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 - Stephan

Pages: [1]
1
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2018 sea ice area and extent data
« on: December 11, 2018, 02:31:08 PM »
NSIDC Total Area as at 10 December (5 day trailing average) = 9,969,673 km2
Total Area         
 9,969,673    km2      
 65,050    km2   >    2010's average.
 376,092    k   >   2017
-388,039    k   <    2000's average.

Total Gain    92    k   
Peripheral Seas    28    k   gain
Central Seas__    18    k   gain
Other Seas___    46    k   gain
         
Peripheral Seas         
Bering _______    3    k   gain
Baffin  Bay____    13    k   gain
Greenland____    13    k   gain
Barents ______   -2    k   loss
         
CAB Seas         
Beaufort_____    4    k   gain
CAA_________   -4    k   loss
East Siberian__    5    k   gain
Central Arctic_   -4    k   loss
         
Kara_________   -8    k   loss
Laptev_______   -1    k   loss
Chukchi______    26    k   gain
         
Other Seas         
Okhotsk______   -1    k   loss
St Lawrence___    1    k   gain
Hudson Bay___    46    k   gain
Area gain above average (by 15k) and increasing day by day.
Area now retreating from the approach to the 2000's average, and close to 2010's average.
This is in line with recent very slow gains (and even extent loss) in daily extent (both JAXA and NSIDC data) which is now changing to increasing extent gain.

Other stuff
GFS indicates that overall the Arctic is at a temperature anomaly of around +3.5 to +4 celsius  for the next four days then quickly goes down to about +1. BUT, the strong +ve anomalies on the Atlantic Front persist . In contrast, small -ve anomalies in the Bering and Okhotsk for the next few days.

GFS still saying another pulse of warmer air moving West to East across N. America greatly reducing extreme cold in Central and NE Canada over the next few days or even longer.
Okhotsk, Bering and Chukchi areas are well below zero, and no major pulses of warmth on the horizon. Result is showing in the Chukchi area gains, but not yet elsewhere.

As fierce +ve temp anomaly over the Atlantic front looks like continuing for a good few days more, either losses on the Atlantic front will continue, or gains will be low, until the weather pattern changes. Kara Sea area loss lower on this day at 8 k. Also Central Arctic Sea losses continuing, but also reducing.

Increase in area gain still mainly driven by Hudson Bay (+46k on this day) and Chukchi (+26k). But this is self-limiting as at this rate of gain Hudson Bay Bay will be full-up ice in less than 5 days, and the Chukchi a few days after.

2
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2018 sea ice area and extent data
« on: December 11, 2018, 11:15:02 AM »
JAXA ARCTIC EXTENT 11,073,503 km2(December 10, 2018)

- Extent gain at 110 k is  average gain (2008-2017) for this day,
- Extent is 3rd lowest in the satellite record, see Juan's post above for details (and attached table).
- Freezing to date from minimum is 219 k (3.2%) LESS than the 10 year average extent gain,
- On average (last 10 years) 68.6 % of the increase in extent from min to max is done.

An extra line in the table based on average extent increase in the last 5 years has been added. This is because extent gain in 2012-13 was so large (rebound from record low minimum) that it distorts the average. The outcome from using the 10 year average extent gain from now is a maximum of 14.11 million km2 (230k > 2017).  Using the previous 5 years's average extent gain, the resulting maximum is 13.97 million km2, (80k > 2017).

Extent gain from minimum on this day a little below average. On average (last 10 years)  over 2/3rds of extent gain from min to max is now done with on average 91 days to maximum.

GFS indicates that overall the Arctic is at a temperature anomaly of around +3.5 to +4 celsius  for the next four days then quickly goes down to about +1. BUT, the strong +ve anomalies on the Atlantic Front persist . In contrast, small -ve anomalies in the Bering and Okhotsk for the next few days.
______________________________________________________________________
ps: *The 2010's average figure I use in the attached table excludes 2018. I exclude 2018 (from all JAXA and NSIDC tables and graphs) so that the difference of the current year with the 2010's decade to date average is not modified by the current year data.
______________________________________________________________________

3
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2018 sea ice area and extent data
« on: December 11, 2018, 08:55:06 AM »
2018 had 195 days of Arctic Sea Ice Extent below 11'000'000 km2, which is:

 - 2nd lowest highest on record
 - 6 days more than the 2010's (2010-2018) average
 - 6 days more than 2017
 - 13 days less than the record year 2016

4
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2018 sea ice area and extent data
« on: December 11, 2018, 05:22:48 AM »
[ADS NIPR VISHOP (JAXA)] ASI Extent.

December 10th, 2018:
     11,073,503 km2, an increase of  110,381 km2.
     2018 is the 3rd lowest on record.

     The 3 lowest years are the last 3 years: 2016, 2017 & 2018.

5
Arctic sea ice / Re: AMSR2 Sea Ice Volume/Thickness
« on: December 09, 2018, 01:56:15 AM »
I've been brooding over PIOMAS volume data the last 3 days, following some discussion elsewhere about trends vs "weather" and the kind.

I'm staring here as I write at 4 graphs I derived from the PIOMAS data downloaded from the U.of Washington Polar Science center.  I'm pondering what it implies about past changes in the Arctic and what import it has for the future.

Let me back up for a moment and describe what I've done first, and why.

There's been a lot of discussion on the Arctic forums recently around three dimensions we use to evaluate Arctic system health.

In our discussions and arguments we've wrestled with the reality that two of those measures - extent and area, particularly as they appear at the end of melt season - have become increasingly difficult to evaluate to make a skillful determination of how the Arctic will look in a few years. Our discussion has shifted and expanded now to where over the last two years there has been much more tracking and examination of the annual refreeze.  This has given us some hints and generated quite a few more questions.

Roll back to what I'm doing now.  I'm using PIOMAS daily volume data going back to 1979 (http://psc.apl.uw.edu/data/)

My analysis is more empirical than theoretical.  At this moment I'm less interested in prediction than I am the data set.  I have a particular interest in volume as well. Unlike extent and area, it represents a far better proxy for key forces at work in the Arctic - heat exchange and total system enthalpy.

My second purpose is contrast volume changes with changes that have taken place during the time period in question and see if a pattern appears which follows or is affected by them.

Methods:

Simply digesting a raw and fairly substantial pile of data is unlikely to produce anything useful.  However, I don't want to fall into the trap of over-analyzing the information - while it is good to reduce "noise", over-processing values can remove meaningful signals it contains.  My approach to this is three fold.

1) Create a sample average from a meaningful but more controllable time frame.

Most analysis of this data has been around extreme endpoints in annual variation - the annual maximum extent/area/volume and corresponding minimum - which land on arbitrary dates and are very narrow samples.  For my work here, I've picked to arbitrary but significant dates March 21 (Day 80/81 of each year) and September 21 (Day 260/262).  I then averaged the daily volume for a time frame window which extends from two weeks before until two weeks after those dates to get what I call "Vernal" and "Autumnal" volume numbers for those dates.

My logic in doing this is this: Rather than use a metric which is volatile and fundamentally disconnected from other forces in play at the time they take place (annual minimum/maximum), I wanted to anchor the analysis to two specific points in them where we know predictable and measurable changes are taking place (the Spring and Fall equinoxes).  Further, to make the new metric sensitive to conditions during the specific year and season, rather than simply pluck out one number, an average over a near-term time frame would better incorporate and smooth other signals from forces in play at the time.

In addition to these two numbers, I also created a baseline value for tracking behavior on a broader time scale.  In this case, I created an annual average for each year, summarizing all volume measurements from January 1 to December 31 for each year in question.

2) Create a derivative average which further smooths the Vernal and Autumnal numbers over a wider time frame. 

In this case, I created a second data set from my spring and fall averages, starting with 1983, which is a simple 5 year running average of those numbers.  The goal here is to round off peaks and valleys without losing all of the signal they contain, and hopefully permit underlying trends to be more visible, and more importantly, better identify transitions in system behavior.

3) Create a third derivative/index to show system volatility.

At the start, these were actually the numbers I was most interested in. We've discussed this some on the forums, but the summary of my thought here is, this, and also may qualify as a hypothesis:  As the Arctic as a system approaches behavioral limits, the volatility of the system - the relative change against base values - will increase.

Again keeping it simple, I created three values for each year in question.  These were (a) The absolute difference between Vernal and Autumnal values (b) the Percent that value represented of the Vernal volume and (c) the Percent that value represented of the Annual volume as derived in (1) above.  I did this for both the raw and 5 year running averages of Vernal, Autumnal and Annual values.

Note: all values I used were rounded up to three decimals. I figured the significance of fractional cubic KM of ice were meaningless based on the confidence of the measurements.

Findings:

From raw data and graphic analysis by Jim Pettit, Zach Labe and many others it's already clear that sea ice volume has been declining steadily over the time period in question.  What isn't necessarily clear is the nuances of how those changes have taken place.

Both the smooth and averaged data clearly shows this trend. No surprises (nor were any expected).

However, annual seasonal loss has shown only a very modest increase - less than 10% over all - with an average of 14.242K KM3, median of 14.034K KM3 and deviation of 1.164K KM3.  Breaking the loss dataset in half shows the 2nd half loss rate only increasing by about 1000KM3, and 2nd half loss volatility actually declined slightly. The 5 year running averages are correspondingly closer.  This suggests strongly that large year to year variations in melt are not significant contributors to the reduction in volume over the period measured.

The first think that jumped out at me in particular in the averaged data, is I think I'm seeing two historical locations where I think there's a signal identifying a fundamental change in how the system behaves.  The first is in the 1990-1994 time frame. There I think spring, fall and yearly average graphs start a break in slope, falling into the glide path that takes us down hill to where we are now.  I'm not sure what the specific conditions were at the time, or, considering hysteresis, how far back we need to look for the trigger, but it strikes me that is a specific place in time and space we can point at where the system signals a change has taken place.

The second was the 2010-2013 time frame.  in that range all three measures - Annual average, spring and fall - flatten out.  As another interesting and possibly key item, annual loss intersects and then starts to follow the annual average curve.  I'm not sure what this means yet, but it sure looks like a strong signal.  Also, while the three major curves flatten, the *vernal* curve is still trending down.  I think the running 5 year equinox graph shows this the best.

My general take away - I think the graphs support another of my thoughts - that as the total energy available to the system increases (reduced ice), the overall volatility of its metrics will increase - especially area and extent - which actually are more derivative of this than volume.

I'll be interested to hear what other folks think.  If someone can point me in the right direction, I'll post the spreadsheet with my raw numbers someplace for people to tear apart.

 (P.S. - the average volume will be off a bit for 2018 as we haven't finished the year.  That said, we are far enough along it that the relative change is small enough to be negligible to my analysis.)

6
Arctic sea ice / Re: Latest PIOMAS update (November)
« on: December 04, 2018, 05:44:14 PM »
Same comment than last month:

Focusing on what has happened…

I started contact with Neven in May or June 2012 and I was shocked with the ASI drop on August, after the Great Arctic Cyclone. I was also impressed by the 2012 PIOMAS Volume graph made by Wipneus. So, when on the first months of 2013 appeared cracks on the ASI, well, several of us were concern of what could happen that year. Finally, 2013 was a good year for the ice and 2014 was even better. It had passed 6 years since 2012 and the collapse has not happened.

Or it has happened?  :o

On extent, the ASI has not even able to break the 2007 record, not to mention the 2012 record. So, there are some people saying that 2012 is an outlier and even 2007 will be difficult to break. But I don’t like extent! Yes, it is important to measure the effect of the Arctic Ocean albedo. But to measure the ASI drop, I am convinced that we should use volume, even if it is harder to measure than extent.

So, what do I see on volume?

First, [September] volume on 2007 has been broken several times. On volume, 2007 is the ninth lowest on record! And even that September 2012 is still the lowest, the difference between 2012 with 2010-2011 and 2016-17 is not that big.

But on the other hand, while 2012 has not been broken, the decadal average show us that we
have a very different Arctic. By example, look at Aug-Oct average on a decadal basis.  The 1990-99 average of 93.6% changed to 68.5% on 2000-09 and to 39.5% on 2010-18.

So, do we need a catastrophe to prove a catastrophe? From my point of view, the catastrophe has already happened. The [Aug-Oct] 39.5% ice that we have on 2010-18, versus the 1979-2000 baseline, is climate change, not just one year, not weather change.

7
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2018 sea ice area and extent data
« on: December 02, 2018, 03:41:54 PM »
November has passed, so time for a full set of NSIDC Area Graphs (plus a look at what might happen during December)

St Lawrence - not in play until January.

Here is a table of complete guesses on the area gain until Dec 31. Believe the table and you will believe anything (even the President of the USA).

Sea    Area gain in Dec? (k km2)
bering   250
chukchi   300
okhotsk   175
   
baffin   200
greenland   100
barents   100
kara           100
   
laptev                    0
beaufort                    0
east siberian            0
canadian archipelago   20
central arctic         100
   
hudson bay         600
st lawrence           15
Total                       1,960

8
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2018 sea ice area and extent data
« on: December 02, 2018, 03:32:07 PM »
November has passed, so time for a full set of NSIDC Area Graphs (plus a look at what might happen during December)

Central Arctic Seas

Beaufort Sea -
Canadian Archipelago-
East Siberian Sea -
All nearly completely frozen and earlier than 2010's average date

Central Arctic - dithering at 2010's average. perhaps another 100,000 km2 area gain to go, but could take three months.

9
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2018 sea ice area and extent data
« on: December 02, 2018, 03:23:45 PM »
November has passed, so time for a full set of NSIDC Area Graphs (plus a look at what might happen during December)

Canada.

Baffin Bay - Strong gain to mid-November followed by average gain. Area currently at 2000's average.

Hudson Bay - a week's blip in gain has delayed the refreeze by a week, but should be complete by end-December at 2000's timetable. BUT highly sensitive to air temperature anomalies in the region.

10
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2018 sea ice area and extent data
« on: December 02, 2018, 03:16:56 PM »
November has passed, so time for a full set of NSIDC Area Graphs (plus a look at what might happen during December)

The Atlantic Front.

Greenland Sea - Very much affected by amount of ice coming down the Fram Strait. But excluding that seems to show the sea is losing ice and may stay in record territory.

Barents Sea - Below 2010's average area and at or below average area gain at the moment.

Kara Sea. What a surprise. Re-freeze almost complete five weeks early. So further area gain will be minimal.

Laptev Sea  re-freeze complete

11
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2018 sea ice area and extent data
« on: December 02, 2018, 02:40:57 PM »
November has passed, so time for a full set of NSIDC Area Graphs (plus a look at what might happen during December)

The Pacific.
The Okhotsk - if freezes early, apparently it helps to guide storms towards the Bering Strait, promoting slow freeze and early melt. A bit below average area gain at the moment.

Bering Sea - very much below average area gain at the moment.

Chukchi - much depends on SSTs, any thick (and other) ice pushed into it from the Beaufort, and if southerly winds come in from the Bering. Well below 2010's average area and at average area gain at the moment.

12
Arctic sea ice / Re: Latest PIOMAS update (November)
« on: November 07, 2018, 03:42:43 AM »
PIOMAS Volume - Arctic sea ice change versus 1979-2000  :)

13
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2018 sea ice area and extent data
« on: October 10, 2018, 12:21:33 PM »
Hello,
Just an idea for Juan C.Garcia's table. I like it very much, and would find interesting, specially this year, to have one extra column showing the difference between curent value and yearly minimum.  This would allow to see what is the freezing trend.
Etienne


Like this?  ;)

15
Arctic sea ice / Re: Latest PIOMAS update (August)
« on: August 08, 2018, 11:27:59 PM »
Quote
the major change in ASI happened in 2007. Since then only minor changes have occurred, expressed mainly in further reduction of volume, especially in OND due to later freezing / intrusion of warmth through the Atlantic side.
Yes, 2007 in some ways had a more dramatic downstream impact than 2012, pinching out MYI classes as well as subsequent volume by the mechanism discussed below. The NSIDC account of Sept-Oct 2007 is at the link below; the overlay of the 2007 minimum on 07 Aug 18 AMSR2 is shown in the attached png.

It looks like most of the 'extra ice' this year will be midway between the NP and Wrangel/NSI. GFS surface winds suggest the peculiar lift-off in the Lincoln Sea will continue a few more days; however a few days of opposing winds later in the month could flatten it against the coast, making the final outline of 2018 ice look even more like 2007.

Delayed freeze-up in the fall prolongs the local melt season in warm-water kill zones and otherwise offer a chance for consolidating winds. This in turn restricts the seed pack to the CAB (recalling that new ice mainly forms on the pack periphery), resulting in an ever higher proportion of FYI relative to SYI.

The second animation shows that ice loss between early August and mid-September is quite variable, with GAC2012 bringing about the most extreme situation in just a few days. Looking at this time series makes me dis-believe the hastily written journal articles post-GAC saying 'oh that ice would have melted out anyway'.

This animation advances in triple frames: first the August 5th for the earliest year, then its September 10th, then the half-overlay of the minimum on the August, pause, then the next triple, up to the 2018 whose minimum and overlay frames are conjectural.

It's also worthwhile to compare each melt season end to its beginning (notably Sept 2017 to Sept 2018) if you take the view that the CAB largely just sits there from year to year (possibly thinning slightly) and melt season primarily consists of undoing undoing the freeze season's new peripheral ice. In that perspective, the year is evaluated by its departure from time-reversibility: did the melt season do less or more than undo its freeze season.

However this year has seen significant inroads into the CAB along the Atlantification corridor, in the Laptev and possibly the Lincoln Sea (where Atlantic Waters eventually exit out the Nares at depth).

While lift-offs are as common and in correspondence with sustained CW rotation of the ice pack (ie anti-cyclonic pressure systems), this one could be unveiling a severely mechanically weakened -- and possibly thinned -- local ice pack.

Recall though the winter Ascat series that showed almost half the very thickest east Lincoln ice getting pushed down the Nares, so quite a bit there is just refrozen matrix, now breaking up into free floes.

Recall too that the interface of the CAB with the outer islands of the CAA was in motion for much of the fall and winter, with huge blocks tumbling end over end and some exiting into a Beaufort-Chukchi stringer. Even though this area might see some of the coldest mean temperatures and historically have been land-fast, in recent years with a smaller rotating rigid body, it is moving fast on the outside of the merry-go-round and coming up against these immovable islands. Much of the very thickest and oldest MYI has been lost in this way.

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2007/10/589/#1October

16
Arctic sea ice / Re: Latest PIOMAS update (August)
« on: August 06, 2018, 09:40:30 PM »
Using the decades averages on the graph seems to make it clear volume loss is accelerating.

I like to do my PIOMAS analysis on a decadal basis.

From my point of view, it is not important anymore how we end up on 2018 or 2019.
The important thing is to talk about climate, and a decadal change is a measure of climate (not a particular year).

So, the important point is that looking at September, we lost 32.7% of the volume on 2000-09, but we lost almost the double (63.6%) on 2010-2017.

17
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2018 sea ice area and extent data
« on: August 03, 2018, 09:29:00 PM »
I am not sure there is a lot of logic with how the sea boundaries are defined but if we want to be able to compare years and trends, we need to use a standard, consistent definition.

However you draw the boundaries of seas, the method is arbitrary. If we really want to discuss what is going on in the Arctic using a truly scientific perspective, it would make far more sense to evaluate ice based on bathymetry, the location of islands and currents etc.

For the data I post, I have to use what I am given on a consistent basis. So I use for area analyses the NSIDC definition of the various seas as shown in MASIE ( https://nsidc.org/data/masie/browse_regions ) which also gives instant access to maps of extent by those seas.

I don't think that anyone (but Wipneus !) is going to go back and realign the data from 1979 to date according to boundaries defined by "bathymetry, the location of islands and currents etc ", especially as some parameters, e.g.s currents, limits of seas (especially peripheral seas), have and will change as sea ice declines.

BUT, on the melting season thread, images and comments are on areas that ignore boundaries, as sea ice changes (extent, thickness et al) and weather ignore the lines cartographers put on the maps. And a good thing too.

As far as basic extent and area data is concerned, my major concern is the lack of news on any plans to ensure the data record is maintained after the last USAF satellite and the Japanese satellite croak, expire, are no longer extant.

Without data we are stuffed.

18
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2018 melting season
« on: August 03, 2018, 07:56:41 PM »
Bbr .. they are short of cherry pickers in England atm ... :)

if we permanently take the longest possible forecast that almost never becomes true it not only looks bad but causes irritations and useless discussions. if i were @neven i'd not allow more than 5days forecast images to be posted, even that's not worth the effort because too much is changing in the meantime while at least we often get close.

if we want to know how the weather will NOT be in 10+ days we simply have to look at the forecast weather and sadly that's not even kidding.

in short i agree while cherry picking is a nice word for a PN. i'd gladly not use abbreviations but forthe sake of peace, those who think similarly can guess the two words behind LOL

19
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2018 sea ice area and extent data
« on: August 03, 2018, 03:13:31 PM »
The relative cliff continues... JAXA extent lost 1.863 M km2 in 17 days, quite extreme for the period.

I'll take this opportunity to thank again Juan C. Garcia and gerontocrat for your updates on this most important matter. I am sure I am not the only addict.
You are welcome everybody!

The true is that this Forum is a team work and it is impossible to make a explicit thanks to everyone. But I am sure that a lot of us enjoy the multiple posts that are making us able to follow the Cryosphere and the Antrophogenic impact that we are doing on our planet.

So Thanks everyone for the work that you are doing on this Forum!  :)
Thanks to the external groups also, like ADS-NIPR (JAXA), PIOMAS, NSIDC, OMG, etc.

20
Arctic sea ice / Don't read this thread
« on: July 07, 2018, 01:53:03 AM »
Really, you don't want to read this.  OK?




I am just posting it to vent a bit, after 12+ years of watching ice melt and listening to people argue about ice melting.




Seriously, nothing below this line is worth reading.  You can click the back-arrow and go to some other thread where you'll find lots of informative, useful, or surprising information about melting ice.




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


OK.
So.

There is absolutely nothing special about 2018.  Period.  As I said in another thread just now, 2018 is just another year in a long, slow transition from an icy Arctic ocean to an intermittently and then seasonally ice-free Arctic ocean:



Year after year after year after year people will tell you that this year is special! unique! different!

It's not.

Oh, there will be minor differences in weather, currents, clouds.  But there are minor differences in weather, currents, clouds every year

And if every year is special, then no year is special.

Sure, 2018 could take a nosedive, and end up an outlier on the low side like 2012.  Or the melting process could stall out a bit, and end up as an outlier on the high side.  That's not special, it's just noise.

Some year (probably not this year, nor next year, nor the year after that) there will be a year where one day falls below the totally arbitrary threshold of 1 million km2 of ice.  That year won't be special either, and the following year will likely bounce back up, just as 2013 bounced back after 2012. 

What actually is special is the long, slow downward trend in the maximum, mean, and minimum lines from that graph.  It will take decades, but we're slowly and inexorably marching towards an ice-free Arctic ocean. 

The thing is, people don't want to hear that "this century is special".  We want to hear that "this year is special".  We need excitement and drama now now now now!

Well, tough luck.  It's not going to be exciting, it's going to be utterly boring.  As boring as watching ice melt.

21
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2018 melting season
« on: July 06, 2018, 04:47:08 PM »
This year feels more 2013'ish all the time.

This year's June slowdown was eerily similar to 2015, both at the whole-basin scale:



and in terms of geographic distribution of ice:


22
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2018 sea ice area and extent data
« on: July 05, 2018, 03:23:01 PM »
NSIDC Total Area as at 4 July (5 day trailing average =  7,190,592 km2
This is 334 k above the 2010-2017 average


Total Area loss 161K    
Central Seas loss 121 k Periphery loss 21 k, Other Seas loss 19 k
 

Analysis of individual seas.

Pacific Side
- The Okhotsk Sea area is 6 k (down 2k),
- The Bering Sea area is 2 k,
- Chukchi Sea loss 10 k,
- Beaufort Sea loss 13 k,

Atlantic Side
- Total area loss of the Baffin, Greenland, and Barents Seas 20 k,
of which the Baffin Sea loss was 10 k, the Greenland Sea loss 6k,and  the Barents Sea loss 4 k
- The Kara Sea area loss 10 k.
- The Laptev Sea area loss 24 k  .

CAB
- The Central Arctic Sea loss 45 k
- The Canadian Archipelago gain 2 k
- East Siberian Sea loss 22 k

Other seas
- St Lawrence area at 1 k,
- Hudson Bay area loss 17 k.

NSIDC Area is sitting between the 2010's average and the 2000's average, very much as in JAXA EXTENT.

23
Arctic sea ice / Re: Latest PIOMAS update (July)
« on: July 04, 2018, 10:24:41 PM »
I am sure nobody wants more of these charts... but here's one last pair of charts, a total of all the regions that normally participate in the PIOMAS minimum. Eyeballing, I'd say this year can easily finish 2nd, and even a volume record is still possible.

24
Updated retreatline 2009 - 2017: Click on image to enlarge

Pages: [1]