• Member Statistics

    16,026
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    Bobby Orr
    Newest Member
    Bobby Orr
    Joined
ORH_wxman

Arctic Sea Ice Extent, Area, and Volume

Recommended Posts

On 10/16/2019 at 9:17 AM, bluewave said:

The very slow Arctic sea ice extent gains continue. The NSIDC 5 day extent just fell below 2012 for a new mid-October record low of 5.118 million sq km. The previous record lowest extent value for October 15th was 5.240 million sq km.
 

2EAD81A8-AD28-47BF-B25A-B3BC6BF41452.thumb.png.e79c1f65f815d9c03730a852f66422a8.png

 

Here's the report card for 2018

https://arctic.noaa.gov/Report-Card/Report-Card-2018/ArtMID/7878/ArticleID/790/Clarity-and-Clouds-Progress-in-Understanding-Arctic-Influences-on-Mid-latitude-Weather

When will the one for 2019 be issued?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Typhoon Tip said:

This graph inspires some speculative ideas ...

Like, seeing the present curve cross the 2012, per date, means we are setting a time-relative record... so that much is more empirical. I still think it interesting... how it's a under-the-radar achievement.  Don and I discussed this a month or so ago, how that behavior in its self is probably just as important as the actual bottom of the curve. 

But the other more speculative wonder is whether the onsetting solar minimum, together with black-body feed-backs, could have something to do with that nadir falling shy of  2012. The present heavily advertised 'super minimum' was not yet that far along in 2012, so this year's total insolation might be some critical fraction less than 2012 ... less implying less melt now.  

Again... speculation .. but, melt temperature for sea-ice is a discrete temperature ... It's not like oh, it's 3 warmer but it doesn't feel like a melt day..  heh. At the point of seasonal loss, that temperature is being influenced very delicately by outside influence, wither it is quantum sufficient in energy to flip phases - and not all those influence may be Terrestrial in origin.

There are other factors that are more important, though ( probably ).  Like days with cloud cover/increased albedo not allowing as much solar energy reaching the darkening sea/ice interface... Or just the vagaries of the wind and weather patterns happened to chance 2012 with more delivery long-wave radiation air masses to/at high latitudes... or  this, or that ... and on and so on.  

I guess at the end the day, it really comes down to the fact that although that gap looks pretty coherent there in that graph, we're really talking about almost imperceptible variations from the orbital polar stereographic view. 

The Arctic Ocean must have absorbed an impressive  amount of heat over the summer. Current 5 day NSIDC extent as of 10-16 is 5.170 million sq km. Extent was 5.422 on 10-16-12.  So the unusually slow extent gain pattern continues.

5B2303CC-8CFE-4EFF-8AD7-45EB885468BB.thumb.png.a11992982c7b6db8d1446edbfaeea76d.png

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Per NSIDC the daily extent on 10/17 was 5.374e6. On this date in 2012 and 2016 was 6.082e6 and 5.954e6 respectively and the climatological average is 8.470e6. Obviously 2019 is yet another year among recent years with lackluster sea ice extents in the NH. And the SH isn't picking up the slack like it was prior to 2016. Globally sea ice extents are at record lows. In fact, globally sea ice extents have spent more time below -4σ than it has above -2σ since 2016. That is certainly noteworthy.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also per the NSIDC 5-day average 10/17/2019 marks the all time highest negative anomaly on record. We are 3.065 sq km below the 1981-2010 climatological average. This breaks the 3.048 record set on 10/9/2012. In other words, we have less sea ice (in terms of extent) relative to average than at any point in the satellite era.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, bdgwx said:

Also per the NSIDC 5-day average 10/17/2019 marks the all time highest negative anomaly on record. We are 3.065 sq km below the 1981-2010 climatological average. This breaks the 3.048 record set on 10/9/2012. In other words, we have less sea ice (in terms of extent) relative to average that at any point in the satellite era.

That anomaly grew a little from yesterday. Now at -3.075 as of October 18th. So 2019 continues as the lowest at 5.310 compared to the 5.663 in 2007 and 5.852 in 2012.

D76E0093-210D-4771-B1A8-77667A27AAC5.thumb.png.9a5350faa4128f6df430168bfc0e21e6.png

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On October 20, Arctic sea ice extent on JAXA was 5,625,765 square kilometers. That is both the lowest on record for the date and the latest figure below 6 million square kilometers in record . The previous daily record low was 6,136,029 square kilometers from last year.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2019 continues to expand its record breaking daily low extents for late October. The NSIDC 5 day extent is now 5.503 million sq km as of October 20th. This is well below the previous lowest for the date set in 2007 at. 5.946 million sq km. It also places this year 726 k lower than 2012 which was 6.229 million sq km. 
 

4CFE79CB-C487-4E43-81E3-DCACA47A652E.thumb.png.545a5a3ec1d164d44869120f7ec7fd55.png

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

2019 continues to expand its record breaking daily low extents for late October. The NSIDC 5 day extent is now 5.503 million sq km as of October 20th. This is well below the previous lowest for the date set in 2007 at. 5.946 million sq km. It also places this year 726 k lower than 2012 which was 6.229 million sq km. 2012 was the previous lowest October monthly average extent at 5.890 million sq km.

currently in a hostile fram export pattern

ecmwf_z500_mslp_nhem_2.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/17/2019 at 3:42 PM, bluewave said:

The Arctic Ocean must have absorbed an impressive  amount of heat over the summer. Current 5 day NSIDC extent as of 10-16 is 5.170 million sq km. Extent was 5.422 on 10-16-12.  So the unusually slow extent gain pattern continues.

5B2303CC-8CFE-4EFF-8AD7-45EB885468BB.thumb.png.a11992982c7b6db8d1446edbfaeea76d.png

 

Mm ... From what source.. ?

Share this post


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

Mm ... From what source.. ?

This was the warmest June through September melt season on record.The earlier areas of open water had more time to absorb the extra heat. So now it’s taking longer for the Arctic Ocean to release the extra heat back to the atmosphere. Perhaps warm water influx through the Bering Strait also played a role. But I have no way of measuring that.
 

 


Recent winds (drift circulation) and warmer ocean waters from heat gained during the early spring melt-out

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like the ESS and Laptev are finally starting to freeze from both sides. That usually results in a quick jump in extent numbers as two ice fronts develop temporarily. Once that's done (by first or second week of Nov), the Pacific side will be the place to watch. Lots of heat to bleed off in the Chukchi and western Beaufort seas. Depending on how the weather goes, those might not freeze over until the new year. The southern Chukchi has a chance of not completely freezing over at all or only for a brief period in Jan-Mar. The warm water there is particularly deep this year.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Looks like the ESS and Laptev are finally starting to freeze from both sides. That usually results in a quick jump in extent numbers as two ice fronts develop temporarily. Once that's done (by first or second week of Nov), the Pacific side will be the place to watch. Lots of heat to bleed off in the Chukchi and western Beaufort seas. Depending on how the weather goes, those might not freeze over until the new year. The southern Chukchi has a chance of not completely freezing over at all or only for a brief period in Jan-Mar. The warm water there is particularly deep this year.

This is going to be a bit OT but did you see the new research on the dinosaur extinction asteroid?  The new research indicates that oceans quickly acidified killing sea life on a global scale rather quickly.  I wonder if climate change induced ocean acidification could do something similar?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm still reading through that paper. From what I've read so far, the change is on the order of 0.25 pH post-impact. We've had around 0.15 of change so far, but this hasn't eaten into the aragonite buffer enough to cause undersaturation at the surface or in the mixed layer in most locales so far. That is due to change sometime in the 2030s in the Southern Ocean and the waters next to Antarctica (where colder SSTs allow more gas to dissolve). From there it will spread rapidly across seasons and area.

It's not talked about much and my suspicion is that it won't be until that starts to occur.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I'm still reading through that paper. From what I've read so far, the change is on the order of 0.25 pH post-impact. We've had around 0.15 of change so far, but this hasn't eaten into the aragonite buffer enough to cause undersaturation at the surface or in the mixed layer in most locales so far. That is due to change sometime in the 2030s in the Southern Ocean and the waters next to Antarctica (where colder SSTs allow more gas to dissolve). From there it will spread rapidly across seasons and area.

It's not talked about much and my suspicion is that it won't be until that starts to occur.

That is a  stunning change. Is there a reference which you could point me to? I've seen some reports, but nothing that suggests global loss of alkalinity on that scale.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/22/2019 at 5:31 PM, csnavywx said:

I'm still reading through that paper. From what I've read so far, the change is on the order of 0.25 pH post-impact. We've had around 0.15 of change so far, but this hasn't eaten into the aragonite buffer enough to cause undersaturation at the surface or in the mixed layer in most locales so far. That is due to change sometime in the 2030s in the Southern Ocean and the waters next to Antarctica (where colder SSTs allow more gas to dissolve). From there it will spread rapidly across seasons and area.

It's not talked about much and my suspicion is that it won't be until that starts to occur.

The 2030s are when the Great Barrier Reef is predicted to be completely gone- to the massive detriment of the marine ecosystem!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/22/2019 at 9:53 PM, etudiant said:

That is a  stunning change. Is there a reference which you could point me to? I've seen some reports, but nothing that suggests global loss of alkalinity on that scale.

https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2019-03/uoaf-soa031119.php

 

This is just concerning the appearance of a widespread undersaturation horizon near/in the mixed layer in the next 20 years or so.

 

https://www.pnas.org/content/105/48/18860

 

image.png.afaff2ef01fc94df8869d32eee5014e4.png

 

It's an older paper, but we are very closely following the emissions scenario used (IS92a), so these dates probably aren't far off. Once aragonite undersaturation appears at the surface, it takes just 20-30 years for it to encompass basically entire Southern Ocean south of 50-60S.

If we screw around long enough, by near the end of the century, that will spread towards the tropics and then calcite undersaturation will appear in the Southern Ocean. Once calcite is knocked out, you can kiss most shelled creatures goodbye.

 

 

The thresholds for this seem to be at ~450 and ~650ppm. We're rapidly coming up on the first one.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you, csnavywx, very helpful links. Even without ability to pass the paywall, the summaries and the charts tell the story. The charts especially are pretty alarming.

Sadly, seen that coal fired power plant construction is still very strong, particularly in China and India, i see no possibility of arresting the CO2 uptrend. We will see this future, like it or not.

Share this post


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

Thank you, csnavywx, very helpful links. Even without ability to pass the paywall, the summaries and the charts tell the story. The charts especially are pretty alarming.

Sadly, seen that coal fired power plant construction is still very strong, particularly in China and India, i see no possibility of arresting the CO2 uptrend. We will see this future, like it or not.

You can always use Sci-hub!

Chances are your taxes were used to fund the research anyways. (This paper has the following comment listed in acknowledgements: We acknowledge support from the National Science Foundation Ocean AcidificationProgram (OCE-1314209). This is IPRC publication no. 1152 and SOEST publicationno. 9508. )

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Thank you, csnavywx, very helpful links. Even without ability to pass the paywall, the summaries and the charts tell the story. The charts especially are pretty alarming.

Sadly, seen that coal fired power plant construction is still very strong, particularly in China and India, i see no possibility of arresting the CO2 uptrend. We will see this future, like it or not.

Yeah, the transition time from supersaturated to undersaturated is very short, on the order of ~20 years and every one of those papers focuses on the 2030s as the onset date. 450ppm seems to be the threshold. It starts small in areal extent and depth, but once onset begins, it takes very little time to overtake virtually the entire Southern Ocean in wintertime and begins to encroach on mid-latitude waters with rather alarming speed. I can't imagine that's going to be good for some species (as the authors rightly point out). It also kind of forms a pincer, in that, species will be migrating towards the poles as acidification migrates towards the equator, putting the squeeze on species adaption.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/26/2019 at 7:51 PM, etudiant said:

Thank you, csnavywx, very helpful links. Even without ability to pass the paywall, the summaries and the charts tell the story. The charts especially are pretty alarming.

Sadly, seen that coal fired power plant construction is still very strong, particularly in China and India, i see no possibility of arresting the CO2 uptrend. We will see this future, like it or not.

I am sick and tired of excuses being made for these "developing nations"  Time to punish them financially for relying on outdated, polluting technology.  Also, oil and nat gas are contributing factors, especially with the fracking "boom" contributing to methane leaks.  Nuclear would be a far better option.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thought I should post this update, especially with the recent historic forest fires all over California and now in Los Angeles!
 
 
The climate science is settled on direct causal links to California wildfires.  
 
Whether it is drier droughts, or whiplashes to wetness, the jet stream is acting freakishly.  
 
The fingerprints of climate change are all over this current event.
 
 
 
 

Share this post


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

the "climate" is a set of statistics, it is not a force and claims it is causing fires in california this year are insane beyond belief......

Let me ask you something, when a given set of statistic that looks sorta like this  ... 

what do you see? 

image.thumb.png.968f0afeabadcabb7b041bc400ce2587.png

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An important logical flaw in "the climate doesn't cause " arguments is that it seems the denier is too myopic and linear-dimensional in their cause-and-effect grasping.  Perhaps it's a mental capacity ... Or a moral one.  

"Climate" does not maintain an operational presence in the daily dynamical interactivity that takes place in the environment. There is a population ballast that cannot seem to make the next leap of reasoning.  

Climate used to simply be 100 day, 100 temps, sum(t)/n-terms = the temperature climate across that hundred days.  But here's the rub ... that number doesn't tell you anything about the 'character' of your data, whether those temperatures are trending up, or down .. the nature of the extremes ( anomalies) etc.  What climate is now, is a description of those tendencies - and it is patently clear this latter aspect is untenable either by personal choice, or personal limitation is said ballast. Because not only is it rising, that rise is no longer linear.. It's curved upward. IF the frequency of big anomalies in a system is also increasing, and, that increase naturally connotes thus the probability of those events are also, and MATCHES what is presently happening ( yet exceeds) it must therefore be statistical significant.

By and large - and this can be at times the writing of the scientist, sure - when one mentions the term climate in deference to wild fires, flood food or famine ...tornadoes, hurricanes, blizzards and so forth... they are not saying the climate "caused" the event, they are saying:   

You are in a climate that favors these things happening - more over ... a NEW one ( ding ding: what do we call that, class!?) 

 

  • Like 2

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.