
Yes, but that third dimension, thickness, is several orders of magnitude smaller than the other two. Hence, the third dimension forces have much less influence on the total makeup than the other two.
Yes, but that third dimension, thickness, is several orders of magnitude smaller than the other two. Hence, the third dimension forces have much less influence on the total makeup than the other two.
Yes, but that third dimension, thickness, is several orders of magnitude smaller than the other two. Hence, the third dimension forces have much less influence on the total makeup than the other two.
If this third dimension "is several orders of magnitude smaller than the other two", could be the first one in disappearing. But if this dimension disappears: ¿what will happen to the other two?
Yes, but that third dimension, thickness, is several orders of magnitude smaller than the other two. Hence, the third dimension forces have much less influence on the total makeup than the other two.
If this third dimension "is several orders of magnitude smaller than the other two", could be the first one in disappearing. But if this dimension disappears: ¿what will happen to the other two?
Funny, but irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
Yes, but that third dimension, thickness, is several orders of magnitude smaller than the other two. Hence, the third dimension forces have much less influence on the total makeup than the other two.
If this third dimension "is several orders of magnitude smaller than the other two", could be the first one in disappearing. But if this dimension disappears: ¿what will happen to the other two?
Funny, but irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
Why would the 3rd dimension in a 3 dimensional product (i.e. sea ice) be irrelevant?
Doesn't extent only go to 0 when that 3rd dimension goes to 0?
Yes, but that third dimension, thickness, is several orders of magnitude smaller than the other two. Hence, the third dimension forces have much less influence on the total makeup than the other two.
If this third dimension "is several orders of magnitude smaller than the other two", could be the first one in disappearing. But if this dimension disappears: ¿what will happen to the other two?
Funny, but irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
Why would the 3rd dimension in a 3 dimensional product (i.e. sea ice) be irrelevant?
Doesn't extent only go to 0 when that 3rd dimension goes to 0?
The factors influencing thickness, like wave action, are small compared to those acting on the overall area, sunlight and seawater. Thickness changes does not drive the sea ice, rather they occur through these other factors.
The factors influencing thickness, like wave action, are small compared to those acting on the overall area, sunlight and seawater. Thickness changes does not drive the sea ice, rather they occur through these other factors.
Processes controlling surface, bottom and lateral melt of Arctic sea ice in a state of the art sea ice model
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281622252_Processes_controlling_surface_bottom_and_lateral_melt_of_Arctic_sea_ice_in_a_state_of_the_art_sea_ice_model
Relevant graph from the article attached.
Let's be nice, this isn't the Trump-thread.
I do have to say that I find it hard to believe that KK is for real though.
A place to be nice whilst debating volume/thickness versus area/extent whilst not cluttering up the 2019 melting season thread.
The warm anomalies have extended to the north of 80 latitude but it still very far from melting in the high Arctic
Funny, but irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
Due to the recently observed acceleration in sea ice drift, it has been assumed that more matter is advected by the transpolar Drift from shallow shelf waters to the central Arctic ocean and beyond. However, this study provides first evidence that intensified melt in the marginal zones of the Arctic ocean interrupts the transarctic conveyor belt and has led to a reduction of the survival rates of sea ice exported from the shallow Siberian shelves (−15% per decade). As a consequence, less and less ice formed in shallow water areas (<30 m) has reached Fram Strait (−17% per decade), and more ice and ice-rafted material is released in the northern Laptev Sea and central Arctic Ocean.
declaration of irrelevance is the only way to avoid admitting a "faux pas"
Funny how one comment can be misconstrued
When I followed the link, the text of article was broken up and unreadable. Advice welcome.
Jim thanks for posting the article on transpolar drift, but when I followed the link, the text of article was broken up and unreadable. Advice welcome.another readable link can be found here: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-41456-y (sharing link points to an epdf file that is not working)
Another readable link can be found here
Sea ice thickness measurements from the AWI IceBird program are available via the project’s homepage:
https://www.awi.de/en/science/climate-sciences/sea-ice-physics/projects/ice-bird.html.
Results from the tracking experiments were uploaded to PANGAEA and will be available soon. The gridded thickness fields from the radar altimeters onboard the Envisat and CryoSat-2 satellite platforms are available at the CCI Data Portal.
Does anyone know if "the CCI Data Portal" is open to the average "citizen scientist" in the street?
Let's be nice, this isn't the Trump-thread.
I think you're missing something important in your analysis, and that is the fact that ice isn't 2 dimensional, but 3.
Ice volume is also very important in how resistant it is to melt, and correlating extent and area to melt isn't going to hold on for much longer if it held up at all.
Yes, but that third dimension, thickness, is several orders of magnitude smaller than the other two. Hence, the third dimension forces have much less influence on the total makeup than the other two.
Conversely, the third dimension cannot go to 0, without the extent going to 0. The extent will change based on the dimension which has the greatest influence. The factors influencing thickness, like wave action, are small compared to those acting on the overall area, sunlight and seawater. Thickness changes does not drive the sea ice, rather they occur through these other factors.
density
density
Boy, oh boy. Yet another dimension. ;D
Paladiea, can you or someone briefly elaborate on how density would influence melting, please.
I've edited my above reply to reflect your question.
All CCI data (and ESA data for this matter) is open and public:
Paladiea, can you or someone briefly elaborate on how density would influence melting, please.
All CCI data (and ESA data for this matter) is open and public:
Thanks very much Stefan. At first glance the new FMI merged thickness product is easier to use than the CCI data you linked to. Does the FMI product suffer from any significant disadvantages?
-6˚ to 0˚C over Beaufort and Chukchi forecasted by GFS.
Agree, but it does indicate a trend. While the specific regions affected haven't necessarily followed the 5+ day forecasts, the intrusions of heat and moisture have tended to follow.-6˚ to 0˚C over Beaufort and Chukchi forecasted by GFS.
It's not there on the latest run and it is not there on ECMWF. Besides, anything beyond 5 days is always suspect.
ECMWF has bering/chukchi, and generally the whole arctic very warm the next 3 days, and then Greenland is very warm, but gets cooler at other places
I think this year is a perfect storm of both early heat uptake AND melt ponds. There are probably large melt ponds already forming across most of the Beaufort. I think this very early 1-2 punch will be sufficient to melt out the Beaufort entirely this year, which will be unlike most recent years, although this is also due to the lack of any substantial areas of thick ice this year as well. The same goes for ESS and Chukchi although both of those have been melting out most completely with more consistency than Beaufort.Agree, but it does indicate a trend. While the specific regions affected haven't necessarily followed the 5+ day forecasts, the intrusions of heat and moisture have tended to follow.-6˚ to 0˚C over Beaufort and Chukchi forecasted by GFS.
It's not there on the latest run and it is not there on ECMWF. Besides, anything beyond 5 days is always suspect.
ECMWF has bering/chukchi, and generally the whole arctic very warm the next 3 days, and then Greenland is very warm, but gets cooler at other places
Cold over the thickest ice (which is what appears to be indicated) won't help as much as if it happened over areas forecast to be torched. If the heat does continue to surge on the pacific side we could we early disintegration of both the Chukchi and outer Beaufort. Early increases in heat uptake could be as bad or worse than melt ponds. Ill be watching what Tealights tools show us.
What do you mean with "easier"? The file format (netCDF) is the same.
I think this year is a perfect storm of both early heat uptake AND melt ponds. There are probably large melt ponds already forming across most of the Beaufort.While I tend to agree with the first part, I would say that melt ponds in the beaufort are working towards investigating the processes involved in the possibility of forming. ;)
<Laughter>I think this year is a perfect storm of both early heat uptake AND melt ponds. There are probably large melt ponds already forming across most of the Beaufort.While I tend to agree with the first part, I would say that melt ponds in the beaufort are working towards investigating the processes involved in the possibility of forming. ;)
March 30 - April 4.Thanks a lot for these periodic animations.
I know I was made fun of re: melt ponds a few posts back but a look at the graphic from Aluminum shows that there has indeed been widespread sporadic melt ponding over much of the Arctic (IMO).
When looking at Aluminium animation, I am marked by the appearnce of big, long cracks within the ice. The wind force and derive must be very strong :
This time they appear mainly off the north Siberian coast, but there is a small one in Beaufirt too. And I remember seeing them on other previous animation too : do I have bad memories, or is it indeed a first ?
Melt onset usually occurs under clouds. The snow then refreezes, but its structure has changed, making it easier for melt ponds to form some time later.Apologies to all then, especially bbr.
A slight "rebound" in high resolution AMSR2 area, with extent flatlining for the last couple of days:Yes. One more day of the same angle of descent on NSIDC graph right now would have been be pretty concerning. It can still crawl back among the crowd and stay there (among the lowest crowd on record that is).
No need to apologize, you were right that it's too early for melt pond formation. There may be some melt onset here and there, and this may have an effect in a couple of weeks on melt pond formation. You could call it pre-preconditioning. ;)Unless it has been raining on the Arctic sea-ice as well. Unlikely, but I don't discount any wierd development these days.
But melt onset usually occurs earlier under cloudy conditions.
Weather trumps all.Especially blow-it-out-into-the-Atlantic weather!
I share a certain gloomy feeling about this year compared to what happened in the past two seasons
* NH temp anomalies back to record territory
* A distinct ring of negative snow cover anomaly is forming all around the NH including US and Canada where abundant winter snowfall is now melting quickly. Google rutgers ice lab (sorry getting too old to download resize and crop as needed). This signals early Spring, generalized, did not happen since 2016.
* Oceanic anomalous heat input since beginning of year is apparent esp. thru Bering.
* Record low extent may not be determinant, but sure won’t help
* The preconditioning in Kara and Chukchi may be real, will refreeze but again, won’t help
* The thickest ice is again tilted against the Atlantic
Anything can happen but I have a bad feeling that I didn’t have since 2015. Ok I thought that was it in 2017 too, but fell again in the trap of “low thickness will trump weather”. Weather trumps all.
It seems that Pacification is really happening right now, in front of our eyes.
The biggest change this spring is that the Bering is wide open.
Biggest change to the ice, yes... but also look at Alaska from Beaufort to the Pacific over the past 10 days. For my money, the last time it was that green was 2011 - which was the crappiest year ever for Beaufort+CAA.
November 2016 and Now being primary examples of complete and total breakdown of the polar cell.
Good question. Based purely on observation I'd say the breakdown has been in progress for some time, but is not yet complete and total. The polar cell is severely weakened and on its way out in the coming years, but still alive for now.November 2016 and Now being primary examples of complete and total breakdown of the polar cell.
Where do we see a " complete and total breakdown" of the polar cell?
JAXA -90K. At 13.01M KM^2. Woof.
The unprecedented drop in sea ice extent, area and volume for late March and the first week of April is the result of unprecedented warm air advection from the Pacific and Atlantic ocean regions into the Arctic. It is as real as hitting your thumb with a hammer.
Maybe the weather will cool off and the melting will slow down, but reality is that Alaska just had the warmest March on record and the past 2 years have had record low amounts of ice in the Bering sea in March and early April. This is reality.
Oops. Was -78K. Mis-math'd. Still bad! We should clear 13M KM^2 tomorrow.JAXA -90K. At 13.01M KM^2. Woof.
Your numbers don't match what Juan just posted.
Apart from the usual thick ice queueing for the Fram Strait exit there’s not a lot to prevent the comparatively swift early melt from continuing apace.
ascat day 96(heavy contrast)
This looks very broken up, more than usual?For random visitors, this is the familiar North Shore of Greenland, the rounded fractures are on the Nares strait entrance, the webbed mesh of old ice is moving towards Fram strait.
Hopefully the magenta line will hold, but I doubt it. Last melting season was cloudy and the Beaufort string had a higher percentage of MYI than this year (imo). Some of it may have survived in the 'slush that wouldn't melt'. Ascat is good for tracking but not necessarily a good indicator of ice thickness.ascat day 96(heavy contrast)I wonder how long the thicker ice in the Beaufort will hold out/rotate and the ESS arm, come late summer ?
This looks very broken up, more than usual?For random visitors, this is the familiar North Shore of Greenland, the rounded fractures are on the Nares strait entrance, the webbed mesh of old ice is moving towards Fram strait.
I've certainly seen both this broken up but not sure if it was April. Perhaps on May. Betting the Bering strait is getting some strong currents northwards.
This looks very broken up, more than usual?For random visitors, this is the familiar North Shore of Greenland, the rounded fractures are on the Nares strait entrance, the webbed mesh of old ice is moving towards Fram strait.
I've certainly seen both this broken up but not sure if it was April. Perhaps on May. Betting the Bering strait is getting some strong currents northwards.
There have been years where the near-Fram CAB has been this broken up this early, perhaps not quite so finely divided. I believe we are a few weeks early.
April 2-7.It seems movement into the Kara and and the Chukchi has stopped in the last 2-3 days
BTW, is it my imagination or did we, according to JAXA, just blow through 1m km. sq. in six days? (Previous record for blowing through the 14m~13m range was 14 days if I'm reading the Petitt bar graph right.)JAXA extent was at 14 million km2 on Mar22, so no. Perhaps you meant 13.5M to 13M?
Is it my imagination or did we, according to JAXA, just blow through 1m km. sq. in six days?
I've felt for years that the Nares acts like a bathtub stopper a little, creating room when it goes for more movement of the ice north of the CArch and Greenland, speeding up the whole darned thing, basically.
Little observation of a none native speaker: I found out that "nares" means "nostrils", I feel that is quite illustrative in this context.
I have fixed the September 2019 map for everyone. I think all the FYI beyond the red line is incredibly thin this year and will be prone to severe melt ponding and very early melt-out. Wave action will take care of the MYI tendrils that remain. I know some / everyone disagrees but I think we are already seeing melt ponding begin to percolate through most areas beyond the red line thanks to recent weather. <snippage>Having enjoyed your posts since I first lurked on the forum I followed this up further using worldview. https://go.nasa.gov/2FXt5r2
Corrected Reflectance (Bands 3-6-7)2019 doesn't stand out from previous years so I tried sentinel playground http://tinyurl.com/y3qfrhh8
Temporal coverage: 24 February 2000 - Present
False Color: Red = Band 3, Green = Band 6, Blue = Band 7
This combination is used to map snow and ice. Snow and ice are very reflective in the visible part of the spectrum (Band 3), and very absorbent in Bands 6 and 7 (short-wave infrared, or SWIR). This band combination is good for distinguishing liquid water from frozen water, for example, clouds over snow, ice cloud versus water cloud; or floods from dense vegetation. This band combination is only available for MODIS (Terra) because 70% of the band 6 sensors on the MODIS instrument on the Aqua satellite failed shortly after launch.
There is at the momentApril 2-7.It seems movement into the Kara and and the Chukchi has stopped in the last 2-3 days
Maybe there is a chance of some recovery.
Unless there is a legit Arctic dipole anomaly with a negative NOA after May 15th through June.
what's happening now just won't cut it if you're looking for records without that.
I don't know if we can say we are due.
But we are due.
Crackification on the Atlantic side continues.<>Nice animation.
Northerly winds over the next 5 days will give the ice in the Laptev and Kara seas an opportunity for recovery, but then another powerful surge of warm air will flood in from the Atlantic. The GFS and ECMWF models disagree on the details of the low pressure areas, but agree on the big picture - the intense ridge that develops over Scandinavia and the powerful southerly flow that pushes into the Nordic seas.
amsr2-uhh, okhotsk, jan1-apr7. Another sea where freezing started away from the coast despite the cold offshore winds. Is that because the wind was too strong, not cold enough or coastal upwelling? Either way, there is very little fast ice to offer resistance to drift into warmer southern water and a lot of flash freeze/melt, similar to bering.I think this always happens in Okhotsk - freezing is driven by cold offshore winds, therefore no fast ice and real ice mostly generated away from shore.
Yes, you're right. I checked a couple of random years back to 2012 and they look similar.amsr2-uhh, okhotsk, jan1-apr7. Another sea where freezing started away from the coast despite the cold offshore winds. Is that because the wind was too strong, not cold enough or coastal upwelling? Either way, there is very little fast ice to offer resistance to drift into warmer southern water and a lot of flash freeze/melt, similar to bering.I think this always happens in Okhotsk - freezing is driven by cold offshore winds, therefore no fast ice and real ice mostly generated away from shore.
Surely what matters is it looks like melt out may well be somewhat earlier than the 2010's average so yet another place with AWP above average -i.e. a sea warming up earlier and longer.amsr2-uhh, okhotsk, jan1-apr7. Another sea where freezing started away from the coast despite the cold offshore winds. Is that because the wind was too strong, not cold enough or coastal upwelling? Either way, there is very little fast ice to offer resistance to drift into warmer southern water and a lot of flash freeze/melt, similar to bering.I think this always happens in Okhotsk - freezing is driven by cold offshore winds, therefore no fast ice and real ice mostly generated away from shore.
amsr2-uhh, okhotsk, jan1-apr7. Another sea where freezing started away from the coast despite the cold offshore winds. Is that because the wind was too strong, not cold enough or coastal upwelling? Either way, there is very little fast ice to offer resistance to drift into warmer southern water and a lot of flash freeze/melt, similar to bering.I think this always happens in Okhotsk - freezing is driven by cold offshore winds, therefore no fast ice and real ice mostly generated away from shore.
Yes, you're right. I checked a couple of random years back to 2012 and they look similar.
This looks very broken up, more than usual?The north greenland fractures are similar to previous years but the lincoln sea makes it look worse this year. Thick ice build up on the north coast happened in 2016 but I think that was helped by more MYI from CAA. This year not so much MYI and more compaction from northern drift perhaps.
As a Newbie, let me see if I got this graph straight:
https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,2591.msg194492.html#msg194492
As of April 9, the Arctic Sea Ice extent is the lowest it has been for this date in the last seven years, and presumably for all of human history back at least to the Sangamon Interglacial, if not the Pliocene?
As a Newbie, let me see if I got this graph straight:
https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,2591.msg194492.html#msg194492
As of April 9, the Arctic Sea Ice extent is the lowest it has been for this date in the last seven years, and presumably for all of human history back at least to the Sangamon Interglacial, if not the Pliocene?
So, the consensus is pretty much that a BOA is coming in this Century, but we don't know if it will be in 2019 or 2090, although the former is more likely, and that it will be bad, but not as bad as Sam Carana (one of the better science fiction writers on the Web, IMHO) thinks it will be? Is that about the size of it?
BTW, I meant that in a good way, as science fiction being a spectacular story based on scientific fact.
He has recently upgraded his 10 C forecast for 2026 to 18 C. Do you really think AGW will be 18 C in seven years?
Tom, for BOE discussion go to the thread "When will the Arctic go ice-free". And forget Sam Carana.
Sam who?
Sam who?
You post a comment mentioning Sam Carana and then post this?
Sam who?
You post a comment mentioning Sam Carana and then post this?
SH, Tom made a joke. :)
Had a look back on the ESRL thickness chart in early April 2018 and compared with forecast chart for 13th of April this year.I wonder why the Beaufort stringer isn't on that chart. That was good MYI. This year I think it is mostly second year ice. DMI cice tends to agree with ESRL though so ...
April 5-10.
The last two animations don't show okhotsk. This might help to understand the extent numbers.
The amount of heat advected from the north Atlantic to the Atlantic side of the Arctic is going to be much greater than normal over the next 5 days. This atmospheric circulation pattern also increases the rate of flow of the Norwegian current into the Barents sea. storminess over the Atlantic side of the Arctic in mid April is not good for the sea ice because April would be cold and clear if there were high pressure and that would favor volume growth. This pattern favors volume loss over the ice pack margins and volume growth on north of Greenland on the exit doors to the Fram and Nares straits.
Have followed this site out of pure interest and concern for the last 4-5 years. Any comments I make just reflect a general observation, not a qualified assessment. The last few days in watching Worldview I cannot recall seeing the ice along the Greenland east coast breaking away so early in a melt season.
Thoughts anyone ??
I believe wallen refers to fast sea ice cracking and pulling away along the Greenland coast, and if so it belongs here.
I will attempt to browse Worldview tomorrow to see if anything is unptecedented.
I believe wallen refers to fast sea ice cracking and pulling away along the Greenland coast, and if so it belongs here.
I will attempt to browse Worldview tomorrow to see if anything is unptecedented.
You are correct in your assessment Oren. Thank you.
In the past few years, summer Fram export has been minimal, so that cracked-up stuff mostly just loiters off the coast of Greenland, bobbing back and forth. If the Fram export is higher this year (as seems possible, so far), a lot of that broken stuff may just vanish southwards for once.
The NSIDC reports that the past 2 years have had very heavy snow on SE Greenland and that accumulation exceeded melting. This is associated with the tendency to a Greenland vortex that we've had for 2 years.
....exceptional winter snow accumulation and heavy, summer snowfall, drove the net snow input mass to 130 billion tons above the 1981 to 2010 average. This was followed by a near-average melt and runoff period, resulting in a large net mass gain for the ice sheet in 2018 of 150 billion tons. This is the largest net gain from snowfall since 1996, and the highest snowfall since 1972.
However, several major glaciers now flow significantly faster than in these earlier years. The net change in mass of the ice sheet overall, including this higher discharge of ice directly into the ocean, is not clear at this point but may be a smaller loss or even a small gain. This is similar to our assessment for 2017, and in sharp contrast to the conditions for the preceding decade.
This is relevant to this melting season because the incoming Atlantic water is saltier and warmer without Greenland melt water mixing in. Moreover, the Gulf Stream and Norwegian currents are strengthened by intensified overturning circulation and the stronger sea surface height gradients this pattern produces. The rate of sea ice and fresh water export in the Labrador sea has also increased with increasing flow out of the Nares and CAA.
We'll see what this summer's weather brings us, but this is setting up to be a bad melt year and the early break up of east Greenland fast ice is but one sign of it.
As it is recorded since Sep 1 I think that there couldn't hace occurred any melting since then, at least not in higher altitudes (> 300 m). Where does this mass loss come from? Snow drift by strong winds? Sublimation? Compaction (and therefore no mass loss, but slight elevation change, interpreted as mass loss)? I have no idea...
wallen ... fast sea ice cracking and pulling away along the Greenland coast.Looking at Worldview it seems previous years had similar fast ice contours, for example 2016, and maybe 2014 and others.
I will attempt to browse Worldview tomorrow to see if anything is unprecedented.
The Nenena ice classic set a new record early breakup date; beating the record by a full six days!
How do you get Gifs from Ascat?I recommend reading this thread.
ECMWF shows for several days the high pressure system being maintained and even strengthen over the Gyre, that can produce early open water and leads along the coasts of Beaufort. Should refreeze, but not stay frozen for long.
Quite some open areas already, they refreeze immediatelyECMWF shows for several days the high pressure system being maintained and even strengthen over the Gyre, that can produce early open water and leads along the coasts of Beaufort. Should refreeze, but not stay frozen for long.
I had expected to see the Beaufort open up ever so slightly already, given the winds have been blowing away from the coast - grosso modo- for a while now. Seems I was wrong.
Slater projection is running again. Continuing to be quite accurate.It's probabilistic, as they explain. (http://cires1.colorado.edu/~aslater/SEAICE/about.html)
It appears to me that the prediction of 11.15 million km^2 for June 3rd does not match the ice shown in the image. In fact, it looks like the ice of today. They had this problem last season, and never rectified it.
I had expected to see the Beaufort open up ever so slightly already, given the winds have been blowing away from the coast - grosso modo- for a while now. Seems I was wrong.
It's probabilistic, as they explain. (http://cires1.colorado.edu/~aslater/SEAICE/about.html)
"Do not mistake the blue colored areas as being a simplified extent forecast."
Are melting ponds expected at this time of the year in Baffin Bay?
Link >> https://apps.sentinel-hub.com/sentinel-playground/?source=S2&lat=77.25940114515242&lng=-78.3211898803711&zoom=11&preset=CUSTOM&layers=B01,B02,B03&maxcc=73&gain=1.0&gamma=1.0&time=2018-10-01%7C2019-04-15&atmFilter=&showDates=true&evalscript=cmV0dXJuIFtCOEEqMSxCMDMqMSxCMDIqMV0%3D
(Click to play)
Falling RecordsA graph with decadal averages would be nice to see a tendency whether the breakup is moved to earlier dates. From a glimpse on the table one could guess that the breakup has moved a little bit, but this needs further statistical analyses.
Will this be the next one?
http://www.yukonriverbreakup.com/
The April 15 picture doesn't look encouraging
Are melting ponds expected at this time of the year in Baffin Bay?
Are melting ponds expected at this time of the year in Baffin Bay?
Nullschool was showing peak temperatures in that location of -18 C. So not now.
Trick of the rendering.
Break up has definitely occurred earlier in recent years. I do not have an updated graph handy- but i should make one- I wish I were better at excel....Because of the inertia associated with ice melt, breakup tends to damp out short term weather and, on average, the date of breakup tracks very well with climate trends- later early in the 20th century, warm in the 1940s, trending later into the early 1960s and a gradual warming trend side then, which appears to be accelerating, although it is too soon to see this from the data. I do not think 2019 will break the 2016 record, but it has a really good shot at second place. OK, I found my old graph, I'll work on updating it....Falling RecordsA graph with decadal averages would be nice to see a tendency whether the breakup is moved to earlier dates. From a glimpse on the table one could guess that the breakup has moved a little bit, but this needs further statistical analyses.
Will this be the next one?
http://www.yukonriverbreakup.com/
The April 15 picture doesn't look encouraging
Nullschool was showing peak temperatures in that location of -18 C. So not now.
Trick of the rendering.
April 11-16.So the Chukchi and Kara managed to stage a comeback of sorts. But the Bering did not and is over for the season, and now the Beaufort open water does not refreeze anymore.
The Chukchi was a partial recovery (not yet finished?).April 11-16.So the Chukchi and Kara managed to stage a comeback of sorts. But the Bering did not and is over for the season, and now the Beaufort open water does not refreeze anymore.
OK, here is my crappy graph- ....Thank you Sebastian. The trend is clearly going down, and it is of course overlaid by individual weather patterns each year, whose influence is bigger than the trendline which makes the graph look very "spiky". But this is normal for these kind of graphs.
Before everyone gets superexcited about low extent numbers, we must realize that 2019 is very much the same as 2018 in the (inner) seas that matter. The difference between the two is that 2018 had much bigger Okhotsk Sea extent but that is irrelevant as the Okhotsk melts out anyway. See attachment. So, basically 2018 was the same as 2019 at this point.2019 is also lower in Baffin Bay (despite the active Nares export) and higher in the Greenland Sea. But it's true that a low extent at this time of year manifests itself in the outer seas, and isn't necessarily indicative of a bad melt year. It does increase the risk somewhat however.
It is true though that Pacification is very obvious in the past two years as never in previous years have we seen such an open Bering. What it means for the final, September numbers is still anybody's guess. It did not really matter last year, it might matter this year.
Before everyone gets superexcited about low extent numbers, we must realize that 2019 is very much the same as 2018 in the (inner) seas that matter. The difference between the two is that 2018 had much bigger Okhotsk Sea extent but that is irrelevant as the Okhotsk melts out anyway. See attachment. So, basically 2018 was the same as 2019 at this point.I've been pondering along the same lines. The Okhotsk is irrelevant to what will be happening in a few weeks.
It is true though that Pacification is very obvious in the past two years as never in previous years have we seen such an open Bering. What it means for the final, September numbers is still anybody's guess. It did not really matter last year, it might matter this year.
Before everyone gets superexcited about low extent numbers, we must realize that 2019 is very much the same as 2018 in the (inner) seas that matter. The difference between the two is that 2018 had much bigger Okhotsk Sea extent but that is irrelevant as the Okhotsk melts out anyway. See attachment. So, basically 2018 was the same as 2019 at this point.I've been pondering along the same lines. The Okhotsk is irrelevant to what will be happening in a few weeks.
It is true though that Pacification is very obvious in the past two years as never in previous years have we seen such an open Bering. What it means for the final, September numbers is still anybody's guess. It did not really matter last year, it might matter this year.
The Bering is another matter. It's unclear me what charge of increased heat it is carrying and how much of it will pass in to the Chukchi.
Over all, I see open water in the peripheral seas far more relevant to the refreeze, when they create a heatvreserve that slows freezing in the central seas.
Weather in the central basin, coastal Alaska and Siberia are now key. How soon the rivers break up and when we see melt ponds is where things will hang in the balance.
The recent cooling has been hopeful and helpful, but I'm unsure if it is enough to check the momentum.
Again,I think the effect is more important to the refreeze. More moisture in summer is more neutral possibly leading to negative feedbacks by increasing albedo with clouds. Phase changes won't be as important as temperatures are already close to freezing, unless we ate talking about tropical scale imports of moisture,but those won't be from peripheral seas.Before everyone gets superexcited about low extent numbers, we must realize that 2019 is very much the same as 2018 in the (inner) seas that matter. The difference between the two is that 2018 had much bigger Okhotsk Sea extent but that is irrelevant as the Okhotsk melts out anyway. See attachment. So, basically 2018 was the same as 2019 at this point.I've been pondering along the same lines. The Okhotsk is irrelevant to what will be happening in a few weeks.
It is true though that Pacification is very obvious in the past two years as never in previous years have we seen such an open Bering. What it means for the final, September numbers is still anybody's guess. It did not really matter last year, it might matter this year.
The Bering is another matter. It's unclear me what charge of increased heat it is carrying and how much of it will pass in to the Chukchi.
Over all, I see open water in the peripheral seas far more relevant to the refreeze, when they create a heatvreserve that slows freezing in the central seas.
Weather in the central basin, coastal Alaska and Siberia are now key. How soon the rivers break up and when we see melt ponds is where things will hang in the balance.
The recent cooling has been hopeful and helpful, but I'm unsure if it is enough to check the momentum.
Early open water is important because of the increased heat the surface is going to absorb through insolation. If the peripheral seas become warmer, I'd expect there to be higher humidity air reaching the Arctic. Is that good or bad for the preservation of sea ice? More cloud, more heat advected from lower latitudes, but less sunlight.
Early open water is important because of the increased heat the surface is going to absorb through insolation. If the peripheral seas become warmer, I'd expect there to be higher humidity air reaching the Arctic. Is that good or bad for the preservation of sea ice? More cloud, more heat advected from lower latitudes, but less sunlight.
.... At this moment in time in 2019 there is in excess of 500,000 km2 of the Arctic that is open water compared with the 2010's average. That's about 12 days ahead of the 2010's average.
....
It seems that in the last week or two the movement of thick old ice towards the Atlantic has stalled. Good news, especially if it continues like this.
Yikes!
Yikes!What is a Yike ;D and how does it relate to that image? I presume you are expecting something dramatic but have no idea what it is. :o
As Neven said it is 8 days out, but the map shows a major low pressure system impacting the Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort with +0C warmth and significant wind, waves, and likely rain as well.Yikes!What is a Yike ;D and how does it relate to that image? I presume you are expecting something dramatic but have no idea what it is. :o
Given the unreliable nature of forecasts beyond 5 days, why use them?You don't have to! It isn't like the EURO is the most reliable forecast model on the planet and usually within the ballpark from days 6-10 even if details change substantially. It is currently indicating a heightened probability for the aforementioned LP / melt event to occur, ignore it if you please. :)
The EURO has been hinting at dual 500MB blocks over the NPAC / Bering and Greenland and tonight's 00z run certainly ups the ante re: Bering...!There really isn't anything *left* in the Bering.
Given the unreliable nature of forecasts beyond 5 days, why use them?
Yikes!... it is 8 days out, but the map shows a major low pressure system impacting the Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort with +0C warmth and significant wind, waves, and likely rain as well.
Given the unreliable nature of forecasts beyond 5 days, why use them?
Why produce them? Because they are useful
[...]Given the unreliable nature of forecasts beyond 5 days, why use them?Why produce them? Because they are useful
I am all for predictions, just not ten days out using unreliable tools.[...]
I also use https://seaice.uni-bremen.de/sea-ice-concentration/ and its working OK (Windows 10 and Google)
This is from the ECMWF site:
https://confluence.ecmwf.int//display/FUG/4.1+Forecast+Error+Growth
"Small baroclinic systems or fronts are currently well forecast to around Day2, cyclonic systems to around Day4 and the long planetary waves defining weather regimes to around Day8. As models improve over time these limits are expected to advance further ahead of the data time. Features that are coupled to the orography (e.g. lee-troughs), or to the underlying surface (e.g. heat lows), are rather less consistently well forecast."
In this sense brr is right: although the details will change, but major weather-systems - according to ecmwf - are USUALLY forecastable for 8 days.
To check the standard deviation between the ensemble members, ie. to see how reliable the forecast is, ECMWF shows this as well with colours:
https://www.ecmwf.int/en/forecasts/charts/catalogue/plot_ensm_essential?facets=Range,Medium%20(15%20days)&time=2019042112,120,2019042612¶meter=MSLP&area=Northern%20Hemisphere
It was up to date when I looked before, and now it is not, or I am going doo lally tap even faster..I also use https://seaice.uni-bremen.de/sea-ice-concentration/ and its working OK (Windows 10 and Google)
But the daily SIC maps are all stuck at April 18. The archives are off-line as well. This will probably soon get fixed. If not, I'll shoot off a mail.
Blocking highs are features that the models have trouble forecasting and that's just what we're seeing now in the 120 to 240 hour forecasts. There's a major disagreement between the GFS and the ECMWF on the surface and 500mb pressure and height patterns in the Arctic. The European model is the best model, but all the models have problems with blocks.The GFS stands for good-for-sh*t ;D
However, I think it is helpful and useful to look at what the models are forecasting because it's information about the state of the oceans and atmosphere at any given time. I think the ECMWF forecast of developing high pressure in the Arctic is probably correct.
It also looks like the melt of the Great Slave Lake is early. Watch for an early break up of the Mackenzieupdate (c to p)
It looks like the polar cell completely breaks down by D10 as the Greenland and NPAC blocks merge into a single entity over the CAA. Note, this is VERY far out, however, it is the first time this season we have seen such a depiction.
Blocking highs are not something new, but their intensity and persistence in increasing. The record Greenland melt years of 2010 and 2012 were associated with strong high pressure over Greenland. Those were also bad years for the Arctic sea ice.A huge change in albedo is about to take place.
The coming together over the Arctic ocean of the Alaskan block and the Greenland block is particularly bad for sea ice because it creates a dipole that imports heat from the Pacific and exports ice through the Fram Strait.
o boy
GFS has joined the EURO party
This is by D7-8. The incursion / setup is well underway by D5-6. This would result in outright melt as well as melt ponding across a "yuge" portion of the Arctic.
The GFS stands for good-for-sh*t ;D
The introduction of the new FV3-GFS has been a complete disaster, they just upgraded the new version again last week which hopefully addresses some of the issues, but it is worth noting that the "GFS" is now an old model and the FV3-GFS is replacing it, with both having major problems (just FYI).
No, they are still true -- individually the GFS is fairly useless, but when GFS + CMC are in agreement with the EURO, it is a sign of consensus and usually means a higher likelihood of verification. The EURO blew up the PAC ridge bigly tonight as well, although it doesn't merge the blocks quite as impressively as the 12z run did.o boy
GFS has joined the EURO party
This is by D7-8. The incursion / setup is well underway by D5-6. This would result in outright melt as well as melt ponding across a "yuge" portion of the Arctic.
Does posting images from GFS mean that your previous comments about GFS are no longer true?QuoteThe GFS stands for good-for-sh*t ;D
The introduction of the new FV3-GFS has been a complete disaster, they just upgraded the new version again last week which hopefully addresses some of the issues, but it is worth noting that the "GFS" is now an old model and the FV3-GFS is replacing it, with both having major problems (just FYI).
o boy
Generally concur. Biggest impact will be on the Chukchi, Beaufort and possibly the fringes of the ESS. Cloud cover will ablate effects of insulation and limit damage. The help snow will provide may be questionable and probably localized. Pacific side snowcover on the ice is forecast to drop pretty dramatically, which will lead to subsurface pooling of melt water and lowered albedo.o boy
The anomaly is very strong. however, it is also paired with a huuuuuuge inflow of atmospheric water vapor which will suppress solar heating and will also produce large snow on CAB.
That's the question, isn't it? We have been dealing with these dueling feedbacks since 2012 it seems. However, I suspect that it will not produce large snows, but rather, rain, at least over Beaufort / Chukchi / ESS (IMO, could easily be wrong).o boy
The anomaly is very strong. however, it is also paired with a huuuuuuge inflow of atmospheric water vapor which will suppress solar heating and will also produce large snow on CAB.
Blocking highs are not something new, but their intensity and persistence in increasing. The record Greenland melt years of 2010 and 2012 were associated with strong high pressure over Greenland. Those were also bad years for the Arctic sea ice.
The coming together over the Arctic ocean of the Alaskan block and the Greenland block is particularly bad for sea ice because it creates a dipole that imports heat from the Pacific and exports ice through the Fram Strait.
No, they are still true -- individually the GFS is fairly useless, but when GFS + CMC are in agreement with the EURO, it is a sign of consensus and usually means a higher likelihood of verification. The EURO blew up the PAC ridge bigly tonight as well, although it doesn't merge the blocks quite as impressively as the 12z run did.
It was October 2012 when the European weather prediction model beat its American counterpart in forecasting Hurricane Sandy’s hard left turn into the U.S. coastline. What scientists had known for years — that the European forecast model was superior to the American — caught the attention of the U.S. public and Congress.https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2019/04/23/trump-administration-has-epic-plan-develop-worlds-smartest-weather-forecasting-model/?utm_term=.27bc6a92c9ea (https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2019/04/23/trump-administration-has-epic-plan-develop-worlds-smartest-weather-forecasting-model/?utm_term=.27bc6a92c9ea)
Since then, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, with funding support from Congress, has worked intensely to improve the American model. It has boosted its computing power, improved the way it brings in data, and enhanced how it simulates weather systems at small scales. Yet, more than six years later, it still trails the European model in overall accuracy.
...
As part of its 2020 budget request, to the tune of $15 million, NOAA has proposed the establishment of the Earth Prediction Innovation Center (EPIC), which it says “will advance U.S. weather modeling and reclaim international leadership in the area of numerical weather prediction.”
Blocking highs are not something new, but their intensity and persistence in increasing. The record Greenland melt years of 2010 and 2012 were associated with strong high pressure over Greenland. Those were also bad years for the Arctic sea ice.A huge change in albedo is about to take place.
The coming together over the Arctic ocean of the Alaskan block and the Greenland block is particularly bad for sea ice because it creates a dipole that imports heat from the Pacific and exports ice through the Fram Strait.
It appears that as part of the evolving conditions upwards of 1 million KM2 of snow cover in Siberia and Alaska are going to vanish in the next 5 days, as well as at least 2/3rds of the snow cover on the Chukchi and Beaufort.
This I think may qualify as "momentum".
Blocking highs are not something new, but their intensity and persistence in increasing. The record Greenland melt years of 2010 and 2012 were associated with strong high pressure over Greenland. Those were also bad years for the Arctic sea ice.A huge change in albedo is about to take place.
The coming together over the Arctic ocean of the Alaskan block and the Greenland block is particularly bad for sea ice because it creates a dipole that imports heat from the Pacific and exports ice through the Fram Strait.
It appears that as part of the evolving conditions upwards of 1 million KM2 of snow cover in Siberia and Alaska are going to vanish in the next 5 days, as well as at least 2/3rds of the snow cover on the Chukchi and Beaufort.
This I think may qualify as "momentum".
Where did you read this? Is there a website that tracks albedo?
That's the question, isn't it? We have been dealing with these dueling feedbacks since 2012 it seems. However, I suspect that it will not produce large snows, but rather, rain, at least over Beaufort / Chukchi / ESS (IMO, could easily be wrong).o boy
The anomaly is very strong. however, it is also paired with a huuuuuuge inflow of atmospheric water vapor which will suppress solar heating and will also produce large snow on CAB.
Slightly off topic but yet another sign of arctic warming - the break up of ice on the Yukon yesterday was the second earliest ever recorded and only 8 hours behind the earliest breakup on the same date in 2016Technically this was indeed the second earliest break up, but while the indicator ( a post is placed out on the river ice connected to a clock, when the ice moves, the post pulls a pin from the clock, which stops and records the official time of break up) showed break up, in actual fact almost all the ice is still intact. Photos of the river condition are regularly posted on the site yukonriverbreakup.com (http://yukonriverbreakup.com). This morning's pic shows the open water at the top left, where the "tripod" was. We should have another pic in an hour or so!
Of course April 23rd this year was the 113th day of the year, while April 23rd 2016 was the 114th day of the year. But who is counting, its still early.Slightly off topic but yet another sign of arctic warming - the break up of ice on the Yukon yesterday was the second earliest ever recorded and only 8 hours behind the earliest breakup on the same date in 2016Technically this was indeed the second earliest break up, but while the indicator ( a post is placed out on the river ice connected to a clock, when the ice moves, the post pulls a pin from the clock, which stops and records the official time of break up) showed break up, in actual fact almost all the ice is still intact. Photos of the river condition are regularly posted on the site yukonriverbreakup.com (http://yukonriverbreakup.com). This morning's pic shows the open water at the top left, where the "tripod" was. We should have another pic in an hour or so!
Took a glance at Worldview today. Not my favourite medium. I used to work a lot on the Rapid response-tiles. Not available anymore. But I’m still capable to look at some spots out of 15 years of experience. Yes, still with you…Good points. And indeed, it can happen any year now.
Inspired by 2 meter temps through DMI and volume projected by PIOMAS, it seemed not that bad a winter for sea ice. Worldview reveals that is mostly illusive. There are a multitude of influences at work. Just some make it to our attention. As Bering is mostly Pacific by now, sea ice in front of fast ice is crunched and mobile in East Siberian, Chukchi and Beaufort Seas, Baffin Bay ice looks vulnerable and 4 MK Central Basin is torn by long leads, things don’t look a little better at all. The big crunch didn’t happen in ’17 nor in ’18. But it can happen any year now.
Where did you read this? Is there a website that tracks albedo?One of our users, Tealight has built a whole slew of marvelous tools to follow Albedo.
Where did you read this? Is there a website that tracks albedo?One of our users, Tealight has built a whole slew of marvelous tools to follow Albedo.
https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1749.0.html
Melt ponds in the north Pole and whole CAB in the early May? The DMI north of 80 temperatures above 0C 6 weeks earlier than usual?
something tells me we're in for a nasty drop from day 2-5
Here's the GFS temp anomaly forecast for the coming 7 days (from Climate Reanalyzer (https://climatereanalyzer.org/wx/fcst/#gfs.arc-lea.t2anom)):
what interest me is your take on the game heat+wave-action against replenishing wind-driven
new ice flushed out into the barentz ?
what i find interesting is in how many places the ice is opening significantly despite temps around -10 and lower.
something tells me we're in for a nasty drop from day 2-5Actually, I'm expecting extent to stay relatively flat, possibly even expand, but concentration to drop. Basically, the mostly the same ice except spread over a wider area.
Combining 2 images - April 25th on the left, and April 21st on the right to take out cloud - you can see the broken ice is joined together now. I looked back in the years, and don't see this any other year doing that at this time of year. 2010 comes close on May 4th. A cracked and fractured icesheet from Nares to Fram now.Agreed. edit: I should add that it is still cold enough for refreeze in those fractures, but the drift is too fast to make much difference.
I'm not sure yet. Maybe, as you say, big drops. Or expansion on the Atlantic side dampens drops on the Pacific side. Of course, the expansion on the Atlantic side isn't good for the ice in the longer term, because it melts out at those lower latitudes (but maybe not right away, because it's end of April).
If this weather or similar keeps up, it should be possible for 2019 to stay close to 2016 during May. Here's the JAXA SIE graph for May:
00z Good-for-sh*t has 576DM ridging over Beaufort @ hr 120 :o
According to the NSIDC chart, sea ice extent has been recovering, albeit minutely, in the past couple of days. How does this gel with the weather discussion here? Does it mean anything? Should we expect to see a rapid drop in the next few days?
https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/
Thanks for your updates on this Bbr. One question though. Could you provide a little more commentary in plain language, so non-meteorologist can understand you too?
Simultaneously it is going to snow in Chicago tomorrow and the 00z EURO shows ANOTHER snow event (no stickage) for Chicago on May 5th. Tomorrow's event stands a good chance of smashing the all-time late-season (4/25+) record for Chicago (which is 3" or so).Thanks for your updates on this Bbr. One question though. Could you provide a little more commentary in plain language, so non-meteorologist can understand you too?
Decameter. 10's of meters. when you go up until pressure is 500 millibars, you're at about 4700-5500 meters altitude. So the 500mb anomaly shows you decameters from average.
Heat makes air expand. So higher 500mb areas are warmer. Usually the pole is cold and the air is short so hot equator air tries to flow toward it to fill in the low. But there's a twist, the Earth spins. So it's kind of a spiral.
Anyway, the 500mb average for that area is like +36 decameters in height or 360 meters higher than normal. As you can see, we only are playing with about 800 meters to begin with.
They're all talking about it like it's a ridge in the jet stream but i've never before seen two giant heat domes pop up and then slam together at the north pole, cutting the polar cell in half. But I'm no scientist.
According to the NSIDC chart, sea ice extent has been recovering, albeit minutely, in the past couple of days. How does this gel with the weather discussion here? Does it mean anything? Should we expect to see a rapid drop in the next few days?There are often discussions on what might be future extreme weather events, e.g. this one due to start building up this weekend and maximising next week.
According to the NSIDC chart, sea ice extent has been recovering, albeit minutely, in the past couple of days. How does this gel with the weather discussion here? Does it mean anything? Should we expect to see a rapid drop in the next few days?Welcome Maplike to the ASIF (Arctic Sea Ice Forum)!
...
According to the NSIDC chart, sea ice extent has been recovering, albeit minutely, in the past couple of days. How does this gel with the weather discussion here? Does it mean anything? Should we expect to see a rapid drop in the next few days?Welcome Maplike to the ASIF (Arctic Sea Ice Forum)!
...
When the Arctic weather appears to be 'bad' and extent doesn't drop, some interpret this to mean the ice is breaking up and spreading, allowing SIA (sea ice area) to decline while maintaining SIE (sea ice extent). [For frequently used abbreviations, see Glossary (https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,153.0.html).]
Could you help me understand the difference between "area" and "extent"? I thought they were the same thing...millions of square kilometers?Read all about it...
Could you help me understand the difference between "area" and "extent"? I thought they were the same thing...millions of square kilometers?
Why are these blocks coming from both sides of the planet and colliding in the Arctic? Is that typical?
I see it. I also see how much cold is being lost in the next 2 weeks.
What I'm asking specifically for is if it seems normal during the spring PV transition for high pressure to move rapidly from equator to pole without so much as half a trip around the world? Nevermind from both East and West at the same time. Are we okay?
Thanks for posting these Sark. I find it very difficult to make much of them. There doesn't seem to be any discernible trend when presented in this form... Or am I missing something?
Thanks for posting these Sark. I find it very difficult to make much of them. There doesn't seem to be any discernible trend when presented in this form... Or am I missing something?
Pretty raw data. After poring through them looking for patterns I think winter 2018-2019 looks like one of the cold ones.
How do you connect this to your statement in your previous post that, "Arctic warming has resulted in at least some occurrence of warm arctic, cold continents"?
Is the problem that the information is presented at a scale/time frame that is useless? I wonder if looking at Jan 1 through March 15 would be more revealing?
Thanks a lot for doing that Sark. I was just musing, and didn't expect you to do it!
Still does not provide clarity for me either... but some recent years look like they have more pronounced differences using this time frame.
April 23-28.Renewed signs of general movement from Chukchi to the Barents. This is what I fear the most, especially considering the forecasts for a dipole-like setup in the next few days. The longer the movement continues without change the thicker the ice that gets exported and lost.
The Lena wakes up on time.
something tells me we're in for a nasty drop from day 2-5
Renewed signs of general movement from Chukchi to the Barents. This is what I fear the most, especially considering the forecasts for a dipole-like setup in the next few days. The longer the movement continues without change the thicker the ice that gets exported and lost.
I'm a long time lurker here, probably for more than 5 years. Just decided to post now
RE: sark: warm arctic, cold continents.
As your gifs move a bit too fast, I attach mine instead: 2016-19 winters vs 1960-90. No sign of warm arctic/cold continents, instead: very warm arctic and quite warm continents.
RE: sark: warm arctic, cold continents.
As your gifs move a bit too fast, I attach mine instead: 2016-19 winters vs 1960-90. No sign of warm arctic/cold continents, instead: very warm arctic and quite warm continents.
In WACC (or WACCy) the Cold is in comparison to the Warm, not to an absolute, so warm Arctic and quite warm continents is WACCy as long as the continents are warming more slowly than the Arctic.
i generally think that the ever thinner and more fragmented ice will sooner or later lead to unprecedented fluctuations (drops) in ice extent, meaning drops of over 300'000 km2 in one day.
What's a 'sparrowhawk'?In the ice edge at minimum topic they drew lines around what shape the remaining ice would take. some vaguely look like animals.
What's a 'sparrowhawk'?In the ice edge at minimum topic they drew lines around what shape the remaining ice would take. some vaguely look like animals.
What's a 'sparrowhawk'?
My pessimism in a picture.
Green (sparrowhawk) line.
This image does not show warm arctic cold continents. Excellent image, Sark.They will increasingly begin to appear everywhere (and particularly during fall and spring), IMO.
It shows something far more important. It shows the impingement of warm Atlantic and Pacific water into the Arctic and the increasing amounts of ocean heat that are entering the Arctic atmosphere from the Arctic ocean itself as the ice thins. The cold weather persists where thick ice piles up north of the CAA and northern Canada is still cold. Even Siberia is being warmed by the Atlantification of the Siberian side of the Arctic.
(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2591.0;attach=119432;image)
Graphics for the 500mb heights and ice thickness would be best done for exactly the same time periods to visualize the relationships between retreating and thinning ice, surface temperatures, and changes in atmospheric circulation patterns. In the post above, the comparisons are apples vs oranges.
It's very clear to me that there has been a large increase in heat transfer from the Arctic ocean water to the atmosphere. We will reach a planetary tipping point when there's so little ice that winter cloudiness cuts total radiative heat loss from the Arctic. Then we can expect really weird things, perhaps like super polar lows in midwinter along the shores of Siberia.
Why are these blocks coming from both sides of the planet and colliding in the Arctic? Is that typical?Check out the jetstream at 500 or 250hPa spinning up those high pressures are ground level. The atmosphere is always trying to reach equilibrium. If it ever does settle down, a more normalised (less wavy) jetstream will likely settle in further north than usual.
This image does not show warm arctic cold continents. Excellent image, Sark.
It shows something far more important. It shows the impingement of warm Atlantic and Pacific water into the Arctic and the increasing amounts of ocean heat that are entering the Arctic atmosphere from the Arctic ocean itself as the ice thins. The cold weather persists where thick ice piles up north of the CAA and northern Canada is still cold. Even Siberia is being warmed by the Atlantification of the Siberian side of the Arctic.
(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2591.0;attach=119432;image)
...Then we can expect really weird things, perhaps like super polar lows in midwinter along the shores of Siberia.
This image is based on yesterday's Modis image with bands 7-2-1 overlayed with the daytime ice surface temperature using a compressed palette. Yellow has been calibrated to around 273 K (with orange-red being warmer), so the idea is to an alternative indication of where surface melt is likely:
This image is based on yesterday's Modis image with bands 7-2-1 overlayed with the daytime ice surface temperature using a compressed palette. Yellow has been calibrated to around 273 K (with orange-red being warmer), so the idea is to an alternative indication of where surface melt is likely:Thanks for this, useful in areas where there are no clouds.
This image is based on yesterday's Modis image with bands 7-2-1 overlayed with the daytime ice surface temperature using a compressed palette. Yellow has been calibrated to around 273 K (with orange-red being warmer), so the idea is to an alternative indication of where surface melt is likely:Thanks for this, useful in areas where there are no clouds.
Right now, the big drops are obviously caused by Okhotsk, Bering and Chukchi, and it's just a matter of time when the Beaufort is going to join the party. It already looks like there's quite a bit of open water along the coast and between floes, but under a camouflage of fog/thin ice, keeping the trend line on the UH AMSR2 graph steady, whereas in 2016 the trend line had already started dropping.Yep, Beaufort extent is going to take a dip this very first week of May, and EC forecast of today makes the wind pattern away from the coast more persistent, almost until the 11th if we trusted that long range forecast.
Yep, Beaufort extent is going to take a dip this very first week of May, and EC forecast of today makes the wind pattern away from the coast more persistent, almost until the 11th if we trusted that long range forecast.
Hi All,Hello and welcome FlyOnTheWall. :)
I'm a longtime lurker, first time poster.
<snippage>It appears Fram export is ramping up in tandem with this. Just the last few days it appears the ice has been accelerating through it. The northerlies no doubt are contributing to this.
Persistent northerlies has meant the pack is pushed against the north coast of island of Spizbergen - something that hasnt happened since July 2017.
Those "persistent northerlies" started out as "persistent southerlies" from the North Pacific.<snippage>It appears Fram export is ramping up in tandem with this. Just the last few days it appears the ice has been accelerating through it. The northerlies no doubt are contributing to this.
Persistent northerlies has meant the pack is pushed against the north coast of island of Spizbergen - something that hasnt happened since July 2017.
Velocities appear to be approaching 1-1.5KPH. At current concentrations, that's upwards of 10,000KM2 a day of the thickest ice in the region past the point of no return.
Thank you uniquorn.
The Beaufort was crazy in 2016.
https://www.aer.com/science-research/climate-weather/arctic-oscillation/Looks like the Arctic High pressure area is re-establishing itself and normal, but a bit warmer, service of weather with the western (ZONAL) winds and episodic associated fronts might again start in the temperate NH instead of
What is even happening?
Final Warmings are not my expertise, but I am surprised to observe what appears to be very robust troposphere-stratosphere-troposphere coupling so late in the season and for it to apparently have the classic tropospheric signature of Greenland blocking and cold temperatures both in Europe and North America. Though it does seem that such an event is not unprecedented. I thank @nitzancohen for pointing out to me that something similar occurred in May 1997. I include the PCHs for all of 1997 (Figure ii) and I was surprised to see that the most impressing warming of the stratospheric PCHs for that entire year took place in May. The warm/positive PCHs in the lower troposphere lasted for about a month from early May until early June. Observed temperature anomalies from May 5 through June 5, 1997 shows below normal temperatures in eastern North America and Northern Europe for that period (Figure iii).
bears repeating: https://www.aer.com/science-research/climate-weather/arctic-oscillation/QuoteFinal Warmings are not my expertise, but I am surprised to observe what appears to be very robust troposphere-stratosphere-troposphere coupling so late in the season and for it to apparently have the classic tropospheric signature of Greenland blocking and cold temperatures both in Europe and North America. Though it does seem that such an event is not unprecedented. I thank @nitzancohen for pointing out to me that something similar occurred in May 1997. I include the PCHs for all of 1997 (Figure ii) and I was surprised to see that the most impressing warming of the stratospheric PCHs for that entire year took place in May. The warm/positive PCHs in the lower troposphere lasted for about a month from early May until early June. Observed temperature anomalies from May 5 through June 5, 1997 shows below normal temperatures in eastern North America and Northern Europe for that period (Figure iii).
The below figure is Dr Judah Cohen's charted GFS forecast for polar cap height (GPH anomaly)
Again. What is even happening?
https://www.aer.com/science-research/climate-weather/arctic-oscillation/
What is even happening?
What apparently is happening.....
A very warm sunny May maximizes the input of solar heat early, potentially allowing for a high amount of feedback due to reduced albedo in response to low early snow and sea ice extents.
Thanks, FishOutofWater for your insights. I for one appreciate them.
April 29 - May 4.
Yeah and it will suffer a heat wave right over the Beauforts area, above zero temps with high pressure in 15-20 days. I guarantee it.
Ask me how I know
Back on topic;FDD uses the DMI North of 80o temperature, which is a small fraction of the area of the Arctic. Not only that, the way DMI calculates the temperature (giving equal weight by latitude, not by area) bends the data towards the pole. I wonder what the correlation is between FDD and maximum extent and / or area.
JAXA extent continues to track with 2016 (a bad year indeed), yet the FDD implies the ice is actually in pretty good shape and is similar to 2013 (one of the best years of the decade)?
Back on topic;
JAXA extent continues to track with 2016 (a bad year indeed), yet the FDD implies the ice is actually in pretty good shape and is similar to 2013 (one of the best years of the decade)?
Back on topic;
JAXA extent continues to track with 2016 (a bad year indeed), yet the FDD implies the ice is actually in pretty good shape and is similar to 2013 (one of the best years of the decade)?
Back on topic;But 2013 was a rebound year not because of the state of the ice out of winter, but despite its bad state. One of the coolest June-July with that persistent cyclone.
JAXA extent continues to track with 2016 (a bad year indeed), yet the FDD implies the ice is actually in pretty good shape and is similar to 2013 (one of the best years of the decade)?
GFS shows temperature anomalies varying from +2.5 to +3.5 celsius over the forecast period, with warmth over most of the Central Arctic and the CAA as far as Svalbard.I would guess Simon's FFD chart (https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,2591.msg198202.html#msg198202) will show 2019 [technically 2018-19] slowly diverge further below the 2010s average (and 2013-14) (but never catch up to 2016-2018 years).
Thanks for the comments everyone, I took gerontocrats advice and plotted the regression (sept minima not year maxima). FDD as a whole seems to be a pretty poor predictor of the cycle end-point.Tealight's AWP graphs and maps give the daily and accumulated potential energy over and in the Arctic. Goto https://cryospherecomputing.tk/NRTawp.html
This is an imperfect way to plot this, but my university firewall prevents me from accessing ftp files meaning I need to do it all manually. Also the fact these FDD data points are Jan-Jan, but the Sept minimum occurs 3/5ths into the year makes it worse.
I suppose what im trying to show here is that I shouldnt really have taken any inference from the FDD data about what way the ice could go :)!
incidentally, the same seas I show as the Central Arctic Seas in the area tables I post in the extent data thread.Thanks for the comments everyone, I took gerontocrats advice and plotted the regression (sept minima not year maxima). FDD as a whole seems to be a pretty poor predictor of the cycle end-point.Tealight's AWP graphs and maps give the daily and accumulated potential energy over and in the Arctic. Goto https://cryospherecomputing.tk/NRTawp.html
This is an imperfect way to plot this, but my university firewall prevents me from accessing ftp files meaning I need to do it all manually. Also the fact these FDD data points are Jan-Jan, but the Sept minimum occurs 3/5ths into the year makes it worse.
I suppose what im trying to show here is that I shouldnt really have taken any inference from the FDD data about what way the ice could go :)!
I attach his "High Arctic" graphs that include only the following regions: Kara Sea, Laptev Sea, East Siberian Sea, Chukchi Sea, Beaufort Sea, Canadian Archipelago, Central Arctic
Thanks, Gerontocrat! (2nded!)Tealight said he had processed the regional data for the last 40 years.
I wonder where 2007 would show up on the "Accumulated Albedo" graph? Also, a graph of "Accumulated Albedo" and September minimum extent would be very interesting to see...
Not much warmth in the pacific inflow as yet, just salinity. Atlantic water more dominant in the Laptev than last year (according to the model)
Mercator salinity 0m, mar1-may7
Not much warmth in the pacific inflow as yet, just salinity. Atlantic water more dominant in the Laptev than last year (according to the model)
Mercator salinity 0m, mar1-may7
Can increased salinity cause additional bottom melt due to suppressing the freezing point?
Not much warmth in the pacific inflow as yet, just salinity. Atlantic water more dominant in the Laptev than last year (according to the model)
Mercator salinity 0m, mar1-may7
Light cloud over the 'top' of the ess arm today. Worldview terra modis, local contrast enhanced and default, ascat may7 inset.
Is this normal for early May?Best to look at the stats for that. Every year is different when looking at the ice.
New huge mighty crack in Beaufort.Not a bad idea for the thickest ice to head north before the CAA opens up.
I don't think they rise to the surface. That area was the last to melt last year. The ess arm has been stretched and refractured all last freezing season. It's probably just thin ice.Not much warmth in the pacific inflow as yet, just salinity. Atlantic water more dominant in the Laptev than last year (according to the model) Mercator salinity 0m, mar1-may7That's basically where the Atlantic waters turn the corner after flowing along the Eastern continental shelf of the Nansen basin, heading back north. I wonder if there is a) shoaling causing deeper waters to rise and b) if that water is warmer than usual.
I don't think they rise to the surface. That area was the last to melt last year. The ess arm has been
You would have to describe in more detail what would be displacing what. It's possible there is some mixing, but looking at the bouy data it takes a big event to disturb the halocline layers.I don't think they rise to the surface. That area was the last to melt last year. The ess arm has beenif not rise to the surface, what about reach the surface by displacement, is that a term that would suit your opinion or do you assume that things stay the way they are now?
You would have to describe in more detail what would be displacing what. It's possible there is some mixing, but looking at the bouy data it takes a big event to disturb the halocline layers.I don't think they rise to the surface. That area was the last to melt last year. The ess arm has beenif not rise to the surface, what about reach the surface by displacement, is that a term that would suit your opinion or do you assume that things stay the way they are now?
New huge mighty crack in Beaufort.
Shot from today, 14:41h UTC
(actually, Ellesmere Island is a little further up... m) )
ok, what i meant to ask is whether if year after year the atlantic currents would pump more saline , hence heavier water into the arctic so that the layer with higher salinity would slowly grow from the seabed up-water-column till reaching sooner or later a depth that would allow for the remaing few meters to mix under open water conditions. i'm aware that there is more expert language to describe the theory but hope i was able to convey the essence of the idea ;) thanks.No bouys in that location but whoi itp110 in the Beaufort shows what you describe, though it's unclear (to me) if it is pac or atl water. The image only shows data to 200m depth. Comparison with previous years shows the warm layer is thicker this year but there is very little evidence so far of mixing or 'displacement'.
The one consideration that you are ignoring is that per the research that I reference in Reply #5, the relatively freshwater layer immediately above the deeper warm layer of water, is unstable. So it is not that the deeper and denser warm water will magically float up through less dense cooler water, but rather that the upper cooler/fresher lay may well some day flow laterally away (into the North Atlantic) which would then leave the warm water closer to the surface.
No bouys in that location but whoi itp110 in the Beaufort shows what you describe, though it's unclear (to me) if it is pac or atl water. The image only shows data to 200m depth. Comparison with previous years shows the warm layer is thicker this year but there is very little evidence so far of mixing or 'displacement'.
My background knowledge of temperature/salinity is limited so I refer you to this post from AbruptSLR https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,2391.msg170451.html#msg170451
with this quote about the Beaufort:The one consideration that you are ignoring is that per the research that I reference in Reply #5, the relatively freshwater layer immediately above the deeper warm layer of water, is unstable. So it is not that the deeper and denser warm water will magically float up through less dense cooler water, but rather that the upper cooler/fresher lay may well some day flow laterally away (into the North Atlantic) which would then leave the warm water closer to the surface.
whoi itp110 location and temperature/salinity 0-200m, may9
Actually, just saw on Aqua / MODIS, there even is a third crack directly alongside the Canadian coastline.Yesterday's worldview aqua modis of the same area, close to prince patrick. A small cyclone moving eastwards from amundsen gulf has lifted what should be some of our thickest ice from the CAA coastline. More disturbing (to me) are the fine lateral fractures which have little chance of refreeze.
Why do I keep getting the impression that the entire basin of ice is rotating clockwise?
As a complete novice at 500mB, how did you do it?
Siberia's snow melt has accelerated rapidly.
Quote from: bbr2314Interesting, worldview is displaying fires/thermal anomalies causing or resulting from recent rapid snow melt patches opening up through Siberia near 70°N. The speed between ice cover and fire is rather worrisome with summer yet weeks away.
Siberia's snow melt has accelerated rapidly.
Add that North Atlantic Drift isn't what it used to be so little to no opposite forces.Why do I keep getting the impression that the entire basin of ice is rotating clockwise?
High pressure. it's all anticyclonic from space to surface.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/10hPa/orthographic=-84.79,85.32,419
Glacier that moved 60 feet a year, now moves 60ft a day; (Vavilov Ice Cap in Laptev)
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/144790/a-surprising-surge-at-vavilov-ice-cap
Another link with a good video;
https://earther.gizmodo.com/watch-a-russian-glacier-experience-sudden-unprecedente-1829194880
Satellite time lapse;
https://earthengine.google.com/timelapse#v=79.29346,94.90916,7.13,latLng&t=0.8&ps=100&bt=
19840101&et=20181231&startDwell=0&endDwell=0
Lincoln Sea ice not looking good today.
maybe rotate 90deg and post on melting thread?
At least it means a temporary reversal of Fram export.
Worldview aqua modis caa and nth greenland today.
May 7-11.I note what looks like an open water refreeze in the Laptev.
What's flashing/unflashing Neven?
This may even have a physical explantion, as some satellite sensors may get cofused with low altitude fog or surface melt, the initiation of meltpooling.What's flashing/unflashing Neven?
Sometimes large swathes of ice can disappear from one day to the next on the Uni Bremen sea ice concentration maps. This is now colloquially known as 'flash melting', or 'flashing', as in 'flash, it's gone'. But some of this ice then re-appears again in subsequent days, it 'unflashes'.
I introduced the term 'flash melting' back in 2011 (https://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2011/08/flash-melting.html), as a pun on 'flash flooding'. I used the term 'unflashing' in this 2012 post (https://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2012/08/arctic-storm-part-2-the-color-purple.html), for instance, during the GAC-2012.
This may even have a physical explantion, as some satellite sensors may get cofused with low altitude fog or surface melt, the initiation of meltpooling.What's flashing/unflashing Neven?
Sometimes large swathes of ice can disappear from one day to the next on the Uni Bremen sea ice concentration maps. This is now colloquially known as 'flash melting', or 'flashing', as in 'flash, it's gone'. But some of this ice then re-appears again in subsequent days, it 'unflashes'.
I introduced the term 'flash melting' back in 2011 (https://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2011/08/flash-melting.html), as a pun on 'flash flooding'. I used the term 'unflashing' in this 2012 post (https://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2012/08/arctic-storm-part-2-the-color-purple.html), for instance, during the GAC-2012.
What's flashing/unflashing Neven?
Sometimes large swathes of ice can disappear from one day to the next on the Uni Bremen sea ice concentration maps. This is now colloquially known as 'flash melting', or 'flashing', as in 'flash, it's gone'. But some of this ice then re-appears again in subsequent days, it 'unflashes'.
I introduced the term 'flash melting' back in 2011 (https://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2011/08/flash-melting.html), as a pun on 'flash flooding'. I used the term 'unflashing' in this 2012 post (https://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2012/08/arctic-storm-part-2-the-color-purple.html), for instance, during the GAC-2012.
I remember last July when almost all of the Hudson Bay Sea Ice "disappeared" over night which obviously was not true. Some days later the sea ice "reappeared" in the graphs and tables...What's flashing/unflashing Neven?
Sometimes large swathes of ice can disappear from one day to the next on the Uni Bremen sea ice concentration maps. This is now colloquially known as 'flash melting', or 'flashing', as in 'flash, it's gone'. But some of this ice then re-appears again in subsequent days, it 'unflashes'.
I introduced the term 'flash melting' back in 2011 (https://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2011/08/flash-melting.html), as a pun on 'flash flooding'. I used the term 'unflashing' in this 2012 post (https://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2012/08/arctic-storm-part-2-the-color-purple.html), for instance, during the GAC-2012.
So, will the ice entirely lift off from the CAA/Greenland coast?Images from Greenland's Martin Jessup and Nord areas, East from Lincoln Sea.
Big open cracks?
The way the euro depicts this straight nasty.
For those who are not aware:
Meteorology speaking this setup is essentially the Holy Grail of having a record-setting Arctic sea of sea ice is sprawling upper level atmospheric ridges of high pressure that exist from top down.
This is the path to dry sinking air and wall to wall sunny skies.
We have never had a May 20-30th GARGANTUAN RIDGE that preconditioned the ice for huge June and July loses.
Stay tuned
So...new poster here trying to orient myself to what's going in the Arctic. So many variables its tough to get a feel.
Looking at uniquorns gif in post # 776, it appears the ice in the entire Arctic is moving as one. Lifting off the Greenland and Canadian coast and rotating in a clockwise direction.
What stops the whole thing from continuing to rotate around to Fram Strait and exiting?
This is the path to dry sinking air and wall to wall sunny skies.
So...new poster here trying to orient myself to what's going in the Arctic. So many variables its tough to get a feel.
Looking at uniquorns gif in post # 776, it appears the ice in the entire Arctic is moving as one. Lifting off the Greenland and Canadian coast and rotating in a clockwise direction.
What stops the whole thing from continuing to rotate around to Fram Strait and exiting?
The ironic part is that whilst all those southward-blowing winds will be pushing ice out into the death zone, carrying the fog and clouds that form over warming ice and open water out of the picture, and leaving the midnight sun to do it's thing, half the people on this forum will be watching the temporarily low extent loss (perhaps even increase) and declaring the whole season a nothingburger.Sea ice extent and area data is - what is. The midnight sun over the central arctic is - what might be, clouds and fog permitting. In 2017 and 2018 the melting season did become to some extent a nothingburger, despite many predictions of sea ice Armageddon. Instead, it was very slow start to the freeze season, in line with some models' predictions, that was more significant.
One month of Kara Sea. A tale of Atlantic waters?Kara and Laptev are indeed interesting wrt to the origin of waters, Kara is usually Atlantic mixed with melt water from Ob and Yenisei but Laptev likely has a Pacific component to it (also Lena river). ESS is almost fully Pacific/Arctic (no huge rivers) , Chukchi less Arctic. Barents is about fully Atlantic by now.
13.04. to 13.05. via Nasa Worldview
(Click GIF to animate)
Will those six or seven lows, forecast for Wednesday, surrounding a polar high be enough to rotate the entire cap now that it seems unattached to shore? They look like little sprockets surrounding a large central gear.Likely not, the islands north of Siberia (Severnaja Zemlja and others too) are a permanent stick in that wheel. Maybe later in summer.
So...new poster here trying to orient myself to what's going in the Arctic. So many variables its tough to get a feel.
Looking at uniquorns gif in post # 776, it appears the ice in the entire Arctic is moving as one. Lifting off the Greenland and Canadian coast and rotating in a clockwise direction.
What stops the whole thing from continuing to rotate around to Fram Strait and exiting?
So...new poster here trying to orient myself to what's going in the Arctic. So many variables its tough to get a feel.
Looking at uniquorns gif in post # 776, it appears the ice in the entire Arctic is moving as one. Lifting off the Greenland and Canadian coast and rotating in a clockwise direction.
What stops the whole thing from continuing to rotate around to Fram Strait and exiting?
Check out this timelapse; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vj1G9gqhkYA
Good commentary that explains things.
The ironic part is that whilst all those southward-blowing winds will be pushing ice out into the death zone, carrying the fog and clouds that form over warming ice and open water out of the picture, and leaving the midnight sun to do it's thing, half the people on this forum will be watching the temporarily low extent loss (perhaps even increase) and declaring the whole season a nothingburger.Sea ice extent and area data is - what is. The midnight sun over the central arctic is - what might be, clouds and fog permitting. In 2017 and 2018 the melting season did become to some extent a nothingburger, despite many predictions of sea ice Armageddon. Instead, it was very slow start to the freeze season, in line with some models' predictions, that was more significant.
We will see if the early signs of a new weather pattern picked up by Frivousz21 happens, or does not. Meanwhile JAXA sea ice extent has gone from lowest to third lowest in short order.
.... The latest CFS runs predict the high pressure and subsidence over the pole and Greenland will persist ....
The "Lift off" in the Chukchi is very concerning. That's a lot of open water under sunny skies very early in the melt season.
.... The latest CFS runs predict the high pressure and subsidence over the pole and Greenland will persist ....
That does look serious. Especially if the highs appear where forecast for June, with the Beaufort and Chukchi already in bad shape and absorbing lots of insolation.
The "Lift off" in the Chukchi is very concerning. That's a lot of open water under sunny skies very early in the melt season.
It also looks like the melt of the Great Slave Lake is early. Watch for an early break up of the Mackenzie
'On the ice' temperatures from whoi itp buoys. 4 of them reporting above zero temperatures recently. https://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=163197Just starting..
The "Lift off" in the Chukchi is very concerning. That's a lot of open water under sunny skies very early in the melt season.
Yup. Open water which isn't freezing, and which has passed the point at which fog/clouds are rapidly forming above it - so the surface air is already above the dewpoint. Laptev too.
This is Not Good At All.
Uniquorn, I always thought the buoy temperature was an internal temperature for the buoy. Because there is a electric motor that runs the profiler up and down wouldn't there also be some small amount of heat that affects the buoy temperature readings along with insolation during daylight hours?Good point Bruce Steele. It is internal temperature and there is some insulation in the buoy so likely to be a time lag as it cools and warms. Buoy temperatures of -40C are not uncommon though so I think these can be seen as a reasonable guide to 'on the ice' temperatures at night.
Should I stop posting them?
conditions falling below dew point is one of the negative feedbacks that plays a role in the last 3 years to doge the canonball.
Does anyone know where I can find the extra energy input / day (power) due to albedo change compared with 1900 or before due to reduced sea ice cover ?
Does anyone know where I can find the extra energy input / day (power) due to albedo change compared with 1900 or before due to reduced sea ice cover ?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/24550469/
Try this study. I think it concludes that the forcing equivalent associated with all (sea and land) lost Arctic albedo is equivalent to half of all athropogogenic CO2 emissions.
Averaged over the globe, this albedo decrease corresponds to a forcing that is 25% as large as that due to the change in CO2 during this period, considerably larger than expectations from models and other less direct recent estimates.
Changes in cloudiness appear to play a negligible role in observed Arctic darkening, thus reducing the possibility of Arctic cloud albedo feedbacks mitigating future Arctic warming.
Our point is that although Arctic changes may be important, they are small compared with the larger picture of changes in cloud cover in the tropics (Fig. 1). Although the change in total solar energy input is large in the Arctic over the 2000–2012 period, global solar energy input actually decreased by (−0.14 Wm−2), with a majority of the decrease resulting from the Southern Hemisphere (−0.26 Wm−2) rather than the Northern Hemisphere (−0.03 Wm−2). Thus, we argue against Pistone et al.’s (1) conclusion that Arctic darkening “is not offset by cloud albedo feedbacks.”
Arctic albedo changes are small compared with changes in cloud cover in the tropics
David R. Legates, Willis Eschenbach, and Willie Soon
Willie Soon of Heartland institute fame? I would be very careful with anything from that liar. I'm sure this paper is picking cherries or misleading in some significant way.
The author points out the loss of albedo due to sea ice only as being 25% of the equivalent of CO2 emissions.My 'take home' from this is that, within the Arctic, CO2 is going up and albedo is going down, so ice loss will accelerate.
Does anyone know where I can find the extra energy input / day (power) due to albedo change compared with 1900 or before due to reduced sea ice cover ?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/24550469/
Try this study. I think it concludes that the forcing equivalent associated with all (sea and land) lost Arctic albedo is equivalent to half of all athropogogenic CO2 emissions.
Atmosphere 2019, 10(1), 12; https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos10010012
How Much Do Clouds Mask the Impacts of Arctic Sea Ice and Snow Cover Variations? Different Perspectives from Observations and Reanalyses
Anne Sledd * and Tristan L’Ecuyer
Decreasing sea ice and snow cover are reducing the surface albedo and changing the Arctic surface energy balance. How these surface albedo changes influence the planetary albedo is a more complex question, though, that depends critically on the modulating effects of the intervening atmosphere. To answer this question, we partition the observed top of atmosphere (TOA) albedo into contributions from the surface and atmosphere, the latter being heavily dependent on clouds. While the surface albedo predictably declines with lower sea ice and snow cover, the TOA albedo decreases approximately half as much. This weaker response can be directly attributed to the fact that the atmosphere contributes more than 70% of the TOA albedo in the annual mean and is less dependent on surface cover. The surface accounts for a maximum of 30% of the TOA albedo in spring and less than 10% by the end of summer. Reanalyses (ASR versions 1 and 2, ERA-Interim, MERRA-2, and NCEP R2) represent the annual means of surface albedo fairly well, but biases are found in magnitudes of the TOA albedo and its contributions, likely due to their representations of clouds. Reanalyses show a wide range of TOA albedo sensitivity to changing sea ice concentration, 0.04–0.18 in September, compared to 0.11 in observations.
The reduced sensitivity of TOA albedo to surface cover is important for the ice-albedo feedback. Our work supports previous studies that have found reduced ice-albedo feedback parameters due to clouds [17,18]. We have found that clouds mask the surface albedo and damp changes in surface cover at the TOA. When the surface albedo is sensitive to SIC changes in the summer and fall, the surface contribution to the TOA albedo is low, leading to reduced changes at the TOA. There is nuance, though. Clouds do not simply replace underlying snow and ice. While clouds have higher albedos than open ocean, there is still a measurable difference (0.15) in TOA albedo between land with and without snow cover and ocean with and without sea ice cover. Clouds may reduce the ice-albedo feedback, but the radiative effects of clouds at the TOA are unlikely to be large enough to prevent the ice-albedo feedback from continuing and contributing to Arctic amplification.
This year seems to have pretty average snow cover more in line with 2015 and 2016, but below 2017 and 2018.
Willie Soon and Lindzen, both deniers, have been wildly wrong about the effects of tropical clouds and the planetary energy balance. There have been many recent papers on clouds in the tropics and subtropics that debunked their theories.Trust no-one - I was fooled because their letter was in the Proceedings of The National Academy of Sciences, USA. Bummer
Rich wrote:QuoteThe author points out the loss of albedo due to sea ice only as being 25% of the equivalent of CO2 emissions.My 'take home' from this is that, within the Arctic, CO2 is going up and albedo is going down, so ice loss will accelerate.
Thankfully, there is a separate thread for albedo discussion!
https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php?topic=1749.msg199578#msg199578
Trust no-one - I was fooled because their letter was in the Proceedings of The National Academy of Sciences, USA. Bummer
By eyeballing, floe size in the Beaufort seems smaller than in 2016, which would be bad for the ice. But is there an official account of this?
The whole Arctic pack is rotating clockwise now. The ice has transform faults all around the CAA and Greenland. Faults are continuous in ice on the north of Ellesmere island on today's Aqua image.A bit of a 'hill start' but ice north of caa definitely joining the rotation now.
Theres a lot of dangerous stuff going on this year up there.The world won't notice or care about the Arctic sea ice any more than it has since 2012. But, they will notice and care about the worsening disasters that happen due to the accelerating collapse of the three-cell system. I would expect epic floods, heatwaves, cyclones, and blizzards as we enter the peak of summer and drift into autumn and early winter, with new extremes set in many locations (mostly hot, many wet, many dry, some cold, some snowy).
Will this be the year that shouts "hey world look at me now"
Theres a lot of dangerous stuff going on this year up there.
Will this be the year that shouts "hey world look at me now"
By eyeballing, floe size in the Beaufort seems smaller than in 2016, which would be bad for the ice. But is there an official account of this?
Don't think so - but for the past few years some of us have been calling it out as 'granularity', and subjectively, yes, the total perimeter of the ice/water interface has been heading steadily toward fractal territory for quite some time now.
And yes, Pretty soon we'll be in Margaritaville at four in the morning on an off-night.
60 hour loop of the Beaufort. May 14 12Z - May 17 0Z.
(Requires a click)
60 hour loop of the Beaufort. May 14 12Z - May 17 0Z.Besides the impressive movement, some of the slush between the bigger floes is definitely melting and shrinking, unless my eyes are deceiving me.
(Requires a click)
60 hour loop of the Beaufort. May 14 12Z - May 17 0Z.Besides the impressive movement, some of the slush between the bigger floes is definitely melting and shrinking, unless my eyes are deceiving me.
(Requires a click)
Just something I like looking at to help visualize the loss.
I try to download the image daily. On days I miss, I just double the duration of the previous day's frame.
Or positive rate, as jet pilots say.60 hour loop of the Beaufort. May 14 12Z - May 17 0Z.
(Requires a click)
Houston, we have lift-off. :o
60 hour loop of the Beaufort. May 14 12Z - May 17 0Z.Besides the impressive movement, some of the slush between the bigger floes is definitely melting and shrinking, unless my eyes are deceiving me.
(Requires a click)
It was abnormally warm over Alaska for much of the winter. Going to melt quickly, I think.
There is max temperature in the last image.A quibble...
I think I am right in saying that the GFS maximum (and minimum) temperature images are a bit deceiving, in that even if the forecast is 100% correct, there will not be a date/time when the image is a reality.Of course. Almost every point in the Central Arctic will reach zero at least once in 5 days but not simultaneously. The average is a few degrees lower.
The only bright spot is that the Siberian sector is still holding up. Looking at worldview, surface melt began here in 2012 around 11th of May. Maybe that extra 50cm of snow on the ground is making a difference.
May 13-17.
Ice is disintegrating in the Beaufort. A strong anticyclone and positive temperatures will be according to forecast. There is max temperature in the last image.
I just looked at the 12z European weather model and it is unbelievable or the Arctic Basin to end out May.I don't have Friv's skill at hyperbole, but looking at GFS, most of the snow cover on the Pacific side of the basin, on and off the ice, is modeled to disappear over the next 5 days. It only gets worse at the end of the model run.
<snippage>
I decided to do a comparison of SLP for the month of May. I looked at a couple of years and show here 2019 May (so far), 2018, 2016, 2007. Given the forecast, the extreme high pressure seems truly epic
I don't have Friv's skill at hyperbole, but looking at GFS, most of the snow cover on the Pacific side of the basin, on and off the ice, is modeled to disappear over the next 5 days. It only gets worse at the end of the model run.
I don't have Friv's skill at hyperbole, but looking at GFS, most of the snow cover on the Pacific side of the basin, on and off the ice, is modeled to disappear over the next 5 days. It only gets worse at the end of the model run.
So, 2019 is leading when it comes to the SAT/SLP combo, compared to 2010 and 2016, but it's behind when it comes to snow. For now. If the 2019 trend line manages to go as low as those other two years in weeks to come, things will start to look bleak (even though the ground won't).
Here's a close-up from the NOAA/NESDIS multisensor (https://www.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/smcd/emb/snow/HTML/snow.htm) snow cover graph:
Already, a lot of blue in the Beaufort
OK, so the snow is melting. This happens at this time of year.Yes, I completely understand that. I'm not trying to suggest snow cover overall is somehow significant.
<snipage>
It will quickly disappear as is normal.
https://ccin.ca/ccw/snow/current
OK, so the snow is melting. This happens at this time of year.Yeah, and the same happens with sea ice, and with the frost in my freezer if I unplug it.
OK, so the snow is melting. This happens at this time of year.Yeah, and the same happens with sea ice, and with the frost in my freezer if I unplug it.
Dumbest thing I read, your entire comment.
Should we then close the thread and talk about football? Come on, ice is gonna melt, more or less who knows, who cares, hey its freaking normal in summer!!
How snow melts out in May and June, on continents and on ice, is relevant to what’s gonna happen to ice, be it causality or correlation, and I pay good attention to it.
OK, so the snow is melting. This happens at this time of year.Yeah, and the same happens with sea ice, and with the frost in my freezer if I unplug it.
Dumbest thing I read, your entire comment.
Should we then close the thread and talk about football? Come on, ice is gonna melt, more or less who knows, who cares, hey its freaking normal in summer!!
How snow melts out in May and June, on continents and on ice, is relevant to what’s gonna happen to ice, be it causality or correlation, and I pay good attention to it.
Calma there buddy! I think you are reading Gerontocrat's comment with some weird lenses on.
May 15-19.
With the recent heatwave in Scandinavia, not to mention the post up-thread of that Russian Island in the arctic with the glacier that's moving like 10X faster and can contribute to a FOOT of sea level rise, I have to wonder why only Greenland melt seems to be reported on which isn't nearly enough as it is... Haven't we also witness glaciers in Norway that have drastically sped up??? Are their any pages you'd recommend to keep track of these? Get a rain bomb like Harvey hitting a glacier and the ice hardly needs to melt to be washed out to sea and effect sea level practically overnight :(
With the recent heatwave in Scandinavia, not to mention the post up-thread of that Russian Island in the arctic with the glacier that's moving like 10X faster and can contribute to a FOOT of sea level rise, I have to wonder why only Greenland melt seems to be reported on which isn't nearly enough as it is... Haven't we also witness glaciers in Norway that have drastically sped up??? Are their any pages you'd recommend to keep track of these? Get a rain bomb like Harvey hitting a glacier and the ice hardly needs to melt to be washed out to sea and effect sea level practically overnight :(
What is needed is someone with the interest and skill set to bring the data here , Gerontocrat and co. can only do so much ! Perhaps you are the person to provide the information you feel is lacking ? .. b.c.
To me, all I'm saying is even if just one remote island we've never even heard of can and WILL contribute a FOOT to sea level rise seems to be something that should be a lot more on our radars!Where did you get the foot of sea level rise figure for the Vavilov glacier from? With a total ocean surface area of about 361 million square kilometers, a foot (0.3 meters) of sea level rise requires a total volume of about 100,000 cubic kilometers of glacier ice to melt. That figure would require the ENTIRE October Revolution Island to be covered by an average of 7 kilometers of ice or the Vavilov glacier to have 50+km of ice thickness, which is hardly the case.
Antarctic ice sheet - 25.71 million cubic kilometers (up to about 200 feet of sea level rise)
Greenland ice sheet - 2.85 million cubic kilometers (up to about 24 feet of sea level rise)
All other glaciers and ice caps combined - 0.22 million cubic kilometers (up to about 2 feet of sea level rise)
Vavilov glacier
on cue the high pressure and descending warm air are providing clear skies today over much of the Arctic basin . Worldview is beginning to reveal the unfolding disintergration of the ice . Things look in a much worse state now than in mid June last year . The fracture zones running from Beaufort to the pole show the true state of the vast majority of the ice in the basin .. ready for dispersal and melt .June 20th?
The open water showing in these fractures may be what others are seeing as rain or melt pond effects . The warmth expected over the next week may see open water around the pole even before melt season proper has begun .
I was hoping that GFS was running away with their heat forecast as they did over the last few years mid-May onward . This year though all the other forecasts are as bad . One evening last week in the hope of finding relief from the heat I looked 10 days out on ECMWF 850 anomalies .. only to find a red Arctic surrounded by a complete circle of blue . It looked like a heap of Strawberries on a delft plate ..
Such has been the movement of ice this winter and spring that most ice over a year old has already left the Arctic and the forecasts ensure that movement will continue . It really does seem that Fram , Nare's and similar export is as important as any other aspect of the melt season .
Looking back through Worldview I consider the state of ice in the basin to be worse today than on 20th June 2016 or 2012 .. b.c.
The warmth expected over the next week may see open water around the pole even before melt season proper has begun .
Such has been the movement of ice this winter and spring that most ice over a year old has already left the Arctic and the forecasts ensure that movement will continue . It really does seem that Fram , Nare's and similar export is as important as any other aspect of the melt season .
Looking back through Worldview I consider the state of ice in the basin to be worse today than on 20th June 2016 or 2012 .. b.c.
Apologies for commenting on the above off-topic discussion, Neven
The currebt ECWMF forecast on windy TV also shows insane warmth through the forecast, for example large areas above 0 at 950mb all thru at 950mb every day, and the surface temp near or above 0 by end of forecast
it looks like open water yesterday @ 89'N 130E .maybe only 2 km X 200m
At the same time, lots of heat coming in, 2.8 °C above average by next week, which equates to 0 °C for much of the Arctic:
Back to the Beaufort. I would say that there's hardly a difference with 2016. Maybe there's a bit more snow on the coast now, but then again, Amundsen Bay is already completely free of ice. In the comparison below, I've added June 12th 2016, ie three weeks from today:The Beaufort looks really bad. But Wipneus' UH area chart still shows there is a bit more ice than in 2016, although the gap has shrunk considerably.
It's interesting comparing the PAC front with previous years, as recent "bad years", despite Bering problems, saw a major stall in momentum in May and June. This year, it appears the front is marching forth with almost nothing getting in its way...Back to the Beaufort. I would say that there's hardly a difference with 2016. Maybe there's a bit more snow on the coast now, but then again, Amundsen Bay is already completely free of ice. In the comparison below, I've added June 12th 2016, ie three weeks from today:The Beaufort looks really bad. But Wipneus' UH area chart still shows there is a bit more ice than in 2016, although the gap has shrunk considerably.
The Beaufort looks really bad. But Wipneus' UH area chart still shows there is a bit more ice than in 2016, although the gap has shrunk considerably.
Taking the Pacific side as a whole 2019 currently leads the pack. Compare and contrast with the Atlantic side:
Taking the Pacific side as a whole 2019 currently leads the pack. Compare and contrast with the Atlantic side:
NSIDC area sea ice graph looking a bit different.Back to the Beaufort. I would say that there's hardly a difference with 2016. Maybe there's a bit more snow on the coast now, but then again, Amundsen Bay is already completely free of ice. In the comparison below, I've added June 12th 2016, ie three weeks from today:The Beaufort looks really bad. But Wipneus' UH area chart still shows there is a bit more ice than in 2016, although the gap has shrunk considerably.
The warmth expected over the next week may see open water around the pole even before melt season proper has begun .
From warm and melt? Near the pole? Next week? Is this what you are suggesting? It can't be. So you have to be saying that there will be huge separation between floes and that the open water will not refreeze, ya? Seems to me like there is no contrasting vectors of drift to cause this. Any open water will have little resistance and ice will drift in and fill any large gaps.
Maybe I'm missing something and there will be a shape and direction to the floes that will cause something like what you are suggesting, but please do elaborate.Such has been the movement of ice this winter and spring that most ice over a year old has already left the Arctic and the forecasts ensure that movement will continue . It really does seem that Fram , Nare's and similar export is as important as any other aspect of the melt season .
The really good ice (5+ meters, 5+ years-old) melted out in the last 2 years. I think what we are seeing now (particularly in Nares) is what happens when the ice in the area is only a couple years old and a couple meters thick.Looking back through Worldview I consider the state of ice in the basin to be worse today than on 20th June 2016 or 2012 .. b.c.
This year is the worst for this date with 2016 being the only other year close. Luckily June and July weather matter most...but the set up is really terrible and may not even require abnormal weather for a record. However, I would guess that if weather is mundane, 2019 minimum will be between 2012 and 2016.
At the same time, lots of heat coming in, 2.8 °C above average by next week, which equates to 0 °C for much of the Arctic:The way I see it it is going to be nuclear until Saturday, then things get more normal.
How does "the really good ice" melt out in the past two years, when we ended the last two years with close to 4 million square K of ice left from the previous year(s)[?]Much by simple export to the melting fields. Otherwise, when 'good ice' gets fractured to smithereens, then almost anywhere (except for the central-and-towards-the-CCA part of the Arctic Basin [so far]) can become a melting field. (Of course, melting occurs 'everywhere', just not necessarily enough to melt 'really good ice'.)
2018 much lower than 2018, but still about 100 km2 more than 2016
How does "the really good ice" melt out in the past two years, when we ended the last two years with close to 4 million square K of ice left from the previous year(s)???
Seems to me the winds are mostly sending ice toward Fram, Svalbard, et al.
The short term forecast for the Mackenzie watershed is crazy.<snippage>It's bad today, but still a few days behind 2016. Not so many large floes in the Beaufort though.
How does "the really good ice" melt out in the past two years, when we ended the last two years with close to 4 million square K of ice left from the previous year(s)???
It's taken a lot more than two years! However here too is an up to date graph
- pacific side is worse
- atlantic side will melt out anyway, hence even though it's in better shape than other years,
the overall situation is not boding well.
be cause: can only guestimate area that heads out of the basin but it is a lotRight. Wind-driven ice motion has been extraordinary this freeze/melt season. By translocating thicker, older ice into zones that will melt out later in the summer, or exporting ice altogether out of the basin via the Fram, Nares and Svalbard-FJL chain plus blocking Kara Sea ice on the import side, wind-driven ice motion may challenge conventional bottom and top melt this year as the leading ice volume loss mechanism.
May 17-21.
May 17-21.Seems the disturbing movement away from the Beaufort, into the Fram/Barents is continuing. Hopefully Neven's forecast is right and this sustained movement will subside soon.
ECMWF weather forecast for coming 6 days: Two more days of ice pulling away from the Beaufort Sea coast, and then slow things down, but Day 6 (bottom right) may be indicating a return to bad synoptics for the ice, with high pressure taking over the Central Arctic again. Day 7 to 10 are more emphatic, but they're too unreliable, so I generally don't post those.I normally leave synoptics to my betters, but isn't the day 3-4 setup highly supportive of ice export into the Barents/Fram?
Wind-driven ice motion has been extraordinary this freeze/melt season.
The Oden made a remarkable observation of open water at the north pole on 25 Aug 18, photographing a walrus there, messing with a research sled.
This and a few little things like ice thickness went seriously under-reported
Yes, and with high pressures parked over Greenland I would say day 1-6, but true that 1-4 seem most supportiveECMWF weather forecast for coming 6 days: Two more days of ice pulling away from the Beaufort Sea coast, and then slow things down, but Day 6 (bottom right) may be indicating a return to bad synoptics for the ice, with high pressure taking over the Central Arctic again. Day 7 to 10 are more emphatic, but they're too unreliable, so I generally don't post those.I normally leave synoptics to my betters, but isn't the day 3-4 setup highly supportive of ice export into the Barents/Fram?
Worth looking at this to compareMy IE shows this as a little box with an X. The link is
…
Wind-driven ice motion has been extraordinary this freeze/melt season.
Welcome back, and it has indeed!QuoteThe Oden made a remarkable observation of open water at the north pole on 25 Aug 18, photographing a walrus there, messing with a research sled.
Not the only interested local on that trip;
(https://portalen.polar.se/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/arctic-ocean-2018-lars-lehnert-isbjorn-01_LL-0295-1.jpg)
Not the only interested local on that trip
algal bloom ? .. b.c.I go for sediment - the flood comes in a rush bringing vast quantities of silt etc that flows and spreads as it hits the ocean.
algal bloom ? .. b.c.I go for sediment - the flood comes in a rush bringing vast quantities of silt etc that flows and spreads as it hits the ocean.
it looks like we started getting sediment in the water in front of the MacKenize a few days ago. The 16th seemed to be pretty clear, the 21st cloudy.
Not meaning to be overly pedantic, just think it's a distinction worth making.
Right. Wind-driven ice motion has been extraordinary this freeze/melt season. By translocating thicker, older ice into zones that will melt out later in the summer, or exporting ice altogether out of the basin via the Fram, Nares and Svalbard-FJL chain plus blocking Kara Sea ice on the import side, wind-driven ice motion may challenge conventional bottom and top melt this year as the leading ice volume loss mechanism.
This animation of weekly ice age distribution maps from Feb 5th to May 6th shows how much of the MYI has been pushed towards the Atlantic exit, while some of the oldest ice is sucked off by Nares, and the 'Arm' in the Beaufort doesn't look all that strong this year:The animation looks very similar to the Ascat animation, which lends credibility to the ice age distribution near the Atlantic exits. With continued export expected for at least several more days, this will only get worse. And the red bits are actually shown as disappearing into the Nares, despite the coarse resolution. A very bad setup into the peak of the melting season. Dodging required - again.
The other thing is that there is actually not that much ice left between the large polynya (expanse of open water) in the Beaufort Sea and the smaller one in the Chukchi Sea:
(https://neven1.typepad.com/.a/6a0133f03a1e37970b01b7c86055f6970b-800wi)
Once this ice is gone, there will be open water all along the American coast of the Arctic Ocean. My guess is this could happen within two weeks or maybe even faster, which would be extremely early, given that the earliest time this has happened in the past decade (and probably much, much beyond that), was between July 1st and 7th in both 2009 and 2011.
This animation of weekly ice age distribution maps from Feb 5th to May 6th
But how about this year? Here's a comparison:
But how about this year? Here's a comparison:
I can't see your image Neven. All I get is:
The fast ice at Barrow doesn't appear as resilent as in 2016.
The fast ice at Barrow doesn't appear as resilent as in 2016.
it will be gone very soon, one morning we wake up and it will be no more, i predict within days, rather than weeks.
my guess: 3-6 days from now but that's a guess based on the images of the webcam, one can't see the exact thickness.
Quote…I might be inclined the agree with your you. Given that there is something stubborn about that patch, I'm going to guess 1-2 weeks.
my guess: 3-6 days from now but that's a guess based on the images of the webcam, one can't see the exact thickness.
This animation of weekly ice age distribution maps from Feb 5th to May 6th shows how much of the MYI has been pushed towards the Atlantic exit, ...
I might be inclined the agree with your you. Given that there is something stubborn about that patch, I'm going to guess 1-2 weeks.
This animation of weekly ice age distribution maps from Feb 5th to May 6th shows how much of the MYI has been pushed towards the Atlantic exit, while some of the oldest ice is sucked off by Nares, and the 'Arm' in the Beaufort doesn't look all that strong this year:
This will be a disaster for polar bears. They will not be able to escape in Canada and Greenland, and all will drown near the North pole.
This will be a disaster for polar bears. They will not be able to escape in Canada and Greenland, and all will drown near the North pole.
:D
That's not going to happen. But there is no way that Arctic sea ice loss will be good for polar bears.
Polar bears can swim a loooonnnnnggggg way.....
https://news.mongabay.com/2012/05/just-how-far-can-a-polar-bear-swim/
"Polar bears (Ursus maritimus) are capable of swimming incredible distances, according to a new study published in Zoology, which recorded polar bears regularly swimming over 30 miles (48 kilometers) and, in one case, as far as 220 miles (354 kilometers). The researchers believe the ability of polar bears to tackle such long-distance swims may help them survive as seasonal sea ice vanishes due to climate change."
Kaffeklubben Island or Coffee Club Island (Danish: Kaffeklubben Ø; Greenlandic: Inuit Qeqertaat) is a small island lying off the northern tip of Greenland. It contains the northernmost point of land on Earth. Kaffeklubben Island is at 83°39′45″N 30°36′50″W and is 713.5 kilometres (443.3 mi) from the geographic North Pole.
The coming massacre will be one more comparable to the destruction of mammoths, bison and wandering pigeons.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinct_in_the_wild
This will be a disaster for polar bears. They will not be able to escape in Canada and Greenland, and all will drown near the North pole.
:D
That's not going to happen. But there is no way that Arctic sea ice loss will be good for polar bears.
Why do you think this is unlikely? You wrote last year how the Northern shores of Greenland were cleared of ice at the end of August. It is obvious that there is a high probability that polar bears will fall into the ice trap in the Central Arctic and die.
For those interested in what happened in the Beaufort, back in 2016 (so as to compare to this year's siutation), I wrote about it extensively on the ASIB. Here's a blog post (https://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2016/05/beaufort-final-update.html) from May 21st, with links to previous blog posts in the first paragraph.
The maps look very similar, so much so that one would be tempted to think there is something causing the ice to stay glued to the coast, all the way up to Utqiaġvik. But there's no "Chukchi polynya" now, with open water all the way to the Pacific and far into the Chukchi, meaning there is less ice to be blown back towards the coast, should the winds turn.
And the winds are another similarity. Both the weather forecast back then and the one this year show a change in the set-up that caused the early Beaufort opening, around the same time. However, this year there may be a return to that set-up next week.
So, wondering if there will be open water all along the Alaskan-Canadian coast before July this year...
google how far and how long polar bears can and do swim, even when they don't necessarily have to, you'll be surprised and know why this won't happen the way you describe.
neven's take on this is as spot on as it can get. bad for the bears but they won't drown in numbers.
neven's take on this is as spot on as it can get. bad for the bears but they won't drown in numbers.
Not meaning to be overly pedantic, just think it's a distinction worth making.
it's not overly pedantic, on the contrary, it's obvious and self-evident and this is the probable reason why it's not talked about that much.
the echo to your repeated mention
of this is not because we don't believe you, but because i for one think, yeah, sure, has been clear from day one and nobody ever said otherwise. so we fully agree
and sometimes it's worth to remember that one fact does often not exclude another. mentioning one reason does not mean it's the only reason etc. etc.
hence all good you're 100% correct with your assessment.
"being in better shape,"
this is an important dynamic that I think a little more clarity in language will help make clear for those less versed or for newbies so they understand the ice dynamics.
May 19-23.The Beaufort has crashed and now equals terrible 2016. The Laptev opened again after the previous gap refroze. The Greenland Sea is replenished with newly exported ice.
There is a bit of a cold blob in the centre of the far north of North America.
It looks like this will warm up by middle to late next week.
It gives me a little more confidence in the prediction that belongs to me that the North-West Passage will open this year.
NW passage aside, Given the extensive cracking that has occurred across the CAA and above Greenland already this season. What possible chance of that passage opening later on. If I recall there was an open passage between Fram strait and Naire Strait, late last year.
It gives me a little more confidence in the prediction that belongs to me that the North-West Passage will open this year.
If I recall there was an open passage between Fram Strait and Nares Strait, late last year.
Better shape? Not really. Bad news. Newbies might have missed this.
Hi Jim .. are you sure re the melt ponds ?
How do we know how old certain sections of ice are?
The method used to estimate sea ice age involves Lagrangian tracking of sea ice from week-to-week using gridded ice motion vectors (Maslanik et al. 2011; Tschudi et al. 2019). Starting in late 1978, ice age can be estimated by treating each grid cell that contains ice as a discrete, independent Lagrangian parcel and tracking the parcels at weekly time steps as they are advected by the weekly ice motions. The process can be viewed as a set of stacked planes overlying the grid used, with each plane corresponding to an age category. Parcels move around on their respective planes, independent of parcels of other age categories, which in turn lie in their own planes. To produce maps of ice age, the set of parcels for each weekly time increment is rasterized by assigning parcels to the 12.5 km x 12.5 km grid cell within which each parcel's position lies. In cases where parcels of different ages fall within a single grid cell, the age of the grid cell is assigned to the oldest parcel (Maslanik et al. 2011; Tschudi et al. 2019). Physically, this approach assumes that younger ice deforms more easily than older ice, and as such older ice will cover a greater fraction of the area within the grid cell. For example, if two parcels, one that represents first-year ice and one that represents third-year ice, both fall within the domain of a single grid cell, then the age of that cell will be assigned as third-year ice.
If the ice concentration of a grid cell remains at or above 15 percent throughout the melt season, then that parcel is assumed to have survived the summer minimum sea ice extent (typically reached in September), and the parcel's age is incremented by one year. The age of the ice is categorized as first-year ice (0-1 years old), second-year ice (1-2 years old), and so forth based on how many summer melt seasons the ice parcel survives (Tschudi et al. 2010). Note that grid cells with less than 15 percent sea ice concentration are treated as open water, even though the cells could still contain some ice.
My point:
When I first arrived at the SIB many years ago, the language was pretty dense, the references to places, locations, effects, resources a mess for me.
...
Because I remember what it was like in the beginning for me and, as a teacher, I try to notice when I am stating things that are assumptions for me, but not for my audience.
And that was why I posted, not to inform you of ice dynamics, but to remind long-time posters that what is background to you is likely mysterious to new users.
Maybe I'm just overreacting....but I'm just in shock at how the ice is looking right now. There's far more I need to discern and research, but that ice is just not looking 'good' at all. Sorry I don't have a more analytical post, but hmmm....
Ok, so as Frivolousz21 is not around, I have to replace him:
My point...
as a teacher, I try to notice when I am stating things that are assumptions for me, but not for my audience.
And that was why I posted, not to inform you of ice dynamics, but to remind long-time posters that what is background to you is likely mysterious to new users.
Ref. Reply # 1021
I think this is an excellent point that could be missed by people deep into it. After a hiatus, I have to refresh everything in spite of what I learned.
...with respect to overall context. The context is essential.
..This is why the good people here dig deeper for a better understanding, but the basics are needed to understand the nuances and implications...
I have probably pointed out several "obvious" things just in this post that are far from obvious to an occasional reader.
Ok, so as Frivolousz21 is not around, I have to replace him:
arctic.io Arctic Explorer has been off for a week now.
No Wonder, more & more People must be checking out the Reality- as has the number of new members started to grow.
I don't expect a collapse at this point. There is positive snow anomalies in Siberia and melting goes slower than 2012Agree, there seems to be more snow volume as well.
I noticed I was looking at post 1042 on page 42 at 10 42 am .. and I always say if surrounded by 42's I am in the right place .. b.c.
So my understanding is the fear for the season is:
-Pacific side heat from open water and snow anomalies.
-Central basin high pressure leading to clear skies and melt from insolation.
-Consistent export into the Atlantic ocean (and Baffin Bay)
I'm willing to debate the Siberian slush. I'll go and see if Landsat/Sentinel have snapped the area recently.
I'd take it a step above terrible, Neven. They are positively terrifying.Ok, so as Frivolousz21 is not around, I have to replace him:
I'll give you a 5/10 for the effort, but friv cannot be replaced so easily. ;D
edit: I've just seen the ECMWF forecast and it looks pretty terrible indeed. Anything above 1030 hPa around this time of year, is a disaster for the ice. I'll post the latest forecast this evening.
Can you explain why you say it's bad in reference a pressure? I understand Pa refers to a Pascal. I'm an engineer, and the importance of air pressure rather than temperature is not obvious to me.Ok, so as Frivolousz21 is not around, I have to replace him:
I'll give you a 5/10 for the effort, but friv cannot be replaced so easily. ;D
edit: I've just seen the ECMWF forecast and it looks pretty terrible indeed. Anything above 1030 hPa around this time of year, is a disaster for the ice. I'll post the latest forecast this evening.
edit: I've just seen the ECMWF forecast and it looks pretty terrible indeed. Anything above 1030 hPa around this time of year, is a disaster for the ice. I'll post the latest forecast this evening.Can you explain why you say it's bad in reference a pressure? I understand Pa refers to a Pascal. I'm an engineer, and the importance of air pressure rather than temperature is not obvious to me.
Sarat - it's hard to gauge thickness from ASCAT. Someone like Jim probably has a more trained eye that can better interpret the shades of grey.
High pressure indicates subsidence. This inhibits cloud formation which means that the Arctic regions underneath the high will receive more incoming shortwave radiation.
So my understanding is the fear for the season is:
-Pacific side heat from open water and snow anomalies.
-Central basin high pressure leading to clear skies and melt from insolation.
-Consistent export into the Atlantic ocean (and Baffin Bay)
-Couple of cyclones between sunny periods to stir the pot.
edit: I've just seen the ECMWF forecast and it looks pretty terrible indeed. Anything above 1030 hPa around this time of year, is a disaster for the ice. I'll post the latest forecast this evening.Can you explain why you say it's bad in reference a pressure? I understand Pa refers to a Pascal. I'm an engineer, and the importance of air pressure rather than temperature is not obvious to me.
High pressure indicates subsidence. This inhibits cloud formation which means that the Arctic regions underneath the high will receive more incoming shortwave radiation.
edit: I've just seen the ECMWF forecast and it looks pretty terrible indeed. Anything above 1030 hPa around this time of year, is a disaster for the ice. I'll post the latest forecast this evening.Can you explain why you say it's bad in reference a pressure? I understand Pa refers to a Pascal. I'm an engineer, and the importance of air pressure rather than temperature is not obvious to me.
High pressure indicates subsidence. This inhibits cloud formation which means that the Arctic regions underneath the high will receive more incoming shortwave radiation.
Seriously? You have to throw the word subsidence in there instead of an actual explanatory few words?
I did too.
I did too.
Does this help at all? http://lmgtfy.com/?q=high+pressure+subsidence
I'm not a weather map person, particularly, ...
I did too.
Does this help at all? http://lmgtfy.com/?q=high+pressure+subsidence
Lol, what a bunch of pretentious assholes you all are. How was I to know I had to google "high pressure" with "subsidence" to get an applicable definition of subsidence? If I should be expected to know the word, I should expect to be able to look up the definition of the word, by itself, and find it among one of the several definitions.
Jesus, you want the general public to be informed, but you make a point of trying to look WAY more intelligent than you are and attacking people who call you out on it.
If the public never "gets it", it's precisely because people acting like you.
You care more about looking smart than educating people.
You care more about looking smart than educating people.
High pressure indicates subsidence. This inhibits cloud formation which means that the Arctic regions underneath the high will receive more incoming shortwave radiation.
Or in other words: High pressure -> clear skies -> lots of sunshine -> melt ponds, melting in general, open water absorbing radiation, etc.
If your interested in understanding shortwave radiation and longwave radiation downwelling effects on sea ice this rather comprehensive text will enlighten you on the subject at length.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0238.1
An engineer should understand compressional heating and drying. The ECMWF model and it's ensembles are forecasting a dome of warm air at 500mb - half of surface pressure - centered over the Arctic ocean, combined with a strong surface high. This situation produces maximum solar heating in early June and produces maximum surface heating and high temperatures.
It's a worst case forecast for sea ice.
You care more about looking smart than educating people.
I notice that open water is appearing in a massive new fracture zone north of Greenland and multiple new zones of fracture are appearing everywhere as winds change .. almost all with open water visible on Worldview .Side melt doesn't really become a factor in melt until the flow size drops considerably - 150 meter diameter and smaller. Until then, top and bottom melt rule the day.
In past years it has been argued that side melting of floes is negligible but this year I wonder .. the ice is not so thick and is already in trillions of fragments , and the sides are partially exposed to low angle sun 24/7 . Could this not be important as it bypasses the snow on the surface ? This sunlight would be absorbed by the ice and water , while the snow above prevents it radiating back to space ..
It may not be a huge fraction of incoming solar radiation but it is a growing fraction , especially important in a sunny summer . Any thoughts ? b.c.
I'm not a weather map person, particularly, ...
Neither am I but I did some googling, so to add a bit to this:
As you indicated, the high pressure systems rotate clockwise and the low pressure systems rotate anti or counter-clockwise, but I just also learned that there is a spiral aspect. The air mass in a high pressure system is "flung out" so to speak, whereas a low pressure system draws air into the centre. Makes sense, like explosion and implosion.
So, the two systems on either side of Svalbard are like two gears meshing. The HP system throws the ice from the central arctic to the LP system, which then draws it in, closer to it's demise in the North Atlantic.
Thanks FOoW, I'm with both of you that the ice is going to get very mobile soon.
Even worse is that a smaller but very similar system exists on either side of the Bering Strait. A vacuum cleaner at each side of the Arctic, how convenient!
I did too.
Does this help at all? http://lmgtfy.com/?q=high+pressure+subsidence
Lol, what a bunch of pretentious assholes you all are. How was I to know I had to google "high pressure" with "subsidence" to get an applicable definition of subsidence? If I should be expected to know the word, I should expect to be able to look up the definition of the word, by itself, and find it among one of the several definitions.
Jesus, you want the general public to be informed, but you make a point of trying to look WAY more intelligent than you are and attacking people who call you out on it.
If the public never "gets it", it's precisely because people acting like you.
You care more about looking smart than educating people.
This seems over the top. People here have answered your question by giving links and explaining the question.
If it is confusing, it is because it is complex.
And people tend to forget that the words they use are not always in common usage or have specific meaning within the niche.
You have only been a member for a little over a week, the people here have been studying the climate for many years, are specialised in the topic and know what they are talking about. That is not being pretentious, they just forget sometimes that what they know is not common knowledge.
Google is your friend. Sometimes it takes effort to learn on your own part. Rather than lash out, thank the people for answering your question, keep asking more questions and be prepared for a learning curve.
The general public does not have time for this type of thing, which is understandable in some ways because it is complex, and many people dislike complexities because it requires effort to unfold them. It is also why the climate crisis will continue to be underestimated and will only be acted on when the brut force personally affects them.
High pressure indicates subsidence. This inhibits cloud formation which means that the Arctic regions underneath the high will receive more incoming shortwave radiation.
Or in other words: High pressure -> clear skies -> lots of sunshine -> melt ponds, melting in general, open water absorbing radiation, etc.
Barometric pressure in and of itself really doesn't have any effect on the ice.High pressure indicates subsidence. This inhibits cloud formation which means that the Arctic regions underneath the high will receive more incoming shortwave radiation.
Or in other words: High pressure -> clear skies -> lots of sunshine -> melt ponds, melting in general, open water absorbing radiation, etc.
This on the other hand makes tons of sense. I am acquainted with meteorology and know low pressure correlates to bad (not sunny) weather, like hurricanes, the worst case example of low pressure bad weather, and high pressure correlates to bluebird or at least fair weather cumulus clouds.
I was more interested if there was something about the pressure itself that is bad for ice. Like does high pressure mean the air is at greater density, which would mean more heat transfer from the ice to the air.
Barometric pressure in and of itself really doesn't have any effect on the ice.High pressure indicates subsidence. This inhibits cloud formation which means that the Arctic regions underneath the high will receive more incoming shortwave radiation.
Or in other words: High pressure -> clear skies -> lots of sunshine -> melt ponds, melting in general, open water absorbing radiation, etc.
This on the other hand makes tons of sense. I am acquainted with meteorology and know low pressure correlates to bad (not sunny) weather, like hurricanes, the worst case example of low pressure bad weather, and high pressure correlates to bluebird or at least fair weather cumulus clouds.
I was more interested if there was something about the pressure itself that is bad for ice. Like does high pressure mean the air is at greater density, which would mean more heat transfer from the ice to the air.
Further, heat transfer from air to ice is pretty negligible when compared to that from insolation or directly from the water - that's why melt ponds are so dangerous - they reduce albedo and put a layer of warm(relatively) water on the top surface of the ice which concentrates and transfers the heat quite efficiently.
The mechanics of the ice itself changes dramatically with temperature - ice at -20c is 4-5 times more structurally resistant to crushing and shear forces than ice at freezing ~ minus 1.8c for water in the Arctic.
But otherwise, air pressure in and of itself really doesn't alter the melt equation.
Also not an expert, but I don't think comparing the Bering Strait to Fram Strait is very useful.The forces driving the ice to Fram are largely based on the Earth's spin which isn't changing. The circumpolar winds rotate clockwise and the powerful East Greenland Current is pulling Arctic surface water into the Atlantic.
The weather may accentuate the movement of ice toward Fram as winds pick up and ice melts and offers less resistance to the prevailing forces, but we shouldn't expect to see a lot of ice leaving via the Bering.
If any of the more expert contributors can weigh in on how a weather system like this can change the pace of ice export, that would be appreciated.
It's not confusing because it's complex. It's not even confusing.
When someone wants to learn...
Also not an expert, but I don't think comparing the Bering Strait to Fram Strait is very useful.The forces driving the ice to Fram are largely based on the Earth's spin which isn't changing. The circumpolar winds rotate clockwise and the powerful East Greenland Current is pulling Arctic surface water into the Atlantic.
The weather may accentuate the movement of ice toward Fram as winds pick up and ice melts and offers less resistance to the prevailing forces, but we shouldn't expect to see a lot of ice leaving via the Bering.
If any of the more expert contributors can weigh in on how a weather system like this can change the pace of ice export, that would be appreciated.
OK, good. This is useful but I am a little confused. If the dominant influence on ice movement is earth rotation, and Atlantic currents, it makes perfect sense that the majority of ice movement would be to the east.
At the same time, we all seem to agree that ice distribution can be affected greatly by prevailing winds, which seems contradictory.
Also, I was under the impression that the cyclone(s) of 2012 at the end of the melting season what what took the 2012 ASIE to a new low. I assumed that that was due to ice movement, but I now want to clear up any misconceptions I have. It may have just been the mechanical movement that boosted melting or delayed freeze-up?
So I guess a good way to put the question is:
What are the relative effects of weather patterns, currents and earth rotation when it comes to ice movement out of the arctic and is it only observed in the east via Fram, Nares, and between Svalbard and Novaya Zemlya?
Further, is the concern about the large stationary high in the Arctic more an issue of clear skies and higher temperatures?