Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Killian

Pages: [1]
1
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020/2021 freezing season
« on: February 26, 2021, 05:30:12 AM »
I used JAXA to do an eyeball analysis and no other year in their record has a pre-peak decline this long or this deep, at least not in the same rough time frame. Several have fairly deep declines, but no more than about 2/3 as deep, but none has a decline this long; they are all around half as long or shorter.

Interesting or just an anomaly?

Regardless, with the AO possibly going positive +3 through mid-March, the chance of a higher peak is still pretty good.

Another slight decline today. A comparison with some other low max years:

OK, so I just went through comparing 2021 with every other year head-to-head. Turns out there were a couple I underestimated, but the central fact is still true: None equal this year. Significantly, just two years ago there was a 280 sq km pre-peak decline.

We now stand at roughly 310 for JAXA.

I think we are seeing a form of "wobbling" (re chaos) in the climate system.

2
Arctic sea ice / Re: What's new in the Arctic ?
« on: December 09, 2020, 04:58:38 AM »
Francis and Wu are investigating early northern Arctic terrestrial snow melt as helping *slow* late summer sea ice melt.

Video:

Paper: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/abc047

3
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: July 30, 2020, 11:55:53 AM »
Prediction:

2020 crosses 2012 by August 10th, most likely between Aug. 6th and Aug 8th.

2020 crosses 2019 sometime between Aug 9th and Aug 13th, then crosses back into 2nd lowest territory between Aug 13th and Aug 21st.

Rationale: The compacting of the ice makes it difficult for extent to change other than at or slower than averages, though area may fall significantly, particularly if extent increases. However, 2019's curve flattens over those time periods, also.

We knew the low extent numbers would allow weird things to happen. The ice-saving compaction is one of them: Put stuff in a gyre and it accumulates to the center, creating a negative feedback for melt rates.

Nothing you all don't know, just me playing with trends and patterns and putting myself on the line because, why not?

Anyone care to join in?

4
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: July 21, 2020, 09:25:38 PM »

I have a quibble with these sorts of projections: They don't take into account the patterns of melt. <snip>

I largely agree.
<snip>
We are in uncharted territory here, but there's no harm is playing with the data a bit!

Indeed.  We are in fact wrestling with a "sum of sums" problem.


What stuff like BFTV does is give us limits inside which our "fractal equations" play out.


I wasn't complaining, I had spent the evening doing some of my own before seeing that posted, ironically. I was wishing for from-the-trend extrapolations, too. I had done that a couple days ago but thought they were too rough to post. But, hey, I just did. Someone with more skill can do better ones.

Cheers

5
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: July 21, 2020, 09:15:51 PM »
Made a table of 2020 extrapolations with some particular dates set as sort of "mile markers" for a quick reference to how the ice is doing. I think these three options bound outcomes pretty well.

Here's a really rough attempt to extrapolate 2020 from the July trend.


6
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: July 21, 2020, 09:10:54 PM »
Made a table of 2020 extrapolations with some particular dates set as sort of "mile markers" for a quick reference to how the ice is doing. I think these three options bound outcomes pretty well.

7
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: July 19, 2020, 07:26:30 PM »
What numbers do we get if we use the most konservative numbers from now and onward?

8
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: July 19, 2020, 05:58:20 PM »
Latest projection has 7 of the last 20 years beating 2012, and the 10 year average melt reaching a low of 3.56 million km2

But that's only if you attach the curves as they occurred in those years. If you first match those curves to the slope of 2020, because all but three years maintained their slopes from early July through mid-August, and those three didn't vary greatly, you get far worse numbers.

9
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: July 15, 2020, 05:15:10 AM »
WOW!!! The last few weeks have been incredible. I don’t have the way with words that Friv has, but this has been fun to watch!

Below is a map posted today on Twitter by Rick Thoman that I think will be very important to watch as we go forward and think about a possible record.  It shows the sea ice rankings for this day in each of the Arctic seas.

Worth keeping in mind that Greenland Sea number is actually worse the bigger it is as it indicates export out of the Arctic basin. At that high a number, it's kinda equivalent to a 1~3.

10
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: July 11, 2020, 07:51:47 AM »

Just average for the five lowest extent years puts 2020 298 sq km. below 2019 two weeks from now. Hold on to your hats.

So you take the lowest value for the date (this year) and extrapolate from there the biggest losses, and you get a new record low? Who would have thought?

 :) ;)
Yep, it's not a great mathematical surprise but thinking about it, what are the odds 2020 is not among the top five loss years for the rest of the month? Or the rest of the season?

CO2e forcing is stronger every year, 3 out of last 5 years are among the top five and 2020 has certainly proven to be a strong melt season.

But as we all know, since 2012 the mid and late summers have turned positive for max ice retention and that could happen again. But the lower the ice extent at any given marker, the more likely better conditions later don't avoid a new low. Two of those years were in the 80k range. That's nothing spectacular, yet we still end up with a large new low record anomaly.

That said, I am of the opinion the climate is having or has had a phase change the last couple of years, and change, in general, has jumped to a faster rate of warming. My primary logic for this is that there is no unexpected or unusual forcing in play the last two years, yet look at global temps. Where is all that energy coming from? So... yeah... perhaps not so surprising with the hindsight of how this season has gone.

11
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: July 10, 2020, 09:06:43 AM »
These are the daily average ASI extent reductions for the five lowest years in the record for the next 15 days:

2012 July 9 - 24 =   93.33

2019 July 9 - 24 =   88.66

2016 July 9 - 24 =   80.00

2007 July 9 - 24 = 108.66

2015 July 9 - 24 = 108.66

The daily average for the 5 is 479.31/5 = 95.86. Over 15 days, that totals 1473.93. The current record low on the 24th is 6620. Current extent is 7760. 7760 - 1437.93 = 6322.07.

Just average for the five lowest extent years puts 2020 298 sq km. below 2019 two weeks from now. Hold on to your hats.

12
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: July 09, 2020, 11:47:00 AM »
I do believe compaction in the CAB is better for the ice longer in the melt season than dispersion would be. You only need too see 2016 how dispersion can affect things and actually arguably give a misleading extent total.

I don't think the lowered extent is misleading if one bears in mind context. The same extent with very dispersed ice on one hand and compacted ice on the other are not the same. I understand what you meant by misleading, but it's just not the most accurate way to talk about it, maybe?

I think you mean a low extent due to compactions is good better overall than more dispersed ice with a higher extent. Not misleading, just different animals.

13
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: July 09, 2020, 08:50:09 AM »
Just a quick observation that this graphic of ice movement has pointed straight down the throat of Fram Strait every time I have looked at it this season. That has been sporadic, which also means it has been random, but I have seen it look no other way this season.

That's 2012, folks.

Worse, I have noticed anything mentioned about dipoles setting up, but in 2012 it was the dipole phenomenon that dominated the rush of ice out of Fram Strait, iirc.

That's not 2012, folks, yet here we are watching it flow out into oblivion.

I was certain of a new 2nd lowest record this year as of a bit more than a month ago. Now? I'm wondering if it might not just be a new record, period.

All this speaks to my contention we hit a phase shift in recent years and that phase shift is an overall increase in warming. What else explains the temps and events we're seeing?

And that so much of the melt is over the ESS is disconcerting at best.

If someone has a whisker of a hope as to why the summer will shift to the typical favorable low melt conditions we've seen pretty much every summer since 2012, please share them. If this season is as bad as it seems to be shaping up to, that canary is good and dead.

14
Arctic sea ice / Re: Does El Niño affect Arctic sea ice?
« on: November 06, 2019, 07:09:35 PM »
If this model has the accuracy claimed, expect a new low/near new low in the 2020-2022 period.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/scientists-predict-el-nino-2020-163608017.html

Per many discussions over the years, and particularly this past summer, I think we can generally agree on a couple/few points:

1. Weather matters.
2. Insolation in June is really important.
3. Export via Fram is THE big driver of losses in-season.
4. Bottom melt is THE big driver over time.
5. Powerful storms, at the right time, matter.
6. Pacific heat and humidity affect ASI.

Debatelable: El Nino matters. But:

EN in 2015-16 = new 2nd low in '16.
EN in 2018 = new 2nd lowest in '19.

I suggest a big EN in 2020 - or any EN in 2020, will have a new 2nd lowest within the two summers. It's pretty simple: You drag a bunch of heat up out of the deep Pacific and unload it on NA/SA, some of it's going to end up in the Arctic.

Of course, we could get '07 and '12 wind patterns before then and get a new 2nd or - unlikely ('12 truly was a massive outlier) - a new low, but I'll put my $$ on the next EN to get us closest or past 2012.

Cheers

15
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 sea ice area and extent data
« on: August 28, 2019, 04:43:22 AM »
I cannot access the ADS-NIPR (JAXA) page.

4.37, most likely.

The last three conversions were correct. None of the 10 NSIDC to JAXA conversions are off by more than 30k. 4 are correct, 2 are off by 10k, 2 by 20k, 2 by 30k.

Of the JAXA to NSIDC conversions 4 are correct, 2 are off by 10k, 2 are off by 20k, 1 by 30k, 1 by 40k.


Recent JAXA <-> NSIDC Conversions

                 NSIDC                     NSIDC          5-D -     NSIDC 5D         JAXA -->
                      5-D       JAXA      Daily         JAXA      --> JAXA         NSIDC         
08/16/2019   4.96        4.70      4.90          0.26           4.69               4.98
08/17/2019   4.92        4.63      4.87          0.29           4.66               4.89
08/18/2019   4.89        4.56      4.79          0.33           4.59               4.85
08/19/2019   4.85        4.53      4.76          0.32           4.52               4.86
08/20/2019   4.81        4.51      4.73          0.30           4.49               4.83
08/21/2019   4.77        4.47      4.72          0.30           4.47               4.77
08/22/2019   4.73        4.44      4.63          0.29           4.42               4.74
08/23/2019   4.70        4.41      4.65          0.29           4.41               4.70
08/24/2019   4.68        4.39      4.67          0.29           4.39               4.68
08/25/2019   4.67        4.38      4.68          0.29           4.38               4.67
08/26/2019   4.66                     4.65                           4.37           

                     

16
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: August 25, 2019, 03:53:19 PM »
I hate to say this, but this is the main thread, and its quality has deteriorated a lot this year. We used to have fewer posters with relevant stuff, most often supported by data/graphs; but now we have lots of OT and random musings and (seemingly not very knowledgable) people who post many times a day lengthy posts without much (if any) substance or new, relevant information. I used to read every post on the melting/freezing threads because I could learn from them, but nowadays I skip most because they are more or less worthless. If I were the moderator I would ask everyone if possible to do short posts, only with real, significant data and concise analysis and let's do the philosophizning on other threads.
I hope (wish) the freezing season thread would be different...

People learn best by doing. These kinds of rants are, whether intentional or not, aggressive, rude and patronizing. You are basically saying this board should never change, new people, with their learning curves, should ever post; it is only for the "elite", already-knowledgeable.

There's an opportunity cost in having an ignorant populace; I'd think you'd want as many people as possible to be engaged with these issues.

Your view is one way for the forum to operate. I'm merely pointing out a potential flaw in your argument.

17
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: August 13, 2019, 06:12:45 PM »
2012 finally caught 2019 in the Charctic 5-day average extent.


NSIDC ASIE         NSIDC ASIE
5-D Avg            Daily Data
'12 - '19            '12 - '19
 (Negative # indicates '12 is lower.)

 0.093            -0.134
 0.014            -0.171
-0.016             0.025
-0.059            -0.092
-0.099            -0.125

18
Arctic sea ice / Re: Does El Niño affect Arctic sea ice?
« on: August 11, 2019, 09:53:34 AM »
Quite likely there is a horrible amount of variance involved.

Which makes it potentially impressive, if not random correlation, that we get over 80% correlation '53 - '18.

Quote
I think I got an 18 month delay

Fits the theory.

Quote
but discarded that stuff after Antarctic Ice got plenty losses after the recent Nino.

Why? Antarctic sea ice was never part of the theory. The known lags and opposing oscillations of the Arctic and Antarctic arewell-known. I would expect no signal that would be detectable no matter what you tried.

19
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 sea ice area and extent data
« on: August 05, 2019, 10:39:05 AM »
Extent is 5.72 M sq km and area 3.90 M sq km. Therefore 1.82 is the water area of the 5.72
This represents 32 % of the 5.72 M sq km and so could be a measure of the slushiness of the total ice pack

Given JAXA and NSIDC have some significant differences in numbers, is it legit to mix and match their extents and areas? NSIDC extent for 8/4 is likely to be 5.97M km sq +/-30k with 82% certainty.

Did the math. Just a couple percentage points difference. Close enough for gov't work.

20
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 vs 2012
« on: August 04, 2019, 12:58:55 PM »
8/03/2012 = 6.03M km sq.
8/02/2019 = Gain of < 180k km sq. required for the record.

 Call it -65k+/-10k to 5.785 (5.79).

Came in at... 8/03/19 > 5.785.

No. Effing. Way. And that, Dear Readers, is why we try new things. No, this doesn't mean I've become the Great ASIE Whisperer (more wrong than even within the ballpark so far, I'm pretty sure), but it does say, hey, this may be within the realm of possibility.

All that said...

-----------------------------
Daily Change to Exceed 2012 Record Daily Lows

8/04/2012 = 5.79M km sq.
8/03/2019 = Loss of > 10k km sq. required for the record. (10k is just a round number acknowledging using only two decimal poiints leaves significant daily error.)

Call it -75k +/-15k km sq.

Analysis:

What a tough day to call. We've got a big cyclone crossing from the Beaufort to north of the CAAS/Greenland over the day, thus affecting ice over a wide area and turning wind different directions during different parts of the day.

Early in the day the winds are mostly for expansion, but later in the day more for compaction. And then there's all that mush.

Quote
Caveat: All that mush. A bunch of it could melt away due to the cyclones.

I don't see much change in that mush for what is currently visible on Worldview. Weirdly, the ice in the Beaufort around the US/Can border... isn't moving, or there's an artifiact from the timing of slices of the mosaic. Elsehwhere, it's expanding, going sideways, contracting... holy hell...

What there does seem to be is a lot of heat entering still (by a lot I mean 1 - 5C, depending) according to NullSchool. I think the effects of the large cyclone will manifest more during the following days than the 4th with stirring up a little bit of heat, plus all the arm air around the edges. Honestly, I think this is much more an ASI Area killer than an ASIE killer.

I really don't know what to expect for the 4th. Going with gut as much as anything.... highly scientific... so the large error range.

Daily Changes Needed to Exceed 2012 low on Aug. 10. (Related to effect of GAC and it's import vs. 2019's melt cycle.)

8/10/2012 stood at 4.94M km sq.
2019 needs an average daily drop of > 121.43k km sq. for a record low on this post-GAC date. (9 days.)

Quote
I fully expect 2019 to have a higher extent than 2012 sometime between the 5th and 7th, and much more likely the 5th or 6th than the 7th except for the "caveat" above. We could see very little actual ice loss over the next 8 days and still see a huge drop in extent if that mush melts away.

Nothing new here to say.

Daily Changes Needed to Exceed 2012 Record Low on Sept. 15. (Related to comparison of 2012 vs 2019's melt cycle.)

9/15/2012 stood at 3.18M km sq. on this date.
2019 needs an average daily drop of > 60.70k km sq. for a record low on this date. (45 days)

Nothing new here to discuss...

21
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 sea ice area and extent data
« on: August 04, 2019, 06:59:47 AM »
Whatever Okhotsk does , we are heading under 4 million sqkm today , already below the 2000's average minimum and still on track for 1st

Not really. I'm betting 2019 ASIE is higher than 2012 ASIE by the 7th (JAXA). If that happens, '19 will have a very hard time catching 2012 again and staying ahead. Average melt is just too low as the season progresses.

The key is whether, as some are forecasting, there's a big melt out of all that mush at the perimeter westerly and northerly of the central area of the basin.

22
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 vs 2012
« on: August 03, 2019, 11:38:49 AM »
8/01/2019 = -51k
                = 5.91M km sq., a record low for the date.

8/02/2019 = -60k, or 5.85M

Daily Change to Exceed 2012 Record Daily Lows

8/03/2012 = 6.03M km sq.
8/02/2019 = Gain of < 180k km sq. required for the record.

 Call it -65k+/-10k to 5.785 (5.79).

Analysis: I don't see anything that's going to change the daily numbers much for 8/03. We've had a 40k, 50k, and 60k day in the last three days largely because, imo, the wind direction favors expansion of the sea ice, particularly in areas where concentration is low allowing for easy wind effect. That still holds: Winds coming off of the CAA and Greenland aid compaction, but there's precious little space to move with the main ice pack sitting there; winds from Svalbard to Russia generally favor expansion, but the island chain is there and there are some crossing winds muching things up. There's a cyclone straddling the Bering Strait which currently  should be creating a net expansion of ice. Later in the day this one moves north of the CAA and another is entering the Bering Strait... cancelling each other out?

A push. Another middling day mostly because all the mush on the Pacific side and along Siberia should continue melting, plus a little help along the CAA and Greenland.

Caveat: All that mush. A bunch of it could melt away due to the cyclones.

Daily Changes Needed to Exceed 2012 low on Aug. 10. (Related to effect of GAC and it's import vs. 2019's melt cycle.)

8/10/2012 stood at 4.94M km sq.
2019 needs an average daily drop of > 113.75k km sq. for a record low on this post-GAC date. (9 days.)

I fully expect 2019 to have a higher extent than 2012 sometime between the 5th and 7th, and much more likely the 5th or 6th than the 7th except for the "caveat" above. We could see very little actual ice loss over the next 8 days and still see a huge drop in extent if that mush melts away.

Daily Changes Needed to Exceed 2012 Record Low on Sept. 15. (Related to comparison of 2012 vs 2019's melt cycle.)

9/15/2012 stood at 3.18M km sq. on this date.
2019 needs an average daily drop of > 60.68k km sq. for a record low on this date. (45 days)

This still has a fair chance of happening, but gets less likely each day these small meltouts happen. The caveat is... the above caveat. There's an awful lot of low concentration ASI right now and if that all melts out, things will be getting interesting.

Will 2019 get it's "big week in June" and/or "big week in August?"

23
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: August 02, 2019, 06:55:01 AM »
<snip, no meta-discussions, thanks; N.>

24
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 sea ice area and extent data
« on: August 01, 2019, 07:34:20 AM »
Daily Change to Exceed 2012 Record Daily Lows

7/31/2019 = -40k
                = 5.96M km sq., a record low for the date.

8/01/2012 = 6.08M km sq.
7/31/2019 = Gain of < 120k km sq. required for a record low on this date.
Thanks, Phil.
(Another complaint, another change. Those of you who like these posts, better? Answer via PM *only*, please.

Those of you who don't like them: Shush. Scroll.)

-----------------------------------

Daily Changes Needed to Exceed 2012 low on Aug. 10. (Related to effect of GAC and it's import vs. 2019's melt cycle.) (Thx to Psymmo.)
8/10/2012 stood at 4.94M km sq.
2019 needs an average daily drop of > 102.00k km sq. for a record low on this post-GAC date. (10 days)

Daily Changes Needed to Exceed 2012 Record Low on Sept. 15. (Related to comparison of 2012 vs 2019's melt cycle.)
9/15/2012 stood at 3.18M km sq. on this date.
2019 needs an average daily drop of > 60.43k km sq. for a record low on this date. (46 days)

25
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 sea ice area and extent data
« on: July 31, 2019, 03:59:11 PM »
The mob awaits the spectacle of the mythical event that suddenly transforms us from ok to calamity. But AGW isn't a lion attack. It's a constrictor. Slowly and steadily tightening it's grip and suffocating us.

Can you keep your nonsense out of the data threads?

Particularly the Ad Hom nonsense:

Quote
This is an amusing question coming from you Killian. You don't seem too concerned with function in your own posts. What's the utility of your guessing extent losses every day?

Note...your posts don't bother me at all. They're harmless and a source of amusement. But there is irony in your questioning the value of more interesting data.

26
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 sea ice area and extent data
« on: July 29, 2019, 04:54:09 PM »
Juan C. García , Tom_Mazanec

This is all rather pedantic. WHY was there a string of posts? Discussing whether/what to post. Because someone complained. And someone else's disagreed with the complain. Or are we not to discuss when someone objects to, but others enjoy, given posts and sort out whether to post or not?

To complain about that is absurd: It's solving a problem.

Further, complaining about a highly specific sub-thread that is almost certainly not going to repeat is poor etiquette: It's dousing an ember with gasoline.

Most days there will be one post. This was a specific, anomalous case. AKA an anomaly. I think  you all understand how to handle them, yes?

C'mon, people... Context. It's a bit grating to be repeatedly called out for what so many others do, change your posting habits, but then get hit for... sorting out a disagreement.

NOTE: On any forum, raising a complaint about an event that is already settled... always invites chaos. This was already settled.

Object lesson. I hope.

27
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: July 29, 2019, 09:58:06 AM »
I can't see a century day for the 28th, but since it looks not unlike yesterday, let's say -80+/-15.

*Juuuust* missed it! -98,213 km2! Snickerdoodles!

Quote
7/28/2012 stood at 6.29M km sq. on this date , a drop of 80k.
7/27/2019 stands at 6.29M km sq. 2019 needs a drop > 0k km sq. for a record low on this date.

7/29/2012 stood at 6.20M km sq. on this date , a drop of 80k.
7/28/2019 stands at 6.19M km sq. 2019 needs an increase of < 10k km sq. for a record low on this date.

Analysis:

Going out on a limb here and saying century drop! "K-k-k," as they say in Korea (sound of snickering), given the ice being shoved off Greenland - as previously suspected! To wit:

Quote
If those winds off of northern Greenland shove the ice toward the Pole like happened last year (iirc), opening up a wide swath of ocean there, then the number could be a big drop

So, we got a bit more than I expected, but not a huge number. That seems to be coming for the 29th. Or is it? According to NullSchool wind patterns forthe 29th (UTC):

CAA/N. Greenland: Wind-aided compaction
Far western Canada:  Wind-aided expansion
N. Alaska, Bering Strait:  Wind-aided compaction
Almost all of Siberian coast:  Wind-aided expansion
Fram/Svalbard: Strong wind-aided compaction
East of Svalbard to W. Russian coast: Neutral to wind-aided expansion

Pretty mixed. But then there's all the heat. Literally throughout the Arctic basin. Surface melt is second to bottom melt, but there's all sorts of winds going every which way which should be getting water moving to at least some degree where there's space between floes, and certainly around the edges of the pack.

So, I'm giving priority to the winds coming off of Greenland, over the CAA and up the Fram/over Svalbard and calling a solid -120k +/-15k.
 
-------------------------

Quote
8/10/2012 stood at 4.94M km sq. on this date.
2019 needs an average daily drop of > 89.87k km sq. for a record low on this post-GAC date. (15 days <-- The previous number was in error. Or this one is. Whatever...)

9/15/2012 stood at 3.18M km sq. on this date.
2019 needs an average daily drop of > 62.16k km sq. for a record low on this date. (50 days)

8/10/2012 stood at 4.94M km sq.
2019 needs an average daily drop of > 96.15k km sq. for a record low on this post-GAC date. (13 days)

***Edit: Sorry, misreading my own spreadsheet. Today there's 6.19M km sq. there are 13 days remaining. So, starting with tomorrow the needed loss is 96.15/day. I was looking at today's needed drop... goofy. Also had my day numbering wrong.***
-------------------------------------------------------
9/15/2012 stood at 3.18M km sq. on this date.
2019 needs an average daily drop of > 61.43k km sq. for a record low on this date. (49 days)

Note about this. The decline is useful to watch, IMO, because the daily decrease from Sept. 1 ~ Sept. 15th (the low date in '12) is only 20k, and, naturally, much smaller the closer it gets to the 15th low. Of course we can all eyeball that '19 is close to '12, but this gives us the actual numbers we need to be seeing.

That huge drop of 1,090 km sq (121k km sq/day) from the 2nd to the tenth is the first hurdle. If '19 comes at higher extent to that with any significance at all, I see zero chance of a new record because, as has been stated, researchers have suggested the June insolation is a key correlation with Sept. minima, but also that the GAC's effects lingered long after the storm by stirring up warmer deep waters. Thus, we see the broad, deep curve at the end of the season in 2012. At least, that's how I interpret it.

There is speculation the record June temps are going to translate/are translating into extended melt effects. I agree. Can it match the GAC effect? If '19 is below 2012 on the 10th, I think we can safely say "yes" to that. Whether that will also overcome that long, slumping curve at the bottom, well... Right now, with the the nastiness going on with France's little export, all the little cyclones, et al., it's going to be interesting!

28
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 sea ice area and extent data
« on: July 29, 2019, 07:26:40 AM »
8/10/2012 stood at 4.94M km sq.
2019 needs an average daily drop of > 96.29k km sq. for a record low on this post-GAC date. (14 days)
***Edited for spreadsheet errors.***

9/15/2012 stood at 3.18M km sq. on this date.
2019 needs an average daily drop of > 62.16k km sq. for a record low on this date. (50 days)

8/10/2012 stood at 4.94M km sq.
2019 needs an average daily drop of > 96.15k km sq. for a record low on this post-GAC date. (13 days)
***Edited for spreadsheet errors.***

9/15/2012 stood at 3.18M km sq. on this date.
2019 needs an average daily drop of > 61.43k km sq. for a record low on this date. (49 days)

NOTE: Thanks to feedback, I've decided the daily change data are repetitive of efforts by Garcia and Gerontocrat and will not include them here in the future.

29
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: July 27, 2019, 09:43:11 AM »
7/26/2012 stood at 6.51M km sq. on this date, a drop of 110k.
7/25/2019 stands at 6.51M km sq. 2019 needs a drop > 0k km sq. for a record low on this date.

...Looks like a recipe for an extant drop of 80 to 110. 95k, then.

Or something.

Or something wins as the reduction came in at 124k, 19k higher than I estimated, for another record low of 6.39M km sq. So, yes, bbr has been proven right... it's hard.

7/27/2019 stood at 6.37M km sq. on this date, a big drop of 140k.
7/26/2019 stands at 6.39M km sq. 2019 needs a drop > 20k km sq. for a record low on this date.

Pretty likely, but the winds today are no friend for compaction. Everything from the Alaska coast around the entirety of the Siberian coast and around to Svalbard is set for expansion. I'd expect a small number for the 27th. Only the heat present makes me not want to call an increase. Let's say -50k, but really could be an increase in extent.

-------------------------

8/10/2012 stood at 4.94M km sq. on this date.
2019 needs an average daily drop of > 96.33k km sq. for a record low on this post-GAC date. (15 days)

Upcoming conditions with the dipole, et all., should drive consistently large extent drops through the 30th or more (though maybe not the 27th). Warm temps in the upper atmosphere, dipole shoving ice toward Franz Joseph, et al., and a myriad of large and small cyclonic structures projected into the 30th = "Martha! I'm comin', Martha! It's the Big One!"

Maybe.

9/15/2012 stood at 3.18M km sq. on this date.
2019 needs an average daily drop of > 62.86k km sq. for a record low on this date. (51 days)

Big days dropping this slowly. Is a big early August setting us up for a run at the record? Gotta get through that GAC period first... then I'll get more excited about this stat if '19 comes in under '12 on 8/10.

30
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: July 27, 2019, 03:47:16 AM »
I'll just leave this sitting right here.

31
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: July 25, 2019, 06:14:10 PM »
And just to be very clear, I haven't insulted anyone. I highlighted a post that made very little sense to me, and still doesn't.

Calling someone else's words "gibberish" is very insulting, speaking as an English language instructor. Directing it to third persons instead of asking for clarification from the writer reinforces the insult. More customary would be something like, "I'm sorry, I really can't understand what you are trying to say. Can you clarify?"

IMO, you were insulting, knew you were, and are now attempting to justify it.

At least, that's how the language reads.

Honestly, I don't care; this merely piqued my professional interest as a language issue. Do with the feedback what you will.

32
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 vs 2012
« on: July 17, 2019, 02:21:19 PM »
I made these to make my arguments/comments visual as I can be too verbose and am impatient with editing. I wasn't going to post them, but it is being argued elsewhere that the GAC didn't do diddly squat. It certainly did more than did and squat, so far as I can tell.

Hopefully, these help clarify what I think I happened in 2012 and what the real difference was - that week in June and the week of the GAC. Everything else seems to be relatively common, and randomly present or not, for all of the low extent years.

That is, some forcings dominant some years, other forcing dominant others, but 2012 had two anomalous weeks compared to '07 and '16.

Cheers

33
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 sea ice area and extent data
« on: July 15, 2019, 04:24:40 AM »
NSIDC daily area is currently the lowest on record for the date:




(Note: data from Wipneus.  He uses leap year corrections for the anomaly data.)

I recall some years back - I think after the 2012 Big Melt - saying extent was going to become less indicative of change in the Arctic as the area and volume fell because it would quite simply be much easier for the ice to be spread out by winds and currents the thinner and smaller floes got. (Obvious, I know.)

That ASI Area is taking such a dive in that graph while extent loss has slowed significantly over the last several days illustrates this phenomenon perfectly. Watching the ice flow back toward the AO from the Nares also illustrates this, The wind has no trouble pushing this ice around given the ice north of the Nares looks like popcorn floating in crushed ice - very easy to compact.

I really wish we could do volume as well or better than extent; it would tell a far more accurate story.

34
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 sea ice area and extent data
« on: July 07, 2019, 04:35:36 PM »
JAXA extent changes needed as daily average to get into record territory.
(The 5th, 6th and 7th are vs. '16 while the 8th and 9th are vs. '12.)

7/5:   -115k
7/6:   -105k avg
7/7:   - 85k avg
7/8:   - 87k avg ('12)
7/9:   -100k avg

With the losses of the last two days, we need > 60k loss to be in record territory for the 7th, which seems very likely to happen, and just >75k average for the two days to be in record territory for the eigth, which also seems very likely. However...

2012 had a huge 150k loss the next day, so record territory for the 9th will require an avg. of > 100k over the next three days.

Cheers

35
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: July 03, 2019, 02:22:09 AM »
I am at times amazed at the low quality English used by some of the native speakers on the forum

As a university professor in an English-speaking country, I can regretfully confirm that written English is weakening.

On the other hand, in a polyglot community like this one, just getting one’s meaning across is probably enough.

1. People who police others' informal writing on the internet deserve neither to be writing nor reading on the internet. It's petty. E.g., I *teach* EFL, yet rarely ever edit my posts anywhere on the internet and let tons of typos make their way into posterity, and occasional true errors... because it's petty to care about how people write on the internet!

 ::)

Because... (<--- Don't do that, e.g.)

2. Bill is correct. The *only* point of language is to move an idea from one head to another(s). (<--- Don't do that, either.) Anything else is gravy; only formal writing need be as accurate as possible.

3. Playing language cop can get one into some rather embarrassing moments, such as using low-quality English to accuse others of using "low quality English," which, I believe, would mean they used English vulgarities very well. If we are to take your post as written, as opposed to as intended, you have stated in text the opposite of what you intended.  :o

This is called irony. And hypocrisy. (<-- Don't do that one neitherhow.)

So, don't be petty. It's pretty petty. It's a pity and peculiar to be petty per people being pithy with said people's prose, pacishe? (<--- Do this. Have fun, that is.)

 ;)  ;D 8)

Toodles!

36
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 sea ice area and extent data
« on: June 09, 2019, 02:58:41 PM »
I see that the graph has "corrected" itself. The same years are shown in the two graphs below, but look at the lines and colors around minimum. Totally different in the two versions, with the lower looking a lot more like it "should".

I'd guess the error was in coloration of the graph w/ him just messing it up on the earlier one, perhaps using a "paint" function and it going awry. Then, either he caught it or... maybe he read your comment here.

;-)

He's at @ZLabe on twitter if you want to query.

37
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 sea ice area and extent data
« on: June 06, 2019, 10:48:36 PM »
Hey all,

Zach Labe posted a graph of CAB sea ice extent that I thought looked great. I know such is already posted here by someone(s), but it's a nice graph. I inquired about updating and access so he added it to his page of graphs, says he will update a couple times a week.

Thought maybe Neven might like to use it on the graphs page...?

https://sites.uci.edu/zlabe/arctic-sea-ice-extentconcentration/

Cheers

38
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: May 25, 2019, 11:20:10 AM »
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.

I don't want to make a "thing" of this, as the casual reader, aka the student, has a responsibility to self-educate, also, but I appreciate someone else sees the point. The world is, literally, falling apart. This is not the biggest thing on anyone's agenda, but a little awareness and patience and care with phrasing can be a real help to others. We all need to "get there" at some point, or none of us will, so...

Thanks for commenting.

39
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: May 24, 2019, 07:54:38 AM »

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.

But, that wasn't my point.

the echo to your repeated mention

Twice? LOL...

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

Well, of course you do! But that also was not my point...

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.

Also not a point I had made. But thanks for the pat on the head! ;-)

hence all good you're 100% correct with your assessment.

Generally, yes. But also not my point.

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. I had no problem understanding the ice dynamics in and of themselves because, well, I'm neither uneducated nor of low intelligence. In fact, I posted somewhat regularly and didn't feel out of place doing so. However, the jargon, the info, the labels... tough. (Now? Ten years and little participation since 2012/13 or so has left me well behind. I won't be posting much bc you all can do better than I.)

So, if, as you say, the posters here know it all, so need not point out the obvious, then how does such a statement as this slip through?

Quote
"being in better shape,"

It's a misleading description of conditions. Thus, was the poster being a bit too colloquial/relaxed, or had the poster not realized the dynamics at play? As you should understand from my post, I assumed the latter. But, I also explained the dynamics. Why? For you? For Neven? For Hunt?

Of course not. For:
Quote
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.

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.

Better shape? Not really. Bad news. Newbies might have missed this.

Cheers

40
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: May 22, 2019, 03:55:53 AM »
- 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.

I made this point with Jim Hunt, but it's worth repeating, it seems, because I'm not sure if it's not being recognized that all that ice along Svalbard, et al., and in the East Greenland Sea is not a case of the ice there "being in better shape," it is the direct result of the eastward flow of the ice pack from the Pacific side to the Atlantic due to currents and eastward winds/occasional dipoles.

That is, years ago it was normal for the ice to be stacked up against Svalbard, but that has mostly changed as the ice pack has thinned and lost area and extent, particularly since 2012.

You all do a great job of tracking all this stuff, so much so I rarely comment anymore because you've blown past my knowledge level. However, 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. That ice is there because we currently (this spring) are experiencing nearly perfect conditions for ice loss. We have:

* early loss on the Pacific side, creating space.
* overall long-term weakness (loss of old, thick ice) making the pack more mobile
* overall lower extent, area and volume, all making the pack more mobile
* high temps generally

**** generally eastward winds pushing the ice toward Fram.****

Again, the ice conditions around Svalbard are not better, they're a really bad sign; they indicate high ice loss via Fram, etc., and are the direct result of movement elsewhere, not growth or recovery of ice - which is what a word like "better" would mean to me.

Not meaning to be overly pedantic, just think it's a distinction worth making.

41
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: May 21, 2019, 05:52:38 PM »
Taking the Pacific side as a whole 2019 currently leads the pack. Compare and contrast with the Atlantic side:

Is it compare and contrast or is it cause and effect? Seems to me the winds are mostly sending ice toward Fram, Svalbard, et al. In the last 7 years it has seemed pretty common for the sea ice to stay north of the archipelago and we had low export out the Fram Strait, particularly in summer. Hasn't it been true of the big melt years, '07, '10, '12 that the winds pushed a lot of ice out the Fram with the dipole, etc.?

All that action on the Pacific side is the cause of the ice pushing against Svalbard and out the Fram. Since 2012, things mostly calmed down to very good ice retention conditions overall during summers. May be the same here, but if not, and the ice flow out the Fram continues the whole season, 2019 and 2012 may end up playing patty fingers, much to the priest's and mother's dismay.

Yes, I'm ready for the historical error corrections given it's likely I made some.

 ;D

Cheers

42
Arctic sea ice / Re: Global sea ice area and extent data
« on: April 14, 2019, 12:13:03 PM »
Re: Historic ASI Extent, Daily Records
(Don't know if this is the best place to post this, so if not, please move.)

I was looking at recent years' new records being in mind of my Aug 2015 prediction of new record ASI lows or near record lows for 2016-17 period (two years follwing an El Nino.) 2016 was the second lowest, as we all know. However, it also had extensive new records in the spring and fall months. since 2015, I've always wondered if these numbers of total record days might have some sort of important or useful data embedded, but have never checked.

Today I was poking around and got curious how often new daily records are set year-on-year. Using JAXA's interactive chart I got a rather startling surprise. Using 1979 as the baseline, every single year has had a least a few daily record lows. Every. Year.

That, to me, is unexpected. I just never thought about it, but see it as making the overall trend more robust than it seems just from the yearly low trend.

How many years set new yearly lows using '79 as the baseline (though it seems likely to have been lower than '78)?

'84 (5 yrs)
'85 (1 yr)
'90 (5 yrs)
'95 (5 yrs)
'99 (4 yrs)
'02 (3 yrs)
'05 (3 yrs)
'07 (2 yrs)
'12 (5 yrs)

Currently six years since the last new low. Interestingly, the shorter periods of new lows was indicative of stability, with relatively small changes giving us new lows with the downward trend. then '07 and '12 changed things a lot, with '12 clearly being really anomalous. Of course, both those last years had the dipole set up blowing ice out Fram Strait.

Short version: We consistently had new ASI summer lows since we started tracking this.

43
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 sea ice area and extent data
« on: April 09, 2019, 07:41:13 AM »

It looks as if the line will continue downward in at least as steep an incline as the rest of the years which will make 2019 the record lowest extent!
...
I'm starting to take near term human extinction forecasts more seriously!

You'll come to see that the Arctic is out there to fool you. Noone in my experience can forecast, not even a single year but the next month either.

As for extinction, I don't believe in that. Humanity is quite versatile.

Generally true, but as a permaculture practitioner, and generally my entire life, I've a good sense of patterns. While the scientists still minimize or claim no relation between ENSO and ASI, I believe there is fairly significant one. Ergo, I was able to predict new lows, near new lows in ASI in the 2016-18 time frame due to the EN beginning in 2015.

Since then, I have seen some research showing warm air and moisture from the Pacific affects the ASI - which is exactly what my hypothesis was: EN's lead to a loading of heat into the Arctic, and it can take time, so within two years of an EN (no correlation with LN), there are typically new lows or near new lows.

We all know there were tons of daily (monthy?) records for extent, area over the last couple of years, particularly in the non-peak months, which I think we all assume has some effect on what I refer to as pre-conditioning.

From RealClimate, Aug, 2015:

Quote
Here is what I found going all the way back to the beginning of ASIE decline @ 1953-ish.

EN ’51 – ’54 = inception of ASI Extent decline.
EN ’57 – ’59 = Near New Low/New Low
EN ’65 – ’66 = Near New Low/New Low
EN ’68 – ’70 = New Low
EN ’72 – ’73 = possible correlation, some delay
EN ’76 – ’78 = New Low
EN ’79 – ’80 = New Low
EN ’82 – ’83 = New Low
EN ’86 – ’88 = New Low (’89,’90)
EN ’94 – ’95 = New Low
EN ’97 – ’98 = Drop from Previous (?)
EN ’04 – ’05 = Near New Low/New Low
EN ’04 – ’05/’06 – ’07 = New Low
EN ’09 – ’10 = New Low (’10, ’12)
EN ’15 – ’16 = New Low ’16,’17?...

...the hypothesis is more a 1 to 2 year lag, not only one. Looking at only one year wouldn’t find it...

Quote
Hopefully someone [a scientist] will look at it on the longer 2 year time frame added to the 1 year stuff already done, and update it.

I sent this stuff to Mark Serreze and he found it interesting, but said it wasn't his thing. Then this from last year:

Quote
...found that the strong global and Arctic changes depended on the magnitude of water vapor transfer from the mid-latitude oceans to the Arctic. When warm moist air is carried poleward towards the Arctic, it can lead to more low-lying clouds that act like a blanket, trapping warmth near the surface. The poleward movement of heat and moisture drive the Arctic's sea-ice retreat and low-cloud formation, amplifying Arctic warming.

The so-called ice-albedo feedback causes retreating ice and snow to lead to ever greater warming through increasing absorption of solar energy on darker surfaces.

If true for air and moisture, why not water flows, and over longer time periods, of course, and would EN's not enhance this effect?

Not the first time I've been ahead of the curve. I know eff all about the maths and the innards of the models and theories and details of what does what, which many of you do quite well, but I know patterns.

For your consideration.

Cheers

44
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: April 08, 2019, 09:00:51 AM »
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.)

45
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: April 01, 2019, 10:32:57 AM »
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.

Overall, the loss from March 12 to 31 appears, after using the JAXA interactive graph, to be the fastest loss for that period (or 15 to 31, slightly higher, if you prefer) on record. Likely nothing, but that's a lot of melt for March. It's also record lows for the 29th ~ 31st, and likely to continue to be for a few days given the flatness of the curves above it, the rate of decline, the warming of the Arctic in recent days and the approaching negative AO, which should bring in some warmer air.

Meaningful? Who knows. Early July is about the soonest one can get a very slightly solid sense of where things are headed. At least, imo.

Cheers

Pages: [1]