Arctic Sea Ice Extent, Area, and Volume

[LibertyBell]

On 11/13/2018 at 3:42 PM, forkyfork said:

i will not "debate" people who think co2 isn't causing climate change. you're wrong. the end.

CO2 plus methane and pollution, all of which humans are contributing to.  Time to thin the herd.

[LibertyBell]

On 11/6/2018 at 12:40 PM, forkyfork said:

denier board

he's a bored denier lol.

 

Honestly, who cares what was going in a different epoch?  The causes and rate of warming are far different (and higher) now than they were back then.  It has about as much relevance as dinosaurs living when the whole planet was tropical. 

 

How about we are in the middle of the greatest mass extinction in the history of the planet and it's humanity-induced?  Because of human overpopulation, pollution and manipulation of the environment.  That's far more relevant.

[bluewave]

#seaice finally forming the past few days at Utqiaġvik (Barrow). The@SNAPandACCAP Sea Ice Atlas helps us understand just how unusual in the historical context it is to be happening so late in the autumn. h/t @themadstone#akwx #Arctic @Climatologist49 @vennkoenig @ZLabepic.twitter.com/P79bT73pPq

8:53 PM - 15 Nov 2018

[Save the itchy algae!]

I wish we could keep the discussions of human induced climate change and human induced mass extinction separate.  I am a huge believer in trying to address the latter, while I think the former is mainly political.  Combining them will alienate those that don't like BS, there are a lot of them out there, and we need all the help we can get to slow the extinction event.  

[snowlover91]

Here's the latest Arctic ice volume/thickness from DMI. As of right now the Arctic is nearing the 2004-2013 average.

[forkyfork]

here's a volume graph that's more reliable:

[snowlover91]

40 minutes ago, forkyfork said:

here's a volume graph that's more reliable:

That graph is nearly a month old and stops in the middle of October. Got a current one?

[forkyfork]

that's how piomas works, mr. internet expert

[snowlover91]

1 minute ago, forkyfork said:

that's how piomas works, mr. internet expert

I'm aware of how it works, guess you missed the sarcasm. I expect the next PIOMAS update will be quite a significant jump up. Here's where DMI was October 15 for reference.

 

Here is today.

 

As you can see there have been significant gains since then which has it passing all recent years charted except 2014 and near the 2004-2013 average. Regardless of what you consider to be more or less accurate, across the DMI mapping this year is currently nearing the 2004-2013 average which is encouraging to see. I expect some nice gains on PIOMAS as well.

[forkyfork]

omg, ice gains in november

[snowlover91]

8 minutes ago, forkyfork said:

omg, ice gains in november

Yep nothing surprising there but it IS interesting that the current volume is close to the 2004-2013 average. Making up some good ground this year so far and encouraging to see. 

[forkyfork]

11 minutes ago, snowlover91 said:

Yep nothing surprising there but it IS interesting that the current volume is close to the 2004-2013 average according to this one graph I posted but not others. Making up some good ground this year so far and encouraging to see. 

fixed

[snowlover91]

7 minutes ago, forkyfork said:

fixed

When your PIOMAS graph updates for November we can compare them. 

[forkyfork]

the 40's were just as low!

 

[bluewave]

https://mashable.com/2018/04/02/arctic-sea-ice-temperature-targets/#JiMVWHeLpgqI

Walt Meier, a senior research scientist at the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) in Boulder, Colo., said he's not surprised the studies found such a large difference between Arctic sea ice cover at 1.5 degrees Celsius of warming versus 2 degrees. 

"Sea ice is quite sensitive to temperature because it’s so thin. And as temperatures warm, it gets thinner. The thinner the ice, the higher the chances that summer melt will be enough to remove the ice," he said in an email. Meier was not involved in the new studies. 

"I think that somewhere between 1.5 degrees Celsius and 2.0 degrees, the ice cover gets thin enough over a large enough region of the Arctic for it to completely melt during summer. At the low end, 1.5 degrees, there is probably enough remaining thick ice (e.g., greater than 2 meters) that it’s less likely that all of that thicker ice could melt in a summer," Meier said.

There's another issue, though, with studies like these that examine the benefits of a 1.5-degree target. Based on emissions trends and projections, such a target is illusory, since the world is on track to blow right past it. Might it make more sense to study the consequences of far more severe warming, given that that's where we're headed? 

 

[snowlover91]

Meanwhile the latest data indicates this year continues to pass other recent years at a very fast pace. With the Hudson Bay expected to freeze up in the next week or two expect this to continue at a steady pace. Source here. https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,2223.2100.html

 

[snowlover91]

Latest update, JAXA extent is the 11th lowest on satellite record OR 3rd highest post 2005. Source for these graphs/charts is here. https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,2223.msg181476.html#new

 

NSIDC data is showing similar results.

[bluewave]

https://thebarentsobserver.com/en/ecology/2018/11/autumn-spring-arctics-new-season

November on the coast of the Barents Sea has been unseasonably warm. Halfway, the Norwegian Meteorological Institute could report 5,9 degrees Celsius above normal for Troms and Finnmark region in northern Norway.

What was snow-covered and frozen in late October is again rainy and warm.

The warm weather are confusing plants and trees. Some, like the low-growing goat willow tree, believes it is spring. On Friday, catkins, the fuzzy soft silver-colored nubs, started to appear, both near Kirkenes and in Murmansk

Both are cities far above the Arctic Circle.  

Catkins are actually the trees’ flowers just before they fully bloom, like you normally can see in late April, early May in the Barents Region.

“Very interesting, but not at all good news,” says Paul Eric Aspholm, Research Scientist with the Norwegian Institute of Bioeconomy Research (NIBIO).

Aspholm works at Svanhovd, NIBIO’s department in the Pasvik valley in the Norwegian-Russian borderland, the heart of the area experiencing some of the most dramatic climate changes in the Arctic.

He explains how such confusion like we see this November could harm trees and plants in the Arctic.

“The plants use a lot of energy when blooming. It is a kind of failed reproduction and no seeds are produced. One thing is the catkins we can see, but there are likely a lot of other processes going on inside the plant disturbing the balance in what should be the dormant phase.”

 

 

[snowlover91]

1 hour ago, bluewave said:

https://thebarentsobserver.com/en/ecology/2018/11/autumn-spring-arctics-new-season

November on the coast of the Barents Sea has been unseasonably warm. Halfway, the Norwegian Meteorological Institute could report 5,9 degrees Celsius above normal for Troms and Finnmark region in northern Norway.

What was snow-covered and frozen in late October is again rainy and warm.

The warm weather are confusing plants and trees. Some, like the low-growing goat willow tree, believes it is spring. On Friday, catkins, the fuzzy soft silver-colored nubs, started to appear, both near Kirkenes and in Murmansk

Both are cities far above the Arctic Circle.  

Catkins are actually the trees’ flowers just before they fully bloom, like you normally can see in late April, early May in the Barents Region.

“Very interesting, but not at all good news,” says Paul Eric Aspholm, Research Scientist with the Norwegian Institute of Bioeconomy Research (NIBIO).

Aspholm works at Svanhovd, NIBIO’s department in the Pasvik valley in the Norwegian-Russian borderland, the heart of the area experiencing some of the most dramatic climate changes in the Arctic.

He explains how such confusion like we see this November could harm trees and plants in the Arctic.

“The plants use a lot of energy when blooming. It is a kind of failed reproduction and no seeds are produced. One thing is the catkins we can see, but there are likely a lot of other processes going on inside the plant disturbing the balance in what should be the dormant phase.”

 

 

 

Meanwhile Hudson Bay and surrounding areas are rapidly freezing over and seeing temp anomalies well BN with ice extent advancing past even the 1981-2010 median. Also models indicate season to BN temps heading for the Barents Sea area so don’t worry they will quickly see things freeze up which will continue to the rapid ice extent gains we are seeing.

 

[snowlover91]

Ice extent is growing rapidly, at above normal rates still. We are now in the lower bounds of the 1981-2010 average.

 

[Rjay]

On 11/13/2018 at 5:22 PM, snowlover91 said:

Yeah forky’s stuff belongs in banter but mods won’t do anything about it. Hard to have intelligent debate and discussion with things like that going on. 

How do we intelligently debate your word vomit?

 

On 11/13/2018 at 5:14 PM, DaculaWeather said:

And now I remember why I quit coming here. 

Read above

[snowlover91]

17 minutes ago, Rjay said:

How do we intelligently debate your word vomit?

 

Read above

My point proven. Mods won’t do their job here and move banter stuff where it belongs. Back to sea ice, can someone offer a plausible theory as to what is causing such a rapid refreeze of the Arctic when SST’s were well above normal?

[Rjay]

29 minutes ago, snowlover91 said:

My point proven. Mods won’t do their job here and move banter stuff where it belongs. Back to sea ice, can someone offer a plausible theory as to what is causing such a rapid refreeze of the Arctic when SST’s were well above normal?

Hmm, what month is it?

[bdgwx]

Even assuming higher freeze rates than have occurred recently persist for the remainder of the year then 2018 will still end with an annual mean < 10.5e6 km^2. That would be 4 years in a row now. To put this in perspective the IPCC AR3 report from 2001 suggested that the first occurrence of < 10.5e6 km^2 might not happen until 2040. Well it actually happened in 2007 about 33 years ahead of computer simulations available at the time. And yet we're about to experience 4 in a row of this happening well ahead of the expected first occurence. Furthermore they say "The simulations of ice extent decline over the past 30 years are in good agreement with the observations, lending confidence to the subsequent projections which show a substantial decrease of Arctic sea-ice cover leading to roughly 20% reduction in annual mean Arctic sea-ice extent by the year 2050." Note that a 20% reduction of the annual mean is about ~10.0e6 km^2. I just don't see how it's possible that we can make it to 2050 before the annual mean drops below 10.0e6 km^2. My point is two-fold. First, it's winter. The refreeze is expected. Just because it's happening faster now relative to recent years in no way means the longterm decline has suddenly reversed. And second, the expectation for the longterm decline has been severely underestimated by the IPCC at least in their earlier publications. So you'll have to forgive me for being skeptical that we'll also make past 2050 before the Arctic goes ice-free (defined as < 1.0e6 km^2) at least once in the summer. Sure, we might make it that long, but I'm not going to hold my breath.

[bluewave]

Ice-free Arctic summers could hinge on small climate warming range

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/04/180402110733.htm

A range of less than one degree Fahrenheit (or half a degree Celsius) of climate warming over the next century could make all the difference when it comes to the probability of future ice-free summers in the Arctic, new University of Colorado Boulder research shows.

The findings, which were published today in the journal Nature Climate Change, show that limiting warming to 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit (1.5 degrees Celsius) would reduce the likelihood of an ice-free Arctic summer to 30 percent by the year 2100, whereas warming by 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (2 degrees Celsius) would make at least one ice-free summer certain.

"I didn't expect to find that half a degree Celsius would make a big difference, but it really does," said Alexandra Jahn, author of the study and an assistant professor in CU Boulder's Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences and a fellow in the Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research (INSTAAR). "At 1.5 degrees Celsius, half of the time we stay within our current summer sea ice regime whereas if we reach 2 degrees of warming, the summer sea ice area will always be below what we have experienced in recent decades."

The study used simulations from the Community Earth System Model (CESM) run at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) and examined warming scenarios ranging from 1.5 degrees Celsius all the way to 4 degrees Celsius (7.2 degrees Fahrenheit) by the end of the century. The lower bound of the study is an important benchmark worldwide; in 2015, the international Paris Climate Agreement set a global target of constraining warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius.

Arctic sea ice extent has declined overall in recent years with increasing global temperatures, but the effects of future warming remain uncertain. The new findings illustrate that different scenarios of carbon dioxide (CO2) emission levels lead to drastically different results for Arctic summer sea ice.

"This dataset allows us to predict how soon we're likely to see ice free conditions as well as how often," said Jahn. "Under the 4-degree Celsius scenario, we would have a high probability of a three-month ice free period in the summer months by 2050. By the end of century, that could jump to five months a year without ice. And even for half that warming, ice-free conditions of up to 2 month a year are possible by the late 21st century."

But, Jahn continued, if warming stays at 1.5 degrees Celsius, the probability of ice-free summers would drop by 70 percent, delaying or potentially even avoiding such occurrence altogether.

The significant difference in the results, Jahn said, might provide added incentive for countries to attempt to hit the 1.5-degree Celsius warming target in order to preserve current ecological conditions.

"The good news is that sea ice has quick response times and could theoretically recover if we brought down global temperatures at any point in the future," said Jahn. "In the meantime, though, other ecosystems could see permanent negative impacts from the ice loss, and those can't necessarily bounce back."

The study was funded by the University of Colorado Boulder and the National Science Foundation.

---

Story Source:

Materials provided by University of Colorado at Boulder. Original written by Trent Knoss. Note: Content may be edited for style and length.

---

Journal Reference:

1. Alexandra Jahn. Reduced probability of ice-free summers for 1.5 °C compared to 2 °C warming. Nature Climate Change, 2018; DOI: 10.1038/s41558-018-0127-8

---

 

[snowlover91]

5 hours ago, Rjay said:

Hmm, what month is it?

The ice extent gain is well above normal as were the SST’s. Common sense would say that with such above normal SST’s the freeze and gains should be both delayed and declining further as well relative to other recent years. Instead we have the 2nd highest extent we’ve seen post 2005. 

[WidreMann]

On 11/22/2018 at 7:58 PM, snowlover91 said:

The ice extent gain is well above normal as were the SST’s. Common sense would say that with such above normal SST’s the freeze and gains should be both delayed and declining further as well relative to other recent years. Instead we have the 2nd highest extent we’ve seen post 2005. 

But what would a similar weather pattern have produced 20 years ago? That's the question you have to ask yourself whenever there's a cold anomaly of some sort. Extent probably would have been a good bit higher, but now we have warmer SSTs and temps, so while its pace is great, it's still way behind the historical norms.

[Save the itchy algae!]

10 hours ago, WidreMann said:

But what would a similar weather pattern have produced 20 years ago? That's the question you have to ask yourself whenever there's a cold anomaly of some sort. Extent probably would have been a good bit higher, but now we have warmer SSTs and temps, so while its pace is great, it's still way behind the historical norms.

This is true.  That said, it's important to keep what 'historical norms' are in perspective as well.  The time frame we are speaking of is smaller than a blip on the radar in terms of global climate.  I'm not saying that we haven't played a role in warming things a bit (of course we have), but the big picture impact is likely overstated, and it might not even be a bad thing really anyway.  We have no idea what the climate is going to be like in 2040, '50, whenever.  Let's just say that we go through a stretch in a couple years where things freeze up nicely, 'like they used to'.  This is entirely possible based on some projections that are about as meaningful as those saying we'll be ice free.  Come the new decade, the new 30 year averages will be from 1991-2020.  This will include the biggest years of the brief warm up.  The next thing you know the observed trends will be a mirror opposite of what we were seeing earlier this decade, and it will look like an impending relative ice age.  This is what happens when humans over emphasize their lifetime on a global scale.  

Awareness is key of course.  I'm not saying that you are being this way but some here are beating drums so loudly that they are unknowingly contributing to complacency.  

[WidreMann]

It's true that we only have satellite records going back to 1979, but we do have other data going back further than that, some many tens of thousands of years or more. At no point in the past several centuries has the ice been in such a sorry state. Could it have been less during the Medieval Warm Period? Possibly. But the rest of the planet wasn't also baking, so the MWP could be reversed as its local causes receded.

[Save the itchy algae!]

What you said had no bearing on my comments at all.  Of course the ice is lowest now, its the latest in a long warming period, that's what you would expect.  It's irrelevant to the point I made.