The 2016 melting season

[Tigertown]

Expanding appetite. You can see the 80⁰ N parallel  on the right side.
Roughly 500+ km across

[epiphyte]

How are you guys feeling about the main pack being a pile of rubble?

Does this look like "a pile of rubble" to you?

http://go.nasa.gov/29Ic7xi

The Beaufort I'll give you, but "the main pack"?

Joking aside... Notwithstanding it's precarious and lonely surroundings, "Big Block" is the largest and most solid piece of ice I can see anywhere in the arctic. Just about everywhere else is either FYI, or mostly fractured into floes that range from <10km in diameter, to too small to resolve on worldview, or both.

Perhaps not actual rubble - but to my eyes at least the fine granularity is unprecedented, and not a good sign at all...

[slow wing]

Here's a straight visual comparison for 10 July - last year vs this year - around the North Pole to near the Canadian Arctic coast.

Hardly any holes can be seen for 2015 - 2016 looks much worse.

[Yuha]

The 2016 June rank will probably be around 20.

June 2016 ended up at position 22 in Andrew Slater's 925hPa temp ranks. Here are the updated ranks:

     May Jun Jul Aug
2007  32   4   1   1
2008  16  31  24   7
2009  23  26  11  14
2010   6   7  33  11
2011  12   5   5   3
2012  11   6  12   6
2013  36  36  31  31
2014  30  34  36   5
2015  27  13   2  29
2016   3  22

[Jim Hunt]

Perhaps not actual rubble - but to my eyes at least the fine granularity is unprecedented, and not a good sign at all...

The clouds have moved, and the first year ice between the Pole and Siberia is starting to look like my definition of "a pile of rubble"

http://GreatWhiteCon.info/resources/arctic-sea-ice-images/summer-2016-images/#CAB

The multi-year ice of the "main pack" doesn't currently look like that though. Here's the Russian version of the dividing line from May 31st:

[Jim Hunt]

Hardly any holes can be seen for 2015 - 2016 looks much worse.

Would anybody care to speculate which is 2012, 2015 and 2016?

[slow wing]

They look similar, but what's the point?

You're only showing about (or even less than) 1/100th of the area I did. (Your distance scale shown is "10 km" whereas mine was "100 km"). So it depends entirely on which relatively small region you pick.

[Jim Hunt]

So it depends entirely on which relatively small region you pick.

Feel free to pick a different region in "the main pack" (as defined by AARI) if you so desire. The 10 km scale is in reference to epiphyte's:

Just about everywhere else is either FYI, or mostly fractured into floes that range from <10km in diameter, to too small to resolve on worldview, or both.

[JayW]

Wow Jay those animations are AMAZING.
the cloudy stream was pulled by the dipole from the Pacific wasnt it?

I would agree, that a relatively strong pressure gradient between a deeply layered high and low pressure couplet brought in fair amount of moisture.  It actually reminds me of how storms approaching the US east coast often create a plume of moisture as they push into north Atlantic ridging.

I forgot to link, sorry.  There's always a 48hr loop ready to go from the meteorological service of Canada.  Just not a handy gif for posting.  I had to make that. 



http://weather.gc.ca/satellite/satellite_anim_e.html?sat=hrpt&area=dfo&type=nir

Here's the past 24 hours

Edit: I added the wide shot to see the overall weather.

[slow wing]

That's spectacular, thank you.

It might be the best view I have seen of where the holes are in the ice.

Q. what is the whiter region corresponding roughly to the triangle with corners a) North Pole, b) mark for 30E, and c) mark for 30W?

 Is it where there is no melting? Or something else?

[slow wing]

Ah, now I know, somewhat! Maybe it's a flooded area?

What I can see now is there's a strip just inside the superimposed longitude markings where it is even whiter, and that strip appears to correspond to a band of lowered concentration noted a couple of days ago..

[magnamentis]

With all the focus on weather, we do need to remember that climate is advancing on us, gradually removing the necessity for extreme weather in order to achieve extreme ice loss.

i think that's exactly the case, even made similar statements earlier this year, once bad weather comes with temps significantly above freezing the rain and the winds will melt the ice the way only insolated melt ponds and open water did once. looking at the atlantic side i think that we're already there on that side, where the water was so warm even during winter, that the ice north of svalbard was not able to advance beyond a certain point.

further i think that this (your theory) is responsible for the curve in the graphs to be so steady, with only very few and short lived outliers to the overall trajectory.

[magnamentis]

How are you guys feeling about the main pack being a pile of rubble?

Does this look like "a pile of rubble" to you?

http://go.nasa.gov/29Ic7xi

The Beaufort I'll give you, but "the main pack"?

that's too big an area this image covers, just have a closer look and you'll see, while the word rubble like so many words used these days is not perfectly chosen. i'd call that "not very compact" or "loose" whereas my english is not perfect hence there might be an even much better word to describe that, just one thing is obvious, the ice is
partitioned in smaller units than before and every year that gets a bit worse.

[Jim Hunt]

that's too big an area this image covers, just have a closer look and you'll see, while the word rubble like so many words used these days is not perfectly chosen.

I did have a closer look, and then I was criticised for doing so!  What do you suppose is the optimal resolution for revealing "rubble"?

[Jim Hunt]

What I can see now is there's a strip just inside the superimposed longitude markings where it is even whiter, and that strip appears to correspond to a band of lowered concentration noted a couple of days ago..

Have you seen this animation by A-Team?

[Tigertown]

that's too big an area this image covers, just have a closer look and you'll see, while the word rubble like so many words used these days is not perfectly chosen.

I did have a closer look, and then I was criticised for doing so!  What do you suppose is the optimal resolution for revealing "rubble"?

What device are you using and what resolution screen?

[Tigertown]

I have three theories and that is exactly what they are, so feel free to pick them apart or add to them.
One: Each year when the ice re-froze, the patch ice that bonded the pieces back together formed inferior bonds that are not as strong as a solid piece of ice in which the molecules all form into crystals at the same time.
Two:The actual freezing broke up the ice the same as water gets into cracks of rock formations. As it freezes it expands and breaks up the rock or in this case ice.
Three:A whole lot more has been going on this year with the Arctic than meets the eye.

[Jim Hunt]

What device are you using and what resolution screen?

I have several devices and screens, but I fear you have misunderstood my question.

I'm eager for somebody to reveal to me, on MODIS and/or Sentinel imagery, the "rubble" in "the main pack" of which so many speak.

[bbr2314]

What device are you using and what resolution screen?

I have several devices and screens, but I fear you have misunderstood my question.

I'm eager for somebody to reveal to me, on MODIS and/or Sentinel imagery, the "rubble" in "the main pack" of which so many speak.

They have already revealed it to you. If you can't see it in this photo there is no point in trying anymore as you are proving yourself <snip Neven: do not project your own ignorance unto others who know more than you, it's embarassing>.

[AmbiValent]

Maybe it's just a honest misunderstanding with differing definitions of "rubble": "dispersed ice that's about to melt away" vs "ice split into a multitude of floes that's no longer protected from waves and wind".

[sedziobs]

I think Jim Hunt has been very clear that he sees little discernible difference in the main pack between Beaufort and the pole among various years.  He has posted images of multiple resolutions as evidence.  Regardless of anyone's definition of rubble, I have yet to encounter a post containing consistent visual imagery supporting the claim that ice state between Beaufort and the pole is worse in 2016 than in recent years.  Until that happens, at least refrain from calling Jim willfully ignorant, or otherwise rudely dismissing him.

[magnamentis]

that's too big an area this image covers, just have a closer look and you'll see, while the word rubble like so many words used these days is not perfectly chosen.

I did have a closer look, and then I was criticised for doing so!  What do you suppose is the optimal resolution for revealing "rubble"?

ohh... i'm sorry, i just thought one can't see it with that resolution but as it seems i misinterpreted that :-)
as to see he condition i think the highest possible zoom factor is best :-) and can't see what there would
be to criticise, each to his own and then again, rubble leaves too much room for interpretation, what exactly
is rubble, which is why i prefer to describe what it's not, it's not homogeneous, not intact, not structurally integer.

[bbr2314]

I think Jim Hunt has been very clear that he sees little discernible difference in the main pack between Beaufort and the pole among various years.  He has posted images of multiple resolutions as evidence.  Regardless of anyone's definition of rubble, I have yet to encounter a post containing consistent visual imagery supporting the claim that ice state between Beaufort and the pole is worse in 2016 than in recent years.  Until that happens, at least refrain from calling Jim willfully ignorant, or otherwise rudely dismissing him.

How does this work for you? Still inadequate? Let me know.

[Jim Hunt]

They have already revealed it to you. If you can't see it in this photo there is no point in trying anymore as you are proving yourself willfully ignorant.

That image is pitch black in the area I think of as "the main pack".

[Jim Hunt]

Still inadequate? Let me know.

Fraid so. That isn't "MODIS and/or Sentinel imagery"

[sedziobs]

How does this work for you? Still inadequate? Let me know.

That is much better, thank you.  Even better still would be visual imagery, which is what Jim is asking for.

To my eye, the concentration plots from Andrew Slater don't exactly scream huge differences in the region in question.  Yes, there is an area around 80-85N that is 15% less in 2016, but the majority of the main pack is within 15% of other years.

[Jim Hunt]

Thanks for your kind words.

I have yet to encounter a post containing consistent visual imagery supporting the claim that ice state between Beaufort and the pole is worse in 2016 than in recent years.

Or for the "main pack".

Until that happens, at least refrain from calling Jim willfully ignorant, or otherwise rudely dismissing him.

I've been called worse things!

[bbr2314]

How does this work for you? Still inadequate? Let me know.

That is much better, thank you.  Even better still would be visual imagery, which is what Jim is asking for.

To my eye, the concentration plots from Andrew Slater don't exactly scream huge differences in the region in question.  Yes, there is an area around 80-85N that is 15% less in 2016, but the majority of the main pack is within 15% of other years.

You guys are not doing the math properly. The gaps in concentration are in the areas where 2012's ice survived. If we have 20-30% less ice in the formerly-thick areas it makes a much bigger different than a similar gap in an area like Hudson Bay or the Laptev. That isn't a quarter of 1M ice, it is a quarter of ice that is supposed to be 3-4M thickness and 100% concentration. That is why 2016 is so far ahead of the pack, IMO.

The MODIS images corroborate what is shown on Slater's site. I think Jim Hunt must be trolling at this point because the imagery clearly shows wide patches of open water bearing down on the North Pole already.

[plinius]

LOL, Jim Hunt trolling? Because he does not support your catastrophe theories?

I suggest you do your homework first, learn how to interpret satellite imagery (no, your huge gaps are not huge gaps), the weakest areas go down to perhaps 75% coverage, the mean coverage in the central pack is somewhere >=90%.

Then you learn to differentiate between _melt_ and surface _divergence_.
Then you learn how to think and express yourself with proper argumentation instead of replacing facts with hyperbolae like "huge", "catastrophic", "devastating", etc.

And then you may come back and may judge if Jim Hunt is a troll.
(needless to say that I give that P ~ 0 to happen for two reasons, go figure them out).

[Jim Hunt]

The MODIS images corroborate what is shown on Slater's site. I think Jim Hunt must be trolling at this point because the imagery clearly shows wide patches of open water bearing down on the North Pole already.

Strangely enough I'm already aware of that.

For the umpteenth time, that area isn't what I think of as "the main pack".

[sedziobs]

bbr, the state of the ice on the Atlantic side is not unusual according to your own sources.  Neither Jim or I have said that there are no patches of open water there.  We are also not discussing volume.  We are strictly discussing the visual state of the ice - specifically the description of "rubble" - in the main pack between Beaufort and the pole.  There are lots of points being made in these forums, but you are largely attacking strawmen.

Jim, I am well aware of the various names you have been called!  I'm a regular reader of your blog.  Thanks for all of your insightful commentary.

[bbr2314]

LOL, Jim Hunt trolling? Because he does not support your catastrophe theories?

I suggest you do your homework first, learn how to interpret satellite imagery (no, your huge gaps are not huge gaps), the weakest areas go down to perhaps 75% coverage, the mean coverage in the central pack is somewhere >=90%.

Then you learn to differentiate between _melt_ and surface _divergence_.
Then you learn how to think and express yourself with proper argumentation instead of replacing facts with hyperbolae like "huge", "catastrophic", "devastating", etc.

And then you may come back and may judge if Jim Hunt is a troll.
(needless to say that I give that P ~ 0 to happen for two reasons, go figure them out).

What do you define the ongoing climate catastrophe as? If it isn't catastrophic then I don't know what planet you live on. The Arctic has been at its worst levels for most of the year so far and has only fallen behind 2012/etc because of the lower-latitude ice *not* melting out yet noone seems to be addressing why that's happening either (isn't that equally as disturbing as the slaughter we've seen of the high latitude ice?).

I have supported my claims with satellite imagery, if you want a strict look at concentration, CICE shows large areas below 75% and many approaching 50% while GLB shows higher concentrations but wide areas approaching 0 thickness for essentially the same result.



This looks slightly less horrible but tells the same story.

[bbr2314]

The MODIS images corroborate what is shown on Slater's site. I think Jim Hunt must be trolling at this point because the imagery clearly shows wide patches of open water bearing down on the North Pole already.

Strangely enough I'm already aware of that.

For the umpteenth time, that area isn't what I think of as "the main pack".

You are skewing the definition of 'main pack' to suit your argument but that is fine. Even the area between Beaufort and the Pole is rapidly disintegrating per CICE and satellite obs.

[plinius]

and again back to school for you - CICE/HYCOM is a model. There are measurements for this:
http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsr2/Arctic_AMSR2_nic.png

Go, tell us why these are wrong?

And by the way, it is called climate "change" and global "warming", NOT climate "catastrophe". There is a reason why educated people use proper terms.

[bbr2314]

and again back to school for you - CICE/HYCOM is a model. There are measurements for this:
http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsr2/Arctic_AMSR2_nic.png

Go, tell us why these are wrong?

And by the way, it is called climate "change" and global "warming", NOT climate "catastrophe". There is a reason why educated people use proper terms.

It is a catastrophe. Half of the Great Barrier Reef died this year. Siberia, Alaska, and northern Canada are all on fire. Sea level rise is accelerating, California is running out of water, the Indian monsoon was delayed yet again by several weeks...

You are nitpicking at trivial happenings as the broader system collapses around us. But that's your problem, not mine.

Bremen's maps are tainted by clouds and the last update from the 7th had shown much more open water. It will appear again.

[Jim Hunt]

You are skewing the definition of 'main pack' to suit your argument but that is fine.

You are too kind.

Even the area between Beaufort and the Pole is rapidly disintegrating per CICE and satellite obs.

How about per "MODIS and/or Sentinel imagery"?

[seaicesailor]

How are you guys feeling about the main pack being a pile of rubble?

Does this look like "a pile of rubble" to you?

http://go.nasa.gov/29Ic7xi

The Beaufort I'll give you, but "the main pack"?

Joking aside... Notwithstanding it's precarious and lonely surroundings, "Big Block" is the largest and most solid piece of ice I can see anywhere in the arctic. Just about everywhere else is either FYI, or mostly fractured into floes that range from <10km in diameter, to too small to resolve on worldview, or both.

Perhaps not actual rubble - but to my eyes at least the fine granularity is unprecedented, and not a good sign at all...

Big block is taking order of 5 cm/day of bottom melting, probably more near its rim. BTW the level of melting now near the Amundsen Gulf is astounding, I hope to post some images.
However I doubt the so-called rubble is under much more than a milimeter per day.
From this point of view, the big block is definitely waste surrounded by hundred of thousands of km2 of open ocean, while the opposite happens with the holes in the CAB, gaps of open water that are surrounded infinitely larger amounts, hundred of thoushands of km2, of ice.

@ Bbr you have a knack for insulting and picking on the wrong people. Jim Hunt a troll ? lol

[6roucho]

What do you define the ongoing climate catastrophe as? If it isn't catastrophic then I don't know what planet you live on.

I'm sure many on here would agree that the problem we face with climate is a catastrophe, but to describe individual processes as catastrophic, they should at least be outliers, and compared to recent years, this year's melt simply isn't. It was for a while, but weather put a cap on it. It might be again, if weather intervenes.

Not all members of the catastrophe set are catastrophic.

[Feeltheburn]

I really like the science and explanations on this site.  I am not impressed with constant use of superlatives, irrational exuberance, and overexcited hyperbole by some.  Science is rarely about overstatement and wild prediction but about calm and reasoned understanding of the data.

As I indicated in my initial post, I have made about 100 new green blended cement mixes that have the potential to greatly reduce the CO2 output and footprint of concrete. What I have learned is the data quickly corrects my thinking when I become overly exuberant and my predictions lead me off the rails.  Cold hard reality and data always wins over belief and exuberance.  Or at least that how it works when doing scientific research.

One thing that led me off onto wrong paths was putting too much faith in couple of publications or focusing on minutia rather than the big picture.  I see lots of cherry picking, following by wild exuberance and crazy predictions almost every time I read here.  I bet part of the problem is many are interpreting the data gathered and presented by others.  I suspect that much of the problem here is the data is incomplete and/or contradictory among the various instruments and reporting services and that people gravitate to those data that most agree with their current emotional beliefs.

Sorry for the philosophical rant and I fully expect some to accuse me of trolling.  However, I am nothing of the sort but am seeking knowledge and understanding.  I respect those most who are doing the same rather than promoting an agenda.

[dnem]

FWIW (not much) BBR I tend to agree with you in the larger sense.  But THIS thread is about trying to understand THIS melting season, essentially in real time.  It is a fascinating season, but does not appear to be "the big one."  I guess it MAY be, but that would take a rather unlikely round of very extreme weather.  Whether this season ends up at 2 or 3 or 5 million km^2 will not change the overall trajectory of the human endeavor here in the early 21st century, which ain't pretty.

[plinius]

@seaicesailor:
Indeed - the big one is btw. visible again today:
https://worldview.earthdata.nasa.gov/?p=arctic&l=VIIRS_SNPP_CorrectedReflectance_TrueColor(hidden),MODIS_Aqua_CorrectedReflectance_TrueColor(hidden),MODIS_Terra_CorrectedReflectance_TrueColor,Reference_Labels(hidden),Reference_Features(hidden),Coastlines&t=2016-07-11&v=-1968893.8361339248,173240.82605179586,-1295101.8361339248,508600.82605179586

I'd actually doubt 5cm/day of bottom melt for the past weeks. Suppose it is far less, given also how stable virtually all blocks still are.

My favourite block is, however, this one:
https://worldview.earthdata.nasa.gov/?p=arctic&l=VIIRS_SNPP_CorrectedReflectance_TrueColor(hidden),MODIS_Aqua_CorrectedReflectance_TrueColor(hidden),MODIS_Terra_CorrectedReflectance_TrueColor,Reference_Labels(hidden),Reference_Features(hidden),Coastlines&t=2016-07-09&v=-2025347.3714748845,-329701.7328498036,-1688451.3714748845,-162021.73284980358

Look at the dark stripes - I suppose younger ice between the more massive pieces? If yes, that stuff gives you a pretty nice upper bound on melt for the exposed edge of the pack in the Beaufort, since we essentially know a maximum thickness for the dark pieces.

@6roucho: Taking your point, I still would not use catastrophe myself, because it undermines your standing in an argument. Given the current damages, climate change is very expensive, but not a global catastrophe. And btw., the Great Barrier Reef is to a large part being killed not so much by climate change (contributing) as directly by the Australian (coal) industry and agriculture.
@feeltheburn: Thanks!

[Tigertown]

Compliments to Jim for standing up for himself without returning insults.
That being said, the ice is in bad shape.

Area between the Pole and Prince Patrick Island

[magnamentis]

there is so much about terms. you know how the elders in ancient greece when they united to decide on
actual tasks, that they first were talking for hours to agree on terms and then it took them one hour to come to proper decisions.

any "yellow press" "headline like" term will polarize readers and in a forum like this that is counter productive, it absorbs too much energy. correct terms as plinius says are the very best thing while sometimes we lack or miss the correct term which is why more careful wording, avoiding those "effect seeking" terms is a wise thing to do
and that said, i'm not saying i always succeed doing so, sometimes we know things a long time until we finally reach a decent quota of proper application of what we already learned.

in short, word things with care to avoid emotional quick shots for replies, that includes myself LOL

[Neven]

I removed the 'wilfully ignorant' bit as soon as I saw it, but then it was repeated a couple of times. Luckily, Jim Hunt doesn't take offence (thanks, Jim!), but I'd like bbr2134 to know that although I I appreciate his enthusiasm and thinking out of the box, I won't tolerate another personal attack on people who know more than him.

Sorry for the philosophical rant and I fully expect some to accuse me of trolling.  However, I am nothing of the sort but am seeking knowledge and understanding.  I respect those most who are doing the same rather than promoting an agenda.

Thank you for your concern, Feeltheburn. 

[oren]

Thanks Neven. The thread is almost becoming unreadable.

[jai mitchell]

I'm eager for somebody to reveal to me, on MODIS and/or Sentinel imagery, the "rubble" in "the main pack" of which so many speak.

7/11/2016

[Tor Bejnar]

...
The Arctic has been at its worst levels for most of the year so far and has only fallen behind 2012/etc because of the lower-latitude ice *not* melting out yet noone seems to be addressing why that's happening either (isn't that equally as disturbing as the slaughter we've seen of the high latitude ice?).
...

(highlighting added)
There has been some writing about there being some extra ice in the East Siberian Sea. Chris Reynolds has written a time or two in his Dosbat blog about the winds that blew ice out of the Beaufort Sea (although I don't recall his saying where it went!).  These winds largely piled that ice up along or toward the Siberian coast.  I mentioned an ice shadow by Rangel Island in the "Latest PIOMAS update (May)" thread in Reply #890 on May 05, 2016 at 09:32:39 AM.  I write (just above) "some extra ice" because the Beaufort Gyre normally piles ice along the eastern Siberian coast.  (There is an area on the easternmost Siberian coast that typically gets >4m thick ice, according to at least the HYCOM model.)

I agree that much of the ASI extent difference between 2012 and 2016 at this time includes 2016 'low-latitude' ice in areas that in recent years melted out or nearly did so.  Expecting most of this to melt this year, I believe the minimum will approach or pass 2007's.  The later this 'low-latitude' ice melts out, however, the less stress is put on CAB ice. 

In 2013 I compared maps of July 30, 2012 with the 2012 minimum and (IICR) noted most of the 80% concentration ice (on July 30) melted out (Edit: or compressed).  I projected this model on a July 30, 2013 extent map to predict the 2013 minimum and grossly overestimated the actual ASI extent loss.  I fully expect we'll see new season minimums only when a 'perfect storm' or two shows up.  (I'm not saying it couldn't happen this year.)

[Jim Hunt]

7/11/2016

Thanks Jai, but I've already posted several similar images myself. This year first year ice goes all the way to the North Pole (according to AARI at least), and as I have noted next door "The first year ice between the Pole and Siberia is starting to look like the proverbial 'pile of rubble'".

FYI here's a piccie I saved for posterity last year on the same date. How does the multi-year ice between the Pole and Ellesmere/Greenland compare though? In particular where are all the "low concentration" areas shown on certain passive microwave imagery that people seem to be getting very excited about?

[Tigertown]

Warm air from those land heat waves creeping further into the Arctic
Compare July 5 to July 11;note the color shades reaching out from shore

[jdallen]

I think Jim Hunt has been very clear that he sees little discernible difference in the main pack between Beaufort and the pole among various years.  He has posted images of multiple resolutions as evidence.  Regardless of anyone's definition of rubble, I have yet to encounter a post containing consistent visual imagery supporting the claim that ice state between Beaufort and the pole is worse in 2016 than in recent years.  Until that happens, at least refrain from calling Jim willfully ignorant, or otherwise rudely dismissing him.

Concur.  In fact, I'm seeing similarities between what the CAB looks like currently as compared to 2013.  I'm not convinced we'll slow down that much - there's a lot more heat around than in 2013 - but the state of the ice strikes me as comparable.