Happy New Year 2024 (and sorry for the forum being offline some hours) /DM
Is it possible that the big discrepancy between the eastern Arctic, especially Greenland, and the western Arctic, that means the Pacific side, plays a role in the low temperature average? The Pacific side definitely is not cold at all, while the Atlantic side rather destroys ice by export and storms and not so much by heat (but both sides seem to work hand in hand in a way ... ).
Quote from: Thawing Thunder on June 30, 2017, 11:37:26 PMIs it possible that the big discrepancy between the eastern Arctic, especially Greenland, and the western Arctic, that means the Pacific side, plays a role in the low temperature average? The Pacific side definitely is not cold at all, while the Atlantic side rather destroys ice by export and storms and not so much by heat (but both sides seem to work hand in hand in a way ... ).It's the wind that blows from the Pacific across the Pole, by then has become cold North wind, over Svalbard and Greenland, all thru the Arctic losing energy to melt ice and heat cold ice, plus the remnants of the past storm. 2007 is the paramount example of this kind of circulation sustained for months since spring and all thru July. Have a look to 2007 DMI temps... Mostly negative anomalies for months. The year of so bad pacific side meltout.DMI 80 N is not clearly correlated with melting, period.Said so LMV is all right in pointing really anomalous cold dip. We will see.
BIG pattern changes again folks! Both the GFS and the ECMWF op runs depict a return to a cyclonic pattern again. And an intensive 977 hpa cyclone by D7... Well, the GFS ensemble hints the return to occur by D9 whic is far out in time. Let's wait for the ECMWF ensemble!If this pattern change really unfolds, I'm pretty sure we'll dodge the bullet again this year. But the question is for how many more years we'll be able to dodge that bullet? It's unrealistic to believe that we'll have "good" ice years for another 10 years.
Quote from: Thawing Thunder on June 30, 2017, 11:37:26 PMIs it possible that the big discrepancy between the eastern Arctic, especially Greenland, and the western Arctic, that means the Pacific side, plays a role in the low temperature average? The Pacific side definitely is not cold at all, while the Atlantic side rather destroys ice by export and storms and not so much by heat (but both sides seem to work hand in hand in a way ... ).generally i would agree that there is an effect but then the regions of the atlantic side that are below average are barely in if then in small parts above 80N as far as i could see while i usually slide through reanalyzer for the bigger picture and at times it might be a bit off that impression.just open this link and you'll see that there is nowhere enough blue above 80N that would account for such a huge anomaly on the lower side iMOhttp://cci-reanalyzer.org/wx/fcst/#GFS-025deg.ARC-LEA.T2_anom
...I like watching the swirls
Those swirls are exciting! I hope we can watch the relatively large 'raindrop' floe (tear drop?), that appears in both gifs, for a long time.
Yes, it would be better to have a temperature average over the whole Arctic Basin than just over greater than 80 degrees N.
NCEP Reanalysis (R2) is better than NCEP-NCAR (R1) but still a first generation reanalysis. It is best to use 3rd generation reanalyses, specifically, ERA-Interim and MERRA
Regardless of long term forecast, one thing that seems to be a steady feature in the Arctic lately, is the 850 mb warm air invasion.
How does 2017 look like so far?
Also fascinating to see that the Northern Route is "more or less navigable" as of early July.
I did some gif using windy.com for the next 5 days, which uses ECMWF for temperatures rather than the unreliable GFS. Sorry for the quality of the images, the converter I use is crappy. The scale of temperatures wouldn't fit, has to be consulted in windy.com directly. The advection of warm air affecting the surface is continuous through Bering Strait and ESS, also Beaufort and CAA. Note how warm the main NWP stays these days.Temperatures do not go up much within the Arctic proper. I'd say that is expected over ice. These tongues of warmer air sufficiently far from the coast typically go up to 2 to 3 degrees, not more. That does not mean that heat is not being transferred. It is, from turbulent mixing of warmer airmass from higher altitudes, and from radiation in general. Actually 3 degrees over the CAB, as closed pack as it is now, strikes me as pretty warm."Night" temperatures stay barely over zero across all the Pacific side, negative in other locations.
: magnamentis Today at 10:05:39 AMYes, the cold greenland temperatures and the higher numbers at the pacific side should outweigh each other close to normal.
Apologies, can I ask how you managed to find this resource? I've been looking for ECMWF additional parameters for ages. Best I could come up with was the glitchy wundermap which worked about 20% of the time.
Quote from: Quantum on July 01, 2017, 05:23:45 PMApologies, can I ask how you managed to find this resource? I've been looking for ECMWF additional parameters for ages. Best I could come up with was the glitchy wundermap which worked about 20% of the time.The page ishttps://www.windy.com/It was brought here the other day with a lot of nice examples: http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1834.msg118051.html#msg118051
Yuha: since when does June have 31 days?
Meteorological resources really have a serious issue with metadata. ECMWF additional parameters are like golddust, yet a simple google search would yield absolutely nothing. Do you know any other cool websites? I suppose the UKV is a little too much to ask for?
ECMWF 12z op run is quite similar to the GFS 12z op run both show similar characteristics at D10 which should be an oddity(!) Both models develops a HP-system covering most of the Arctic. The EURO is even having a varaint of the "Garlic Press" at D7-D10. At D5-7, an intensive July cyclone at about 987 hpa is forecasted to develop somewhere over the CAB. What are the deepest July cyclone btw?As usual, this is far out in time but it surely should be an ominous and bad sign for the Arctic if the Atlantic is going to face some serious melt ponding too.
Just saying, 2017 has been leading volume-wise in the inner basin, the CAB and adjoining areas, where differences in thickness manifest themselves as 2d area differences mainly in August. So it's a bit early to judge.The main question mark of this stage will be resolved very soon with the end-June PIOMAS data. If the lead is preserved, the race is still on. Should the volume lead crumble to dust in the inner basin, 2017's chances for top finish will crumble as well.
Quote from: Tor Bejnar on July 01, 2017, 01:28:28 PM Those swirls are exciting! I hope we can watch the relatively large 'raindrop' floe (tear drop?), that appears in both gifs, for a long time.That's probably FYI, so the chances are dim ...
The main question mark of this stage will be resolved very soon with the end-June PIOMAS data. If the lead is preserved, the race is still on. Should the volume lead crumble to dust in the inner basin, 2017's chances for top finish will crumble as well.
Quote from: oren on July 02, 2017, 04:19:49 PMThe main question mark of this stage will be resolved very soon with the end-June PIOMAS data. If the lead is preserved, the race is still on. Should the volume lead crumble to dust in the inner basin, 2017's chances for top finish will crumble as well.I look forward to the next 'Inner Basin' volume graph !It's hard to see much here below yet, but considering this shows that the volume for the N. Hemisphere sea-ice is now crowding in on the lowest years for this time of year, and the Arctic Ocean was at lowest volume a couple of weeks back (re. your graph), most of the volume loss being seen for the hemisphere would have to be outside the Arctic Ocean for the 'Inner Basin" graph to slow descent and even out with previous years.I guess, Hudson Bay, Baffin Bay, Greenland Sea, melting out could cause the hemisphere volume to drop more than previous years, but theoretically the 'Inner Basin' could still not change much.I think it will still be lowest volume for Inner Basin, and if it is, all bets are off.I look forward to seeing the results !
just consider that the inner basin currently contains all the remaining thicker ice that was located on the pacific side last year, hence even though the number itself will be interesting, it might as well be a bit misleading when it comes to validation of the thickness. the inner basin and the atlantic side are the only regions that got replenished with slightly thicker ice from the caa and the pacific side
Yes, I think you are right.Here I deleted all ice about 1m thick. So shows ice over 1m thick. Just eyeballing 2016 to 2017 at top, to the same day in 2012. Even if this is just very approximate, 2012 looks much worse.I may have to revise my guestimates for Sept. minimums.Still looking forward to the next 'Inner Basin' volume chart though.Looks really bad in the Arctic Ocean 2012.
<Snipped 80% of the quote. Don't quote several quotes in a row, just quote the part you're reacting to, thanks; N>