The 2016/2017 freezing season

[jdallen]

Here is my own very modest contribution to the topic A-Team is addressing - the effect of storms on the pack.

We've seen from his animations that there is a visible pull back of the ice away from the Atlantic front.

I was looking at both Bremen and Worldview at ice concentration over the last few days, and was noticing what appeared to be unusual reductions in concentration fairly deep in the pack.  Unfortunately without daylight, we've limited tools to actually "put eyeballs" on what's happening.

However, I've put together this quick and dirty animation from world view (very simple) using the GCOM W-1/AMSR2 layer for 12KM ice concentration.  It is admittedly a very blunt instrument, but  I think the animation is demonstrating at a qualitative level what effects the storm may be having on the interior of the pack - in particular, in some of the region where the remaining thickest MYI is located.

[JR-ice]

Hi, A-Team.

I definitely appreciate the work that you have done to select and list these articles.  In my case, I'm not anti-reading science articles, since I work in a science library!  I just have lots of life stuff going on.  So, I don't usually comment and just read what others are posting.  If I can I'll read a bit more background.

In any event, please don't be discouraged    There are plenty of laypeople out here who care about arctic ice, want to learn more, and benefit from your contributions and those of others on the forum.

-Jess

[plinius]

Speaking with conviction while being ignorant, is.

you mean like asserting that this is caused by open ocean water in the arctic when previous years' open ocean values were higher (2012) or very similar (2007, 2010, 2011, 2015) and yet we had no similar activity?   

Is it possible that you would want to consider fact checking yourself, before you attack others?

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009JD013568/full

http://www.polarresearch.net/index.php/polar/article/view/15787

Read this. In contrast to you I tend to look up my claims before I write.
And by the way - had you looked at arctic water temperatures instead of just mere ice coverage, you would also not have written your comment.

[mdoliner]

Blow the slushy out the Fram
Boil the water, steam the clam.
Drought, whirlwind, name your brew,
Species dying, so will you.

[Jim Hunt]

Right now, the Arctic Ocean is experiencing a very strong cyclonic event bring warm wet air up from mid-latitude. Nasa just put up a very nice animation of a similar event in late Dec 2015 which seems to have fallen below the forum radar screens back then,

Actually I made a (not quite so nice!) animation way back then:



From the linked article:

Personally I reckon the 25 m/s winds and resulting 10 meter waves had more effect on the sea ice metrics than the 25 °C above normal air temperatures, but your mileage may of course vary,

[jai mitchell]

Speaking with conviction while being ignorant, is.

you mean like asserting that this is caused by open ocean water in the arctic when previous years' open ocean values were higher (2012) or very similar (2007, 2010, 2011, 2015) and yet we had no similar activity?   

Is it possible that you would want to consider fact checking yourself, before you attack others?

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009JD013568/full

http://www.polarresearch.net/index.php/polar/article/view/15787

Read this. In contrast to you I tend to look up my claims before I write.
And by the way - had you looked at arctic water temperatures instead of just mere ice coverage, you would also not have written your comment.

Yes, correlation of colder eurasia and an intense negative 2009/2010 AO did occur. However, the difference in THIS year as composed to all of those is by several orders of magnitude.  Your assertions are completely unfounded.

for example:   https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/teleconnections/ao/

The negative intensity of the Arctic Oscillation in 2012/2013 was significantly LESS than the 2009/2010 with significantly greater open ocean and enthalpy accumulation.   Your unfounded criticism of others doesn't pan out and your assertions really are not consistent with the documents you cite nor the historical record.  Correlations to Atmospheric Water Vapor and SO2 emissions reductions are much more significant (though I am sure that you are correct, to a degree, open oceans do have a contribution, just not a dominant one).

[plinius]

stop embarrassing yourself. Ever heard about weather as an additional component? Apart from that, where have I stated that AO or the open ocean is the only factor on play here?
Perhaps you might consider looking up the SSTs this fall. Might help.
But ok, never expected anything else than vain aggression here. Though I'd recommend you are less repetitive next time. Tells too much about your emotional flaming instead of invoking real thought.

[Andre]

stop embarrassing yourself. Ever heard about weather as an additional component? Apart from that, where have I stated that AO or the open ocean is the only factor on play here?
Perhaps you might consider looking up the SSTs this fall. Might help.
But ok, never expected anything else than vain aggression here. Though I'd recommend you are less repetitive next time. Tells too much about your emotional flaming instead of invoking real thought.

I am sorry but it really doesn't seem necessary to include personal attacks and aggressive language in the majority of your replies.

We can all learn from each other's viewpoints and I am sure you could attempt to be more constructive and less aggressive in your replies going forward without having to adjust your own viewpoints and still getting your point accross.

Cheers!

[Siffy]

stop embarrassing yourself. Ever heard about weather as an additional component? Apart from that, where have I stated that AO or the open ocean is the only factor on play here?
Perhaps you might consider looking up the SSTs this fall. Might help.
But ok, never expected anything else than vain aggression here. Though I'd recommend you are less repetitive next time. Tells too much about your emotional flaming instead of invoking real thought.

With respect as a neutral party in this discussion the only person coming across as combative and aggressive here is you.

[Archimid]

Do you have anything to add to the thread other than "Stop talking about it because it is scary"?

Never said that, so stop lying please.

You are right, I was paraphrasing what you sound like to me but used quotes when I shouldn't have. My apologies. I still stand by the opinion that your objection to examine catastrophic scenarios does not stem from constructive scientific skepticism.

Apart from that, there is no black magic in predicting that the red line in the dmi graph will come down. I am happy to offer you a 10:1 bet that dmi will show <255K some time before next March. We have models to assess the situation, so you have to show why (scientific) models are wrong.

Do you have any models that predict the current levels of warming in the arctic? As far as I know this is unprecedented and unexpected by the consensus models. I think that the departure from previous variability of this event will change models to a degree that is yet to be determined.

Chances are that temperatures will hit <255k at some point between today and March, so I wouldn't take that bet even at 10:1.  However instantaneous temperature is not useful. I think that the right metric to measure this is Freezing Degree Days. The trend of the FDD for 2015-2016 freezing season was literally off the charts and the beginning of 2016 doesn't look any better.  If that trend continues, thickening will slowdown to a crawl and maybe even allow an early melt season, on weak thin ice.

 If we pretend that  this years extent was qualitatively the same as minimum extents of the 20th century, then it doesn't look so bad. But if you paid any attention at all to the last melting season, I just can't see why in the world would anyone not be worried.

[ritter]

stop embarrassing yourself. Ever heard about weather as an additional component? Apart from that, where have I stated that AO or the open ocean is the only factor on play here?
Perhaps you might consider looking up the SSTs this fall. Might help.
But ok, never expected anything else than vain aggression here. Though I'd recommend you are less repetitive next time. Tells too much about your emotional flaming instead of invoking real thought.

With respect as a neutral party in this discussion the only person coming across as combative and aggressive here is you.

+1

@all others: very much appreciate the knowledge and insight you all bring. As a non scientist and very much concerned with climate change, this is one of the best sources I've found for open and honest discussion on the primary climate canary--arctic sea ice.

[jai mitchell]

good perspective of the warm temps and water vapor intrusion to the arctic at 850mb a few days back  https://earth.nullschool.net/#2016/11/13/2100Z/wind/isobaric/850hPa/overlay=total_precipitable_water/orthographic=-120.84,90.75,816/loc=23.633,82.117

We've been watching this increasing rate of latent heat and water vapor starting in 2013.  This generally produces cloudier and stormier (and therfore colder) arctic melt seasons and warmer (this year much much MUCH warmer) arctic refreeze/arctic winter night seasons.

some documentation of it here: http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,784.0.html

[Tigertown]

stop embarrassing yourself. Ever heard about weather as an additional component? Apart from that, where have I stated that AO or the open ocean is the only factor on play here?
Perhaps you might consider looking up the SSTs this fall. Might help.
But ok, never expected anything else than vain aggression here. Though I'd recommend you are less repetitive next time. Tells too much about your emotional flaming instead of invoking real thought.

I am sorry but it really doesn't seem necessary to include personal attacks and aggressive language in the majority of your replies.

We can all learn from each other's viewpoints and I am sure you could attempt to be more constructive and less aggressive in your replies going forward without having to adjust your own viewpoints and still getting your point accross.

Cheers!

I asked a question(did not assert that I knew the answer) one time and plinius basically said there was no intelligence on this forum and I and my family would look like the people in the picture below. Neven let it be because he said he was frustrated at the time and it was the end of the discussion. I think now he is showing his true colors, though.

[Archimid]

The  first to attachments are the sea ice thickness of the kara sea region for 2015 and 2016, with part of the pole included. Please notice the  lack of ice on the Kara and the holes close to to the pole. The third image is a screenshot of nullschool for the same region using the sea surface temperature anomaly mask.

I think this is another vulnerability of the arctic.   The Kara freezing delay causes a thinner kara to melt earlier than ever, allowing Atlantic intrusion into the cab much earlier than usual.

[plinius]

Well, I would not recommend the tinfoil, because a spark from your microwave might ignite the giant methane bubbles ("dragonbreath") that you were previously dreaming about.
I by the way did never say there was no intelligence on this forum. It is telling that more of my statements got distorted than I could count in a single posting, just because what I have to say does not agree with you.

[Neven]

Apologies to everyone for not being able to be present here (I'm very busy working and building, and I have an Arctic burn-out - like the Arctic itself, it seems - which prevents me from keeping up-to-date).

I have put Plinius under moderation for the time being.

Hope to be back soon and contribute to this fantastic thread!

[oren]

I think this is another vulnerability of the arctic.   The Kara freezing delay causes a thinner kara to melt earlier than ever, allowing Atlantic intrusion into the cab much earlier than usual.

I agree BUT - please note the Kara extent chart for this year closely matches that of 2012, so it's not totally unprecedented. And considering that the 2013 melting season which came after did not live up to expectations, the thinner salty ice does not guarantee a spectacular summer, only raises probability.

[DrTskoul]

I think this is another vulnerability of the arctic.   The Kara freezing delay causes a thinner kara to melt earlier than ever, allowing Atlantic intrusion into the cab much earlier than usual.

I agree BUT - please note the Kara extent chart for this year closely matches that of 2012, so it's not totally unprecedented. And considering that the 2013 melting season which came after did not live up to expectations, the thinner salty ice does not guarantee a spectacular summer, only raises probability.

If you throw the dice enough times...

[Archimid]

It's very hard to tell because the color scale is different, but it seems like the sst's on 2012 were cooler than on 2016. Images from here: http://polar.ncep.noaa.gov/sst/ophi/

Also the jaxa thickness for 2012 attached.

[magnamentis]

snip

i think we're all very interested and follow your various and detailed posts with high attention, it's just that there is not much to add to your post but "YES" or "THANKS" which once more makes me say that a "like"/"thanks" button system would often be very useful. it's not very good to read if many people post back "thanks" and "great" etc. but be assured that your contributions, at least from my side and i'm sure from most people are seen and appreciated as outstanding.

[Tigertown]

I personally have no hard feelings toward plinius, but can't speak for Joaquin(actor in picture) or anyone else. Wish plinius all the best, but in remembering what he got angry at me about, I dug deeper. He didn't like that I asked about the 250 hpa jetsteams mixing at the equator. Some claimed that to be unprecedented, which I have since found others who say it is not. But I think something has changed, somewhere in the system.

There are two Polar jet streams and the two subtropical, with obviously one Polar and one subtropical per hemisphere. Hadley cells are connected to the circulation of the sub tropical jet streams and have been found to have expanded toward the poles of late. I don't understand if this is what's changed, but we all know warm air and moisture is getting to the Arctic more easily. jai mitchell has posted a couple good gif's of the Hadley cell circulation. I guess I'm just trying to connect all the dots. Will be researching more myself, but any help is welcome.

[Ice Shieldz]

Thought the following might be helpful considering comparisons to 2012.  It'll be interesting to see if 2016 Kara SIE continues to drop from 2012 in light of incoming weather, higher SSTs and SSHs.  Click to animate 2012-2016 SST and SSH gifs.

[Tigertown]

Wow! I just looked at the JAXA graph. Out of season; best phrase that comes to mind.

P.S. I was waiting on Espen to post, which he has now. So, here it is.

[seaicesailor]

Ok: how do you amplify heat from lower latitudes without albedo mechanism, no sun?
No way.
Humidity and clouds, right, may prevent this finite amount of heat from leaving to space for a while just as nights are warmer globally due to greenhouse effect, but note that the primary cause is heat from Arctic ocean just as the primary melting cause is sun insolation, with the difference that albedo amplification has no finite bounds in comparison, in practical terms.
I see we are seeing an extraordinary event. Every Niña there is a huge post el Niño rise of humidity at planetary scale (later to subside but never coming back to previous levels).  Weather may be contributing partially to avoid venting, and storms entering from the Atlantic carrying this post el Niño humidity (and quite some heat too). But the primary cause of current temp peak is heat that was stored in the Arctic ocean during summer due to sun radiation, ocean fluxes, perhaps imbalance carried over from previous seasons. Now being released by open ocean. Cannot be otherwise. Look at the maps!!! With the current notable exception of heat carried directly from Atlantic right now, for one month and a half, the red blob of temp anomalies you could see in ccr was nicely bounded by the Arctic coasts with a super red color over the Pacific side.
Once the event subsides, temps will go down, although the constant raising of CO2, vapor, global temperature, that keeps slowly up due to humans, with natural fluctuations.
I think Plinius has reason as feeling exasperated as I do too and surely others every time the forum is seized by day-after-tomorrow style narrative.
And yes, keep 2013 in mind.

[oren]

Acrhimid and Ice Shieldz thank you for the detailed Kara comparisons to 2012. Very interesting. I wanted to compare them but my computing resources (and time) are limited.

[jai mitchell]

NASA just recently posted a good expose on a warm winter storm in the arctic and its impacts on atmospheric temperatures and sea ice melt. 

This was a precursor event to what we are currently seeing today.

video presentation of the paper at the website.

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/extremely-warm-2015-16-winter-cyclone-weakened-arctic-sea-ice-pack

[wili]

sis wrote: "...the primary cause of current temp peak is heat that was stored in the Arctic ocean during summer due to sun radiation..."

But isn't the problem with this line of explanation that this summer did not, in fact, see record low ice loss, so there was no record low albedo so there should not be record high levels of heat stored in the ocean from the sun this year, and so that level of heat should not have lead to record low levels of ice cover at this point in the year?

Further, wasn't this summer famously cloudy, so solar contributions to heating the ocean should not have been at record levels for that reason either?

But perhaps I'm missing something?

I do think your point about humidity is very important, and if you have more links on that, I would be very interested. Thanks.

[Archimid]

The first attachment are the lower troposphere monthly temperatures since 2013 for the North Polar region.

The second attachment are of an area that I believe corresponds well with the tropopause. The graph shows monthly temperatures since 2013 for the North Polar region.

While the lower troposphere is warming, the tropopause is cooling a little.  That may mean that heat is "going out to space"  with less efficiency. More heat being introduced to the arctic region, with less efficient cooling out into space means higher temperatures for longer, unless there is somewhere colder for the heat to go. Colder places are the sea ice and Siberia. Most of that heat will go into not making ice.

[Archimid]

But isn't the problem with this line of explanation that this summer did not, in fact, see record low ice loss, so there was no record low albedo so there should not be record high levels of heat stored in the ocean from the sun this year, and so that level of heat should not have lead to record low levels of ice cover at this point in the year?

But there was a record accumulation of heat. See Tealights graph on the subject, from his site: https://sites.google.com/site/cryospherecomputing/warming-potential/graphs

This is exactly why extent is such a deceiving metric. While it was on second place, it opened sooner than ever maximizing exposure to the sun. Also you could navigate a small boat all the way to the north pole so the whole arctic was receiving insolations through cracks that disappear below the 15% concentration threshold of the extent measure.

[Jim Williams]

NASA just recently posted a good expose on a warm winter storm in the arctic and its impacts on atmospheric temperatures and sea ice melt. 

This was a precursor event to what we are currently seeing today.

video presentation of the paper at the website.

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/extremely-warm-2015-16-winter-cyclone-weakened-arctic-sea-ice-pack

Thanks Jai.  How many storms have we had so far this fall?   I suspect that after a very warm Winter we are going to once again have a fairly cool and cloudy Summer.  The Arctic Ocean is now really an ocean, and not a desert.

[Csnavywx]

I fully agree that the temperatures in the arctic basin are extraordinary, though this is not entirely surprising. Because the ice edge is so close to the pole, you just need a bit of wind from the open water. It's by the way one of the reasons, why I never really accepted people pointing to freezing-degree-days being in the safe region there. Once the ocean is open, it takes a while to freeze back over. However, if we look at the ice now, we will probably start with a minor deficit into the next season, but not even that is sure yet. In three months of freezing, you build still enough ice. This is just a little preview on what will happen in the future, but it's not justified to say that next year the ice will melt out.

Robert Scribbler is something different - there is not much difference between him and an Anthony Watts. One is a fake sceptic who profits from lying about there being no global warming issues, and the other tries to profit from fearmongering. Both unscientific, both dishonest and wrong about physics, and both extremely damaging to a constructive debate and seeking a solution.

The issue is that there's actually some modeling experiments to back up "the end of winter as we know it" in the Arctic, aside from you know... actual data. The CO2-as-primary-cause is kind of moot. It's the knock-on effects, specifically the loss of sea ice in the periphery which is causing a coupled tropospheric/stratospheric feedback mechanism.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/wol1/doi/10.1002/2016GL070526/abstract

From the supplementary info:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1002/2016GL070526/asset/supinfo/grl55007-sup-0001-Supplementary.pdf?v=1&s=4b6d8581cbb4bb525b218e2e2ee389c504fd3624

If any of that looks familiar, it should. It's basically playing out in real time. Positive atmospheric theta-e transport feedback looks to be a real thing. Obviously the Pacific is helping out more than it normally does this year, but I'm not sure that can be separated from the original feedback as a colder-than-normal Siberia shouldintensify the N. Pac jet.

[meddoc]

It's pretty depressing to watch alone numbers & graphs of extent, volume, temperatures (sea & air).

Does anyone have IR images of the structural integrity of the Sea Ice now?

Just to submerge myself even more into the blues...

[seaicesailor]

But isn't the problem with this line of explanation that this summer did not, in fact, see record low ice loss, so there was no record low albedo so there should not be record high levels of heat stored in the ocean from the sun this year, and so that level of heat should not have lead to record low levels of ice cover at this point in the year?

But there was a record accumulation of heat. See Tealights graph on the subject, from his site: https://sites.google.com/site/cryospherecomputing/warming-potential/graphs

This is exactly why extent is such a deceiving metric. While it was on second place, it opened sooner than ever maximizing exposure to the sun. Also you could navigate a small boat all the way to the north pole so the whole arctic was receiving insolations through cracks that disappear below the 15% concentration threshold of the extent measure.

Indeed, I find the result of Tealight very important.
And perhaps I should be counting with the heat accumulated north of the Arctic circle but out of the Arctic ocean proper as well.
Edit: Tealight numbers actually take into account all the relevant sea ice regions, and not only the Arctic Ocean

[A-Team]

Here is the effect of the 13 Nov 16 storm so far. It appears, since significant central ice pack compaction or ridging is plausible at this time of the year and since the Chukchi - Beaufort - ESS -Bering is backsliding slightly, that heat from the storm winds and waves has melted quite a bit of the Svalbard - FJI front, though the ice pack has been blown back too.

In this situations it's adequate operationally to just track the deep blue pixel edge on UHH AMSR2 which is single clicks with a non-contiguous color picker, boundary filler, and histogram counter  retrieval.

For the region shown in the wide format 1st animation (needs a click, your best option), there has been a 28% increase in area between the 12th and 17th, with winding down in sight if not return of ice-freezing conditions. However some of Atlantic facing marginal ice zone was not that thick or concentrated to begin with, so the volume of ice melted is not so large.

Scribbler is talking about the seasonal asymmetry of Arctic amplification. Fair enough, that was already noted back in 1980 (historical review at link below). Since the effect is cumulative, fall and winter today in polar latitudes are not what they used to be and as Csnavywx notes, projections all have it getting worse.

Curiously, both the cause and consequences to mid-latitudes are still under discussion 36 years later. The other day, strong support for the wobbly jet stream, stationary weather pattern of J Francis came out from an unexpected quarter. That hypothesis has been hamstrung statistically by a shortage of equable (stable) climate baseline and unnatural variation.

While Scribbler writes in a different style from Neven (accounting for why most of us are here), his following is possibly much larger and more influential (including Elon Musk and Ramsdorf). I find his site refreshing (especially after reading journal articles, where every half sentence is cautiously worded, referenced, and heavily qualified). His bottom line is no different than what you find here spread out here over 1467 forums and the central blog.

http://www.the-cryosphere.net/3/11/2009/tc-3-11-2009.pdf free full text!

Hat tip to stalwarts jdallen, jim h and many others for storm contributions! We really do need to up our game on these winter storms to have any hope of understanding the next melt season. Atmospheric column heat and moisture expert L Boisvert appreciated an alert and is looking right now at the 13 Nov 16 storm with advanced methods. I'll review her last two papers in a bit.

[jai mitchell]

Further, wasn't this summer famously cloudy, so solar contributions to heating the ocean should not have been at record levels for that reason either?

spot on wili

[Tigertown]

Models show more MYI going to the Fram. Doesn't much matter how long before it melts. Once it turns the corner, it's gone. I know it seems like some of us keep harping on this, but it's going to really hurt a few short months from now.

[jai mitchell]

Indeed, I find the result of Tealight very important.
And perhaps I should be counting with the heat accumulated north of the Arctic circle but out of the Arctic ocean proper as well.
Edit: Tealight numbers actually take into account all the relevant sea ice regions, and not only the Arctic Ocean

Has tealight included cloud fractions in his analysis yet? To what level of grid detail?  without it (and I have not seen that he has) then these numbers are useful but not actually what they say they are.

[jai mitchell]

NASA just recently posted a good expose on a warm winter storm in the arctic and its impacts on atmospheric temperatures and sea ice melt. 

This was a precursor event to what we are currently seeing today.

video presentation of the paper at the website.

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/extremely-warm-2015-16-winter-cyclone-weakened-arctic-sea-ice-pack

Thanks Jai.  How many storms have we had so far this fall?   I suspect that after a very warm Winter we are going to once again have a fairly cool and cloudy Summer.  The Arctic Ocean is now really an ocean, and not a desert.

This year is different, they are not (only) storms but a split of the polar cell with a lower Polar Jet that has more blocking impacts, meridional (South to North) propagation of mid-latitude (and tropical!) moisture and heat, and near constant inflows of latent heat into the arctic in total absence of actual arctic storms.

I'm just going to go ahead and keep posting this.  This storm is really only a small part of the larger breakdown of the polar cell that is evidenced by cut-off and regional low-pressure systems that do not necessarily move into the arctic (as this one did) but rather simply funnel mid-latitude water vapor and heat into the arctic.  https://earth.nullschool.net/#2016/11/13/2100Z/wind/isobaric/850hPa/overlay=total_precipitable_water/orthographic=-120.84,90.75,816/loc=23.633,82.117

[A-Team]

The experimental animation below looks at Arctic surface air temperatures (according to nullschool GFS, for what that's worth) out to 21 Nov 16. Two 'innovations': first, shut off the streamlines and auto-contour the first screen grab simply by converting to indexed mode (here 38 colors). Then bump the display 3 hours by using a plain K keystroke, capture and paste as new layer (which will be indexed to the same reduced palette, repeat until it runs out of forecast.

Second, nudge the location in the browser's url line by say a degree of latitude so the little green circle and its data box move along a meridian. Here it starts at the north pole and continues south and then west. This provides a transect of conditions and a guide to palette contour meanings. Surprisingly editing the url changes the data without triggering a screen reload.

The final url looks something like this: "...stereographic=-45.00,90.00,3000/loc=35.000,74.000" which gets it into the standard 'Greenland down' orientation used in Arctic GIS at maximal resolution (not quite minimal resolution of AMSR2 UHH). The display had to be dumbed down to fit forum dimensions.

The colors can be improved as nullschool is constrained by doing the whole globe with a fixed palette, not having implemented WorldView's ingenious palette squeeze by going back temporarily to RGB, bumping lightness and especially saturation. This can be done on all 38 layers with one click by tiling up to one wide image, knocking in whatever palette you want from an rgb text file, slicing back down and restoring indexed mode in the gif.

You can see that sea ice won't be re-forming any time soon along the Barents front, both air and water (not shown yet) are way too warm. A while back (but where?) jdallen posted and explained the necessary but somewhat counterintuitive conditions on cold in the air for sea water to freeze.

This would be a great project for Jim Hunt(?) or whomever else is able to host a web service cgi that could cut an animation from whatever parameters users provided. We make a lot of use of one-off nullschool shots on the various forums so this would be a nice add-on.

It all works because someone donated some very clever code to the mode change in gimp 'generate optimal palette with xxx maximal number of colors'. It would not necessarily be possible to do this in either photoshop, imageJ or imagemagick. File sizes are tiny because of low bit indexing, a fifth the size of our usual.

[S.Pansa]

And by the looks of it: the heat continues ...
2m temps Arctic Ocean, 7-day forecast & November thus fare (via Karstenhaustein.com).

In numbers: 6.6 K & 6.3 K above 1981-2010
In pictures:

[Tigertown]

From the IJIS thread.
 Cato says,"Hi everybody, always reading this thread: one of my first-things in the morning. I would just like to highlight one issue that IMHO is very important and very well explains what is happening up there: there's been for quite a long time, several months actually, an anomalous persistence of HP in the north Pacific sector, namely in the Aleutian islands area.

This has enabled advection of very warm and humid air into the Arctic from the Bering strait. In summer, this has been the main reason for cloudy and stormy conditions in the Arctic, and for ice compaction towards the CAA. This trend has continued, leading to unusually warm air being pumped in the Arctic from the Pacific, which is happening right now actually, with the umpteenth advection of warm air from Bering and slowdown in the ice extension growth rate (if any at all!). The other side of the medal is the extremely cold conditions in Siberia, which are affecting an immense area, from Russia down to Mongolia and Kazakhstan.

It seems (!) that this synoptic configuration is changing in the next few days, with collapse of the HP blocking in the Aleutian and establishment of a very cold HP on the Artcic. This will lead to a collapse in arctic temperature and an increase of the ice growth rate accordingly. Far from suggesting that what is happening up there is "normal". It is not, definifinitely.

My point is, rather than pointing the finger only at the unusually high temperatures on the arctic, it would quite help to have a look at the synoptic configurations. This helps a lot understanding why it is so warm, and whether this anomaly is going to persist. IMHO we will see soon a significant change in the conditions up there. Too late to recover what has been lost? Probably yes. But at least, it will add some more drama to a movie that is getting too repetitive, isn't it?"
_____________________________________________________________________________
I wanted to quote this here in this thread so as to give some of you guys that are up on weather forecasts a chance to add this. Could this turn things around for the Arctic for the rest of the winter? could it help even just for a short while or will the main scenario overwhelm this?

[Archimid]

Has tealight included cloud fractions in his analysis yet? To what level of grid detail? without it (and I have not seen that he has) then these numbers are useful but not actually what they say they are.

I'll use his own words on this thread: http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1749.0.html

The Albedo-Warming Potential is an attempt to quantify the additional warming from a lower ice cover at the poles. At the moment these calculations don't include cloud cover, therefore it is called "Warming Potential" and not actual warming. However, over six-month weather tends to average out and warm areas correlate well with low ice extend in September. The basis of all calculations is a self-developed global surface radiation model and NSIDC Sea Ice Concentration data.

The way I see it, it can not be quantified but it can be compared with other years. Relative to all recent years 2016 was above the rest by a significant margin.

[jai mitchell]

Has tealight included cloud fractions in his analysis yet? To what level of grid detail? without it (and I have not seen that he has) then these numbers are useful but not actually what they say they are.

I'll use his own words on this thread: http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1749.0.html

The Albedo-Warming Potential is an attempt to quantify the additional warming from a lower ice cover at the poles. At the moment these calculations don't include cloud cover, therefore it is called "Warming Potential" and not actual warming. However, over six-month weather tends to average out and warm areas correlate well with low ice extend in September. The basis of all calculations is a self-developed global surface radiation model and NSIDC Sea Ice Concentration data.

The way I see it, it can not be quantified but it can be compared with other years. Relative to all recent years 2016 was above the rest by a significant margin.

however, the observed increase in cloud cover between years is significant, and yes we are seeing a very different set of conditions this year (starting in January as a response to the El Nino) and 6-months of average do not 'balance' things out.

and, yes, it can be quantified.  this has been performed in previous years by NASA and others that incorporated cloud cover fractions.  Those methodologies should be utilized.

[AbruptSLR]

however, the observed increase in cloud cover between years is significant, and yes we are seeing a very different set of conditions this year (starting in January as a response to the El Nino) and 6-months of average do not 'balance' things out.

and, yes, it can be quantified.  this has been performed in previous years by NASA and others that incorporated cloud cover fractions.  Those methodologies should be utilized.

The linked reference confirms that there is (& will continue to be) a positive feedback loop between retreating Arctic sea ice and Arctic cloud cover that contributes to Arctic Amplification:

Abe, M., Nozawa, T., Ogura, T., and Takata, K.: Effect of retreating sea ice on Arctic cloud cover in simulated recent global warming, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 16, 14343-14356, doi:10.5194/acp-16-14343-2016, 2016.


http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/16/14343/2016/
&
http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/16/14343/2016/acp-16-14343-2016.pdf

Extract: "These results suggest that an increase in Arctic cloud cover as a result of reduced sea ice coverage may bring further sea ice retreat and enhance the feedback processes of Arctic warming."

[Tigertown]

however, the observed increase in cloud cover between years is significant, and yes we are seeing a very different set of conditions this year (starting in January as a response to the El Nino) and 6-months of average do not 'balance' things out.

and, yes, it can be quantified.  this has been performed in previous years by NASA and others that incorporated cloud cover fractions.  Those methodologies should be utilized.

The linked reference confirms that there is (& will continue to be) a positive feedback loop between retreating Arctic sea ice and Arctic cloud cover that contributes to Arctic Amplification:

Abe, M., Nozawa, T., Ogura, T., and Takata, K.: Effect of retreating sea ice on Arctic cloud cover in simulated recent global warming, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 16, 14343-14356, doi:10.5194/acp-16-14343-2016, 2016.


http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/16/14343/2016/
&
http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/16/14343/2016/acp-16-14343-2016.pdf

Extract: "These results suggest that an increase in Arctic cloud cover as a result of reduced sea ice coverage may bring further sea ice retreat and enhance the feedback processes of Arctic warming."

Add to that, Scripps Institute of Oceanography has done recent studies and shown that the clouds themselves are changing in ways that let more sunlight in but less to escape. Obviously, this during the seasons the sun light is there.

[Tealight]

however, the observed increase in cloud cover between years is significant, and yes we are seeing a very different set of conditions this year (starting in January as a response to the El Nino) and 6-months of average do not 'balance' things out.

and, yes, it can be quantified.  this has been performed in previous years by NASA and others that incorporated cloud cover fractions.  Those methodologies should be utilized.

If I would get paid for the work I could spent more time and resources to include cloud cover. The problem with clouds is that you need to know the exact type and thickness. As previously mentioned thin high clouds can have a higher warming effect than clear sky.

I think its save to say that 2016 was an average surface melt season and a strong ocean warming/bottom melt season. The very high water temperatures over most of the summer and on all sides of the arctic are a good indicator for it. The reason 2016 didn't set a record low is because not all of the absorbed energy ended up melting sea ice. As soon as the ice edge advanced to the warm water the growth stalled and led to record low sea ice area/extent in October. The weather than helped too to further limit any ice growth.

[seaicesailor]

however, the observed increase in cloud cover between years is significant, and yes we are seeing a very different set of conditions this year (starting in January as a response to the El Nino) and 6-months of average do not 'balance' things out.

and, yes, it can be quantified.  this has been performed in previous years by NASA and others that incorporated cloud cover fractions.  Those methodologies should be utilized.

If I would get paid for the work I could spent more time and resources to include cloud cover. The problem with clouds is that you need to know the exact type and thickness. As previously mentioned thin high clouds can have a higher warming effect than clear sky.

I think its save to say that 2016 was an average surface melt season and a strong ocean warming/bottom melt season. The very high water temperatures over most of the summer and on all sides of the arctic are a good indicator for it. The reason 2016 didn't set a record low is because not all of the absorbed energy ended up melting sea ice. As soon as the ice edge advanced to the warm water the growth stalled and led to record low sea ice area/extent in October. The weather than helped too to further limit any ice growth.

Sounds like you know what you are talking about. And now from somebody less knowledged as myself, to the question "how come so much ocean warming with relatively cold and cloudy summer, weak surface melting?" Well, we could see zones of very early open waters (Beaufort, Bering, ESS, Kara, Barentz, Baffin, Hudson, CAA) where, peripherally, weather was not as cloudy as in Central CAB, North Beaufort, Chukchi and Laptev. We could also witness vigorous currents and eddies redistributing heat along hundred of miles into the Chukchi and CAB, zones that only started to open up in early August; and the strength of the Atlantic currents. We also witnessed early land snow cover loss all around the Arctic with direct impact on peripheral seas; it was a season with a lot of heat transfer from the warmed up continents into the Arctic despite the lows, contrary to 2013 and 2014. And the continuous storminess breaking up the pack and culminating with the quasi GACs in August did redrstribute heat throughout the mixing layer and possibly pumped up heat from deeper ocean. This was a very vigorous melting season with continuous attack of overheated NH, record warmth in NH. Note that despite the divergence of the pack due to storms, the periphery had enough heat to cope with the imported ice.
I start to dig the powerful effect of water vapor and clouds during Arctic night and the advection of heat from lower latitude storms, but my perception all along the melting season is that an incredible amount of heat was stored regardless the fact the CAB was relatively well protected until August and surface melting seemed not very important. Did you guys see how that solid MYI evaporated in Beaufort? That is why I see heat release as the major source of current Arctic temperature anomalies, but hey I may be wrong or only partially right, or only right during October A different beast seems to be beating now but let us see if it persists.

[Archimid]

I think warming potential is a good name for the calculation. As I understand it warming potential doesn't say anything about how much warming there was due to albedo, only that there was the potential for warming. Does that mean that there was more warming due to the sun than usual? No, you can't say that because cloud cover has a non trivial effect and is not included in the calculation . I get it. But it is still a better metric to get the potential warming than extent.

OP was assuming there was no unprecedented warming because extent was only 2nd lowest. That's a reasonable assumption only if the sun is constant during the whole season, but it is not. May June July have the highest potential for insulation and during that time extent was record low. Thus, his assumption wasn't right and the potential warming graph was perfect to illustrate that point.

To finish I don't think the actual record albedo changes account for all the warming, but they certainly helped set up the situation we are in.  Also, as the extent shrinks  sooner and faster, the albedo warming potential will keep increasing.

[Tealight]

"how come so much ocean warming with relatively cold and cloudy summer, weak surface melting?" Well, we could see zones of very early open waters (Beaufort, Bering, ESS, Kara, Barentz, Baffin, Hudson, CAA) where, peripherally, weather was not as cloudy....

OP was assuming there was no unprecedented warming because extent was only 2nd lowest. That's a reasonable assumption only if the sun is constant during the whole season, but it is not. May June July have the highest potential for insulation and during that time extent was record low. Thus, his assumption wasn't right and the potential warming graph was perfect to illustrate that point.

Exactly spot on. The open water was caused by low sea ice extent from the beginning and thin ice breaking away from the coast leaving hundrets of thousand sq km of open ocean behind. Beaufort was particular extreme this season.

I think warming potential is a good name for the calculation.

Neven contributed his naming knowledge to create this fitting name 

Sea Ice extent tied with 2007 because it was completly unaffected by all the low concentration areas near the north pole. For sea ice area 2016 came really close to 2012. (2.40 vs 2.24) When I look at the graph than 2016 was in the same league as 2012. All other years have a much higher daily minimum.

[Andre]

Good overview of recent events from Bob Henson @ Wunderground:

Crazy Cryosphere: Record Low Sea Ice, An Overheated Arctic, and a Snowbound Eurasia
https://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/crazy-cryosphere-record-low-sea-ice-an-overheated-arctic-and-a-snow

Abstract:
"There are weather and climate records, and then there are truly exceptional events that leave all others in the dust. Such has been the case across Earth’s high latitudes during this last quarter of 2016, on track to be the planet’s warmest year on record. Sea ice extent and area have both plummeted to record lows for this time of year in both the Arctic and Antarctic. Such dramatic losses rarely occur at the same time, which means that the global total of sea ice coverage is phenomenally low for this time of year. The weirdness extends to midlatitudes: North America as well as the Arctic have been bathed in unusual mildness over the last several weeks, while Eurasia deals with a vast zone of above-average snowfall and below-average temperatures. Let’s look at each of these to see what’s up and where they may (or may not) be related."



Looking at Climate Reanalyzer and the 7.26 C anomaly there at the moment, this is a very timely article indeed.