Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    16,988
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    Dankles
    Newest Member
    Dankles
    Joined

Arctic Sea Ice Extent, Area, and Volume


ORH_wxman
 Share

Recommended Posts

For 8.7.2021, JAXA sea ice extent shows an increase of 18,541 kilometers squared. Extent is now in 7th place for the date.

For the month of August this century, this is the earliest increase on record.

The weather is now transitioning to a pattern favorable for sea ice retention.

NSIDC sea ice extent shows a 81 k gain.

The finish of this melting season is going to be epic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, bdgwx said:

If 8/6 ends up being the minimum that would be epic indeed.

Have to say that extent never seemed like a useful measure to me, but perhaps specialists could clarify that aspect.

Area is where it is at imho, while also recognizing that PIOMAS is really the ground truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, bdgwx said:

If 8/6 ends up being the minimum that would be epic indeed.

i remeber as a kid when you would come home from school and temps in september on one day were in the 50's in nyc due to a strong cold front...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Weatherdude88 said:

For 8.7.2021, JAXA sea ice extent shows an increase of 18,541 kilometers squared. Extent is now in 7th place for the date.

For the month of August this century, this is the earliest increase on record.

The weather is now transitioning to a pattern favorable for sea ice retention.

NSIDC sea ice extent shows a 81 k gain.

The finish of this melting season is going to be epic.

The minimum has not been reached. The trend is down even with some fluctuations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, donsutherland1 said:

The minimum has not been reached. The trend is down even with some fluctuations.

The new IPCC report is out- it's bleak.

https://twitter.com/i/events/1424568170749202438

The only way to stop these corporations is to execute them with the death penalty and to organize a Nuremburg style court system on them and seize their property and to utilize the military on them to destroy them to smithereens and round up their leaders and imprison them for the rest of their lives.  Money constitutes power and the only way to destroy power is to bring the force of arms against it.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

The new IPCC report is out- it's bleak.

https://twitter.com/i/events/1424568170749202438

The only way to stop these corporations is to execute them with the death penalty and to organize a Nuremburg style court system on them and seize their property and to utilize the military on them to destroy them to smithereens and round up their leaders and imprison them for the rest of their lives.  Money constitutes power and the only way to destroy power is to bring the force of arms against it.

Yes. I saw this morning’s press conference. I am going through it. There’s also a great interactive feature.

P.S. Arctic sea ice extent resumed its decline.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here are is peer reviewed literature on how CO2 causes a negative greenhouse effect in Antarctica. This paper claims CO2 radiates heat to space in parts of Antarctica.
 

Quote

the emission to space is higher than the surface emission; and the greenhouse effect of CO2 is around zero or even negative, which has not been discussed so far. We investigated this in detail and show that for central Antarctica an increase in CO2 concentration leads to an increased long-wave energy loss to space, which cools the Earth-atmosphere system. These findings for central Antarctica are in contrast to the general warming effect of increasing CO2.



https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2015GL066749
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For 8.8.2021, the NSIDC sea ice extent value is 6.134 million square kilometers. This is a decrease of 50,000 square kilometers from the previous day. We are now in 9thplace for the date.

Extent is now 63,000 square kilometers greater than the 8.5 (3 days prior) value.

The weather pattern is in the process of transitioning to a pattern favorable for sea ice retention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, donsutherland1 said:

Yes. I saw this morning’s press conference. I am going through it. There’s also a great interactive feature.

P.S. Arctic sea ice extent resumed its decline.

Don did you see the graphs of the different temp rises with different emission rates?  Would you say the most likely scenario is a 3C rise before stabilization occurs (if we achieve net zero by 2050.)  What kind of devastation would we see by a 3C temp rise?

By the way we need to cut down on both CO2 and Methane, otherwise all the efforts will be a huge failure.

They also mentioned a 2 meter sea level rise by 2100!

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Weatherdude88 said:

Here are is peer reviewed literature on how CO2 causes a negative greenhouse effect in Antarctica. This paper claims CO2 radiates heat to space in parts of Antarctica.
 



https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2015GL066749
 

Since they specifically mentioned central Antarctica I wonder if they found the difference to be because Antarctica is a continent vs the Arctic.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

Don did you see the graphs of the different temp rises with different emission rates?  Would you say the most likely scenario is a 3C rise before stabilization occurs (if we achieve net zero by 2050.)  What kind of devastation would we see by a 3C temp rise?

By the way we need to cut down on both CO2 and Methane, otherwise all the efforts will be a huge failure.

They also mentioned a 2 meter sea level rise by 2100!

 

I did.

Tragically, I believe the base case is insufficient effort by countries to curb then eliminate greenhouse gas emissions. I think we’ll go above 2C and at least approach 3C. 

Oil & gas exploration and drilling permits continue to be awarded. That means an expanded fossil fuel footprint, not a smaller one. The time remaining for a relatively smooth transition to clean energy continues to be squandered. Down the road in the 2030s, the magnitude of change would be nothing short of highly disruptive, but I suspect policy makers would rather allow the climate to inflict disruption than their own tough measures. So, even then, the fight to eliminate greenhouse gas emissions will be difficult.

History has more often seen a short-sighted preference for the status quo prevail. The enlightened efforts to address the Ozone hole have been more an exception than the rule. 

The actors responsible for the greenhouse gas pollution, particularly the fossil fuel industry and supporting industries, won’t go quietly into the night. They will seek to extract every possible dollar of profits from every last stored hydrocarbon unless they are compelled to move aggressively to adopt fundamental change. They have deep pockets. They have a partially or wholly captive political party in the U.S. (and in some other countries). They are already pushing “greenwashing” ads that are patently misleading (many ran during the Olympic Games). 

All those factors suggest big obstacles lie in the way of breaking from the status quo. Thus, even as a much better outcome is still within reach, I expect humanity will miss that opportunity and suffer much greater warming (closer to 3C than 2C). 

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:

I did.

Tragically, I believe the base case is insufficient effort by countries to curb then eliminate greenhouse gas emissions. I think we’ll go above 2C and at least approach 3C. 

Oil & gas exploration and drilling permits continue to be awarded. That means an expanded fossil fuel footprint, not a smaller one. The time remaining for a relatively smooth transition to clean energy continues to be squandered. Down the road in the 2030s, the magnitude of change would be nothing short of highly disruptive, but I suspect policy makers would rather allow the climate to inflict disruption than their own tough measures. So, even then, the fight to eliminate greenhouse gas emissions will be difficult.

History has more often seen a short-sighted preference for the status quo prevail. The enlightened efforts to address the Ozone hole have been more an exception than the rule. 

The actors responsible for the greenhouse gas pollution, particularly the fossil fuel industry and supporting industries, won’t go quietly into the night. They will seek to extract every possible dollar of profits from every last stored hydrocarbon unless they are compelled to move aggressively to adopt fundamental change. They have deep pockets. They have a partially or wholly captive political party in the U.S. (and in some other countries). They are already pushing “greenwashing” ads that are patently misleading (many ran during the Olympic Games). 

All those factors suggest big obstacles lie in the way of breaking from the status quo. Thus, even as a much better outcome is still within reach, I expect humanity will miss that opportunity and suffer much greater warming (closer to 3C than 2C). 

Now this next one is going to be a tougher question.....aside from money, bribery, political corruption, why are so many more oil and gas contracts still being awarded, considering that the prices of renewable energy are going down and they result in higher paying higher quality jobs?  And we also have nuclear fission, which is much better than any fossil fuel, and have had it for decades, and yet we aren't going in that direction either?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:

I did.

Tragically, I believe the base case is insufficient effort by countries to curb then eliminate greenhouse gas emissions. I think we’ll go above 2C and at least approach 3C. 

Oil & gas exploration and drilling permits continue to be awarded. That means an expanded fossil fuel footprint, not a smaller one. The time remaining for a relatively smooth transition to clean energy continues to be squandered. Down the road in the 2030s, the magnitude of change would be nothing short of highly disruptive, but I suspect policy makers would rather allow the climate to inflict disruption than their own tough measures. So, even then, the fight to eliminate greenhouse gas emissions will be difficult.

History has more often seen a short-sighted preference for the status quo prevail. The enlightened efforts to address the Ozone hole have been more an exception than the rule. 

The actors responsible for the greenhouse gas pollution, particularly the fossil fuel industry and supporting industries, won’t go quietly into the night. They will seek to extract every possible dollar of profits from every last stored hydrocarbon unless they are compelled to move aggressively to adopt fundamental change. They have deep pockets. They have a partially or wholly captive political party in the U.S. (and in some other countries). They are already pushing “greenwashing” ads that are patently misleading (many ran during the Olympic Games). 

All those factors suggest big obstacles lie in the way of breaking from the status quo. Thus, even as a much better outcome is still within reach, I expect humanity will miss that opportunity and suffer much greater warming (closer to 3C than 2C). 

Yes, I've been reading that the fossil fuel cartels are just as powerful in nations like Australia, Canada and Germany.  Why else would supposedly progressive nations like Canada and Germany be pumping dirty tar sands oil through pipelines.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It appears that the IPCC has adopted the phrase "practically ice-free" to mean the same thing as what we commonly use of "ice-free" to mean < 1e6 km^2 of extent.

B.2.5 Additional warming is projected to further amplify permafrost thawing, and loss of seasonal snow
cover, of land ice and of Arctic sea ice (high confidence). The Arctic is likely to be practically sea ice free in
September at least once before 2050
under the five illustrative scenarios considered in this report, with
more frequent occurrences for higher warming levels. There is low confidence in the projected decrease of
Antarctic sea ice.

AR6 WG1 SPM pg. 20.

That is the prediction...2050 with a 66% likelihood

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

Update for 8/10 numbers on NSIDC area:

2021 had 3.9 million sq km of sea ice area on 8/10...here's how the years since 2007 compare:

2020: -500k

2019: -480k

2018: +160k

2017: -30k

2016: -340k

2015: -210k

2014: +770k

2013: +430k

2012: -810k

2011: -340k

2010: +290k

2009: +570k

2008: +60k

2007: -250k

 

Closest matches are 2008 and 2017 in terms of value. But the ice distribution is a bit different this year. 2017 had more on the Atlantic side and 2008 had way more on that side (plus Laptev). 2021 is basically melted out in the Laptev already but it is really lagging badly in melting the Beaufort and the model guidance has the Beaufort and adjacent CAB staying quite cold and stormy through the next 10 days. The easiest ice left to melt is what is left in the Chukchi (which also had a slowish year compared to recently) and ESS.

 

https://seaice.uni-bremen.de/data/amsr2/today/Arctic_AMSR2_nic.png

 

 

I don't think I'd change my forecast right now on area (3.00 million sqkm). Maybe hedge a little higher but it should be pretty close. My extent forecast looks in trouble though....extent is always trickier, but I had 4.3 million sqkm on the NSIDC daily minimum....and that looks like a tough task but it's not impossible. We need to really speed things up. Keep in mind that NSIDC is typically (but not always) about 200k higher than Jaxa these days because of Jaxa's revisions they made to their algorithm after the 2013 season. As of 8/10, the NSIDC daily extent was 6.05 million sq km and Jaxa was 5.76 million sq km.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am a noob at this, but I have been following the sea ice extent for a couple of years now. I wonder if smoke from all the fires this year is helping to block some sunlight and are having a cooling effect, leading to less decline in sea ice extent. Not sure if there is anything scientific to that, but it would make sense?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, IUsedToHateCold said:

I am a noob at this, but I have been following the sea ice extent for a couple of years now. I wonder if smoke from all the fires this year is helping to block some sunlight and are having a cooling effect, leading to less decline in sea ice extent. Not sure if there is anything scientific to that, but it would make sense?

There are two main differences between this summer and last for extent. May 2020 featured record preconditioning of the ice for the  second lowest extent last September. Last summer also had very strong high pressure. This June and July had the second lowest Arctic pressure on record behind 1989. While the tweet below was focused on the record lack of sunny days near Alaska, you can see how the extreme low pressure pattern kept the Arctic very cloudy. 

5F34BDFA-FB72-492E-A201-D205168786E4.png.2e95143836bd8f6d56d35c76780a6987.png


 

 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/9/2021 at 1:16 PM, LibertyBell said:

Now this next one is going to be a tougher question.....aside from money, bribery, political corruption, why are so many more oil and gas contracts still being awarded, considering that the prices of renewable energy are going down and they result in higher paying higher quality jobs?  And we also have nuclear fission, which is much better than any fossil fuel, and have had it for decades, and yet we aren't going in that direction either?

 

Nuclear is CLEARLY the best way to go at this point for everyone and the environment. Unbelievable we haven't moved much in that direction either.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, LibertyBell said:

Indeed, especially Thorium.  I've heard so many great things about Thorium I don't understand what the hold up is.

 

Environmentalists, clean energy companies (it's not just the hydrocarbon ones), and the politicians that cater to them.

"Anyone seriously interested in preventing dangerous levels of global warming should be advocating nuclear power," wrote James Hansen in 2019.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, vortmax said:

Environmentalists, clean energy companies (it's not just the hydrocarbon ones), and the politicians that cater to them.

"Anyone seriously interested in preventing dangerous levels of global warming should be advocating nuclear power," wrote James Hansen in 2019.

Yes, exactly!  The danger from fossil fuels is FAR greater than the danger from fission.  And something I learned a few months ago- did you know that coal actually results in more radioactive emissions into the environment than nuclear fission does?  Wow.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, LibertyBell said:

Yes, exactly!  The danger from fossil fuels is FAR greater than the danger from fission.  And something I learned a few months ago- did you know that coal actually results in more radioactive emissions into the environment than nuclear fission does?  Wow.

 

Pretty sure leftwingers are the main holdup behind nuclear energy. The Green Party was formed because of opposition to nuclear power 

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

53 minutes ago, Jonger said:

Pretty sure leftwingers are the main holdup behind nuclear energy. The Green Party was formed because of opposition to nuclear power 

Pretty true, most of the people opposing nuclear and the same ones pushing big climate change legislation.

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, vortmax said:

Pretty true, most of the people opposing nuclear and the same ones pushing big climate change legislation.

yes sir. Some people think we're going to convince 7B humans to power their live's with magic.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can we keep this for ice discussion, glad there is chatter about this stuff but thats why there are like 3 other threads for that.

 

I had originally thought 4.5mil was the upper bound for this season but with the rather abrupt slowdown it looks as though there is still potential to get close but looking like we fall within the range of 4.7-5mil at season minimum for extent NSIDC may actually stay above 5 mil which would be impressive. The ice while remaining above the new norm and decent retention this season still warrants concern for years to come. It took an almost near perfect pattern for us to keep the situation from going wild up there. With this year looking more and more like a second year la nina we start to question when exactly we may push the next bin and see drop offs again. The looming potential of a decent el nino within the next year or two has me worried a bit. 

While a rapid freeze seems to be the new norm leading into fall I hope we can actually remove some energy from the system before we start to freeze up. 

For now though AO pattern seems to be the key factor leading into summer melt seasons lets hope we may see some good thickening of sea ice this winter across the arctic.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Average extent loss on NSIDC over the past 10 years from this point forward is 936k....but it has been as low as 550k and as high as 1.2 million.....so that places the minimum between 4.45 million and 5.1 million sq km if we hold inside those bounds.

  • 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...