Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    16,800
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    Doug747
    Newest Member
    Doug747
    Joined

Arctic Sea Ice Extent, Area, and Volume


ORH_wxman
 Share

Recommended Posts

On 5/27/2021 at 5:05 PM, roardog said:

The melt season is starting off kind of boring this year.

Prob not going to threaten the new record this year unless the pattern changes. The ensembles don't look overly exciting as they are producing a strengthening vortex over the CAB through the solstice. We need that to reverse and show strong high pressure to get the ice into better position to threaten 2012.

We're kind of tracking the 2010s average on a lot of metrics at the moment.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/27/2021 at 5:05 PM, roardog said:

The melt season is starting off kind of boring this year.

Thats a good thing to hear in this day and age with the current conditions of the ice. What's interesting to watch with even the fractured mess that is the ice up there we have managed an average of last decades ice (2010s extent and sea ice area). I feel like while we have been use to seeing how the Arctic can handle large volumes of ice 4m+ thick volumes, this new norm of ~2m thick ice across the arctic is interesting to see how it goes through time. How the Arctic is trying to balance itself out while not being able to release heat properly. I worry about the looming idea of a rather strong nino to come about. Wonder if we can get the AO to work properly in peak seasons to maybe help the situation better with releasing heat and keeping it out.

 

Time will tell of course.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Around now is when we start tracking NSIDC area....and the reason I like to track this is NSIDC area is a good proxy for melt ponds due to the SSMI/S satellite it uses being "fooled" by melt ponds into thinking it is open water, so the area metrics respond to them. And we care about melt ponds in June because they are the best predictor of both minimum area and extent from this time range. Far better than extent metrics or non-SSMI/S area metrics.

Anyways, 2021 area on 6/15 was 8.63 million sq km, here are how previous years were in relation to that number (negative means that year had less ice)

2020: -130k

2019: -370k

2018: +250k

2017: +200k

2016: -190k

2015: +40k

2014: +170k

2013: +280k

2012: -640k

2011: -110k

2010: -120k

2009: +750k

2008: +300k

2007: -50k

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

While we were all distracted by the historic Pacific Northwest Heatwave of 2021 the 5-day daily extent in the NH dropped below 2020 for this date. It is now the 4th lowest for this date.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While we were all distracted by the historic Pacific Northwest Heatwave of 2021 the 5-day daily extent in the NH dropped below 2020 for this date. It is now the 4th lowest for this date.
Are we looking at different data? Cause, the chart shows it is still above 2012...395018554171274b1ca35c14bebfa3b5.jpg

Sent from my LGL322DL using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NSIDC area numbers:

2021: 7.16 million sq km

2020: -90k

2019: -310k

2018: +450k

2017: +270k

2016: -20k

2015: +370k

2014: +360k

2013: +520k

2012: -450k

2011: -80K

2010: -360k

2009: +870k

2008: +510k

2007: -20k

 

2021 is somewhat on the lower end in the post-2007 era, but not threatening a new record. After two more days of data, I'll post my prediction for final minimum like every year. Unless we see some drastic changes, a new record min will be all but ruled out.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Northern Hemisphere NSIDC sea ice area 5-day trailing average is now in 8th place for the date.

Weather forecasts look favorable for sea ice retention.

Additionally, antarctic sea ice extent and area looks quite robust. Sea ice extent and area are above the 30 year, as well as the 40 year data record averages.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7.09 million sq km is the NSIDC area today....usually I want to see something around 6.60 million sq km or lower by tomorrow to have a plausible shot at a new record. Preferably lower than 6.5 million sqkm.....2012 was 6.42 on the 7/1 data (which isn't reported until 7/2)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ORH_wxman said:

7.09 million sq km is the NSIDC area today....usually I want to see something around 6.60 million sq km or lower by tomorrow to have a plausible shot at a new record. Preferably lower than 6.5 million sqkm.....2012 was 6.42 on the 7/1 data (which isn't reported until 7/2)

Given the excursions we've just had on the West coast, I'd not be overly confident in historic trends. Clearly things can and do change on a dime

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, etudiant said:

Given the excursions we've just had on the West coast, I'd not be overly confident in historic trends. Clearly things can and do change on a dime

 

This is a thread about the northern hemisphere cryosphere. 

Bringing up isolated weather events thousands of miles from the arctic and urban heat islands, is creating a straw man at best (Dunning Kruger effect at worst).

 

  • Weenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Weatherdude88 said:

 

This is a thread about the northern hemisphere cryosphere. 

Bringing up isolated weather events thousands of miles from the arctic and urban heat islands, is creating a straw man at best (Dunning Kruger effect at worst).

 

lol @ isolated.... clearly you're the blind leading the blind.

People are thinking this is some isolated event....did they conveniently forget it hit 100 in Siberia just last year and they had a 6 month AVERAGE of 20 F above normal?...are people really this DUMB?

 

 

  • Weenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given we're now past 7/1, it is time for the annual forecast.

Quick update on standings:

2020: -430k

2019: -380k

2018: +390k

2017: +70k

2016: -180k

2015: +190k

2014: +320k

2013: +390k

2012: -590k

2011: -140k

2010: -310k

2009: +710k

2008: +280k

2007: -330k

 

 

You can see last year's forecast here:

 

And here is last year's verification:

 

As for 2021.....below is what the final area would be if we followed the path of every other year from here on out. An example is that if we followed the path of 2012 from here on out and lost another 4.3 million sqkm of ice like that year did post-7/1, then we would finish at 2.7 million sq km. The reason the forecasts are pretty accurate is that area loss post-7/1 is pretty stable over time going back to 1979. There has been a bias toward a little bit higher in the post-2007 world, but it is much smaller than the differences we see prior to July 1st (i.e., most of the area loss can be explained by what happens prior to 7/1.)

 

image.png.204c27bf9acc73989c24c508aff267bb.png

 

 

Two things stick out on the graph....one, is that any minimum above 4.00 million sq km is basically impossible no matter which path we follow. Nevermind that we haven't had an area min above 4.0 million sq km since 2006 anyway, but there isn't even a realistic shot at one this year like perhaps was plausible in years like 2014.

Secondly, the chance at a new record minimum is basically impossible too. The two largest melt years post-7/1 were 1989 and 2016. You can see following both of their paths still only produces a min around 2.5 million sq km....well above the record-low 2.23 million sq km minimum in 2012.

 

Given that information, I will use the post-2007 average as my baseline. I might even skew a little on the high side of that unlike last year because the forecast is quite stormy over the arctic basin for the foreseeable future. The EPS have a pretty strong vortex over the pole through mid-July which is wasting what's left of prime insolation season up there.

 

Taking a post-2007 average result post-7/1 purely at face value would yield a minimum of 2.9 sq km in 2021. I'll skew just a touch higher than that based on the forecast and current distribution of the ice. So for an area minimum, I'll forecast 3.0 million sqkm +/- 300k. That would place 2021 around 8th lowest.

Sea ice extent is a bit more fickle since compaction plays a larger part unlike area. But I'll go 4.3 million sq km on NSIDC extent +/- 500k. I have a larger range on the extent min since it has a much higher standard deviation than area.

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

Daily NSIDC sea ice area now above the 2010's average.

ssM8dAs.png

The lack of melt momentum, preconditioning over the highest latitude hardest to melt sea ice, suggest we may not finish in the top 7 for the 2021 sea ice extent and area minimums.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can always know when sea ice has a slow loss period because I see weatherdude88 post on all the various arctic sea ice forums.   It's like clockwork waiting for this guy to pop out of his cave.

  • Thanks 1
  • Weenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, madwx said:

I can always know when sea ice has a slow loss period because I see weatherdude88 post on all the various arctic sea ice forums.   It's like clockwork waiting for this guy to pop out of his cave.

lol he weenie'd Will's post just because Will made a good forecast of having over >4 million sq mile minimum being very unlikely, I mean it hasn't happened since 2006, so we have history "on our side"

 

  • Weenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

lol he weenie'd Will's post just because Will made a good forecast of having over >4 million sq mile minimum being very unlikely, I mean it hasn't happened since 2006, so we have history "on our side"

 

I never have predicted, nor am I predicting the 2021 NSIDC sea ice area minimum will be greater than 4 million square kilometers. It is clear you have little knowledge of sea ice melting seasons, considering you think metrics and minimums are measure in miles :lol:.

Do not put words in my mouth. Stop the FUD! 

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

12 minutes ago, Weatherdude88 said:

I never have predicted, nor am I predicting the 2021 NSIDC sea ice area minimum will be greater than 4 million square kilometers. It is clear you have little knowledge of sea ice melting seasons, considering you think metrics and minimums are measure in miles :lol:.

Do not put words in my mouth. Stop the FUD! 

lmao awww poor baby, is 88 your IQ?  sure seems like it. if even that high.  

 

sorry, we're not in Europe, I'll use miles.  You can convert them back and forth, it's easy even for someone like you ;)

also you're not going to last very long on here with that attitude of yours.  The person you weenie'd is actually a moderator and a trained meteorologist.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Orangeburgwx said:

Point is, this thread is for the arctic sea ice and you brought up heat outside the Arctic Circle... And insulting these guys who put in time and effort doing the research, even my min (3.908) is under 4m km². I live here in the states, and even I use km² when it comes to sea ice because it tells a far better picture with extent and concentration so living outside Europe has nothing to do with it

Sent from my LGL322DL using Tapatalk
 

He was the one who was insulting someone else  who made a very good point about old standards not applying and then he responded with talking about an "isolated" event which it very clearly is not (and which we've extensively talked about in another thread.)  "These" guys is just one person who poked his little head in where it didn't belong.  I fully understand the conversion, I do it in my head (5/8 or 0625 miles in one km).  I'm not sure how much one understands about climate if one actually believes that anything occurs in "isolation" everything is part of much greater system and feedback mechanisms.  There is no such thing as "isolation".

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He was the one who was insulting someone else  who made a very good point about old standards not applying and then he responded with talking about an "isolated" event which it very clearly is not (and which we've extensively talked about in another thread.)  "These" guys is just one person who poked his little head in where it didn't belong.  I fully understand the conversion, I do it in my head (5/8 or 0625 miles in one km).  I'm not sure how much one understands about climate if one actually believes that anything occurs in "isolation" everything is part of much greater system and feedback mechanisms.  There is no such thing as "isolation".
 
That's the thing about climate, everything is linked... Jet stream, ocean currents, everything...

Sent from my LGL322DL using Tapatalk

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

lmao awww poor baby, is 88 your IQ?  sure seems like it. if even that high.  sorry, we're not in Europe, I'll use miles. 

 

sorry, we're not in Europe, I'll use miles.  You can convert them back and forth, it's easy even for someone like you ;)

also you're not going to last very long on here with that attitude of yours.

 


I live in Texas. NSIDC National Snow and Ice Data Center is headquartered in Boulder, Colorado. This is the organization gathering and crunching the numbers from satellites to get the data above.  

When you go to a university for a STEM related degree, you are taught and learn why all peer reviewed literature and scientific measurements use the Metric instead of the Imperial system.

Some of the reasons are:

1. Metric is a rational number after a metric unit conversion

2. Prefixes carry the same weight for all base units

3. The overwhelming vast majority of countries use the metric system.

In fact, I though they taught this in Middle School these days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Weatherdude88 said:


I live in Texas. NSIDC National Snow and Ice Data Center is headquartered in Boulder, Colorado. This is the organization gathering and crunching the numbers from satellites to get the data above.  

When you go to a university for a STEM related degree, you are taught and learn why all peer reviewed literature and scientific measurements use the Metric instead of the Imperial system.

Some of the reasons are:

1. Metric is a rational number after a metric unit conversion

2. Prefixes carry the same weight for all base units

3. The overwhelming vast majority of countries use the metric system.

In fact, I though they taught this in Middle School these days.

I know all about the metric system and I do the conversion in my head, so that doesn't really matter.  Anyone with a basic education should be able to do it in their heads, it's not a big concern.  In computer systems we use hexadecimal, so it's pretty easy to talk back and forth between binary, decimal and hexadecimal.  None is better than any other as they are all like different languages.

More concerning is that you thought the heat in the western part of the continent was in "isolation".  If you know anything about how the planet works you should know that absolutely NOTHING occurs in isolation- that it's all part of one larger feedback mechanism.  And it isn't the only historic such outbreak that's occurred in recent years either.  It's part of a global trend.  And Etudiant's point about not using prior history to predict the future because we're in an entirely uncharted territory now is a very good and salient one.

 

  • Weenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, LibertyBell said:

I know all about the metric system and I do the conversion in my head, so that doesn't really matter.  Anyone with a basic education should be able to do it in their heads, it's not a big concern.

More concerning is that you thought the heat in the western part of the continent was in "isolation".  If you know anything about how the planet works you should know that absolutely NOTHING occurs in isolation- that it's all part of one larger feedback mechanism.  And it isn't the only historic such outbreak that's occurred in recent years either.  It's part of a global trend.  And Tacoman's point about not using prior history to predict the future because we're in an entirely uncharted territory now is a very good and salient one.

 



Let me help you understand.

Every year there are weather events that effect different regions of the earth. When looking at record warm temperatures, you need to factor in the urban heat island effect (this is a discussion for another time).

Each year I could cherry pick and make a case for some weather event somewhere (isolated), will cause the arctic to set a new record minimum. If you understand how the arctic energy balance and Enthalpy of Fusion work, a weather event at lower latitudes being a catalyst for record sea ice melt is scientific fiction.

Look at the amount of reduce solar insolation over the high arctic due to the PV. Calculate the energy difference in watts / meter squared VS. the excess energy from the Pacific North West heat wave (joules). You will find the reduced energy in the arctic dwarfs the energy being added in the system from the Pacific Northwest.

This is why we have see a turn in the melt momentum in the arctic at high latitudes. 


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Weatherdude88 said:

Let me help you understand.

Every year there are weather event that effect different regions of the earth. When looking at record warm temperatures, you need to factor in the urban heat island effect (this is a discussion for another time).

Each year I could cherry pick and make a case for some weather event somewhere (isolated), will cause the arctic to set a new record minimum. If you understand how the arctic energy balance and Enthalpy of Fusion work, a weather event at lower latitudes being a catalyst for record sea ice melt is scientific fiction.

Look at the amount of reduce solar insolation over the high arctic due to the PV. Calculate the energy difference in watts / meter squared VS. the excess energy from the Pacific North West heat wave.

In the other thread (which I suggest you read) we were talking about both heat and drought and the parts of the world we were talking about have nothing to do with urban heat island (Siberia, Australia- where urban areas are confined to the immediate coast, etc.)

And I dont believe he implied that a weather event at lower latitudes would cause record sea ice melt.  His argument was that we're in a new era now and past history is not a good way to predict future outcomes.  Something that most generally agree with.

Sure, extreme weather occurs every year, but it's the magnitude of the extremes which is changing (also refer to the other thread where we discuss this.)

 

  • Weenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, etudiant said:

Given the excursions we've just had on the West coast, I'd not be overly confident in historic trends. Clearly things can and do change on a dime

See this post here...hes just talking about being wary of applying historic trends to predict outcomes.  Nothing about a cause and effect between anomalous heatwaves and arctic sea ice.

 

  • Weenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

See this post here...hes just talking about being wary of applying historic trends to predict outcomes.  Nothing about a cause and effect between anomalous heatwaves and arctic sea ice.

 

Check your reading comprehension and stop embarrassing yourself.

It is clear from various sea ice metrics that the northern hemisphere cryosphere is looking more robust by the day.

This goes against your above statement. Historical trends are the best metric to predict interseason trends. Your argument is made every year to no avail.

I would advise you to study the arctic energy budget and the specific heat capacity of water.

Link to comment
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...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...