• Member Statistics

    15,612
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    Harold
    Newest Member
    Harold
    Joined
ORH_wxman

Arctic Sea Ice Extent, Area, and Volume

Recommended Posts

Stall speed again on extent. No net increase over the last 9 days. Will probably remain at/near the level it is now for another week with the upcoming warmth and storms as the Atlantic side is chewed up again for the umpteenth time this winter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As was mentioned by csnavywx, anomalous warmth looks to return to the Kara Sea (and much of the Arctic), alongside a low approaching ~960 hPa. Not only is this a favorable pattern for Fram export of whatever multiyear ice remains, but temperatures will run close to 30 degrees Celsius above normal once again for portions of the Arctic.

source.gif

 

source.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Newman said:

Could Someone explain why Greenland ice is at a record level with regards to surface mass balance? If there is any sign for this to decrease and get back to normal levels, what is it? 

More open Arctic ocean -> increased evaporation -> increased water vapor -> increased precipitation.

But GIS Surface Mass Balance is only half of the situation.  It does not include dynamic GIS processes such as glacial calving, basal melting, or meltwater runoff.  Look at the Total Mass Change data for the complete situation.  

Grace_curve_La_EN_20160300.png As you can see, the GIS has lost around 3,600 km3 (3,600 Gtons) of ice since 2003.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very cold conditions over the Bering and Okhotsk have allowed extent to catch up and pass 2006, offsetting losses on the Atlantic side. The Pacific side should warm up over the next two days and put a halt to any further advances there, but we should finally see a relaxation of the very warm conditions near the pole for a bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In other news -- Antarctic sea ice extent is down to 2.51M on NSIDC, lowest on record for the date and 7th place against the all-time minimum of 2.26M set on 2/27/97.

Area at 1.87M vs mins of 1.24M in 1993 and 1.50 in 1984.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Feb 1st update:

uc?id=0B5JYfcI0wFH6aXVIYTlrMVdtekk&expor

 

uc?id=0B5JYfcI0wFH6bnVUWmFuRVhxWUE&expor

 

Conditions continue to deteriorate vs other years. The longer range forecasts for the first 2 weeks of Feb. look terrible for almost the entire basin. Some improvement is forecast for the Bering Sea and Beaufort areas next week, meaning extent numbers are likely to climb back towards the pack:

cfs-avg_T2maMean_nhem_1.png

 

cfs-avg_T2maMean_nhem_2.png

 

Volume gains will continue to be slow. We're on track for a -1700 to -1900 FDD freezing season (using 80N+ temps as baseline), far below any previous winter. With 2 weeks of hostile re-freeze conditions forecast, only about a month remains for significant volume gains heading into the melt season.

 

Despite the one decent cold spell over on the Pacific side, the ice there is still quite thin:

 

 

Time is running low for the peripheral seas. Without a recovery soon, these areas aren't likely to survive very long during the melting season without a 2009/2013 style summer. A below average (2016-like) June isn't going to cut it. With the sun returning in a few short weeks, any remaining open water likely will not freeze and will start absorbing insolation earlier than at any time seen in recent history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wipneus has updated PIOMASS sea ice volume for January. As expected, ice volume growth continued to lag in January increasing the shortfall vs. 2012 and 2013. In January, 2017 had roughly the same volume growth as last year, maintaining a  roughly 2.3 1000 km^3 gap. If 2017 continues to have volume growth rates similar to 2016, then the volume peak this year should be somewhere around 20,000 km^3 in April.

piomas-trnd4.png_thumb.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do enjoy this thread because it is empirical.

However, yawn.  To the extent that the extent of arctic sea ice moves in one direction or the other, the tie to Global Warming / Climate Change is tenuous at best non-existent.  Has anyone checked out the latest survey of underwater sources releasing geolocked carbon?  The AO?  PDO?

Much more interested in the relative humidity in the stratosphere and the direct relationship to increases in C02.  Just sayin....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Jack Frost said:

I do enjoy this thread because it is empirical.

However, yawn.  To the extent that the extent of arctic sea ice moves in one direction or the other, the tie to Global Warming / Climate Change is tenuous at best non-existent.  Has anyone checked out the latest survey of underwater sources releasing geolocked carbon?  The AO?  PDO?

Much more interested in the relative humidity in the stratosphere and the direct relationship to increases in C02.  Just sayin....

Out of curiosity, what evidence would you have to see to convince you that it is mainly climate change? What standard would it have to meet?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, chubbs said:

Wipneus has updated PIOMASS sea ice volume for January. As expected, ice volume growth continued to lag in January increasing the shortfall vs. 2012 and 2013. In January, 2017 had roughly the same volume growth as last year, maintaining a  roughly 2.3 1000 km^3 gap. If 2017 continues to have volume growth rates similar to 2016, then the volume peak this year should be somewhere around 20,000 km^3 in April.

piomas-trnd4.png_thumb.png

20K km^3 with a record small loss would still result in a minimum just below last year. A well below average loss of 17k (2013-style) would put it below 2012 volume. That's ballpark, though, and I'd like to get a comparison of basin-only volume losses (minus the peripheral areas like the Ohktosk, Bering, Hudson and St. Lawrence as they melt every year and starting below average in those areas doesn't mean much). Regardless, it's easy to see how a new record becomes much more likely with such low maximum volume.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

index.php?action=dlattach;topic=119.0;at

 

Answering the question I pose above (in a way), this year is already considerably worse than any other in the basin with the slight exception of 2013, which also had a weak Pacific, though not quite as bad as this year. It's a bit deceiving though, as 2013 turned colder after the first few weeks and went very cold in February, something this year isn't likely to do -- so this likely opens up a wide gap even with that year. The volume differences outside the basin appear fairly minimal at this point (when comparing the actual thickness graphs) when compared to that year, so there's every reason to believe a 2009/2013 style summer won't be able to put up the numbers we saw in those years. If we continue with the ridiculous warmth for another 6 weeks, the ship will have likely sailed.

It's a bit ironic, since fast FYI growth in a near MYI-less landscape was the last big buffer left to prevent a quick transition to a near-sea ice free state and this winter seems poised to largely erase that buffer. The Arctic is great at making fools out of prognosticators, so I'm not quite ready to throw my hat all-in on a new record, but I feel it's pretty safe to say that the chances have increased significantly at this point. A tie in volume with 2007 last year after a below-average summer increases confidence a bit too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, csnavywx said:

Out of curiosity, what evidence would you have to see to convince you that it is mainly climate anthropogenic climate change? What standard would it have to meet?

For starters, refute or cite to a paper or papers that refutes the following:  http://edberry.com/blog/ed-berry/why-our-co2-emissions-do-not-increase-atmosphere-co2/

Please provide the cv(s) of the author(s) so that we can all assess credibility.

Thanks. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Jack Frost said:

For starters, refute or cite to a paper or papers that refutes the following:  http://edberry.com/blog/ed-berry/why-our-co2-emissions-do-not-increase-atmosphere-co2/

Please provide the cv(s) of the author(s) so that we can all assess credibility.

Thanks. 

I'm more than willing to engage at length on this, but this phrasing leaves room for backsliding or goalpost-moving later. It also implies you have other objections besides the issue you raise. I want an intellectually honest conversation where there is no chance to drag the conversation through the weeds or possibility of engagement in an obstacle-course style argument where an endless stream of objections is thrown up after the first is countered. Basically, I'm trying to provoke you to think honestly about your position and set a standard that can be falsified*. Please provide the a full accounting of what it would take to convince you that it is human-caused climate change. The reason is that I want to know ahead of time if it's even possible to change your mind on the issue. If your personal standard is, for instance, too high (e.g. Earth must become Venus-like), then obviously no amount of data or argument will meet it and I've wasted my time.

*Holding a scientifically-sound position means it includes the possibility of being falsified if a defined set of conditions are met. If it can't, it's speculative, hypothetical and/or faith-based and I'm not here to engage in that line of conversation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bacon Strips said:

worst max extent in history....yet Republicans will still find some crazy data excuse somewhere, to say ice is increasing.  

lets see what the coo-coo birds humor us with next. 

Too early to make any calls about max extent:

 

 

extent_n_running_mean_amsr2_previous.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, extent is fairly insensitive to basin-wide temp at this time of the year and is much more subject to temp swings on the edges (over the Bering, Ohktosk, Kara, Barents, etc). Much too early to make any calls there.

Volume and very high basin temps are the big story of the refreeze season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IJIS extent in Antarctica is down to 2.25M, now at lowest on record with a 1-2 weeks to go on the melting season. NSIDC not far behind.

Arctic extent up just 47k over the last 5 days. That may change after we get some cooler weather in a few days. Might even get a week of normal temps/climo weather in that region before that Pac jet extension and upcoming secondary SSW conspire to buckle the Pacific pattern again and likely build another AK/Pac side ridge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On February 5, 2017 at 11:53 PM, csnavywx said:

I'm more than willing to engage at length on this, but this phrasing leaves room for backsliding or goalpost-moving later. It also implies you have other objections besides the issue you raise. I want an intellectually honest conversation where there is no chance to drag the conversation through the weeds or possibility of engagement in an obstacle-course style argument where an endless stream of objections is thrown up after the first is countered. Basically, I'm trying to provoke you to think honestly about your position and set a standard that can be falsified*. Please provide the a full accounting of what it would take to convince you that it is human-caused climate change. The reason is that I want to know ahead of time if it's even possible to change your mind on the issue. If your personal standard is, for instance, too high (e.g. Earth must become Venus-like), then obviously no amount of data or argument will meet it and I've wasted my time.

*Holding a scientifically-sound position means it includes the possibility of being falsified if a defined set of conditions are met. If it can't, it's speculative, hypothetical and/or faith-based and I'm not here to engage in that line of conversation.

 

I agree generally with your post.

Please engage with Dr. Berry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.