Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,502
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    Weathernoob335
    Newest Member
    Weathernoob335
    Joined

Arctic Sea Ice Extent, Area, and Volume


ORH_wxman
 Share

Recommended Posts

17 minutes ago, bluewave said:

It looks like the air mass  originated over Siberia and then got drawn across the North Pole in early July.

 

 

the new kind of cross polar flow ;-)  considering that Maine and Montreal almost made it to triple digits, how hot would it have been had that air made it down here, Chris?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/15/2020 at 11:14 PM, donsutherland1 said:

Arctic sea ice extent fell to 6.996 million square kilometers (JAXA) today. The previous earliest figure below 7 million square kilometers was July 19, 2011 when extent was 6.995 million square kilometers.

 

 

On 7/15/2020 at 11:14 PM, donsutherland1 said:

Arctic sea ice extent fell to 6.996 million square kilometers (JAXA) today. The previous earliest figure below 7 million square kilometers was July 19, 2011 when extent was 6.995 million square kilometers.

 

 

 

 

 

From the Arctic sea ice forum.   

 

Quote


[ADS NIPR VISHOP (JAXA)] Arctic Sea Ice Extent.

July 18th, 2020:
     6,551,222 km2, a century drop of -124,140 km2.
     2020 is the lowest on record.
     Highlighted 2020 & the 4 years with a daily lowest min in Sept. (2012, 2019, 2016 & 2007).
     In the graph are today's 10 lowest years.
     Source: https://ads.nipr.ac.jp/vishop/#/extent

 

[ADS NIPR VISHOP (JAXA)] Arctic Sea Ice Extent.

July 18th, 2020:
     6,551,222 km2, a century drop of -124,140 km2.
     2020 is the lowest on record.
     Highlighted 2020 & the 4 years with a daily lowest min in Sept. (2012, 2019, 2016 & 2007).
     In the graph are today's 10 lowest years.
     Source: https://ads.nipr.ac.jp/vishop/#/extent

 

Just amazing. The RIDGING since mid May has been unbelievable even though if the long range forecast show it slowing down.  The extensive preconditioning had already set the table for what will happen the rest of the season.

I am giving 2020 a 51% chance to drop below 2012. 

I believe volume this year will be the lowest min on record by alot

I expect open water at the pole by late August.

If we actually get a 2 week dipole.  Game over!!!

2020 might be TRULY UNPRECEDENTED THIS SUMMER. 

 

how close can we get to Blue Ocean event??

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Amazing how it's only mid-July and there's virtually nothing left in the Laptev and only scraps in the ESS. The open water front is now in the CAB in record time and with some quality insolation time left on the clock. EPS/GEFS suggest this nuclear blocking pattern is finally backing off, but there are hints that it may be a temporary reprieve if the idea of a more NA centered blocking event past D5/D6 is correct. If that sets up into another event, this year will likely kill off 2012's record. Threre isn't enough peripheral ice left to keep the CAB from taking the brunt, except on the Beaufort side (which is actually doing better than any time since 2013). Having said that, we should see some slowdown in extent losses after D2/D3 for a while. The pack is already pretty compressed, so some dispersion is probably inevitable with the incoming lows.

I'm thinking there's a legit chance of clear open water at the pole this year. We've had a couple of years where it came close, but nothing with the start on the Eurasian side like this year has had.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/11/2020 at 7:20 AM, nycwinter said:

we will long be dead before we have to worry about anything related to ice melt..

Maybe you, not me. Sea level rise already costs a lot of money in terms of worse erosion and amplifying storm surge. The foot that sea levels have risen so far could have been the difference between the levies breaking in Katrina and not breaking. I’m not saying it was, but you get the idea. Storm surge costs billions every year and if sea level rise has added 20% that is a lot of money. 
 

typical bad surge is 10 feet but most of the costs are associated with the last few feet. So by having 10 feet above historical sea level instead of 9 feet above, you may increase damage by 20 or 30%. If it’s just enough to break a levy, it could be 10000%

 

these costs are rising every year as sea level keeps rising and accelerating 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, skierinvermont said:

I pay taxes the feds spend billions on disaster relief.

Spot on! 

The Federal blank check for 'disaster relief' allows people to just ignore basic science and risk, building on unstable barrier islands as well as shore areas which should be kept free from development. Any sea level increase compounds the risk.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, skierinvermont said:

I pay taxes the feds spend billions on disaster relief.

Absolutely. Such costs will likely continue to rise, as sea-level rise flooding from melting ice in Greenland and Antarctica is continuing to increase.

The NOAA’s most recent report:

https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/publications/Techrpt_092_2019_State_of_US_High_Tide_Flooding_with_a_2020_Outlook_30June2020.pdf

  • Like 2
  • Weenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:

Absolutely. Such costs will likely continue to rise, as sea-level rise flooding from melting ice in Greenland and Antarctica is continuing to increase.

The NOAA’s most recent report:

https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/publications/Techrpt_092_2019_State_of_US_High_Tide_Flooding_with_a_2020_Outlook_30June2020.pdf

By 2050 my postage stamp will be part of a wetlands area. Considering the Greenland and Antarctica conditions, the finger in the dyke mentality may have already gone on too long. Thank you, Don, as always .....

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, skierinvermont said:

Maybe you, not me. Sea level rise already costs a lot of money in terms of worse erosion and amplifying storm surge. The foot that sea levels have risen so far could have been the difference between the levies breaking in Katrina and not breaking. I’m not saying it was, but you get the idea. Storm surge costs billions every year and if sea level rise has added 20% that is a lot of money. 
 

typical bad surge is 10 feet but most of the costs are associated with the last few feet. So by having 10 feet above historical sea level instead of 9 feet above, you may increase damage by 20 or 30%. If it’s just enough to break a levy, it could be 10000%

 

these costs are rising every year as sea level keeps rising and accelerating 

That is what happens when 10s of millions of people live and continue to build within 50' of an ocean/body of water.  Yes it is rising, but we continue to build  and people continue to buy along the coast, so it seems no one cares about our rising taxes.  The costs are going up because of us humans continuing to live and build on the water just for it to be destroyed in a storm.  Mother nature over the course of our history has won way more than we have.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm...maybe this is my misunderstanding but I was under the impression that sea ice would tend to cling to the northern coast of Greenland for decades to come and possibly through the remainder of this century even during the summer. But after seeing the substantial reductions in this area in 2020 I'm now obviously questioning that assumption. I was also an advocate of more moderate estimates of the first "ice-free" summer tending to favor 2050 or so. Again...I'm starting to question my position in this regard as well. 

 

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The ice is the most compact going back to 2007 for this date...just ahead of 2013. We're narrowly ahead of 2012 for least area on record on this date, but 2020 currently has over 800,000 sq km less ice extent than 2012. In comparison, 2012 and 2007 were the least compact at this point though both would become very compact later in the season near the minimum.

This tells me that we're likely going to see a huge slowdown in extent loss coming up pretty soon.

2012 has a huge area loss event coming up in the first 10 days of August, so I think 2020 is going to have to build a bigger lead on 2012 over the next week to have a good chance to finish below 2012 in area. Extent is a different story, that may be easier to achieve, though still not easy IMHO despite the current 800k lead. 2012's extent loss in August is unmatched in the record....so it's going to be all about "holding on" to a lead in 2012 as it will begin making up ground very quickly...and as mentioned above, the compactness of 2020 right now is going to make it harder to sustain big extent losses going forward unless we see a big area loss event.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, etudiant said:

Spot on! 

The Federal blank check for 'disaster relief' allows people to just ignore basic science and risk, building on unstable barrier islands as well as shore areas which should be kept free from development. Any sea level increase compounds the risk.

why are we still allowing for development along the shore?  I know that Miami, New Orleans, Charleston, and NYC all have plans to replenish the sand and even build sea walls to keep the ocean at bay, but at some point it wont be enough.  NYC has a trillion dollar plan to extend the coast outwards.

  • Weenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/24/2020 at 5:06 PM, LibertyBell said:

why are we still allowing for development along the shore?  I know that Miami, New Orleans, Charleston, and NYC all have plans to replenish the sand and even build sea walls to keep the ocean at bay, but at some point it wont be enough.  NYC has a trillion dollar plan to extend the coast outwards.

nyc is billions in debt now...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, nycwinter said:

nyc is billions in debt now...

And by being in debt, they join most municipalities and state governments, all sovereign governments I'm aware of including the US, and every single corporate entity on the Fortune 500. So that statement means nothing unless you have something else to contribute besides drive-by one-liners.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reduction in extent losses was inevitable with how compact the ice had become (I made a post 5 days ago on this). However, we have had some good area losses recently, so there will be room for extent losses to pick back up if we can get another favorable pattern....for now, the reverse dipole looks to intensify over the next week, and then we'll see what happens after that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, BillT said:

IF global warming is causing a loss of the ice and going to be catastrophic, why are show many here openly HOPING it is happening?

Good question brother but is way beyond the scope of arctic sea ice discussion. To bring some closure we were already on a bad path with or without global warming.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, rclab said:

I imagine the implications may become personal for many when the task of pumping and sandbagging become every day tasks. As always ....

I'll know that the Federal Government accepts the reality of global warming when they refuse flood insurance for anyone not at least 10 feet above sea level.

Looking at the beach front mega mansions on Long Island, that day has not yet come.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/31/2020 at 4:08 PM, etudiant said:

I'll know that the Federal Government accepts the reality of global warming when they refuse flood insurance for anyone not at least 10 feet above sea level.

Looking at the beach front mega mansions on Long Island, that day has not yet come.

A day of reckoning eventually comes for all of us. As always .......

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/24/2020 at 2:26 PM, ORH_wxman said:

The ice is the most compact going back to 2007 for this date...just ahead of 2013. We're narrowly ahead of 2012 for least area on record on this date, but 2020 currently has over 800,000 sq km less ice extent than 2012. In comparison, 2012 and 2007 were the least compact at this point though both would become very compact later in the season near the minimum.

This tells me that we're likely going to see a huge slowdown in extent loss coming up pretty soon.

2012 has a huge area loss event coming up in the first 10 days of August, so I think 2020 is going to have to build a bigger lead on 2012 over the next week to have a good chance to finish below 2012 in area. Extent is a different story, that may be easier to achieve, though still not easy IMHO despite the current 800k lead. 2012's extent loss in August is unmatched in the record....so it's going to be all about "holding on" to a lead in 2012 as it will begin making up ground very quickly...and as mentioned above, the compactness of 2020 right now is going to make it harder to sustain big extent losses going forward unless we see a big area loss event.

 

We’ve now fallen behind 2012 on both area and extent for losses. It didn’t take long to close the 800k extent gap.

There is a good amount of weakened ice in the Beaufort/Chukchi sector, but I don’t see us finishing below 2012 on either metric. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...