The 2016 melting season

[jdallen]

the term pond(s) would be a huge understatement 

Ponds?  What Ponds?  Looks like the ice has shattered.

which is why ponds are an understatement. if i'm not totally wrong understatement means there is more, hence more than ponds, basically water cover (film)  which means in other words that the ice is more or less entirely whater covered but i assumed that that is clearly visible (obvious) hence i took the humorous approach. next time i better write:

"as you can see the ice (crystalized H2O) is almost entirely covered in liquid H2O.  the hills mirroring on the water surface is clearly visible"

or one can simply take the information without counter commenting every word. not much fun to share like this.

Dear Magnamentis  - you tend to take offence easily, maybe because of the language or style difference. First of all thank you for posting these updates from Kimmirut, quite interesting, and please remember people may interpret same image in different ways, and post in different styles, it doesn't mean you are not being respected - so take everything in good humor.
By the way, personally it took me some time to understand your latest image. First I thought the ice darkened, then I thought it shattered, only then when I read explanations here and magnified the image I understood that it's the hills reflected and that it seems to be one big "pond".

Magnamentus - my apologies as well. My comment was a similar attempt at dark humor, which obviously failed.

[F.Tnioli]

And i definitely can vote for jdallen's sincerity - i've read quite much of his posts last few years, and he's one very polite person, never seen him trying to offend anyone.

Also, if i may express my respect - way to go, gentlemen; i mean, last two posts are examples of great, proper, actually beneficial culture. In the old "gentleman" sense of the word, you know? Way to go!

[anotheramethyst]

the term pond(s) would be a huge understatement 

Ponds?  What Ponds?  Looks like the ice has shattered.

which is why ponds are an understatement. if i'm not totally wrong understatement means there is more, hence more than ponds, basically water cover (film)  which means in other words that the ice is more or less entirely whater covered but i assumed that that is clearly visible (obvious) hence i took the humorous approach. next time i better write:

"as you can see the ice (crystalized H2O) is almost entirely covered in liquid H2O.  the hills mirroring on the water surface is clearly visible"

or one can simply take the information without counter commenting every word. not much fun to share like this.

I'm sure no one was trying to argue.  Someone just succumbed to an optical illusion.  There's no way to predict that sort of thing in advance.  I didn't realize it was a reflection either, so initially I had no idea what I was looking at.

[seaicesailor]

And i definitely can vote for jdallen's sincerity - i've read quite much of his posts last few years, and he's one very polite person, never seen him trying to offend anyone.

Also, if i may express my respect - way to go, gentlemen; i mean, last two posts are examples of great, proper, actually beneficial culture. In the old "gentleman" sense of the word, you know? Way to go!

I have to agree on this one ;-)
@OLN That was quite a story, must have been decens, we are damn lucky in that respect. Back to lurking nothing to say on topic .

[werther]

Ah... watch today's MODIS. Like I suggested this morning...
Southern winds today in the Svalbard-Frantsa Yosefa region.
Open water in the CAB North of these archipelago's grew since day 133 from 90K to 120Kkm2 today (day 137).
Indicating how strong and immediate weather has an impact on the sea ice.

[werther]

Illustrative for how weather impacts the sea ice in the given situation.

This is today’s MODIS for the ESS:



A warm incursion has been forecast for days. Today’s reports present temps almost at +10 dC near Pevek. And it shows. There’s a big surface melt stain about 2500 km2 right at the entrance of Pevek Bay and it came out of nothing.
On the main entrance route that the accompanying Low took, some 300 km to the West, there’s another large swath of blue hues on the fast ice. Snow on and around Ostrov Khrestovsky FI is also taking a blow.

The 1200 km pression lead between the fast ice and the pack ice is rifted open. Where ‘Winter Power’ was weakest, Wrangel-Pevek, thin ice is being ripped into floes. It just doesn’t fit with the thickness modelling that PIOMAS brought forward for that region.

[werther]

BTW This is Khrestovsky Island, app. 17 x 8 km2, right in the ESS fast ice:

[Andreas T]

not exactly proof of thickness but an indication maybe, this IR image from 28. 3. shows the higher temperatures of thin ice on he Alaskan side of the Chukchi and colder, thicker i think ice on the Siberian side. The ice between Wrangel and Pevek broke a few times during the winter, so lack of strength does not show lack of (average) thickness. It just breaks long previously opened and refrozen openings. How thick would ice need to be to not break? 2 or even 3 meters seem very little thickness when the scale of movement goes into hundreds of kilometers.

http://go.nasa.gov/257MnTj aqua band 31 brightness temperature scale squashed to 240-280K

[Watching_from_Canberra]

O-Buoy #14 camera seems to be working again:
http://obuoy.datatransport.org/monitor#buoy14/camera

[jdallen]

Illustrative for how weather impacts the sea ice in the given situation.
<snippage>
... Where ‘Winter Power’ was weakest, Wrangel-Pevek, thin ice is being ripped into floes. It just doesn’t fit with the thickness modelling that PIOMAS brought forward for that region.

Your image speaks for itself, and I fully concur.  That ice in the ESS appears far less durable than suggested; it's being torn apart by weather movement to the same extremes ice in the Beaufort and Chukchi are being savaged.

[Geoff]

Quick question for those who work with the numbers: is there a calculation done to estimate the amount of heat absorbed by how much ice has melted? I know the latent heat of fusion of ice is 334 joules per gram, the specific heat to change the temperature by 1 degree is 4.186 joules, so the amount of temperature gain effectively masked when 100,000 sqkm of ice is lost is equivalent to almost boiling 100,000 sqkm of the sea. This would be the equivalent of a rise in temperature on a global scale of 0.something degrees, right? This is factored in to the IPCC, right?

Also if the seas are rising by X mm per year, that would mean that more land ice somewhere has been melting, also 'masking' temperature gains by some margin?

Also once all the ice is gone, temperatures would rise fairly quickly after, right?

[6roucho]

...
I do understand that humans, not chimpanzees, have disrupted the climate. However, my point is that we're capable of making things worse.

Any decision to geo-engineer should depend first on a rational societal assessment of which action provides the least risk, and then on co-ordinated international action, two things at which we've proven spectacularly inept.

Trusting humans to engineer the climate is like asking the mechanic who ruined your car to build you a new one, while you're driving in it.

This goes too far off-topic... I'll risk to respond one last time on the subject...

 - yep, it can and very likely will make "things" worse eventually. But then, most solutions to big problems make "things" worse in longer and/or wider run. Usual deal. Industrialization, burning coal, pumping oil, etc etc - all those were (and still are) big solutions to big problems. Solutions which created AGW, you know. I fail to see how geo-engineering would be any different in principle. Same story;

 - disagree about "rational societal assesment". It's either rational, OR societal. Nowadays. Because there are lots of people made into "consumer culture" and "mass media brain washing", pardon my french... That said, rational assesment it is. By large and classified expert community. Think Manhatten project - something like that. However, even then, experts are unable to calculate all risks and impacts, there are big uncertainties involved. Which is why it's indeed "too risky to be taken" under normal circumstances. Sadly, Arctic sea ice circumstances are very far from "normal", though;

 - dead wrong argument about mechanic guy. Please, don't look at mankind as "one" will, "one" force, "one" action, ok? We people are very different. If one maniac rapes and kills little girls, would you say whole mankind is doing the same every chance they get? No. There are thousands such maniacs, even now. Same thing. There are specific people who kill this planet. They have names and addresses. Sadly, they are quite powerful, smart, and darn sneaky when almost cornered. Also, they run most of the "business as usual" show. Those are "the mechanic" who breaks the car. People who propose and (most importantly) are able to design and perform geo-engineering - are not exactly same people. To say the least. Even so, they wouldn't be able (even theoretically) to pull any significant geo-engineering off, if not for one simple truth: temporary solutions to slow/halt further warming will help, big time, for "business as usual" to go on. Which is why corporate would theoretically cooperate with scientific on the issue. So in your terms, this is the case of bad mechanic ruining the car, then asking another - better - mechanic to help him patch it up so it'll go for few more hundreds miles, to reach specific destination. With both mechanics travelling in the car, i think there are some little chances it'd work. Granted, they can end up, say, exploding the car's gas tank and both dying while trying to drive it all patched up... But when the alternative is to stop the car and die outta thirst in the middle of a vast desert, i think we both know what our brave mechanics will do.

Or perhaps, are already doing, circa 2013.

I admire your confidence. I think we're  far from having the scientific understanding to predictably influence complex systems on a planetary scale. Unfortunately it will be the people who think we do that will be put in charge of doing it. God only knows what frightful mess will result.

[meddoc]

Time to get packin'

[Laurent]

We are in uncharted territory, there is no year like this one. We can't say it is 15 days ahead, compared to last year mid July looks nearly the same (thought different ok).

[plinius]

well, this does not even remotely look similar.
a scattered and shattered sea ice with low albedo, damaged snow layer and melt ponding last year.
This May:  Thick and intact snow layer on stable ice forming large floes.

Maybe we get there till June. But those two images are miles apart concerning the health of the ice cover.

[Phil.]

Looking at the Barrow radar a lot of very mobile ice has moved in from the southwest, the 10-day animation shows it really well.

[Buddy]

We are in uncharted territory, there is no year like this one. We can't say it is 15 days ahead, compared to last year mid July looks nearly the same

That is pretty sobering....  Not good...

[F.Tnioli]

Not good it is, but well expected. May i propose one piece with some proper bit of the big picture, here? I mean this article. I think, most of the text there - is well suited to realize why exactly Arctic ice goes the way we see. With some bits being exceptions, of course. Still, i heartily recommend to read it in its entirety.

Comes with awesome .gif animation, too - perhaps the best of the sort i've ever seen.

I think, "what happens in the Arctic - does not stay in the Arctic" is true while inverted, just as well - "what happens elsewhere does not stay elsewhere". So, the global temperature is one major thing which puts 2016 well separately from any other year on record - exactly in terms of summer Arctic melt in particular, i mean.

P.S. Pitmans mentions inertia, well, it's good someone at least mentions it anyhow. But he sees (or at least, is willing to admit) only physical intertia of the system (not even all of it - 2C boundary will be breached for sure on physical effects alone if whole mankind would cease (to exist) right now, since corresponding papers estimate "extra CO2 > extra temperature" lag as some 20...50 years, and we know what mankind was doing last 20...50 years in terms of CO2 emissions - we know it very well). But even more importantly, there is social, infrastructural, economic and cultural intertias, all further delaying any major decrease in man-made GHG emissions. You try to find proper consideration of all those factors in any IPCC report or any major international agreement, and i bet you won't. But those obviously exist and are big factors.

[icy voyeur]

Should someone create a separate thread for the socio-political commentary?
A dumping grounds of sorts in order to help clean up this thread for more physical observations? Keeping this thread "clean" and "sciency" is probably best for anyone's politics anyway. Facts here, what you think people ought to do or say about the facts in the other thread?
I understand it's very emotionally charged but that's an even better reason to keep a clean thread. Facts lose their impact when they mingle with opinion.  $0.02

[A-Team]

open a separate thread for the socio-political commentary

I would appreciate this too. I see our job on this particular forum (and the other science-types) as constructing a substantive "administrative record" of the alarming 2016 melt season, a resource for people who might want to comb through it now or at the end of season for scientific resources, ideas, questions and commentary. It is becoming increasingly difficult to jump around to those posts.

Rambling away on reactive OT personal exchanges diminishes our ability and credibility to communicate serious issues to the outside world. Ask yourself, would you send out the forum link to colleagues? We have many informal conversational exchange forums already (nothing wrong with that) and it is easy to start yet another one.

What I am seeing now is that outside scientists and citizens trying to follow our real-time Arctic offerings have given up on the forum directory and are opening separate "Profile" tabs of posts posters who generally stay on topic. This becomes very cumbersome keeping the posting order intact, not to mention finding the new people who emerge with good comments.

Next up, someone will have to mirror the posts to a closed-to-comments site which sort of defeats the central purpose of the forum site. Over time, we've watched several of our best posters just up and leave to set up a comment-controlled site elsewhere to get away from the clutter.

[AbruptSLR]

The first image shows that the AO is now positive & should become increasingly so for the next week.

The second image shows the Nullschool Arctic Surface Wind Map for May 17 2016, indicating that a dipole is now pushing thick ice out the Fram; & that parts of the ESS are above freezing.

[AbruptSLR]

The attached image issued today indicates that both the Barents and the Greenland sea ice extents are currently dropping atypically rapidly for this time of year:

[sedziobs]

There is an entire "Policy and Solutions" section in the forum.

Geoengineering seems to be a topic that manages to take over the melt season thread at least once a year.  In 2014 it was eventually moved here: http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,958.msg34334.html#msg34334.  Perhaps that would be a good place for any further discussion.

[seaicesailor]

Below an image I have extracted from today's post-processed AMSR2 data courtesy of Wipneus. I had already seen this huge shadow (butterfly shape?) of lower concentration from NSIDC and Uni Bremen images, but it persists, it has been there now for three days.
Just curious. Maybe somebody has an idea of what can it be.
 

[Tor Bejnar]

I thought it was supposed to be a butterfly flapping its wings in Japan that caused something-or-other.  Turns out its a butterfly image in the Arctic that causes mayhem. 

[DaoudaW]

According to their "preliminary" F18 data, the NSIDC has the arctic ice extent under 12 million km².  According to my calculations we are now 3.42 s.d. below the mean.  Is this a new record?

[sedziobs]

First image is what Nullschool shows for precip in the area for the three hours beginning May 12 at 1800.  Second image shows above freezing surface temps around the same time.  The dark AMSR2 area (which Wipneus contrast enhances) could be caused by the precip itself or by the algorithm compensating for precip.  Or it could just as well be unrelated.

[seaicesailor]

Not knowing about meteorology, I guess some cool weather will eventually come to the Arctic as in any other place. Yet there is this big difference with previous years that persists, these large temperature anomalies all around the Northern Hemisphere. In the following days a dull high is predicted. Still, the forecasted temperatures are anomalously high within the Arctic and almost everywhere around the Arctic. It was not the same in '13 and '14 at all, '15 was closer. In previous years there always were extensive areas much colder than the rest.

Kara, Beaufort, Chukchi, CAB, ESS, Hudson, CAA, Barentz, Greenland, all will be feeling the heat in unison.  And so the extent goes down.
Laptev sea is the exception, but that is not a good omen, since Laptev sea ice melts so easily ...

First image is what Nullschool shows for precip in the area for the three hours beginning May 12 at 1800.  Second image shows above freezing surface temps around the same time.  The dark AMSR2 area (which Wipneus contrast enhances) could be caused by the precip itself or by the algorithm compensating for precip.  Or it could just as well be unrelated.

Yes, more intense precipitations in that area may explain it. Thanks

I thought it was supposed to be a butterfly flapping its wings in Japan that caused something-or-other.  Turns out its a butterfly image in the Arctic that causes mayhem. 

I did not imply any mayhem.
But...
You surely know there is no consensus that the butterfly effect is true. In fact, under some interpretation, it may be absolutely wrong. Say a butterfly in Texas shifts the position of a hurricane 100 miles, there goes another butterfly in Japan that makes the hurricane to become a tropical storm, but then another butterfly in Chile delays it appearance one day, one year before a mosquito in Australia changes the picture completely, and so, and so, and so, trillions of atmospheric perturbations, include them as boundary conditions in the deterministic Navier-Stokes equations, and try to find a deterministic solution.

However a butterfly of the size I show, made of slightly wet snow, might affect a hurricane much more precisely. It could trigger a slightly faster melting in June that would be further amplified in July and lead to many more km2 of melted ice, eventually deviating a Sandy-like storm to the left when it should have gone to the right.

So thinking twice, yes, this may imply mayhem
 

[Tor Bejnar]

several LOLs - thanks! 
Oh, I never intended to blame you for the mayhem, but if you ... (oh, never mind, lest I start a feud).  And I obviously wasn't thinking straight when I was seeing the butterfly image as being only a handful of centimeters across my screen, instead of the 100s of kilometers represented by that image on the Arctic ice.  Thanks for helping me see the big picture.   

[werther]

The warmth incursion on the East Sib Sea is continuing. On MODIS today, worsening ice condition is visible over the whole Chukchi Sea, the ESS almost to the New Sib Islands and into the adjacent parts of the CAB.
Blue hues are strongest over Kotzebue Sound, near Pevek and the Kolyma Delta. On a lot of floes grey marks of beginning melt puddles are visible.
The brownish hues near the CAB-Beaufort boundary is, in my view, caused by low fog mixed with soot and pollen. I remember those colours appeared in the Chukchi too in earlier years.

[Andreas T]

In 2014 the ice in Chukchi and around Wrangel island was more broken up than this year I think. What is more worrying for this years melt season is that both in eastern Siberia and Alaska there is now less snow cover on land which increases the possibilities for sending warm air over the arctic ocean. In the eastern chukchi ice is thin and the open water recieving strong sunlight right now will start to produce melt soon whereas so far the opening of water was caused by drifting.
My expectations are probably less dramatic than those of others but weather will have to turn strongly in favour of the ice to avoid a low similar to 2012.

[seaicesailor]

The DMI 80N is bursting now, but so is the more meaningful Slater's 925 hPa average temp over a more extended area of the Arctic.
@Werther the effect of the current warmth wave over ESS is indeed impressive. Two days more and then back to Beaufort.

[DavidR]

open a separate thread for the socio-political commentary

I would appreciate this too. I see our job on this particular forum (and the other science-types) as constructing a substantive "administrative record" of the alarming 2016 melt season, a resource for people who might want to comb through it now or at the end of season for scientific resources, ideas, questions and commentary. It is becoming increasingly difficult to jump around to those posts.

The issue is probably the reverse, as most people see this thread as the one for general commentary. So we have a seperate thread for IJIS or Greenland and the commentary tends to  stay on that data.
This tends to be a thread where all manner of data and ideas come together and as its a pinned thread it comes up for all users at the top of the page.
Its not hard to create a thread if you want to discuss/ present data on a particular issue. If its popular it stays up on the list and if not it fades away. 

[Csnavywx]

The warmth incursion on the East Sib Sea is continuing. On MODIS today, worsening ice condition is visible over the whole Chukchi Sea, the ESS almost to the New Sib Islands and into the adjacent parts of the CAB.
Blue hues are strongest over Kotzebue Sound, near Pevek and the Kolyma Delta. On a lot of floes grey marks of beginning melt puddles are visible.
The brownish hues near the CAB-Beaufort boundary is, in my view, caused by low fog mixed with soot and pollen. I remember those colours appeared in the Chukchi too in earlier years.

Yeah, it's really degraded fast over the fast ice there over the past couple of days. Can definitely tell that snowfield is getting dirty/slushy.

[RoxTheGeologist]

Meanwhile, in the Beaufort; do those dark brown/green plumes and the reduction in pooled water over the ice indicate the Mackenzie flood waters are flowing en mass into the sea?

[6roucho]

Could we have a free-for-all debating sticky thread? The ability to argue seperate points is valuable for some people, as is of course the more data oriented nature of this one. The Arctic melting season provokes both kinds of response.

[werther]

That's well observed, Rox!
Part of the flood waters had been retained in those large puddles. They seem to have drained. Some immersed ice in those puddles has returned visible on MODIS.

[abbottisgone]

Could we have a free-for-all debating sticky thread? The ability to argue seperate points is valuable for some people, as is of course the more data oriented nature of this one. The Arctic melting season provokes both kinds of response.

Some kind of order is called for... Yes, it ne free-for-all thread stuck to the top and the rest should stay on subject sounds fair enough to perhaps even work!

[plg]

I have never seen the speed & drift graph all blue at this of the year. Some random checks of previous years show lots of yellow and red.

Is this an unusual feature?

[Pmt111500]

I have never seen the speed & drift graph all blue at this of the year. Some random checks of previous years show lots of yellow and red.

Is this an unusual feature?

Me neither so must guess this is at least of rare occurrence.

[sedziobs]

I have never seen the speed & drift graph all blue at this of the year. Some random checks of previous years show lots of yellow and red.

Is this an unusual feature?

The furthest forecast for each model run always shows something similar.  My guess is that the model simply reverts to the mean values for the date, as if it is outside of the stochastic forecast range.  This can be checked by clicking the bottom link for each date in the archive.  They are almost all blue and do not resemble the link above.
http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/hycomARC/navo/arc_list_arcticicespddrf.html

[Pmt111500]

Oh, I didn't notice it was a long period forecast. I've mostly checked the current chart

[bbr2314]

The albedo drop along the Russian coast has been horrific. 9-day change shows catastrophe underway. Smoke plumes from Siberia and China continue to be entrained into the Arctic and now it would appear plain for all to see that the soot is being deposited across the ice.

Click to animate.

[DuraSpec]

Could we have a free-for-all debating sticky thread? The ability to argue seperate points is valuable for some people, as is of course the more data oriented nature of this one. The Arctic melting season provokes both kinds of response.

Dear enlightened and interesting people,

I come to this forum “Topic: The 2016 melting season” for a very specific reason… can you guess it?

I like to see and hear (read) what is really happening with “Topic: The 2016 melting season” and how physical melting events being noticed now might compare to past physical events in the arctic and beyond. I want to better understand the systems and things that are physically happening before our eyes.

Please, I wish to return to this forum for real physical and pictorial information - not moral editorials or fit-it or die type hype - just science please or I will remove this forum from my bookmarks and stop advising my friends where to find “just the real information.”

Out of respect for the vast majority of people, whom turn away from being preached at, please just physical science and opinions on the physical science using projections, references or reflections of past physical events.

Please help the lurkers like myself stay for years to come.

Thank you, Robert

[Watching_from_Canberra]

One of these years is not like the others ...

[Timothy Astin]

That's well observed, Rox!
Part of the flood waters had been retained in those large puddles. They seem to have drained. Some immersed ice in those puddles has returned visible on MODIS.

River stage data has resumed for the Mackenzie River at Arctic Red River. Estimated discharge should resume in a few days. http://wateroffice.ec.gc.ca/report/report_e.html?mode=Graph&type=realTime&stn=10LC014&dataType=Real-Time&startDate=2016-04-11&endDate=2016-05-18&prm1=46&y1Max=&y1Min=&prm2=47&y2Max=&y2Min=

The data peak at just shy of 13m, which is nearly a metre higher than last year. The river flood continues to be about 4 days ahead of last year, continuing the pattern of earlier snow melt seen over the last decade or more (see Jim Hunt's compilation graphs).  The flood is also more peaked than last year, rising faster because of the high temperatures in North West Territories which caused the rapid snow melt. We can expect the river stage to decline faster this year too.

Rox has noted the breakthrough of sediment-laden flood waters into the Beaufort sea. We should see the break-up of fast ice in front of the delta over the next week.

The Mackenzie river waters are meant to have a significant effect on extent of ice-melt in the Beaufort sea. While we don't know yet any change in overall volume (or temperature) of river water for this year, its contribution to Beaufort sea melt is clearly days earlier than in 2012.

Like those who've posted about the ESS, I'm now watching the Siberian side to look for the timing of snow-melt and river response there. I note that so far the snow line retreat is currently  about average in Siberia.

[Ice Shieldz]

Hmm wondering what net effect Mackenzie will have given that this year there is so much open water in the Beaufort?

[oren]

The albedo drop along the Russian coast has been horrific. 9-day change shows catastrophe underway. Smoke plumes from Siberia and China continue to be entrained into the Arctic and now it would appear plain for all to see that the soot is being deposited across the ice.

Click to animate.

Sorry for the what may possibly be a stupid question, but are you sure the first image is not clouds?

[Tealight]

Hmm wondering what net effect Mackenzie will have given that this year there is so much open water in the Beaufort?

I rate the effect of river discharge on melting as almost none for the arctic sea ice. Far more significant is ice breaking away from the shore due to winds.

When you look on Worldview around 23 June 2013, all major rivers discharged water into the arctic without the sea ice breaking away earlier.

The Ob river (first image) melted maybe 100km of its narrow channel, but there are still 500km left and the exit is already broken up due to winds.

The Lena river (second image) just melted its delta and 1-10km further. A bit further north is an open water area over 100km in radius.

The Mackenzie (third image) melted its delta and roughly 20-50km around it, although not 100% ice free. This year over one month ealier the sea ice already retreated 100km offshore with 100% ice free.

[DoomInTheUK]

Hmm wondering what net effect Mackenzie will have given that this year there is so much open water in the Beaufort?

I would suggest that it will only have the effect of keeping the water temps up. If any ice was left in the Beaufort, it might have had some influence. It seems that the longer the waters are held back, the more effect it has on melting the ice........as long as there is ice to be melted of course.