The 2015/2016 freezing season

[johnm33]

Is there anyone who knows whether it's normal to see an opening of Nares Strait in the beginning of March?!  Todays map from Bremen shows a small area breaking up there.

//LMV

The flow through Nares even when it's slack sustains an ice free area, but if there are persistent winds blowing south in Baffin, or extreme tides, the flow increases. When the current is slow it seems to show the fluctuations of the tides, as distinct freeze segments , but when tidal forces and persistent winds coincide the ice free zone stretches out into Baffin.
So this is the wind pattern about a week ago with very low tides http://earth.nullschool.net/#2016/03/01/0000Z/wind/surface/level/orthographic=-52.34,69.47,843/loc=-72.365,74.906
and this about the same time from DMI http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/images/MODIS/Kane/20160301s01a.ASAR.jpg
and here's a shot from the 6th with the winds in Baffin pushing the ice north http://earth.nullschool.net/#2016/03/06/0000Z/wind/surface/level/orthographic=-52.34,69.47,843/loc=-72.365,74.906 and the DMI shot of the ice, not established enough to show the tidal pattern but clearly with more ice cover http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/images/MODIS/Kane/20160306s01a.ASAR.jpg It's worth noting the waves apparent south of Nares, but given the forecast of powerful winds blowing south later this week, i suspect the ice in Nares will clear.

[solartim27]

There has been a lot of movement in the Beaufort recently.  Here are 4 frames from Feb 26 to Mar 7.

[jdallen]

Is there anyone who knows whether it's normal to see an opening of Nares Strait in the beginning of March?!  Todays map from Bremen shows a small area breaking up there.

//LMV

The flow through Nares even when it's slack sustains an ice free area, but if there are persistent winds blowing south in Baffin, or extreme tides, the flow increases. When the current is slow it seems to show the fluctuations of the tides, as distinct freeze segments , but when tidal forces and persistent winds coincide the ice free zone stretches out into Baffin.
So this is the wind pattern about a week ago with very low tides http://earth.nullschool.net/#2016/03/01/0000Z/wind/surface/level/orthographic=-52.34,69.47,843/loc=-72.365,74.906
and this about the same time from DMI http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/images/MODIS/Kane/20160301s01a.ASAR.jpg
and here's a shot from the 6th with the winds in Baffin pushing the ice north http://earth.nullschool.net/#2016/03/06/0000Z/wind/surface/level/orthographic=-52.34,69.47,843/loc=-72.365,74.906 and the DMI shot of the ice, not established enough to show the tidal pattern but clearly with more ice cover http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/images/MODIS/Kane/20160306s01a.ASAR.jpg It's worth noting the waves apparent south of Nares, but given the forecast of powerful winds blowing south later this week, i suspect the ice in Nares will clear.

I think the arch is still quite solid.  I think a break up next week is unlikely.  More likely will be it coming apart sometime in April or even early May.  I"m not sure when and how it breaks up will be indicative one way or another as to how the melt season will go.

[johnm33]

jdallen
"I think the arch is still quite solid.  I think a break up next week is unlikely.  More likely will be it coming apart sometime in April or even early May.  I"m not sure when and how it breaks up will be indicative one way or another as to how the melt season will go."
Totally agree but the ice forming to the south is likely to be swept away if there's a confluence of ebb tide and winds blowing south over Baffin as forecast on the 9th/10th. Just now the wind is from the south and there's an extreme tidal range with the high tide at 10:30 utc, so just a chance of some cracking of the arch.
 I think there's a possibility that the turning of the ice has drawn some warmer atlantic water further under the ice and is probably responsible for the thinning north of Svalbard as shown on both Wipneus' and Jim Hunts animations and for the persistent thinning stretching towards the archipelago

If thats the case then the freshwater 'budget' of the Arctic is heading south at an alarming rate, and bodes ill for the melt season. If when the ice clears south of Nares the sea temp. anom. switches to positive, or if the salinity shifts, we're really in it.

[jdallen]

If thats the case then the freshwater 'budget' of the Arctic is heading south at an alarming rate, and bodes ill for the melt season. If when the ice clears south of Nares the sea temp. anom. switches to positive, or if the salinity shifts, we're really in it.

Oh, we're really in it alright. 

The heat is already there. It's not so much that heat now present will melt the ice as much as it is, we are losing/have lost a heat sink that would capture summer insolation rather than the ice.

As Wayne posted elsewhere, such buoy data as we have suggests internal ice temperatures are very high - 10C or more higher than in the past.  There is no buffer for the incoming melt season heat.

[epiphyte]

The heat is already there. It's not so much that heat now present will melt the ice as much as it is, we are losing/have lost a heat sink that would capture summer insolation rather than the ice.

As Wayne posted elsewhere, such buoy data as we have suggests internal ice temperatures are very high - 10C or more higher than in the past.  There is no buffer for the incoming melt season heat.

That's certainly symptomatic of bad things happening, but of itself I don't think the higher ice temp going in is a huge factor ; If I've got the numbers right, raising the temp of 1m3 of ice by 10 degrees requires ~19MJ, melting it takes ~ 302MJ on top of that.

What worries me is the prospect of the ice cover becoming so broken that when summer storms  bring warm water from the outside, it will mix with the ice at the surface, rather than pass by underneath. That could make it all vanish overnight.
 

[6roucho]

The heat is already there. It's not so much that heat now present will melt the ice as much as it is, we are losing/have lost a heat sink that would capture summer insolation rather than the ice.

As Wayne posted elsewhere, such buoy data as we have suggests internal ice temperatures are very high - 10C or more higher than in the past.  There is no buffer for the incoming melt season heat.

That's certainly symptomatic of bad things happening, but of itself I don't think the higher ice temp going in is a huge factor ; If I've got the numbers right, raising the temp of 1m3 of ice by 10 degrees requires ~19MJ, melting it takes ~ 302MJ on top of that.

What worries me is the prospect of the ice cover becoming so broken that when summer storms  bring warm water from the outside, it will mix with the ice at the surface, rather than pass by underneath. That could make it all vanish overnight.

epiphyte, can you please explain those numbers further?

[oren]

The heat is already there. It's not so much that heat now present will melt the ice as much as it is, we are losing/have lost a heat sink that would capture summer insolation rather than the ice.

As Wayne posted elsewhere, such buoy data as we have suggests internal ice temperatures are very high - 10C or more higher than in the past.  There is no buffer for the incoming melt season heat.

That's certainly symptomatic of bad things happening, but of itself I don't think the higher ice temp going in is a huge factor ; If I've got the numbers right, raising the temp of 1m3 of ice by 10 degrees requires ~19MJ, melting it takes ~ 302MJ on top of that.

What worries me is the prospect of the ice cover becoming so broken that when summer storms  bring warm water from the outside, it will mix with the ice at the surface, rather than pass by underneath. That could make it all vanish overnight.

I'm not totally sure but I believe it should be double that, so more like 302 and 38. So melting of ice to water without a change of temperature (just the fusion energy or whatever it's called) requires the same energy as heating water by 80 deg

[cesium62]

You can observe this better here:

http://mp1.met.psu.edu/~fxg1/SAT_NHEM/animwjap.html

I'd want to see that quantified.  I see a stream going from the Caribbean past Iceland, and another stream from Hawaii to the Gulf of Alaska.  Last summer we watched typhoons spinning up the coast from the Phillipines into the Bering.  Looks pretty much northeast to me.

[cesium62]

Finally, quite a big drop in the Sea of Okhotsk the last few days. Are we supposed to see any more ice growth there during the next few weeks or has the "melt season" begun there?

//LMV

Doubtful serious melt will start in either the Bering or Okhotsk until after the equinox; probably well after.

Okhotsk peaks right about now.  Wipneus has wonderful graphs:  https://14adebb0-a-62cb3a1a-s-sites.googlegroups.com/site/arctischepinguin/home/sea-ice-extent-area/grf/nsidc-nt-regional-extent-overview.png?attachauth=ANoY7cq6Qp-ztqLnzyk6hPnPnULBesPqfYgueskiP7CJD93tUm-1XjcSeKDVkvg6nWHbL9Kb1RxCM7sMjfgsmUhProz7H-z0j5k0FAwevcmW4exdsdImzGonpyMwPntnqN5Zdxu1augkp1lg5xEz8_SWEv7PdNoUIGiNHBp09ef3Gw_lGlphkJy9Iz6zmZXAexdPa1SQweOkF6L-GS-GW1s9kGJKZk3WmNFr2fqUgSVmzNhIA4vTtuAQa0Ct-DtlAjCy8jTcHOlSpPIe8i_S4UcO62we02ggiIdzy3VgVl9SL6Jekzyjolk%3D&attredirects=0.

[marcel_g]

The heat is already there. It's not so much that heat now present will melt the ice as much as it is, we are losing/have lost a heat sink that would capture summer insolation rather than the ice.

As Wayne posted elsewhere, such buoy data as we have suggests internal ice temperatures are very high - 10C or more higher than in the past.  There is no buffer for the incoming melt season heat.

That's certainly symptomatic of bad things happening, but of itself I don't think the higher ice temp going in is a huge factor ; If I've got the numbers right, raising the temp of 1m3 of ice by 10 degrees requires ~19MJ, melting it takes ~ 302MJ on top of that.

What worries me is the prospect of the ice cover becoming so broken that when summer storms  bring warm water from the outside, it will mix with the ice at the surface, rather than pass by underneath. That could make it all vanish overnight.

I'm not totally sure but I believe it should be double that, so more like 302 and 38. So melting of ice to water without a change of temperature (just the fusion energy or whatever it's called) requires the same energy as heating water by 80 deg

Hi Oren, I believe the specific energy of ice is a little less than half that of water (if the highschool chemistry page I found is to be believed) so 19 might be the correct number for ice.

That being said, if the ice overall is thinner and warmer by that much, it would mean that the melting season basically has about a 6% head start on previous years, because it needs about 6% less energy to get the same volume of ice to the melted state. If 6% more ice melted because of that, I'd say that's a fairly significant departure from normal.

Cheers,
Marcel

[oren]

The heat is already there. It's not so much that heat now present will melt the ice as much as it is, we are losing/have lost a heat sink that would capture summer insolation rather than the ice.

As Wayne posted elsewhere, such buoy data as we have suggests internal ice temperatures are very high - 10C or more higher than in the past.  There is no buffer for the incoming melt season heat.

That's certainly symptomatic of bad things happening, but of itself I don't think the higher ice temp going in is a huge factor ; If I've got the numbers right, raising the temp of 1m3 of ice by 10 degrees requires ~19MJ, melting it takes ~ 302MJ on top of that.

What worries me is the prospect of the ice cover becoming so broken that when summer storms  bring warm water from the outside, it will mix with the ice at the surface, rather than pass by underneath. That could make it all vanish overnight.

I'm not totally sure but I believe it should be double that, so more like 302 and 38. So melting of ice to water without a change of temperature (just the fusion energy or whatever it's called) requires the same energy as heating water by 80 deg

Hi Oren, I believe the specific energy of ice is a little less than half that of water (if the highschool chemistry page I found is to be believed) so 19 might be the correct number for ice.

That being said, if the ice overall is thinner and warmer by that much, it would mean that the melting season basically has about a 6% head start on previous years, because it needs about 6% less energy to get the same volume of ice to the melted state. If 6% more ice melted because of that, I'd say that's a fairly significant departure from normal.

Cheers,
Marcel

Thanks Marcel. I wasn't aware of the difference between ice and water in that regard, though I should have thought of that of course.

[jdallen]

The heat is already there. It's not so much that heat now present will melt the ice as much as it is, we are losing/have lost a heat sink that would capture summer insolation rather than the ice.

As Wayne posted elsewhere, such buoy data as we have suggests internal ice temperatures are very high - 10C or more higher than in the past.  There is no buffer for the incoming melt season heat.

That's certainly symptomatic of bad things happening, but of itself I don't think the higher ice temp going in is a huge factor ; If I've got the numbers right, raising the temp of 1m3 of ice by 10 degrees requires ~19MJ, melting it takes ~ 302MJ on top of that.

What worries me is the prospect of the ice cover becoming so broken that when summer storms  bring warm water from the outside, it will mix with the ice at the surface, rather than pass by underneath. That could make it all vanish overnight.

I'm not totally sure but I believe it should be double that, so more like 302 and 38. So melting of ice to water without a change of temperature (just the fusion energy or whatever it's called) requires the same energy as heating water by 80 deg

Hi Oren, I believe the specific energy of ice is a little less than half that of water (if the highschool chemistry page I found is to be believed) so 19 might be the correct number for ice.

That being said, if the ice overall is thinner and warmer by that much, it would mean that the melting season basically has about a 6% head start on previous years, because it needs about 6% less energy to get the same volume of ice to the melted state. If 6% more ice melted because of that, I'd say that's a fairly significant departure from normal.

Cheers,
Marcel

Thank you for the specific numbers. 

However, as others noted, the difference in temperature is not that significant in so far as the heat required to melt the ice is concerned.

My key point - that sea ice temperature is not a problem by itself.  It is significant as a signal that the total energy in the system is much higher.

That said, your 6% figure does mesh well with other observations I've made where I think conditions this year (in particular extra open water at high latitude) will extend the melt season, both starting it early and ending it late.

Still, the additional heat those higher ice temperatures represent is a symptom, rather than a causal factor in what we will see later on this year.

[werther]

A months’ worth of winter has passed. Spring is near. And the anomaly in the Arctic is growing….



To my memory, I’ve seen nothing that compares. The small relief is that it is still freezing out there.

[seaicesailor]

The heat is already there. It's not so much that heat now present will melt the ice as much as it is, we are losing/have lost a heat sink that would capture summer insolation rather than the ice.

As Wayne posted elsewhere, such buoy data as we have suggests internal ice temperatures are very high - 10C or more higher than in the past.  There is no buffer for the incoming melt season heat.

That's certainly symptomatic of bad things happening, but of itself I don't think the higher ice temp going in is a huge factor ; If I've got the numbers right, raising the temp of 1m3 of ice by 10 degrees requires ~19MJ, melting it takes ~ 302MJ on top of that.

What worries me is the prospect of the ice cover becoming so broken that when summer storms  bring warm water from the outside, it will mix with the ice at the surface, rather than pass by underneath. That could make it all vanish overnight.

I'm not totally sure but I believe it should be double that, so more like 302 and 38. So melting of ice to water without a change of temperature (just the fusion energy or whatever it's called) requires the same energy as heating water by 80 deg

Hi Oren, I believe the specific energy of ice is a little less than half that of water (if the highschool chemistry page I found is to be believed) so 19 might be the correct number for ice.

That being said, if the ice overall is thinner and warmer by that much, it would mean that the melting season basically has about a 6% head start on previous years, because it needs about 6% less energy to get the same volume of ice to the melted state. If 6% more ice melted because of that, I'd say that's a fairly significant departure from normal.

Cheers,
Marcel

There is an important detail to take into account: the rate of freezing, which in full Winter is roughly proportional to the difference of average temperature at the ice surface (-15 to -30 degC depending on location) and at the bottom (-2 degC). If this difference has been sustained in average say at 15 degC at a given location, instead of the normal 20 degC (see average temps for the Arctic 80+ even more extreme than this example), for two months, it means a 25% less than normal growth rate during that time. I am neglecting snow cover insulation here, which is a lot to neglect, but even with snow cover, if temperature excess is sustained for months, freezing rate should be substantially reduced.

This is one manifestation of the heat excess that jdallen refers to. The heat absorbed to cool the ice is negligible compared to the heat being absorbed by bottom freezing, but, as said, that heat absorbed is proportional to the temperature  diff bottom - top, and if this one is 10 degrees above average ...
Also, the reduced ice growth (6% ? for instance) means bottom melting would start sooner than normal.
So, I guess, sustained air temperatures above normal for months lead to reduced ice growth, which becomes more vulnerable in Summer.

[jdallen]

A months’ worth of winter has passed. Spring is near. And the anomaly in the Arctic is growing….



To my memory, I’ve seen nothing that compares. The small relief is that it is still freezing out there.

I believe your right image captures the influx of heat across Alaska during February.

I anticipate the anomalies dropping over the next 2-3 weeks to something that *appears* more rational.  Mostly that will be a side effect of the normal increases in temperature attendant with spring catching up with the current anomalies.  I expect the Barents will continue to be massively over-temperature which will have implications for the sea surface around Svalbard, Franz Joseph and Nova Zemlya.  Let us hope for wide spread evaporative clouds and negative feedbacks.

[seaicesailor]

A months’ worth of winter has passed. Spring is near. And the anomaly in the Arctic is growing….



To my memory, I’ve seen nothing that compares. The small relief is that it is still freezing out there.

I believe your right image captures the influx of heat across Alaska during February.

I anticipate the anomalies dropping over the next 2-3 weeks to something that *appears* more rational.  Mostly that will be a side effect of the normal increases in temperature attendant with spring catching up with the current anomalies.  I expect the Barents will continue to be massively over-temperature which will have implications for the sea surface around Svalbard, Franz Joseph and Nova Zemlya.  Let us hope for wide spread evaporative clouds and negative feedbacks.

If Spring lightens up the spark, this is up for an epic season. Somebody should start the thread cause Werther post speaks volumes.

I have a comment about that cool ESS coast prediction for Summer but will fit better in the other thread

[jdallen]

Food for thought... remember this equation:

A(T1 - T2) * k / L

using a value of 2.2 for K (thermal conductivity of ice), a increase in temperature from -20 to -15 represents about a 25% decrease in heat transferred out of the water to atmosphere.  My thumbnail calc suggests that's about 22W/M2 vs 29W/M2 where L (thickness) is about 1.5 meters.

The difference is huge if you have open water - on the order of 110W/M2. 

Early in the year, where we had those 20-30 degree anomalies?  Probably 75% decrease in heat lost during those times in the areas affected.

[seaicesailor]

Food for thought... remember this equation:

A(T1 - T2) * k / L

using a value of 2.2 for K (thermal conductivity of ice), a increase in temperature from -20 to -15 represents about a 25% decrease in heat transferred out of the water to atmosphere.  My thumbnail calc suggests that's about 22W/M2 vs 29W/M2 where L (thickness) is about 1.5 meters.

The difference is huge if you have open water - on the order of 110W/M2. 

Early in the year, where we had those 20-30 degree anomalies?  Probably 75% decrease in heat lost during those times in the areas affected.

Right, and the heat excess of 5 to 10 degC has been sustained for months.

[jdallen]

Food for thought... remember this equation:

A(T1 - T2) * k / L

using a value of 2.2 for K (thermal conductivity of ice), a increase in temperature from -20 to -15 represents about a 25% decrease in heat transferred out of the water to atmosphere.  My thumbnail calc suggests that's about 22W/M2 vs 29W/M2 where L (thickness) is about 1.5 meters.

The difference is huge if you have open water - on the order of 110W/M2. 

Early in the year, where we had those 20-30 degree anomalies?  Probably 75% decrease in heat lost during those times in the areas affected.

Right, and the heat excess of 5 to 10 degC has been sustained for months.

... =  25-35% more heat retained in the water.

[epiphyte]

Food for thought... remember this equation:

A(T1 - T2) * k / L

using a value of 2.2 for K (thermal conductivity of ice), a increase in temperature from -20 to -15 represents about a 25% decrease in heat transferred out of the water to atmosphere.  My thumbnail calc suggests that's about 22W/M2 vs 29W/M2 where L (thickness) is about 1.5 meters.

The difference is huge if you have open water - on the order of 110W/M2. 

Early in the year, where we had those 20-30 degree anomalies?  Probably 75% decrease in heat lost during those times in the areas affected.

That part I get... but what the reduction in winter heat loss translates to in terms of subsequent summer ice loss is less obvious (to me at least). My guess (and it's little more than that) is that in the past it generally wouldn't have changed much at all near the surface since the ~0-10m depth temperature and salinity are pretty-much self-stabilizing as long as the ice sheet is unbroken.

...but even so the reduced winter losses contribute to the energy reservoir lower down accumulating over time. What I was trying to get at in my earlier comment was that once the surface sheet is no longer unbroken over a large area, big waves and mixing between the ice and the warmer, more saline lower layers becomes possible. At that point, I'd speculate, it all goes at once.

 

[Pi26]

That part I get... but what the reduction in winter heat loss translates to in terms of subsequent summer ice loss is less obvious (to me at least). My guess (and it's little more than that) is that in the past it generally wouldn't have changed much at all near the surface since the ~0-10m depth temperature and salinity are pretty-much self-stabilizing as long as the ice sheet is unbroken.

...but even so the reduced winter losses contribute to the energy reservoir lower down accumulating over time. What I was trying to get at in my earlier comment was that once the surface sheet is no longer unbroken over a large area, big waves and mixing between the ice and the warmer, more saline lower layers becomes possible. At that point, I'd speculate, it all goes at once.

Anyway less than 11.5 million km2 ice extension at end of April will imho raise bad global climate problems during such summers. And for me currently it looks like 11.25 to 11.75 million km2 at May 1.


https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

[Lord M Vader]

Pi26: it's highly unlikely that the SIE number as of NSIDC would be below 11,5 Mn km². Less than 11,5 Mn km² by June 1 is also pretty hard to reach as it would probably be a new record low for that date.

//LMV

[Pi26]

Pi26: it's highly unlikely that the SIE number as of NSIDC would be below 11,5 Mn km². Less than 11,5 Mn km² by June 1 is also pretty hard to reach as it would probably be a new record low for that date.

//LMV

I ment the problem starts, when we have clearly to less ice in the worlds airconditioner and not when there is no ice past summer.

[seaicesailor]

Food for thought... remember this equation:

A(T1 - T2) * k / L

using a value of 2.2 for K (thermal conductivity of ice), a increase in temperature from -20 to -15 represents about a 25% decrease in heat transferred out of the water to atmosphere.  My thumbnail calc suggests that's about 22W/M2 vs 29W/M2 where L (thickness) is about 1.5 meters.

The difference is huge if you have open water - on the order of 110W/M2. 

Early in the year, where we had those 20-30 degree anomalies?  Probably 75% decrease in heat lost during those times in the areas affected.

Right, and the heat excess of 5 to 10 degC has been sustained for months.

... =  25-35% more heat retained in the water.

As a matter of fact PIOMAS reports an average thickness growth of 20 cm Jan 1 - Feb 15 where most of the years saw 25 to 30 cm of growth. There your 25% heat goes, and more to come since temperature excess keeps being sustained at similar levels.

[jdallen]

Food for thought... remember this equation:

A(T1 - T2) * k / L

using a value of 2.2 for K (thermal conductivity of ice), a increase in temperature from -20 to -15 represents about a 25% decrease in heat transferred out of the water to atmosphere.  My thumbnail calc suggests that's about 22W/M2 vs 29W/M2 where L (thickness) is about 1.5 meters.

The difference is huge if you have open water - on the order of 110W/M2. 

Early in the year, where we had those 20-30 degree anomalies?  Probably 75% decrease in heat lost during those times in the areas affected.

Right, and the heat excess of 5 to 10 degC has been sustained for months.

... =  25-35% more heat retained in the water.

As a matter of fact PIOMAS reports an average thickness growth of 20 cm Jan 1 - Feb 15 where most of the years saw 25 to 30 cm of growth. There your 25% heat goes, and more to come since temperature excess keeps being sustained at similar levels.

  Odd feeling, by way of having other evidence presented supporting your conclusions, and finding yourself both satisfied and alarmed in the same go.

[ktonine]

Wayne Davidson reports the first signs of bottom melt on March 7th (South Cornwallis Island - 75N).

For comparison here are his past sightings:
2015 March 26 
2014 April 10 
2013 March 23 
2012 March 17
2011 April 15 
2010 March 19 

Cross-posted to the melting season thread.

[meddoc]

The Vortex at 70 mb seems to be desintegrating 2 months earlier than normal

[RaenorShine]

Radio Ecoshock on the arctic this week

http://www.ecoshock.info/2016/03/extreme-arctic-fear.html

Abrupt warming in Arctic could lead to catastrophic consequences says top scientist Dr. Peter Gleick, ICCI Director Pam Pearson, and the founder of Paleoceanography, Dr. James Kennett. Three must-listen interviews.

"What is happening in the Arctic now is unprecedented & possibly catastrophic."

That's the Tweet heard around the world at the end of February. It was picked up by the Independent newspaper in the UK, and many other places in the alternative and climate-savy media. Robert Hunziker did a strong piece about it in CounterPunch called "The Arctic Turns Ugly".

[Jim Hunt]

It's somewhat sliced up, but nonetheless here's the first clearish "visual" image of the ice edge and open water north of Svalbard:

http://GreatWhiteCon.info/resources/arctic-sea-ice-images/winter-2015-16-images/#CAB

[jdallen]

It's somewhat sliced up, but nonetheless here's the first clearish "visual" image of the ice edge and open water north of Svalbard:
<snippage>

Oh, that looks ugly.

[Mark Tough]

Yes - This is not good. It's pretty clear Svalbard is in trouble... (must learn to insert image  - see attached for now).

Too late in Sydney and too hot to work this out because OT..

"Saturday's top of 28.7 degrees marked Sydney's 37th day in a row of 26 degrees or warmer, nearly double the previous record stint of 19 such days set in 2014." Bureau of Metrology Sydney

This is ridiculous, although very lovely when living at Maroubra Beach with Northerly Sea Breezes to boot - but it's not real and we will fail as a society if we don't manage the extremes that are written in our Carbon Contracted Catastrophe... They are a coming -  we need to work on cessation, mitigation and, contemplation of where it all went wrong! And act as best we can.

A very interesting freeze this year and a very interesting melt to come. We are swimming in 24c here - it should be 20c and in El Nino (not sure where our correlation went) perhaps 18c. The difference of 4c or 6c  is pretty extreme but I can only imagine what that would do to an ice front - oh well that's Svalbard - or was.

[Neven]

Nice graph, Mark. Where did you find it?

Speaking of graphs, I noticed the trend on Andrew Slater's freezing degree days chart was dropping through the X-axis, so I decided to update it for Andrew  :

[jdallen]

Nice graph, Mark. Where did you find it?

Speaking of graphs, I noticed the trend on Andrew Slater's freezing degree days chart was dropping through the X-axis, so I decided to update it for Andrew  :

Very amusing.

I've been going back through Andrew's graphs and comparing the 2M and 925PA FDD graphs with various seasons.  I'm not seeing a correlation between the mid-winter FDDs' and melt seasons.  To use a metaphor - it suggests to me that the temperatures now may set the table, but what happens later determines who eats and how much.

Though to apply another metaphor - quantity has it's own quality.  No year on record has had FDD's drop through the floor like this; it's not setting the table, it's tossing stuff on to the floor. 

I do think it is a signal we have just gone through a transition, and have entered totally new climate territory.  I'm sensing our usual indicators aren't going to be as reliable.

[6roucho]

This is ridiculous, although very lovely when living at Maroubra Beach with Northerly Sea Breezes to boot - but it's not real and we will fail as a society if we don't manage the extremes that are written in our Carbon Contracted Catastrophe... They are a coming -  we need to work on cessation, mitigation and, contemplation of where it all went wrong! And act as best we can.

Indeedy. I'm an ex Bra boy Mark, and I agree with you.

[Lord M Vader]

Crossposting here. GISS just came in with an anomaly of a staggering +1,35^oC above the 1951-1980 average which translated to pre-industrial value for 1881-1900 period gives an anomaly of +1,63^oC. Incredible!!!

[pauldry600]

These posts are amazing

I follow weather in Ireland where flooding and cool Summers are now more common.

With our temperatures at or below average someone gets our remaining warmth -> the Arctic

Their cool air seems to be pushing to mid Atlantic latitudes.

Another thing Ive noticed is that most of the Arctic thats "torn" this Winter is the Arctic that the storms a cool Atlantic pool mixed with warmer Tropcal air generated through storms Abigal, Barney, Clodagh, Desmond, Eva, Frank, Gertrude, Henry, Imogen and Jake

[Andreas T]

It's somewhat sliced up, but nonetheless here's the first clearish "visual" image of the ice edge and open water north of Svalbard:

http://GreatWhiteCon.info/resources/arctic-sea-ice-images/winter-2015-16-images/#CAB

the brightness temperature channel on terra shows warm water there (image from the 8th, temperature scale sqashed to put yellows at >0deg C)
DMI doesn't match the distribution but has values of  3degC west of Svalbard

[Jim Hunt]

Another thing Ive noticed is that most of the Arctic thats "torn" this Winter is the Arctic that the storms a cool Atlantic pool mixed with warmer Tropcal air generated through storms Abigal, Barney, Clodagh, Desmond, Eva, Frank, Gertrude, Henry, Imogen and Jake

I noticed that too. I also noticed the "Storm with no name"!

http://econnexus.org/haldon-forest-park-closes-again/

Marginally more on topic, here's a new article by Jim Overland:

Is the melting Arctic changing midlatitude weather?

According to model simulations, a warming Arctic can shift the circulation patterns of the polar jet stream and bring frigid air southward. But has it?

[DavidR]

Crossposting here. GISS just came in with an anomaly of a staggering +1,35^oC above the 1951-1980 average which translated to pre-industrial value for 1881-1900 period gives an anomaly of +1,63^oC. Incredible!!!

And in the Northern Hemisphere it was +1,90^oC giving  a variation from the pre-industrial mean of +2,18^oC.

[Frivolousz21]

Wayne Davidson reports the first signs of bottom melt on March 7th (South Cornwallis Island - 75N).

For comparison here are his past sightings:
2015 March 26 
2014 April 10 
2013 March 23 
2012 March 17
2011 April 15 
2010 March 19 

Cross-posted to the melting season thread.

Nice blog but I don't think one can make a definitive conclusion about ice thickness in the entire arctic based on the info he provided

[ktonine]

Friv - I agree wholeheartedly.   But given the single data point, neither should it be ignored. 


I firmly believe that the overwhelming evidence - i.e., data, leads to the conclusion that this melt season will be exceptional.

[Mark Tough]

Nice graph, Mark. Where did you find it?

Speaking of graphs, I noticed the trend on Andrew Slater's freezing degree days chart was dropping through the X-axis, so I decided to update it for Andrew  :

Nicer Graph Neven - humour and reality collide! To be honest the graph I found was pure Google Whacking (is that a term anymore). Today I couldn't replicate but looking at history it was http://www.osi-saf.org

Basic Blurb "For complementing its Central Facilities capability in Darmstadt and taking more benefit from specialized expertise in Member States, EUMETSAT created Satellite Application Facilities (SAFs), based on co-operation between several institutes and hosted by a National Meteorological Service.

The Ocean and Sea Ice Satellite Application Facility (OSI SAF) is an answer to the common requirements of meteorology and oceanography for a comprehensive information on the ocean-atmosphere interface.

One of the objectives of the OSI SAF is to produce, control and distribute operationally in near real-time OSI SAF products using available satellite data with the necessary Users Support activities."

I haven't joined this esteemed Org so can't give you the correct URL but Today's graph (although I can't Google it today) is attached as history somehow magically gave me the update. It is significantly worse.

[Andreas T]

Friv - I agree wholeheartedly.   But given the single data point, neither should it be ignored. 


I firmly believe that the overwhelming evidence - i.e., data, leads to the conclusion that this melt season will be exceptional.

I feel this needs to be treated with caution.
The problem with wayne's data is that it is evidence for temperature gradients in the air above the ice. He does not substantiate the link between that observation and bottom melt. For that he would need to look more thoroughly at measured temperature profiles in the ice and how temperature fluctuations at the surface (which is probably covered in snow but of unknown thickness) relate to the balance of radiation (it seems he doesn't consider outgoing radiation from the surface) and temperature of the air above.
In short I take his claim about bottom melt as far from overwhelming evidence until he can povide better support for his theory.

[Neven]

Nicer Graph Neven - humour and reality collide! To be honest the graph I found was pure Google Whacking (is that a term anymore). Today I couldn't replicate but looking at history it was http://www.osi-saf.org

Thanks, Mark. I might want to do a post on the current situation around Svalbard, so I'll try to find it somewhere related to OSI SAF.

[Jim Hunt]

I might want to do a post on the current situation around Svalbard

Likewise Neven! Try here:

http://polarview.met.no/Statistics/climatology.html

[Buddy]

Likewise Neven! Try here:

That's only about 3 standard deviations from the mean......that isn't abnormal is it

The heat from northern Greenland.....across Svalbard and to the Russian coast.....has been VERY pervasive over the last 2+ months. 

[Neven]

I might want to do a post on the current situation around Svalbard

Likewise Neven! Try here:

http://polarview.met.no/Statistics/climatology.html

Awesome, Jim, thanks a lot!

[LRC1962]

@Neven Not sure if you know, but Andrew Slater's new updates do show the line going through the floor and the updated FDD #.

Although the closest indicator as to a pattern is 2006 which ended up as the low point, we are in such new low territory so early in the year that it would be very hard to imagine that there can not be ramifications for the summer melt.

[seaicesailor]

@Neven Not sure if you know, but Andrew Slater's new updates do show the line going through the floor and the updated FDD #.

Although the closest indicator as to a pattern is 2006 which ended up as the low point, we are in such new low territory so early in the year that it would be very hard to imagine that there can not be ramifications for the summer melt.

This integral variable will keep going down until approximately the moment when the 80+ average temperature crosses the climate line, and stays below or around it for a while. This probably won't happen until April (delta temperatures are on the rise again). And when this happens, usually average temperature stays pegged to the climatic average. So this value will end up being -1000 C or less and stay around there out of the plot until the end of the year.

What does this mean. I am not sure, but it probably means some ice around 80N toward the Pole, surely in the Atlantic sector, has grown much less than other years.