Arctic Sea Ice Extent, Area, and Volume

[chubbs]

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.

[donsutherland1]

Lowest January Arctic Sea Ice Extent Averages:

1.    12,664,550 km2, 2017
2.    12,859,672 km2, 2016
3.    12,895,995 km2, 2011
 

[Jack Frost]

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....

[csnavywx]

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?

[csnavywx]

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.

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.

[csnavywx]

 

 

 

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.

[Sophisticated Skeptic]

heatwave incoming

 

[Jack Frost]

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. 

[csnavywx]

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.

[Sophisticated Skeptic]

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. 

[ORH_wxman]

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:

 

 

[csnavywx]

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.

[csnavywx]

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.

[Jack Frost]

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.

[PhillipS]

10 hours ago, Jack Frost said:

 

I agree generally with your post.

Please engage with Dr. Berry.

Dr Barry is welcome to come here to engage.

[FloridaJohn]

On 2/5/2017 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 guess you got your answer!

[Jack Frost]

2 hours ago, PhillipS said:

Dr Barry is welcome to come here to engage.

Gee, I wonder why more folks with PhDs in Atmospheric Physics don't come here to engage?

[pazzo83]

We did it guys!!!

 

[lookingnorth]

Well the Arctic sea ice extent is close to 3rd place now.

[Ottawa Blizzard]

I'm surprised arctic sea ice is so low when you consider how cold it has been in the Arctic.

 

Forecast for Resolute is below.

 

http://weather.gc.ca/city/pages/nu-27_metric_e.html

[lookingnorth]

On 2/25/2017 at 5:32 PM, Ottawa Blizzard said:

I'm surprised arctic sea ice is so low when you consider how cold it has been in the Arctic.

 

Forecast for Resolute is below.

 

http://weather.gc.ca/city/pages/nu-27_metric_e.html

It looks only a few degrees below normal to me.

[donsutherland1]

During February, Arctic sea ice extent averaged 13,566,787 square kilometers. That set a new record low average for February. The previous record was 13,595,448 square kilometers, which was set in 2016. These figures all use a 2/1-28 timeline.

[chubbs]

PIOMASS volume is out for February. 2017 gained more volume than 2016 as conditions turned a little colder (still warmer than normal) but the spread between 2017 and other low volume years increased.

[ORH_wxman]

2016-2017 has been quite unique in showing no negative feedback to low volume during the summer.  If you look at all the other low volume years, you see a pretty solid recovery in anomaly after the summer months. We'll see if there's any more recovery in March or April...if there isn't, then this year would be the first legit threat to 2012's min since it happened. 

[Sophisticated Skeptic]

the extent analog from 2006 looks similar to what's currently going on. 

the doom mongerers need to stay on pause for now.  

[ORH_wxman]

Looks like 850 temps reached -46C up in that region, that is pretty ridiculous even for there.

[nzucker]

2 hours ago, ORH_wxman said:

Looks like 850 temps reached -46C up in that region, that is pretty ridiculous even for there.

The GFS stopped showing the -40C contour. They used to show it. You now just see a big area of -30C on the MSLP/QPF/850 map.

[skierinvermont]

On 3/7/2017 at 5:46 AM, Sophisticated Skeptic said:

the extent analog from 2006 looks similar to what's currently going on. 

the doom mongerers need to stay on pause for now.  

Yeah except the ice is barely half as thick. Be quiet until you learn something. Some of us have been following this thread for a decade. We've seen arrogant newbies like you come and go. A few stay and learn something. But nobody that's been around the block would say something as foolish as what you've just said.

[Jack Frost]

10 hours ago, skierinvermont said:

Yeah except the ice is barely half as thick. Be quiet until you learn something. Some of us have been following this thread for a decade. We've seen arrogant newbies like you come and go. A few stay and learn something. But nobody that's been around the block would say something as foolish as what you've just said.

SS,

Don't let skiboy bully you.  

It's actually kinda sad that some have been following arctic sea ice extent for a decade.  

Now the data for the past several million years or so would be most interesting....

Moronic attacks expected and most welcome - just living la vida local.... 

[CaWx]

On 3/11/2017 at 8:12 AM, skierinvermont said:

Yeah except the ice is barely half as thick. Be quiet until you learn something. Some of us have been following this thread for a decade. We've seen arrogant newbies like you come and go. A few stay and learn something. But nobody that's been around the block would say something as foolish as what you've just said.

I wouldn't waste your energy on people who are unable to see the reality of the sea ice. There is no denying the ice thickness is considerably less now than then (which ultimately matters more than extent anyways). I don't understand how anyone can look at all this empirical data and willfully and woefully make statements to the contrary.