• Member Statistics

    15,757
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    Chicago12
    Newest Member
    Chicago12
    Joined
ORH_wxman

Arctic Sea Ice Extent, Area, and Volume

Recommended Posts

19 hours ago, Sophisticated Skeptic said:

 

lol @ anybody that doesn't think things are rigged these days.

their goal is to keep you stupid.  And give BS responses that sound smart but are just to keep people stupid.

the same way people in medical school are trained....that practically no diseases are curable these days, without BS prescriptions that make people more sick.

sports as well...many games are rigged.

our economy runs on stupid.  did I forget to mention the stock market?  

you get the drift.

wake up..

 

 

44 minutes ago, skierinvermont said:

Don't know how Will is so patient with comments like above. But take a look at the company you keep... scientists have a conspiracy to pretend the ice is gone (easily disproven by satellite picture, airplane and boat traffic) .... and prescription drugs make people more sick... there you have it people... the paranoid American far-right

 

We live in a deeply troubled society. Anyone debating that aspect of our life should get the cold shoulder. However I am concerned when such valid points are presented behind a facade of malicious intent or for lack of a better term - trolling. I'm not sure if such methods are effectual in changing the status quo. If nothing else - counter-productive.

Until proven otherwise. Best to stay true to the purpose of this forum. Give us the proof. I have layed our why the Arctic is behaving in this manner - seemingly to shield itself from the onslaught of the heat flux over Siberia and North America. Sadly it just cements our demise even more as people become more complacent and the climate system has a instantaneous state change resulting in multi-meter decadal sea level rise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Vice-Regent said:

 

We live in a deeply troubled society. Anyone debating that aspect of our life should get the cold shoulder. However I am concerned when such valid points are presented behind a facade of malicious intent or for lack of a better term - trolling. I'm not sure if such methods are effectual in changing the status quo. If nothing else - counter-productive.

Until proven otherwise. Best to stay true to the purpose of this forum. Give us the proof. I have layed our why the Arctic is behaving in this manner - seemingly to shield itself from the onslaught of the heat flux over Siberia and North America. Sadly it just cements our demise even more as people become more complacent and the climate system has a instantaneous state change resulting in multi-meter decadal sea level rise.

Seems that this is a new thought  ' the climate system has a instantaneous state change resulting in multi-meter decadal sea level rise.'

There is some evidence in the ice cores that swings can be very abrupt, but afaik, nothing like that is indicated by any of the climate models. So this is postulating a massive model failure, which may well be the case. The counter argument is of course that the current warming has been a cyclical event, somewhat as in the 1920s and that cooling is likely to continue into the 2030s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Vice-Regent said:

 

We live in a deeply troubled society. Anyone debating that aspect of our life should get the cold shoulder. However I am concerned when such valid points are presented behind a facade of malicious intent or for lack of a better term - trolling. I'm not sure if such methods are effectual in changing the status quo. If nothing else - counter-productive.

Until proven otherwise. Best to stay true to the purpose of this forum. Give us the proof. I have layed our why the Arctic is behaving in this manner - seemingly to shield itself from the onslaught of the heat flux over Siberia and North America. Sadly it just cements our demise even more as people become more complacent and the climate system has a instantaneous state change resulting in multi-meter decadal sea level rise.

I don't understand most of what you are trying to say here but the odds of multi-meter sea level rise in a decade is near-zero.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your discussion got me to thinking about sea level change ... which got me to thinking about all I've experienced (from the normal to the freak) on the Mid-Atlantic Coast over the past 66 years.

The Delmarva coast was mostly empty in the '50s when I was a kid. Coastal Highway was a two-lane paved road while most side roads, usually only one block long, were dirt/sand. In Fenwick Island at the bottom of Delaware the post office was a small cubicle at the back of the general store. To reach civilization in either direction, Ocean City Maryland to the south or Bethany Beach to the north, one had to first traverse miles of wilderness. The beach was always the same, clean white sand with moderately high dunes that could easily protect the structures behind them.

And then came the nor'easter of all nor'easters, the "Great Atlantic Coastal Storm of 1962."

That storm leveled the sand dunes and took out most of the structures behind them. The oceanfront motel on my street was reduced to a set of pilings with only a few orange colored pieces of debris in the area that I could recognize as belonging to it. There hasn't been anything near that ferocity since.

A monumental effort of man and machinery restored the dunes enough to at least resemble what they once were, and over the years the dirt/sand roads got paved, new houses were built, and new businesses arrived. The coast grew but the beach itself was still pretty much the same except ... it was shrinking a bit. Enough so that once every few years in early summer there appeared ships and barges out over the the deeper water and large pipes running back to the beach. That was the end of our white sandy beaches, diluted by a gazillion tons of offshore dredging. 

So now the beaches were being "stabilized" even if being turned as much into ugly brown dirt as white sand. But is this ocean encroachment anything unusual? One might think so unless one were to stand on the beach in winter to experience a blowout tide. Get the barometer rising fast with a strong northwest wind and you'll see the ocean literally retreat in front of your eyes. The now barren seafloor reveals much. With the water and sand swept out the ocean bottom unmasks itself to be gray colored peat. It's firm but you can grab chunks of it. Farther out you see tree stumps. Yes, tree stumps.

A monster blowout tide on the Mid-Atlantic coast reveals the past. The remnants of a bygone cypress forest are sitting out there where the waves break but we don't see it because it's normally buried in sand. The beach then was obviously farther out. I don't know how many centuries old those stumps are but clearly the beach we know is only a moment in time.

So, the ocean level is going to change one way or another given enough time. Will man-made global warming alter this? Perhaps so, but I wouldn't wager I've seen it yet, and rather doubt I ever will (given my age.) This could be a different story for those born today but I've a feeling they will have more than enough problems to deal with otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Silver Meteor said:

Your discussion got me to thinking about sea level change ... which got me to thinking about all I've experienced (from the normal to the freak) on the Mid-Atlantic Coast over the past 66 years.

The Delmarva coast was mostly empty in the '50s when I was a kid. Coastal Highway was a two-lane paved road while most side roads, usually only one block long, were dirt/sand. In Fenwick Island at the bottom of Delaware the post office was a small cubicle at the back of the general store. To reach civilization in either direction, Ocean City Maryland to the south or Bethany Beach to the north, one had to first traverse miles of wilderness. The beach was always the same, clean white sand with moderately high dunes that could easily protect the structures behind them.

And then came the nor'easter of all nor'easters, the "Great Atlantic Coastal Storm of 1962."

That storm leveled the sand dunes and took out most of the structures behind them. The oceanfront motel on my street was reduced to a set of pilings with only a few orange colored pieces of debris in the area that I could recognize as belonging to it. There hasn't been anything near that ferocity since.

A monumental effort of man and machinery restored the dunes enough to at least resemble what they once were, and over the years the dirt/sand roads got paved, new houses were built, and new businesses arrived. The coast grew but the beach itself was still pretty much the same except ... it was shrinking a bit. Enough so that once every few years in early summer there appeared ships and barges out over the the deeper water and large pipes running back to the beach. That was the end of our white sandy beaches, diluted by a gazillion tons of offshore dredging. 

So now the beaches were being "stabilized" even if being turned as much into ugly brown dirt as white sand. But is this ocean encroachment anything unusual? One might think so unless one were to stand on the beach in winter to experience a blowout tide. Get the barometer rising fast with a strong northwest wind and you'll see the ocean literally retreat in front of your eyes. The now barren seafloor reveals much. With the water and sand swept out the ocean bottom unmasks itself to be gray colored peat. It's firm but you can grab chunks of it. Farther out you see tree stumps. Yes, tree stumps.

A monster blowout tide on the Mid-Atlantic coast reveals the past. The remnants of a bygone cypress forest are sitting out there where the waves break but we don't see it because it's normally buried in sand. The beach then was obviously farther out. I don't know how many centuries old those stumps are but clearly the beach we know is only a moment in time.

So, the ocean level is going to change one way or another given enough time. Will man-made global warming alter this? Perhaps so, but I wouldn't wager I've seen it yet, and rather doubt I ever will (given my age.) This could be a different story for those born today but I've a feeling they will have more than enough problems to deal with otherwise.

Elaborate insight into the hazards of coastal life. What I was referring to was the enormous obstacle in reducing damage from sea level rise. Also as you point out increased coastal development masks the signal a bit and beach replenishment covers up the damage at least temporarily. Look no further than Tangier Island in the Chesapeake which should completely vanish from nautical charts by 2035 thereabouts.

Essentially. You need to redesign civilization from the ground up to prevent catastrophic global warming without the usage of abrasive solar geoengineering. I think throwing global warming into the conspiracy theory basket is a great disservice to posterity and science.

I'm sure all of the long-term posters would agree with this line of thought. There is no conspiracy in alarm-ism. Remember Global Warming is the canary in the coal mine hinting at the unsustainable nature of civilization (which had required millennia to advance to fossil fuel based agriculture). Take for example the amount of raw materials and rare earth minerals needed to sustain both the renewables and tech industries. We aren't doing enough and the window is closing on us rapidly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea that civilization can be redesigned because people care about the environment or the Earth's temperature seems kind of ridiculous to me. Liberals are supposedly the people who care about the environment, but they live in densely populated, highly urbanized areas, not just in the US but globally. I live in the West, with people who are small farmers and ranchers, where we have clean water, clean air, and can see thousands of stars every night and we kind of laugh at the idea that somehow the right is the problem. There is literally nothing stopping the Democrats from changing civilization to adapt to global warming in areas that are urban and by the ocean - that is how you know it won't happen. Los Angeles alone probably produces more smog and warming than 30+ US states if traffic is as bad as I remember.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, raindancewx said:

The idea that civilization can be redesigned because people care about the environment or the Earth's temperature seems kind of ridiculous to me. Liberals are supposedly the people who care about the environment, but they live in densely populated, highly urbanized areas, not just in the US but globally. I live in the West, with people who are small farmers and ranchers, where we have clean water, clean air, and can see thousands of stars every night and we kind of laugh at the idea that somehow the right is the problem. There is literally nothing stopping the Democrats from changing civilization to adapt to global warming in areas that are urban and by the ocean - that is how you know it won't happen. Los Angeles alone probably produces more smog and warming than 30+ US states if traffic is as bad as I remember.

They can make an argument that condensed populations use fossil fuels more efficiently.... I can see how it's possible, but I'm not sure if that is really panning out.

Less people the better -- everywhere.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My point was more that even in areas where people supposedly care about environmentalism and global warming, they really don't. If you believe the oceans will rise 50m in the next 100 years why would you live by the ocean? I've been to Cape May County, used to go every Summer - would bet good money no parcel of land is more than 100 feet above level, and it is surrounded by water on three sides, but I'm sure some of the people who live there haven't put two and two together about the possible sea level rise.

To go back on topic, the AMO has been warming up recently after the cold May/June, will be interesting to see what it looks look by mid-September. If it stays relatively cold, I don't think the min or shape in Sept of sea-ice extent looks anything like last year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are moving right back to a reverse dipole pattern in early July. This has been our typical 2013 to 2018 summer pattern. As long as this continues, we may be able to finish September with an NSIDC average extent not too far from 5 million sq km.

 

ecmwf-ens_z500aMean_nhem_6.thumb.png.47b31a239a563024125fd574be1e1045.png

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, raindancewx said:

The idea that civilization can be redesigned because people care about the environment or the Earth's temperature seems kind of ridiculous to me. Liberals are supposedly the people who care about the environment, but they live in densely populated, highly urbanized areas, not just in the US but globally. I live in the West, with people who are small farmers and ranchers, where we have clean water, clean air, and can see thousands of stars every night and we kind of laugh at the idea that somehow the right is the problem. There is literally nothing stopping the Democrats from changing civilization to adapt to global warming in areas that are urban and by the ocean - that is how you know it won't happen. Los Angeles alone probably produces more smog and warming than 30+ US states if traffic is as bad as I remember.

 

8 hours ago, raindancewx said:

My point was more that even in areas where people supposedly care about environmentalism and global warming, they really don't. If you believe the oceans will rise 50m in the next 100 years why would you live by the ocean? I've been to Cape May County, used to go every Summer - would bet good money no parcel of land is more than 100 feet above level, and it is surrounded by water on three sides, but I'm sure some of the people who live there haven't put two and two together about the possible sea level rise.

To go back on topic, the AMO has been warming up recently after the cold May/June, will be interesting to see what it looks look by mid-September. If it stays relatively cold, I don't think the min or shape in Sept of sea-ice extent looks anything like last year.

All fair points. The packing in of Global Warming into the political divisor was massively unethical and the momentum is relegated to a election winning (in this case losing) cliche. Democrats are the worst offenders to date. It's one thing to ignore the science and another to disparage it. I have never self-identified as democrat or republican. By and large Cape May County is red. (Republican).

Cities are the number 1 reason for population overshoot and environmental degradation. It's clear to me now that environmentalism has been co-opted by neoliberalism and the obsession with consumer choices. Since this issue is so deeply embedded in politics (where it has no business being) it is necessary to elaborate on how we got here.

This is a fiscal problem - a engineering problem. Democracy is not equipped to deal with such problems of scope.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sea ice area is the highest value at the end of June since 2013. I'll have my prediction later for final extent and area once I crunch the numbers more...along with the histogram of possible area outcomes based on historical losses for each year since 1979. 

But as a prelim post, the chances of an area record low are basically zero and top 3 lowest is close to that. We just didn't get enough early melt ponding.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, ORH_wxman said:

Sea ice area is the highest value at the end of June since 2013. I'll have my prediction later for final extent and area once I crunch the numbers more...along with the histogram of possible area outcomes based on historical losses for each year since 1979. 

But as a prelim post, the chances of an area record low are basically zero and top 3 lowest is close to that. We just didn't get enough early melt ponding.  

EOSDIS Worldview supports this. The pack looks visually much closer to 2009/2013. There's more ponding than those two years, but less than every other year back to '07. With the upcoming TPV pattern setting in again, this year has a good shot of ending up around 5M, despite the low starting volume.

 

The HADGEM1 paper linked earlier is pretty interesting. They state that they think the SPG weakening is a freak occurrence in the model, but the higher skill-score models tend towards SPG convection collapse a lot more than the CMIP5 median. The result is a stronger version of what we're seeing now, which is a very strong cold SST anomaly south of Greenland. This year has been especially impressive, with -2 to -4C anomalies over the entire SPG region and surrounding areas. Interestingly, the CESM4 shows this stall in temperature in the summer through the late 2020s as well, followed by a relatively rapid increase thereafter.

 

In addition to some of the mechanisms listed in the paper(s) above., I think some of this is also related to increases in snow depth in the surrounding land areas, especially on the Siberian side. These past few much warmer winters have resulted in unusual amounts of snowfall, which have helped retard early season melt-out and peripheral ponding.

 

This is all fairly temporary of course. As long as external forcing continues to increase at the current rate (3-4ppm CO2e/yr), it will eventually overwhelm these other factors and cause the pack to collapse regardless. Still on target for the 2030s, imo, even with a stall through the 2020s.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

 

The HADGEM1 paper linked earlier is pretty interesting. They state that they think the SPG weakening is a freak occurrence in the model, but the higher skill-score models tend towards SPG convection collapse a lot more than the CMIP5 median. The result is a stronger version of what we're seeing now, which is a very strong cold SST anomaly south of Greenland. This year has been especially impressive, with -2 to -4C anomalies over the entire SPG region and surrounding areas. Interestingly, the CESM4 shows this stall in temperature in the summer through the late 2020s as well, followed by a relatively rapid increase thereafter.

 

In addition to some of the mechanisms listed in the paper(s) above., I think some of this is also related to increases in snow depth in the surrounding land areas, especially on the Siberian side. These past few much warmer winters have resulted in unusual amounts of snowfall, which have helped retard early season melt-out and peripheral ponding.

 

This is all fairly temporary of course. As long as external forcing continues to increase at the current rate (3-4ppm CO2e/yr), it will eventually overwhelm these other factors and cause the pack to collapse regardless. Still on target for the 2030s, imo, even with a stall through the 2020s.

While this has resulted in a slowing of the rate of sea ice decline relative to the 2005-2012 period, it's still at a level well below the typical late 1990's and early 2000's ice. The extreme Arctic amplification and circulation changes began when the September average extents began to regularly fall below 6 million sq km. In 50 to 100 years, that may turn out to be the more significant number than when the Arctic first went technically ice free. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/30/2018 at 8:46 PM, raindancewx said:

The idea that civilization can be redesigned because people care about the environment or the Earth's temperature seems kind of ridiculous to me. Liberals are supposedly the people who care about the environment, but they live in densely populated, highly urbanized areas, not just in the US but globally. I live in the West, with people who are small farmers and ranchers, where we have clean water, clean air, and can see thousands of stars every night and we kind of laugh at the idea that somehow the right is the problem. There is literally nothing stopping the Democrats from changing civilization to adapt to global warming in areas that are urban and by the ocean - that is how you know it won't happen. Los Angeles alone probably produces more smog and warming than 30+ US states if traffic is as bad as I remember.

People in cities produce less carbon dioxide per person than in the country. There's just infinitely more people in cities. As someone who has lived in both rural and urban places, I didn't just stop using resources when I moved to a city because there were so many other people around me that our collective actions are actually visible (smog) whereas in some rural areas smog is not a problem. You still have a collective action problem in rural places and cities. People still need to get to to work etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My prediction for final sea ice area minimum is 3.30 million sq km +/- 200k.

Below is a histogram of results taking each year's melt from here on out and subtracting that amount from 2018's area on June 30th....as you can see, the highest melt from June 30th onward was in 2016 (which produces the lowest potential result). If we matched that, we would see an area minimum of 2.91 million sq km. That would be 5th lowest on record. Every other result gives us an area over 3.0 million sq km. I had previously taken the 1979-2010 average because area loss from June 30th onward had seen no trend...but recent years like 2016 and even 2017 (which had large area loss after June 30th) have put the trend line slightly negative...so I've started using the post-2007 area loss average to augment the prediction....hence the 3.30 million sq km prediction. The average of all years would produce a minimum of 3.59 million sq km...instead of just the post-2007 average of 3.30 million sq km.

July2018_SIA.png.4f968af79f7445ef6500c9e9dd1257b6.png

 

 

 

As for extent? Extent is much harder to predict....compaction can play a large role as we saw in 2015 when the area min was 3.1 million sq km but the extent min was down near 4.25 million sq km. The NSIDC September average is probably easier to predict. For the daily min extent on NSIDC, I'll predict a 4.75 million +/- 300k and for a monthly average, I'll predict 4.9 million +/- 300k.

 

Knock about 200k off the daily number for the jaxa daily minimum extent since jaxa changed their algorithm back in 2014.

 

 

 

Share this post


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

EOSDIS Worldview supports this. The pack looks visually much closer to 2009/2013. There's more ponding than those two years, but less than every other year back to '07. With the upcoming TPV pattern setting in again, this year has a good shot of ending up around 5M, despite the low starting volume.

This is all fairly temporary of course. As long as external forcing continues to increase at the current rate (3-4ppm CO2e/yr), it will eventually overwhelm these other factors and cause the pack to collapse regardless. Still on target for the 2030s, imo, even with a stall through the 2020s.

It would have been more productive if this kind of more nuanced appraisal had been articulated, rather than the 'doom is at hand' catastrophic AGW stories that have dominated the discussion.

As is, climate scientists are consequently somewhat in the position of the boy who cried wolf, their alarm falls on deaf ears among the general public.

I

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, StormchaserChuck! said:

This is kind of ridiculous. At least models are picking up on stuff. 

f168.gif

That's a bad look for anyone hoping we get a monstrous 2nd half melt pattern.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

That's a bad look for anyone hoping we get a monstrous 2nd half melt pattern.

That's rain on ice at the surface. We shall see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 500 mb height reversal near the Beaufort in June has been as extreme as it gets. 2007 to 2012 featured the highest sustained heights on record for a 6 year period. 2013 to 2018 has seen a dramatic decline in heights with 2013 registering a lowest single year record. 

 

IMG_0171.PNG.4c878cae2a9dcf14b47f964e8b4b0c38.PNG

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PIOMAS just came out and 2018 volume is currently 6th lowest....ahead of 2010, 2011, 2012, 2016, and 2017....slightly below 2013. These are obviously a bit different rankings than the extent/area numbers since it is also taking thickness into account...esp the multi-year ice and there is less of the thicker MYI these days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What a reversal from 2012. All the coldest departures in the NH were focused near Greenland and Labrador in June. Right around the extreme cold pool south of Greenland with the slowing AMOC.

after months of a persistent atmospheric circulation pattern, Greenland is having its least surface ice loss in decades while NW Europe has extreme sun and heat... persistent extremes are an expected signature of #climatechange@PolarPortal #ukheatwave twitter.com/severeweatherE…pic.twitter.com/lsXraH5nuK
 
DhLtLiyXcAA4i8Y.jpg-small.jpg.363c266e891d30354f1541f7145f6b72.jpg
 
 
But Churchill Falls (Labrador) saw its coldest June by a 2C margin; the monthly temperature was 6C below normal. Persistent major circulation anomalies are to blame. pic.twitter.com/Iz5QPeXuBr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The AMOC is slow enough to stop further catastrophic melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet but fast enough to cause extreme heat events in Europe (and the US?). That can't be a good thing. As well we know Antarctica holds 5x the fresh water content of Greenland.

Maybe it's just a natural variability and revision to the mean but I would say it's not a good sign. We still have tremendous heat transport in the Atlantic. This can't hold for much longer without causing massive damage to something/somebody. If you thought Sandy and Harvey was bad just wait a few years.

color_newdisp_anomaly_100W_35W_15N_65N_o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Things have trended pretty strongly away from +AO today. Warmer at the surface trend looks to continue, perhaps significantly. I think there will be a lot of +500mb heights in the Arctic circle for July. Also, Pacific-squeezed north Hadley Cell sustainable rarely works in verification.. more blocking over the Pole. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, StormchaserChuck! said:

Things have trended pretty strongly away from +AO today. Warmer at the surface trend looks to continue, perhaps significantly. I think there will be a lot of +500mb heights in the Arctic circle for July. Also, Pacific-squeezed north Hadley Cell sustainable rarely works in verification.. more blocking over the Pole. 

Chuck, the lower NAO in some of the forecasts is a result of more east based blocking closer to Europe. Pattern back closer to the CAB and Beaurfort is actually one of the strongest July reverse dipole patterns we have seen. Notice the best ridging is focused over Siberia. The models actually have near record low 500 mb heights near the Beaufort for this time of year. 

 

IMG_0172.thumb.PNG.1d2e6cb2be14c88f6d389c7f10116ee5.PNG

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah this is about as massive as a vortex as you'll see in the arctic during the summer. The only variable factor working strongly against the ice over the next 2 weeks is the furnace the ESS sees over the next 2 days before the vortex takes over.

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.